Teaching everything

[terryl965]

If you are a teacher or instructor do you teach every single techniques to all of your students and if not why?

If you are a student do you believe your teacher or instructor teaches you everything they know and if so how come.

I ask because in a converstation it was bought up, one person says he only teaches every single techs. to those he feels deserve them and the rest just miss out on them.

What is everyone take on this.

 

[Andrew Green]

I don't hold back, and I think any instructor that does has a bunch of students that should find a new instructor as the one they have is clearly not doing what they feel is best for there students.

But I don't think I would use "every single technique" to describe that.

 

[Carol]

I ask because in a converstation it was bought up, one person says he only teaches every single techs. to those he feels deserve them and the rest just miss out on them.

What is everyone take on this.

And does he also lock his studnents down on contracts wso when his "undeserving" students get wise to what he's doing, they can't easily break away?

Sounds like a pretty good excuse for a lazy teacher trying to get away with doing less work for the same money.

 

[terryl965]

And does he also lock his studnents down on contracts wso when his "undeserving" students get wise to what he's doing, they can't easily break away?

Sounds like a pretty good excuse for a lazy teacher trying to get away with doing less work for the same money.

Carol I have no idea if he has contracts I just meat him today for the first time never knew he exsisted until now, but if I see him again I will ask that for you.

 

[terryl965]

I don't hold back, and I think any instructor that does has a bunch of students that should find a new instructor as the one they have is clearly not doing what they feel is best for there students.

But I don't think I would use "every single technique" to describe that.

I agree Andrew with your statement remember I believe we teach everything to whom we come across sometimes it just takes longer that is all.

 

[tellner]

If you are a teacher or instructor do you teach every single techniques to all of your students and if not why?

If you are a student do you believe your teacher or instructor teaches you everything they know and if so how come.

I ask because in a converstation it was bought up, one person says he only teaches every single techs. to those he feels deserve them and the rest just miss out on them.

What is everyone take on this.

Like my guru I teach very little technique. A huge catalog of techniques is nothing but organized despair. Simple tools widely applied, a firm foundation in principles and good attributes will generate all the techniques you could ever want and more.

Not all students will get everything. A good teacher will teach to the capacity and level of commitment of the student so that the student will have the chance to absorb all that he can. Push them past that point or give them too much too quickly and they'll end up with less. Of course, that's one of the classic ways of hiding stuff. Make them drink out of a firehose so they don't actually internalize anything.

There is stuff that you don't want to teach until you know the students really well and have a lot of trust in them. Guru Plinck will not teach certain aspects of attacking or any knife work at all to people who haven't been with him a long, long time. The potential cost is just too high. Some people can't be trusted.

In the end, if you pick and choose what to teach to whom based on some mystic sense of 'worthiness' or, as it more commonly falls out, how vigorously and skillfully one strokes the teacher's ego you do yourself, your students and the art a disservice. Plenty of systems have gone extinct because a few generations of teachers only transmitted 80% of what they knew. Good students get disgusted with the contortions they need to go through to get The Secret Knowledge (tm) and go somewhere with less BS.

Some of this comes from running commercial schools where you have your serious students and your rice-bowl students. You need to keep something just out of reach to keep them coming back. Part of it comes from fundamental beliefs about who is there for what. If you believe that the students are there for your benefit you will behave one way. If you believe you are there for the students' benefit you will behave in another.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I must say that that I teach my students everything in the core curriculum, that is why they are there, afterall. That having been said, it is not everything that I know because some of what I have learnt is outside the curriculum at the moment. It may become part of the whole in the future, however.

To not teach a student all the techniques because they don't deserve to learn, in your opinion, smacks of elitist behaviour of the worst possible sort. It creates a strong distinction between the have and the have-nots. This can only lead to antagonism within the class, surely.

 

[Kacey]

All of my students are taught the minimum requirements for their rank. Most of them are taught more than the minimum - how much more depends on age/maturity, time for practice, physical and mental skills, demonstrated ability, etc. - in general, I take them as far and as fast as they are ready for, but not all students go the same speed, for the reasons given as well as others. In addition, some techniques require more time to master than others, and I tend to teach those earlier than required, so that students have more time to master them before they are required to demonstrate them in testing or tournaments.

 

[ArmorOfGod]

I really like what Kacey said above me. I also teach the minimum to each student, but if one has an interest in something in particular, I may teach him or her some extra on that topic. One good example of this is martial arts history. I cover it in class, but if a student catches me after class and wants to hear more, I am going to pull up some chairs and really get into it.

One thing I found that I am doing is teaching slightly different technique applications. For example, I have one girl student whose elbows pop everytime she punches. For her, I am having her punch with a slight bend in her elbow during kata and basics. I am telling her not to fully extend the punch to go easier on the joint. The rest of the class is going fully extended on the punches, which some feel is bad, but most schools teach.

AoG

 

[Tames D]

I teach them everything I feel they are ready for.

 

[MJS]

If you are a teacher or instructor do you teach every single techniques to all of your students and if not why?

Some things may come at a later time for some, compared to others, but yes, I think that the full system should be taught to the students.

If you are a student do you believe your teacher or instructor teaches you everything they know and if so how come.

Yes. My instructors love to teach and don't have anything to hide. I've known all of them long enough to know that they're honest, good hearted people, and are not out to cheat their students out of anything.

Mike

 

[Drac]

I must say that that I teach my students everything in the core curriculum, that is why they are there

Makes sense to me...

 

[King]

I teach them everything I feel they are ready for.

I think that is the best summary of how I feel it should be. Mind that I'm no teacher, I just assist and run some classes. But students can't learn everything in a single day anyway. I train/help students and show them techniques based on ability and skill. This way students who are more dedicated to the art find it much more rewarding. Why should they be held back by "casual" students if they are able and willing.

 

[Ping898]

My school always taught the techniques required of the belt and everyone was taught the same ones, but the details, like hidden moves or extensions are not automatically taught to everyone. I used to get them a lot because I asked a lot of questions about why things were a certain way or what about X or Y and so some of the extras would come up in the course of those discussions. That said no one was ever denied access to the information, most of it was just not taught until later belt levels, usually after your earned your black belt and as such many people didn't get some of the information because they quit.
But I think that you should never withhold information just because you don't think someone is worthy or can't handle it. I think that we as a society often under estimate people and if someone asks about something, shows more interest in the knowledge, then they should have access to that knowledge....

 

[charyuop]

As a student I trust my Sensei has enough experience and skills to know where I start having troubles and won't overload me with too much stuff which would be useless to me in this moment because I wouldn't get it in full or at all.

But this topic has 2 aspects...

1_ Keep from teching part of the Art to certain students because they are not ready is something I guess normal. I guess it shows a good teacher with a great understanding of human limitations which are different per each individual and has different times to be overcome;
2_ Deciding to keep a certain amount of techniques secret and teaching them only to a small selection of students. Of course that is a personal choice and I am not gonna criticize it, but in my opinion that is not doing a good favor to the Art that you teach and that you supposdly love.

 

[still learning]

Hello, In our Kempo system, each level is taught certain techniques,skills and so on. We have a standard set of require things to teach at each level, which comes from our Professor. All is written down in manuals.

We also teach things not mention in the manuals, but related to the arts, and other techniques not mention in the manuals. Our options...and we do share things we learn elsewhere/from other schools too!

Yes we do teach all we can...anything that can aid our students to improve them...we will add ALL THINGS...NEEDED....NO holding back here!

Each student is require to reed, right, and smell...this is a school of learning? .................Aloha

 

[searcher]

Their rank dictates what/how much they get to learn. I don't promote them unless they are mature enough for the rank they are in line for, regardless of age. There are some students that will never be ready for some of the techniques that we can teach them. It is not that they are more or less dangerous, it is just that they are not as forgiving as some techniques. I would love to be able to give everything to my students, but I ama realist and know that it will never happen. Most won't stick around after they reach Sho-dan, so I know they won't get everything.

 

[pstarr]

I teach my art fully but in progressive stages...

 

[TraditionalTKD]

I have taught what is appropriate for each student. Some students will know more, some less, depending on: age, attitude, skill level etc. Our Grandmaster has stated point blank he has only taught us about a fraction of what he knows. He will undoubtably take many of his skills and knowledge to the grave.

Make no mistake. Just because someone pays $35 a month or more does not entitle them to learn all I have to teach. The ability to pay and the right to learn are totally separate. There are plenty of people out there who could easily afford top of the line instruction. Does that mean I would teach them all I know. Absolutely not.
That's one of the problems with this country. We think money can buy anything you want.

 

[James Kovacich]

Like my guru I teach very little technique. A huge catalog of techniques is nothing but organized despair. Simple tools widely applied, a firm foundation in principles and good attributes will generate all the techniques you could ever want and more.

Not all students will get everything. A good teacher will teach to the capacity and level of commitment of the student so that the student will have the chance to absorb all that he can. Push them past that point or give them too much too quickly and they'll end up with less. Of course, that's one of the classic ways of hiding stuff. Make them drink out of a firehose so they don't actually internalize anything.

There is stuff that you don't want to teach until you know the students really well and have a lot of trust in them. Guru Plinck will not teach certain aspects of attacking or any knife work at all to people who haven't been with him a long, long time. The potential cost is just too high. Some people can't be trusted.

In the end, if you pick and choose what to teach to whom based on some mystic sense of 'worthiness' or, as it more commonly falls out, how vigorously and skillfully one strokes the teacher's ego you do yourself, your students and the art a disservice. Plenty of systems have gone extinct because a few generations of teachers only transmitted 80% of what they knew. Good students get disgusted with the contortions they need to go through to get The Secret Knowledge (tm) and go somewhere with less BS.

Some of this comes from running commercial schools where you have your serious students and your rice-bowl students. You need to keep something just out of reach to keep them coming back. Part of it comes from fundamental beliefs about who is there for what. If you believe that the students are there for your benefit you will behave one way. If you believe you are there for the students' benefit you will behave in another.

I agree very much. For me, some will get it and will not. The reason, some, "just don't get it" or have a weaker learning curve.

Unless the instructor has a limited knowledge base, it would be very hard to transmit all that we know. We can transmit the whole core but not "all."