or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Other Stuff - Page 3

post #61 of 136
I am pretty visual, yet I never previsualize. I have no ability to see myself. However, I can pretty much fire all the nerves and pre-feel the whole run.
post #62 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
I am pretty visual, yet I never previsualize. I have no ability to see myself. However, I can pretty much fire all the nerves and pre-feel the whole run.
More like visualizing some great skiing you saw and imposing yourself into the movements or trying to anyway. It would be similar to follwing a great skier and emulating their movements,well sort of . Nothing beats following a great skier .Visualizing would be the next best thing.
post #63 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
More like visualizing some great skiing you saw and imposing yourself into the movements or trying to anyway. It would be similar to follwing a great skier and emulating their movements,well sort of . Nothing beats following a great skier .Visualizing would be the next best thing.
Actually, for me, I don't previsualize ANYTHING. I see neither other skiers nor myself, in my mind's eye. I watch other skiers a lot, but not inside. Inside, I just sense it. That just seems to be my way.
post #64 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
Don't leave me hanging ... did I miss something? I thought this was really interesting, but I don't understand which is which.

I see 3:00 at the right side of my face, by the way.
If someone is the kind of visual where they touch the side of the face nearest his or her right hand, then you, as the instructor, need to think aobut your visual cues as coming from what he or she will see when skiing. If youare teaching the other kind of visual learner (touching the other side of the face) then you need to give great demonstrations.
With the first kind of visual learniner you can do some static things. Have them assume a good stance pointed down the fall line and support them as they move forward. As their head rotates to a position where posture is perpendicular to the hill, they will percieve the hill as flatter. thus they now have a visual cue for when they are forward or back. You can also have them do supported angulation in a static position- note how the slope looks closer to your eyes, as if you had gotten shorter. then have them ski in reciprocal exercises where the follwer says forward or back, and everyone gets the idea of what good stance looks like from the inside out. This kind of visualization goes hand-in-hand with feeling throughout the turn, so have the skiers isolate the feeling and the visualzaiton on different runs. The skier will develop a sense of a good stance.
post #65 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
If someone is the kind of visual where they touch the side of the face nearest his or her right hand, then you, as the instructor, need to think aobut your visual cues as coming from what he or she will see when skiing. If youare teaching the other kind of visual learner (touching the other side of the face) then you need to give great demonstrations.
I think I respond to both pretty well. And your post is really interesting to me, because I need to do a lot of work with the eyes of students. This is new for me.

And I don't quite understand the face touch idea. I seem to touch the side of my face nearest my right hand when I use my right hand, unless I cross over. And I touch the side of my face nearest my left hand when I use my left hand, unless I cross over. There doesn't seem to be any pattern. What's the normal pattern? What's missing in the test for me?
post #66 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
If someone is the kind of visual where they touch the side of the face nearest his or her right hand, then you, as the instructor, need to think aobut your visual cues as coming from what he or she will see when skiing. If youare teaching the other kind of visual learner (touching the other side of the face) then you need to give great demonstrations.
I think I respond to both pretty well. And your post is really interesting to me, because I need to do a lot of work with the eyes of students. This is new for me.

And I don't quite understand the face touch idea. I seem to touch the side of my face nearest my right hand when I use my right hand, unless I cross over. And I touch the side of my face nearest my left hand when I use my left hand, unless I cross over. There doesn't seem to be any pattern. What's the normal pattern? What's missing in the test for me?
Ask your student, while standing still, to close his eyes, and to visualize his face as a clock. then ask the student to touch three o'clock on that clock. If the student touches the right side of the face (student's right) then he is visualizing from inside out. If he touches the left side of the face he visualizes from outside in.
post #67 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
Ask your student, while standing still, to close his eyes, and to visualize his face as a clock. then ask the student to touch three o'clock on that clock. If the student touches the right side of the face (student's right) then he is visualizing from inside out. If he touches the left side of the face he visualizes from outside in.
Got it. Thanks. That's simpler than I thought! But your suggestion of what to do with that is really useful.
post #68 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
Ask your student, while standing still, to close his eyes, and to visualize his face as a clock. then ask the student to touch three o'clock on that clock. If the student touches the right side of the face (student's right) then he is visualizing from inside out. If he touches the left side of the face he visualizes from outside in.
Any idea what percentage of people do which? (eg, 60% visualize inside out, 40% outside in)

edit: oops ... messed up the quote function. should be FOG's quotation
post #69 of 136
[quote=segbrown;709966]
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post

Any idea what percentage of people do which? (eg, 60% visualize inside out, 40% outside in)

edit: oops ... messed up the quote function. should be FOG's quotation
I just started working with this this season (I got it from an Eastern examiner, Pam Greene), so I have very limited experience, but it seems like more people visualize inside to outside. If this is true, then our past approaches to visual learners, with lots of demoes, may have missed the mark. The ideas on how to use it are mine, however. It is also reminiscent of some stuff I encountered when learning to fly. My landings improved dramatically when an instructor told me to look at the opposite end of the field rather than the touchdown point.
post #70 of 136
[quote=FOG;709987]
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
My landings improved dramatically when an instructor told me to look at the opposite end of the field rather than the touchdown point.
This is true on motorcycles, too. You gotta look through to the end of the turn, even if it's not quite visible yet. Actually, learning it on motorcycles has helped me do it better on skis. My eyes are drawing me much better through the arc than they were, and consequently I feel like I'm diving in much more aggressively.
post #71 of 136
[quote=FOG;709987]
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
I just started working with this this season (I got it from an Eastern examiner, Pam Greene), so I have very limited experience, but it seems like more people visualize inside to outside. If this is true, then our past approaches to visual learners, with lots of demoes, may have missed the mark....
But what about mimicking? Don't visual learners translate what they see into what their body does? Seems like demoing would be right for that.

I am DEFINITELY a visual learner -- a mimicker. I learned to play tennis by watching tv, mostly. I've taken a lot of lessons since, but initially I just translated what I saw into what I do. Even today I play better if I watch some good players for a bit before I go out and hit myself.

Conversely, I have to be careful about what I put into my mind before I play. Last summer I watched my son and his friend (they were 11) hack around the court in a 2-hr match right before I went to play a state open semifinal ... I got to the court and could not hit a forehand (my bread and butter). It was awful.
post #72 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
But what about mimicking? Don't visual learners translate what they see into what their body does? Seems like demoing would be right for that.

I am DEFINITELY a visual learner -- a mimicker. I learned to play tennis by watching tv, mostly. I've taken a lot of lessons since, but initially I just translated what I saw into what I do. Even today I play better if I watch some good players for a bit before I go out and hit myself.

Conversely, I have to be careful about what I put into my mind before I play. Last summer I watched my son and his friend (they were 11) hack around the court in a 2-hr match right before I went to play a state open semifinal ... I got to the court and could not hit a forehand (my bread and butter). It was awful.
In the clock example you likely would point to the left sde of your face, and for you demoes are excellent. I am trying to distinguish between two kinds of visual learners. You apprently view from the outside in, and what we have done traditionally for visual learners will be great for you. I am suggesting an additional category of visual learners, and that the additional category, who view from the inside out, might better be served by some new approaches.
post #73 of 136
Thread Starter 
FOG, please correct me if I misinterpreted, but didn't you say that inside-outers are akin to feelers? If so, wouldn't the standard approach to feelers work with them? Are they in fact the same population?
post #74 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
FOG, please correct me if I misinterpreted, but didn't you say that inside-outers are akin to feelers? If so, wouldn't the standard approach to feelers work with them? Are they in fact the same population?
They are similar to feelers in that they need to know what will happen as they ski, but they need to know what they will see, rather than what they will feel. They are still visual learners. In many cases they will be a combination of visual and feeler, in which case they need the standard approach to feeling. By the same token, perhaps we underestimate how much the feeler will use his vision in coordinating his feeling approach to skiing. We speak of "hand-eye" or "foot-eye" coordination, but we then need to address the eye's role.
post #75 of 136
Thread Starter 
Very interesting, FOG. Where does this come from--what's its scientific provenance, if you don't mind my asking? I'd like to learn more.

I have read that the one thing that is common to all elite-level athletes, regardless of sport, is excellent eyesight.
post #76 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
Very interesting, FOG. Where does this come from--what's its scientific provenance, if you don't mind my asking? I'd like to learn more.

I have read that the one thing that is common to all elite-level athletes, regardless of sport, is excellent eyesight.
I'm afraid this is not very scientific. I saw the two kinds of visual learner thing at an event and I have expanded upon the original idea, using observations and experience. I could be all wet on thsi topic, but that is what these forums are about: getting ideas out so they can be exposed to the light of day and reasonable criticism. Clearly some people do learn using what they see from the inside out. How we use this is not so clear, so I have tried to come up with stuff. If I don't get to make new stuff up, I get bored. I try to get excited about teaching, and that seems to pass on to my classes. Coming up with new stuff is my personal key to getting excited.
post #77 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
In the clock example you likely would point to the left sde of your face, and for you demoes are excellent. I am trying to distinguish between two kinds of visual learners. You apprently view from the outside in, and what we have done traditionally for visual learners will be great for you. I am suggesting an additional category of visual learners, and that the additional category, who view from the inside out, might better be served by some new approaches.
I understand that: the reason I explained myself was because I DO see the clock on the right side of my face and I've never (at least that I remember) viewed myself from the outside in. (That's why I asked earlier if seeing yourself on video would help with this, because I've never seen myself on video, either.)

So I think there is another category in there, for observers or something like that. Or possibly I'm a feeler and an observer?

I DO think it is fascinating -- identifying how people learn and then teaching them in that manner. They study that a lot in regular education; why not for ski school, too? I notice that my son is often given a choice about how to prepare a major report: he can write it out traditionally, build something, prepare a PowerPoint, record it interview-style, and so forth.
post #78 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
I understand that: the reason I explained myself was because I DO see the clock on the right side of my face and I've never (at least that I remember) viewed myself from the outside in. (That's why I asked earlier if seeing yourself on video would help with this, because I've never seen myself on video, either.)

So I think there is another category in there, for observers or something like that. Or possibly I'm a feeler and an observer?

I DO think it is fascinating -- identifying how people learn and then teaching them in that manner. They study that a lot in regular education; why not for ski school, too? I notice that my son is often given a choice about how to prepare a major report: he can write it out traditionally, build something, prepare a PowerPoint, record it interview-style, and so forth.
I think that everyone has to some degree each of the learning styles. It would not shock me to learn that someone who was visual with a preference for inside out visualization still had a good sense of outside in visualization. Thinkers can feel, and visualizers can think. The main idea of my subset of this thread is that a mode of learning, visualizing from the inside out, may need more attention, and offer the potential for additional breakthroughs. In my own experience, sometimes I can breakthrough a plateau by using a non-preferred learning style. That learning style may not be dominant, but might offer that last ingredient in performing a particular task.
post #79 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
I think that everyone has to some degree each of the learning styles. It would not shock me to learn that someone who was visual with a preference for inside out visualization still had a good sense of outside in visualization. Thinkers can feel, and visualizers can think. The main idea of my subset of this thread is that a mode of learning, visualizing from the inside out, may need more attention, and offer the potential for additional breakthroughs. In my own experience, sometimes I can breakthrough a plateau by using a non-preferred learning style. That learning style may not be dominant, but might offer that last ingredient in performing a particular task.
Makes sense to me.
post #80 of 136
Following this to it's logical conclusion, one would think that internal cues should work better than external cues.

Comments?
post #81 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Following this to it's logical conclusion, one would think that internal cues should work better than external cues.

Comments?
Sometimes they do. Generalizations can be ineffective, however.

Observations:
Some people respond better to the idea of tipping the foot within the boot; others prefer to think about tipping the ski.

Some people visualize well if the instructor skis toward them (outside-in visualizers?); others get a better picture if the instructor skis away from them, since the image is not reversed.

Some want detailed descriptions of movements (although they may then look like a robot while stepping through said description); others want to know what a movement is supposed to feel like (but they might then need a description and demo of the movement necessary to obtain the feeling).

Instructors have supposedly been trained to expect all this, and then some. The "clock method" provides a way to obtain another data point to help figure out what might work for a given client.

And, as already noted, even though one learning path may be primary, reinforcement along other paths is often useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
...I play better if I watch some good players for a bit before I go out and hit myself.
Although I am noteably clumsy on skis , and even worse with a tennis racket, I try not to hit myself too often!:
post #82 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
Sometimes they do. Generalizations can be ineffective, however.
True.

How many times have you asked someone to touch the outside boot,demo'd well, and they bend over at the waist?

"Oh but not like that!" you might think, then you move on to describe an internal cue about what tensions they ought to feel when they do it right.

Looking at that one drill in isolation, I'd say most kids bend far too much at the waist.

Here, the external cue fails without the support of the internal cue.
post #83 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
I am pretty visual, yet I never previsualize. I have no ability to see myself. However, I can pretty much fire all the nerves and pre-feel the whole run.
I would argue that you can, but you choose not to. Also, pre-feeling is undoubtedly a form of visualization...

There's a ton of clear scientific discussion of visualization in Maxwell Maltz's works, starting with Psycho-Cybernetics. Not that I'm suggesting that you should visualize, only that you could, perhaps with some practice. There is scientific evidence of its efficacy, so it's a useful skill, especially for those who are unable to ski every day year round.
post #84 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
I would argue that you can, but you choose not to. Also, pre-feeling is undoubtedly a form of visualization...

There's a ton of clear scientific discussion of visualization in Maxwell Maltz's works, starting with Psycho-Cybernetics. Not that I'm suggesting that you should visualize, only that you could, perhaps with some practice. There is scientific evidence of its efficacy, so it's a useful skill, especially for those who are unable to ski every day year round.
I'm sure this is all so. We're just delving into what it really means to previsualize. All I'm saying is that I don't see myself skiing--either outside or inside. I'll watch a good skier and mimick. I'll prefeel my own skiing. But after I've seen what I want to see, I don't watch the movie again.
post #85 of 136
Psycho Cybernetics, a blast from the past.:
post #86 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATZ View Post
Psycho Cybernetics, a blast from the past.:
You bet... and perhaps more useful now with a half-century of follow-up research and insights.
post #87 of 136
Weems,

I don't visualize either (externally or internally), but I am partly a visual learner. I am able to repeat a certain movement by remembering how it feels when I am doing it. As a visual learner, I translate what I see to how it might feel when I am skiing and what it must feel like for the person I am watching. From there, I mimic the movements I see until I get the feeling of what I was watching. I guess when I am learning a new movement or refining a movement, I use all 4 learning types, espicially while I am expermenting with timing, intensity, duration, etc.

I try to demo a movement for a lesson so that I can be seen skiing toward, past and away from the lesson, so that each type of visual learner gets the view that is most effective for them.

I aslo ask a private lesson, "what type of learner are you?" this saves me time figureing it out. I don't always use their predominate learning type, espicially if they are in a plateau that they want to get past. I get very few people that respond by saying "I don't know". Most do know their predominate learning style.

RW
post #88 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post
I think that everyone has to some degree each of the learning styles. It would not shock me to learn that someone who was visual with a preference for inside out visualization still had a good sense of outside in visualization.
Are you allowing for the possibility that the preference might change with training and experience?
post #89 of 136
Just curious,,, does anyone here not have the ability to visualize 2 separate face clocks? One that can be viewed from the inside, and one that can be viewed from the outside? I can see this being a perspective issue, as much as an ability issue.

Weems? Can't you picture a clock hanging on your forehead, the back of the clock against your face, and visualize where 3 o'clock would be?

I can easily do both, though my first visual was looking at the clock from the outside, because that is how I read Fog's example as being.
post #90 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Are you allowing for the possibility that the preference might change with training and experience?
Sure, but the point of the original post is that we seldom have given thought to the visual learning from the inside out rather than the outside in. If inside to outside is a part, even minor, of someone's learning style, I think we should use that as one more tool to help the student. We already try to tell the student what he or she will feel, and try to have the student actually feel during a static exercise. Why not tell the student what he or she will see, and attempt to have the student see the things he or she would see if skiing correctly. It would be another tool in your bag. I see way too many instructors trying to find just one more progression to add to their bag of tricks, without addressing how the student learns, while this offers another learning channel.

I do not believe that any single learning style or channel will be the key to teaching a particular student. I believe we have to address many learning styles with each student. I also believe that each student will improve his ability to use a learning style by using it. This is different from skiing where bad practice can have disastrous results. Any practice in using any learning style is likely to enhance the ability to use that learning style.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching