Errors

GarryZ, research has been done on the comparative rates of student learning when teachers focus on errors versus when they focus on what the student did correctly. The findings were that students learn significantly more, better, faster when teachers focused on what they did right, rather than on what they did wrong. It's called modeling, as with clay. Think about raising your children--when you praise the child for what they do right rather than pointing out their failings, they tend to get it right more and more. 

That makes sense to what I feel works best for young people or people in general but for myself I prefer coaching that is specific and if it's what I need to understand and it's not a pretty thought then that is something I should work on or alter . But that's from my personal learning style. Most seem to prefer more ego stroking than I need.
For my teaching I assume nobody likes this unless they beg me for it ,and some have .I try to build connected moments of clarity. Where your time spent learning how they like to receive information is used to their benefit and they grasp the feel and understanding of a concept and use that to build on. These moments of clarity are the times when we say the light just turned on to reveal a truth.
Using Guided Discovery is one style you can use to lead them to a point which they feel THEY made the understanding reveal itself through what they know is their efforts though  it is the coaching  that places them on the path of attainable goals. They don't see miscues as errors but as paths they should not go down and try another approach. Using Weem's Diamond approach is useful as a teaching /learning tool because we can immediately try to solve our problem by using a different tactic.
"Errors " are the building blocks for success .They apply inefficient tactics or movements and pay for them sometimes immediately and aren't pleased with the results. With coaching we show them a different way and they find  comfort in their efforts because it pleases them to find a more functional movement or stance. We all like this kind of stimulus. It can be instant gratification of an investment of your time with your teachers. If we didn't have troubles we wouldn't need solutions but it's overcoming that inefficiency that causes a new movement pattern . Victory makes the path enjoyable and "errors" are but the bumps in the road.

We don't stuff the teaching into them we place it before them and try to get it to seep into their understanding at whatever pace they can digest. For each it is different.

You're correct Nolo, of course that we can get more with a smile than we can without one. We don't build on the miscues but from our successful conquering of them. It's the victories that makes most of us persevere not taking a list of errors and scratching one off. The joy of those victories makes the path to achieving them fun. Finding the best path to empathetic connection to my students is always my goal. Identify their needs and help them fulfill them . How you do so effectively depends on how you can address the needs of that student. Be they mental ,physical or like most of us, both. Build on the successes and if that's standing for two minutes without falling then  declare that victory and move to the next challenge.
With little ones the head games are an even bigger consideration and you must push them in and out of their comfort zones  while meeting whatever their needs happen to be, i e. Maslows Pyramid. Finding the balance of authority figure ,teacher and fellow adventurer is important to get the student to get the most out of themselves

We build on our successes but if we didn't have obstacles to overcome there would be no measure of success.

In that case, I don't recommend they have lessons.  I am not a cheerleader.

Show me someone who can ski "wrong" well, in many different ways, and I'll show you a great skier. 

Love it!! forgot who said this first but...

"Balance is not about staying always in balance, its about seeing how far you can get out of balance and stay on your feet"

Time to cite an interesting document that Horst Abraham circulated in PSIA circles when he was Education Director back in the early '80s, with thanks to Lonnie for posting it in this thread. 

"The 10 instructional paradoxes" by Dr. Richard Farson 

1. People learn most when they are talking, not when they are listening
2. More of certain types of learning can take place when one tries not to teach.
3. Some things are learn-able, but not teachable.
4. Everything we try works.
5. What is true for children is probably true for adults too.
6. We think we learn from our failures and other peoples successes, but it is the other way around.
7. We grow from calamities, not from virtues.
8. Don't try to improve people, improve the situation.
9. Students can learn more from each other than from the teacher.
10. We learn to ski in the summer and swim in the winter.

Bonus Information:

People Generally Remember
10% of what they READ
20% of what they HEAR
30% of what they SEE
50% of what they SEE and HEAR
70% of what they SAY or WRITE
90% of what they DO!

This might well have been the credo of Arthur Furrer, one of the greatest skiers I've ever seen. His name surfaced in one of the other threads hereabouts. He made an art out of the teaching of lateral learning, became one of the progeniturs of thr "hot dog, freestyle" movement, was fired from the Swiss ski teaching system for it, I think.

You talking about me Rick?

It might of been Pierre Eh who was skiing with me one day he could pick apart my skiing but didn't see a need to cause I do what I do so well, there's really no need to change anything.

It's still about the smile.

Nice to hear from Josh again.

We may learn from our errors or repeat them
They may learn from my errors but it sure makes it confusing for them doesn't it ?

They won't learn from my successes unless it's a teaching success or a nice demo.
I may learn from their successes and from their errors or my success with their errors or my errors and their successes or not . Hopefully I do

It's sounds arbitrary to me, eh Nolo ?

I don't like this word ERROR and don't use it EVER teaching or would  consider building a positive from a negative. Build on positive moments to create positive outcomes.  But some may not dig the pussy footing around and want the dirt and want it now and you better come clean but that doesn't mean you don't take the good they brought with them and make use of it. You always build on the positives in teaching anything. You get shut out otherwise. I've never responded very well to negative reinforcement of  expected new behaviors and wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

You can be honest without being destructive .Some people have a high respect for constructive criticism but it needs to be more constructive than critical.

 GarryZ, you know what the most successful learning organization is? 


Warning Spoiler! Click to show

 nolo,

That's because everything they do is done to a precise framework.  They even teach how many strokes to use when brushing your teeth.  Nothing is left to chance.

The more that is left to chance means the more likely it is that the student will fail.

Touche, BigE, but I think it's because the consequences of inattention could be fatal. Keen motivation not compliance is at work here. 

I have to dissagree on this one. Having served five years of active duty in the Marines, I would say that the success of military training is not due to the fact that the trainees contemplate the life-or-death matters of surivival, but the fact that if you don't do it right, the first time, you will have your ass handed to you. Trust me, recruits fear the personal consquences of messing up more than they do dying as a result of messing up. This caries over to AIT once you leave basic and infantry training. If a DI tells you to jump off a cliff, you jump off the cliff. It's really that simple. You don't think about it, you just do it, period. That's what is ingrained in you. Trust me, after about three weeks, it becomes automatic.  If it doesn't become automatic, you are either a massochist or simply not compatible with military service.  Military training works out of the sheer power of pure intimidation. There is no other way to get raw recruits to adhere to such high standards in a short period of time.  

Learning to ski is based on reward, not punishment.
 

 

Edited by MojoMan - 10/27/09 at 9:27am

Alright! Another Marine in the group. 69-71 for me.

It wasn't so much about you messing up and dying. It was about messing up and getting everyone killed.

My point exactly, MojoMan.

The side trip to consider the most effective training organizations in the world (or learning organizations) was to illustrate the concept that we learn more from our successes and other people's failures than the other way around. In fact, the Society for Organizational Learning, which is where I got this notion, doesn't mention the US Marine Corps but the US Army as the example of the most effective learning organization. 

Hi Lars, Semper Fi. 93-98.

I would say that most members of the military are never put in a situation where they are in great peril of life and limb. There is always obviously a danger greater than in the civilian world, but the number of frontline fighters actually getting their fingers dirty is so small compared to the total number of troops stationed as support personell in a conflict.

Marines obviously have a larger percentage of combat arms MOS, so the number of troops placed in high-risk areas is higher than other branches. I was stationed in Dubai and Kuwait for short stints following the Gulf War, but the only time we ever fired a shot was at the rifle range. 

Hi, I understand.

Didn't mean to go off topic.

Thank you for that. In that context you make an excellent point. I work in construction and all the accidents I have witnessed have made their impressions on me. Those mistakes I learn from others. When the price is high our attention is captured . Skydiving classes must be intense.

Skiing can have it's dangers like many sports but it's hard to place that kind of demand on their attention because most don't see it as such . Are there other ways we can tap into this system without placing fears needlessly ?

MojoMan--your points are well taken. Please don't apologize, you and Lars are adding good info. 

I saw a graph of how people in different thought patterns learn at differing rates. Those that are bored or stressed at either end and a bulge in learning when the students are engaged and motivated. Anyone know where I found this ? I'm thinking Core Concepts or Children's Instruction. ?

This has a large bearing on the retention of instruction and how we can control our class handling to get the most out of both parties.

Here's my take:

An instructor has to do more than point out an error or flaw in technique in order to correct things or make things more efficient --- they must first give skiers a signifigant reason to want to address these perceived errors.

Most people like to swim in the summer but don't take lessons or instruction beyond any basic introductory exposure they may get as a novice. They really don't need to. An instructor could tell a recreational swimmer to do such and such and they would swim more efficiently or faster etc. The swimmer would probably just blow it off as the goal for the average summer swimmer is really not to be the most efficient or fast swimmer.

Most skiers take a lesson to start off with, maybe one or two after that, at most. Everything else is learned from experience and from watching others.  I would say that this forum is kind of an anamoly in that most here are ski enthusiasts who like to break things down and talk shop, whereas most skiers out on the hill on any given day are just out to have some casual winter fun. So, the average Joe skier has adapted their mehanics to learn to deal with terrain so as to maximize their fun-time on the snow.

Instructors have ways to refine behaviors and eliminate patterns that cause issues or impede further progresss, but unless the student thinks it is worthwhile or efficient enough to change the patterns or behaviors that exist, they won't bother, because they really don't need to. 

I think when most skiers on the hill take a lesson, they approach it like, "This instructor guy/gal is going to show me how to do something neat, something I already don't know or can't do that I want to do -- like ski moguls or ski fast." They then have some drills or exercises and perhaps do some free-skiing with the instruictor watching. They don't understand how what they just did can help them with anything else. They have no reason to try to work on what they just were exposed to in the lesson.

To add to your post, MojoMan, from that thread I cited earlier, The Other Stuff:

Nolo, great food for thought.  

One addition to all this:  Learning "90% of what they DO" doesn't just work automatically because they DO it.  Students need to do it, do it again, and again, and explain in words what they just did.  They also need to be able to explain what results from doing it, and from not doing it, and in what situations doing this thing is beneficial.  They should also be able to put into words what makes it so difficult for them to do.  After all this talking and practicing doing the thing, if they can also predict when they will need to do it before the situation arises (without prompting from the instructor), then they are really primed to genuinely incorporate it into their skiing.   Except unless they are 5-9 years old, in which case they are surely blessed.

Keen motivation is behind every successful student.  The question is : what are they learning? 

If an intermediate that is keenly interested in learning to ski better takes 8 lessons, can they describe what they think skiing is all about or do they parrot the lessons they've learnt? "First we worked on balance. Then we worked on rotation.  Then edging, then pressure control, then free skiing" etc, etc..

Is there a framework to which they can point and say : "Thisis my ski technique -- this is how I ski."? Can they describe how they make a turn in terms of movements.

Or, do they say things that they can parrot from a book, like: "There are 4 skills. How you blend them determines what happens."

Remember we all had to walk before we ran.  We had to learn the material (ski) before we did the analysis (DIRT).  We all needed to learn basic movements of skiing. eg. How to hockey stop is often a good part of a lesson that starts with sliding sideways.  That is direct movement based instruction.

Why do people think that it is so evil to ski to a model turn by learning some movements?

 I'll answer your question with a question, BigE. What do you see as the difference between skills and movements? (If you think that this topic deserves its own thread, I would not disagree, and would urge you to start a new one.)

Here:

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/86212/isolated-movements/30

Now that I re-read it, it needs clarification:

"A movement is the outcome of applying a skill.  Whether or not that skill is deficient, is measured success/failure of the movement.  While the success/failure of the movement is ultimately determined by the physical interaction of skis and snow, the relationship between CM and base of support during the movement is also critical.  eg. Suppose we ask an intermediate skier for higher edge. They do it with more inclination. Suppose instead, they show more angulation.  We'll see the same edge angles on the snow, but a more dynamic posture.  In both cases, the interaction of ski and snow says the edge angles have increased - the outcome was met.

Yet, the angulated skier shows a higher skill level.

It is not so simple to suggest that interaction with snow is the sole judge skill level.

Anyway, this sort of "cause and effect" between skill level and "quality" of movement is what makes movements and skill somewhat separate."

Now before we jump all over this and suggest that inclination is one trick and angulation is another, let me say that the ability to angulate through a wide range of motion covers inclination.  The range of motion of angulation can go from 0 degrees to some maximum.  Zero degrees is inclination.

Here's one for consideration:

Anyone who has skied for a while learns, either through trial-and-error or instruction, that it's harder to remain balanced when you are in the back seat and always skidding your tuns, especially on steep terrain. You also have less control than you think, compared to skiing in a more aggressive, balanced, and reactive position over the skis. So, if it takes more energy and effort to remain in balance while skiing in this manner, why is such an approach considered less skilled? Such a skier who remains on his feet is actually doing something that is very hard to do -- both physically and mentally. 

It follows, then, that the defintion of skill must have much more to it than mechanics or movement patterns.

 I thought that there is no right or wrong in skiing just right and left.....?

Problem is that in golf there is a score and a way to remember who won and who buys.  Obviously skiing is far more social than that and bragging rights go to whom ever claims them.  "You are never as bad as they say, and never as good as you think, Coach Tom Reynolds".  This may be the problem with skiing and instruction in general if we had a game to score then we would be given much more credit for picking this apart the way we do.  

At this point in skiing teaching can only claim credit for helping people enjoy the experience of skiing more thoroughly and can't claim to lower your score or help you win the "championship cup".  That is the difference between coaching and teaching.  We tend to be very judgemental about teaching being right or wrong, or you are doing that wrong.  Effectively we would be wrong saying that.

 

So any ideas on how to start the golfing equivalent of skiing?  
Technical skiing open anyone?

To this end skill must be the manipulation of movement to achieve a positive result through it's planned execution

I am not playing the semantics game, but that defintion could apply to anything. Someone who rides the tails and skids has acheived a positive result by planning when and where to skid. My point is, skill is a very nebulous term when used in the context of dicussions like this. In my example, it really is hard as heck to ride the tails, skid, and get down a steep pitch, yet many new skiers manage to do it. To me, that takes a heck of a lot of balance, strength, and determination.  So, why do we not call the ability to do this, skilled?  



Edited by MojoMan - 10/28/09 at 2:54pm