IASI BCSI common mistakes
IASI BCSI · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When describing how a ski turns, the candidate says only that the skier 'presses on the outside ski' or 'puts weight on the downhill ski,' without linking it to pressure management through the turn phases, edge angle, and the resulting side-cut interaction.
The candidate memorised a simplified teaching cue from their own lessons and never connected it to the underlying mechanics - the pressure–edge–side-cut relationship and the role of the centre of mass moving inside the turn. Under exam questioning the cue collapses into a single vague idea.
What to do instead
Prepare a phase-by-phase model (initiation, shaping, finish) that names what the centre of mass, the outside ski's edge angle, and fore/aft pressure are doing at each phase, and practise explaining one turn with that model in under two minutes. Be ready to say why a carved turn differs from a skidded turn in terms of edge angle and the direction the ski's tip points relative to its travel.
The candidate describes balance as a static idea - 'keep your weight centred' - and cannot explain how balance is recovered dynamically after a disturbance such as a bump, a patch of ice, or a sudden change in snow resistance.
Balance is often taught as a posture rather than a process. Candidates rehearse a stance but never study the sensory and motor loop (vision, vestibular, proprioception) or the concept of base of support moving under the skier.
What to do instead
Study and be able to explain dynamic balance in terms of the base of support, the centre of mass, and corrective movements (ankle, knee, hip strategy). Practise giving a 60-second explanation of how a skier recovers from a sudden edge loss, naming the sensory inputs and the joint actions involved.
In the teaching-methodology section, the candidate names a learning theory (for example, that learners progress from cognitive to associative to autonomous phases) but cannot say what the instructor should actually do differently for a student in each phase.
Theory is revised as vocabulary to be recited rather than as a decision tool. Candidates learn the labels but never map them onto lesson structure, feedback frequency, or task difficulty.
What to do instead
For each phase, write one concrete instructional adjustment (for example, more explicit direction and short closed tasks in the cognitive phase; varied conditions and less frequent, more internal feedback in the associative phase). Rehearse answering 'what would you change in your lesson if your student were at this phase?' with a specific example.
The candidate gives feedback that is either purely evaluative ('good job', 'that was better') or a long list of corrections, and cannot demonstrate giving one specific, observable, actionable cue tied to a single movement change.
Candidates default to the praise-heavy style they experienced as students, or they over-correct because they fear missing something. They have not practised prioritising one change at a time.
What to do instead
Practise the pattern: observe, name one observable behaviour, state the intended outcome, give one cue, then set a task that lets the student feel the change. Rehearse trimming a five-point correction list down to the single highest-value point for a given student.
During movement analysis, the candidate describes what they see as a conclusion ('the student is backseat') rather than as an observation, and jumps to a fix without identifying the body part, the phase of the turn, and the direction of the deviation.
Analysis is rushed because the candidate wants to demonstrate knowledge quickly. They skip the observation step and report the diagnosis, which makes the analysis unverifiable and often wrong.
What to do instead
Use a fixed observation template: what body part, at which turn phase, deviating in which direction, and what effect it has on the ski. Practise describing three skiers using only observable language before offering any interpretation, then state the single most likely cause and how you would test it with a task.
The candidate analyses a skier only from the front or only from one side, or watches the whole run rather than a defined section, and then builds a lesson plan on an incomplete picture.
Observation positions and viewing protocols are rarely practised. Candidates watch where it is convenient rather than where the relevant movement is visible.
What to do instead
Learn which viewpoint reveals which movement (for example, a downhill or side-on view for fore/aft and edge angle, a view from below for stance width and rotation) and rehearse analysing the same skier from two positions, noting what each view added. Choose a short, repeatable section of terrain for the observation.
In the personal skiing/riding demonstration, the candidate's performance breaks down when the task changes - for example, they can make short-radius turns on easy terrain but lose rhythm, grip, or balance on steeper or more variable terrain, or when asked to demonstrate a specific turn shape on demand.
Practice is done in one comfortable condition. Candidates rehearse the demonstration in isolation rather than as a controlled, adjustable skill, so the movement pattern is not robust to terrain, speed, or snow changes.
What to do instead
Practise demonstrations as a set of controllable variables: same turn shape at three different radii, on two different terrain pitches, and at two speeds. Video yourself and check that the key movement (edge angle, pressure, rotation) is visible and consistent, not just that the turn 'looks fine'.
The lesson plan is a list of activities ('we'll do some drills, then go to the park') with no stated goal, no success criterion, and no link between the student's stated aim and the chosen progression.
Candidates plan from activities they enjoy or remember rather than from the student's goal and current ability. They also confuse a progression with a sequence of drills.
What to do instead
Build every plan from a goal statement, a measurable success criterion, and a task progression that changes one variable at a time (terrain, speed, turn shape, snow). Rehearse writing a 45-minute plan in which every activity is justified by the goal, and be ready to explain what you would change if the student achieved the criterion early or failed it.
On safety and duty of care, the candidate gives a generic answer ('I'd make sure it's safe') and cannot name a specific hazard-assessment routine, a terrain or snowpack decision, or the steps they would take after an incident.
Safety is treated as an attitude rather than a procedure. Candidates have not rehearsed the concrete sequence: scan and assess, choose terrain, set group management, respond, report.
What to do instead
Prepare a short, ordered routine you can state aloud: pre-lesson terrain and conditions check, group check and meeting point, hazard identification during the lesson, and post-incident actions (secure the scene, account for all students, summon help, report). Practise applying it to two contrasting scenarios, such as a busy beginner slope and a cold, windy upper run.
The candidate answers ethics and professional-conduct questions with intentions ('I'd be professional and respectful') rather than with the specific obligations and boundaries - for example, what to do when a student asks for instruction beyond their ability or beyond the instructor's certification, when a colleague behaves unsafely, or when a student discloses something confidential.
Conduct is assumed to be common sense, so it is never turned into explicit rules of practice. Candidates have not thought through the conflict between keeping a client happy and maintaining safety and scope-of-practice limits.
What to do instead
Prepare concrete position statements for the common conflicts: scope of practice, honesty about conditions and ability, confidentiality, and reporting unsafe behaviour. For each, state the obligation, the boundary, and the exact words you would use to hold it while remaining courteous.
The candidate ignores equipment and environment as teaching variables - they cannot explain how a boot's flex, a ski's width or side-cut, or a change in snow temperature and moisture should change the task they set or the terrain they choose.
Equipment is treated as the rental shop's job and weather as background. Candidates do not connect gear and conditions to the movement pattern the student can realistically produce.
What to do instead
For three equipment variables (boot flex, ski width, edge condition) and three environmental variables (snow hardness, temperature, visibility), write one sentence on how each changes the task or terrain choice, and rehearse a short equipment check you would run at the start of a lesson and what you would say to the student about it.