UTD Teaching Methodology

[ArcticDiver]

Interesting comments. They illustrate the consequential problems in not having formal, agreed upon, enforced by separate instruction and evaluation performance standards.

A preinstructional briefing that merely says let's go diving and see what happens leaves the student in a kind of limbo that results in anxiety that interferes with learning.

Surely in diving, like other activities, different skills have different importance. But so far nothing has been posted to differentiate between Minor, Major and Critical skills and errors. .

[BDub]

A preinstructional briefing that merely says let's go diving and see what happens leaves the student in a kind of limbo that results in anxiety that interferes with learning.

Having been on the receiving end of this type of instruction, I can attest that for me personally, there was no anxiety that interfered with learning. Of course there was anxiety and adrenaline, as it was a stressful "situation", especially the first time I experienced it. However, for me, I learned an incredible amount in those dives. However, I'll be the first to admit (and have) that it doesn't work for everyone.

Actually, I'll add that if you have so much anxiety that it interferes with the learning process, you're not ready for that type of training, or that's not the right training for you.

[dsteding]

Interesting comments. They illustrate the consequential problems in not having formal, agreed upon, enforced by separate instruction and evaluation performance standards.

A preinstructional briefing that merely says let's go diving and see what happens leaves the student in a kind of limbo that results in anxiety that interferes with learning.

Surely in diving, like other activities, different skills have different importance. But so far nothing has been posted to differentiate between Minor, Major and Critical skills and errors. .

I think a fair amount is getting lost in translation. Come down, take the class . . .

[ArcticDiver]

A preinstructional briefing that merely says let's go diving and see what happens leaves the student in a kind of limbo that results in anxiety that interferes with learning.

Having been on the receiving end of this type of instruction, I can attest that for me personally, there was no anxiety that interfered with learning. Of course there was anxiety and adrenaline, as it was a stressful "situation", especially the first time I experienced it. However, for me, I learned an incredible amount in those dives. However, I'll be the first to admit (and have) that it doesn't work for everyone.

Actually, I'll add that if you have so much anxiety that it interferes with the learning process, you're not ready for that type of training, or that's not the right training for you.

Frem my BlackBerry.

I've already explained the basis of my comments. To me this is not a personal thing. It is a professional discussion of what does and does not constitute good instruction and a good industry structure to support that instruution. It is the two that produces a qualified diver.

It has been agreed that good instruction is universal At this point it doesn't appear those standards are fully applied in this curriculum. Nor does it appear they are generally accepted in an operational sense.

That doesn't mean there aren't excellent instructors. I know there are.

[LCF]

AD, I'm not sure what you are objecting to, but I can also tell you that, "Let's go diving and see what happens," is an oversimplification. When we did our dives with Andrew, we had a plan: Drop at this point, shoot a bag and tie it off, run line in this direction. Of course, we rarely got to execute the entire plan, because things had a habit of going wrong But we all had a shrewd idea of the KINDS of things that go wrong (although I'll confess Andrew is uniquely creative) AND we all knew how to KEEP things from going wrong, although we'd forget to execute on that.

It's not anxiety producing, except that everybody, of course, wants to do well.

I like this kind of training. I don't shine at it, but I learn a ton. I've now taken four classes taught in this general fashion, and all of them have been immensely productive, and I'm a better diver for them.

[CaptnJack]

Interesting comments. They illustrate the consequential problems in not having formal, agreed upon, enforced by separate instruction and evaluation performance standards.

The personal skills are laid out in the pre-class online materials or if you're a curious non-student, the Intro to tech and Tech DVDs.

A preinstructional briefing that merely says let's go diving and see what happens leaves the student in a kind of limbo that results in anxiety that interferes with learning.

Every "normal" dive that might go disastrously wrong starts this way. Scenario dives are meant to model reality. Solve the problems as they appear in as logical a manner as you see fit. Afterwards, discuss the pluses and minuses of the 'solutions' during video debrief. There is no "perfect answer".

Surely in diving, like other activities, different skills have different importance. But so far nothing has been posted to differentiate between Minor, Major and Critical skills and errors. .

I won't try to speak for Bdub, Edge and the "new agency" in any official capacity but historically with Andrew its really too student specific to put into a list of good, acceptable, needs improvement, inadequate, etc. However to at least try and clarify from 1500miles away...

With tech instruction it basically comes down to buoyancy+time, and with cave/overhead instruction its line awareness. "Most" other deficiencies, as long as they aren't egregious, are minor. It would be rather unrealistic to put all the soft and hard skills into a list with grades for each. At some point you just need to respect/trust that you've selected the right instructor for you and that when he tells you "XYX is great" and "PDQ is poor", its in your best interest as a student and diver. Instructor-student relationships will always have a substantial "trust me" foundation. However many student issues do come back to the fundamentals which are laid out in the online class room presentations + videos. Fundamentals that weren't quite as solid as the student thought they were when they enrolled. Video is very rarely misinterpreted; it never lies.

[ArcticDiver]

Back for a wee bit while things in my life progress.

This has been an interesting discussion. Someone asked what I am objecting to. I'm not really objecting to anything. What I'm doing, perhaps poorly, is trying to point out that there has been lots and lots of educational methods research that has given us a structure for the most successful training. The method that just says: "Lets go diving and see what happens" doesn't fit in that methodology. I'm not picking on the OP when I use that phrase. He just happened to print a phrase that perfectly illustrates a lot of scuba instruction. Now, due to personality, personal skill, and just downright good fortune this may produce a good product; which leads to the second basic problem: Evaluation

There is a fundamental conflict of interest when the instructor is also the evaluator. This conflict spans many areas from financial to emotional to professional.

The last item I've been trying to present is that although we are all diving in the same physical environment there is no common agreement on what the product of diving education should know and how well they need to be able to perform. Some examples: Should a student need to demonstrate the ability to hold their depth plus or minus two feet? How about one foot? There has been lots of server space used to bewail the inability of divers to do, what in some people's estimation is a basic skill, breathing gas calculations. On the other hand, other people have been just as vocal in their pronouncements that most divers don't need to be able to determine "rock bottom" and similar calculations.

Some will say that personal testimony by course graduates is a good measure of instructor ability. I couldn't disagree more. It is a good testimony on the scuba version of bedside manner. But, in truth the recent graduate of a course hasn't the foggiest whether they have been adequately trained, or not. They have no basis upon which to judge. They have to take on faith that their training has included the proper subjects and the instructor/evaluator has adequately trained and evaluated them.

Like all internet conversations via posts this one lacks the ability to really refine what each of us is saying. I suspect that UTD instruction, like most scuba instruction, is a product of someone's passionate belief that it can make a positive difference in people's lives and the instructor can make money doing it. Nothing wrong with that motive.

As I posted in another thread I'm going into drydock this week for some maintenance. I don't know my schedule so if I don't come back for awhile; it was beyond my control.

[Paulicarp]

What I'm doing, perhaps poorly, is trying to point out that there has been lots and lots of educational methods research that has given us a structure for the most successful training.

What is the structure to which you refer, and how do you quantify it as the most successful?

The method that just says: "Lets go diving and see what happens" doesn't fit in that methodology. I'm not picking on the OP when I use that phrase. He just happened to print a phrase that perfectly illustrates a lot of scuba instruction.

You have taken the OP out of context and applied almost exactly the opposite meaning to his words than what he was communicating. He was not illustrating his methodology as haphazard as you seem to imply. Just the opposite, he was talking about going into the senario with a spcific goal or set of goals that are on the agenda that, for the sake of impact, he would not tell the student to expect them specifically.

Now, due to personality, personal skill, and just downright good fortune this may produce a good product;

I think one of the major reasons for the playbook that the OP was writing about was to remove these variables from the process. How could you possibly read what he wrote and seriously identify him as advocating reliance on personality, personal skill and downright good fortune for quality of instruction? Are we even reading the same thread?

There is a fundamental conflict of interest when the instructor is also the evaluator. This conflict spans many areas from financial to emotional to professional.

I'm not opposed to having outside, indepenant evaluators. That really isn't what this post was about. Methodology and evaluation are different issues.

The last item I've been trying to present is that although we are all diving in the same physical environment there is no common agreement on what the product of diving education should know and how well they need to be able to perform. Some examples: Should a student need to demonstrate the ability to hold their depth plus or minus two feet? How about one foot? There has been lots of server space used to bewail the inability of divers to do, what in some people's estimation is a basic skill, breathing gas calculations. On the other hand, other people have been just as vocal in their pronouncements that most divers don't need to be able to determine "rock bottom" and similar calculations.

You started this post writing, "...that there has been lots and lots of educational methods research that has given us a structure for the most successful training." Now you're writing that there's no common agreement on what the product or the standards of performance should be. If you really believe that, then how can you identify the methodoloy of the OP as somehow inferior to the methodology you identify as the "most successful training"?

Like all internet conversations via posts this one lacks the ability to really refine what each of us is saying.

I believe a very good place to start is by not taking the OP out of context.

I suspect that UTD instruction, like most scuba instruction, is a product of someone's passionate belief that it can make a positive difference in people's lives and the instructor can make money doing it.

In what way does your suspicion have any significant bearing on the reality of what the UTD methodology of teaching is?

I don't think you're critiquing the UTD methodology. Your posts don't demonstrate that you understand what the UTD methodology is. When you understand it better, I'd be interested in reading your thoughtful concerns if you have any.

[Joshua Smith]

There is a fundamental conflict of interest when the instructor is also the evaluator. This conflict spans many areas from financial to emotional to professional..

As far as any Scuba certifications go, below the "Instructor" level, the instructor is always the evaluator. I have 9 different certifications from 3 different agencies; and I have never been "evaluated" by anyone other than my instructors. Not saying it's right, but it is the norm. However, any student has another review to pass, and that comes from whoever they dive with after training. Call it "peer review." It can be pretty brutal.

Like all internet conversations via posts this one lacks the ability to really refine what each of us is saying. I suspect that UTD instruction, like most scuba instruction, is a product of someone's passionate belief that it can make a positive difference in people's lives and the instructor can make money doing it.

Actually, it's possible to refine what you're trying to say with an extemely high degree of accuracy this way. Sometimes it takes a little patience. I'm confused about what you're trying to say, though.

[John Rawlings]

Is that kind of training for everyone? No. Is that kind of training the ONLY way you'll become a better diver? Absolutely not.

The UTD curriculum is very unique in the sense that there are only 14 or 15 instructors teaching using this method. That doesn't mean its the ONLY good curriculum by any means.

Its just one of several that a diver has to choose from, according to what best suits them.

It's starting to be about time for people to remember this quote from Brian....the villagers with their pitchforks and torches appear to have arrived. I've never met articdiver....don't know anything about him, actually, other than that he is a long-time member here, but he doesn't deserve to be dog-piled for stating his opinion. If you want discussion, that isn't the way to go about it....all you'll be left with is a group of like-minded people agreeing with each other.

- John

[LCF]

I'm confused about the idea that the instructor cannot be the evaluator. I can understand that from a quality control standpoint, but throughout my entire education, which has included a lot of classroom, on-the-job training, horseback riding, and diving, the instructor has ALWAYS been the evaluator except in riding, where the judge can be considered to do that. For quality control, I can understand that the product of an educational system needs to be evaluated by someone whose performance isn't reflected in the student's level of proficiency. And within this system, that will occur as the student applies for more advanced classes. He either shows up well prepared or he doesn't; if a number of students coming from the same instructor are deficient, I suspect some intense scrutiny from above will be applied to the suspect instructor.

In addition, as Josh says, there's a pretty pitiless peer review process. And especially with this new agency, if students were to be turned out poorly trained, there are plenty of people who would have a field day enjoying that in public.

The argument can certainly be made that, when the instructor receives a fixed sum of money for a class, there is a motivation to make that class shorter and more superficial (thus increasing the $/hr ratio). I have seen that happen elsewhere. But one really has to consider that character plays a role in the behavior of an instructor. I know instructors who put immense amounts of unremunerated time into students, perceiving the process as the student having paid to achieve a certain level of performance, rather than having paid for a given amount of time from the teacher. This is no way to make money, but I suspect Andrew hand-selected his initial instructor cadre for precisely this kind of dedication.

ArcticDiver, I hope you continue to participate here -- Although moving a bit afield from the specific original topic, I think the subject of educational strategy and quality control in diving is well worth examining.

[BDub]

Back for a wee bit while things in my life progress.

This has been an interesting discussion. Someone asked what I am objecting to. I'm not really objecting to anything. What I'm doing, perhaps poorly, is trying to point out that there has been lots and lots of educational methods research that has given us a structure for the most successful training. The method that just says: "Lets go diving and see what happens" doesn't fit in that methodology. I'm not picking on the OP when I use that phrase. He just happened to print a phrase that perfectly illustrates a lot of scuba instruction. Now, due to personality, personal skill, and just downright good fortune this may produce a good product; which leads to the second basic problem: Evaluation.

Since that is the phrase I used, I'll address this in that context. In the simplest, and probably the most traditional way that phrase is used, you're right.

However, in the sense that I was using, this would be on a critical skills dive, where the students have done one of two things. A) they've progressed through the UTD curriculum, meaning they started with UTD early on in their in diving, or B) they've entered the UTD curriculum at a personal skills level (Essentials, Intro to Tech, etc), to get up to speed. When I use the term "get up to speed" I mean that in the sense of learning UTD skills. Not that UTD is better or worse, it just may be different than what they've previously been taught. Without having done A or B, the students would be shredded on a critical skills dive. That's NOT what we're looking for.

By using the "Lets go diving and see what happens" approach, the student has the personal skills, now its time for the thinking and problem management aspect. Yes, there are general parameters, and there is a broad/general dive plan. Personality may have something to do with it, as all personalities will not prefer this type of training. Personal skill certainly plays a role in this, since they have completed some intense personal skills training prior to this. Good fortune, I disagree with. Good fortune only lasts so long. Good fortune may allow you to squeek by here and there, but it doesn't cover deficiencies long.

The last item I've been trying to present is that although we are all diving in the same physical environment there is no common agreement on what the product of diving education should know and how well they need to be able to perform. Some examples: Should a student need to demonstrate the ability to hold their depth plus or minus two feet? How about one foot? There has been lots of server space used to bewail the inability of divers to do, what in some people's estimation is a basic skill, breathing gas calculations. On the other hand, other people have been just as vocal in their pronouncements that most divers don't need to be able to determine "rock bottom" and similar calculations.

There is no common ground, and there never will be. There's too much disparity between the Cove 2 Commandos and the "I only want to dive in warm, clear water and look at the fishies" diver. That's one of the purposes of this thread. There is no common agreement, and it's the student's responsibility to seek out the training that works for them. There's training available at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between.

Some will say that personal testimony by course graduates is a good measure of instructor ability. I couldn't disagree more. It is a good testimony on the scuba version of bedside manner. But, in truth the recent graduate of a course hasn't the foggiest whether they have been adequately trained, or not. They have no basis upon which to judge. They have to take on faith that their training has included the proper subjects and the instructor/evaluator has adequately trained and evaluated them.

I disagree with this. I've had good training and I've had bad training. While I'll admit I've had bad training, and didn't really realize it until later, I've also had bad training and excellent training and knew it at the time and looking back, still believe as such.

Like all internet conversations via posts this one lacks the ability to really refine what each of us is saying. I suspect that UTD instruction, like most scuba instruction, is a product of someone's passionate belief that it can make a positive difference in people's lives and the instructor can make money doing it. Nothing wrong with that motive.

Absolutely. I'd agree that most instructors started teaching for that reason and most, if not all, agencies were formed for the same reason. UTD is not unique in that regard. However, I will state that if you're in it for the money, (and this is no secret), its NOT worth your time. If you're in it for the money, get a job at fast food and dive on your time off.

[BDub]

Is that kind of training for everyone? No. Is that kind of training the ONLY way you'll become a better diver? Absolutely not.

The UTD curriculum is very unique in the sense that there are only 14 or 15 instructors teaching using this method. That doesn't mean its the ONLY good curriculum by any means.

Its just one of several that a diver has to choose from, according to what best suits them.

It's starting to be about time for people to remember this quote from Brian....the villagers with their pitchforks and torches appear to have arrived. I've never met articdiver....don't know anything about him, actually, other than that he is a long-time member here, but he doesn't deserve to be dog-piled for stating his opinion. If you want discussion, that isn't the way to go about it....all you'll be left with is a group of like-minded people agreeing with each other.

- John

Thanks John.

Please everyone, keep in mind how difficult it can be to communicate on the internet. I could've done a better job in expressing myself in a couple of instances in this thread alone. I also think I've misunderstood Articdiver on a couple of occasions as well.

Please just keep that in mind when posting.

[John Rawlings]

You're welcome, Brian....

For what it's worth, I consider you to be one of the absolutely premier instructors in the Pacific Northwest, (we are fortunate to have several exellent ones), and a darn fine individual as well. The problems seem to arise here on the web when students/adherants get too involved in feeling the need to explain or even defend their personal choice, not even realizing that they don't even really need to do so. Their subsequent performance in the water will speak for their instruction far better than any back-and-forth on the internet will ever do.

There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that YOUR students, once they have "left the nest" and are out there diving, will be the best advertising that any instructor could hope for.

- John

[Paulicarp]

the villagers with their pitchforks and torches appear to have arrived. I've never met articdiver....don't know anything about him, actually, other than that he is a long-time member here, but he doesn't deserve to be dog-piled for stating his opinion. If you want discussion, that isn't the way to go about it....all you'll be left with is a group of like-minded people agreeing with each other.

- John

Torch extingushed. Pitchfork stowed. For the record, I was not being sarcastic when I wrote that I would be interested in reading thoughtful concerns. I haven't been around long enough for the kool-aid to take effect, and I am sincerely interested in valid critique of various agencies and methodologies. Obviously the OP acknowledges a poor choice of words, but in the context of the whole thread it isn't hard to see that there's a profound disparity between what the OP wrote and what his words were twisted to imply. I think that's where the discussion really broke down. Thanks for the reminder to keep it civil; I'm really interested in seeing this discussion move forward.

[ArcticDiver]

Is that kind of training for everyone? No. Is that kind of training the ONLY way you'll become a better diver? Absolutely not.

The UTD curriculum is very unique in the sense that there are only 14 or 15 instructors teaching using this method. That doesn't mean its the ONLY good curriculum by any means.

Its just one of several that a diver has to choose from, according to what best suits them.

It's starting to be about time for people to remember this quote from Brian....the villagers with their pitchforks and torches appear to have arrived. I've never met articdiver....don't know anything about him, actually, other than that he is a long-time member here, but he doesn't deserve to be dog-piled for stating his opinion. If you want discussion, that isn't the way to go about it....all you'll be left with is a group of like-minded people agreeing with each other.

- John

Thanks John.

Please everyone, keep in mind how difficult it can be to communicate on the internet. I could've done a better job in expressing myself in a couple of instances in this thread alone. I also think I've misunderstood Articdiver on a couple of occasions as well.

Please just keep that in mind when posting.

Back for a brief spell between medical events. Thought I'd take a look at this thread to see what had happened while I was gone.

What I see reinforces the difficulty in communicating via forum posts. We just can't see all the other communication tools that we use in face to face exchanges. It also reinforces the need for good definitions of terms so participants are able to exchange ideas from a common understanding instead of each person putting their own interpretation on language.

What is essential is what was posted in the quote above; that we not use emotionally connoted words like "twisted" unless we actually mean to inflame and insult. Otherwise, people rapidly become unwilling to share ideas and the value of forums such as this declines.

As I said early on I've got a decent background in university, flight and technical instruction. I am not a scuba instructor, nor do I want to be one. But, good instructional methods transfer very well from one environment to another. It is, in my and others' opionions, critical that we differentiate between adult and child instruction. And to differentiate between instruction and evaluation. I don't think scuba is any exception. My comments should be taken in that context.

Lastly, just because a recent graduate of a course of instruction thinks they are well trained is no sign they are actually competent. At that point they just don't have the experience to make any kind of judgement. From watching divers as I travel and from posts on this and other scuba boards I think many divers, at the gut level, suspect this. Also, from frequent comments like "you should have learned that in your Open Water training" when someone asks a question I think that most other divers know it as well.

With that, this thread has gotten long and too difuse. If we want to do more discussion on instruction maybe we ought to start another thread that starts with some definitions and taking care not to use emotionally connoted words.

[Grateful Diver]

Back for a brief spell between medical events. Thought I'd take a look at this thread to see what had happened while I was gone.

What I see reinforces the difficulty in communicating via forum posts. We just can't see all the other communication tools that we use in face to face exchanges. It also reinforces the need for good definitions of terms so participants are able to exchange ideas from a common understanding instead of each person putting their own interpretation on language.

What is essential is what was posted in the quote above; that we not use emotionally connoted words like "twisted" unless we actually mean to inflame and insult. Otherwise, people rapidly become unwilling to share ideas and the value of forums such as this declines.

As I said early on I've got a decent background in university, flight and technical instruction. I am not a scuba instructor, nor do I want to be one. But, good instructional methods transfer very well from one environment to another. It is, in my and others' opionions, critical that we differentiate between adult and child instruction. And to differentiate between instruction and evaluation. I don't think scuba is any exception. My comments should be taken in that context.

Lastly, just because a recent graduate of a course of instruction thinks they are well trained is no sign they are actually competent. At that point they just don't have the experience to make any kind of judgement. From watching divers as I travel and from posts on this and other scuba boards I think many divers, at the gut level, suspect this. Also, from frequent comments like "you should have learned that in your Open Water training" when someone asks a question I think that most other divers know it as well.

With that, this thread has gotten long and too difuse. If we want to do more discussion on instruction maybe we ought to start another thread that starts with some definitions and taking care not to use emotionally connoted words.

Sorry Fred, I've tried hard to stay out of this discussion ... but at best, you are being disingenuous ... and at worst you are doing exactly what you're asking others not to do by choosing inflammatory language to describe the person you have chosen to disagree with.

You don't know Brian ... I do, as both a colleague and someone who's competed with him for students for several years. He is, in my estimation, one of the most qualified instructors in the Puget Sound area ... irregardless of the agency he's teaching for. I come to this conclusion in exactly the manner you suggested ... by evaluating his students. In point of fact, every dive instructor I know makes his or her own judgments about the qualifications of their colleagues by the quality of the students they turn out ... and there's no question within the local community that Brian is very qualified to both teach and evaluate the competence of a diver.

Yes, Brian is a recent graduate of UTD. That's because it's a recently-formed agency ... and ALL of the instructors are new to the agency. Brian was among the first chosen to represent this agency for a reason ... because he's been teaching and evaluating students for several years, and earned a reputation for turning out highly trained and qualified divers. This isn't a theoretical comment ... it's based on years of diving with his graduates.

You're welcome to hold whatever opinion you want on the subject, Fred ... and although I understand your logic, as someone who's been teaching scuba for several years I disagree with it. That's not something I think can be discussed on an internet forum with someone who's never done it before ... you have to spend some time in the water with students before you'll have the context to understand why I wouldn't agree with you.

But my objection here isn't based on your opinion, it's that you have resorted to the exact thing you've asked others not to do by making an assumption about the PERSON and stating it in a way that's dismissive his qualifications. rather than discussing the merits of the program. It's an assumption that's just flat-out wrong.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[LCF]

I didn't get the feeling that the highlighted portions of AD's last post were aimed at Brian, Bob. I got the feeling that he was just saying that testimonials from students aren't necessarily the best way to to assess an instructor, and I agree with him. I would have been very complimentary about my OW instructors, when I finished my class. In fact, I was, and (to my horror today) referred other people to them. I had no idea where the holes in my training were, because I didn't know what I didn't know.

Of course, as one accumulates a variety of training experiences and diving experiences, one's ability to evaluate instruction improves (and the dives done after that instruction give some valuable feedback as to where the holes might be, as well). But I'm quite sure the fellow I cave dove with on Cozumel would be enthusiastic about the fellow who did his cave class, even though to me, he was not well trained. I assume that because he clearly didn't go elsewhere to improve his training (as I did). So even advanced students may not be good judges -- People evaluate their instructors as much on whether they were likable or entertaining as on whether the instructions was really of good quality, I think.

BTW, I also have to comment on the "We'll just go diving and see what happens" remark -- Having done a weekend of in-water work with Brian and Jeanna, there was SO much truth to that. Brian set up the framework, but the three of us created the vast majority of our own issues and had to try to solve them, and then get feedback on our choices from our teachers. It's amazing how the application of a small stressor starts the slide into the incident pit, but we keep the momentum going all on our own . . .

[Paulicarp]

As I said early on I've got a decent background in university, flight and technical instruction. I am not a scuba instructor, nor do I want to be one. But, good instructional methods transfer very well from one environment to another.

The teaching methodology of UTD is very similar to the flight instruction that I've had before. In fact, some of the psychology of learning used in the UTD program is almost a "rubber stamp" of some flight instruction manuals I've read. UTD is a new agency, but it's methodology is not unproven or arbitrary.

Lastly, just because a recent graduate of a course of instruction thinks they are well trained is no sign they are actually competent. At that point they just don't have the experience to make any kind of judgement...It is, in my and others' opionions, critical that we differentiate between adult and child instruction. And to differentiate between instruction and evaluation. I don't think scuba is any exception. My comments should be taken in that context.

I have some agreement with you on this point. When you learn to drive a car or fly an airplane, your final evaluation is a checkride with an independent agent of a government regulatory entity, DOT, FAA, etc. It is a mixed blessing that we don't have this kind of regulatory oversight in the diving community. IMHO, the more we as a community can self-regulate, the better off we all are, but this depends on personal, inter and intra agency responsibility and accountability. When you fly an airplane, drive motor vehicle, perform medical proceedures, etc. you implicitly have the lives of other people in your hands. With activities like recreational diving, it is usually just your own life that is in your hands, so I'm inclined to take the position that government oversight is not needed any more so than if you are downhill skiing or mountain climbing.

I'm proud to have completed Rec 1 diving with Brian and Jeanna. I have exactly 8 open water dives to my credit, and I agree with you that I'm not the best person to evaluate the instruction they gave me, but I can say without reservation that they gave me a very clear picture of what one kind of safe and skilled diving looks like. I'm only a dim shadow of what I'd like to become as a diver, but I plan to have alot of fun working to become a safe, skilled thinking diver.

Finally, I'd be pleased to have your evaluation of Brian, Jeanna and UTD. Come dive with me and judge for yourself if they've started me on the right foot. I'm willing to let you decide if you think I'm competent, and I'd like to hear your evaluation. Let's DIVE!

[Mattleycrue76]

Well said Paul

[ArcticDiver]

Sorry I wasn't clearer Bob. My comments, which you highlighted, were not aimed at any particular person. Rather they are an observation about recent graduates of just about any course of training.

I have seen nothing in this thread, or any other where I've read Brian's posts, to make me have any personal animosity toward him. Anyone who interprets my posts as though this is a personal thing against, or for him for that matter, is misreading the posts.

We also should keep in mind that this thread has focused on only one part of the training equation. In fact it is, in my opinion, focused on a lesser important part of the equation. The most important factor is the student and the student's willingness and ability to learn. It is more accurate to say that the instructor creates an environment where the student has the opportunity to learn. Something like the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

[Grateful Diver]

Sorry I wasn't clearer Bob. My comments, which you highlighted, were not aimed at any particular person. Rather they are an observation about recent graduates of just about any course of training.

I have seen nothing in this thread, or any other where I've read Brian's posts, to make me have any personal animosity toward him. Anyone who interprets my posts as though this is a personal thing against, or for him for that matter, is misreading the posts.

We also should keep in mind that this thread has focused on only one part of the training equation. In fact it is, in my opinion, focused on a lesser important part of the equation. The most important factor is the student and the student's willingness and ability to learn. It is more accurate to say that the instructor creates an environment where the student has the opportunity to learn. Something like the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

I agree with that last bit ... and in fact, one of the things that differentiates UTD from mainstream dive instruction is the motivation of the student who seeks out that line of training. With a typical scuba class, a lot of students go into it with the expectation of a C-card ... the training is simply a means to an end. With UTD, the training IS the end ... the C-card is almost incidental ... and it's possible to fail. Students know that passing the course will require a lot of effort on their part. As a result, this type of instruction tends to attract only those students who are particularly motivated to learn (the kind that ANY instructor really wants to be teaching) ... those who want an easy C-card won't be attracted to this approach and will seek their instruction elsewhere.

In this respect, the quality of the student is as much a differentiating factor as the quality of the course.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)