Testing over time or testing on the day

[DWx]

For rank advancement, which do you think is a better indicator of a persons skill: assessing the students performance in class over a period of time or having them attend a testing?

Testing on the day means its an all or nothing performance.... but performing under stress is surely a vital skill for an maist? You could also have an off day where nothing will go right so is it fair to judge someone solely on what they do on the day rather than what they are consistently doing in training sessions? On ther other hand some people excel under stress so a testing on one day may be whats needed to really showcase their skill.

[joesteph]

I can only comment on gup levels, not dan levels, but I've gone through both types in my gup testing, and I've found that do-it-all-at-once has been more of a test of endurance for me than when tested over a series of classes. I have much better demonstrated what I knew, especially since it is a physical activity, when spread out.

In Soo Bahk Do, there are forms, demonstrations of certain strike combinations, one-step sparring techniques different from the strike combos, self-defense (against the wrist grab), tournament rules sparring, knowledge of terms and history, and a board break. Doing these all at once does not mean doing them as well as divided over at least three classes, nor does it mean "setting higher standards" to me.

If you're interested in entering the ring, where you have to keep fighting, fighting, fighting, then endurance is a great requirement that's tested in combat.

I say examine the gup student in the individual areas that testing requires over a series of classes.

[Kruczek]

Karate is for self defense. Self defense IS an all or nothing thing. You don't get excused if it is an off day - so I see nothing wrong with testing people all or nothing the day of.

[joesteph]

Karate is for self defense.

I'd like to think that it would be, Kruczek, but I've found from personal experience that it took months to sense I was learning self-defense in both TKD and my present art, Soo Bahk Do. Regarding the latter, it was a year, supplemented by a self-defense JJ course, before I felt I'd acquired what I could use to defend myself. It may depend on the art, such as that I've learned in just a fistful of lessons in Jeet Kune Do how to hammer someone's face in and blast his knee and thigh, but JKD isn't the "art" that TKD and SBD are. It's truly "combatative."

Self defense IS an all or nothing thing.

I think that, in this case, DWx is homing in on belt level promotions, which are grades in-between gup levels that may depend more on knowing the art than proficiency in self-defense. I couldn't say if she's also including dan level promotions.

Edited September 16, 2009 by joesteph

[tallgeese]

I think testing is a way to jack up the bodys response to stress. Granted, it's a bit artificial and less than the levels you'll be at during conflict but it's still a way to judge performance under stress conditions.

So, taking a day for a test is a good idea.

That being said, I think evaluation should occur throughout the training porcess to address issues a student is having and prep them for that sort of thing. I'm personally of the feeling that there should be little doubt, if any at all, that a student has the technical compentencey and heart to pass a test before setting for one. But that's just the way I came up.

So, test in a day- yes. Evaluate each day- yes as well.

[isshinryu5toforever]

It's both. You don't offer someone the opportunity to test unless they're really ready. At the same time, the person has to succeed under pressure.

It's hard to choose one over the other. If forced, I would choose to promote someone who performed well over a long period of time. Many factors come into play on a one day test. The person could be sick, injured, have a bad day, etc. When it comes to testing someone over a long period of time, you can look at the way they truly grasp things, how they react to adversity, and if they can teach others (for higher ranks).

[cathal]

Actually our instructors do both. They assess each class, and come testing time they assess officially with paperwork. The on-going assessment is for consistency in spirit and technique.

[sensei8]

For rank advancement, which do you think is a better indicator of a persons skill: assessing the students performance in class over a period of time or having them attend a testing?

Attend the testing!

I observe my students each and everyday, therefore, that's when mistakes are corrected...in class...not in testing. Student's aren't invited to testing if they're not ready, and this is determined through my daily observations of my students.

[joesteph]

It's both. You don't offer someone the opportunity to test unless they're The person could be sick, injured, have a bad day, etc.

And please take age into consideration. I'm 57 and don't have the endurance of a 17-yr-old. I can fight him, fight him with power, if I'm in an actual altercation, but trying to keep up with him during testing isn't the same.

Consider that we have to do form after form together for the same rank promotion. I take longer than those who are younger when I practice, and am pressed to go faster than normal for me in testing so that we resemble a unit, but I've observed the ones I test with, and they aren't as meticulous as I am, such as looking properly before turning. When everybody's moving faster than I am, and I'm to "keep up," I'm not demonstrating that I do know to give a proper look rather than the fleeting glance I've seen.

Also consider that someone like me, in my fifties, can't just keep sparring, sparring, sparring and do well. In an actual situation, I'll be breaking the attacker's nose, teeth, bones--I mean it; it's not bravado; I'm not fooling around with non-contact sparring for "points" or holding back, performing only certain "approved for competition" techniques should it be for real.

[bushido_man96]

I like both, as well. The nice thing about a testing day is that it presents the idea of a goal to be reached, with a time frame to put to it; be it months, days, or years away. It allows for objectives to be set in order to work towards the goal, which will in the end (should) improve the day-to-day performance, which is evaluated for the purposes of allowing a student to test.

I read a thesis once on how the testing is representative of a rite of passage, in a way. I like this idea, and I think that it is what makes the testing what it is.