wp33 2017 mrr prelim establishing baseline for the 2017 ... no... · 2. literature review 8 2.1...

Establishing Baseline for the 2017 Revised Road Safety Education Module for Primary School through Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model

Hussain Hamid, PhD (UPM)

Low Suet Fin, PhD (MIROS)

Law Teik Hua, PhD (UPM)

Tan Kean Sheng, PhD (UPM)

Ng Choy Peng (UPM)

Nur Afifah Aisyah Mohmood Nor (MIROS)

Amelia Hazreena Abdul Ghani (MIROS)

Norainy Othman (MIROS)

Wong Shaw Voon, PhD (MIROS)

MRR No. 214


HussainHamid,PhD(UPM)LowSuetFin,PhD(MIROS)LawTeikHua,PhD(UPM)TanKeanSheng,PhD(UPM)NgChoyPeng(UPM)NurAfifahAisyahMohmoodNor(MIROS)AmeliaHazreenaAbdulGhani(MIROS)NorainyOthman(MIROS)WongShawVoon,PhD(MIROS)

____________________________________________________________________________________

© MIROS, 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Published by: Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS) Lot 125-135, Jalan TKS 1, Taman Kajang Sentral, 43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Hussain Hamid Research Report: Establishing Baseline for the 2017 Revised Road Safety Education Module for Primary School through Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model / Hussain Hamid, Low Suet Fin, Law Teik Hua, Tan Kean Sheng, Ng Choy Peng, Nur Afifah Aisyah Mohmood Nor, Amelia Hazreena Abdul Ghani, Norainy Othman, Wong Shaw Voon. (MRR No. 214) ISBN 978-967-2078-07-4 1. Traffic safety and children--Outlines, syllabi, etc. 2. Traffic safety--Study and teaching (Primary). I. Low, Suet Fin, Dr. II. Law, Teik Hua. III. Tan, Kean Sheng. IV. Ng, Choy Peng. V. Nur Afifah Aisyah Mohmood Noor. VI. Amelia Hazreena Abdul Ghani. VII. Norainy Othman. VIII. Wong, Shaw Voon, Dr. IX. Series. 614.8

Printed by:

Typeface: Calibri Size: 11 pt.

DISCLAIMER None of the materials provided in this report may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from MIROS. Any conclusion and opinions in this report may be subject to reevaluation in the event of any forthcoming additional information or investigations.


iii

Contents _____________________________________________________________________

Page

ListofTables vAcknowledgements viiAbstract ix1. Introduction 1

1.1 ReviewandDevelopmentofRevisedRSE2016inMalaysia 31.2 EvaluationofPilotImplementationoftheRevised 3 RSEinMalaysia1.3 EstablishmentofBaselinefortheEvaluation 4 1.3.1ResponsibilityofMIROS 4 1.3.2ResponsibilityofRSRCUPM 51.4 NeedsofStudy 51.5 ObjectivesofStudy 61.6 ScopeofStudy 7

2. LiteratureReview 82.1 CIPPModelforRSE 8

3. Methodology 113.1 SamplingLocations 113.2 StudyDuration 123.3 StudyImplementation 123.4 SampleSize 133.5 DataCollectionInstruments 143.6 StatisticalAnalyses 14


iv

4. ResultsandDiscussions 15

4.1 Contextual 154.2 InputandProcess 174.3 KnowledgeandBehaviour(Product1) 204.4 SpillOverEffects(Product2) 27

5. RecommendationsandConclusion 31References 34


v

List of Tables

Page

Table1 Selecteddistrictsforthestudy 11Table2 BaselinestudiesbasedontheCIPPmodelandtheresearch 12 organisationsinvolvedTable3 Samplesizeofresearch 13Table4 Methodsandinstrumentsusedinthesestudies 14Table5 StatisticalanalysesusedinCIPPmodelstudy 14Table6 Schoolavailabilityofteachingaidsfacilitieswithinsixdistricts 16Table7 Agree/DisagreeratioontwelvestatementsofRSE 18Table8 Descriptiveanalysisonteacher’soverallperceptiononRSE 19Table9 Roadsafetyknowledgeamongpre-schoolchildrentoyear5 20 studentsTable10 Roadsafetyknowledgeamongpre-schoolchildrenandyear1 22 studentsTable11 Roadsafetybehaviouramongyear2andyear3students 23Table12 Roadsafetybehaviouramongyear4andyear5students 25Table13 Parents’meanWTP(inRM) 28Table14 Parent-childroadsafetyinitiationsdiscussionamongpre-school 29 childrentoyear5students


vii

Acknowledgements TheauthorswouldliketoexpresstheirappreciationtoMalaysianInstituteofRoadSafety Research (MIROS) for providing the grant to conduct the study onEstablishing Baseline for the Revised Road Safety EducationModule for PrimarySchool2017throughContext,Input,ProcessandProduct(CIPP)Model.Alsoforhissupport towards the production of this integrated report. The authors’ gratitudealso goes out to Ministry of Education, Road Safety Department and all thestakeholders involved, partners, reviewers, relevant agencies/companies, researchparticipantsandothers.SpecialthanksalsogotomembersofRoadSafetyResearchCenter (RSRC),UPM, researchofficers, researchassistants and research fellowsofMIROS, who have worked hard, contributed their invaluable ideas, input, energyandtimetocompletethestudyontimeandfinallytheproductionoftheintegratedreport.This integrated report highlights the study conducted as part of the Project ofReviewandRedevelopofRSEmoduleforprimaryschoolleadbyMIROS.ThisstudyiscooperationbetweenUPMandMIROS.AgrantawardedbyMIROStoUPMisforastudy on the Context, Input and Process components of themodel.On the otherhand,RoadUserBehavioralChangeResearchCenter(RUBC)ofMIROSisresponsiblefor the study on the product component of the model. Research ManagementCompliance (RMC)ofMIROSplays the role inmonitoring theprocessof thestudyand of the integrated report. Both UPM andMIROS contributed their inputs andcontents for the integrated report and submitted the final report to MIROS forapprovalbeforepublication.


viii

Theauthorshopethatthisintegratedreportcanprovideinputsofthe10yearsRSEimplementations in all primary schools nationwide. These inputs establish thebaseline for the Revised Road Safety Education Module for Primary School 2017throughContext,Input,ProcessandProduct(CIPP)Model.


ix

Abstract Road Safety Education in Malaysia as a part of formal curriculum has beenimplemented in stages since 10 years ago. In 2015, Malaysian Institute of RoadSafety Research (MIROS) has conducted a study on Review of RSE Module forPrimaryandSecondarySchool.ThefindingsofthestudyhaveinitiatedRoadSafetyDepartmentMalaysia(RSD)toproposeforanallocationtoreviseandredeveloptheRSEModule.MIROSwas given the honor to carry out the project of Review andRedevelopmentofRSEModuleforPrimaryandSecondaryschoolsbesidesdeveloptheteachers’guideonRSEforthenurseryandpre-schoolsusingtheallocationgivento RSD. The finalmanuscript of the revisedRSEmodule for primary studentswasproducedandusedinthe24primaryschoolsselectedforpilotstudy.AstudytoestablishthebaselinefortheRevisedRoadSafetyEducationModulesforPrimarySchool2017throughContext,Input,andProcessandProduct(CIPP)Modelis needed todetermine the levelof knowledgeand skill about road safety amongtheprimary school studentsbecauseRSEhasbeennationwide implementedsince2007.ThisintegratedreportencompassesthefindingsoftheContext,Input,Processand Product (CIPP) study that is an improvement-oriented approach. It is togenerate the baseline in terms of the readiness of school, teachers and student,roadsafetyknowledgeandbehaviouramongthestudents,andthespillovereffectsfromstudentsonparents for thepilotstudyof therevisedRSEmodules in the24selectedprimaryschoolsinMalaysia.The contextual study established the baseline, which is actually the status ofschools’facilities,roadsafetyclubsandactivitiesthatsupportstheimplementationofthepreviousRSEmodulesinprimaryschoolsasofendoftheyear2016sinceitscommencement in theyear2007.Theoutcomefromcomparing thebaselinewiththepost-studyofthepilotrevisedRSEprogramhelpstoassessthehypothesisthat


x

availability of the internet access and the other supporting facilities enhance theteachingdeliveryby teachersand learningprocessof studentson the revisedRSEmodules. Currently, of the 24 pilot schools, 83% of schools have computerlaboratoryand79%have internetaccess,83%haveLCDscreenand71%haveLCDprojector.Asofendoftheyear2016,only21%ofthepilotschoolshaveroadsafetyclubsthatarestillactive (clubmembersarestudents fromYear4,5and6only).Apart fromthat,only4%ofschoolshavehadroadsafetyactivitiesor talks,andonly4%haveroadsafetycornersthatexhibitroadsafetymaterialsatthenoticeboards.Assuch,thepost-studywillseektomeasureiftheavailabilityorenhancementofroadsafetyactivities,clubs,androadsafetycornerscreateawarenessandknowledgeinputtobothteachersandstudents.With regard to facilities outside the school compound, the established baseline isthe availability of the School TrafficWarden Program. As of the end of the year2016,suchprogram isnotavailable inall24schools.Taking intoaccount that thisprogramisimportanttobooststudent’sappreciationandknowledgeinroadsafety,a post study will seek to identify if any of the schools have implemented theprogramin2017.In the Input-Process component study relating the initial perception of BahasaMelayu (BM) teachers on the implementation of RSE in primary schools, it wasfoundthat85%of themrated9outof10 for theiroverallopinionontheneedofRSEprograminschools.ThisestablishedbaselinerepresentstheirperceptionfromexperienceofteachingthepreviousRSEmodules.Thedevelopmentofinstrumentsinthepoststudywillobjectivelymeasuretheimprovementinteacher’sperceptionoftherevisedRSEmodulebycomparingtothepre-studyquestionnaires.Thebaselineof theproduct componentwereestablishedbasedon threeaspects,thatis,theroadsafetyknowledge,thebehaviourofthestudent,andthespillovereffectfromstudentstoparents.Asforthebehaviour,thefindingsrevealedthatlessthan50%ofthestudentsfrompre-school,Year1,Year2andYear3stated“always”


xi

onthreeoutofsixpositiveroadsafetybehaviouritem.However,thepercentageofstudents stated “always” in item “hold adults’ handwhen crossing street” is highwhichismorethan60%.AsforstudentsofYear4andYear5,lessthan40%ofthestudentsstated“always”onfouroutofsixpositivebehaviours item.Alltheabovefindingsareprevalentinbothurbanandruralareas.Besides that, the findings further illustrated that majority of students from pre-schooluntilYear5arestillnotawareontheimportanceofwearingbrightclothestoenhance their visibility and walking facing the traffic along the street. For thestudentsofpre-school,Year2andYear3,theyarealsonotawareoftheneedstowave at thedrivers before crossing the street. At the same time, very fewof theYear4andYear5studentshaveusedtheserviceoflollipopman,thisfindingcanbeexplained as the findings of the contextual component reported that very fewschoolshavetrafficwardenprograms.The baseline on road safety knowledge from pre-school to Year 5 has beenestablished.Thedifferentcutoffscoreonroadsafetyknowledgeforeachyearwasobtainedandwillbecomparedwiththescoreinthepoststageofthestudy.Asforthe pre-school students, 57.9% of them failed to answer correctly any of thequestionsprovidedwhichisrelatableaspre-schoolstudentshasnotexposetoroadsafety education. The cut off score for Year 1 students is at the scoreof 4whereonly11.7%ofthestudentshaveobtainedthisscore.ForYear2students,thecutoffscoreisatthescoreof9with13.0%ofthemgotthisscore.Meanwhile,theYear3studentsdemonstratedacutoffscoreof10with21%ofthemachievedthisscore.7isthecutoffscoreforstudentsofYear4,10.1%ofthempossessthisscore.Lastly,forstudentsofYear5,thecutoffscoreis13and12%ofthemholdthisscore.Besidesthat,thestudyusedWillingnesstopay(WTP)astheindicationforthespillover effect from students on parents. The protective category of FamilyCommunication Pattern contributed a mean WTP of RM919.41. Whereas,consensual category reported RM1,364.25 as the meanWTP. As for Leissez-fairecategory, themeanWTP is RM1,541.80. ThemeanWTP of pluralistic category isRM19,582.20. On the other hand, the baseline for the parent-child initiation


xii

discussiononthetopicofsafetyequipment,roadsafetyregulationsandroadsafetyexperience/viewswereestablished.Thestudentsofpre-schooluntilYear5reportedthe highest percentage that is more than 60% on the topic of road safetyexperience/views.A positive change for the baseline for all the components is expected as themoduleshavebeenrevisedduetothechangeofcurriculumfromtheNewPrimarySchoolCurriculum(KBSR)toStandardBasedCurriculumforPrimarySchools(KSSR).Besides that, themodules also have been amended in a few aspects, namely thetheme,contents,activities,teachingaidsandparents’involvement.


1

1. Introduction Road traffic injuries are the second-leading cause of death worldwide amongchildrenaged5–14yearsandyoungpeopleaged15–29years(WHO,2004).Variousstrategies and initiatives have been taken to reduce road traffic fatalities withcountriesworldwide committed to a decadeof action in reducing these fatalities.TheMalaysiangovernmentisalsocommittedtoreducingroadtrafficfatalities.TheMalaysianRoadSafetyPlan2006–2010wasdeveloped to achieve this targetwithoneofitsstrategiesbeingroadsafetyeducationforstudents.RoadSafetyEducation(RSE)programsaremeanttoinculcateroadsafetypracticesinstudents.RSEisalife-longlearningprocessandshouldbeginasearlyasprimaryschoollevel(RoadSafetyDepartment,2006),hencetheimportanceofintegratingitinto Malaysia’s education system. It teaches road safety topics and practicesthroughouttheentireschoollifeofachildfromprimaryschoolleveluntiltheendofsecondaryschoolsothatitcanbecomepartofthehabitualpracticesineverychild.Furthermore, it also aims to inculcateunderstandingnotonly among the childrenbutalsoamongparentsaboutthedangerofbeingontheroadandhowtobecomeabetterroaduserbypractisingappropriateroadsafetybehaviour.ThehistoricalfootstepsofRSEintheMalaysianschoolsystembeganwhentheRoadSafetyDepartment(RSD)underthepurviewofMinistryofTransport,togetherwiththe cooperation of the Ministry of Education agreed for a RSE pilot project inprimary students of Pasir Mas, Kelantan. The programme was implemented instagesateveryschoolandatthattimewasonlyaimedatstudentsinYear1,2and3.TheRoadSafetyResearchCenter(RSRC)ofUniversitiPutraMalaysia(UPM),asapioneer in road safety research, conducted the pilot project. On the basis of thesuccessof thepilotproject, theMinistryofEducation fully implementedRSE inallnational-type primary and vernacular primary schools from 2008 to 2010. In this


2

firstphase,agroupofresearchershadconductedanevaluationoftheeffectivenessofthisinterventionfromtheperspectivesof:

i. Knowledge,attitudeandpracticeofchildrenii. Observationalstudyonsafepracticesiii. Healthoutcomes

In the secondphaseofRSE intervention, road safetyeducationwas introduced tosecondarystudents in2012.TheRSEwasembedded intheBahasaMelayu(MalayLanguage)subjectandhenceislearnedthroughthelearningandteachingofBahasaMelayu. Consequently, as the subject is classroom oriented, the teaching andlearningofRSEwereconductedonlyintheclassroomwiththeintentiontoprovideknowledge, instilawarenessandpossibly inculcatepositiveattitudes towardsroadsafety practices. This phasewas evaluated by a team of researchers fromMIROSandUPM.BothteamsevaluatedtheeffectivenessofthesecondarymodulethroughContext,Input, Process and Product (CIPP) evaluation model. Context, Input and ProcessevaluationsweredonebyMIROS.Meanwhile, theproduct evaluationwas carriedoutbyUPM.Theeffectivenessof theproductelementswasevaluated fromthreeperspectives,whichare:

i. Knowledge,attitudeandperceivedbehaviourii. Observationalstudyonsafepracticesiii. Children’sinfluenceonparents’roadusebehaviour

In2014, thetechnicalcommittee for the implementationof roadsafetyeducationconvenedforameetingandagreedto launchareviewofRSEmodule forprimaryandsecondaryschools.Thisevaluationwasatimelyendeavourasthemodulehasbeenrunningoveraperiodofsevenyearsinprimaryschools.Moreover,thisreviewwas an essential restructuring exercise to address the change in the Malaysianeducationcurriculum.TheIntegratedCurriculumforPrimarySchoolsandIntegratedCurriculumforSecondarySchoolswerebeingrevampedtothenewPrimarySchoolStandard Curriculum and Secondary School Standard Curriculum. This study was


3

implementedsinceFebruary2015byMIROS.ThefindingsofthestudysuggestthattheRSEmoduleandactivitybooksthathavebeeninusesince2007inprimaryandsecondaryschoolsneedssomerevisionintermsofthecontentoftheactivitybooksandskillsonroadsafety.

1.1 Review and Development of Revised RSE 2016 in

MalaysiaTaking into account of the findings from the study done byMIROS in 2015, RSDproposed for an allocation to revise and revamp the RSE module. Hence, theimplementation of RSE received a boost during the tabling of the 11th MalaysiaParliament (MP). Through the allocation channelled to RSD,MIROSwas given thehonour to carryout theprojectofReviewandRedevelopmentofRSEModule forPrimary and Secondary schools besidesdeveloping the teachers’ guideonRSE forthenurseryandpre-schools.In2016,MIROShasconductedseriesofworkshopsby involvinga teamofBahasaMelayu teachers, language officers, School Improvement Specialist Coaches,DepartmentOfficersunderMinistryofEducation,roadsafetytechnicalinputpaneland subject matter experts from local universities to revise and redevelop theexisting RSE module for primary, secondary and pre-school students. The finalmanuscriptoftherevisedRSEmoduleforprimarystudentswasproducedandwillbeusedinthe24primaryschoolsselectedforthepilotstudy.

1.2 Evaluation of Pilot Implementation of the Revised

RSE in Malaysia Asof2017,revisedRSEmoduleforprimarystudentshasbeenusedin24selectedprimary school in Malaysia. In sequence with the implementation of revised RSEmodule,acommitteewasformedinvolvingarepresentativefromRSD,DepartmentOfficersunderMinistryof EducationandMIROS. Theestablishmentof committee


4

aims to monitor teaching and learning of revised RSE module from March toSeptemberinthreephases.Aftereachphase,ameetingwasheldamongcommitteememberstoreportontheprogressofimplementationofrevisedRSEmodule.Apartfrommonitoring visit, teachers are required to submit a report on feedback andfeasibility of themodule. Furthermore,MIROS also took an initiative to guide theteachers to improve the teaching of RSE in pilot schools and sharing road safetyinputwithteachersandstudents.Attheendofguidancevisit,technicalcommitteeandschooladministratorsitdownforasessiontodiscussmainlyonimprovingtheteachingofRSE.

1.3 Establishment of Baseline for the Evaluation AstudytoestablishthebaselinefortheRevisedRoadSafetyEducationModulesforPrimarySchool2017throughContext,InputandProcessandProduct(CIPP)modelisessentialtodeterminethelevelofknowledgeandskillaboutroadsafetyamongtheprimaryschoolstudentsasRSEhasbeennationwideimplementedsince2007.Itistogeneratethebaselineintermsofthereadinessofschool,teachersandstudent,roadsafetyknowledgeandbehaviouramongthestudents,andthespillovereffectsfromstudentsonparents for thepilotstudyof the revisedRSEmodules in the24selectedprimaryschoolsinMalaysia.

1.3.1 Responsibility of MIROS ThisstudyiscooperationbetweenMIROSandUPM.AgrantawardedbyMIROStoRSRCUPMisforastudyonContext, InputandProcesscomponentofCIPPmodel.Ontheotherhand,MIROSisresponsibleforthestudyontheproductcomponentofthe model. MIROS plays a role in presenting research proposal and plans toResearchManagementandComplianceUnit(RMC)MIROSforapprovaltoconductthis study. After getting the approval, MIROS conduct the product study, whichconsistsofknowledge,behaviourandspillovereffectofroadsafetyknowledgeandbehaviour from students on parents. Besides, MIROS also responsible for


5

monitoring thedata collectionprocess tomake sureall the study (Context, Input,Process and Product) executed according to plan. When collecting and analysingdatawasdone,MIROSpresentedfindingandreportedtheprogressofthestudytoRSD. In addition, MIROS monitor expenditure made for all four aspects of theestablishment of the baseline study. Finally, responsibility MIROS to UPM is tofinalisetheintegratedreporttoensureitisproperlywritten.

1.3.2 Responsibility of RSRC UPM RSRC UPM was appointed by MIROS to conduct a study on Context, Input andProcesscomponentofCIPPmodel.Uponthisappointment,RSRCneedstopreparefor research proposal and presented to RMCMIROS for approval. After approvalprocessdone,RSRCconductsthedatacollectionandanalysingthedata.Next, thefindingof the study reported toMIROSbyRSRCUPM.Then,RSRCUPMorganiseswritingworkshopandmeetingwithMIROStoproducethisintegratedreport.Draftof the integratedreportwas thensubmittedtoMIROSmanagement for reviewingandtheRSRCUPMresponsibilitytoamendthereportbasedonthecommentgiven.The process is completed when the MIROS management give the approval topublishthisintegratedreport.

1.4 Needs of Study There is a huge need to study the feasibility and effectiveness of the revised RSEmodule forprimarystudents.Therefore, the revisedRSEmodulewillbepiloted inselectedprimary schools nationwide.Abaseline study is needed in the year 2016beforetherevisedRSEmoduleisusedduringthepilotperiodin2017.TheContext,Input, Process and Product (CIPP) model introduced by Stufflebeam in the late1960sisusedasanassessmentapproach.Thismodelisanimprovements-orientedapproachthataimstoprovideknowledgeandvaluebaseformakinganddefendingdecisions,whichleadtoimprovingprograms.


6

Context (C) involves the assessment of the existing facilities and infrastructuresavailable at the participating schools that could boost the learning of the RSEmodule whereas, the Input (I) and Process (P) evaluation involve the teachers’feedback towards implementation of the revised RSEmodule at the schools. TheProduct (P) element concludes the model by assessing the students’ ability tocomprehend,practiceandsharethelessonslearnedfromthemodule.Context, InputandProcessevaluationsof theCIPPmodelwerecarriedoutby theRoadSafetyResearchCentre,UniversitiPutraMalaysiaresearchteamappointedasa consultant for this projectwhereasMIROS conducted theproduct evaluationoftheCIPPmodel.

1.5 Objectives of Study Theobjectivesofthisprojectare:

i. To measure contextual readiness in terms of school facilities, existingsupporting programs, and school community perception on revised RSEmodule.

ii. To determine the input factors that influence the revised RSE moduleimplementation, associated factors in teachers’ confidence and theassociated factors in teachers’ training and to provide feedback on theimplementationprocesschainoftherevisedRSEmoduleinprimaryschools.

iii. Toevaluatetheshort-termeffectivenessoftherevisedRSEmoduleamongprimarystudentsintermsofroadsafetyknowledgeandbehaviours.

iv. ToinvestigatetheRSEspillovereffectfromthestudentstoparentsonsaferoadusebehaviourbyadoptingFamilyCommunicationPattern inordertomeasuredimensionsthatleadtotheincreaseofspilloverfromchildrentoparents.


7

1.6 Scope of Study After almost 10 years of RSE implementation, revised RSE module has beendevelopeddue to changes in curriculum from theNewPrimarySchoolCurriculum(KBSR) to Standard Based Curriculum for Primary Schools (KSSR). Besides, theadvancement of education that introduced the use of media sources and 21st-century teaching approach influenced the need to develop revised RSE module.Hence, this studydesigned to establish a baseline for revisedRSEmodule in pilotschool selected.The targetstudents involved in thebaselinestudyarepre-school,Year1toYear5students,BahasaMelayuteachersYear1toYear5,KetuaPanitiaBahasaMelayu, Road Safety Club advisors/teachers at the selected schools in sixdistricts. A post-studywill be conducted to verify the baseline established duringthisstudyoncethepilotperiodiscompleted.


8

2. Literature Review Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) model was first introduced byStufflebeam in the late 1960s (Stufflebeam, 1969). This technique has beenformulated to facilitatemanagers’ decision-making process, and it can assess theprogram from the earliest stages of initiation, execution and terminationcomprehensively and systematically (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). The CIPPmodel isan improvements-orientedapproachthataimstoprovideknowledgeandvaluebaseformakinganddefendingdecisions,whichleadtoimprovingprograms.Thismodelhasbeenappliedforvariouseducationalprogramsevaluationinhighereducation (Alimohammadi, Rezaeian, Bakhshi, & VaziriNejad, 2013; Allahvirdiyani,K., 2011; Mohebbi et al., 2011; Pakdaman, Soleimani Shayesteh, Kharazi fard, &Kabosi,2011).

2.1 CIPP Model for RSE It is an established fact that contextual readiness in terms of school facilities andexistingsupportingprogramsareimportantprerequisiteconditionsthatwillhelpintheeffectiveimplementationoftheRSEmodule.Itisveryimportantthatemphasisshould also be placed on the contextual readiness both before and after theimplementation.ThiscontextstudymeasurestheneedfortheRSEprogramstudentsandteachers.Italso covers supporting programs related to road safety in schools, and facilitiesaroundtheschoolinordertopromoteroadsafetyandtoensurethesafetyoftheirstudentswhilecommutingtoandfromschools.


9

The teachers’ role is critical in any successful implementation of curriculum ormodule. Inordertoevaluatetheeffectivenessofanymodule implementation,theteacher’sinputsuchastheirinitialperceptionoftheRSEprogram.Issuesrelatingtoteachers’ proficiencies and practices are important as influencing factors in thesuccess of module implementation. Teachers’ understanding, skills, training andconfidence;schoolsupport,andteachingconstraintsarepotentialfactorsthatcouldinfluencetheeffectiveimplementationofamodule.The objectives of this study are to determine the factors that influence PrimarySchool RSE module implementation, to see the associated factors in teachers’confidence and the associated factors in teachers’ training. The input studymeasures the association among the influencing factors, namely, teachers’ RSEunderstanding and skills; teachers’ confidence, school support and teachingconstraintsincludingRSEpolicies,whichcouldaffecttheimplementationoftheRSEmodule. It also assesses the association of RSE understanding and skills towardsteachers’ confidence in teaching the RSE module and; association of RSEunderstandingandskillstowardsteachers’RSEtraining.TheRSEexecutionstatus (fullyexecuted,partiallyexecutedornotexecuted)ofallunitsoftheRSEmoduletostudentsinthespecifiedtimeframewillbecapturedintheprocessstage.Expectationsofawarenessandattitudechangeoutcomesshouldconsider theextenthowallunitswereexecutedandunderstoodby the students.Certain schoolsmight implement themodule successfully,while the othersmightpartiallycovera fewmoduleatdifferent stagesbasedoncontextual conditionsattheschools.The objective of the process study is to provide feedback on the extent ofimplementationoftheRSEmodulein24pilotedschoolsinsixdistrictsnationwide.Theprocessstudydeterminedtheextentof implementationoftheRSEmodulebymeasuringthemodule’sstageofcompletionbyteachers.


10

The study of the curriculum or module effectiveness looks into the outcomeresultingfromitsimplementation.Students’performanceisanimportantindicatorto indicate the effectiveness of any curriculum or module implementation. Thestudents’ performance can be assessed from multiple perspectives, and theseoutcomesare considered tobea very importantpartof theCIPPmodel. TheRSEmodulewas designed tomake students understand the dangers and risks on theroad, develop skills needed and become a prudent road user. Therefore, threemeasures were identified to assess the outcome of RSE. These measures wereknowledge, behaviours and children’s influence on parents’ behaviour. Thesemeasures will be compared before and after the revised RSE moduleimplementationatschools.


11

3. Methodology Overall, the baseline study method encompasses the sampling locations to berepresentative of primary schools in Malaysia, the duration of the study for theresults of the pre-and-post study to be evident enough for inference, theimplementationof the study, the study sample size, the instrumentsused indatacollectionsandalsostatisticalanalysesemployedfor therespectivebaselinestudythroughCIPPmodel.

3.1 Sampling Locations The study was carried out at six zones consisting of six states in Malaysia. Theselection of zones was made based on statistics from Royal Malaysian Police.Highestnumbersofcrashcasesinvolvingthoseaged6to12yearsoldatrespectivedistrictswereshortlistedbeforefinalisingthelocations.SixdistrictswereidentifiedaslistedinTable1.Fourschoolsineachdistrictwererandomlyselected.Selectionsofschoolsarerepresentativeofnationalandvernacularschoolsinselecteddistricts.Table1Selecteddistrictsforthestudy

No. Location Zone State District Type1

PeninsularMalaysia

Northern Kedah KualaMuda Rural2 Central Selangor PetalingJaya Urban3 EastCoast Kelantan KotaBharu Urban4 Southern Melaka AlorGajah Rural5

EastMalaysiaSabah KotaKinabalu Urban

6 Sarawak Miri Rural


12

3.2 Study Duration ThestudieswerecarriedoutinOctober2016beforethepilotschoolsreceivedtherevisedRSEmodulein2017.

3.3 Study Implementation Asmentionedearlieron,thisstudycoversthebaselineoftherevisedRSEmodulein24selectedschoolsforthepilot.BasedontheCIPPmodel,RSRCUPMisresponsibleforthestudyofContext,Input,ProcesscomponentswhereasMIROSistostudytheproduct component. The Context and Input-Process components focused on theschool facilities and activities, built environment, and teachers’ perception on theimplementationofRSEmodule.Theproductcomponentfocusedonknowledgeandbehaviours,andthespillovereffectsofRSEfromstudentstoparents.Table2belowprovidesthesummaryofbaselineCIPPmodelimplementationstudy.Table2BaselinestudiesbasedontheCIPPmodelandtheresearchorganisationsinvolved

BaselineCIPPimplementation Context Input&Process Product1 Product2

Research1 Research2 Research3 Research4 Tomeasurecontextual

readinessintermsofschoolfacilities,existingsupportingprograms,and

schoolcommunityperceptiononrevisedRSEmodule.

Todeterminetheinputfactorsthat

influencetherevisedRSEmodule

implementation,associatedfactorsinteachers’confidenceandtheassociatedfactorsinteachers’trainingandto

providefeedbackontheimplementation

Toevaluatetheshort-term

effectivenessoftheRSEmoduleamongprimarystudentsintermsofroadsafetyknowledgeandbehaviours.

ToinvestigatetheRSEspillovereffectfromthe

studentstoparentsonsaferoadusebehaviourby

adoptingFamilyCommunication

Patterninordertomeasure

dimensionsthatleadtotheincrease


13

processchainoftherevisedRSEmoduleinprimaryschools.

ofspilloverfromchildrentoparents.

RSRC,UPM RSRC,UPM MIROS MIROS

3.4 Sample Size

The baseline study for this pilot revised RSE project conducts measurementsencompassing the schools, students, BahasaMelayu (BM) teachers, co-curriculumteachersandparentsfromatotalof24primaryschoolsinsixdistricts.Eachdistrictisrepresentedbyfourprimaryschools.Table3showsthesamplesizeforallstudies,namely Context, Input & Process, Knowledge & Behaviour, and Spill Over Effectsfrom children to parents. The co-curriculum teachers were involved in theContextual study, Input and Process study involved the BM teachers, KnowledgeandBehaviourstudyinvolvedinteractionswiththestudents,whileSpillOverEffectinvolvedparentsofthestudents.Table3Samplesizeofresearch

BaselineCIPPimplementation Context Input&Process Product1 Product2

Research1 Research2 Research3 Research4No.ofschools 24 24 24 24No.ofteachers 24 194 - -No.ofteachers - - Pre-school:400

Year1:410Year2:392Year3:404Year4:403Year5:424

Total:2433

2460

No.ofparents - - - 2238


14

3.5 Data Collection Instruments Surveyconductedthroughquestionnairesisusedforallthesebaselinestudies.ThedetailsofsurveyandinstrumentsusedarelistedinTable4below:Table4Methodsandinstrumentsusedinthesestudies

Method Instrument StudyinvolvedSurvey Questionnaire,off-beatfieldsurvey ContextSurvey Questionnaire Input&processSurvey Questionnaire Knowledge&behaviourSurvey Questionnaire Spillovereffect

3.6 Statistical Analyses The statistical tests employed for data analysis used the software SPSS (StatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences).Table5indicatestheCIPPstudyanditsrespectiveanalyses.Table5StatisticalanalysesusedinCIPPmodelstudy

Software Typeofanalyses ContextInput&process

Knowledge&behaviour

Spillovereffect

SPSS

Descriptive √ √ √ √Oddsratio √

Logisticregression √Factoranalysis √


15

4. Results and Discussions The CIPP model which is an improvement-oriented method as employed in thisrevised RSE module in primary schools encompasses the assessments of existingschool facilities,built environmentaround the school, co-curriculumactivities, theBahasaMelayuteachers’readinessandperceptiontowardsthe implementationoftherevisedRSEmodule,thestudents’knowledgeandbehavioursinrelatedtoroadsafety, and also the spill over effect through family communication patterns. ThissectiondiscussedonfindingsfromCIPPmodeltoestablishabaselinefortherevisedRSEmoduleforprimaryschools.

4.1 Contextual Thebaselineinformationthroughcontextualassessmentofthe24primaryschoolswill enable post study to identify the link between school context and theimprovement of implementation and teachers’ perception of the revised RSEmoduleinprimaryschools.Overall,thetotalnumberofprimaryschoolstudentsinallthe24pilotedschoolsis14,547whilethetotalnumberofBahasaMelayuteachersintheprimaryschoolsis241.Thatgivesaratioofabout60studentsperoneBahasaMelayuteacher.About80%ofBahasaMelayuteachersarefemale.Allthe24schoolshavenotyetreceivedtherevisedRSEmoduleasofmid-January2017.As for the electronic and ICT facilities, Table 6 indicated that not all schools havecomputer laboratories, LCD screen and most importantly internet access.Improvementsshouldbe looked into item1-5,andthe influenceof thesefacilitiesonRSEimplementationcanbemeasuredduringthepost-study.


16

Table6Schoolavailabilityofteachingaidsfacilitieswithinsixdistricts

Item Teachingaidfacility Schoolsavailability(%)1 Computerlaboratory 832 LCDscreen 833 Internetaccess 794 LCDprojector 715 PortableCDplayer 676 VCDplayer 637 Audiovisualroom 588 DVDplayer 54

Most schools under study haveminimal road safety programs or activities so far.Only4%hadroadsafetytalksorganisedbythestudentsandteachersintheschool,butnonetookpartinanyroadsafetyactivitiesorganisedoutoftheschool.Sofar,29%havehadaroadsafetyclubbefore,and21%werestillactiveintheyear2016.AllroadsafetyclubmembersarestudentsfromYear4,5and6.Withregardto the Guidelines of Road Safety Club in Primary Schools documents, only 4% ofschoolsacquireditand8%referstotheguidelinesdocument.Mostschoolsdonotkeepdocumentsofpreviousroadsafetyclubs.Only4%of the schoolshaveaRoadSafetyCornerwithin their school compoundslocated in the co-curriculum activities notice boards. Meanwhile, among thecommonroadsafetymaterialsfoundwithintheschoolcompoundsaresafetycones(58%)andtrafficsigns(4%).However, none of the schools has the School TrafficWarden Program.Under theinitiativeoftheschoolmanagement,about8%oftheseschoolscontributedtotheguardreflectivejacketsandredcolouredflagstoactasatrafficwardenduringthearrivalandleavingtimesoftheprimarystudents.Ahighpercentageofschoolsunderstudyhavetrafficcalmingfacilities(92%)suchasspeedhumpsandrumblestripson the roadsoutside theschoolcompound.Apart


17

from that, about 71%has pedestrian zebra crossings on the roadswhile 13%haspedestrianwalkways. Specialparking facility forbicycles is available in71%of theschools.Further, outside the school areas, 71%of themhavebusbays, 79%pick-up zone,21%waitingareaforstudentsand8%withentrance/exitinthebackofschoolawayfromtraffic.Amongothertrafficsignsthatareavailableintheschoolcompoundarespeedhumps(67%),one-waystreet(13%),pedestriancrossing(4%),speedlimit30km/h(4%).

4.2 Input and Process TheInput-ProcessbaselinestudyfocusesontheinitialperceptionofBMteachersontheimplementationofRSEprogramsinprimaryschools.Itisimportanttonotethattheseteachersinthepilotedprimaryschoolshaveanaverageteachingexperienceof 3 years. Therefore, they had gone through the existing RSE module. Theirperceptions of issues related to the implementation of RSE transcribed from theanswered questionnaires would reflect their experience with the existing RSEmodule until the year 2016. The post-study would then be able to measure thedifference inperceptionsbetween theexistingand thenewly revisedRSEmoduleamongthe24pilotschools.Overall, the total number of primary school students in all the 24 schools understudyis14,547whilethetotalnumberofBMteachersteachinginprimaryschoolswhoparticipatedintheperceptionquestionnaireexerciseis194.Table 7 shows the perception scores with respect to positive and negativestatementsonRSE.Itindicatedthatmorethan85%ofBMteachersagreedthatRSEprogram is important, should be continued, effective to influence childrenbehaviour,exposesroadsafetytoteachersandtheprogramshouldbesupportedbyeveryone(statement1-5).


18

Itwas noted that the other groupof statements 6-9which have a ratio of below0.85 seems tobea little concernedabout theembedmentofRSE inBMsubjects,andalsowhetherRSEcanimprovetheunderstandingoftheBMsubjectitself.Asforstatements10-12,thesearethreenegativestatementsplacedinbetweentheotherninepositivestatements.Theratioof0.45-0.62thatagreedtheRSEprograminterferes with the teaching-learning of BM, a burden to teachers and should bediscontinued may not really reflect the actual opinions of the same sample ofteacherswhogenerallyagreedwiththepositivestatements1-9.A random check on the hardcopies of filled questionnaires found evidence thatsome of the students did not read each statement thoroughly before ticking theboxes fromStronglyDisagree toStronglyAgree.Maybe somestudentsdoaquickreading and think that all statements are positive towards the implementation ofRSEprograminprimaryschoolsandtheygenerallyagreedwiththeallstatements.It shouldbenoted that some truth in thenegative statements couldprevail, thusfurther scrutinising of the filled questionnaire hard copies should be done. This isessentialsothatitcanbenotedandcheckedagainduringthedevelopmentoftheinstrumentforthepoststudyinOctober2017.Theoverallteacher’sperceptionabouttheneedofRSEinprimaryschools isgood.Table8indicatedthatthe85thpercentilescoreis9,whilethe25thpercentilescoreis6.Themeanvalueof7.19andmedianof7also indicate that thedata isnormallydistributed.Table7Agree/DisagreeratioontwelvestatementsofRSE

Item StatementAgree/Disagreeratio

1 RSEprogramisimportantforprimarystudents 0.942 RSEprogramshouldbecontinuedtoimproveroadsafety 0.943 RSEprogramiseffectiveininfluencingstudentsbehaviour 0.90


19

4 RSEprogramalsoexposesroadsafetytoteachers 0.925 EveryoneshouldsupportRSE 0.846 RSEprogramcanproduceroadusersofpositivebehaviour 0.827 RSEprogramisaplatformtowardsreducingroadaccidents 0.768 EmbedmentofRSEinBMsubjectisappropriate 0.759 RSEprogramcanimprovetheunderstandingofBMsubject 0.6810 RSEprograminterfereswiththeteaching-learningofBM 0.6211 RSEprogramisaburdenonteachers 0.6112 RSE program should be discontinued because it fails to produce

outcome0.45

Table8Descriptiveanalysisonteacher’soverallperceptiononRSE

Descriptions Overallscore(1-10)Mean 7.19

Standarderror 0.13Median 7Mode 8

Standarddeviation 1.77Samplevariance 3.14

Kurtosis -0.27Skewness -0.28Range 8

Minimum 2Maximum 10

Sum 1394Count 194

25percentile 685percentile 9


20

4.3 Knowledge and Behaviour (Product 1) Theanalysisoftheproductcomponentcomprisesoftwoparts,i.e.theroadsafetyknowledge, and behaviour among pre-schools children to Year 5 students inMalaysia. These two parts covered all the contents from revised RSE moduledeveloped in 2016 through a project of “Review and Redevelopment of the RSEModule”.Forroadsafetyknowledgepart,sixitemshavebeendevelopedbasedonsixthemesofrevisedRSEmodule.Meanwhile,asfortheroadsafetybehaviourpart,10itemshavebeenallocatedforpre-schoolchildrenandstudentsofYear1,Year2andYear3whereas23itemswereallocatedforstudentsofYear4andYear5.Eachstatementisdesignedtoassessstudents’tendencyforengaginginsafebehaviours.Alltheitemsemphasiseonbehaviourrangefromcrossingtheroadandpedestrianbehaviour on the road. The score on road safety knowledge among pre-schoolchildrentoYear5studentsisasshowninTable9.Table9Roadsafetyknowledgeamongpre-schoolchildrentoyear5students

ScorePercentage(%)

Pre-school Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year50 57.9 1.2 1 0.5 0.2 4.2 0.72 3.2 0.7 1.0 0.23 4.2 1.2 2.2 1.7 4 13.0 11.7 0.7 0.8 4.9 0.25 11.5 39.0 5.2 0.8 4.4 0.96 9.7 47.1 3.9 0.5 2.2 2.17 4.9 6.3 10.1 1.48 2.2 3.5 18.5 9 13.0 4.3 6.7 2.410 22.4 21.0 3.5 7.111 12.0 12.8 8.4 4.912 20.6 4.3 24.0 1.613 12.8 6.3 9.1 12.014 39.8 32.715 33.6


21

Thefindingsshowthatabout57.9%ofpre-schoolchildrenfailedtoanswercorrectlyany of the related questions since pre-school children have no exposure to roadsafetyeducation.Ontheotherhand,studentsofeachyearshowthedifferentcut-offscoreforroadsafetyknowledge.Thisisbecausethequestionsweredesignedforeach year based on Bloom Taxonomy hierarchical alongwith six themes found inrevisedRSEmodule.Asforthepre-schoolchildren,57.9%ofthemfailedtoanswercorrectlyanyofthequestionsprovidedwhicharerelatable,aspre-schoolchildrenhavenotexposedtoroadsafetyeducation.Thecut-offscoreforYear1studentsisat the score of 4where only 11.7%of the students have obtained this score. ForYear2 students, thecut-off score isat thescoreof9with13.0%of themgot thisscore.Meanwhile,theYear3studentsdemonstratedacut-offscoreof10with21%of themachievedthisscore. Whereasthescoreof7 is thecut-off forstudentsofYear4,10.1%ofthempossessthisscore.Lastly,forstudentsofYear5,thecut-offscore is 13, and 12% of them hold this score. The cut-off score for road safetyknowledgeamongprimaryschoolstudentsduringpoststudyisexpectedtoimproveandthepercentageofthecut-offscorewillincreaserespectively.TheabsenceofteachingRSEintheclassroomisoneofthefactorsthatcontributedtostudents’scoreontheroadsafetyknowledge.ThefindingsofpreviousresearchstatedthatteacherslackedtimetoteachRSEmoduleduringBahasaMelayuperiod(Norainy et al., 2016). The methodology used by teachers also affects student’sunderstandingonRSE.Theteachershouldusetheeffectivemethodinteachingthecontent of RSE and achieving the objectives. Thus, to improve delivering of therevisedRSEmodule,teachersshouldbecompetentandwell-trainedbesidesbeingabletousetheeffectivemethodologyareessential(Assailly,2016).


22

Table10Roadsafetyknowledgeamongpre-schoolchildrenandyear1students

Item

Behaviour

Pre-school Year1Urban(%) Rural(%) Urban(%) Rural(%)

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

1 Wearbrightorwhiteclotheswhenwalkingatdusk

39.00

34.90

26.20

49.80

25.90

24.40

31.60

47.80

20.60

27.90

46.80

25.40

2 Crossthestreetwhenthegreenmansignalison

33.80

28.70

37.40

33.70

28.80

37.60

16.70

20.60

62.70

15.40

29.40

55.20

3 Walkdownthestreet,facingthecarsandtraffic

50.80

27.20

22.10

66.30

21.50

12.20

37.80

36.80

25.40

40.80

39.80

19.40

4 Holdadult'shandwhencrossingthestreet 4.

60

21.50

73.80

7.30

19.00

73.70

7.20

9.60

83.30

1.50

12.90

85.60

5 Lookingleft,thenright,andthenleftagainbeforecrossingthestreet 19

.50

20.50

60.00

18.00

25.90

56.10

4.80

17.70

77.50

5.00

21.40

73.60

6 Waveatthedriversbeforecrossingthestreet

52.80

24.60

22.60

56.10

19.50

24.40

49.30

27.80

23.00

51.70

26.90

21.40

7 Crossingthestreetbetweenparkedcars

73.30

15.40

11.30

83.40

6.30

10.20

68.40

20.60

11.00

81.60

12.90

5.50

8 Runwhencrossingastreettogettotheothersidefast

70.80

19.00

10.30

62.40

21.50

16.10

54.50

27.80

17.70

70.60

22.4

7.00

9 Ridebicycleinthestreet

72.80

19.00

8.20

78.00

10.20

11.70

73.20

20.60

6.20

87.60

8.50

4.00

10 Weardarkclotheswhenwalkingatnight

57.40

30.30

12.30

69.30

18.50

12.20

50.20

36.80

12.90

70.60

23.40

6.00


23

Table11Roadsafetybehaviouramongyear2andyear3students

Item

Behaviour

Year2 Year3Urban(%) Rural(%) Urban(%) Rural(%)

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

1 Wearbrightorwhiteclotheswhenwalkatdusk

20.60

54.40

25.00

39.40

35.60

25.00

36.70

41.20

22.10

28.80

55.60

15.60

2 Crossthestreetwhenthegreenmansignalison

29.40

26.00

44.60

16.50

36.70

46.80

22.10

25.10

52.80

15.10

28.30

56.60

3 Walkdownthestreet,facingthecarsandtraffic

33.30

43.10

23.50

38.80

42.60

18.60

29.10

45.20

25.60

46.80

37.10

16.10

4 Holdadult'shandwhencrossingthestreet 3.

90

19.10

77.00

20.20

17.60

62.20

5.00

16.10

78.90

3.40

21.50

75.10

5 Lookingleft,thenright,andthenleftagainbeforecrossingthestreet 3.

40

21.10

75.50

13.80

27.10

59.00

7.00

18.60

74.40

3.90

18.50

77.60

6 Waveatthedriversbeforecrossingthestreet

39.70

32.80

27.50

27.10

30.30

42.60

40.20

34.70

25.10

53.70

25.90

20.50

7 Crossingthestreetbetweenparkedcars

54.90

31.90

13.20

59.00

25.00

16.00

61.80

28.10

10.10

64.40

29.30

6.30

8 Runwhencrossingastreettogettotheothersidefast

62.70

28.40

8.80

72.30

22.30

5.30

54.80

30.20

15.10

62.90

31.70

5.40

9 Ridebicycleinthestreet

81.40

11.80

6.90

69.70

23.40

6.90

65.80

22.10

12.1

72.70

19.00

8.30

10 Weardarkclotheswhenwalkingatnight

30.40

51.00

18.60

28.70

37.80

33.50

52.30

42.20

5.50

33.70

61.00

5.40


24

Theanalysis reported thepositiveandnegative roadsafetybehaviouramongpre-schoolchildrentoYear3students intheurbanandruralarea(Table10andTable11).Thereweresixpositivebehaviours (item1to6)andfournegativebehaviours(item7to10)thathavebeenanalysedinthisstudy.Thefindingsrevealedthatlessthan50%ofthestudentsfrompre-school,Year1,Year2andYear3stated“always”on three out of six positive road safety behaviour items. These findings aredominantinbothurbanandruralareas.Themajorityofchildreninpre-schooluntilYear 3 student are still not aware of the importance ofwearing bright clothes toenhancetheirvisibility.Apartfromthat,theyarealsonotawareoftheimportanceof walking facing the traffic along the street and to wave at the drivers beforecrossing the street. However, the percentage of students stated “always” in item“holdadults’handwhencrossingstreet”ishighwhichismorethan60%.As a baseline, children did not engage in negative road safety behaviours whilebeingontheroad.However,theirperformanceonpositiveroadsafetybehavioursdoes not indicate their awareness of road traffic hazards. It is expected studentpositive behaviour will improve with the implementation of revised RSE module.However, it cannot be guaranteed that good command of road safety knowledgereflects the student’s behaviourwhen placed in real traffic environment (Berry&Romo, 2006; Zeedyk et al., 2001). According to Berry and Romo (2006), studentstendtogettheanswersrightbecauseoftheirexposuretotheRSEmodulebeforeand more concern about getting the right answers but not practising the rightbehaviourindailylife.


25

Table12Roadsafetybehaviouramongyear4andyear5students

Item

Behaviour

Year4 Year5Urban(%) Rural(%) Urban(%) Rural(%)

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

Never

Seldom

Always

1 Usealollipopman/ladywhenthereisoneavailable

42.20

33.70

24.10

37.70

41.20

21.10

41.00

31.50

27.50

25.90

42.40

31.70

2 Checktomakesurethetraffichascompletelystopbeforecrossingatapedestriancrossing 30

.70

26.60

42.70

19.60

36.80

43.60

8.50

33.00

58.50

6.70

39.70

53.60

3 Keeplookingandlisteningfortrafficuntilyougetallthewayacrosstheroad 8.

00

24.10

67.80

8.30

26.00

65.70

6.50

29.00

64.50

4.50

30.80

64.70

4 Walkintheroadfacingthetraffic

57.80

31.20

11.10

39.70

44.10

16.20

40.50

45.50

14.00

27.20

55.40

17.40

5 Wearbrightorreflectiveclothingwhenoutonfootinthedark 70

.40

18.10

11.60

68.60

20.10

11.30

73.50

18.00

8.50

67.40

20.50

12.10

6 Wearhelmetwhileridingabicycle

67.80

14.60

17.60

73.00

19.10

7.80

65.00

16.50

18.50

80.40

12.90

6.70

7 Forgettolookproperlybecause

youareusingamobilephone

82.40

15.10

2.50

88.70

10.80

0.50

86.50

7.50

6.00

91.50

8.00

0.40

8 Forgettolookproperlybecauseyouarethinkingaboutsomethingelse 68

.30

25.60

6.00

69.60

27.90

2.50

71.00

24.50

4.50

70.50

26.80

2.70

9 Forgettolookproperlybecauseyouaretalkingtofriendswhoarewithyou 81

.9

13.6

4.5

79.4

18.1

2.5

78

19

3

70.5

28.1

1.3

10 Crosswhethertrafficiscomingornot,thinkingthatthetrafficshouldstopforyou 69

.80

25.10

5.00

76.00

19.10

4.90

78.00

20.00

2.00

71.90

25.00

3.10


26

11 Notlookbecauseyoucan'thearanytrafficaround

78.90

14.60

6.50

82.40

16.20

1.50

77.00

19.50

3.50

72.30

25.00

2.70

12 Thinkyouhaveenoughtimetocrosssafely,butacariscomingfasterthanyouthought 73

.40

18.10

8.50

64.20

29.90

5.90

62.00

26.50

11.50

67.00

31.30

1.80

13 Climboverbarriersorrailingsthatseparatetheroadfromthepavement 80

.90

15.10

4.00

88.20

11.30

0.50

85.00

11.50

3.50

83.90

13.80

2.20

14 Notusepedestriancrossingnearbytocrosstheroad

48.20

30.70

21.10

70.10

20.60

9.30

65.00

28.50

6.50

65.20

24.60

10.30

15 Havetostopquicklyorturnbacktoavoidtraffic

74.40

22.10

3.50

69.60

27.50

2.90

66.00

25.00

9.00

67.00

28.10

4.90

16 Gethalfwayacrossaroadandthenhavetoruntherestofthewaytoavoidtraffic 88

.40

8.00

3.50

93.60

4.90

1.50

91.50

6.00

2.50

90.60

6.30

3.10

17 Crosstheroadbehindparkedvehicles

61.30

29.60

9.00

41.70

47.10

11.30

32.50

48.00

19.50

28.60

56.30

15.20

18 Crosswithoutwaitingforgreenmansignalatapedestriancrossing 69

.80

19.60

10.60

70.10

20.60

9.30

80.50

13.00

6.50

87.10

10.30

2.70

19 Maketrafficstoporslowdownthetraffictoletyoucrossthestreet 42

.20

34.20

23.60

34.80

41.70

23.50

30.00

49.00

21.00

35.70

46.40

17.90

20 Seeasmallgapinthetrafficandgoforit

67.80

22.60

9.50

58.30

33.30

8.30

54.00

35.50

10.50

57.10

35.70

7.10

21 Playingaroundattheroad

83.40

12.60

4.00

82.80

15.20

2.00

78.00

14.00

8.00

76.80

16.50

6.70

22 Playatthestreetandunawareofvehicle'sapproaching

85.90

11.60

2.50

85.30

12.70

2.00

83.50

15.00

1.50

87.50

10.70

1.80

23 Hangaroundintheroadtalkingtofriends

73.40

18.10

8.50

73.50

19.10

7.40

82.50

14.00

3.50

79.00

16.50

4.50


27

TheanalysisreportedthepositiveandnegativeroadsafetybehaviouramongYear4andYear5student in theurbanandruralarea (Table12).Thereweresixpositivebehaviours(item1to6)andseventeennegativebehaviours(item7to23)thathavebeenanalysedinthisstudy.AsforstudentsofYear4andYear5, lessthan40%ofthe students stated “always” on four out of six positive behaviours item. All theabovefindingsareprevalent inbothurbanandruralareas. It isrevealedthatonly30%ofthestudentshadusedtheserviceoflollipopman.Perhapsnotmanyschoolshaveschoolguardswhoalsoactasalollipopmanduringschoolarrivalandleavinghours. Overall, the finding showed thatmajority of Year 4 student adoptedmorepositivebehaviourthantheYear5student,andengagedlessinnegativebehaviourthanYear5student.Furthermore,theresultalsorevealedthatstudentintheurbanareaishavingmorepositivebehaviourthanstudentsintheruralarea.The road safetybehaviouramongprimary school students isexpected to improveafter the implementation of revised RSE module. During the post stage, studystudentsaremorelikelyawareofwearingbrightorwhiteclotheswhenwalkingatnight, aware the importance of facing traffic while walking down the street andwavetodriversbeforecrossing.

4.4 Spill Over Effects (Product 2) The spill over effect of road safety knowledge and behaviour from students onparents is indicated by the Willingness to Pay (WTP). Besides, FamilyCommunication Pattern (FCP) variable is included to explain the effect of familycommunicationtowardsthespilloverofRSEfromstudentsonparents.AsforFCP,thisstudyfoundthatpluralistichasthehighestmeanofWTPamongparents inalllevelofstudentsfollowedbyprotectivecategories.


28

Table13Parents’meanWTP(inRM)

Studentlevel FCP WTP(RM)Pre-school 868.33

Leissez-faire 1,204.66Protective 322.29Pluralistic 1,261.67Consensual 684.68

Year1 1,308.28Leissez-faire 2,095.84Protective 488.65Pluralistic 1,338.21Consensual 1,310.41

Year2 701.91Leissez-faire 703.22Protective 311.51Pluralistic 1,083.38Consensual 709.54

Year3 2,268.30Leissez-faire 1,744.82Protective 2,818.33Pluralistic 2,189.73Consensual 2,320.30

Year4 28,645.37Leissez-faire 2,276.77Protective 656.25Pluralistic 110,725.97Consensual 922.49

Year5 2013.13Leissez-faire 1,225.49Protective 3,546.73Pluralistic 894.21Consensual 2,238.09


29

ThefindingsrevealedthatthemeanWTPofRM919.41iscontributedbyprotectivecategoryofFamilyCommunicationPattern.Whereas,consensualcategoryreportedRM1,364.25 as the mean WTP. As for Leissez-faire category, the mean WTP isRM1,541.80. The mean WTP of the pluralistic category is RM19,582.20. It isexpectedthatthemeanofWTPamongparentinpostsurveygroupwillincreaseascompared to thebaseline surveygroup,proving thepositiveeffectof revisedRSEmodule.Table14 Parent-childroadsafetyinitiationsdiscussionamongpre-schoolchildrentoyear5

students

Studentlevel

SafetyequipmentRoadsafetyregulations

Sharingwithparentonroadsafety

experience/viewsNo Yes No Yes No Yes

Pre-school175 225 141 198 102 23743.6% 56.1% 41.6% 58.4% 30.1% 69.9%

Year1222 191 152 224 95 28058.3% 46.2% 40.4% 59.6% 25.3% 74.5%

Year2174 234 170 201 134 23742.6% 57.4% 45.8% 54.2% 36.1% 63.9%

Year3202 203 139 198 95 24249.9% 50.1% 41.2% 58.8% 28.2% 71.8%

Year4205 203 167 213 118 26250.2% 49.8% 43.9% 56.1% 31.1% 68.9%

Year5165 260 172 203 120 25538.8% 61.2% 45.9% 54.1% 32.0% 68.0%

Total1143 1316 1019 1158 664 151346.5% 53.5% 46.8% 53.2% 30.5% 69.5%


30

On the other hand, the baseline for the parent-child initiation discussion on thetopicofsafetyequipment,roadsafetyregulationsandroadsafetyexperience/viewsare established. The students of pre-school until Year 5 reported the highestpercentage. It recorded more than 60% on the topic of road safetyexperience/views.Thecontentofparent-childinitiationdiscussionisexpectedtobewiderwhichwould include the topic of safety equipment, road safety regulationsbesides road safety experience/views. Spill over effect will increase by increasingthe mean of WTP due to a broader scope of content in parent-child initiationdiscussion.


31

5. Recommendations and Conclusion Thecontextualstudyconductedamongthepilot24primaryschoolsfoundthat83%ofschoolshavecomputerlaboratoryand79%haveinternetaccess.Inaddition,83%of the schools have LCD screen and 71% have LCD projector. These are usefulbaseline information so that the post-study at the end of the year 2017 couldinvestigatetoseeifthesefacilitiesarethenavailableintheschoolsthatdonothavethempreviously.TheideaistoassessthehypothesisthatavailabilityoftheinternetaccessandtheothersupportingfacilitiesenhancetheteachingdeliverybyteachersandlearningprocessofstudentsontherevisedRSEmodules.Anotherimportantaspectofcontextualstudyforbaselineinformationisregardingroad safety clubs, road safety activities organised in andout of schools, and roadsafety corners and.As of the endof the year 2016, only 21%of thepilot schoolshaveroadsafetyclubsthatarestillactive(clubmembersarestudentsfromYear4,5and6only).Apartfromthat,only4%ofschoolshavehadroadsafetyactivitiesortalks,andonly4%haveroadsafetycornersthatexhibitroadsafetymaterialsatthenoticeboards.Theavailabilityofroadsafetyactivities,clubs,cornersisimportanttocreateawarenessandknowledgeinputtobothteachersandstudents.Assuch,thepost-studywillseektomeasureonanyenhancementinthesesupportingactivitiesthatincreaseteacher’sperceptionandstudent’sknowledgeinroadsafety.With regard to facilities outside the school compound, the baselines that areestablishedaretheavailabilityoftheSchoolTrafficWardenProgram.Asoftheendof the year 2016, there is no such program available in all 24 schools. Since thisprogramisimportanttobooststudent’sappreciationandknowledgeinroadsafety,a post-study will seek to identify if any of the schools have implemented theprogramin2017.


32

IntheInput-ProcesscomponentstudyrelatingtheinitialperceptionofBMteacherson the implementation of RSE in primary schools, itwas found that 85%of themrated9outof10 for theiroverallopinionontheneedofRSEprogram inschools.ThisbaselinerepresentstheirperceptionfromexperienceofteachingthepreviousRSE modules. The development of instruments to objectively measure theimprovementoftherevisedRSEmoduleinthepoststudyneedtotakeintoaccountofthepre-studyquestionnaires.Based on the findings, it is recommended a few aspects of the contextualcomponentneedtobeimproved.Theschoolshouldhavetheinitiativestoestablishroad safety club and to plan road safety activities by inviting road safety officersfromRSDtoprovideroadsafetytalks.Besidesthat,theschoolshouldprovideroadsafety corners to display important infographic related to road safety. As noneoftheschoolhavinglollipopman,itissuggestedthattheschoolcanseektrainingfromstateRSDtoprovideroadsafetytrainingtotheexistingsecurityguardoftheschool.From the product study, the findings of road safety knowledge and behavioursuggest there is a need for several courses of actions in order to enhance theeffectiveness of revised RSEmodule in future. The use ofmedia sources such asaudio and video enable the teaching material to communicate well with thestudentsandfurtherenhancetheirunderstandingof thematerial taught.Throughthisprocess,studentsareabletorecallnewknowledgeandtransfertheinputsintobehaviourthattheypracticeindailylife.Inordertoenhancestudent’sroadsafetyknowledge, teachersneed to coverallRSE topics in themodule.Besides that, theteachershouldbeabletoapply21st-centuryteachingapproachesthatintegratetheuseof current technologies, problem-based approaches andhigherorder thinkingskills.Thecontentofthemoduleshouldemphasiseonpedestrianbehaviourontheroad because finding reported students lack awareness on positive pedestrianbehaviourwhenontheroad.


33

Thefindingsalsostatedalthoughthereisspillovereffectfromstudentsonparentsaboutroadsafety,moreeffortsarerequiredtoincreasetheinvolvementofparents.The FCP and child-parent initiation discussion on topics about road safety andinstilling the road safety awareness among the childrenmay help to achieve thisobjective.In conclusion, the performance of students on road safety behaviour is at anaveragelevelwhilestudents’roadsafetyknowledgeisfair.Thiscouldbeduetothepositive impact of the implementation of previous RSE module. Seriousconsiderations on the student’s practices on positive road safety behaviour areimportantsincemostof theMalaysiansuseroadstoschoolandotherplacesonadaily basis. Besides that, parents need tobe road safety rolemodels andprimarytrainers in road safety skills to their children. The FCP and child-parent initiationdiscussionontopicsaboutroadsafetyareappropriate.TheinputsofthisstudyestablishedthebaselineforthepoststudyofRevisedRoadSafety EducationModule in Primary School 2017 through Context, Input, Processand Product (CIPP). Positive changes from the baseline for all the components isanticipatedasthemoduleshavebeenrevisedduetothechangeofcurriculumfromthe New Primary School Curriculum (KBSR) to Standard Based Curriculum forPrimarySchools(KSSR).Besidesthat,themoduleswereamendedinafewaspects,namelythetheme,contents,activities,teachingaidsandparent’sinvolvement.


34

References Alimohammadi, T., Rezaeian, M., Bakhshi, H., & VaziriNejad, R. (2013). The

evaluation of the medical school faculty of Rafsanjan University of medicalsciencesbasedontheCIPPmodel in2010.JournalofRafsenjanUniversityofMedicalSciences,12(3),205-218.

Allahvirdiyani, K. (2011). Evaluate implemented academic advisor of shahed

students in Tehran State Universities through CIPP evaluation model.Procedia-SocialandBehaviouralSciences,15,2996-2998.

Assailly,J.P.(2016).Patienteducationandcounselingroadsafetyeducation:What

works? Patient Education and Counseling, (2015), 1–6.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.017

Ben-bassat,T.,&Avnieli,S.(2016).Theeffectofaroadsafetyeducationalprogram

forkindergartenstudentontheirparents’behaviorandknowledge.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,95,78–85.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.06.024

Berry,D.S.,&Romo,C.V.(2006).Should“CyrustheCentipede”takeahike?Effects

ofexposuretoapedestriansafetyprogramonstudent'ssafetyknowledgeandself-reportedbehaviors,37,333–341.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2006.05.003

Mohebbi, N., Akhlaghi, F., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Khoshgam, M. (2011).

ApplicationofCIPPmodelforevaluatingthemedicalrecordseducationcourseatmaster of science level at Iranianmedical sciences universities.Procedia-SocialandBehaviouralSciences,15,3286-3290.


35

Pakdaman, A., Soleimani Shayesteh, Y., Kharazi fard, M. J., & Kabosi, R. (2011).Evaluation of the achievement of educational objectives of the communityoralhealthandperiodonticsdepartmentsusingtheCIPPmodelofevaluation–students'perspective.JournalofDentalMedicine,24(1),20-25.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1969). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making. In A.

Walcott (Ed.), improving educational assessment and an inventory ofmeasuresofaffectivebehaviour.Washington,DC:AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and

applications.Wiley.


Designed by: MIROS

: :: :

-

wp33 2017 mrr prelim establishing baseline for the 2017 ... no... · 2. literature review 8 2.1...

Documents