Teaching

[The Stranger:Me]

Teaching, coaching, training, mentoring, pick whichever one you want but for this post I'll use teaching to cover any and all - they all involve communicating knowledge of one kind or another.

Some comments last night got me thinking.
Is my view of what makes a good teacher fucked up?

So what does make a good teacher?
Does a good rider, rugby player etc make a good teacher?
Does a good teacher need to have a vast experience in the subject?

To me the most important things in teaching are the ability to impart (or communicate) knowlege and that knowledge must be accurate and complete.
knowledge overcomes ignorance and danger and fear.

Steve Irwin would get in a cage of crocs. Most wouldn't. Why? He had knowledge (well of crocs anyway), most don't.

But what is the knowledge to which I refer?
It is not just the what but the why.
Many know the what in any given subject, many don't know the why.

An example.
My brother had aspirations of being in IT. He always wanted me to show him how to do things. Lets say network a couple of computers.
He only wanted me to show him what buttons to press and fields to fill out - i.e. the what. He seadfastly refused to learn what was going on behind the scenes, what the purpose of each button etc was i.e. the why.
The outcome was obvious when he struck a problem - and you always do - he didn't have the requisite knowledge to take an appropriate corrective action.
The student was not ready.

The what without the why is that scenario we frequently hear of, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous".

How the teacher acquires this knowledge is irrelavent, provided it is accurate and complete. Some go to school to learn it, as we see by the common lies school teachers tell our kids. Some acquire it by experience and some by learning.

"Experience" in a field only really implies that a certain level of "what" has been acquired. No more. The why can still be almost completely missing, or patchy as hell, as can the ability to communicate this to the intended audience.

[MSTRS:Me]

How the teacher acquires this knowledge is irrelavent, provided it is accurate and complete. Some go to school to learn it, as we see by the common lies school teachers tell our kids. Some acquire it by experience and some by learning.

The nub...one cannot be taught, one has to learn.
I assume you are referring to the parameters set to become a mentor, the 10+ years of riding in particular? If so, it is obvious to me that longer term riders will (more likely) have knowledge through experience, and that knowledge will be more visceral than academic.

[nodrog:Me]

Steve Irwin would get in a cage of crocs. Most wouldn't. Why? He had knowledge (well of crocs anyway)....

he should of read up abit more about stingrays

[The Stranger:Me]

The nub...one cannot be taught, one has to learn.
I assume you are referring to the parameters set to become a mentor, the 10+ years of riding in particular? If so, it is obvious to me that longer term riders will (more likely) have knowledge through experience, and that knowledge will be more visceral than academic.

The subject came up in relation to the mentor program.
However, I am more interested in general principals here.

I have absolutely NO issue with the position on experience with the mentor program I think that is quite clear and MT has restated it.

We are all (well many) in the process of making an assessment of various people as mentors. For most of us, myself included, the final decision is not ours. However, I see for example DMNTD's name go up and I assess his suitability in my mind.

Against what criteria?

That is the crux of my first post.

[jrandom]

I see for example DMNTD's name go up and I assess his suitability in my mind.

We all do, Noel, we all do.

[MSTRS:Me]

We are all (well many) in the process of making an assessment of various people as mentors. For most of us, myself included, the final decision is not ours. However, I see for example DMNTD's name go up and I assess his suitability in my mind.

Against what criteria?

That is the crux of my first post.

Ah, I see...the site members will decide on every nomination. For me personally, Dmntd offered some invaluable info to help us with our tour around Northland last Xmas, and pointed out something with YT's riding that was also very useful. His 'charmed' life as a rider may have suffered lately, but I'd say he's learned some humility which must be a good thing.

[ManDownUnder]

Also key to it (IMHO) is why the person wants to learn.

Because "they have to"? Ding - shallow learning (e.g. road code)
For a tangential reason? Ding - false learning ("There's money in IT - show me which buttons to push")
Or genuine want - an interest that simply related to the topic, and everthing about it fascinates them.

I was like that with IT... and quickly learned tghere was too much to learn to know it all - and change was happening at such a pace there was no way I could keep up if I knew it all at any point in time anyway

The other thig I'd raise is the relationship between teacher and student. The best teachers are those that walk in their student's shoes. Been there, know the pain and know what pain the student has to endure, and how to help them avoid the serious stuff...

example of the latter... Skiddy.. he looked very likly to kill himself but no way in hell would he face reality and step into a Morgue. Mention LooseBruce to him however... he was all ears, and possibly a few tyears too (and credit to him for that...)

Anyway - I'm raving...

[James Deuce]

It's really simple.

Respect your student and treat them as you would want to be treated.

I've taught drums on and off for 20 years and most people are a joy to teach once they understand that you are serious about helping them meet their goals.

Too many "teachers" think it is all about them.

[Nasty]

I think that Chanceyy says it all ... those who have been taught by or received instruction are encouraged to communicate their experiences .. and that is what we should do.

Popularity should have absolutely nothing to do with it. I have only gotten any form of mentoring from those who I feel can offer me good advice & have the ability to communicate with me.

there are those who can ride extremely well, & yet I would not seek any mentoring from them for a variety of reasons.

I have only posted a comment in those threads of the ppl whom I have actually received instruction from or would like to receive some mentoring from. As they are the only ones who interest me.

I have never ridden with the rest, regardless of their personality I am not in a position to comment if they would make good mentors or not.

However if anyone has any concerns on a persons ability a pm to Jantar with specific concerns (leave out the emotion) will help them with their decisions.

Those who have concern because of what someones attitude is like should also express it. It is important that the selectors have all information postitive and negative on hand during the process so that they can make a fair and reasonable assessment.

If you are just bagging on someone cos you can - don't bother you are wasting peoples time.

[forkoil]

Teaching, coaching, training, mentoring, pick whichever one you want but for this post I'll use teaching to cover any and all - they all involve communicating knowledge of one kind or another.

Some comments last night got me thinking.
Is my view of what makes a good teacher fucked up?

So what does make a good teacher?
Does a good rider, rugby player etc make a good teacher?
Does a good teacher need to have a vast experience in the subject?

To me the most important things in teaching are the ability to impart (or communicate) knowlege and that knowledge must be accurate and complete.
knowledge overcomes ignorance and danger and fear.

Steve Irwin would get in a cage of crocs. Most wouldn't. Why? He had knowledge (well of crocs anyway), most don't.

But what is the knowledge to which I refer?
It is not just the what but the why.
Many know the what in any given subject, many don't know the why.

An example.
My brother had aspirations of being in IT. He always wanted me to show him how to do things. Lets say network a couple of computers.
He only wanted me to show him what buttons to press and fields to fill out - i.e. the what. He seadfastly refused to learn what was going on behind the scenes, what the purpose of each button etc was i.e. the why.
The outcome was obvious when he struck a problem - and you always do - he didn't have the requisite knowledge to take an appropriate corrective action.
The student was not ready.

The what without the why is that scenario we frequently hear of, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous".

How the teacher acquires this knowledge is irrelavent, provided it is accurate and complete. Some go to school to learn it, as we see by the common lies school teachers tell our kids. Some acquire it by experience and some by learning.

"Experience" in a field only really implies that a certain level of "what" has been acquired. No more. The why can still be almost completely missing, or patchy as hell, as can the ability to communicate this to the intended audience.

All will be revealed if you read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", not a p/t

[jrandom]

All will be revealed if you read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", not a p/t

IMHO, the MoQ is an elaborate re-statement of the blindingly obvious, and I was never really able to translate it into a philosophy that could be used for pratical decision-making.

YMMV, of course.

[justsomeguy]

IMHO, the MoQ is an elaborate re-statement of the blindingly obvious, and I was never really able to translate it into a philosophy that could be used for pratical decision-making.

YMMV, of course.

Hey dork what do teh acronyms mean ?

[jrandom]

Hey dork what do teh acronyms mean ?

In My Humble Opinion, Metaphysics of Quality, and Your Mileage May Vary.

But remember, GIIF.

[forkoil]

IMHO, the MoQ is an elaborate re-statement of the blindingly obvious, and I was never really able to translate it into a philosophy that could be used for pratical decision-making.

YMMV, of course.

It does (vary), zamm explorse depth of understanding, or perception, the thing that Noel was talking about in his orig post. BETHOIG

[dpex]

I suggest good teaching is fulfilling a want in the student. It follows that almost any teacher able to clearly enunciate a lesson can teach a willing learner, yet the most skilled teacher will rarely teach an unwilling learner.

Subsuming that of course, is the teacher's requirement to discover the absorption rate and style of the willing learner. Some students are slow, some not so. Some thrive on being provided with theory which they can later test in practice. Others don't quickly comprehend theory but respond well to hands-on application of a lesson. Some are strong, audially, while others are strong, visually. Thus, 'writing' to the former, or 'telling' the latter diminishes the value of the lesson to the recipient.

Also, one must consider the uptake rate of a student. The slow ones (slow to learn a particular subject, as opposed to being essentially slow) may need A-to-Z and many letters (steps) in between. Whereas those quick on the uptake may be the AB-Z type. One cannot treat the both the same.

Furthermore, given the likely students have no compulsion to learn and, in some cases the admission of needing/wanting to learn may be an ego-threat, the teacher must allow for personal issues the student may have; ego being a significant issue.

But the student can easily help the teacher by simply being asked a range of personal questions. What would you like to learn today? Would you prefer I show you or tell you? Would you like this pamphlet on the 'lesson'? And so on.

Students often feel the (new) teacher knows everything about a subject. Woe betide the arrogant teacher who truly shares that belief. Because sure as hell the adult biker student is asking a lot of folk the same questions. Any teacher who adopts "my way or the highway" will surely fail to maintain the student's confidence.

To attempt to design 'formal, A-to-Z' learning courses is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. The mentoring programme offers a wonderful opportunity to match those who truly wish to learn with those who can teach.

But Stranger, sadly you have to accept that some will want to know how to corner without wanting to know the physics of it.

Me? I want to know it all, but that's me. Almost the ideal biker student. Old enough to have lost my ego, wise enough to sift opinions, and eager enough to want to learn everything I can.

Today, I went out with a professional instructor for the purposes of hazard identification. I learned some stuff. I enjoyed that. Later, my mentor Frosty, taught me how to properly change the rear-hub shock absorbers. My understanding of the mechanics and the attached physics went up a notch, for which I am truly grateful. And I enjoyed learning that.

Then I went for a short blast around some local country roads; kept in mind what hazards to remain aware of and easily avoided a tit in a Beamer, and was seriously happy to find how smooth my bike had become as a result of the new shocks; shocks which I, a mechanical dunce, had helped fit to my own bike. Good day.