Assist instructor requirement

[Gweilo]

In my personal opinion, I don’t have much patience for the politics attached to the dan ranking system. I am glad to be training in a system now that does not bother with it.

I agree, there are no gradings in my current art, apart from student and instructor.

Have you ever seen someone teaching something they knew quite well, but weren't really capable of delivering that knowledge to others? The incidence of this can be reduced by teaching them how to do so. That doesn't mean some folks won't be highly capable without that additional teaching - but many will not.

Yes, but usually they are very nervous or talking bs, my point was, if the training syallbus is of excellent quality, obtaining a grade is a qualification, should someone reach 2nd Dan for arguments sake, this is a better qualification. Horticulture in my case, on earning my qualifications, most of what I learnt was basic habits of growing plants (I am not going to use fancy names) I was not taught to teach the subject, I am good at teaching it because I understand what I am doing, I have a passion for what I do, I am very strict about maintaing quality, the same principles I apply to my ma, good basics, good understanding, maintain .the quality. Yes there are bad teachers out there, but they either dont really want to be, or circumstances mean they no longer want to be, but feel they have to, dont really understand or beleive what they are teaching, and are not maintaining good quality or never received it.

 

[Tez3]

if the training syallbus is of excellent quality, obtaining a grade is a qualification, should someone reach 2nd Dan for arguments sake, this is a better qualification.

Coaching qualifications and martial arts qualifications are two very different things though, they run along side each other, they aren't the same thing. You cannot do a martial arts coaching course unless you have at least a brown belt.
Ok think of it this way, you want to go around doing your demos, teaching people etc but you can't drive so you take a driving course which enables you to do your job more efficiently, with less strain than taking public transport or relying on others that's what coaching courses are, they enable you to offer more.
Doing coaching courses enables you to present your knowledge in the best way, if you don't have the knowledge the course won't be any good.
The military, which is my background along with policing does courses all the time, you are given your basic instruction, you learn on the job, you gain experience and are promoted but you also do a course to teach you how to present yourself as that promoted rank, how to be the best you can.
Many people think they can teach, but how many times have you seen in a class someone pass onto the person they are partnered with wrong information or the wrong way to do a technique even though they can do it themselves? they can pass their black belt, they have the training but they have difficulty passing their knowledge on, a coaching course would help with that as well as impart new knowledge on a range of subjects. For a good instructor, a coaching course reinforces their confidence, show them new ways of doing things ( as I said about visualisation, something I learnt on a coaching course and has been very useful) they go over new methods from scientific sources of how to manage sports injuries ( RICE no longer being the thing anymore) and sports science etc. As I quoted from the British Boxing site, we must always be able to do the best for our students.

Why would you seek to be the best martial artist you can, doing seminars, courses even private classes, practising etc then when you are an instructor refuse to learn anything new about teaching methods, problem solving, new laws, sports science etc as soon as you get your black belt? Do you still train for your second, still go on the courses, seminars etc?

 

[Tez3]

I do not believe they we automatically essential, however.

I never said they were, my point is they enhance your and your students experience in a class. If you are satisfied you know everything and don't want to learn new things then fine, no need for courses.

In the age when everyone rode horses, the obvious teachers were one’s families.

There was never a time in the past where everyone rode horses. Very few did, rich men will often have but usually had carriages, poor people certainly didn't and in the countryside the horses were farm horses used for ploughing etc as well as pulling carts. People rode them bareback, if they rode them at all. In cities horses would most like be seen pulling carts, Hansom cabs, even trolley buses but rarely ridden. Donkey and goat carts even dog carts were also normal.
The rich who did ride horses for pleasure employed riding masters to teach their families. Middle classes may have had a carriage but didn't ride, keeping horses was and is an expensive thing.
It may be different in your country but in Europe riding horses has always been the preserve of the wealthy who would rarely teach their children to ride, an instructor would be brought in.

 

[Gweilo]

Many people think they can teach, but how many times have you seen in a class someone pass onto the person they are partnered with wrong information or the wrong way to do a technique even though they can do it themselves

I refer to the comment I made about the teacher maintaining quality. I can see we are not going to agree on this subject, I do understand about accountability, laws change, and sports science evolves, these in my opinion are a no brainer, and any quality instructor will adhere to such things, in my main job, the laws are changing constantly, plant passports for example, chemicals are added to the banned list, as a responsible adult these are things we have to do, so I disagree with your comment about not learning anymore, we have to continually learn, but I dont need to attend a training course, and pay someone to teach me about visualising, its something I have always done and preach that in my teachings, so I will ammend a statement I made earlier, good basics, understanding, quality, passion and abiding by current laws (subject to change of course), and I beleive your driving analogy was pants.

 

[Tez3]

I dont need to attend a training course, and pay someone to teach me about visualising, its something I have always done and preach that in my teachings, so I will ammend a statement I made earlier, good basics, understanding, quality, passion and abiding by current laws (subject to change of course), and I beleive your driving analogy was pants.

I'm so pleased you knew about visualisation, I didn't.

No analogy is going to make you see my point ( you don't have to agree, just see the point) because you simply don't want to see that many of us want to be better instructors, to learn more, to improve our teaching and it has nothing to do with how good a martial artist we are. I know brilliant martial artists who are rubbish instructors. My analogy about driving is a true one unless you actually like using public transport, buses at random times, trains cancelled etc. Learning to drive and having your own transport improves your working life. it's an adjunct just as coaching courses are adjunct to martial arts courses, I assume though you don't do them either?

You are insistent on believing coaching is about your martial arts techniques and understanding, it's not, it's about understanding how to teach to get the optimum out of a class for the students to come away with the best training they can.

Does having good basics, understanding of your subject and quality actually make you the best instructor if you can't communicate effectively or can't get the classes attention? Not every person can in the way you assume you can so why not a coaching course to help, a new black belt embarking on his instructing 'career' could benefit immensely from such a course.

What you are doing though is comparing your job, your livelihood to something most of us do as amateurs, voluntarily and part time. In your job you have to keep up to date with all the things that if you don't know will cost you your job, you have professional organisations that can keep you abreast of subjects pertaining to your job etc. Martial arts instructors are teaching perhaps a couple of hours week, sometimes more, they have day jobs where they will do as you do in yours, keep up with the learning, the courses etc, the professional qualifications so as to keep their jobs. When they go to martial arts as instructors why shouldn't they attend something that makes their instructing better?

 

[Tez3]

Yikes! have to go we have water coming under our front door and need to man the sandbags! Hawes up the road is already flooded. such fun.
Up road.

 

[Gweilo]

Yikes! have to go we have water coming under our front door and need to man the sandbags! Hawes up the road is already flooded. such fun.
Up road.

I hope it does not get too bad for you guys up there, the wind here is about 70mph gusts at present.

 

[Tez3]

I hope it does not get too bad for you guys up there, the wind here is about 70mph gusts at present.

Huge amount of flooding, the beck near us has flooded onto the road and passing cars are washing it down our gardens. The police have said 'don't go out' but of course there's always those who do. A BMW driver was washed down the road at Masham, he just got in his car to 'see how deep it was' roflmao. Amanda's ( the Yorkshire Shepardess if you've seen her) sheep trailer has washed away, everyone will be out to look for it later.
Biggest upset the women's England Scotland rugby postponed, argh. And England no so good in cricket. We won Calcutta Cup yesterday though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree, there are no gradings in my current art, apart from student and instructor.



Yes, but usually they are very nervous or talking bs, my point was, if the training syallbus is of excellent quality, obtaining a grade is a qualification, should someone reach 2nd Dan for arguments sake, this is a better qualification. Horticulture in my case, on earning my qualifications, most of what I learnt was basic habits of growing plants (I am not going to use fancy names) I was not taught to teach the subject, I am good at teaching it because I understand what I am doing, I have a passion for what I do, I am very strict about maintaing quality, the same principles I apply to my ma, good basics, good understanding, maintain .the quality. Yes there are bad teachers out there, but they either dont really want to be, or circumstances mean they no longer want to be, but feel they have to, dont really understand or beleive what they are teaching, and are not maintaining good quality or never received it.

I've met some quite bad teachers in the corporate world (trying to improve the productivity of their fellow workers, who were asking for their help) who really, truly wanted to help. They were just bad at it.

I agree that passion goes a long way. Again, my point is just that providing specific instruction (including the kind of genericized coach training Tez refers to, that I'm not aware of in the US) in teaching simply improves the likelihood of those interested becoming good teachers. I would never stop a student of mine from teaching if they decided not to go through my instructor prep. I also wouldn't call them an instructor (officially) until they proved they could do it well (which they would do if they went through the instructor certification program).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yikes! have to go we have water coming under our front door and need to man the sandbags! Hawes up the road is already flooded. such fun.
Up road.

Yikes, indeed! I thought our flooding was problematic this week, but at least it's nothing like this. Stay safe, and keep dry-ish.

 

[Tez3]

Numpty of the day, yes that's a Maserati, I mean why would you try to drive through this. Chap down road took this one.

Serves to remind us that arrogance in thinking you know best is not a good look

 

[Gweilo]

Numpty of the day, yes that's a Maserati, I mean why would you try to drive through this. Chap down road took this one.

Serves to remind us that arrogance in thinking you know best is not a good look

Their stupidity will cost them, I think Maserati charge £130 per hour for labour.

 

[dvcochran]

It’s not really about credentials, Michael. I’m talking about skills. Yes, folks can learn from family members. But there’s no guarantee those folks are any good at teaching. I suspect in most family groups in ages past, there were people more likely to be called upon to teach those skills. Because they got better results than most folks in the family. My assertion is just that many folks will be better at teaching if they are taught solid teaching fundamentals. Whether that comes with certification or not is just decorative.

This post got me thinking about it from another vein, (which could probably be a new thread). Staying with horses as the training, the more integrated the skill is into someone's life, the easier/quicker/more natural learning will be. If you simply grew up in an environment where horses had a dominant purpose you would learn about them similar to how you learned to walk and talk. Osmosis.
So there is a measurable amount of weight on the person being trained as well. Expectation.

This has one thing to do with teaching in a commercial environment that I can think of. Most people who have truly "been there/done that" have an understanding of what it takes beyond the average Joe. They better understand when to be patient and when to press. This is an excellent teaching quality.
Comparing a 1st Dan to say even a 5th Dan may not be an accurate assumption that the 5th Dan is automatically better. The 1st Dan's lifetime learning may have better prepared them than even the 2 or more decades of training for the 5th Dan.

In this day and age in the US (and most of the world I hope) necessity is a feeling few people truly understand. It is the most powerful teaching tool I can think of.

 

[Tez3]

Comparing a 1st Dan to say even a 5th Dan may not be an accurate assumption that the 5th Dan is automatically better. The 1st Dan's lifetime learning may have better prepared them than even the 2 or more decades of training for the 5th Dan.

I think the problem many are having is separating the martial arts from the teaching of it. A few of us have already said that a martial artist can be a brilliant one, be hugely experienced in his style, been there, done that but still be a very poor teacher.

Even if you grew up with the activity, have spent years doing it you may not be able to put across what you know to someone else in a way they can learn.

I attend quite a few of Iain Abernethy's seminars, he has huge experience in martial arts, he spends a lot of time in researching them, he has a lot of knowledge, none of which would be any good to the rest of us if he weren't a good communicator and teacher. He creates an atmosphere conducive to learning, he shows he understands when you have difficulties with something and works it out with you not for you. He inspires. This is a separate thing from his martial arts grades. Disregarding whether you like kata, Bunkai etc you could go on one of his seminars and understand exactly where he's coming from, his reasoning and what he's teaching from because of the way he presents what he does, and that's something not everyone can do. Being a blackbelt 1st or 4th Dan doesn't mean you can communicate what you know nor set it out in a way that's understandable to students or that you can understand how to help them when they don't understand a technique, something I've seen a lot. Having passion is good but pointless if you can't share it with your students, experience likewise, years of experience is no good to students if you can't articulate what you know.

 

[Flying Crane]

I never said they were, my point is they enhance your and your students experience in a class. If you are satisfied you know everything and don't want to learn new things then fine, no need for courses.

Who ever said it was a matter of knowing “everything”? Nobody does, not even the coaches. Nobody needs to, and yet can still be very skilled and capable.

Ive said several times now, coaching training can be useful. I simply hold that it is not mandatory, not for everyone, not in all cases.

There was never a time in the past where everyone rode horses. Very few did, rich men will often have but usually had carriages, poor people certainly didn't and in the countryside the horses were farm horses used for ploughing etc as well as pulling carts. People rode them bareback, if they rode them at all. In cities horses would most like be seen pulling carts, Hansom cabs, even trolley buses but rarely ridden. Donkey and goat carts even dog carts were also normal.
The rich who did ride horses for pleasure employed riding masters to teach their families. Middle classes may have had a carriage but didn't ride, keeping horses was and is an expensive thing.
It may be different in your country but in Europe riding horses has always been the preserve of the wealthy who would rarely teach their children to ride, an instructor would be brought in.

Well ok, so it was an obvious exaggeration to say that everybody rode. But for much of human history, the horse has been a much more common mode of transportation than it is today. My point being, everyone had much more exposure to the horse, and many many more people rode them, than do today.

Now maybe things in Europe and England were very different from the US. As the American West was settled, I’m having a hard time believing that special riding coaches were brought in to train those who were not part of the military.

Another example: Native American groups like the Comanche were brilliant horsemen after getting their stock from the Spanish. They learned to ride, and kept the tradition within their society. Ive read a bit about them, and never saw mention of special horse-riding coaches who would train the members. It was passed along to the next generation by the tribal members, those who knew and were good at it, taught the others, and they all rode. Certainly never had university level coaching courses, although I imagine there were those who were the best riders, and perhaps they took a greater responsibility in the teaching. But I can’t believe that a child would not initially learn from his own family members.

 

[Tez3]

My point being, everyone had much more exposure to the horse, and many many more people rode them, than do today.

Not necessarily, horse riding is much more accessible to everyone now that it was previously.

Now maybe things in Europe and England were very different from the US. As the American West was settled, I’m having a hard time believing that special riding coaches were brought in to train those who were not part of the military.

Yes, very different and you missed my point. The wealthy brought in riding instructors because like having grey horses it was a show of their wealth. You will probably find that the wealthy in your big cities also did the same, they had governesses for their children ( when they could have educated them themselves), dancing teachers, music teachers etc etc because they could. It's the point of being wealthy, to show off just how wealthy they are.

Another example: Native American groups like the Comanche were brilliant horsemen after getting their stock from the Spanish. They learned to ride, and kept the tradition within their society. Ive read a bit about them, and never saw mention of special horse-riding coaches who would train the members. It was passed along to the next generation by the tribal members, those who knew and were good at it, taught the others, and they all rode. Certainly never had university level coaching courses, although I imagine there were those who were the best riders, and perhaps they took a greater responsibility in the teaching. But I can’t believe that a child would not initially learn from his own family members.

Definitely missing the point here big style. I'm sure the Comanche didn't have riding schools for other tribes where they made their living from teaching horsemanship so your argument is redundant. The simple point is that some people are better at teaching than others, some people like teaching more than others and there's nothing wrong if you want to teach in getting a bit of help communicating and running classes better. Your folksy tales are way off because they are nothing to do with coaching courses. You are looking at the horse riding not the help someone can give new and/or nervous instructors, how to improve the way you teach to enable your students to learn easier. We aren't in the 'Wild West' we are in the modern world, we should not be above learning to be better. We should not be doings things a certain way because 'we've always done it that way'. I know many people who have taught their children to ride btw and those children are sent to Pony Club to learn to ride better, they are also sent to lessons and one to ones if they want to compete. My daughter had jumping and dressage lessons from a UK Team coach.
This from the Pony Club site on why we should have coaching courses. it applies to martial arts as well. My bold on those especially important in this day and age.

What are the benefits?
The qualification levels makes it easier to identify the right coach for the right job from recreational enjoyment of equestrian sports to winning performance at the Olympics.

The benefits of gaining this qualification as an equestrian coach include:-

• Effective, up to date ‘athlete-centred’ coaching skills.
• A clearer pathway of opportunities for your personal and career development.
• Access to best practice coaching standards and new coaching ideas developed across the UK by top sports coaches.
• A greater understanding of high-quality world class coaching.
• Access to expert advice and support on all aspects of coaching.
• The satisfaction of helping your riders to achieve their goals.
• Encouragement to be the best coach that you can be.

I'm not sure where you are getting this 'university level coaching course' from, they are for people who want to earn their living from coaching like Premier League football coaches.

 

[Tez3]

Yikes, indeed! I thought our flooding was problematic this week, but at least it's nothing like this. Stay safe, and keep dry-ish.

Cheers! the local reporter has been out taking photos. Excuse all the ads, it's how he funds the page.

Emergency services dealing with flooding incidents as Storm Ciara hits Richmondshire - Richmondshire Today

 

[Flying Crane]

It’s not really about credentials, Michael. I’m talking about skills. Yes, folks can learn from family members. But there’s no guarantee those folks are any good at teaching. I suspect in most family groups in ages past, there were people more likely to be called upon to teach those skills. Because they got better results than most folks in the family. My assertion is just that many folks will be better at teaching if they are taught solid teaching fundamentals. Whether that comes with certification or not is just decorative.

I guess I’m not sure what your message is in this post, as a reply to my previous post.

What I know is that in my extended family, there are members who became accomplished equestrians. Some competed in high level rodeo, I believe one cousin had a college scholarship in rodeo. The foundation of their skills came from learning from their elders, people without any formal coaching-training. As they progressed in competition, I suspect they had specialist instructors/coaches. That is usually necessary in order to reach an elite level. But the very solid foundations of their riding skills came from parents, grandparents, and perhaps uncles and aunts. Had they never competed at high level rodeo and had they never received instruction from a rodeo coach, they still would have been very very solid riders, still with good rodeo fundamentals at least. Their family members had the skills and taught them, without benefit of coaching credentials.

The horse example is a good one because modern society is mostly disconnected from horses. We no longer rely on them for work or transportation, most of us lack experience and skills with them. So for most people who might be interested in learning to ride, it makes sense to find a riding coach/teacher. But it still isn’t always necessary. Where the skills still exist, they can be taught.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not necessarily, horse riding is much more accessible to everyone now that it was previously.



Yes, very different and you missed my point. The wealthy brought in riding instructors because like having grey horses it was a show of their wealth. You will probably find that the wealthy in your big cities also did the same, they had governesses for their children ( when they could have educated them themselves), dancing teachers, music teachers etc etc because they could. It's the point of being wealthy, to show off just how wealthy they are.




Definitely missing the point here big style. I'm sure the Comanche didn't have riding schools for other tribes where they made their living from teaching horsemanship so your argument is redundant. The simple point is that some people are better at teaching than others, some people like teaching more than others and there's nothing wrong if you want to teach in getting a bit of help communicating and running classes better. Your folksy tales are way off because they are nothing to do with coaching courses. You are looking at the horse riding not the help someone can give new and/or nervous instructors, how to improve the way you teach to enable your students to learn easier. We aren't in the 'Wild West' we are in the modern world, we should not be above learning to be better. We should not be doings things a certain way because 'we've always done it that way'. I know many people who have taught their children to ride btw and those children are sent to Pony Club to learn to ride better, they are also sent to lessons and one to ones if they want to compete. My daughter had jumping and dressage lessons from a UK Team coach.
This from the Pony Club site on why we should have coaching courses. it applies to martial arts as well. My bold on those especially important in this day and age.

What are the benefits?
The qualification levels makes it easier to identify the right coach for the right job from recreational enjoyment of equestrian sports to winning performance at the Olympics.

The benefits of gaining this qualification as an equestrian coach include:-

• Effective, up to date ‘athlete-centred’ coaching skills.
• A clearer pathway of opportunities for your personal and career development.
• Access to best practice coaching standards and new coaching ideas developed across the UK by top sports coaches.
• A greater understanding of high-quality world class coaching.
• Access to expert advice and support on all aspects of coaching.
• The satisfaction of helping your riders to achieve their goals.
• Encouragement to be the best coach that you can be.

I'm not sure where you are getting this 'university level coaching course' from, they are for people who want to earn their living from coaching like Premier League football coaches.

I think you’ve actually missed the point I’ve been making all along. Go back and re-read my post #95, near the beginning, where I state that coaching instruction can be useful. I have never denied that. This may be about the fifth time in this thread where I have said it.

I merely state that it is not a requirement, it is not always necessary.

Can I get an acknowledgement of that?

 

[Tez3]

I guess I’m not sure what your message is in this post, as a reply to my previous post.

What I know is that in my extended family, there are members who became accomplished equestrians. Some competed in high level rodeo, I believe one cousin had a college scholarship in rodeo. The foundation of their skills came from learning from their elders, people without any formal coaching-training. As they progressed in competition, I suspect they had specialist instructors/coaches. That is usually necessary in order to reach an elite level. But the very solid foundations of their riding skills came from parents, grandparents, and perhaps uncles and aunts. Had they never competed at high level rodeo and had they never received instruction from a rodeo coach, they still would have been very very solid riders, still with good rodeo fundamentals at least. Their family members had the skills and taught them, without benefit of coaching credentials.

The horse example is a good one because modern society is mostly disconnected from horses. We no longer rely on them for work or transportation, most of us lack experience and skills with them. So for most people who might be interested in learning to ride, it makes sense to find a riding coach/teacher. But it still isn’t always necessary. Where the skills still exist, they can be taught.

I think you have to accept that the USA is a very different place from Europe.
You are focussed something very different from what I'm talking about.
I am talking about teaching/instructing/coaching people who are paying for that instruction and who are doing it as a hobby and/or sport. In order for them to get the best out of that instruction and to progress we have to offer them our best, that may mean ( not necessarily but it doesn't hurt to do so) doing coaching courses to make you a better, more aware coach. We have to offer them classes that give them the optimum chances to succeed in achieving their goals.

I merely state that it is not a requirement, it is not always necessary.

Can I get an acknowledgement of that?

I actually said that selfsame thing many posts ago before you even answered mine. What is clouding the issue is your insistence is that it's about families teaching their children etc etc and Native Americans not needing coaching courses to teach which is not what I'm talking about, as above. You can't see the relevance of any courses to help you be a better instructor because you simply don't think you need it. You I imagine teach as your instructor did , who taught as their instructor did and if it's good enough for them it's good enough for you, right? don't mend it if it's not broken? But how do you know...………..