Is a Student "Entitled" to a Certification just because they paid for a course?

[boulderjohn]

In a 2 man 100m sprint at the Olympic games, there is a winner and a loser; and the loser is most definitely better than me at running.

If someone's worked hard to attain a position, through skill and merit, then they must be doing something right!

I referee Soccer, and was only appointed to representative panels when the selectors realised that I would give yellow cards for launch tackles and red cards for a late tackle even at high divisions. You do have to earn what you get, and I would not be phased at not certifying a student.

I think you missed his point.

There is no question that some doctors are better than others. The difference can be significant. On the other hand, in theory at least every person who is given a medical degree is supposed to have passed a high standard of quality, so every one should be capable of practicing medicine. Being the least competent person in your graduating class does not make you incompetent. The person who comes in last in the 100 meter sprint in the coming Olympics should not be considered a slow runner.

 

[Edward3c]

Let me put it a different way.

Standards-based instructional philosophy actually follows the methods used by most of the world outside of instruction. Let's say you hire a plumber because you have a number of leaks. You do not hire the plumber of a set amount of time, after which he declares how many of the leaks he fixed and how many of the leaks failed. Instead, he works until the job is done. I recently had radon mitigation work done in my house. The worker took a look at my situation, decide what needed to be done and how long it would take, and he told me how much he would charge me. The work turned out to be harder than he expected, and it took him a number of hours longer to do the job than he thought it would. I still paid exactly the amount agreed upon when I signed the contract.

If you were hiring a plumber and you knew that one was 100% successful in solving plumbing problems and another was 90% successful, which would you hire?

Hi John,

I’m not sure the plumber analogy it a good one.

You’re right, I would want a plumber who would rectify all of a problem, but that’s his skill in analysing and fixing a physical system. A diving instructor is imparting knowledge and skills to another individual whom may not have the capacity to learn and retain the knowledge and skills.

I understand commercial dive instructors are operating in a competitive environment, no different to driving schools here in the UK that advertise 100% pass rates. Yet not all learner drivers pass their test first time; or 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th … It also holds that having got the licence they can still be bad drivers. The difference is driving examiners are employed by the state not the driving school so are independent, but a dive instructor both instructs and assesses.

Regards

 

[boulderjohn]

I’m not sure the plumber analogy it a good one.

You’re right, I would want a plumber who would rectify all of a problem, but that’s his skill in analysing and fixing a physical system. A diving instructor is imparting knowledge and skills to another individual whom may not have the capacity to learn and retain the knowledge and skills.

No, it's a fine one. My primary job for years was teaching teachers how to use standards-based education practices, and I used to use it in the workshops I conducted.

The point you missed is that both the scuba instructor and the plumber try to complete a task to a determined level of quality regardless of the time it takes. It is true that some students have problems beyond the instructor's skills, but the instructor still tries to help. When it is clear it isn't working, the the student will make the decision to leave. Some plumbing problems may also be beyond a plumber's skills, in which case a different decision (such as pulling it all out and starting from scratch) may be required. The process is the same--you work to solve problems until it is clear that the problem cannot be solved.

I understand commercial dive instructors are operating in a competitive environment, no different to driving schools here in the UK that advertise 100% pass rates. Yet not all learner drivers pass their test first time; or 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th … It also holds that having got the licence they can still be bad drivers. The difference is driving examiners are employed by the state not the driving school so are independent, but a dive instructor both instructs and assesses.

How does that really make it different from scuba?

Yes, it is true that an instructor who does not want to go the extra mile will pass a student who does not deserve it, but in that case it is a dishonest instructor. They are not supposed to be doing that.

 

[Edward3c]

...

Yes, it is true that an instructor who does not want to go the extra mile will pass a student who does not deserve it, but in that case it is a dishonest instructor. They are not supposed to be doing that.

In which case we are actually in agreement.

Kind regards

 

[levi]

Hi John,

I’m not sure the plumber analogy it a good one.

You’re right, I would want a plumber who would rectify all of a problem, but that’s his skill in analysing and fixing a physical system. A diving instructor is imparting knowledge and skills to another individual whom may not have the capacity to learn and retain the knowledge and skills.

I understand commercial dive instructors are operating in a competitive environment, no different to driving schools here in the UK that advertise 100% pass rates. Yet not all learner drivers pass their test first time; or 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th … It also holds that having got the licence they can still be bad drivers. The difference is driving examiners are employed by the state not the driving school so are independent, but a dive instructor both instructs and assesses.

Regards

I don't even remember the OP's post, but in regard to a 100% pass rate statement. It is possible to say and advertise such a thing. I used to work for a training company and we used to (an probably still do) advertise that by purchasing our training we 'Guarantee' that you pass your Microsoft exams. Now, does that mean that you pass on the first go? of course not. what it means is that if you choose to give us your dollars to gain a specific skill set, well will train you until you are able to pass and demonstrate knowledge of that skill set. If you fail the first time, we will give you additional training 'and' pay for your next exam until you pass. (there may be a maximum amount of exams covered, but I was not privy to such info). So, we could 'Guarantee' that you pass your exams. I can't see it being any different for diving then it is for any other certification.

 

[spectrum]

Hello Divers!

So what are your thoughts... I know it happens. Are you okay with that? Had an experience with a DM or Instructor which made you wonder... who certified you??????

JMac

No it's not OK to gain a certification without meeting requirements, how can anyone rationalize otherwise?

It's equally bonkers for the slow learner to expect an infinite amount of attention for a fixed fee.

Pete

 

[phuonguyen]

I think you missed his point.

There is no question that some doctors are better than others. The difference can be significant. On the other hand, in theory at least every person who is given a medical degree is supposed to have passed a high standard of quality, so every one should be capable of practicing medicine. Being the least competent person in your graduating class does not make you incompetent. The person who comes in last in the 100 meter sprint in the coming Olympics should not be considered a slow runner.

I didn't miss his point, and I know all about good doctors and bad doctors, as I work as a radiographer. And you got my point in one. It is very much a competency based sport, and it's up to the instructor to judge whether it has been achieved; now whether the instructor is evaluating competently is another argument altogether.

 

[DevonDiver]

Is the assessment of scuba skills objective or subjective?

Most agencies set strict performance requirements in the hope of pushing the assessment of trainee diver competence towards a more subjective state.

i.e. Can diver 'A' hover motionless for 1 minute, without kicking or sculling.... YES/NO?

In theory, most scuba skills can, and should, be assessed subjectively. Most agencies reduce the necessity for objective assessment to the bare minimum, especially for novice-intermediate diving level courses. Objectivity, and allowance for instructor experience within critical appraisal, tends to arise more frequently in specialist and high-level diving courses (i.e. technical diving).

If an instructor chooses to ignore the bold subjective criteria, it is rarely to improve standards through a more critical objective assessment. It is most often a deliberately weak 'interpretation' of subjective criteria in order to facilitate more speed and/or less inconvenience to themselves as an educator.

 

[boulderjohn]

Is the assessment of scuba skills objective or subjective?

All skill assessment is mostly subjective. I have in the past conducted an education workshop in which I spoke about what I call "the illusion of objectivity," which shows that supposed objective measurement systems are really subjective, but they hide that subjectivity enough that the tester is unaware of it. This can lead to truly skewed results. Research has repeatedly shown for nearly 100 years that student performance on supposed objective examinations will be scored anywhere from an A to an F by different examiners. In my workshop I actually recreated such an examination as a part of the demonstration.

An analogy is to the supreme court decision decades ago regarding pornography. One of the justices wrote that he could not create an accurate written description of pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. What he meant by that is that when he evaluated something, he compared what he saw with a mental model of what his experience told him was pornography. The problem with that is that we all have a different experience base for this comparison. A Wahhabist in Saudi Arabia will come to a very different evaluation from most of us.

In formal skill evaluation systems, such as grading SAT essays, the process calls for calibrating the examiners. They are trained by reading a number of previously scored essays and practicing on them. It takes surprisingly little time for a group of new examiners to reach the point that they are consistently giving the same scores to the same new essays because they are all using the same mental models for comparison.

That is what the IDC is supposed to do for scuba instructors. They are supposed to get the experience that gives them the same mental models of new OW students performance with which to compare new student performance. Like pornography, it is not possible to define scuba standards so clearly that they can be used independent of those comparisons. Yes, new OW students are supposed to be able to hover, but they don't need to do it at the level of a skilled technical diver who can remain nearly motionless in perfect horizontal trim for 30 minutes.

The problem comes when those mental models change over time. In low performing high schools, teachers can get so used to seeing poorly written essays that their mental models of what constitutes an acceptable performance at that grade level can slip. In very high performing, affluent schools, the opposite can happen. The same can be true of scuba. An instructor's mental image of a passing performance can slowly change over time. In professional evaluations, such as SAT exams, experienced professionals are constantly on the alert for this, and they will recalibrate an examiner when it becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most scuba agencies have no way of doing this well. The only real way to do it would be in a fairly large shop with a very active course director on patrol, but that is pretty rare.

 

[Oldbear]

All skill assessment is mostly subjective ... supposed objective measurement systems are really subjective... this can lead to truly skewed results...

Good anology John. This is why I said earlier that while I "passed" my OW, I also "failed". The goal of my instructor was to Pass me; while I successfully demonstrate to his subjective assessment, when I walked away I had failed to truely learn and understand the skills. I was literally an accident waiting to happen. :amazed:

What upsets me today is I have always taken education seriously and I let myself down. But after 6 OW dives I completed my skills assessments and walked away with my C Card. At the time I was so happy that I "did it" since it was on the last day of my vacation and it would be months before I could try again.

It makes you wonder how many other people have been granted that false sense of accomplishment.