Should instructors be allowed to "add stuff" to a course

[Diver0001]

We have a lot of discussions about the quality of training etc. etc. and one of the big things that comes up a lot (albeit sometimes hidden "between the lines") is the question of how much an instructor should be allowed to modify the agency's course to suit his own ideas.

There seems to be two main lines of reasoning here:

(1)
First is, let's call it, the PADI approach. The courses are fairly well defined and instructors are somewhat restricted from adding stuff to a course that isn't defined by the agency. To pick an example, in the Open Water course, buddy breathing isn't in the system (it was at some point in the past but it isn't anymore). So as a PADI instructor, you're not allowed to teach it at the OW level.

PADI's thinking, I believe, has to do with an educational principle that could be described as "just in time" teaching. It restricts the amount of information given to students so the *main* things they have to learn don't get diluted too much by extraneous information. This enhances retention over the long term and ensures that the time students spend in training is spent on things that really matter. PADI didn't invent this idea, btw. There is a fair amount of research to suggest that this is a good idea and it's something that's used in the general education system to good effect. (I'm hoping that our resident expert on these things, boulderjohn, will chime in with his perspective on this approach as well because I'm everything *except* an expert on this).

(2)
The other idea is one that could be described as "just in case". The instructor uses the agency's course as a basic framework and then adds whatever he/she feels is relevant. That could be buddy breathing or a host of other skills designed to cover various specific (but sometimes unlikely) scenarios. To pick a kind of extreme example, one instructor here on scubaboard has his entry level students learn to tie a bowline knot one handed with three-finger mittens on; after all, you never know when you might be holding something with one hand and having to tie off (something?) with the other hand. This is actually a good example of "just in case" teaching. It's not a very likely scenario but *if* it did happen then the ability to handle it gracefully would be nice.

The thinking in this camp is that the instructor, and not the agency, knows best what students need to learn for their local conditions. In some cases, there might be very compelling reasons to add something to the course and in other cases it may be a question of instructor preference/bias/opinion. Some agencies allow for this approach as well.

So the big question becomes this: when an instructor wishes to add material to the course that has not been defined by the agency, should they be allowed to do so without the agency's knowledge/approval, or should the agency have the final say in how much "just in case" training is done under the flag of their programme? If the agency allows it, will instructors "go too far" in adding a bunch of irrelevant crap, which *could* negatively affect student competency in things that matter, or will instructors "do the right thing" and add just those things that *improve* competency of their students.

For my part, I don't know the answer to this. That's the reason I'm starting this thread. I'm a fence sitter and I see both sides having strong arguments in favour of their approach.

What do you think?

R..

 

[Rich Keller]

How can you put a diver in the water without teaching them buddy breathing? They drill into peoples heads that they should NEVER dive alone but they forget to tell them why? As for the rest I think it is a good idea for instructors add anything that applies to their region. Buddy breathing being at the top of that list.

 

[darushin]

How can you put a diver in the water without teaching them buddy breathing? They drill into peoples heads that they should NEVER dive alone but they forget to tell them why? As for the rest I think it is a good idea for instructors add anything that applies to their region. Buddy breathing being at the top of that list.

I think by buddy breathing he means sharing air, swimming back to a predefined point and conducting an ascent. PADI doesn't teach this, but instead teaches that anything resulting in a share air incident results in an immediate safe ascent to the surface. buddy breathing such as I mentioned is also not taught by SDI/TDI and I think NAUI either.

Daru

 

[The Chairman]

I have my agencies' approval to add skills and concepts to all of my classes. More than that, I have their encouragement to do so.


For AOW, my students will learn the frog kick, perfect their buoyancy, run lines on land and in the water and shoot an SMB from depth. I feel that these are "just in time" skills that are needed to dive in the Keys successfully.

 

[Dive-aholic]

rk, I think you might be confusing air sharing and buddy breathing. Buddy breathing has been optional for many years and PADI just took that option away in the past couple years or so.


As for the OP, TDI/SDI is a perfect example of your 2nd situation. Not only do they allow instructors to add skills, but we can also supplement our courses with any other material we see fit. I include several articles and PDF files with all of my decompression courses. One of the files is a couple hundred pages long and much more detailed than any of the student manuals currently available on the market. I am also allowed to run the course as I see fit for the local conditions or any other conditions. I have taught decompression courses to students from all over North America and I do try to incorporate cold water procedures into my courses in addition to cave procedures. And I am backed by my agency in doing this. I believe it makes for a better course. I'm still a PADI instructor but I've issued 2 PADI certifications in the past 5 years and only because they were specifically requested. Sometimes I wonder why I hold onto the rating but it may actually prove beneficial to me this coming year. Anyway, I've always taught above and beyond. When I was only a PADI instructor I would just end the PADI course and begin my own mentoring session to include other material.

 

[Bob DBF]

How can you put a diver in the water without teaching them buddy breathing? They drill into peoples heads that they should NEVER dive alone but they forget to tell them why? As for the rest I think it is a good idea for instructors add anything that applies to their region. Buddy breathing being at the top of that list.

Buddy breathing, in the traditional sense, is two divers on one second stage.

Air shareing, I take to mean, is two divers using two second stages off the same first stage. It is a minor inconvience and does not provide the same skills as buddy breathing.

Today, the term is used interchangably by many divers.



Bob
----------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.

 

[Rich Keller]

Two divers breathing off one second stage was the way I learned because octos had not been invented yet. So I guess I am not just old school but one room school house type of old school.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Like Pete and Dive-aholic I teach for agencies that not only allow but actually encourage and require me to add material as I see fit and test on it as a condition of certification. Speaking only of SEI (I'm also SDI/TDI) the final decision as to who gets a card is the sole responsibility of the instructor. The instructor is the one who is actually in the classroom, pool, and open water with the student. The agency is not. There have in the past been questions as to how that affects the insurance we are required to carry. And speaking for myself since I specifically checked due to the number of workshops and custom tailored classes I run, along with additional requirements on med forms, I can say that it doesn't.

Anything that increases the comfort and safety of the divers I put in the water actually reduces my risk. And as long as agency standards not only permit, but require me to add material as I see fit to meet local conditions or conditions my students are most likely to encounter I'm meeting the standards and satisfying the insurance company.

While it is an optional skill for OW divers, actual buddy breathing is still permitted to be taught and I do teach it. In OW and Advanced. Not only stationary but swimming. Some say that with modern gear and octo's it's not necessary. I disagree. Same as those who say rescue skills are too much for OW divers. I'm still required to teach them and add others I feel necessary. And personally I don't want to buddy up with a diver that has not had the skills I consider to be basic as part of their training. Unless I'm getting paid to buddy up with them. And sometime during that dive I will teach them those skills.


On the academic side we have a standard workbook to accompany the text we use - Dennis Graver's "Scuba Diving". There is a standard exam. But since SEI considers it's instructors to know what best works for them and meets the needs of their students, we are not required to use them. I can make up my own workbook that follows the text and meets my style of teaching and the needs of my students. Not only does SEI approve of this but they will print it for me! I only need send them the word or Pdf and they will keep it on file. When I need workbooks I order my version and they print and bind it for the same price as the standard one. The exam is normally 50 questions but we can make it 100 if we like. Even the 50 question version comes with a bank of 168 additional questions we can add or substitute for them. Or we can make up our own.

The agency trusts the instructors to do what is best for their students. They consider them capable of not only teaching but also developing a course that meets standards. Agency input is not required. I teach an Underwater Navigation course that I created from scratch. One that meets the needs of students diving in my local conditions. SEI has a copy on file and should an instructor need an Underwater Nav course, since the official one from the old Y program was shelved for review and upgrade, mine is the one they get sent. And I would get a cut of the sale. Or I can sell it myself to any instructor that wants it.

The AOW class I teach is entirely my own creation and is likewise approved. It meets the min standards for the new Advanced levels we are using. In fact it exceeds them. It's actually more like an Intro to Tech/AOW hybrid on steroids.

What it boils down to from my perspective is, just how much does the agency trust the instructor to do the right thing? IF they don't have faith in the way their instructors are made then maybe they do need to keep them on tight leash. With rigid guidelines delineating every step of the process with only slight variations allowed.

The argument that this insures uniformity through out the system is BS. It only insures uniformity in the very basic items needed to keep people alive. Not make them safe, skilled, and competent. A uniform complete program works if conditions are the same in every instance and will be the same everywhere the person goes. I would expect someone who lives near the ocean to have covered more info as regards tides and currents and to be tested on that before they get certed than someone who will only dive the Great Lakes. Order of skills would even be different to ensure that the diver in cold water gets more practice and emphasis on weighting than someone who will only use a skin for 99% of their dives.

This kind of topic is one of the reasons I feel justifies an instructor to have the standards from more than one agency in their library. If more would do this the myth that all OW courses are basically the same would maybe go away and new divers told the truth. The absolute very basic information and skills are ok for the pool. Don't hold your breath, equalize, mask clear, etc. may be common among all the agencies. The way they are taught, the order, the required proficiency, and the number of times they get to practice it are not even close. By standards they are not even close. After that the additional information and skills are vastly different.

But some players don't want new or prospective divers to know this. That is made crystal clear in the actions taken to keep comparisons between them out of the reach of the public. And by the continued efforts to get standards relaxed even more by the RSTC and WRSTC.

 

[Colliam7]

There seems to be two main lines of reasoning here: (1) . . . an educational principle that could be described as "just in time" teaching. It restricts the amount of information given to students so the *main* things they have to learn don't get diluted too . . . (2) The other idea is one that could be described as "just in case".

1. The descriptors - 'just in time' and 'just in case' - are a great way to summarize the views.

So the big question becomes this: when an instructor wishes to add material to the course that has not been defined by the agency, should they be allowed to do so without the agency's knowledge/approval, or should the agency have the final say in how much "just in case" training is done under the flag of their programme? . . . What do you think?

2. The latter.

Since the training is done 'under the flag' of an agency, the agency should have the final say. If an Instructor does not want the agency to have the final say, they should instruct under another flag. No instructor is forced to align with a particular agency - it is voluntary - and the terms and conditions are made clear in advance of any alignment. Having said this, I believe that the perceived degree of divergence will probably influence the responses. The issue of content also cuts two ways. In many threads here on SB, we lament presumed restrictions on teaching (Rob, I am NOT saying that you are doing so in this thread). And, the OP's question clearly defines the presumption for this particular discussion as '. . . an instructor wishes to add material to the course'. What about the instructor who wants to omit material, because s/he doesn't believe it is necessary? Consider as one (possibly extreme) example ''Alternate Air Source Use", since the issue of buddy breathing has been mentioned. A particular instructor decides that AAS skills are unnecessary, and are a waste of time in their local diving environment, or decides that the only safe way to dive is with a redundant air supply, and therefore omits them 'without the agency's knowledge/approval'. Would that be appropriate? OK, this is perhaps an extreme example. I suspect more posters would answer 'No' than would answer 'Yes' to allowing the addition of material. But, I could be wrong.

If the agency allows it, will instructors "go too far" in adding a bunch of irrelevant crap, which *could* negatively affect student competency in things that matter, or will instructors "do the right thing" and add just those things that *improve* competency of their students.

3. A few will go too far, but most won't and will use sound judgement and reasoned thinking in deciding what to add. One issue, though - who decides that the judgement is sound, and the thinking is reasoned? If I decide to add true buddy breathing back into my OW course, am I thoughtful, or reckless? If I decide that students should do a 'doff and don' - remove their scuba unit in a 20 foot pool, swim to the surface, then go back and retrieve and re-don the equipment - am I using sound judgement, or flawed judgement?

I suspect that many of us who teach under a 'just in time' agency blanket actually do add things that we believe to be important. In most cases these additions are either a) didactic material that is included, but not REQUIRED for certification (that would be a clearer 'NO-NO') - we teach gas management, for instance, and have students work problems but do not supplement the final written examination with those problems; or b) in-water activities, including for example SAC calculation or an emphasis on developing a proficient frog kick, that are relatively low risk. I mention the risk because I suspect that many of us are also averse to being held financially accountable for the consequences of an incident in which a student is harmed while performing what we thought was a necessary, but relatively straightforward, skill that was NOT part of the 'just in time' standards. Having OW students record data (depth, time, and gas supply) on a slate during the 'Underwater Exploration' part of Open Water Dive 4, while the Instructor leads that underwater explorattion at a constant depth of 30 feet, and using those data to estimate SAC is not specifically allowed under PADI standards, but is not specifically prohibited and is relatively benign.

On the other hand, consider the situation of having a student perform a CESA from 40 feet, instead of a standards-stipulated maximum of 30 feet (because the instructor believes that training to be important to assuring a student's ability to deal with serious, unexpected conditions). During the execution of the skill the student is seriously injured (for whatever reason - panics during the ascent, spits out the regulator, and actually drowns at 10 feet). This set of circumstances is very likely to encourage the agency AND the insurance carrier to walk away from the instructor during any subsequent legal proceeding.

I am just as interested in following standards because I know that the agency AND insurance carrier will back me up, as I am in adding material because I think it would produce a better class.

Finally, consider the following scenario: an Instructor is conducting a Deep Diver specialty class for two divers. The instructor certified the two divers in OW, observed them in their AOW class, was their Instructor for Enriched Air, etc. so knows them well. The course is being conducted in warm (82 degrees) Caribbean water with good (>80 feet) visibility. For the final activity on Dive 4, the instructor takes the two students to a relatively flat, white sandy bottom at 130' (the maximum allowed depth, per standards), and has them hover there (of course, monitoring their air supply) watching the NDL value on their computeres click down to '0' NDL time left, then move to a decompression obligation of 1 minute, at which time the instructor and students begin a slow (30 ft/minute) ascent. During the ascent, the students watch their computers to see (and record) when / at what depth the computers move back to positive / available NDL. The purpose of the exercise: to illustrate to the divers that simply incurring a small computer decompression obligation (perhaps becoming enthralled by beautiful fish and not monitoring the computer closely enough) is not a crisis / emergency, and they should not try to compensate by a too rapid ascent. This is adding material - in the instructor's view it has value, and it is added in the interest of enhancing diver education and safety. In this case, did the Instructor 'go too far'? Just curious.

 

[DivemasterDennis]

Standardized course materials and content are a good thing, assuring coverage of essential knowledge and skills in a give course. But getting through the material is never enough. Student mastery of the required information and skills is. I really appreciate Jim Lapenta's view on this. As for adding content, I am with netdoc in including line deployment and smb deployment in the AOW course, as task loading is for me a key part of competence in the water at an advanced level. The addition of exercises and activities that enhance a class but do not replace or eliminate standard materials and activities has never seemed to me a problem. I do it only with the blessing of my LDS owner and training director, who I believe take care of any agency approvals.
DivemasterDennis