Instructional Approaches

There has been a very good, if heated , discussion of instructional approaches in the "go faster" thread. I thought a thread focused solely on instructional schools of thought could be good if it's not too incendiary. My own belief is that the standard US "lesson" approach for many skill sports -- one day lessons taken haphazardly from an "instructor" -- is broken because it does not provide an opportunity for lasting shaping of the student towards better performance. Piano is not taught this way, why should golf, skiing or riding be? Furthermore, good instruction should be heavy on movement and very light on talk. Otherwise, how will the student actually learn the motor skills in question? And good instruction should build enthusiasm, not inhibition. Finally, practical, effective technique must be taught.

I've experienced AASI lessons as a student, in multi-day camp formats primarily, and also lurked on their discussion forum occasionally. My own experience has been that most of the instructors do keep their students riding and keep the talk to a minimum. Further, there don't seem to be many closet sadists in the AASI ranks, at least yet. You know, the ski instructor who has the class stand and listen for 45% of the lesson, then primarily savages several students' skiing without effectively showing how to move from where they are to a more-effective technique? I don't know whether this is in part an age thing (PSIA seems to be older) but the positive nature of AASI instruction that I have observed is a plus. (The inhibited nature of many ski instructor's skiing I think in part results from their having been "punished," rather than positively reinforced, by instructors who were into this during clinicing.) (I also know that PSIA does not officially encourage the stand-around-and-criticize approach, in fact it encourages the opposite -- but I see it happen not infrequently.)

The lesson format that exists in the U.S. for ski and snowboard schools I believe is more the fault of students collectively than any intructional organization. If enough students wanted season-long, effective teaching, they'd get it. AASI is responding to student demand for quick-fixes with the standard lesson format, but that's the market, can't fault them there.

One danger of the "half-day" lesson, though, is that instructors themselves begin to think that this is the main domain of riding. How will an instructor who spends their career teaching solely week-long camps to motivated students look at the world, and ride, after 20 years, versus one who spends the 20 years teaching half-days to 10-day a year riders who will never improve?

Effective technique: as a consumer, I think that both PSIA and AASI teach to their students (not to each other in higher level clinics) a technique aimed at non-fatiguing, relatively "easy" riding or skiing. Take foot drive. As a student, I have several times had it explained to me that a "neutral" technique that lets the board turn for you will allow you to ride big resorts all day without getting killed by fatigue. I think there is a fair bit of truth to this as a practical matter. Whether teaching this as the dominant approach to riding is the best way to go can be open to debate.

Rhetoric in instructional manuals or online forums is another issue. I figure people can say what they want in instructional manuals so long as it results in effective teaching. The danger is that too much rhetoric divorced from real riding ends up taking on a life of its own. The discussion of riding without using your highbacks on the AASI forum, for example...while a good drill, I read some posters there as taking this to be a generally applicable approach to riding. Similarly, there's a lot of focus on avoiding a "flying" rear arm...but virtually every Olympic halfpipe, competitor, say, displayed this while setting up their entry into the pipe.

I have zero knowledge of other nation's snowboard instruction systems. Relative to, say, PGA golf instruction in the U.S., I'd rate AASI instruction quite highly. Keeping people moving and lack of "talk and criticize" can go a long way by themselves. How it stacks up to other systems, areas for improvement, and barriers to changing approach -- who knows? Likewise I have never seen the internal politics at work.

Anyway, I'm interested in other's thoughts. Vlad and Phil, I appreciate the passion for the sport you both so obviously have. Please let's be heavy on smilies.

It's interesting that the business models that are rewarded currently by the U.S. stock market are ones that consider some types of on-hill investment, such as effective lessons, basically spent costs as opposed to investments in future skiers and riders. I don't even disagree with Intrawest on this from a business perspective necessarily.

If you look at the vitality of summer camps, though, there is a clear market for effective, targeted instruction, even for stronger riders. It may be diffuse enough, though, that it becomes something primarily addressed by non-resort instructors or specialty "destination" camps in-season, as Cesoneppe suggested, here in the U.S., if people can work around the insurance and liability issues.

Vlad, would you say that good ski and snowboard school instruction is valued more highly by 1) your average resort management, and 2) your average skier or rider, in Europe vs. the U.S.? Is this part of the difference in approach you are referring to?

Have you considered a "partnered" approach with guests whereby they agree to pay you a baseline amount, regardless, and then an extra amount if 1) they meet a stated performance goal, or 2) slack off by, err, skipping a lesson to attend to, err, other interests? Would European guests potentially be amenable to this if not currently offered? I ask because in my day job I've had excellent results and happy clients with a similar approach, but am struck that in most athletic pursuits most people don't want to really commit to improvement in a similar, partnered way.

Certainly it seems like having the ski school function done on a % of revenue basis (I assume) "rent" paid to the resort leaves the school as a whole incented to produce the goods, just wondering how this filters down to the specific guest/instructor relationship. Do happy guests tip well to the instructor, or do you pay performance-linked bonuses to the instructor?

These are very specific questions on delicate subjects -- business model and money -- but definitely appreciate anything you can share.