Teaching? Can any good dancer do that?

[Gus]

Originally posted by Bill
A 'teacher' can teach and demonstrate moves and as you say James show how the move should be done but most of us can replicate the move but not necessarily the movement or style ( or is that a different thing???)..

I think there is a common misconception that teaching is a relatively easily acquired skill once one has natural dance ability or a range of learnt moves. We hit the same problem in the work environment where line managers think they can teach and that professional trainers are an unnecessary luxury.

I would venture the point (after carefully donning my flame proof armour) that TEACHING as opposed to entertaining or trotting out moves, is a rarer talent than one might thing. Being able to do something can be far removed from being able to teach it. There are a number of professional dancers on the MJ scene and I think this shows in the way they are able to both communicate their ideas and analyse dancers problems. The ones who immediately come to mind are Sue Freeman, Nina and Amir.

Of course, some types of training/classes don’t require deep training expertise …e.g. the standard MJ class. I don’t know any MJ organisation that teaches instructors deep training skills … because quite simply they are superfluous when teaching a class of 100+.

Anyone agree/disagree?

[JamesGeary]

Originally posted by Gus

Of course, some types of training/classes don’t require deep training expertise …e.g. the standard MJ class. I don’t know any MJ organisation that teaches instructors deep training skills … because quite simply they are superfluous when teaching a class of 100+.

Anyone agree/disagree?

By deep training expertise you mean teaching style rather than moves. Anyone can do that. It doesn't even need to be deep. The hard part is learning the style, teaching your body - thats tough, not explaining it.

I have learned some cool style recently by doing private lessons with some Brazillians that couldn't speak english. Monkey see monkey do was all that was required. I learned it. One of the best hip-hop lessons I ever did was with a guy (world famous dancer) that sucked on a lollipop the whole class and never said a word. Arrogant bastard, but I sure learned a lot. What takes a long time is your body learning stuff. The teaching is easy.

The only time this can fall down is if someone thinks they are doing something one way but are actually doing it another way. This isn't that common. Then you need to shout at them. Which is difficult in a class of 100.

Here is the ultimate test:
For the value of linguistic information over visual information for improving dancing....

How much has reading information on the forum improved your dancing, compared to watching and copying good dancers?

Personally I've learned some stuff from the forum or talking to people, but pretty minor compared to what I've learned from watching the way other people dance and trying it.

Gus's line manager / trainer situation is different, because you can't learn professional work by visually watching people, but need linguistic instruction.

All that said.... I think that if a persons role is solely providing feedback on what you are actually doing or motivating you (if only by making you go through drills) then they don't need any dance ability at all. But this sort of teacher/coach you only find sometimes in ballet or ballroom where the person or group being coached already knows what to do / how it should look because there the movements are so well know and understood 'right' ways of doing it.

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Gus
I think there is a common misconception that teaching is a relatively easily acquired skill once one has natural dance ability or a range of learnt moves.

Absolutely right.

TEACHING as opposed to entertaining or trotting out moves, is a rarer talent than one might think.

Very strongly agree. It's one thing if the student can just "look and learn" as James rather annoyingly seems to be able, it's quite another to teach someone to do something if they're struggling and don't know why.

You have to get inside their head and understand their specific problem before they do, and then find a key to unlock whatever door they need to go through in order to learn.

Chris

[DavidB]

James - you forget that you are a natural dancer. You can copy things just by watching. Most of us can't.

Most people do not have very good self-awareness when it comes to dancing. By that I mean they don't know exactly what their body is doing, and what consequences it has. Ask anyone who has ever seen themselves dancing on video - 99% will say "I didn't know I looked like that!" (whereas James will say "I know I look good - show me more!"). We don't just need to be shown how to do it right, but also told what we are doing wrong.

My only natural talent is debugging software, which doesn't really help with Modern Jive. Everything I can do in dancing is as a result of a lot of trial and error, and lessons with people who could explain things in terms I could understand.

Now some of these things I learned in large classes (200+), so I know it can be done. But that was a class of 200 people who knew what the teacher would do, and wanted to learn. He had enough experience of this particular topic to know what people would do wrong, how to fix it, and how to get people to remember it when they got home. I don't think the problem in Modern Jive comes with finding the teachers who can do this - it is finding 200 people in a class who want to be taught this.

[David Franklin]

Originally posted by Gus
I think there is a common misconception that teaching is a relatively easily acquired skill once one has natural dance ability or a range of learnt moves.

I would venture the point (after carefully donning my flame proof armour) that TEACHING as opposed to entertaining or trotting out moves, is a rarer talent than one might thing. Being able to do something can be far removed from being able to teach it.

Agreed. Sometimes natural ability is a hindrance to teaching - advising on a problem you've never had yourself is hard.

There are a number of professional dancers on the MJ scene and I think this shows in the way they are able to both communicate their ideas and analyse dancers problems. The ones who immediately come to mind are Sue Freeman, Nina and Amir.

I think one thing these dancers have is experience. Not just in how they dance, but in how other people dance and what problems they have. It makes a big difference.

One example I remember is doing a "new" airsteps class with Andy / Rena. (it was the first time they'd taught class 'H' on their list). They were the first to say it wasn't up to their normal standards; although they could do the moves themselves, they hadn't taught enough people to build up a list of "common problems other people have and how to fix them".

A lot of looking like a genius just comes down to preparation and experience - the student sees you spend 5 seconds thinking before offering a suggestion that sorts them out. They don't see all the failed attempts you had when you first worked on it 2 years ago.

Dave

[RobC]

Originally posted by JamesGeary
By deep training expertise you mean teaching style rather than moves. Anyone can do that. It doesn't even need to be deep. The hard part is learning the style, teaching your body - thats tough, not explaining it.

Sorry James, I have to disagree with you. Not everyone is suited to teaching. Teaching is not about being an expert in your field - you only need to have more knowledge on a subject than the pupils you are trying to transfer that knowledge to. However, the means in which that knowledge is transferred is why people spend inordinate amounts of time being taught how to teach, and then the rest of their lives perfecting that skill.
After all, you couldn't just take an A-grade A-Level physics student and put him back in front of a class and expect him to succesfully pass on his knowledge to the new pupils. The same goes for dancing.
Also, different people learn in different ways, some by repetition parrot-fashion, some by understanding what they are being taught. Some people can just look at a something and instantly 'see' what is going on, other people need to break it down into smaller component parts. Teachers are taught to recognise these different learning styles and how to bring the best out in their pupils.

Here is the ultimate test:
For the value of linguistic information over visual information for improving dancing....

How much has reading information on the forum improved your dancing, compared to watching and copying good dancers?

How exactly is this relevant to teaching, MJ or otherwise ? Good teachers will use all available resourses in their arsenal to help transfer knowledge to their pupils. How is restricting your ability to teach/learn down to one sense (reading / sight) supposed to guage the success of the teacher. It's like asking someone to learn how to paint through the use of touch alone

[Rachel]

Originally posted by JamesGeary
Would anyone be interested adding some lambada style to their jive? If enough people are interested I'll run a workshop.

YES!!! We're definitely interested. Please let us know any details if you get something arranged.

Oh, and re. the posts on teaching:

Gus: 'Of course, some types of training/classes don’t require deep training expertise …e.g. the standard MJ class. I don’t know any MJ organisation that teaches instructors deep training skills … because quite simply they are superfluous when teaching a class of 100+. Anyone agree/disagree?'

James: '... The only time this can fall down is if someone thinks they are doing something one way but are actually doing it another way. This isn't that common. Then you need to shout at them. Which is difficult in a class of 100.'
---
(sorry, I'm being far too lazy to re-quote individual posts etc etc).

I'm supposedly (!) a professional trainer, but not in dance or anything creative, so I'm not sure how different that would be. But I was going to reply when I read on and realised that Chris and DavidB had both so succinctly written exactly what I'd wanted to say:

Chris: 'You have to get inside their head and understand their specific problem before they do, and then find a key to unlock whatever door they need to go through in order to learn.'

DavidB: 'James - you forget that you are a natural dancer. You can copy things just by watching. Most of us can't.

Most people do not have very good self-awareness when it comes to dancing. By that I mean they don't know exactly what their body is doing, and what consequences it has. Ask anyone who has ever seen themselves dancing on video - 99% will say "I didn't know I looked like that!" '
---

I really do believe that, to train anyone properly, you have to get inside into their minds, work out where they're coming from and then find out how they best learn things. (As Gus said, pretty impossible in a class of 100 people.) Some people can learn only by watching and mimicry but, to do that in dancing, I think you'd have to have outstanding natural talent.

I also totally agree with David about many people who 'don't know exactly what their body is doing'. I think this is extremely common - you only have to look at your average man in an aerobics class - they're convinced they're doing it right but it's obviously to anyone watching that they're not. (I still dread the day when I notice myself dancing on video at a Camber weekend or something - I'm not sure I really want to know what I look like!)
Rachel

[Will]

Originally posted by JamesGeary
Monkey see monkey do

A very honest and sussinct way of describing how you learn to dance. Do you treat yourself to a banana when you get a new move right?

[JamesGeary]

Originally posted by RobC

...After all, you couldn't just take an A-grade A-Level physics student and put him back in front of a class and expect him to succesfully pass on his knowledge to the new pupils. The same goes for dancing.

The same doesn't go for dancing. I taught my own class after I'd been dancing a year, and got 20 that grew to 60 people every week who I could see rapidly improving. It was easy to pass on my knowledge. 5 of those people in that year subsequently became teachers for lebop, ceroc, or taught their own classes, that I know of, the number could be higher. Later on I taught for ceroc and did formal teacher training. It improved my ability to keep the class running smoothly and keep people entertained, but not my actual ability to teach the moves. People still learned at the same rate.

Originally posted by RobC

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the ultimate test:
For the value of linguistic information over visual information for improving dancing....

How much has reading information on the forum improved your dancing, compared to watching and copying good dancers?
unquote:

How exactly is this relevant to teaching, MJ or otherwise ?

The answer to the question answers what skills are most critical for the teacher for improving peoples dancing. Demonstrating well versus describing well. Which was Gus's question.

Originally posted by RobC

Teaching is not about being an expert in your field - you only need to have more knowledge on a subject than the pupils you are trying to transfer that knowledge to.

I disagree. This is definitely not true for MJ or Ceroc. My first teacher was not a very good dancer. Better than me but not much. I learned lots of rubbish style that took me a lot of serious time and effort to fix. If I had started by learning from a teacher who was a good dancer I wouldn't have had all that grief of re-learning my style. I really, really, really wish that I had started with a teacher who was a better dancer.

Coaching is however different, 1 to 1 or small groups. I have learned plenty of useful things from people giving specific feedback. But thats different to teaching a class.

[RobC]

Originally posted by JamesGeary
I taught my own class after I'd been dancing a year .......

Yes, but to quote the Oracle: "you forget that you are a natural dancer.". You obviously have a natural ability to teach as well. I still stand by my comment that most people don't have that natural ability, and some still can't hack it even after teacher training.

Later on I taught for ceroc and did formal teacher training. It improved my ability to keep the class running smoothly and keep people entertained, but not my actual ability to teach the moves.

So you concede that there is more to teaching than just getting people to 'copy' your movements and that your 'teaching ability' improved after teacher training ?

The answer to the question answers what skills are most critical for the teacher for improving peoples dancing. Demonstrating well versus describing well.

Surely good teachers do both well ? The skill with being a good teacher is finding the right balance.

I learned lots of rubbish style that took me a lot of serious time and effort to fix. If I had started by learning from a teacher who was a good dancer I wouldn't have had all that grief of re-learning my style.

Please correct me if you think I'm wrong, but isn't style an individual thing anyway ? Initially a beginner will mimic the teachers they learn from, but part of the natural course of improving is to take that style and change it to suit their own preferences. Just because your style now is not the same as the style of the teacher you first learnt from doesn't necessarily make his/her style any less valid.

Just on a personal note, for anyone that doesn't know me, I too started teaching (Ballroom dancing to other beginners) within 12 months of first starting to dance. I have never had any formal teacher training, and have been teaching my own successful MJ class for the last 9 months down in Fleet. Now Fleet has joined the Ceroc network, I too am now faced with going through the CTA training (which is why I started the "Personal Benefits of the CTA" thread a little while back. ) So I do get where James is coming from, I just believe that there is more to learning MJ that mimicing the teacher. How does copying body shapes and movements teach the concepts of connection, tension and lead & follow, for example ? It might work for a solo dance style, but not IMHO for partner dances.

[Emma]

Originally posted by JamesGeary
I have learned some cool style recently by doing private lessons with some Brazillians that couldn't speak english. Monkey see monkey do was all that was required. I learned it. One of the best hip-hop lessons I ever did was with a guy (world famous dancer) that sucked on a lollipop the whole class and never said a word. Arrogant bastard, but I sure learned a lot. What takes a long time is your body learning stuff. The teaching is easy.

James, this demonstrates only that you learn well by watching. Different people have different learning styles: some people need to do, some to watch, some to read etc etc. You are lucky in that dancing skills are largely conveyed in your learning style. I would conjecture that *most* people who are 'naturals' at dancing learn well by watching and then doing.

The only time this can fall down is if someone thinks they are doing something one way but are actually doing it another way. This isn't that common. Then you need to shout at them. Which is difficult in a class of 100.

I am horrified that you consdier shouting a valid teaching method!

Here is the ultimate test:
For the value of linguistic information over visual information for improving dancing....
How much has reading information on the forum improved your dancing, compared to watching and copying good dancers?

Again, this is a matter of learning style. Some people will learn better from reading things on the forum, some from watching people.

[Lynn]

I noticed this comment from one of our salsa teachers here in NI, he is a very entertaining teacher and a good dancer - this is what he says on his website about himself

"With all this dancing, I discovered one important fact. Being a great dancer doesn't necessarily mean you're a great teacher! You've got to love to teach, as well as love to dance. Finding this perfect combination is a rarity."

I guess the best person to learn from is someone who is a good dancer and a good teacher!

[Martin]

Originally posted by Gus

Of course, some types of training/classes don’t require deep training expertise …e.g. the standard MJ class. I don’t know any MJ organisation that teaches instructors deep training skills … because quite simply they are superfluous when teaching a class of 100+.

Anyone agree/disagree?

Firstly standing in a garage does not make you a car, standing on stage does not make you a teacher.

I have to disagree here Gus - either people have the "deep training expertise" natuarally or they work hard to attain it, or it shows Just because they are not taught it by MJ organisations in an official way does not make it any the less neccessary.

When teaching a class of 100+ it is even more important to be skilled. For the Visual learners (which seems to be James) - you need to consistantly demo the move as you first demoed it (no slacking and slight variations), for the Auditory learners, who need to be constantly told left foot back, on beat 7, into the first move etc. you need to insure the instructions are clear and consistant. The Kinesthetic learners who need to constantly "do the move" and feel it within thier body will need repetition and plenty of music to match the move to.
In a group of 100+ you need to hit all learning styles, with a one on one situation you can pick thier style and speed things up.

One of the "deep" training skills being the ability to think on the fly and correct mistakes the class are doing clearly and concisely and without alienating anyone in the class.

[Chris]

James and Gus have both made some good points and I don't see them as contradictory.

For anyone who's had any training on how to train you get a lot of stuff from a technical point of view on effective communication. Secondly, for those who are good at putting ideas into words this is also a great plus (I've never seen DavidB teach for instance, but he has shown quite a knack for articulate expression on this Forum IMO). An accurate understanding of technique can be transferred by these means I think.

Thirdly, the 'do as I do' approach can also work if the teacher can spot and correct people who aren't doing it as the teacher does it! There's a salsa teacher here who doesn't speak much English but will stop people if they don't split a beat accurately and hammer at them till the whole class get's it spot on. The best tango class I've ever been to was like this (in Argentina, where I had dragged two top dancers to my hostel foyer to give me a lesson), and the salsa class I went to Brazil was entirely in Portuguese.

A lot of good dancers don't know (in words) how they achieve what they achieve. There's dancers who I will try and imitate on specific points without knowing really how the look is achieved. Kinetic imagery also gets a result without a specific intellectual link much of the time.

Ballet comes to mind as a discipline that uses both. Your muscles are excruciatingly browbeaten into submission, but you are also given the intellectual stimulus. You are taught how to make a graceful, exact, gradual curve of the free arm, but also given imagery to help you 'copy'. (When conducting seminars I've sometimes thought, 'Right, I'll explain it with an example to grab you emotionally first, then I'll back it up with a more intellectual expression of the same thing.')

But there are some great dancers who can't teach for toffee. They don't read their audience at all, they go too quickly for them to copy, they are inconsistent (as Martin says, you have to go over the same thing without variation). This is excluding some cubans who say 'again' and then proceed to demonstrate it totally differently ("But I am showing you the principle, not the move", I hear my regular salsa teacher say! "When you have the principles you can make up the moves - until then you shouldn't be doing them!")

As to books - yes, you can (or at least I have) learnt some things from books, but they are quite limited.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Chris
This is excluding some cubans who say 'again' and then proceed to demonstrate it totally differently ("But I am showing you the principle, not the move", I hear my regular salsa teacher say! "When you have the principles you can make up the moves - until then you shouldn't be doing them!")

To call a spade a spade, this indicates a great dancer but crap teacher.

I can have all the principles in the world, without the consistancy of moves I cannot even make a start.
Quality is about consistancy and YES it is hard to be consistant - no-one said teaching to a high standard involves no work.
The inconsistancy of this dancer in his teaching is probably due to the inability to correctly break down the move and repeat it exactly for all to learn.

You may well learn by default - we can all learn something from bad teachers (if only learn to avoid them )

[Chris]

Well I did avoid him cos I don't try to do cuban atm. But the other teacher who emphasises technique over moves is an excellent teacher. I'd prefer a teacher who uses moves to teach technique and style (rather than the other way round) any day.

The consistency of moves is more important at a beginner level I think, but it depends on your teaching style as well (not about to argue it without common reference points.)

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by Chris
(I've never seen DavidB teach for instance, but he has shown quite a knack for articulate expression on this Forum IMO).

You'd be disappointed, Chris. On stage he starts out all right, but then it usually ends up as a brawl between him and Lily.

I obviously don't need to say which one of them wins

Chris

[JamesGeary]

Originally posted by RobC

Please correct me if you think I'm wrong, but isn't style an individual thing anyway ? Initially a beginner will mimic the teachers they learn from, but part of the natural course of improving is to take that style and change it to suit their own preferences. Just because your style now is not the same as the style of the teacher you first learnt from doesn't necessarily make his/her style any less valid.

Experts as well as beginners mimic their teachers or people that they watch. Its not something people only do when they are beginning.

Lying down on the floor, pretending you are a statue, dancing exactly out of time, pointing your arms in weird directions, or bouncing up and down like a kangaroo are also all valid styles. That doesn't change the fact that they are crap. If your teacher has a rubbish style you will absorb it. I think this is particularly true of your first teacher, they seem to have the biggest effect on the eventual style of people. Most people don't care who they learn from until they've been dancing a year, then its too late.

[JamesGeary]

Originally posted by Emma
I am horrified that you consdier shouting a valid teaching method!

hehehe. You should see any top notch choreographer. All the ones I've seen are bastards.

The top ballroom trainer in nz, always nice to me, but any of her serious competitors, what a bitch. Stopping the entire hall to shout at someone at the other end if she caught them making a mistake.

Torvil and Dean, watch them at a practise on old videos.

I daren't comment on any of our jive team coaches.

I think if you were to stop and analyse why, its probably because in these cases the students know what to do, the teachers are perfectionists and aren't going to let them slack off.

[RobC]

Originally posted by JamesGeary
Lying down on the floor, pretending you are a statue, dancing exactly out of time, pointing your arms in weird directions, or bouncing up and down like a kangaroo .....

Were you watching Andy McG and me dancing last night then ? That just about sums up what we did to come 2nd in his 'Bad Dancer' competition.

Note: We still only came 2nd though - there was another couple worse than us