Structuring multiple lessons

[VGB]

That’s why I’m a fan of the Constraints Led Approach as a way of hanging all of this together . It then becomes clear that significant changes to task, environmental or individual constraints will mean a consequent adjustment to the pattern.

Regards

Vince

[Paul Arden]

Hi Mark,

While I think many would agree with this…

The other is coaching, which is how to narrow performance to meet specific, invariant task criteria ie in competition or assessment.

I think narrowing the coaching to fit specific performance criteria is a mistake here too. The best competitive casters have the widest range of overall casting ability. This didn’t come about by simply practising one event, but by expanding their ability to perform all casts at very high levels.

It follows I think, that if learning and training Spey casts improves someone’s ability to carry line, assisting their 5WT carry for example, then not learning Spey casts will put them at a disadvantage.

I regularly see your example put into practise in instructor training and I’m quite sure that this is also a mistake. A very good example is the target accuracy requirement. I don’t believe that the best way to perform at these three targets at fixed distances in a straight line is to set this up as the practise exercise. Rather, far better IMO, is to set up the WC course using four targets at random distances. Then three fixed targets is very easy.

Another example would be blocked practise of hitting a curved cast at X fixed distance in the MCI exam. Is this best for learning curved casts? No, I don’t believe so. Far better is to introduce random practise and place the curve point at random distances.

In fact just training the 40’ carry exercises is also a mistake. Sure train 40’ but also train all the exercises at all lengths, both shorter and longer. Just because the requirements state such and such a distance that in no way indicates that one should only practise at these distances.

Narrowing the performance only serves to limit the ability to perform, even within the very specific performance requirements of an exam.

Cheers, Paul

[Stoatstail50]

That’s why I’m a fan of the Constraints Led Approach as a way of hanging all of this together . It then becomes clear that significant changes to task, environmental or individual constraints will mean a consequent adjustment to the pattern.

Yep, me too.

And the point is that casting “patterns” are extremely fuzzy and, at root, conceptually, very simple. Backwards/forwards…changes in force/ time/ posture.

Overhead casting 20’ and casting 40’ fit the same basic pattern but require different force and positional inputs.

If your student is going to go fishing then the immediate need is to begin to learn how to vary the underlying patterns. This is not at all difficult to do, even for a complete beginner. If we teach a beginner student the darts position in order to reproduce one highly constrained variant of a general motor program then not only have we ignored some basic learning principles, we haven’t properly prepared them to meet their personal objectives.

There were dozens of people being taught this way at the EWF last weekend but if you walked out to the rod testing area or watched the demos you’d be hard put to find anyone actually casting like this. What’s it for ?

[Stoatstail50]

Paul, I agree to a certain extent in that I’m certain that high variability in drill objectives when training for an assessment is going to significantly improve a candidates ability to deliver in the test. However, if the objective remains a largely error free, repeatable performance of an invariant task then that is inevitably going to drive some blocked repetitive drilling because there’s no other way to measure error.

We’ve discussed the differences and when to use them before. For beginners I use a hybrid but if I were mentoring candidates there would be a period of straight up blocked practice alongside the variable.

[Paul Arden]

Hi Mark,

I try very hard to get them away from blocked practise. It’s extremely difficult to make changes that are retained this way. In fact it’s very difficult to make changes at all. Often the more they try, the worse it gets. It starts to look robotic or forced, and it’s simply not robust. Add some exam pressure, maybe a breeze and it’s in risk of all turning belly up.

That to me happens simply because the practise was blocked. It’s very easy to put variety into all these exercises and I think the student instructor will be much better for it.

I use your walking around drill all the time now. And with higher level students.

Incidentally later on I think it makes sense to introduce patterns; it allows students to make “gear changes” and allows them to contrast different techniques. Often intermediate students have a one stroke fits all, which it does to a degree, but if they want to advance to a higher level I think they need to start dividing it up. The best technique for a close range backhand shot is totally different to a long range backhand shot for example. Something that’s midway between the two, will do both, but neither particularly well.

Cheers, Paul

[Stoatstail50]

Conventional training for the assessment has been almost exclusively blocked. If there is any acknowledgement of good practice technique it has only been in incremental changes to line length between blocked practice sessions. It is focussed on error free repetitive performance.

I’m a great believer in the value of variable drilling but it has to be used in context and with a specific purpose. In this case I don’t think you can send a candidate to an assessment without there being some confidence that they are largely error free at the test distances. This means supplementing variable with blocked repetitive performance of the tasks in order to check for error and drive confidence, “self efficacy”, in the candidate. They need to know they can do it.

Students who have a one stroke fits all have it because that’s usually what they’ve been taught…which is nuts.

Walking is just one way of using contextual interference to disrupt that kind of behaviour.

[Paul Arden]

Here is an extreme example, that I have encountered. Two training MCI candidates trying to learn to overpower curves around a target at MCI distances… when they couldn’t overpower curve at the rod tip.

I think we can pretty much assume that they did this for all tasks. In other words only training with MCI line lengths. This is like learning to drive the car by only driving in third gear because you are going to be tested at third gear.

There is a lot to be learned in first and second gear. That these guys are instructors is no different from anyone learning and developing a new skill for a first time.

Of course they have to be able to do the exam requirements. In fact ideally they should be very comfortable doing them, which means they should be able to do more than the exam requirements at a pinch. If they are borderline in training then I don’t they are likely to pass under exam stress.

Later. Big bike ride!

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

And the point is that casting “patterns” are extremely fuzzy and, at root, conceptually, very simple. Backwards/forwards…changes in force/ time/ posture.

I think that the non intuitive part is that fuzzier is better for fishing applications than refined solutions

There were dozens of people being taught this way at the EWF last weekend but if you walked out to the rod testing area or watched the demos you’d be hard put to find anyone actually casting like this. What’s it for ?

I was asked at one session “What is a PUALD for, why would I want to do that on a river, my line is changing length all the time”. I mumbled something about didactic exercises.

Regards

Vince

[Paul Arden]

I’m not sure it’s one or the other. I think it needs to be a bit of both. I do have uses for the PUALD at different lengths because it allows us to work on the pickup backcast. But I certainly don’t think that’s where we should be starting people.

Even if the fishing application was to pickup 30’ of flyline and put it straight back down, I wouldn’t recommend this as the only exercise to train. The more variations we can put into movement, the better even this very specific exercise will be.

I think one of the reasons Speys are so effective is because people are so used to trying to move straight. It’s like “oh we some other movements”. More variety with line length, positions and angles, is like Rob Grey’s baseball coaching program.

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

It’s probably a bit philosophical but I try and tie everything back to the objective. For me, the goal isn’t to get good at doing drills but to develop transferable skills for fishing. Anyone can get good at a PUALD drill with enough practice, but with a single lesson limitation I want the student to leave with something to take to the river immediately. The PUALD that is commonly taught is for a narrow skills demonstration that is applicable in an assessment.

I do teach getting the fly off the water but then develop the transition into a false or delivery cast and I teach the roll cast PU instead of the PUALD.

Regards

Vince