When is a skill "mastered"?

[The Chairman]

I have never had a student even remotely give a sign that they weren't happy to be taught that way.

To coin a phrase, perhaps it's a criticism in search of problem.

 

[DevonDiver]

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

John, I am merely trying to identify the PADI interpretation of 'mastery'. I am using the official documents to identify that; the latest Instructor Manual (2013) and the 'Guide to Teaching' - coupled with the Course Director manual and IDC program. These are the sources we (instructors) are told to use - and to not amend or supplement in any way. In a large, global, organization that directs 0000's of instructors in diverse locations, and which stated aims for global syllabus 'consistency', those documents must be considered 'canon'.

Karl's editorial in the Undersea Journal wasn't 'canon'. It wasn't the implication of a 'standard'; words like 'suggested' and 'recommended' make that clear. Otherwise, it'd be reflected in the 2013 manual (published after the article) or in BOLD within the training revisions section of the UJ (not as an editorial).

Likewise, it seems implausible that PADI would wish to disseminate new training standards via the receipt of speculative phones calls from instructors at their regional offices. For a global organization with 0000's of instructors that would inefficient beyond belief.

For those reasons, and using those sources, I do believe that PADI have a flawed approach to 'mastery'. That being, a focus on individual skill attainment at the expense of realistic skill application.

If PADI felt differently, it could easily and swiftly be rectified by clear, concise direction in the instructor manual - direction that would not require ambiguous interpretation or 'phone calls to the HQ' to quantify or seek approval.

Instructor Manual 2013: "11. Remove, replace and clear a mask."

could become...

Instructor Manual 2014: "11. Whilst maintaining neutral buoyancy, remove, replace and clear a mask."

Likewise, the introduction of neutral buoyancy could be brought forwards in the syllabus (hover moved from dive #4 to dive #1) and specifically emphasized in performance standards for subsequent skills thereafter.

This may happen in the future - there are whispers of changes to be made. It didn't happen yet. I am talking about PADI's definition of 'mastery' right now... not speculating on how PADI may change that definition in the future.

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?

No, I am imagining a scenario where a student does not pass OW, or has to pay for additional OW lessons, because an individual instructor institutes performance standards above the 'norm'. That student then compares experiences with their peers who trained/certified at the norm. That student then takes offense at the additional time/financial cost for them to achieve the same certification, to the same alleged standards, as their peers and feels they were 'ripped off'.

My caveat is that student perspectives on the cost/quality relationship tend to vary regionally. Whilst a student may be more willing to appreciate cost/quality in the temperate waters of the USA, the same perspective is far less likely amongst the hordes of SE Asia or other high-volume tourist/holiday diving destinations.

Whilst you may find it implausible that a student would express outrage at being 'asked to do more' for their qualification (if doing more meant attaining more), I see the stark reality of that day-in, day-out. It's depressing.... it's also why I rarely teach entry-level diving any more, except for rare private lessons with rare individuals who want to become 'good quality' divers. Maybe 1 in 50 of the inquiries I get reflect that demand (at OW level) for quality.

The demand for quality tuition tends to increase in line with the advanced nature of diving - I do notice that with technical diving there is a much higher demand for quality and price of training is a factor of much lower consequence.

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?

It is my experience that when this teaching philosophy is stated, along with the increased commitments in time and money that it demands, the vast majority of potential students search elsewhere for tuition, where there prime selective factors are; cheapest cost and shortest time in order to receive their 'plastic card'.

I am confident to predict (and slightly envious) that you do not encounter the same attitudes regularly in your part of the world.

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?

I see that all direction in respect of 'mastery' is limited only to the exact requirements of the stated BOLD PRINT performance standards. If the performance standard says: "remove, replace and clear a mask", then that is what is assessed. Nothing more, nothing less. No additional requirements for assessment.

I posed these same exact questions on my IDC. My comments here reflect the answers I was given at that time. "Thou shalt not add performance requirements when assessing student divers".

PADI are explicit wherever they wish to direct specific environmental factors into performance standards. For instance "In water too deep to stand....", "...in shallow water." or "With minimal assistance...". If they demonstrate that explicit direction with so many factors in performance standards, why would they choose such an ambiguous and ill-defined intent with regards to others?? Why wouldn't they add the necessary directions... "Whilst maintaining neutral buoyancy...." etc etc???

PADI are very good in removing ambiguity from their syllabus and standards. It is their stated aim to do so. Consistency is what they want - applied globally by all instructors at all locations.

The points presented by some people in this thread seem to indicate that PADI has a deliberate policy of enforced ambiguity. That BIG BOLD standards are intentionally left open to interpretation on an individual case-by-case basis. I find that absolutely implausible, given PADI's stated aims and goals to achieve globally consistent certification standards.

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?

Yes, I would feel compelled to comply with both (a) and (b) as certification standards. I feel it would be a breach of training/instructor standards to do otherwise. Although I would counsel a student towards more training, I don't believe I could 'demand' it for certification.

This was/is par-for-the-course in popular tourist destinations that I've previously worked (i.e. Thailand). Instructors certified on exactly that basis and some (the more diligent) had reservations about doing so on many occasions.

That is why I wouldn't put myself into that situation in the first place. I am at a stage as an instructor where I don't feel obliged to compromise my ethics in order to meet a lower definition of 'mastery' - I do so my not offering those entry-level courses other than under pre-agreed conditions (extra dives/cost) and on a one-to-one basis where I can be reasonably certain of achieving in training a higher quality that will exceed the stated assessment performance standards.

 

[ozzydamo]

A true master is someone that does something with consummate ease, makes a task look easy, second nature.....giving an anybody could do that feeling to the on lookers.

Devoid of any anxiety, nervousness and anticipation.

 

[boulderjohn]

When anything is written, it has to use imperfect language, and sometimes things do need further explanation because of the way people are misinterpreting things. Sometimes people get too hung up on specific language and get very precise with it in ways that were never intended. It happens everywhere, and it happens with PADI. I will give you two specific instances as examples.

1. Fin Pivot: The purpose of the fin pivot was very simple--teach the students that when neutrally buoyant, inhaling makes them rise in the water column and exhaling makes them sink. That was the sole purpose of the exercise. PADI learned that instructors were obsessing over the form of the fin pivot and forcing students to work forever on getting the mechanics of the fin pivot, a maneuver that has no purpose in diving, absolutely perfect. Instructors were putting weights on their students fins to keep them on the floor of the pool. Realizing this, PADI changed the standard so that anything that teaches the effect of breathing on neutral buoyancy is OK, and doing a perfect fin pivot is not necessary.

2. Removal/Replace "on the bottom": Several years ago, when we were discussing teaching students neutrally in the Instructor to Instructor forum, people pointed out that the standards for CW #5 called for students to remove and replace the scuba unit and weight belt both on the surface and on the bottom. They argued that the phrase "on the bottom" meant that the student must be solidly anchored to the floor of the pool. I contacted PADI for an explanation, and they replied that "on the bottom" was always intended to mean "as opposed to being on the surface." Yes, most people do it while anchored to the floor, but it doesn't have to be done that way. The wording, they admitted, was unclear.

PADI has announced a lot of changes coming in the next year, and they have flat out said to me that the reasons for these changes are exactly what is happening in this thread. Wording will be revised, and new requirements added.

 

[Peter Guy]

Andy -- Thank you for being clear and precise in your response to my questions. Just to be clear, in your understanding of the PADI Standards, the phrase "in the manner expected" has no significance -- or perhaps to turn the question around, WHAT DOES the phrase mean as you understand it?

As I think I've stated, my recollection from my "formal" instructor training is that it has zero meaning.

 

[DevonDiver]

PADI has announced a lot of changes coming in the next year, and they have flat out said to me that the reasons for these changes are exactly what is happening in this thread. Wording will be revised, and new requirements added.

I believe this could be a very positive step - and could significantly shake up the conduct and quality of courses in a lot of locations.

Do you know if those changes will also be reflected in the IDC process? This is where instructors are given the 'interpretations' to use... and an area where some ambiguities are obviously becoming set-in-stone approaches.

The way that I've interpreted the issue of performance standards (assessments for qualification) is based on what I was unequivocally taught on IDC.

Just to be clear, in your understanding of the PADI Standards, the phrase "in the manner expected" has no significance -- or perhaps to turn the question around, WHAT DOES the phrase mean as you understand it?

As I think I've stated, my recollection from my "formal" instructor training is that it has zero meaning.

Yes, also from my 'formal' instructor training it has no meaning. My interpretation - in keeping with guidance/direction I was given on IDC - is that it applies only to the specific wording of the individual performance standards. It doesn't 'open the flood gates' to a wider interpretation of OW level ability.

I've always felt that the PADI approach lacked a 'big picture' or 'end result' focus - concentrating too much on the micro (development of individual skills) rather than the macro (overall competence as a diver).

Unlike tech-level diving, there is no final judgement call or procedure for the instructor to assess that overall competence or big picture 'mastery'. I see that some instructors have chosen to 'interpret' the performance standards to achieve that - but I believe that interpretation is well beyond what PADI authorize us to do in their training standards.

It would be a very good thing if PADI amended those standards to focus equally, if not more so, on the macro rather than the micro aspects of training... without the necessity of ambiguous interpretations..

 

[The Chairman]

The way that I've interpreted the issue of performance standards (assessments for qualification) is based on what I was unequivocally taught on IDC.

Perceptions and techniques change. It was once taught that the best way for the instructor to be in control of their class was to keep them on their knees with the instructor only on one knee. While this gave the instructor a modicum of control, it deprived the student of learning control. If you really want to control your students, give them the tools to do it themselves. I've had skeptic after skeptic, including some PADI Pros, try this and find that their actual control increased with the overall competency of their class. In fact, they comment that they have stopped having students bolt to the surface. Why? Students enjoy being in control and don't get spooked. Being able to do a skill while being neutral and not kneeling only makes sense to me and demonstrates that the skill has actually been mastered.

I was at PADI's after Dive Show Tech demo last year at their HQ and was able to talk to many of their peeps. It was suggested more than once that I should become a PADI instructor, and I indicated that this would not work since my students never, ever kneel. There were three of them there and their combined response was that this type of class was well within PADI standards. Yes, there are other issues that remain like the CESA, the snorkel and even having to follow a specific sequence. However, I wonder now if the sequence is that set in stone. Is it a suggestion or a standard? I know NAUI, SDI and NASE all allow and even encourage the instructor to change the sequence when they see fit, just as long as all of the skills are mastered.

 

[DevonDiver]

Perceptions and techniques change. It was once taught that the best way for the instructor to be in control of their class was to keep them on their knees with the instructor only on one knee.

Are you implying or stating that the methods of instructor development training have now changed to reflect an early transition to neutral buoyancy? IDC/IE candidates are now schooled to demonstrate and evaluate skills off the knees? Are assessed as such on IE?

What revisions to the CD manual and/or update materials reflect this policy change?

Image from GOPRO UTILA - MSDT Instructor Internship Training


Image from PADI website - GOPRO Staff Instructor Page

Image from PADI website

Image from PADI website - Divemaster training

If you really want to control your students, give them the tools to do it themselves. I've had skeptic after skeptic, including some PADI Pros, try this and find that their actual control increased with the overall competency of their class. In fact, they comment that they have stopped having students bolt to the surface. Why? Students enjoy being in control and don't get spooked. Being able to do a skill while being neutral and not kneeling only makes sense to me and demonstrates that the skill has actually been mastered.

I agree wholeheartedly.... it's hardly a 'new' innovation though. It was (is?) only PADI's training and performance standards that prevented/discouraged this to date. Other agencies have allowed such 'innovative' methods... even within PADI, there are instructors who've been quietly getting along with this long before it became 'fashionable' since the UJ article was published..

Encouragement to 'teach off the knees' is evident throughout the PADI system. It's what made the 'Tech Deep' manual such a joke in the tech community. It's seen in virtually every PADI material and manual...

PADI release the brand new CCR materials around now.... Not seen them yet, but I'd wager there's some kneeling shenanigans in there too...

Yes, PADI are for changing... we've been hearing whispers of that for the last year. Don't under-estimate how much of a BIG shake-up that will involve if it is truly to be a resolute change in teaching philosophy... materials, books, videos, manuals, instructor training methods, instructor-trainer training methods... the list goes on... There will be a lot of inertia to overcome... and probably quite a few 'pros' who will neither want nor be capable of adapting to what is, in essense, a much more demanding (but successful) method of training delivery.

 

[DCBC]

... I do believe that PADI have a flawed approach to 'mastery'.... ...PADI are very good in removing ambiguity from their syllabus and standards. It is their stated aim to do so. Consistency is what they want - applied globally by all instructors at all locations. ...The points presented by some people in this thread seem to indicate that PADI has a deliberate policy of enforced ambiguity. That BIG BOLD standards are intentionally left open to interpretation on an individual case-by-case basis. I find that absolutely implausible, given PADI's stated aims and goals to achieve globally consistent certification standards. ...Yes, I would feel compelled to comply with both (a) and (b) as certification standards. I feel it would be a breach of training/instructor standards to do otherwise. Although I would counsel a student towards more training, I don't believe I could 'demand' it for certification.

Andy, how does this pertain to diving in different diving environments? I've maintained that what is required to dive safely in one area, can be quite different in another (the Gulf and the North Sea, for example).

How does PADI Standards specifically address these differences in course content, or is it simply left to the Instructor to do add content as s/he sees fit? I left PADI many years ago, because I was not allowed to add content. I've been told that this has been changed since this time (which is great).

NAUI has no reasonable restriction on additional material being taught in the NAUI program. In-fact, NAUI encourages their Instructors to teach past their "Minimum Standards." Once material is added, this additional material can be evaluated and deemed to be a requirement for certification. In other words, what is required for certification is what NAUI requires (Minimum Standards) + the NAUI Instructor requirements.

As I understand it, a PADI Instructor can add material to the PADI course, but must certify the Student if they successfully complete what's required by PADI. The Instructor added material is a nicety, but not required for certification. If this is true, how can this be accomplished from PADI's perspective? Much of the required material that is taught to keep the diver safe isn't defined specifically in the Standards and ambiguity is left to run wild. What am I missing?

With NAUI, if I require the diver to maintain neutral buoyancy and exchange scuba equipment mid-water, that's what's required for certification. All aspects of my OW course far exceed NAUI Minimum Standards. I make the course content clear to each student before training begins and also require a Diver's Medical. If the Student complains about this to NAUI, NAUI's response would be something like "That's the way it is, NAUI sets minimum standards; it's up to the Instructor to do the rest..."

 

[boulderjohn]

Are you implying or stating that the methods of instructor development training have now changed to reflect an early transition to neutral buoyancy? IDC/IE candidates are now schooled to demonstrate and evaluate skills off the knees? Are assessed as such on IE?

What revisions to the CD manual and/or update materials reflect this policy change?

...
I agree wholeheartedly.... it's hardly a 'new' innovation though. It was (is?) only PADI's training and performance standards that prevented/discouraged this to date. Other agencies have allowed such 'innovative' methods... even within PADI, there are instructors who've been quietly getting along with this long before it became 'fashionable' since the UJ article was published..

Encouragement to 'teach off the knees' is evident throughout the PADI system. It's what made the 'Tech Deep' manual such a joke in the tech community. It's seen in virtually every PADI material and manual...

PADI release the brand new CCR materials around now.... Not seen them yet, but I'd wager there's some kneeling shenanigans in there too...

Yes, PADI are for changing... we've been hearing whispers of that for the last year. Don't under-estimate how much of a BIG shake-up that will involve if it is truly to be a resolute change in teaching philosophy... materials, books, videos, manuals, instructor training methods, instructor-trainer training methods... the list goes on... There will be a lot of inertia to overcome... and probably quite a few 'pros' who will neither want nor be capable of adapting to what is, in essense, a much more demanding (but successful) method of training delivery.

What is interesting to me in this thread is that you keep forcing people to respond to you with things that you already know to be true from the many threads on this topic, especially in the Instructor to Instructor forum. I wonder why that is. Anyway, I will repeat some stuff you already know so that others may learn about it.

1. The original draft of the UJ article was about 3 times longer than the final draft. Part of what didn't make it into the final draft was the history of instruction and why it has been done on the knees. One of the contributors to the article was dive historian Sam Miller, who had good information about this, along with other contributors who were certified many decades ago by different agencies. Our conclusion was that doing initial training on the knees was a natural consequence of the lack of good buoyancy control devices in the early days of scuba. There was almost no other way to do it. Everybody did it that way. It became an entrenched tradition that continued even after the advent of BCDs that made it unnecessary.

2. As just stated above, doing instruction on the knees was a very strong tradition that went unquestioned for a long time. When we first started negotiating to have the article published, one of the first things we pointed out was that 100% of the images and videos depicting skills showed students on their knees. The reply from PADI reflected horror at that realization, and they promised that they would begin planning immediately to remedy that problem. We were told it would take several years for new sets of instructional materials to be published.

3. When we first submitted the article for consideration, we were told that the contents of every issue for more than the coming year was already settled, so we would have to be patient about waiting for an opening. That changed, because our article was published 6 months after its initial submission, reflecting the importance with which it was regarded.

4. The article was published in 2011. PADI announced in the beginning of 2013 that new standards would be in place in 2014, and I was told directly and in no uncertain terms that the content of our article was a driving factor in those changes. Your post reflects disgust that an idea originally published in 2011 did not result in new standards and new instructional materials by the beginning of 2013. Knowing how long these things take, I am pleasantly surprised it is to be done by 2014.

Finally, a question:

For about a year now, your posts and the threads you have written are demonstrating a growing hatred of PADI, yet you still teach for them. Why is that? Why not go to one of the more enlightened agencies offering recreational scuba certification? And which ones are those, by the way? Which of the other recreational diving agencies have different instructional methods?