Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

frequently “scared about the driving” (p=0.006), from which an inference might be
drawn that they had become more sensitive to risk.
The qualitative evidence from both adult stakeholders and young people provided
anecdotal examples of changes in behaviour after the course that were sufficiently
credible to provide some triangulation for the quantitative findings. These examples
concerned not only the wearing of seatbelts but other changes such as persuading
drivers to desist from mobile phone use or refusal to be a passenger with a driver
who had been drinking. Some of the young people were clearly being a positive
influence on their peers or their families.
Are the content and delivery of the programme appropriate for the primary target age
group?
The researchers observed the course in action with young people on five occasions.
The presentation held the attention of the vast majority of the young people for the
full two hours, which was not expected given the normal attention span for such
groups.
There were no technical problems in any of the presentations observed. The team
handled the material and the different media competently and moved well from one
item to another. The presentation was widely described by stakeholders as “very
professional”. On a very few occasions it appeared that one or other speaker was
losing the attention of some of the audience but since the presentation is so varied
and moves from one topic or film item to another, this was not a major concern.
At the start of the observation visits, some members of the team feared that the
material would be overwhelming and too distressing for 15 or 16 year-olds.
Considerable numbers from the school audiences did leave the room in tears though
quite a number came back in later. In the light of the findings, this concern has
however now dissipated. Only 34 of those completing their opinions after seeing the
presentation found it “too scary” and 76 felt it upset them too much. Focus groups
and teacher stakeholders confirmed that the force of the messages was perceived
as legitimate, especially given that parents had given permission and any pupil could
opt out. The fear-based messages need to be of sufficient strength to motivate a
response and the researchers felt that approximately the right level was reached.
Despite some suggestions in the young people’s responses for making the content
even more fear-inducing, there is no indication that this is necessary to produce
impact and in the view of the research team it is undesirable and could lead the
presentation in the territory of gratuitously violent or distressing images.
While many 15 or 16 year olds still have mercifully little life experience on loss,
trauma, or bereavement to relate to the course content, there was no evidence that
any significant proportion were ‘shutting off’ from the messages. The focus groups
confirmed that most of those respondents felt the shocking nature of the course was
necessary and that it did not cause shutting down of responses or particular
resistance. The researchers would agree with the suggestion made in the focus
groups that the course should not be presented to pupils any younger than Year 11.
64