As pointed out several times in this thread, those of us who work with programs that run 20 or more days through the season have a great luxury in how we can plan and execute development progressions.
But I do a good handful of one-off rec lessons too, at various levels, and I find I can still apply the same principles to good effect.
I'm not trying to take a short-cut and just teach a familiar lesson over & over, but I find that the progressions that I use in a competitive program can still work with GP.
One of the simple adaptations that I'll add is to temper expectations of performance.
Equally important, I choose terrain very carefully: I'll often pick more forgiving terrain to get a better result, which creates enjoyment and confidence.
Finally, it's rare to really change something in a one or two hour lesson, so I'm going to do my best to find other measures of success and encouragement.
This isn't following a Decision Training approach, so results might be short lived.
However, if the lesson finishes safely, and the student had fun, I've greatly improved the chances for the student to come back again to really start learning...:)
Some good points made MM. In regards to beginners, IMO this level of skier offers the biggest opportunity for change. Beginners are being introduced to a volatile movement environment that requires a huge change it their dynamic balance abilities. This is why the "B" in BERP is the encompassing circle. To that point my experience is that too many instructors do not spend enough time developing this critical skill. Because of management imposed time limits or a "check the progression box" mentality.
There are soooooo many great exercises (bag of tricks) that go unused during this initial phase of ski instruction. The result is that the student is continually impacted by a weak foundation.
BTW I would be in favor of changing the "B" in BERP to "A" for dynamic Alignment.....but then we would lose a "catchy" acronym.