5. The link between road safety and driver instructor training
This is the fifth article in a series on Driving Instructor Training and the focus here is on the link between road safety and driving instructor training. To some people it might not be immediately obvious that the way a person is trained to become a driving instructor might have an impact on the crash involvement of their customers. To me, it seems apparent that this would be the case and that trainers, therefore, carry a responsibility to ensure that their trainee driving instructors recognise the link between road safety and the training they receive. There is a chain reaction from trainer, to PDI (and then ADI), to learner driver (and then qualified driver) and the quality of the training is instrumental in determining the outcome at the end. The concern is that driving instructors create no discernible effect on their newly qualified drivers whatsoever; could it even be the case that learner drivers learn to drive despite their driving instructor?
In 2004 the EU MERIT (Minimum European Requirements for driving Instructor Trainers)project concluded. This looked at the content of driving instructor training programmes with regard to driving behaviour and road safety. There is plenty of documented evidence about the contributory human factors in crash involvement which prompted researchers to set out the goals for driver education (GDE Framework) with a view to encouraging trainers and driving instructors to focus on them. The higher levels of the framework represent the Goals and Context of Driving (journey-related goals) and Goals for Life and Skills for Living (personality-related goals). These higher levels are typically not assessed during the practical driving test and therefore usually not addressed during driver training or instructor training.
In 2002 Engstrom* identified a number of features that correlate with unsafe driving:
Youth and inexperience mean that newly qualified drivers are at far greater risk of being involved in a crash than older, more experienced drivers. The data shows us:
An 18-year-old driver is more than three times as likely to be involved in a crash as a 48 year-old **
One in five new drivers has a crash within six months of passing their test ***
All of the above seven features that correlate with unsafe driving figure in the higher levels of the GDE framework. The lower levels focus on vehicle control skills; and skills needed to drive in traffic, including hazard perception, risk management, and being able to deal with different road and weather conditions. The skills required to address these lower levels of the GDE are assessed in the practical driving test. Although some crashes undoubtedly relate to a deficit in skills in the lower levels of the GDE it is clear that the majority of crashes are the result of human error and linked to the seven features outlined above (therefore, the higher levels of the GDE).
The EU MERIT project focused on the relationship between the driving instructor and the pupil and the importance of addressing the higher levels of the GDE with a view to producing safe, responsible drivers. And yet, instructor training in the UK typically focuses on the skills required to pass the Part 3 test, which comprises of a set of skills that pertain solely to levels 1 and 2 of the GDE framework.
In other words, we are training driving instructors to pass the qualifying examinations. They in turn are training their learner drivers to pass the practical driving test. There is no consistent attempt to teach safe driving for life because trainers are not equipping driving instructors with the skills needed to do this.
It is necessary to develop a deep understanding of the Goals for Driver Education and also a deep understanding of how to address these goals in driver training, in order that newly qualified drivers stand a chance of driving safely on the roads, through raised self-awareness and increased responsibility. The problem is that ADIs believe they have done enough in qualifying and therefore satisfying the DVSA of their credentials as a driving instructor. This is clearly not the case. Either the initial training must focus on the higher levels of the GDE and the need to develop higher order cognitive skills in learner drivers; or, the ADI must take responsibility for their own development and seek to gain an in-depth understanding of the link between crash involvement and training after they have qualified. This would mean that instructor training needs to be seen as a lifelong process of self-reflection and ongoing learning and development. However, the seeds for this lifelong commitment must at least be sown from day one of the initial training process.
The Standards Check was introduced as a new way of assessing ADIs’ ability to give value for money and ensure learning takes place, and therefore remain on the ADI Register. It replaces the Check Test, which had a rigid focus on the core competencies of fault identification, fault analysis and fault remedy and did nothing to ensure ADIs were addressing the higher levels of the GDE. With the Standards Check ADIs are encouraged to adopt client-centred learning strategies that focus on developing higher order cognitive skills in their customers through goal setting, reflection and self-evaluation.
However, one of the biggest criticisms I hear of the Standards Check is the perceived lack of relationship between the ADI qualifying exams and the Standards Check. Is it really the case that the training of driving instructors is so divorced from the reality of being a driving instructor that there is no recognisable relationship between the training, testing and ongoing assessment? Trainers need to look at the training package they are delivering to trainee driving instructors and consider whether it is addressing the higher levels of the GDE and aimed at developing higher order cognitive skills in learner drivers so that they can drive making safe decisions, with raised self-awareness and taking full responsibility for the driving task … or is it simply geared towards passing the Part 3 test? The process starts with instructor training and concludes with fewer crashes on the roads.
My final article in this series will look at the future of instructor training.
*Engström, I.,Gregersen, N.P., Hernetkoski, K., Keskinen, E., Nyberg, A. Young novice drivers, driver education and training – Literature review. VTI report 491A. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linköping. 2003.
**Reported Road Accidents Involving Young Drivers 2009 (Department for Transport, 2011)
***DSA, Learning to Drive: a consultation paper (2008)
This is the fifth article in a series on Driving Instructor Training and the focus here is on the link between road safety and driving instructor training. To some people it might not be immediately obvious that the way a person is trained to become a driving instructor might have an impact on the crash involvement of their customers. To me, it seems apparent that this would be the case and that trainers, therefore, carry a responsibility to ensure that their trainee driving instructors recognise the link between road safety and the training they receive. There is a chain reaction from trainer, to PDI (and then ADI), to learner driver (and then qualified driver) and the quality of the training is instrumental in determining the outcome at the end. The concern is that driving instructors create no discernible effect on their newly qualified drivers whatsoever; could it even be the case that learner drivers learn to drive despite their driving instructor?
In 2004 the EU MERIT (Minimum European Requirements for driving Instructor Trainers)project concluded. This looked at the content of driving instructor training programmes with regard to driving behaviour and road safety. There is plenty of documented evidence about the contributory human factors in crash involvement which prompted researchers to set out the goals for driver education (GDE Framework) with a view to encouraging trainers and driving instructors to focus on them. The higher levels of the framework represent the Goals and Context of Driving (journey-related goals) and Goals for Life and Skills for Living (personality-related goals). These higher levels are typically not assessed during the practical driving test and therefore usually not addressed during driver training or instructor training.
In 2002 Engstrom* identified a number of features that correlate with unsafe driving:
- Social position (education & occupation)
- Personality (sensation seeking, testing limits, conscious risk taking)
- Ability to reflect (consequences of own behaviour)
- Tiredness
- Routine (mental workload, visual search)
- Over confidence (risk assessment, lack of feedback)
- Excessive speeding (loss of control)
Youth and inexperience mean that newly qualified drivers are at far greater risk of being involved in a crash than older, more experienced drivers. The data shows us:
An 18-year-old driver is more than three times as likely to be involved in a crash as a 48 year-old **
One in five new drivers has a crash within six months of passing their test ***
All of the above seven features that correlate with unsafe driving figure in the higher levels of the GDE framework. The lower levels focus on vehicle control skills; and skills needed to drive in traffic, including hazard perception, risk management, and being able to deal with different road and weather conditions. The skills required to address these lower levels of the GDE are assessed in the practical driving test. Although some crashes undoubtedly relate to a deficit in skills in the lower levels of the GDE it is clear that the majority of crashes are the result of human error and linked to the seven features outlined above (therefore, the higher levels of the GDE).
The EU MERIT project focused on the relationship between the driving instructor and the pupil and the importance of addressing the higher levels of the GDE with a view to producing safe, responsible drivers. And yet, instructor training in the UK typically focuses on the skills required to pass the Part 3 test, which comprises of a set of skills that pertain solely to levels 1 and 2 of the GDE framework.
In other words, we are training driving instructors to pass the qualifying examinations. They in turn are training their learner drivers to pass the practical driving test. There is no consistent attempt to teach safe driving for life because trainers are not equipping driving instructors with the skills needed to do this.
It is necessary to develop a deep understanding of the Goals for Driver Education and also a deep understanding of how to address these goals in driver training, in order that newly qualified drivers stand a chance of driving safely on the roads, through raised self-awareness and increased responsibility. The problem is that ADIs believe they have done enough in qualifying and therefore satisfying the DVSA of their credentials as a driving instructor. This is clearly not the case. Either the initial training must focus on the higher levels of the GDE and the need to develop higher order cognitive skills in learner drivers; or, the ADI must take responsibility for their own development and seek to gain an in-depth understanding of the link between crash involvement and training after they have qualified. This would mean that instructor training needs to be seen as a lifelong process of self-reflection and ongoing learning and development. However, the seeds for this lifelong commitment must at least be sown from day one of the initial training process.
The Standards Check was introduced as a new way of assessing ADIs’ ability to give value for money and ensure learning takes place, and therefore remain on the ADI Register. It replaces the Check Test, which had a rigid focus on the core competencies of fault identification, fault analysis and fault remedy and did nothing to ensure ADIs were addressing the higher levels of the GDE. With the Standards Check ADIs are encouraged to adopt client-centred learning strategies that focus on developing higher order cognitive skills in their customers through goal setting, reflection and self-evaluation.
However, one of the biggest criticisms I hear of the Standards Check is the perceived lack of relationship between the ADI qualifying exams and the Standards Check. Is it really the case that the training of driving instructors is so divorced from the reality of being a driving instructor that there is no recognisable relationship between the training, testing and ongoing assessment? Trainers need to look at the training package they are delivering to trainee driving instructors and consider whether it is addressing the higher levels of the GDE and aimed at developing higher order cognitive skills in learner drivers so that they can drive making safe decisions, with raised self-awareness and taking full responsibility for the driving task … or is it simply geared towards passing the Part 3 test? The process starts with instructor training and concludes with fewer crashes on the roads.
My final article in this series will look at the future of instructor training.
*Engström, I.,Gregersen, N.P., Hernetkoski, K., Keskinen, E., Nyberg, A. Young novice drivers, driver education and training – Literature review. VTI report 491A. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linköping. 2003.
**Reported Road Accidents Involving Young Drivers 2009 (Department for Transport, 2011)
***DSA, Learning to Drive: a consultation paper (2008)
|
Call 0800 058 8009
Mobile 07740174893 Email info@tri-coachingpartnership.co.uk |
|