Dispelling scubaboard myths (Part 1: It is the instructor not the agency)

[tbone1004]

There is a very valid reason that the statement started, and it has a lot to do with technical diving, specifically cave diving.

If you go to cave country. Up until several years ago when the NACD went basically belly up, it wasn't uncommon to find an instructor who could certify for IANTD, TDI, NACD, and NSS-CDS. The course was identical regardless of whos logo was on the card. You took "intro to cave" from x-instructor and it literally didn't matter who the card came from. The only difference was the test that you took.
If you go to say Cave Adventurers, Edd can certify you through PSAI, IANTD, TDI, and NSS-CDS. *if the NACD ever comes back he is also an instructor for them*. He teaches one cave diving class which is "Edd Sorensons cave class". The agencies have a very basic framework and the instructors make their own class to fit them. This doesn't mean the instructors don't adapt to the students, it just means that the framework for the courses is basically identical across the agencies so to teach for one vs. the other doesn't matter. The instructors are usually teaching well above the minimum standards at the technical level so the baselines are a joke.

This also holds true for OW technical diving which is basically just trimix.

The exceptions are agencies with much tighter control *NAUI, GUE, UTD* over their courses where the basic structure is very different *in cave diving their progression is completely different*, and they have tighter restrictions on how the course is taught etc. Why you don't usually see tech instructors that teach for those agencies at the technical level also teach for the other agencies.

Now, as mentioned by some above, this can also apply to the recreational side, but you don't see as many recreational instructors teaching for multiple agencies. Most technical instructors are freelance so having multiple agencies gives them a bit more marketing bandwidth. Most recreational instructors teach through a LDS and the LDS is associated with a particular agency so there is no advantage to teaching for multiple agencies.

I teach through NAUI now because the University is associated with NAUI as most are. I have no reason to crossover to another agency unless they change affiliations or I decide to teach outside of that environment. NAUI especially at the tech level is a tough one from a marketing standpoint as an instructor so if I went to someone like TDI, I would have a lot more marketing power as an instructor. For that I would have to change the way I teach because the basic course structures are different so you do have to know what agency you are teaching for at the start of the technical courses. If I taught TDI/IANTD/PSAI, then I would have one standard course and just let me know at the end who you want so I can give you their exam

 

[Sevenrider860]

Having come from an education background, the idea that students pick a school because of parents or a team is ridiculous..

That is not my experience at all. When working with young adults in high school, college sports teams and alumni relatives (Parents, Siblings) play a huge role in the decision of the number one choice for the majority of kids. The "backup" schools will usually be chosen based on acceptance rate, cost, and other decisions...

 

[rhwestfall]

Adding an observation to what @Bobby said (re: retention), I find it shocking there is a >2" stack of certification cards at my LDS that students never picked up..... is this partly due to the initial experience?

 

[boulderjohn]

People have already addressed the fact that choosing a famous, expensive college does not in any way assure a great teacher. I went to one of the most expensive private colleges in America, and one day in my calculus class one of the students stood up and addressed the professor, telling him in the clearest possible terms what a terrible teacher he was and how her parents were being robbed of a great deal of money through his incompetence. She sat down. He did not reply to the charge but instead when right back to being the worst teacher I have ever seen anywhere.

As a matter of fact, a simple irony is that it is very, very easy for a fully incompetent teacher to hide away in a highly competitive school (at any level K-16) because the highly qualified students who attend those schools are able to overcome that incompetence, whereas in a school that attracts less capable students, the incompetent teacher will be more noticeable. The supposedly elite school assumes that student failure is solely the fault of the student, whereas other schools get suspicious of high failure rates and wonder what is going on in that classroom.

That brings us to an analogy between the "elite" colleges and scuba instruction. As has been pointed out, these colleges hire people with impeccable academic credentials and don't pay a whole lot of attention to whether or not they know how to teach. When a friend of mine was hired to teach in a major university, he was embarrassed because he had only taken two education classes in his life. He was hired solely based upon his academic credentials. He was shocked to learn that his two education courses were two more than the rest of the department combined. There was an overall fallacious belirf that if you knew the academic material well, you could teach it.

From my scuba experience, I believe some scuba agencies have the same belief. They make sure their instructors have impeccable diving skills, and they assume that a diver with those skills will be able to teach them effectively. Tthat belief is as fallacious in scuba as it is the college education.

 

[boulderjohn]

But I want to talk about the analogy of high school education, where I spent my professional career.

To become a public school teacher, you have to take a number of college courses dedicated to teaching you that craft. Depending upon the school and the state requirements, you then have to go through internships and student teaching experiences. Then you have to meet state requirements, including state exams. That makes you eligible for hire by a school district. Then the school district hires the best of the lot of applicants and puts them through further training and usually a 3 year probationary program where they receive special attention to make sure they have the skills to teach the children of that district. Those teachers are then observed and evaluated on a regular basis. Many districts require that all teachers of all abilities be on a constant plan for improvement. Many schools have dedicated coaches whose only job is to identify teachers with problems and assist them in doing a better job.

Despite all of that, every school district in America has teachers in it who are simply horrible--just plain terrible. They have scads of teachers who are mediocre at best.

The teacher preparation, observation, and evaluation process costs many, many thousands of dollars for each individual teacher, and yet we have a frightening level of incompetence throughout the system. How can ANY scuba agency hope to achieve anything better with only a tiny fraction of that funding and an even smaller fraction of training time?

 

[Schwob]

But I want to talk about the analogy of high school education, where I spent my professional career.

To become a public school teacher, you have to take a number of college courses dedicated to teaching you that craft. Depending upon the school and the state requirements, you then have to go through internships and student teaching experiences. Then you have to meet state requirements, including state exams. That makes you eligible for hire by a school district. Then the school district hires the best of the lot of applicants and puts them through further training and usually a 3 year probationary program where they receive special attention to make sure they have the skills to teach the children of that district. Those teachers are then observed and evaluated on a regular basis. Many districts require that all teachers of all abilities be on a constant plan for improvement. Many schools have dedicated coaches whose only job is to identify teachers with problems and assist them in doing a better job.

Despite all of that, every school district in America has teachers in it who are simply horrible--just plain terrible. They have scads of teachers who are mediocre at best.

The teacher preparation, observation, and evaluation process costs many, many thousands of dollars for each individual teacher, and yet we have a frightening level of incompetence throughout the system. How can ANY scuba agency hope to achieve anything better with only a tiny fraction of that funding and an even smaller fraction of training time?

So many statements and observations that ring true to me, even so some are on the surface contradictory. Good thread @CAPTAIN SINBAD .
...
@boulderjohn :
Rings so true as well. Yet, considering how many DMs and instructors and inspiring instructors there seem to be, I wonder what would happen if a big diving school in a big market chose to:
- Pay a living wage, but train and filter instructors hard and keep only "the good ones".
- Advertise the living dickens out of that fact.
- Create and maintain that "rate my instructor" board...

Would they go out of business, because classes cost too much and the groupon shops successfully starve them out?
Would they thrive?
Would people go out of their way to schedule their next trip there?
(Sort of like going to Disney because of all associated with it despite the pricing instead of goung the local fair)
Would they be shunned by the rest of the dive industry because they spill the beans?
Would they put a big enough dent into the system to raise the quality of instruction system wide over time?

I doubt the positive outcomes would be an all to realistic expectation. But I wonder.

 

[tbone1004]

@boulderjohn hit the nail on the head for my opinion about anyone wanting to be a "real" scuba instructor taking at least educational psychology and science education classes at their local community college. No agency that I am aware of teaches their instructors how to actually teach, and frankly I don't think they care if they can or not.

 

[TMHeimer]

For a large majority of students in the U.S., this is not how it works. Many kids pick colleges based on the fact that their parents went there, or they have been life-long fans of the football team. Alternatively, lots of students pick the local state University based on reduced costs. I've steered lots of talented students into research fields and they didn't even know this was an option when they started college.

I think this speaks to the OP's point that, while it would be great for every potential student to interview instructors, many just wouldn't even know what questions to ask. I'm a big advocate for finding the right instructor for the individual. I can imagine how difficult it would be for the average person, who decides to take up diving, to figure out what a good instructor looks like for their OW course.

Yes. Plus visiting multiple shops is not an option here, nor is it apparently in areas far inland where distance to even one shop is far. As well, the OW course given at the time you want to take it will have an instructor assigned to that course (unless you seek an independent one if that's an option where you live).
I too agree with boulderjohn. What is the timeline for the instructor course-- a week or two? Perhaps very good training to learn the agencies procedures and some simulated classrooms, etc.--- but a week or two vs. years and a college degree (or 2)? And I've seen those horrible classroom teachers too.

 

[Saboteur]

IMHO there's two quintessential types of instructor:

1) Off-The-Shelf. Those that deliver a pre-set course that fulfills their agency requirements (which are all virtually identical anyway). They tick a list of skills, as the student 'masters them and (hopefully) comply with their agencies minimum training standards.

Their focus is on ensuring that student performance meets the requirements of the course standards applicable.

2) Bespoke. Those that train the diver to safely and competently conduct dives at the relevant certification level, where the course itself is merely a foundational vehicle for the training they actually provide. This capacity depends on having a clear understanding of the skillset, performance, competencies and mindset needed at, and/or beyond, that level of diving. They tailor training individually based on the students strengths, weaknesses and aspirations.

Their focus is on ensuring that student performance meets the demands of the dives they will undertake.

It's pretty easy to differentiate between the two, by asking a few simple questions, or even just looking at how the dive centre/instructor market and describe their courses.. and applying an iota of common sense.... even for a non-diver.

So what would be the questions to ask or what to look for? I have a son who wants to get certified. We have a choice of four dive shops.

 

[tbone1004]

@Saboteur honestly? for basic open water just get him certified by wherever is cheapest or wherever you go for air fills and then mentor him. At the recreational level, shopping for an instructor is usually a wasted effort in my opinion because the courses are so short that it isn't going to make that much of a difference