Why the lack of learning ski skills progressively

Really? Maybe I'm not reading this right. Skills erode over time unless we practice them regularly. Expecting to become a better golfer would require more than a week of practice every few years.

Same goes for skiing. So some fall back occurs and the lesson plan needs to reflect this fact. Today's performance matters, not last week's, or last year's.

 

 

 

do you try to make a million points in each post so that VERY few people will answer your questions?

 

 

First people dont like doing drills, all the time. skiing has never been and will never been about that. Skiing is about well sliding down the slope to have fun. Plus you dont have to be so rigid to learn how to ski. Coming up though the ranks to Level 3 I never drilled for more than a couple turns. i just freeskied.  Even till this day I have no intention of drilling myself for the sake of it, its not me, it not my brand of skiing. Its not that I cant do stupid human tricks on skis(I can do tons of them) its just to me skiing is about finding cool sensations and repeating them, and finding even cooler sensations.

 

Lesson productivey isnt only up to the coach its also up to how willing the student is willing to learn, and also how much time they are willing to put in on and off snow to becoming a better student of balance and balance re-correction.

 

I see improvement in almost any lesson I teach but I have seen in jumps in ability level for most people who come back for more than a day in row. The thing is if someone doesnt come back do to my lesson being boring, not fun, to much work, or to scary then they will never get better well at least not from me. So push slowly and embrace new things but embrace them slowly.

 

 

 

 

If you want to play the piano well, you need to PRACTICE every day.

 

Most of the skiing public doesn't even practice every week.

 

Some don't get out every year.

 

Very few who ski regularly want to work on drills.  They're like Bush--they want to go DO IT.

 

That's why the ski instruction industry is uninterested in your approach, PJ.

The pragmatist in me says were discussing linear learning when most folks don't learn that way. Nor should they, ultimately skiing is about versatility in a variety of environments. Terrain changes, snow conditions vary, and even the student moods and ability change on a day to day and hourly basis. So over time and considering the variable nature of the sport, linear learning can only take a student so far. Beyond that, lateral learning becomes much more important since adapting to new terrain, snow conditions has to be a stronger focus. This complicates the idea of a universally appropriate lesson based on one set standard. At best all we can recommend is for student to try several programs and coaches, then stick with the one that resonates most with them. Which is why I choose to teach in a school that allows me to work with my students longer than a few hours. To me, a two day commitment and two half day lessons is a workable minimum solution for those students who will actually go out after a lesson and practice their new moves. Although knowing my mountain as well as I do, two or three full day lessons allows me to pick exactly the best terrain for those lateral learning segments. It also allows me to direct their experiential progress and help them choose terrain appropriate for their technical needs.  Since that individual progress doesn't follow a set schedule, or time clock, knowing when to move and where to move cannot be facilitated through a linear time constrained (scheduled) learning model. The end result is usually more progress than they could make on their own.

 

 

It's also unfair to expect a new coach to know how you skied prior to your last lesson and what changes your previous coach prescribed and why they prescribed them. They also don't know what part of that lesson you had difficulty with and what parts worked well for you. Said another way you're establishing a new learning relationship based on the present and that always includes some review of basic fundamental skills and an assessment of your skill level in all of those areas. That is why immersion clinics have higher success rates, longer term continuity and directed coaching alway will.

 

May 2, 2011

 

Hi PJ:

 

Why expect the "system" (i.e. PSIA or local Ski School) to keep track of one's progression?  As you've said, Golf doesn't.  Kayaking doesn't.  I can't think of any/many sports/activities which do.  I agree that it would be ideal if this were the case, however, as JASP, BWP and KB have commented, not many people take lessons and/or practice regularly.  Maybe in this endeavor, if one were serious about improving, one should take lessons on a regular basis, record/keep notes on the lessons, what was learned and the progress/advances which one has made and review this for ourselves.  In this way, one is ensured that a record/notebook of our progression is up to date and specific to one's own skiing, instead of relying on the "system".  It's not ideal but it's what I do and I can tell from experience that a lot of regression occurs and a lot of skills have to be re-learned and practiced anew.  (poster's note:  I do take private lessons regularly, so I do ask for "balance", "edging", "pivoting" etc lessons, when I feel that a review is needed.  This is one of the advantageous of taking privates.  Ideally, a group lesson, the instructor would work on individual specific weakness.  However, you would need to be in a group with a very experienced coach good at MA.  I have usually been in group lessons such as this, but since I've been skiing at my local mountain for the past 35 years, all the SS supervisors and mountain managers are friends and usually assign the most experienced/best coaches available for high level group lessons which I'm in.  Also, most coaches at my mountain are familiar with my skiing.  Strength and weaknesses.  Fair or not, this is one of the rewards of longevity and loyalty).

 

Think snow,

 

CP

 

ps: even the coaches are REQUIRED to take "re-view/skill enhancing" clinics at least once every two years.  Most take it more frequently than that.  Also, most SS make training/clinics available regularly all through the season, to their coaches to enhance the skiing/coaching skills of their coaches.

 

Edited by CharlieP - 5/2/11 at 10:12am

Powder Jet, tell us about your last few lessons sounds like you had a bad experience? There is a progression but an instructor relies on what it is you want to work on in your skiing and his or her observation of your ability. Trust me that the pros who have responded to you like nothing better than to work with the same motivated student again. It makes me smile when i see one of my students out on the hill and observe the changes we have made in their skiing.

 

 

 

 

Another way of looking at this is it's not very productive spending countless hours trying to figure this out by yourself?

Lots of people have progressions for lots of things, but that does not make them "right" or necessarily "better" for all people. I switched high schools in the middle of my freshman year. The old high school taught trigonometry first, then algebra. The new one taught algebra then trig. The new high school put me in the advanced sophomore algebra class to finish algebra in my freshman year then tried to put me in the advanced freshman trig class in my sophomore year. Since I'd already had that class in jr high, I just did all the homework and took all the tests in about 6 weeks and then goofed off the rest of the time. So much for that  progression.

 

Golf has lots of different progressions. Most pros start with grip, stance/posture then aiming, but even that order can vary. From there, some start with putting, other with chipping and still others going right the full swing. My observation is that golf is even less than skiing when it comes to progressions.

 

PSIA used to have a progression (Centerline was a good, but oft misunderstood model of it). Now we have the "Stepping Stones" concept. This concept applies the analogy of crossing a stream by stepping on different stones to learning skiing by learning different skills. Like crossing a stream, it does not matter which of many stones you step on, or which order you step on them as long as you get across. There are other ski teaching organizations that still use progressions successfully. The Swiss have a fairly standard one for teaching children.

 

BTW - there is a recording of the skills learned -> inside the skier. Experienced pros can read students like a book.

 

Using progressions versus teaching "randomly" is a trade off. Progressions can make teaching easier for instructors and make instruction more logical to the students. Random (or what we call student centered) instruction can make learning more efficient for the student because they only focus on what they need the most, but requires more instructor training before this approach will "work". At most US resorts, you will find that new instructors teach learn to ski lessons using a progression that is standard for that resort. After they gain experience teaching, they then learn how to teach student centered lessons at all levels.

 

One big difference in ski teaching progressions is whether students learn to ski in a wedge or start learning to ski with their skis parallel. Since there are differing opinions as to which approach is preferred, I'll throw out the theory that giving the student the choice of which "progression" to use is a positive. Free market people would say that the market is best at deciding which approach is better. If you believe this, then it is easy to believe in the advantages of the stepping stones teaching system.

 

For a while at my ski school we had instructor clinics that were skill focused. We had clinics for balance, edging, rotary and pressure. We often had a herd of instructors in those clinics. We tried offering these to the general public but it caused a stampede in the opposite direction. :)

 

There are a lot more aspects to drills. First, there is no universal agreement on 100% correct form. Many instructors can do a wedge turn drill with sufficient enough quality to successfully teach it to students and for it to be indistinguishable to first time skiers from wedge turns demonstrated by an instructor with greater skill. In the US, wedge turns are part of the certification tests at all levels. The skill standard for passing is greater at each level. Even though students may not be able to detect the difference in skill, there are subtle differences that are definable and testable. These differences alone do not lead to a big difference in student outcomes, but they are part of a package of differences that instructor certification attests to. Other aspects of drills that are important are things to look for (both pro and con) and under what conditions the drill is most effective (i.e. when to use or not use a drill). Finally, the highest level of drill competency is when an instructor can make impromptu variations to the drill to customize it to student needs and conditions du jour.

 

While I have little hope for reduced insurance costs, I also hope that better lessons lead to more skier visits. There is one way you can personally contribute to this effort: start teaching!

 

 

You might not know of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

Here's an example:  a good number of  kids' race programs in Canada use the Snow Stars program as a guide for development suggestions, and also to track progress.  There's a "report card" that is often handed out at the end of the season to the participant, and a copy is kept on file.  When the kids return the next year, there's a handy reference reminder that shows where the kids left off the previous year.

 

In an adult environment, I have worked with clubs that have members returning to the same programs for multiple years, and there are seasonal records maintained so that a new season doesn't always have to start at ground zero.

 

The study of Decision Training has shown that a linear progression from simple to complex is not the only way to develop advanced proficiency.

Not necessarily the best way either.
 

 

Well, can't speak to the ski schools you're aware of - but mine does.

We primarily provide multi-week lessons with only a few prearranged short term Privates. We record each student's progress at the end of each group lesson with both a 'level' and notes on specifics. Not sure how much of this gets recorded in the database, but it's kept on cards in any case. Near the end of the season each instructor writes up an extensive 'Student Report' for each student in every class they teach. These notes are kept year-to-year and serve to support the following season's class placement of each student.

Of course, this has its own failings as we can't possibly keep track of additional lessons a student receives from other organizations, nor can we keep track of the extra mileage a student may put in on their own. All we can do is record what we learn about them when we see them next.

Even so, Instructors often get students unknown to us and we evaluate them based on their performance during out first exposure to them. And while "skills" are an important aspect - student preferences matter just as much - things like learning style, terrain, snow conditions, skiing-peer characteristics, group dynamics expectations, teaching vs. skiing balance and even belief patterns about 'how one should ski'.

---
In the real world of Public Ski Instruction the environment is more like "skiing consulting" than it is providing serial canned instruction using predetermined sequential steps to achieve a predetermined final form of skiing. Small-time programs with limited scope and capability often focus on a specific set of progressions to achieve limited specific outcomes - but that only works in a limited context. For instance targeted programs may focus on Moguls, Pipe & Park, Steeps, Back-country or even Aerials - and limit their teachings to that realm. Specialized skiing programs may also implement a specific and highly limited progressions to get participants from wherever they're at to a predetermined destination - but will avoid teaching what they consider extraneous skills and capabilities outside the needs of their limited program.

There's nothing wrong with context-limited or context-limited camps and programs, skiers just need to realize none of them are end-all-be-all solutions for all around skiing. It's best to explore multiple camps and programs with multiple instructors.


.ma

PJ, Get a pen and paper and track your progress. As a serious bike racer we always kept our own training journals. As a teacher in training I also kept a journal. That's because I wanted that data and I didn't rely on someone else to do that for me. What I found is that as my knowledge and experience bases grew, my need to document my progress shrunk. I look back on those journals from time to time and what strikes me most is how superfluous most of that data became once I understood my strengths and weaknesses. So take charge of your skiing instead of waiting for someone else to offer you their opinion about your skiing. As far as a national data base for skiers? No thanks, the small percentage of people using that data wouldn't justify the cost to implement and maintain the information.

 

 

There is no "best progressive order" across skills because every individual has different strengths and challenges. Skills are not sequential. You don't master balancing, then start pivoting. Rather, skills are interdependent. We generally teach to the weakest skill as that produces the greatest improvement in our skiers. Moreover, the participant's success in an exercise is also in part based on the instructor. Every instructor has some drills they can make work, and others that they just can't seem to effect positive change with. That said, when we pick an exercise for a skill, we pick one that's an appropriate challenge for the learner. What you suggest is a one-size-fits-all approach that would set our industry back by several decades. Again, we don't teach drills - we develop skiing skills. 

 

 

 

Sorry to hear that. I've also been in an inappropriate lesson group and it's frustrating. I hope you talked to the ski school and got your money back. In terms of instructors not skiing as well as you, you should come out here to Whistler. We have some of the strongest instructors in the world teaching our upper classes.

 

 

 

We don't want to develop skiers who do drills. We want to develop skier technique so our participants can ski better, longer and harder. Drills are a tool to create a specific change in the way someone skis. They're the means, not the goal. Evaluating instructors against their ability to perform drills is part of PSIA's system, and in my opinion it misses the point of ski improvement and the inherent adaptability of drills. 

 

In Canada, each instructor level represents certain skiing and teaching standards. A level 1 can demonstrate and teach at the "acquisition" (beginner) level. A level 2 can demo and teach to the "consolidation" (intermediate, including bumps and short radius) level. A 3 can demo and teach at the "refinement" (advanced) level, and the level fours can demo and teach at the "create variation" (expert) level. If, during your exam you choose drills that you can't demonstrate effectively, you probably won't pass. In my experience, our level 1s need to perform clean dolphin turns because they won't be teaching such a drill. However, they do need to be able to demonstrate each of the stages in moving towards parallel skiing along with some exercises to get the skier there. 

May 3, 2011

 

Hi PJ:

 

I was intrigued with what you wrote: "If & only when a ski instructor can preform a certain drill & explain how its done should they be able to teach it."  This reminds me of one season at my local ski school, all the coaches were required to take a "test" and depending on the outcome of the test, the coach was assigned "colored" badges, so that for instance, "green" meant available to teach PSIA levels 1:3, "blue" teaches levels 1:6, "orange" teaches levels 1:9, "red" teaches levels 1:9 as well as the terrain park and "Purple" terrain park only.  Well that went over like a lead balloon.  Even myself as a totally ignorant outside bystander, didn't see any benefits to this stratifying system which caused the loss of team cohesion, much needless conflicts and morale damping confrontations.   It was abolished the next season.  However, it occurred to me that for you to come up with a similar albeit more detailed stratification, is not all that unorthodox.

 

I agree that even though you may ski better than the coaches, this doesn't necessary imply that the coach can't help your skiing.  If this were the case, who would be able to coach Bode Miller or Tiger Woods  etc?  It is well known that skiers learn differently.  Some are thinkers, some doers and some are feelers.  PSIA has a certain model/terminology for the different types of learning modalities.  I hope that you hook up with the "right" coach for your learning modality, since I think that this is at the root of your problem.

 

Think snow,

 

CP

 

Before moving on let me apologize if my last post seemed a bit harsh. I was trying to express the idea that Self assessment and evaluation are very important in your individual learning process Powder Jet and here's why I say that...

...The fact that you prefer lots of structure and drills give us insight into your personality. In a one on one lesson that would guide the activities we would explore. If it's a group lesson it would be one of several inputs we would try to accommodate. The fact that you found that product line (group lessons) less than satisfactory isn't surprising since most of the students are below your skill level, at least according to what you've told us in this thread.

If I may explore that a bit deeper, I wonder if you expressed that to the lesson desk prior to taking those group lessons? It also suggests the coach didn't investigate why you were there in the first place. Although if all you told them was "Becoming the best skier I can possibly be" I would question why they didn't immediately ask you what that meant and what specifically is giving you trouble? Something you have yet to do here as well I might add. FYI, expecting a coach to devine why you are there with that lofty but non-descript answer is almost impossible. It's too vague. So there was a break down on both sides of this situation and is congruent with the idea of better communication would have (and will in the future) solve this problem. I suspect it would have led me to suggest individual coaching so the rest of the group wouldn't slow you down, or if you wanted drills you could take with you, their needs wouldn't interfere with that either.

I also want to point out that Phil McNichols can't out ski Bode Miller but was able to coach him successfully. So all this stuff about being better than the instructor needs to be discussed. Are you there to show up the instructor, or are you there to learn? If it's the later, share your wants clearly instead of offering the altruisms. Let them know what gives you trouble and where that trouble occurs. If you can't identify those moments,  I wonder why someone as advanced as you would lack that ability. Maybe that's your weakness?

This all leads back to the idea that taking charge and responsibility for your learning means keeping your own records and if you take a lesson it's up to you to clearly express your wants and expectations, just like it's up to the instructor to ask you enough questions to clearly identify what those are. You can't alway control the instructor's end but you certainly can control your end by keeping track of your progress in a journal and clearly stating your concerns, goals and past frustration / disappointments with your coach. With that I want to express hope that you find the system that fits your needs better than showing up at the group lesson desk has. Ski well Powder jet...

JASP 

 

 

This may have more to do with the specific hill than industry-wide trends.  I also suspect that selective memory may be in effect here; it's unlikely that kids on 40-year-old equipment were actually skiing "far better" in any technical sense than kids in a development program today.  Kids today that choose to focus on park and pipe skills exclusively sometimes can look pretty ugly outside of the park, but that's a different phenomenon.

 

 

There is quite a lot of history in the area of teaching progressions and drills in skiing.  This kind of thing has been tried before.  Austrian-derived teaching systems -- prevalent in the early and middle parts of the 20th century in the US -- were big on linear progressions and "final forms" (i.e. trying to mimic or match the way that established experts skied).  PSIA and some other instructional organizations lead somewhat of a backlash against this starting in the 1960s/70s.

 

The new PSIA methodology is skill-based, meaning the focus is on broad technical skills rather than specific "moves"/"drills" or "final forms".  There is no checklist of drills or demonstrations that students must pass.  Instructors are encouraged to customize lesson plans to the student's needs, which may involve specific drills to focus on a problem -- or it may involve a lot of guided free-skiing with feedback, or anything in between.

 

A significant danger to this kind of approach can be the lack of consistency you brought up in the OP.  It's hard to tailor lessons perfectly to the student, especially if you are unfamiliar with them.  Unless you work with the same coach/instructor repeatedly, it can be frustrating when things don't click.  I do think that PSIA could look at ways to more consistently evaluate skiing skills, but this is not a panacea for the problem of teaching complex mental and physical skills to a huge variety of people.

 

PSIA labels "balance" as a skill, but it is often described in their literature as more of an overarching way to tie the other skills together and blend them as necessary.  So in some sense, everything is related to "balance".

 

The idea behind an instructional plan is it should be leading you somewhere.  It's also often hard for people to self-diagnose what skills they need to improve.  If you have a "bumps clinic", some people who show up might need to work on edging skills, and others on pressure management, and a good instructor should be able to teach to each student and show them how to apply those different skills in the bumps.  I'm not sure it would make much sense to offer an "edging clinic" to consumers.

 

Metaphor summed the philosophy up quite nicely (despite being from CSIA ):

 

There's no 's' in McNichol.  There are some with solid coaching or racing credentials who consider this an example of an unsuccessful coaching relationship.
 

 

 

There's a telemark instructor at Alpine Meadows who teaches a clinic called "Walter's Wacky World of Balance."  Sounds fun and has a cool name.  If I skied tele, I'd give it a try.

He teaches regular skiing too and is very good
 

 

PJ, It's a bit unusual to see that turn described as a Golden spiral but let me see if I understand what you are trying to accomplish. Over 180 degrees that path would feature a smaller radius first half and a larger radius second half. How does that affect the finish and transition? Is it offset to accomodate the wider but constant radius second half of the turn? It sounds a bit like a comma shaped turn. Is that what you're trying to do?

Hi Powder Jet.  Thanks for mentioning my program, I'm glad you like the drills you've seen in it, and that they've helped your skiing.  

 

You've got your head on straight with your appreciation for the importance of working through a detailed training program that involves a lot of drill work.  Skiing is at its root a sport of foundation skills, blended together into a form of execution that suits your fancy or need for the particular moment.  Build your skills and you can then ski however you want.  

 

I like your posts because you're an out of the box thinker.  You even had me googling words on this one, I was not familiar with Fibonacci.  The Golden Spiral does appear to be a great concept for discussing the particular turn shape, though.  This is the turn shape you're trying to describe with it, right?

 

 

 

 

I introduce that turn shape option very early in the learning curve in my program, as a turn shape versatility training drill, while the student is still in the steering phase.  When you've used this turn shape, have you noticed the extra speed control it provides?

 

JASP, you're right, the transitions, from one turn to the next, are falline offset.  If you did a series of these turns, however, the left turn transitions would be in line, as would the right turn transitions.

Rick, I think it's important to differentiate here between the drop-in lesson and a long-term development model. 

 

In your DVD set, you're striving for long-term development of skiers. Based on what I've read on your site, each DVD targets one skill, and exercises on that DVD become progressively more advanced. You've essentially provided your learners with a progression from initiation of the new skill through to the refinement level. In theory, the learner will be able to accomplish this development with time and practice. 

 

In long-term programs like that provided in your DVDs and by in-person coaches, after developing fundamental skills, skiers and coaches may spend a week developing a specific skill before proceeding. That said, even with a specific focus, coaches still provide feedback on core skiing issues - e.g. while developing edging, a coach may tell an out of balance skier "Make sure to keep centered over your ski through the belly of that turn - think about feeling pressure on the arch as you do the drill". A long-term training program ideally provides the skier with a complete awareness of the elements of good skiing. 

 

In a drop-in lesson, we don't have the time to put a learner through an entire progression. An instructor's goal (assuming they're learner-centered rather than teacher-centered) is to create the greatest possible improvement in our skiers. To do so, we work on the biggest skill deficiency in each learner. A cookie cutter approach doesn't produce the greatest improvements. If we were to attempt to work through a series of drills on pivoting, the learner who can already pivot but lacks edge performance wouldn't get much benefit from our lesson. Dissatisfied customers don't tend to come back for more lessons. So we'd see even fewer repeat customers. To maximize effectiveness in day lessons, we want to identify the most common skill deficiency across our skiers, and adapt exercises to target the specific deficiencies in each participant. And as mentioned earlier, there are even elements of this approach in an instructor-led long term development program. 

 

On another note for PJ, I think everyone's had at least one crappy instructor experience. That said, I think it's important to recognize the value-add of an instructor. The instructor isn't there to give a cookie-cutter progression; people can cookie cutter on their own. The major value-add of the instructor, particularly at the upper intermediate and advanced level, is to provide external assessment, an informed development strategy, and feedback throughout the  development process. The gap in self study materials for sensory-motor skills (like skiing) is that there aren't good feedback mechanisms, or that they're not recognizable without training. (You can't see yourself ski while you're skiing.) The first time people execute an exercise, they often think they're slaying it, when in fact they're missing the point or doing something crazy. It's one area where PSIA instructors, CSIA instructors, and PMTS align (see HH's book on Essentials). e.g. masses of people who talk about "carving" but are really doing braking sideslips. So rather than think of instructors as cookie cutter drill dispensers, you may want to think of them of agents of assessment, feedback and creating change. 

 

Finally, the current methodology followed by the CSIA is based on the cumulative research and discovery in psychology and learning theory from the past 60 years. This teaching system wasn't just pulled out of their butts (for the most part, aside from the "learning styles" component). You'll see a long list in the credits of the CSIA manual citing the Ph.D and M.Ed.s who worked on the materials. I'd love to see new learning theories, so if you have some improvements, run some studies, write a paper, and prove its effectiveness. Or if you think there's a current valid learning theory that's being ignored, put it out there. Anecdotal evidence just isn't enough to create change. 

Edited by Metaphor_ - 5/4/11 at 10:36pm

Whoa!

 

You are WAY off base.  They used to do this back in the 70s.  It was a maneouver based progression.  You do this A, then B, then C.  Logical, simple. 

 

But in practice it was hugely flawed.  People develop skills on thier own, lose skills on their own, progress some skills quick, others slow.  Some just "get it" some dont.  Modern ski teaching teaches skills, and those skills can be applied to various types of skiing, such as you mentioned bumps, steeps etc.  For example in the old method you might have someone who is say 19 year old male, who can ski really fast on groomed blues in a sort of highspeed wedge....with the old method, that would mean going from snow plow to glide christie...which typically means skiing easy green at slow speed.  If you did that with this guy....he would never come back to a lesson again...and that is what happened.

 

A good instructor will assess you everytime, all the time, and work on what needs the most development.  Often students might do a bump lesson, then a steeps lesson, then a short turn lesson....but in reality they were working on for example "balance" the whole time.

 

Trust me...no one is getting rich from ski instructing.

 

 

  Nice! you are the perfect Epicski Student!   Too funny.
 

 

 

If only it were that simple...