The Philosophy of Diver Training

[boulderjohn]

It is wrong to look for more specific language in any standards. It is not really the language of the standards by which students are evaluated.

When standards are used to evaluate something in other areas of education, they are often far more vague than any scuba agency's standards. If you were to look at descriptors the College Board uses to score essays on the AP exam, you would say that it would be impossible to score with anything remotely close to any kind of consistency from one evaluator to another. Yet they achieve what is called inter-rater reliability with a greater than 90% score. That is because scoring like this is done not so much by the wording of the descriptors as by comparison with benchmark performances.

The process begins with experienced evaluators examining a set of actual performances and deciding on the specific skill levels. Those become the benchmark performances. Then the evaluators who will actually score the exams are trained on those benchmarks. They learn what it looks like when a student achieves a specific score, and they use that experience to score future exams. This process is called calibration. As someone who has both been trained to do this and trained others to do this, I assure you that it is remarkably accurate--meaning that two different raters will independently score the same performance at the same level.

This system is used in all such grading that I know of--AP exams, SATs, LSATs, etc.

PADI, along with (I believe) all other agencies, uses the same system. DM candidates must view and perform skills, AI candidates must view and perform skills, and instructor candidates must view and perform skills at the IDC level, and (finally) the instructor candidate must perform skills at the IE. In theory, when an instructor views a student performance, that performance is compared with the benchmark performances the instructor has seen in the past and scored accordingly.

Where the system falls down is in the follow up. In a system such as that used by the college board, inter-rater reliability is checked continually. Each performance is scored by two people independently, and discrepancies between the two must be addressed. Benchmark papers are routinely sent back through the system to make sure they get the same scores as before. An evaluator who starts to stray consistently from the norm is recalibrated.

PADI, along with (I believe) all other agencies tries to do this through the Course Director system or its equivalent. It is also maintained by the fact that many instructors do become involved in new instructor training. In a strong instructional program, a CD will maintain standards. In a system like scuba instruction, with instructors acattered all over the world. it is extremely hard to maintain that level of calibration, and instructor's views of standards will shift to some degree. That is a flaw to be overcome.

I have been a student in 4 different agencies, and I frankly don't see much difference in this regard.

 

[JeffG]

What happened to the loop holes? How is it tight and still have loopholes? You complained about Rob wanting it both ways, but you're doing that here.

I meant it as He (DCBC) thinks its tight and low. (I would see it a slighlty sloppy and mid'ly)

 

[boulderjohn]

"The main characteristics of the Openwater course is that the students that successfully complete the course, will be properly trained and able to dive under conditions equal to (or better) than the environment where the training was conducted, without supervision, accompanied by a diver of any level (Buddy), to the maximum allowable depth for Scuba Diving, which is 40 meters (130 feet)."

Anything that will reasonably affect a diver's safety is expected to be included in the program. ...

This makes it pretty clear. There's no wiggle room on what the "minimum standards" are.

You think that is clear? You have to be kidding.

Anything that will reasonably affect a diver's safety is expected to be included in the program

There have been lots of threads on ScubaBoard in which people attempt to agree on what should be covered by the phrase "Anything that will reasonably affect a diver's safety," and there is never anything close to consensus.

 

[DCBC]

That is false. You have stated your interpretation of what you think you recall that they said. You have not provided direct quotations -- that is you have not repeated their specific words exactly as spoken.

Perhaps you have not read my post #584? "I was specifically told, to wit:

1. Rescue of a submerged victim had no place in a PADI OW class and its inclusion was a breach of PADI Standards.

2. Altitude Tables had no place in a PADI OW class and its inclusion was a breach of PADI Standards.

3. I would not be covered by PADI liability insurance for anything that was not specifically outlined within PADI Standards and as such, I would be open to personal liability.

4. I was not to test/examine on anything that wasn't specifically outlined within PADI Standards and this was to be the only criteria to determine PADI OW certification."

My profession is known to be detail oriented. I thought this noteworthy and wrote the specifics down on a back page of my commercial diving log book (I have 38 years of these records).

Moreover, given the unlikelihood of you having written down exact words, or recorded them in some faithful fashion, I believe most would be hard pressed to accept any quotation offered by you as valid. And that is not an unreasonable response. Surely you would not accept an attempt by me to recite a statement offered to me 18 years ago as being accurate, would you?

I think I answered that question. As far as you are concerned, if you made your living in the diving industry, owned a dive shop that was affiliated with a diving organization, had been an instructor with that same organization for 17 years and decided to leave that organization, I would tend to think that you would have a pretty solid recollection of why it was that you left.

If you related this to me, I would not say your statements were automatically false! False! In all fairness what would possess you to say this? Why would I automatically completely discount what you say? We may have disagreed on things in the past, but I never have discounted your input.

 

[Walter]

Are you contending that it is impossible for ACUC instructors to engage in lazy instruction, perform to bare minimums, and perhaps certify students who rightly should be given more instruction?

I have no problem with instructors teaching standards to the letter. Teach the absolute minimums as required by agency standards. Do that and you have produced what your agency has determined is an acceptable level of competence for certification. If the student has met all agency standards and is incompetent then there is a problem with the standards as written by the agency. The blame rests clearly with the agency, not with the instructor.

I believe all agencies should write their standards so an instructor following those standards to the letter will produce competent divers who are able to safely dive without a DM or instructor. These competent divers, diving with a buddy of similar training and experience can safely handle problems that can be reasonable anticipated during a dive without becoming stressed or frightened.

Without getting into opinions of which agencies do or do not write their standards in such a manner, I believe the intent of this entire thread was to discuss if that concept is a worthy goal.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Perhaps you have not read my post #584? "I was specifically told, to wit:

1. Rescue of a submerged victim had no place in a PADI OW class and its inclusion was a breach of PADI Standards.

2. Altitude Tables had no place in a PADI OW class and its inclusion was a breach of PADI Standards.

3. I would not be covered by PADI liability insurance for anything that was not specifically outlined within PADI Standards and as such, I would be open to personal liability.

4. I was not to test/examine on anything that wasn't specifically outlined within PADI Standards and this was to be the only criteria to determine PADI OW certification."

Those are not quotations.

My profession is known to be detail oriented. I thought this noteworthy and wrote the specifics down on a back page of my commercial diving log book (I have 38 years of these records).

Yet you have not provided precise quotations, and are now arguing in such a way as to indicate you are unaware of what a quotation is. You are providing statements indicating your understanding of what was said. You have not provided the quote - the exact words - that were said. Nor have you provided the exact wording of the surrounding context.

I think I answered that question. As far as you are concerned, if you made your living in the diving industry, owned a dive shop that was affiliated with a diving organization, had been an instructor with that same organization for 17 years and decided to leave that organization, I would tend to think that you would have a pretty solid recollection of why it was that you left.

Colored significantly by my personal biases.

If you related this to me, I would not say your statements were automatically false! False! In all fairness what would possess you to say this? Why would I automatically completely discount what you say? We may have disagreed on things in the past, but I never has discounted your input.

You would believe that I can recall the exact words someone stated to me, with the surrounding context phrased exactly as stated after 18 years?

You have a fantastically optimistic view of my ability to recall conversations. However, all available research on the subject suggests that this is not a reasonable expectation of anyone.

Ever play the game "telephone?"

 

[DCBC]

Are you contending that it is impossible for ACUC instructors to engage in lazy instruction, perform to bare minimums, and perhaps certify students who rightly should be given more instruction?

Or do you recognize that standards can not stop people from being human?

An ACUC instructor, or an instructor from any organization for that matter, could sell certifications on the Internet without even knowing the person they certify.

If an Instructor wants to give the best training to a student that he can, I'm saying that the Agency should make it clear what they are suppose to do with as much clarity as possible. Also, if the instructor wants to add training, it should be clear what s/he can or cannot add.

 

[Kingpatzer]

An ACUC instructor, or an instructor from any organization for that matter, could sell certifications on the Internet without even knowing the person they certify.

Precisely.

I'm saying that the Agency should make it clear what they are suppose to do with as much clarity as possible.

Yet you argue for the ability for individual instructors to extend standards as they see fit.

 

[DCBC]

You think that is clear? You have to be kidding.

This is only a prelude. Perhaps you might care to post the PADI equivalent, so we may compare.

There have been lots of threads on ScubaBoard in which people attempt to agree on what should be covered by the phrase "Anything that will reasonably affect a diver's safety," and there is never anything close to consensus.

Certifying a diver is not a matter of consensus. After minimum requirements are met, the onus is on the instructor to prepare the diver properly for the conditions reasonably expected locally. The instructor is responsible for doing so and s/he may be held liable in civil court if training is inadequate.

 

[DCBC]

Those are not quotations.

If I related them to a court of law, they would be sufficient.

Yet you have not provided precise quotations, and are now arguing in such a way as to indicate you are unaware of what a quotation is. You are providing statements indicating your understanding of what was said. You have not provided the quote - the exact words - that were said. Nor have you provided the exact wording of the surrounding context.

You're sounding awfully academic today...

Colored significantly by my personal biases.

It has been well noted.

You would believe that I can recall the exact words someone stated to me, with the surrounding context phrased exactly as stated after 18 years?

Yes, I think if you went out with a young lady for 18 years, you would be able to relate with accuracy why you broke up.

You have a fantastically optimistic view of my ability to recall conversations. However, all available research on the subject suggests that this is not a reasonable expectation of anyone.

Since I have not honestly analyzed all available research on the subject I couldn't say. Although it's doubtful you have, I will not call your statement a false one.