When is a skill "mastered"?

[DCBC]

MY interpretation is just that -- I won't "deviate" from the "applicable standards" so, for example, I won't require a 1 km swim...

In-fact if you hold to standards, you will not require any swim at all...

...nor will I require a body retrieval.

If you are insinuating that body retrieval equates to sub-surface rescue, you have much less diving experience than I've given you credit for.

I will require that on OW Dive 2, they do 2 mask flood and clears, a reg remove/replace and be involved in 2 OOA drills, one as a donor and one as a recipient. I "will not deviate" and provide a card without them showing "mastery" of the various identified tasks.

Hopefully you will never have to prepare a diver for moderate conditions...

That's MY interpretation and worth every penny you've paid for it.

You have an interesting sense of value.

Yes, they are "clearly defined" and Yes, they are "somewhat up to interpretation." The "what" is clearly defined, the "how" is left to interpretation.

You better be careful Peter, or PADI might want you as a PADI "Consultant, Training, Quality Management and Instructor Development"...

My response would be "Yes." The instructor who "fleshes out the bones" would be liable for teaching wrong information. To use your example of altitude tables, IF, someone who was teaching where diving was done at altitude, taught them incorrectly, the instructor would (possibly) be liable for any injuries sustained as a result of his incorrect instruction.

My point is that PADI (within the Membership Agreement) requires that the Instructor agree that "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member," yet does not define clearly what the "applicable Standards" are that they will not deviate from. If you are going to restrict what the Instructor teaches, do you not think that this is should be clearly defined? Are Altitude Tables (AT) in the Standards? If not, how can the Instructor teach AT without this being a deviation???

I have no idea what you mean here. For that matter, I have only the vaguest of memories as to what IS examined during an I.E. ...

Quite simply, how can an Instructor teach anything, if they have not been trained and examined by PADI to be competent?

I have no idea -- nor am I at all sure who you have as a referent for "they."

The question was in the same paragraph as the last question. "They" refereed to PADI Instructors. What steps have been taken to insure that Instructors are competent to teach something not specified within the Standards, that are required (in some locations) to dive safely?

I was unaware that there is any such thing as "PADI Insurance." MY liability insurance seems to be saying it will cover me for actions done in teaching a class or when acting as an instructor. A liability policy only covering one's non-negligent actions would appear to me, on its face, to be a contradiction. The whole notion of a liability policy is for the purpose of covering negligent actions.

It was my understanding that you were required to purchase liability insurance through PADI. Is this no longer the case? Does your liability insurance not say anything about teaching within PADI Standards as a condition of coverage. It use to.

My car insurance is not valid if I drive drunk. This is a condition of the policy. Many insurance policies have exclusions/conditions; look at water damage to houses in New Orleans (caused by flooding or wind?)

Why would liability insurance cover an Instructor if he didn't teach in the manner he was suppose to teach in? Look at the conditions of your policy... You can follow Standards and the Standards can be deemed by the Court to be insufficient (as in the cases in Quebec).

BTW, it has occurred to me that what I understand to be NAUI's "gold standard" for certification, "Would I want this student to dive with my family member" is as wishy-washy and subjective as it gets. At some point ALL evaluations are subjective, are they not?

Well it's certainly something that can establish intent on the part of the Instructor. In my opinion it's much better than to certify Divers when the Instructor knows that they are incapable of diving unsupervised (a direct breach of Standards), with an attitude that they can pick it up later on their own as they accumulate experience...

---------- Post added May 30th, 2013 at 08:09 PM ----------

You and DCBC keep harping on the fact that I can't fail them for not doing it while neutral.

John, it seems that you are having difficulty with comprehension. What's been said is that you can't assess students on doing it neutral and make this required. To quote Peter "There is NO PADI "Standard" that requires (important word, "requires") a student to do any "skills" (except as he [Andy] has noted) while neutral and/or in the water column."

You can ask the student to do anything you like, but it just doesn't matter if they can do it or not. You have to certify them anyway. That's the Standard; not what you envision in your mind. There's a difference in what you can ask for and what's needed. It's like you wanting your students to attain a 60% mark in-class to advance and the school board only requires 10%. Like it or not, they pass. As an Instructor, you have no say with PADI. If they meet the PADI's Standards they're certified...

You also may take a liability hit if there's an accident that occurs while a Student attempts something outside of the Standards. I'd check your liability policy to see if you would be covered.

You and your new pal in PADI-hatred, DCBC, seem to be obsessed by the fact that a full year and a half has passed and PADI has not produced new standards yet.

I suppose that you as an Instructor have never had a curriculum/standards change until the textbooks are caught up. If that's the case, you've never taught Science. Some texts are outdated before they leave the printer. The texts are not the cutting edge John and you say my information is outdated...

It's simple, send a Standards change to the Instructors; change it on-line. No big deal. Amendments can be done to training standards in a timely manner. It doesn't need to take a year. It could have been done in less time than writing that article your so proud of. All it takes is the will to make the change.

 

[boulderjohn]

My point is that PADI (within the Membership Agreement) requires that the Instructor agree that "I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member," yet does not define clearly what the "applicable Standards" are that they will not deviate from. If you are going to restrict what the Instructor teaches, do you not think that this is should be clearly defined? Are Altitude Tables (AT) in the Standards? If not, how can the Instructor teach AT without this being a deviation???

In the pool, the standards are listed. They are not described in detail, however, because a variety of methods are allowed. For example, students are told to respond to an OOA situation, but it is up to the instructor to decide exactly how. No one gear configuration or method is specified.

In the open water, students are required to participate in the planning for the dive. That is a standard. For me teaching in Colorado, that means including altitude in the planning. For Peter in Puget Sound, that means talking about tides. For the class I observed on the California beach, it means discussing a surf entry. You have no choice but to teach to the conditions in which you are diving.

It was my understanding that you were required to purchase liability insurance through PADI. Is this no longer the case? Does your liability insurance not say anything about teaching within PADI Standards as a condition of coverage. It use to. My car insurance is not valid if I drive drunk. This is a condition of the policy. Why would liability insurance cover an Instructor if he didn't teach in the manner he was suppose to teach in? Look at the conditions of your policy... You can follow Standards and the Standards can be deemed by the Court to be insufficient (as in the cases in Quebec).

You can purchase your insurance through any of the agencies. I happen to purchase mine through the one associated with PADI, but it covers me even when I am teaching a TDI class.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

When I taught scuba, I generally kept students negatively buoyant and kneeling in a circle, say on the bottom or on a platform, while they individually took turns performing various required skills. One of my big fears as a dive instructor is a student who bolts for the surface and pops a lung. Keeping them negative and stationary seems like a good way to control them and thus reduce the potential for them to get very far toward the surface before I might notice.

If I had all of the students in my class, simultaneously neutral and teetering on the edge of a buoyant ascent, and moving slightly up and down with each breath, I would be a nervous wreck. Clearly it would make an accidental ascent more likely and it would occur faster if the student did not have to fight any negative buoyancy.

I would think this is pretty much common sense.

Now say, an instructor decides to keep his whole class neutral while they watch each other do the mask clear drill and one student floats off a little and panics and bolts for the surface and embolizes.. Is the insurance carrier going to be able to make the claim that the instructor did everything conceivable to prevent this bailing to the surface and the subsequent death? Is somebody going to be flipping through the manual showing the court that nearly ever single photo shows the students "safely and securely" planted to the bottom?

I suppose that if I still taught diving and the Standards demanded that this stuff be done neutral, then I would do it that way. Possibly make accomodations by reducing student to instructor ratio, but I would think that I would be somewhat protected in that I was doing an activity exactly as mandated by standards. If an instructor is given the leeway (to teach his class in a more dangerous manner), I think I would feel more vulnerable to an accident.

 

[boulderjohn]

What you are missing is that it is actually harder for the student to bolt this way. When kneeling, the panicked student straightens the knees suddenly and is shooting to the surface. The horizontal student has to make a bigger effort to get started, giving you more time to react.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

What you are missing is that it is actually harder for the student to bolt this way. When kneeling, the panicked student straightens the knees suddenly and is shooting to the surface. The horizontal student has to make a bigger effort to get started, giving you more time to react.

I guess the push off, is a big factor... but I still want them planted on the bottom..

 

[Peter Guy]

Wayne -- way too much Bourbon tonight so the following might not even less coherent than normal.

a. Liability insurance is required -- insurance from V & B is not -- just that the insurance meet "minimum standards!" Mine is NOT through V & B.

b. I honestly have no idea what the exclusions for my policy might be. I suppose that teaching drunk is probably not covered -- but, again, honestly, I'd have "fun" dealing with a "non-coverage" suit if the carrier decided NOT to cover me because of an allegation I was "drunk."

c. What ARE the "PADI Standards?" The more I try to parse this, the less I understand. I'll be doing my next course, becoming a PADI "IDCSI" (Instructor Development Course Staff Instructor) in a couple of weeks. While the reason I'm taking this class is that it is less expensive for me to take the IDCSI course (and become an IDCSI) which allows me to teach Assistant Instructors than the cost of the course for my wife to become an Assistant Instructor, it will also give me an opportunity to discuss these questions (at least I hope it will). I don't expect "answers" -- I'm not at all sure there ARE "answers."

We are all discussing abstracts, which I enjoy doing, but, in fact, they often have little relation to reality -- and I believe that is the case with this thread.

Andy is correct that the current PADI literature ASSUMES teaching "on the knees." OTOH, there is nothing that prohibits us from modifying (deviating?) from that assumption and "Doing It Right!"

And that, ladies and gents, is The End. (More Bourbon needs to be found.)

 

[Abdullah]

Wayne -- way too much Bourbon tonight so the following might not even less coherent than normal.

Snip...

Andy is correct that the current PADI literature ASSUMES teaching "on the knees." OTOH, there is nothing that prohibits us from modifying (deviating?) from that assumption and "Doing It Right!"

And that, ladies and gents, is The End. (More Bourbon needs to be found.)

It is my understanding that PADI is an ISO certified organization. Under ISO, procedural compliance is mandatory core principal. ISO allows PADI to write whatever it wants into its' procedures, but it must enforce compliance with its' procedures to maintain ISO compliance. To be standardized, all providers of the PADI instructional product must be teaching the same skills to the same level of Quality, as defined in the procedures (instructor materials) provided to the instructors.

If the PADI procedure says certain skills are to be taught or assessed on the knees, PADI is required to enforce its' procedure throughout all levels of the organization, or jeopardize its' ISO certification. ISO doesn't permit "Doing it Right" if the procedure defines otherwise. ISO does not permit the instructor to adjust the Quality standards "up" to his way of thinking, just like it does not permit instructors to adjust standards down. Rather, ISO requires the instructor to comply with the written Quality standards as defined in the procedures when assessing the students' mastery of the skill.

You will produce a much better diver by assessing the skills in a hover. But if you are certifying the student in accordance with PADI standards that specify kneeling, you have to comply with those standards only, and not assess additional requirements that aren't written in the PADI standards, no matter how worthwhile they may be.

 

[DevonDiver]

Andy is correct that the current PADI literature ASSUMES teaching "on the knees." OTOH, there is nothing that prohibits us from modifying (deviating?) from that assumption and "Doing It Right!"

We don't disagree on this Peter. PADI don't prohibit us from modifying the teaching component. It was stressed to me many times, however, that the 'performance standards' (the assessment part) are inviolate. These cannot be modified by the instructor.

As this thread is about 'a definition of mastery' - then performance standards (assessment) is the critical issue. Modifications to teaching practice are not.

When it comes to practical application by the instructor, I would say that effective tuition makes the issue null and void. If I train students in neutral buoyancy from a very early stage... I train them expertly... with sufficient time for practice and repetition... then they should easily achieve 'mastery' of the requisite skills in the manner that I have trained them - neutrally buoyant.

It's easy to be flippant and think you (the instructor) can always just say "sorry, student, you need more practice before progressing" - but a student could hold forth the performance standards (they're in the student manuals too...) and demand an explanation as to why their progression was retarded when they could "complete the requirements as they were written down". It is likely? No, probably not. Is it possible? Yes, it is... just look at the volume of course conduct inquiries we see posted here on SB...("was my instructor right to...."

In applying neutral buoyancy for training we are exceeding the explicit written standards that we agreed to abide with when renewing our PADI membership. PADI has given tacit approval to do that. I do wonder how much support PADI would give, however, if an incident occurred that tested PADI's liability on the matter. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable defending my liability armed only with a cut-out article from the Undersea Journal. PADI could always recourse to their written standards, directives and agreements to shift any issue of liability.

I was always told "PADI will support you if you have applied standards correctly and precisely without deviation". When it comes to liability, my instinct says to adhere to what is written in black-and-white as standards in the instructor and teaching manuals, rather than what is insinuated or implied by other means (such as magazine articles or verbal agreements).

Given that the instructor and teaching manuals have been updated several times since 'the article' appeared - and yet no amendments have been made to reflect the spirit of that article - one can only assume that this is a deliberate PADI policy, rather than some horrendous and incompetent oversight.

Back to the thread topic: How do PADI define 'Mastery' - they define it through explicit training standards and exact performance requirements as stated boldly in the relevant instructor and student course materials for any given course. THAT is the answer.

 

[DCBC]

Wayne -- way too much Bourbon tonight so the following might not even less coherent than normal.

Hopefully it was Pappy Van Winkle's (I prefer single malt myself)... Good luck with the IDCSI; I'm sure you'll have lots of questions for PADI. I would be interested in knowing why this all seems to be such a secret? Further clarification to these questions would be beneficial, as the PADI "Consultant, Training, Quality Management and Instructor Development" seems to be noncommittal. It's refreshing when you ask a question and get a straight answer.

 

[Abdullah]

It's simple, send a Standards change to the Instructors; change it on-line. No big deal. Amendments can be done to training standards in a timely manner. It doesn't need to take a year. It could have been done in less time than writing that article your so proud of. All it takes is the will to make the change.

I believe PADI has done this recently with the Tec Rec program. The TEC Deep Diver book that was in use pre-dated the TEC 40, 45, 50 program in place now. Rather than discard 000's of books, PADI aligned the text with the newer program by supplementing the text with additional materials that instructors printed off a CD for each of the new TEC levels.

One would think that if PADI was in the process of transitioning to an off the bottom standard, they would have begun implementing that strategy through supplemental materials. It may be their intention to go that direction, but until they formally modify their standards, instructors representing them would be compelled to comply with the existing standards in order to maintain PADI's standardized Quality requirements.

That's not to say you can't tell your students that you're offering some extra above and beyond training that you feel will boost their performance level (i.e. "let me take my PADI hat off for a few minutes"). But it isn't within an instructors' purview to then require mastery of the above and beyond skills for the student to be certified to the formal PADI standards.

If this discussion were about instructors "dumbing down" their assessment to pass more students in less time, rather than up scaling the assessments to make a "better diver", I don't think there would be nearly as much emotion as we've seen in this thread. When it comes to a standardized Quality program argument though, "dumbing down" and "up scaling" are identical failures to comply with the formal standards. Some might argue that there is a significant difference in the ethical implications of each, but each failure may result in cheating the student. In one case the student is certified with substandard and potentially unsafe skills, and in the other case the student has to pay for additional training to master a skill not required in the formal Quality standards.

That experienced instructors argue so passionately that it is acceptable to increase the rigor of a PADI course beyond the formal standards is an indication that PADI has not adequately enforced its' formal Quality standards at all levels of its' organization. The absence of that uniform enforcement of the formal Quality standards would seem to be the root cause of the wide variation in observed skills seen in newly certified divers.