Coaching: Dealing with problems in group lessons

[RITFencing]

I recently got off of the phone with the mother of a fencer, who said her daughter was in a group class, and the person she was paired with was having problems with a drill (I do not know exactly what the drill was.) The instructor told the person not having trouble to "do it wrong so that your partner has an easier time."

Is this right or wrong? If the fencer (we'll call her A) who is supposed to get hit in this drill goes easy on her partner (B), the partner will be more likely to see how things are supposed to work, but it could be detrimental to A's form. If A goes full speed, she will have no problems but B will be unable to grasp the concept. Assuming that the class is large enough that the coach can't spend a whole lot of time with any one student and therefore can't deal completely with B's problem, what do you think should be done?

[qatet]

Have the kids rotate regularly to get different partners. In this instance, B would understand the drill better from this rotation (and hopefully be up to speed for the next rotation) and A would get more benefit from the next rotation, but would still work the basic ideas in the first rotation.

If there are a lot of kids who get it and a lot of kids who don't, split the group into two groups - all As who get it, and all Bs who don't. Give Bs a more basic version of the drill, have As work the more complicated version. At the end, if possible, make sure that the Bs get to see what the As were doing so they have a sense of how the drill will progress later.

[RITFencing]

But what do you do during the current rotation? It seems too unwiedly of a setup to rotate students every time one of them has an issue like this.

[keith]

As a student - identify the competent indivduals in the class try and work with them.

As a coach - make sure that the competent students pair with each other.

- not terribly helpful I know.
But....

There is nothing wrong with slowing drills down so as students get it right. One of the nice aspects of fencing is that it does lend itself to slowing the speed to develop technical correctness - speed can come later.

Getting students to go faster and faster is not often the coaches problem - often it is more persuading students that they need to slow down and get it right.

[keropie]

Well, to me it depends on the nature of the exercise. There are plenty of exercises where I think that fencer A should indeed 'let herself get hit.' The difficulty there is making sure that all the fencer A's out there create the right amount of challenge for their corresponding fencer B's. This is most appropriate in drills that are form or tactically related, especially when you introduce the drill. As they get better at it, you would tend to move to a more 'competitve' situation in which case fencer A should increase the tempo or correct execution of their action, and make it harder for fencer B to succeed. But that's only after fencer B has some skill at the exercise in question.

You can also have a 'task-rivalry' situation in which neither fencer is 'supposed' to hi, but rather one fencer will do their job better, and that fencer should hit. For instance, very limited strategic bouting, where one fencer is going forward with the only option being a simple attack. The other fencer is going backwards and can either attack into preparation or make a parry riposte. No other actions are allowed. Fencer F (for forward) marches down, and makes an attack. Fencer B (for backwards) tries to parry, and if they succeed, makes a riposte. If the fail, F wins, if they succeed, B wins. But again, this assumes that both fencers have a certain amount of ability.

[qatet]

As a student, it's rare that I work with somebody at _exactly_ my level in any drill. Usually I'm the one holding myself in check so my partner will come to better understand the drill, sometimes I'm the one struggling with a partner who gets the drill better than I do. I'm usually able to get something out of working with the "scrubs," too, or I'd have little incentive to keep showing up at practice.

The better fencer can be focussing on their form, on practicing an action at a slower speed, on thinking out where the next variations could go, etc. If they're too young to understand this on their own, then you can explain to them what you want them to get out of this simplified drill - if they're older they _should_ be able to understand this and pick something to hone on their own.

With my kids, I try to make sure that they rotate pretty frequently. It gives them a break to stretch their legs and a chance to refocus on the task at hand. It gives me a chance to provide general guidance if everybody is having trouble or if everybody needs to remember to, say, begin extending before lunging. It also means that a minute or two spent working with somebody who doesn't get it isn't the end of the world - the better kids understand that, ahh well, this time they're in a bit more of a coach role, but next time they'll get to drill their own task more.

In my program, the kids are already divided into different levels, and many of our games and drills are built to allow more or less complex versions of the same task - Intermediates and Advanced can play the same basic game, but with variations. If there are persistent problems within a group (say, two rotations and a core is still _really_ struggling), I've been known to ask them who feels like they get the drill and who doesn't - then redivide and set a more complex version for those who get it.

[jessicasimpson]

You should recomend that both fencers A & B take more private lessons

[Mr Epee]

This thread is about as vague as they come. Come on!

I hardly ever have kids do paired line drills, because I feel that running them is a lot of work for me, and of minimal value to the kids. The kids that need a coach's supervision and instruction during these exercises rarely have the experience to consistantly perform properly (repeating bad habits) - and the kids who have the experience to benefit from the drills are also experienced enough to be given a task list and pointed towards a free corner of the gym.

Why not spend group drill time doing exercises don't require a partner?

[swordsen]

Often, prehaps even usually ina drill it is one fencers job to be hit and the other fencers job to do the hitting. Have one partner slow down a little so a less skilled person can learn the action is part of the process. Working an action slowly at times isn't all that bad for beginers. It gives them a chance to focus on doing it RIGHT as opposed to doing it FAST.
I find paired drills quite usefull when I have a large group of beginers. LIke a PE class. In club I will usually do the paired drills so that the fencers will alternate between a less advanced opponent and more advanced as they rotate through. thus they get to help their less advanced tema mates improve, work witht eh best and get help and square off with those of equal level.

[parrythis]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

The instructor told the person not having trouble to "do it wrong so that your partner has an easier time."

I guess that depends on what "wrong" means in this context. If it means doing it with incorrect movements, then I think that may be bad advice. If it means to slow it down or adjust the tempo (break it up into component moves) at first so that both drill partners get the hang of it, then that would be OK and expected sometimes. Many is the time I have had to slow a drill down for the first few moves so that either my partner or I could grasp it. As the drill progresses, have the fencers pick up the pace gradually.

Everyone learns at a different rate. Group lessons always have some individuals grasping/learning more quickly than others. People in a group lesson environment need to allow for that. If they cannot, perhaps private lessons are indicated.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

You should recomend that both fencers A & B take more private lessons

Sadly not an option at this club, which is very restrictive about private lessons.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

This thread is about as vague as they come. Come on!

I hardly ever have kids do paired line drills, because I feel that running them is a lot of work for me, and of minimal value to the kids. The kids that need a coach's supervision and instruction during these exercises rarely have the experience to consistantly perform properly (repeating bad habits) - and the kids who have the experience to benefit from the drills are also experienced enough to be given a task list and pointed towards a free corner of the gym.

Why not spend group drill time doing exercises don't require a partner?

Fair enough; what sorts of things do you focus on in group classes vs private lessons, and what ratio of group workrivate workpen bouting:anything else do you use for your competitive students?

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

The instructor told the person not having trouble to "do it wrong so that your partner has an easier time."

Is this right or wrong? If the fencer (we'll call her A) who is supposed to get hit in this drill goes easy on her partner (B), the partner will be more likely to see how things are supposed to work, but it could be detrimental to A's form. If A goes full speed, she will have no problems but B will be unable to grasp the concept.

Well, there is a big difference between "doing something wrong" and doing it slowly. Doing something slowly to help the other person catch up while still building form for A. Doing some wrong (ex: a bad extension what is easier for a epeeist to pick off) will only marginally help B while possibly damaging A, if they are a beginner/low intermediate.

So slowing down should be the answer, but keep those pair rotating so that A isn't bored out of her skull because she got a less skilled opponent.

I disagree with always pairing the "best" students within a skill level. This leaves others behind, which should be a consideration, but more importantly can hurt the more advanced student by limiting the "looks" (body types, heights, handedness, etc..) that they practice against.

[RITFencing]

Excellent compromise. Let's see if I can rep you.

EDIT: Nope! Sorry.

[epeeisky]

I have a kid like B in the begginer group that I help teach right now. Basically I make B do the action correctly and slow, and the first time they do it I will guide their hand along with my own so that they can feel how to do it correctly. Then I watch them do it, and hopefully they have the motion down. I have them work up in speed so that they continually do the action correctly at their own pace until they feel comfortable and able to do the action at full speed. Hopefully, at this point they have the action down pat, and as I cycle around the groups I watch to see that they are doing the action correctly. If not, then I stop student B and start them all over again by guiding their hand then making sure they get it, and then building up in speed.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I recently got off of the phone with the mother of a fencer, who said her daughter was in a group class, and the person she was paired with was having problems with a drill (I do not know exactly what the drill was.) The instructor told the person not having trouble to "do it wrong so that your partner has an easier time."

This isn't the best way to put it, but sometimes it's a necessity.

For example, say that the coach teaches a very strong hand position when making an attack, such that it closes the 6 line.

Now the students are doing a circular-six & riposte drill. Fencer A does it well, but fencer B is having difficulty with it -- this difficulty is made worse by fencer A's good hand position closing out the line that B is "supposed" to riposte in. (This, incidentally, is where I see this happening most often).

Ideally, the coach would take a few moments with B to fix their action -- they ought to have time to improve it, at least slightly. However, the coach (perhaps) should tell A to relax, or to return to guard after making the parried attack, or to simply retreat (often in this situation, the distance being too close is as much a cause of the action's failure as the bladework involved) so that B can make a successful action that can be built upon, and so that B will not be training to make the wrong action for the situation (the line is closed, they should be changing lines, but that's not what the coach wants B to work on).

If the words used by the coach were to "do it wrong", then that's a mistake. There are plenty of instructions that will produce the correct result that don't leave fencer A feeling useless -- after all, sometimes she will WANT to encourage an attack into a certain line, and as such leave it open. A brief explanation on the value of being able to leave a given line open and the point of the drill should be enough. "Do it wrong" is a quick way out which gives nothing of value to A, and probably doesn't help B much. The coach should give A instructions which allow her to control the situation ... she will be controlling it to allow B to hit her, but it can still be a beneficial experience for both fencers.

(Note: After reading other comments, I notice that you seem to imply that this is largely about *speed*. I'd be very shocked if Fencer A wouldn't benefit some from slowing down the action, and attempting to make every part of it technically perfect. If speed is the issue -- the coach said "do it slowly", not "do it wrong" -- it shouldn't be.)

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

This thread is about as vague as they come. Come on!

I hardly ever have kids do paired line drills, because I feel that running them is a lot of work for me, and of minimal value to the kids. The kids that need a coach's supervision and instruction during these exercises rarely have the experience to consistantly perform properly (repeating bad habits) - and the kids who have the experience to benefit from the drills are also experienced enough to be given a task list and pointed towards a free corner of the gym.

Why not spend group drill time doing exercises don't require a partner?

I find pairwork to be a fantastic form of training, but it's important that the group size isn't too big and the exercises are level-appropriate (obviously).
Exercises that develop the ability to control distance and create surprise are, in particular, really well-suited to pairwork.

One of the benefits of pairwork is that it's a very direct way to simulate situations in a bout without requiring the coach be with every student.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Jason

I find pairwork to be a fantastic form of training, but it's important that the group size isn't too big and the exercises are level-appropriate (obviously).
Exercises that develop the ability to control distance and create surprise are, in particular, really well-suited to pairwork.

Sure, pair work has value. I probably could have been more clear. I was thinking of "paired line drills" where you have Line A and Line B and every one works on the same exercises at the same time.

My comment was more along the lines of the instructor trying to move everyone as a group.

When I assign pair work, I'll usually match people up and then give them a drill card to work on... this saves me a tremendous amount of energy, and it addresses the problems of working with a group comprised of individuals with different levels of skill.