Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?
- Thread starter GDI
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Perhaps you missed the part where I was proposing to grade people on multiple criteria, and on a scale, precisely to avoid the situation, in which the only way to provide feedback is publicly trashing and stigmatizing someone as "bad". Not sure what exactly is the point you are trying to make, but if it is the inadequacy of a feedback system that relies on public humiliation, then we seem to be in complete agreement... a feedback does not have to be "good" or "bad", you know, it can also be shades of gray... and, in multiple dimensions. I have received a lot of constructive feedback in my life, and I am grateful for it. Transparency is the way to go.
OP
Some of you asked me for these, so here they are. Every NACD instructor is to discuss this with their students as part of the class and a better understanding of what is expected. Are they perfect ? NO b y no means
They are always under review, as they should be and changes published annually.
However through these a NACD Cave diver, any diver, has the means to be able to learn these these and report short comings of a standard if required.
They are always under review, as they should be and changes published annually.
However through these a NACD Cave diver, any diver, has the means to be able to learn these these and report short comings of a standard if required.
Interesting. It's hard for students to know if things are being done properly if they don't know what the requirements are.
I think it should be obvious that a student needs to know what the course contains and what is required to pass.
For some time TDI removed their standards from the website, but fortunately they are back. I only had a quick look at how they compare to GUE ones. They are pretty much similar, but don't go into trim degrees. Although not sure of the purpose of those... there are caves where if one is at less than 20 degrees from horizontal, will hit the bottom or ceiling... And both use words like "proper", "adequate", "proficient". Could one argue about their meaning? I guess... but that would be a pretend discussion, we all know what it means.
I don't know if when I did my TDI courses the standards were online or not, but my instructor gave them to me and he had a log (don't know if it's instructor material or done by him) where we'd write the dives, duration, executed skills, etc.
I didn't see the standards on IANTD website...
The student handbooks for the NACD, NSSCDS and TDI all outline what you are expected to do - this notion that "not having the instructor standards" means you don't know what's expected of you is pure bunk.
The standards outline the methodological requirements not the practicum. The student, generally speaking - isn't gaining a benefit by knowing the instructors regimen. They benefit by knowing what their own requirements are- all of which are outlined in the student manuals. The very real side of restricting the standards to only instructors is twofold-
Liability in construction - someone can compare and contrast agency standards over time and as against different agencies in an attempt to find conflicts and omissions between those agencies/over Time to infer safety shortcomings during liability phases of lawsuits
Liability in copyright- someone can steal (use, borrow) the intellectual property of the agency to replicate it for their agency, use it for their instruction (licensed or not), or to wholesale fabricate courses and claim certification rights (like we saw in Florida recently).
Just because you think something is called "standards" doesn't make it dispositive of or even useful to the evaluation of an instructors instruction- because the application of those standards also has a particular methodology is use- which the student doesn't possess to evaluate it against.
Again- all of this is a dodge of the real issue- if you want to know your performance requirements as a student- look at your instruction manual. If it's not there- then there's an issue. However claiming you don't know how you are to be measured because you don't know the instructor standards... That's BS.
Last edited:
OP
Part of a problem with any standards are the determination of the level of expectation from one instructor to another. This varies and is subjective from one instructor to the next. As students we expect instructors should be "Masters" of their materiel knowledge, skill and control. Able to perform to the highest standards upon request and routinely as a norm of practical and academic application.
Poorly trained and practiced, results in poor instructors. You only know what you know and have been exposed to during your instruction. Here is where a curriculum stating clear and concise expectations is required, not easy to do but achievable if measurable marks are established.
Example a brand new OW diver: is it reasonable to assume they should be able to hold their buoyancy and trim within a limited range of movement say 6 inches either up and down with little sculling of fins and hands. Where as a Cavern Student at the end of a class should be able to hold buoyancy and trim within a 6 inch total and have no sculling of hands and fins?
Knowledge and Skill Mastery at various levels should expect a higher bar as one progresses. Instructors IMHO should never pass a fault and always set the expected example. If a student takes longer they take longer
[h=2]mastery[/h]
/ˈmɑːstərɪ/
noun (pl) -teries
1.full command or understanding of a subject
2.outstanding skill; expertise
3.the power of command; control
4.victory or superiority
Poorly trained and practiced, results in poor instructors. You only know what you know and have been exposed to during your instruction. Here is where a curriculum stating clear and concise expectations is required, not easy to do but achievable if measurable marks are established.
Example a brand new OW diver: is it reasonable to assume they should be able to hold their buoyancy and trim within a limited range of movement say 6 inches either up and down with little sculling of fins and hands. Where as a Cavern Student at the end of a class should be able to hold buoyancy and trim within a 6 inch total and have no sculling of hands and fins?
Knowledge and Skill Mastery at various levels should expect a higher bar as one progresses. Instructors IMHO should never pass a fault and always set the expected example. If a student takes longer they take longer
[h=2]mastery[/h]
/ˈmɑːstərɪ/
noun (pl) -teries
1.full command or understanding of a subject
2.outstanding skill; expertise
3.the power of command; control
4.victory or superiority
- Messages
- 98,060
- Reaction score
- 99,634
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
When I took my cave training I received several detailed correspondences from my instructor telling me exactly what he would be teaching, what prerequisite skills he expected me to have, and what he would consider an acceptable level of performance in order to pass the class. Since he taught for multiple agencies, I was less concerned about the agency standards than I was his.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
In my past vocation, I used to teach how to write effective standards and how to write effective scoring guides for performance assessments on those standards. I used to train teams of assessors so that they could score performances so that their scores would be consistent from one to another.
You describe an example of a way to put precise language into such a standard, and you describe one that can work fairly well. You will be quite frustrated, though, if you try to accomplish that throughout the process. In this case the numbers you used work, but usually bringing numbers into the system does more harm than good. They create what I used to call "the illusion of objectivity" into the process, an illusion that can actually create inaccuracy in scoring. If you look at the scoring guides for major assessments like Advanced Placement Exams, SATs, LSATs, etc., you will be stunned by the subjective language in those guides. Assessment expert Grant Wiggins uses the phrase "trained assessor judgment" to explain why this can work. I actually mentioned it earlier. In judging a performance, an assessor compares what he or she is seeing with a mental model of what a standard performance looks like. The key to consistent scoring is to make sure everyone is working on the same mental model.
As I said before, the instructor training process is supposed to do this. One thing that could help keep things consistent would be to create a centralized set of videos of different levels of student performance. If an agency--or several agencies--were to make a collection of such videos and then have their top people give the performances "official" ratings, it could do wonders for instructor training. More importantly, if you were to make it public, it would be useful for students as well. Believe me, the best way to prepare students for an AP exam is to show them samples of actual past student performances at different levels of quality.
When talking about the idea of mastery, it is a mistake to go to a dictionary definition. When it is used in instructional settings with standards, as it is with scuba, the context is important. The idea of "mastery" with standards comes from the theory of mastery learning as described by Benjamin Bloom. The concept has evolved since Bloom introduced it decades ago, but it is very much the basis of the use of the word "mastery" in scuba Instruction. The use of any other definition of the word "mastery" is out of context.
OP
I use to write training standards in the service. Another part to the problem is the instructor standards and their interpretation of them is all over the place. I would like nothing better as a starting point, to have agencies get together and decide on a mean average (at least) attempting to qualify and establish common standards. In recreational scuba the RSTC has an agreement between the signatory agencies of such a thing. How well has that worked? Politics get in the way as does egos.
I am familiar with Benjamin Bloom, But it is not the "Mastery Learning" context I am suggesting. I agree with you, "Mastery Learning" is a context most often used in the teaching methodology of many scuba agencies. Typical scuba con-ed - A individual builds knowledge and skill through progressive study
However "Mastery Learning" is not being a master of your skill and knowledge as that of a "Subject Matter Expect" (SME) as the expected case of cave diving instruction, in general I believe my definition is correct regardless if standards are being applied. Many current instructors lack SME'ness ( a fault of the "Mastery Learning" process in part no doubt) and the results of this we can see everyday.
There is no mentor-ship, often no continued and committed studies occur once a instructional level has been reached. A true SME continues to improve themselves and those they mentor. I think that a SME level of achievement is the real start of learning.. There is a saying that being a teacher is the best way to learn but only if the teacher continues to master.
The system is broken
Similar threads
