# Group training or one-on-one?



## arnisandyz (Jun 9, 2004)

We have recently experienced a small growth spurt in our training group and pretty soon I may be faced with turning down future students, or devoting more time to teaching and holding additional classes, and finding a larger place.  I have two friends who are instructors/teachers of there own groups helping me out every so often, which is very helpful, but I don't want to rely on them being there night in-night out.

What are your feelings on group training vs one-on-one? One one hand, one on one or very small group instruction can accelerate training, on the other hand, the class dynamics of a slightly larger class has much to offer as well, namely the socialization - advanced students get experience training newer students, newer students can look to advanced students for guidence like a big brother/sister, the exchange of different energies, different size partners, etc.  "everybody trains everybody" and we try to better ourselves and each other as a group. (as you can tell, I'm learning more  toward group training rather than one on one).  The problem with one-on-one training is that, although the student may accelerate faster, they tend to become a copy of the teacher, or become a vision of what the teacher feels they should  be rather than finding their own way. If this is done for years, what happens when the student is to interact with other players? Its kind of like HomeSchool, although your academic skills have potential to be greater, your social skills may suffer from being home with mom all day.  One on one training has its place, but i see it as supplimental training outside of the social enviornment of group training.  i look forward to your input!


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 9, 2004)

both have merit.  I'm doing mostly one on one right now; better for technique, not as good for a work out.  Also groups give you the all important variety of body types!!


----------



## bart (Jun 9, 2004)

Nice topic!

I think that one on one training is essential, but it can be done in small doses within a larger class. A lot of teachers tend to stand on the side and give corrections and all of those things. But if there is no special teacher class where they can work in, it's essential that the teacher get in and do rotations with the students during regular class. That way the students get the one on one training they need in the midst of the larger classes and the teacher gets to get a workout as well. 

A thing that I've had to do recently as my class size is growing to is commit a lot of the simple things to writing and make them available to the students. Another tactic to use in large classes is to have different groups doing different things than each other. One group is doing sinawali while the other is doing disarms, hubad, etc. It keeps the flow going and allows a variety in the class that the instructor can jump in and out of as need be.

I heard somewhere that in one on one training a student will only be able to absorb about 10 percent of what you give them and then only be able to keep about 10 percent of that straight between then and the next lesson. It may or may not be true, but I think it's somewhere close. By mixing in the one on one in the larger classes I think that you can increase the students ability to retain what you're teaching, partially due to the smaller amount of imparted knowledge, but also due to the reinforcement they get from working with other students. 

In closing, I think that you can give the students a good amount of one on one instruction inside of the larger classes if you rotate in, break the larger class into smaller groups based on skill level, and introduce some written materials to supplement class instruction.


----------



## lhommedieu (Jun 9, 2004)

Good question.  I started martial arts in group classes and stayed within this format for a few years.  Back in '94 I met a teacher who taught in a mixed format of private lessons and group classes.  I think that this gives the student a good combination of private attention and group dynamics.  After several years of I switched over to a private lesson format because there is a "coaching" aspect that you can't find in a group class.  I don't take group classes anymore, unless it is the kind of class where different students, or small groups of students, work aspects of the art that the teacher has determined is important for them individually.  Again, this has a "coaching" aspect that is missing from most group classes - and it is hard to find unless you can find a teacher who is willing to teach in this manner.  

I also attend seminars from time to time as time and money permit.  Here my focus is merely to come away with one (or two at most - literally)  fundamental ideas and incorporate them into my practice.

I don't think that it's an exageration to say that for every hour you spend in class, you should be spending [pick any large number] in practice either individually or with a good training partner.

Best,

Steve


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 10, 2004)

One more thing you might try before stopping new admissions is to have some of your higher students help you teach the begginers. They would only touch the basics and you would have to watch them at first, But I'm sure you have some students you would trust to teach some basics. And to continue with the idea of breaking the class up, do a rotation, where they work on one thing at a time while you keep a watching eye on them all, have your higher students teach one thing. 

My instructor and I have had to resort to this, and though we were hesitant to trust a color belt to teach, we did find some of our students did well, and were able to instruct small groups fairly well. Of course you should still instruct at the head of the class for the majority of the classes, but this can give you a litte break to keep you from getting burnt out.

Let us know how it works out, whatever you do.


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2004)

Well, they both have their place.  As for the group training...you'll get the chance to rotate around the room with more people.  The one on one is great because it gives you just that...1 on 1 attention, just you and the Inst.  Doing both is most likely the best way to go.

Mike


----------



## ARNIS PRINCESS (Jun 10, 2004)

It all goes back to why you started your group. Is this for personal development or spreading the art?


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 10, 2004)

ARNIS PRINCESS said:
			
		

> It all goes back to why you started your group. Is this for personal development or spreading the art?



Ahhh, but doesn't spreading the art aid your personal development? The more people you have to "play" with the better you will be.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

bart said:
			
		

> Nice topic!
> 
> 
> In closing, I think that you can give the students a good amount of one on one instruction inside of the larger classes if you rotate in, break the larger class into smaller groups based on skill level, and introduce some written materials to supplement class instruction.


Bart,

You have learned well and benefited from some good instruction.  The method you are describing is what Elementary school teachers learn as 'stations' where there are a number of activities set up that students rotate through during a set time.  The teacher can circulate and spend 'mini conference' time with each student during this process.

It is the same method of a circuit training/fitness model as well.  It can be a helpful tool to give students a chance to find out what they are learning quickly and what they have to work on to develop because there is almost a side by side comparison in a short period of time.

Studies have shown the the attention span of the average person is getting shorter, so finding ways to break instruction time up by movement/topic changes is a good way to improve instructional comprehension.

As a side note, it also is a good tool for a teacher to find those students who either are natural leaders to be groomed for instructorship AND it helps avoid some of the intraclass rivalries/favoratism issues if you are devoting more time to a student who needs more encouragement or correction because there is so much going on that most everyone else is too busy just trying to keep up with the routine.

It is a good tool for managing time and balancing that group/individual instruction time.

I like one on one, but sometimes it seems that the emphasis on it develops an "instructor dependency" that reduces the self reliance/personal accountability of who is really in charge of your education.  Ultimately it is you, but I have seen students develop that "I just can't train well unless someone else is telling me what is good or bad."


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 10, 2004)

ARNIS PRINCESS said:
			
		

> It all goes back to why you started your group. Is this for personal development or spreading the art?



Also,  Think of it as starting a "family'. If you have kids you can appriciate how much good (and bad) that they can bring to a family. Add in uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, etc...and a family gathering is much more fun and rewarding than just you and your significant other.  The problem I'm facing is deciding how many kids my wife and I want (or deciding how big of a Martial Arts family I want to have). No doubt with more people comes more problems, but thats part of the fun.  I'm not saying everybody should go this route, some people just do not like children or being around other people.


----------



## lhommedieu (Jun 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Bart,
> 
> You have learned well and benefited from some good instruction.  The method you are describing is what Elementary school teachers learn as 'stations' where there are a number of activities set up that students rotate through during a set time.  The teacher can circulate and spend 'mini conference' time with each student during this process



For example, the teacher has assessed each individual student's reading level (through formal and informal assessment exercises) and provided books that readers on that level can read without getting frustrated - but which are still interesting to read.  These are read during an "independent reading" session.  Later in the day, small groups of students rotate through "reader's workshop" stations that teach class-specific skills as determined by the grade curriculum, while the teacher teaches one small group of students more specific skills.  These are typically 15 minute sessions per group, so the teacher can rotate through the class teaching needs-specific material every other day.  Conferences with individual students will take place throughout the reading period, but the contact-time is much shorter and will address very specific issues, (e.g., the teacher notices a student struggling with a word:  "Do you remember learning "oa" words last week?  That's right -"oa" words have a "long o" sound.  What is this word [boat]?")

I think that you can see how this might be analogous to teaching FMA...

To extend the analogy, one-on-one coaching is like meeting with a tutor to discuss a reading for the week (the British model), or like meeting with an editor to discuss one's writing ("prune that, get rid of that, it's awful, yes - that sentence works," etc.).  I always liked the scene in that move (Max Keebler Returns?) where the kid's criminal-world grandfather comes into his life (against his mother's wishes) and secretly hires a major-league batting coach to help the kid get over his Little League slump:  "Hey, dummy - what are you doing with your wrists?...Are your hips ready to rotate through the ball?...etc."

Steve Lamade
Early Childhood teacher in need of summer vacation


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

lhommedieu said:
			
		

> For example, the teacher has assessed each individual student's reading level (through formal and informal assessment exercises) and provided books that readers on that level can read without getting frustrated - but which are still interesting to read. These are read during an "independent reading" session. Later in the day, small groups of students rotate through "reader's workshop" stations that teach class-specific skills as determined by the grade curriculum, while the teacher teaches one small group of students more specific skills. These are typically 15 minute sessions per group, so the teacher can rotate through the class teaching needs-specific material every other day. Conferences with individual students will take place throughout the reading period, but the contact-time is much shorter and will address very specific issues, (e.g., the teacher notices a student struggling with a word: "Do you remember learning "oa" words last week? That's right -"oa" words have a "long o" sound. What is this word [boat]?")
> 
> I think that you can see how this might be analogous to teaching FMA...
> 
> ...


Big fan of workshopping and keeping students physically and mentally in motion as much as possible.  I really wish that my Secondary ELA Ed. Program had incorporated more of the strategies that the El. Ed. Program was teaching.  Good stuff.


----------



## ARNIS PRINCESS (Jun 10, 2004)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Ahhh, but doesn't spreading the art aid your personal development? The more people you have to "play" with the better you will be.



Of course it does. Im not saying there is only one way. What I am saying is that you should figure out your intent first and then all the different ways of attaining your goals.


----------



## lhommedieu (Jun 10, 2004)

_"Max Duggan Returns"_ (1983) Jason Robards, Marsha Mason, Donald Sutherland, Mathew Brodrick.  Written by Neil Simon.

The batting coach is the famed Charlie Lau:

"Lau taught his hitting technique to the Orioles, A's, Royals, Yankees, and White Sox. His book How to Hit .300 supplanted Ted Williams 's The Science of Hitting as the "Bible of Batting." Most of the Royals adopted his spray-hitting style: Hal McRae, George Brett, Amos Otis, and Willie Wilson all used the Lau approach during their most successful seasons. In 1983 Lau voluntarily gave up his spot on the White Sox coaching staff to enable scout Loren Babe, who was dying of lung cancer, to qualify for his ten-year pension. Babe died in February 1984. Lau died from cancer of the colon in March."  

(http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/L/Lau_Charlie.stm)

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 10, 2004)

ARNIS PRINCESS said:
			
		

> Of course it does. Im not saying there is only one way. What I am saying is that you should figure out your intent first and then all the different ways of attaining your goals.



Agreed, one of my goals is to promote FMA and Filipino culture in my area. To some extent we have been somewhat sucessful by doing free seminars open to other systems, demonstrations at Filipino cultural events, and through the classes themselves. With that exposure comes more interest, I really don't want to turn people away when we reach "x" number, but if it get too big the training of the others currently in the group may be compromised.  thanks for your help.

andy


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

ARNIS PRINCESS said:
			
		

> It all goes back to why you started your group. Is this for personal development or spreading the art?


Personally, I think a primary focus on "spreading the art" is what fosters politics, successorship squabbles and all that mess. "Build it and they will come" I say. Concentrate on making a good "product" first. Let the rest come from the merits of that.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally, I think a primary focus on "spreading the art" is what fosters politics, successorship squabbles and all that mess. "Build it and they will come" I say. Concentrate on making a good "product" first. Let the rest come from the merits of that.


Amen to that...focus on the quality of the floor and how it relates to larger goals of self defense, character development in youth or what ever you are trying to accomplish.... all in a 'lead by example' kind of way.  Quality speaks for itself as far as I am concerned.  If it is good, folks will spread the word in positive word of mouth and through good reputation.... Yoda said the Dark side is quicker and I would think that 'spreading the art' as a primary goal might tempt folks to 'McDojo' an art or 'water it down' in an attempt to make it more user friendly.

A line from one of my favorite movies: 

"Success of the band was inevitable..." 
(because for what ever reason, the music was good and the talent was there)

 "this way it is poetry" 
(after the personal agendising/ego battles and politics created bad blood and broke up the band)

The Commitments, 1994(ish)


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally, I think a primary focus on "spreading the art" is what fosters politics, successorship squabbles and all that mess. "Build it and they will come" I say. Concentrate on making a good "product" first. Let the rest come from the merits of that.



I think alot of that depends on your intentions.  If you want to spread the art to fill your training hall, or to make money, or to make a name for yourself, to get followers, that is wrong. Just recently we did a demo at a Filipino Festival, our intention was NOT to bring in many many students, but to share the art with the Filipino community.  I used to go to these things (and perform dances) as a kid.  Had I known back then that Filipinos had there own martial art I would have started in Arnis instead of TKD. If we reached at least one Filipino-American kid and made him feel good about his culture, then we were sucessful.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Concentrate on making a good "product" first. Let the rest come from the merits of that.



Actual, building a good product is only half the equation.  If you have a good product would it not be wise to want to share that with the right people? Somehow either by word of mouth, reputation, advertising or whatever, you WILL have to spread the art - even if it only spreads to a handful of people.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2004)

I didnt say that "spreading the art" was necessarily a bad thing, just that if its your "primary focus" it fosters trouble. IMHO because it gets wrapped up in ego, competition, and "who's in charge" issues.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 11, 2004)

Both have there palce.

Currently I'm teaching on a one on one basis, however one problem I have with this is that I'm always the uke (the practice dummy).  One student I had spent 30 minutes wrenching my arm trying to learn a Hammer Lock, same guy different time did a head twist takedown without keeping me close to him and wrenched my neck big time.  It took me several visits to my chiropractor to get that cleared up. 

Also it takes time to get the student up to your skill level to where they are a good workout partner, than something comes up and they cruise on you.

However my current student is progressing very nicely and is a real good student, so I don't mind teaching one on one.

However with a larger class you would get more experience working with other people seeing other problems that people might have and in fact learn some new stuff from them at the same time.  When I was teaching a smalll group I had one student who any time he was taken to the floor he would roll out of the technique, which screwed up what I was trying to show, but it was good for me to deal with.  Line drills and Bull in the Ring are both drills that you can't do one on one.  You can't have partner sparring or 2 against 3 or 2 against 1 with just one on one training.

Mark


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Jun 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally, I think a primary focus on "spreading the art" is what fosters politics, successorship squabbles and all that mess.



It's a shame that you feel the need to focus on the negative. Remy focused on spreading the art and if he didn't you wouldn't have had exposure to it.

 :deadhorse  :sadsong:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2004)

Absolutely, but look at the political mess it left...linked??? Who am I to say? Just my opinion.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 11, 2004)

Group is best.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Jun 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Absolutely, but look at the political mess it left...linked??? Who am I to say? Just my opinion.



Remy wasn't perfect. In his attempt to spread the art I found out the at times he was a poor judge of character. This is why I left the IMAF when I did, along with all of the good people he attracted he also attracted the bad. I felt that it would be better for *ME* to start from scratch. Over the years some of the bad eggs took themselves out of the game only to resurface after his passing. We can try to learn from both the good and bad to make sure that we dont make the same mistakes. 

No one could have for seen Remys hospitalization and eventual passing. In the WMAA there is no question of who is in charge and what the chain of command is. If something like this were to happen a procedure has already been put in place to insure a smooth transition for the new chain of command.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2004)

I guess I started this thread hi-jack so I apologize...I suppose the "spreading the art" topic should be on its own thread.


----------



## ARNIS PRINCESS (Jun 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I guess I started this thread hi-jack so I apologize...I suppose the "spreading the art" topic should be on its own thread.




Hi-jacking or just causing trouble?


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 12, 2004)

ARNIS PRINCESS said:
			
		

> Hi-jacking or just causing trouble?


Tgace posted his opinion, and qualified it with "personally", and "I think".
I see no harm in that.


----------



## Guro Harold (Jun 12, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Tgace posted his opinion, and qualified it with "personally", and "I think".
> I see no harm in that.



I agree with Flatlander, also, Tgrace apologized for redirecting the thread.  So lets continue the good discussion.

Palusut


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 12, 2004)

Thanks Palusut, I'll carry forward then.

As a student, I'm training in privates exclusively right now, as I'm unable to make the group classes.  I find the one on one instruction phenomenal in terms of absolute speed of learning.  The fact is, there's no "fat".  The only hands I touch are very skilled, and so my sensitivity benefits greatly.  Also, "down time".  No joking around, waiting for others to pay attention, etc.  Just pure learning.  Having said that, I also have found some thing that are lacking.  It's true that sometimes, by showing something to someone else, it can give you an insight that you hadn't previously understood.  I have experienced this before, and I miss it.  As well, in dealing with only one body, there's an obvious limitation there.  
So, in my opinion, a combination of both is good.  But I do not like large classes.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 12, 2004)

One on one training and group training is just another form of cross training, what you might miss in one you pick up in the other, and vice versa, an art spreads because of quality within, look at Balintawak in the U.S it started mostly with Remy and I back in the early 80s' we would give little bits and peaces, then Remy hooked me up with GM Buot in 1982  who had a few student here in the late 70s, and after people saw what GM Buots training along with Remys had done for me, they started seeking out GM BUot, who still has a very small group, but a well trained group, and people like myself, Jim Power, Rich, Tim, and some others will always keep it alive and growing. You must give Remys Modern Arnis's visability much of the credit of bringing Balintawak out, then of course other GM's like GM Tobada, Gm Lopez started spreading their form of Balintawak, and now it is a fairly well known name in FMA'S

Rocky


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2004)

ARNIS PRINCESS said:
			
		

> Hi-jacking or just causing trouble?


Tried to send you a PM or E-mail to explain...but since you post no personal info or allow any alternate contacts, you will just have to take me at my word.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2004)

Back on topic...I find that one-on-one training is typically harder to sustain for sessions longer that say an hour. When Its just the two people, there is a tendency to loose training discipline and have longer breaks, BS sessions etc. Having to run a "class" keeps the instructor to a stricter schedule.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2004)

Anybody think the small, "tight", martial arts "family" set-ups are a sort of throwback to the clan origins of some of these arts? Not that its intentionally done, just a sort of tendency thats been handed down, almost subconsciously?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Back on topic...I find that one-on-one training is typically harder to sustain for sessions longer that say an hour. When Its just the two people, there is a tendency to loose training discipline and have longer breaks, BS sessions etc. Having to run a "class" keeps the instructor to a stricter schedule.


I agree; in a group, the leader leads. :asian:
Sean


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Anybody think the small, "tight", martial arts "family" set-ups are a sort of throwback to the clan origins of some of these arts? Not that its intentionally done, just a sort of tendency thats been handed down, almost subconsciously?




Yes, I agree...the "family" dynamics has more of a "tribal" feel to the structure of training.  What I mean is, when a tribe would train it would be to protect the village as a group.  There was merit in making your neigbor better, since it will make your tribe stronger, hence increase the probability of survival.  Another question to further my origional post... Some may consider a larger number of people to fight for your tribe an advantage (outnumber the opponent), however, how do you think the tribal structure was maintained while increasing the numbers? I would guess it may have been broken down into subgroups where you would have groups of 10-15 training together, which would then train informally with other groups in the village rather than a milita of 50 people training at once.  Special forces units have adapted this "tribal" form of training as opposed to an infantry aproach.  A small tight group has many advantages.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 13, 2004)

Guys, don't ya know, only my way is best!   

I think that there is value to having only one-on-one, small group training (well under 20 people), and large group training (large schools, well over 20 students), and large distance learning groups (seminar training).

They each have their strengths and limitations.

One-on-one: You are able to learn very quickly and very high quality in the shortest amount of time. Nothing can replace one-on-one time with your instructor. Even to this day, I value the one-on-one time I had with Professor Presas. I value the one-on-one time with Manong Ted Buot. My private students value one-on-one time with me. Limitations are that it is hard for your student to learn how to teach because they are never partnered with a "less experienced" student. It is not condusive of "spreading the art" either, because you can only take so many private students on.

Small Group (5-15 students, definatily no more then 20): A great way to train. You can learn very rapidly if your instructor is hands on, and you get your one-on-one time in. You can learn how to teach with a less experienced partner. You work with different body types and personal styles so you can make your self defense very practical. The limitation with this is that again, with only a small group, "spreading the art" doesn't really occur. Small groups can be volitale in that regards; their art risks dying out with only a small few to carry on the legacy of the master. Great martial systems have been lost by the disbanding and dying off of small groups and private students.

Large school (Well over 20 students): A lot of people to compete with could make the skill set of your groups skyrocket. Larger groups might attract other stylests, giving you more people to compete with in that regard as well. The downside of this is that there isn't as much one-on-one time available with the head instructor. You learn to teach others though, and even senior students can learn to run their own classes. Art still risks dying off, because it is being contained only in one school. But there is more people to take the torch, and open up satilite schools and start their own training groups, so the art dying isn't as big of an issue, but it is still a concern. Pollitical issues and in-fighting can more readily occur in large schools because there is more to fight over the "golden egg", but is more easily contained within the walls of the school.

Distance Learning/seminar training: This is the most effective way to spread the art that we know of. This gets your art to different far off lands. You don't have to worry as much about your art dieing off, as it can reach many people. The problems with this is that you now have a quality control problem. You also have a political problem. No longer can you contain the politics, in-fighting, and quality within your own school walls. But, some very dedicated and skilled students can be developed from seminar learning who would have never seen the art at all if it wasn't for the seminar training.

So, each has it's strengths and shortcomings. The key is learning them, and handling them as best as you can. Thinking out of the standard martial arts box is key indealing with the problems that each of these training methods cause.

I personally like all of the methods, and use them to my advantage and developement as an instructor and student. I teach privates. I run a small group (Tulisan Eskrima Group). One of my students teaches Modern Arnis at a larger more commercial school. I have taught seminars, and will be teaching seminars in the future (had to postpone some of those until august), and I host seminars to bring instructors in and give them some exposure. As a student I train privately (Manong Ted), in a small group (FMAC in Flint) and I attend seminars, and I am an affiliate of a large group (WMAA). I think they can all be good if they aren't done selfishly or egotistically.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.

Paul Janulis
 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I guess I started this thread hi-jack so I apologize...I suppose the "spreading the art" topic should be on its own thread.



Now it is!  :uhyeah: 

Link here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14958

Have fun!

artyon:


----------

