When is a skill "mastered"?

[Edward3c]

First of all, PADI does not specify instructing on the knees. That should be pretty clear by now.

I’ve seen in this thread an extract that states sitting/kneeling. So I beg to differ.

Next, speaking as the formal lead internal auditor of a large ISO-certified organization, I disagree with much of your characterization of the ISO process. You do not have to get down to the nitty and gritty of each step of a process, and you can build in a lot of room for individual differences with no problems. ...

I’m quite surprised a lead internal auditor is ignoring stated policy/procedure from the said agency. If you’re a member of the Institute of Internal Auditors then you should be reported for malpractice.

 

[boulderjohn]

I guess that all of you who are not members of PADI or who have not contacted PADI but must be correct after all. When they wrote in their professional journal that teaching skills neutral is acceptable, they must have been lying. When the member of PADI headquarters said to contact him and left his contact information in the Instructor to Instructor forum so that anyone who doubted it could clarify the issue, he must have been lying.

As I have said repeatedly, every one of us who says it is acceptable has had direct contact and confirmation from PADI. Not a single person on the other side has done that.

It amazes me, but I accept it.

I will be teaching a class this weekend the way I wrote it up with the help of others and with PADI headquarters this weekend. You all think I am out of compliance, but I have a strange confidence that I will be OK.

I am done with this thread now. And I have learned a lot about the character of some people.

 

[Abdullah]

I guess that all of you who are not members of PADI or who have not contacted PADI but must be correct after all. When they wrote in their professional journal that teaching skills neutral is acceptable, they must have been lying. When the member of PADI headquarters said to contact him and left his contact information in the Instructor to Instructor forum so that anyone who doubted it could clarify the issue, he must have been lying.

As I have said repeatedly, every one of us who says it is acceptable has had direct contact and confirmation from PADI. Not a single person on the other side has done that.

It amazes me, but I accept it.

I will be teaching a class this weekend the way I wrote it up with the help of others and with PADI headquarters this weekend. You all think I am out of compliance, but I have a strange confidence that I will be OK.

I am done with this thread now. And I have learned a lot about the character of some people.

I don't think it's fair to imply people have a character flaw for disagreeing with you.

A Journal article is a discussion, it's not a mandate, nor is it a license to deviate from standards as you see fit. If it's true that PADI top management is overtly advocating nonconformance with their policies and standards, that could constitute an ethical violation, and would be a major nonconformance that would justify suspending PADI's ISO certification. Rather than give me the name of a guy at PADI HQ, give me the name of their registrar so that this activity can be reported and investigated.

 

[supergaijin]

I guess that all of you who are not members of PADI or who have not contacted PADI but must be correct after all. When they wrote in their professional journal that teaching skills neutral is acceptable, they must have been lying. When the member of PADI headquarters said to contact him and left his contact information in the Instructor to Instructor forum so that anyone who doubted it could clarify the issue, he must have been lying.

As I have said repeatedly, every one of us who says it is acceptable has had direct contact and confirmation from PADI. Not a single person on the other side has done that.

I have only recently started teaching neutral.. I would feel a whole lot more comfortable with this "confirmation from PADI" written in to a BOLD Standard for all to see.

However instead, I will contact PADI and hope to receive an email reply expressly stating that I will be not be teaching outside of PADI's Standards by teaching (and assessing) CW/OW skills neutrally before the introduction of fin-pivoting in CW3.

 

[DevonDiver]

I guess that all of you who are not members of PADI or who have not contacted PADI but must be correct after all. When they wrote in their professional journal that teaching skills neutral is acceptable, they must have been lying. When the member of PADI headquarters said to contact him and left his contact information in the Instructor to Instructor forum so that anyone who doubted it could clarify the issue, he must have been lying.

John, as stated in an earlier reply, I cannot believe that PADI would expect to run their organisation on the basis of individual phone calls for standards verification. It's a large, global organization - one the publishes an updated instructor manual annually and includes a specific section for formal standards amendments in their quarterly professional journal.

That formal standards were not changed to reflect the 'spirit' of the 'Teaching in Neutral' article is surprising. It makes the difference between a 'tacit affirmation to break standards' and a 'formal amendment of standards'. Given that instructor membership rides on an agreed to obligation to rigidly apply formal, written standards, this seems highly irregular.

PADI has two means for communicating standards changes: annual re-issue of the Instructor Manual and quarterly publication of the Training Bulletin (not the entire UJ). Neither of these vehicles have featured any directives applicable to this debate.

PADI could easily have updated either the 2012 or 2013 Instructor Manuals to formally encompass the spirit of the recommendations or suggestions made in the 'Teaching from Neutral' article. The big question is why they didn't? We can only hope that the 2014 Instructor Manual might reflect those changes, so that instructors become formally directed towards an early transition to neutral buoyancy.

The second issue is that of teaching versus assessment. This thread has already identified a difference between the standards applied to both. It is agreed that there is more leeway with teaching than there is assessment. The issue of Performance Standards is crux to the original question: How do PADI define Mastery?

What I have been attempting to illustrate throughout this thread is nothing more than PADI definition of mastery for the sake of assessing students to qualify. I have argued against those who insist the instructors have the freedom to apply their own interpretation of performance standards; supplementing the rigidly worded performance requirements to conjoin multiple skills in a single assessment. I do not believe that is correct, as it involves direct violation of PADI's stated standards and a re-ordering of the sequence in which those skills are presented during training modules.

If you have access to PADI, then I suggest you ask them the following questions:

1) Why make informal suggestions to instructors, when your written, formal standards prevent them from applying those suggestions?

2) Why has the spirit of the 'Teaching in Neutral' article not been reflected in formal standards (Inst/CD manual or Training Bulletin) in the two years since it was published?

3) Why don't Performance Requirements for assessment/qualification not reflect a more rounded skill-set applicable to real diving, rather than isolated single skills?

4) Why aren't instructor provided with clearly defined limits to which they may adapt/amend/interpret teaching and performance standards, if such limits do exist?

5) If instructors are encouraged to interpret standards to a particular outcome, why has this not been clearly communicated and enshrined in a formal teaching standard?

6) Why has PADI decided to apply a standards amendment via instructor-prompted telephone clarification, when formal, written means of standards announcements already exist?

 

[Edward3c]

I guess that all of you who are not members of PADI or who have not contacted PADI but must be correct after all. When they wrote in their professional journal that teaching skills neutral is acceptable, they must have been lying. When the member of PADI headquarters said to contact him and left his contact information in the Instructor to Instructor forum so that anyone who doubted it could clarify the issue, he must have been lying.

As I have said repeatedly, every one of us who says it is acceptable has had direct contact and confirmation from PADI. Not a single person on the other side has done that.

It amazes me, but I accept it.

I will be teaching a class this weekend the way I wrote it up with the help of others and with PADI headquarters this weekend. You all think I am out of compliance, but I have a strange confidence that I will be OK.

I am done with this thread now. And I have learned a lot about the character of some people.

I’m sure Lincolnshire Management would be pleased to know PADI instructors are forcing paying customers to perform over and above the stated standards when they come the sell PADI. The award of a neutral buoyancy C-card is a potential income stream which could make the business more attractive.

 

[DevonDiver]

For those who seem not to understand why PADI instructors in this thread are communicating with a high level of focus on STANDARDS, the following quotation may be enlightening. It is taken from the Course Director Manual (2007) and reflects the presentation given to PADI instructor candidates on 'General Standards and Procedures'.

Particular attention should be drawn to the goal of providing 'worldwide course consistency' and the specific direction for instructors to "teach to the standards – not above or below it" and "not add new skills to a PADI course".

Finally, there is specific direction that "there is absolutely no reason for an instructor to needlessly increase the risk of liability by deviating from the very standard of conduct by which he will be judged."

As we have seen, those standards are referenced via the Instructor Manual and Training Bulletin. There is "no reason" to deviate from them...

I. Standards – Why?

A. Why have standards?

1. Standards set the FOUNDATION and provide the boundaries for training competent divers. Diving health and safety are primary concerns.
2. Standards provide for WORLDWIDE course consistency.
3. Standards foster a systems-approach to training and allow new courses to be designed following a PROVEN model.
4. Standards establish appropriate course sequences based on planned and educationally valid methods of delivering information to student divers. Skills and knowledge are introduced when student divers are ready to learn, thus MAXIMIZING learning effectiveness.
5. Standards are the basis of certification CREDIBILITY – without enforced standards, certification has no value.
6. Standards help members avoid governmental regulation by demonstrating that the recreational diving community in general, and PADI in particular, has a strong and effective means of SELF-REGULATION.
7. Standards provide a foundation for legal protection by establishing unequivocal “standards of practice.”

B. Why should you follow PADI Standards?

1. As just discussed, standards provide structure, educational validity, credibility and a basis for legal protection.
a. PADI Standards take into consideration diver safety and effective learning. They also set guidelines for prudent instructor conduct.
b. Any deletion, deviation from, or shortcutting of standards may leave your student divers with less than complete training and leave you with more than desired liability.

2. As stated in The Law and the Diving Professional (page 61) – Given the inherent risks of scuba diving, there is absolutely no reason for an instructor to needlessly increase the risk of liability by deviating from the very standard of conduct by which he will be judged.

3. Problems can result from failing to follow standards. Choosing to deviate from standards will weaken your legal defense and may interfere with student diver learning. It’s best to teach to the standards – not above or below it.
a. You should not short cut or delete standards requirements.
b. You should not add new skills to a PADI course.

Using that as a foundation showing that standards must be adhered to, we can now look at the standards themselves;

1) PADI Instructor Manual 2013, General Standards and Procedures:

Training Sequence


PADI courses’ performance requirements progress from simple to more complex. In general, each knowledge and skill development segment builds on the previous one. Teach course segments in sequential order unless otherwise specified in course instructor guides.

2) PADI Instructor Manual 2013, Open Water Course, Confined Water Training:

Dive 3 Performance Requirements
Underwater:
3. Use both oral and low-pressure BCD inflation to become neutrally buoyant. Gently rise and fall in a controlled manner, during inhalation and exhalation.
4. Swim at least 10 metres/yards while maintaining neutral buoyancy.


Dive 4 Performance Requirements
Underwater:
2. Hover using buoyancy control for at least 30 seconds, without kicking or sculling.

Thus, we can see that, according to STANDARDS directing skill sequencing, 'becoming neutrally buoyant' and 'swimming whilst neutrally buoyant' are not introduced until Confined Water Dive #3. Introducing them earlier, out of sequence, is a breach of standards. The use of neutral buoyancy 'to hover' is not introduced until Confined Water Dive #4.

This seems inconsistent with a supposed determination to 'introduce neutral buoyancy at an early stage'. If such a determination were true, then why weren't neutral buoyancy skills brought forward into the curriculum? For instance, to feature in Confined Water Dive #1? That would have allowed all subsequent skills to be developed using neutral buoyancy as a platform.

As it stands, the standards specifically restrict teaching students how to attain neutral buoyancy before Confined Water Dive #3. If students cannot be taught to obtain and retain neutral buoyancy, how can an instructor realistically expect them to achieve the practice of skills in neutral buoyancy? How can they assess them, according to performance requirements, in a skill element that has not yet been taught to them?

The logic:

1) PADI instructors must adhere to PADI standards, without amendment, deviation addition or subtraction.

2) PADI standards cover course/skill sequencing.

3) Skill sequencing standards withhold neutral buoyancy until mid-way through confined water training.

4) PADI standards prevent instructors accomplish teaching with "an early transition into neutral buoyancy".

The Undersea Journal article was not directing a 'change in standards', nor presented as such. PADI instructors are not trained or directed to 'interpret' articles to fathom standards changes - they are given specific sources for that; the Instructor Manual, the Training Bulletin and specific Course Manuals. The 'Training Bulletin' is included within the Undersea Journal, but is the only section where formal standards changes are communicated (as supplements to the relevant instructor manuals). The entire Undersea Journal publication does not express Standards.

 

[supergaijin]

Re-reading the 'Early Transition to Neutral Buoyancy' article, it appears that PADI is recommending a 'fin pivot' position while introducing skills.

"These instructors have students neutrally buoyant from the beginning, even in the first confined water dive, with their legs resting lightly on the floor of the pool. They are in a position similar to a fin pivot, with their upper bodies supported by the air in their BCDs."

snip/

"One misconception many people have when first hearing of this approach is that it requires students to perform skills while in a full hover throughout the training.

As stated earlier, that’s not correct. It’s not reasonable to expect the students to have
mastered neutral trim at the early learning stages. Students are generally in light contact with the pool bottom while doing most skills."

So this article says that a fin-pivot position is OK (instead of sitting or kneeling. However it is not yet backed up as a STANDARD ​which continues to use words such as sitting or kneeling. I hope this is rectified soon to remove any doubt.

I just sent an email to PADI: training.emea@padi.com

 

[DevonDiver]

So this article says that a fin-pivot position is OK (instead of sitting or kneeling. However it is not yet backed up as a STANDARD ​which continues to use words such as sitting or kneeling. I hope this is rectified soon to remove any doubt.

I'd echo that statement. Far from being a PADI detractor, I hope to see syllabus improvements that reflect their 'intentions'.

Personally, I'd like any standard to change to go further - to actually introduce neutral buoyancy as a performance requirement at a much earlier stage (CW#1) and developed thereafter - in conjunction with the performance of other subsequent skills..

I'd also like to see specific reference to the conduct and assessment (performance requirements) of subsequent skills "in neutral buoyancy.../...whilst neutrally buoyant" and a corresponding definition/description of how that is attained (i.e. described in the PADI 'Guide to Teaching').

Lastly, I'd like to see those standards changed reflected in Course Director materials/standards, so that both IDC and IE globally standardized skill role-modelling and tuition to encompass an intrinsic shift towards realistic application of skills, rather than isolated skill refinement and repetition.

The Undersea Journal article oft referenced in this thread exhibits nothing more than 'good intentions' - but sadly, intentions are nothing without substantial actions.

Facta non verba

 

[The Chairman]

It's obvious that many instructors are comfortable with their students being neutral while learning skills under the current standards. Some are obviously not. Yes, it might take more time, effort and caring on the part of the instructor, but the results are worth it. Trim and neutral buoyancy are the hardest skills to master as well as being the most important ones for comfort. Students who start mastering these two skills early have a huge head start on those forced to their knees for most of their training by an instructor trying to over think the standards. Teaching UW skills on a student's knees sets a bad precedent for the rest of their diving and should be avoided. Skills should be mastered in the manner they will be used during the dive, and the standards seem to support that for me. Students selecting an instructor would be wise to make sure that their instructor will make the additional effort to keep them off of their knees. Don't kneel for any instructor or training agency.

It's important as we discuss mastery, that divers who were only taught on their knees should realize that this is not appropriate in most marine settings and that you need to be sure to stay off of the bottom. If doing these skills mid water seems to be overly daunting, please seek assistance. There are a lot of divers here on ScubaBoard who would be glad to assist you to making the transition from doing skills only on your knees to being able to do them while neutrally buoyant.