"You don't know what you don't know," and being the instructor doesn't change that.

[PeteG]

Anyone who has taken their first firearms course knows what the phrase "you don't know what you don't know" means.

So should any instructor, right?

But many who have been appointed, ascended or walked into that position forget - they don't know what they don't know, either.

When you choose an instructor, look into whether he or she has been trained to instruct. It is as important ... indeed more important ... than their advanced shooting experience. Level upon level of super-hootie military or competition experience is a good thing, but really not something one will be teaching people in their first, second or third course. (You don't need Michelangelo to show you how to paint the kitchen.) But course design, people skills, knowledge of peripheral subjects they elect to discuss (law, first aid, police procedure) and the ability to communicate on different levels to people who do not all think alike WILL be part of those first courses.

So ask yourself the question: does this person understand that he does not know what he does not know, and is he willing to fix that problem.

[ArmyVet]

Your post brings up a very good point...was it a direct result of a recent class you attended?

Some, but not all, instructors will list training and instructor development courses they've attended over the years. I believe that staying current is important not only for the students but for the instructors also.
Not all trainers are good instructors...

If want to know more about the qualifications of a trainer you're considering using, ask questions and base your decisions on the tone and content of the reply.

[ungawa]

That phrase annoys the daylights out of me. It implies that lacking some knowledge is the equivalent of the complete absence of wisdom. And it makes no sense.

The most important thing I do on the job every day is know what I don't know. I have to spot every single thing, every single time, that looks the same but is just different enough in a certain way that I may not know what I'm dealing with.

[twency]

That phrase annoys the daylights out of me. It implies that lacking some knowledge is the equivalent of the complete absence of wisdom. And it makes no sense.

The most important thing I do on the job every day is know what I don't know. I have to spot every single thing, every single time, that looks the same but is just different enough in a certain way that I may not know what I'm dealing with.

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

-Donald Rumsfeld

See also: Rumsfeld's Knowns and Unknowns: The Intellectual History of a Quip

[rmagill]

As an instructor, I can't agree more. There is a huge difference between knowing the content and being able to effectively teach the material to someone else.

I also think the humility to accept thatvone doesn't know everything and a willingness to learn from others - including students - is what allows instructors to grow and remain approachable by their students.

[ungawa]

See also: Rumsfeld's Knowns and Unknowns: The Intellectual History of a Quip

He has nothing to teach me. Mechanics, physics, transport, and chemistry do not have counter intelligence agencies manned by millions of people and funded by several countries trying to deceive me in my own office. And I am never allowed to be wrong. Personally. Like my house and my bank accounts, no corporation can protect me.

And no firearms trainer faces that threat, either.

Anyone who has experience, and wisdom, and says they don't know what they don't know is not a professional. It's the most important part of your job.

To repeat an often glossed over and forgotten high school lesson, "Does the answer make sense?"

I can spot suspect numbers without even knowing WTF is going on. I KNOW when the 21st thing out of 30 I am reviewing is something I don't know. I know every time when I do it myself as well.

[PeteG]

Actually, it was the result of looking at current course content in the Pittsburgh area. I have observed several things that I find to be disturbing.

First, there is considerable discussion of what is "legal" and what is not by instructors who are plainly unqualified to have that discussion - and who are consequently handing out patently incorrect information. This is both direct legal advice ("you and do this" or "you can't to that"), and what I refer to as "indirect" legal advice. By "indirect," I mean the instructor teaches a method or technique unaware he is discussing something that has serious legal implications, and thereby unwittingly teaches his student to do something that can get him into very serious trouble. This is a prime example of not knowing what one does not know.

The other thing I am seeing is very poor course design. This is, in my estimation, the result of pressure to move past basic skill development and into the "fun stuff," involving position shooting, target systems, movement and the like.

For example: A recent "advanced" "tactical" super-hootie handgun course attended by a man I trust started with an exercise which should have been (and maybe was) designed to allow the instructor to asses gun handling, safety and skill level. It called for five, slow-fire rounds into a 3" x 5" card from five yards (maybe 7 yds., I'm not sure which). Only one guy on the line could put five rounds into a 3" x 5" card, with no time limit, from that range. To my mind, this called for remedial work. But that particular instructor reacted to his student's failure by moving the line back to 10 yards to repeat the exercise. Asking people to do something more difficult than that which they have just demonstrated they are not capable of doing, so they can get on with even more complex problems (involving the interdiction of terrorists that the local Co-Go's or whatever the promise was) is a defect in course design.

A third problem is implicated in both of the above issues. That problem is the matter of being having the instructor being clear on his or her purpose in providing the training, and professional ethics. I very much doubt the instructor who watched his students almost uniformly fail before moving them on to a more demanding task sat down and decided he was going to sell a course by blowing smoke up his students' asses, by which I mean stroking their egos by allowing them to continue to believe they are qualified to do things they are not qualified to do ... that they are much better than they are. (If he did, then he is nothing more than a con man using people's vanity to take their money, which is unethical.) Rather, I think he is just unclear about his objectives in standing behind that line, and his obligations to his students.

We all have an obligation to be aware of developments in the shooting arts (real or imagined). But that's not all there is to it. Just as we were all unaware of so much when we decided to get our first formal shooting instruction, I know I was unaware of a great deal when I first decided to learn how to run a course. Given enough time, we can all learn everything we need to know about either discipline by trial-and-error. The question is how serious the consequences of the "error" portion will be in the meantime.

[millsan1]

I took a Utah CCW class a few months ago, and was astonished by how wrong the instructors were on so many topics. I tried to engage them, but they were gods, so I just sat there, did my class and sent in the paperwork.

[PeteG]

I took a Utah CCW class a few months ago, and was astonished by how wrong the instructors were on so many topics. I tried to engage them, but they were gods, so I just sat there, did my class and sent in the paperwork.

For the Utah CCW course, and in the face of multiple misstatements, that's the best thing to do. Almost everyone who takes that course is there to get his or her "ticket punched," so they don't care if it's right or wrong, and they don't want to hear anyone hold forth. Just make a mental note that the instructor was uninformed, and don't go there again.

In other, more substantive courses, it is a delicate moment when an instructor says something that is plainly incorrect. By "incorrect," I am not referring to opinions on inconsequential matters of methodology or gear preferences, like where one puts his thumbs or whether polymer pistols are the way to go. I mean material facts, rules of law, or an instruction that raises a safety issue.

Sticking one's hand up and disagreeing is not likely going to be productive. It can make the instructor defensive. (The bigger his ego, the less experience he has or the more certain he is that he has "the way" the more defensive he will be.) It also invites the rest of the students to take sides, either believing the instructor is wrong (and therefore incompetent) or you are a classhole; neither of which is likely true. It could also wind up being embarrassment for you if it is you who is incorrect.

When I have screwed up, I have appreciated being approached during a break to discuss the issue. (Actually, all the range personnel in FIRE Institute courses are all on the lookout for errors, and will let the instructor in any know at the first opportunity if they think there has been a mistake of some sort.) Sometimes it was a misunderstanding, sometimes I meant to say one thing but said another, and sometimes I was just wrong. I then have the opportunity to fix it I an orderly way, salvaging my pride and, more important, leaving the class with a clear picture of what I was talking about.

Planning for errors to occur (because they surely will) is part of good course design. One should have a method for evaluating and correcting errors without getting into anybody's hormones. Simply dismissing a good-faith challenge to a point of fact or law is incompetent.

[orionz06]

Loads of egos, that's for sure.