Teaching - hardest method first, or easiest?

[Kacey]

When I teach students a new technique, I tend to teach them the hardest way first; for example, it is harder to do a turning (roundhouse) kick with the ball of the foot than with the instep - so when I teach turning kick, I teach the ball of the foot first. Students who can perform ball of foot turning kicks can easily adapt to instep turning kicks - but I find that students who have learned only instep turning kicks have difficulty learning how to do turning kicks with the ball of the foot.

Which do you teach first - the hardest way to do a technique, or the easiest? Why do you teach that way?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I guess I would teach the other way. I haven't really thought about it in these terms. What we have for each technique is a basic application and that is what I teach first. Now that I think about I guess they are the basics because they are the easiest to learn, or at least understand. From there we move into variations and alternative applications which often require a different way of thinking about the essential elements of the technique.

I'm not sure if that is the same as what you were talking about, but sounds similar.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I find in teaching, and learning (is there really a difference?) that everthing flows from simple to complex, from slow to fast, easy to difficult, obvious to obscure.

I break complex techniques into simple steps. Analyze each step and understand it, combine the steps, a few at a time, and after a while the whole complex technique reveils iitself as a simple one I understand.

I look at the overall technique, and then look deep into the details which makes it work. The old saying, 'the devil is in the details' is a wise saying.

You must learn to crawl before you walk. Walk before you run. Run before gymnastics, and thus this is how I teach, and this is how a learn.

Deaf

 

[Jai]

I teach based on the student and what their general attitude is towards learning.

 

[Kacey]

I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Do you teach the easiest version of a technique first, or the most difficult, and then add the easier variation? This has nothing to do with application - only to do with variations on how to perform a technique, only to do with how to perform it.

Here's another example: side piercing kick can be performed by pivoting so the back/buttocks face the target, the lifting the foot so the lower leg is parallel to the floor, knees together, with the heel pointed at the target, heel up, toes and knee down, arch the back, look over the shoulder, extend the leg until the foot sword hits the target, then reverse the trajectory until the knees are together again, pivot forward, and put the foot down. OR side piercing kick can be performed from the floor straight to the target. I don't teach the latter until students have mastered the former; if they start with the latter the former is really hard, and the trajectory is generally wrong, but if they start with the first version, the second one is easy.

So I guess I'm asking if you teach the full, technically correct version of the technique first, and then the shortcuts, or if you teach the shortcuts first and then the technically correct version of the technique.

 

[Jai]

Normally I do not teach short cuts.

 

[jks9199]

You have to balance between the most technically correct and the ability of the student to absorb and learn it. For example, there may be 12 key elements to a punch; if you try to teach a new student all 12 from the start, they're going to get frustrated, and it's going to take forever to teach them. But, out of those 12, there may be 4 that set the overall tone for the technique. So, you teach the 4 parts the first time. When they've got that down, you start adding the refinements which probably are "part" of those keys. Or at least, that's what I've found works best...

 

[Drac]

We start with the easiest and progess to the more difficult techniques as you move up through the Gup ranks...

 

[MJS]

I teach from easiest to hardest. IMO, I like to give them a simple foundation to build from. I've seen alot of people struggle with simple things, mostly due to lack of coordination, so I figure if I started with anything more complex, they'd probably get twice as confused. Of course, I've also seen some that seem like naturals, picking things up pretty quick, so in that case, less time can be spent on a basic move, and more on something complex. Of course, just because they seem to have it on the surface, doesnt necessarily mean that they really have it.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So I guess I'm asking if you teach the full, technically correct version of the technique first, and then the shortcuts, or if you teach the shortcuts first and then the technically correct version of the technique.

Don't break the rules till you know the rules. Do the correct version first, then the variations.

Deaf

 

[tshadowchaser]

Maybe because of the way I was taught and what you have discribed as the hardest I tend to teach the hardest first. Why, because we do very little of the snap kicks perfering to do more with the thighs (read thrust) then with the knees when kicking

 

[MBuzzy]

I believe in teaching the hardest way first. i.e. the entire breakdown. But with children, I tend to teach differently. Generally I am most concerned about them getting the movement right and the basic idea, then I will slowly and incrementally correct them. An adult is usually mature enough and has enough motor control to give them the real thing from the start, kids would lose interest too quickly.

 

[tellner]

If the technique embodies the same technical principles and body mechanics it is the same technique. In that case I teach easy to difficult and simple to complex. There's the ball of the foot versus instep roundhouse kick case. Get them to do the instep version correctly. Then move on and teach the other version as a variation.

If it uses different body mechanics and principles, then it is a different technique even if it looks the same and has a similar name. If the fully up-out-back-down sidekick uses different body mechanics than the off-the-floor one I'd say that they are different kicks and should be taught separately at least at the beginning. Which should be taught first? I don't know. That depends on you as the teacher and your students.

The important thing is to learn how to do at least one version correctly and with understanding. You can build on that. If you spend a lot of time doing something that is needlessly difficult students will lose their way in the particulars and miss the important core. If they can do one variation correctly they will look for that feel in the others and be capable of earlier self correction.

Sometimes it is better to teach a more complex or difficult variation earlier if it develops something else that they need. In the machete/sword work we're doing right now a simple parry would do the job. But it's taught at first with very exaggerated leg and body movement from a static position. This is done so that students will be familiar with the extremes of their range of motion and remain aware of that when things get more complicated and less constrained.

 

[RTKDCMB]

So I guess I'm asking if you teach the full, technically correct version of the technique first, and then the shortcuts, or if you teach the shortcuts first and then the technically correct version of the technique.

You can't take a shortcut until you know where you're going.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I always teach the full version with no shortcuts but realize that students take time to learn things properly. Sometimes you may have to break things down or exaggerate certain aspects and correct one thing at a time until they get the hang of it. It is better to teach the correct technique from the start rather than teach bad habits that they will have to correct later.

 

[GaryR]

I find in teaching, and learning (is there really a difference?) that everthing flows from simple to complex, from slow to fast, easy to difficult, obvious to obscure.

I break complex techniques into simple steps. Analyze each step and understand it, combine the steps, a few at a time, and after a while the whole complex technique reveils iitself as a simple one I understand.

I look at the overall technique, and then look deep into the details which makes it work. The old saying, 'the devil is in the details' is a wise saying.

You must learn to crawl before you walk. Walk before you run. Run before gymnastics, and thus this is how I teach, and this is how a learn.

Deaf

+1 - great post.

Re; the OP "So I guess I'm asking if you teach the full, technically correct version of the technique first, and then the shortcuts, or if you teach the shortcuts first and then the technically correct version of the technique."


What is being taught should always be sound and not a shortcut, if making it "technically correct" is more difficult and there is no difference in effectiveness, then I would argue it shouldn't be taught that way at all. But I think I get what you are driving at.

I will sometimes *demonstrate* the more complicated / advanced, whatever method with all the nuances at a higher level, but I won't attempt to teach it to them, that is done in baby steps, one thing builds on another.

G