Role of the Teacher

[bushido_man96]

Should the teacher be expected to develop content and / or customize (select / format / change) content based upon course goals, or should the teacher only teach the curriculum set out and approved by the organization?

I think that the teacher should be able to adapt the content to needs as they arise. However, I think that it is important to do this within one's realm of knowledge. An organization may set a curriculum that is tested by, and that is fine; but it doesn't have to be the only curriculum taught in any MA class setting.

When the teacher prepares classes, should the teacher customize the lesson plans based upon what the student wants to learn or what the teacher wants to teach (assuming they are not the same)? A different way of saying might be: if the student trusts the teacher to guide him / her to the right way, shouldn't the student's goals be considered / added to the selection of content / its presentation and sequencing?

I think that yes, a teacher should be willing to listen to what the students want to learn, and be willing to cater to that want, if it: 1.) fits the goals of what the teacher has for his school, 2.) is something that the teacher knows and can do, or knows someone that can present it, and will do so, and 3.) the teacher doesn't show up to class each time and says "so what do you want to work on today?" Now, allow me to elaborate...

1. From our discussions, John, I don't think that you would be interested in spending a class period, or a block of classes, in teaching students to kick to the head, and to work on the nuances of technical aspects associated with high kicks (kicking to the head). Although it may be "fun" for the class, it will likely take up valuable time for applicable self-defense skills, which many people don't look at high kicks as.

2. It would not behoove me to attempt to teach ground fighting and defense skills to my class, if that is what they wanted, simply because I know just about jack squat on the subject, other than what I read. However, if I know of someone that is experienced in the field, then I should be willing to defer to the knowledge of someone else to help teach something to my class that I cannot.

3. I do think that it is the responsibility of the teacher to show up with a class planner, so-to-speak. The teacher should have some kind of idea of the subject matter that he is approaching for the day, week, block, etc. However, flexibility in planning is what leads to my explanation to #1.

Should the teacher be expected to not only have a broad and deep understanding of the subject, but also to have the same level of understanding of teaching / training / coaching theory (i.e. good practitioners don't necessarily make good teachers, and vice versa)? If so, should the teacher be tasked with using that knowledge to continually improve HOW the subject is taught?

I think that as new ideas and training advances are made, then yes, they should be evaluated and tested to see if they will benefit the student body as a whole. They may not need to be incorporated at the expense of other things, but be combined and used together, if applicable. If not, then new may need to replace old. As for having a broad and deep understanding of the subject matter, I think is a definite yes.

[bushido_man96]

Should the teacher be expected to develop content and / or customize (select / format / change) content based upon course goals, or should the teacher only teach the curriculum set out and approved by the organization?

Classroom teachers have found that the more teaching conforms to an organization's desires, the more creativity goes out the window. An example can be "teaching for the test" that the organization wants, but education (all that it implies) can suffer from a narrow focus; a stilted study can result. I can see creativity being applied in the martial arts by the teacher who will prepare students for testing, but also introduce that which is not organization-directed and yet has merit. This is the "truer" teacher.

I agree here, Joe, and I have a personal experience for it. My daughter's middle school right now is in the process of gearing up for the state assessments. So, instead of continuing with their regular teaching and curriculum, they are focusing all their time on what is on the assessments, which I think is wrong. The assessments are meant to see where the school and system is a whole, compared to nationwide standards. By teaching to the assessment, it skews the results, but in the end, makes them look good as a school that "performs exceptionally when compared statewide on the assessments."

Lastly, yes, I think that teachers should be good at passing on their system. It's one thing to be good, it's another to teach others to be good.

That is excellent. Well said.

[JohnC]

Bottom line: I spent most of 2 hours composing a reply to everyone on this topic. Even though I took a copy the board essentially crapped out the original when I tried to preview it and, as it locked into a loop trying to continually download advertisements, it killed the copy too, as I couldn't paste the copy before having to kill IE to get out of the loop.

I really don't have the time to recompose it. Thanks to everyone for your input and discussion.

[tallgeese]

So, short form perhaps?

[JohnC]

Short form:

Everyone has posted a take on the question. What are the operational impacts of your, and the other, opinions? In doing this kind of analysis, best approach is to define the extremes (binary either/or condition) then work inwards to understand the 'grey'. For example, Tallgeese, your approach, as you've already expressed, would cause serious operational issues within a traditional system because standardization would be lost. However, as Joesteph points out, the gimme for the getme is increased creativity. How are these conflicting goals balanced?

In my opinion, these discussions break down into 4 inital positions:

Martial Exercise (ME) - This is for people wanting to get / maintain a level of fitness without regard to the practical / competition applications of the movements (Taebo, Cardio Kickboxing and most McDojos fit here).

Martial Sport (MS) - This is for people wanting to compete in rule based scenarios without regard to the street / combat applicability of the techniques.

Martial Way (MW) - This is for people wanting to focus on traditional techniques / weapons / methods / etiquette / spiritual development without regard to whether those things are currently applicable or can be improved upon via modern approaches.

Martial Art (MA) - This is for people wanting to be / become 'street lethal' without regard to style, tradition, etiquette, etc.

Obviously, these definitions are extreme and most folks do some combination of the four. Each of the above starts from somewhat different assumptions and with somewhat different (sometimes diametrically opposed) objectives. Most of the discussion on forums centers around the conflict between these different assumptions / objectives. For example, the MA guy says only combat practical techniques should be taught while the ME guy doesn't care whether a technique works or not and the MS guy says the rules won't let me do that so why learn it and the MW guy says traditional things should still be taught regardless of present applicability because they are traditional.

What I see is most folks really don't know, can't articulate and / or haven't really thought about where they are in the mix. As folks don't really have a clear set of objectives for their programs, it's no wonder that they can't express how to optimally teach them (i.e. define content, curriculum and pedagogy). Similarly, the closer one is to an extreme, the more one essentially believes the assumptions / objectives of the other groups don't matter or aren't relevant. (For example, RBSD folks basically say why train for a match fight when real fights typically last less than 8 seconds. Thus, all ME, MS, MW and much of MA simply drop out. Put bluntly, the approach is: learn how to do a power slap, be sneaky and you can take on the world. Similarly, your stance that an instructor has no responsibility to guide the student to spirtual / moral enlightenment, drops out a whole series of things embedded in the MW approach).

To be effective teachers, I'd argue, one must know the 'why' of content, curriculum, and pedagogy before one can develop the what and how. To know the why, one must also come to grips with what the student wants to learn in addition to what the teacher wants to teach. This has significant impacts upon what is abstracted from the knowledge base, how it is formatted for presentation and how it is sequenced. For example, Kodokan judo teaches Seio Nage (shoulder throw), Seio Goshi (hip throw) and Tai Otoshi (cross body drop) at different belt levels and as stand alone techniques, ignoring that the body mechanics of the entries are essentially the same and operationally they are essentially the same technique applied to opponents of different heights (taller, same, shorter, respectively). This is driven by the MW approach that all throws should be executed against all types of opponents (regardless of shape, size, etc). I argue that to be effectively taught, the three throws should be taught together so that the student's focus is in learning the body mechanics for a 'family' of throws, thus significantly shortening the ramp up time. However, that comes from my serious MA bent (also, I would never teach / use seio nage, for example, for use against an opponent a foot shorter than I am, as I would probably injure my back. I don't much care what the Kodokan's MW approach requires.) .

My purpose for the topic was to see where folks were with regards to balancing these competing ideas, the approaches they used in developing how their arts are taught to fulfill the balanced objectives and where they stood on the mix.

[tallgeese]

Very nice breakdown...spoken like one who's been in Training for quite awhile .

[bushido_man96]

Yes, very nice. I like the breakdown you present of the 4 types, as well. I think that they are spot on. Unfortunately, I like to think that they all should have some of what you refer to as the MA type in them; that should be the base. Other ideas and beliefs can be taught secondary, but the base should be that of MA.

At this point, I would sat that my TKD class falls more under the ME/MW classifications; physical education, with an adherence to a set way of doing techniques. However, I know that there can be more MA in it.

[Prostar]

Out of curiousity, how would you define the role of the teacher? What exactly does a teacher do that adds value to the student / teacher relationship?

The instructor works to create an atmosphere conducive to learning, takes the information and lays it down in front of the student, at which point the student either picks it up and learns it...or not.

This saves the instructor from beating him/herself up if the students just aren't getting it.

When I first announced that policy in my class, I had a high school principal, a gym teacher and a ballet teacher among the other twenty-five others in the class. The teachers were all nodding as I finished.

[bushido_man96]

This saves the instructor from beating him/herself up if the students just aren't getting it.

As an instructor, if I see a student who is not getting it, I try to make it a point to help them to get it. I have said before, it is easy to teach the students with talent.

[sensei8]

Should the teacher be expected to develop content and / or customize (select / format / change) content based upon course goals, or should the teacher only teach the curriculum set out and approved by the organization?

IMHO...

The teacher should be expected to provide their students with any and every possible tool to effectively defend themselves against an attack! This means develop content! This means customize content! This means the curriculum/syllabus isn't and shouldn't be set in stone. I'm answerable to my Hombu/Dai-Soke, but, I'm complete in my totality. I respect the Hombu/Dai-Soke but not to the end-of-all. I'm the very first one, and I've been this way for along time, to challenge the Hombu/Dai-Soke on any issue that I feel isn't beneficial to my students as well as myself. My Dai-Soke layed out the foundation for me, yet, I've built the house in which I live in and I've built my house on a rock, not upon sand!

When the teacher prepares classes, should the teacher customize the lesson plans based upon what the student wants to learn or what the teacher wants to teach (assuming they are not the same)?

IMHO...

YES! The teacher sets the path via the lesson plans on what the teacher wants to teach but I believe that this must be in concert with what the students want to learn, yet, not so that the student dictates to the teacher. The teacher is the final author of said lesson plans based on effective reality in order to give to the student the best offered. The teacher doesn't let the white belt student tell the teacher "I want to learn a flying kick FIRST!" This isn't beneficial to the student because the white belt is learning how to crawl, etc. Now as the student progresses, then the teacher must respect the students desires, yet, still guide the course in which is allowed for the student to improve.

A different way of saying might be: if the student trusts the teacher to guide him / her to the right way, shouldn't the student's goals be considered / added to the selection of content / its presentation and sequencing?

IMHO...

Considered? Yes! Respect begets respect! The teacher has the final saying not the student. The student then decides if this is what they're looking for; then quit or not is always left up to the students; in that, teachers shouldn't be influenced in any shape, way, and/or form because a student wants to quit or not. Teachers teach and students learn; both are in constant concert for success to occur. Teachers must explain to the students as to whatever final decision has been made and this is because the students deserve an explanation; respect is earned!

Should the teacher be expected to not only have a broad and deep understanding of the subject, but also to have the same level of understanding of teaching / training / coaching theory (i.e. good practitioners don't necessarily make good teachers, and vice versa)?

IMHO...

Not all black belts can teach or should they! If one can't convey the most simple thing to a student...don't teach!

If so, should the teacher be tasked with using that knowledge to continually improve HOW the subject is taught?

IMHO...

ABSOLUTELY! The invention of the wheel has been improved upon to what it is now...even in that, new patents are in the works to improve the wheel. Man always says..."What do I know that can benefit/make better/improve on [fill in blank]?" Never be satisfied with the end results because that says that nothing can ever be improved...non-sense!

Martial Way (MW) - This is for people wanting to focus on traditional techniques / weapons / methods / etiquette / spiritual development without regard to whether those things are currently applicable or can be improved upon via modern approaches.

I'd say that I fit more into this category. Yet, this category isn't etched into my being. I'm a Martial Artist that always questions ANYTHING/EVERYTHING no matter the source. If my Hombu/Dai-Soke don't like it...TOUGH! I'm concerned with what 'it' is that will benefit me; I pass this on the my students and then my students decide if the 'it' is beneficial to them! If my Hombu/Dai-Soke try to give me something without regard to whether those things are currently applicable or can be be improved upon via modern approaches, then I will reject it. My Hombu/Dai-Soke can have a fit all they want, I'll quit before I succumb to uneffective doctrine/methodology/theories; tradition has its place but not when it interferes with sold effective doctrine/methodology/theories according to what I've experienced as well as what I know.