Direct Instruction Meets the Ecological Approach: Why I Use Both at Sabre
Talking teaching approaches with Keeno and Conor at Sabre’s September Open Mat
Not long ago, I had the chance to spend time training at Hertz Grappling with black belts Enrique “Keeno” Jingco and Florence Jingco. Both are strong advocates of the ecological, games-based approach to BJJ. Over coffee and rounds on the mat, they made their case passionately, while also listening to my reasons for scepticism.
Around the same time, I had a long conversation with Conor Soper, a former student and training partner of mine, now a talented young brown belt. Conor has embraced the ecological model at his own club, Soperior Grappling, and is already building a highly successful youth team. I have a great photo of the three of us in deep discussion on the mats, which I’ll share here alongside this post.
These conversations got me thinking seriously about pedagogy in BJJ. I respect these coaches enormously, but my perspective is shaped by another world too: my background as a school teacher. From that experience, I’ve seen both the strengths and weaknesses of discovery-based learning. And I began to ask: how can we bring the best of both approaches into Jiu-Jitsu?
Educational research is clear: novices do not learn best when left entirely to explore. In classroom contexts, “discovery learning” has consistently underperformed compared with explicit, structured instruction. Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction emphasise modelling, guided practice, and scaffolding, showing that learners benefit most when experts provide clarity and remove ambiguity in the early stages (Rosenshine, 2012). In BJJ terms, when a student is first learning to hip escape, maintain posture in closed guard, or apply the mechanics of an armbar, precision matters. Without explicit instruction, errors and inefficiencies quickly become ingrained.
This is not to dismiss the ecological model. On the contrary, it speaks directly to another well-evidenced principle of learning: the importance of desirable difficulties. Students improve when they are stretched just beyond their comfort zone in conditions that approximate the realities of performance (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). Restriction-based training creates this environment. By narrowing the scope—e.g., “from closed guard you may only attempt sweeps, submissions are excluded”—we channel attention, introduce resistance, and generate the adaptability that pure drilling cannot deliver. It is not open-ended chaos, but structured challenge.
Sports coaching research also supports this approach. The “constraints-led framework” highlights how manipulating task, environment, or individual constraints can guide skill acquisition by encouraging athletes to explore functional solutions (Newell, 1986; Davids, Button, & Bennett, 2008). In BJJ, this might mean starting a guard passing drill with the top player restricted to using only one knee on the mat, or designing a guard retention drill where the bottom player must prevent a pass using only their legs—no grips. These targeted constraints replicate the unpredictability of sparring while sharpening specific skill sets.
What I find problematic is when either approach is treated as a panacea. To abandon explicit instruction risks leaving students with vague, inefficient technique. To neglect live, constraint-based practice risks creating students who can replicate movements but cannot adapt them under pressure. Both extremes are limited.
At Sabre, our teaching sequence reflects a blended model:
Direct Instruction – The instructor explains, demonstrates, and highlights key mechanics explicitly.
Controlled Application (Drilling) – Students rehearse in cooperative settings, embedding correct movement patterns.
Games-Based Application – Constraints and restrictions are introduced, creating conditions of live resistance within a defined technical focus.
This model aligns with both educational research and the practical demands of martial arts. Direct instruction ensures clarity and correct form. Drilling allows for rehearsal and fluency. Games-based training introduces the variability and adaptability that are essential in BJJ. Each stage prepares the ground for the next, and together they create a more robust pathway to skill acquisition than either approach alone.
In short, effective teaching in BJJ—just as in formal education and wider sports coaching—requires both clarity and challenge. At Sabre, I aim to preserve the strengths of traditional instruction while embracing the innovations of the ecological approach. The goal is not to take sides in a pedagogical debate, but to equip students with both the technical precision and adaptive problem-solving ability that define high-level Jiu-Jitsu.
I’m grateful to Enrique, Florence, and Conor for challenging me to think deeply about this. Our discussions reminded me that the best coaches are not wedded to a single method—they are constantly refining, adapting, and seeking the balance that best serves their students.
References
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.
Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making Things Hard on Yourself, But in a Good Way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control (pp. 341–360). Martinus Nijhoff.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: A Constraints-Led Approach. Human Kinetics.
