Addressing the Exam Teaching Dilemma

By Curt Sundeen

Every year, exam candidates and clinic participants ask, when will PSIA create real-life teaching scenarios with real-life students, in order to more fairly examine teaching ability. At every exam, I have heard a failing exam candidate argue that they would have passed, if only the examiners had seen how successful they were with their students at their home ski area.

The question of how to make the exam teaching segment more "realistic", especially for Level I & II, has been around as long as I have been an instructor and then some. Since becoming an examiner in 1998, more "realistic" teaching scenarios have been one of my primary exam focuses. "Realistic" to me has meant, how can I more fairly observe the candidates' teaching ability? It has been and continues to be a formidable task. Here are just a few of my thoughts and a possible solution.

The idea of an examiner shadowing an actual lesson with an exam candidate may be as unrealistic as the current exam teaching scenarios. The cost to the candidate alone makes it infeasible and there are already many complaints about the cost of exams and prep clinics. Imagine the cost, time and logistics of an examiner or two having to shadow hundreds of teaching segments in a season. How about the difficulty of finding hundreds of "real-life" students willing to participate in such scenarios. And how "realistic" would one of these set-up lessons be with an examiner looking on? Have you ever had your director or supervisor shadowing you to check for quality control? As many times as I have heard such a process argued for, I have never heard anyone seriously propose or consider it. It doesn't mean it can never happen, it simply means those who have been active in the examining process the longest, find it unrealistic and have so for many years.

Since these mock teaching scenarios are not likely in the near future, I offer an alternative. Remember, high percentages of Level I & Level II candidates are already passing their exams. Only minor changes need to be made to improve the exam experience and give the examiners a better opportunity to observe the candidates teaching ability. My solution is based upon a change in focus and a more extensive training of examiners, trainers and candidates, specifically on the teaching segment. If even half of the time that is spent on tasks and demos is dedicated to the teaching scenarios, the teaching segment can become a more "realistic" and fair examining process.

In the dozen Level I & Level II Exams I have given the last 5 years, I have totally opened the teaching scenarios in search of success. Because Level I & II candidates are not required to teach to the skiing level of their peers, 5 and above for Level I, 8 &9 for Level II, I have allowed candidates a full night of preparation to teach the exam group anything they wanted. In the Level I exam, the presentation didn't have to focus on skiing at all. They could literally teach the group about anything. Level IIs were required to be more skiing specific. The only criteria I truly required was to make the segment fun, creative, progressional and active (i.e. keep the group moving.) The bottom line was always, teach the group something. Using this format, I have observed many interesting and thoughtful teaching segments, where I have gained some incredible knowledge from Level I and II candidates. But, even with such open criteria and time to prepare, I have continued to see plenty of mundane and unthoughtful teaching segments, which I believe, many examiners have come to expect.

Using Albert Einstein's quote in the PSIA Core Concepts manual, "Learning is experience. Everything else is just information.", I would break the candidates I have observed into 3 categories: (1) candidates, who presented information creatively and progressively and created a learning experience for a group of their peers; (2) candidates, who presented information progressionally, but didn't create a true learning experience for the group; and (3) candidates, who presented information without progression and created little or no learning experience for the group.

The first group of candidates, who I would call "natural teachers", had some formal training in planning and presenting information and creating a "learning experience" and were also very comfortable teaching and communicating with their peers. While doing all of this, these candidates were able to keep the group moving and having fun. These candidates passed their teaching segment with flying colors.

The second group of candidates had some formal training in planning and presenting information progressionally, but were not creative or comfortable when it came to creating a "learning experience" for their peers. Typically, they were reciting progessions verbatim from the manual or another trainer without feeling or creativity and were so focused on the information, they couldn't keep the group moving and having fun. These candidates were typically questioned and coached throughout the segment, in order to pull them through their teaching.

The third group of candidates had little or no formal training in presenting information progressionally and were totally uncomfortable in their efforts to communicate and create a "learning experience" for their peers. Often, the candidate was so uncomfortable that the group became uninterested and even uncomfortable themselves. No amount of questioning or coaching was going to pull them through their teaching.

The point is that it is not the "unrealistic" teaching scenario which creates an unsuccessful exam experience. It is a lack of knowledge, experience and training. A lack of knowledge and experience teaching within the exam environment. Without knowledge of the exam teaching segment, and a consistent teaching segment among examiners, it is difficult for the candidates to train specifically for the exam. Because teaching in an exam is admittedly not like teaching a regular ski school lesson, teaching 20 or even 100 hours of group & private lessons is not always enough to pass an exam. A candidate must train specifically for the exam.

This specific training must include clinics on exam teaching, and most important, the experience of teaching in front of a group of their peers a number of times.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel, just a change in focus to include teaching and exam teaching specific in our training. As I have said, candidates have already been passing their Level I & II exams in high percentages. At the Level II Prep Clinics I have changed focus and tried to give every participant a chance to teach in front of their peers with feedback on what I am observing and looking for. Commonly, I have found this to be an introduction to what they will find in the exam, and have suggested the candidates continue to practice & train in front of their peers at their home areas as many times as possible.

In a process that has been pointed out to be very unrealistic, here are the realities. Reality, the exam process does not and for the foreseeable future will not provide the instructor an opportunity to teach as they would in a daily ski school lesson. Reality, the candidate must train and prepare differently, or at least additionally, for an exam then they would for a regular ski school lesson. Reality, the candidate must take their knowledge of the teaching and learning process and practice presenting it in front of their peers. Will specific training for teaching for an exam improve your ski school lessons? I believe so, it has increased my confidence and teaching ability significantly. Will it take some added effort, dedication and risk? On the part of examiners, trainers and candidates alike. Can this additional training lead to the learning experiences that Einstein talked about? Absolutely. And isn't that what we all strive for as teachers?