More Stuff, Fewer Students…
Written for martial arts school owners. Families looking at KarateBuilt: see KarateBuilt.com for how our programs work.
Why teaching less gets you more students and better Black Belts.
A school owner recently asked: "Did I simplify my curriculum too far?"
He'd cut his forms way down, gone from five self-defense techniques per belt to three, and dropped forms entirely for his first several beginner ranks. His philosophy was less memorization, more mastery. Now he was worried he'd overdone it.
Less memorization, more mastery is exactly the right strategy, and fewer techniques done well beat a long list.
The whiteboard
Over 20 years ago I realized that teaching less content AT A TIME, with more repetition, would naturally increase quality. It hit me while I was teaching a seminar.
A very well-known school owner was in the room (we'll leave him unnamed so we don't embarrass him). I asked him what he taught in what he called his Basic program. He told me half of the form, basics and kicks, and I wrote them on the whiteboard.
"OK great! What do you teach in your Master Club class?" He said forms, kicks, basics, sparring, board breaking, weapons and self-defense. I wrote those on the whiteboard too.
"OK great, how long is the Basic class?" "55 minutes." "OK cool. How long is your Master Club class?" "55 minutes as well."
I looked at the whiteboard, looked at the crowd, looked back at him and said, "Well then the Master Club class has about 3 times the curriculum, right?" "Yes," he said with a smile, because he thought he was teaching a ton of great stuff in that class. What value!!
"OK, that means 3x the stuff to learn… in the same time... right?" he smiled again thinking he was doing such a great job…
"Then I guess the Master Club students must be one third the quality of the Basic students." Silence...
The whole room realized that made perfect sense. He sputtered and coughed and said, "No, of course not, they're even better." I waited and waited... because he didn’t have an answer… then said "OK, how can you teach 3x the stuff in the same time and keep the same or better quality?" It was obvious to the room (and even to him) that it couldn't work.
The cognitive error is believing that teaching more is better. It's understandable for two reasons: 1) that's how most of us grew up in our system, and 2) we THINK Black Belt = LOTS OF curriculum, so more curriculum must be better.
Take a moment and consider… What if Black Belt = QUALITY? Piling on more at once isn't congruent with how people learn.
If your Master Club or Leadership (or whatever you call it) class looks like that whiteboard, it doesn't mean you're a bad instructor.
We THINK Black Belt = curriculum so more curriculum is better - what if Black Belt = QUALITY?
How people actually learn
The brain holds very little at once
Working memory is the space where a student holds a new move while they try it. It's small. George Miller's 1956 paper put the number of items people can hold at once at about seven, plus or minus two (Miller, 1956). Later work suggests the real limit is lower, closer to four chunks (Cowan, 2001).
Those four slots hold chunks. A chunk is a group of things your brain has already tied together into one unit. To a Black Belt, a front kick is one chunk. To a new White Belt it's several separate things to remember (lift the knee, aim, extend, snap it back, set the foot down).
Chess research found the same pattern: masters remembered real game positions far better than beginners because they saw groups of pieces as single patterns (Chase & Simon, 1973). Repetition is what turns the pieces into a chunk. Until a technique becomes a chunk, it takes up several of those slots by itself.
Now count the new things in your last advanced class (the new form section, the weapon, the self-defense technique, the board break and the sparring combination). That's a lot of new stuff for one class! A kid probably can't hold all of that and still do any of it well.
When a task asks for more than working memory can handle, learning drops. Researchers call this cognitive load, and too much of it gets in the way of building the skill you're trying to teach (Sweller, 1988).
Repetition over time is what makes it stick
What isn't reviewed fades fast. A modern replication of Ebbinghaus's experiments found the same steep forgetting curve he found in 1885, with much of the loss coming in the first day (Murre & Dros, 2015).
The fix is spacing. A review of 317 experiments found practice spread out over time beat the same practice crammed together (Cepeda et al., 2006). Teaching fewer techniques means each one comes back around more often (and that's built-in spacing). For example, you will get better results from 10 sets of 100 reps than 1000 reps at one time.
Practice volume matters too. Studies of experts found that the top performers had put in far more focused, effortful practice (Ericsson et al., 1993). It isn't the whole story… a later review of sports found deliberate practice explained about 18% of the differences in performance (Macnamara et al., 2016). That's still a lot, and you control how much practice happens in every class.
Context makes it memorable
In a 1972 study, people heard a paragraph that made no sense until they were told it was about washing clothes. The people who got that context first understood it better and recalled about twice as much (Bransford & Johnson, 1972).
Memory researchers have found information processed for meaning is remembered better than information processed on the surface (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). That's why we tell students where a move is applied and what it's for every time we teach it.
Variety inside the reps
More reps doesn't mean the same rep a thousand times in a row. In a 1979 motor-skill study, students who practiced three movements in a mixed order did worse during practice but remembered and transferred the skill better later (Shea & Morgan, 1979).
Fewer techniques don't have to mean a stale class. Change how you drill them (solo, with a partner, on a target, at speed, from a different starting position).
| What the research says | What it means in class | Argument for |
|---|---|---|
| Working memory holds about 4 new things (Cowan, 2001) | Keep new material per class small | Reps |
| Repetition turns pieces into chunks (Chase & Simon, 1973) | Drill a technique until it's one thing, not five | Reps |
| Too much load blocks learning (Sweller, 1988) | A packed advanced class can produce WORSE advanced students | Reps |
| Spaced review beats cramming (Cepeda et al., 2006) | Fewer techniques come back around more often | Spacing |
| Focused practice builds skill (Ericsson et al., 1993) | Spend more class time drilling | Reps |
| Context about doubled recall (Bransford & Johnson, 1972) | Tell them where it's used and what it's for, every time | Context |
| Mixed practice helps retention (Shea & Morgan, 1979) | Same technique, different drills | Variety |
What we do at KarateBuilt
Our students learn six forms on the way to Black Belt. In the olden days it was nine, and it's been six for about 20 years.
The staff and I meet every year and figure out how to improve quality. At this point my staff is really good at finding nooks and crannies of curriculum where we can do more repetition over the most important material.
For example about 10 years ago we built self defense drills out of the martial arts forms. They used to be completely separate drills. We turned material that used to be practiced only without a partner into real application. This means the material is taught A) with more repetition, B) With more CONTEXT.
Another thing is CONTEXT - when we teach everything we add context, like where it's applied and what it's for.
DON'T say: "OK, today we're learning the next section of the form."
SAY: "This next move is what you do when someone grabs your wrist – watch."
Which one is a kid going to remember next week?
When an owner wants more material in the program, the instinct is often to stretch the cycle. My advice is to add cycles, not length. If the material won't fit in a 2-month cycle, add a cycle (or a stripe) instead of stretching one, because proficiency comes from repetition.
Order matters too. We teach the form before we spar it, because a kid who's still thinking about the next move can't do it under pressure.
| What we changed | What got cut | What got more |
|---|---|---|
| Forms to Black Belt | Nine forms down to six | Reps on the six we kept |
| Self-defense | Forms practiced only without a partner | Self-defense drills built from the forms, with context |
| Sparring | Starting at third belt | An earlier start with progressive material (same drills… higher expectations) |
| Every class | "Here's the next move" | Where it's used and what it's for |
| The annual curriculum meeting | (finding nooks and crannies) | Repetition on the most important material |
The three tests
OK you ask, how do you know if you cut too far? Three tests:
Test 1 – Your numbers
Look at renewals and retention before and after the change. Then look at where students leave.
Is there a spot you have highest dropout? It used to be, for us, our third belt was when they started sparring and dropouts increased. The counterintuitive solution was actually to do sparring sooner and ease them in with simpler material.
A dropout spike at one rank is usually a curriculum signal. Something at that rank may be too hard or too scary for where the student is. If there's no spike and retention held or went up, you probably haven't cut too far.
For a benchmark, two percent monthly loss (or less) is a strong number to aim for.
Test 2 – Black Belt quality
We don’t make martial arts easy (in fact we have harder requirements than the “old days”) and we want high quality at Black Belt (or for some of you guys with very long cycles to Black Belt like Jiu Jitsu, maybe a different reference point 3-5 years in is important). We found less material over a longer time improved quality (yeah that sounds obvious when I say it like that). I want incredible Black Belts (not really good green belts).
When a student gets about a year away from 1° Black Belt (or 2° or 3° or…) they do the Black Belt Pre-Qual multiple times which pressure tests them for the next level. Quality control is hit at this point 3-6 times before they are allowed the opportunity to promote.
Test 3 – Whether curriculum is the real problem
Lastly, when I get most of these questions, often the answer is not to focus on curriculum (unless these tests and their numbers show an immediate and critical issue). Usually, the solution is getting a flood of leads as the primary mission. Spending time to focus on this - while I agree as an instructor is something we care a LOT about - is probably not the best use of their valuable time.
Most of us love working on curriculum, and it's easy to spend time there when the real issue is getting more leads (or something else). Retention usually comes more from a personal relationship and a written, significant goal to Black Belt (and the students/families are engaged in why they should achieve Black Belt) than from the curriculum chart. If your school is short on students, the mission is more leads, more enrollments and more upgrades/renewals… (For the renewal side, see Black Belts Didn't Quit... or Cancel....)
Run all three tests before you touch the curriculum again.
Where less goes too far
There IS a point where you've cut too much.
Nothing new to earn. Kids need to feel progress. Self-determination theory lists competence, the feeling of getting better at something, as one of three basic needs behind motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). If a student goes up five ranks and nothing new shows up, the belt can start to feel like just a color. Something new at each rank (even one new form section or drill) may be enough to keep that feeling of progress.
Mostly I notice this at the Black Belt level. At some schools, Black Belt is “your time to teach” or “your responsibility to learn now since you’re a Black Belt”. When our students get Black Belt, they get new (and very different) material to do. It looks, feels and is completely different.
The same drill, the same way, forever. Fewer techniques can get boring if every class drills them exactly the same way. Mixed practice fixes that (Shea & Morgan, 1979).
An "optional" curriculum. If something's in the program, present it as required. If it really is optional, kill it! Leaving it in as a maybe tells the students or parent it isn't worth much.
A lower bar at testing. The point of simplifying material is to raise quality. If you cut material AND lower the standard at testing, Black Belt gets easier and quality drops… as does value of your program.
A common error – longer testing cycles. One solution people invent to getting more reps is to have the students do the same material over a longer period of time.
There are 2 issues with this: 1) more reps of just as complex curriculum doesn’t change that the amount of stuff you’re trying to teach is too much. 2) Tests (or graduations or what you name it) are designed to be demonstrations of material (like a test in school) which help students focus on a specific set of information. Imagine 1st graders only got tested or quizzed every 5 months? It’d be pretty hard to remember the material from that long ago.
We find the best sweet spot is 2 months. Design the curriculum so it can be learned by most students within that period. If your system says they need to do more to earn that rank, invent an intermediate rank or stripe or something so your blocks of material are designed to be learnable (and teachable) in that period.
The opposite problem is real too. I've seen a school that taught a striking style, then added kickboxing, then required jiu-jitsu. Students who came for striking got put on the ground and left. The owner wrote it down as attrition, and the cause was the curriculum change.
| Signs you cut too far | Signs you still have too much |
|---|---|
| Students say there's nothing new | Students can't do last belt's material |
| Dropout rises at the ranks you emptied | Dropout spikes at one crowded rank |
| Testing feels like a formality | Instructors rush to "get through" the material |
| Parents can't see progress | Black Belts look like a long list done poorly |
The summary
| Question | What to do |
|---|---|
| Is less more? | Yes – fewer techniques with more reps and more context beat a long list |
| What does the research say? | Working memory holds about 4 chunks, reps build chunks, spaced reps stick, context about doubled recall in one study |
| How do I add without adding? | Add cycles, not length, and build partner drills out of the forms. It’s ok if it takes longer to get Black Belt. |
| Test 1 | Check retention, renewals and the rank where students drop out |
| Test 2 | Pressure test with a Black Belt Pre-Qual 3-6 times in the last year before promotion |
| Test 3 | If your numbers are weak, the mission is leads, enrollments and renewals |
| Too far? | Something new to earn at every rank, varied drills, no lower bar |
As I like to say: The magic is… there's no magic.
This week: pull your retention by rank for the last 12 months and find your highest-dropout rank. If your monthly loss is around two percent, there's no spike at one rank and your Black Belts meet your standard, your curriculum may be doing its job! If you want a second set of eyes on it, you can always reach out to me.
Frequently asked questions
How much curriculum does a martial arts school need?
Will cutting curriculum make students quit?
Do longer testing cycles give students more reps?
How do I know if my curriculum is the real problem?
References
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Macnamara, B. N., Moreau, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). The relationship between deliberate practice and performance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635591
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Murre, J. M. J., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve. PLOS ONE, 10(7), Article e0120644. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120644
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4