0R :1qu NT .us’ERI . .1.me 4.5:: 3.“? , a gummy“; a .mmfiufimawfiaw. .. k2,; . tiff 52.; + .r. has? _ smug, : .k:.§§w..h : 5. m. r. R 1 1.3;}...33. “59...”... azn - Rf... .. 5: . .. 1,11 . . .2 3.7.}. , :7 19,35; ,J:a1 a; - Rama-numuwmmr c. . This is to certify that the thesis entitled EVALUATION OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY CURRICULUM FOR USE IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL presented by Ben Junior Koepke has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph ' D ° degree in Driver and Traffic Education (Department of Curriculum and Instruction) Major professor 0-7639 u 'I ‘ LIBRARY 55‘63R;=~ Sega: ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY CURRICULUM FOR USE IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BY Ben Junior Koepke The evaluation of pre—driver education units developed for junior high school classes was the purpose of this study. The units were prepared for the seventh through ninth grades as part of the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The pre—driver education units were field tested in several schools to evaluate how much general traffic safety knowledge had been learned by students in classes using these materials. The sample of sixteen classes involved in this research were randomly chosen from classes in grades seven, eight, and nine taught by eight teachers in three junior high schools and two high schools located in four Michigan cities. One hundred eighty-four males and 157 females in these classes were given a pre-test to determine how much traffic safety knowledge they already knew. After the teachers in eight experimental classes had presented a pre-driver education unit to their classes, both experimental and control groups Ben Junior Koepke were given a post-test. The students in the experimental groups also completed an evaluation of the program. The data was analyzed by the repeated measures design to determine the significance of difference between the gain (or loss) in the mean scores of the experimental and control groups on the post-test. A two-way analysis of variance was used to test for a significant difference between mean scores for grades eight and nine on the pre-test and post-test. Analysis of variance was used to determine whether a significant difference would be found between the male and female students' gain in traffic safety knowledge in the experimental and control groups on the post-test. The Chi-square test for sig- nificance was used to determine the difference between responses in the subject areas on the pre-test and post-test for the experimental groups on nine questions selected from the evaluation instrument. The nine questions were selected on the basis of their having I been included in three or more of the five subject areas for which a pre-driver education unit had been developed. An item analysis was made to determine Hoyt's Reliability coefficient, the difficulty level, and point biserial for each of the pre—test questions. Ben Junior Koepke The major findings were: 1. No significant difference was found between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in the classes con- taining a pre—driver education unit and students in classes with no traffic safety instruction. A significant difference was found between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in the classes con— taining a pre-driver education unit and students in classes with no traffic safety instruction when grades eight and nine only were compared. A significant difference was found between traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the ninth grade classes as compared with students in the eighth grade classes. No significant difference was found in the gain in traffic safety knowledge between the male and female students. There were significant differences between the responses given by the experimental groups to questions 12, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 25 on the pre— and post-test. Responses to questions 5, 9, and 24 did not show significant differences when comparing the nine questions selected from the post-test. Item analysis of the twenty-four items on the pre-test gave a Hoyt's Reliability coefficient of .67. The average diffi- culty level for the twenty—four items was .61. Point biserial varied from .20 to .50 for the twenty-four items. The student evaluation of the program found that a majority of students in the experimental groups: a. Liked their classes better with the pre-driver education unit included. Ben Junior Koepke Talked to others about traffic safety concepts learned. Felt this information was useful to them. Did too Did for Did not think the test questions were difficult. not find many words too difficult them in the test questions. not have suggestions about the program. EVALUATION OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY CURRICULUM FOR USE IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BY Ben Junior Koepke A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1974 To Leslie R. Silvernale -- my professor, co—worker, and friend throughout my career in traffic safety education. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the assistance and encouragement of the following individuals, without whom this research would not have been possible: Dr. William Mann as my doctoral committee chairman. Dr. Robert Gustafson, Dr. Robert Nolan, Dr. Bob Winborn, and Dr. Richard Johnson as committee members. Steve Elanjik as a consultant for the Office of Research Consultation. Earl Studt, Leslie Silvernale, and Luella Boyd as members of the staff for the K—9 Traffic Safety Education Project. Dr. William T. Pollock, Dr. Thomas L. McDole, and Miss Leda Ricci as staff members of the Highway Safety Research Institute. Numerous colleagues and friends for their interest and support. My wife Kay and children Sue, Sandi, Jim, and Andy for their patience and endurance. TABLE OF LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . The Problem. . . . Hypotheses . . . Importance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . Scope and Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . Organization of the Remaining Chapters . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . Traffic Safety Curriculum Development. . . . . Curriculum Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTENTS I C n a o O 0 O I D o H o o o a n o c o o o o a \O m\I\lC\U'IJ> 000 Relationship to Driver Education and the Adult Driving Role . . . . . . . . 13 Relationship to Other Fields of Knowledge . C O O I O C O O O O I C O 0 14 Important Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Placement in the Curriculum. . . . . . . . . 17 Achievement Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Educational Testing Theory . . . . . . . . . 19 Test Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Test Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The National Item Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Use of the Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . 27 Research Studies . Summary. . . . . . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. Introduction . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 C I O O O O I I I O O I I O 36 iv Chapter Page Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 A Pre-Driver Education Program for Eighth Grade Earth Science. . . . . . . . 43 Pre-Driver Education Program for Seventh and Eighth Grade Science Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Pre-Driver Education Program for Ninth Grade Commercial English. . . . . . 45 Pre-Driver Education Program for Eighth Grade Civics . . . . . . . . . . . 45 A Pre-Driver Education Program for a Ninth Grade Family and Community Living Class. . . . . . . . . . 46 A Pre-Driver Education Program for a Seventh and Eighth Grade Health Class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 A Pre-Driver Education Program for Eighth Grade Health . . . . . . . . . 47 A Pre-Driver Education Program for Ninth Grade Algebra . . . . . . . . . 47 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 A Comparison of the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between Experimental and Control Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Hypothesis 1a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 A Comparison of the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between Students in the Eighth Grade and Students in the Ninth Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Hypothesis 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 A Comparison of the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between Male Students and Female Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Hypothesis 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 A Comparison of the Results on Nine Questions to Determine the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between the Pre- and Post-test for the Experimental Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O Hypothesis 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Chapter Page Item Analysis . . . . . Student Evaluation of the Traffic Safety Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 o o o o o o o o 0 l o O \l O V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research. . . . . 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 vi Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Students by Background of Teachers, City Size, and Subject . . . . . Distribution of Students by Size of City, Subject, Sex, Experimental and Control Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pre- and Post-Test Measures of Traffic Safety Knowledge for Experimental and Control Groups by Analysis of Variance for Split Plot Design . . . . . . . The Average Mean Scores on Pre— and Post-Tests for the Experimental and Control Groups . . . The Post-Test Minus Pre-Test Gain Scores on the Measure of Traffic Safety Knowledge Using a Two-Way Analysis of Variance Test of Treatment by Grade Between Grades Eight and Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mean Gain Score for Grades Eight and Nine on the Pre- and Post-Tests . . . . . . . Differences between Male and Female Students in the Experimental and Control Groups Using the Index of Response Test Scores in an Analysis of Variance for Split Plot Design . . . . . . . . . . . . The Index of Response Scores for Males and Females on the Pre- and Post—Tests for the Experimental and Control Groups . . . . . Chi—Square Tests for Significant Differences on Nine Questions Selected from the Pre- and Post-Test for Traffic Safety Knowledge in the Experimental GrOUp. . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 38 4O 54 55 57 57 59 6O 61 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. Page Results of Chi-Square Tests for Significant Differences on Nine Questions Selected from the Pre- and Post-Test for Traffic Safety Knowledge in the Experimental Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Hoyt's Reliability for the Pre-Test of Experimental and Control Groups . . . . . . . . 65 Item Analysis for the Pre-Test of 329 Subjects in the Experimental and Control Groups. . . . . 66 Student Evaluation of the Pre-Driver Education Units by Students in Experimental Groups. . . . 67 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. A Junior High School Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 B. K-9 Safety Education Student Evaluation . . . . . 95 C. Pre-Test K-9 Traffic Safety Education . . . . . . 97 D. Post-Test K-9 Traffic Safety Education. . . . . . 103 E. Distribution of Pre—Test Questions by Subject Areas for K-9 Traffic Safety Education. . . . . 110 F. Testing Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 G. Change in Difficulty Level Between Pre—Test and Post-Test for Experimental and Control Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The search for improvement in driver education and traffic safety has recently turned to K-12 safety education. This area is seen as a possible means of helping young people to become safer, more efficient drivers and partic- ipants in the highway transportation system. Numerous states, local units of government, and school districts have deve10ped programs and curriculum materials, particu— larly in pedestrian and bicycle safety at the elementary level and driver education at the high school level. Indi- vidual teachers have promoted traffic safety in their classrooms through formal programs and incidental use of materials and concepts related to this area. Several recommendations for a greater emphasis on K-12 traffic safety education were made at the 1973 National Conference on Safety Education.1 The United States Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, sponsored 1Robert Marshall, "National Conference on Safety Education," Journal of Traffic Safety Education, April 1974. a project to develop general safety curriculum materials for grades kindergarten through sixth grade under the direction of Eastern Michigan University.2 This curriculum guide included pedestrian, bicycle, school bus, and auto— mobile passenger safety and is now being used in some Michigan schools. A continuation of this project during 1973 provided for development of a traffic safety curriculum for grades seven, eight and nine.3 The writer participated in the junior high school portion of the continued project as assistant project director. The junior high school part of the project developed curriculum objectives, materials and concepts to be used as pre-driver education units in selected subjects offered in grades seven, eight, and nine. Teachers selected to participate in the project surveyed the curriculum presently in use to determine how much traffic safety material was already being used in their classes. Eight teachers were selected to develop traffic safety curriculum materials for this study on the basis of the following criteria: position in seventh, eighth or ninth grade; background or interest in traffic safety, desire to use traffic safety materials in teaching their 2Curriculum Guide for Safety Education, Grades K-6, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, 1973. 3K—9 Traffic Safety Education—~Project Description, Highway Traffic Administration, U. S. Department of Trans— portation, Project #MPS—73—001A, n.d. subject, and geographic location of the school where em- ployed. The writer and his associate interviewed interested teachers and selected one in seventh grade science, one in seventh and eighth grade health, one in eighth grade social_ studies, one in eighth grade health, and one in eighth grade science. Three ninth grade teachers were selected in the areas of English, mathematics, and social studies. A junior high school traffic safety curriculum guide (Guide) was developed by the writer from the Resource Curric- ulum in Driver and Traffic SafetyAEducation4 (Appendix A). Episodes were selected on the basis of their applicability to pedestrians, bicycle riders, and vehicle passengers for consideration by the junior high school teachers involved in the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project. The teachers then selected the concepts from these episodes to use in a pre-driver education unit. Emphasis was placed on the non-driving aspects of vehicle Operation and concepts beyond the regular vehicle operator tasks. Each teacher developed a pre—driver education unit of instruction in traffic safety for his subject area. Some wrote performance objectives for the unit based on objectives selected from the Guide. The objectives were chosen on the basis of relevance to their subject, estimated 4A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education, Second Edition, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, Washington, D.C., 1972. ability of their students to reach these objectives, and their non-driving characteristics. Others proceeded to plan their unit without the use of performance objectives. Concepts were selected from the Guide to be used in the pre-driver education unit on the same basis. Materials and activities were developed by each teacher to be used in their classes. Some of the concepts, materials and activities were tried out on the students currently in their classes to determine suitability and to indicate needed revisions. The teachers were consulted with on their writing periodically, as an aid in selecting appropriate traffic safety materials. The units were then edited by the writer in preparation for use during the following school year. The Problem Young peOple at the junior high school age level are looking forward to reaching the legal driving age and meeting the requirements for a driver's license. They are highly motivated in this area and usually have a keen interest in the various facets of vehicle Operation. A considerable portion of the content in the senior high school driver education program involves much more than the actual oper- ation of a car. Adequate time is not available to learn many of these concepts or to develop mature attitudes necessary for good driving. The concepts, therefore, could be included in such junior high school subjects as science, social studies, language arts, homemaking, mathematics, and health, enriching these courses with subject matter which is both appealing and relevant to the students. The inclusion of pre-driver education materials at the junior high school level will make students more com- petent observers of driving practices and traffic situations before they are enrolled in driver education. It will also give them more background so they are better prepared when they do take the driver education course. A well organized pre—driver education program would make it possible for the senior high school course to present a more advanced program since considerable learning in this area would have already taken place. This knowledge would enable these students to be better pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle passengers during the intervening years. As assistant project director for the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project, the writer was responsible for an evaluation of the program. A field test was planned in which the pre-driver education units would be used in several schools. The effectiveness of the units would be evaluated to determine how much general traffic safety knowledge the students in the classes involved had learned. Hypotheses The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of the inclusion of traffic safety materials in junior high school subjects. It was expected that students in classes which contained a pre-driver education unit would gain in traffic safety knowledge. Stated in hypothesis form: 1. There are significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in a junior high school class containing a traffic safety unit and students in a class with no traffic safety instruction. 2. There are significant differences between the traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the eighth grade as compared to the ninth grade. 3. There are significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of male students and female students. 4. There are significant differences between the selected experimental classes in their distribution of correct and incorrect responses on the pre- and post-tests. Importance of the Study It is necessary in a program designed to effect change to determine if the treatment involved was effective. Agencies funding a project and the general public are interested in the evaluation of the results to find if the time, money, and effort expended is worthwhile. Infor- mation suggesting alterations in the present or future endeavors may be gained from the investigation. This study was made to determine the effectiveness of pre—driver education units when used in junior high school classes. Scope and Limitations It should be noted that this study is concerned only with driver education and traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the selected junior high school subjects. Other areas of interest not included in this study are: comparisons of the effectiveness of traffic safety curriculum between the various subject areas, exposure to traffic safety curriculum in more than one subject, ability in a high school driver education class after participating in a junior high school traffic safety program, and eventual performance as a licensed driver. Definition of Terms Guide: A junior high school traffic safety education guide deve10ped from A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education. Junior High School: The organizational pattern of grades seven, eight, and nine in a public school system. K-9 Safety Education: The guide, objectives, ma- terials, concepts, and class activities for grades seven, eight, and nine prepared as part of Project #MPS-73—001A, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, by Eastern Michigan University. Pre-Driver Education Unit: The curriculum prepared by selected junior high school teachers to present traffic safety materials, concepts, and activities to their students as a part of a regular junior high school subject during one semester of study. Traffic Safety Curriculum: A course of study in- volving the safe and efficient use of streets and highways by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicle operators. Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter II contains a review of the literature re- lating to curriculum development and evaluation, achievement testing, and K-12 traffic safety education. Chapter III presents the methodological development of the study, in— cluding the evaluation instrument, the testing program, and gathering the data. In Chapter IV, the results of the investigation are presented with a statistical analysis of the data obtained. Chapter V contains the summary, con— clusions, and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains a review of literature related to the study Of the increase in traffic safety knowledge among students in selected junior high school classes which included a pre-driver education unit. The writer examined traffic safety education curriculum developments for grades seven, eight, and nine along with achievement testing pro- cedures and concepts. The last part Of the chapter includes a discussion Of related studies and their findings. A search Of the literature failed to find research studies in the area Of traffic safety curriculum at the junior high school level. The section on Traffic Safety Curriculum Development contains statements Of the Opinions Of writers in this area. This section is divided into Curriculum Theory, Relationship to Driver Education and the Adult Driving Role, Relationship to Other Fields Of Knowledge, Important Concepts, and Placement in the Curriculum. Traffic Safety Curriculum Development Curriculum Theory Traffic safety has been accepted as a part Of general safety education in school programs by writers in this area. 10 There is nearly unanimous agreement that education is an indispensible element in a sound traffic safety program. The schools have a large role along with the home and the government in seeking to promote good health and safety habits and attitudes. Murphy wrote: "There must be a broad i and effective approach to the individual, through education, to enlist his informed participation and cooperation."5 "Actual life experiences provide the best safety education," is suggested in the Maine Safety Education Guide.6 It is recommended in the Iowa Safety Education Guide, "as safety is a way Of living rather than a separate subject to be learned, it is entitled to a place in every classroom activity that can make safety facts or material meaningful."7 Traffic safety instruction is consistent with the curriculum goals Of education at the junior high school level and is welcomed as a real life application Of knowledge attained. Young peOple are becoming a part Of the highway transpor— tation system at this age and need to be prepared for their role in that system. The Washington State Traffic Safety' Education Guide focused on this aspect thus: 5Charles J. Murphy, Traffic Safety Education for Schools, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C., 1965, p. 1. 6Safety Education for Maine Schools, State Of Maine, Department of Education, Augusta, Maine, 1967, p. 7. 7Safety Education for Iowa Schools, State Of Iowa, Department Of Public Instruction, DesMOines, Iowa, 1966, p. 10. 11 School youth can benefit from systematic instruction designed to improve skills, values, and behaviors required Of pedes- trians, passengers, recreational vehicle Operators, and motor vehicle Operators in the highway transportation system. The education task is to design, implement and construct instructional programs to assist members Of the highway transportation system to assume their various roles as pedestrians, passengers, riders, Operators, and informed active supports of a constructive traffic safety program. The basic values Of good citizenship, conservation, health- ful environment, and reduction Of accidents are promoted by safety education. The affective domain is an area of traffic safety which is fostered by education. "One major area Of traffic safety education is to influence the formation Of desirable attitudes and to redirect and modify the undesirable ones so that the individual's behavior becomes safer. The classroom teacher can, however, provide students with knowledge that can influence their attitudes," is reported by Murphy.9 This will affect their future as drivers according to the National Commission for Safety Education. "A study Of highway safety builds understandings and atti— «10 tudes which will be safeguards for the future. "This will 8Traffic Safety Education Guide, Superintendent Of Public Instruction Of the State Of Washington, Olympia, 1973. 9Murphy, 22- cit., p. 5. 10Safety Guides for You, National Education Association, National Commission on Safety Education, Washington, D.C., l962, p. 54. 12 encourage the develOpment Of sound attitudes, good habits, and necessary skills which will increase the possibility Of children growing into adulthood," is suggested in the Iowa Safety Education Guide.11 It is observed in the "K-9 Traffic Safety Education Guide," "any experience which helps to mold your beliefs and attitudes, particularly those related to self-concept and concepts about other people, indirectly influences our behavior in relating to the highway traffic system."12 The parents and family also play a part in preparing youth for driving. "As he grows Older he learns about driving using dad and mom as his models. The action Of the parents and the remarks made about driving and other drivers give him a good or poor background as he approaches driver education," stated Mann.l3 Safety education for elementary and junior high school children is seen as a prelude to high school driver education and adult driving Of a motor vehicle in K—9 Traffic Safety Education. "All youth in grades kindergarten through ninth grade will profit well by well conceived 11Safety Education for Iowa Schools, 92. cit., p. vi. 12"K-9 Traffic Safety Education," Division Of Field Services, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, 1973. Unpublished report for Contract no. MPS-73—001A, National Highway Traffic Administration, U. S. Department Of Trans— portation. 13William A. Mann, Personality Factors in Driver and Traffic Education, Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, n.d. I —‘—I—"Tfir scarririii , w... my“. 13 instruction that helps them tO acquire the concepts, skills and values needed as a sound basis for a lifetime Of safe and efficient use of the highway transportation facilities."14 Murphy concludes: If a society is to produce adults with rela- tively safe behavior, we must accept the need for persistent and well-directed efforts tO this end, beginning in the home, continuing from the very start of the individual's school career, and carried on throughout his entire school experience. Concepts presented over the years in elementary grades and rein— forced should be common knowledge by the time driver education is taken in the tenth grade. In the meantime, attitudes will have been in- fluenced and safer behavior exhibited. Carry— over into adulthood should be more lasting and profound.15 Strasser found: "The success of the high school program is dependent on the quality Of safety instruction introduced "16 "The general safety education in the elementary school. course would serve as a prerequisite to an improved course in driver education and training in the senior high school," 17 concluded Seals. Relationship to Driver Education and the Adult Driving Role Participating in the highway transportation system in a non-operator role requires safe behavior and helps to l4"K-9 Traffic Safety Education," 9p. cit., Introduction. 15Murphy, op. cit., p. 11. 16M. K. Strasser, gt al., Fundamentals of Safety Education, McMillan Company, New York, 1973, p. 176. 17Thomas A. Seals, K—12 Guide to School Safety Education, San Diego County Department of Education, San Diego, California, 1969, p. 53. 14 prepare youth for their role as a vehicle Operator. Seals said, "The new motorist has been a member Of the highway transportation system as a pedestrian, a cyclist, or a passenger, but is now embarking on a new membership role."18 The bicycle "driver" is taking a step toward becoming a motor vehicle Operator and needs preparation for this task. He has the same responsibilities and must obey the same traffic regulations as the driver of a car. It was deter- mined in Safety Education for Idaho Schools: "It may well be that the child who learns to drive a bike safely will later be more likely to drive an automobile safely."19 Relationship to Other Fields Of Knowledge The multidisciplinary nature Of traffic safety edu- cation is being increasingly accepted by teachers and cur- riculum planners. In the Iowa Safety Education Guide it is argued: "His [the teacher's] task in preparing course Of study material is to understand clearly the objectives Of safety education and tO seek to determine the contributions that other fields of knowledge can make to strengthen those objectives, whether they be tO increase safety knowledge, fix habits or develop desirable attitudes."20 Curriculum lgIbid., p. 24. 19Safety Education in Idaho Schools, State Of Idaho, Department Of Education, Boise, n.d., p. 24. 20See: Safety Education for Iowa Schools, gp. cit., p. 10; and Seals, 92° cit., p. 53. 15 guides for safety relate it to various subjects such as social studies, health and physical education, science, 21 "These mathematics, language arts, and industrial arts. materials and concepts, used in driver education, can be considered as being drawn from other disciplines and as contributions and enrichment Of these disciplines," stated Mann.22 Other subjects such as business, art, music, and home economics, find it profitable to include traffic safety in their curriculum because Of the natural interest Of youth in this area and its contribution tO the improve- ment Of society in general. It is suggested in "K-9 Traffic Safety Education": It is not intended to burden an already cOm— plete course, but to enrich and add relevance and motivation, because Of the natural inter- est felt by this age group which is looking forward tO the driver education course in a year or two. Curriculum construction in driver and traffic safety education should be tied in with overall curriculum planning. Many Of the crucial issues in traffic safety are not isolated issues, but instead are related to the broad areas Of human behavior. Important Concepts The K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project used A Re- source Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education 21Strasser, QB: cit., p. 175. 22William A. Mann, Driver Education: An Interdisci— plinary Subject, Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, n.d. 23 "K-9 Traffic Safety Education," 22° cit., Introduction. 24A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education, gp. cit. 16 as a guide for junior high school teachers in science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, home economics, and special education to develop a unit Of study in their courses which would serve as a pre-driver education exper- ience. The following topics were included in the units: driver distractions, bicycles, risk taking, road conditions, weather, pedestrians, accidents, driver condition, alcohol, drugs, vision, car ownership, police enforcement Of the laws, speed, eating in the car, car repair, and traffic 25 signs. The Safety Education Guide for Iowa Schools presented outlines for junior high school traffic safety in school traffic patrol, first aid, pedestrian safety, and traffic safety.26 It is suggested in the safety education guide for Illinois that "traffic safety in the schools should include instruction in sound pedestrian and sound bicyclist practices, along with teaching the attitudes, skills and knowledge essential tO the intellectual use Of streets and highways."27 The philOSOphy and scope Of traffic safety education in the schools is set forth in several states and local safety education guides. "The unit Of safety instruction 25See Appendix E. 26Safety Education for Iowa Schools, 22° cit., pp. 35-37. 27An Elementary and Junior High School Safety Edu- cation Guide for Teachers and Administrators, State Of Illinois, Office Of the Superintendent Of Public Instruction, Springfield, Illinois, 1963, p. 44. 17 should be designed to provide factual information about the sc0pe, nature, and possible solutions to accident problems."28 "The develOpment Of a curriculum is the right and responsi- 29 bility Of each school." "Being 'safer' in traffic depends importantly on prOperly assessing one's limitations and. 30 "Most traffic safety education systems can capabilities." not include instruction for all support systems."31 "A course of study to be used in the classroom must be produced at the local level by the teachers that will be using it."32 Placement in the Curriculum Other statements in the various state traffic safety education guides indicate where and how safety should be included in the school curriculum. Elementary, middle and junior high schools can and should contribute their resources tO introducing young people to the highway transportation system, and preparing them for an increasingly active role, not only as drivers, but also as informed and active supporters Of sound traffic safety programs. Education for traffic safety should have its foundation in grades kindergarten through ninth grade. 28Strasser, op. cit., p. 176. 29An Elementary and Junior High School Safety Edu- cation Guide, Op. cit., p. 44. 3OMurphy, op. cit., Forward. 31Traffic Safety Education Guide, op. cit., p. 27. 32Strasser, op. cit., p. 172. 33 "K-9 Traffic Safety Education," op. cit., Introduction. 18 "Education in this area should begin in elementary grades."34 "Traffic safety education should be an essential part Of the entire education program and should be stressed at every grade in the elementary and junior high schOOl."35 Most writers suggested that safety, including traffic safety, should be integrated with the regular subjects in the curriculum. "The Office Of Public Instruction has adhered tO the premise that safety education is an integral "36 and prOper part Of the general education program. "All teachers can take part in a coordinated instructional plan that integrates and reinforces traffic related concepts and values throughout the curriculum. The content Of this guide can and should be integrated in existing courses "37 taught in grades seven, eight, and nine. "It can best be implemented with other areas Of curriculum such as: language arts, physical education, social studies, science, "38 "Safety education must be "39 arithmetic, art, and music. integrated with every school subject. "Safety instruction 34Traffic Safety Education Guide, 9p. cit., p. 8. 35An Elementary and Junior High School Safety Edu- cation Guide for Teachers and Administrators, gp. cit., p. 44. 36Ibid., Forward. 37"K-9 Traffic Safety Education Guide," 2p. cit., Introduction. 38Curriculum Guide for Safety Education Grades K-9, op. cit., Forward. 39Safety Education for Iowa Schools, 92- cit., Forward. 19 should be an integral part Of the school program and should further develop understandings, attitudes, and appreciations that will assist in meeting the responsibilities of safe living in today's world."40 "Safety may be brought into a course as the principal subject, integrated with the course content, or correlated with other instruction units. Safety is Often treated as a special course or a major unit Of instruction in a related "41 "A required subject at the junior and senior high level. separate course or an identifiable extended unit Of instruc- tion is strongly recommended at the junior high level, preferably ninth grade."42 Achievement Testing Educational Testing Theory Testing the students involved in a school safety program is a common method of evaluating the effectiveness of the program and determining achievement by the partici- pants. It is suggested by the Iowa State Department Of Public Instruction: "One method of evaluating a safety program is the informational material measured by written tests."43 4°Ibid., p. 4. 41Strasser, op. cit., p. 172. 2Seals, op. cit., p. 53. 43Safety Education for Iowa Schools, op. cit., p. 37. 20 "Achievement tests evaluate specific areas of knowledge to measure the effectiveness Of instruction and learning, yielding norms to be used for comparative purposes," stated Kerlinger.44 Gage in describing testing said that: Testing may be viewed as a systematic sampling Of an individual's characteristics at a given time under "45 Robinson observed: "An exam- specified conditions. ination is essentially a means for getting valid evidence of the degree to which students have attained the desired objectives Of instruction."46 The teacher, the adminis- trator, and those who support the traffic safety program used evaluation results to determine if their Objectives were being met. Education is a process to bring about change in the students. Gronlund believed that achievement testing pro- vides a positive force in that process.47 Gage concluded that the criteria Of effectiveness for cognitive learning 44Frederick N. Kerlinger, Foundations Of Behavioral Research, Educational and Psychological Inquiry, Holt- Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1964, p. 479. 45Nathaniel L. Gage, Handbook Of Research on Teaching, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1963, p. 380. 46Allen R. Robinson, "A Post-Test for Driver Edu- cation Based On: A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972, p. 38. 47Norman E. Gronlund, Constructing Achievement Tests, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 21 must be related to changes in students.48 According to Lindquist, the student will learn more effectively those things which are measured and measurement requires that educational Objectives are stressed in the classroom.49 Downie argued that a prerequisite to evaluation is to determine what one is going to measure by stating the objectives of the program and defining each Objective in terms of student behavior required.50 Testing the students involved in a traffic safety program is an appropriate method of evaluating the effects of the program on those involved. Test Evaluation An effective testing program requires a good eval— uation instrument and proper testing procedures. Gage saw the direct method of evaluation as getting evidence on behavior included in the program objectives and Ob- serving examples Of the students' ability to meet those objectives.51 The indirect method is a way of securing evidence that correlates with that obtained by the direct method but is more reliable, Objective, and easier to score. 48Gage, op. cit., p. 380. 49Everett F. Lindquist, Educational Measurement, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1951, p. 6. 50N. M. Downie, Fundamentals Of Measurement: Techniques and Practices, Oxford University Press, England, 1967, p. 139. 51 Gage, op. cit., p. 94. 22 The written test, if well constructed and properly selected, is a direct method Of evaluation. Dunn said that to be effective, a measurement instrument must be experimentally tested and validated.52 Since the designing and testing Of an evaluation instrument is a long and involved process, selecting an existing test which has been validated and is appropriate to the intended use is Often done. This appropriateness or relevance of the test is a judgment that must be made by the one selecting the instrument. Suggested criteria include relation to in- structional Objectives, analysis of the course and texts used, correct answers verified from another source, tasks appropriate to the purpose Of the test, analysis of mental processes, motor skills and other behaviors, and judgment Of competent persons.53 Gronlund recommended that an achievement test should: measure a representative sample of the learning outcomes included in the subject matter and instruction, include items apprOpriate for measuring desired learning outcomes, be designed to fit the particular use to be made Of the results, and be used to improve student 52LeRoy W. Dunn, "The Development of an Instrument to Measure Knowledge of Traffic Safety Concepts Found to Differentiate Between Violators and Non Violators," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963, p. 7. 53See: H. H. Remmers, N. L. Gage, J. F. Rummel, A Practical Introduction to Measurement and Evaluation, Harper and Row, New York, 1965, p. 120; and Robert L. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 362. 23 learning.54 Care should be taken to determine if the reading level and language is appropriate for the group being tested and the test length should be such that most of the students can finish in the time alloted.55 Test Construction The reliability of the test is the consistency with which a test yields the same results in measuring whatever it does measure. The test should be highly reliable and yield a wide range of scores. Berger said: "The relation between test reliability and variance will determine the con- fidence we can place in the applicant's score."56 Reliabil- ity makes possible the Obtaining Of similar results upon repetition and determines the degree to which measurement is free from random influence, according to Horst.57 The test selected should have Objectivity, requiring that student test performance meet the criterion stated in the learning objectives, as recommended by Davis.58 This 54Gronlund, op. cit., p. 25. 55Downie, 9p. cit., pp. 144—146. 56Wallace G. Berger, "Understanding Test Construction: The Design Of Driver License Knowledge Tests," Highway Safety Research Institute, The University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor, December 1971. Unpublished working paper, p. 33. 57Paul Horst, Psychological Measurement and Pre- diction, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1966, p. 164. Robert H. Davis, et al., Learning Systems Design, 58 McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1970, p. 41. 24 would also require that the personal judgment of the person scoring the test should not be reflected in the correctness of answers given. The test must be valid, that is, it must measure what it is supposed to measure. Berger listed this as the most important feature Of the test, suggesting that it should be measured according to some predetermined cri- terion.59 A test is unlikely to be highly related to driver performance, however. If the test is valid, it will show a high degree of reliability but the reverse is not necessarily true. Horrocks and Schoonover recommended four types Of validity that should be evaluated in an instrument.60 Content validity determines if a proper sampling Of the universe Of content has been included and if this content is relevant to the purpose Of the measuring instrument. Concurrent validity compares the individual's performance on a variable with some other criterion of performance already established. Predictive validity compares the result to some subsequent measure for predictive purposes. Construct validity determines through statistical methods if the test measures what it is purported tO measure. Another non-scientific type of validity is face validity. 59Berger, op. cit., p. 3. 60J. E. Horrocks and T. I. Schoonover, Measurement for Teachers, C. E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1968, pp. 265-268. 25 This type would determine whether the test agrees with the subject's ideas Of what the content Of the test ought tO be. Berger found that multiple-choice questions pro- vide the best format for a driver knowledge test for the following reasons: they are compatible with automatic testing and scoring procedures, they can be easily con- verted into true or false questions, the number Of choices can be reduced, the chance Of guessing correctly is reduced, one item can test more than one piece Of information, and one set Of instructions is all that is needed.61 Other practical considerations in evaluating a measurement instrument would include: time required to administer, cost, availability Of equivalent forms, accurate interpretation, and its suitability for the program being evaluated. Berger62 provided the following rules for test con- struction: directions should be complete and give an example from the material being tested, the method Of reSponse should be simple, answers should not be weighted, the position Of the correct answer should be varied, items should be presented in a positive form if possible, adequate time must be allowed for testing. Good item construction requires that the writer: not give the 61Berger, op. cit., p. 6. 6ZIbid., p. 8. 26 answer to another item, use important topics and avoid the trivial, state the question clearly and simply, avoid items with obvious answers, use informative distractors, use a short stem with a maximum Of sixteen words, use choices with equal length and word difficulty, avoid definitions as questions, include items at all levels of difficulty, use a panel Of experts to determine adequacy of the items and appropriate answers. Items may be ana- lyzed and improved individually tO make a better test. The National Item Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge"3 The HumRRO Driver Task Analysis64 was used as a framework for developing 1,300 test items on driver knowl- edge. These items reflect what is known about safe, efficient, legal driving and use Of the highway system. Eleven thousand and ninety—nine items from existing driver knowledge tests from 50 states were collected and divided in the three categories of: 1) Principles of safe, effic— ient vehicle control; 2) Formal legal regulations; and 3) Traffic control devices, signs, and markings. The 1,300 test items were selected from these groups. These 63W. T. Pollock and T. L. McDole, Development Of a National Item Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge, Highway Safety Research Institute, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1973. 64A. J. McKnight, op a1. Driver Education Task Analysis, Vol. I-IV, Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia, 1971. 27 items were evaluated as to language adequacy, content validity, and psychometric criteria. Considerable emphasis was given to evaluating reading level, reading ease, and length Of stem for each item. The test Of 1,300 items was administered to driver education students in Waterloo, Iowa to determine item difficulty, reliability, and corre- lation with verbal ability. After revising or eliminating some items which did not meet the established criteria, 246 items were chosen which reflected the categories Of the 1,300 items. This special test set was administered to drivers renewing their licenses in Michigan, and members Of the U. S. Coast Guard School at Cape May, New Jersey to get normative data. This item pool may be used for developing driver license and driver education tests by the various states. Use of the Test Results The two most common uses for achievement tests reported by Hawks are ranking of students tested in order of total achievement in a given subject and discovery Of specific weaknesses, errors, or gaps in student's achieve~ ments.65 Dunn found that driver knowledge tests were used in driver education classes to measure the individual's knowledge of safe driving practices, in the selection 65Herbert E. Hawks, et al., The Construction and Use Of Achievement ExaminationsT_A Manual for Secondary School Teachers, American Council on Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1936, p. 496. 28 process used for choosing commercial drivers, and by the state driver licensing authorities as a test of driver 66 Wallace and Crancer advise against the knowledge. latter use because Of the low predictive value of driver knowledge tests when the subsequent driving record is considered.67 Improving the learning process is an important goal of educational testing. Lindquist defined the pur- pose of educational measurement: "to make possible more accurate prediction and control in the education process. The final criterion is the facilitation Of learning."68 Downie listed the uses Of achievement testing as: grades, diagnosis of students' strong and weak points, sectioning, motivation, evaluation, teaching, and counseling.69 The improvement of student learning was given as a valid use of testing by Downie7O and Robinson.71 The teacher should use the results of achievement tests to guage the effect of teaching, evaluate type Of learning that takes place 66Dunn, op. cit., pp. 19, 20. 671. E. Wallace and A. Crancer, Jr. "Licensing Examinations and their Relation to Subsequent Driving," Washington Department of Motor Vehicles, Olympia, 1971, as reported in Behavioral Research in Highway Safety, Volume 2, no. 1, Spring, 1971, p. 65. 68Lindquist, op. cit., p. 3. 69Downie, op. cit., p. 136. 7OIbid., p. 227, 426. 71Robinson, op. cit., p. 42. 29 in the classroom and in planning curriculum for the class. Gage reported that the "effectiveness Of the learning process in terms Of magnitude of changes taking place in the individual or proportion Of students who have changed significantly in one or more relevant characteristic"72 is an important outcome Of achievement testing. Testing is also used in the evaluation Of projects to determine their effectiveness and to indicate needed changes. Stufflebeam73 saw product evaluation as a means to determine the effectiveness of a project and to make ‘ decisions on terminating, changing or continuing the project. Process evaluation gives feedback to determine defects during the project. Unfortunately, many eval- uation programs are not sufficiently specific or timely to influence the project. Research Studies Research in the area Of traffic safety curriculum, particularly at the junior high school level, is very limited. The author reviewed traffic safety literature and found only one study in the curriculum development area and this one was not an experimental study. This section surveys studies in the traffic safety field in- volved with curriculum or knowledge testing. 72Gage, op. cit., p. 86. 730. L. Sutfflebeam, Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision Making, Working Conference on Assessment Theory, Sarasota, Florida, 1968, pp. 35—36. 30 Warner74 in a historical survey Of instruction in driver education cited a pre—driver education program designed by Dr. A. R. Lauer at Iowa State College in the 1950's. The Objective Of the project was to prepare ele- mentary and junior high school students in safe driving practices. The program consisted Of classroom, laboratory practice in the Auto-Trainer, and evaluation. The course was four weeks in length with a goal of developing driving readiness. Lauer found that students at this age could learn as quickly as high school students and that their interest in driver education was stimulated. The program was continued for five years but no experimental study was made to determine its effectiveness. A study by Nolan75 investigated whether students who were taught to drive with the AEtna Drivotrainer would be comparable to those given their practice driving ex- perience on the multiple car Off-street driving range. This study compared experimental and control groups in attitudes, traffic safety knowledge, and driving skill. The achievement tests from two current driver education 74William L. Warner, "The Evolution Of Instructional Programs Of Driver Education in the United States," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969, p. 124. 75Robert O. Nolan, "A Comparative Study of the Teaching Effectiveness Of the AEtna Drivotrainer and the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range," unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1965. 31 books used lacked statistical information on validity and reliability. NO significant difference in general driving knowledge between the Drivotrainer and multiple car groups was found. After instruction, the Drivotrainer and mul- tiple car groups were comparable with respect tO specific driving knowledge scores. Gustafson76 compared students who were taught to drive by means Of the Allstate Good Driver Trainer and the multiple car Off—street driving range with students who were taught on the Off-street driving range only. This was an experimental study to compare the groups in driving knowledge, attitude, and skill. A final test used with a driver education textbook and one deve10ped by a university for driver behavior research were used in the evaluation Of driving knowledge. A significant difference between pre- and post-tests for the experimental and control groups was found in general driving knowledge and specific driving knowledge. Significant correlations for the experimental and control groups between intell— igence quotients and the final driving knowledge tests were found. 76Robert E. Gustafson, "A Study to Compare the Effectiveness Of Instruction in the Allstate GOOd Driver Trainer and on the Multiple Car Off—Street Driving Range with the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range," unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1965. 32 Robinson77 deve10ped a post-test for a driver edu- cation course based on A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education. The test was designed to measure student ability in relation to the stated Objectives Of the resource curriculum. Test items were developed from each Of the units and evaluated by a panel Of judges to establish their validity and Objectivity. The judges also evaluated the criticality of each of the units. An estimated reliability for the resulting test was determined but the instrument was not validated statistically. Dunn78 developed a test including twenty-nine items that differentiated between drivers with traffic law violations and drivers who were violation free. He found that non-violators have more knowledge Of traffic laws than Violators. Test items from driver education textbook tests and driver licensing tests were used. NO validity or reliability information was Obtained. McDole79 deve10ped a general knowledge test for use in motorcycle Operator education programs. Parallel test instruments able to differentiate between motorcycle 77Allen Robinson, "A Post-Test for Driver Education Based On: A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1972. 78 Dunn, op. cit. 79Thomas L. McDole, "Development of General Knowledge Test for Use in Motorcycle Operator Education and Evaluation Programs," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1973. 33 Operators with sufficient knowledge tO Operate a motorcycle and those who did not demonstrate such knowledge were deve10ped. The tests are also suitable for testing general knowledge of motorcycle Operation. Two parallel forty item tests were developed with psychometric data for each item tO determine validity and reliability. One hundred and seven items out of 170 developed were found to discriminate between riders and non-riders. Summary Traffic safety curriculum developments for grades seven, eight, and nine were examined and statements Of the Opinions Of writers in this area were given. Traffic safety is accepted as part of general safety education and is consistent with the curriculum goals Of education at the junior high school level. Curriculum guides for safety related it tO various subjects such as social studies, health and physical education, science, mathematics, language arts, and industrial arts. Materials and concepts used in driver education were drawn from other subject areas and con- tributed to these subjects because Of the natural interest Of youth in driving. Important concepts found in traffic safety guides included: materials related to pedestrians, bicycles, school safety patrol, first aid, risk taking, road con- ditions, weather, accident, driver condition, alcohol, 34 drugs, vision, car ownership, enforcement, speed, car repair, and traffic signs. Traffic safety education was recommended at the elementary and junior high school level by state safety education guides. Achievement tests were used to eval— uate traffic safety education projects and determine the effectiveness Of instruction. An effective testing program requires a gOOd eval- uation instrument and proper testing procedures. The design and validation Of a test is a long and involved process so an existing instrument appropriate to the intended use may be selected. Care must be given to the criteria used to determine if the evaluation instrument is apprOpriate for the group for which it is to be used. The National Item Bank for Tests Of Driving Knowledge was described as an example Of test construction and validation. Tests were used to measure the individual's knowl- edge Of safe driving practices and tO guage the effects Of teaching on the learning process. Testing was used to evaluate projects to determine their effectiveness and indicate needed changes. Research in the area Of traffic safety curriculum at the junior high school level is limited. Studies in this area concerned with curriculum or knowledge testing evaluated the difference in general traffic safety 35 knowledge between driver education groups receiving their practice driving instruction by different methods and developed tests for driver education, driver licensing, and motorcycle education. The design and methodology Of the study will be presented in Chapter III. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction Chapter III describes: (l) the selection of the schools, instructors andclasses for this study, (2) deve1- Opment Of the testing instrUment and the student evalu- ation device, (3) the procedure used in testing the pre- driver education traffic safety units, (4) the hypotheses to be tested, (5) the procedure used in the analysis Of the data, and (6) summary Of the chapter. Sample The pOpulation sample for this study consisted Of sixteen classes Of junior high school students chosen randomly from classes taught by the eight teachers who participated in the development Of the junior high school portion Of the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project. There were l-seventh grade class, 1-seventh-eighth grade combined class, 8—eighth grade classes, and 6-ninth grade classes. Six Of the classes were located in Dwight Rich Junior High School, Lansing, Michigan. Four Of the classes were in East Junior High School, Ypsilanti, Michigan and two classes were at Ypsilanti High School, Ypsilanti, Michigan. 36 37 Two of the classes were at Stevenson Junior High School, Westland, Michigan, and two classes were at Walled Lake Western High School, Walled Lake, Michigan. The socioeconomic levels Of these classes were estimated by the teachers involved in the study. They ranged from lower-middle to middle class in six classes. Two classes were middle class and eight classes were in the middle to upper-middle class range. There were 184 males and 157 females in the sixteen classes. The teachers Of the junior high school Classes had a varying amount Of background and experience. Three of these teachers had taken university classes in traffic safety and had taught high school driver education courses. Three teachers did not have any previous background or experience in traffic safety. Two teachers had not taken any courses in traffic safety but had experience in teaching or administration in this area (Table 1). There were seven males and one female teacher selected tO participate in the study. The schools where these teachers taught were located in one medium-sized city, one small city, one suburban area and one rural-suburban area in Michigan. One was a junior high school with 1,605 students located in a city Of 132,000 pOpulation. One junior high school Of 825 students was in a city of 30,000 pOpulation. Another junior high school participating had 1,449 students in a 38 gag roman 0.33 o 6.563 388 Sung 3 $389 I» .3356 83s 58v... Ba 5:98 58 .. a» meriflst .. «.3 m» £396 0 n» 4.3 J 8228 Ah 0.: N» AP :55: use .p mTaEVaas So... so...” 825 Sean 8a... 898 893 08.5 coo; Scan 898 SENS mo .98 no .38 «0 38 mo 38 no 38 no 38 no 38 we has no and no 36 mo 38 no RU 888 .33 :52 mass :55 weep Emma .uomhnsm can .ONHm muflo .mumnomoa mo pcsoumxomm ho musmcspm mo coausnfluumfloll.a momma 39 city Of 87,000 population. One high school Of 1,630. students was in a city Of 30,000 pOpulation. The other high school of 1,904 students was in a city Of 4,000 80 pOpulation (Table 2). Measures A student evaluation form (Appendix B) was deve10ped by the writer to determine student acceptance Of the pre- driver education unit. The pre-test (Appendix C) and post-test (Appendix D) used in this study were developed from the National Item 81 Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge compiled by the Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI), The University of Michigan. This item bank is made up Of 1,300 questions with a special test set of 246 items systematically se- lected to reflect the subject areas Of the larger pool. The 1,300 item bank questions were selected by the HSRI from 11,099 driver knowledge test items collected from all fifty states and other sources including the 82 Uniform Vehicle Code. The HumRRO Driver Task Analy31383 was used as a framework for the item pool. The items were 80Michigan Education Directory, Lansing, 1973-1974. 81Pollock and McDole, op, cit. 82Uniform Vehicle Code and Traffic Ordinance, Revised 1968, including Supplements (Washington, D.C.: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances). 83McKnight, op. cit. .4() Bfiuflu nine a 558»... o3. : 8350 8380 3&6 8330 figug an; .339 manna 588 Be 5:98 58 .. ~ .1 F... m1 o 8:55-52 1. u m I... m dd w flagsaja m . m a: 9 m7... :u m7... N 0..” _.: w mozm_um m_.z no .wum so I O In In m.u.mm m_1.om .u.mm than: M... :9 mm“ Nu wax to M; cm W mm as 8:55 458m in“ no Fun J ooo.v cac.om ooo.~m ooo.~nd ooo.. coo.on ooo.~o ooo.~m~ ooo.v ooo.on ooo.~o ooo.~na no .38 ac DU .6 38 «0 58 no 36 no 38 no 38 do 36 no 38 uo 38 mo 36 no 38 .5123 853 .622 351... EEG 85¢ Ezmfim owmmmMHU HOHHCOU UCM HMUGOEHHdem .xmm .uooflnsm .muflo mo ONHm >2 mucmpsum mo coflusnfluumfloll.m mqmde 41 chosen to reflect what is known about safe efficient legal driving. Each item selected was rated for its difficulty level, test-retest reliability, and correlation with verbal ability. Considerable emphasis was placed by the HSRI on the readability Of the 1,300 items selected. Some items were rewritten to adjust reading ease and length of stem. The reading level was determined to be seventh grade by the Flesch Readability Count and the reading ease score was seventy-eight. The questions were evaluated for language adequacy, content validity and were also given a psychometric evaluation. The 1,300 item bank was field tested by the HSRI with driver education students in the PRIDE project at Waterloo, Iowa. The special test set Of 246 items was field tested with original and renewal license applicants in Michigan and students at the U. S. Coast Guard School in Cape May, New Jersey. Items for the pre- and post-test for this research were selected from the 246 item special test set on the basis Of their relationship to traffic safety concepts used by the junior high school teachers in their pre-driver education units. Either the stem Of the question or one Of the responses was judged by the writer to be related to a concept contained in one or more of the Units. It was determined that sufficient information was found in the 42 units containing each concept to enable students to answer the question correctly in classes making use Of these units. The questions were written for evaluation of driver edu- cation students and licensed drivers but were judged to be sufficiently related to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicle passengers to be used in the testing instruments. The items selected were separated as tO their re- lationship to concepts contained in the units for language arts, social studies, science, mathematics, and health. A listing was made to determine items unique to the con— cepts in each subject area and those common to more than one subject area (Appendix E). The final selection Of questions contained one item unique to each subject in three areas and two questions common to two subject areas. Each subject had eleven questions applicable to it out of the total of twenty—four questions. The questions from the five areas were combined in order to get a test Of sufficient length. Each question selected for the pre- and post—test was checked for difficulty level, test—retest reliability, and verbal ability correlation with the normative data Obtained for the 1,300 item pool. Separate tests for each subject were considered and rejected in favor of a longer test including questions on general traffic safety knowledge for all classes. A difficulty level range of .50 to .95 was used with the average calculated at .786. 43 Test—retest reliability was set at a minimum Of + .30. A verbal ability correlation of i .30 was used. The twenty- four items selected contain a balance in the areas Of basic knowledge, driver situations, physical and emotional condition, vehicle code, and traffic control signs and signals found in the 246 Special test set which reflects the categories Of HumRRO Driver Task Analysis.84 The same questions were used for the post-test, systematically arranged in a different order. Design The eight teachers involved in this study had written pre—driver education units for their subject areas in the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project.85 The following summaries describe the format and content Of these units. A Pre-Driver Education Program for Eighth Grade Earth Science The unit was introduced with selected statistics to indicate the traffic safety problem in the United States. It was divided into five tOpics: ice on the bridge, air pollution, weather, Vision, and the force of gravity. Scientific facts common tO the area Of earth science were presented and related to the traffic safety picture. The unusual situation Of ice forming on a bridge 84Ibid. 85"K-9 Traffic Safety Education," 22- Cit- 44 deck roadway when the approaching road is clear was pre- sented in the first section. The section related the current problem Of air pollution to the science of auto- mobile emmissions and suggested some possible remedies. The tOpic Of weather and the driver or pedestrian was related to units on atmospheric science, precipitation, reflection and diffusion, and appearance Of the sky. Scientific facts about vision were used to explain the various types Of vision used by the driver. The physical law Of gravity was related to the Operation Of a motor vehicle. Each section had a vocabulary list, discussion questions, and learning activities. Films used and a bibliography were listed at the end Of the unit. Pre—Driver Education Program for Seventh and Eighth Grade Science Students The introduction to the unit presented some Obser- vations of the teacher concerning his experience with this program. The background and history Of the automobile in the United States was the first tOpic presented. Part Two explained the mechanical make-up Of motor vehicles and how they use fuel for prOpulsion. The natural forces and how they affect the Operation Of motorized vehicles was examined next. The human behavior and physical skills involved in motor vehicle Operation were taken up in Part Four. The relationship Of driving and riding skills 45 to traffic laws was discussed in the next section. Signs, signals, and markings were presented in Part Six. Basic principles in aiding those injured in traffic accidents concluded the unit. Learning eXperiences and resource materials for each part Of the unit were suggested. Performance Ob- jectives for this program were presented at the end Of the unit. Pre-Driver Education Program for Ninth Grade Commercial English The goal Of this unit was tO get students tO be safety conscious when they are walking, riding a bicycle, or a passenger in a motor vehicle. The teacher used vo- cabulary, spelling, reading, discussion, short stories or articles, speeches and reports to help his students learn traffic safety concepts and ideas. These five modules were included in the traffic safety unit: signs, alcohol, drugs, pedestrians, bicycles, and passenger safety. Performance Objectives were written for each module in the unit. Learning activities to be used and resource materials were listed. Pre-Driver Education Program for Eighth Grade Civics The method of presentation for this unit was in the form of a story about two junior high school boys, one of 46 whom had a brother who had just bought a used car. TOpics presented in the story were: the big car, initial cost, insurance, natural resources, environment, land use, car repairs, traffic safety, and decision about the car. Objectives for the unit were at the beginning of the story. Each part Of the unit had inquiry questions for discussion. Supplementary material was included in some of the units. An automobile simulation game was also presented to help the students understand some Of the costs Of Operating a car. A Pre-Driver Education Program for a Ninth Grade Family and Community Living Class An extensive list of behavioral Objectives stated in performance terms was presented at the beginning Of this unit. The following concepts were included: highway transportation system, traffic laws, driving as a privilege, value clarification, behavior and attitude, traffic accidents, automobile insurance, driver physical condition, automobile design and manufacture, and risk acceptance. Activities such as discussions, games, field trips, role playing, newspaper articles, bulletin boards, lists, articles, debates, films, surveys, contests, pamphlets, statistics, filmstrips, and questions were used as learning experiences for the students. 47 A Pre-Driver Education Program for a Sevopth and Eighth Grade Health Class The unit was developed to acquaint junior high school students with driver education and traffic safety as it relates to the field of health. The topics emphasized were mental conditioning, physical condition, drugs and alcohol, and traffic safety. An outline of the concepts included in the topics presented is given. The emphasis is on pre-driver education and a healthy driver. A Pre-Driver Education Program for Eighth Grade Health The topics of drugs and alcohol were related to driver education in the health section of a boy's physical education class. The students studied resource material provided by the teacher and gave reports to the class. The teacher led discussions stemming from questions pre- sented and movies shown to the class. A Pre-Driver Education Program for Ninth Grade Algebra The unit was presented as a part of an algebra class to help students learn more about cars and driving through mathematics. Performance Objectives were presented for the subjects: costs of auto ownership, accident statistics, and on-the—road Operation. Selected content material with examples, questions and suggested assign— ments were included for each topic. 48 The pre-driver education units were taught by each Of the eight teachers in this study to one Of their classes during the Fall Semester of 1973. These classes were selected randomly from all the classes in the subject being taught by the teacher. Another of their classes, selected randomly, took the pre- and post—test but did not receive any traffic safety instruction. This class was used as a control group. The teachers used their regular teaching techniques to present the traffic safety unit to the experimental class for a period Of three to five weeks. Seven to ten days following the completion of the unit, the post-test was administered to each class by the teacher (Appendix G). After completing the post—test, the students in the experimental groups were asked tO complete a student evaluation form giving their Opinions of the traffic safety unit and the tests. This evaluation was adminis- tered by the teachers. The following null hypotheses were selected. 1. There are no significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in a junior high school class containing a traffic safety unit and students in a class with no traffic safety instruction. HO: Ck = C9 C = Class receiving the traffic safety unit. C = Class receiving no traffic g safety instruction. 49 2. There are no significant differences between the traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the eighth grade as compared to the ninth grade. Ho‘ Ckga = Ckg9 Eighth Grade Ninth Grade 3. There are no significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge Of male students and female students. Ho‘ Ckgm = Ckgf = Male Students f = Female Students 4. There are no significant differences between the selected experimental classes in their distribution Of correct and incorrect res onses on the pre- and post-tests.8 H : C = c O k responses k responses Analysis An analysis Of variance was used to compare the mean scores Of the experimental groups with the control groups to determine if there was an increase in general traffic safety knowledge. Selected items in the pre- and post—tests, which were included as concepts in three or more Of the subject area traffic safety units were 86Nine questions were selected for analysis on the basis that the concept being tested was included in three or more Of the five subject areas for which pre-driver education units were written. 50 given the Chi-square Test for Independence to determine if the experimental group students in selected subjects responded differently to these questions. Correlations with the grade, sex, subject area, and teachers Of the classes were determined. The .05 level Of significance was selected as the criteria Of acceptance for all analysis. Data on the intelligence quotient Of students in ten of the sixteen classes studied was not available so this variable was not used. The socioeconomic level Of the sixteen groups ranged from lower—middle class to upper-middle class. Eight Of the sixteen classes were a homogeneous sample and there were not enough classes in the other categories to make a comparison. Therefore, the socioeconomic level was not considered as a variable. Summary The sixteen classes involved in this research were randomly chosen from classes taught by eight junior high school teachers. They involved seventh, eighth, and ninth grades in five Michigan schools found in cities Of 132,000, 87,000, 30,000, and 4,000 population.. The teachers in- cluded those in social studies, language arts, science, mathematics, and health. There was a variety of traffic safety background and experience among the teachers. A pre-driver education unit was deve10ped by each Of the teachers in the seventh through ninth grade portion of the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project for their subject 51 area. A pre-test to determine the amount Of traffic safety knowledge already known was administered tO the students in eight classes which studied the pre-driver education unit and eight other classes which received no traffic safety instruction. After the teachers in the experimental classes had presented the unit to their classes, both the experimental and the control groups were given a post-test. The students in the experimental groups completed an evaluation Of the program also. The develOpment Of the pre- and post-tests was described in this chapter. An outline of the procedure_ used in testing and the analysis Of the data Obtained was also given. The following chapter is devoted tO the gathering, processing, and analyzing Of the data for this study. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness Of pre-driver education units used at the junior high school level. Traffic safety knowledge learned by students in selected classes in grades seven, eight, and nine was com- pared tO traffic safety knowledge gained by students in similar classes receiving no traffic safety instruction. The relationships Of the variables Of grade level and sex with increase in traffic safety knowledge were determined. Eight teachers deve10ped a pre-driver education unit in one Of five different subject areas. These units were field tested in eight Of their classes with a total Of 167 students participating.87 Each student in the experimental group was given a pre-test and post-test to determine the increase in traffic safety knowledge and a student evaluation questionnaire was administered. The 162 students in eight control classes who did not receive traffic safety instruction were given the 87Thirty—one students were deleted from the statistics because they did not take the pre-test or the post—test. 52 53 pre-test and post-test to determine any increase in traffic safety knowledge during the same time period. The statistical analysis Of data Obtained in the testing program will be given later in this chapter. Significant differences between the traffic safety knowledge of the experimental and control groups will be analyzed and discussed. Results Of the Chi-square test for significance on nine questions selected from the post-test will be shown and discussed. Analysis Of variance for the variables Of sex and grade level will be given. The results Of the student evaluation questionnaire will be discussed. The individual class is the unit Of measurement for hypotheses one, two, three, and four. A Comparison Of the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between Experimental and Control Groups Hypothesis 1 There are no significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge Of students participating in a junior high school class containing a traffic safety unit and students in a class with no traffic safety instruction. The results Of the analysis Of variance to de— termine if there was a significant difference between the pre-test means and the post—test means for the experimental and control groups is found in Table 3. 54 TABLE 3.--The Pre- and Post-Test Measures Of Traffic Safety Knowledge for Experimental and Control Groups by Analysis Of Variance for Split Plot Design. Degrees Mean F Sources Of . Comments Freedom Squares Ratio Groups 1 6.75 1.19 Not significant at .05 level. Classes within 14 5.65 each Group Measures 1 3.71 4.42 Not significant at .05 level. Interaction between 1 .70 .83 Not significant Groups and Measures at .05 level. Error Term, Measures 14 .84 by Class within Groups TOTAL 31 F = 4.60 at .05 Level Of Significance 1,14 55 The repeated measures design as suggested by Kirk88 was used to compare the experimental and control group means on the pre-test measure with the means for the post-test measure. A comparison was made Of the difference between the means Of the experimental group from the pre-test to the post-test and the means for the control group from the pre-test to the post-test. The average Of pre-test and post-test means for the experimental groups was 15.2 and the average Of the pre-test and post-test means for the control groups was 14.1 (Table 4). The difference between the means was not significant at the .05 level and therefore the null hypothesis was retained. TABLE 4.--The Average Mean Scores On Pre— and Post-Tests for the Experimental and Control Groups. Group Pre-Test Post-Test Mean Average Experimental Groups 14.7 15.7 15.2 Control Groups 14.1 14.5 14.1 Mean Average: 14.4 15.1 Hypothesis la. There are no significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge Of students in the eighth grade and ninth grade participating in a junior high school class containing a traffic safety unit and students in a class with no traffic safety instruction. 88Robert E. Kirk, Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1968, p. 249. 56 The two-way analysis Of variance results for Hypothesis 1a are found in Table 5 and Table 6. When grades eight and nine were compared, the treatment effect was significant at the .05 level and the grade effect was significant at the .01 level. The experimental groups had an average gain Of 1.52 in mean gain scores between the pre- and post-tests while the control groups gained an average Of .30 on their means. This indicates a signif- icant treatment effect for the experimental groups. A Comparison of the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between Students in the Eighth Grade and Students in the Ninth Grade Hypothesis 2 There are no significant differences between the traffic safety knowledge gained by stu- dents in the eighth grade compared to students in the ninth grade. The results Of the two-way analysis Of variance tO determine the significant differences between mean gain scores for grades eight and nine on the pre-test and post— test are found in Table 5. The results for grade seven are not analyzed because there was not a sufficient number Of classes to make a comparison. The ninth grade groups had a gain in average mean scores Of 1.85 from the pre-test to the post-test and the eighth grade groups had a loss Of .02 in average mean scores (Table 6) indicating a significant grade effect for the ninth grade. There was no interaction effect found between treatment and grades. 57 TABLE 5.-eThe Post-Test Minus Pre-Test Gain Scores on the Measure Of Traffic Safety Knowledge Using a Two-Way Analysis Of Variance Test Of Treatment by Grade between Grades Eight and Nine. Sources Degorfees Mean F Comm t Squares Ratio en S Freedom Rows (Treatment) 1 4.56 10.1 Significant at .05 level. Columns (Grade) 1 10.45 23.2 Significant at .01 level. Interaction l 1.34 2.97 Not significant at .05 level. Error 8 .45 TOTAL 11 F1 8 = 5.32 at .05 Level Of Significance. I Fl 8 =ll.26 at .01 Level Of Significance. TABLE 6.-—The Mean Gain Score for Grades Eight and Nine on the Pre- and Post-Tests. Groups Eighth Grade Ninth Grade Mean Gain Experimental C1 = .6 C7 = 2.70 Groups (22 = -.7 c8 = 3.20 1.52 C3 = .9 C9 = 2.50 Control C = .1 C = 1.40 Groups 4 10 C5 =-1.3 Cll = .60 .30 C6 = .3 C12 = .70 Mean Gain: -.02 1.85 Key: C = Classes including the pre—driver education unit. 1-12 58 A Comparison Of the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between Male Students and Female Students Hypothesis 3 There are no significant differences between the gain in traffic safety knowledge Of male students and female students. The results Of the analysis Of variance tO determine whether a significant difference would be found between the male and female students in the experimental and control groups on the post—test is shown in Table 7. The data was analyzed by the split plot repeated measures design using Cox's formula for index Of response, repeated measures.89 A factor Of .50 for test-retest reliability, estimated from the average test-retest reliability item scores of the National Item Bank for Tests Of Driving Knowledge90 was used in this formula. The mean average scores for the experimental male and female groups was 8.4 and for the control male and female groups was 7.63. This gave an F ratio Of .796 which was not significant at the .05 level. The mean 89For formula, see D. R. Cox, Planning Of Experiments, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958, p. 56. x . = y—kx when: x is pre-test score, y is post—test score, k is the test-retest reliability for the National Item Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge. 90Pollock and McDole, op. cit. 59 TABLE 7.--Differences between Male and Female Students in the Experimental and Control Groups Using the Index Of Response Test Scores in an Analysis Of Variance for Split Plot Design. .— _— Degrees Mean F Sources of . Comments Freedom Squares Ratio Groups (Treatment) 1 4.73 .796 Not significant at .05 level. Classes within 14 5.94 each Group Sex 1 2.82 2.089 Not significant at .05 level. Sex by Group 1 .13 .096 Not significant at .05 level. Sex by Class 14 1.35 within Group TOTAL: 31 F = 4.60 at .05 Level Of Significance 1,14 60 average scores for the male experimental and control groups was 8.31 and for the female groups was 7.72 (Table 8). This gave an F ratio Of 2.089 which was not significant at the .05 level. There was no interaction effect found between sexes and groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis must be retained. TABLE 8.--The Index of Response Scores for Males and Females on the Pre- and Post-Tests for the Experimental and Control Groups. ' Groups Males Females Mean Average Experimental 8.76 8.04 8.40 Groups Control 7.86 7.40 7.63 Groups Mean Average: 8.31 7.72 A Comparison Of the Results on Nine Questions to Determine the Increase in Traffic Safety Knowledge Between the Pre- and Post-Test for the Experimental Groups Hypothesis 4 There are no significant differences between the selected experimental classes in their distribution of correct and incorrect responses on the pre- and post-tests. The results Of the Chi-square test Of significance to determine the difference in responses between the selected experimental classes is found in Table 9. The distribution Of correct and incorrect responses for each of the nine questions selected is given. The questions 61 —- "'~--.-.~‘.--.~._- - TABLE 9.--Chi-Square Tests for Significant Differences on Nine Questions Selected from the Pre- and Post-Test for Traffic Safety Knowledge in the Experimental Group.+ 3. When it is very foggy during the day or night you should: I) Put on your high beam lights. ‘b) Slow down. c) Follow closer to other vehicles. d) Not look at lane markings. 9. Having l or 2 drinks before driving: a) Improves your driving ability. b) Has little or no effect on your driving ability. tc) Hill affect your reactions and judgment. d) Is illegal. 12. If you are taking medicine for a cold you should: .a) Know the effects of the medicine before you drive. b) Not drive with anyone else in the vehicle. c) Not drive at night or just after taking the medicine. d) Only drive if it is an emergency. 7 .05 Level of significance used for all questions except where noted. Pre-Test Post-Test Error Correct Error Correct Subject 0 r x’ o E x2 o x’ .o e x’ Health 13 l2.94 .00 9 9.06 .00 5 6.55 .37 I7 l5.45 .37 Science 14 l4.70 .03 ll l0.29 .05 II 7.44 1.70 i4 i7.25 .6l Science l4 l2.35 .22 7 8.65 .32 7 5.95 .l9 l3 l4.05 .08 Math 9 l0.00 .l0 8 7.00 .14 2 5.06 l.85 l5 ll.94 .78 Total x‘-.86 Not Significant Significant Level xgdfz].8i5 Total x1-5.74 Not Significant Significant Level xgdfz].8l5 Pre-Test Post-Test Error Correct Error Correct Subject 0 E x2 o E x2 0 E x’ 0 E x1 finial Studies 5 6.33 .28 l4 l2.67 .l4 7 5.37 .49 lo ll.63 .23 55:68ies i4 I0.00 i.60 l6 20.00 .80 7 9.47 .64 24 20.50 .59 Health 4 7.33 i.5l l8 l4.67 .76 4 6.95 l.25 18 lS.OS .58 Science 8 8.33 .Ol l7 l6.67 .0i 8 7.58 .02 l6 l6.42 .01 English 8 7.00 .l4 l3 i4.00 .07 lo 6.63 l.7l ll l4.36 .88 Total xz-5.32 Not Significant Significant Level xzdf33.49 Total x3-6.4 Not Significant Significant Level xzdf25.49 Pre-Test Post-Test Error Correct Error Correct Subject 0 E x’ o s x’ o E x2 0 E x‘ Social Studies 3 “'29 '39 '5 '4-7' -l' 6 5.l2 .I3 13 13.82 .05 Social Studies 5 6.77 .46 25 28.33 .39 4 8.l8 2.l4 26 2l.82 .80 Science 9 5.64 2.00 l6 l9.36 .58 8 6.32 .20 l7 l8.l8 .07 Science 6 4.74 .33 l5 l9.36 .98 4 4.9l .l7 l4 l3.09 .06 English 4 4.74 .l2 l7 l6.26 .03 i2 5.73 6.86 9 l5.272.58 Math 3 3.85 .l9 l4 l3.l7 .05 2 5.l8 l.95 l7 l3.8l .74 Total x’-s.63 Not Significant Significant Level xédlel.07 Total xz-l5.75 Significant Significant Level xgdfgll.o7 0-0bserved Correct Responses. l-£xpected Correct Responses, x2-Chi-squate value required, df-~degrees of freedom. 8 Indicates correct answer. TABLE 9.--Continued 62 16. Minimum speed limits are: a) 15 mph lower than the maximum posted speed limits. b) Not legal and need not be observed. *c) The slowest you should drive except when necessary for safety. d) Speed limits between the daytime and nighttime legal speed. 21. This sign means: a) Barricade ahead, prepare to detour. b) Slow down, pavement ends. 6c) Right lane ends, prepare to merge. d) Construction ahead. caution, no shoulder. 22. You are most likely to see this sign: a) In a restricted area. ‘ b) On a bridge or tunnel. c) In a parking lot or service area. 9d) On a country road. pump \\\\ Pro-Test -Post-Test Error Correct Error Correct Subject 0 E x2 o E x’ o a x’ o E x’ Social ~ Studies ll i0.78 .00 8 8.22 .00 IS l0.28 2.l7 4 8.72 2.56 Social Studies is 16.46 .l3 l4 l2.54 .l7 9 i6.24 3.23 2i 13.76 4.35 Science 13 l4.l9 .lo 12 l0.8| .l3 l4 l3.53 .02 ll Ii.47 .02 Science l3 ii.92 .lo 8 9.08 .13 l2 9.47 .52 6 8.26 .62 Math ii 9.65 .19 6 7.35 .25 9 9.20 .00 8 7.80 .Ol Total x’-l.2o Not Significant Significant Level xzdf39.49 Total x’-23-37 Significant Significant Level xidf29.49 Pre-Test Post-Test Error Correct Error Correct Subject 0 x2 o e x2 o E 7‘ o E 72 Health 4 4.76 .i2 18 l7.24 .04 l 3.59 l.87 21 18.41 .36 Health 2 2.8i .23 ll l0.l9 .06 2 2.l2 .Ol ll l0.88 .00 Science 9 5.4! 2.38 l6 l9.59 .66 8 4.03 3.77 l7 20.92 .73 English 5 4.34 .10 is l5.67 .03 5 3.43 .72 16 l7.5l .I4 Hath l 3.68 1.95 l6 l3.32 .54 0 2.73 2.78 l7 l4.23 .54 Total x2-6.li Not Significant Total xz-lo.92 Significant Significant Level xzdf39.49 Significant Level xidf39.49 Pre-Test Post-Test Error Correct Error Correct Subject 0 E x2 0 e i? o E x: 0 E (1 Health 4 3.95 .00 l7 l7.05 .00 S 4.02 .24 l7 l7.98 .05 Health 6 2.44 5.l9 7 l0.56 l.20 4 2.37 l.i2 9 l0.63 .25 Science 2 4.70 l.55 23 20.30 .36 3 4.33 .44 2l l9.62 .lO Science 6 3.95 l.06 l5 l7.05 .25 6 3.29 2.23 l2 l4.7l .50 English l 3.75 2.03 i9 l6.24| .47 2 3.84 .88 l9 l7.l7 .20 Math 3 3.20 .Ol l4 13.80| .00 l 3.10 l.42 l6 l3.90 .32 Total xz-12.l2 Significant 2 Significant Level delel.07 Total x1-7.75 Not Significant Significant Level xgdflil.07 63 TABLE 9.--Continued 23. This pavement marking means: Pre-Test Post-Test a) Pedestrian crosswalk; caution. E"°' c°"°‘t E"°' c°"¢¢‘ b) One way, do not enter. Subject 0 E 4xii 0 E x? 0 E x}. O E x2 9c) Stop here for light or stop sign. ' Health 10 11.66 .24 12 10.34 .27 9 8.16 .09 13 13.85 .05 4) "° t"‘"' " thf° 1“‘°"°°C1°“' Health 8 6.89 .l8 5 6.11 .20 7 4.82 .99 6 8.18 .58 1 Science 14 12.72 .13 1O 11.23 .15 15 8.90 4.18 9 15.10 2.46 1 Science 12 11.13 .07 9 9.87 .08 7 7.41 .02 13 12.59 .01 English 8 10.60 .64 12 9.40 .72 4 7.79 1.84 17 13.22 1.08 -....._ Math 10 9.01 .11 7 7.99 .12 1 5.93 4.10 15 10.07 2.14 Total x1-2.9l Not significant Total x3-l7.54 Significant White Significant Level x2 >li.07 Significant Level xz >lS.O9 Sdf— Sdf- st .01 24. These yellow pavement markings Pre-Test Post-Test are used: Error Correct Error Correct a) In place of a yield sign. b) For bus stops only. Subject c) For no parking zones. Health I9(1) To separate opposing traffic. Health ; : Science | . Science English Total x2-8.48 Not Significant Total x2-3.94 Not Significant | E ‘ traffic Significant Level xzdf29.49 Significant Level xfidfz9.49 X2 0 E X2 3.74 .42 17 18.26 .09 .66 12 10.19 .14 4.08 .29 21 19.92 .06 3.57 1.85 20 17.43 .38 3.40 3.81 13 16.60 .78 E y’ o E x2 3.53 .07 18 18.48 .01 2.08 2.08 13 10.92 .40 3.84 .18 2| 20.16 .04 3.20 .20 16 16.80 .04 3.36 .80 16 17.64 .15 N—w—U‘ O N N ‘ “two: 0 PrevTest Post-Test 25. when you see this sign you should: Error 3 Correct Error Correct a) Stop and wait for the flagman to Subject 0 E 12 E 0 E . 12 0 E 1‘ 0 E $ 23 wave you on. r ~¥ ." 9b) Slow down and be prepared to stop. Health 6 6.32 .02 14 13.681 .99 6 5.27 .10 16 16.74 .03 c) Prepare to detOur ahead. Health 8 4.11 3.68 S 8.89 1.70 8 3.11 7.69 S 9.89 2.42 d) Expect trucks to stay in the right Science 9 7.90 .15 16 17.11 .07 7 5.98 .17 18 19.02 .06 lane. Science 4 6.31 .85 16 13.68 .39 3 4.55 .53 16 14.45 .15 English 7 6.31 .08 13 13.68 .03 3 5.03 .82 18 15.971 .26 Hath 2 5.05 1.84 14 10.95 .85 11 4.07 2.32 16112.93} .73 A; 1 L , Total x440.65 Not Significant Total x’-lS.28 Significant Significant Level x2 511.07 Significant Level 1’ ‘Sl5,09 Sdf- at 01 Sd'— 64 were selected on the basis that the concept being tested was included in three or more of the five subject areas for which pre-driver education units were written. The expected number of correct and incorrect responses and the Chi-square values obtained from a contingency table are given in Table 10. TABLE lO.--Results of Chi-Square Tests for Significant Differences on Nine Questions Selected from the Pre- and Post-Test for Traffic Safety Knowledge in the Experimental Group.* Question Pre-Test Post-Test Number Results Results 5 Not Significant Not Significant 9 Not Significant Not Significant 12 Not Significant Significant 16 Not Significant Significant 21 Not Significant Significant 22 Significant Not Significant 23 Not Significant Significant at .01 Level 24 Not Significant Not Significant 25 Not Significant Significant at .01 Level *.05 level of significance used for all questions except where noted. Item Analysis The pre-test questions were analyzed by means of "Fortap: A Fortran Test Analysis Package"91 using test responses from the experimental and control groups. This 91F. B. Baker and T. J. Martin, "Fortap: A Fortran Test Analysis Package," Revised for use on CDC 6500 at Michigan State University by David J. Wright, Occasional Paper No. 10, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1970. 65 item analysis yielded a Hoyt's Reliability coefficient92 of .67 (Table 11) indicating the internal consistency of the test. The difficulty level, indicating the percentage of the subjects choosing the correct answer, ranged from .38 to .87 (Table 12). Eight items had a difficulty level less than .50 and no items exceeded the .95 level. The average difficulty level was .61. Point biserial, a measure of the correlation between test score and test items, varied from .20 to .50 (Table 12). TABLE 11. Hoyt's Reliability for the Pre-Test of Experimental and Control Groups. Degrees of Mean Sources Freedom Squares Subjects 328 .165 Items 23 .643 Error 7,544 .204 TOTAL: 7,995 Hoyt's Reliability = .67 92For formula, see C. J. Hoyt, "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance," in Principles of Education and Psychology Measurement, A Book of Selected Readings, edited by W. A. Mechrens and R. E. Ebel, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1967, pp. 108-115. MSIndividuals - MSErrors h ASIndividuals 66 TABLE 12.--Item Analysis for the Pre-Test of 329 Subjects in the Experimental and Control Groups.+ Item Number Difficulty Point Correct Level Biserial 1 220 .67 .40 2 181 .55 .47 3 255 .78 .42 4 218 .66 .44 5 244 .74 .50 6 258 .78 .20 7 147 .45 .29 8 248 .75 .39 9 223 .68 .31 10 208 .63 .29 11 200 .61' .32 12 257 .78 .35 13 216 .66 .40 14 221 .67 .42 15 159 .48 .31 16 133 .40 .33 17* ._.__ __... ..__. 18 160 .49 .26 19 162 .49 .23 20 157 .48 .24 21 144 .44 .38 22 125 .38 .27 23 194 .59 .33 24 153 .47 .29 25 287 .87 .36 +See Appendix G for the change in difficulty level for pre- and post-test for experimental and control groups. *This item was deleted from the statistics because no instruction was given in this subject. 67 Student Evaluation of the Traffic Safety Unit The 201 students in the experimental groups completed a student evaluation questionnaire (Appendix B) after par- ticipating in the pre-driver education unit and completing the post-test. Table 13 gives a tabulation of the results. TABLE 13.--Student Evaluation of the Pre-Driver Education Units by Students in Experimental Groups. Qmmdmx “5. 1b Nam RM’ are Mmy lb.ofSflflafis mfigmmmg 1. Like this class more. 75.5% 24.5% - - - - 196 2. Talked.with anyone. 54.8% 45.2% -— - - - 146 3. Useful information. 84.1% 15.9% -— -—- - - 181 4. Questions hard. 30.1% 69.9% - - - - 146 5. words you didn't know. -— - 12.3% 65.2% 21.8% .78 138 6 The answers to question number one indicate that a strong majority (seventy-six percent) students answering this question liked their class better because it included traffic safety information. Fifty-five percent of those answering question number two talked to others outside of class about the traffic safety concepts they had learned. Eighty—four percent of the respondents to question number three felt that this information was useful to them. The Opinion that the questions were not too hard to understand was indicated by seventy percent of those answering question number four. Of those who answered question number five, twelve percent felt there were no words in the pre- or 68 post-test that they did not know, sixty—five percent said a few, twenty-two percent said some, and one percent said many. Thirty-two percent of those evaluated made suggestions and sixty-eight percent did not. Summary The gain in traffic safety knowledge of students which had studied a pre-driver education unit in classes selected in grades seven, eight, and nine was compared with students in similar classes receiving no traffic safety instruction. These students were given a pre-test and a post-test and the experimental groups were administered a student evaluation questionnaire also. No significant difference was found between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in the classes containing a pre-driver education unit and students in classes with no traffic safety instruction. A signif- icant difference was found between the traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the ninth grade classes over students in the eighth grade classes. No significant difference was found in the gain in traffic safety knowledge between the male students and female students. There was a significant difference between the responses given by ex- perimental groups to questions 12, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 25 on the post-test. Responses to questions 5, 9, and 24 did not show a significant difference when comparing the nine questions selected from the post-test. 69 The item analysis of the pre-test questions yielded a Hoyt's Reliability coefficient of .67 indicating the internal consistency of the test. The difficulty level for the test items ranged from .38 to .87 with an average of .61. The point biserial correlation between test score and test items varied from .20 to .50. The student evaluation questionnaire results indi- cated that in the experimental groups, a majority of the students liked their class more because it included the pre-driver education unit, talked to others outside of class about what they had learned in traffic safety, felt the information was useful to them, found the words and questions in the test were not too difficult, and did not have any suggestions about the program. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The evaluation of pre-driver education units de- ve10ped for junior high school classes was the purpose of this study. The units were deve10ped by the seventh ) through ninth grade portion of the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project.93 These units were field tested by eight teachers in five schools and evaluated to determine if there were significant differences between: 1. The gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in a junior high school class containing a traffic safety unit and students in a class with no traffic safety instruction. 2. The traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the eighth grade as compared to the ninth grade. 3. The gain in traffic safety knowledge of male students and female students. 4. The selected experimental classes in their distribution of correct and incorrect responses on the pre- and post-tests. A considerable portion of the content of the senior high school driver education program involves much more 93"K—9 Traffic Safety Education," 22- cit. 70 71 than the actual operation of a car and is interesting to youth who are approaching the legal driving age. Some of these concepts were included in the pre-driver education units for science, social studies, language arts (English), mathematics, and health to help the students to be better pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle passengers and prepare them for a driver education course. A survey of the literature by the writer found that traffic safety is recommended as part of general safety education at the junior high school level. Instruction in this area encourages the development of sound attitudes, good habits, and necessary skills as a prerequisite for driver education. Pre-driver education units were found to be multidisciplinary in nature and related to the broad areas of human behavior. Traffic safety curriculum guides urged junior high school teachers to develop their own curriculum by integrating non-operator safety concepts into their regular subjects thereby enriching them and adding relevance and motivation for their students. Achievement tests have been used to evaluate traffic safety education projects and determine the effectiveness of instruction. A good evaluation instrument and proper testing procedures were found to be the essentials of a good testing program. Characteristics such as reliability, validity, objectivity, format, administering time, cost, equivalent forms, accurate interpretation, and suitability 72 for the program being evaluated were considered important criteria in deve10ping a test. No research studies in the area of traffic safety curriculum at the junior high school level were found in the literature. Related research concerned with traffic safety knowledge testing studied the difference in general traffic safety knowledge between driver education groups given their practice driving instruction by various methods. Other related studies deve10ped tests for driver education, driver licensing, and motorcycle education. The sixteen groups involved in this research were randomly chosen from classes taught by the eight junior high school teachers involved in the seventh through ninth grade portion of the K-9 Traffic Safety Education Project. They involved seventh, eighth, and ninth grades in five Michigan schools found in cities of 132,000, 87,000, 30,000, and 4,000 pOpulation. The teachers included those in social studies, language arts, science, mathematics, and health. These teachers had a variety of background and eXperience in traffic safety. A pre-test to determine the amount of traffic safety knowledge already known was administered to the students in the eight classes which studied the pre-driver education unit and the eight other classes which received no traffic safety instruction. After the teachers in the experimental classes had presented the unit to their classes, both the 73 experimental and the control groups were given a post-test. The students in the experimental groups completed an evaluation of the prOgram also. The major findings were: 1. No significant difference was found between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in the classes containing a pre-driver education unit and students in classes with no traffic safety instruction. 2. A significant difference was found between the gain in traffic safety knowledge of students participating in the classes containing a pre-driver education unit and students in classes with no traffic safety instruction when only grades eight and nine were compared. 3. A significant difference was found between traffic safety knowledge gained by students in the ninth grade classes over students in the eighth grade classes. 4. No significant difference was found in the gain in traffic safety knowledge between the male and female students. 5. There were no significant differences between the responses given by the experimental groups to questions 12, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 25 on the pre- and post-test. 6. There were no significant differences between the responses given by the experimental groups to questions 5, 9, and 24 on the pre- and post—test. 7. Item analysis of the twenty-four items on the pre-test gave a Hoyt's Reliability coefficient of .67. The average diffi- culty level for the twenty-four items was .61. Point biserial varied from .20 to .50 for the twenty-four items. 74 8. The student evaluation of the program found that a majority of students in the experimental groups: a. Liked their classes better with the pre—driver education unit included. b. Talked to others about traffic safety concepts learned. c. Felt this information was useful to them. Conclusions A comparison of the average means for the pre- and post—tests of the experimental groups and the control groups gave an F ratio of 1.19 which was not significant at the .05 level. The experimental and control group means on the pre—test were compared with the experimental and control group means on the post-test giving an F ratio of 4.42 which was not significant at the .05 level. This indicates there was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the amount of traffic safety knowledge gained. The control groups showed a small increase in traffic safety knowledge from 14.22 to 14.65 on the means even though they were not to receive any traffic safety in- struction in this class. The writer believes that taking the pre-test constituted a treatment for the control groups. It aroused their interest in the concepts presented in the test questions. They may have acquired some related infor- mation on their own before taking the post-test, possibly 75 by talking to other students in classes with pre-driver education units. The pre-test mean score was 14.77 for the experi- mental groups and 14.22 for the control groups out of a possible twenty-four items. This indicates that both the experimental and control groups had considerable knowledge of traffic safety concepts before participating in this study. Many of the students in the experimental groups already knew sixty percent of the material con- tained in the pre-driver education units. When only the eighth grade and ninth grade classes were considered, the experimental groups had a signif- icantly larger gain in average mean scores than the control groups. The experimental groups gained 1.52 between the pre- and post-tests while the control groups gained .30 in average means. This indicates that the experimental groups in grades eight and nine gained more traffic safety knowledge than the control groups. Elimination of the seventh grade classes from the analysis accounted for this difference in results from the findings for Hypothesis 1. The ninth grade groups had a gain in average mean scores of 1.85 while the eighth grade groups had a loss of .02 from the pre-tests to the post-tests. This indi~ cates that there was a greater gain in traffic safety knowledge in the ninth grade classes than in the eighth grade classes. 76 Twelve questions on the pre-test had a difficulty level of .50 or more for the experimental groups. Eight of these questions had a difficulty level above the average of .61 and showed a drop in the percentage of students answering the item correctly between the pre-test and the post-test. No significant difference was found in the gain in traffic safety knowledge between male and female students. This data shows that the pre-driver education units had an equal effect on the boys and the girls. The Chi-square test for significance showed a difference in responses between certain experimental classes for five of the nine selected questions on the post-test. These classes had the concept contained in the question included in their pre-driver education unit. The questions were selected on the basis of their being included in three or more of the five subjects. Question five concerned foggy weather. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre-test or the post-test. Question nine concerned drinking and driving. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre-test or the post-test. Question twelve concerned the effects of drugs on a driver. There was no significant difference between classes on the pre-test. There was a significant difference 77 on the post-test. A mathematics class and a social studies class had significantly fewer students answering the item incorrectly than the other classes indicating a greater proportion of the students in these classes learned this concept. An English class had significantly more stu- dents answering the item incorrectly than the other classes showing that more students in this class than other classes apparently did not learn the concept. Question sixteen concerned minimum speed limits. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre-test. There was a significant difference on the post—test. One social studies class had a greater prOportion of the students answering this item incorrectly than the other classes indicating that more students in this class apparently did not learn this concept. The other social studies class showed that more students in this class than other classes did learn the concept by the fact that a greater proportion of these students answered the item correctly. Question twenty-one concerned a warning sign. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre-test. Major contri- butions to a significant difference on the post-test were made by a health class and an English class. Both classes had fewer students than other classes answering the item incorrectly and thus a greater prOportion of students in 78 these classes seemed to learn the concept. A science class had more students answering the item incorrectly than other classes and thus a greater proportion of this class apparently did not learn this concept. Question twenty-two concerned a warning sign. There was a significant difference between the classes on the pre-test. A health class and a science class had a greater prOportion of the students answering this item incorrectly than the other classes indicating that more of these students did not know the concept than in other classes. There was no significant difference between the responses on the post-test. Question twenty-three concerned pavement markings. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre-test. There was a significant difference between classes on the post-test. A greater prOportion of students in a mathematics class and a science class than other classes answered this item correctly indicating they apparently learned this concept. More students in a science class than other classes answered this item incorrectly indicating a greater prOportion of this class than other classes did not seem to learn this concept. Question twenty-four concerned yellow pavement markings. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre—test or the post-test. 79 Question twenty-five concerned a warning sign. There was no significant difference between the responses of the selected classes on the pre-test. A significant difference between classes was shown on the post-test. A health class had a greater prOportion of students answering this item incorrectly than other classes and thus contributed to showing a significant difference. A mathematics class had fewer students answering this item incorrectly than other classes and contributed to significance also. More students in the health class apparently did not learn this concept while fewer stu- dents in the mathematics class than in other classes did not seem to learn it. The finding that three-fourths of the students liked their class better because it included a pre-driver education unit indicated that the classes were more interesting. The fact that more than one-half of the students talked to someone else about things they learned in the pre-driver education unit shows that they had an interest in traffic safety and Vehicle operation. The students felt that the units were good preparation for driving as indicated by the result that eighty-four percent of them found the information useful and use in driver education was the most common reason given. Two-thirds of the students in the experimental groups thought the test questions were not too hard. The 80 twenty-two percent who found some words too difficult for them may have done better on the test if the reading level had been lower, but two-thirds found only a few words too difficult for them. One-third of the students gave suggestions and most of these were positive in nature, indicating the acceptance of the program. The item analysis indicated that the pre-test and post—test items were more difficult for the junior high school students than these items had been for groups tested in developing the 1,300 Test Item Bank by the Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI).94 HSRI test data gave an average difficulty level of .78 for the twenty-four test items while the item analysis for the experimental and control groups in this study yielded an average of .61 indicating a lower average percentage of the students were able to answer the item correctly. Discussion The writer believes that the pre-driver education units should be used in social studies, language arts, science, mathematics, and health classes at the junior high school level, preferably in the ninth grade. The teachers involved should be given considerable direction and assistance in selecting and writing objectives with some agreement between subject areas on concepts to be 94Pollock and McDole, op, cit. 81 included in the units. WorkshOps should be conducted for these teachers to give them instruction on selecting ob- jectives and determining what concepts, materials, and activities would enable the students to meet these ob- jectives. The writer recommends that all of the categories in the HumRRO Driver Task Analysis95 be included in the pre-driver education units. The following topics should receive special attention: road conditions, weather, pedestrians, accidents, driver condition with special emphasis on alcohol and drugs, police, pedestrians, speed, bicycles, and traffic control signs. While the experimental groups failed to show a significant difference in the amount of traffic safety knowledge gained, the tendency toward improvement was in the desired direction. The lack of significance may have been due to several factors. There may have been some interaction between control groups students and students in the experimental groups. Students from the experimental and control groups may have mingled together and discussed the test questions or traffic safety ma- terials being used in the pre-driver education units with some learning resulting. Control groups students may have inadvertently been given some traffic safety instruction by their classroom teacher. The teachers may not have 95McKnight, op. cit. 82 shown sufficient concern to keep the students interested in the unit. The items selected for the pre- and post-tests were judged to have information concerning concepts used in the pre-driver education units included in the stem or the responses. The questions were written originally for driver education students and licensed drivers and may have been too difficult for non-drivers. Questions with a numerically higher difficulty level should be used so that the percentage of students answering the item correctly might be higher. The concepts included in the test items may not have been adequately dealth with in the pre-driver education units, or the students may have shown apathy on being asked the same questions on the post-test as they answered on the pre-test. The fact that eighty-seven percent of the students found at least a few of the words in the test questions too difficult indicates that more emphasis should be placed on vocab- ulary in the instruction given in the units. Eight questions had a difficulty level above the average of .61 and showed a drop in the percentage of students answering the item correctly between the pre-test and the post-test. The writer feels this is a regression toward the mean or that instruction in these concepts actually confused the student. Students in the ninth grade classes gained more V-lm 83 traffic safety knowledge than students in the eighth grade classes. The writer feels that some of them were looking forward to taking driver education and getting their driver's license within a few months, and therefore had more interest in the pre-driver education unit. The ninth grade teachers may have done a better job of teaching and made their classes more interesting and this would help their students to learn more from the unit. The seventh grade students may have been too far away from taking driver education and getting a license to be highly interested. Statistical analysis of the gain in mean scores for the experimental group classes taught by teachers with background and experience in driver education was not possible because of the small number of teachers in each category. A gain in mean scores between the pre- and post—tests was made by classes taught by two teachers with driver education background and experience. A loss in means was found for another class. Teachers with no driver education background or experience had a loss on the means in two classes. The largest gain of all the eight groups was found in another class. Two teachers with some traffic safety experience, but no formal back— ground had gains in the mean scores of their classes. Background in traffic safety or experience in teaching driver education was apparently not a decisive factor in 83 traffic safety knowledge than students in the eighth grade classes. The writer feels that some of them were looking forward to taking driver education and getting their driver's license within a few months, and therefore had more interest in the pre-driver education unit. The ninth grade teachers may have done a better job of teaching and made their classes more interesting and this would help their students to learn more from the unit. The seventh grade students may have been too far away from taking driver education and getting a license to be highly interested. Statistical analysis of the gain in mean scores for the experimental group classes taught by teachers with background and experience in driver education was not possible because of the small number of teachers in each category. A gain in mean scores between the pre- and post-tests was made by classes taught by two teachers with driver education background and experience. A loss in means was found for another class. Teachers with no driver education background or experience had a loss on the means in two classes. The largest gain of all the eight groups was found in another class. Two teachers with some traffic safety experience, but no formal back- ground had gain& aan scores of their classes. Background in t y or experience in teachin? driver education ntly not a decisive factcfm 84 the success of the classes in showing a gain in mean scores from the pre- to the post-test. Considerable interest in the pre-driver education units was shown by students in the evaluation questionnaire. The writer feels that student acceptance of the pre—driver education unit indicates that it is a viable program for use at the junior high school level. Recommendations for Further Research The following recommendations for further research are made on the basis of this study and the writer's belief that a pre-driver education unit should be included in the junior high school curriculum. A broader study should be made of the preparation, presentation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of traffic safety concepts, materials, and activities at the junior high school level. This study should include: —- A large sample of students so there is sufficient variation in the socioeconomic level. -- A sufficient number of and variety of teachers to compare the teacher's back- ground in traffic safety, their preparation to teach traffic safety concepts, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of various teaching methods. ‘4" 2 85 -- A workshOp to assist teachers involved in the program in determining objectives, selecting concepts, materials and activities to meet the objectives, using pre-test and post-test results to adjust their teaching, and evalu- ating the students receiving the instruction. -- An evaluation program which includes a pre- test and post-test with reduced reading and difficulty levels, a student evaluation for both experimental and control groups, and a follow-up study to determine how the students perform as pedestrians, bicyclists, passengers, driver education students, and eventually as licensed drivers. Additional research should be conducted to determine the increase in traffic safety knowledge when: -- Junior high school students have a pre- driver education unit in two or more of the subjects in their program. -— The traffic safety concepts, materials, and activities are integrated into the subject matter rather than being taught as a separate unit. -- The effectiveness of a pre-driver education unit is evaluated for each subject. —- The pre-driver education unit is used in a fifth or sixth grade elementary school class. BIBLIOGRAPHY 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, F. B. and Martin, T. J. "Fortap: A Fortran Test Analysis Package." Revised for use on CDC 6500 by David J. Wright. Occasional Paper no. 10. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1970. Berger, W. G. "Understanding Test Construction: The Design of Driver Knowledge Tests." Unpublished working paper. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Uni- versity of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute, December 1971. Cox, D. R. Planning of Experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Davis, R. G., et al. Learning Systems Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Downie, N. M. Fundamentals of Measurement: Techniques and Practices. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. Dunn, L. W. "The Development of an Instrument to Measure Knowledge of Traffic Safety Concepts Found to Differentiate Between Violators and Non Violators." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Eastern Michigan University Division of Field Services. "K-9 Traffic Safety Education." Unpublished report for Contract no. MPS-73-001A, National Highway Traffic Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation. Ypsilanti, Michigan: Eastern Michigan University, 1973. Ebel, R. L. Essentials of Educational Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gage, N. L. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally Company, 1963. Gronlund, N. E. Constructing Achievement Tests. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968. 87 88 Gustafson, R. E. "A Study to Compare the Effectiveness Hawks, of Instruction in the Allstate Good Driver Trainer and on the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range with the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. H. H., EE.§£; The Construction and Use of Achieve- ment Examinationsy A Manual for Secondary School Teachers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: American Council on Education, 1936. Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility. A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education, Second Edition. Washington, D. C.: The Federation, 1972. Horrocks, J. E. and Schoonover, T. I. Measurement for Horst, Teachers. Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Pub- lishing Company, 1968. P. Psychological Measurement and Prediction. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1966. Hoyt, C. J. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance." In Principles of Education and Psy- chology Measurement. Edited by W. A. Mechrens and R. E. Ebel. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally, 1967. Idaho Department of Education. Safety Education in Idaho Schools. Boise, Idaho: State of Idaho, n.d. Iowa Department of Public Instruction. Safety Education for Iowa Schools. DesMoines, Iowa: State of Iowa, n.d. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Research, Educational and Psychological Inquiry. New York: Holt-Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Lindquist, E. F. Educational Measurement. Washington, McDole, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1951. T. L. "DevelOpment of General Knowledge Test for Use in Motorcycle Operator Education and Evaluation Programs." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. McKnight, A. J., et al. Driver Education Task Analysis, Vol. I—IV.—IAlexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research Organization, 1971. 89 Maine Department of Education. Safety Education for Maine Schools. Augusta, Maine: State of Maine, 1967. Mann, W. A. Driver Education: An Interdisciplinary Subject. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center, n.d. Mann, W. A. Personality Factors in Driver and Traffic Education. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer— sity, Highway Traffic Safety Center, n.d. Marshall, R. "National Conference on Safety Education," Journal of Traffic Safetnyducation, April 1974. Michigan Department of Education. Curriculum Guide for Safety Education. Lansing, Michigan, 1973. Murphy, C. J. Traffic Safety_Education for Schools. Washington, D. C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1965. National Commission on Safety Education. Safetinuides for You. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1962. Nolan, R. O. "A Comparative Study of the Teaching Effectiveness of the AEtna Drivotrainer and the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range." Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Pollock, W. T. and McDole, T. L. Development of a National Item Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute, 1973. Remmers, H. H., Gage, N. L. and Rummel, J. F. A Practical Introduction to Measurement and Evaluation. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Robinson, A. "A Post-Test for Driver Education Based On: A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Seals, T. A. K-12 Guide to School Safety Education. San Diego, California: San Diego Department of Education, 1969. Strasser, M. K., gt a1. Fundamentals of Safety Education. New York: McMillan Company, 1973. \WHIHIHH 90 Stufflebeam, D. L. Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision Making. Sarasota, Florida: Working Conference on Assessment Theory, 1968. Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Illinois. An Elementary and Junior High School Safety Education Guide for Teachers and Admini- strators. Springfield, Illinois: State of Illinois, 1963. Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Washington. Traffic Safety Education Guide. Olympia, Washington: State of Washington, 1973. U. S. Highway Traffic Administration. K-9 Traffic Safety Education—~Project Description. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation, n.d. Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. Washington, D. C.: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Revised, 1968 (including supplements). Wallace, I. E. and Crancer, A. "Licensing Examinations and their Relation to Subsequent Driving," Behav- ioral Research in Highway Safety, Vol. 2, no. 11 (Spring 1971). ‘I Warner, W. L. "The Evolution of Instructional Programs of Driver Education in the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969. APPENDICES 91 APPENDIX A A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY CURRICULUM GUIDE 92 APPENDIX A A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY CURRICULUM GUIDE Excerpts from a Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education PART III OBJECTIVES, CONTENT, AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES INTRODUCTION Unit — The Highway Transportation System Episode 1.0 Man and the System SECTION I ON HIGHWAY TASKS Unit A Basic Control Tasks p. 24 Episode Episode Episode Unit B. Episode Vehicle and Road Surface Interaction Basic Concepts p. 25 Directional Control (Task) p. 27 Two Wheeled Vehicles p. 29 Speed Control p. 30 Key Factors in Speed Selection (Inertia) p. 31 Proper Choice of Speed p. 32 Interacting with other Highway Users p. 39—40 1.0 Episode 2. Episode 3.0 Episode 5 0 Episode 6 Human Functions and Motor Vehicle Operation p. 40-43 Impediments to Vision p. 45-47 Distractions p. 48-49 Intersections p. 55~57 Pedestrians and Animals p. 58-60 93 94 Unit D Controlling the Consequences of Highway Collisions p. 73-74 Episode 1.0 Highway Accidents p. 74-75 Episode 2.0 Minimizing Impact Forces p. 76-80 Episode 3.0 At the Collision Scene p. 82-83 APPENDIX B K-9 SAFETY EDUCATION STUDENT EVALUATION 95 APPENDIX B K-9 SAFETY EDUCATION STUDENT EVALUATION TO THE STUDENT: You have recently completed an experimental unit in traffic safety education in this Class. Please answer the following questions and give your comments: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Do you like this class more because it included something about traffic safety? Have you talked with anyone outside of this Class about things you have learned in traffic safety? Who? Is this traffic safety information useful to you? In what ways? Were the test questions hard to understand? Were there words in the test questions that you did not know? Few Some Many Do you have any suggestions? 96 - WNW APPENDIX C PRE-TEST K-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION 97 APPENDIX C PRE-TEST K-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION Choose one correct answer for each question. Enter the letter of your choice on the answer sheet. 1) When driving you should: 3) Rest your eyes by slowly blinking them from time to time. b) Avoid looking at any one thing for more than a few seconds. c) Look straight ahead to the center of the road and avoid looking to the side. d) Spend as much time looking at your mirrors as you do looking in front of you. 2) Before turning at an intersection, you should: a) Tap your brakes 3 or 4 times. b) Maintain your normal speed. C) Come to a complete stop. d) Check cross traffic. 3) Passing results in: a) Many fatal accidents per year. b) Many accidents but few deaths per year. c) Relatively few serious accidents per year. d) Relatively few problems of any type. 4) When driving on snow or ice do not: a) Look at other vehicles to see if they are skidding. b) wait until you reach the intersection before slowing down. C) Watch out for vehicles coming out of side streets. d) Look out for children playing near the street. 5) When it is very foggy during the day or night you should: a) Put on your high beam lights. b) Slow down. c) Follow closer to other vehicles. d) Not look at lane markings. 6) The most difficult thing to predict is the movement of: a) Motorcycles. b) Pedestrians. C) Cars. d) Busses. 98 99 7) When driving near parked vehicles you should not: a) Drive far enough from parked vehicles to avoid hitting any doors that might suddenly open. b) Drive close to the vehicle in front to prevent children from running out between the vehicles. c) Look for parked vehicles with exhaust smoke coming from them or backeup or brake lights on. d) Look for parked vehicles with turn signals on or drivers giving hand signals. 8) If you get sleepy while driving it is best to: 3) Take anti-sleep pills. b) Stop for a cup of coffee. c) Step and exercise until you wake up. d) Rest or change drivers if possible. 9) Having l or 2 drinks before driving: *- a) Improves your driving ability. b) Has little or no effect on your driving ability. c) Will affect your reactions and judgment. d) Is illegal. 10) As you get older, your night vision usually: a) Gets better. b) Stays the same. c) Gets worse. d) Becomes harder to check. 11) You should have your eyes checked periodically because: a) Driving causes a lot of eye strain. b) You should change your glasses at least once every 2 years. c) New highway signs require better vision. d) Your vision may fail without your knowing it. 12) If you are taking medicine for a cold you should: a) Know the effects of the medicine before you drive. b) Not drive with anyone else in the vehicle. c) Not drive at night or just after taking the medicine. d) Only drive if it is an emergency. 13) It is illegal to: (Section 3-401) a) Drive a motor vehicle registered in another state. b) Keep your registration in your vehicle. c) Drive or permit someone else to drive a non-registered vehicle. d) Give your registration to another when he is using your vehicle. 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 100 The driver of an emergency vehicle may: (Section 11-106a) a) Ignore certain traffic laws when responding to an alarm. b) Take the right-of—way when returning from an emergency. c) Endanger the lives of pedestrians to reach his destination. d) Violate traffic signals any time his vehicle is on the road. When possible, pedestrians walking along the road should walk: a) 0n the left side facing traffic. b) 0n the right side with traffic. c) On the edge of the road rather than on the shoulder. d) On the side with the least traffic. Minimum speed limits are: (Section ll—804b) a) 15 mph lower than the maximum posted speed limits. b) Not legal and need not be observed. c) The slowest you should drive except when necessary for safety. d) Speed limits between the daytime and nighttime legal speeds. When driving on a public road it is illegal to: (Section ll-lllla) a) Keep your headlights on during the day. b) Drop bottles or cans out of the vehicle. c) Pass another vehicle in a school zone. d) Pull off the road to make repairs. In most situations bicycle riders: (Section 11-1202) a) Have the right-of—way over all other vehicles. b) May not travel on a heavily traveled road. c) Are subject to the same rules as motor vehicles. d) Must ride against the flow of traffic so they can see and be seen. The responsibility that a vehicle is in safe condition belongs to the: (Section 13—101) a) Police. b) Driver. c) Passengers. d) Department of (State). A police officer may stop and inspect your vehicle if: (Section 13-102a) a) He has obtained a special permit from the Department. b) He believes your vehicle is unsafe or not properly equipped. c) You have an out—of—state license plate. d) It is during the month your vehicle is due for inspection. 10]. 21) This sign means: a) Barricade ahead, prepare to detour. b) Slow down, pavement ends. c) Right lane ends, prepare to merge. d) Construction ahead, caution, no shoulder. 22) You are most likely to see this sign: a) In a restricted area. b) On a bridge or tunnel. c) In a parking lot or service area. d) On a country road. BUMP 23) This pavement marking means: a) Pedestrian crosswalk; caution. b) One Way; do not enter. c) Stop here for light or stop sign. d) No turns at this intersection. ___J white 24) 25) 102 These yellow pavement markings are used: a) In place of a yield sign. b) For bus stops only. c) For no parking zones. d) To separate opposing traffic. 443; _i] ' ' traffic island When you see this sign you should: a) Stop and wait for the flagman to save you on. b) Slow down and be prepared to stop. C) Prepare to detour ahead. d) Expect trucks to stay in the right lane. FLAGMAN 500 FT. APPENDIX D POST-TEST K-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION 103 APPENDIX D POST-TEST K-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION Choose one correct answer for each question. Enter the letter of your choice on the answer sheet. 1) When it is very foggy during the day or night you should: a) Put on your high beam lights. b) Slow down. c) Follow closer to other vehicles. d) Not look at lane markings. 2) As you get older, your night vision usually: a) Gets better. b) Stays the same. c) Gets worse. d) Becomes harder to check. 3) When possible, pedestrians walking along the road should walk: a) 0n the left side facing traffic. b) On the right side with traffic. c) On the edge of the road rather than on the shoulder. d) On the side with the least traffic. 4) A police officer may stop and inspect your vehicle if: a) He has obtained a special permit from the Department. b) He believes your vehicle is unsafe or not properly equipped. c) You have an out-of—state license plate. d) It is during the month your vehicle is due for inspection. 5) When you see this Sign you should: a) Stop and wait for the flagman to save yOu on. b) Slow down and be prepared to stop. c) Prepare to detour ahead. d) Expect trucks to stay in the right lane. FLAGMAN 500 FT. 104 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) The 105 most difficult thing to predict is the movement of: Mbtorcycles. Pedestrians. Cars. Busses. should have your eyes checked periodically because: Driving causes a lot of eye strain. You should change your glasses at least once every 2 years. New highway signs require better vision. Your vision may fail without your knowing it. Minimum speed limits are: 15 mph lower than the maximum posted speed limits. Not legal and need not be observed. The slowest you should drive except when necessary for safety. Speed limits between the daytime and nighttime legal speed. This sign means: a) b) C) d) Barricade ahead, prepare to detour. Slow down, pavement ends. Right lane ends, prepare to merge. Construction ahead, caution, no shoulder. When driving you should: a) b) C) d) Rest your eyes by slowly blinking them from time to time. Avoid looking at any one thing for more than a few seconds. Look straight ahead to the center of the road and avoid looking to the side. Spend as much time looking at your mirrors as you do looking in front of you. When driving near parked vehicles you should not: a) b) C) d) Drive far enough from parked vehicles to avoid hitting any doors that might suddenly Open. Drive Close to the vehicle in front to prevent children from running out between the vehicles. Look for parked vehicles with exhaust smoke coming from them or back-up or brake lights on. Look for parked vehicles with turn signals on or drivers giving hand signals. 12) l3) 14) 15) l6) 17) 106 If you are taking medicine for a cold you should: Know the effects of the medicine before you drive. Not drive with anyone else in the vehicle. Not drive at night or just after taking the medicine. Only drive if it is an emergency. When driving on a public road it is illegal to: Keep your headlights on during the day. Drop bottles or cans out of the vehicle. Pass another vehicle in a school zone. Pull off the road to make repairs. . are most likely to see this sign: In a restricted area. On a bridge or tunnel. In a parking lot or service area. On a country road. BUMP Before turning at an intersection, you should: Tap your brakes 3 or 4 times. Maintain your normal speed. Come to a complete stop. Check cross traffic. is illegal to: Drive a motor vehicle registered in another state. Keep your registration in your vehicle. Drive or permit someone else to drive a non-registered vehicle. Give your registration to another when he is using your vehicle. In most situations bicycle riders: a) b) C) d) Have the right-of—way over all other vehicles. May not travel on a heavily traveled road. Are subject to the same rules as motor vehicles. Must ride against the flow of traffic so they can see and be seen. .107 18) The pavement marking below means: a) Pedestrian crosswalk; caution. b) One Way; do not enter. c) Stop here for light or stop sign. d) No turns at this intersection. __J white 19) Passing results in: a) Many fatal accidents per year. b) Many accidents but few deaths per year. c) Relatively few serious accidents per year. d) Relatively few problems of any type. 20) If you get sleepy while driving it is best to: a) Take anti-sleep pills. b) Stop for a cup of coffee. c) StOp and exercise until you wake up. d) Rest or change drivers if possible. 21) The responsibility that a vehicles is in safe condition belongs to the: a) Police. b) Driver. C) Passengers. d) Department of (State). 22) These yellow pavement markings are used: a) In place of a yield sign. b) For bus stops only. c) For no parking zones. d) To separate opposing traffic. __Ji|5L_ traffic island ) 108 23) When driving on snow or ice do not: a) Look at other vehicles to see if they are skidding. b) Wait until you reach the intersection before slowing down. C) Watch out for vehicles coming out of side streets. d) Look out for children playing near the street. 24) Having l or 2 drinks before driving: a) Improves your driving ability. b) Has little or no effect on your driving ability. c) Will affect your reactions and judgment. d) Is illegal. 25) The driver of an emergency vehicle may: a) Ignore certain traffic laws when responding to an alarm. b) Take the right-of-way when returning from an emergency. c) Endanger the lives of pedestrians to reach his destination. d) Violate traffic signals any time his vehicles is on the road. l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) ll) 12) 13) 14) 15) l6) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) DJOU'D-IU‘QJWOOOQQO‘WU‘U‘OOQJU‘U‘U‘DJOU‘ 109 K-9 Safety Education Post-Test Answers APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTION OF PRE-TEST QUESTIONS BY SUBJECT AREAS FOR K-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION 110 APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTION OF PRE-TEST QUESTIONS BY SUBJECT AREAS FOR K-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION Lmknage Sxfial P I Shines :knemxe Madlimaflth Evaluation Test Questions: 1) Driver Distractions x 2) Bicycles X 3) Risk X X 4) Road Conditions X X 5) Weather X X X 6) Pedestrians X 7) Accidents 8) Driver Condition 9) Alcohol X 10) Driver Condition 11) Vision X 12) Drugs X 13) Car Ownership 14) Police X 15) Pedestrians X 16) Speed X X X 17) Eating in the Car 18) Bicycles X 19) Car Repair X ><>< ><><><>< X X ><><><><>< 20) Car Repair X 21) Signs 22) Signs 23) Signs 24) Signs 25) Signs xxxxx ><><><><>< ><><><><>< NXXXX 111 APPENDIX F TESTING PROCEDURES 112 APPENDIX F TESTING PROCEDURES Traffic Safety Education Each teacher will administer the pre—test at the beginning of the pre—driver education unit to the experimental (traffic safety) group and the control (no traffic safety instruction) group. Adequate testing conditions such as proper seating, lighting and ventilation must be provided. Allow students sufficient time to answer all questions. Make sure each student has a No. 2 pencil to use on computer scoring sheets. Instructions for the students: a. Print your name on the computer scoring sheets and fill in the appropriate space beneath each letter. b. Read each question and all four answers carefully. c. Mark appropriate space on scoring sheet for each answer (each question has only one right answer). d. Raise your hand if you don't know a word or need help. e. When you finish the tests turn your answer sheet over. Collect all answer sheets and test papers. Do not discuss test questions after test (pre-test only). Post—test will be given seven to ten days following the completion of the pre-driver education unit. 113 APPENDIX G CHANGE IN DIFFICULTY LEVEL BETWEEN PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS 114 CHANGE IN DIFFICULTY LEVEL BETWEEN PRE-TEST APPENDIX G AND POST-TEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS* EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS CONTROL GROUPS Question. _ _ - - Number ézgi fiaifi: Difference T::t 5::3; Difference 1 .67 .80 .13 .67 .80 .13 2 .59 .79 .20 .51 .72 .21 3 .79 .77 -.02 .76 .70 -.06 4 .67 .63 -.04 .65 .62 -.03 5 .75 .78 .03 .73 .71 -.02 6 .81 .86 .05 .76 .74 -.02 7 .46 .47 .01 .44 .42 -.02 8 .78 .52 -.26 .72 .50 -.22 9 .72 .63 -.09 .63 .58 -.05 10 .63 .68 .05 .63 .58 -.05 11 .64 .81 .17 .57 .74 .17 12 .79 .51 -.28 .77 .49 -.28 13 .68 .60 -.08 .64 .49 -.15 14 .66 .46 -.20 .69 .48 -.21 15 .46 .66 .20 .51 .47 -.04 16 .45 .54 .09 .36 .43 .07 17+ -—- --- --- --- -—- --- 18 .39 .69 .30 .59 .63 .04 19 .46 .69 .23 .53 .73 .20 20 .50 .55 .05 .46 .45 -.01 21 .46 .64 .18 .42 .58 .16 22 .52 .71 .19 .31 .75 .44 23 .56 .61 .05 .62 .40 -.22 24 .52 .80 .28 .41 .80 .39 25 .90 .86 -.04 .84 .83 -.01 *Proportion equals the percentage of subjects answering the item correctly. IThis item was omitted because no instruction was given in this subject. 115 . .. . . . m, . _ I...“ t. g h: than V. v.“ ”has