Diver Training, Has It Really Been Watered Down???

[AfterDark]

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

I'm not sure the cost proves anything. I know instructors who take a loss on training and didn't even realize they are paying people for the opportunity to teach them until I explained it to them.

Maybe that is proof that instructors don't know how to run a business like they used to back in 1968.

Maybe it proves dive shops were convinced offering training as a loss leader and making profit on gear sales was a good marketing plan that would survive the internet age.

Then why did you choose to quote the price from my post and turn it into 2018 dollars? I know how much it was worth I cut a lot of lawns and shoveled a lot of snow not to mention pumping gas at my father's filling station to be able to save for it. I only mentioned the price tongue in cheek to close my post.

After your post I offered is as evidence not conclusive proof and only because you seemed to think it relevant by calling attention to the 2018 amount.

 

[JamesBon92007]

Lectures take many times as long as alternative instructional techniques, and the students learn less. Yet for some reason people cling to the notion that they are indicative of superior instruction, and when asked to give a rationale, their reply is that it takes that much longer, the students must be learning more.

For a number of years, my job was teaching instructional technique to teachers. It was very frustrating. Despite all the research (and my own experience) showing how inefficient lectures were for teaching concepts, high school teachers clung to that methodology, refusing to switch to "some new fad." I remember an English teacher coming into the office where I worked, sitting down in wonder, and announcing that by changing instructional technique, in one class period she had effectively taught a concept that usually took her two weeks. Despite hearing her say that, no one else in the department who heard her was willing to give it a try.

One reason that some material taught in the 1960s is no longer in the course is interference theory. Put very simply for this context, the effort needed to learn stuff you don't really need to know interferes with your ability to learn what you do need to know. Dalton's Law was mentioned a few posts ago as being a standard part of OW instruction in the past. I will be teaching an advanced gas blending class tomorrow, and Dalton's Law will be part of it. I am hard pressed to understand, though, how a new OW diver benefits from knowing Dalton's Law. How will that knowledge affect basic OW diving? What will happen if it is taught in an OW class is that the effort the students put forth in learning it will interfere with their ability to learn the important things that really will impact their diving.

You have me wondering just how it is determined that the students learn more with briefer, but more concise, instruction. I'm not arguing that it cannot be done--my girlfriend spent years selling curriculum to the California public schools and the test results proved that the kids learned a LOT more with the new curriculum. With everything else being equal and unaltered, if the tests were the same then are you saying that the training has been designed in such a way that the students would retain the information needed to answer the test questions correctly, without learning anything that does not apply specifically to getting the correct answers? I probably know a lot of things that will never be on a written test, and I believe that some of the archaic exercises we practiced when I took my original course may have proven useful on occasion. I cannot say for sure because I did take the hazing type of course and it's a possibility that some of my dives might have been "incidents" but instead were pleasurable dives. Many people seem to think that swimming around with your mask covered with aluminum foil while someone turns off your air or drops your weight belt is in no way beneficial, however I'm glad to have had that kind of training and believe that I am much more likely to stay calm in a situation where someone without that training might not. Is "how not to panic" being taught these days?

As for the time required to teach a basic scuba course is concerned, I believe that it is likely that it could be reduced without much suffering. My original C-card from '69 says "20 hours" but the way I remember it we spent at least 4 hours per day, five days a week for two weeks in the classroom and in the pool so that comes out to a lot more. I also remember thinking at the time that the ocean time was not included in those 20 hours. Altogether my original course was probably closer to 50 hours. That seems like an awful lot by today's standards. Perhaps their thinking at the time was that the time spent in the pool and ocean was "experience." Today I assume the experience is expected to be gained after the scuba course. When we were given our C-cards we were being sent out into the world as certified scuba divers, ready to take on the world (2/3 of it anyway). Today is seems to me that people are given their cards with the idea that they are ready to take on another course, and another, and another. To be fair, I think if we are going to be comparing present-day courses with those of the 50s-70s, then perhaps we should be comparing one course to several courses. Not knowing the course contents my guess would be the combination of OW, AOW, Rescue, and perhaps a little more.

 

[boulderjohn]

You have me wondering just how it is determined that the students learn more with briefer, but more concise, instruction.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be thinking that I am claiming that simply doing the same thing for less time is better than doing the same thing for more time. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that doing things differently can result in better learning in less time.

In a school classroom, one good example is Project Based Learning (PBL). Students who are engaged in projects in which they create something in teams related to a topic learn much more than students who listen to a teacher explain those things. Harvard University Medical School upended medical instruction a while ago this way. They used to have students listen to lectures for a couple of years and then do an internship. They complained that the new interns seemed to know nothing, as if the years in the classroom were total wastes. So they started blending internships with classroom work from the very beginning, and they saw that when students were actually using what they were learning from the start, they learned it much faster.

Scuba has similarly changed the instructional process over the decades. It started with instructor lectures as the means of conveying information. That is, as I said earlier, the worst way to learn anything--it takes the longest, and students retain the least. The change to home study with carefully designed lessons (check quizzes, knowledge reviews, etc.) followed by teacher review of those materials in the classroom was a big leap forward. The student learned at home at his or her own pace and came to class mostly prepared already. Online work has proved even more efficient, with check quizzes, videos, and other learning tools integrated into the work. Again, the student can go at his or her own pace, going back to check earlier learning if needed--something you really can't do in a lecture format.

The biggest advance in scuba education (and in the regular classroom as well, in the places where the public allows it to happen) is in the concept of mastery learning. This is a completely different approach to education. It was introduced into scuba instruction in the 1980s, and it proved to be so successful that pretty much all agencies began to adopt it. The difference is huge, and old timers have trouble understanding it. The idea that the primary purpose of the instructor is to help students achieve success is alien to people who think the goal of the instructor is to make the class really hard so that only the fittest can survive and those who are not worthy are properly weeded out.

 

[boulderjohn]

Some exercises were removed from scuba instruction because studies showed they were dangerous.

A UHMS study on fatalities during scuba instruction found that the number one cause of those fatalities involved ascents during training. The chief culprit was a buoyant emergency ascent, followed by the CESA. In those days, students were usually required to discard the regulator before making the ascent so that it was clear they were not inhaling. Well, a lot of them held their breath and got embolisms, and many others inhaled and drowned. As a result of that study, today the buoyant ascent is not allowed to be practiced by most agencies, and in the CESA students are required to retain the regulator (except, for some reason, in Belgium). Today student fatalities from those two exercises are almost nonexistent, except in Belgium.

Another exercise dropped by most agencies for the same reason is the doff and don exercise in which students took their gear off at the bottom of the pool, swam to the surface, swam back down, and put their gear back on. Once again, the chief problem was embolisms from breath holding or drowning because of water inhalation. Although this is not condoned by most agencies, some instructors still do it. It was done a few years ago in a university class at the University of Alabama, and a student did indeed die from an embolism as a result. It was an SSI class, and since SSI does not include that exercise inits course content, the instructor was on her own in defencing her actions in the subsequent lawsuit.

 

[scubadada]

Hi @boulderjohn ,

Have there been follow up studies regarding the retention of critical information beyond the initial quiz and testing period? In other words, how would students perform on testing of the same information a year after their training? I am asking specifically about scuba training.

 

[boulderjohn]

Hi @boulderjohn ,

Have there been follow up studies regarding the retention of critical information beyond the initial quiz and testing period? In other words, how would students perform on testing of the same information a year after their training? I am asking specifically about scuba training.

I am not aware of any such studies, but in general, retention over time depends primarily upon the degree to which that information is accessed through use during that time. All other things being equal, if you have a better retention of material at one time, you will likely have better retention of it at a later time.

Years ago I had a very advanced high school student (he went to Yale early admission while graduating two years early) do a project for me in which he used calculus for some computations. I was too far removed from calculus, so I went to our math department to have someone check the work. The school's calculus teacher was out that day. Not one of the math teachers could remember calculus well enough to help me. Not one. Fortunately, there was a student teacher there who was still close enough in time to his calculus studies to help me out.

Give people enough time without an opportunity to use content, and they can forget anything.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is another factor that greatly impacts time on task for scuba.

Until only about a quarter century ago, all agencies taught buddy breathing, a practice in which an out of air diver shares a single regulator with a donor. That is not taught today because it is both dangerous (there have been many cases in which one OOA diver led to 2 fatalities) and unnecessary--everyone has an alternate regulator today.

Glen Egstrom, Ph.D, former director of NAUI and UCLA professor, did a careful study of the instruction in buddy breathing. He determined that it took an average of 17 successful practice sessions (after the initial failed attempts) for a buddy team to handle the skill confidently in a real life emergency. Put those individual members of that buddy team with different buddies, and it was a new situation. Further, he determined that regular practice was necessary to maintain that level of competence.

Compare that with the skill that has taken its place--using an alternate air source. Students become competent with that skill very quickly, and two divers who have never met can easily share air safely in an emergency.

I have never seen buddy breathing taught in an OW class, but if Egstrom's study was accurate, teaching them to do that competently must have taken a very long time.

 

[scubadada]

I am not aware of any such studies, but in general, retention over time depends primarily upon the degree to which that information is accessed through use during that time. All other things being equal, if you have a better retention of material at one time, you will likely have better retention of it at a later time.

Years ago I had a very advanced high school student (he went to Yale early admission while graduating two years early) do a project for me in which he used calculus for some computations. I was too far removed from calculus, so I went to our math department to have someone check the work. The school's calculus teacher was out that day. Not one of the math teachers could remember calculus well enough to help me. Not one. Fortunately, there was a student teacher there who was still close enough in time to his calculus studies to help me out.

Give people enough time without an opportunity to use content, and they can forget anything.

Thanks, that's exactly what I thought. I have extensive experience doing online continuing education in complex, detailed areas in the pharmaceutical industry. It is quite easy for me to pass quizzes and tests immediately following the educational activity, but, without ongoing use or application, the information is quickly lost and passing the tests would be difficult. I would be extremely interested in any follow up information regarding recall of educational information in scuba education after a reasonable latency period. My own anecdotal sample would suggest that retention of most information is quite transitory. So. what it the goal, passing quizzes and tests or retaining and using the information?

 

[boulderjohn]

Thanks, that's exactly what I thought. I have extensive experience doing online continuing education in complex, detailed areas in the pharmaceutical industry. It is quite easy for me to pass quizzes and tests immediately following the educational activity, but, without ongoing use or application, the information is quickly lost and passing the tests would be difficult. I would be extremely interested in any follow up information regarding recall of educational information in scuba education after a reasonable latency period. My own anecdotal sample would suggest that retention of most information is quite transitory. So. what it the goal, passing quizzes and tests or retaining and using the information?

Using the information is independent of the learning. If you have no intention of using the information, why are you learning it?

 

[CT-Rich]

Some exercises were removed from scuba instruction because studies showed they were dangerous.

A UHMS study on fatalities during scuba instruction found that the number one cause of those fatalities involved ascents during training. The chief culprit was a buoyant emergency ascent, followed by the CESA. In those days, students were usually required to discard the regulator before making the ascent so that it was clear they were not inhaling. Well, a lot of them held their breath and got embolisms, and many others inhaled and drowned. As a result of that study, today the buoyant ascent is not allowed to be practiced by most agencies, and in the CESA students are required to retain the regulator (except, for some reason, in Belgium). Today student fatalities from those two exercises are almost nonexistent, except in Belgium.

Another exercise dropped by most agencies for the same reason is the doff and don exercise in which students took their gear off at the bottom of the pool, swam to the surface, swam back down, and put their gear back on. Once again, the chief problem was embolisms from breath holding or drowning because of water inhalation. Although this is not condoned by most agencies, some instructors still do it. It was done a few years ago in a university class at the University of Alabama, and a student did indeed die from an embolism as a result. It was an SSI class, and since SSI does not include that exercise inits course content, the instructor was on her own in defencing her actions in the subsequent lawsuit.

I have no doubt that some of the skills I was taught in my 1980 class should have been discontinued. Buddy breathing is history and I can certainly see why some others like CESA are not worth the risk to students. What I did in the hours of pool time was gain muscle memory for some of the most basic skills. Mask clearing, sweeping to find a lost regulator. Setting up my rig snorkel skills. Peak buoyancy control was not really a thing at the time, so yeah we did things on our knees. But it was FUN. We had time to practice skills and learn useless ones like blowing bubble rings and breathing off a tank without a regulator.

The largest attraction to the online learning experience is not that it is better, rather it is more cost effective. The agency sells a product that is consumed (in the old days it was the book and the plastic tables and the C-card) today it is the online class, whatever comes in the plastic pouch and the C-card. The instructor had to work a lot harder in 1980 than today and the agency earned a lot less (this is an assumption, correct me if I am wrong). I doubt you would have many casually interested students committing to the 1980 training because of the cost and time would involved these days. My training in 1980 was $125, $35 for the checkout dives.

That old style of training was not a sustainable model. Short term retention is better with self study, but with the limited reenforcement, the skills will be gone within a short period. So they focus on fewer skills and encourage you to get out diving, practice them, and take another course.

Someone pointed out the quality of the instructor was super important, that is only half true. The quality of the student is critical. Someone that has been weened on JYC and Sea Hunt and dreamed of diving is going to be a better student than someone that is heading to a resort and thinks this might be a nice distraction between tennis games and bar hops. A motivated student will over come the inadequacy of any teacher.