The "Official" SB Scuba Course?

[The Chairman]

I'll assume you aren't promoting a 12 hour course and those promoting a longer course aren't talking about 100 hours. So.... where do YOU draw the line? Please define what an excessively long course would be FOR YOU.

One where I wasted my student's time. There is no minimum or maximum time. Some classes move far quicker than others. Unlike most of the instructors I have witnessed I am completely prepared for my class.

Let's cut the crap.

That's the first step. Cut the crap out of your classes. They really don't need to hear MOST of our war stories. "Back in the 60s, when divers were real divers, I remember when I..." Most of those just need to go! There is no need to enthrall others with your deeds of daring do! This is when you lose most students. No need to eliminate all of your stories, but there is a need to drastically edit most of them to not waste your student's time. You can weave your tales while on the way out to the dive site or on your return.

What techniques do you use to make the course more efficient.

First, I utilize online classes for my students. It's also why I drive a car and not just walk everywhere: it's just more efficient use of both of our times!
Second, I let the student(s) determine our pace. Problem students get individual attention, but never at the expense of the rest of the class.
Third, I innovate where ever I can and evolve them into divers in the process. You can find my methodology for teaching Mask Clearing in the Instructor to Instructor forum. It's rather unique and saves a ton of time teaching just this skill.

What do you do to make the course more fun?

Lots. Starting with Mask Clearing, I make every task into a game and exploration of sorts that continue to build one on another. You won't find my students doing their skills on the bottom of the pool either. Monkey see/Monkey do is the operative word, and I never waste a moment moving from one skill to another all the while re-enforcing skills as we go. Rather than teaching a "series" of skills with no relevant context, I present them in situ and thus teach the student WHEN to use them as well. My best compliment came from a fellow instructor who asked me when I had started teaching Cavern classes while observing the final pool minutes of an OW class. The basic Scuba skill set is easy to acquire in this manner as it should be.

Every instructor has their strengths and weaknesses. I endeavor to never waste a moment of my student's time. Ever. To date, I have not experienced the injury of any student or former student of mine. Many of my students keep up with me as well, often asking me to go diving with them. It's always my pleasure!

 

[kjack_1]

You might want to read: The Truth about NitrOx

I read a DAN study that those over 40 should use it, though I can't seem to find that study at the moment. It dealt with the diminished ability of cells to off gas nitrogen. I almost dive NitrOx exclusively.

I try to include NitrOx and O₂ Provider at the OW level. They do not seem to add appreciably to the time of the class and both are skills that can be used by the new diver from the onset of their training.

Thanks for the read. I found that useful info. Got any studies handy on Trimix? Wait - nevermind - I'll check the old posts.

If you hapen to find that over 40 study - can you post a link, please? I went to DAN and really didn't find anything. <I'm not saying I'm over 40 though - I'm 18 y/o with a 52 year old attitude>

 

[The Chairman]

Thanks for the read. I found that useful info. Got any studies handy on Trimix? Wait - nevermind - I'll check the old posts.

If you hapen to find that over 40 study - can you post a link, please? I went to DAN and really didn't find anything. <I'm not saying I'm over 40 though - I'm 18 y/o with a 52 year old attitude>

Here is our own Dr Deco on the subject: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ask-dr-decompression/274936-any-advantages-nitrox-older-divers.html

Here is wikipedia's take on NitrOx: Nitrox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, my belief that it is better for those over 40 is largely apocryphal. My apologies.

 

[boulderjohn]

John are you going to get involved in this? You're probably our only hope of getting something down that doesn't look like autistic scribble.

I keep trying to stay out of it, but sometimes I can't help jumping in.

As I have said before, doing work like this was my profession before retirement. In fact, I am about to come out of retirement for a very similar project in scuba-related instruction. Of course, in this case, I will be paid.

It's a very big job.

You are trying to have a very diverse group come to consensus on a complex issue with no consensus-making process in place and no orderly procedure for creating a product in the first place. This is chaos theory applied to management in its purest form. I am aware of and actually support Margaret Wheatley's concept of chaos management. In fact, I don't believe you can create something like this in any other fashion. However, I don't see how it can be done with almost no direction at all.

Let's take a look at the evolution of the source of the two links above--Wikipedia. It started out as a purely democratic free-for-all, and look at the mess that led to. It has now had to install controls that it did not previously consider necessary. And that is for a much simpler product--an information center with no restrictions on its content--than we are trying to create.

There is an order of operations that really must be followed or nothing good can come of it, and this implies management to ensure that the process is followed. I strongly suggest people look at Rick DuFour's works, including Professional Learning Communities at Work to see a good process for implementing this.

The first step is agreeing on your mission, and I think this group is pretty close to having achieved that.

The next and most crucial step, as I said earlier in different terms, is to evolve a shared vision of what is to be accomplished. A shared vision is not an imposed vision. It is achieved when all members of the group achieve consensus on what it will look like when the mission is accomplished. Without that shared vision, each individual will be working toward and promoting his or her individual vision, thus creating a product that, well, looks like it was created by a committee.

I personally have no hope of a shared vision happening in this community, and that is why I have not participated.

At present we have a wide variety of very diverse opinions, and many of the opinion holders are adamant and uncompromising in their positions. I believe that if I could take this present group away on some form of a retreat for a few weeks (or maybe less) and use good facilitative practices, we could achieve a shared vision, but that is certainly not going to happen.

Perhaps it could be done online with proper online facilitation and focus, but that would require starting all over with very specific rules of interaction.

One important rule would have to limit participation. I do not mean that people would have to be preselected for existing ideologies--just the opposite. I mean that it cannot be run like a typical SB forum, where people opt in or out at will. Think of all the long forums (like this) you have seen on SB. Just when you think you have actually come to some agreement on something, yahoos jump in who read the opening first few posts, skipped the next 300 posts, and reopened issues that had been put to rest by post 150. Threads like that keep going in circles because people are constantly coming and going. If a group is to have a shared vision, it must be consistent in its membership throughout.

The group must have a facilitator who has the role of the Lord High Keeper of the Vision. He or she oversees the process and makes sure that the process is true to the vision. That does not mean that the vision will not change; in fact, it must change in accordance with chaos management theory. The KOV must have the skill to recognize the difference between an individual or two going off vision and a genuine and necessary shift in the vision brought on by the group deliberation process.

An important part of this process is research and training. People must speak on the basis of real knowledge, not half formed opinions, individual isolated experiences, and prejudices. I can't tell you how many times I have sat in despair in the early stages of group deliberative processes as I heard person after person admit to not having had time to read the research we had agreed to examine as a part of the decision making process. Inevitably, that group would come to a decision based on the pre-existing prejudices of the group rather than the contradicting evidence in the ignored research. If you look at a typical Scuba Board thread, you will see people misquoting the results of research from groups like DAN all the time. That can't happen if we are to create a quality product.

As the group moves toward creating specific standards, it must have the discipline to examine each one in relation to the vision. This is surprisingly difficult. People who have been doing things their way for decades have pet activities that they really like and can do well. It takes a lot of mental discipline--courage, really--to realize that a pet activity does not help achieve the shared vision and should not be in the standards.

Finally, there must be a review process in place that makes sure that the final product is indeed what was envisioned in the first place.

I have followed this practice to different extents in professional groups with varying degrees of success. The biggest problems are always the same--for some reason usually related to deadlines and/or budgets, the initial training and planning steps are compressed or even ignored. People want to jump right to results.The final review process is often skipped as well, usually because the creating process takes longer than expected, with huge flaws not noticed until after implementation.

So, I see this as a very daunting task, and that is why I am loath to jump in. I have been paid a pretty decent salary to do this work in the past and been disappointed in the results because of the problems I identified above. In those cases, we were dealing with paid employees working with a budget. I am therefore hesitant to step into this existing process.

 

[Diver0001]

So, I see this as a very daunting task, and that is why I am loath to jump in.

OK. I completely understand what you're saying and I can understand you not wanting to do it.

I honestly don't know if Scubaboard members have any hope of defining an public-domain scuba course or not, but if I have the time to read 1/2 of the crap I do then I can re-allocate some of that time to a project that might be interesting. At this point, I'm seeing it mostly (almost entirely) as an interesting group process. A big part of me thinks that it's next to impossible, but one thing I *do* know is that starting out by giving up probably isn't the right first step.

Other public-domain projects did succeed. If we gave up before we started we wouldn't have Wikipedia, we wouldn't have Linux and Google wouldn't give us 21 million hits for entering "public domain project".

It's disappointing but I know you're right.

R..

 

[DCBC]

It's disappointing but I know you're right. R..

Yes, the Eagle does not catch flies. ;-)

 

[parkerco]

Finally, having taken his wreck course, Joe Diver will know the difference. The primary thing it teaches you is what you can safely do at your level of training and what you cannot do at your level of training--and how to tell the difference.

If you'll forgive the novice viewpoint here, I think John pretty much hit the problem on the head. As I continue my education into AOW and beyond I've realized that the issues I've had with the system I learned with (A PADI 5-day OW class) aren't from the material being taught. Instead it's the lack (or just severe under-emphasis) of one critical piece of information -- how inexperienced you really are with just an OW cert, and the risk implied in the gap between what you know and what you don't know you don't know.

In my experience the material is all given to the students but in a sterile sort of scenario -- "ok, you're out of air, signal your buddy to share air and ascend." It's one thing to have that shown to you and do once or twice when it's your only focus, but quite another when things go south in the real world. Because our hypothetical Joe Diver's experience is probably going to be more like: I'm fresh out of OW last week and wow there's a current and my buddy's not within arm distance and we only worked on the hand signs for one class and the rest of the group is 50' off and holy sh#t I'm actually scuba diving in the ocean and this damned snorkel keeps whacking me in the temple and my left lens is fogging and omg omg a shark! and where'd the DM go and I was so anxious/excited about my first ever post-OW dives I didn't do the pre-dive check thoroughly and I feel like my weights aren't quite right and this fin feels like it's falling off and should I be this deep but everyone else in the group seems fine and am I breathing deeply enough and man that blonde up there's bikini is wonderfully small and wow being underwater here is amazing and how deep did the DM say we were going and damnit I have to keep sculling my hands to keep off that reef and this rental gear is really different from what I trained with in class and Jesus I had too much tequilla last night at the hotel bar and I keep hitting the wrong button on the inflator and really how much more dangerous is another 30'? and hunh why am I not getting any air and ...

... hey look we have another post in the accidents n' incidents forum and 101 posts from people with 1,001 dives playing "if only" games about inexperienced divers. Another day on the SB, right?

Seems to me, if you want to develop something useful, develop something to help that diver up there. Because a 12-15' pool exercise handing a buddy your regulator once doesn't help that situation. But rather than extend a class for hours or days, you could instead put the onus on the student (where it's supposed to be), make sure they know that, and that it's not only up to them to work independently on their skills but make damn sure they know the risks of what they don't know and can't do automatically yet, and provide a way for them to continue their education. The problem is it seems like most people I talk to going into OW or just coming out are doing so for a vacation. So they get this minimal training and then go to the world's most beautiful parts of the ocean where, instead of working on getting the fundamentals down they are trying to do it while sight-seeing. For all the talk of task-loading I see on these forums, that seems to be a critical one that doesn't get talked about a lot ...

When I think about scuba instruction I see similarities with motorcycle classes. THE MSF offers a 2-3 day course to get your basic motorcycle endorsement for your license. The class teaches you, just like OW, enough to learn more -- it does not teach you how to be a good rider, however, which only comes with experience. In that class versus my OW class experience though the key difference is that in the motorcycle class it was repeatedly drilled into us that the ONLY way you improve is to take it slowly and to realize that even on a day-to-day basis your skills may fluctuate -- some days it's there, and some it just isn't. Learning how to recognize that, drilling the skills constantly and going slowly while you learn is what makes you a good rider. On the flip side the impression I got from my OW and others I've talked to and read about here is "congrats on your c-card, try to remember those last 217 things we talked about and don't drown!"

That "assess and teach yourself slowly" component seemed to be missing, or at least not emphasized in a way I felt was strong enough. It's a lack of learning how to learn what your risk exposure really is. It's similar, to me, to what happened to a lot of investors late last year in the market who really didn't comprehend exactly what their risk exposure was until it was too late. I think perhaps at the minimum some form of guidance post-certification would greatly help that -- offer DM-led half-off dives one day to newly certified folks so they can get more bubble time. Maybe steal some of the AOW concepts, which I realized personally once I read that book probably should have been included in OW to develop a better diver. Either way I don't feel confident that people coming out of the training, for the most part are qualified for what they are usually about to go do with it fresh out of class.

I rode with a guy who taught the advanced MSF classes here and did so for free for people he rode with, and of all the education and experiences I've had on two wheels over the decades the one thing that's always in my mind when I strap a helmet on (or my scuba gear, now) is something he said to a few of us at lunch one day ... "Never ride at more than 70% of your ability level, or you will have no margin for error when things go wrong." The only way I see to make divers safer and more prepared is to learn their lmits so they know when they are pushing the envelope, they know what they don't know, and therefore can assess situations and their readiness and adjust their dives accordingly. Teach that somehow and you will see more responsible safer divers.

I don't know that 1,000 hours of blowing bubbles is needed for that, but adding just a few extra dives to the 4 open-water ones PADI already requires, so 2 days? would make a world of difference imho. Or give a 1/2 off discount if you follow OW with AOW within 30 days, maybe? The point is if you want to develop a course I'm not sure you need to reinvent the wheel or adopt a Navy SEAL-esque regimen or require divers to be able to finish the NY Marathon or make Rescue part of OW. Just get your divers more comfortable using the skills and being *gasp* underwater! Drill them in a fun setting where the experience level, not the clock, is the limiting factor. And make damn sure they know that OW is the equivalent of a driving lesson in a parking lot -- yes they know how to turn the car on now, but they probably should not be jumping onto the freeway downtown in rush hour tomorrow. You can't adjust for risk if you have no comprehension of what it is.

I wouldn't pretend to know the best way to approach teaching that, nor would I readily offer my opinion on how to do so to a group of instructors like we have input from here. Maybe it's showing OW classes the equivalent of those awful BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY RAWR! videos you saw about seatbelt safety in driver's ed. I do know that the classes I've taken had a very cheerful fun "hey let's go diving yay puppies!" feel and downplayed the fact that you're wearing life-support gear and accidents, usually bred only from your own inexperience, will happen. And I think that if you want to develop a curriculum out of discontent with current standards then you need to address first what the deficiencies of what you want to replace are, and then develop a method to convey what you think's missing.

Oh, and since it is a ScubaBoard class, you should probably add to the Wiki that all students will be bonked on the head with a DSS backplate whenever they ask a question about BCD's or split-fins

 

[Thalassamania]

... people are cheap and the vast majority of them will look for the cheapest and fastest way to get into the water. You could make a great class, but if it costs $2000 and takes 2 months, then virtually no one will take it.

That's about what it costs, plus gear. Two months is somewhat longer than I usually take, unless it is a university program in which case it is 13 weeks. I do not teach the, "vast majority," but I have enough student to keep me happy.

UNLESS...

You make it a college course. Diving 101. Teach it at 4 year and community colleges and make it last a full quarter. Give the students credit toward graduation in programs like marine biology. Make it a requirement for new police and firefighters who are members of dive teams.

The colleges already have pools, so the students could get plenty of pool time. Plus, the students could be held to a real academic standard.

By the time a student had finished a 3 credit diving course, they'd have done the equivalent of BOW, AOW, RD, Nitrox, etc...

I don't know about that. My courses are 50 hours and cost $500 (when I'm not teaching for free within a Club). I've not been able to get as many students as local dive shops, largely because they run theirs at twice the speed. I haven't however had any trouble getting students.

You make a good point about the colleges. I've taught Commercial Diving in Community Colleges, but perhaps there may be some interest within the Universities for something like you're suggesting. Thal teaches diving research, perhaps a program similar.

Our university course was 3 credits at one institution and 4 at another, upper division credits in Zoology or Ocean Engineering, fully accepted by the departments as electives within the major, no separate course fee, but students need to show up with a full set of approved gear at the first class meeting.

 

[Kingpatzer]

This thread is going along really well, but the last person to touch the Wiki did so on Oct 13th.

The point of this at the start was to suggest that instead of debating we ought to see if we can use that energy to build something.

Why don't folks go touch the objectives page and start trying to define the specific skills needed to be a diver. Forget about course content -- what do we want a safe, trained entry-level scuba diver to be able to do?

 

[Kingpatzer]

The group must have a facilitator who has the role of the Lord High Keeper of the Vision. He or she oversees the process and makes sure that the process is true to the vision.

I like where you're going, and one of the reasons I want to push people to the wiki is precisely that it will be possible to lock pages (or parts of pages) and push any proposed changes to those particular sections to the discussion pages. As the page owner, I am a defacto "lord high keeper." But it only works if people actually come to the wiki and take part there - using the discussion pages and trying to work together.