Doing
techniques ”in principle” is the new black. You’ll hear teachers say “you do
this but think of it as a principle”, “it’s the principle that is important” or
“Understanding the principle will take into consideration the variation of the situation.”
I heard it, seen it and done it in class. There’s nothing worng with it, but
looking at Blooms taxonomy a certain buildup to understanding “principles” is
needed.
The
different level of Blooms are:
·
Knowledge
·
Comprehension
·
Application
·
Analysis
·
Synthesis
·
Evaluation
There is a
logical build up of the first three levels ; Knowledge, comprehension and
application.
Knowledge being the fundamentals like names, fundamental
movements, facts about self-defense. Since this blog is about self-defense it
could be fundamental understanding of attackers or you reaction
patterns/flinches .
Comprehension being - understanding the knowledge - being able
to describe and show the main ideas of the learned knowledge. This could be
showing the technique you’ve learned, and being able to explain the key points
of the technique. But the key points are learned points and not something the
person has analyzed themselves to.
Application being able to show that the knowledge and comprehension
is put to use, in a new situation. This could be taking the technique and
applying it to a defense that hasn’t been seen, taught or used before.
Many
teachers stop teaching here, and let their students stay at these levels, since
the next levels have the risk of the students doing “new stuff”. But it’s the
next levels that really show the principles. The three next levels show that
that the student moves from thinking “technique” to think in principles. But
more on this in another blog.
My point
for today is that you can’t think principles without having the fundamentals in
place, and that is :certain techniques,
certain keypoints and a certain level of understanding(application).
Since people
have different levels of understanding and technical fundaments, it’s very
important that the teacher teaching “principles” understands that the
foundation of the student is really going to be the springboard for their “principles”,
and if the teacher isn’t sure that alinge with the teaching , they might be experiencing
a whoæe new set of “principles” or misunderstanding
each other, and in worse case the student thinks he’s doing the correct “principles” but
is doing something that won’t work in a self-defense situation.
Which
brings us back to another point – you can’t do principles training without having
a foundation to build it upon, which is not “principle”.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar