1 / 18

Stop, look, listen, and think? What young children really do when crossing the road

Stop, look, listen, and think? What young children really do when crossing the road. 學生：董瑩蟬. Purpose. This paper used observe method that investigated children road crossing behaviors. The sites chooses a T Intersection. Reference.

pisces
Download Presentation

Stop, look, listen, and think? What young children really do when crossing the road

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stop, look, listen, and think?What young children really do when crossing the road 學生：董瑩蟬

  2. Purpose This paper used observe method that investigated children road crossing behaviors. The sites chooses a T Intersection.

  3. Reference • In developed countries, the children pedestrian accidents was the most serious of all health risks. (Thomson et al.,1996) • The research designed program to investigated the children’s pedestrian skills. (Department of transport et al.,1996)

  4. Reference • There were many studies pedestrian issue, simulated environments and techniques have gained popularity, such as the pretend road (Lee et al.,1984; young and Lee,1987), kerbside judgements (Demetre et al.,1993), and traffic gardens (Sandels, 1975).

  5. Reference • Department (1989) observed children real-life environments and coded their actions. Other studies used videotaped children’s actions inconspicuously (Schioldborg, 1976; Valavuo, 1976; Molen, 1983; all cited in Thomson et al.,1996).

  6. Method • Participants • 56 children, age range between 5 to 6 years.(31B and 25G) • Equipment • Sony UVW 100P Pro-Betacam SP Camcorder. 18 feet 16 feet

  7. Method • Sites • See Fig 1 • Process • Data collect 2 days • The first crossing from A to B (see fig 1) • The second crossing from C to D (see fig 1) • Finish two crossing about 4 min

  8. Method • The first crossing record behavior include: • looked for traffic on the main road before reaching kerb • stopped at the kerb • looked for traffic while stopped at kerb • looked at the moving car to their right • waited for the car to move off before crossing • continued to look for traffic while crossing • the style in which the children crossed (i.e. walking vs. running or skipping)

  9. Method • The second crossing record behavior include: • looked for traffic before reaching the kerb • stopped at the kerb • stopped at the edge of the parked cars • looked for traffic while stopped at the edge of the cars • continued to look for traffic while crossing • the style in which the children crossed

  10. Result • The result analysis used two method. • The first considered group performance. Analysis the sample percentage in each behavior. • The second analysis individual differences in each behavior.

  11. Result

  12. Result • There are ten children required adult help at the first crossing task. The data were not recorded in result. • The first crossing result showed that that has 40% children before crossing never look at moving vehicle. • There were 75% children running/skipping crossing road .

  13. Result

  14. Result • There are five children required adult help at the second crossing task. The data were not recorded in result. • There were 35% children stooped at the edge of the cars . • There were about 50% children walk to crossing the road.

  15. Result • The right behaviors were record one scores for the first and second crossing with each children. And the behaviors were wrong that the score were zero. • The children chose to cross alone that the mean score was1.74 (S.D.=1.53) for first crossing. And 1.94 (S.D.=1.48) for second crossing. • The two scores were significant different. r(54)=0.66,P<0.001

  16. Discussion • The result found that the children has poor at crossing road. It similar to many studies result. The children were working with failed to look before stepping out into traffic (Grayson, 1975; Molen, 1981; Scottish Development Department, 1989) • Foot et al.,1999 found the young children’s visual tends to be inadequate and unfocused.

  17. Discussion • The individual different considered with this result, similar to Whitebread and Neilson (1999) measuring children ability that found individual difference in skills. • This paper main purpose was to investigated the child behavior on road. There were many studied investigated that. (Zeedyk et al.,1997; Rothengatter, 1981)

  18. Conclusion • Some children cant crossing the road alone. • Children pedestrian was failed to stoop before they crossing. • There were many children running to cross the road.

More Related