VIEW VIDEO
tiny.cc/xa2wgy
Check out Sugata Mitra's "Kids Can Teach Themselves" TED Talk, with his "Hole in the Wall" experiment outlined begining at the 7:22 mark.
is not to eliminate the teacher from the learning process, but to reshape our role. Critical to that is the understanding that children (and, indeed, all people) will learn to do what they want to learn to do. As facilitators, then, our fi rst priority is to motivate and engage our students; to get them to want to learn. I don’t think many snowsports instructors would disagree, but the discussion made me wonder if my own approach to teaching could negatively aff ect my students desire to learn. If that’s the case, what’s the culprit? Horst achieved his initial goal; he got me hooked not by providing an answer but a question.
TECHNIQUE-DRIVEN VS. EXPERIENCE-DRIVEN Horst next led us to compare technique- centered teaching and experience-driven teaching. As we combed through
Experiences, some of which might be entirely unexpected, serve to engage students more fully in learning.
The fact the student’s understanding is a product of the experience is a very important point, and possibly where snowsports instructors may miss the mark.
Experience-Centered Teaching: Q Shares the responsibility for learning between the teacher and the student
QRelies on the knowledge and participation of both the teacher and the student
QOften includes or is enhanced by elements from the technique-centered list
the
characteristics of each approach (see chart on page 68), I fi gured most snowsports teachers would see themselves using tactics from both and most students would identify elements from each list that could help them learn. So, yet again, Horst left me with a question. If both approaches are useful, why should teaching skiing and riding favor the experience-driven teaching list? As we reviewed opinions, stories, and best practices, I became aware of some crucial diff erences between the characteristics that defi ne these two approaches:
Technique-Centered Teaching: QPlaces the responsibility for learning on the teacher
I don’t consider these two approaches mutually exclusive and, in practice, I think most teaching happens on a continuum between these two extremes. However, comparing the processes highlights the value of the experiential approach in creating the Learning Partnership, a cornerstone of PSIA-AASI’s student-centered philosophy. It also made me more aware of how the technique-driven approach can diminish students’ participation in the process, their responsibility for learning, and perhaps even their motivation to learn. T is awareness has increased my support for the experiential approach.
QRelies predominantly on the knowledge and input of the teacher
QOften inhibits or excludes elements from the experience-centered list
MUCH MORE THAN ‘JUST DO IT’ METHODOLOGY Horst’s next order of business was to fi nd out what we knew about experiential learning and why it’s critical to teaching skiing, riding, or any motor skill. Most snowsports instructors value the idea that students need to be active in the learning process; that they need to “do it” to learn
it. However, helping a student improve their performance demands more from the instructor than a “just do it” methodology. To be eff ective, an experiential approach must be well-designed and target specifi c outcomes using a process that supports motor-skill acquisition.
KOLB’S EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING MODEL Discussions of this sort usually start with David Kolb and his four-stage experiential learning model, by which students learn
through: Q concrete experience, Q refl ective observation, Q abstract conceptualization, and Q active experimentation.
Our group generally understood this theory and embraced the concept, but we weren’t exactly subject-matter experts. Kolb’s model is based on the idea of “learning through refl ection on doing.”
In this respect the
learning cycle generally begins with a concrete experience (doing something) and is followed by refl ection, conceptualization, and experimentation – which leads to improved performance and understanding. T e fact the student’s understanding is a
product of the experience is a very important point, and possibly where snowsports
THESNOWPROS.ORG | 69
SCOTT MARKEWITZ
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124