New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Other Stuff - Page 5

post #121 of 136
Excuse me if I've lost the thread here, but any teacher with a group has to assume differing learning types (and generalise accordingly) and then with an individual will try and find what works for them. Here something called experience comes into play without any need for piste-side shrink rapping, couches etc.

On the clock-face ins and outs, can this ever be as simple as having the pupil watch from either in front or behind the instructor?
post #122 of 136
ssh,

Quote:
I am failing in my effort to imagine how you can "feel" your turns down the hill without at least some visual sense of the hill.
A feeler uses their sight while skiing like most people. A person that is a feeler as their primary learning type both learns and skis by both the feedback from the ski-snow contact and from sensations of muscular movements from past and present experiences.

BigE,

Quote:
In particular, "the concrete experience" addresses all learning styles because it is believed that everyone needs to visit each learning style in order to truly learn the subject.
What you are describing is experiencial learning. To get people to become a feeler first to create the concrete expierence is where many instructors fail at using EL. It is a very effective way of creating a learning enviorment where every learning type is used, but to get people to become a feeler (first to create the concrete experience) who are predominitally either a,watcher, thinker, or doer takes either a gifted teacher or expierence.

In the eighties, some instructors after taking an expierencial learning workshop would ask the individuals in the lesson after doing a drill "how did that feel?" That instructor had no clue about experiencial learning or how to use it.

RW
post #123 of 136
An excellent article on experiential learning:

http://web.archive.org/web/200011200...ign/styles.htm
post #124 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRN View Post
I don't know if a MB assesment of a student is practical or even accuate, but knowing that there are different learning/personality types, and that each type may respond better to different forms of instruction will help me choose what process may work best for a given student.
This, I think, is the core key to the conversation. Different people learn differently. There are a number of models for generalizing the typical ways. Understanding the ways that they ahve been categorized can help us frame our communication in ways more likely to connect with the students.

Well said!
post #125 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron White View Post
A feeler uses their sight while skiing like most people. A person that is a feeler as their primary learning type both learns and skis by both the feedback from the ski-snow contact and from sensations of muscular movements from past and present experiences.
I understand this during skiing, Ron, but was responding to a comment that weems was "feeling" his visualization before the run, but not seeing any of it. I don't understand how I could "feel" parts of the run without being visually aware of where I am on the run. I'm not saying it's not possible; quite the contrary, I am trying to understand how that would work!
post #126 of 136
Nolo

Wasn't it one of your guys who came up with

Tell me and I forget
Teach me and I remember
Involve me and I learn

Interestingly, what it doesn't say outright is 'do as I do' (copy me) but opens the way for the more suggestive fo0rms of 'do as I say' where there may be a difference - notice the last thing someone like Harb does when skiing himself is phantom moves etc, but they may help a student find out things for himself which otherwise may not have happened, he learns by involvement. It doesn't provide answers but helps ask the right question.
post #127 of 136
Thread Starter 
Actually, it's an ancient Chinese aphorism:

I hear and I forget/
I see and I remember/
I do and I understand.

Probably the most convincing argument in favor of experiential learning methods, and most damning of the "blah-blah-blah" school of ski instruction.
post #128 of 136
Oh it is so good to hear the discussion go through the process of what is "teaching"... your teaching guides the student through the learning. It is not one with out the other. It is a simbiotic relationship. Good teachers understand this. Thanks to all of them....
post #129 of 136
ssh,

Sorry, I misunderstood what your comment was refering to.

Quote:
I understand this during skiing, Ron, but was responding to a comment that weems was "feeling" his visualization before the run, but not seeing any of it. I don't understand how I could "feel" parts of the run without being visually aware of where I am on the run. I'm not saying it's not possible; quite the contrary, I am trying to understand how that would work!
I do the same thing as weems with visulazation. It is hard to explain, but the feelings are linked to some visual references, but not dominated by them. I never see my self skiing while visualizing, but sence what it feels like while I am skiing over the terrain. The visual aspect is secondary.

Rw
post #130 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron White View Post
I do the same thing as weems with visulazation. It is hard to explain, but the feelings are linked to some visual references, but not dominated by them. I never see my self skiing while visualizing, but sence what it feels like while I am skiing over the terrain. The visual aspect is secondary.
That I can imagine! Ok. Thanks!

I am actually learning to do both. Taking a hint from Maltz, I actually do a "theater of the mind" experiment and see myself on a screen. I've done this for both skiing and golf. Please note that I don't do this on-snow, but do it in place of on-snow when I can't be there. When on-snow, it's about 90+% feel with a visual reference. Anyway, in the Theater of the Mind I can practice perfectly. The more vividly, the better.

Does that make sense? It does take practice for me to learn to visualize myself, however.
post #131 of 136
There is an important difference imo.

I hear and I forget/
I see and I remember/
I do and I understand.

says very little about the teacher's contribution and assumes the doing and understanding is all copying, and no listening.

Tell me and I forget
Teach me and I remember
Involve me and I learn

attributed to one Benjamin Franklin, makes the distinction between learning and teaching and emphasises how the latter succeeds through pupil involvement, self discovery etc. It's just a different blah blah, but is very much not the 'just follow me' school. In fact it could be taken as a case for 'do as I say' and 'not as I do' where the former is not the end game but a nudge in that direction.
post #132 of 136
Thread Starter 
Thanks, daslider. That's good stuff. The only part I don't believe I understand is the last sentence. Care to expand on that?
post #133 of 136
Can't be very expansive right now. Putting it another way, rather than showing what the answer is or offering a correct final form to be copied, alternatively by a process of suggestion and provocation the learner is nudged in the right direction to discover this for himself. Joubert talks about this sort of thing at the start of 'Skiing an Art and a Technique' where he rejects fixed movements in favour of feelings. I suppose it rejects the idea of simply trying to mimick a good skier's actions. Harb's phantom move is by his own admission not an end but a means. Lito talking about 'quiet relaxed upper body' is actually nonsense, but the illusion has its uses.
post #134 of 136
Wouldn't this be guided discovery? We take them down a path and let them explore the sensations, movements as they work out how to get there on their own.
post #135 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron White View Post
ssh,

It is hard to explain, but the feelings are linked to some visual references, but not dominated by them. I never see my self skiing while visualizing, but sence what it feels like while I am skiing over the terrain. The visual aspect is secondary.

Rw
Exactly. Nolo tells me that what I'm actually doing is neuro-muscular programming of myself. I buy that very easily.
post #136 of 136
On the issue of styles and MB inventories--I think all of that works and is really valuable to know about. And I'm aware of them on some intuitive level.

However, what sticks in my mind more is that when I have a lesson that works, the student will rarely report, "You matched my style of learning perfectly." She will often report that the demonstrations were real demonstrations in that the movement patterns and sequences were clear and understandable. And she will more often report, "You made me feel like I could really do this." And she will most often report, "You said it in a way that I could really understand."

I like these comments because they speak to and recognize my attempts at conscious competence regarding these areas.

1. I try to make every turn as if it were the most important of my life and the most fun possible--at whatever speed. I also try to let my body speak with the turn--not to exaggerate, but rather to really express the movement I'm trying to convey. This is why working on ones skiing is so critical for the teacher. You can't do this to the level you should unless you spend a lot of time slow skiing with precision, fluidity, and full awareness.
2. I fully believe that everyone really can ski perfectly within their speed envelope, and I am tenacious about that. I advocate for their potential.
3. I spend a lot of effort on conceptualizing and articulating in a way that minimizes the interpreting necessary on the part of the students. My hope is to "talk" directly to their neuro-muscular systems, somehow bypassing their filters.

I don't succeed at these all the time. I may not even succeed half of the time. But when I do...when I do my part of the collaboration...the students seem to be able to do their parts more easily. And then, the results are magical.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching