History of Diver Training

[boulderjohn]

Most of the "best" universities are VERY selective on only admitting the best talent -- or the ones with a lot of coin. They are still tagged as the best universities.

A study in which I participated in on behalf of one of the nation's largest school districts showed how important that distinction can be. This district spanned a number of communities, ranging from affluent suburbs to poor urban areas. The difference in achievement, as measured by conventional means, was just as wide ranged.

Our study measured achievement differently, though. We looked at the best achievement measures we could find for the students when they entered the school and compared with the best achievement measures we could find when they left. In other words, we measured what happened to the students while they were in that school.

We found that NONE of the supposedly top performing schools were top performing by that measure. In every case, the students left that school looking pretty good, but in every case they had come into the school looking just great. They took platinum students and turned them into gold.

Many of the supposedly mediocre schools did the opposite, turning weak students into relatively strong students.

As for your other point...

It's commonly said around SB that, "it's not the agency, it's the instructor." I would say that it's not the instructor, it's the student. In this sense, the teacher doesn't teach, it is the student that learns. The teacher is just one more instrument of learning, just as experimentation, reference materials, research, etc. are also instruments of learning. Of course you have different degrees of quality among learning instruments, but the ultimate owner of the newly acquired education will be the student -- so the burden of actually taking effective and full ownership of such education consequently falls on the student.

In another study we did for that same district, we were able to identify really weak teachers in terms of what they were doing in relation to students and really strong teachers, and we surveyed them for a comparative study. (They did not know we were able to make that differentiation.) We found a 100% association between teacher attitude toward learning and their rates of success. The really poor teachers ALL believed that learning was almost exclusively determined by the motivation and native ability of the student--the teacher was just a learning tool the student used. Every single one of the top performing teachers believed that through effective use of instructional strategies, an effective teacher could make any student learn successfully.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

In another study we did for that same district, we were able to identify really weak teachers in terms of what they were doing in relation to students and really strong teachers, and we surveyed them for a comparative study. (They did not know we were able to make that differentiation.) We found a 100% association between teacher attitude toward learning and their rates of success. The really poor teachers ALL believed that learning was almost exclusively determined by the motivation and native ability of the student--the teacher was just a learning tool the student used. Every single one of the top performing teachers believed that through effective use of instructional strategies, an effective teacher could make any student learn successfully.

I think it's a mutual relationship. What an effective teacher really does is use strategies that help a student WANT to learn. I don't think even the best teacher can make a student learn anything unless the student is motivated to learn it.

The very best scuba instructor I ever took a class from had a knack for making students pay close attention ... as well as a very interactive style of teaching that engaged students in the curriculum. I mentioned to him that he was the type of instructor I wanted to become and asked for tips on how to develop that style. His reply was "just be yourself" ... I took that to mean that his instructional strategies came from within, rather than from something he learned how to do.

In other words ... just as the successful student has to WANT to learn, so the successful instructor has to WANT to teach.

The most effective learning comes about when both of those factors are present ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Slamfire]

Of course in the educational setting it goes both ways. The thing is that the student leaves the educational setting very quickly and is thrown out into the real world. If you're a poor diver, you are the one who's going to have to live with the consequences of being a poor performer, not the instructor. I am tempted to go as far as to say that if you're a poor diver, it is very likely your own fault, not the instructor's. There are many ways, formal and informal, to learn. There are many instruments of learning, the instructor is just one instrument. Heaping all the blame into one of the many instruments of learning is just not cutting it for me. The student is the ultimate manager of all the available instruments of learning. If there's a deficiency in one instrument, it is in the students best interest to find ways to overcome such deficiency -- perhaps relying more on other instruments or seeking an all new track or philosophy.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think it's a mutual relationship. What an effective teacher really does is use strategies that help a student WANT to learn. I don't think even the best teacher can make a student learn anything unless the student is motivated to learn it.

Yes. That is, in fact, the key.

The best teachers area able to balance two seemingly contradictory thoughts in their heads.

1. They fully believe that if they do the right thing at the right time in the right way, they can make any student successful.
2. At the same time, they know they will never reach everyone.​

The worst teachers believe that it doesn't matter what they do. They will never be able to reach some students, and no matter what they do, some students will succeed because of their native abilities and motivations. Because it doesn't matter what they do, there is no reason to look at alternative approaches.

 

[Thalassamania]

Slamfire and Boulderjohn both raise interesting issues. If I might add: The selective colleges and universities are "elite" schools in more ways that just bare student selection. In fact, at least the larger ones (that I am most familiar with) really best suit the needs only of their most promising 10% or so (as defined by each faculty member); the rest of the students, despite their attending an "elite" school likely do not get as good an education as they might at a smaller school that does a bit more hand-holding for all their students.

 

[Diver0001]

I am tempted to go as far as to say that if you're a poor diver, it is very likely your own fault, not the instructor's. There are many ways, formal and informal, to learn.

It's my experience that people will learn what you ask them to learn. People really will perform to whatever bar you set for them in most cases.

For example, I'm particularly picky about buoyancy control and my students have fairly good buoyancy control. Some other instructors don't put that much emphasis on buoyancy control so their students will not have great buoyancy control. None of that depends on the student. It depends on what the instructor asked the student to learn and the bar they set for it.

And that's the link with what Boulderjohn said...... (get ready, here it comes)

If the student will go out of their way (as most do) to learn what you ask them to learn to the bar you set for it...

then what do you think they'll learn if you don't ask them to learn much or don't tell them how good you want it to be?

Where I think talent comes into the picture is the with the *speed* at which learning happens. Motivation does play a role, but I would think that it usually plays a much bigger role when students feel they must do something that they don't want to do. In the case of scuba courses, in most cases people are not forced to be there. I personally don't see many unmotivated students. It does happen, (like when people drag a spouse or partner along against their will) but not as often as you might think.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

Slamfire and Boulderjohn both raise interesting issues. If I might add: The selective colleges and universities are "elite" schools in more ways that just bare student selection. In fact, at least the larger ones (that I am most familiar with) really best suit the needs only of their most promising 10% or so (as defined by each faculty member); the rest of the students, despite their attending an "elite" school likely do not get as good an education as they might at a smaller school that does a bit more hand-holding for all their students.

Very much so!

A friend of mine was on the North Central Accreditation Visiting Team for a supposedly elite high school. (Unfortunately, it was the one my children attended.)

When they were done, he told me that they should have a new school motto printed right below the name of the school on the wall, so that everyone would know the school philosophy:

A School for the academically gifted, highly motivated, and self-directed student. The rest of you can just plain go to Hell.​

 

[boulderjohn]

And that's the link with what Boulderjohn said...... (get ready, here it comes)

If the student will go out of their way (as most do) to learn what you ask them to learn to the bar you set for it...

then what do you think they'll learn if you don't ask them to learn much or don't tell them how good you want it to be?

Want a phrase to describe what you just said? Here is what I used to tell people when I did staff development courses:

Students will meet your standards. Some will rise to do it, and some will fall to do it. But they will meet them.

 

[Slamfire]

A [-]School[/-] world for the [-]academically[/-] gifted, highly motivated, and self-directed [-]student[/-] individual. The rest of you can just plain go to Hell.

But isn't that how the real world treats everybody? I read somewhere that "not all humans are created equal, but we should act as if they are" (paraphrasing).

Maybe I am giving out a very narrow minded point of view because I am no instructor or teacher and I am just seeing things from the student point of view, with mostly my own experiences as a frame of reference. And I'm trying to project that to everybody else.

 

[boulderjohn]

But isn't that how the real world treats everybody? I read somewhere that "not all humans are created equal, but we should act as if they are" (paraphrasing).

Maybe I am giving out a very narrow minded point of view because I am no instructor or teacher and I am just seeing things from the student point of view, with mostly my own experiences as a frame of reference. And I'm trying to project that to everybody else.

But it is a false analogy. The purpose of the world is not to provide people with an education, so it has no obligation to serve that need. The school's express purpose is to educate students, not just be in the vicinity while the students educate themselves.

If I go into a restaurant, a waiter will come over and take my order. The rest of the world does not do that. That is because they are serving different purposes.