Most people can process only a limited amount of information at one time. I want them to remember / process the most important details first. For instance if i teach a 7 year old an L stance I show them to make the feet in an "L" Position with heels aligned. Only after they get this will I dd the 70 / 30 weight distribution if they understand percentages and if not them I simply say more weigh on the back leg. After this I emphasize the knee bend with rear kneecap in line vertical with the toes. Then keep the rear hip aligned with inner knee joint. Then comes explanation of the length being 1.5 shoulders width from rear footsword to front foot toes. Then assumong the understand angles add the 15 degree inward angle of the foot.
What's humble mean? lol.
People are supportive here. But they can also be very blunt. The problem is trying to understand how someone views martial arts. For example, I have never taught martial arts with the goal or focus to teach discipline or respect. To me those are by products of quality training and that it's something one gains naturally through life experiences and honest training. It's not something that has to be taught as a lesson. Often times it's taught by parents and mentors in the form of a teachable moment. Most of this probably comes from me being involved with youth development as a profession for most of my life.
This is especially true with kung fu when the hands are doing 2 things at once and the feet are doing something on their own. The one thing that I've heard every kung fu student say is that it was mentally challenging, in just trying to get the brain to move the body the right way. We see the form / technique but when we ask the brain to do what the eyes saw, the brain says "Whatcha talkin about Willis?"
I think some folks use the terms differently, Tez. I don't think of "stance" when I tell someone to step into (wait for it) a fighting stance. It's clearly a stance - I even used that exact word (and do when teaching it). But when I teach "stances", it's more exact. Something about how I was taught, how the term was used over the years, makes that nonsense sentence make sense to me.
I used to use deeper stances in some techniques than most of my partners. I can't tell if I'm learning to use tall stances better now, or simply understand the techniques well enough to get away with the taller stances. I really miss some of the stuff I used to do, and I think I'd have had fun learning to use that fighting stance you have.
I've used a similar approach, but without separate classes (since I only ever taught a maximum of 3 days a week). My beginner's curriculum ("foundation") takes about 10 classes to cover (longer if they are struggling with some basic bit) before they could join in the main class. I like the approach, and could see myself having a beginner's class if I had enough students and time for it. In fact, I'd pitched a beginner's class (with an entirely different concept than what I came up with later) at my instructor's school, for a day when no classes were offered.
It can be the starting point, simply adding on what they seem to be able to handle. It's just the other side of starting with the idea of giving them the full information, and simplifying it down if they struggle. Every student is different, and sometimes it's easier - and just as effective - to start from the lowest common denominator and work up. Sometimes it isn't.
She's talking about the difference between knowledge of the topic and skill at teaching. I can often learn something new to help a client out, and immediately teach it to some of their staff. Other folks who know the same thing much better sometimes cannot teach it as well, because they lack the skill for teaching.
I missed something I wanted to say about this earlier. Teaching them to do it correctly doesn't have to mean teaching them all of the details. I can teach a good fighting stance without having to get into most of the details. I can teach a working approximation of a hanmi (half-stance or L-stance) without having to get into the details. I can also teach both of those from the beginning, providing them the details as I understand them. Often, they over-focus on something I said, rather than getting the stance right. With many students (certainly not all) I can get as good or better results by demonstrating it perfectly (because I never make a mistake!
) and letting them build a working approximation, as compared to giving them full instruction and having to correct what they've misunderstood.
It's what people are when they finally realize they aren't as good as me.
Enitrely a deviation from the post, but if you go on youtube and search sensei ando (ando meriza), he has a lot of cool instructional videos. They may not help you with your own kicks and techniques (or they may, who knows), but they may give you some new ideas of how to help your students with them.
