Video from a Training Dive with John Chatterton

[CptTightPants21]

But three posts above this someone says it's wickedly easy to video student performance while maintaining control of a class.

As someone who has helped video several classes I can agree. I remember one vivid experience where a student was performing kicks and a skills and they got so caught up in what they were doing they went off the platform and just kept on going. This happened at the absolute worse point (the farthest point from where instructor and students were)--doesn't it always happen like that. Lol. Viz was crap and the instructor had 3 other students. Luckily I was filming and was able to catch him before he got to far. He was so focused, my light signal didn't work, I needed to put my hand up to cover his eyes.

To be fair to both sides, I think there are two types of filming. There is the deliberate controlled filming that is done when practicing kicks, drills, etc and focuses specifics and nuances of a skill then there is the shoot everything approach. The shoot everything approach should be a mask mounted camera and it should be understood that there is plenty of stuff that might be missed in this approach.

The ideal approach is to do the skills on land and in shallow water for a day or two using the deliberate approach in a controlled student 1 and then student 2 system (similar to first couple of days of Tech 1/Cave 1). You fix all the serious issues and some of the smaller ones in the shallows so there is no need to do that much filming on a real 160' dive.

 

[cerich]

Say a fashion expert, a instructor at the Fashion Institute goes to a cafe and has a coffee. It turns out another instructor students displaying a fall project. The clothes are pretty ugly, poorly made. You weren’t part of the instructional team and the professor isn’t there.... the student doesn’t know you, never heard of you. A) how seriously should he take your criticism and B) how much criticism is the right amount for this situation? Even if you are blaming the professor, how will the student be impacted by your comments?

Offering feedback is fine, but I would suggest that if you want to to help the student, offer it in the same tone you would if he was your student that had sent you the video asking for you feedback. Trim was a shortcoming the OP was aware of, if you read his extensive notes.

The dogpile on the instructor didn’t help the student. Did any of the critics send JC a note asking about the instruction? Not that I could see. Nope, they went straight to “let’s write the agency”, which, of course helped the OP how?

I am with @chillyinCanada, despite this being the Internet, a certain level of consideration to to the real person on the other end of the comments should kept.

I sent the OP a note and offered him a free adv wreck class and even invited him to video and narrate it to compare and contrast and in doing so felt that it would be helpful to the OP and in general to contrast approaches.

 

[CptTightPants21]

Mmm...I can't seem to edit the previous post when on my phone. I see reply and quote, no edit. Is this a mobile issue?

To add one more bit. Basically if you are having more than one student perform a task at the same time, and you want to film it, it needs to be a hand held camera and the shoot everything approach.

 

[cerich]

Mmm...I can't seem to edit the previous post when on my phone. I see reply and quote, no edit. Is this a mobile issue?

To add one more bit. Basically if you are having more than one student perform a task at the same time, and you want to film it, it needs to be a hand held camera and the shoot everything approach.

not really, a paralenz is pretty wide angle, and if it can't capture your students doing skills, then you aren't watching both already.. which is problematic.

NO instructor should ever be using a handheld camera while teaching, same as no student should be.. unless it is a photo or video class..

 

[MichaelMc]

Say a fashion expert, a instructor at the Fashion Institute goes to a cafe and has a coffee. It turns out another instructor students displaying a fall project. The clothes are pretty ugly, poorly made. You weren’t part of the instructional team and the professor isn’t there....

I read the first page of their notes, which were good. I missed the other pages the first time around.

You have good points. The dog piling was not good.

"Hi, I'm a 10 year faculty over at XYZ (I have instructor on my scubaboard badge), you had some interesting elements in your show, you might consider alternate elements ABC, many people have been going in that direction. Are you a student of professor Z, they've been a hold out against this movement. It has been a bit of a debate in the community. Glad you're part of the fashion scene, I hope you're enjoying it."

Maybe. That seems good for a one off with the student, with you and the student at a cafe, no one else around.

What if it is at a convention, in the hall where people discuss, and others have questions, How short do you cut the 'Well professor Z has not been moving in the direction of most on this, let's just leave it there." Or do you explain, and debate with your fellow fashion experts/novices/interested from various institutions/public?

"I'm not sure why Z was doing it that way. I'd likely have done it this way. I think many might."
"We might ask Z, I do not see them around."
Much I think like was done in laying out a different, much longer, syllabus.

I think there is the difference in context. Dog piling no. But I think the message is still as clearly expressed.

I'm a junior trainee in academics, in my 6th year, completing my Ph.D this semester, I think we might try to have the same conversation. Just, yes, more carefully, a little indirectly.
"I'm not sure why A got those results. I work in that area. When I worked at replicating their experiments, I got abc, over n repetitions, which are <pause> significantly outside what they report. It's possible their results were not over a few repetitions, it wasn't clear in the paper."

(ETA: In as "These are the results I found when I looked, I'm modestly skilled. I don't know why they differ." Neutral, these were my results, description. Because I do not know why they differ. I have reasonable confidence in my results. I only know the details of their methods as reported in their paper, from which I was not able to reproduce their results. And, in this example, I have not followed up with them on why.)

This is a version of saying that A faked their results (a cardinal sin) or were sloppy in their methods or reporting.
(ETA: or I do not have much of a clue what I am doing. A possibility...)

ETA2: Side bar on science. Feel free to skip.
As context for the above “I got different results”. Not that anyone asked.
The goal is solid results backed up by others reproducing them. That produces trusted 'facts' about the world.
Often, if the methodology looks good/careful/though, the results are trusted for now, even without others reporting that they explicitly reproduced them. In my general field. Particularly as replication is not as publishable, if publishable much at all. A reason to do your experiment n times reporting the average and variation and not just once. Now, if things that try to build on those results fail, then that winds up explicitly invalidating the results, if they are at fault. And those that reported the initial results get egg on their face. Possibly a lot of egg, depending on how it all turns out.
So, a good attempt at explicitly replicating their exact experiment, that fails, (my 'I got different results' above) means we really need to reexamine the initial results, they do not look as good as we assumed. No matter what the reason. There may be a variable we did not realize. Their lab may have a different magnetic signature, that affects the results, that we need to know about. What ever. Their results, that A+B+C produces D, get put in the 'not sure' bin. As when we did A+B+C we got E. Part of their job in reporting the results was to tell others all the conditions to reproduce them. They reported. We reproduced the steps they reported (hopefully), but got a different answer, (we think).
That is either:
- interesting, as in cool, there is something new that could increase our understanding of the world, or
- bad in various ways, with their or our methods or reporting.

 

[CT-Rich]

I read the first page of their notes, which were good. I missed the other pages the first time around.

You have good points. The dog piling was not good.

"Hi, I'm a 10 year faculty over at XYZ (I have instructor on my scubaboard badge), you had some interesting elements in your show, you might consider alternate elements ABC, many people have been going in that direction. Are you a student of professor Z, they've been a hold out against this movement. It has been a bit of a debate in the community. Glad you're part of the fashion scene, I hope you're enjoying it."

Maybe. That seems good for a one off with the student, with you and the student at a cafe, no one else around.

What if it is at a convention, in the hall where people discuss, and others have questions, How short do you cut the 'Well professor Z has not been moving in the direction of most on this, let's just leave it there." Or do you explain, and debate with your fellow fashion experts/novices/interested from various institutions/public?

"I'm not sure why Z was doing it that way. I'd likely have done it this way. I think many might."
"We might ask Z, I do not see them around."
Much I think like was done in laying out a different, much longer, syllabus.

I think there is the difference in context. Dog piling no. But I think the message is still as clearly expressed.

I'm a junior trainee in academics, in my 6th year, completing my Ph.D this semester, I think we might try to have the same conversation. Just, yes, more carefully, a little indirectly.

"I'm not sure why A got those results. I work in that area. When I worked at replicating their experiments, I got abc, over n repetitions, which are <pause> significantly outside what they report. It's possible their results were not over a few repetitions, it wasn't clear in the paper."
This is a version of saying that A faked their results (a cardinal sin) or were sloppy in their methods or reporting.

I have seen civil discourse online (even on ScubaBoard). My first comment in this thread, despite it being a call for civility, needed to be edited for tone, we all can ramp-up the volume with people we will never meet in real life.

 

[MichaelMc]

I have seen civil discourse online (even on ScubaBoard). My first comment in this thread, despite it being a call for civility, needed to be edited for tone, we all can ramp-up the volume with people we will never meet in real life.

I did not track in detail the tone, beyond some worry. I am NOT an expert on this subject. Either tech, deco, wreck, or teaching scuba.

So I did not feel qualified to comment on the dive specifics. Beyond saying breaking trim for a reason may have been a deliberate lesson, but generally trim did not look good. That much of a big picture I'm confident in my understanding of.

My comments above mostly try to say that balancing discussions in a thread seems hard. Ideally a few conversations would have occurred:
1) With OP: Thanks. Cool notes. Looks like you learned stuff. What do you think of the notes you made. Some techniques on that might be ABC.
2) Hmmm. Some general possible dive skill issues. Is this the level of ABC for class level Z. Should I <other person> expect A when I'm ready for step B?
Much of which would benefit OP, as a view of what various parts of the community thinks.
3) Hhhh... Side bar, Some instructional issues maybe...., Do we think XZY should be the case?....

The details of which I do not know. As I am expert in none of it.

But, I think all of those are valid and great conversations. Separating all that in a distributed control medium (forums) might be hard.

In the conversations in the hall/dive site picnic tables, I think 1 starts leading to 2 in the same area.
If the OP (at the picnic table) takes in what the various folk are discussing, ideally with even debate, then all benefit.
Yet people might need to work to not have it be a verbal fight. I think in person there would still be '
"
That is not right, they are wrong. Or at least they are wrong by
- my understanding of what students should know by point A,
or alternatively
- agency A or B standards as I understand them, as pre-reqs, in dive, whatever.
"
being said.

People should be civil.
If you try to carry on two or three levels of conversation in the same room, it can get complex or messy.

 

[CT-Rich]

I did not track in detail the tone, beyond some worry. I am NOT an expert on this subject. Either tech, deco, wreck, or teaching scuba.

So I did not feel qualified to comment on the dive specifics. Beyond saying breaking trim for a reason may have been a deliberate lesson, but generally trim did not look good. That much of a big picture I'm confident in my understanding of.

My comments above mostly try to say that balancing discussions in a thread seems hard. Ideally a few conversations would have occurred:
1) With OP: Thanks. Cool notes. Looks like you learned stuff. What do you thing of the notes you made. Some techniques on that might be ABC.
2) Hmmm. Some general possible dive skill issues. Is this the level of ABC for class level Z. Should I <other person> expect A when I'm ready for step B?
Much of which would benefit OP, as a view of what various parts of the community thinks.
3) Hhhh... Side bar, Some instructional issues maybe...., Do we think XZY should be the case?....

The details of which I do not know. As I am expert in none of it.

But, I think all of those are valid and great conversations. Separating all that in a distributed control medium (forums) might be hard.

In the conversations in the hall/dive site picnic tables, I think 1 starts leading to 2 in the same area.
If the OP (at the picnic table) takes in what the various folk are discussing, ideally with even debate, then all benefit.
Yet people might need to work to not have it be a verbal fight. I think in person there would still be '
"
That is not right, they are wrong. Or at least they are wrong by
- my understanding of what students should know by point A,
or alternatively
- agency A or B standards as I understand them, as pre-reqs, in dive, whatever.
"
being said.

People should be civil.
If you try to carry on two or three levels of conversation in the same room, it can get complex or messy.

I have never seen a dive picnic devolve into fisty-cuffs over a dive training issue. Maybe I have not been to enough of them, or I avoid gatherings with that type of person.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Reading tone in online discussions is something I am trying to get better at. My mind tends to filter out the words that don't add substance. My mind also (naively?) gives everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I read things in the best possible way they could have been intended. With those filters on, the overriding question that occurs to me is: When is unsolicited criticism of another's instruction acceptable?

Diving is different than many other endeavors because there is a safety aspect. This is a dangerous sport, and a dive to 165 ft is no walk in the park. Although maybe there has been some chest-thumping, I believe people feel more compelled to add their two cents because they are ultimately concerned about safety. Regardless of how tactlessly and vociferously someone may have worded their criticism, and what additional, less altruistic motives may also be behind the comment, I like to believe that improving safety was at least somewhere in the back of their mind. Not being especially knowledgeable in the things that were criticized, the best I can do is guess that no one thing by itself was serious enough to jeopardize a diver's safety on that particular dive. They strike me as relatively small things. We all realize that sometimes we find ourselves making a mountain out of a molehill, as evident in the self-deprecating memes on SB such as "split fins--those things will kill you!" However, as it was explained to me by at least one instructor, it is often the sum total of small techniques that can make a difference to safety, and the idea is simply to stack the deck in your favor by using the most appropriate technique under the circumstances.

I don't know where the line is to be drawn. Apparently, a standards violation within an instructor's agency is a fairly clear line. But I also don't think there is a fair analogy between criticizing another dive instructor's work and the work of an instructor in some other endeavor in which safety is not an issue.

 

[The Chairman]

Those who keep telling us that you should never post class reports on ScubaBoard need a thicker skin. If you don't like criticisms, then don't criticize the poor OP for posting about his class. If you ask for feedback, please be prepared to get some. They may even give you feedback in areas you weren't expecting... or wanting. Toughie Kaboombas. You show us you're serious about learning by sticking around and absorbing some of the criticisms. Yes, your mellow might be harshed a bit, but any feedback is a bonus that you can benefit from.

Many of those who respond to someone posting their report on ScubaBoard need to back off a bit. We get it: you want to be brutally honest, but why concentrate on the brutal part? If your aim was to help someone through effective communication, then you get a fail. It seems you chose your words to be confrontational rather than informative. Save the "you're a crap diver" for rec.scuba. We don't need it here. While you're at it, make allowances for different diving styles. JC is all about survival, not finesse. It's like expecting a triple axel with a flip from a hockey player to be elegant.

Most class reports don't get much feedback. This one engendered several lively discussions and a few off shoots. How awesome. What a boring place if we all agreed. Then it got silly. The worst was one of the users who got censored for telling cavers to die and then suggesting that he doesn't come to SB anymore because of all the needless vitriol. The irony is both palpable and tragic in that he started a verbal brawl and then complained about it. What has that got to do with the class, anyway?

We're all divers. We all love to talk and read about diving. We all want to improve and we all want to have fun. So, why not keep the discussions civil and on topic? If you don't like verbal brawls, then stop being a part of the problem. If someone is being overly combative, then be a mensch or menschette and report it rather than fight about it. Let the mods keep things in check rather than silting out the discussion with needless banter.