Let's be honest

By golly, you're right! We should follow the example set by Health Minister of Kissizikstan.

In Kissizikstan it was taking a very long time for Surgeons to learn all the complicated terms and concepts required to meet the Surgeon Qualification test. The new Health Minster declared they would throw out all that "complicated technical nonsense" and require every Surgeon's Training Program to Keep It Simple - with no anatomy (er, 'body') terms longer that two syllables and no complicated explanations for how anything worked.

Soon Surgeons were graduating in a matter of days, and all was well in Kissizikstan with an abundant supply of Surgeons.

Two months later when the Health Minister read the latest Surgical statistics he saw the following headline: "Patient Fatality Rate up to 99.9% for Newly Graduated Surgeons!"

The new Minister of Health was absolutely appalled and declared, "OMG!!! They should never have used a complicated term like 'Patient Fatality Rate'..! They should just have said, "They died".

.ma

 

 

Agree with KISS principles.  The jargon, overly technical discussions on the hill, engineering explanations and long side hill disertations detract from the learning experience.  Obviously there are technical experts here on epic that love to disssect a movement into nano portions, that is fine but not so fine on the hill when teaching beginners and intermediates.  In fact it is my opinion that these instructors force people away from lessons and in general are part of the reason  regular people don't take lessons - why ruin a good day on the snow by talking IT to death.  Just do it - go ski - have some fun.

 

Disclaimer.   I AM NOT condemning all ski instructors just the windy, talky, overly technical ones.

When I was a kid I took group lessons for a couple of seasons.  The instructors liked to use jargon.  It made no sense to me.  They talked me to death.  I skipped class.  

 

Since then I've learned by watching and asking questions.  When the jargon starts in I turn it off.  It still makes no sense to me.

 

Are ski instructors really trying to teach their charges to the level of surgeons?  I think not (or at least I hope not).  If someone wants to move to that level, then they're looking for a coach.

 

I think the OP's list is a great one to teach by.  The clients want to learn to ski, and it will get them there faster than memorizing a bunch of buzz words.  We don't ski with our mouths.

The dialog between instructor and student should start off with, ' Good morning. I am xxxx. What would you like to work on? I am here to facilitate your learning experience." Or something along those lines. The key is to teach the student something he/she wants to learn. Wordy dialog has no place in a lesson environment.

 

Towards the end of the lesson, it is up to the instructor to be sure that the movements presented tie back to the student's orginal motivation. Only if the student asks, should terms like counterbalance, center of mass or counteraction be introduced into a lesson.

 

Rick H

 

As a student (mostly in the form of equestrian) I prefer to be told WHY I am being taught a move or drilling on a move. Other than that, KISS works best for most, I think.

Fixed it for you.

 

BK

Starting with explanations before trying the skill or task just delays the beginning of learning.  Physical skill learning is more like an experiment: try something, see what happens when you try it, figure out why the outcome was or was not what you expected, repeat.

 

The real explanation for why students need to do something is "If you want ski the way I do, you gotta do what I did to learn it."  I know I need to give some people more explanation than that, but they would be better students if they understood that it was unnecessary.

 

BK

Another reason people turn away is because we call it Lesson instead of Training.

So anybody who is advanced or simple said "can ski"... stops taking lessons because people start asking: "you take lessons? I thought you can ski?".

I never go to an Ice-hockey-lesson, a basketball-lesson or an football-lesson.

 

Just a minor detail or something to think about?

hmmm... 

 

 

I noticed Skiing Around mentioned half day and hour long lessons. I normally teach multi day lesons so my perspective might be a little different. During the course of the day it's important to pace the lesson so the students don't become too tired. Brief rest periods throughout the day are part of a well paced lesson in my world. The last thing I want is to turn my ski lessons into a death march for my students. As far as clinics I've taken, I agree that a slower group that spends a lot of time talking can be frustrating. Why not choose to go out with a faster group? That's alway an option in the outdoor RM clinics I attend. Can't help you with the indoor ones though.

No, I think MichaelA's parable is very appropriate here. I am a big fan of Einstein's famous statement that "everything should be made as simple as possible...but not simpler." The fact is, it takes a very deep and thorough understanding to make things simple, rather than merely simplistic.

Of course, the stereotyped instructor jawing away at length to a group of dazed students who long ago lost interest and focus must be avoided. The best instructors can make changes on the hill with the simplest and briefest explanations, but such apparent simplicity belies the wealth of detailed understanding of both skiing and teaching concepts that underlies the instructor's brief, distilled, brilliance. Use any term you want, but misunderstanding the concept of things like "center of mass" leads many extremely "simple" explanations to be, in truth, simply wrong.

There was an article in PSIA's professional journal, "32 Degrees," not long ago that included a statement to the effect that 'for the sake of simplicity, we should use the term "hips" instead of "center of mass." This "simple" statement betrays a crucial misunderstanding that will lead afflicted instructors far astray into making many other "simple" but simply, fundamentally, wrong statements, conclusions, and instructions. For that matter, I am not aware of any "simpler" term that is an accurate equivalent of "center of mass" (or center of gravity). If center of mass is what you mean, anything simpler is...again...simply wrong!

So instructors need not use "big words" and long explanations (as a rule) when teaching. But they'd better be intimately familiar with the concepts and, in fact, the terminology as it is used and misused by skiers, specialists in various fields, and colleagues. It is not true that you must understand everything--or anything, really--to make great ski turns. But any critical misunderstanding will always cause problems for both instructors and skiers alike.

Best regards.
Bob Barnes

Skiingaround--

One quick question: I don't know exactly what a "wedge wiggle" is, but even moreso, I would love to know why you would teach it. I assume that few, if any, students would ever come to you and ask to be taught a Wedge Wiggle, so you must have some deeper, hidden reason for "teaching" it. Why would I want to learn it? What does it teach me? Please explain!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

 

I think what skiingaround is missing is that some of us are naturally "overthinkers".  We need a mental model.  You have to tell us what is happening, even if the linkage between conscious effort and actual result is tenuous at best.  (Thus the power of video feedback --  when what we think we are doing does not match what our body is actually doing.) 

 

And long term, the technical explanation stays with us and provides an ongoing reference as we develop the feel.

 

To follow up on Bob's oversimplification example, if someone told me to do such-and-such with my "hips" my first question would be, do you mean my left hip joint, my right hip joint, or their center of mass? 

 

Even though I would be frustrated by an aggressively "zen" approach of an instructor who refuses to explain, I would rather have that than an obviously mushy-headed explanation.

Right, MDF!

One thing you may not know, SkiingAround, is that as a group, Americans are unlikely to just follow an instructor or take his/her word blindly. In Europe, for a variety of reasons, you may be able to get away with just saying, "follow me," or "do this, because I said so," but that will rarely fly with many Americans--particularly early in the instructor/student relationship, before the instructor has earned the trust of the students. Like MDF, Americans (typically) want some justification for the things you tell them to do. "How will this help me?" "Why should I practice that?" "How is it relevant to my own personal goals?" "Why should I care if you think it's right--it's my money I'm spending here! What's in it for me?" Americans rarely give their respect or trust away blindly. You have to earn it. And the brilliant turns of a good-skiing instructor rarely impress American skiers, many of whom have little awareness of what a good skiing turn is, or looks like, in the first place. Skiing is not a national passion in this country, as it may be in some European countries. We often have to "sell" our students on the merits of good technique and effective drills (and rightly so).

That's not to suggest that an instructor--anywhere--should try to impress his students with long-winded monologues meant to showcase his brilliance and superiority. Far from it. No one likes a windbag. But our students have a right--and often a need--to know how what we advocate is going to be good for them--as opposed to just "good skiing according to me." We have a saying in the U.S.: your students will not care how much you know, until they know how much you care." Simplicity and brevity are always welcome, but simple omission of necessary explanation or over-simplification to the point of inaccuracy will often backfire, costing the instructor the trust and respect of his students, making the students wary of any "advice" you may give them.

The instructor's credo should be: Keep it simple, not simplistic. And learn all you can, as broadly and deeply as you can, so you can keep it simple and clear and accurate for your students. It's a professional obligation, in my opinion, to develop as deep and accurate an understanding as I can, so that my students don't need to be bothered with all the dirty details.

And that's where forums like EpicSki can truly help. Here--not on the snow--is the appropriate place to test ideas, to analyze details, to clarify your thinking, and to broaden your understanding of the complex and (for some) fascinating cause-and-effect relationships of skiing. Here is where we can argue the fine points, so we don't have to do it on the hill!

Best regards,
Bob

This has little to do with skiing and is all about effective communication and teaching. Jargon exists for a reason - it helps avoid ambiguities and it lets you express something in a few words rather than a paragraph, in short its concise and effective. But only if its used as such. A good teacher will find the right balance.

 

I think a good teacher would find a way to show you how to the right thing, have you do the right thing, and then make sure you knew what the right thing was called so you could refer to it as something other than 'the right thing'. Otherwise all of skiing would boil down to 'get down without falling and have fun'.

A thought to consider here. When you speak a different language communication is difficult. To a student, Instructor speak (jargon) is a different language. Leave it in the locker room. Speak clearly, directly and concisely without any jargon. Your speech will become more impactful and you students won't need a dictionary to understand you. In addition, You won't spend half the lesson defining terms.

 

One thing I try to keep in mind is that people come to learn to ski, not to take a lesson. That means only as much explanation as the student and task demand, then let's ski. I nearly always tell my clients that like most instructors I tend to talk to much and feel free to tell me to "shut up and ski". After thus putting myself on notice pretty much the only times I'm told that is by early teens and when training other instructors.

 

Which leads, I think, to the crucial point. The way we are trained is the way we tend to teach, particularly in the first few years we're out there. Nearly all instructor training sessions are way wordier then a session with the public should be. I always try to remind new instructors that what I'm trying to do is teach them how to teach, not just how to ski. I spend as much (or little) time talking about WHAT and HOW of skiing whether teaching the public or instructors. But I also spend additional time in training clinics talking about the WHY and jargon definitions. As an instructor, jargon is the easiest, most precise way to explain what we're trying to do. It is important to understand and apply the whys to be able to get people from where they're at to where they wish to be. However that doesn't mean the public needs to learn the jargon or the theory behind the lesson. For example if someone wishes to bake bread you don't explain how yeast works, how the interaction of water, levels of gluten and sugar, time kneading, rising, and temps affect the crumb and type of crust. You give them a recipe for the kind of bread they wish to make. In my experience most people feel about Skiing the way I feel about baking. I know enough about the whys to have fun and (mostly) not turn out rectangular rocks. I don't feel I have the time, or need, to learn how to produce artisanal sourdough bread, or talk knowledgeably to a baker about the process.

 

The point being, the first paragraph is the way I would tell a non instructor. The second is for a training clinic or the occasional student who really does want to or need more of an explanation.

 

 

this is why IMO guiding people though tasks and asking them what if any they felt differently is sometimes the best way  to do coaching. Feeling a positive change is great but quite often feeling different in way that eventually feels better is desirable, it also let most overthinkers answer their own questions.

 

IN one on one private I will explain what ever you want for as long as you want but I will try to do it on the chairlift. In group lesson the overthinker are quite frankly annoying to the other students, I really wish they wouldnt be so damn stubborn but I usually give in and make them my chairlift buddy to explain deeper with out confusing the easily confused.

 

Just remember noone has ever gotten better by standing on the side of the trail and talking.

 

+1

You can't learn movement by talking or thinking about it.  Learning doesn't begin until someone raises a question that does not have an obvious answer.  In skiing, the question is "why can't you do a simple task, like a side slip or traverse?" and it has to be asked by an action, not in words. Until the student tries something he/she can't do it, you have nothing to think about or explain.  Any explanation provided in advance of the task only distracts or confuses the student. The best explanations are the ones the student finds on his/her own.  The teacher's role is to ask the right question, and reject the wrong answer.  Some students demand an explanation before they will try anything, and I know I need to provide it in order to establish credibility, but learning does not begin until I give the student a task he/she can't complete. 

 

I think some instructors take the ATS learning styles (thinker/feeler/watcher/doer) too seriously.  It's useful for class management to identify the students' predispositions, but it's only a model, and all models are simplifications.  Everyone needs to learn in every learning style, and assuming someone can only learn in one particular style implies a limitation no one should accept.

If the "overthinkers" think about it long enough, they will eventually agree with me. As it is, they probably have an easier time learning chess or math than they do learning skiing. 

 

BK

Bode I have started using something to trick overthinkers into doing task by simply asking them weather they like to try to one or the other. Simple examples  "would like to to try ski across the hill on you left or right foot? "  "should we ski by turning our body or our legs?"

 

elect elect, usually it get their mind of the why and get them thinking which one is easier, we end up trying both to find out which one is easier(and better) so instead of them thinking about the 'why" they just do and discover it themselves.

Describing simple movements in words is sometimes complicated. Describing what the body is doing is even more complicated than describing how to do the movement. Describing how we walk is extemely complicated,(I don't know enough to do it), it can not be done simply to be accurate. It would take a great amount of skill and work to make it both accurate, complete, and readable. You could get a Phd doing that. Describing how to walk is much easier but still involves a fair amount of words versus just showing someone.

 

We're in a written dialogue here, maybe we could mime it brilliantly, but you'd never know. There used to be a "technical" forum for posting about the nitty gritty of movements, but it got too confusing to have two forums, so now it's just instruction and coaching.
 

Speaking as a professional educator (for almost 20 years...) The advice I would give ski/snowboard instructors is the model school teachers are using now with great success. 

 

First, model the skill.  Make sure everyone has some understanding.

Second, guided practice- i.e., have them ski with you, with productive criticism, correcting only what the skill that you are teaching.

Third, let the students go ski.

 

This method works with a > 95% success rate, regardless of subject matter or student (including adaptive/special needs)...something to think about.

 

My $0.02

 

Doc

Another famous mathematician (can't quite remember who) said "rigor is no foe of simplicity."  Unfortunately there are very few who are capable and strive to understand and embrace this concept. IMHO, those who do are the elite in education, instruction, traininng, and coaching.

I think people are over analyzing this. Most people *do not* want to become good skiers, or learn the correct technique. All they care about is going to the slopes, getting down and then going home. Once they acquire enough 'skills' to do so without falling down every other turn or being scared of the blues, its 'good enough' and they see no need to spend money on lessons/books etc.

 

Its the same in every other sport - how many intermediate tennis players or dancers take lessons - small to none. Only those who are motivated, driven and want to conquer the tougher slopes or are perfectionists will want to improve. Skiing is not that hard - most everyone can learn to make skidded turns, get down and stay on their feet.

 

Researchers have never found anyone who has one of the four famous learning styles.  There is no such thing.  It is a widely distributed myth.  People do have different abilities.  Most importantly, certain things to learn are best shown by feeling, others by watching, etc.

 

The teaching style described above with the "wedge wiggle" is guided discovery.  Maybe half the students get some benefit from guided discovery.  I do not.  It is a waste of time for me and many others.  I also find many progressions to be pointless wastes of time.  Briefly and succinctly tell me what you want.  Briefly and succinctly tell me how to do it.  Give me time to visualize myself doing it.  Observe my trial, give me corrections or a progression from that point, and let's get on with it.

 

A great book that describes how the brain learns something new is Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom by Daniel T. Willingham .  Your local library can get it, perhaps via an interlibrary loan.  Many points in this book are valid to teaching skiing and every other activity.

 

One of the best ski coaches I've met has written about teaching the Single Most Important Movement the student needs to improve their skiing at that point.  If that one thing is taught and mastered by the student, it is a great lesson.  Maybe two things.  Presenting a dozen new things to the skier, and they don't master any, is a poor lesson.

 

Researchers have never found anyone who has one of the four famous learning styles.  There is no such thing.  It is a widely distributed myth.  People do have different abilities.  Most importantly, certain things to learn are best shown by feeling, others by watching, etc.

 

The teaching style described above with the "wedge wiggle" is guided discovery.  Maybe half the students get some benefit from guided discovery.  I do not.  It is a waste of time for me and many others.  I also find many progressions to be pointless wastes of time.  Briefly and succinctly tell me what you want.  Briefly and succinctly tell me how to do it.  Give me time to visualize myself doing it.  Observe my trial, give me corrections or a progression from that point, and let's get on with it.

 

A great book that describes how the brain learns something new is Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom by Daniel T. Willingham .  Your local library can get it, perhaps via an interlibrary loan.  Many points in this book are valid to teaching skiing and every other activity.

 

 

 

DocG's technique matches Willingham.  The "let the students go ski" is important.  Repetition is essential to learning..and kills motivation, so use it wisely.  First the basic correct understanding then the repetition to get it into long term memory, what we call muscle memory for learned motor skills.

 

A few other notes.

 

The Wedge Wiggle, (formally called the Serpentine turn, and a part of the PSIA progression in the late 70's / early 80's) is wedge turn done with slight variations from the fall line (as in a series of  incomplete turns if you will).  The body/skis are in a wedge position and the turn can be made by either steering the feet or adjusting the pressure from leg to leg.  It was traditionally taught as a pressure control drill as the concept of steering the inside ski along with the stance ski hadn't been considered yet for use in a wedge turn.

 

Instructors should take note of "The Kolb Model" (David A. Kolb).  Joan Heaton has a new book out called A Little Book About Skiing.  In chapter 5 she explains the model.  After many conversations with top instructors, examiners and d-team members she discovered most used the Kolb Model without knowing what it was or having seen it before.  I discovered the same results about my teaching.  

 

I am guessing that now many of you now agree with skiingaround that "some instructors take the ATS learning styles......too seriously."  Well,  it's worked pretty well for me so far.

 

(or am I over thinking it?)