On the merits of cranking up standards.

[kr2y5]

A bunch of threads I read have raised a question in my mind. Many people have been arguing that the quality of scuba instruction has been declining, some argue the standards have not changed. Regardless of whether either of this is true, in many (most?) areas of life it is certainly true that a person's job performance depends to a small degree on standards and rules, and to a much greater degree on other factors. Some of those factors include the individual's personality traits and attitude, their motivation, passion, commitment, etc., Presumably, that's why "the instructor matters more than the agency". Some of it also depends on the predominant culture in the group, how the rules tend to be interpreted by others etc. I don't know anything about teaching scuba, but I would imagine the same is true in this case. If the overall quality of instruction is some function q(standards, X), there is an "X" factor, if you will, that may or may not be outside of the control of the certifying agency.

If so, that brings the question what exactly [pick whatever scuba certifying agency] in your opinion should do to raise the quality of instruction:

a) Have even more standards to follow, a greater number of rules? Higher, more elaborate, more specific, rigid, prescriptive standards? How prescriptive should they be? Where should the line be drawn?

b) If not, then what else?

c) What makes you believe this would actually help? Would there be any downsides to what you are proposing?

To preempt some of the obvious responses, I'm assuming there are many ways to skin the cat. I may be wrong.

Thanks!

 

[tbone1004]

well there is an underlying issue here.

Money

the agencies that are in it to make money, PADI, NAUI, SDI/TDI, SSI, PSAI etc etc. all need a certain number of instructors, to certify a number of students per year to actually make money.
PADI has decided to take an approach similar to our education system in the US to make a very standard and fairly rigid course structure which in theory removes the instructor variable in the quality of divers that they produce. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but we are looking at a high level.
NAUI has taken the approach to give very loose guidelines and minimum standards that have to be met and then allow the instructor to do basically whatever they want, in whatever order they want to do it in. They have minimum standards that have to be met, but this structure allows tremendous freedom for those that want to teach a nonstandard course.

Very opposite theories on instruction, but similar end results overall.

GUE doesn't need to make money from teaching, which is why they rarely teach an OW course. It is a week long, very intense OW course and is guaranteed to produce a high quality diver, ready for technical training right out of the gate. This is not to say the other agencies can't do that, I know they can, but GUE can guarantee it. It has a lot less to do with their standards in terms of number of, specificity of, or rigidity of standards, but my belief is that it comes back to where the instructors are as divers prior to being allowed to teach. GUE requires 2x the number of dives that PADI does, while passing the GUE Fundies Tech requirement, or getting to GUE Rec 3 which is trimix, vs the PADI Divemaster which is a joke of a certification. That's pretty intense in and of itself.
You also have to be 21 vs. 18 and have 200 dives vs 100 dives.
That just certifies you to teach basic OW with GUE vs. PADI where you can certify everything. To move up in the world with GUE, you then have to teach a real or mock class with one of their IE's and earn their endorsement after teaching 3 classes. To teach drysuit you have to have logged 300 dives, 100 of which in a drysuit, and pass GUE Tech 1, similar requirements to teach doubles, and etc etc. They also require you to dive at minimum 13 fun dives per year at the highest level you are qualified to teach, and teach at least one course per year. Should be fairly easy, but it isn't.

That is an impossible path in both time and money for most people unless you are seriously committed. Due to the cost of those courses, you aren't going to get rich being a GUE instructor. This goes against the goals of the recreational agencies who are out to make a buck and certify divers in a weekend for $400. Want proof? First sentence on PADI's IDC page.

"If you like people, have a passion for scuba diving and want an extraordinary life – become a PADI Instructor. "

who wouldn't want to do that? The problem is they aren't holding the divers to high enough of a level before they become instructors, they don't have enough experience in real world to actually pass that on to divers. Their requirements are nothing, and while perfect for resort guided dives, is not enough to actually train people to a high level. The bar to get in is very low, and once they're in, you are stuck with them. It is impossible to maintain as many instructors as the big agencies hold and keep them to high standards simply due to the volume. It's not a system that can be fixed. It's also not necessarily a system that's bad.

PADI has decided they are going to commit to a step wise progression in learning and their curriculum is actually very similar to the progression that you take in school. Here's my current thoughts on the matter. PADI takes high school graduates and allows them to teach high school courses. The problem with this is you should always know more than you teach. GUE takes masters level students and allows them to teach high school, but ONLY science, they can't teach math unless they go back and get another masters degree in math, and you have to have a PhD to teach the instructors. PADI only requires two years, and issued 150 certifications to become a master instructor, and only have to have 250 dives to become a course director. Course Directors can teach anything, that is the equivalent to an associates degree compared to GUE's PhD's.

PADI has also committed to a step similar to our education system in terms of their training progression. This has earned them the lovely acronym "Put Another Dollar In". There is nothign wrong with this, it is just the way they have chosen to structure their company. It works IF it is followed. The problem is you can have people that have a high school diploma but only went through trigonometry trying to do calculus. GUE also gives you a high school diploma, so it's the same "Certification" but it has taken you all the way through calculus. It is just a different style of structure for the respective agencies and they were chosen because IMHO they represent the two extremes of dive instruction.

 

[2airishuman]

b) If not, then what else?

I actually think that the current system works as well as it can given these two constraints:
1) only six open water dives
2) everyone passes (with rare exceptions)

I suspect that most people's skills and confidence gradually improve over the first 50 dives. If that's true, any instructional approach that involves more dives will produce better divers.

A program based on, say, 20 dives, half of them with an instructor present, would also allow several opportunities to fail the people who aren't comfortable in the water and never will be.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

well there is an underlying issue here.
PADI has decided they are going to commit to a step wise progression in learning and their curriculum is actually very similar to the progression that you take in school. Here's my current thoughts on the matter. PADI takes high school graduates and allows them to teach high school courses. The problem with this is you should always know more than you teach. GUE takes masters level students and allows them to teach high school, but ONLY science, they can't teach math unless they go back and get another masters degree in math, and you have to have a PhD to teach the instructors. PADI only requires two years, and issued 150 certifications to become a master instructor, and only have to have 250 dives to become a course director. Course Directors can teach anything, that is the equivalent to an associates degree compared to GUE's PhD's.

Actually to apply for Master Instructor for PADI, you need 250 certifications which have certain requirements for different certifications. To apply for the Course Director Training Course, you need 500, also with requirements on certifications. I don't have the information of what those requirements are in front of me, but I do know that your numbers are incorrect.

Becoming a PADI Course Director is a huge commitment. Not everyone who applies makes it. Some people have failed CDTC's according to my Course Director.

In addition, becoming a PADI OWSI does not mean that one can teach anything. There is a certification process as well that varies according to level. For example, my Course Director certified me and other of my fellow IDC candidates to teach a number of specialties. Otherwise we'd have to reach MSDT status before we could self-certify (once we met certain requirements). Now I am not sure if MSDT's and above can do this on all specialties, as some are more complicated than others. But I just wish to point out that your statement is inaccurate.

 

[tbone1004]

I pulled those numbers off of the PADI website today, but it doesn't really matter what the actual numbers are. Note the 250 I quoted was a number of dives, not certifications
Master Scuba Instructor
Course Director Training Course

The "anything" comment was your ability to teach OW, AOW, Rescue, etc. MSDT is also a joke and based on certifying 5 specialties, which just because you can, has nothing to do with your ability to actually teach those courses properly. I.e. learn to dive sidemount in a weekend and now you can teach people to sidemount. You aren't actually a sidemount diver, but you're now teaching people to do it.

Again, I'm not bashing PADI, it's the way they have chosen to do it to maximize profit for both them and their instructors, which is what they want to do, fine. No one can argue that it lowers the overall quality of instruction because the instructors are not held to a particularly high standard. Course Directors included based on the requirements to get into the programs as compared to other agencies. It's the model they've chosen and that's fine, but they do not have a particularly high regard in the community for putting out truly high quality divers. They're just real good at volume of divers that are good enough to survive the experience

 

[TMHeimer]

Lots of good stuff here. I'll just answer "b. If not, then what else"?-- All the rescue skills. Yes, this would significantly increase the cost of the OW Course. So be it. There wouldn't be two new OW divers without these skills buddying uo for a 60' dive. I know Jim L. teaches these. All should IMO.

 

[Bob DBF]

Have even more standards to follow, a greater number of rules?

Quality control

It makes no difference how many standards are in place if no one ever checks to see if they are followed, except perhaps after there is an incident, but after the fact it may be hard to determine.

Make it harder to become a Dive professional, and easier to revoke their credential. There are plenty of DM's and instructors already. A combination of scheduled and undercover checks on instructors during training sessions would go a long way to improve instruction, when their credential is in the balance.

Although I am a proponent of better dive training, it makes little sense to increase standards on their training when there is no way to determine if the instructor is training to the agency standard now.



Bob

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I pulled those numbers off of the PADI website today, but it doesn't really matter what the actual numbers are. Note the 250 I quoted was a number of dives, not certifications
Master Scuba Instructor
Course Director Training Course

The "anything" comment was your ability to teach OW, AOW, Rescue, etc. MSDT is also a joke and based on certifying 5 specialties, which just because you can, has nothing to do with your ability to actually teach those courses properly. I.e. learn to dive sidemount in a weekend and now you can teach people to sidemount. You aren't actually a sidemount diver, but you're now teaching people to do it.

Again, I'm not bashing PADI, it's the way they have chosen to do it to maximize profit for both them and their instructors, which is what they want to do, fine. No one can argue that it lowers the overall quality of instruction because the instructors are not held to a particularly high standard. Course Directors included based on the requirements to get into the programs as compared to other agencies. It's the model they've chosen and that's fine, but they do not have a particularly high regard in the community for putting out truly high quality divers. They're just real good at volume of divers that are good enough to survive the experience

I saw your links now. I'm scratching my head as there seems to be disconnect with that info and what I remembered being on a MI application. Obviously that is the route I am taking.

I hear you about sidemount, as I think that is the most complicated dive configuration that I have been exposed to so far. While I have taken the course with an excellent instructor (regularly goes to Mexico for cave diving), and am now tweaking my configuration (I have an old style harness with one piece of bungee to go over the valves). I do not see myself teaching Sidemount until I have comfortably dove in multiple configurations and have had some training in caves. The number of adjustments one can make and the impact of each is nontrivial.

To answer the OP. My approach to teaching is this: I cannot require my students to do more than what standards dictate. That would be a standards violation. However, I offer my students additional knowledge in courses, without adding tasks (which would violate standards in many instances) and fun dives after the course ("want to learn something new?").

I promise all my open water students to dive with them afterwards, at least one day one on one, as I have found that on the second dive, they relax and everything comes together for them. Because this is an expensive sport, I often provide my own gear, such as fins, regs, tanks, bp/w, dive computer (shearwater perdix), for them to see what good equipment gives them and to motivate them to continue diving, as diving is so much more fun than open water courses.

I think we need to keep in mind the conditions in which people often get certified and what are the requirements are necessary for that. My understanding (and those with more market knowledge, please correct me), people often get certified in tropical areas where they continue to dive with their instructor/dive operation after certification. They go to places on vacation and dive. It is a smooth transition and they are not in difficult conditions. So such a model works quite well.

If we start talking about more stringent conditions, then continued training is quite important. However, while I have full respect for GUE (as I plan on taking fundies at the end of this year), I don't think it is appropriate for vacation divers. They generally want to look at pretty fish, not figure out what deco stops they are going to be doing on a dive.

There is not a single size that fits all.

 

[tbone1004]

perfectly said Kosta, the problem is like I laid out above though. You have high school graduates teaching high school freshmen trigonometry and after the freshmen get out of that class they think they can do calculus because when they come on forums like this, some of us are actually teaching calculus to our freshmen and they have the exact same certification. Our "nitrox divers" from NAUI look better in the water than most PADI instructors. They are held to ridiculously high standards and NAUI does allow you to put higher standards on the students to pass the class. Since PADI has fairly low standards to pass the OW class *which is perfectly fine for OW* we do have to acknowledge that not all OW divers are created equal, but we don't.

 

[boulderjohn]

, it makes little sense to increase standards on their training when there is no way to determine if the instructor is training to the agency standard now.

I agree. I believe students exiting a program that truly sticks to standards will produce divers of very good quality. I have seen it often. Unfortunately, it is also possible to certify students without having them meet those standards.

What is the problem?

I was a career teacher and school administrator. I was a key member of the team that designed the teacher evaluation system and standards still used by one of the largest school districts in America. Throughout the country, there are strict standards for college graduates to become teachers. Once they are hired, they are usually required to go through a probationary period in which they get special training and special oversight. Then they are required to go through frequent formal evaluations by school administrators who are in the building observing them at work. Those evaluators have contact with those teachers nearly every day of the work year. In most states, teachers must go through a recertification process every couple of years. If they don't live up to the standards, they can be fired, so there is pressure on them to do well. This great effort to ensure high teacher quality is extremely expensive and time consuming. Despite all of this, horrible teaching abounds. There are teachers everywhere ignoring standards and getting away with it.

So how can scuba hope to do a better job than that? How can any agency truly oversee the work of instructors whom they cannot possibly see at work? How many dive shops can afford to have someone on the payroll who is truly dedicated to making sure the independent contractors who teach from them are meeting standards in every class? What about independent instructors, who are self-employeed and can do whatever they darn well please? Who can check up on them?

I have mentioned several times that my niece became a certified diver after after one two hour pool session and one dive to a depth of 10 feet--she had no idea until I explained it to her how far from standards that was. She thought that was how all people got certified.