View Full Version : Advanced Theory Paper wanted
andy botten
25-06-2003, 14:34
Has anyone prepared their own Advanced Theory paper for the new syllabus?
Being a lazy git I would be greatful if you could forward one to me.
Three of my students have the CD with the papers on:-(
And the BSAC shop only has the old style papers.
Thanks in advance
Adrian Kelland
25-06-2003, 16:05
Has anyone prepared their own Advanced Theory paper for the new syllabus?
Being a lazy git I would be greatful if you could forward one to me.
Three of my students have the CD with the papers on:-(
And the BSAC shop only has the old style papers.
Thanks in advance
The CDs have the answers as well. Why do the students have the CDs?
Adrian
andy botten
25-06-2003, 16:08
Why do the students have the CDs?
Adrian
'Cos they are instructors as well ;-)
nick kay
25-06-2003, 16:14
Contact John Williams - he's written at least one thats fairly taxing...
Adrian Kelland
25-06-2003, 16:45
:=Why do the students have the CDs?
:=
:=Adrian
'Cos they are instructors as well ;-)
Ah, but they could still see the papers and answers for the grade they don't have yet. Just as well we are all honest.
Adrian
Ah, but they could still see the papers and answers for the grade they don't have yet. Just as well we are all honest.
Yes - but if they are DL/OWI they have to have access to the disk, so its better to have a different test paper that way not only are you not relying on honesty you are seen to be doing the correct thing.
We have a similar situation in our club at present in that four of our current DL trainees are ACI's and have had access to the CD - I don't think any would have cheated but we bought another test from HQ so everyone can see we are being fair
Pete
Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
Advanced papers removed.
TerryH
iainmsmith
25-06-2003, 19:44
Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
Advanced papers removed.
Breach of copyright?
IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
Iain
:=Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
:=Advanced papers removed.
Breach of copyright?
IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
And it assumes they have not bought thier own training manual, as I have even though I'm a Dive Leader (not important for me I have already passed the AD theory)
Pete
Lindsey Doyle
25-06-2003, 21:57
:=Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
:=Advanced papers removed.
Breach of copyright?
IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
Whoops,I burnt CDs with ONLY whichever lecture the "junior" grade instructors were preparing. BUT I'm sure I read somewhere that all the training material could be copied for branch use?
I foresaw this particular problem......but was under the impression that only a Branch Officer or NQI could buy the manual? Strangely, at the Dive show, one of our "old" SDs on the new DL course asked to buy a SD studybook for his own reference, but was refused (due to above reason).
Also, why can BSAC sell alternative new DL papers but not AD?
I think it's unreasonable to expect TOs/DOs to have to write a new paper.
Adrian Kelland
25-06-2003, 23:03
:=Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
:=Advanced papers removed.
Breach of copyright?
IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
Iain
Where does it say that Iain? On the card with the CD, it says that files may not be copies or distributed to third parties. I don't think we are third parties.
If I have missed a mention elsewhere, please could you let me know. I have copied it. This allows the instructor to prepare without having to pass round the CD, getting delayed, damaged, lost etc.
Adrian
:=:=Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
:=:=Advanced papers removed.
:=
:=Breach of copyright?
:=
:=IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
And it assumes they have not bought thier own training manual, as I have even though I'm a Dive Leader (not important for me I have already passed the AD theory)
Pete
You really make it hard for new Instructors dont you?
If you get somebody who is prepared to help out in pool/OW
do the grunt work on the clubs boats and ACI/ADI for a season
to get experience. Then go (and pay shedloads) for the OWIC,
TIE & PIE (we wont mention travelling and accommodation
expenses). Dont you think that your club should buy them a
manual as a thankyou?
Ater all its only about ?50 and your treasurer/branch officer
can simply replace the BSAC CD with his own re-burnt one with
the Advanced papers removed.
Result. Happy new Instructor with his/her own copy of the
manual and no Advanced papers.
TerryH
:=:=:=Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
:=:=:=Advanced papers removed.
:=:=
:=:=Breach of copyright?
:=:=
:=:=IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
:=
:=And it assumes they have not bought thier own training manual, as I have even though I'm a Dive Leader (not important for me I have already passed the AD theory)
:=
:=Pete
You really make it hard for new Instructors dont you?
No we make it very easy for them - that's why we've got four this year, bet that's more than your branch.
Ater all its only about ?50 and your treasurer/branch officer
can simply replace the BSAC CD with his own re-burnt one with
the Advanced papers removed.
Or how about a really nice simple solution - HQ make available (for a fee) exam papers for the new sylabus that we've been teaching for over a year rather than the instructors having to rely on the sample exams provided on the CD. Note I said, as does the manual, sample exams. Remember these are the sample exams with an average of seven mistakes out of only 35 questions
Result. Happy new Instructor with his/her own copy of the
manual and no Advanced papers.
But no transparency because there is absolutley nothing stopping them sourcing the disk from elsewhere
Pete
Philip Smith
26-06-2003, 09:00
I think it's unreasonable to expect TOs/DOs to have to write a new paper.
Why?
Philip Smith
nick kay
26-06-2003, 10:14
As TOs/DOs don't have to be OWIs or ADs, then someone in the club has to, so I guess the logoc is, to use your Area/Regional Coaching Team as a resource...
Or how about a really nice simple solution - HQ make available (for a fee) exam papers for the new sylabus that we've been teaching for over a year rather than the instructors having to rely on the sample exams provided on the CD. Note I said, as does the manual, sample exams. Remember these are the sample exams with an average of seven mistakes out of only 35 questions
Oh come on Pete, BSAC doing exam papers without 20% error!!
They dont exist.
I was recently belated by one of BSAC's examiners because I
said that we re-write the exam papers removing BSAC errors and
the BSAC ambiguous factor.
Seems that one half of BSAC says you can re-write and the other
half say you cant.
Still, 4 Instructors is rather impressive. Trouble is that we
have exactly three years to get them from Newbie to DL and
then exams. Gets worse. We dont see them over the summer and
they have Uni exams and go home at Easter and Christmas.
Add to that coursework and disertations and we really have
about 18 months.
So far we havnt quit managed it getting 5 good DL/ADI's and OWIC
at about the three year mark. They are however doing the exams
in October though.
But no transparency because there is absolutley nothing stopping them sourcing the disk from elsewhere
Come on they are students. That would mean buying a copy!
Not going to happen.
TerryH
As TOs/DOs don't have to be OWIs or ADs, then someone in the club has to, so I guess the logoc is, to use your Area/Regional Coaching Team as a resource...
Ah, but they do. The minimum for DO is Advanced (preferably
NQI). The only reason BSAC put the caveat of a lesser grade
being ok under Advanced supervision (be it in house or
regional) is to stop the club folding. It's only as a very last
resort that a non-advanced should be considered as DO.
Can never understand TO's not being minimum NQI's. How can you
be in charge of training and not be an Instructor?
TerryH
Adrian Kelland
26-06-2003, 10:56
Can never understand TO's not being minimum NQI's. How can you
be in charge of training and not be an Instructor?
TerryH
Quite often I agree with you Terry, even if I don't say so. Not on this though.
If we start with the assumption that the TO is in charge of training BUT NOT doing the training, this can work. Someone to organise the instructors and students at their different levels does not have to be an instructor. It might help with experience of particular instructing issues, but this is really an organisational role.
All too often I have seen a TO training his students, but not coordinating the training for others by others. Can't do both at the same time. Often not done at separate times. Instructors may be trained to instruct, but not to cordinate training. A hole in the syllabus maybe.
I await your response.
Adrian
Steve Walker
26-06-2003, 12:09
Contact John Williams - he's written at least one thats fairly taxing...
Cheers for that Nick, John has agreed to set the AD paper for me sometime later this year, so it's gonna be a toughie eh? well forewarned is forearmed as they say.
Re CD etc, I confess! I've copied my own copy of the CD onto my works PC. Not for any nefarious purposes, but this way II'm not risking losing the disc and can read up on the new DTP instead of working :)))) No! no! no! I'm only joking, honest ! (one of my bosses colleagues is a keen diver but I'm not sure if he bothers with the forum, guess I might find out now LOL!
BTW, although I have access to the AD exam on the disk, AFAIAC that's just to get an indication of style and level of difficulty, and what's the point of cheating? If you're worthy of the qualification it shouldn't take more than a bit of brushing up on your theory, if you need to memorise all the answers then you're only kidding yourself.
Plus by the time you get to DL/OWI I reckon you've seen pretty much all the theory you should know, just depends on whether you've retained it (all IMVHO of course)
Cheers
Steve
richard scarsbrook
26-06-2003, 13:35
Has anyone prepared their own Advanced Theory paper for the new syllabus?
Late last year, my wife Jen and I drafted additional papers for each diving grade in the new DTP to cover the situation you are in. As far as I know BSAC HQ have not yet made them available. If you email me privately you are welcome to a copy of one of the AD papers and answers, on the understanding that they have not yet been through the BSAC editing process (although this has been known to insert errors as well as remove them :-). Some of the questions in the additional AD papers are more challenging than the ones on the CD, many of which were lifted from lower grade papers.
BTW the questions for the other grades are similar to those on the CD.
iainmsmith
26-06-2003, 13:48
:=Or how about a really nice simple solution - HQ make available (for a fee) exam papers for the new sylabus that we've been teaching for over a year rather than the instructors having to rely on the sample exams provided on the CD. Note I said, as does the manual, sample exams. Remember these are the sample exams with an average of seven mistakes out of only 35 questions
:=
Oh come on Pete, BSAC doing exam papers without 20% error!!
They dont exist.
But why not???
BSAC have a nice email list of instructors. Why not email out questions to be error-checked prior to distribution?
I was recently belated by one of BSAC's examiners because I
said that we re-write the exam papers removing BSAC errors and
the BSAC ambiguous factor.
Seems that one half of BSAC says you can re-write and the
other half say you cant.
Of course you can. We are allowed to examine in alternative ways if appropriate (eg for dyslexia, language problems, etc). I believe that for those for whom MCQs are suitable, it is appropriate to take the alternative of asking unambiguous questions to which correct answers are known.
Of course, if someone wants to point out where it says in writing that we can't then please do...because that would be a significant change that has been sneaked in without us noticing.
Iain
iainmsmith
26-06-2003, 13:49
:=:=Come on guys it's not that difficult. Just burn a CD with the
:=:=Advanced papers removed.
:=
:=Breach of copyright?
:=
:=IIRC, unlike the previous manual we are specifically _not_ allowed to copy this CD...
:=
:=Iain
Where does it say that Iain? On the card with the CD, it says that files may not be copies or distributed to third parties. I don't think we are third parties.
If I have missed a mention elsewhere, please could you let me know. I have copied it. This allows the instructor to prepare without having to pass round the CD, getting delayed, damaged, lost etc.
Adrian,
I'm going from memory, but I'm pretty sure that something to that effect was posted to the fora or is on one of the Q&A pages. You'd have to go back and search for it.
Iain
Lindsey Doyle
26-06-2003, 16:39
Can never understand TO's not being minimum NQI's. How can you
be in charge of training and not be an Instructor?
As has been said, it can be done on a purely admin/organisational level.
When I completed my 3 years as TO in April, I became DO but the only person willing to do TO is a SD(nearly DL)/ADI, very skilled at organisation, so he does all that stuff and I supervise (plus continue to run DL+ level training). Of course the DO is responsible for all diving/training anyway. But a great workload has been lifted from my shoulders! Meanwhile the TO is gaining valuable experience as he works towards his OWI.
Lindsey Doyle
26-06-2003, 16:50
:=I think it's unreasonable to expect TOs/DOs to have to write a new paper.
Why?
Because personally I devote enough time to training already.....setting an exam, particularly at AD level would take AGES.
My branch has paid c?100 for 2 manuals, I don't think it's unreasonable for BSAC to have available for sale exam papers which are not accessible to anyone of any grade.
Enough reasons?
Philip Smith
26-06-2003, 21:23
Because personally I devote enough time to training already...
I thought that was the reason and its understandable. Writing exams is time consuming. I view setting exams as part of the training. Sometimes I use BSAC ones, sometimes I make up my own. Instructors should be able to make up exams -- sometimes we may need to give an oral exam for which the standard multi-choice tests are not necessarily suited. If you have more than one instructor, you could get each to write a few questions.
My branch has paid c?100 for 2 manuals, I don't think it's unreasonable for BSAC to have available for sale exam papers which are not accessible to anyone of any grade.
It would be a useful service if the previous randomly generated tests were available for the new syllabus. In the meantime, you could order an old one and rejig the questions as necessary. The subject matter hasn't changed very much, but its distribution among grades may have.
Philip Smith
Quite often I agree with you Terry, even if I don't say so. Not on this though.
If we start with the assumption that the TO is in charge of training BUT NOT doing the training, this can work. Someone to organise the instructors and students at their different levels does not have to be an instructor. It might help with experience of particular instructing issues, but this is really an organisational role.
All too often I have seen a TO training his students, but not coordinating the training for others by others. Can't do both at the same time. Often not done at separate times. Instructors may be trained to instruct, but not to cordinate training. A hole in the syllabus maybe.
I await your response.
Adrian.
Either you are a full TO in which case the DO does nothing more
than have cursory glance over your shoulder or you are an
acting or assistant TO in which case you need constant
supervision.
IMO students deserve the best available. We dont use TO as a
nursery slope towards DO, but actually attribute as much (if
not more) importance to the role as DO. So in our club we have
a DO who is Adv/NQI and a TO who is Adv/NQI. In fact the TO has
more qualifications than the DO!
Why? Because the clubs training is organised and directed by
the officer who is soley responsible for it, the TO. He knows
the students, grades, schedules & syllabi.
So why is that so important?
The DO isnt in this loop. He is outside looking in. Which makes
him a very good objective observer & safety check.
If you are the DO and nursing a TO who is in effect your
assistant, then it becomes very hard to be objective. You are
in effect marking yor own work.
Which is why I strongly believe that the TO should be the best
grade available and have the abilty to be as independent from
the DO as possible.
Rgds
TerryH
Mike Halligan
27-06-2003, 14:35
God, Terry, is it cold up there?
Could we not start with someone who is both interested and competent, regardless of their badge collection? Perhaps after that we might find that with experience they prove rather good. The luxury of an AD willing to undertake DO is far from universal. An AD/NQI for DO must be rarer. The same, co-located with an AD/NQI as TO is an embarrassment of riches.
In my Branch, we reached this allegedly ideal situation in 2003 for the first time since I joined in 1995 (a branch of around 60 members). How did we cope for all that time?
This kind of debate can't half be demoralising. I had thought all my effort was to some avail, now I realise I'm wasting my time, when such excellence is so boldly heralded.
And I've still to generate papers for OD, SD, DL and AD. Blimey, no Summer for me, then.
Mike
[Shuffles off, muttering, to take up dominos]
God, Terry, is it cold up there?
Could we not start with someone who is both interested and competent, regardless of their badge collection? Perhaps after that we might find that with experience they prove rather good. The luxury of an AD willing to undertake DO is far from universal. An AD/NQI for DO must be rarer. The same, co-located with an AD/NQI as TO is an embarrassment of riches.
In my Branch, we reached this allegedly ideal situation in 2003 for the first time since I joined in 1995 (a branch of around 60 members). How did we cope for all that time?
This kind of debate can't half be demoralising. I had thought all my effort was to some avail, now I realise I'm wasting my time, when such excellence is so boldly heralded.
And I've still to generate papers for OD, SD, DL and AD. Blimey, no Summer for me, then.
Mike
[Shuffles off, muttering, to take up dominos]
Sorry Mike, more likely to be rather warm!!!!!!
I suppose my problem (and therefore ideals) stem from the fact
that the DO of our club (and yes we also have 60+ members. Has
always been at least Adv/NQI in the past 8 years or so I have
been a member. In fact I can remember two that were 1st
class/AI.
Now that may make me raise the old threshold a little and
expect more, but is that bad? If your club cant get enough
Adv/NQI's then fine why not have a sort of mentoring scheme
as per the DO. But come on, shouldnt we at least strive to get
the best possible TO?
Last year we took on 24 newbies and 12 existing x-overs etc.
On top of that we had a new syllabus.
Have a greenhorn TO deal with that lot and train on the job!!!
In your dreams.
Rgds
TerryH
Philip Smith
27-06-2003, 20:54
Why? Because the clubs training is organised and directed by
the officer who is soley responsible for it, the TO.
I agree it is desirable to have a highly qualified competent TO, but they are not _solely_ responsible for training: the DO is ultimately responsible.
Philip Smith
:=Why? Because the clubs training is organised and directed by
:=the officer who is soley responsible for it, the TO.
I agree it is desirable to have a highly qualified competent TO, but they are not _solely_ responsible for training: the DO is ultimately responsible.
Philip Smith
Ok, bad choice of words. Responsible in that he/she should IMO
be independently in charge of training, but not the ultimate
responsibilty. In that (as you say) the buck stops with the DO.
Rgds
TerryH
Mike Szeller
29-07-2003, 04:25
Can never understand TO's not being minimum NQI's. How can you
be in charge of training and not be an Instructor?
TerryH
That's what I asked myself when it happened to me. It isn't easy and you lean a lot on your AI's etc. A lot of a TO's job is organising the training, which is just that organising not doing the training. But you sure miss being able to step in when an instructor can't make a session.
That's what I asked myself when it happened to me. It isn't easy and you lean a lot on your AI's etc. A lot of a TO's job is organising the training, which is just that organising not doing the training. But you sure miss being able to step in when an instructor can't make a session.
All comes down to whether you think the TO should be the DO's
lacky and in effect a bookeeper or an equal partner who
utilises the DO purely for safety & standards check.
Thankfully our club adopts the latter and it works extremely
well.
Rgds
TerryH
Mike Halligan
29-07-2003, 21:19
There is yet another way.
The TO can be the DO's delegate only to the extent that the DO is able and willing to exercise delegation. If a NQI is available, willing, a good organiser, gets on well with the DO and Instructors but has limited time to offer, then that person may be the best person to undertake the TO's duties, defined as they are by the DO within BSAC parameters. It is the DO's duty to get the best out of the relationship.
Some of the time the best will be for the TO to instruct and the DO to organise training. At other times, the opposite will be best. At other times again, something in between fits the bill.
Is this what we mean by a broad spectrum of possible answers within "the BSAC way", perhaps? There is, I believe, no "right answer" and precious few "wrong answers". What gets the desired result, safely, should be enough.
Regards,
Mike
What gets the desired result, safely, should be enough.
Absolutley, but that's my point. If you have TO who is in
effect controlled by the DO with limited knowledge of what
he/she is organising then the DO can (in my personal
experience) & does do almost whatever they like.
Looking back to when I first did the job as TO, I cringe at
the situations students were put in by the supposed
knowledgable DO. In many cases it wasnt safety, but logistics
that controlled training & diving.
It would have been nice to have said something, but I didnt
know any better and besides who was I to question these so
called "senior" divers.
Which is why I strongly believe that you need a TO who is in a
position to know what is right/wrong and can if neccesary
question a DO's decision. IMO the only person who can trully do
that is someone with equal authority, which means an NQI/Adv.
Rgds
TerryH
Mike Halligan
31-07-2003, 21:55
:=What gets the desired result, safely, should be enough.
:=
Absolutley, but that's my point. If you have TO who is in
effect controlled by the DO with limited knowledge of what
he/she is organising then the DO can (in my personal
experience) & does do almost whatever they like.
However, one should not IMHO specify qualifications for one post in order to take account of (real, perceived or potential) deficiencies in holders of other posts. To do that creates unnecessary complication, restricts voluntary effort to the card-carrying elite and generally discourages the spreading of the voluntary load.
Looking back to when I first did the job as TO, I cringe at
the situations students were put in by the supposed
knowledgable DO. In many cases it wasnt safety, but logistics
that controlled training & diving.
It would have been nice to have said something, but I didnt
know any better and besides who was I to question these so
called "senior" divers.
I was afflicted similarly and then, later, we both realised that "senior" may mean nothing more than "for a longer time". Our mistake is embarrassing, understandable and no reason to restrict appointment of the TO.
Which is why I strongly believe that you need a TO who is in a
position to know what is right/wrong and can if neccesary
question a DO's decision. IMO the only person who can trully do
that is someone with equal authority, which means an NQI/Adv.
I really do understand, and sympathise deeply. I believe, however, that this valid approach allows the continuation of an unsatisfactory situation elsewhere which, were it addressed, could obviate the need. Fortunately, we now have much more specific materials which promote greater confidence in the TO, regardless of their personal experience.
Regards as ever,
Mike
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.