« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS
6.1 Relevance of road safety education in S1/S2
6.1.1 An analysis of road accident statistics undertaken as part of this research revealed that more children are injured in the S1/S2 age group than children in the upper years of primary school, which suggests that road safety education remains a relevant issue in terms of health and wellbeing in the early years of high school.
6.1.2 The early years of secondary school are a time of substantial change for children. They experience a major transition by moving on from primary to secondary school, plus dealing with the inevitable physical and emotional changes that occur around this age. Such development cannot be ignored when considering how to approach road safety education.
6.1.3 However, qualitative research with teachers, pupils and Road Safety Officers suggests that road safety is a topic that many (both adult and child) see firmly as part of primary school education. The S1/S2 age group is perceived as more difficult to target in terms of road safety than primary pupils or older teenagers. These perceptions belie the importance of road safety education for an age group whose exposure to risk will have increased with greater independence and changes in lifestyle.
6.2 Uptake and use of the resource
6.2.1 Road safety formed part of the Personal and Social Education ( PSE) curriculum in about two thirds of the schools surveyed. However, the time given to road safety education appears to be around 1-2 lessons per year in S1, with S2 less likely to receive even this. Road safety education is only one part of a crowded PSE curriculum that covers a range of other topics.
6.2.2 Both the school survey and interviews with teachers suggest that uptake and use of the S1/S2 PSD Road Safety Education resource is limited. The majority of schools surveyed indicated that they had never used any of the activities, with the exception of the Roddy Hogg play, which had a higher uptake than the other components of the resource. The teaching ideas provided in the Roddy Hogg support material are best used if pupils have seen the play, which limits their use in schools that have not received the play.
6.2.3 The majority of use of the S1/S2 PSD Road Safety Education resource materials is in S1 classes rather than S2. The reported low level of use of resources in S2 (compared with S1) is a key observation and may reflect the general feeling from consultation with teachers, pupils and Road Safety Officers that the resource is not sufficiently challenging for older pupils.
6.2.4 There appears to be low use of the resource in special schools, and the general feeling from teachers was that the activities are not appropriate for pupils with special education needs.
6.2.5 One reason for some teachers not making use of the classroom materials in the resource was that they were unaware of its existence. Teachers who had made a positive decision not to use the resource stated that it was because it was considered to be dated.
6.3 Resource content
6.3.1 The S1/S2 PSD Road Safety Education resource includes a variety of topics and while teachers, pupils and Road Safety Officers did not necessarily consider them to be inappropriate, the current resource format was no longer considered acceptable. In terms of content, pupils and teachers felt that issues such as peer pressure, responsibility and assertiveness were as relevant to road safety education as specific road user topics.
6.3.2 Teachers, pupils and Road Safety Officers also recognised that there should be progression in content from primary road safety, but that the basic road safety messages need to be reiterated. All groups felt that any road safety education resource for S1/S2 should be clearly different from road safety education in primary school and in the upper secondary school.
6.3.3 Differences in the needs of S1 and S2 were also identified through the qualitative research. One of the particular differences that emerged was that S2 were keen to disassociate themselves from anything 'primary', whereas S1 could accept that they still need to be reminded about the basics (but using an approach that recognises that they are now taking responsibility for their own behaviour). The findings from the qualitative research suggests there should be progression in content from S1 to S2, and that distinct activities are needed to meet the needs of both S1 and S2.
6.4 Opinions on resource format and delivery
6.4.1 The activities in the S1/S2 PSD Road Safety Education tend to follow a similar format and are worksheet based. One of the key comments made by all those participating in the research is that the methods of delivery in the existing resource needs to be updated.
6.4.2 Several teachers identified that year groups varied in their level of maturity and it is helpful to have resources that provide a degree of flexibility and choice. While teachers are unlikely to deliver everything that is provided in a resource, especially given the limited curriculum time available, any new resource should offer options that teachers can tailor to the needs of their pupils. They commented that the methods for delivery of road safety in the classroom need to be age and ability appropriate, reflecting pupils' growing independence and responsibility.
6.4.3 Teachers favoured resources that offered a variety of learning and teaching approaches, which reflect an understanding of the learning preferences of pupils and the classroom teaching preferences of teachers. Teachers, pupils and Road Safety Officers suggested that any new road safety education resource should include a choice of active learning classroom activities (e.g. research, discussions) and should use up-to-date technologies (e.g. whiteboard, DVD and computer). However, although teachers preferred more active educational approaches, they also saw worksheets as a back-up that were useful additions in a resource.
6.4.4 The current S1/S2 PSD Road Safety Education resource makes limited use of technology or multi-media approaches. All groups participating in the research were keen to see a new resource that made use of modern technologies and audio-visual resources. There was support from all users for the development of a DVD, which should be realistic in style (as opposed to animated). The resource developed for older pupils, Crash Magnets, already makes use of new technology and learning and teaching approaches that encourage active learning. A new resource for S1/S2 should also move away from the presentation and approaches used in the Streetsense resource aimed at primary pupils.
6.4.5 Teachers and Road Safety Officers were generally positive about the Roddy Hogg road safety play, but recognised that its main disadvantage was that schools have no control over when the play is shown. It is therefore not necessarily an integral part of their road safety programme, but rather a one-off event. In addition, the classroom activities in the resource tended to be overshadowed by the play, which was the most used and remembered aspect of the whole resource. Road Safety Officers in particular felt that any Theatre in Education production should be distinct and separate from the S1/S2 resource activities.
6.5 Conclusion
6.5.1 While the S1/S2 PSD Road Safety Education resource was not necessarily considered inappropriate, the limitations of the existing resource to support the present day demands of the education system were noted by teachers, pupils and Road Safety Officers. There was consensus that a new resource was required, rather than the existing resource simply being amended. Chapter Seven outlines a recommended resource development plan, based on the research findings.
« Previous | Contents | Next »