When I teach, each 'maxim' used to describe something can be defined and related to a specific, measurable result. I prefer to break down the training so that each step logically follows into the next - although it not always easy to see for the student.

By emphasizing an overall school doctrine, the strategies it is built on, and the tactics that get you there, a student is supplied with the tools they need to excel. Why shouldn't CMA be taught logically? Our 'competitors' in the MMA world have no problem teaching openly.

Nothing is vague, nothing is a someday. It is always 'Here is what you do.' The experience and the result is quantified by the students experience. I also encourage students to challenge the material and how it is taught - well, at least once they have an idea of what I am talking about. Teaching is as much a learning experience for me as it is for the student. Just like CMA, you get better at teaching from practice.

If a person is timid, I seek to guide them - the material is the same, but how they get introduced to it may be different. My school has methods for developing courage, and they may be more pronounced for the timid student.

Lately, I have been using more Western phisiology and kinesiology to explain how to do things. This often produces a quicker result, and less time is wasted looking for mystical answers. I cannot say that this works 100%, but based on the reviews I am getting from my students, and the improvements in thier skill, it seems to be working.

What is your approach?