Thread Index

Rules for teachers

hways

hways

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.
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

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
Wendy Grubb

Wendy Grubb

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
Pia Walker

Pia Walker

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
Wendy Grubb

Wendy Grubb

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
Anselm Lingnau

Anselm Lingnau

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
Ron Mackey

Ron Mackey

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.
Phill Jones

Phill Jones

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!

Previous Thread Next Thread