Every top notch athlete has a coach to help them improve. Do you really think those coaches are parasites on the Michael Jordans and Tiger Woods of the world?
Coaches are necessarily parasitic on the existence of those seeking training. (Parasitic does not mean a parasite. Adjectives =/ nouns.)
If we thought of what we did as coaching, then that would be a good start. But then we have to accept the fact that there is no game to which the practices are heading. There is a 'proof' of a sort in wins and losses and making the cut in competitive sports.
There ain't that in diving.
It's one of the reasons people can have such counterprodcutive notions about what an instructor should do, because in the end there is no competitive aspect weeded out those using ineffective, and inefficient methods.
What RJP is attempting to do with this survey is to try and get some sort of notion of what works, at least on some metrics, from the student's perspective.
Instructors (whether you call them coaches, mentors or idiots) CAN provide significant help to one learning how to dive (or any other activity).
The job of the instructor, in scuba diving, is to assist the student in the learning process which will mean providing both verbal and non-verbal aids. Too much verbal assistance is counter-productive but so is too little -- and unless the student understands the non-verbal instruction, it may well be useless unless explained to the student verbally.
Ok so let's accept that range of statements as fact (except the italicized), and work with them a bit. If there is productive instruction, then there must also counterproductive instrcution. Instruction either has an effect, or it does not. And if it does have an effect, then it can work for or against the student.
We do have to accept that instrcutors are simply not necessary, because there are too many counter-examples for this not to be true.
So instructors can be counterproductive, and they are not necessary in the logical sense of the word.
Since we instrcutors are working from a basis of not necessary, and we can be counterproductive, then we need to be careful about what we are doing, and
pay attention to the results, and not hold tight to what we want to do.
You have to remember that just like you, I started out teaching the Open Water class the same way every else did. Endless yammering, and kneeling students, and forcing their "skills" to be rote copying of what I demo and briefed. Becuse as you know, that's what we all got trained to do in the PADI DM,IDC and IE. And then we see what that results in. In other words, what BoulderJohn noted where DSDs in the pool for the first time were more comfortable swimming around the pool than OW students who had finished CW 1-5.
Mnay SB instrcutors have taken it part of the way, in the neutral bouyancy skill direction. I walked down that same path, independently, but just did not stop there. I came to realize some time ago that just about every tick in the average instructors behavior set is counterproductive. No one should ever stand in the pool with fins on and their mask off, yammering. Because what happens when they take that to the ocean in any kind of condtions? And if you remember, that god awful ocean awareness was even in the GUE OW course. This level of sloppiness is unforgivable in any course, and it shows that even instructors who consider themselves the best, are still stuck thinking about the course from their perspective, and not the students perspective.
So once I started modeling proper ocean behavior from beginning to end with the airway never unprotected ,mask on on, regulator in, (which I kind of had to, anyway, because training directly in the ocean as much as requires it for safety reasons),
there was this enormous leap in students competence right from the beginning. And a huge savings in time, because the entire time in the water was practice of some basic aspect of diving. You know, just like we realized about having the skills done neutrally buoyant right from the jump.
Any time we see a huge leap in student competence we have to be willing to let go of what we as instructor think, or want. Let go of whatever we, as instructors, are holding precious about our own importance. These ingrained instructor behaviors are simply standing in the students way of going diving, and competence. We have to be humble enough to learn from this.
And that's where the italicized portion becomes false.
#1. We are in love with what we do, because we are human. I have met many many instructors proud of their briefs and demos. But that's turning the point of the class on its head. Who cares if the instructor can do the skill, or even explain the skill? It only matters that the student can do the skills.
#2. Diving is not verbal, and doing briefs and demos are not necessary (because the entire instrcutor role itself is not necessary, thus any subsection of it is also not necessary). Who cares if the instrcutor can do a brief/demo? It only matters that the student can do the skills.
That means the minute we open out mouth to gift our students with our wisdom, or to set up some exaggerated demo that does not reflect anything in actual diving we are remembering our needs from #1, and forgetting #2. If we can improve the divers enjoyment, and efficency, then, sure, throw out a few words here and there once we hit the water.
But most "Skills" occur naturally to divers in an efficiently laid out course. First learned, best learned and all that. Divers can be taught how to remove and replace their BCD and weight belt during the first introduction to both things standing on land. There is no further briefing or demo necessary for doing underwater and surface weight belt R&R, and underwater and surface Scuba Unit R&R in a well-laid out course. They all follow naturally from the rationale of the role of the weigh belt and the BCD, as explained and practiced on land.
If an instrcutor has to demo or brief those skills in the water, then they are not properly introducing them from the beginning of the course.
Is keeping a course this tightly tied together in timing and logical progression easy? No. But that's where the expertise (and hey the ego, in my case) in comes in. My courses result in competence in ridiculously short times, as do the courses of people who have followed along and stolen my methods.
We talked about this back in I2I (when I was still allowed to post there). Wu Wei should be the goal of an instructor. A student should be largely unaware of having done any skills. My job to make sure they do them, but there's no reason for them to know that they were doing a ***"SKILL"****.