That's another good point, Steve.
I always tried to get a lesson with those that I knew are very good in fishing for whatever I focused on. Atlantic Salmon, Sea trout, dry fly or nymphfishing and so on.
Those instructors often have specialized their presentation techniques and casting knowledge adapted to these fishing situations as well.
Same with me, most of my students are fishing otientated in the first place.
Whenever I will visit Australia I will look out for a lesson with Morsie, since he is the one who is involved in catching all this awesome huge monsters out in the sea!
It's important to me. I wouldn't recommend a double handed instructor in the uk to anyone if they don't fish for salmon, or have considerable experience. However good their loops look.
Re guides I use a similar criteria as I am always seeking an improvement in hook up rates, so I would seek out background like flexibility with access to target a species and or area, adaptability with gear and methodologies, feedback from other Clients, etc etc. A key criteria for me is how much interest the guide shows in my objectives following my initial inquiry e.g. what questions does he/she ask me about what I want to achieve out of the half day or day. When I go fishing I want fish to come to my fly and I am paying a guide to achieve that but I want him/her to show some interest other than "I am available on that day and I charge xxx per day".
As a Client of any Fishing Guide I expect responses like
"now I know what you want, this is how I will structure my time and what alternatives I have open to me to best achieve your objective"
I want a relationship with the guide I engage, even if it is only for a few hours, and how much interest he shows in me helps me form an opinion as to that relationship. As my wife usually accompanies me on guided fishing trips, I am also interested in how the Guide engages with her during the day. The great guides respond very positively to that and I have never been disappointed with their service or delivery. Works with Salmon guides on the Spey, trout guides on the Test or a small stream in north Eastern Victoria.
No different with casting instructors really. It not about loops or fish, it's about whatever my objectives are at the time. For my money, both Fishing Guides and Casting Instructors get my objectives.
RexW wrote:Teaching someone how to teach is not an easy task.
Teaching is also a profession. As it happens, this is mine.
I am a certified (and due to 12 years of experience also qualified ) trainer/coach/consultant in the automotive industry.
Elements like "progressive learning curve", "didactical approach", "comparative examples", "visualisation tools", repetition, clearly defined training objectives and what not are universal teaching/coaching methods.
Whether you teach a child how to tie his shoelaces, a sales advisor how to sell cars, a manager how to manage a dealership or a fly fishing instructor how to teach others, the methods are all the same, albeit adapted to the trainee when you are in 1-on-1 situations.
And trust me, once you know the methods, it is easy.
Let this be my added value in this forum. If you have any questions about this subject, shoot.
Hi Eikre,
what was the main orientation of your certification?
How did your certification meet the requirements of your job though?
Thanks
Bernd
I have made a certification many years ago when working in chemistry to educate chemical technicians. The whole exam was almost ONLY about HOW to teach not what to teach or if I had great knowledge in chemistry. Without having education in chemistry first I simply would not have been allowed to go for that exam anyway. Education in Chemistry of course is way more structured than fly fishing...
1) The SOLE orientation of the certification was HOW to train & coach. Each training has its own content so not relevant for the certification as a trainer. So same as with you.
2)I'm an independant trainer/coach/consultant, and many of our customers ask for certified trainers/coaches.
Bernd wrote:I have made a certification many years ago when working in chemistry to educate chemical technicians. The whole exam was almost ONLY about HOW to teach not what to teach or if I had great knowledge in chemistry. Without having education in chemistry first I simply would not have been allowed to go for that exam anyway. Education in Chemistry of course is way more structured than fly fishing...
Indeed. I assume you needed the necessary qualifications in chemistry before taking this certification?
Bit different with fishing.
"can you fish?"
"oh yes!"
"can you cast?"
"I'm awesome!"
"ok here's how to teach!"
Levels of competency need to be assessed. Also, I believe there is a big difference between teaching academic and physical skills too.
Snake Pliskin wrote:Levels of competency need to be assessed. Also, I believe there is a big difference between teaching academic and physical skills too.
Completely agree!
Sales, management, tying shoelaces, casting are all skills.
There is indeed a big difference between teaching knowledge and skills.
But there is little difference between teaching behaviour skills and physical skills.
Snake Pliskin wrote:Levels of competency need to be assessed. Also, I believe there is a big difference between teaching academic and physical skills too.
Completely agree!
Sales, management, tying shoelaces, casting are all skills.
There is indeed a big difference between teaching knowledge and skills.
I've been lucky enough to meet people who are amazing at both in very different scenarios. But it's been fairly rare.
If we can't be good at both, for flyfishing I'd prioritise teaching the skill rather than necessarily knowing all the "whys". Both is a bonus.
One of the skills most of us learned somewhere along our lives is the skill to drive a car.
Do you need to be a Formula 1 pilot to learn somebody how to drive a car?
In my opinion not. But I'd prefer a certified instructor any day of the week over my father. (sorry dad, but it's true)
Can Michael Schumacher teach someone to become a Formula 1 pilot?
Not necessarily because although he possesses the necessary skills as a Formula 1-pilot, he doesn't necessarily have the teaching skills.
What he did have however was at least one trainer himself. And as this guy obviously did a great job back in the days, Michael probably has a good idea of the methods used by this trainer. The only thing he needs then is label these methods, have him explained the "why" of the methods themselves to become a good instructor.
But to go from good to great, there is talent involved.
Eikre 9’0” #5 wrote:1) The SOLE orientation of the certification was HOW to train & coach. Each training has its own content so not relevant for the certification as a trainer. So same as with you.
Thanks Steven,
I believe this is well worth to think about in regard of fly casting instructor exams.
To me this is the biggest miss of all exams and pretty obvious that therefore (as Rex pointed out) many preparation courses yet have low focus on this.
Steve,
yes, qualification on what and why (basical knowledge in chemistry) first, then permission to jump on HOW to teach certification.
As Steven pointed out, every training always will have it's own content. I again understand this to be independent of the level the student might have.
Sure mostly it will be the advanced students asking for "special things" to learn.
Greets
Bernd
