Teaching--was Explanation of levels and More on levels.

What a great discussion! Here are few thoughts--tell me if I'm crazy.

IMHO teaching is about communicating. You can have the best curriculum, the
most exacting and well articulated standards, the best equipement, the best
conditions--but if you aren't communicating with your students--you aren't
teaching.

Every student brings his or her own baggage, needs, ability, goals,
strengths, weakness, motivation, interest, perception, imagination,
personality to the act of learning--and therefore to our teaching. One size
does not fit all. This is true in the classroom (were I work--current
politics aside!) as much as it is true in any athletic adventure--including
skiing and snowboarding. Highly persciptive methodology is only as useful
as our ability to diagnose. Both sensitivity and common sense are needed.

Teaching a 4 year old to ski or snowboard is a very different thing from
coaching an experienced athlete.

We all have our own definition of "fun" and "interesting" as well. I 100%
agree that if it isn't "fun" then there is no way that our clients will come
back. Why should they spend the money if they aren't having "fun". But
"fun" for a 4 year old, fun for teen-age athlete, "fun'' for an already
"extreem skier" and "fun" for a 40 year old newbee.

I hope that makes sense and isn't too "fortune cookie" like.

--
I ski, therefore I am

Wayne Decker wrote:

What a great discussion! Here are few thoughts--tell me if I'm crazy.

IMHO teaching is about communicating.

Hear hear. Unfortunately f2f doesn't do that - here in writing anyway.

Both sensitivity and common sense are needed.

Agreed. Again it is this that f2f lacks - he's not sensitive to what
people are replying to him and anyone who argues is writing "tripe".
He certainly lacks common sense by continuing these huge screeds of his
which irritate many people here.

Wayne Decker" wrote in message
...
What a great discussion! Here are few thoughts--tell me if I'm crazy.

IMHO teaching is about communicating. You can have the best curriculum,
the
most exacting and well articulated standards, the best equipement, the
best
conditions--but if you aren't communicating with your students--you aren't
teaching.

This is true, but the beginner berm can make things *so*
basic and easy that the above considerations are *nearly*
taken out of the picture.

The easier the curriculum, the crappier the teacher can be
and still get it done.

Every student brings his or her own baggage, needs, ability, goals,
strengths, weakness, motivation, interest, perception, imagination,
personality to the act of learning--and therefore to our teaching. One
size
does not fit all. This is true in the classroom (were I work--current
politics aside!) as much as it is true in any athletic
adventure--including
skiing and snowboarding. Highly persciptive methodology is only as useful
as our ability to diagnose. Both sensitivity and common sense are needed.

Yes, you have to be able to look at the student ski, and figure
out why they're having trouble, and be able to communicate this
to them in consideration of all you mentioned above. But the
beginner berm makes it all so simple that there's very little to
communicate.

Teaching a 4 year old to ski or snowboard is a very different thing from
coaching an experienced athlete.

You're talking a different animal here. Until a child reaches
about the age of six or seven, all thinking processes are in
the nature of fantasy. It's magical thinking, everything is magic
and fantasy. As such it's a challenge to teach them.

Magical thinking, then concrete operations. Sometime
around age six or seven, the child leaves the magical
thinking stage and enters the stage of concrete operations.

At this stage, a child can understand concepts and cause
and effect, so, theoretically, you can teach them the same
way you would an adult. Not to say that's the best way
to teach an older child, but it can be done.

Anyone have any idea why we wait until age six to begin
serious education of children? Or why ed programs aimed
at toddlers are in the nature of games and fantasy?

We all have our own definition of "fun" and "interesting" as well. I 100%
agree that if it isn't "fun" then there is no way that our clients will
come
back.

But you've missed it again. If they learn to *ski* they'll come
back. If they don't they most likely won't. That's why you
have to get them that first (and most times only) chance you
get.

Why should they spend the money if they aren't having "fun". But
"fun" for a 4 year old, fun for teen-age athlete, "fun'' for an already
"extreem skier" and "fun" for a 40 year old newbee.

The reason why I'm so intense on this "have fun" crap is
because that "just have fun" attitude is one of the biggest
reasons that 80 percent of the people who take a ski
lesson don't come back. It's not enough that they "just had fun".

"Just have fun" is a cop out and an excuse for every degree
of egotism, incompetence, laziness and lack of concern in the
ski industry.

You have to get them skiing whatever that takes. If it means
putting a little pressure on, if it means concealing the difficulty
they might encounter as they learn until they're right square in
the middle of doing it, then that's what you must do. You have
to get them skiing whatever it takes. You can't just coddle
them and be oh so careful not to invade their fragile sense
of funness. You have to get them skiing *that day*.
*Then* they'll "just have fun" because they can ski. They'll
also come back and ski again, because once they can ski,
they *will* have fun. Learning to ski isn't necessarily fun.
Skiing is.


I hope that makes sense and isn't too "fortune cookie" like.

I ski, therefore I am


I teach skiing, therefore I'm able to live.

BrritSki wrote:
Wayne Decker wrote:

What a great discussion! Here are few thoughts--tell me if I'm crazy.

IMHO teaching is about communicating.


Hear hear. Unfortunately f2f doesn't do that - here in writing anyway.

Both sensitivity and common sense are needed.

Agreed. Again it is this that f2f lacks - he's not sensitive to what
people are replying to him and anyone who argues is writing "tripe".
He certainly lacks common sense by continuing these huge screeds of his
which irritate many people here.

Nobody writing about SKIING is offensive to me. I have opinions which I
am occassionally (and rarely) moved to share. When my rare opinion
conflicts with another's opinion I just chalk it up to history - not
incompetence. Personal experience and history can explain almost any ski
difference.

IMO the testiness is a good sign - expresses our anxiousness - are we
raring to hit the slopes? Have another beer - wax the skis for the 12th
time this preseason.

foot2foot wrote:



You have to get them skiing whatever that takes. If it means
putting a little pressure on, if it means concealing the difficulty
they might encounter as they learn until they're right square in
the middle of doing it, then that's what you must do. You have
to get them skiing whatever it takes. You can't just coddle
them and be oh so careful not to invade their fragile sense
of funness. You have to get them skiing *that day*.
*Then* they'll "just have fun" because they can ski. They'll
also come back and ski again, because once they can ski,
they *will* have fun. Learning to ski isn't necessarily fun.
Skiing is.


As a pretty new skier, not that far away from my first day, I strongly
agree with this.

Lisa