Is the Part 3 fit for purpose
Is the Part 3 fit for purpose
My last article gave an historical overview of the driving instructor training process from my personal point of view and experience. This month I want to focus specifically on whether the Part 3 test is ‘fit for purpose’.
The first question that clearly needs addressing is: What does ‘fit for purpose’ mean? In addressing this question I can then move onto consider whether the Part 3 test of instructional ability fulfils what it sets out to do. I will make some comparisons with educational practice in another field and also with the practical learner driver test. My aim is to demonstrate that it is not the Part 3 test that is the problem, but the training that is presented as sufficient to enable someone to pass the test and also become a driving instructor.
What does fit for purpose mean?
The DVSA is the government agency responsible for setting and maintaining standards for all categories of drivers. The agency holds the register of Approved Driving Instructors and the only thing that differentiates an ADI from a member of the public is the fact that we can take reward (usually money) in return for our services. Therefore, one of the purposes of the Part 3 test is to ensure that the would-be driving instructor is going to be able to give value for money. Implicit in giving value for money is that learning must take place and so, the two go hand-in-hand and form the main focus of the Part 3 test – is value for money given and does learning take place.
The tool that is used to assess whether the potential driving instructor can give value for money and will ensure that learning takes place is the test of instructional ability or Part 3 test. Any tool that is used for assessment purposes has to go through rigorous testing to ensure that it will deliver a valid and consistent assessment process across the board. Using the examiner in a role play situation, for example, adds to the consistency in the mix. A ‘real’ learner driver would create a lot of uncertainty and inconsistency in the assessment process. A friendly, co-operative learner would make things more straightforward for the candidate on their Part 3 test than a belligerent, defensive learner. Any subject that the candidate is given to teach must be comparable with any other subject that is available. For example, the Controlled Stop (Emergency Stop) on its own would not be a robust topic for assessment purposes when compared with Emerging Left and Right. However, combined with the Use of Mirrors, the Examiner has enough evidence to assess that learning is taking place and value for money is being given. Similarly, on any given route there might not be sufficient pedestrian crossings to make this a comparable topic with Emerging, but, combined with the Use of Signals, the candidate again has the ability to demonstrate that they know how to ensure that learning takes place and that value for money is given.
As an assessment tool, therefore, the Part 3 test is fit for purpose.
Does the Part 3 test fulfil what it sets out to do?
The Part 3 test is not supposed to make it difficult and, for some people, impossible to enter onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. For some reason, the pass rate is appallingly low and this, therefore, begs the question of whether it fulfils what it sets out to do. Why do some people find it impossibly difficult to successfully complete the Part 3 test? The answer, for me, is that although it is fit for purpose it no longer fulfils what it sets out to do – assess whether a candidate gives value for money and ensures learning takes place. Mainly, this is because everyone is far too familiar with the content of the test. It holds no surprises and it is possible to deliver 40 plus hours of training that focus entirely on the pre-set test combinations of the Part 3 test. Trainers and candidates, alike, have the goals all wrong. The goals for the training should be focused on growing a successful business as a driving instructor or, something along those lines. Usually, there are ten goals: PST 1: Controls and Crossroads; PST 2 ….. Sorry, I will have to go and look these up if I am going to list them here because I don’t know them off by heart and hope none of you reading this article does either …. Suffice to say, there are ten pre-set test combinations and, unfortunately, these form the focus of most of the training that goes on nowadays for the Part 3 test.
It is definitely time for change because trainers have fallen into the trap of teaching to the Part 3 test and this is creating a massive disservice to the trainee driving instructor population.
A comparison with education in another area
Let’s imagine I am training to be a surgeon. My final examination is a practical supervision of me performing an operation on a real-life patient. I have a colleague who is going through the same course, also training to be a surgeon. We are each under different consultants.
My consultant doesn’t rate me very highly but feels under pressure to ensure that all his trainees do well – he has a high success rate and doesn’t want me to affect that. He therefore tells me exactly what is going to be covered in the final examination and only thinks it necessary to allow me to observe those operations that might come up. I spend hours and hours swotting up on the ten possible operations that could come up. I learn off by heart all the procedures that I must execute in order to ensure that the operation is successful. I gain absolutely no experience of relating to other people – what they often refer to as a ‘bedside manner’. I don’t see the person being operated on as an individual. Let’s imagine I am successful in my final examination as everything runs smoothly and I get exactly the kind of operation I have practised for.
My colleague, on the other hand, is under a consultant, who believes that learning comes from within and that the trainee has all the skills and resources they need in order to be successful and achieve their goals. The consultant doesn’t mention anything about the final examination during the training period. She encourages my colleague to observe as many different operations as possible with as many different surgeons and, wherever practicable, she engages my colleague in the surgical process. She creates as many varied environments as possible to give my colleague as much experience as possible and also to develop her critical thinking skills and reflective abilities. My colleague is also successful in her final examination.
Who would you rather have operating on you – especially if the operation you needed was not one of the ten in the final examination?
A comparison with the L test
I am sure you can all recognise how the Part 3 test compares to the L test when it comes to training people to be driving instructors and teaching safe driving for life. Many driving instructors believe that they teach people safe driving skills for life and that they do not teach to pass a test. However, if you use a ‘test standard’ to measure your pupil’s achievements right from the start of their driver training, then you are teaching people to pass a test. If you are a trainer and you measure your trainee driving instructor’s achievements against the Part 3 test standard then you are not training people to become driving instructors – you are teaching them to pass a test. If you are hung up on what you think the Examiner expects to see or hear then you are teaching to a test rather than developing skills for life.
Does your training miss the point?
Coaching is about raising self-awareness and building self-responsibility. This is about increasing the ‘learner’s’ awareness of how their thoughts and feelings influence their behaviour. If your training focuses more than ten percent of the time on the test – whether this is the pre-set test combinations that compile the Part 3 test; or the syllabus for the L test – then your training is missing the point.
My next article will look at how the Part 3 fits with the new Standards Check.
My last article gave an historical overview of the driving instructor training process from my personal point of view and experience. This month I want to focus specifically on whether the Part 3 test is ‘fit for purpose’.
The first question that clearly needs addressing is: What does ‘fit for purpose’ mean? In addressing this question I can then move onto consider whether the Part 3 test of instructional ability fulfils what it sets out to do. I will make some comparisons with educational practice in another field and also with the practical learner driver test. My aim is to demonstrate that it is not the Part 3 test that is the problem, but the training that is presented as sufficient to enable someone to pass the test and also become a driving instructor.
What does fit for purpose mean?
The DVSA is the government agency responsible for setting and maintaining standards for all categories of drivers. The agency holds the register of Approved Driving Instructors and the only thing that differentiates an ADI from a member of the public is the fact that we can take reward (usually money) in return for our services. Therefore, one of the purposes of the Part 3 test is to ensure that the would-be driving instructor is going to be able to give value for money. Implicit in giving value for money is that learning must take place and so, the two go hand-in-hand and form the main focus of the Part 3 test – is value for money given and does learning take place.
The tool that is used to assess whether the potential driving instructor can give value for money and will ensure that learning takes place is the test of instructional ability or Part 3 test. Any tool that is used for assessment purposes has to go through rigorous testing to ensure that it will deliver a valid and consistent assessment process across the board. Using the examiner in a role play situation, for example, adds to the consistency in the mix. A ‘real’ learner driver would create a lot of uncertainty and inconsistency in the assessment process. A friendly, co-operative learner would make things more straightforward for the candidate on their Part 3 test than a belligerent, defensive learner. Any subject that the candidate is given to teach must be comparable with any other subject that is available. For example, the Controlled Stop (Emergency Stop) on its own would not be a robust topic for assessment purposes when compared with Emerging Left and Right. However, combined with the Use of Mirrors, the Examiner has enough evidence to assess that learning is taking place and value for money is being given. Similarly, on any given route there might not be sufficient pedestrian crossings to make this a comparable topic with Emerging, but, combined with the Use of Signals, the candidate again has the ability to demonstrate that they know how to ensure that learning takes place and that value for money is given.
As an assessment tool, therefore, the Part 3 test is fit for purpose.
Does the Part 3 test fulfil what it sets out to do?
The Part 3 test is not supposed to make it difficult and, for some people, impossible to enter onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. For some reason, the pass rate is appallingly low and this, therefore, begs the question of whether it fulfils what it sets out to do. Why do some people find it impossibly difficult to successfully complete the Part 3 test? The answer, for me, is that although it is fit for purpose it no longer fulfils what it sets out to do – assess whether a candidate gives value for money and ensures learning takes place. Mainly, this is because everyone is far too familiar with the content of the test. It holds no surprises and it is possible to deliver 40 plus hours of training that focus entirely on the pre-set test combinations of the Part 3 test. Trainers and candidates, alike, have the goals all wrong. The goals for the training should be focused on growing a successful business as a driving instructor or, something along those lines. Usually, there are ten goals: PST 1: Controls and Crossroads; PST 2 ….. Sorry, I will have to go and look these up if I am going to list them here because I don’t know them off by heart and hope none of you reading this article does either …. Suffice to say, there are ten pre-set test combinations and, unfortunately, these form the focus of most of the training that goes on nowadays for the Part 3 test.
It is definitely time for change because trainers have fallen into the trap of teaching to the Part 3 test and this is creating a massive disservice to the trainee driving instructor population.
A comparison with education in another area
Let’s imagine I am training to be a surgeon. My final examination is a practical supervision of me performing an operation on a real-life patient. I have a colleague who is going through the same course, also training to be a surgeon. We are each under different consultants.
My consultant doesn’t rate me very highly but feels under pressure to ensure that all his trainees do well – he has a high success rate and doesn’t want me to affect that. He therefore tells me exactly what is going to be covered in the final examination and only thinks it necessary to allow me to observe those operations that might come up. I spend hours and hours swotting up on the ten possible operations that could come up. I learn off by heart all the procedures that I must execute in order to ensure that the operation is successful. I gain absolutely no experience of relating to other people – what they often refer to as a ‘bedside manner’. I don’t see the person being operated on as an individual. Let’s imagine I am successful in my final examination as everything runs smoothly and I get exactly the kind of operation I have practised for.
My colleague, on the other hand, is under a consultant, who believes that learning comes from within and that the trainee has all the skills and resources they need in order to be successful and achieve their goals. The consultant doesn’t mention anything about the final examination during the training period. She encourages my colleague to observe as many different operations as possible with as many different surgeons and, wherever practicable, she engages my colleague in the surgical process. She creates as many varied environments as possible to give my colleague as much experience as possible and also to develop her critical thinking skills and reflective abilities. My colleague is also successful in her final examination.
Who would you rather have operating on you – especially if the operation you needed was not one of the ten in the final examination?
A comparison with the L test
I am sure you can all recognise how the Part 3 test compares to the L test when it comes to training people to be driving instructors and teaching safe driving for life. Many driving instructors believe that they teach people safe driving skills for life and that they do not teach to pass a test. However, if you use a ‘test standard’ to measure your pupil’s achievements right from the start of their driver training, then you are teaching people to pass a test. If you are a trainer and you measure your trainee driving instructor’s achievements against the Part 3 test standard then you are not training people to become driving instructors – you are teaching them to pass a test. If you are hung up on what you think the Examiner expects to see or hear then you are teaching to a test rather than developing skills for life.
Does your training miss the point?
Coaching is about raising self-awareness and building self-responsibility. This is about increasing the ‘learner’s’ awareness of how their thoughts and feelings influence their behaviour. If your training focuses more than ten percent of the time on the test – whether this is the pre-set test combinations that compile the Part 3 test; or the syllabus for the L test – then your training is missing the point.
My next article will look at how the Part 3 fits with the new Standards Check.
|
Call 0800 058 8009
Mobile 07740174893 Email info@tri-coachingpartnership.co.uk |
|