UTD Teaching Methodology

[Paulicarp]

As it plays to this thread I think the treaching sequence laid out in the original post makes a lot of sense. But, keeping specific skills and outcomes secret seems to go against proven teaching theory.

Good teaching is good teaching, regardless.

It isn't specific skills or outcomes that are being kept secret, and I suppose the "playbook" as it is could easily be gleamed from the myriad course reports on the internet.

What isn't being said ahead of time is things like "you are going to lose your mask, you your right post, you your left . . . " that type of stuff. It keeps things dynamic and fluid--a lot like real diving. The instIn my experience, I learned more from talking through things afterwards, but I also learned much by screwing up, or successfully thinking through things.

Lamont, I get your point about being prepared with the basics or even things a bit beyond the basics so you can get to the more interesting stuff. But, the journey is part of the process. My tech class worked well because we didn't stress the details ahead of time--and I think that modern GUE students seem to be hung up on the practice until perfect thing before the class. I have some GUE training at the basic level, but always thought the practice until perfect thing builds an incomplete diver (just like not practicing at all builds a different type of incomplete diver).

I think the a good approach for these types of classes (with Lamont's point in mind) is to focus on basic, personal, skills, and then go work with the instructor. The outcome--being able to successfully execute a tech dive--is no secret, nor are the expectations in terms of skills. There isn't a set path to that outcome because each student is different, and I bet the "playbook" recognizes that. What these classes are absolutely all about are teaching you to think and problem solve underwater--which is a direct result of the fact you cannot go straight to the surface with this type of diving.

There's some sold basic psychology at work in the UTD instruction. In it's worst implimentation, one might make it out to be "games" but from what I've read, the point is not for the instructors to try to be clever or sneaky just to prove how superior they are. The principle of intensity is at work here. FWIW, wiki decribes it this way: "The more intense the material taught, the more likely it will be retained. A sharp, clear, vivid, dramatic, or exciting learning experience teaches more than a routine or boring experience. The principle of intensity implies that a student will learn more from the real thing than from a substitute. For example, a student can get more understanding and appreciation of a movie by watching it than by reading the script. Likewise, a student is likely to gain greater understanding of tasks by performing them rather than merely reading about them. The more immediate and dramatic the learning is to a real situation, the more impressive the learning is upon the student. Real world applications that integrate procedures and tasks that students are capable of learning will make a vivid impression on them." (Emphasis mine) The point here is not just that one learns in the classroom, then goes and does what they learned in the classroom. On the contrary, they learn in the milieu where the unexpected is what is being taught.

This is not unique to UTD. As was said before, good teaching is good teaching.

--Paul

[BDub]

There's some sold basic psychology at work in the UTD instruction. In it's worst implimentation, one might make it out to be "games" but from what I've read, the point is not for the instructors to try to be clever or sneaky just to prove how superior they are. The principle of intensity is at work here. FWIW, wiki decribes it this way: "The more intense the material taught, the more likely it will be retained. A sharp, clear, vivid, dramatic, or exciting learning experience teaches more than a routine or boring experience. The principle of intensity implies that a student will learn more from the real thing than from a substitute. For example, a student can get more understanding and appreciation of a movie by watching it than by reading the script. Likewise, a student is likely to gain greater understanding of tasks by performing them rather than merely reading about them. The more immediate and dramatic the learning is to a real situation, the more impressive the learning is upon the student. Real world applications that integrate procedures and tasks that students are capable of learning will make a vivid impression on them." (Emphasis mine) The point here is not just that one learns in the classroom, then goes and does what they learned in the classroom. On the contrary, they learn in the milieu where the unexpected is what is being taught.

This is not unique to UTD. As was said before, good teaching is good teaching.

--Paul

You've done your homework

This is nothing new, and this was not invented by UTD, by any means.

Each of the classes are built on one or more of the 6 principles of teaching/learning. In the critical skills classes (Rec 3 and all technical classes) the law of intensity is the primary means of instruction, by design.

[CaptnJack]

In the critical skills classes (Rec 3 and all technical classes) the law of intensity is the primary means of instruction, by design.

Which is why older style mentoring instruction takes eons. Some divers go decades without an OOA or a lost buddy event. Are you going to dive with an instructor that long to be able to transfer those kinds of skills to your own diving?? Heck no, the process is accelerated with (intense) scenarios. Which a surprising number of students (myself included at times) "rush" without much thinking and thereby miss critical pieces which might get them home - safer or at all.

[BDub]

I'm posting a link to a discussion started over on the UTD website. It's a course report from a recent graduate from Todd Powell's Tech 1 course.

I'm only posting the link because I think this course report does a fairly good job of illustrating what we're trying to achieve when you hear the term "thinking diver". It's not about simply following protocols, it's about thinking and making decisions and is a major reason why we don't give the playbook ahead of the dive. We want you to assess and think (not that other agencies don't). This is simply a unique approach to developing that, which works for some people, and not for others.

Tech 1 Course Report

I think I like this Todd Powell guy, Brian never bought us Starbucks!

Hijack on-

What Steve (Aaen) failed to mention was HE bought Todd's coffees. Think how your class may have gone had you done the same...

Come to think of it, Todd and I are co-teaching a 6 person Tech 1 class next month. Perhaps you'd like to join the class...then you can personally tell Todd what kind of coffee you'd like him to buy you? :shootself:

Hijack off-

[LCF]

Hijack on (or maybe not so hijacked): Memo to self -- buy Brian coffee and T1 may not be so painful.

[Grateful Diver]

There's some sold basic psychology at work in the UTD instruction. In it's worst implimentation, one might make it out to be "games" but from what I've read, the point is not for the instructors to try to be clever or sneaky just to prove how superior they are. The principle of intensity is at work here. FWIW, wiki decribes it this way: "The more intense the material taught, the more likely it will be retained. A sharp, clear, vivid, dramatic, or exciting learning experience teaches more than a routine or boring experience. The principle of intensity implies that a student will learn more from the real thing than from a substitute. For example, a student can get more understanding and appreciation of a movie by watching it than by reading the script. Likewise, a student is likely to gain greater understanding of tasks by performing them rather than merely reading about them. The more immediate and dramatic the learning is to a real situation, the more impressive the learning is upon the student. Real world applications that integrate procedures and tasks that students are capable of learning will make a vivid impression on them." (Emphasis mine) The point here is not just that one learns in the classroom, then goes and does what they learned in the classroom. On the contrary, they learn in the milieu where the unexpected is what is being taught.

This is not unique to UTD. As was said before, good teaching is good teaching.

--Paul

The principle of intensity also includes the concept that there's a significant difference between knowing something and understanding it. The latter sometimes requires letting students make mistakes, so they can understand the importance of WHY the skill is being taught by experiencing the process of having to think through the solution to a problem in real-time.

Good teaching is good teaching ... but it must consider the context of the subject being taught. In scuba instruction, good teaching MUST include not just how to deal with a potential failure, but also how think through a problem you didn't know was coming ... because that's what happens in real-world diving.

While I don't teach failures in the same way Brian does, I can appreciate the value of his approach. With my own students, I will often see a mistake developing and allow it to happen (as long as it doesn't endanger the student's safety) ... because it forces them to find a solution to the problem, and in the process develop a better understanding not only of how to fix it, but why it occurred and how to avoid it in the future. That approach to learning IS good teaching, because it imparts more than simply the mechanics of the skill.

People are sometimes their own best instructors ... and there are times when the best thing an instructor can do is to set the parameters for a problem and allow the student to work through a solution in their own way.

It can also make for some interesting opportunities for post-dive instruction ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[LCF]

People are definitely sometimes their own best instructors, and the process can be made shorter and more permanent when it's facilitated by an observant and quick instructor. A lot of the things that happen in these classes, happen because the instructor sees an error being made by someone and capitalizes on it. For example, if you turn your fins to your buddy, he may well end up without a mask. If you have been through a bunch of scenarios like this, you become extremely attuned to the effects of your own body positioning on your team -- If I have to turn, I will immediately think about how to do it without aiming my fins AT anybody, because that "wince" has now been built into me. Instantly facing the bad consequences of your decisions and your actions (even if you might get away with doing whatever it was many times before you got into trouble on a real dive) builds much more intense awareness, and it becomes something you don't really have to think about at a conscious level any more.

[BDub]

People are definitely sometimes their own best instructors, and the process can be made shorter and more permanent when it's facilitated by an observant and quick instructor. A lot of the things that happen in these classes, happen because the instructor sees an error being made by someone and capitalizes on it. For example, if you turn your fins to your buddy, he may well end up without a mask. If you have been through a bunch of scenarios like this, you become extremely attuned to the effects of your own body positioning on your team -- If I have to turn, I will immediately think about how to do it without aiming my fins AT anybody, because that "wince" has now been built into me. Instantly facing the bad consequences of your decisions and your actions (even if you might get away with doing whatever it was many times before you got into trouble on a real dive) builds much more intense awareness, and it becomes something you don't really have to think about at a conscious level any more.

Good point, Lynne. Just as the students must remain alert and identify and assess problems, or potential problems, the instructor must always do the same. While I may have a general idea of what I'm going to do, or what I'm going to look for on a specific critical skills dive, I can't be so wrapped up in the plan that I don't see other things the students are doing.

That's what the opportunistic part comes in. There's been several dives where I planned on doing a specific failure, or string of failures, but never did because the students were "causing" their own failures on their own, much the same way Bob allows problems to progress. Obviously, that was a weak area for them, at least on that specific dive, so they'd learn more from that mistake compounding itself than they would from my own specific agenda/criteria for that dive.

[Sounder]

FWIW, my first real exposure to this style of teaching was my recent T1 with Scott Christopher. I thoroughly enjoyed it - it did make me think about things and shifted my thinking from a "what's gone" approach to a "what do we have" approach.

I disagree with Bob though. Sure, his teaching style up through Master Diver was as he described, but I sure found a lot of failures or issues "happening" to me and around me in my Dive Master course.

[airsix]

Recent posters (Brian and others): Thank you for saving this thread. The last string of posts have been great.
-Ben

[Grateful Diver]

FWIW, my first real exposure to this style of teaching was my recent T1 with Scott Christopher. I thoroughly enjoyed it - it did make me think about things and shifted my thinking from a "what's gone" approach to a "what do we have" approach.

I disagree with Bob though. Sure, his teaching style up through Master Diver was as he described, but I sure found a lot of failures or issues "happening" to me and around me in my Dive Master course.

Oh ... that's different. Once you reach the "pro" level, you're being actively tested on your ability to manage the problems that student divers can throw at you ... and those can be amazingly creative.

But that's an entirely different mindset than what Brian's trying to describe in this thread ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[ArcticDiver]

Thanks Brian for your clarification. I fully agree that in the hands of a GOOD instructor what you are doing will work. What I didn't see at first was your personal commitment to No Suprises teaching until the student has all the skills down pat. Then, and only then, do you get creative in scenarios.

I fully agree that it is important that people in any occupation be able to think creatively and beyond their training. An excellent example of that ability is how the Cactus crew handled the Hudson River landing. For the most part the crew did exactly as their training dictated and did it flawlessly. But, we saw the difference between the Captain and the First Officer. The Captain, because he had a lot of experience, a lifetime, was able to integrate information outside his training to solve the problem in the best way he knew how. He was able to decide on where to put the airplane down and when there wasn't any suitable place on land that didn't have an enormous extra casualty risk pick the river. Then he used his glider experience to produce an excellent approach and touchdown. The First Officer, on the other hand, did exactly what he was taught to do and did it flawlessly; except that he did not have the lifetime experience and therefore did not deviate from the checklist to activate the Ditch Switch out of checklist sequence. The checklist was written for a total thrust failure at altitude not at low level where this emergency occured. So, he never got to that point in the checklist and the airplane sank faster than it probably would have had all the exterior openings been sealed by activating the Ditch Switch.

No one can fault the First Officer, and I am not faulting him here. I am merely using this event as an illustration of how no matter what the training regimen, and the aviation training regimen is the best, there will be circumstances beyond that training. To a large extent whether a person is able to go beyond that training depends on how well they understand the basic skills involved and how much experience they have.

To hijack a wee bit; there is a fundamental problem in scuba certification. That problem is that the Instructor and the Evaluator and the License Issuer are all the same person. So, it is all too easy for a given set of standards and practices to be corrupted by individual instructors. Brian may, in fact, insure that all necessary skills are learned in sequence and with maximum learning opportunity even though the students are kept in the dark regarding syllabus detail. Another instructor may not be so organized and may not understand proper teaching practices and so not produce as high quality product.

I always remember the old adage: When faced with stress people almost always do not rise to the occasion; they default to their training. If they have they have learned the basic skills well that default will produce the best chance for them to adapt those skills to the situation. But, everyone will experience a circumstance that is beyond their ability to cope. The outcome will be beyond their control.

[Sounder]

FWIW, my first real exposure to this style of teaching was my recent T1 with Scott Christopher. I thoroughly enjoyed it - it did make me think about things and shifted my thinking from a "what's gone" approach to a "what do we have" approach.

I disagree with Bob though. Sure, his teaching style up through Master Diver was as he described, but I sure found a lot of failures or issues "happening" to me and around me in my Dive Master course.

Oh ... that's different. Once you reach the "pro" level, you're being actively tested on your ability to manage the problems that student divers can throw at you ... and those can be amazingly creative.

But that's an entirely different mindset than what Brian's trying to describe in this thread ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Yes, the skills are totally different, but the situational awareness definitely applies. Keeping track of the whole situation, thinking through and managing issues, and maintaining the zen-calm feeling are all key elements. One of the big differences is that you're lacking team resources, in contrast to a technical situation, which further forces the thinking diver approach.

I guess what I'm saying is that I actually found a lot of the DM experience I learned from you translated to my technical training.

[CaptnJack]

Since the word keeps coming up and in case anyone's wondering...
While "calm" is certainly helpful to clear thinking, you can still make horrible decisions while completely calm. A certain amount of adrenaline is actually normal and helpful.

[BDub]

I fully agree that it is important that people in any occupation be able to think creatively and beyond their training. An excellent example of that ability is how the Cactus crew handled the Hudson River landing. For the most part the crew did exactly as their training dictated and did it flawlessly. But, we saw the difference between the Captain and the First Officer. The Captain, because he had a lot of experience, a lifetime, was able to integrate information outside his training to solve the problem in the best way he knew how. He was able to decide on where to put the airplane down and when there wasn't any suitable place on land that didn't have an enormous extra casualty risk pick the river. Then he used his glider experience to produce an excellent approach and touchdown. The First Officer, on the other hand, did exactly what he was taught to do and did it flawlessly; except that he did not have the lifetime experience and therefore did not deviate from the checklist to activate the Ditch Switch out of checklist sequence. The checklist was written for a total thrust failure at altitude not at low level where this emergency occured. So, he never got to that point in the checklist and the airplane sank faster than it probably would have had all the exterior openings been sealed by activating the Ditch Switch.

No one can fault the First Officer, and I am not faulting him here. I am merely using this event as an illustration of how no matter what the training regimen, and the aviation training regimen is the best, there will be circumstances beyond that training. To a large extent whether a person is able to go beyond that training depends on how well they understand the basic skills involved and how much experience they have.

Completely agreed, Fred. Experience plays just as important of a role as the personal skills (safe) dives and the critical skills (failures) dives. That's the primary reason that all critical skills classes (Rec 3, Tech, Trimix and Cave) all have experience dives within the curriculum. A typical tech class will have 2 personal skills (safe) dives, 4 or so critical skills (failures) dives and 2 experience dives where the instructor is not part of the team and merely shadows the students for safety. I think its safe to say that most students learn equally as much, though different knowledge, from each type of dive.

Experience beyond their training is equally as valuable. And by experience I mean doing new dives, dives that are within your training and skill level, but where you push yourself and your skills.

Regarding your comment about the First Officer...He absolutely was doing what he was trained to do, and followed protocols and certainly can't be faulted for that. One thing I've been finding that people in team based diving are having a hard time wrapping their heads around is the fact that while protocols are important, sometimes common sense makes more sense. Many times the protocols ARE common sense, and many times common sense dictates something other than following the protocol. That's one of the things that the critical skills dives are meant to do...illustrate to the student that they have options, and the "better" option may sometimes be different from the protocol. That can be hard for some to grasp.

[Joshua Smith]

Regarding your comment about the First Officer...He absolutely was doing what he was trained to do, and followed protocols and certainly can't be faulted for that. One thing I've been finding that people in team based diving are having a hard time wrapping their heads around is the fact that while protocols are important, sometimes common sense makes more sense. Many times the protocols ARE common sense, and many times common sense dictates something other than following the protocol. That's one of the things that the critical skills dives are meant to do...illustrate to the student that they have options, and the "better" option may sometimes be different from the protocol. That can be hard for some to grasp.

I like this idea. I wrote about it a while ago on another site. During a particularly "task loaded" dive last winter, I had an epiphany. I suddenly realized that the answer to "what am I supposed to be doing right now?" was "it depends." We all function with built in checklists and automatic responses to problems- if someone cuts you off on the freeway, you hit the brakes, for example.....but, sometimes, it might be better to hit the gas and the horn! Only the driver in that situation can make that split-second decision. Diving's different, because it tends to move at a slower pace, and there are very few "split second" decisions. But the clock is still ticking on every dive, in one way or another. (like the old cave diver line: "It's a problem, and you have the rest of your life to figure it out!")

So, checklists and protocols and automatic responses are great, but sometimes they may not be the best answer to a unique situation. It's kind of like:

If, "A", Then, "B".

If "C", Then, "D".

But, if "A" and "C" together, plus "H", then "D" and "G" unless "R" happens.....

Making that leap is something that is very hard to teach, and it is an indicator of mastery of a particular skill. I see it in Carpentry almost every day- new guys need hard and fast rules: "Do THIS every time you see THAT." More experienced guys know that you don't ALWAYS do "THAT," You do "THAT most of the time, and there are exceptions. A real journeyman knows most of the exceptions, and knows how to improvise when an unforeseen and unique situation occurs, because they have an intimate understanding of all the tools they have to use, and what the end result of their work should look like.

So, we try, in all different kinds of skills, (including diving), to come up with a set of bulletproof rules that work for everything. It's human nature to try. This could be called "writing an algorithm." But the "ability to improvise and respond to unique situations" algorithm is the really hard one. And probably why humans are so difficult to replace with computers.

[BDub]

Regarding your comment about the First Officer...He absolutely was doing what he was trained to do, and followed protocols and certainly can't be faulted for that. One thing I've been finding that people in team based diving are having a hard time wrapping their heads around is the fact that while protocols are important, sometimes common sense makes more sense. Many times the protocols ARE common sense, and many times common sense dictates something other than following the protocol. That's one of the things that the critical skills dives are meant to do...illustrate to the student that they have options, and the "better" option may sometimes be different from the protocol. That can be hard for some to grasp.

I like this idea. I wrote about it a while ago on another site. During a particularly "task loaded" dive last winter, I had an epiphany. I suddenly realized that the answer to "what am I supposed to be doing right now?" was "it depends." We all function with built in checklists and automatic responses to problems- if someone cuts you off on the freeway, you hit the brakes, for example.....but, sometimes, it might be better to hit the gas and the horn! Only the driver in that situation can make that split-second decision. Diving's different, because it tends to move at a slower pace, and there are very few "split second" decisions. But the clock is still ticking on every dive, in one way or another. (like the old cave diver line: "It's a problem, and you have the rest of your life to figure it out!")

So, checklists and protocols and automatic responses are great, but sometimes they may not be the best answer to a unique situation. It's kind of like:

If, "A", Then, "B".

If "C", Then, "D".

But, if "A" and "C" together, plus "H", then "D" and "G" unless "R" happens.....

Making that leap is something that is very hard to teach, and it is an indicator of mastery of a particular skill. I see it in Carpentry almost every day- new guys need hard and fast rules: "Do THIS every time you see THAT." More experienced guys know that you don't ALWAYS do "THAT," You do "THAT most of the time, and there are exceptions. A real journeyman knows most of the exceptions, and knows how to improvise when an unforeseen and unique situation occurs, because they have an intimate understanding of all the tools they have to use, and what the end result of their work should look like.

So, we try, in all different kinds of skills, (including diving), to come up with a set of bulletproof rules that work for everything. It's human nature to try. This could be called "writing an algorithm." But the "ability to improvise and respond to unique situations" algorithm is the really hard one. And probably why humans are so difficult to replace with computers.

Great post, Josh, with great analogies. That is one of the toughest things for a student to learn, and can be very difficult to teach at times. Typically the lightbulb goes on during the debrief and that's when the wheels start turning.

Ok, I'm going home for the day since armageddon is obviously here and I have no reason to work any more. Run everyone! Run! Its the end of the world.....Josh posted in a UTD thread! RUN!

[Joshua Smith]

Regarding your comment about the First Officer...He absolutely was doing what he was trained to do, and followed protocols and certainly can't be faulted for that. One thing I've been finding that people in team based diving are having a hard time wrapping their heads around is the fact that while protocols are important, sometimes common sense makes more sense. Many times the protocols ARE common sense, and many times common sense dictates something other than following the protocol. That's one of the things that the critical skills dives are meant to do...illustrate to the student that they have options, and the "better" option may sometimes be different from the protocol. That can be hard for some to grasp.

I like this idea. I wrote about it a while ago on another site. During a particularly "task loaded" dive last winter, I had an epiphany. I suddenly realized that the answer to "what am I supposed to be doing right now?" was "it depends." We all function with built in checklists and automatic responses to problems- if someone cuts you off on the freeway, you hit the brakes, for example.....but, sometimes, it might be better to hit the gas and the horn! Only the driver in that situation can make that split-second decision. Diving's different, because it tends to move at a slower pace, and there are very few "split second" decisions. But the clock is still ticking on every dive, in one way or another. (like the old cave diver line: "It's a problem, and you have the rest of your life to figure it out!")

So, checklists and protocols and automatic responses are great, but sometimes they may not be the best answer to a unique situation. It's kind of like:

If, "A", Then, "B".

If "C", Then, "D".

But, if "A" and "C" together, plus "H", then "D" and "G" unless "R" happens.....

Making that leap is something that is very hard to teach, and it is an indicator of mastery of a particular skill. I see it in Carpentry almost every day- new guys need hard and fast rules: "Do THIS every time you see THAT." More experienced guys know that you don't ALWAYS do "THAT," You do "THAT most of the time, and there are exceptions. A real journeyman knows most of the exceptions, and knows how to improvise when an unforeseen and unique situation occurs, because they have an intimate understanding of all the tools they have to use, and what the end result of their work should look like.

So, we try, in all different kinds of skills, (including diving), to come up with a set of bulletproof rules that work for everything. It's human nature to try. This could be called "writing an algorithm." But the "ability to improvise and respond to unique situations" algorithm is the really hard one. And probably why humans are so difficult to replace with computers.

Great post, Josh, with great analogies. That is one of the toughest things for a student to learn, and can be very difficult to teach at times. Typically the lightbulb goes on during the debrief and that's when the wheels start turning.

Ok, I'm going home for the day since armageddon is obviously here and I have no reason to work any more. Run everyone! Run! Its the end of the world.....Josh posted in a UTD thread! RUN!

Hey, we're more alike than we are different! (Where did all these locusts come from? I don't remember ever seeing them in this part of the world....)

This whole topic interests me a lot. You wanna get into some really interesting "what if?" scenarios, start diving a rebreather! And the process by which humans acquire skills is fascinating all by itself.

Gotta run- the Moon and the Sun are both rising in the North, and the sky seems to be covered in green and purple flames.

[ArcticDiver]

Re: "Common Sense"
From Logic 101: There is no "Common Sense" without common background. To me the two most important functions of any instructor who teaches life and safety involved activities, like flying or diving, is a)Keep the student alive while they learn and b)Give them the common background so they can develop Common Sense.


Re: Decisions Outside the Box.
There has been enough work on the brain for us to believe the ability to arrive at unique decisions and courses of action in response to a new environement might have a strong genetic component. In other words there are some people who are linear thinkers now, always have been and always will be. Other people are able to meet unforseen situations with new ideas; sort of a leap from Point 1 to Point 3 without even considering Point 2; and Point 3 is the Best Answer.

Re: Journeyman vs. Apprentice vs. Master
An Apprentice becomes a Journeyman when able to recover from mistakes and look good doing it. A Journeyman becomes a Master when able to cover over other peoples mistakes and look good doing it.

[Fishstiq]

Re: not for everyone.

UTD methodology is not for everyone, as was said earlier in this thread. Tech diving is not for everone. Scuba diving is not for everyone. That's one of the main draws of diving to me. YOU decide what is good and what is not, what works and what does not, and who you are and are not willing to train and dive with. For instance, I have Aqualung Legend primary and backup regs. I hate them. I have never met anyone else who feels this way, everyone seems to think they are great. Fine, everyone else can dive them, and I won't knock that. For me though, they are crap, and I can't wait to get new regs.

My point is that no matter what you believe and why, you will never argue someone into believing you are right and their way is wrong. No one will ever convince me Legends are awesome regs, because my experience with them was bad. If you want the playbook in front of you, great. Find an agency that is in line with your thinking and training beliefs. I don't have a problem with that, and I won't show up and tell you why you are wrong. I respect your decision, and I expect you will respect my decision in turn. If the UTD methodology works for me, and I learn from it in a way I am comfortable with, it is a waste of your time and mine to try to convince me otherwise. Oh, and it's rude, too.

[spatman]

for those of you who want to continue the discussion about joe's regs, please go here.

[BDub]

To hijack a wee bit; there is a fundamental problem in scuba certification. That problem is that the Instructor and the Evaluator and the License Issuer are all the same person. So, it is all too easy for a given set of standards and practices to be corrupted by individual instructors. Brian may, in fact, insure that all necessary skills are learned in sequence and with maximum learning opportunity even though the students are kept in the dark regarding syllabus detail. Another instructor may not be so organized and may not understand proper teaching practices and so not produce as high quality product.

That's a very good point, and one that we are working very hard to ensure that does not occur. Of course every instructor has their own "hot buttons". However, we wanted to ensure consistency within the training. The online curriculum was developed with that single goal in mind. Additionally, this will never be a "big" agency in that there will never be a large number of instructors, again, for consistency.

Regarding the syllabus...If someone wants to see the required skills of each class, they can be found in the S & P, available to anyone, on the UTD website. The playbook is the only thing not disclosed to anyone.

On a critical skills dive, before the dive, the briefing is generally something along the lines of "We'll drop down, and see what happens". That's it...because I want to see thought process. On debriefing we discuss what went right, and what went wrong. Upon watching the video, it becomes painfully clear. On the next critical skills dive, most of the time the mistakes/defiencies from the previous critical skills dive improve, though new ones occur. Its important to remember that prior to taking a critical skills class, the students have completed one (or more) personal (safe) skills class.

That's the critical skills dives...

On the personal skills dives, the students know what skills/drills will be performed, and what I'm looking for. In addition to that, the online curriculum has videos, with detailed voice-over, describing the skill. While there are no failures in the personal skills dives, upon surfacing the students have a pretty clear understanding of their strengths and deficiencies. Upon debriefing, it's even more clear, and again, after the video review, it's painfully clear.

I can say that the crossover/ITC was hands down the toughest thing I've ever done in my diving career, by far. Prior to the training, I considered myself a pretty good instructor. The ITC made me a completely different instructor. Andrew accepts nothing but perfection in himself, his students and certainly his instructors. NO class is ever a guaranteed pass, and if you can't display, without a doubt, that you understand the teaching practices and competency he's looking for, you'll go home with a TON of new knowledge, but no instructor card. However, it will be no surprise to you. You'll know exactly where you stand throughout the entire training process (I have no idea how many times each of us wanted to get up and walk out during the 8 day day, 12-15 hours per day ITC). There was a lot of time spent on that topic. Teaching in a way that the student ALWAYS knows where he/she stands.

The same goes true for any UTD class. We are there to teach you, and make you a better diver (NOT that other agencies aren't). Cards are never guaranteed, but you'll have an instructor that will continue to work with you as long as you put out the effort. You'll also know exactly where you stand throughout the entire class.

Here's another thread, from on a recent Rec 2 (AOW/Nitrox - personal skills class with some VERY small/basic failures) on the UTD board (mods, if you prefer I don't cross post, please feel free to delete) illustrating that very point, here. What's interesting to note is the students' replies.

[LCF]

Andrew accepts nothing but perfection in himself, his students and certainly his instructors.

I'm going to take a little bit of issue with this. Andrew accepts humanity in his students. We did not have to be perfect. Perfect was what I couldn't pull off, that kept me from passing Rec Triox. Reasonably good, with good judgment, and working on it was good enough for Helitrox. I was deeply grateful for that.

[CaptnJack]

Andrew accepts nothing but perfection in himself, his students and certainly his instructors.

I'm going to take a little bit of issue with this. Andrew accepts humanity in his students. We did not have to be perfect. Perfect was what I couldn't pull off, that kept me from passing Rec Triox. Reasonably good, with good judgment, and working on it was good enough for Helitrox. I was deeply grateful for that.

How about, "you don't have to be a perfect diver to actually dive." But he's not going to give you a "pass" on discrepancies or weak spots. If there are deal breakers you'll know it. If there are things to work on in the future, you'll know that too.

IIRC in my GUE Tech1 with Andrew, none of the 4 students scored higher than a 3 (on a 1 to 5 scale) on any of the 6 or so categories. 3 = passable but needs improvement. There were some 2s = not passable, needs improvement (1 = downright dangerous to himself and others btw, nobody got one of those).

[BDub]

Andrew accepts nothing but perfection in himself, his students and certainly his instructors.

I'm going to take a little bit of issue with this. Andrew accepts humanity in his students. We did not have to be perfect. Perfect was what I couldn't pull off, that kept me from passing Rec Triox. Reasonably good, with good judgment, and working on it was good enough for Helitrox. I was deeply grateful for that.

You're right, Lynne. Perfection is a strong word. The way I intended it to come across (and admittedly did a poor job of saying it. Stupid trying to fire off a post when work is busy) is perfection is what he strives for, and pushes his students to strive for. You obviously won't ever be "perfect" but he pushes you to get you as close as he/you can.

Like Richard said, he won't let you get away with anything, but you'll definitely know what the deal breakers are.