Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by freeageless, Mar 24, 2011.
frankly I am usually most prone to conclude that I suck (to use your term)
I have got a broader perspective here... If a student leaves the studio due to lack of motivation, then it affects the studio in the first place, then it will hit the remaining students one way or the other in terms of cost quality of delivery etc. Studios will be of better standing if student retention rate is high and for this instructors have to evolve and deliver proper pitch to the newbies and the help them adopt to the proper mix of learning tools including encouraging them to take video summary, use of a bit of DVDs etc, required between the classes. Sounds ok?
One needs to understand that motivation comes from external environment for a newbie which in this case is 'class room' and teacher is the mentor. Outside the studio it is all negative influence. Studios can add flavor with a bit of Anthony Robbins approach.
Sorry guys, I write about this 'motivational factor' because freeageless has aptly taken this point for discussion.
I would tend to think that people might blame the teacher, but the effects of that depend on the market. In bigger cities, if you don't like one teacher/studio, you just go to another. However, if the student is in a small market, with only one studio, a mismatched* teacher could very well eliminate the students desire to continue dancing.
*I didn't want to say bad teacher, because bad teachers probably won't stay in business long. But, the student and teacher may have mismatched styles/personalities/etc.
The point I'm getting at here, to get back to anametuer's suggestion about a statistical study, is that the members of this forum have an inevitable bias when talking about the effects of a teacher on their sticking with dance. There probably isn't anybody in on this discussion that stopped dancing because it didn't work out with their first teacher. There isn't anybody here who decided that dancing isn't worth pursuing because of a teacher.
To fascination's comment, anybody who doesn't think they suck at dancing when they start is, well, how to put it, perceptually challenged.
I think fasc meant now. I've been riding for more than twenty years and I still think I suck. (Intellectually I know I don't, but still.) At this rate, thinking I don't suck at dance (slightly less than five years) is something for the "before I die" thread...
And you're right, of course, if we'd decided to quit because of a bad teacher (and I'll go right ahead and say bad) we wouldn't likely be on danceforums to begin with.
I have to say, though, there's only so much ANY teacher can do motivate a student. Obviously someone who's a drill sergeant isn't going to help, but even the friendliest, most encouraging, happiest person on Earth won't help if the student's not internally motivated from the start.
yesterday I discovered that I needed to freaking re-learn how to go from the prep step into the feather...7 years next jan, 10's of thousands of dollars (conservately) of fine instruction; crappy prep step...shrug...
Moral: Learning is a continuous process, which includes discovering the best way of learning.
NOP (Not Our Problem), if students are not motivated,
Are we a group of die-hards?
I agree to danceronice's point that the best and most inspirational teachers may also loose students due to lack of enthusiasm of students or other factors, but I must add here that this happens in lesser degree.
Incidentally, yesterday I had been to a batch which were mostly of re starters, I had seen a lot many good students who had left an year back on the dance floor, once again.
I would atribute their presence to the teacher who maintained a connection with her old students, which I suppose is the right approach, and an example of the great role that the faculty plays. These students I believe were waiting for some external motivation.
I totally agree, and that is what this thread is all about.
So you agree then that a somewhat agressive approach to urging students to take lessons, far from being some subversive Plot to 'get' students, is in reality a really good thing - many times the urging of a teacher / studio owner / friend is what is needed to further the process....
Bailamosdance, I don't know if you are asking me that question or not. If you are, my answer would be it could further the process, or it could also turn the student off. I think that it would probably depend on how much the student trusts the teacher, friend or studio owner.
That does not follow at all. Any given teacher has very great incentive to motivate the students to study dance. After all, their livelihood depends on it. What I am saying is that we cannot judge the effectiveness of teachers getting students enthusiastic about dancing based on the anecdotal evidence of the members of this forum.
not sure that that is the moral on that one...at least not for me...I think my way of learning is quite effective...but it is certain that "good" is relative....and that a student's whose perception needs to be that they are good at dance might actually be in danger of not improving...but I do think it goes to your point that they had better see "becoming good" as a process
And I'm saying if the students don't find internal motivation, you can't put it there. Oh, you can get them to shuffle through the very basics of anything they think they want to learn, but you can't force someone to put in the work and want to learn.
I was agreeing with anamateur.
Your issues of trust are holding u back, f. When u free yourself and become more accepting u will be surprised at the way your body responds.
"good" is relative.... perhaps even 'best'
I wish i had known the best path ...
I was hinting at ways of becoming 'good' or rather 'better', as a process.
Now I must add at this point, this is also relative . or there wouldn't have been any divergent views here. :cheers:
Teacher/studio owner/ friend.... positive influences great as far as we look at it as external motivational aid rather than weighing the outcome.
The term used could be ‘proactive’ and not ‘ aggressive’ wherein the student gains better through the former as we know for certain that the act of ’aggression’ is not of the interests of the other party, whether it is intended to be noble or right on one side.
Any negative connotation of the ‘good’ activity in question may be due to the justification of this somewhat ‘aggressive’ approach. ( hope this is an odd opinion)
Intentions are valued more, if it were not 'aggressive'..... right?
But in an ideal scenario, cost benefit can also be taken into consideration for the larger benefit of student community.
We both agree Bailamosdance.:together: External too plays a vital role.
Proactive, aggressive, often the difference in these terms is just the perception of the person on the receiving end.
Separate names with a comma.