Frustration moving into/towards tech

[PfcAJ]

In fact, I've seen exactly zero GUE divers admit that anything associated with GUE is anything but perfect

I see you haven’t read my rants about Rec 3

 

[CptTightPants21]

Welcome to the world of tech diving- not every course taken results in a pass. Sometimes you need to go home and work on whatever it was you lacked and come back with a positive attitude and try again. I wouldn't label that a failure by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's not get sidetracked, this has been covered. Failure/Provisional both equal 'Not Passing'. It's not to say people didn't learn or have a great time, but discussion is on Pass/Not Pass dynamic, not the degree or levels within each section.

If you ask anyone designing any training worth a darn, the only goal of any course is to ensure that students will successfully complete the objectives of the course by the completion of the course. Due to various circumstances (unwillingness to work towards that goal by some students, illness, etc), few courses have a 100% success rate, but all well designed courses will complete the objectives for almost all students.

If you're asking how I'd rearrange GUE's fundamentals course, quite frankly I'd get rid of it completely. I'd replace it with a prerequisite for technical courses of "successfully complete an evaluation by a GUE instructor", where the relevant standards (currently objectives for fundies) could be judged (go/no-go styel), areas to be worked on identified, and follow on evaluation done prior to being able to continue (if "no-go" on the evaluation). To get to that point should involve 1-on-1 (or group) coaching with an instructor or other divers or even self-training if it's something that just needs more practice, for as long as is necessary, before getting evaluated again. It's quite clear to me that making their "standards for going into tech diving" a course, instead of coaching/mentoring potential students, is at the root of the problem. They simply don't have a method of teaching the skills to the people they allow in the course, in the allotted time, so the course is a failure. Without a way to make a course that can accomplish the objectives reliably, it shouldn't have been made a course in the first place.

You actually just described what Fundies used to be. A one or two day workshop with a go/no-go evaluation. Things needed to change. There were too many people that didn't have the basic skills. There was also a little more than just basic skills, even if a person had the skills, some procedures needed to be taught so that everyone was on the same page. You seem to image this massive wave of people who could easily pass this one day evaluation period. I can assure you, that is not the case. then you say they can get some 'mentoring' and self practice to bring skills up to par. What do you think fundies is? 3 days of mentoring and one day of evaluation with the option of being able to self practice in between.

This has been addressed several times in the thread. Did you not read it, or did you not understand it?

When you design a course, the course's difficulty is taken into account and is an integral part of the design. That starts with prerequisite skills--you identify what skills and knowledge a diver needs to have to be eligible for the course. (You don't allow students into an algebra course after Algebra I.) It also includes how long it will take a qualified student to complete those high standards. (You don't expect calculus I students to finish the class in a month.) Saying that qualified students are not completing the class successfully because the standards are too high is another way of saying that the course design does not facilitate qualified students meeting the standards within the limits of the course.

I like that you are putting a little more detail forward so thank you for that. Fundies skills are OOA air share, 5 kicks, shoot dsmb. These are skills that get taught in OW and most certainly AOW; how can GUE have any lower prerequisites?

 

[jlcnuke]

I see you haven’t read my rants about Rec 3

Well, to be fair, I have spent very little time in dedicated DIR/GUE threads as I don't have an interest in GUE, so my primary interaction with anyone discussing GUE stuff is in threads like this or other similar topics not directly GUE related.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Fundies skills are OOA air share, 5 kicks, shoot dsmb. These are skills that get taught in OW and most certainly AOW; how can GUE have any lower prerequisites?

Not all of them are taught in OW and not in AOW either. Using the PADI system as an example, inflate SMB at the surface, DSMB deployment not required in AOW. Frog kicking isn't required and certainly not back finning (SSI adds that to their buoyancy course however) and not helicopter turns.

Slow ascents/descents are not required, and also no required on proper weighting and balanced rig.

 

[bakodiver391]

balanced rig.

Balanced rig is not a philosophy embraced by every tech diver. It should be a personal choice.

 

[boulderjohn]

John,

What is the problem of hiring an instructor to work on individual diving skills (like hiring a tutor) in order to be ready for fundies (calculus)?

Nothing. However you meet prerequisite skills works.

I teach technical diving. Students come to me with a variety of skills and knowledge. Sometimes I know them before the class, and sometimes they have qualifications that clearly show they should be ready. If not, I get to know them a little and we do some diving. In many cases, I can see immediately that the student will have no trouble completing the course in a minimum amount of time. In other cases, I will see it will take some work, but they should be able to finish in a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand, in some cases I see that a lot needs to be done to get ready, and I let them know they should so some work before starting (and paying for) a class with me.

So what is a reasonable amount of time? The course standards identify a number of dives that must be completed, but that is a minimum. The real factor is the student's ability to meet the standards regardless of the number of dives it takes to meet them. In the early tech classes, for example, it is common for divers to take more than the minimum number of dives just to teach a satisfactory level with the valve shutdown drill. I anticipate that for most students, it will take a few extra dives and maybe a little extra practice on their own to get done, and I build that expectation into the class structure. I will not accept a student who is going to take too long to reach the class objectives.

The idea of "failing" a class left the vocabulary of almost all scuba instruction decades ago when almost all agencies adopted the philosophy of "mastery learning" that was originally conceived by Dr. Benjamin Bloom. I used to teach a variation of this concept in my role of training teachers, and I used it myself in the classroom for a many years. In traditional education, the teacher teaches students for a specific amount of time and then measures the student's performance against a course standard. In mastery education, the teacher teaches the student for however long it takes to meet the course standards. In traditional education, time is the standard, and performance is the variable. In mastery learning, performance is the standard, and time is the variable. In scuba, nearly all agencies now use a variation of mastery learning for their instructional approach, so the word "failure" has no real meaning; a student who has not met standards is simply still taking the course.

 

[boulderjohn]

I like that you are putting a little more detail forward so thank you for that. Fundies skills are OOA air share, 5 kicks, shoot dsmb. These are skills that get taught in OW and most certainly AOW; how can GUE have any lower prerequisites?

So you are saying that al certified divers meet the prerequisites for the course. I will take your word for it.

In school systems, students are usually (but definitely not always) also well screened for prerequisite skills. In cases with high failure rates, the primary reason--by far--is a lack of motivation on the part of the student. Students who fail such classes are usually more interested in something other than school, frequently alcohol and drugs.

Well motivated students will almost always pass a well designed and well taught class in the allotted time. A high failure rate in classes populated by motivated students would be caused by some combination of poor course design, inadequate time, or poor instructional quality.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I did note this from GUE Fundamentals

WHAT IF I'M NOT READY TO COMMIT TO A FULL CLASS?
While we're confident the GUE Fundamentals course will benefit divers of all levels, a full 4-5 day course may not be the best fit for everyone's schedule, resources, or even training goals. Because of this, the GUE Fundamentals program is available in a Part 1 and Part 2 split format. In Part 1, divers will learn about the GUE diving system, including gear configuration, dive procedures, and team protocols, as well as refine their buoyancy, trim, and propulsion techniques. This is a 2-day, non-certification course, but successful completion allows the Part 1 diver to proceed to Part 2.

Fundamentals Part 2 can be taken days, weeks, or even months after Part 1, allowing divers to practice and become proficient with the skills and techniques previously learned. Over the course of this 3-day program, divers will continue to refine and advance their foundational skills as well as learn the theory and practice of nitrox diving. The certification outcomes of this course are same as the full Fundamentals course and enable to divers to proceed to advanced recreational, or cave and technical training.

 

[KenGordon]

A training course that has (self-published) results of almost a third of it's participants not meeting the objectives of the training at the end of the training is, by all objective standards, failing and almost certainly that's due to poor design.

n. Demonstrate an efficient valve drill with double tanks.

p. Demonstrate proficiency in four propulsion techniques that would be appropriate in
delicate and/or silty environments, including competence in the backward kick and
helicopter turns.

These two requirements for a technical pass are genuinely difficult. Many people do not manage to acquire these skills even with the best of instruction. Other than technique there can be issues with suit fit which just cannot be fixed in a single course.

So should the course allow a pass if you can’t do these things? Their approach is that you should have these skills in place before Tech 1. In the TDI scheme you have to have them in place by the end of ANDP (approximately the same as Tech 1). In both cases you expect the skills before doing the actual dives.

Personally I think both ways are fine.

 

[KenGordon]

John,

What is the problem of hiring an instructor to work on individual diving skills (like hiring a tutor) in order to be ready for fundies (calculus)?

Hire an instructor to get ready for the entry level course? Surely this course IS the preparation for the real course that lets you do deeper/longer diving?

I hate this idea that people need to be able to do the skills taught on a course before they start. Courses are not tests, they may contain tests but should teach the skills first.