dingdong887180022 posted: " We need to talk about it and do it Before I start, I want to make it very clear that the following is not intended as a criticism of the way that any leader runs their tower practices. It is merely an observation that perhaps we can think about doing " The Accidental Ringer
Before I start, I want to make it very clear that the following is not intended as a criticism of the way that any leader runs their tower practices. It is merely an observation that perhaps we can think about doing things differently in order to meet the demands of time-poor ringers and the availability of some useful new technologies. It is me thinking aloud and perhaps some others might think along with me.
One reason why we made such good progress in our handbells as a group is that our practices are super- efficient. We learn together, stopping at lead ends when things are shaky and retrying while the error is still fresh in our minds. We are able to unpick and correct immediately, not miss a dodge and then try to sort out what went wrong a week later when we next have the opportunity to go over it. We start at the beginning, ring until we come up against an issue, work out as a group what is wrong, use visual aids to correct ourselves and then ring the tricky bit again (and again and again) until we get it correct. No fudging carried through by more experienced ringers. We learn each method from the bottom up, practise, refine and perform it. We talk about it and rehearse it until we can do it. In between real life meetings we meet on-line or practise solo on Abel – not a 20 minute glance before practice night, but hours of concentrated time, stopping, starting, stopping and starting again (and again and again). If we were to approach it like we do ringing in the tower, I would probably still be stumbling around Plain Bob because my brain would not have been able to recall from one week to the next what I need to do to be successful. By condensing things down, success can be achieved. Diluting the learning makes it more difficult.
I have been thinking about how to make practice nights more efficient because they are nothing like our handbell meetings. Traditionally, ringers and would-be-ringers have turned up and awaited their opportunity to ring something at their level. If many arrive (oh, lucky tower), a novice may only have 10 or possibly 15 minutes on a rope in any 90 minute practice. Split into 3 chunks this is not enough rope time to make the learning process efficient. Even if you visit a different tower 2 or 3 times a week, a learner is not going to enjoy enough uninterrupted ringing to make anything but slow progress. Perhaps one reason why many, especially older people, give up – the time devoted is not commensurate with the rewards.
Those a year or two down the road fare a little better time-wise if there are some less experienced ringers present who require a band to ring rounds around - but often the rounds or call changes are so wobbly and unpredictable, it can do more harm than good to be a part of it. A novice caller cannot cope with the random wanderings of a very inexperienced band. A relatively inexperienced ringer may struggle to smooth out the inconsistencies of the person whom they are following when the rounds go worrisome and the original error is compounded and amplified as it travels around the circle.
As for the experienced ringers who come along to learn a new method or spread their conducting wings, a lot of the time they are wincing on the bench while others make a nasty noise. The learners may watch their skill and to an extent learn something from them, but the experienced learn nothing from us. The fact that they turn up is a testament to their generosity or perhaps they have nothing better to do on a week night?
If all the members of a band are operating at roughly the same level then the issue is different. It is hard to move on beyond the comfort zone because there is not enough solidity to allow a newbie to learn something new within a reliable band. Everyone is unsure, the rhythm is never established and progress is painstakingly slow. But at least no-one is twiddling their thumbs because either the ringing is too advanced or too simplistic for them to benefit .
How to solve this dilemma? I believe that carefully targeted practices are a better way and they do happen from time to time, especially if you are lucky enough to have a training centre. Not all bands have this luxury or perhaps not all ringers are prepared to/able to move out of their towers to partake of this luxury. Some areas may already be offering targeted sessions at different towers – here a handling session on some easy-going bells, surprise majors up the road. Good if you can organise it and have enough personnel to make it realistic. It would however detract from the cohesion of a band, which is a valuable organism and loyalty to a close knit group is what makes people turn out on a Sunday morning when, sometimes, they might prefer not to. Supporting each other in the tower and laughing together is important.
In that case, rather than forming clusters and dividing ringers up by experience between towers, why not divide your weekly practice into sections within the same tower? Not everyone needs to come to every bit and whoever volunteers to lead one section need not lead them all. Perhaps 2 hours split into 3 with a beginners rounds and kaleidoscope group/ plain hunt and early methods group/minor (major) surprise master class or whatever is appropriate for your individual band. Crucially, those sitting out are not chatting and twiddling their thumbs, but either doing their homework individually on Abel or as a group in the virtual ringing room, rehearsing a method with one handbell each or being the back-up band to a less experienced group. An experienced ringer could take it in turns to guide the theory lessons so that the majority of the more advanced ringers waste no time listening to how the calls in Plain Bob work if they already know, but can get on and ring something that challenges them. We have all this new technology and some old tools also, so why not use them?
If you are also able to introduce a training bell together with the requisite technology, then so much the better. Not just to teach handling, but also to allow new method ringers to mirror more experienced ringers.
People could come later/leave earlier as it suited them and if they wanted to meet up at the pub afterwards, then perhaps some solo homework would fill the gap. No more a quick blast of something followed by a 45 minute wait before trying to remember what went wrong the first attempt. Efficient and concentrated learning without distraction or dilution and the offer of 30 minutes or so delightful grown-up practice for those who can benefit from it, perhaps more experienced ringers who may stay away because in their very busy week they do not have a whole evening to devote to ringing.
Perhaps some of you already operate this way. Does it work or does it fall apart? Do the surprise ringers enjoy their designated time so much that they wander in after a leisurely tea and prefer not to take a turn with the learners? Do the newbies suffer from a lack of strong role models? Do the piggies in the middle get all huffy when they are denied the opportunity to crash the more advanced stuff? It would be interesting to know.
Can things be improved or are we teaching and learning in the most efficient way possible already? I believe it is worth thinking about, even if we come to the conclusion that the present system is the best available one for any individual band's particular circumstances. Remember those handbells - a small group can go from zero to hero in a remarkably short space of time given the right conditions and approach. We did not watch. We talked and did and when it went wrong we talked and did some more until we all understood our individual roles.
No comments:
Post a Comment