Smart Training This month John offers a controversial but typically constructive view of the ADI qualification process Shaky Foundations John Farlam As 2004 rumbles on and the DSA devises more hoops for instructors to jump through, I am this month turning my attention towards the root of a problem which ORDIT and other schemes have singularly failed to sort out: instructor training. Although no official figures are available, it's probable that fewer than 10% of those setting out to become instructors actually qualify. With a national pass rate that hovers around 33%, Part Three of the ADI qualifying exam would seem to be particularly difficult to crack. This is perhaps emphasised by anecdotal reports that some companies achieve pass rates well below average. If we want to improve our industry, perhaps we should think again about the foundation that it is built upon. A flawed exam or the wrong candidates? It might be reasonable to assume that, with such a low qualification rate amongst those setting out to become driving instructors, the examination process must be flawed in some way. However, given that pass rates for the first two parts of the exam are roughly in line with other vocational examinations, and that these parts of the exam are designed by the same organisation as Part Three (i.e. the DSA), it is unlikely the problem lies with the examining body. This is not to say the exam is perfect but it might suggest that it is adequate. The next logical area for exploration might be the quality of the examination candidates and their suitability for a career in driver training. Many of those attracted to a career in driving instruction are professional or enthusiastic amateur drivers who have an interest in people. Others come from training, managerial or self-employed backgrounds. The motivation and abilities of people like this suggest that rates should be higher, as would the fact that mature students tend to do well in vocational exams. In addition, the examination and study process for Part One requires a reasonable level of literacy and aptitude for learning. While this may account for a high drop out rate if companies place ability to pay as their main recruitment factor, it would also suggest that the quality of the candidates is not a major factor in the low pass rate amongst those who make it through to Part Three. Poor training standards? If the examination and suitability of candidates can be ruled out of the low qualification equation, the major remaining factor is the quality of the training and/or support provided to students in preparation for their new career. If this is the case, a change of approach is well overdue. Part Three is traditionally seen as the hardest part of the ADI examination. This is hardly surprising when many current training programs and methods are examined. A culture of failure Most trainers use a range of superlatives to describe the 'mountain' of Part Three. There have been various psychological studies over the years demonstrating that the beliefs of teachers strongly affect the expectations and results of students. A culture that believes Part Three is difficult puts students at a disadvantage right from the start. Poorly structured tuition Part Three courses are, more often than not, based on the DSA Pre-Set Tests (PSTs). A typical programme will start with PST 1 and work through the series methodically. This approach flies in the face of accepted teaching methodology with trainers not practising the most basic aspects of the skills they are teaching! Well structured learning moves the student from simple principles to those which are more complex. The PST-based approach, more often than not, starts with the lesson that is probably the most complex: the Controls Lesson. In order to complete the Controls Lesson a student will (as a minimum) need to have: well developed communication skills, knowledge of how to use teaching aids as part of an effective communication strategy, good questioning skills, etc. If these skills are not in place beforehand, failure is almost inevitable. When learning a new skill, success is gained more quickly and easily if the material is linked to existing knowledge: from the known to the unknown. My experience suggests that many trainers who adopt the PST approach often ignore the individual student's previous experience and life skills by adopting a 'one size fits all' approach to training. The Pre-Set Tests are not, and never were, a training syllabus; they are simply an instrument for recording performance. While the PST sequence of Phase One subjects equates approximately to that which would be taught to a new driver, it is totally unsuited for instructional skills training. Another major problem with the PST-based approach is that it places an emphasis on lesson content rather than lesson delivery: "Don't forget to mention coasting, otherwise you'll fail". This is confusing for many students who feel they have to re-learn information that they already know (having passed the first two parts of the exam) in order to fit their trainer's model of what is acceptable. This often goes hand-in-hand with a (flawed) belief that the teaching required during the exam is somehow different from that needed for day-to-day lessons. Positive environment People generally learn best when they are self-motivated. This motivation is heightened by successful achievement gained in a positive, stimulating environment. Unfortunately, typical ADI training is failure-based: "You have a go at it, and I'll tell you where you are going wrong." Not only is the training failure-based, experience shows that it is often delivered in a way which demoralises the student. This is reflected in the drop-out rate amongst Part Three students who find the training is just too difficult. When questioned, trainers will explain that these students were not suited for a career in instruction. So why were they recruited? My personal experience is that many students who have been written off by their trainers can not only pass Part Three, but can pass with high grades and go on to run successful businesses. The truth is that Part Three is not difficult at all and requires only moderate instructional skill. The solution In order for change to take place there needs to be a desire for change. While most jobbing driving instructors would like to see increased lesson prices and a more professional industry, the instructor training business is in something of a Catch 22 situation. Over the past 20 years the instructor training gravy train has proved to be very lucrative for many. The problem is, the profitability of some businesses is dependant upon a high dropout rate. Coupled with this, the low pricing structure required to attract a high volume of students is probably unrealistic given the training requirements of a course designed to produce highly skilled and business-aware ADIs. There is little or no recognised ADI trainer-training available in the UK. Most trainers seem to learn the job by spending a few hours watching other trainers or by making it up as they go along. A logical starting point for change might be to ensure that instructor trainers have a reasonable level of competency (which, despite ORDIT, is not currently the case). A minimum of three years experience as an ADI, Grade 5, plus at least one other training qualification would be desirable. While there are some dedicated ADI trainers who work hard to do a good job, there are also some Grade 4 trainers out there. Worse still, there are cases where instructors have worked as trainers even before their Educational Check-Test. And, to add insult to injury, these situations have arisen in organisations working under the ORDIT banner! Either the ORDIT system is completely out of touch or it is easily duped. Change is possible, but it needs a few more players who have the skills to deliver high quality training and who hold the belief that profit can be gained from such training. My personal belief is that, although this is possible, it is unlikely to happen as long as a few big players control recruitment and training of new instructors. You can contact John Farlam by: email: John@smartdriving.co.uk and/or get free driving, training and business advice by visiting: www.smartdriving.co.uk