Dan_P
Contributor
It's an interesting matter, to be sure.
I think there's a clear correlation to application of military training principles. One person trains, say, 10 people to train 100 people to train 1000 how to perform a given task.
It is clear that if the quality assurance of training for those initial 10 people is not effective, the outcome on the 1000 would suffer.
I'm not sure I understand how, when the principle works well in a military context, the principle does not in scuba diver training.
Surely, the principle works, it's just a matter of content and quality assurance?
To be specific, I think the rule of thirds is a good thing to teach Open Water-students because it helps them understand better their limitations. Not because they'd need it without additional training.
They do not have the gear, or training, or gas logistics, to enter environments where they MUST return to the starting point - so they shouldn't go there.
The rule of thirds, in an open water diver- context, is merely a teaching tool that helps me emphazise limitations, but an effective one nonetheless.
If I didn't understand this, I'd simply be teaching a gas plan that students don't need, without correlating to why that knowledge is important. It'd be a joke without the punch line, so to speak. Students would risk missing the whole point, which could potentially have significant negative impact:
1) observing limitations could be impacted.
2) gas planning could be underemphazised.
Those two are both mentioned in DAN's 2016 Diving Report Top Ten Most Wanted Improvements in the Scuba Industry.
If I as an instructor, am not 100% clear with myself what I am teaching and why, that's the root of the problem.
I feel the mechanism described in the Reduction Funnel paradigm, is simply poor quality assurance.
I think there's a clear correlation to application of military training principles. One person trains, say, 10 people to train 100 people to train 1000 how to perform a given task.
It is clear that if the quality assurance of training for those initial 10 people is not effective, the outcome on the 1000 would suffer.
I'm not sure I understand how, when the principle works well in a military context, the principle does not in scuba diver training.
Surely, the principle works, it's just a matter of content and quality assurance?
To be specific, I think the rule of thirds is a good thing to teach Open Water-students because it helps them understand better their limitations. Not because they'd need it without additional training.
They do not have the gear, or training, or gas logistics, to enter environments where they MUST return to the starting point - so they shouldn't go there.
The rule of thirds, in an open water diver- context, is merely a teaching tool that helps me emphazise limitations, but an effective one nonetheless.
If I didn't understand this, I'd simply be teaching a gas plan that students don't need, without correlating to why that knowledge is important. It'd be a joke without the punch line, so to speak. Students would risk missing the whole point, which could potentially have significant negative impact:
1) observing limitations could be impacted.
2) gas planning could be underemphazised.
Those two are both mentioned in DAN's 2016 Diving Report Top Ten Most Wanted Improvements in the Scuba Industry.
If I as an instructor, am not 100% clear with myself what I am teaching and why, that's the root of the problem.
I feel the mechanism described in the Reduction Funnel paradigm, is simply poor quality assurance.
