Should Teachers "Dumb It Down" ?

Inspired by another thread but I didn't want to hijack so here's a new one;

We see it so often;

Example A.
There's a class at an event or congress billed as an Advanced Class, but with open entry. The teacher has some "Advanced" stuff planned, but 50% of the class are not (yet) capable of it, either through length or complexity.
Should the teacher "dumb down" the level (eiher by shortening it, or by doing less complex stuff) so that a higher percentage of the class get something worthwhile out of it, or should they stick to their guns and let the "non-advanced" level dancers struggle or walk? The words - "If you can't do this, you really shouldnt be in this class" spring to mind...

Example B.
Similar scenario to example A, but this time for a class billed as "Intermediate" - should any extra leeway be given?

if it's a congress then no, as people have paid good money to be in a certain level of class - obviously if no one is getting it then reconsider but I think people at congress level for advanced should expect advanced

maybe for intermediate there should be a bit more leeway but not tot he point of going back to teaching basic step....

again it's unfair on intermediate people and if a beginner turns up to an intermediate class but that said, if it takes the teacher 30 secs to explain something for a bunch of people that brings them up to speed then go for it.

interesting thread. quick answer would be that depends. at a congress i dont see why they should dumb it down (people should know better) but i guess there's not enough time to spot and politely demote pople.

as for regular venues if its very busy i still say no. the flip side is that in less busy venues the teacher may have to make some allowances to get people to come back the next week.

there's a couple of venues in london that are invite only, which i prefer (and im not invited). at 1 venue especially you see guys that do adv eslewhere but do that int. keeps their int to a high(er) std than others.

due to dumbing down (also in popular venues) of the int i have to do the adv (which i find im fine with, due to dumbing down?).

ps couldnt decide what to vote

I voted no 1. It's tough, but what's the point of having different levels otherwise? I've been in intermediate classes where some leaders can't do a CBL :shock: should the teacher 'dumb it down' and teach them how to? I think not! :evil:

I'm not going to vote because there isn't a suitable radiobutton for me...

It would be 'No, don't dumb it down, just provide properly named gradated classes - absolute beginners, recent beginners, improvers, and then I would split what pass for intermediate classes (which is where most people gravitate to) into two levels.

Now, I know that unless you had a huge venue you couldn't run six classes simultaneously but you might be able to do so consecutively. Or you might be able to come to some agreement with a nearby venue (hah! - unheard of among rival salsa teachers) At the very least you should make it clear what level the class is, and stick to it. You may have to accept that some students will be struggling a bit, and others handling it comfortably, but don't mislead them as to the level or you'll make things difficult for all teachers everywhere....

It has become too common a sight for students to show up for classes that they are simply not ready for. Perhaps there should be a clear description of the expectations and prerequisites for a class before students show up because I firmly believe that people should not be given the false sense of security that they are in a more advanced class than is appropriate for their level. Unfortunately, the end result is almost always driven by economic reasons i.e the fact that the instructor needs students (and their money).

I really don't like the concept of dumbing down classes because I believe that pushing people (in a positive way) leads to them really discovering what their strengths are. In this case, it might mean that the students need to go back and revise the fundamentals of what is required to successfully make it through a class. I find that dumbing down is a slippery slope because there is no clear demarcation as to where to stop. If increasingly worse students keep showing up, should you keep on dumbing down until you are reduced to having to explain the basic footwork at every lesson?

--T

Flex said:

I'm not going to vote because there isn't a suitable radiobutton for me...

It would be 'No, don't dumb it down, just provide properly named gradated classes - absolute beginners, recent beginners, improvers, and then I would split what pass for intermediate classes (which is where most people gravitate to) into two levels.

Now, I know that unless you had a huge venue you couldn't run six classes simultaneously but you might be able to do so consecutively. Or you might be able to come to some agreement with a nearby venue (hah! - unheard of among rival salsa teachers) At the very least you should make it clear what level the class is, and stick to it. You may have to accept that some students will be struggling a bit, and others handling it comfortably, but don't mislead them as to the level or you'll make things difficult for all teachers everywhere....

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm not feeling you (unusually - which in a way makes a pleasant change).
Surely splitting the intermediate classes into 2, makes for Intermediate and Advanced levels? Or thereabouts, at least. Given this assumption, and the assumption that the class is clearly advertised, then as far as I can tell, you're going for the "Don't dumb it down at all" option, which is there. Come on Flex - stand up and be counted

I'm not voting because I think most classes are dumbed down already. :twisted: Which probably means I vote for No, don't dumb it down.
It's sink or swim jim!

I voted "no, don't dumb down". Having said that, the idea of what is advanced/intermediate/etc. probably varies from one teacher to another... Advanced in Edinburgh may well be lower intermediate in NYC :?. It would be good if the teacher said right at the start something to the effect of "if you don't know how to do xxx, this is not the class for you"... or perhaps demonstrate the whole routine at the beginning so people could decide themselves if they'd want to stick around?

TheBear_CanDanceToo said:

Hmmm. I'm not feeling you (unusually - which in a way makes a pleasant change).

Click to expand...

LOL indeed I am usually in tune with you, O Bear, so this may indicate prospects for an interesting discussion.... my mind is open....

I think that students move quickly (?too quickly?) through the beginner and improver classes and end up in the 'intermediate' class. For me, an advanced class is one that is technically difficult and which experienced dancers will still attend because they can still learn or practise something to improve. I wouldn't like to see that dumbed down. I wonder whether some teachers / promoters use the word 'advanced' to describe their classes in order to give the punters a good feeling? Is this bad? (I think so, but open to argument).

Whereas beginners and improvers classes are pretty much of a level wherever you go, intermediate classes, I think, cover a very wide range of ability. So I was thinking that that's the area that could do with splitting up a bit, as far as descriptions are concerned.

I recall (old salsamafia site?) posts about the specifications for student ability for each level. We could get into discussion about that! (But would it serve any good?...)

The first time a friend of mines complained about advanced beginners coming to classes they werent ready for, I thought he was just being a snob. Then I realized he had a point. We pay good money for the congress pass. The last workshop I went to was supposed to be advanced on2 but people that have never danced on2 showed up because the instructor was "famous" by the time the sixth or seventh guy gave me the "sorry, Im just used to dancing on1" I was pretty p'ed off because if you only dance on 1 then WTH are you at an advanced on2 class wasting other people's time and money? So, nope, dont dumb it down. Run with the big dogs or stay on the porch! As a matter of fact I just started going to a class that is slightly above my level but I asked the instructor if he thought i was ready and he said yes. He said if you want to get better you have to be with people who are better, but im sure he didnt mean i should go ahead and jump into a class that i would be disrupting. By the way, I am an advance beginner. :roll:

I don't think the level should be dumbed down. If I pick an advanced class, I expect it to be advanced and not intermediate. If I really go to an advance class and aren't sure about keeping up with it, I talk with the lady, who would be my dance partner before about this. So she can decide to look for somebody else as a dance partner. And since I've personally been to an advanced class where I had a bit of a struggle to keep up, I wouldn't have wanted the teacher to dumb it down. Surely the class will be therefor be more challenging for me, but I like the occasional challenge as it also keeps and increases my motivation to learn it. So I voted "No".

i think there is also a difference between doing "advanced" turn patterns and attending an advanced "dance" class.

as i mentioned in the what i learnt this week thread, i realised i can't spin on one leg, perfectly well on 2 but not on 1....yet i know i canf ollow advanced patterns pretty easily 90% of the time.

there are very few congress classes, santo rico spins class is the only one personally that comes to mind, that focus on basic dance techniques and i reckon most people that think/are advanced dancers ont eh floor,probably stumble when it comes to these kinds of basics...unless they have been lucky enough to have taken lessons in a school where classes on turns etc have been taught.

Flex said:

TheBear_CanDanceToo said:

Hmmm. I'm not feeling you (unusually - which in a way makes a pleasant change).

Click to expand...

LOL indeed I am usually in tune with you, O Bear, so this may indicate prospects for an interesting discussion.... my mind is open....

I think that students move quickly (?too quickly?) through the beginner and improver classes and end up in the 'intermediate' class. For me, an advanced class is one that is technically difficult and which experienced dancers will still attend because they can still learn or practise something to improve. I wouldn't like to see that dumbed down. I wonder whether some teachers / promoters use the word 'advanced' to describe their classes in order to give the punters a good feeling? Is this bad? (I think so, but open to argument).

Whereas beginners and improvers classes are pretty much of a level wherever you go, intermediate classes, I think, cover a very wide range of ability. So I was thinking that that's the area that could do with splitting up a bit, as far as descriptions are concerned.

Click to expand...

What a disappointment! We're pretty much in tune after all. :cry:

Flex said:

I recall (old salsamafia site?) posts about the specifications for student ability for each level. We could get into discussion about that! (But would it serve any good?...)

Click to expand...

We could, and it wouldn't serve any good other than for the interest of the discussion itself.

I was guilty of pushing myself too far, too fast in local club lessons when I first started dancing, but I did actually ask the teachers (mostly at least) who all said "Yeah fine, have a go"

Until there are class entry examiniations I guess there are always gonna be people that can't hack it, because (quoting Unlikely Salsero's quote) incompetent people often don't actually realise they're incompetent. But yeah - akbernier - incompetents wasting your time and money - I'm with you on that one.

Also, I've attended classes myself that were billed as Advanced, that actually taught what I would term as Improver level, whilst on the other side of the coin, I've attended classes billed as Intermediate that most people (probably myself included) would mostly call advanced.

However - this thread isn't designed to be about either of these issues - neither of which I have any control over, but more to discuss what the teacher should do about non-capable dancers in their classes, particularly at events and congresses, specifically with regard to classes billed as Advanced and Intermediate.

I think the answer depends on the type of class.

For a partnerwork class, I think the complexity should be "dumbed down" to the level of the majority of the students. It doesn't do me much good to be taught a complex pattern if most partners rotating to me can't execute it. For example, I've attended a couple of congress workshops where the instructors threw multiple spins in the middle of a long pattern, and the pattern would always get hung up when the followers who weren't comfortable with multiple spins wobbled off balance and lost the timing. Then, the few times when I'd passive-aggressively try to do that portion with a single spin, those women would give me a look like I'm stupid for not doing the pattern the "right" way. :roll: I give credit to Juan Calderon of Cultural Explosion for being the only workshop instructor I've seen who told the men to ask each woman whether they wanted a a double or single spin before practicing the pattern. He didn't embarrass anybody or make the women feel like they were "bad" dancers for leaving it at a single spin. It was very tactful.

For a shines/footwork/body movement class, I wouldn't change a thing. One person's inadequacy doesn't affect other people in that instance, so go ahead and teach the class at the level that's advertised.

To sum up, when the subject matter being taught requires that people be near the same level as a partner, I would go for the lowest common denominator. For teaching independent movements, I would keep everything as it was originally intended.

I voted for the second option because a good teacher should always adapt to her/his class. However I would not call it dumbing down. I would suggest a good teacher would give her/his workshop offering a variety of versions, so people at different levels of comfort would be able to adapt the material being taught to their level of proficiency.

Also, it is my experience from attending workshops at over 20 congresses in nine different cities that the vast majority of people attending advanced workshops are not advanced. The average "advanced" dancer at a congress knows a lot of moves and a lot of styling but very little technique and is used to learning in very narrow, specific ways. If the teacher happens to teach in a manner outside the "advanced" dancer's envelope, she/he will not look/feel very good.
This is why most teachers always start their workshops at a high level and always finish them with simpler moves, to let everyone "catch-up"

Big10 said:

I give credit to Juan Calderon of Cultural Explosion for being the only workshop instructor I've seen who told the men to ask each woman whether they wanted a a double or single spin before practicing the pattern. He didn't embarrass anybody or make the women feel like they were "bad" dancers for leaving it at a single spin. It was very tactful.

Click to expand...

That's a very good idea in those classes where you can't control who's joined in.

I think part of the problem is less to do with pupils as with the teachers they've been exposed to. As Mac (I think) said earlier, the concepts of what is "Intermediate" or "Advanced" level salsa differs not just across the country but between classes in the same town and if a pupil is attending a class called an "Intermediate" class, he or she is going to assume that they're at Intermediate level - never mind that they can't lead or follow a double spin.

One class nearby offered a 10 week "beginner's salsa" class and followed it straight away with a 10 week "intermediate salsa" class. Someone having completed that is highly unlikely to be able to keep up in an Intermediate class at the UK congress, but according to their teacher, they're at Intermediate level.

Part of me thinks that it's up to the international congresses to lay down informal standards for the various levels - nothing as rigid as a syllabus, just something along the lines of "at Intermediate level you should be able to lead and follow x y and probably z", if only to stop their intermediate / advanced classes being swamped with people who are really at an Improver level.

The problem lies within the definition-- Interm ? compared to what ? and by whom ?

I cannot begin to count the # of people in my class work , that have stated claims, beyond their capability .

If classes were clearly delineated as to content , it may ( no gaurantee ) deter those who have elevated ideas as to their competence .( Gee-- I guess that could cover a lot of people ?? )

OK, now this thread is about a different thing from 'dumbing down.' It's about setting an appropriate level for students in a class.

I think classes should be correctly described for the level, first.

Next, some indication of what the level expects by way of minimum capabilities should be given at the very outset of the class. The teacher might do well to run a very short diagnostic sequence at the beginning of partnerwork to detect lemons among students not already known to the teacher. Those who fall very much below should be gently taken aside by the teacher, and with some encouragement for the future advised to do a different level next time. Students who persist in the class without those capabilities do so at their own risk - including the risk of struggling.

If however it turns out that a large majority of students don't have those capabilities then the teacher should propose to pitch the class at a lower level than advertised - so that students do not think next time that they are at a higher level than they really are.

A good teacher will dance through the whole routine first (if teaching a routine and they have prepared it in advance - hah!), so that students know what they are in for.

Once embarked upon teaching the class, yes a good teacher should keep an eye on progress and adapt instruction / a routine if there are unexpected difficulties. This may mean curtailing the routine to concentrate on ironing out the difficulty (my preference), or substituting another move. A really good teacher will also make provision for easier and more difficult variants of some moves at the discretion of leaders and followers. This helps encourage students to go bit towards the next level if they can, keeps the more advanced ones from getting bored, and also provides an element of leading / following in a routine which, once the moves are known, may be as much choreography as true leading / following. If teaching a routine (which is usually the case), it should be reasonably challenging and short enough to enable many repetitions and without overtaxing the memory of the leaders for the routine.

As for spins double or single, if the class requires a double-spin capability but single spins would do for some moves, then I feel it should be for individual leaders / followers to adapt as they wish. Again, to the extent that optional variation is permitted, it inculcates a measure of leading / following rather than choreography

Howzat, Bear? :together:

Flex said:

As for spins double or single, if the class requires a double-spin capability but single spins would do for some moves, then I feel it should be for individual leaders / followers to adapt as they wish. Again, to the extent that optional variation is permitted, it inculcates a measure of leading / following rather than choreography

Click to expand...

I went to an intermediate class where the teacher taught the whole move with just single turns then introduces the multiples after everyone had got the move, it worked out well. He was in the rotation and as each lady went to him he varied the amount of spins and added a little extra according to their capabilities. On each rotation he would shout 'freestyle' so the guys got to do their own thing with each partner for about 1 minute before everyone did the move, it gave the guys a chance to get a feel for their partners before trying the new move. It was a great class