Things do depend very, very much on the individual instructor. That was true from the very beginning, and it is true today. The mistake many people make is assuming that whatever happened in their individual class is representative of all classes in that time period. My niece was certified by a NAUI instructor after one 2-hour pool session and one OW dive to 10 feet. That does not represent NAUI instruction in any way at any time--that is just how one instructor operated.
Yes, there have been changes since the 1960s, but the mistake there is assuming that when scuba instruction began in the 1960s and people were trying to figure out how best to do it, they miraculously reached perfection on their first try, so therefore anything that has changed since then has made it worse. As for skills being removed, most of that happened in the first couple decades of experimentation. In a recent post, someone listed the PADI OW standards from roughly 30 years ago. The only skill missing in today's standards is buddy breathing, a dangerous practice that was replaced by the alternate regulator technique (which was not taught then). In many (not all) classes, computers are taught rather than than tables. Nothing else was removed. In contrast, I can list more than 15 skills that have been added to the course since then.
Lectures take many times as long as alternative instructional techniques, and the students learn less. Yet for some reason people cling to the notion that they are indicative of superior instruction, and when asked to give a rationale, their reply is that it takes that much longer, the students must be learning more.
For a number of years, my job was teaching instructional technique to teachers. It was very frustrating. Despite all the research (and my own experience) showing how inefficient lectures were for teaching concepts, high school teachers clung to that methodology, refusing to switch to "some new fad." I remember an English teacher coming into the office where I worked, sitting down in wonder, and announcing that by changing instructional technique, in one class period she had effectively taught a concept that usually took her two weeks. Despite hearing her say that, no one else in the department who heard her was willing to give it a try.
One reason that some material taught in the 1960s is no longer in the course is interference theory. Put very simply for this context, the effort needed to learn stuff you don't really need to know interferes with your ability to learn what you do need to know. Dalton's Law was mentioned a few posts ago as being a standard part of OW instruction in the past. I will be teaching an advanced gas blending class tomorrow, and Dalton's Law will be part of it. I am hard pressed to understand, though, how a new OW diver benefits from knowing Dalton's Law. How will that knowledge affect basic OW diving? What will happen if it is taught in an OW class is that the effort the students put forth in learning it will interfere with their ability to learn the important things that really will impact their diving.
Yes, there have been changes since the 1960s, but the mistake there is assuming that when scuba instruction began in the 1960s and people were trying to figure out how best to do it, they miraculously reached perfection on their first try, so therefore anything that has changed since then has made it worse. As for skills being removed, most of that happened in the first couple decades of experimentation. In a recent post, someone listed the PADI OW standards from roughly 30 years ago. The only skill missing in today's standards is buddy breathing, a dangerous practice that was replaced by the alternate regulator technique (which was not taught then). In many (not all) classes, computers are taught rather than than tables. Nothing else was removed. In contrast, I can list more than 15 skills that have been added to the course since then.
Lectures take many times as long as alternative instructional techniques, and the students learn less. Yet for some reason people cling to the notion that they are indicative of superior instruction, and when asked to give a rationale, their reply is that it takes that much longer, the students must be learning more.
For a number of years, my job was teaching instructional technique to teachers. It was very frustrating. Despite all the research (and my own experience) showing how inefficient lectures were for teaching concepts, high school teachers clung to that methodology, refusing to switch to "some new fad." I remember an English teacher coming into the office where I worked, sitting down in wonder, and announcing that by changing instructional technique, in one class period she had effectively taught a concept that usually took her two weeks. Despite hearing her say that, no one else in the department who heard her was willing to give it a try.
One reason that some material taught in the 1960s is no longer in the course is interference theory. Put very simply for this context, the effort needed to learn stuff you don't really need to know interferes with your ability to learn what you do need to know. Dalton's Law was mentioned a few posts ago as being a standard part of OW instruction in the past. I will be teaching an advanced gas blending class tomorrow, and Dalton's Law will be part of it. I am hard pressed to understand, though, how a new OW diver benefits from knowing Dalton's Law. How will that knowledge affect basic OW diving? What will happen if it is taught in an OW class is that the effort the students put forth in learning it will interfere with their ability to learn the important things that really will impact their diving.
