While I’m sure that a lot of different things happen with people in regards to perceived learning styles, they can be somewhat misleading when a student identifies their learning strengths for the purpose of capitalizing on those without working on their weaknesses. It is suggested by some debunkers that learning styles are merely “learning preferences” based on current strengths. Instead, we need a balance of kinesthetic, visual and auditory (VAC) inputs so that we can identify discrepancies in our technique through the overlaying of these three separate filters of performance and identifying any resulting discrepancy between the three. In other words, for me at least, learning is VAC interdependent. A person doesn’t complete a cycle of learning until the three forms of understanding, VAC, all agree with each other. This cannot be done when a learner is limiting their focus to just one filter.
Therefore, those who are “kinesthetically prone” may do better to rotate in more visual and auditory (conceptual) elements. If someone identifies as a non-visual learner, then perhaps they should focus more on the visual identification of good technique and then watch themselves ski on video ... and so on. But, instead, the identification of learning styles may be being used in the opposite way it should (ignoring weaknesses) and, therefore, can be seen as a debilitating concept. People prefer concentrating their focus on their strengths rather than weaknesses which is much more “comfortable” but also a significant diversion from the fastest pace of skill development to the slowest. I would even go as for to suggest that it is the nature of the activity being performed itself is a more significant indicator of V, A or K distribution rather than the strengths or preferences of the person learning. For skiing, kinesthetic is primary and the other two are secondary. A hearing impaired/illiterate person can learn to ski from feeling and watching. A visually impaired person can learn to ski from feeling and listening/reading. A visually and auditorily capable person who cannot feel their body cannot learn to ski. As an opposing example, visual and auditory (conceptual) take front seat to kinesthetic in flying a plane.
RE: Hetherington/flexion
There is a key to the roller example that the ridge example does not delineate and that of which is the point to Hetherington’s example. He is showing that the flexion in the vertical plane we would normally use over a flat ski in those rollers (or perhaps moguls) is the exact same kind of flexion used in the lateral plane we would seek to use over a tipped ski in a retraction turn. In his case, the roller serves as a visually physical example of the ground force reaction that we use to force flexion to happen just like the roller does. He is highlighting the accessibility of retraction turns through the roller example. He is saying that if you know how to absorb a bump with the legs only while keeping the CoM down, you already have the motor patterns ingrained to make a retraction turn that emulates the very same kind of bodily flexion produced by rollers. After that, it is more simply a matter of a more refined separation and timing in order to create and manage ground force reaction for a retraction turn.
Because the ridge example requires flexion in both the vertical and lateral planes it does not nor cannot make the same point of transfer in concept to show accessibility. That said, I believe the ridge drill is very effective in encouraging more flexion and in time with the turn. Though, the ridge example is more of a developmental aid than the delineated concept as a path of development that the roller example provides. It is just unfortunate that either training feature is very unlikely to be found by anyone seeking them out for training.
Therefore, those who are “kinesthetically prone” may do better to rotate in more visual and auditory (conceptual) elements. If someone identifies as a non-visual learner, then perhaps they should focus more on the visual identification of good technique and then watch themselves ski on video ... and so on. But, instead, the identification of learning styles may be being used in the opposite way it should (ignoring weaknesses) and, therefore, can be seen as a debilitating concept. People prefer concentrating their focus on their strengths rather than weaknesses which is much more “comfortable” but also a significant diversion from the fastest pace of skill development to the slowest. I would even go as for to suggest that it is the nature of the activity being performed itself is a more significant indicator of V, A or K distribution rather than the strengths or preferences of the person learning. For skiing, kinesthetic is primary and the other two are secondary. A hearing impaired/illiterate person can learn to ski from feeling and watching. A visually impaired person can learn to ski from feeling and listening/reading. A visually and auditorily capable person who cannot feel their body cannot learn to ski. As an opposing example, visual and auditory (conceptual) take front seat to kinesthetic in flying a plane.
RE: Hetherington/flexion
There is a key to the roller example that the ridge example does not delineate and that of which is the point to Hetherington’s example. He is showing that the flexion in the vertical plane we would normally use over a flat ski in those rollers (or perhaps moguls) is the exact same kind of flexion used in the lateral plane we would seek to use over a tipped ski in a retraction turn. In his case, the roller serves as a visually physical example of the ground force reaction that we use to force flexion to happen just like the roller does. He is highlighting the accessibility of retraction turns through the roller example. He is saying that if you know how to absorb a bump with the legs only while keeping the CoM down, you already have the motor patterns ingrained to make a retraction turn that emulates the very same kind of bodily flexion produced by rollers. After that, it is more simply a matter of a more refined separation and timing in order to create and manage ground force reaction for a retraction turn.
Because the ridge example requires flexion in both the vertical and lateral planes it does not nor cannot make the same point of transfer in concept to show accessibility. That said, I believe the ridge drill is very effective in encouraging more flexion and in time with the turn. Though, the ridge example is more of a developmental aid than the delineated concept as a path of development that the roller example provides. It is just unfortunate that either training feature is very unlikely to be found by anyone seeking them out for training.