13/07/2024
I agree with this. And it’s blatantly obvious that the DVSA marking system is fault based because the debrief given at the end of every L test and Part 2 test opens with either ‘I’m pleased / I’m sorry to say that you have / have not passed …. With X number of driver faults or I have recorded X number of serious / dangerous faults. These faults were ……. Discuss these with your trainer and best of luck for next time.
The GDE matrix has been around for years and it’s evident that DVSA are not using it and also double fault recording on tests. They say they don’t but they do.
♻️ ARE DVSA CALLING FOR GOAL FOCUSSED LESSONS AND APPLYING FAULT FOCUSSED ASSESMENTS TO THEM? ♻️
I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that the goals/needs of the pupil and the lesson delivered by PDIs / ADIs around these elements are very much secondary to what is being assessed. So DVSAs guidance is telling us to deliver a lesson around goals and needs yet examiners often pay little attention to development around the goals/needs…instead focussing their attention and assesment on faults.
The NSDRT makes no mention of fault, the ADI1 only mentions the word ‘fault’ 3 times when explaining through the 17 competencies. Two of the three mentions come under the competence of adapting, where it states…
responding to any faults or weaknesses that undermine the original plan for the session.
persisting with a plan despite the pupil demonstrating faults or weaknesses that should lead to a rethink of the plan
I attended the debrief of a part 3 recently and in the words of the examiner…
”BECAUSE THERE WERE SO FEW FAULTS, THERE WERE VERY FEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING”
My PDI took a *full license holder and worked on awareness and planning.
The word fault was mentioned around 20 times by the examiner, despite there being “so few faults” yet not once was progress around the actual goals and needs of the pupil mentioned. Three faults were raised, Two faults were random isolated missed mirrors checks that weren’t mentioned by the PDI and one was position in a junction, which although a little far forward, did not in the words of the examiner impact on anybody else.
So what’s the issue? Well the issue is that this approach largely goes against DVSA’s own guidance around how examiners should assess lessons and what they should expect to be delivered by instructors as per the ADI1.
Firstly none of the few faults were issues that ‘undermined the original lesson plan’ neither were they patterns of the same/similar faults that would constitute a development ‘need’.
Secondly the pupil was a FLH and the ADI1 states with regards to delivering lessons to full license holders…
During their standards check the key thing that the ADI must demonstrate is that they are able to find out exactly what it is the pupil wants from the lesson and put together a plan to deliver that. They must of course, identify and deal with bad habits that might have been acquired. However, if all they do is go over what the pupil should have learnt prior to their test they are unlikely to reinforce the commitment to life-long learning.
So the PDI did what should be expected. A couple of missed mirrors checks and a slight in position does not undermine the lesson plan, nor does it constitute ‘bad habits’ ….but the real concern for me is around the focus of examiners. What on earth does it mean to state that ”BECAUSE THERE WERE SO FEW FAULTS, THERE WERE VERY FEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING” ? Is this still where they are at ten years on from the Standards Check? There was an entire lesson delivered over 35/40 mins where a structure was demonstrated by the PDI to reinforce the development of thought processes and higher order cognitive skills such as analysis and evaluation….then the use of reflection to bolster the learning. Completely ignored and worst of all the final note made by the examiner in feedback…
“no leaning taking place what so ever from this just self development”
Im struggling to separate learning and self-development, as the key element of CCL IS self-development as per the Standards 6.3..
helps the learner to identify any obstacles to understanding and change
supports the learner to identify strategies for overcoming those obstacles for themselves
The development of metacognition is crucial to life-long learning and without such practices learning remains in the short-term and is quickly lost. Providing the pupil with opportunities for practice and reflection, for thinking about how they did the things they did and what thoughts led them to their decision is far more impactful than instruction for life-long learning.
Self-development literally runs through every level of our Goals for Driver Education so I find it hard to reason how self-development can be judged separately to learning.
I suppose if you’re conducting fault focused assessments around goal focussed lessons then perhaps it makes sense to you…but it’s at odds with what is written in DVSAs guidance to examiners, instructors and trainers.
Again using DVSA’s own guidance….
“the examiners overall approach should be focused on recognising achievement rather than
purely identifying faults.”
