When is a skill "mastered"?

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!

Andy, are you really suggesting that because a student has successfully completed a skill in the pool, that student must be certified, even if they are unable to complete the same skill in OW? We do run into this, for example with mask skills, where the student can manage it in the pool but just can't deal with the cold water on the face in OW.

No...and apologies if that is how it came across. I meant merely that performance standards must be achieved with 'mastery' in CW before the relevant section of OW can begin (according to scheduling standards). The important point was simply that skills are assessed in CW and the same definition of 'mastery' applies there.

And I think it is quite deliberately ingenuous to fail to see the difference between hovering and swimming in neutral buoyancy. Many people can swim while neutral, but cannot remain perfectly still because their gear is not balanced for remaining in a horizontal position without moving.

People who can "swim when neutral, but not hover" tend to be supplementing their buoyancy with fin propulsion (downwards/at an angle). When they stop, they sink.

Hover (according to standards) doesn't have to be horizontal and/or 'stable'. It just has to demonstrate neutral buoyancy. Obviously, the more discerning dive pro aims for something more - a stable, horizontal hover.

Again... let's not 'redefine' the PADI standards. Hover is a hover... floating (in any position) with neither positive or negative buoyancy and without supplementing said buoyancy by arm or leg propulsion. It's not 'DIR' standards yet (or anytime soon). Again.... I am referencing performance standards....as laid out by PADI.

There is NO reference, not one, to horizontal hover in the PADI instructor manual. zilch. zero. nadda..

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. They need to be read....

Again, again... I am not talking about what 'could' be done... or what 'should' be done. We're on the same page in that regards. I am talking about "mastery" as it is defined by PADI. That is what we must assess against....although we can train to a higher standard.

Analogy: A high-school tutor teaches students to a 90% pass mark. The exam pass mark is 75%. His goal is to train them beyond the pass mark. If the students get 80% in the exam... they still pass. The tutor cannot 'fail' them. So it is with performance standards and the definition of mastery. As instructors, we can train higher than performance standards - but if a student fails to meet our standards, but does meet PADI's standards, they still pass the skill... they achieve 'mastery' (according to PADI).

923027_524535054275429_1061798925_n.jpg
 
Andy -- you are correct that skills are to be "mastered" in CW prior to moving along to the next module. BUT, and here is perhaps where we diverge, the "mastery shown" by a student at the end of CW 1 is, to me, different from the "mastery" shown by the end of module 5 and different from the "mastery" shown by the end of OW 4. To me, the most important phrase is the one that is too often overlooked or ignored -- "manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level." The "certification level" of a student at the end of CW 1 is, well, not much. Thus being able to flood/clear a mask while prone on the bottom is "what is expected" at that level. OTOH, being able to flood/clear the mask at the end of CW 5 or OW 4 while neutral and slowly swimming (not necessarily hovering, but just moving along) would be "expected of a diver at that level."

So, yes, you are correct (and I mis-stated) that one evaluates during CW at the same time one presents and teaches (which is always a problem in my opinion, but who cares what is my opinion -- PADI certainly doesn't! :D ). However, in my POV, the REAL evaluation comes during OW since that is where the student must truly show the integration of the skills and where the instructor is solely in "evaluation mode."

So, Andy, what do YOU do with the phrase "as expected of a diver at that certification level?" Do you ignore it or do you just say you expect an Open Water diver NOT to be able to integrate skills with being in the water column? Is it your position that IF a student, during their 4 OW dives is able to adequately demonstrate the required skills while immobile on the bottom, but not while in the water column, has met the PADI standards and must be certified?
 
I fully realize that students can hover in any position -- some of ours end up doing it hanging head down!

But it is quite possible to be neutral and unable to remain in a horizontal, diving position. Yes, I agree with you that many students are negative and swimming up -- we do try to correct this. But even the student who is honestly neutral, or very close to it, may not be able to stop swimming without going head down or head up or even turning turtle. If those students can perform the skills while swimming, they are doing them "in the manner of an open water diver". Our students begin doing this in the pool during CW2, and are usually quite able to do it during the OW dives. Doing mask skills while hovering is quite a bit more advanced than that, and really requires some time being spent to balance the diver's equipment, I believe.
 
....the "mastery" shown by the end of module 5 and different from the "mastery" shown by the end of OW 4. To me, the most important phrase is the one that is too often overlooked or ignored -- "manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level." The "certification level" of a student at the end of CW 1 is, well, not much. Thus being able to flood/clear a mask while prone on the bottom is "what is expected" at that level. OTOH, being able to flood/clear the mask at the end of CW 5 or OW 4 while neutral and slowly swimming (not necessarily hovering, but just moving along) would be "expected of a diver at that level."

You certify divers at the end of CW?

The level of 'interpretation' just went up a notch I see....

So, Andy, what do YOU do with the phrase "as expected of a diver at that certification level?"

The certification level is OW. In CW, the student has to show mastery of the skills (as an OW level diver). When that mastery of specific skills is achieved in CW, they are repeated in OW. Once all skills are confirmed in CW and re-confirmed in OW, the student is certified at that level... an OW diver.

do you just say you expect an Open Water diver NOT to be able to integrate skills with being in the water column?

I'm not saying anything. I've quoted the BIG BOLD PADI standards enough, haven't I? All you've managed to do is offer some intangible 'interpretations'.

I am trying to make an issue about 'mastery' - and how the PADI system defines it through their system of performance standards and training standards. One point I am trying to make is that the PADI definition of 'mastery' isn't sufficiently robust to include the application of skills in a combined and applicable manner.

THAT is the reason for so many examples of sub-standard 'mastery' that we see on dive boats.

To achieve anything like real 'mastery' we (instructors) have to prance around with (frankly ludicrous) interpretations. Interpretations that bear no support whatsoever in the instructor manual and 'guide to teaching'. Some of your replies, and other contributions to this thread, make that very evident.

Is it your position that IF a student, during their 4 OW dives is able to adequately demonstrate the required skills while immobile on the bottom, but not while in the water column, has met the PADI standards and must be certified?

Firstly, this has nothing to do with my position. I've made that abundantly clear haven't I?

Second... yes... if a student completes the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.... the stuff written in BOLD in the instructor manual.... the stuff that you, the instructor, cannot supplement or amend.... then you, the instructor, cannot deny them certification.

To deny a student certification when they have achieved the exact performance standards laid out in the instructor manual is a breach of your instructor training standards. The student, if denied or retarded from certification having completed all performance standards to the definition of mastery, would have every right to complain to PADI.

Adding, combining or supplementing standards - based on your own professional beliefs is not permitted. Your course, your students, must be certified to the same standard as EVERY OTHER PADI INSTRUCTOR in the world. Not above... not below. CONSISTENCY. That is what PADI want... and their standards were written precisely to achieve that.

The drawback, which I do not dispute, is that writing standards to achieve consistency diminishes from the opportunity to achieve excellence.
 
I'm not saying anything. I've quoted the BIG BOLD PADI standards enough, haven't I? All you've managed to do is offer some intangible 'interpretations'.

.

And as I have sais several times, several of those interpretations come directly from PADI Headquarters.

Andy, I suggest you sop lecturing us on why everything we have said about PADI is wrong and go directly to PADI headqaurters and tell them why their :intangible interpretations" are wrong. I think they will be glad to be corrected by you on what they think. Karl Shreeves will probably be very glad to best straightened out and told that what he wrote in the Undersea Journal is not what he actually thinks.
 
"The performance standard for hovering in CW4 is defined by PADI as; "2. Hover using buoyancy control for at least 30 seconds, without kicking or sculling."
So, when is buoyancy control taught? Obviously, the skill of hovering requires buoyancy control. That's the implied skill you want to take out of all the others.

Kicking and sculling being what novice divers commonly do to 'cheat' when they haven't attained neutral buoyancy.
Precisely, so why let them cheat at any time? I require buoyancy control as being a part of a fluid demonstration of any skill. If a skill is to be done on the surface, descending would be a fail. If a skill is to be done on Scuba, then they need to be neutral. That's all there is to it for me.

I do find myself confused by your distinction between 'hovering' and 'neutral buoyancy'. I think you're clutching at straws...
In your quote, it appears that PADI makes the same distinction. You use buoyancy skill to hover. I'm kinda surprised you think it means something other than moving?


No... what would be the point? If a student has met performance standards for a given skill, there is absolutely zero point in re-assessing them.
Then why do you repeat the skills in OW? Why isn't CW enough? If a student is able to clear their mask at the beginning of a dive, but somehow fails to clear their mask near the end or on the subsequent dive, then the skill has obviously not been mastered. If I aim at a target and hit it once at the beginning, I am more likely to attribute that to beginner's luck than to competency. If I hit the target while sitting, standing and prone, then I am showing mastery/competency. If I hit the target bent over shooting between my legs, then I would applaud and label it showing off. :D


Neither can you add your own performance standards subsequently. It is what it is... and the process is laid down explicitly in the instructor manual.

You could however offer further practice. Practice all you want - refine and improve skills. However, PADI's definition of mastery remains extant - and that mastery is indelibly linked to their performance standards. Standards which you are not permitted to amend or supplement..either positively or negatively.

Either way, as stated, the instructor cannot post-pone or retard the student's progress based upon their own performance standards.
So, you contend that if on dive one a student competently clears their mask, then if they are unable to do so on dive two, three, and four then the instructor is SOL? I just don't buy that. Not at all. As an instructor, I have not only the right, but the moral obligation to be sure that my student is competent to dive before I issue a c-card. If they regress on any skills, then it's up to me to make sure that they re-master those skills before they get a certification. To do any less would unduly expose me to legal risks, not to mention a moral and ethical dilemma.
 
Andy -- all I'm writing, and asking, is in YOUR interpretation of the BOLD PRINT in the PADI standards, does the phrase "manner expected" mean anything? This thread is about the PADI definition of "mastery" which has two basic phrases (phases?) -- one is the "fluid" concept (which is what I recall being discussed, to a very limited extent in the IDC/IE), the other is the "manner expected" concept (which I don't recall being discussed at all).

Yes, a student could be very "fluid" etc. while stationary and on the bottom, but would that be "mastery" within the BOLD PRINT STANDARDS? OR must the student not only be "fluid" (etc.) but also performing them "in the manner expected" which would mean in the water column?

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD IS ANY MORE! I am looking forward to having significant discussions on this very point in a few weeks when I take the IDCSI course. [Note -- I don't have direct, easy access to a CD so if there are any CDs still following this thread's discussion, I, for one, would love to hear YOUR take on the meaning of the phrase "in the manner expected."]

So, Andy, back to a question, IF you took a PADI referral for OW 1 - 4 and the student could do all the required mask flood/clear, mask remove/replace, while on their knees but NOT while in the water column, would you say:

a. "Mastery" was shown of the those skills; and

b. Certification must be granted per the BOLD PRINT STANDARDS OF PADI?
 
Last edited:
My two experiences today have me wondering what kind of a scenario Andy is imagining.

I conducted OW dives 1 and 2 for a single student I had not had in the pool because he needed to get it done before a trip, and this was the only chance. During our drive to the Lake, I explained to him that all the skills would be done in mid water, and that was important because it was a shallow lake with a very silty bottom. Going to the bottom would create a very unpleasant silt storm. He said "sure!" Dive #1 is pretty much a get acquainted dive, and since he had never been in a 7mm suit in poor visibility, it was necessary. He got it down without too much trouble. In dive #2, we descended, and I watched while he got himself neutral and hovering. I then took a hold of his gauges like a leash for control purposes while he did the regulatory recovery, partial mask flood, and full mask flood. Now, it was by no means a perfect, tech-level hover. He went up and down in the water column some and recovered, but thankfully did not do any silt damage. That was the level I would expect of a diver at that level of training. I then signaled OOA, and we did an exchange in midwater, without gaining or losing more than a few feet of buoyancy. It would not have passed GUE Fundamentals for that reason, but that is not his level. Then I had him go OOA, and we completed the ascent at a good, controlled rate. All in all, I thought it was a great skill level performance for an OW diver.

So, Andy, is there a scenario in which you envision a student demanding the right to kneel down in the silt and perform the skills in the billowing mud?

I then returned to the shop to put some gear away and get stuff for the next day. The shop owner was in, and we chatted. In walked a customer the owner knew. The owner was delighted to have us in the same room. The customer was planning to go on a shop sponsored trip with his son, and he was planning to have the son get his AOW from the owner while on the trip. The owner had previously suggested that instead, his should do the AOW certification with me before the trip. He had explained to the man how much I go beyond the basic requirements of the course when I instruct, and how much more the son would learn. We talked about some of those things. The man was very happy about that, and I will be working with the son later this summer.

So, Andy, is it your experience that when you tell people you are giving them more instruction than the course requires that they get all upset and demand that they be taught at the minimum level?
 
So, Andy, is there a scenario in which you envision a student demanding the right to kneel down in the silt and perform the skills in the billowing mud?
If they did, they would no longer be my student. To date, all of my students have been excited about learning off of their knees. My mantra to them is "Not a boat and not an anchor, but a fish!" I give the appropriate signs while telling them this.
 
If they did, they would no longer be my student. To date, all of my students have been excited about learning off of their knees. My mantra to them is "Not a boat and not an anchor, but a fish!" I give the appropriate signs while telling them this.

I have never had a student even remotely give a sign that they weren't happy to be taught that way.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom