My thoughts on Effective Martial Arts Teaching

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
I've been working on a short essay on martial arts teaching. This is just a draft so please forgive my bad grammar and errors. Let me know what you think...

Effective Martial Arts Teaching
By John Kedrowski

How many martial artists have had the luxury of asking their instructor why they are learning certain techniques? How many martial artists could explain their instructors teaching objectives and philosophy? How many martial artists are handed a requirement sheet and have no idea behind the structure or order or principles behind the design of that sheet? To say “many” is probably an understatement. And from a professional educators point of view, this is a sign of the bad teaching that is all too common in the martial arts world.

Sometimes, spotting bad teaching is easy. Most of the time it is very difficult. I believe that this is because students often focus on the superficial aspects of a teacher…for example, personality, ability to relate to people, extemporaneous speaking, fluency of material, and physical ability. All are of these are important, but there is much more to teaching then this. A teacher can have all of the above and still not be effective. Why?

The answer is structure. A class without a structure that allows a student to understand every step in the context of their learning journey is not going to be effective in passing on the information. This is the point of learning anything…much less a martial art. There are three concepts that any teacher (including martial arts teachers) must incorporate into their pedagogy in order to most effectively pass on their information. These concepts are constructivism, backward design, and scaffolding.

Constructivism is a theory of learning coined by the famed French psychologist Jean Piaget. This theory states that understanding is built by the learner. A learner is not a passive blank slate being written upon by the teacher. They are active participants who bring unique sets of knowledge with them. Thus, in order for any learning to occur the student must be free to build their own unique understanding of that material upon their bases. Rigidity and conformity stifle learning.

Backward design is a method of curriculum implementation that focuses on the instructor’s ultimate goals. These goals are called enduring understandings because these are the most important concepts being taught. Theoretically, this is what should endure forever from the learning experience. When a class is backward designed, the student should immediately be able to see how every piece of information is tied to the teachers enduring understandings.

The goal of actually tying the information to the enduring understandings is accomplished by scaffolding. This is a basic constructivist model for building knowledge. It is directional in the sense that it builds from the instructor’s enduring understanding and from the fact that a student travels the scaffold to those understandings.

All three of these concepts form a behind the scenes dance that a teacher must have in place in order to be an effective teacher. The teacher must present information where the ultimate goals are clear, every piece of information clearly builds toward those goals, and a student is able to build their own understanding of those goals.

In order to accomplish this in a martial arts class, the teacher needs to sit down and think about the ultimate goals they want to endure in their students. Then, they need to find a way to tie the information to those goals. This should be done in such a way that the students can navigate the path. Every piece of information, from basic to advanced, should build on another piece. This will make every piece of information is meaningful because it is part of something greater…the understanding of the instructor’s ultimate goals. Information that cannot be tied to the teacher’s ultimate goals or is not able to be scaffolded with other information to meet those goals should be discarded.

Traditions can be a good and a bad thing for martial arts teaching. If the traditions in an art dovetail well into the instructors personal understand of that art and their goals, then they should be passed on. If they do not, then they, too, should be discarded. Teachers who blindly follow what has gone before without taking the time to really analyze themselves and what they are teaching are highly at risk of mediocrity. The heart of teaching is the heart and if one’s heart is not behind what one is teaching there is no way to teach that material well. The concepts presented above will help a teacher put their material in line with their hearts and it will allow students to see true passion in everything the teacher does. And that is the true strength of a good teacher.
 
[


Sometimes, spotting bad teaching is easy. Most of the time it is very difficult. I believe that this is because students often focus on the superficial aspects of a teacher…for example, personality, ability to relate to people, extemporaneous speaking, fluency of material, and physical ability.

I agree, I had a certain instructor who I like as a person and friend, but just was not a good teacher, his techniques did not always work, he would skip over the basics, etc. But He is very charismatic and draws students.

Also, If i remember my education course.. Scaffolding would be better describe as accessing the students prior knowledge and then building upon it to reach the stated goal.
 
I didn't get the quote to work the way i wanted in my last post, sorry.
 
scottcatchot said:
Also, If i remember my education course.. Scaffolding would be better describe as accessing the students prior knowledge and then building upon it to reach the stated goal.

Scaffolding in a strict constructivist sense, builds on ones prior knowledge. However, if you combine that concept with backward design, one is still building on prior knowledge, but one is building toward the a personal understanding of the instructors enduring understandings.
 
Good essay. I think a good teacher follows these principles. I also think there are some mediocre teachers who also follow these principles. The difference lies in the depth of knowledge of the subject and the ability to teach manipulative skiils.
 
I agree with the essay. The biggest problem, I think, is that too many martial arts instructors are themselves the product of poor instructors - they were never taught the philosophy underlying the art they practice, and were certainly never given any indication that such information was useful - why teach what you were never taught? Those of us who have had the advantage of instructors who do know the underlying philosophy, and did learn it ourselves do teach it to our students can see the difficulties not having this information can pose - but for those not so fortunate in their instructor, it is more difficult. When one adds in the respect and loyalty that most MAs feel for their instructor, and how badly they take criticism of their instructor, it is difficult for them to understand why others would say anything negative about their instructor, no matter how information and (presumably) well-meaning.

This is a long-term concern that will no go away any time soon - but spreading information of this type may help. There is so much more information available about so many subjects that it is easier for good instructors (in any subject or discipline) to get the word out, and for the word to get out about poor instructors. We can but continue to educate, and hope for the word to spread farther still.
 
upnorthkyosa said:
constructivism, backward design, and scaffolding.

The essay is very good, and I like the structure.

There are teachers that start good but over time change due to either laziness, money, or any other number of things. Or a teacher that is extremely good at forms that has no substance can appear very impressive but still not a good teacher.
 
Back
Top