The Board

An excellent point Lasse. In that case my post was shit. Yours I agree with!

You ask teachers what they think they are good at.

Interesting idea.

Hi Pete

Actually, Bernd's asking everyone what they think teachers should be good at

That is actually and interesting idea!

Cheers
Lasse

Hi Lasse
I was assuming that if a teacher thought that they should be good at something then they would make it happen. Therefore my original point is valid.

Pete

Agree Bernd, the analytical skill component becomes more important the more advanced the pupil is and the more marginal the improvement requirement becomes.

John

There are entire libraries on the things teachers should be good at, university courses to train teachers to be good at things...and instructors are prone to overestimating their abilities Pete, I am anyway, as I have learned to my cost recently...it's all very well listing the things that we are supposed to be good at, how do you measure whether you actually are good at them ?

In the case of casting instructors we are required to be enormously adaptable, beginners one minute, long service, experienced casters the next. Not only do these different experience levels challenge our instructional abilities, the basket of methods employed instructing a twelve year old who has never held a rod will be likely different to those employed in instructing a fifty year old who has never held a rod.

Even though the psychomotor skills you are expecting these two individuals to develop are exactly the same and the kinesthetic elements of a lesson likely very similar, your relationship may be very different and their respective physiological abilities developmentally will require you to adopt different objectives for each caster.

This too is an important skill because it allows an instructor to set achievable goals based on the abilities of the student and not on the expectations of the instructor...you may have more to give but you have to know when to stop.

Agree Bernd, the analytical skill component becomes more important the more advanced the pupil is and the more marginal the improvement requirement becomes.

This may be true but how important is it for our twelve year old above John ? Complete beginner...everything is an improvement. We can have this kid making a serviceable cast within about 15 minutes just using basic rod/line control excercises. Analytical skill here, for me, is nothing compared for the need to encourage this kid to take what they have learned to the fish, to fill them with the idea that this is easy, not hard, that they have succeeded, not failed.

I think this is largely true right up to the "super" casters who may need a "super" instructor to spot the micro errors....this would clearly not be me because I lack that depth of understanding and I dont want to instruct super casters because they scare the shit out of me...should I stop teaching ? ..

"This may be true but how important is it for our twelve year old above John ?"

Hi Mark,

It is not important for the 12 yo, when I assume basic casting tenets are important and will be communicated in a manner that meets the improvement objectives. Analytical skill does not replace any other teaching skill, but is a requirement that needs attention. Got to take my comments with a grain of salt as I have not undertaken any casting instruction test but am an avid pupil who has engaged a few instructors in my attempts to improve my casting.

I am not sure there are "super" instructors, in my opinion it is about the instructor understanding the client's objectives, ascertaining the client's current level of performance/competence and establishing a program of improvement that is understood by the client as achievable and effective. I believe the only difference between the 12 yo student and the advanced student is the analytical ability of the teacher and his/her skill level to define and implement the appropriate improvement program.

As I said, my opinion has been defined as a student, not as an instructor but I aspire taking an Instructors' test one day.

John

Stoatstail50 wrote:Even though the psychomotor skills you are expecting these two individuals to develop are exactly the same and the kinesthetic elements of a lesson likely very similar, your relationship may be very different and their respective physiological abilities developmentally will require you to adopt different objectives for each caster.

I understood all of that up to "Even though the...."

In any discipline, including fly casting, the best instructor/teacher for me is the one that has captured and kept my interest. I have been taught by geniuses and superb technicians but I have the attention span of a 4 year old if I am not engaged very quickly

Got to take my comments with a grain of salt as I have not undertaken any casting instruction test but am an avid pupil who has engaged a few instructors in my attempts to improve my casting.

Actually John, that, in my opinion qualifies you perfectly to comment...

When we pass a casting instruction test it's not as if our examiners have waved their little Tinkerbell wands and sprinkled magic instructor dust over us all...my first lesson after passing my CI was an abject failure by almost every objective standard, I still have nightmares about it...overconfidence led to a massive and embarrassing fkup. This was matched only by robbing Fauvets tool box and telling "Big Brian" from Newcastle to relax his butt cheeks whilst standing immediately behind him... this proved to be a poor judgement call.

So I think that another important skill is for an instructor to be objective about their own abilities and their ongoing development as an instructor, this means you don't bite off more than you can chew.

Stoatstail50 wrote:This was matched only by robbing Fauvets tool box and telling "Big Brian" from Newcastle to relax his butt cheeks whilst standing immediately behind him... this proved to be a poor judgement call.

Happy endings are not included as standard then?