In my opinion it can only be a benefit for people to be introduced to, and experience as many different styles of cycling as possible for them to decide which they want to participate in long term. Would Bikeability be more effective if it was delivered as a club, as opposed to a short ‘come and go’ course? More opportunity for continuous learning/development? There is never enough time to understand how trainees learn, their motivations, and their social and psychological state or if/how they will participate in cycling post Bikeability.
I consider myself as more of a cycling coach than a cycling instructor. I think even the word 'instructor' suggests I just tell people what to do, and they do it, how I say. I think coaching is more about developing the participant first, and the activity second so that they develop their own thought and action process while participating. Although Bikeability is an outcome based pass or fail course, I still use my coaching philosophy “play to learn” as I feel our aim is to allow trainees to enjoy THEIR cycling experience as opposed to put them under pressure to pass a course - who will cycle again if they don't enjoy it? Recent research (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10777936/Children-no-longer-care-about-winning-or-losing-in-sport.html) tells us that 64% of young people would be relieved or not bothered if competition was removed from sport (I still feel this is relevant even though we deliver cycling as a physical activity and if we consider the competition as the national standards and not the amount of learning, development or fun being had). Just some reasons for why I choose to coach Bikeability instead of formally instruct it.
In my opinion it can only be a benefit for people to be introduced to, and experience as many different styles of cycling as possible for them to decide which they want to participate in long term. Would Bikeability be more effective if it was delivered as a club, as opposed to a short ‘come and go’ course? More opportunity for continuous learning/development? There is never enough time to understand how trainees learn, their motivations, and their social and psychological state or if/how they will participate in cycling post Bikeability.
I consider myself as more of a cycling coach than a cycling instructor. I think even the word 'instructor' suggests I just tell people what to do, and they do it, how I say. I think coaching is more about developing the participant first, and the activity second so that they develop their own thought and action process while participating. Although Bikeability is an outcome based pass or fail course, I still use my coaching philosophy “play to learn” as I feel our aim is to allow trainees to enjoy THEIR cycling experience as opposed to put them under pressure to pass a course - who will cycle again if they don't enjoy it? Recent research (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10777936/Children-no-longer-care-about-winning-or-losing-in-sport.html) tells us that 64% of young people would be relieved or not bothered if competition was removed from sport (I still feel this is relevant even though we deliver cycling as a physical activity and if we consider the competition as the national standards and not the amount of learning, development or fun being had). Just some reasons for why I choose to coach Bikeability instead of formally instruct it.