Delegating Instruction

A common practice as you gain proficiency in something is to share what you have learned with someone less experienced than you are.  A person gaining ground in math often helps their classmates understand and apply some of the steps they are missing.  In the Army they call the practice of having the slightly experienced train the novice “train the trainer”.  The concept is to improve efficiency by further breaking down the information, increasing the instructor’s potential for mastery.  The materials were derived from a dry skill level 1 task training book, and unfortunately left nothing to the imagination.  I specifically remember resenting the Army Sergeants for putting a cadet in charge of soldier training, often a college student who had attached themselves to the unit to receive more money for school.  It bothered the soldiers that the cadets did not have the experience to round out the information.  Our cadets presented the information confidently, without knowing if the information was accurate or outdated.  The concept made sense, but I knew there had to be a better way. 

We wanted an expert, but did we really want an expert?  A common frustration for advanced practitioners of any skill or craft is breaking down and teaching the early conceptual building blocks to someone with no prior knowledge of the subject.  It’s not mentally stimulating, nor is it at the pace they are used to when training their specialty.  It feels slow, and tries the patience.  Some can’t even do it.  The benefit is solidifying the understanding of the early foundation of subject knowledge.   That’s what we are told anyway, and it appears to be true.  If an expert focuses exclusively on the early basics, will they evolve to become a well rounded expert?  Or will this philosophy effectively limit advanced progress?  To educate your students beyond the basic level you must have the experience to do so.  If you always keep it simple, your applied knowledge will lack depth.    

An expert who cannot define the basic fundamental pieces to a novice is not an effective instructor.  Due to natural aptitudes it’s possible for an instructor to perform certain tasks quite well and have an even more limited knowledge base compared to another instructor who isn’t quite the natural.  Despite their skill or ability level, they will not be able to bring their students above a certain level of proficiency. 

Suppose you had a mid level student that only knew certain moves, and the single initial application in which they were instructed.  If they are able to replicate those exact movements with technical success, then forcing them to teach until they can articulate the subject would benefit the new student, the mid level student, and indirectly the main instructor.  Our main instructor now has the time and focus to understand and break down more advanced concepts and accept higher knowledge and more complete knowledge of the subject matter.  This is true for any “live” application, or growing science.  A science or study that cannot change falls outside of this model.  An instructor allowed to grow can take themselves to a greater human potential, and when the time is right they may use their advanced education to advance their mid level students.  As our knowledge grows to new heights and blossoms into a personalized flower of expression, we may begin to break the rules of the early lessons because we have the understanding to do so.  The initial setups and reasoning may no longer be used, and be replaced with completely different applications.  This creative process lends itself to building true mastery and effectiveness of any applied skill or function.  To leave a novice in an advanced setting is like dropping a minnow into the ocean.  To leave an advanced student in the beginner’s class is like dropping a shark into a pond.  Put them in the right place, and they will thrive.