Teaching Forms - different question

[cbursk]

In another thread people have been discussing how to teach the forms. I have a slightly different question. How do you handle students who want to do the form differently from how the school teaches them? I'm not talking radically differently, but different speeds, stances, that type of thing.

I'm sure that many of you have gone to touraments and/or associate with different TKD schools and have seen the Chon-ji forms performed differently. Heck, I've seen plenty of schools that spell the names differently. The school that I teach at associates with a group of TKD schools and while we all teach the same forms - the masters of each school trained with each other earlier in their careers - there are some slight variations to the forms. I also have had a very ambitious student who managed to get her hands on videos from General Choi's Encyclopedia of TKD. There are some differences there to what we teach at our school.

So to the TKD instructors out there...
How do you handle this?
How sure are you that what you learned is what the General started?
Does it really matter?

 

[IcemanSK]

I'd bet this happens in nearly every school. The Kukkiwon changes the forms slightly every few years or so to ensure that instructors keep in touch with the times, as it were. Younger students don't need to know this fact, neccessarily, but all students need to know the expectations of the school where they currently are training.

Case in point: Keumgang. My instructor's instructor is GM Park, Hae Man (the man who co-designed that form). GM Park says that the one-legged dynamic tension move in 4 places in the form are to be held for 10-12 seconds each. However, if you watch the World Poomsae Championships they are held for about 5-7 seconds each. Despite the fact that I might have aspirations for the World Championships, I will teach my students my instructor's way of doing the poomsae.

There are many different ways that people do forms for various reasons. Students learn how their friend at another school does the same form & wonder why we do it differently, here. I think remaining open to the fact that there really are other ways people do a given form, yet also telling them the expectation we have at our school, is very important. One must balance acknowledging variations & setting a standard within your school.

 

[Kacey]

So to the TKD instructors out there...
How sure are you that what you learned is what the General started?
Does it really matter?

Well... bearing in mind that many of my seniors trained directly with Gen. Choi - and I had the opportunity to do so myself several times - when in doubt, I either ask my sahbum or look in my copies (yes, copies - different editions) of the Encyclopedia.

How do you handle this?

Students can do whatever they want... but if they want to test, they have to meet the standard of the organization - a standard set by people who trained in the ITF for a very long time (although we're not in the ITF now). My seniors - and theirs - interact with many other people who also trained with Gen. Choi and other high ranking members of the ITF, and they check themselves against each other regularly to control drift in technique - although there's quite a bit of discussion over the difference between "drift" and "advancement".

How sure are you that what you learned is what the General started?

Reasonably sure - see above.

Does it really matter?

Yes... and no. Unlike many other arts, the founder of ITF TKD wrote down everything he intended the art to be, and updated it regularly (thus the multiple editions - and some of the differences are quite interesting). It matters that the technical details remain reasonably consistent; otherwise, the art fragments. That could be good and bad - an art that stops evolving stagnates, but the evolution needs to be carefully watched so that it doesn't stray from the original intent of the art, or it will become something else... which, again, could be good or bad. It's a difficult question, and a tricky line to follow, between evolution of an art and losing the focus of the art.

 

[Miles]

Interesting question.

I agree with Kacey that for testing, the standard is, well, the standard. However, when teaching, sometimes you want to emphasize (or de-emphasize) a section of a form.

I personally like to experiment with forms-try to do it very quickly, very slowly, or to do the form in place (i.e. within a square meter puzzle mat). This is another way of teaching and training with the forms.

Miles

 

[Kacey]

Interesting question.

I agree with Kacey that for testing, the standard is, well, the standard. However, when teaching, sometimes you want to emphasize (or de-emphasize) a section of a form.

I personally like to experiment with forms-try to do it very quickly, very slowly, or to do the form in place (i.e. within a square meter puzzle mat). This is another way of teaching and training with the forms.

Miles

Oh, I agree completely. We do all of those as exercises, to help students practice, to see how well they remember the pattern, and so on - patterns in a box (inside a 3-foot square), as fast as you can, half speed, without stepping, hands only, feet only, blindfolded, etc. - but the testing standard remains standard; the variations are teaching methods to help maintain the students' interest, give them ways to work on weak points, and provide other ways to practice.

 

[Bret Hinds]

Each kwanjangnim, has there own way of doing there forms. It is the trade mark of there schools the little differance from one school of theirs to the other schools in there group.They will change there forms to reflect the local instructor size build speed etc. as there kwanjangnim will show new forms to one school and not to all there schools.Just my toughts on the subject by hey what do I know!All the best in the arts

 

[FieldDiscipline]

How sure are you that what you learned is what the General started?

An interesting question given that what he taught at the end, differed from what he taught at the beginning.

 

[IcemanSK]

An interesting question given that what he taught at the end, differed from what he taught at the beginning.

Growth & change is going to happen when teaching the same thing (whatever it is) over a lifetime. It also tends to go back to the begining after moving out. Whether it's Gen. Choi or the KKW textbook: Some things will change some will remain the same. Some will change & than go back to the original idea.

 

[TKDmel]

Years ago, my sahbumnim told me that he liked the way I did my forms because I... "made them mine". I performed them technically the same as every other student in my school, but as I performed them it was like the feeling a dancer must get, in as much as I put my own interpretation into each one, using the dramatic impact of fast/power and slow/grace movements to tell the viewer that this form is "mine". Now I tell my own students the same thing. That they need to feel the form flowing from within, and not to do just the technical parts correctly. I think that no matter what style of forms are performed, the feeling must be there to really do them justice.

 

[DArnold]

Ok,
A couple very interesting questions and some of the answers have wandered off on tangents.

In another thread people have been discussing how to teach the forms. I have a slightly different question. How do you handle students who want to do the form differently from how the school teaches them? I'm not talking radically differently, but different speeds, stances, that type of thing.

Your question needs clarification. Schools don't teach, instructors do so this is where the age old question always rears it's head, "Who your instructor?"

Ch'ang Hon TaeKwon-Do has a very specific, spelled-out definition of your question - called SaJa Jido, or student/instructor relationship (and for very good reasons). If it is my student, then it is "My way or the highway".

Reason: If you wish to be your own teacher then you don't need me. I don't have the time to teach someone who does not want to learn what I have. Think of it this way, what if the student said, "I don't want to learn this pattern, show me the next one". The student is assumeing they know the path better than someone who has already been down, and led countless other down the path. I can afford to loose this student.

I'm sure that many of you have gone to touraments and/or associate with different TKD schools and have seen the Chon-ji forms performed differently. Heck, I've seen plenty of schools that spell the names differently. The school that I teach at associates with a group of TKD schools and while we all teach the same forms - the masters of each school trained with each other earlier in their careers - there are some slight variations to the forms. I also have had a very ambitious student who managed to get her hands on videos from General Choi's Encyclopedia of TKD. There are some differences there to what we teach at our school.

This is why students should travel, to compare! Because as a black belt you need to learn more than just moves you need to learn how to think. Instructors who are unsure of what they are teaching, or who live in fear will try to keep their students from traveling.

However, instructors must never forget what it is like to be a student. That is why we hold National patterns seminars to continually go over things so you don't get "drift". It is up to the organization/higher ranks to work with instructors on what they are teaching. (What a concept, an organization doing things for the instructors).

There will always be slight variations unless you can come up with homogonized people. What are these differences from, the student or the instructor? There are very few variations with reguards to stances, technique... However, just like judgeing, many aspects are constant: Balance, focus, intent, breathing, power...

So to the TKD instructors out there...
How do you handle this?
How sure are you that what you learned is what the General started?
Does it really matter?

Yes I am sure because I studied under the Genreal. However, your question misses the issue.

An instructor must only teach what they know and understand. If not then you are not being true to your students. You can not teach with the definition, "Well, because the higher ups said so". This really means you don't know what you are teaching.

Now the second point, (or on the other hand) instructors, as well as students aren't just hatched. There are young inexperienced instructors as well as seasoned ones. So there isn't an instructor out there that hasn't made a mistake. The true test of a good instructor is to have enough YOM CHI to admit in front of their students when they were wrong. Many fear this as they think it shows weakness.

There are several points in a Black belts career where you realize you don't know as much as you should. One of these points is 4th Dan where you put stripes on your uniform. Inadequacy! So many compensate for this by throwing their rank around. "Because I'm a 4th dan and I said so!"
It is a common phase that any good student will go through. However, the best instructors have the integrity to say, "I don't know" or "I'm unsure" rather than try and bull you.

I would shy away from an instructor that said they always know the correct answer.

However, a student picks their instructor (not vise-versa) so why would you follow someone to show you the way and then not listen to them?

Just some thoughts :shooter: