How we learn (and teach)

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7



Slow to learn.......... Slow to Forget.......

Earn what you learn.

:asian:

Quick to learn........What was the rest?? I forgot!

 

[Blindside]

Regardless of how you learn I think it is important to mix up the order while learn a physical function.

For example if you are going to teach a student two techniques on a given night, instead of teaching one, having them repeat it 20 times then go onto number two. Teach them the first technique, have them repeat it five times, then teach the second technique and have them repeat it five times. Then have them review the techniques in random order.

Two studies that I know of show that "blocking" newly learned motor skills gives the impression of immediate skill gain, but mixing up the pattern when learning is more effective for long-term retention. Mixing up the pattern causes the student to "reboot" each time they begin the technique which ingrains the technique a little better. It works well for me.

Just my two cents.

Lamont

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Nightingale
I try to hit all three major learning styles when I teach a technique...

First I demonstrate (visual) and tell (auditory) the students exactly what I'm doing.

Next, I have them model me, step by step (kinesthetic) and make physical (move a hand or foot to proper placement) corrections when necessary.

I teach katas the same way. I demonstrate and tell a kata and have the student follow me. We do step one (short one, step back and block) then go back, repeat one, and add step two (step back, block, step back, block), then go back, do step one, two and then add three, until we get all the way to the end, or to a point where I think things will be forgotten if we go on because of too much information.

A good trick is not to teach too much in one day. If you think about it, write the number 7 in the middle of a piece of paper... you have no problem remembering the number you wrote, right? now fill up a whole line with random numbers.... can't remember them all, right? The human brain, especially now with television and all, is trained to work in small "sound bites" of information. if you tell them one or two new things, they're more likely to remember it, than if they learn five or six new techniques in one night....

myself, if I learn one or two techs in a night, I know em forever. If I learn more than four, I forget EVERYTHING that was taught that evening... its too much information to process. However, that's just me. I know some people who can learn a lot in one sitting, however, they are exceptional.

-N-

Hey Nightingale,

I try to follow similar ways of doing it also.

Yet, I have with myself and others that have dyslexia or other issues, they sometimes learn better by having the kinesthetic action applied to them. I know this could be coverd in Visual demonstration, so I am not nit picking. Just adding, my point of view. Which most will tell you is not the norm

:asian:

 

[8253]

I like all kinds of methods because it can expand your learning ability if you learn to concentrate on the different aspects of the different methods.

 

[Rick Wade]

I'm a rock and it takes me forever to get something. But when it is in my arsenal it there and I won't forget it.

Rick

 

[jayfrasier]

I hope that no one will consider this to be a flame or anything. I just wanted to point out that not everyone accepts NLP as being valid. I have a good friend, Dr. Ray Hyman, who is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. He also taught at Harvard and is pretty famous among psychologists (he's been on tv hundreds of times and was on Dateline not too long ago). He was among a group hired by the military (the Army, I think) to evaluate different learning methodologies including NLP. Their research indicated that the "good stuff" in NLP is not exclusive to NLP (you can find it in other systems). And, what is exclusive to NLP was not supported by their research. So, the military decided not to adopt NLP in its training. You can read about this in a book titled "In the Mind's Eye." I don't have it here in my office so I can't give more details about the book right now. If anyone is more interested, I'd be happy to send them more info later. Please note that I am not that well-versed on NLP and am basing this on my conversations with Ray and from I remember from the book. Also, I do know that the visual, auditory, kinesthetic idea is NOT exclusive to NLP.

Jay Frasier
[email protected]

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

In addition to how we learn, an important question is who do we learn from:

A) Our teachers
B) Our peers
C) Our students

When we know nothing, we learn everything from our teachers. When we know a little, we learn more from our peers.
When we think we know it all, we see all of our weaknesses manifest in our students.

This is my paraphrase of some wisdom from the Rabbi Hillel.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but I agree. NLP is mostly doody--and it can be traced back to some of John W. Campbell's ideas in "Analog," magazine, ideas whose most-famous exponent is L. Ron Hubbard.

There's a lot of this, "multiple learning styles," in education these days, also. Problems are, a) it's based on some very-dubious "scientific studies," as well as some BIG logical leaps from solid scientific studies; b) it's become VERY chic, as well as very commercially and politically sucessful; c) it's all very well to talk about "different learning styles..." but the trouble is, this overlooks that you are not actually trying to teach people to do a whole bunch of different things.

For example, I--sorry--am pretty high off the bell curve on reading/writing/listening/interpretation skills. So, I am at home in a context that pays off on those skills--which academics do, and which most professional jobs do to some degree. Somebody who's classified as a "kinesthenic," learner, well, is just not going to succeed as, say, a newspaper editor. The aptitude doesn't match the skill set. And, society doesn't pay off on kinesthetic ability, unless you're an actor, dancer--or martial artist.

One of my attractions to kenpo is that there appears to be two missing patches in my brain. One is labelled, "kinesthetic perception," and the other, "spatial perception." Gosh.

And again I agree with Alan--sometimes, when I watch my students doing forms (another reason yet to have them!) I am fascinated by the spectacle of how much MY forms suck.

Oh well.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

I--sorry--am pretty high off the bell curve on reading/writing/listening/interpretation skills.

Me too. Especially on multiple choice tests...ah, if life was as easy as fill-in-the bubble...

Got to tell this long little story about learning and teaching...
Back in the old days at my school...adults could become assistant instructors as early as Blue Belt. One of my first students was pretty talented. Got to Jr. Green, quit when he was still in Elementary school, came back about 10 years later when I was a Black Belt...

When I was a white belt, I had a problem with stance transitions: I didn't step through the center--I stepped around never leaving my horse and bow stances. My instructor had me break that habit by touching my heels during stance transitions. That broke the bow-leg effect, but created a kicking-myself-in-the-feet effect. The second bad habit was much easier to break.

Anyway, I used this same teaching method to correct the same problem on this talented kid. 10 years later, he was back and re-learning his material. Another Black Belt instructor was teaching his privates. He came to me and said: "hey this guy is doing something really weird in his stance transitions can you take a look?" Well holy sh**! The guy was touching his heels! Had to laugh at myself.

 

[Ceicei]

I learn well visually, but not when the moves are simply "done in the air". I have see the moves done on another person to be able to internalize it and then to perform it by "feeling" (in other words, good firm contact), preferably with another person.

Once I get it all set in my mind and muscle memory, then I can practice the forms and the "in the air" work better.

:boing2:

- Ceicei

 

[Black Bear]

jayfrasier is exactly correct. NLP is in practice a hodgepodge of behaviour mod, common sense, and a lot of hocus pocus about magic words and eye movements. Some of the stuff works, but it's all stuff that was empirically validated in other contexts. NLP as a body of work... is garbage.

 

[Dominic Jones]

Hello
How to teach and how students learn is fascinating. Great topic.

There is a lot of information about how students teach and different ways to teach. I teach English and find the more I learn about Education the more it is applicable to how I teach kenpo.

One interesting man was a Russian named Lev Vygotsky, who talked about people learning in three zones (on a continuum).

Zone 1 - The I can do this Zone.
Zone 2 - The I can do this if somebody helps me Zone (Zone of Proximal Development)
Zone 3 - The I can not do this Zone

The quickest learning takes place in Zone 2. Zone 1 gives confidence at first, but then breeds teacher dependence. Zone 3 you just can’t do (yet!).

The idea is that as the student improves tasks (techniques/forms etc) move from Zone 2 to 1. Zone 3 becomes Zone 2 and new information becomes Zone 3.

The term "scaffolding" is used to describe how the teacher helps the student to complete Zone 2 tasks. Like stabilizers on a child’s bicycle. The effective teacher then knows how and when to remove their help (scaffolding) on the easier tasks and switch their help to the new tasks.


Other interesting, in my opinion, areas are:
Error correction
Teaching commands
Form versus Function versus Situation empathsis in teaching
Different Language varieties (doorman kenpo, self defence kenpo, competition kenpo, weapon kenpo etc...)　

Cheers Dom :asian:

 

[TIGER DRAGON FIGHT]

i have to actually be doing the technique to really get a grasp on it. if its a short technique i can most of the time get it visually but when it comes a form or a techincal technique i have to have hands on experiance.

 

[OC Kid]

I have to get to know my students and then I can tell if Im getting through to them. If yes continue, If not then try something else.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Me and a good friend (Jeff) where talking about how people learn and how we are so different in learning (almost exact opposites to be frank).

I have taught High School art (substitue teaching) and the D.A.R.E. curriculum (5th graders) for a couple of years I have learned several tools to help communicate to the different types of learners; Auditory, Visual, and Kinestetic. Alot of these methods or concepts i think would apply in teaching Kenpo.

What methods of training or teaching have you guys tried to appeal to all 3 learning types and and how successful have you been at getting your students to combine better ways of learning themselves? For instance Im more auditory and Visual as opposed to kinesthetic and Im really working on that.

Anything would be a help in many aspects.

This is actually a major part of my black belt thesis. If anyone wants to know their learning style I have a quick questioneer pm me with your email and I'll send it to you. Fill it out send it back to me and when I have time I'll get back to you to let you know what your learning preference may be.

 

[Rob Broad]

I can learn from any of the methods, but give the choice I prefer to feel.

 

[pete]

if you hear it, you may be able to repeat it...
if you see it, you may be able to imitate it...
if you feel it, you may be able to ask the questions from which you may get the guidance to understand...

pete

 

[mj-hi-yah]

I can learn from any of the methods, but give the choice I prefer to feel.

You may likely be a Tactual learner.:asian:

Pete...nice!

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I hope that no one will consider this to be a flame or anything. I just wanted to point out that not everyone accepts NLP as being valid. I have a good friend, Dr. Ray Hyman, who is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. He also taught at Harvard and is pretty famous among psychologists (he's been on tv hundreds of times and was on Dateline not too long ago). He was among a group hired by the military (the Army, I think) to evaluate different learning methodologies including NLP. Their research indicated that the "good stuff" in NLP is not exclusive to NLP (you can find it in other systems). And, what is exclusive to NLP was not supported by their research. So, the military decided not to adopt NLP in its training. You can read about this in a book titled "In the Mind's Eye." I don't have it here in my office so I can't give more details about the book right now. If anyone is more interested, I'd be happy to send them more info later. Please note that I am not that well-versed on NLP and am basing this on my conversations with Ray and from I remember from the book. Also, I do know that the visual, auditory, kinesthetic idea is NOT exclusive to NLP.

Jay Frasier
[email protected]

Sorry I missed this thread while it was running. I both agree, and disagree with the criticisms of NLP. First off, it is not, by any stretch, an original work. It's one of the first examples of an "eclectic style" of psych. Of course, the founders don't want to admit that, but their libraries are packed with other peoples works, highlighted to the hilt, with clear influence on posited dieas.

Lack of research? There are a great many academic researchers who are NLP afficianados, who put NLP techs and apps through the rigors of research. However, due to the stigma associated with NLP, very few call it that. If you're name familiar, you see the research come out in peer reviewed journals in areas like Social Psych (JPSP for example), American Psythotherap., Speech Comm journals, Learning & Memory, Cog Psych, and Social Cognition.

Unfortunately, it has fragmented into so many splinters, that one must ask Doc's phrase, modified contenxually: 'Who's NLP?". There are New Age fruitcakes claiming NLP status & using it to explore past lives; performance coaching gurus who actually use the influence and persuasion components to trick crowds into buying their tapes; corporate training & development folks using it as an adjunct to training, as well as to behavioral modelling of retiring specialists so the data isn't lost; and some ivory tower university professors in the above mentioned departments who continue to refine the body of information, such that it has not been about eye movements for a very long time.

We used to have saying we opened our trainings with (to psychologists and psychiatrists)...half of the psych and academic community swears by it, and the other swears at it. It usually depends on what they've been exposed to. New Age mumbo-jumbo version? Early fascination with eye-accessing cues? (the academics pretty much lost intyerest when someone asked, "so what? How does this really help anything?").

When I taught 21-day certification trainings, I brought my 4-ft stack of copied journal articles, some of them supporting NLP assertions by closet enthusiasts in academia, others probably the seed info in early cog-b theory that Bandler, et al, ripped off heavily.

As far as one psych's opinion weighing more than anothers, that's always been a silly assertion...no 2 have felt the same way about a given thing since before Freud & Jung started off on their cross-country train trip, and the rift only widened since. There are so many different journals and disciplines, because of fundamental differences about causality (idiot-pathic/nome-pathetic?). Yet the overview texts for each are filled with quotes from thinkers and peer-reviewed articles that support the internal validity of their given positions, with an assumption of valid generalization (odd...it's a fallacy in logic, but the goal of any good microcosmic empirical study). The interesting thing NLP guys did was to initially say, "what if everybody was a little bit right, and instead of being exclusive, we were eclectic?". I.e, NLP is big on "framing and reframing", but cannot in a million years lay claim to originating the idea or its applications. NLP is big on applying information systems theory to cognition, but the quality research in this endeavor was never done by guys like Bandler, but rather Broadbent, and others (can you say, 'cognitive psychology'?).

Any of you EPAK guys upset about the Chinese K-fu that Parker incorporated over the years? What about his desire to apply logic and science to an artistic endeavor? Some experts in the martial arts say kenpo is slap-crap...they say they have their reasons...do you agree? Is their expert status, somehow, magically more or less important or valid than yours? Will any of this interfere with you using your skills and abilities in a fight when it comes down to it, or will you stop to question the validity of your counter, since it may not have come from a perfected lineage source dating back millennia?

I think that one of the reaons I've enjoyed reading so many of the criticisms of mainstream kenpo, is because they echo the same criticisms of mainstream NLP that I've heard & participated in over the years, and that are legitimate criticisms...but which do not apply to all NLP; I still cringe whenever someone starts to tell me they study(ied) NLP, because I'm sure they're going to launch into a McDojo version tirade, and what I learned as NLP is most certainly not what they learned as NLP. Not all kenpo is created equal. Guess what...same for NLP. Careful about that baby/bathwater thing.

D.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, sorry, but....and I'm speaking as an educator....


First off, I have seen nothing whatsover to indicate that NLP is anything other than quackery, based on flimsy evidence and large, very large jumps from what science there is to some very weird conclusions. We simply don't have anything like enough knowledge of the brain, its function, and learning to draw any of these conclusions.

Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class.

Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be?

In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills. They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.

Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students. Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano.

All of this stuff is based on pseduo-science.