Effective Martial Arts Teaching

[Makalakumu]

Effective Martial Arts Teaching
By John Kedrowski

How many martial artists have had the luxury of asking their instructor why they are learning certain techniques? How many martial artists could explain their instructors teaching objectives and philosophy? How many martial artists are handed a requirement sheet and have no idea behind the structure or order or principles behind the design of that sheet? To say “many” is probably an understatement. And from a professional educators point of view, this is a sign of the bad teaching that is all too common in the martial arts world.

Sometimes, spotting bad teaching is easy. Most of the time it is very difficult. I believe that this is because students often focus on the superficial aspects of a teacher…for example, personality, ability to relate to people, extemporaneous speaking, fluency of material, and physical ability. All are of these are important, but there is much more to teaching then this. A teacher can have all of the above and still not be effective. Why?

The answer is structure. A class without a structure that allows a student to understand every step in the context of their learning journey is not going to be effective in passing on the information. This is the point of learning anything…much less a martial art. There are three concepts that any teacher (including martial arts teachers) must incorporate into their pedagogy in order to most effectively pass on their information. These concepts are constructivism, backward design, and scaffolding.

Constructivism is a theory of learning coined by the famed French psychologist Jean Piaget. This theory states that understanding is built by the learner. A learner is not a passive blank slate being written upon by the teacher. They are active participants who bring unique sets of knowledge with them. Thus, in order for any learning to occur the student must be free to build their own unique understanding of that material upon their bases. Rigidity and conformity stifle learning.

Backward design is a method of curriculum implementation that focuses on the instructor’s ultimate goals. These goals are called enduring understandings because these are the most important concepts being taught. Theoretically, this is what should endure forever from the learning experience. When a class is backward designed, the student should immediately be able to see how every piece of information is tied to the teachers enduring understandings.

The goal of actually tying the information to the enduring understandings is accomplished by scaffolding. This is a basic constructivist model for building knowledge. It is directional in the sense that it builds from the instructor’s enduring understanding and from the fact that a student travels the scaffold to those understandings.

All three of these concepts form a behind the scenes dance that a teacher must have in place in order to be an effective teacher. The teacher must present information where the ultimate goals are clear, every piece of information clearly builds toward those goals, and a student is able to build their own understanding of those goals.

In order to accomplish this in a martial arts class, the teacher needs to sit down and think about the ultimate goals they want to endure in their students. Then, they need to find a way to tie the information to those goals. This should be done in such a way that the students can navigate the path. Every piece of information, from basic to advanced, should build on another piece. This will make every piece of information is meaningful because it is part of something greater…the understanding of the instructor’s ultimate goals. Information that cannot be tied to the teacher’s ultimate goals or is not able to be scaffolded with other information to meet those goals should be discarded.

Traditions can be a good and a bad thing for martial arts teaching. If the traditions in an art dovetail well into the instructors personal understand of that art and their goals, then they should be passed on. If they do not, then they, too, should be discarded. Teachers who blindly follow what has gone before without taking the time to really analyze themselves and what they are teaching are highly at risk of mediocrity. The heart of teaching is the heart and if one’s heart is not behind what one is teaching there is no way to teach that material well. The concepts presented above will help a teacher put their material in line with their hearts and it will allow students to see true passion in everything the teacher does. And that is the true strength of a good teacher.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would suggest that your thoughts are most valid in the context of a Western learning experience. A Western notion of how a learning experience best functions seems very similar to what you are expressing in this post. However, the Arts have been taught for many generations in Asia prior to their arrival in the West, and I am sure they were not (or at least not often) taught in the kind of manner that you present. And as I think we can all agree, many in the past developed their skill to a tremendously high level.

I am not disagreeing with what you are stating. I am only suggesting that it has a proper context and may not be seen as important or relevant outside of that context.

Otherwise, interesting thoughts.

 

[UpNorthMum]

It is unfortunate that martial arts traditionally are not taught in the ways stated above. As a professional educator and martial arts student, I see the correlation very easily. I have been out of the martial arts for a few years now for many reasons. One of the main reasons was because of the instruction. My teacher was a good martial artist, but I struggled to learn in a productive way. I therefore lost interest in training because of frustration. I am excited to train in these new ways. The evidence exists that Constructivism, Backwards Design, and scaffolding are the best ways to educate and get things to "stick" with students.

However, I do understand that tradition is a large part of instruction. I also believe that martial arts can be taught with a mix of tradition and "new" education.

 

[jdwindsurfer]

It would be interesting to think about Bloom's Taxonomy and how martial arts training (traditional and/or as you describe it here) fits into that. Here is a link to Bloom's taxonomy fo rthose unfamiliar with it:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

I see a pretty strong correlation between how we are doing things in class and this taxonomy. Here is one example:

Knowledge - memorize the appropriate series of movements in a form.

Comprehension - write the form in your notebook.

Application - Use a series of movements from a form in your own design of Il Soo Shik.

Analysis - describe how your Il Soo Shik relates to the form from which you took it (Why / how does it derive from the form).

Synthesis - Perhaps the whole collection of Il Soo Shik from forms and the awareness of these practical applications as you contiunue to practice the forms... or maybe some of this is going on in the application stage...

Evaluation - Choosing which of your Il Soo Shik are worthwhile / smooth / effective enough to drill, practice, and use for your test...

Another theory of teaching and learning, Kolb's Learning Hierarchy, also seems to be reflected in our class (see: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Experiential/). I won't go into the whole analysis here, for this second pedagogical construct, but I see a lot of good pedagogical practice in what we are doing and I appreciate that you are analyzing things that way.

I am not familiar with any Eastern learning theories, but I know that in the West, pedagogical theory has only really emerged in the last 3 or 4 decades, and that a lot of teaching and learning in the U.S. is still rooted in the same methodology that came over from Europe in the 15th century. It may be that there was a lot more analysis of teaching method during the 2000+ years that martial arts evolved in the East, but I guess I would find that surprising. If you concede that the way martial arts have been transmitted has not changed much over 2000 years (and I'm not sure that is the case, but am only offering that as a possibly reasonable assumption), then you would have to also assume that Eastern culture was a couple of thousands of years ahead of the West in their understanding of teaching and learning, or that their isn't a lot of thoughtful pedagogical design int he old ways.

It is more likely that there has been a parallel (wether similar or different) evolution in teaching methodology in the East that is more suited to the context of the culture.

Either way, our context dictates western pedagogical theory be used in this case, and any analysis of method is a very positive thing.

Tang Soo!
Jason

 

[Makalakumu]

It would be interesting to think about Bloom's Taxonomy and how martial arts training (traditional and/or as you describe it here) fits into that. Here is a link to Bloom's taxonomy fo rthose unfamiliar with it:

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

I see a pretty strong correlation between how we are doing things in class and this taxonomy. Here is one example:

Knowledge - memorize the appropriate series of movements in a form.

Comprehension - write the form in your notebook.

Application - Use a series of movements from a form in your own design of Il Soo Shik.

Analysis - describe how your Il Soo Shik relates to the form from which you took it (Why / how does it derive from the form).

Synthesis - Perhaps the whole collection of Il Soo Shik from forms and the awareness of these practical applications as you contiunue to practice the forms... or maybe some of this is going on in the application stage...

Evaluation - Choosing which of your Il Soo Shik are worthwhile / smooth / effective enough to drill, practice, and use for your test...

That is a good analysis. Here an alternative analysis for Blooms...

Knowledge - memorization of the basics, punches, kicks, throws, locks, and strike points.
Comprehension - Learning and practicing the forms allows one to understand how to use the basic techniques.
Application - when I show students how to "read" the forms and give examples of application.
Analysis - the the student begins to read the form for themselves and begins to build their own understanding of it.
Synthesis - this is where the student begins to pick apart the forms and design applications for themselves.
Evaluation - This is where the student takes a good look at the product the've developed and they begin to alter and change things in order to personalize the product. This may include changing a move in a form or even inventing their own form. This last stage is where one constructs (insert name) - do out of Tangsoodo.

Another theory of teaching and learning, Kolb's Learning Hierarchy, also seems to be reflected in our class (see: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Experiential/). I won't go into the whole analysis here, for this second pedagogical construct, but I see a lot of good pedagogical practice in what we are doing and I appreciate that you are analyzing things that way.

Kolb describes learning as "filling gaps" and I can see how this applies to adults because they have background knowledge to identify gaps. Kids, on the other hand, may have a more difficult time with this because they have not identified areas where they need to fill the gaps. This is one of the reasons why Kolb's learning theory is used in Adult Basic Education so much. It relies on a "needs analysis". For example, one could say, "I need to learn self defense," and then they progress through Kolb's stages. What needs are kids attempting to fill by taking MA? Do they really know what those needs are? Would the fact that they "may" not be a possible explanation as to why there is such a high turnover in MA training in general?

I am not familiar with any Eastern learning theories, but I know that in the West, pedagogical theory has only really emerged in the last 3 or 4 decades, and that a lot of teaching and learning in the U.S. is still rooted in the same methodology that came over from Europe in the 15th century. It may be that there was a lot more analysis of teaching method during the 2000+ years that martial arts evolved in the East, but I guess I would find that surprising. If you concede that the way martial arts have been transmitted has not changed much over 2000 years (and I'm not sure that is the case, but am only offering that as a possibly reasonable assumption), then you would have to also assume that Eastern culture was a couple of thousands of years ahead of the West in their understanding of teaching and learning, or that their isn't a lot of thoughtful pedagogical design int he old ways.

It is more likely that there has been a parallel (wether similar or different) evolution in teaching methodology in the East that is more suited to the context of the culture.

Either way, our context dictates western pedagogical theory be used in this case, and any analysis of method is a very positive thing.

My personal feeling is that Westerners took what they saw when they were training and they interpreted it through their own paradigms. One of the reasons that so many dojo/dojangs resemble factories is because the factory model of the school was very chic during the time that westerners began to learn martial arts. From what I have gathered, although I have not experienced this, learning martial arts via the old eastern pedegogy is completely different from the norm in our society.

I don't know if the way that I teach is the way "it used to be" but I do know from my experience that it isn't the norm in our society.