 Poster: A snowHead
|
Just as a test I taught 2 classes this week (all first time skiers) one in the BASI style - taken directly from the manual, and one in the AMSI style – taken directly from the instructors Video.
OK there will of course always some people who will pick it up quicker than others, but, on average (10 people per class) the people in the AMSI style class progressed much faster.
The main differences being;
1 No absorbing (plough 2 to 3) – yeah I know, it shouldn’t work but….
2 Ignoring the plough parallel altogether (so straight from plough turning – to rise into paralelle)
I know it sounds like it shouldn’t work – but it does.
Looking at the 2 groups the people in the BASI style class had a better feel for the basics which will eventually will stand them in good stead but, as 1 week a year skiers, the people in the AMSI style class were more able to tackle harder runs by the end of the week.
Hmmmmm
It was just a test and next week I'll go back to the BASI style I always use as I think it will help the skiers progress more in the end.
But it was interesting to see the difference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Wayne, if a client is making really quick progress do you require them to spend some time in the plough parallel phase if you happen to have a BASI hat on that week?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I tend to teach PEOPLE to ski, rather than SKIING to people. Systems are only a frame work and I would encourage instructors to venture outside the frame work. It's interesting out there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| gilleski wrote: |
| I tend to teach PEOPLE to ski, rather than SKIING to people. Systems are only a frame work and I would encourage instructors to venture outside the frame work. It's interesting out there! |
Hear, hear!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| gilleski wrote: |
| I tend to teach PEOPLE to ski, rather than SKIING to people. Systems are only a frame work and I would encourage instructors to venture outside the frame work. It's interesting out there! |
Hear, hear! |
That's what I was thinking... Of course, in the US, we don't have a "progression," so I'm aware that my paradigm is a bit different. That said, I like to help guests understand the effective movements and tactical choices that will serve them well from first day through the rest of their skiing lives.
And I don't teach the "plough" or even the wedge. For me, those are manifestations of a parallel turn that occur as skiers learn to control their skis independently, not steps through which they must pass...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was just interested to see what the results (how people react to) the different systems. Not saying either is better or worst, just different.
I went to an AMSI presentation the other night and was interested in the different points of progression.
Last BASI course I was on there was an emphasis on the progression and this is the same here with the AMSI it's just that a few of the steps are different. I think the end aim is the same - SEL and happy learners
| ssh wrote: |
| And I don't teach the "plough" or even the wedge. For me, those are manifestations of a parallel turn that occur as skiers learn to control their skis independently, not steps through which they must pass... |
I don't think that BASI sees any stage of the progression (trying not to say the CT words  ) as hoops that a client must jump through, each person learn differently but/and by having a certain set progression (as a start point only) it at least gives you (well me anyway) somewhere to go from and to.
May be wrong about BASI's ideas - maybe a trainer could answer better - but I think that the CT is as good a system as any other as long as it's tempered to the client's needs and abilities.
The AMSI system is more geared (as far as I can see) towards getting clients into paralelle as quick as poss. BASI's CT seems (again to me) aimed at giveing a client a sound base to go farwards from. Again, a trainer may be able to give a more reasoned explanation of the aims of the CT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, for me I have an end point in mind that I'd like to help the client reach, and I'd like them to get there as soon as they can (provided the movement patterns they are building up form a strong foundation for their future skiing). CT seems to me to be a sensible description of the journey that most skiers should go through, but for me it's not a fixed path, just some signposts along the way. If they can go from A to D and not spend much time fiddling around with B and C that's what I will try to help them do.
I've never been keen on the idea of a "BASI system" where instructors or clients must do this or that, in a particular order and do nothing else. Fortunately none of the Trainers I've had have tried to enforce a fixed approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
For me the CT represents a series of "likely" phases a skier may pass through. Some skiers linger longer in a phase ( the plough turning phase as an example). Others seemingly skip a phase or move rapidly through it. As each phase represents a developmental acquisition of "useful" tools that are applicable at that point in a skiers journey, it seems un realistic to expect perfection in any givern phase along the way. Peoples journey time in developing as skiers through the CT or any other system in very variable. We as instructors just need to help them along the way and know when to adjust the pathway to suit the learner.
PSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From another perspective I teach photography to small groups. I have a curriculum which all my learners need to achieve in order to gain their qualification. The curriculum gives me a framework of "things they need to know". However, I adapt this to meet the needs of the (very) individual learners. I also adapt it based on my own knowledge and what is relevant or what interests the group I have. But there are core elements which always need to be covered and worked through.
I've found that (and it's possibly the same with teaching skiing) groups interact differently and require different approaches, also circumstances change, learners needs change, the learner journey gets extended or diverted - all these things mean that I'm constantly adjusting the things I teach and the way I teach them. But the end point is clear in my mind based on the qualification/curriculum requirements. I don't believe there is one single "style" although I know that I teach in a particular way and that is personal to me but I use a variety of methods to deliver teaching (practical, theory, demonstration etc) and these change at one level from group to group and even change when addressing individuals within the groups.
My learners need to demonstrate to me and to external verifiers that they can do the things the curriculum/qual expects. They acquire some core knowledge and practical skills and apply these to their own practice. They are then judged on the evidence whether they have achieved something or need further input/guidance/training. Once they have reached a certain level (by the end of the course) then they will be awarded their qualification.
In my view I'd guess this is similar to ski instruction (or any skills based learning).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Hello. I can see that this thread is 10 years old. But...
I'm very surprised to read about this "BASI Style" of teaching.
BASI teachers are educated to teach in a variety of styles, and we all know this. And we knew it 10 and 20 years ago too.
The last time I looked, we studied "Honey and Mumford", and the process involves spotting the individual's natural learning behaviour.
Obviously, we should be teaching skills not turns. (Verbs not nouns and so on).
I'm sure we've all flirted with the idea of moving directly from straight running to parallel (leaving out the snowplough) and concluded that doing so is missing the point.
Then, of course, there are the Fitts and Posner Phases of Skill Acquisition.
Their theory is that skill acquisition follows three sequential stages: cognitive, associative, and autonomous. The rate of skill acquisition varies across the three stages.
Take one autonomous skill and refine it, and you have to take it back to the Cognitive (becoming aware stage), practise it, before being able to perform it without thinking.
Refs. 1 Honey and Mumford
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/doctoralcollege/training/eresources/teaching/theories/honey-mumford
Refs. 2 BASI Alpine Manual (See page 146)
https://www.basi.org.uk/BASIManuals/ContentAreas/Alpine_Manual.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@SkiPresto, I was thinking a few times this season, it having been an [i]interesting[/b] one and reflecting on various conversations I've observed on here about not teaching snowploughs.
In particular, there's one route round here where the descent is 90% via a steepish mountain track, usually narrow, often hardpack/polished/ice.
If your snowplough skills are not strong (including 1/2 ploughs, transitions in and out of sideslips, directional sideslips) you'll be partially walking down and mostly sliding sitting down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@SkiPresto, I was thinking a few times this season, it having been an [i]interesting[/b] one and reflecting on various conversations I've observed on here about not teaching snowploughs.
In particular, there's one route round here where the descent is 90% via a steepish mountain track, usually narrow, often hardpack/polished/ice.
If your snowplough skills are not strong (including 1/2 ploughs, transitions in and out of sideslips, directional sideslips) you'll be partially walking down and mostly sliding sitting down. |
Indeed. I once was working my way out of a steep sided gully, getting tired of a snowplough I reverted to a bit of a straight run with pivots. Of course the track was sufficiently icy and steep that I didn't get the time to do my first pivot before I had been launched off a bump onto my back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
