Matching Teaching style to Developmental Level

[Chris McKinley]

In the CMA + MMA thread, I began to mention to Dmitri a model of business/personnel management that I use in consulting called the Situational Leadership II model from Ken Blanchard. I also frequently use that model as a starting point to describe to other MA instructors how to more usefully match their teaching style to the needs of the student. For the purposes of discussion, I'll give an introductory description of the model, which consists of two interactive parts.

Part 1: According to the model, any new learner is shown to follow a pattern of progression in any new area of endeavor or any new skill set that includes the following developmental stages:

* D1 -- Low Competence/High Commitment -- this is the stage where the learner is the enthusastic beginner. He isn't skilled yet, but he doesn't expect to be; he's still just excited about the possibility of training and of one day obtaining the skill.

* D2 -- Low to Some Competence/Low Commitment -- at this stage, the novelty has worn off and is beginning to be replaced by some degree of familiarity and a burgeoning level of skill. Quite often, this is also accompanied by a sense of perspective at just how un-skilled the learner actually is compared to his goals, and this often results in a period of discouragement and self-dissatisfaction that can lead to a lowered commitment to the training. This is commonly the stage where the most learners are lost to attrition.

* D3 -- Moderate to High Competence/Variable Commitment -- at this stage, the learner has pushed through the discouragement phase and has developed an enjoyable/motivating degree of skill. However, as with anything in life in which a person practices over the long term, there can be "good" days and "bad" days, even extended periods, with regard to motivation and commitment to training and learning.

* D4 -- High Competence/High Commitment -- at this stage, the learner has progressed to the point where the satisfaction of learning and continued progression is entirely self-sustaining, requiring no outside validation or bolstering.


Part 2: The model also contains a description of four basic leadership/teaching styles. They range along an axis from high to low directive behavior and from low to high supportive behavior. I'll explain in the following:

Directing -- High Directive/Low Supportive Behavior -- this is the classic "hand-holding" style of leadership and corresponds to D1 above. Motivation is usually not needed, since the learner is still at the enthusiastic beginner stage of development, but clear, precise and meticulous direction is. While it's often resented by more advanced learners, it's actually perfectly appropriate and gratefully appreciated by brand new learners who are so new and unfamiliar with the learning content that they actually need and want to be told exactly and precisely what, how and when to do things. It is also common for learners at this level to be unfamiliar with the jargonistic vocabulary of the given activity, so they appreciate being told precisely how to do something in very straightforward terms, i.e., "plain English", so to speak. This style of leadership is also appropriate for teaching learners who are too new to the material to appreciate big-picture patterns, theories and principles yet.

Coaching -- High Directive/High Supportive Behavior -- this style corresponds to D2 above, where the learner has just begun to develop some skill, but is starting to experience discouragement and frustration at the pace of continued developmental progress. The learner needs both liberal amounts of motivation and encouragement in order to "keep at it" long enough to make it through periods of discouragement. While he no longer needs or wants his hand held for the absolute basics, he still requires very precise instruction on how to improve/progress from here, so directive behavior is still also high.

Supporting -- High Supportive/Low Directive Behavior -- this style corresponds to D3 above, where the learner has begun to develop a mostly-self-sustaining practice, but still experiences plateaus and temporary impasses which require occasional bursts of high motivation and encouragement. Due to increasing competence, the need for specific direction is lessening considerably. Where it is still best-used is for minor course correction, shoring up weak points or bad habits in performance, and for providing specific solutions when an impasse in performance is reached. This style of leadership is more along the lines of the end-stages of a classic mentorship, where the mentor begins to draw back and let the protege operate increasingly on his own, stepping in only occasionally to provide least-invasive input, correction or corroboration.

Delegating -- Low Supportive/Low Directive Behavior -- this style corresponds to D4 above, where the learner has learned to "fly on his own", so to speak. At this stage, he is capable of a fully self-sustaining practice with regard to both motivation and to technical performance correction/improvement. The leader at this stage remains only in a capacity of administrator or overseer, with the learner functioning fully on his own without input. The learner will ideally "check in" at agreed-upon intervals or on occasions where troubleshooting by a more experienced person is needed. This style will naturally progress to a point where no further leadership of any kind is required.

[Ben]

Nice, thanks Chris

[NoSword]

Part 2: The model also contains a description of four basic leadership/teaching styles. They range along an axis from high to low directive behavior and from low to high supportive behavior. I'll explain in the following:

Directing -- High Directive/Low Supportive Behavior -- this is the classic "hand-holding" style of leadership and corresponds to D1 above. Motivation is usually not needed, since the learner is still at the enthusiastic beginner stage of development, but clear, precise and meticulous direction is. While it's often resented by more advanced learners, it's actually perfectly appropriate and gratefully appreciated by brand new learners who are so new and unfamiliar with the learning content that they actually need and want to be told exactly and precisely what, how and when to do things. It is also common for learners at this level to be unfamiliar with the jargonistic vocabulary of the given activity, so they appreciate being told precisely how to do something in very straightforward terms, i.e., "plain English", so to speak. This style of leadership is also appropriate for teaching learners who are too new to the material to appreciate big-picture patterns, theories and principles yet.

Coaching -- High Directive/High Supportive Behavior -- this style corresponds to D2 above, where the learner has just begun to develop some skill, but is starting to experience discouragement and frustration at the pace of continued developmental progress. The learner needs both liberal amounts of motivation and encouragement in order to "keep at it" long enough to make it through periods of discouragement. While he no longer needs or wants his hand held for the absolute basics, he still requires very precise instruction on how to improve/progress from here, so directive behavior is still also high.

Supporting -- High Supportive/Low Directive Behavior -- this style corresponds to D3 above, where the learner has begun to develop a mostly-self-sustaining practice, but still experiences plateaus and temporary impasses which require occasional bursts of high motivation and encouragement. Due to increasing competence, the need for specific direction is lessening considerably. Where it is still best-used is for minor course correction, shoring up weak points or bad habits in performance, and for providing specific solutions when an impasse in performance is reached. This style of leadership is more along the lines of the end-stages of a classic mentorship, where the mentor begins to draw back and let the protege operate increasingly on his own, stepping in only occasionally to provide least-invasive input, correction or corroboration.

Delegating -- Low Supportive/Low Directive Behavior -- this style corresponds to D4 above, where the learner has learned to "fly on his own", so to speak. At this stage, he is capable of a fully self-sustaining practice with regard to both motivation and to technical performance correction/improvement. The leader at this stage remains only in a capacity of administrator or overseer, with the learner functioning fully on his own without input. The learner will ideally "check in" at agreed-upon intervals or on occasions where troubleshooting by a more experienced person is needed. This style will naturally progress to a point where no further leadership of any kind is required.

I will always draw inspiration from my Tongbei teacher's teaching method, since it works well for me. He's been very distant in his teaching. Right now he is in the midst of a move to Australia and is in and out of Taipei. Also, he recognizes that for him to teach jibengong to a newbie Westerner is mostly a waste of his time. So every week I meet with a senior student and we train hard. The senior student is all smiles and encouragement, telling me each week how great my improvement is, etc. But periodically and without advance notice, the teacher will show up at our practice and drill our asses into the ground (last time I couldn't eat afterwards.) The student keeps the teacher informed on my progress and the teacher tells him what to teach me. Then if we want corrections, we have to go "look for him" at his house outside of Taipei. We sit and drink tea and he tells us all about how crap our gongfu is. It's basically a "good cop/bad cop" relationship. I'm digging it.

[ppscat]

great text, right to the point, thanks Chris!

[Chris McKinley]

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

Now that I've outlined the model, I'd like to take a look at how some of the most obvious and common errors in matching teaching style to the learner occur in the martial arts we study. Some of these errors are cultural, arising from endemic assumptions of the cultures of origin from which these arts originate regarding the nature of social hierarchy, class-based distinctions, and disparate assumptions of individual worth. These types of errors are difficult to correct unless and until the practitioners and more specifically, the teachers, are willing to step back and evaluate such practices objectively and are further willing to let their methods evolve and adapt to the context of their own culture and era.

Other errors occur due to individual choices and limitations on the part of a given instructor. The instructor may make poor choices due to personality makeup, personal beliefs and biases, but he may also make them due to an inherent limitation in his teaching ability. Many instructors are only taught one way of teaching, so that's all they know. However erroneous or maladapted to the current circumstances of their students, they continue with that method because they have no other alternative methods to draw from.

Let's look at a classic case of poor matching. You have a brand new student, let's call him Joe, who has just joined a class to learn traditional internal martial arts. He does not speak Mandarin and has no previous martial training. He agreed to join the class because he's heard good things about the IMA and when he went in to meet the instructor, the guy seemed gruff and uninterested, but was at least not discourteous and did agree to him joining up.

Joe shows up on time and eager for his first few classes. He's excited that he's finally getting to start learning about this interesting world, but he also can't help feeling like he's already been absent from an important introductory/orientation class where all these strange Chinese terms were introduced and explained and now he's the only guy out of the loop and having to play catch-up. Worse, the instructor is obviously, even awkwardly, frustrated and impatient with him for not understanding what he means when he says it the first time. Joe's caught in a constant dilemna of having to either risk the ire and impatience of the instructor by asking repeatedly what given terms mean, or what precisely is meant by given instructions such as "open the gua, round the back, sink the dan tien" or having to remain silent to keep the peace, thus perpetuating his own ignorance and inability to follow instruction and further irritating the instructor all the more once Joe's finally forced into asking again.

Eventually, Joe may simply learn to take the abuse and stick around long enough to watch other students to figure out, in his own unguided way, what is meant by specific terms and instructions in the IMA. He might even be lucky enough to have one of the other students stop and help him, in very plain, straightforward English, what is meant. He may also eventually be able to fake it just enough to keep the instructor from constantly hounding him about how he's doing everything wrong. If he does, he can now enter a nice, comfortable holding pattern of detente where the instructor doesn't ride his ass constantly but with the price tag that he also doesn't get much meaningful communication with the instructor, either, thus ensuring a nice long plateau of misguided mediocrity and patchwork understanding.

The other, perhaps more common, eventuality is that Joe realizes that, for all this hard-earned money he's shelling out every month, he's not really learning how to fight in any measurable way. He's also not really even completely sure that he understands how to do what he's being told to do every class, nor is he ever given any explanation whatsoever what any of it has to do with fighting or when he might ever expect to see the connection. Joe starts to think that maybe internal arts aren't all they were cracked up to be, perhaps even kind of a sham, and he starts to think about all the better ways he could be spending his money and actually getting something he understands as being of value for it. One day, whether or not he's seen the sign for the MMA/BJJ school just down the street, Joe decides he's had enough of the derision, lack of basic respect, being kept in the dark, and the lack of any degree of skill or confidence in fighting and he walks out of the IMA school without renewing his contract.

Now, this story about Joe is neither the worst example nor, thankfully, necessarily the most common narrative that occurs with regard to how IMA is taught in the U.S., but it's certainly common enough to raise the proverbial red flag. More importantly, though, it illustrates just how important matching the teacher's style to the needs of the student is, and how without it, the learning process can come to a screeching halt or never even begin in the first place.

[Daniel]

Interesting model. Thanks for putting it up.


D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[cdobe]

Thank you for the interesting thread, Chris.

I'ld be interested to hear more about your supportive, motivational way of teaching.

TIA

[Chris McKinley]

To be fair, it's not mine, I just have some training in it and use it. This model was developed by Ken Blanchard's group. He's one of the co-authors of The One Minute Manager. In my experience with the model, supportive behavior is most usefully offered after asking the learner some questions to determine two things first. 1) Is the learner's frustration due to simple ignorance of an objective technical solution, i.e., does he lack knowledge of how to perform better? If so, then determining with precision what that lack is and providing the necessary information can often end the frustration directly. This would fall more under the directing type of behavior. With some people, and perhaps moreso with men, they would rather solve the problem that is the source of their frustration than spend time discussing their feelings about it. Sometimes the last thing a learner wants to hear is a pep talk when what's needed is guidance and direction as to exactly what to do to fix a problem.

2) Is the frustration related solely or specifically to the performance of the task, or is it of a more general, more personal nature, i.e., is the person frustrated exclusively at not being able to progress in performance of the activity or does it stem from sources outside the parameters of the material to be learned, such as general self-doubt or having to deal for the moment with a crisis in his personal life? The answer to this question determines what kind of supportive behavior can/should be offered, or whether it's even appropriate for the instructor to get involved with the issues causing the frustration.

If it's been determined that the learner knows what to do, but is just frustrated at his own performance and simply needs time to improve, then supportive behavior can be useful. This can vary as much as the people involved vary. Everybody has their own way of showing encouragement and of motivating someone to perseverance. Ideally, this too should be tailored to the person needing it. Just as with teaching, one-size-does-not-fit-all when it comes to motivation. From conversation, the teacher should already have some idea of what motivates the person to learn, train, etc. before such moments ever arise. This is why it's so important for the partners involved in the learning (the teacher and the learner) to communicate effectively. Inscrutable stoic taskmasters rarely make very effective teachers.

I, for instance, am not naturally a touchy-feely kinda guy, so to just hope that when the need arises, I'll magically and spontaneously come up with just the right thing to say is probably wishful thinking. Therefore, it's wise for me to find out directly from my student/trainee/learner what makes him tick. Sometimes it's as simple as asking them.

[ppscat]

I've been thinking about how this model fits when there is not only a main leader but also one or two instructors in the D4 Delegating Scenario, where there are more than one authorized voice. It's not clear for me when it's best to apply interchangeable roles or to have fixed ones, eg the leader mainly on the supportive role and the instructors on the directive role, or just the opposite. The distant but over the years accessible leader is a common role in MA schools.

I'ld be interested to hear about your perspective.

.

[Chris McKinley]

ppscat,

RE: "It's not clear for me when it's best to apply interchangeable roles or to have fixed ones, eg the leader mainly on the supportive role and the instructors on the directive role, or just the opposite.". That can be a matter of whatever agreement you have between the various teachers. Now, as to when to use either approach, or whatever combination of them, that has nothing to do with the preferences of the teachers. It has everything to do with what's appropriate for each given student.

[Bhassler]

Hi Chris,

How do you integrate this sort of strategy when trying to engender qualities that may be difficult, frustrating, and/or inherently unpleasant to learn? For example, allowing students to struggle with certain material may help develop determination, ownership, or toughness under pressure. It's my impression that many RBSD courses deliberately create an environment that feels unsafe or overtly threatening as soon as students walk in the door, with the idea that they want to create as adrenalized and fearful a state as possible to make the most of state-dependent learning. Many traditional teachers will hold back information until the student has basically figured it out for themselves, at which point they merely confirm or clarify the student's discoveries. To my mind there are a lot of benefits to this type of learning for those who can handle it. If it's a tai chi for health class, it may not be appropriate, but it seems like a good thing for potential fighters. Thoughts?

[Chris McKinley]

Bhassler,

Part I: RE: State-Dependent Learning. As I've written about this topic quite a bit in the past, I'll give a quick summation of the learning principles involved. Yes, state-dependent learning is in effect and the state that one will be in when these skills are actually the most necessary is likely to be very unpleasant and negative. However.....it's also just as true that learning in general is vastly accelerated when the learner is in a positive state. There's no perfect solution and there's no one-size-fits-everybody-universally here, but I've found that the very best results are when learning happens in a positive state (which can exist even in seemingly negative physical conditions), practicing happens in a neutral/objective state, and contextualizing occurs with the controlled introduction of the state native to the context. In the case of combat, that includes some very negative states on occasion.

This is because the process of contextualization is itself a form of learning. One is learning how to take already-existing skills and both make them available as well as apply them in their native context. Without the form of learning that occurs in contextualization, there is no guarantee that even well-ingrained skills will be accessible to any degree whatsoever when the native context arises. In the case of life-threatening combat, the consequences could prove deadly.

The kind of learning that occurs during contextualization is itself state-dependent and unfortunately the learning is stronger and more permanent the more fully the native context state is elicited in the subject. This means that contextualizing the most extreme combat skills can be one of the most unpleasant experiences in which one will ever intentionally engage. Actual psychological trauma is a very real concern and even with the most professional and controlled training environments, it unfortunately still does occur in rare instances.

[Chris McKinley]

Bhassler,

Part 2: Holding Back Information as a Teaching Style. Put oversimply, it's bullshit. It's a practice derived from cultural beliefs and biases rather than anything remotely resembling scientific learning theory. In such cases, the instructor is not a teacher but an impediment that the student must overcome in addition to trying to teach himself correctly. Yes, you are correct in stating that it is sometimes a traditional approach to teaching. Unfortunately, it's also total hogwash in comparison with the application of modern scientifically researched neurocognitive processes to how the human brain and body actually learn.

As referenced in the previous post, state-dependent learning is a prime example of a phenomenon we know to occur within human neurophysiological learning processes derived not from examining tradition, but by objective scientific research into what actually happens, not what is believed to happen in learning. In many instances, it directly and defiantly flies in the face of even very old traditions regarding the learning and teaching of various materials, depending on the cultural history.

Now....that said, notice that there is a crucial and ultimately gigantic difference between A) a method that deliberately makes learning more difficult as well as less verifiable and less complete, and the resultant learning correspondingly less trusted by the learner, and B) a method where the answers aren't necessarily spoon fed at every developmental stage, but that minimally necessary guidance is constantly available to lead the learner toward discovering the answer himself. Notice I stated "discovering the answer himself". Notice also that I didn't state "discovering the answer completely on his own with no assistance past impasses where the learner's own resources are insufficient to allow further learning to continue, and with no guarantee that any of the learning that has taken place can even be verified to be accurate or even necessarily complete."

From much experience, getting the learner to take ownership of the learning and the material isn't accomplished by deliberately interfering with the effectiveness of the learning; it's done by facilitating the student's evolution as soon as possible to a point where he discovers/deduces the learning himself by careful presentation of both the material to be learned and the evidence of what is objectively true about that material in such a way that the learner's mind is led to a place of clarity about the lesson that leaves as little doubt as possible about the objective and demonstrable answer to his questions about the material.

I've had so much success with regard to teaching in a way that is harmonious with how the human neurophysiology naturally learns that I regard progenitors of the deliberate-impediment-to-learning model as untalented hacks as teachers, at best. At worst, they're dickweeds that need their asses kicked to reboot both their humility and their compassion. As you can probably guess, I'm not exactly unopinionated about the issue.

[Daniel]

Part 2: Holding Back Information as a Teaching Style.

/Now....that said, notice that there is a crucial and ultimately gigantic difference between A) a method that deliberately makes learning more difficult as well as less verifiable and less complete, and the resultant learning correspondingly less trusted by the learner, and B) a method where the answers aren't necessarily spoon fed at every developmental stage, but that minimally necessary guidance is constantly available to lead the learner toward discovering the answer himself. Notice I stated "discovering the answer himself". Notice also that I didn't state "discovering the answer completely on his own with no assistance past impasses where the learner's own resources are insufficient to allow further learning to continue, and with no guarantee that any of the learning that has taken place can even be verified to be accurate or even necessarily complete."

Yes. And researching the fine-tuning skills in B with added learning states and other tools is a continual journey that I find lots of fun (so do my students, it seems).

I remember the only Taekwondo-magazine I ever bought (as a reference copy). It had a very good column in it, where the columnist wrote about a form his teacher had taught him in Korea. The last part of it was three bunny-hops backwards with your hands at the sides like Shaolin mabu, but feet together. He had practiced and taught this for years and always wondered what the application was. Finally he went back to Korea and got a chance to ask his master.
The master looked at him. "The what? Oh..." He brightened. "Yes, yes. I added those when we were practicing in that really small dojo and everybody had to jump three steps back to fit."

And thus martial systems can be born.




D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[Chris McKinley]

Just to familiarize those interested with using the terminology of the model, I'll present another, far more common, mismatch of teaching style with the learner's needs. Note that in this example, unlike with the impediment-style teacher, both parties can be assumed to be operating out of goodwill and yet a learning mismatch can and does still happen.

Okay, so this time let's say we have a given teacher of (you guessed it) IMA who has only been taught one way of teaching. Further, he's had it entrenched in his thinking by both his own teacher and of his stylistic peers that the teaching must be done this way if any quality learning is to take place. As a result, his teaching tends to have the following characteristics:

* He constantly references Chinese-language terms that he claims simply cannot be translated into any other language.

* The terms he uses are not objective referents, but metaphoric and symbolic colloquiallisms.

* He is unable, due to ignorance, to describe what he is demanding of the students in any objective, material or technical terms.

* When teaching form and posture, he tells the students to conform to classic phrasings, but he is never able to articulate exactly what an uninitiate might physically do in order to reach that conformity.

* Simultaneously, he offers nothing but negative criticism, and never of the constructive variety, of the students' early performance attempts. In fact, honest and constructive praise almost never escapes his lips. If and when asked for an explanation of this lack, he claims it's part of the "traditional" culture of IMA never to praise, but only to denigrate.

* He demands students manifest specific metaphoric principles, referenced exclusively in Chinese terms, before they have had enough experience with correct performance so that the principle is inherently apparent.

* When his students, being subjected to his inept ability to teach, inevitably plateau at a fairly low performance quality level, he blames them for it and attributes it to them simply not working hard enough.

Now, quality issues aside and even at best, this teacher can be said to be operating out of a Supporting teaching style moving toward Delegating. This is especially unfortunate if his students (for the sake of example) are at a D1 or D2 level of development where they are highly motivated to learn but, due to lack of familiarity and initiation, are craving specific, objective and crystal-clear guidance on exactly what to do. If given such information, they will gladly work it hard out of their strong enthusiasm. Sadly, this is the one thing the teacher can't/won't give them.

In this case, we've got a case of a teacher better suited for D3 and especially D4 level learners trying to teach folks who simply don't yet have the resources, insight and direct experience needed to take value from that style of teaching. What they need is a directing style so that they are able to set a firm and unambiguous foundation of term definitions and empiricial precision of how those terms are physically manifested. Even a coaching style, which would still not be an ideal match, would grant them the ability to learn far more than what their current teacher allows. For the teacher's part, his limitations aren't only a matter of having learned only one style of teaching. They are further amplified and embedded by a cultural belief that does not allow for the possibility of any other teaching style, even if he were to be personally open to other methods and possibilities.