Info Why are tables not taught in OW classes anymore?

[VikingDives]

I'm a retired university faculty member with 40+ years of classroom experience. I know whereof I speak. Learning about the tables is a valuable thing.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

That being said, I do think that learning ABOUT or WITH tables can be useful. There's a contradiction here that most haven't acknowledged.

One can use the tables to explain the functions of nitrogen buildup in the body, or use them to show how doing a shallow dive first and a deep dive second is less efficient than deep, then shallow.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any argument that one should force students to MASTER and BE EFFICIENT at using the tables.

When I think of "teaching tables" I think of teaching them to mastery and how painful that was for everyone. I do not think that using tables to present examples or broaden a student's knowledge is, however, a bad thing. But to me that isn't teaching the tables. Rather, it's using the tables as an aid in teaching.

 

[Island23]

It's a complete lack of training. People will fail, due to intelligence, that little bit of adding & substracting. They already struggle to make a C as is, especially in places like Alabama & Mississippi. Agencies won't be able to certify kids, since mommy & daddy pay for the classes. By the time, they turn 12, they're already master divers & instructors, as if special athletes. We call that SCUBA for babies

Safety is another reason & the main one but it's unequal opportunity for those less fortunate at a grander scale. That's why I don't agree, with it. It forces additional costs & keeps people out of diving. That's why you have to be careful, with those agencies & companies, restrictive

In the Navy, back in the '90s & '00s, you had to pass table tests or you couldn't wear the Navy Diver (ND) rating badge, period. It's an enlisted degree-less blue collar work rating. I was taught tables in the Navy & again, with SDI, before SDI switched to mandatory computers. I was also taught tables, with SSI later-on but this is 3 & 4 decades ago, before online work or cheap computers. Back then, we took tests, with a pencil, on paper. The table questions are the same, rec depths. ... Today, table or CPU, same to me but honestly, even with a fancy CPU, tables are awesome & just reinforces planning, even an interval. It pisses me off, when agencies, like SDI, SSI & PADI don't accept tables for "REC" diving, when they're the ones, who have to pass the Navy test.

 

[agilis]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

That being said, I do think that learning ABOUT or WITH tables can be useful. There's a contradiction here that most haven't acknowledged.

One can use the tables to explain the functions of nitrogen buildup in the body, or use them to show how doing a shallow dive first and a deep dive second is less efficient than deep, then shallow.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any argument that one should force students to MASTER and BE EFFICIENT at using the tables.

When I think of "teaching tables" I think of teaching them to mastery and how painful that was for everyone. I do not think that using tables to present examples or broaden a student's knowledge is, however, a bad thing. But to me that isn't teaching the tables. Rather, it's using the tables as an aid in teaching.

Citing one's relevant experience is not an appeal to authority. I mentioned my experience in the context of the efficacy of computer instruction, not teaching about the tables. Appeals to legitimate relevant authority are, in any case, certainly not illogical.

 

[boulderjohn]

Change is not always for the better. Web based learning is useful, but not on the same level as direct personal connection.
...
Some changes, like web based instruction, are driven by cost savings, not superiority. They are regressive, not progressive, simply cheaper, and you get what you pay for.

When web-based OW instruction arrived, the Course Director where I worked was throughly opposed to it for a long time, but he finally allowed a few instructors to try it out. They liked it so much that it was opened to everyone.

My experience was overwhelmingly positive. I can't recall exactly, but I think it might have been perhaps the 12th student who made the first wrong answer on the final exam I administered in person. Students who did online learning had far better understanding and memory of concepts than the ones who used book-based home study. Soon the shop abandoned book-based home study completely and went strictly to web-based instruction. It was not because of any cost savings; it was because of the superiority of the student learning.

Much web-based instruction is indeed poor, because teachers with no training are told to create and manage the courses. A quality online program built by experts with a big budget, specialized software, and lots of time is a totally different thing.

 

[agilis]

When web-based OW instruction arrived, the Course Director where I worked was throughly opposed to it for a long time, but he finally allowed a few instructors to try it out. They liked it so much that it was opened to everyone.

My experience was overwhelmingly positive. I can't recall exactly, but I think it might have been perhaps the 12th student who made the first wrong answer on the final exam I administered in person. Students who did online learning had far better understanding and memory of concepts than the ones who used book-based home study. Soon the shop abandoned book-based home study completely and went strictly to web-based instruction. It was not because of any cost savings; it was because of the superiority of the student learning.

Much web-based instruction is indeed poor, because teachers with no training are told to create and manage the courses. A quality online program built by experts with a big budget, specialized software, and lots of time is a totally different thing.

I completely agree that "A quality online program built by experts with a big budget, specialized software and lots of time" can be an excellent pedagogical instrument. These are, however, few and far between, especially where budgets are an issue and most especially where profit-making structures are concerned.

 

[lowwall]

When web-based OW instruction arrived, the Course Director where I worked was throughly opposed to it for a long time, but he finally allowed a few instructors to try it out. They liked it so much that it was opened to everyone.

My experience was overwhelmingly positive. I can't recall exactly, but I think it might have been perhaps the 12th student who made the first wrong answer on the final exam I administered in person. Students who did online learning had far better understanding and memory of concepts than the ones who used book-based home study. Soon the shop abandoned book-based home study completely and went strictly to web-based instruction. It was not because of any cost savings; it was because of the superiority of the student learning.

Much web-based instruction is indeed poor, because teachers with no training are told to create and manage the courses. A quality online program built by experts with a big budget, specialized software, and lots of time is a totally different thing.

I'm just venting here, but I hate hate hate web based training that only provides the contents verbally. Give me the text. I read fast and retain written information far better than I do verbal.

Slightly better, but still crap, is when they provide the text but won't let you move to the next bit until they are done droning on or put the text up in little chunks on the slide that they are reading and again force you to wait until the voiceover stops. It breaks the flow and interferes with my ability to concentrate. Go ahead and give me questions in each section to check my comprehension, but please let me move on at my own pace.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm just venting here, but I hate hate hate web based training that only provides the contents verbally. Give me the text. I read fast and retain written information far better than I do verbal.

Slightly better, but still crap, is when they provide the text but won't let you move to the next bit until they are done droning on or put the text up in little chunks on the slide that they are reading and again force you to wait until the voiceover stops. It breaks the flow and interferes with my ability to concentrate. Go ahead and give me questions in each section to check my comprehension, but please let me move on at my own pace.

Yep. That all would certainly suck. Most web based curriculum designers know that.

 

[tursiops]

I'm just venting here, but I hate hate hate web based training that only provides the contents verbally. Give me the text. I read fast and retain written information far better than I do verbal.

Slightly better, but still crap, is when they provide the text but won't let you move to the next bit until they are done droning on or put the text up in little chunks on the slide that they are reading and again force you to wait until the voiceover stops. It breaks the flow and interferes with my ability to concentrate. Go ahead and give me questions in each section to check my comprehension, but please let me move on at my own pace.

This is a good example of how different people learn differently. I, too, don't assimilate paced video instruction very well; I do better reading. But the purveyors of video-based learning argue that they are simply addressing all modes of learning....those who need to see, those who need to hear, and those who need to read. What they are missing is by addressing all three modes, they are turning off those who are bored by the modes not suitable for them. What they are also missing is the hands-on skills, i.e. the haptic mode of learning; I learn how to do something better by actually doing it. I don't "own it" until I've touched it.

 

[lowwall]

Yep. That all would certainly suck. Most web based curriculum designers know that.

Knowing it apparently doesn't translate into doing anything about it. The crap I've had to sit through...

Now that I think about it, the worst offenders are continuing education (CE) courses. I suspect this is deliberate to prove that they've provided x hours of training. Which would mean that the blame lies at the level of those who set the requirements by time instead of content.

But the course designers are still culpable if they don't include the raw text.

 

[Chavodel8en]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

That being said, I do think that learning ABOUT or WITH tables can be useful. There's a contradiction here that most haven't acknowledged.

One can use the tables to explain the functions of nitrogen buildup in the body, or use them to show how doing a shallow dive first and a deep dive second is less efficient than deep, then shallow.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any argument that one should force students to MASTER and BE EFFICIENT at using the tables.

When I think of "teaching tables" I think of teaching them to mastery and how painful that was for everyone. I do not think that using tables to present examples or broaden a student's knowledge is, however, a bad thing. But to me that isn't teaching the tables. Rather, it's using the tables as an aid in teaching.

Exactly, and I would say you can also use a computer as an aid to teach a deeper understanding of "dive theory."

IMO, there's nothing magical or beneficial about learning tables. As I sad before, I used tables for several years, but I didnt really gain any deeper understanding of dive theory. I just did the math and obeyed the numbers. With my computer I also mainly just obey the numbers.

And actually, since my computer has an adjustable GF, the computer has been the impetus for me to at least broach a little bit more beyond just obeying the numbers, to understand which GF setting would be best for me.

I would add that, IMO a recreational diver who only knows to obey their computer is about 99% as proficient as someone well steeped in dive theory. Sorry Scuba Gods/Nerds, its true.