- Nov 7, 2017
- Reaction score
- Southeast U.S.
I guess my skepticism comes from the fact that in order to teach those topics, one needs to have a fairly solid background in them. There are a lot of topics there, Anatomy, psychology, physics, history, behavior science, art, linguistics, pedagogy. It takes more than just having had one or two classes in something, to be capable of teaching it.
I realize the goal is not to teach a university-level course in each of these topics. But still, some solid background is needed in order to teach it well, or even at all. One needs to know more than the simple equation F=MA, for example. Working something like that into a class session does not mean you are actually teaching physics in your class, does not elevate one’s teaching above a host of other folks who are all doing the same thing.
So, what kind of background does the OP have in these various topics, that makes him believe he can integrate them into the curriculum in a groundbreaking and effective way, more so than the next fellow?
There is a sense of irony that the individual topics listed are a normal part of most all true TMA, nothing new at all. In the TMA I have been exposed to we learn all of them, albeit, certain terms (like pedagogy) may have never been used. Anatomy and psychology are big elements in learning self defense, both in the give and take of it. Behavior science could also be listed under SD. Anatomy is huge in learning how to perform technique. There is a ton of psychology throughout our curriculum. History and linguistics are straight forward teaching.
Giving an old idea a new name is marketing 101. Just a horse of a different color. Still smells like a horse however.