The "Official" SB Scuba Course?

[boulderjohn]

I miss focus on buoyancy control, finning, buddy protocol and what I would think is sufficient time in the water to just get used to the feeling of diving.

A typical course specifies skills that are to be taught in confined water dives, but it also allows time in each for just plain swimming around with scuba gear.

Unfortunately, I suspect that many instructors focus on the skills and minimize the just plain swimming around with scuba gear.

I find that the time I devote to this "random" activity pays off hugely in terms of the students' buoyancy, finning, and buddy protocol, assuming that I make sure they pay attention to these during this time.

It is similar to what I learned coaching soccer. Having players just play keep away in small teams during practice was a far superior learning experience for several key skills than just about any formal drill I had ever seen.

 

[DCBC]

Well there are generally two disconnects. One is with reality vs. what people online say about how they do things (ie. people tend to exaggerate if not lie, which I don't think is happening here, btw) and two, the difference between reality and people's assumptions.

There seems to be a lot of assuming that if it's possible to conform to standards and run a bad class that this is what people will *want* to do. I don't think people usually intentionally do this. Many instructors are self-conscious beings who try to improve their performance over time. Sure there are truly bad instructors out there who do cut corners and "rip off" their customers by giving them lousy training, but usually these instructors aren't following even minimum standards. Usually they don't care about standards.

The same can be true if someone goes too far in focusing on quality to the point of putting their students through an ordeal to get certified. This used to be the norm (I've heard) and there are still some instructors who do this. I have to honestly say I would feel more comfortable with an instructor with an obsession for quality than one for an aversion to it, but I'm not sure that obsessive focus on quality to the exclusion of price and/or students needs and wishes is necessarily the best model of instruction we have.

Maybe there's a middle road. In fact, I'm sure there is. You'll find lots of instructors on Scubaboard who are looking for the middle ground and some of them are probably finding it at least some of the time.

In any event, there is a difference between "methods" and "results". On boths sides of the issue people defend their own methods and over the whole I don't see a lot of people getting in line to listen intently to the methods of people who don't teach like they do.... I'm guilty of this too but I try to keep an open mind. On the subject of results, I think Pete might be right. I think you can get good results in different ways and that some of those ways are more "efficient" and/or more "effective" than others. Putting your students through an ordeal to get certified isn't the only way to get good results.

R..

First I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful response. It is through mutual respect that all areas of a discussion may be explored.

Assuming that minimum requirements are met, the decision of how to present a SCUBA program largely depends upon the Instructor who's running it. The market seems to have a way of eliminating those programs which cannot maintain cost-effectiveness. As far as running a more in-depth program, I haven't had difficulty in finding students. I would hazard to guess that Thal (whose program is at least 5 hours longer than mine) could contribute to this discussion as well.

I do not assume that every Instructor wants to short-change their students. If however the bulk of Instructors properly trained their students, we would not see the problems with new divers that we see today on dive charter boats. I might have thought that this was only my experience, but several others have pointed this out as well. This wasn't always the case, so this begs the question, what has changed over the years? One observation is that course training times have been cut in-half.

The topic of this thread is "The Official SB SCUBA Course." Why would this be necessary if the answer was being delivered by the certification agencies? Why not just copy any certification agencies standards. Everyone would agree and that would be the end of the thread. That's not happening.

Most Instructors that I've spoken to at dive shops would love to run a longer program. Why? I'll hazard to guess that any SCUBA Instructor worth his salt does not teach to minimum standards. Why? Why are people looking for "the middle ground?" I suggest that the current "ground" is insufficient.

 

[The Chairman]

IMNSHO, you are talking out your ass about something you have no experience with.

Not really. While it may not fall in line with your thinking, I have found it to be generally true and I have watched a ton of different instructors.

Longer doesn't mean better.

 

[*dave*]

Talking too much before a skill.
Too much idle time with your students doing nothing but watching other students.

Most instructors waste a lot of time: it's no wonder their classes have to be so stinking long!

I've seen each of these take place in a short class. While I agree they aren't attributes I would associate with a good or efficient class, they are not unique to a long format.

Ah, this is easy: Only when they brag it. Longer classes simply don't make better classes.

Longer courses absent the issues you describe do make better divers. An incompetent instructor is going to produce incompetent divers, regardless of class format.

Not really. While it may not fall in line with your thinking, I have found it to be generally true and I have watched a ton of different instructors.

Longer doesn't mean better.

I know the type of instructor you are referring to, but the fault is with the instructor, not the format. Take one of these boring, arrogant windbag instructors you refer to and place them in a shorter format. Are they now good instructors?

I'll give you this: Taking a crappy instructor and lengthening the course will not yield better results than the short format.

 

[JeffG]

Talking too much before a skill. Too much idle time with your students doing nothing but watching other students. Most instructors waste a lot of time: it's no wonder their classes have to be so stinking long!

Sounds more like a student/instructor ratio issue.

 

[The Chairman]

Sounds more like a student/instructor ratio issue.

It always seems to be a competency issue with instructors who are afraid to innovate or learn something new.

 

[DCBC]

Perhaps the comments were a bit close to home for you!

Actually no, but I know when I'm being insulted.

Is there a reason why I should pull my punches and you should not?

Perhaps you are just use to having everyone agree with you. After all, you're the Chairman here aren't you? Why was it that you found this action necessary and I didn't?

DCBC: 1. How do antiquated teaching technologies relate to this discussion?

They should not be at the heart of the "perfect" SB course. Modern, up to date instructional techniques that don't waste time or bore students should be employed throughout such a course, especially if it's to bear a ScubaBoard approval!

Who is using antiquated teaching technologies?

DCBC: 2. Your definition of what is antiquated and what isn't and how these cause students to be bored to tears?

Talking too much before a skill. Too much idle time with your students doing nothing but watching other students. Most instructors waste a lot of time: it's no wonder their classes have to be so stinking long!

Who is talking too much? Please be specific from what you know to be fact. Would it not take longer to cover more material? Or have you just surmised that this isn't a possibility.

DCBC: 3. How a length of a course and its difficulty equate to arrogant fools in-love with themselves?

Ah, this is easy: Only when they brag it. Longer classes simply don't make better classes.

Who's bragging? I disagree with your comment about longer classes. It takes longer to cover more information. IMO the more the diver knows, the better prepared s/he is.

 

[boulderjohn]

Longer doesn't mean better.

Different instructional methodologies do indeed bring greater efficiencies.

I remember a time an English teacher described in wonder the following experience. She was about to begin a typical 2 week instructional sequence teaching a certain writing skill, but she decided to introduce the skill with an activity she had never used before but had heard described in a workshop. She spent one day on this activity. As she went forward, she realized that her students had already learned more from that activity than they had ever learned in her old 2 week unit. She broke off the instruction and went on to something else.

That is merely an example.

Some instructional practices are simply much more efficient than others. A good example is the practice of introducing and explaining key concepts via lecture. Almost all educational theorists agree that the typical lecture format is the very worst and least efficient way of teaching academic concepts, but many people not only cling to it as an ideal, they see more efficient methodologies as a lowering of standards.

 

[boulderjohn]

Actually no, but I know when I'm being insulted.

Who is using antiquated teaching technologies?

Who is talking too much?

Who's bragging?

I had the sense that he was speaking generically. I did not see anyone singled out.

 

[boulderjohn]

I disagree with your comment about longer classes. It takes longer to cover more information. IMO the more the diver knows, the better prepared s/he is.

It takes longer for a specific instructor using a specific instructional strategy to cover more information.

In comparison to that instructor using that method, it may take another instructor using a different methodology much less time to teach much more.