Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 5–6, pp 931–941 | Cite as

Evaluation of a gamified e-learning platform to improve traffic safety among elementary school pupils in Belgium

  • Malik Sarmad RiazEmail author
  • Ariane Cuenen
  • Davy Janssens
  • Kris Brijs
  • Geert Wets
Original Article


Children are highly represented in statistics relating to road traffic injuries and fatalities. There are multiple risk factors that together create an increased risk for children in traffic, some of the major reasons include children’s inability to efficiently and actively scan the environment and look for information relevant to the traffic environment, inconsistent behavior, and less developed hazard perception skills. Traffic safety education is one of the most important means for improving knowledge and skills required for children to behave safely in traffic. This study evaluated a newly developed and gamified e-learning platform meant to promote traffic safety among elementary school pupils in Belgium. Participants in this study were from four grades of elementary school and voluntarily took part in the training. They followed a self-study program at home for approximately 15 min per week over a period of 5 weeks in total. The platform included four modules: traffic knowledge, situation awareness, risk detection, and risk management. For each of these modules, a set of photos and videos were used as stimuli and selected from a database of camera recordings of real-life situations. Half of each module consisted of familiar situations for the pupils (i.e., own municipality), while the other half of each module consisted of unfamiliar situations for the pupils (i.e., other municipalities). A fifth module, “the finale,” contained a mix of the first four modules. In total, 44 elementary school pupils (9–13 years old) completed the program. During the first round of measurement (i.e., the first four modules), pupils performed significantly better in the traffic knowledge module when compared with the other three modules. Further, in comparison with unfamiliar situations, pupils scored significantly higher in familiar situations. During the second round of measurement (i.e., the fifth module), pupils achieved higher scores in the risk detection and risk management modules when contrasted to the first measurement. The effect of gamification elements is discussed and the results also indicate the type of traffic safety issues to be emphasized in traffic safety education for children.


E-learning Gamification Traffic Education Children Evaluation 



  1. 1.
    WHO, Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO, Children and road traffic injuries. 2014Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    WHO, Ten strategies for keeping children safe on the road 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lavoie M et al (2014) Active and safe transportation of elementary-school students: comparative analysis of the risks of injury associated with children travelling by car, walking and cycling between home and school. Chronic Dis Inj Can 34(4):195–202Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roynard M, Schoeters A, Wénin M 2015 Safe to school: analysis of road accidents involving children near primary schools and kindergardens B.R.S.I.K.C.R. Safety, Editor.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trifunovic A et al (2017) The importance of spatial orientation and knowledge of traffic signs for children’s traffic safety. Accid Anal Prev 102:81–92Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ivarsson BJ, Crandall JR, Okamoto M (2006) Influence of age-related stature on the frequency of body region injury and overall injury severity in child pedestrian casualties. Traffic Injury Prevention 7(3):290–298Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olofsson E 2014 Children injured in traffic in a medical and psychosocial perspective : causes and consequences., University of Gothenburg. Sahlgrenska Academy Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thornton S (1999) Taking the child’s perspective seriously. Psychologist (London, England : 1988) 12(8):393–394Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benjaminsen, C. How attentive are children in traffic? 2016 20 January 2019]; Available from:
  11. 11.
    Connelly ML, Conaglen HM, Parsonson BS, Isler RB (1998) Child pedestrians’ crossing gap thresholds1this research was completed by the first two authors as a graduate student research project undertaken as a part of their master of social science degrees.1. Accid Anal Prev 30(4):443–453Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scialfa C et al (2012) The effects of driving experience on responses to a static hazard perception test. Accid Anal Prev 45:547–553Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meir A, Oron-Gilad T, Parmet Y (2015) Can child-pedestrians’ hazard perception skills be enhanced? Accid Anal Prev 83:101–110Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ellis J (2014) Bicycle safety education for children from a developmental and learning perspective. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DOT (2019) ConnDOT: SRTS - The 5 E’s. Accessed 4 Feb 2019
  16. 16.
    Thomas P et al (2013) Identifying the causes of road crashes in Europe. Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the advancement of automotive medicine. Annual Scientific Conference 57:13–22Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Treat JR, Tumbas NS, McDonald ST et al (1979) “Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents: final report, vol. 1: causal factor tabulations and assessments”, DOT HS-805 085. Indiana University: Institute for Research in Public Safety, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oikawa S, Hirose T, Aomura S, Matsui Y (2016) Traffic accidents involving cyclists identifying causal factors using questionnaire survey, traffic accident data, and real-world observation. Stapp Car Crash Journal 60:183–198Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Assailly JP (2017) Road safety education: what works? Patient Educ Couns 100(Suppl 1):S24–S29Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Obregón-Biosca SA, Betanzo-Quezada E, Romero-Navarrete JA, Ríos-Nuñez M (2018) Rating road traffic education. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 56:33–45Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Twisk DA et al (2014) Five road safety education programmes for young adolescent pedestrians and cyclists: a multi-programme evaluation in a field setting. Accid Anal Prev 66:55–61Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ROSE 2005 25 E.U., Report inventory and compiling of a European good practice guide on road safety education targeted at young people.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, J. and J. Hammer 2011 Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Vol. 15.. 1–5Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGonigal, J 2011 Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world. Vol. 22.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Werbach, K. and D. Hunter, For the win: how game thinking can revolutionize your business. 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skinner BF (1938) The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton-Century, Oxford, pp 457–457Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK, Mandl H (2017) How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput Hum Behav 69:371–380Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krause, M. and J. Williams 2015 A playful game changer: fostering student retention in online education with social gamification.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Facey-Shaw L, Börner D, Specht M, Bartley-Bryan J (2015) A Moodle-based badge system for evaluating the motivational levels of introductory programmers. Paper presented at the 6th International Workshop on Motivational and Affective Aspects of Technology Enhanced Learning (MATEL), Toledo, Spain. Paper retrieved from Accessed 15 Feb 2019
  30. 30.
    Stott, A. and C. Neustaedter, Analysis of gamification in education. 2013Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kapp KM (2012) Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. Train Dev 66(6):64–68Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gee JP (2008) The ecology of games: connecting youth, games, and learning. In: John D, MacArthur CT (eds) Foundation series on digital media and learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 21–40Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robson K, Plangger K, Kietzmann JH, McCarthy I, Pitt L (2015) Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Bus Horiz 58(4):411–420Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liaw S-S (2008) Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the blackboard system. Comput Educ 51(2):864–873Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liaw S-S, Huang H-M (2013) Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Comput Educ 60(1):14–24Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Looy J, Courtois C, and De Vocht M 2010 Player identification in online games: validation of a scale for measuring identification in MMORPGs.. 126–134Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oksanen K, Looy J, and De Grove F 2013 Avatar identification in serious games: the role of avatar identification in the learning experience of a serious game, in 63rd International Communication Association (ICA) Annual Conference.: London, UK p 3Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fyhri A, Bjørnskau T, Ulleberg P (2004) Traffic education for children with a tabletop model. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 7(4–5):197–207Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hawley CA, Smith R, Goodwin L (2018) Road safety education for older drivers: evaluation of a classroom-based training initiative. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 59:505–523Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ben-Bassat T, Avnieli S (2016) The effect of a road safety educational program for kindergarten children on their parents’ behavior and knowledge. Accid Anal Prev 95:78–85Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scialfa CT, Borkenhagen D, Lyon J, Deschênes M (2013) A comparison of static and dynamic hazard perception tests. Accid Anal Prev 51:268–273Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rosenbloom T, Mandel R, Rosner Y, Eldror E (2015) Hazard perception test for pedestrians. Accid Anal Prev 79:160–169Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lehtonen E, Havia V, Kovanen A, Leminen M, Saure E (2016) Evaluating bicyclists’ risk perception using video clips: comparison of frequent and infrequent city cyclists. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 41:195–203Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vansteenkiste P, Zeuwts L, Cardon G, Lenoir M (2016) A hazard-perception test for cycling children: an exploratory study. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 41:182–194Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cavallo V et al (2019) A street-crossing simulator for studying and training pedestrians. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 61:217–228Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schwebel DC, Combs T, Rodriguez D, Severson J, Sisiopiku V (2016) Community-based pedestrian safety training in virtual reality: a pragmatic trial. Accid Anal Prev 86:9–15Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ducheyne F, de Bourdeaudhuij I, Lenoir M, Cardon G (2014) Effects of a cycle training course on children’s cycling skills and levels of cycling to school. Accid Anal Prev 67:49–60Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lachapelle U, Noland RB, Von Hagen LA (2013) Teaching children about bicycle safety: an evaluation of the New Jersey Bike School program. Accid Anal Prev 52:237–249Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    McLaughlin KA, Glang A (2010) The effectiveness of a bicycle safety program for improving safety-related knowledge and behavior in young elementary students. J Pediatr Psychol 35(4):343–353Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Isler RB, Starkey NJ, Williamson AR (2009) Video-based road commentary training improves hazard perception of young drivers in a dual task. Accid Anal Prev 41(3):445–452Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Weiss T et al (2013) Calibration as side effect? Computer-based learning in driver education and the adequacy of driving-task-related self-assessments. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 17:63–74Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Petzoldt T, Weiß T, Franke T, Krems JF, Bannert M (2013) Can driver education be improved by computer based training of cognitive skills? Accid Anal Prev 50:1185–1192Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stubbé H et al (2016) E-learning sudan, formal learning for out-of-school children. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 14(2):136–149Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Henderson J, Alexander S (2012) e-Learning – the future of child and adolescent obesity! Obes. Res. Clin. Pract 6:75Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Çakıroğlu Ü, Başıbüyük B, Güler M, Atabay M, Yılmaz Memiş B (2017) Gamifying an ICT course: influences on engagement and academic performance. Comput Hum Behav 69:98–107Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hargreaves DJ, Davies GM (1996) The development of risk-taking in children. Curr Psychol 15(1):14–29Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Costa C, Alvelos H, Teixeira L (2012) The use of Moodle e-learning platform: a study in a Portuguese University. Procedia Technol 5:334–343Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Oproiu GC (2015) A study about using e-learning platform (Moodle) in university teaching process. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 180:426–432Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Goulão, M.d.F. and R.C. Menedez, Learner autonomy and self-regulation in eLearning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci, 2015. 174: p. 1900–1907Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sørebø Ø, Halvari H, Gulli VF, Kristiansen R (2009) The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Comput Educ 53(4):1177–1187Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Fryer LK, Bovee HN (2016) Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: teachers matter on and offline. Internet High Educ 30:21–29Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sailer M, Hense J, Mandl H, Klevers M (2013) Psychological perspectives on motivation through gamification. IxD&A 19:28–37Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Albert RR, Dolgin KG (2010) Lasting effects of short-term training on preschoolers’ street-crossing behavior. Accid Anal Prev 42(2):500–508Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Meyer S, Sagberg F, Torquato R (2014) Traffic hazard perception among children. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 26:190–198Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Thomson JA, Ampofo-Boateng K (1990) Child pedestrian accidents: a case for preventive medicine. Health Educ Res 5(2):265–274Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Isoba MC (2002) Relationship between theoretical knowledge and behavior in traffic planning: implementation and results of an awareness program for a developing country by a nongovernmental organization. Traffic Inj Prev 3(4):262–265Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    van Schagen IN, Brookhuis KA (1994) Training young cyclists to cope with dynamic traffic situations. Accid Anal Prev 26(2):223–30Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Klawe MM (1999) Computer games, education and interfaces: the E-GEMS project. In: Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Graphics interface ‘99. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Kingston, p 36–39Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Filsecker M, Hickey DT (2014) A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students’ motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Comput Educ 75:136–148Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Davis K, Singh S (2015) Digital badges in afterschool learning: documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Comput Educ 88:72–83Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ong C-S, Lai J-Y (2006) Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Comput Hum Behav 22(5):816–829Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vlachos F, Papadimitriou A (2015) Effect of age and gender on children’s reading performance: the possible neural underpinnings. Cogent Psychology 2(1):1045224Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Harrison A (2013) Road safety: insurers show accidents near schools. Available from: Accessed 20 March 2019 
  74. 74.
    Capuano N, et al. 2011 An ontology-based approach for context-aware e-learning. in Third International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems. 2011Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zeedyk MS, Wallace L, Carcary B, Jones K, Larter K (2001) Children and road safety: increasing knowledge does not improve behaviour. Br J Educ Psychol 71(4):573–594Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Clabaux N, Brenac T, Perrin C, Magnin J, Canu B, van Elslande P (2012) Motorcyclists’ speed and “looked-but-failed-to-see” accidents. Accid Anal Prev 49:73–77Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UHasselt, Transportation Research Institute (IMOB)DiepenbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations