Andy -- when I did the IDC, we were required to have several articles from the USJ that were all reprinted in the book "Best of the USJ" (I think that is what it is called). The Drew Richardson article was one that was required at that time. I suppose in a couple of weeks I'll find out if that is no longer the case. If so, then I'll have to quit referring to it, which will be a shame since it IS my "Gold Standard" for how to be a "Sea Lawyer" (Thal's description, and btw, where the hell is he in this?) and work within PADI Standards.
Peter - yes, that was the case when I did IDC also. The 2007/2010 CD Manuals don't list 'The Best of The Undersea Journal' as a required text for candidates though. Neither are 'The Law and The Diving Professional' or 'The Business of Diving'. They are listed as recommended (not mandatory). However, it is on the required list for the Course Director running the course.
It does however state:
Independent Learning Prerequisite
Prior to the start of an Instructor Development Course, Assistant Instructor course or OWSI program, an individual must complete all (16) IDC Knowledge Reviews. Completing Knowledge Reviews may be accomplished by self-study using the PADI Instructor Manual, Business of Diving, Law and the Diving Professional, The Best of the Undersea Journal and referring to recent Undersea Journal articles in the Instructor Candidate Workbook.
Odd that a candidate should complete knowledge reviews using resources they don't 'have' to have. I don't have a copy to hand of the Instructor Candidate Workbook - perhaps that has copies of those most pertinent materials?
He is the PADI Technical Development Executive. He is almost as high up in the organizational structure as you can get. He does not change PADI policy, but you can be sure that when he tells you what it is, he knows what he is talking about. You can be sure that when the article was approved for publication, it was carefully vetted by the organizational leadership.
The article was first submitted to the PADI director of training, who initially approved it and then kicked it upstairs to Karl to work out details.
John - whenever I have contact PADI about a training or standards issue, I have been given good advice. An important difference between those occasions and this instance is that I was always given reference to an existing or forthcoming
change in standards.
For instance, last year I was in discussions about existing overlap and, thus, potential integration of Tec Sidemount and Tec Deep programs. I was given information on how that could be done. Most importantly, I was given reference to a forthcoming Training Bulletin which would feature the appropriate change in standards. That change was duely published and standards were changed.
It should
also be noted that Karl (and yourself) are contributory authors to the article. Thus, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Karl's (or yours) interpretation of the article, or PADI standards, is compliant with that perspective. Some might consider that a conflict of interest - where professional reputation and the need to defend published academic work over-rides the ability to present an unbiased opinion or publicly acknowledge alternative perspectives.
In the instance of 'An Early Transition to Neutral Buoyancy', the "advice" and "recommendations" given in the article
conflict directly with PADI Standards. That requires an amendment to those standards, before it can take effect. No amendment has been made and no future amendment is being referenced. The article itself does not state that "standards are being changed".
Standards that would require amendment include:
1) Prohibition in sequencing skills, by moving skills between stated Confined Water Dive modules. (i.e. CW#4 to CW#1).
and/or
2) Moving buoyancy development skills earlier in the program (i.e. CW#3/4 to CW#1/2).
When it comes to the Undersea Journal, it is important to note the location of where information is presented. As mentioned in earlier posts, the Undersea Journal contains the 'Training Bulletin'. The Training Bulletin is where official changes to PADI standards are communicated. The Training Bulletin is also published separately, for instance, by electronic means on the PADI Pro website. All other areas of the magazine are covered by the caveat: "
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the policies or recommendations of PADI or its employees".
Quite simply, the article is neither directive nor canonical. As such, it should not be used as a 'reference' for standards-related issues.
Looking at the article itself:
The primary purpose of teaching students while on their knees is fractionalization. It allows them to focus on the specific task at hand. Students learn basic skills more easily if they learn them without distracting complications. They also learn better if they start simply and then move to more complicated scenarios that combine skills already learned, with each learning step allowing them to transfer old learning to new situations.
This supports the definition of the PADI 'System', as contained in the Course Director manual (let me know if you need references). Skills are taught (and assessed for mastery) in isolation (without complication) and progressively developed.
You cannot teach in neutral buoyancy until neutral buoyancy has been taught. Therefore, you cannot assess 'mastery' of skills in neutral buoyancy - until buoyancy itself has been 'mastered'. As we can see, that happens significantly towards the
end of confined water skills development.
The student who has learned skills effectively and learned to swim neutrally and in horizontal trim should be able to combine capabilities and perform key skills while in neutral horizontal trim. Thus, a student who begins the first confined water dive doing a partial mask flood while kneeling should be able to remove and replace that mask in the fourth confined water dive while in the horizontal position associated with normal diving practice.
This supports the existing PADI standards, highlighting that skills are introduced in sequence, over a number of CW modules, as stated in the Instructor Manual CW Standards. Skills are introduced kneeling and in isolation. Once further skills (i.e. hover) have been introduced, in order and in the correct module, those skills can be combined. NOTE: even the article states "fourth confined water dive" - which is what I've been saying repeatedly in this thread...
"Going carefully from a vertical, negatively buoyant posture to a neutral, horizontal posture through a carefully planned sequence is, indeed, how some instructors do it, but some instructors use a different approach. 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."
It is important to note the language in the above paragraph. PADI/the author are careful not to identify with either approach. The first instance of "carefully planned sequencing" is actually how their standards and 'System' state training must be done.
During discussions on this topic, some instructors have the misconception that this approach violates PADI standards. This isn’t the case. Standards do not usually stipulate precisely how the performance requirements for each skill must be met; they state only what the student must achieve. Instructors are free to use the most effective means they know to meet the standard.
This quote from later in the article claims that no standards are violated. It rightly suggests that only performance requirements stipulate what students must achieve. That was a point that I made earlier in this thread - "what student's must achieve" equals how
and when 'mastery' may be assessed.
However, this quote is also inaccurate. This is because PADI Standards unambiguously state that skill performance requirements may not be moved from one dive to another (i.e. CW#4 to CW#1). To COMBINE, for instance, mask remove/replace with hover - it is necessary to move a skill performance requirement.
One could argue that it is possible to introduce a skill, without applying the skill performance requirement. That you can 'teach' before you 'assess'. This, I assume, is the crux of the "you can do it" argument.
There are flaws with that... which, again, bring into question the issue of standards.
Firstly, skills should be 'mastered' at a given stage before they are progressed. For instance, LPI manipulation (LPI inflate/deflate at the surface in CW#2) needs to precede the 'fin pivot' (CW#3), which, in turn, needs to be 'mastered' before the 'hover' is covered (CW#4). The PADI 'System' as defined in the Course Director manual, states clearly the need for progressive skill development. It also states the implications (PADI membership loss, legal liability etc) for not adhering to that 'System'.
"What flexibility do you have in sequencing confined water dives?
1. You already understand that people learn in small steps by building upon what they’ve already mastered. This is why, in all PADI courses, the skill sequence moves from simple to complex". Course Director Manual 2010, Curriculum, Confined Water Training
"Student divers must satisfactorily meet the performance requirements for one dive before progressing to the next". Course Director Manual 2010, Curriculum, Confined Water Training
Secondly, if the concept presented in the article is taken to conclusion - it means that instructors have complete freedom to introduce -
to teach - any skill they want, in any order, at any time. They are only constrained in 'assessment' of skills by sequencing of performance requirements in given dives/modules. That would that an instructor could 'teach' CESA as Skill #1 on Dive #1. They just couldn't 'assess' that until the standards directed module (CW#3). Thus, the link between 'teaching' and 'assessing' is intrinsically severed.
This is at odds with how instructors are taught to teach. On IDC, instructors are taught to prepare and brief students on the skills to be attempted in that module. There is a formal process taught on IDC for this. That process includes stating an 'Objective'. The objective is defined as "
a clear statement of the measurable performance requirement". Thus, for any given skill, on any given dive, the PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
must be included clearly in the pre-dive training brief.
In essence, you cannot 'teach' a skill
without stating the applicable
performance requirement for that skill. This returns us to an intrinsic link between 'teaching' and 'assessment'. You cannot 'teach' something without a performance requirement. You cannot move from one module/session until all the performance requirements for all those skills are achieved.
The term that PADI actually use in their standards is "CONDUCT":
"Conduct Confined Water Dives in sequence and do not shift skills from one confined water dive to another."
They do not define what "conduct" means. Some interpret this as 'teach', other just interpret this as 'assess' (performance requirements). Whilst PADI do not define 'conduct' we may be correct to rely upon the correct English definition of the verb. That definition is "
organize and carry out". Using the common English definition, it leaves us with the following interpretation:"
Organize and carry out confined water dives in sequence and do not shift skills from one confined water dive to another".
Of further (and critical) note: that standard specifically states not to "shift
skills".
Skills....
not "performance requirements". That, to me, seems quite clear and unambigious...
A DIVE SKILL cannot be moved between confined water sessions. Neutral buoyancy ('Fin Pivot'), Hovering, LPI inflate/deflate etc etc are ALL
defined as skills by PADI.
PADI define this skill:
"Use both oral and low-pressure BCD inflation to become neutrally buoyant. Gently rise and fall in a controlled manner, during inhalation and exhalation.". This is taught as the 'Fin Pivot'. The skill is
defined in the 'PADI Guide to Teaching' as "
Neutral Buoyancy Underwater". They state it
must appear in Confined Water Dive #3. They further state that you cannot move that skill into another confined water dive (you cannot bring it forward to CW Dive #1).
Quote from PADI 'Guide to Teaching'
The article suggests:
"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. This doesn’t impede learning because the light contact retains fractionized contact. It is not kneeling, but not having to focus on hovering".
Thus, the article is suggesting an infraction of standards. It is suggesting introducing A SKILL in a confined water dive before that skill should be
conducted.
In essence, the article covers the issue of
not hovering until CW#4, but has forgotten that 'neutral buoyancy' itself
is defined as a skill, has a performance requirement and, as such,
has a place in the sequencing of CW modules...
The article will not be correct, or prudent advice to instructors, until either
(1) the 'Fin Pivot'/Neutral Buoyancy skill is moved to CW#1 or
(2) a specific amendment clause is published into standards defining and permitting the conduct of neutral buoyancy from CW#1 onwards.
Or, of course, amend the entire 'PADI System' and its applicable standards, to formally define and permit more instructor flexibility with the sequencing and conduct of skills.
This is what many other scuba training agencies do.
