1. I didn't get much that was new to me - Got off the point very quickly, so had to skip some material due to time constraint.
2. Possibilities for Improvement:
- start earlier Day 1 (earlier finish Day2)
- cover chess history etc. later in Day 1 [I assume this indicates a desire to have something "heavier" earlier in the day - I agree]
- more on club (adult-junior integration) [yes, one of the sub-sections I did not have time to include in the Manual]
- cover use of ratings - understand concept etc [ditto]
- cover passing of good junior to coaching / trainers / senior club [ok, but I think that really requires a national coaching structure to be in place, as is the case in most countries, with, at the very least, Regional and National Junior Squads and organizers to go with them]
- post names of participants on Day 1 (am) [absolutely - see below]
- consider breaking sessions on shared issues / resources
- Have more chess boards [not sure what this one means]
- share "fun" variants
- social element of the event could have been coordinated better. [yes, we had no planning for that; the assumption was that simple social interaction would see lots of ideas being swapped - as at FIDE-TRG seminars - and that did seem to happen rather well. However, I agree, some planning of the social side would be an improvement. Anyone got any good ideas for what/how, always bearing in mind the time constraints]
3. I made the following notes at the time:
Possibilities for Improvement:
- PHOTOS of participants
-- attached to IDs & posted up for all (part of list of attendees)
- proper 'conclusion' to the event
But the time constraints are extremely difficult:
- there is NO possibility, ever, of covering ALL the material; the idea is to dip in and out in the presentation, with (in principle) "everything" being in the Trainer Manual for subsequent perusal.
- start and finish times can't cater for everyone (some travelled considerable distances each day). See the actual questionnaire results for an overview of the difficulties here:
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteHere's my tupence worth!
I didn't want to post anything negative on the day - for what, I felt, was a very productive weekend. Everything can be improved - and everyone would, probably, have liked more information on different areas. However, It's great to see Kevin and the ICU organising seminars like this.
Truthfully, going to the event I didn't really expect to learn anything new. Most of the people attending had huge experience, and many could have given lectures. I went with the purpose of supporting the ICU and of gaining accrediation. Hopefully it's all part of a big, structured, plan to improves Irish chess! I think (I'm sure Kevin said this already) unless the ICU can say we have "so many trained instructors" we are going nowhere.
On the social aspect yes I also would have liked more for this. Even the simple step of "name tags" would make a huge difference.
Regards to all,
Tony Foley.
Two ideas ..
ReplyDelete(1) Ice breakers: are good way of creating interaction .. mingle and find out peoples favorite food / movie / whatever .. then intro others to the group (fun) ..
(2) Team work: Fan of group work and presentation time as a format for interaction between participants in a formal setting.. e.g. 4 people decide how to present a topic and elect 1 speaker.
Feel that this course will evolve every time, becoming more valuable to coaches and the ICU.
:o)
I have been reflecting on the course, benefits etc, one thing struck me what is the real use of the course?. If everybody managed to pass even those with only rudimentary knowledge of playing the game and some with little or no coaching/teaching experience what value has it to the very experienced teachers if we are all now lumped (for lack of a better word) together under the heading of CI.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the course, in my opinion, as I stated several times during the sessions, was to get people to think, especially to think about new things.
ReplyDeleteI know a few people have said that they did not learn anything new from the seminar, but that surprises me since, despite my 40 years experience at all levels (hundreds or maybe thousands of beginners, to World Championship matches - 5 on the organizational side, 3 on the inside), I learned a huge amount preparing the Trainer Manual and quite a bit more from things the attendees said.
Would the course have been any better if a few people had failed? About 15-20% of the attendees were very close to doing so, but they just got through - and I am pleased that the scoring system meant that I did not know that until after calculating all the details.
I am not going to publish any of the actual scores, but I thought it was interesting that, generally, those with coaching experience did comparatively poorly on the written paper. That suggests to me that those who currently lack that experience were trying really hard and several of them excelled in the practical. As an example, one attendee, who scored 32/40 on experience, added only 10/30 for the practical and 18/30 for the written paper (so, with less experience, would probably have failed). The two highest scores on the written paper were both obtained by inexperienced people, as were two of the three highest marks for the practical.
I was surprised by that; I was expecting experience to make a big difference there, but it was very variable.
As for being lumped together under CI, there is nothing to stop people going on for AI and the 5 FIDE titles (or some of those 5, according to experience).
ReplyDeleteSorry to disagree Kevin, with your analysis. I have great respect for your experience your knowledge of the game far outstrips my own the point I was making I feel is only reinforced by your suggestion that experienced coaches would possible have failed the written test which wasn't a test of chess knowledge to make them qualified as club instructors but how well they could read a (very good) manual. How good a coach do I have to be to know the present head of the ICU, ECU, and Fide for example.
ReplyDeleteChess "culture" is an important part of coaching. Therefore there were 3 chess culture questions on the written paper. The one you mention was worth 2 marks (out of a total of 100).
ReplyDelete