Martial Arts Educator
Definition and Scope
A martial arts educator is a professional who integrates martial arts technique with educational theory, ethical reflection, and cultural transmission. Rather than limiting instruction to skill acquisition or athletic performance, the educator’s purpose is to cultivate whole persons—developing discipline, moral reasoning, and social responsibility through the medium of embodied practice (Bowman, 2021; Jennings, 2019; Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
The educator differs from the martial arts instructor, who delivers technical content within an established system, and from the coach, who optimizes competitive performance outcomes. The educator designs the pedagogical environment itself—linking technical progression with learner motivation, ethical frameworks, and long-term well-being (Jennings, 2019). This role encompasses curriculum design, assessment philosophy, community stewardship, and the critical reflection that transforms teaching into educational praxis (Jennings, 2019; Capener, 1995).
As a human role rather than an institutional entity, the martial arts educator operates within—but remains conceptually distinct from—the martial arts school, the training facility (dojo, dojang, wǔguǎn), the curriculum taught, and the progression system administered (Green, 2001; Cynarski, 2019).
Martial arts education links technical expertise to moral and cultural stewardship. The educator acts as a bridge between embodied practice and civic learning, transforming combat disciplines into moral and social education (Hou & Kenderdine, 2024; Jennings, 2019).
Position in an Ontology of Practice
In ontology, the martial arts educator is modeled as a person-level role or occupation, not an organization or abstract concept. This distinction enables semantic clarity for research and machine reasoning while aligning with frameworks such as MAon (Hou & Kenderdine, 2024) and Schema.org’s Person and Role classes (Guha et al., 2016).
The Educator in Relation to Key Entities
| Concept | What It Is | Relationship to Educator |
|---|---|---|
| Martial arts school | Educational organization with governance and assessment authority. | Employs or authorizes the educator. |
| Training facility (dojo, dojang, wǔguǎn) | Physical venue or practice space. | Site where the educator conducts instruction and supervision. |
| Curriculum | Structured body of knowledge—techniques, forms, ethics, and theoretical components. | Designed, adapted, and delivered by the educator. |
| Program | Organized training pathway (age groups, skill levels, or specialized tracks). | Developed and differentiated by the educator to match learner needs. |
| Progression | The educational process by which learners advance through stages of development. It defines how advancement occurs through evaluation, feedback, and readiness—not the titles awarded. | Administered and interpreted by the educator to ensure fair and holistic advancement. |
| Rank | The formal recognition or title (e.g., belt, grade, or dan rank) granted as the result of successful progression. | Conferred or recommended by the educator as acknowledgment of achieved competence. |
| Pedagogy | The academic and ethical study of teaching, learning, and educational design. | Provides the theoretical foundation for the educator’s reflective practice. |
Separating the educator as agent from institutions, facilities, and content systems prevents category collapse and supports accurate modeling of who teaches, what is taught, and how learning is recognized (Green, 2001; Cynarski, 2019; Hou & Kenderdine, 2024).
Historical and Philosophical Lineage
The concept of the martial arts educator—as distinct from the martial technician—emerges from reformist movements that reframed combat training as moral and civic education (Green, 2001; Bowman, 2021).
Kanō Jigorō (1860–1938) unified martial technique and moral cultivation within Japan’s modern school system, reframing bujutsu (martial technique) as budō (“the way”). Kanō’s model of judo as education positioned the dojo as a laboratory for character development, not merely a training ground for physical skill (Green, 2001).
Funakoshi Gichin (1868–1957) emphasized kokoro o tsukuru (the making of the heart/mind) through karate’s kata pedagogy and classroom etiquette. Funakoshi insisted that the ultimate aim of karate was not victory but the perfection of character (Bowman, 2021).
Choi Hong Hi (1918–2002) formalized Taekwondo curricula within South Korea’s national education frameworks, combining discipline, respect, and civic identity into an integrated model. Choi’s five tenets—courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self-control, and indomitable spirit—functioned as an explicit moral curriculum (Capener, 1995).
Modern martial arts studies scholars extend these legacies by situating the educator within critical pedagogy, phenomenology, and sociology of embodied practice. Researchers investigate how martial arts function as ecologies of learning, care, and power—exploring both beneficial and harmful pedagogical patterns (Bowman, 2021; Jennings, 2019; Pedrini & Jennings, 2021; Cynarski, 2016). This body of work rejects cultural essentialism and “mystical East” romanticism, instead treating martial arts education as a dynamic site of ethical negotiation and intercultural translation (Bowman, 2021).
Core Domains of Professional Practice
The martial arts educator’s role encompasses five interrelated domains of expertise and responsibility. Each domain represents a facet of professional competence that links pedagogy, ethics, health, assessment, and community.
1. Pedagogical Design
Educators construct lesson progressions that integrate technical, tactical, and moral outcomes. Instruction is differentiated by age, ability, and learning style; content is sequenced to promote mastery without overwhelming learners. Reflection, dialogue, and assessment are embedded within the training cycle (Jennings, 2019).
Unlike rote teaching, pedagogical design requires continual inquiry: What is the purpose of this drill? How does it shape the learner as a whole person? What unintended lessons might it convey?
2. Ethics and Cultural Transmission
Martial arts convey ethical systems through etiquette, ritual, and lineage stories that must be translated for pluralistic, contemporary settings. The educator balances preservation of tradition with adaptation to modern contexts, ensuring that respect, humility, and reciprocity remain intelligible across generations and geographies (Bowman, 2021; Cynarski & Lee-Barron, 2014).
This domain includes critical examination of hierarchy, consent, and power relations, especially where inherited norms—such as unquestioned obedience or gendered expectations—conflict with present-day ethical standards.
3. Health and Safety
Responsible pedagogy depends on evidence-based warm-ups, contact protocols, and trauma-aware instruction. Educators must understand biomechanics, injury prevention, and the psychology of fear, pain, and trust. They also identify when competitive pressure, overtraining, or authoritarian discipline crosses into harmful territory (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
4. Assessment and Progression
Readiness for advancement is evaluated through observation, dialogue, and contextualized judgment rather than mechanical testing alone. Ethical assessment recognizes the learner’s holistic development and guards against exploitative fee structures. Progression serves as a motivational and recognition system, not a commodified product (Cynarski, 2016).
5. Community Building
Martial arts schools operate as communities of practice sustained by mentorship and intergenerational exchange. Educators foster inclusive environments, mediate conflict, and model the social values inherent in martial traditions. Their stewardship extends beyond instruction to the long-term health and cohesion of the training community (Hou & Kenderdine, 2024).
Professional Standards and Ethics
Ethical martial arts education centers on informed consent, transparency, and respect. Research on unhealthy practices warns against coercive hierarchy, forced contact, and exploitative financial models that compromise student welfare (Jennings, 2019). The martial arts educator assumes responsibility for establishing clear boundaries, equitable treatment, and emotionally safe environments. This includes adapting instruction to developmental readiness, ensuring that participation is voluntary and understood, and maintaining transparency in both pedagogy and pricing.
Educators uphold trauma-aware instruction, equal opportunity, and clarity about physical and psychological risk (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021). They model ethical conduct through humility, honesty, and openness to critique—treating teaching as a moral relationship rather than a transaction. Ethical standards function as a form of “dojo governance,” setting expectations for integrity that sustain trust between instructor, student, and community.
Key standards include:
Consent and communication: Learners are informed about the purpose, method, and potential risks of drills. The educator invites questions, explains boundaries, and promotes an atmosphere where students can decline participation without penalty (Jennings, 2019).
Age-appropriate methods: Class structure, contact intensity, and psychological demands correspond to the developmental stage of each learner. Safety takes precedence over spectacle, and technical challenge is introduced gradually (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Financial integrity: Tuition, testing fees, and program costs are clearly disclosed and educationally justified. Promotions are based on readiness and demonstrated growth, not on ability to pay (Cynarski, 2016).
Reflective authority: The educator’s authority is accountable, not absolute. Ongoing self-evaluation, peer dialogue, and willingness to adjust practice maintain ethical credibility (Jennings, 2019).
Ethical competence—not organizational rank or technical status—remains the foundation of educational legitimacy. The true measure of mastery lies in an educator’s ability to combine technical skill with moral clarity, ensuring that power within the training environment is exercised responsibly and for the learner’s benefit (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Assessment Models
Martial arts educators balance multiple assessment approaches to support authentic and ethically grounded learning (Cynarski, 2016; Jennings, 2019). Assessment in this context is not limited to testing physical skill; it encompasses observation of attitude, effort, cooperation, and moral growth. The educator’s role is to evaluate readiness in ways that honor both the learner’s individuality and the collective standards of the school community.
Criterion-referenced. Advancement is based on meeting clearly defined technical and behavioral standards established within the curriculum. This approach promotes transparency and fairness—students know what is expected and can measure their progress against explicit criteria rather than subjective preference. Properly designed, it reduces bias and ensures that progression reflects genuine competence rather than favoritism or payment.
Ipsative. Learning is measured against the student’s own prior performance and effort, recognizing improvement and persistence even when absolute standards are not yet met. This individualized approach supports diverse learners by valuing personal growth, resilience, and intrinsic motivation. It reinforces the educational, rather than competitive, ethos of martial arts pedagogy.
Portfolio-based. Students document their development through journals, reflective writing, video evidence, or project work. Portfolios allow educators to assess the learning process as well as the outcome, revealing how students integrate ethical understanding, self-discipline, and community participation into their training. They also encourage self-awareness and responsibility for one’s own learning trajectory.
Observation and dialogue. Continuous, informal assessment replaces reliance on one-off examinations. Educators use ongoing observation, conversation, and feedback to gauge readiness for advancement. This method situates evaluation within the relationship between teacher and student, emphasizing mentorship, trust, and formative growth over mechanical testing.
In all cases, progression should validate learning but never commodify it. Ethical assessment prioritizes holistic development—technical, moral, and social—and guards against exploitative fee structures or inflated promotion schedules. Properly practiced, evaluation connects mastery of skill with ethical maturity and community contribution, ensuring that the recognition of rank remains a reflection of educational integrity (Cynarski, 2016; Jennings, 2019).
The Educator’s Knowledge System
Martial arts educators operate through multiple epistemic modes that together constitute a comprehensive system of professional knowledge (Hou & Kenderdine, 2024). Each mode reinforces the others, combining bodily expertise, relational sensitivity, formal structure, and reflective inquiry into a single pedagogical practice.
Embodied knowledge. This mode is expressed through movement, rhythm, timing, and tactile feedback. The educator understands technique not only as a sequence of motions but as a lived, kinesthetic intelligence developed through repetition and bodily awareness. Teaching involves demonstration, correction through physical cueing, and sensitivity to spatial and energetic dynamics within the class (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Tacit and relational knowledge. Acquired through mentorship and social interaction, this implicit understanding forms the “hidden curriculum” of martial pedagogy. It includes the tone of correction, management of authority, and timing of feedback that communicate respect and care without explicit articulation. Trust and interpersonal attunement enable the transfer of values and habits that written curricula cannot convey (Green, 2001).
Explicit curricular knowledge. This encompasses the formalized and codified elements of teaching—syllabi, rank criteria, lesson plans, safety protocols, and institutional policies. It provides the replicable framework through which instruction can be evaluated, shared, and adapted across schools or systems. The educator must balance fidelity to the written curriculum with responsiveness to learners’ individual needs (Cynarski, 2019).
Reflective and metacognitive knowledge. This mode involves continual self-analysis of teaching practice. Educators question their assumptions, evaluate student outcomes, and adjust pedagogical strategies in light of new research or feedback. Reflection transforms experience into professional growth, ensuring that authority is exercised with awareness and humility (Jennings, 2019).
Together, these interlocking forms of knowledge explain why effective martial arts education cannot be fully automated or standardized: its success depends on embodied sensitivity, relational trust, ethical judgment, and contextual awareness (Hou & Kenderdine, 2024).
Pedagogical Frameworks
Scholarship identifies several complementary approaches that frame the educator’s work and together define martial arts pedagogy as a plural field of practice.
Apprenticeship and craft transmission. Learning occurs through imitation, correction, and guided repetition under expert mentorship. This approach emphasizes lineage continuity and lived transmission, where knowledge passes through bodies rather than texts (Green, 2001).
Critical pedagogy. Examines hierarchy, consent, and power within training. It encourages learners to question authority and participate in shared inquiry, fostering agency, equity, and ethical reflection. The authoritarian “master–disciple” model is replaced with dialogic exchange (Jennings, 2019).
Embodied cognition and phenomenology. Views movement as both cognitive and affective process. Learning integrates biomechanics, awareness, and emotional regulation, merging technique with mindfulness and somatic intelligence (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Transformative learning. Treats martial practice as a catalyst for identity reconstruction and self-development. Through structured challenge, support, and reflection, the educator guides learners in reassessing their capacities and values (Bowman, 2021).
Community health pedagogy. Positions martial arts as a lifelong practice of wellness and social care. The educator adopts a “care of the self” orientation, integrating physical, psychological, and relational health to sustain community well-being (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Cross-Disciplinary Parallels
The martial arts educator’s professional scope overlaps with several adjacent educational and embodied-learning fields. These parallels clarify martial arts education as an applied human science rather than a purely athletic pursuit (Bowman, 2021; Green, 2001; Mahoney & Hitti, 2017).
Physical education and sport pedagogy. Both emphasize lifelong motor competence, health literacy, and psychosocial development. Yet martial arts education differs in its explicit moral and philosophical framing—linking physical discipline to ethical reflection and cultural stewardship (Cynarski & Lee-Barron, 2014). Where physical education often centers measurable performance outcomes, martial arts education integrates moral cultivation and relational awareness into every technical act.
Performing arts education. Martial arts share with dance and theater a reliance on embodied expression, rhythm, and aesthetic form. Educators in both fields use repetition, timing, and spatial awareness to teach not only movement but presence, emotion, and interpersonal sensitivity. The dojo or dojang thus parallels the rehearsal studio—each a site where bodily discipline becomes artistic and moral formation (Bowman, 2021).
Therapeutic and somatic practices. Martial arts pedagogy increasingly intersects with trauma-informed movement education and somatic therapies. Both domains view the body as a locus of perception, regulation, and healing. Educators apply biomechanical safety, consent protocols, and mindful breathing similar to those in yoga or dance/movement therapy, supporting psychological resilience alongside technical skill (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Outdoor and experiential education. Like wilderness or adventure programs, martial arts training fosters risk awareness, self-reliance, and ethical responsibility within structured challenge. Both emphasize reflection, community trust, and environmental or situational attunement as vehicles for growth (Green, 2001).
Out-of-school learning research. The dojo functions as a prototypical out-of-school learning environment—voluntary, mentor-driven, and community-embedded (Mahoney & Hitti, 2017). These settings cultivate motivation, belonging, and intergenerational learning outside formal schooling. The martial arts educator operates as both coach and moral guide, bridging leisure education and civic formation.
Together, these intersections demonstrate that martial arts education occupies the same intellectual territory as health, arts, and community education. It synthesizes physical literacy, moral philosophy, and social care into a single pedagogical practice, reinforcing its status as a legitimate educational profession grounded in human development rather than spectacle or sport.
The Light and Dark Sides of Pedagogy
Healthy environments promote confidence, focus, and self-regulation through structured practice (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021). Communities of mutual respect develop where learners mentor one another (Hou & Kenderdine, 2024). Ethical frameworks cultivate empathy, humility, and responsibility (Jennings, 2019).
Beneficial Patterns (“Light Side”)
Research identifies both generative and harmful patterns in martial arts teaching. Ethical educators recognize this duality and commit to transparency and professional reflection (Jennings, 2019; Pedrini & Jennings, 2021).
Harmful Patterns (“Dark Side”)
Problematic environments reproduce authoritarian control and normalize pain or overtraining as “character building” (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021). Exploitative testing fees or rigid hierarchies can distort learning purposes (Cynarski, 2016). Orientalist fantasies may essentialize Asian cultures rather than engage them critically (Bowman, 2021).
Educators bear ethical responsibility for recognizing and countering these patterns. Authority derives from ethical competence, not rank alone (Jennings, 2019).
Clarifications and Common Misunderstandings
Misinterpretations of the educator’s role often arise from conflating teaching functions, institutional structures, and recognition systems. The distinctions below clarify how the martial arts educator operates within, but remains conceptually distinct from, related roles and entities.
Educator ≠ Instructor. The educator designs and evaluates pedagogy, creating the framework that shapes how instruction occurs. The instructor executes that framework in daily delivery. While one person may fulfill both roles, only the educator engages in curriculum design, ethical reflection, and community stewardship (Jennings, 2019).
Pedagogy ≠ Style. Pedagogy refers to educational method and philosophy—the reasoning behind how and why techniques are taught. It is independent of stylistic lineage (e.g., Shotokan, Taekwondo). The educator’s responsibility is to apply pedagogical principles across styles, translating technique into learning outcomes (Cynarski & Lee-Barron, 2014).
School ≠ Facility. The educator works within a school as an institutional body with governance and assessment systems, but teaches inside a facility—the physical space of practice. Understanding this distinction helps clarify that educators participate in educational organization, not merely spatial instruction (Green, 2001; Cynarski, 2019).
Curriculum ≠ Progression. The educator designs curriculum—what is taught—and oversees progression—how learning is recognized and sequenced. Treating these as separate allows for flexible learning paths and prevents the reduction of education to mere advancement mechanics (Cynarski, 2016).
Rank ≠ Teaching Ability. Rank indicates technical mastery or seniority within a style; it does not guarantee pedagogical competence. The educator’s legitimacy derives from reflective practice, ethical awareness, and instructional skill, not belt color or hierarchical title (Green, 2001; Cynarski, 2019).
These clarifications position the martial arts educator as an architect of learning systems—responsible for connecting tradition, ethics, and method into coherent educational design rather than simply transmitting technique.
Ontology Summary
| Property | Value | Schema.org Alignment |
|---|---|---|
| Class | Person → Role / Occupation | Role; Occupation |
| Subclass of | Educator (Q4773904) | Person |
| Related concept | Martial arts teacher (Q10833319) | Person |
| Field of work | Martial arts education (Q135911827) | CreativeWork |
| Works at | Martial arts school (Q135495953) | EducationalOrganization |
| Teaches within | Training facility (Q135904564) | Place |
| Designs / delivers | Martial arts curriculum (Q135925870) | Course |
| Administers | Martial arts progression (Q135926112) | EducationalOccupationalProgram |
| Confers / recognizes | Martial arts rank (Q135970615) | Qualification |
| Distinct from | Martial arts instructor (narrow execution role) | |
| Distinct from | Martial arts coach (performance role) | |
| Modeled in | Martial Art Ontology (Q135909151); Martial Arts Definitions Project (Q136290562) | CreativeWork |
This table situates the martial arts educator as a person-level occupational role linking human expertise to institutional, curricular, and evaluative structures. It maps the educator’s relationships across core martial arts entities—school, facility, curriculum, progression, and rank—while aligning each with corresponding Schema.org types for digital interoperability. The table also cross-references global Wikidata identifiers and ontology projects (Martial Art Ontology, MAD Project) to maintain consistency between human-readable scholarship and machine-readable data models.
Broader Significance
By articulating martial arts teaching as education rather than mere instruction, scholars reposition dojos, dojangs, and training halls within the global history of schooling and out-of-school learning (Mahoney & Hitti, 2017; Green, 2001). The martial arts educator embodies a synthesis of tradition and modernity—body and mind, culture and ethics—a model for lifelong learning and civic formation (Bowman, 2021; Jennings, 2019).
In an era of digitization and standardization, the educator reminds us that learning is relational, contextual, and ethical (Pedrini & Jennings, 2021). Martial arts education at its best cultivates not only skill but character and compassion (Jennings, 2019; Bowman, 2021).
See Also and Ontological Alignment
Martial Arts Educator — the person-level educational role integrating technique, pedagogy, ethics, and cultural transmission. (Q136677200; Schema: Person, Role, Occupation)
Martial Arts Education — the broader academic and practical field that studies martial arts teaching, learning, and moral development. (Q135911827; Schema: CreativeWork)
Martial Arts School — the institutional organization responsible for governance, assessment, and educational continuity. (Q135495953; Schema: EducationalOrganization)
Martial Arts Training Facility — the physical venue where martial arts instruction occurs, often referred to as a dojo, dojang, or wǔguǎn. It serves as the spatial environment in which educators apply curriculum and pedagogy. (Q135904564; Schema: Place, SportsActivityLocation)
Martial Arts Program — a structured sequence of instruction organized by age, level, or specialization within a martial arts school. Programs operationalize the curriculum through scheduled participation, pedagogy, and assessment. (Q135914494; Schema: EducationalOccupationalProgram)
Martial Arts Curriculum — the structured sequence of techniques, forms, ethics, and theoretical knowledge taught within a school. (Q135925870; Schema: Course)
Martial Arts Progression — the educational process through which learners advance by readiness and evaluation, distinct from the titles awarded. (Q135926112; Schema: EducationalOccupationalProgram)
Martial Arts Rank — the formal recognition (belt, grade, or title) conferred as the outcome of progression. (Q135970615; Schema: EducationalOccupationalCredential)
Ontologically Defined Instance School — a real-world example of a martial arts school modeled as an instance within the MAD ontology corpus. It is represented using both EducationalOrganization and LocalBusiness schema types to reflect its dual educational and commercial identity. (Q135523211)
Authorship Note
This page is part of the Martial Arts Definitions Project (MAD Project), an independent digital reference on martial arts education and ontology. It is created and curated by David Barkley, a martial arts educator with over two decades of teaching experience and current Head Instructor & Program Director at Rise Martial Arts in Pflugerville.
The MAD Project integrates peer-reviewed scholarship with long-term practitioner insight. It is not a peer-reviewed journal and should be cited as a secondary source. For more on Barkley’s practitioner–educator background, see his MAD About page and Rise About page.
References
Bowman, P. (2021). The Invention of Martial Arts: Popular Culture between Asia and America. Oxford University Press.
Capener, S. (1995). Problems in the identity and philosophy of Taekwondo and the Pan Korean nationalist discourse. Korea Journal, 35(4), 80–94.
Cynarski, W. J. (2016). Martial Arts and Combat Sports: Toward the General Theory of Fighting Arts. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra.
Cynarski, W. J. (2019). Humanistic theory and methodology of martial arts. In Martial Arts & Combat Sports (pp. 19–45). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra.
Cynarski, W. J., & Lee-Barron, J. (2014). Philosophies of martial arts and their pedagogical consequences. Ido Movement for Culture, 14(1), 11–19.
Green, T. A. (Ed.). (2001). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO.
Hou, Y., & Kenderdine, S. (2024). Ontology-based knowledge representation for traditional martial arts. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 39(2), 575–592.
Jennings, G. (2019). The “light” and “dark” side of martial arts pedagogy: Towards a study of (un)healthy practices. In Crosby & Edwards (Eds.), Exploring Research in Sports Coaching and Pedagogy (pp. 137–144). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pedrini, L., & Jennings, G. (2021). Cultivating health in martial arts and combat sports pedagogies: A framework on the care of the self. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 601058. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.601058
Frequently Asked Questions — Martial Arts Educator
What distinguishes an educator from an instructor?
An educator designs and reflects on pedagogy, integrating curriculum, ethics, and learner development into a coherent educational system. An instructor focuses on technique delivery within that system.Can one person be both?
Yes. Many teachers occupy both roles simultaneously. However, not all instructors engage in the reflective, design, and ethical dimensions that define the educator role.Does rank guarantee educational expertise?
No. Rank measures technical proficiency, not pedagogical ability. Educator competence involves curriculum design, inclusion, and reflective practice.Do martial arts educators need formal teacher training?
Formal education training enhances effectiveness, but many educators arise from apprenticeship traditions later informed by modern pedagogy and learning sciences.Is martial arts education a recognized academic field?
Yes. Martial Arts Studies is an established interdisciplinary field linking education, anthropology, philosophy, and sport science through dedicated journals and conferences.
Version and Citation Policy
Current version: 1.0.0
Date published: 2025-10-31
Maintainer: David Barkley — creator and curator of the MAD Project
Project: Martial Arts Definitions (MAD)
Canonical URI: https://martialartsdefinitions.com/ontology/martial-arts-educator
Last validated: October 2025 (schema and citation audit complete)
Citation policy:
This page may be cited as a secondary academic reference. When referenced in print or digital research, cite the page title, version number, author, and canonical URI. Example:
Barkley, D. (2025). Martial Arts Educator (Version 1.0.0). Martial Arts Definitions Project. https://martialartsdefinitions.com/ontology/martial-arts-educator
Reuse policy:
Text and structured data are released under a CC BY 4.0 license, permitting reuse with attribution to the Martial Arts Definitions Project.