Didactic approaches

Technique and Didactics are two sides of the same coin. Technique is the heart of teaching, that is, the subject that is taught, while didactics concerns the methods of teaching. It is clear that good didactics applied to incomplete or approximate technique is essentially useless. But good technique without adequate didactics does not yield good results. A complete Method combines rigorous technical content with effective didactics: among the latter, the most important is the Socratic concept of Maieutics. A teacher who knows how to use it facilitates learning, makes it “alive” and especially ensures that the student or athlete can truly and deeply understand.

Rigid divisions between frontal, vertical, horizontal teaching or between analytical, global, inductive, and deductive methods are nothing but partial “visions” that alternate and become fashionable according to current trends. Very often, when experienced in an antithetical way, they create divisions on the theoretical and mental level with disharmonies that hinder the dissemination of proper teaching. In reality, Maieutics simultaneously contains technical and didactic elements and combines an overall vision with a focus on particular and specific aspects that make up “the whole,” i.e., the subject of teaching. The Master is the one who knows more, who has the authority to outline the “path” to follow, but at the same time is the one who helps the student develop their potential. Above all, the Master is the one who knows how to adapt the right technique and didactics according to different cases and the needs of individual moments. Rather than imposing, he facilitates the “discovery” and “remembrance” of what we know at deeper levels of awareness. These functions are also part of the concept of “Magister ludi,” where the authority of the teacher is not an end in itself, but rather functional to achieving ideal learning and true knowledge.

There are some “communication channels” or “learning channels” that should be well known and developed by both teachers and students. The main ones are three:

• Explanation
• Demonstration
• Correction

A good teacher masters these three skills and knows how to move smoothly from one to the other. To succeed in this, the functions that need to be specifically trained concern the following spheres:

• Mental/Theoretical
• Visual
• Emotional
• Breathing
• Perception/Sensation
• Movement/Technique

Logically, each person has their preferential channels (strengths). In general, to improve, we seek the apparently easiest and most comfortable way, which consists of insisting on our strengths. This path, seemingly quick, is actually the longest and yields the least because it does not free us from involuntary automatisms, the real cause of the “comfort zone,” which in the long run trap us, preventing us from improving and thus becoming “complete” and free. It is important, instead, to work on all aspects and particularly on weaknesses to eliminate defects and gaps. This is particularly important for those who teach: if an instructor has not harmoniously developed the different aspects, they will not be able to communicate adequately with all people. Let’s assume we have an athlete or a student who needs an in-depth theoretical explanation to understand well: if, as instructors, we have gaps precisely in theory, we certainly will not be able to perform our role well and will not be able to communicate with those people. And so it is for the other aspects: if we are not able to demonstrate well or to facilitate the perception of the correct sensation in the students, we cannot be good teachers.