Deep cert or aim for tech

[boulderjohn]

I will point out that I took a fundamentals course with a guy who had full cave from another agency (and his buddy) and not one of us even got a rec pass in doubles. (We all got provisionals, which means the instructor thinks that it is possible for you to get to a passing skill level in the next 6 months.) I was by far the least skilled, but it was like my tenth dive in doubles.

It's a "somewhat more demanding standard" to enter the GUE tech programs than a lot of other programs have for their tech graduates.

As the former Director of Curriculum for one of the largest educational companies in the world, and as a former Director of Instruction for a school program, perhaps I can provide some insight into the theory of course design and instruction. The most popular resource for course design right now is Understanding by Design, by Wiggins and McTigue. My comments are consistent with the theory presented in that work.

In designing a course, you work backwards with the goal of creating success for the student. You start by identifying the required content of the course, the standards for that content students must achieve, and the means by which that achievement will be measured. You then design a course sequence and parameters that will enable students to achieve those desired outcomes. You start by identifying the prerequisite skills a student must have in order to begin the course (you don't put a new Algebra I student into Calculus), and you plot a logical instructional path that will take a student from that starting point to the identified ending point. Continuing with the math example, one skill should lead logically to another until the student is done with the course, assuming a realistic time frame--students are not going to get through Calculus I in a week. The content of the course, the standards, the assessment, and the instructional strategies should be aligned to work together to achieve a successful outcome.

In theory, then, a student with the required prerequisite skills and good work habits will pass the class, assuming effective instruction of a well designed curriculum. If a course with such students has a high failure rate, you have to look for problems in the course design or the quality of the instruction for an explanation.

 

[DevonDiver]

A high failure rate on GUE Fundies would probably be due to non-GUE divers entering the curriculum at Fundies level.

This tends to point to a situation where mainstream recreational training agencies are failing to provide an adequate curriculum of courses for progression to advanced level diving.

It's evident on Fundies because the assessment standard is uncompromising.

However, it's not identifiable as a problem within the mainstream agencies where it's more typical for an instructor to lower standards and enable certification based on whatever slight training progression the student achieved in a given, minimum timescale.

I do believe that if mainstream agencies introduced a (GUE Fundies) comparative standard 'pre-tech benchmark assessment'... It'd quickly indicate a complete failure of the recreational syllabus to prepare divers for tech level training.

 

[boulderjohn]

A high failure rate on GUE Fundies would probably be due to non-GUE divers entering the curriculum at Fundies level.

This tends to point to a situation where mainstream recreational training agencies are failing to provide an adequate curriculum of courses for progression to advanced level diving.

If a course has a high failure rate because a large number of people are being admitted into a course who do not have the prerequisite skills needed to be able to complete the course as it is designed, then it becomes necessary to improve the screening process. Proper screening is a critical component of course design--as I said earlier, course catalogs clearly indicate that someone who has just completed Algebra I should not enroll in calculus. Some would argue that there is a serious ethical concern with a program that accepts a large number of students (and the money they are paying) into a course they have no realistic hope of passing.

If the standards of a course are so high that students are not passing it, then it is necessary to change the course design, both by adjusting the screening for prerequisite skills and by adjusting the course instructional sequence and scheduled time on task necessary to get students to reach those standards.

 

[DevonDiver]

I'm not a GUE instructor, but I was under the impression that it worked a little differently to regular 'certification' courses.

Whereby the goal is not to 'get a license', but rather to teach and assess the standards needed for progression onto their technical program.

A diver might fail to get a 'pass', but nonetheless progresses from the course with a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses relative to progressing into tech diving... along with the knowledge of the drills, skills and procedures they need to practice before a further attempt.

That assumes their goal is to get a 'pass' (and progress in the GUE curriculum),, rather than just taking GUE-F for the learning benefit alone.

I really don't think it's fair to blame the GUE-F syllabus for diver failure. It'd be enlightening to know the pass/fail proportions between GUE trained divers and other agencies. My suspicion remains that it's the non-GUE attendees who are failing.

There's no criticism implied in that, as GUE specifically design their rec syllabus to prepare for Fundies (and thereafter tech / cave). In contrast, the mainstream agencies do not have such lofty ambitions... nor should they.... they don't assume that every (or even many) divers would aspire to tech level training.

However, if an agency offers tech training, it should have some effective preparation towards that goal. The existing recreational course curriculum doesn't include such preparation. That's what's missing.

In mainstream agency recreational curriculums, there's no 'planning backwards' from entry-level tech competency requirements.

 

[KevinNM]

The rec program appears to be much more popular is Europe than the US. I was told by one of the rec instructors that it is typically kids, spouses and friends of GUE tech divers who want to start diving that take rec 1 in the US.

I'm not sure that even a dozen US classes are run every year in the US. There are more cave 2 classes than rec 1 classes on the US schedule last I looked.

 

[stuartv]

The skills that are taught in it are not unique to GUE--all technical divers have those skills, and all agencies that offer technical diving offer introductory classes. Any instructor in any agency who is also a technical diver should be able to teach those skills, and every technical instructor in every agency offers a class that teaches those skills.

What is the PADI equivalent to GUE Fundies?

If a course has a high failure rate because a large number of people are being admitted into a course who do not have the prerequisite skills needed to be able to complete the course as it is designed, then it becomes necessary to improve the screening process.

You are implying that a large number of people fail GUE Fundies. That's a common saying but I don't think it's really an accurate portrayal. I think it would be more accurate to say that many people do not pass by the end of the first week of the class. And that there is a significant self/home study phase that follows, for the people who do not pass by the end of the first week.

 

[KevinNM]

You are implying that a large number of people fail GUE Fundies. That's a common saying but I don't think it's really an accurate portrayal. I think it would be more accurate to say that many people do not pass by the end of the first week of the class. And that there is a significant self/home study phase that follows, for the people who do not pass by the end of the first week.

You have to work to fail a GUE course. I've pulled it off, but it isn't easy. Basically you have to show that you are either unsafe or completely unable to do some of the critical skills and there isn't any likelihood that you will be able to do that. The GUE standard say

Hey, there is a new version of the standards out!

Anyhow the wording there for someone failing is "Requires significant work to meet the minimum standards for the class." Like say someone taking doubles who can't actually react their left valve.

If you show that you have the capability to do the required skills given more practice you get a provisional pass. "Is just short of the minimum standard required to be certified to pursue the type of diving for which they sought training" and you have 6 months to get a GUE instructor to agree that you have in fact reached the minimum standard needed, but until that point it isn't any sort of accreditation.

 

[KevinNM]

In theory, then, a student with the required prerequisite skills and good work habits will pass the class, assuming effective instruction of a well designed curriculum. If a course with such students has a high failure rate, you have to look for problems in the course design or the quality of the instruction for an explanation.

I just found the GUE 2016 annual report which included this note:
"It is somewhat difficult to develop a broad-based view
of student struggles in a given program because different
students can have vastly different levels of preparation
before entering GUE classes. However, it
appears that most students are able to pass their GUE
Fundamentals course in the first attempt with an average
success rate of 72%. There is some variability in
the use of provisional vs. fail categories over time and
between instructors but over the last five years, the
average failure rate was 6% with an average of 22% of
students earning provisional status."

They also mentioned that 38% of people who took fundamentals the first time and passed earned a tech pass. Returning students who passed, 76% got a tech pass.

And this note

"Cave and tech students are more likely to be successful
than Fundamentals students, further supporting
the notion that Fundamentals is the hardest class on
average. This is likely due to the large burden presented
while learning entirely new skills which, when mastered,
greatly support future training outcomes. Cave
and tech course results are extremely similar with tech
programs only a couple percent more likely to result in
failure. Level 1 cave and tech programs show a couple
percentage points higher failure rate when compared
to Level 2 cave and tech programs. The average for all
tech and cave programs is an 89% pass, 8% provisional,
and 4% failure rate."

 

[Doby45]

If the standards of a course are so high that students are not passing it, then it is necessary to change the course design, both by adjusting the screening for prerequisite skills and by adjusting the course instructional sequence and scheduled time on task necessary to get students to reach those standards.

Or that person is just not in the place to pass that exam/test at that given time.

In theory, then, a student with the required prerequisite skills and good work habits will pass the class, assuming effective instruction of a well designed curriculum. If a course with such students has a high failure rate, you have to look for problems in the course design or the quality of the instruction for an explanation.

Great theory, but it is only that. We see 85-90% failure rate when very qualified soldiers attempt to complete BUDS. Should they redesign that course to have more people pass, regardless of the quality of the passing the course?

 

[boulderjohn]

What is the PADI equivalent to GUE Fundies?

As far as standard PADI courses go, the equivalent would be Intro to Tech or the Tec Deep program, both of which teach those skills. All agencies that teach tech courses have introductory courses that teach those skills, because the student has to have those skills to get the tech certifications.

For students not interested in tech, the best examples are Distinctive Specialties that do not appear on the normal PADI list of curses. There are quite a few such Distinctive Specialties. The one I teach is named TecReational Diver. Another instructor (Peter Rothschild in Seattle) and I worked independently on a workshop that was the rough equivalent of Fundamentals. IIRC, neither of us knew the other was doing it until we happened to discuss what we were doing. We compared notes. Peter then got good legal advice that the workshop should be turned into an official PADI specialty, which grants automatic legitimacy to the instruction in case of an accident and subsequent lawsuit. He got it approved, and I and a number of other instructors became certified to teach it. I have since learned that a number of other instructors have done the same thing independently, so roughly the same course can be taken under different names. The primary difference between the course I teach and the GUE course is that our course does not specify equipment. Equipment counseling is part of the course, but students can show up in whatever gear they own..