Modularized Training vs all-at-once

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!

tursiops

Marine Scientist and Master Instructor (retired)
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Messages
18,171
Reaction score
18,722
Location
U.S. East Coast
# of dives
2500 - 4999
There are number of threads on SB – one going right now – about modular, sequential training for cave diving. The argument is that one should learn some new skills and then dive with them for a while and get into a comfort zone based on in-water experience, and then take the next steps. The training agencies offer modularized courses to suit that need.

The same modularized approach is deemed to be appropriate for technical training; one doesn’t jump immediately into hypoxic trimix without spending some time getting used to lesser kinds of tech dives. No one seems to argue about the concept.

The only arguments involving this modularized approach are about the detailed separation/boundaries between the various modules…an example is exactly what should (say) Cave 1 contain in its requirements, and what should be allowed for diving afterwards as a (say) Cave 1 diver? Or what should (say) the depths limits be for Deco Procedures?

There are also threads on SB that denigrate the same modularized approach for OW training as being money grabs by agencies. Never mind that the market prefers a series of shorter courses to one long one, never mind that the customers don’t all want to go deep or learn Nitrox, etc. They may wish to progress later, and then can take the next module.

Yes, I understand that OW classes used to be a “thousand hours long” and only the brave and strong passed….but that was then, and this is now, and lamenting “how it used to be” is a little like saying “so I refuse to think there might be different and better ways to do things, what I learned and how it was taught many years ago was good enough.”

If the one-course-that-contains-everything for OW training were a good idea, I suspect some enterprising agency could offer it……but it does not exist. Perhaps it is deemed that (a) the market doesn’t want it, or (b) people can’t usually absorb so much info all at once?

So I do not understand the apparently total acceptance of modularized training for cave and tech but not for OW.
 
The difference, for me, is that for technical/cave training modules are designed to incrementally add to a diver's envelope -- deeper in the cave, deeper on the wall, etc. -- but we're talking about divers that are, for the most part already fundamentally competent and are, diving within limits of their certification, competent and safe to do that by the end of the module. Those are vastly smaller pools of divers and instructors and while not perfect, there are far fewer crappy instructors, proportionally.

OW class these days, on the other hand, does not generally produce divers that are safe to dive to the boundaries of their certification. They continue to require supervision and there's a lot of real learning that still needs to take place. Functionally, the system seems to assume that new open water divers will have enough judgment to treat themselves as apprentices and only dive with a DM in relatively benign environments. Their "training" often has to be completed by whatever unlucky DM has to help them on their first "real" dives as they don't remember how to equalize, control their buoyancy, weight themselves, stay off the reef, or hold a safety stop.

I'm sure definitions of what would be in "one-course-that-contains-everything" for OW would differ. I don't think it needs to cover everything. But for me, where I criticize the status quo is that it has taken things that ought to be part of BASIC training and turned them into electives.

Making "Buoyancy" a specialty class is absurd. Same with "Deep": certifying OW divers without any particular deep training or experience, knowing they will immediately go on wall dives to 100', is ridiculous. These days, nitrox ought to be mandatory training. More time on equipment as well.

If I were scuba-emperor, I wouldn't go back to the old days, but I would make the OW class about twice as long as it is and cover the things that we KNOW almost all these divers will be doing and needing. Generally, it seems to me that something clicks for most new divers somewhere between dives 10 and 20 and they start to "get it" and their comfort level goes way up. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have OW class that requires about twice as much time and diving as the current system, so that we're producing divers that are at, or very close to, that inflection point where they are comfortable in the water.
 
There are number of threads on SB – one going right now – about modular, sequential training for cave diving. The argument is that one should learn some new skills and then dive with them for a while and get into a comfort zone based on in-water experience, and then take the next steps. The training agencies offer modularized courses to suit that need.

The same modularized approach is deemed to be appropriate for technical training; one doesn’t jump immediately into hypoxic trimix without spending some time getting used to lesser kinds of tech dives. No one seems to argue about the concept.

The only arguments involving this modularized approach are about the detailed separation/boundaries between the various modules…an example is exactly what should (say) Cave 1 contain in its requirements, and what should be allowed for diving afterwards as a (say) Cave 1 diver? Or what should (say) the depths limits be for Deco Procedures?

There are also threads on SB that denigrate the same modularized approach for OW training as being money grabs by agencies. Never mind that the market prefers a series of shorter courses to one long one, never mind that the customers don’t all want to go deep or learn Nitrox, etc. They may wish to progress later, and then can take the next module.

Yes, I understand that OW classes used to be a “thousand hours long” and only the brave and strong passed….but that was then, and this is now, and lamenting “how it used to be” is a little like saying “so I refuse to think there might be different and better ways to do things, what I learned and how it was taught many years ago was good enough.”

If the one-course-that-contains-everything for OW training were a good idea, I suspect some enterprising agency could offer it……but it does not exist. Perhaps it is deemed that (a) the market doesn’t want it, or (b) people can’t usually absorb so much info all at once?

So I do not understand the apparently total acceptance of modularized training for cave and tech but not for OW.
Three points I frequently make when talking about "now versus then" with customers:
  • We are NOT training Navy Seals. (Or frogmen)
  • I do not feel that to do my job right, I should be frequently "washing out" students that don't measure up.
  • We are training divers as young as 10 year olds to dive safely and to enjoy it.
 
In 1975 my OW first-degree cours was 9 months long. It was mostly done using pure oxygen CC rebreathers or in free diving, and was very, very hard. It did include deep diving down to 50m in air, with deco stops, caverns, and even one dive under 1m thick ice.
At the end, the 10% of us who were certified had got a level of training very close to a Navy Seal.
Was this the proper way?
No, in my opinion. I was one of the first instructors working actively for changing this approach, and making it possible to be certified in just one week, when on holidays in a tropical resort.
I am happy that now this is the common practice, so most people can start diving with minimum effort, and then improve gradually their skills up to a level which is the proper one for them.
 
I believe that any non-urgent training course should have clear and stated objectives, clear pre-requisites (if any), and be designed in such a way that any able-minded and able-bodied person who meets the pre-requisites who puts forth the expected effort will complete the class successfully in the time allotted if given a competent instructor.

Now, when designing a training program to meet those standards, a person must also contemplate how to organize the course to ensure all those things are met AND to ensure that the class is "friendly" enough to attract both high-quality instructors as well as adequate numbers of students. While I'd love for the first level of diver training to result in divers that are competent with their buoyancy, trim, knowledge of decompression theory, gas planning, navigation, emergency procedures, self-rescue and rescue of others (as that's a basic list of characteristics of a "good" open water diver in my opinion), the reality is that such a course would be too long to attract adequate numbers of students to keep the sport alive in today's society. So, we have to accept classes that take those goals and break them down into smaller pieces. As a result, I'd say we DO currently have modular training for OW. We don't take divers straight to "fully competent divers". We have certified divers that are denied going on dives because they don't yet have the training (to go that deep, or to deal with those conditions) etc.
 
Back when I was certified as a Cave Diver, we learned to dive with stages and there was no Advanced Cave certification. Same with my Trimix certification, there was no 100M limit.
As an instructor, having students die shortly after training, looks really bad. We were taught to use our brains and if our instructor thought that our brains were inadequate, we didn't get the card.

Michael
 
I believe that any non-urgent training course should have clear and stated objectives, clear pre-requisites (if any), and be designed in such a way that any able-minded and able-bodied person who meets the pre-requisites who puts forth the expected effort will complete the class successfully in the time allotted if given a competent instructor.

Now, when designing a training program to meet those standards, a person must also contemplate how to organize the course to ensure all those things are met AND to ensure that the class is "friendly" enough to attract both high-quality instructors as well as adequate numbers of students. While I'd love for the first level of diver training to result in divers that are competent with their buoyancy, trim, knowledge of decompression theory, gas planning, navigation, emergency procedures, self-rescue and rescue of others (as that's a basic list of characteristics of a "good" open water diver in my opinion), the reality is that such a course would be too long to attract adequate numbers of students to keep the sport alive in today's society. So, we have to accept classes that take those goals and break them down into smaller pieces. As a result, I'd say we DO currently have modular training for OW. We don't take divers straight to "fully competent divers". We have certified divers that are denied going on dives because they don't yet have the training (to go that deep, or to deal with those conditions) etc.

You have accurately described what, in my opinion, is the problem. Truncating the course, at the expense of core basic competency, because "you have to" in order to attract "enough" divers is getting the priorities backwards. You don't have to teach all that stuff you list, but expecting decent buoyancy, trim and a basic understanding of equipment -- beyond what is taught in OW class now -- is not unreasonable. The goal isn't more certifications, it is training safe divers that stay in the sport.

The idea that "certified divers get denied for dives because they don't yet have the additional training" is wishful thinking. An OW card is, almost everywhere, a ticket that allows you to dive on walls, in current, in low vis, at night, etc. What percentage of people on the dive boats in Cayman or Cozumel have anything beyond OW? Some are nitrox or AOW, sure, but I bet it's less that 1/4.

If you want a system to churn out minimally capable divers who require supervision or limited dives, then have a certification for "OW Supervised Diver" or something that requires DM supervision in smaller groups or something. That's the problem with "modules" for OW divers, as opposed to technical training. The "modules" at the OW level are basic skills that are essential to safe diving. For the most part, I think OW is the only level where it is obviously (and usually) the case where your certification qualifies you to do dives for which you have not been adequately trained.

I see divers, or former divers, all the time that have quit the sport because their OW class was so minimal they never got comfortable. If you want to keep the sport growing, right now the biggest problem is not diver certification, it is diver retention. The statistics on how many "certified" divers no longer dive are remarkable and, in large part, I think that is because of the minimalist approach to certification in the first place. I'd rather lose some people up front if it means we retain more in the long term.
 
Passing on the anecdotes about ye good olde times, it's a fact that from a purely pedagogical pov many students learn more easily by being given bite-sized chunks of the curriculum rather than having to swallow a whole cow in one helping.

Also, if the student is a stereotypical warm water vacation diver rather than a club diver in a mentoring environment, there's a few good things to be said about learning some, then going diving a little to get experience, then learning a little more, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Train smarter: not harder. This also requires that we teach smarter as well. Over the past 50 years of diving, I've seen more than my share of crappy divers. Most Scuba instructors from yesteryear were pretty crappy in my estimation. There are a few of us who have changed the way we were taught to teach and for good reasons. Teaching control increases comfort, safety and FUN. It also makes it easier to teach everything else. To me, that's teaching smart. I truly believe that control (trim and buoyancy) are the foundational skills all other Scuba skills are built on.

So sure: compartmentalize the learning. Once you have your cert, you can figure most of this stuff on your own, or you can hire an individual(s) to help you learn it. Whether you get certs or not doesn't matter. You need the knowledge, skills and context (experience) to keep pushing your envelope. Certs tell everyone else what you're supposed to have learned. But your actual level of diving? That's up to you, not your instructor you who you paid next to nothing for a bit of their time. It's your dive and your ass is on the line should it go bad.
 
im not a caver , so this is from a technical instructor view ....im not a big fan of all at once training , its hard on me and the student , I see SO MUCH zero to hero ...and it just doesn't sit well with ,me .........I still think you should have to be an AI and work with an instructor for a couple years before you can teach ..............so it would make better students in my opinion if they had to put in more dives than most courses require ......jm2c
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom