I am not going to say I
was skeptical of the trip out to Chilliwack, but I was definitely hesitant of
the enjoyment factor. Speaking with Stephen a few weeks ago, he provided some
insight to the educational purpose of the "field trip" and I was sold
on the idea of this engaging opportunity. It was truly a wonderful learning
experience and it goes to show that learning takes place outside the classroom
everyday, however my wife said it best "you don't even like horses"
in summing up my personal thoughts about them. She is totally correct; there is
no real reason behind my feelings, just that I prefer most animals to horses. I
have never had a desire to ride one or interact with them on any level and that
might have changed in part to the interesting observations made in the Big Red
Barn.
The three trainers were so
different that it almost felt by design. Each trainer used equipment that
served a similar purpose, however they were all visually distinct from one
another. How each trainer interacted with the horse was very distinguishable as
well, and you were able to really gain insight into who these trainers were as
people through their relationship with the horse. While the trainers shared the
same goal, to show the public their abilities and methods of
training an unbroken horse, their teaching styles were very individual.
Above all, they were from 3 separate countries, which made it that much more
interesting.
Although communication was
limited to non-verbal actions, the tools used to communicate were significant
and highly expressive. The constant interaction with the horse continued for
the entire 60 minutes and must have been exhausting, even without considering
the physical requirements of this event. The trainers had their own noise or
call that they utilized excessively throughout the challenge; I am not to sure
if this was used as a focus tool or to ensure the presence of the trainer was
noted by the horse??? Even though verbal cues were minimum, the auditory sounds
were increased or decreased depending on the intensity of the required task. I
felt that Cayley was the least successful in conveying his message to the Colt,
as the communication seemed lost in the chaotic body language.
Another critical component
of the trainer's communication was their proximity to the horse as well as
their positioning throughout the challenge. The more consistent the trainer was
in positioning themselves within a 3 - 5 foot circumference of the horse's head
the more successful the communication seemed to be received. In addition, if
the trainer was making constant physical contact via the hand or piece of
equipment it appeared that the horse responded better to the communication.
Kerry Kuhn made the reference of the nagging wife that never goes away, and
although it was his quote, this truly resonated with me. It may not work in all
situations or with all types of human beings, however the methodology for using
this technique with horses was well demonstrated and very successful in my
limited professional opinion.
The ability to communicate
through physical contact is nothing new but this example brought up a concern
that I encounter on a daily basis; it is the appropriateness of physical
contact in the teaching profession, particularly in K-12 education system.
Generally speaking physical contact of any kind with students is discouraged,
including things like a pat on the back, a hand on the shoulder, and most
definitely hugging or physical consoling. Even the topic of discussion makes
teachers uncomfortable and really eliminates a valuable tool when considering
interactions of human beings. Now I am not suggesting that we "need"
to hug, pat, or make physical contact with all our students, however the
significance of being reassured with a hand on the shoulder or a congratulatory
pat on the back must be considered. Not too sure how this affects others in
their professional fields, but observing the interactions between the trainer
and horse really highlighted the importance of physical contact as a
communication tool.
As I sat there analyzing the
way these trainers communicated, I was also enlightened by a few other relevant
observations. Most importantly was the reflection by Kerry in regards to having
a “game
plan” during the competition. As a teacher you can have lesson plans,
unit plans, or day plans, but if you are unable to adapt to the situation at
hand you will struggle in the profession. It was very insightful for him to
share that with the audience, and hopefully a pleasant reminder to new and old
teachers alike about over planning and being afraid of going with the flow.
With a slight feeling of
guilt, I did not want to leave out any mention of the Australian trainer Paul
Clarkson…. after all he is Australian. To be completely honest though, it was
his actions that allowed my first true connection to the Trainer’s Challenge.
It was his teaching strategy and statement: “Everything I do is for a
reason.” From a teacher’s perspective, unless it is relevant and
important there should be no reason to teach it, share it, or ask students to
learn it. He also demonstrated the teaching strategy of progressions, which is
imperative to teaching skill development in sport and Physical Education. The
ability of the horse to show increased knowledge and understanding of the
desired tasks really highlighted the amount of learning taking place inside the
ring.
The entire “field trip”
experience was valuable and enlightening. I gained a greater understanding of
horses and the world from which they come. My time in the Big Red Barn has
opened me to new possibilities. I am very thankful that I was able to attend
and walked away with a greater understanding of teaching and communicating.
