This is the fifth post in a series that compares traditional teaching to the learning that occurs in the best karate dojos.
The last post looked at the role of feedback in teaching and learning. An extension of feedback is testing and assessment. Beyond improving learning in a specific case, testing and assessment are meant to be a summary look at a learners progress against a standard for performance. The stakes are higher for the learner.
In a traditional classroom, learning is time based. Tests are given at a standardized time in the learning. At risk is the learner's grade and more importantly, the learner's self-esteem and motivation. In contrast, tests are given in a dojo only when the sensei has confidence in the learner to pass the test. Thus, the testing in a dojo is ability based, rather than time. Ability based testing sets up a learning situation that values competence over speed of learning.
While time-based, high-stakes tests have the potential to harm the learning process, there are some who argue that competency testing, especially when associated with a belt system also can harm the learning process. Both, they argue, shift motivation from the competence itself to an external reward - a passing grade in a course or a specific color of belt.
If done properly and in the right learning culture, belts and their associated testing, can also be motivational. As mentioned, if belt testing is done only after high confidence in the learner's ability to pass, which is developed based on observation of competence in each of the tested components, then the learner has formal recognition of competency for oneself and the collaborative community. If there's a supportive learning community, then the belt, rather than primarily ranking the learner within the community, is an opportunity for the community to collaboratively support the learner on the journey to high-competence.
Showing posts with label authentic learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authentic learning. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Teaching Vs Learning Karate 3 - More Authentic Learning
This is the third post in a series that compares traditional teaching to the learning that occurs in the best karate dojos.
If you've read posts 1 and 2, you may be saying, "wait a minute - karate is not authentic, because my sensei is all into bowing, and ousing, and we punch the air all the time." And if he or she does, you have a point - I concede that not all karate teaching is authentic, and in fact, I'm arguing for much more of teaching in karate to be authentic. You can find plenty of commentary, such as 24 Fighting Chickens and Bruce Lee who make the point that traditional karate is non-authentic.
Let's return to some more authentic and inauthentic examples of training.
Take stances. We spend lots of time learning in shotokan karate about front stance. Front stance is authentic only if your goal is traditional art - then it's used primarily in kata. For any kind of self defense or sparring, kumite stance is used. It is a springy stance alowing movement in any direction and great power. On rare occasions, you might see someone shift from kumite stance to front stance for a finishing blow.
If your goal is self-defense or sport karate, authentic training should be tied to your skill level. You might start with one-step kumite, which pairs people into defender, attacker pairs. Initially, the attacker tells the defender what's coming, executes, and it's up to the defender to get out of the way, parry, block, or counter-attack as appropriate. Still, you might ask, why is that authentic? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't - it depends on the skill level of the practitioners. If at least one of the karateka is not experienced, at least one-step kumite slows things down so that the less experienced person doesn't get clobbered, and has a chance to develop awareness, timing, and can be comfortable in these simplified situations before moving on.
Sidebar: in an earlier post, I mentioned "scaffolding" where the difficulty of learning situations is progressively increased. Learning theorists sometimes call a goldilocks exercise like this that is not too hard and yet not too easy, a zone of proximal development or ZPD. The goal of every instructor should be to find the ZPD for his or her students. Let's return to the example.
Let's say the students have become comfortable with one-step kumite. It's easy to increase the difficulty while controlling for safety by adding parry-and-counter to the initial attack. In parry-and-coutner, the defender knows what's coming, but has to parry and counter-attack. A more difficult progression is to limit the number of moves to 2 or 3, tell the defender that one of the set is coming, but not which. Good sensei's progress until free-sparring is developed.
Taking authenticity one step further, are folks like Peyton Quinn who developed "Adrenal Stress Conditioning". The dress attackers up in big padded suits, develop realistic scenarios, add screaming and shouting, and then freak the defenders out. The purpose is not to overwhelm them, but to teach them as authentically yet safely as possible. Authentically, because in real life, you often get freaked out, your adrenaline kicks in, and your motor control and vision degrade considerably. "Redman" is a variant that many law enforcement agencies use. If you're not freaked out by one assailant, then they use two. If that's not bad enough, they arm them. You get the point.
Meanwhile, back in the classroom...
Johny is doing times tables and copying spelling words. He's probably wishing he could put his teacher through some authentic red man training. Maybe then the students could start doing some authentic learning.
If you've read posts 1 and 2, you may be saying, "wait a minute - karate is not authentic, because my sensei is all into bowing, and ousing, and we punch the air all the time." And if he or she does, you have a point - I concede that not all karate teaching is authentic, and in fact, I'm arguing for much more of teaching in karate to be authentic. You can find plenty of commentary, such as 24 Fighting Chickens and Bruce Lee who make the point that traditional karate is non-authentic.
Let's return to some more authentic and inauthentic examples of training.
Take stances. We spend lots of time learning in shotokan karate about front stance. Front stance is authentic only if your goal is traditional art - then it's used primarily in kata. For any kind of self defense or sparring, kumite stance is used. It is a springy stance alowing movement in any direction and great power. On rare occasions, you might see someone shift from kumite stance to front stance for a finishing blow.
If your goal is self-defense or sport karate, authentic training should be tied to your skill level. You might start with one-step kumite, which pairs people into defender, attacker pairs. Initially, the attacker tells the defender what's coming, executes, and it's up to the defender to get out of the way, parry, block, or counter-attack as appropriate. Still, you might ask, why is that authentic? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't - it depends on the skill level of the practitioners. If at least one of the karateka is not experienced, at least one-step kumite slows things down so that the less experienced person doesn't get clobbered, and has a chance to develop awareness, timing, and can be comfortable in these simplified situations before moving on.
Sidebar: in an earlier post, I mentioned "scaffolding" where the difficulty of learning situations is progressively increased. Learning theorists sometimes call a goldilocks exercise like this that is not too hard and yet not too easy, a zone of proximal development or ZPD. The goal of every instructor should be to find the ZPD for his or her students. Let's return to the example.
Let's say the students have become comfortable with one-step kumite. It's easy to increase the difficulty while controlling for safety by adding parry-and-counter to the initial attack. In parry-and-coutner, the defender knows what's coming, but has to parry and counter-attack. A more difficult progression is to limit the number of moves to 2 or 3, tell the defender that one of the set is coming, but not which. Good sensei's progress until free-sparring is developed.
Taking authenticity one step further, are folks like Peyton Quinn who developed "Adrenal Stress Conditioning". The dress attackers up in big padded suits, develop realistic scenarios, add screaming and shouting, and then freak the defenders out. The purpose is not to overwhelm them, but to teach them as authentically yet safely as possible. Authentically, because in real life, you often get freaked out, your adrenaline kicks in, and your motor control and vision degrade considerably. "Redman" is a variant that many law enforcement agencies use. If you're not freaked out by one assailant, then they use two. If that's not bad enough, they arm them. You get the point.
Meanwhile, back in the classroom...
Johny is doing times tables and copying spelling words. He's probably wishing he could put his teacher through some authentic red man training. Maybe then the students could start doing some authentic learning.
Teaching Vs Learning Karate 2 - Learner vs Teacher Centered
This is the second post in a series that compares traditional teaching to the learning that occurs in the best karate dojos.
If you've been involved in teaching you know the phrases "sage on the stage" versus "guide on the side". The "sage on the stage" is the old model of teacher-centered learning. In this version, a wise teacher or sensei imparts knowledge through lecture and story-telling to a large audience of eager learners.
The problem with teacher centered learning and lecture in particular is that it is not authentic - it does not match the learning environment with the performance environment. If it did, then we would find ourselves in a self-defense situation able to get out of it by putting our assailant to sleep with a lecture!
Not all teacher-centered instruction is lecture, of course. Other forms of teacher-centered instruction assume that the teacher knows all and the students just need to learn from the teacher.
To be fair, not all K12 teachers teach this way (the best ones don't), and many karate Sensei
do teach this way (and again, the best ones don't).
The best instruction in karate follows the student-centered approach. Sensei's teach authentically by asking:
I would have a conversation with my students about bullying experiences. I would get them to characterize situations and add one of my own, if appropriate. I would explore the rules of the school and the consequences of those rules. I would encourage my students to have conversations with their parents about bullying if its an issue. These conversations create a student-centered learning context. I find out what's important to them, and then create learning scenarios appropriate to their wants and to their level of karate.
A possible scenario is to defend against the shove. I would explore student notions of defense. Usually these are quite aggressive resonses involving hitting and kicking. Karate principles include "win by not fighting" and "no first attack" so we'd also practice some verbal defenses as well as attack avoidance. We'd pair-up, try some shouting of "no" and "back off" and explain you want to get everyone's attention that you're not interested in fighting. If it ends there, great. If it doesn't, then everyone knows you tried to avoid it. We'd then incorporate "defense by avoidance" such as side stepping a rush or stiff-arming an attack. By doing so, we learn some useful techniques that we can scaffold into an entire learning sequence that builds on knowledge already gained, and progresses as skill and knowledge are developed to increasingly challenging scenarios.
The type of learning advocated here involves some talking and a lot of doing. The talking is to ensure alignment with learners' goals and to create a learning context. The doing is where the learning takes place. To be effective, most of the time in learning should be spent doing. By practicing with a partner, students are able to try techniques, from which they get immediate feedback on whether they understand, whether their techniques are effective, and their learning is completely authentic. Besides those benefits, this type of learning keeps them engaged and enjoying their learning.
In he next post, I'll compare this teaching example to the traditional classroom. In future posts, I'll describe methods of feedback, assessment, and expand on partnering to a full discussion of collaborative learning.
If you've been involved in teaching you know the phrases "sage on the stage" versus "guide on the side". The "sage on the stage" is the old model of teacher-centered learning. In this version, a wise teacher or sensei imparts knowledge through lecture and story-telling to a large audience of eager learners.
The problem with teacher centered learning and lecture in particular is that it is not authentic - it does not match the learning environment with the performance environment. If it did, then we would find ourselves in a self-defense situation able to get out of it by putting our assailant to sleep with a lecture!
Not all teacher-centered instruction is lecture, of course. Other forms of teacher-centered instruction assume that the teacher knows all and the students just need to learn from the teacher.
To be fair, not all K12 teachers teach this way (the best ones don't), and many karate Sensei
do teach this way (and again, the best ones don't).
The best instruction in karate follows the student-centered approach. Sensei's teach authentically by asking:
- What does the student want to learn and how can I capitalize on that motivation?
- What expertise can the I bring to the problem?
- What type of practice is needed that is authentic, but is also ability-appropriate?
- What feedback can I give to affirm progress and adjust performance?
I would have a conversation with my students about bullying experiences. I would get them to characterize situations and add one of my own, if appropriate. I would explore the rules of the school and the consequences of those rules. I would encourage my students to have conversations with their parents about bullying if its an issue. These conversations create a student-centered learning context. I find out what's important to them, and then create learning scenarios appropriate to their wants and to their level of karate.
A possible scenario is to defend against the shove. I would explore student notions of defense. Usually these are quite aggressive resonses involving hitting and kicking. Karate principles include "win by not fighting" and "no first attack" so we'd also practice some verbal defenses as well as attack avoidance. We'd pair-up, try some shouting of "no" and "back off" and explain you want to get everyone's attention that you're not interested in fighting. If it ends there, great. If it doesn't, then everyone knows you tried to avoid it. We'd then incorporate "defense by avoidance" such as side stepping a rush or stiff-arming an attack. By doing so, we learn some useful techniques that we can scaffold into an entire learning sequence that builds on knowledge already gained, and progresses as skill and knowledge are developed to increasingly challenging scenarios.
The type of learning advocated here involves some talking and a lot of doing. The talking is to ensure alignment with learners' goals and to create a learning context. The doing is where the learning takes place. To be effective, most of the time in learning should be spent doing. By practicing with a partner, students are able to try techniques, from which they get immediate feedback on whether they understand, whether their techniques are effective, and their learning is completely authentic. Besides those benefits, this type of learning keeps them engaged and enjoying their learning.
In he next post, I'll compare this teaching example to the traditional classroom. In future posts, I'll describe methods of feedback, assessment, and expand on partnering to a full discussion of collaborative learning.
Teaching Vs Learning Karate 1 - Overview
In a previous post, I spoke of "Authentic Learning" as creating a learning environment and activities to be as similar as possible to the performance environment. In this blog, I compare the learning that occurs in traditional K12 classrooms to the learning in a typical dojo, and show that even when karate dojos are not perfectly authentic to a learner's purpose, that their methods are generally superior.
In a series of blog posts, I will compare the following areas:
My goal in writing this series is to both influence traditional teaching to be more authentic and to influence dojo instruction to focus on best practices.
In a series of blog posts, I will compare the following areas:
My goal in writing this series is to both influence traditional teaching to be more authentic and to influence dojo instruction to focus on best practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
