or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to become a good Pro - Page 3

post #61 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Your basic assumption is L1's and L2's are too ignorant to have any clue how to parse information. 

 

Not at all.  For clarity, my basic assumption is that all of the international ski orgs are credible, with good technqiues and teaching models based on physics, biomechanics, worlds best practice with a douse of local flavour to suit their culture and clientele.  Therefore there is no need to run to look at others...and likley take things out of context....because the answer can be found in your own backyard...it just may take some digging and actual work.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

The question is when these developing pros should lose the limitation of organizational blinders and see the wider ski world through their own eyes. 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean here.  I am not suggesting that for example - PSIA types should only look at Ligety and Seth, but not Grandi or Hugo Harrison and CSIA types should do the opposite.  What I am suggesting, is that PSIA types should use their PSIA models to help them understand Ligety, Seth, Grandi, and Hugo....or indeed, as is more likley the case, the clients standing in front of them.  If their model is failing them....dont go look for a new model... look to further develop the one you have.  It will be a far more powerful tool.

 

For example CSIA teaches the 5 skills on L1...the rest of the journey to L4 is still the same 5 skills, you just learn depth around those skills making it the whole system very powerful.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
New pros that demonstrate that curiosity are more likely to become a "good pro". Those that settle for presenting dogma and never ask why won't.

 

Totally agree.  Curoisty is key...but in ski teaching as in any life endevour, its important to stick to one thing (in this case system) for at least a little while, and be curiious about that.....I am not against curiosity or digging deeper...I am against those looking to "side step" the work and find an easy answer....which is usually, unfortunatley, the wrong answer.

post #62 of 79

Early in my skiing history I had the pleasure of attending a PSIA level II certification, called "associate" at the time, at Greek Peak, NY and then just one week later the CSIA level II cert course in Grey Rocks, Quebec(?).   Now this may go totally against Skidude's philosophy but for me at the time, my eyes and ears were wide open and soaking up all I could like a sponge.  During that period PSIA had gone biased toward the "humanistic" Horst Abraham "Skiing Right" teaching methodology. This was in stark contrast from CSIA which was very turn mechanics oriented.  There were very distinct mechanical priorities for each of the CSIA demonstrations which had to be demonstrated and taught to pass the test.  I was not conflicted with the two different approaches at all, rather fascinated by the strengths of each organization and how the blending of the two helped me become a better instructor.  It made me compare and contrast the mechanics and created a better understanding of each organization's goals.  

 

So while I can understand and agree with the general intent of SD's theme here, I believe maintaining an open inquisitive mind can help one learn from a variety of influences as long as we think for ourselves and seek to understand more deeply what is being offered up.  Had I only subscribed to the PSIA way, I may have thought there was only one way to ski?  Having the contrast presented early on in my teaching career kept my mind open to other possible philosophies and techniques and finding their merits or short comings.

 

FYIW, the Canadian examiners appreciated and liked my American teaching style which was a little more fun and colorful rather than dry and dictatorial.  I took this course/exam in 1980 I believe and can still remember the exact mechanics of each turn phase of the CSIA parallel turn.  It was very clear and concise.  Conversely, I can not remember the same about the PSIA parallel turn mechanics?  I liked the clear structure from CSIA!  I still believe today we, PSIA, could be more clear with our turn mechanic requirements, but that is another topic.

post #63 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

I was not conflicted with the two different approaches at all,

 

And that is the point.  Reconciling apparent diffrent points of view is learning...choosing one over the other is sidestepping.  I think developing pros will come across enough apparent condtradications in their own system without seeking out additional ones.

 

Further i believe that if you cant explain something with your system, its not becuase the system lacks...its because your knowledge of that system lacks.  Instead of picking and choosing....learn more about the system you chose.

 

I beleive what I am advocating is the quickest way to success.  For those who work in the ski industry full-time, for their entire career, sure they may have time to take a meandering path...but for those who do this part time, or for whatever reason do not have unlimited time at their disposal, I believe what I am advocating here is the most efficeint way to progress. 

 

Can gems be found by taking the meandering path?  Yes of course.  But you will spend far far far more time going down the same streets, and in empty allyways then discovering riches.  In my expereince those unique gems that can only be found by chasing multiple systems are so far and few between they do not make up for the extra time, since in reality, its very rarely a case where one org is miles ahead of the others in development, further the real gems get adopted by other orgs very quickly anyway...so if another org does develop something new and grand, you will learn about it anyway. 

post #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Your basic assumption is L1's and L2's are too ignorant to have any clue how to parse information.

...

This just hasn't been my experience at all. 

I too disagree with the premise that L2s necessarily aren't ready to absorb conflicting information from "non-native" teaching systems, but I did not read Dude's comment this way. "Ignorant" has negative connotation for lack of knowledge. The positive perspective is that one needs a level of experience to acquire enough depth of knowledge to gain perspective (sort of like seeing the forest for the trees). The argument here is that there is a huge benefit to getting above the trees to see the forest and that everyone needs to work hard to get there. To that extent I absolutely agree with Dude. I think seeing the forest can happen prior to L3, but that is picking nits. There is a saying in the US that once you achieve your L3 "now you are ready to learn to ski". For me there definitely is a certain sense of "reset" where I need to relearn everything all over again from a whole new perspective. This fits in exactly with what Dude is describing. This is not a negative observation.

 

For example, in the US we teach pros to "teach for transfer" (i.e. translate skiing movements into movements that students already understand from other sports they have mastered). Rookie pros may only know this concept well enough to know things like first time skiers with inline skating experience will be able to move through the drills faster. More experienced pros will have a wider variety of sports movements to know things like horseback riders should use the same knee movements for wedging and skateboard riders should practice at home with both feet side by side. The top level pros will be able to spot why some football players take to skiing with ease and some are total klutzes without a mental reset. There are a million ways to slice and dice this concept. Whether one learns this stuff as teach for transfer, teach by analogy or whatever, the tricks are to discover what movements the student owns, match those movements to what can be used in skiing, communicate those movements in terms the student already understands and then create the conditions under which the student can easily apply those movements. That takes a lot of practice. And it makes more sense to move through levels of understanding (e.g. teaching an inline skate move for turn initiation before teaching a baseball "steal second base" move for turn initiation). Learning a million ways to slice and dice takes away from the practice time and the focus of moving up the levels. Are there happy mediums involving a little less practice and a few more ways to slice and dice? Sure. Are there people who slice and dice too much? Absolutely. (I'm doing it now)

post #65 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post

For example, in the US we teach pros to "teach for transfer" (i.e. translate skiing movements into movements that students already understand from other sports they have mastered). Rookie pros may only know this concept well enough to know things like first time skiers with inline skating experience will be able to move through the drills faster. More experienced pros will have a wider variety of sports movements to know things like horseback riders should use the same knee movements for wedging and skateboard riders should practice at home with both feet side by side. The top level pros will be able to spot why some football players take to skiing with ease and some are total klutzes without a mental reset.

 

'Ignorance' simply means 'not knowing'. It's not so much a judgement as an observation.

'Stupid' though is a whole different kettle of fish.smile.gif

 

Just a question, but again, why would a rookie pro be only likely to know something like inline skating? And if that rookie pro's client or group has no inline skating experience, what difference would the rookie's knowledge  of skating make to the client? I've met a good number of new instructors over the years who've have pretty extensive sports backgrounds, are physical therapists, school teachers (bonus on this one for knowledge of cog/physical development), professional cyclists, ex-football or hockey players, gymnastics, etc... the list is as long as it is varied and valuable. Sure, not all do, but you get my drift. And with much respect to you Rusty, making the connection with a client's previous athletic background is ITC 101. It also extends to seasoned pros when first training/clinicing their new instructors and L1's where there's often a richness of previous transferable experience even if there isn't a long history of ski instruction. Again, I get what this thread is about, but it seems that there's an undertone, whether intentional or not, of 'talking down to' inherent in a lot of otherwise good thoughts.

 

How about this one. Some of you guys have a lifetime of training less experience folks, hiring, introducing pedagogies, etc... Two questions. One, can you tell us about a new instructor who really brought something to the table that made you better at what you do? Two, what have you taught or tried to sort out earlier in your career that at the time felt as though you were challenging some of the dogma, official or unofficial, that we all feel we confront at some point?  Did knowledge of other systems help you, or did it confuse? Did other previous life experience guide your thoughts to a successful outcome? Guess that's more like 1, 2, and 2a.  Thanks in advance! I'll go back to listening mode now. Promise.

post #66 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

Again, I get what this thread is about, but I can' escape the feeling that there's an undertone of 'talking down to' inherent in a lot of otherwise good thoughts.

 

How about this one. Some of you guys have a lifetime of training less experience folks, hiring, introducing pedagogies, etc... Two questions. One, can you tell us about a new instructor who really brought something to the table that made you better at what you do? Two, what have you taught or tried to sort out earlier in your career that at the time felt as though you were challenging some of the dogma, official or unofficial, that we all feel we confront at some point?  Did knowledge of other systems help you, or did it confuse? Did other previous life experience guide your thoughts to a successful outcome? Guess that's more like 1, 2, and 2a.  Thanks in advance!

 

First let me say its not my intent to be talking down to anyone...at least not in this threadbiggrin.gif.

 

 

Your questions are good ones - here are my answers:

 

1:  Yes!  No question I have, I have even learned things from students, and even non-skiing friends.  Did this make me better?  Yes of course it did.  But does that mean they are effective ski teachers? Not neccasirly.  Tid bits here and there are great...but I was always able to link them back to my system...I never used them as "replacements".

 

2: No.  And this is a biggie.  I did the opposite...I found conflicting advice, and instead of beating down to get to the bottom of it, I simply ignored what didnt work, and stuck to what did.  This was determental to my development.  It was when I started to accept that the conflicts were caused by my lack of knowledge that things got hard...but I learned, and developed quickly.  What became really frustruating was then remembering back, sometimes years....and realising, that someone was telling me, years ago, what I just figured out....if only I put the time in, to reconcile my misunderstanding sooner, I would have been alot better skier and instructor much sooner. 

 

This thread is largely about learning from my mistakes.

 

The world today makes it very easy to find affirmations for our views, and this in many cases makes it easy to ignore sound advice and disregard important information.  Wanna be a good pro...dont fall into that trap.


Edited by Skidude72 - 11/17/12 at 12:06am
post #67 of 79
Quote:
One, can you tell us about a new instructor who really brought something to the table that made you better at what you do? Two, what have you taught or tried to sort out earlier in your career that at the time felt as though you were challenging some of the dogma, official or unofficial, that we all feel we confront at some point?  Did knowledge of other systems help you, or did it confuse? Did other previous life experience guide your thoughts to a successful outcome? Guess that's more like 1, 2, and 2a.  Thanks in advance! I'll go back to listening mode now. Promise.

1. Yes. The ski school had a cadet instructor program and one day when I was working on the beginner hill this 14 year old kid taught me how to teach children -- the way he interacted with the kids was a revelation. When they didn't perform a task to specs he'd say, "No, no, no -- that was just horrible! You need to do it like this." And the kids ate it up because his tone was perfect -- light, challenging, teasing. He stayed on their level throughout the lesson, never went all Big-T on them (you know what I mean by Big-T, little-t?). He was the best children's instructor I had ever seen, and he was operating purely on instinct. I'm sure the recency of being the age of his students helped a bit too. He actually inspired me to go on and get my kids cert. 

 

2. PSIA regional organizations can be Petri dishes for dogma to thrive, given proper conditions for growth, which include entrenched education/certification committee members, ambitious to be players on the national scene, and the cut-throat politics of any organization in which the stakes are low (vying to be a volunteer leader, to get your name on a plaque, etc.). 

 

3. Interski! Every instructor should do the whole 9 yards at least once. 

 

4. I put myself through a rigorous educational process over my career as a ski instructor that included all the usual certifications including coaches certification. If I didn't understand something in a manual, I went to the bibliography to find the primary text and read it. Sometimes I would write an article to anchor and share what I had read with other instructors, more for my benefit than anyone else's, in all honesty. I had some "no clothes on" experiences as a rookie instructor that I never wanted to repeat! I am no longer employed as a ski instructor, but I'll always be one. 

 

5. Now for a question of my own: how do you know if you are successful at your work -- i.e., what signs tell you that you have been effective with a student or class? 

post #68 of 79
Quote:
"The world today makes it very easy to find affirmations for our views, and this in many cases makes it easy to ignore sound advice and disregard important information."

 

     There has been some interesting research done on this phenomena which is called "Confirmation bias."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

One common example of this is in the area of politics and political issues.   People on the right tune in to Fox News and those on the left to MSNBC.   Understanding that confirmation bias is apparently an inherent human trait is the first step in trying to guard against it in my opinion.   Applying this logic to the topic at hand, I would say that if you are diligent about looking at other sources of information in an attempt to understand better as opposed to finding someone to say your bias is correct then you will be ok.   The key is to be very aware of what you are actually doing.   If you can't manage that then you are more likely to fall prey to confirmation bias and for those folks SD's suggestion of sticking to one system seems to make sense.  

 

I would also say that I have heard a lot of conflicting information coming from various PSIA related sources so just sticking to one system does not mean you can't still find sources within that system that will confirm your bias.   Not to minimize the advice that SD gives about sticking to one system, but I think the larger lesson which he mentions in the quote above is far more important.   The advice of sticking to one organization is simply one tactic to combat confirmation bias.   Understanding what it is and how it can impede your growth and lead to poor decisions in any facet of your life is much more important in my opinion.

post #69 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

First of all, I would just like to tell all of you to STFU. biggrin.gif

 

 

Second - My use of the term - and trying to get this thread back on track.

 

It was meant in jest, but serious as well.  My key point of this thread was "learn and stick to the basics, they will take you a very long way".  We then have this guy who makes a post with words to the effect of (paraphrasing), "that is not really possible, as there is so much variance to the basics, that he finds himself arguing with top pros from all over the world constantly about them".  Then asks me "what should I do?"

 

So I told him what he should do.  I have the experience working with top pros from all over the world too, so I know the basics are the same....so what does that tell me?  It tells me that instead of arguing, with these top pros from around the world, one should take the time to listen and learn what they have to say...you might just be amazed, that they infact know what they are talking about,, and it may be that when people from all over the world are "debating" with you...that is because the issue is "you", and your understanding.  Hence, lose the attitude, and STFU, listen and learn. 

That's really not what I meant AT ALL, you're either terrible at paraphrasing, or more likely, misrepresenting me to justify your condescending and overbearing tone. 

 

My point was more that you can learn from all those systems, and that sticking purely to one system isn't the only way to go. I never said it didn't work, I just said that as someone who doesn't work within my system anymore, I learn a lot from others, and I don't think that has been a negative for my skiing or teaching at all.

 

As for making it sound like I argue with everyone for no reason, we don't really have clinics with leaders, we just get split into groups of 3 or 4, and told to go discuss a certain point from everyones perspective, and then from that, debates often ensue. I'm pretty sure that's my bosses intent. How's that for 'bull'!? 

 

I know you feel like everything distills down to the basics, and to a certain extent of course it does, good skiing is good skiing, but at the same time there is a huge variance in style from system to system, you just have to look at the Interski videos to see that. In some systems there is a huge variance from demo teamer to demo teamer, if you don't explore other avenues, how can you find what works for you? Why shouldn't I be able to pick a style I like, rather than what one system tells me to do? Hell, from one season to another, I might even change that style. This is skiing after all...

post #70 of 79
No two development paths are the same. What works best for one, cannot be offered as more than that.

Just like we see in lessons, some ask why, some see success and don't dig deeper. Why would they? That struggle and the confusion some experience is part of their journey.
post #71 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post


 

I know you feel like everything distills down to the basics, and to a certain extent of course it does, good skiing is good skiing, but at the same time there is a huge variance in style from system to system, you just have to look at the Interski videos to see that. In some systems there is a huge variance from demo teamer to demo teamer, if you don't explore other avenues, how can you find what works for you? Why shouldn't I be able to pick a style I like, rather than what one system tells me to do? Hell, from one season to another, I might even change that style. This is skiing after all...

 

Jim,

 

I am not really sure what you even mean here.  You acknowledge that you can make it all the way to Demo Team, and still have your own "style", but then argue that unless you can switch orgs, you cant find a "style" you like.  I assure you, national orgs are not about "style" they are about skiing fundamentals that transcend "style". 

 

Can you provide an example of something is NZSIA had you do...that is purely "style"?  I cant think of anything.

post #72 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

No two development paths are the same. What works best for one, cannot be offered as more than that.
 

 

This is true, we all take our own path, and no doubt there are many paths to success - however that is not to say common themes of successful pros cannot be dervied.  This thread is about highlighting one aspect of those.  Further, this thread is about highligting one path, that in my experience, despite its appeal to some, has never ever lead to success.  I cant think of any pros who have developed past L2 doing the "pick and choose" method I have highlighted here, and I know and have met alot of them from around the world. 

post #73 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

Jim,

 

I am not really sure what you even mean here.  You acknowledge that you can make it all the way to Demo Team, and still have your own "style", but then argue that unless you can switch orgs, you cant find a "style" you like.  I assure you, national orgs are not about "style" they are about skiing fundamentals that transcend "style". 

 

Can you provide an example of something is NZSIA had you do...that is purely "style"?  I cant think of anything.

 

Thanks for retracting your earlier misrepresentations...

 

Arguing the difference between style and technique gets a little bit close to pointless semantics doesn't it? I also have never said that anyone, or I, had to do anything, you have been the only one speaking in absolutes. I didn't leave NZ because of anything wrong with their system, I left because the skiing is better in Chile. That's beside the point though. 

 

My point all the way through this, was that people can choose how they want to ski, and still be good skiers. They can also change systems as they want, and maybe experiencing other systems makes people better. Doesn't JF Beaulieu have the French cert as well as the Canadian? Pretty sure my boss in Japan, Paul Lorenz, has certs from 3 or 4 different countries, Jonathon Ballou is on the PSIA D team, but is a top level examiner in NZ as well, it doesn't seem to have impacted any of them too badly. 

post #74 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post

 

Thanks for retracting your earlier misrepresentations...

 

Arguing the difference between style and technique gets a little bit close to pointless semantics doesn't it? I also have never said that anyone, or I, had to do anything, you have been the only one speaking in absolutes. I didn't leave NZ because of anything wrong with their system, I left because the skiing is better in Chile. That's beside the point though. 

 

My point all the way through this, was that people can choose how they want to ski, and still be good skiers. They can also change systems as they want, and maybe experiencing other systems makes people better. Doesn't JF Beaulieu have the French cert as well as the Canadian? Pretty sure my boss in Japan, Paul Lorenz, has certs from 3 or 4 different countries, Jonathon Ballou is on the PSIA D team, but is a top level examiner in NZ as well, it doesn't seem to have impacted any of them too badly. 

 

First, thank you for your apology.

 

Style vs technqiue is just semantics?????????  It is one of the most critical things to understand for a developing pro.  Its like saying a blue K-Way is the same as a blue Gore-tex jacket...c'mon man.

 

Yup there are pros who have multiple certs from different countries, and from my expereince, once fully certifed in one system its pretty easy to get fully certified in another...why?  Because the there is not this huge difference that you claim...far more similiarity then differences.  Further, those that for one reason or another came up through 2 systems at once (usually due to skiing year round north/south) these guys who were successful, became successful by doing what I am advocating here...they sought to find the commonality, and were not doing it, to prove one wrong or choose parts of one, and not of the other....that meant they were on the right track, and were focused on what mattered, not the window dressing. 

 

Lastly if its not a case that you didnt have to do anything, then why are you suggesting that one has to change orgs...to change style? 

post #75 of 79

  Damn, I'm glad I got involved with racing instead...just reading your posts is exhausting, skiing with you guys'd probably KILL mebiggrin.gif

 

  P.s. Just injecting some levity...carry onsmile.gif

post #76 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

First, thank you for your apology.

 

Style vs technqiue is just semantics?????????  It is one of the most critical things to understand for a developing pro.  Its like saying a blue K-Way is the same as a blue Gore-tex jacket...c'mon man.

 

Yup there are pros who have multiple certs from different countries, and from my expereince, once fully certifed in one system its pretty easy to get fully certified in another...why?  Because the there is not this huge difference that you claim...far more similiarity then differences.  Further, those that for one reason or another came up through 2 systems at once (usually due to skiing year round north/south) these guys who were successful, became successful by doing what I am advocating here...they sought to find the commonality, and were not doing it, to prove one wrong or choose parts of one, and not of the other....that meant they were on the right track, and were focused on what mattered, not the window dressing. 

 

Lastly if its not a case that you didnt have to do anything, then why are you suggesting that one has to change orgs...to change style? 

 

I didn't feel I owed you an apology, as I never told you to stfu, or that what you had typed was 'bull', when it wasn't. Nor did I repeatedly ascribe views to you in order to try and score points.

 

I really feel like you are just trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing, when/where, did I ever say that you have to do anything? I just explicitly stated above that you were the only one who has ever used absolutes. I have only ever said, that you can choose to look at other systems, as opposed to you insisting that you have to stick to one. Or that maybe changing systems is not a bad idea. I haven't even changed orgs. I just made the point in my first post, that I have a situation whereby I have a bunch of guys to look up to, they all ski differently and I can take from each what I like. I would say that was a pretty reasonable way to learn to ski, but you obviously feel quite differently.

 

As for style v technique, another thread I'd say, but frankly they're pretty much synonyms, so I would probably find that thread as tiresome as this one. 

post #77 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentune View Post

  Damn, I'm glad I got involved with racing instead...just reading your posts is exhausting, skiing with you guys'd probably KILL mebiggrin.gif

 

  P.s. Just injecting some levity...carry onsmile.gif

I wish I'd got involved with racing too, and also that I'd not got involved in this thread...

post #78 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post

I wish I'd got involved with racing too, and also that I'd not got involved in this thread...

  Come join the "Dark Side of the force", we'd love to have youjk.gif

 

  P.s. O.k seriously I'm done messin' aroundrolleyes.gif

post #79 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

'Ignorance' simply means 'not knowing'. It's not so much a judgement as an observation.

'Stupid' though is a whole different kettle of fish.smile.gif

 

Just a question, but again, why would a rookie pro be only likely to know something like inline skating? And if that rookie pro's client or group has no inline skating experience, what difference would the rookie's knowledge  of skating make to the client? I've met a good number of new instructors over the years who've have pretty extensive sports backgrounds, are physical therapists, school teachers (bonus on this one for knowledge of cog/physical development), professional cyclists, ex-football or hockey players, gymnastics, etc... the list is as long as it is varied and valuable. Sure, not all do, but you get my drift. And with much respect to you Rusty, making the connection with a client's previous athletic background is ITC 101. It also extends to seasoned pros when first training/clinicing their new instructors and L1's where there's often a richness of previous transferable experience even if there isn't a long history of ski instruction. Again, I get what this thread is about, but it seems that there's an undertone, whether intentional or not, of 'talking down to' inherent in a lot of otherwise good thoughts.

 

How about this one. Some of you guys have a lifetime of training less experience folks, hiring, introducing pedagogies, etc... Two questions. One, can you tell us about a new instructor who really brought something to the table that made you better at what you do? Two, what have you taught or tried to sort out earlier in your career that at the time felt as though you were challenging some of the dogma, official or unofficial, that we all feel we confront at some point?  Did knowledge of other systems help you, or did it confuse? Did other previous life experience guide your thoughts to a successful outcome? Guess that's more like 1, 2, and 2a.  Thanks in advance! I'll go back to listening mode now. Promise.

Understood about ignorance. Which sounds better "ignorance" or "inexperience"? Implication was what I was referring to. Not everyone will get the same implied meaning.

 

My example for teaching for transfer was meant to describe a couple of phenomena for teaching pros. Sure transfer is ITC 101, but how good are they on day 1? No matter what sports background a rookie instructor brings to the table, it should expand after becoming a pro. The pro should become more knowledgeable even about sports they've never practiced. Another thing is that pros develop more awareness of nuances of different sports and how well skiers can transfer different elements of other sports into their own skiing. They become much better at teaching for transfer than just being told to do it. Can horseback riders use similar knee movements in skiing? What about  "anticipation" of a horse's movements? These are to do items on my list. I'm not talking about knowing what teaching for transfer is. I'm talking about how there are so many different levels of ability to teach for transfer.

 

I'm not trying to talk down here. I'm trying to verbalize some subtle, not widely known phenomena. How often have you heard level 2 candidates tell you that they have their wedge turns "down" (i.e. don't need to be improved). They may be right that they don't need to be improved in order to pass L2. But it's amazing to me how much better the demo team guys do wedge turns than I do (aren't L3 certs supposed to be able to do "perfect" wedge turns?). I think this is an example that fits Dude's theory. You just can't expect the typical L2 candidate to make demo team quality wedge turns because it's not possible to get from point A to point B without going through other stages along the way. We preach to rookies what the movements that are part of wedge turns are. It should be possible to "just do them". But there appears to be levels of refinement that just can't be skipped over. Until you get near the top level, why start over at the bottom level in another system?

 

I see the same phenomena in clinics I teach. Some of the stuff is the same thing every year. On rare occasions I have to do one of these clinics one on one with more senior pros who have heard it all many times before. Yet,we invariably find new material to cover in new ways. But that stuff just does not "resonate" with newer instructors. There's a ton of room within a system to expand one's knowledge.

 

 

re: questions

I learn from every new instructor that I teach. They all do things a little different and they all find things that I've never thought of before. One example is how to turn students in a class into teacher's helpers to help other students. What surprised me was seeing how much the helpers learned while off their skis. 

 

One example of dogma is that I teach new skiers and riders how to fall (skiers less so because they are some strict rules there). Knowledge of other systems hasn't helped me that much. I was blissfully ignorant of other teaching systems until nearly achieving L3 cert. I don't know if I've added anything from other systems so much as recognized the similarities to stuff (or maybe polished some that stuff) already in my bag of tricks.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching