The Big Red Barn and the "Field Trip"

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.