‘V.... . V ,H. . ‘V . . . ._ . . . A ,V V W m V. A, V . V _ V w w s . a. M E V H e H. 1 A F. e W... E m m 0 D m S V V F U C .1. G H Ti R. .mm H M . W. m G MW Mm . V m 3 I: m m M m G W A an N R “ D! W D V V V. M m M m D m A . VW W A , w . .. . .. .. V ,. 5.5.3.4.};3, V . V .V v V.. . .5 t. 3:. . ”v V , , . .. . Mutant-“7.1.. V233“... :T..A.. V2. . .. .. Z . V . . _ . LIBRARY 5 ' '33:: Stat: University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparison of Driving Records of Oklahoma Driving Instructors and the Subsequent Driving Records of Their Students presented by Milton D. Rhoads has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Education Major professor 2 15 72 Date / / 0-7639 fl- __ ._-__J ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF DRIVING RECORDS OF OKLAHOMA DRIVING INSTRUCTORS AND THE SUBSEQUENT DRIVING RECORDS OF THEIR STUDENTS BY Milton Dale Rhoads Statement of the Problem The formation of guidelines and controls regarding the personal driving records of driver education instruc- tors suggests that there may be a relationship between their driving behavior and their effectiveness as a driving instructor. A recent study indicates that there is a sig- nificant relationship between father and son driving behavior. It was this study that prompted the question: Could there possibly be a similar relationship between the driving behavior of the driver education instructor and the subsequent driving behavior of his driver education students? This research study was undertaken to seek an answer to the above question. In addition, a check was made for a possible relationship between: (1) Age of the driving instructor; (2) Teaching experience of the driving instruc- tor; and (3) Formal preparation of the driving instructor Milton Dale Rhoads and the subsequent driving records of his driver education students. Study Design and Procedure The project design called for the computation of a correlation coefficient between the driving records of 50 Oklahoma driver education instructors and the subsequent driving records of 1000 of their driver education students (20 students for each instructor). The school year 1966-67 was selected enabling the instructor's driving records to be determined for the preceding three years (calendar years 1963-65) and the student's driving records to be determined for the three years following (calendar years 1968-70 inclusive) the year in which they received their driver education course. The 50 instructors were randomly selected from approximately 430 instructors who taught driver education in Oklahoma during the school year 1966-67. The instruc- tor's name and drivers license number were obtained from ‘State Department of Education Form D.E.-10's. Also included onthe D.E.-10 form were the names and birthdays of students taught by that instructor. It was this association, student with instructor (for both classroom and laboratory phases), that made Oklahoma most adaptable for this study. Milton Dale Rhoads A recording instrument was devised which contained the necessary information for positive identification of the driving records plus space to record violations for moving traffic violations. A 5" x 8" card was prepared for each instructor and 20 of his students. Each driving record was checked manually and the violations recorded on the 5" x 8" card. Final preparation of the raw data before being transferred to IBM cards involved assigning point values to each violation. Since Oklahoma does not use the standard point accumulation system for moving traffic violations, Michigan's point system was applied. The statistical analysis of the data involved "t" tests of mean differences for point accumulations assessed to moving traffic violations. Relationships between age, teaching experience, and formal preparation of the instructors and the subseqUent driving records of his students involved contingency tables and were tested by chi-square. Summary of Findings l. The mean point accumulations for students of instructors with point accumulations for moving traffic violations was less (3.12) than the mean point accumulations for students of instructors without point accumulations (3.32). This resulted in a reverse correlation coefficient quite unlike that which was expected (-0.53023). A "t" Milton Dale Rhoads test revealed no significant difference between the two samples. 2. The age of the driver education instructor related significantly to the subsequent driving records of his driver education students. The data were tested by chi-square and revealed significance at the .01 level of confidence. 3. Teaching experience of the driver education instructor related significantly with the subsequent driving records of his students. The data were tested by chi-square and revealed significance at the .05 level of confidence. 4. The relationship between the driver education instructor's formal preparation (credit hours) in driver education and the subsequent driving records of his students was not significant. The data were tested by chi-square and was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. 5. Students of driver education instructors holding Master's degrees did not have driving records significantly better than students of driver education instructors holding Bachelor's degrees. The data were tested by a "t" test and was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. 6. An analysis of violations revealed that male students had a higher mean point accumulation for moving Milton Dale Rhoads traffic violations (4.388) than did the females (1.141) for the three year period checked. 7. Students from the nine high density schools (Tulsa and Oklahoma counties) had a mean point accumulation for moving traffic violations greater (4.60) than the mean point accumulation of students from all other schools. The data were tested by a "t" test and revealed signifi- cance at the .05 level of confidence. 8. Approximately 22 per cent of the female and 47 per cent of the male subjects were involved in accidents during the three year period. 9. Fifty per cent of the students from the high density schools and 36 per cent of the students from all other schools were involved in accidents during the three year period. 10. Sixteen per cent of the Oklahoma driver educa- tion instructors had convictions for moving traffic violations driving the three years checked. A similar study by Lorenzen in 1968 revealed that less than half (49.9%) of the California driver education instructors had clean driving records the three years prior to his investigation. 11. The number of student convictions for excessive speed (479) exceeded the total number of all other viola- tions (451) recorded in this study (see Table 11). Milton Dale Rhoads 12. On a proportionate basis male students had more than four times as many driver license suspensions as did female students. A COMPARISON OF DRIVING RECORDS OF OKLAHOMA DRIVING INSTRUCTORS AND THE SUBSEQUENT DRIVING RECORDS OF THEIR STUDENTS BY Milton Dale Rhoads A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to thank Dr. Robert O. Nolan, who, as Guidance Committee Chairman, provided counsel and encouragement in all phases of the study. He also wishes to express his appreciation to the other members of his Guidance Committee, Dr. William A. Mann, Dr. George R. Myers, and Dr. James Page for giving their time, criticism and suggestions. Grateful acknowledgment is due to Mr. Henry Vaughn, Director of Driver and Safety Education Section, State Department of Education, and Mr. Chuck Hughes, Director of the Central Records Division, Department of Public Safety for making their records available for this study. Special thanks are extended to Mrs. Barbara J. Mayfield for her patience and excellence while typing the early manuscripts and final rough draft. Finally, to his wife, Judy Rhoads, the writer expresses greatest appreciation for her inspiration and vital moral support, without which this study would have been impossible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . . 3 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 5 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 5 Research Hypothesis and Problems . . . . . 8 Methods of Procedure . . . . . . . . . 9 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . 11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 II. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . 13 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Familial vs. Institutional Socialization of the Young Traffic Offender . . . . l3 Instructor Selection, Preparation, and Performance . . . . . . . . . 15 Driver Exposure . . . . . . . . . 22 Driver Education Instructor's Driving Record . . . . . . . . . 24 Implications for All Teachers . . . . . . 26 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . 29 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 30 Data Collection . . . . . . . . 32 Research Hypothesis and Problems . . . . . 36 Statistical Procedure . . . . . . . . 37 Representativeness of Students . . . . . 39 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 iii Chapter IV. Introduction . . . . . Testing the Research Hypothesis ANALYSIS OF DATA Driving Exposure Differential . Research Problems Analysis of Violations Summary v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Study Purpose and Procedures Summary of Findings Conclusions Recommendations Discussion Implications for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY iv Page 41 41 42 46 47 54 65 67 68 69 72 73 75 78 81 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Mean point accumulations of students of instructors with moving traffic violations compared with students of instructors with- out moving traffic violations . . . . . . 43 Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor and student point accumulations . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Mean point accumulations of students from high density schools compared with students from all other schools . . . . . 46 Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor age and instructor point accumulations . . . . . . . . . 48 -Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor age and student point accumulations . . . . . . . . . 49 Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor teaching experience and student point accumulations . . . . . 50 Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor driver and safety education credit hours and student point accumulations . . . . . . . . . 52 Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor driver education hours and student point accumulations . . . 53 Mean point accumulations of students of instructors with master's degrees compared with students of instructors with bachelor's degrees . . . . . . . . 54 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Comparison mean point accumulations for males and females . . . Rank order of violations . Comparison of violations of male students and violations of all students . . . Comparison of violations of female students and violations of all students . . . Comparison of violations of female students . . . Comparison of violations of high density schools with all students . . . . Comparison of violations of high density schools with all other students . . Comparison of accidents and male and students from violations of students from violations of suspensions of male students and all students . . . Comparison of accidents and suspensions of female students and all students . . . Comparison of accidents and suspensions of male and female students Comparisons of accidents and suspensions of students of high density schools with all students . . . . . . Comparison of accidents and suspensions of students from high density schools and all other students . . vi Page 55 56 58 59 6O 61 62 63 63 64 64 65 Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES D.E.-10 Form . . .p . .n . . . . D.E.-10A Form . . . . . . . . . Geographical Distribution of Schools . Recording Instruments . . . . . _. Michigan Point System . . . . . . Offense Code . . . . . . . . . vii Page 87 88 89 9O 91 92 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The way in which a person learns about the culture around him is called the socialization process. The principal agencies of society that help to transmit the culture to him are the family, the peer group, and the school. A study concluded in 1926, indicated that the family was the principal determinant of the values of the child.1 A more recent study indicates that there is a significant relationship between father and son driving behavior.2 The latter study prompted the question: Could there possibly be a relationship between the driving behavior of the driver education instructor and the sub- sequent driving behavior of his students? School administrators have long asked the question, "When employing a driver education instructor, how 1Martin R. Haskell and Lewis Yablonsky, Crime and Delinqpengy (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970), p. 295. 2William L. Carlson and David Klein, "Familial vs. Institutional Socialization of the Young Traffic Offender," The Journal of Safetnyesearch, March, 1970, pp. 13-25. important is his previous driving record?" Some schools, and some states, have established guidelines which range from "The driver education instructor shall have an 3 . . to a more speCifiC reference acceptable driving record," to accumulations of points for number and severity of moving violations. In Michigan, the Driver Education Section, State Department of Education, is notified daily by a computerized driving record Check of all Michigan's current driver education instructors. The driver education instructor is notified when he accumulates six points for moving traffic violations within a two year limit. The school is notified if one Cf its driver education instruc— tors accumulates eight Or more points for moving traffic violations. If a school does not relieve a driver educa- tion instructor immediately upon receipt of notice of eight or more points for moving traffic violations, that school's state reimbursement for driver education is in jeopardy. The formation of these guidelines and controls suggests that the instructor's driving record may have a relationship with his effectiveness as a driver education instructor. This raises the question of screening appli- cants for teacher preparation in driver education by institutions of higher learning. Should those with 3Oklahoma State Department of Education, A Guide for Teaching Driver Education in Oklahoma Schools, Oklahoma City, 1969. questionable driving records be eliminated? Or should they be accepted into the preparation program with the understanding that a two or three year Clear driving record will be a prerequisite for employment as a driver educa- tion instructor in the secondary schools? The final decision as to whether to accept or reject a driver educa— tion instructor because of his previous driving record usually lies with the employing school board. However, institutions of higher learning have the responsibility of appraising prospective instructors of state or local rules regarding employment of driver education instructors with questionable driving records. The Problem Descriptive research such as this study has as its objectives: 1. The collection of evidence concerning a current condition or problem; 2. An effort to compare the condition or problem to a norm; 3. To determine a possible remedy for the condition or problem. In these terms this project was undertaken with the hope that the outcome would benefit school administrators and institutions of higher learning with teacher prepara- tion programs in driver and safety education. The quality of driver and safety education programs is vitally dependent upon the quality of the instructors. Teacher preparation programs are improving but will this Abe enough? Do we possibly need to become more selective when picking candidates for teacher training in driver and safety education? Large trucking companies who log millions of accident free miles have extensive selection, as well as training, and re—training programs for their drivers. Even after surviving the selection and training programs, drivers who compile poor driving records are identified and released from the company or reassigned to a non-driving position. Should this study Show a correlation between the driving record of the driving instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students we might do well to eliminate those students from teacher preparation programs who have questionable driving records. Indications are that we no longer need to be concerned about producing large numbers of minimally qualified driver education instructors. While concentrating on expanding and improving preparation programs, inscitutions of higher learning and/or state departments of education, might follow the trucking industry's example by increasing emphasis on the selection of candidates for their preparation programs in driver and safety education.' Secondary school administrators could use a similar selection process when employing their l driver education teachers. The previous personal driving record of the candidate (teacher) could well be one of the criterion used in the selection process. A poor personal driving record accumulated while employed as a driver education instructor might well be a criterion used to identify instructors who may be transmitting their undesirable behavior to their students. Statement of the Problem To determine if a relationship exists between the driving record of the driving instructor and the subse- . quent driving records of his students. In addition, an attempt will be made to check the following instructor variables for a possible relationship with the subsequent driving records of his students: 1. Age of the instructor. 2. VTeaching experience of the instructor. 3. Formal preparation of the instructor. Definition of Terms An alphabetical listing of terms with specific definitions are presented for clarification as they are used in this study. D.E.-10 Form: A State Department of Education form upon which the secondary school driver education instructor must submit the names of his students each semester or summer. This form, when signed by the appropriate repre- sentative of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, is legal authorization for the students listed thereon to drive with a certified driver education instructor. It must be carried in the driver education car at all times. Department of Public Safety: A branch of the Oklahoma State Government which includes the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, driver licensing, driver improvement, and the Oklahoma Central Records Division. Driver Education Course: A course of study offered to secondary school students of Oklahoma who are at least 15% years of age or of sophomore standing. During the school year (1966—67) selected for this study, the course consisted of a minimum of 30 clock hours taught in the conventional classroom method and a minimum of Six hours on-street driving for each student. Driver Education Instructor: A person employed by a secondary school system to teach driver education to students enrolled in that school. During the school year selected for this study (1966-67), only four college semester hours in driver education were required for certification. Driving Exposure: It is recognized that the factors of driving exposure are extremely complex. For the purpose of this study, driving eXposure refers pri- marily to amounts of driving, traffic density in the area (county) of the driver's home, and enforcement policies and techniques in that area. Driving Record: For the purpose of this study, only convictions for moving traffic violations and accidents were noted. Formal Teacher Preparation: The number of college credit hours earned in the field of driver education or closely related traffic safety subjects. High Density Schools: Schools represented in this study located in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties. These schools were identified and treated separately as well as collectively with all schools in the study for the purpose of comparison. Moving Traffic Violations: Convictions for traffic violations while the operator was actually driving. Point System: A system of weighing each violation as to its severity. Accumulation of a certain number of points within a prescribed time limit is intended to identify problem drivers. State Reimbursement: The State of Oklahoma, as does several other states, reimburses a secondary school system so much for each student who completes a prescribed course in driver education. Teaching Experience: The total number of years the teacher taught under contract in the secondary schools of Oklahoma. Since less than a teaching minor was required for certification to teach driver education, records on teaching experience Specifically in driver education were not available. Research Hypothesis and Problems One research hypothesis and three research problems are advanced for the purpose of this study. Research Hypothesis Students of driver education instructors with more points for moving traffic violations during the three years prior to the 1966-67 school year, will have more points for moving traffic violations during the three years following the completion of the driver education course than students of driver education instructors with fewer points for moving traffic violations the three years prior to the 1966-67 school year. Research Problems 1. Is there a possible relationship between: a. The age of the driving instructor and his previous driving record? b. The age of the instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students? 2. Is there a possible relationship between the driving instructors teaching experience and the subsequent driving records of his students? 3. Is there a possible relationship between driving instructors formal preparation in driver and safety education and the subsequent driving records of his students? Methods of Procedure The administration of Oklahoma's driver education program in the secondary schools requires the completion of the D.E.-10 form4 each semester or summer. This form is completed by the instructor and contains the full names and birthdays of his assigned students. It was this association, instructor and student, and the availability of pertinent information required for a driving record‘ check that made Oklahoma most adaptable for this study. The school year 1966—67 was selected in order that the driving record of the instructors could be checked three previous years and the driving record of the students (could be checked three succeeding years. Sixty instructors were randomly selected from approximately 450 instructors who were employed as driver education instructors in Oklahoma secondary schools that year. Fifty of the 60 instructor's driving records were Checked as well as the driving records of 20 students for each of the 50 instruc- tors. The total sample, therefore, was 1000 students and 50 instructors. The driving records for both students and instructors were determined. The instructor whose name appeared on the D.E.-10 form was responsible for both the classroom and laboratory 4Currently the Form D.E.-10 has been modified and used for driver education certification purposes. Form D.E.-10A now contains the names of students to be taught. 10 instruction of the students listed on the form during the school year 1966-67. Since that year, approximately 15 schools have purchased driving simulator systems and five have incorporated the multiple car method in their driver education programs. In May, 1967, the Oklahoma Legislature provided for the State's reimbursement program to secondary schools for driver education. Until that time all of the programs consisted of the minimum 30 hours of Classroom instruction and six hours behind the wheel for each student. Since Oklahoma does not use the standard point accumulation system for moving traffic violations, Michigan's-point system5 was applied to the violations. It is interesting to note at this point that the Central Records Division of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety uses a point system to identify problem drivers for referral to driver improvement schools. The facilities of the computer center at Oklahoma State University were used to transfer the driving record data to IBM cards and do the necessary computations. The computer used was an IBM-360, Model 65. SMichigan Vehicle Code (Lansing: Office of the Secretary of State, 1965), pp. 69-70. 11 Limitations of the Study 1. The records of the Oklahoma Central Records Division are not computerized and do not have a cross- reference system from maiden name to married name. Many of the females selected for this study had to be replaced because they were married between the time they had their driver education course and the time this record check was made. In most cases another female was selected from the student list (D.E.-10). However, some student lists contained so many females who had been married that single females were not available, therefore, male replacements had to be selected. A further breakdown of the student selection process and the possible influence of this limitation will be presented in Chapter III--Design. 2. Driving exposure on the part of both the instructors and students could have a bearing on the outcome of this study. The chance exists that an instruc- tor (or student) with greater accumulation of points for moving violations could have driven either more miles and/or encountered more hazardous driving than an instruc- tor (or student) with fewer or no points. This limitation will be further explained in Chapter II—-Review of Literature, and Chapter IV—-Analysis of Data. 12 Summary Included in this chapter is an introduction to the problem, a statement of the problem describing this research as an effort to determine if there is a relationship between the driving record of the driving instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students. A list of terms which have specific meanings for the purpose of this study were defined. One research hypothesis and three research problems were presented followed by the methods of procedures and the limitations of the study. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction A Closely' related.‘study which did in fact prompt this study was completed in 1970 by Carlson and Klein.6 They reported a positive correlation between father and son driving behavior. A review of this study is included in this chapter. Attention is then directed to other literature related to Specific areas of this study. Familial vs. Institutional Socialization of the Young Traffic Offender The above study establishes a relationship between the driving behavior of father and son (Familial Socializa- tion). Later chapters of this study will attempt to determine if a similar relationship exists between driver education instructor and driver education student (Institutional Socialization). The following summary of the study is provided by the authors, Carlson and Klein: The driving records, academic performance, and police contacts of 8094 male undergraduates at a large state university were analyzed, and each student's history of traffic conVictions and crashes were compared with that of his father. 6Carlson and Klein, op. Cit. 13 14 The positive correlation found between fathers' and sons' conviction incidence supports the hypothesis that driving behavior is learned more through familial than through institutional socialization and that delinquent familial socialization results in delinquent traffic behavior. This is further supported by the findings that the student with numerous traffic convictions is delinquent in other respects: (1) his academic performance is poorer than that of his conviction-free peers and poorer than his own capabilities permit and (2) he is involved in more nonvehicular offenses than the student without traffic convictions. Of interest is their comment on the effectiveness of driver education, As for driver education which is currently regarded as a major form of institutional socialization with respect to driving behavior, it is likely to be effective only in so far as it is able to modify inadequate familial socialization.8 One would have to agree that a mere "30 and 6" driver education program is not adequate to change or modify attitudes, values, or personality traits that have developed over 15 years or more. This would appear to support the K-12 traffic safety idea and, if at all possible, directly involve the whole family as well as the school in the program. Hartshorne and May report as early as 1926 that the family is the principal determinant of the values of the child. "Peer—group influence-~the influences of 7 . Ibid., p. 13. 8 Ibid., p. 24. 15 friends--was next in importance. The impact of school and Church teachers appeared far less significant."9 Haskell and Yablonski in their book, Crime and Delinquency, report: There is good reason to believe that between 1926 and the present, as the society has become more urbanized and complex, parental influence has diminished and peer-group and school influences have increased. All three continue to exert important socializing influences."l Since Carlson and Klein's study seems to agree, perhaps we should attempt to direct more of our educational efforts toward the family. Instructor Selection, Preparation, and Performance There appears to be evidence of increasing concern with the driving record of the active or potential driver education instructors. Guidelines were established by the National Commission of Safety Education as early as 1963 concerning the driving record of the driver education instructor: a. Beginning teachers should have a valid driver license without a conviction for a moving violation or without a chargeable accident on record for the two year period immediately prior to employment. 9H. Hartshorne and M. A. May, "Testing the Knowledge of Right and Wrong," Religious Education, XX, No. 4 (October, 1926), 539-554. 10 Haskell and Yablonsky, op. cit., p. 296. 16 b. Conviction for a moving violation for which a driver license is suspended or revoked should call for automatic suspension of authorization to teach (driver education). c. Those whose authorization to teach has been suspended should be required to maintain a driving record free of convictions for moving violations or chargeable accidents for a period of two years before reinstatement.ll These guidelines should assist the school adminis- trator when selecting his driver education instructors. But in many cases, the administrator is not aware of the guidelines. In most states, it is the responsibility of the employing agency to determine what is an acceptable driving record. Oklahoma differs in that the Department of Public Safety checks the driving records and deter- mines acceptability for driver education instructors. In practice, few are denied their driver education teaching certificate by the Department of Public Safety. The employing school, however, is made aware of an applicant with a questionable driving record. Driving record guidelines have been established for employing driver education instructors. Should these same guidelines be used when selecting candidates for teacher preparation in driver and safety education? In 1966, the National Education Association convened the National Conference on Teacher Preparation and Certification 11National Commission on Safety Education, Policies and Practices for Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1964), p. 14. _ 17 in Driver and Traffic Safety Education. The conference was attended by 150 leaders representing state and local school systems, colleges and universities, governmental agencies, and private support organizations. The con- ference report contained the following statement: The primary factors insuring quality instruction in all subject areas of the school curriculum relate to the selection, preparation, and performance of the teacher. Successful driver and traffic safety education programs are taught by carefully chosen, well prepared, competent teachers. There are no exceptions to this rule. . . . weaknesses in the preparation and certification of teachers have a profound and detrimental effect upon the performance of the high school teacher. And, as educators and laymen both know, the teacher's performance affects the student's performance. Any weakness in this chain inevitably carries to the learner and deprives him of needed knowledge, skills, and understandings.12 This statement suggests a selection process for candidates for teacher preparation and safety education. A selection process for motor vehicle operators is out- lined in Chapter VII of the National Safety Council's Motor Fleet Safety Manual. "Previous experience in driving as a professional driver or as a private motorist is the most critical indicator of potential ability to 12National Commission on Safety Education, Policies and Guidelines: Teacher Preparation and Certification- Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington, D.C.: -National Education Association, 1965), pp. 33-34. ’5 18 drive safely."13 Thus by using previous driving records as a criterion, it is possible to screen out many drivers who would be poor risks. The author of the Motor Fleet Safety Manual further cautions that once the obviously poor risks have been screened out, attempts to further measure the candidate's potential ability as a safe driver must be confined to other aspects of his behavior. In other words, a single criterion, previous driving record, should not be used alone in the selection of motor fleet operators. The same should be true of a selection process for driver and safety education teacher preparation candidates. An opposite thought prevails regarding screening out driver education teacher preparation applicants with questionable driving records. If permitted to enter the program, they may discover their difficulty and become improved drivers as well as good driver education instructors. With few geographical exceptions, the need for large numbers of minimally qualified driver education instructors no longer exists. As a result, the past several years has seen vast improvements in driver and safety education preparation programs. In April, 1970, 'a curriculum plan for Michigan State University was 13National Safety Council, Motor Fleet Safety Manual (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1966), p. 105. 19 published which included an undergraduate teaching major in Driver and Traffic education courses.14 The fourth edition of the National Safety Council's publication15 lists 24 colleges and universities in the United States that offer a Master's Degree in driver and safety educa- tion and Six that offered the Doctoral Degree. These numbers are conservative as they are based on a voluntary response to a questionnaire. Also some new programs have originated since its printing. More than 300 institutions of higher learning reported offering safety education credit courses to some extent. The situation described by Hartmanl6 of a relative lack of specialized preparation and experience in driver and safety education on the part of those conducting the college and university teacher preparation courses still exists but to a lesser degree than at the time of his study. However, there is need for improvement regarding teacher certification regulations and practices in some 14Robert O. Nolan and Robert E. Gustafson, Teacher Preparation in Driver and Traffic Education: A Curriculum Plan for MiChigan State University (East Lansing: Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, 1970), p. 35. 15National Safety Council, College and University Safety Courses (Chicago: National Safety Council, September, 1970). 16Charles H. Hartman, "Teacher Preparation Programs in Driver and Safety Education in Colleges and Universities of the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961). 20 states. In Oklahoma, for example, a beginning instructor may teach full—time driver education for one year with only five semester hours (General Safety and Driver Educa- tion I courses) of preparation in driver and safety education. Before the start of his second year he must complete a third course in driver and safety education or related area. A real shortcoming in Oklahoma law17 would allow an instructor whose assignment in this area (driver education) is minor (two periods or less per day), to teach without a special certificate in driver education. Technically, this means that an instructor could teach two periods or less per day with no preparation at all in driver and safety education. He could also have a driving record that would disqualify him if he applied for certification to teach driver education. This short— coming has been pretty well held in check by requiring the use of certified teachers in order for a school to be eligible for State reimbursement for driver education. A major effort is under way to revise and update the laws, rules, and regulations governing Oklahoma's driver and safety education program. The literature on instructor selection, prepara- tion, and performance indicates the importance of the 17State of Oklahoma, Department of Education Bulletin No. 1130, Administrator's Handbook, July, 1970, p. 20. ' 21 instructor in the over-all learning process. Aaron and Strasser state it well. "Success in accomplishing the objectives of the driver and traffic safety education program is in a large measure related to the competence of the teacher.18 With regard to driver education instructor performance, the literature places emphasis on the maintenance of a good driving record. Robinson states, "It is the responsibility of the teacher (driver education) to set an example for the students . . . ."19 The seven special instructor qualifiCations developed by the National Conference on High School Driver Education at JaCkson's Mills (1949) were: 1. Enthusiasm 2. Even temperment 3. Sufficient maturity 4. Above average driving ability as evidenced by having: a. Valid drivers license b. A driving record (state and local) free from repeated accident experience and numerous traffic law violations c. Several years driving experience d. A desire to set a good example in his own driving 8James E. Aaron and Marland K. Strasser, Driver and Traffic Safety Education: Content, Methods, and Organization (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966): p. 78. 19Allen R. Robinson, Checklist for Quality Pro- grams in Driver Education (Washington, D.C.: Highway Users Federation, January, 1970), p. 5. 22 5. An experimental point of View 6. Ingenuity and imagination 7. Understanding of mechanics.20 Statements 4b and 4d appear to suggest a possible relationship between the instructor's driving behavior and his effectiveness as a driver education instructor. Driver Exposure Any time driving records of individuals or groups are compared there looms an elusive variable--driving exposure. When differences are noted in driving records, could these variations be due to differences in driving eXposure? Even if information were available which would allow for comparison of similar quantitative driving exposure, there could likely be a difference in quality of the driving eXposure. Ten thousand miles driven in the Oklahoma Panhandle would hardly be equal to the same number of miles driven in the Oklahoma City area. Traffic density would differ; average Speed would differ; the average number of driving decisions per mile would differ; enforcement policies and techniques would differ. Carlson and Klein Cite the possibility that the difference they found in conviction and crash frequency between their sample (college undergraduate) and the 20Leon Brody and Herbert J. Stack, Highway Safety and Driver Education (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1954), pp. 341-342. 23 general population may have been due to the differential exposure.21 When comparing father and son driving records, Carlson and Klein further state, One may, of course, question the legitimacy of attempting to relate the current record of a middle-aged father to that of his teen-aged son--especially since their vulnerability to enforcement procedures are undoubtedly dif- ferent.22 Arthur D. Little reports, "Obtaining accurate data on mileage driven is difficult, even when other exposure variables such as time of day, weather, and type of road are ignored."23 Little refers to studies by Lauer, State of Iowa (1962), and Orzeske, Chicago (1962) which dealt with accident rates and mileage driven. "Both studies indicate that the high accident experience for males 20 to 24 may be in part due to their extensive driving mileage."24 High mileage drivers, other factors being equal, are exposed to a higher risk of both accidents and conditions for moving traffic violations. Little made further reference to studies which attempted to Show a relationship between accidents and convictions for moving traffic violations. The most 21Carlson and Klein, op. cit., p. 16. 22Ibid., p. 18. 23Arthur D. Little, The State of the Art of Traffic Safety (New York: Praeger PubliShers, 1970), p. 39. 24Ibid., p. 40. 24 positive relationship was reported in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. The driver records were grouped according to the number of ( ) citations, and the mean number of accidents per 100 drivers was calculated for each group. . . . there is a strong relationship between the mean number of accidents per driver and the number of concurrent citations when large groups of drivers are considered.‘ On the other hand, the correlation coefficient between accidents and ( ) citations was only 0.23. This low figure indicates that large errors could be made if one attempted to estimate (predict) the number of accidents an individual had on the basis of his citation record over the same time period.25 Little concludes that the moving traffic violations record is a potential factor for insurance rating and for signaling the need for attention to Specific individuals, but would be a poor predictor of future accident experi— ence for individuals. Driver Education Instructor's Driving Record Much is said in the literature about the importance of the driving instructor in the learning process and the importance of his setting a superior example in his own driving behavior. One investigator took a close look at the driving records of driving instructors in the state of 26 California. The study revealed that California driver 25Ibid., p. 42. 26Ed Fay Nolan Lorenzen, "A Study of the Driver Records of California Public Secondary Driver Instruction Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 25 education instructors "appeared to have a superior driving record when compared to the general driving population." However, less than half (49.9%) of the driver education instructors had cleardriving records for the three year period prior to the investigation. Carlson and Klein27 reported a Similar finding. The college students used in their study had fewer accidents and convictions for moving traffic violations than the general population of similar age. They attributed their findings to possible differences in socioeconomic and educational levels. The same could possibly be true in explaining the difference found between the driving records of driver education instructors and the general driving population in California study mentioned above. From Lorenzen's study it is obvious that we have some driver education instructors who do not set a good example with their own driving behavior. As mentioned earlier in this review of literature, there appears to be an increased concern about the driving record of the active and potential driver education instructor. If there is a relationship between the instructor's driving behavior and his effectiveness as a driver education instructor, those who accumulate a poor driving record should be 27Carlson and Klein, op. cit., p. 16. 26 reassigned or dropped from employment as driver education instructors. Implications for All Teachers The literature reviewed thus far has placed emphasis on the personal behavior of the driving instructor as evidenced by his driving record. Tarde contends, "Learning occurs by imitation and in association with others."28 This statement seems to place responsibility for high personal standards on all teachers and persons who are associated with young people during their formative years. Southerland's theory of differential association similarly calls for high personal standards by teachers.29 The central thesis of the theory is that behavior is learned through interaction with others. When a person is first eXposed to a legal or moral sOcietal code, he receives input concerning the code from other persons. The process of receiving the inputs and sorting them as pro or con is what Southerland calls differential associa- tion. An overbalance of pro's will tend to make the person support the code. An overbalance of con's will tend to make the person criminal toward the code. The inputs can be from observed behavior making the personal 28Haskell and Yablonski, op. cit., p. 359. 29Ibid., p. 363. 27 conduct of teachers an important factor in therprocess of differential association. The theory of differential association implies the extensive use of non-verbal communication on the part of the receiver. According to Garner, "Non-verbal language means an idea that is not spoken or put in a picture, although it can, and usually does, play a supporting role to the verbal means of communication."30 The message received includes and is influenced by, the receiver's image of the communications source. This is the basis for the statement that "What people do is frequently more important than what they say."31 When reading about the notion that people tend to drive as they live, the concept of accident proneness appears. "The search for attitudes or other personality factors which discriminate between accident and no-accident drivers has had very limited success."32 However, the literature suggests that attitudes and personality factors are transferrable through verbal and non-verbal communica— tion. Even though the relationship between attitudes and personality factors has not been established statistically to warrant broad driver licensing restrictions, attitudes 30C. William Garner, "Non-Verbal Communication and the Teacher," School and Society, XCVIII (October, 1970), 363. 31Ibid., p. 363. 32Little, op. cit., p. 104. 28 and personality factors can provide clues regarding the kinds or states of behavior associated with accidents on an individual basis. Because of a number of variables and circumstances an individual can be more accident prone at one time than another. This is the concept that probably should be presented to beginning drivers. Summary This Chapter includes a review of related litera— ture pertinent to this study. Information showing a relationship between father and son driving behavior was presented. Next, an attempt was made to illuminate the importance of instructor selection, preparation and per- formance. Literature was cited concerning an important variable in this study--driving exposure. Reference was made to the driver education instructor's personal driving behavior and its possible influence on those he teaches. Finally, literature was cited indicating that much learning occurs by imitation. This implies the importance of high personal standards for all teachers and persons who are associated with young people during their formative years. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Introduction The research design called for the computation of a correlation coefficient between the driving records of 50 Oklahoma driver education instructors and the subsequent driving records of 1000 of their driver education students (20 students for each instructor). The school year 1966-67 was selected enabling the instructors' driving records to be Checked the preceding three years (calendar years 1963- 1965 inclusive) and the students' driving records to be checked the three years (calendar years 1968-1970 inclusive) following the year of their driver education course. The names and birthdays of students taught by a specific instructor are listed on D.E.-10 forms. The name of the instructor and his driver license number is also available from the D.E.-10. These completed forms provided the basic information required for the driving records check and are on file at the Driver Education Section, State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 29 30 The driving records in the Central Records Division of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety are not com- puterized making a manual check necessary. The normal procedure for obtaining a driving record Check costs the requesting agency one dollar per driver. Arrangements were made to have one of the employees familiar with the files make the records Check on weekends. This person agreed to work on an hourly basis and was paid for 35 hours of work. This made the collection of data much more feasible. Sampling Procedure The D.E.—10 forms for the 1966-67 school year are filed alphabetically by county. There are a total of 77 counties in Oklahoma and 431 schools who offered driver education that year. With the exception of Tulsa and Oklahoma counties, a random sample of 60 D.E.—10 forms was selected on the following basis: 1. Each had to have a total of at least 20 students for both semesters. 2. Each from a different school (some schools had more than one D.E.-10). The study design called for 50 instructors. Ten additional were selected in the event one or more of the instructor's driving record could not be found or positively identified. When transferring the data from the D.E.-10 forms to the recording instrument described later, the driver's license number was missing for three of the' 31 instructors. Without the license number or age, it was felt that locating and identifying the instructor's driving record would be too difficult. The three were eliminated leaving 57 schools from which 50 would eventually be selected. Five instructors were selected from Tulsa County and five from Oklahoma County because of their high popu- lation concentrations. Data from these two counties were combined for treatment initially and then were separated so as to check for possible differences in driving exposure. Appendix C shows the geographical distribution of the 57 schools represented in the study. Starting with the first county (Adair), each D.E.-10 form was checked. If it met the two criteria listed above, it was extracted and a xerox copy made of the complete form. In cases where there were more than one instructor per School the D.E.-10 with the greater number of students was selected. If an instructor taught both semesters, both D.E.-10 forms were pulled and copies made. Students were then randomly selected from both groups. After 57 D.E.-10 forms were identified, 20 students were selected from each form. Where possible, 10 addi- tional were selected in the event one or more student's driving record could not be found or positively identified. Students were selected from the lists as randomly as 32 possible. If there were between 20 and 30 students, all were utilized. Larger lists such as 60, every other student was selected; lists of 45 every fourth student was omitted, etc. Data Collection In preparation for the driving records check a recording instrument was devised which would serve three purposes: 1. Provide information necessary for the driving record check. 2. Provide space for recording moving traffic violations and accidents. 3. Contain all the information to be transferred to IBM cards. Fifty-seven packets of 5" x 8" cards were prepared and enclosed in an envelope. Each packet contained a card for the instructor and one for each of 30 students. In the upper left hand corner of each card was placed a number from 1 to 57. This number was also plaCed on the outside of the envelOpe along with the instructor's name and school. This provided a reference system in the event the cards became "shuffled" during the records check. On the first line of the instructor's card was his name (last, first, middle), license number, years of teaching experience, name of his high school, number of credit hours in driver education. The second line included space for recording instructor age, traffic 33 Offenses, date Of offenses, and points (assigned according to Michigan's point system). The first line of the student's card contained his name (last, first, middle), his birthdate, and sex. The seCOnd line cOntained space for recording traffic offenses, date of the offense, and. points (assigned according to Michigan's point system). A sample of each card can be found in Appendix D. The data on years of teaching experience and number of driVer education credit hours for each instructor were collected before the driving records were checked. The credit hours Of preparation for each instructor is listed under Teacher Qualification on the D.E.-10 form. The years of teaching experience was obtained from the Teacher Certification Department of the State Department of Education and includes all teaching experience. Information was not available on teaching experience in driver education. An attempt was made to trace the teachers through the Department of Public Safety's Certi- fication records to determine the number of years each teacher in this study had been certified to teach driver education. The teachers could not be traced because a different certification number was issued each year until a policy change in 1969. .The Teacher Certification records only reflect four classifications of secondary school personnel: Superintendent, Principal, Coach, High School Teacher. ’k 34 This precluded an attempt to identify other subjects that the driver education instructor taught during the school year being studied (1966-67). It was intended to compare this finding with the findings of a similar study by Lorenzen. The age of the instructor was determined from the birthdate as recorded on his driving record. The birthdate was transferred to a 5" x 8" card at the time of the driving record check. It was later converted to chrono- logical age as of 1966-67 school year. At the same time, Michigan's point system was applied to the recorded traffic violations. The next step was the driving record check. A search was first made for the driving record of the instructor. When his record was found and positively identified (full name and license number matched), the search was continued for the driving records of 20 of his students. Only convictions for moving traffic violations and traffic accidents were recorded from the central file. The driving record check was made during the month of April, 1971, covering the calendar years 1963-1965 inclusive for the driving instructors and 1968-1970 inclusive for the students. 33 . Lorenzen, op. Cit. 35 Final preparation of the raw data before being transferred to IBM cards involved computing the instructor age and assigning point values to each traffic violation. An offense code was designed which simply assigned a numberical designation for computer identification. The offense code number was placed on the 5" x 8" card to the left of each offense. The appropriate point values from Michigan's point system was placed ina separate column to the right of each offense. A student identification number (1-20) was placed on the 5" x 8" card to the left of each students' name. Using this number and the‘ instructor number (1-57) an individual student could be traced from the IBM card to the recording instrument (5" x 8?), and to the original D.E.-10 forms. In planning for transferring the raw data to computer cards it was decided that a separate card should be used for each subject. Each card contains 80 spaces. On the instructor IBM cards, the first two spaces (1 and 2) were for the instructor identification number (1-57); spaces 3 and 4 were for years of teaching experience; spaces 5 and 6 were for number of credit hours in Driver education and safety related courses; spaces 7 and 8 were for instructor age; spaces 9 through 18 were to record traffic offenses by code; spaces 19 and 20 were to record accumulated points for moving traffic violations; space 21 was used to record master's or bachelor's degree; 36 space 22 was used to record driver education credit hours. For computer identification purposes, each instructor card was labeled (1) and each student card was labeled (2) in Space number 80. On the student IBM card, the first two spaces (1 and 2) were for the instructor identi- fication number (1-57); spaces 3 and 4 were for the student's number within the group of 20; space 5 was for .[____i_ sex (1=M, 2=F); spaces 6 through 25 were to record traffic offenses by code; spaces 26 and 27 were for accumulated points for moving traffic violations. Research Hypothesis and Problems The research hypothesis and research problems are restated for clarity and completeness of this chapter. Research Hypothesis Students of driver education instructors with ' more points for moving traffic violations during the three years prior to the 1966-67 school year, will have more points for moving traffic violations during the three years following the completion of the driver education course than students of driver education instructors with fewer points for moving traffic violations the three years prior to the 1966-67 school year. Research Problems 1. Is there a possible relationship between: a. The age of the driving instructor and his previous driving record? b. The age of the instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students? 37 2. Is there a possible relationship between the driVing instructors teaching experi- ence and the subsequent driving records of his students? 3. Is there a possible relationship between driving instructors formal preparation in driver and safety education and the subsequent driving records of his students? Statistical Procedures ‘ J. suns: When drafting the proposal for this study, the statistics section of the Department of Education, Oklahoma State University, was consulted for correctness of design. The statistics section of the Mathematics Department, Oklahoma State University, suggested the most appropriate statistical treatments for the kinds of data available for this study. Statistical treatment called for a correlation coefficient (r) between the point accumulations for moving traffic violations of driver education instructors and subsequent point accumulations for moving traffic viola- tions of their driver education students. As a further comparison, the mean point accumulations for moving traffic violations of students and of instructors with moving traffic violations was computed and compared with the mean point accumulations of students of instruc- tors without moving traffic violations. A "t" test was computed on the latter to determine if a significant dif- ference exists between the two samples. A comparison was 38 also made between mean point accumulations of students of instructors holding masters degrees and mean point accumu- lations of students of instructors holding bachelors degrees and a "t" test to determine if a significant dif- ference exists between the two samples. As mentioned in Chapter I, a potential limiting factor in this study is differences in driver exposure. Earlier in this chapter it was noted that five schools had been selected from Tulsa County and five from Oklahoma County. Students from these two counties are undoubtedly exposed to much higher traffic densities, more hazardous driving, and different enforcement pro- cedures than students from more rural areas of Oklahoma. To check for this possible difference, the mean point accumulations for moving traffic violations of students from these two counties was compared to the mean point accumulations for moving traffic violations of students from the remaining 40 schools. A "t" test was computed to determine if a significant difference exists between the two samples. A three by four contingency table and a chi-square test was computed between: 1. Instructor point accumulations and student point accumulations. 2. Instructor age and his previous driving record. 39 3. Instructor age and student point accumulation. 4. Years of teaching experience and student point accumulations. 5. Driver education and related safety credit hours and student point accumulations. 6.‘ Driver education credit hours only and student point accumulations. The number of male and female subjects and the mean point accumulations for moving traffic violations for each was computed for comparison. Also, a frequency count was made of all the different types of violations. The frequency count was then broken down by (1) male and female, (2) students from Oklahoma and Tulsa counties and (3) all other students. A percentage was computed for each type of violation. Accidents and suspensions were treated separately. Representativeness of Students The strength of representativeness of students for this study lies in the randomness of their selection. The only requirement was that the school had to have at least 20 driver education students per year (as listed on the D.E.-10). The students were alike only to the extent that they were all at least 15% years old or of sophomore standing in high school. Beyond this, no attempt was made to match groups for comparison. In reference to attempts at matching groups, Goldstein reports, ". . . none of the studies I have seen, or have reviewed, started with 40 groups that can be regarded as equivalent."34 Difficulty in locating the driving records of girls who were married resulted in an overbalance of boys as reported in Chapter Iv. Summary This chapter presented the basic design of the i study. Preliminary planning stages were described involving availability and accessibility of driving records. The sampling procedure, method of collecting the data, and preparation of the raw data for transfer to IBM cards was discussed. The research hypothesis and research problems were restated followed by a description of the statistical procedures to be applied to the data. Finally, a statement was made as to the representativeness of the students selected for this study. Chapter IV will deal with an analysis of the data. 34Leon G. Goldstein, "The 'Case' Against Driver Education," A review of "An Experimental Evaluation of Driver Education," by McGuire and Kersh (unpublished, undated). Available at Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction In finalizing the data for submission to the statistical procedures outlined in Chapter III, several discrepancies from the plan of study were noted and should be mentioned at this time. 1. One of the driver education instructor's driving record from Tulsa County could not be located in the Central Files Division. One of the seven "extra" instructors was selected in his place. This meant that the driving records of students and instructors from nine instead of ten schools in high density areas, Tulsa and Oklahoma counties, were compared with the driving records of students and instructors from 41 instead of 40 other schools in the study. 2. Only 924 instead of 1000 Student driving records could be located and positively identified. The difficulty was in not being able to locate the driving records of female students whose maiden name appeared on the D.E.-10 form, but who were married since the school year 1966-67. Their married name could not be identified with their maiden name. Female replacements were selected 41 9 42 until exhausted from each packet of 30 students. (In many cases, male replacements had to be selected causing a higher ratio of males than female students. Another serious identification problem was the omission of middle name or initials and the use of nick names by the reporting schools on the D.E.-10 forms. The data were transferred to IBM cards by personnel of the computer center at Oklahoma State University. The desired statistical treatments outlined in Chapter III were discussed with a programming consultant at the com- puter center who verified that the treatments were within the capabilities of the IBM-360, Model 65 computer. The remainder of this chapter will deal with the outcomes of the statistical treatments. Testing the Research Hypothesis ReSearch Hyppthesis Students of driver education instructors with more points for moving traffic violations during the three years prior to the 1966-67 school year, will have more points for moving traffic violations during the three years following the completion of the driver education course than students of driver education instructors with fewer points for moving traffic violations the three years prior to the 1966-67 school year. The data as collected and treated in this study do not support this hypothesis. The correlation coefficient value was -0.53 which is reversed from what was expected. The mean point accumulations for moving traffic violations 43 of students of instructors with violations the previous three years was less than the mean point accumulations of students of instructors without violations (see Table 1). TABLE l.--Mean point accumulations of students of instruc- tors with moving traffic violations compared with students of instructors without moving traffic violations. Mean Point Sample Accumulation Size Students of Instructors with Violations 3.12 142 Students of Instructors with no Violations 3.32 782 ‘"t" Statistic = 0.43, not significant at the .05 level McNemar's table of "t" distributions indicates that the "t" value does not change significantly when the degrees of freedom exceed 120.35 The "t" value which is Significant at the .05 level for more than 120 degrees of freedom is 1.960. Since the "t" statistic computed above is less than 1.960, it is concluded that there is no Significant difference between the mean point accumulation for moving traffic violations for the two samples. 35Quinn MoNemar, Psychological Statistics (3rd ed.; New York: John Wiley Inc., 1963), p. 430. 44 A further check for support of the hypothesis was made using a three by four contingency table and a chi- square test for significance (see Table 2). TABLE 2.--Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor and student point accumulations. Student Instructor Point Accumulations Point . Accumulations 0 Some Points Accidents Total 0 ' 389 77 18 484 1-6 217 40 15 272 'Over 6 .118 22 5 145 Revocations 18 3 2 23 TOTALS ’ 742 142 V 40 924 Chi-square = 2.86, not significant at the .05 level contingency coefficient = 0.05 IV Table 2 shows that students of instructors with, points for moving traffic violations did not compile sub- sequent driving reoords significantly different from students of instructors with no points for moving traffic violations. The statistical treatment revealed no sig- nificant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Based on the results of the correlation coefficient and Tables 1 and 2, the null hypothesis would be accepted. 45 Two major reasons are presented in terms of explaining the negative (minus) correlation. 1. Only eight of the driver education instructors had moving traffic violations during the three year period checked. Because of Lorenzen's study of the driving recOrds of California driver education instructors f? referred to in Chapter II, it was anticipated that approxi- mately half would have some Convictions for moving traffic of violations. An N of less than ten is rarely used to compute a correlation coefficient because of the increased chance factor and the difficulty in effectively administer- ing a test of significance.36 2. Of the eight instructors with convictions for moving traffic violations, only one was for other than Speeding and was assigned a different point value. In other words, seven of the eight instructors had a total of three points each, and one had a total of six points for driving while intoxicated. The driving records of the Central Files did not reflect how much in excess of the speed limit for each conviction for speeding. Michigan's point system values for speeding are two, three, and four for under 10 mph over the speed limit, between 10 and 15 mph, and over 15 mph respectively. The 36James L. Bruning and B. L. Lintz, Computational Handbook of Statistics (Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman Co., 1968), p. 158. 46 middle value of three was arbitrarily assigned to all convictions for speeding. Because of the low number of subjects and the lack of variation between point accumulations, little can be said regarding support for the research hypothesis. Nor could it be said that the data supports the reverse of the research hypothesis. Driving Exppsure Differential The data supports the notion that differences in driving exposure will be reflected in differences in average point accumulations for moving traffic violations between students from higher traffic density areas and students from lower traffic density areas. The mean point accumulations of students from the nine schools from Oklahoma and Tulsa counties was considerably higher than the mean point accumulations of students from the other 41 rural schools (see Table 3). TABLE 3.--Mean point accumulations of students from high density schools compared with students from all other schools. Mean Point Sample Accumulation Size Nine High Density Schools 4.60 178 All Other Schools 2.97 746 "t" Statistic = 3.95, significant at the .05 level. 47 McNemar's table of "t" distributions indicates that the "t" values do not change significantly when the degrees of freedom exceed 120.37 The "t" value for more than 120 df is 1.960 at the .05 level of confidence. Since the "t" value computed above is more than 1.960, it is concluded that there is a significant difference between the mean point accumulations for moving traffic violations for the two samples. This will have a definite limiting effect when attempting to generalize the findings of this study to a greater population. Research Problems Each of the three proposed research problems is restated individually and is followed by an analysis of the data pertaining to that particular problem. Research Problem 1. Is there a possible relationship between: a. The age of the driving instructor and his previous driving record? The data in this study failed to support the suggestion that a significant relationship exists between the age of the driving instructor and his previous driving record (see Table 4). The chi-square value would have to be greater than 12.6 to be significant at the .05 level. 37McNemar, op. cit., p. 430. 48 TABLE 4.—-Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor age and instructor point accumulations. .v . Instructor Age Instructor Point Accumulations Under 21_40 Over Totals 21 40 0 l 31 10 42 1-6 0 5 3 8 Over 6 0 0 h 0 O Revocations _0 _Q _0 _9 TOTALS 1 36 13 50 chi-square = 0.79, not significant at the .05 level contingency coefficient = 0.1250. Table 4 shows that the point accumulations for moving traffic violations of driver education instructors does not relate significantly with the ages of the instructors. The statistical treatment revealed no significant dif- ference at the .05 level of confidence. 1. Is there a possible relationship between: b. The age of the instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students? The data of this study supports the suggestion that a significant relationship exists between the age of the instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students. The chi-square value is greater than 16.81 49 which makes it significant at the .01 level of confidence (see Table 5). TABLE 5.--Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor age and student point accumulations. Instructor Age Student Agégmulations under 21-40 over Totals 21 40 0 .7 366 111 484 1-6 7 194 71 272 Over 6 6 84 55 145 Revocation __2_ _15 __8 ‘_23 TOTALS 20 659 245 924 chi-square = 19.56, significant at the .01 level contingency coefficient = 0.1440 Table 5 shows that students of older driver education instructors tend to have better subsequent driving records than students of younger instructors. The statistical treatment revealed a significant difference at the .01 J level of Confidence. 50 2. Is there a pOssible relationship between the driving instructor's previous teach- ing experience and the subsequent driving records of his students? The data of this study supports the suggestion that a significant relationship exists between the instructor's previous teaching experience and the sub- sequent driving records of his students. The chi-square EF- value is greater than 12.6 making it significant at the .05 level of confidence (see Table 6). 2 TABLE 6.-—Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor teaching experience and student point accumula- tions. Teaching Experience Student Point ' ' . . Under Over Accumulations 2 yrs. 2 6 yrs. 6 yrs. Totals 0 101 110 273 484 1-6 52 63 157 272 Over 6 14 29 102 145 Revocations 8 3 12 23 TOTALS 175 205 544 924 chi-square = 15.94, significant at the .05 level contingency coefficient = 0.1302 Teaching experiences refers to all teaching experience. Information was not available on driver education teaching experience alone. 51 Table 6 shOws that students of instructors with more teaching eXperience tend to have better subsequent driving records than students of instructors with less teaching experience. The statistical treatment revealed significance at the .05 level of confidence. One would expect there to be a similar relation- 1T ship between instructor age and teaching experience. 4 Generally, as one increases, so does the other. An instructor with more years teaching experience will usually be older chronologically than an instructor with fewer years of teaching experience. 3. IS there a possible relationship between the driving inStructor's formal prepara- tion in driver education and the subsequent driving records of his students? The data of this study failed to support the suggestion that a significant relationship exists between the driving instructor's formal preparation in driver and safety education and the subsequent driving records of his students (see Table 7). The chi-square value would have to be greater than 12.6 to be signifiCant at the .05 level of confidence. Table 7 shows that students of driver education instructors with more driver and safety education credit hours did not compile subsequent driving records that were significantly different from students of instructors 52 TABLE 7.--Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor driver and safety education credit hours and student point accumulations. Instructors Driver and Safety Education Student . Point Credit Hours Accumulations Under Over 6 hrs. 6 9 hrs. 9 hrs. Totals 0 178 271 31 484 1-6 106 155 11 272 Over 6 60 75 10 145 'Revocations 11 ll 1 23 TOTALS 355 512 57 924 chi-square = 5.09, not significant at the .05 level contingency coefficient = 0.0740 with fewer credit hours in driver and safety education. The statistical treatment revealed no significant dif- ference at the .05 level of confidence. One of the reasons for the lack of support shown above could very well be attributed to differences in teacher preparation programs at different institutions of higher learning. Experiences in six credit hours of driver and safety education at one institution could differ significantly from six credit hours, titled the same, at another institution. Table 8 also fails to support the suggestion that a significant relationship exists between driver education 53 TABLE 8.--Frequency table showing the relationship between instructor driver education credit hours and student point accumulations. Instructor Driver Education Credit Hours Student Point Accumulations 0-2 3-4 Over 5 Totals 0 71 135 278 484 1-6 42 71 159 272 Over 6 29 30 86 145 Revocations 6 10 7 23 TOTALS 148 246 530 924 chi-square = 11.25, not significant at the .05 level contingency coefficient - 0,1097 courses only and the subsequent driving records of his students. The chi-square value would have to be greater than 12.6 to be significant at the .05 level of confidence. In Table 8, the safety related courses included in Table 7 have been omitted. Only Driver Education I, Driver Education II, or other courses, workshops, or seminars in driver education were included. None of the instructors had over Six credit hours in driver education courses. The data in Table 9 does not support the suggestion that students of instructors with masters degrees will have better subsequent driving records than students of instructors with only a bachelors degree. The "t" statistic 54 TABLE 9.--Mean point accumulations of students of instructors with master's degrees compared with students of instructors with bachelor's degrees.- Mean Point Sample Accumulation Size Students of Instructors with Master's Degrees 3.81266 339 Students of Instructors with Bachelor's Degrees 2.90359 529 "t" statistic = 2.75, significant at the .05 level degrees of freedom = 992 shows a significant difference between the two samples at the .05 level of confidence. However, the difference is in favor of the instructors with bachelor's degrees-- opposite what was expected. Analysis of Violations An important part of this report is an analysis of the different categories of moving traffic violations. Frequencies of different violations for male and female students are presented for comparison. Frequencies of different violations for students from high density areas (Tulsa and Oklahoma Counties) are also presented for compariSon with frequencies of different violations of all students. Accidents (code item 10, see Appendix D) were‘ not assigned weights as were violations for moving traffic 55 violations. They are presented for numerical comparison as the driving record only indicated involvement; not fault. Driver license suspensions (code item 9, see Appendix D) were treated similarly. The analysis of the points for moving traffic violations revealed that the male students had a higher average accumulation of points than did the female Students during the three year period checked (see Table 10). Most of the subjects were 17 years old at the beginning of the period checked. In the ensuing three years, many of the female subjects were married. No cross reference system between maiden and married names in the Central Records Division caused a large number of female subjects to be replaced with male subjects. This is reflected in Table 10 by a much smaller number of female subjects than male subjects. TABLE 10.--Comparison mean point accumulations for males and females. Mean Standard Deviation Sample Size Male 4.3888 5.5709 612 Female 1.1410 2.3157 312 Table 11 shows the rank order by frequency of the 930 violations recorded in this study. 56 TABLE ll.-—Rank order of violations. Order Violation Frequency 1. Speed 479 2. Disregard StOp Sign or Signal 131 3. Careless Turn 68- 4. 'Not Reasonable and Proper 60 5. Reckless Driving 57 6. Failure to Yield 30 7. Improper Lane 30 8. Improper Turn 30 9. Following Too Close 19 10. No Drivers License 18 11. Driving While Intoxicated 5 12 Eluding a Police Officer __3 930 Tables 12 through 16 compare violations of: male students and all students, female students and all students, male students and female students, students from high density schools and all students, students from high density schools and all other students. Because of the differences in the number of the two groups compared in each table, the percentage column for each group becomes useful. For example, in Table 12, the all student group had 479 violations for speeding, while the all male group had 411. This numerical difference of 68 resulted in less than a one per cent differential between the two groups (50.803-51.505). None of the violations vary more than one per cent in Table 12. This can be inter- preted as meaning that the moving traffic violations of 57 male students in this study compare quite favorably to the moving traffic violations of all students in this study.' Table 13 shows the percentage of violations for speeding for female students to be higher than the per- centage for all students. However, a much lower per- centage is recorded for the females for reckless driving, not reasonable and proper, and careless driving. A similar relationship is shown in Table 14, when female student violations are compared to male student violations. Tables 15 and 16 Show the students from high density schools to be considerably higher percentage-wise for speeding but, surprisingly lower in driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and not reasonable and proper. Although no attempt other than randomness was made to equate the groups for comparison, there appears to be evidence here and in Tables 20 and 21 (Comparisons of Accidents and Suspensions of Students from High Density Schools) to further support the notion that dif- ferences in driving exposure and enforcement exist between the two groups. 1 Tables 17 through 21 Show comparisons of sus- pensions and accidents for the groups whose violations were compared. The percentage was computed by dividing the frequency number by the total N of that group. 58 ooo.00H 0mm coo.ooa mom Aauc oz .m meo.~ as Hms.a as mmoHo ooe measoaaom .m om~.m om som.~ em came» on musaamm .s emm.m om smm.m em mama uwcoucsH .G emo.ea Ame Hmo.eH eHH seesaw no seam scum pummmumao .m Nme.e ow mea.s mm. ammoum.paw munm:0mmmm uoz .e mma.e km mas.s mm mefl>aua mmmaxowm .m mmm. m was. m pmpHOAxOpeH mans: mca>nuo .m mom.am one mom.om Has . maupmmcmV .H ucmo mom mocmoqmum ucoo mom mocwoqoum mcofiumaofl> Aemmuzv mpcmpspm Haa imfienzv mucmpsum mam: .mHCOUDHm HHM MO mCOH#MHOH> UCM w#C®UD#w OHME ”HO mCOHu.MHOH> MO COWHHMQECUlloNH mqmfllfi l , IIJHIR 59 ooo.ooa omm oo.ooa ANA caeoe mmm. .MI: .. .nu: umoflcuo mosses oasesam .NH Nam.s we mma.m a man>nno mmmsmumo .HH Gmm.m om mmfi.e m muse umcoucsH .oa mmm.a ma mmm.e s mmcmofia mum>aua oz .m mvo.m as mma.e m mmoHo ooe maflzofiaom .m em~.m om mmm.e S phase on mussflmm .a emm.m om mae.m m mama smcoucsH .G ewo.efi Hms omo.ea an Haemam so seam scum pummmumfla .m mme.e om mms.a N umaonm ppm managemmmm poz .e mms.e am mmS.H N mafl>Huo mmmaxomm .m mmm. m u- .. pmpmoflxouaH misc: mau>flcc .m mom.am one maa.em we mcflemmam .H ucwo mom mucosqcum ucoo mom mocmocmum aoHpmHoH> iemmuzc mpcmpsum Hfia imflmuzv mucmespm msmsmm .mucmcoum Ham wo mcoflucaofl> com mucmooum mHmEOm mo mc0eumH0fi> mo GOMHHmmEooul.ma mumme 6O ”41.thqu I n. ooo.oou mom ooo.oou uNu mmeoe Ham. MIIV .. nun umouuuo mouaom smupsam .Nu ovm.N us mmN.m N mmu>uuo mmmumumo .Hu omo.m mN Nmu.e m muse umcoucsu .ou mme.u Nu mmm.s S mmmmouu mum>uum oz .m ums.u eu Nmu.e m mmOHO ooe mmuzouuou .m NS¢.N «N mmm.e o mucus ou musaumu .N. amm.m NN mse.N m mmmu umcoucsu .G umo.eu euu omo.eu NH usmSum uo msum scum pumsmumum .m mou.N mm mms.u N ummoum pmm mummmOmmmm uoz .e mmN.m mm mme.u N mmu>uum mmmuxumm .m was. m I- y: pmsmuuxoumu waumz smu>uuc .N mom.om Hue mmu.mm we smupmmmm .u ucoo uom wocooqmum ucoo uom mocmoqoum mOuumuou> iNumuzv mummpsum mums iNHmqu mummpsum mumsmu .wucmcouw cacao“ one came mo mcofluoaofl> mo coweummEOUIn.vH mqmuuo mmmumuoo .uu mmu.m as oNN.m om muse umoouosu .ou Nmm.u m mma.u mu ommooua muo>uuo oz .m NNN.N o mso.N mu omouo ooe omu30uuou .m NNN.N o oNN.m om ououu ou musuuou .N Nmm.u m oNN.m om omou umoouosu .o oNo.mu me omo.su umu Homoum uo moum ooum ouomoumuo .m NNN.N o Nme.o oo uooouo omo mucomOmoom uoz .s moo.N m mNu.o am omu>uuo mmouxoom .m u- .. mmm. m oouoouxoumu wuumz omu>uuo .N mmN.mm oou mom.am mks omuoommm .u ucwo uom mocmocoum Demo uom wocooqoum immunzv suummoo nous ieNmuzv mummosum Hum mouuouou> .mocmoopm Ham mo mcoflumaofl> cues mHOOhOm muflmcoc hoe: Eouw mucmcoum wo mcoflumHOH> mo cOMHuMQEOOII.mH momma P i 62 ooo.ooH ooo ooo.oou osN umeoe mom. N osm. H umouuuo wouuoo omuosum .Nu arm.s Nm oNo.m ou muse mmoamumo .uu eNo.N , ou mmu.m as muse uoooumsu .oH oso.u mu Nmm.u m mommoum oum>uuo oz .m oNo.H NH NNN.N o «mono ooe omuzouuom .m omo.m «N NNN.N o oumus ou musuuou .N NmN.m mN Nmm.a m wmmu umooumsu .o mmm.mu mo on.mu me Homoum uo moum moum ouoooumuo .m Nmu.o em NNN.N o uomouo omm munmmomooz uoz .o sNe.N as moo.N o omu>uuo mmouxoom .m mmn. m In t. ceasefixOufiw owflgz mcfl>fiuo .m mmm.ms mum mmN.om oou _ omuooomm .u come umm mocoovmum pcoo mom wocooqoum ioesuzo mummosuw uomuo Hum imsunzv zuummoo moum mouumH0u> . .mucocoum uocuo Ham mo mcoHucHoH> cues maoocom muflmcoc has: Eoum mucmooum mo mcofiumaoH> mo comwummEounn.mH momma 63 TABLE l7.--Comparison of accidents and suspensions of male students and all students. Male Students (N=612) All Students (N=924) Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Suspensions 28 . 4.575 29 3.138 Accidents 288 47.058 358 38.744 : lT' 1 4 1 : Table 17 Shows the male students had proportion- ately more suspensions and accidents than all students as reflected in higher percentages in both cases. Table 18 shows that the female students had proportionately fewer suspensions and accidents than did all students. TABLE 18.--Comparison of accidents and suspensions of female students and all students. Female Students All Students (N=312) N=924) Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Suspensions ' l .320 29 3.138 Accidents . 70 22.435 358 38.744 Table 19 shows the male students were involved proportionately in nearly twice as many suspensions and accidents than the female students. Table 20 reflects that the students from the high density schools were 64 involved in considerably more accidents than all students. Table 21 shows an even greater difference in accidents when students from the high density schools were compared with all other schools. TABLE 19.--Comparison of accidents and suspensions of male and female students. Female Students Male Students (N=312) (N=612) Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Suspensions l .320 28 4.575 Accidents 70 22.435 288 47.058 TABLE 20.--Comparisons of accidents and suspensions of students of high density schools with all students. All Students High Density (N=924) (N=178) Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Suspensions 29 3.138 4 2.247 Accidents 358 38.744 90 50.561 65 TABLE 21.-—Comparison of accidents and suspensions of students from high density schools and all other students. High Density All Other Students (N—178) (N-746) Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent Suspensions 4 2.247 25 3.351 Accidents 90 50.561 268 35.924 Summary The data as analyzed did not support the research hypothesis. The small number of driver education instructors with moving traffic violations and the lack of much variation in the points assessed to those with convictions for moving traffic violations were the possible explanations for the lack of support of the hypothesis. Two of the three research problems revealed a statistically significant relationship. Age and years of teaching experience of the driver education instructor appeared to be related to the subsequent driving record of that instructor's students. Finally, an analysis of the categories of moving traffic violations was presented. As could be expected, the male subjects' average point accumulation was nearly three times as great as the average point accumulation 66 for female subjects. Approximately 22 per cent of the female subjects were involved in accidents compared with approximately 47 per cent of the male subjects. Nearly 50 per cent of the high density students (Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties) were involved in accidents compared to approximately 38 per cent of all other students during the three year period of the driving record check. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Driver education has experienced phenomenal growth in the public secondary schools in the late 50's and 60's. This rapid expansion created a need for large numbers of "certified" teachers. Initially, emphasis was placed on meeting teacher certification requirements which were usually established minimally by state departments of education. Institutions of higher learning established programs of teacher preparation in driver and safety education which met these minimal standards and produced the number of needed driver and safety education teachers. Now the tide has seemed to turn and more emphasis is being placed on quality rather than numbers in our teacher preparation programs for driver and safety educa- tion teachers. Certification requirements are increasing as eXpanded programs provide much better pre-service experiences for prospective driver and safety education teachers. In-service and graduate degree programs are ' becoming more readily available for teachers who want to advance their knowledge and experiences in driver and safety education. 67 h 68 One of the ways an organization or group can improve the quality of its efforts is through careful selection and training of its membership. With more emphasis being placed on pre- and in-service education programs, perhaps now is the time to also place emphasis on the selection of candidates who enter these programs. This study has sought to isolate one criterion (previous' driving record) which might be helpful in a candidate selection process. Study Purpose and Procedures As stated in Chapter I, the primary purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between the driving record of the driver education instructor and the subsequent driving records of his students. A positive relationship would indicate that the previous driving record might be a useful criterion in selecting candidates for teacher training in driver and safety education. Secondary school administrators might use the criterion in a similar selection process when employing their driver and safety education teachers. The procedure involved randomly selecting 50 driver education teachers who taught in Oklahoma public schools during the school year 1966-67. Their driving records were checked the previous three years. For each 69 instructor, 20 of his driver education students were selected. The students' driving records were checked for the subsequent three years. Since Oklahoma does not have a system for weighing offenses, Michigan's point system was applied to the convictions for moving traffic violations. A correlation coefficient was then computed W- between the instructor point accumulations and the average point accumulations of the groups of 20 students. A secondary purpose of the study was to determine if age, teaching experience, or formal preparation of the driver education instructor might have an influence on the subsequent driving records of that instructor's driver education students. Contingency tables and Chi—square tests were administered to the raw data on each variable. A third area which received considerable attention in the study was driver exposure. The driving records of students from the nine high density schools (Tulsa and Oklahoma counties) were identified and summarized separately as a check for differences in driving exposure and enforcement. Summary of Findings l. The mean point accumulations for students of _instructors with point accumulations for moving traffic violations was less (3.12) than the mean point accumula- tions for students of instructors without point accumula- tions (3.32). This resulted in a reverse correlation 70 coefficient quite unlike that which was expected (-0.53023). A "t" test revealed no Significant difference between the two samples. 2. The age of the driver education instructor related significantly to the subsequent driving records of his driver education students. The data were tested by chi-square and revealed significance at the .01 level of confidence. 3. Teaching experience of the driver education instructor related significantly with the subsequent driving records of his students. The data were tested by chi-square and revealed significance at the .05 level of confidence. 4. The relationship between the driver education instructor's formal preparation (credit hours) in driver education and the subsequent driving records of his students was not significant. The data were tested by chi-square and was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. 5. Students of driver education instructors holding master's degrees did not have driving records significantly better than students of driver education instructors holding bachelor's degrees. The data were tested by a "t" test and was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. 71 6. An analysis of Violations revealed that male students had a higher mean point accumulation for moving traffic violations (4.388) than did the females (1.141) for the three year period checked. 7. 'Students from the nine high density schools (Tulsa and Oklahoma counties) had a mean point accumula- tion for moving traffic violations greater (4.60) than the mean point accumulation of students from all other schools. The data were tested by a "t" test and revealed significance at the .05 level of confidence. 8. Approximately 22 per cent of the female and 47 per cent of the male subjects were involved in accidents during the three year period. 9. Fifty per cent of the students from the high density schools and 36 per cent of the students from all other sChoolS were involved in accidents during the three year period. 10. Sixteen per cent of the Oklahoma driver educa- tion instructors had conviCtions for moving traffic viola- tions driving the three years checked. A similar study by Lorenzen in 1968 revealed that less than half (49.9%) of the California driver education instructors had clean driving records the three years prior to his investigation. 11. The number of student convictions for excessive speed (479) exceeded the total number of all other Viola- tions (451) recorded in this study (see Table 11). 72 12. On a proportionate basis male students had more than four times as many driver license suspensions as did female students. Conclusions 1. 'The literature reviewed supported the rationale that there may be a relationship between the driver educa- tion instructor's personal driving record and his effec- tiveness as a driving instructor. On the basis of the data presented in this study, the investigator would have to fail to reject the null hypothesis meaning that the previous driving record of the driver education instructor has no bearing on the subsequent driving records of his ‘driver education students. Because of the low number of subjects (only eight instructors had convictions for moving traffic violations) and lack of variation in point accumulations (seven were three points and one was six points), the investigator prefers to suspend judgment on rejecting the null hypothesis. 2. There appears to be evidence to warrant more precise control of driving exposure before the result of this study could be generalized to a larger population. A significant difference was found between point accumula- tions for moving traffic violations of students from high density schools and point accumulations for students from more rural schools. This is indicative of differences in 73 traffic density, differences in number of driving decisions per mile, differences in enforcement policies and techniques, and perhaps differences in miles and/or hours of driving exposure. No attempt other than random- ness was made to equate these two groups for comparison. There is a possibility that the groups were different before being compared. 3. Instructor age and teaching experience appear pp to be related to the subsequent driving records of the driver education instructor's students. The relationship was not significant between the formal instructor prepara- tion (credit hours) and the subsequent driving records of his driver education students. Recommendations Based on evidence of this study, the following recommendations are made: 1. School administrators and/or state departments of education should continue to evaluate the personal driving records of their driver education instructors. Systematic checks should be made on all new employees and at least annually for driver education instructors in continuous employment. A mutually agreeable system of numbers of convictions and/or severity of convictions for moving traffic violations within a prescribed time should be established and be grounds for refusal of employment 74 -or dismissal from employment as a driver education instructor. 2. Institutions of higher learning Should con- tinue to exercise care in selecting candidates for teacher preparation in driver and safety education. Entering students with questionable driving records Should be made aware of the importance of a good personal driving record when later seeking employment as a driver education instructor. 3. Institutions of higher learning should con- tinue to improve the quality of their teacher preparation programs in driver and safety education. A major effort needs to be made in terms of establishing some uniformity in the different preparation programs. This is not to say that all teacher preparation programs in driver and safety education should be the same. Each program should have some special identity, either graduate or under- graduate, or perhaps a special emphasis area, which makes it different from other programs. However, if the prepara- tion of driver education instructors is a goal of the several programs, there should be a strain of commonality among the programs. Of assistance in establishing this uniformity should be the research being completed by Human Resources Research Orgainzation (HumRRO) on the 75 analysis of the driving task and the identification of driver performance objectives.38 4. Researchers need to continue efforts to isolate specific factors involved in driving exposure. This complex problem continues to plague research which attempts to compare driving groups. 1 Discussion During the process of conducting this study, several related questions arose which could neither be supported nor denied by the data of this study. They are discussed below in the hopes of providing some guidance for others who may encounter similar situations. 1. Who Should determine what is an acceptable driving record for a driver education instructor? Arbitrary limits such as "a record of over 6 points in two years should not be allowed to teach driver education" makes a decision based on only one criterion. The cir- cumstances surrounding the violations and other teacher characteristics should be carefully weighed by the employing school. If it appears that the teacher relates well with students and is otherwise effective, the employing school should have the opportunity to evaluate the whole teacher and make a decision based on more than 38James McKnight, Driver Education Tasks Analysis Vol. I-IV (Alexandria,IVa.: Human Resources Research Organization). 76 criterion. Bread guidelines from State Departments of Education could well be in order to indicate when the employing school should evaluate one of its driver education instructors in View of a poor personal driving record. ’ . . . . . f 2. If an institution of higher learning accepts {9‘ a teacher preparation candidate in driver education with E a poor personal driving record, how should that candidate ft be handled? He should be allowed to enter the program if he can legally meet the requirements (most driver educa- tion courses require a valid drivers license). The candi- date should be counseled that his behavior, including his personal driving, will be closely mOnitored throughout the program. If a violation free record is compiled during the preparation program (usually at least two years) and the student has otherwise performed satisfactorily, probably nothing should be recorded in his credentials or relayed to potential employers concerning his previous driving problems. A driver education teacher who once had a driving behavior problem might be able to better recognize and assist other young drivers exhibiting potential problem driving behavior. 3. The theme of this study has centered around the personal driving behavior of the driver education instructor as evidenced by his personal driving record. 77 The literature suggests that much learning occurs by imitation. This means that all teachers and persons who are associated with young peOple should strive to set the best possible example in their driving as well as their overall personal conduct. 4. To assist the administrator with his decision as to whether or not to hire a driver education instructor with a questionable driving record, certain information should be readily available to him. The most logical place for collection of this information is the driver education section of the state department of education. The state department's files should reflect the following:‘ a. driver and safety education credit hours 1. from what institutions 2. course titles b. age of the instructor c. total previous teaching experience d. driver education teaching experience e. highest degree held 5. The driving records of driver education instructors should somehow be identified in the central files to allow for periodic checks. A minimum check of once per year is recommended. However, if only one check per year is made, an instructor could compile a poor driving record in the first month and not be identified until the next annual check. Where computers are used 78 and records are updated each day, a daily check can easily be made if the driver education instructors are identified. 6. One of the findings indicated that the age of the instructor related significantly to the subsequent driving records of his driver education students. A possible explanation might be that the older instructor presented more of a familial image which the literature suggests is the most important factor in the socialization process. Implications for Future Research This study has hopefully established a format and identified some critical variables for possible future validation studies. A major recommendation in a valida- tion study of this sort would be to identify the desired number of driver education instructors with previous driving records and the desired number of clear driving records before identifying and checking the driving records of their students. This investigator anticipated approximately half of the driving instructors would have convictions for moving traffic violations the previous three years. After the selections were made and the records checked, only 16 per cent had a previous con- viction for a moving traffic violation. This undoubtedly had a bearing on the failure to reject the null hypothesis. 79 Perhaps instead of trying to compare driving records of driver education instructors and students, future research should check for possible transfer of psychological traits such as aggressiveness, competitive- ness, or other behavioral characteristics. The importance of such traits to the driving task is known. It is also known that a large percentage of these traits are familial in origin. However, if such traits in driver education students are influenced by the driver education instructor, either through his example or his teaching efforts, employing agencies and institutions of higher learning need to take this into account when employing or selecting candidates for teacher preparation in driver and safety education. A more detailed investigation needs to be made of the influence of teacher preparation programs and the effectiveness of driver and safety education instructors. Are there certain essentials for Short and long range effectiveness of the driver education instructor? What combination of content, methods, and practical experiences Seem to produce the most effective driver and safety education instructors? The theme of this study would suggest that the student with a poor driving record be prohibited from entering the teacher preparation program in driver and safety education. An opposite school of thought is that 80 perhaps this training is just what this student needs to straighten out his personal driving problems. Having had these difficulties and finding a solution might put him in a better position to help others with similar problems. A follow-up study on students entering teacher preparation programs in driver and safety education with poor driving records is suggested to determine if their personal driving records improve after completing or entering the program. A check might also be made as to their effective- ness in helping others with similar driving problems. Based on evidence of this study, each of these suggestions for further research could contribute to improved selection and preparation programs of our driver and safety education instructors. With increased emphasis being placed on quality rather than quantity of driver and safety education instructors, it is necessary that research in all areas of Traffic Safety Education be continued. For it is upon sound research that effective new programs are started and old programs are revitalized. BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 .1- “ BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aaron, James F., and Strasser, Marland K. Driver Educa- tion: Content, Methods, and Organization. New York: Macmillan Co., 1966. Anderson, William G. In-Car Instruction: Methods and Content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Co., 1968. Brody, Leon, and Stack, Herbert J. Highway Safety and Driver Education. New York: Prentice—Hall, 1954. Bruning, James L., and Kintz, B. L. Computational Handbooks of StatiStics. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman Co., 1968.' Gagne, Robert M. Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965. Haskell, Martin R., and Yablonsky, Lewis. Crime and Delinquency. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Little, Arthur D. The State of the Art of Traffic Safety. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970. McNemar, Quinn. Psyphological Statistics. 3d ed. New York: John Wiley, Inc., 1963. Shaffer, Laurance F., and Shoben, Edward J. S. The Psychology of Adjustment. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1956. Periodicals Bauer, George. "World Beyond the Classroom." Clearing House, XLIII (February, 1969), 371-372. Carlson, William L., and Klein, David. "Familial vs. Institutional Socialization of the Young Traffic Offender." Journal of Safety Research, March, 1970, pp. 13-25. 82 83 Edwards, Ward. "We Drive as We Live." Analogy, Spring, 1968, pp. 20-22. Garner, C. William. "Non-Verbal Communication and the Teacher." School and Society, XCVIII (October, 1970), 363-364} Hartshorne, H., and May, M. A. "Testing the Knowledge of Right and Wrong." Religious Education, XXI, No. 4 (October, 1926), 539—554. Lucia, David. "The Case of the Bearded Teacher." Today's Education, May, 1970, p. 26. Miller, Gene. "Accident Repeaters May Not Be Accident Prone." National Safety News, LXVIII (March, 1953), 3-6. Tanner, Laurel N. "Teacher Behavior and the Distructive Critics." School and Society, LXXXVIII (October, 1969), 366-367. Turfboer, Robert. "Do People Really Drive as They Live?" Traffic Quarterly, No. 21.1 (January 1, 1967), 101-108. Publications of Organizations McNight, James A. Driver Education Task Analysis. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Organization, VOlSo I-IV. National Commission on Safety Education, NEA. Policies and Practices for Driver and Traffic Safety Education. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Safety Education, NBA, 1964. National Safety Council. College and Universipy Safety Courses. Chicago: National Safety Council, September, 1970. National Safety Council. Motor Fleet Safety Manual. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1966. Nolan, Robert O., and Gustafson, Robert E. Teacher Preparation in Driver and Traffic Education. East Lansing: Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, 1970. 84 Office of the Secretary of State. Michigan Vehicle Code. Lansing: Office of the Secretary of‘State, 1965. Oklahoma State Department of Education. Administrator's Handbook. Bulletin No. 113Q. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Department of Education, July, 1970. Oklahoma State Department of Education. A Guide for TeaChing Driver Education in Oklahoma Schools. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Department of Education, 1967. Robinson, Allen R. Checklist for Quality Programs in Driver Education. Washington, D.C.: Highway Users Federation, January, 1970. Unpublished Materials Goldstein, Leon G. "The 'Care' Against Driver Education." A Review of "An Experimental Evaluation of Driver Education," by McGuire and Kersh. Unpublished, undated. Copy available from Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Hartmen, Charles H. "Teacher Preparation Programs in Driver Education in Colleges and Universities of the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Lorenzen, Ed Fay Nolan. "A Study of the Driver Records of California Public Secondary Driver Instruction Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. McPherson, Kenard. "A Systematic Analysis of Traffic Education for Beginning Motorists." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Speeches Mann, William. "Building Attitudes for Safety." Presented at the National Safety Congress, 1960. 85 Opfer, Arthur. ."Report of a Busman's Holiday." Presented at the Oklahoma Driver Education Association's meeting at Tulsa, October 22, 1971. Pepyne, Edward. "Changing Driver Attitudes." Presented at the Driver Education section of the MEA Regional Conference at Ann Arbor, 1956. ”T APPENDICES 86 )' '7(TVPE A EA) APPENDIX A - ' . . O. ' 2‘47 , l ’L 6 p4 ‘ Driver Education Vehicle LOPY APPLICATION DRIVER EDUCATION INSTRUCTOR'S PERMIT Darn ’ _ School Vch I9 49 I Name ofSchoL Wat. Na. Addie/5.5 " .II/Cg of Town . mum?! We LL)? Code T'HCHER‘ INFORMATION: , 1- - l "I” Name Date OK W Ohio. UNI. Hcemc No. Cottage Cicada: Howus: Highth degree held 41.0.. (88, MA, Etc.) I ‘Ditum Education I vulva/L Educ. Teaching vatégicaxc No. ‘69.»sz Saficty Educ. £1:an date Ditven Education II Audio Visual W School. Relations Fm: Md Auto. Mechanics word; Shops Semc'nwL DO NOT inure HERE fix *- PATROL DIST. PERMIT NO. ISSUED l l A VOTE: The when 06 students put. an“ pUuLOd should not exceed the number possébfic to service in the. bdlthd-the-Whed phase. dwulng the Achoofl day. 16 a vwldtéon occurs, endow. a schedule showing how the mowed hou/us «m be met. Any macho/L assigned t;- thncc on make do.“ pmodb 11 mm to have. a. await/icon in Driven. and Taught 5.159197 Education. I hereby CW6y that the above Import 416 compzote and acumatc. Signatu/Lc 06 applicant Subscribed and swoon to .beéolte me «this day 06 , 19” ». Mg Commission 2.qu ,19 M . I Hoary Publ’IcT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETV Section Saécty, Hannah, Phyoicafl, Division 06 ngfiic Saficty Education and Driver Education A PPROVAL APPROVAL Send all 50w: capico to: MIL. Hwy A. Vaughan, Adménut/Laxou 05 the Sufictg Educaticw 5L1CCLUVL 06 the State Depwwnent 06 Education. Suds :760, 4545 Lincofn Bflvd. ()héahoma CI/ty, OhLahoma 73105 "ALL Dime”. Education (cache/u. MUST have these two ecu/uses. 87 . APPENDIX B DE—lOA (TYPE four copies.) STUDENT INFORMATION Date School Year 19_19 lst semester 2nd semester Name of School County Both semesters Name of Instructor SUMMER Classroom load , students. Beginning date Total number of students per semester Closing date Number of student permits needed Check or circle the periods of the school day that Driver Education is taught. Hours taught daily , . Driv. Educ. Others Total UTQJ 3 I 4 I 5 IQ] Number consecutively and siqule space Date Grade TYPE Full Name (Last Name First) of Birth in School Sex 1. I hereby certify that the above report is complete and accurate Signature of Applicant STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division of Safety, Health, Physical Division of Traffic Safety Education and Driver Education APPROVAL APPROVAL 88 APPENDIX C GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS 00 I iapoozu TIIIIII 4 "arde421woafl 1L (IIIIIIIIIIA. Guam—mp»; , cut.»44 .c " W O O OM mac: 4 «to: . 00009; z¢>¢m CUFCo¢¢ug 02¢; >uuurilli().,. xiv zappoo O azuzau»m_ OOO ‘ uzoz<£09 O 0 fl «>23g Buucu O .I l o I o I «:sz “IIIII: O O 0 00010 # mad! CUOOC NONUVH 25323 O O O I cupmao . \)/ _ /r\ 9 5.3.3:... “2.4:. 533 I la oxaioooz _ _ 859 _ toad! rmauoor .1 We NJOORH OauC¢¢wm (Guy-«33v APPENDIX D RECORDING INSTRUMENTS Instructor l6 Duggins, Dale 194 5090 2 McLain High School 15 Age Date Offense Points Student 16 Loden, Kenneth Eugene ll-l3-50 M Age Date Offense Points 90 APPENDIX E MICHIGAN POINT SYSTEM 33 Cumulative Supplement §9.2020(3) (a) Manslaughter, negligent homicide or other felony resulting from the Operation of a motor vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 points (b) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcoticchnu; 6 points (c) Failing to stop and disclose identity at the scene of the accident when required by law . 6 points (d) Reckless operation in violation of section 626 of this act, as amended, or a similar violation under the laws of any other state, or municipality within or without the state of Michigan . . . 6 points (e) Violation of any law or ordinance pertaining to speed by exceeding the lawful maximum by more than 15 miles per hour, or by careless driving . . . 4 points (f) Violation of any law or ordinance pertaining to speed by exceeding the lawful maximum by more than 10 but not more than 15 miles per hour . . . . 3 points (9) Violation of any law or ordinance pertaining to speed by exceeding the lawful maximum by 10 miles per hour or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 points (h) Disobeying a traffic signal, stop sign or improper passing . . . . . . . . . . . 3 points (i) All other moving violations pertaining to the Operation of motor vehicles reported under this section . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 2 points (j) Failing to answer a citation, or notice to appear in court for any violation of this act or of any ordinance substantially corresponding to this act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 point 91 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. APPENDIX E OFFENSE CODE Speed Driving While Intoxicated Reckless Driving Not Reasonable and Proper Disregard Stop Sign or Signal Improper Lane Failure to Yield Following Too Close Suspension Accident No Drivers License Improper Turn Careless Driving Eluding Police Officer 92 IIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III) 93 03142 8240 2 1 3