Coaching Young Drivers in a Second Phase Training Programme


Published on

In this paper we describe the structure of a second phase driver training programme. Keyword is coaching in a balanced way. Participants of the program are descirbed: with which what driving history they enter the program and how they perform after the coaching programme.

Published in: Automotive
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Coaching Young Drivers in a Second Phase Training Programme

  1. 1. Coaching Young Drivers in a Second Phase Training Programme Erik Roelofs, Jan Vissers, Marieke van Onna, Gerard Kern Cito, National Institute for Educational Measurement, The Netherlands DHV group, Amersfoort, The Netherlands Regional Agency for Traffic Safety Gelderland, The NetherlandsIntroductionDuring the first six to twelve months of solo driving, young novice drivers experience themost dangerous phase of their driving career: their accident risk reaches a peak by then. Thisis why several European countries have introduced obligatory second phase trainingprogrammes. Other European countries provide these training programmes on a voluntarybasis. A recent evaluation of the Austrian model (Gatscha and Brandstaetter, 2008) showedthat the number of personal injury accidents among 18-year-old novice drivers was reducedwith 28 per cent in all regions of Austria after the introduction of the obligatory second phasesystem. Several studies stress that the content of second phase driving programmes should notbe restricted to lower level vehicle control skills. Moreover, concentrating on the lowervehicle control skills can even be counterproductive (Glad, 1988). Instead, second phasedriving programmes should rather address driving style variables which refer to the way thatpeople choose to drive (Elander, West and French, 1993; McKenna, 2009), which can beexplained by the way drivers make decisions on the level of life tasks and on the strategic,tactical and operational levels of driving tasks. In a literature review Helman, Grayson and Parkes (2010) driving style variables on thestrategic and participation level of driving tasks that are associated with collision risk are
  2. 2. reviewed: speed choice, close following of vehicles in front, high-risk overtaking, violationof traffic laws and engaging in distracting activities, such as speaking on mobile phoneswhile driving. Factors on the lifestyle level, such as fatigue-related factors (Groeger, 2006; McKenna,2009), and alcohol use, themselves fall outside the driving domain, but are associated withcollision risk. Groeger (2006) points out that fatigue is especially relevant for very youngnew drivers, since their lifestyle – often involving extensive weekend and evening socializing– does not support good sleep hygiene. The awareness of these factors, the readiness and the ability to take them intoconsideration before and during driving involve higher order skills on the part of the youngdriver, as elaborated in the Goals of Driver Education matrix (Hatakka, et al., 2002). Amongthese skills are self-reflection and awareness of emotions during driving. The purpose ofsecond phase training programmes is to further develop higher order driving skills that appearto play an important role in the reduction of one´s accident risk. As in other educational areas, scholars stress that development of complex higher orderskills should involve increased levels of self-regulation. Although varying approaches maystimulate self-regulation on the part of the learner, there is consensus about the idea that someform of coaching is likely to be effective. For driving instructors who use direct instructionand immediate feedback as a dominant method of training, this shift towards coachingrequires a role shift. The driving instructor becomes a driving coach. Drawing from the field of educational psychology coaching can be described asstimulating and supporting self-regulated learning (Boekaerts, 1999; Butler and Winne,1995). Coaching interventions are expected to stimulate and support cognitive, meta-cognitive, and affective learning activities (Perry, 1998; Perry, et al., 2004; Shuell, 1993;Winne and Hadwin, 1998). Cognitive learning activities pertain to the cognitive activities thatlearners employ to process relevant task information that contribute to the realization of
  3. 3. learning outcomes in terms of changes in learners’ knowledge base and skills. Affectivelearning activities pertain to coping with emotions that arise during learning and that lead to amood that may either facilitate or impair the progress of the learning process. Meta-cognitiveactivities pertain to thinking activities that learners employ to regulate their learning process.These include a) the choice of personal learning objectives, the pace and course of thelearning process, and its learning contents, b) the monitoring of learning activities, c) theevaluation of the outcomes and d) the changes in the regulation aspects that follow fromevaluations (Vermunt and Verloop, 1999). Typical coaching interventions that are employed to stimulate and support the learningprocess are asking questions and providing feedback on learning activities as employed bythe learner. Using these interventions, the educator makes learners aware of the adequacy,efficiency, and effectiveness of learning activities (Boekaerts and Simons, 1995; Butler andWinne, 1995). The ultimate goal of coaching is to foster self-regulated learning (SRL) Inpractice, not all learners possess the necessary regulation skills for SRL and need a morebalanced approach between educator-led and learner-led regulation. Questions and feedbackutterances during coaching may therefore vary from extremely open to very structured.Providing clues, hints, advice, and examples constitute coaching interventions with a highdegree of educator regulation. From a Vygotskian point of view, which was adopted by theauthors in constructing a driver coaching programme, competent coaches provide just enoughsupport in order to enable students to make the step to the next higher level in employing alearning activity, which they could not have made on their own (Vygotski, 1978). As theperformance of a learning activity improves, the support of the educator should decrease untilthe student can perform the learning activity independently. This is referred to in theliterature as ‘fading’ (Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989).
  4. 4. Recently, within the field of driver training, principles of coaching have been defined,which closely resemble the recommendations from educational psychology (Bartl, et al.,2010). Coaching: • puts the learner in an active role; • builds on the prior knowledge and experience of the learner; • encourages the learner to identify his/her goals and to meet these goals; • raises the awareness, responsibility and self-acceptance of the learner; • raises awareness of the learners’ values, goals, motives and attitudes as well as his sensations and emotions, knowledge, skills and habits; • addresses the learner’s internal obstacles to change. As coaching builds on the learners’ awareness of their learning progress, a relevant rolecan be played by assessments for learning (AFL). AFL are used to inform and support thelearner and their educators about their levels of (driving) competence, and the underlyingperformance aspects that need further attention. By using the results of these assessments,subsequent coaching may be tailored to the learner drivers’ specific needs (Stiggins, 2002). To facilitate higher order level learning in driving, formative assessments should gobeyond traditional assessments aimed at isolated testing of knowledge about traffic rules andtechnical driving skills. Fitting in with the approach as described above, formativeassessments need to: a) address critical elements of the driving task and its circumstances asthey appear in daily driving and throughout the driving career; b) fit in with the stage ofdevelopment of the (learner) driver, c) be informative about various mental processes. The current study focused on a Dutch second phase coaching programme that wasdeveloped as part of the EU-project ‘Evaluation of post-licence training schemes for novicedrivers’ (NovEv; Sanders and Keskinen, 2004). The programme, entitled ‘The DriveXperience’, was based on recommendations from recent literature on the coaching of young
  5. 5. drivers. Since the first introduction of the programme in 2003, it has been updated andevaluated on a continuous basis (Vissers, 2006). In this study, attention was focused on a description of the participating group of youngdrivers. As participation in the Dutch programme is voluntary there may be a form of self-selection, resulting e.g. in groups of highly motivated responsible drivers or in groups withdrivers with already a rich accident history. For the programme to be successful in addressingthe target group, it aims to attract a representative group of young drivers, who are in need ofvarious forms of extra insights into their driving styles. The main research questions of thisstudy entail: 1. To what extent does the programme address the envisioned target group? 2. To what extent does the design and content of the coaching programme address the driving characteristics of the participating young drivers? In order to determine the fit with the target group, the driving characteristics ofparticipating young drivers in ‘The Drive Xperience Programme’ were compared with aDutch reference group of young drivers. Also comparisons were made with characteristics ofexperienced drivers who drive in leased cars and who are sent to an advanced driver trainingprogramme, because of their unfavourable driving history. More specifically, the following research questions will be addressed: • What are the driving characteristics of young drivers enrolled in a programme for coached driving in terms of their driving behaviour, their personal risk factors, and their self-perceptions regarding driving proficiency? • In what respects do participating young drivers differ from the average young driver, as described in earlier young driver studies in The Netherlands? • In what respects do young drivers differ from experienced drivers, who are enrolled in advanced driver training programmes?MethodDesign characteristics of the second phase coaching programme ‘Drive Xperience’
  6. 6. The design principles and content of the Drive Xperience (DX) programme second phasecoaching programme were drawn from different sources of research, which are describedbelow.GDE-matrix: task levels of driving Throughout the training programme the GDE matrix(Hatakka et al, 2002) is used as a conceptual framework for all learning experiences. Duringdiscussion about driving styles, it is emphasized that the actual quality of participation intraffic situations is influenced by decisions on higher level tasks. These include life tasks, e.g.socializing with peers, recreating, working, and strategic tasks, e.g. choice of transportationmode, and route decisions.Driving as a serious task, involving complex task processes The idea is that at all levelscar, driving needs to be considered as a serious task, in which various aspects need to beconsidered simultaneously: the state of the driver, passengers, baggage, presence of otherparticipants, weather road conditions and so forth. Besides, drivers often carry out competing (life level) tasks which can seriously impedethe quality of the driving task execution: e.g. phoning, talking, mental preparation for work,being angry with other drivers. In the training programme coaches will consider driving as acognitive/affective decision making process, during which the driver (ideally verbally) needsto reflect on his/her own decisions, actions and consequences as depicted in figure 1.[Insert Figure 1] The model, which is used in simplified form, offers a thinking tool for the young driverduring coached trips. During the preparation programme, coaches use the model whenreflecting on explanations of driver behaviour, located inside or outside the driver (referred toas ‘basis’ and ‘traffic situation’ in the model).
  7. 7. Balancing task complexity and level of proficiency One of the problems with youngdrivers is that they often fail to safely adapt their choice of traffic situations to their level ofproficiency (Fuller, 2005; De Craen, 2010). Due to a lack of driving experience and to aninadequate self-assessment of own proficiency young drivers choose to engage in trafficsituations they do not have mastery of yet. In the coaching programme young drivers are supported to search for a balancebetween their own level of proficiency and the complexity of the traffic situations theyengage in. Disturbance of this balance may cause hazardous situations. Keeping a surplus ofproficiency (in terms of time and space for actions) is considered essential. Task complexityis addressed in two ways during the young driver coaching programme. First, driving coaches are encouraged to choose routes consisting of traffic situationswith varying degrees of complexity, but that never overtax the young driver. By choosingcritical situations where proficiency and task complexity begin to show imbalance, youngdrivers become aware of their learning needs. Second, the factors that cause task complexityand imbalance are discussed during the trip. Borrowing from error-taxonomy studies (Stantonand Salmon, 2009) critical task environmental attributes are addressed that hamper orfacilitate the driving process in the following way: • Perception/comprehension: This process is hampered by sight obstruction, camouflage, hearing obstruction, and discontinuous traffic environment. E.g. a hedge blocking the side view at a crossing; unreadable road signs, temporary reduction in the numbers of lanes; • Decision making: This process is hampered by other participants who arrive at the scene at the same time, or by reduced time and space to carry out actions. E.g. complex crossroads with many different participants, lanes reduced in width, narrow and winding roads. • Action execution: This process is hampered by reduced space, and road or weather conditions hindering vehicle control. E.g. wet road surface, snow, cross winds, high gradient percentage.
  8. 8. Referring to different GDE task levels some of the outcomes of the discussions couldbe to avoid driving at certain hours of in certain conditions, to take an alternative route(strategic level) or to reduce speed earlier (tactical level). Discussions about drivingbehaviour are facilitated by the use of observation assignments for passengers, who are notbehind the wheel (see next section).Criteria for driving proficiency The ultimate goal of the coaching programme is thatyoung drivers make responsible decisions in traffic tasks at all GDE task levels. To determinethe quality of driving behaviour, coaches are encouraged to pay attention to five inter-relatedcriteria of driving performance (Roelofs, et al., 2010): 1) Safety: The driver’s ability to solvetraffic situations in such a way that time and space are available for all participants to carryout driving activities without conflicting or colliding with objects or others. Indicators areawareness of the situation, correct timing of actions, adapting speed and using “spacecushions”; 2) Facilitating traffic flow: The ability to drive in a way that does not impede theprogress of other road users, and helps an optimal flow of traffic; 3) Consideration with otherroad users: The ability to give others opportunities to fulfill their tasks, or to adapt to theirmistakes, without showing aggression or irritation; 4) Controlled driving: Steering andcontrolling the car smoothly, without stutters and jerks or departures from smooth lines. 5)Environmentally-responsible driving: Driving in such a way that emissions of harmful gasesand noise levels are kept to a minimum and that optimal use of fuel is achieved. These criteria, with an emphasis on safety, form the basis of discussions about trafficbehaviour. In addition, these criteria are addressed in the web-based assessments for learningwhich participants go through as a preparation for the coaching programme.Overview of the second phase coaching programmeFigure 2 gives a schematic overview of the DX programme.
  9. 9. [Insert figure 2] During a pre-test period of four weeks before the start of the training programme theparticipants were asked to complete two web-based assessments: The Driver RiskAssessment and the Driver Self-Assessment. These assessments result in an individual driverprofile for the participant. The individual profiles are also accessible for the driving coachesand are used for tailoring the training content to individual learning needs and for reflectivepurposes on the part of the young drivers. Participating young drivers use the outcomes toarrive at personal learning objectives for the coached trip. For instance, speed or distractionmay have turned out to be risk factors for a participating young driver. • The driver coaching programme takes place during one day and consists of three parts: • Coached trip: The main objective of the coached trip is to present the driver with feedback about his ‘everyday’ driving performance. • Track experience: The main objective of the track experience is for participants to experience the limits of their skills in vehicle control and to share these experiences with other group members. • Group discussion: The main objective of the group discussion is to stimulate recognition of potentially hazardous situations in rather normal driving situations. Risks of alcohol use and other risky driving behaviors are discussed. During the coached trip the principles of coaching individual drivers are elaborated indetail. The trip takes approximately one hour per participant. The driving coach is expected tochoose a route that addresses the specific needs of the young driver. During a 15 minute pretrip discussion the young drivers and their coaches determine the routes to be taken. Inaddition, observation points are chosen by which parts of the trip can be reviewed anddiscussed in a non-threatening way. During the trip the young passengers are asked to markall observed interactions with other participants in terms of their experienced degree ofcomfort, discomfort or even fear (figure 3).
  10. 10. [Insert figure 3] At two points the trip is paused to enable a discussion about what has happened duringthe trip. First the driver gives his/her own impressions. Then the passengers give their notesand the driver reacts to them. In this conversation the coach asks clarifying questions andelicits better solutions by building on the passengers’ and the drivers’ responses. Trends indriving behaviour are notified, e.g. using big/small space cushions towards other trafficparticipants, or scanning timely or too late for the changes in the traffic situations. During the trip the coach is expected to give suggestions for changes in the route toenable the driver to drive in situations that are relevant to his or her personal objectives. After the second stop the strong points and the points to improve are reviewed afterwhich the participants change places, and the previous passenger now drives. At the end ofthree trips the young drivers are asked to write down the most important points on which theywant to improve themselves in the near future. During a post-test period of four weeks after the programme the participants areexpected to complete a third web-based assessment, the Situation Awareness Test. Thisassessment also yields a feedback report which may give additional information about pointsto be developed (see section below).InstrumentationIn this study data from three draft instruments aimed at informing drivers about their riskprofile and their driving behaviour were employed. The instruments were administeredduring the coaching programme as described above. At the same time the data were used togive a detailed description of the participants in terms of the factors and behavioursmentioned above. As the instruments have also been administered to experienced drivers
  11. 11. (driving in leased cars) enrolled in driver training programmes, comparisons can be madebetween young (inexperienced) drivers and older (more experienced) lease car drivers.Driver Risk Assessment questionnaire The Driver Risk Assessment is a web-basedquestionnaire consisting of 119 questions regarding the driver history and the drivers’behavioural risk factors. Personal background variables pertain to age, gender, and years ofdriving experience. The questions regarding driving history refer to mileage and to the kindand variety of traffic situations to which the driver is exposed: e.g. driving during rush hours,on various road types, or driving during weekend nights. In addition, questions are posedabout the number of active and passive accidents the driver was involved in during the pastthree years and the number of fines received for various reasons the past year. Questions regarding behavioural risk factors pertain to the following topics: speedchoice under various conditions, lane preference on motorways during various trafficconditions, alcohol use and driving, the use of adversary alcohol strategies in combinationwith driving, anger in reaction to others participants’ violations, distraction and fatigue. Mostof the behavioural questions ask for a response on a Likert scale, where each scale pointrepresents a behavioural option (e.g. speed choice: ‘between 120-125 km/h’, ‘between125-130 km/h; anger: ‘not angry, ‘a little angry’). Also questions with a dichotomousresponse were employed (e.g. I stay calm and don’t let myself get annoyed: yes/no). After the participant has completed the assessment an individual score profile isreported on 10 categories and on the total risk score expressed on a scale between 0 and 100:age and sex, years of driving experience, mileage, fines, collisions, driving in varioussituations, speed, alcohol, concentration-distraction, aggression, and fatigue. Writtenfeedback is displayed, of which the wording depends on the applicable score level (low risk;moderate risk, high risk). Provisional cut-off scores for these levels of risk were determinedbased on the score for the 33rd and the 66th percentile.
  12. 12. Driver Self-Assessment The Driver Self-Assessment is a web-based questionnaireconsisting of 45 illustrated questions. It comprises a self-assessment of driving abilityaddressing the five criteria for driving competence described above. The questions pertain tostrategic, tactical and operational behaviour choices on different road types. Each question isaccompanied by an illustrative picture, showing the essential features of the traffic situationto which the question refers. An example of a safety question on strategic level is: “How often do you take a longerroute because it is safer (such as driving around rather than through a residential area)?” Anexample of an item on the tactical level: “When turning right, how often do you fail to see acyclist/moped rider over your right shoulder?” An example of item on the operational levelis: “How often do you have to brake on a bend?” Participants respond by using a four-pointLikert-scale ranging from ‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’. After the participant has completed the assessment an individual profile is reported onthe five criteria mentioned above. The scores are expressed in terms of percentages of themaximum possible score. Detailed written feedback is displayed depending on the scorecategory, carrying the following labels: 0-60 per cent ‘improvement necessary’; 60-80 percent ‘satisfactory, with room for improvement’, 80-100 per cent: ‘well done!’Situation Awareness Test The Situation Awareness Test (SAT) intends to assess thedegree in which the driver is aware of changes in traffic situations. The development isdescribed in Roelofs et al., (2008). During its administration the test was still underconstruction, implying that part of its items could be left out of the test for psychometricreasons. The SAT consists of 40 traffic scenarios displayed as video clips during testadministration. Each item starts with a video clip showing a driver activity during a critical
  13. 13. traffic situation from the driver perspective. Four types of questions with different responsesare employed: recollection, decision making, localizing hazards, and timed response. The recollection items refer to the recall of a change in the traffic situation whichincludes a possible hazard on which should be responded to solve the situation safely. Afterthe video clip freezes, two types of multiple choice questions can be asked. The first questiontype measures to what extent the driver has noticed a signpost or signal by asking about theconsequences (how fast are you allowed to drive?) The second type asks if a specificbehavioural choice can safely be made in a complex traffic situation (can you turn rightsafely now?). The decision items require the driver to select the most appropriate risk-avoiding solution for that moment. After the scenario freezes, the driver is asked to select thebest behaviour option at that moment. The localizing items ask the subject to mark the spoton the screen (the frozen traffic situation) where immediate attention is required. Finally,timed response items require the subject to choose the optimal moment for carrying out arisk-avoiding manoeuvre, leaving a maximum of space to carry out driving activities. Thevideo clip is shown twice. In the first viewing, the participant is asked to observe the overallsituation. They are told what type of risk avoiding manoeuvre is to be carried out. During thesecond viewing, the participant clicks on the screen at the moment they intend to carry outthe manoeuvre. After the participant has completed the assessment, an individual scoreprofile is reported on the four item types and on the total test score in a similar way as theDSA:ParticipantsFor this study data were used from two groups: young drivers enrolled on the young driversecond phase coaching programme and lease car drivers enrolled on advanced driver trainingprogrammes. The young drivers group (n=1247) participated in a total of 43 training groups in theperiod between August 2010 and June 2011 (mean group size: 29) and consisted of 671 male
  14. 14. and 576 female subjects. This distribution is representative of the Dutch population. Theparticipants had held their driving licence between six months and two years. They were agedbetween 18 and 24 years. Their average mileage 7398 kilometres, which is almost equal tothe average Dutch young driver. The group of lease car drivers (n=922) came from 31 companies that sent theirassociates to advanced driver training in small groups. The lease car drivers differ in terms ofage and gender composition from the average Dutch population of drivers. The former groupis relatively younger (80 per cent is younger than 45 versus 53.4 per cent for the population),has fewer years of driving experience (37 per cent less than 10 years versus 22.5 per cent)and contains more men (79 per cent versus 56 per cent). To enable comparison with a reference group of young drivers several analyses wereperformed on a database containing data from a large-scale survey using representativesamples of the Dutch population (PROV). This survey has been carried out almost yearlysince 1990 (Eversdijk et al., 2000) until 2005. For purposes of comparison only the mostrecent data (2005) were used (n=345), since traffic safety figures have changed considerablysince 1990.Data analysesFor the purpose of the description of the young drivers and lease drivers in this paper theassessment instruments were further refined. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) andreliability analyses were carried out on the responses to items from the three draftinstruments. For the Driver Risk Assessment there were only minor changes in the orderingof subscales compared to the scales that were used to inform the drivers. For the Driver Self-Assessment the analyses resulted in a subscale ordering that differs considerably from theoriginal subscales in terms of the five performance criteria, as used for purposes of feedbackto the participants. Regarding the Situation Awareness Test, only the scale ‘localizing’
  15. 15. reached a satisfactory level of reliability. Data on the other subscales are therefore notreported. In the next section the results for the subscales as found in the analyses are reported.Criteria for inclusion in a subscale were: a high loadings on a principle component after aPCA; b) an item correlation of at least .25 in the reliability analysis. The young drivers, the lease car drivers and the young driver reference group weredescribed by means of descriptive statistics. Differences in group means were tested bymeans of one-way analyses of variance. Differences in cell proportions in crosstabs weretested by means of chi-square tests.ResultsIn the forthcoming tables the participating groups of young drivers are characterized in termsof their driving behaviour, their risk profiles, their self-images related to safe driving andtheir levels of situation awareness.In which situations do young drivers drive?Young drivers regularly drive during rush hour and on motorways (means 2.9, 3.3, see Table1). They relatively often drive on roads outside built-up areas which have no separated lanes(mean 3.8), and which serve participants with different speeds and vehicle masses. Inaddition, young drivers regularly drive in the town centre of a big city (mean 3.0). Finally,they sometimes drive during weekend nights (mean 2.4; about once a month). Lease cardrivers drive (significantly) more often in the situations mentioned (t-values 13.7, 12.9, 2.1,11.7 and 3.9 respectively; df= 689; all significant at the .01 level).
  16. 16. [insert Table 1]Accidents and finesTable 2 shows the accident risk expressed in the average number of accidents and fines perone million kilometres. Not all participants had completed their annual mileage and accidentreport. The participants reported their accidents during the last three years, whereas in thePROV study it was asked each year. The reported number of accidents was corrected for thenumber of years and then related to mileage. The young drivers who participated in thecoaching programme only had their licence for a maximum of two years. Since no preciseinformation was available about the time they held their licence, this period was assumed tobe two years, which is a very conservative estimate. In order to gauge the robustness of theresults, the analyses were also performed assuming a one-year period for the PROV referencegroup. Seventy-four drivers reported driving 1000 km at the most. Since the extrapolation oftheir results to one million kilometres seemed unreliable, the results of the reference groupare also presented without these low-mileage drivers.[Insert Table 2] The average mileage for the young driver coaching group was significantly lower thanfor the PROV reference group (t=-2.6, df=612, p=.01). The lease car drivers had a higheraverage mileage than both young driver groups. Both young driver groups had higheraccidents risks than lease car drivers, both for accidents where the driver was legally liable(active accidents) and for accidents where the other driver involved was legally liable(passive accidents). The risk for fines was higher too. Even with the conservative estimate,the young driver training group seemed to have higher risk for active accidents than the
  17. 17. reference group, when excluding the low-mileage drivers (28.2 versus 23.4). However, a t-test for independent samples did not yield significant results. Since the data concerned frequency data on a fixed number of kilometres that wereskewed to the right, a Poisson model was appropriate for testing the null-hypothesis that theactive accident rates in both groups are equal. This hypothesis was rejected (χ2= 119.4, df = 1,p<.01). The passive accident rate did not differ significantly between the young drivercoaching group (conservative estimate) and the reference group, excluding the low-mileagedrivers (χ2= 1.9, df=1, p=.17). The young driver coaching group had a lower fine rate than thereference group, excluding the low-mileage drivers (χ2= 253.8, df=1, p<.01). However, in theless conservative estimate, assuming an accident report period of one year only, the fine ratefor the young driver coaching group is significantly higher than the fine rate in the referencegroup, excluding the low-mileage drivers (χ2= 1931.4, df=1, p<.01).[Insert Table 3]Risk factorsTable 3 shows results regarding behavioural risk factors as measured by means of the DriverRisk Assessment. The participating young drivers sometimes drink alcohol (mean .39) andthey do not differ in this respect from the lease car driver (mean = .42). They rarely combinealcohol with driving a car, as can be observed form the mean score on the scale ´use ofadversary alcohol strategies (mean: = .05). This scale consists of questions whether theparticipant combines drinking alcohol with driving and a series of questions about well-known but adversary strategies to minimize the effects of alcohol once the participant findsthemselves at places where alcohol is served. E.g. pretending to drink alcohol, wait for awhile before taking the next alcoholic drink, wait a while before driving home, taking a longtime for a drink. Lease car drivers occasionally combine alcohol and driving, including theuse of the adversary strategies (mean = .33)
  18. 18. A next risk factor, loss of concentration rarely occurs with young drivers (mean: = .09).This scale refers to situations in which drivers are unconscious about the route they have justdriven, or are distracted because they were thinking about something, or appear surprised bysudden maneuvres of other participants. The questions regarding anger referred to the drivers’ reaction on other participants’violations or deviating driving behaviour. In terms of anger the young drivers very often staycalm (mean: = .75). Reactions of withheld anger occur rather often (mean = .55). Irritatedreactions towards other participant occur occasionally (mean: = .18). Seriously angryreactions occur very rarely (mean: = .02). In terms of anger, young drivers do not differ fromlease car drivers. The differences are insignificant. Available data from the PROV referencegroup show that average young drivers react less frequently with irritation (t = 2.5; df = 612;p <.01) and withheld anger (t = 5.2; df = 612; p <.01) than young drivers participating in thecoaching programme. The data on staying calm were not comparable, due to differentwordings in the questionnaire employed in both studies. A fourth risk factor is speed and lane preference. Based on the preferred speeds asreported by the participants, a scale was constructed for the degree in which speed limits areviolated. A higher proportion means that participants violate the limits on a greater number ofdifferent road types (50km, 80km, 120 km limits) and to a greater extent (e.g. ‘maximum 120km/h’, ‘120-125 km/h’ up to ‘over 150 km/h’). On average young drivers say they rarelyviolate the limits (mean: = .14) and even less frequently than lease car drivers (mean: = .17; t= -5.2; df = 689; p < .001). Under favourable weather and road conditions young driversoccasionally violate speed limits (mean: = .23). The difference with lease car drivers (mean:= .26) is significant (t = -2.3; df = 689; p < .05). Under favourable conditions young driversmore often violate the speed limits than the PROV young driver reference group (means: = .23 and .20 respectively; (t = 2.1; df = 612; p <.05).
  19. 19. Regarding lane choice, both young drivers and lease car drivers sometimes choose theouter lanes on the motorways (means: = .33 and .39 respectively). Lease car drivers do thismore often (t = -3.0, df = 689; p < .05) than young drivers. The final risk factor pertains to fatigue. The questions asked whether the driver hasexperienced problems keeping their eyes open, if they have had micro sleeps during driving,if they have had less hours of sleep than needed, and if they have been driving at nightwithout having rested during the day. The scores on this scale suggest that on average youngdrivers rarely experience the problem of fatigue while driving (mean: = .09). Lease car driverexperience fatigue a little more frequently (mean: = .11, t = -2.0, df = 689, p < .05).[Insert Table 4]Self-Assessment of driving proficiencyIn Table 4 the results on the Driver Self-Assessment (DSA) are summarized. The DSA wasadministered from the start of the young driver coaching programme to 1226 participants. A PCA performed on the DSA data resulted in a different ordering into four subscalesthat differ from the subscales that are usually reported for the young drivers during thecoaching programme. The first scale consists of 12 items which address errors that affecttraffic safety (failure to scan for other participants, following too close, braking too late),traffic flow (blocking other traffic at crossroads or causing others to wait), and vehiclecontrol (errors when braking, using gears, drifting when operating car equipment). Onaverage, young drivers occasionally commit errors (mean: = .21) that affect the criteriamentioned above. They do not differ significantly from lease car drivers in this respect(mean: = .17). The second scale can be labelled as ‘driving in a hurry’. Subjects are asked whetherthey really ‘step on the gas’ and drive faster than the speed limits. Young drivers sometimes
  20. 20. drive in a hurry (mean: = .36) and do not differ significantly from lease car drivers in thisrespect (mean: = .32). The third scale pertains to feelings of irritation caused by other participants’ drivingbehaviour (driving errors and driving too slow). Young drivers report that they rather oftenfeel this irritation (mean: = .64). They report this irritation significantly more frequently thanlease car drivers (t = 12.7, df = 1804; p < .001). The overall scale ‘Perceived quality of one’s own driving behavior’ consists of 43items. Two items have been left out because of a low item-rest correlation coefficient. Thenegatively formulated items of the first three subscales were reversed. The scale can beinterpreted as the degree to which the driver reports a safe, flow-aiding, social, controlled andenvironmentally considerate way of driving. On average young drivers report that they veryoften show this type of behaviour (mean: = .73). They do not differ significantly fromexperienced drivers (mean: = .76) in this respect.Situation awareness[Insert Table 5]Psychometric analyses on the responses to the Situation Awareness Test showed that onlyone subscale reached an acceptable alpha coefficient (at least .60): ‘localizing hazards’. Onaverage young drivers score high on this task (mean: = 7.4 on an eight item subtest),indicating that they are well able to localize possible hazards in a traffic scenario (see Table5). They even perform significantly better than lease car drivers who reach a mean score of7.1 (t = 3.0; df= 381; p < .01), which is also relatively high.Discussion
  21. 21. The results of the study can be summarized in the light of the two main research questions.The first main question addressed the issue of whether the second phase coaching programmehas attracted a representative group of young drivers in terms of their driving characteristics.In this study, data from web-based assessments administered over the course of almost oneyear as part of the DX programme were analyzed to yield a picture of the participants’driving characteristics. Looking at the driving history in terms of their mileage, the relative accident risk andthe number of fines it becomes clear that participants in the programme form at least anaverage group of young drivers. The organizing agency feared that the participants would bewell-educated and good drivers, but this does not seem to be the case. On the contrary, there are indications that the relative risks of accidents and fines arehigher than they are in a representative Dutch reference group of young drivers. The lattergroup was involved in the 2005 version of the annual monitoring study into traffic safety inthe Netherlands (Eversdijk et al., 2000). In terms of the available comparable risk factorsstudies, the DX participants score less favourably than the average young driver: the formerreports irritation towards other drivers, making errors and violating the speed limits moreoften than the latter group. The second main question was to what extent the design and content of the coachingprogramme had addressed the driving characteristics of the participating young drivers? Inother words, does the programme address their specific needs? Reflecting on this question, some observations can be made. First, DX participants findthemselves in risky traffic situations, i.e. on roads outside built-up areas and in the towncentre of a large city. While doing so, they occasionally violate the speed limits. Theysometimes choose outer lanes when driving on motorways. Taken together with the reportedrelatively high accident involvement, this calls for attention to the risks of speed as is the casein the DX coaching programme.
  22. 22. Second, a relatively favourable picture emerges regarding the combination of alcoholuse and driving. DX participants mostly refrain from drinking when they have to drive. Mostparticipants do not give in to adverse alcohol strategies, such as pretending to drink alcohol,wait for a while before taking the next alcoholic drink, wait a while before driving home, ordrink a cup of strong coffee. Alcohol use is more of an issue for the lease car driver involvedin this study. The available data come from those who are enrolled in advanced drivertraining programmes and had completed the same web-based assessments as the DXparticipants. Fourth, DX participants often respond to certain driving situations with irritation. Theyreport this irritation more frequently than experienced lease car drivers. They also sometimesfind themselves hurrying through the traffic. At the same time DX participants have a ratherpositive self-image of their own driving behaviour. Their self-image does not differ to a largeextent from that of the more experienced lease car drivers. Third, DX participants are verycapable of localizing hazards, as measured by the Situation Awareness Test. They evenperformed better than lease car drivers. The tendency to drive at higher speeds than is permitted, to react with irritation towardsother drivers combined with a positive self-image may result in overestimation of the owndriving proficiency. In turn this overestimation may result in imbalances between taskdemands and real proficiency, causing increased risks, and loss of control (Fuller, 2005; DeCraen, 2010). The average driving profile of DX participants matches well with the designand content of the coaching programme. During the coached trip the participants areencouraged to form realistic self-images. The non-judgmental peer feedback during the tripmay contribute to the forming a realistic self-image. Drivers become more conscious abouttheir driving activities and the immediate consequences for other traffic participants. Oneparticipating young driver put it like this: “Indeed, some of my friends have many ‘Oops’
  23. 23. moments when I am driving. Now that you report five red crosses [on the feedback form] Iremember that”. Interest is the finding that the participating young drivers seldom showed theundesirable combination of alcohol use and driving, and the corresponding adverse alcoholstrategies. In the most current version of the coaching programme a one and a half hour timeslot is reserved exclusively for discussion about the risks of alcohol and driving. Onerecommendation following from the participants’ profiles would be to concentrate moregenerally on risks of life style attributes that can account for specific problematic youngdriver behaviours, such as irritation, and driving in a hurried, stressed way. Following the lineof thought in the GDE matrix the antecedents of these driving behaviours could be disclosedand discussed. In such a way changing driving habits starts at the understanding that life-styledecisions, all day activities and driving behaviour are strongly interwoven. Although youngdrivers may well be capable of participating safely when expected to do so during a coachedtrip, they may not choose to do so when they are caught up in daily life activities. Part of theperformance is related to style as mentioned in the first section of this chapter (Elander, et al.,1993). The results of this study indicate that young drivers are able to localize hazards in acomputer based test environment. The question is, whether they are both capable of and readyto localize hazards when they are driving their own cars, in the presence of peers, with whomthey are socializing. This brings us to two suggestions for follow-up study. First, in this study no attentionhas been paid yet to possible short and long term effects of the coaching programme onreported and actual driving behaviour, as is recently recommended by other authors (cf.Mynttinen et al., 2010). In the coaching programme a non-judgmental approach was used forcoaching. In a follow-up the young drivers’ styles of driving will be evaluated, employingtrained instructors who will serve as evaluators.
  24. 24. Second, the current study did not shed light on the implementation of the coachingprogramme. In a follow-up study the focus will be on the features of the coachingprogramme, which contribute to or impede changes in attitudes and driving behaviours of theparticipants. Some of the questions are: To what extent do coaches regulate learning activitiesand how does that affect the learning orientations of the participants? To what extent is theapproach of connecting to the zone of proximal development as proposed in the coachingprogramme effective? In the follow-up study, more intrusive forms of data collection areneeded to delve into these questions and to prevent over reliance on self-reports. Directobservations, interviews and performance assessments will be employed to sort out theeffective ingredients of coaching on young drivers, even if the effects may be indirect(McKenna, 2010).ReferencesBartl, G., et al. (2010). High impact approach for Enhancing Road safety through More Effective communication Skills In the context of category B driver training. EU HERMES Project Final Report.Boekaerts, M., (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445-457.Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P.R.J. (1995). Leren en instructie. Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces (Learning and instruction. Psychology concerning student and students’ learning process). Second edition. Assen:: Van Gorcum.Butler, D.L., and Winne, P.H., (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical syntheses. Review of Educational Research, 65(3). 245-281.Collins, A., et al. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  25. 25. De Craen, S., (2010). The X-factor. A longitudinal study of calibration in young novice drivers. Dissertation. Leischendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOVElander J., et al. (1993). Behavioural correlates of individual differences in road traffi c crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (2) 279–294.Eversdijk, J.J.C., et al. (2000). PROV 1999 Periodiek Regionaal Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid [PROV 1999: periodic Dutch regional research into traffic safety]. Report number: TT00-66. Veenendaal: Traffic Test BV.Fuller, R., (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 461-472.Gatscha, M., and Brandstaetter, C., (2008) Evaluation der zweiten Ausbildungsphase in Österreich [Evaluation of the second phase system in Austria]. Forschungsarbeiten aus dem Verkehrswesen. Vol. 173. Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. Vienna, Austria.Glad, A., (1988) Fase 2 I foreoplaringen. Effect pa ultkkes riskoen. [Driver Education’s second phase. Its effect to the accdident risk.] Reprot No. 0015. Oslo, Transportokonomiskt institut.Groeger J A., (2006). Youthfulness, inexperience, and sleep loss: the problems young drivers face and those they pose for us. Injury Prevention, 12 19–24.Hatakka, M., et al. (2002) From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 201-215.Helman, S., et al. (2010). A review of the effects of experience, training and limiting exposure on the collision risk of new drivers. TRL Insight Report INS005. Bracknell (UK): Transport Research Laboratory.
  26. 26. McKenna, F. P., (2009). Can we predict driver behavior from a person’s sleep habits? Behavioural Research in Road Safety, 19th Seminar, 30 March–1 April 2009. London: Department for Transport.McKenna, F. P., (2010). Education in Road Safety Are we getting it right? London: RAC Foundation.Mynttinen, S., et al. (2010). Two-phase driver education models applied in Finland and in Austria – Do we have evidence to support the two phase models? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13(1), 63-70.Perry, N., et al. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self- regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1854-1878.Perry, N.E., (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and the context that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729.Roelofs, E.C., et al. (2008). Development of multimedia tests for responsive driving. In L. Dorn (ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training, Volume III (pp 251-264), Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Roelofs, E.C., at al. (2010). Development of the Driver Performance Assessment: Informing Learner Drivers of their Driving Progress. In L. Dorn (Ed.) Driver behavior and training, volume IV (pp. 37-50). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Sanders, N., and Keskinnen, E., (eds.) (2004). EU NovEV project; Evaluation of post-licence training schemes for novice drivers. Final Report. International Commission of Driver Testing Authorities CIECA, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.Shuell, T.J., (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 291–311.Stiggins, R. J., (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 758-765.
  27. 27. Stanton, N.A., and Salmon, P.M., (2009).Human error taxonomies applied to driving: A generic driver error taxonomy and its implications for intelligent transport systems. Safety Science, 47, 227–237Vermunt, J.D., and Verloop, N., (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.Vissers, J.A.M.M., (2006). Evaluatie Tweede Fase Opleidingsprogramma Gelderland 2006 [Evaluation second phase driver training programme]. Amersfoort, DHV.Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.Winne, P.H., and Hadwin, A.F., (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  28. 28. Table 1. frequency of driving in different traffic situations Young drivers Lease car (n=269) drivers (n=422)Frequency of driving: Mean SD Mean SDDuring rush hour 2.9 1.2 4.1 1.0On motorways 3.3 0.9 4.2 0.8On roads outside built-up areas 3.8 0.9 4.0 1.0In the town center of a big city 3.0 1.1 3.9 0.9During weekend nights* 2.4 1.0 2.7 0.9Note scale meaning 1= (almost) never; 5= every day; * 1= (almost) never; 4= every weekendTable 2. Average number of accidents per million kilometers Mileage in Active PassiveGroup and age km per year accidents accidents FinesYoung driver training group2(aged 18-24 years; n=269) 7,398 28.2 11.8 39.1Young driver training group1(aged 18-24 years; n=269) 7,398 56.3 23.5 78.3PROV Young drivers1(aged 18-24 years; n=345) 9,785 268.0 185.5 87.1PROV Young drivers3(aged 18-24 years; n=271) 12,317 23.4 12.2 48.2Lease car drivers4(aged 18-64 years; n=422) 9,785 9.2 5.0 32.1Note 1: Assumed reported accident period 1 year; 2: Assumed reported accident period 2 years; 3: Onlythose that drive more than 1000 km per year. 4: Reported accident period 3 years.
  29. 29. Table 3. Self-reported behaviour regarding risk factors Young Lease car PROV drivers drivers young (n=269) (n=422) drivers(n=345) Mean S Mean S Mean S D D DAlcohol:Frequent and intensive use of alcohol .39 .23 .42 .19 - -(2 items, alpha=.54)Use of adversary alcohol strategies .05 .16 .33 .32 - -(11 items, alpha=.92)Distractions and concentrationLoss of concentration when driving .09 .60 .09 .10 - -(13 items, alpha=.81)Anger:Shows serious anger to other trafficparticipants who commit violations (2 items, .02 .12 .02 .13 .01 .13alpha=.64)Shows irritation to other traffic participants .18 .26 .16 .24 .13 .23who commit violations (4 items, alpha=.61)Withholds anger towards traffic participants .55 .30 .56 .3 .43 .26who commit violations (4 items, alpha=.59)Stays calm towards traffic participants who .75 .34 .79 .32 - -commit violations (2 items, alpha=.45)Speed and lane preference:Violation of speed limits on various roads(50km/h; 80km/hl 120km/h roads) and .14 .11 .17 .14 - -circumstances (dry-rainy, calm-busy, heavytraffic; 9 items, alpha=.93)Violation of speed limits on various roadsunder favorable circumstances (dry, calm .23 16 .26 18 .20 .19traffic 3 items, alpha=.65)Driving on the outer lane of motorways under .33 .23 .39 .27 - -various circumstances (5 items, alpha=.78)Fatigue:Degree of fatigue during driving (5 items, .09 .09 .11 .12 - -alpha=.73)Note: 0.-.16: rarely; .17-.33: occasionally; .34-.50: sometimes; .51-.67: rather often; .68-.84: very often; .85-1.0: most of the times
  30. 30. Table 4. driving proficiency as reported on the Driver Self-Assessment Young Lease car drivers drivers (n=1226) (n=579) Mean SD Mean SD- Committing driving errors affecting safety, trafficflow, social driving, and vehicle control (12 items, .21 .11 .17 .13alpha=.74)- Driving in a hurry (4 items, alpha=.63) .36 .18 .32 .18- Being irritated by behaviour of other participants .64 .23 .49 .25(2 items, alpha=.66)- Perceived quality of one’s own driving behaviour .73 .08 .76 .09(43 items, alpha=.80)Note: 0.-.16: rarely; .17-.33: occasionally; .34-.50: sometimes; .51-.67: rather often; .68-0.84: veryoften; .85-.1most of the timesTable 5. Scores for situation awareness Young drivers Lease car drivers (n=265) (n=118) Mean SD Mean SDSubscale ‘Localizing hazards’ (8 items,alpha=.63) 7.4 1.0 7.1 1.2
  31. 31. Traffic Situation 1. Basis 3. Action 3. Action • Knowledge execution execution • Skills • Attitudes 4. Consequences • Moods • Emotions 2.Perception • Personality traits & decision makingCompeting tasks (e.g. phoning, interacting with peers)Figure 1. driving as a process of decision making (Roelofs et al, 2008)
  32. 32. Pretest: Posttest: DRA, DSA SAT Driver Profiling Driver coaching • Risk factors program • Driving behaviour CoachedMeeting coach - driver trip Individual plan• Personalized for further learning objectives Group development for driver discussion Track experience Figure 2. Schematic overview of the Drive Xperience programme
  33. 33. Comments (be specific!) 1. Close encounter crossing Renault on N348 1 2. Very near to driver in front on motorway A12 2Light grey: felt comfortableMiddle grey: felt uncomfortableDark grey: afraid that things would go wring Figure 3. observational form for passengers to be used during the coached trip