Build the Perfect Certification Agency

[scubadada]

The most significant thing any agency could do to improve their curriculum is to create higher standards for becoming an instructor. As it is, you can become an instructor while barely knowing anything about real-world diving. Instructors who go through the mills are capable of reciting the course material quite well, and of training people how to perform "skills" while kneeling ... but they rarely know enough about the fundamentals to teach them properly. And if a student happens to ask a question that's not in the book the usual response is akin to a deer in the headlights ... either that or some total BS that the instructor heard from one of their instructors.

There's nothing wrong with the agencies as they exist today ... if the classes were taught as the agencies initially envisioned them the training would be more than adequate. This is evidenced by the fact that ALL agencies have both good and bad instructors and turn out both good and bad divers. So that tells me that it's the instructor who really makes the difference ... not the agency. Raise the bar on what it takes to reach first the DM, then the instructor level, and there would be far fewer complaints about the inadequacies of dive instruction.

But instructor training is a cash cow, and there's a high motivation to capture the initial enthusiasm of divers and convince them to "turn pro" ... often within a few months of having taken their OW class, and with a bare minimum of dives that's almost adequate to get them comfortable in the water.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Funny, I was just about to address this point. However, I don't think that "perfect" is a silly concept... it's just a different concept. The concept that is silly, however, is the assumption that there is only one version of perfect. The most perfect apple in the world is just plain weird... as a potato.

---------- Post added January 6th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ----------



From a business model-standpoint this is a foundational issue for the industry. In the current model, the breakdown of the delivery of "as intended" training occurs because the agency's customer is the person/place that DELIVERS the training... rather than the person who ultimately RECEIVES the training.

And from an agency business-model standpoint this is not just a problem of low-quality training. I had my eyes opened to this after meeting with senior PADI folks at DEMA and getting to seeing the fully integrated "as intended" version of the PADI story. All of my training - from rec specialties to DM, various Tec certs, through my IDC - was very high-quality by some PADI instructors who are known to be among the best in the industry. What I guess I never fully realized, however, is that I only ever got ONE shop/instructors version of the PADI story. The story I got was not deficient in any way... it was just slightly different.

"It's not the agency, it's the instructor's version of the agency."

That's the problem.

I had a very good basic scuba course in 1970 from the LA County Underwater Unit. I wish I could remember the details but they have faded in the intervening 45 years. Unfortunately, LACUU no longer teaches the basic course but does offer more advanced training. If I lived in So Cal and had the time, the advanced diver course would have been or would be high on my list for participation. In the basic course, I believe we had about 30 hours or classroom instruction over many weekends. We had quite of bit of pool time each weekend and we had at least 5 if not 6 ocean dives, all but 2 off Catalina were shore dives off LA County. After finishing the course, I felt perfectly able to conduct independent dives, and did so from shore in LA, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Of course there were no safe seconds, no routine use of SPGs in lieu of a J valve, irregular use of depth gauges, no nitrox, no computers... This very good training system probably gives hints of a better program today.

I was recertified with my son when he turned 12 in a PADI OW course on Grand Cayman run by Indies Divers (long gone). This was a perfectly good basic course, run to spec, by 2 very good instructors. It was a piece of cake for me, a good introduction to diving for my son. We both did PADI AOW and Rescue with Cayman Diving School (still there) on Grand Cayman and both courses were well worth the time and effort. The modern courses were different than my original course but were of high quality. Of course, I've been diving almost exclusively nitrox, with a dive computer, since 2001. I, relatively recently did the SDI Solo course, this was mostly to make sure I would be able to dive solo when I wanted. It was a very good course that went beyond requirements done at Jupiter Dive Center in SE FL.

Personally, my 3 phases of training turned out to be perfectly complimentary and helped make me a competent diver today. I was fortunate to have good instructors all along the way.

What's the perfect training agency, I don't have the answer, but am grateful for the path I took.

Good diving, Craig

 

[Bob DBF]

The most significant thing any agency could do to improve their curriculum is to create higher standards for becoming an instructor. As it is, you can become an instructor while barely knowing anything about real-world diving. Instructors who go through the mills are capable of reciting the course material quite well, and of training people how to perform "skills" while kneeling ... but they rarely know enough about the fundamentals to teach them properly. And if a student happens to ask a question that's not in the book the usual response is akin to a deer in the headlights ... either that or some total BS that the instructor heard from one of their instructors.

I would add the agency should hold all instructors to the higher standard and defrock, or whatever they call it, anyone who can't or won't uphold the higher standards. May be an anti BS clause so they can have their card canceled for spreading too much horses**t. If they were better trained, it wouldn't happen as much, or as bad. I would say there are too many DM's and Instructors just because so few can make a living at it. I think NAUI's approach to Master Scuba Diver, knowledge and skills of a DM but not the cert, could be expanded to the instructor level for those who want the challenge. As Jim outlined earlier, no professional cert until you have an accepted job offer.

There's nothing wrong with the agencies as they exist today ... if the classes were taught as the agencies initially envisioned them the training would be more than adequate. This is evidenced by the fact that ALL agencies have both good and bad instructors and turn out both good and bad divers. So that tells me that it's the instructor who really makes the difference ... not the agency. Raise the bar on what it takes to reach first the DM, then the instructor level, and there would be far fewer complaints about the inadequacies of dive instruction.

I would say the the biggest thing wrong with the agencies is the lack of quality control and follow up on "dive professionals" after they are certified. It would harder to stay a bad instructor if there was over-site, and retesting at their cert level on a regular basis and/or spot checks. In this vein I like Eric's idea of a diver having to show his OW knowledge and skills off to a "testing" instructor before final certification.

But instructor training is a cash cow, and there's a high motivation to capture the initial enthusiasm of divers and convince them to "turn pro" ... often within a few months of having taken their OW class, and with a bare minimum of dives that's almost adequate to get them comfortable in the water.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

It's not so recent now, but when I decided to take AOW and Deep for some upcoming trips, I was amazed at how fast the up sell was to get me into the DM/instructor/dive professional program. Some of the sell was more subtle than others, but it went on for some time. It finally ended one day in the middle of a group of students when he asked why I didn't want to take the DM class and I responded "I like diving". He never asked me again, we are still friends, and every summer I get out to some of his training dives and help where I can, a lot of times buddying with an odd student in AOW or a specialty class, and showing off and diving my vintage gear for a history lesson.


I believe it could easily change for the better if the agencies wanted that to happen, however it is not easy to change the mind of a bureaucracy making money.


As an aside, I used an inflation calculator to see that my OW cost around $1,000 in today's money. I already had all my gear, as I had been diving for years, and the boat dives were included on the shop's Zodiac. Granted it took longer than todays classes, but no one got a card unless they were ready and able to dive the NorCal coast with their buddy, without adult supervision.


Bob
-------------------------------

That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

 

[drrich2]

I would like to see mentoring courses offered in specific subjects that didn't generate a cert. but let a student pay for a given amount of time working on a given skill/ability. The current Peak Performance Buoyancy course shows the market for such focused training.

I say this because a course resulting in a cert. is going to have a range of requirements. Some people will have a deficient aptitude in a given subject that makes that a road block to taking a course. Either they don't figure they can learn it, or can't do it in a reasonable time frame (in other words, would need extended private instruction). Navigation for some of us is just that sort of thing.

But how about if a system where for, oh, say $300, I could hire a mentoring instructor to work with me on trim & buoyancy at a quarry or the ocean in my various configurations (e.g.: AL 80 & Steel 130, with wetsuit & without)? Or, in the model of some of these side-mount courses, work with me to learn use of BP/W and let me try out some products & configurations, try doubles without tech. training, etc…?

There's a tendency to lump more knowledge & skill requirements into a course in order to turn out a superior product (more capable diver), which is laudable. But that only works on the ones who take & pass the course. It's great to offer such things.

But mentoring, particularly private mentoring, would let instructors offer individually tailored training without a micromanaging agency curriculum to help divers achieve their personal goals. No pressure to 'pass' to get a certification, test to fail, no shame in taking it again to further bone up on your ability.

Speaking of which, a number of ideas on the ideal agency center around seasoned divers imposing their vision of what divers ought to be on students. Most any training/certification program involves that! But that's not the same thing as helping the prospective customer accomplish what he/she wants to.

This could help people with self-percieved deficiencies (e.g.: navigation, buoyancy while multi-tasking) bone on up weak areas before taking a formal certification course that would require that skill.

Richard.

P.S.: Some current distinctive specialties sound like instructor-produced versions of this. But this approach would, in a sense, let the customer design his own distinctive specialty, in conjunction with his mentor/instructor, no cert. at issue. Wouldn't this open up a revenue stream for instructors & LDS's?

 

[boulderjohn]

I would like to see mentoring courses offered in specific subjects that didn't generate a cert. but let a student pay for a given amount of time working on a given skill/ability. The current Peak Performance Buoyancy course shows the market for such focused training.

I say this because a course resulting in a cert. is going to have a range of requirements. Some people will have a deficient aptitude in a given subject that makes that a road block to taking a course. Either they don't figure they can learn it, or can't do it in a reasonable time frame (in other words, would need extended private instruction). Navigation for some of us is just that sort of thing.

But how about if a system where for, oh, say $300, I could hire a mentoring instructor to work with me on trim & buoyancy at a quarry or the ocean in my various configurations (e.g.: AL 80 & Steel 130, with wetsuit & without)? Or, in the model of some of these side-mount courses, work with me to learn use of BP/W and let me try out some products & configurations, try doubles without tech. training, etc…?

There's a tendency to lump more knowledge & skill requirements into a course in order to turn out a superior product (more capable diver), which is laudable. But that only works on the ones who take & pass the course. It's great to offer such things.

But mentoring, particularly private mentoring, would let instructors offer individually tailored training without a micromanaging agency curriculum to help divers achieve their personal goals. No pressure to 'pass' to get a certification, test to fail, no shame in taking it again to further bone up on your ability.

Speaking of which, a number of ideas on the ideal agency center around seasoned divers imposing their vision of what divers ought to be on students. Most any training/certification program involves that! But that's not the same thing as helping the prospective customer accomplish what he/she wants to.

This could help people with self-percieved deficiencies (e.g.: navigation, buoyancy while multi-tasking) bone on up weak areas before taking a formal certification course that would require that skill.

Richard.

P.S.: Some current distinctive specialties sound like instructor-produced versions of this. But this approach would, in a sense, let the customer design his own distinctive specialty, in conjunction with his mentor/instructor, no cert. at issue. Wouldn't this open up a revenue stream for instructors & LDS's?

Some instructors do this. It is essentially the same as golf, tennis, or skiing lessons.

The reason to go for a distinctive specialty is liability. If you are working with a student in a general workshop type class and there is an accident, then you may have to prove to a jury that what you were doing was safe and the kind of thing that a reasonable and prudent instructor would do throughout the industry. If you are following the standards of an approved distinctive specialty, you can say that what you did was reviewed by industry experts and determined to be within industry standards and safe.

 

[Diver0001]

Well....

If you realistically look at what we have and how it can be improved within realistic limits then I would say that the check list of skills can be improved a bit.

1) The CESA, the way it's taught now is the only skill in the PADI system for which the agency prescribes the method of teaching. And it's ineffective. I think if I were boss of the world I would modify the CESA so the time could be freed up to teach better strategies for avoiding getting into that position. Accident statistics actually seem to support a re-visit of the CESA to put a buoyant ascent (ditching weights) higher on the list and to modify the CESA skill into more of a breathing exercise than it is now.

2) I think under water problem solving (ie, the game of scuba-tetris that some GUE training includes) could be helpful to help some students understand their limits better. Current training strategies are designed to avoid reaching limits. The GUE approach seems to be more aware of the need to continue to operate when limits have been reached. To this end, one of the more interesting things I've done that helped me as a scuba diver was to take a freediving apnea course.

3) The rest of the basic skill set makes sense to me. I believe it's highly advisable to delay deep diving for a while as it is now, but if I were king of training standards, I would so something like SSI does, which is to prescribe *experience* prerequisites to taking AOW, at the very least as a guideline.

4) The major issue with training today is that providing "performance based learning" on a fixed timeline (and/or for a fixed price) are competing priorities. Normally, money (or time) wins that debate and training quality can easily be sacrificed to "make it fit". Many instructors aren't in a position to adhere to standards as they were intended. If that were the case then things would be a lot better. Fixing this tug-o-war isn't easy and it's too easy to say that QA is the problem. I'm not sure myself what needs to be done but it might be worth implementing a hybrid standard (performance based + grading) whereby QA feedback is used to give a grade on a 5 or 7 point scale to the training the student received and that this information is published. Instructors would still be doing what they can to deliver performance based training but students would be (subjectively) grading their training on a scale like "dangerous", "inadequate", "meets expectations", "good", "outstanding" or something like that.

If this information were to be published then scuba schools would be held to some extent accountable for the quality of their delivery and they would have the ability to respond with improvements. Something similar is used to gather customer feedback for public transport companies in the Netherlands and believe me, they pay attention and respond to that with quality improvements. It works.

In any case, something should be done to expose poor schools AND to put good schools in the spot light. I think customer grading can be implemented and it should be made public. This might be the biggest change needed to QA, now that I think about it. If this were done then it wouldn't even be necessary to prescribe minimum training hours or numbers of mandatory dives. Poor schools would hang themselves and those instructors would be removed from the market by natural selection. All without the agency doing very much more than they do now. PADI already has a 5 point (5 star) rating based on the *volume* of certifications... maybe it's time for a similar 5 star rating for quality.

5) I think scuba instructors en masse have to take a step back and ask themselves what our PRODUCT really is. Training is never the product. It's a means to an end for the client. What does the client want? Is it a "bucket list" experience? Is it "entry to a new hobby"? is it "safety above all else"? etc. This is an important question because it can affect delivery of the course within the same standards framework. For this reason, I ask this question (matter of managing expectations). For example, I once had a drysuit student who was very clear that he wanted the "bucket list" experience. He wasn't a very good diver and didn't meet the standard. I didn't certify him but he was still satisfied with his experience because I did 4 drysuit dives with him. He got out of it what he wanted. Another student took exactly the same specialty but told me that she wanted "perfect buoyancy" in a drysuit.... in other words, she wanted not only theory and practice but also *experience* during the course. I explained the consequences (she would probably need more than the prescribed number of dives). She was marginal going in and needed extra dives to get buoyancy in general sorted out and then buoyancy in the drysuit but she achieved her aim and was satisfied. If I had given her course to the "bucket list" guy or the bucket-list course to the woman who wanted to nail her buoyancy then neither client would have been satisfied.

Now... I *get* managing expectations because it's an important part of my day-job but many instructors need to learn this by failing (over and over again in some cases) to deliver what a client wants. We are also not trained by the agency to identify this or how to approach it during the IDC or the IE. It's something that is central to being a good instructor and completely neglected in the training (or at least in the training I received). This needs fixing.

I think I'll leave it at that for now.

R..

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I would like to see mentoring courses offered in specific subjects that didn't generate a cert. but let a student pay for a given amount of time working on a given skill/ability. The current Peak Performance Buoyancy course shows the market for such focused training.

I say this because a course resulting in a cert. is going to have a range of requirements. Some people will have a deficient aptitude in a given subject that makes that a road block to taking a course. Either they don't figure they can learn it, or can't do it in a reasonable time frame (in other words, would need extended private instruction). Navigation for some of us is just that sort of thing.

But how about if a system where for, oh, say $300, I could hire a mentoring instructor to work with me on trim & buoyancy at a quarry or the ocean in my various configurations (e.g.: AL 80 & Steel 130, with wetsuit & without)? Or, in the model of some of these side-mount courses, work with me to learn use of BP/W and let me try out some products & configurations, try doubles without tech. training, etc…?

There's a tendency to lump more knowledge & skill requirements into a course in order to turn out a superior product (more capable diver), which is laudable. But that only works on the ones who take & pass the course. It's great to offer such things.

But mentoring, particularly private mentoring, would let instructors offer individually tailored training without a micromanaging agency curriculum to help divers achieve their personal goals. No pressure to 'pass' to get a certification, test to fail, no shame in taking it again to further bone up on your ability.

Skills workshops account for about 75% of my teaching these days. I offer a four-dive, two-day workshop that is focused on whatever skills the student wants to learn. Curriculum is tailored to the student, and often doesn't get solidified until after the first dive.

It doesn't come with a c-card ... but since all of the students taking it are already certified to some level it doesn't really need to.

By far the most frequently requested skills people want to work on are buoyancy control, trim, and fin kicks.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Bob DBF]

3) The rest of the basic skill set makes sense to me. I believe it's highly advisable to delay deep diving for a while as it is now, but if I were king of training standards, I would so something like SSI does, which is to prescribe *experience* prerequisites to taking AOW, at the very least as a guideline.
R..

As far as I could see on the SSI website and some LDS websites there was no prerequisite to SSI AOW, or any specialty, but you had to complete 4 specialties and have a total of 24 dives before getting the AOW cert. To their advantage. the Rescue Class is considered a specialty and can be taken after OW if you wish. A SSI instructor could clear this up quickly if one is around and predisposed to comment..

I do agree deep diving should be delayed until the diver has good buoyancy and some experience, but found no prohibition from this on their site. However, it may be an instructor/shop preference rather than a flow chart progression like PADI.



Bob
-----------------------------------------
The first thing I had to disregard after my scuba class was safety. All the never dive alone, buddy system stuff went out the window… scoobert

That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

 

[Diver0001]

Skills workshops account for about 75% of my teaching these days. I offer a four-dive, two-day workshop that is focused on whatever skills the student wants to learn. Curriculum is tailored to the student, and often doesn't get solidified until after the first dive.

It doesn't come with a c-card ... but since all of the students taking it are already certified to some level it doesn't really need to.

By far the most frequently requested skills people want to work on are buoyancy control, trim, and fin kicks.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I've been thinking about offering something like this for money next year. There are some things : navigation, "tech-recreational" (not to be confused with the specialty, although I may still certify for it if Peter will have it), deep, mid-water work, wreck and buoyancy control that I've mentored people on for years without asking for money. I can give those specialties but I much prefer to mentor people in these over the course of a season than to teach the specialties through a shop. They learn more in a context where I meet with them every month or so for a dive or 2 and give them "homework" that they can do on their own time. It's a trick I learned from one of my tech instructors. In the end, the results are usually outstanding. I'm more satisfied, the person getting mentoring is more satisfied... it's win/win.

It does take time though and I tend to limit the number of people I'll take on in a season because while I take intense satisfaction from helping other people progress, there is really no tangible benefit to me. I don't get certs, it doesn't help me pay for insurance or membership fees and it takes time that I could have spent pursuing other goals. I'd like to get about €20,- a dive for these cases so it would at least cover expenses and help pay annual fees. I don't really need the money, it's more a question of the difference between volunteering my time or giving it away.

R..

---------- Post added January 6th, 2015 at 10:14 PM ----------

As far as I could see on the SSI website and some LDS websites there was no prerequisite to SSI AOW, or any specialty, but you had to complete 4 specialties and have a total of 24 dives before getting the AOW cert. To their advantage. the Rescue Class is considered a specialty and can be taken after OW if you wish. A SSI instructor could clear this up quickly if one is around and predisposed to comment..

I do agree deep diving should be delayed until the diver has good buoyancy and some experience, but found no prohibition from this on their site. However, it may be an instructor/shop preference rather than a flow chart progression like PADI.

It may have changed. The last time I talked to an SSI instructor about this in detail he told me at the time is that --paraphrased -- SSI was a one-to-one clone of the PADI system that was only changed enough to avoid a copyright lawsuit. He mentioned two significant differences :

1) SSI instructors must all be shop affiliated
and
2) non-pro SSI courses had non-trivial experience prerequisites.

Perhaps he was inflating it a bit but I was left with the impression that it wasn't a bad idea.

R..

 

[DevonDiver]

1. Agency for certifications. All other activities support this single goal.

2. Focus on instructors, not dive shops.

3. Make use of expertise amongst membership, not use outside consultants to produce weak materials or courses.

4. Promote true excellence in the instructor cadre, applying high standards.

5. Recognize and promote the need for string foundational skills and beginning with the end in mind philosophy for diver development.

6. Accept that teaching specialist diving activities require extensive specialist instructor experience.

7. Promote business model that ensures healthy income to members through minimum pricing and discourage loss leader and cost-competition mentality.

8. Raise quality and standards to reduce market saturation in supply.

9. Pro-active QA that measures training outcome and safety. Not reliant on unilateral customer feedback, but inspection by agency.

10. Rewards excellence in training, not volume of sales.

11. Trusts in the expertise of its instructors, doesn't promote or restrict training through strict lowest common denominator standards to pander to the weakest instructor elements.

12. Encourages instructor development through low-cost pro level education and sharing of expertise amongst membership.

13. Teach / qualify instructors in specialist activities from subject matter experts, not generic instructor-trainers.

14. Syllabus should develop overall diving skill progressively in levels. Prerequisite training should provide definable skill foundations for next level.

15. All courses should start with a pass/fail assessment of defined prerequisite skills. Formal remedial training should be required, as a standard, if student cannot display defined prerequisite skill set.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

SEI allows rescue right after OW. Of course there is some in the OW course to begin with.
Like Bob I also offer tailored workshops to certified divers that do not result in a card.
I would like to see any new agency allow their instructors to do the same.
Distinctive specialties are ok, but some seem too restrictive and not allow for the tailoring to each student unless it's written in that tailoring is part of the process. Like an OW course that trusts the instructor to decide what skills to introduce and in what order, allowing instructors to offer non cert workshops makes sense.
However when an instructor does these workshops they should have to prove to the student that they actually know what they are talking about and have some proficiency in it. For example an instructor who teaches an UW photo workshop should maybe have some published work to show. Not a card that says they attended a 1/2 day session on how to market and sell the class.

And what Andy said above!