1 / 19

Does it work!

Does it work!. Ian Edwards. Questions I am asked. Does it work? Why bother? What’s the difference? Prove it?. Background. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD p.14) report, ‘Young Drivers: The Road to Safety’ (2006) identified inexperience as being the:

hamlin
Download Presentation

Does it work!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does it work! Ian Edwards

  2. Questions I am asked • Does it work? • Why bother? • What’s the difference? • Prove it?

  3. Background • The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD p.14) report, ‘Young Drivers: The Road to Safety’ (2006) identified inexperience as being the: ‘universal problem’ • If this is correct then there is a very strong case to investigate how a driver can be trained with a view to accelerating the experiential learning process.

  4. Goals for Driver EducationKeskinen et al 2010

  5. The research question • What exactly is self-evaluation? • Can self-evaluation skills be developed through a targeted intervention? • Do ADIs understand how the GDE links specifically to young novice drivers and, if not, can this be developed?

  6. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory • Explains how we learn from our experience but does have some limitations • Namely it explains the process but not how an instructor can help someone develop their ability to learn through their experience • “Experience does not necessarily lead to learning: there needs to be an active engagement with it” Boud (1995, p.0)

  7. Self-evaluation A model of self-evaluation Edwards 2010 • Self-monitoring - The ability to impartially monitor personal performance • Self-awareness – The ability to identify learning triggers (strengths and weaknesses) • Self-analysis – The ability to develop options for development • Self-development – The ability to implement a plan based on analysis of the options

  8. Evaluation Two schemes evaluated: • Get in Gear – post-test scheme delivered by Buckinghamshire County Council • Engage Merseyside – In-car scheme during driving lessons

  9. l Get in Gear Course • 6 hour course consisting of: • 2 hour workshop • 4 hour in-car driving • Looked to develop self-evaluation skills in both the class-based and in-car elements • Instructors trained to develop these skills based on the use of coaching techniques (Training delivered by eDriving Solutions) • A number of coaching techniques used, including ‘Scaling’ and Self-monitoring exercises

  10. Method • Video-based measure used to assess self-evaluation skills related to Level 2 of the GDE matrix - Integrating with traffic • Benchmarking of 20 clips • Clips shown to driving instructors (N = 99) and novice drivers (N= 32) • Of the 20 clips shown the ADI group rated 7 significantly (p<.05) different to the novice driver group • In all clips the ADI group gave a lower rating than the novice driver group

  11. Measure

  12. Measure

  13. Results - Speed • ANOVA Results: • Time1 Time2  F(1,27)=6.822, p=0.02 • Time2 Time3  F(1,27)=0.131, p=0.720 • Time1 Time3  F(1,27)=4.155, p=0.05

  14. Limitations • The results are limited: • No control group • Small sample • However, what this piece of research may indicate is that self-evaluation, at least related to Driving in Traffic, can be measured and therefore can be reliably developed by a trainer • This is an important area of research if inexperience is indeed the ‘universal problem’

  15. Engage • Evaluation looked at the Instructor element of the scheme • 3 hour training session on GDE and coaching • Pre and 6 weeks post-course questionnaire used to measure knowledge and understanding of the topic related to coaching and to the higher levels of the GDE: • Fatigue • Distraction • Alcohol and drugs • Emotions

  16. Results • 5 statements looked at fatigue, all 5 moved in the desired direction (p>.05) • Example: Newly qualified drivers are very prone to the effects of fatigue. • Pre-course M= 2.93, SD 1.17, Post-course M = 3.7, SD =99, t = -3.08, df26, p = 0.05

  17. Results • Similar results were found with regards to: • Peer pressure - all 3 statements moved significantly in the desired direction (p>.05) • Medication and alcohol - all 3 statements moved (p>.05) in the desired direction • Emotions – all 2 statements moved in the desired direction (p>.05) • No movement was found with regards to distraction – 3 questions

  18. Results The majority of instructors felt that: • The training was beneficial (92%) • They had altered their training methods as a result of the training they had received (67%) • That the training had made them consider other issues they had not considered pre-training (79%) • They would recommend the training to other instructors (87%) • They would like to see a similar scheme to this rolled out nationally (100%)

  19. Conclusions • Taken together these results would indicate: • that is possible, using the right approach, to improve a driver’s self-evaluation skills • Instructor knowledge related to distraction is good • Some driving instructors have a low level of knowledge related to how a number of factors impact specifically on young novice drivers related to peer pressure, fatigue, alcohol other drugs. • That a short intervention can have a significant impact on driving instructors related to the GDE matrix

More Related