"The Worst Course of All"

[sbird]

vonhosen said:

If my colleagues have found anything difficult it was the HPT, but that's because they didn't understand the test & were looking for hazards rather than developing hazards. Once they understood that it was fine.

Out of pure curiosity, I've just had a go at an online HPT (http://www.billplant.co.uk/hazard/hazard.php), expecting it to be relatively easy. Without any coaching or practise, I only score 53%. I would have expected to score much higher.

[Distant]

The main point that the article in the OP misses, is that the DSA predominantly test learners are safe to be let out on the road by themselves. The part 2 ADI test is a test of your own driving, and also how you will teach your pupils to drive. I would not feel happy encouraging novice drivers (who mostly only want to pass the test and don't have any interest in developing their skills beyond that) to straight line roundabouts or position offside approaching a near side bend. Most novices I've seen lack the skills to do this safely. As a test of basic competence, the DSA have it about right.

I feel it would be irresponsible and dangerous for novices to be tought advanced techniques such as using the width of the road to gain a better view. Tell a learner that the safest place for them to be is a metre from the kerb, unless there is a reason to move, and you free up capacity for them to think about other stuff. Not to mention the phone calls I would get from parents concerned that I'm teaching their kids to drive on the wrong side of the road.

The DSA test is a test of basic competence, like a GCSE in driving. Those that go on to do A-levels or degrees in the subject will no doubt learn more advanced techniques. I don't think the author of the article, the equivelent of a university professor can really complain about changing a few things to be qualified to teach at primary school level.

[Distant]

watchnut said:

I'm an ADI, and found the article "interesting", and dare I say it what many ADI's believe as well.

Parts 1 and 2 of the exam process are not difficult, and should be passed first time by most

Part 3 is not so easy, if you have not had training from someone who knows "How the system works" you will find it difficult to pass. Most ADI's worry when a "check test" is coming up, as to fail could loose your business/licence to teach for reward if you don't make the grade. This process is changing shortly, where we will have a different "standards" check, and I'm not concerned about it yet as I don't think I will be called forward for it for a while yet, but when I do, no doubt revert to the "system" of teaching for the check test so as to satisfy the DSA.

There are some very good ADI's out there, and others that are not so good.....just like any other job/career

Before ANYONE chooses an ADI they should first find out if the ADI is qualified or not.....most don't even know if their ADI is fully qualified, and those that are not are hardly going to volunteer the info. Ask if he/she has a "gren badge" and what grade they are, then ask them to prove the grade.....then decide if you want to learn from them....never go on price....if an ADI is charging 5 lessons for £55.00 then he is a tt! LOL

Edited by watchnut on Wednesday 8th January 15:17

I was with you all the way to the last sentence. Why am I a tt?

[SVS]

Distant, I think you've hit the nail on the head about primary school teaching vs. university lectures. The problem is that the law requires university lecturers (e.g. Julian Smith) to qualify as primary school teachers (i.e. ADIs)

Without an ADI badge, a RoSPA Diploma holder or a Police Driving School Instructor would be breaking the law to charge civilians for advanced lessons; that's nuts! Equally nuts, an ADI without an advanced qualification can claim to offer advanced lessons.

Motorcycling shows how it can be done differently. Advanced instructors can, and usually do, follow a different qualification route to L-test instructors. This seems more sensible. (Not that there aren't other issues in post-test bike training, mind you.)

[vonhosen]

SVS said:

Distant, I think you've hit the nail on the head about primary school teaching vs. university lectures. The problem is that the law requires university lecturers (e.g. Julian Smith) to qualify as primary school teachers (i.e. ADIs)

Without an ADI badge, a RoSPA Diploma holder or a Police Driving School Instructor would be breaking the law to charge civilians for advanced lessons; that's nuts! Equally nuts, an ADI without an advanced qualification can claim to offer advanced lessons.

Motorcycling shows how it can be done differently. Advanced instructors can, and usually do, follow a different qualification route to L-test instructors. This seems more sensible. (Not that there aren't other issues in post-test bike training, mind you.)

I don't think its is nuts.

The DSA are responsible for regulating instructors. From what group do the vast majority of candidates come? The answer is new car drivers, so it's quite natural to focus there. That's aside from the point that the DSA are ahead of the major advanced organisations in adopting the move towards coaching.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

That's aside from the point that the DSA are ahead of the major advanced organisations in adopting the move towards coaching.

I'm a member of IAM and RoADAR, but not an ADI, so I'm interested in your comment noted above.

Can you quote, (or point me in the right direction), anything that supports your statement and, in addition, anything that supports the view that the DSA are moving to a test assessment that evaluates outcomes rather than inputs?

Many thanks

[vonhosen]

johnao said:

vonhosen said:

That's aside from the point that the DSA are ahead of the major advanced organisations in adopting the move towards coaching.

I'm a member of IAM and RoADAR, but not an ADI, so I'm interested in your comment noted above.

Can you quote, (or point me in the right direction), anything that supports your statement and, in addition, anything that supports the view that the DSA are moving to a test assessment that evaluates outcomes rather than inputs?

Many thanks

DSA examining moved away from merely 'fault' recording to 'defined outcomes' some time ago.

They don't (for example) give you a driving fault for not pull/push steering anymore. You just have to show/maintain effective control with the steering, as that is the defined outcome.

If you want to look at the way driver training is going, do some research on the HERMES project & it's recommendations in relation to coaching instead of instruction.

The ADI check test are changing this year in order to satisfy that with a more 'client centred approach'. The DSA supervising examiners are already being trained in this now to facilitate that.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 11th January 16:36

[daz6215]

A trainer needs to be able to wear different hats, this requires an open minded and flexible approach to training. Too many 'advanced' and 'learner' trainers simply don't apply flexibility in their training because they believe that the only way is their way! This is no fault of the system they are using be it IPSGA or MSMPSL, it is because of their own inability to get over there own ego's. Remember a good driver does not mean a good instructor and vice versa!

I think that DSA are also ahead of many of the advanced driving organisations in respect of the move towards a client centred approach. My own experience is that allot of telling goes on (that in its self would fail a DSA part 3) because it is often not followed up with analysis and remedial. So maybe it is time that all police driving instructors were ADI's,? it might actually improve how they impart their knowledge if an external agency were to come in and check test them (controversial, yes) they could even be assessed on a'Roadcraft' based lesson as long as they apply the basic principle of Identify, Analyse and Correct, using a client centre approach rather than 'you should have done this back there' I'm sure all would get a grade 6! Of course this is a sweeping generalisation as I know some are up to date with the latest developments in driver training but it might make some of the other dinosaurs think about their own CPD.

[25NAD90TUL]

Distant said:

The main point that the article in the OP misses, is that the DSA predominantly test learners are safe to be let out on the road by themselves. The part 2 ADI test is a test of your own driving, and also how you will teach your pupils to drive. I would not feel happy encouraging novice drivers (who mostly only want to pass the test and don't have any interest in developing their skills beyond that) to straight line roundabouts or position offside approaching a near side bend. Most novices I've seen lack the skills to do this safely. As a test of basic competence, the DSA have it about right.

I feel it would be irresponsible and dangerous for novices to be tought advanced techniques such as using the width of the road to gain a better view. Tell a learner that the safest place for them to be is a metre from the kerb, unless there is a reason to move, and you free up capacity for them to think about other stuff. Not to mention the phone calls I would get from parents concerned that I'm teaching their kids to drive on the wrong side of the road.

The DSA test is a test of basic competence, like a GCSE in driving. Those that go on to do A-levels or degrees in the subject will no doubt learn more advanced techniques. I don't think the author of the article, the equivelent of a university professor can really complain about changing a few things to be qualified to teach at primary school level.

I agree 100% with what is being said here.

[7mike]

daz6215 said:

A trainer needs to be able to wear different hats, this requires an open minded and flexible approach to training. Too many 'advanced' and 'learner' trainers simply don't apply flexibility in their training because they believe that the only way is their way! This is no fault of the system they are using be it IPSGA or MSMPSL, it is because of their own inability to get over there own ego's. Remember a good driver does not mean a good instructor and vice versa!

I rarely work with other trainers so I'm not sure what they do. As I don't teach learners I miss out on the test centre waiting room b.s. gossip (thank fk ) Your description does fit a few I've met though.

[omegac]

vonhosen said:

That's aside from the point that the DSA are ahead of the major advanced organisations in adopting the move towards coaching.

I hope you don't mention the "Coaching" word at work, you'll end up in charge of the TTW!