A value of the BIG TOM franchise is its desire to accommodate and align to customers’ needs. When applying that value to the subject of delivery of training, it becomes necessary to initially, understand what the desires and preferences of a pupil are. According to “Practical Teaching Skills for Driving Instructors” this will affect outcomes.

There are, generally speaking, two ways a pupil can prefer to learn:

Instructor-led: where the driving instructor dictates what happens, when, how, how long for; they are taking full responsibility for the path that the learning process takes – but NOT necessarily, the outcomes (more on that later)

Learner-centred: where the pupil has a lot more responsibility and options for the process taken to learn

If it helps you to remember these two different styles, think Gordon Ramsey and how he teaches his chefs-to-be for instructor-led, and think your Gran and how she teaches you. Vastly different approaches, and a highly personalised choice.

And there are pro’s and con’s for each of the styles:

PROS

Instructor-led: For some instructors, this style will come very naturally to them, requiring very little formal training, they like the control that it gives them, the power, it makes them feel empowered.  If the driving instructor is naturally of a safety-conscious bias, then safety will feature large in the training for strict compliance. Some pupils may recognise similarities of this approach with their parents and therefore, quite like it, in so far as, they are used to it.  Pupils who do not want to be having to think too much will appreciate this style, as the instructor is doing all of the thinking and decision making, they quite literally just “do as they are told”.

Learner-centred: The learning is personalised (through conscious decisions), more effective and the learning is longer-lasting. Some pupils will enjoy the freedom and flexibility that this style offers. For naturally more able pupils, the process is considerably more efficient as they don’t find that the instructor is forcing them to do things they are quite competent and confident at.

CONS

Instructor-led: It can be boring, repetitive, monotonous and therefore inefficient and costly; the price you can pay for not putting in that extra effort. The learning is not necessarily as effective as the other style in terms of the length of time details are remembered, or how meaningful the learning is. For less safety-conscious driving instructors, this training can be more risky.

Learner-centred: By its nature, the pupil is thinking and assessing more, making decisions, reflecting and feeding back more, so the level of effort and engagement is increased – this may not appeal to all pupils. However, the pupil tends to ‘buy’ in to the process more, resulting in increased motivation and satisfaction. So a pupil tends to get out what they put in.  There is a necessity for good, clear communications between instructor and pupil from the start – which is not necessarily a given. There needs to be an agreement and transfer of responsibilities in a timely manner – not all pupils will naturally be willing to accept that responsibility. Some pupils may find this approach frustrating because they just want to be told ‘what to do’ and don’t care much for thinking and talking to a driving instructor.

A good driving instructor is one that is able to identify the desires/preferences of their pupils, and adapt their style accordingly. It is a skill to both be willing to do this, and actually effectively do it. This is the kind of driving instructor that would be very welcome in the BIG TOM franchise as it is aligned to our values.

Regarding the outcomes of instructor-led tuition, this is a consequence that is a limiting factor for the effectiveness of this learning style. There isn’t a great deal of difference between a driving instructor who favours instructor-led tuition and a parent teaching their son/daughter. Both of them involve the pupil very much doing as they are told. But of course, even if the pupil does comply in this training phase, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the pupil agreed with the actions being taken, and because they were being told what to do, rather than thinking for themselves, it is highly likely that the actions won’t continue into the long-term. There has been very little development of the pupil’s attitude to learning; the effectiveness of it, meaningfulness or indeed longevity to it. One might say that it has been regarded as simply ‘jumping through the required hoops’ in order to pass the driving test. This limits the pupil’s ability to continue thinking for themselves post-test, in new driving situations, as well as helping the pupil to evaluate their driving ability over the years to come. And so, this should be remembered should one choose to provide instructor-led tuition – it does have limitations: it can very well get pupils to pass driving tests, but beyond that, it does very little further development.