Originally Posted by skiingaround
The huge majority of posts here about skiing technique etc are way too conplicated or technical to understand ...
In answer to the title of this thread, yes, I am
a really good teacher (at least, I'm told so by the majority of my students and peers).
Your first post above tends to interpret the volume and depth of How/Why minutia discussed here on EpicSki
as being what we deliver when teaching on-snow. It's not. I'd further suggest the majority of participants posting complex, well-defended and verifiable ideas here are probably far better teachers than those unable to follow and comprehend the sometimes complex material discussed here.
I say this because such people are best equipped to understand what a student is actually
doing, why they're doing it, and exactly
what to do about it based on a truly accurate understanding of skiing mechanics and biomechanics. Such instructors are provably more effective than instructors who merely Demo a few turns and provides a "Bag of Tricks" drill hoping the student will make an appropriate change on their own.
In my own case I often "invent" new drills to adjust several patterns at the same time with one on-the-spot, well-designed exercise that resolves each issue targeted. I construct each task/drill to be a simple pattern and yes, I demo that pattern as clearly as possible. Do I explain it to the students? Sure - but only with enough detail for them to perform the pattern accurately. If they want more information, I share whatever they'd like to know. For instructors I always
share my reasoning - and invite people to question any aspect of it they like.
instead of talking about 'angulation' or other meaningless words, try showing how.
The word Angulation is not a "meaningless" word. It has meaning - to instructors, coaches, most of our students - and most people reading this post. True, there are new skiers who may not (yet) know what it means but there are probably plenty of new bicyclists who do not know what a 'derailleur' is.
We show Demos all the time. The problem is that uninformed students only 'see' the instructor's whole body
moving down the slope. They don't know what component(s) to look at nor do they know what motion to look for in those components ... and that's where defining words like 'angulation' helps. These words define a set of specific body-parts and the specific motions we want students to pay attention to.
It's important to realize many people who post (or lurk) on these forums
are extremely well educated with respect to skiing terminology, instructional ideas and teaching theory. Discussions would become a sea of repeated words if we had to spell out every idea in 'simple terms'. ( should I just cite 'angulation' and move on -- or I should I replace that single word with 300 simplistic words spelling the idea out each time the concept is brought up? Which is more efficient on a typed-text forum? Which is more efficient on-snow?)
Come to think of it, you yourself violated your own proposal above! You said, "Instead of talking ... [with] meaningless words, try showing how." After this, you just typed a bunch of words
instead of 'showing us how'
(no offense intended) What I'm saying is, we communicate here
in the most effective manner this text medium offers. Video clips help, as do diagrams and images but for the most part we're stuck with text descriptions.
The best teachers make complicated concepts simple.
I certainly agree with this but to achieve this idea those Very Best Teachers must first completely comprehend
the underlying concepts they're trying to teach. This forum is about gaining that comprehension.
Too often even long time Pros show up here with their own terminology, their own perceptions, their own interpretations and their own guess-work geometry/mechanics as explanation for what they believe about how skiing should be done (or taught). They mean well but communication suffers greatly and their confidently believed ideas may well be conceptually (or physically) inaccurate. This forum is one of the few easily accessed places to find competent peer-review of skiing and teaching ideas. That is why so much complex material shows up here.
Making complicated concepts "simple" requires a prior, complete comprehension of those complicated concepts. Once an instructor/coach genuinely comprehends all aspects of a particular technique or movement pattern they're far more able to create very simple presentations for actual on-snow delivery to their students.
If you'd like to hear some 'simple' teaching ideas just start a thread requesting "Simple teaching ideas for on-snow delivery" rather than a thread questioning whether participants here are good teachers or not based on the depth of material they discuss on these forums. (Again, no offense intended - just trying to keep a clear distinction between what people discuss here for investigation and exploration vs. what we actually teach on-snow.)