So where do we go from here?
If I presume, that readers are onboard with the idea, that there is no right or wrong technique but only upsides and downsides to every correction that we give, or technique that we teach, then how do we give corrections and provide a direction for our students?
Well, I still give corrections and directions for my students but I try to be aware of my “framing” of said corrections.
I define framing as the scenario that I as a teacher imagine my student to be in, when giving a correction.
I believe all teachers have a framing for their corrections but I believe that few are aware of those framings.
Example
When I correct a kick that a student throwing in Capoeira, on the pads or with a partner, I have framed this correction through a specific but imaginary scenario.
Often, the imagined scenario corresponds with the current learning scenario; the distance of the pad-holder/partner to the other student is the same in my head as what I see in front of me, the rhythm of the kick to the counter kick is the same as in the training situation, the student is not too tired etc.
Why would I call this an imaginary scenario, when it is based on what happens in front of my eyes?
Because even though I correct based on what I see in front of me, the correction is not only for the student to utilize here and now in this one specific learning scenario.
The correction is meant for the student to bring with them in similar scenarios in the future and to repurpose to use in scenarios that might look very different.
Secondly, when correcting a student’s kick, I am imagining that I know for sure that their future kicks will carry the same mistakes (and benefits). This is not something I know, this is something I imagine. We all know that our own abilities vary and that each action varies from execution to execution. So when correcting a student it requires having observed that student for a long time, to be statistically certain, that a correction is very relevant to that student and not just a correction on some random mistake.
Now, if you can commit to the idea that corrections are mainly based on imaginary scenarios, let us move on.
At times, the imagined scenario does not correlate to the current learning situation when I, as a teacher, might have a specific focus point, which generates a different kind of framing than the one in front of me.
Example
I am working on power with my students but I start focusing on the student’s balance, while they throw the kick for power, and I start giving balance corrections.
“Of course”, the power and balance of the kick optimally goes hand in hand, but sometimes this correction comes because I, looking at the student, (re)realized that if they throw all they have into the kick, simply trying to follow my instructions, they are left open to counters - this can be a confusing scenario for the student, if I do not explain my change in framing. Spontaneous changes in framing can lead to even more confusing scenarios with teachers who are not even aware of their own change in framing - or the fact that they frame their corrections at all.
The tools for assessment
So here is how I assess my teaching material and corrections, I ask myself: “How am I framing the material that I am teaching and in what light should my corrections therefore be presented?”
I do this to move away from the illusion that I am teaching right or wrong corrections.
I have defined my framings through three fairly broad categories:
1. The long term frame.
2. The intuitive frame.
3. The aesthetic frame.
Note: I believe that these categories, like techniques, are constructs and somewhat arbitrary. These are three categories that allow for somewhat detailed scrutiny (of both myself and others), while still keeping an intuitive flow in my classes and also reminding me, that I am just a human who makes a lot of shit up as I go.
I will use the Chin-Up as an example on all three types of framing.
The long term frame
This is when teachers provide material, technical cues or answer with a long term perspective, that beginners simply do not have:
This is where teachers can really shine and why someone with more experience than ourselves is invaluable for development within a discipline.
Retracting and depressing your scapula in a chin-up is not intuitive or easy and often we teach it in isolation from the full chin-up motion, so it is not even directly connected to the exercise.
“Why do we do it?” a lot of students ask.
“Because that’s the right way of doing a chin-up” many teachers will answer...
Right how? It's not intuitive and for many people it would take longer to learn a chin-up with scapula retraction than one without- so in what way is it the right way?
Instead of considering scapula retraction and depression right, I would consider it “beneficial in the long run”. The Chin-up isn't the and-all and be-all of pulling movements and with that in mind, the teacher can make the hard choice on behalf of our students: Retracting and depressing the scapula so that one can recruit more muscle groups, both to assist us in pulling when it comes to harder variations of the Chin-up, for example One Arm Chin-Up, and also to divide the stress onto bigger portions of the body.
We challenge our students and make them walk the long and hard road so that in the long run, they will be stronger and have more possibilities.
The intuitive frame
I define the intuitive frame as small technical cues, that the student could have stumbled upon themselves but that the teacher makes the student aware of, to help shorten the learning process.
Close training partners, with the same level of experience, can often be just as good at this as a teacher can, since it does not require knowledge of that which one does not currently see in front of one’s eyes.
In the chin-up, a good example is: “Try supinating your hands”, palms facing you, (yes, I know, pronated hands are considered a pull-up).
Many people, not experienced in pulling initially grabs the bar in a pronated fashion (palms facing away from them).
For a lot of people, this makes pulling harder, so a teacher can cue the less experienced person to supinate their forearms, to provide them with the experience that pulling oneself towards a bar is actually manageable.
Repeating myself, the intuitively framed correction is something that a lot of people could have discovered given time but that many teachers provide their students with, to shorten the learning process (whether the teacher knows, this is why they do it or not).
Other examples could be:
In Parkour: “Look where you land, in order to place your feet better”
In fighting: “Keep your hands/arms close to your head and body when guarding yourself”.
These corrections/cues don’t require a lot of extra effort and mostly makes executing a technique easier.
The aesthetic frame
This one to me is the most interesting AND the most overlooked.
How come most first generations of any given sport move more crudely than subsequent generations?How come most martial arts, designed to destroy people as effectively as possible look aesthetically pleasing?
Probably because we as humans takes cues and correct with our eyes more than any other sense. No teacher has X-Ray vision and no teacher can calculate all the internal and external factors that go into executing a technique, so we do a general assessment of what we see fit that with our current theme of teaching and thereby approve or disapprove of the way the student carried out the given technique.
Here is an example: A teacher asks someone to move softly - often with the idea of diminishing stress on the body. As soon as we have two people who are both fairly experienced within a discipline and already move without a sound, most teachers will probably applaud the one who moves more pleasingly - regardless of whether the teacher is aware of this or not.
IF the teacher IS aware of this fact it is often defended with arguments like: “You can see that that person move more softly!” or “Can’t you see that that person has more control?”
Well, maybe you can and maybe you can’t but here’s some things that you definitely can NOT see - and these are just a few examples:
You can NOT see how stress of impact is dispersed among the joints of a person landing.
You can NOT see how many kilos of impact a person is landing with.
You can NOT see how much damage specific joints or tissue sustain when executing a technique in one given way and not another.
You might be able to assume and you might assume correctly but if you with to teach in a responsible way, admitting that you assume is one of the first steps.
It should also make you reflect upon how often you correct on a superficial representation of a function rather than a function.fa
Back to the chin-up:
Why do we have our arms approximately shoulder distance apart and why do we touch shoulders/chest to the bar when doing a chin-up? Because, this is the ‘Full Range of Motion’ (ROM) chin-up that sets the standard and other variations of the chin-up are… well, variations.
But if the reason for the parameters of the standard/proper chin-up is full ROM, then we can do variations of the chin-up that would require more ROM, like pulling to the navel while leaning slightly back - as to not transition into the push of a muscle-up.
To this, I heard people say: “Well, that is a LOT harder than the ‘standard’ chin-up and therefore would be unreasonable to demand!” Well, yes it is, but then that logic could be applied to the ‘standard’ chin-up as well and it would be a lot easier to just tell people that however high they could pull themselves from the get go, would be considered their personal chin-up.
I’m saying this, not to abolish standards or progressions but to make teachers aware, how any variation, progression or starting position of a movement could have been considered ‘the standard’ had history played out slightly different and, repeating myself, how our standards are very often superficial representations of functions or principals.
In this regard I would like to quote Strongcamps aka. D.J. Murakami who wrote:
“The designated boundaries of a ROM are cultural constructs”.
To me this reflects that just like some cultures consider are proper greeting a hug, some consider it the shaking of hands and some consider it a bow, the standards set for any given movement is an intersubjective agreement. If you teach your kids that shaking hands is the only proper way to greet someone and not A way to greet someone, they might be confused or angry when clashing with a culture where something else is considered the norm.
In the same way, the job of teachers is to provide our students with possibilities, and I really do believe this, then it is important to tell them that the standards we have set are just SOME standards we have set and they can redefine those standards once they have gotten to know them.
Thereby, the students might grow up to become physically cultured movers/athletes (thank you Hunter Fitness), who can assess different contexts and re-purpose the tools they have been given to fit different circumstances.