skribs
Grandmaster
If there are real terms for the two styles of teaching I'm discussing in this thread, I'd love to hear it. There are obviously several different variables in which schools can be different. I'm isolating one of those for this discussion: whether your teaching/learning style is to teach 100% exact form and expect your students to know the details of the form in their head - even if their body is still working out; or if your style is to teach/learn the gross movements and over time refine them.
To make it more clear what I'm talking about:
Teaching Technique
Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The goal of the teacher is that you know for both front kick and roundhouse kick that you will start with the chamber and then kick, instead of just swinging your leg, as well as what your chamber position should look like and what part of your foot should be used to strike the target. You should have a pretty good picture of exactly what the other leg is doing, what your hands, hips, and shoulders are doing, as well as what your head is doing.
The mechanics are strictly enforced, especially when you get the instructor's attention, so that you are only building good habits. The goal of this type of training is that you correct the bad habits early on, and encourage proper technique from the start. You build muscle memory for the correct motion, so you don't have to undo the damage of practicing an incorrect technique thousands of times.
The art I think that embodies this approach is Tai Chi, where (to my outside understanding) you learn the form slow, and only as you perfect the form do you increase your speed.
Molding Technique
Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The Master will show you a proper front kick and roundhouse kick, but won't tell you all the details. Instead, he will give you enough information to start working on the gross motions. By the end of the first day, you might not know what part of your foot to use (but you're not kicking targets so there's no risk of injury), or what everything else is supposed to do. What you do know is to bring up your knee and kick forward for front kick, and that roundhouse kick involves turning your body.
As you build muscle memory for the gross movements, you can begin to work on the finer details. By only getting a detail or two at a time to work on, you remember everything you're supposed to change, and can make a concentrated effort to update your technique. Maybe as a white belt you learn the gross movement, at the next belt you learn which part of your foot to use as the striking surface, at the next belt you work on your hands, then your other foot, and so on. Eventually, you have a technique that's been molded into a high quality technique.
Sometimes, you sort of beat the technique out of yourself, as your body figures out how to do things correctly. Really astute students will watch for any details they can use to make their techniques better, even if it's not explicitly said. There's also that "aha!" moment when you finally do a technique and it feels right.
This approach gets you doing the motions faster, and with less to think about while you're at it. It's also less overwhelming, so people don't feel like they're in way over their head and quit.
The art I think embodies this approach (again, to my understanding as an outsider) is Krav Maga. Teach your students simple techniques they can use as a battering ram against attackers.
Myself
Personally, I prefer the former, both as a student and a teacher. I have both students and instructors at my school that also like that approach. For myself, I enjoy doing things correctly, and don't want to start off doing it wrong - because then I'm not doing it right. Some of the instructors lean more towards not wanting people building up muscle memory on doing things wrong. When I was a kid, the Taekwondo school I went to used this approach.
My current school, however, is one that embodies the second approach. It took me a while to trust this approach (because you don't see the immediate effects of it), but looking at how students have improved from when I first met them, I can't argue that this approach isn't effective. In fact, with some students who have trouble working on just a couple of details, I can understand why you don't give everyone all the details at once.
I should note that I teach in the style that my Master does. I do not try to undermine him by going against the methodology of the school just because I like a different style.
So...
What do you guys and gals think? How do you prefer to learn techniques? How do you prefer to teach techniques? Do you have experience at both types of school, and what did you think of them?
Is this a variable you would consider when joining a school, or is it something that works both ways so you might as well not worry about it? Are there other factors that would make this decision (i.e. amount of class time, if the student will be moving in 8 months and won't have time to go through the full training curriculum)?
I think I had a thread on this a while ago in which I was entirely in the "teaching technique" camp, but people on this forum tried to convince me that the "shaping technique" approach works as well. They gave me the confidence in the approach to at least give it a shot, and I'm glad they did. Now that I know more about teaching, it's a topic I thought would be fun to revisit.
To make it more clear what I'm talking about:
Teaching Technique
Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The goal of the teacher is that you know for both front kick and roundhouse kick that you will start with the chamber and then kick, instead of just swinging your leg, as well as what your chamber position should look like and what part of your foot should be used to strike the target. You should have a pretty good picture of exactly what the other leg is doing, what your hands, hips, and shoulders are doing, as well as what your head is doing.
The mechanics are strictly enforced, especially when you get the instructor's attention, so that you are only building good habits. The goal of this type of training is that you correct the bad habits early on, and encourage proper technique from the start. You build muscle memory for the correct motion, so you don't have to undo the damage of practicing an incorrect technique thousands of times.
The art I think that embodies this approach is Tai Chi, where (to my outside understanding) you learn the form slow, and only as you perfect the form do you increase your speed.
Molding Technique
Class starts. You are going to learn kicks today. The Master will show you a proper front kick and roundhouse kick, but won't tell you all the details. Instead, he will give you enough information to start working on the gross motions. By the end of the first day, you might not know what part of your foot to use (but you're not kicking targets so there's no risk of injury), or what everything else is supposed to do. What you do know is to bring up your knee and kick forward for front kick, and that roundhouse kick involves turning your body.
As you build muscle memory for the gross movements, you can begin to work on the finer details. By only getting a detail or two at a time to work on, you remember everything you're supposed to change, and can make a concentrated effort to update your technique. Maybe as a white belt you learn the gross movement, at the next belt you learn which part of your foot to use as the striking surface, at the next belt you work on your hands, then your other foot, and so on. Eventually, you have a technique that's been molded into a high quality technique.
Sometimes, you sort of beat the technique out of yourself, as your body figures out how to do things correctly. Really astute students will watch for any details they can use to make their techniques better, even if it's not explicitly said. There's also that "aha!" moment when you finally do a technique and it feels right.
This approach gets you doing the motions faster, and with less to think about while you're at it. It's also less overwhelming, so people don't feel like they're in way over their head and quit.
The art I think embodies this approach (again, to my understanding as an outsider) is Krav Maga. Teach your students simple techniques they can use as a battering ram against attackers.
Myself
Personally, I prefer the former, both as a student and a teacher. I have both students and instructors at my school that also like that approach. For myself, I enjoy doing things correctly, and don't want to start off doing it wrong - because then I'm not doing it right. Some of the instructors lean more towards not wanting people building up muscle memory on doing things wrong. When I was a kid, the Taekwondo school I went to used this approach.
My current school, however, is one that embodies the second approach. It took me a while to trust this approach (because you don't see the immediate effects of it), but looking at how students have improved from when I first met them, I can't argue that this approach isn't effective. In fact, with some students who have trouble working on just a couple of details, I can understand why you don't give everyone all the details at once.
I should note that I teach in the style that my Master does. I do not try to undermine him by going against the methodology of the school just because I like a different style.
So...
What do you guys and gals think? How do you prefer to learn techniques? How do you prefer to teach techniques? Do you have experience at both types of school, and what did you think of them?
Is this a variable you would consider when joining a school, or is it something that works both ways so you might as well not worry about it? Are there other factors that would make this decision (i.e. amount of class time, if the student will be moving in 8 months and won't have time to go through the full training curriculum)?
I think I had a thread on this a while ago in which I was entirely in the "teaching technique" camp, but people on this forum tried to convince me that the "shaping technique" approach works as well. They gave me the confidence in the approach to at least give it a shot, and I'm glad they did. Now that I know more about teaching, it's a topic I thought would be fun to revisit.
