What are 'outside-in' and 'inside out' teaching methods?

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

I've found a lot of good info here but have come to the conclusion posts started by Patrick57 should only be read for entertainment purposes.

Some sanity in a topic full of insanity.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

The concepts Patrick57 is calling "inside-out" is one of the most successful methods of teaching someone to speak a second language.  It is simplistic and easily grasped by most people because it is based on how babies learn to speak their primary language.   So for lingual purposes it works well.   That said, I have not seen anything simplistic about what Patrick57 is trying to say in this, or any other post.

As a new golfer, I spend a lot of time reading on TST and other places, trying to learn what I can about how to play this game better.  I've found a lot of good info here but have come to the conclusion posts started by Patrick57 should only be read for entertainment purposes.

You seem to disagree that the same sytem is used when infants learn all of the basic motor skills which seems strange. I am glad that you find my posts entertaining but I fear that it is for the wrong reasons.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by mchepp

Some sanity in a topic full of insanity.

I can accept... hard to understand and I don't agree...

but insanity.

Behave yourself mchepp!

[Apotheosis]

I can accept... hard to understand and I don't agree...

but insanity.

Behave yourself mchepp!

Just. Because an infant can teach itself to walk without being told left foot right foot etc. does not mean an adult can learn to swing a golf club competently. One is an instinctual thing that their bodies are built specifically for and they are surrounded by 24/7. The other is completely unnatural and has specific "checks" that must be met to produce a consistent ball flight. The human body does not know how to instinctually play golf.

[Th3R00st3r]

I have read most of the posts on here by Patrick57, and his aliases. In summary, they pretty much say the same thing in that he does not like the current technical teaching methods in where they break down the swing using frame by frame video analysis. That is his opinion and that is fine. But how many different threads dfo their have to be that say almost the same thing.

Myself, I am a visual learner. In my job, I like to look at code examples (I am a DBA) , images, and tutorials to obsorb the concepts being shown. I like TST because of the visual aids and responses to post used to demonstrate the collective knowledge of golfers who are better at the game than I. It works better for me and that is my opinion\preference.

Although P57 has his opinion and preferences, as he has stated many times in the weeks he has been on here, I don't see a point?

When you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader!

[The_Pharaoh]

Patrick57,

Is there any chance you could video yourself giving someone a lesson? I think seeing you in action would really help us grasp your way of teaching.

Cheers.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

Just. Because an infant can teach itself to walk without being told left foot right foot etc. does not mean an adult can learn to swing a golf club competently. One is an instinctual thing that their bodies are built specifically for and they are surrounded by 24/7. The other is completely unnatural and has specific "checks" that must be met to produce a consistent ball flight. The human body does not know how to instinctually play golf.

There's a lot of definite statements in there that are just wrong

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

Just. Because an infant can teach itself to walk without being told left foot right foot etc. does not mean an adult can learn to swing a golf club competently.

Because an infant has an inbuilt system for learning many motor skills, it stands to reason that the same infant can in adulthood use the same system for learning to swing a golf club competently.

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

One is an instinctual thing that their bodies are built specifically for and they are surrounded by 24/7. The other is completely unnatural and has specific "checks" that must be met to produce a consistent ball flight.

There are too many instinctive movements to even start to list and golf is a combination of a number of these, making golf more natural than completely unnatural.

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

The human body does not know how to instinctually play golf.

Yours maybe! You underestimate the capabilities of the human body. Its the ignorance of this understanding that is causing golfers to play a very shabby inconsistent game. One day they've got it and the next day they're selling their clubs. I don't see any special levels of consistency on any of the golf courses I visit but they are all tip top players on this site.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Patrick57,

Is there any chance you could video yourself giving someone a lesson? I think seeing you in action would really help us grasp your way of teaching.

Cheers.

You send the film crew and I'll gladly oblige. Could you send me a video of your golf swing so that I can prepare the lesson for you, Tutankhamun.

[Clambake]

Patrick, to me there is one major disconnect between the learning examples of infants learning motor skills, apes learning to throw things, etc. (all examples you've expressed here) and the learning of the golf swing is that the fundamental changes in cognitive skills as one gets older changes significantly.    From infancy into young adulthood, the brain is continuing to develop and change and the methods for assimilating new behaviors or capabilities fundamentally change.

At infancy, learning skills are highly biased towards basic motor functions, grasping basic communications, etc.     At those early ages, the cognitive capacity of the brain cannot not yet understand causal actions, or analyze complex situations.    The brain also hasn't developed yet to adequately understand risk or consequences.     As a result, children are prime for learning basic physical activities and languages, but it's no use teaching them calculus.

As the brain develops, those elements in the brain mature and no longer function as a primary learning mechanism.   Different parts of the brain now become active, and into adolescence the brain is now better suited to causal learning, i.e. understanding cause and effect.   But the brain is still developing, and understanding of consequences are still not well developed - a reason teenagers are fearless and still do dumb things.

Getting into one's 20's, the brain continues to change in how it adapts to learning.    At this stage of your life, learning complex motor skill functions is much more difficult and not natural anymore - simply, the parts of the brain that were good at that are no longer functioning as well, but one is now much more able to understand complex actions and understand the cause and effects.

As one ages even more, these basic ways of learning aren't developing anymore - the manner in which one learns at age 50 isn't much different than at age 30.     But unfortunately, the aging process is now at work and one's learning agility is not what it once was.

In the various threads you've started about natural learning, learning methods, outside-in, etc., all of these seem based on the one premise that you feel that certain learning capabilities and these are fixed throughout time, but the science is that how one learns changes significantly through the years.    In teaching golf to young kids they'll learn it more effectively to give them a club and have them whack it around with an end goal in mind, but that doesn't work as effectively as adults who's cognitive ability requires them to analyze and understand in order to learn.   But even those generalizations aren't adequate, as adults also grasp things very differently from one person to another.      This isn't a "one method fits all" prospect.

[Anjew]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Originally Posted by Patrick57

You send the film crew and I'll gladly oblige. Could you send me a video of your golf swing so that I can prepare the lesson for you, Tutankhamun.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/53961/my-swing-the-pharaoh

There you go. Go to it.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Th3R00st3r

I have read most of the posts on here by Patrick57, and his aliases. In summary, they pretty much say the same thing in that he does not like the current technical teaching methods in where they break down the swing using frame by frame video analysis. That is his opinion and that is fine. But how many different threads dfo their have to be that say almost the same thing.

Let me correct your summary

I practice and use both methods or I wouldn't survive as a golf coach, I disagree with the over analysis of the swing at ordinary amateur levels, that covers about 99% of golfers. I could survive using only the widespread method but I am a student of improving how people learn and am therefore open to alternatives when they are presented to me.

Originally Posted by Th3R00st3r

Myself, I am a visual learner. In my job, I like to look at code examples (I am a DBA) , images, and tutorials to obsorb the concepts being shown. I like TST because of the visual aids and responses to post used to demonstrate the collective knowledge of golfers who are better at the game than I. It works better for me and that is my opinion\preference.

Visual learning is very effective, its those complicated words describing movement that spoil the whole process.

Originally Posted by Th3R00st3r

Although P57 has his opinion and preferences, as he has stated many times in the weeks he has been on here, I don't see a point?

When you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader!

I had to sit and read through your; "In my job, I like to look at code examples (I am a DBA) , images, and tutorials to obsorb the concepts being shown." and take advice from you about having a point. I haven't met a single person from IT that had a rational point about anything.

[Th3R00st3r]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Let me correct your summary

I practice and use both methods or I wouldn't survive as a golf coach, I disagree with the over analysis of the swing at ordinary amateur levels, that covers about 99% of golfers. I could survive using only the widespread method but I am a student of improving how people learn and am therefore open to alternatives when they are presented to me.

Visual learning is very effective, its those complicated words describing movement that spoil the whole process.

I had to sit and read through your; "In my job, I like to look at code examples (I am a DBA) , images, and tutorials to obsorb the concepts being shown." and take advice from you about having a point. I haven't met a single person from IT that had a rational point about anything.

You disagree with the over analysis of the swing. That's the first time I think I have seen you relay your message in one sentence. Yes it can get a bit technical, and with your comment about IT people you may not like technology very much. That doesn't mean it doesn't work or it's not useful. You may just prefer to not use it as much in your lessons. If you do, then it's very hypocritical.

You say visual learning is very effective, and are not keen on the words used to describe the swing process, but yet you dislike the over use of video analysis. What do you consider over analysis. Can you provide some examples?

As an IT person you may be right. We are more literal than rational.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Clambake

Patrick, to me there is one major disconnect between the learning examples of infants learning motor skills, apes learning to throw things, etc. (all examples you've expressed here) and the learning of the golf swing is that the fundamental changes in cognitive skills as one gets older changes significantly.    From infancy into young adulthood, the brain is continuing to develop and change and the methods for assimilating new behaviors or capabilities fundamentally change.

At infancy, learning skills are highly biased towards basic motor functions, grasping basic communications, etc.     At those early ages, the cognitive capacity of the brain cannot not yet understand causal actions, or analyze complex situations.    The brain also hasn't developed yet to adequately understand risk or consequences.     As a result, children are prime for learning basic physical activities and languages, but it's no use teaching them calculus.

As the brain develops, those elements in the brain mature and no longer function as a primary learning mechanism.   Different parts of the brain now become active, and into adolescence the brain is now better suited to causal learning, i.e. understanding cause and effect.   But the brain is still developing, and understanding of consequences are still not well developed - a reason teenagers are fearless and still do dumb things.

Getting into one's 20's, the brain continues to change in how it adapts to learning.    At this stage of your life, learning complex motor skill functions is much more difficult and not natural anymore - simply, the parts of the brain that were good at that are no longer functioning as well, but one is now much more able to understand complex actions and understand the cause and effects.

As one ages even more, these basic ways of learning aren't developing anymore - the manner in which one learns at age 50 isn't much different than at age 30.     But unfortunately, the aging process is now at work and one's learning agility is not what it once was.

In the various threads you've started about natural learning, learning methods, outside-in, etc., all of these seem based on the one premise that you feel that certain learning capabilities and these are fixed throughout time, but the science is that how one learns changes significantly through the years.    In teaching golf to young kids they'll learn it more effectively to give them a club and have them whack it around with an end goal in mind, but that doesn't work as effectively as adults who's cognitive ability requires them to analyze and understand in order to learn.   But even those generalizations aren't adequate, as adults also grasp things very differently from one person to another.      This isn't a "one method fits all" prospect.

Thank you. A very well written and knowledgeable piece. I do understand that this is a long conversation on its own and you have only scratched the surface of the topic.

I was however hoping to read somewhere something about how motor skills are basically learned from the inside out and not using calculus or the understanding of complex actions and understanding the cause and effects. Every activity involves using a concoction of motor skills we learned in childhood and in learning golf we should be encouraged to associate these attributes/aids to this learning.

It is not a fluke of nature that most of the essential motor skills are covered before we are able to analyse complex situations. Its the over analysis of these situations that make golf more difficult to grasp, and that applies to every age. Kids don't learn golf more effectively than adults, they just get bored when the instructor gets too technical and shut off from harmful complexities. The older the adult the more they tend to listen as a sign of respect. But it is often going in one ear and out the other with them too.

I struggle with the concept of learning movements using long barrelled, complex expalnations about how its done. I believe if you performed an experiment where you didn't allow a person to walk until middle age, they would still tackle the task with the same trial and error instincts as babies.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Anjew

http://thesandtrap.com/t/53961/my-swing-the-pharaoh

There you go. Go to it.

Oh no! I will need a little longer to prepare than I thought and you'll have to lose at least 20 lbs before you get into one of my teaching videos.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by Th3R00st3r

You disagree with the over analysis of the swing. That's the first time I think I have seen you relay your message in one sentence. Yes it can get a bit technical, and with your comment about IT people you may not like technology very much. That doesn't mean it doesn't work or it's not useful. You may just prefer to not use it as much in your lessons. If you do, then it's very hypocritical.

You say visual learning is very effective, and are not keen on the words used to describe the swing process, but yet you dislike the over use of video analysis. What do you consider over analysis. Can you provide some examples?

As an IT person you may be right. We are more literal than rational.

Firstly my comments about IT were completely tongue in cheek. I was only rebutting your comment about me trying in future to have  a point.

I use video analysis but cautiously. I will correct a swing in the order of the fault. If the students is rolling his wrists at hip height and this causes the club to be off set at the top, I will correct the rolling at hip height. I will perhaps show him this part of the video but I will not show him anything else. Once I feel he has grasped this correction I may shown him a new video and only then move onto the next phase. I know golfers who never managed  to learn to correct a simple fault because they work on 2 or more at a time. I have also witnessed colleagues analysing  a video and pointing out every fault to a student in one sitting. I think they believe the student is getting their money's worth the more faults the instructor can describe. But this doesn't help the cause which is learning to fix faults.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

This pupil has learned to alter his swing path with very little interference or verbal commands from me.

I'd bet that student is slicing again in two months and hasn't truly "learned" much of anything.

And again, if the student is able to alter his swing path, who is to say he did so properly and didn't do so by causing 14 other things to get screwed up or made worse in the golf swing?

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I practice and use both methods or I wouldn't survive as a golf coach, I disagree with the over analysis of the swing at ordinary amateur levels, that covers about 99% of golfers.

I disagree with "over-"analysis of anything too. After all, the very use of the word "over" makes it "bad." Same with under. I disagree with the "under-" analysis of the swing as well.

I agree with using the proper amount of analysis.

Shocker.

Originally Posted by Patrick57

I use video analysis but cautiously. I will correct a swing in the order of the fault. If the students is rolling his wrists at hip height and this causes the club to be off set at the top, I will correct the rolling at hip height. I will perhaps show him this part of the video but I will not show him anything else. Once I feel he has grasped this correction I may shown him a new video and only then move onto the next phase. I know golfers who never managed  to learn to correct a simple fault because they work on 2 or more at a time. I have also witnessed colleagues analysing  a video and pointing out every fault to a student in one sitting. I think they believe the student is getting their money's worth the more faults the instructor can describe. But this doesn't help the cause which is learning to fix faults.

If you think that's what I do, you don't know me very well.

People here can tell you: it's all about the prioritization. Prioritization is what separates good instructors from great instructors (that and communication).

[Anjew]

Originally Posted by Patrick57

Oh no! I will need a little longer to prepare than I thought and you'll have to lose at least 20 lbs before you get into one of my teaching videos.

That's not me, that's Pharaoh.

And I must say, comments about a persons weight, very classy. I can't wait for your comment bashing me for underhanded comments directed towards you.

[Patrick57]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd bet that student is slicing again in two months and hasn't truly "learned" much of anything.

And again, if the student is able to alter his swing path, who is to say he did so properly and didn't do so by causing 14 other things to get screwed up or made worse in the golf swing?

If he stays away from magazines etc and continues as I left him he won't. I know he has learned the swing properly because this lesson probably lasted 30 mins and I introduced many more observation drills that straightened out any serious abnormalities.

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree with "over-"analysis of anything too. After all, the very use of the word "over" makes it "bad." Same with under. I disagree with the "under-" analysis of the swing as well.

I agree with using the proper amount of analysis.

I only emphasised over because I was being quoted as saying I disagreed with analysis of any sort. I also elaborated on what I meant by this quite recently on this thread. My opinion is most of my colleagues over analyse in a money's worth sort of way. Sounds very knowledgeable but is not very effective in the learning process.

Originally Posted by iacas

If you think that's what I do, you don't know me very well.

People here can tell you: it's all about the prioritization. Prioritization is what separates good instructors from great instructors (that and communication).

Well its nice that we totally agree on this important aspect. Unfortunately too many pros do over anaylse.

I would definitely add the ability to use NJF effectively to the great instructor category. Its the students who can work with NJF that make the biggest improvements at my school, with measurable differences. Not only in skill but enjoyment and consistency, with less work.