If a safety critical, or potentially critical, incident does occur it is vital that the pupil fully understands what happened and how they could have avoided or dealt with it better. Ideally the pupil should be supported to analyse the situation for themselves. However, it may be necessary for the ADI to provide feedback if, for example, the pupil simply did not see a problem. That feedback should be given as soon as is practical after the incident.
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 pupil time to express any fears or concerns the incident might have caused
• supporting the pupil to reflect clearly about what happened
• providing input to clarify aspects of the incident that the pupil does not understand
• support the pupil to identify strategies for future situations
• providing input where the pupil does not understand what they should do differently
• checking that the pupil feels able to put the strategy in place
• agreeing ways of developing that competence if the pupil feels the need
Indications of lack of competence include:
• failing to examine the incident
• taking too long to address issues generated by an incident
• not allowing the pupil to explore their own understanding
• telling the pupil what the solution is and not checking their understanding
• failing to check the pupil’s ability to put in place the agreed strategy
What does this mean to us as test candidates?
Having either prevented and issue, or whilst raising the issue after the event we need to reach agreement that it is something that needs fixing. We also need to agree if this is to be added to the original plan or replacing the original plan (this will depend on how safety critical it is)
Anything that would result in a mark on the DL25 test form MUST be dealt with. NO EXCEPTIONS.
A very common mistake is to have brought a problem to the attention of the learner, sorted between you why it’s a problem and them move away without a proper plan in place about who will do what (generally a lack of an agreed support strategy) meaning you have not demonstrated all of the necessary competencies.
A properly constructed conversation about an issue would lead us then back to Lesson planning as there will now be new goals (to tackle the issue) and a decision on how we will go about it (was the agreed lesson structure appropriate) and agreeing different levels of support or activities (was the lesson plan adapted)
So as you can see, contrary to popular belief the Lesson Planning (and the chunking methodology runs through everything that we do. If we do it well then not only is the risk managed but we must be making the lesson fit the pupils goals and needs therefore our teaching and learning strategies must be hitting the mark too?