What process did you use to create your curriculum?

[skribs]

I know there is probably a very small audience for this question. Of those that have created your own curriculum when you started your school, what process did you use to determine which techniques, concepts, or patterns would be at the different stages of your curriculum?

I'm not talking about the techniques themselves. I'm talking about:

• How did you arrange the techniques, concepts, and patterns into which level you wanted to teach, or else group them into which group you wanted in a rolling curriculum?
• Who reviewed your curriculum to provide feedback on it?
• How did you beta test the curriculum before you opened your school? Or did you do what software developers call "testing in the live environment"?

 

[WaterGal]

When we started our school, we used our instructor's TKD curriculum verbatim, with his approval. Over time, at a few points, we realized we needed to make some changes. Some of them were small - like simplifying the Korean terminology and developing standardized sparring drills.

But eventually, we realized we needed to make a big radical change and reorganize everything into a rotating curriculum. I'll talk about how we developed that a bit here, since I think that answers your question.

First off, we made a list of everything that color belt students needed to know to get their TKD black belt. However we organized the curriculum, those were the components that needed to be in there somewhere at the color belt level. (We did the black belt curriculum later.)

Then we considered: out of the that list of requirements, which of those items are things that could be taught to someone with little/no TKD knowledge, and which of them have certain prerequisite skills? (For example, a front kick can be taught to a complete beginner. A jump front kick, on the other hand, requires you to know how to do a front kick.) We wanted to make sure that our beginner level class only included those skills that could be taught to someone with little/no TKD knowledge, and then to have 1-2 more advanced levels of class for the skills that required prerequisite knowledge.

Ultimately, we fiddled around with the different components a lot, like trying to build a puzzle. After lots of iterations, we ended up with 3 levels of color belt class - beginner, intermediate, and advanced - consisting of 3 belts each, with each level building on the last.

This wasn't an easy process. It took months, and I had a Google doc that was like 30-40 pages long with 7 or 8 different possible versions of the rotating curriculum. I talked to some other school owners/instructors who'd made the same switch, and got their curriculum charts for reference. I read Mike Massie's book about creating a rotating curriculum. My other half and I went through every single thing over and over again, and got feedback from other martial artists we knew, including advanced adult students at our school.

I hope that helps.

 

[skribs]

Ultimately, we fiddled around with the different components a lot, like trying to build a puzzle. After lots of iterations, we ended up with 3 levels of color belt class - beginner, intermediate, and advanced - consisting of 3 belts each, with each level building on the last.

This wasn't an easy process. It took months, and I had a Google doc that was like 30-40 pages long with 7 or 8 different possible versions of the rotating curriculum. I talked to some other school owners/instructors who'd made the same switch, and got their curriculum charts for reference. I read Mike Massie's book about creating a rotating curriculum. My other half and I went through every single thing over and over again, and got feedback from other martial artists we knew, including advanced adult students at our school.

Out of curiosity, how did you organize the belts?

What application did you use? MS Word? I'm trying to figure out the best application for this type of thing. I've not done much with flowcharts before, which I think may be the type of organization I need for right now.

 

[Christopher Adamchek]

The biggest thing i started with was determining the techniques, and length of experience i wanted a 1st dan blackbelt to know and then worked back and forward from there. I did this because depending on the karate school the average 1st dan takes 3 to 5 years and i wanted mine to be a minimum of 8.

i then roughly broke up techniques by belt level with a sliding scale on age and minimum amount of training time i would like to see at each stage. I organize everything in excel sheets.

Ive live tested adaptations to many age groups and skill levels as i chose techniques and teaching methods

 

[skribs]

i then roughly broke up techniques by belt level with a sliding scale on age and minimum amount of training time i would like to see at each stage. I organize everything in excel sheets.

I'm thinking I'm going to use Visio. That way I can use a flow chart, especially for techniques that build on each other. For example:

• Side Kick turns into Step-Behind Side Kick, Flying Side Kick, and Turning Side Kick (which turns into Back Kick)
• Back Kick turns into Jumping Back Kick and Spin Hook Kick
• Jumping Back Kick and Spin Hook Kick turn into Jump Spin Hook Kick

Then I can move the boxes up or down to change the level I want them learned at.

 

[Flying Crane]

Question: why don’t people use the same curriculum they were taught?

When I see discussions like this, deciding upon their curriculum, it suggests to me that someone has created their own system, or hybrid system or something. Is that what you are talking about?

Because if you are thinking of opening your own tae Kwon do school for example, why not use the TKD curriculum that you were taught? If you intend to be part of a larger federation, wouldn’t the curriculum be standardized and mandated by the federation?

 

[skribs]

Question: why don’t people use the same curriculum they were taught?

When I see discussions like this, deciding upon their curriculum, it suggests to me that someone has created their own system, or hybrid system or something. Is that what you are talking about?

Because if you are thinking of opening your own tae Kwon do school for example, why not use the TKD curriculum that you were taught? If you intend to be part of a larger federation, wouldn’t the curriculum be standardized and mandated by the federation?

The curriculum that is mandated by KKW is very small in scope. Basically you're expected to know a specific set of forms, and there's certain techniques they expect you to learn (particularly blocks and kicks). But other than that, the local Master has a lot of leeway in how class is taught, including:

• Application of the requirements
• One-step sparring or self defense drills
• Weapons (if you want to add them)
• Other techniques you want to include, such as throws, joint locks, punches, etc.
• The types of drills you run at the school

In my particular case, I want to use the lessons I've learned from my Master (both in the technique themselves, and his approach to teaching), but I also want to be free to follow my own opinions on teaching. For example, he is very much about doing things to get the muscle memory, and sometimes gives the application much later. I would rather teach things conceptually first so students have an idea of what they are doing. His version gets more reps, but I think people train better when they can visualize what they're doing.

I actually want to teach most of the same stuff, but in a different way.

 

[Danny T]

I've made curriculums for programs under an organization as well as totally under my own authority.
Under an organization I used that what the organization required for each rank and created a stepping stone path to get the practitioner to those requirements. Physical fitness, flexibility, and drills to develop the attributes needed for each step. I developed 'levels' 1-4 for each rank as development progression toward said rank.

Under my own authority I started with what did I expect a black belt to know, understand, and what skill sets did require of them. Then laid out the different ranks along the way and 4 different levels (stripes) and what was required for each.

Beta testing? Beta testing is when real users use a product in a production environment. How did I test the product? Time...time in teaching, time in actual use of the curriculum and tweaking as needed. The curriculum is a guide; the levels and ranks are your true product test.

 

[skribs]

@Flying Crane
One other thing I forgot to mention in my last post - order. For example, his curriculum does hand grabs in the following order:

• White & Yellow belt deal with cross-arm grab
• Purple & Orange deal with straight-arm grab
• Green is both your hands
• Blue is both your hands from behind
• Black is 2 hands grabbing one of your hands

I would rather approach it from a different angle. For example, white belt might be focused on applying a shoulder lock from all 4 positions (cross, straight, double cross, double straight); yellow might focus on applying a Z-lock from all 4 positions, purple on getting a V-Lock from all 4 positions.

In the end, both of our schools would learn all of those locks from all of those positions, it's just grouped differently, in a way that makes more sense the way I want to teach things.

 

[WaterGal]

Out of curiosity, how did you organize the belts?

What application did you use? MS Word? I'm trying to figure out the best application for this type of thing. I've not done much with flowcharts before, which I think may be the type of organization I need for right now.

During the process, we used Google Docs and paper. Lots of tables and arrows and pages titled "Version 1A" etc lol. When we had a final-ish product, we created a Word document.

 

[WaterGal]

Question: why don’t people use the same curriculum they were taught?

When I see discussions like this, deciding upon their curriculum, it suggests to me that someone has created their own system, or hybrid system or something. Is that what you are talking about?

Because if you are thinking of opening your own tae Kwon do school for example, why not use the TKD curriculum that you were taught? If you intend to be part of a larger federation, wouldn’t the curriculum be standardized and mandated by the federation?

There's what you're taught, and then there's how to teach it. When to teach it. What things to group together.

It's like... if you're leaning a new language. Every Spanish language course will teach you the same Spanish language. But they'll teach it to you in different ways. Some course might focus more on conversational Spanish at first, while other courses might focus more on grammar and writing. Some might use an immersion method, others might be a self-study program.

 

[dvcochran]

The curriculum that is mandated by KKW is very small in scope. Basically you're expected to know a specific set of forms, and there's certain techniques they expect you to learn (particularly blocks and kicks). But other than that, the local Master has a lot of leeway in how class is taught, including:

• Application of the requirements
• One-step sparring or self defense drills
• Weapons (if you want to add them)
• Other techniques you want to include, such as throws, joint locks, punches, etc.
• The types of drills you run at the school

In my particular case, I want to use the lessons I've learned from my Master (both in the technique themselves, and his approach to teaching), but I also want to be free to follow my own opinions on teaching. For example, he is very much about doing things to get the muscle memory, and sometimes gives the application much later. I would rather teach things conceptually first so students have an idea of what they are doing. His version gets more reps, but I think people train better when they can visualize what they're doing.

I actually want to teach most of the same stuff, but in a different way.

Statistically, only about 20% of people will even mildly 'get' application from the beginning. Repetition and experience are powerful teachers and really make application easier to understand. Think back to the first few months of training for yourself or almost anyone else. Remember the 'feeling' of being totally lost. By in large there are three ways we learn; audibly, visually, and tactilely. The latter is the most efficient for most people. You combine all three with repetition making it a very efficient tool. You can tell someone or even show someone over and over and they usually will not get it until they have actually done it several times.
It is just the way humans are wound.

 

[skribs]

Statistically, only about 20% of people will even mildly 'get' application from the beginning. Repetition and experience are powerful teachers and really make application easier to understand. Think back to the first few months of training for yourself or almost anyone else. Remember the 'feeling' of being totally lost. By in large there are three ways we learn; audibly, visually, and tactilely. The latter is the most efficient for most people. You combine all three with repetition making it a very efficient tool. You can tell someone or even show someone over and over and they usually will not get it until they have actually done it several times.
It is just the way humans are wound.

Don't get me wrong, I intend to do repetitions. But take the backfist for example. If you show a backfist to someone who knows outside block, they may not really recognize what it is. So they just do the motion of an outside block. Knowing that the backfist is a strike, they will adjust the technique.

If you drill a thousand outside blocks and call it "backfist", that's different from drilling 900 backfists.

 

[dvcochran]

Don't get me wrong, I intend to do repetitions. But take the backfist for example. If you show a backfist to someone who knows outside block, they may not really recognize what it is. So they just do the motion of an outside block. Knowing that the backfist is a strike, they will adjust the technique.

If you drill a thousand outside blocks and call it "backfist", that's different from drilling 900 backfists.

This is akin to the analogy "practice does Not make perfect; perfect practice make perfect. I think of it as the classic circular archery target. It may take 800 of the 1000 backfists drills for them to finally 'get it' and/or have the muscle memory to perform the latter 200 correctly, whether in repetition or drilling at another time. These are in the bullseye.
Retention and muscle memory are Very important components of the teaching/learning model.

 

[skribs]

This is akin to the analogy "practice does Not make perfect; perfect practice make perfect. I think of it as the classic circular archery target. It may take 800 of the 1000 backfists drills for them to finally 'get it' and/or have the muscle memory to perform the latter 200 correctly, whether in repetition or drilling at another time. These are in the bullseye.
Retention and muscle memory are Very important components of the teaching/learning model.

Before I continue this line of thought, I have to ask - how do you drill the backfist? In the air against imaginary opponent, on pads, on a heavy bag, or do you have a partner you drill for target practice (without actually hitting them)?

 

[dvcochran]

Before I continue this line of thought, I have to ask - how do you drill the backfist? In the air against imaginary opponent, on pads, on a heavy bag, or do you have a partner you drill for target practice (without actually hitting them)?

All of the above. Each has it's own merits. Many people do not understand that for air drills to be effective the person needs to already have a good understanding of what they are doing.

 

[skribs]

All of the above. Each has it's own merits. Many people do not understand that for air drills to be effective the person needs to already have a good understanding of what they are doing.

And that's what I mean. My current school we lean heavily towards the first one - in the air against an imaginary opponent.

When you drill with a partner, you halve your reps, but those reps are much more meaningful.

 

[skribs]

@WaterGal

Out of curiosity, how did you handle the jump in curriculum, with regards to current students?

I can imagine it would be a big change for advanced belts to find out there's stuff they didn't learn that's now expected of lower belts.

 

[Buka]

A lot of different ways work for different people. Joe Lewis only hit people and bags, never air. Bill Wallace only hit people and air, never bags.

Some people hit everything. All good, I guess.

As for how we made up our curriculum, it’s continued to morph over the last forty years. When we found a better way to do something we pressure tested it. If it passed muster, we changed to it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know there is probably a very small audience for this question. Of those that have created your own curriculum when you started your school, what process did you use to determine which techniques, concepts, or patterns would be at the different stages of your curriculum?

I'm not talking about the techniques themselves. I'm talking about:

• How did you arrange the techniques, concepts, and patterns into which level you wanted to teach, or else group them into which group you wanted in a rolling curriculum?
• Who reviewed your curriculum to provide feedback on it?
• How did you beta test the curriculum before you opened your school? Or did you do what software developers call "testing in the live environment"?

Hey, just seeing this thread, so I might be repeating some things others have said. I'll answer in reverse order, because the longest answer is to your first question:

• How did you beta test the curriculum before you opened your school? Or did you do what software developers call "testing in the live environment"?

I tested concepts for the curriculum while teaching at my instructor's school. I couldn't test the full curriculum, obviously, but I could A/B test approaches and principles. Until I had my own students who were only required to handle my curriculum, there was no way to test it out. Expect your curriculum to be a bit fluid with your first students. I added kata (long forms) after I started my program, and changed them twice over about 3 years. Actually, I've changed them more than that, but the upper level ones haven't been taught to anyone yet, so nobody but me has noticed. Natural attrition of students has provided me with new people to work with. It's unlikely your first 10 students will be around in 5 years, so you can made adjustments to a rank when it won't affect anyone who's likely to be upset by it.

• Who reviewed your curriculum to provide feedback on it?

The Hobbit was my primary sounding board for a very long time. I didn't have review by anyone else in the art. I don't know anyone else who is interested in updating the curriculum (my most likely partner for this died a few years before I reached the conclusion I wanted a new curriculum). If I'd had someone more advanced to work with (Hobbit made it to brown belt under my instructor), I might have made deeper changes.

• How did you arrange the techniques, concepts, and patterns into which level you wanted to teach, or else group them into which group you wanted in a rolling curriculum?

Which time? I changed my approach entirely twice before I started using the curriculum. I started by simply asking what problems I was wanting to solve with a new curriculum. If I hadn't had an answer to that, I'd have simply copied my instructor's (or my old association's) curriculum. I examined each technique from the curriculum I knew, and asked if there was a reason to keep it. For the things most folks in NGA would call "techniques" (the Classical Techniques at the core of NGA), I decided to keep them all, and in roughly the same order they were traditionally grouped in. I did change some of the forms rather significantly to address common misunderstandings I thought the forms engendered. Mostly, I kept the Classical Techniques and their organization to maintain a common vocabulary with the rest of the art. I did mark some of them as "esoteric" - just there for studying principles and late-rank fiddling, with no direct application.

For the other techniques (all strikes, blocks, and ancillary grappling), I was more ruthless. There are kicks I no longer teach (I'd never seen them taught well, nor ever used in any realistic way). I've added blocks (to train movements more likely to be used in the chaos of a flurry of strikes). I added a LOT more emphasis on striking and sparring. I threw out all of the ground work and replaced it with a bit of BJJ-based groundwork I know (interpreted through NGA principles). I tossed out ALL of the nidan curriculum (mostly clunky nunchaku and club work) and replaced it with FMA-based stickwork and some staff material, which I then moved to earlier ranks. I dropped all ranks beyond "black belt" (no "dan" ranks), and instead added an instructor certification system that could reasonably start earlier than black - including a "Senior Instructor" level, where they're also trained to train instructors.

I then looked at how I wanted them to progress, and what I wanted a person reaching each rank to be capable of. I first rearranged all of the Classical techniques for better grouped learning, but decided (before ever starting the program) that this just didn't have enough benefit for the level of effort it would take for me (given so many years of the old grouping in my head). I decided speed of progression from belt to belt wouldn't matter to my students (the students who really like my teaching style), so I arranged the material so the first 3 belts likely each take about a year for a beginner training twice a week. (I currently have no real reference on how long the last 3 would take, but I expect it's similar). I did end up adding a non-rank at the beginning of the curriculum. I call it "foundation", and it includes some basic principles, simple strikes, defensive sparring, and the beginnings of some defenses/escapes. Students must "pass" it (no formal test) to enter the formal NGA curriculum. This allows me to have specific assumptions when I start teaching the Classical Techniques.