When is a skill "mastered"?

[DCBC]

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.

One would think so. NAUI's Instructor manual is made-up of a loose leaf binder in-which standards can be easily removed or inserted. Instructors may also be sent an e-mail from the NAUI Office to provide an update to policy. Other Agencies that I'm affiliated with do the same thing. If the Agency feels that it's important, they don't take a year, write articles and still no official change takes place.

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.

I agree. Regardless of the certification Agency, there are some things that the Instructor must cover in the manner described by the Agency. Some Agencies however, are more restrictive than others. This has positives and negatives; some of which you've mentioned.

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.

I see that the diving environment should dictate the make-up of the training program. So I don't see that one "Universal Standard" is either reasonable or preferred. What most organizations have done is establish "Minimum Standards" (based on ideal conditions) and allowed the Instructor to add material that they believe is reasonable for the diving conditions. I see this as a strength, as it focuses on safe diver training and not solely the advantage of one standard that makes QA easier. I would rather error on the side of education and diver competence. This does however put additional pressure on the Agency to certify competent Instructors. It usually makes the Agency (and any LDS flying that Agency's banner), less competitive. Perhaps we can begin to understand why things are being done the way they have been...

 

[DevonDiver]

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.

Yes, this does show that flexibility can exist. Although it's a travesty that so many years after the program fundamentally changed we are still expected to print (at our own expense) an inch-deep raft of supplemental materials for each student. I'm guessing this was down to a monumental over-order on materials production many years ago (?)... but it does undeniably prove, where there is a will, PADI have a way...

The logical following question is why such will hasn't been applied to amending the recreational program in the two years since 'that article' came out...

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.

Yes... it's a very interesting question. One I asked earlier..

Especially since 2 further editions of the Instructor Manual have been published, with no changes to reflect a "changed policy". One has to ask whether the policy did indeed change... or whether something more cynical took place.

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.

Exactly. PADI have always been very stringent in creating a 'universal model' - guaranteeing that any student could enter any class, anywhere in the world and receive training of equal quality, content and 'output'. They define that training expectation through explicit standards that instructors are taught to abide to without deviation.

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.

An instructor can offer more - one example is the use of supplemental 'Excursion Dives'. If the instructor wanted to add 'quality' he/she could add these to their course as a personal decision, amending costs and advertising appropriately...

PADI Instructor Manual 2013, GS&P, Page 15
Excursion Dives
An excursion dive is an extra dive with no formal performance requirements conducted during entry-level training. Excursion dives allow student divers to gain experience applying general diving skills (such as buoyancy control) in the open water under supervision. Follow Open Water Diver Course supervision and ratio requirements.

Note: even in the instance of Excursion Dives, PADI have to state that "no formal performance requirements" apply... thus alleviating the instructor from any assessment for continuance of training.

I don't think it'd be ethical, however, to apply Excursion Dives in the instance where a student failed to achieve instructor-mandated performance requirements (i.e. mask remove/replace whilst neutrally buoyant), if they otherwise could achieve PADI's performance requirements (mask remove/replace).

IThat 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.

I think from new (but otherwise diving experienced) instructors, or instructors not intimately familiar with PADI, there must be a level of disbelief that "it can't possibly be right" that PADI would limit their capacity to promote excellence. Welcome to the angst...

 

[The Chairman]

I don't think it'd be ethical, however, to apply Excursion Dives in the instance where a student failed to achieve instructor-mandated performance requirements (i.e. mask remove/replace whilst neutrally buoyant), if they otherwise could achieve PADI's performance requirements (mask remove/replace).

It would only be unethical to allow the student to pass if they could not manage to do all of their UW skills while neutrally buoyant.

I think from new (but otherwise diving experienced) instructors, or instructors not intimately familiar with PADI, there must be a level of disbelief that "it can't possibly be right" that PADI would limit their capacity to promote excellence. Welcome to the angst...

No angst required! Simply choose the agency that's right for you. Why try to fit a round peg in a square hole? A few seem to think that PADI has to conform to them and nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't like their policies or can't understand how to make them work, then vote with your fins and go to another agency. I left the agency I first became an instructor for because I felt they were hypocritical on several levels and my ethics would not allow me to be associated with them. I don't label them as evil or even bad, but they and I are just not a good fit. I've even gone out of my way to defend them here on ScubaBoard and will continue to do so as long as it does not compromise my ethics.

 

[DevonDiver]

It would only be unethical to allow the student to pass if they could not manage to do all of their UW skills while neutrally buoyant.

PADI don't think so, as discussed. Even now, conduct of skills practice (not assessment) in neutral buoyancy remains very optional (one article...)

Simply choose the agency that's right for you.... vote with your fins and go to another agency.

Thanks for the careers advice... wasn't asked for, but thanks anyway.

Did you give up hoping that change could be effected?

 

[The Chairman]

PADI don't think so, as discussed. Even now, conduct of skills practice (not assessment) in neutral buoyancy remains very optional (one article...)

This can be said for almost all the agencies. I know of only two that require UW skills to be done while neutral. All the others leave it up to the instructor to teach in an ethical manner. Not all instructors are equal to the task which is why I constantly suggest that an open water student should take care to choose the right instructor for them. Many, if not most instructors teach to the very minimum and a few go below that. If your instructor won't demand excellence from his students, then he's not worth much in my eyes. Standards, as written by most agencies, are nothing more than a checklist of skills. There are few, if any quantifiers written into the standards so that the instructor has the latitude to require excellence. While PADI standards don't demand neutral buoyancy, they permit it and frankly, they expect you, as one of their instructors, to produce divers who are able to conduct dives and that means staying off of the bottom.

Thanks for the careers advice... wasn't asked for, but thanks anyway.

You're welcome. You're clearly in pain and I hate to see people not have fun while teaching Scuba.

Did you give up hoping that change could be effected?

The first rule of diving applies here: Don't hold your breath. I left them a number of years ago with no drama or fanfare. They have asked me to come back a few times but until they make some fundamental changes I just won't even consider it. If you want to know more, just PM me. I don't make the particulars public as that would be unethical but I will share privately with friends.

Let's be realistic, no agency is perfect: not even in regards to their standards. I like to operate with a large amount of creative freedom and I don't like having to be associated with a single shop. However, some of the agencies I don't teach for have some plusses going for them that interest me but not so much that I would sacrifice my creative freedom. It's a give and take in any event.

 

[DCBC]

It would only be unethical to allow the student to pass if they could not manage to do all of their UW skills while neutrally buoyant.

Ethics obviously isn't something that some Agencies are concerned about Pete.

...Simply choose the agency that's right for you. ...A few seem to think that PADI has to conform to them and nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't like their policies or can't understand how to make them work, then vote with your fins and go to another agency. ...as long as it does not compromise my ethics.

Well said! There is actually life without PADI (something that the rest of the World is also aware of). But it's a hard organization to beat if you're wanting to turn a buck. Like you say, it's all a matter of an ethical choice...

 

[boulderjohn]

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.

First of all, PADI does not specify instructing on the knees. That should be pretty clear by now.

Next, speaking as the formal lead internal auditor of a large ISO-certified organization, I disagree with much of your characterization of the ISO process. You do not have to get down to the nitty and gritty of each step of a process, and you can build in a lot of room for individual differences with no problems. As has been said here, most of the PADI standards have an intentional built in vagueness to it to allow individual variations. I cited air sharing before. I will mention mask clearing now. I recently saw an instructor tell a DM candidate that under PADI guidelines, the mask clearing must be taught with the student holding the top of the mask down with the heel of one hand. That instructor was wrong. There is no such requirement. There are several ways to clear a mask effectively, and PADI has no requirement that any one technique be used.

 

[DevonDiver]

This can be said for almost all the agencies.

What can't be said for "most agencies" is the limitations upon adherence to standards. PADI has strict limits.... it's performance and training standards are rigid. Others do not, or even go so far as to encourage instructors to exceed limits.

As mentioned, PADI want to create consistency between courses. They want an 'off-the-shelf' globally consistent system - a corporate policy more akin to McDonalds, where any student, any where can expect the same product, at the same standards, to get the same training and the same certification.

Instructors are taught to deliver that 'product' - far more than they are taught 'to teach'. It is about delivery of set content in a set, standardized and routine manner, rather than the development of expertise that is passed along expertly.

As a theory, it should deliver consistency... nothing below acceptable parameters, but nothing above them either.

Having qualified as an instructor with multiple agencies, I have noticed that PADI were different in the manner described above.

All the others leave it up to the instructor to teach in an ethical manner.

With nearly 10 years as a PADI Pro, I am inclined to disagree with your assumption. PADI does not "leave it up to the instructor" in respect of teaching or student performance standards.

You're welcome. You're clearly in pain and I hate to see people not have fun while teaching Scuba.

The only thing that is causing me pain is the rampant misinformation you are giving on a public forum and your inability to produce any reference or evidence to support your outlandish claims..

Let's be realistic, no agency is perfect:...

That's a good start. Assuming PADI isn't perfect (which some might feel you've been alleging thus far), can we not have a reasoned debate based on the evidence submitted, rather than the need to blame all of the 'failings of the PADI system' on some rogue cadre of lazy instructors, which is what your stance appears to be.

'Training in neutral' isn't the earth-shattering revelation you seem to think it is. I'd put forward the theorem that many, many more PADI instructors would have been doing just this if it were not for the imposition of their standards, performance requirements and dictates demanding strict adherence to those factors.

Whilst PADI have recently made a negligible, un-committed and informal attempt to guide instructors towards 'teaching in neutral', the need to do so arises purely from their own standards that serve to discourage it...and have done for a very long time.

---------- Post added May 31st, 2013 at 11:47 PM ----------

First of all, PADI does not specify instructing on the knees. That should be pretty clear by now.

PADI 'Guide to Teaching' (required text for IDC)

most of the PADI standards have an intentional built in vagueness to it to allow individual variations

Reminder #1:

1. I have made myself familiar with and will abide by the applicable Standards and Procedures, as published in the PADI, DSAT and EFR Instructor Manuals, and, if applicable, the PADI Course Director Manual and EFR Instructor Trainer Manual, and will adhere to all standards changes published in the Training Bulletin and other updates, within the capacity of my current classification, when conducting any PADI related Program. I also will not deviate from the applicable standards when representing myself as a PADI Member.

Reminder #2:

CW#4 Performance Requirements:
11. Remove, replace and clear a mask.

I see no vagueness whatsoever. I see a direction to "not deviate from" standards. I see those standards clearly laid out, with little room for interpretation. Furthermore, I see a process that explicitly educates trainee instructors on how to conduct those skills, specifically to ensure that no ambiguity should exist:

I recently saw an instructor tell a DM candidate that under PADI guidelines, the mask clearing must be taught with the student holding the top of the mask down with the heel of one hand. That instructor was wrong. There is no such requirement. There are several ways to clear a mask effectively, and PADI has no requirement that any one technique be used.

Given the references in this post, if the instructor had told the DM candidate that "under PADI guidelines", in confined water training, the mask clearing must be taught "while seated/kneeling in shallow water" and that "Divers may start with a partial mask clear first" or that the "exercise may be conducted in conjunction with the one minute no-mask breathing skill"..... would they be wrong?

You can argue what isn't there, but you cannot argue what is there...

 

[Abdullah]

First of all, PADI does not specify instructing on the knees. That should be pretty clear by now.



Next, speaking as the formal lead internal auditor of a large ISO-certified organization, I disagree with much of your characterization of the ISO process. You do not have to get down to the nitty and gritty of each step of a process, and you can build in a lot of room for individual differences with no problems. As has been said here, most of the PADI standards have an intentional built in vagueness to it to allow individual variations. I cited air sharing before. I will mention mask clearing now. I recently saw an instructor tell a DM candidate that under PADI guidelines, the mask clearing must be taught with the student holding the top of the mask down with the heel of one hand. That instructor was wrong. There is no such requirement. There are several ways to clear a mask effectively, and PADI has no requirement that any one technique be used.

PADI doesn't stipulate which technique the diver uses to clear the mask, but they also don't stipulate that the diver must clear the mask while air sharing, in a hover, without changing depth.

Speaking as an ISO Lead Auditor (9001, 14001, & 18001) of a large multinational corporation that is ISO certified in several systems and as former external ISO auditor, I would disagree with your characterization of conformance. Procedural compliance is a core requirement that obligates the operators to conform to the organizations' standards - if it's written in the procedures, conformance to those procedures is mandatory. And it is about the nitty gritty, the organization is accountable for precisely what it publishes in its' procedures, just as it is not accountable for anything it chooses not to publish in its' procedures (or standards). The organization is not permitted to write one thing and do another. Your assertion in an earlier post that you can deviate from the published standards because you had a conversation with a guy at PADI HQ or because of an article in their journal is absurd in an ISO conformance context. Until PADI pulls the trigger and publishes the new standards, everyone is committed to the existing standards, including the buddies of the guys at PADI HQ and authors of articles for their journal.

As for the example of training while kneeling, I agree completely that training on the bottom has limited applicability to actual diving and isn't nearly as worthwhile as training in the water column from the start. And, I am all for instructors going above and beyond the minimums and providing exceptional training. I applaud you for being innovative in your training and giving your students more than what they paid for. If it were possible to get them to full cave for OW money, that would be absolutely brilliant. But in the end, the instructor can only require them to master the OW minimums to earn the OW card.

 

[DCBC]

PADI doesn't stipulate which technique the diver uses to clear the mask, but they also don't stipulate that the diver must clear the mask while air sharing, in a hover, without changing depth.

It seems to me that PADI teaches in a manner that's similar to paint-by-numbers. It identifies the area to be painted and the color; what is to be taught, its sequence and what the student needs to accomplish to become certified (no more and no less). The PADI manual may instruct to paint #8 black in the 2nd confined water class, but it doesn't say which hand to use to paint it (that's up to the Instructor). This seems to be the extent of the Instructor's 'creativity' (a word borrowed from NetDoc).

It also appears that some Instructors add more to their training program in an effort to turn-out safer Divers (safer than the PADI program dictates). These Instructors have my respect, as it appears that their heart is in the right place and despite a higher risk of liability, they do it anyway.

Andy has used the term PADI apologists for those that desperately want PADI to modernize their training program (more than what the organization currently stipulates). What we want something to be isn't always the way it really is (something that I learned from my first marriage). It's human nature to hope for the better (change), but sometimes disappointment occurs when it doesn't come. Currently, it is what it is. It's often best to see things the way they are and hope for the best. Only time will tell what they may become...