Martial Arts Instructors Should Learn To Teach

There are lots of martial arts instructors around, but how many of them are really teachers? How many of them know anything about the science of teaching and learning (yes, there is lots of science involved). I think that anyone who wants to teach martial arts, should make an effort to learn how to teach. That's what I write about in this blog
http://budobum.blogspot.com/2015/07/...uld-learn.html

Do you think aikido instructors should learn to teach, or are the traditional methods good enough?

Peter Boylan wrote: There are lots of martial arts instructors around, but how many of them are really teachers? How many of them know anything about the science of teaching and learning (yes, there is lots of science involved). I think that anyone who wants to teach martial arts, should make an effort to learn how to teach. That's what I write about in this blog http://budobum.blogspot.com/2015/07/...uld-learn.html Do you think aikido instructors should learn to teach, or are the traditional methods good enough?

I think any teacher who cares about his or her students will naturally make efforts to teacher better over time, though I don't think they necessarily need to learn modern teaching methods to be good teachers. Considering ideas like Gardner's intelligence types, I can see how some teachers will naturally mesh better with some students more than others, and that this is why it is ultimately up to the student to find a teacher that fits for her or himself.
So while I would agree any teacher should make an effort at teaching well, I also think how that comes about will be a varied process that is hard to judge fairly across the board.

I agree with you, Matthew. People have to teach in a way that fits them and their students. My husband and I both teach and we have very different styles. (He teaches math, and I teach literature, creative writing, and aikido.) If I tried to teach like he does (very structured, step-by-step, consistent lessons), I would fall down laughing at myself, plus bore myself silly. And he wouldn't even attempt to teach like I do (all over the place, reliant on "feeling" where the class is and what they need in order to get to where I want them to be, also reliant on building a supportive community where people can trust and take risks.)

Being in charge of a class can (and should) build awareness.
Susan

I don't think Peter is saying there is one way to teach.
Of course there are many styles of teaching, as there are many styles of cooking, metal work, and budo ...and learning!
The point is, simply being proficient at a thing in no way makes one a competent teacher. And I totally agree. Some are teachers, others are not. Some can learn to be better teachers, and some are not motivated to be better teachers so won't be.
I can teach the basics of almost anything I am decent at, not a master of, because I have a lively interest in teaching and an ability to "read" students and adapt to them (I admit that, while I agree with Peter's "stick to a few key points," in aikido it took me longer to integrate that into teaching than it did in other subjects like sewing or painting).
In aikido, given my relatively junior status compared to others teaching in the dojo and the participatory nature of the training, I more often consider myself "leading class" when I sub for a Sensei - I'm taking part, trying to never present material above what I feel competent at, and am open to other students' direct input during class.
In other subjects my approach differs...in painting I tend to present things as more of a "let's explore this now..." while in sewing people want very explicit step-by-step guidance, and with my falling or self-defense classes students really need to feel I am THE instructor, an authority they can trust so they have the confidence to push their own limits.

1. I think the first argument you need to consider is whether martial artists are obligated to teach anyone. I am not sure this is true. Western martial arts have become something of a commodity; I pay you to teach me kata and kata gets me belts and belts mean that I know something. I am not sure that relationship is a direct reflection of "learning" martial arts, nor a direct indication of the skill being transmitted from teacher to student. I do not believe the pay-for-performance model is an accurate transmission model for teaching martial arts. But, it does expose more people to martial arts to which they would otherwise be prohibited from seeing.
2. I think you need to decide on a metric of success by which to critique instruction, if you are going to argue for its institution. Dojo size? Gross income? Number of students? Number of black belts? Trophies? Number of students gone evil and through mortal combat defeated? I know some number of nice people who can talk my ear off about what I should be doing, but who have little ability to do what they say - they are truly invested in me learning the poor martial arts they practice. If they give me a syllabus, does that make the poor martial arts they teach better?

I think we, as students, have a responsibility for our education and expertise in training. Our instructors are farther down a path of learning and therefore should be able to provide guidance to those junior in training. Sensei are sempai to some of us and cohai to others. We are not magical creatures with divine knowledge. To this extent, I do not believe sensei is obligated to teach anyone anything - this is something we do because someone did it for us and because we want to transmit what we know to someone else to carry our tradition. The better instructors rise within the community because students who are looking for better education train with them over poorer instructors.

I don't think you can cast a net over a community that spans the spectrum of talent and say something like, "instructors need to learn to teach." To the same point, I think you can't say, "students need to learn how to learn." I think those conversations should be specific to individuals and that is a tough conversation, "Sensei, I really like you and the fancy dojo you own. But, your teaching is terrible and I am going to leave to find something better." Or, "Student, you have been training with me for 10 years and you are doing the same thing you were 8 years ago."

I think sometimes we put sensei on a pedestal and if she wasn't on one we may have different expectations.

To add to what Jon has said (which makes sense to me), I've observed that some people can't learn from some people. That's why they call tandem canoes "divorce boats", and why we always advised parents not to try and teach their children how to ski, even if they themselves were good skiers or even good ski coaches.

I put more burden on the student than on the instructor. That's not to say that an instructor should be able to stand up in front of a group of people and spout a lot of mystical cliches and get a free pass, or that an instructor can't become more effective, but they can only go so far. Learning is not a passive thing; students can't sit back expecting to be spoon-fed and blaming sensei when things don't click for them. I just got back from Birankai summer camp, and several senseis said the same thing: it's on you, the student, to steal from me, to actively work at getting as much as you can out of this. One sensei and fifty students, a hundred students, more...how can it be any other way?

Jon, how is it putting an instructor on a pedestal to expect him or her to have some rudimentary ability to instruct beyond doing a demo? How or why should martial arts be different from gymnastics, history, sewing, or geometry? Do we expect math students to watch a prof solve an equation and then do it themselves? I certainly don't expect my sewing students to watch me make a collar and be able to do anything like it....

Janet Rosen wrote: I don't think Peter is saying there is one way to teach.

I don't think so either, but there is the implication that one is superior. I thought he was describing the difference between learning to teach in a more modern methodology compared to older methods, both of which I think can be great. My point about Gardner's types of intelligence was just that different folks gravitate toward different methods. We all have all of those (and probably many other) learning modes, but whatever some teacher is expressing, it will probably click for some similarly-minded student. So I get the impression it's hard to say one way or some others isn't/aren't as good, because it depends on the context of who is learning from them.

Do you think aikido instructors should learn to teach, or are the traditional methods good enough?

To my mind this carries the implication that older methods aren't concerned with learning to teach...that they're less "good" in that regard. I think in some sense that's true, but that it isn't absolutely true. I'm slowly going through Prof. Goldsbury's TIE column wherein he describes this dilemma:

Ueshiba has been criticized for ‘teaching' in this antiquated way and for requiring his students to resort to such non-productive means as ‘stealing' knowledge. If only he had used the well-tried ‘western' methods...

I do think anyone who calls themselves a teacher should try to teach well, but that's a lot like saying people should be learning well. It depends on the individual goals and proclivities involved.

Susan Dalton wrote: I agree with you, Matthew. People have to teach in a way that fits them and their students. My husband and I both teach and we have very different styles. (He teaches math, and I teach literature, creative writing, and aikido.) If I tried to teach like he does (very structured, step-by-step, consistent lessons), I would fall down laughing at myself, plus bore myself silly. And he wouldn't even attempt to teach like I do (all over the place, reliant on "feeling" where the class is and what they need in order to get to where I want them to be, also reliant on building a supportive community where people can trust and take risks.) Being in charge of a class can (and should) build awareness. Susan

I'm not trying to suggest that there is only one way to teach. What I'm trying to say (and clearly not doing a good job of it) is that there are some fundamental principles of teaching and learning that we should be applying in the classroom regardless of our particular style. Kind of like there are fundamental principles that make practice aikido, regardless of whether we are doing Aikikai, Yoshinkan, Ki Society or some other branch of the aikido tree.

Jon Reading wrote: 1. I think the first argument you need to consider is whether martial artists are obligated to teach anyone. I am not sure this is true. Western martial arts have become something of a commodity; I pay you to teach me kata and kata gets me belts and belts mean that I know something. I am not sure that relationship is a direct reflection of "learning" martial arts, nor a direct indication of the skill being transmitted from teacher to student. I do not believe the pay-for-performance model is an accurate transmission model for teaching martial arts. But, it does expose more people to martial arts to which they would otherwise be prohibited from seeing. 2. I think you need to decide on a metric of success by which to critique instruction, if you are going to argue for its institution. Dojo size? Gross income? Number of students? Number of black belts? Trophies? Number of students gone evil and through mortal combat defeated? I know some number of nice people who can talk my ear off about what I should be doing, but who have little ability to do what they say - they are truly invested in me learning the poor martial arts they practice. If they give me a syllabus, does that make the poor martial arts they teach better?

Not all martial artists are obligated to teach, certainly. But if someone is an instructor, they are teaching. The question then becomes doing a good job of it or a poor job. There is a lot of solid data on how the body and brain actually learn things. Should we ignore that for the sake of tradition, or should we incorporate it our skills as teachers (for those of us who teach)?

I'm not a fan of rank, or any of the straw men you've thrown out for metrics. How about time required for students to acquire particular skills? That's really the metric I look at when I'm teaching. What can I do to increase my students understanding and mastery of particular skills.

Yes, students have great responsibility, but I believe that if I am to respect myself as a teacher, I have to make the effort to be as good at that as I can be.

Janet Rosen wrote: Jon, how is it putting an instructor on a pedestal to expect him or her to have some rudimentary ability to instruct beyond doing a demo? How or why should martial arts be different from gymnastics, history, sewing, or geometry? Do we expect math students to watch a prof solve an equation and then do it themselves? I certainly don't expect my sewing students to watch me make a collar and be able to do anything like it....

Well, I am not sure I would say that your example qualifies as a case of sensei worship. I would argue that an instructor should be able to instruct anything she demonstrates. I am speaking a little more directly to the "well, that's a sensei thing" crowd. Sometimes we call it the sensei effect. Sometimes we excuse poor performance comparatively (I can't do what sensei does), sometimes we engage in personal relationships that transcend senior/junior roles (sensei walks on water).

As an unspoken question, I think that our expectations are different in our aikido training than in other educations. I think we often train with unrealistic expectations of performance; when those expectations are not met we have a problem. In theory, you are correct - our martial education should be similar to other academic pursuits. Except I don't envision myself outsmarting Stephen Hawking at a physics question. Nor will I ever expect to be caught by Bela Karolyi after my routine. Why? Because most of use know that our talent does not reach that level. Those imaginations remain a fantasy and never create an issue with our reality - Sometimes we draft unrealistic expectations in our training and that causes problems.

My point was to level Peter's question at our sempai because our instructors really are just our sempai - they just happen to be the poor suckers who run the class. But, sometimes its hard to see our instructors as sempai if we let some of the shine of "sensei" blind us. A 6th kyu can teach ukemi every bit as well as a 6th dan, so why do we look at sensei differently? Why do I pay money to see someone with a "dan" behind the name? Because its not entirely about education and I am not sure that is a good thing. This is not to say that our friendships and political relationships and all the other reasons we train with different groups and individuals are unimportant, but it is to say sometimes they are more important than learning.

OP wrote: This next point is one I am constantly working on. Just as we can put more students in a room than we can effectively teach, we can put more lessons in a class than students can absorb. Our minds have a working memory capacity of 3 to 5 items. That’s it. If we try to teach more than that in one session, the students will not be able to hold on to the lessons. Once we get past our personal limit of about 4 main points, we start dropping things because our minds just can’t hold onto all of them.

I would argue that the best at teaching itself are those who have an ongoing assessment of each student, and who meaningfully push limits of ability. I am sure there is a cap on how many things a person can track and absorb, but if we're looking at what is best, then I think we have to occassionally push the envelope for concepts like this one above. So while it may be typically best to keep things in digestable chunks, sometimes it's important to push more information, if for no other reason than to work on increasing the ability to track and absorb more points, which I take to be an important skill unto itself because it applies to every situation of our lives.
So to clarify my overall response: it depends. "Aliveness" is an issue that pervades everything, and comes from the myriad interactions and conditions involved in some setting (i.e. musubi), whether it's how to learn correct movement, or how to teach. But again, it's important to have a sense of the goals involves in the student-teacher dyad to judge which is relatively better. A teacher might be "best" for one student and "worst" for another, and no matter how hard one tries to become a great teacher, it might not make the difference.
Generally speaking, in a western setting particularly (I would guess), focusing on western teaching concepts is better for most people.
...I'm probably splitting hairs...
Thank you, Peter, for the great food for thought!

Matthew Gano wrote: I don't think so either, but there is the implication that one is superior. I thought he was describing the difference between learning to teach in a more modern methodology compared to older methods, both of which I think can be great. My point about Gardner's types of intelligence was just that different folks gravitate toward different methods. We all have all of those (and probably many other) learning modes, but whatever some teacher is expressing, it will probably click for some similarly-minded student. So I get the impression it's hard to say one way or some others isn't/aren't as good, because it depends on the context of who is learning from them.

I'm not suggesting simply throw out what has been done before and replace it with modern methodology. I am saying use modern science of learning to inform what we are doing as teachers in the dojo. I'm primarily a koryu budo guy, the really old stuff, and I use a classical pedagogy when I teach koryu budo. However, I inform that with understanding of things like how much information an individual can retain at one time, and I build my classical style class around the facts of human learning and mind capacity.

Peter Boylan wrote: Not all martial artists are obligated to teach, certainly. But if someone is an instructor, they are teaching. The question then becomes doing a good job of it or a poor job. There is a lot of solid data on how the body and brain actually learn things. Should we ignore that for the sake of tradition, or should we incorporate it our skills as teachers (for those of us who teach)? I'm not a fan of rank, or any of the straw men you've thrown out for metrics. How about time required for students to acquire particular skills? That's really the metric I look at when I'm teaching. What can I do to increase my students understanding and mastery of particular skills. Yes, students have great responsibility, but I believe that if I am to respect myself as a teacher, I have to make the effort to be as good at that as I can be.

Well, I am being a little tongue-and-cheek because I think most metrics we would seriously consider would create some controversy so I am staying away from that actual argument. But yes, I think the first part of your argument would need to be some kind of declaration of what is successful teaching.

I am not sure I am debating learning science. 20 years ago it was clear that gym class was a waste of time for students in the US. 10 years ago it was a waste of resources to teach music. I think studies are interesting, but I think studies of the studies would be warranted before I would weigh in on the usefulness of any particular finding. I don't think there is anything wrong with individual instructors who explore different teaching methodologies if they translate into skills. I am still not sure we aren't just talking about a mis-expectation of performance. If I see a shihan who teaches a very advanced class that I can't follow, I am not sure that is a fault in "traditional instruction," in-as-much as a mistake on my part that I expected to learn something. Of course, that means admitting that I was in a class over my head...

And yes, none of what I say should be viewed as a free pass to be a bad instructor.

Maybe a different question to clarify some thoughts.

Years ago, I was just starting to be an apprentice teacher. One woman came to all my classes for three years. Then slipped on the ice and broke her wrist.

Yes, learning is on the student, and there are several ways to instruct and several ways to offer the same correction.

For me, the issue was, for all that learning is on the student, I blamed myself. I spent years teaching her how to fall without injury and I was nice and gentle correcting her habit of putting her hand down in front of her.

As a nurse, I was teaching a class to patients on how to look after their central lines. Knowing the statistics on blood stream infections, and knowing a break in technique could cause someone in the room to die, having 100 patients a year die anyway, I approached teaching patients with a much higher sense of responsibility.

Is a teacher responsible for chronic injuries in their students? For students who are victims of violence? For people who have no emotional control and suffer in their daily lives? In a professional education setting, a teacher is responsible for delivering education and verifying it's transmission accurately. Someone can open a dojo and claim no such responsibility.

In Aikido, we talk about being a religion, a way for life, a code of ethics, a health practice, a method of self defense. In general, we receive very little training for the scope of what an instructor might claim to offer. In Angry White Pygamas, the end of the year involved a test for teaching. I never received any such test. In some associations, shear attrition and stubbornness leads to one person sitting in front of the room. That's not always the measure of the best educator.

Oh no, Peter, I wasn't thinking you were saying there is only one way to teach. Your column got me thinking and I went running off in my own direction (as usual). Since I am a teacher by profession and married to a teacher, I have lots of thoughts about teaching. In my opinion, my husband and I are both effective teachers even though we teach very differently.

One night I was grading essays and I read my comments out loud to my husband. I had written almost a page about how the student was capable of so much more and how I wanted him to put forth more effort. My husband started laughing. I asked what was so funny. He said he was addressing the exact same problem, and he then read what he had written to his student: "Get off your ass."

We've been talking about the responsibilities of teaching/being sempai in our dojo. Over the years we've seen that some folks really want to teach/be a senior student because they want to be in charge and tell people what to do. Being sempai doesn't mean you get to be the boss but means you have responsibility towards those folks junior to you--you take care of them.

Jon Reading wrote: A 6th kyu can teach ukemi every bit as well as a 6th dan, so why do we look at sensei differently?.

Oh we have a fundamental disagreement. Even assuming all you mean is "rolling" as opposed to attacking, etc....6th kyu, unless they have other extensive experiences in arts that are essentially applied kinesiology, do not have the experience to glance at somebody and read the body accurately to see where tension is being held or how the body is weighted, etc. so can only offer very generic advice.
I totally expect an experienced aikido instructor to have that ability and use it to teach rolling.

Peter Boylan wrote: I'm not suggesting simply throw out what has been done before and replace it with modern methodology. I am saying use modern science of learning to inform what we are doing as teachers in the dojo. I'm primarily a koryu budo guy, the really old stuff, and I use a classical pedagogy when I teach koryu budo. However, I inform that with understanding of things like how much information an individual can retain at one time, and I build my classical style class around the facts of human learning and mind capacity.

I see what you mean better now. As happens too often, I focused too much on one part. Thank you for taking the time to clarify!

One of my dojo sensei (and late friend) required anyone teaching classes in his dojo to take an introductory course in coaching. Back then it was "Level 1 Theory" in the Canadian NCCP (National Coaching Certification Program). It's evolved since then and I'm a wee bit out of date with the current introductory coaching programs, but... One of the requirements for certification as a coach in the Great White North is to complete training and evaluation in a seminar titled "Make Ethical Decisions" (it could be "ethical decision making" but the point is there)..
A "teacher" in a dojo may be taking money from "students" or may not be taking money - his/her POSITION (one of power) demands that he or she provide a safe environment (within the constraints of it being a martial art) and exert "best effort" at providing training to students to the best of his/her ability.

e.g., I'm a professional sports coach (Rowing) - after 32 years of doing this, a master's degree in biomechanics, and a "level 4" coaching certification, I still read "the literature" when I can, looking for better/newer research on coaching/teaching/training/physiology/biomechanics (not so much on the nutrition and psychology) so that I can help athletes have their best possible experience. To date I've had one athlete get a cracked rib from "catching a crab" that nearly lifted him out of the boat, three (IIRC) athletes had to withdraw due to back problems, and a few "I don't get it" or "it's not for me" withdrawals from the sport. Each of those injuries gnaws at me because it means I didn't do my job as well as I should, and makes me want to be better and to take better care of the athletes. They're the future of the club, and if I send them away broken, the club has no future.

Masuda shihan, in seminars in New Zealand, frequently pointed out that senior students and teachers had to look after their junior students - after all, they're our training partners, our friends, and they're the future of the dojo.

Jon Reading wrote: Well, I am being a little tongue-and-cheek because I think most metrics we would seriously consider would create some controversy so I am staying away from that actual argument. But yes, I think the first part of your argument would need to be some kind of declaration of what is successful teaching. I am not sure I am debating learning science. 20 years ago it was clear that gym class was a waste of time for students in the US. 10 years ago it was a waste of resources to teach music. I think studies are interesting, but I think studies of the studies would be warranted before I would weigh in on the usefulness of any particular finding. I don't think there is anything wrong with individual instructors who explore different teaching methodologies if they translate into skills. I am still not sure we aren't just talking about a mis-expectation of performance. If I see a shihan who teaches a very advanced class that I can't follow, I am not sure that is a fault in "traditional instruction," in-as-much as a mistake on my part that I expected to learn something. Of course, that means admitting that I was in a class over my head... And yes, none of what I say should be viewed as a free pass to be a bad instructor.

There are several comments in the overall thread that seem to be asking what constitutes successful teaching and how this should be defined. Maybe Bad Teaching is easier to define? Though the metrics might be the same.

Boylan Sensei, elsewhere on this site you commented on how the Koryu method was built on a close relationship between student and teacher - presumably teaching and learning styles having to get matched up? But, what I might have thought were traditional methods were really military methods. I was wondering if you could flesh out the differences between these two methodologies?

Matthew Gano wrote: I don't think so either, but there is the implication that one is superior. I thought he was describing the difference between learning to teach in a more modern methodology compared to older methods, both of which I think can be great.

I think before you can evaluate a teaching methodology, you need to be very clear on exactly *what* is being taught. Was O Sensei, for instance, teaching a martial art with clearly defined techniques, or was he teaching a Way of being in the world? At least arguably, he was terrible at the former, but better than okay at the latter.

And the same applies to many traditional teaching methods, both East and West. The individual technical components that define any art are relatively easy to break down and explain, but the whole is greater than the parts, and much harder to teach.

Katherine

There is one point of importance missing from this discussion, the "way of teaching" a M.A. is an inherent part of that M.A.

Note the Shodokan split from Aikikai, once the methodology has a significant change, the art itself changes.

I would expect this to be even more evident for Koryu.

Amir

Amir Krause wrote: There is one point of importance missing from this discussion, the "way of teaching" a M.A. is an inherent part of that M.A. Note the Shodokan split from Aikikai, once the methodology has a significant change, the art itself changes. I would expect this to be even more evident for Koryu. Amir

Shodokan Aikido is a good example, but really Ki Aikido, Yoshinkan Aikido, Iwama Ryu - they are all separate because of a teaching methodology.

To be a part of a lineage can imply an assigned a teaching method. If I try to adapt the teaching method, am I being disloyal to my lineage?

John Hillson wrote: To be a part of a lineage can imply an assigned a teaching method. If I try to adapt the teaching method, am I being disloyal to my lineage?

In my oinion, it depends on size of "adaptation", you might even be creating a completely new style / M.A. Methodoligy is inherent to martial arts, changing it has lots of significance.

Amir