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

[TMHeimer]

I agree with Shurite7 in that it's best to assist for a while before considering the instructor course. The material for the PADI OW course isn't rocket science, but in assisting a number of different instructors (if possible), you see the differences (even if slight) in the ways it can be taught. As one of my clarinet teachers way back when said, you take from this one and that and develop your own style of playing (or teaching).
As John points out, methodology is extremely important. For a Band Teacher that means choosing from a multitude of beginning method books. As well there is logistics (scheduling), rehearsal procedures that get the best results, and on & on. I don't think there is much research on that since being a Conductor requires a certain something, since you are 100% of the time the centre of attraction--either verbally or waving your arms. That "something" took me a couple of years to develop. The scuba instructor is pretty much always the center of attention as well.
Anyway, to get back to the OP question, none of this stuff will usually be considered by someone looking to take an OW course who knows nothing about scuba.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is another story to illustrate how different people have different ideas about what constitutes quality instruction.

I had finished a day of cave diving, with my diving based out of a shop that is closely associated with a specific agency. I was waiting for someone, and had nothing to do but sit around and wait. I saw an academic session being conducted in the open air near me, so I watched. It was a first level cave diving class--not an advanced class. I knew one of the students, which made me more interested. I knew they had arrived in the early morning, had had a lecture then, had gone through a day of cave diving practice, and were now getting another lecture in the late afternoon. They were clearly exhausted.

The lecture was long and, frankly, boring. The instructor was explaining the inner design of an isolation manifold. I didn't know some of what was being explained myself, and I really didn't care if I did. It would not affect my diving one iota. I need to know what turning the handles on that manifold does. I didn't need to know the details upon which they were being lectured at the end of a long and challenging day, and I was very glad i was not a student in that class.

Some people would argue that the class was an excellent example of high quality instruction because it was giving students so much detailed information, information left out of lesser courses from lesser agencies. They were getting their money's worth. As someone whose entire job was once curriculum design, I see it differently.

1. Lecturing is the worst way to convey information. Most agencies have gone away from that for some time now. Self study and then review is a more effective method, and there are even more effective methods.
2. Students can only absorb and retain so much information in a given time period. At the end of a long day, you can't expect a whole lot of learning to be going on. Too much was being piled into too little time.
3. Modern curriculum theory calls for a careful examination of concepts to be taught and then sequencing instruction in such a way as to emphasize those concepts that are most critical, de-emphasize the lesser important materials, and eliminating altogether that which is unnecessary. The reason is a concept called interference: time spent learning unimportant or less important information can interfere with the student's ability to learn what is really important. That is the idea of "less is more"--a student who is taught fewer concepts in a carefully concentrated manner will learn and remember more than a student who is taught many more concepts, including material of lesser importance.

 

[shurite7]

I am puzzled about the claim that instructors are not being taught how to teach. There is a lot more "teaching you how to teach" going on than you think..

Granted, the candidate will learn some about about teaching methodology, specifically, as you pointed out, mastery of skills. Nonetheless, a DM/AI will learn a lot more about how to teach while working with an instructor(s). This is part of pyramid system that the agencies have set up to use for progression of learning, including how to teach for those who want to become instructors. This past summer I did have a chat with PADI regarding IDC and it was pointed out the course is supposed to teach the candidate how to teach (although my experience was more along the lines of how to pass the IE), however, a candidate who took the time to DM/AI under mentorship during classes will learn a great deal more about "how to teach", which PADI and NAUI highly encourages.

So, I'll relent some and agree there is more teaching how to teach than what I let on in my earlier post. In my ITC I do remember going through a lot more of how to teach, especially classroom, than my IDC. I learned even more when I was a DM assisting classes, especially when it came to the confined and open water sessions.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

Do you believe that your AOW instructor would be any better if he happened to teach for some other agency? I don't. I think this is a textbook example of "it's the instructor not the agency".

Yes in fact I do believe that actually. This person would never be an instructor with GUE or UTD. When your goal is to "teach the world how to dive" then your pool is so large that quality control becomes impossible. We may disagree with certain aspects of the GUE/UTD philosophy but let is admit that these two agencies do a pretty good job of "quality control."

 

[DevonDiver]

Interesting discussion, but it seems very biased towards an 'academic teaching' concept of instruction. That may be because the focus of debate is primarily at OW level tuition, or because of "background bias" of some participants.

What is a scuba educator?
An academic teacher?
A sports coach?
A performance trainer?
A drillmaster?
A tutor?
A mentor?

Each are different roles and require different strengths, competencies and personalities from the educator.

I'd say that good scuba educators must have the capacity to deliver multiple roles, at varying times.

However, the best educators are the ones who find the right environment for their particular strengths and weaknesses.

It's worth considering that the very nature of how we teach can vary as the level of diving progresses, or the type of students we work with.

I've spent a decade teaching technical and overhead diving. My approach now is markedly different to the one I had when I used to teach novice divers. It differs even when I'm teaching advanced tech or overhead, comparer to entry-level tech. This is my element.

At the highest levels, I'm concerned predominantly with fine-tuning precision kinesthetics, shaping involuntary responses, developing psychological strengths and nurturing appropriate mindset.

The role demands a capacity to establish strong mentoring relationships and a high degree of attention-to-detail in respect to enhancing physical and psychological performance. The goal is to push physical and mental barriers,... to drive the participant. I would liken this to coaching elite athletes.

The same approach.. the instructional skillset and personality model wouldn't necessarily work well with novice-intermediate divers. It'd be entirely inappropriate (and vice-versa) for teaching entry-level divers, or those struggling with basic competencies and physical performances.

I'd have to readjust enormously to teach an OW course nowadays. I'd find it quite frustrating, at least, for 99% of students. Less so with intermediate and specialised training (like OW sidemount), but that'd depend entirely on the mindset and motivation of the student. I'm accustomed to working intimately with highly motivated students... and that, in return, feeds my motivation and work satisfaction.

I'm a performance coach, not a college professor.

The debate thus far has been focused on academic teaching models. That maybe fine for teaching basic skills, to basic competency levels and delivering a standardised curriculum. It is not, however, a constant across all levels of diving.

Teaching diving is a mixture of both physical, mental and psychological development. It's not the same as being a college professor... or a football coach... or a counsellor... but actually demands a combination of all these elements. Each element needs to be understood and respected.

Attempting to pigeon-hole the characteristics and approaches of an 'optimum' diving educator is a fruitless quest IMHO.

Good diving educators are capable of adjusting between a myriad of roles and demands, depending on the nature of the diving and student taught.

Nonetheless, when maximal performance is the goal, the best results come from a specialist, not a generalist.

This will, usually, be under-appreciated by those who haven't experienced elite level, or maximal performance, demands.

It's also difficult to appreciate instructional approaches, or personalities, that may differ from one's own. Context is everything.. and context is a very personal issue.

The diving educator should be cognizant of their own strengths and weaknesses... and this should shape the fields and level of the diving they attempt to teach.

As educators, we all have bias based on our own competency and experiences. If we recognise and understand that bias, we might find the right place to thrive.

The most successful instructors are the ones that understand themselves best.. and, by nature or design, gravitate to the bailiwick that best suits their unique makeup.

 

[Octopusprime]

Rise of internet has allowed for the "de-monopolization of truth." At the same time it has also allowed for "normalization of nonsense." If there is one instrument that has contributed significantly in my own intellectual development as a diver then it is scubaboard. At the same time if there is one instrument that has filled my mind with misleading nonsense it is scubaboard.

Here, "misleading nonsense" means well intended statements that are may make perfect sense in a particular situation in the real world but in the world of internet they are communicated by one well intended person to a total stranger whose social realities the former knows nothing of. One popular slogan that keeps popping up from forum to forum is "It is the instructor not the agency." While I do not intend to dispute the statement itself, aside from internet there are serious complications of adopting this mind set.

A). An Open Water diver has no experience or training in diving so he has little in his pocket to "judge" whether an instructor is good or bad. His initial perceptions of good and bad will be shaped by the instructor so we are basically asking that he measures the competency of his educator by using the yard stick that the same educator has provided to him.

Dudes and dudettes, I am the perfect man if I am judged by the criteria that I myself have created.

B) Whose perception of "good" shall we use to find the good instructor? Jarod Jablonski's perception of a good instructor may be very different than what your PADI LDS calls "good instructor." Neither of them are wrong. They may be good for two different purposes.

Dudes and dudettes, How can I recommend a good instructor when I do not know what your perception of good instructor is? How can I recommend a good instructor when you yourself do not know what your perception of good instructor is?

C) Scuba is an industry where every instructor is a legend in his own mind and the students they produce have only taken lessons from that one guy so in most cases they are convinced that they have gotten the best training. When you go out looking for a good instructor it may not be much different than finding the "best religion."

Dudes and dudettes, We are all disciples to people who see themselves as Prophets.

The entire purpose of training agencies was to solve this dilemma for the person who has little understanding of what he or she is getting into. When you go to MIT or Harvard University, you do not have to find a "good professor." The institution has already done that for you. If you want to eat a pizza, you do not need to find a pizza chef. You find the "brand" (Pizza Hut) and the agency has already screened and located the best pizza chef for you. In scuba industry we are telling the end consumers to ignore the agency brand and start locating the best chef. If this is not a global failure of scuba agencies then what is? If the overall consensus is that look for the instructor not the agency then that means training agencies have failed to do what they are created to do.

There are agencies that keep their instructor core very small and are extremely stringent in giving out C-cards but on an internet forum they will be under represented. They do not have enough instructors or students to have a significant voice on message boards so if you are trying to search internet forums for the best instruction then these agencies will be the most criticized or bashed ones.

In the end, internet truth and real world truth are two totally different things so let us all find a good instructor.

Right on. I especially like the comment about normalizing the nonsense.

I can say my OW instructor was bad. He did not show up for first pool class because no one was on online roster even though he never told us to do anything online.

As for instructor since I interview instructors regularly. It is not the dive shop I interview but the instructor. When I did my rescue I found a working rescue diver that had over 2000 search and rescue dives. When looking for instructor for digital underwater photo I want to know that they take a camera on every dive. It is not perfect. But if you find an instructor that loves that speciality you will get a lot more practical lessons Out of the course.

I do think that all of the agencies should require their instructors to recertify. If they can not pass the swim/tread and the IDC exam they should not be teaching. Maybe every 10 years. I have seen some instructors that can barely get their tanks to the water no less help a student in distress.

 

[diverintheflesh]

interestingly, i tried to quantify what a student is worth to padi and what one is worth to me. i'm an independent instructor. while the factors weren't succinct enough to completely correlate, it identified a big problem. you get what you pay for. last year padi was sold for $700,000,000 and they also issued their 25,000,000th certification. when i was in banking, we took stock price multiplied by outstanding shares to indicate the value of a company. example: $10 share price; 1,000 shares; the value of the company is $10,000. i consider the value of my business, my company my student! if you take $700,000,000 and divide it by 25,000,000 you get $28 per certification. when you look at all the ancillary costs of running that business, the end result is the certification card. if each card is only worth $28, everyone who received only one card is worth $28. when i took my revenue and divided it by each certification issue, i got $356 per certification. i know the correlation isn't perfect, but if you give away certifications, then they have no value AND the company is valueless! I wrote a blog entry about the differences between independent instruction and group classes. since the dive shop is similar to the agency it represents, there ended up being a lot of similarities to the discussion posted here.

Scuba Diving Certification in Portland, Vancouver, and the PNW: Private Scuba Instruction vs Group Classes / Read by Computer Generated ...

 

[TMHeimer]

Right on. I especially like the comment about normalizing the nonsense.

I can say my OW instructor was bad. He did not show up for first pool class because no one was on online roster even though he never told us to do anything online.

As for instructor since I interview instructors regularly. It is not the dive shop I interview but the instructor. When I did my rescue I found a working rescue diver that had over 2000 search and rescue dives. When looking for instructor for digital underwater photo I want to know that they take a camera on every dive. It is not perfect. But if you find an instructor that loves that speciality you will get a lot more practical lessons Out of the course.

I do think that all of the agencies should require their instructors to recertify. If they can not pass the swim/tread and the IDC exam they should not be teaching. Maybe every 10 years. I have seen some instructors that can barely get their tanks to the water no less help a student in distress.

Some good points about doing what you can to select an instructor. But despite some points in favour of it, I'm in the camp of not requiring instructor recertification after whatever number of years. It's debatable--and has been debated somewhere recently on SB.
After several years of teaching Band I can honestly say I was a far better teacher than when I started--but would definitely have failed a test requiring me to write technically proper counterpoint like when in music college.

 

[DevonDiver]

interestingly, i tried to quantify what a student is worth to padi and what one is worth to me..... i know the correlation isn't perfect, but if you give away certifications, then they have no value AND the company is valueless!

Any yet... the diving industry is seemingly still so eager to believe that the 'stack em high and flog em cheap' business model advocated (insidiously pushed?) by the big agencies actually correlates to the interests of individual dive operators..

 

[DevonDiver]

... I'm in the camp of not requiring instructor recertification after whatever number of years. It's debatable-

I think it really depends on the working practices of the instructor.

There's a huge differences between a (true) professional, for whom diving instruction is a day-to-day activity, and a 'hobbyist' instructor that might only teach on occasional weekends...

Needless to say, that's especially true of instructors who teach only very infrequently, or who have substantial lay-offs from diving.

That covers both teaching capacity and physical fitness to dive.

If a 'pro' is diving every day, it tends to indicate they would have a natural fitness to dive.. that's how fitness works, the body adapts to the demands routinely made upon it.

Going beyond that issue of 'recertification' is the concept of 're-calibration'.

Could, or should, diving instructors routinely undergo practical update and assessment of their teaching competency?

- Syllabus and standards change over time.
- Instructors get complacent or demotivated.
- Bad habits creep in.
- Old dogs stop learning new tricks.

Agencies could address that..