Frustration moving into/towards tech

[wetb4igetinthewater]

That all being said, I don't get the impression that anyone is going to convince @jlcnuke to change his mind about the structure of GUE courses.

While I am engaging him directly, it is for others reading this thread that I'm actually speaking to.

 

[ginti]

By the way, according to this report, page 18:
https://www.gue.com/files/annualreports/2016_Annual_Report_GUE.pdf

Failure rate of fundies is around 5% (I did not included provisional into the failures). It doesn't look like a low pass rate to me...

 

[CptTightPants21]

Here's the thing, as a professional developer of training programs, I could probably fix 95% of the failure rate with a simple change to prerequisites of the course. GUE has demonstrated, through their willingness to not make any fixes to such an obviously flawed system, that they don't care if their program is, objectively, failing at accomplishing it's objectives. That's fine. They still get people to take it, and I still have other organizations with great divers to learn from. Everyone gets to be happy (except that those can't accept that GUE is not for everybody, for whatever reasons).

I just find it mind blowing that someone with so little actual experience is basing their entire opinion on reading a SOP document. This posts exemplifies how little you truly know about the real world of scuba. Full Cave and trimix students have routinely taken fundies and not passed. As stated this is a beginner class; air shares and shooting a lift bag, it doesn't even have any simulated failures! Fundies is the standardized test that exposes poor standards of most of the other courses and instructors.

I realize now that you might not have the experience to make a well grounded critique, but what specific changes would you say need to be made?

If your entire argument is based on failure rate then I wonder what you think of Seal BUDS training...

 

[jlcnuke]

But is the goal a certification card? Or to be an improved diver? Most people have no interest in technical diving, so for a course to simply improve their skills and they go on their merry way is perfectly acceptable. I would argue that technical diving isn't for everyone (which it isn't). But fundies is for everyone. Like I've said before, go back to your BCD and split fins if you so wish. You'll at least go back a dramatically improved diver. How is that not a win? How is that a failure on the course? So what if someone who has no interest in technical diving doesn't achieve a rec pass?

I'm curious, and I mean this sincerely, what would your prereq course to fundies look like? If it is a test, what is the path to get students to pass that test? Another course? As fundies is also a gatekeeper course for their technical training, should they have a gatekeeper course for their gatekeeper course?

You do accept the fact that most divers are poorly taught in open water, yes? That's not something GUE can fix with one course that will result in a certification card. They can fix the poor training, but then they are offering remedial training, which fundies turns out to be for many.

I don't see why GUE needs to change a thing. But, you and I have different outlooks. You see certification as the indicator of a successful course. I see improved diving skills as a successful course.

I have loads of c-cards for con ed courses where there really wasn't any skills improvement on my part.

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.

I went and spent a day with an instructor from Protec Playa earlier this year. I didn't do a course I just asked for some help making me a better diver (though originally I was looking into it, then decided it wasn't the right time/fit to do the next courses I was interested in). I paid for the time, and I got instruction, but there was no certification or card or course. The only way he could have failed as an instructor that day would have been if I left there with no new knowledge and/or no improvement in my diving skills. That's the purpose of a workshop, mentoring, etc. When you make a training course, however, the purpose is to have students finish the course having accomplished the objectives of the training.

 

[jlcnuke]

By the way, according to this report, page 18:
https://www.gue.com/files/annualreports/2016_Annual_Report_GUE.pdf

Failure rate of fundies is around 5% (I did not included provisional into the failures). It doesn't look like a low pass rate to me...

If you don't meet the objectives of a course, you failed that course. A provisional pass did not successfully meet the objectives of the course, and is thus objectively a failure (in my opinion, you obviously don't have the same view as I do though).

 

[flymolo]

If you don't meet the objectives of a course, you failed that course. A provisional pass did not successfully meet the objectives of the course, and is thus objectively a failure (in my opinion, you obviously don't have the same view as I do though).

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.

 

[boulderjohn]

A lot of non-tech courses are essentially rubber stamps, and this one isn't. I wouldn't attribute the failure rate to poor course design, but rather, I believe the curriculum is difficult and the standards are fairly high.

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.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

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.

I went and spent a day with an instructor from Protec Playa earlier this year. I didn't do a course I just asked for some help making me a better diver (though originally I was looking into it, then decided it wasn't the right time/fit to do the next courses I was interested in). I paid for the time, and I got instruction, but there was no certification or card or course. The only way he could have failed as an instructor that day would have been if I left there with no new knowledge and/or no improvement in my diving skills. That's the purpose of a workshop, mentoring, etc. When you make a training course, however, the purpose is to have students finish the course having accomplished the objectives of the training.

Remember that GUE is a team focused philosophy. So some things like finning, ascents/descents can all be performed with just an instructor, but the situational awareness of diving with a team with proper positioning, providing assistance, etc. requires other students.

I guess I've never designed any training worth a darn, as my focus has always been learning. Now as I teach as an independent instructor is rather different, as certification is part of the goal, but like fundies, my students (I'm talking about Con Ed here) may have to go off and practice. In fact they often do. But, if a student cannot achieve the performance requirements, then I need to learn to teach better and/or the student needs to spend some time practicing.

Now I'm sure that if you are a skilled diver, you could demonstrate the non-team skills. How would you address the team (of 3) skills? It sounds like a bit of a mess to have 3 people just take the test together, especially if they never dived together prior. Hence the course.

Your statement that "they don't have a course..." is pedantically true. But I think that I will go blue in the face for repeating that anyone can hire a GUE instructor for a workshop. So there is a means to achieve the goal of having the individual skills to take fundies and earn a pass with the team diving aspect.

So I don't believe anything should be changed.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

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.

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)?

 

[flymolo]

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.

Perhaps I just failed to understand it then.