The mo' better blues in dive training

[Colliam7]

I often use the expression ’If some is good, more is better!’ in a humorous or sarcastic way: ‘Hey, if one beer is good, two are better (substitute your own numbers for ‘one’ and ‘two’ if you wish). ‘If one day of diving is good, two are better!’ And, I am critical of some situations where that philosophy apparently guides behavior - when I work on a regulator, where it looks like an entire tube of lubricant was used, instead of a small / light amount; when I see a car festooned with dozens of bumper stickers; when I go to remove a cylinder valve during a visual inspection, and realize that the previous inspector apparently used a hydraulic press and adjustable wrench to tighten the valve; when students forget / ignore the concept of ‘finger tight’ and I have to use a pair of channel locks to remove their regulator from the cylinder valve for them. Clearly, mo’ is not necessarily better in all cases.

One place where the ‘mo’ is better’ idea seems to pop up with regularity is in discussions of scuba training – of divers, and of instructors (in particular). At times, the discussions are informative, and at other times they make little sense. In a recent A & I thread, discussing the tragic death of a dive ‘student’, where the exact circumstances of what actually happened are as murky as the water in which she was apparently diving, the comment was made, ‘We have to do a better job training divers.’ OK, who can argue with the general comment. Presumably, we could all benefit from better training, from mo’ better training, right? Of course, statements of this kind offer little in the way of details such as, What kind of training? How much mo’? Or, even more to the point, What is specifically deficient (aka not ‘better’) about the training that is currently provided? The details of the accident that prompted the thread are rather sketchy - as far as I can tell from the thread and the linked news reports a female student diver died, she was one of 3 students with an instructor diving in water that apparently had low / limited visibility, she was last seen underwater when the instructor gave a signal to end the dive (to which she apparently responded) and ascend to the surface, she didn’t surface with the group, and was later found unresponsive underwater, and was pronounced dead after transport to a medical facility. For the life of me, I can’t make a direct connection between those very limited details of the event and a scenario where doing ‘a better job of training divers’ would have predictably prevented the accident. I don’t know what happened. I guess I would like to know more about what actually happened before I draw that conclusion. I could just as easily say, ‘What brand of equipment was she wearing, and shouldn’t we stop using that brand?’

Other comments in the thread are critical of ‘short’ courses – e.g. one weekend of Confined Water training, followed by 4 Open water dives. And, some posters stated their belief that such courses produce poorly trained divers. I admit that I actively choose not to teach such courses. And, I do not believe they do a service to the student who wants to become a diver. But, that is my subjective opinion. What I certainly will NOT say – because there are simply NO DATA to support such a statement – is that short course produce ‘poorly trained’ divers. I don’t know what instrument is used / could be used to make such an assessment.

The discussion in the thread moves on, to comments on instructor training. In another post in the thread, the comment was made, ‘I don't think you should be an instructor with only 60 dives.’ And, the poster goes on to recommend that 100 dives should be a minimum. Sounds good. But, what exactly happens, with reasonable predictability, between 60 dives and 100 dives that makes the 100 number (mo’) adequate? Moreover, if 40 additional dives is good, wouldn’t mo’ be better? If an additional 40 is good, maybe an additional 100 would be better, so let’s make it 150 dives as a minimum. And, if 150 is good, wouldn’t 250, or 500 be better?

I am not belittling the comments in any way, rather pointing out the challenges of setting a number and suggesting that somehow that number would predictably produce a better instructor. I have worked with instructors that came to their IDC with exactly 60 dives, and who came out of the IDC, and the IE as careful, conscientious, capable Instructors – individuals with whom I would be very comfortable having my family members train. I have worked with Instructors who came to their IDC with over 500 dives, and who came out of the IDC and the IE as casual, somewhat imprecise, and not (by my standards) terribly good instructors - individuals with whom I would not be all that excited about having my family members train. Experience, measured in number of dives, or number of years of diving, etc is a continuum. And, all we are doing is drawing a line on that continuum and saying THAT is the proper threshold that separates individuals on the left side of the line from those on the right. I don’t necessarily have problems with people doing that. BUT, if someone wants to do that, and their line is at a place on the continuum that is different from what is currently ‘accepted’ practice, it seems to me that they should have a specific reason for drawing their line where they do, other than ‘mo’ is better’. Otherwise, aren't they are essentially throwing out random numbers that are no more valid than what is currently ‘accepted’.

I have been a supporter of the concept of ‘time in grade’ as one criterion for promotion, in academia and in industry. But, I readily admit that I can’t definitively say just how much time a given individual should spend ‘in grade’. In my experience that depends a lot on the individual.

And, as an instructor, I am all for increasing requirements, for divers and instructors, so I can spend mo' time, teach mo' classes, make mo' money. But, I am not sure exactly how much mo' is predictably better in all cases. I hope that others might be more insightful.

 

[Lorenzoid]

A friend of mine and his family recently took OW training together. Rather than doing it all over a weekend, they spread it out over six weeks, one night a week. In between classes, they would talk about what they learned, what skills they found challenging, and what they would try differently next time in the water. It seemed to me that the time between classes to mull it over made a real difference in how well they did. Maybe having time to absorb it all is just as important as the "number" (of dives, of days, of students in the class, or whatever) in a course. In other words: MO' TIME.

 

[boulderjohn]

When people compare the time required for modern classes in comparison to classes decades ago, they usually make the mistake of including the time it takes to learn the academic materials in the old classes and not including it in the newer courses.

Decades ago, the academics were taught by instructor lecture. This took a long time, with hours of lecture going on over a number of weeks. Any educational theorist will tell you that this is the absolute worst instructional strategy possible. If you compare strategies, that is the way students will learn the least.

A major change was made when students were given books ahead of time to study. The major agencies hired educational experts to design the books with the best known design to enhance learning. Students would come into class having gone through those materials and completed knowledge reviews. The instructor would go over those knowledge reviews, give check quizzes, add information as needed, and give a final exam. The whole process took much less time than the lecture method, but it is a vastly improved instructional strategy, and student learning is much greater. When people compare those classes with past classes, they not only decry the lesser amount of time, they misstate the total time by not including the amount of time it took the student to read the materials and do the knowledge reviews. They act as if the student spent no time at all learning the materials.

Then online courses developed, and these are considered a horror to those who complain about shorter courses. Once again, they apparently think these take no time at all. The online programs from the top agencies are, once again, designed by educational experts. They incorporate videos, required check quizzes, and all sorts of interactive media to enhance learning. Once the student has finished that academic program, he or she goes to the instructor, gets any necessary review, and takes a final exam in person. I don't remember exactly, but I think I taught about a dozen such students before I had a single student miss a single question on the final exam. They really learn their stuff that way.

So if you are going to compare the old and the new, make sure you are making a fair comparison on both the amount of time spent learning the academic material and the degree to which it is learned. That has indeed changed dramatically, but it has done so in a way that appears to have greatly enhanced learning.

 

[Steve_C]

Lorenzoid makes an excellent point. I have taught with condensed schedules and relaxed schedule with the same ammount of instruction. Given a choice relaxed (as long as the relaxed periods are not too long) seems better.

 

[Steve_C]

When people compare the time required for modern classes in comparison to classes decades ago, they usually make the mistake of including the time it takes to learn the academic materials in the old classes and not including it in the newer courses.

Decades ago, the academics were taught by instructor lecture. This took a long time, with hours of lecture going on over a number of weeks. Any educational theorist will tell you that this is the absolute worst instructional strategy possible. If you compare strategies, that is the way students will learn the least.

A major change was made when students were given books ahead of time to study. The major agencies hired educational experts to design the books with the best known design to enhance learning. Students would come into class having gone through those materials and completed knowledge reviews. The instructor would go over those knowledge reviews, give check quizzes, add information as needed, and give a final exam. The whole process took much less time than the lecture method, but it is a vastly improved instructional strategy, and student learning is much greater. When people compare those classes with past classes, they not only decry the lesser amount of time, they misstate the total time by not including the amount of time it took the student to read the materials and do the knowledge reviews. They act as if the student spent no time at all learning the materials.

Then online courses developed, and these are considered a horror to those who complain about shorter courses. Once again, they apparently think these take no time at all. The online programs from the top agencies are, once again, designed by educational experts. They incorporate videos, required check quizzes, and all sorts of interactive media to enhance learning. Once the student has finished that academic program, he or she goes to the instructor, gets any necessary review, and takes a final exam in person. I don't remember exactly, but I think I taught about a dozen such students before I had a single student miss a single question on the final exam. They really learn their stuff that way.

So if you are going to compare the old and the new, make sure you are making a fair comparison on both the amount of time spent learning the academic material and the degree to which it is learned. That has indeed changed dramatically, but it has done so in a way that appears to have greatly enhanced learning.

The time point is good. But I have done some online dive courses and read a lot of manuals. I generally have found the manuals, with a few excepts like rescue and DM to be very minimal. I have always found the actual instruction from the instructor provided me with more than in the manual, the only exception being a couple of resort courses but I knew the stuff already anyway.

If you make a list of basic objectives, give a manual or ecourse, and only test on the basic objectives, then e-course and manual will test out very well. I question whether they provide any where the same level of understanding that a good instructor and a curious student will get.

 

[boulderjohn]

So if we take the time for the academics out of the question, we are left with pool work and the open water dives. You have to ask yourself what has changed in those areas. Time is not mentioned in those requirements for most agencies, except that the OW dives are supposed to have a certain minimum length. There is a list of standards that must be covered during the time the diver is in the class, and it takes as long as needed to cover those skills. I have only been certified for a little under two decades, but in that time my agency (PADI) has not dropped a single standard from those requirements, and it has added more than a few. A class today should not take any less time than it did when I was first certified.

But some sessions are indeed too short. Mine was. My total pool session was two hours long. How did they accomplish that? By skipping standards. I did not do a swim or a float. I only set my gear up once. I skipped a number of other skills that the instructor either did not find important or could not be done in a pool only 5 feet deep at the max. Any instruction that skips skills violates standards and is certainly wrong.

There is another way sessions can be too short, both in the pool and in the open water. For PADI, the pool requirements have some flexible, "hidden" time requirements. Students are supposed to swim around, getting used to being neutrally buoyant, on a number of occasions. This time is very valuable for the student learning. I realized that very early in my instructional career. I had been trained to focus on teaching the skills--period. I got used to what students looked like at the end of the OW pool sessions. I also taught Discover Scuba classes in the pool, and in those classes, the object was to have fun. We taught the basic safety skills and then mostly had them enjoy diving in the deep end of the pool. It did not take me long to realize that the Discover Scuba students looked more like real divers after 1.5 hours in the pool than the OW students did after 8.

Since those days, PADI has increased the requirements for free swimming during the pool sessions, and they have increased it significantly. While doing this free swimming, they are supposed to be able to respond to requests to signal their remaining air supply, and they are supposed to be able to do that without looking at their gauges because they have looked at them on their own recently enough to be able to give a good estimate. It takes a long time swimming to make that sort of thing work as designed.

So both pool and OW sessions can be cut short if the diver skips standards or does not give the expected time for free swimming. Both of those cases would be violations of standards, and they are the decisions of the individual instructor or the shop that employs that instructor, not the agency.

 

[soggybadger]

A one size fits all attitude to training is always going to fail some students. It's not about course content it seems but the ability of some students to learn. I can give a good example. On my open water I was instructed to never go into an overhead environment because I would probably die if things went tits up.I only needed to hear this once and I didn't do it until I had received proper training. Others have had the same instructions on their open water and ignored it and died. Same instructions different students. What mean by this is that with the best training possible some people will never learn.

 

[boulderjohn]

The reason people decry the shorter classes is the perception that as a result, divers are now less safe than when diving instruction was done 40 years ago. Is that true?

In a History of NAUI written by NAUI founder and Instructor #1 Al Tillman and others, they describe the early days of instruction and take it up to the time of the writing, decades later. In that history, Tillman gives the opinion that the average student coming out of an OW class at the time of the writing of the history was a better diver than the average instructor they had when they first started.

I used to read the annual DAN fatality reports regularly, and I cited these statistics so often that I can summarize them pretty accurately. They started keeping track of the dive fatalities in North America in 1970. If you took an average of the total number of fatalities in that first decade and compared it to the average of what was the last decade (when last I checked), you would find that the last decade has about 40% fewer fatalities annually than the first decade. At the same time, the total number of divers rose dramatically. It's hard to tell how much, but there are today certainly multiples of what we had in the past. With far fewer total fatalities out of far more divers, it is hard to argue that this shows a trend toward being less safe.

 

[2airishuman]

And, as an instructor, I am all for increasing requirements, for divers and instructors, so I can spend mo' time, teach mo' classes, make mo' money. But, I am not sure exactly how much mo' is predictably better in all cases. I hope that others might be more insightful.

1) Require the pool time to be split into two different days because learning and retention are compromised when everything is jammed into one marathon session. These are nominally supposed to be four dives, I believe.

2) Be sure there's enough bottom time for students to get comfortable at their own pace. With 1:2 or 1:1 ratios it's possible to go through all the skills for each dive in 20 minutes. Four 20 minute dives isn't enough.

When people compare the time required for modern classes in comparison to classes decades ago, they usually make the mistake of including the time it takes to learn the academic materials in the old classes and not including it in the newer courses....So if you are going to compare the old and the new, make sure you are making a fair comparison on both the amount of time spent learning the academic material and the degree to which it is learned. That has indeed changed dramatically, but it has done so in a way that appears to have greatly enhanced learning.

Most of the references to the purported higher quality training of olden time make comparisons to an earlier period than you are using as a baseline -- generally from the early days of diving up through the 1970s. Has the amount of bottom time during OWD training changed since then, and if so, how?

The reason people decry the shorter classes is the perception that as a result, divers are now less safe than when diving instruction was done 40 years ago. Is that true?...

There have been many safety improvements that are unrelated to the quality of training since the 1970s. Among them are: The widespread adoption of the SPG, the use of an octopus as an alternative to buddy breathing, the introduction of dive computers, and far better understanding of the risks and mitigation techniques for dealing with overhead environments. We could possibly add the widespread use of EANx although it's unclear to me whether or not that's created more problems than it solves.

I don't think there's any way to control for all that and separate out only the effect of changes in training.

 

[boulderjohn]

Most of the references to the purported higher quality training of olden time make comparisons to an earlier period than you are using as a baseline -- generally from the early days of diving up through the 1970s. Has the amount of bottom time during OWD training changed since then, and if so, how?

Nothing has changed (except additional requirements) since I was certified a couple decades ago. I am not sure about the requirements in the earliest of days. I read an article a long time ago (maybe 12 years) that said it was common in the earliest days for students to be certified after the pool sessions alone or after one OW dive.

My cousin learned to dive in the early 1960s. He bought his equipment in a local sporting goods shop, and the salesman explained to key ideas to him--mostly about not holding his breath. That was it.