Great responses. Only thing I will add in regards to training people is I was taught to always include in your intro that there is always something new to learn and no is perfect. Acknowledge the fact that everyone has varying degrees of skills and experience and whatever training is about to take place will help everyone. This type of intro usually keeps people focused on the objective and helps to loosen egos to the point of hopefully a feeling of confidence and excitement rather than being a know-it-all.
Know-it-alls in Training
- Thread starter wayneinFL
- Start date
- Status
luzyfuerza
Member
My favorite method to disarm know-it-alls in intermediate to advanced handgun classes is to start on the morning of day one with some kind of timed, standardized skills test. Something like Tom Givens' Baseline Assessment.
www.activeresponsetraining.net
A good instructor should do very well on this drill. Shot in front of the class, of course.
This isn't about instructor ego. Would you want to take a shooting course from somebody who can't demonstrate the skills being taught?
Then, end the class with the same test. If the instructor did his job, scores should be better. And learners should walk away satisfied.
Rangemaster Baseline Assessment Drill
Written by: Greg Ellifritz I got this one from the Rangemaster Instructor Course I attended last year. It is also described as the "drill of the month" in Rangemaster's December 2020 Newsletter (opens to
www.activeresponsetraining.net
A good instructor should do very well on this drill. Shot in front of the class, of course.
This isn't about instructor ego. Would you want to take a shooting course from somebody who can't demonstrate the skills being taught?
Then, end the class with the same test. If the instructor did his job, scores should be better. And learners should walk away satisfied.
Last edited:
JN01
Member
Maybe. If a top-notch shooter as some point suffers an injury or has degraded physical abilities due to age (like eyesight), he may no longer be able to perform at the high level he used to, but still has the knowledge to pass on to students. It certainly gives a student more confidence in the instructor if he can demonstrate what he is espousing, though.
I appreciate all the responses. I've never felt qualified to teach adults shooting. At best I'm a fair teacher and a journeyman level pistol shooter. I helped out some when my kids were in scouts.
But I do train people at work- in another field. I could use any training advice.
Have them demonstrate it. That's excellent. Adding that one to my repertoire.
Both of you make good points about shooting or not shooting in front of students.
I took a pistol coaching course years ago, and one of the things the instructor told us was shooting in front of students is a lose-lose. If you shoot better than they do, they'll get discouraged. If they shoot better than you do, they'll think you don't have anything to teach them. That always stuck with me, and I had closed the book on the issue, in my mind.
On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere about an instructor (Andy Stanford?) with a highly skilled student who claimed to be better than the instructor. He replied "I'm not here to make you better than me. I'm here to make you better than you." So maybe there is a way to counter that.
The Socratic method- I hadn't thought of that. Hard for someone to start an ego trip or get defensive when they're being asked questions rather than being lectured or dictated to.
But I do train people at work- in another field. I could use any training advice.
Have them demonstrate it. That's excellent. Adding that one to my repertoire.
My favorite method to disarm know-it-alls in intermediate to advanced handgun classes is to start on the morning of day one with some kind of timed, standardized skills test. Something like Tom Givens' Baseline Assessment.
Rangemaster Baseline Assessment Drill
Written by: Greg Ellifritz I got this one from the Rangemaster Instructor Course I attended last year. It is also described as the "drill of the month" in Rangemaster's December 2020 Newsletter (opens to
A good instructor should do very well on this drill. Shot in front of the class, of course.
This isn't about instructor ego. Would you want to take a shooting course from somebody who can't demonstrate the skills being taught?
Then, end the class with the same test. If the instructor did his job, scores should be better. And learners should walk away satisfied.
Both of you make good points about shooting or not shooting in front of students.
I took a pistol coaching course years ago, and one of the things the instructor told us was shooting in front of students is a lose-lose. If you shoot better than they do, they'll get discouraged. If they shoot better than you do, they'll think you don't have anything to teach them. That always stuck with me, and I had closed the book on the issue, in my mind.
On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere about an instructor (Andy Stanford?) with a highly skilled student who claimed to be better than the instructor. He replied "I'm not here to make you better than me. I'm here to make you better than you." So maybe there is a way to counter that.
I came into shooting relatively late in life, without a military background- one of the things I was surprised at were the people yelling. Occasionally instructors, mostly range officers. I get it when it comes to safety. But it amazed me the number of people who were cool with paying to get yelled at for minor infractions or infractions that had nothing to do with safety.
The Socratic method- I hadn't thought of that. Hard for someone to start an ego trip or get defensive when they're being asked questions rather than being lectured or dictated to.
armoredman
Member
I've been shooting for 47 years, professionally carrying a sidearm with various agencies/companies for 31+ years, and I go into every range class with a very open mind, because there is no way to know it all. Every year I learn something.
luzyfuerza
Member
This post is a bit long, but the point is subtle, and will take a moment to explain.
For me, starting an intermediate-to-advanced class by shooting a basic skills test together isn't about winning a competition pitting the instructor against students. Rather, it is about establishing an environment where everybody, students and instructors alike, can collaborate and learn together.
In introductory courses, instructors have to be pretty prescriptive. There's no way around mastering the basics.
But at more advanced levels, students learn from:
1) suggestions from others, and not just instructors (e.g. "this approach has worked for me...you might want to give it a try"),
2) observations of others (I once spent a quarter of a master-level handgun course behind the line observing and taking notes about the techniques used by the incredible shooters there), and
3) individual perfect practice.
An example. During breaks at a Gunsite course, I noticed that Randy Watt, the lead instructor, would go off to an almost out of view corner of the range to dry practice his drawstroke.
Now, Randy's drawstroke was already smooth as glass, and incredibly consistent. He clearly didn't need those reps.
Instead, he was teaching us, through word-less suggestion and an example we could observe, that a commitment to dry practice is what it takes to create a smooth and consistent drawstroke. Randy didn't use words, but I will never forget that lesson.
The instructor selects the targets, distances and drills, and sets time and accuracy standards. And he encourages students to compete against the standards.
But I believe that an instructor's main job during an advanced class is to create an environment where students welcome suggestions, can observe and learn from others around them, and can try out what they've seen and heard.
If he can accomplish this, then most attendees will learn and improve, and this will show up in the scores on the test taken at the end of the course.
For me, starting an intermediate-to-advanced class by shooting a basic skills test together isn't about winning a competition pitting the instructor against students. Rather, it is about establishing an environment where everybody, students and instructors alike, can collaborate and learn together.
In introductory courses, instructors have to be pretty prescriptive. There's no way around mastering the basics.
But at more advanced levels, students learn from:
1) suggestions from others, and not just instructors (e.g. "this approach has worked for me...you might want to give it a try"),
2) observations of others (I once spent a quarter of a master-level handgun course behind the line observing and taking notes about the techniques used by the incredible shooters there), and
3) individual perfect practice.
An example. During breaks at a Gunsite course, I noticed that Randy Watt, the lead instructor, would go off to an almost out of view corner of the range to dry practice his drawstroke.
Now, Randy's drawstroke was already smooth as glass, and incredibly consistent. He clearly didn't need those reps.
Instead, he was teaching us, through word-less suggestion and an example we could observe, that a commitment to dry practice is what it takes to create a smooth and consistent drawstroke. Randy didn't use words, but I will never forget that lesson.
The instructor selects the targets, distances and drills, and sets time and accuracy standards. And he encourages students to compete against the standards.
But I believe that an instructor's main job during an advanced class is to create an environment where students welcome suggestions, can observe and learn from others around them, and can try out what they've seen and heard.
If he can accomplish this, then most attendees will learn and improve, and this will show up in the scores on the test taken at the end of the course.
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Honestly, there's no one set way, because people have different personalities and what works for one will not necessarily work well for another.
In general, I find it's best to put it all up front under such circumstances. If it's one-on-one, it's pretty easy to do this. If it's in a classroom environment, then you potentially have several people of a similar bent you have to deal with.
Establish right up front that egos need to be checked at the door. Firearms instruction is not a place for ego battles and your word is law when the hammer is dropped about it. The rule of the day is "responsible adults" in all aspects, including the ability to work things out in a positive teaching environment.
This doesn't have to be done in a rude fashion, but it does need to be explicitly addressed.
"Welcome to (class name), I'm Wayne and I'll be your instructor. A little bit about myself, blah, blah, blah credentials, experience, etc."
"I'd like to point out that we have a limited amount of time to cover the curriculum material, which I'll outline in a few minutes. Keep in mind that I'm fully aware that there are many ways to do things, some better and some worse. However, our limited time must be reserved primarily for the course material itself. If time allows, it's possible to go over other things afterwards. But we need to keep on track in order to meet the requirements of the curriculum itself."
"I expect there to be a diverse level of experience among the class. If you have little or no firearms experience, please do not hesitate to ask questions or raise concerns. You will get the most out of this class by doing so. If you have some, or perhaps a lot, of firearms experience, you may find some things obvious, moving slower than you wish, or perhaps even counter to your experience. Consider your own experiences as positive feedback to the class, but I ask that counter perspectives be reserved for myself during breaks so we can integrate them appropriately."
And then if something DOES come up that's potentially disrupting, clearly acknowledge it and clearly invite the person to bring it up with you during the next break. You address the person's ego directly (recognize what he's saying) and you clearly inform him that you will personally discuss it with him at a different time (gives him the attention he wants).
While your own ego MAY come into play (because let's face it...we all have an ego to some extent), the fact of the matter is that YOU are the instructor and you have a limited course curriculum to teach. There may be many ways to go about something, but you're not there to teach EVERYTHING because you (and they) do not have the time for that. So your own ego checking is done by acknowledging whatever points and then steering people back on course. Other issues/points/questions can be addressed at a more appropriate time AFTER the curriculum material is presented.
I'm an engineer. Part of what I do is teach/train other engineers. I've long since recognized that sometimes I need to sit on my own hands and let younger, less experienced engineers work things out for themselves and do things their way. There are many ways to do things and so long as time/conditions permit, I present my ways of doing things, and the fundamentals they're based on, as examples. But the fundamentals MUST be taught, just the same.
Old Dog
Member
Absolutely true. And I believe that another main job of an instructor is to continue learning as well; I think it was Tiger McKee who always used to say that to be a good instructor, you also had to be a life-long learner yourself. While I was still active in the training arena, every now and then while out on the range, I'd have an epiphany that I'd just learned something new. Not always in the earthshaking category, but some little tidbit to file away in the brain and use later when appropriate. That's why the best instructors have superior observation skills and tend to notice the little things and nuances, both about people and practices, while others are just practicing the same old rote curriculum.
@RetiredUSNChief - Hmm, I sense you may be a fellow graduate of NITC?
Last edited:
Riomouse911
Member
Exactly.
I said to myself years ago, “The day you think know everything is the day you need to retire.” That’s because I feared becoming that a-hole know it all who pipes up in meetings or classes and refuses to open his eyes and ears to new stuff.
I retired in January, but not because I knew it all. It was a great career, and was a very good time to go.
I like instructors who are humble. humorous and engaged. I really like those who give credit to their sources and to those who trained them, it shows me that they have studied, have learned something good and now they’re sharing that good stuff with me.
Instructors that are confident in their abilities, understand the efficacy of their material/scenarios and who know it up and down, will carry great weight in a room full of skeptics.
Then again, there is almost always a student(s) who spout off in classes taught by folks like this. In my experience, these types usually skulk off with a self-inflicted harpoon stuck in their starboard when they are called up in front of the class to put their money where their mouth is.
Stay safe.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,207
Sometimes you shuck a lot of oysters to find a pearl of wisdom.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I had to look that one up!
No.
My opinion comes from my experiences in the Navy, as a parent, having been an instructor, etc.
The NNPP (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program) is very training centric. Training and exams are constant, encompass both theoretical and practical, and also (by nature) involves Squids of all kinds.
You HAVE to be able to deal with the full spectrum of personalities in such an environment. Not to mention dealing with the rest of the military outside the NNPP circle as well.
You'll often find, for example, that you're giving training to a group of people with a significant number who know more about what you're training on than you do. It's that intense.
And then there are my own kids... and the kids in the Scouts...and the kids associated with my own in school...
Kids are very challenging!
Old Dog
Member
Hmm, thought all you guys went through the Navy Instructor Training Course...
RetiredUSNChief
Member
No, at least not for prototype training (Nuclear Power Training Unit). Maybe a part of Naval Nuclear Power Training Command they did... that's all classroom stuff, mostly. With some labs, I’m sure, while learning their in-rate stuff, like electronics and mechanical basics.
At NPTU, it's all about the practical side of learning how to qualify and operate the propulsion plant.
I DID get started on Master Training Specialist qualifications, which I wanted to do, but I made Chief shortly after that and moved from the Training side to maintenance and planning side.
Some_Mook
Member
I may be wrong, but it has seemed to me that kids have become much more challenging since the advent of video games. Too many struggle with accepting the concept that video games (and movies) are not real. I also see many who struggle and become discouraged when they do not achieve 'instant' mastery of a given task or exercise, or at least at the 'instant' level at which they can figure out a complex video game character movement.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I agree... but I rather think that kids have become much more challenging since the advent of video games because more and more parents choose to let such activities, and other people, do the work of actually raising their children instead of shouldering that responsibility themselves.
And once people raised this way go on to become parents themselves... they don't know any other way.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,130
You mean the "weapons experts" whose sole qualification is they fired Expert in Basic-30 years ago ?
Oklahoma Hank
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2023
- Messages
- 24
I used to teach foreign languages. Occasionally a student would challenge me with a difficult phrase from a relative or a song or the internet or a movie. It was my job to be good enough to meet those challenges. Sometimes I would just ask them to pronounce it, which is the equivalent of telling them to come up and shoot.
The biggest change over my career was the internet has convinced people that repetition is not necessary. They think if they do it once they have it. How do you form the past subjunctive in German? It’s one thing to do it for one verb. Do it for twenty verbs twenty times each.
The biggest change over my career was the internet has convinced people that repetition is not necessary. They think if they do it once they have it. How do you form the past subjunctive in German? It’s one thing to do it for one verb. Do it for twenty verbs twenty times each.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
Well, it was actually 43 years ago
But I did note that when certain national media outlets were covering the Maine shootings, they trotted out "weapons and tactics experts" such as one-tour Marines and Dog the Bounty Hunter. I think you've hit on one key aspect of the generational differences. A lot of older folks understand that repetition builds skill, but too many (and to be fair, I'll include some boomers of my acquaintance) now seem to believe that since information is instantly available with a few finger swipes or mouse-clicks, if they forget how to do something, they just check their smartphone or laptop... Just another reason there might be some positives to come out of the grid going down due to an EMP or CME.
dranrab
Member
I spent 20 years with the Coast Guard. I was not a certified instructor, but spent a lot of time as a mentor. The Instructor would run everyone through, and those who needed help would work with me on a more peer to peer level. Arms instructors have to run a tight ship. In the process, they often come across as intimidating. Coupling that with mass timed qualification sessions isn't the best learning environment. When the students went peer to peer we were able to get them to relax and focus on fundamentals. Beyond that, certain students learn better from a certain instruction style. After some one on one training from a peer, they'd go back to the firing line with the instructor and do well enough to qualify.
N555
Member
I find the "know it alls" consistently know the least.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,130
Know-it-alls either:
1. Really don't know anything
2. Know everything about such a tiny field of knowledge that it's irrelevant.
1. Really don't know anything
2. Know everything about such a tiny field of knowledge that it's irrelevant.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
A lot of know-it-alls want attention. Whether it's the attention of their peers or the attention of their instructors.
Some are disruptive about it, some are just excited to be about to show off their knowledge. Maybe it's the one thing in life they know something about. Maybe they're like Sheldon Cooper.
You need to be able to identify these things and select a tactic to control any disruption and keep things on track.
Scrapiron45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 166
There's an article in the Nov/Dec issue of Concealed Carry magazine (USCCA) addressing these issues. It mirrors many of the responses given here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked