What is “Edging”?

[François Pugh]

View from the peanut gallery (not an instructor, no certification or qualifications in any organization - except I keep passing the test to tow the toboggan), there are three main problems with these ski instructor associations's teaching/skiing instructions:
1) In an effort to be non-dictatorial so as to allow capable ski instructors to choose a method that works for them and their client, the written material is vague enough to cover (almost) all approaches and methods that work, but not specific enough to give guidance to those learning how to teach (or ski) on applying any particular method or approach. Good luck to someone learning how to teach skiing and going for certification testing, especially if you aren't already good enough to know and demonstrate that you are completely sold on the flavour du jour while eschewing anything that has gone out of favour or is still on the way in. You can easily do that if you already know a lot, but good luck figuring it out as a learning ski instructor on the way up.
2) Semantics. It is often obvious from context and videos that many people take steering to mean applying a torque (the boot applies this torque to the ski through its attachment points) about an axis perpendicular to the surface of the snow to rotate the ski in a plane parallel to the snow (when the ski is not tipped relative to the surface, the surface of the ski is also this surface). It is also often clear that some have a broader interpretation of steering that includes the "self-steering" aspect of ski sidecut and a tipped ski. It is sometimes not clear whether the use of the informal logical fallacy of equivocation is deliberate or accidental.
3) It might be better if one or more specific methods/approaches were fully explained (exactly what to do and how to do it), while making it clear that other methods/approaches were not being ruled out. However, acquiring consensus among such a large and diverse group as a national ski instructor association on what method(s) to fully explain would be problematic.

 

[razie]

Fair points. Also, it is indeed possible that if it gets "too technical", the misunderstandings won't really stop, but increase...? I've heard that used as a reason as well... it may also simply be "steering by committee" which is famously inefficient... also, changing leaderships resulting in radically changing manuals every half a decade doesn't help the situation...

Anyways... so, what is "edging"?

 

[geepers]

View from the peanut gallery (not an instructor, no certification or qualifications in any organization - except I keep passing the test to tow the toboggan), there are three main problems with these ski instructor associations's teaching/skiing instructions:
1) In an effort to be non-dictatorial so as to allow capable ski instructors to choose a method that works for them and their client, the written material is vague enough to cover (almost) all approaches and methods that work, but not specific enough to give guidance to those learning how to teach (or ski) on applying any particular method or approach. Good luck to someone learning how to teach skiing and going for certification testing, especially if you aren't already good enough to know and demonstrate that you are completely sold on the flavour du jour while eschewing anything that has gone out of favour or is still on the way in. You can easily do that if you already know a lot, but good luck figuring it out as a learning ski instructor on the way up.
2) Semantics. It is often obvious from context and videos that many people take steering to mean applying a torque (the boot applies this torque to the ski through its attachment points) about an axis perpendicular to the surface of the snow to rotate the ski in a plane parallel to the snow (when the ski is not tipped relative to the surface, the surface of the ski is also this surface). It is also often clear that some have a broader interpretation of steering that includes the "self-steering" aspect of ski sidecut and a tipped ski. It is sometimes not clear whether the use of the informal logical fallacy of equivocation is deliberate or accidental.
3) It might be better if one or more specific methods/approaches were fully explained (exactly what to do and how to do it), while making it clear that other methods/approaches were not being ruled out. However, acquiring consensus among such a large and diverse group as a national ski instructor association on what method(s) to fully explain would be problematic.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

 

[Mike King]

All generalizations are false, including this one. People learn differently. Yes an outcome focus is important, but I can attest from my own learning, and I know of others who feel the same way, that I learn movements when i learn what to do, what to move, a muscle or joint to focus on.

Where the differences are is hard to say, perhaps my learning as an adult has something to do with. Having a baseline of motor skills developed as a child might make it easier to learn from an outcome approach.

I know in my keyboard playing that I never think about fingering or what I'm doing with my hands, arms, fingers. It goes well beyond that what I don't have to think about. So yes, I can focus on outcomes and it really helps my playing.

Someone who is a newer player, or perhaps started later in life, needs to be given specific physical things to do. Fingering is a huge part of it. Someone has to show you how to cross your fingers under.

Bike riding hurt my wrists until the bike fitter coached me to keep my elbows in more.

Any "conventional wisdom" that says "that students learn more quickly with better retention when they are given an external focus (outcome) as opposed to told how to move." is just worth the paper it's written on in my opinion. Proves nothing.

I've read it. The results did not impress me. They directly contradicted my experience as a teacher, which I've been doing all my professional life.

I have been an art teacher, now retired. My students learned from me how to draw, how to paint, how to make sculpture. I intentionally did not give them "external focuses." Instead, I taught them how. I taught them how to hold a brush, how to hold a palette knife and mix colors on a glass palette. How to hold charcoal, how to stand at an easel, how to evaluate proportions, how to smear charcoal, how to layer charcoal on top of charcoal and use an eraser as a drawing tool. How to apply paint to a canvas in liquid form, and as a stiff paste, how to layer wet paint on top of wet paint for different effects. How to plan a composition before starting. How to choose a color scheme. How to shape clay. How to evaluate a clay sculpture's form for proportions. How to manage and balance the density of information across a whole composition.

By the time they left my courses, they knew how to do things they didn't know before. It was their choice what to do with those new skills they had been working on after that.

Teaching advanced art students was different from teaching beginners. In those classes we focused on how to make decisions based not on technical effects but on how the complete work of art might be read by viewers. We worked on creating and embracing ambiguity. We worked on communicating with each other about how the work was progressing so each class member could consult with others for advice. We focused on how to deal with conflicting advice when it came from friends, and when it came from different teachers. My class members were working on finding their voice. On discovering who they were as artists.

One could stretch the concept of "external focus" to mean what I taught in my advanced senior art courses. But I think it's an unjustified stretch, given the way the research is presented as a one-size-fits-all-situations pedagogical approach.

IMO, my teaching, which I believe has been successful, does not match what that research says works best, @Mike King. Should I get to teach a seasonal ski program at some point, I'd use the approach that I used as an art teacher and adjust as needed. In the one-off lessons I now teach, there's no way I'd stop teaching people how to make turns.

Experience matters more than some promoted idea of how everyone should teach.

I guess I hit a nerve there. Here's the thing I'd ask both of you. Have you actually tried the external cue method for a sufficient period of time to become as expert at it as you are with your internal cue approach? If not, don't you think that your assessment of what works might be biased by your standard approach and belief system?

Let's consider it from the view of a group of researchers who are trying to find the best way to teach motor control skills. They develop theories of learning based on physiology, neurology, psychology, kinesthetics and then put those theories to test. The data and experimental results show that using external cues and outcomes has better results, both in speed of learning and retention.

I understand that it may not be your cup of tea, but to dismiss the results of peer reviewed academic research that is now part of the curriculum in all courses of instruction of physical therapists, occupational therapists, and sports science seems a bit extreme.

Mike

 

[LiquidFeet]

You're right, of course, Mike. We should pay attention to peer reviewed academic research that is now part of the curriculum in all courses of instruction of physical therapists, occupational therapists, and sports science. I'm sure I could improve what I do now, and maybe some golden nuggets are embedded in that research and in those courses of instruction.

And you are right, I am indeed biased. Shame on me. Shame.

But there's this. When I take a clinic, if the instructor doesn't tell the group how to do something which we are being asked to do, and I am failing at it, which sometimes happens, I get resentful that the "answer" is being withheld for no good reason. I want the instructor to see my pain and help me out, and the same for anyone else in the group. If the instructor continues to hold back the specific "how to" because of a pedagogical belief about how things "ought" to be taught, that's an ideological failure.

If in this same clinic I "get" it while others in the group don't, which sometimes happens, that certainly helps my ego. But it leaves me feeling sad on behalf of the others and hoping that the instructor will please relieve them of their misery and teach them clearly how to do this thing. On occasion, I have pulled someone aside and shown them myself.

Have others experienced this type of situation? How do you deal with it?

 

[Mike King]

No need for shame. Clearly you were a very good art teacher, and your approach is based on what worked for you. There is much to be learned and taken away from your experience, no doubt. And there is not a single way to do things. I'm no expert in the motor control learning literature, but I do think there are things in there that are useful and should be paid attention to.

It's an interesting question you ask. Is it better to struggle through to find the answer, or is it better to be given it? I suspect the answer is situational. But I also suspect that the struggle and finding the answer yourself will result in a greater degree of learning. Is the coach one to teach or to lead one through a process of self discovery?

An interesting video:

 

[razie]

I guess I hit a nerve there. Here's the thing I'd ask both of you. Have you actually tried the external cue method for a sufficient period of time to become as expert at it as you are with your internal cue approach? If not, don't you think that your assessment of what works might be biased by your standard approach and belief system?

Let's consider it from the view of a group of researchers who are trying to find the best way to teach motor control skills. They develop theories of learning based on physiology, neurology, psychology, kinesthetics and then put those theories to test. The data and experimental results show that using external cues and outcomes has better results, both in speed of learning and retention.

I understand that it may not be your cup of tea, but to dismiss the results of peer reviewed academic research that is now part of the curriculum in all courses of instruction of physical therapists, occupational therapists, and sports science seems a bit extreme.

Mike

- teaching fundamentals and actions versus outcomes does not mean one is using internal cues... we need to disambiguate what is taught from how it is taught and cues from attention. Most outcomes are not external cues - this is something that some should really spend time to understand! There's nothing telling me by default that "I steered well".

"do like this" or "more steering" is not an external cue nor an external focus of attention. the possibilities for misunderstanding are huge and the road to success long and arduous.

In fact "steering" is both an internal cue and an internal focus of attention!! Why on earth would that make it the thing to teach?

please, please get more information on the subject:

look at the external cues - did any of them teach somethign different? NO! It is the same skill or movement, just taught using different cues! And I assure you, that coach did mention the things on the left sometimes, according to the skill of the athlete he or she is coaching and the periodization of the coaching!

"touch your boots" is an external cue. the road to success is obviously very narrow and short: did you or did you not? This is s great way to teach flexing, for instance! Teach the athlete to self-coach and yada yada yada - modern coaching 101: explain - model - video - feedback restrained - variation etc.

"touch your boots when the skis are flat" this is one step further etc.

Lookup "decision training" not the misunderstandings accompanying it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293817530_Decision_Training_A_New_Approach_to_Coaching

Decision training is psychological training led by the coach within each and every practice This is accomplished through a three step decision training planning process (The 3 Step DT Process) and seven decision training tools (The 7 DT Tools).

...

When used in the context of daily practice, DT increases the mental workload of your athletes – and this is a key to successful coaching. A similar amount of physical work is maintained as in your current environment but the cognitive effort expended by the athlete is greatly increased.

---

"tip your feet" - that is movement/input. How do you teach it? Well, you may have to simply show it and describe it, but preferably it's taught using external cues. Touch the outside rivet of the inside boot to the snow - that gives quick success or failure and is one example of great coaching skill: you want to teach a skill and found an external cue to do it! You may need to explain it to create the right mental models, of course. If you have the luxury to work on it every day for 3 seasons to a FIS racer that already smokes 99.9% of people gliding out there, then it's a different way to work on it than if you have 1 hour with a noob, of course! That doesn't change what you're teaching though!

"push the side of the boot sole with the little toe side" that is an internal cue. useful, but not the bulk of training.

---

External focus of attention is another aspect. For instance, when serving in tennis, am I focusing on the wrist movement or where the ball is meant to go? Which gives better performance? The external focus of attention - why? Because we have a brain and are generally decent at using it!

However - having an external focus of attention while performing in a race or a game is different from teaching a skill via external cues!

I think all/most of those here that learned tennis can attest to the fact that they spent significant time on how to hold the racquet and how the wrist moves! At which stage of development and how that was incorporated into a lesson - that's coaching skill and some coaches are a lot more awesome at it than others.

But without a clear model of just how the wrist should move there will never be an agreement among coaches or clear learning from the part of the student! You would not have to explain much to the lucky body-aware student, but you will just have to spend the time on that with the dyslexic stereotypical rich blonde...

Deciding to teach "steering" versus "foot tipping" for instance, that's a coaching decision on what to teach, not just how... it's a decision on how to ski, not on how to teach skiing...

 

[Steve]

Mike you make it black and white, either/or.

It can be both.

As I said, if someone doesn't say "bring your elbows in" when doing that would make a huge positive impact on the student they are doing a disservice to them.

The reason you struck a nerve is because you made a statement of "as opposed to" not "in combination with." And whatever their tests showed, they also stated some exceptions and some reservations about the efficacy in the article I read. Fact is, you shouldn't have said "...learn more quickly with better retention.." you should have included some qualification (something you don't often do) like ".. in many cases" or ".. in some situations.."

Perhaps you should read the motor control learning literature which shows, with experimental verification, that students learn more quickly with better retention when they are given an external focus (outcome) as opposed to told how to move.

 

[Mike King]

http://www.trenerforeningen.org/magill-feedback.pdf

https://www.krigolsonteaching.com/uploads/4/3/8/4/43848243/chapter_12-_the_stages_of_learning.pdf

Skill Acquisition

Skill acquisition is the foundation of sports science that all practitioners, coaches, and clinicians should understand.

www.scienceforsport.com

Most importantly, this article. You may be able to get the gist of it from the abstract:

Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors - PubMed

All factors reviewed in this article appear to have both informational and motivational influences on learning. The findings seem to reflect general learning principles and are assumed to have relatively broad applicability. Therefore, the consideration of these factors in designing procedures...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Steve]

Cool, but my skiing improved dramatically when I learned about the hip socket and focused very specifically on rotating my legs while keeping my pelvis still. That was after years of being coached to focus on the external, "keep your upper body facing more down the hill." "Keep a quiet upper body." Useless concepts until you learn where the upper body begins (pelvis/femur socket) and train yourself to feel the movement of the legs in that joint.

Activating my Tibealis Anterior had similar impact on my tipping. Do I think about either of those often? No.

You need both, and as long as it's presented to me as an either/or, this way is better I will strongly disagree.

My years of PSIA training wasted many years of skill development for me. Kind of pisses me off honestly, as I have less years to ski now. This is why people like "he who can't be named" do well, because he tells people what to do. Unfortunately that's not what I want to be told to do, but I learned more from his books and his followers on epic, than I have from any Examiner I've trained with. They're all great, but too vague. I want a teacher who actually shares what they know and do with me, not try to help me to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Average Joe]

These past few posts could start an excellent thread about learning styles.
Anyone agree?

 

[LiquidFeet]

Mike, something about the way you are responding to what I have to say does hit a nerve. You are so sure of the accuracy of your authoritative sources. So sure. So insistent. So quick to point out how many people are on this particular bandwagon. Yes, bandwagon. You overwrite my points by repeating yours, and adding more sources, as if your point is so much more worthy. Are you sure you want to be so sure?

Education is very susceptible to trendy approaches to pedagogy. I started my journey toward becoming an educator when the "Open Classroom" was the newest thing, and ended my degree-getting activities in Education when "Constructivism" was big. While I was taking courses and doing student teaching and taking on jobs as a teacher in various types of schools, "Learning Styles" came into favor - and left. When technology entered the classroom, "Programmed Learning" took the driver's seat - for a while. Now I'm hearing a lot about "Experiential Learning" in PSIA circles, shaped and textured by Horst Abraham. These are all trends.

People make a lot of money selling educators on a new idea of how to better educate. Education is complicated, and an easy-to-understand guarantee of success is something people, schools, and professional organizations are willing to pay for. Thus the bandwagon effect. The more people jump on it, the stronger its momentum and the more popular it becomes. Momentum does not equal anything other than momentum. It would serve all of us well to be skeptical.

I am unfazed by the accolades and popularity of using an "External Focus." It's just another trend. I know using external cues to teach is often successful. All these trends catch on because they tell truths. But there is no one way to teach best. They all work, and they work differently at different times.

My main point boils down to this: successful teaching is contextual.

 

[Loki1]

The thing we all have to remember with external cues; they are most effective during the application of the task. We can speak of internal cues, and we should, before an attempt of the task is taken. However right before and/or during the movement we should focus on external cues for the most success, and learning. It does not mean we never talk about the internal cues. They both need to be present for our athletes to be succesful.
Also with the percieved "vagueness" of many teaching/coaching bodies. We must understand that we are trying to develop athletes for the long term. This means developing skills rather that perfecting technique. What is the differenece, one has a long term benefit for the athlete the other saddles the athlete with a certain technique "du jour" and thus restricts their progress beyond said technique. If the governing bodies came out with a "this is how you do it" guide then they would not be able to continually push the boundries of technique as all their members would be saddled with thier technique "du jour".
We must remember that skiing is about problem solving not replication of technique. We need to challenge our skill developement to provide us with options that can accomplish our desired outcomes. This means strict adherence to not technique but adherence to the ability to adapt through experience and failure.

 

[Average Joe]

Veering slightly off topic to comment on how the learning style of the teachers influences their teaching style.
I'm going to bet that in many specialty fields, those who teach achieved moderate to above average success in their sport or subject at an early enough age that they continued to participate and learn over the course of many years. Your math or science teacher probably had a "natural" aptitude for these subjects well before college, and so when it became time to choose a teaching specialty the choice was easy.

In ski racing, the coaching ranks are populated by many ex-racers, most who started early and competed through college. This group naturally took to skiing, and ski racing. In a seasonal sport with precious few hours available to train, these achievers were able to watch, listen, distill, and execute better than average.

Given the typical attrition in junior ski racing (50-70 percent of U-14's don't continue to race as U-19's, and most U-19's don't race in college), these top achievers represent a tiny slice off the top of the pyramid.

The national, regional, and local coaches who make policy and determine methodology are representative of a particular mindset and style, by those who achieved early success. This has an effect on the direction of the organizations: what they teach, and how they teach it.

And when they can't come to agreement on the "what" and "how," they couch their directives and guidelines with ambiguous language that makes all sides feel good. This allows everyone to continue on their pathways and live in relative harmony.
Thus we are saddled with ambiguous and sometimes conflicting models and methods. Certainly some teachers and clinicians can bridge the obvious gaps and provide clarity, others muddle along in step with the materials.
Now add back into the mix the various learning styles, and you have a true mashup. It may start as chicken soup, but it ends up as a casserole or stew, with 4 kinds of meat, and no seasoning. After the experience, the customer feels full, but can't recall what they ate.

 

[Steve]

Great post.

 

[JESinstr]

These past few posts could start an excellent thread about learning styles.
Anyone agree?

Agreed but let's call it Learning DNA. That is what it is truly about. We are all wired to perceive and learn in various ways.
@LiquidFeet and @Steve appear to be "Gifted" with artistic aptitudes. I failed at every instrument my parents put in my grubby little hands yet I have a great appreciation for art and music and I believe (from participating in this forum) many here are passionate and competent teachers. Somewhere, a common denominator is waiting to be discovered.

 

[razie]

The thing we all have to remember with external cues; they are most effective during the application of the task. We can speak of internal cues, and we should, before an attempt of the task is taken. However right before and/or during the movement we should focus on external cues for the most success, and learning. It does not mean we never talk about the internal cues. They both need to be present for our athletes to be succesful.
Also with the percieved "vagueness" of many teaching/coaching bodies. We must understand that we are trying to develop athletes for the long term. This means developing skills rather that perfecting technique. What is the differenece, one has a long term benefit for the athlete the other saddles the athlete with a certain technique "du jour" and thus restricts their progress beyond said technique. If the governing bodies came out with a "this is how you do it" guide then they would not be able to continually push the boundries of technique as all their members would be saddled with thier technique "du jour".
We must remember that skiing is about problem solving not replication of technique. We need to challenge our skill developement to provide us with options that can accomplish our desired outcomes. This means strict adherence to not technique but adherence to the ability to adapt through experience and failure.

on the athlete skill development. I think that while the way we present/understand/teach them has changed and there are many variants, actual basic technique fundamentals have not changed significantly in more than 30 or so years and won't really change to a significant extent soon (even going past our disagreements here, I think we all recognize good skiing from not so good, at least for the most part)... also, athlete skill development should continue on top of perfected technique. I think that would be the minimum: each racer better ski well first and then push it! And I know of Bode's example but how many Bode's really are there and how many times the equipment changes radically while a Bode is there waiting?

I think what's changed more is styles and the way people think they manage the ski versus the way they actually manage the ski

 

[Mike King]

Mike, something about the way you are responding to what I have to say does hit a nerve. You are so sure of the accuracy of your authoritative sources. So sure. So insistent. So quick to point out how many people are on this particular bandwagon. Yes, bandwagon. You overwrite my points by repeating yours, and adding more sources, as if your point is so much more worthy. Are you sure you want to be so sure?

Education is very susceptible to trendy approaches to pedagogy. I started my journey toward becoming an educator when the "Open Classroom" was the newest thing, and ended my degree-getting activities in Education when "Constructivism" was big. While I was taking courses and doing student teaching and taking on jobs as a teacher in various types of schools, "Learning Styles" came into favor - and left. When technology entered the classroom, "Programmed Learning" took the driver's seat - for a while. Now I'm hearing a lot about "Experiential Learning" in PSIA circles, shaped and textured by Horst Abraham. These are all trends.

People make a lot of money selling educators on a new idea of how to better educate. Education is complicated, and an easy-to-understand guarantee of success is something people, schools, and professional organizations are willing to pay for. Thus the bandwagon effect. The more people jump on it, the stronger its momentum and the more popular it becomes. Momentum does not equal anything other than momentum. It would serve all of us well to be skeptical.

I am unfazed by the accolades and popularity of using an "External Focus." It's just another trend. I know using external cues to teach is often successful. All these trends catch on because they tell truths. But there is no one way to teach best. They all work, and they work differently at different times.

My main point boils down to this: successful teaching is contextual.

LF, I apologize for having irritated you so -- as you may have overlooked, in post #86 above, I agreed that there is more than one way to do things. Yet the reason I initially responded was the vehemence with which you asserted there was nothing of value in the motor control learning literature -- reread your post #76 above.

Moving on, @Average Joe talks about how some of the coaching becomes ambiguous here:

The national, regional, and local coaches who make policy and determine methodology are representative of a particular mindset and style, by those who achieved early success. This has an effect on the direction of the organizations: what they teach, and how they teach it.

And when they can't come to agreement on the "what" and "how," they couch their directives and guidelines with ambiguous language that makes all sides feel good. This allows everyone to continue on their pathways and live in relative harmony.
Thus we are saddled with ambiguous and sometimes conflicting models and methods. Certainly some teachers and clinicians can bridge the obvious gaps and provide clarity, others muddle along in step with the materials.
Now add back into the mix the various learning styles, and you have a true mashup. It may start as chicken soup, but it ends up as a casserole or stew, with 4 kinds of meat, and no seasoning. After the experience, the customer feels full, but can't recall what they ate.

That seems to be a pretty astute point. Just to throw something else into the mix from the bits and pieces of motor control learning theory that I've picked up, Bernstein conceptualized what's become known as the degrees of freedom problem. That is, there are multiple ways to move the joints and muscles to achieve the outcome desired. There are also multiple motor control problems ongoing at the same time -- the turn dynamics are different, slope is different, terrain is different, the surface is different, and the intent is likely different. So how to coordinate and solve the motor control problem is, to use @LiquidFeet's term, contextual. A set movement pattern is not going to generalize to every situation, and a set movement pattern may not generalize across individuals due to differences in anatomy and equipment.

So, there may not be a single way to move. Perhaps that's a rationale to focus attention on outcomes rather than movement patterns?

It might also be why there isn't a standard recipe in coaching within the professional associations.

Mike

 

[LiquidFeet]

LF, I apologize for having irritated you so -- as you may have overlooked, in post #86 above, I agreed that there is more than one way to do things. Yet the reason I initially responded was the vehemence with which you asserted there was nothing of value in the motor control learning literature -- reread your post #76 above. ....

@Mike King, looking back I sure did say that. I was pretty irritated to go all absolute like that, and should have counted to ten before posting.

 

[Steve]

Well, I never disparaged it, just said that doing it alone would be a disservice to the student, as it was to me.