I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my pithy comment, but that's what I meant: different people learn best in different ways, so matching your learning style to an instructor's teaching style would be ideal.
Dispelling scubaboard myths (Part 1: It is the instructor not the agency)
- Thread starter CAPTAIN SINBAD
- 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
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my pithy comment, but that's what I meant: different people learn best in different ways, so matching your learning style to an instructor's teaching style would be ideal.
2airishuman
Contributor
People who teach the same material repeatedly generally do not adapt their teaching style to the learning style of each student. In a larger class, it isn't possible, because there will be a constellation of styles. They typically present the material the same way each time, although a good instructor will adjust the pace of the class so that everyone achieves mastery before moving on.
Well-developed curricula present the same material in multiple contrasting ways to try to get the idea through to people with as many different learning styles as possible.
I'll use an example with knots. If I'm trying to teach someone knots, I'll usually:
1) Show samples of completed knots (using ropes of contrasting appearances in all steps)
2) Show the steps, visually, in tying knots
3) Allow them to go through the steps with my guidance, usually while I do them using other pieces of rope in a mirror image of what they're doing.
4) Close my eyes and tie the knot and encourage them to think about the hand motions, then try to get them to feel the movements as I guide them through the steps.
In reality most people tie their shoes every day using #4 and forget the various steps, intellectually, to the point where some can't tie a shoe slowly.
But everyone's different, and some people aren't confident enough to try #4 unless they've done the other steps first. I have no way to know for sure which method will work best for any given individual, so I just use all of them. Even if I think they've figured it out before we do all the methods, I figure that doing all of them will help with retention.
I don't teach and don't really know much about teaching, but that's what I do.
Right. You quoted someone who was talking about people who learned to dive back before there was a nationwide standard program of scuba training and comparing them to divers produced after such a program was available. That's not the comparison I was asking about.
Thus why I said:
Here is a little more information on Al Tillman and the early days of scuba.
He was working for Los Angeles COunty when they decided to teach scuba in the 1950s. They decided he would lead that program, but first he would have to learn how to teach scuba. Scuba was being formally taught just about nowhere at the time, but one of the places it was being taught was in the nearby Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Tillman went there and learned how to teach from them. He brought that methodology back to Los Angeles County and their program, which is still revered by its graduates today. After a few years of leading that program, the decision was made to institute a nationwide program. Los Angeles could not do it, because it was taxpayer supported by the county. They had some organizational meetings in which they gathered freelance instructors from around the country together, the most important of which was held in Houston in 1960.
At that meeting. divers demonstrated their instructional skills and argued about instructional methodologies that should be part of the new nationwide certification program. As Tillman described it, the group from Chicago, led by Ralph Erickson was adamant about the need for very high standards for certification, and he and his crew nearly took over the leadership of the movement. That meeting pretty much set the standards for how scuba was to be taught, and it did not change a whole lot after that. That was the birth of NAUI.
Also as described by Tillman, they immediately made a strategic error by using the same organizational model they had used with Los Angeles County, which had been taxpayer supported. Without taxpayers paying most of the bills, they struggled financially, relying heavily upon donations to remain financially viable. They even survived for a while on a loan from Bill High, who later founded PSI. They made what Tillman considered another mistake in limiting their customer base primarily to university students, which means they were using tuition money as another substitute for taxpayer funding. In 1965, because of those financial difficulties, they decided to pull back from their nationwide coverage and focus on California. When they did, they canceled a major Chicago instructor training session, which understandably ticked off the Chicago group, still led by Ralph Erickson. The Chicago group decided to form a new agency of their own, which they called the Professional Association of Dive Instructors (PADI).
Those two groups continued to teach using essentially the same instructional processes. Both programs were born from the Scripps methodology, Los Angeles County, and the Houston gathering of instructors in 1960. Tillman was a leader of NAUI and Erickson was a leader for PADI for many years. There is thus a long continuity from those early days in Houston to modern instruction. It is hard to estimate how many thousands of student certifications they oversaw during those decades.
He was working for Los Angeles COunty when they decided to teach scuba in the 1950s. They decided he would lead that program, but first he would have to learn how to teach scuba. Scuba was being formally taught just about nowhere at the time, but one of the places it was being taught was in the nearby Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Tillman went there and learned how to teach from them. He brought that methodology back to Los Angeles County and their program, which is still revered by its graduates today. After a few years of leading that program, the decision was made to institute a nationwide program. Los Angeles could not do it, because it was taxpayer supported by the county. They had some organizational meetings in which they gathered freelance instructors from around the country together, the most important of which was held in Houston in 1960.
At that meeting. divers demonstrated their instructional skills and argued about instructional methodologies that should be part of the new nationwide certification program. As Tillman described it, the group from Chicago, led by Ralph Erickson was adamant about the need for very high standards for certification, and he and his crew nearly took over the leadership of the movement. That meeting pretty much set the standards for how scuba was to be taught, and it did not change a whole lot after that. That was the birth of NAUI.
Also as described by Tillman, they immediately made a strategic error by using the same organizational model they had used with Los Angeles County, which had been taxpayer supported. Without taxpayers paying most of the bills, they struggled financially, relying heavily upon donations to remain financially viable. They even survived for a while on a loan from Bill High, who later founded PSI. They made what Tillman considered another mistake in limiting their customer base primarily to university students, which means they were using tuition money as another substitute for taxpayer funding. In 1965, because of those financial difficulties, they decided to pull back from their nationwide coverage and focus on California. When they did, they canceled a major Chicago instructor training session, which understandably ticked off the Chicago group, still led by Ralph Erickson. The Chicago group decided to form a new agency of their own, which they called the Professional Association of Dive Instructors (PADI).
Those two groups continued to teach using essentially the same instructional processes. Both programs were born from the Scripps methodology, Los Angeles County, and the Houston gathering of instructors in 1960. Tillman was a leader of NAUI and Erickson was a leader for PADI for many years. There is thus a long continuity from those early days in Houston to modern instruction. It is hard to estimate how many thousands of student certifications they oversaw during those decades.
I don't know anything about teaching either, and I was only responding to a point in this thread that a student who is so inclined can try to seek out an instructor whose teaching style matches how he likes to be taught. If an instructor is known for tedious lectures on arcane points, for example, then those who like that kind of thing can seek that instructor out, and those who dislike it can avoid that instructor. A point was made earlier in this thread that lectures may not be as effective as other means of conveying knowledge. I (now regrettably) admitted that I kind of like lectures, even if they aren't as effective as other teaching tools. Maybe objective criteria aren't everything? I take classes not just to learn but also to have fun at the same time.
2airishuman
Contributor
Why, yes! Back in the day, men were men, goats were scared of SCUBA researchers, and they had that awful Riunite wine ad on television all the damn time. I think I still have it on some of my betamax recording of "The Incredible March of the Spiny Lobsters." I wish we could go back there.
Let's review why scuba diving instruction was so much more comprehensive back then:
1) Tables? We don't need no steenking tables, when all we've got are twin 44s, that won't last long enough for you to get bent. Computers? Ya, I just trust the needle on my Scubapro bend-o-matic.
2) Ox tox? Analyzer? Nitrox bands? We don't dive no voodoo gas 'round here.
3) Trimix? No, the way we do things is just add a little helium to the air for deep dives. Hypoxic? whazzat? Works for me.
4) Buoyancy control? Old time divers developed great skills in walking on the reef at the beginning of the dive and collecting rocks towards the end of the dive. We don't need no steenking horse collar
4a) Besides, I can tell my buoyancy control is great, because I can see any changes +- only 5 feet by looking at my depth gauge and I'm well within that.
5) Buddy breathing? Manly divers just learned blow-and-gos from 100 feet.
6) Drysuit? What drysuit?
7) The considerable skill required for differential diagnosis of DCS vs. overexposure to two-cycle engine exhaust.
8) Inches, man. All that metric BS is for science weirdos and photography weenies, not for wet suits.
9) Everything I needed to know I learned from Skin Diver magazine, because I learned to dive somewhere besides California.
10) Swimming ability and good tolerance of bullying instructors are the hallmark of a capable diver
11) I read an article about caves so I'm good.
12) SPG, bah. I'm diving my watch. J valves are for people who don't know how to set a watch.
Right. Tongue firmly in cheek, just in case anyone made it this far without noticing.
I don't doubt that there were some great divers and some great instructors. There still are.
I think that when this perennial topic comes up, there is a tendency to conflate high physical fitness and swimming ability on the part of students prior to entry into a SCUBA instruction program with a program that confers ability in these areas. A program that sets an unnecessary and unrealistically high bar for entry serves no one.
The instructors and students Back Then on the whole worked hard, sure, longer hours, more physical demands, more militaristic approach overall to training. But the training was not as well designed, the equipment required more of the divers, and there is nothing to suggest that the end result was safer, more capable, or happier divers. And I am quite sure that there were a larger number of people who were turned off from diving by the nature of the training of the day.
Another fact to consider is that instruction itself was far more dangerous in the early days, in part because of all those blow-and-gos and the fact that they were not taught with the considerable caution that all agencies use today when teaching what is now called a CSA. Overall the various risks are much better understood and the training emphasis reflects that. The statistics aren't that reliable and don't go back far enough to capture all of it, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is far safer to be a student today.
I actually think we're better off now.
diverintheflesh
Contributor
This might shine some light on training of the past in comparison to training of today. At least at some level, I've had some tell me that my training was similar, equal to, or better, but never worse (thank god!) So I would lean to the side that training of the past could be as good as todays, or at least mine... LOL
One of the difference in my personal standards are that anyone having at least 12 months off since their last dive are required to have open water dives as part of their refresher course. I get many that have taken 10+ years off since their last dive, so I require full education, all the skills from the pool, and at least 2 open water dives in order to update their log books.
Some have had upwards of 20 years off. At first I thought that this style of refresher would never pan out, however, some of these people that are returning to scuba are bringing their children into it. While I am sure there are some that could do well with just a couple hours in the pool, that mindset supports that once you pass the final exam, all of the education has little value. I don't believe in that philosophy. To that extent, while it is possible to show a person that has had 10-20 years off all the pool skills in a couple hours, we learn to dive in order to do it in the ocean.
Anyone that remembers, the pool is not a simulator for the ocean, and significantly different enough that all agencies require certification dives in open water to complete the certification process. I've asked several of these returning students how they would have felt about going on dives with their children after only rudimentary re-education like just the pool. All were quite adamant that they were glad to have had someone (me, the instructor) insist on more training.
Also, when we got to the ocean, it was very clear to me that these returning divers were not the spring chickens of yesterday. So, once done with the cert dives (which tends to be the same amount their children did), they all have also told me that they learned some new things.
These insights are by no means statistically significant, but I can see in them that some things are different (like the way I run my program) but I can see that many do pretty good, perpahps frombtheir prior training. Coincidentally, all of the returning students with10+ years off happened to have originally been NAUI certified and they looked better than several who had taken a couple years off, but were PADI certified.
Just my perspective...
One of the difference in my personal standards are that anyone having at least 12 months off since their last dive are required to have open water dives as part of their refresher course. I get many that have taken 10+ years off since their last dive, so I require full education, all the skills from the pool, and at least 2 open water dives in order to update their log books.
Some have had upwards of 20 years off. At first I thought that this style of refresher would never pan out, however, some of these people that are returning to scuba are bringing their children into it. While I am sure there are some that could do well with just a couple hours in the pool, that mindset supports that once you pass the final exam, all of the education has little value. I don't believe in that philosophy. To that extent, while it is possible to show a person that has had 10-20 years off all the pool skills in a couple hours, we learn to dive in order to do it in the ocean.
Anyone that remembers, the pool is not a simulator for the ocean, and significantly different enough that all agencies require certification dives in open water to complete the certification process. I've asked several of these returning students how they would have felt about going on dives with their children after only rudimentary re-education like just the pool. All were quite adamant that they were glad to have had someone (me, the instructor) insist on more training.
Also, when we got to the ocean, it was very clear to me that these returning divers were not the spring chickens of yesterday. So, once done with the cert dives (which tends to be the same amount their children did), they all have also told me that they learned some new things.
These insights are by no means statistically significant, but I can see in them that some things are different (like the way I run my program) but I can see that many do pretty good, perpahps frombtheir prior training. Coincidentally, all of the returning students with10+ years off happened to have originally been NAUI certified and they looked better than several who had taken a couple years off, but were PADI certified.
Just my perspective...
Doc Ben
Registered
This is an interesting thread. On a humorous note, are kids actually learning anything at colleges these days with all the protests??
More seriously, it would be nice to see a separate thread (maybe it exists somewhere) on how to choose the "best" CCR (rebreather) instructor/and or agency. I am pretty sure the comments would be heated. Would losing a new student to a dive incident be disqualifying? How many hours does the instructor have on a particular unit? How many students have they taught and have had no incidents? I am sure there are other questions to seek answers to. My 2 cents.
More seriously, it would be nice to see a separate thread (maybe it exists somewhere) on how to choose the "best" CCR (rebreather) instructor/and or agency. I am pretty sure the comments would be heated. Would losing a new student to a dive incident be disqualifying? How many hours does the instructor have on a particular unit? How many students have they taught and have had no incidents? I am sure there are other questions to seek answers to. My 2 cents.
diverintheflesh
Contributor
No, college is a waste of time and money unless one is going for doctor, engineer, trade school, veterinarian, etc....
I got lucky and paid off all my student loans, have no debt, and now just teach scuba divers... I quit Washington Mutual in 2006 and left last Vegas in 2008!
CCR's
I wouldn't even touch that one with a 10ft long regulator hose. LOL
And it shows the limits of any individual's perspective. My experiences with refreshers were just the opposite. I had very few NAUI people in those classes, but the ones I had were close to hopeless and should have gone through the whole certification process again. Those people represent a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of the possible divers out there--given the millions of certifications that have been completed worldwide, how can anyone diagnose a trend based only on their personal experience? I mentioned recently that my niece was certified after one 2-hour pool session and one OW dive to 10 feet. That was NAUI. Am I going to generalize that and say that represents all NAUI instruction? Of course not.
Whenever people compare the past and the present by comparing the experience they had with their instruction with something they saw another instructor do recently, that comparison is meaningless. Either one could be a total anomaly.
Whenever I see posts talking about how much the standards have been lowered in the last decades, I ask them to give a specific example in the standards. Can they point to something that has been officially removed from the standards by the agency over that time? What happened in YOUR class may have been just something that individual instructor wanted to do--a good example of which is harassment exercises, like shutting off air and ripping off masks.
I was certified a couple decades ago. In that time, the one thing taken from the course officially was buddy breathing, which was optional when I was certified and is now not part of the curriculum at all. In contrast, a number of skills have been added during that time. The OW course now has MORE requirements now than it did when I was certified, but you would never believe that from reading typical ScubaBoard posts.
Similar threads
