zadocbrown wrote:I think we shouldn't attach undue importance to the fine details of marking. It isn't a helpful way to proceed.
I couldn't agree more.
Horse wrote:zadocbrown wrote:I think we shouldn't attach undue importance to the fine details of marking. It isn't a helpful way to proceed.
Well I'm interested even if you're not.
MGF wrote:hir wrote:So, you are suggesting that the IAM has adopted a standard the effect of which may be to reduce the efficacy of an individual's steering, and that makes sense because they are using a bunch of amateurs working at arm's length.
That's just about the daftest suggestion I've heard yet. Not even the highest echelons of the powers that be at Chiswick would be daft enough to make that assertion.
You may think it is daft but it may well have been the case that my steering declined because I adopted PP in accordance with HTBABD, the IAM's chosen technique.
It is a real possibility and not a daft assertion as you claim. It is also obviously acceptable to the IAM. If it were not PP would be a simple advisory in HTBABD to avoid this possibility.
MGF wrote:hir wrote:MGF wrote:So you're not even sure of the scale of the perceived problem, just a possibility that it might exist. If that is the case it hardly calls for a campaign for change.
I suppose I should be gratified to see that you have elevated the status of our somewhat modest lack of willingness to endorse the IAM's stance on pull-push steering to that of a campaign. If only the IAM would take us as seriously.
We must now press on for complete victory at all costs.
It was the Chairman of the HPC who declared "The revolution is coming", not I.
hir wrote:Horse wrote:
To be honest, I'm confused about the standards and marking full stop, and differences between pass, First and Masters.
How, for example, using hir's outcomes and techniques, would they be marked across the three levels?
I agree it appears complicated but if we analyse it it's fairly simple:
Using the marking system that I described earlier, if you get a 1 in just about everything then you get a F1RST, if you don't, you get a PASS. And if it's really bad you get a FAIL.
Masters is a case of assessing the 27 competencies but at a significantly higher level than when assessing the entry level test.
In other words, the criteria for obtaining a 1 at entry level is lower than that for obtaining a 1 in Masters.
waremark wrote:hir wrote:Horse wrote:How, for example, using hir's outcomes and techniques, would they be marked across the three levels?
I agree it appears complicated but if we analyse it it's fairly simple:
Using the marking system that I described earlier, if you get a 1 in just about everything then you get a F1RST, if you don't, you get a PASS. And if it's really bad you get a FAIL.
Masters is a case of assessing the 27 competencies but at a significantly higher level than when assessing the entry level test.
In other words, the criteria for obtaining a 1 at entry level is lower than that for obtaining a 1 in Masters.
I agree that this is neither relevant nor helpful in relation to the question I posed in the thread title. But anyway ...
To summarise: there is a single marking sheet used for IAM tests . . .
This paragraph has been specifically written in relation to Masters: "Advanced drivers should be working to optimise every element of their drive. Our examiners will expect a drive based upon Roadcraft, additional techniques will not improve the candidate’s test result but, should such techniques be inexpertly or inappropriately delivered, they have the potential to reduce the test score." (At Masters, Roadcraft is the official text, at the Advanced Driving Test the IAM's own, more limited book, How to be a Better Driver, is the only approved text).
It has become clear that for some examiners, any amount of fixed grip steering even within that advocated by Roadcraft as 'the standard hold' would be considered inappropriate, and therefore result in being given a 2 rather than a 1 at Masters. This would not stop you achieving a Distinction at Masters - because you can get a Distinction with up to 6 2's. For a First you have to get a 1 for steering, but since Masters is supposed to be significantly higher than First, presumably the same steering which got you a 2 at Masters would have got you a 1 at the Advanced
Horse, has that clarified the marking scheme for you?
7db wrote:waremark wrote:Don't mention steering unless there is a problem with it. If there is, choose from the above.
This.
I don't think I've ever seen a driver where the top thing I've wanted to mention is the steering technique.
Horse wrote:Edit, but as another post to avoid clouding the previous one
When it comes to higher standards etc., I'm aware of the 'spiral curriculum', where concepts are revisited at higher levels. If you're not aware of this idea, think of looking 'down' on a spiral spring so you see a circle, imagine the competences arranged around like a clock face. Now look at the side of the spring, with each turn passing through each competence - but higher with each turn. Primary school, Junior school, secondary, GCSE, A level, Degree, etc.
So are there any other AD competences where the technique, information and assessment criteria change? Perhaps, in an odd way, limiting Observers to a restricted range actually makes sense, and justifies the existence of Masters etc.!
Gareth wrote:MGF wrote:I subsequently realised that avoiding BGOL helped with reducing my entry speeds to hazards so the blunt instrument is probably not as silly as you think.
Yes and no - so the argument goes - in that yes, avoiding BGOL makes the driver build in sufficient time with the effect of making them slow down before hazards rather than in them, and no, in that once the driver understands slowing before hazards rather than through them avoiding BGOL isn't necessary to do so.
waremark wrote:So back to the thread title, I don't think we have consensus! Is this the range of opinions on what should be taught?
waremark wrote:...
I understood that what hir was calling daft was not that being required to use PP might reduce an individual's steering performance, but that 'that makes sense because they are using a bunch of amateurs'.
waremark wrote:MGF wrote:It was the Chairman of the HPC who declared "The revolution is coming", not I.
I cannot remember the context of that quote - did it really imply a campaign?
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests