Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a gamified e-learning platform to improve traffic safety among elementary school pupils in Belgium

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Children are highly represented in statistics relating to road traffic injuries and fatalities. There are multiple risk factors that together create an increased risk for children in traffic, some of the major reasons include children’s inability to efficiently and actively scan the environment and look for information relevant to the traffic environment, inconsistent behavior, and less developed hazard perception skills. Traffic safety education is one of the most important means for improving knowledge and skills required for children to behave safely in traffic. This study evaluated a newly developed and gamified e-learning platform meant to promote traffic safety among elementary school pupils in Belgium. Participants in this study were from four grades of elementary school and voluntarily took part in the training. They followed a self-study program at home for approximately 15 min per week over a period of 5 weeks in total. The platform included four modules: traffic knowledge, situation awareness, risk detection, and risk management. For each of these modules, a set of photos and videos were used as stimuli and selected from a database of camera recordings of real-life situations. Half of each module consisted of familiar situations for the pupils (i.e., own municipality), while the other half of each module consisted of unfamiliar situations for the pupils (i.e., other municipalities). A fifth module, “the finale,” contained a mix of the first four modules. In total, 44 elementary school pupils (9–13 years old) completed the program. During the first round of measurement (i.e., the first four modules), pupils performed significantly better in the traffic knowledge module when compared with the other three modules. Further, in comparison with unfamiliar situations, pupils scored significantly higher in familiar situations. During the second round of measurement (i.e., the fifth module), pupils achieved higher scores in the risk detection and risk management modules when contrasted to the first measurement. The effect of gamification elements is discussed and the results also indicate the type of traffic safety issues to be emphasized in traffic safety education for children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO, Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015

  2. WHO, Children and road traffic injuries. 2014

  3. WHO, Ten strategies for keeping children safe on the road 2015

  4. Lavoie M et al (2014) Active and safe transportation of elementary-school students: comparative analysis of the risks of injury associated with children travelling by car, walking and cycling between home and school. Chronic Dis Inj Can 34(4):195–202

    Google Scholar 

  5. Roynard M, Schoeters A, Wénin M 2015 Safe to school: analysis of road accidents involving children near primary schools and kindergardens B.R.S.I.K.C.R. Safety, Editor.

  6. Trifunovic A et al (2017) The importance of spatial orientation and knowledge of traffic signs for children’s traffic safety. Accid Anal Prev 102:81–92

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ivarsson BJ, Crandall JR, Okamoto M (2006) Influence of age-related stature on the frequency of body region injury and overall injury severity in child pedestrian casualties. Traffic Injury Prevention 7(3):290–298

    Google Scholar 

  8. Olofsson E 2014 Children injured in traffic in a medical and psychosocial perspective : causes and consequences., University of Gothenburg. Sahlgrenska Academy

  9. Thornton S (1999) Taking the child’s perspective seriously. Psychologist (London, England : 1988) 12(8):393–394

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benjaminsen, C. How attentive are children in traffic? 2016 20 January 2019]; Available from: http://sciencenordic.com/how-attentive-are-children-traffic

  11. Connelly ML, Conaglen HM, Parsonson BS, Isler RB (1998) Child pedestrians’ crossing gap thresholds1this research was completed by the first two authors as a graduate student research project undertaken as a part of their master of social science degrees.1. Accid Anal Prev 30(4):443–453

    Google Scholar 

  12. Scialfa C et al (2012) The effects of driving experience on responses to a static hazard perception test. Accid Anal Prev 45:547–553

    Google Scholar 

  13. Meir A, Oron-Gilad T, Parmet Y (2015) Can child-pedestrians’ hazard perception skills be enhanced? Accid Anal Prev 83:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ellis J (2014) Bicycle safety education for children from a developmental and learning perspective. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  15. DOT (2019) ConnDOT: SRTS - The 5 E’s. https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2094&q=587942. Accessed 4 Feb 2019

  16. Thomas P et al (2013) Identifying the causes of road crashes in Europe. Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the advancement of automotive medicine. Annual Scientific Conference 57:13–22

    Google Scholar 

  17. Treat JR, Tumbas NS, McDonald ST et al (1979) “Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents: final report, vol. 1: causal factor tabulations and assessments”, DOT HS-805 085. Indiana University: Institute for Research in Public Safety, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  18. Oikawa S, Hirose T, Aomura S, Matsui Y (2016) Traffic accidents involving cyclists identifying causal factors using questionnaire survey, traffic accident data, and real-world observation. Stapp Car Crash Journal 60:183–198

    Google Scholar 

  19. Assailly JP (2017) Road safety education: what works? Patient Educ Couns 100(Suppl 1):S24–S29

    Google Scholar 

  20. Obregón-Biosca SA, Betanzo-Quezada E, Romero-Navarrete JA, Ríos-Nuñez M (2018) Rating road traffic education. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 56:33–45

    Google Scholar 

  21. Twisk DA et al (2014) Five road safety education programmes for young adolescent pedestrians and cyclists: a multi-programme evaluation in a field setting. Accid Anal Prev 66:55–61

    Google Scholar 

  22. ROSE 2005 25 E.U., Report inventory and compiling of a European good practice guide on road safety education targeted at young people.

  23. Lee, J. and J. Hammer 2011 Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Vol. 15.. 1–5

  24. McGonigal, J 2011 Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world. Vol. 22.

  25. Werbach, K. and D. Hunter, For the win: how game thinking can revolutionize your business. 2012

    Google Scholar 

  26. Skinner BF (1938) The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton-Century, Oxford, pp 457–457

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK, Mandl H (2017) How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput Hum Behav 69:371–380

    Google Scholar 

  28. Krause, M. and J. Williams 2015 A playful game changer: fostering student retention in online education with social gamification.

  29. Facey-Shaw L, Börner D, Specht M, Bartley-Bryan J (2015) A Moodle-based badge system for evaluating the motivational levels of introductory programmers. Paper presented at the 6th International Workshop on Motivational and Affective Aspects of Technology Enhanced Learning (MATEL), Toledo, Spain. Paper retrieved from http://matel.professional-learning.eu/images/a/ab/MATEL_2015_paper_4.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019

  30. Stott, A. and C. Neustaedter, Analysis of gamification in education. 2013

  31. Kapp KM (2012) Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. Train Dev 66(6):64–68

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gee JP (2008) The ecology of games: connecting youth, games, and learning. In: John D, MacArthur CT (eds) Foundation series on digital media and learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 21–40

    Google Scholar 

  33. Robson K, Plangger K, Kietzmann JH, McCarthy I, Pitt L (2015) Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Bus Horiz 58(4):411–420

    Google Scholar 

  34. Liaw S-S (2008) Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the blackboard system. Comput Educ 51(2):864–873

    Google Scholar 

  35. Liaw S-S, Huang H-M (2013) Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Comput Educ 60(1):14–24

    Google Scholar 

  36. Looy J, Courtois C, and De Vocht M 2010 Player identification in online games: validation of a scale for measuring identification in MMORPGs.. 126–134

  37. Oksanen K, Looy J, and De Grove F 2013 Avatar identification in serious games: the role of avatar identification in the learning experience of a serious game, in 63rd International Communication Association (ICA) Annual Conference.: London, UK p 3

  38. Fyhri A, Bjørnskau T, Ulleberg P (2004) Traffic education for children with a tabletop model. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 7(4–5):197–207

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hawley CA, Smith R, Goodwin L (2018) Road safety education for older drivers: evaluation of a classroom-based training initiative. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 59:505–523

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ben-Bassat T, Avnieli S (2016) The effect of a road safety educational program for kindergarten children on their parents’ behavior and knowledge. Accid Anal Prev 95:78–85

    Google Scholar 

  41. Scialfa CT, Borkenhagen D, Lyon J, Deschênes M (2013) A comparison of static and dynamic hazard perception tests. Accid Anal Prev 51:268–273

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenbloom T, Mandel R, Rosner Y, Eldror E (2015) Hazard perception test for pedestrians. Accid Anal Prev 79:160–169

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lehtonen E, Havia V, Kovanen A, Leminen M, Saure E (2016) Evaluating bicyclists’ risk perception using video clips: comparison of frequent and infrequent city cyclists. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 41:195–203

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vansteenkiste P, Zeuwts L, Cardon G, Lenoir M (2016) A hazard-perception test for cycling children: an exploratory study. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 41:182–194

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cavallo V et al (2019) A street-crossing simulator for studying and training pedestrians. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 61:217–228

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schwebel DC, Combs T, Rodriguez D, Severson J, Sisiopiku V (2016) Community-based pedestrian safety training in virtual reality: a pragmatic trial. Accid Anal Prev 86:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ducheyne F, de Bourdeaudhuij I, Lenoir M, Cardon G (2014) Effects of a cycle training course on children’s cycling skills and levels of cycling to school. Accid Anal Prev 67:49–60

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lachapelle U, Noland RB, Von Hagen LA (2013) Teaching children about bicycle safety: an evaluation of the New Jersey Bike School program. Accid Anal Prev 52:237–249

    Google Scholar 

  49. McLaughlin KA, Glang A (2010) The effectiveness of a bicycle safety program for improving safety-related knowledge and behavior in young elementary students. J Pediatr Psychol 35(4):343–353

    Google Scholar 

  50. Isler RB, Starkey NJ, Williamson AR (2009) Video-based road commentary training improves hazard perception of young drivers in a dual task. Accid Anal Prev 41(3):445–452

    Google Scholar 

  51. Weiss T et al (2013) Calibration as side effect? Computer-based learning in driver education and the adequacy of driving-task-related self-assessments. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 17:63–74

    Google Scholar 

  52. Petzoldt T, Weiß T, Franke T, Krems JF, Bannert M (2013) Can driver education be improved by computer based training of cognitive skills? Accid Anal Prev 50:1185–1192

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stubbé H et al (2016) E-learning sudan, formal learning for out-of-school children. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 14(2):136–149

    Google Scholar 

  54. Henderson J, Alexander S (2012) e-Learning – the future of child and adolescent obesity! Obes. Res. Clin. Pract 6:75

    Google Scholar 

  55. Çakıroğlu Ü, Başıbüyük B, Güler M, Atabay M, Yılmaz Memiş B (2017) Gamifying an ICT course: influences on engagement and academic performance. Comput Hum Behav 69:98–107

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hargreaves DJ, Davies GM (1996) The development of risk-taking in children. Curr Psychol 15(1):14–29

    Google Scholar 

  57. Costa C, Alvelos H, Teixeira L (2012) The use of Moodle e-learning platform: a study in a Portuguese University. Procedia Technol 5:334–343

    Google Scholar 

  58. Oproiu GC (2015) A study about using e-learning platform (Moodle) in university teaching process. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 180:426–432

    Google Scholar 

  59. Goulão, M.d.F. and R.C. Menedez, Learner autonomy and self-regulation in eLearning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci, 2015. 174: p. 1900–1907

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sørebø Ø, Halvari H, Gulli VF, Kristiansen R (2009) The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Comput Educ 53(4):1177–1187

    Google Scholar 

  61. Fryer LK, Bovee HN (2016) Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: teachers matter on and offline. Internet High Educ 30:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sailer M, Hense J, Mandl H, Klevers M (2013) Psychological perspectives on motivation through gamification. IxD&A 19:28–37

    Google Scholar 

  63. Albert RR, Dolgin KG (2010) Lasting effects of short-term training on preschoolers’ street-crossing behavior. Accid Anal Prev 42(2):500–508

    Google Scholar 

  64. Meyer S, Sagberg F, Torquato R (2014) Traffic hazard perception among children. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 26:190–198

    Google Scholar 

  65. Thomson JA, Ampofo-Boateng K (1990) Child pedestrian accidents: a case for preventive medicine. Health Educ Res 5(2):265–274

    Google Scholar 

  66. Isoba MC (2002) Relationship between theoretical knowledge and behavior in traffic planning: implementation and results of an awareness program for a developing country by a nongovernmental organization. Traffic Inj Prev 3(4):262–265

    Google Scholar 

  67. van Schagen IN, Brookhuis KA (1994) Training young cyclists to cope with dynamic traffic situations. Accid Anal Prev 26(2):223–30

    Google Scholar 

  68. Klawe MM (1999) Computer games, education and interfaces: the E-GEMS project. In: Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Graphics interface ‘99. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Kingston, p 36–39

  69. Filsecker M, Hickey DT (2014) A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students’ motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Comput Educ 75:136–148

    Google Scholar 

  70. Davis K, Singh S (2015) Digital badges in afterschool learning: documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Comput Educ 88:72–83

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ong C-S, Lai J-Y (2006) Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Comput Hum Behav 22(5):816–829

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vlachos F, Papadimitriou A (2015) Effect of age and gender on children’s reading performance: the possible neural underpinnings. Cogent Psychology 2(1):1045224

    Google Scholar 

  73. Harrison A (2013) Road safety: insurers show accidents near schools. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-23899232. Accessed 20 March 2019 

  74. Capuano N, et al. 2011 An ontology-based approach for context-aware e-learning. in Third International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems. 2011

  75. Zeedyk MS, Wallace L, Carcary B, Jones K, Larter K (2001) Children and road safety: increasing knowledge does not improve behaviour. Br J Educ Psychol 71(4):573–594

    Google Scholar 

  76. Clabaux N, Brenac T, Perrin C, Magnin J, Canu B, van Elslande P (2012) Motorcyclists’ speed and “looked-but-failed-to-see” accidents. Accid Anal Prev 49:73–77

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UHasselt, Transportation Research Institute (IMOB), Agoralaan, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Malik Sarmad Riaz, Ariane Cuenen, Davy Janssens, Kris Brijs & Geert Wets

Authors
  1. Malik Sarmad Riaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ariane Cuenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Davy Janssens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kris Brijs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Geert Wets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malik Sarmad Riaz.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riaz, M.S., Cuenen, A., Janssens, D. et al. Evaluation of a gamified e-learning platform to improve traffic safety among elementary school pupils in Belgium. Pers Ubiquit Comput 23, 931–941 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01221-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01221-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation