Why new divers looking into instructor and tech diving

[Them]

TS&M actually answered that question very well, and did help clarify the thoughts I was struggling to express.

It's not that having pass/fail teaches something... it is a motivating factor that focuses the student's mind on making adequate preparation for the course and provides them with clear feedback on their performance.

Where does she say that? I read her statement as saying pass/fail is actually irrelevant.

I don't understand how your point applies to pass/fail criteria. Surely, the 'attendance course' approach is more suited to badge collectors.

Nope. Either one is for badge collectors, if the goal is a badge.

It's no different than the "bucket list" people or the BTDT people. There are people who climb Everest just to say they've done it. Nobody says climbing Everest is easy-that's what makes having an Everest Badge desirable.

Exclusive cards are still cards.

In the case of GUE/UTD/DIR/Fundies etc, the card is a presrequisite to further progression in the training program. You have to pass that course before you enroll on technical level training with the agency.

Only because the training program is based around cards. The agencies could instead choose to have entrance exams for every class, require enrollment in a longer course of study, take the subscription approach (you pay X dollars a month and receive unlimited access to a resource library and Y hours of training), etc.

Put simply - I am not a GUE/UTD instructor... but if a prospective student came to me in possession of a fundies certification, I would have a reliable expectation of their capabilities, knowledge and protocols. I wouldn't hesitate to take a fundies (tech pass) student on a technical level course, or a fundies (rec pass) student onto a wreck penetration course etc.

I could not say the same about a student that came to me waving an AOW, PPB, MSD... or even DM card from other agencies. ...

Yes, because AOW, PPB, etc are not equivalent to fundies in their focus or curriculum. You wouldn't take someone with a master's degree in civil engineering on a wreck dive either, though that engineer has been through many pass/fail classes.

It's apples and oranges.

How about if instead you compared two courses with similar goals/standards, but different methodologies. E.g. a pass/fail vs a "keep training" methodology.

If you go to play guitar with someone you don't know - is there a safety risk to them, or to yourself, should your playing skills prove to be insufficient for the songs you're asked to play?

I can't tell if you missed what I was saying or were being funny.

I cannot quote statistics... but common-sense shows that the fear of failure and/or desire to succeed has an inspirational effect.

"Common Sense"? Common sense for most people is simply, "Whatever I want to be right, expressed as though it is."
That's why everyone agrees it is so uncommon.

Would you argue the same in regards to driving tuition?

How about aviation? I keep bringing that up.

The actual TEACHING part of learning to fly is absolutely NOT pass/fail. You keep training until you have the skill. If it takes you 10 minutes or 10 hours to learn, you keep at it until the standard is met. If you never meet the standard, well, you have the option of keeping going, starting over with another instructor (who maybe teaches things differently), or quitting. Oh, and you pay for every tenth of an hour of instructor time so if you need a lot of time it gets expensive...but you never fail. You just haven't succeeded yet. An instructor won't sign you off to do something on your own (whether that is flying solo or taking a test) unless she believes you meet the standards, but that isn't the "pass." There are tests, yes, but instructors whose students fail tests can be penalized. The assumption is that tests are independent verifications and should be passed every time.

 

[DevonDiver]

Them - I think you need to read some threads/do some research on fundies; as you seem to be missing the pertinent factors that differentiate it from 'mainstream' scuba courses. Likewise, you seem to be skipping certain clarifications, in the assumption you know what the message is.

Just to clarify a few points:

Pass/Fail is part of a 'keep training' mentality. Many people end up re-taking fundies. There is no exclusion on re-attending once remedial improvement has occurred. The value of that pass/fail is that students learn that improvement must occur - that is not true for all/most agencies/courses.

The 'value' of X or Y certification should extend beyond the card. Some divers see a certification card as a 'license', it is not. Other divers see it as 'status', it is not. The true value of a card, is that it should represent a benchmark of defined capability. The fact is that most cards don't represent that benchmark - which is why people have become so cynical about courses/cards.

If someone had an "I Conquered Everest" card - it probably would provide a level of prestige. Beyond getting a few drinks bought for you, that is valueless. However, that card would signify a certain benchmark of climbing ability. The owner of that card probably wouldn't encounter much resistance if booking a hiking tour of Kilimanjaro, for instance.

If certification cards/qualifications are a benchmark, then they have value. If not, they are just worthless trinkets. THAT is the point being made.

 

[Gombessa]

Only because the training program is based around cards. The agencies could instead choose to have entrance exams for every class, require enrollment in a longer course of study, take the subscription approach (you pay X dollars a month and receive unlimited access to a resource library and Y hours of training), etc.

It's interesting to note that Fundies did not start as a pass/fail course. It originated as a workshop/skills-refresher/evaluation for those looking to take GUE training. I believe it evolved into the full curriculum it is today because GUE found that many divers who had simply "taken fundies" were still insufficiently prepared for the more rigorous training down the road, so they revised the class to become the gate. In this case, you might say that the agency tried the above and moved to pass-fail out of necessity because it did not see equivalent results with the alternatives.

That said, if you talk to just about anyone who has taken Fundies, they'll invariably tell you that it was the TAKING, and not the PASSING (or otherwise) of the course that was the greatest benefit for their diving. Quite a few people got what they were seeking in the class with a Provisional or Recreational Pass; in the end, it's really ends up being about what the students wants to get out of it.

 

[Them]

Them - I think you need to read some threads/do some research on fundies....

Yes, you do. Bluntly, that is a reflection of your assumption that disagreement = ignorance.

Just to clarify a few points:

Pass/Fail is part of a 'keep training' mentality. Many people end up re-taking fundies. There is no exclusion on re-attending once remedial improvement has occurred. The value of that pass/fail is that students learn that improvement must occur - that is not true for all/most agencies/courses.

Make people re-take the entire course when they just needed another 6 hours 1:1 refining one skill? That's a silly way to do things.

If certification cards/qualifications are a benchmark, then they have value. If not, they are just worthless trinkets. THAT is the point being made.

And if gold was more common we wouldn't have such bulky weight belts. The psychology of the situation seems clear...people feel rewarded by getting a card, reinforcing a card-seeking behavior. This isn't unusual, limited to diving, or even unexpected.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_(video_gaming)

Faced with that, staying within the card paradigm and fighting human nature seems like SandM.

 

[TSandM]

For recreational divers, a pass or fail from Fundamentals is actually irrelevant . . . a rec pass does nothing except provide the "benchmark" that Andy is talking about. And if the diver cannot meet the bar during the class, but seems likely to do so with a bit more practice and/or coaching, that diver gets a "provisional pass", and has six months to bring his skills up to par and be reevaluated. So not "passing" Fundies does not mean abandoning the diver, although for those who have to travel to take the class (or import an instructor) getting the coaching may be a bit difficult. It is rare to get a complete "fail" from the class; that's reserved either for people whose attitude is poor, or those the instructor feels will be unable to bring their skills up within the time allowed.

Fundamentals was developed, as stated, as a workshop to prepare the diver for GUE technical classes. This was because the tech and cave instructors were finding that quite a few students presenting for those classes simply didn't have the basic skills developed to the degree necessary. But the class has evolved, and I have said before and will say here again that I think the greatest value of Fundies is to the recreational diver who aspires to nothing more. This is because Fundies, and the Intro to Tech classes that have been developed after it, are the only places where a recreational diver can reliably receive training in what are all too often viewed as "technical" skills . . . refined buoyancy control, precise maneuvering, horizontal trim, strong situational awareness, effective underwater communication, and well-honed emergency skills. The diver who has been schooled to the Fundies rec pass level is going to have an easier time taking good photographs, and is going to be less likely to lose a buddy underwater, and is going to tolerate more task-loading in the event of an issue on a dive, than someone whose diving skills haven't reached that level. It has nothing to do with technical diving; it has to do with strong diving skills, and although you can develop a lot of it yourself, by diving and practicing, having an instructor coach you through it can significantly shorten the time to reach that level.

 

[DevonDiver]

Yes, you do. Bluntly, that is a reflection of your assumption that disagreement = ignorance.

If that's what you choose to believe. I was merely offering advice, as you seem to be interested in the subject and your profile states you have little-to-no actually diving experience, including GUE courses.

Make people re-take the entire course when they just needed another 6 hours 1:1 refining one skill? That's a silly way to do things.

You're looking at the difference between enrolling on a set course and paying for private tuition. Forgive me for making the assumption that silly would include (1) many instructors don't/won't/can't offer private tuition or (2) that your willingness to pay for training is limited by budget or a desire for cost-effectiveness.

There are all sorts of issues to consider, beyond student convenience. I do offer private one-to-one mentoring/instruction, but I don't know many other instructors/centers that do. Not many would take a per-day flat rate at the expense of potential income generated by X no. of students on a course? And then there is scheduling... just perhaps the instructor has other commitments at the end of the agreed training duration? There might also be liability issues for the instructor, potentially teaching outside of an approved curriculum.

And if gold was more common we wouldn't have such bulky weight belts. The psychology of the situation seems clear...people feel rewarded by getting a card, reinforcing a card-seeking behavior. This isn't unusual, limited to diving, or even unexpected.

That's your assumption. My experience disagrees with that. What I've stated in previous posts is an observation from 10 years as a diving professional and 20+ years as a diver. Just my observations, nothing more, nothing less. Take it as you will.

 

[Bob DBF]

Methinks thou dost protest too much!

When one starts arguing that training, passing the training and recieving a card is different than training, passing the training and recieving a card, maybe it is time to reread the thread. What is notable is that no one has attacked the training on the basis if it's quality, content, and usefullness for prepareing a diver for technical specialties.



Bob
------------------------------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet.

 

[DevonDiver]

What is notable is that no one has attacked the training on the basis if it's quality, content, and usefullness for prepareing a diver for technical specialties.

I'm confused Bob... which training are we meant to be attacking now?

When one starts arguing that training, passing the training and recieving a card is different than training, passing the training and recieving a card, maybe it is time to reread the thread.

I do suspect some cross-purposes in preceding posts. LOL

As an instructor, I love cards - they tell me everything, and nothing

 

[SkimFisher]

I am not judging. I merely stated my observation. If you read my words, I didn't say he wouldn't pass fundie if he take the class. In fact, with our exellent instructors here, he can learn enough in the 5 12-hours day, and receive a pass. However, if he was to get evaluated today, he will not pass. My opinion comes from seeing much better diver (IMO) didn't pass.

Keep in mind, fundie isnt a tech class. It is class prep for tech training. To GUE, which I also believe, a tech pass should the minimum skill set one should have to enter a tech training.

As for that matter, I did pass fundie, but not tech pass, just rec level.

---------- Post Merged at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:28 PM ----------



Absolutely NOT.

What I meant was I think he may not be ready for tech training at this moment. So instead of going dirrectly to tech training, maybe going into fundie or intro to tech first is a better idea

So let him find that out on his own...

__________________________________________________

There seems to be this confusion between the words "train" and "test". I have seen quite a few divers on the tech-path that are more worried about looking stupid in class than really learning anything. They don't want to be taught in class, they just want to get in, get out, and get a card. At least that has been my observation in a few cases. I'm obviously not saying everyone falls into that category. Anyways, my point is this: If he's not up to par, then a fundies instructor (or any instructor) should be able to get him there, or at least get him prepared to give it another try down the road. It's training.

Some skills certainly come easier for some vs. others, but I think that classes are starting to be viewed by many as a formality instead of a learning opportunity. If you've mastered the basics and have the right mindset then far be if from me to question your desire to advance.


Trainingn1.a. the process of bringing a person, etc., to an agreed standard of proficiency, etc., by practice and instruction

 

[boulderjohn]

What I meant was I think he may not be ready for tech training at this moment. So instead of going dirrectly to tech training, maybe going into fundie or intro to tech first is a better idea

I did not notice this part of the quote before, but it is the point that has me confused.

You seem to be saying that the person is not ready for tech training and should instead take fundies or Intro to Tech.

I don't see the difference. A typical Intro to Tech class (for agencies other than GUE) is similar to fundies. If the diver goes into tech training, the first step is Intro to Tech. It's unavoidable.