View Full Version : When students look but do not "see"
Dave Humm
19th December 2005, 14:22
Hey all..
Last night one of my students hurt themselves during practice.
Whilst we (I) realise that what we do is a martial art and accidents -thus injuries - do happen from time to time I am constantly perplexed at how students can watch a technique several times, listen to instructions and explanations then, get up and do something completely different, so much so in this case that a student ended up with a injured shoulder.
How do you guys present your techniques when teaching or, how does your Sensei present them to you ? Do you often find yourself watching the technique then find yourself thinking "What was it I was supposed to do?" If that is the case, what aspects of presentation by the instructor do you feel would reduce the confusion factor ?
Regards
kimiwane
19th December 2005, 16:18
I am constantly perplexed at how students can watch a technique several times, listen to instructions and explanations then, get up and do something completely different, so much so in this case that a student ended up with a injured shoulder.
How do you guys present your techniques when teaching or, how does your Sensei present them to you ? Do you often find yourself watching the technique then find yourself thinking "What was it I was supposed to do?" If that is the case, what aspects of presentation by the instructor do you feel would reduce the confusion factor ?
Dave,
This is the essence of what we were discussing in the thread on "Teaching".
Your question is the point I've been working on for the past ten years or more, but my comments are often overlooked because they are not always about teaching "the technique" but on teaching those things that will enable the student to do any technique. It's stuff that people tend to skip over when they hear about it and completely miss it when they encounter it in the real world.
I think your question also points up why people may find techniques difficult to apply in a "real" situation after much successful practice in the dojo.
The thing is, the problem is in both the teacher's teaching method and the student's "learning" method. You show them a very simple method, then ask them to repeat it after two or three demos and they say, "Now, what did you do?"
We not only have to examine what and how we just showed the student, but we also have to wonder "What was he 'thinking' about when I was just showing him that?" two seconds ago?
Zen training should help the student to clear out the buzz in their heads that prevent their actually "seeing" what they're standing there looking at. Silencing the "internal dialogue" goes a long way toward that.
But I decided long ago that aikido and most other traditional types of martial arts are deliberately taught "backward" to keep students from seeing clearly what's going on. By "taught backward", I mean that they teach "techniques", which are like the leaves on a tree. They go all around the tree and look at everything out on the tips of all the branches. In this way, each of the leaves is a seriously separate thing from all the others and there is no apparent connection between them.
We could go further with this analogy and say that each branch of the tree is like a separate art or family of arts--Korean styles, Chinese styles, Japanese styles, etc. And within each family, there would be the grappling techniques, the striking techniques, throwing techniques, etc.
Learning about all these different "leaves" on the ends of all the branches can definitely obscure the connections between all the arts and all the techniques and prevent people's deeper understanding for literally decades, or their entire lives.
Not to say that they won't get very good with these techniques, but without understanding the underlying connections, they will remain limited both in their ability to teach material other than "techniques" or "moves" and will be unable to provide the student with the really clear "teaching" that they need.
But what if we teach "backward" from "traditional" ways?
Then we would begin with the roots and trunk of the tree and show how the trunk branches off into various directions and how these natural separations naturally lead to the various techniques out at the end of the separations into branches and stems.
I think this way not only speeds a student's ability to understand the techniques and to follow them, but it allows them to see that the same ideas apply in aikido, tai chi, baguazhang, karate, judo, kenjutsu, jujutsu and every other martial art or physical activity.
This understanding then strengthens their lives by freeing them from the idea that we need "the art" to make ourselves something we are not.
And of course, that is impossible. To me, the best aspect of the martial arts is that they allow you to learn more about who you are.
And that is one of the big paradoxes of training. You have to absorb someone else's way entirely in order to "be yourself"?
Well, the answer is "Yes and No".
"The art" does not "make the man". But learning about yourself, you can see that the arts were made "for" people. So I decided to emphasize that "for people" attitude in my teaching. The most important thing I can do for a student is to help them lay down the unnecessary baggage they're carrying around. This means all the thinking that interferes with their "seeing" what we show them.
But it also means freeing them from the idea that the technique is something more meaningful and important than mere human living.
Well, all this is very difficult to convey in words. "Feeling" is the important thing and without some training in The Feldenkrais Method of neuromuscular education, the words may carry little meaning at all. But if you ever "feel" it, you will be sure of what the words meant.
Best wishes.
Yoseikan NL
23rd December 2005, 10:04
Very good exlplenation David.
In my books I describe a smimilair way to explain this way of approach.
It is all about getting a good and clear understanding of the underlying principles which make techniques work. If you understand that, you understand how things work even if it is a diffrent style.
Technique is made by a human and he acts within his behavior. Training the martial arts techniques gives you the possibility to get more insight and understanding in yourself to find a better balance.
Edgar Kruyning
Yoseikan Netherlands
Dave Humm
23rd December 2005, 12:32
Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them..
Happy Holiday
Regards
MarkF
23rd December 2005, 13:17
In a somewhat related story...
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32153
Mark
Neil M
24th December 2005, 09:08
Dave, this is a fascinating question and one that I can offer an answer to from the other end.
As someone who has recently taken up Aikido in addition to my sword training, I have suffered the problem of ' missing ' bits from shown technique.
I will be concentrating so hard on watching the lock or body movement being applied, that I will completely miss foot movement. I then partner up and wonder why I am so close to my partner...yes, I have taken a full step, not the half step demonstrated. Alternatively, I will concentrate so hard on a technique which is perhaps a variation of previously ingrained lock, that I end up driving my poor partner off in the wrong and very painful, direction. Yes, I should have moved backwards NOT forwards !
I have put these frequent misunderstandings down to two things. 1) My age, I am 46 and (2) many years spent with another Martial Art.
On the up side, I do find week on week that aspects of a technique ( like tenkan) which baffled me at first suddenly slot into place.
I think the older mind, while often more considered, is not as nimble as the younger mind, which does not always concentrate as it should.
jailess
24th December 2005, 18:09
It's not just an age thing; we have plenty of new 1st year uni students who have just joined out Dojo who are terrible** - You'd think that after 17 years the concepts of 'right' and 'left' would be reasonably ingrained in a person's body, but nooooooooo... "Other left, mate," every other lesson.
And stances: my Sensei's very fond of saying "No Praying Hedgehog stance, chudan gamae" (a basic boxing guard stance) to the new recruits who have assumed the KarateKid Crane technique on the assumption that that's how we want them to stand.
And stiffness: I've seen public statues that could move more freely.
At the end of the day, there are always good students that can see you do the technique first time and then go and do it after they've turned what they've seen around in their heads and put themselves in the place of you (assuming you're uke). Then there are lots more people who need lots more teaching. There's nothing to be done apart from show them, watch them do it, correct, show them again, move their damn limbs FOR them if you have to (assuming they're not too stiff to let you) and watch them again, and again, ang again, until they've got it. As long as they keep trying and making good effort, eventually they'll get it.
I learn best when the move/technique gets broken down into 3 sections: Hand movement, Tae Sabaki and Ashi Sabaki. Even if the sensei doesn't present it this way, I always try to watch his/her hands one time, body another time, and feet a third. Then, if there's time, I look at what's happening to Kohige/Tori. Unless I'm helping the sensei, in which case I'm normally falling.
**: I was also terrible when I started, so I feel I can comment on my crappy brethren.
Martyn van Halm
25th December 2005, 11:01
I trained in aikido for a year before I started kobujutsu. What I noticed straight away, that because watching a kobujutsu kata I had to broaden my view to incorporate body movement, distance, sword angle, footwork, etcetera, I tended to look differently at aikido technique when they were explained. In my first year before kobujutsu training, I tended to focus on the hand movements only or footwork only; in my second year, I could see the aikido technique as if they were a kobujutsu kata, i.e. I could see everything at once - the hands, the feet, the hip angle, the flow, the direction...
After that my aikido prowess advanced swifter than it would've if I'd stuck in my pre-kobujutsu mindset.
Jock Armstrong
26th December 2005, 01:56
Often a student doesn't actually understand that they aren't actually doing what you showed them. think of it this way- if you've never stood up properly and you have poor posture," stand up straight " is an order that has two completely different meanings to the the two people involved. i use this one because I have to teach nearly every young person how to stand up straight. I stand them against the wall and make sure only the heels and buttocks touch it. I then tell them to get the backs of the shoulders and their head to touch. Voila now standing up straight. Also, many new students have to learn to "see". they are usually incapable of focussing properly on what you are doing/saying/ demonstrating because they have never had to before.
Once you've gotten them onto the idea of actually paying attention you'll have a better chance of succeeding and fewer injuries. Having a routine- the bow in etc at the start marks the start of the lesson and acts as a reminder or memory jogger "Oh, it is time to switch on!". I like kata for the same reason- it switches their brains on because they have to remember a set sequence of movements as well as perform the movements themselves.
BudoWig
26th December 2005, 23:29
Pairing beginners with more seasoned students (whenever feasible) is helpful in the regard of ensuring that they don't make injurious mistakes. One thing I learned the value of immensely is to take things slow on the mat. Nobody is in a rush. Speed will come with patient practice. That's how I was taught, at least.
When I show technique to less-experienced practitioners, I go as slowly as possible in order for them to fully grasp every component of it. For the most part, the pace of my presentation is determined by how well the presentee processes what he/she is shown. However, I always begin showing technique as if the person has never seen it before, and we take it from there.
However, in large class settings, it is not always possible to give that kind of attention to each individual student or to have enough seasoned practitioners to go around.
That said, I have received my fair share of mat-related injuries in the past. However, the majority of those were due to my own oversights.
I'm sure that our own Chase Sensei can remember a little incident several years ago involving one of his homemade training tantos and my forehead. ;) I mean, really, that thing was just pointy in all the wrong spots.
wmuromoto
27th December 2005, 03:19
Hi all,
This is an ongoing problem in teaching of any sports, not just martial arts. However, proper form in budo is particularly problematic because--especially in kata training--form is extremely important, perhaps even more so than any other physical endeavor such as competitive sports, perhaps similar to dance. In competitive sports, one could achieve a minimum of ability with mediocre body alignment by overstressing one's natural body alignment. That does, eventually, lead to problems for the participant. It's evident more so in dance injuries from bad body alignment. In budo, the danger is increased because wrong movement and body alignment does lead to injuries, whether self-induced or inflicted by one's training partner.
I find it an ongoing problem, and find this thread interesting. I'm curious to see other comments. Like one poster, I realized that some students don't know their own body, let alone basic martial "kihon," so a good deal of time now is spent on basic postures, body alignment and movement. When a person has never "stood straight," he/she won't know what you're talking about when you tell them to stand straight. Indeed!
Also, "seeing" is a problem that has been even described in Japanese documents, so we're not alone in our teaching problem. A kendo book I read once made a distinction between "looking" (ken, or miru) and "perceiving," (kan, or kanjiru). People may look at a technique, but unless they know how to learn from observation and to inculcuate visual examples into their own physical movements, they haven't really "seen," in terms of learning budo.
Trying to teach people how to observe closer is one way to improve learning. But that takes time, because sometimes beginners don't know what it is they are supposed to be looking at or for.
Breaking down techniques into component parts help too. That's what kihon are for, but it could help to look at particular problems and then try to break them down, creating new particularized kihon for your own dojo. I hesitated to do that in my own club until I saw my sempai in Japan do it in order to teach a "new generation" of Japanese koryu budo, and after all, creating kihon to teach traditional arts happen all the time. Shimizu Takaji did that when he created kihon for Shindo Muso-ryu jo and had them approved by the other masters of that art.
I also see it from the other side, as a student. It just takes time to learn new things, and the older I get (as others have observed) the harder it is for me to learn things, it seems. Repetition is the only cure for that, but mindful repetition (what IS it I am doing, why? Should I put my foot closer here or there?) is important. You have to have your mind engaged, not disengaged, in the movement. One of the problems, I think, with moderns is that sometimes we tend to disengage our minds from our bodies. Learning a physical art like budo, then, addresses an even more fundamental problem than unarmed self-defense: how to reconnect our mind with our body.
Well, anyway, my two cents' worth. Nice discussion here.
Wayne Muromoto
Dave Humm
28th December 2005, 15:18
As the original poster, let me explain a little about me and my teaching experiences; I've studied (thus far) aikido for 18 years and I've been running a dojo of my own for a little over a year however, I had co-run another dojo for aprox 5 years previously before that closed, I hold coaching qualifications from the Governing Body for Aikido in the UK and in addition, was professionally trained to teach whilst serving in the armed forces. I've spent several years in the capacity of a small arms instructor teaching both trained and untrained service personnel.
Over the years I've utilised very formal methods of instruction right through to quite informal coaching, as yet I haven't found an ideal compromise naturally because every student is individual. Many find the "Whole-Part-Whole" method perfectly adequate, whilst others need the applications/techniques to be broken down in detail. I have no problems delivering whatever the instructional needs of the class however I do sometimes find mixing teaching styles confuses the class compounding the problem of looking but not seeing
Regards as always
davidgibb
3rd January 2006, 05:20
Theres one simple answer, although teachers view it as many different long winded reasons listed above me, you either get the technique from watching and listening, or you have to do the technique to get it.
I'm one of the people who get jack crap from watching the technique performed, it dosen't catch and my mind wanders. I however get the technique after trying it out a couple times with my partner. It's really not your method of teaching, it's dependent on how each and every students brain picks up differnt things.
kongoshin
3rd January 2006, 07:02
I must agree with the last poster :-) Even though I had 7 years of dancing exerience before taking up Aikido, I found it very hard to just look at the techniques and do it properly. Feeling the technique with my body did, and does, all the difference. Of course, now it's another story, being more experienced I can pick up new techniques more easily.
However, I experienced the same beginners frustration a while ago while watching an advanced jo dori technique done by Hiroaki Kobayashi sensei...
Also, I found it very helpful being uke a lot. I think the most important think we can teach our students is to do proper ukemi. Oh yes, it's been said before, but it's so essential.
Using even beginners as uke when showing technique builds confidence in them, improves their skill, and keeps my mind alert. Showing technique with advanced students only will certainly look good - but it's so easy to forget where the real challenges are when doing the techniques with someone who does exactly what you expect them to do...
My advice: Use the students as uke alot and break the techniques down into smaller parts if neccessary.
Also sometimes I'll be showing the techniques for just a few times, letting the students try it, and then stopping them again after some time - explaining more in detail. That way the students will have something to relate to (Ahh... THAT's what I did wrong...).
Good luck!
(and Happy New Year to all!)
Jock Armstrong
3rd January 2006, 08:22
Gee, thanks Dave Gibb- we might as well just stand still and tell people what to do and they'll teach themselves as long as they have a partner? No need for "long winded" explanations. Teaching method [and coaching] are extremely important. From what you said in your post, none of it matters because all students learn differently?? Recognising the inherent strengths and weaknesses of students [that includes their learning "style" is part of any good instructor's teaching method,
Basic teaching 101 [as taught in the army for practical lessons]
1] Perform technique at full speed.
2] Perform slowly and let everyone see it, talking thru it as you go- do it three or four times so students can move and see it from different angles.
3] Partner the student's up and talk them thru slowly.
4] Individual pairs practice- instructor moves around and coaches.
It works for any practical skill- whether it's bayonet fighting or kotegaeshi.
"Confirmation" is correct [ not perfect] application of the technique, either on command or as in the more kick/punch oriented arts, in sparring. In other words, you need to see it, then do it till you get it right.
No need for that long winded stuff..............
Dave Humm
3rd January 2006, 11:16
Hi Jock...
What you describe is known as: E.D.I.P
Explain
Demonstrate
Imitation
Practice
Regards
Jock Armstrong
3rd January 2006, 11:32
That's right. :)
davidgibb
3rd January 2006, 17:36
Gee, thanks Dave Gibb- we might as well just stand still and tell people what to do and they'll teach themselves as long as they have a partner? No need for "long winded" explanations. Teaching method [and coaching] are extremely important. From what you said in your post, none of it matters because all students learn differently?? Recognising the inherent strengths and weaknesses of students [that includes their learning "style" is part of any good instructor's teaching method,
Basic teaching 101 [as taught in the army for practical lessons]
1] Perform technique at full speed.
2] Perform slowly and let everyone see it, talking thru it as you go- do it three or four times so students can move and see it from different angles.
3] Partner the student's up and talk them thru slowly.
4] Individual pairs practice- instructor moves around and coaches.
It works for any practical skill- whether it's bayonet fighting or kotegaeshi.
"Confirmation" is correct [ not perfect] application of the technique, either on command or as in the more kick/punch oriented arts, in sparring. In other words, you need to see it, then do it till you get it right.
No need for that long winded stuff..............
I quite enjoy long insightful talks during class, I'm just saying alot of people cant learn from just seeing it done over and over, I mean it does help me, i just get more from doing the the technique rather than watching it.
Jock Armstrong
3rd January 2006, 22:47
That's not how the post read-sometimes what you put down in print is not actually what you are trying to say. We've all been guilty of that at some stage I'm sure. You also accused people trying to give an answer to a difficult question, of being "long winded". Hardly a compliment.
You get more out of it by doing it- of course you do. No physical skill can be developed simply by looking! However, you have to be shown, practice and be coached. None of the teaching points can exist in a vacuum, they have to happen together.
P Goldsbury
3rd January 2006, 23:04
Too often teaching and learning are considered simply as two sides of the same coin, but I think this is a mistake.
Mastering a foreign language is an area where there is a fundamental difference between teaching strategies, for want of a better term, and learning strategies. I think that martial arts training is similar.
In Japan very often there is vitually no explanation in an aikido dojo. The shihan demonstrates the technique a few times and then leaves people to get on with it. The subsequent training is also often done in silence and the importance here is learning how to see the techniques demonstrated and then match one's perception by doing the technique with a partner. Morihei Ueshiba himself used this method.
In my experience westerners are accustomed to a more dialectical learning process and seek logically structured explanations to which they can respond with questions. This would be considered impolite here in Japan.
wmuromoto
4th January 2006, 06:30
Hello Peter,
I've experienced that kind of training in aikido dojo here in Hawaii, but when I trained in Kyoto, my jujutsu and iai teachers were much more verbal. I'm not sure why that was so and can only conjecture as to the reasons. I do notice that aikido teachers in Hawaii tend to teach as you describe, especially when I briefly trained in Aikikai-related dojo. It seems to be less so in kendo, iaido and koryu, even here.
My jujutsu sensei lectured at a university during the days and he had a naturally gregarious nature. One could argue that it was because I was a foreigner and he treated me differently, but he appeared to act the same way around every one of his students. He once asked his Japanese students what they liked about his teaching style and one of his young Japanese students said that they liked his way of teaching, i.e., "You teach like a college teacher; you let us ask questions and ask us questions too." He was, in addition, somewhat young. In the 1980s, when I was living there, he was only in his 50s. Perhaps that also affected his approach to teaching.
The openness of my iai teacher may be more unusual because of his age. He was born before the war and headed the Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu group in the Kyoto Butokukai, but he, too, was quite talkative about technical and philosophical points of the ryu with me during practice.
My sensei's senior students, as well, seemed to have taken on their teaching styles. The two seniormost students of my jujutsu sensei who teach in Tokyo are quite "erai"; one works for the Central Bank of Japan and another is with the Ministry of Finance. Both of them tend to be quite capable of discussing finer points of a kata verbally as well as by physical example.
The last time I was in Kyoto, I also trained under one of the senior disciples of my iai sensei's. He was a researcher and had already written a book on the Bakumatsu shishi, and he was, if anything, not at all chintzy in giving me heaping amounts of verbal advice about what and why I did things wrong in my iai, advice which was gladly accepted.
But you're right. Silence does seem golden when I did aikido. It forces one to really try to watch and "catch" what you can. Much of my tea training was like that, until I entered the Urasenke school of tea in Kyoto, a part of the Urasenke Gakuen. Then the teachers made it a point to have question and answer time, written handouts, and formal discussions very much like Western style vocational training. It may be simply different ways different groups teach traditional arts, and how much each group decides to react to Western influences?
Wayne Muromoto
P Goldsbury
4th January 2006, 10:14
Hello Wayne,
In all my years of aikido I have never had a regular teacher who was not Japanese and so I am sure that the way I was taught (or the way I learned) the art has coloured my own attitudes to teaching and learning.
Up till 1980 these Japanese teachers taught me in the UK and the US and surely had had to adapt the way they themselves had learned aikido to the different demands of their non-Japanese students. I say this because I was struck by the differences in teaching and learning strategies when I came here and by the fact that these differences were replicated in my university classes.
The question has assumed more importance for me because I am in a similar situation, but in reverse. I now run an aikido dojo here in Hiroshima, where the majority of the students are Japanese (all beginners) but none of the instructors are. I am struck by the fact that the Japanese Way of Silence is actually no more effective than the Western Way of Volubility.
Best wishes for 2006
Dave Humm
4th January 2006, 15:57
...I now run an aikido dojo here in Hiroshima, where the majority of the students are Japanese (all beginners) but none of the instructors are. I am struck by the fact that the Japanese Way of Silence is actually no more effective than the Western Way of Volubility.That is quite interesting Dr. Goldsbury, food for thought indeed.
Regards as always
kimiwane
4th January 2006, 16:30
Too often teaching and learning are considered simply as two sides of the same coin, but I think this is a mistake.
Indeed, Dr. Goldsbury.
And I think we sometimes have a confusion also in the purpose of teaching. Is it to "lead" the student on and make him figure it out for himself, or is it really to get the information and the skill across to him?
The dang thing is, there is a lot of value in both approaches. Mochizuki sensei told me to cut to the chase, give the student something he can use "that same day" every time I taught a lesson. He said to "teach as much as possible as fast as possible" yet we all know that we learn much more deeply when we puzzle it out and understand through sudden comprehension of things that have been bubbling around separately in our mind until we see the connections.
Mastering a foreign language is an area where there is a fundamental difference between teaching strategies, for want of a better term, and learning strategies.
One thing that struck me in Japan was that both Mochizuki sensei and my English-teaching mentor both said the same thing: "Teach as much as possible as fast as possible." But while Mochizuki sensei wasn't clear on exactly how to do that, Dr. Lado went through it in extreme detail. I refer to Dr. Robert Lado (now deceased, then Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at Georgetown University, a pioneer in Post-WWII international English teaching and founder of Lado International College).
Dr. Lado insisted that the teaching be tailored to satisfying the needs of the learner. He said that this was the way to "teach as much as possible as fast as possible" and I adopted his approach for satisfying Mochizuki sensei's demand to do just that in aikido.
Lado's main concept is that there are five clear stages of learning. You go from complete ignorance to complete mastery through these stages. His method was to structure each lesson to take a student through all five stages for the material in that lesson. You can't teach a lot in one lesson that way, but once the student has crossed all five stages of learning anything, they will have that learning forever.
So you have to make the sample size very small, then teach so that the student does go through all five stages of learning for that small sample. The fifth stage is to go out and use the material. When they actually use the material for a purpose other than simply learning the material, then they have mastered the material (or are well on the way to mastering it).
Lado's Five Stages of Learning are:
1. Experience
2. Remembering
3. Assimilation
4. Facility
5. Usage
If I may elaborate, in stage one, you get off the airplane with no Japanese language ability and you start out by hearing this mishmash of machinegun syllables, teeth-sucking, back-of-the-neck rubbing, bowing, tilting of the head, geticulating with the hands and sounds like "huuuuuunnnnhhhhhh!!!!" or "Eeeeeeeee------eeeeeehhhhhh????" It is pure "experience" with no connected meaning at all.
The second stage is where, in the midst of that pure, meaningless chaos of sound and gestures, you start to recognize one little set of sounds, such as "chotto matte kudasai" (usually, of course, we start to recognize smaller assemblies, but I mean recognizing a small string). So then you associate the meaning of "wait a moment, please" with the sounds of "chotto matte kudasai". That is "remembering", when the raw experience is not so raw, when some bits of it begin to have meaning.
The third stage is when you realize that the Japanese use this "chotto matte kudasai" phrase at certain types of moments and in association with other little phrases. Then you are beginning to assimilate the remembered experience, to place it relative to other bits of remembered experience.
Facility is when you understand the cues surrounding the assimilated language. You can hear it coming. You hear it spoken, and you reply without having to anguish over what the other guy just said: "Chotto matte kudasai." and "Hai. Matteimasu." That is facility, when it become quick, easy and natural not only to understand what was said but to know the appropriate reply and to use it without hesitation.
The fifth stage is "usage", or using the learned language for a purpose other than just learning the language. So you learn these phrases and, rather than getting some eager-to-please Japanese person to go and interpret for you, you plunge out onto the sidewalk, find your way to Seibu, and buy your own sheets by hashing it out with the sales clerk yourself.
Once the learner has experienced all five stages of learning a small sample of the target material, he has learned that small sample. If he is aware of the five stages, he can help guide his own acquisition of target material. If both he and the teacher are unaware of these five stages, it's easy to "teach" without really causing the student to learn a thing.
I think that martial arts training is similar.
And I agree with you on that.
In Japan very often there is vitually no explanation in an aikido dojo. The shihan demonstrates the technique a few times and then leaves people to get on with it. The subsequent training is also often done in silence and the importance here is learning how to see the techniques demonstrated and then match one's perception by doing the technique with a partner. Morihei Ueshiba himself used this method.
And it is an incredibly powerful way to learn, as well as to develop the ability to learn. I think our friend was right on target when he mentioned his experience with kobujutsu training helping him to observe more completely. However, is there another mix? Can we "lead" him on, yet limit what we're showing to such a small point that he can and will get the whole point in a single lesson and still be able to use that small amount of material to build substantially on?
In my experience westerners are accustomed to a more dialectical learning process and seek logically structured explanations to which they can respond with questions. This would be considered impolite here in Japan.
The great thing about Mochizuki sensei is that he didn't take that attitude. He wanted people to ask questions. He liked that I always asked if I had a doubt about something.
What I found, though, was that Japanese in general don't like to have questions put to them and that they generally don't generate questions of their own, probably because of that social attitude.
As a student of Jigoro Kano, Mochizuki sensei demanded that students apply analytical, rational thinking to their observation of technique and instruction. And I found that by isolating the skeletal movments I observed and noticing how they were combined to produce a given technique, I was able to learn that technique much faster.
But again, some folks here have pointed out how much trouble so many people have with simply standing up straight. And that, to me, is the number one lesson on which everything else in aikido can be based. Without it, technique will always remain very difficult.
The point I have here, though, is that "standing up straight" cannot be taught as a form. I spent thousands of dollars getting Rolfing treatments while in Japan and ended up still having to monitor my "form" constantly because my body didn't want to stand in the proscribed way the Rolfer was telling me to stand.
In fact, the only way to really stand straight is to recognize that standing straight is the "natural" way to stand. We fail to stand up straight because we are unconsciously expressing the "fight or flight" response to some degree. We hunch or bend or bow or cow down according to our inner feeling of protecting ourselves. When we walk into a dojo for the specific purpose of learning how to "fight" or "defend ourselves", that response just kicks in more strongly. When we teach such a student to "stand up straight," they will assume the form IN SPITE OF their innner feeling of being somewhat or very threatened. And they will still have the inner urge to sink and bend and lower the head.
However, if, in the first lesson, we can cause them to FEEL the body's own natural desire to stand up straight, if we can make them recognize the tiny (or large) degree to which they may be experienceing "fight or flight" response, then they can choose to respond to "fight or flight" feelings with the tactical action of standing up straight and tall and letting all tension fall from the body. And if they can do that in the first lesson, they can cut years off the time needed to become fluent in the movement of aikido.
Just my views. Thanks for yours.
best wishes,
wmuromoto
4th January 2006, 17:08
Peter, David, all...
"...I am struck by the fact that the Japanese Way of Silence is actually no more effective than the Western Way of Volubility."
Amen to that. In my full time job as an instructor at a local community college, my teaching is heavily "Western" oriented, with loads of verbal discourse. But being that it's primarily in graphic design, it takes the form of demonstrate (and facilitate; I make the students do a tutorial together with me), facilitate (help them on their own creative projects using the techniques learned), and present/critique (discuss student works, give advice on how to refine them) and then build upon the lesson with another lesson, another technique.
I teach an overload class of graphic art for non-majors at the U. of Hawaii sometimes, a four-year college.
My experience is that half of your success in a Western-oriented class ultimately depends on the nature of the students you have. God bless 'em, but a lot of my community college students are not ready for college. One-third of them recieve Ds and Fs (failing grades) for simply failing to show up, not turning in work, or freaking out and spacing out. On the other hand, my rate of As and Bs (excellent work) for my fourth year university students at UH is close to 100%. So much of my success depends on the student makeup.
I say this because I often turn over in my mind whether or not there are better ways for me to teach my own budo club jujutsu and iai. I have patterned a lot of my teaching style on my iai and jujutsu teachers' teaching paradigm. Like you, Peter, it's a question of teaching across culture as well. I learned those budo in Japan. How do I transmit it to locals, most of whom have little cultural references to learning strategies taken for granted in a Japanese dojo in Japan?
Not only are there cross-cultural problems, there are other compounding factors: as Dave (David?) noted, sometimes what you say doesn't necessarily translate into what students do; "straighten up" may not mean the same thing to someone who's never really "stood straight" before in his life. Students may have their "cups full," a priori physical training that actually hinders them from adapting to one's particular stylistic ways of moving. They may "see," but may not really comprehend what is being presented to them by way of physical demonstration, etc. All these situations are present in my classes and I'm curious to read what others are saying.
...Just an anecdote and then I have to to do more lesson preps for the new semester, but I'm enjoying lurking and reading thoughts on this thread. Thank you, all of you.
Once I was at a party one of my American friends (alas, he since passed away) held for his Japanese students. He taught linguistics at Kyoto University. I asked a student how my friend was as an instructor. The student said something like, "When I first took the class, Mike-san scared the heck out of me. He talked about something and then he pointed to me and asked, 'What do YOU think?' No Japanese professor ever asked ME what I thought! I was so scared at first!"
Most of the students found his way of teaching novel, challenging and refreshing, but they all agreed that it was way different from what they were used to.
Wayne Muromoto
kimiwane
4th January 2006, 19:34
Very good exlplenation David.
In my books I describe a smimilair way to explain this way of approach.
It is all about getting a good and clear understanding of the underlying principles which make techniques work. If you understand that, you understand how things work even if it is a diffrent style.
Edgar, thank you for your kind comments. Since I learned from your teacher, I guess my thinking may not be too far off. If only I could express these things physically as well as you, I would be too proud of myself to live.
Now, for those who don't know who you are, I'd like to tell what I know of you so that people will get an idea of the weight of your opinions.
I met you at Mochizuki Minoru sensei's yoseikan budo headquarters dojo in Shizuoka, Japan, about 1992.
As I recall, you told me then that you were about 24 years old, you had been training at a dojo in the Netherlands since age 14 and had gradually begun teaching classes for your teacher. You had been teaching for some years when we met.
I believe that dojo was teaching judo, karate, jujutsu, aikido (or aikijujutsu?) and kenjutsu (of the Sugino line?).
Whatever it was, you were one of the few people who I ever saw walk into that dojo and get right with it. You were able to train with the most advanced black belts right off the bat.
Could you tell a little about that first dojo where you trained and how it led you to Mochizuki Minoru sensei?
Now, to everyone else, I'd like to say that when I say Edgar came into the dojo and trained with the top black belts, I mean, he shocked everyone there, including the shihans, who really admired him from the beginning. Edgar had just come from several weeks in Thailand, where he had won some Muay Thai bouts. He was about 6'4" and very lean, though that still adds up to a mighty hefty fellow to be grappling with (or to be kicked in the head by).
Edgar was young, fit and highly trained but with an attitude of friendly humility that won him complete acceptance at the yoseikan. There were a number of uchi deshi there at the time and Edgar put us all to shame. For one thing, some of us had a bit of a rivalry going as uchi deshi, trying to impress sensei and trying to beat each other. I had been feeling the disadvantages of age (being uchi deshi at age 38 is not something I would advise anyone--especially in that kind of dojo). But Edgar arrived as Mr. Enlightenment. All our petty rivalries were put into perspective when Edgar arrived out of nowhere and showed us all the truth. Mochizuki sensei really liked him.
Also, he showed the undeniable superiority of the Muay Thai round kick as compared to the usual karate type of round kick. He changed the dojo's way of doing that kick. And when we went out as a group and someone suggested that we all try the punching machine to see who was strongest, Edgar far exceeded the power of the previously-strongest puncher among us, which caused that guy some anguish, but made me happier. I had been a standout for strength before he came along, and when Edgar arrived, that guy knew how I felt. So Edgar brought Truth in many painful ways, but always with a smile.
I enjoy the memory of being lofted six feet vertically in uchi mata gaeshi much more than I enjoyed the experience of having Edgar apply it on me, but I'm sure the people who were watching that day never heard a more interesting sound than the dismal "ooooooohhhhhhhh!!!!!!" that I emitted at the time. I mean, Edgar gave everyone something to smile at.
And when we went to karaoke as a group, Edgar was kind enough to sing along with me on "The Boxer", though I wanted to sing it by myself because it was the only thing the shihans had ever complimented me on. I felt bad at the time, but standing up on that stage with Edgar Kruyning as a friend remains a great memory for me.
Since those days, Edgar has become rather well known in Europe, teaching alongside such notables as Mochizuki Hiroo and Jan Bluming (kyokushin 10th dan and willing to prove it to anyone who doubts it). Edgar was made 5th dan under both Mochizuki Minoru sensei and Mochizuki Hiroo sensei. When you talk about a standard of dan rankings, if you calibrate 5th dan to Edgar Kruyning, you've placed it at an appropriately terrible height. I have seen few people who meritted that rank like Edgar, only one of them non-Japanese.
That being said, I'd now like to address Edgar directly again.
Edgar, you mention your books. I have seen them advertised, but they appear to be available in Dutch language only. Are they available in English? I'd really like to read them and I would recommend them highly to everyone on this board. Even looking at the pictures would do most folks a lot of good.
As for what makes techniques work, I think techniques work when they are consistent with the principles of physics, but also when they are consistent with the technician's feelings about life and himself. I used to believe that techniques were purely physics-oriented, like mathematical formulae that you needed only to memorize and whip out for use at appropriate times.
Now I see aikido techniques more as responses to how one feels about the person who is approaching him and how he reacts to that feeling. If the approaching person seems bent on evil, it is normal to feel "fight or flight" sensations in one's stomach. This is an excitation of a nerve plexus in the abdomen. It is normal to unconsciously tense the abdomen to soothe this nerve center. This tension of the abdomen causes the body to bend forward, distorting the posture and making one have to work harder to stand upright. This is a small effect, but it adds up. And if you read even a small effort as "zero", all your perceptions will be distorted and it will be very hard to observe the opponent's movement. And it will be that much harder to move with the extra tension in the body. Thus, potential energy is sapped.
To me, aikido is making the strategic decision NOT to allow ourselves to be bent by this unconscious tension, but to become conscious of it when we feel it. Then we can make the tactical decision to stand up straight and easy.
This keeps the weight up high where it represents potential energy ready to be translated into kinetic energy by sudden dropping of the weight in the advantageous direction (either into the opponent, away from him, close to him, etc.)
So, to me, aikido is not always about what we "do" as "technique", but what we refuse to do, on the level of unconscious responses that we can't even see, even though they hinder us. Aikido is to shed those hindrances that come from failure to feel our own subtle feelings.
Our bodies are completely covered with 'sensors', after all, but as martial artists, we tend to spend a lot of time ignoring the sensations we receive from them. We slam our fists into makiwara posts or concrete walls or steel beams or wood. We get off the floor and attack again, though the last fall made our necks catch a little...
Technique is made by a human and he acts within his behavior. Training the martial arts techniques gives you the possibility to get more insight and understanding in yourself to find a better balance.
And that's why I love the old katas that Mochizuki sensei made--especially hyori no kata, jutsu ri no kata and ken tai ichi no kata.
Many people seem to think that the kata are there to reprogram our nervous systems, but I think they are based on our natural nervous system. Our problem is that society has reprogrammed our nerves in bizarre ways. The ancient katas show us how to get back to what we came from, whichis our own human nature.
Edgar, thanks again for your comments and I will look for your corrections when you notice my mistakes. Please tell us more about your journey and about your current uchi deshi program.
Best wishes, and Happy New Year!
kimiwane
5th January 2006, 18:22
Dave,
I always enjoy your comments and finding out about your background. Clearly you have some good training in how to teach. I guess I come more from "how to learn".
Do you have any experience with neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)?
NLP teaches students to observe with extreme subtlety. The find someone who is excellent in a given field, then observe the person in action. The look for very subtle clues and then try to recreate the expert's entire physiology and mental attitude when he's "in the zone" so that they can get the same results he got.
When I was in Japan, I did a lot of this and focused usually on Washizu sensei, one of the rokudan shihan to whom everyone deferred. He was an incredible sutemi waza artist. I watched him carefully and copied every nuance of the way he stood, breathed, how his eyes moved and so on, to try to bring as much of his method into my subconscious as possible.
I can't say I approached his level of finesse, but I did learn a lot that way.
Something else I like is to watch the experts BETWEEN actions. In other words, watch him between throws or after he has done his turn, watch him walk to the back of the attack line, watch how he stands in line, how he prepares to attack, how he falls and such.
I find that the keys are in the relaxed moments when he is simply being himself.
Anthony Robbins wrote a really good book on NLP called "Unlimited Power" that describes exactly how to do this modelling. It helps me as a learner to model on the experts. As a teacher, it makes me more aware of what the student is feeling and where he is directing his attention, which helps me to teach to him rather than at or toward him.
Hi Jock...
What you describe is known as: E.D.I.P
Explain
Demonstrate
Imitation
Practice
Regards
Dave Humm
5th January 2006, 22:14
Dave,
I always enjoy your comments and finding out about your background. Clearly you have some good training in how to teach.Thanks, I didn't post that information to appear or sound like the "big I am" I merely thought a little background on my teaching experiences were applicable given I had asked for advice on the subject of teaching.
Do you have any experience with neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)?Nope, none at all and what you present on the subject is very interesting, I'll do a bit of research on this. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Regards
Yoseikan NL
7th January 2006, 10:05
Thank you very much for your nice words, it was nice to read how you experienced it.
Edgar, you mention your books. I have seen them advertised, but they appear to be available in Dutch language only. Are they available in English? I'd really like to read them and I would recommend them highly to everyone on this board. Even looking at the pictures would do most folks a lot of good.
I do have some translation work ready of Dynamic Budo I and II. I am working with a new publisher, perhaps we can find a way to transtale it completly.
My new book which will come very soon will be in dutch and Enlish. And a dvd will be included, and there are some old film of us both in Japan with Minoru Mochizuki Sensei!
Many people seem to think that the kata are there to reprogram our nervous systems, but I think they are based on our natural nervous system. Our problem is that society has reprogrammed our nerves in bizarre ways. The ancient katas show us how to get back to what we came from, whichis our own human nature.
I think so too. Budo is more as only selfdefense or sports. You can learn a lot about your physical and mental development as a whole.
I have a private dojo in my house with a place to stay for Uchi deshi. I had some students from all over the world. Including one from the Yoseikan dojo Japan. Now I have a student who will stay for one year and in april 2 belgium men will come.
I met Minoru Mochizuki sensei in 1987 in France and I was asked by Hatakeyama sensei of the Sugino Dojo to come to Japan. First I went for some time to Thailand to improve my Muay Thai skills, but my basic is Budo. I was very impressed and touched by master Mochizuki, so I made up my mind to study under that master. I directly felt a very good and thight band with the master. As you know I always went to the Judo Dojo of Sato and made many hours, but Sensei always kept an eye on me.
I also felt the tension between the Uchi deshi overthere but like now, I never mix in that kind of things even with federation politics today. I think it is useless and as you mentioned young people can often not see that your age was for you difficult to follow the young ones. As I remember well I had to sing that song with you because I was not allowed by the master to sing the only English song My way of Sinatra!
In Japan the teachers made a nice Kanji of my name meaning "always following your own way". And like Minoru Mochizuki sensei always did, I like to follow my own way building on the lessons of my teachers, having respect for other people who have the freedom to follow there own way.
greetings
Edgar Kruyning
johan smits
9th January 2006, 06:47
Hi to you all,
There is something I have been thinking about in relation to the title of this post - When students look but do not see. Essentialy we are talking about the interaction there is between teachers and students in relation to the material studied.
Now one could say if a student looks but doesn't see then it is up to the teacher to find a way to make his (or her) student see. If the teacher will not do such a thing is he or she really teaching? Or is the teacher giving up on a student? Sure if you've got enough students there will always be some of them who "do see"and "get it".
Now it may very well be that cultural differences will result in a different teacher-student relationship but still is it not a teacher's job to teach?
It is true that your perception wil be trained in a different way in a class where you train in silence. But I do think that explainations should be part of the repertoire of a teacher.
Unless of course the teacher is not so much interested in his (or her) students but mainly in him- or herself.
I have often wondered why someone as for example Morihei Ueshiba has been named as "great teacher" while as far as I know he mainly did his own thing and left his students to find out for themselves.
Best Regards,
Johan Smits
Jock Armstrong
9th January 2006, 09:05
Teaching is a challenge in itself and not all people are good at it. There are gifted practitioners who are poor teachers and guys who were OK practitioners who are outstanding teachers. Thats why the army has promotion courses [the first of which is nearly all on how to teach skills [prac, theoretical] and people who graduate university have to go to teachers' college or do an education degree. Sometimes even people who learn all the stuff still aren't any good at it.
P Goldsbury
9th January 2006, 13:46
Hi to you all,
There is something I have been thinking about in relation to the title of this post - When students look but do not see. Essentialy we are talking about the interaction there is between teachers and students in relation to the material studied.
Now one could say if a student looks but doesn't see then it is up to the teacher to find a way to make his (or her) student see. If the teacher will not do such a thing is he or she really teaching? Or is the teacher giving up on a student? Sure if you've got enough students there will always be some of them who "do see"and "get it".
Now it may very well be that cultural differences will result in a different teacher-student relationship but still is it not a teacher's job to teach?
It is true that your perception wil be trained in a different way in a class where you train in silence. But I do think that explainations should be part of the repertoire of a teacher.
Unless of course the teacher is not so much interested in his (or her) students but mainly in him- or herself.
I have often wondered why someone as for example Morihei Ueshiba has been named as "great teacher" while as far as I know he mainly did his own thing and left his students to find out for themselves.
Best Regards,
Johan Smits
I think you underestimate the cultural issues involved here. I have been teaching aikido in the Netherlands for the past 25 years, as long as I have been living in Japan. I have found a major difference in the expectations of Dutch and Japanese as to what is involved in the teaching and learning of aikido.
I also find it interesting that there has never been a Japanese aikido shihan resident in Holland, as there has in most of the neighbouring countries, including France, Belgium, Britain and Germany. I was requested to look after a group of dojos because of my connection with Japan, but also because I was not Japanese and would approach teaching and learning in a western way.
Morihei Ueshiba was called O Sensei, but politicians and doctors are also called Sensei. The title does not necessarily mean that the holder is a teacher in a western sense. In the case of Morihei Ueshiba, he accepted a few uchi-deshi and allowed them a ringside seat as he developed his art. However, this is not teaching in the more modern sense of a large training seminar, or even a regular class with a syllabus and textbook. The differences here reflect the differences in how I myself teach doctoral students and first year undergraduate students.
johan smits
9th January 2006, 14:18
Professor Goldsbury,
Thank you for your reply. I quess I do and I don't underestimate the cultural issues. It seems to me that modern Japanese also are influenced by different, Western or not, teaching methods. Maybe that will change their perspective and their expectations about teachers and teaching.
Martial arts, that is jujutsu has been in the U.S. and Europe for almost a hundred years. it has flourished. Did it change? Yes it did, most of the elements of Japanese culture in this art were lost. I quess that is why a lot of practitioners of modern jujutsu are interested in koryu jujutsu. This may be one reason why a lot of people are interested in aikido because they find things they don't find in judo or jujutsu.
I can understand that in a way.
What I find peculiar however is that Western students reverently talk about O-sensei as the great teacher while to their own Western standards (as you explained) he hardly was a teacher.
I also thought that a lot of uchi-deshi of Osensei did come to train with him without prior experience in budo so I do not understand comparing them to doctural students. But that aside.
About no Japanese aikido shihan being resident in Holland while they do reside in our neighbouring countries that seems odd indeed.
I can offer you two explanaitons for that (for what it is worth).
1 / Holland is a small country to anyone's standards I don't think a shihan could make a decent living overhere.
2 / We Dutch are a quarrelsome lot. Considering that we could do with a bit of quality instruction in the art of harmony. That is not so much trying to be funny. It is only some forty years ago that there were several organisations for judo coming from amongst other things several religions. Catholic judo society, protestant etcetera. There still are a lot of organizations for the same art, be it jujutsu or aikido in The Netherlands.
Best Regards,
Johan Smits
P Goldsbury
9th January 2006, 22:45
Dear Mr Smits,
Many thanks for your reply. I have made a few more comments.
Thank you for your reply. I quess I do and I don't underestimate the cultural issues. It seems to me that modern Japanese also are influenced by different, Western or not, teaching methods. Maybe that will change their perspective and their expectations about teachers and teaching.
What I find peculiar however is that Western students reverently talk about O-sensei as the great teacher while to their own Western standards (as you explained) he hardly was a teacher.
I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that O Sensei was 'hardly a teacher'; I stated that the term 'sensei' has a much wider use than that connoted by the English term 'teacher' and that it is a mistake to understand 'Sensei' as meaning 'teacher' in a western sense. Japanese has many other terms for this English term.
I also thought that a lot of uchi-deshi of Osensei did come to train with him without prior experience in budo so I do not understand comparing them to doctural students. But that aside.
My comparison with doctoral students centred on teaching methods used for a small group as against a large group of undergraduates. This is a problem common to all universities. We we compare O Sensei's teaching methods with western teachiong, his methods are better compared to the individual attention given to doctoral students, as against the syllabus/textbook methods in larger classes.
About no Japanese aikido shihan being resident in Holland while they do reside in our neighbouring countries that seems odd indeed.
I can offer you two explanaitons for that (for what it is worth).
1 / Holland is a small country to anyone's standards I don't think a shihan could make a decent living overhere.
2 / We Dutch are a quarrelsome lot. Considering that we could do with a bit of quality instruction in the art of harmony. That is not so much trying to be funny. It is only some forty years ago that there were several organisations for judo coming from amongst other things several religions. Catholic judo society, protestant etcetera. There still are a lot of organizations for the same art, be it jujutsu or aikido in The Netherlands.
Of course, I am well aware of this. I think that your second explanation is more valid than the first, considering the case of Belgium.
Best regards,
Dave Humm
9th January 2006, 23:14
Teaching is a challenge in itself and not all people are good at it. There are gifted practitioners who are poor teachers and guys who were OK practitioners who are outstanding teachers. Thats why the army has promotion courses Jock,
When I was selected by my Squadron to attend the all arms MOI cadre at the school of infantry; one of the very first things I was told, indeed drilled in to, was that just because one knew a subject to a very high degree; this ability almost never translated into equally high ability in the transmission thereof.
I could not agree more with your sentiments as I have seen absolutely superb instructors of both theoretical and practical skills yet their actual 'front line' ability was below par - equally I've seen some 'tier one' personalities considered to be the best at what they do yet couldn't effectively pass that information on if their lives depended on it.
I also think motive has something to do with effective teaching (how much I don't know) but I've experienced coaching and teaching from people with hidden agenda and egotistical intent and almost always this has surfaced at some point during their presentations.
Getting back to my original question - I've recently spent some time discussing this subject with my students; their reaction and comments ranged from very positive to constructive criticism; indeed I feel I've found my feet again with this matter. I very much enjoy teaching but I have to say I really miss sitting in the line and training rather than teaching, if I'm honest with myself, perhaps frustration with students is in fact more to do with my own teaching. Unfortunately for me and our dojo we don't have the benefit of a senior dan grade as the instructor close at hand, the nearest (our Shidoin) is about 100 miles away !!
Thank you to everyone for their contributions thus far, very interesting reading
Regards
johan smits
10th January 2006, 06:34
Professor Goldsburry,
Thank you very much for your further explanation. I understand the term 'sensei' has a broader meaning than just teacher although, it is usually translated as that.
If I understand you correct the term 'sensei' would not be applicable to let's say budoteachers in the West who have gotten their training outside of Japan, who are licensed and all. Or is it just a matter of custom to adress these teachers as sensei anyway?
Come to think of it - we could do with a work on Japanese terms which delves a little deeper than the usual martial arts dictionary (as in something with academical standards written for the general public).
Best regards,
Johan Smits
johan smits
12th January 2006, 06:58
There is something more I would like to share. I was rereading this post and noticed Jock Armstrong wrote "Teaching is a challenge in itself and not all people are good at it."
Although I agree with that there is something more, teaching can be a challenge but most of all it is a profession. You need to follow an education to become a teacher.
A lot of people seem to forget that. Being good, or even excellent in one of the arts doesn't make you a teacher. Even if your dojo is thriving and you've got lot's of students. If you are not a licensed teacher than you are not a teacher. Is this bad, well maybe not, you can teach people without a diplome.
This means you are teaching - but does it make you a teacher? - well no it doesn't.
Before I forget I am talking about teacher in the Western sense, but I am referring to martial arts teachers. Martial arts teachers in general but the following example is about aikido since that art is especially vulnerable in my opinion.
I can see a big plus in "training in silence" that would be that the perception and awareness of students are trained in a very good way. But a big minus in my point view is the fact that it is very difficult for beginners to get an idea of the level of their teachers.
When this goes on this will result in a lot of people who call themselves teachers (or sensei) who are actually not. Not by license, nor by level of expertise. This will not be early recognized by students since the asking of questions is not encouraged. In this way a whole lot of people will get instruction on a very low level, this damages the art and that is no good.
It can even be potentially dangerous to students. Now I am not advocating a "consumer mentality" in the arts. There is already far too much of that and I don't think it is a good thing. But I am an advocate of "consumer protection" so to speak.
Students should be able to be aware to see what they are getting into if they look and they are entitled to a teacher who will do his or her utmost in case the student looks but doesn't see.
Best regards,
Johan Smits
Jock Armstrong
12th January 2006, 11:04
I have not the slightest idea of what you mean Johan- and I don't mean your English. I will say one thing-teaching is not a profession, it is a vocation. If you are advocating teaching licences- forget it-it's just not feasible.
johan smits
12th January 2006, 11:36
Hi Jock,
I think I understand what you mean and you are right in a way but when it comes down to it teaching is also a profession.
Maybe I can build my own stairs in my house (or dojo) but the fact that I can do that doesn't make me a carpenter does it? Maybe I can do it even better or more beautiful than a lot of carpenters can but that still doesn't make me a carpenter.
Teaching licenses are feasible. We have got them here in Holland and in France they've gone even farther. You want to teach there, they require a minimum of nidan and a license from the government (after you followed an education).
I think that with licensed teachers you can make sure there is a certain standard of teaching, matters of safety during class, etcetera.
Best regards,
Johan Smits
kimiwane
12th January 2006, 14:39
Now I am not advocating a "consumer mentality" in the arts. There is already far too much of that and I don't think it is a good thing. But I am an advocate of "consumer protection" so to speak.
Johan, I think the student owes it to himself to look the teacher over very carefully and, if the teacher doesn't fit the student's need, to move on to another teacher that does. We in the west have been conditioned to the idea that once you start with a teacher for any reason, you are morally bound to stay with him.
I think we are morally bound always to seek purer teaching if we can find it and to leave those teachers who are giving us less.
Once you do find a great teacher, then it's a lesson in itself to think of how you treat that teacher.
And we as teachers must strive to give the student our best by continually questioning what we are doing. Even the best teacher is still lucky that everyone in the world doesn't come to him. Teaching is a service and we are limited in how many people we can individually serve. If we can't be good servants to our students, we can't be good teachers.
johan smits
12th January 2006, 14:54
David,
I do agree with you generally, although I do not believe students feel morally bound to stay with a teacher, that is students here in the West.
Also the part about the students responsabillity about finding a good and correct teacher. The student has this responsability I agree. But as much as koryu has to suffer from frauds modern arts have to deal with people who sell themselves as teachers while they are not.
Why I feel this is so important is because there are a lot of people unaware when they start out in the arts or think of starting something. A lot of people who may think of taking some art up as a hobby or will train but will never be very serious (as in badminton or jujutsu, dahh I'll try jujutsu) even those students should be protected.
In a lot of cases you start out in something without knowing too much about it, it is plain luck if you end up with a real teacher.
Kind regards,
Johan Smits
kimiwane
12th January 2006, 15:39
A lot of people who may think of taking some art up as a hobby or will train but will never be very serious (as in badminton or jujutsu, dahh I'll try jujutsu) even those students should be protected.
In a lot of cases you start out in something without knowing too much about it, it is plain luck if you end up with a real teacher.
Well, if they're only shallowly interested, any old dojo will do, as long as the teacher doesn't let them get beaten up as a reward to his long-standing students.
The only way to get a good teacher, once you've started, is to learn all you can about the subject and find out who's who. Nothing beats education.
kimiwane
12th January 2006, 16:09
Nope, none at all and what you present on the subject is very interesting, I'll do a bit of research on this. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Dave, I wanted to post some more information on NLP and its application to learning any subject.
If you read Tony Robbins' books, I think you'll find a lot of focus on selling things to other people by using NLP to learn how to "get under their skin" and make them feel good about you. That is, you watch their subtle signs of breathing and posture, what they do with their eyes, how they hold their arms, legs and head and so on, and adjust your approach to the way that gets through to them.
But the more important aspect of NLP for me is the insight you can gain into your own ways of feeling about and acting toward the world.
NLP means neuro-linguistic programming, which is how you program yourself to do what you do by what you say to yourself.
The fact is, we don't really know "what is real" in the world around us. We get sensations from the world in the form of hearing, seeing, smelling, and so on, but we then have to process those sensations neurologically and come to a mental interpretation of what that "means".
NLP helps you to see more detail about how you talk to yourself and how it ends up giving you the situation you are in. This includes what you tell yourself (This is going to be a terrible day...), how you say it to yourself (with a miserable, put-upon voice, or the voice of someone ready to crack), how you "light" the situation in your mind (do you see the scene as dark and depressing or as light and hopeful?)
All these things add up like a stage director's manipulations to present to your mind the "scene" of "how things are" around you.
NLP focuses strongly on physiology, meaning how you stand, how you breathe, which muscles are tensed and which are relaxed, etc., to show how your posture alone can weaken your feelings about life.
With this deep insight into your own inner workings, you can first stabilize and positivize yourself, then you can look at a master of any subject, analyze what he is doing physiologically by watching him in subtle detail, and talking to him about what he thinks about and how he talks to himself during his peak performances. With practice, you can largely duplicate what he does.
Of course, this is all natural. Watch sensei and ask him questions, then copy what he does, down to the way he holds his tongue.
But NLP lets you see in deeper and more subtle detail exactly what this artist does whom you want to emulate. It lets you emulate him more exactly to get more exactly the results that he got.
It involves throwing out your preconceived ideas about what he is doing and seeing exactly what he really does through direct observation.
It's also about not jumping to conclusions, but looking at alternative possibilities for things being as they are.
Robbins makes the illustration of a man waiting for his wife to come home. As the hour passes and she is later and later, the man can tell himself that his wife is cheating on him. He can repeat this to himself in an angry, suspicious, vengeful voice with increasing frequency and intensity and by the time his wife gets home, he will be a maniac.
But if, in the same situation, the man tells himself that his wife has been in a car wreck and repeats this to himself in a horrified tone of voice, he will be a nervous wreck when he gets home.
Or if he tells himself, "I wonder what's keeping Bertha?" and answers, "Must be something really stupid holding her up. She's tired and hungry and wants to get home. I hope she's safe." he'll probably have a nice evening with her when she returns.
He never knew for sure what the truth was, only that she was late. But in each case, whatever he tells himself is real to him.
So NLP always focuses on not going beyond what you really know and drawing conclusions based on emotions.
It's a useful way of looking at the world and keeping the ability to learn fresh and strong.
yoroshiku
johan smits
12th January 2006, 17:14
David,
I respectfully disagree on that. I believe each student has a right to the same attention by the teacher. Not just those who are very seriously or very gifted. Someone who doesn't delve deep into the arts for whatever reason is shallowly interested you say. Compared to what? Any old dojo will do as long... I don't think so. A professional teacher will not have such an attitude. Please note I make a difference between someone who teaches professionally ( a licensed teacher) and someone who teaches commercially. I do not consider that the same.
One of my pupils left me after some year and a half (he went to study in a city to far to travel back to train with me). Something I knew from the beginning when he entered my dojo. So here I had someone, really gifted, young and strong who would be with me for a short period.
Spoke to his mother later, and heard he had been involved in a traffic accident. He was on his bycicle and was hit hard by a car. The little training he had made him roll and break his fall, he got up sore and with bruises but nothing else.
Even a little bit of training can make a difference if it is good and if the teacher has a certain standard. Licensing can help in that.
Best regards,
Johan Smits
Dave Humm
12th January 2006, 22:12
As both a teacher and a student - in the same dojo - I do not treat students differently because one has a different level of commitment to another, to do so I feel is wrong.
Although our dojo is only open for training twice a week with the occasional Saturday classes, a small number of my students only train once a week, however, they do so regularly. I also have one or two students whom I've yet to fully 'get' what they want from their study because they never seem very interested (despite turning up every week - "Now't as queer as folk" as they say) So, whilst I have regular die-hards, once-a-weekers and those who look like they might not come back the following class (but they do) I treat each student with the same base level of attention. Naturally some require more than others; I believe a trait of a good instructor is identification of student needs and catering accordingly. I don't always get that balance right but then I'm only human and a junior dan grade to boot !
Again, thanks for the continued dialogue
Regards
kimiwane
12th January 2006, 23:39
I respectfully disagree on that. I believe each student has a right to the same attention by the teacher. Not just those who are very seriously or very gifted. Someone who doesn't delve deep into the arts for whatever reason is shallowly interested you say. Compared to what? Any old dojo will do as long... I don't think so.
As both a teacher and a student - in the same dojo - I do not treat students differently because one has a different level of commitment to another, to do so I feel is wrong.
It must simply be my carelessness that you both feel that that is my position. By no means should any teacher be unfair with his students. I just mean, why go to an Olympic coach if you really just want to dogpaddle?
No one ever knows how long a person will stick with this stuff or how deeply they will go with it. I looked like Napoleon Dynamite's brother when I started karate in 1972. Now I look like Harry Dean Stanton, but that is beside the point. I believe in treating every student as a guest, and teaching them something they will be able to use years later. Frankly, my main aim is to get them through five lessons and send them on their way unless they just want to keep coming. The five lessons will allow them to stick with me through a lot of diverse material over many months if they do keep coming.
As far as unfair treatment, I probably am unfair to the die-hard types by constantly dwelling on the first few principles when a beginner comes around. The senior guy wants to add to what he's been accumulating over months, but I, after 33 years, want to talk about standing up straight and doing little exercises to cause the beginner to feel this intensely and unforgettably.
Then there are no beginners and we work on paired sword material, judo sweeps, aikido techniques in practical series and the principles behind the series...
And then a beginner shows up and I have to take them through how all these methods (and bagua and tai chi) are expressions of a small handful of principles that a baby demonstrates when he stands and begins to walk.
Then the beginner is gone. And the advanced student moves with me against a background of movements and behaviors quite certainly hundreds of years old and, as much as I have overtly explained to him about this context of behavior, he often gets a little shaken up against the stark background of that hour.
And there is his personality. The stark background is so that everything we do that is not the behaviors and movements is "us". And we want to make that disappear, at least for the hour.
So there he is against the backdrop of silent old men in hakamas frowning at us...from history...and it is my effort to do nothing in response that is not of the behaviors and movements of the Way. I must disappear as far as responding to his disturbance (which, in this particular person, is very subtle. He has several years of Chinese internal training and is very settled). And yet I must communicate to him the way to release the disturbance, preferably without speaking.
So he gets tired of me talking to the beginners, but he wants me to talk to him at those times.
Whatever I say or do at that moment shows my personality. And I have to notice that and try to find a better way to communicate and guide this intelligent person within the context (most preferably silent) of the budo. And that effort of making the self disappear from the technique is what I consider budo to be about. To be able to show only the technique and not the self.
And when you see someone who does that very excellently (even monkeys fall from trees, so I don't say "perfectly"), there in the pure and unenhanced technique, you see his real personality. And that is a tremendous kind of personality. It is able to blend entirely with the environment and yet be absolutely individual and influential within that environment.
Richard Kim told of a teacher who said, "join in harmony with the universe through the kata."
That is what I think that means. To try to disappear against the backdrop of old masters just for an hour has as much to teach as the techniques themselves. And excellent ukemi may be more important than any other technique we ever learn. So it is important to think backward, at least sometimes. And it is important always to be able to see things backward in martial arts. That is omote and ura, as Mochizuki sensei explained it to me.
I helped him write a book while I was at his dojo, but it was a slow process and one day I was in my room reading The Stand, by Stephen King. Sensei came to the door and said, "Get to work on that book!"
So I hopped to it and did what I could. Now he prods me from time to time (about every seven minutes) from Beyond and says, "write what I told you in 1993." So here you are.
And now my wife wants me to do some chores.
Please excuse me, both for stopping and for having started.
yoroshiku onegaishimasu
Dave Humm
13th January 2006, 01:15
It must simply be my carelessness that you both feel that that is my position. By no means should any teacher be unfair with his students. I just mean, why go to an Olympic coach if you really just want to dogpaddle?David your point is academic because [A:] a student doesn't know the difference when he/she begins, between a good or really good instructor and [B:] you assume that Olympic quality instruction is available when more often than not that level of instructional capability is limited.
No one ever knows how long a person will stick with this stuff or how deeply they will go with it. INDEED! That's why as an individual I don't worry or place any emphasis on this particular point, students will train (or not) I will always be there even if I'm by myself or with just a hand full of students. People come and go, provided they are honest with themselves and understand what they will get from their training (however infrequent) that's just fine with me, I have no obligation to advance people who don't put either the mat time or more importantly the effort but, I will still treat these people the same way I do with die-hards, I've found I don't need to treat these people differently because its been my experience that those who don't put a great deal of time or effort into their study know for themselves and very quickly realise their short-comings when looking at those who train hard.
I believe in treating every student as a guest, and teaching them something they will be able to use years later. Frankly, my main aim is to get them through five lessons and send them on their way unless they just want to keep coming.I allow potential students to train for just four classes before placing them in a position of making a decision to join the organisation, obtain their insurance and dogi. I then make a point of explaining that to get just a general overview of the art they will need to give their study at least 12 months.
I don't treat potential students as guests; they are 'potential students', no more or less. I do not alter the format of a given class just because a new student begins, if that means they are effectively "thrown" in the deep end, just so long as their safety isn't compromised they will attempt exactly the same techniques and applications as everyone else. (Just performed to their own level of ability)
Indeed on this particular point I remember Kazuo Chiba stating that there wasn't a difference between a beginner technique and that of someone more experienced, it is the same technique, it is how the person effectively blends with the attack which illustrates experience over inexperience (and of course familiarity with technique it’s self, but you see my point?)
As far as unfair treatment, I probably am unfair to the die-hard types by constantly dwelling on the first few principles when a beginner comes around.If one of my senior grades had a problem studying kihon because I chose to teach it to assist a new starter, I'd be having words in their shell-like.
Kind regards as always
Ron Tisdale
13th January 2006, 14:30
Whatever I say or do at that moment shows my personality. And I have to notice that and try to find a better way to communicate and guide this intelligent person within the context (most preferably silent) of the budo. And that effort of making the self disappear from the technique is what I consider budo to be about. To be able to show only the technique and not the self.
And when you see someone who does that very excellently (even monkeys fall from trees, so I don't say "perfectly"), there in the pure and unenhanced technique, you see his real personality. And that is a tremendous kind of personality. It is able to blend entirely with the environment and yet be absolutely individual and influential within that environment.
I'm not sure that I understand what the current discussion is really about, but the words above resonated rather strongly with me. I'll spend some time thinking about them before keiko tomorrow. Thanks,
Best,
Ron
kimiwane
13th January 2006, 20:21
...the words above resonated rather strongly with me. I'll spend some time thinking about them before keiko tomorrow. Thanks,
Thank you, Ron.
Best to you, too.
That background context of the austere history of budo is necessary for the type of training I described. While it has changed stylistically since the days of the samurai (and even changed from time to time in those days), the guiding spirit has been consistent. It may have changed from hakama and kimono to keikogi and obi, but the attitude of austerity paired with understated elegance has not. And it is not found in the light shows, musical katas, flashy dogi and lofty degrees of the hijacked modern martial arts scene in America.
I've been very limited in time and space for teaching, so we have to be able to create a space around us through our mental focus, within which the silent, austere background can be sensed. When we can sense that very clearly, then we can see ourselves very clearly against it--our transient moment of the present against the timeless moment of the old masters.
If I can blend into that background, the student will not even see me, but will think it is one of those old masters teaching him budo.
A couple of more general comments.
When I said "any old dojo will do," I mean that if a person is only going to three lessons (or two or one), what does it matter if he goes to the greatest master or a sokey-dokey?
I started karate in 1972 with a guy named "Buster" Pitts, may he rest in peace. He just passed away recently, I saw in the news. I had tried a number of times to track him down in the past few years, but had no luck. I just wanted to tell him thanks for helping me get started.
Buster claimed to be a kyokushin teacher, but there were some solid Mas Oyama students in town who disputed that. It seems Buster had attended some training with Oyama but he wasn't an organization member.
I did about four months with him before one of the kyokushin men told my father I should come train with him. That was Paul Couch, an exemplary martial artist who now runs the training academy for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department.
I trained with Couch sensei for a few months before college, where I got involved in aikido and wound up years later training with the meijin.
Buster was a pretty good teacher, but he mainly taught kids and it was rather a fun dojo. Couch sensei's dojo was like a military camp. He was, at one point, the oldest serving gunnery sergeant in the USMC. He did karate like a precision machine that never got tired. Every kick and punch punctuated by a kiai like a great dane's bark. After that, I considered every teacher against the standard he represented.
But starting with Buster's light-hearted classes got me started.
Martyn van Halm
17th January 2006, 08:17
As to the 'problems' described above concerning mixing beginners [who might not stick around] and dedicated advanced students getting bored going over the same old 'beginner' stuff, I'm in favour of having three classes:
Pure Beginner classes, where beginners have to get to a certain standard before they can join >
Intermediate Student classes, where beginners and advanced train together and beginners can progress to the higher standard necessary to join >
Advanced Student classes, approaching the higher levels of training, where the training involves more than simple technique.
The sensei should select certain advanced students with didactic talents [patience and empathy, at least] to join him in instructing the Pure Beginner classes. By segregating the beginners from the Intermediate Students, the frustration level for both will be lowered - the beginners will not have to keep up with the increased tempo of the Intermediate Students, the Intermediate Students won't need to lower their tempo to accomodate the beginners.
Also, the sensei can shift between styles of teaching - gentle with verbal guidance for the Pure Beginner classes, strict and silent with the Intermediate Students, and more psychological and technical with the Advanced Students.
Dave Humm
17th January 2006, 11:45
Martyn,
What you suggest is fine provided you have a dojo, an instructor, and geographically enough students to make running a dojo three (or more) times a week viable.
I do not unfortunately.
Regards
Ron Tisdale
17th January 2006, 15:46
Personally, I like attending the beginner classes even though I'm a yudansha. The stress on basic movements, working with students who aren't 'programmed' yet, the review on basic breakfalls, working at a slower pace so that I can focus on integrating a higher level of kokyu ryoku into my movement, getting a good warm-up in before intermediate and advanced classes...these are all benefits to me from training in the beginner class. I wish more yudansha would focus on that sort of training.
I also appreciate the time it gives me with the head instructor...getting to take regular ukemi from him, getting extra advice on movement and technique, building that relationship to the next level.
All in all, no time for me to get bored. And less stress overall on my bad knee.
Best,
Ron
kimiwane
17th January 2006, 21:57
Personally, I like attending the beginner classes even though I'm a yudansha. The stress on basic movements, working with students who aren't 'programmed' yet, the review on basic breakfalls, working at a slower pace so that I can focus on integrating a higher level of kokyu ryoku into my movement, getting a good warm-up in before intermediate and advanced classes...
I'm with you, Ron. I always liked to polish the beginner techniques over and again because all the advanced techniques in my teacher's system were built directly from the fundamental material.
In Japan, the shihans used to show up after about the first hour of class and very often I was the highest ranked student on the mat until they arrived. Mochizuki sensei sat on a couch after bow-in and would call me to change things if he saw mistakes.
Then the shihans would arrive and we would do sutemi waza for about the next hour.
And I don't say that the student I mentioned earlier has ever complained about slowing down for beginners. It's just that we have so few, they tend to stay so short a time and we have to go through so much to get our little time and space in the gym. I know it must bother him. He has never acted like it does.
Martyn van Halm
28th January 2006, 12:33
Martyn,
What you suggest is fine provided you have a dojo, an instructor, and geographically enough students to make running a dojo three (or more) times a week viable.
I do not unfortunately.
Regards
I understand, my suggestion is not always an option.
Lowriderx52
30th January 2006, 22:28
I am constantly perplexed at how students can watch a technique several times, listen to instructions and explanations then, get up and do something completely different, so much so in this case that a student ended up with a injured shoulder.
I started Aikido 2 months ago and I am one of those confused students lol
I came here to find if there is any advice on "how to learn"
Of course humbleness and effort are givens, but sepcifically what should I watch for? I almost injured someone last session from wrong movements.
It feels like a "deer in the headlights" effect, you can tell him to run out of the way of the car, everyone knows to do so and how to run, but when teh car comes it's sudden brainfreeze. That's how I feel
johan smits
31st January 2006, 06:56
I think it is custom to sign your posts with your full name here on E-budo.
For beginning students there are several things important, no matter what form of budo you train in.
1) find a good teacher (that is a licensed one, someone who took the trouble to learn HOW to teach). You are going to place your well-being and health into his or her hands so that is important. ( would you let your 9 year daughter take riding lessons from someone who is pretty good at it or you want a licensed instructor?)
2 make sure you fit in the class (whatever class that is, be it ki-aikido or bootleg black ninjacamp if that's your preference). Make sure you know what is expected of you and what to expect.
3 try to find a dojo in which the classes are not crowded. How many students depends on the teacher and on the system he uses for teaching but large classes means less individual attention.
4 try to understand the art. The way aikido is taught means in a lot of cases it is injury prone. I saw more injuries in aikido in ten years than in judo (which is quite rough) in thirty years.
On how to learn:
1 do not train fast or with a lot of power but concentrate on moving your own body in the first place. That will minimize the risk of injuries and make sure your partner goes along with that way of practicing.
Being humble is good I ques (everybody says so) but you have to find some way in between being humble and getting enough attention (which you are entitled to as soon as you are a paying member). I like to say that because it is true.
Expect to be learning the rest of your life this will temper the haste you might feel in learning. Not being in a hurry means you will pick things up faster.
Best regards,
Johan Smits
Brian Owens
31st January 2006, 13:05
As to the 'problems' described above concerning mixing beginners [who might not stick around] and dedicated advanced students getting bored going over the same old 'beginner' stuff, I'm in favour of having three classes: Pure Beginner classes...Intermediate Student classes...Advanced Student classes...
Also, the sensei can shift between styles of teaching - gentle with verbal guidance for the Pure Beginner classes, strict and silent with the Intermediate Students, and more psychological and technical with the Advanced Students.
What you suggest is fine provided you have a dojo, an instructor, and geographically enough students to make running a dojo three (or more) times a week viable. I do not unfortunately.
This is obvious, of course, but maybe worth stating anyway:
One have have three "seperate" classes going on in the same place at the same time.
Everyone starts class together with reishiki, warmups, etc., then moves on to kihon.
After a time the new students continue with kihon while the intermediate and advanced students move on to more advanced techniques.
After a time the intermediate students continue with their material while the advanced students move on to even more advanced techniques.
Then everyone regroups for stretching, cooldown, and ending reishiki.
It requires the sensei to "change gears" as he or she moves from group to group, but is a very natural way to have both a single group and a divided group simultaneously.
And as each group is peripherally aware of what the others are doing, there is some "learning by osmosis" going on at the same time.
Thoughts?
Brian Owens
31st January 2006, 13:16
I started Aikido 2 months ago and I am one of those confused students lol
I came here to find if there is any advice on "how to learn"
Of course humbleness and effort are givens, but sepcifically what should I watch for? I almost injured someone last session from wrong movements.
It feels like a "deer in the headlights" effect, you can tell him to run out of the way of the car, everyone knows to do so and how to run, but when teh car comes it's sudden brainfreeze. That's how I feel
The first thing is to go slow; not just in the actual speed of movement, but in trying to learn new material. Don't be afraid to tell the teacher that you don't quite get it yet, and stick with one thing until you do. "Information overload" leads to "brain freeze."
The second thing is to break down a technique into steps or phases, and practice a step at a time, over and over, until you have it down cold before adding another step. Sometimes trying to do a complete technique from beginning to end is like building a house on a foundation of sand; it just won't stand up to pressure. Your teacher will almost certainly be teaching this way already, but you may be feeling internal or external pressure to "get on with it" before you're ready. Don't fall into that trap. Go at your own pace.
Last, of course, is to practice outside the dojo. If you don't have time, space, or a partner outside of class you can still set aside a time and place to meditate and go over what you did in the previous class mentally, visualizing yourself performing the techniques and preplanning what you have questions about for your next class.
Just a few ideas; hope they help.
Dave Humm
1st February 2006, 03:42
...have three "separate" classes going on in the same place at the same time.Essentially this is exactly what happens in our dojo.
My dojo has been in existence for a little over a year, I am fortunate to have some experienced students with me however, the remainder are presently no more than gokyu, and most are approaching their first examination in March.
What I've found is that whilst I may explain a technique to the very inexperienced student in a particular way which meets their needs, if I continue to illustrate the same (or other) application(s) to the more experienced, giving further detail, I've noticed that my previous efforts are lost on the inexperienced as they watch and listen to more advanced information. Hence confusion factor.
Since I started this thread I've modified the way I present techniques to mixed classes, I set the more experienced students their techniques and application first, then deal with the least experienced, I've found their perception of what I want from them appears to be clearer because it is the last thing they see and hear before getting on with their training.
Sometimes the simplest of things aren't always the most obvious - Just switching the order seems to have improved the situation :)
Regards
PRehse
1st February 2006, 06:32
So use your advanced students to help teach.
After I demonstrate/explain what I want done I will often pair senior students with junior for a prescribed period of time. After that senior with senior, junior with junior for about the same amount of time. At the very least it gets the juniors moving in the right direction.
P Goldsbury
1st February 2006, 06:33
Mr Humm,
I have given this matter quite a lot of thought over the years I have been living in Japan. There are two reasons for this.
One reason is that in our Hiroshima City Dojo, we have our own 7th dan chief instructor, who has a very traditional approach to teaching: very little explanation, but much work with individuals. When I arrived, I had Chiba/Kanetsuka written all over my waza and it took me many years, and I am now talking of regular daily training, to work out the differences between what I had been taught and what Kitahira Dojo-cho was doing. I am also talking about basic waza, not the fancy stuff. Of course, he was also watching us and also making changes as a result.
I think David Orange's thinking, expressed a while back, of making a close analysis of every aspect of a particular person's technicque, is very sound thinking and also very traditional, for it is exactly what a deshi should do with a master. However, this is not a static process. Even now, there are some aspects of Kitahira's way of doing irimi-nage, for example, that after 25 years I still cannot reproduce to my satisfaction. Of course, I can do the technique and I suspect that there are some students of mine who cannot reproduce what I do to their satisfaction.
The assumption here is that 'looking and seeing' a person's waza means being able to reproduce that person's way of doing the waza, but the question arises: to what extent? In my case it is 'to my satisfaction' and, of course, to my teacher's as well, but I have found that explanations are only of limited use here.
In our dojo we also have high-ranking visitors, in the form of Hombu shihan. Over the years we have had classes from Rinjiro Shirata, Morihiro Saito, and more regular classes from Seigo Yamaguchi, Sadateru Arikawa and Hiroshi Tada. I am talking of 8th and 9th dan rank here, but the point is that they all have their own individual take on the basic waza. Their classes all follow the same basic pattern. They show and explain and then expect us to reproduce what they are doing. But I myself have been in this very same situation of 'looking but not seeing' too many times to feel happy about.
All our classes are basically 'beginners' classes and beginners follow generally the same diet as the more advanced. But if I, after 20 to 30 years, can 'look but not see' the subtler aspects of what a shihan like Arikawa was doing, I would think the problem would be compounded for a beginner with respect to the basic elements of the waza.
A second reason is that I have begun to teach beginners in my dojo. Because the dojo population is a mixture of Japanese and non-Japanese, we have to give explanations in Japanese and English. We do this, but it also leads me to wonder to what extent verbal explanations actually help to enable the students to 'look and also see' what I am doing.
I think that training is essentially helping the individual's body-mind amalgam to form new habits--new ways of being and acting--and the time this takes depends both on the changes sought and on the individual. So I am not convinced that the paradigm of "explanation, understood, which leads to the required action" actually works. It obviously does sometimes and much of traditional Japanese martial arts teaching is based on this paradigm. However, I think no one has ever seriously examined the paradigm.
Best wishes,
Dave Humm
1st February 2006, 18:40
Dear Dr. Goldsbury...
Again you leave me thinking... (Not always a good thing for an infantryman!) :)
If you please, I would be obliged if you would call me Dave, whilst I understand the formality. I reserve that for my father.
Kind regards
Lowriderx52
1st February 2006, 22:38
Thank you for the advice to all who gave it.
The trouble is that in some class days, there isn't enough time for a senior member to slowly "watch me through" (literally) the movements, and the traditional way of learning is simply watching listening and doing, even though it is preferred to get a walk through if there is enough time. Is there anything more that I should do to "program" myself? Any more advice, etc.?
P.S. To Mr. Johan Smits, sorry I did not realize the custom
Nathaniel Jingul Kim
johan smits
2nd February 2006, 06:12
Hi Nathaniel,
I think it takes time to adjust yourself to learning. The body needs a certain flexibiltiy and toughness. This really is needed since you can't intellectualize (is it a word? and then what about spelling it?) the arts they have to be experienced. And in the beginning your own body takes away a lot of energy.
What may help is to train mokuso on your own to help you to learn how to focus and visualize your body moving in the techniques (or one technique) you are familiar with most.
Oh yeah and never give up.
Enjoy your training and best regards,
Johan Smits
kimiwane
16th February 2006, 14:54
And in the beginning your own body takes away a lot of energy.
Most people do not deal directly with their own bodies. They deal with a "self-image" expressed in a precise tonus of muscular tension and relaxation throughout the whole body. They feel that set of exact tensions and they say, "This is me."
Most people have such a unique and consistent individual tonus that you can recognize them from some distance. And they also recognize themselves by that tonus.
So it should be clear that the biggest problem is to get them to release their habitual tonus (or "self") and act from the universal "natural" human tonus.
The "self-image" serves as an interface between the invisible "self" and the body. People naturally try to teach aikido to that "self-image" tonus of the body, but that unnatural set of tensions is actually what prevents their learning. They hold that exact pattern of tensions from childhood, which is why it is so hard for them to notice and for the teacher to "teach through."
People develop the self-image tonus through personal pain, fear, disappointment, sorrow, anger and many other stimuli. Every spare bit of tension in the body is a variation on the theme of "fight or flight". But by holding the tension, the person holds the memory, feeling that the collection of memories (or experiences) is "who" they are. So they "cannot" let go of that tension and become, literally "nothing". There is a deep fear of that, which makes them hold the self-image tonus even more determinedly. When people are able to release that self-image tension in the body, they usually have a deep emotional release as well, as they realize how much work they have done through the years to hold onto those sufferings day in and day out on a semi-conscious level.
Well, a new self-image replaces the old, but it is pretty much always better physiologically than the old. And having made such progress through awareness, they can also get rid of the new self-image as they come to recognize it.
Someone who has gone through that much shedding of habit can take on aikido not as a new "habit" or a new "second nature" response, but as a real "first nature" expression of their own humanity.
If you are interested in looking further at this idea, find a practitioner of the Feldenkrais Method. I also take this idea in some unusual directions in the aikido thread on "Aikido Comes from Babies".
http://www.feldenkrais-resources.com/
http://www.feldenkrais.com/
In my experience, The Feldenkrais Method helped me to recover from injuries and get back to training at a very tough aikido dojo in Japan. It helped me improve in technique and also to find my inner motivations for training. It also helped me to realize some very important goals in my personal life.
If you have pains, chronic pains, or just want to become freer in your ability to make decisions and take action, I recommend that you look into Feldenkrais.
Lowriderx52
18th February 2006, 22:10
I feel so happy! :)
LOL ya I realize that sounds really gay, but that's the only way I can describe it! Today I think I am finally starting to "get" at least part of Aikido,
THREE TIME MY SENSEI SAID "VERY GOOD" "GOOD" or "THAT'S RIGHT"
!!!!
If you know traditionalists from Japan, they rarely say anythign like that, and I got that!!!! :) :) :)
I think it's really a matter of paying attention to everything, and basically really hard effort to pay attention and then practice
Eventually I think I will get the hang of this, it's just time spent in the dojo I guess
Thanks for everyone who helped me, and especially in paying attention to both feeet and upper body movements!!!!
P Goldsbury
18th February 2006, 22:31
I feel so happy! :)
LOL ya I realize that sounds really gay, but that's the only way I can describe it! Today I think I am finally starting to "get" at least part of Aikido,
THREE TIME MY SENSEI SAID "VERY GOOD" "GOOD" or "THAT'S RIGHT"
!!!!
If you know traditionalists from Japan, they rarely say anythign like that, and I got that!!!! :) :) :)
I think it's really a matter of paying attention to everything, and basically really hard effort to pay attention and then practice
Eventually I think I will get the hang of this, it's just time spent in the dojo I guess
Thanks for everyone who helped me, and especially in paying attention to both feeet and upper body movements!!!!
Mr Williams,
Welcome to E-Budo. Please sign all your posts with your full name. You agreed to do this when you became a member.
Best wishes,
sure
26th February 2006, 01:55
Any "how to" stories/strategies from students who have successfully made the transition from "looking" to really "seeing"?
One suggestion is to wipe the muscle memory clean and make sure you concentrate on each move as you do it (e.g. if you are concentrating on where you want to finish up in the technique, muscle memory on previously learned techniques that have the same finish but a different series of "lead ins" will take over i.e. you will wind up doing what you've done in the past rather than what was just demonstrated).
But it may be useful to keep the end point in mind, for example, otherwise the body position, etc might not be correctly aligned in the lead up to the finish. (And wiping muscle memory clean is much easier said than done!).
Another poster on this thread said that they look at the hands, body and the feet as a mechanism to lodge the sequence.
So I would be interested in hearing from the student's perspective about the strategies or approaches that have enabled practitioners to successfully make the transition from "looking" to actively "seeing" (and reproducing) the total technique as demonstrated.
Sue Reilly
jailess
27th February 2006, 15:26
Guys,
There is an interesting thread (though the title may fool you) over on the ShorinjiKempo forum: the Taxonomy of Psychomotor Objectives (just read it, its better than it sounds). It's on the different styles of learning and how a teacher can adapt their teaching style to meet these types of student.
-Jame.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.