Parents’ perceptions of driver education: A theoretically guided qualitative investigation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.01.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Goals for Driver Education (GDE) was applied to Parent-supervised practice driving.

  • Parents are likely to outsource learning activities at the lower GDE levels.

  • Parents concerned about ‘knowledge gaps’ and avoiding conflicts with their child.

  • Parents would welcome specific parent-focused training on driver supervision.

Abstract

In many jurisdictions with Graduated Driver Licensing systems, such as those in North America, Australia, and New Zealand, parents play an important role in teaching their child how to drive and facilitating their access to formal driver education. This study explored parents’ views on these processes in a theoretically grounded manner using the Goals for Driver Education (GDE) Framework. The GDE framework groups influences on young driver behaviour into four interconnected hierarchical levels: vehicle manoeuvring (Level 1), mastery of traffic situations (Level 2), goals and contexts for driving (Level 3) and goals for life and skills for living (Level 4). Fourteen parents of novice drivers participated in five focus groups held in urban and regional locations in South East Queensland, Australia. A six-step thematic analysis was used consisting of (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) generation of initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes and (6) producing the report. Parents indicated that they were more likely to outsource the teaching of skills at Levels 1 and 2 of the GDE to professional driving instructors as they were concerned that they would pass bad habits onto their child or they were unaware of the road rules that their child was required to follow. Parents believed that they were able to more effectively teach skills located on Levels 3 and 4 of the GDE framework because they had a greater knowledge of their child when compared with professional educators. The study findings can be used to develop an intervention that would support parents to more effectively supervise learner drivers.

Introduction

Young novice drivers who are 25 years or younger are over-represented in car crashes internationally (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2019) and in Australia (Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics, 2018). This ‘young driver problem’ has been recognised by researchers and policy makers for a substantial period of time (Goldstein, 1972). A range of influences contribute to why young novice drivers crash more than other driving groups (Shope & Bingham, 2008). Major Influences for young driver crashes include age, gender, and underdeveloped driving skills (Bates, Davey et al., 2014). However, contextual factors also play a role, particularly developmental, social and environmental factors (Cassarino & Murphy, 2018). Crashes involving young people place a high burden on society in terms of medical, rehabilitation and social reintegration costs (Buckis, Lenné, & Fitzharris, 2015). Along with professional driver education and training (Beanland, Goode, Salmon, & Lenné, 2013), many places in Australasia (Scott-Parker, 2016) and North America (Williams, 2017) have adopted Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) programs to better protect young drivers. Some GDL programs incorporate informal supervision of young drivers by a licensed driver, most commonly their parents (Bates et al., 2014, Groeger and Brady, 2004). This paper reports on an exploratory study of parents of young drivers.

It is difficult to succinctly define driver education and training. This is partly because a broad range of techniques and programs are described as driver education and training (Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, 2016) and partly because, while often conflated, driver education and driver training are qualitatively different (Beanland et al., 2013). Driver training refers to specific instruction about the operation of a vehicle, for example how and when to use a turning signal. Conversely, driver education is more broadly focused and includes topics like safe driving attitudes and life values (e.g., Kennedy, Cullen, Firman, Fleiter, & Lewis, 2018). Moreover, the distinction between driver training and driver education is often not understood by the general public who generally think that driver education and driver training are the same (McKenna, 2010). Some evaluation research suggests that young driver education and training, particularly when focused only on basic skill building, is not effective at reducing young driver crashes (Beanland et al., 2013, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, 2016).

Technological tools have been introduced in many areas in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of safety interventions (Omaki et al., 2017). Driving simulators can be used as driver education and training tools for young novice drivers and incorporated into licensing systems (Bates, Filtness, & Watson, 2018), such as the Netherlands (SWOV, 2010). Some studies have demonstrated beneficial effects for both procedural and higher-order cognitive driving skills after using driving simulators (Vlakveld et al., 2011). Moreover, simulator training provided in combination with traditional methods has shown beneficial effects for young driver safety (Hirsch & Bellavance, 2017). However, some studies suggest that the potential benefit of driving simulators is complex in practice and requires further research. In one study, young people who were trained with simulators, as an adjunct to traditional methods, were found to have riskier post training attitudes towards safety compared to a control group trained as usual despite in vehicle data suggesting the simulator trained group drove more safely (Rosenbloom & Eldror, 2014). Due to these contradictory findings more research on the efficacy of using driving simulators is required (Martín-delosReyes et al., 2019). However, in a previous study (Rodwell et al., 2019) about the use of driving simulators in driver education, asking participants to draw a driving simulator for use in driver education resulted in a wide-ranging discussion that included suggestions about driver education in general. The authors of this paper commented that the ‘draw-and-talk’ process led to greater cognitive engagement from participants.

One holistic framework that seeks to systematise the diversity of influences on young drivers is the Goals for Driver Education (GDE; Berg, 2006). Underpinned by social cognitive theory of mental models (Keskinen, 2007), the GDE groups influences on young driver behaviour into four interconnected hierarchical levels (Hatakka, Keskinen, Gregersen, Glad, & Hernetkoski, 2002). The GDE levels are vehicle manoeuvring (Level 1), mastery of traffic situations (Level 2), goals and contexts of driving (Level 3), and goals for life and skills for living (Level 4). Each level can have a bidirectional influence on the other levels and is considered within broader aspects of the drivers’ knowledge and skills, personal susceptibility to risks, and level of self-awareness (Peraaho, Keskinen, & Hatakka, 2003).

Fig. 1 displays the GDE which has been adapted from Hatakka et al. (2002). In the figure, each level of the GDE is represented in the central column. The double-ended arrows represent the theoretical influence that each level can have on the other levels. For example, the arrows on the left indicate that GDE level 4 has influence on and is influenced by both GDE Level 2 and GDE level 1. The relationship between GDE level 4 and GDE level 3 is represented by the small arrow between these two boxes. Individual differences are also incorporated into the GDE which, in Fig. 1, are represented in the box on the right-hand side of the diagram and are shown to feed into each of the GDE levels. As can be seen the GDE is not a static model but one that has a high degree of dynamism which must be taken into account when developing and evaluating driver education.

Research suggests the GDE is not currently used as effectively as it could be in the design and operation of professional young driver education and training (Rodwell et al., 2018, Rodwell et al., 2019, Watson-Brown et al., 2018). Additionally, while developed within the paradigm of professional driver education, the GDE has the potential to inform and improve parental supervision, particularly within a GDL system. For example, research indicates parents are often confused about what skills should be prioritised and sequenced during supervised practice (Mirman & Kay, 2012). The GDE provides a logical framework to guide and educate parents of learner drivers, as well as professional instructors. However, a preliminary ‘train the trainer’ module may be required.

GDL is based on the principle that young people should develop and practice driving skills early in their driving career in conditions of lower risk (Foss, 2007). GDL programs divide the young novice driver period into stages with different specific conditions imposed upon the driver at each stage (Senserrick & Williams, 2015). For example, in Queensland, Australia, there is a four stage GDL program. This program consists of a learner stage where young drivers are supervised by an experienced driver over the age of 21 years; a highly restricted Provisional 1 (P1) stage that allows independent driving subject to additional conditions; a Provisional 2 (P2) stage where some of the P1 restrictions are relaxed; and a final open or unrestricted stage.

In short, GDL is a cohort-wide response to the ‘young driver problem’ rather than a targeted intervention for a specific young person (Bates et al., 2018). Evaluations suggest that GDL programs are effective at reducing young driver crashes (Williams, 2017). However, other research indicates that young driver compliance with GDL conditions is not always optimal (Goodwin, Wells, Foss, & Williams, 2006). In some cases young driver non-compliance occurs due to lack of knowledge of specific restrictions included in each stage (Truelove, Freeman, & Davey, 2019). In other cases, young drivers are complacent, or may intentionally ignore GDL conditions, especially as police enforcement of GDL conditions may be difficult or a low priority (Bates, Rodwell, & Matthews, 2019). As a result, monitoring driving behaviours and sanctioning breaches of GDL restrictions often falls to parents of young drivers (Brookland et al., 2014, Simons-Morton, 2007). However, while GDL systems provide an effective, staged approach to learning to drive independently, sanctions may be rarely enforced because parents have limited knowledge of GDL restrictions. For example, in one study from NZ, 54% of parents had limited knowledge of GDL conditions (Brookland et al., 2014).

GDL programs generally begin with a supervised learner stage before progressing to independent driving. While many young drivers receive some professional driver education during the learner stage, studies show that parents are usually the default primary driver supervisors (Bates et al., 2014, Jacobsohn et al., 2012). As discussed above, other research explains parents are not always aware of GDL conditions nor familiar with current driving rules and regulations (Brookland et al., 2014). Likewise, parent supervisors in jurisdictions with GDL programs do not always provide supervision and training across diverse driving contexts and conditions (Goodwin, Margolis, & Waller, 2010).

A limited number of studies have observed parents and children during the supervised practice period of the GDL systems (e.g., Goodwin, Foss, Margolis, & Harrel, 2014), and some studies have similarly investigated interpersonal factors that may impact the supervised driving period (Ehsani, Kar, Klauer, Dingus, & Simons-Morton, 2018). Only, a few studies (e.g., Mirman & Kay, 2012) have focused solely on parents’ perceptions, motivations and influences during this time. In many GDL jurisdictions parents are, if not explicitly, implicitly expected to provide driving instruction to their novice driver children. At the very least, parents hold much of the decision-making power in relation to the type of driver education or practice their child will receive. A number of interventions and programs for parents of young drivers have been developed, with mixed success in terms of efficacy (Curry, Peek-Asa, Hamann, & Mirman, 2015). As such, in many places, parents are a critical aspect of the driver licensing system for young drivers but their level of involvement, motivations for, and understanding of driver education are not well known.

The current study is part of a larger program of research investigating driver education and the use of technology, such as driving simulators, (Rodwell et al., 2018, Rodwell et al., 2019). The current study seeks to explore parent’s views on learning to drive and supervised driving practice in an exploratory, qualitative, holistic, and theoretically grounded manner. The dearth of previous research in this area invites the use of a qualitative method that allows an in-depth and flexible mode of investigation that can be used to provide a foundation of understanding to be built upon. The main aim of the study is to use the GDE framework to understand parents’ perceptions of the learning to drive process. Findings such as this may be useful for driving supervisors, driver education organisations and policy makers to develop interventions that support parent/supervisors and gain a nuanced perspective of how parents navigate GDL systems.

Section snippets

Context

The study was conducted in the Australian State of Queensland. At the time of the study, a four stage GDL system was in operation in Queensland which consisted of a fully supervised learner stage, followed by an intermediate provisional stage, which itself was divided into two sections which each had various restrictions (e.g., on carrying peer passengers at certain times), and a final open or unrestricted licence stage (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2020b). Young people at

Results and discussion

The results and discussion of the main deductive analysis are presented first (GDE levels 1–4), followed by the secondary inductive (latent themes) analysis (GDL issues). Fig. 2 visualises key sentiments expressed by parents and how these relate to the GDE skills framework. In general, participants were worried about teaching their teenager vehicle operating skills (GDE 1) and how to manage traffic situations (GDE 2), often outsourcing the acquisition of these skills to private driving

General discussion

The learner stage is an important part of the GDL process with those who spend more time as a learner driver experiencing a lower crash risk once they begin solo driving (Gulliver, Begg, Brookland, Ameratunga, & Langley, 2013). While previous studies have considered the role of the GDE framework in driver education and training (Bates et al., 2019, Rodwell et al., 2018, Watson-Brown et al., 2018), this is the first study to apply this framework to the use of informal driver education for novice

Conclusion

Overall, this study has helped develop our understanding of how parents perceive the learning to drive process experienced by their children within the context of the GDE framework. The parents in the current study identified that they found supervising their child challenging at all four levels of the GDE framework. However, they appeared to be more likely to outsource parts of the supervision process at GDE levels 1 and 2 to professional driving instructors and driver educators in order to

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Roadcraft Driver Education, Ms Alana Hawkins and Mr Levi Anderson for their assistance with this study.

Funding statement

This research was supported by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme (LP140100409).

References (64)

  • L.G. Goldstein

    Youthful drivers as a special safety problem

    Accident Analysis & Prevention

    (1972)
  • A. Goodwin et al.

    Parent comments and instruction during the first four months of supervised driving: An opportunity missed?

    Accident Analysis & Prevention

    (2014)
  • A. Goodwin et al.

    Encouraging compliance with graduated driver licensing restrictions

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2006)
  • P. Gulliver et al.

    Learner driver experiences and crash risk as an unsupervised driver

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2013)
  • M. Hatakka et al.

    From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

    (2002)
  • W.J. Horrey et al.

    Calibration of skill and judgment in driving: Development of a conceptual framework and the implications for road safety

    Accident Analysis & Prevention

    (2015)
  • L. Jacobsohn et al.

    Adult-supervised practice driving for adolescent learners: The current state and directions for interventions

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2012)
  • A. Kennedy et al.

    Peer passenger intentions to speak up to a risky driver: A theoretically-guided investigation of the effects of a high school road safety education program

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

    (2018)
  • L.M. Martín-delosReyes et al.

    Efficacy of training with driving simulators in improving safety in young novice or learner drivers: A systematic review

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

    (2019)
  • M. Moller

    An explorative study of the relationship between lifestyle and driving behaviour among young drivers

    Accident Analysis & Prevention

    (2004)
  • S. Naz et al.

    Obstacles to engaging in young driver licensing: Perspective of parents

    Accident Analysis & Prevention

    (2017)
  • D. Rodwell et al.

    A mixed-method study of driver education informed by the goals for driver education: Do young drivers and educators agree what was taught?

    Safety Science

    (2018)
  • D. Rodwell et al.

    What do driver educators and young drivers think about driving simulators? A qualitative draw-and-talk study

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

    (2019)
  • T. Rosenbloom et al.

    Effectiveness evaluation of simulative workshops for newly licensed drivers

    Accident Analysis and Prevention

    (2014)
  • J.T. Shope et al.

    Teen driving: Motor-vehicle crashes and factors that contribute

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2008)
  • B. Simons-Morton

    Parent involvement in novice teen driving: Rationale, evidence of effects, and potential for enhancing graduated driver licensing effectiveness

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2007)
  • T. Tronsmoen

    Associations between driver training, determinants of risky driving behaviour and crash involvement

    Safety Science

    (2010)
  • V. Truelove et al.

    “you can’t be deterred by stuff you don’t know about”: Identifying factors that influence graduated driver licensing rule compliance

    Safety Science

    (2019)
  • P.F. Waller et al.

    Parental views of and experience with Michigan's graduated licensing program

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2000)
  • N. Watson-Brown et al.

    Development of a higher-order instruction coding taxonomy for observational data: Initial application to professional driving instruction

    Applied Ergonomics

    (2018)
  • N. Watson-Brown et al.

    Association between higher-order driving instruction and risky driving behaviours: Exploring the mediating effects of a self-regulated safety orientation

    Accident Analysis & Prevention

    (2019)
  • A.F. Williams

    Graduated driver licensing (GDL) in the United States in 2016: A literature review and commentary

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2017)
  • Cited by (13)

    • The prototype willingness model: An application to adolescent driver speeding

      2023, Journal of Safety Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      First year university students received course credit (0.5%) for completing the survey, while other participants were given the opportunity to enter a draw to receive a $100 gift voucher for a local department store. Participants completed an anonymous online survey deployed as part of a larger research program investigating a range of issues related to adolescent driver behavior and driver education (Bates et al., 2019; Horswill et al., 2021; Rodwell et al., 2021; Rodwell et al., 2018; Rodwell et al., 2019). The current study focused on responses to a subset of items included in the online survey.

    • Experiences of young drivers and accompanying persons in Denmark: A qualitative study

      2022, Safety Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, our results suggest that existing organisations should provide YDs and APs with clear and explicit guidelines about what to expect and how to approach the task. Support for this is found in a study by Rodwell et al. (2021) which revealed uncertainty among APs regarding how to supervise YDs in the best way. The results from our study did not allow us to draw specific conclusions regarding how organisational support for accompanied driving should be established.

    • Parents’ self-efficacy and the quality of supervised driving practice they provide for their children

      2022, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
      Citation Excerpt :

      The chance to win one of five $100 gift vouchers to a local department store was offered as a thank you for participating. The data for this study were collected as part of a larger project investigating how young people are taught to drive (Bates, Hawkins, et al., 2019; Bates, Larue, Filtness, & Hawkins, 2019; Horswill et al., 2021; Rodwell, Alexander, Bates, Larue, & Watson, 2021; Rodwell et al., 2018, 2019). Participants completed an online survey that consisted of previously validated scales and questions adapted from previous research.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text