It's all a giant toolbox. Experiment, play, listen, mess around, take what you need, give some back, pass some along.....
My example also wasn't from TG, but the use of the arms and other upper body movements is something he discusses in depth.
I know someone who was failed in their Level 2 Teaching exam, children's module, for telling an imaginary student, who loved to paint, to use her arms in a movement similar to a brush stroke. "You taught an upper body movement, I'm sorry I had to fail you."
First thank you for all your responses. They have helped me in my understanding of what people perceive as the main challenges of level 3. I have a bit of a theory I would like some feedback on. I think the main challenge of level 3 is that from day one we have not prepared our instructors for the versatility and adaptability it takes to pass the skiing portion of level 3 and on the teaching side we have not developed the critical thinking and cause and effect relationships required to pass level 3. I think this because at level 1 and 2 we are not training for either of those things. We are training essentially to recreate or recite what we have been told by our trainers. Then at level 3 we require a entirely different approach to not only the exam but to or understanding of how skiing works overall. It is much akin to math. In math there are usually two outcomes teachers are looking for. One is the correct answer( regardless of the process to attain the answer), second using the correct process to obtain the answer. You may have the correct process but the wrong answer and still pass. When I look at level 1 and 2 we are the teachers that only look for the correct answer regardless of the process to attain the answer. But then you go to level 3 and we are looking at the process you used to attain your answer and we are also looking for a depth of understanding that allows the possibility of multiple processes being used to find the answer, according to the students desired outcome, not ours as instructors.
In a nutshell, I think we need to rethink how we train level 1 and 2 to better prepare people for level 3, so they can be more successful.
Here's a slightly cynical view from the sidelines.First thank you for all your responses. They have helped me in my understanding of what people perceive as the main challenges of level 3. I have a bit of a theory I would like some feedback on. I think the main challenge of level 3 is that from day one we have not prepared our instructors for the versatility and adaptability it takes to pass the skiing portion of level 3 and on the teaching side we have not developed the critical thinking and cause and effect relationships required to pass level 3. I think this because at level 1 and 2 we are not training for either of those things. We are training essentially to recreate or recite what we have been told by our trainers. Then at level 3 we require a entirely different approach to not only the exam but to or understanding of how skiing works overall. It is much akin to math. In math there are usually two outcomes teachers are looking for. One is the correct answer( regardless of the process to attain the answer), second using the correct process to obtain the answer. You may have the correct process but the wrong answer and still pass. When I look at level 1 and 2 we are the teachers that only look for the correct answer regardless of the process to attain the answer. But then you go to level 3 and we are looking at the process you used to attain your answer and we are also looking for a depth of understanding that allows the possibility of multiple processes being used to find the answer, according to the students desired outcome, not ours as instructors.
In a nutshell, I think we need to rethink how we train level 1 and 2 to better prepare people for level 3, so they can be more successful.
That's all fine and dandy, but imho where the problem lies is that the failure rate is too high for upper level certifications. If my 3rd and 4th DAN senseis had sent me unprepared for my black belt test, their superior would be wanting an explanation from them.
For another, there is no longer a system in place that really demands a strict signoff from resort trainers before candidates head to exams.
Our resort will sign off on anyone. The reason being that the lawyers think that if you didn't you could be accused of holding them back from advancing.
This analogy doesn't really work too well. For one, PSIA isn't primarily responsible for preparing candidates for their exams. The candidates have to seek training at their home resorts. And, well, resort trainers are accountable at their home resorts for high failure rates in examinations, particularly if they encourage candidates to pursue an exam they are unprepared for. We have meetings about this all the time to unpack what we did well and what we didn't do well in a given crop of trainees.