At the moment I've read more about the "organization" side of it than the "pedagogy" side. (Our curriculum is, obviously, a work in progress.) Let's see, I started close to home with Christian Tobler's Fighting with the German Longsword
and Brian Price's Teaching and Interpreting Historical Swordsmanship
. Neither of these was really what I was looking for. At this point I was also considering what constituted the most basic level of swordsmanship, so I hit up William Gaugler's The Science of Fencing
(swordsmanship doesn't get more basic than sabre fencing). I also read Nick Evangelists's The Inner Game of Fencing
to get a better feel for why things are taught the way they are in fencing--great book, by the way. Then I began looking at AMA concepts, starting with Lawrence Kain's Martial Arts Instruction
, which ad some really good parts and some really boring and not useful parts. I also read a few other books on both instruction and general martial arts school management, but Eli has those right now so I can't look up author and title. Other books that have influenced me are Josh Waitzkin's The Art of Learning
and my trusty FM 21-20 (the Army Physical Fitness Manual). Also twelve credit hours of logic at BYU and the fact that I'm a compulsive organizer. I'd like to study more pedagogy specifically to improve the quality of my instruction, but to date most of our research has been in the best ways to structure lesson plans and curricula. (I also don't know how much Stew has adopted beyond my basic curriculum and ranking structures--he's been doing this longer than me and is set in his ways
However, it's true that that statement was partly just to indicate that we're not teaching based on any specific manual. Our curriculum isn't structured after Liechtenauer's 17 Haupstucke, Fiore's various Masters of the Longsword, or... whatever Meyer has. It's based on a consideration of the best way to get awkward 18-year-olds moving like fighters and the best way to make the techniques make sense to modern minds.