When is a skill "mastered"?

[The Chairman]

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?

I know that there are IDCs here in Key Largo where instructors are expected to do most of their course presentations mid water. In fact, it has been made abundantly clear that the IE here will accept either kneeling or mid-water presentations during their assessment. In talking with the PADI HQ peeps last year, they were pretty adamant that people who maintain that PADI courses must be taught on the student's knees have mistakenly turned a tradition into some sort of corporate mandate.

 

[DevonDiver]

I know that there are IDCs here in Key Largo where instructors are expected to do most of their course presentations mid water.

Key Largo is, in fact, not the entire world. PADI is, in fact, a global organization. PADI's training materials are, in fact, global.

In fact, it has been made abundantly clear that the IE here will accept either kneeling or mid-water presentations during their assessment.

As requested, please provide some evidence - materials mandated for IE candidates, IDC students or Course Directors that support this claim..

Words are cheap - actions count. What actions (published training materials and standards changes) has PADI made to mandate 'teaching off the knees'? I can see none, to date.

I don't count an editorial in the quarterly instructor rag, uncited with standards or procedural changes, to be an 'action'.

In talking with the PADI HQ peeps last year, they were pretty adamant that people who maintain that PADI courses must be taught on the student's knees have mistakenly turned a tradition into some sort of corporate mandate.

They are full of BS then.... because the mandatory PADI materials for IDC clearly state directions to teach specific skills from the knees. Likewise, the IDC video clearly shows this 'corporate mandate'...

Here are three quotes from the 'PADI GUIDE TO TEACHING'. That book...written by PADI...is mandatory reading for IDC candidates and is officially referred to throughout the IDC process...

Or how about this quote from the 2010 Course Director Manual (teaching CW section):

"[Show Clip 2 – replay it if necessary for candidates to get a good look at the scene.
Clip 2 shows the class kneeling on the bottom; the instructor has the other student perform mask removal and replacement; the assistant checks the buddy team’s air supply;..."

Blaming a prior teaching philosophy on a 'misunderstanding' is just cringe-worthy. PADI could just balls-up and admit that they had a philosophy to focus entirely on 'controlled demonstration and repetition of individual skills' in confined water - and that 'kneeling' and 'static' were the recommended control measures for instructors. They could also admit that this teaching philosophy ('corporate mandate') is changing, because it is proving ineffective at developing a more robust 'total' product within a limited time-frame for tuition.

"Misunderstanding" my arse...

 

[DevonDiver]

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).

I believe this is handled via exceptions made in local PADI HQs. There certainly isn't anything in the instructor manual that addresses it.

When I learnt to dive in the UK (many years ago), the instructor's weren't permitted to use drysuits or cover extra (locally required) skills, such as DSMB use. I believe that some changes have occurred on a local basis, that now permits, for example, instructors to equip students in drysuits (some caveats on that, though, I believe) and teach DSMB etc. Have not dived in the UK for nearly a decade, so not 100% sure of the current situation - maybe another instructor can answer that.

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 don't think PADI standards do address it at all. PADI standards being the BIG BOLD writing in the relevant instructor manuals. That said, there does seem to be an inconsistency in application of those standards, where individual instructors/schools can communicate with contacts in PADI to skirt around the restrictions they face.

I still don't think that 'skirting' can be classified as a PADI 'approach'... it isn't global and it isn't reflected formally in writing (neither student, nor instructor manuals, nor instructor training).

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.

This is how I understand it also. It is a question I asked on my IDC, because I was coming into PADI already instructor-qualified with BSAC. The direction I was given was:

PADI instructors can add training elements, but are absolutely prohibited from adding assessments. For instance, you can add DSMB deployment as a training element that you teach, but you cannot then withhold certification by applying a performance standard to that element.

Where instructors do add training elements, they must be aware that anything exceeding or additional to the stated PADI syllabus would not receive any support from PADI in terms of liability etc. Basically, you're on your own if you do anything beyond the 'bare bones' of the course requirements and/or in a manner different to that indicated in the relevant directional materials...

I believe that applies with the issue of neutral buoyancy also - you can add it in training, but cannot assess based upon any amendment of the stated performance requirements.

PADI qualifications are achieved through the 'mastery' of the rigidly stated (instructor/course manual) performance standards. Flexibility exists with training, but not with assessment for certification.

 

[The Chairman]

Key Largo is, in fact, not the entire world. PADI is, in fact, a global organization. PADI's training materials are, in fact, global.

I never intimated that it was. However, you asked if this was done, and I know that it is.

As requested, please provide some evidence - materials mandated for IE candidates, IDC students or Course Directors that support this claim..

I've met them. My honey helps with one regularly. She's pretty excited about the changes.

Words are cheap - actions count. What actions (published training materials and standards changes) has PADI made to mandate 'teaching off the knees'? I can see none, to date.

It's obvious that you've made up your mind and can't be bothered with the facts. Here is at least one IDC and IE that encourage off the knees training and you don't take that as "action". Give me a freakin' break.

I don't count an editorial in the quarterly instructor rag, uncited with standards or procedural changes, to be an 'action'.

Why? Because you didn't do it? I thought the article was great and good step forward. Teaching Scuba on the student's knees has only recently become anathema among a number of us. My NAUI ITC taught me how to plant my students in a circle around me and ingrained that need into me. There's more than one way to skin a cat. There's more than one road to Moscow. There's no need to take everything in a completely literalist fashion. Traditions change and this time for the best. I don't understand why you can't allow this to happen?

They are full of BS then....

I just don't get why you want to give PADI a black eye for changing? It's been indicated that they have been producing materials to counter the concept that kneeling is mandatory. Did you want them to impale themselves on their swords in penance? They're not perfect. They never claimed to be.

Blaming a prior teaching philosophy on a 'misunderstanding' is just cringe-worthy. PADI could just balls-up and admit that they had a philosophy to focus entirely on 'controlled demonstration and repetition of individual skills' in confined water - and that 'kneeling' and 'static' were the recommended control measures for instructors. They could also admit that this teaching philosophy ('corporate mandate') is changing, because it is proving ineffective at developing a more robust 'total' product within a limited time-frame for tuition.

Uh, they've done this. You're just not gracious enough to accept the changes without a pound of flesh. That's the real issue here: kneeling was the recommended control measure. You've made it the only acceptable method. That's a huge difference and most agencies are just as guilty as PADI.

"Misunderstanding" my arse...

I understand your arse just fine. You're bitter about something to do with PADI. It's been pointed out by others and I tend to agree.

 

[DevonDiver]

Pete,

I don't "want to give PADI a black-eye for changing". I think it's admirable. I do, however, wish to be very clear that is will be a change (if it happens). That situation doesn't exist now...and hasn't been reflected in any PADI materials or formal instructions to date. To insist otherwise is pedantic to the point of embarrassing.

This is a debate on the definition of 'mastery'. I have stated and provided ample evidence of what PADI consider 'mastery' to be. That evidence is compelling, because it originates from the materials PADI wrote and provide as mandatory training directions for students and instructors.

You have suggested that such a definition of 'mastery' is not universal to PADI as an organisation, because a very limited amount of 'interpretation' is allowed - specifically by those with close personal connect to a PADI HQ. In that respect,... the process is called "seeking an exemption to standards". It is not 'the' standard... in fact it serves to prove further what the 'standards' are.. You don't need 'exemptions' to things that aren't standards...

There has been no "misunderstanding" about the PADI standards. I've been an instructor for quite a while...and have worked on several continents. What I've seen is pretty universal and reflects the standards and directions given in PADI-produced mandatory materials. Again, I've supplied ample evidence of that.

I am still waiting for you to provide one shred of evidence, beyond vague references to informal conversations you, or someone you might know, has had with someone at PADI to refute any point I've made..

 

[DCBC]

...I don't think PADI standards do address it at all. PADI standards being the BIG BOLD writing in the relevant instructor manuals. That said, there does seem to be an inconsistency in application of those standards, where individual instructors/schools can communicate with contacts in PADI to skirt around the restrictions they face.

I still don't think that 'skirting' can be classified as a PADI 'approach'... it isn't global and it isn't reflected formally in writing (neither student, nor instructor manuals, nor instructor training).

I've often felt that PADI Instructors actively look for loop-holes in the Standards to justify additional training that they add to their program. I believe that most Instructors have the desire to turn out competent and safe divers. It's as though some Instructors feel that they have to defend a failure of the training agency, to clearly address these issues within the Standards themselves.

As I mentioned, when I taught for PADI (I owned a PADI LDS), I had a disagreement with PADI HQ which resulted in me leaving the organization. They told me that I couldn't add anything to the PADI program (I added sub-surface rescue and altitude diving tables) at that time. HQ specifically told me to eliminate these competencies from my OW training program. Divers wanting further training could take additional courses, such as Rescue Diver and an Altitude Specialty after the Students were certified. Teaching in the mountains of British Columbia, I felt that altitude tables were a requirement. PADI HQ disagreed. In the conversation, I was reminded that the PADI course taught in the Bahamas, should be identical to one offered in Norway. Obviously this doesn't consider the diving environment at all.

This is how I understand it also. It is a question I asked on my IDC, because I was coming into PADI already instructor-qualified with BSAC. The direction I was given was:

PADI instructors can add training elements, but are absolutely prohibited from adding assessments. For instance, you can add DSMB deployment as a training element that you teach, but you cannot then withhold certification by applying a performance standard to that element.

Where instructors do add training elements, they must be aware that anything exceeding or additional to the stated PADI syllabus would not receive any support from PADI in terms of liability etc. Basically, you're on your own if you do anything beyond the 'bare bones' of the course requirements and/or in a manner different to that indicated in the relevant directional materials...

I am pleased that PADI Instructors are now being allowed more latitude today than they once were. I do question however the validity of an Instructor adding content, if the Instructor can't evaluate the Student on anything outside the official PADI syllabus. Moreover, unless the Instructor is covered by PADI liability insurance, it seems counter-productive to add anything extra if they have to assume the liability for doing so.

I believe that applies with the issue of neutral buoyancy also - you can add it in training, but cannot assess based upon any amendment of the stated performance requirements. PADI qualifications are achieved through the 'mastery' of the rigidly stated (instructor/course manual) performance standards. Flexibility exists with training, but not with assessment for certification.

Understood; thanks for the information. I'm grateful that NAUI doesn't work in a similar way.

---------- Post added May 29th, 2013 at 09:52 AM ----------

I don't "want to give PADI a black-eye for changing". I think it's admirable. I do, however, wish to be very clear that is will be a change (if it happens). That situation doesn't exist now...and hasn't been reflected in any PADI materials or formal instructions to date.

I suppose that you hit the nail on the head. Standards are what they are, not what some people want them to be. If a change occurs, credit should be given to PADI. I also understand that change does take time; in-that changes have to be reflected in Standards and training materials. Andy, you have clearly demonstrated the way things are. It's quite likely that there are several PADI Instructors in this conversation who don't conform exactly to Standards (as the way they are). Although it was many years ago, my program didn't reflect PADI Standards either (altitude tables). I thought that it made sense and PADI wouldn't think that this was a Standards violation; I was wrong.

There's a roadway not far from my home which City Council approved a speed limit increase. Although it's approved, that won't do me any good until it's signed accordingly (official). I'm sure the Police Officer wouldn't be understanding, if I gave this as an excuse for traveling faster than the posted speed limit...

 

[The Chairman]

I do, however, wish to be very clear that is will be a change (if it happens).

We should be very clear then, that this is a change that is industry wide. It's not just PADI that's changing. Why single out just one agency for the sins committed by all of them?

This is a debate on the definition of 'mastery'. I have stated and provided ample evidence of what PADI consider 'mastery' to be. That evidence is compelling, because it originates from the materials PADI wrote and provide as mandatory training directions for students and instructors.

It's my humble opinion that you've failed in this. I have read other PADI instructors who have not come to the same conclusions about what constitutes mastery. Can you point to a singular incident where the student demanded that they only be evaluated on their knees? Can you point to a single incidence where PADI censured an instructor for requiring it? No? Well then, it's not a valid criticism and it is still in search of an actual problem. You keep demanding evidence and conveniently dismiss/demean it when given. What? You want me to go back to the discussions I have had with said instructors and get a notarized statement to that effect? While I'm at it, I'll fly out to California and extract depositions from PADI HQ to satisfy your need for something less vague. Get real. If you're going to call me a liar then just post that. Yet, you can not show that PADI is guilty of a single instance of not allowing their instructors to determine when a skill has been mastered. So, please, trot out your evidence that PADI censures their instructors for requiring that a mask clear be done while neutrally buoyant. I'll wait patiently as will the entire forum while you do your due diligence and trot out something other than a lot of hypothetical situations you expect us to accept because it's you who brings them out.

I do question however the validity of an Instructor adding content, if the Instructor can't evaluate the Student on anything outside the official PADI syllabus.

You're confusing a teaching style with adding content. Asking a student to clear their mask while being neutral is not adding a skill. Requiring a student to recover a non-responsive diver from depth would be adding to the curricula. See the difference?

 

[DevonDiver]

....it's not a valid criticism

Nothing I've written is presented as a "criticism". You're a little fond of 'interpreting' maybe...

As previously mentioned, I have attempted to do no more than present PADI's definition of 'mastery'. I've supported that with considerable effort researching and quoting the relevant materials to substantiate that.

I'm sorry if that doesn't confirm with your rose-tinted views, and that means you perceive it as critical, but it is nothing more than a factual presentation.

You keep demanding evidence and conveniently dismiss/demean it when given.

I've yet to see you provide any tangible evidence that contradicts what I have highlighted as PADI's 'official' and standards-based position on training at student and instructor level.

You have presented evidence of 'exceptions' to that position. That, in itself, only strengthens that a position exists - the one I have presented.

Asking a student to clear their mask while being neutral is not adding a skill. Requiring a student to recover a non-responsive diver from depth would be adding to the curricula. See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference. The skill is as defined in performance standards. Anything less than, or more than, the definition of that skill in performance standards is a deviation. We instructors are explicitly told, on pain of instructor standards and the QA process, that we may not deviate from performance standards.

As DCBC said; "PADI Instructors actively look for loop-holes in the Standards to justify additional training that they add to their program". This is exactly what you are doing with your back-room phone calls and 'permissions'. What I am talking about are PADI Standards - those applied GLOBALLY and UNIVERSALLY to all PADI instructors. Standards I have quoted again and again from the student, instructor and course director training materials.

The fact remains, PADI decide what to put in their manuals, videos and courses.... they write standards to reflect a teaching philosophy. Those standards are simple, direct and unequivocal. There is actually very little room for interpretation - except for those desperate enough to re-interpret any glimmer of ambiguity to suit their needs. PADI might be considering change.... and that might be reflected in a deliberate policy of 'fuzziness' behind closed doors and through private phone calls and chats... it is, however, not yet a formal policy set in standards and reflected in training materials at any level. Neither is it any evidence that such a policy every existed previously - I'm damned sure it didn't.

Read the quotes from the 'Guide to Teaching' and tell me what ambiguity you find there.... because I see none. "On the knees or sitting" does not mean 'in neutral buoyancy". Nor can it ever be misinterpreted as such...

Shame on you for implying that it was individual instructor 'failure' to properly 'interpret' those documents. They are, to date, PADI's formal policy on training - and are reflected unequivocally in writing in every pertinent material issued by PADI.

PADI always intended confined water training to focus on skill development and reptition. They saw 'on the knees' as the best means for doing that - which is why they educated instructors to teach that way. It wasn't the best way to teach, because it stifled overall diving development. PADI now recognize that. PADI may overcome their intrinsic organizational inertia and fear of liability to address that issue formally, in standards and materials, to effect a change. As we stand today, they have done nothing yet to effect that change.

---------- Post added May 29th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ----------

We should be very clear then, that this is a change that is industry wide. It's not just PADI that's changing. Why single out just one agency for the sins committed by all of them?

I can only speak from personal experience, but other 7 agencies I am familiar with have never placed strict limitations on their instructors about skill inclusion or assessment. That is the differentiating factor with PADI. PADI do place strict limitations on adherence to strict standards. That's why they can be singled out.

I have read other PADI instructors who have not come to the same conclusions about what constitutes mastery. Can you point to a singular incident where the student demanded that they only be evaluated on their knees? Can you point to a single incidence where PADI censured an instructor for requiring it?

So, by your definition it's "not a standard" or "not a policy" without disciplinary action being taken where it is broken? That's ludicrous...and a desperate rationalization.

I will direct you to page 7 of the PADI Instructor Manual 2013:

Reference padi.com and PADI’s Guide to Teaching for information on PADI’s Mission Statement, Tasks, Purposes and Goals, PADI Worldwide Group and Affiliates, and a complete list of PADI Educational Programs.

I have referenced those exact documents in this thread. They are the standards.

Again, from page 17 of the PADI Instructor Manual 2013:

Use all PADI diver level materials for PADI courses and programs, as well as the PADI Instructor Manual, PADI’s Guide to Teaching and the related instructor guides.


How about this from the PADI Professional Membership Agreement:

1. I have made myself familiar with and will abide by the applicable Standards and Procedures, as published in the PADI, DSAT and EFR Instructor Manuals, and, if applicable, the PADI Course Director Manual and EFR Instructor Trainer Manual, and will adhere to all standards changes published in the Training Bulletin and other updates, within the capacity of my current classification, when conducting any PADI related Program. I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member.

To prevent confusion, I will re-quote: " I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member."

Applicable standards "as published in" manuals, training bulletin and other updates. I have quote the precise standards from those sources. To date, no updates or amendments have been effected via those sources. Please argue more about your 'phone calls to friends in the HQ...'

 

[BDSC]

Honestly Andy, and I don't care one way or the other, but if this were a case in court, you would win hands down. You really can't present your side any more clearly than you have.

 

[DCBC]

...The skill is as defined in performance standards. Anything less than, or more than, the definition of that skill in performance standards is a deviation. We instructors are explicitly told, on pain of instructor standards and the QA process, that we may not deviate from performance standards. As DCBC said; "PADI Instructors actively look for loop-holes in the Standards to justify additional training that they add to their program".

PADI Professional Membership Agreement:... I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member.

Instructors do want to teach their Students to dive safely, but time is money and I'm sure many a LDS will not look to provide the Student with more training than PADI requires for certification. Especially when any deviation from PADI Standards is prohibited and the Instructor/Shop would assume all liability for any and all changes...

As I understand it, any deviation isn't allowed without the Instructor obtaining a written "exemption to Standards" from PADI HQ. I don't know how often this has ever occurred. It would seem highly unlikely, as it would tend to go against policy and present a mixed message.

The Membership Agreement does however cause me some confusion because you had stated that "PADI instructors can add training elements, but are absolutely prohibited from adding assessments." How is adding a training element not a deviation from the PADI program?

...That is the differentiating factor with PADI. PADI do place strict limitations on adherence to strict standards. That's why they can be singled out.

Andy, it has been my experience on SB that there are some topic areas that you canèt broach without running the risk of stepping on someone's toes. Any discussion of this type that focuses on PADI, traditionally has been labeled as PADI bashing. It isn't something that people want to hear, so itès not discussed and the PADI bashing cry is the natural response. People feel that you have a hatred for PADI if you bring-up any bad experience with this organization. It can get really nasty at times.

Course Training Standards (CTS) are written to address the deliverables of the Course Training Plan (CTP). Everything in the the CTP should be related to the CTS. The CTP is the roadmap to get to the CTS (destination). A Standard is not nebulous. It means precisely what it says; no more, no less. As you're aware, many diver certification agencies don't use the word Standard; preferring the words "Minimum Standard." This outlines the minimums required by the agency, but does not limit the instructor to only this deliverable. PADI is the only certification agency that I'm aware of, that limits their Instructors so much. This subtlety is also something that many fail to appreciate the reason for. PADI has been very financially successful in its paint-by-numbers method of SCUBA Instruction.

I'd like to thank you for you methodical and detailed responses. It's not something that is usual in discussions of this type.