 Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
Lots of people are interested in understanding the technicalities of skiing, much more so than getting down the gnarliest piste/terrain they can manage. For those people understanding the improvements in their skills base could be enhanced by reference to a reasonably objective and detailed assessment scheme.
|
in total agreement.
| Quote: |
But to get from L7 to L8 might take 20 weeks of decent coaching if they have a lot of ingrained bad habits to address. To me that doesn't seem to be very motivating...
|
and i'd find that very difficult to - 20 weeks of coaching is a lifetime! I understand this is only an extreme example for a hypothetical very slow learner (?) and not by any means the average time needed ( or so i'd hope) , and how fast for a quick learner with a good /fast acquisition of skiing skills would it take?
| Quote: |
people I'm teaching, and I think very, very few of those are looking for a pat on the back from me.
|
funny how we all take things so seriously at times. Of topic a bit, so many people in business smile so warmly at you just to take your money - but of course they'd have no chance if they were miserable!
Rob and Scott, i'm so pleased you're both actively considering this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
What I'm not sure about is how big that fraction is.
|
Formulate a plan and post here. Not all the details need divulging or solidifying to get a good idea. You and Scott are in an almost unique situation with iOS - not that i'm pushing you into this or anything. With Snowlife, clearly it's been somewhere pushed for before and your own clients have bemoaned the 'Instructor teaching element'. Talk it out with trusted parties Rob. Cheers.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 28-10-13 16:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| fatbob, some people seek external validation and maybe permissioning (although have you just made up that word?).. |
You are too astute although you also picked up the definition  . For me, given an instructor I respected (by no means an identical set with those I have encountered especially re group lessons), their word would be good enough without an objective benchmark.
Incidentally - re numbers of people committed to improving their skiing, this might be a small number through existing channels of regular instruction/coaching as presently offered. IOS have broken the mould a bit on what offerings look like, the next step is for the industry to do it more widely/flexibly. I still believe the "learn on the go" model is one which could get more people committed and if e.g. it was available easier it might help many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Tim Heeney wrote: |
| ... and i'd find that very difficult to - 20 weeks of coaching is a lifetime! I understand this is only an extreme example for a hypothetical very slow learner (?) and not by any means the average time needed ( or so i'd hope) , and how fast for a quick learner with a good /fast acquisition of skiing skills would it take? |
Couple of weeks of half-day coaching? It is difficult to say as people are so varied in their starting point as well as how much they are able to change their skiing. Some people will change just with wider skiing experience, others make quick changes that stick, others make quick changes but need focused practice before it sticks, others need more time to change long held habits. A more detailed award system might help some people make those changes, but then you run the danger of "teaching to the test" (or worse still, teaching the test in the way in which the individual instructor perceives it). It's not a straightforward thing to do if you are going to devise a system which is helpful, never mind meaningful. Scott, in particular, put hours and hours of thinking in to the levels system that we use, and went through countless versions before we invited people (including the good citizens of snowHeadsLand) to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| I still believe the "learn on the go" model is one which could get more people committed and if e.g. it was available easier it might help many. |
A topic for another thread, but I'm not entirely sure what that model could be. Is it "spend more time travelling around, less time on focused skill development"? Not that I think skiing a range of terrain is a bad thing, far from it, but I see my main role is to help a skier make a permanent change (hopefully for the better) to their skiing. I'll consider all sorts of factors in how best to achieve that, including terrain choice and how it should be skied. But rarely do I think that pushing someone to the edge of their personal envelope is the best way to facilitate a change for the better. A confidence boost perhaps, helping to demonstrate to the client what they're capable of. Or a way of testing how well developed the new found skill is. But not for actually making that change in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rob@rar, FWIW I've always liked the IOS grading system, and the videos - it is very easy to visualise  .
'Permissioning' is an interesting concept. However, made-up word or not 'permissions' is very much where it is for me and I completely comprehend the intended use of the word, made-up or not. Don't under-estimate the amount of confidence it could give a learner if a trusted instructor told them - "right, I think you ready to have a crack at blues/reds/blacks" I know that the state of the snow is where it all is when you are skiing and some reds can become very black-like with hard packed snow on them, but if a trusted instructor were to tell me that I should have crack at something more difficult, or even take me down something more difficult and tell me they were doing so on a lesson because I was 'ready' for it, that would make so much difference. So often instructors just say - "right, here is today's drill", Often there is not as much feedback as to what you are doing well and what you are now capable of, and that makes a huge difference to the attitude of some learners. For example, it's amazing the confidence I got out of passing my advanced driving test - I learned the skills doing the course, but the piece of paper made the world of difference to my driving far more so than if I hadn't done the final test. That might not make sense to some, but it certainly affects me and I doubt I am alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of a grading isn't necessarily about badge chasing, it can also be useful when, as an individual, you need to ski with different people in different areas, and especially when your standard maybe doesn't match your expected experience.
My whole family started skiing at the same time, so we have all been skiing for 30 years. My mum is happy not having progressed beyond stem christie/Plough parallel. My dad is a technically strong intermediate but is maybe a bit to rigid in his technique which limits him when it comes to trickier terrain. My sister's similar but a bit more relaxed. I consider myself advanced, both on and off piste.
Equally, I know a chap who's easily as good as me who's only been skiing, I think, 3 years but has just taken to it like a duck to water.
Depending on what information you're actually given at the time, where would you place someone who's been skiing for 30 years or someone who's been skiing for 3 years? A grading system just makes it easier to try and get at least a bit of an idea of where someone's ability lies. We've all heard folk saying about how they ski reds and blacks after only a couple of weeks and we all know there's a big difference between just getting down a black and actually skiing it.
Now consider these skiers go to a different resort on holiday every year, so there's no consistency in who knows them and their ability.
Whether it's identifying members of a group to ski with socially, or what class you should be in, some sort of grading will help some people in getting into the right place for their ability.
Granted some will just chase badges, but if that also goes, hand in hand with progression, does their actual motivation for improvement really matter?
Also, if there is a standards or badge structure and it doesn't interest you, then you don't NEED to take part in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
| I still believe the "learn on the go" model is one which could get more people committed and if e.g. it was available easier it might help many. |
A topic for another thread, but I'm not entirely sure what that model could be. Is it "spend more time travelling around, less time on focused skill development"? |
yep maybe needs to be split but my concept is one which takes away some of the negative associations of ski school - the "school" title, standing around for explanation, exposition, demo, drill one at a time, feedback, repeat i.e. the bits that make it feel schoolly. At the same time it needs to be a bit more useful than "follow me". So I think of stuff like say a Straightline Camp or the Extremely Canadian model and wonder if that's achievable at lower levels of ski school dropout on the basis of "take someone for a good day's fun skiing and add to their skill base in the process without seeming preachy". Takes a bunch of attention in constantly jigging the group to get the right blend of pupils seeing good things modelled and being observed but then with intensely personalised pointers that can be delivered in the lift line/ chairlift etc. It might not be the fastest or optimum way of learning but if the potential students are already dropouts from the trad model what has anyone got to lose? What does good look like? Pupils who say "I'd never thought I'd be skiing that/there but I've had a good time and I've definitely taken something away to use in the future."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| I still believe the "learn on the go" model is one which could get more people committed and if e.g. it was available easier it might help many. |
Phil Smith & Snoworks seemed to be embracing this model if the promo material & blog posts I've seen are representative.
Interesting also to compare snowboarding and skiing in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| oldmancoyote wrote: |
Megamum, I think we (you, Tim and I) are in violent agreement. We would all like to have some form of "test" (and - at least in my case - instruction) for skiing skill levels.
My point is simply that the "formal" exams and qualification paths for ski instructors are for people that want to teach/coach - as they should be - and at least as far as I know all involve in one form or another topics that provide that teaching element, with the possible exception of the French "Test Téchnique", which however I'm not sure can be accessed from outside an "instructor" training.
I am not interested and I don't have time to do 35, 70 or 200 hours of teaching/shadowing in a recognised ski teaching environment. I would love to find something that enables me to test my skills against well defined standards; faute de mieux, good coaching will have to do!  |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| yep maybe needs to be split but my concept is one which takes away some of the negative associations of ski school - the "school" title, standing around for explanation, exposition, demo, drill one at a time, feedback, repeat i.e. the bits that make it feel schoolly. |
OK, I understand. Some of our coaching holidays are like that, our Italian Food & Fun for example, which offers a coaching model for lower end as well as more experienced skiers that includes touring around the domain, ending up at a different restaurant each day, enjoying the scenery and the local interests. It still includes lots of time when you are going to work on specific drills, repeat the same runs and ski one at a time (mainly for the propose of getting video for analysis later that evening), but lots of stuff which most people would associate with a 'holiday' even though you're always under the beady eye of an instructor. Other stuff we do is more "boot camp focused" maximising the use of time for developing your skills by not travelling around to different terrain quite so much. It's nice to have the variety, and we certainly don't teach in the Alps in the same way as we teach indoors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Looking at the IOS Levels and the Snowlife Awards, a reasonably quick learner could get from beginner to L5 in maybe a week with some decent instruction. But to get from L7 to L8 might take 20 weeks of decent coaching if they have a lot of ingrained bad habits to address. To me that doesn't seem to be very motivating
|
I don't know about other skills but, FWIW, that's exactly what happens with piano (etc) exams. It's a doddle to get to Grade V or VI, but Grades VII and VIII and Diploma require a LOT more work. By that time, though, I think that people who are still hanging in there at all are sufficiently motivated to go the extra mile. I guess it's because if you're really rather good at something, you are likely to aspire to being very good indeed. Or perhaps that's just me... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
| Or perhaps that's just me... |
No, I don't think so. Typically, I think the better people become at skiing the worse they know they are. But once they have reached that level of self-awareness they have a good understanding of what improvements they would like to make and are keen to make the effort to get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
'd agree it's a small number within the skiing population. The number of people who are committed to improving their skiing by regular coaching is a small number, and I think we are talking about a fraction of that population.
|
It might be a bigger fraction with more badges. "Gamification" - examining what motivates people playing games and applying that to help train them - is the subject of serious research and practice.
I'm a little biased in that I am a shameless box ticking badge chaser, but there does seem to be something in the psychology of reward and learning that means badges (or trophies, levels, points...) really do work when used correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| finest green wrote: |
| ... but there does seem to be something in the psychology of reward and learning that means badges (or trophies, levels, points...) really do work when used correctly. |
Indeed, just look at the computer game industry for evidence of the way in which they motivate people to keep playing. That's part of the reason why I have concerns about the Snowlife awards being used for more experienced skiers, as the gap between levels is so large that any formal evidence of achievement could be a very long long time coming.
For me the actual badge bit is less important (other than it gives me licence to practise) but as I'm still developing my own skiing I use the assessment framework as a means of developing my learning. Formative assessment rather than summative assessment if I can use a phrase from a previous career helping to develop school curricula and exams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I was also going to raise the question of knowing which group class to sign up for when you're in a new resort. Many people aren't good at assessing their own skills. I, and other people I know, have wasted a fair few days in group lessons that were too slow. I'm always hesitant to appear over-confident and put myself in a higher level group so I've often shied too far on the safe side. There are also plenty of people who are the opposite! Therefore the first day (at least!) of a group class is usually a bit dull until people have been shuffled around groups. Most of us have very limited mountain time, so anything that avoids wasting everybody's time is good.
It doesn't need to be an official badge of any sort, but I've often thought it would be great if you could get some sort of report card at the end of a set of lessons which you could then show to the ski school the next time you wanted lessons. Something to give an indication of your skills and your attitude before you start, so that they can consider which group to put you in.
Obviously if you can keep seeing the same instructor(s) then you can avoid this problem, and this is one reason why IOS clients do so well. Unfortunately my friends don't want to plan their holidays around my ski instructor choice. How selfish of them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Maireadoconnor, find new friends!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
as I'm still developing my own skiing I use the assessment framework as a means of developing my learning.
|
Exactly. But I do have some sympathy with fatbob's view which is, if I have understood him correctly, that regular and efficient instruction will provide that framework itself without the need for any independent assessment. I must admit that, for both skiing and singing (where I'm in the same sort of boat ie taking lessons to get rid of bad habits and inculcate some technique so as to increase vocal quality and stamina) I am fairly satisfied that the lesson framework is of itself keeping me motivated, because my coaches are really good. Thus, you and Scott telling me I'm pants at carving long radius turns (for example) is just as useful as failing a test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rob@rar, Ha, that's one option! I've chosen the alternative route of changing my job so I should hopefully be able to take more time off in the winter and sneak in another week that's pure coaching
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Maireadoconnor, good to hear that priorities are being put in their correct order!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kitenski,
| Quote: |
for all the folk wanting a badge/test/assessment, how do you think the spirit/tone of a ski coaching holiday would change if you knew you were being assessed, or had an "Exam" or "Test" to do on a specific day??
|
It would make me push myself that bit harder which is surely no bad thing. Since I enjoy learning for learning's sake, I don't think that it would detract from my enjoyment. I might be a bit disappointed if I failed my chosen test at the end, but would undoubtedly get over that, and try even harder the next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pedantica, +1
I did 10 hrs lesson at the EoSB, at the end of that I had no idea if had improved or not - even some sort of before and after assessment would have been useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
Pedantica, +1
I did 10 hrs lesson at the EoSB, at the end of that I had no idea if had improved or not - even some sort of before and after assessment would have been useful. |
Next time ask the instructor how (s)he feels you have progressed and what you should practise......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny though, and I don't think it is unique to skiing either - you rarely get told 'You've got that!' 'Now let's build on that and try this.....' You often get told, right now lets build on it, but I think less rarely do you get told that you've got something,
The only way that you ever find that out is really to take a test and see if you pass. It's no different to being told at work that you've made a good job of something - you get your 'pass' and you know you have done a good job - IMO there is nothing more guaranteed to make you try to do a good job again than a bit of praise. It's certainly something I deploy as a parent because I know how much I respond to a little bit of praise. Surely we all do 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| The only way that you ever find that out is really to take a test and see if you pass. |
Two different kinds of feedback, internal and external. Can't speak for every instructor, but when I'm teaching I'm not shy about telling people that they have improved (sometimes the change can be subtle but significant, and the video feedback we use really helps to explain what changes have been made). This can be very powerful external feedback, including for those people who invariably point out their deficiencies as a skier. Also important is internal feedback, and Megamum has very recently explained her internal feedback when skiing at CFE and really feeling the skis going around the turn as if on rails. Use both types of feedback to improve and enjoy your skiing. Sometimes a formal test isn't necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
That instructor feedback is always going to be relative to some implicit benchmark based on their expectations and their perception of your expectations, and may or may not be adjusted by whether they think praise or criticism will help most.
That's not at all interchangeable with a explicit measure of competence, whether that's based on measuring the ability to do certain tasks or a subjective assessment that you're as good as the other people given the Bronze badge but not as good as the Silvers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the problems with extrinsic motivators like awards or other rewards is that they can become the reason for doing something. To the point people will do things they wouldn't choose to do in order to get the award and will stop doing even the activity they did enjoy when the rewards dry up. For example there's a few studies that show offering children rewards and awards for reading actually ends up with them reading less than their peers who didn't have the extrinsic motivation.
The whole gamification thing is hilarious as 90% of what video games do is borrowed from psychology which in turn comes from studies of things people have always been doing. Good way of marketing the same old as something new and cool though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
The whole gamification thing is hilarious as 90% of what video games do is borrowed from psychology which in turn comes from studies of things people have always been doing. Good way of marketing the same old as something new and cool though.
|
Certainly a marketing buzz phrase, but underneath that video games represent an immense distributed programme of experimentation in applied psychology. It'd be stupid not to learn from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
Certainly a marketing buzz phrase, but underneath that video games represent an immense distributed programme of experimentation in applied psychology. It'd be stupid not to learn from it. |
I never really got into the video games scene. Can you give a few examples of the "experimentation"? ta
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
finestgreen, There is a lot of room for research into the psychology of game mechanics but precious little actually done especially by industry. Gamification as a thing is a long way from proving there are any unremarkable insights to be found let alone anything new. Great for flogging into the burgeoning education and business consulting markets which are full of unproven snake oil (e.g. NLP). Anyway I'll stop derailing the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
I never really got into the video games scene. Can you give a few examples of the "experimentation"? ta
|
In the sense that each one represents a hypothesis that this is what will appeal to people - same as any consumer good really - but games are uniquely measurable.
Invent a new fishfinger recipe and you're probably not going to get much better than feeding them to some focus groups and asking them to rate them on a scale of 1 to 10. Design a game and you can watch exactly how people experience it. You can see how they respond, where they look, how long they want to play, what choices they make, how their skills improve over time. As an example, Valve collected stats on 4 million game sessions in a single year - http://www.steampowered.com/status/ep2/ep2_stats.php
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Mind you it's taken a long time for me to finally work out that I can get feedback through the skis. As a beginner I still think any form of encouragement is vital. Perhaps even more so as an adult learner when maybe we don't see it as a 'game' like the kids do (well...... unless you are fC of course!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
finestgreen, I just think the gamification people would do better to look at the psychology experiments that the game developers based their mechanics on particularly in regard to the negative outcomes associated with some of them as I referenced earlier. It would shortcut the requirement for a lot of this research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| Perhaps even more so as an adult learner when maybe we don't see it as a 'game' like the kids do (well...... unless you are fC of course!!) |
Anyone fancy a race? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
kitenski,
| Quote: |
for all the folk wanting a badge/test/assessment, how do you think the spirit/tone of a ski coaching holiday would change if you knew you were being assessed, or had an "Exam" or "Test" to do on a specific day??
|
It would make me push myself that bit harder which is surely no bad thing. Since I enjoy learning for learning's sake, I don't think that it would detract from my enjoyment. I might be a bit disappointed if I failed my chosen test at the end, but would undoubtedly get over that, and try even harder the next time. |
I don't see why one couldn't do a "course" or instruction leading to a "badge" but where the final "test" was optional.
I think the power of having someone external who knows their onions (instructor or assessor etc) demonstrate belief in you ("you're now ready for blues/reds/blacks") when you don't have that belief yourself should not be underestimated for those of us in the more cautious camp (and not just in skiing).
I wonder, is there a gender difference in "badge chasing"? Are blokes more gung-ho and self-believing than girlies? Does the external validation - permissioning (I like it) - have greater significance for women? (Obviously that would only be a very generalised, straw-poll-type observation, if any)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All,
Why all these levels...1 to 10 and beyond etc.
Why not this: grades 1 ,2, 3 or Bronze, Silver, Gold. In per-defined, demonstrable and accepted BASI best practice.
Short Turns
GS Turns
Steeps
Bumps (medium grade/ not ice)
Variables
Powder
and anything else i might have forgotten.
You can work through 1,2 and 3 or, just jump straight into 2 or 3 depending.. Of course payment for assessment is essential.
1 or Bronze = Intermediate - perhaps dump this grade - see below.
2 or Silver = Advanced
3 or Gold = Expert
views anyone - this is like small incremental steps and means i could forever consign moguls to the very young and gifted and concentrate on powder or whatever. Cant see any problems in setting benchmarks for each grade - perhaps we need only 2, Advanced and Expert making it easier as who really wants the grade of 'Intermediate'. Ski schools themselves define skiers as 'Intermediate 1' after a first weeks skiing so it's not really a grade at all, just ( and i mean 'just'), you can ski, that's it.
I can see this generally might be more problematic for instructors / trainers to arrange though - the advantage for companies offering generic 'All Mountain' courses is its a very flexible product offering, and one where i've been unhappy with its delivery before. Perhaps i'm a bit fussy with my money AND most importantly, my TIME.
Opinions welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I shouldn't forget market sectors. There maybe an awful lot of folk that want to take grade 1 or 'intermediate' level.
In my view, more levels = more complexity but for coaches i can see more levels = less complexity, as task set is easier to teach and assess / mark.
Always a compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Heeney, If you can't ski moguls you can't ski - just make it a moguls test and that'll probably be a fair proxy for everything else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
