Abstract
Simulator training has been used in high-risk industries such as aviation (Salas, Bowers & Rhodenizer, 1998), nuclear (Bye et al., 2011), and medicine (McGaghie et al., 2010). Driving a car is al-so considered a risky operation and simulator train-ing has been used as an educational method at the Department of Education of Driving Instructors at Nord University, Norway. Hence, due to safety rea-sons it is important to make sure that the theoretical learning outcome of risk assessment in connection with night driving is not impaired by using simulator training compared to traditional real life training. Some of the most comprehensive international studies on learning outcome and new media con-clude that learning outcome is approximately equal between traditional teacher/student relation, and use of ICT (information, and communication technolo-gy) (Balanskat et al., 2006; Harrison et al., 2002). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to com-pare theoretical learning outcome of night driving by comparing traditional real life training and simulator training. Method: Participants were younger adults N=133 (67 women 66 men) age range 15-28, median=17. The number of participants aged 20+ was 15, and the number of participants aged 15-19 was 118. The participants had no previous driving experience. The first group (n=48) had traditional training in night driving as passengers in a car with a driving instruc-tor, and the second group (n=85) had simulator train-ing. After completing the training, the respondents completed a theoretical night driving test. The test was in multiple choice form consisting of 36 ques-tions. Each question had four alternatives where one alternative was correct and the remaining three were equally incorrect. The independent variable was the training type and dependent variable was the test score. An independent samples two-tailed t-test was used to compare the training forms. Results: The score for learning outcome for those receiving traditional night driving training (M = 22,24 SD= 5,76) was slightly higher but not signifi-cantly different than for those receiving simulator training (M = 21,89, SD = 6,14). Further, there were no significant difference between the test scores of men (M = 21,83, SD = 5,92) and women (M = 22,63, SD = 5,60). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in test scores intended to measure theoretical knowledge related to night driving between the two groups who received traditional training and simula-tor training. This shows that simulator training of night driving could have an equal effect of learning as traditional training. Implications: This could imply that simulator training of night driving could be used in driver’s training programmes. REFERENCES Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. 2006. The ICT IM-PACT Report. A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet in the framework of the Eu-ropean Commission’s ICT cluster. Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fischer, T., Hawe, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., McFarland, A., Mavers, D., Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B., & Watling, R. 2002. ImpaCT2: The impact of information and communication technologies on pupils learning and attainment. ICT in schools research and eval-uation series, 7. DfES/Becta. Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. 1998. It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3): 19-208. Bye, A., Lois, E., Dang, V. N., Parry, G., Forester, J., Massaiu, S., Boring, R., Braarud, P. Ø., Broberg, H., Julius, J., Männis-tö, I., & Nelson, P. 2011. International HRA Empirical study – Phase 2 report. Results from comparing HRA method predictions to simulator data from SGTR Scenarios. US Nu-clear Regulatory Commission. McGaghie, W.C., Issenberg, B., Petrusa, E. R., Scalese, R. J. 2010. A critical review of simulation-based medical educa-tion research: 2003
