The quote above brought to mind a number of previous comments (both on the forum and in real life) re the transferability of real world teaching practice to MJ. Must admit that I'm far from convinced. Personally I feel that there is an important distinction between classroom training and dance training ... particularly when teaching the numbers that instructors have to deal with in a class. Even the basics of "tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them , tell them what you've told them" is less of an axiom. I've done a fair bit of training in my line of work but find I need a different mindset to teaching MJ. Having said that I'm not a training professional and would deeply love to pick up new techniques to communicate and educate more effectively. Having seen a new model of teaching that Amir was employing at the weekend, I do believe that there are better ways of doing what we correctly accept as the standard teaching model.Originally Posted by Emma
As an educator of some experience (though not in dance) I am disturbed by the attitude that students are either 'incapable' or 'not bothered'. The very high majority of people I see around me learning to dance are extremely bothered about whether they are doing it right or not, and I'm afraid that if they are judged 'incapable' by their teacher then they are hardly likely to learn
Learning any new concept takes time and though within any group there is always likely to be a small proportion who pick it up very easily, this is more due to their natural aptitude than good teaching. Good teaching lies in constantly reinventing methods of approaching concepts and in consolidation of concepts. One cannot expect to introduce something new and for it to be instantly assimilated into ingrained practice..
Ah. Yes. But Amir is currently being trained himself as a dancer. If he wasn't bringing new ideas, and things that he's learning to the dance scene, then there'd be something wrong.
It's a huge advantage that he's got over just about everyone else - I certainly wish that I could go somewhere to be trained to dance in that manner. It's lucky that he is around for people to learn from.
Trampy
(13 to go!!)
Can you give a rough description of the "new model of teaching" for those of us who are geographically challenged, please?
I'm not sure that I've got my head round it yet .. but an element of it is about more DOING and less EXPLAINING, making the students do multiple repetitions of the move to build up muscle memory but still identifying the key points that need to be explained/illustrated in more detail. I've recently heard of a Mo'Jive teacher who employs a similar approach. Must confess, I haven't worked out how to incorporate such an approach into a standard MJ lesson ... but I was convinced enough by Amir's performance to want to give it a go.
The problem is that this method relies on the techer being able to distill a move into its core parts and be abe to identify where students are going to find difficulty and how to get them round this. I'm not sure that all MJ teachers have the experince and understanding of dance/body movements to be able to do this. Its one thing for a true dancer like Amir to do this ... its another thing for an amateur like myslef to try it
is this not the method for teaching martial arts (or is it marital arts)
... funny you should mention that .....
The point I didnt make in my original satement is that where you have a physical activity that depends as much (if not more) on FEEL rather than technique, its hard to explain that in a classroom approach. Case in point ... nexct time you are at a MJ night, look at how many people do the Basic/Fisrt Move well ... i.e. smoothly, so that it flows and both partners look like they are actualy dancing not simply doing a series of arm and leg moves ... My guess that such dancers are in the minority despite the fact that this is a very common move. If we have challenges in getting dancers to do this move 'right' they must say something about our teaching technique ... or am I missing the point. JB ... liked what you said about bouncing hands, you must have a view on this.
Gus if you read my comment again I think you'll see I am talking about teaching theory not teaching method. As I have no experience of teaching dance I can comment upon it only from the perspective of pupil. However I do know quite a bit about the theory/psychology of teaching and learning, and am confident that this transfers across all areas, from dance to needlepoint to latin grammar.
For instance - if a teacher believes his or her pupils are 'not capable' then they are far less likely to learn.
There is absolutely no difference between teaching mj and anything else (except teachiing mj is much easier; very willing students!)
Real teachers have to teach all types of stuff from learning to read n rite to gymnastics.
And, I think we'd have far better literacy levels if the taught both in the same lesson - who'd want to miss gymnastics?
Absolutely. Sorry, wasn't being critical of what you said ... thought it was an interesting comment. Re the above quote ... its not a case of believing that dancers aren't capable .... the lesson format is probably more 'entertaining' based than teaching based .... but you do aim ofr all your dancers to pick up the moves as taught. I think Messr Ceroc Metro has previously made a good comment re the entertain/teach balance ... but I think that debate is a thread all of its own.
Sorry ... there is a very real difference between many subjects to be taught. You would teach surgery, languages, music theory, physics all very differently. Also the format of the presentation makes techniques and success criteria very different. Even talking about dance, the way I do one-to-one coaching is radically different to teaching a standard club night.
How would you know?
Interests:
Teaching MJ, Baiting over-sized egos
Nice baiting ....
In the real world I done a fair bit of teaching/training. A lot of other MJ teachers do this teaching stuff professionaly. Although we dont profess to know it all, we stand of the shoulders of those who have come before us ... and we have benefited from the experinces and knowledge of those who have helped to develop the current teaching model ... and hopefuly, we can all contribute (both teachers and dancers) to continualy improving the way that MJ is presented/taught. Answer your question? How would you assert that all teaching is the same?
Not all of us who get up on stage to show willing dancers new moves are experienced teachers.
I am a builder who happens to teach modern jive, I have taught to a class of about 1000 dancers at Camber - most seemed to think I was ok - belive me my ability to teach anything other than MJ would be limited
If I was put into a classroom enviroment where everyone was sitting down looking at me to impart knowledge I would be lost (and laughed at if I had to write on a board with my spelling!!!)
Dance is a physical thing, I teach a move I can see if my class has understood what I say and adapt accordingly, with maths, physics, english etc I would not be able to succesfully communicate any skills I had cos I had lost the visual feedback (the snoring would be a clue tho).
To a profesional teacher (Iwould imagine) it is easy to teach in both enviroments, for non teachers like me that stumbled into MJ teaching - this is the limit of our/my ability
For the record my co-teacher when I started teaching dance was Maria who lectures at Brighton University. It made my job so much easier having a real profesional next to me
I'm not a teacher in any sense, but it seems to me that teaching MJ is vastly different from generic tutorage in the "real world":
- First of all, half of the "pupils" change every week. You have to include all the stuff for the new people, all the stuff for last week's new people, and all the stuff for people that have been there for a while.
- The teacher cannot assess the class's progress in any traditional way; it has to be a general visual observation based on in-depth knowledge of what you are teaching.
- The level/ability of the pupils may vary from novice to advanced; the classes and teaching must address points for all levels in-between.
- It is a social situation: There may be a lot of 'chatting' and disruption, and a lot of what is said may not sink in. {OK, so some teachers may think this applies to every teaching situation- I'm just saying that it is probably more pronounced and harder to deal with in MJ.}
- You have to gain the respect and acceptance of an audience with a vast range of life-experience to draw upon and who may know more than you in every other aspect of life.
- Your class wants something different every night; you have to change what you teach on every occasion.
So to all the MJ teachers out there:
All "teaching" is the imparting of knowledge from teacher to student. I'm sure that there are methods of teaching that are common between teaching martial arts and pre-school english and diploma neuclear physics. However it does not follow that all the methods used in one would be used in another to the same extent, or even used at all.
I'm not a teacher in any sense, but it seems to me that teaching MJ is vastly different from generic tutorage in the "real world": What is this gobbledy gook supposed to mean?
- It is a social situation: There may be a lot of 'chatting' and disruption, and a lot of what is said may not sink in. {OK, so some teachers may think this applies to every teaching situation - I'm just saying that it is probably more pronounced and harder to deal with in MJ.} Do you really think it would be easier teaching French to 5J on a wet Friday afternoon?
Get real! Can anybody seriously claim that teaching modern jive is radically different (and harder) than teaching old fashioned jive, morris dancing, horse riding or Japanese, apart from the inflating effect it appears to have on the ego.
Last edited by mick; 9th-August-2004 at 02:17 PM.
I'm with Gadget - agree wholeheartedly with his post above. Personally, give me the French class any day! Though who's asking which is easier/harder? We're just saying it's different, that's all.
Anyway, I'm only posting this to show support for Gadget's argument. Don't give a F*** if you agree with me or not.
Rachel
You obviously seem to have an insight that escapes some of us MJ instructors. Care to share with us your experise that gives such an insight?
PS ... dont remember anyone saying it was harder ... just that different techniques may be applicable.
Obviously, different principles apply to different things being taught, but there are elementary principles that apply generally. Some instructors seem not to have grasped the most basic of these.You obviously seem to have an insight that escapes some of us MJ instructors. Care to share with us your experise that gives such an insight?
PS ... dont remember anyone saying it was harder ... just that different techniques may be applicable.
let me enlighten you...
I'm not a teacher in any sense,... I do not teach, have never taught and the closest I get to teaching is passing on some words of advice here. This part of the sentence sets up a covering premise for the remainder of the post. It indicates that my experience in the field is severely limited and that I will accept if the text following it is considered by those with the experience I lack, to be a load of manure.
... but it seems to me that teaching MJ... In my opinion, from my (all be it limited) experience, those who stand on stage and try to teach those who attend a modern jive class.
... is vastly different from generic tutorage... the difference between one concept (teaching MJ) and the other (teaching in general) is very large. The term "generic" means relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class; general in this instance, referring to "tutorage" which I admit was slightly miss-leading since it refers to the post of a tutor rather than the action of tutoring: I should have used the term "tutorship" which is the act of teaching pupils.
... in the "real world": a slightly flippant term which was meant to indicate that there is life outside of the relatively small circle of events and people who participate and involve themselves in MJ {} and the preceding text regarding the general teaching of people referred to it.
Obviously, different principles apply to different things being taught, but there are elementary principles that apply generally.Isn't that what I said in the summary of my post?
Perhaps you would enlighten us as to which particular basic(s) you are referring to?Some instructors seem not to have grasped the most basic of these.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks