JeffG
Contributor
But you can have them hold a rope so that the instructor can find the next student on the line. There they can do the skill and get certified. Easy peasy
The Philosophy of Diver Training
- Thread starter DCBC
- Start date
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
But you can have them hold a rope so that the instructor can find the next student on the line. There they can do the skill and get certified. Easy peasy
I'm with Jeff on this one, and I'll use myself as an example. I did the swim. I finished the distance. I did so struggling incredibly because the water was cold, I had no wetsuit, and I was hyperventilating. I met the standard. I did not have mastery of the 'skill'.
In my training world, I met the standard, but would not have been passed since I did not master the skill.
I like what Jim Lap said . . .
JeffG
Contributor
I would like to know where they are. I believe they only exist on the internet. Most OW students look pretty much the same skill level to me and yet every instructor on SB comes out with DIR-f ready students.
Go figure.
Going back to the OP, "Is this training philosophy a good one in your opinion, or should more time be spent developing independence in diver training? How does this philosophy affect you as a diver or does it?"
This is begging the question -- one presumes a change in philosophy, and one assumes independence is the only alternative, which is a second logic flaw.
Without naming agencies . . . Did your agency standards change? That should be the first question in a philosphy discussion - Determine the problem.
This is begging the question -- one presumes a change in philosophy, and one assumes independence is the only alternative, which is a second logic flaw.
Without naming agencies . . . Did your agency standards change? That should be the first question in a philosphy discussion - Determine the problem.
What do you mean? That she didn't communicate with her instructor and then blamed him for not being able to read her mind?
There are standards and there are expectations! if her instructor didn't live up to her (or your) expectations -- and especially if you didn't put them on the table -- then I fail to see how that means that the agency was at fault!
R.
OK, I tried to sty out of this, but...
My field is education and educational theory. As a member of the Colorado Goals 2000 task force, part of my job was to oversee the implementation of the state standards and of standards-based education goals in general. When I was a member of North Central Accreditation visiting teams, my specific specialty was analyzing program standards. In my most recent consulting work, one of my primary goals was adjusting curriculum design to the world of standards.
I understand the term standards, and I know how PADI is using the term.
The phrase "minimum standards" has absolutely, positively no meaning in that context. There is only one defined level of performance in a standard, and in this case, PADI calls it mastery.
Those of you who are repeatedly talking about a system where you have different levels of standards are not talking about standards based eduction; you are referring to something altogether different and misusing the term.
What bothers me is that I have had to say this many times in the past, with many of the same people involved. That they are still repeating the same mistaken phrases even when they have had the error explained is a mystery to me. It must be either lack of attention, lack of understanding, or intentional misrepresentation.
In some skills, the standard of performance appears to change, but people who think so are not understanding the system. Let's take the previously mentioned mask skills, for example. The first time a student does it, it is a simple partial mask flood. There is a standard for a partial mask flood. That standard is different from the standard for the final skill that will be performed in the sequence. It is because of the idea of a progressive mastery of skills. You have the student master a skill at a small level and find success. Then you move to a more complicated skill (full mask clear) which the student is to master. Success breeds success. Then you get more and more complicated, with the student mastering each level of complication.
About half way through the entire sequence, the student must swim a specified distance in water too deep to stand in (3 1/2 feet of water would be a standards violation) with no mask and then put it on. (The standard says nothing about doing it on the knees, and my students do not so so.) Completing that standard does not mean that the student is done with mask skills--it means the student has mastered that level of the learning sequence. The student still must do 4 mask skills in the open water.
This is contrasted with what I have seen in most technical programs I have witnessed, where students are given minimal instruction and practice and then thrust into the evaluation of a skill at the highest level. The instructors feel really proud of what good, tough instructor they are because students experience many failures before they finally succeed--unless they quit first . (Failure breed failure.)
Standards appear to be vaguely written because they must be so to be valid. A yearning for countable numbers is because of a psychological need some people have for the false sense of objectivity in numbers. They are so focused on reliability that they are willing to sacrifice validity. (I wrote a very long explanation of the difference between validity and reliability in assessment quite a bit back; let me just summarize by saying too much focus on reliability often results in assessments which are not valid measurements of what you are trying to assess.)
For a good explanation of a lot of this, please look at Understanding by Design, by McTigue and Wiggins.
My field is education and educational theory. As a member of the Colorado Goals 2000 task force, part of my job was to oversee the implementation of the state standards and of standards-based education goals in general. When I was a member of North Central Accreditation visiting teams, my specific specialty was analyzing program standards. In my most recent consulting work, one of my primary goals was adjusting curriculum design to the world of standards.
I understand the term standards, and I know how PADI is using the term.
The phrase "minimum standards" has absolutely, positively no meaning in that context. There is only one defined level of performance in a standard, and in this case, PADI calls it mastery.
Those of you who are repeatedly talking about a system where you have different levels of standards are not talking about standards based eduction; you are referring to something altogether different and misusing the term.
What bothers me is that I have had to say this many times in the past, with many of the same people involved. That they are still repeating the same mistaken phrases even when they have had the error explained is a mystery to me. It must be either lack of attention, lack of understanding, or intentional misrepresentation.
In some skills, the standard of performance appears to change, but people who think so are not understanding the system. Let's take the previously mentioned mask skills, for example. The first time a student does it, it is a simple partial mask flood. There is a standard for a partial mask flood. That standard is different from the standard for the final skill that will be performed in the sequence. It is because of the idea of a progressive mastery of skills. You have the student master a skill at a small level and find success. Then you move to a more complicated skill (full mask clear) which the student is to master. Success breeds success. Then you get more and more complicated, with the student mastering each level of complication.
About half way through the entire sequence, the student must swim a specified distance in water too deep to stand in (3 1/2 feet of water would be a standards violation) with no mask and then put it on. (The standard says nothing about doing it on the knees, and my students do not so so.) Completing that standard does not mean that the student is done with mask skills--it means the student has mastered that level of the learning sequence. The student still must do 4 mask skills in the open water.
This is contrasted with what I have seen in most technical programs I have witnessed, where students are given minimal instruction and practice and then thrust into the evaluation of a skill at the highest level. The instructors feel really proud of what good, tough instructor they are because students experience many failures before they finally succeed--unless they quit first . (Failure breed failure.)
Standards appear to be vaguely written because they must be so to be valid. A yearning for countable numbers is because of a psychological need some people have for the false sense of objectivity in numbers. They are so focused on reliability that they are willing to sacrifice validity. (I wrote a very long explanation of the difference between validity and reliability in assessment quite a bit back; let me just summarize by saying too much focus on reliability often results in assessments which are not valid measurements of what you are trying to assess.)
For a good explanation of a lot of this, please look at Understanding by Design, by McTigue and Wiggins.
Especially
JeffG
Contributor
I'd be shocked at this from anyone but you:shocked2:. I've been here long enough to know when someone is yanking a chain. Jeff you are one of the best at that. Who let you out of the pub?
And no mine are not DIR-f ready but they do come closer than many others I've seen.
Sorry...Thats a true story.
Happens pretty much every weekend at lake miniwanka
JeffG
Contributor
Ok...I'll stop now. But you really need a course on reading comprehension.
Similar threads
