Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

An evaluation of an airline cabin safety education program for elementary school children Meng-Yuan Liao * Department of Tourism Information, Aletheia University, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 17 May 2013 Received in revised form 24 September 2013 Accepted 10 October 2013

The knowledge, attitude, and behavior intentions of elementary school students about airline cabin safety before and after they took a specially designed safety education course were examined. A safety education program was designed for school-age children based on the cabin safety briefings airlines given to their passengers, as well as on lessons learned from emergency evacuations. The course is presented in three modes: a lecture, a demonstration, and then a film. A two-step survey was used for this empirical study: an illustrated multiple-choice questionnaire before the program, and, upon completion, the same questionnaire to assess its effectiveness. Before the program, there were significant differences in knowledge and attitude based on school locations and the frequency that students had traveled by air. After the course, students showed significant improvement in safety knowledge, attitude, and their behavior intention toward safety. Demographic factors, such as gender and grade, also affected the effectiveness of safety education. The study also showed that having the instructor directly interact with students by lecturing is far more effective than presenting the information using only video media. A long-term evaluation, the effectiveness of the program, using TV or video accessible on the Internet to deliver a cabin safety program, and a control group to eliminate potential extraneous factors are suggested for future studies. ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge Attitude Cabin safety Cabin safety education Children

1. Introduction Cabin safety has been recognized as an essential part of aviation safety. According to Transport Canada (2011), the goal of cabin safety is to ‘‘aim at increasing the survival rate by minimizing hazards in the cabin and its environment to reduce the effects of an accident.’’ The related topics of cabin safety are numerous, such as crashworthiness, operations, human factors, psychology, biodynamics, physiology, ergonomics, and pedagogy. This study is focused on cabin safety education. The purpose of cabin safety education is to inform airline passengers by giving them sufficient and accurate knowledge about cabin safety, and to cultivate situational awareness, which could affect safety, because more knowledgeable passengers should be more familiar with how to react in an emergency. On August 20, 2007, China Airlines flight 120 from Taoyuan International Airport arrived at Naha Airport in Okinawa, Japan. The aircraft caught fire and exploded after landing and taxiing to

* Correspondence to: 32 Zhenli Street, Danshui District, New Taipei City 251, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 2 2621 2121x5206; fax: +886 2 2626 8097. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] 0149-7189/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.10.001

the gate area. In the subsequent emergency evacuation, all passengers and flight crew safely left the aircraft. According to reports, some passengers carried belongings during the emergency evacuation. On July 24, 2011, Eva Airways flight BR807 departed from Taoyuan International Airport to Macau. The captain decided to abort takeoff because smoke was coming from one of the engines. After reaching the ramp, the captain evacuated all the passengers. During the evacuation, fifteen passengers suffered minor injuries, and some carried belongings, wore high heels, or did not know how to correctly use the evacuation slide. These two emergencies indicated that some passengers do not know what to do during an emergency evacuation and that there are critical things they need to be made aware of. In addition, the economic boom and plummeting birthrate in Taiwan make parents more willing to provide their children a better environment and education. Traveling abroad or to neighboring islands in Taiwan to explore different places, cultures, and languages is currently a popular activity for elementary school children. Furthermore, parents would like to provide opportunities for their children to fly unaccompanied and to undergo immersion foreign language training because they are usually too busy to accompany their children on these aeronautical journeys. Therefore, airlines in Taiwan offer unaccompanied minor (UM) service,

28

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

particularly during summer and winter vacations. However, elementary schools in Taiwan do not normally provide airline cabin safety classes. Cabin safety education is becoming more essential because an increasing number of younger children are flying overseas. In fact, the necessity of cabin safety education has been discussed from both academic and practical perspectives (Chang & Liao, 2008; Muir & Thomas, 2004; NTSB, 1985); however, few follow-up programs appear to have been developed. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to identify the effectiveness of a specially designed cabin safety education program for elementary school students. The findings of this study provide practical suggestions for government and educational institutions to plan and design primary school-based cabin safety education programs. It should also be noted that the main purpose of this paper is to use the surveyed data to improve safety education for school children, but not to explore and analyze the effective behavior from psychological or sociological perspectives. 2. Literature review 2.1. Cabin safety regulations According to U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) section 121.571, ‘‘each certificate holder operating a passenger-carrying airplane shall insure that all passengers are orally briefed by the appropriate crewmember as follows’’: smoking, the location of emergency exits, the use of safety belts, including instructions on how to fasten and unfasten the safety belts, and the location and use of any required emergency flotation means (FAR, 2012). The Flight Operation Regulations of Taiwan, section one, chapter II, also states that an airline operator shall inform passengers about necessary things before takeoff: fastening seatbelts during takeoff and landing, even if the seatbelt sign has been switched off after takeoff. Also, an airline operator shall make a sign and inform passengers about cabin-safety-related information, such as emergency equipment and emergency evacuation (CAA, 2010). Therefore, informing airline passengers about cabin safety regulations, equipment, and procedures is a globally compulsory responsibility and required for commercial airlines to operate their business. The research by Chang and Liao (2010a) suggested that the relevant information of cabin safety is needed for airline passengers because cabin safety information is essential for them to reduce avoidable dangers and unnecessary violations when traveling by air. Furthermore, it is important that passengers pay more attention to cabin safety demonstrations and read the safety briefing card carefully so that they know how to react in emergencies (Transport Canada, 2008). Therefore, airline passengers need to be prepared for unexpected emergencies. 2.2. The barriers that affect passenger awareness Although airlines try to inform their passengers about cabin safety immediately before takeoff, and both public and private organizations offer a variety of different types of airline safety information programs for passengers, the lessons offered seem to be more often ignored than learned. There are many reasons for this, e.g., apathy, fatalism, boredom, and seemingly more urgent distractions for passengers, as well as a lack of time, uninteresting methods of presentation, and an inability to make the information understandable to all passengers. Because airlines have limited time before takeoff to display the mandatory safety demonstration film, both the film and the safety briefing card are very concise and do not allow for detailed explanations of the ‘‘what’’s, ‘‘when’’s, ‘‘why’’s, and ‘‘how’’s behind the safety regulations. And airlines in

particular do not want to cause any fear or unpleasant feelings in their passengers. Thus, it is understandable that passengers normally ignore the safety information: neither side wants to think about aviation accidents. According to a U.S. National Transportation Safety Board safety study (NTSB, 2000), 54% of 457 passengers did not watch the safety demonstration at all because they had watched it before. This is the wrong concept, because the airplane they previously flew on and the one they are currently on are very likely different series; therefore, the layout, location of emergency equipment, and method for opening the emergency exit door could be different. Certainly, it is necessary for passengers to watch the safety demonstration and read the safety briefing card every time they board an airplane. In addition, 59% of the passengers said that the location of the emergency exit is the most important information to them. On China Airlines flight 120 to Naha Airport in Okinawa, Japan (August 20, 2007), some passengers who read the safety briefing card indicated that the safety information was unclear, especially about how to open the emergency exit door and how to use the evacuation slide. During emergency evacuations, not all passengers cooperate with cabin crew. In particular, some take their carry-on luggage with them, which is a violation of the safety rules. Passengers usually pay little attention to why airlines limit carry-on luggage. They probably think that it is because of the extra weight; however, the major reason is if the passengers have too much carry-on luggage or if it is too large, passengers who try to save their luggage will block the aisle and slow down the evacuation. Therefore, passengers need to be educated and told the ‘‘what’’s, ‘‘when’’s, ‘‘why’’s, and ‘‘how’’s of cabin safety. If they know this critical information, perhaps more of them will react appropriately in emergencies. 2.3. The importance of cabin safety education to children Because air travel is so common in most societies, it seems worthwhile making airline cabin safety information a required part of the public and private school curriculum—primarily in developed countries whose residents often travel by air. Generally, school education is purposely designed to reach particular goals, which makes it much easier for students to achieve learning objectives. It has been suggested that children can acquire safety knowledge about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (Lester, Donnelly, Weston, & Morgan, 1996) and natural disasters (Ronan, Johnston, & Daly, 2001) through educational programs. Improving passenger safety education will increase the probability of passenger survival in an accident (Muir & Thomas, 2004). Therefore, they suggested that the school authorities consider teaching flight safety information in elementary schools because, they indicated, that would substantially improve the public’s understanding of the importance of acting appropriately during flight emergencies, decrease the likelihood of avoidable passenger injuries, and increase the likelihood of passenger survival (Chang & Liao, 2008). Here is one famous example (The Telegraph, 2005) of how effective elementary school education can be in a natural disaster. Tilly Smith is a British girl who, at the age of 10, was credited with saving nearly a hundred tourists by warning them before the arrival of the tsunami caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. She had learned about tsunamis in a geography lesson two weeks earlier from her teacher Andrew Kearney. She recognized the symptoms of receding water from the shoreline and frothing bubbles on the surface of the sea and alerted her parents, who warned others on the beach and the staff at the hotel on Phuket Island, where they were staying. Tilly’s story, that safety lessons save lives, highlights the critical importance of safety

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

education in preventing the tragic impacts of disasters. Although this is only one case that supports the importance of safety education, from an education perspective it has great encouragement value in the campaign for safety education. ‘‘Safety Conscious’’ is a basic notion for human beings, and we should be better prepared to cope with serious safety issues in our everyday activities in the earlier stages of our life. Elementary school is the golden period for developing children’s memory (Chang, 1995) and attitudes, especially about safety knowledge. It is vital to raise awareness of safety concepts and motivate children to learn, because children are more willing to change, and negative behaviors are replaced far more effectively (Cole et al., 2005). Therefore, educators and parents should introduce fundamental safety knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes to children. It has also been reported (Harre & Field, 1998) that school safety education programs positively affect the self-reporting behavior and the attitudes of students. School education is probably one of the most influential approaches for most people. Hence, a specially designed school safety program may instill accurate concepts and perceptions in students, who will then remember and practice them throughout their lives.

29

pretest questionnaires included four sections: one tested the students’ knowledge of cabin safety, the second tested their attitudes about cabin safety, the third contained multiple-choice and graphical questions, and the fourth asked about the background of the participants. The post-test questionnaire was the same as the pretest, except that 6 questions were added to evaluate their future behavior intentions, viz., did they intend to read safety information cards, watch the safety demonstrations, and follow the safety rules? Each participant had to answer the pretest and the post-test questionnaires. 3.3. Questionnaire design

The relationships between knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) have been discussed in various fields, which indicated that improvement in knowledge can be considered a major influence on an individual’s attitude and behavior (Chang & Liao, 2010b; Chirstensen, 2005; Fabrigar, Petty, Smith, & Crites, 2006; Gofin, Palti, & Adler, 1990). The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) explains the relationship between attitude and behavioral intention. Furthermore, behavioral intention is an indicator of future behavior. The designs of the education program and questionnaire in this research are based primarily upon this concept.

The questionnaire had four parts: (1) knowledge about cabin safety, (2) attitudes about cabin safety, (3) 8 multiple-choice and 5 graphical questions for the cross-check, and (4) demographic data for those who responded to the questionnaire and behavior intentions (post-test). The survey instrument contained a number of statements with five Likert-scaled scores (from 1 = no knowledge at all to 5 = fully aware) which matched the students’ knowledge about cabin safety. The students’ attitudes about cabin safety also used Likert-scaled scores (from 1 = Totally disagree to 5 = Totally agree). The participants were asked to choose the answer that best corresponded to their level of agreement. The multiple-choice questions required choosing one correct answer from three possibilities. The graphical questions required selecting one correct answer from two possibilities. The demographic data included gender, grade in school, school name, number of airplane flights taken, and sources of cabin safety information. Finally, the yes/no questions for evaluating behavior intentions were added to the post-test. To assess content validity, those questions were reviewed by three experts: one cabin crew member and two cabin safety investigators in Taiwan. All experts indicated that the questions reflected cabin safety information necessary and essential to deliver during this program.

3. Methodology

3.4. Participants and sample

3.1. The process of the cabin safety program

Four elementary schools were selected, and the students and teachers there volunteered to participate in this program: Ren-Ai and Banciao elementary schools are in urban Taiwan (Taipei City and New Taipei City), and Qiao-De and Ren-He elementary schools are in rural Taiwan (Ping-Tung County). It has been claimed (Wood, 1997) that 11–12-year-old children have more developed abstract thinking and logical deduction abilities than younger children do. Therefore, 5th- and 6th-grade children from both schools were chosen to participate in this program. The same 616 questionnaires (urban: 240; rural: 376) were distributed twice at different times, before and after the education program; 446 pairs (72%) of completed questionnaires were returned. The reliability evaluation was done using Cronbach’s a, one of the most widely used reliability measures (Koufteros, 1999). The reliability value was >0.7, which is considered satisfactory for basic research (Churchill, 1991; Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978). The Cronbach’s a of cabin safety knowledge items was 0.935–0.943, and the Cronbach’s a of cabin safety attitude items was 0.902–0.912, which indicates that this survey was highly reliable. The data were analyzed using SPSS software (SPSS Institute, Chicago, IL) modules: descriptive; ttests to see whether there were significant differences in cabin safety knowledge and attitudes between genders, grades, and the locations of the schools; and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test whether there were significant differences between the answers based on the number of times a student had traveled by air. When there were significant differences, a Scheffe Post Hoc test was used for post-analysis.

2.4. Theoretical implication of cabin safety education to children

The content of the education program was designed based on literature review, cabin safety demonstrations by the airlines, onboard cabin-safety briefing cards, and emergency evacuation cases. Specifically, the emergency evacuation cases used for the design of the program emphasize detailed explanations of the ‘‘what’’s, ‘‘when’’s, ‘‘why’’s, and ‘‘how’’s of the vital safety information. A complete process is included in the program: it begins when passengers arrive at the check-in counter, and it continues through the security check and after they board the airplane. The program was delivered in three ways: a lecture, a demonstration, and a film. Trained instructors delivered the lecture to the school children. Some materials were demonstrated, for example, the correct way to put on a lifejacket, etc. Students were encouraged to ask the instructors questions during the lectures and demonstrations, and instructors answered them. A short film was also made by the research team to supplement the instructor’s brief explanation. 3.2. Diverse survey To collect data and test the effectiveness of the program, the same survey questionnaires were tested two weeks before programming and immediately after the delivery of this particular cabin safety education program. To cross-check and determine how well students understood the content of the program, the

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

30 Table 1 Participant profile. Item Gender Male Female Grade 5th grade 6th grade Location of school Rural (Qiao-De elementary school) Rural (Ren-He elementary school) Urban (Ren-Ai elementary school) Urban (Banciao elementary school) No. of flights 0 times 1–3 times 4 times Program delivered by Instructor Film Safety information about air travel No Yesa TV program Newspaper Internet Others Total a

n

%

220 226

49.3 50.7

188 258

42.2 57.8

121 110 116 99

27.1 24.7 26 22.2

214 132 100

48.0 29.6 22.4

317 129

71 29

219 227 138 60 83 48 446

49.1 50.9 42 18.2 25.2 14.6 100%

Participants were allowed to select more than one answer.

4. Results 4.1. Participants The 446 participants (220 boys [49.3%] and 226 girls [50.7%]) were divided into two categories: 5th grade (188 (42.2%)) and 6th grade (258 (57.8%)) (Table 1). Two hundred fifteen (48.2%) of the students were from the urban schools, and 231 (51.8%) were from the rural schools. The urban communities in which the schools are located are particularly affluent and cosmopolitan, especially Ren-Ai. Two hundred fourteen (48%) students had never traveled by air, 132 (29.6%) had traveled by air between 1 and 3 times, and 100 (22.4%) had flown more than 4 times. The fact that there were children with more than 4 flight experiences indicated that children in Taiwan may have more opportunities than children in most other countries to travel abroad.

Three hundred seventeen (71%) participants said that safety information delivered and explained by the instructor was more understandable than the safety information in the film (129; 29%). Although 219 (49.1%) of the children stated that they had not received cabin safety information, 227 (50.9%) reported that they had through various channels: TV news (138; 42%), newspapers (60; 18.2%), Internet (83; 25.2%), and others (48; 14.6%). Further, cross-table checking of information received showed that 40% of the children who said they had been given cabin safety information were from urban areas. Taipei City and New Taipei City are two of the most modern cities in Taiwan. Sources of information in metropolitan Taipei are more accessible to the general public. However, TV programs on the National Geographic and Discovery channels were probably the most popular sources of cabin safety information. 4.2. Children’s knowledge of and attitudes about cabin safety Responses to the 10 Likert scale (1–5) items about cabin safety knowledge before delivering the education program indicated that the children were least aware of why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing (Table 2). They were most aware of why they should keep their seatbelt fastened during the entire flight (mean = 4.31); however, the standard deviation (SD) was 1.118, which implied that there was a big difference in the degree of knowledge that the children had about this question. The total mean for these 10 questions was 3.51, which was below the ‘‘aware’’ level (mean = 4) and showed that the children were not aware of the ‘‘what’’s, ‘‘when’’s, and ‘‘why’’s of airline cabin safety. After they had finished the program, the total mean was 4.66, all SDs were smaller than 1, and the knowledge levels for all items were significantly higher (P < 0.000) than those on the pretest. This indicated that the children had made progress in their awareness of cabin safety knowledge because of the instructor’s specific explanations of the ‘‘what’’s and ‘‘why’’s, which Schrader and Lawless (2004) said knowledge should include. The results also showed that knowledge may significantly increase if students are given an appropriately designed education program. The children’s general attitude toward cabin safety did reach the ‘‘agree’’ level (total mean = 4.13) before they had finished the program (Table 3). However, they did not quite agree (mean = 3.84) with one important item: ‘‘you will be aware of whether you have to escape from the cabin by yourself’’ (#4), because they probably did not know that everyone is responsible for acting safely in emergencies and that they should not totally

Table 2 Children’s knowledge of cabin safety. Mean (SD)

Difference

Knowledge statements: You know

Before (I)

After (J)

(J  I)

P

1. why should you obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 2. why should you pack luggage by yourself 3. what goods are prohibited from being carried onto the airplane 4. why you should not inflate the lifejacket before going through the emergency exit 5. why do you keep the seatbelt fastened during the entire flight 6. the correct way to put on the oxygen mask 7. why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing 8. the correct posture for using the emergency evacuation slide 9. the restrictions of the emergency exit row seating 10. why you should not wear any sharp goods during emergency evacuation

3.22 3.48 4.26 3.37 4.31 3.22 2.99 3.19 3.16 3.91

4.65 4.63 4.72 4.73 4.71 4.61 4.57 4.65 4.64 4.69

1.43 1.15 0.46 1.36 0.40 1.39 1.58c 1.46 1.48 0.78

0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***

Total mean

3.51

Likert scale scores: 1 = no knowledge at all; 5 = totally aware. SD: standard deviation. a The highest-ranking statements. b The lowest-ranking statements. c The greatest difference after finishing the program. *** P < 0.001.

(1.348) (1.303) (1.178) (1.352) (1.118)a (1.376) (1.385)b (1.386) (1.410) (1.365)

4.66

(0.775) (0.759) (0.688) (0.661)a (0.670) (0.765) (0.847)b (0.739) (0.756) (0.733)

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

31

Table 3 Children’s attitudes about cabin safety. Mean (SD) Attitude statements: You agree that you will 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

pack your luggage by yourself obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage watch safety demonstration every time you fly be aware of whether you have to escape from the cabin by yourself read the safety briefing card every time you fly keep your seat belt fastened during the entire flight not carry any dangerous goods on board check the nearest front and rear exits before takeoff and landing every time you fly

Total mean

Difference

Before (I)

After (J)

4.09 3.96 4.27 3.84 4.05 4.37 4.23 4.25

4.62 4.68 4.70 4.64 4.71 4.75 4.71 4.73

(1.250) (1.227) (1.134) (1.334)b (1.188) (1.110)a (1.194) (1.120)

4.13

(0.771)b (0.689) (0.703) (0.707) (0.671) (0.651)a (0.734) (0.656)

(J  I)

P

0.53 0.72 0.43 0.80c 0.66 0.38 0.48 0.48

0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***

4.69

Likert scale scores: 1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree. SD: standard deviation. a The highest-ranking statements. b The lowest-ranking statements. c The greatest difference after finishing the program. *** P < 0.001.

depend on the highly trained and competent cabin attendants. In reality, passengers may have to depend on their own abilities (Chang & Liao, 2008) because each airplane has only a few flight attendants relative to the number of passengers aboard an aircraft. It is also possible that crewmembers may be incapacitated. Thus, flight attendants may not always be in a position to exercise their well-trained skills for the welfare of all their passengers (Edwards, 1990). After the program, the total mean of the cabin safety attitude questions was 4.69, significantly higher (P < 0.000) than the preprogram mean. This indicated that the children had significantly more positive attitudes about most aspects of cabin safety after the education program because of the particular explanations of why doing those things were necessary and how they contributed to passenger safety. 4.3. Multiple-choice and graphical items 4.3.1. Multiple-choice The items in this section were specifically designed for doublechecking the children’s knowledge of cabin safety. Surprisingly, even before the education program, most of the children (94.2%) were aware of why they should keep their seatbelt fastened during the entire flight (Table 4). They were least aware (accuracy

rate < 60%) of item 2: ‘‘What posture should be taken when using the evacuation slide?’’ (23.1%), followed by item 5: ‘‘Where is the safety briefing card?’’ (61.7%). However, after the program, the accuracy for all the items rose to >60%, and the accuracy rate for item 2 more than tripled (23.1% ! 94.4%; 71.3%). The results indicated that cabin safety knowledge and emergency information was more understandable after an appropriate education program. In addition, the accuracy percentage for item 3, ‘‘What posture should be taken in an emergency?’’ was lower after the children had finished the program (68.4 ! 64.8; 3.6%). There are two correct ways: one is holding your thighs and leaning your head against your knees, and the other is bending your body and using your hands to protect the front of your head. The choice depends on the individual’s height. The appropriate posture for most children is ‘‘holding your thighs and leaning your head against your knees’’. The answer was specifically designed to slightly confuse the children. The confused answer is ‘‘bending your body and holding the back of your head’’. This probably explains the drop in accuracy for item 3. 4.3.2. Graphical About 30% of the children did not clearly understand the graphical illustrations before the program, particularly item 5

Table 4 Children’s answer accuracy on multiple-choice questions. Accuracy (%)

Difference

Item

Before (I)

After (J)

(J  I)%

P

1. Why should you read the safety briefing card and watch the safety demonstration every time you fly? Ans: Different types of aircraft have different layouts 2. What posture should be taken when using the emergency evacuation slide? Ans: Sit or jump with both hands making a fist and horizontal level 3. What posture should be taken in an emergency? Ans: Bend your body and use your hands to protect the front of your head 4. Why should you not inflate the life jacket before using it? Ans: To avoid blocking the escape route 5. Where is the safety briefing card? Ans: In the seat pocket in front of your seat 6. How many emergency exits should be noticed? Ans: The nearest exits in front of and behind your seat 7. Why should you open the sunlight shield before takeoff and landing? Ans: To check the outside situation 8. Why should you keep the seatbelt fastened during the entire flight? Ans: To avoid the abrupt effects of turbulence

76.7

92.4

15.7

0.000***

23.1b

94.4

71.3c

0.000***

68.4

64.8

3.6

0.257

85.9

92.4

6.5

61.7

79.1b

83.9

86.8

2.9

67.0

88.3

21.3

94.2a

94.8a

a

The highest-ranking accuracy. The lowest-ranking accuracy. c The greatest difference after finishing the program. ** P < 0.01. *** P < 0.001. b

17.4

0.6

0.002** 0.000*** 0.219 0.000*** 0.378

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

32 Table 5 Children’s answer accuracy on graphical questions. Item

Choices

Accuracy (%)

1.

Difference

Before (I)

After (J)

(J  I)%

Brace position (Sleeping posture)

78.9

97.1a

18.2

Raise the sunlight shield (Open window)

69.3

94.2

24.9

These electrical devices cannot be used during takeoff and landing (Carrying electrical devices are prohibited)

68.2

71.3b

3.1

The placement of carry-on luggage (The placement of check-in luggage)

80.9a

86.1

5.2

During an emergency evacuation, carrying luggage off the plane is prohibited (Carry-on luggage is prohibited)

56.7b

91.3

34.6c

d

2. d

3. d

4. d

5. d

a b c d

The highest-ranking accuracy. The lowest-ranking accuracy. The greatest difference after finishing the program. Scource from various commerical airlines in Taiwan.

(accuracy rate < 60%) (Table 5). The two items with the highest accuracy rate (>60%) were #1 and #4. After the program, the children better understood that #2 meant that they had to ‘‘raise the sunlight shield’’, that #1 meant assume the ‘‘brace position’’, and that #5 meant ‘‘during an emergency evacuation, carrying luggage is prohibited’’, but they had difficulty understanding that #3 meant ‘‘these electrical devices cannot be used during takeoff and landing’’. However, the difference between before and after they had finished the program was not significant (P > 0.05). The intent of the graphical illustrations was to provide clearer and more easily understandable meaning for the cabin safety rules; however, some illustrations, viz., #3 and #5, were not clear and understandable to these children. Another potential solution that may be considered by the airlines is to introduce critical safety information to children using, for example, a children’s version of a cabin safety briefing card. 4.4. Influence of the children’s demographics on the cabin safety education program 4.4.1. Test of significant differences in cabin safety knowledge and attitude based on gender A t-test showed that almost all the mean scores of the girls were higher than those of the boys both before and after finishing the program. No significant differences were found for knowledgerelated questions before finishing the program. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were found for knowledge-related items (#3, #5, #10) after finishing the program, for attitude-related items (#3, #5, #6, #8) before giving the program, and for attitude-related items (#2, #3) after finishing the program (Table 6). The results all showed that the girls were more aware and agreeable than the boys. Also, the effect of the improvement in the children’s knowledge was more significant than the effect of the improvement in their attitude.

4.4.2. Test of significant differences in knowledge and attitude based on grade in school A t-test showed that before finishing the program, there were no significant differences for knowledge-related and attituderelated items. After finishing the program, significant differences (P < 0.05) were found for all knowledge-related except items #1, #3, and #4 and attitude-related items except #1, #3, #4, and #6 (Table 7). In addition, 6th-grade children were more aware and agreeable than 5th-grade children after finishing the program. 4.4.3. Test of significant differences in knowledge and attitude based on the locations of the schools A t-test showed that before finishing the program, there were significant differences for knowledge-related (#1, #3, #5, #7, #10) and attitude-related (#2, #3, #4, #7) items. After finishing the program, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) for one knowledge-related item (#9). However, there were no significant differences for any attitude-related items (Table 8). In addition, the location of the school was an important factor affecting knowledge and attitude. Children in urban schools were more aware and agreeable than children in rural schools before finishing the program. However, after they had finished the program, there was only one significant difference for cabin safety knowledge (#9). 4.4.4. Test of significant differences in knowledge and attitude based on the number of times they had traveled by air ANOVA showed that there were significant differences (P < 0.05) for all items before giving the program, but for only one item after finishing the program on cabin safety knowledge (Table 9). Furthermore, the Scheffe Post Hoc analysis for this item, ‘‘You know why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing’’ (#7), showed that after they had finished the program, the children who had traveled 1–3 times were more aware than those who had never traveled by air. This result is not surprising, because almost half the students had never traveled by

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

33

Table 6 Test of significant differences in cabin safety knowledge and attitude based on gender. After

Before a

P

Fa

Ma

P

3.23 3.36 4.27 3.37 4.24 3.29 2.96 3.17 3.20 3.84

0.925 0.055 0.652 0.078 0.169 0.276 0.635 0.729 0.591 0.083

4.68 4.68 4.80 4.77 4.80 4.66 4.59 4.67 4.71 4.76

4.63 4.57 4.63 4.69 4.62 4.56 4.55 4.64 4.58 4.63

0.242 0.118 0.009** 0.202 0.004** 0.140 0.291 0.634 0.068 0.048*

3.99 3.89 4.12 3.73 3.88 4.22 4.12 4.13

0.099 0.192 0.004** 0.095 0.003** 0.003** 0.066 0.023*

4.66 4.74 4.79 4.70 4.75 4.79 4.77 4.76

4.59 4.61 4.62 4.58 4.66 4.72 4.66 4.70

0.297 0.043* 0.011* 0.069 0.145 0.244 0.111 0.083

Different genders

F

M

Knowledge statements: You know 1. why should you obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 2. why should you pack luggage by yourself 3. what goods are prohibited from being carried onto the airplane 4. why you should not inflate the lifejacket before going through the emergency exit 5. why do you keep the seatbelt fastened during the entire flight 6. the correct way to put on the oxygen mask 7. why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing 8. the correct posture for using the emergency evacuation slide 9. the restrictions of the emergency exit row seating 10. why you should not wear any sharp goods during emergency evacuation

3.21 3.60 4.25 3.37 4.39 3.15 3.02 3.21 3.13 3.99

Attitude statements: You agree that you will 1. pack your luggage by yourself 2. obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 3. watch safety demonstration every time you fly 4. be aware of whether you have to escape from the cabin by yourself 5. read the safety briefing card every time you fly 6. keep your seat belt fastened during the entire flight 7. do not carry any dangerous goods on board 8. check the nearest front and rear exits before takeoff and landing every time you fly

4.19 4.04 4.43 3.95 4.22 4.53 4.33 4.37

a

Likert scale scores: 1 = no knowledge at all; 5 = totally aware (Knowledge). Likert scale scores: 1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree (Attitude). a All data in these columns are means. * P < 0.05. ** P < 0.01.

air, about 30% had traveled 1–3 times, and the remaining 22% had traveled more than 4 times. The number of flights they had been on had an important effect on their knowledge of cabin safety information before they took the program. After they finished this program, however, there were no significant differences based on the number of times they had traveled by air, except for item #7. ANOVA showed significant differences in cabin safety attitude based on the number of times they had traveled by air for all but two items before taking the program, but none for any items after finishing the program (Table 9). This result implies that the safety education program was more effective for the children with no flying experience because they showed greater improvement than did those with some flying experiences.

4.5. Participants’ behavior intentions The program evaluation survey that the participants filled out after the study indicated that 94.2% of the participants were willing to share their information about the cabin safety program with their family, 78% thought that the program was very informative (20% said ‘‘very interesting’’; 2% said ‘‘very boring’’), 98.7% were willing to follow-up the content of this program the next time they fly, 98.4% will remind their friends and family about safety information, and 97.5% will correct any inappropriate and unsafe behavior of their friends and family on an airplane. Most participants were willing to follow-up on what they learned from this program, which was gratifying positive feedback.

Table 7 Test of significant differences in cabin safety knowledge and attitude based on grade in school. After

Before Different grades in school

Grade 5a

Grade 6a

P

Grade 5a

Grade 6a

P

Knowledge statements: You know 1. why should you obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 2. why should you pack luggage by yourself 3. what goods are prohibited from being carried onto the airplane 4. why you should not inflate the lifejacket before going through the emergency exit 5. why should you keep the seatbelt fastened during the entire flight 6. the correct way to put on the oxygen mask 7. why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing 8. the correct posture for using the emergency evacuation slide 9. the restrictions of emergency exit row seating 10. why you should not wear any sharp goods during emergency evacuation

3.15 3.45 4.24 3.27 4.27 3.18 2.99 3.22 3.10 3.96

3.27 3.50 4.27 3.45 4.35 3.26 2.98 3.17 3.21 3.88

0.411 0.096 0.486 0.131 0.874 0.319 0.390 0.276 0.235 0.291

4.57 4.52 4.67 4.66 4.61 4.51 4.44 4.57 4.51 4.60

4.71 4.71 4.75 4.78 4.78 4.68 4.66 4.72 4.73 4.76

0.064 0.008** 0.116 0.057 0.009** 0.024* 0.007** 0.040* 0.002** 0.019*

Attitude statements: You agree that you will 1. pack your luggage by yourself 2. obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 3. watch safety demonstration every time you fly 4. be aware of whether you have to escape from the cabin by yourself 5. read the safety briefing card every time you fly 6. keep your seat belt fastened during the entire flight 7. do not carry any dangerous goods on board 8. check the nearest front and rear exits before takeoff and landing every time you fly

4.13 3.95 4.30 3.83 4.02 4.39 4.16 4.26

4.05 3.97 4.26 3.84 4.07 4.36 4.27 4.25

0.338 0.778 0.143 0.963 0.902 0.301 0.953 0.482

4.58 4.57 4.69 4.56 4.62 4.70 4.60 4.66

4.66 4.75 4.71 4.70 4.77 4.79 4.79 4.78

0.331 0.005** 0.794 0.053 0.019* 0.136 0.008** 0.041*

Likert scale scores: 1 = no knowledge at all; 5 = totally aware (Knowledge). Likert scale scores: 1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree (Attitude). a All data in these columns are means. * P < 0.05. ** P < 0.01.

34

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

Table 8 Test of significant differences in cabin safety knowledge and attitude based on school location. After

Before a

P

Urbana

Rurala

P

3.04 3.35 4.03 3.23 4.20 3.13 2.86 3.10 3.07 3.76

0.004** 0.873 0.000*** 0.419 0.030* 0.126 0.048* 0.152 0.472 0.012*

4.62 4.58 4.75 4.72 4.74 4.64 4.63 4.69 4.72 4.72

4.67 4.67 4.69 4.73 4.69 4.58 4.52 4.62 4.57 4.57

0.263 0.181 0.174 0.614 0.215 0.338 0.179 0.198 0.029* 0.278

3.79 3.79 4.13 3.58 3.95 4.26 4.00 4.14

0.369 0.002** 0.004** 0.000*** 0.176 0.037 0.000*** 0.077

4.61 4.69 4.74 4.68 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.74

4.64 4.66 4.67 4.61 4.70 4.79 4.70 4.73

0.589 0.414 0.052 0.140 0.817 0.278 0.779 0.848

Different grades in school

Urban

Rural

Knowledge statements: You know 1. why should you obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 2. why should you pack luggage by yourself 3. what goods are prohibited from being carried onto the airplane 4. why you should not inflate the lifejacket before going through the emergency exit 5. why do you keep the seatbelt fastened during the entire flight 6. the correct way to put on the oxygen mask 7. why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing 8. the correct posture for using the emergency evacuation slide 9. the restrictions of emergency exit row seating 10. why you should not wear any sharp goods during an emergency evacuation

3.41 3.62 4.51 3.52 4.43 3.33 3.12 3.29 3.26 4.08

Attitude statements: You agree that you will 1. pack your luggage by yourself 2. obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage 3. watch safety demonstration every time you fly 4. be aware of whether you have to escape from the cabin by yourself 5. read the safety briefing card every time you fly 6. keep your seat belt fastened during the entire flight 7. do not carry any dangerous goods on board 8. check the nearest front and rear exits before takeoff and landing every time you fly

4.21 4.15 4.43 4.11 4.15 4.48 4.47 4.37

a

Likert scale scores: 1 = no knowledge at all; 5 = totally aware (Knowledge). Likert scale scores: 1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree (Attitude). a All data in these columns are means. * P < 0.05. ** P < 0.01. *** P < 0.001.

5. Discussion The demographic profile of the participants indicated that children in Taiwan may have more opportunities than children in most other countries to travel by air. Many Taiwanese are willing to fly to domestic off-shore vacation sites and between Taipei and Kaohsiung because the fares for such short domestic flights are not much higher than those of other forms of transportation, and not as relatively high as those in the USA and Europe. Also, many parents in Taiwan are more willing to travel to other countries with their children during summer and winter vacation, and particularly to fly to nearby southeast and northeast Asian countries for vacations, because they are close, and airline fares are not expensive for such short international flights. The results show that our elementary school participants learned most of their cabin safety information from TV, and then from the Internet. This indicated that younger children still favor the mass media, such as TV and the Internet, which should also be considered to convey safety information to children. The children reported that the instructor was more understandable than the film because there was direct interaction between the students and the instructor during the safety course. Therefore, it seems essential for any training program to include live human instructors to be effective with elementary school students. If a long-term cabin safety education program becomes part of the elementary school curriculum, a teaching manual and, perhaps, a brief training class for the teachers selected to give the course will be needed. In addition, using various approaches is suggested when educating children. An educational TV program should probably be the primary vehicle since that is the current primary and preferred source of most cabin safety information for elementary school students. It also encourages the development of an online cabin safety program because e-learning is the trendy learning platform for the new generation. Further, a simulated (mockup, virtual reality, or 3D computer game-like) airplane cabin environment with demonstration and practice modules should help children learn. Lambie, Seymour, and Popaduk (2012)

indicated that when participants use visual aids, they learn better. Cabin safety education can be delivered during summer camps by aviation or related university departments. This would not only provide opportunities for college students to put what they have learned into practical use, but also to establish a reputation for their university. The results provide evidence that girls more than boys, and 6thgraders more than 5th-graders, were more aware of cabin safety knowledge and had more agreeable cabin safety attitudes after finishing this program. This implied that age, as well as gender, is an important factor in learning. Normally, older adolescents are better able to understand what they are taught in school. Han & Hoover (1994) found that one factor that affects learning differences is grade level. Older students are more positive about Web-based learning tools and perform better than do younger students (Kay & Knaack, 2007, 2008); the present study supports these findings. Some educational investigations show gender differences in learning; for example, Ferrara (2005) reported that girls’ classes moved at a much faster rate than boys’ classes and that girls generally have higher grade-point averages. Gender differences in reading scores favoring girls were observed at all grade levels (Madelaine & Wheldall, 2002). Similarly, Salomone (2003) indicated that by grade four, girls score higher nationally on reading tests than do boys. These findings support this: the analyses of differences based on gender showed that girls are more efficient at learning cabin safety knowledge and more willing to adopt a positive attitude about cabin safety than are boys of the same age. The children in urban schools, and those who had traveled by air more often, were more aware of cabin safety knowledge and more agreeable about cabin safety attitudes before they had taken this program. It probably has to do with parental wealth and, because city residents are not farmers tied to the schedules of their crops and animals, the opportunities for urban dwellers to travel overseas or even to off-shore islands by air are greater than for rural students. Therefore, children in urban schools have more opportunities to explore and acquire cabin safety information. However, there was no significant improvement on these two

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

35

Table 9 Test of significant differences in cabin safety knowledge and attitude based on the number of times they had traveled by air. After

Before Number of flights taken

0 (A)a

1–3 (B)a

4 (C)a

P

Scheffe

0 (A)a

1–3 (B)a

4 (C)a

P

Knowledge statements: You know 1. why should you obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage

2.83

3.51

3.68

0.000***

4.60

4.75

4.62

0.167

2. why should you pack luggage by yourself

3.08

3.74

3.99

0.000***

4.58

4.70

4.62

0.349

4.67

0.000

***

4.69

4.77

4.69

0.508

***

B>A C>A B>A C>A B>A C>A B>A C>A B>A C>A C>A B>A C>A B>A C>A B>A C>A B>A C>A

4.71

4.77

4.70

0.595

4.68

4.76

4.72

0.517

4.58 4.47

3.66 4.70

4.58 4.60

0.622 0.041*

4.63

4.72

4.61

0.399

4.56

4.73

4.70

0.085

4.65

4.76

4.69

0.408

4.57

4.66

4.70

0.339

4.65

4.70

4.71

0.690

4.67 4.61

4.73 4.64

4.72 4.73

0.709 0.381

4.69 4.75 4.72

4.71 4.77 4.70

4.75 4.72 4.71

0.726 0.829 0.980

4.71

4.76

4.73

0.812

3. what goods are prohibited from being carried onto the airplane 4. why you should not inflate the lifejacket before going through the emergency exit 5. why you keep the seatbelt fastened during the entire flight

3.89

4.54

3.02

2.53

3.91

0.000

4.05

4.49

4.64

0.000***

6. the correct way to put on the oxygen mask 7. why the sunlight shield should be raised before takeoff and landing 8. the correct posture for using the emergency evacuation slide

2.91 2.64

3.23 3.11

3.87 3.58

0.000*** 0.000***

2.84

3.33

3.76

0.000

***

9. the restrictions of the emergency exit row seating

2.81

3.39

3.62

0.000***

10. why you should not wear any sharp goods during emergency evacuation

3.53

4.19

4.38

0.000***

Attitude statements: You agree that you will 1. pack your luggage by yourself

3.87

4.30

4.27

0.002**

2. obey the size restrictions for carry-on luggage

3.68

4.17

4.30

0.000***

3. watch safety demonstration every time you fly 4. be aware of whether you have to escape from the cabin by yourself 5. read the safety briefing card every time you fly 6. keep your seat belt fastened during the entire flight 7. do not carry any dangerous goods on board 8. check the nearest front and rear exits before takeoff and landing every time you fly

*

4.13 3.52

4.39 4.11

4.43 4.16

0.030 0.000***

3.98 4.25 3.97

4.11 4.47 4.33

4.12 4.50 4.65

0.484 0.080 0.000***

4.07

4.36

4.49

0.003

**

B>A C>A B>A C>A ND B>A C>A

B>A C>A C>A

Scheffe

B>A

Likert scale scores: 1 = no knowledge at all; 5 = totally aware (Knowledge). Likert scale scores: 1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree (Attitude). Scheffe, Scheffe post hoc analysis; ND, no difference. a All data in these columns are means. * P < 0.05. ** P < 0.01. *** P < 0.001.

factors except for item 9 (Table 8) on cabin safety knowledge based on the location of the school, and for item 7 (Table 9) based on the number of times they had traveled by air. This implied that an appropriate education program may reduce the differences between children in urban and rural schools, and between children with no air travel experience and those with some air travel experience. Therefore, an equitable allocation of education resources should be considered an essential issue. Rural schools in Taiwan are normally given fewer resources because the allocation of resources is determined by the number of students enrolled in a school: schools with more students (usually urban schools) are given more resources and funds. Finally, the children also said that they were very willing to share the content of the cabin safety program with their friends and family and to practice what they learned from this program during their next flight. In addition, they are willing to remind or correct their flying companions when they do not follow the safety instructions. Knowledge, attitude, and behavior are involved in a complicated, dynamic, and interactive process (Alexander & Dochy, 1995). One’s knowledge positively affects one’s attitude and behavior (Fabrigar et al., 2006). According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), behavioral intentions will reflect and influence actual behavior. In sum, after the children had finished the program, overall, their knowledge

and attitudes about airline cabin safety significantly improved, and their behavior intention statements were very positive. Therefore, one may conclude that a child-friendly cabin safety program is an effective method for improving the knowledge and attitudes of elementary school children. Although the questionnaire in the present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the cabin safety education program, it might constitute a methodological limitation. From an experimental perspective, the lack of a control group might influence the study’s internal validity because of the local history, maturation of the participants, and whether the assumed testing effects would have occurred even without the treatment under analysis (Frese, Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003; Haccoun & Hamtiaux, 1994), especially in a one-group pretest–post-test design. Another limitation is that this is not a long-term evaluation program. In addition, the results of this preliminary study have not yet been addressed in different regions with students from different cultural backgrounds. 6. Conclusion This study examined the effect of airline cabin safety education on school children using a diverse, specially designed program with lessons from real incidents, particularly focused on explaining the

36

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37

‘‘what’’s, ‘‘when’’s, ‘‘why’’s and ‘‘how’’s of cabin safety. To the best of my knowledge, this program is the first to follow-up prior research on the importance of cabin safety education for passengers. TV seems to be the best source of cabin safety-related information for elementary school children, and the Internet, the second best. This may suggest using educational TV programs, e-learning systems, and various other intellectually and emotionally stimulating approaches to educate children. A live instructor is more understandable than a film when delivering the message of cabin safety. Therefore, it is essential to train program instructors how to effectively teach elementary school students in this area. Girls and students at higher grade-levels were better learners of cabin safety knowledge and developed more positive attitude about cabin safety. Thus, the appropriate age for teaching them safety information and proper attitude should be considered in the program design. It is also reasonable to conclude that demographics significantly affect what children know and how they feel about topics such as airline cabin safety. Although the children attending urban schools and children who had traveled by air had more cabin safety knowledge than did children attending rural schools and children who had not traveled by air before finishing the cabin safety education program, it is interesting and perhaps understandable that after finishing the program, almost all improved their knowledge and attitudes regardless of their school location and air travel experience. Therefore, it is essential to equitably allocate educational resources so that they all have an equal opportunity to acquire this necessary knowledge and develop the necessary attitudes. This research indicates that a well-designed cabin safety education program is an effective method of improving children’s cabin safety knowledge, attitudes, and behavior intentions. If these children put what they have learned and how they said they intended to behave on future flights into practice, a major goal of the program will be realized. Government agencies and nonprofit safety institutes may want to consider designing safety education programs to become part of the curriculum for elementary school students. Airlines may want to consider designing safety briefing cards and demonstrations tailored for children.

7. Lessons learned and future research It is vitally important to provide opportunities for direct interaction between instructor and students in order to achieve more effective results. During the conduct of this program, it was found that safety education was more effective for the 6th-graders than for the 5th-graders. Thus, such a program should be taught to a more mature age group of students. Due to lack of time and budget, only a short time could be devoted to this research. A long-term evaluation, perhaps 6–12 months, of how well the children who finished this program remember the safety information and whether they actually practice it on flights is suggested for future studies. Using TV programs or videos accessible on the Internet to deliver a cabin safety program is also encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness of different modes of presentation. Finally, future researchers might also consider including a control group to eliminate potential extraneous factors for inferring the effectiveness of the cabin safety education program. Acknowledgments This study was funded by grant NSC 100-2410-H-156-002 from the Taiwan National Science Council. I thank Yu-Hsiang Lin and Chiao-Ting Chien, graduate students in the Department of Transportation & Leisure Service Management, National Kaohsiung

University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan, for providing models of how to use the cabin safety equipment in the film. I also thank Banciao, Qiao-De, Ren-He, and Ren-Ai elementary schools for their participation and support. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, F. J. (1995). Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: Comparisons across varying cultural and educational communities. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 413–442. Civil Aviation Administration (CAA). (2010). Flight operation rules, Sec.1, Chapter II. available at: http://www.caa.gov.tw/big5/download/pliad/07-02A.pdf. (accessed 14.05.13) (in Chinese). Chang, C. (1995). Knock the window of memory: Training and developing children’s memory. Taipei, Taiwan: Shin-Yu Publishers. Chang, Y. H., & Liao, M. Y. (2008). Air passenger perceptions on exit row seating and flight safety education. Safety Science, 46(10), 1459–1468. Chang, Y. H., & Liao, M. Y. (2010a). Airlines passengers’ awareness of and preferred source of cabin safety information. Asia Pacific Management Review, 15(4), 533–547. Chang, Y. H., & Liao, M. Y. (2010b). A comparison of cabin safety awareness among airline passengers in Taiwan and Mainland China. Transportation Journal, 49(1), 48–66. Chirstensen, J. (2005). Report recommends new efforts to educate airplane passengers about evacuations with infants or young children. Flight Safety Foundation-Cabin Crew Safety, 40(5), 1–5. Churchill, G. A. (1991). Marketing research: Methodological foundation (5th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press. Cole, R. E., Kitzman, H., Arcoleo, K., Anson, E., Koulouglioti, C., & Feng, J. (2005). Socialisation strategies, behavioural compliance and childhood injuries. Paper presented at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention Injury and Violence in America Conference. Edwards, M. (1990). Stress, behavior, training and safety. Flight Safety Foundation-Cabin Crew Safety, 25(3), 1–5. Fabrigar, L. R., Petty, R. E., Smith, S. M., & Crites, S. L. (2006). Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 556–577. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). (2012). Sec. 121.571—Briefing passengers before takeoff. available at: http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-571-FAR.shtml. (accessed 14.05.13). Ferrara, M. M. (2005). The single gender middle school classroom: A close-up look at gender differences in learning. AARE 2005 Conference in Parramatta, Australia. Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671–697. Gofin, R., Palti, H., & Adler, B. (1990). The use of car restraints by newborns and mothers: Knowledge, attitude, and practices. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, 26, 261–266. Haccoun, R. R., & Hamtiaux, T. (1994). Optimizing knowledge tests for inferring learning acquisition levels in single group training evaluation designs: The internal referencing strategy. Personnel Psychology, 47, 593–604. Han, L., & Hoover, H. D. (1994). Gender differences in achievement test scores. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 369816). Harre, N., & Field, J. (1998). Safe driving education programs at school: Lessons from New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 22(4), 447–450. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the learning in learning objects for secondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261–289. Kay, R. H., & Knacck, L. (2008). An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 447–461. Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: A paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 467–488. Lambie, I., Seymour, F., & Popaduk, T. (2012). Young people and caregivers’ perceptions of an intervention program for children who deliberately light fires. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(4), 445–452. Lester, C., Donnelly, P., Weston, C., & Morgan, M. (1996). Teaching schoolchildren cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation, 31, 33–38. Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity? London, UK: Sage Publications. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2002). Establishing tentative norms and identifying gender differences in performance for a new passage reading test. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(1), 40–44. Muir, H., & Thomas, L. (2004). Passenger education: Past and future. The Fourth Triennial International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference (pp. 15–18). National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1985). Safety study: Airline passenger safety education: A review of methods used to present safety information. Report No. NTSB-SS-85-04. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2000). Safety study: Emergency evacuation of commercial airplanes. NTSB/SS-00/01 PB2000-917002. Washington, DC: NTSB. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ronan, K. P., Johnston, D. M., & Daly, M. (2001). School children’s risk perceptions and preparedness: A hazards education survey. The Australasian Journal of Disaster and

M.-Y. Liao / Evaluation and Program Planning 43 (2014) 27–37 Trauma Studies. available at: http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/2001-1/ronan. htm. (accessed 16.07.12). Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven, CT: Yale. Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. L. (2004). The knowledge, attitude, and behaviors approach: How to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 8–15. The Telegraph. (2005, January). Girl, 10, used geography lesson to save lives. available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1480192/Girl-10-used-geography-lesson-tosave-lives.html. (accessed 14.05.13). Transport Canada. (2008). Information for passengers. available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/ eng/air-menu.htm. (accessed 14.05.13). Transport Canada. (2011). Goal of cabin safety. available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ civilaviation/standards/commerce-cabinsafety-program-200.htm#goal. (accessed 14.05.13). Wood, C. (1997). Yardsticks: Children in the classroom ages 4–14. Turners Falls, MA/ Taipei, Taiwan: Northeast Foundation for Children/Chinese translation copyright 2004 by Yuan-Liou Publishing Co., Ltd..

37

Liao has been teaching at Aletheia University, Taiwan since 1997. She obtained her PhD degree in Transportation Management Department of the National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan in 2009. Her research interest is in aviation safety. Between 2008 and 2010, she has published three cabin safety related papers on SCI/SSCI International Journal, two EI and one TSSCI papers. She also participated in two projects funded by the National Science Council, Taiwan and leading the research efforts of two NSC grants; one in cabin safety education program to children and the other in safety culture impact differences between East and West. In 2009, Dr. Liao also completed a collaboration research project with Prof. Chang, Yu-Hern, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan on ‘‘Assessment of Tainan Public Bus Operation and Service’’. Dr. Liao is a member of Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) and World Conference on Transportation Research (WCTR). She has been invited to be a reviewer by WCTR 2010 and actively published her updated research papers on international conference. Dr. Liao is now an assistant professor and has substantial expertise in aviation safety related areas, especially cabin safety education, training, and cultural effects. She received her Bachelor’s degree in General Recreation and Master degree in Aviation Safety from University of Central Missouri, USA. Dr. Liao is married with one son and currently resides in Taipei, Taiwan.