Well, I'm a little confused by the CCL debate, what is Client Centered Learning and why has it caused such defensiveness amongst trainers, after all hymn sheet and all surely springs to mind. My concerns are that everyone is so wrapped up in defending how they deliver CCL that the actual reasoning behind it is lost. You only have to browse half a dozen forums to see that it is a battle of wills, my interpretation of CCL is better than the next person? How can that be? CCL has nothing to do with coaching and everything to do with value for money and equality.
So lets break it down, client, be it learner or full licence holder, the person paying for a professional service. In 2007 I attended a DSA conference which covered the subject of raising the profile of the driving instructor, and along with this the carrot or is that stick, was that the ADI would see a raise in income as the profession generated better respect amongst members of the public. So why is the instructor not viewed highly by the public?
The client, the paying customer, who is always right, demands more for their money than ever before. I read somewhere that CCL is being described as quality control, well in this case yes it is, the minister says we have to provide value for money.
Which leads to centered, a place of activity or influence, to focus or bring together, so really it depends if it is a verb which the title implies or a noun. Mentally or emotionally balanced. So by allowing the client to be the centre of the session it reduces the dictatorial methods that some employ, which in an ideal world is a good move, but what about the real world, it is impossible to monitor output, so it can be do as I say not as I do, surely.
Learning, knowledge acquired by systematic study, so following a syllabus, which is where the standards document comes in and the TRL report which describes the syllabus released by the DSA as 'no justification for rolling out the new syllabus in terms of road safety'.
So why is post test training not encouraged by the DSA when the DFTand F have commissioned an expensive report using tax payers money. Research and trials in these scenarios are an expensive way of trying to show justification for money spent preparing a document for common guidance. Recently an examiner encouraged my pupil to take up Pass Plus singing the praises of a confidence booster recommended in their own car, a remark I wholly approved of, yet my following test passes elsewhere did not mention it.
The research behind the learning to drive process clearly points out that if students could not drive until the age of 24 then the road safety figures would be greatly improved, but there has not been a single government brave enough to adopt this. The greater amount of fatalities on our roads as a group are cyclists would that surely be a better starting point, as many cyclists are drivers or become one, yet there is no compulsory road safety procedure aimed at this group. If road safety is really the key why are we not tackling the UK problem as opposed to the EU one?
When you look at the tiny study group used for the research, all with willing volunteers, about half of the pupils dropped out of the study, was that because the process was just too client centered for comfort? With pupils asking to be taught as per the school curriculum process rather than feeling uncomfortable with answering questions that they consider themselves to be ignorant about, even in the intimate environment of a car with no friends present, at an age when the pupil is self conscious and acutely aware of their areas of ignorance. We moved away from bullying at the school gate yet we are prepared to put these teenagers on the spot, regardless of how you view your questioning technique, be it soft, encouraging or demanding.
As every instructor has a differing view on CCL, and employs different methods of instruction, how can ADI's as a group unite on common ground, because having a couple of expensive documents published isn't enough to save lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment