Roelofs driver training and learning design from a developmental perspective

Driver training and learning design from a developmental perspective
Erik Roelofs
Cito, Arnhem
Version 1
Contents
1. Life-long learning within different traffic roles ................................................................................... 1
2. Elements of competent driving........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Four task levels.............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Elements of competence............................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Performance criteria for competent driving ................................................................................. 7
3. Ingredients for driver learning design................................................................................................. 8
3.1. A mental model for driving........................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Perception and decision making ............................................................................................ 9
3.1.2 Action execution..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 KSAEMP-Basis....................................................................................................................... 10
3.2. The balance between own capability and driving task complexity............................................ 10
3.2.1 Which factors determine performance capability? ............................................................. 11
3.2.2 Which situations enhance the driving task requirements? What is being complicated?.... 12
3.3 The development of independence and fading support of the driving instructor ..................... 15
3.4 General pedagogical principles ................................................................................................... 18
References............................................................................................................................................. 23

1
Driver training and learning design from a developmental perspective
Erik Roelofs
Cito, Arnhem
1. Life-long learning within different traffic roles
In describing driver learning we tend to think of the period from the start of driver training at the age
of 16, 17 or 18 years, until the time the license is obtained. If we were to take driver training and
learning seriously, we would rather see it as a continuous, permanent and developing. Every citizen
participates in traffic during his lifetime, be it in a passive role as a passenger or in an active role as
pedestrians, cyclists, moped, or a car driver.
Figure 1 summarizes how we participate in traffic in various roles throughout our life, roughly from 0
to 70 years. Participation in traffic starts early. Young children have their first experiences in traffic by
riding with their parents, their caregivers, by walking on the street, and playing with friends and
siblings. By that time all the rudiments of driving (in)competence are already built, by seeing how
significant others drive, how the driver drives the school bus or by walking and cycling themselves.
During primary education, there may be traffic classes, sometimes leading to a bicycle certificate
around the age of eleven (in the Netherlands). In the period from 12 to 16 years teenagers
experience various traffic roles: riding a bicycle, a scooter or a moped, or being in the role of a
passenger in a car or bus or other means of public transportation on the way to school, the gym or
some other destination. Typically, in the Netherlands, in that period, the role of traffic education is
limited, with the exception of the preparation for the moped license. The phase in which traffic
participants drive lasts long and culminates in the period between 25 and 50 years. Especially after
the age of seventy, the use of cars drops sharply, as is the case for overall mobility during that life
stage.
Figure 1: Traffic roles during different life stages
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0-4 5 -12 12-16 17-24 25-50 50-70 70+
Numberofkilometersperday
Age in years
6. Travel by public transportation
5. Travelling as car passenger
4. Driving a car
3. Moped riding
2. Cycling
1. Walking (pedestrian role)

2
An important observation for designing driver training is to take in mind that young people have
already gained a lot of experience in traffic either as a passenger or as an active participant. Although
not systematically studied, we suspect that the previously accumulated knowledge, attitudes, skills,
as well as misconceptions and undesirable habits acquired in traffic are not addressed at the start of
the driving training. We therefore advocate that learning to drive is seen as a (next) form of
transportation competence that builds on the already acquired skills of walking and biking. In
essence, the learner driver moves into a new traffic role, that he will alternate regularly with known
roles as pedestrian, public transport user or cyclist. The new traffic role brings him into new traffic
situations, involving different interactions that put additional demands on his general ‘transportation
competence’. It will sometimes be necessary to take a critical look at the undesirable habits
developed within the role of cyclist, such as choosing shorter but illegal routes against the traffic
flow. Moreover, driver training should help learner drivers not only to become proficient drivers, but
also to become more conscious cyclists and pedestrians by frequently swapping their roles: how
would it be to be a cyclist at this intersection?
Another element of life-long oriented driver training is the changing social role that is reflected in the
driving task throughout the ‘traffic career’. During the development from young adolescence,
through the stages of young adulthood, middle age, towards old adulthood different life-tasks
emerge, which result in different trip purposes, under varying traffic circumstances. During each of
these stages different learning needs may appear. A developmentally oriented driver learning design
would ideally address the needs of each stage, in order to enable the driver to fulfill his roles in traffic
and to deal with changing traffic environments and corresponding safety concerns (Cf. Mc Gwin &
Brown 1999).
Figure 2: Traffic roles during different life stages
In the period prior to the driver training, the learner driver develops into an independent and
responsible road user, as a pedestrian, public transport user and cyclist. In the period of primary and
secondary education the range of action increases due to growing social networks. During initial
driver training the learner driver acquires initial driving competence, ideally in a role as an
independent and responsible driver.
The need to travel at different times and over greater distances increases with the ever- growing
social networks. Young drivers gradually make more miles, often for social trip purposes, which bring
them in risky situations, such as driving during nights and weekend with peers. Increasingly daily life
tasks must be combined with the driving task, which comes with higher task demands and
subsequent risks. These are not yet fully acknowledged and dealt with. Learning activities may aim at
typical young driver problems: overestimation of own skills and distraction by cell phone use
(Engström et al., 2003; Gregersen, 1996; Gregersen, & Bjurulf; 1996; Mynttinen, et al., 2010;
Preusser Ferguson, & Williams, 1998; Summala, 1987). Among the skills to be developed are those of
Acquisition of initial
driving competence
Becoming a
responsible
driver
Sustaining
competence
and adapting to
new roles
Loss of
proficiency:
compensation
training,
restrictions and
retreat

3
self-reflection and awareness of emotions during driving. Ideally, the young driver develops a social
and responsible driving style.
The more experienced middle aged driver (30-55 years of age) takes on a number of social roles in
traffic, such as an employee, a parent, a taxi driver. Often this is accompanied by the intrusion of
undesirable driving habits, such as more agitated and irritated driving or driving too fast or with
limited empathy for other road users, especially if various forms of stress are involved. Awareness
and adaptation of the changed driving style is often the subject of continued learning.
For the drivers who have committed serious violations, rehabilitation courses are aimed at
developing safer and more social thing driving habits.
Older drivers, especially those over 70 years of age, face increasing limitations because of physical
and cognitive decline, reflecting in an increased crash risk. Learning activities may be aimed at
compensation for lost abilities, by thoughtful choices when or not to go out by car. Eventually it may
be decided to suggest or impose restrictions or even retreat as a driver. This often against the
backdrop of a need to remain mobile in a world of gradually shrinking social networks and
dependence on others.
In figure 2 the driver roles and the accompanying educational concerns are summarized.
Figure 3: Elements of the cube of driving competence
2. Elements of competent driving
The design of driver training starts with the question: what is competent driving? In answering that
question, we use a cube as a metaphor (see Figure 3). The cube has three dimensions, each with a
central question. First, what do we mean by driving? This relates to the dimension of the task levels.
Second, what should the driver know, be able to do and be willing to do? This relates to the
dimension of the competence elements. Third, how do we observe driving competence? This
pertains to the dimension of the performance criteria. A design of driver training provides answers to
all these questions. The three dimensions of the cube are divided into layers, which together define
competent driving.

4
2.1 Four task levels
The first dimension of the cube describes the task levels of driving. Driving involves more than
operating the vehicle. Driving a car is a task that is intertwined with daily life and work tasks. This is a
principle that should be central from the outset of driver training.
This idea is not new and has been advocated by experts who have recently formulated the so-called "
Goals for Driver Education '' for driver training, summarized in the so-called GDE matrix (Hatakka, et
al. 2002). The task level of "live and travel" refers to personality traits, attitudes, values, aspirations
and lifestyle of the driver which may affect his driving. Choices at the level of living impact the way
they solve traffic situations and how they handle the vehicle.
Think of the decision to take the car instead of a bus or a bike, the choice to take passengers,
baggage and to continue daily activities in the car: socializing with peers, doing business, raising
children. The combination of high stress levels and time pressure due to tight schedules may lead to
driving in a hurry. A young driver who is sensitive to pressure from peers may decide to drive to a
party with friends in the car, while using the phone, with all possible consequences. Think of
distracted driving with dangerously high speeds at intersections or on rural roads.
The second level, referring to planning and navigating, are strategic tasks: Choosing and preparing
the route, the choice of means of transport (car, public transport, bicycle, ride, etc.). Thinking in
advance about the situations in which you may end up as a driver and plan accordingly, is critical for
safe and smooth participation in those situations themselves. For example, on days with snow and
fog a choice to drive may lead to difficult and dangerous situations for which the driver was not
prepared. It may be useful to prepare for expected traffic situations in other cities or other countries,
to prevent unpleasant surprises. Outdated maps on the car navigator can make a drive unexpectedly
difficult.
The third level refers to the actual driving in traffic situations, i.e. solving traffic tasks in cooperation
with other road users. Consider the following: meeting, overtaking other road users, or turning and
crossing at intersections, or merging and exiting on highways. At this level of observation, decision,
and action execution skills are important. At least as important is the ability to communicate and
empathize with other road users, especially when it is so difficult, sitting in a closed space, where the
others cannot be heard or seen face to face.
The fourth level of driving refers to the technical operation of the vehicle, a necessary but not
sufficient condition for skilled task execution. Examples are cruising, steering and accelerating,
driving through bends and performing special maneuvers such as turning and parking. At the stage of
initial driver training, vehicle control is still crucial. Training courses that aim at skid control can often
be counterproductive, because trained drivers show greater risk taking, as a result of overconfidence
in difficult situations.
The four levels of driving are inseparably connected in the daily life of the driver. All levels should
therefore be addressed in the driver training. It is essential that during the training the (learner)
driver is made aware of the interdependence of choices at the level of life tasks (care, leisure, work,
etc.) and choices at the levels of planning, navigating, participation and vehicle handling.
2.2 Elements of competence
One thing that most researchers and educators agree on is that driving is a complex skill. Competent
participation in traffic requires a combination of different qualities of the driver. The different
elements of competence form the second dimension in the definition of driving skill. Table 1 is an
attempt to describe the various elements, without claiming to be exhaustive.
The probably most recognized element of competence is "know and understand". Without directly
accessible knowledge it is not possible to participate safely, smoothly, and socially in traffic.
Knowledge could include the following: theory of the driving task, including traffic, knowledge and

5
understanding of traffic as a system, knowledge about factors that determine the complexity of
traffic, potential risk factors located in the driver, the vehicle and the environment. Less obvious, but
also important are social roles in traffic, and the effects of driving habits and lifestyle.
Except directly accessible knowledge and understanding, it is important that the driver can
adequately "decide and act' in traffic. The driver makes decisions on the basis of an assessment of
the situation (perception), predictions and evaluations of the consequences of different courses of
action.
A less frequently mentioned quality is that of 'empathy and acceptance" by the driver. Driving takes
place in interaction with others, within a traffic system. Driving is a social activity: every action of the
driver has implications for other road users. Empathizing with the interests and needs of others
during driving and changes of perspectives with others can be seen as a social and moral
competence. Acceptance of rules and norms of behavior are part of it.
Driving requires justifiable moral judgments. The question is whether the choices made in traffic are
morally justifiable, seen from the interests of the driver and others. This competence element is
probably an underestimated aspect in driver training. We expect that driver training will face
limitations when it comes to the development of a sound moral judgment. The intended ' empathy
and acceptance' requires a level of moral development that may not be accomplished by a number
of (learner) drivers. However, doing nothing about it, is not an option.
A fourth element, 'self-regulation and self-reflection’ means that the driver is able to take
responsibility for his own behavior. He is aware of his own choices, and reflects on the impact of his
behavior on others. In addition such a driver finds ways to adjust his driving on the basis of this
critical reflection. Part of a fruitful self-reflection is the correct attribution of causes of errors or
problems in traffic to oneself or to the environment. Further, self-regulation shows in the control
over emotions in traffic. This is also referred to as emotional self-regulation. Losing oneself in
emotions in traffic, basically means that the self-regulation disappears, which is a breeding ground
for unsafe traffic behavior.

6
Table 1: elements of competence described on four task levels of driving
Driving task levels Empathize and accept Decide and execute action Know and understand Self-regulation and reflection
1. Combining life and work
tasks with driving
• Empathize with social situation
of which driving is a part
• Resolve conflicts between
life-level goals and travel
purposes
• Social roles
• Cultural awareness
• Habits and ways of living and
how this affects driving
• Align life-level goals with travel
purposes
• Reflect on the quality of the
alignment
• Reflect on collaboration with
other road users
2. Planning and navigation
• Consider driving as a social
activity
• Take responsibility for the
functioning of the traffic system
• Anticipate expected other road
users and their interests, needs,
capabilities and habits
• Choose for a means of
transportation based on
consideration of
anticipated positive and
negative effects for
themselves and others in
traffic
• Calibrate: choose traffic
tasks with levels of
complexity that are in
accordance with one’s
own task capability
Knowledge of:
• The why behind traffic rules
• Traffic as a system
• Factors that determine the
complexity of traffic tasks
• Personal risk factors and
factors regarding vehicle and
traffic environment
• Factors that determine one’s
own task capability
• Specific traffic rules
• Theory of the driving task
• Reflection on the effects of
own driving behavior for traffic
safety and other criteria
• Plan, organize, adjust route
based on accomplishment of
travel purposes
• Monitor and correct
miscalibrations regarding task
complexity and own capability
3. Participation in different
traffic situations
• Comply to the traffic rules
• Empathize with direct needs of
other road users in traffic
situations
• Solve traffic situations
according to criteria using
the processes of
perception, anticipation,
evaluation, decision
making
• Specific traffic rules
• Theory of the driving task
• Adjust driving behavior based
on observations of own and
others’ driving behavior
• Control and regulate emotions
in traffic
4. Vehicle handling
• Empathize with the effects of
own driving style on other road
users.
• Automated transformation
of intended solutions into
action execution
• Anticipate effects of speed
choice, use of space on other
road users
• Critical monitoring and
corrections of own errors

7
2.3 Performance criteria for competent driving
The third dimension of the competence cube describes the criteria of competent driving. Driving
performance can be measured against five criteria: safety, social driving behavior, contributing to
smooth flow, environmentally-responsible driving, and controlled driving. In essence, the criteria
describe the desirable effects of traffic participation.
Safe driving refers to one’s ability to drive in such a way that the risk of injury or damage to driver or
other road users is kept to a minimum. Safety relates to one’s own speed, as well as the speed and
distance of others. Drivers should ensure that they have sufficient, built-in safety margins. On a
strategic level, this means that drivers plan their routes so they can reach their destinations in time,
driving at a safe speed. From a tactical and operational standpoint, drivers continuously adjust their
speed to the circumstances / task situations and according to their own ability. They drive at safe
distances from the vehicles in front of them. They assess the risks, recognize dangers in time and
choose to act accordingly.
Driving with consideration for other road users (social driving behavior) means that drivers not only
focus on their own safety and flow, but also take into account the interests of others. This means
that they should be acting considerately and not be overly concerned about whether they are in the
right or whether others are wrong. They should avoid surprising others by making their intentions
clear well in advance and by giving others road space to correct their mistakes. Such drivers
empathize with other road users and can assess whether their own behavior causes others to be
irritated or nervous. They do not react to aggression by other road users.
Facilitating traffic flow implies the ability to drive in traffic without impeding the progress of other
road users. On a strategic level, this means that the person drives in a decisive manner and makes
sensible decisions to, for instance, set off outside peak traffic hours or to take another route during
rush hour. His actions are not only safe but also vigorous and smooth. A driver chooses where to stop
or where to turn in a way that causes the least convenience to other traffic. The same applies to
performing maneuvers, such as reversing and parking. These tasks are carried out in such a way that
they do not hinder other road users.
Environmentally-responsible driving involves driving in such a way that emissions of harmful gases
and noise levels are kept to a minimum and that optimal use of fuel is achieved. On a strategic level,
this may mean avoiding roads with heavy traffic. Driving with correct tire pressure is another
example on a strategic level. On a tactical level, such driving involves avoiding large changes in speed:
calm accelerating and decelerating; changing up to a higher gear in good time and making use of the
car’s rolling momentum. The engine should be switched off during long stops. On an operational
level, one might think of gentle use of the accelerator and clutch when carrying out maneuvers.
Controlled driving relates to the technical control and operation of the vehicle. At a strategic level,
this could mean knowing how to use navigation systems, putting on snow chains, etc. At a tactical
level, it is more concerned with performing technical, traffic-related tasks. Does the driver check his
surroundings and drive smoothly? Does the driver carry out turns, stop and start flexibly and
smoothly? Also at an operational level, all maneuvers should be flexible and controlled. Steering,
stepping on the accelerator, disengaging and engaging the clutch and braking should be performed
automatically
It is recommended to monitor the progress of (learner) drivers throughout the whole driver training
phase. In essence all traffic rules can be traced back to these five basic criteria. Of course, knowledge
and application of traffic rules should be object of assessment, but driving assessment should
address more than that. Sometimes it may not be possible to drive completely safely, smoothly,
environmentally friendly, socially acceptable and comfortably at the same time, but instead an
optimum for all must be found.

8
3. Ingredients for driver learning design
As described above driving competence is much more than participation in traffic, traffic rule
knowledge and vehicle control. The proposed cube with three dimensions is a departure point for a
broader approach to driving competence. The next question is what the essential elements should be
of instructional learning design, a pedagogy for driver learning. Which principles make a case for
driver learning (cf. Beanland, Goode, Salmon, & Lenné, 2013)?
Without claiming to be complete we describe four core ingredients and its practical implications for
learning design: 1) A mental model of driving, 2) the safety balance approach: the balance between
one’s own capability and the complexity requirement of driving tasks, 3) the development of
independence by a fading degree of control by the driving instructor and 4) general pedagogical
principles that have been found to be effective in the context of school education.
3.1. A mental model for driving
The first ingredient for driver learning design is the tenet that drivers at all task levels are involved in
a (serious) mental task process (cf. Groeger, 2000): the driver is “at work". When going through this
mental process, drivers must simultaneously take various factors into consideration: the state of the
passengers, baggage, other traffic, traffic intensity, weather conditions, and so on. In addition,
drivers perform other competing (life) tasks that may impair the quality of the mental activities
necessary for driving, such as phoning, texting, talking, listening to a radio show, mentally preparing
for work, feeling angry with other road users, etc. Driving can be considered a cognitive- affective
decision-making process, in which the driver automatically and quickly goes through a chain of
mental processes: observing, predicting, empathizing with others, evaluating, deciding, and
executing actions. These actions lead to consequences in traffic situations: the fluency of traffic flow,
safety for the driver and others, justice to be done to the interests of other participants, fuel
consumption, emissions, and ride comfort.
Figure 4: a mental model for driving (Roelofs, E.C., et al., 2008).
Driving task situation
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Attitudes
• Emotions
• Moods
• Personality traits
Basis
Perception &
decision making
Action
execution
Consequences
Reflection
Reflection
Competing tasks
(E.g. phoning, peer interaction)

9
Below we discuss the mental processes involved in more detail.
3.1.1 Perception and decision making
The driver starts off with perceiving the most important information about the situation on the road.
Non-relevant information will be “ignored”. This essential information relates to the road and its
surroundings: road markings, road signs, the weather, the quality of the road, etc. It also relates to
other people on the road: Where are the other road users located, and what is their speed? The
driver will also evaluate the status and dynamics of his own vehicle: Where am I driving now, and at
what speed?
The stage of perception is all about active observation. It is about what the driver observes and
whether or not the driver actually understands what he observes: What does this road sign mean?
What does this situation mean? The things observed by the driver will also strongly depend on his
knowledge: Yes, I recognize this is a merging lane; this is where I have to give way; this is a cyclist
going this and that way and he could swerve. Experienced drivers will understand the things they
observe based on their experience in previous, similar situations. Merely seeing a certain situation
may cause the driver to respond in a certain way. Errors in perception may lead to wrong actions.
Based on the information perceived, the driver can anticipate the result of certain actions
(overtaking a vehicle, passing a vehicle, turning into a road). The expectations are already there, and
these form the basis for the decisions that will be made. For instance, if I keep driving like this and
the pedestrian crosses the road, my car might hit the pedestrian. I can slow down and/or I could give
a signal to alert the pedestrian that he should not be crossing the road. If the driver is capable of
anticipating the course of events accurately, then he will have more time to respond in the event of
the situation becoming critical.
It is crucial for the driver to have a certain amount of knowledge about traffic and road situations to
be able to anticipate certain events. Drivers cannot anticipate things they do not know about. The
initial anticipation will be checked against the course of events when driving. After another round of
perception, the driver will anticipate different things, and so on.
What also matters in addition to anticipating and anticipating the risk that something might happen
in the event of a particular action, is how the driver values the consequences he anticipates (i.e. the
meaning he gives to those consequences). The driver may weigh up several different aspects against
one another (such as traffic safety, traffic flow, well-being, comfort, ease, etc.). During this evaluation
process, traffic regulations, traffic insights and the ability to change perspectives with the other road
users play an important role.
Based on the perception, anticipation and evaluation chain the driver decides whether or not to take
action, or consider an alternative option. He selects and develops the most suitable action based on
the circumstances at hand. The driver will assess whether it would be best to slow down, to
accelerate, to drive in a different direction, to signal, etc. In addition, it is also important for the
driver to realize what he does and does not have under direct control. Then, the driver will select the
best option and carry out the action, e.g. pressing the brake pedal, pressing the throttle, or turning
the steering wheel.
3.1.2 Action execution
The action decided upon by the driver must be carried out. This results in a change of speed or
direction of the vehicle, which then creates a new situation on the road, causing the driver to start
the task process all over again from the beginning.
Proficient drivers are usually unaware that they are completing this process of perception →
anticipation → evaluation → decision-making → action. In the majority of cases, the driver will
almost automatically take action after perceiving the situation on the road. When a driver notices

10
that he is driving too close to the middle of the road, he will correct this immediately by turning the
steering wheel. In that case, there is no need for a complex process of anticipation, evaluation and
decision-making. However, if the situation on the road is complex or entirely new, the driver will be
more or less aware of completing each step of the process. It often occurs that one of the sub-
processes is hindered by the situation at hand (see 3.2). Beginner drivers in particular will need to
complete each step of the process very carefully in order to reach a decision.
The proficient driver ideally regularly reflects on his own decisions and actions (see the returning
arrows in Figure 4). This is done in order to make new or modified short-term decisions. In addition,
the reflection also contributes to the regulation of underlying emotions and moods that determine
the driving. In the long term reflection contributes to the updating of one’s own base of knowledge,
skills, values and attitudes.
Awareness of these mental task processes and the risks of distraction by other tasks is an important
pillar of the ideal driver training. By addressing the essential mental processes and their effects on
the driver and his environment, driving will be will considered more than an individualistic activity.
Moreover, we expect that using a mental model of the driving process, will enable the (learner)
driver to critically reflect on his own learning and driving process. Obviously the model needs to be
put in understandable and practical terms for the (learner) driver.
3.1.3 KSAEMP-Basis
The process of perception, decision making and action may be influenced by a range of factors that
can be referred to as KSAEMP-basis (knowledge, attitudes, skills, emotions, moods and personality
traits). In table 1 most of the KSA elements that the driver needs to develop, were mentioned.
To mention a few:
• Personality traits (need for a thrill, impulsiveness)
• Beliefs about oneself as a driver
• Trust in one’s own driving skills and sense of control
• Attitudes towards norms and rule, speed limitations
• Level of moral development
• Risk perception skills (the perceived and tolerated severity of consequences and the
implications for the driver)
• The assessment of the risk that these consequences will occur if no action is taken
3.2. The balance between own capability and driving task complexity
A second ingredient for driver learning design is the principle of maintaining a safety balance. A
proficient driver maintains the best possible balance between task complexity on the one hand and
his own task capability on the other hand. This requires deliverate acquistion of higher order skills on
the part of the (learner), including situational awareness, the use of visual search strategies, hazard
anticipation, and risk management (Deery, 1999; Endsley; 2000; Grayson et al 2003; Isler, Starkey, &
Sheppard, 2011; Isler, Starkey, & Williamson, 2009). The idea of keeping a safety balance, also
referred to as "calibration" (De Craen, 2010), is illustrated in Figure 5 and has its origin in Fuller’s
task-capability- interface model (Fuller, 2005).
This ‘higher order’ skill required from drivers is the ability to choose traffic situations that they can
handle with their level of competence. If they make the wrong strategic choice, drivers find
themselves in situations they cannot manage. There is thus a crucial balance between level of
competence and task requirements. As long as the task requirements do not exceed the level of
competence of the driver, then he will be in control of the situation (see the lower part of Figure 3,
below). However, if the task requirements exceed the level of competence of the driver, then he will

11
lose control of the situation. In many cases, other road users will adjust to the driving behavior of the
driver and will therefore compensate for any errors. Sometimes, there may be a lucky escape, but in
some cases, this situation may result in a collision (as shown in the upper part of Figure 3).
Figure 5: balance between competence and task requirements
Fuller (2005), the author of this balance model, states that most road users attempt to keep the
difficulty of the task at a constant level in order to maintain an agreeable amount of task-related
stress.
3.2.1 Which factors determine performance capability?
To a large degree, the driver is able to influence the task requirements by adjusting his driving
behavior at various levels. When a driver accelerates, the task of driving becomes more difficult. The
faster you drive, the less time you have to process information, to make decisions, to take action and
to correct errors. Multi-tasking (or, more correctly, task-switching) and other distractions—such as
talking on the phone or changing CDs in the CD player, or the presence of passengers—make the
driving task even harder. Of course, the driver can try to make the task of driving easier, e.g. by
slowing down or by ending the phone call. Adjusting the speed is the most useful and immediate
method for adjusting the task requirements. However, even prior to driving, the task can be made
easier. For instance, a driver could decide not to drive at all if the roads are slippery or if there is too
much fog. Or, he could decide to leave at a time that is outside peak-hour and, thus, reduce the
difficulty and complexity of the traffic situations you encounter. The chosen route can make a
difference as well.
While the driver has the capacity to adjust the task requirements so that they remain manageable,
he may not always choose to do so. Indeed, the personality and emotional profile of the driver may
lead to a deliberate choice to increase task requirements, for example by seeking out difficult road
situations. This may be the case when a driver feels the need to release stress or to find a thrill, or
when a driver feels under time pressure and is in a hurry, and deliberately pushes himself “near the
edge” (which, of course, may lead to going over the edge).
Loss of
Control
Lucky escape
Collision
Performance
capability (C)
Task require-
ments (T)
C < T
Performance
capability (C) Task require-
ments (T)
C > T
In control
Others
compensating

12
On the other side of the balance scale, competence, or performance capability, is also not constant.
When his level of competence reduces, a driver is more likely to be overwhelmed by task
requirements. Such a reduction may occur when a driver is very tired or sleepy, is in a terrible mood
or frustrated about other road users, is experiencing stress or anxiety (which may be work-related),
or is under the influence of intoxicating substances. As a result, the driving behavior may not be
properly adjusted to the traffic conditions. In Figure 6 the influence of some of these factors is
depicted. Also, work-related factors, such as long days and tight schedules may influence the way
that the personality of a driver affects the balance between task capability and task complexity.
Figure 6: How personal factors can affect the balance between competence and task requirements
3.2.2 Which situations enhance the driving task requirements? What is being
complicated?
In many cases, the driver cannot avoid ending up in certain situations on the road when these
situations are part of the route he is taking (to and from work, to friends, on a holiday). In addition,
one intersection may be more complicated than another, and one part of the day may present more
complicated road situations than another. In other words there are situational factors that cause the
task requirements to be higher (see figure 7) and that will affect the balance between competence
and task requirements resulting in driver errors.
Less aware of
traffic situation
Distraction
Performance
capability (C)
Task
requirements
(T)
C < T
Risk factor:
Low experience
Risk factor:
peer pressure
Personal
factors

13
Figure 7: How situational factors can affect the balance between competence and task requirements
Table 2 explains how certain characteristics of a situation on the road may hinder the task process of
driving. Most of the factors are drawn from research on error studies (Stanton & Salmon, 2009). The
table also mentions the parts of the task process of driving that are hampered, as well as the
problems this may lead to.
Table 2: Which task process is being hampered by critical factors in the traffic situation?
Task process ► Perception
Anticipation
Evaluation
Decision-making
Action
execution
Critical characteristics
of the traffic situation
▼
Problem ►
Failure to perceive
properly
Failure to decide in
good time
Making the wrong
decision
Failure to act in
good time or
adequately
Sight and visibility (Sight
obstruction,
masking, camouflage)
X
Distractors X X
Regulation and recognizability
(driver surprised)
X X
Presence of other participants at the
same time/place
X
Density of consecutive traffic tasks,
time pressure
X X
Speed differences X X X
Available space to carry out actions X X
Road conditions (grip, hills, bends) X
Adverse weather conditions
(hindering vehicle control)
X
Performance
capability (C)
Task
requirements
(T)
C < T
• Sight and visibility
• Distractors
• Other participants
• Regulation and recognizability
• Speed differences
• Time pressure
• Space to carry out actions
• Adverse road conditions
• Adverse weather conditions
Situational factors

14
The left-hand column in the table lists the characteristics of situations on the road that may hinder
the driver. Even though we are aware that this list is not complete, we do distinguish nine different
characteristics of critical situations on the road.
First, sight and visibility. A traffic task becomes more complex when sight and visibility are limited.
This happens in case of sight obstruction (parked cars blocking your view), masking (rows of trees),
and camouflage (small silhouettes of cyclists, dark clothes within a dark environment) of blinding by
light (a low sun, blinding headlight glare from opposing traffic lanes). Perception and subsequent
anticipation of the traffic situation will become more difficult.
Second, distractors. When a major event occurs in traffic, drivers may be distracted and may lose
valuable time and space to act adequately: an accident on the opposite side of the road, a
surveillance police car, festivities, low-flying hot-air balloons, etc. Distractions can also occur inside
the vehicle (phone calls, operating the CD player, operating the navigation system while driving, etc.).
A third factor pertains to the degree in which traffic situations are regulated and recognizable.
The lesser the situation is regulated by means of traffic signs, the more the (learner) driver has to
derive the most appropriate course of action, which puts higher demands on his (limited) cognitive
resources. Roads without lines, without speed indications ask for more interpretation than roads
with clearly separated lanes and traffic signs. Intersections with traffic lights put less demands on the
driver’s decision making skill than intersections that are regulated. Related to this is the
recognizability of the traffic scene. The course of the road or the situation on the road may suddenly
change, which may cause the driver to feel disoriented for a while. Some examples: road markings
that suddenly stop, continuous street lights that suddenly come to an end, intersections that are not
very clearly indicated, new signs that were previously not there, or a change in the road layout.
A fourth factor relates to other participants arriving at the scene at the same time. One of the most
complicating factors is when other road users arrive at the same location on the road at the same
time, e.g. cyclists and motorists who arrive at an intersection at the same time, or multiple
intersections where one must cross several flows of traffic.
A fifth factor, related to this, is the density of consecutive traffic tasks which may cause different
levels of time pressure. When subtasks in a traffic scenario follow up quickly within a short time span
the time pressure will increase. An example: roundabouts with many exits and with traffic entering,
exiting and changing lanes all at once. Each scenario requires the driver to oversee the situation and
to reach a decision very quickly. Contrary, driving on a deserted motorway will cause hardly any time
pressure.
Sixth, as the speed differences between traffic participants are larger, it is more difficult to notice
changes in situations, as free spaces can be suddenly occupied. This will influence the timely decision
and proper estimation of available spaces. Cyclists on the road require the speed to be reduced when
deciding to either stay behind or to pass them. Slowly merging heavy vehicles can force the driver to
adjust his own speed and position on the road, causing an extra demand on the decision-making
process of the (learner) driver.
Seventh, available space to carry out actions is an important factor of task complexity. Several
situations on the road offer little space for vehicles while the speed at which the driver is driving may
leave him with little time to make a decision and to act adequately. See also the above example of
roundabouts. When the road changes to a narrow section, like with road works, the actions the
driver takes will be made even more difficult due to the narrow width of the lanes. The driver will be
required to act with more accuracy or precision, leaving no space for even small errors.
Eighth, adverse conditions such as impaired grip, steep descends, sharp bends, potholes can
complicate vehicle control. Very steep roads can make it hard for the driver to accelerate and may
therefore create dangerous situations, e.g. when the driver tries to overtake other cars. Winding
roads can require a lot of driving skill from the driver and may require the driver to slow down. Risks
will arise when the chosen speed and distance are not adapted to the road conditions.
Finally in addition to light and road conditions (sight obstruction), adverse weather conditions may
have adverse effects on vehicle control. For instance in case of strong winds, cars can become less
steerable, depending on the environment (bridges, open areas) and size and weight of the cars. The

15
weather may also affect the road surface (rain, snow, wet areas that freeze over, etc.), which reduces
the tires’ grip on the road. The increased amount of concentration required and the stress
experienced by the driver will affect the amount of information the driver is able to process.
An important pillar of driving instructional design is that participants are made aware of the balance
between their own capabilities and the task requirements. Disturbances of this balance can result in
dangerous situations. The driver must be made aware of the factors that cause imbalance and often
originate in life level tasks which interfere with driving. Therefore the learner driver is to be
stimulated to ensure that he always has sufficient surplus competence in relation to the task
requirements. It is clear that this requires ongoing critical self-reflection and self-regulation on the
part of the (learner) driver, as depicted in Table 1. In addition, it is important that the learner driver
develops a realistic self-image as a driver. Distorted self-images bring about overestimation of the
own capability, and these need to be recognized and adjusted during driver training, before young
drivers find themselves in unacceptable dangerous situations.
3.3 The development of independence and fading support of the driving
instructor
A fourth ingredient of learning design, or driving pedagogy, is that the learner driver is stimulated to
carry out traffic tasks increasingly independently. A guiding principle taken from learning psychology
is that the instructor leaves those learning functions to the driver which he already has mastered
(Shuell, 1993; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Winne, & Hadwin, 1998). Traffic tasks that learner drivers
engage in during driving lessons may initially be partly or completely executed by their driving
instructors, for instance when the instructor carries out a demo drive. In later stages of the driver
training the driver takes over full control of all traffic tasks.
In a developmentally designed driver training program the traffic tasks become increasingly complex,
depending on the stage of driver progress. To enable the learner driver to drive increasingly
independent, the instructor will increasingly ‘fade out’ his support (Collins, Brown, & Newman,
(1989). This means that he offers gradually less support to the execution of the driving task, as
regards all sub processes of driving, as described above (perception, anticipation, decision, action
execution). When the instructor regulates all learning activities the learning environment is referred
to as ‘direct instruction’ (Rosenshine, B. 2009). When most of the activities are handed over to the
learner driver the instructors’ activities can be characterized as ‘coaching’.
In designing driver learning, the challenge is to find an optimal mix of instruction and coaching, in
such a way that the learner moves forward towards proficiency and independence. The gradual
decrease of instructional support is best organized around the complexity level of the traffic
environment. In developing his driving competence the (learner) driver is able to carry out driving
tasks in increasingly complex environments. This pedagogical principle ‘from simple to complex’ is
widely used across a range of educational contexts.
Figure 8 depicts a developmental course from environments with limited traffic, towards
environments with highly complicated traffic. In the traffic environments that are visited during
training, increasingly more complicating factors come into play, such as limited sight, multiple, high
task density and time pressure. In this figure we have suggested four phases of driver training with
accompanying task environments, differing in complexity level.

16
Figure 8: a developmental course of increasingly complex traffic tasks
We would argue that the instructor uses an approach that takes into account the level of
development of the learner driver , especially in terms of his self-regulation skill (see table 1). Self-
regulation involves acting from intrinsic motivation, focus on clear personal learning goals, and a
focus on self-reflection and self-criticism.
The driving instructor can support the initial acquisition, practice and independent execution of the
driving task. This support can be targeted at three levels of the driving task: planning and navigation,
participation in traffic, and vehicle handling. The kind of support can vary depending on the level of
(learner) driver development (Butler & Winne; 1995; Vermunt, & Verloop, 1999; Vermunt, &
Verschaffel, 2000) and the next learning progression (Heritage, 2007) or proximal zone of
development (Vygotsky, 1978).
The support of planning and navigating refers to help in planning the (lesson) route, adapting the
route depending on the circumstances or the travel goal, anticipation in case of longer task chains,
preparing in advance for traffic tasks ahead. With the latter we mean traffic tasks which require a
longer preparation. For example, to prepare for taking an exit on the motorway from the indication
'1500 meter', which requires a well-timed decision on the part of the driver. It can be expected that
the learner driver who is in a more advanced stage will make increasingly more independent
strategic choices before and during driving. The driving instructor can give different degrees of
support, which are elaborated in the scheme below.
Support in solving traffic tasks (interaction with other traffic). Support is aimed at the various task
processes which are involved in driving: perception, anticipation, predicting, deciding, action
execution. Support can relate to more than one task process. For example: The LD is approaching an
intersection which must be crossed. The instructor can refer to the kind of intersection (is it
regulated? Is there a right of way?), the location and speed of the own vehicle, looking right and left
to other traffic, is there enough time and space to cross safely, and what would be the safest option
at the moment (stop or drive). Again there are different degrees of support: a) Instructing exactly
what the LD has to do (stop at this point, accelerate gently now, because…); b) Instruct task
processes (because the sight is limited here, you could better…), c) provide hints (“mind that you
have enough space to safely cross the street”) and d) leave it to the learner driver (do not say or do
anything).
Phase 3Phase 2Phase 1 Phase 4
Simple
task environment
Limited traffic
task environment
Fading support driving instructor Increasing driver independence &
proficiency
Most complex
task environment
Complex
task environment
Increasingly complex traffic tasks

17
1) Instructing the whole task: the driving instructor is in the lead
For example: “stay behind that truck. Then you will have enough space to exit from the
motorway safely”
2) Instructing parts of the task: the driving instructor takes the initiative, the learner driver
follows.
For example: “Try to stay two seconds behind the vehicle in front”.
3) Giving hints: the learner driver takes the initiative, the driving instructor jumps at times with
hints.
For example: “Mind that you will have enough space to safely exit the motorway”.
4) Leave tasks to the learner driver
No comments or hints during the execution of driving tasks
Finally, support with vehicle handling relates to support with steering, accelerating and decelerating,
using gears (if applicable). The degrees of support can vary from a complete take-over of pedals
(breaking by applying the double pedal) to verbal instructions (make a more powerful turn with your
steering wheel, position the car right beside the curb) and leave to the learner driver (not saying or
doing anything). The different degrees of support are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: different degrees of instructor support in the acquisition of driving competence
What is supported? Degree of instructor support
Planning and
navigating
Route planning, adapting the route,
planning of longer chains of traffic tasks
• Exact instruction in how to act
• Instructing parts of task processes
• Providing hints
• Leave tasks to the learner driver
Interaction
with other
traffic
Mental task processes of solving traffic
tasks (perception, anticipation, evaluation,
decision making, action execution)
• Exact instruction in how to act
• Instructing parts of task processes
• Providing hints
Vehicle
handling
Handing of vehicle of solving traffic tasks
(steering, accelerating, decelerating,
maneuvering)
• Take over pedals and steering
wheel
• Verbal instructions how to handle
• Verbal hints
Following the cube of driver competence (figure 3), we can add a fourth target of support: support in
the combination of life level task goals and transportation goals. For reasons of parsimony we do not
address this level in this paper.

18
3.4 General pedagogical principles
To close this paper on the principles of a developmental driver training program we describe a
number of ingredients that should not be overlooked in a learning design. These originate from
research sources about effective learning in regular educational settings (Anthony, & Walshaw, 2007;
Brophy, & Good, 1986; Wang, Haertel, Walberg, 1993).
• High ambitions: the (young) beginning driver is sufficiently competent
Research has shown that a high level of ambition of educators contributes to greater learning effects.
This does not fit the sometimes heard view that only after obtaining the license the driver will start
to really learn to drive. Instead, the aim of a training program should be that each person holding a
driver's license, has proven the ability to drive independently and responsibly through traffic, and has
shown the willingness and ability to decide whether or not it makes sense to take the car, and to
combine life tasks with driving.
• Self-regulation and self-reflection
In an ideal situation the learners own their learning process. This can be accomplished by allowing
them to be in control of their learning and to offer them possibilities to reflect critically on their style
of driving and their progress. Dutch experiences with innovative driver training programs show that
systematic self-reflections along with intermediate expert/assessments make the learner drivers
more aware of their driving styles and the effects on safety, flow, and comfort. By the time they go
through the final on-road exam they appear to be able to mention strong and weak point in their
driving performance.
By specifying personal learning goals, sometimes written down in logs, learner drivers commit
themselves to these goals and corresponding points of improvement, on which they work with
intrinsic motivation.
• Tools for permanent learning
A powerful principle for driver training is to provide tools for learning permanently. After obtaining
the license the young licensed driver should continue to take the driving task seriously. This can be
encouraged by informing the driver about his driving style on a regular basis. A way to monitor the
driving style is to use in-car equipment which provides objective information about the driving style
and points on the route where the driving style occurred. Online (self) assessments can be used to
collect information about behavior and motives behind the driving behavior, ending up in reports
that may elicit self-reflection (Boud, 1995, 1998).
• Address multiple senses
It is important that different senses are addressed during driver training: the intellect, feeling, and
sensory experience. Or to mention an old pedagogical principle, use both head, heart and hands. In
terms of driver learning design this can be translated to assignments, case studies and direct
experiences. A method that elicits self-reflection is the use of observation assignments, which allow
learner drivers to have an active role during a drive with peer (learner) drivers. Using an observation
card participants depict all encounters with other traffic and add to it how they experience them:
green (safe), orange (questionable) and red (uncomfortable, unsafe, see figure 9).

19
Figure 9: An observation card as a tool for reflection
Discussion of the green, orange and red moments as observed during the route contributes to
exchanges between learner drivers. Combinations of different learning tools addressing different
senses ensure that the learning experiences will get deeply rooted into the memory of the driver.
• Dealing with differences
A universal principle in all types of training, including driver training, is that the instructional
approach should be adapted based on the starting conditions and styles learning,
Proficient driving coaches deal with these differences by starting from personal learning needs. While
it is useful for everyone to think critically about their own behavior, that does not work for all in the
same way. For verbally skilful learners it is easier to work with written checklists. Less verbally
learners would benefit more from pictures, colors and icons that can also support thinking. A more
general measure to adapt to learner differences is to regularly monitor the progress of learner
drivers, report the results in understandable ways and adapt the training content and approach
bespoke.
• Opportunities to practice
Research shows conclusively that expertise is acquired only after many hours of practice in a variety
of task situations. We should expect no ‘expert drivers’ of driver training, but we can expect a
sufficient basis for initial driving competence. The results of periodic driver training research, which
were carried out on a regular basis in the Netherlands indicated that ‘many opportunities to practice’
was a good predictor for the success rate on the first exam. In addition to on-road driving lessons,
driving simulators, from simple 180 degree screen-based versions towards 270 degrees high-end
Observation card coached trip
Explanation (be specific!):
Safe space
Safe speed
Nobody is hindered
Allotting space to others
Communicating with others
Driver: Observer:
1
2
3
5
4
1 Close following Renault
on motorway
2. Close approach car in front
on road outside built-up area
3.Speed difference with cars
on main lane high!
4. Cyclist overtaken with large
space cushion
5. Reduced speed at intersection

20
models, can be used to create a great variety of circumstances and situations. It is however
important that the learner driver will experience enough different traffic scenarios that address all
essential factors of task complexity that may cause imbalance in traffic complexity and developed
task capability so far. Another example of extensive practice is supervised driving during the stage of
a provisional license, with adult coaches, under the condition that all practice experiences should be
discussed afterwards in a professional coaching manner.
• Frequent assessments for learning and provision of feedback
A final ingredient of a driver learning design is the frequent use of assessments for learning. It is
known that assessments can have a strong regulating function in learning (Crooks, 1988; Sadler,
1989; Stiggins, 2002; Young, & Kim, (2010). Regular assessments help to gain insight into the progress
of the learner driver. Ideally, strong and weak points of task performance and the underlying causes
of performance are revealed and reported to the learner driver (Bennett, 2010). Based on the results
the driver coach can think of measures to support the proximal learning progression (Black, &
Wiliam, 2009; Heritage, 2007).
Roughly spoken, there are four major types of assessments, ranging on a continuum of authenticity:
on-road assessments, simulator-based assessments, case-based assessments, and context-free
assessments. On-road (performance) assessments typically take place in the here-and-now reality of
traffic, and involve direct interaction with real other objects and road users. The traffic situations are
immediate, inescapable and often take place simultaneously. Consequences of erroneous behavior
can be serious for the driver and others. The whole driving task is covered, in which the driver has to
reach a real destination.
The other forms of assessments are less authentic, although driver simulator-based assessments
come close to on-road assessments in this respect. Simulations do not address real destinations and
more importantly, errors do not have serious consequences. The latter can be advantageous if
scenarios are presented that need to be dealt with, but are too dangerous to deliberately seek for.
Case –based assessments (Schuwirth et al. 2000) involve (substantial) parts of the driving task, e.g.
crossing a street as represented in a depicted or described situation. The task takes place in an
imaginary reality which is not present here and now. If any, the interaction is at best indirect and is
aimed at non-reacting objects and actors, like responding to photos or video clips. On the far right
hand of the continuum we find context-free assessments, which typically address separate objects
(such as traffic signs) and actors. These assessments involve small parts of the driving task (such as
rules of way when crossing an intersection), or sometimes no task at all (the meaning of a traffic
sign).
Each of the types of assessments has its own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the
elements of competence to be assessed. Most of the mental processes that take place during driving
can be well covered using on-road assessments, unless adequately prompted and registered.
An example of a Dutch performance assessment is the Driver Performance Assessment, which is
employed in Two Dutch innovative driver training programs (Roelofs, Van Onna, & Vissers, 2010). It is
carried out during regular lessons and always covers a pre-defined level of traffic complexity that fits
with the phase of driver training. To enable the proficient administration of these assessments,
driving instructors are trained extensively in the choice of routes and the level of support to be
supplied. Route choice and support need to correspond with the learner stage of development. In
addition, driver coaches are trained in applying the evaluation criteria and in providing feedback to

21
learner drivers. In providing feedback driver coaches are encouraged to discuss both strong and weak
points of the performance. Additionally, learner drivers are trained in evaluating their own
performance as shown during the assessment drive. After four on-road assessments, learner drivers
appear to reflect well on their strong and weak points, and employ strategies to improve their
driving. Driver examiners recently reported that the drivers from this program could explain
themselves why they had passed or failed the final exam.
A major disadvantage of performance assessments is that not all different types of situations can be
included at will or should be included due to the risky consequences of errors. Therefore on-road
assessments, especially when they take place within a limited timeframe and restricted contexts
have limited generalizability (Brennan & Johnson, 1995; Messick, 1996; Ruiz-Primo, Baxter, &
Shavelson, 1993; Shavelson, Baxter, & Gao, 1993).
Simulator-based tests can be applied to assess cognitive processes that underlie driver performance,
except for empathy with other road users. When equipped with eye-trackers, the scanning behavior
and the actual field of view can be assessed. The quality of decisions and subsequent action
execution can be assessed, using objective statistics (such as following time) which can be mapped
on performance criteria such as safe distance, safe speed, smoothness of steering (vehicle control),
avoidance of hindrance (traffic flow). An advantage of simulator-based assessments is that a great
number of pre-defined critical situations can be included, that ask for a relevant decision and action,
including situations which cannot be delivered on demand in on-road assessments (De Winter, 2009;
Joly et l. 1997; Kappé, De Penning, Marsman, & Roelofs (2009).
Interactive versions of case-based assessments, or situational judgment tests, especially can be
employed to assess separate cognitive processes (Whetzel & McDaniel, 2009). An example of these
assessments is the test for situational awareness (Roelofs et al. 2008) in which the learner driver
reacts on a video-clip (or video animation). Each clip represents a separate traffic task (such as
turning, following) in which situational changes are to be noticed, using a variety of responses:
clicking on hazards, choosing a described line of action, using arrow keys as pedals. By using case-
based assessments it is possible to zoom in on specific cognitive abilities and traffic situations, to gain
more diagnostic information about the learner driver. The Hazard Perception Test, part of the British
theory exam for category B driving license is another example (McKenna, & Crick, 1997) of such a
test.
Finally, context-free assessments are most fit for knowledge reproduction. Knowledge of specific
traffic rules, of the meaning of signs can be quickly assessed by asking a large number of short
questions. These assessments are in place to review the necessary knowledge. Of course there is no
guarantee that knowledge of traffic signs is also applied in more authentic situations. That is why
combinations of the different test types remain necessary.

22
Table 4: basic types of driving assessments for learning and their characteristics
Characteristics On-road
assessments
Simulator-
based
assessments
Case-based
assessments
Context-free
assessments
Taskcharacteristics
Time
perspective
Here and now Here and now Imaginary NA
Drivers’ goals Yes NA NA NA
Other actors
and objects Yes Yes
Yes,
recorded or
static
Separately
mentioned
Interaction Yes, direct Yes, direct Yes, indirect NA
Immediacy and
simultaneity of
events
Yes Yes NA NA
(serious)
consequences
Yes, serious Yes; not serious NA NA
Whole – part
task
Whole Whole
Substantial
part
Small part
Competenceelement
Knowledge +- +- + +
Understanding +- +- + +-
Empathize and
accept
+ - + -
Perception and
decision
making
+ + + -
Action
execution
+ + - -
Self-regulation
and reflection
+ + + -
By combining various forms of assessments during driver training, including self-evaluation by the
learner driver, a more complete picture of the (learner) driver can be obtained. It would even be
better if the granting of the driver’s license would be based on much more information than just the
final exam, which does not do justice to the complexity and richness of the driving task, despite its
authentic appeal.
To conclude, the time is there for a next step in the design of driver learning to take place. Using an
instructional design, which is informed both by traffic psychology, educational psychology and
insights from educational research, a new generation of driver training programs is to come.

23
References
Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Effective pedagogy in mathematics. Educational practices
series–19. International Bureau of Education. Retreived at:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Educational_Practices/EdPractice
s_19.pdf
Beanland, V., Goode, N., Salmon, P.M., Lenné, M.G. (2013). Is there a case for driver training? A
review of the efficacy of pre- and post-licence driver training. Safety Science, 51, 127-137.
Bennet, R. (2010). Cognitively Based Assessment of, for, and as Learning (CBAL): A Preliminary Theory
of Action for Summative and Formative Assessment. Measurement, 8, 70–91.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31, 445-457.
Boud, D, (1999). Avoiding the traps: Seeking good practice in the use of self assessment and
reflection in professional courses. Social Work Education, 18(2), 121-132.
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Brennan,R. L., & Johnson, E. G. (1995). Generalizability of performance assessments. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 25-27.
Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.).,
Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 328-375, 3rd
ed.). New York: MacMillan.
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., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (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.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational
Research, 58,
De Craen, S., (2010). The X-factor. A longitudinal study of calibration in young novice drivers.
Dissertation. Leischendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV
De Winter, J. (2009). Advancing simulation-based driver training. Doctoral dissertation, Technical
University Delft.
Deery, H.A.(1999). Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of Safety
Research, 30(4), 225-235.
Endsley, M.R. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review. In: Endsley,
M.R. and Garland, D.J. (Eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Engström, I., Gregersen, N.P., Hernetkoski, K., Keskinen, E. & Nyberg, A. (2003). Young novice driver
education and training, Literature review, VTI-rapport 491A., Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute, Linköping.
Fuller, R., (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37,
461-472.
Grayson, G.B., Groeger, J.A., Maycock, G., Hammond, S.M. & Field, D.T. (2003). Risk, hazard
perception and perceived control. Report TRL560. Transport Research Laboratory TRL,
Crowthorne.
Gregersen, N.P. (1996). Young drivers’ overestimation of their own skill – an experiment on the
relation between training strategy and skill. Accident Analysis and Prevention 28, 243-250.
Gregersen, N.P. and Bjurulf, P. (1996). Young novice drivers: towards a model of their accident
involvement. Accident Analysis and Prevention 28, 229-241.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding driving: applying cognitive psychology to a complex everyday
task. Routledge: Psychology Press.

24
Hatakka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregersen, N.P., Glad, A., Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the
vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives of driver education. Transportation
Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 5(3), 201–215.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and Do. Phi Delta
Kappan, 89, 140-145.
Isler, R.B., Starkey, N.J., Sheppard, P. (2011). Effects of higher-order driving skill training on young,
inexperienced drivers’ on-road driving performance. Accident Analysis Prevention, 43, 1818–1827.
Isler, R.B., Starkey, N.J., Williamson, A.R. (2009). Video-based road commentary training improves
hazard perception of young drivers in a dual task. Accident Analysis Prevention, 41, 445–452.
Joly, P., Gilbert, M., Paquette, M., Perraton, F., Bergeron, J. (1997). Performance in a driving
simulator and intention to take risk on the road among learner and experienced young drivers. In:
Brookhuis, De Waard and Weikert (Eds.) 1997. Simulators and Traffic Psychology. HFES Europe.
Kappé, B., de Penning, L., Marsman, M., Roelofs E. (2009) Assessment in Driving Simulators: Where
we Are and Where we Go. Paper presented at the Fifth International Driving Symposium on
Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Big Sky Montana.
Mc Gwin, G. and Brown, D.B. (1999). Characteristics of traffic crashes among young, middle-aged and
older drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 181-198.
McKenna, F.P. en Crick, J. (1997) Developments in hazard perception. TRL Report 297. Crowthorne,
TRL Limited.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity in performance assessments. In G.W.Phillips (ed.), Technical issues in
large-scale performance assessments. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
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.
Preusser, D.F., Ferguson, S.A., Williams, A.F. (1998). The effect of teenage passengers on the fatal
crash risk of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 217-222.
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.,Van Onna, M., & Vissers, J. (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.
Rosenshine, B. (2009). The empirical support for direct instruction. In: Tobias, S.; Duffy, T.M. (Eds.).
Constructivist instruction: success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Baxter, G. P., & Shavelson, R. J. (1993). On the stability of performance
assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 41-53.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18, 119–144.
Schuwirth, L.W.T., Verheggen, M.M., van der Vleuten, C,P,M, Boshuizen, H.P.A., Dinant. G.J. (2000).
Validation of short case-based testing using a cognitive psychological methodology. Medical
Education, 35, 348–56.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 215-232.
Shuell, T.J., (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist,
28, 291–311.
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, 227–237
Stiggins, R. J., (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
83 (10), 758-765.

25
Summala, H. (1987). Young driver accidents: risk taking or failure of skills? Alcohol, drugs and driving,
3, nr. 3-4.
Vermunt, J. & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process oriented teaching. In P.R.J. Simons, J. van der Linden &
T. Duffy. New Learning (pp. 209-225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.
Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Wang, M.; Haertel, G.; Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of
educational research, 63, 249-294.
Whetzel, D.L, McDaniel, M.A. (2009). Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research.
Human Resource Management Review, 19, 188–202.
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
Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature
review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18 (19). Retrieved December 12 2011, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/809

Roelofs driver training and learning design from a developmental perspective

More Related Content

Similar to Roelofs driver training and learning design from a developmental perspective

More from Erik Roelofs

Recently uploaded

Roelofs driver training and learning design from a developmental perspective