School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2011 Jun;12(3):283-95. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2011.556171.
This research investigated whether different training methods had any effect on the effectiveness of traffic sign training and whether there were any relationships between traffic sign characteristics and effectiveness of the training.
Thirty-six participants were randomly assigned into 4 equal-sized groups (control, paired-associate learning, recall training, and recognition training) to study the learnability of Mainland China traffic signs. In paired-associate learning, participants studied each traffic sign along with a referent describing its meaning. In addition to being informed of the meaning of traffic signs, both recall training and recognition training provided participants with questions and feedback. For recall training, the questioning process was a recall task in which participants had to produce a meaning for a given traffic sign from memory. For recognition training, the questioning process was a recognition task that required participants to identify the most appropriate referent corresponding to a given sign. No traffic sign training was given to the control group.
Each training method significantly improved comprehension of the meaning of traffic signs. Participants from recall training performed better in a posttraining test than those from paired-associate learning and recognition training, indicating that the recall training elicited a deeper level of learning. In addition, questioning and feedback had a positive influence on training effectiveness. Performance in the posttest was found to be better when the questioning process matched the test process. Regarding the traffic sign characteristics, semantic closeness had a long-lasting effect, in terms of the timescale of this experiment on traffic sign comprehension, and traffic signs were perceived as more meaningful after their intended meanings were studied.
Recall training is more effective in enhancing comprehension of traffic signs than paired-associate learning and recognition training. The findings of this study provide a basis for useful recommendations for designing symbol-training programs to improve road safety for road users.
本研究旨在探讨不同的训练方法是否会对交通标志训练的效果产生影响,以及交通标志的特征与训练效果之间是否存在关系。
将 36 名参与者随机分为 4 个相等大小的组(对照组、配对联想学习组、回忆训练组和识别训练组),以研究中国大陆交通标志的可学性。在配对联想学习中,参与者学习每个交通标志及其描述其含义的参照。除了被告知交通标志的含义外,回忆训练和识别训练都为参与者提供了问题和反馈。对于回忆训练,提问过程是一种回忆任务,参与者必须从记忆中生成给定交通标志的含义。对于识别训练,提问过程是一种识别任务,要求参与者识别与给定标志最匹配的参照。对照组未接受任何交通标志训练。
每种训练方法都显著提高了对交通标志含义的理解。回忆训练组的参与者在培训后测试中的表现优于配对联想学习组和识别训练组,这表明回忆训练引发了更深层次的学习。此外,提问和反馈对培训效果有积极影响。当提问过程与测试过程匹配时,测试后的表现更好。关于交通标志特征,语义接近度在交通标志理解的时间尺度上具有持久影响,并且在研究了其预期含义后,交通标志被认为更有意义。
与配对联想学习和识别训练相比,回忆训练在提高对交通标志的理解方面更有效。本研究的结果为设计符号培训计划以提高道路使用者的道路安全提供了有用的建议。