Specialty course/instructor quality?

[lowviz]

Ah. So all of our skills need to be honed to proficiency by instructors?

'Proficient' meaning that is the instructor accepted standard that I fall back to under stress.

 

[Jay]

Some courses are so relatively basic and 'bite-sized' that without an instructor going beyond the 'requirements' the course is almost just paying for experience under a watchful eye.

In such cases, I'm with the OP and also hope for more rather than less.

When I did Deep and Wreck, without asking for more, a lot more was more covered and gratefully appreciated, and that built loyalty for any future training.

 

[M-Cameron]

People seem to think going beyond the standards is somehow better than sticking with the standards.

There are two dimensions to standards. The course contents and the level of skill displayed by the trainee. I want courses that contain what they are designed to contain. I am happy if I learn little tips along the way, but really I am there to learn the particular skills that course is about. The quality of execution of a skill is genuinely variable. Better instructors will be able to improve on the level of achievement of their trainees, partly that is experience, partly teaching ability, partly fundamental understanding of what is being taught. However, it is not helpful to teach far beyond the requirements of the course, it means the students learning of the stuff on the course will be crowded out to some extent.
.

i agree that teaching additional stuff just to teach it, at the expense of making sure the material was understood should be avoided.

but theres not necessarily anything wrong with covering material beyond the scope of the "requirements".....hell, more information is never a bad thing.

it really depends on the class.

im a teacher, and some semesters i end up with small classes of really good students.........now my courses are designed to handle around 20 students....but if i end up with a class with only 6 kids in it, we are going to fly through the required material in just a few weeks......so i can either take the required material and stretch it out......or i can use that opportunity to cover additional material that will be beneficial to them.

think of teaching like a movie.......theres the Directors cut, and the Cinema cut.......the directors cut is the movie the director REALLY wanted to make, and is usually a bit longer....the Cinema cut is shorter and for time constraints, but covers all the required story points.

now one thing a lot of students dont realize is that learning is a 2 way street.....its my obligation to teach you material....but its also your obligation to ask questions, and get answers from me.....i try to formulate an idea of what you know while you're in my class, but if you arent understanding something, or if you genuinely have a topic you want to learn about, you need to ask......if its material you dont understand, ill spend time with you until you understand it.....and if its additional material you want to cover, so long as its reasonable, time allows and im qualified to teach it, im happy to cover it with you, even if its outside the scope of my course.

most of the time, when i have a student who claims they "didnt learn anything".....its because that student didnt make an effort to learn anything...just showing up to a class isnt "learning"...now if my entire class is claiming they didnt learn anything, then yeah, thats an instructor issue.

 

[Jits Ronin]

Hi Jits Ronin,

I read your thread backwards (last post first, to your OP last) and then thought to myself, what did Jits think he was paying for?

A tech level course? A comprehensive training course?

The recreational scuba training regimen is just what you described. It is a trail of bits and pieces that any mouse would find attractive enough to follow. But, but...you end-up with all those cool cert cards!!!

Comments on your listed points:

1. Limited skills practice: My instructors did limited skills practice for most of us because we were adequately competent.
2. A good diver can spot a good skillset in another diver in about 20 seconds.
3. If you are on your way to mastering basic skills and understand the philosophy behind it, then why waste time boring people to death.
4. That's what the recreational system is. You are supposed play the role of the mouse who follows the bread crumbs to that big blob of peanut butter on trap's trigger mechanism. Your reward is a Master Scuba Diver title with a fist full of cert cards to prove it.
5. You were being taught a few skills that you probably mentally mastered during the dry-runs on land. You probably understood the concept and were able to accomplish the goal reasonably well so the instructor said to himself/herself: "My work is done here, now I need to give them the elevator speech for the next set of certs to sell them."

If you want comprehensive training, sign-up for tech courses. I witnessed a diver being put on the short-bus during tech training. Dive well, or you are assigned remedial training.

I did enjoy PADI's Self-Reliant course. It was a bit challenging in the cold winter water of Monterey. And as the instructor mentioned with a chuckle, your face will scream when you rip off your mask for the mask replacement drills.

I am full circle here. OP, your perception of the training regimen for recreational divers is askew, IMHO.

cheers,
m

Thanks for your details response. Your first question really goes to the issue I was having, I wasn't sure whether my expectations were too high for a rec level specialty course or whether the instructor just wasn't interested in actually developing our skills. I thought there would be a lot more skills practice relevant to the particular course as well as general diving fundamentals corrections (if necessary, and I wouldn't dare suggest that I had no room for improvement).

I'll adopt your numbering in response:

1. I guess adequate proficiency can be acceptable, I prefer to aim for constant improvement and had gotten the impression from my AOW instructor that my instructors in the future should continue to make such suggestions for improvements as she did.
2. Accepted.
3. I wouldn't suggest I'm close to mastering anything in diving. There's still plenty of room for improvement. And I'm particularly interested in the technical details of why things are done a certain way or not.
4. Understood.
5. My point exactly, we did no dry runs on land. There was no explanation of the DSMB deployment, and the instructor did one demo of line laying on land without any of us practicing. Then straight in the water to give it one crack.

I accept your comment that my expectations for rec training are askew. Perhaps my expectations are more set at the tech level, though I'm certainly far off that level.

Some defence of the instructor.

Was buoyancy & trim part of the course or were you supposed to already be proficient?

If I’m teaching a skill, but the student isn’t up to scratch on their general diving skills, and I feel it appropriate to go back over them - I stop the planned lesson. The student will have to either:
* do extra dives, or
* arrange another session to do the course.

I teach in a club where competence is important. In the commercial world you get taught what you pay for.

Buoyancy and trim weren't part of the course specifically, but I'd been given the idea by my AOW instructor that any instructor should be keeping an eye out for their students basic dive skills and giving them corrections if necessary. For example, "you look a little overweighted, try dropping a weight on the next dive" or "you have a head-high trim, try shifting some weights to your trim pockets". I'm not saying my trim/buoyancy were so inadequate that they required remedial training, but I also wouldn't say they're perfect.

You also refer to "teaching a skill" but my course didn't feel as if there was much teaching, it felt more like the instructor was just leading us on fun dives and finishing off with us demoing a DSBM deployment or line laying. For instance, in the case of the latter, I've seen other agencies practicing line laying on land with chair legs etc to ensure the tie-offs are correct.

Regardless of agency, even the one that gets bashed on here regularly, your impressions of minimal effort on part of the instructor seem to be on point. Our local LDS offers both of those specialties through PADI and luckily we have passionate and knowledgeable instructors. Linework for wreck is worked on top side to be able to discuss nuances and corrections. It is then worked on for 5 wreck dives as well, with feedback and discussion topside after completion. My main question is that if you were dissatisfied with one course from these instructors, why would you do a second one with them?

As mentioned by another poster, they were offered together as a combo over a long weekend. See what you describe in terms of the training for line laying is more in line with where my expectations were. I was hoping for a few practice runs, corrections to ensure the technique was beyond just barely competent, and then a demonstration of competence in the water. The difference you seem to have brought up though is "passionate and knowledgeable instructors". That passion seemed to have been lacking in my case.

What agency? As it is outside of standards to deploy DSMBs in a deep course. Taking that out, your experience is very close to mine where I trained with a number of agencies (mostly PADI and SSI). Lots of tick boxes, nothing really learned. My one exception was taking PADI sidemount with an instructor who was a cave diver and a GUE background.

SSI. I don't relate this to the agency though, my AOW instructor was brilliant and she was SSI too. I believe underwater DSMB deployment is part of their deep course requirements. Either way, my LDS requires DSMBs for all divers on boat dives so it's important to know how to deploy one.

A lot of what I've read has gone back to the quality of GUE instruction. That may be something I have to look into to give me the quality and standards I'm looking for in my own diving.

 

[Graeme Fraser]

Quite a few skills, if taught on dry land first, are very beneficial, line laying (with gloves) is definitely one of them. Another obvious one is navigation.

 

[Edward3c]

...
A lot of what I've read has gone back to the quality of GUE instruction. That may be something I have to look into to give me the quality and standards I'm looking for in my own diving.

Find a BSAC club, there are a few in your part of the world.

DSMB deployment is part of core training for Sports Diver and Dive Leader. Basic line laying is also taught in Sports Diver.

 

[BlueTrin]

A lot of what I've read has gone back to the quality of GUE instruction. That may be something I have to look into to give me the quality and standards I'm looking for in my own diving.

I think you seem to be the kind of person who will enjoy GUE Fundies.

I really enjoyed it even though I still have to convert my provisional pas into a pass.

I did it in one go but I read you can cut the Fundies class into two chunks. If I had to redo it, I would do it in two chunks so I would have more time to consolidate my skills.

Also if you join a local diving club like @Edward3c said you will get regular dive buddies and organised trips.