4 posts / 0 new
Last post
PASmith
PASmith's picture
Key word definitions

So I'm using some spare time in lockdown to make my way (slowly) through the ITF taekwondo patterns and, using a variety of sources, bringing together good applications and drills (I know the Pinans and could just go with them but I like a challenge!). It's mainly something to spice up training when it all gets running again but also for making my own sense of things.

In my quest to keep things ordered and logical I'm arranging the applications and drills by grade (white to black) and trying to have an overall structure in place.

So that gets me onto words like curriculum, syllabus, strategy and tactics. And I'm not entirely sure what they define and how best to use them to structure and make sense of  what I'm doing.

So in relation to martial arts what's a "curriculum" and what's a "syllabus"? What sort of stuff goes in each thing? How are they used in class training and gradings?

Is the "strategy" what you are trying to achieve and "tactics" how you go about achieving it?

I feel some clarity of terms might help me keep my ideas in order.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
So I'm using some spare time in lockdown to make my way (slowly) through the ITF taekwondo patterns and, using a variety of sources, bringing together good applications and drills (I know the Pinans and could just go with them but I like a challenge!). It's mainly something to spice up training when it all gets running again but also for making my own sense of things.

That sounds like a very productive use of the time!

As regards the definitions, as I’m sure you expect, there are differences in the way these terms are understood and used.

PASmith wrote:
Is the "strategy" what you are trying to achieve and "tactics" how you go about achieving it?

I think this probably the clearest of the two questions you’ve asked. The difference between strategy and tactics is a clear one, but we have the problem that in everyday speech the terms tend to be used interchangeably. So, they are not the same thing, but many people think they are.

The goal is what we are trying to achieve. The goal determines the strategy. The strategy determines the tactics. The techniques are used to enact the tactics. As an example:

GOAL: Win boxing bout.

STRATERGY: Opponent starts strong but often runs out of gas after 3rd round. The strategy is keep moving and maintain a strong defence in the first 3 rounds; before exploiting exhaustion in the 4th round onward.

TACTICS: Round 1 to 3: Use defensive punches to keep opponent at a distance while constantly moving. Round 4 onward: Close gap and relentlessly attack with extended flurries.

TECHNIQUES: Defensive jab, specific evasive foot work motions, specific foot movements to close gap, specific punching combinations, etc.

Basically, tactics are a level down from the strategy and are “how we apply the techniques”; whereas the strategy would be the overarching “why”.

“Create openings to land strikes” would be a strategic statement. “Throw shots to the body to get the opponent to lower their guard” and “feint left and hit right” would be tactical statements i.e. how do we aim to create the openings / enact the strategy. They are two different tactics, but the strategy remains the same.

When employing the tactic of “Throw shots to the body to get the opponent to lower their guard”, I could use the techniques of body jab, cross to the head; lead leg front kick to the body, jab to the head; lead roundhouse kick to the body, lead hand hook to the head, etc. Different techniques, but the same tactic.

I hope those examples help.

PASmith wrote:
So in relation to martial arts what's a "curriculum" and what's a "syllabus"? What sort of stuff goes in each thing? How are they used in class training and gradings?

This one is much more open to interpretation. Dictionary definitions are (from google):

Syllabus: “the subjects in a course of study or teaching.”

Curriculum: “the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college.”

So, from the perspective of the English language, they are largely interchangeable terms. However, in martial arts “syllabus” tend to specifically refer to the “grading syllabus”. Therefore, the distinction I see commonly used is that the curriculum is everything you teach and practise. Whereas the (grading) syllabus is what is required to demonstrate competence for belt tests.

I liken it to how things worked at school. In History, for example, we’d be taught about a given time period in depth over a period of months. When the exam came (2 hours or so in length) they would ask enough questions to test understanding, but we were not asked to regurgitate absolutely everything we had been taught. Applying the aforementioned terminology to that example, the “curriculum” was all we were taught, and the “syllabus” was what was on the test.  

As mentioned, not everyone uses the terms this way. However, I do think the distinction between what we do and what we test on is an important one; however we mark it.

A “curriculum” that doubles as a “syllabus” will see unnecessarily long and inefficient testing.

A “syllabus” that doubles as a ““curriculum” will see very narrow and shallow training.

I hope that’s of some use.

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

A yes...that isof use. I remember you posting about potential member instructors sending in their syllabuses to the BCA for approval/scrutiny and them being too long or too comprehensive (and so reading more like a curriculum?).

So in effect the "curriculum" could/should be fairly extensive and comprehensive while the "syllabus" should be more succinct and seeks to tests or distill that wider comprehension in a more managable way? So for example the curriculum could include many forms of sparring and other drills (to impart versatility and rounded skills without weak areas) while the syllabus would include a few "choice" forms of sparring or drills to demostrate that competence.

Borrowing from you and Andy Allen I'm structuring the various applications in 4 layers or stages (like your training matrix).

Stage 1 is low energy compliant verson of the application (the simple "Introduction" part of the "I method" of coaching I'm using)

Stage 2 is a higher energy version focusing on correct placement and mechanics but obviously not full impact on the partner (part 1 of the "isolation" phase of the i-method)

Stage 3 is the application done on impact equipment with close to full power (where appropriate). This is another aspect of the "isolate" phase which is isolating power rather than placement.

Stage 4 is the application done with more context, dirt and role playing. Using the application in conjunction with other applications, breaking away from the application if needed, adding additional strikes, repeating stages, etc etc. This would be the "intergration" phase of the "I" method.

Not sure how that fits into a potential syllabus or curriculum because at a grading I'd like to see people deomstrating all 4 stages. :)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
A yes...that is of use.

Great! I’m pleased it’s of some help.

PASmith wrote:
I remember you posting about potential member instructors sending in their syllabuses to the BCA for approval/scrutiny and them being too long or too comprehensive (and so reading more like a curriculum?).

That does happen. A test against such a curriculum could take days; whereas a well-constructed grading syllabus would result in a more intense assessment that would better demonstrate competence.

PASmith wrote:
So in effect the "curriculum" could/should be fairly extensive and comprehensive while the "syllabus" should be more succinct and seeks to tests or distil that wider comprehension in a more manageable way?

That’s exactly how I see it.

PASmith wrote:
So for example the curriculum could include many forms of sparring and other drills (to impart versatility and rounded skills without weak areas) while the syllabus would include a few "choice" forms of sparring or drills to demonstrate that competence.

100%. We have many live drills to help develop various skills, but you can test those skills once developed with a much smaller number of live drills.

PASmith wrote:
Not sure how that fits into a potential syllabus or curriculum because at a grading I'd like to see people demonstrating all 4 stages. :)

The way we structure things is that everything is tested, but not everything is tested for a given grade.

For example, if we simplify and follow one part of one kata …

In practise, the student will be shown the kata sequence, the related set drill, variations, and they will be encouraged to work it all into live practise relatively quickly (curriculum). However, we don’t expect them to show sufficient competence for all elements immediately (grading syllabus). For the test following the initial learning we will expect to see the kata and the set drill to be at the required level; while the other elements will be works in progress. When they pass the grade, they will be shown new kata sequences and bunkai drills. For the following test we will expect to see the stuff from the prior grade with variations and in live drills, and for the new stuff we have the kata and the set drill.

The idea is that there’s that kind of “rolling overlap” on testing. However, they are still practising that stuff even though it’s not needed to test for a grade or two. That’s another advantage of differentiating between a curriculum and grading syllabus. Students can be learning and practicing things they are not expected to immediately test on. We can build things up over time.  

Does that help clarify?

Many different ways to approach this of course, but that’s how we do it.

All the best,

Iain