Ringing Forums

I'd love it if there was something like that round here, well done!

I lived in fear for a long time because when it happened to me someone rushed over in what appeared to be a panic to grab the rope. — Judith Dennis

It's difficult to simulate losing control, you can't really recreate the "startle factor" when it happens for real. I illustrate that you can miss the sally, just ring backstrokes and still have control of the bell. We also go through the drill which is:

• If you miss the sally, don't make a second attempt to grab it, it's most likely already going up to the ceiling and if you grab hold, so are you.
• Keep hold of the tail end with both hands.
• Go up the rope a bit, step back if you need to and go into "ringing up" mode, something they practice from the first lesson.

The other key thing is for the teacher not to panic themselves, seeing them dashing across the room, madly grabbing at the rope and ending up half way up to the ceiling themselves is the opposite of confidence giving - I saw exactly that last week. For me, taking the rope off the learner is a last resort, not the first response to a fluffed stroke.

Therefore something as complex as ringing, without a lot of repetition, is difficult. The situation with the availability of rope time with good ringers in my opinion is the chief problem for beginners, but not a criticism. — Judith Dennis

Sufficient, appropriate rope time is a problem no matter what level you are at. My experience is that rope time is the biggest single factor in people's progress, far more so than age, for example.

exactly. I wouldn't necessarily be prompting them to do it, but if they were clearly hesitant and wanted to, fine. It's not uncommon for experienced ringers to have a couple of practice pulls to determine if they need a box or not, if that isn't a problem, this shouldn't be either.

If you want to instil confidence in beginners, I think one of the best ways is to teach them how to safely self-recover if they miss the sally, which at some point they will.

Another thing I find from teachers/tower captains is the habit of allowing a ringer to try the bell. Answer - No! — Phillip George

Sorry, I think that's a very unhelpful approach and shows a lack of understanding of just how nerve racking it can be for a learner to ring in an unfamiliar tower and/or with unfamiliar ringers. It doesn't matter how confident the teacher is, because it's not about them, it's about the learner. If a teacher can't appreciate the difference in between ringing on your own and ringing in rounds, I have to wonder if they should be teaching at all. A quick go takes less than a minute and as the person who'd have to end up fixing the stay, I'd much prefer than nervous learners had a try on their own. There's too much macho bulls**t in ringing as it is, this sort of mindset really needs to be consigned to the past.

Speaking of feedback, as you get on it tends to get both less frequent and sometimes more negative. I think that may be because more experienced ringers feel it isn't any longer their place to give it unless you've really stuffed something up. I still find feedback very useful and welcome it, when you are out of your comfort zone it's easy to miss issues that you'd normally pick up yourself.

When you start ringing longer touches, feedback is most helpful during the touch when you can immediately do something about it. And positive feedback is important as well, not for ego massaging but so you can focus on when you've made an improvement and keep doing it like that.

I like the scree analogy, it sounds familiar :grin:

I realise this is a biased sample but that's really the point - those people have a lot to offer, not just in their direct interactions with pupils but also in helping others do the same.

I think you are both right. Of course some people get to a level and don't want to progress any further, but I don't think anyone starts with a goal of being distinctly mediocre.

Obviously there's a point in people's progress where they need to do the equivalent of moving from college to university and take primary responsibility for their progress. The challenge is supporting that - in many cases the ringing equivalent is a bit like pointing them at the university library and telling them to come back in three years for an exam. And if that's coupled with John's point about lack of groundwork, it's no wonder so many people get stuck between PH and "proper" methods.

I spent a half an hour yesterday quizzing a very experienced ringer about his "mental model", rather than the mechanics. It was invaluable - some things I'd already figured out myself and it was good to hear I wasn't too far off the mark, other things I hadn't thought of but clicked as soon as he said them. To go back to the university analogy, it was like attending a tutorial. I know the importance of the pub to ringing is often joked about, it can fill the same role but it's very hit and miss.

One thing that stood out in particular is he said that introspection was key to sustained progress. That comes across very strongly from the people who post here - it seems to me that they spend at least as much time thinking about ringing as they spend doing it. I think imbuing learners with that mindset from the start is important.

I have the full set and Linda was waving the RW at me about an hour ago, although I didn't have a chance to read the review as we were all about to leave for the next tower :smile:

I am fortunate to be retired. Therefore I have time to give extra practises to my ringers. — Phillip George

I'm not so fortunate but I still run weekly tied bell + simulator practices. The difference it has made is significant. I think if you are serious about bringing people on, extra practices are vital. Nobody is going to learn to dodge properly with the standard 2 attempts at 2 leads of PBD a week.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.