The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

I wouldn't say that they "censored" you, as must as told you that teaching the DCBC scuba course and issuing a PADI card wasn't cool with them.

They were upset because the course standards were higher than theirs, and unless they were making money from the rescue course, they didn't want one of their Instructors teaching it (I'm bad).

This is a specialty course in the PADI System. As previously mentioned (and either not heard or refused to listen) you can offer the Altitude specialty together with the PADI OW course but you will have to sequence the two courses in the right order and issue 2 cards.

I've started answering posts oldest to newest, so I think we may have been missing each other a bit on the sequence.

Again, this is an example of having to certify the diver with more than one card, thus increasing PADI's revenue. Not all divers are about the card, some just want to receive the training to dive safely. Why would this just not be included in the OW course. Why issue an Altitude Specialty as a requirement?

Whose altitude tables were you using, Wanye? It's possible you were using somone elses Altitude material and that's what they didn't like?

DCIEM's

Yeah, I can sort of follow the twisted logic of this if you think about liability. If you "test" someone on something then I could imagine it somehow increasing your liability exposure as compared to not doing it. You insist on "testing" and use that synonymously with "teaching" but did you ask them if you could "teach" something that's not in the standards, like finding slack tide on the tide tables? Given your apparent difficulty with distinguishing between "test" and "teach" on this thread, I have my suspicions that what they said and what you thought they said might not be the same.

I personally see a difference between teaching a subject or skill and evaluating the students knowledge and/or ability of that taught. I believe in doing both. You are free of course to use any definitions you wish to, as long as you don't expect the world to comply with your preferences.

If it's "reasonably required," you have a responsibility to insure that the student is competent before certify them. Moreover, you should be prepared to prove this in court.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Again, this is an example of having to certify the diver with more than one card, thus increasing PADI's revenue. Not all divers are about the card, some just want to receive the training to dive safely. Why would this just not be included in the OW course. Why issue an Altitude Specialty as a requirement?

Now you're just being contentious to be contentious.

Altitude, dry suit and others are a specialties because not every diver will need to know that material to dive in conditions similar to or better than those in which they've been trained. Or are you suggest that every dive shop in Bonaire have a collection of rental dry suits?

A second card is issued because the specialty is completed with OW.

 

[Kingpatzer]

They were upset because the course standards were [-]higher than theirs . . .[/-] not PADI's

Fixed it for you.

You were teaching your own course and issuing a PADI card.

 

[Diver0001]

Just to move this discussion along again I'd like to go back to two things that people said earlier on.

One was a comment from JeffG when he commented that some instructors seem to overestimate their importance. I think this is an interesting comment. I was just driving home and saw a woman in a black Citroën C1 blow completely obliviously through a red light while fixing her mascara in the rear-view mirror.

It doesn't seem like something her driving instructor would have suggested she do. And I think there a lot of parallels to be drawn between how people drive and how people dive after certification too.

Any comments about that?

The other comment is something that DCBC mentioned several times but I'd like to approach it from a different angle. He was saying about liability insurance and standards and how PADI wants people to adhere closely to standards to cover themselves in a possible legal suit. They say that because if the instructor adheres closely to standards then in a liability case the standards will be put to the test and not the instructor. In theory.

PADI also works as it's own insurance agent, which, in my mind, creates a conflict of interest.

The question is, doesn't PADI make it unnecessarily complicated for themselves by doing this and wouldn't it be better if PADI wasn't in the insurance business at all? I don't know much about insurance and even less about law but something there seems like putting themselves out on a limb for no good reason...

Any comments about that?

R..

 

[DCBC]

In the last part of this thread, I've seen Wayne trying to get himself out of the firing line when being confronted about using 1/2 truths and misdirection to push his cynical agenda about PADI but I haven't seen him back off of that position. I don't know if there is anything else that can be done to put the message out there more clearly than it has been, but I'm not automatically willing to declare this "water under the bridge" and just go back to letting him continue with this here and on other threads.

I understand that it is far easier to throw stones at the messenger than address the content of the message. Historically the messenger was killed if the message wasn't one that was well accepted.

I understand that some people will disbelieve everything from everyone. That's fine, if that's the way they choose to live their lives, so be it. All I have recounted on this thread is the truth, as best as I am able. Is it only one person's perception of the truth? Absolutely! If you don't wish to accept it, that's up to you. They may however be others that do.

My father once told me that one of the secrets of life was not having an experience and missing its meaning; I've had my experiences with PADI and I haven't. Whether these experiences are applicable today, who can know. All I can do is ask the question.

People seem hesitant to respectfully discuss the content of my statements or provide a counter-argument by posting current documentation from the organization. This is despite my posting of a Standards statement from another certification agency.

Rob, I take exception to you calling me a liar. You say that you have apologized, but I've never really heard one. Perhaps my parents taught me to be sincere and not be flippant when making one. An apology is only an apology if it is interpreted as such. It hasn't been.

 

[Walter]

Regarding respect. I want to be clear, since I believe this may be somewhat directed at me, that I don't have an issue with Wayne as a person. I also firmly believe based on the intensity and passion I read in his posts that he's a very thorough and dedicated instructor who probably gets excellent results in the system he's using now. The system that seems to fit his style.

Thanks for posting this. All too often, all of us, and I am including myself, tend to get too hung up on the particular issue and lose sight of other, often more important points. I believe points like you just posted are much more important than the point currently under debate.

I've known you online for several years and you've earned my respect.

I've seen Wayne trying to get himself out of the firing line when being confronted about using 1/2 truths and misdirection to push his cynical agenda about PADI but I haven't seen him back off of that position.

You are assuming motivation and intent. Please don't.

I'm not automatically willing to declare this "water under the bridge" and just go back to letting him continue with this here and on other threads.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you both to back off. I'm asking you both not to try to have the last word.

I was kind of hoping that we could deep out the QA and the "fox guarding the hen house" angle a bit. Personally I see this as the main reason why we have so many badly trained beginners around. What do you think about that, Walter?

I believe (in other words, this is my opinion) there are many reasons for the epidemic of poorly trained divers.

Some students are not motivated to learn. They just want a card. That's certainly a contributing factor, but if we, as instructors and as agencies didn't participate in allowing them to slide, it wouldn't happen.

Some instructors are lazy and cut corners. He cleared his mask once, that's good enough.

Some instructors honestly believe they are doing a good job and don't realize they are cutting corners. They cleared their mask once when they learned to dive. The instructors they watched all had their students do it that way. That's the way it was done when they took their instructor class. They don't know any better.

QA is broken. A diver reports an issue with his instructor to me. I can not report it to the agency because I don't have first hand knowledge. That's insane. I agree the instructor should not be tried and convicted on hearsay evidence, but an inquiry (with no stigma attached) can be made. About 20 years ago, I was involved with QA for the YMCA SCUBA Program. One day I received a call from a man whose girlfriend was taking a YMCA class. He told me that his girlfriend told him (hearsay and unreportable under many QA systems) that the instructor was not getting in the water for the pool sessions. I called the Regional Director and was told to investigate. I showed up unannounced at the next scheduled pool session. Unfortunately, it had been cancelled. I dropped by the shop and met with the instructor. He admitted he had been directing classes from pool deck with his AIs in the water because of an injury that would not allow him to get wet for a few weeks. I immediately put a stop to the practice. Had the typical QA procedure been followed, they class and perhaps future classes would have continued with no instructor in the water. A QA process that doesn't at least look into possible problems, however reported, is letting standards violations, possibly dangerous standards violations continue.

Finally, some agencies (plural) have standards that are, in my opinion, inadequate.

First is the quality related to the process of delivery (ie.... did the instructor follow standards?)

and second the quality related to the product it'self (ie.... did the instructor create safe divers?)

There's a third. Is the established process the best method of achieving the goal of creating safe divers?

One other point I'd like to make. We all disagree with a statement from time to time. Some of us quote it and then point out our disagreement. That's accepted practice. When a person is quoted with part of the quote lined out or changed with a notation "fixed it for you," that is not accepted practice although I'm seeing it more and more. This is extremely rude. Disagree with me all you want. Quote me and point out what you feel is wrong. Don't screw with my words. My words are mine. They are not there for you to "fix." Show some respect to each other.

Wayne, you've made your point. Everyone understands your point. Those who were unsure have made up their minds. Please let it drop. Move on to other points.

 

[DCBC]

Now you're just being contentious to be contentious.

Altitude, dry suit and others are a specialties because not every diver will need to know that material to dive in conditions similar to or better than those in which they've been trained. Or are you suggest that every dive shop in Bonaire have a collection of rental dry suits?

A second card is issued because the specialty is completed with OW.

When I was a PADI Instructor, I could not have issued an Altitude Specialty because to my knowledge there wasn't such a thing. If you want to comment on what I have done in the past, do yourself the courtesy of knowing what you are talking about. If you weren't diving 20 years ago, you don't know the environment that I was teaching in at that time. You are quick to criticize that times have changed, then point fingers at what was done. I have seen many changes in diving education in the last 20 years.

 

[DCBC]

Fixed it for you.

You were teaching your own course and issuing a PADI card.

No I was correct the first time; compare the standards!

 

[Kingpatzer]

People seem hesitant to respectfully discuss the content of my statements or provide a counter-argument by posting current documentation from the organization. This is despite my posting of a Standards statement from another certification agency.

DCBC - that is thoroughly disingenuous of you. There have been a number of us who have been consistently providing direct quotations out of the instructor's manual for you.

I have no problem disagreeing with you, but when it reaches the point of folly is when you fail to even acknowledge the fact that your interlocutors are providing you with specific official standards to address your points.

At that point, it becomes a .

So .... have fun, I've participated enough in this one. My only parting comment is:

 

[boulderjohn]

Originally Posted by Thalassamania View Post
For multiples, when the "product" is consistently good, both within each group produced and between multiple groups, you've a rather safe bet that the "process" is one that should (at least) be studied.

This is where I hope BoulderJohn will jump in. He's a real expert in these things when it comes to how education develops over time. I dont think either of us are.

Studies of the effectiveness of instructional programs are extremely complex, and it is very easy to make mistakes because of the post hoc fallacy. Results are not always an indicator of process.

One example is the research conducted by John Goodlad decades ago. He tried to compare educational programs to determine which were the most effective, but he found it impossible to do. When he observed individual classrooms, he found that even teachers trained extensively in the program being used were more likely to teach the way they themselves had been taught than in the way the program was supposed to be taught. He could not find any programs being consistently taught the way they were designed.

The extensive longitudinal research of Sanders in Tennessee is perhaps the most important study of instructional effectiveness in history, and it has really revolutionized our thinking in education. He found that the most important factor in student achievement--by far--was the instructional skill of the individual teacher in the classroom. Teachers in the same building, teaching the same instructional program with the same students year after year produced drastically different results. I can't remember the individual key points exactly at the moment, but I think it is a fair summary to say that a student who had several of the top achieving teachers in a row while in elementary school had about a 50% higher achievement level upon graduating than students having several consecutive years of the lowest performing teachers in elementary school.

The Effective Schools study by Lezotte and Edmonds, is also excellent. It's results are pretty much unquestioned today, about two decades after it was done. It was corroborated by a study in which I participated as a researcher myself. It found that overall school effectiveness (not just the individual teacher) was not closely related to instructional program at all but rather by a number of other factors primarily related to school climate, especially an atmosphere of an expectation of success. Quality local leadership was determined to be absolutely essential. If I were to translate that to scuba instruction, it suggests that an LDS with a truly effective Course Director would provide excellent instruction through any agency.

Finally, I would like to give an interesting piece of information from the study in which I participated, mentioned above. This was an internal study for one of the largest school districts in the country. We selected 10 schools for study based on value added success. In other words, we were looking at schools whose assessment data showed that the students who left the program were doing better than they were at the beginning of the program to a greater degree than should be expected. What we found was that some schools with low overall achievement were actually doing very well--they were taking highly troubled students and getting them to a surprisingly high level. We also found the opposite: schools with very high total achievement levels on were actually doing a poor job, for the students entering the schools were showing higher achievement than they were when they were graduating.

Interestingly enough, our study also suggested something that others had long noted. When schools start with excellent students, those students will look pretty good no matter how poor the instruction. They would have done even better with good instruction, but you cannot bring good instruction to those schools because the instructors are so proud of their current results that they refuse to believe they are actually dong a bad job and are thoroughly resistant to change.

In summary, a rush to judgment of programs can lead to emulating poor practices. A quality analysis takes much more than a glance at the bottom line.