Ringing Forums

The perceived gap is much bigger than the actual underlying gap. ... PB isn't that complex, but any complexity is too much if you haven't been given the skills to move your bell where you want it without having to think about the process. ... So those with good control skills progress to more methods as and when they get the opportunity — John Harrison

I completely agree that the first hurdle is automatic bell control, and many fail to progress to that point. However I think you are underestimating the difficulty of transitioning from PB5 to Surprise6. You can ring plain courses of PB5 purely by bell number on a fixed bell, and if you ask such people what they can ring they'll say PB, but how they ring it is not a step into method ringing, it's a dead end. I'm seeing this play out at the moment, a divide between those who realise that they need to ring by place to progress even if they can't do it yet, and those that Won't Be Told.

Learning to ring methods is much more than just improving your handling. Yes I needed to improve my handling to get from PB to Surprise, but I'd say it was less than 20% of the work required , and it was the easiest 20%. Everything else was much harder, took longer and is much more difficult to teach because it's mostly "internal", so I largely had to figure it out for myself.

"advanced ringers burned out by doing seemingly endless handling, CC and PH training" they are either being overloaded or they are not very good teachers. — David Smith

I think there are a couple of main of reasons for burnout. One is teaching a stream of people who either give up or don't get beyond wobbly PB. Another is becoming the "go to" teacher for an area, and getting overloaded as a result.

while they may on occasion ask their original teacher for comment or assistance, the role of that teacher is very different at these more advanced stages. — David Smith

Yes, it is. Unfortunately advanced teaching can be rather "passive", e.g, telling you what you did wrong after the event, rather than "active", helping you in advance.

Basic handling ... is essentially a once-only process ... is mostly taught one-on-one; ...When it comes to methods ...it is more the tower or the group that does the teaching. — David Smith

That's more or less what happens - and it has two flaws.
Basic handling (viz not falling off your bike) is a long way short of coaching in dynamic bell control (viz confidently manoeuvring and avoiding traffic) and because the physical teaching is seen as a once-only process only the first bit tends to be done.
Methods are learnt 'with the tower or group' but there's often not much 'teaching' other than the odd helpful comment while supporting the struggling learner.
In that sort of environment, the ones able to pick up bell control intuitively once they can handle, and the ones who find method learning easy without help, tend to get ahead, while the rest struggle on while developing habits and attitudes that don't help them to advance.
Hence the big gap rather than the continuum.

physical teaching is seen as a once-only process only the first bit tends to be done. — John Harrison

Spot on there. I went on a course specifically for dynamic bell control some time ago and it helped. It still took a while to get to the "automatic" stage though, most of which was on a tower sim.

the ones able to pick up bell control intuitively once they can handle, and the ones who find method learning easy without help, tend to get ahead, while the rest struggle on while developing habits and attitudes that don't help them to advance. — John Harrison

How do you think the could be addressed? I think setting expectations for learners from the start is important, the problem is that sometimes it's undermined by the "bell number" brigade.

"Spot on there. I went on a course specifically for dynamic bell control some time ago and it helped. It still took a while to get to the "automatic" stage though, most of which was on a tower sim.How do you think the could be addressed? I think setting expectations for learners from the start is important, the problem is that sometimes it's undermined by the "bell number" brigade"

I would like to know how to address the problem too.

Simple things don't get taught. e.g.
Not looking/focussing on the sally at handstroke, which wastes time and energy and stops the ringer seeing more important things.
Taking rope at backstroke.
Letting rope out at backstroke.

I find that they understand the principle of dynamic bell control and can see it when demonstrated but are unable to put it into action on the fly. Too much to think about and lack of confidence! Being an adult learner can be a problem. Brain age and too much analysis hold can them back.

But poor skill sets aren't only a problem at beginner level. I was teaching bob calling on Saturday with ringers who can ring basic SMinor and Major. They couldn't hear the treble. They couldn't tell me which bell was making 4 blows in PB5. No chance!! Speaking generally, we are not taught to listen or watch other bells. We are not taught to write out and study methods. We go from PB6 to Cambridge6 and haven't had chance to develop and practice dynamic bell control in easier, intermediate methods. The step up from PB5 is enormous!

Simple things don't get taught ... The step up from PB5 is enormous! — Phillip George

I agree with what you say. I either read about or was taught the things you listed, but it still took time to develop the skills - but at least I knew what I was aiming for. I didn't try to jump from PB6 to Surprise6, first I learned about 10 other simpler methods, starting by practising them on a tower sim with a tied bell. What worked for me might not be the best route for everyone, but I do think it is possible to teach the steps between PB and Surprise in a more structured and "active" way.

[

but I do think it is possible to teach the steps between PB and Surprise in a more structured and "active" way. — John de Overa

I agree John, step changes for advancement. I hold sim practices every week and we practice dodging and place making which can be done quite easily in isolation but when it comes to putting in a single dodge in PB5 it is almost impossible for some. The context is different when they are ringing in a 3 dimensional virtual circle rather than with just one other bell ringing. I learned when I was 14 with a good mentor and opportunities. It makes a difference.
Ringing is a highly complex activity. I often quote Coldplay's The Scientist "...nobody said it was easy, nobody said it would be so hard..lets go back to the start..."

The context is different when they are ringing in a 3 dimensional virtual circle rather than with just one other bell ringing. — Phillip George

It can take people a bit of time to get used to a sim. First I get them ringing PH with moving ringers and "follow this bell" turned on. If they struggle with that it's usually handling issues, so I mute their bell in the sim, I ring PH on another bell and get them to shadow me.

I either read about or was taught the things you listed, but it still took time to develop the skills - but at least I knew what I was aiming fo — John de Overa

One objective of The New Ringer's Book was to be comprehensive, ie to compliment what the ringer gets from a good teacher and to make good what the ringer doesn't get from a bad teacher.
Another was to go beyond bell handling and cover dynamic bell control and the basics of method ringing (not teaching any specific methods) and to give a forward looking vision of a potential ringing career.
Of course a book can only give information, not the live experience of sight and sound and feel, but I think it goes some way towards what you are suggesting.

I found The Whiting Society "How to Learn Methods" book helpful, as it concentrates on techniques for learning methods in general, rather than specific ones.

I don’t see people thinking teaching bell handling is prestigious but I do think people need a certain level of experience and confidence in their own bell handling before starting to teach others. I have seen some ringers start teaching within two years of learning and this can work very well as they remember what was difficult and explain next steps in simple terms.
I think many less experienced ringers are nervous about volunteering to teach bell handling and need to know that they can learn to teach in a supported way, with ART as the obvious easy way to support people in learning to teach bell handling.
But I also see that only a small minority of ringers are willing to invest time to support others, support organisation and take responsibility to make more ringing possible and for a fully voluntary organisation that’s an issue. I think our internal marketing campaign is along the lines of give something back, how can you help ringing to succeed in the future so that you can continue to enjoy it? Learning to teach handling and committing to helping one Saturday morning a month (or similar) with training sessions or special practices would be really helpful but often the few who have always done it continue and not many new / extra people volunteer to get involved.

I think you make some good points there. I certainly felt like a bit of an impostor when I started teaching as I was (and still am) actively learning myself. What made it easier was encouragement from the person who taught me, and the knowledge that if I didn't step up, there wasn't anyone else to do it for our tower. I think that rolls over to you second point - any marketing effort needs to include an internal component, there's not much point recruiting new ringers if we can't train them up to whatever level of achievement they are interested in / capable of, and in the short term at least, those trainers are going to have to come from the existing ringing community.

Despite having posted in this thread several times, every time I see the title, I think it's about an online video teaching resource :smile: