Interactive Teaching Methods as Human Factors Management Tool in Dangerous Goods Transport on Roads

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 715)

Abstract

This paper studies the methodological essence of ADR regulations training courses for drivers and safety advisers. The aim of research is to advance existing teacher-centred course model in Estonia with learner-centred methods that best suit specific objectives and meet expected learning outcomes. In Estonia, ADR regulations training courses are formed based on teacher-centred course design mainly. This methodological approach is outdated as the concept of learner is changing rapidly. The aim of this research is to make study based proposals, what kind of interactive methodological approach training course model meets the best trainees’ expectations in Estonia.

The paper presents a combined development research strategy based on studies regarding ADR regulations training courses in Estonia as well as on analysis of teaching methods applied in professional training of adults. Data collecting on learners’ attitude and preferences regarding current methodological format of courses is collected by implementing questionnaires with structured questions from consignors/consignees, freight forwarders carrier companies and drivers. Based on learners’ needs and expectations, different interactive teaching methods are examined. Implementing methodology of qualitative comparison analysis (QCA) combination of best suitable teaching methods are identified.

Theoretical outcomes represent detailed review of existing ADR training courses system, training opportunities and so far implemented methods. Empirical outcomes focus on introducing suitable interactive teaching methods within the existing format of ADR regulations training courses. Finally developed ADR training course model with a new learner-centred methodological approach considers all major parties involved into transportation chain of dangerous goods. Further researches related to this issue include discussions with ADR training courses providers and introducing an actual action plan regarding the implementation of new interactive methodological approach of ADR regulations training courses in Estonia. There is also a need for measuring exact impact of new methodological approach on operational risk management.

Keywords

ADR regulations training courses Interactive teaching methods Qualitative comparison analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    ADR. European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (2017). http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr2017/17contentse0.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
  2. 2.
    Arnold, D., Isermann, H., Kuhn, A., Tempelmeier, H., Furmans, K.: Handbuch Logistik, vol. 3. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnold, P.K., Hartley, L.R.: Policies and practices of transport companies that promote or hinder the management of driver fatigue. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 4(1), 1–17 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babbie, E.: The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benza, M., Briata, S., D’Incà, M., Pizzorni, D., Ratto, C., Rovatti; M., Sacile, R.: Models, methods and technologies to support the training of drivers involved in the transport of dangerous goods. In: Proceedings: CISAP4 4th International Conference on Safety & Environment in Process Industry (2010). http://www.aidic.it/CISAP4/webpapers/66Benza.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr 2017
  6. 6.
    Estonian Road Administration. ADR training of drivers. Statistics (2016). https://www.mnt.ee/et/ametist/statistika/juhiload. Accessed 9 May 2017
  7. 7.
    Ghauri, P., Grǿngaug, K.: Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Limited, Financial Times Prentice Hall, London (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gusik, V., Klumpp, M., Westphal, C.: International Comparison of Dangerous Goods Transport and Training Schemes, ild Schriftenreihe Logistikforschung Band 23. Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement. FOM University of Applied Sciences (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmann, M.H.W.: Fairly certifying competences, objectively assessing creativity. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2011), pp. 270–277 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klaus, P., Krieger, W.: Gabler Lexikon Logistik: Management logistischer Netzwerke und Flüsse, vol. 4. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krasjukova, J.: Perception of dangerous goods in business activity. J. Int. Sci. Publ. Econ. Bus. 5(2), 234–257 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krasjukova, J.: Practical output of dangerous goods training on example of Estonia’s carriers. In: The 24th Annual Nordic Logistics Research Network Conference (NOFOMA 2012). The University of Turku, Turku University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuncyté, R., Laberge-Nadeau, C., Crainic, T.G., Read, J.A.: Organization of truck driver training for the transportation of dangerous goods in Europe and North America. Accid. Anal. Prev. 35, 191–200 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Llobregat-Gόmez, N., Mínguez, F., Rosello, M.-D., Sánchez Ruiz, L.M.: Work in progress: blended learning activities development. In: Proceedings of ICL2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), pp. 79–81 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matthes, G.: Schulung/Unterweisung nach § 6 GbV und Kapitel 1.3 ADR/RID/IMDG-Code, 7. Mitarbeiterschulung Gefahrgut. ecomed Sicherheit, Landsberg/Lech2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Qualification requirements, training rules and the training course curriculum for driver carrying dangerous goods. Regulation of Republic of Estonia No. 37 (2013). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/114062016007. Accessed 15 Apr 2017
  17. 17.
    Ragin, C.C.: What is Qualitative Comparative Analysis? NCRM Research Methods Festival 2008 (2008). http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/250/1/What_is_QCA.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017
  18. 18.
    Ragin, C.C., Rihoux, B.: Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Sage, London and Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samuel, C., Keren, N., Shelley, M.C., Freeman, S.A.: Frequency analysis of hazardous material transportation incidents as a function of distance from origin to incident location. J. Loss Prevention Process Ind. 22, 783–790 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scottish Qualifications Authority, DGSA Administration. Dangerous Goods Safety Advisers, Scottish (2017). http://www.dgsafetyadvisers.org.uk/DGSA/Home/About_DGSA. Accessed 29 Apr 2017
  21. 21.
    Svensson, C.-J., Wang, X.: Secure and Efficient Intermodal Dangerous Goods Transport. Master Degree Project No. 2009:56, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg School of Business (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staker, H., Horn, M.B.: Classifying K–12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute (2012). http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning2.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2017
  23. 23.
    Tebabal, A., Kahssay, G.: The effects of student-centered approach in improving students’ graphical interpretation skills and conceptual understanding of kinematical motion. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. 5(2), 374–381 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    TTK UAS Open University. DGSA training. Statistics (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations