or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › An experience with parallels to skiing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An experience with parallels to skiing? - Page 2

post #31 of 42
Thread Starter 
Weems,

I find it of interest that this ability to transfer goals and cues from one side to the other seems to have improved with age (unlike just about every other aspect of motor performance!). Twenty years ago I played handball pretty seriously but don't think I was as capable back then of modelling my left on my right as I would be now. I have been very surprised with the transfer I've seen and where I'm starting out. I will say that serving is somewhat more difficult but after a few balls flying all directions it has calmed down and there is still a lot of effective gudiance based on my right handed serving.

As a handball player interested in symetric performance on the left and right, I had a friend who showed me an article on workers who hand rolled cigars. They did a study of these workers and found that even after something like 1 million cigars (I may be off by a factor of 10 here), rolling a cigar "off-handed" still resulted in signifcantly worse performance. There is well documented evidence that certain skills need to be learned at the critical developmental stages otherwise they can never reach full potential.
post #32 of 42
In college I roomed with 4 other men. The discussions at the dinner table were often gutteral to say the least. One night, the most straight laced among us very casually and with a straight face said, " Try the other hand, it feels like somebody else is doing it". We were all rolling on the floor laughing. Anytime a discussion of right and left handedness come up I can't help but remember that comment.

PSIA recognizes four leaning styles. Si has discovered the one that works best for him. I know from previous posts that disski has a very different learning style. We all tend to teach more towards our learning style because that is where our passion takes us. A good instructor will try to constantly improve their teaching in the styles that they are not natural at. By doing so it becomes far easier to not only connect with students but to understand where they are coming from.

PMTS may have an advantage over PSIA in connecting with students because the teaching is much more structured. On the other hand, PSIA is all about customizing a drill to fit a particular situation for a student. A PSIA instructor may be more likely to come up with a drill that is very unique to their form of learning style and totally inapproriate for their student.
post #33 of 42
Thread Starter 
Pierre,

Whether this type of learning is a personal learning style or a component of all learning is a good question. What personal learning style do you view this mode of learning as falling into? I see it fitting in to most if not all.
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
Pierre,

Whether this type of learning is a personal learning style or a component of all learning is a good question. What personal learning style do you view this mode of learning as falling into? I see it fitting in to most if not all.
Si I see this falling mostly into the feeler type of learning style with a secondary learning style of doer. Probably about 40% of all skiers learn in this type of fashion. Most people are a combination of all learning styles but tend to be 60% or greater one learning style followed by 20-30% of a second learning style and 10% or so of the remaining two learning styles.

I see doer's and watcher's as opposites and Thinker's and feeler's as opposites.
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
Weems, I think the science tells us "use it or lose it."
Yeah? Well I sure lost it!
post #36 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Si I see this falling mostly into the feeler type of learning style with a secondary learning style of doer. Probably about 40% of all skiers learn in this type of fashion. Most people are a combination of all learning styles but tend to be 60% or greater one learning style followed by 20-30% of a second learning style and 10% or so of the remaining two learning styles.

I see doer's and watcher's as opposites and Thinker's and feeler's as opposites.
Pierre,

I see goal or outcome driven movement learning ("implicit learning") vs. component movement skill learning ("explicit learining") as mostly being an independent dimension that applies to all 4 learning styles. In other words, I see this readily applying to doers, watchers, thinkers, and feelers.

I also personally think that classification of learning styles can sometimes leads to too much polarization and less than optimal learning conditions. I like something analogous to Weems' approach with his Diamond. Approaches for different learning style need to be dynamically mixed together, depending on the person being taught, the day, the situation, the conditions, etc. Of course, that's what the best instructors learn to do instinctively.

Personally I find there is so much to learn than whether it's doing, feeliing, watching, or thinking I believe I can learn a lot in most any situation. Mostly I'd rather have an instructor, friend, or whomever, teach along the dimensions they excel at or those that they have had personal success with.
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
Pierre,

I see goal or outcome driven movement learning ("implicit learning") vs. component movement skill learning ("explicit learining") as mostly being an independent dimension that applies to all 4 learning styles. In other words, I see this readily applying to doers, watchers, thinkers, and feelers.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here but I don't think I agree with it 100%. Some students want the big picture and some want every detail along the way. Most students are in between the two.

The best thing for any instructor to do is to actually listen to their student without any assumptions. The student is usually communicating well both verbally and through body language as to how they want the information from you.

One thing is for certain. Only through mileage and some trial and error do students learn how to do an athletic activity well. You won't think you're way to completion. Human motor coordination does not work that way; its much more primative. Simple movement patterns from other well ingrained activities transfers well, complicated movements do not. Intructors must understand this well. Too much talking and standing around is a waste of time. I think this may be what you are saying.
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Me too.

I found the TGR comment interesting too. I'm 20, and I don't post there because frankly, the discussion is a couple steps in intelligence down from epicski.
-Garrett
Dude, if you rip that's all that matters... going HUGE.
post #39 of 42
without further polarity, I'd like to reframe Si's approach.

as a young athlete, I discovered quickly at age 7 that I was adept at kicking a ball with either foot provided I focused on where on the foot I wanted to strike the ball... I went for similarity of sensation, it worked for me, and I quickly was selected from among my teammates to play at a higher level.

fast forward some 17 years to college, where I took up lacrosse for the first time in my life. being a right handed person, I started learning the catch/cradle/throw motions from the right side. when it came time to learn left handed -- essential for any decent player, much like basketball requires dribblers to be able to charge and feint in either direction -- I focused on the feelings achieved when I "got it right" while learning fundamentals on the right side. I never had a left-handed shot, and in close pressure I'd resort to right-dominant play, but I was fairly adept at bilateral pass/catch/cradle/scoop activity.

last saturday I had a freaky little MTB accident and really seriously tweaked my right index finger. this has put a serious damper on my 2d dog exercising activity -- tossing the lax ball a good way, she fetches and retrieves. (the first is taking her out on MTB rides) no right-handed throws allowed now.

it's been 15 years since I played competitive lax or even played a decent game of catch with another player. I'd all but lost accuracy on the left-handed throw. but I'm revitalizing it now, forced by injury, and it's returning with a focus on what it FEELS LIKE to throw the ball with the right sequence of stance/torso/upper arm/elbow/forearm/wrist/palm/finger movements.

MA isn't commonplace among lax players, it's pretty well a self-taught thing although the basic movement of toss/catch can be described briefly and even dissected a bit. but like swinging a golf club, or casting a fly, it's mostly a feel and finesse thing. power comes into play only after the fine points are properly mastered.
post #40 of 42

Si - topic refocus

balanced skiing - left and right is one subject

but I think your left and right is more towards:

left - verbal - detail oriented - description oriented
right - whole picture - mimic the movement

It's hard to be taught "left brain" to perform "right brain" dynamic 3d movements

and better to be

Shown "right brain" so you can describe if need be "left brain"

It's seems to me that was the topic.

The other related topic you brought up that really is somewhat seperate from the above is:

Is there an ideal outcome (moving 3d picture in the right brain) that the instructor derives the appropriate drills and detail (left brain) to help move the student towards that outcome.

-or-

As you were pointing out, regardless of system or method, with a more sole focus on a "left brain" approach while ignoring the "right brain" goal, the student is not getting the best instruction possible.

*****done with making sure I understand where Si was comming from *****

***** what follows in my opinion *****************

In many regards this also focuses on "coaching" vs "instruction" to some degree. A "instruction" style introduces new concepts to the student. A "coaching" style has a right brain outcome in mind and removes error or deviation from the student to help get the student away from habits, movement patterns, that are different the the outcome in the mine of the coach. If there is no outcome in mind, then instruction and presentation of drills is rather purpossless. They have no ultiment context.

***** a question for people that have seen the software *****

Is the right brain outcomes based approach helped by new teaching tools like V1 that allow dynamic analysis of movement patterns from an "ideal" compared to the "student". This is a visual focus and direct comparison of current outcome of the students real skiing to the outcome of a more hypothetical ideal outcome.

Would the addition of this type of software to a training program help address the need for a refocus, not on drills by on where the drills are taking someone?

Is this basic question Si raises why video feedback of any type can be so useful to a student?

*********comment on the hijack away from Si's subject ********
yes indeedy - I like hocky stops to the right more than the left. Therefore, untill they feel the same, I've been doing the left ones 2 to 1 in a typical ski day. Likewise, a high traverse slow turn (lazy turn) is easy left of the fall line, and not quite as easy for me right of the fall line. (could be a 1/2 degree alignment issue on my right boot) I'm working to balance out my right and my left skills in skiing. But, I don't think this had much to do with Si's post.
post #41 of 42
Thread Starter 
Gonz, I think we are on the same wavelength (in this instance but probably not always) in terms of the topic I originally started here. Perhaps one more statement of the two learning/teaching styles presented here is worth the attempt: One style gives specific steps and instructions to teach a movement pattern, the other tries to establish an environment and some kind of goal that lets the learner discover the intended movement patterns for themselves. Obviously there can be a mixture of these two approaches.


John Mason,

While I don't intend to critcize the value of the generalized models of brain function that you reference, they are just that, very general models. The discussion I intended here was an empirical one where I hoped experience instructors and learners would comment on their own experiences (as some have). I think it is pretty clear from empirical experience that perception of a goal (with whichever side of the brain it is performed) can guide motor movements on both the left and right.

Some here seem to have difficulty understanding the differentiation between these two approaches (perhaps it's my reluctance to write an essay of great length like others here on Epic do, or just a lack of clarity on my part). Personally, I have found that most experienced instructors and experienced learners (who perform at a reasonable level of performance in a sport) understand this differenctiation very well. While they certainly don't all agree (even approximately) in terms of a proper mix or emphasis, they certainly understand how to use these different approaches.

The difference is never clearer to me than when I have been in an instructional group of any sort. Inevitably there are those who focus on trying to follow the step by step descriptions given to such an extent that they never discover the outcome that is there to recognize and use effectively as a goal. The best and quickest learners, however, seem to me to try to pass over the "process" as quickly as possible, only using it as a means to experience the intended outcome or goal and then use that to motivate their performance. It is also my observation, however, that the vast majority of instructors encourage the former type of learning over the latter.
post #42 of 42
Thread Starter 
Just an update. The left handed tennis is progressing better than I ever expected. I just have to watch out for creating a second shoulder problem.

My original impression that I should avoid any technical input (from myself or others) seems to have born out in spades.

I know I've made this point before here, but this experience spurs me on to make it again. There are times in a learning cycle where someone understands very well what they are trying to accomplish but just need time to work towards that goal. I still see a great opportunity for a ski instruction environment where skiers can get shorter segments of guidance, go off on their own or with peers, and then get a chance to come back and do a re-check with the coach.

It was my hope that the Epic Academy might be able to develop a component that fit this model but it never worked out. In spite of that, I believe that this is a very viable mode of ski instruction that remains mostly untouched.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › An experience with parallels to skiing?