THINK! Education Materials Evaluation: Final Report - Stage 2

  • Published: Department for Transport, 2011
  • Authors: EdComs
  • Date Added: 15 Mar 2013
  • Last Update: 18 Jul 2013
  • Format: pdf

Objectives:

The study sought to evaluate the following areas:

  • Awareness of the resources – how aware are schools, out-of-school groups and RSOs of the THINK! Education materials.
  • The uptake of the resources – how many resources have been ordered and the extent to which teachers and RSOs have used them with young people.
  • The quality of materials produced – how do those who have used the resources rate their usability, credibility and relevance, and how engaging are they for young people, teachers, out-of-school groups and RSOs.

Methodology:

Stage 1: qualitative and consisted of case study visits to observe usage of the resources in Early Years and Upper Primary settings, as well as requester database and web traffic analysis.

Stage 2: intended to focus on gathering comparable data relating to Lower Primary settings in addition to quantitative data to place these findings in a broader context.

Key Findings:

  • Awareness of the “THINK! Education” resources was high, particularly among RSOs while Teachers were less likely than out-of-school group leaders to have previously visited the website.

  • The resources were seen as appropriate for the age groups they were aimed at in the settings for which they were developed, but perception of how engaging they were varied between teachers / group leaders and RSOs.

  • Teachers were more likely to have access to computers and the internet during education sessions than out-of-school leaders. RSOs also generally could not rely on computer or internet access during education sessions.

  • “THINK! Education” resources were viewed very positively by teachers and group leaders, with the vast majority finding them high quality or easy to use. RSOs were also positive about the quality of the resource.

Themes:

Child road safety, Education resources, Evaluation

Comments:

Robust, but doesn’t show the effectiveness of the resources in changing the behaviour of children.

Free