Following standards?

[Karibelle]

It might matter. In my experience, many PADI instructors don't really know or understand what the standards are, because, as Walter says, it's in code. I'd venture to say that SOME of what your instuctor thinks are standards violations may in fact NOT be. Give us some examples and maybe it would help to discuss specifics.

Better yet, call PADI and see what their interpretation is. Asking to discuss this on ScubaBoard will get you half again as many opinions as there are responders.

kari

 

[Karibelle]

What do you understand the word "mastery" to mean?

While I don't see what your question has to do with the discussion or the portion of my post that you quoted, I will answer it anyway...

I interpret Mastery using the definition provided in my agency's standards:

"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 an open water diver.

A student to manages to meet the stated performance requirements in such a way that it raises a question as to whether the student could reliably perform the skill for multiple repetitions has not met the definition of mastery."

In my world this means that sometimes individuals need more time to accomplish the skill, additional demonstration, additional support of some kind, which they will receive from me, my teaching partner, or a divemaster if we have one assisting. During the "play time" in each pool session, we often give practice assignments, and sometimes we give our students homework to be practiced in the pool between sessions. We use toys and games to accomplish some additional skill practice without the students even noticing. In the last pool session I have a slate with a list of names and skills - things that I want to see again. Some students are asked to join one or more pool sessions in a different class before being signed off on the confined water portion of the program.

kari

 

[grazie42]

I´m not really fluent enough in the applicable standards yet so I don´t know if what is presented as violations really are, only that I assume my instructor is better able to judge than me (who hasn´t read them). I just see a potential for a conflict between what I feel is "right" and what my agency mandates.

I´m not worried about my exposure to legal liability should I violate standards (in Sweden)...

My main concern is the personal integrity and ethics thing (I won´t violate standards that I´ve made a commitment to follow) and I was just curious to see if other pro´s or aspiring pro´s find themselves in that situation and how they "deal" with it.

So far the replies seem to indicate that most find a way to interpret the standards in a way that removes the disparity between personal opinion and standards...

 

[Karibelle]

As a DM candidate you should have the manual with the standards. At the very least, you'll need to know where in the manual to find the standards to complete that portion of your course. Get yourself some education!

kari

 

[Thalassamania]

You said:

I feel that my agency's standards are there for a reason. I follow them to the letter (as I understand them).

And I asked:

What do you understand the word "mastery" to mean?

And you asked:

While I don't see what your question has to do with the discussion or the portion of my post that you quoted, I will answer it anyway...

And I respond: I don’t believe for a minute that you (of for that matter me, or anyone else) can achieve mastery of the learning objectives of an entry level scuba course within the conventional structure of such a course. Thus I can not see how you can “follow them (your agencies standards) them to the letter," with redefining the word mastery.

Your answer is:

I interpret Mastery using the definition provided in my agency's standards:

"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 an open water diver.

And I submit to you that that redefinition is a tautology that deprives the word “mastery” of any meaning whatsoever. Id est: saying that the standard is “as would be expected of an open water diver” is akin to saying that mastery of the English language is, “as would be expected of a three year old.”

I am in no way suggesting that you do not do the best job under the circumstances, or that you are not a conscientious and effective instructor, I’ve concluded quite the opposite, else I’d not bother with this conversation. You impress me as a concerned Instructor who is trying to do the best you can for your students.

My point is that the standards are either meaningless (i.e., mastery is defined as the skill level you’d expect of a neophyte) or are set up to assure that you “fail” (i.e., mastery is the normal dictionary definition).

 

[Arizona]

Grazie42,

I am studying the DM material and completing the workbook presently. I begin this June with the actual course. I understand your concerns and would seek clarification if I disagreed with something. Do you have specifics you disagree with?

I noticed your logged dives, with that amount of experience I guess old habits may be hard to break. Could that be part of the issue? Specifics would be good to discuss.

Hej då,

Arizona

 

[jbichsel]

One specific thing was doing fin-pivots (I think that´s the english term) in CW1. His reason being that bouyancy control is one of the most important aspects of good/fun diving (duh!). It is my (limited) understanding that you´re not allowed to change the sequence in which the skills are introduced.

I think I remember something about introducing additional skills being ok though so maybe just calling it something else and doing it slightly different would be ok?

This is one of my main, on-going issues.

As I've posted in other threads, I believe this sets up a Catch-22 that prevents an instructor from ever passing students on to the next phase IF the instructor follows the standards.

Follow along:

IF an instructor follows the minimum standards of CWD1, the only interaction a student is required to have relating to buoyancy, is to inflate and deflate the BC at the surface.

Then we continue to Performance Requirement 7 - "7. Swim underwater with scuba equipment while maintaining control of both direction and depth, properly equalizing the ears and mask to accommodate depth changes."

Now, by following standards, how can an instructor conclude that a student has achieved "mastery" of controlling depth, if the minimum standards have been followed and the student has not been taught how to control depth?

In my estimation the only ways to conclude that a student has acheived "mastery" of this is:

1. Redifine the word "mastery";

2. Accept that the bottom of the pool defines 'control of depth';

3. Look the other way and ignore the "standards".

Again, I am assuming that this scenario happens for a percentage of instructors that will only follow the minimum standards as presented by the agency.

We all know they are out there or else we wouldn't be talking about this issue, right?

 

[Karibelle]

And I submit to you that that redefinition is a tautology that deprives the word “mastery” of any meaning whatsoever. Id est: saying that the standard is “as would be expected of an open water diver” is akin to saying that mastery of the English language is, “as would be expected of a three year old.”

Ah, okay. I see what you're saying. To play devil's advocate for a moment, perhaps the agency just chose a poor word when selecting "mastery." Perhaps they would have done better to use a different, even a made-up, word to meet their definition.

An "open water" diver IS a neophyte. A three year old, if you will. And I think that's okay. Many, many people will never need the skills and training to do anything more than what I've seen referred to as "resort dives."


One thing that I can, and do, do, is actively encourage all of my students to continue their dive experience, and their dive training. For example, we had a couple in one of our classes last spring. It was one of the "weekend courses" that I know you dislike. They came very well prepared and did well. Later in the summer they did their OW checkout dives with us, bringing along their 12 year old daughter and 15 year old son, who had done the class and pool work through a class at school. The four of them got certified and had a great time. The family went on a dive trip at Christmas time and got some additional experience diving together and without us. Now they are all planning to do additional training with us this summer, and perhaps some "fun diving" with us as well. This is the relationship I would like to have with all my students. I understand that "open water" is not the end of anything, and would like to continue to be a lifelong diving resource to any of those people who feel I can be useful to them. We stress in our classes what the open water certification does and does not qualify one to do, and that if one wants to do those things that one is NOT qualified to do, there are always ways to get the training and experience that one needs. Much of our training is the knowledge develoment and confined water only, with the students being referred on to someone else for OW dives. As someone who has received referral students, and wondered how on earth this student was signed off in confined water, I strive to never, ever have the receiving instructor wonder that about one of my students.

Thanks for the dialogue.

kari

 

[SDAnderson]

You said:
And I asked:
And you asked:
And I respond: I don’t believe for a minute that you (of for that matter me, or anyone else) can achieve mastery of the learning objectives of an entry level scuba course within the conventional structure of such a course. Thus I can not see how you can “follow them (your agencies standards) them to the letter," with redefining the word mastery.

Your answer is:
And I submit to you that that redefinition is a tautology that deprives the word “mastery” of any meaning whatsoever. Id est: saying that the standard is “as would be expected of an open water diver” is akin to saying that mastery of the English language is, “as would be expected of a three year old.”

I am in no way suggesting that you do not do the best job under the circumstances, or that you are not a conscientious and effective instructor, I’ve concluded quite the opposite, else I’d not bother with this conversation. You impress me as a concerned Instructor who is trying to do the best you can for your students.

My point is that the standards are either meaningless (i.e., mastery is defined as the skill level you’d expect of a neophyte) or are set up to assure that you “fail” (i.e., mastery is the normal dictionary definition).

To which I think it's appropriate (well, accurate, at least) to respond that you are being an iconoclastic pedant.

Your attempt to disambiguate "mastery" to mean perfection instead of command is a lexigraphic and functional error. Mastery doesn't have to mean flawless repetition, it's well within the range of usage for it to mean effective and consistent. There is clearly room within the definition for a distinction between "demonstration quality" and "close enough."

I understand that you would like to restrict the meaning of the word but PADI is using it in a way that is consistent with the historical and present usage. I disagree that the explanation that PADI provides contains either a logical or rhetorical tautology but, even if it did, I wouldn't be much concerned - they're attempting to be effective and largely succeeding.

 

[SharkDiver36]

Simple answer....If you don't like your current agency standards change agencies.

Simple answer....Follow your standards if for no other reason if something does happen your butt is covered. If you don't follow the standards set forth you are 100% wrong and will loose in lawsuit.

Tough answer....There are standards which I call "double standards" which read one way in one section and can be read differently in others. There is one standard in NAUI that drives me up the wall and depending on how you read it and what you choose to do with it can have two totally different outcomes. DRIVES ME NUTS! I get wishy-washy answers when I get clarification, or I get an answer from a person that doesn't follow his/her advice on the standard....UGH! I'll just leave it that I have my own answer. Confused? LOL....so am I!

Follow the standards to a "T" as long as you are with students. No If's, Ands or But's.