......Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
I think you could well be right.
I'll give it a go next time I do a beginners review class when I'm taxiing.
Chris
If this has been a topic of discussion before, please forgive me. I did check but could well have missed something.
Anyway, here's an odd idea, just about right for a quarter to two in the morning, and prompted by distant memories of school orchestra practice.
Wouldn't it make more sense to teach the last move of beginner's and intermediate classes first? Then teach the one before last, then the second and finally the opening move in the routine.
That way when you dance it through to music you are always heaing towards the part of the routine that you know best, instead of, as we do now, starting with a move you've practised the most and heading into the twilight zone of moves that you haven't really 'got' yet, grinding to a halt or losing the beat.
I'm sure that would be a better way to learn.
Any comments?
......Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
I think you could well be right.
I'll give it a go next time I do a beginners review class when I'm taxiing.
Chris
Yeah, that makes sense to me Never thought about it before!Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
What lateral thinking ESGOriginally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
Yes I think this is a great idea. So many men seem to drop out because of the mental overload that occurs around the end of the routine.
I look forward to hearing the results of ChrisA's research.
I can see what you're saying, but I think it depends on what you're learning and how you're learning it. I find that sometimes the fact you'r repeating the first move that's taught over and over again makes it easier by the time you get to the end - for this reason I like the first move taught to be the hardest, and therefore you have lots of time to get it into your skull! The other thing with this method might be that if the first three moves were difficult then by the time you get to the last one, you've probably forgotten it! Only my opinion, sorry if it sounds like I'm throwing cold water over the idea (can you throw water on an idea?!).
Having said that, for the beginner's class where the moves aren't as long and complicated I think it might work well.
sounds like reasonable idea and worth a try.
Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
great idea, it could work!
I think your logic is brilliant
and certainly the idea of teaching the most difficult one first so you get lots of time to practice it is very sensible
what instrument did(do) you play?
Well perhaps 'orchestra' is to over egg things slightly - just the recorder, like every other numpty in the class.what instrument did(do) you play?
We had quite an enlightened music teacher, even though we all treated her like a witch. She used to play us pieces of music, without telling us what they were - and get us to right down what thoughts the music inspired. One day she played us Ravel's Bolero. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to her, the movie '10' starring Dudley Moore and Bo Derrick had been shown on television the night before - in which that piece was used to underscore the much trailed sex scene. As might be predicted of a load of 12 year old boys, we had all stayed up late to watch it, so she got *quite* a surprise when she collected our expercise books to check what we had written!
The routines taught in Ceroc classes are circular, the last move sets you up for the first one.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
The order in which those moves are taught has been the subject of years of discussion by experienced practioners at their trade. That does not mean that there may be different ideas on what the order should be. I can only recall one occasion where I was sure that the teacher had got it wrong.
I have never disagreed with the order in a Ceroc Central class.
In theory, it's just the same: one move appended onto already learned moves; should there be a difference if it's added at the front or back?
Adding it at the front means that you join the end of your most recent move to the start of the next, as opposed to joining the start of the most recent move into the end of the last... .so people will be thinking on the next move while executing the current move, as opposed to thinking on the next move while executing the current move...
The current method gives you a break in learning the same move by having to go through the already known moves before coming back to it. I think that this having to remember it would increase the chances of it going from short-term into long-term memory... but who am I to talk about memory
That's still no counter-argument. You spend the vast majority of the class learning them as a sequence of four steps. You can join them up into a loop no matter how you learn them.Originally Posted by bigdjiver
Ooohh.... I'm scared, Scooby!... Scooby???Originally Posted by bigdjiver
... and he might have got away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.Originally Posted by bigdjiver
Go on, Bigdjiver, free that spirit! Dare to disagree! They'll still take your money and let you into the class you know.Originally Posted by bigdjiver
One benefit of the normal order is that less talented dancers can be confident, by the end of the class, that they've learnt at least one new move. The reverse order might leave some students feeling that they didn't really get any of the moves.
I suppose that if they didn't like the first move taught, there would be building trepedation through the 'joining' untill the last move to be practiced. With the current method, it's over and done with so you can relax into the other moves.
Why would it make any difference? They would have practiced the same number of times in total, but it would be the fourth move in the sequence that had rammed home the most, instead of the first.Originally Posted by MartinHarper
'Over and Done with'? - these are dance moves, not stress positions. 'Relax' - into moves that you don't know as well as the one you've just completed? I don't think so. With the current method you have the trepidation of joining into a move that you don't know very well. Precisely the problem that reversing the order avoids.Originally Posted by Gadget
Last edited by El Salsero Gringo; 25th-February-2005 at 03:10 PM.
It would depend on whether you 'feared' the move or the joining more: I can't see anyone concerned about exactly how one move should join into the next.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
I think that reversing the moves (ie adding them on the front) would not seem like you were not learning to dance the routine: just one move at a time, then the rest appended on as almost an after-thought.
The current method seems to me like it actually teaches you the moves and the routine - like it's two seperate things... (do a move; add it to the routine. do a move; add it to the routine...) If you get rid of the 'break' of going back to the start of the routine, then it's as if the moves are only part of that routine... (do a move, it joins into the routine. next move and it joins into the routine. next...)
This is true, provided that you make it as far as the fourth move. I find that sometimes, when learning a new move, I don't manage to get it, and my partner and I end up in a tangled knot. If the new move was added to the front of the routine, this would mean missing out on practicing the other moves in the routine.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
Still might be a good idea, though.
Last edited by MartinHarper; 25th-February-2005 at 06:07 PM.
The one time I disagreed it was at a Ceroc class, and I disagreed very vehemently.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
The teacher taught the most difficult move first, a dip, and other people joined the class late. This led to two people who had not been there for that part of the lesson trying the move just from one demo, and the lady finishing up with concussion. The teacher seemed to be of the opinion that it was entirely their fault, and did not like it when I suggested that the teacher was responsible for the class safety.
They may let me in, but I will not be trying to get into that teachers class again.
If you practise the first move first, and you get it, you get to practise it a few more times whilst you struggle with the second. If you cannot get the second, you have the option to quit the class having had two bouts of practise with the first move.
If you practise the last move first, and get it, but fail when you are practising the one before it, it is less likely that you will be in the right place at the right time, and in the right frame of mind, to get a second practise at the last move.
The method I am used to places the most tricky moves last, so that the drop-outs get to learn and practise two or three moves at least.
I have the sort of mind that is always questioning, looking for a better way. This is a novel idea that stirred the brain cells, but they have settled where they started.
Really nice idea.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
I'd think I'd strongly prefer it, if it was taught this way. It is so annoying having trouble with the second move (for example), and that effectively killing off the ability to try / practice the later moves.
It might be better for the intermediates rather than the beginners, being slightly less immediately intuitive.
Last edited by frodo; 26th-February-2005 at 12:57 AM.
Possibly the normal easier->difficult (dance) order of moves could be reconsidered in the light of the altered teaching order though.Originally Posted by latinlover
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks