Subscribe to
NSLog(); Header Image

Method Instruction and Method Teachers

I posted this on Facebook in regards to "method instruction" being bad or close-minded or fixed or whatnot, and I disagree entirely. And I wanted to share it here as well, as it's important and relevant.

Every good instructor has a method. A method is "a procedure, technique, or way of doing something, especially in accordance with a definite plan." Who would admit to not having a plan for a student?

In golf "method teacher" seems to be used as a bad thing, as in "he applies the *same* method to every student." But there's a whole large swath of space between the method being very general like "good contact, hit the ball reasonably far, know where the ball is going" and "the shaft needs to twist about its axis 17.5 degrees while the left arm moves 35 degrees across the chest" (to be clear, I don't think anybody's teaching the latter). Where's the line in the middle that separates those two? Or are both of those "methods"?

Everyone is a method teacher to some degree or another, because nobody who says "no method" really means that - they're simply trying to sell themselves as "I teach the golfer" or "I just teach good impact." Their method is the "'No Method' Method!" To truly have no method is to truly have no plan for a student, and again, nobody teaches that way.

"Method" is misused. Every good instructor teaches the student they have in front of them. Every good instructor teaches "impact." Every good instructor has a "method" because to claim otherwise is to claim that you don't have a plan.

And finally, IMHO, the only way a "method" limits growth is if the "method" becomes so precisely defined that acceptable ranges shrink and cease to become wide ranges of acceptable values or components. Personally, I like generous ranges with constant prioritization so the student can improve.

To put it another way: if you ask any "no method" teacher enough questions, you'll be able to suss out their "method."