PDA

View Full Version : Rank Requirements?



jbjujitsu
22nd April 2006, 05:42
I am hoping I can glean some knowledge from those of you wiser than myself.

I have been struggling with a major issue for YEARS now. The biggest challenge I seem to have is maintaining a curriculum based training. In other words, I have been told I am an excellent teacher, have great skill, and can really do some great stuff in seminars and workshops. But, what I appear to be lacking is the ability to teach and maintain long-term rank requirements for my students.

There are a number of reasons. First, I have always had a smaller group of students and always taught by myself. This limits my ability to break classes up by rank or experience level. So, I am trying to cover all ranges, teaching white belts AND blue belts all at the same time, trying to insure that we cover everything everyone needs. But in trying to accommodate all, mostly I end up failing in a grand way.

Second, I have a pretty vast knowledge of multiple systems and techniques. Apparently, I know a ton of stuff. But assimilating it and teaching it in a progressive manner is a completely different ball game. My original amalgamation of a system had hundreds of techniques but so many that I found it impossible to teach and maintain. So, what I did was, not try to. I scaled back, I adapted a variation of the curriculum and decided to stay within its expectations and principles. Does it limit me to my variations and techniques? YES. But I figured having a confined path is better than having no path at all. Besides, sometimes too much is just that... TOO MUCH.

But, even in adapting a set curriculum it still doesn't alleviate problem number one. Teaching multiple levels simultaneously.

So, I tried another approach. A couple of years ago, I sat down and designed somewhat of a unique approach to ranking. It basically laid out like this. I went I and taught whatever I wanted. Grabs, punches defenses, pressure points, takedowns, locks, ground fighting... WHATEVER. This played greatly into my widespread seminar approach to teaching. The ranking was done this way ... all the students had to do was to choose 6 defenses from the vast amount that we covered. In the process of teaching multiple techniques, if they found one they liked, they wrote it down, and it became theirs. While we trained in multiple techniques, time would be set aside in classes for the students to practice just THEIR techniques. When rank time rolled around, they had to demonstrate their selected wazas. Then the next rank, they had to pick 6 more from the vast and varied selection, then 8 more, then 10 more, with the concept being that by the time they went for blackbelt, they would own and demonstrate maybe 100 different combinations of their choice (hell, how many do you really NEED). In theory this seemed like a great system. It allowed me the opportunity to teach whatever I wanted and not be limited by ranks or technical requirements, and the students would be able to choose the techniques not only that they LIKED, but what really worked for them based on preference, body type, and ability. A real WIN-WIN situation.

The downfall came after the first rank test. The first one went fine. But on approaching the next rank test, the students started to complain. "Which techniques do I choose?" they would ask. "Whatever you want," I would respond. "That's the beauty of it. It's not MY system you are ranking in, it's YOURS. Choose what works best for you." But, low and behold, they felt completely and utterly LOST without me giving them the guidance and specific techniques required. They just didn't get it.

So, after a few more variations, it brings me back to where I am now. A set curriculum and techniques, different rank levels, and different students. But STILL having issues trying to assimilate it all.

Right now, there are certain techniques required per rank, with a number of variations (in other words, if they need to learn a particular wristlock, I expect to see it off of a number of different attacks such as a grab, a choke, a push, etc.). But, since I really focus on the principles, I have not assigned specific down to the letter technical requirement. It is important to be able to flow and react spontaneously rather than specific technique.

So, here's my quandary. WHAT DO I DO? How do YOU do it? How do you assimilate, systemize, require, and rank your adult students? Or, moreso... how would you suggest I do it?

As always, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

jbjujitsu@aol.com

P Miles
23rd April 2006, 00:29
John,

This is a problem (or an opportunity) for most instructors. Since you've identified a nmber of techniques you require for a given rank, you have to ensure that the material is covered sufficiently that the students can retain it. Once they've done enough repetitions to get the general feel, they can expand on it using your "principals" approach.

I am constantly reviewing and tweaking my course outline so that my students can and will cover everything in the curriculum required for their given rank. I find that if you teach with a game plan, you get more accomplished (though you lose some spontaneity).

Keeping a group of studnets of varying levels focused and learning rank-appropriate material is always challenging. Most of my instructors used a building block approach wherein beginners did a technique, intermediates did same technique with an added technique or other change, and advanced students had yet another permutation.

Good Luck!

Yojimbo558
23rd April 2006, 14:34
Hi there,

You've got a bit of chaos going there, and there's pro and con to it. On one hand you've got a freedome of coming in and just going over whatever lights your bulb that day. If you're just having fun and practising then this is all good.

Where your problem comes in is that you're an instructor and as such, your students when you test them for advancement are looking for something solid that they can shoot for not only to advance...but lets face it we all look at others and compare what they did in relation to us. Both to see if we did it better, or if it was them, and if them how to improve our own performance.

The way you are doing things...even if you have only 5 students for example all of them could have achieved the same rank without having learned the same techniques. As a result when working out, even if they were of the same rank...the way you're doing things...it's quite possible that not all of them would know how to receive the technique...which in of itself can become a safety issue.

What I do, I also work with mixed levels of experience is demonstrate an attack from an Uke, and then set up with a counter and take down...afterwhich I show them different endings so that each one is working on their own level.

This way advance students can trade off...when they're working with each other they can do advanced throws with each other...or if working with junior students...skip the throw, and do a different takedown that they know the student will be able to receive & can then practise a submission. The Advanced students also know which techniches the junior ones are supposed to know and when workign with the junior ones can help them improve theirs.

After, having them do this...before moving on...I let all have some fun by maintaining the attack and initial counter, and then let them find their own ending to help promote their own growth and creativity.

A long time ago, I looked at a sword system called Shinkendo...when I first looked at it, I recognized it as being a great system...but it was before Obata Sensei codefied what katas he was going to assign to each level. As a result, in the beginning it was like you described. People of the same rank...didn't necessarily know the same katas or kumites! To me this was very overwhelming. Later he finally blocked off what requirements went with each level...and like I said it's a great system.

Chaos is good...but a little order is necessary also. For example, I'm in the Bujinkan -- not every Dojo has the same rank requirements or curriculum as the next...but within the dojos there is a curriculum for the students to advance. When people in the Bujinkan get together and trade info and techniques in seminars and training with one another...our familiarity runs through the basics that we all share.

I hope that this helps.

Eric

Blackwood
23rd April 2006, 16:21
I guess the only thing I can really comment is "See, there really was a reason for the formalities of the traditional martial arts systems."

Resolution for your situation? Either formalize the curriculum so that you can handle the number of individuals or go to smaller classes where you can give more one-on-one instruction.

Both options have their pros and cons, it is really going to depend on what you want to do.

Mixing styles makes it even more challenging. Perhaps what you could do is set up a set of rotations that everyone knows. Teach a certain set of techniques or style on a specific night, those that aren't interested don't come that night.

Chances are that you didn't learn everything from one place or one instructor, why should they? Teach what you are good at, and recommend other places for the student's expansion.

kimiwane
29th April 2006, 07:54
My original amalgamation of a system had hundreds of techniques but so many that I found it impossible to teach and maintain. So, here's my quandary. WHAT DO I DO? How do YOU do it? How do you assimilate, systemize, require, and rank your adult students? Or, moreso... how would you suggest I do it?

How about identifying a principle that is common to at least ten or twenty of those techniques, another principle that is common to several others...see how many principles you need to explain all of those hundreds of techniques. Then see if you can work it down to fewer principles. I developed a five lesson course that I can hang all my techniques on. I teach several simple principles based on standing and walking, add hands and then add swords, then exploration of chaos. After someone knows these five lessons, I can expand each of the lessons into vast detail. But with everyone working on the same small set of principles, experienced people can work with less experienced people and they can also see the deeper levels available in each simple lesson. I've been developing my way of teaching for about twelve years, since I trained in Japan. My teacher's system was very fundamentally based, with a progressive curriculum. It had so much material it was difficult to keep it all up. But if you recognize the underlying connections and principles, it makes it easier to maintain what you can and give people something they can use.

Good luck with it.

7thSamurai
4th May 2006, 23:22
I sincerely apologize for the thread drift here, but my question is mildy related from a different angle.

As a student, if your individual training is different than other students of varying ranks, how do you maintain some manner of order. I recently left one school after my 3rd kyu due to vast differences in training philosophies between myself and the senior students. While my instructor agreed with my training and encouraged me to pass one experience with other students, several (most) of the higher ranked students refused to participate in or learn from techniques and ideas which were outside their previous training. After this came to a head in the form of an open argument, I left the school.

While the background to this is much more in depth, I wonder how as instructors or senior students, how to differentiate between yourself an another student who trains in a different manner than you? Should one outrank the other based on time/training?

Yojimbo558
5th May 2006, 10:58
Hi Eric,

Not a problem, you raise a good question. In the Bujinkan, Hatsumi Sensei pretty much leaves it up to the instructors in regards of each schools curriculums. But there are several commonalities...such as everyone focuses in the beginning on Gyokko Ryu via the San Shin no Kata & the Kihon Koshi Sanpo. So whenever and where ever you go...you will always see these.

As you move through the Kyu Ranks there are pretty much a standard number of weapons and basics that you cover as you move up and into the Dan Ranks.

Where you see a great deal of variation comes in with the instructors in many cases on what has struck their interest. For example, some instructors have a love of a particular set of weapons and so their school might have a greater focus on the katas & henka involving those weapons than another school. Some instructors are fascinated by the 9 different schools and either incorporate different katas & henka from different schools at each of the levels & others focus on a single school per level.

Generally when a student leaves one school and comes to another. The Instructor of the school that you've selected asks to see your rank certificate to verify that you did make it to your 3rd Kyu. Then they enquire what you covered through the different kyu levels to see how your prior curriculum matches with what they teach. You won't be asked to start from scratch or at a lower level...but you will be asked to learn any of the requirements that they might have included for their school that your instructor didn't have in theirs.

This does two immediate things...increases your knoweldge base & ensures that you know how to receive techniques that you hadn't learned. From there you're told what the requirements are for your next level and proceed from there.

The reason for some many variances has to do both with the freedom that Hatusmi Sensei allows and the differnt apptitudes that people have. Some people have a real affinity for the sword or staff, etc....Different people, be it students or instructors are attracted to different things and focuses. With 9 different schools and a whole slew of weapons and specialties for each one, you will find yourself enjoying the concepts and training in one more than another.

What you need to do is check out the other schools that are in your area, and instead of just jumping in and joining blindly, sit down and watch a few classes at each location. See what you think of the instructor & senior students. Do they readily supply information to their students questions or leave them hanging. What's their skill appear like to you...does it look like something you'd like to emmulate and achieve yourself or not. What's the behavior of the junior students etc. After class ask both juniors, seniors & even the instructor what it was that attracted them to the art & this school.

When you find the one that your looking for, you'll know it.

Eric L. Bookin

Eric L. Bookin
----
I sincerely apologize for the thread drift here, but my question is mildy related from a different angle.

As a student, if your individual training is different than other students of varying ranks, how do you maintain some manner of order. I recently left one school after my 3rd kyu due to vast differences in training philosophies between myself and the senior students. While my instructor agreed with my training and encouraged me to pass one experience with other students, several (most) of the higher ranked students refused to participate in or learn from techniques and ideas which were outside their previous training. After this came to a head in the form of an open argument, I left the school.

While the background to this is much more in depth, I wonder how as instructors or senior students, how to differentiate between yourself an another student who trains in a different manner than you? Should one outrank the other based on time/training?

Mitch Saret
6th May 2006, 00:49
This is not my original idea by any means. Greg Silva came up with the concept. I adapted it for my use.

In a nutshell...
First, get your requirements to black belt.
Then, break it into 3 groups, beginner, intermediate, advanced.
Now, take each group and break it into 3 groups, A, B, C.
BTW, the labels are arbitrary, just trying to make it easy to conceptualize.

Now, Lets take your first group of students. They are all starting with beginner level A. When they make it through they earn their first belt.
Now, you have a new group come in. They start on beginner level B with the first group. When they have finished, the first group get's their second belt, the second group gets the first belt.
And it's on to level C with all the previous students plus some new ones. Upon completion the first group gets the 3rd belt, the 2nd gets the 2nd, the 3rd gets the 1st.

Here is where it gets tricky. The 1st group no moves on to intermediate level A as the other 2 groups move on to beginner level A. At the end the 1st group gets the 4th belt, the 2nd gets the 3rd and moves on to the intermediate level, and so on.

I am sure you can see where this goes. They are learning the same material, just not in the same order. And you only have 3 different things to teach at the most at one time. If you have 50 kids on the floor and 7 different ranks, you only have to teach 3 things. That is, of course, up to black belt.

simon shoofter
19th May 2006, 23:42
Hello, John.

I think the answer to this quandry (a common one) firmly depends upon why you see grades as being necessary.

If you are going to allow your students to do different techniques to one another and yet obtain the same grade in doing so, then, to my mind, you have missed the real value of passing or failing someone at a given subject.

A grading test in a modern dojo is akin to test at school. Since it is controlled and not, infact, a real fighting situation, a test for kyu or dan rank is of a theoretical nature. When a school class sits down to a theoretical test, they are each asked the same questions. Therefore, their respective marks are directly comparible with others who have taken the same test. A test may differ from class to class (although ideally not), but not within the same class. If a teacher allowed students to choose their own questions, then the marks they acquired would be meaningless in relation to everyone else in the class. And therein lies the point; if a grade or rank represents something that is defined by the student, then Sensei is no longer Sensei and each student's rank holds no real value outside of the student's own mind. Why should anyone in the dojo recognize anyone else as being of a higher rank, if that rank was partly engineered, not by the Sensei, but by the student?

So, surely the most important thing is that, if you are going to have grades within the dojo, everyone has to be able to perform the same waza/kata in order to achieve each respective rank. That way, there can be no just arguments and disrespect and doubt of other's profficiency is kept to a minimum.

One of my teachers saw 'feeling' and 'intent' as being of paramount value when grading his students. So much so that he didn't even bother to hold official gradings at all (except in one instance). The result was that I became critical of not only others prowess in relation to their rank, but also my own. And, whilst I should only speculate on this, I don't doubt there were some in that dojo who thought my grade was a nonsense when they trained with me and saw they could do some of the so-called basic techniques better than I... But then, I suppose we were all seeing the grades as representing different things. And this was a recipe for disharmony and, ultimately, great frustration.

In my humble oppinion, there is an answer and it is by no means a new one. Decide in advance which techniques you will teach throughout the year and declair these in advance. Standardize your grading requirements and stick to them unwaveringly. In years to come, your students will have the satisfaction of having achieved specific ranks that can be, at the very least, held up for direct comparrison with those of others who attended your dojo. If your students train with you for long enough, they will learn all of your techniques. They needn't be concerned with having to see them all in one year or at the same time that others do. Split your class time into two halves: 1. Scheduled techniques for the year and 2. Grading requirements for each student, depending on current rank.

I humbly submit all of the above with respect.

Kind regards,

Simon Shoofter.

gendzwil
24th May 2006, 19:19
Or alternately you could take the kendo approach - have the applicants spar and look for the general attributes you want at their particular level.

I've never understood this catalog 'o' techniques approach to grading anyways.

IronMan
27th May 2006, 23:28
I also don't like the "catalogue" approach. I am, however, also against examinations. I go through them in my study of Aikido, but I personally feel that a teacher should give advancement and recognition when he or she believes that the students are ready for that rank. I think that criteria is too single minded, because some people, like myself, focus on techniques that may not be a part of the ciriculum.

It is my personal belief that it is the practical application of a martial art that matters, not strictly the katas.

IronMan
27th May 2006, 23:34
Above I used the term practical application, I just want to make clear what I meant:

Martial arts were developed for self defense, so I believe that the purpose of a martial art should be teaching one to defend one's self.

This could help you, if you want to take this approach, in actually teaching students to defend themselves. Teach the purpose of the technique, where it comes from, and why it is important. This allows your senior students to "glean" the information while your younger students focus on the technique itself.
Layers, layers, layers.

I hope I've been able to help, if not, I apologize for wasting your time.

Mr. Matt
29th May 2006, 17:13
I'm a big fan of the "principles" system...
IMHO if you just train in techniques, all you've given your students is a "grab bag" of tricks. Worse yet, should you or they relocate for whatever reason, there's very little foundation for the student to "train themselves" until they find a replacement. They may still go through the motions and possible maintain or degrade just a little, but they're skill level is not likely to improve unless they are naturallly gifted.

But beyond the principles aspect, look at it from a "training tools" view. Consider, what does the student need to know to survive/get the most out of class. Build your foundation on that idea. As with learning a language, first you learn the letters and the sounds they make. Then you learn basic sentence structure and small vocabulary. Then you learn basic application.

In other words, don't teach a throw until you teach the fall. Don't teach a new choke until the student knows how not to kill themselves when it's applied on them. I know that sounds kinda "duh, no joke", but a lot of people don't ever get to that point.

Grade on the stand point of can this student learn the next stuff w/o seriously injuring themselves and others (because, really, if the student's broke, who ya gonna train with?).

simon shoofter
30th May 2006, 08:29
I don't wish to engage in symantics, here, but may I suggest that 'art' is not practicality. Therefore, that is why I said it depends on why you see gradings as being necessary. After all, Taichi practitioners are not considered to be good at their art because they can handle themselves on the street.

I have no problem with people seeing kobudo as being primarily about self defence, but, just as you so nicely put it, Mr. Matt, you learn a language by starting with basic points and gradually increasing the level of complication (I paraphrase). And so it also is with music. You learn repetitave scales for a long time until you can make the music for which they were designed come alive. But you never lose sight if the rules on which they are based, or they would become meaningless drivel or random sounds. The difference between those two examples and martial arts, however, is that we can never truely put our skills to the test for which they were designed. ie: real fighting to defend lives with.

The form is like the Bible or any other holy book (although I am not pushing religion, here. This is just an example). Without them, you may as well be doing Joe Blogg's self defence tactics or Harry Happy's path to the afterlife. Again, that's fine, if that's what you're after, but I was merely saying that there is satisfaction to be had in gaining certification in something standardized.

Nadelman
30th May 2006, 18:51
Jigoro Kano said: "Kata is the grammar of Judo". The same can be said of Karate.

dansan
13th June 2006, 19:26
In regards to teaching a class of mixed levels and having a set curriculum, a traditional kung fu school I trained at had an interesting setup. Classes are 1 1/2 hours long. The first 30-45 minutes are warm-ups, basics, etc. For the remaining 45-60 minutes, everyone goes off and works on what they need to work on. The instructor will go around and work with individuals/groups as appropriate. This leads to a initially cohesive class, have everyone work on what they particularly need, and everyone receives some individual attention regarding their requirements.

Some classes were much more structured (such as everyone working on the same set of joint locks for the whole class), but overall, everyone got what they needed out of every class. Of course, this requires a lot of self-motivation on the part of the students (especially with beginners, there's the tendency to stand around until the instructor/senior student comes over). But the results were impressive, given the high quality of the senior students.

Prince Loeffler
14th June 2006, 01:31
In regards to teaching a class of mixed levels and having a set curriculum, a traditional kung fu school I trained at had an interesting setup. Classes are 1 1/2 hours long. The first 30-45 minutes are warm-ups, basics, etc. For the remaining 45-60 minutes, everyone goes off and works on what they need to work on. The instructor will go around and work with individuals/groups as appropriate. This leads to a initially cohesive class, have everyone work on what they particularly need, and everyone receives some individual attention regarding their requirements.

Some classes were much more structured (such as everyone working on the same set of joint locks for the whole class), but overall, everyone got what they needed out of every class. Of course, this requires a lot of self-motivation on the part of the students (especially with beginners, there's the tendency to stand around until the instructor/senior student comes over). But the results were impressive, given the high quality of the senior students.

Please post your real first and last name please, Not my rules but E-Budo. Thanks for Flying E-Budo airlines

DDATFUS
14th June 2006, 07:28
Thanks for Flying E-Budo airlines

and if you value your life, don't flirt with the flight attendants.

Prince Loeffler
14th June 2006, 08:18
and if you value your life, don't flirt with the flight attendants.


Yup ! Don't Touch ! Don't Look ! Don't sniff ! just...Don't.... :D :D They are all mine except for the Stewardes named Debbie,...She's mean.. :D

Now back to your regularly scheduled posting.

dansan
15th June 2006, 18:58
Sorry, my bad on the name thing. Had forgotten to hit the apply button when I initially set up my sig.

I'm curious if anyone has trained in an environment like I mentioned. From my understanding, it's much closer to older okinawan training (very self directed with the instructor adding new info or correcting techinques) as opposed to japanese military-style training (everyone in line, doing the same techniques over and over again).

Thoughts?

Nadelman
16th June 2006, 14:03
The training in my dojo growing up went something like this. We rarely had classes with more than 10 students. The classes were 3 hours each. We did this Monday-Wed-Friday, with Sunday being "open dojo" for four hours to come and work on whatever you wanted (instructor at the ready to assist):

1st hour: warm ups (working from the head down), stretching, calisthenics, makiwara, bag training, body strengthening/conditioning, lines drills (basics).

2nd hour: Waza, bunkai, and self defense techniques in groups based on level each with a senior student or instructor (leader shows techniques, then everyone practices it with instructor oversight).

3rd hour kata: Again, individual groups by level with senior or instructor. At the end, each student comes up and demonstrates his katas in front of entire class with a group critique (constructive). Sometimes we did "group" kata one move at a time with the seniors and instructors walking around correcting posture and providing explanations of the movements while we stood like statues in posture (for discipline).

Kumite at the end if there was time.

The order of the waza hour and kata hour were sometimes switched. Generally, we took a 10 minute break at about 1.5 hours and were served small thimble of hot tea.

kiai
23rd June 2006, 09:05
If I were in your situation, this is what I would do.

Decide right from the outset whether you wish for divergent (multiple outcomes) or convergent (same outcomes) growth in students.

For convergent system, merely write the list of what techniques must be learned at each level, kept to a reasonable length.

For divergent it is more interesting, although much of this can be applied to the convergent model.

Mentally pare your art down to the minimum: what is essential at what level? What principles should be active and what attacks should be covered? What are descriptors of performance at each level? Then write what is called a rubric, or description of desired performance indicators for each level.


---------------
Example: intermediate sparring


spars effectively with good kamae, zanshin, and control of attack & targeting

is able to use 3 takedowns in a sparring format reliably

displays good manners and etiquette

(you can use a number scale or write comments/suggestions for improvement for each descriptor)
---------------


During grading you can either tape the students or conduct ongoing assessments in several categories and present the formal test as a mental exercise.

Rubrics like these fit performance assessment very well and are used to great effect in evaluating divergent thinking.