or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

holistic vs linear teaching - Page 2

post #31 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cole
Ron – Actually what I have found is the student only needs to learn from one of the four dominant learning modes, which the student obviously will with some overlap; the instructor then has the opportunity to communicate/observe and build the learning experience from there based on the instructors communication and observations. Are you sure you meant to say, or did I misinterpret, the students must be a feeler?

As Ron wrote, the Kolb model describes optimum learning as a 4 step process of 1) concrete experience, 2) observation and reflection, 3) formulation of abstract concepts and generalizations, 4) testing those concepts in new situations. (The observation here refers to the learner's observation of his own experience.) These steps roughly correspond with Joan Heaton's 4 learning styles (feeler, watcher, thinker, doer), but those learning styles are not part of the Kolb model. The Kolb model isn't limited to skiing or sports, but applies equally to all learning. My own experience has been that it applies equally to math teaching as it does to ski teaching.
In any athletic activity, you need to feel what is happening and to associate that feeling with an outcome. Once you know what it feels like to be in balance, you can easily create the movements necessary to stay in balance. Your dominant learning style does not need to be "feeler," but you at least need to be able to visit that style of learning. You cannot learn to ski by thinking alone. "Feelers" learn sports far more easily than "thinkers," who will pickup chess more easily than skiing.

BK
post #32 of 168
taken from a thread from over a year ago: "what's your learning style" - it's a big write up on Kolb's theories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by klkaye
This thread is all about Learning Styles. Much has been mentioned about "personality indicators" such as Keirsey and Myers-Briggs. I'd like to discuss Kolb's theories on Learning.

According to Kolb, learning occurs in 2 steps: ACQUIRING and PROCESSING.

We can either acquire information in an ABSTRACT or CONCRETE manner. Abstracts like to listen, discuss, and ask questions. Concretes like to engage in anything that is "hands-on" (including reading books). After acquiring information, we have to process it - try it out. While processing, some people are SEQUENTIAL and others are RANDOM. A sequential will do things in order, precisly in the fashion they were shown or told. Randoms will just take the basic idea and try all variations of it.

Therefore, learners fall into the categories of:
AS - Abstract Sequential
AR - Abstract Random
CS - Concrete Sequential
CR - Concrete Random

HOWEVER! This is where it "begins", not ends.

LEARNING BEHAVIORS are much much more important, because learners EVOLVE!!!! Some of you mentioned that you tend to "switch" your styles when you do different activities. It's not activities-based, actually. When we learn, we make correlations to things we have done before - these mental building blocks assist our learning.

Suppose you ski and I suggest you learn to rollerblade. You have never rollerbladed before, but I tell you "it's a lot like skiing"... I bet you'll ask me a few questions and jump to it. However, if I suggested that you and I make baskets woven from birch branches - well... I am going to have to teach you in a much different way....

Therefore, we are presented with many challenges as instructors:
- know what learning styles are
- know our own learning tendancies, because we WILL teach the way we learn
- recognize learning behaviors
- see when a student evolves (exhibits new learning behaviors)

Risks:
- teaching in our own learning style can alienate those with radically different styles
- pigeonholeing our students as a certain "type" of learner and not adapting as they evolve

I could go on and on about the behaviors, delivery models for instruction, etc... but, I won't.

My point, therefore, is that it's more important to recognize the learning styles/preferences of our students as exhibited through their behaviors during a lesson. Upon recognition - give the learner what they need.
post #33 of 168
Bode, well written!


John Cole, many times in a group, there are students with different learning styles and experiental learning addresses all four. For a concrete experience, the class has to be feelers, it is not difficult for the other learning types to become feelers. It only takes a little coaching and a few key words from the instructor. People are often not exclusivly one type of learner, so a lesson that keys into all of the learning types is more effective teaching. I hope this clarifies experiential learning for you.
RW

"less is more"
post #34 of 168
Ron - Everyone is a combination of all learning styles so it is not necessary for a person to be any particular learning style to gain from experential teaching. Too many times it is the instructor who wants to pigeon hole the student into a particular learning mode and therein a problem is created. To say a person has to be in a particular mode of learning to gain from experience is simply not correct. Thinkers, feelers, doers, or watchers can all gain from experiencing; if not only feelers would ever learn from experiences and that is simply not true. Maybe I do not understand what you are implying.
post #35 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
(My bolding)

IMO, the other way around -- concepts first -- does not translate well to learning any physical activity. Take a task that everyone can do and try to teach someone how to do it by conceptualizing it: throwing a ball.

What good are the words and concepts that one would use?

Instead, show and do -- allow the student to draw conclusions, but guide them to the right ones by the exercises that highlight and reward the correct movement. Tell them exactly what the movements are, show them the drill, let them do it, and then have them draw their conclusions.

Heaven forbid the lesson that begins: "Today we are going to learn how pressure control affects our fore and aft balance by cultivating the relationship between our CM and our BOS. We'll begin by experimenting with stance. Pay attention to how your CM's ground vector defines the balance point."

How about instead three drills -- "Lets make turns! Hands on hips, press the hips forwards. Almost lift the tails...feel the pressure on the boot tonge and forefoot", drill 2: "Now press the hips back, almost lifting the tips..." etc.

If you start with the conclusion, you run the risk of confusing the student. They now have to fit their experience to your conclusion, and that is a problem if they don't COMPLETELY understand your conclusion. You need to give them work to do that is simple and brings them to the conclusion.
Hmmm - Big E - I am pretty hard to get to move UNTIL I get the explanation.... If you want me to try without understanding it takes REAL HARD WORK & a big amount of trust ("trust me I need to see how you will respond to this BEFORE you understand it - WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS" ) ....

Generally I am so much a "thinker" that I can't STOP thinking to enable me to "do" until I get enough explanation to satisfy the brain & get it to leave me alone...
post #36 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer
"Feelers" learn sports far more easily than "thinkers," who will pickup chess more easily than skiing.
BK
I would not disagree with this at all if we would say “feelers” begin to learn sport activities at a faster pace than say a “thinker”. There are some less than dynamic sport related skills individuals learn having a lot less to with feel than others such as shooting a foul shot; which is more a visualization. However, in the end, the “feeler” will not necessarily have a leg up on learning the skill. Why? Because the thinker adapts fairly readily to “feeling” where a “feeler” has a much more difficult time adapting to become a “thinker”; the challenge for the coach is to immediately recognize the learning style and help/allow the student to evolve and grow. I have found experiential teaching works well for thinkers given they have a trust in the coach; another challenge. The statement of trust can be made for any learning. I teach a fair amount of engineering types, airline pilots and navigators, and I assure you, while I try not to put them all in the same box, they are “THINKERS”. The experience is more let’s try something and then we can discuss it on the next ride up. It needs to linear and concise or you loose them on the next chair ride. Bottom line, experiential teaching can work well with any students if the coach can recognize and adapt. Some students, “feelers”, may start off quicker but that does not necessarily mean they will end up at the finish first.
post #37 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cole
I would not disagree with this at all if we would say “feelers” begin to learn sport activities at a faster pace than say a “thinker”...Some students, “feelers”, may start off quicker but that does not necessarily mean they will end up at the finish first.
I agree with all that. The Kolb model is that all learning begins with a concrete experience, which in athletics involves some sort of feeling. THINKERS start slower because they need to get to the FEELER mode before learning begins. Everyone needs to learn in all 4 styles, even if they strongly prefer one of them. Part of the value of skiing is that it forces THINKERS to stop thinking so much and enjoy the sensations of skiing, just as it is a good thing for DOERS to stop occasionally to think about things (Pete Rose and Mike Tyson come to mind).

BK
post #38 of 168
Quote:
Ron - Everyone is a combination of all learning styles so it is not necessary for a person to be any particular learning style to gain from experential teaching.


As Bode explains:
Quote:
The Kolb model is that all learning begins with a concrete experience, which in athletics involves some sort of feeling
For experienttal learning, to be effective, the first step (a concrete experience) is a feeling. That is why the student must be able to feel something, or be a feeler first. The coach just needs the student to have a sensation that he can relate as an outcome of a task. We are not trying to dictate what learning type the student is, but rather gaining sensory awareness from those that don't usually notice that sensory (feeling), while involved in that activity.

RW
post #39 of 168
I need to know what I'm meant to be feeling, in order to learn skiing stuff. I guess I need a context. Just something about which joint/s we are using, waht the purpose or aim is, that kind of thing. Then I'm able to extract maximum value from the experience. A trainer once got me to just follow them down the hill. I was totally mystified as to what the purpose or focus was, and learned exactly nil. Trainer was evidently a wather/doer, but you'd think she'd have learned that others aren't like that.
post #40 of 168
Disski,

I agree completely with what Bode said. If some reasoning is necessary to get you to move, then that's what YOU need to hear.

Note that the examples I offered did tell the student that they should be paying attention to certain things. And those things were feelings. The conclusions that arise from this type of experimentation certainly can be discussed.

I'd rather not come straight out and tell the student the answer, but I'll be happy to lead them to it. It's their light bulb. They need to turn it on. You can only help them find the switch.
post #41 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Disski,

I agree completely with what Bode said.
.

Sorry - have to disagree - he says I cannot START to learn until I feel... i KNOW I mostly cannot start to learn until I understand.... occassionally I can be cajoled into doing something - but as ant says I need to have an idea WHAT i am supposed to feel....

Just as in learning to surf they tell me to "watch the waves" but I have to explain I mostly just see a heap of chopped up grey/blue stuff atm.... I need the "teacher" to explain WHAT i am looking for to be able to start to develop an "eye" for these waves

I could sit & watch waves all day & i will NOT develop that ability.... My brain just does not learn by falling off waves. I start to learn when I understand what I am trying to learn & that allows me to "focus" my "feeler skills" on this task... (In the waves case to learn WHAT i am watching for in that mass of rippled water)
post #42 of 168
Maybe we can all agree that, while learned they are, we still call the postulates presentations “Theories”. The neat thing about all of us is we are different. The challenge in coaching, every student is a different person bringing different “things” to the table. Yes, we all will become feelers in a physical activity (to a degree-never give ground completely I always say), and yes some of us will “translate” the feeling to a why we feel what we feel (thinking I do believe). I wonder if a downhill racer at umpteen mile per hour (did this once myself and it is scary) is thinking or feeling or visualizing or just going as fast as hell to get to the finish line and show their sponsors skis.

Thought a little levity was in order for the morning, sometimes we just THINK it to death now don’t we! (Can we feel it to death I wonder?)

Have a GREAT day,
post #43 of 168
It is the big challenge for all teachers to teach effectively all the people they have. I am constantly astounded when I teach something in a way i'm sure cannot work, and to see lightbulbs going off, or to have certain students say that the thing I thought was crap was revalatory to them. I can't comprehend how anyone could learn from that, but I am recognising that they do, so I must teach it. I keep studying them in the meantime, hoping that my lightbulb will go off and I'll understand how they learn that way. it is certainly interesting.
post #44 of 168
disski,

What matters here is the definition of "learn", and when it starts. I think about it like this:

When you are told of what to look for, then you can start the exercise.

When you begin to feel it's purpose you start learning.

Learning to me means that the loop between mental model and physical action is being completed.
post #45 of 168
Big E -- according to Kolb learning requires a few pieces:

- acquire information
- process information

after this the presumption is that you "understand" the information

through much repitition (much more with adults than children), you will learn. if you learn something, then you know it -- if you know it, you can explain it
post #46 of 168
that is another thing I am learning. Teach, embed, embed. Rather than teaching something and then jumping to the next thing, teach the same thing many different ways, let the student explore and understand and own the new thing. They enjoy gaining the knowledge and then feeling it working... even though teaching umpteen new things is great for them and you, really embedding the new thing can be better.
post #47 of 168
klkaye,

Are you saying that learning to ski actually starts when the first book is opened,
or when the first race is seen on TV or at the point that the first "how people should ski" opinion gets formed?

Is processing done once taken to the hill?
post #48 of 168
Big E,

Learning starts with information, not opinions. Deciding you want to learn to ski doesn't get you any closer to knowing it, right?

All learners are different. By definition, acquiring is simply "getting". You might talk to someone, watch a video, shadow a lesson, take a lesson, read a book, watch a race, etc., to learn about something like skiing. Then you process -- this is all about practice, so I would argue that you can't process without physically "doing" it.

There is still a significant gap between "learning" and "knowing" something.
post #49 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
klkaye,

Are you saying that learning to ski actually starts when the first book is opened,
or when the first race is seen on TV or at the point that the first "how people should ski" opinion gets formed?

Is processing done once taken to the hill?
Yes, to some degree this is correct. What you do with it from there is up to your personal interest. However, you did "learn" something from the exposure.
post #50 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
klkaye,

Are you saying that learning to ski actually starts when the first book is opened,
or when the first race is seen on TV or at the point that the first "how people should ski" opinion gets formed?

Is processing done once taken to the hill?
"Learning" covers a lot of ground. You can learn ABOUT skiing from a book, but learning TO ski starts with a physical experience.

BK
post #51 of 168
BK,

Learning is complicated. Kolb assumes NO previous knowledge or experience. So imagine I brought you to the ski area, handed you equipment and just left you alone -- to get a "physical experience". Without some knowledge (how to put on equipment, what it's used for, how to move on snow with this equipment, etc.) then you'd have a very hard time learning anything. Or, you'd do what was instinctive -- and probably defensive.

Imagine how improved this learning experience would be with the benefit of information first.

kiersten
post #52 of 168
Actually, I hate to bring this to your attention yet again, but a scientific experiment was conducted years ago in Austria by the esteemed Professor Kruckenhauser who ran the Bundessportheim at the time, wherein two utterly novice groups were exposed to skiing. Each group was equipped with the best hardware of the era, one group went out with the best instructors in the land and the other group went to a specially designed learning environment but without instruction. Which group improved more after a given time period? The group without instruction.
post #53 of 168
Nolo, All things being equal with the students, I can believe you.....I feel that the holistic approach ,the process of guided discovery, allowing the student to experience the pleasure of self discovery is owning the skills rather than imitating.
post #54 of 168
I remember Horst Abrahm saying "learning is taking away not adding to" or something to that affect.

I believe by simply taking away impedaments to learning one will progress.


this is why I have spent much of my time working with equipment and aligning it properly for each skier. It is amazing to me how putting someone in perfect alignment fore/aft and laterally will instantly improve their skiing. I also can not believe that every ski school in the Country does not offer this service as an integrated part of their ski school experience. This is one of the huge advantages of attending specialty camps such as ESA where these equipment issues are addressed.
post #55 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
Actually, I hate to bring this to your attention yet again, but a scientific experiment was conducted years ago in Austria by the esteemed Professor Kruckenhauser who ran the Bundessportheim at the time, wherein two utterly novice groups were exposed to skiing. Each group was equipped with the best hardware of the era, one group went out with the best instructors in the land and the other group went to a specially designed learning environment but without instruction. Which group improved more after a given time period? The group without instruction.
Nolo -- in this thread we have been discussing "learning" not instruction. I don't think anyone has argued that you need an instructor to learn, rather that learning happens in stages.
post #56 of 168
The title of the thread is Holistic vs Linear Teaching, and I thought my example answered your previous post:
Quote:
So imagine I brought you to the ski area, handed you equipment and just left you alone -- to get a "physical experience". Without some knowledge (how to put on equipment, what it's used for, how to move on snow with this equipment, etc.) then you'd have a very hard time learning anything. Or, you'd do what was instinctive -- and probably defensive.

Imagine how improved this learning experience would be with the benefit of information first.
post #57 of 168
Nolo,

Yes, the title is "teaching" and we've digressed (as we tend to do around here -- LOL!) into a conversation about "learning". Your post provides interesting information. My only suggestion was that there was nothing to refute since no one had made claims about the importance or necessity of instruction with regard to learning. Rather, I asserted that one will learn better with the benefit of some *information*.

thanks.
post #58 of 168

alignment to facilitate learning

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman
I believe by simply taking away impedaments to learning one will progress.
this is why I have spent much of my time working with equipment and aligning it properly for each skier. It is amazing to me how putting someone in perfect alignment fore/aft and laterally will instantly improve their skiing.
I have been doing a little amateur foot correction this season, with people who were so bow-legged that they could NOT do a productive wedge. Their feet were almost at 180 degrees to each other, and still they were rocketing along, skis flat, no edge engagement or slowing.

I just got some trail maps and taped them under the outside of the foot "bed" in their rental boots to cant their feet inwards, and the effect was quite magical: they could ski.
Also, fighting with their own morphology was exhausting them and causing their legs to shake with fatigue, so this allowed them to actually continue skiing.

I seemed to have a lot of these this season, and wonder if my eye is getting better and I can spot these things with more accuracy than before?
post #59 of 168

How To From Books

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer
"Learning" covers a lot of ground. You can learn ABOUT skiing from a book, but learning TO ski starts with a physical experience.

BK
Bk - Think this through. You can actually learn how to from watching and reading i.e. how to make a wedge, how to slip the ski, how to.... and it goes on. Yes, you do not gain a practical experience but you do know the how to and can even learn enough to lecture on how to. I met plenty of those teachers in my life.
post #60 of 168
I believe the point of Kruckenhauser's experiment was just Horst's -- the teacher's job is to remove impediments to learning, as Bud noted and Arc has elsewhere on this forum. I believe Horst would say the teacher's job is to prepare the learning environment and frame (tee up, introduce, create an anticipatory mindset for) the learning experience, so the learner can do her job, which is to play, discover and learn within the environment/frame. The teacher's work during the learning experience is to 1) keep the student safe, 2) be present to offer encouragement, support, and guidance, 3) at the end of the experience, help the student process what was learned. This is what he taught us at the National Teaching Seminar in '96.

Summary: a higher level of teaching is setting up a learning experience and then getting out of the way of the learning.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching