Training to the test

[MBuzzy]

In school of all levels, I have encountered professors and teachers who basically teach to the test, i.e. hold the test and teach the topics based solely on what will be tested. I have also found that I learn MUCH less in these classes.

So I am curious how many martial arts schools do the same kind of thing, basically train only the techniques needed to pass the test?

This is not to say that someone should learn something that is beyond them, but should a school's entire curriculum include ONLY the things on their system's test?

 

[agemechanic03]

I have to say that I disagree with that kind of curriculum. I don't feel that you get the whole benefit of the Martial Arts itself, you're only getting the basics that way. You're not being allowed to grow and mature to be able to have the confidence needed for any type of competion or real world scenario. I'm like you, I don't learn as much that way. I have to be challenged.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Mostly we learn what we need to advance to the next rank and then some extra stuff. The was we apply it and the drills we do are not centered around the test. We prepare for the fight. So yes the curriculum is based on what is needed for the test but the focus of every class is how to apply on the street

B

 

[shesulsa]

Yuck.

Training to the test should only be done in the cases where you know the test will be long, difficult and demanding of specific skills and traits such as endurance, strength, breaking, etcetera. Curriculum knowledge is definitely important.

But no, we don't train each class to the test - it's not a good way to push yourself mentally, physically or in any other way really. We're more likely to shoot from the hip as to what we're doing each night rather than schedule specific nights for specific elements.

An example, however, may be those training for their black sash test. They will be the ones found working on everything at a higher speed, doing jumping and multiple kicking and working hard on endurance at full speed for long periods of time.

Good topic, as I feel this is an underlying issue in living today - education, professional certifications, licensing ... it all depends upon a test, apparently.

 

[Danny T]

Training to the test?
Well we certainly instruct and train that which one must be able to perform for testing. However, much is done in a manner that the individual must do some homework. They must put in the time other than class time to be able to perform properly for their test. In class we do far more attribute building, proper movement, position and structure training with possible applications based upon the positional and spatial relationships between opponents. This, we feel, provides the impetus for greater ability, understanding, and growth.

As for the test, the individual will have already proven to the staff by time put in during their class sessions and on their own that they can past the test. Their test for me is their everyday training, actions and growth. The test is for them not for me. It is an affirmation to them they are ready for the next level. There are some specifics as to form, movement, and application but there is far more importance placed upon understanding what is available technique and spontaneity than specific material.

Danny T

 

[MJS]

In school of all levels, I have encountered professors and teachers who basically teach to the test, i.e. hold the test and teach the topics based solely on what will be tested. I have also found that I learn MUCH less in these classes.

So I am curious how many martial arts schools do the same kind of thing, basically train only the techniques needed to pass the test?

This is not to say that someone should learn something that is beyond them, but should a school's entire curriculum include ONLY the things on their system's test?

We have set requirements for each level. However, each class is not focused just on testing aspects. There are other drills and other techniques that are also included into the class. There is so much more to the arts, than just testing requirements. Additionally, many of the instructors at my school cross train in another art, so there have been many times when 'extra' things are added into the class. Keeps it fun and keeps everyone hungry for more.

Mike

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

In IRT I do not teach to a test. The curriculum is just a set of guidelines and one should explore in it and outside of it. This always makes training interesting and stimulating as anything can be covered.

 

[morph4me]

We have requirements for each level, but with mixed level classes it wouldn't be possible to teach to a test, we cover whatever it is that we're going to cover in that particular class and then give new techniques, or applications, or extra help, or whatever to the individuals that need it. We test when we determine that the student is ready. Since we don't have scheduled tests for everyone that will be testing, or for a particular grade, there is no need to teach to a test.

 

[zDom]

Generally speaking, no way! We work all sorts of stuff that isn't part of rank requirements. Very often known as "fun stuff"

But if a test is imminent, well yea: that would be a good time to work specifically on the stuff you will be tested on

Nothing wrong with "getting ready for a test" if it is scheduled in the near future.