March 9, 2006, 1:47 a.m. (Message 44593)
Amid all of the recent clutter, some might have missed this excellent paragraph from Anselm. Should be required reading for all teachers and candidates. Harry Ways Anselm wrote: IMHO, the full written instructions for a dance should never be read aloud -- not in class and definitely not in a social situation. They're much too tedious for that! Their place is on the teacher's desk when he or she prepares their lesson, and their purpose is to communicate to the teacher how the dance is meant to go, so they can figure out how to explain it to the class -- often preferably by way of demonstration rather than reading out chapter and verse, and not necessarily from the beginning of the dance straight through to the end.
March 9, 2006, 10:17 a.m. (Message 44598, in reply to message 44593)
So how do you teach your class to listen and visualise what they are supposed to do? A class consist of many people who all learn differently - some needs to see words, others diagrams, some can remember and some can only learn by hearing the words. And how do you learn to listen to a brief/recap if you have never heard one? Which is presumably why so many people stand on the floor and look adoringly at their .... wee green book/piece of paper instead of their partner. The same goes for music - how do you teach people to listen to the music if they only hear one kind? Pia
March 9, 2006, 2:13 p.m. (Message 44606, in reply to message 44598)
I think that what is meant is that as the teacher one has already perhaps chosen a certain wording so that it is more clear to the class rather than just reading out of the book. I know that I sometimes depend too much on the book rather than already knowing exactly what to tell the class. Once I really know a dance I might describe it a little differently in a way that would be easier to understand for the dancers. Wendy Grubb --- Pia <xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > So how do you teach your class to listen and > visualise what they are > supposed to do? > > A class consist of many people who all learn > differently - some needs to see > words, others diagrams, some can remember and some > can only learn by hearing > the words. And how do you learn to listen to a > brief/recap if you have > never heard one? Which is presumably why so many > people stand on the floor > and look adoringly at their .... wee green > book/piece of paper instead of > their partner. > > The same goes for music - how do you teach people to > listen to the music if > they only hear one kind? > > Pia > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > strathspey-bounces-pia=xxxxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx > [mailto:strathspey-bounces-pia=xxxxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx]On
March 9, 2006, 2:27 p.m. (Message 44607, in reply to message 44606)
I know - but where do you learn to understand a book and the way it is written? We have a specific way of annotating dances in RSCDS - ok - not always brilliant - but it is there. We have a lot of people who write dances - sometimes using wording which is understandable to them, I would say in many cases because of what they have heard but not always seen written down, but not necessarily so the wording travels well. Many experienced dancers/teachers forget that lesser mortals may not know what they mean by - whatever they are saying. Plus the fact that one teacher although brilliant - may deliver the explanation in such a way that some people do not understand it. I have teachers whose descriptions I understand very well, and others who I can't understand - nothing to do with their teaching, just the way my brain analyse their explanations. I like to hold the book firmly in my hand - if nothing else then for the person who will ask 'why do we' and 'can't we do?' and I can say - the offical line is:..... It has of course nothing to do with me having a memory like a sieve, of course :>) Pia
March 9, 2006, 2:48 p.m. (Message 44608, in reply to message 44607)
I usually hold the book in my hand as well since I have dancers who enjoy finding errors in what I say. I know what you mean about the difficulty of what was meant. I usually get members of my group to volunteer to try various things if I am unsure as well as asking other teachers who have more experience than I do or who dance in other areas and maybe even know the devisor. I personally do better with words than with pictures so I only use Pillings if I already know the dance. My sister on the other hand dances with a group that uses Pillings extensively and she finds it very difficult to read dances and understand them. It is good to have both since we have multiple learning styles in dancers. Wendy --- Pia <xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > I know - but where do you learn to understand a book > and the way it is > written? We have a specific way of annotating > dances in RSCDS - ok - not > always brilliant - but it is there. We have a lot > of people who write > dances - sometimes using wording which is > understandable to them, I would > say in many cases because of what they have heard > but not always seen > written down, but not necessarily so the wording > travels well. > > Many experienced dancers/teachers forget that lesser > mortals may not know > what they mean by - whatever they are saying. Plus > the fact that one > teacher although brilliant - may deliver the > explanation in such a way that > some people do not understand it. I have teachers > whose descriptions I > understand very well, and others who I can't > understand - nothing to do with > their teaching, just the way my brain analyse their > explanations. > > I like to hold the book firmly in my hand - if > nothing else then for the > person who will ask 'why do we' and 'can't we do?' > and I can say - the > offical line is:..... > It has of course nothing to do with me having a > memory like a sieve, of > course :>) > > Pia > > -----Original Message----- > From: > strathspey-bounces-pia=xxxxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx > [mailto:strathspey-bounces-pia=xxxxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx]On
March 13, 2006, 1:37 p.m. (Message 44671, in reply to message 44607)
Pia wrote: > I know - but where do you learn to understand a book and the way it is > written? We have a specific way of annotating dances in RSCDS - ok - not > always brilliant - but it is there. We have a lot of people who write > dances - sometimes using wording which is understandable to them, I would > say in many cases because of what they have heard but not always seen > written down, but not necessarily so the wording travels well. The thing to remember is that dance descriptions, as printed in dance books, are designed to be precise (one hopes, anyway) rather than exciting. The problems faced by the authors of dance descriptions are similar to those that computer programmers or legislators have to contend with; all these domains require prose that conveys the exact meaning of highly misunderstandable concepts, and their output usually results in descriptions that are accurate but not exactly light bedtime reading to compare with the latest of Dan Brown or J. K. Rowling. Like the interpretation of laws, the interpretation of dance descriptions requires training and experience. This is what a teacher is supposed to provide -- to take a precisely written dance description and translate it into whatever concepts their class is most happy with, such as demonstration or explanation in easier terms (or both). For example, if the dance description says »bars 25-32: 2nd and 1st couples dance rights and lefts«, as a teacher I will usually say »top two couples, rights and lefts« (if that is the case), since in my experience people find it easier to relate to the set as it is at that particular instance, rather than puzzle out which couple has moved where in an ongoing shell game. I don't usually mention bar numbers, and if I do, I use »relative« ones counting from the start of the 8-bar phrase, such as »2s move up on 3 and 4« while 1st couple are leading down the middle and up. Move-ups and such I try to relate to other movements taking place, such as »1s cross right and cast while the 2s move up; 1s cross left and cast to their left« rather than the more unwieldy »1st couple cross giving right hands and cast off, then cross left hands and 1st man dances round 3rd man by the left shoulder while 1st lady does likewise round 2nd lady (2nd couple move up on bars 3-4)«, which is the way the same movement might occur in a full dance description. (Incidentally, many of these ideas, which are by no means original, are mentioned in my »Guide to Briefings«, available from the Strathspey Server.) I agree that often it takes several approaches to teach the same subject matter because people learn stuff in different ways. I also agree that recaps should be provided at most if not all social functions. However, recaps should be recaps and not full teaching sessions -- their function is to remind people how the dance goes. To all those people who complain that they have no time for swotting for the next social: Learning SCD is about »learning dancing, not dances«. I've found that being able to do the basic figures right and to string them together takes one a long way towards dancing many dances from recaps and watching the first couple do their thing (or picking up hints from the rest of the set if one happens to be the first couple). These are all abilities that do not come easy to many people, but which can be practised. The problems start when people approach each dance as a new microcosm of choreography that must be learned on its own (preferably by heart). This task, at 18 dances per evening, quickly becomes daunting, and it is therefore understandable that dancers clamour for more detailed explanations at the actual events. Perhaps this phenomenon is to do with the practice of running a class by teaching dances from the next social programme through reading the full descriptions from the book, rather than by teaching *dancing* through a well-chosen selection of dances that builds up systematic knowledge of formations and transitions? (Note that I didn't mention footwork at all.) Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them. -- Albert Einstein
March 11, 2006, 12:23 a.m. (Message 44623, in reply to message 44606)
> I think that what is meant is that as the teacher one > has already perhaps chosen a certain wording so that > it is more clear to the class rather than just reading > out of the book. I know that I sometimes depend too > much on the book rather than already knowing exactly > what to tell the class. Once I really know a dance I > might describe it a little differently in a way that > would be easier to understand for the dancers. > Wendy Grubb Hi, I attend a class where a teacher reads the first try from the book and has us standing while discussions go on about what the instructions mean to each dancer involved. It is very much a timewasting experience and, by committee, often is done incorrectly in the end!. Personally, I scan any new dance and copy it to a text file. This is fairly garbled and needs re-writing/editing. In doing this one has to go line by line, often retyping the whole 8 bars being considered. I take the opportunity to insert my own abbreviations (e.g. RSh,: 1s, 2s, 3s,: Rts & Lts ; R3-4-5 etc.) and change the wording so that I can grasp the meaning more quickly so that by the time it is done it is re-written in a compact form and one has a clear idea of what the deviser intended. Oh, yes - and I always try to find more then one way of saying things to produce the same result Tonight I tried to do a couple of old dances out of books 9 & 14 (which I knew well 50 or so years ago) straight from the wee books and made a right hash of things. Taught me a lesson, it did! i.e. Don't take short cuts and be sure you know the dance before you teach it. It is the least you owe your class.
March 11, 2006, 12:46 a.m. (Message 44624, in reply to message 44593)
Hi, Just a thought for teachers out there that I have heard used by school teachers... If a member of the class does not learn something you have taught them it is because you it wrong. In other words, if you go in to a class without preparing it properly (i.e. without at least two or three ways of describing/presenting everything) then you as a teacher will fail to teach the majority of the class. I know how that makes me feel on the receiving end!