“Sensei” is an honorific title that’s used to show respect to someone who has mastered a skill or art form. The term literally means “one who comes before”.
In karate, Sensei means “teacher” or “instructor”.
There is a difference between teaching and instructing. This is true across all types of education including martial arts, yoga and all sporting activities.
Karate in the seventies was very much by direction. We did as we were told. One reason for this was because our Japanese instructors were not always fluent in English meaning that the technicalities of karate were not always articulated in a way we understood. More importantly, we were respectful and did not question. This meant that commands of “more speed, more power” gained response of “Oss” from the students – we were obeying without really knowing how to generate more power because we were in awe of our Sensei. We followed without always completely understanding.
However, we managed this through our background knowledge. We knew that twisting our hips in zenkutsu dachi would facilitate gyaku zuki. We understood that hikite, pulling back the left arm when punching with the right, produced more power. This is pure physics as outlined in Newton’s Third Law of Motion ‘action and reaction are equal and opposite. Credit to my Sensei Nick Adamou at the time for including this in his book.
Even with background knowledge, many of the basic (kihon) techniques were copied but not explained. I remember the first move in Heian Nidan kata, a left uchi uke (inside block) with my right arm suspended above my head all performed in back stance (kokutsu dachi). But I had so many questions – What is my right arm doing? Why am I in back stance?
We would not dare ask questions in a karate lesson – but how can learning and understanding happen without questions?
This approach can be taken to extremes when a militarised approach is taken to training. For example, being ordered by seniors to line up in perfect straight lines as the Instructor took his place at the front of the dojo. The warmup was then taken to, potentially dangerous extremes, taking no account of the age, fitness or flexibility of the students. Trying to follow the lead of the Instructor as he slid down into perfect block splits and placed his chest on the floor resulted in my pulled hamstrings.
Other examples of such directed training include – Bunny hops across the dojo, sometimes with a partner on your shoulders, alternate punching into each other’s stomachs (make strong hara), linked legged press-ups and walking up down on each other’s spines.
To demonstrate and prove our new found devastating power we indulged in “tameshiwari (test breaking) which involved trying to put your hand through one inch pine, house bricks, breeze blocks or roof tiles. I asked my Instructor how to go about breaking wood. I was told ‘Just hit it’. I did as I was told, and it resulted in the main metacarpal bone in my right hand swelling up. An X-ray revealed no break, so with increased confidence I started breaking breeze blocks. As I write this I can’t quite believe the absurdity of my actions and the complete lack of guidance.
Teaching karate (teaching anything) must take into account the learner. In the field of education, where I have spent most of my working life, we talk about individual educational learning plans. Each student has specific strengths and needs, and our job is to tailor the curriculum and lesson plans to accommodate this. In the State Education system, teachers are charged with applying this strategy for classes of up to thirty students. Whilst this can be a great deal of work, it means that the teachers are aiming to understand the students.
In this way karate teachers, need a lesson plan. It is not good enough to line up and drill oi zuki up and down the dojo fifty times because we do not know what the students are getting from it. Where is the teaching? What is the learning?
We need to assess the age and physical condition of our students and ensure they stretch and warm up safely. We need to provide challenge within the capabilities of each student. To quote Vygotsky: teach within the zone of proximal development for each individual. Use, what Vygotsky calls, scaffolding ,when devising lesson plans. Put simply, teach the technical aspects of karate in small steps of increasing difficulty. Teach each individual with enough challenge to stretch them and facilitate their development.
In conclusion, a well-qualified Dan grade does not necessarily make a good instructor. This could be because they are failing to understand their learners and the needs of their students. This may be because they were in awe of the Sensei from whom they learned their skills, therefore they are modelling his teaching style. This is why it is important to understand the difference between ‘instructing’ and ‘teaching’. The former suggests commanding and ordering, whereas the latter suggest a more collegiate approach in which the needs of the student are considered.
As I said at the beginning of this piece, this message applies across all sport. When Glen Hoddle became a football manager his players were in awe of his incredible technique and ball skills. However, he was possibly too much of a perfectionist when training them. Apparently they were heard to say ‘if he was chocolate, he would eat himself . Good teaching is a two way process and the voice of the students is of equal importance.
In his later years Soke Kanazawa understood the strengths and needs of his students and showed considerable empathy and patience when instructing and grading as he travelled around the World.
There is a lesson here for us all – are we Instructors or Teachers?
Leave a Reply