Gordy and All,
A common thread present through many of the physics focused comments is the concern that we must be careful not to teach concepts that will need to be unlearned should a student seek to progress to a higher level. How does this same thinking apply to a MCI that mentors a caster to a CCI level, where such mentoring generally and rightfully includes concepts like, "keeping it simple", "short answers", "clear, concise explanations", and "demonstrations that match explanations" with an actual fly rod? CCIs are tested on these concepts and they should be if they will be teaching actual students with their instructor certification which is the hope. When this CCI decides they would like to pursue MCI certification, are we suggesting it is then that we lift the veil so to speak and tell them it is actually far more complicated then they were lead to believe and have been teaching? Must they then unlearn the simple side to progress, or are we suggesting that any mentoring of prospective instructors, even to a CCI level, should include introductions to abstract theories and a questioning of everything from the beginning? My personal experience has been that even the most complex casts and line layouts are rooted in strong, basic fundamentals and good mechanics, as are the corrections of many, many faults.
Another common thread and justification for complexity seems to stem from a perceived need to prepare for a hypothetical "worst case scenario". Some see this worst case as a "Master Instructor" being asked a question that they do not have an absolutely true and/or scientifically provable answer for. This is a bit of a chasing after the wind since to be truly prepared for this scenario one would indeed have to know it all. I think everyone here is in agreement that this is not possible. I propose, however, an even worse scenario than the one above, one that would affect us all and is far more likely. That scenario would be any FFF CCI or MCI serving up a current and unproven/unprovable Internet theory on the actual physics and behaviour of a plastic string in the air to a student with a greater knowledge and understanding of physics than the instructor himself/herself. YouTube videos and bead chain experiments (again, while interesting) should not be viewed as "advanced proofs" as one poster put it. Anyone here is free to take these theories out into the realm of actual teaching if they choose, but woe to the lay physics enthusiast/casting instructor that inadvertently takes a "working knowledge" of a foreign language into a foreign country. Doing so can be damaging not only to the individual instructor, but to all of our reputations as FFF Certified Instructors, Master or not.
I believe a wise instructor knows his/her audience, and a wiser one still knows when he/she cannot. If one largely teaches at local club events or the occasional regional show with an established itinerary, then it is relatively easy to know the audience. However, if one is a teacher/guide at a major fishing destination that attracts travelers from all over the world as well as local clients with the means for guided fishing trips, or if one teaches at a busy shop in a major metropolitan area, knowing one's audience is not as easy. You simply don't know (in advance or sometimes ever) who is on the other side of the rod. Personally, I live and teach in the Washington D.C. Metro area. I accept that many of my students have achieved far higher levels of education in a much broader range of fields than me. In reference to Gordy's point in "Commentary 2", some of my students actually design and test the airplanes, spacecraft, and weapons of war that our rods, reels, and lines are made of. Yet they seek out a fly casting instructor in the hope of better understanding how to operate a stick and a string in a way that is easier, more efficient, and perhaps most importantly, more FUN! These are hardly "casual learners" at all, and while they may be trained for and making a living dealing with complex things, they are most often amazed and quite pleased to find that casting a fly line with a fly rod does not have to be one of them. To date, none (as in zero) have been hung up on or suspicious of simple explanations. Again, this has been my personal experience and is not based on the hypothetical.
As I have journeyed through my own FFF CICP experience, I have heard a pretty common statement that many Masters are fond of when warning prospective CCI's about the use of "pat" or "canned" answers. That statement with which I agree is, "If you are going to quote Joan (or Lefty, or Mel, etc.), it had better be Joan". I suggest we all take an introspective glance and ponder the following statement. If you are going to talk physics, it had better be physics. While there may be a few here that are actually qualified to speak physics to a physics professor or physics professional, most of us are not and we should know the difference. Considering this, I believe most of us should strive to err on the side of simple when it comes to casting instruction, or the teaching of casting instructors. As Mel Krieger once said (and yes, it was Mel - I checked), "Do not confuse simple with elementary teachings only, or for that matter easy instruction. In fact, the reverse is usually true. Helping the advanced flycaster commonly requires the most fundamental of adjustments." Again, this sentiment has proven true time and time again in my own personal experiences teaching students of all levels.
In summary, I believe there is a time and a place for everything, as I said in my original message. Paul runs an excellent and incredibly useful website for anyone around the world that wants to delve into the bottomless rabbit hole that is the "WHY" of the fly cast. However, when theoretical analysis of the "WHY" of things spills over into an "Instructor's" study group, which this is, hackles can raise and tempers can flair. When actual CCIs preparing for MCI are stating in their own words that they are "confused", and that this type of information has "lessened my desire" to pursue MCI certification, perhaps we are indeed leaving the track. Ultimately, we are looking at the very same thing from a different angle. A great example can be had if we take Aitor's bead chain experiment and get rid of the bead chain. What we are left with is a stick, or, a cylindrical dowel. For consistency, if everyone will grab an unused, unsharpened pencil (with or without an eraser) we now have a standard medium across the globe. From a two dimensional perspective, look at the pencil from the side. Now, from a two dimensional perspective, look at the same pencil from the end (front or back). What is its shape? Is its shape a rectangle? Is its shape a circle? The short answer is, it depends. The correct answer is, it is both.
Sincerely,
Dan Davala
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Dan,
I respect and understand your point of view. Perhaps we need to change.
Frankly, I think we have gone astray as we dig too deeply into philosophy and scientific theory for many of our members.
In past years, when I have received extremely technical messages, especially when combined with calculus equations, etc., you will note that I have purposely placed them in attachments. I'm fully aware that the majority of our members don't wish to be exposed to that super scientific stuff. That way I try to avoid the ire of either the presenter or the "non-techy" reader.
The last thing I wish to do is do damage the CICP or the enthusiasm of our Master candidates. If you really take a hard look at what I've tried to do as moderator, I think you can see that it is to take the messages of those who know a lot more physics than I do and try to interpret them for the Group in terms which, while not gross simplifications, are a bit easier to understand. Perhaps I have not done that well.
Sometimes we are fortunate to receive explanatory messages from members including Walter Simbirski. They have exceptional capacity for explaining complicated scientific material in a readily understandable way. My own "working knowledge" of physics has been critiqued by Walter and other experts along the way with constructive criticism, thus improving my own understanding.
When I have the honor of serving as lead examiner for a Master exam, I never get into highly technical material except rarely as when examining someone who has an engineering or science background. Even then, I do so in the best interests of that candidate. Should the candidate elect to go into a technical level of detail, at least I'm prepared to understand him/her.
If the day comes when I really think we are causing harm, I'll retire the Study Group and concentrate on my fishing.
Gordy
|