When is a skill "mastered"?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

boulderjohn:
;, Now, I wonder what I would do if a student said, "I have examined the PADI standards carefully. I have l read ScubaBoard, and people like DevonDiver and DCBC tell me I can insist on doing these skills anchored to the bottom rather than neutrally buoyant like my classmates. I insist that I be allowed to do this!" I suppose I will have to cross that bridge when I come to it. So far students just do what I tell them to do without any fuss.


***************************************************************

I was hoping someone more experienced than me would bring this up. Yes, I think this could happen but also agree that it probably never will. I don't know if that's good or not. DevonD asks "What's to stop me from adding higher requirements"? Probably very little, since as pointed out, students will probably just do whatever is asked of them. Good or bad? One old example: Students must either complete 200 meters swimming or 300 with m/f/s. Who chooses-instructor or student? I know, "the instructor does" was the consensus interpretation of the standard. But the instructor could say--"Do 200 meters using front crawl only and within a specific time". This would break 2 standards and the students wouldn't know. Has there ever been a student who found and read the exact PADI standards?

There is something that was implicit about adding skills in the posts I have made, especially the last one, but perhaps should be made as clear as possible.

I have never done anything that changes what I was taught to do in my original instruction without seeking official advice first.


When I first started experimenting with doing skills horizontally and while neutrally buoyant, I asked the Course Director associated with my shop if that was OK before I did it. I did the same thing before having students do skills like weight belt removal/replacement and scuba unit removal/replacement neutral. As things got more involved, I corresponded with officials at PADI headquarters directly.

I had similar conversation with PADI headquarters over the years related to things I did not like about both the Rescue Diver course and the way we teach the CESA. I was not given permission for changes in those examples, so I have not made those changes.

So, if I ever thought that the example Andy gave (teaching mask removal while deploying an SMB) were a good idea, I would contact PADI and ask if it is OK. I am pretty sure they would say it is not OK, and then I wouldn't do it.

People seem to think PADI is some sort of secret organization that operates in the shadows and keeps all of its standards and practices a mystery. It isn't. If you want to do something out of the ordinary and want to know if it is OK, just drop them a line and find out.

To repeat: we know it is OK with PADI to teach students while neutrally buoyant because they have said it is OK to do so; they have not said mask removal while deploying an SMB is OK, so we don't know if it is. (Believe me, it isn't.)
 
John, The point I've been trying to make is purely limited to explaining a definition of 'mastery'. Some instructors on the thread have reasoned that 'mastery' has to be the performance of a skill under realistic circumstances. The example given was 'in neutral buoyancy'. I agree with that, with no hesitations. There's no point 'mastering' a skill under artificial conditions.

I've given examples of how PADI direct (via performance standards) the assessment of skills. If the assessment of a skill is within the (strict) parameters of the given performance standards, then the conduct of a skill has to be judged in isolation.

Note that this differs from the tuition of a skill... or the practice of a skill. Teaching and rehearsing are different to assessment. PADI have encouraged neutral buoyancy in teaching and practice. The performance standards (for assessment) remain strictly defined however. That said, it is through assessment that we (the instructor) determines if a student has 'mastered' the skill, or not.

The issue of 'mask remove and replace whilst deploying a DSMB', was meant to be facetious. An example to illustrate why PADI have strict performance standards. Put simply, PADI do not want instructors adding their own performance standards - as this corrupts what is meant to be a globally consistent assessment standard - which, in turn should theoretically provide a globally consistent base-line outcome of training. That said, if DSMB deployment were a necessary skill for the local diving environment, wouldn't it be potentially justifiable to expect the student to perform all critical open water skills in conjunction with that requirement? Too many instructors could justify too many deviations from performance standards for too many reasons.

I still hold that skills shouldn't be considered 'mastered' until they can be performed functionally under actual diving circumstances - without impacting negatively upon other critical skill requirements. That means buoyancy, trim, propulsion and situational awareness should not be degraded because any given skill needs to be conducted.

However... the PADI Instructor Manual and Guide to Teaching, do not support any assessment that combines skills. Skills are assessed in isolation, not combination, to the definition of mastery.

Again,... the performance standards for assessment are entirely disconnected from tuition or practice of a skill might be conducted. You can teach a skill from the hover. The student can practice the skill from a hover. But according to performance standards for any given skill - the student cannot be 'failed' for not achieving a simultaneous combination of skills. To do so would mean the instructor were instituting their own performance standards that are above and beyond what PADI dictate. That would be a breach of standards and (as far as globally consistent training goes...) a "dis-service" to that student (i.e. they would 'fail' a skill, wheras other students under other instructors would have 'passed').
 
When Melanie says it is?? ;-)
 
Gee whiz fellas, I go off and leave the thread for a day or two and you all go all wonky on me.

For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much) here are my thoughts on Andy's comments:

Andy, you are confusing two different aspects -- the TEACHING/PRESENTING of skills in CW and the evaluation of skills in OW. You, and just about everyone else, when determining "mastery" under the PADI guidelines/standards, ignore the final phrase -- in a "manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level." The reality is that it is in OW that "mastery" is evaluated, is it not? And since it "would be expected of a diver" to be able to flood/clear her mask while neutral, it is MY opinion that PADI standards would prohibit certifying a student if they couldn't do that, EVEN IF they were able to do it just fine while planted on their knees.

b. Andy, you've made a point that unless you can "hover" (CW 4) one shouldn't (can't?) be "required" to do a mask clear while (CW 3) while "hovering." No problem here -- BUT, one CAN be tasked with doing a CW 3 mask clear while neutral and moving about the water column, can't one since swimming while neutrally buoyant is one of the "tasks" (skills?) of CW 3. And, of course, this is introduction/teaching time -- NOT evaluation time, is it not?
 
Andy, you are confusing two different aspects -- the TEACHING/PRESENTING of skills in CW and the evaluation of skills in OW.

Not really Peter. Skills have to be 'mastered' in confined water before the student enters open water. Performance standards (assessment) is applied at both stages; CW and OW.

Mastery has to be demonstrated by the student in all confined water performance requirements (see below). Dives have to be sequenced properly - which means mastery of performance requirements in confined water must occur before the relevant open water segment begins..

"During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level."

In short, CW isn't just "teaching/presenting" - it must also include the student demonstrating 'mastery' of all listed performance requirements. The full definition of 'mastery' applies at that stage.

Another illustrative example;

"PADI Instructor Manual 2012, Section Four, Open Water Considerations.
Sequencing:
Do not conduct a dive flexible skill in open water until it has been mastered in confined water".

You, and just about everyone else, when determining "mastery" under the PADI guidelines/standards, ignore the final phrase -- in a "manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level."

I don't really see what isn't understood. Let me quote again:

"..., mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements.."

"meets"; not "exceeds"... PADI are explicit in this. That message is stressed unequivocally during instructor training.

All you have to do is look at the specific performance requirements for any given skill. Simple...

The reality is that it is in OW that "mastery" is evaluated, is it not? And since it "would be expected of a diver" to be able to flood/clear her mask while neutral, it is MY opinion that PADI standards would prohibit certifying a student if they couldn't do that, EVEN IF they were able to do it just fine while planted on their knees.

The issue being that "the instructor's opinion' is irrelevant when faced with training standards (the stuff in bold in your instructor manual).

The simple fact that different instructors choose to interpret training standards creates inconsistency in training. PADI are, again, very explicit that they do not want inconsistency in training. Hence, they apply training standards and performance standards... which the instructor is not at liberty to interpret, amend or disregard.

Trust me - this is an issue I've knocked heads with on many occasions - probably for the same reasons that many other instructors express - that being an opinion that strict adherence to the stated performance requirements are insufficient to match the stated definition of 'mastery'... Any proposed/future re-vamp by PADI to address this issue will be highly beneficial to establishing consistent and universal high quality training.

In this case, we are discussing 'mastery'. PADI have standards that explicit state what mastery is - and how that relates to each specific skill through performance standards. Mastery is assessed through those performance standards. Assessment standards, rather than training/practice styles remains the issue relevant to this thread.

b. Andy, you've made a point that unless you can "hover" (CW 4) one shouldn't (can't?) be "required" to do a mask clear while (CW 3) while "hovering." No problem here -- BUT, one CAN be tasked with doing a CW 3 mask clear while neutral and moving about the water column, can't one since swimming while neutrally buoyant is one of the "tasks" (skills?) of CW 3.

Demonstration/practice versus assessment - as mentioned in my previous post.

An instructor can (should) introduce neutral buoyancy practice at the earliest possible stage (CW1). All subsequent skills can be taught and practiced in neutral buoyancy - agreed. However, progression through training modules requires 'passing' each module before moving on. 'Passing' any given module requires the student to exhibit 'mastery' in relation to the stated performance requirements for the specific skills outlined in that module.

If neutral buoyancy has been introduced early and skills have been taught/practiced in neutral buoyancy, then I see no reason why the instructor couldn't then ask the student to demonstrate all relevant performance requirements from neutral buoyancy. If they achieved those skills whilst neutrally buoyant, then no problems. However... however.... if the student could not demonstrate 'mastery' of a skill whilst neutrally buoyant, but could demonstrate 'mastery' whilst not under pressure from additional skill requirements (i.e. hovering) then they still have to be assessed as having mastered the skill. Their continuance in training should not be retarded.

That is what I mean about "teaching/practice versus assessment". You can only assess for progression/qualification according to the unambiguous criteria laid out in performance requirements. Nothing more, nothing less.

And, of course, this is introduction/teaching time -- NOT evaluation time, is it not?

NOT. As previously described. 'Mastery' applies in confined water, before progression of relevant skill practice (module sequencing) to open water is permitted.
 
Last edited:
To answer the origonal question. To me a skill is mastered when Im not thinking about doing it AT ALL.I just do it.
In engineering it goes. I show You how to do it.I help you do it. You do it. (x 10) I help you do it right. You do it X100
 
I am a fire captain and drill with my crew all the time. We don't drill until we get it right, we drill until we can't get it wrong.

I approach scuba the same way. A diver needs to be constantly practicing skills. How about swapping to your back up mask? Do you carry one? How about primary regulator recovery? I could go on, but you get the point. There are many skills that can be exercised during a normal dive so you can stay proficient at skills.

I was disappointed after passing rescue diver class that there were no plans to practice any of the skills learned. You must constantly drill to mastaer a skill and stay sharp.
 
Don't confuse hovering with being neutral. Hovering is being able to keep the same position with a minimal amount of movement. You have to be smarter than your students and even the standards here.

Now, after a student masters a skill, does PADI not allow re-evaluation? I have had a precious few students perform excellently in the pool and then become freak-a-zoids in open water. Having "mastered" mask clearing in the pool, they are dealing with a different set of demons in the open water environment.

Also, Monroe County recently passed a law prohibiting placing an object on or near a reef. Mind you, I don't think they've thought this through completely (anchors???), but this includes divers. IOW, divers are no longer allowed to park their butts, knees or the like on the sand or on the reef. No, I haven't seen the Scuba Police trying to enforce this new requirement, but I am one of the few instructors it really doesn't impact. It all gets back to the instructor and what they will be demanding of their students. For me, mastery implies being competent to initiate and complete the skill in a manner that does no harm to you or the environment.
 
Don't confuse hovering with being neutral. Hovering is being able to keep the same position with a minimal amount of movement. You have to be smarter than your students and even the standards here.
"
The performance standard for hovering in CW4 is defined by PADI as; "2. Hover using buoyancy control for at least 30 seconds, without kicking or sculling."

The Guide To Training amplifies:

hover standard.jpg

There is no mention of "being in the same position". However, it does say 'without kicking or sculling" - I find it hard to understand any definition of 'neutral buoyancy' that permits arm/leg propulsion to compensate for 'not being neutrally buoyant'. Kicking and sculling being what novice divers commonly do to 'cheat' when they haven't attained neutral buoyancy.

I do find myself confused by your distinction between 'hovering' and 'neutral buoyancy'. I think you're clutching at straws...

Now, after a student masters a skill, does PADI not allow re-evaluation?

No... what would be the point? If a student has met performance standards for a given skill, there is absolutely zero point in re-assessing them. Neither can you add your own performance standards subsequently. It is what it is... and the process is laid down explicitly in the instructor manual.

You could however offer further practice. Practice all you want - refine and improve skills. However, PADI's definition of mastery remains extant - and that mastery is indelibly linked to their performance standards. Standards which you are not permitted to amend or supplement..either positively or negatively.

This thread is about 'mastery' - and that's what I am discussing: PADI defines mastery and provides rigid performance standards to which it is assessed.
I have had a precious few students perform excellently in the pool and then become freak-a-zoids in open water. Having "mastered" mask clearing in the pool, they are dealing with a different set of demons in the open water environment.

Either way, as stated, the instructor cannot post-pone or retard the student's progress based upon their own performance standards. They have to use PADI's. This ensures global consistency for PADI qualifications...
 
Andy, are you really suggesting that because a student has successfully completed a skill in the pool, that student must be certified, even if they are unable to complete the same skill in OW? We do run into this, for example with mask skills, where the student can manage it in the pool but just can't deal with the cold water on the face in OW.

And I think it is quite deliberately ingenuous to fail to see the difference between hovering and swimming in neutral buoyancy. Many people can swim while neutral, but cannot remain perfectly still because their gear is not balanced for remaining in a horizontal position without moving.
 

Back
Top Bottom