RE: Advanced driving: Putting Reg Local to the test

[ian in lancs]

ash reynolds said:

An IAM course will teach you this, they're all like Reg.

I am an IAM observer and my day with Reg was humbling and awesome in equal measure - there is always something to learn and Reg is in another league.

[popeyewhite]

blearyeyedboy said:

Do you see any value in coaching? If not, is there anything I might say that could persuade you of the value of coaching?

How many really top sports players (eg, Andy Murray) don't have coaches? I can't think of any who are successful. Why do you think that might be?

You've not read my previous posts. I've said if someone is born with natural talent, like Andy Murray or a sprinter, there is little physical skill teaching needed. Practice is key. Tactics, fine tuning etc a coach can help with. Most driving instruction can be done in a classroom.

blearyeyedboy said:

After all that, if you think I might have a point I'd suggest you google The Inner Game, or the GROW model of coaching.

Good coaches don't tell you what to do. They help you to ask the right questions of yourself.

Are we talking primitive sport psychology now? I'm concerned you're applying sport coaching principles to the car driving environment and most of those principles wouldn't apply. There's a reason a driving instructor is called an 'instructor', not a coach.

[blearyeyedboy]

popeyewhite said:

I'm concerned you're applying sport coaching principles to the car driving environment and most of those principles wouldn't apply. There's a reason a driving instructor is called an 'instructor', not a coach.

(popeyewhite, I don't know your background, so apologies if I'm saying stuff you're already familiar with)

Distinguishing between an instructor and a coach is precisely what I intend to do. At a basic level, you need an instructor to teach you what the controls of a car do. At a higher level, you need to move beyond "this is what brakes do" to "how can you change how you're using brakes?"

Music is a good analogy: You can play piano to grade 8, but how can you project more emotion into Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata?

I appreciate it's a bit of a leap of faith to consider sports coaching psychology and transfer it to other fields, but I'm not the first one to do so- a surprising amount of rigorous academic research on coaching arose from the models that sports coaches were using. Basically, it comes down to dividing learning into Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes. The way each is taught and learned is different. Coaching lends itself far more to the learning of Skills rather than Knowledge or Attitudes. Natural talent for a skill-set is still required but when it comes to higher-level skills, that only takes you so far. I'm sure Andy Murray would be an excellent tennis player without a coach but I doubt he'd be in the World Top 100 without one.

Driving or playing a sport isn't a single skill, but a collection of a set of skills. The approach is surprisingly similar, even when the skill isn't physical. (eg, Communcation Skills). Psychomotor skills require a different approach to bare fact acquisition. You won't learn it all from books or websites either; like you say, you need to get behind a wheel and practice. But hours of practice don't make you better unless you correctly observed what you did, have a clear vision about where you want that skill to be, identify the difference between the two, form a plan to change your behaviour and execute the plan. And then you repeat, again and again. (As an example, though many exist, you can google Kolb's Learning Cycle). Coaches just help you to identify the steps; they won't do it for you. The Inner Game or GROW are just simple descriptors that are accessible for a novice reader, but more dry academic research is available if you'd like to read it. I imagine you have better things to do with your weekend, though.

And you know, after that, sometimes people still don't see the benefit of coaching. Like all things with adult learning, if the learner isn't motivated then learning isn't going to happen. And if you don't... well, info's out there if you feel differently in future.

EDIT: Before I sound like I want to project any air of superiority, I'm a relative novice in advanced driving. I have an awful lot still to learn. But in other fields of learning, I talk to people a lot about Adult Learning Theories.

[Gemaeden]

If Kruger - Dunning is being brought into the equation, we could also bring in bias confirmation. Coaching works, instruction works and so does reasoning and self teaching (Kolb). There's no proof to show which works best ( whatever best means) in the milieu of learning to drive, merely anecdotal evidence, unless someone knows otherwise.

[popeyewhite]

blearyeyedboy said:

(popeyewhite, I don't know your background, so apologies if I'm saying stuff you're already familiar with)

Distinguishing between an instructor and a coach is precisely what I intend to do. At a basic level, you need an instructor to teach you what the controls of a car do. At a higher level, you need to move beyond "this is what brakes do" to "how can you change how you're using brakes?"

That's instruction, which is my point entirely. I thought you were going to 'distinguish'?

blearyeyedboy said:

Music is a good analogy: You can play piano to grade 8, but how can you project more emotion into Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata?

'Music teacher', and they instruct.

blearyeyedboy said:

I appreciate it's a bit of a leap of faith to consider sports coaching psychology and transfer it to other fields, but I'm not the first one to do so- a surprising amount of rigorous academic research on coaching arose from the models that sports coaches were using.

Sports coaches or sport psychologists? I know a few sports psychologists, some very high up in their field, none of them employ coaching techniques and the converse applies. Whilst coaches may motivate students few have knowledge of theories of self-determination, processing efficiency theory, group dynamics etc etc

blearyeyedboy said:

Basically, it comes down to dividing learning into Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes. The way each is taught and learned is different. Coaching lends itself far more to the learning of Skills rather than Knowledge or Attitudes.

Hmm coach as mentor would include attitudes, but I've never heard of any coach teaching 'knowledge'...unless you mean tactical, or training, or something like periodisation etc?

blearyeyedboy said:

Natural talent for a skill-set is still required but when it comes to higher-level skills, that only takes you so far.

Whoa there!! It can take you to the very top. Take Phelps for example.

blearyeyedboy said:

I'm sure Andy Murray would be an excellent tennis player without a coach but I doubt he'd be in the World Top 100 without one.

Top 100? I'll bet he'd be in the top 50.

blearyeyedboy said:

Driving or playing a sport isn't a single skill, but a collection of a set of skills. The approach is surprisingly similar,

Driving is all motor skills, lol. Sorry.

blearyeyedboy said:

even when the skill isn't physical. (eg, Communcation Skills). Psychomotor skills require a different approach to bare fact acquisition. You won't learn it all from books or websites either; like you say, you need to get behind a wheel and practice. But hours of practice don't make you better

That comment is completely at odds with contemporary studies.

blearyeyedboy said:

unless you correctly observed what you did, have a clear vision about where you want that skill to be, identify the difference between the two, form a plan to change your behaviour and execute the plan. And then you repeat, again and again.

That reads simply like one theory of skill acquisition, or a semi-sensible way of planning a training cycle,

blearyeyedboy said:

(As an example, though many exist, you can google Kolb's Learning Cycle).

Kolb is more suitable to teaching the coaches themselves, ie as pedagogy.

blearyeyedboy said:

Coaches just help you to identify the steps; they won't do it for you. The Inner Game or GROW are just simple descriptors that are accessible for a novice reader, but more dry academic research is available if you'd like to read it. I imagine you have better things to do with your weekend, though.

I've read most of the major texts. and forgotten them, I'm happy to say.

blearyeyedboy said:

And you know, after that, sometimes people still don't see the benefit of coaching. Like all things with adult learning, if the learner isn't motivated then learning isn't going to happen. And if you don't... well, info's out there if you feel differently in future.

Oh don't get me started on motivation I'm a huge believer in self-efficacy. Not everything AB wrote was tosh But jus to add, I'd still say it's driving instruction, and it could be achieved almost as well in a classroom. In fact as reactions would be slightly slower (can't remember the name of the study), it might even be better.

[waremark]

popeyewhite said:

Most driving instruction can be done in a classroom.

What is your experience of giving or receiving help to achieve very high levels of driving ability which gives you that belief?

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

popeyewhite said:

Most driving instruction can be done in a classroom.

What is your experience of giving or receiving help to achieve very high levels of driving ability which gives you that belief?

The vehicle is a classroom.

[blearyeyedboy]

I'm surprised we have such different views then, Popeye! Still, that's what makes forums fun, I guess.

Fair point that I haven't distinguished between the two.
I suppose what I'm getting at is the difference between:
"I'm going to help you improve your performance, and you should do this"- instruction or teaching
and
"Your performance is X, you want it to be Y, what strategy would you agree with about how to get there?" - coaching, to me, anyway.
I'm not saying that talented people can't do well without it, just that the dialogue prompts different thoughts from the coachee, which changes how they perform. A bad coach will make little difference or make things worse; a good coach can help a coachee think in a different way to perform better.

I'd dispute that driving is all physical skill. A large amount is about interpreting and responding to the actions of other people around you.

Does that help clarify why I think like I do?

[blearyeyedboy]

Gemaeden said:

There's no proof to show which works best ( whatever best means) in the milieu of learning to drive, merely anecdotal evidence, unless someone knows otherwise.

To be very fair to Popeye and others, most evidence in most forms of adult learning is anecdotal and hard evidence is sparse (as I'm sure Popeye knows).

[popeyewhite]

blearyeyedboy said:

I suppose what I'm getting at is the difference between:
"I'm going to help you improve your performance, and you should do this"- instruction or teaching
and
"Your performance is X, you want it to be Y, what strategy would you agree with about how to get there?" - coaching, to me, anyway.

I'd agree with you there.

blearyeyedboy said:

I'd dispute that driving is all physical skill.

So would I. But the physical side can be learnt and improved with practice. You can watch an advanced instructor on video, then nip out and see how you compare.

blearyeyedboy said:

A large amount is about interpreting and responding to the actions of other people around you.

Absolutely and this could be done in the classroom, although the true environment is preferred for reaction training.

blearyeyedboy said:

Does that help clarify why I think like I do?

Yes. I had a sense of what you were saying beforehand but I think you got your definitions slightly mixed up. I think we broadly agree though. The difference between teaching and coaching can be a very fine line indeed.

[popeyewhite]

blearyeyedboy said:

Gemaeden said:

There's no proof to show which works best ( whatever best means) in the milieu of learning to drive, merely anecdotal evidence, unless someone knows otherwise.

To be very fair to Popeye and others, most evidence in most forms of adult learning is anecdotal and hard evidence is sparse (as I'm sure Popeye knows).

There's plenty of empirical research into motor skill learning which I imagine would obviously be applicable to driving a car. There's plenty of research into which teaching methods best suit a particular population and that includes adults. Then there's research currently being conducted in neuroscience which shows motor imagery can establish neural pathways. In other words in the future you may only need to watch and think about an action to improve the skill. We're talking picking up a fork at the moment, not serving like Murray! Lastly and also from neuroscience there's eye-tracking. If we record the eye movements of an expert we can teach a novice where they should be looking for movement cues, giveaways etc. Then we could greatly accelerate the learning process.

I'm unaware of any empirical research linked to learning to drive.

[vonhosen]

popeyewhite said:

Anyway practice driving - the physical skill - on the road. No coach needed. Driving theory you could learn in front of a screen at home, with a trainer if necessary

There is certainly cognitive neuroscience research (crossmodal attention) into on road driver training & it's effects on memory for skill based information.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/109861...

[blearyeyedboy]

Oh, Popeye, just one more thing. Off topic, but can I ask you to clarify something that I found surprising?

popeyewhite said:

blearyeyedboy said:

Psychomotor skills require a different approach to bare fact acquisition. You won't learn it all from books or websites either; like you say, you need to get behind a wheel and practice. But hours of practice don't make you better

That comment is completely at odds with contemporary studies.

I'm not sure you whether you mean "practice makes you better", in which case I'm not sure if you missed the following clause which would agree with you (!)

blearyeyedboy said:

unless you correctly observed what you did...

Or do you mean that fact acquisition and psychomotor skill learning don't require different approaches? The latter assertion would be very different from what I work with and accepted practice in my field, so I'd be genuinely interested if there's a body of evidence my colleagues and I aren't aware of. Any chance you can steer me towards these "contemporary studies" if that's the case?

[popeyewhite]

blearyeyedboy said:

Or do you mean ...

I mean that hours of practice will make you better.

[popeyewhite]

vonhosen said:

popeyewhite said:

Anyway practice driving - the physical skill - on the road. No coach needed. Driving theory you could learn in front of a screen at home, with a trainer if necessary

There is certainly cognitive neuroscience research (crossmodal attention) into on road driver training & it's effects on memory for skill based information.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/109861...

Research into attention can also be studied through eye-tracking. Lots of interesting stuff out there, indeed one study I read recommended firearms officers train against targets with the target's eyes occluded .

[blearyeyedboy]

popeyewhite said:

I mean that hours of practice will make you better.

Will? Not just can?
That's a strong assertion. And is that only for novices, or of it true of your stereotypical 10,000 hour expert too?

EDIT: By the way, I hope I'm not coming across as an arse or trying to score points. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. It beats the admin I'm ploughing through in my office today, that's for sure.

Edited by blearyeyedboy on Sunday 13th May 12:47

[popeyewhite]

blearyeyedboy said:

Will? Not just can?
That's a strong assertion. And is that only for novices, or of it true of your stereotypical 10,000 hour expert too?

99.9% will. As experts generally have less to learn, the effects of practice will be greater for novices, beginners etc. Ericsson's 10,000 hour theory is contentious, I don't believe you need anywhere near 10,000 hours practice to become expert in some sports. Apart from which Ericsson seems to have overlooked innate ability. Nature vs nurture?

[Dr Jekyll]

popeyewhite said:

blearyeyedboy said:

Will? Not just can?
That's a strong assertion. And is that only for novices, or of it true of your stereotypical 10,000 hour expert too?

99.9% will. As experts generally have less to learn, the effects of practice will be greater for novices, beginners etc. Ericsson's 10,000 hour theory is contentious, I don't believe you need anywhere near 10,000 hours practice to become expert in some sports. Apart from which Ericsson seems to have overlooked innate ability. Nature vs nurture?

Surely a coach is what makes the difference between practicing and therefore improving, and simply doing it over and over and getting into bad habits without noticing.

[Gemaeden]

Dr Jekyll said:

Surely a coach is what makes the difference between practicing and therefore improving, and simply doing it over and over and getting into bad habits without noticing.

A coach isn't needed to make a difference, simply awareness. Whether that is internal or external is irrelevant.

The main problem with driver training is that the vast majority of instructors are not good according to the DVSA.

Edited by Gemaeden on Sunday 13th May 14:29

Edited by Gemaeden on Sunday 13th May 14:32

[vonhosen]

A coach should be a source of motivation, a facilitator to help people learn how to learn & a catalyst to assist in making sense of what they've experienced.