Some things beginners are learning that you don't think about

[dvcochran]

Then you're one of the rare ones I don't confuse regularly with my rambling.

Imagine (and most of us can just "remember when") you were a weak instructor doing many things wrong (too much detail, no positive reinforcement or the wrong positive reinforcement, demonstrating without purpose, etc.). Your students would have a long learning curve, in part because of your teaching ineptitude. Now imagine you suddenly learn to do all those things well (good demonstrations with appropriate explanations, teaching to their level, reinforcing good habits, and so on). Your students would suddenly start learning faster. It would seem like you'd found the "fast track" to learning, because you'd removed so many obstacles.

True, but that would seem a strange environment to start in. How/why/when did you, choose to become an instructor where you were the ONLY one that the students would influenced by (i.e., small school, one instructor)? There are a number of fails in that scenario that everyone involved are hurt by. I am not talking about seasoned, experienced teachers, but a very new BB who, for what ever reason, thinks they should go out on their own without the tools, resources and support to do so.
In the more standard model where a fledgling instructor is learning to teach as part of an existing class with other instructor(s), the students are, at the very least, buffered from your ineptitude so their training should not be adversely affected. No instructor is perfect all the time so there has to be some percentage of inefficiency factored in to call instruction, and therefore practice, good vs. bad.
Back to my previous point, I worry less about a lesser effective instructor in regards to teaching subject matter in the most efficient or "fast track" way versus the bumbling instructor and schools (not systems) who genuinely think they are teaching the "best" product and have no clue that they are way off. They are just going along without any proofing systems to verify their product does in fact work. It is a ripple in a pond that disperses a bad opinion of all MA's by many. "it that one is bad they must all be fake".

 

[dvcochran]

Then you're one of the rare ones I don't confuse regularly with my rambling.

Imagine (and most of us can just "remember when") you were a weak instructor doing many things wrong (too much detail, no positive reinforcement or the wrong positive reinforcement, demonstrating without purpose, etc.). Your students would have a long learning curve, in part because of your teaching ineptitude. Now imagine you suddenly learn to do all those things well (good demonstrations with appropriate explanations, teaching to their level, reinforcing good habits, and so on). Your students would suddenly start learning faster. It would seem like you'd found the "fast track" to learning, because you'd removed so many obstacles.

There is definitely a momentum that begins to grow as a class/school begins to gel and gain traction. This includes the instructor(s). The whole process gets faster and more efficient as the whole body becomes more experienced. The environment makes it easier for a new person to come in and start working. Better class flow, better and more examples to pull and compare from, and often better, more practiced students. I have seen a few schools go through this learning/startup curve successfully. It is a fun thing to see. I have also witnessed two startups that just never got the ball rolling. They both trudged on for over a year before having to call it quits. One school folded completely. The other had another BB from our system take over and turned it around. But it was a struggle to work out the bad influences from the first attempt. A few original students stuck around and that really helped.

 

[skribs]

True, but that would seem a strange environment to start in. How/why/when did you, choose to become an instructor where you were the ONLY one that the students would influenced by (i.e., small school, one instructor)? There are a number of fails in that scenario that everyone involved are hurt by. I am not talking about seasoned, experienced teachers, but a very new BB who, for what ever reason, thinks they should go out on their own without the tools, resources and support to do so.
In the more standard model where a fledgling instructor is learning to teach as part of an existing class with other instructor(s), the students are, at the very least, buffered from your ineptitude so their training should not be adversely affected. No instructor is perfect all the time so there has to be some percentage of inefficiency factored in to call instruction, and therefore practice, good vs. bad.
Back to my previous point, I worry less about a lesser effective instructor in regards to teaching subject matter in the most efficient or "fast track" way versus the bumbling instructor and schools (not systems) who genuinely think they are teaching the "best" product and have no clue that they are way off. They are just going along without any proofing systems to verify their product does in fact work. It is a ripple in a pond that disperses a bad opinion of all MA's by many. "it that one is bad they must all be fake".

Or...that person is put in charge of a class when the Master or CI isn't there. It could even be as simple as the Master is talking with students in the office, or that the Master has split the class into small groups and the new instructor is in charge of one of those groups.

 

[dvcochran]

Or...that person is put in charge of a class when the Master or CI isn't there. It could even be as simple as the Master is talking with students in the office, or that the Master has split the class into small groups and the new instructor is in charge of one of those groups.

No, because the support system is in place. The CI is there, a structure does exist.

 

[skribs]

No, because the support system is in place. The CI is there, a structure does exist.

But a lot of those mistakes can be made by anyone in a leadership position. Unless the CI is focused on micro-managing the new instructor, he won't see everything.

And even if he is, the new instructor will still need correction.

Teaching is a learned skill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

True, but why practice bad? Unless of course you are new to something then we most all suck at most of it (that is in another post).

Only because most of us start out bad. Some folks take longer to leave that behind, because it works...just not well.

My point is just that some folks see a "fast track" by comparison to the "slow track" they've experienced.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

True, but that would seem a strange environment to start in. How/why/when did you, choose to become an instructor where you were the ONLY one that the students would influenced by (i.e., small school, one instructor)? There are a number of fails in that scenario that everyone involved are hurt by. I am not talking about seasoned, experienced teachers, but a very new BB who, for what ever reason, thinks they should go out on their own without the tools, resources and support to do so.
In the more standard model where a fledgling instructor is learning to teach as part of an existing class with other instructor(s), the students are, at the very least, buffered from your ineptitude so their training should not be adversely affected. No instructor is perfect all the time so there has to be some percentage of inefficiency factored in to call instruction, and therefore practice, good vs. bad.
Back to my previous point, I worry less about a lesser effective instructor in regards to teaching subject matter in the most efficient or "fast track" way versus the bumbling instructor and schools (not systems) who genuinely think they are teaching the "best" product and have no clue that they are way off. They are just going along without any proofing systems to verify their product does in fact work. It is a ripple in a pond that disperses a bad opinion of all MA's by many. "it that one is bad they must all be fake".

It happens sometimes - probably happened a lot when JMA came over to the use en masse after WWII, when a lot of fresh BB came over and started schools. These days, it's more likely when an instructor retires without a well-seasoned successor, a brand new instructor moves and starts their own school, etc. For me, I did get into teaching a lot when I first got my instructor certification, and most of that was solo teaching. I had two classes I taught, and most students would go to two classes under the same instructor (rather than mix-and-match). I'd had time student teaching, but probably still wasn't nearly as good as I thought I was at the time. In some schools, there are a lot of instructor-grade folks, so no new instructor teaches on their own. At that school, at the time, I was the 3rd or 4th ranking person in the school (including the CI in that count). We just didn't produce a lot of BB.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

we most all suck at most of it (that is in another post).

What do you mean when you say that?

- Be humble?
- Lack of self-confidence?
- ???

IMO, the reason that we train MA because we try to develop at least one MA skill that we can do better than everybody else on this planet. If that's our goal then we should have self-confidence in ourselves. Otherwise we will never be able to reach to our goals.

 

[skribs]

What do you mean when you say that?

- Be humble?
- Lack of self-confidence?
- ???

IMO, the reason that we train MA because we try to develop at least one MA skill that we can do better than everybody else on this planet. If that's our goal then we should have self-confidence in ourselves. Otherwise we will never be able to reach to our goals.

I think he means when you're new.

 

[Danny T]

What do you mean when you say that?

- Be humble?
- Lack of self-confidence?
- ???

IMO, the reason that we train MA because we try to develop at least one MA skill that we can do better than everybody else on this planet. If that's our goal then we should have self-confidence in ourselves. Otherwise we will never be able to reach to our goals.

What he state was: "Unless of course you are new to something then we most all suck at most of it".
Meaning, most people suck at whatever when they are new to it and get better the more they do it and gain experience.

 

[dvcochran]

What do you mean when you say that?

- Be humble?
- Lack of self-confidence?
- ???

IMO, the reason that we train MA because we try to develop at least one MA skill that we can do better than everybody else on this planet. If that's our goal then we should have self-confidence in ourselves. Otherwise we will never be able to reach to our goals.

I thought it was pretty direct and apparent. The first time you ever practiced X (pick one)technique were you proficient at it? Of course not. That is all I was saying.

 

[dvcochran]

But a lot of those mistakes can be made by anyone in a leadership position. Unless the CI is focused on micro-managing the new instructor, he won't see everything.

And even if he is, the new instructor will still need correction.

Teaching is a learned skill.

A lot of it is, to have the knowledge of the skills you teach. That is still not an automatic pass that someone is going to be a good teacher.

 

[skribs]

A lot of it is, to have the knowledge of the skills you teach. That is still not an automatic pass that someone is going to be a good teacher.

But you have to teach in order to become a good teacher.

There's an old saying I like: Good judgement comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgement.

You often don't realize a teaching strategy is a mistake until you try it and fail. Just like when you whiff on a block and get punched in the face. When you say something to a kid you think is helpful, and the kid breaks down crying and won't finish class, you've just learned a similar lesson.

If you learn your lesson you're on the way to being a good teacher. Just like the student who drills blocks after getting punched is on their way to becoming a good martial artist. But if you just assume "that kid was weak" or "that kid isn't cut out for class", and don't change your style, then you're a bad teacher that will quickly lose your students.

Yes, I realize it's more nuanced than that, and just because one kid doesn't respond positively to your style doesn't mean your style is bad. However, especially when you're a new teacher, it's something you should at least reflect on, and not immediately dismiss yourself as the flaw in the situation.

 

[dvcochran]

But you have to teach in order to become a good teacher.

There's an old saying I like: Good judgement comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgement.

You often don't realize a teaching strategy is a mistake until you try it and fail. Just like when you whiff on a block and get punched in the face. When you say something to a kid you think is helpful, and the kid breaks down crying and won't finish class, you've just learned a similar lesson.

If you learn your lesson you're on the way to being a good teacher. Just like the student who drills blocks after getting punched is on their way to becoming a good martial artist. But if you just assume "that kid was weak" or "that kid isn't cut out for class", and don't change your style, then you're a bad teacher that will quickly lose your students.

Yes, I realize it's more nuanced than that, and just because one kid doesn't respond positively to your style doesn't mean your style is bad. However, especially when you're a new teacher, it's something you should at least reflect on, and not immediately dismiss yourself as the flaw in the situation.

I like the saying very much. Regarding someone who just started I would say yes. But there will always be teachers who just are not very good at it. That doesn't make them bad MAist as far as the application is concerned. Conversely, there will always be student/teacher relationships that just don't gel. It always happens. Often it would not matter who the teacher is the student was/is looking for something else or is quirky for whatever reason.