What do you want out of a firearms Instructor?

[Byrd666]

This question was posted on another site and I found some of the answers quite interesting. I'd like to get ya'lls opinion on this. This is generally firearm related but, other disciplines could be included.

Basically, I like a professional demeanor without a lot of cussing or cursing. Knowledge of the subject in which they speak. And the ability to show the attendees about which they do speak with skill and ability. Along with the ability to ascertain certain difficulties some of the students might be having. Whether that be trigger control or off hand drawing methods.

Thoughts or opinions.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

-Above average detailed level of knowledge on the subject they are teaching. These days, everyone has "watched a Magpul" video and thinks they are an instructor. It takes a lot more thought, personal experience, and trial and effort to learn the things that you mentioned, as a student, let alone an instructor that understands adult learning methods and can realistically pass that info on to students.

-A solid understanding of adult learning methods. Everyone doesn't learn the same way. Everyone has their own unique idiosyncrasies, fears, pain points, etc. to work through. An instructor needs to be able to read body language, figure these things out, and figure out the best way that they can help the student.

-Performance on demand. If an instructor isn't willing to demonstrate what they teach whenever requested by a student, with an above average level of proficiency and performance, they're bullshit. If an instructor has detailed explanations as to why they will not demo a drill or technique when asked to do so...they're bullshit. Bottom line, the instructor needs to have a respectable level of performance. This shows that they have put the time and effort into their own skills, that they have pushed themselves. They not only need an ability to teach, they need to have the performance to back their words up with actions.

 

[txinvestigator]

Two things I look for: safety and credibility. Can the instructor authenticate the practicality of what he is teaching? Why does what he teaches make sense?

Does he manage a safe range?

After that I look for the example he sets.

 

[Vaquero]

-Above average detailed level of knowledge on the subject they are teaching. These days, everyone has "watched a Magpul" video and thinks they are an instructor. It takes a lot more thought, personal experience, and trial and effort to learn the things that you mentioned, as a student, let alone an instructor that understands adult learning methods and can realistically pass that info on to students.

-A solid understanding of adult learning methods. Everyone doesn't learn the same way. Everyone has their own unique idiosyncrasies, fears, pain points, etc. to work through. An instructor needs to be able to read body language, figure these things out, and figure out the best way that they can help the student.

-Performance on demand. If an instructor isn't willing to demonstrate what they teach whenever requested by a student, with an above average level of proficiency and performance, they're bullshit. If an instructor has detailed explanations as to why they will not demo a drill or technique when asked to do so...they're bullshit. Bottom line, the instructor needs to have a respectable level of performance. This shows that they have put the time and effort into their own skills, that they have pushed themselves. They not only need an ability to teach, they need to have the performance to back their words up with actions.

Performance.
Same thing I look for in anybody I pay money to.

Well said sig.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

All the above are great points, safety being paramount and I'd like to add.
Being open minded about techniques and methods, there's usually more than one way to do something. The preferred method for the instructor doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the preferred method for each student. Demonstrating the pros and cons of different techniques allows the student to choose which one works best for them and their equipment.
Make the learning environment an enjoyable one. Well Hell Yeah busting caps is fun all in itself but having an instructor that's encouraging, interactive, and can crack a joke even on themselves sets the tempo for a positive and productive atmosphere.
And simply just being prompt, courteous, and professional.

 

[benenglish]

-A solid understanding of adult learning methods. Everyone doesn't learn the same way. Everyone has their own unique idiosyncrasies, fears, pain points, etc. to work through. An instructor needs to be able to read body language, figure these things out, and figure out the best way that they can help the student.

+ many

There are too many examples of great shooters with incredible knowledge who can't teach their way out of a paper bag. I'm willing to accept an instructor who's actually a mediocre shooter with just basic a basic knowledge base IF they also have the natural talent to teach. Most people don't have it. In the shooting world, there are too many self-identified alpha dogs who want to be paid to dole out some of their shooting genius from the mountaintop. I don't care how many firefights they've survived or how many championships they've won, people who can't teach simply shouldn't.

I know of one great shooter who has managed to put together a great teaching program even though he's not the best communicator in the world. He brings along another shooter who is almost as accomplished and a great natural teacher. His name brings in the students. His co-conspirator does most of the heavy lifting when it comes to actually teaching. And between the two of them, they'll see whatever you're doing wrong.

He's the only real top-shelf shooter I know who recognizes his limitations, admits them, and put together a program that works.

Most great shooters without the teaching gene have too much ego to admit they need help. Man, oh man, they can be a waste of time and money.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

As others said, SAFETY would be number one. All of the experience and paper "qualifications" in the world don't mean jack if the person running the class is an idiot. Yes, this picture is real. This from a guy who has apparently trained over 10,000 students, and has a list of paper certifications a mile long.

confidence by Dillo Dynamics, on Flickr

 

[Byrd666]

Funny. I once had an "instructor" real similar to that. And he ended up arguing with me in front of all the others who were there because I mentioned how unsafe he was in some of his range etiquette and practices. In a very polite and non threatening manner I had said this to him on the side by the way. The whole class ended up walking out on him.

So I do understand that the safety factor is a very high priority. As well as just plain ol' common sense. Which he had neither of. It is a major factor to me as well.

 

[Handgun World]

-Above average detailed level of knowledge on the subject they are teaching. These days, everyone has "watched a Magpul" video and thinks they are an instructor. It takes a lot more thought, personal experience, and trial and effort to learn the things that you mentioned, as a student, let alone an instructor that understands adult learning methods and can realistically pass that info on to students.

-A solid understanding of adult learning methods. Everyone doesn't learn the same way. Everyone has their own unique idiosyncrasies, fears, pain points, etc. to work through. An instructor needs to be able to read body language, figure these things out, and figure out the best way that they can help the student.

-Performance on demand. If an instructor isn't willing to demonstrate what they teach whenever requested by a student, with an above average level of proficiency and performance, they're bullshit. If an instructor has detailed explanations as to why they will not demo a drill or technique when asked to do so...they're bullshit. Bottom line, the instructor needs to have a respectable level of performance. This shows that they have put the time and effort into their own skills, that they have pushed themselves. They not only need an ability to teach, they need to have the performance to back their words up with actions.

Excellent, The only thing I would add, is the instructor must care about his/her students. It's something that can't be taught. You will know once you're a few house into the class. Read the reviews by other students, about the instructors' class. You'll learn a lot from that too.

 

[no2gates]

Teaching is a gift. It doesn't matter how much you know about a topic if you can't convey it to others and make it interesting.
I try to teach my wife about both guns and computers. I've been in the computer field for over 30 years and know a lot about most aspects about the field, however I suck as a teacher so she's better off with someone who knows less than I do, yet can convey it better and engage her.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Excellent, The only thing I would add, is the instructor must care about his/her students. It's something that can't be taught. You will know once you're a few house into the class. Read the reviews by other students, about the instructors' class. You'll learn a lot from that too.

Definitely. I've seen my fair share of instructors who simply talk at the students, but don't listen. They're more into listening to themselves talk and living the dream than actually caring about what the student learns from them.

 

[Byrd666]

Definitely. I've seen my fair share of instructors who simply talk at the students, but don't listen. They're more into listening to themselves talk and living the dream than actually caring about what the student learns from them.

That is so, so true. I have been to so many classes of different genre and disciplines where your stated scenario takes place way too often.

I feel that the instructor should be willing to take place in verbal communication, not just hearing him/her speak. As stated, different people learn differently. And one statement made might be perfectly clear to one person, and clear as mud to another. So I think an instructor should be willing to explain whatever scenario they are explaining in many different "versions". And be willing to, and encourage question asking and possibly that students version of the scenario being explained. If pertinent to what is being taught, of course.

 

[Handgun World]

I also ask the students a lot of questions in my classes. I learn a lot about their needs and what they want to get out of the class. I do my best to remember their questions and when it comes time to teach a technique that addresses their need, I see the lights come on and the expression in their face tells me if I'm on the right track or not.

 

[CriterionTactical]

Having both operational and training experience the goal of any instructor is to help the student "comprehend" both the techniques and the reasons why; not because I said so but because the shooter can "see it in their mind's eye" in a relevant scenario. The outcome is a base of fundamental knowledge so that the shooter can make an informed decision, founded on their limitations, so that the scenario can be survived within the shooter's limits of capability. I want the shooter to know when it's okay to hide, or engage with confidence.

 

[Handgun World]

Another trait a good instructor should have is the ability it make the class FUN! There's nothing worse than an instructor telling boring stories that no one cares about, or boring lecture.

People learn best when they're having fun. I took a course once where the instructor was way to serious about everything. It kind of took some of the fun out of it.

 

[Jon Payne]

I look for a trainer that can talk the talk and walk the walk. Talk professionally, professional appearance, and safe polished gun handling skills. They must be able to communicate with subject matter experts and novices without being a jerk. I'm looking to both learn and be entertained by a trainer. I also look for someone who puts the safety of his class above a pay check. A good trainer needs an ego, but has to be able to laugh at himself as well.

 

[Handgun World]

Some people call this the Four F's of training.

1. Fun. I list this first because I think it should be first. The class needs to be fun. Let's face it, shooting a gun is just plain fun. But more importantly, students learn best when they're having fun. I've taken very boring, mundane courses where the instructor only knew one tone of voice, had no stories to tell and looked like he was weened on a dill pickle. I'm not saying he/she needs to be an entertainer, but definitely needs to keep the students interested by making it fun. Most shooters like to shoot fast (safely of course.) Some of that should be incorporated into the class for example. As long as all the students are capable of doing it safely.

2. Fear. I don't mean the class needs to be fearful, but students need to be encouraged to confront their fear. There's an old saying I've tried to live by, "do what you fear most, and you control fear." If you don't confront your fear and learn to control it, move past it and conquer it, you'll always be limited by it. Jon Payne says it well, one of the most dangerous zones in the world is your "comfort zone." Fear doesn't need to be the type where you're scared snotless, just getting out of your comfort zone is what I'm talking about.

3. Function. What is your mission in the class? What are you there to learn? The instructor must be able to achieve the function or mission of the class. Be it marksmanship, gunfighting, sniper training, night fighting or whatever the mission, it must be achieved. The instructor must be focused on getting every student to achieve the mission. Also, functioning gear. A good instructor will help students put their gun, holster, ammo and magazines to the test. Will they function under the pressure of a gunfight? The instructor must help them find out. I've seen plenty of students begin a class thinking their stuff was good to go, only to find out it wasn't by the end of the course. I've been in that situation before.

4. Fellowship. This is just as important as anything else. Many people often establish lasting fellowships. A "team" as Glen Tate calls it. I've lost count of the number of good friends that I still keep in touch with, that I've met over the years in training classes or doing my weekly show. Students realize their limitations and success together in a class and that's a great fellowship. Just being around other students of the gun is a learning experience in and of itself. A good instructor plants the seed of fellowship in his/her class.

So what are your thoughts? I think this is a foundation of a good class and instructor. It's the type of instructor I am.

You may have more to add. Please do.

Handgun World Podcast

 

[bones_708]

I want someone who is professional at whatever they do and I think that rolls up alot of the traits others want. What I don't want, unless that is the class I'm there for, is some drill sergeant , tactical wannabe. There is more than one acceptable training method, more than one useable stance. Don't get all worked up because your buzz words are not what I'm used to using.
I had one class where after engaging your target you were supposed to, per the instructor, bring your pistol to your chest and cover it with your off hand. Mind you he didn't request this ahead of time, just thought you should already know. You know the one's who want you to shoot first then they go back and tell you how you should of done it. Why not just give a quick rundown of their method first? Pulling that crap with me is, well I have no reason at all to put up with bs.

 

[Byrd666]

Bob

I gotta say, I think you covered most of it. About the the only thing I might add, and has been said before, is that the instructor to be able to make fun of his/herself if the situation warrants it. We all know that firearms can be dangerous and need to be treated with a strong amount of respect. As well as some of those situations where a firearm might be needed or required to neutralize a threat or situation. But that doesn't mean that instructor can't show his/her class that they are still human and not infallible if a a mistake does occur. When I was training people in the design protocols a the firm I used to work at, I learned that a lot of people "get it" a bit quicker if a certain amount of longevity and humor was used along with the strict tone of a Drill Sergeant to reinforce the core points and directives.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Bob

I gotta say, I think you covered most of it. About the the only thing I might add, and has been said before, is that the instructor to be able to make fun of his/herself if the situation warrants it. We all know that firearms can be dangerous and need to be treated with a strong amount of respect. As well as some of those situations where a firearm might be needed or required to neutralize a threat or situation. But that doesn't mean that instructor can't show his/her class that they are still human and not infallible if a a mistake does occur. When I was training people in the design protocols a the firm I used to work at, I learned that a lot of people "get it" a bit quicker if a certain amount of longevity and humor was used along with the strict tone of a Drill Sergeant to reinforce the core points and directives.

^ And this is an excellent point. I think it's important for an instructor to not focus on conveying the appearance of infallibility, but rather to make solid learning points out of everything. If the instructor does a demo in class and throws some shots, botches a speed reload, etc., they shouldn't make excuses but instead should use it as a great example of everyone being fallible (maybe even making a few jokes at their own expense), how to look at those problems, work through them, and how to learn from them.