daniel f aleman
Contributor
Walter:
Looks like in a couple of months you're going to hit the big 5-0, got any plans for the day?
What I Like about ABC Agency
- Thread starter kidspot
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Looks like in a couple of months you're going to hit the big 5-0, got any plans for the day?
When I first saw the title of this thread, I didn't even bother to open it. I expected that anyone saying something they liked about an agency would then get bashed by people who disagree with their statements. I wasn't in the mood for it, and, personally, I guess I am just not the kind of guy who likes to open himself up to attacks.
Then I read the first page or so today and thought, hey, maybe this will work after all. I began to form the idea for a post.
Then, I read on and saw that my initial impression was right, so I'll save my thoughts for another time and place.
Then I read the first page or so today and thought, hey, maybe this will work after all. I began to form the idea for a post.
Then, I read on and saw that my initial impression was right, so I'll save my thoughts for another time and place.
Bottom Scratcher
Registered
boulderjohn:
Post them, we need to bring the thread back to its original intent.
scubaaaronh
Contributor
I certified through padi as that was all that was available in our area at the time. I had a great instructor that really took the time to help the student out. Instead of the usual four dives that are required we did a total of eight four in the pool then four in a local lake with low vis practicing skills in both environments, and then our open waters. As far as the learning experience i thought it was great. As far as the agency i think it is very good. It taught me the skills to dive and i have learned a lot more by diving with other more qualified divers on our local fire dept. As far as comparing organizations i can't as i have not experience with others. I am going to eventually take more classes( been saying that for ten years), and will go back to the same instructor that i had before.
My wife certified through SSI and after seeing what she learned it was pretty much the same info that I had learned.
My wife certified through SSI and after seeing what she learned it was pretty much the same info that I had learned.
It will take me a while, but I will get on topic by the end of this....
A little over 15 years ago, I had a reputation as an excellent high school teacher. The school district for which I worked put on some special workshops for some innovative instructional concepts, and my principal asked me to take a look and give him a report. When I went, I saw a presentation of ideas that contradicted almost everything I believed about quality education.
But they intrigued me. I paid careful attention to the rationale, and I could see a glimmer of sense. My report back to the principal was troubled and uncertain. I decided to experiment, and I implemented some of what I had seen--partially, at least.
I saw an immediate improvement in student interest and achievement. I went more and more deeply into my experimentation, and I saw student achievement skyrocket. I realized with a mixture of joy and depression that what I had once considered successful teaching was in reality a higher form of failure.
To make a long story short, the district eventually moved me to staff development, and I conducted workshops of my own. In each one, I was met by skeptical and even hostile teachers who refused even to consider newer methodogies. "What I have always done has worked." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I had to study educational theory in depth in order to teach it to other teachers.
Today, those innovative methodologies are pretty much considered best practices unversally by educational experts, and yet I would doubt if the majority of high school teachers come close to implementinig them--they continue to teach the way they themselves were taught. It's easier to attack new ideas than learn and use them.
Back on topic....
When I began to work on PADI instructional materials, I had to read old articles from the early 90's in which PADI explained what it was doing (and why) when it introduced many of its changes. It looked pretty familiar. At the same time that I had been struggling to introduce new concepts to resistant professional educators, PADI was already implementing many of them in their classes. They referenced some of the top educational thinkers of the day in explaining why they were doing it.
And so I very much like the fact that PADI researched innovative educational theory carefully and had the courage to make appropriate changes, knowing that these changes would be met with skepticism and hostility.
Their willingness to innovate has not changed. In the short time that I have been a professional, I have made two suggestions to PADI. They have responded to each suggestion thoughtfully and professionally. In each case, they told me my suggestions will result in changes in practice, but it will take a time for it all to be realized. I have already seen one change that I believe resulted at least in part from one of my suggestions.
A little over 15 years ago, I had a reputation as an excellent high school teacher. The school district for which I worked put on some special workshops for some innovative instructional concepts, and my principal asked me to take a look and give him a report. When I went, I saw a presentation of ideas that contradicted almost everything I believed about quality education.
But they intrigued me. I paid careful attention to the rationale, and I could see a glimmer of sense. My report back to the principal was troubled and uncertain. I decided to experiment, and I implemented some of what I had seen--partially, at least.
I saw an immediate improvement in student interest and achievement. I went more and more deeply into my experimentation, and I saw student achievement skyrocket. I realized with a mixture of joy and depression that what I had once considered successful teaching was in reality a higher form of failure.
To make a long story short, the district eventually moved me to staff development, and I conducted workshops of my own. In each one, I was met by skeptical and even hostile teachers who refused even to consider newer methodogies. "What I have always done has worked." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I had to study educational theory in depth in order to teach it to other teachers.
Today, those innovative methodologies are pretty much considered best practices unversally by educational experts, and yet I would doubt if the majority of high school teachers come close to implementinig them--they continue to teach the way they themselves were taught. It's easier to attack new ideas than learn and use them.
Back on topic....
When I began to work on PADI instructional materials, I had to read old articles from the early 90's in which PADI explained what it was doing (and why) when it introduced many of its changes. It looked pretty familiar. At the same time that I had been struggling to introduce new concepts to resistant professional educators, PADI was already implementing many of them in their classes. They referenced some of the top educational thinkers of the day in explaining why they were doing it.
And so I very much like the fact that PADI researched innovative educational theory carefully and had the courage to make appropriate changes, knowing that these changes would be met with skepticism and hostility.
Their willingness to innovate has not changed. In the short time that I have been a professional, I have made two suggestions to PADI. They have responded to each suggestion thoughtfully and professionally. In each case, they told me my suggestions will result in changes in practice, but it will take a time for it all to be realized. I have already seen one change that I believe resulted at least in part from one of my suggestions.
OP
Thanks Boulderjohn - When I first looked through the PADI student manual it reminded me of a saying one of my education professors used to have "Tell them what you want them to learn, teach them what you want them to learn, then test them on what you wanted them to learn, to see if you taught what you wanted to teach." At the same time it uses a variety of approaches for different learning styles to to present the material to a wide variety of students. I don't know if that's part of what you were referencing, but that was what it reminded me of when I looked over the material for BOW (which I ended up taking through NAUI after completing all the knowledge reviews and learning the tables for PADI lol)
Thanks for the attempt at getting us back on track again
So who's next with something they like about their agency? I'd really like to hear some things about the smaller/less well known agencies as they each have something to offer as well.
Aloha, Tim
P.S. There are frequent discussions about where every agency lacks in their training, standards or publications... This thread was just an attempt to look at the other side of the coin so to speak...
Thanks for the attempt at getting us back on track again
So who's next with something they like about their agency? I'd really like to hear some things about the smaller/less well known agencies as they each have something to offer as well.
Aloha, Tim
P.S. There are frequent discussions about where every agency lacks in their training, standards or publications... This thread was just an attempt to look at the other side of the coin so to speak...
It would take me a very long time to detail everything about instructional theory that I like, but one of them is the student centered approach. The idea is that with proper instructional approaches, patience, and repetition, almost anyone can learn the required skills. In education, we now say that learning should be the standard, and time should be the variable. In traditional education, time was the standard, and learning the variable. (You got a grade indicating the percentage of learning you achieved in a specific amount of time, rather than taking whatever time it took to bring you to mastery of all standards.)
In the PADI program in which I participate, we have gone at times to heroic lengths to help struggling students achieve mastery. I feel very good about that.
I read an article awhile ago that described the beginning of PADI. As I recall (fuzzy on details), it started in part because of the frustation the founders felt with the instructional practices at the time. Most instructors had come out of the military, and they apparently had a boot camp mentality. Only the most fit and skilled students were good enough to achieve certification. It was apparently very common for instructors to brag about the high percentage of students who failed their classes, thus indicating (in their minds) how very high their standards were. To me, that makes as much sense as a plumber bragging about the high percentage of leaks he fails to repair. These instructors were focusing so hard on their role as evaluator that they forgot they had a duty to instruct as well.
In the PADI program in which I participate, we have gone at times to heroic lengths to help struggling students achieve mastery. I feel very good about that.
I read an article awhile ago that described the beginning of PADI. As I recall (fuzzy on details), it started in part because of the frustation the founders felt with the instructional practices at the time. Most instructors had come out of the military, and they apparently had a boot camp mentality. Only the most fit and skilled students were good enough to achieve certification. It was apparently very common for instructors to brag about the high percentage of students who failed their classes, thus indicating (in their minds) how very high their standards were. To me, that makes as much sense as a plumber bragging about the high percentage of leaks he fails to repair. These instructors were focusing so hard on their role as evaluator that they forgot they had a duty to instruct as well.
This isn't really an agency, but I thought I would throw a rose to DAN.
Last year, they published an article in Alert Diver that referenced fitness, and the article made what I thought was an erroneous statement. I wrote a letter that noted that I thought it was erroneous, but the concept was so poorly understood that I didn't know what to think. I expressed the frustration of not knowing what to believe.
The editor contacted me almost immediately. She apologized, because she had added the information to the article herself without properly researching her data first. We talked about an idea for a follow-up article that would be more thorough and accurate, and they responded with an excellent article--the best I have seen--on measuring fitness. It contradicts most of the most commonly believed concepts of measuring fitness--especially the foolish use of the Body Mass Index--and should be read by anyone who is rying to improve fitness.
Very nice responsiveness indeed.
By the way, if you remember my letter and the article, they did get my home state wrong, thinking somehow that I am in Louisiana.
Last year, they published an article in Alert Diver that referenced fitness, and the article made what I thought was an erroneous statement. I wrote a letter that noted that I thought it was erroneous, but the concept was so poorly understood that I didn't know what to think. I expressed the frustration of not knowing what to believe.
The editor contacted me almost immediately. She apologized, because she had added the information to the article herself without properly researching her data first. We talked about an idea for a follow-up article that would be more thorough and accurate, and they responded with an excellent article--the best I have seen--on measuring fitness. It contradicts most of the most commonly believed concepts of measuring fitness--especially the foolish use of the Body Mass Index--and should be read by anyone who is rying to improve fitness.
Very nice responsiveness indeed.
By the way, if you remember my letter and the article, they did get my home state wrong, thinking somehow that I am in Louisiana.
Marek K
Contributor
Kidspot and Boulderjohn--
What you guys touched on was what I was trying to get at with PADI...
Having had a lot of military experience, I was steeped in a couple of principles. First, paraphrasing Kidspot, there was "Tell them what you're going to tell them; tell them; then tell them what you just told them."
Second, and more important, there was (still is?) the concept of Task, Conditions, Standards. Determine -- and make it clear to students/trainees from the beginning -- what they're going to have to achieve; specifically under what conditions (environmental, equipment); and exactly to what standards (qualitative, time). There was also the concept of "Go/No Go;" you either met the standards, or you didn't... and had to keep doing it until you did.
Conditions are tough to specify. Particularly in SCUBA, where there is such a range of conditions under which students are trained.
I understand Walter's concern that the problem is, in his view, exactly that PADI doesn't have good internal standards. But that's an issue for instructors and course developers to argue. What I've seen from a student's point of view was, with PADI, very much in line with military training thinking (but with cartoons, for weenie civilians!) eyebrow
(Wait... we used cartoons in the military too. Anyone remember Connie Rodd? )
And I did not say that "agencies have no responsibility for quality training." If I had, that would have been blatantly false. I was saying that, no matter how good the standards are, it does finally come down to the quality of the instructor that's teaching. In SCUBA training, as in military training.
How the agency implements quality control is certainly part of this, but is an issue for digression.
Damn, we're we still spiralling, aren't we?
--Marek
What you guys touched on was what I was trying to get at with PADI...
Having had a lot of military experience, I was steeped in a couple of principles. First, paraphrasing Kidspot, there was "Tell them what you're going to tell them; tell them; then tell them what you just told them."
Second, and more important, there was (still is?) the concept of Task, Conditions, Standards. Determine -- and make it clear to students/trainees from the beginning -- what they're going to have to achieve; specifically under what conditions (environmental, equipment); and exactly to what standards (qualitative, time). There was also the concept of "Go/No Go;" you either met the standards, or you didn't... and had to keep doing it until you did.
Conditions are tough to specify. Particularly in SCUBA, where there is such a range of conditions under which students are trained.
I understand Walter's concern that the problem is, in his view, exactly that PADI doesn't have good internal standards. But that's an issue for instructors and course developers to argue. What I've seen from a student's point of view was, with PADI, very much in line with military training thinking (but with cartoons, for weenie civilians!) eyebrow
(Wait... we used cartoons in the military too. Anyone remember Connie Rodd?
)And I did not say that "agencies have no responsibility for quality training." If I had, that would have been blatantly false. I was saying that, no matter how good the standards are, it does finally come down to the quality of the instructor that's teaching. In SCUBA training, as in military training.
How the agency implements quality control is certainly part of this, but is an issue for digression.
Damn, we're we still spiralling, aren't we?
--Marek
What I like about:
PADI - exactly what Boulderjohn so eloquently described. I too come from a slightly different teaching background (jujitsu), which definitely had the boot camp mentality. Initially, I had exactly the same reaction about their standards ("too easy", "watering it down", etc.) - then, after doing this for a while, I found that it actually works. The hardest part was accepting that just b/c I knew a bit about diving didnt make me an expert on education theory either. Now that I have been teaching for a while, it takes some effort to force myself to remember that just b/c it worked for me for the past 5-odd years doesnt mean it cannot be improved. And for that, I have to thank PADI and their "first principles" approach.
DAN - what can I say. If DAN were a woman, I'd ask her to marry me. I had a very serious dive incident once, and called DAN for advice (wasnt even a member at the time). They paged a doctor who interrupted her dinner to give me advice on what to do next - and even called me up the next day to ask how I was! My own doctor doesnt do that. How amazing is that?
SSI - they let me add to their minimum requirements. And b/c I know the head of SSI for my region personally, I get quick responses from them for all my issues
GUE - they snapped me out of my experienced-induced comfort zone and made me think long and hard about my diving practices. While I havent adopted everything DIR, I have improved enough as a diver from them that it was even worth being called a "stroke" by GI3 on Techdiver (for defending TDI on some point). Paradoxically, while GUE has had the biggest impact on my diving styles since my OW course, som of the ancillary baggage associated with them also helped me better appreciate the role of agencies like PADI in growing diving.
TDI - for making trimix accessible to us "diving to 60m on air cos we didnt have any other options" types, and thereby prolonging our lifespands
Vandit
PADI - exactly what Boulderjohn so eloquently described. I too come from a slightly different teaching background (jujitsu), which definitely had the boot camp mentality. Initially, I had exactly the same reaction about their standards ("too easy", "watering it down", etc.) - then, after doing this for a while, I found that it actually works. The hardest part was accepting that just b/c I knew a bit about diving didnt make me an expert on education theory either. Now that I have been teaching for a while, it takes some effort to force myself to remember that just b/c it worked for me for the past 5-odd years doesnt mean it cannot be improved. And for that, I have to thank PADI and their "first principles" approach.
DAN - what can I say. If DAN were a woman, I'd ask her to marry me. I had a very serious dive incident once, and called DAN for advice (wasnt even a member at the time). They paged a doctor who interrupted her dinner to give me advice on what to do next - and even called me up the next day to ask how I was! My own doctor doesnt do that. How amazing is that?
SSI - they let me add to their minimum requirements. And b/c I know the head of SSI for my region personally, I get quick responses from them for all my issues
GUE - they snapped me out of my experienced-induced comfort zone and made me think long and hard about my diving practices. While I havent adopted everything DIR, I have improved enough as a diver from them that it was even worth being called a "stroke" by GI3 on Techdiver (for defending TDI on some point). Paradoxically, while GUE has had the biggest impact on my diving styles since my OW course, som of the ancillary baggage associated with them also helped me better appreciate the role of agencies like PADI in growing diving.
TDI - for making trimix accessible to us "diving to 60m on air cos we didnt have any other options" types, and thereby prolonging our lifespands
Vandit
Similar threads
