|
Walter & Group...
[GH] Laurence Baggett, "From the mouths of babes" "
Hi Gordy
Happy Thanksgiving.
I asked my 6 year old grandson, Wil, who as you know is learning to cast. He said, with some translation, "the line will always follow the rod tip unless the tip guide is broken." I thought I would let you know to bring a resolution to the discussion.
Hope to see you soon.
Laurence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Ralph Tomaccio :
To Dan Davala & Gordy,
What you have put into words about your thoughts and feelings on the level of “geekyness” this study group has achieved expresses my sentiments exactly. Often, I have thought about expressing similar feelings here but couldn’t muster the correct sentiments and words and, therefore, kept them to myself. I had desires of becoming an MCI and thought that joining this group would be one of the best ways to help achieve that end. So far, it has only confused me more and lessened my desire. I do not believe I need to know "vector", "scalar", "azimuth", "coupled planed pendula", etc., or to write out complex math equations in order to cast a fly line with a fly rod or to teach another to do the same as you have stated.
How does any CCI separate the truly necessary info from the geeky? And to say to understand it isn’t really necessary to become an MCI is like a lawyer who makes a statement in court to the jury that he shouldn’t have and then retracts the statement. TOO LATE! Everyone heard it and it sticks in everyone’s mind. This now forces a person to either try to understand something that shouldn’t have been said or remain confused. They didn’t need to hear it to begin with.
If the purpose of this group is to teach CCI’s how to become MCI’s, I believe we have gone off-track. I would suggest those who want to discuss the geeky aspects should have their own group and let people opt-in. If you feel it is too hard to separate the truly necessary and important aspects from the geeky, then maybe this only proves how difficult it is for those who don’t understand to grasp these concepts to begin with and the group is failing in it’s goal. With so much emphasis on “simple” and “short”, geekyness is winning out. And, that’s opposite of how it should be. We simply cannot learn to teach “simple” and “short” through learning geek. At least I can’t and I’m certain I’m not alone.
Respectfully,
Ralph Tomaccio
CCI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Ralph,
I respect your opinion. Surely you are correct in that others do, too.
Sometimes I am thought to be furthering the side of the "geeks" with my comments. The scientific folks often think I'm "siding" with the simplistic minded members.
As moderator, I try to present both sides. I exert no control over our participants.
If you take a hard look at what has been presented, you will see that I have presented opinions of our members as they come in. On this topic, for example, I think we have covered it with messages on simple teaching and "direct teaching", right along with the more esoteric physics theory. I've tried to provide balance with my own comments.
As I once stated, I saw no harm in having the Master candidate become exposed to each side of the issues with the assumption that he can make his own decisions as he prepares.
"How does any CCI separate the truly necessary info from the geeky?"
One way of doing this is to take the information presented and distill it down so you, as candidate, can put it into your own words. This will lead to YOUR understanding of the issues which will increase confidence as you teach .... or take an exam.
I think Lefty Kreh put it very well as he counseled a casting student who had been confused by different teachings during a workshop presented by several experts. He said, "Listen to the one who makes the most sense to you".
The LAST thing I want to do is to have this Group become a medium for providing answers to potential questions for rote memorization. This would, in the long run, be counterproductive when the candidate takes the exam as the examiners probe the depths of his understanding of fly casting and teaching.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mark Surtees brings up a couple of important points :
Hi Gordy
It has never been the case that a driving instructor needs also to be a mechanic to be a good driving instructor and neither is it particularly the case that a casting instructor needs to understand classical physics to be a good casting instructor…however…
"To me, part of being a Master is to have the wisdom and capacity to explain things to students in terms the students will understand. If that means teaching without the use of any scientific words to those who wouldn't understand them, all the better. "
This is just as it should be, but equally, for me, part of being a Master is the capacity to select, or create, instructional explanations that do not seek to confuse fact with fiction…a responsibility in fact.
Whether people actually do this in the field or not is up to them, but, in the context of an examination, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to seek to find out if the candidate knows the difference… because some plainly don’t… J
Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mark,
Our MCI candidates should read your message ... especially your last paragraph.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|