Teach Different. Dive Different.

[Scott]

PADI recommends 31 hours in total (that's a minimum by the way) for Open Water Certification.

Wish "Big Brother" would change that key standards page. The recommended 31 hours was placed in the key to meet college and university program requirements.
Since PADI is performance based and the student must meet mastery there is no minimum time.

Regarding ESA. A number of us agree that buddy skills, gas management and proper ascents can reduce the chance of having to conduct an ESA in real life. Good discussion in I2I about it.

 

[John_B]

I endorse the positives in both the little blurb and in the video. What I don't particularly like are the implied contrasts and the negatives. There's no reason to mention buddha hovers at all. Or fin pivots. Or skill demonstrations. Just state the positives. After all, a core philosophy shouldn't be given in terms of what it's NOT about but what it IS about. To me, adding in all those negative statements only detracts from the message of excellence in instruction and technique of NASE because it focuses not on diving, but rather on a criticism of other ways of teaching diving.

How are potential future divers ever going to know that buddha hovers or fin pivots are the wrong approach if NASE, etc. can't tell them?

 

[chillyinCanada]

How are potential future divers ever going to know that buddha hovers or fin pivots are the wrong approach if NASE, etc. can't tell them?

Won't matter . . . they aren't learning ESA either. I could quote another "agency" here, but um, nah . . . so old, so obvious.

 

[Quero]

How are potential future divers ever going to know that buddha hovers or fin pivots are the wrong approach if NASE, etc. can't tell them?

John, first they would need to know exactly what a Buddha hover and a fin pivot are. When did you first learn these terms and what they mean?

Since NASE is the little known 'new kid on the block,' and certification is available from several much better known and established agencies, I think they have to aggressively market their perceived advantages against the established agencies. Prospective divers won't extensively review online training materials at agency web sites, and most will gravitate toward established well-known agencies over a no-name.

Burger King marketed the Whopper against the McDonald's Big Mac, Pepsi marketed against Coke, and Microsoft advertises Bing against Google. In each case, the company coming later had to market aggressively against the established competitor.

If you aren't tried and true, you'd better be new and better, and make it obvious.

But Rich, this is very different. Pepsi/Coke and BK/McD comparisons draw on consumers' shared experiences and the assumption that potential customers would therefore be able to interpret the comparisons. The same cannot be said to be true in the NASE/mainstream agencies comparison. Because prospective OW students won't have the faintest clue what a Buddha hover or a fin pivot is, the comparisons will sail right over their heads. No, that blurb doesn't reach out to prospective students--it reaches out to prospective instructors. And the very category of instructors it targets is made up of people who already question the status quo. Further, given the negatives in the wording of the blurb, it actually fails to reach out primarily to those we might term "seekers," but instead to actively disaffected instructors. In other words, that blurb preaches to the converted.

If I were to put myself in the position of a complete novice who is looking for a course and who is exposed to BluewaterSail's example:

One instructor tells them: "Bouyancy is important! We will work on that throughout your course."

The second instructor tells them: "Bouyancy is important! We will work on that throughout your course. In fact we have developed special techniques to assist you in learning: the Buddha hover and the fin pivot."

I would most likely conclude that the second instructor's program was stronger--after all, s/he has provided details of the teaching/learning strategies to be used, right? Now just suppose that we superimpose the wording from the NASE blurb on the first instructor's sales pitch: "Buoyancy is important! We will work on that throughout your course, but you won't learn it by imitating Buddha." What does that tell us about how buoyancy will be developed through the class? Exactly nothing, so it doesn't really sell the first instructor's program at all--it just criticises the second instructor's program.

The strongest part of the blurb, IMO, is the mention of applying cave diving insights to recreational diver training. The blurb would be more powerful, I believe, if that train of thought were pursued. What happens in cave diving in regard to buoyancy and how can those skills enhance recreational diving? Tell us that, and the sales pitch will be so much more convincing!

---------- Post Merged at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Let me just add that I am in no way discussing the standards or the approach adopted by NASE. I am saying only that I find the blurb in the OP singularly ineffective because:

1) It doesn't tell us what NASE instructors teach, but rather what they don't teach.
2) The strong implication that teaching through these NASE-rejected techniques is flawed carries the risk of alienating potential cross-over instructors since the message is that because they are using unsound methodology, they aren't doing a great job as instructors. Who wants to be told that they're below par in their work?

In other words, my position is that regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the approach, standards, and methodology adopted by NASE, this blurb may not be doing what it is intended to do as a marketing tool.

 

[The Chairman]

it actually fails to reach out primarily to those we might term "seekers," but instead to actively disaffected instructors. In other words, that blurb preaches to the converted.

What NASE really needs right now are tons and tons of disaffected instructors. Well, as many of them that are out there! Currently, the "converted" are dispersed all over the place trying to make their round peg courses fit into square whole training agency's courses. Many have no clue that NASE even exists and that they have a home with a nice, smooth round hole that matches up with their training ideals. Those whose mind is made up about the efficacy of the Buddha position during an OW dive probably need to mature a bit and open their minds before they would make good instructors for NASE. Of course, once the core has been established then they can move on to change the way the world dives. At that time, I am sure the message will be a bit more inclusive, but right now NASE needs instructors willing to be neutral while they teach. The best place to find those instructors is right here on ScubaBoard and the best way to attract them is to make things a bit controversial. Personally, I think they've done a good job here.

 

[Peter Guy]

OK, just what the heck is WRONG with a good Budha hover?



Y'all act as if it is something bad when it is merely a method of hanging out.

Being neutral is just that, being neutral.

BTW, how many of you can hover upside down (in a dry suit)? One of the best divers I know is quite happy (and willing) to assume any position in the water especially when he wants to just take "that" shot.

As for me, I'll stick with "the 800 pound Gorilla" and keep trying to push/change the culture, perhaps one mm at a time (or even less). But it does appear that change just might happen.

 

[graham_s]

OK, just what the heck is WRONG with a good Budha hover?

I was wondering that

 

[The Chairman]

OK, just what the heck is WRONG with a good Budha hover?

What does it accomplish? It teaches the students that upright is fine and it's not any more useful than a cheap parlor trick. How many pictures has your friend taken in the Buddha position? Any? I would be surprised. Yesterday at Snapper Ledges there is a swim through that is covered in fish. You have to very good trim in order to squeeze through. Try that while making a Buddha pose. Actually, the one kid kinda tried. It seemed that every time I looked at him, he was in the pose. I asked him on the boat and his answer? His instructor told him that only the very best divers could accomplish that pose. O rly? So now he's bent on perfecting it. Kinda funny. Monkey see, monkey do. Your students will imitate your good and bad habits. Me? I want mine imitating my trim and getting close to the bottom without kicking the crap out of it. You just can't do that in the Buddha pose.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Wish "Big Brother" would change that key standards page. The recommended 31 hours was placed in the key to meet college and university program requirements.
Since PADI is performance based and the student must meet mastery there is no minimum time.

Regarding ESA. A number of us agree that buddy skills, gas management and proper ascents can reduce the chance of having to conduct an ESA in real life. Good discussion in I2I about it.

Maybe they would be better off sticking with the 31 hour requirement, rather than going with the instructors assessment of performance.

This is the element that is so subjective, and has become so watered down.
This is why we see so many "Advanced" divers that crater into the bottom like lawn darts on descent, or churn up the bottom during the dive, etc., etc.

I think it's a good thing that NASE is addressing this. If they have to make some negative comparisons, then so be it.

Any efforts to change the negative impressions about dive training is a good thing.

Comparing standards is fine and good, but many times the final product doesn't appear to be anywhere near the printed standard at all.

It's nice to read this thread and see the intent of where NASE wants to go with their training.
In my opinion, there are so many substandard instructors out there, because agencies and shops allow it.

Good on NASE for addressing it, and establishing goals to change it.

V/R.
Mitch

 

[Diver0001]

Maybe they would be better off sticking with the 31 hour requirement, rather than going with the instructors assessment of performance.

This is the element that is so subjective, and has become so watered down.

In educational terms making sure that all the teachers have the same *interpretation* of "mastery" is called "calibration".

What happens over time is that instructors can, and often do, lose calibration, or in other words, their bar changes. This can also go both ways. Some instructors' bar will lower and other instructors' bar will raise. Both are losing calibration, meaning that they are both no longer doing what was expected of them when they were first trained.

I guess you could argue that an instructor whose bar "slips up" isn't as dangerous as one whose bar "slips down" but in both cases the agency *should* (but do not) make use of their network of CD's in order monitor and if necessary re-calibrate individual instructors in their area.

Doing so would fall under something that could be called "quality control". No agency out there right now (including PADI, who does lip service to quality control but does nothing to follow through with meaningful action) has a meaningful quality control system. In my opinion, without this, no measure you can take (whether steering to "mastery" or steering to a given number of hours for the course) will make a damned bit of difference to the real quality being delivered where the rubber meets the road.

In other words, an instructor whose bar has "slipped down" isn't suddenly going to start delivering a better course because he's forced to spend more time on it. All he'll do is spend more time delivering the same crap he does now.... worst case, the students will also have to pay more for the same crap.

If you ask me, this touches on the biggest problem in scuba diving training bar none. There is *no* meaningful quality control at all.

NASE will have the same problem. Standards, which is nothing more than a checklist, and nice promo-videos and threads on the internet don't teach students. Instructors do. So the most relevant question to NASE is how they are organising their QA, because that's what's going to make sure that instructors don't lose focus on quality ... and without meaningful QA, it will have the same problem that all the other agencies have.

R..