I agree with Nolo, Si. This is what we deal with ALL THE TIME! We have a student who comes from some background, bringing a unique combination of athleticism, perception, experience, anxiety, training, interests, information, misinformation, goals--both reasonable and unreasonable, both conscious and subconscious, expectations, psyche, learning preferences and aptitudes, mood, and equipment. He's had some particular amount and quality of sleep, eaten some particular breakfast that may or may not agree with him, may or may not have gotten that promotion at work on Friday, may or may not own a bunch of WorldCom stock, and may or may not have had a fight with his girlfriend the night before--all these things, and an infinite number more, will affect his lesson on any given day. Your hypothesis, detailed as it is, hardly scratches the surface of what we'll need to know to develop a lesson plan for your student. All you can be sure of is that an effective instructor will do his/her best to identify and address this individual's needs, and to facilitate his/her progress as well as possible, given all these things.
What you have described is probably the easiest possible scenario for an instructor! As Nolo said, it's all but a "no-brainer."
But I suspect that you are trying to seed a discussion with the notion that this student is UNIQUE, in being far more capable than the "average" student, and that therefore we might proceed somehow "differently" than usual. That might be the case if our teaching model was based on a standard progression designed for the average student.
But it definitely is NOT! Most modern teaching models today--certainly PSIA's--are "student-focused," not "progression-based." The underlying, over-riding ASSUMPTION is that every student has unique needs and capabilities, and that every successful lesson must therefore be custom-designed.
So with this student, we custom-design the lesson, just like we do with everyone else. You have identified a particular understanding need--the need to be convinced of the value of lessons so that his natural learning ability doesn't just lead him to learn all the "wrong stuff" on his own (which it very likely would). But this is just one of many needs that we must address.
Perhaps the clearest visual representation of the process is PSIA's new "Stepping Stones" model, outlined in the new ALPINE TECHNICAL MANUAL. It describes a beginning point--where the student IS--and an endpoint--where the student wants to go--and emphasizes that there are usually many different routes between the points, and that it is the job of the instructor and student to work together to determine the optimal route, based on who the student IS. We must identify the beginning and endpoints, as well as the preferences and capabilities of the student, to be successful.
The "stepping stones" analogy alludes to crossing a shallow rocky stream. You know where you are--on this side. You know where you want to go--to a point on the other shore. There are all kinds of routes between here and there. One person might make a few enormous, athletic leaps, possibly getting his feet wet along the way, arriving quickly at the other side. Someone else might wander up and down the shore, before finally finding a safe, conservative route of closely-spaced, tiny little steps that meander all over the place. It's a nice, very applicable analogy to the learning process!
What I REALLY suspect you're doing, Si, is beating around the bushes, trying again to rouse that tired "wedge vs. parallel" monster. Because your student is unusually gifted, would we skip the "wedge step" of the progression and go for "direct parallel"? Please forgive me if I'm wrong here. But if that's the real question, it represents a misunderstanding of what effective instructors do. There IS no "wedge step"--because our teaching is not based on a progression in the first place!
The uninformed eye might observe the lesson with this student and say--"yep--they went 'direct parallel'" But that would not represent any change whatsoever from standard procedure!
So NO--I would not change a thing in this regard with your "ideal" student. Remember that the wedge turn--wedge christie--basic parallel--dynamic parallel "progression" is not something we TEACH. It is merely a recognition of several representative milestones that pretty much every student passes through as they progress from beginner through expert. Even if we never mention, demonstrate, or suggest a wedge, if the students develop appropriate skills, they'll make one, in the right situations--as you and I do.
Your hypothetical student is likely to pass the initial milestones very quickly--neither you nor he might even notice them as they whiz by. His comfort level with speed and athletic movement will probably enable him to make parallel turns and beyond very quickly. If he's a hockey player, he may skate all over the hill from the start. He may leap across the stream in a single bound! Our teaching models certainly won't hold him back.
We DO NOT TEACH WEDGE TURNS, or parallel turns (broken record here). We teach skills, movements, and tactics, to help individual students achieve their goals. That's what we do with everyone. That's what we'll do with your student.
Point him my way!
[ July 03, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Bob Barnes/Colorado ]