Failure of free club culture

[schawipp]

In eastern teaching (by imitation, or give material and leave students to themselves) - the goal is to find/foster the individuals who have exceptional talent and can thrive with such method. All others might sink-or-swim and most likely drop out at some point [...]

I am not sure if this hits the point. I would say that learning some new stuff is always hard work - and when I say hard work, I mean hard work for the student and not primarily for the teacher. I believe the brain somehow works similar like a muscle - if you apply continuous training it will become smarter etc. over the time, otherwise if the teacher is doing all the work for you in advance, the brain does not see the the requirement of adaptation. All IMHO of course

Thus, IMHO a good teacher will give the student the motivation required to undergo the tough training (Tsumego, games reviewing, whatever...) and only will give some 'kick' in the right direction, if he sees that the student is getting stuck with some false approach.

Therefore, I would rather state that the "eastern teaching" method filters out the individuals who are willing to put up the required effort. That might be equivalent to "exceptional talented" or not, who knows...

[Knotwilg]

Bantari, you are inferring a lot about me as a teacher and the teachers I had. I'm trying to discuss different methods and their merits.

I disagree. Teaching in and of itself can be rewarding, just like anything else, when well done.

Of course it can, but my point is that you should not seek this reward in the first place. The first question is: what does this beginner or aspiring novice need? Some of them may like long expositions but I project that the majority wants to get to play quickly and finish a real game quickly, without too much explanation. This is the root of my "stone counting on small boards" intro.

Similarly for studious kyus, I see a lot of reviewing for the sake of the reviewer, not the student. I've been guilty of indulging in such reviews myself.

And as for teachers taking themselves too seriously... I dunno. This is all volunteer-basis-like, when I teach you it is because I have fun doing it, or want to do it for other reasons. I give my time and effort for free, so I see no reason why I should not expect it to be rewarding for me in some non-monetary way. I have always found teaching to be a pleasure when done right, and very rewarding. Might be just my personal view, though.

This is an honest thing to say. Indeed, many of us are teaching out of a personal desire to do something significant. As long as the personal reward does not interfere too much with the student's desire to improve, there's no big issue.

Why is reducing a handicap of any value in this respect? I can crush a beginner with 9h on 19x19 or with 5h on 9x9 with equal ease - does not matter to me.

You see, the argument again comes from the teacher's perspective.

I thought small boards were meant to shorten the game time and lower the complexity.
And if so, it serves dual purpose:
- lower the load on the teacher (less time involvement, explanation easier, issues smaller, done faster)
- lower the complexity on beginner so the teacher can send the beginner off to play other beginners sooner

Mostly the second argument but both go together. Reducing the load on the teacher is not the issue. The teacher needs to bear with the difficulties of teaching, which is not the same as bearing with the difficulties of the subject.

Ultimately, we would have to settle it with a teaching duel. You have a beginner for a week and use only 9x9, while I have a beginner for a week and use only 19x19. Then we send them to a tournament and see which one does better. I bet on my beginner, any amount.

Sending a beginner to a 19x19 tournament after one week is good for showing him the world of Go. I don't care how well they do in the tournament. There's too much for a beginner to learn to perform well on 19x19 in one week, let alone in a tournament. Also, 1 player each is not a good statistic.

I'd rather say, let's both teach 50 pupils in either fashion and see how many return to the club after two months. That's a more meaningful statistic.

You seem to be willy-nilly mixing those two together and blaming the board size for quality of your teachers.

I'm not inferring anything about the quality of my teachers. I was mostly self taught as a beginner and indeed when growing up we only had 6k available in our club. My observations come from my own teaching, what I've seen happening in the club and online.

How you can make inferences about my teachers, is beyond me.

As I said - 9x9 is better for mediocre or lazy teachers. And if this is the teachers you have, then 9x9 is indeed the preferred method.

I'm starting out on 5x5, then moving up the scale. That makes me super lazy I guess.

Then, according to you, the best teacher is the one who just gives you a book or says "go practice, shoo!"

No, this is not at all what I'm saying. You divide the world of go teachers in those who teach like you do (and by your account, only you seem to have the required quality) and the lazy bums. I have a slightly more refined view of the world. The quality of teachers will vary and probably each teacher will get the best results with the method they prefer. I prefer small boards to start with and a targeted but not too forceful follow-up approach as they improve. I think of teaching as carefully allow the self motivation to blossom. I see this not at all as lazy, rather as removing the ego of the teacher from the teaching. For some teachers and pupils, this may not work out and often my ego still gets in the way.

But don't give up hope, maybe you run into a good teacher one day.

I got a fantastic one, Minue. Many of my ideas were inspired by him.

[Bill Spight]

I think that many traditional teaching approaches, both Eastern and Western, were concerned with selection as well as training. Concentrate your efforts on teaching the best. Much knowledge was esoteric, and access to it had to be earned. But now we are in the age of exoteric knowledge and mass education. They require different approaches to teaching.

[Bantari]

Bantari, you are inferring a lot about me as a teacher and the teachers I had. I'm trying to discuss different methods and their merits.

Well, your arguments against 19x19 teaching was, let me quote here, that "In most go clubs, beginners play their coach with 9 stones handicap on a big board, are butchered and then get an explanation which mostly serves to show how smart the coach is. The coaches' arrogance then propells into the beginners' attitude who think they're too grown up for small boards."

This tells me two things:
1. the kinds of teachers you have had (I sense bitterness, so I assume you had such teachers yourself), or have observed, and
2. that you think the particular teacher's (or group of teachers) attitude is a valid argument for/against a teaching method.

This is why I say what i say and infer what I infer.

But lets move on.

I disagree. Teaching in and of itself can be rewarding, just like anything else, when well done.

Of course it can, but my point is that you should not seek this reward in the first place.

Why not? I am not Mother Teresa doing things and sacrificing selflessly to help others. Just trying to be a nice guy, so if I can help I will, but mostly I need to get something out of it as well, and in the case of free teaching all I can get is satisfaction. This is my reward, and I think it is a very small one compared to what I, as teacher, give. If I have no expectation of getting any satisfaction, I will not teach. Its that simple.

Now this satisfaction, or reward, can have many forms. It can be the personal connection I mentioned, it can be the student's improvement you mentioned, or something else. It can even be that I like teaching and doing the thing I like gives me satisfaction. Some people teach for money. Hey, when I was younger I taught a few times jut to get to know a girl better, and that was reward enough. There can be all kinds of reasons. But deep down, I think there is always a reason or goal, and achieving this goal is rewarding. And this is why people do it.

I absolutely not buy it that anybody out there teaches for the sake of teaching when he/she finds it a drag, a chore, and generally hates it. Thus _ I assume we all do it to get something out of it on a personal level, and if there is no chance to get anything out, we don't.

The first question is: what does this beginner or aspiring novice need? Some of them may like long expositions but I project that the majority wants to get to play quickly and finish a real game quickly, without too much explanation. This is the root of my "stone counting on small boards" intro.

I understand this. And this is why I say - 9x9 has its place.

My point is that Go as a game is not a fast game, and whoever does not like it will not make it very far anyhow. To me, a serious beginner who is motivated to improve at Go, needs to understand that. If he has the expectation to have some quick-and-dirty fun, he might play on 9x9 indeed, or maybe go play tic-tac-toe or something. But he cannot expect for me to take him very seriously until he understand that this is not Go.

Now, there is a class of people for whom this small-board-method is useful: people walking into a club and wondering "what is it, can I try it?"... Sure, show such people a few things on 9x9 and let them play, but these to me are not really "serious beginners" worth of "serious teaching" (not just yet, maybe never) - they are just curious onlookers. When they jump that hurdle to the next level and decide they want to get serious, I think there is absolutely no need to ever show them a small board again.

Similarly for studious kyus, I see a lot of reviewing for the sake of the reviewer, not the student. I've been guilty of indulging in such reviews myself.

And again you bring the shortcomings of particular teacher(s) to argue for or against a method.

And as for teachers taking themselves too seriously... I dunno. This is all volunteer-basis-like, when I teach you it is because I have fun doing it, or want to do it for other reasons. I give my time and effort for free, so I see no reason why I should not expect it to be rewarding for me in some non-monetary way. I have always found teaching to be a pleasure when done right, and very rewarding. Might be just my personal view, though.

This is an honest thing to say. Indeed, many of us are teaching out of a personal desire to do something significant. As long as the personal reward does not interfere too much with the student's desire to improve, there's no big issue.

This why I am talking about *good* teaching. When you teach correctly, this never interferes, because the aim of the teaching is always the student and his personal needs.
This is *how* I teach. But this is not *why* I teach. You keep mixing these two things together, I think. Both in talking to me and in talking about teaching method and the teachers you had/observed.

Why is reducing a handicap of any value in this respect? I can crush a beginner with 9h on 19x19 or with 5h on 9x9 with equal ease - does not matter to me.

You see, the argument again comes from the teacher's perspective.

I am a teacher, in this context, so of course I speak from teacher's perspective. Don't you?

And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Teacher's perspective not only does exist, but it is a valid, even crucial part of this equation. It comes back to what I said above - teacher is not somebody who puts aside all his own goals and needs and pleasures just to selflessly give and give and give, and then give some more. This is not teacher/student relation, this is slavery. I can be a teacher, but I am not going to be a slave. When i teach, I want it to be rewarding in some way to me. If I cannot have such expectation, I don't teach.

I would be extremely surprised if not all of us, who teach, thought the same - when they look deep down into themselves and are brutally honest.

I am not sure why you object to such perspective so much.

Why do you teach when you teach? Would you teach if there was no hope of any kinds of satisfaction? Would you plant a garden if there was no hope of seeing stuff grow and eventually harvesting and eating the veg? I don't know nobody who would, to be honest. Its human.

--------------------

The bottom line is, here is what I really want to say, in a nuttshell.

1. I have a feeling you keep mixing the "why" of teaching with the "how" of teaching. In my particular case, the "why" is to get some kind of satisfaction out of it, or see it rewarding in some way. The "how" is a different story, and in that I agree that the students needs have to be put first and that whoever does not do that should not be teaching, really. I would be very surprised if not every teacher thought in some such way. But this has really nothing to do with "method", and so is a little OT here.

2. I also have a feeling you talk about "casual" beginners/students while I talk about "serious" ones. The casual ones are the walk-ins to the club, people saying "hey, looks neat, how does it go?" and then you need to show them a few things. 9x9 boards are good for that. But when i see somebody really serious about learning this game, somebody willing to go the distance and understanding that Go is a slow and long and complex game - and liking that! - I will never ever even look at small boards. Such people I call "serious" beginners/students and worth some "serious" teaching, not just a demonstration on a small board. And I would never use 9x9 or 13x13 while teaching such people, unless there were very special circumstances (analyzing pro 9x9 game, or something like that.)

And that's that.
I understand your mileage might vary, and you just like the 9x9 method. This is fine, everybody can have a preference. But to me, that does not mean the method is better.

[lemmata]

I think the consensus is that no matter what method is used, if a jerk is teaching, then the beginner will suffer?

I am sure that some methods are better than others for most people, but none of that matters if the company is unpleasant. Toward that end, perhaps it is more important to recruit people of good character into our wonderful game so that future beginners will enjoy their company.

The current discussion seems more relevant to a situation where a benevolent dictator has been put in charge of a club that only has jerks for teachers. The dictator cannot turn the jerks into decent men, but he can force them to use different methods...or something like that. However, given that the jerks will do what they want in reality, it all seems like a moot point.

[John Fairbairn]

I think the main difference between east and west is to do with learning not teaching. In the east people still expect to learn for themselves; in the west, where the nanny state has reached every level of every country, too many people assume the onus is on the state/teacher to deliver. This, I gather, has been nicely captured in a scene from the latest Modern Families where a daughter's delight at getting a (US) college place turns to utter dismay when she learns she will be at college with Asians. I look forward to watching that.

The nanny situation has been acerbated in go here by two things. One is that getting a teacher has become a status symbol, like getting a personal trainer. The other is that too many westerners who fail to become pros peddle their wares as teachers - western-style teachers, unfortunately.

Of course what I say contains contentious elements, but a couple of personal experiences may illustrate why I believe in my view.

One is a friend who studied taiji, at enormous expense, with a Chinese grandmaster. After months of assiduous effort and constant repetition he was admonished by the master: "You wave hands in air. Very pretty. But not taiji." Since the master's English was very limited it was pointless asking what he meant. But my friend is stubborn and he went away and examined everything he was doing. Months later he said he suddenly "got" taiji. He went back to the master and demonstrated his form again. The master looked, nodded and said simply, "Now you go away and practise." Several years later, my friend is now a successful teacher, over 80 but looking under 60. This is using the teacher as a signpost, and not as the map, signpost, and means of conveyance all rolled into one.

The other is more directly my own experience. I played a teaching game on 4 stones with a Chinese pro. Mindful of the ever-present handicap-game commentary that Black must not roll over and play submissively, I attacked from the start. I was pushing her around and, although I lost, I felt that it was just a case of missing a final tesuji, and could/should have won. I was then rather taken aback by her comment: "You were too aggressive. I couldn't get a chance to teach you anything." This was her equivalent of "You wave hands in air. Very pretty. But not weiqi." I likewise went away and re-examined my approach, and I realised, amongst other things, that I had confused naked aggression with attacking. I also had to make myself properly receptive to teaching.

Some while later I played another teaching game with a pro in Korea, also on 4 stones. I now made a concerted effort to apply my new thinking. For that reason it was actually a very tiring struggle and I never felt in any kind of control, even though the pro kept clucking in approval. Towards the end I was so tired I made several bad oversights, and at no point did I feel that with one or two better moves I could have won. I was then utterly astonished when she said she thought I was at least 5-dan, but probably 6-dan. That was so preposterous that I told her so, and she became quite offended at having her professional judgement questioned. In the process of smoothing down ruffled feathers, however, I was able to glean what she meant. It was her equivalent of the nod and "go away and practise". What I had apparently done is to demonstrate to her that I had "got" baduk to a 5- or 6-dan level and so had been able to open the door to a long journey. However, even though a 6-dan (amateur) is sometimes associated with the level of a low-ranked pro, for me to get from 6-dan amateur to 1-dan pro would actually take most of the fabled 10,000 hours - the "go away and practise" bit. It was the difference between grade and rating in its starkest form.

Needless to say I haven't got anywhere near even the first 1,000 hours and never will, but I do feel thoroughly confident that at least I know where that journey would end: I would achieve the ability to play with "no mind" at that level - all the things that I was concentrating on and that exhausted me in that one game would become second nature. Instead, thanks to kgs, I have achieved "mindless" go of another stamp

That is just part of why I believe that arts that have a Way (dao) are best learned in the oriental fashion. To repeat, the onus is on the learner, not the teacher. It is not that a teacher is not needed, but he is mainly a signpost, and the onus is on the learner to prepare himself - tickets, hotels, travel jabs, travellers' cheques - even before he goes to the teacher where, if he clears check-in, he can then continue on the journey by himself to the next signpost.

[Uberdude]

How does this East/West split reconcile with the (perhaps unfair) stereotype that Asian schoolkids are good at getting stuffed with facts and passing tests but tend to do less well on the more creative, problem-solving, soft skills type of problems? I'd have thought being left to learn on their own would mean they were better, not worse, at this. Just playing devil's advocate a bit

P.S. Isn't rote learning, which I would classify as teacher-driven "Western-style", actually more popular in the East nowadays?

[John Fairbairn]

How does this East/West split reconcile with the (perhaps unfair) stereotype that Asian schoolkids are good at getting stuffed with facts and passing tests but tend to do less well on the more creative, problem-solving, soft skills type of problems?

If there's one thing I remember from rote learning at school, even 60 years on, it is "read the question" (or the text).

I said "That is just part of why I believe that arts that have a Way (dao) are best learned in the oriental fashion." Arts, and a particular type at that. Nothing to do with school work.

[Knotwilg]

@Bantari: maybe we have been discussing on parallel tracks. When I talk about "stone counting on small boards" it is obviously meant to introduce the rules in an interactive way. As soon as the newcomer becomes a serious student, then obviously 19x19 should be the size and probably already for some time.

Also, the emphasis has been too much on the alleged horrible teachers I had or witnessed. I really think a bad system breeds bad teaching, with the teachers being blissfully unaware of this. My account of it may have been too harsh. In any case I don't think any newcomer should be subjected to a sermon of wisdom for the sake of the teacher's feeling good.

That attitude extends well into the approach of serious students though. A student can spend hours of practice with 10 minutes of good advice. There's no point in drowning them in more advice.

@All: having said that, my original post advocated more, not less and so it may look as if I advocate stronger teachership. On one hand, yes, I'd like to see a few more dojos which are well structured and have a more methodical approach to teaching/learning. On the other hand, I concur with John F. that the real responsibility lies with the student. What a Dojo does then, is providing an atmosphere and culture where motivated students can thrive. Not all students know what this means though. They cannot always convert self motivation in proper attitude. A little help may be required, like "be on time", "respect your opponent", "do the review", "now it's time for tsumego" ... Some guidelines/rules.

I compared western go not only to eastern go (which I don't really know from experience) but also to other western sports clubs, like my table tennis club. I need to be on time, I cannot sit on the tables, when the coach explains we form a U in front of him, when we pair for exercises there's a system to avoid sparring with your best friend all the time etc etc

Most of these players are self motivated but they manage to keep their stamina thanks to an external structure. Without it, I know what happens: players show up when they like and play free table tennis or matches against partners of their preference. It's very hard for 2 motivated students to find each other and practice what is needed for their game.

This is also what happens in most go clubs. Free entrance & exit, drinking, chatting, games and at best a bit of review.

That's what I meant with failure of free club culture. It's not about teachers bombarding students with knowledge. It's about clubs setting up a structure in which students can thrive, scaffolded with requirements for the students' attitude.

[topazg]

This is also what happens in most go clubs. Free entrance & exit, drinking, chatting, games and at best a bit of review.

Sounds wonderful

[Uberdude]

This is also what happens in most go clubs. Free entrance & exit, drinking, chatting, games and at best a bit of review.

Sounds wonderful

Quite, there is a difference between a go club and a go school (and many shades between). Some people play go for fun and don't care about improving, in fact if you presume they want to improve (which has some implications they should not be satisfied with their current level) it can be quite insulting.

[Bill Spight]

P.S. Isn't rote learning, which I would classify as teacher-driven "Western-style", actually more popular in the East nowadays?

Rote learning and memorization has a long history in both the East and the West.

[Bantari]

@Bantari: maybe we have been discussing on parallel tracks. When I talk about "stone counting on small boards" it is obviously meant to introduce the rules in an interactive way. As soon as the newcomer becomes a serious student, then obviously 19x19 should be the size and probably already for some time.

Cool... so you are not talking about teaching at all, but about "introducing the rules". I have no problem with that, most rules are local anyways, so it does not matter what board you use to introduce them with.

Rock on.

[Bill Spight]

One is a friend who studied taiji, at enormous expense, with a Chinese grandmaster. After months of assiduous effort and constant repetition he was admonished by the master: "You wave hands in air. Very pretty. But not taiji." Since the master's English was very limited it was pointless asking what he meant. But my friend is stubborn and he went away and examined everything he was doing. Months later he said he suddenly "got" taiji. He went back to the master and demonstrated his form again. The master looked, nodded and said simply, "Now you go away and practise." Several years later, my friend is now a successful teacher, over 80 but looking under 60. This is using the teacher as a signpost, and not as the map, signpost, and means of conveyance all rolled into one.

This fits in with my previous comment about esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Waving hands is part of exoteric knowledge, getting taiji is not. You need to be able to look at the grass to tell which way the wind is blowing, as they say. Making the esoteric exoteric is mainly a Western phenomenon. Its heyday, I suppose, was in the 19th century, with European translations of Eastern and ancient texts, and the publication of popular books about Western occult knowledge and practice. Scientific knowledge is of its nature public and exoteric. OC, not all knowledge is scientific. There are things such that, as Fats Waller said when asked what is swing, "If you gotta ask, you'll never know." (Quote also attributed to Louis Armstrong and others, also about jazz.)

Now, there are not simply Eastern and Western ways of knowledge, esoteric or exoteric. Let me give an example from my teaching of taiji. (I am no great shakes at taiji, but I have lived at times and places where people wanted to learn taiji and there was no one else to teach them.) I took taiji from Professor Cheng and his students. (Also, briefly, from a few others, but i did not get the feeling that they "got" taiji.) The beginning classes were like, stand this way, hold your hands this way, etc., but the more advanced classes were far from "waving hands".

I started my first classes this way. I would ask a volunteer to come up and let me hold up his arm. He would rest his wrist in my hand and I would ask him if he was letting me hold his arm up. He would say yes and then I would take my hand away. OC, his arm would stay up. We would continue until he was able to allow me to hold his arm up. The next exercise was to pass a small object, usually a shoe, as it happened, around and have the students feel its weight.

Now, neither of these exercises is about getting taiji. But they are not hand waving, either. They are examples of experiential learning. They do not teach exoteric knowledge, nor do they set high hurdles for the novice. Instead, they break learning into small chunks. The teacher does not carry the student, but is more of a guide than a signpost.

Needless to say I haven't got anywhere near even the first 1,000 hours and never will, but I do feel thoroughly confident that at least I know where that journey would end: I would achieve the ability to play with "no mind" at that level - all the things that I was concentrating on and that exhausted me in that one game would become second nature.

One of my taiji students, whom I tutored one on one, was a scholar of Chinese literature. He started taking taiji when he was around 60, and had no history of sports or exercise. His first exercise went pretty much as expected, given all that. However, he showed remarkable improvement in his second lesson. I asked him what the difference was, and he replied, "Wu hsin."

[Knotwilg]

This is also what happens in most go clubs. Free entrance & exit, drinking, chatting, games and at best a bit of review.

Sounds wonderful

Quite, there is a difference between a go club and a go school (and many shades between). Some people play go for fun and don't care about improving, in fact if you presume they want to improve (which has some implications they should not be satisfied with their current level) it can be quite insulting.

Well, i hope most readers have understood by now that i advocate the existence of a few go schools, not a conversion of all go clubs.