who would make a better racing instructor?

[Burt Munro]

This is almost like one of the standard interview questions for supervisors -

Who would you choose to be on your team:

Joe is very talented and intelligent but he doesn't seem to have much of a work ethic.

Bob works very hard, is dedicated and loyal but isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Key to both is communication.  Identifying the problem area and determining what's causing it, what does it take to correct it and how best to convey the message.

Most amazing coaches I've seen are in competitive diving.  

You don't just tell a kid to go up on the 10 meter platform and try a double twisting forward 3 1/2 somersault for the first time - just wing it and see how it comes out.  

Consequences here are huge!  We're not talking the red mark you got on your back the first time you landed wrong off the high board.  We're talking hitting the water at 35 mph from 33 feet on a surface that can feel as hard as concrete if you land wrong.  Damage to internal organs and paralysis are not out of the question!

But you build up to it with other tricks and simulations to overcome the fear of failure.  If you can break the action down to a series of smaller steps you have a better chance of success.  In diving if it goes wrong the first time it's 10 times harder to try it the second time!

Video recording is an awesome teaching tool.  Most people don't have the ability to accurately visualize what they're doing wrong (or right). Much easier to show somebody what you're trying to teach with a video of themselves.

[tzracer]

Part of the equation is the instructor. Does not matter how well you can do something, that in and of itself does not mean you can teach.

I always laugh at the old saying, those who can, do and those that can't, teach.

Really should be, those who can,do and those who understand, teach.

Another part of the equation is the student. Just sitting in a room during instruction does not make learning happen. The student MUST be an active participant. I teach for Learning Curves and I teach college level physics and math. I have run into many students who are not very good students. You can have the best instructor on the planet, but if the student is a poor student - not much is going to happen. If you are not participating - actively listening, full attention, taking proper notes, asking questions when you don't understand or to deepen your understanding - your learning is not what it could be.

In roadracing schools, students are quite motivated, but not very many come with a pad of paper and a pen. A good student arrives prepared to learn with the proper tools. In my 20 years of school I always had to provide my own paper and pen why would I assume otherwise when I go to any type of class/seminar?

[spyderchick]

A lot of folks with excellent responses here. I have a little anecdote to tell in response (I've told this one before...)

I used to be a dance instructor, ballroom, ballet, modern, etc. Several years ago I was studying marshal arts. My instructor was a 5th degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, directly from Korea. He could break a bat in two, spar with the best, execute flawless spinning kicks high into the air.

One day during class one of my fellow students was to learn a basic turning kick. My instructor would demonstrate the kick perfectly over and over, but this student could not grasp the mechanics of the movement. My instructor could not break the movement down into elements. I came over after the instructor had moved on to another student, and proceeded to teach him the very same kick my Sabunim could not.

I was not a black belt, and had only been studying for a year. I had broken the kick down into a slow motion, step by step movement that the student could follow. I also explained to him in suscinct terms how the movement was accomplished. By the end of the session, he was doing the kick well enough to please the instructor.

The elements at work were a motivated student, an articulate instructor, and level of communication that we both could share. My instructor, although proficient and accomplished, did these movements instictively, and had a hard time breaking them down into elements. Not only that, he didn't know how to convey his message to the student in a way that they both could communicate.

A good instructor/student relationship is different every time. You both need to be communicating on the same level, with the same goals in sight. Then both benefit from the relationship.

[H-man]

A good instructor/student relationship is different every time. You both need to be communicating on the same level, with the same goals in sight. Then both benefit from the relationship.

Yeah!  What she said. ;)

"Wax on.  Wax off"  ;D

[cleezmo]

The student factor is so important...my own anecdote..

For my Dad's 50th birthday a few years ago, my sisters and I enrolled him in Ed Bargy's school. He didn't really plan on racing but was interested in maybe doing some track days. So we traded places for the day, me as crew chief and him as rider...

In his class he had several, uh, squids. Guys in their early 20s, on shiny new CBR954s and GSX-R750s, who apparently felt that A. They were already fast, B. They already knew what Mr. Bargy was going to teach them, and C. The class was just a formality to get their license so they could race that weekend.

Results of this attitude? One guy crashed 3 times in the day, after which Ed threw him out of the class. 2 other guys crashed at least once, at speeds where my GS500 wouldn't even have been breathing hard *(read - RIDER ERROR)*. One guy even bumped my Dad going into the chicane onto the banking (this was at Gateway).

The problem was they walked into that class thinking "I already know how to go fast, old man, so just give me my certificate". Mr. Bargy never had a chance to teach them anything.

[tzracer]

Another point is teaching experience. You need to practice teaching just like any other skill. Jason D'Amico was trying to teach some of the information that I usually covered. He had seen me do it numerous times, yet he found it difficult the first time. I made it look easy because I teach 9 months out of the year. I teach difficult subjects (for most people) to often times an unwilling audience (required course - not by choice) requires me to have a variety of teaching techniques and the ability to use verbal and non verbal feedback to gauge a classes learning of a subject.

Teaching a relatively easy subject (compared to classes I have taught and taken roadracing is conceptually quite simple) to a willing audience is quite easy.

[Protein Filled]

How does that saying go?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Greg_Williams]

I agree with the previous posts that talent doesn't necessariy make one a good instructor/coach.  It is critical to be able to determine what mode your learner acquires information (visual, auditory, kinesthetic,etc) and to communicate in a way that connects with them.  I think that almost equally important is to realize that in working with adults that the teaching methodology is critical.  Adult -centered education focuses more on functioning as a coach rather than as an instructor.

MSF used to be VERY instructor oriented and I thought that the rigid teaching philosophy resulted in generally poor quality course experiences.  When MSF changed to an adult-centered focus in 2002 I think that the student experience significantly improved.  A lot of the old time MSF instructors fought the new curriculum or quit.  I can't help but think that reaction was due to the fact that they had been in a rigid, instructor-centered environment where they coudl be the 'wise' one and now found themselves in a student-centered situation where telling war stories and posing as a sage was specifically ruled out.  

If you are interested there are a lot of sites out there.  Google learning styles.

[taz]

I have to say the person that had to work for it, unless the person who was a natural was also a natural instructor.   The natural may not even realize what or how he does what he does let alone be able to explain it to someone.   Think of teaching a child how to tie their shoes.   For you it is automatic,  you have been doing if for years.  For the child it looks like magic.  

I have been (or was) an instructor in the Nuclear industry for many years.  It is not about how much you know or how good you are at something but how well you can convey the knowledge to someone else.   We did an instructing exercise a few years ago and tried to break down tying a shoelace into a lesson plan and then present it exactly as the lesson plan was written...to adults.  It was much harder than I thought it would be.   A simple task that is almost automatic.  

Now take that shoelace lesson plan and attempt to do it with something so technical as racing a motorcycle.   IMO, if you had to work at it, you would know (or should know)  why you do the things you do and could probably convey that information better than the person that does not have to think about what they do.

Just one man's opinion