"What has not been tried, will not be understood to be read."
We began studying didactic teaching and perceive a sense of dissatisfaction. Not agree with current teaching methods, which are in absolute majority, the same methods of any class of Universities
or colleges, based on the lecture, the passivity of students in their ability to memorize. The set of movements that represent the student passes a selected content to ensure its entry into the next "level", or sometimes not even that, so that the student spends years in the "basic". There is the assumption that greatness is responsibility that grows directly proportional to the volume of information received over the degree of depth essential to transform this information into meaningful knowledge and therefore durable.
"The traditional classroom emphasizes repetition and memorization. The teacher is the main source of knowledge with its practical certainty, single answer, just his knowledge, decontextualized. Teachers show an appearance in relation to the safe knowledge that they hold and are uncomfortable when they can not answer questions from students. On the other hand, students also come to class with the notion that the teacher is knowledgeable and ready knowledge holder, he can not have doubts. " (Cunha, 1998)
"... in various sectors of our learnings on the timeline, we were taught to accept and get used to receiving information in the most scrutinized as possible. And with the action of the vertical power of our teachers we were not likely to question what we learned, we learned why and how to interact with it to new learning. With these limitations of traditional education in our bodies tatuamos solidified forms of obedience (dependence) and therefore to learn, teach. "(Dantas Mychelle)
Classes "brainwashing" where students learn only what is passed by the teacher, as absolute truth. There are no absolute truths! What can be coming from a teacher is: So far I've done it this way because otherwise hurt / cause discomfort. But what hurts or causes discomfort varies from person to person. Concern about leaving or not the time also varies. It is necessary to establish limits and rules of coexistence, yes, of course, but within these there is a large degree subjective.
What you see is a great mass of "pups." Learning has become simply a repetition of what makes particular teacher. The ultimate truth is that today it is possible to determine the "origin" of the student to see him dance. Does not value creativity, developing new techniques, new talent. The only talent is valued one who is able to persist to time and such and just keep repeating what you have been taught. The same techniques, the same steps, the same charms.
Moreover, the teacher thinks he can transfer knowledge to students without regard to who he is, where it comes from what you already know, etc.. The need to use pads "muleka" to the dance, the requirement of using two-tone shoes for ballroom dancing or two-piece suit, banning the shoes, none of this takes into account the CONTEXT of the student, their modus vivendi.
With the student who is starting, it may be that he still has not experienced that universe and can not experience until you learn to build it, things of that universe and the relations are not his. You can not scare him wanting to bring you strength.
In our view, the teacher must constantly ask about what their students are learning, at which point they can not move, how they understand the advice they receive and should use the responses to these questions to assess and guide their next class, your teaching method. This conception of teaching critical-reflexive demands greater commitment from the teacher, since it requires more organization, requires much more work because it focuses on knowledge, not memorization, and perceived as temporary and relative, stimulates analysis, the ability to compose and recompose data, information, arguments, ideas, values curiosity, questioning and understand research as an instrument of education.
"Constructivism means this: the idea that nothing, indeed, ready, finished, and that, specifically, the knowledge is not given in any instance, as something done. It is the individual's interaction with the physical and social. "Humanity's Cultural Collection - Fernando Becker
Applying our beliefs zoukeiro the universe:
Today's audience zouk has become quite heterogeneous. There students learn in the gym, those who are there for another reason, but want to expand their horizons and do something different. There are those who go to an academy of dance and really want to deepen their knowledge and yet even within the academies of DS, who want to dance, but only on weekends, when out with friends. There are those who learn by doing, so it can "catch" the balls. Before, it was possible "dismiss" students out of conventional dance academies ... Today there are so many that have necessarily to be part of the public zoukeiro statistics.
However, it is necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff! Each of these has different expectations zoukeiros therefore their classes MUST be differentiated.
In conversations we heard recurring complaints about the level of the dancers have fallen precipitously, whether ladies or gentlemen. What we do not disagree. But it is also a fact that it takes time to form a good dancer, time and investment, be it student or teacher. And are we being fair to compare what was once a handful of people who have danced for centuries (former lambadeiros) migrating to a new rhythm with those who are now entering?
Anyway, we all do a mea culpa. Yes, because the responsibility is not the student! He arrives at a gym, either DS or gym, wanting to learn, with a weary mind and open heart. It's up to us as teachers, we analyze better what this student needs. In today's world, no longer fits the attitude of former teachers place on the podium holding the wisdom and knowledge, disparaging those who have another type of audience and for this reason, another type of demand.
The truth is that the traditional ballroom dance studio distanced himself from the young audience. The proof of this is prejudice (already long-standing) that the DS "thing is old." And what is being done to debunk this? Criticism of the new faculty that strives to bring new blood to the zouk? This does not seem to take place, it is proved and proved that today, the public is NOT the fastest growing of the formal academy, regardless of criticism, or even in the case of young PORCAUSA them.
That said, analizemos why this fact. Because what is taught in balls or what is taught in the gym is much closer to the young? Not just physically close, or methodologically, but in terms of style. The truth is that one thing fed the other. While young people came to zouk, they brought with them a desire to hear the news, fueling the creation of new styles, which generated a new need: To teach this "new zouk", which could not be found in gyms DS. I could not because they do not yielded space to the self titled, new teachers, perhaps because they lacked the necessary technique, perhaps because they lacked a formal capacity. Undisputed facts, but not impeditórios the informal learning. That today, if formalized, whether they like it or not.
We must ask ourselves ... And what I'm doing to help with this?