While we touched slightly on this topic in a thread a while back, let’s explore this a bit more.
When you attend a training course, how important is it for you to see the instructor perform live-fire demonstrations of the material being taught? Does it matter if he actual shoots at a target or just into a berm?
I find it very important.
Target vs berm matters with what is being taught, and if I know the capabilities of the instructor. I primarily train with one instructor, and have taken plenty of his classes. I know what he can do, I don’t need to see his hits on paper to know…sometimes it’s just easier for him to put rounds into the berm instead of on paper, which would then need to be changed.
But sometimes rounds on paper makes a certain point, and if I don’t know the instructor it helps to find their abilites and to make sure they can do what they preach.
I think live fire demos are always important. It’s good for students to see exactly what they are supposed to do, as opposed to just hearing it and filling in the blanks themselves.
I wouldn’t take a class with someone who is unable to do what they teach.
I think that this sums up how I feel
Speaking personally here, it depends on what the instructor is teaching. Some things really do require seeing it done to understand. Some things do not. In general I think it’s a good thing for an instructor to demo as much as possible.
As for target vs. berm, occasionally shooting the berm is fine. If the instructor never puts rounds on an actual target, however, I would get extremely suspicious unless I knew him really well beforehand.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
As an instructor I feel my students get validation of the skill set’s goal, by seeing it done.
There is a teaching theory (we use, as do many other organizations) that goes:
[ul]
[li]Demonstrate the skill correctly, in real time. This allows the student to see the desired skill as you wish them to do it.
[/li][li]Demo the skill slowly while explaining the individual steps of the skill. This breaks down the overall skill so that finer points (especially in a complex or multifaceted skill) can be grasped.
[/li][li]Have the student repeat it. Have the student practice the skill at their pace (initially, then at the desired standard).
[/li][li]Tweak the students performance until the desired outcome is achieved. Fluency with a skill is the desired goal. Coaching them through is the instructor, student polishing what has been evolving.
[/li][/ul]
Essentially: show it, teach it, have student do it, tweak it for quality.
An instructor who does not demonstrate a skill is not fully teaching they are under serving their students.
As for into a target or the berm: As stated … it depends.
If I am teaching a stance for example its not really a necessity to print the paper. That’s not the point of the skill.
If however I’m talking about sites & height over bore (for example) its obvious (to me) that I must show the print of the rounds impact as a matter of illustrating the skill. Anything else falls short and is now didactic versus a demonstrative teaching situation.
Some things can be talked about (lecture/didactic). Other things must be displayed (demonstrative).
This should be an intuitive approach for an instructor. Knowing when to talk and when to show.
Very important for the following reasons:
When I teach pistol and carbine, I either ALWAYS demo the drill or at least ask if someone needs to see it done.
C4
Having an instructor do demos is very important because I want to know they can do what they are teaching and expecting out of students. Also, I know I learn better by seeing things done as opposed to just having instructions told to me.
As for target or berm, personally I would always like to see targets being used. It would just be more validation on the instructors skills, and show the students that when using this techinque (or whatever is being taught) you can turn that into a good final result.
I think this especially applies to drills that are being ran on a timer or being scored.
Justin
I make it a point to demonstrate what I teach, not every drill, but at least a couple, during the course of every instructional block. Some because the student needs to see it done correctly to replicate the motion.
I also believe it is good for an instructor to bone it every now and then. I usually use it as a teaching point and show how everyone makes mistakes. It makes you more human and builds empathy with the student.
I have more respect for those instructors who are willing to push it and screw up in front of students. It shows real confidence. Now, I am not advocating muffing a drill on purpose, or regularly screwing up. More like using a muffed drawstroke to show the correct draw from a 6004, etc.
Agree wholeheartedly. It’s good to see an instructor perform well, push his own physical limits, and demonstrate the importance of knowing one’s skills and limits in order to improve. It’s good to practice the presentation, from communication to safety to demos. That’s what pros do.
The instructor never needs to be the best shot in the class, he just needs to be the best teacher he can be, and thus, be well-rounded and competent when demonstrating technique.
There will always be someone faster, stronger, and even they have the occasional bad day – so if your ego is in the instruction that motivates the demo or causes you not to demo – it’s just a matter of time before your students realize you’re not what you think you are or claim to be, and they will learn better from someone who meets their needs, and respect that person more than you.
Those who expect perfection are foolish, and those who think they can attain perfection, are fools. Excellence; however, can be achieved in many areas of life, if one is willing to set ego aside and continuously improve.
I really want to print this out and give it to our academy staff.
The most I’ve learned in the last 4 years came when I went to Safariland’s Shooting School. We had 2 great instructors for maybe 15 of us. Not only did they explain the drills well, but they demonstrated them within the allotted time. A lot of the class also ran in a friendly competition format. The instructors jumped in frequently and shot alongside us, which A) made a lot of us up our game, and B) reinforced our confidence in them.
In 6 years of shooting as a citizen and cop, that was the best training day I ever had.
Absolutely critical. Not just as a student to see how it’s done, but to see how it’s done right.
Not only that but I like seeing teacher’s occasionally miss or make a mistake because they can explain WHY they missed or made a mistake. As instructors they SHOULD be constantly having to hone their skill as well.
So yes…critical.
I think that it is important to hear and see demonstrated what the instructor is teaching because people fundamentally learn from two methods:
hearing what they are supposed to do
or seeing what they are supposed to do
Of course, there is the combination of the two, but one method generally supports the other.
I can listen to what is expected, and visualize the drill. Or listen to the drill and watch the demonstration. I personally learn more from observing than hearing.
Does that make sense?
Just my thoughts.
Yes. The four learning modalities.
Visual
Auditory
Kinesthetic
Tactual
Most folks lean on one mode more than the others, and you generally tell by the way they communicate. Most are kinesthetic and learn by doing, followed by visual, auditory and tactual.
Absolutely critical. The best instructors are the ones who can excel at the drills AND convey it to your brain, in a manner you can understand.
One of my previous instructors had a great demo with a dead man’s gun he drew from holster. He tap, racked, moved away from the threat, engaged, and still beat the par time. Then he showed us the drill from a static position, with a live gun. It was a great teaching point for quite a few things. 
What would you say if an instructor stated that he viewed live fire demos as a crutch and effective instructors dont need to use them?
Also, what if said instructor did not wear/carry a gun while teaching?
An instructor should be able to demonstrate the skill or technique he is teaching. He may share that duty with an assistant, but he should do it himself often enough that there’s no doubt about his credibility.
He needn’t be a champion shooter, but he should demonstrate the skill or technique correctly.
Demonstrating the technique/skill he is instructing ensures that those of all learning modalities have an opportunity to absorb.
I know several of those types of instructors. There is usually a reason that they won’t demonstrate, and it’s usually tied to their individual ability. There are a few, limited exceptions.
Those that lack equipment usually do so deliberate to ensure that they won’t be the ones to demonstrate.
i would say that’s someone who’s affraid to shoot in front of a class. i always demo in front of the class. i also miss shots once in awhile no issues it show students that anyone can miss. it’s what you do after the miss (follow thru and make the shot) no one is perfect.
I would be very skeptical of any instructor who did not demo live at all or hit paper at least a little.
Having said that I dont expect grandmaster shooting from all instructors. Some guys know what they are doing, teach it well, and in some cases are now twice the age of their students.
Depends on the drill.
I find it unnecessary to be shown every single thing. But yes, the instructor should be competent.
In that thread I listed live demos by instructor as a requirement.
All teaching - not shooting but all teaching - is done by example. It lends credibility to instructor and material that’s being taught. My firearms instructors should be able to demonstrate that what they say works, just the same way my tennis or skiing pros do - otherwise it’s just a talk. My craft involves technical skills and the only people who can do those things are qualified to teach. Even cognitivie skills require “demos”. Years ago somebody did a study asking trainees to list most important attributes of their teachers.
The single most important attribute was “explicit reasoning” - which is nothing but a demo of one’s skills, in this case cognitive skills.
In fairness of discussion, there are exceptions - but those are rare. Using tennis as an example, there is one dude that produced numerous champs even though he himself sucks as a player. He is credited with having an unusual talent of seeing things other people don’t. Again, his cred is based on results - multiple successful students. I don’t know of anybody in firearms training arena with same rep though.
Unless he falls into that rare exception group, I wouldn’t say much - I would never come back and I would make sure community knows instructors name.