Diver Training: How much is enough?

[boulderjohn]

For any instructors out there following this thread, in your opinions, how many times on average does a typical student need to do the above to "master" them? (Of course I know the word "master" may not be clearly defined.) For example, do you ask a student to do one mask remove/replace/clear? Three times? Five times?

I'm not sure how many times one needs to do something to master it but I read somewhere on one of these threads that on average, a person would need to do something 15 or so times to truly master it. That may or may not be true but I would think most folks would agree that to "master" something you would need to demonstrate it more than once. Are there any instructors out there that ask their students to do any of these skills at least 3 -5 times?

I believe you are referring to the Egstorm study that buddy breathing had to be done successfully 17-21 times to be considered mastered. Others have argued that he was actually referring to any complex task, but that is not how I read it originally. Some people have used that study as saying that many repetitions are needed for ANY task to be learned, and that is simply not true.

The number of times a task needs to be performed for mastery depends upon the difficulty of the task and the natural ability of the student. Purging a regulator certainly does not take 15 tries for anyone. Clearing the mask is simple for some but more difficult for others. When I took my first scuba lesson, I cleared my mask easily the first time I tried it and never had a problem with it after that. Others take a lot longer.

There is no way a number can be put on it. You simply keep at it until you are satisfied the student has it done well enough to be able to do it successfully whenever it is needed. If the student struggles with mask clearing and finally gets it done with some effort, then the student is not there yet and needs more repetitions.

 

[BDSC]

I believe you are referring to the Egstorm study that buddy breathing had to be done successfully 17-21 times to be considered mastered.

That sounds like the one I am thinking about.

Some people have used that study as saying that many repetitions are needed for ANY task to be learned, and that is simply not true.

I certainly don't think you need to do some of the skills that were listed that many times or even close to it to "learn" it. But I'm under the impression that PADI says you need to "master" it. It's just my opinion that most students would need to demonstrate any said skill several times before they can master it. I know when I took my course we were shown how to remove/replace/clear our mask in the pool. We then took turns doing it. If the student was able to do it then that was it. When we got to open water we were asked to do it again. So I think I demonstrated it a total of two times. While I was able to do it as was the rest of my class, we were hardly "masters of the skill". But the skill was checked off and we all passed the class. I suspect that's pretty much how it's done today. As long as a student can do the skill at least once successfully, whether they have it "mastered" or not, they are passed.

Perhaps it is time to drop the phrase "master" or "mastery" if that is indeed how PADI or any other agency describes what level a student is to obtain in the OW class.

 

[NAM001]

I believe the 17-21 is true. It has to be tempered in so far as it takes 17-21 with no prior exposure to the skill. for instance mask clearing. a student may have been a snorkler prior to taking the ow class. the finning and mask clearing process of 17-21 has already been done. The student demonstrates it once and is passed on the skill for having demonstraitng the required minumum level of proficency.

I believe you are referring to the Egstorm study that buddy breathing had to be done successfully 17-21 times to be considered mastered. Others have argued that he was actually referring to any complex task, but that is not how I read it originally. Some people have used that study as saying that many repetitions are needed for ANY task to be learned, and that is simply not true.

The number of times a task needs to be performed for mastery depends upon the difficulty of the task and the natural ability of the student. Purging a regulator certainly does not take 15 tries for anyone. Clearing the mask is simple for some but more difficult for others. When I took my first scuba lesson, I cleared my mask easily the first time I tried it and never had a problem with it after that. Others take a lot longer.

There is no way a number can be put on it. You simply keep at it until you are satisfied the student has it done well enough to be able to do it successfully whenever it is needed. If the student struggles with mask clearing and finally gets it done with some effort, then the student is not there yet and needs more repetitions.

 

[endurodog]

Since there has been some question about what Mastery of a skill is under the PADI system, here is their definition~

During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined
as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance
requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable
manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level.

 

[boulderjohn]

I certainly don't think you need to do some of the skills that were listed that many times or even close to it to "learn" it. But I'm under the impression that PADI says you need to "master" it. It's just my opinion that most students would need to demonstrate any said skill several times before they can master it. I know when I took my course we were shown how to remove/replace/clear our mask in the pool. We then took turns doing it. If the student was able to do it then that was it. When we got to open water we were asked to do it again. So I think I demonstrated it a total of two times. While I was able to do it as was the rest of my class, we were hardly "masters of the skill". But the skill was checked off and we all passed the class. I suspect that's pretty much how it's done today. As long as a student can do the skill at least once successfully, whether they have it "mastered" or not, they are passed.

Perhaps it is time to drop the phrase "master" or "mastery" if that is indeed how PADI or any other agency describes what level a student is to obtain in the OW class.

Here are the PADI standards:

In confined water dive #1, the diver is supposed to clear a partially flooded mask.

In confined water dive #2, the diver is supposed to remove and replace a mask underwater.

In confined water dive #4, the diver is supposed to swim without a mask for at least 50 feet and then replace it.

In open water dive #2, the diver is supposed to clear a partially flooded mask.

In open water dive #2, the diver is supposed to clear a fully flooded mask.

In open water dive #3, the diver is supposed to clear a fully flooded mask again.

In open water dive #4, the diver is supposed to remove and replace the mask.​

Thus, a student who shows full mastery from the start--and many do--must clear a mask a minimum of 7 times in PADI training. A student who is having trouble will do it many more times than that.

If you only did it two times, then your class constituted a gross violation of standards, and you should do the scuba industry a favor and report that instructor immediately.

 

[NAM001]

I must say that there is a difference between mastering for the purpose of performance and that for legal standing. There are always intents that must be met. Courses of instruction are written for the lowest denominator. In the case of ow if the min age is 14 it will be taught at a 14yo level. The course does not care if you are teaching those who are 20-30-50, the curriculum will be geared for a 14yo. If you are teaching an aow class the curriculum makes no distinction of a student with an OW and 5 dives in 3 weeks vs an OW with 1000 dives over 10 years. One curiculum fits all. So although you may be right that technically you did violate standards,,,, the learning did take place and demonstrated skills met or exceeded the min requirements. I dont know of any instructor that does not size up the class and make a determination, not only , of the level they can teach at, but what areas of training can be fast tracked and which need more time. The ability of an instructor to adapt to the class is to me is what makes a good training environment.

QUOTE=boulderjohn;6588469]
If you only did it two times, then your class constituted a gross violation of standards, and you should do the scuba industry a favor and report that instructor immediately.[/QUOTE]

 

[BDSC]

If you only did it two times, then your class constituted a gross violation of standards, and you should do the scuba industry a favor and report that instructor immediately.

I was actually thinking of the remove/replace/clear task as I described in my post. So it looks like you only are required to do that three times according to your schedule. I may have very well done it three times so I'll hold off reporting my instructor. Now I know for sure we only did one vertical emergency accent. How many times do you have your students do that? Just curious.

 

[boulderjohn]

I was actually thinking of the remove/replace/clear task as I described in my post. So it looks like you only are required to do that three times according to your schedule. I may have very well done it three times so I'll hold off reporting my instructor. Now I know for sure we only did one vertical emergency accent. How many times do you have your students do that? Just curious.

You are required to do act as both receiver and donor in making the exchange 3 times in CW and OW, for a total of 6 exchanges. In the pool you simulate an ascent by swimming together for a minute following 2 exchanges, one as donor and one as a receiver. In the OW exercise, you have two exchanges, and you ascend once.

 

[-hh]

What does warm water have to do with having to be supervised? I just get this "You're not macho enough" vibe every time you post that crap...

What’s being overlooked is that the demographic of the WWW customer has changed: today, there’s a far more frequent expectation that there is going to be an in-water DM to supervise them on every dive. Why? That's up for discussion. It wasn't always this way, and if we want to put the 'macho' label on those divers who are confident and capable of diving unsupervised (and aren't looking for the DM), what we are really saying through our choice of language is that the "New Normal" is now being defined as a dependent diver, because those that now the ones who aren't get an anomalous/negative descriptive label (such as 'wimp').

How do you inadequately train divers for local conditions when they are being trained in local conditions? I need some help grasping that one.

IMO, the 'local conditions' statement is purposefully vague, since if the Agencies were to clearly articulate what this means in detail, then the Agencies would "own" it and be legally liable if it were found to be deficient. By mentioning it (as ambiguous as it is), they pin this rose on the individual instructor to figure out ... and incur the resultant legal liability thereof. Thanks, buddy! And this isn't doing the instructor a favor at all, since it adds to his fundamental conflict of interest: he is motivated by financial realities of business to minimize his costs (cost of training), yet here he has been given a requirement with no clear minimum standard to defend himself with.

Where WWW enters into this is twofold. First, the Agencies can use that benign environment as the demonstration baseline for just how "minimal" a course can be, and all of the additional issues/expenses of local environments elsewhere get a hand-waive dismissal as a "local problem". Second, the instructors in these WWW environments are unlikely to get a prompt reality check on just how well the student candidates really were prepared. As such, their graduates are out the door and get 20+ WWW dives under their belt, which makes any future liability lawsuit more challenging to find fault with the original instruction's adequacy.

When I did OW training in the northeast, for example, the students were in 7mil suits, some farmer Jane/Johns with hoods and 5 mil gloves. This makes skills much harder than performing them in a bathing suit or shorty in the tropics. Throw in the cold water, often with poor visibility and mask clearing gets even harder due to the thick hood, gloves and cold water on your face. All of this has to be discussed with the students. The students were getting trained in local conditions. The fine silt of a lake or quarry lingers much longer than that of ocean sand and can create significant brown outs.

Now, if you went away for training in the warm tropical waters then wanted to dive locally, you may be unprepared.

Very little "may" in that: the warmwater diver will be unprepared and they'll have additional stressors from the introduction of new/different work taskloading elements. This is the consequence of where the standards are currently set, since all of coldwater (no matter how mild) now falls under the 'local conditions' loophole and not identified as a necessary part of a standard training class.

Probably, you would learn to cope.

YMMV, but that sounds like an admission that the 'plan' is to rely on luck.

Think about it. A person who has trim and buoyancy dialed in to the point where their peers wonder just how long they have been diving will make the small adjustments needed.

Don't need to think about it: perhaps you'll still recall my comment from one of the lost posts: an experienced WWW diver incurred uncontrolled ascents on 2 of 3 dives in one day because they changed to wearing heavier thermal protection (a single piece 5mm) than what they were used to, which resulted in larger buoyancy changes from wetsuit compression.

Moreover, a diver who has been trained to honor their limits from the beginning of their class will approach all of their dives methodically and with due diligence in regards to conditions, the training needed as well as changes in gear requirements.

Just which 'limit' would apply to this situation of a change in thermal protection? Please be specific.

FYI, the diver did successfully undergo a buoyancy check before the first dive ... and again before the second dive: not only was this again done to their own personal satisfaction, but due to the Polaris on the first dive, this second one was also cross-checked by a Certified (and American) Dive Instructor who was the dive trip organizer.


-hh

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC -- to return to your case. Remember, YOU are the instructor who is teaching in YOUR local waters and having the basic open water student demonstrate those items I listed (which as I stated is NOT an exhaustive list within "PADI Land").

It is true that sub-surface diver recovery is listed but it is also true that no one, not even Thal, has stated such a "skill" is actually relevant to the basic open water diver. You've even stated that in your vast experience, you've only been involved in 3 (count them 3) such situations and at least one of them was during a technical dive (you, as I recall, stated you were on a 'breather). Come on, this IS basic open water training for crying out loud.

You state that what was omitted was "strong watermanship" -- but what IS "strong watermanship?" In your local circumstances, would not doing all of the various surface skills "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly in the manner of an open water diver" show "strong watermanship?" If not, what more is needed?

I agree with you that there is no specific gas management planning at the Open Water level but there IS dive planning and it is a requirement for the student to show that he can "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly" create the dive plan for the dives he is about to do. There is absolutely nothing which prohibits you, as the instructor, from including the basics of air consumption planning (but, in fact, other than doing wild-a$$-guessing of consumption rates for the brand new open water diver, I really don't know how valuable such a pre-dive exercise is -- OTOH, I do know how valuable it is as a post-dive exercise).

DCBC, I know you are my "elder" when it comes to teaching (but evidently not to chronology or when we were first trained) and I, in fact, agree with much of your concerns about the standards that are accepted by many instructors, but it isn't the standards as they are written, at least within "PADI Land." The ONLY standard upon which you seem to focus is the sub-surface recovery which you (and who knows how many others out there) seem to think is some sort of holy grail (which it isn't). It IS an interesting task loading exercise but, I submit there are many other much more relevant ones to be used (such as merely requiring the basic open water student to do 2 foot ascents/descents on a line, no touching allowed, with 15 second stops AND doing simple skills like mask clearing and signalling PSI).

I ask again, IF the student can do all of the afore mentioned skills, reliably, comfortably and repeatedly while in conditions that consist of "Rocky shoreline, surf, currents, waves, at times poor visibility, very cold water (often 29-34 degree F) and the largest tidal exchanges on the planet." wouldn't that person be OK to go diving in those same or better conditions?