Oct. 3, 2001, 6:56 p.m. (Message 27701, in reply to message 27684)
> If I had a penny for each person I had to individually > persuade at the > club I dance in that a crib was not an instrument of torture, > but was in > fact "succinct and easy to understand", I'd have more than 20 > pence... > Some of them still don't think that. Most of them are > educated people. > Most of them are young (under 30). > I think there are two issues here: one is learning how to interpret the written instructions, the other is learning to read other people's short-hand. As far as learning to read the written instructions, what it takes is practice. In classes that were geared more towards beginners, I have occasionally given dancers "homework" of taking home a copy of a dance (a fairly simple dance), learning it on their own, and being prepared to dance it the next week. That way they have to look at the page, read the name of the figure, think to themselves what that ends up looking like on the dance floor, where it fits in the total context of the dance, etc. A whole bunch of skills get practiced. If the dance is relatively simple (note: give them a good chance to succeed), then it also provides an opportunity to talk about the different ways that dance instructions are written and how to get from the printed page to the dance floor. As for the short-hand used in some ball programs: there seem to be several used, with no very clear standard. Makes it a bit difficult to teach. But if someone were to bring me one they couldn't work out, I would be happy to help them with it (note this key phrase: without a standard, some of these cribs are as puzzling to teachers not from the area as to anyone else) and use the opportunity to expose the class to it. regards, Norah Link (Montreal, QC, Canada)