[fred]

Thanks for all the excellent feedback.

I think a couple of points in my original post may have been misunderstood by some people (perhaps because I did not go into enough detail and perhaps because I am basically making this up as I go along):

1) When I mentioned a "standard curriculum" I was not suggesting that we would force teachers to use this curriculum in their classes. As Phil suggested, this is something that teachers could choose to use as they saw fit. I suspect that many teachers would appreciate such a service for several reasons (not the least of which it would save them from doing a lot of work themselves). Also, probably many students, especially beginners and intermediates, might prefer to seek out teachers who used such a curriculum (because this would be just about the only way they could know that what they were being taught was considered "mainstream").

2) Agree with those of you who think that the whole concept of accreditation would be complicated. However, as Hrothgar pointed out, if BBO gets into this business then we have to take some responsibility for quality control. To me this means that we would have to make some effort to ensure that all accredited teachers are:

- honest
- polite
- know the basics of how our software works
- know how to type at a reasonable speed
- know enough about bridge to teach the subjects they want to teach
- are sufficiently fluent in the language(s) that they plan to teach in

This sounds complicated, but I would hope that we could find ways to make such determinations without getting involved in rigorous examinations or extensive interviews. For example, postive testimonials from former students, National Bridge Federations, and/or well known players would be sufficient IMO to at least give teachers a chance to prove themselves.

I also agree with those of you who suggested that giving students the ability to rate their teachers and making this information public would be a good thing.

I also agree with those of you who said that we will never be able to stop "black market" teachers who choose not to be involved in this program. I doubt we would even try to do this. Instead we would try to offer teachers enough value that it would be worthwhile for them to participate. This in turn would make it hard for non-participants to compete for students.

By the way - one of Echognome's ideas will be part of the next version of the web-client: it will include a powerful hand generator, the ability to constrain all 4 hands, and you will be able to use this both at Partnership Bidding Tables (as usual) and at Teaching Tables as well. More good stuff coming - you will see it soon

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Caitlin]

Fred, I love your ideas and would be delighted to participate in this process as would Linda Lee. We have discussed this. BBO facilities for teaching are wonderful. We can upload specific hands tailored to the topic we are teaching; we can use the partnership bidding; we can become online TDs and do private tournaments with pre-dealt hands as Gowdy and I do for our 2/1 group.

I have also found the support staff terrific in helping me from the start, especially Chas_P (Charles) and an ACBL director, Jacki. When I have emailed support@, I get prompt, helpful information as well.

I do think teachers online should pay a percentage to BBO. Right now I try to support the site by ensuring my students purchase books from Bridge Base, if they can find them there. I always recommend Bridge Master 2000, often starting with Audrey Grant's version as I teach mainly novices. And at Bridge Forum we are always delighted to give BBO prime time P.R.!

However. with the world recession, teaching is not as productive as it once was so I wonder how many can actually make their living teaching online. Regardless, a percentage would make sense to me. I just don't know what the % should look like.

So how to accredit teachers? We are talking about so many from so many different countries. We would need to look at the various accreditation processes where they are available. But having taken the ACBL accreditation many years ago, I don't think involving the ACBL to do online accreditation is enough. Do you simply play with a student, give some feedback and leave it at that? To my way of thinking, that is insufficient. How about sending your student more comprehensive notes on topics that arose during that session? Also, when you advertise are you being realistic about what you are really capable of teaching? There are so many issues involved but I believe a solid committee could work through all these various criteria.

I am so pleased to see feedback on my initial post and the ideas from Fred and others who have responded. Keep them coming!

[barmar]

Perhaps the BBO accreditation should require acceditation from some other bridge organization as a prerequisite. Then on top of this, BBO could add their accreditation to indicate the qualifications that are specific to teaching online, such as typing ability and familiarity with the software.

[TylerE]

Strongly agree with those saying BBO should stay out of the certification business. At most, BBO should do some basic fact checking to verify any claims made about events won, masterpoints held, national certifications, etc. I don't think there should be any bar to entry beyond basic proof of identity, being in good standing with no abuse complaints, etc.

[sireenb]

I have never given online lessons, but I have given 'live' Bridge lessons and courses for different levels.

When I give courses at a club (as opposed to at home), I usually give the club a share of the fees for providing the facilities. If I ever give online lessons I would assume BBO is entitled to a share of the fees for providing the 'venue'. I think the share should be between 10% and 20% depending on the services provided by BBO.

I would not be very interested in 'fixed' curricula if I conducted any of my current courses online because, as JanM pointed out, I do have my own 'standard' prepared lessons and I vary them a lot depending on the students' progress. Size of class, ages of students, and current standard at bridge are very important factors. Parroting a one-size-fits-all course does not work if the objective is to get the message across to all students! Having said all that, it is always interesting to look at material but being obliged to use it is another matter.

The ability to generate hands that fit certain criteria, tweak/edit them, and save them for reuse would be great as preparing hands is the most time-consuming part. Preparing material is very time-consuming but material is reusable whereas the prepared hands must be dealt out every time since I do not have access to a shuffling machine.

I have doubts about the effectiveness of teaching a mixed group of beginners online. Some local players tried to take online lessons only to find that they were not able to play with anybody here because they were taught different methods and were unfamiliar with local 'mainstream' trends. I strongly believe that players should learn basic bridge on their home turf so that they can integrate into the playing community. After that, the web is great for improving and broadening horizons

I am planning to teach a group of young players and while preparing their course I thought that the only way to keep THEM interested and motivated would be to combine 'live' training with computer-based and/or online training techniques. This is why I found this thread very interesting.

Another area where online training may be effective is a new short set of lessons I was considering giving on 'Transition to BBO'. I keep getting asked about things like Smolen, Texas, Capp, etc. that nobody here had ever heard of before they joined BBO. Material on 'BBO Standard Systems' targeting people who already play Bridge would help this initiative. The responsibility of the 'local' teacher would be to focus on the gaps between those and what the students already play.

Accreditation is all very well from the 'ivory tower' of ACBL land and countries with large bridge populations. However, the reality in small countries like mine is that there is absolutely no control on who teaches or on the quality of the teaching. I doubt that the Bridge Federation would be willing to give an honest opinion about any teacher (so as not to offend anybody in a small community) so the only way to filter out teaching capabilities from places like here would probably be through student surveys.

I do not think 'representing country' or 'masterpoints' have anything to do with ability to teach. Somebody of that level would be able to point out the best strategy for a given hand, but the ability to convert that to a general principle that will work on the set of hands where the same logic applies requires completely different skills. Being able to DO something has nothing to do with being able to teach somebody else to do it.

One last point, I use the web version so I have never tried a training table or partnership bidding table. For effective training, it is important to be able to roll back the bidding and/or play, sometimes more than once. I do not know if this feature is available.

Thank you Caitlin for starting this interesting thread!

Sireen

[Phil]

I think folks should look at this through the perspective of a student.

Say I've got a little time (and money) and I want to improve. I don't have a teacher, and my primary outlet for bridge is BBO, so I am relying on BBO to provide resources in this regard.

Wouldn't I be concerned about:

+ The teacher's resume and qualifications
+ Feedback from other students

And as far as the courses I would be looking at, I would want to know:

+ That the material I am learning is somewhat standard on some basic level (maybe not worldwide, but at least in my country).

As a student, you wouldn't know whether or not what you are about to pay for is what you should be learning, and this is what I think BBO should be helping to provide.

Whether or not you consider any of this to be 'accreditation' for the teacher or the course may be wordsmithing, but I'm sure these are the issues on the student's mind.

[onoway]

I think it would be unfortunate if BBO restricted teaching tables to people who were "accredited" teachers. Many of us use them to puzzle out just how the opps did what they did on that hand and what we could have done about it, for example, no teachers involved at all.

Also, as someone who has taken paid online lessons with teachers on BBO, I think that anyone who "buys" a teacher's services without checking them out first deserves to get stung. There are ways to evaluate teachers as it is...people who are regular commentators on vugraph are clearly respected by BBO for example. If they don't teach or only at a level beyond what would be reasonable for you, then see who they play/hang out with/ appear to hold in some regard. Kib free lessons (at your level!) and see what makes sense to you, and if what a teacher is saying is in sync with other teachers or the system notes on BBO for the system you are learning. What have they accomplished, if anything, as players? Kib them at the table (do they only ever play with weak players? What do other kibbers have to say about their play?) Ask if you can sit in on a class, or if you can talk to some of their students ( and then DO it). Talk to others in your skill level to see what they have to say. Those are a few of the ways people already have to evaluate if a teacher will suit their needs.

But..just as people say things here they never would say f2f, the validity of ratings/comments would be in some cases highly questionable. Some teacher / student combinations click and the students are enthusiastic well beyond what would usually be expected for their rate of improvement. Others ...don't...and it may have nothing whatever to do with competence but a personality mismatch. Some people don't make allowances for that and highly uncomplimentary comments might well be made about a very competent and qualified teacher. It has been known to happen already, from a (nonpaying yet!) student who was disgruntled at being corrected for a mistake!!! and is grossly unfair. Someone with a perceived "axe to grind" could log in with multiple ID's to mangle a teacher's reputation.

People love to talk about negatives, and things often get swollen a bit with retelling to justify and/or make a better story. Also, people tend to weight ( and remember) negatives more strongly than positives for some reason, so this might well have a totally unmerited negative impact on a teacher's ability to gain students both here AND outside. A college situation is one thing..this is too wide an audience base and there are too many possibilities for online misunderstandngs to happen..

Also, often this turns into a sort of popularity contest and imo that would be a very negative thing. In other words, I think a forum for people to rate and discuss teachers is a VERY BAD idea.

I think the idea of rating according to some sort of test is not the answer; we all have had experience with teachers in the school system who have passed all the exams handilly but shouldn't be within ten miles of a student.

Many excellent teachers volunteer here and some of them don't take paying students. What are you going to do about them? I suspect that you won't ever be able to prevent the charlatans from having their niche, and in the process of trolling for them you may snag teachers who are doing a solid job.

On the other hand, it is reasonable for BBO to gain some benefit from the teachers who pick up paying students here that they otherwise would not have had. Perhaps one way of doing it is as magazines do..anyone who wants to advertise for paying students may do so but you reserve the right to refuse to accept their ad. As already suggested, payment could be in terms of a percentage of earnings generated through BBO. Then just have somewhere all these people can be listed....sort of like the classified section ..and just as in magazines, BBO would not be responsible for the resulting interaction.

You could keep some sort of Better Business Bureau file with comments and complaints ( which I would assume you would check out) available. Perhaps if a certain number or type of complaint was made, justifiably as far as you can tell, then you simply delete them from your list of advertisers.

[matmat]

i think having an accreditation process would be misguided.

I do think, however, that having a registration process with some clearly set guidelines and requirements would make sense.

Whether requiring a statement of purpose, or a set of references, or whatever, remains to be ironed out. A forum or at least a comments/ratings page for each registered instructor would also seem like a good idea (until some bitter student starts abusing it).

[zasanya]

1)Charge a fee to teachers for advertising and using products made exclusively for them.
2)Do not rate/accredit teachers.
Let the market forces decide.

[kenberg]

Some unconnected thoughts:

I have had the good fortune to never need to pay for lessons since my partners give them to me without charge, indeed without my even having to ask.


Bbo does a lot. My wife considered taking up bridge a few years ago. Too time consuming for her so she gave up the idea, but she very much liked the Learn to Play Bridge software. I like the BridgeMaster deals. I like the Forum and I think the VuGraoh shows are a great source of entertainment and an instructional tool as well.

Given all of these, where do lessons fit in? I am not a great player, I am not (imho) a hopeless player. I am not rich, I am not poor. This leads to the following: (1) If a potential pro is good enough that I would respect his advice, I can't imagine him teaching me for a price I could afford to pay. (2) I can't imagine anyone paying me to teach them for a price I would be willing to work for.


The organized, or semi-organized, teaching structure that is being contemplated would be a service, no doubt about it. I wish you luck with it. My guess is that the lessons would not come cheap. They may very well be worth the price, but they will cost.

There will continue to be a place, I think, for informal arrangements of various sorts. Inevitably this will include people who think transfer preempts are the secret to success and people who think Fred should take their advice on how to play really good bridge. It will also include people like me who at times offer advice on a no cost no guarantee basis. Adults are supposed to understand buyer beware, look before you leap, all that glitters is not gold, and other such wisdom hopefully given to them by their mothers.

[vuroth]

Well spoken kenberg

[1eyedjack]

There may be some scope for a sort of "probationary teacher" status, for the benefit of those who have the competence but have not gone through the ringer with their zonal authority to get a certificate recognised by BBO. Probationary status could be elevated after an adequate period of positive student feedback.

[pdmunro]

I would have thought most teaching has been done by having a pro partner. How would you charge for that, or even know that it was occurring?

The form of teaching that I see in the future is:
1) student sits down at a GIB table;
2) hands are dealt according to a theme (eg 1NT opening), or randomly;
3) the teacher kibitzes the player, seeing only the student's hand.

The extra that I want here is that the teacher and student are chatting with MS Messenger, say. The student voices his/her thoughts aloud. A discussion ensues.

Another possible extra is to record the whole thing with something like Windows Media Encoder. A key difficulty of this last point is that this is memory intensive, something like 1 Mb per minute.

I tried this with Cascade one time, with him kibitzing me at a GIB table and me voicing my thoughts, plus me attempting to video capture the screen and our conversation. My Windows XP with 1 Gb of RAM ground to a halt. So it's something for the future, when I have some free time again and an upgraded PC.

[nige1]

fred, on Mar 3 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

• BBO would certify qualified teachers
  
  
  
• Such teachers would agree to pay BBO a % of the revenue they generate and agree to operate their businesses according to some kind of "code of conduct" that we specify.
  
  
  
• In return, BBO would do things like this for certified teachers:
  
  • A new symbol would appear in their profiles that would let potential students know that, as far as BBO is concerned, these teachers are both qualified and honest.
    
    
    
  • BBO would handle and guarantee all the money for certified teachers so that they would no longer have to worry about getting paid.
    
    
    
  • We would create some kind of automated facility within the software where certified teachers could advertise their services and potential students could sign up for classes.
    
    
    
  • Certified teachers would be entitled to a higher level of technical support than the average BBO member.
    
    
    
  • BBO would create a standard "ciriculum" (prepared hands on various subjects and at various levels) that certified teachers could use in their classes.
    
    
    
  • Creating some new teaching facilities in the software that would be accessable only for certified teachers.
    
    
    
  • Create a system whereby certified teachers could earn a "sales commission" when their students purchase our educational CD-ROMs.

Fred's scheme is excellent. Comments:

• Students would benefit from the assurance of quality and delivery.
  
• Teachers would benefit from publicity, accreditation, guaranteed payment, public student feedback, and backup services.
  
• Most teachers and students would welcome the scheme but, presumably it would be optional. For example: Maureen Hall's "Beginners and Intermedialte Lounge" should be safeguarded. The BIL offers free courses, some of which are taught by top players like Cascade and Cardsharp.

[paulg]

nige1, on Mar 4 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

• Maureen Hall's "Beginners and Intermedialte Lounge" should be safeguarded. The BIL offers free courses, some of which are taught by top players like Cascade and Cardsharp.

The system in the BIL works because everyone knows the complaint procedure if they are not getting value for money. And they also have faith in the complaint procedure.

In such an established environment, accreditation does not add significant value.

Paul

[zasanya]

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

nige1, on Mar 4 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

• Maureen Hall's "Beginners and Intermedialte Lounge" should be safeguarded. The BIL offers free courses, some of which are taught by top players like Cascade and Cardsharp.

The system in the BIL works because everyone knows the complaint procedure if they are not getting value for money. And they also have faith in the complaint procedure.

In such an established environment, accreditation does not add significant value.

Paul

The BBO_IAC also organizes excellent free reaching sessions.I was greatly impressed by sessions conducted by mcphee.Please allow them to continue Fred,

[fred]

zasanya, on Mar 5 2009, 06:04 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

nige1, on Mar 4 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

• Maureen Hall's "Beginners and Intermedialte Lounge" should be safeguarded. The BIL offers free courses, some of which are taught by top players like Cascade and Cardsharp.

The system in the BIL works because everyone knows the complaint procedure if they are not getting value for money. And they also have faith in the complaint procedure.

In such an established environment, accreditation does not add significant value.

Paul

The BBO_IAC also organizes excellent free reaching sessions.I was greatly impressed by sessions conducted by mcphee.Please allow them to continue Fred,

I never said that we would attempt to stop free teaching on BBO (BIL, IAC, or anything else) and this is CERTAINLY not going to happen. Even if we wanted it this to happen (which we NEVER would), it is absurd to think we could stop this.

I suggest you go back and read my posts more carefully. I did say something like I doubt we would even try to stop teachers who were getting paid but who chose not to participate in the hypothetical program I proposed (which may well never even happen or, if it does happen, may not happen for a long time or may not be much like what I wrote).

I have said nothing at all about teachers who teach for free. We have been very supportive of such teachers forever and I am sure this will continue.

The goal here is not to screw either the teachers or the students. It is provide a valuable service to them while ensuring that BBO gets some fair % of the revenue that the teachers would not be making if it were not for BBO.

For those teachers or teaching sessions that do not generate revenue on BBO, any % of zero is still zero.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

zasanya, on Mar 5 2009, 06:04 AM, said:

The BBO_IAC also organizes excellent  free reaching sessions.I was greatly impressed by sessions conducted by mcphee.Please allow them to continue Fred,

Not that this is relevant to the current discussion, but you may be interested in knowing that I have been friends with Bob McPhee since I was a teenager (I am 44 now). During my first several years playing bridge, Bob was one of my frequent partners and teammates. I learned a lot from Bob - he was an excellent teacher even then.

I should also mention that Bob happens to be one of those rare teachers I mentioned who has occasionally sent us money or taken us out for dinner in appreciation for providing him with a venue through which is able to significantly augment his income.

He is a truly good guy as well as a fine teacher.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

IMO

• Fred's original posting was clear enough
  
• A 10% levy on tuition fees would be fair for the kind of comprehensive benefits to teachers and students that Fred's scheme would provide.
  
• Most aspects could be optional -- including accreditation -- but for some teachers and students that would be the most valued benefit.

[hrothgar]

Hey All

I had a bit more time to think about this topic. The more that I think about things, the more that I am drawn to the following idea:

BBO needs to focus attention on where it can provide unique value added services. Infrastructure for financial processing is one obvious example. Fred's original post shows that BBO has already identified this as an area where the company can shine.

My gut says that "testing" might be another significant opportunity for the company.

For the moment, let's assume that bridge lessons focus solely on declarer play. (Defense, Bidding, and the like don't enter into the mix)

Moreover, lets assume that some combination of smart people at BBO, bridge teachers, and the like were able to map different sets of techniques for declarer play onto different skill levels. Consider something like the following

Beginners should be able to count out a hand

Intermediate players should be able to execute exclusion / end play combinations

Advanced players should be able to execute a simple squeeze

Experts should be able to execute a compund squeeze.

(I'm not claiming that this list is accurate, exhaustive, or anything of that sort. I am merely offering as a illustration of what could/should be done)

Here's the benefit:

If you were able to go and map a set of techniques onto skill levels, you could then go and create a test that measures proficiency. Select a set of Bridge Master hands that are designed to test whether a student is a beginner, an intermediate, what have you...

I think that such a system cold provide a lot of value to customers.

1. Prospective students can use the tests to better understand what type of lessons they should be considering.

2. Actual students can use these tests to determine whether or not they are making any progress. (Before I started my classes, I scored a 43% on an Intermediate level quiz). Now that I have finished my classes, I scored an 83%

3. Students can also use these tests to evaluate whether or not the teacher are covering important topics.

I think that BBO is uniquely positioned to develop this type of system. You already have a lot of infrastructure in place to provide Bridge Master deals to customers. This is a simple extension of that same type of system. You also have a lot of content - aka Bridge Master deals, Hands of the Week, etc. that could be used to develop said tests.

This would also give teachers a direct incentive to use Bridge Master deals during their training program. (Test prep academy's always try to replicate the actual testing conditions)

There would still be a lot of work required to implement such a system. In particular, you'll nice to consider how/why to extend the system to include issues related to bidding and defense.

My own recommendation would be to start small. Test the system for declarer play type problems (the low hanging fruit). If this works well, you can consider broadening things.