> Profits and income in the partner dance teaching business
> do not come from efficiency (except, perhaps, at the very
> top levels). In fact the more inefficiently a studio can
> teach a student, the more hours of lessons they can sell.
> So the competitive pressure on the dance business actually
> optimizes inefficiency, except with the most astute and
> competitive of high level students.
No kidding. I have seen students making no progress under some "high
caliber
teacher".
I guess if all instructors are about equal in efficiency, then nobody has
the urge to improve. However, if one studio make the effort to use more
efficient teaching methods and becomes known in the area, then the other
studios may be under pressure to follow.
One joint that I hope would make this effort first is TV ballroom dancing
show. They have large budget and time constraint (days or weeks) to teach
a
newbie to perform. Perfect place to experiment with efficient teaching
methods. At the least they could hire two instructors for each student,
while one partners with the student, one trails behind the student
correcting the posture in real time.
>> Wouldn't it be better to have some computer controlled mechanical
device
>> attached to the student that limits his/her motion to the correct one
as
>> he
>> repeats each dance step, or sounds a beep near the area where the
student
>> makes a mistake (e.g. head facing wrong direction, arm too low...)?
>
> That's called a dance teacher during a private lesson.
Yes, but
(1) devices usually cost less
(2) teacher may get tired of correcting the same problem
> The Japanese do have these gadgets to prop ones arms into
> proper frame and such. I haven't seen them catch on in
> the U.S. There is the game "Dance-Dance-Revolution", where
> you lose points if you can't stomp on time. It seems to
> be quite popular among the younger set. It would be
> interesting to poll new young dancers, and try to correlate
> experience with this game with the speed of learning some
> basic partner dance "steps".
Certainly a dancing game can be made to teach people to hear "beats" in
music. No ballroom I know spend much time teaching people to listen to
beats. If the student doesn't get it, he/she is pretty much screwed.
Although, I've seen intermediate dancers dancing off beats in dance party.
But as long as he/she is enjoying themselves. Actually, I've even seen
people dancing off beats in competition, but they are usually children.
When computer is involved, I wish there is a ballroom simulation game
where
the lead can practice floor craft (collision avoidance), dancing to music
in
phrase, etc. Judging from the fact that even high level competition has
accidents, you can never practice floor craft enough.
> That's generally a good idea except for bias. Most
> people are not as objective judging themselves as when
> watching someone else. Only some people are sufficiently
> self critical. Most others would rather not look in the
> mirror too carefully, or at all, and destroy their self
> image of adequacy or competence. Even the top pros get
> outside experts to critique their technique.
Good point. I always wonder why pros need coaches.
> So, my guess is that there is an op****tunity for huge
> improvements in dance instruction and coaching efficiency,
> but the business may not be big enough to be worth the R&D
> investment of the type that goes into, say, Olympic s****ts,
> with wind tunnels, force platforms, biometrics, 3D motion
> capture with finite-element modeling of the data, etc.
Maybe ballroom dancing would benefit if it becomes an olympic s****ts.
|
