Tech and/or cross-agency training before going Pro?

[Colliam7]

how important do you think it is for an instructor to have received training from multiple organizations even though they'll teach to the standard of one?

I do not think multi-agency training is particularly important, even though I have a personal interest in it, from the perspective of learning how different agencies approach various aspects of training, and teaching. It wouldn't 'hurt', but I cannot say that having multi-agency training for its own sake would necessarily improve your performance as an Instructor with a particular agency (e.g. SSI).

Do you think recreational instructors should have taken at least introductory technical training?

I don't think it should be required. But, I strongly recommend it. I believe that i am a etter Instructor because of having pursued technical dive training (and diving).

 

[stuartv]

I have mixed feelings about this.

Part of me wants to say "yes. Every OW instructor should have to be certified tech diver, even if it's only at the lowest level."

But then I think about my high school Algebra teacher. I think he was a really, really good Algebra teacher. I believe he consistently turned out a bunch of sophomores every year, a very high percentage of whom were actually competent at Algebra.

His college degree was in Social Studies. He did not know a lick of Mathematics beyond the high school Algebra that he was teaching.

I also think of several Motorcycle Safety Foundation instructors I have known over the years. They teach the basics to people who don't know how to ride at all so that they can get their first motorcycle operator's license. I roadraced for many years and was also an instructor for the California Superbike School (a school that started in CA but now operates schools all over the world and is certainly one of the top, if not THE top, advanced motorcycle riding schools in the world). I can safely say some of those MSF instructors had zero riding skills that I would label as "advanced". Yet they were able to consistently turn out new motorcycle riders who lacked for nothing except real-world experience before being ready to go on to advanced levels of riding.

In the end, I am forced to conclude that being a good teacher of something does not actually require any skill or knowledge beyond the actual subject being taught. What it does require is skill at teaching, which is a whole different matter, and mastery of the specific material being taught.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[TMHeimer]

Yes, this ! I'm of the thought, that the most important "skill" in being a great instructor is "bedside manner". As a student, I could care less about your mastery of frog kicks, heli's and buoyancy. YOU (the instructor) better have some substance behind you. You need to be humble, inspire and know how to actually teach.

Good point here. As stated before, any education--agency or tech. is good. Certainly can't hurt. Depends on what you intend to do. For me, the basic PADI DM course and a lot of diving at the same spots where checkout dives were done seemed to be more than enough for me--of course I was only an assistant. I was a Band teacher though, and that surely helped with "bedside manner". If you have the money, take more courses of course.

 

[tursiops]

I have mixed feelings about this.

Part of me wants to say "yes. Every OW instructor should have to be certified tech diver, even if it's only at the lowest level."

But then I think about my high school Algebra teacher. I think he was a really, really good Algebra teacher. I believe he consistently turned out a bunch of sophomores every year, a very high percentage of whom were actually competent at Algebra.

His college degree was in Social Studies. He did not know a lick of Mathematics beyond the high school Algebra that he was teaching.

I also think of several Motorcycle Safety Foundation instructors I have known over the years. They teach the basics to people who don't know how to ride at all so that they can get their first motorcycle operator's license. I roadraced for many years and was also an instructor for the California Superbike School (a school that started in CA but now operates schools all over the world and is certainly one of the top, if not THE top, advanced motorcycle riding schools in the world). I can safely say some of those MSF instructors had zero riding skills that I would label as "advanced". Yet they were able to consistently turn out new motorcycle riders who lacked for nothing except real-world experience before being ready to go on to advanced levels of riding.

In the end, I am forced to conclude that being a good teacher of something does not actually require any skill or knowledge beyond the actual subject being taught. What it does require is skill at teaching, which is a whole different matter, and mastery of the specific material being taught.

In my opinion, of course.

Yes, pretty much.
One problem of knowing much more than needs to be presented is the temptation to tell people what you know, instead of what they need to know. But GOOD teachers do not do this. One advantage of knowing more is the ability to answer in-depth questions, and to put things in context.

 

[TMHeimer]

Yes, pretty much.
One problem of knowing much more than needs to be presented is the temptation to tell people what you know, instead of what they need to know. But GOOD teachers do not do this. One advantage of knowing more is the ability to answer in-depth questions, and to put things in context.

Agree here as well. Once in a while an OW student would ask a more complicated question that I could sometimes answer without asking the instructor. Likewise, a very dedicated band student could ask about something beyond what he/she needed to know, like super high notes, alternate fingerings. In such situations it helps to have that extra knowledge.

 

[Peter Guy]

OP -- Years ago I was on a dive trip and the Instructor on board had 1200+ dives. We talked a lot about diving and it turned out he really only had about 12 dives each of which he had done 100 times. ALL of his diving had been with one dive entity in one area. At the time we talked, I had maybe 300 dives, but they were of many different kinds and experiences.

This led me to believe the key to becoming a good "pro" is to make sure you not only have a lot of experience (that is dives) but that you also have a lot of experiences (that is, DIFFERENT dives and training).

So go take classes from different instructors who have different backgrounds and experiences (and yes, Fundies or Essentials would probably be eye openers). Take an intro-to-tech class after Fundies or Essentials (or take a tech class -- Advanced Nitrox/Deco Procedures -- Cavern/Intro to Cave -- whatever).

But get many different experiences in addition to experience.

My 2 cents and worth every penny you've paid for it.

 

[TMHeimer]

Of course I agree Peter. Given a choice of one or the other though, if I were about to take the OW course I'd rather have an instructor that's done many dives at the checkout area as opposed to only a few but lots of varied experience. Having both is obviously best.

 

[sigxbill]

I have a different perspective. My mom would often share, "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it," when I was struggling with what I wanted vs what might be best for me. I have been on a personal 17 year quest to find what I could believe to be the most logical training program. My journey has allowed me to explore the perspectives of 13 different instructors and 8 agencies in training at all levels. So should you take other courses from other instructors / agencies? If you do, you may come to a conclusion that what you learn may be incompatible with teaching the way your shop or other agency requires - so what are you going to do then? They say ignorance is bliss, and 'they' just may be right ... cheers
ps. while I agree with tbone1004 that to be a real teacher - you need to know how to teach, I disagree with his statement, "No agency actually teaches you how to teach" ...

 

[Colliam7]

I have been on a quest to find the best training program for 17 years, and unfortunately I found it. It has taken me 13 different instructors and 8 agencies to do it, but I found it. . . . now that I have expanded knowledge, I have to decide if I am going to teach the way I now know is dramatically better, or keep teaching the old way that my shop / other agency requires?

Well, I HAVE to ask, both for my benefit and that of the OP: 1) what is it about what you have now found to be the 'best training program' that makes it the BEST, for you? and 2) what do you now believe is the 'dramatically better' way to teach?

 

[sigxbill]

Obi-Wan, You are right - how does one tactfully express something like this without starting an argument about what is best? To that extent, I edited my previous post to make it more 'best for you' friendly - lol.

To answer your two reasonable questions, I would have to write an article profiling my journey, and why I just wasn't satisfied with each step I took - including why I avoided certain paths altogether. I have actually already started writing this, but it is no-where near ready to publish yet - and when it is finished, I haven't decided how I am going to publish it.

The problem with writing such an article is how do you do it with a feeling of honestly comparing and contrasting - without a feeling of bashing others? Considering what I have experienced - that will be difficult - LOL!

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope!