Teaching acceleration

[Bernd Ziesche]

ell my students, that not going to practise with what was learnt today, I will meet them at the same point, where we started the lesson after a year has passed. So I see this even more drastically/dramatically as you do.
Cheers
Bernd

Then what have they learned? Didn’t you say earlier that once it is learned it is learned? I’m not sure who you are agreeing with now. Not yourself I suspect.

No, I said precisely the opposite. You can decrease in the level of performance or even totally forget whatever you already had learnt at any time. It all depends on you using what you learnt and how you take care not to forget. Not looking into the notes, no training and back to start after a bigger while....

[Bernd Ziesche]

I think a caster is more likely to retain a piece of information in a one to one than they would in a demo. I’d be interested to know if you do too and why?

Hi Mark,
Same page then with nearly all you said. Just little different use of the term learning.

I am often asked for 1 to 1 vs. a group teaching, very often. There is no general answer. It depends of a) what one is looking for (goal of lesson) and b) how long is the lesson.
Short 1 to 1 = great, better than a group lesson. Long 1 to 1 (6 hours) needs many breaks anyway. Having the chance to watch others and learn from them being taught is a clear bonus, if the instructor supports and the students makes use of it. Also a group can be a hell lot of fun. A 1 to 1 can be a hell lot of fun, too. But it can also end up to get intimidating. I had to learn that in the first decade. One needs to make space, too. And that's very individual.
If I have a tiny yet very specific, but for me emotionally big trouble in my cast, finding the cause is everything. I can find it by reading SL, by watching a demo, by filming in the WC or in a 1 to 1 lesson.
Of course a 1 to 1 lesson environment usually allows for a better atmosphere and a more specific communication matching your needs as a demo. Still a demo may solve my issue, that ten instructors failed on. Did happen to me.

For me, what I see in lessons is not sufficient evidence for me to reasonably conclude it’s learned. I might draw that conclusion if I see them a month later and they can do it but at the end of lesson one, I can’t. This is not a problem someone with a series of lessons faces. It’s perfectly possible you don’t either…in which case we follow our different ways.

This is the tricky part. I agree, but like to add, your students may learn a certain skill. A year later you meet them and they have it still. But ten years later they have lost it again. In my point, you taught them, they learnt it, but then family and job came in between and things faded away by a drop in priorities....
Regards
Bernd

[Paul Arden]

Hi Bernd,

“Ten times steeper.”

I’ve been flycasting since I began fly fishing 43 years ago. So it follows that if I could go back and coach myself (and I’m sure I’d do a bloody good job of coaching myself!) then after 4 or 5 years I could be at the level I am now.

Maybe. Certainly I would agree that this is a fair appraisal.

I think that says a lot.

How would you do it? Meet once/year for a long weekend? Or more regular that? Or would you need to be there at all times?

With regards to learning, except for having some sort of brain damage, it appears that once something is learned it can’t be unlearned. The problem can be retrieving the information of course. I would argue that if a caster comes to a lesson, and can’t do what he/she could at the end of the previous lesson, it wasn’t that they forgot it, it is simply that the information wasn’t properly “learned” in the first place.

Cheers, Paul

[alanj]

Riding a bike springs to mind.

[Bernd Ziesche]

How would you do it? Meet once/year for a long weekend? Or more regular that? Or would you need to be there at all times?

Excellent question. If I am free to pick, every day coaching for highest efficiency. But I am very sure, that putting only a paper delivering the information:
- what instructors to better not have listened to
- what instructors to have ask to teach what exactly
- and offering a slim structure including essentials being explained, exercises being described and all faults, which did enter my casting (list of about 25 major issues)
That would do a hell of a job.
The up and downs of entering dead end roads took quite time. It was fun, too. But in terms of the learning curve as Mark put it.... rate changed many times.

With regards to learning, except for having some sort of brain damage, it appears that once something is learned it can’t be unlearned. The problem can be retrieving the information of course. I would argue that if a caster comes to a lesson, and can’t do what he/she could at the end of the previous lesson, it wasn’t that they forgot it, it is simply that the information wasn’t properly “learned” in the first place.

I very much believe humans learn a lot in their lives only to forget it at some point. I probably have forgotten a lot from my job in Chemistry. But I was able to not forget it over a period of 16 years.
Forgetting is one, decrease in level is another. My level in distance casting drops without training, but I don't forget what I learnt about the how (because I teach it). So I can refresh my physical abilities relatively quick. Not to the highest level I had though. We all peak at some point. Thats life!

[Bernd Ziesche]

Riding a bike springs to mind.

Hi Alan,
I always tell my students, that once you master basic fly casting, it is like riding a bike, just more complex (more to be remembered).
Riding a bike, I need to focus on traffic lights otherwise I am soon gonna be fishing in Valhalla. So the main technical aspects better work without focussing on them (can't focus on 2 aspects per time). And they indeed do. However I couldn't jump over a ramp with a BMX anymore. Also I tried a skateboard lately. Was close to break a leg.
Bottom line the easy skills stick to a proper degree, but the complexer ones or the ones matching our daily comfort zones less, don't. They decrease more.
Makes sense?
Regards
Bernd

[VGB]

Hi Bernd

I did watch the video and found all those 5 characteristics of learning already included in my teaching.

How do you cover off 1 and 4 in a single lesson?

Learning.jpg (49.44 KiB) Viewed 350 times

My point was however, that I don't know what mindless repeating of the same is, but repeating the exercise is what we all did in our training. I recomment to repeat the exercise but focus on one particular key at a time and then change to another after short time. Still repeating the same cast that is. To answer your question, in a fishing situation point 5 comes in. Adaptability. Here I recommend to train with targets and objects. Competition accuracy is one (straight overhead cast), a bow and arrow cast or my roll cast with the fly anchoring in hand would be two other to make some use of in tight small river situation. In such tight situations I recommend to better master one straight cast, then having ten types of casts all to 50% available.

What type of practice regime would you set to ensure adaptability? Massed practice?

My Capoeira teacher had won the WC 3 x if I remember correct and was many times published to be among the top teachers in the world. What does it matter?
My point was clear: I never saw sport teachers (2 made their living on it) supporting best possible to have their clients achieve the steepest possible learning curves.

I would suggest that the required skillset is different between a performer and a coach. The only grading system for coaches that I am aware of is by national/international coaching qualifications, I don't know any ranking system.

Regards

Vince

[Stoatstail50]

according to all three of you there is no learning in a lesson and whatever final performance results, doesn't qualify as the result of having learnt something.

Can we just put this to bed please Bernd. At no point has anyone ever said there is no learning in a lesson. The entire purpose of a lesson is to introduce content and promote the learning of it.

In order to assess the effectiveness any lesson, we have to have some idea about how much of the content we have delivered has sunk in. I hope we agree that the idea that 100% of the content has been "learned" is an absurd one. I am completely certain that even Mel experienced casters struggling to reproduce performance not only during but also after intensive training. It happens in front of my eyes almost every time I teach. I would like to use teaching techniques that minimise the losses and that means having a baseline to assess what has been learned.

This assessment you make on the basis of what a caster can do under supervision in the lesson. Mine is based on what a caster can do independently after the lesson. Thats all. My position is simply that performance under supervision is not particularly reliable evidence that something has been learned. It is definitely not that nothing has been learned at all.

As I've said before this is far from the accepted position in fly casting and it has been challenged many times on here and elsewhere. It is, however, a fairly standard analysis in almost every motor skills discipline, various sports, kids learning to write, training surgeons, flying helicopters to tying your shoelaces...even policemen use it.

[Paul Arden]

Hi Alan,

Riding a bike is a very good example. Someone coming to a lesson after a ten year hiatus and forgetting how to cast doesn’t happen in my experience. Of course there is a skills level drop, and that is a very interesting subject to explore. Not because it’s commonplace but because I’m sure it tells us about the learning and retention process.

Excellent question. If I am free to pick, every day coaching for highest efficiency.

I wouldn’t, but I would certainly pick very frequently. Then what? Would you criticise every cast, or set tasks? I know I would tell myself to FO very quickly, if I was breathing down my neck with every cast. As can be gleaned from this discussion, I’m already very difficult to teach. You might like being told what to do, I most certainly don’t!

The risk, of course, is that the method you choose to teach yourself doesn’t work. Maybe you needed what you had, which was figuring things out? How do you know what to teach directly, and what exploring to create for your student (yourself)?

How would you give yourself the very best opportunity, to teach yourself, the quickest and most successful route? Would you try making it up on the spot, or would you do some research into how people learn first?

And let’s make it more interesting... Let’s say that this all starts five years from now. How would you prepare? By simply doing 5 more years of instruction, the way you have been doing for the past 20? Or would you try to find out as much information about coaching as you can, from as many different places as possible?

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd Ziesche]

Mark,
I think we can put that definition part to bed.
I am still wondering why we struggle on this though. That is because the Oxford definitions are precise and clear.

I teach, my students learn. Having them perform and me coaching their performance in every exercise is part of the learning. The learning curve is an important tool for me to rate different ways of teaching and learning as well.

I do get your point, that we should focus on long term results, too (or even more if you prefer) and I agree in this.

I have automatically studied the relation between a) the final performance and understanding of each exercise I guide my students thru in a lesson and b) the outcome a year later over now 17 years. Clearly there is a strong relation. That relation is reliable, but not, if students dont train with what they have in the end of the lesson. If they dont, than this is not my fault as long as I did my proper part to inspire and motivate to train.

What I always tried to avoid is, to believe my students love to self explore a lot in training. Most simply cant or wont spent that much time. Especially not those fishing 10 to 20 days a year. So I want to deliver what really is needed a) to perform and b) to self analyse/trouble shoot. This has worked well for me.

I have seen much better results in teaching essentials. In fact tailings are gone. They usually dont even came in at all. This was very different before I taught whats needed to self trouble shoot.
Regards
Bernd