The Philosophy of Diver Training

[boulderjohn]

wow ... I cant imagine an instructor who's goal is not to impart safety to their students in the most concise and duplicable way possible

I don't think I stated this well:

They would look down on an instructor who demonstrated the skill properly and let students practice enough to get it down because that instructor accepted the student's first attempt in OW (which was successful) and did in much less time overall. They feel that indicates lax standards.

The instructors would call that sequential instructional process "holding the student's hand," which they don't do in technical diving because they don't think it should be necessary.

 

[D_B]

I'm not sure I'm understanding
... they don't demonstrate "how" they want something done?
... they want the student to go out and practice before the next class so that they have a much better skill set that only needs tweaking?

(sorry for the hijack )

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm not sure I'm understanding
... they don't demonstrate "how" they want something done?
... they want the student to go out and practice before the next class so that they have a much better skill set that only needs tweaking?

(sorry for the hijack )

I am evidently not explaining it well.

The instructors arrive at an OW site and tell the students what skills they need to perform on the coming dive. The skills are new to the students. It is briefly described, and then the students are evaluated on their performance. They often fail. The next OW opportunity might be a month away.

In the meantime, the students might get together on their own and try it in a pool. They might go to the Internet and look for video to see how it is done. Eventually they will get back into the OW setting and perform to the instructor's satisfaction. That is because the instructor does not believe all those other steps should be necessary.

The students disagree and think the class would be more efficient and faster with some steps before the evaluation phase.

 

[Walter]

I am evidently not explaining it well.

The instructors arrive at an OW site and tell the students what skills they need to perform on the coming dive. The skills are new to the students. It is briefly described, and then the students are evaluated on their performance. They often fail. The next OW opportunity might be a month away.

In the meantime, the students might get together on their own and try it in a pool. They might go to the Internet and look for video to see how it is done. Eventually they will get back into the OW setting and perform to the instructor's satisfaction. That is because the instructor does not believe all those other steps should be necessary.

The students disagree and think the class would be more efficient and faster with some steps before the evaluation phase.

That's not teaching, it's having divers teach themselves.

 

[InTheDrink]

I know this thread has moved on over the last few pages, but a couple of comments:

1. Yes Walter I was JClynes at the time. Your input was useful but you asked me some questions to which I asked some back. Didn't get a response, I'm not offended but I do remember. Pithy responses (JeffG being the worst offender) work fine for regulars but for new people it can feel like getting cut down in your tracks. And I think I've a relatively thick skin (who doesn't?).

2. One thing that frogman discussed that I hugely agree on is the disparate economics in diving. I've no idea how it works for you guys back in the US of A but at a lot of resorts (Egypt, Malta, Maldives, lots of places) DMs and guides get paid peanuts. They do not have autonomy. They don't get to choose to do the extra fun dives.

It seems like a completely different beast and perhaps should be discussed as such.

But the ultimate driver with diving will be the same as any commercial activity. Low cost wins. As long as it's legal, low cost wins. People rate quality way down the line. And when it comes to diving they can't even evaluate what is quality so low cost wins.

My software company works with low cost airlines. My wife works for a high cost airline. I'd fly with my wife's airline anyday - so long as I wasn't paying (exaggeration inserted - I fly with them a fair amount but I've a reasonable amount of income).

I don't really see any solution to the situation apart from having a low cost high quality agency. But given the metrics that frogman mentioned - it's not really viable is it? The hourly or daily rate is so dire for these resort instructors that it's hard to see how you could increase their hours without their take home pay. So cost again rises.

I think it's called check mate. Perhaps we should look at ways to mitigate the damage than wish it never happened. It has, and it won't turn back.

J

 

[boulderjohn]

That's not teaching, it's having divers teach themselves.

You are perfectly correct, but that would not be their opinions. Their opinions mirror others in this thread: other classes are too easy; they are the only ones with real standards; etc.

Please do not interpret this as an attempt to lump any participant in this thread in with that group. I am simply pointing out that it is difficult to objectively evaluate your own instructional process, especially if you hold how long it takes for students to complete the course as a primary measure of quality.

 

[InTheDrink]

I am evidently not explaining it well.

The instructors arrive at an OW site and tell the students what skills they need to perform on the coming dive. The skills are new to the students. It is briefly described, and then the students are evaluated on their performance. They often fail. The next OW opportunity might be a month away.

In the meantime, the students might get together on their own and try it in a pool. They might go to the Internet and look for video to see how it is done. Eventually they will get back into the OW setting and perform to the instructor's satisfaction. That is because the instructor does not believe all those other steps should be necessary.

The students disagree and think the class would be more efficient and faster with some steps before the evaluation phase.

Novel. I'd think it's probably premature though at OW stage. Perhaps later on this approach might be good.

I've thought a tiny bit about your earlier posts about teaching techniques, and one area that I think you've missed is the compulsory Vs voluntary differences between learning at school and learning to dive. In the compulsory situation, finding ways to motivate the student is probably the single most difficult thing.

In a voluntary situation I would imagine that providing the best materials, content and further learning would be the best. I speak from a position of ignorance on this, but it did strike me that making comparisons between compulsory learning and voluntary learning might be misleading.

Cheers,
J

 

[JeffG]

Pithy responses (JeffG being the worst offender) work fine for regulars but for new people it can feel like getting cut down in your tracks. And I think I've a relatively thick skin (who doesn't?).

My bad. Well, not really

 

[InTheDrink]

My bad. Well, not really

You're getting verbose in your old age

 

[Thalassamania]

...100% of the high achieving teachers believed that all students can learn at a high level if the teacher uses learning strategies that will work with them on an individual basis.

Exactly what I have been advocating all along:

Hm ... "craftmanship." You are one insightful gray haired bugger.

I'd never have described it that way but you're right. Divers hand build, one at a time, custom to who they are and what they need, but all to a virtually identical end point. That is what I've always done. Most diving instruction today is one size fits all from an electronic device and a pipsqueak who is still dry behind his (or her) ears and who either has no idea that "craftsmanship" in diver training could even exist or who has been taught that it is a bad thing because it might be "non-standard" and is, in any case, unapproved by some "higher authority."

Thanks.

I agree that whether someone can swim or not can be determined by watching them do a few strokes. But what method do you use instead of a distance/time swim to judge their physical stamina? I've always thought that the swim requirement (along with an underwater breathhold swim) was designed to serve two purposes, to demonstrate water comfort/ability and test physical condition.

Guy

We had a long debate about stamina, it was almost a consensus that expecting stamina on the way into a class (which most of the time ran eight weeks back then) did not make sense and that individual instructors were free to pick a level of fitness that the could use in a final exam.

In the study we did, we in the central administration were trying very hard to bring two messages to the teaching staff of the district.

1. Teacher instructional decisions are the most important factor in student achievement
2. Newer teaching methods were more effective than the ones traditionally used.

The result was a war (no exaggeration) between the traditionalists (it doesn't matter how I teach, and what I have always done has worked just fine) and the change agents (what I do matters for the child, and these new methods really are more effective). Thus, there was a clear black and white division that would probably not occur in most situations.

The amazing thing is that studies today show the same thing. Schools that adopt the changes identified 2 decades ago regularly show great improvement, but it takes a dedicated leader to turn around the traditionalists. In fact, a study by the Annenberg Institute for School reform showed that the failure of leadership to deal effectively with one or two dissident teachers is enough to sink reform efforts. Moreover, in case after case after case, when a successful leader leaves that position and heads off into the horizon, the replacement leader is often ineffective and the school slides back toward mediocrity.

With respect to diver training, I'm not sure that simile that I think you are trying to make holds up. We're not dealing with English or Math, in fact, we're not even really talking about the classroom material at all. All of the latest educational approaches have real application there, and much of that has to do with the ways in which students of different ages and life stage learn best. The teaching method(s) need to tuned to the individual students and the situation, with a small class of two to four a Socratic seminar-like learning situation is often best, with a class of twenty to forty I tend to favor a two pronged approach with a formal lecture and a seminar like recitation session. Again, the key is "Divers hand build, one at a time, custom to who they are and what they need, but all to a virtually identical end point."

I forgot to mention how I see this affecting scuba instruction. I think there are several factors.

1. To begin with, although Coleman failed to recognize the importance of the individual instructor, he was correct that in whole group success, the quality of the overall student body at the beginning of instruction has a lot to say about the quality of the student performance at the end. As I noted in an earlier post, there are many cases where we have seen high schools take excellent freshman, turn them into very good seniors, and then boast about the results.

Here I am guilty, to a degree. I tend to work with a more homogeneous group in terms of age and academic ability and that makes life much easier. But I would note that my outliers, the occasional teen and occasional sixty or even seventy year old (I taught the university President and his wife) that I've had, do fine too.

When I have students who are struggling, I do all I can to make them successful, but I don't always get there. Over the past couple of years a few notable failures stand out:

Allow me to slightly change the descriptions and I'll try and answer you.

A 13 year old who clearly had not done any of the pre-reading before the first academic class and had a very flip attitude toward it all. His parents and I decided he should grow up a little before trying again.

The 13 year old son of a professor who is going to be traveling with him and wants to assist with his research, but he clearly had not done any of the pre-reading before the first academic class and had a very flip attitude toward it all.

Since my first obligation is to the institution's risk management, I'd have to recommend that the boy not be permitted to dive under auspices on any sponsored project and not be permitted to use any institutional equipment or dive at any facility controlled by the institution.

A 58 year old woman who had had a double mastectomy within the past year and who had never before in her life had her head under water.

I've had similar situations, they were solved by first having them take a swimming class and then working slowly and carefully with them.

A 69 year old man who has had several significant surgeries and was, frankly, feeble. He simply could not do the CW1 skills and decided (wisely) that scuba was not in his future.

Chances are that this sort of individual would not receive medical clearance. Our medical standards are rather higher than the "just check no to everything" menu that most of the recreational agencies use.

An autistic 15 year old whose autism was severe enough that he required a full time personal aide when he was in school. We worked with him for many sessions and finally got him to the point that we would give him a scuba diver certification so that he would always dive with a professional

Again, I can not imagine getting this individual medical clearance.

.
2. There is a reflex among instructors in all areas to hold onto whatever they have been doing and look with suspicion on anything new. This seems to be true in all kinds of instruction but nowhere else. Doctors are always looking for new and more effective ways to treat patients. No one goes into an iron lung any more. Technology improves every day. Can you imagine someone saying "Why improve the computer? What we have now works fine."

There's also an old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While my program has been anything but static, and change with everything I learn, the people who developed it in the first place, from whom I copied the skeleton and a great deal of the musculature, did a great job. Our program is not broken, it is demonstrably effective in providing what it is required to and what it is designed to. That can not be said of the current recreational training.

3. There is a tendency among all kinds of instructors to say something along the lines of "What I have been dong is working." Does that mean it cannot be improved in any way? I used to listen in amazement to teachers with staggering failure rates saying that. It is hard to admit that changing what you are doing can improve results, even if only a little.

All I can tell you is that I have had a failure rate that approaches zero, I have changed something at the end of virtually every class, and what I have been doing, does (in fact) work.

4. (This is similar to but not quite the same as number 2.) All instructors have a tendency to teach things they like to teach even if an objective analysis shows that it serves no useful purpose or may even be counterproductive. When they do this, they struggle to come up with rational reasons for doing it, reasons that seem perfectly fine to them but not so fine to people who do not have that preferential bias (the tendency we all have to look at data and interpret it to draw the conclusion you want it to support rather than the one it actually supports).

I have only about 100 hours and 12 open water dives to accomplish my goals. That may seem like a lot to the average recreational instructor, but keep in mind that what we do is create divers who will leave the average recreational instructor in the dust, both in terms of diving knowledge and skills. We don't have time to waste.

...For example, say an instructor was giving a course including 155 hours. I'm sure if you analyzed that particular instructor's course that you would be able to see all kinds of things that could be tightened up and done more efficiently.

That may be true, if your expectation is naught but what you are doing in twenty-odd hours, but if your expectation is somewhat higher ...

You might draw the conclusion that the instructor wasn't a very good instructor because in fact much of the time he needs to do his course is needed to fix his own mistakes.

You also may have no idea what-so-ever of what the final product of that instructor's course is and any assumption that you make that it bears any resemblance to the final product of your course may be naught but a symptom of your lack of imagination.

Another instructor might be doing a course that takes 31 hours (to pick a random example). That instructor, despite his agency's belief that the course should be competence driven, is under considerable time pressure because of the vacation schedules of his clients and pressure put on him from his employer to be "productive" (read: make money). This instructor might find some VERY efficient ways of teaching things that are 5 or maybe 15 times quicker than instructor #1. IN fact, you might conclude if you analyzed this instructor's performace as compared to instructor #1 that he/she is a much better instructor than instructor #1. It's logical. He has to be better because he doesn't have the time to waste....

This is false logic predicated on the PADI definition of "mastery." If you go with Glen Egstrom's definition, you are going to have to have, on the order of, 17 repetitions till a skill is truly dependably repeatable, and that takes more time.

But if you look at the STUDENTS coming out of course #1 and course #2, then you would probably see a big difference in how well they could dive. Maybe if you could measure it then instructor #1's students wouldn't be 5 times better than instructor #2. Maybe they're only 2 or 3 times better, reflecting the fact that instructor #1 wastes a lot of time....

But that instructor (#1) would argue that his course is better because the finished product is better, regardless of how inefficiently he did it. That's essentially what Thal and DCBC are arguing and somehow I would have to agree with them.

We are not arguing that at all, your implication of inefficiency is unfounded.

So I see two discussions. For instructors whose students have unlimited time and money efficiency is irrelevant and for instructors whose students DO have limits on their time and budget, efficiency is an important point.

Again, I deny you "efficiency" analysis, I'd cast it in terms of adequacy, what I do is both highly efficient and adequate, what is done in the recreational work in neither efficient (since the end result of an independent diver is rarely reached, except stochastically) nor is it economically efficient since the courses that you'd have to stack, one on top of another (OW, AOW, Nitrox, Rescue, O2 Admin, PPB, Deco, Boat, Surf, and some more specialties) would add up to way, way more than a 100 Scripps model course.

That is true to a large extent, but schools can manipulate time more than you might think. Mastery Learning is a concept that allows for this manipulation. There is a saying among advocates of mastery learning that we used to make time the standard and learning the variable, but now we make learning the standard and time the variable.

In the U.S., current state laws are usually contradictory about this, and this is, I believe, one of the biggest problems we face in education today. Schools are not supposed to graduate students until they have demonstrated mastery of standards (mastery learning), but they are penalized if they do not graduate a specific percentage on time, exactly four years after enrolling as freshman. In the long run, the penalty for failing to graduate the students is greater than the penalty for not educating them, so....

I agree.

By the way, that is how almost all dive instruction is done today. The term mastery is standard in such systems, and PADI's use of it is correct because it is using it in its educational context. Using the term in its non-educational definition is not appropriate.

That's a cop-out. Show me one dictionary entry for "mastery" that lines up with PADI's usage. People know what "mastery" means, it's not what PADI (or maybe even some "educators") pretend(s) that it means.