or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › REBOOT - Rethinking PSIA's skills approach
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REBOOT - Rethinking PSIA's skills approach - Page 9

post #241 of 246

I must admit I don't know what "auditing classes" means here.  

post #242 of 246
Sitting in on the class, then making follow-up suggestions with the instructor if the trainer thinks it's needed.
post #243 of 246

One of the best ways to learn most things including sports is to hang out with the best you can find.   I'm a curious SOB and if I'm trying to learn something and I see someone doing  it much better than me,  I try and hang out with that person and absorb as much as I can.  I ask questions,  watch this person do what I'm trying to learn and practice till I get it.  I observe new instructors  at my area, enter the work force and unless they are an outstanding skier, they get inundated with advice (wanted or not)  from some of the more seasoned instructors.  Often the advice is inconsistent or contradictory.  The approach is often haphazard.  My advice is to find a willing mentor or two,  someone whose skiing you like and  stick with those  coaches for a significant  period of time, 3 months, a season.  Create a plan, with short, medium and long term goals and work the plan.   Long term goals, earn a cert. level, ski 50 bumps in a row without stopping,  get comfortable skiing bullet proof.  Short term goals, ski 50 consecutive short turns, 10 times everyday I ski.    YM

post #244 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

Benchmark? That's a good one. I taught my first clinic because the SSD was skiing with a bunch of instructor candidates and needed to dump them on somebody so he could get some work done. Nowadays, there is no written benchmark for either becoming a trainer or staying a trainer.  But we do invite new trainers onto the staff based on desire, great skiing ability, great teaching ability and a solid work record. We do get measured on how many clinics we teach. We also get evaluated based on the anonymous feedback submitted by clinic participants. While there is no measurement of our individual results, we do pride ourselves on the high pass rate at exams compared to other schools and the resort surveys do generate a "net promoter score" for the school every year. We don't produce a level 3 year every year, but some years we have produced more than 1. Instructor feedback to the SSD sometimes gets turned into action items for the training staff. There are no special incentives for the training staff. That's how it works at my resort under our current SSD. Things will vary widely from SSD to SSD and resort to resort. We've heard plenty of stories here on Epic.

 

Funny you mention net promoter scores, as that's what my company actually produces for other companies. ;) For a net promoter score to be meaningful, you have to survey your customers - in the case of the instructor training group, your customers are the instructors. 

 

I would advocate implementing a "pay for performance" system for trainers, where trainers are bonused based on how many instructors they can "level up" each year. As a training professional, I'm certainly assessed, in part, on the success of participants in my sessions. Benchmarks and metrics are pretty fundamental in modern business and learning environments. Let's get with the 1980s already!

post #245 of 246
Soliciting improvement advice from your students and trainees is the most direct way for a clinician to learn and continue to grow. Net Promoter Scores deal indirectly with that idea since the questions also include more than just the instructor's performance. So my question is how many instructors actively solicit customer advice? Is the learning partnership equal enough for that sort of honest feedback?
post #246 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post
 

 

Funny you mention net promoter scores, as that's what my company actually produces for other companies. ;) For a net promoter score to be meaningful, you have to survey your customers - in the case of the instructor training group, your customers are the instructors. 

 

I would advocate implementing a "pay for performance" system for trainers, where trainers are bonused based on how many instructors they can "level up" each year. As a training professional, I'm certainly assessed, in part, on the success of participants in my sessions. Benchmarks and metrics are pretty fundamental in modern business and learning environments. Let's get with the 1980s already!

We do solicit feedback from ITC candidates and from "clinicees". We don't calculate net promoter scores from "staff" feedback. One could argue that the net promoter score for the school product reflects the quality of the training staff. I think management is a bit overwhelmed by the volume of data we got from last year's surveying (we did see raw results posted every week). I also sense they "know" who the good trainers are and that accelerating the level growth of certified instructors is secondary to other more immediate objectives. For example, on the snowboard side we changed the standard for teaching first timers in our station teaching setup. We changed the training to get the word out, but we need to do better next season. I think the boss would have preferred that some of the time I spent helping cert candidates to have been shifted to more effort on getting the word out. It will be interesting to see where we go next season with the surveys. But I'm more interested in seeing what we learned from last season and how that drives changes for next season.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › REBOOT - Rethinking PSIA's skills approach