Frustration moving into/towards tech

[helodriver87]

Well, I will reluctantly chime in here. I was a career educator, and my last job with education was as the Executive Director of Curriculum for a national education company.

What jlcnuke wrote in post #74 is perfectly correct, although I think he left some points out. Any curriculum designer who does not understand that should not have been hired in the first place. There is nothing wrong with having very high standards, but if you have very high standards, then your curriculum and instruction should be designed so that students can meet those high standards within the allotted time frame for the course. The one thing he left out is prerequisite skills--a course should have a screening process so that students who do not have the necessary skills and knowledge to begin the course do not begin a course they have no hope of passing. Students who have just finished Algebra I are not admitted into a calculus class for that reason.

In any course in any subject, if a student has the required entry requirements and then performs at his or her ability during the class, then failure should be rare. A class with a high failure rate is nothing to brag about. If a class frequently has a high failure rate and it is admitting appropriate students, it usually means the course design is poorly thought out, the allotted time for the curriculum is insufficient (you won't get a class through Calculus I in a month), or the instructional quality is poor.

I think it's a misunderstanding of what the course was designed to do. It's a screener for technical training, but it also functions as a workshop. Fact is, you can learn a ton from a class like that, but to pass at the technical level is going to take outside practice and work. It's simply not going to be learned within any reasonable course structure if you allow divers of all skill and experience levels to take the class. So you either limit it to more experienced divers, which introduces the problem of breaking bad habits and hurts newer divers, or you redefine what counts as a pass purely as a tech pass. But that doesn't work either, because it creates the impression that almost everyone fails. And if the goal is skill improvement, that doesn't paint an accurate picture of outcomes. So the only way I see that it's possible to both encourage new divers to take it and learn valuable skills as well as screen for higher level courses is to have stratified outcomes. Which is the system currently used.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So if a high school program allows students who have not passed Algebra I to take calculus, then the school bears no responsibility for their failure?

John,

I don't think you are being fair. If the students are taught geometry, algebra II, and go off and practice it, along with the calculus, sure no problem.

But the analogy of educational programs to scuba isn't quite appropriate. Should GUE require a checkout dive where if the student candidate isn't up to snuff can't take the course? Do they take rec 2? What do you think that would do to GUE's income? It would plummet. Maybe the mainstream agencies should get off their keisters and require objective performance for all their courses. That would help the pass rate for GUE fundies, but it would cause the revenue for mainstream agencies to drop, so let's not throw stones at GUE.

I don't see a problem with how GUE fundies (or other DIR equivalents) are being run. Unless it is people coming up through their own programs who cannot earn a recreational pass. What does a recreational pass allow a recreational diver do afterwards? Not a thing. So does it matter?

 

[boulderjohn]

I think it's a misunderstanding of what the course was designed to do. It's a screener for technical training, but it also functions as a workshop. Fact is, you can learn a ton from a class like that, but to pass at the technical level is going to take outside practice and work. It's simply not going to be learned within any reasonable course structure if you allow divers of all skill and experience levels to take the class. So you either limit it to more experienced divers, which introduces the problem of breaking bad habits and hurts newer divers, or you redefine what counts as a pass purely as a tech pass. But that doesn't work either, because it creates the impression that almost everyone fails. And if the goal is skill improvement, that doesn't paint an accurate picture of outcomes. So the only way I see that it's possible to both encourage new divers to take it and learn valuable skills as well as screen for higher level courses is to have stratified outcomes. Which is the system currently used.

It sounds like it should be at least two different classes.

 

[helodriver87]

It sounds like it should be at least two different classes.

Maybe. But that's probably less financially advantageous to students. Instructors typically only charge their daily rate for a tech pass checkout instead of a new course fee.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

It sounds like it should be at least two different classes.

I prefer the DIR model of fewer courses that are longer and higher value.

I am no fan of mainstream con ed with short courses that consist of typically ticking boxes.

If a student is likely to not improve enough to earn a rec pass, why doesn’t that student then hire a DIR instructor for a workshop to prepare them for fundies?

Isn’t that a viable option?

 

[Jack Hammer]

I'm not looking for a course that is "designed to easily pass", but quite frankly, ANY training course should be designed such that almost everyone that meets the prerequisites for the course will accomplish the goals of the course. In fact, that is THE gold standard in judging the effectiveness of a training program. If the course cannot meet that standard there are three possible problems:
1. The prerequisites are inadequate to ensure the participants are ready for the course.
2. The course content is inadequate to accomplish the goals.
3. The instructors/teachers are not competent.

I don't believe GUE's instructors to be incompetent, which leaves either 1, 2, or a combination of those things as the issue with their course. Regardless of which it actually is, it's clearly a fault in the design of the program in some manner.

I didn't start this thread to bash GUE, but ya'll are really asking me to it seems....

One doesn't need physical conditioning to take, as in @boulderjohn example, Calculus. Plenty of people fail swim classes. Plenty of people fail their drivers test. Of those that pass, plenty fail their CDL (commercial drivers license) test. Somethings are mental and physical.

Plenty of divers think they have great bouyancy control and situational awareness and are more than qualified going into classes. Many quickly find out that a tiny bit of task loading ruins all that and they are unable to complete a simple task and unwilling to accept personal responsibility. Suddenly now it's a piece of gears fault or the other students fault or the instructors fault or they just say the course is poorly designed.

Underwater classrooms are incredibly different from above water classrooms.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Just as a side note. While I did not earn a tec pass, I did prior switching back to sidemount hire a GUE instructor for an evaluation/workshop. It was great use of my time and money. If I had to rank my best courses for which I paid, #1 is fundies, #2 is two dives I spent with that instructor.

 

[boulderjohn]

One doesn't need physical conditioning to take, as in @boulderjohn example, Calculus. Plenty of people fail swim classes. Plenty of people fail their drivers test. Of those that pass, plenty fail their CDL (commercial drivers license) test. Somethings are mental and physical.

Plenty of divers think they have great bouyancy control and situational awareness and are more than qualified going into classes. Many quickly find out that a tiny bit of task loading ruins all that and they are unable to complete a simple task and unwilling to accept personal responsibility. Suddenly now it's a piece of gears fault or the other students fault or the instructors fault or they just say the course is poorly designed.

Underwater classrooms are incredibly different from above water classrooms.

I will defer to someone like you, whose understanding of instructional theory so far exceeds my own.

I know that was snarky, but I don't know what else to write. If you were to research instructional theory and focus on the concept of evaluating prerequisite skills, you would find a ton of information, but you aren't going to do that, and I am not going to write the book chapter it requires. If I did write that book chapter, I am sure it will not make an iota of difference in your opinion. That is why I prefaced my first comment the way I did. I have avoided saying these things for years , and I regret saying anything now.

So, I will withdraw all comments. Forget I said anything. You are right, no doubt about it.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I will defer to someone like you, whose understanding of instructional theory so far exceeds my own.

I know that was snarky, but I don't know what else to write. If you were to research instructional theory and focus on the concept of evaluating prerequisite skills, you would find a ton of information, but you aren't going to do that, and I am not going to write the book chapter it requires. If I did write that book chapter, I am sure it will not make an iota of difference in your opinion. That is why I prefaced my first comment the way I did. I have avoided saying these things for years , and I regret saying anything now.

So, I will withdraw all comments. Forget I said anything. You are right, no doubt about it.

John, there really is no reason be a condescending ******. I'd expect better from you.

 

[boulderjohn]

John, there really is no reason be a condescending ******. I'd expect better from you.

You are right again. I apologize.