ratios (again)

For discussions within the Cycle Training profession.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14954
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

ratios (again)

Postby Si » 25 Sep 2018, 5:16pm

Quick straw poll for the experienced bikeability instructors out there. All things being equal, how would you prefer to deliver L2 to children (Y5 to Y8)....

1/ two instructors, 12 kids, 6 hours spread over three 2 hour sessions
2/ two instructors, 12 kids, 6 hours spread over four 1.5 hour sessions
3/ two instructors, 4 kids, 3 hours spread over two sessions
4/ two instructors, 5 kids, 3 hours spread over two sessions

..and indeed, how do you currently deliver?

Just wondering as we are currently changing and there is a fair bit of debate as to which is best....I know what I prefer but that ain't necessarily what others would.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3236
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: ratios (again)

Postby pjclinch » 25 Sep 2018, 7:46pm

TBH if I was expressing a preference it would depend on the kids, particularly their abilities. If the group is pretty good then bigger groups allow you to use the group itself as interacting traffic and they'll learn from each other as well as the instructors. With a group a bit more off the pace smaller is better IMHO as a big group of not-so-good kids can just end up as a major drag for everyone at L2.

You could make the scheduling hilariously complicated and start off with sessions for smaller groups to get people up to speed quicker, and then combine groups for more traffic and peer-peer learning. I never tried that and only just thought of it. It might even be a good idea... but there again it might not.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

passing the junction
Posts: 5
Joined: 23 May 2018, 8:48pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby passing the junction » 28 Sep 2018, 9:53pm

Aren't all those times insufficient to meet the standard? The Delivery Guide says 6 hours on-road training at 2:12 to which you have to add the pre-road L1 skills etc for a full course

pedals2slowly
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 7:50pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby pedals2slowly » 29 Sep 2018, 8:53pm

Depends on many factors.

Location of on road training relative to school - the further away it's better to have longer sessions to save wasted time travelling to and from.
Ability and attitude - Kids in small groups can find it too intense, they also learn from watching others.
How organised the school is - if the school is disorganised a lot of time can be lost getting bikes/helmets/kids together, so longer sessions are better.
What the weather is like - really cold weather needs shorter sessions so the kids can warm up again, maybe ditto for really hot weather.

I like longer sessions because I can remember kids names better, find out their learning styles and apply this knowledge to teach better.
Short sessions allow you to exclude or introduce extra sessions for 'failing' kids.

Many more pro's and cons.

How long is a piece of string really, sorry!

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14954
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby Si » 30 Sep 2018, 8:36am

. If the group is pretty good then bigger groups allow you to use the group itself as interacting traffic


yes, this is one advantage that we have found in the past, however we are now urged to use busier roads from the start so that they have interaction with real traffic.

it would depend on the kids, particularly their abilities.

it would be nice to have the luxury to chop and change to suit the children, but we have to let the schools know exactly what we are doing long before we get there, thus we need to have a standard delivery system.

.
Aren't all those times insufficient to meet the standard

no, they meet the standard. This is for l2 only.

Depends on many factors


in the ideal world one would like to be flexible, but in reality as a large provider one has to have a fairly standardised system. Thus, the question is: if one is in a position where one has to pretty much pick one of the options as a 'one size fits all' approach, which does one go for?

In the last few years our standard delivery model has gone through all of these options and there is some debate as to which is best......i know which i like but am interested to hear other instructors have done, and which they prefer and, of course, why.

passing the junction
Posts: 5
Joined: 23 May 2018, 8:48pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby passing the junction » 30 Sep 2018, 3:09pm

no, they meet the standard. This is for l2 only.


Apologies if I've misunderstood your course length of 6 hours for 2:12, but from the Delivery Guide table and footnote on page 7:

"Minimum on road course times vary according to number of trainees per instructor (1).....

... 6 trainees per Instructor - 6 hours ...

"(1) These times are the minimum that must be spent delivering training on road. Time required to prepare the trainees for going out including the assessment of Level 1 skills must be additional to the minimum on road training time."

So there is no way a 6 hour course at 2:12 can meet the national standard.

I hope that table is clarified and improved in the review.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14954
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby Si » 30 Sep 2018, 5:29pm

Yep, what you have quoted is correct: thus if it's 6 hours at 1:6 then it would be 6 hours at 2:12. For us the L1 has a separate time allocation and thus doesn't get included in this 6 hours (ditto LTR). e.g. 2hrs-L1 @ up to 1:15, then 6hrs-L2 @ up to 2:12. - so they will have fulfilled all L1 outcomes before we start L2.

And then, if we are lucky, 4 hours L3 @ 2:4.

passing the junction
Posts: 5
Joined: 23 May 2018, 8:48pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby passing the junction » 30 Sep 2018, 9:24pm

Thanks you for your reply - just interested in how you do it because the scheme I work for adds playground time on to the 6 hours, we are not allowed to go straight out on to the road and also trainees don't have to have undertaken a L1 course to try L2.

This made me go back and look at the Delivery Guide again - on p17 (my italics): "Where Level 1 and Level 2 is being delivered as a combined course over a period of days or weeks, the instructors should not need to spend time checking for the achievement of Level 1 outcomes again as part of the Level 2 course, since these will have been signed-off by the instructors already. Where Level 2 is delivered as a standalone course or if different instructors are teaching Level 2, the trainees’ Level 1 competencies should be reviewed prior to starting the Level 2 outcomes. Any time taken for the assessment of Level 1 skills must be in addition to the minimum of 6 hours on-road training time at Level 2."

Still it may all change soon anyway.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14954
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: ratios (again)

Postby Si » 1 Oct 2018, 8:20am

With secondary schools we used to only do l2, thus the l1 check was incorporated into the l2 time. But this was at a lower ratio so it still fitted into the time availible. I think, but am not 100% sure as we are currently getting to grips with a new model, that we are now doing seperate l1 sessions in secondary schools as well.

And by next year we will be on our fifth different delivery model in about six years.....guess it stops it from getting boring!

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3236
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: ratios (again)

Postby pjclinch » 1 Oct 2018, 10:30am

Si wrote:
And by next year we will be on our fifth different delivery model in about six years.....guess it stops it from getting boring!


They're waiting for you to settle down before releasing the new standards... ;-/

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...