Don't say what you mean

[Andy Mink]

From someone who hasn't taken a lesson in many, many years, I'd guess that MOST people want to ski without knowing why all tech stuff is important. When you get into the upper classes I think that's when center of mass, angulation, etc. becomes important to not only to do but to understand. It's kind of like people who drive cars vs car people. The first group just wants a mode of transportation. The second group delves deeper into why different cars do what they do.

In the end it depends on the student as to how the instructor should instruct. My .02 worth.

 

[Monique]

That's the problem right there. "Learning styles" are part of a model intended to help instructors (most of whom have no formal education in instruction), not students. Outside of that model, those styles don't exist, and within the model they are far too limiting. It's simply wrong to suggest that anyone can only learn in one preferred style. Buying in to that model creates a self-inflicted learning disability. Everyone should learn in every way possible, and in a way that is most appropriate for the skill that needs to be learned.

IME it's the overly analytical people who have the most trouble learning skiing or other physical skills, and ironically they benefit the most (in all aspects of their life) by sometimes working in a non-analytical way. At least that's how it worked out for me.

dm

Sure. My most frequent feedback from instructors is, "You're a beautiful skier! Stop being so hard on yourself, and stop thinking so much!" And I do my best to just ski. I really do. Sometimes, I pull it off.

But you're telling me not to get locked into one style of learning, while telling me that you lock yourself into one style of teaching because you don't like the analytical approach. So, pot, meet kettle?

FWIW, I have heard about the research that learning styles are not actually demonstrable in real life, and that people learn best when material is presented in multiple "styles." Totally agree with that.

I don't mind when an instructor says, "Experiment with X on the way to the lift." It's when the entire day is full of "Just go do this without any expectations, and tell me what you feel" that I feel lost and confused. What I feel? I feel like I have no idea what I'm looking for, so I revert to my regular mode of skiing. I can do that on my own. I'm paying for expertise.

Also, most instructors are dealing with people who show up for maybe one day a season. I take a lesson series with the same instructor, so we can start a technical discussion and continue it throughout the season.

 

[Dave Marshak]

But you're telling me not to get locked into one style of learning, while telling me that you lock yourself into one style of teaching because you don't like the analytical approach. So, pot, meet kettle?

Not at all.

I use a technical approach whenever it is appropriate, as when I taught math. When I teach skiing, I understand that I have to meet the student where he/she is, and sometimes that means they want technical explanations, which I can provide. But learning doesn't really begin until you move past the analysis. Teaching is about moving people away from where they are to a new, better place, not about telling them what they want to hear. In sports skills, that means leaving technical descriptions behind, and developing a visceral understanding of sensations.

dm

 

[mdf]

And circling back to useful lies, or at least half truths....

I'm a very analytical person, and I enjoy understanding the physics behind skiing. But when actually learning skiing, the main function performed by a technical explanation is to shut up the part of the brain that wants one.

 

[AmyPJ]

For me, I'm a "why" person. I want to know WHY an instructor is having me do a particular drill or movement. I think the reason is that I can visualize it better, I don't know. For example, just telling me to pull my feet back doesn't make sense until I understand WHY, then I can picture my entire body and where it ultimately should be over the skis.

 

[Doby Man]

My three cents (inflation) on the OP’s discussion is that the more one knows about ski technique, the less they will need to say on the side of the hill. While obviously not in regards to my posts, I consider words at a premium when teaching/coaching on snow. When reading and writing, I sharpen my teeth with the details. When I’m on the hill, it is all about a very conservative selection of those details. Also, having a theme, a continuous thread, a foundation or a system of organization from which our entire understanding of alpine ski technique and anything we might say to a student will extend is something that will keep us from saying things that do not balance with other things we might say. If your knowledge of ski technique is a cluster phuq of a bunch of concepts you’ve heard over the years, you may find yourself in trouble on a more frequent basis. Lastly, half of what you say to a student will be representative of what you know and the other half, what you see. What you “see” is movement analysis. Have a common pattern for your moving analysis. While creative analogies off the cuff are great, your foundation of analysis shared should be consistent. I’ve heard instructors talk themselves into corners in front of sharp customers and it can get very awkward. While I do not remember anything specifically, I’m sure I have. Among the three recommendations above that were taught to me in my heyday, I have found it easier to stay out of those corners. I agree that breaking down what an instructor asks a student to do between the input/output and advantage/benefit goes without saying. A key facet to a good lesson is providing the student the ability to continue practicing what was taught in the lesson long after or until the next lesson (as any good little student should). If they cannot follow through with a reasonably correct series of repetitions well beyond the day of the lesson, very little development from what is/was learned will become established.

 

[DavidSkis]

Sure. My most frequent feedback from instructors is, "You're a beautiful skier! Stop being so hard on yourself, and stop thinking so much!" And I do my best to just ski. I really do. Sometimes, I pull it off.

I've gotten this feedback as well (disclaimer: I have my level 3 teach). "Stop thinking so much" tends to come from people who don't understand how your brain works or your true diligence around making each moment into a valuable training experience. When I hear it from clinic leaders, sometimes I think it speaks more to their lack of understanding or their inability to articulate what they mean. I'll often say "hey, can we ride up the chair together?" to get more out of them.

It also sometimes comes from instructors when they see someone getting very mechanical in their skiing, which makes their skiing look worse.

If the instructor thinks that one learner is too wrapped up in their head, one tactic that can work is to switch to an external tactical focus for the run. Tactics need to be appropriate for whatever skill the instructor's trying to develop, but the idea is to do something like "ski the banks on each of these bumps" or "see how much snow you can spray up the hill" or "use the shadows from this chairlift line to stay within a corridor".

I don't mind when an instructor says, "Experiment with X on the way to the lift." It's when the entire day is full of "Just go do this without any expectations, and tell me what you feel" that I feel lost and confused. What I feel? I feel like I have no idea what I'm looking for, so I revert to my regular mode of skiing. I can do that on my own. I'm paying for expertise.

For this tactic to work, the instructor needs to give you some good cues (e.g. "we're going to play with our balance. Do 4 turns balancing on the ball of the foot, 4 turns balancing over the arch, 4 turns balancing over the heel. Then we'll talk about how it affected your skiing")
...then the debrief has to be guided too (e.g. Which of the three balance points felt easier to start the turn? Which felt the most balanced throughout the turn?). THEN the instructor can build the discovery into skill development. That's the difference between guided discovery versus just... guiding down the mountain.