Today I read an article that I would consider quite insulting to the driving instructor fraternity, it starts with 'many instructors', personally I'm quite disappointed by the sweeping generalisation but more worryingly the intention behind the article implies that we are not good at what we do.
Coaching has swept the ADI culture, well CCL has, but many compare the two, and with this has come a disregard for methods that have gone before, however the research I shall be publishing quite soon states that each style has a place and learning by rote should never be dismissed when you consider it's history and success. Of course, robotic teaching styles may be considered to be out of touch with the modern pupil, they were really always misplaced in the learning arena, but, does that make the student less able, after all these are human beings, thinking people who question the majority of things to satisfy their own curiosity and learning to drive is no different.
So does commanding a routine of MSM mean that the pupil just displays the right amount of technique to be test standard? Only if the ADI explains it in that way, do this to pass a test, rather archaic actually, I meet many instructors in my role and unsurprisingly the educational process, the fact that more ADI's have multiple trainer roles, has improved what is demanded in the environment of the mobile office.
Why, why, why, is heard more now than ever before, schools are encouraging questioning, the teacher is more likely to have a mentor and in many cases the student too, as a life coach I meet many professional people outside of this industry who are questioning the work ethic of their company and seeking change for everyone for the greater good, so why on Earth is it presumed, not proven, that the ADI has stopped somewhere in the 1980's and become fossilised.
I recently spent some time with a professional person, occasional driver, outside of working and travelled in their car as a passenger, naturally I noted their behaviour, useful for my final chapter and saw that their habits were good despite holding a licence for many years, at the end of the journey I questioned their routine and they smiled and said blame my driving instructor I can still hear their voice ringing in my ears after forty years. Refreshing, not unusual and definitely an example to some.
"Many Instructors..."
ReplyDeleteTricky one linguistically, is this; and I sympathise.
With 44,000+ ADIs, it might be sweeping to say "Most Instructors...." since one can't know much about the habits of over 22,000 Instructors [though, "most Instructors didn't rise above Grade 4 in their careers following successive Check Tests" IS clearly a valid statement, according to DSA/DVSA statistics in the public domain.]
If one delivers in-car, ADI "top-up" training / Standards Check training, and sees - say - 70 ADIs in a year, it might be quite OK to say "Many ADIs don't look at their pupils sufficiently during on-the-road training."
Given that the training probably won't be delivered nationally, but in the Trainer's operating area, if 50 Instructors admit to not looking at their pupils enough, the above statement holds good, without it being meant haughtily or condescendingly.
From various forums, I'd venture that : "Many ADIs dreaded their upcoming Check Test." [too early yet to upgrade that to "Standards Check"!]
Could it safely be turned into a "Most..."?
I dunno : 22,000+ is a lot to speak for...!
Many ADIs may disagree with all this, though!