The point of testing students

[Tarrycat]

We don't make use of public displays like promotions whenever we are tested (although, I like it, it's entertaining & you meet a lot of new people who are like-minded).

However, some Genbukan schools have what they call a "Tai Kai", where hundreds of students from all over the world gather in a selected country, where they train together. I speak under correction; I THINK the grandmaster joins the event in order to teach, giving all students the opportunity to train with him. I've seen an event like this on Youtube when Masaaki Hatsumi attended it.

During these events, students will also be granted the opportunity to grade if they feel ready.

In our dojo, my Sensei will observe your progress & decide when you're ready to grade. You can say that he tests you as you're transitioning to the next level.

We do have formal dates set for grading, & we have time to prepare. However, we cannot prepare for attacks; we have to practice the kata at home.

I agree that testing under pressure is a good thing - I think that how well your mind is trained will reflect in your kata when you're in public surroundings.

 

[Tarrycat]

We don't make use of public displays like promotions whenever we are tested (although, I like it, it's entertaining & you meet a lot of new people who are like-minded).

However, some Genbukan schools have what they call a "Tai Kai", where hundreds of students from all over the world gather in a selected country, where they train together. I speak under correction; I THINK the grandmaster joins the event in order to teach, giving all students the opportunity to train with him. I've seen an event like this on Youtube when Masaaki Hatsumi attended it.

During these events, students will also be granted the opportunity to grade if they feel ready.

In our dojo, my Sensei will observe your progress & decide when you're ready to grade. You can say that he tests you as you're transitioning to the next level.

We do have formal dates set for grading, & we have time to prepare. However, we cannot prepare for attacks; we have to practice the kata at home.

I agree that testing under pressure is a good thing - I think that how well your mind is trained will reflect in your kata when you're in public surroundings.

As for why testing is needed; it's to observe if the student is actually making progress. It makes the Sensei aware of which kata the students are struggling with & enables them to take a different approach to their teaching, if needed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok, well in our case, it's just training and running a class. It is not testing and promoting.

My point is that, for me at least, the testing and promoting is just one part of the process. It's how I chunk up the curriculum, more than anything else. I'd say it's a bit like what I've heard from folks in Wing Chun, where they learn one form for a while, then when they are adept enough at that, they add another form. A similar process for me, except I change a belt color and have a bit of testing between. I rather like both ways, and seriously considered ditching student belt colors and just going with white (student) and black (instructor), or even just having everyone (myself included) wear white. In the end, it was easier to maintain what I was used to, so I kept colored belts and adjusted curriculum to make them fit my approach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except that in our case there are no tests and no belts. We just train and sifu teaches.

Agreed. As I said, to me the only difference is really that I have belts and do a test every year or so. The approach is much the same.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no i cant be examined, with out an examination, i can be assessed,
i like the school, and the teacher and the stuff I'm learning, plus they let me take my dog along

Do you think it must be a formal test for someone to examine your progress?

 

[jobo]

Do you think it must be a formal test for someone to examine your progress?

no i think by defintion that an exam requires an examination,
i also think an exam must be to verify the standard i have reached, not the progress i have made, though you will try to,argue that its the same thing it clearly isnt, grades,are awarded based on having demonstrated the required level, they do not measure progress, , i may have made no progress at all since the last grade, but,still meet the requirements of this grade

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no i think by defintion that an exam requires an examination,
i also think an exam must be to verify the standard i have reached, not the progress i have made, though you will try to,argue that its the same thing it clearly isnt, grades,are awarded based on having demonstrated the required level, they do not measure progress, , i may have made no progress at all since the last grade, but,still meet the requirements of this grade

Examining you doesn't require a formal test:

First definition of examine: "verb (used with object), examined, examining. 1. to inspect or scrutinize carefully"

I examine students' techniques every class. I test them maybe once a year.

 

[FighterTwister]

no i think by defintion that an exam requires an examination,
i also think an exam must be to verify the standard i have reached, not the progress i have made, though you will try to,argue that its the same thing it clearly isnt, grades,are awarded based on having demonstrated the required level, they do not measure progress, , i may have made no progress at all since the last grade, but,still meet the requirements of this grade

Yes I 100% agree with this statement as the only correct view to have.

The standard is the target set by the teacher, and the target is an achievement reached by the student!

Hence the examination should be "Practical and Theoretical" ...... imho

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no i think by defintion that an exam requires an examination,
i also think an exam must be to verify the standard i have reached, not the progress i have made, though you will try to,argue that its the same thing it clearly isnt, grades,are awarded based on having demonstrated the required level, they do not measure progress, , i may have made no progress at all since the last grade, but,still meet the requirements of this grade

Oh, and don't try to assume what I will argue. You are actually correct that a test typically actually measures against a standard. Making progress in that area may not be necessary. If I were to test one student's kicks every year for a new rank, he would never need to make any progress (in that area) to get each new rank, because he entered the school with kick (from prior training) that would meet my standards for black belt. However, a good instructor isn't only testing to the standard. They will want to see progress overall (not necessarily in a single area, like that student's kicks). If someone gets their yellow belt and isn't any better a year or two later when they test for orange, there's a problem. Either they aren't trying, or I'm not a good instructor for them. The only exception would be if they were simply already so skilled that they aren't likely to make much progress in a year, in which case, why haven't I promoted them higher?

 

[JR 137]

but you are still training how to effectively use what ever weapon it may be, so the same criteria applies, how good you are is dependent on how well you can utilise the weapon.

Yes, but realistically speaking those weapons aren't used for fighting anymore. People don't typically challenge each other to a duel with samurai swords, people don't typically bust out nunchucks, etc.

 

[jobo]

Examining you doesn't require a formal test:

First definition of examine: "verb (used with object), examined, examining. 1. to inspect or scrutinize carefully"

I examine students' techniques every class. I test them maybe once a year.

you appear to be putting a test of ability higher up the hierarchy than an examination of ability, , that's not the ussual way round.

you seem to be using test ,examination and,assessment as inter changeable words, when they denote quite different things

 

[jobo]

Yes, but realistically speaking those weapons aren't used for fighting anymore. People don't typically challenge each other to a duel with samurai swords, people don't typically bust out nunchucks, etc.

well no, people don't ussual challenge each other to pistols at dawn either, but yet lots of people with guns,spend time at the range practising,c how to use them effectively, just in case

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you appear to be putting a test of ability higher up the hierarchy than an examination of ability, , that's not the ussual way round.

you seem to be using test ,examination and,assessment as inter changeable words, when they denote quite different things

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence, Jobo (not saying there's anything wrong with it, I'm just not following the meaning).

Test and examination are sometimes used interchangeably, though I don't think I've used "examination" - I typically use the word "test" for that. Examine and assess are not the same, but closely related. When I examine a student's technique, I am making an assessment of their progress.

 

[jobo]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first sentence, Jobo (not saying there's anything wrong with it, I'm just not following the meaning).

Test and examination are sometimes used interchangeably, though I don't think I've used "examination" - I typically use the word "test" for that. Examine and assess are not the same, but closely related. When I examine a student's technique, I am making an assessment of their progress.

, in the sphere of learning, as apposed to going to the doctors or the mechanic, then a test has a,very different meaning than a examination. You can using semantics argue, that a test examines and an exam tests. But they are completely different concepts.
MA seems not to follow other leaning models and uses the term test, when it would be an examination in most other learning environments.
that's only really a problem if you then merge the two when discussing learning and validation theory.which is what we are discussing here. I want to use the,accepted academic defintions and you don't. Hence our confusion at the point the other one is making

 

[PhotonGuy]

No, but we are a very small group who meets in his back yard. Still, traditionally, Chinese martial arts did not use belts and tanks the way the Japanese systems do.

I see. If its a small group than there would not need to be separate classes for different students at different levels. The uniform of traditional Chinese systems often did use a belt but it had nothing to do with rank, it was simply a part of the uniform. The color of the belt, usually a red belt, would not change. You would start with a red belt and you would finish with a red belt.

 

[Flying Crane]

I see. If its a small group than there would not need to be separate classes for different students at different levels. The uniform of traditional Chinese systems often did use a belt but it had nothing to do with rank, it was simply a part of the uniform. The color of the belt, usually a red belt, would not change. You would start with a red belt and you would finish with a red belt.

Well, actually those uniforms were rarely worn. They might be worn for a formal demonstration or a special event, but not typically for training. Most schools wear something pretty low-key, some workout pants and a tee-shirt, often with no sash. That might vary from school to school, and might vary if the school is more commercial and open to the public vs. a smaller, more private arrangement such as my school.

Some Chinese schools have adopted the use of belts and ranks similar to their Japanese counterparts, but that is a modern adaptation and is not consistent by a long shot.

Actually to be truthful, my sifu did use a ranking system back in the 1970s when he had an open, more commercial school. He closed that a long time ago and has only been teaching a handful of students in his back yard ever since. While I have been aware of the ranks, in the time I have trained with him there has been zero emphasis on testing and ranking. It seems to be something left in the past.

 

[JR 137]

well no, people don't ussual challenge each other to pistols at dawn either, but yet lots of people with guns,spend time at the range practising,c how to use them effectively, just in case

I'm sure there's someone in the world defending him/herself with a gun at any given minute. There is a realistic point to training it. I haven't ever felt the need nor desire to, but it's not because I feel a gun is something I'll genuinely never need.

I can say any of the above about any traditional MA weapons, samurai sword or other sword included.

So a person who trains in a sword art, or archery or any other similar can be a very good martial artist without ever having to actually use those skills outside of training, nor have to be a good fighter.

I don't know... what was the real point to this sidetrack anyway?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

, in the sphere of learning, as apposed to going to the doctors or the mechanic, then a test has a,very different meaning than a examination. You can using semantics argue, that a test examines and an exam tests. But they are completely different concepts.
MA seems not to follow other leaning models and uses the term test, when it would be an examination in most other learning environments.
that's only really a problem if you then merge the two when discussing learning and validation theory.which is what we are discussing here. I want to use the,accepted academic defintions and you don't. Hence our confusion at the point the other one is making

You are the one arguing semantics. The term "exam" is common usage for an important test. You just must try to find something wrong with my statement, so are attempting to force it to mean something besides what you know quite well it meant.

 

[jobo]

You are the one arguing semantics. The term "exam" is common usage for an important test. You just must try to find something wrong with my statement, so are attempting to force it to mean something besides what you know quite well it meant.

it means nothing,as you won't define the terms you are using,
when you have decided what is a test and what is an exam, a discussion might have some point,

 

[PhotonGuy]

Well, actually those uniforms were rarely worn. They might be worn for a formal demonstration or a special event, but not typically for training. Most schools wear something pretty low-key, some workout pants and a tee-shirt, often with no sash. That might vary from school to school, and might vary if the school is more commercial and open to the public vs. a smaller, more private arrangement such as my school.

Some Chinese schools have adopted the use of belts and ranks similar to their Japanese counterparts, but that is a modern adaptation and is not consistent by a long shot.

Actually to be truthful, my sifu did use a ranking system back in the 1970s when he had an open, more commercial school. He closed that a long time ago and has only been teaching a handful of students in his back yard ever since. While I have been aware of the ranks, in the time I have trained with him there has been zero emphasis on testing and ranking. It seems to be something left in the past.

Well yes I do know that some Chinese martial arts schools, kwoons as they're called, do use colored sashes to denote rank but as you said that is rather modern and was not used in the old school traditional Chinese systems. I've also seen Chinese systems that use a ranking system that's based not on belt color but rather on patches. You would wear a certain patch depending on your rank, and the patch for the lowest rank and the highest rank were identical, it was just an empty circle. The philosophy behind that was that when you reached the highest rank you had gone full circle and had reached a new beginning. Thus you were back where you started.