Teaching contradictions: differing dive training philosophies

[flots am]

Now you are playing with semantics. But i'll play along and IDIOT proof what I wrote. I tell my students "avoid the problem altogether, and here's how you do it by planning rock bottom on EVERY DIVE, do not violate your rock bottom. Always have buddy awareness and follow lost buddy protocol. You can waste air but not your life. You can always dive another day by aborting your dive EARLY.

I actually tell my students that anybody who runs out of air has been really, really stupid, however even I still teach CESA for recreational dives.

At the end of the day it's much better to be embarrassed than dead.

If you can do this, you NEVER have to do CESA because it was a skill to resolve a non-existent problem created by incompetent instructors that promote bad and unsafe habits.

That's pretty much the point. 100% of certified SCUBA divers are human, and humans screw up. You can train to reduce the chances, but you can't eliminate the possibility. I would much prefer that a diver have a workable last-ditch option, than not.

If you choose not to and hence being in a situation where you are OOG in a lost buddy scenario, then you should not be diving."

Entirely possible, but the penalty for stupidity doesn't need to be death, when there's an easy way to avoid it.

flots.

 

[boulderjohn]

IDIOT that I am, I will continue to hammer students on the importance of the buddy system. I will hammer on them about gas planning and never getting to an OOA situation. And then I will show them how to reach the surface in case that fails.

 

[eponym]

I actually tell my students that anybody who runs out of air has been really, really stupid, however even I still teach CESA for recreational dives. At the end of the day it's much better to be embarrassed than dead.

I second that.

My introduction to the emergency ascents is something like . . .

In the event that you are so monumentally careless as to run out of buddies and run out of air at the same time, . . .

100% of certified SCUBA divers are human, and humans screw up. You can train to reduce the chances, but you can't eliminate the possibility. I would much prefer that a diver have a workable last-ditch option, than not.

And it's possible to envision scenarios that are not the fault of the OOA+OOB (out of air & out of buddies) diver. Coming up with examples is not hard: out-of-control descending diver clobbers you and drives you down and away from a buddy who was leading you but who has less than ideal situational awareness.

 

[Peter Guy]

Thank you Thal for writing

The more I think about it the more I realize that my opposition to most agency standards (including those that I wrote for NAUI) is that they focus on skills rather than on exercises that teach how to connect skills seamlessly.

For me, in "PADIland" this goes to the definition of "mastery" which I read as a whole concept:

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.

I've had my discussions on SB about this -- does the last phrase of that sentence, "as would be expected of a diver at that certification level" modify "comfortable, fluid, repeatable"? I contend that it does and that any instructor who doesn't evaluate his students in an "integrated fashion" is not following standards. Mask remove and replace? If the student can't do that while "diving" then the skill hasn't been "mastered." Air share? If the students can't do one without crashing to the bottom, then the skill hasn't been "mastered."

In discussions with PADI staff, it seems that this thought process is one that may be emphasized a bit more to get to the notion that we are training people to become divers, not people who can do "skills."

 

[boulderjohn]

I've had my discussions on SB about this -- does the last phrase of that sentence, "as would be expected of a diver at that certification level" modify "comfortable, fluid, repeatable"?

I had to explain this concept in general education workshops I have conducted when trying to explain the concept of standards and how the term "mastery" is used in standards-based education. It is confusing, and people often misunderstand.

To put it in terms of diving, in my cave certification classes, I was required to demonstrate a pretty high level of buoyancy skill, but my skill was not then (nor is now) at my instructor's level or the level of any of the more legendary cave divers in this world. On the other hand, those skills are way better than any OW student I have ever certified. Have I mastered buoyancy? Have my OW students? What does it mean to have "mastered" buoyancy? It all depends upon the certification level.

The analogy I used to use in education workshops is to baseball. We can describe the skills we are looking for in a shortstop when it comes to being able to field ground balls, make the throw to first, etc. That description could be made into a standard for someone to master. The problem is that the description would be pretty much the same whether we are talking about a little leaguer or a major leaguer. When Little League coaches and Major League coaches evaluate prospects, they compare what they are seeing with a mental image of what would be expected of a baseball player at that playing level. In education terms, they are looking for someone who displays "mastery" at that benchmark level of performance. The skilled evaluator can accurately judge the level of performance being demonstrated at that benchmark level.

In education terms, what is happening is what is called a performance assessment. That is how, for example, essays are graded for the SAT or Advanced Placement exams. Assessors are given a set of pre-assessed essays for training. They are thus trained to recognize the benchmark levels of performance before scoring exams so that they are all comparing the essays in comparison to the same benchmark performances as the other assessors. A person getting a high score on an Advanced Placement essay will have written something far better than would be expected of a typical high school student, but not as good as a college professor could do on the same assignment.

That is what is supposed to happen during scuba instructor training. The agency's training processes are supposed to sure that the instructor defines mastery at a level consistent with agency expectations. They must demand that the expected benchmark performance level is reached, but they should not have expectations so high that it would be unreasonable and unnecessary for a student to perform at that level.

To give you an idea of what can happen without that training and understanding, let me describe a real 6th grade student's performance in a school science fair. That student worked for more than a month on a very well-designed study related to that happens to microscopic organisms in pond water during the winter. He took samples from a frozen pond and kept them at various temperatures for a month, carefully noting how and when different life forms began to appear. He kept careful records and made an excellent display. The scoring for the science fair was conducted by local scientists who had volunteered. There were 16 of them, and each contestant drew 3 of them at random, with the final score being the average. The judges were given no training, and so had no common benchmark level of performance to use in judgment. In the case of this student, 2 of the judges gave him the highest possible score, giving him rave comments and predicting he would do very well in the regional competition. The 3rd judge gave him the highest score he gave anyone--60 out of a possible 100. He gave no comments to indicate why. The average of the 3 scores was thus too low for the student to progress to the regional competition--his performance was essentially a failure. Thus, the 2 assessors who said he had shown "mastery" were comparing the performance to an appropriate benchmark, but the 3rd was not. His definition of mastery was not consistent with the expected level of performance for that age group.

 

[Peter Guy]

John -- I think you have missed the point I was attempting to make (which means I screwed up because it wasn't clear enough).

The issue I have tried to raise here (and have tried to raise before) is that the book definition of "mastery" of the basic diving skills necessarily includes the requirement that PADI Instructors evaluate the skills as integrated to the dive as opposed to being done statically.

The obvious example is the mask clear. It appears that the normal evaluation is that the student is put on a line and then asked to flood and clear her mask. IF the student comfortably, smoothly, repeatedly (etc) does the specific skill, the norm is that the Instructor will determine she has shown mastery. It is my contention that this is NOT how mastery is defined by the standards because the "average open water diver" would not be on her knees, on a line while flooding and clearing her mask. To the contrary, the "average open water diver" would be swimming around looking at things, deciding her mask was fogged so it needed to be flooded and then cleared -- all the while staying in the water column and not hitting the bottom or corking to the surface.

I believe I am in a distinct minority here, but, I will maintain THAT is the standard and evaluate my students thusly and not "increase standards" but merely hold the students to them.

 

[The Chairman]

So what do you tell your students? "If you lose your buddy and go out of air,

First, if they figure they are out of gas the same time they figure they are out of buddy, something is really wrong.

Second, I do teach CESA, but I confine it to the pool. Only the pool. They get all the practice they need right there. But, when I am "in the game", that is, I am in OW, I simply won't do things I don't want my students to emulate. That includes kneeling and diving like a yo-yo.

A final note about getting my students neutral from the very beginning. It's just not that hard. Try it and see. If you get them trimmed and neutral from the very beginning and then gradually introduce additional skills as you go along, you'll find that teaching Scuba gets easier and easier.

 

[WeldonDowd]

I keep reading from people who know how to properly do a CESA tell people that it isn't necessary to teach a vertical CESA. My question to the instructors who feel it is not necessary to teach is: are you glad that you know to to do it? Why don't you ask your students if they want to learn a technique that may save his or her life one day?

 

[randytay]

I actually tell my students that anybody who runs out of air has been really, really stupid, however even I still teach CESA for recreational dives.

At the end of the day it's much better to be embarrassed than dead.



That's pretty much the point. 100% of certified SCUBA divers are human, and humans screw up. You can train to reduce the chances, but you can't eliminate the possibility. I would much prefer that a diver have a workable last-ditch option, than not.



Entirely possible, but the penalty for stupidity doesn't need to be death, when there's an easy way to avoid it.

flots.

By the same token, human can do a CESA while holding their breath. I wonder what that penalty would be?

---------- Post added January 7th, 2013 at 06:44 PM ----------

IDIOT that I am, I will continue to hammer students on the importance of the buddy system. I will hammer on them about gas planning and never getting to an OOA situation. And then I will show them how to reach the surface in case that fails.

And please do. Also, please show them too in case THAT fails too, you know, like from 100ft?

---------- Post added January 7th, 2013 at 06:46 PM ----------

I keep reading from people who know how to properly do a CESA tell people that it isn't necessary to teach a vertical CESA. My question to the instructors who feel it is not necessary to teach is: are you glad that you know to to do it? Why don't you ask your students if they want to learn a technique that may save his or her life one day?

No I am not glad that I was taught because it took me longer to unlearn the bad habit and shake off the false security. CESA may save his or her life, but it almost WILL reinforce and false sense of security AND build bad and unsafe habits.

---------- Post added January 7th, 2013 at 06:50 PM ----------

For the record, I do respect the old timers and their contribution to the sport, but to write standards based on "Remember when we have to ______" is a bad reference. If teaching CESA is an "important skill", you might as well teach tech divers to take spare air in case their stage and deco runs OOG. Hey, it just might save you, they say.

 

[boulderjohn]

John -- I think you have missed the point I was attempting to make (which means I screwed up because it wasn't clear enough).

The issue I have tried to raise here (and have tried to raise before) is that the book definition of "mastery" of the basic diving skills necessarily includes the requirement that PADI Instructors evaluate the skills as integrated to the dive as opposed to being done statically.

The obvious example is the mask clear. It appears that the normal evaluation is that the student is put on a line and then asked to flood and clear her mask. IF the student comfortably, smoothly, repeatedly (etc) does the specific skill, the norm is that the Instructor will determine she has shown mastery. It is my contention that this is NOT how mastery is defined by the standards because the "average open water diver" would not be on her knees, on a line while flooding and clearing her mask. To the contrary, the "average open water diver" would be swimming around looking at things, deciding her mask was fogged so it needed to be flooded and then cleared -- all the while staying in the water column and not hitting the bottom or corking to the surface.

I believe I am in a distinct minority here, but, I will maintain THAT is the standard and evaluate my students thusly and not "increase standards" but merely hold the students to them.

Ah! I did miss the point! I was trying to support what I thought was your point, and I am happy with what I wrote anyway.

As for the point, I agree with you.

---------- Post added January 7th, 2013 at 05:33 PM ----------

By the same token, human can do a CESA while holding their breath. I wonder what that penalty would be?

The penalty will probably be death. That is why I take pains to teach them the correct way to do it. If they get into that situation without any training, they will almost certainly hold their breath and die.

And please do. Also, please show them too in case THAT fails too, you know, like from 100ft?

Actually students are taught to do a buoyant ascent from that depth, but I also teach them that it is very possible to do a CESA from 100 feet. It has been done many times.

---------- Post added January 7th, 2013 at 05:49 PM ----------

A final note about getting my students neutral from the very beginning. It's just not that hard. Try it and see. If you get them trimmed and neutral from the very beginning and then gradually introduce additional skills as you go along, you'll find that teaching Scuba gets easier and easier.

I believe you are responding to a question I wrote several days ago. In it, I asked you to clarify a detail in that instruction. Perhaps I will repeat that question here.

As you know (but for some reason decided to ignore in your extremely condescending response to me), I do teach OW students to be neutral and in trim from the beginning. As you know, I am the principle author of the article called "Early Start on Neutral Buoyancy" in last year's PADI professional journal that calls for having student neutral and in trim from the very beginning. I don't know what kind of an effect you were trying to gain from your audience by telling me to "try it and see," but for the record you should know that I found it pretty darn insulting.

I asked you to clarify a detail about that. IIRC, in one post a while ago you said that your students are permitted to touch the bottom lightly as they lay in a horizontal position in the first CW dive, while they are learning basic skills. That is what I do. Then in a more recent post you seemed to be saying that your students never, ever touch the bottom. From the very first time they submerge, they are holding their position in mid water, hovering in horizontal trim like a GUE Fundamentals graduate, without so much as grazing the floor, while they learn to clear the mask, recover the regulator, etc. I can't do that with my students. Heck, I couldn't do that myself until I was pretty far along. I know a lot of instructors who can't do that. If that is indeed what you are able to do, I salute you, and I hope you will supply the instructional sequence that makes that happen. "Try it and see" isn't giving me the picture.