Author: admin

Rod Rating Systems by Daniel le Breton

Posted on by admin

Rod ratings

 

There is no way to find a perfect rod rating system for fly rods. Provocative isn’t it? But there are reasons why this ideal situation cannot be. It does not mean that nothing is possible in this domain; it just means that this is not something unique. There are rod scaling systems, they reflect the way rods are designed and cast by their maker. Individual systems from rod makers are publicly unknown; they are part of intellectual property. The most popular ones have been derived by independent people with the goal to achieve a universal system. Let’s start by a historical review.

The oldest reference I found comes from a book published in 1946 by Joannes Robin. The author tried to rate rods using the classical horizontal rod with a weight at tip (around 150 grams). His work started by 1935 and he finally considered rating rods by the mass needed to get an angle (see scheme A) of approximately 24 degrees between horizontal and a line joining the handle to the tip. Interestingly, he tried to link this characteristic to the line he could cast, but at that time, lines were classified by their dimension, not their weight as it is today. So he measured the weight of line he could cast! The corresponding line length was about 45 feet. At that time fly lines were still made of silk and quoted in diameters defined by a letter (example: HDH means a double taper with the diameter H for the belly and the diameter D at the tips. He finally gave up given the difficulty to find a clear fit, but had just discovered the basic problem without successfully solving it. He just lacked a little bit of knowledge in mechanics since he tried to evaluate rod stiffness and speed by complex combination of horizontal and vertical deflection under load, while there are other means to do that experimentally (he designed a smart specific test bench for his experiments). A remarkable work for that period of time, with little means by comparison to what we can use today.

This type of methodology can be qualified of a “relative deflection scale”. You imagine that, for a given line number, rods of various length would correspond to the same weight at tip to reach the 24 degrees line. At first sight, this makes sense.

The second oldest one was published in 1948 and was inspired by the way one used to rate spinning rods (scheme B). I guess it was created before. The ideal weight to cast is 1/50th the weight which makes the tip of a rod bent to the vertical position, the rod being clamped horizontally. For example, if you need 400 grams to achieve that, your rod is supposed to cast 400/50 = 8 grams nominally. Spinning rods were quoted in grams, referring to the full weight (e.g. a 400 grams rod) by the mid of the 20th century. It may have been used for fly rods but there is no evidence of that. As you can imagine, detecting the exact position for which the end of the tip is vertical is subject to uncertainty.

By comparison to J Robin’s method of rating, this scale does not need to take the rod length into consideration. It is an “absolute deflection scale”. We now have just reviewed the two basic methodologies but we cannot tell yet which one is the most appropriate.

A new line rating, based on the weight of the first 30 feet excluding the tip, was launched by 1961. Then line numbers appeared on the shaft of rods and the discussion about if rods were quoted right took place. This scale in weight is more relevant since it is the weight of lines which influences the behavior of a fly rod during casting (on top of the casting style), we shall come back on that point later.

Historically, the rod rating challenge has been met by Europeans first, when Dr Ludwig Rheim proposed his methodology by 1997. In fact he inspired what is known today as the “15 degrees” method, for when he presented it, it was based on a dynamic test (scheme C). The 15 degrees angle was the one he chose to release a load corresponding to a 3.75 degrees static test and measure the time for the rod to cross the 3.75 degree line after release. It was changed for a pure static one afterwards, by Theodore Matschewsky, who realized he could match the dynamic values derived by Dr Rheim by static ones. There is a database of measurements with the specific calculations corresponding to the method (Theosky.com). The rods are also quoted in terms of range of speed.

The second method was published in USA by 2003 (scheme D). William Hannemann (Dr Bill), developed his own from experience, starting from the observation that some people were not satisfied by ratings proposed by manufacturers, and that amateur rod builders needed something practical. It is based on the principle that rods of the same line get a 33% length vertical deflection if loaded with a given weight (using a small bag of US cents to tune the deflection, hence the name “Common Cents System”). There is also a database to which anyone can contribute. Another parameter is given by the angle of the tip from vertical in the deflected position, the higher the angle, the more on the “tip action side” the rod is. It is quite comparable to the 15 degrees method; the deflections are just larger than for that one. A close comparison would give 27% deflection for the “15 degrees”, 37% for the CCS (based on effective length), and 44% for J Robin. The CCS method has got some refinement on the dynamic side (CCF, F for frequency) at the end.

Soon some casters noticed that “relative” methods are relevant for a small range of rod length, and that their prediction was not adequate for long rods for example. This is due to the fact that assuming that rods for a given line have the same relative deflection (%), short rods are significantly stiffer and long rods are significantly softer. Given the general trend between stiffness and speed, the scale tends to “underline” short rods, and “overline” long rods. Nevertheless these methodologies constitute some reference point and even if you do not believe completely in their ratings, you may just find what rating his best for you for any line and look for comparable rods.

Incidentally, some experiment had been conducted by 1996 in USA to compare rod characteristics and their rating. The stiffness measurement for small deflections appeared to be a good estimator of the adequate line number. Measurements were conducted by Jo Hoffmann (Cal Poly University) and his team, while the ratings were done by Al Kyte, a renowned caster and casting instructor. At the end of a couple of days of experiment, it came out that there was a pretty good correspondence between the stiffness measurement for small deflections and the line ratings performed on various rods. Rod length (tested from 7”6 to 9”6, lines from two to eight) was not influencing that fit (see scheme E). Apparently this did not spread out while in fact comparable methods were in used by that period of time. I found one on the web, unfortunately without reference to its inventor. It may have been released in the late 90s but created earlier (peche-mouche-seche.com).

So why would this last technique, an “absolute deflection scale” better fit reality? To understand that point we must capture the basic mechanism governing the fly cast, which considers that a fly rod and line is comparable to a “spring and marble” system. In one case we rotate the rod, in the other we push on the bottom of the spring. Reality is more complex than this simple model but the basics are interesting in a sense that the single characteristic explaining the behavior of the spring and marble system is a dynamic one. It is the “speed of the tackle”, in more technical words the vibration frequency of the marble/line attached to the spring/rod. It means that one may prefer a certain range of frequencies and others another one, obtaining similar results (line speed) for various rods and lines. Tackle speed is related to the stiffness of the rod and the mass at the tip: increasing the line number (mass) must be followed by an increase in rod stiffness to keep the frequency level in an appropriate range as load is changing (with line length during the cast). So it is not by chance that a correspondence has been experimented between line number and rod stiffness, it comes from the underlying mechanism of casting. This was the subject of the last article about CCS (the CCF concept), but the author did not want to consider the mechanics of casting as relevant for his relative rating system.

Ok, we may have a clearer idea of what a rod rating should be, but why can’t it be universal? There are multiple reasons:

  • First, the way we fish, our physical capabilities, our casting proficiency. I remember a friend of mine (wrist) casting his 9 foot Fenwick rod built for a #6 line with a WF3.
  • Second, the role of other mass (rod shaft, guides and wraps, line in the guides) which influences also the speed of the tackle and contribute to the lack of universality.
  • Third: the fact that rods are hard springs, increasing their stiffness as they deflect. This is a matter of design and it also contributes to scatter the rod/line fit.

Although imperfect, the current system is quite fair for rating rods, and it should be all right if you cast like the chief rod designer. If not, you know how you can adapt the line. This is cheaper than changing the rod.

schemea

schemec

schemed

Mentoring Rubrics by Dayle Mazzarella

Posted on by admin

The attached rubric is meant to be a mentoring rubric, not necessarily one used during actual examination.

1. The “Pass” categories are very rigorously scored. When coaching, it is important to prepare the student for every possible testing situation. For some of the tasks there are multiple interpretations of what constitutes the expectations. In addition, even when the general interpretational is similar, different examiners have differing view of the relative importance of various components of a given task. For instance, some are considerably more concerned about the quality of the pick- up than are others.

I have no doubt that scoring “Borderline” on many tasks would pass – depending on the examiner.
The point is, if a candidate can hit a passing score on this rubric, it means ALL examiners would pass him/her. When preparing athletes for competition, a coach prepares his/her athletes for the most biased referees, the stiffest possible competition, the worst weather, etc. We need to do the same when preparing for a test or mentoring candidates. Candidates need to be ready for any and all expectations.

2. This rubric represents my personal interpretation of the tasks and my observations after participating in, or observing, the examination of 15 or so MCI candidates. (around 30 different examiners)

3. This is not an officially sanctioned IFFF document. It is meant solely  as a tool that some may find useful in mentoring candidates and/or preparing for the exam.

4. Remember: A rubric is nothing more than a checklist with the addition of relative values assigned to different components of the check list. The values assigned in this rubric reflect a conglomerate of those I have observed.

Feel free to modify the rubric as you see fit, but don’t make it “easier” or you will not be prepared for any and all possible testing environments.

Have fun, and comments are welcomed.

Dayle

To zoom in or to view the document in full page mode move your cursor over the upper right corner of the embedded document viewer below and select the desired option. The document can also be downloaded by  right-clicking  here  and selecting save or save as.

[embeddoc url=”http://wildoutfitting.com/testwp4920/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MCI-Mentoring-Rubrics-1-19.pdf” download=”none”]

 

Teaching and Casting by Lefty Kreh

Posted on by admin

I’m left handed but the Nuns made you write with your right hand. Joe Brooks gave me my first casting lesson in the late 1940s—left town the next day I didn’t want to know why!

For some years I cast left hand-but as I began teaching casting I realized that a good instructors must posses three criteria and I think few do—that is not meant to be egotistical. The three requirements are

(1) You never display your casting knowledge—you share it.

(2) You must be able to cast with either hand. The best way for students to understand what the hand is doing is for the instructor to get behind, take their hand and make the correct strokes. A right hand instructor holding one who is left handed will not make the same smooth moves.

(3) A good instructor should be able to make many, many bad casts. It is here where I feel so many instructors who are caring and sincere fall down. They make statements simply not true. UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE A BAD CAST YOUR REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW IT’S MADE. If  student has a casting a fault and you show him you can cast with the same fault but then cast and eliminate it—he knows two things—what’s really wrong and you can show him how to correct it.

After a good many years I feel I have conformed to the above three.

Because I learned early to use either hand equally well casting it became a real asset to teaching and fishing.

 
Many years ago my lady asked me to flip our mattress a routine procedure in our marriage. She was on one side of the double bed and I was on the other. Spreading my arms I reached down grabbed the heavy mattress and flipped it over. She could hear from the other side as almost all of bicep muscle tore loose from the elbow. The doctor said I tore if off, which I knew. He knew me well and said if reattached it will be four months in a sling and three to four months of therapy. “Lefty, I watch you and you seem to be able to something as well with either hand. I would suggest you just let it heal and realize you’ll be limited in what you can do with the left one.”

 
I can cast as far with my left hand as I can with my right but it quickly develops a charley horse. During clinics and demos I often switch hands to show something.

You said that  I “have a style.” I don’t have a style. When fly fishing there is no one way to cast. If I’m up against a vertical wall of trees on a trout stream, I put the rod tip at the surface, my thumb is underneath the rod hand with the elbow elevated and I then can throw the fly line straight vertically as the cast ends the rod hand is turned and I direct the cast to the target. If I am in a confined are on a stream using a 9 foot rod. I will slide two feet of the rod behind me grasp the rod at the butt guide allowing me to fish a 7-foot rod in tight quarters and as the cast ends I’ll hold the rod by the handle to fish the fly. Two years ago I was with Ed Jaworowski on a Penn. mountain stream at a private club. There was a large trout rising along the far bank. The cast called for making two different casts (styles). Behind me was a tall fir tree with the lowest branches at least 10 feet from the ground. In front of me was a narrow vertical gap in the trees. A low side cast was made before the cast unrolled behind me I brought the rod to the vertical plane and delivered the forward cast. Since I wanted the leader to fall with slack I towered the vertical forward cast to obtain that slack. It fell two feet in front of the fish. As the fly neared he sucked it it and I had Ed net what they told me was the largest brown ever saw caught at the club. I don’t mean this to be bragging. I’m trying to emphasize there is no one way to cast and to catch that brown trout it required two separate “styles” of casting.

 
I have fished several times in New Guinea, more times in the Amazon and other wild places where there are fish. I have never seen a native cast like most instructors——————unless he was taught by a white man. Go to the Bahamas and spend time bonefishing with a local guide—most can throw the full fly line with little effort. That is because they have to buck the wind and there is nothing around that might  foul the cast and they all use what many call my style. NO. They are instinctively using a natural motion the way their forefathers or a New Guinea native would throw a spear.
My concept for teaching for many years is to teach what a person would do naturally—and I know it conflicts with the method that was developed centuries ago with a rod with no reel and short horsehair line on small stream and it’s much different today. We need a different approach. THERE IS NO SPORT EXCEPT FLY CASTING THAT SUGGESTS YOU USE ONLY YOUR ARM AND WRIST. Everyone uses their body to play ping-pong or throw a Frisbee.

 
I teach four principles, which I developed in the early 1970’s and published them in my saltwater book in the mid 1980s. I can send you those principles if you like and the three aids to casting that have worked wondrously well for my students. (WS-  Lefty did send me these and I will include them in another post).

Superman vs Flash and, as a casting instructor, why do I care?

Posted on by admin

Based on the discussion of F=ma it would sound like the stronger I am the farther I can cast. Twice the force, twice the acceleration, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc.

But if it was that simple then the biggest, brawniest men would cast the farthest and we all know that isn’t the case. Paul Arden may have put on a few pounds in the last couple of years but he is still not the largest person in distance casting and he can still outcast many people larger than he is. At the same time there are many people of slighter builds who can outcast him. Joan Wulff and Lefty Kreh can probably build a two story apartment out of one of my parkas but if it comes to a casting competition between the 3 of us the smart money will be on me to place third.

Those of you who remember Tom White will remember two things. He was very tall and he could throw more line than they sold him (I stole that last one from Lefty Kreh by the way). Most people watched Tom cast and said, “Of course he can throw a lot of line, he has really, really long arms!”. Tom would respond by slipping his arm into his shirt so that only his hand was sticking out of the neck of the shirt and then cast. Even with this encumbrance Tom could outcast most people.

So if it isn’t size, strength or long limbs that make you able to cast far then what is the key?

I discussed this with a friend who has coached a number of Olympic weightlifters. Dan’s response was that it was strength vs power. In physics we talk about force vs power.

How does this relate to Superman vs the Flash? I hope everyone knows the characters I’m talking about. Superman has what seems like an unlimited number of super powers. I recall an episode where he pushed the earth out of its current orbit (super strength), he can fly, he can use xray vision to see what color of underwear Lois Lane is wearing today, and he has super speed. He can travel faster than light even. The Flash, on the other hand, has only one super power. He’s the only person can move even faster than Superman. In a race he leaves Superman sucking oxygen from the vacuum he leaves behind him. He can punch Superman so many times with his left hand that Superman is left begging for a right. Sorry for all the bad jokes but I think you get my point.

Now here’s the question(s) – both Superman and Flash have similar body types – same height, same weight, same glove size, etc. Ignoring the fact that a punch from either one will immediately dissolve you in to atoms, which one would you rather be punched by and why? Superman has the strength but Flash has the speed.

As a casting instructor do you care and why?

Comments on The Roll Cast by Lefty Kreh

Posted on by admin

I saw the Federation book and the principles—I think they are mostly correct. But the same book shows making a roll cast where the rod tip is delivered directly at the surface so the photo shows the angler throwing the line around a big circle—wasting most of the cast’s energy. You change the back roll cast because you can’t make a regular backcast—you should never change the regular forward cast since it delivers energy and line in the at the target.

LeftyKrehRollCast

Teaching by Lefty Kreh

Posted on by admin
Recently I had an opportunity down south to teach a class where a young lady who never held a fly rod asked for instructions.
I did not start by teaching the dynamics of loop control or confuse her with words like loading the rod, etc. I gave simple instruction how to place her feet, pivot the body and required arm motions. I try to teach what she might instinctively do if she never had instructions. For the backcast  I handed are a small toy asking her to throw it sideways up a hill to me. The first attempts she stopped her and hand in the wrong direction and the toy didn’t come to me.I explained that would be the direction your fly line would have gone. Soon  she began stopping her arm and hand so the toy traveled toward me. I got behind and took her hand telling her to look at the tip of the rod and I began false casting suggesting she try to make the line crash into the rod.
I made sure each time she took the rod well back so the tip followed a curve path and when she attempted to hit the line on the rod she created a tight loop. After a minute or two helping her I had her try it alone. She threw perfect loops.
Then placing the line on the grass I repeated the procedure but taught her to pull on the line during acceleration. In perhaps three or four  minutes  she was making perfect double hauls. I had her false casting. In 15 minutes this lady who never held a fly rod before was throwing tight loops and false casting and with a big grin. I have done this many time over the years.
I have been teaching casting since the 1950s and I think it’s wonderful for the instructor to know mathematics, physics, etc,. But I think most instructors want to learn down to earth techniques that will help them teach.

Casting Analyzer Traces from Bruce

Posted on by admin

Gordy Hill had asked to see what a casting analyzer chart corresponding with various tip paths would look like. The embedded diagram is the response from Bruce Richards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with casting analyzer charts the X axis displays time and the Y axis displays the angular velocity of the rod butt. You can determine the angular acceleration of the rod butt by the steepness of the curve. Additional information about the fly casting analyzer is available here.


BruceCATraces

How much physics do we need to know? by Daniel le Breton

Posted on by admin

How much physics do we need to know to understand and improve casting?

I can imagine five levels of understanding, the scale being not linear. This is arguable but this may be useful as a starting point.

First level: efficiency of the cast

Let’s start with Bill Gammel’s five essentials. They all turn around keeping a straight line path: no slack, straight line before casting, proper power application (avoiding tailing loops) and finally adapting arc size to line carry.

Why do we need a straight line path? For line control for sure but mechanically speaking, this allows an efficient transmission of energy from the caster to the line. The energy is given to the line by moving a force at the tip of the rod over a suitable distance. To be efficient the force must be in the same direction than the line. This force is following the tip path and if this path is curved significantly, a part of the work will be spoiled and not transmitted to the line to give it speed. Think about pushing a wagon on rails: you will never try to push perpendicularly to the rails.

If you increase the carry there is more energy to transmit to the longer line which is more difficult to roll out in the distance, so you have two options like increasing the distance over which you move the force, or increasing the intensity of that force. The fact is when you increase the arc; both the path and the force are increased if you keep the same overall timing for the cast, meaning you have to make your cast faster on a larger arc.

The most difficult point to understand is “proper power application”. There is no exact explanation of how to get it (not easy for sure). If you put power too soon you will spoil the tip path (tip moving down), so it is recommended to increase speed progressively, and to delay the wrist rotation at the very end of the cast (use with moderation for fishing casts).

The acceleration phase is in fact responsible for something like three quarters of the final line speed, so it is very important to apply acceleration properly. The deceleration phase is also important since it controls loop size (short deceleration, small loop), but also the degree of ease to stop the rod (long deceleration, easier stop). Mastering the whole process needs training, especially if you change your #4 outfit for a #12 one.

If the students can understand these points, they have the basics.

Second level: how does the line works?

I have explained that in the paper I wrote for answering to Paul’s challenge. Let’s try to make it even simpler. Since a fly cannot cast itself, our ancestors discovered that it was smarter to attach the fly to a “massive” line that would be the carrier and will be able to place the fly in the distance. You cast the line and the fly follows. The trick is to roll over the line which is possible through a rather simple mechanism. As you give speed to the line and stop it to shape a loop, the part of the line which is holding the fly can overtake the part which is stopped. The energy given to the line when launched is transferred to the moving part, and is used to fight air resistance until the fly can land in front of the line. Since the mass of the moving line diminishes it may accelerate if air resistance is not too large. Air resistance being related to the area of line facing the air under speed (you can compare with your own experience if you walk with a front head wind), you have to minimize the size of the loop to use as little energy as possible. Air resistance uses to be the winner and the fly can land softly if it is launched with sufficient speed. If this can be understood, that’ fine for a beginner. Do not use a mechanical principle that the beginner cannot understand or he is not familiar with, avoid any technical word at this stage, e.g. “this is due to conservation of momentum”: nice to impress the girls at the bar but pretty wrong.

Third level

Up to this point, we have not mentioned rod characteristics or the way a fly rod works, and said nothing about what are the real important parameters of the fly line. Does one need to know about these things and how much?

To make a long story short, a fly rod is a “harmonic oscillator”, in other words, it is as if you were pushing a marble on a table in a straight line (e.g. in a V block), but there is a spring (the rod) between the marble (the line) and you, which is attached to your finger. As you start pushing, the spring is contracting because the marble is resisting the motion (imagine a bowling ball instead), but after some time, the spring decides to unload itself and launches the marble. You can imagine that things will vary depending on the weight of the marble and the stiffness of the spring. It will take more time for a soft spring to react and unload. Things will even change if you change the weight of the marble. The characteristics managing the launch speed of the marble are the stiffness of the spring, the weight of the marble, and your input. It is ever simpler than that (for a specialist), the actual mechanical characteristic involved is the frequency of the loaded spring (attach the spring vertically with the marble and make the marble go up and down, then measure the frequency of this motion). It combines both the spring stiffness and the weight of the marble. We are speaking of the role of the “speed of the tackle” here. The “harmonic oscillator” can tolerate a reasonable variation of this speed characteristic and give a suitable speed to the line, this is important to know. Only few casters are able to adapt their cast to the tackle, for most this is not necessary. With experience, rod makers have adapted their tackle to our physical capability to cast. Now it would be fine to find another wording than “harmonic oscillator”.

The key parameters for a fly line are its density per unit of length and its diameter. The first one is easy to capture, a denser liner is thinner and you can test yourself the impact with a sinking line. For a given type of line, the mechanical rule may not be straightforward: the larger the diameter, the easier it is to roll out. You can compare a #2 with #8, which should be convincing

Fourth Level

If you understand quite well what I explain in my large paper (Flycasting 2014), you have this level of expertise.

Fifth Level

If you can understand what modeling is and the principles governing mechanical equations, you have achieved this level of expertise and you can argue against your peers. A good subject is (there are many other subjects of course): what is the use of the elastic energy placed in the rod, for example. Of course, be ready to justify your argument by numbers if you want to minimize the duration of the dispute, but there is no guarantee it will not last.

Teaching Principles – The Baker’s Dozen by Dayle Mazzarella

Posted on by admin

The Baker’s Dozen Rules of Basic Learning Theory

1. Covering vs Teaching = “Cognitive Overload.”

a. Teaching takes time. Covering ten items in a session teaches virtually nothing as a result of cognitive overload.

b. Cognitive Overload occurs:
1. When we cover too much material in a session.
2. When we inject distractions; things that really add insignificantly to understanding but take up storage space in the brain.

c. Our brain has a working memory of only 5-7 items at a time. Keep the items presented to a minimum. Working memory must be converted to long-term memory. The next 12 rules are much of what makes this conversion happen.

2. Recency and Primacy.

a. The first (primacy) and last (recency) items in a learning sequence are more likely to be remembered than items in the middle.

b. Start and finish your learning sequence with the most important points.

3. Distributed practice is far superior to massed practice.
a. It is better to practice 4 days a week for 30 minutes each day than it is to practice 1 day a week for 2 hours.

4. Long-term memory takes place in the emotional areas of the brain.

a. To create long term memory, emotion must be present. Motivation is a big factor in creating long term memory.

b. Start every lesson by setting the stage (See Part 3).

c. Use humor, powerful analogies, and stories.

d. Use Praise, Prompt, Leave Tactics (PPL). Keep it positive (See Part 2)!

5. Virtually all long-term memory is hastened by association.

a. Associate the new material with known material. Attach it to something!

b. Analogies are important tools as are building on previous skills and knowledge.

6. Organize teaching into “chunks.”

The concept of “chunking” learning segments into smaller and similar content areas is important. For best results, sequential chunks should be related and similar. If a  lesson is about loops, refrain from throwing in a discussion of mends. Better yet, the ideal lesson will deal with the formation of narrow loops only. This would be the chunked learning segment. When it is mastered, the instructor could now add another learning segment dealing with the formation of wide loops. This is “chunking”.  Comparing and contrasting the tip paths of each is a very powerful tool to be used when going from one chunk to the next.

7. Spiraling is the concept of revisiting/reviewing previously learned material.

Example: Every lesson should include a review of the initial pick up cast and the formation of loops followed by a new learning segment.

8. Staircasing is building future, more complicated, tasks or knowledge on a good foundation.

Example: 90% of a candidate’s likelihood of passing the casting portion of the CI or MCI exam is rooted in the ability to control basic loops. Basic loops are the foundation of further development. To practice the slack line casts before mastering loops is largely an exercise in futility.

9. Combine #5, #6, #7 and #8 above and we get to Sequencing.

The order in which we teach new skills is of great importance. By teaching foundational skill (a) narrow loops, and then adding skill (b) wide loops, and then reviewing (a) narrow loops and (b) wide loops as a way of teaching (c) narrow and wide loops in successive casting strokes is an example of staircasing, spiraling, chunking and using association.

10. Keep things simple.

For #4 we could have written, “It is important to understand that the Amygdala, Hypothalamus, and Hippocampus are the primary organs responsible for long term memory while the Cerebellum and Neocortex play more minor roles.” Instead, we wrote, “Long term memory takes place in the emotional part of the brain.” This isn’t completely accurate in more ways than one, but everybody gets the idea! As a teaching tool, it is often far superior to get the point across than to be technically accurate.

11. Repetition.

The typical person requires 7 repetitions in the proper context before he or she can commit a reasonable learning segment to long term memory. This is, of course, dependent on motivation, innate ability, and other factors. Distributing these repetitions over two or three learning episodes a few days apart accelerates the learning process. Also helpful is the use of structured practice discussed in Part 3.

12. Whole – Part – Whole.
By demonstrating and explaining the entire cast we show the student the whole (explain and demonstrate), then we need to break it down into parts (See structured practice in Part 3). After the parts have been mastered, we put it together by smoothing out the transitions between the parts (See guided practice in Part 3). Thus we get back to the whole. Independent practice consolidates the whole (See Part 3).

13. “Say-See-Do” or Trimodal Teaching (From Fred Jones).

Concerning ourselves with learning styles is a valuable goal. However, the idea that we need to develop different lessons dependent on a person’s individual learning style has been rebuked by modern research. Instead, researchers have found that a lesson using all the senses more or less simultaneously works best for virtually all students. The IFFF has long embraced, and rightly so, the need to consider audio, visual and kinesthetic modalities while instructing. As a result, the IFFF has promoted the idea of Explain (auditory), Demonstrate (visual), “Now you do it” (kinesthetic), as a default teaching methodology.

By simply expanding the dynamic and methodology of the “now you do it”, we have a very powerful teaching template. More of this will be discussed in the section on Lesson Plans and specifically in Structured Practice. Without Structured Practice, there is no ‘Part’ in “Whole – Part – Whole”.

The main point here is that individualizing instruction based on the perceived dominant learning modality of the student, does not lead to increased achievement. As a matter of fact, it will lead to decreased results as it crowds out the use of superior methodology. Don’t worry about separating the three modalities or discovering a student’s learning modality preference. Simply teach by using all modalities simultaneously.

The say-see-do lesson plan template in Part 3 takes advantage of all modalities.

The 13 rules of basic learning theory combined with the information in the next two sections are what guide instruction when optimal results matter!