Responsible driving training

One of the directives from the DVSA in Role 6 of the Driving Standard is to “enable safe and responsible driving”.  They then go on to explain how driving instructors are expected to make that happen.

There is a better chance of a long-standing change in understanding and behaviour if the instructor:

Helps the learner to identify any obstacles to understanding change

Supports the learner to identify strategies for overcoming those obstacles for themselves

It goes further regarding the teaching methodology:

While it is reasonable to encourage learners to practise particular methods for performing a given task, because there are clearly explainable benefits to that method, the outcome of the learning process should be that the learner has developed a safe and responsible method which they can apply consistently and reliably; not that they have learnt any one specified method.

What this means is that a professional and responsible driving trainer must be prepared to assist a pupil in learning that creates long-term, consistent driving behaviours as opposed to a set of driving behaviours that fall into the “driving test only” category.  What many driving instructors do not appreciate, and frankly do not want to be told, is that driving instruction that fails to engage in a pupils inner thoughts has very little impact on their long term driving behaviours.

A practical example I would give of this would be the time honoured question that is banded around in our industry:

“So in terms of learning styles Johnny, how do YOU like to learn?”

This makes the driving instructor think that they are adapting their training to suit the pupils needs.  However, that question, as often as it undoubtedly is used, falls very short of any practical value.  Often a pupil will answer that question with:

“Oh I just like to try things with trial and error really”.

Which is about as meaningless an answer as the meaningless question deserves to receive to be quite blunt.

Young adults do not necessarily have any experience of learning a practical skill.  Their learning experiences to date may very well just consist of academia whereby facts, figures, explanations, reasoning and analysis centre around subject matter that has no practical use at all.  Asking a new pupil what experience they have of any practical skills is a much better question.  Practical skills involve co-ordination, concentration, endurance, persistence, focus, attention to detail, technique, timing, assessment based on practical ability.  Pupils who have had experience of this kind of learning will relate to the notion of how emotions affect behaviours such as confidence on ability for example, and the relationship between cognitive and practical skills. 

A pupil who has no experience of the above, can potentially look upon learning to drive in the same reference as they study to recall facts, equations and theoretical formulae. But safe driving is not an intelligence activity; it requires thought for sure, it requires reflection, self-evaluation, assessment, planning skills but a high IQ does not a safe driver make.

“Trial and error” can have a hidden message that disconnects driving behaviours from consequences and does so with no responsibility.  It also very conveniently negates the need to bother oneself with any evaluation as what goes wrong is really only to be expected in a learning environment of “trial and error”.  The making of mistakes is indeed an opportunity for learning, but in order to learn, the pupil would need to reflect on the outcome, the consequence – without any such thinking, there is very little learning going on.

This blend of cognitive and physical skills needs time and practise to develop, the learning is not the same type of learning that is needed to remember a fact or verse or quotation or equation.  Failing to accurately recall a fact drops exam grades, failing to develop good driving skills potentially kills people. 

In order to stand any chance of developing “responsible” newly qualified drivers, driving instructors do need to raise their game regarding their own levels of responsibility.  Undoubtedly, adopting learning techniques that create “quick gain” but superficial results makes life easier for the driving instructor as well as the pupil, but the methodology falls far short of being “responsible”.   Ignoring obstacles to effective learning is lazy instruction, it is dumbing down of learning, and it is entirely avoidable if our profession would just stop excusing it all the time.  It is inexcusable as it is affecting driving standards.  We really do need to put the “thinking” back into learning to drive.

Tom Ingram is the owner of BIG TOM Driving School and provides driving training for trainee driving instructors (0775 607 1464)  http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/