Guidance

Guidance for examiners carrying out motorcycle trainer standards checks

Published 30 November 2015

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

1. Purpose

These notes tell Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) compulsory basic training (CBT) examiners how to assess motorcycle trainer standards checks.

2. Background

Previously the CBT standards check largely focused on what was taught. It didn’t consider, beyond a basic level, how the trainee was taught.

The revised standards check is designed to link directly to the ‘National standard for driver and rider training’. This makes the standard expected of trainers clearer and more transparent.

Areas of strength are highlighted and it gives greater clarity to areas which require development.

3. Competency-based assessment criteria

Assessments will be against 3 high level areas of competence and is linked to the ‘National standard for driver and rider training’ competency framework.

4. High-level competencies

There are 3 high-level competencies:

• lesson planning
• risk management
• teaching and learning strategies

They’re supported by 17 lower-level competencies which are detailed:

• on the standards check form
• in the relevant sections of this document

5. Lesson planning

The purpose of all training is to assess and develop the learner’s skill, knowledge and understanding in relation to the contents of the ‘National standard for driver and rider training’.

Research indicates that is best achieved by placing the client at the centre of the learning process. In this context, the assessment criteria should be interpreted as follows.

5.1 Did the trainer identify the pupil’s learning goals and needs?

This process may take place at the beginning of a lesson. However, where the approved training body (ATB) and the pupil have been working together for some time before the standards check, they may have already laid down the basic structure of the pupil’s learning goals.

It’s important to remember that a better understanding of the pupil’s needs may emerge as the lesson progresses. It follows that this criteria can’t be ‘ticked-off’ at the beginning of the lesson and then forgotten.

Evidence of competence

As you observe the lesson you should be looking for indications that the elements which go to make up the low-level competence are being demonstrated. In this case the sorts of things that would give you an indication of competence include:

• encouraging the pupil to say what they want from the lesson
• asking questions to ensure understanding
• checking understanding as the lesson progresses
• listening to what the pupil is saying
• taking note of body language

When a trainer encourages the pupil to say what they want, asks questions to check understanding at the beginning and as the lesson progresses, listens to what they are saying and also picks up on body language they are likely to get a 3.

When they do all the listening bits but fail to spot the learner getting very tense and nervous in a particular situation they would probably get a 2. They would have demonstrated their understanding of the need to listen etc, but haven’t yet developed their ability to spot non-verbal clues.

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of a lack of competence could include:

• making assumptions about understanding or experience
• failing to note negative or concerned comments or body language that shows discomfort
• undermining the pupil’s confidence by continually asking questions clearly beyond the pupil’s knowledge or understanding
• pushing the pupil to address issues that they aren’t happy to talk about, unless there is a clear need, such as an identified risk or a safety critical issue

5.2 Was the agreed lesson structure appropriate for the trainees’ experience and ability?

The lesson structure should allow the trainees to progress at a manageable rate; stretching them without overwhelming them.

For example, a trainee who is concerned about entering roundabouts should not be asked to tackle a fast-flowing multi-lane, multi-exit junction as their first attempt. Neither should they be restricted to very quiet junctions, unless the trainer identifies a potential risk issue that they want to check out first.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• making sure the trainees understands what they plan to do and agrees with that plan
• a lesson that reflects the information given by the trainees and the learning goals they want to tackle
• building in opportunities to check the statements made by the trainees before moving to more challenging situations
• checking theoretical understanding

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• delivering a pre-planned, standard lesson that doesn’t take into account the trainees’ expressed needs, concerns or ability
• failing to build in a suitable balance of practice and theory

5.3 Were the practice areas suitable?

Did the trainer make the best use of their site - Did they make sure that the route(s) used allowed the trainees to practise safely to help them achieve their goals. It should provide some stretch and challenge, but without taking the trainees out of their competence zone.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include choosing a practice area / route that provides:

• a range of opportunities to address the agreed learning objectives
• challenges, but is realistic in terms of the trainees’ capabilities and confidence

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include the trainer taking the trainees into an area that:

• takes the trainees outside of their competence zone - so that they spend all their time ‘surviving’ and have no space left to look at learning issues
• exposes the trainees to risks they can’t manage

5.4 Was the lesson plan adapted, when appropriate, to help the trainees work towards their learning goals?

The trainer should be willing and able to adapt if the trainees:

• appears to be uncomfortable or unable to deal with the learning experience that the trainer has set up
• because the pupil was doing better/worse than expected

If the trainees’ inabilities are creating a possible risk situation, the lesson plan must be adapted quickly. This might require a few extra questions to clarify what is out of line.

It may be that the problem is because of the teaching and learning style being used by the trainer rather than because the overall plan is wrong.

Whatever the reason for adapting the plan, the trainer must make sure the trainees understand what they are doing and why.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• comparing the actual performance of the trainees with their claims and clarifying any differences
• responding to any faults or weaknesses that undermine the original plan for the session
• responding to any concerns or issues raised by the trainees
• picking up on non-verbal signs of discomfort or confusion

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• persisting with a plan despite the trainees being clearly out of their depth
• persisting with a plan despite the trainees demonstrating faults or weaknesses that should lead to a rethink of the plan
• changing the plan without reason
• failing to explain to the trainees why the plan has been changed

6. Risk management

It’s vital that all parties in any training situation understand, and are clear about, where the responsibility lies for the safety of themselves, and other road users.

There are 2 aspects to the management of risk in any training situation.

At all times, the trainer is responsible for:

• their safety
• the safety of the trainees
• the safety of other road users

In particular circumstances, this can extend to taking physical control of the machine to manage a safety critical incident. (On site) If the trainer fails in this basic responsibility, at any time, they will fail the standards check. Verbal intervention may be required in an on-road situation.

From a training point of view, the trainer is also responsible for developing the trainees’ responsibilities and awareness of managing their own risk when riding, and will be assessed in this section.

6.1 Did the trainer make sure that the trainees fully understood how the responsibility for risk would be shared?

The ‘balance of responsibility’, between the trainees and the trainer, will inevitably vary in different circumstances depending on the trainees’ skill level.

For example, compare the following 2 scenarios:

1. Trainees taking their first CBT with little on road experience

In this situation, it might be reasonable for a trainer to start a lesson by briefing the trainees on how they will take the main responsibility for the candidate’s safety until they reach a point where the trainee has developed their skills enough to take on a shared responsibility.

2. Trainees renewing their CBT

However, trainees who have previously taken CBT and are renewing their certificates on their own motorcycle may be briefed on them taking full responsibility for their own safety with the instructor offering guidance as necessary.

The trainer should be managing this process throughout the lesson.

So, for example, if the trainees make some sort of mistake carrying out a manoeuvre the trainer should, ideally, find an opportunity to analyse that mistake with the trainees.

Having achieved an understanding of what went wrong they might then ask the trainees to try the manoeuvre again. At that point, they should provide the trainees with clear information about what is required of them.

On the other hand, the trainer may want to take back a bit of control of a situation and a talk through the next hazard before getting the trainees to carry out the next hazard themselves.

The trainer should work with the trainees to decide the best way of tackling the problem and that might mean a temporary change in the ‘balance of responsibility’. The important thing is that the trainees know what is expected of them.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• asking the trainees what is meant by risk
• asking the trainees what sorts of issues create risk, like the use of alcohol or drugs
• explaining clearly what is expected of the trainees and what the trainees can reasonably expect of the trainer
• checking that the trainees understand what is required of them when there is a change of plan or they are asked to repeat an exercise

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• failing to address the issue of risk management
• giving incorrect guidance about where responsibility lies for management of risk
• undermining the trainees’ commitment to being safe and responsible, eg by agreeing with risky attitudes to speed limits
• asking the trainees to repeat a manoeuvre or carry out a particular exercise without making sure that they understand what role the trainer is going to play

6.2 Were directions and instructions given to the trainees clear and given in good time?

Directions should be taken to mean any instruction, like ‘turn left at the next junction’ or advice on the timing of a life saver. Any input from the trainer must be sufficient, timely and appropriate.

It is important that trainers take account of the ability of their trainees when giving directions. Directions given late, or in a confusing or misleading way, don’t allow the trainees to respond and can make weaknesses worse.

Too many unnecessary instructions from the trainer can both demotivate the trainees and create a real hazard.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• clear, concise directions
• making sure the trainees understand what they plan to do and agree with that plan
• directions given at a suitable time so that the trainees can respond

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• giving confused directions
• asking questions or giving directions whilst dealing with a hazard
• giving directions too late
• giving unnecessary directions
• failing to recognise when the trainer’s input is causing overload or confusion

6.3 Was the trainer aware of the surroundings and the trainees’ actions?

This question lies at the heart of the trainer’s professional skill. They should be able to:

• be aware of their surroundings
• observe the actions of the trainees, including comments and body language during face-to-face discussions
• judge whether those actions are suitable in any given situation
• respond timely and accordingly to developing situations

Any serious lapses in this area are likely to lead to a 0 marking.

6.4 Was any verbal or physical intervention by the trainer timely and appropriate?

The overall approach should be client-centred. Remember that there is a fine balance between not giving enough input and giving too much.

When stationary or on-site, it would be expected that inputs and interventions would take the form of a dialogue with the trainees. When on the road and when kitted up a trainer remaining silent and signalling their confidence in the trainees, is just as much a coaching input as asking a stream of questions.

Clearly the most important ‘interventions’ are those that manage risk in a moving environment, we would expect a trainer to use the radio communications to point out situations in which a risk or hazard might arise to their trainees. This criterion is primarily about the trainer’s response to high-risk situations.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• intervening in a way that actively supports the trainees’ learning process and safety during the session.
• encouraging self-reflection
• allowing the trainees to deal with situations appropriately
• taking control of situations where the trainees is clearly out of their depth

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• ignoring a developing situation and leaving the trainees to struggle
• taking control of a situation the trainees is clearly dealing with appropriately
• constantly intervening when unnecessary
• intervening inappropriately and creating distractions
• undermining the trainees’ confidence
• reinforcing the trainer as the person who is in sole control of the lesson

6.5 Was sufficient feedback given to help the trainees understand any potential safety critical incidents?

If a safety-critical, or potentially critical, incident does occur, it is vital that the trainees fully understand what happened and how they could have avoided or dealt with it better.

Ideally the trainees should be supported to analyse the situation for themselves.

However, it may be necessary for the trainer to provide feedback if, for example, the trainees simply didn’t see a problem. That feedback should be given as soon as is practical after the incident.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• finding a safe place to stop and examine the critical incident
• allowing the trainees time to express any fears or concerns the incident might have caused
• supporting the trainees to reflect clearly about what happened
• providing input to clarify aspects of the incident that the trainees don’t understand
• support the trainees to identify strategies for future situations
• providing input where the trainees don’t understand what they should do differently
• checking that the trainees feel able to put the strategy in place
• agreeing ways of developing that competence if the trainees feel the need

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• failing to examine the incident
• taking too long to address issues generated by an incident
• not allowing the trainees to explore their own understanding
• telling the trainees what the solution is and not checking their understanding
• failing to check the trainees’ ability to put in place the agreed strategy

7. Teaching and learning strategies

The important thing to remember when considering teaching and learning styles is that it isn’t just about coaching. It’s about client-centred learning.

The assessor’s judgement should be about whether the trainer can help the trainees to learn in an active way.

Remember, instruction based around the core competencies used currently is pretty good and shouldn’t be discarded. Having different options available is a benefit to a trainer.

Coaching is a powerful extension of the range of options. It’s not an automatic replacement for any of the existing ones.

There will be many times when it is useful to use a coaching technique.

The principle that underpins coaching is that an engaged trainee is likely to achieve a higher level of understanding and that self-directed solutions will seem far more relevant. This applies in every situation, including instruction.

Direct instruction is useful in helping trainees in the early stages to cope with new situations or supporting trainees who are clearly struggling in a certain situation.

Good coaching will use the correct technique at the correct time, matching the trainees needs.

In some cases, the trainer may need to give direct instruction through a particularly difficult situation. That instruction forms part of a coaching process if the trainer then encourages the trainees to analyse the problem and take responsibility for learning from it.

A good trainer will take every opportunity to reinforce learning.

7.1 Was the teaching style suited to the trainees’ learning styles and current ability?

The trainer should take into account all that they understand about the trainees.

They should recognise that different trainees will have different preferred approaches to learning, although these may only emerge fully over time.

Some trainees may be very willing to learn actively and others may want opportunities to reflect before they make the next step in their learning.

The trainer should at least be able to give evidence of their sensitivity to these issues. In a one-off session, this will probably be best demonstrated by offering a range of options.

The trainer should be able to adjust their approach if evidence emerges of a different preferred style.

It’s impossible to force learning on trainees. Progress is always determined by what the trainees is comfortable with.

The skill is recognising when the trainees stop learning. The pace of a session should be set by the trainees. On the other hand, trainees shouldn’t be talked out of experimenting, if this is within safe bounds.

When coaching, the trainer should make sure that the tools used are suitable.

If a question and answer technique is used, this should match the trainees’ level of ability and encourage them to use a higher level of thinking to give a response.

Asking closed questions of trainees who are demonstrating a high level of ability, unless this is to check knowledge, is of little use.

Asking open questions to trainees of limited ability who are finding it difficult to achieve the task they have set for themselves may be very confusing.

These aren’t hard and fast rules. The effectiveness of any question has to be assessed given the circumstances at the time.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• actively working to understand how they can best support the trainees’ learning process (they might not achieve a full understanding in the session – it is the attempt that demonstrates competence)
• modifying teaching style when or if they realise there is a need to do so
• providing accurate and technically correct demonstration, instruction or information - giving technically incorrect instruction or information is an automatic fail if that input led to a safety critical situation
• using practical examples and other similar tools to provide different ways of looking at a particular subject
• linking learning in theory to learning in practice
• encouraging and helping the trainees to take ownership of the learning process
• responding to faults in a timely manner
• providing enough uninterrupted time to practice new skills
• providing the trainees with clear guidance about how they might practice outside the session

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• adopting a teaching style clearly at odds with the trainees’ learning style
• failing to check with the trainees whether the approach they are taking is acceptable
• failing to explore other ways of addressing a particular learning point
• concentrating on delivering teaching tools rather than looking for learning outcomes
• ignoring safety issues

7.2 Were the trainees encouraged to analyse problems and take responsibility for their learning?

A key part of the client-centred approach is in the development of the trainees active problem solving.

This means that the trainer has to provide time for this to happen and has to stop talking for long enough for the trainees to do the work.

The key thing to remember, however, is that different trainees will respond to this invitation in different ways.

Some may be able to do it instantly, in a discussion.

Others may need to go away and reflect upon a particular problem. They may need to be pointed at further reading or other inputs to help them get a better understanding of the issue.

Pushing a trainee to come up with answers on the spot may be unproductive for some.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• providing time, in a suitable location, to explore any problems or issues that arose during the session or that were raised by the trainees
• providing timely opportunities for analysis; promptly in the case of risk critical incidents
• taking time and using suitable techniques to understand any problems the trainees had with understanding an issue
• suggesting suitable strategies to help the trainees develop their understanding, such as using practical examples or pointing them at further reading
• giving clear and accurate information to fill gaps in the trainees’ knowledge or understanding
• leaving the trainees feeling that they had responsibility for their learning in the situation

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• leaving the trainees feeling that the trainer was in control of the teaching process
• failing to explore alternative ways of addressing a problem – in response to evidence of different learning preferences
• providing unsuitable or incorrect inputs

7.3 Were opportunities and examples used to clarify learning outcomes?

While training in technique is core to the learning process, it’s important to reinforce this input and to link it with theory.

The best way to do this is to use real-world situations during the lesson.

The use of practical examples and scenarios on a lesson gives the trainees a better understanding of when, how and why to use a particular technique.

This can be done, for example, by asking the trainees to think about why mirrors are important when changing direction.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• using examples identified on a lesson in a suitable way and at a suitable time to confirm or reinforce understanding
• exploring different ways to use examples to respond to differences in preferred learning style
• using examples that are within the trainees range of experience and ability to understand
• recognising that some trainees will be able to respond instantly while others will want to think about the issue

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• using examples the trainees can’t really understand through lack of experience
• using complex examples that the trainees don’t have the ability to respond to
• failing to give the trainees time to think through the issues and come to their own conclusion
• imposing an interpretation

7.4 Was the technical information given comprehensive, appropriate and accurate?

Good information is accurate, relevant and timely. Failure to meet any one of these criteria makes the others redundant.

Giving incorrect or insufficient technical information, which results in a safety critical situation may result in a failed assessment.

Most sessions will require some technical input from the trainer to help the trainees solve problems or to fill a gap in their knowledge. This input must be accurate and appropriate.

Information given must be comprehensive when associated with a recurring weakness in the trainees riding/understanding. Simply telling the trainees that they have done something wrong is unlikely to help them overcome the problem.

Any practical demonstration of technique must be clear and suitable. The trainees should be engaged and given the opportunity to explore their understanding of what they are being shown.

Information given unnecessarily may not be helpful, eg continually telling the trainees what to do and not allowing the trainees an opportunity to take responsibility.

Unclear or misleading advice should also be avoided. Comments like, “You’re a bit close to these parked cars” could be used to introduce coaching on a weakness, but are of little use on their own as they are unclear. How close is ‘a bit’ and is it significant?

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• giving clear, timely and technically accurate demonstrations or explanations
• checking understanding and, if necessary, repeating the demonstration or explanation
• finding a different way to demonstrate or explain if the trainees still do not understand

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• providing inaccurate or unclear information, too late or too early in the learning process
• failing to check understanding
• failing to explore alternative ways of presenting information where the trainees don’t understand the first offering

7.5 Were the trainees given appropriate and timely feedback during the session?

Feedback is an essential part of learning, but the process must be balanced.

Trainees need to have a clear picture of how they are doing against their learning objectives, throughout the lesson.

They should be encouraged when performing well and coached when a problem or learning opportunity occurs.

However, a constant stream of words, however technically accurate, given at an unsuitable time may be de-motivating or actually dangerous. Sitting quietly and saying nothing can also be a very powerful form of feedback in some situations.

All feedback should be relevant, positive and honest. It is not helpful if the trainees is given unrealistic feedback which creates a false sense of their own ability.

Where possible, feedback should not be negative. Rather than saying somebody has a weakness, consider expressing it as a learning opportunity.

However, if they need to be told something is wrong or dangerous this needs to be done. The trainees should have a realistic sense of their own performance.

Feedback is two-way. It should, ideally, be prompted by the trainees with the trainer responding to the trainees questions or comments. The trainees feedback shouldn’t be overlooked or disregarded.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• providing feedback in response to questions from the trainees
• seeking appropriate opportunities to provide feedback that reinforces understanding or confirms achievement of learning objectives
• providing feedback about failure to achieve learning objectives that help the trainees achieve an understanding of what they need to do to improve
• providing feedback that the trainees can understand
• providing consistent feedback that is reinforced by body language

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• providing feedback a long time after an incident so that the trainees cannot link the feedback to what happened
• providing feedback that overlooks a safety critical incident
• continuously providing feedback when this may be distracting the trainees
• failing to check the trainees understanding of feedback
• providing feedback that is irrelevant to the trainees learning objectives, for example commenting on their personal appearance
• refusing to hear reasonable feedback about the trainer’s own performance

7.6 Were the trainees’ queries followed up and answered?

Direct questions or queries from the trainees should be dealt with as soon as possible. The response may involve providing information or directing the trainees to a suitable source.

Remember that, wherever possible, the trainees should be encouraged to discover answers themselves.

However, if the trainer does need to provide information they must make sure that the trainees completely understands the information given.

Trainees may not always have the confidence to ask direct questions. The trainer should be able to pick up comments or body language that indicates uncertainty or confusion and use suitable techniques to explore possible issues.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• responding openly and readily to queries
• providing helpful answers or directing the trainees to suitable sources of information
• actively checking with trainees if their comments or body language suggest they may have a question
• encouraging the trainees to explore possible solutions for themselves

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• refusing to respond to queries
• providing inaccurate information in response to queries
• avoiding the question or denying responsibility for answering it

7.7 Did the trainer maintain an appropriate, non-discriminatory manner throughout the session?

The trainer should maintain an atmosphere in which the trainees feel comfortable to express their opinions.

They should create an open, friendly environment for learning, regardless of the trainees age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, religion, physical abilities or any other irrelevant factor.

This implies active respect for the trainees, their values and what constitutes appropriate behaviour in their culture.

The trainer must not display inappropriate attitudes or behaviours towards other road users and should challenge their trainees if they display these behaviours.

Evidence of competence

Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include:

• keeping a respectful distance and not invading the trainee’s personal space
• asking the trainees how they wish to be addressed
• asking a disabled rider to explain what the trainer needs to know about their condition
• using language about other road users that is not derogatory and that does not invite the trainees to collude with any discriminatory attitude

Evidence of a lack of competence

Indications of lack of competence include:

• invading somebody’s physical space
• touching the trainees, unless it is necessary for safety reasons
• using somebody’s first name unless they have said that this is acceptable
• commenting on the trainees appearance or any other personal attribute unless it has a direct impact on their ability to ride safely, like wearing shoes that may not offer protection or make it difficult for them to operate the controls

7.8 End of the session: were the trainees encouraged to reflect on their own performance?

At the end of the session, the trainees should be encouraged to reflect on their performance and discuss their feelings with the trainer.

The trainer should encourage honest self-appraisal and use client-centred techniques to highlight areas that need development if the trainees have not recognised them.

Once development areas have been identified the trainees should be encouraged to make them part of future development.

8. Review section

A score of 7 or less within the risk section will result in an automatic fail.

In most situations, a trainer will maintain good awareness of what is going on around them, give clear and timely directions and intervene in an appropriate and timely way to ensure that no safety-critical incidents occur. Their instruction is satisfactory and is safe.

However, situations may arise in which a trainer‘s actions or instruction are of such poor quality that the examiner may decide that they are putting themselves, the learner or any third party in immediate danger.

An example of this could be where the learner is approaching a closed junction too fast. There are plenty of opportunities for the trainer to control the situation via the radio. However, the trainer doesn’t take control, allowing the rider to continue to emerge when they are clearly unable to see or be seen putting themselves or any third party in immediate danger.

In these circumstances, the examiner would be entitled to stop the lesson and mark it as an immediate fail.

8.1 Radio equipment

Radio equipment must be issued for all road rides. All trainees must be correctly briefed with guidance given on what to do should they become separated or radio contact is lost.

Failure to do this will result in a failed assessment.

8.2 Element E

Was the assessment of Element E correct - following the road ride was the instructor’s assessment of the trainees ability to ride unaccompanied and in a safe manner correct?

Was the CBT DL196 issued correctly?

If the answer is no then this must be addressed with the instructor and the standards check recorded as a fail

8.3 Legal requirements

Were all legal requirements carried out including a minimum of 2 hours on the road? Failure to comply with legal requirements will result in an automatic fail.

9. Overall pass mark

Score	Description
0 to 30	Fail
31 to 42	Pass - satisfactory performance
43 to 51	Pass - a high overall standard of instruction demonstrated