Teaching technique vs. shaping technique

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
2,517
If there are real terms for the two styles of teaching I'm discussing in this thread, I'd love to hear it. There are obviously several different variables in which schools can be different. I'm isolating one of those for this discussion: whether your teaching/learning style is to teach 100% exact form and expect your students to know the details of the form in their head - even if their body is still working out; or if your style is to teach/learn the gross movements and over time refine them.

To make it more clear what I'm talking about:

Teaching Technique

Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The goal of the teacher is that you know for both front kick and roundhouse kick that you will start with the chamber and then kick, instead of just swinging your leg, as well as what your chamber position should look like and what part of your foot should be used to strike the target. You should have a pretty good picture of exactly what the other leg is doing, what your hands, hips, and shoulders are doing, as well as what your head is doing.

The mechanics are strictly enforced, especially when you get the instructor's attention, so that you are only building good habits. The goal of this type of training is that you correct the bad habits early on, and encourage proper technique from the start. You build muscle memory for the correct motion, so you don't have to undo the damage of practicing an incorrect technique thousands of times.

The art I think that embodies this approach is Tai Chi, where (to my outside understanding) you learn the form slow, and only as you perfect the form do you increase your speed.

Molding Technique

Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The Master will show you a proper front kick and roundhouse kick, but won't tell you all the details. Instead, he will give you enough information to start working on the gross motions. By the end of the first day, you might not know what part of your foot to use (but you're not kicking targets so there's no risk of injury), or what everything else is supposed to do. What you do know is to bring up your knee and kick forward for front kick, and that roundhouse kick involves turning your body.

As you build muscle memory for the gross movements, you can begin to work on the finer details. By only getting a detail or two at a time to work on, you remember everything you're supposed to change, and can make a concentrated effort to update your technique. Maybe as a white belt you learn the gross movement, at the next belt you learn which part of your foot to use as the striking surface, at the next belt you work on your hands, then your other foot, and so on. Eventually, you have a technique that's been molded into a high quality technique.

Sometimes, you sort of beat the technique out of yourself, as your body figures out how to do things correctly. Really astute students will watch for any details they can use to make their techniques better, even if it's not explicitly said. There's also that "aha!" moment when you finally do a technique and it feels right.

This approach gets you doing the motions faster, and with less to think about while you're at it. It's also less overwhelming, so people don't feel like they're in way over their head and quit.

The art I think embodies this approach (again, to my understanding as an outsider) is Krav Maga. Teach your students simple techniques they can use as a battering ram against attackers.

Myself

Personally, I prefer the former, both as a student and a teacher. I have both students and instructors at my school that also like that approach. For myself, I enjoy doing things correctly, and don't want to start off doing it wrong - because then I'm not doing it right. Some of the instructors lean more towards not wanting people building up muscle memory on doing things wrong. When I was a kid, the Taekwondo school I went to used this approach.

My current school, however, is one that embodies the second approach. It took me a while to trust this approach (because you don't see the immediate effects of it), but looking at how students have improved from when I first met them, I can't argue that this approach isn't effective. In fact, with some students who have trouble working on just a couple of details, I can understand why you don't give everyone all the details at once.

I should note that I teach in the style that my Master does. I do not try to undermine him by going against the methodology of the school just because I like a different style.

So...

What do you guys and gals think? How do you prefer to learn techniques? How do you prefer to teach techniques? Do you have experience at both types of school, and what did you think of them?

Is this a variable you would consider when joining a school, or is it something that works both ways so you might as well not worry about it? Are there other factors that would make this decision (i.e. amount of class time, if the student will be moving in 8 months and won't have time to go through the full training curriculum)?

I think I had a thread on this a while ago in which I was entirely in the "teaching technique" camp, but people on this forum tried to convince me that the "shaping technique" approach works as well. They gave me the confidence in the approach to at least give it a shot, and I'm glad they did. Now that I know more about teaching, it's a topic I thought would be fun to revisit.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
I prefer the following teaching method.

Your teacher teaches you "partner drill" first. He then teach you how to train solo at home when partner is not available. The solo drill is the partner drill without partner.

You use

- partner drill to develop technique.
- solo drill to polish technique.

 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
It really comes down to how does your students learn.
There are 4 major modes of learn; Visual, Audio, Kinesthetic, and Reading. Within a martial art training session/class reading is probably a minor aspect or not even an option. I am a kinesthetic type learner; a doer. If an instructor spends much more than a few minutes explaining and showing what they want then you'll lose me. Show it, quick explanation on key gross points, show it again, and then let me do it. After doing it and gaining a understanding of the gross then let's begin to refine.

I teach in this manner. I've also realized over the years, especially with new students it is easy to overwhelm with the specifics and this creates frustration. I teach the gross with emphasis on being safe within the technique for example, "Point your foot so when kicking with the shin so you don't jam your toes." Then I let them work it. Struggle is an important aspect of learning. Then we slowly refine or add more specifics in bite size pieces. Much less frustration and the student gets to actually experience progress.
 

oftheherd1

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
817
I prefer the following teaching method.

Your teacher teaches you "partner drill" first. He then teach you how to train solo at home when partner is not available. The solo drill is the partner drill without partner.

You use

- partner drill to develop technique.
- solo drill to polish technique.


What a wonderful way to show what the moves of a kata are all about! Thanks for sharing that.
 
OP
skribs

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
2,517
I prefer the following teaching method.

Your teacher teaches you "partner drill" first. He then teach you how to train solo at home when partner is not available. The solo drill is the partner drill without partner.

You use

- partner drill to develop technique.
- solo drill to polish technique.


I agree with the others, that's a great way to see the application. What art is that?
 

oftheherd1

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
817
How I learned and always taught when I was teaching was the first method. Work on learning it right from the start. Even though most students will take a bit to learn correctly, that is what they will indeed do; learn correctly.

I cannot imagine any technique I would expect to take several belts to learn each part of the technique. I can see a complicated technique that might take up to the next belt to really perfect, but that to me should be a rarity.
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
Staff member
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
12,952
Reaction score
10,444
Location
Maui
If there are real terms for the two styles of teaching I'm discussing in this thread, I'd love to hear it. There are obviously several different variables in which schools can be different. I'm isolating one of those for this discussion: whether your teaching/learning style is to teach 100% exact form and expect your students to know the details of the form in their head - even if their body is still working out; or if your style is to teach/learn the gross movements and over time refine them.

To make it more clear what I'm talking about:

Teaching Technique

Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The goal of the teacher is that you know for both front kick and roundhouse kick that you will start with the chamber and then kick, instead of just swinging your leg, as well as what your chamber position should look like and what part of your foot should be used to strike the target. You should have a pretty good picture of exactly what the other leg is doing, what your hands, hips, and shoulders are doing, as well as what your head is doing.

The mechanics are strictly enforced, especially when you get the instructor's attention, so that you are only building good habits. The goal of this type of training is that you correct the bad habits early on, and encourage proper technique from the start. You build muscle memory for the correct motion, so you don't have to undo the damage of practicing an incorrect technique thousands of times.

The art I think that embodies this approach is Tai Chi, where (to my outside understanding) you learn the form slow, and only as you perfect the form do you increase your speed.

Molding Technique

Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The Master will show you a proper front kick and roundhouse kick, but won't tell you all the details. Instead, he will give you enough information to start working on the gross motions. By the end of the first day, you might not know what part of your foot to use (but you're not kicking targets so there's no risk of injury), or what everything else is supposed to do. What you do know is to bring up your knee and kick forward for front kick, and that roundhouse kick involves turning your body.

As you build muscle memory for the gross movements, you can begin to work on the finer details. By only getting a detail or two at a time to work on, you remember everything you're supposed to change, and can make a concentrated effort to update your technique. Maybe as a white belt you learn the gross movement, at the next belt you learn which part of your foot to use as the striking surface, at the next belt you work on your hands, then your other foot, and so on. Eventually, you have a technique that's been molded into a high quality technique.

Sometimes, you sort of beat the technique out of yourself, as your body figures out how to do things correctly. Really astute students will watch for any details they can use to make their techniques better, even if it's not explicitly said. There's also that "aha!" moment when you finally do a technique and it feels right.

This approach gets you doing the motions faster, and with less to think about while you're at it. It's also less overwhelming, so people don't feel like they're in way over their head and quit.

The art I think embodies this approach (again, to my understanding as an outsider) is Krav Maga. Teach your students simple techniques they can use as a battering ram against attackers.

Myself

Personally, I prefer the former, both as a student and a teacher. I have both students and instructors at my school that also like that approach. For myself, I enjoy doing things correctly, and don't want to start off doing it wrong - because then I'm not doing it right. Some of the instructors lean more towards not wanting people building up muscle memory on doing things wrong. When I was a kid, the Taekwondo school I went to used this approach.

My current school, however, is one that embodies the second approach. It took me a while to trust this approach (because you don't see the immediate effects of it), but looking at how students have improved from when I first met them, I can't argue that this approach isn't effective. In fact, with some students who have trouble working on just a couple of details, I can understand why you don't give everyone all the details at once.

I should note that I teach in the style that my Master does. I do not try to undermine him by going against the methodology of the school just because I like a different style.

So...

What do you guys and gals think? How do you prefer to learn techniques? How do you prefer to teach techniques? Do you have experience at both types of school, and what did you think of them?

Is this a variable you would consider when joining a school, or is it something that works both ways so you might as well not worry about it? Are there other factors that would make this decision (i.e. amount of class time, if the student will be moving in 8 months and won't have time to go through the full training curriculum)?

I think I had a thread on this a while ago in which I was entirely in the "teaching technique" camp, but people on this forum tried to convince me that the "shaping technique" approach works as well. They gave me the confidence in the approach to at least give it a shot, and I'm glad they did. Now that I know more about teaching, it's a topic I thought would be fun to revisit.

Quite the comprehensive post, bro. I'd have to take it a hunk at a time. But from a teaching standpoint, what @Danny T said, is probably the most important point in teaching.

Anyway...
I prefer to learn by doing. And I think a great many Martial Arts instructors over complicate everything, especially basic kicking. If an instructor is to teach me kicking as anything other than an exercise, then I want to know that the instructor can BOTH teach and kick. And you know how I do that? By watching his students more than watching him. If they can kick, I'm in.

Looking back now, with a more experienced eye, there is a certain caveat to this. If I watch a class and everybody kicks exactly the same way, what I call the "cookie cutter thing", I'm not interested. If you fight one of these guys, you will know how to beat all of them within a few minutes. Because they all move exactly alike. Kickers, good kickers, all move and kick a little differently. And why would that make sense? Because they are different people, different personalities, have different length of leg, different width of stance, different size feet, they are different heights, weights etc, different ranges of flexibility - which will not only influence their range of kicks, but also the bending of their upper body - which, in turn, usually changes their front hand guard and what it can do both for blocking and more importantly, for countering.

And I would be real careful with the "By the end of the first day, you might not know what part of your foot to use"...oh, man, you better damn well know what part from day one. Day one is big time important.
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,224
Location
In the dojo
I teach physical education, and it’s essentially the same thing - teaching movement - simple and complex...

When I demonstrate, I do it the correct way (or as correct as I possibly can). I give all the essential cues. So for a roundhouse kick - hands up, look at your target, leg comes up from the side with knee bent, pivot on plant foot, turn and strike through the target with your lower shin or instep.

Then they’ll try it. I start correcting the major things, such as leg to the side, knee bent, toes pointed down, then turn and kick. They get that down well enough then “make sure you’re pivoting” then “hands up,” etc. You can’t nor should you correct every little thing from the get go. You should state and demonstrate just about all the details, but don’t correct them all at once. If you do this, it’ll be way too overwhelming and you’ll get “paralysis by over analysis.” If you’re way too OCD to not correct every little thing at once, then break down the movement into as small parts as possible and have them do each step, stopping between each step to correct.

Same for a new kata. Get them to memorize the movements. Then work on refining stances, transitions, hands, feet, etc. The kata isn’t going to be anywhere near perfect the first couple dozen times it’s done.

They’re thinking of way too many new things at once to focus on all of them. Let them know the details from the get-go, but progressively correct the finer details. It’s like reading an entire chapter in a book once and thinking they’ll remember every detail about it. Ask for the main idea first, then go into the details to reinforce it.
 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
..."and everybody kicks exactly the same way, what I call the "cookie cutter thing", I'm not interested.
...Kickers, good kickers, all move and kick a little differently.
And why would that make sense? Because they are different".
Yep.
 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
In relation with the above on teaching something I find relevant is allowing the student to struggle.

In teaching, observation of how a student practices and performs what was being taught can often be a fair indicator of how a student processed what was taught...what aspects did they pay attention to more, which concepts within that technique they found to be salient, how did they incorporate footwork or body positioning to maximize the intended effect of the technique, and so on.

With that, the opposite also is true: how the student processes what was taught can be a fair indicator of their success in learning what was taught.

When you are working with your students or a training partner and you see them struggling a bit to recall the technique or to do it properly, give them several reps to struggle. Don't be too eager to jump in and explain every aspect of the technique again...allow them time to do the mental work as well. They are working to make the relevant connections that make the technique workable and correct. When you jump in right away to spoon-feed them the information, you deny them the opportunity to sort out the information and to sort of reverse-engineer the solution on their own. And figuring things out on their own in some degree bestows a sense of ownership with what they are learning.

It can be often be more helpful to them to be silent and allow them that processing time. If you spend excessive time explaining every intricate detail to them, you deprive them of the “mental pushups” that they will need later in their journey to learn to adapt. Also, a good student or training partner may become resentful, as you are showing little faith in their ability to figure things out. If you think they need assistance with practicing a technique, simply ask them.Show it again and let them struggle some more and slowly refine.
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,224
Location
In the dojo
There’s an assistant instructor at my dojo who’s a great person and a bit of an encyclopedia of our syllabus. She’s given me some great pointers and has worked through standardized stuff with me on many occasions. She’s excellent at that. But...

She primarily teaches kids’ classes. And when she’s teaching, she’s way too detailed oriented. Even for adults. She spends more time explaining the minute details of the technique than actually doing it sometimes. The kids get quite bored during this, but even more importantly, they don’t really apply it any quicker or better than if she demonstrated it once or twice, said the details as she was doing it, then circulated through and corrected as they went. Same with the adults’ class on the rare occasion that she’s filling in.

It’s a “Stop explaining and start doing!” thing. If everyone’s way off, stop and explain again because you either missed some detail(s), or you’re not being clear. Just because you have it clear in your mind doesn’t mean it’s coming across clearly; what you’re visualizing isn’t being communicated properly sometimes. And there’s nothing wrong with that; you just need to put it another way.

As a somewhat side note, one has to also consider class size. In a situation where there’s one or two students and her in a tutoring like scenario, her approach is pretty effective. She’s helped me and a lot of others immensely in that capacity. In a running a full class setting, it’s not the most effective way IMO. But it’s always far easier to sit back and criticize than it is to get up and actually do it day in and day out.
 
OP
skribs

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
2,517
I was worried that I would present both sides well enough that there wouldn't be room for discussion. I'm glad that's not the case. There's lots of good thoughts here from people on both sides, and people in the middle. Keep the good ideas rolling!
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,224
Location
In the dojo
Kids are different than adults. I’ve taught physical education to students as young as 3 - college.

The younger they are, the less details. I was teaching my 3 year old pre-k class how to throw a ball overhand the other day. I stood in front of them and said...

Put the ball in the hand you draw with (me holding the ball the proper way)
Point at me (their target)
Step forward with your foot (me stepping with the non-dominant foot)
Throw the ball (me throwing the ball towards them).

Simple and effective. I did everything I was telling them to do. Step by step. They chased down the ball they threw, lined up again, and I repeated it several times. Then I had them go off on their own in the gym and throw the ball at pictures on the wall, letters on the banner, etc., all the while sounding like a broken record saying “Point, step, throw” and correcting kids individually.

The same basic premise applies to all age groups and every skill, only you get more detailed as they get older and/or improve.

Just about every new skill is going to feel awkward. They’ve got to work most of that out on their own.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
What art is that?
It's Combat Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling + kick/punch). By using this approach, the partner drills will be created first. The solo drills will then be created after that. The form will be the last thing to be created. The reason that form may be created is because it may be difficult to require students to remember 200 different partner (solo) drills. If you create 4 forms with 50 drills in each form, those 4 forms can be treated as 4 different text books.

Partner drills -> solo drills -> solo forms

Here is another example.

1. Partner drill:


2. Solo drill:


3. Solo drills linked into a form.

 
Last edited:

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
How much of that is the solo drill, and how much is stylized for the demonstration?

The first part of that form contain 13 different standing postures to train body flexibility for different MA skills. The 2nd part of that form contain many techniques and combos.

Here is an example of the posture training.

bend_back.png


The purpose of that posture is to develop body flexibility for this:

embrace.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
skribs

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
2,517
So some of that is training, and some of that is application. Okay.

I just ask because in Taekwondo, for example, we might do things several different ways if we want to practice for demonstration, self defense, or sparring.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
So some of that is training, and some of that is application.
Students may have problem to remember 13 independent training postures. If you link it in a sequence, it will be easier for them to remember.
I just ask because in Taekwondo, for example, we might do things several different ways if we want to practice for demonstration, self defense, or sparring.
The form can only record 1 way to do the technique. IMO, it's better to learn from the "principle" instead of to learn from the form. For example, a foot sweep principle may map into 30 different kind of applications. Your form may only record 1 way to do foot sweep. If you use your form as your base, you will miss the other 29 different ways to do foot sweep.

How to map "principle -> techniques" will be a teacher's job.
 
Last edited:

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Manchester UK
If there are real terms for the two styles of teaching I'm discussing in this thread, I'd love to hear it. There are obviously several different variables in which schools can be different. I'm isolating one of those for this discussion: whether your teaching/learning style is to teach 100% exact form and expect your students to know the details of the form in their head - even if their body is still working out; or if your style is to teach/learn the gross movements and over time refine them.

To make it more clear what I'm talking about:

Teaching Technique

Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The goal of the teacher is that you know for both front kick and roundhouse kick that you will start with the chamber and then kick, instead of just swinging your leg, as well as what your chamber position should look like and what part of your foot should be used to strike the target. You should have a pretty good picture of exactly what the other leg is doing, what your hands, hips, and shoulders are doing, as well as what your head is doing.

The mechanics are strictly enforced, especially when you get the instructor's attention, so that you are only building good habits. The goal of this type of training is that you correct the bad habits early on, and encourage proper technique from the start. You build muscle memory for the correct motion, so you don't have to undo the damage of practicing an incorrect technique thousands of times.

The art I think that embodies this approach is Tai Chi, where (to my outside understanding) you learn the form slow, and only as you perfect the form do you increase your speed.

Molding Technique

Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The Master will show you a proper front kick and roundhouse kick, but won't tell you all the details. Instead, he will give you enough information to start working on the gross motions. By the end of the first day, you might not know what part of your foot to use (but you're not kicking targets so there's no risk of injury), or what everything else is supposed to do. What you do know is to bring up your knee and kick forward for front kick, and that roundhouse kick involves turning your body.

As you build muscle memory for the gross movements, you can begin to work on the finer details. By only getting a detail or two at a time to work on, you remember everything you're supposed to change, and can make a concentrated effort to update your technique. Maybe as a white belt you learn the gross movement, at the next belt you learn which part of your foot to use as the striking surface, at the next belt you work on your hands, then your other foot, and so on. Eventually, you have a technique that's been molded into a high quality technique.

Sometimes, you sort of beat the technique out of yourself, as your body figures out how to do things correctly. Really astute students will watch for any details they can use to make their techniques better, even if it's not explicitly said. There's also that "aha!" moment when you finally do a technique and it feels right.

This approach gets you doing the motions faster, and with less to think about while you're at it. It's also less overwhelming, so people don't feel like they're in way over their head and quit.

The art I think embodies this approach (again, to my understanding as an outsider) is Krav Maga. Teach your students simple techniques they can use as a battering ram against attackers.

Myself

Personally, I prefer the former, both as a student and a teacher. I have both students and instructors at my school that also like that approach. For myself, I enjoy doing things correctly, and don't want to start off doing it wrong - because then I'm not doing it right. Some of the instructors lean more towards not wanting people building up muscle memory on doing things wrong. When I was a kid, the Taekwondo school I went to used this approach.

My current school, however, is one that embodies the second approach. It took me a while to trust this approach (because you don't see the immediate effects of it), but looking at how students have improved from when I first met them, I can't argue that this approach isn't effective. In fact, with some students who have trouble working on just a couple of details, I can understand why you don't give everyone all the details at once.

I should note that I teach in the style that my Master does. I do not try to undermine him by going against the methodology of the school just because I like a different style.

So...

What do you guys and gals think? How do you prefer to learn techniques? How do you prefer to teach techniques? Do you have experience at both types of school, and what did you think of them?

Is this a variable you would consider when joining a school, or is it something that works both ways so you might as well not worry about it? Are there other factors that would make this decision (i.e. amount of class time, if the student will be moving in 8 months and won't have time to go through the full training curriculum)?

I think I had a thread on this a while ago in which I was entirely in the "teaching technique" camp, but people on this forum tried to convince me that the "shaping technique" approach works as well. They gave me the confidence in the approach to at least give it a shot, and I'm glad they did. Now that I know more about teaching, it's a topic I thought would be fun to revisit.

I'm not sure there are two ways? There is no other way to learn a motorskill than to do it a) poorly and b) slowly and then the refine both the techneque and the speed,

the question comes about in how long that process takes, some people can go from rough and slow to fast and good in a few minutes, other may take a life time to make the same journey. Largely depends on how good they are at picking up motor skills, their age and how close the Movement is to all ready learnt motor skill,

so i suppose the question is for those who have trouble, do they process with a substandard movement that nearly does the job and may get better with time, or just spend the next few years stuck at a lower level practising a kick they may never do correctly?
 

Latest Discussions

Top