Firstly thanks Eoin for the response, and no hurry with responding again I know you are very busy.
ham n salad wrote:EDICT is simple, it works.
Yes EDICT is simple but the question is who
does it work for?
The answer is that it works for a novice instructor at basic delivery on a key stroke. This is where the huge weakness of EDICT lies. Like I've specified in the article the entire philosophy of the learning process is focused around the person instructing rather then the person being taught.
I have actually had a very interesting discussion with the training and development unit of Canoeing Ireland through email since this went up. I will post their responses in full when I have their permission so I am not seen to be "cherry picking" quotes which help my argument.
But this is a telling finding for me:
TDU: "The main weakness we have seen in the cohort of Irish Instructors is their ability to observe and analyse performance to provide meaningful and accurate feedback."
EDICT as taught as a staple grassroots method of teaching requires very little on the part of the learners, for this reason they don't respond in ways that make an instructor think about why they teach a particular skill in a particular way.
The feedback instructors provide is what they remember from their instructor courses or what whoever taught them used to say on the topic. With such little interaction between instructor and learner it is no surprise to me that instructors can't adapt to analyse performance because EDICT doesn't allow for students to question or make the instructor think in different ways.
If instructors are started off using EDICT as Level 2 instructors and get comfortable in that role I feel it will be more difficult for them to change their coaching methods to accommodate learner focused advanced methods. This is especially true if there is a number of years between an instructor gaining a Level 2 certificate and Level 3 certificate.
But by directing instructor focus on hearing from the learners
from the start (L2) new instructors can autonomously improve their learner directed practices during their logging hours stage and beyond. This is because they have been given the philosophy that hearing and responding to the learners in different ways is important. That way by the time the Level 3 instructor course comes around they are ready and open to hear about the more advanced practices and can relate to the topic of learner directed teaching from experience.
Do you agree that EDICT although simple and somewhat effective (for instructors) can create hard to break routines and rituals for instructors moving forward?
Do you think EDICT can be changed to create something that is just as simple but requires the instructors to ask more from the learners?
My TRUSTS method is unlikely to be effective for novice instructors as it requires an abundance of experience and perception.
I believe strongly that there is scope for EDICT to be altered in order to set instructors on the right path in terms of receiving feedback from the learner, be that through a complete overhaul or an addition of a discovery/understanding or review stage.
ham n salad wrote:You mentioned something in your document about explanations not explaining why and where a stroke is used; I disagree with that; I try to always include those things when introducing strokes to people.
I'm perfectly happy with people disagreeing with me. All I ask is that you try different methods out for yourself to see if they work for you. I personally have found great positives from not giving beginners the answers straight away. By giving students the answers all you are requiring of the students is imitation.
You have to remember that you speaking about why and where a stroke is used is just meaningless words to beginners, they may nod their head enthusiastically and reiterate what you said but this does not account for true learning. You can repeat teaching points 100 times and true understanding may not occur.
For instance you could tell students to lift their upstream edge to let the current flow under their kayak when breaking into the flow Or you can ask students to look downstream when breaking in and let them tell you why it is important. My belief is that the latter allows for a far greater learning experience as it gets them to think rather then be given the answers.
Wrote this while very tired so hopefully it makes sense.
Cheers for the reply again Eoin, hopefully some others can get involved in the discussion.