How to teach
May 9, 2008From agasan’s blog | and gnarly Google translated page here: (my highlights in bold)
When my teacher, Kuroiwa Yoshio sensei, was teaching at Hombu, he was once dispatched to teach at a certain dojo in the Tokyo area. The head of the dojo was also a kenjutsu practitioner, and was better known in that field. At one time Kisshomaru sensei was also going there, but overall it seems that that dojo head was a difficult person and all of the instructors who had been dispatched from Hombu to go there did not do so for long.
As I’m sure everyone who has ever received instruction from Kuroiwa sensei already knows, he teaches in a way that is very congenial and easy to understand. So, at the above dojo as well, after Kuroiwa sensei began to teach there, the number of students enrolling increased quite a bit.
However, he began to notice that there were fewer and fewer people coming to practice, and thinking it strange, asked about it to one of the students. He found out that the dojo head was tenaciously working to make the aikido students join the kenjutsu practice also. Some students said, “I enjoy aikido and would like to continue it, but I’m not interested in kenjutsu, so [I don’t think I’ll come anymore].” As it turned out, Kuroiwa sensei had been used as a lure for new students.
That was unacceptable, and sensei promptly quit going. As could be expected, the number of students drastically dropped, and the perplexed dojo head again requested Kuroiwa sensei to be dispatched. Kuroiwa sensei was supplicated by Kisshomaru sensei and again began to teach at the dojo. Again the number of students rose, and just when he was breathing a sigh of relief, the dojo head repeated his past behavior. This time sensei absolutely refused to go. It’s not that studying kenjutsu is bad, but it might be too much for a new aikido student to handle all at once.
By the way, the way Kuroiwa sensei teaches, he doesn’t distinguish between whether a person has been practicing for many years or few, or what the person’s rank is. In other words, even if there are differences in experience level, it might be that nobody is so perfect that they are outside of the relative need for improvement. Sensei’s understanding of logic and technique appear quite far from other people’s in general, such that a person with experience needs to struggle that much more to break apart what they know in order to get it. Thus it may require some conviction if one is to try to understand sensei. However this may be true to one degree or another with regards to receiving teaching in general.
This brings to mind another story. At a seminar a long time ago, an important person at the end of the shogunate was being honored. The representative at this gathering was someone who had taught aikido before. While that important person is someone who I myself respect, it is no wonder that the representative for such a gathering is also someone who I felt is a formidable person. I reckon that that person was higher ranking than Kuroiwa sensei (who only accepted 6th dan after being begged by Kisshomaru sensei). In any case that person conducted himself very well with regards to etiquette at the event. It’s likely that he may have been thrown off by movement that was different from the aikido that he was used to – however he practiced diligently, including asking questions.
It is not necessary to throw away the fruits of one’s practice as much as that person did. Even if you don’t undergo a “full model change”, it is the Kuroiwa style to change parts here and there, and get better by leaps and bounds that way. In fact this method may be the most effective for someone who has been doing aikido for many years and encounters walls and is faced with questions.
The average student does not grasp what the difference is between a person who is really good and a person who is not. Conversely, if a person were to grasp that, then they would be good. Currently I am now in a position to teach people and am gradually learning how to teach. To grasp the overall technique and the general flow is so obvious that it’s not necessary to make mention of it. In fact, it is more conducive to students’ gaining understanding if I err on the analytic side, coupled with clear details, e.g., the meanings of techniques, how to place one’s hips, how to move one’s feet, how to use one’s hands, etc.
Also, something that I currently think is one of the most important things is to practice such that one painstakingly breaks down movement, particularly the trajectories of the hands and feet. It is ideal if one can see (or thinks one can see) these trajectories. It may sound unscientific to say that one can see what is invisible, but there is value in doing repetition so that one can come to perceive thusly.
I don’t have the ability to express with the written word these trajectories. However, (and this is crucial) it does not force something unreasonable or cramped upon the opponent, yet at the same time be accompanied by movement that effects sufficient balance-breaking (movement that does not force something unreasonable or cramped upon the opponent is most effective). Please try studying it.
To think on how to teach so that people can understand is to revisit one’s own movement objectively and analytically, and is relevant to one’s own improvement. It is something to be grateful for.
Posted by da2elni4na
