When is a skill "mastered"?

[DCBC]

It was not meant as a dig and I have no idea if you were a Navy diver or not. Since I lived by a Navy Base in Orlando Fl growing up, I can only comment on what I saw and put that into a perspective that is unique to me. Watching Scuba students doing push-ups in full kit soured me from pursuing getting certified in Scuba for years. When I finally took a class, one of my stipulations was that I would not be doing push-ups.

My apologies; I thought that you knew that this was the case. Personally, I've never seen recreational students required to do push-ups with gear. This obviously was one particular Instructor you observed. I was certified by NAUI in 1965 and it certainly wasn't part of their program back then. My Navy training in 1971 didn't even include this. I suppose they felt that 10 mile runs, 2 mile ocean swims and strolls down the dock in diver's dress (Mark V) was sufficient. Gotta love the Navy Diver program...

That's an instructor competency issue that appalls me when I see it. However, since I see all the agencies producing instructors that do this I don't see it as agency specific per se. Neutral buoyancy is a skill that is at least implied in every agency's course.

I see this as a fault of the Agency and the Instructor. The Agency sets the Standards. If it was a requirement for certification, the Instructor and LDS would have no option other than to teach this way. Having been involved in Agency management, I cannot help but see that the Agency should own its program. The Standards reflect what's important to the Agency.

---------- Post added May 30th, 2013 at 06:58 AM ----------

That some, a small few, instructors interpret/amend/alter/exceed those standards (without censer) is IRRELEVANT. The standards remain - and they are as described in the appropriate documentation.

Andy, it would seem that any deviation from the PADI program (without written permission from PADI) is a breach of PADI Standards. So two questions:

1/ Do you feel that the few Instructors that you have described, who add material to the PADI program are violating Standards in any way?

You previously mentioned that "PADI instructors can add training elements, but are absolutely prohibited from adding assessments."

2/ How is adding a training element not a deviation from the PADI Standards (as outlined in the Membership Agreement wording "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member")?

Sorry, but one seems to contradict the other. Perhaps the problem is that the "Standards" are more nebulous than they first appear to be. This becomes confusing as to what is covered by insurance and where the liability rests.

I have experience as an Expert Witness in Court for diving related cases. What I've seen is that some Agencies don't seem to support any deviation from their Standards whatsoever when they are included in a lawsuit. As far as neutral buoyancy is concerned, what is required? Wording like "for the certification level" means little. Courts expect certification agencies to define the Standard of Care and compare this with Expert testimony. It's difficult to be expected to teach to a Standard if it's not clearly defined.

As far as buoyancy is concerned, to me you either can attain neutral buoyancy throughout the dive, or you can't. The only difference that pertains to "for the certification level" is depth. In other words an Advanced Student must maintain neutral buoyancy within a larger depth envelope. This skill requires greater scope for technical diving (depth) and in overhead environments where proper trim is critical (confined space/silting/loss of visibility).

It seems to me than too many Instructors violate the Standards of their Agency when they certify Divers who currently don't have the skill-sets to dive unsupervised. The excuse often given is that they will eventually learn by doing, but that seems to me to be inadequate. Why bother teaching at all? The student can purchase a book, go out and dive. They can figure it out...

What became of teaching someone to meet a given level of proficiency? I've learned and taught sky-diving, mountaineering, martial arts and SCUBA for a number of years. I don't certify someone to jump out of an airplane solo, until they meet the standard required. If I did, could they learn by doing? Quite possibly. I don't however think that that's why they came to me in the first-place. A SCUBA Instructor has a responsibility, a job to do, and a set of guidelines (Standards) that defines the Student's level of competence. If we close our eyes to this, we're simply unfit to teach imo.

 

[boulderjohn]

The article was not an editorial piece. I was a descriptive article showing how to do something.

I fined it amazing, simply astounding, that PADI can write something in their official publication that not only says it is OK to do something a certain way, it is preferable to do it that way, yet a single instructor in Asia says the opposite and people automatically assume he must be right and PADI headquarters must be mistaken in what it says about its own standards.

 

[DevonDiver]

The article was not an editorial piece. I was a descriptive article showing how to do something.

I fined it amazing, simply astounding, that PADI can write something in their official publication that not only says it is OK to do something a certain way, it is preferable to do it that way, yet a single instructor in Asia says the opposite and people automatically assume he must be right and PADI headquarters must be mistaken in what it says about its own standards.

John;

1) Show me a STANDARD that supports the introduction of neutral buoyancy from CW #1 onwards.

2) Show me a STANDARD that supports an assessment of buoyancy control (other than the hover in CW#4).

3) Show me a DIRECTIVE that confirms instructors 'are to' conduct training in neutral buoyancy.

4) Show me a ANYTHING in the PADI Instructor Manual, Course Director Manual, 'Guide to Teaching' or ANY Training Bulletin that supports anything contradictory to what I've posted.

The article/editorial, whatever... doesn't reflect any formal policy or standard by PADI. It isn't referenced on IDC is it? It isn't on any 'required materials' list for training? Nope...

I've been waiting for days for you or NetDoc to provide any evidence to support your claims. Still zero... still waiting...

I'll take your 'article' and throw the following back on the table...

...oh,... still laughing..

 

[Abdullah]

The article was not an editorial piece. I was a descriptive article showing how to do something.

I fined it amazing, simply astounding, that PADI can write something in their official publication that not only says it is OK to do something a certain way, it is preferable to do it that way, yet a single instructor in Asia says the opposite and people automatically assume he must be right and PADI headquarters must be mistaken in what it says about its own standards.

The PADI standards discussion with Andy has been an interesting read, though it's becoming painfully repetitive, and doesn't address the fundamental question of 'how' you determine the skill is mastered. Can you expand on the reasoning you raised in post #47 to clarify how you determine a skill has been mastered (please don't say "it depends")? How much does an objective standard contribute, and how much does your experience contribute to the assessment of the divers' mastery of the skill?

 

[Peter Guy]

As a result of an email to PADI HQ, I had a very interesting (and perhaps informative) discussion with a PADI "Consultant, Training, Quality Management and Instructor Development " person (who shall remain nameless). What I took from the discussion was:

a. At base, Andy (DD) is correct. There is NO PADI "Standard" that requires (important word, "requires") a student to do any "skills" (except as he has noted) while neutral and/or in the water column.

b. The phrase "manner expected of a diver..." has NO (repeat NO) objective meaning. In fact, the whole "Mastery" verbiage is only a guideline, not a Standard since none of the words are in "bold print."

c. As I think we all know, PADI does not require any "skill" to be done in any specific way (on the knees, on your back, or whatever) -- if a student can put on her mask upside down and clear it without any problems, sobeit.

d. On the academic issue/question that Andy (or someone) raised -- "What if the student could do the skills while kneeling but not in the water column, and you refused to certify, would that be a violation?" -- the consultant was, let's just say, a bit vague on the conclusion. I THINK the constultant's opinion was a refusal might be unwarranted -- but after spending 30+ minutes discussing the topic, I am not exactly sure. (And I think I had just about warn out my welcome on the particular point -- I don't think the consultant had my attorney mindset about dissecting academic POVs.)

e. I asked, and was told, the Open Water reforms appeared to be on track for 2014. As we spoke, video was being done in the PADI pool of the CW skills. I was told that "as an author of the article" (the consultant brought that up without any reference by me and I don't recall ever discussing this with the consultant previously -- perhaps our "fame" proceeds us!) I would be pleased by the changes. (Side note -- as John has mentioned in other threads, I was the one who pointed out there was only one image in either the manual or the video of a skill being done neutral and in the water column so I really do take great pleasure in learning there will be new video and images.)

f. Teaching an Open Water Class, as I do, with the ultimate evaluations of the students being done while they are in the water column (perhaps neutral, perhaps a bit unsteady but within a "decent window" of control) is within Standards even though there is NO BLACK TYPE specifying such. The "guidelines" (as repeated by Andy) are just that -- guidelines, the "bones" if you will for the course. I'm just adding various levels of tissue to "flesh out" the whole program -- and that is OK. (For those of you who don't get the references, please see Is the PADI System Flexible?, by Drew Richardson, The Undersea Journal, Second Quarter, 1993.)

 

[The Chairman]

1) Show me a STANDARD that supports the introduction of neutral buoyancy from CW #1 onwards.

You're confusing neutral buoyancy with hovering. You're simply stuck on hovering and neutral buoyancy being one in the same. In the CW session 4 you quote, it's assumed that neutral buoyancy has been already taught and that they should use it to accomplish the act of hovering. Neutral buoyancy is and should be an integral part of all Scuba instruction and I'm surprised to see you arguing against it's inclusion. The fact is, there is no standard that dictates you can't be neutral while doing this skill and you have yet to produce one. Sorry mate, but repeating an outline of one way to teach the class doesn't create a standard that this is the only way to teach that class. I get that you want to box PADI in and win the controversy, but that's not a reasonable conclusion to most of us.

How much does an objective standard contribute, and how much does your experience contribute to the assessment of the divers' mastery of the skill?

The standard lacks a lot of particulars doesn't it? It doesn't say how many breaths it should take or if the student can close their eyes during the process. It doesn't indicate how much time it should take or even if it should be done upside down, in the lotus position while humming Yankee Doodle Dandy. The standard is that the student accomplish "reasonably comfortable, fluid and repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level." That puts the decision clearly in the instructor's hands. If you see kneeling as "reasonable", then by all means use that as your criteria. Here in the Keys, kneeling is against the law. No, it's not enforced, but it's still against the law. Ergo, you have to be anywhere but kneeling on the bottom in order to pass this skill.

For the record, on the skill of mask clearing, I expect my students to be able to flood and clear their masks at least twice on one breath without touching the bottom or rising to the surface. Kudos given for any student that can flood/clear their mask five times on one breath. The student record is 12.

 

[DCBC]

As a result of an email to PADI HQ, I had a very interesting (and perhaps informative) discussion with a PADI "Consultant, Training, Quality Management and Instructor Development" person (who shall remain nameless). What I took from the discussion was...

Well Councilor, what do you think a Civil Court would say about this? What's your interpretation of:

1/ The Membership Agreement wording "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member"?

2/ Do you feel that the Standards are clearly defined, or somewhat up to interpretation? (I would have thought these would have been nailed down by PADI's legal team, in an effort to ensured the Corporate best interests, in case of litigation.)

3/ Is the Instructor who adds content liable for something that's not defined by PADI (for example altitude tables)? Does PADI examine each Instructor Candidate on such subject matter before certification, or is this limited to the PADI Program? Can they all read a tide table and project the tidal height at a given location, at any particular point-in-time, for example?

4/ Is the Instructor insured through PADI Insurance for information given to a Student outside of the specific PADI course Standard? The "bold print," if you will...

If you couldn't get a straight answer from PADI's "Consultant, Training, Quality Management and Instructor Development," a good lawyer would have a field day in a Court of Law... I think if the Plaintiff had a couple of Expert Witnesses that were decisive, it could get really ugly...

---------- Post added May 30th, 2013 at 03:22 PM ----------

You're confusing neutral buoyancy with hovering. You're simply stuck on hovering and neutral buoyancy being one in the same.

Pete, perhaps you can describe what you think the difference is.

...Here in the Keys, kneeling is against the law. ...Ergo, you have to be anywhere but kneeling on the bottom in order to pass this skill.

I don't think that kneeling is against the law Pete. Destroying coral may be, but not kneeling. I'm sure there are underwater rocks somewhere in Florida where you could kneel. A Certification Standard has nothing to do with local law. The Government isn't issuing the certification in this instance, so the Agency that does can choose to make it anyway they want to.

For the record, on the skill of mask clearing, I expect my students to be able to flood and clear their masks at least twice on one breath without touching the bottom or rising to the surface. Kudos given for any student that can flood/clear their mask five times on one breath. The student record is 12.

I think if you were teaching for PADI, you might have to certify the Student if he could clear his mask and have a rough idea of buoyancy without further task loading. As we teach for different Agencies, we can more or less do what we like. Not so with PADI (something that I've been saying for a long time). You are more restricted as to what and at what point you teach anything specific and what you can't teach at all (unless of course you have an exemption from PADI in writing, which is highly unlikely).

 

[The Chairman]

Pete, perhaps you can describe what you think the difference is.

Neutral buoyancy is when the resultant forces described in Archimedes' Principle are a null. A hover is achieved when a neutrally buoyant object stops and maintains the same approximate position laterally, longitudinally and of course, vertically with very little action needed by the diver to maintain that position. A neutrally buoyant diver need not be stationary, but a hovering diver needs to be not only neutrally buoyant but stationary as well. You simply can't do the skill of hovering without first possessing the skill of being neutrally buoyant.

I don't think that kneeling is against the law Pete.

Actually, it's against the law to put anything on the bottom of a SPA (Special Protected Area) here in Monroe County without a permit. It was just passed and it's worded very, very poorly. It's clear that it applies to both permanent as well as non permanent items and there appear to be no exceptions to this new rule, so it should include things like anchors and people. In my estimation, it's most likely unenforceable as written, but it is there.

I think if you were teaching for PADI, you might have to certify the Student if he could clear his mask and have a rough idea of buoyancy without further task loading. As we teach for different Agencies, we can more or less do what we like. Not so with PADI (something that I've been saying for a long time). You are more restricted as to what and at what point you teach anything specific and what you can't teach at all (unless of course you have an exemption from PADI in writing, which is highly unlikely).

I value my flexibility in evolving my classes and have no desire to curb that one whit. Becoming a PADI instructor here in the Keys would open up a number of opportunities but I would have to sacrifice the very things I am known for. Some call it the height of arrogance while others regard me as creative and resolute to maintain my own higher standards. Somewhere in the middle is the probable reality.

 

[Peter Guy]

Wayne -- the short answer to your question is, I have no idea what the result of a lawsuit would be because, as we all know, "it depends on the facts" (and a whole lot more). Without a specific set of facts, I can't begin to guess an answer.

Well Councilor, what do you think a Civil Court would say about this?

See above

What's your interpretation of:

1/ The Membership Agreement wording "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member"?

MY interpretation is just that -- I won't "deviate" from the "applicable standards" so, for example, I won't require a 1 km swim in full gear nor will I require a body retrieval. I will require that on OW Dive 2, they do 2 mask flood and clears, a reg remove/replace and be involved in 2 OOA drills, one as a donor and one as a recipient. I "will not deviate" and provide a card without them showing "mastery" of the various identified tasks.

That's MY interpretation and worth every penny you've paid for it.

2/ Do you feel that the Standards are clearly defined, or somewhat up to interpretation?

Yes, they are "clearly defined" and Yes, they are "somewhat up to interpretation." The "what" is clearly defined, the "how" is left to interpretation.

3/ Is the Instructor who adds content liable for something that's not defined by PADI (for example altitude tables)?

My response would be "Yes." The instructor who "fleshes out the bones" would be liable for teaching wrong information. To use your example of altitude tables, IF, someone who was teaching where diving was done at altitude, taught them incorrectly, the instructor would (possibly) be liable for any injuries sustained as a result of his incorrect instruction.

Does PADI examine each Instructor Candidate on such subject matter before certification, or is this limited to the PADI Program?

I have no idea what you mean here. For that matter, I have only the vaguest of memories as to what IS examined during an I.E. -- although I do know that NONE of us were examined on everything we were then allowed to teach. I have no idea what changes have been made over the past 4 years.

Can they all read a tide table and project the tidal height at a given location, at any particular point-in-time, for example?

I have no idea -- nor am I at all sure who you have as a referent for "they."

4/ Is the Instructor insured through PADI Insurance for information given to a Student outside of the specific PADI course Standard? The "bold print," if you will...

I was unaware that there is any such thing as "PADI Insurance." MY liability insurance seems to be saying it will cover me for actions done in teaching a class or when acting as an instructor. A liability policy only covering one's non-negligent actions would appear to me, on its face, to be a contradiction. The whole notion of a liability policy is for the purpose of covering negligent actions.

BTW, it has occurred to me that what I understand to be NAUI's "gold standard" for certification, "Would I want this student to dive with my family member" is as wishy-washy and subjective as it gets. At some point ALL evaluations are subjective, are they not?

 

[boulderjohn]

John;

1) Show me a STANDARD that supports the introduction of neutral buoyancy from CW #1 onwards.

Show me one that says you can't do that.

2) Show me a STANDARD that supports an assessment of buoyancy control (other than the hover in CW#4).

As Pete says, you are confusing having a student perform wkills while neutrally buoyant with assessing buoyancy control. As I said, I expect them to do things at the level of their training. I do not expect them to do it in beautiful trim and maintaining their position in the water column the way I would if they were taking my technical diving classes. There is no need to assess it because they do it easily. You and DCBC keep harping on the fact that I can't fail them for not doing it while neutral. You keep missing the fact that it is easier for them to do it while neutral than while on their knees. Did you read the thread a week or two from the student who was having trouble keeping his balance while on his knees? He kept falling over while trying to do the skills. It is much harder to do the skills while you are toppling over from trying to hold your position on your knees. CW1 is a breeze while students are in horizontal position. Even if they have trouble, we don't fail them for it--we keep teaching them until they can do it. The idea of failing the students because they can't do it in this easier position is ludicrous.

3) Show me a DIRECTIVE that confirms instructors 'are to' conduct training in neutral buoyancy.

Right. There is nothing about that. You got one. However, I never said such a mandate existed. I just said the standards as currently written allow us to teach students in horizontal position while neutrally buoyant. I suspect that the new standards will have more of a mandate.

4) Show me a ANYTHING in the PADI Instructor Manual, Course Director Manual, 'Guide to Teaching' or ANY Training Bulletin that supports anything contradictory to what I've posted.

You and your new pal in PADI-hatred, DCBC, seem to be obsessed by the fact that a full year and a half has passed and PADI has not produced new standards yet. Let me go back to point out that what they have said over and over again is the the current standards allow things to be done this way. As the article clearly says, instructors are free to choose their path. Either of the following is fine.

1. Introduce the skills on the knees, and then quickly transition to neutral buoyancy. (That one was put in by PADI headquarters specifically. I did not have anything favorable to teaching on the knees in the first draft.)
2. Teach skills in neutral, horizontal position from the start.

Either choice is currently acceptable; neither is required. No rewrite necessary at this time.

That brings us to the point that PADI does not allow divers to deviate from the standards. They don't. But as I just said, they do not consider teaching students this way to be a deviation. There is therefore no reason to make an immediate change in standards to allow something that is already allowed by existing standards.

The article/editorial, whatever... doesn't reflect any formal policy or standard by PADI. It isn't referenced on IDC is it? It isn't on any 'required materials' list for training? Nope...

Yet again--it is not required. It is allowed. This whole things is new. Give it a chance to take hold.

I've been waiting for days for you or NetDoc to provide any evidence to support your claims. Still zero... still waiting...

If you check with a professor of logic, you will learn that in this argument, the burden of proof is more on on you than on us. (I can send you some of the materials from the logic courses I have created if you would like some help.) We have said that the current standards allow us to teach a certain way. You say that the standards indicate that it is an impermissable deviation. We point to the fact that all around the world, instructors are using these techniques, and PADI knows it. (The article was signed by instructors from North America, Europe, and Asia.) They have our names. We have spoken to them directly. They have given us their blessing. We have no evidence that any instructor anywhere in the world has ever been sanctioned in any way for doing this. So, when one side says that a certain practice is allowed by their reading of the standard and the other side says it is not allowed, the burden is on the side that says it is not allowed to provide that evidence that it is not allowed. We can show thousands and thousands of examples of instructors being allowed to teach this way, and you could argue that we are just slipping through the cracks. Thus, we cannot prove our position as you want it. On the other hand, all you have to do is provide one example of an instructor being sanctioned for teaching this way. Just one. That's all you need. Can you cite a single example of an instructor who has been sanctioned in any way for doing this?

Everyone of us who is on this side of the fence has contacted PADI officials and had our positions confirmed. You have not. You could solve this who debate easily by contacting PADI headquarters and asking the question. Once again, you could end this debate with a statement from PADI saying your interpretation is correct. In the Instructor to Instructor forum I gave you the contact information for a PADI official who said he was available to straighten this out for anyone who had questions. (Funny he offered to do that for my side of the argument instead of yours, isn't it?) Why have you not contacted him?

...oh,... still laughing..

That's what worries me. Seriously. I am concerned about you. I have no idea what happened to you in the last year to turn you into this, but I am genuinely concerned.