Diver Training: How much is enough?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I have to say that fjpatrum is right. Even in our shop, there are only two instructors who use the "if you aren't being evaluated, you are swimming" approach to teaching. The rest still plant their students firmly on their knees, where they sit and wait for however many other people to go through the same skills. You could argue they learn by watching, except you learn by watching something done WELL. Watching others fumble through and make mistakes just ingrains the wrong pictures.

I'm with Pete. Although a longer class with more dives might well be "better", the classes we have, taught in the time we have to teach them, would be better if the time were better used.
 
With all due respect, your classes are Just a couple of posts above yours, this was written: This is a pretty frequent occurrence Bingo. Yahtzee. You're catching on. Why waste time if all you're doing is making a class long for length's sake or because you aren't efficient? I would agree and that's why my classes are never too short.
My classes are not "normal" by today's industry standards, but they are very close in terms of structure and performance expectations to what the earliest standards of the industry where. Remember, LA County and NAUI were founded off of training received at Scripps and thus the future outgrowths, including NASDS, PADI, SSI, TDI, etc., were all branches off that same trunk. So, while you may argue that the things that have been removed were unnecessary for the divers that you train, it is quite reasonable from my perspective to describe such abbreviated programs as "dumbed down."
and for good reasons.
There we disagree. I do not see "that's what the public wants" or the economics of the program as "good" reasons, nor do I see the modularization of what should be a holistic program into separately priced products each with it's own "you're all heros" participant award as progress.
 
At least with regard to the OP's experience with his instabuddy. I have to say navigation is one of the skills LAST developed and matured in most newer divers I have seen. Their awareness just isn't there generally speaking, or they are captivated by fish and anenomes etc and there's not enough residual bandwidth to navigate with. So they end up swimming from critter to critter until they are so lost they have to surface to find their way home. Its also one of the skills which most AOW classes supposedly cover but do a really lame job of doing so. Who dives a reciprocal compass heading or worse a square? The "navigation" in most navigation classes is just completely disconnected from how most dives happen. So its no surprise that this skill is one of the weakest in newer divers (arbitrarily I'd say <50 dives)
 
I do not see "that's what the public wants" or the economics of the program as "good" reasons,
Now, please tell us what world YOU live in! :D :D :D

What the public wants and economics shape most of our world. Scuba instruction is not immune to that, nor should it be. Necessity is the mother of invention and quite often economic competition is the catalyst that powers it.
 
Regarding the reason for long classes, there is also a disagreement about what needs to be taught in a basic open water class and what can be reserved for later instruction.

For example, unless I am mistaken, DCBC has altitude diving details and diving with tides as a part of open water classes. Because I do my OW classes at a high altitude, I do show OW students how to adjust for altitude when they plan their dives. I only do this when conducting the OW dives at altitude, though; if the students are taking a referral to a tropical resort, I only teach the little bit that is in the book, because more than 90% of my students will never dive locally and will never need to adjust for altitude. For a similar reason, because we don't have a lot of tidal variation in our local lakes, I don't talk about it on the OW dives. In fact, in the nearly 1,000 dives I have done in many places throughout the world, there has only been one day when I needed to take tides into consideration when I dived, and I prepared for it when that day came. I am quite sure at least 90% of my students will never dive where tides will be an important factor. If I teach them how to deal with it when they are in OW, that 10% who might need it years in the future will have forgotten what they were taught by then.

Similarly, Thalassamania's students leave his OW certification able to tie a bowline underwater with one hand while wearing 3-finger mittens or dry gloves. That's impressive, and it shows the amount of learning in the course. Now, in all my dives, I am not sure I have ever seen anyone tie any knot under water, except in a class that required them to tie a knot under water. I have certainly never been in a situation where it was necessary to tie a bowline with one hand--I even have trouble imagining what that situation would be. I also doubt that more then a couple percent of my students will ever see a 3-fingered mitten or dry glove, let alone wear one while tying a bowline with one hand. That's another skill I think can wait until later in their education.

I think that a lot of people looking at the really long courses will be able to spot some other instruction that probably can wait until later.

But it is not just that learning skills that aren't needed adds time to the curriculum. It also makes learning the stuff that really is important less efficient and less effective as well. The educational principle of interference tells us that the process of learning things we don't need to know interferes with our ability to learn the material that is truly important. The added learning makes it harder for us to remember the rest of the material as well. We have a harder time (and thus more time on task) learning the important stuff because the unimportant stuff interferes with our learning.
 
I don't know any instructor worth his salt that can't produce a better diver in less time if they improved their efficiency while teaching. If you are unwilling to improve your efficiency, you should quit teaching. I teach in a modular fashion that maximizes fun and leverages experience. The OW module is a learning permit and includes everything they need to determine if any particular dive is within their limits or if they need additional training and/or gear.

Not your smartest statement. As stated by others, efficiency has its limitations. We can only go as fast as our slowest student and as we all know, they all learn at different paces.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Not your smartest statement. As stated by others, efficiency has its limitations. We can only go as fast as our slowest student and as we all know, they all learn at different paces.

But the problem with your response is that he was talking about efficiency in terms of of instructional technique. Time is in part dependent upon student ability, but as I indicated above, research shows that instructional technique is a more important factor. Your slowest student may never learn at all with one instructional approach, but that same student may do very well with another.

As I also said above, research indicates that the number one factor by far differentiating top performing teachers from bottom performing teachers is a belief in what we call efficacy. The top performing teachers believe in overwhelming numbers that they and their ability to adapt instruction are the most important factors in student success. The bottom performing teacehrs believe student ability is the primary factor, and there is little to nothing they can do to change that.
 
i THINK THE GOALS for many instructors have far exceeded the basic requirements of the training level. Without reading them for each course Let me say this. I read basic open water. That says the basic of basic skills. HOw not to panic, do a dive and surface with odds in favor of being alive. Exibit the most rudimentary bouyancy control (hovering not required). Understand and Engage in basic buddy concepts. How not to loose your gear in the water, the phisics involved.(boyle charles and the boys) , how to prevent silting ect. and finally how to do an emergency blow to the surface and survive. This gives them a license to learn/ perfect the most basic skills over time. Thorough understanding of limitations imposed on them by the level of training received and why. Then do 50 dives to master breathing, controled bouyancy lost buddy Ocean environment diving, ect. This should allow them to confortablely engage in no everhead diving in lakes of 50' depth of less. Then there is AOW. Demonstrate MASTERED ow skills. Introduction of skills relating to deeper diving for them to master as they do thier next 50 or so dives as an AOW. Emergency blow no longer being an option New skills such as more refined bouyancy control, theory of narcosis, more in depth dive planning skills. an intro but not cert in nitrox, basic rescue/ diver assist techniques submerged and surface. Intro and understanding what deco is. When they are done they should be able to go to 100-120 with as many of the limitations of OW have been lifted. With that there is an understanding why the remaining limitations are still in place.

Each course should be slowly removing the amount of limitations imposed by he OW course. hard/soft overhead being some of the last lifted before crossing into a tech line of training.

I read many comments that some students have excellent bouyancy as OW's ect. ect. I would not want to hard line say that, that is an indicator of spending to much time on a skill as i whole hartenly believe the inst has to teach the inportant skills to function in the local diving area. The emphasis of bouyancy control as an ow IS NOT SO IMPORTANT IN A QUARY AS IT IS IN A PRESERVE AREA.

Although many would not agree with my opinion but that is why I believe ocean boat trips should be limited to AOW and above. For those that are training OW and finish with skills superior to the min AOW requiremets should be given an AOW cert rather than the OW. Administrativily I dont know how that would work. I will say that any instructor that can teach good bouyancy in the same time as teaching mediocre bouyancy is an instructor that has the skills that i would want teaching me. The ow course is to me the most important course of any. Not from the skills aspect per-se but in establishing the understanding of what you dont know and lask skills for.

In my state (I may be mistaken somewhat) but you can get a licence to drive at 16 but you can not have passengers under 21 in the car till 17 or 18, i am not sure about interstate driving. This allows time to master skills before imposing your mistakes on others which by design are driving distractions. An OW ticket ,I think, should be somewhat the same. This would surely add some credibility to the AOW ticket. The idea of ZERO to DM in 60 dives ,,,, well.
 
The emphasis of bouyancy control as an ow IS NOT SO IMPORTANT IN A QUARY AS IT IS IN A PRESERVE AREA.

I guess your quarries are sediment free.... must be nice....
 

Back
Top Bottom