Step by step curriculum vs principle based approach to martial arts teaching

[Makalakumu]

Do you have a step by step curriculum that walks a student through your art in a regimented way or do you have more a principle based approach where there isn't as much rigid structure?

I realize that a regimented curriculum can contain principles for a martial art, but what I'm really trying to grapple with now is the amount of structure it takes to access those principles. I often wonder if too much structure actually gets in our way when it comes to principles because we can't see the forest for the trees. Specifically, in my school, i have a long list of basics that I teach in a regimented way and I'm finding that we don't get enough time to spend on other things. It's starting to feel like it's too much...or maybe I'm just second guessing myself which is something I do often in order to make sure I'm on the right path.

Thoughts?

 

[clfsean]

Both kinda.

The curriculum ensure that mine don't jump ahead of where their body isn't ready to & principle ensures they understand what "x" is & how it leads into "y", the next piece of the curriculum. But they understand that jumping straight to "y" wouldn't work without having "x" solid.

 

[Haakon]

It's an interesting question, and one I've been wrestling with lately - although not being a full time instructor there is less riding on the outcome of my internal debate. My first training years ago was very much the step-by-step regimented, drill drill drill training. My current teacher was initially trained the same way, but the way he teaches is much more based on principal and very little drilling. We still have a full curriculum, rank requirements and such, but don't spend much time, some classes none, doing drills. He's told me that over the years he found with his students that when you do a lot of drills you get students who are very good and punching, doing blocks, kicks, patterns but they're also very rigid and don't adapt to the unexpected that well. Using a principal based teaching method he says the black belts he gets are much better than using the other method.

My opinion is students need both. In the beginning especially they need the rigid structure and a lot of drills. If you don't do that you might end up with more adaptable higher ranks, who also have terrible technique and poor form because they haven't spent the time doing drills. I think that for the first few months students need the structure and repetition, for discipline, to get comfortable in the school and in moving in a new way. After that the drills can be tapered off and supplemented with more principal practice. The problem with this is it's harder and more work for the instructor since you end up having to split up the class more, either different groups within one class or separate 'beginner' and 'advanced' classes.

I think with this approach it might reduce the early dropout rate as well. By throwing principals at new students and not giving them a lot of structure I see them struggling and not feeling like they know what's going on - because they don't. By giving them a limited, very defined, structure to start with they can gain confidence in their abilities doing relatively easy things well before moving on to the more abstract principal based practice.

The next question might be is it better to do both in every class, or have some classes be drills, other classes cover principals? Since very few students make it to every class that could end up defeating the goal you're trying to set, but could also let people get the type of training that works best for them.

 

[Makalakumu]

I can see a strong argument for more structure when dealing with children and youth. I've experienced a lot of success with my children's program because it's concrete and it's easy to understand. With adults, I'm beginning to feel like the focus should change. I think about what kind of martial arts learner I want to create and I'm thinking that maybe too much structure gets in the way. I want to create an adaptable and creative martial arts learner who is able to improvise on the spot. My idea, I guess is to have a learner start when they are young and learn in a regimented way. Then, when they grow to a certain size and age, they could start to learn in a more intrinsic principle based way. The problem I face is when I draw adult learners in and they start from scratch. In the past I've provided a lot of structure and I'm sensing some frustration. Maybe it's too much? Maybe they are more capable then I initially assumed?

 

[David43515]

It`s a tough call. You have to have some knowledge of technique in order to understand principle. One thing we like to do is introduce a principle to intermediate students and then ask them how many different examples of it they can find in the techniques they know. Or just the opposite, we`ll pick a technique and try to find all the different principles it can be used to express. (Is this a block, a strike, a throw, or a joint lock? and the correct answer is .....it depends)

I think Makalukumu hit an important point when he said that some of his begining adults may be more capable than he`s giving them credit for. I think once you`ve started a beginner with basics and had a chance to see how they move, or how quickly they seem to understand, then you`ve got to rally tailor your teaching to individuals. I think drilling techniques is really more about mastering the physical mechanics, the "how" of the art. Principles is really focusing on the "when, where, and why".

 

[MJS]

Do you have a step by step curriculum that walks a student through your art in a regimented way or do you have more a principle based approach where there isn't as much rigid structure?

I realize that a regimented curriculum can contain principles for a martial art, but what I'm really trying to grapple with now is the amount of structure it takes to access those principles. I often wonder if too much structure actually gets in our way when it comes to principles because we can't see the forest for the trees. Specifically, in my school, i have a long list of basics that I teach in a regimented way and I'm finding that we don't get enough time to spend on other things. It's starting to feel like it's too much...or maybe I'm just second guessing myself which is something I do often in order to make sure I'm on the right path.

Thoughts?

In Kenpo and Arnis, there are set things for each belt level. A set of empty hand techs, katas, stances, etc. As I understand it, that is the bare minimum for rank. However, IMHO, if thats all the person does, then I feel they're missing out on a ton of stuff. IMO, I think that working the same stuff over and over and over and over, gets redundant. Let me explain. When I'd teach a Kenpo class, sure, I'd teach the required stuff, but, I wouldn't spend a whole class on it.

One time I took a kata, had the class pair up, and see how many defensive/offensive moves they could find, with each move in the kata. IMO, that helps them understand the kata more, than just having them do the kata aimlessly, without ever knowing anything else. Another time I had them take some of the yellow belt techs, had them put their right hand in their belt, and do the same tech, as if they were disabled.

IMO, taking the class out of the box, makes them think. The same can be done with the Arnis stuff. Theres a ton of stuff that the students could/should learn, but it all comes down to what they want to get out of it.

 

[dancingalone]

Makalakumu, I am curious what principles you want to teach that are being obscured by the practice of too much basics.

From my perspective, the ideal teaching method juxtaposes basics, drills, and requirements so that they in fact teach the principles of our systems. It's merely a matter of picking what the principles and related practical outcomes are that we want our students to learn and then designing a well-connected series of lessons to teach them.

For a concrete example, let's suppose that we want white belts to learn how to get off-line from a linear attack to the outside, to block and simultaneous check for safety, and finally to counter quickly with their own strike(s). This is our core theme for the white belt, and the more specific we get, the easier it is to design supporting drills to achieve the goal.

So what are the basics a student minimally needs to accomplish this?

(shortened) front stance
stepping forward and backwards at a 45 degree angle
low block
middle block
high block
lunge punch
(maybe) a front kick

All these techniques are found in isolation within variations of the taikyoku/kihon/kicho kata/hyung used in various Japanese & Korean karate/TKD/TSD styles. Most do not step or slide backwards on the initial 90 degree turn and block - a few smaller styles do - but I regard that as a minor alteration for our purposes.

Now how about we break this up into a series of lessons.

Lesson 1
the front stance and its shortened version for practical use
stepping forward and backwards with hip turns
the lunge punch

Lesson 2
review
refinement on hip turning
the low block and the high block
practice lunge punch on a partner held target

Lesson 3
review
questions?
stepping forwards and backwards into a 45 degree front stance
front kick
practice lunge punch and front kick on a target

Lesson 4
review
middle block
practice low, high, middle blocks with a partner, no moving, emphasis on using hip motion for power and angling

And so on. With each increasing lesson up to a maximum of 30? we introduce more and more drills that teach the stepping off line. We discuss going inside and outside of an attacker and why outside is 'safer' but we also tell the students the disadvantages of each position relationally. We discuss and practice the footwork extensively, relating them to other sports and physical activities as needed, showing the point that karate is not some mystical Asian thing - it is based on solid biomechanical movement. We practice one steps, formal and informal, that end with the defender stepping off to a 45 degree angle and then countering with a punch or kick developed in previous lessons. At some point we teach the kata, also explaining that they are solo vehicles for developing form, but they are incomplete without serious partner-based practice as well.

Fleshed out with stretching, calisthenics, and other traditional karate training methods, we could easily take up to 3-4 months to teach all this at 3+ classes a week and yet not bored the average student IMO. At the end of this span the student will be well grounded in a concept that will translate well into sparring at the next belt level, and they'll have learned in a reinforced fashion, a key idea which will be built upon increasingly.

 

[Josh Oakley]

On the one hand I think the principle approach is better for creating adaptable students. Not being stuck in The "if x then y" mentality allows a practitioner to think on his feet.

On the other hand I don't think this training is incredibly beneficial if the student has to think about how to punch, how to kick, etc. The brain learns by edition, and there is just no way around this. Individual moves have to be drilled over and over before they become ingrained in the memory and a practitioner can do these moves without thinking. And no matter how you spice it up, repetition eventually gets BORING. and it gets boring long before the move is mastered. But that boring stage is where a lot of benefits come from in martial arts. Patience, persistence, endurance... Some of these can be sacrificed if you neglect drilling.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

To illustrate, I just spent about 2 or three hours working my rifle marksmanship on on a system we have in the army called the Weaponeer. And after about the first 30 minutes, it became boring. All I did was focus on a Target was lay in the prone or sit in kneeling position, and cook, aim, squeeze. Cook aim squeeze. Cook aim squeeze. But I got a LOT better at my marksmanship.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Flying Crane]

the method that I practice is very much principle-focused, but the principles are heavily reinforced thru a strict curriculum. However, the curriculum is a series of forms or kata, not a set of self-defense scenerios like "if bad guy does THIS, then you respond by doing THAT". That is something that we don't tend to focus on, altho the issue of how to use our material against a bad guy does get covered.

I think it's important to understand the progression of how the principles work, what basics teach and reinforce those principles, and how to present that material so that the student understands the proper lessons. From what I see on places like Youtube, and a lot of forum discussions, leads me to believe that people often do not understand the principles, and often don't even know what they are. Instead they focus too much on the technique itself, the WHAT to do, and not enough on the principle, the HOW to do it with maximum effect. In my opinion, that makes all the difference in the world.

Our principles are taught with a series of movement drills, but it is very important that the student understands the purpose of those drills, and I believe that many teachers are unable to effectively make that clear. Again, people tend to see the drills as just techniques, when they should be using the techniques as a way to develop and strengthen their command of the principle.

Our forms reinforce the principles further, and offer examples of how techniques can be used to fight/defend oneself. But again, the most important issue is making sure the form is used as a drill/training method to build and strengthen those principles with every movement and technique that it contains, and not just as an encyclopedia of what to do if a bad guy takes a swing at you.

This can be a little difficult to relate in writing without showing, but I'm doing the best that I can.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

One time I took a kata, had the class pair up, and see how many defensive/offensive moves they could find, with each move in the kata. IMO, that helps them understand the kata more, than just having them do the kata aimlessly, without ever knowing anything else. Another time I had them take some of the yellow belt techs, had them put their right hand in their belt, and do the same tech, as if they were disabled.

...

I like that. Very good. In the "old days", some 50 years ago under Jhoon Rhee, we were taught ridgidly at least up to BB, other than in sparring. In my opinion there is a place for that as many above have said.

...

From my perspective, the ideal teaching method juxtaposes basics, drills, and requirements so that they in fact teach the principles of our systems. It's merely a matter of picking what the principles and related practical outcomes are that we want our students to learn and then designing a well-connected series of lessons to teach them.

...

On the road to success I think.

To illustrate, I just spent about 2 or three hours working my rifle marksmanship on on a system we have in the army called the Weaponeer. And after about the first 30 minutes, it became boring. All I did was focus on a Target was lay in the prone or sit in kneeling position, and cook, aim, squeeze. Cook aim squeeze. Cook aim squeeze. But I got a LOT better at my marksmanship.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

Under stress, we do what we train. So repeditive training has its place.

I agree with the idea that repeditive training has its place. I also agree with the idea that more than one solution to a problem needs to be taught. And students need to be taught to make things work best for themselves. Teachers must be sure if a student deviates from the normal way taught, that they aren't doing it in an ineffective way out of laziness, or misdirected belief that their way is better when it really isn't.

Not much more to say I don't think.

 

[MJS]

I like that. Very good. In the "old days", some 50 years ago under Jhoon Rhee, we were taught ridgidly at least up to BB, other than in sparring. In my opinion there is a place for that as many above have said.

Thanks. Yeah, there were times when I first started, and I'd work a kata, ask what the moves were for, and I'd get this for a reply.."Well.....................................well, because thats the way its done."

Nice reply.....lol. So, thus the reason why I made it a point to either figure things out myself or find someone who could help me figure it out.

As for mixing up variations on the techs....they liked it. Gives people a different perspective on things...makes them think.

 

[shihansmurf]

A bit of both, actually.

My begining students10th kyu to 8th kyu) have a rigid curriculum that I hold them to rather strictly. Punch this way, block/counter off of this punch, etc...

At the intermediate levels(7th kyu through 5th Kyu) we start working on adjusting the material to "complete" a tech. For example I requrie my beginners to learna move that responds to a front kick with a 45 degree step back with a low blockthen step in with a revese punch. My intermediate students are expected to continue the movement with a throw, follow up strikes, or a lock. The idea is that they start to make the system theirs.

At the advanced stage(4th kyu through 1st kyu) My students build "options", as in they start putting together self defense moves and punch/kick counters based on pre-designated attack scenarios.

For my Shodan candidates they have to put together "options" spontaneously. They don't know the attack scenario beforehand. The responses must be effective and demonstrate that they have internalized the principals and strategies that they have learned to the point that they can apply them under duress.

All of the work with my black belts and above is principle based as I view a black belt as the point at which the students is capable of self-direction in their training. My role as a teacher is to help guide them as they delve deeper into the conceptual underpinnings of their studies.

Seems to work pretty well so far,
Mark

 

[chinto]

ok, I am a fan of Kata, kata has it all in there. that said, you work from the basic kata on up. but you MUST add Bunkai to the kata so they understand the principles. and the bunkai might be very basic at first. but as you advance you should be asked to go into more of the options that are there in the kata as far as bunkai. that way you learn the principles and start looking at the kata and what is there to be learned in a different way. so I guess you would say I like to think a combination of both approaches need to be used. some people will work better with one of the other from different points in their training i think.

 

[Kempo-Jujutsu]

One leads to the other. Whether you do it through techniques (ala kenpo) or kata doesn't much matter because you break down the kata to get techniques anyway. At the end of the day those techniques should be a functional starting point, not carved in stone, and used as a vehicle to learn the concepts. You can do delayed sword on the outside of the grab just as well as on the inside, on both sides, so that technique once understood gives you at least 4 variations. Many more if you generalize the concept (you aren't limited only to using a front kick, and knife hand..etc) ...of course the idea isn't to have to memorize all of these variations, but use them freely while improvising.

My two cents

 

[Instructor]

I use the techniques to demonstrate the principles. For example:

http://hapkido-online.weebly.com/breakaways.html

That way they learn the technique required for testing AND they learn the principles behind it.