Ringing Forums

I think this does happen, but it depends on where you ring and how proactive you are to find / take opportunities to keep learning.
There is lots on the internet to go to if you want to see a potential path and read around the subject of method construction or similar. Many experienced ringers enjoy nothing more than a curious less experienced ringer who will listen as they explain something detailed about next steps in method ringing.
I think we don’t have a continuous learning culture in bellringing overall, there is a level of acceptance that many people reach a stage which is comfortable for them and the band they ring with so there is no further push unless either the ringer or the tower captain keeps a push for continuous progress.
This then means that for those who do want to keep progressing finding like minded ringers to ring with and more experienced ringers to support gradually requires travelling further and further.
The Cast of 1000 demonstrated this to a reasonable extent, with some lockdown ringing room sessions but a real difficulty in transferring to tower ringing to support surprise major development.

you are right about there being lots available online but it tends to be fairly advanced, I'm more thinking about the bit in between PH and method construction. For example how to break down and actually learn methods, the importance of the treble - basically "The Dummy's Guide to Method Ringing" and the help that's needed to put it into practice. If you are in a struggling tower then you may not have have access to anyone who can help.

I agree that we don't have a widespread culture of continuous learning, indeed that's my concern. Worse than that I think in some cases there's a culture of taking shortcuts, "To get people ringing" even when that stores up all sorts of problems for later on, such as inability to move from "by bell number" to places.

As someone trying to "get into" Surprise Major it's a huge ask, one that's likely to be beyond the grasp of the majority of people who take up ringing. That's not just a matter of talent, it's cultural.

there's some interesting stuff there, with clear reference to ringing. But I think this, and many of the comments on the parent thread about peal ringing, misses the point by homing in on 'teaching' alone. There is plenty of scope to improve the way the skills of ringing are taught, but that's not enough on its own.
For people to develop into long term, capable, ambitious ringers who will make a positive contribution to ringing, they need to absorb the ethos of what ringing is about and a sense of being part of something bigger - of the wider ringing community and of the tradition and future of ringing. They also need to absorb a sense of the many different facets of ringing.
They don't get that from LTR, or from how they are taught to handle a bell, or from learning the mechanics of hunting. They absorb it in the way that any culture is acquired, from the people they come into contact with, notably other ringers.
If they are surrounded by ringers of low skill, low ambition and limited horizons then that is the culture they will absorb. And having absorbed it they will become part of it and help spread it to others. Once a band gets to that point it is very difficult for anyone to escape, given the lack of either opportunities or inspiration to do more. They will assume that 'this is what ringing is like' and either go with the flow or give up because it doesn't give the opportunity, challenge and satisfaction that they need.

lots available online but it tends to be fairly advanced — John de Overa

There's plenty of basic stuff too. The problem is that new ringers aren't either fed it or encouraged to look for it. They are encouraged to accept the limited info they are given within the small tower bubble where they find themselves.

For example how to break down and actually learn methods, the importance of the treble - basically "The Dummy's Guide to Method Ringing" — John de Overa

Yes that's important but there is so much more than just 'how to' learn and ring them. How are the structured, how do they work, how do compositions work, how did methods evolve, and lots more.
When we wrote The New Ringer's Book our goal was to provide information they might not be told, in a way that would help them whether they had been taught well or not, and by whatever approach. As well as the skill based stuff there's a lot in it to lead them onto other things.
Every new ringer should have a copy (and I believe every student at the BSB has one as part of their pack) but those most in need are in towers that won't give it to them, or even tell them about it.

There is plenty of scope to improve the way the skills of ringing are taught, but that's not enough on its own. — John Harrison

I fully agree with that and everything following it. I was lucky to be rescued from a mummified tower early on and advised to go elsewhere for help "Before you kill yourself" (quote). If it hadn't been for the TC / Branch RM of that tower who took me under her wing I'd have got nowhere, and she's still encouraging and supporting me to this day. But leaving that to chance doesn't seem workable in general, particularly if the numbers of supportive and skilled method ringers falls.

Once a band gets to that point it is very difficult for anyone to escape — John Harrison

Also very true. In the case of my home tower, the whole tower in effect escaped. That happened because of a chance combination of circumstances - retirement of older ringers, returning ringers, a new go-ahead TC and some keen recruits. I still wouldn't class us as being a method ringing tower but the desire is now there, at least. I'm not sure how best to support such sparks. It's difficult - parachuting in external help is tricky as it can backfire, and once people stop helping, as they must, there's a danger things will revert back to how they were before.

I think the isolation you allude to is a large part of the problem, in some towers it's seen as a sign of treachery to ring elsewhere, and that's often reflected in the standard of ringing. Perhaps the most immediately important thing the CCCBR can do is to make it easier for aspiring ringers to widen their contacts and experience, and to better communicate those opportunities? In which case, I think that's already the plan. But that needs to be backed up by actual provision of opportunities, and I think it's understood that's often not the case.

They are encouraged to accept the limited info they are given within the small tower bubble where they find themselves. — John Harrison

In some towers I think that's putting it mildly :gasp:

The New Ringer's Book our goal was to provide information they might not be told — John Harrison

Yes, it's very good and "New ringer" undersells it I think, there's material in there that's still very relevant after the initial stages. There are other books as well such as "Carry On Counting" or the Steve Coleman ones, depending on individual taste :smile: You've just reminded me to point them out to our early stage ringers - Xmas is coming up and all that :wink:

"New ringer" undersells it I think, there's material in there that's still very relevant after the initial stages. — John de Overa

The idea was that you get it when you are new (and that it is yours, not the tower's, hence the careful positioning of the apostrophe). But unlike previous books aimed at learners, it was intended to guide through the whole of the development process, and it specifically offered a vision of the rest of a potentially fullfilling ringing career.

I think it achieves those aims, as an "All in one, let's get started" book I think it's the best I've seen. I really like it.

Last week I organised and ran the first 'Advanced Ringing Academy', which over eight days took 25 young ringers (17-25) all of whom started with an ability range from simple surprise major up to surprise maximus. We had nearly 40 experienced helpers throughout the period, always enough to ring the most difficult thing on the agenda with enough to help ring inside but also stand behind. With 50 hours of tower bell ringing on 8 10 and 12, plus handbell practices, the progress was great, but I would have expected it to be with such a cohort.

A lot of what we did was what is talked about here - very focused targeting of tuition and opportunity. We pretty much had a plan in advance for all of the students, and for instance someone who'd only rung Cambridge Major was able to ring Cambridge Maximus really pretty well by the end, and those who could already ring a bit of Bristol Maximus were able to ring touches of cyclic spliced. We incorporated teaching how to learn, teaching how to listen, very active feedback, and a sprinkling of history and wider ringing knowledge. It was not just the depth of methid ringing that improved - we went to Birmngham Cathedral on days 1 and 8 and the difference was remarkable. The ARA will also have follow up in that those who put forward young ringers to come have now been sent feedback on their students and what the next steps for them in their local area ought to be.

So the concept of this Deliberate Practice and Expert Performance is definitely possible, but it takes very great effort. Those who benefit from it, e.g. all those on the ARA, are starting with inate ability and we knew they had in advance. I think there is a limit to how far you can get without inate ability, which was part of my definition of the Black Zone in those articles some years ago. If you have inate ability and opportunity you can go far. Plenty of ringers have inate ability but don't get opportunity, and then there are plenty for whom lack of inate ability is or will be the thing that limits their progress, even if they don't realise it because opportunity never presents itself.

We pretty much had a plan in advance for all of the students — Simon Linford

It would be interesting to see what the plans looked like for the different starting points, I'm sure that would help others planning such efforts in the future.

The ARA will also have follow up in that those who put forward young ringers to come have now been sent feedback on their students and what the next steps for them in their local area ought to be. — Simon Linford

Good to hear there's follow-up. One of the criticisms I've heard about the existing ringing courses is that people are coming back after a year having made no progress, I assume because there's often no follow-up in place?

So the concept of this Deliberate Practice and Expert Performance is definitely possible, but it takes very great effort. — Simon Linford

Undoubtedly, but I wonder if it's actually a more effective use of resources, if you compare it to the amount of time they'd have to have spent in regular tower practices to achieve the same degree of improvement?

I think there is a limit to how far you can get without inate ability ... Plenty of ringers have inate ability but don't get opportunity ... lack of inate ability is or will be the thing that limits their progress — Simon Linford

Clearly true, but there's not just one destination on the journey. By most standards the people attending the course are already advanced ringers, if the approach you used worked well at that level, could it be replicated at earlier stages? After all, you are going to need a steady stream of people who can already ring Surprise Major :wink:

As an aside, this sort of approach sounds like it ticks all the boxes for Arts Council funding, I know of a directly comparable programme in the Carnival Arts area that attracts significant funding.

Deliberate Practice and Expert Performance — Simon Linford

We should aim for deliberate practice and expert performance every time we ring in our local towers. Many tower captains don't understand this. As a consequence we are often too lacksadaisical, and coupled with sometimes lack of inate ability we are left with a mediocre ringing attitude.
Great to read about the success of ARA, well done everyone.

Perhaps a bit off topic : Our tower, and many others have a particular problem. Two of our young lads, 9 and 11 have achieved their Level 1 and Level 3 certificates this summer. We can still teach them more at this and they certainly have the inate ability.. Our young lady, who is off to uni has just got her Level 1 after 9 weeks. Given the opportunity she will fly and has already taken herself off to GSM, St Benets and St Clements in Cambridge. She has made a bunch of new young ringing friends, and has arranged ringing in Brighton for herself.
She will ring with us at home between terms, but it is quite likely that we will have little to offer as we struggle with PB and G5. When the boys get older they too wil fly the nest, and good for them, I won't hold anyone back, in fact I actively encourage all our ringers to ring elsewhere to keep learning.
The problem for many local towers, no 30 - 50 year olds, and older people with limited capability hanging on. We need a younger ringing profile in local towers to be a stepping stone for good young ringers.

We should aim for deliberate practice and expert performance every time we ring in our local towers. — Phillip George

We should, and as you note it often doesn't happen. But I'm not sure it's possible to do it in a normal weekly practice. We run tied bell + simulator sessions outside of normal practices with a maximum of 2 ringers + tutor so that they can get the 1:1 attention that DP requires. The weekly practice is then an opportunity to put what they've learned "solo" into practice with other ringers. That way we don't have the rest of the band standing around rolling their eyes at the whole-band practices - people come prepared to get the maximum out of the time available.

I think a significant part of the reason for lack of progression is because of the way methods ringing is still taught, it's not moved on in literally decades. People who get to the higher echelons of ringing do so despite the way we persist in teaching ringing, not because of it.

no 30 - 50 year olds, and older people with limited capability hanging on. — Phillip George

State pension age is now 68, yet according to many in the ringing world, anyone over 45-50 is considered to be senile and incapable. it's a ridiculous and insulting attitude and says more about the attitudes of the even more elderly ringing "elite" than it does about the abilities of people in that age range. Move on please, the 2000s happened nearly a quarter of a century ago.

State pension age is now 68, yet according to many in the ringing world, anyone over 45-50 is considered to be senile and incapable. it's a ridiculous and insulting attitude and says more about the attitudes of the increasingly elderly ringing "elite" than it does about the abilities of people in that age range. Move on please, the 2000s happened nearly a quarter of a century ago. — John de Overa

I want the 30- 50 age range.That gives them at least a 30 year ringing career..I'll still teach beginners over that age and many have a valuble contribution to make, not only in ringing but steeple keeping etc
On a personal note, it is so exciting teaching youngsters. They have tenacity and just absorb everything you throw at them. They have no fear and don't over-think the problem. I count myself lucky to have had the opportunity to teach our 3.
We also hold a weekly daytime tied bell practice for bell control skills and it helps the normal practice hugely. We are lucky to have the facility in the tower to do this, both is the installation (sim included) and I'm retired, but so too are the participants! Its all good fun.

I want the 30- 50 age range. — Phillip George

I'm only interested in potential and drive, I don't give a stuff about age. If the ringing community thinks it's still in a position where it gets to pick and choose, it's deluding itself.

State pension age is now 68, yet according to many in the ringing world, anyone over 45-50 is considered to be senile and incapable. it's a ridiculous and insulting attitude and says more about the attitudes of the even more elderly ringing "elite" than it does about the abilities of people in that age range. Move on please, the 2000s happened nearly a quarter of a century ago. — John de Overa

I don't think age has any substantial bearing on ability. My concern for towers like @Phillip George is that younger ringers who go to university or busy city towers will get used to towers full of younger people. From a social perspective, a tower full of 50+ ringers and kids isn't such an attractive prospect. I find that having a handful of 20-49-year-olds can make all the difference. And this is not saying that there shouldn't be older ringers in a band; it's just that you need that balance and people at a similar stage of life to you. Certainly in London, 20-30-year-olds are concentrated in a small number of towers where there are people of a similar age.

A lot of the Central Council's work on universities is bridging the gap between ringing as a child at local towers and continuing at university. Perhaps we need to consider the post-university period too?

I don't think age is the primary determinant either.

I think the various young ringer groups are great, but that demographic doesn't contain the majority of people who take up ringing, we need to be catering for everyone.

I agree that having a balance of ages is ideal, but we have to be realistic about where we are now. I think one of the strengths of ringing is exactly that span of ages - there are not many circumstances where that happens and for many young people it will be their first opportunity to form relationships with older people on their own terms - something that's going to be vital once they start employment.

I don't think we have to worry too much about uni ringers, as I understand the majority will have been ringing whilst at school and will be well used to hanging out with the wrinklies :grin:

we have to be realistic about where we are now — John de Overa

Where we are now is not sustainable. That's the problem.

one of the strengths of ringing is exactly that span of ages — John de Overa

Agreed. But the span isn't the problem, it's the distribution. And it's not just that we will lose the majority of ringers over the next few decades and we can't replace them like for like. Recruiting more retirees might replace the retirees who learnt 10 or 20 years ago but it won't replace the mass of skilled ringers with 50 or 60 years of experience who play a dominant part in keeping everything going.

Agreed also. But it's going to take time for the pipeline to refill. While that's happening we need to keep towers alive and ringing at a reasonable standard wherever possible, so there are opportunities and support for those people who are the long term future.

It's not necessary for teenagers to be Surprise Major ringers when they go to Uni (although great if they are), but making sure they don't need "remedial help" when they do seems sensible and achievable. You don't need to be a Premier League manager to run an after school footy club, you need to be able to safely teach basic skills, identify talent and know when it's the right time to pass them on for more advanced teaching. That's the way things work in other similar pursuits, I don't understand why ringing should be any different.

When the ship's sinking I think it's sensible to welcome anyone who wants to bail, be it with a bucket or a teacup.

As John said, "If they are surrounded by ringers of low skill, low ambition and limited horizons then that is the culture they will absorb."

The would-be ringers are limited by the abilities of those in charge of the tower or responsible for their introduction to ringing. I would guess that a great many of those who are teaching newcomers suffer some or all of the following limitations:

• Not been taught by a competent ringing tutor themselves
• Have limited experience of ringing outside of their 'home' tower
• Don't know or have never considered how to break ringing down into 'bite-size' elements
• Have only one way of explaining PH which they repeat like a mantra each week, rather than looking for other explanations or different forms of words

Another aspect of well-structured tuition is the difference between positive and negative tuition. There are towers where learners are routinely told "Don't do that" rather than what they should do. I prefer to see persistent errors (such as always striking late at backstroke or clipping other bells in a PH) not as a fault but as a point for improvement.

The would-be ringers are limited by the abilities of those in charge of the tower or responsible for their introduction to ringing — Peter Sotheran

I'm not disagreeing with your list, although fortunately it's not been my experience of learning to ring. But it does describe the situation at my home tower until recently, for around 40 years - when he comes to practices one of the semi-retired ringers often wistfully says "I wish we knew about all this stuff years ago". so this isn't a new problem, it's more that it's become more acute.

As I understand it, ART was set up to address exactly these problems, but some associations only have 5-10 teachers, so there's still more to do. I think part of that requires that the wider ringing community accepts that you don't need to be a Spliced Surprise Major peal ringer to teach people Pain Hunt. What would also help is if there was tutoring and support for the grass roots ART teachers that continued after they had received their accreditation.

I think part of that requires that the wider ringing community accepts that you don't need to be a Spliced Surprise Major peal ringer to teach people Pain Hun — John de Overa

I don't recall anyone saying teachers must tring Surprise. Certainly advanced method ringing isn't a requirement to be as competent teacher of bell control, but I suspect that most competent bell control tutors (outside Devon call change towers) are at least competent ringers of basic methods. And I would be very sceptical about anyone who wasn't a competent method ringer teaching the rudiments of method ringing (hunting, dodging, place making, speed changes).

That's fine in theory but is unachievable in the many towers where there are no competent method ringers to start with and the standard is at best wobbly PH by-the-numbers. What do they do? That's why I said there needs to be ongoing support for the people who are motivated enough to want to learn to teach. If we want to raise standards across the board it's not feasible to parachute skilled method ringers into every tower, we need to find a way of supporting the people teaching in such towers so they can stay a few pages further on in the book, which means ongoing and tiered support. That's going to be a better use of increasingly scarce resources.

I've personally seen several occurrences of people being sniffy about ART teachers, so it does happen. I'm sure it's justified in some cases but they were blanket statements coming from what would be considered advanced ringers. And I've watched some of those same ringers teaching people and their approach leaves a lot to be desired. I don't think any of that will apply to anyone who contributes here, but it does happen.

". . . in the many towers where there are no competent method ringers to start with and the standard is at best wobbly PH by-the-numbers."
Absolutely! Currently I am trying to help at one such tower where the tower-leader can't plain hunt the treble to PB-5. Luckily we have persuaded the two newest recruits at the tower to visit a neighbouring tower as they progress from basic bell control to r&cc. I like a challenge!

Good for you and I hope you are successful, but just the one of you doesn't really scale :wink:

With the encouragement of my own teacher I went on the ART teacher's course, although I probably wouldn't have been considered "suitable" by some. But I've continued to work hard on my own ringing and I'm a much better ringer than I was when I started teaching. My concern is that the current recovery model seems to be very top-down. If we are to revitalise ringing then the whole community needs to be moving, not just the elite level, not just one particular age group and not just a small number of towers.

I didn't comment on what was or wasn't 'achievable in many towers'. And I didn't say you 'had to be' a competent method ringer to teach basic bell control. But I find it hard to see how anyone who is not a competent method ringer, at least of basic methods, can hope to teach method ringing. I accept the idea of the teacher being a few pages ahead in the book (but that assumes the teacher is learning somewhere else to stay ahead) and more significantly it depends on what book. Anyone teaching wobbly plain hunt by the numbers is in the wrong book for teaching competent method ringing.

I find it hard to see how anyone who is not a competent method ringer, at least of basic methods, can hope to teach method ringing — John Harrison

As a ringer in a tower that's trying to move into method ringing I agree with that. Even with three of us who can ring inside, it's still a challenge to "get things going". But we are making steady progress.

that assumes the teacher is learning somewhere else to stay ahead — John Harrison

That's exactly my concern, that seems to be mostly down to geography and chance at the moment, and I think it shouldn't be.

Anyone teaching wobbly plain hunt by the numbers is in the wrong book for teaching competent method ringing. — John Harrison

Yes, that's a given.

I haven't had time to read all the posts, so someone may already have said something similar. I occasionally visit a tower which has a few learners. One can plain hunt quite reliably on 6 and 8 to bob minor and major - touches are more or less ok on 6 . But when they tried to do treble bob to Cambridge S6, it was clear they really did not know what they were supposed to be doing. I asked afterwards how they were doing it, and what the problem was. They cannot manage to both count places and see what bell they should be ringing after, let alone the difference betewee Up and Down dodges. I suggested thay they ask to try treble bob hunt as the order of the bells is easier. I don't know if this has been followed through. Last week they tried Bob Minor inside - not for the first time. Again, it was clear that they did not know how they should be trying to ring it, and again they cannot count what place they are in and look for the bells to ring over. I think they are saying the bell number rather than the place number to themselves, so of course they cannot think of 2 numbers at once. No feedback seems to be given after each bad attempt at plain bob or ask why they plain hunt up to the back ok but totally fail to make the 3/4 down dodge. Surely teachers need to find out why their learners are failing and try to work out how to help them? In this learners case I would make them count thier place out loud while ringing, with someone behind them counting as well, and pointing out the bell they have to follow, without saying the number of the bell.

surely they do but… and here is our problem… the experienced ringer leading the practice is a volunteer with no teaching training, probably no mentor to go for advice and perhaps limited interest being a better teacher. Whilst there are many great people teaching, running practices, offering guidance there are still some towers where it doesn’t happen and is unlikely to change unless someone is willing to challenge what is happening and invest time to help to improve it.
You could try asking the questions of the tower captain or teacher involved but I understand why you might not if it’s a tower you only go to occasionally and you don’t intend to get more involved.
Some might say it’s the district ringing masters role to keep an eye on the overall quality of practices but it’s probably not realistic to expect them to be able to support improvement in all towers that need it.
You can probably offer two bits of advice - tell the learner with potential which other local practices or district trainings might benefit them and suggest the teacher has a look at the ART website or CCCBR website for resources like the plain hunt toolkit, how to run an effective practice and plain bob toolkit. But without a high investment of time it is difficult to get a real step change started in a tower with an inexperienced or uninterested tower captain / teacher.

The TC certainly isn't inexperienced or uninterested and I don't know what efforts have been made to explain things to the learner or to help them understand how to do things. But it is something I came acros often - learner struggles with something and no attempt is made to find out WHAT they are finding difficukt or WHY they are going wrong. It can somethines be a reallysimply misunderstanding. Other times they have not been told HOW to learn a method or even told to learn anything at all - just told to catch hold and are 'talked through' bob minor without any explanation.

Some might say it’s the district ringing masters role to keep an eye on the overall quality of practices but it’s probably not realistic to expect them to be able to support improvement in all towers that need it. — Lucy Chandhial

Most district have 10s of towers, I don't think this is realistic. If RMs pre-emptively step in to fix poor practices it's sure to cause conflict, even though it's those towers that need help the most.

Surely teachers need to find out why their learners are failing and try to work out how to help them? — Sue Marsden

no attempt is made to find out WHAT they are finding difficult or WHY they are going wrong. — Sue Marsden

Other times they have not been told HOW to learn a method or even told to learn anything at all - just told to catch hold and are 'talked through' bob minor without any explanation. — Sue Marsden

All of those are issues in my experience, for a whole number of reasons:

• It's easy for a teacher to see handling problems but they can't see what's going on inside the learner's head.
• Beyond the handling stage, learning theory is necessary. Many learner's won't.
• Beyond the handling stage, doing homework is mandatory. Many learner's don't.
• Teachers "help" by "encouraging" learners (often loudly) to use skills they don't actually have, like dodging.
• Many teachers learned so long ago they can't remember how they learned a skill and can't therefore teach people it. Ropesight being a particular case.
• Other ringers get understandably snitty if a practice stalls whilst someone gets a theory lesson. See "Homework" above.
• A lot of TCs aren't much further on in the book than the rest of the band and don't have the skills to teach.
• Some TCs are very status-oriented and won't learn themselves or take outside advice, even if that ends up killing the band.
• Learners are taught to ring by bell number, or do it anyway and that quickly becomes a lifelong, incurable, debilitating addiction. "Circle of Work" isn't much better.

That's just an immediate list off the top of my head, I'm sure there are lots more. Teaching of Method Ringing (as opposed to bell handling) is generally dire, to the point where I think a reasonable approximation is that it isn't taught at all. People who learn to ring methods competently generally do so despite the "teaching" they receive, not because of it.

None of this is new, neither are the solutions. But here we still are.