Shaky foundations

As 2004 rumbles on and the DSA devise more hoops for instructors to jump through in their attempt to raise standards, this month I am turning my attention towards the root of a problem which ORDIT and other schemes have singularly failed to sort out - that of 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. In this article I consider the examination, the candidates and the available training.

Is the ADI qualifying examination flawed?

It might be reasonable to assume, with such a low qualification rate amongst those setting out to become driving instructors, that 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 what might be expected from 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 that the problem lies with the examining body. This is not to say that the exam is perfect, however, it might suggest that it is adequate.

Do training companies attract the wrong people?

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 the people attracted to a career as a driving instructor are professional or enthusiastic amateur drivers with an interest in people - others come from training, managerial or self-employed backgrounds - these are key factors that would suggest that the pass rates should be higher as would the fact that mature students tend to do well in vocational examinations.

In addition to the above, 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.

What about the 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 viewed the 'hardest' part of the ADI examination. This is hardly surprising when the training methods that are currently employed are examined.

Culture of failure: Part-Three is described by most trainers as being 'difficult' or 'tough' . (A wide range of superlatives are used to describe the 'mountain' of Part-Three!). There have been various psychological studies over the years demonstrating that the beliefs of teachers will strongly affect the results of their students. A culture that believes that 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 ( PST's ). 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 practicing 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 usually 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 individual student's previous experience and life skills by adopting a 'one size fits all' approach to training.

Another major problem with the PST based approach is that it places an emphasis on lesson content rather than lesson delivery: "Make sure that you mention coasting, otherwise you'll fail" . This is confusing for many students who feel that 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 for 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 that 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.

So what needs to happen if things are to change?

In order for change to take place there needs to be a desire for something different. While most jobbing driving instructors would like to see increased lesson prices and a more professional industry, the instructor training business is in somewhat 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 that 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 '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 perhaps 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 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.

What do you think?