Snippets from resources 21/05/2017

Some of the snippets that I want to make particular note of:

ABC of Behaviour Change Theories

Altering the incidence of any particular behaviour requires a change in at least one of capability, motivation or opportunity to engage in the activity.  Capability refers to the psychological and physical abilities to perform a behaviour, and includes knowledge and skills; motivation involves all the processes that energise and direct behaviour, including not just goals, plans and beliefs but also 'automatic' processes involving emotions, habits and impulses; and opportunity involves all factors that are external to an individual that may influence engagement with an activity, ranging from the physical environments in which people spend time to the social and cultural milieu that dictates how we perceive and think about particular activities.  To maximise the potential benefit of behaviour change interventions, it is important for designers to understand how these factors of capability, motivation and opportunity vary as a function of particular behaviours, target populations and contexts.

The term 'theory' can be defined in many different ways.  At its core it is a coherent description of a process that is arrived at by a process of inference, provides an explanation for observed phenomena and generates predictions. In the context of behaviour change, theories seek to explain why, when and how a behaviour does or does not occur, and the important sources of influence to be targeted in order to alter the behaviour.  They should reflect an integration of the knowledge accumulated about the relevant mechanisms of action and moderators of change.

The Behaviour Change Wheel

The BCW has at its core a model of behaviour known as COM-B.  The initials stand for 'capability', 'opportunity', 'motivation' and 'behaviour'. and the model recognises that behaviour is part of an interacting system involving all these components.  Changing behaviour will involve changing one or more of them in such a way as to put the system into a new configuration and minimise the risk of it reverting.  The BCW identifies different intervention options that can be applied to changing each of the components and policies that can be adopted to deliver those intervention options.

For example, if one wished to reduce the propensity of young drivers to engage in risky driving practices (e.g. driving too fast), one should canvass all the options including improving their 'capability' to read the road and adjust their driving to the conditions, restricting their 'opportunity' to drive recklessly by means of speed limiters or speed humps, and/or establishing whether a promising approach would be to try to change their 'motivation' to drive safely through mass media campaigns or legislation and enforcement.  Any or all of these may have some effect but the BCW provides a systematic way of determining which options are most likely to achieve the change required.

If one thinks of intervention design as like playing a game of chess, this Guide is an introduction to the opening moves.  It should get designers off to a good start.  It is not a substitute for a detailed understanding of the behaviour in question but a way of harnessing whatever understanding exists and identifying valuable areas for extending that understanding.

The BCW was developed, not only to aid intervention design, but also to improve the process of intervention evaluation and theory development.  It provides a systematic way of characterising interventions that enables their outcomes to be linked to mechanisms of action, and it can help to diagnose why an intervention may have failed to achieve its desired goal.

The BCW was developed from 19 frameworks of behaviour change identified in a systematic literature review.  As noted earlier, none of these frameworks were found to be comprehensive.  In addition, few of them were conceptually coherent or clearly linked to a model of behaviour change.  Some of the frameworks assumed that behaviour was primarily driven by beliefs and perceptions, while others placed greater emphasis on unconscious biases and yet others focussed on the social environment.  Clearly, all of these are important and needed to be brought together in coherent manner.  The BCW aimed to address these limitations by synthesizing the common features of the frameworks and linking them to a model of behaviour that was sufficiently broad that it could be applied to any behaviour in any setting.

The BCW consists of three layers.  The hub of the wheel identifies the sources of the behaviour that could prove fruitful targets for intervention.  It uses the COM-B model for this.  Surrounding this is a layer of nine intervention functions to choose from depending on the particular COM-B analysis one arrives at.  Then the outer layer, the rim of the wheel, identifies seven types of policy that one can use to deliver these intervention functions. 

So now to go back to my RAC Foundation resource.  I am at the stage where it is introducing COM-B.

Regarding 'Capability', it seems to me that the psychological and physical abilities to perform the behaviour of appreciating change in driving conditions include eyesight, hazard awareness, assessing risk/danger.  There are definitely 'knowledge and skills' needs in order to perform this behaviour.  Although I can't think of how to articulate my thoughts here, I think there is also something to be said here too about the skill of being able to appreciate the consequences of NOT doing the behaviour.

I think the 'Opportunity' aspect is massive in my efforts here as it involves matters that are external to the pupil that affect behaviours. In terms of IN the car at the time, distractions will effect how well a pupil can perform the behaviour, from the presence of peers, the weather, unfamiliar location, darkness, and these external factors may effect their emotional state of mind which could have a bearing on how well they can/cannot perform the behaviour.  Other factors are the presence (or not) of street furniture, warning signs, the design of the road.  Other factors include technology like telematics (black box), presence of speed cameras (or not), sat nav speed warning audibles.  Even the characteristics of the vehicle inc power, visibility, maintenance of tyres/brakes/lights/wipers could all be external factors.

Re 'motivation' the desire pupils will have to perform this behaviour might be influenced by role models or peers, conditioning from family members in the upbringing of the pupil, and the beliefs developed over many years.  The social setting of the pupil might have a bearing on what they have become used to regarding the driving behaviours of family or friends.  How much a pupil is prepared to structuralise their journeys - plan the route, assess the hazards, prep the vehicle, manage in-car distractions.  Are they inclined to think in terms of goals relating to getting from A-B safely, within a certain timescale, the shortest or fastest route.  Will they be inclined to think of a journey as a risk in any way, where the risks alter at all.  Would a pupil be able to recognise how their ability or desire to do this behaviour could be affected with fatigue, emotional state (stress, upset), illness, failing to get their eyesight checked.  I also wonder about how motivated a pupil is to transfer learning of the theory over to the practical, I'm thinking here in terms of knowledge of who has priority at a cross-roads, or when merging on to a d/c or motorway.  Turning right at a crossroads is a massive increase in risk associated with it DUE to the need to understand who has to be given way to..... the presence or not of white paint, right green filter arrow.  I think enforcement can be a motivating factor here, in terms of the potential for getting caught speeding or driving w/o due care, points on licence, fines etc.  But also the reliance on black box telematics these days is tending to suggest that the motivation to perform the behaviour is simply not there unless there is the threat of increased insurance premiums (or conversely decreased premiums for evidenced good driving).  The other factor that springs to mind regarding motivation is simply that it takes more effort to develop this behaviour so that it becomes habitual.  I'm not sure if that is an effort that would be welcomed. 

The RAC Foundation document is now talking of the importance of piloting my intervention with members of my target market.  Yet I need to start developing the content for my intervention first (I would have thought).  I'm a little confused about the ordering of events that this document is suggesting I take.  It is also now about to intro me to selecting and using BCT's which should feather in nicely with my supplementary reading of the other 2 publications.  Regarding piloting of the intervention though, I have got experience of attempting to introduce this concept to dozens of pupils since 2009.  I know from experience that to date, when introduced and addressed in-car in the manner that I have to date, it is very hit and miss as to the effectiveness of the desired goal.  My efforts to date include making my pupils aware of the need for this behaviour via my driving videos, as well as bringing up the subject within in-car training sessions.  I have had discussions relating to their desire to perform the behaviour, and the consequences and they always indicate a willingness to embrace the behaviour in theory.  I have found transferring that acceptance into the effort required to make it habitual is very sporadic.  What I have never done previously is thought about it in the terms that I am now learning about. 

I find it interesting the given example above in the BCW para of the young driver engaged in risky driving practices.  Taking time to train pupils in the skill "to read the road and adjust their driving to the conditions" is one thing, allowing them to practise/develop the skill in a structured way is another, but the success rate of the behaviour then being applied habitually regardless of the 'barriers' mentioned above is something entirely different.  I intend to continue methodically through all the resources though.

New resources

I have been having very little success sourcing the behavioural change publications via UCL - literally no response on emails from my work or personal addresses.  I've ordered them from Amazon: The Behavioural Change Wheel - A Guide to designing interventions Susan Michie, Lou Atkins, Robert West (ISBN 978-1-912141-00-5) and ABC of Behaviour Change Theories - An essential resource for researchers, policy makers and practitioners Susan Michie, Robert West, Rona Campbell, Jamie Brown, Heather Gainforth (ISBN 978-1-912141-01-2)

Continuing down the left side of the Psychological model of behaviour the next balloon is marked "Control".  This relates to how much control my pupils will believe they have over their behaviour.  Some models use the term "Self-efficacy" and others "Perceived Behavioural Control".

This is further categorised into 'capacity' - the beliefs a pupil has about how able they are to perform the behaviour in practical/logistical terms.  And then 'autonomy' which addresses the belief the pupil has that they actually have the power to carry out the behaviour.... I'm thinking that the funding of driving training may be out of their control, they may feel that they do not have the power within themselves to organise the required time for the training.  I know from experience that the schedules of some of our young adults is unbelievably busy.

Self-identity covers how the sense of self aligns with the target behaviour.  If my pupil thinks they are a safe driver or a conscientious driver they would be more willing to perform the target behaviour. 

Thinking attitudes is when the pupil makes a judgement whether the behaviour is good or bad, necessary or not, interesting or boring etc.  Officially described as "instrumental attitudes" but often referred to as "cognitive beliefs".  I do have grave reservations in this regard about how the target behaviour would be perceived.  My concern is that pupils will readily respond to the concept of being able to identify when driving conditions change for the better or worse without necessarily knowing (or wanting to know) what it entails.  I think it could very well be perceived as "boring" and unnecessarily challenging.  Apparently this generalising of attitudes is frowned upon by psychologists because it tends to suggest they are immovable when in fact beliefs can change as can the perceptions/judgements.

Feeling attitudes cover the belief of the pupil about how they will feel when they perform the target behaviour.... officially described as "affective attitudes".  Do they consider that performing the behaviour will result in them feeling happy, sad, safe, proud, criticised? 

These models help to predict driving behaviour not to change it.  They raise the awareness of the pupils intentions but not necessarily their actual behaviour.  "Feeling attitudes" are often the strongest predictor of a behaviour.... which raises the question in my mind of how much (as a driving instructor) I can change feelings? 

University College London

One of the other resources listed in the "Additional Resources" of the RAC Foundation document relates to the University College London.  There is a really good link to their resources, www.ucl.ac.uk/behaviour-change/resources  Listed in there are 2 publications that I think will be very useful for me, ABC of Behaviour Change Theories and also The Behaviour Change Wheel.  I have attempted to purchase the paperbook versions but it appears there is a password restricted access so I've contacted them to ask if it is possible for me to purchase them without being a student... WIP.

Moving on.

Barriers and Facilitators.

Barriers to pupils for identifying when driving conditions change:

unable to envisage consequences (cause and effect)
too willing to be influenced by pace of drivers around them
eyesight issue
not considering the full scope of factors that might affect driving conditions
not looking up far enough to see factors in time

Facilitators:

previous experience has demonstrated to the pupil the need to do this (either as passenger or driver or in a related experience to travelling in a car)
the driving instructors influence
role models reinforcing the need
making a connection between the theory knowledge and practical skill


Within the "emotions" balloon shown on the image, there appears to be considerations here.  The first is the "Anticipated Affective Response" ie. how the pupil imagines feeling AFTER performing the behaviour.  My initial thoughts here include, accomplishment, proud, progress being made, safer, responsible, mature, independent, clever/smart, happy.
The other aspect with emotions is the feelings being experienced by the pupil at the time which are not necessarily linked to their intentions.  I think this is quite important for my behaviour.  I am initially thinking here, hard work, stressed, proud, tired, regret, disappointed. 

Within the "norms" balloon, there are again two different types that I need to consider.  The "descriptive norm" which raises the question whether pupils will consider that others are also performing the behaviour.  Having read some of the data within the Road Safety Observatory last night, I think this question could actually be pretty important for me to properly consider.  Will my intervention raise pupils beliefs that peers are also doing the same - I'm wondering here if I could make use of my YouTube driving channel in this regard? 

The other "norm" is called the "injunctive norm" and relates to how my pupil believes others will interpret the behaviour; what others EXPECT the pupil to do.  Apparently this is a very strong factor when the pupil really values the opinion of the other person concerned.  I'm thinking parents here.  Can my intervention encourage pupils to believe others WANT THEM to perform the behaviour.  I'm wondering here if I could include space within my assessment sheets for the parent/role model to add their comments about how the pupil has done so far.  I provide a Day 3 assessment on my intensive driving course and also a Day 5 assessment - this would be absolutely ideal for parents to reinforce their opinions of what comes up in the assessment but also it confirms that pupils are actively involving them and there is effective communications between them.  I guess there could be potential issues here if the parent was to either not appreciate the feedback given on the assessment or worst still, disagree with it.  Food for thought.

More to come.

Road Safety Observatory

The first link contained within the "Additional Resources" section of the RAC Foundation document is:

Road Safety Observatory www.roadsafetyobservatory.com

The data contained within this site is vast, and the links section within it is extremely comprehensive.  I took a look at what pops up under the heading of “Young drivers” as this is potentially going to be my target audience for my intervention.  As can be seen the data contained within (and below is a mere drop in the ocean of what is available) is pretty compelling reading.  It would seem that the only reason why the number of deaths involving young drivers has declined of late is due to the fact that less of them, proportionately, are learning how to drive (for a variety of reasons). 

In 2015, nearly 15% of all car occupants killed or seriously injured were young car drivers aged 17-25 years.

While driver age is a risk factor for collisions (with the youngest new drivers at most risk), the experience drivers gain in the first six months after passing their test plays a more significant role in reducing their collision rates.

Evidence from a range of studies suggests that young drivers may overrate their driving ability and see driving as a matter of ‘natural talent’ which can be judged by how confident a driver feels. This has important implications for understanding young drivers’ attitudes in relation to road safety.

There is little research evidence that increased formal driver training, before, during and after learning to drive, improves safety. A number of themes have emerged that offer the hope of improving the effectiveness of training, in making training address the cognitive and attitudinal aspects of driving. 

International evidence on Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) indicates an overall effectiveness of GDL in reducing crashes of young drivers.

The proportion of young adults (aged 17-20) with a full driving licence has decreased since the early 1990s. In 1995/97, 43 percent of those aged 17-20 held a full licence, compared with a low of 27 percent in 2004 and 31 percent in 2011.

A Young Drivers Factsheet (RRCGB) in 2009 reported that young drivers aged 17 to 24 years were over represented in car accident statistics.  In 2009, they accounted for 12 percent of all licence holders, but of all accidents, 26% (over 42,000) involved at least one young car driver.

In 2009, young car drivers were most often driving straight ahead immediately before the accident (46%)

In 2009, negotiating a curve, bending left or right, accounted for twice the proportion of young car driver manoeuvres compared to older car drivers prior to an accident. The figures were 14% for young car drivers versus 7 percent for older car drivers. Most young drivers (43 percent) were not at a junction when they were involved in an accident compared with 38 percent of older car drivers.

A survival analysis of the length of time to new drivers’ first accident found three factors were associated with longer ‘survival’ rates: increased age, driving experience (possibly driving in busy town centres and in the rain) and a self-reported driving style characterised as ‘attentive, careful, responsible and safe’.

There is a need for greater clarity about what needs to be learned in order to drive safely and to encourage learners to take responsibility for their learning, through effective progress reporting and self-evaluation.

Learner drivers with a more tolerant attitude to their own driving violations (many of them speed-related) tend to go on to have a higher post-test accident liability, based on measures from the Attitudes to Driving Violations Scale (ADVS). 

The current arrangements for training and testing appear to motivate drivers to apply for the test as soon as they think they have a moderate chance of passing. In order to improve their safety on the roads, learners and new drivers need to be encouraged to learn more than what is currently tested – for example, getting experience of the full range of driving conditions, such as night-time driving and driving in bad weather and on motorways.

There is little research evidence that increased formal driver training improves safety. A number of themes have emerged that offer the hope of improving the effectiveness of training, one being the desirability of improving the hazard perception skills of learner drivers.

National Travel Survey data indicates that the overall proportion of young adults with a full driving licence has decreased since the early 1990s. It also provides reasons for not learning to drive which vary according to age with main reasons including not needing to drive, not being interested in driving and costs of driving.

RRCGB data from 2009 (RRCGB Young Drivers Factsheet) indicated that accidents involving young drivers were more likely to lead to a greater number of casualties compared with older drivers. Most of the young drivers involved in accidents were male. Men also made up a higher proportion of casualties in accidents involving young drivers.

The timing of accidents in 2009 (RRCGB Young Drivers Factsheet) involving young car drivers mirrored the patterns of all drivers with most happening on Fridays and during morning and evening rush hours on weekdays. Although more young driver accidents happened on Friday and Saturday nights (8pm – 4am).

In 2009 (RRCGB Young Drivers Factsheet), most accidents involving young drivers took place in urban locations but were less serious than those in rural places. Young Drivers were also most likely to be driving straight ahead and most often were not at a junction. These proportions were only slightly higher than those for older drivers with the exception of negotiating a curve.

In 2009 (RRCGB Young Drivers Factsheet), most accidents were attributed to ‘failed to look properly’, when a contributory factor was recorded. Young driver accidents were also more likely to be attributed to factors related to inexperience, which reflects what is known about the relative importance of inexperience in causing young driver accidents. There were also differences in reported contributory factors for females and males. While impairment by alcohol was a contributory factor in a very small percentage of young driver accidents, young drivers were overrepresented compared with older drivers.

Traffic crashes are the single greatest killer of 15-24 year olds in OECD countries. It is estimated that over 8,500 young drivers of passenger vehicles were killed in 2004. Death rates for young, novice drivers have decreased in many countries in recent decades. However, these reductions have mirrored overall improvements in road safety, and death rates for 18-24 year old drivers typically remain more than double those of older drivers

Data from the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK have shown that young male drivers' relative risk of crash fatality, compared with that of older drivers, has increased considerably over the last decade. This was measured by fatal accidents per million kilometres driven. (Young Drivers: The Road to Safety, 2006 OECD Transport Research Centre)

Two studies investigating the learning to drive process (RSRR81 and RSRR 87) suggest that many young drivers were insufficiently prepared for the driving test mainly because they lacked enough and sufficiently varied driving experience (e.g. weather conditions, rural and urban roads) . It seems that while most young drivers take some formal lessons, many do not engage sufficiently with the learning to drive process particularly in terms of using study materials and using their theoretical learning in their driving practice. Overall, the evidence suggests that many young drivers do not develop a good understanding of safe driving as part of the learning to drive process.

A study of how a cohort of young adults learned to drive (RSRR 81) in 2008 found that:  Virtually all respondents (99%) took some lessons with an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI). For all respondents, the median value was 40 hours of lessons.

Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that some young driver characteristics are more likely to be associated with unsafe driving and/or accident liability. These include younger age and particular personality characteristics (e.g. sensation seeking, external locus of control). Having an accident may also lead to changes in driving style. In one study, young drivers who had been involved in an accident reported that their driving was less confident afterwards and for female drivers, also less decisive and more prone to errors.

A range of studies identify problems related to the training of young drivers, mainly related to the lack of motivation of young drivers to take responsibility for improving their driving. This is related to the content of driver training which does not address driving on a cognitive and attitudinal level. Suggestions for how to address these problems related to young driver attitudes and perceptions of driving are identified in some studies. These include tapping into parental influence and working with young drivers’ perceptions of safe driving, ‘good driving’ and driving cultures – for example, the social and emotional aspects of driving identified in the RSRR 74 study.

The practical test focuses too much on a candidate’s ability to control the car safely at the expense of other knowledge and skills. (RSRR No.87) 

Parents are an important long-term influence on young drivers’ behaviour, and there is a need to encourage parents to reflect on what messages they send to their children about driving and road safety. Information and education should include efforts to identify and publicise the positive behaviour of adolescents and young drivers, and to portray peer norms as pro-safety. (RSWP No. 18)

Four critical gaps in current approaches to driver learning and testing are evident: 

1. The relevance gap. Few young people – pre-drivers, learners or novices – see the standards in the test (and other rules of driving) as relevant to ‘real driving’. 

2. The measures gap. Young people have no good way of measuring the competence of other drivers other than their own feeling of safety, and have no good way of measuring their own competence as drivers other than their feeling of confidence. 

3. The incentives gap. There are a number of disincentives for young people to spend longer improving their driving pre-test, and few real incentives to carry on getting better after passing. 

4. The motivations gap. A number of young people do not see any real need to get better, as they start the learning process already confident in their own talent which is reinforced by their rapidly mastering physical control of the car. (RSRR No. 86)

Overall, the evidence suggests that pre-driver, driver education and training provision and testing is not sufficiently effective in helping young drivers to drive safely and reduce accident risk. The evidence to support this come from a range of reviews of evidence (TRL INS005, TRL PPR529, RSRR 97) and primary research studies discussed in the research findings section (particularly RSRR 81 and RSRR 87). Because the accident rates of young drivers are higher in the initial post-test period and declines sharply thereafter, gaining driving experience post-test is the main cause of the reduction of young driver accidents. Of course, this means that young drivers are at continued risk in the immediate post-test period and training and education measures do not seem to have a direct impact on reducing this risk.

Risky driving behaviours and factors related to these, such as speed choice, which has been shown to be linked with accidents, are not effectively addressed in the driving test. This contributes to the failure of the driving test in helping to produce safe and competent drivers. (RSRR No.87)

It is interesting to read the above.  Much of which confirms what swirls around the driving training industry in daily chatter.  I think the point being made about driving experience is really important.  My intensive driving courses which are 4-6 hours in duration, enable pupils to travel distances that would simply not be possible with traditional driving lessons.  For example, residents in Boston can drive to Peterborough to experience fast moving dual-carriageways that do not exist in Boston, they get to experience large roundabouts that also do not exist.  In the process of getting there, they can travel either on fast moving single-carriageway roads such as the A16, A17, A52 or they can choose to travel on windy rural roads.  Likewise, Peterborough residents have the time to travel to Grantham and experience driving on hills that Peterborough does not have.  I think these experiences for my pupils are incredibly valuable.

Regarding the points made in the research about the responsibility of a pupil for controlling how they learn it reminds me of a conversation recently with one of my younger pupils.  On the de-brief of a training session where she had expressed satisfaction with how she performed, I asked her “And if I was to ask you Tash to give me 2 reasons why you felt you managed to do so well today, what would you say?”  (I had no particular reason for asking for 2, I was just hoping that asking for 2 might require a bit more thought).  Her reply after about 5 seconds thought was “I drove slower, and I concentrated more”.  I thought to myself, if I could bottle that response up and sell it to my pupils, I would be a millionaire.

Other links on their website included:

Search by Local Authority where fatalities occurred between 1999-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720

Another map for accident hotspots, this one goes up to 2016 http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

Differing models of behaviour

The previous blog shows a graphic of an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour using a dual process approach incorporating elements of the "Prototype Willingness Model".  I am being told that the "Theory of planned behaviour" is the most commonly used model that is applied for road safety.  There are numerous models and I am being encouraged to read up about other models in Chapter 5 of the document, the last document.  Having gone through Chapter 5, I'm thinking that the models may be listed within the "Additional Resources" section, of which there are many, and it is not immediately obvious which resource in particular will be helping me.
The reason why I am coming across this feeling of need to explore other models is because at present my thinking is that the behaviour I am attempting to encourage is:

"Being able to identify when driving conditions change for the better or worse"

One of the balloons of the image in the last blog is marked "Intention/Willingness".  People do not always act on the intentions that they have.... which is being referred to as "the intention-behaviour gap".  So this question of whether a pupil of mine would be willing to even address the above behaviour seems to be quite valid.  So this is the part of the "Prototype Willingness Model" that is being incorporated into the road safety "Theory of planned behaviour" model. 
One of the other balloons in the model is identified as "Barriers/Facilitators" and at present I'm struggling to see the difference between the willingness balloon and the barriers.  I could imagine that a pupil may not be willing to incorporate this behaviour if they are:
distracted
put off by bravado/peer pressure
discourage because it requires concentration

But perhaps they may be willing in theory but the above represent the barriers. 

I am at a little stumbling block in understanding and need to shoot off to raise my awareness of these "Other resources".  More to come.

Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT's)

The RAC Foundation have provided a comprehensive guidance document for the road safety community about using behaviour change techniques.

In the foreword of the document by Steve Gooding (Director of RAC Foundation) he states:

".... changing any of our behaviours is a challenge, and changing our behaviour as road users is particularly hard.  Most of the training we go through as drivers is understandably focussed on the skills needed to control a vehicle, rather than the attitude we bring to the task.  That said, the more we learn about behavioural change techniques, and the more we share best practice in what works, the better our chances of making a real contribution to improved road safety."

I find those words very inspiring and having now been a driving instructor for 8 years entirely agree with the message.  What I have done is print out the document and my intention is to slowly but surely, and methodically, go through it.  I know I have much to learn about behavioural change techniques so what I am intending to do is use this as my primary source of CPD for 2017.  In 2016 I studied for a BTEC Level 4 award in Coaching for Driver Development and as interesting as the work is, I am still finding large knowledge gaps in myself which get exposed by my feelings of frustration and confusion when I see a disconnect between my pupils training that I provide and the learning outcomes.  I appreciate that this is going to be a long path for me.  I am not only providing training for learner pupils and trainee driving instructors but I continually actively read and so inevitably this CPD I am committing to here, will need to be a long-term goal of raising my awareness in the subject of BCT's for the purpose of benefitting my pupils.

The document which is about 60 pages of A4 is beautifully presented.  It is split into 5 chapters and from what I can tell, every chapter is essential reading.  As such, whilst my progress that I make on this blog will be tracking pretty much my progress through the document, it is not lost on me that in all likelihood the ultimate "gain" here will take some time.  But I detail my progress on this blog for primarily two reasons.  Firstly, I know from previous learning experiences, that this assists my learning, it helps me reflect, assess and mould my thinking.  The act of recording my progress I know helps me to formulate my thoughts; I'm not pretending for one second that what is written is fault-free, far from it, but I do know from experience that it assists me.  On this point of technical accuracy, it is worth stating to any reader (there are not many if truth be told), I do not come from an academic background; I did not attend university.  As such I have no formal training or experience in the required structure and integrity of "research" documents where all statements are sourced.  This blog is for my learning purposes but secondly, I rather suspect that the subjects that arise may be of good use to trainee driving instructors or newly qualified instructors.  I only say that because it may offer some guidance on what is out there for us to learn as professionals involved in road safety, I certainly don't intend to suggest that my own remarks will be of benefit.

The reason why this subject interests me immensely is because of this link between what we intend to do and what we actually do.  For the most part pupils who want to learn to drive have every intention to use the time spent in the car as time to learn, they will to varying degrees balance out the transfer of learning between what I say and do compared to what they say and do.  It is an interesting mix.  It is not a given though, for a variety of reasons, some pupils will not learn to the same degree as others, the effectiveness of the learning varies regarding how much of it is actually meaningful to the pupil and stays in the long term memory.  I am very aware from the 8 years of doing this job that the attitudes to learning and the beliefs of pupils regarding road safety are influenced heavily by other factors that do NOT involve their driving instructor.  I am also aware of the scope of learning detailed in the work of the EU Hermes Project as summarised in the GDE matrix (Goals for Driver Education).  In terms of depth of learning, it is generally recognised that the vast majority of driving instruction in the UK deals with the lower 2 levels of "Vehicle Control" and "Mastery of Traffic Situations".  The scope of the assessment of the UK driving test only delves into that depth of learning.  The upper two levels of the matrix touch on the higher order cognitive skills required for safe driving, whereby a learner is encouraged to develop critical thinking that is aligned to their personal experiences.  In terms of breadth of learning, the matrix goes beyond the required knowledge and skills of a safe driver, and introduces the subject of identifying risk factors associated with driving and also a drivers ability to self-assess their performance, reflect and continue learning.

Interestingly, on page 5 of the guide I am about to read there is a very clever graphic that encapsulates much of the above under the heading of "Psychological model of behaviour".  I have taken a snap of the graphic as shown here, it is worthy of note:

I am in the process of formulating a definition of my intervention.  It is early days, but my initial thoughts involve:
younger drivers
no connection between training and standards
rural roads are less forgiving and extent of injury more serious

I would tend to summarise this as an unwanted "Target Behaviour" of poor assessment of when driving conditions have worsened.  My "Target Audience" being 17-20 year olds.

As I say, early days.  I am being encouraged to give thought to my aims and objectives for the intervention.  More to come.