;‘0 L m ‘1: " y - :‘\ g \1 ~4va , ,1 W: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place In book return to rem charge from circulation reco A SURVEY TO DESCRIBE THE NATURE, THE EXTENT, THE REPORTED DIFFERENCES AND TO ANALYZE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH K-3 GRADE BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN A 60-MILE AREA OF ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA By Evan Keith Rowe, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree for DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1980 © November , l980 ABSTRACT A SURVEY TO DESCRIBE THE NATURE, THE EXTENT, THE REPORTED DIFFERENCES AND TO ANALYZE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH K-3 GRADE BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN A 60-MILE AREA OF ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA By Evan Keith Rowe, Jr. The primary purpose of this study was to describe the nature, the extent, the reported differences and to analyze factors asso- ciated with K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" was developed with the assistance of a state panel of specialists to solicit K-3 grade bicycle instructor responses concern- ing classroom and “on-bike“ instructional practices offered at the surveyed sites. The sample population of this study consisted of lOI K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the Central Minnesota area. Final returns revealed that K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction were conducted in 97 of the l0l surveyed sites. To determine the presence of significant differences with re— spect to reported practices of K-3 grade bicycle instructors and reported school and instructor characteristics, the writer contrasted selected school characteristics; i.e. school location -- urban vs. Evan Keith Rowe, Jr. rural locales, instructor sex, etc. and Kindergarten, grade l, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructor status versus reported bicycle safety education program components; i.e. course scheduling practices, enrollment levels, etc. contained in the 27 "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" items. Two types of formats were prepared to present the study findings. A summary and analysis of the frequency responses was pre- sented for each of the questionnaire items as Part I Findings. Chi- square “cross tabulation" analyses, summary interpretations and signi- ficant findings were presented for contrasts performed between Kinder- garten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructor status and the 27 questionnaire classroom and "on-bike" bicycle safety education pro- gram components as Part II Findings. Chi-square "cross tabulation" significant differences were reported at the .05 level with respect to: (1) Four separate school and bicycle instructor characteristics; (2) Eighteen separate K-3 grade classroom instructional components and strategies; and (3) Two separate K-3 grade “on-bike" instructional activities. Analyses of the study findings led to four major conclusions: (l) Kindergarten, grade l, grade 2 or grade 3 bicycle instructor pro- grams within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, were conducted at 97 of the l0l surveyed K-3 grade sites. However, they were not equally distributed with respect to instructor sex status and Kinder- garten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 conducted instructional bicycle safety education programs with classroom and "on-bike" activities; (2) Kindergarten, grade l and grade 2 bicycle instructors within a Evan Keith Rowe, Jr. 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, offered a variety of classroom programs and practices; (3) Kindergarten, grade l and grade 2 bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, offered a variety of "on-bike" instructional components and practices; and (4) Grade 3 bicycle instructors offered classroom and "on-bike" instruction- al programs and practices at 97 of the l0l surveyed K-3 grade sites within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Additional findings relative to school and bicycle instructor characteristics, classroom programs and “on-bike" instructional pro- grams were also discussed. The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" could be useful to traffic safety personnel in Minnesota and in other states involved with bicycle safety education evaluation procedures. In addition, study results coupled with improved K-3 grade bicycle instructor in- service teacher preparation programs could assist K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs and administrators with efforts to upgrade bicycle safety education for K-3 youth in the Central Minnesota region. DEDICATION This study is dedicated to: Freda M. Rowe and the late Evan Keith Rowe. Sr. without whose love, guidance and support this study would not have been possible, and Janice and Evan Keith wife and son who, along with his parents, made the attainment of the degree worthwhile. Evan Keith Rowe, Jr. East Lansing, Michigan 1980 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to take this opportunity to thank the many people and organizations who have helped in the completion of this study. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Donald L. Smith, his chairman, for many hours of guidance, encouragement, support and assistance which were provided. Appreciation is also extended to the other members of his committee, Dr. Robert 0. Nolan, Dr. Adrian Koert, and Dr. Charles Henley fOr their time and assistance. A special note of thanks is extended to Dr. George Farrah and Mr. Randy Kolb of St. Cloud State University. Special thanks is also extended to Dr. Daniel Shoemaker of Michigan State University. These individuals provided direction and support in the conduct of this study. ‘ Thanks is also extended to the K-3 grade bicycle instructors and administrators who so willingly provided time and answers for the completion of the study. Thanks is also extended to Mr. Joseph E. Meyerring, Traffic Safety Unit, Minnesota Department of Education and to Ms. Ann Whitby, typist for their assistance and support during various stages of this study. A personal note of thanks is also extended to the fbllowing families: The Somers' and the Rowe's for their encouragement and Support during various stages of this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Purpose of the Study . l Importance of the Study 2 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 4 Definition of Terms . . . . . . 6 Organization of the Remaining Chapters 7 Footnotes . . . . . . . 9 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . l0 Survey Techniques . . . . . . . . . 10 Department of Education Study . . . . . . . . lO Surveys from Other States . . . . ll Studies on Classroom and "On- Bike" Practices . . . l4 Curriculum Guides . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Privately Produced Programs . . . . . . . . . 40 Books . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Pamphlets and Booklets . . . . . . . . . . 45 State and Local Programs . . . . . . . . . . 52 Community Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 State Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6l Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . 66 Selection of Sample . . . . . . . . . 65 Preparation of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . 67 Processing Data . . . . . . . . 72 Review by State Panel of Specialists . . . . . . 75 Results of the Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . 76 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 iv Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . Bl Summary of Frequency Responses . . . . . . . . 90 Findings of "Demographic Data" . . . . . . . . 9O Findings of "Concept Utilization" . . . . . . 93 Findings of "Program Evaluation Practices“ . . . . 98 Findings of "Program Duration" . . . . . lOl Chi- -Square "Cross Tabulation" Contrasts —- Data Analyses . . . . . . . . lO9 Definitions of Statistical Terms . . . . . . . 110 Summary - Data Analysis/Interpretations . . . . . ll2 Contrast l - Bicycle Safety Program Descriptors . ll2 Contrast 2 - Concept Utilization . . . . . l26 Contrast 3 - Program Evaluation Practices . . . 177 Contrast 4 - Bicycle Safety Education Program Duration . . . . . . . . . . l8l Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . 192 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . 226 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Discussion . . . . . . . . 238 Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . . . 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Bicycle Safety Education Program Coding Manual . . . 82 2. Bicycle Safety Education Demographic Data Program Descriptors - Enrollment Levels . . . . . . . . 94 3. Bicycle Safety Education Concept Utilization . . . . 99 4. Bicycle Safety Education Program Evaluation Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 5. Bicycle Safety Education Program Duration . . . . . 105 6. "Open-Ended" Response Items . . . . . . . . . . 106 7. Contrasts for Cluster #1 - Bicycle Safety Education Program Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 8. Contrasts for Cluster #2 - Bicycle Safety Education Concept Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 9. Contrasts for Cluster #3 - Bicycle Safety Education Program Evaluation Practices . . . . . 182 10. Contrasts for Cluster #4 - Bicycle Safety Education Program Duration . . . . . . 193 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. "Minnesota Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Report" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 B. National Safety Council "1974 All About Bikes Student Report Form" . . . . . . . . 260 C. National Safety Council "1974 All About Bikes Instructor Evaluation Questionnaire" . . . . . . 263 0. American Automobile Association "Special Survey on Bicycling and Bicycle Accident Records" . . . . . 266 E. State of Michigan 1976 "Bicycle Safety Education Concepts" Questionnaire . . . . . . 269 F State of Minnesota Map/Study Area . . . . . . . 276 G. Study Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 H Surveyed Counties in Minnesota . . . . . . . . 280 I. Surveyed School Districts in Minnesota . . . . . . 282 J. U.S. Cnesus Bureau Population Characteristics, 1970 - State of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 K. Minnesota Personal Income by Industry Chart . . . . 287 L. Work Force and Employment in Minnesota, 1970-1974 . . 289 M. State Panel of Bicycle Safety Education Specialists . . 291 List of Pilot Study Raters . . . . . . . . . . 293 0. Introductory Letter to K-3 Grade Bicycle Instructors . 295 P. Letter Accompanying "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" . . . . . . 297 0. "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" . . . . . 299 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In May of 1976,an initial statewide "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Report" was mailed to 1748 superintendents in Minne- sota by the Department of Education. A tallied summary of responses revealed that 1395 schools returned the survey report. 1 Specific weaknesses noted of this survey were: 1. No referral was made concerning the use of the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide. Specific classroom activities used in conjunction with bicycle safety education programs were not identified. Specific "on-bike" laboratory activities were not surveyed; use of "hands on" experiences were not reported. Local bicycle instructors were not identi- fied. Reported results could not be verified in follow-up studies. Numerous elementary schools in the surrounding St. Cloud, Minnesota area were not reported in the data. Specific knowledge and use of bicycle safety education curricula resource material from other states were not surveyed. Purpose of the Study It became apparent that a more extensive survey of bicycle safety education activities in selected K-3 elementary grades in Minnesota was needed to obtain the information not gathered in the 1 1976 study. To accomplish this, it was the purpose of the present study to (1) contact every elementary school within a 60 mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota concerning bicycle safety education programs of instruction offered at the K-3 levels, (2) identify specific bicycle instructors responsible for identified bicycle safety education programs of instruction in surveyed K-3 grades, and (3) survey bicycle instructors concerning specific classroom and "on-bike" curricula components . Importance of the Study In 1976 a State Bicycle Safety Committee was initially charged with the task of exploring the extent of bicycle safety education programs in Minnesota communities, including the scope of education based activities. The committee was also charged with the task of preparing a state bicycle safety education planning guide for use by community personnel. These tasks were extended into the 1977-78 and 1978-79 fiscal years. Prior to the current study, detailed descriptions and statistical interpretations concerning the extent of reported bicycle safety education program components conducted in K-3 grades were not known. In addition, efforts to collect specific bicycle safety education program components on a regional basis were not identified as specific Bicycle Safety Committee tasks. However, the specific data obtained in this study concerning the status and extent of K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction in selected Minne- sota elementary schools will provide valuable assistance to committee members. Knowledge of and assurances that identified bicycle instruc- tor programs will receive additional committee funding ney' convince schools and communities to continue bicycle safety education activities. Federal and state funds will also be channeled into several surveyed K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. With accurate accounts concerning specific bicycle safety education programs of instruction in K-3 levels within a 60 mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota may better accommodate the efforts of traffic safety experts at state, college and university levels to continue efforts that will assist schools and staff in the development and implementation of bicycle safety education programs of instruction. Scope of the Study This study encompassed every elementary school within a 60 mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The specific target audience included K-3 grade teachers and students that offered and received bicycle safety education programs of instruction. The study was primarily concerned with the nature and extent of bicycle safety education components in classroom and "on-bike" laboratory activities. Individual K-3 grade bicycle instructors were surveyed with respect to classroom content, including Minesota bicycle safety laws, bicycle riding and safety concepts; bicycle safety educa- tion equipment concepts; bicycle care and maintenance concepts; bicycle safety education resource personne1;bicyc1e safety education audio-visual aids and models utilized; specific grade levels reported; outside agencies utilized; sources of bicycle safety education program components (curricula, guides); types of bicycle safety education classroom instruction (in-school, after school); length of bicycle safety education classroom programs; time of year offered (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer, integrated year-round); enrollment indices; and specific classroom strategies employed (e.g., teacher- led student-led, audio-visual presentations, lectures, small group activities, etc.). In addition, specific "on-bike" activities were surveyed, including: off-road practice or skill test performances; on-street riding trips/hikes; special population "on-bike" instruction; and bicycle hike planning activities. Specific grade levels employed were noted on the survey returns. Limitations of the Study 1. The sampling parameters of this study were confined to a 60-mi1e radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Hence, results based on a 100% return rate were applicable only to the central Minnesota area. No generalizations to K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction in other areas of the State could be substantiated. However, because the sampling region approximated a normal distribution of school districts, with features and land patterns found elsewhere in Minnesota where bicycle safety education programs were administered, the writer believed the findings of this study were applicable to other areas of the State with K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction. 2. The sampling universe was confined to identified bicycle instructors in every K-3 grade school within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Survey results were applicable to K-3 grade bicycle instructors, bicycle safety education programs and K-3 grade students within central Minnesota. However, the writer believed the study findings were applicable to other areas of the State. The sampling area approximated a normal distribution of school districts, features and land patterns found elsewhere in Minnesota where K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction were conducted. 3. The Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide bicycle safety section served as the primary source of materials and instructional practices surveyed in the ”Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire." 4. Randomly selected K-3 grade bicycle instructors and programs within close proximity of St. Cloud, Minnesota, served in the pilot study and follow-up visitation phases of the study. 5. The panel of specialists utilized in the questionnaire preparation and review phases was comprised of Minnesota citizens actively involved in the development and implementation of the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide bicycle safety section. These included active classroom and "on-bike" K-3 grade bicycle instructors, State of Minnesota Bicycle Safety Committee members, law enforcement personnel, educators and community support person- nel. Definition of Terms Terms used in the study were defined as follows: Bicycle. ”'Bicycle'" means every device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandom wheels, except scooters and similar devices and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped iwth two front or rear wheels."2 Bicycle safety curriculum. An organized collection of instructional materials designed to enhance or improve knowledge and skills concerning the operation of a bicycle usually offered in a classroom and/or environment suitable for instruction of “on-bike" skill activities. For the purposes of this study, the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide served as the curriculum, and curricular items surveyed. Bicycle safety education,program. A course of instruction equipped with a variety of classroom and/or "on-bike" riding learning experiences for the purpose of assisting children of K-3 grade levels to become good traffic citizens and to use bicycles under a variety of operating conditions. Related "on-bike" activities included rodeos, registrations and inspection programs. Education. "The aggregate of all the processes by means of which a person develops abilities, attitudes and other forms of behavior of positive value in the society in which he lives."3 E1ementary_school. That period of education imparted from grades kindergarten through the sixth grade within the state of Minnesota. For purposes of this study, this definition was used. K-3 grades. Kindergarten through 3rd grade inclusive. K-3 grade bigycle instructors. The certified elementary teacher in each school identified as the bicycle instructor. ”On-bike instruction." Structured learning experience designed to be implemented outside the tradition classroom setting in order to provide "hands on" experiences with actual use of the bicycle under a variety of operating techniques and conditions. The writer used this definition to include environments outside the normal educational classroom setting in order to provide relevant "hands on" learning experiences. . State panel of specialists. In this study, a Minnesota group of citizens actively involved in the development and implementation of the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide section'on bicycle safety education programs throughout Minnesota served as specialists. Individual representatives of the State Bicycle Com- mittee were included in this category, including members with present or past experiences in the Operation of bicycle safety education programs of instruction in the related areas of law enforcement, education, and community agency support services (see Appendix M for panel members). Organization of the Remaining Chapters A comprehensive review of the literature is reported in Chapter II. This required a survey review of important topics and themes related to the topic of bicycle safety education instruction, Specifically educational approaches. Printed sources of information were surveyed in order to collect this material. Specifically, prior bicycle safety education surveys in Minnesota and in other states, in addition to bicycle safety education curricula resource material from other states, is included. An Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and National Technical Information Services (NTIS) search helped identify earlier printed sources of materials avail- able in the sc0pe of bicycle safety education instructional (class- room and "on-bike") activities. Chapter III explains the selection of the sample, the prepara- tion of the questionnaire and the methods used in processing the data. Chapter IV contains a factual presentation of the data. A narrative description of the results of the data is included with individual tables and charts to summarize the statistical analyses of the specific questionnaire items. Bicycle safety education pro- gram content characteristics and individual bicycle instructor and school information are also reported. Based upon the findings of Chapter IV, the summary, the conclusions, the recommendations, the discussion and the recommenda- tions for further study are presented in Chapter V. Formulated criteria and guidelines prepared by the Minnesota State Bicycle Com- mittee and Sub-Task Force on Bicycle Safety are used to assist in this endeavor. The final selection of the study concludes with references used as resource material for study completion, as well as noted bibliographical notations. Appendices contain the survey instrument used to collect the data, sampling area characteristics, a list of panel members and additional references and resources. CHAPTER I: FOOTNOTES 1"Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Report," Survey Results, Minnesota Department of Education, 1976, pp. 1-2. 2"State of Minnesota Legislature," an act relating to Highway Traffic Regulations, specifically bicycles, motor vehicles and other human powered vehicles, H.F. No. 474, Chapter 739, Legislative Law, signed May 5, 1978, St. Paul, Minnesota, p. 2. 3Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary of Education, prepared under the auspices of Phi Delta Kappa, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1973). p. 191. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE For this portion of the study pertinent literature was reviewed concerning bicycle safety education program evaluation survey techniques. In addition, K-3 grade bicycle safety education printed curricula resource materials from other states were also examined. Important concerns such as bicycle primary graded and un- graded safety education programs, safety pamphlets and curricula were also reviewed. Surveyglechnigues Several survey studies have been conducted of bicycle safety education programs of instruction on local, state and national levels. Surveys reviewed concerning bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" laboratory programs of instruction included (1) Annual Fact Sheets compiled by the Minnesota Department of Education and (2) questionnaires utilized as assessment tools in other states. Department of Education Study The Minnesota Department of Education has conducted statewide surveys concerning the extent of bicycle safety education programs of instruction conducted in elementary grades through 1976. A sample copy of the latest fact sheet, "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program 10 11 Report" was included in Appendix A. The fact sheets, though limited in scope, were studied in relationship to the extent of bicycle safety education programs of instruction. Nine questionnaire items were used to examine the number and nature of conducted programs with respect to bicycle instructor status, bicycle safety education curricula utilized, student enrollment levels, grade levels utilized, time of year offered, program length and laboratory exposures offered. The writer used these questionnaire items in the formation and preparation of the questionnaire. Surveys from Other States Use of a questionnaire as a survey tool to determine the status of bicycle safety education "classroom" and "on-bike" activities has been utilized in previous studies by a number of national and state research agencies. Included in this category and described below were The National Safety Council, The American Automobile Association and state and local survey efforts. Prior to the release of its six hour "All About Bikes" (AAB) elementary school bicycle safety course of instruction, The National Safety Council (NSC) conducted a 1972 pilot study of the course of instruction in thirty elementary school districts around the country. The curriculum writers collected comments from randomly selected bicycle instructors concerning course curricula materials contained in the AAB package in an effort to offer a complete courSe of instruction to purchasers. The instructor comments resulted in revision of the AAB program prior to its initial release.1 12 A second survey of the AAB program was conducted in 1974 in 236 school districts around the country, prior to modifications and release of a second AAB edition of bicycle safety education materials. The surveyed bicycle instructor comments resulted in the following findings: (1) nearly 20 percent of the sampled schools had not planned to conduct bicycle safety education programs of instruction; (2) 20 percent of the returns indicated planned activities were cancelled and would not be conducted; (3) approximately 30 percent of the returns indicated materials were placed in reference libraries for referral use only; and (4) 30 percent of the returns indicated 1972 purchased materials were not being used. Further instructor comments revealed that: (1) instructor selected topics received the highest possible ratings; (2) technical and student activity topics received the lowest overall ratings; and (3) high ratings were given for visuals and student materials. Instructor comments received in the 1974 study resulted in the following 1974 study recommendations: (1) continued evaluations of in-service bicycle safety education programs and mater- ials; (2) preparation of additional curricula; i.e. visuals and stu- dent "on-hands“ materials; (3) development of in-service programs for bicycle instructors in curriculum-use strategies; (4) development of additional student evaluation and "take-home" activities; (5) expanded "on-bike" and complex classroom learning activities; and (6) develop- ment of additional integrated, "piecemeal" course materials.2 The teacher survey response form consisted of a two-page, nine item instructor response checklist concerning course format, teacher preferences, and enrollment data. Classroom and "on-bike" l3 specifics were not surveyed. In addition, a twenty-three item student checklist and opinion-oriented student report form was included as part of the two page teacher response survey. The aggregate instructor responses were not reported as summary data; hence, this information could not be reported (see Appendices B and C). An American Automobile Association study entitled "Special Survey on Bicycling and Bicycle Accident Records" was conducted in 1971 and 1972 by the Auto Club of Southern California and the California State Automobile Association as a part of a nationwide "Pedestrian Safety Inventory Report" (see Appendix 0). Response survey forms were sent to 252 cities. An integral portion of the questionnaire included 11 items concerning local bicycle safety education program and activity instruction offered by schools and civic organizations. Returns from - 125 cities revealed that: (1) over 50 percent of the reported specific school activities included rodeos, inspections and lecture activities; (2) nearly 25 percent reported regular inspections, rodeos, lectures, quizzes and riding tours repeated on a regular basis; (3) 7 percent reported bicycle safety education activities conducted by school and civic personnel; (4) four communities reported civic agencies conducted "on-bike" activities without the aid of school personnel; (5) 13 com- munities extended bicycle safety education activities beyond the junior high level; and (6) summary accident involvement data emphasized the need to structure bicycle safety education programs beginning in the elementary grades. A 1976 "Bicycle Safety Education Concepts" survey instrument was included as an integral component in an attempt to determine the 14 status of bicycle safety education experiences offered by Wayne County, Michigan elementary grade school teachers. A 12-item checklist con- stituted the approach used to measure bicycle safety education class- room and "on-bike” activities. An open-ended question at the close of the survey provided respondents the opportunity for additional comments and bicycle instructor reactions concerning local programs and survey techniques (see Appendix E). Survey results were later collected and analyzed with the assistance of the Michigan Department of Education concerning the fol- lowing bicycle safety classroom and "on—bike" areas and procedures of instruction: bicycle safety enrollment levels,bicycle care and main- tenance concepts, bicycle safety instructional strategies, bicycle safety laws, bicycle safety riding and safety concepts, bicycle safety equipment, bicycle performance and skill test measures and bicycle accident data. Studies on Classroom and “On-bike" Practices Numerous studies have been reported concerning the justifi- cation and extent of bicycle safety education instruction programs. Specific documents and studies reviewed concerned (1) research publi- cations and documents reported by governmental and research agencies, (2) documental citings, and (3) NTIS, ERIC and Dissertation Abstracts sources.4 A 1975 study titled "City of Santa Barbara, California Bicycle Safety Program Study and Implementation Report" identified the existence of bicycle safety education junior high school programs 15 of instruction conducted in the Santa Barbara, California junior high schools. The community-wide approach included bicycle rodeos, advance publicity (media spots), bicycle rider requirements (age limits, riding pennits) and improved bicycle safety education curricula; i.e. simulation films and instructor manual. There was an overall reduction of observed bicycle riding violations following the implementation of the junior high school bicycle safety programs of instruction and on the street enforcement patrols. Observed violations decreased from 55 percent to 21 percent for all bicycle riders.5 Bicycle safety education programs conductedin K-3 grade schools and nearby communities were reported in a March 1976 "Bibliography of Highway Safety Literature" publication. Specific references to bicycle safety education activities revealed five documented research reports prepared with the assistance of automobile clubs, clinical physicians, school districts, state governments and federal funding agencies. The articles described concerned efforts on the part of various agencies to establish and upgrade the classroom or "on-bike" rodeo activities in schools, in addition to community service activities; i.e. parental involvement, enforcement measures, funding efforts and public service announcements. Improved research efforts to collect bicycle accident experience data were described.6 International bicycle safety education efforts provided by school teachers for pre-kindergarten and elementary youth have been documented in research literature. A 1978 research report, "The Ability of Preschool and Schoolchildren to Maneuver their Bicycles," conducted by the National Road and Traffic Research Institute and 16 other researchers in Sweden studied specific "on-bike" riding factors. These were exhibited by 144 school-aged children, ages 5-13, in nine separate "on-bike" laboratory skill performance stations while maneuvering, accelerating and braking. Study results revealed parti- cipant age was the most important factor in determining overall cycling ability. Riding frequency and bicycle design/fit were also important considerations. Post-test interviews indicated cycling began around five years of age. The youths commonly used bicycles as the primary means of transportation whenever possible. Despite the reported riding frequency, only 13-year-olds could satisfactorily perform all tests. Those under 8 performed very poorly in most skill areas, despite using their own bicycles. It was a recommendation of the researchers to prohibit children under 8 from riding in traffic mix areas. The study failed to determine how early children would be able to cycle with proper training with a bicycle more suited to their physical stature. Specific test situations were: looking backwards while cycling, cycling slowly between two lines, cycling between wooden block pairs, cycling with one hand, relaying cycling (movement of tennis balls from one cone to another), cycling through narrow gates, mounting from the left and right, accelerating tests and braking tests. Each skill area was determined to contain proficiencies related to those necessary for travel in actual traffic situations. In addition, all tests were carried out on off-street asphalt surfaces in separated areas.7 In a 1978 study, "Bicycle Riding Practices: Implications for Safety Campaigns" by Robert E. Dewar, he observed and recorded 17 specific riding behaviors practiced by 200 bicyclists of various age levels. Results of the study revealed major performance errors com- mitted by bicycle riders of different age groups which were addressed in follow-up bicycle safety education activities. Data revealed three types of dangerous behaviors that should be addressed in any safety education campaign: (1) lack of respect for other vehicles on road- ways (signal neglect, failure to head check on lane changes); (2) riding on the wrong side of the road; and (3) poorly equipped bicycles. Results also indicated the most important target audience to be addressed was the younger cyclist, under 12 years of age. Study recommendations suggested: (1) use of brief television shorts that depict errors common to certain target groups (age levels); and (2) demonstrations of correct riding behavior for motorists and bike riders. 3 Colin G. Drury, in a 1978 study titled "The Law and Bicycle Safety," referred to the need for measuring the learned outcomes, in addition to the taught outcomes, of bicycle safety laws and regulations among users. Paper-and-pencil tests were administered to elementary grade students. In addition, recognition awards for high achievement scores were given by the teachers as added incentives for achieving increased law knowledge and conformance test scores. In addition, teacher efforts to upgrade parental involvement programs in bicycle safety education school-related activities; i.e. tours. "on-bike" rodeos were deemed necessary in order to enhance successful bicycle riding practices by youths.9 18 A 1975 Helsinki, Finland study, "Investigation into Use and Outfit of Schoolchildren's Bicycles," measured the use of various pieces of safety equipment on 600 bicycles through visual inspection and interviews. Study results indicated 400 children and parents were unaware of the importance of prescribed and recommended bicycle equipment, or of efforts to upgrade the knowledge and handling abilities of bicycle riding by youth in nearby communities. Study recommenda- tions included: (1) teacher directives to plan specific bicycle riding routes and practices for school-aged youth and (2) restrict riding practices for youngest school-aged children.10 Published accounts concerning funding and training efforts to upgrade bicycle safety education classroom and “on-bike" programs were also reviewed. The United States Department of Transportation has, in recent years, participated in national, state and local efforts to upgrade bicycle safety education training programs. A few of the specific funded efforts included: (1) "Identification of Specific Problems and Countermeasure Approaches to Enhance Bicycle Safety," a project which was designed to provide recommendations for training programs, public information programs, regulations and struc- tural design standards for use by educators and government officials. Anacapa Sciences prepared the lengthy document primarily for use with I] (2) "Identification and Develop- teenagers and adult target groups; ment of Countermeasures for Bicyclist/Motor Vehicle Problem Types," a project which was designed to develop countermeasures in three areas: training programs, public information campaigns and education and enforcement of traffic regulations by reviewing accident experience 19 data and interview data. No specific results have been released to date. Dunlap and Associates were instructed to develop a model training program and study bicycle regulations and public information material;12 (3) "Regional Workshops on Bicycle Safety," a project which was conducted in cooperation with the Consumer Product Safety Commis- sion to provide comprehensive assistance to communities and states in developing bicycle safety conferences and programs through a series 13 In addition, a compatible contract of ten regional workshops. released by the Department of Transportation and Consumer Product Safety Commission assisted state and local governments in developing bicycle safety programs for local use. Final reports were published and released for use by state officials. Prior to convening ten regional workshops for national and state experts, a "Bike-Ed“ con- ference was held in Washington, D. C. in May 1977. Historically, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the U. S. Department of Trans- portation have served as the leading Federal agencies responsible for promotion and upgrading bicycle safety education efforts. The 1977 national conference represented a national cooperative effort between the two agencies and outsiders to address and combat the serious national problem of bicycle accidents, injuries and deaths.14 A comprehensive review of NTIS Distribution Center publica- tions, ERIC documents and Dissertation Abstracts sources revealed the existence of the following documents and studies related to bicycle safety education programs conducted in K-3 graded and nongraded levels. (1) Travel on! Mini-Units and Learnipg Activities on Transportation for Grades K-3 (Jane Lawson, ABT Associates Inc., 20 Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977). This K-3 curriculum manual included public transportation, transportation and the environment, transporta- tion safety and bicycling safety topics of instruction in thirteen mini-unit presentations. Each of the mini-units contained lesson plans, teacher activities, student learning activities and implementa- tion strategies. A "Learning to Ride a Bike" mini-unit contained in the K-3 manual was designed to be integrated within language arts, mathematics and social studies programs. Supplemental activities included independent learner assignments, quiz-type and evaluation suggestions, use and demonstration procedures and suggested resources. 15 Teacher reproducible masters were also included for classroom use. (2) K-9 Traffic Safety Resource Curriculum. Level B. Profes- sional Guide (North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Governor's Highway Safety Program Office, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1975). This level B guide contained materials for Grades 2-3 teacher and student uses. The content included pedestrian, bicycle, school bus and passenger safety units that stressed perceptual and judgmental skill development. The bicycle safety education unit included suggested learning activities, concepts, objectives and background content infor- mation, while artwork and supplemental worksheets were included for teacher use. Additional outside activities, resource lists and subject 16 area cross reference charts completed the unit. (3) K-9 Traffic Safety Resource Curriculum. Level A. Profes- sional Guide (North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Governor's Highway Safety Program Office, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1975). This Level A guide contained bicycle safety education program materials 21 for use in grades K-1. Bicycle safety was included as an integral unit of instruction along with pedestrian safety, school bus safety and passenger safety. Each unit included concepts, learning objectives, course outline, content material, suggested learning activities, artwork and reproducible worksheets. A supplementary 17 resource list was included. (4) School Pedestrian Safety for Elementary Schools (Jean Flagg, Walter Hawkins, Suffolk County Board of Cooperative Educa- tional Services III, Dix Hills, New York, 1973). This loose-leaf curriculum guide was a result of the combined efforts of many people in the Suffolk County, New York school district under terms of a grant awarded to the school district by the Suffolk County Traffic Board and financially supplemented by the Suffolk County Organization for the Promotion of Education (SCOPE). Specific units covering pedestrian safety, bus safety and bicycle safety were included. Teachers were encouraged to select mater- ials for integration into their own classes. Over 350 pieces of artwork were also included for teacher duplication, transparency development and student use. In a pilot study of the materials, lower grade level students profited from individual attention provided by upper elementary students in classroom instruction sessions. The bicycle safety section included a storybook account of the "Mice Family" portrayed in ten separate reading sections. The guide was developed as a teaching tool, and not a panacea for all teachers. Bicycle topics included in the guide covered bicycle history, bicycle selection and fit, bicycle parts and 22 types, riding habits, bike riding skills, night riding, bicycle manners and behaviors, bicycle accessories, bicycle skills and bicycle maintenance and care procedures. Suggested pre- and post-tests, outside learning activities and resources were also included in the 116 page document.18 Curriculum Guides The following state and school district curriculum guides were reviewed to identify bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" topics of instruction which could assist in the construc- tion of specific questionnaire items. The curricula were grouped by state and presented in alphabetical order. K-12 Traffic Safety Education Program for Alaska (Alaska State Department‘of Education, 1974) This guide included pedestrian, passenger, school bus, water and boating, first aid, alcohol and traffic, drugs and traffic, snowmobile, motorcycle, driver and traffic and bicycle safety topics of instruction. In addition, numerous outside learning activities, evaluation procedures and reference lists were included. It was initially prepared as the first step in the development of a comprehensive statewide curriculum in traffic safety for K-12 students. Units of traffic safety instruction were included to allow teacher flexibility in selecting specific safety topics for classroom and "on-bike" instruction. A teacher improve— ment/reference/rationale section was included in the guide. Instruc- tional materials, state requirements and teacher reproducible masters were also included in the notebook-styled curriculum. 23 California Guide to Bicycle Education (California State Department of Education, 1977) Based on the Anacapa Associates' Santa Barbara Bicycle Accident Study data, the bicycle safety education section emphasized "on-bike" activities for 4-6 grades that stressed hazard recognition, scanning and motor skill development. It also included parental involvement efforts for lower grade level instruction. Supervised on-road training practices were offered for upper elementary youths. Additional worksheets and follow-up activities were included for teacher selection. Colorado Traffic Safety Education Guide (Colorado State Department of Education, 1974) This guide was developed after extensive referral to the Illinois Traffic Safety Education Guide and Washington Traffic SafetygEducation Guide. It was divided into four major sections. The authors included organizational, administrative and supervisory responsibilities. Specific topics included driver education and other related traffic safety subject areas, topical safety areas related to the nature of the highway transportation system, con- trol and information processing tasks, traffic mix patterns, operator performance tasks, readiness and familiarity tasks, critical situa- tions, accident causation and other roadway (bicycle, motorcycle, etc.) participants. Bicycle safety materials included in the guide consisted of bicycle selection and fit concerns, care and maintenance procedures, bicycle riding practices, security and storage proce— dures and traffic mix responsibilities as topics for classroom and 24 Von-bike" study. Appendices included bicycle safety resources and bibliographical lists. Illinois Traffic Safety Education Guide (Illinois State Department of Education, 1969) This extensive traffic safety education curriculum included detailed activities and games designed to be used within existing pre-kindergarten and grades 1-8 by teachers and students. The 3-ring notebook design led to the development of other state curri- cula and programs of instruction for elementary and secondary levels. The Illinois guide offered introductory statements, teaching aids, reference material, lesson plan formats, learning activities and reproducible masters. Specific bicycle safety content covered history, nomenclature, maintenance, signs and markings, riding habits, classroom and "on-bike" tests and teacher information material for K-8 levels. Presentations for other safety-related areas included recreation, home, passenger, pedestrian and bus ridership. Safety Education Units for Illinois Schools (Illinois State Department of Education, 1969) This guide included bicycle safety as a component of a com- prehensive traffic safety program, along with recreational safety, home safety and school safety for K-3 levels. Separate traffic safety presentations were offered for each grade level in the following teacher and student formats: subject/content headings, introduction/objectives/vocabulary lists, teacher instructions/use methodologies, specific units/content/themes, specific objectives/ 25 integration uses, teaching materials/learning activities, reproduci- ble masters and evaluation suggestions. Bicycle safety t0pics included sizing concerns, equipment and storage practices, riding habits and bicycle laws. A copy of the state Driver's Manual was also included. Indiana K-6 Traffic Safety Education Curriculum (Indiana State Department of Education, 1975) .This guide included bicycle safety as a K-6 traffic safety unit, plus offering instruction in pedestrian safety, school bus ridership and vehicle passenger safety. Activities were developed to evoke "decision-making behaviors" with respect to roles of the bicyclist in the transportation system. It was designed to be integrated within the existing curriculum, and included cross- reference charts. The authors provided specific activities for use in the K—1, 2-3 land 4~6 grades to meet individual student needs. Reproduction masters, a suggested bibliography, episode formats, specific objectives, teacher content and suggested outside acti- vities were included. A Traffic Safety Multi-Media Prqgram K-12 (Kokomo-Center Township Consolidated School COFPOFEtTOH,Kokomo.Indiana, 1973) This guide was developed as a comprehensive driver and traffic safety education K-12 multi-media program for Kokomo-Center Township, Consolidated School Corporation, Kokomo, Indiana. It was financed by a grant from the state of Indiana. The authors prepared 22 sections in the following topical areas: safety patrol, 26 pedestrian, bus, bicycle and pre-driver education for the K-12 grades. The guide also included a copy of the "Indiana Driver's Manual." An introductory section included the project description and rationale, letters of endorsement, acknowledgment and apprecia- tion remarks. The guide reinforced K-3 grade bicycle safety classroom instruction with "on-bike" activities for 4-8 level youth. Learn- ing experiences for the Kindergarten level in pedestrian, bus ridership, bicycle and vehicle riding exposures for youth in the Kokomo, Indiana area provided meaningful, learning opportunities and additional study guides for K-8 grades in multi-media (scripts, local activities and objectives) were included. K-6 Traffic Safety Education for Iowa Schools (Iowa State Department of Education, 1975) This guide included a separate section on bicycle safety designed to assist teachers in the state mandated bicycle safety instruction requirement for K-6 youth. It included a variety of activities to meet individual needs in providing bicycle topics of instruction within existing K-6 subject areas or for use as a separate subject area for K-6 youth. In addition to bicycle safety, materials in pedestrian, school bus passenger, automobile passenger and mini-bike safety were provided. Individual grade level material was offered for teacher selection. Specific bicycle content material covered selection, history, uses, nomenclature and riding habits. Teacher-use formats were repeated for each grade level, and included basic concepts, introductory statements, learning 27 principles/use descriptions, reproduction master cards and a resource section. A bicycle safety handbook, introductory section and review section were offered for each grade level. Bicycle Safety Club Handbook for State of Iowa (Iowa State Department of Education, 1975) This guide was developed to assist teachers, parents and others in initiating extracurricular bicycle safety activities. It was used to accompany a bicycle safety section of the K-6 Iowa Safety Curriculum Guide. Resources and outside learning experiences were added in the appendix section. Descriptions of bicycle clubs, activities, and appendices were included. Appendices contained guidelines, club materials, suggested activities, programs, bicycle nomenclature, inspection and maintenance concerns, ordinance formulas, "on-bike" activities and evaluation procedures. School Pedestrian Safety for Elementary Schools (SCOPE/BOCES) (Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Suffolk County Organization for the Promotion of Education, Suffolk County, Iowa, 1973 This curriculum was initially designed as a regional educa- tional program, sponsored by the Board of Cooperative Educational Services I, II, and III of Suffolk County, Iowa (BOCES) in coopera- tion with the Suffolk County Organization for the Promotion of Education (SCOPE), to further the understanding of good safety practices. Bicycle safety material was included along with materials on pedestrian safety and school bus riding safety practices. Teacher flexibility was designed into the integrated style materials, which 28 included over 350 pieces of art work masters. Teachers were encouraged to supplement content materials with supplemental class- room activities; e.g. assignments, stories. Initial pilot testing of the curriculum utilized fifth and sixth grade students in assistance type roles to provide instruction to K-4 grades. Fifteen stories in pedestrian safety, 20 visuals on school bus safety, and 10 units of animated bicycle safety adventures ("The Mice Family") comprised the curriculum. The bicycle safety unit incorporated independent student learning activities in 12 bicycle topics of instruction for K-3 grades. The Kentucky Bicycle Driver's Guide (Kentucky State Department of Edhcation, 1975) This 30-page manual was initially designed for use by bicyclists of all ages. The guide presented traffic laws, safety rules, equipment, highway signs and traffic control signals to insure safe operation of bicycles on state streets and highways. A parental responsibility section was included to assist adults in the expanded bicycle education process. Safe riding practices, skill activities, hazard avoidance and a bibliography section were also included. Maryland Safety Instructional System 'Teacher Guide to Bike Basics ‘(Maryland State Department of Education, 1973) This material was designed to foster development of psycho- motor skill development, decision-making skills and motor-skill coordination in emergency reaction situations. Bicycle safety materials were included within individual pre-kindergarten and Grades 29 1-8 volumes. Bicycling size and fit concerns, bicycle safety equipment and storage and fit topics were presented. Additionally, a separate "Teacher's Guide to Bike Basics" section and a two-frame filmstrip presentation for second grade audiences was included in the curriculum. The program was designed for integration within existing classes and offered cross-referenced charts for teacher implementation. An optional 65-page pamphlet of state rules and laws for use with beginning audiences was provided. An updated "Way to Go" instructional television series for 5-8 year olds included "Bike Basics" materials concerning rules and laws in pamphlet and filmstrip format. Ride On! Pedal On! (Transportation Consumer Education for Adults, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975) Individual grade level learning activities were developed to offer instruction in the safe use of the bicycle as a means of transportation by bicyclists of all ages. Bicycle materials focused on riding rules and rationale for bike user behaviors. Upper ele- mentary approaches focused on role-playing activities concerning law violations and riding errors . K-3 and 4-6 grade presentations centered on such larger transportation concerns as public transportation, safety, transportation, environment and bicycling practices. Separate volumes covering bicycling and transportation uses were presented for use in the 6th grade. 3O Curriculum Guide for Safety Education, Grades K-6 (Michigan State Department of Education, 1973) This guide was developed to promote the acquisition of health and safety habits in K-6 grades. It was designed to be implemented within other subject areas included in the elementary school grades. Such practices were hoped to foster good citizenship and conservation of human values, a healthy environment and to con- tinue the minimization of accident involvement. It offered a compre- hensive approach to health and safety education that offered content, learning experiences, behavioral objectives for K-3 and 4—6 grades and references and resources for several safety areas. Bicycle safety materials were included as an integral facet of traffic safety. Specific bicycle safety material for use in K-3 grades centered on bicycle riding and use procedures, bicycle law obeyance activities and selection and fit concerns. Fourth through sixth grade bicycle material included bicycle law and regulation practices, bicycle equipment concerns, bicycle license and registration proce- dures, bicycle operation, bicycle care and maintenance practices, skill and "on-bike" tactics and bicycle violation occurrences. The guide also contained a list of supplementary bicycle resource mate- rials to increase active learner participation efforts by instructors, families and community personnel. The State Department of Education also prepared a Traffic SafetyEducation Curriculum Guide, Grades 7-9 to promote the attain- ment of health and safety habits by youth in grades 7-9. Bicycle safety instruction topics included bicycle riding and use practices, 31 bicycle law and equipment maintenance practices, bicycle license and registration procedures, bicycle skill testing procedures and accident investigation drills. Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide (Minnesota State Department of Education, 1970) The State of Minnesota developed this guide to serve as a teacher resource tool to promote K-3 youth survival opportunities in the traffic safety related areas of pedestrian, vehicle passenger, school bus and bicycle safety. Specific safety areas, topic state- ments, subject area applications, implementation timetables, lesson goal statements, background activities and suggested follow-up activities comprised the safety unit formats. A preliminary review of other state traffic safety curriculum guides occurred prior to the development of the Minnesota guide. Specific references to bicycle safety included bicycle riding, care and maintenance concerns, driver responsibilities, size and fit concerns, equipment needs, laws/signs/ markings, prohibited driving practices, hazard recognition, passenger regulations, nighttime riding practices and emergency care procedures. Individual grade level adhesive-backed posters depicting each safety- related area were included for instructor use in separate cellophane packages. Teachers were encouraged to integrate classroom and "on- bike“ materials in existing core subjects from the twenty-two bicycling units. 32 The Minnesota Bicycle Driver's Guide (Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 1978) This 30-page manual contained bicycle traffic laws, safety rules, recommendations, highway signs and signals common in cycling. In addition, a parental responsibility and involvement section was included to assist adults in the promotion of bicycle safety. A bicycle driver's test course was included for "on-bike" activities. Traffic Education for Montana Elementary Schools -- Bicycle Safety (Montana State Department of Education, 1974) This guide was developed to assist teachers in processing instruction in traffic safety curriculum areas in the K-6 grades. It contained instructional aids and resource materials for use in existing subject areas. It was initially developed in 1963 for teacher in-service sessions, and pilot tested in 12 elementary schools prior to distribution and use. It was prepared in loose-leaf binder style and presented in the following format: preface, table of contents and style; format/description; informational sheets (e.g. problem solving methods/animated cartoon descriptors “Safety Friends"); bicycles and traffic mix concerns (e.g. traffic control signs, signals, pavement markings); applied instructional areas (e.g. charts); decision-making process descriptions and uses (e.g. bicycle courtesy, signals, blind spot checks, weather condi- tions and hazards, hazard recognition); traffic interaction situa- tions (e.g. intersections, emergency vehicles); and highway user concerns (e.g. safety operator). The authors utilized a management- by-objective strategy in conjuction with a traffic safety 33 decision-making process activity (Identification, Prediction, Decision, Action). They encouraged the use of outside agencies and assistance when practical. They listed educational learning processes to facilitate learning experiences (repetition, practice, modeling, etc.). Specific units were arranged according to appropriate instructional materials, teacher use/information sheets and appendices. Color coded information sheets, topic format sheets and reinforcement activity sheets assisted teachers and students. Professional Guide: K-9 Traffic Safety CUrriculum, Levels A, B, C, D (North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Governor's Highway Safety Program Office, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1975) This guide was developed as a part of an eight Point plan to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety traffic activities. Guide- lines were offered to implement state and community programs to address the problem in the areas of community planning, highway and traffic engineering, enforcement, public information and education. Material was based on accident involvement figures to prepare timely, usable, K-9 pedestrian, bicycle, passenger, motorcycle safety and driver education preparation instructional materials. University traffic safety personnel, state agencies, teachers and school administrators from four counties prepared instructional techniques and concepts in several developmental workshops. The guide became a useful tool to aid teachers in implementing a balanced dynamic traffic safety program responsive to the needs of youth and instruc- tors in the state. It was prepared in a loose-leaf binder style. 34 The material was developed to process identification, recognition and decision-making procedures for youthful pedestrians and bicyclists. Specific objectives were developed to measure the progress of youths as functioning traffic citizens, their knowledge of the traffic environment, their ability to identify and assess hazards, their ability to react to hazards and their ability to display appropriate behaviors in all traffic situations. In addition, specific unit objectives, safety activity checklists, reproducible masters, topical material; i.e. content, suggested activities, supplementary activi- ties and resource lists were included. Teachers were encouraged to include instruction in these traffic safety related areas as a part of existing subject material. The Bicycle Driver's Guide (Ohio State Department of Education, 1975) This 30-page pamphlet was initially developed for use by youth and adult bicyclists to assist them in processing state traffic laws, equipment, highway signs and traffic control devices necessary in safe bicycle operation. A parental responsibility and involvement section was also included. Specific bicycle driving hazards and a bicycle bibliography was also included to serve as a useful class- room tool. Oklahoma Curriculum Guide and Student Handbook for Teaching Pedestrian Safety Education (Oklahoma State Department of Education, 1973) This guide provided teachers with information and resources to assist teachers in providing a comprehensive program of pedestrian 35 safety for Oklahoma Youth at the K-3 levels. Content was presented in a colorful cartoon style that depicted the actions of "Scotty the Safety Scarecrow." Animated drawings provided safe advice for children's understandings, plus numerous exercises for elementary youth. Integration was the desired strategy for teacher implementa- tion. A specific format included introduction, goal/purposes, acknowledgements, content material, suggested projects, learning activities, bibliography/resources and reproducible student exercises. The subject matter was cross-referenced for integration use. No specific bicycle safety education activities were included in this guide. However, reference to bicycle safety instruction did appear in content discussions and teacher introductory remarks. Traffic Safety_§ducation for Oregon Schools, K-3; and Traffic Safety Education foriOregon Schools, 4-6 (Oregon State Department of Education, 1973) These two state handbooks were adapted largely from the Illinois Traffic SafetygEducation Guide for the purpose of assisting teachers in the implementation of effective safety education programs in pedestrian, bicycle. car passenger and school bus passenger safety. It was also designed to aid teachers in processing traffic survival skills (added as a specific Oregon graduation requirement). Suggested classroom activities were designed to assist students in minimizing complex and hazardous survival behaviors. Handbook units were organized according to specific program goals and competency statements (performance indicators spelled out in Oregon graduation requirements tables). The guide encouraged teachers to develop 36 additional instructional materials not included in activity sections. A K-3 grade handbook formed the basis for the instructional program in 4-6 levels in four safety areas, with the focus on Oregon rules of the road and related bicycle laws. Handbooks were offered for instruc- tion in the first, second and third grade levels. In addition, an appendix of reproducible masters and the Oregon law handbook were included for teacher use. The specific handbook format offered unit competency and goal statements, suggested teaching aids, specific lessons (topical subject heading, program and course goals), suggested content, specific performance indicators (Oregon statutes), -subject area applications, handbook materials and learning activities. Also included were specific evaluation procedures for "on-bike" skills when used in conjunction with classroom materials. "On-bike” performance evaluation procedures were listed as desirable for teacher use, as compared to oral or written procedures, when possible. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation--South Carolina's Bicycle Driver's Handbook (Sbuth Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 1978) This 24-page handbook for youth and adult bicyclists of South Carolina was developed by the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation to assist bicyclists with state laws, safety devices, maintenance and proper cycling practices related to safe bicycling. It was also designed to assist parents with classroom- related bicycle riding practices. It included verbal and animated drawings to assist the reader with bicycle model/size/fit concerns, required equipment, laws and regulations, maintenance procedures, 37 security and storage procedures, registration and licensing proce- dures, bicycle history, riding/driving concerns and "on-bike" techniques. Washington Traffic Safety Education Guide (State of Washington Department of Education, 1973) This curriculum guide was developed to assist teachers and other users in the development, expansion and improvement of competency-based traffic safety education programs of instruction. Bicycle safety materials were presented as an integral aspect of the larger highway transportation system. Specific material was pre- sented in the following format: introductory statements, basic control tasks, stored information, human functions, traffic mix con- cerns, operator performances, critical system tasks, membership functions, learning activities, learning processes, program phases, instructional scheduling, student learning activities, entry and exit criteria and additional instructional facilities. Much of the material was further divided into individual student Learner Activity Packages (LAPs) for independent use. State of Washington Bicycle Driver's Guide (State of Washington Department of Education, 1975) This 30-page manual was prepared for bicyclists of all ages. Traffic laws, safety rules, bicycle equipment and signs and signals were included to assist with safe bicycling procedures. A parental involvement activity section was added to assist adults with the classroom and "on-bike" processes. Teacher resources, hazard 38 identification and exercises and safe riding practices were also included. Safety Programs Guide for West Virginia Schools (West Virginia State Department of Education, 1971) This guide was developed under the direction of a 1971 state mandate to provide a comprehensive program of safety and safety education in all schools and grade levels. Materials were developed by the State Department of Education in the 1973-74 school year. Traffic safety education specialists, county school administrators and others developed policies for safety education. These indivi- duals designated the Civil Defense Office of Education as the responsible agency for implementation of the guidelines. Four separate units were prepared for educational uses. Part I was an Administration and Coordination Guidelines section which stipulated five areas for compliance within a comprehensive school safety pro- gram, i.e. environmental, safety, safety services-reporting, inspect- ing and safety program evaluation. In addition, detailed staff and performance responsibilities were included. Part II contained specific bicycle safety education curriculum resource units which contained a wide range of teacher suggestions and activities for K-6 elementary grades. ‘Traffic Safety K-12 Curriculum Guide for Wisconsin (Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 1972) This guide was developed to assist teachers with a state requirement to provide accident causation instruction in K-12 grades. The teachers were encouraged to provide instruction within 39 existing subject areas. Part 11 contained teaching ideas and strategies employed in traffic safety educational settings (including philosophy, learning strategies, student activities and supplemental student learning activities). No specific mention of bicycle safety content was included in this guide. However, numerous referrals to related traffic safety education topical areas were included. Wisconsin Bicycle Driver's Guide (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Governor's Office of Highway Safety Programs, Madison, Wisconsin, 1978) This 30-page manual contained bicycle traffic laws, safety rules and bicycle equipment concerns for use by bicyclists of all ages. A parental involvement section was included to assist adults with classroom and "on-bike" riding practices. Teacher resources, hazard recognition experiences and safe riding practices were also included in the manual. Bicycle topics of instruction for use in K-3 grades included bicycle selection and fit concerns, bicycle rules of the road, bicycle riding habits, bicycle safety equipment concerns and bicycle maintenance procedures. Safety material for normal and necessary integration within existing subject material was included in Part II. The document was field tested for over six months in seven counties with over 200 teachers prior to actual use and distribution. Section III contained suggested secondary level activities and strategies for implementation with the 21 units listed. Section IV included a comprehensive list of K-12 resources for use by teacher 40 and student audiences in a highly usable, and consistent format; resource by grade, major concentration area, focus area served (home, school, community), audience and audience-age. Project T.R.A.F.F.I.C. (Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 1976) The Madison, Wisconsin public schools and the Wisconsin ‘Department of Public Instruction jointly developed a traffic safety curriculum for statewide use. The writers included bicycle safety as an integral component that included bicycle rules and hazard per- ception drills. Bicycle activities were presented in a two volume, pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade curriculum guide designed to be used within existing subject areas. Privately Produced Programs Several commercially produced bicycle safety curriculum guides were reviewed relative to classroom and "on-bike" activities offered in the K-3 grades. Bicycle topics of instruction were examined for possible inclusion as questionnaire items. AETNA's Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Program (Aetna Safety Instructional Services, National Offices, Binghampton, New York, 1977) This cassette/filmstrip curriculum was developed to actively involve K-3 youth in classroom, bicycle and pedestrian safety activities. The four units of instruction included bicycle driving practices plus operator attitude formation strategy development exercises. The total program included visuals, teacher guides, reproducible masters and student response activities. 41 All About Bikes: A Bicycle Safety Program (National Safety Council, National Offices, Chicago, Illinois, 1971, 1972) The National Safety Council initially produced a comprehensive six hour bicycle safety education elementary graded curriculum guide following a pilot test of partial instructional materials in Chicago, Illinois area schools (see earlier discussion in Chapter II, Surveys from Other States). Revisions performed in 1972 created 58 visual aids, 36 contrived incidents, two teacher booklets and a series of learning experiences concerning bicycle laws, bicycle driving experiences and accident analysis experiences. In addition, supple- mental student activities were included in the 8-hour program. An animated bicycle film was available for use in K-6 grades. AAA Teacher's Guide to Bicycle Safety Activities and Proiects (American Automobile Association, National Offices, Falls Church, Virginia, 1977) This program contained a series of creative learning activities in bicycle safety to assist instructors in correlating elementary subjects with bicycle safety materials for Kindergarten through eighth grade youth. Several bicycle instructional activities included teacher information messages, classroom implementation strategies and bicycle use and riding habits. Bicycle Safety Program - Basic (Milner-Fenwick, Inc., 3800 Liberty Heights Ave., Baltimore, Maryland, 1976) This audio/filmstrip presentation program prepared for educators included three major sections on bicycle safety related topics of instruction. Hazard identification strategies and decision-making skills were emphasized in numerous accident avoidance and analysis sequences designed to be used within existing subject areas. The bicycle safety program presented bicycle laws, bicycle selection concerns, bicycle driving habits and bicycle maintenance and care procedures in a lO-filmstrip, teacher guide and spirit master format. The commercially prepared materials were specifically geared for 2-6 grade use. Cub Scout Bicycle Safety Program (Boy Scouts of America National Office, North Brunswick, New Jersey, 1977) This leader training activity package was prepared for K-6 and adult audiences to foster growth and provide training for'Cub Scouts in bicycle safety riding practices in group training sessions. The objectives of the month-long program were developed to enable each participant to receive special instruction in bicycle care and maintenance procedures, safe operator habits, and knowledge of traffic signs and rules of the road. Highlights of the commercially prepared package included teacher objectives, a leader guide booklet, bicycle inspection materials, "on-bike" skill activities, liaison supportive materials and extra-curricular activities. Discovering Traffic Safety (Automotive Safety Foundation, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 1977) Seven films and teacher handbook materials were created to assist classroom teachers with integration of bicycle safety into 43 existing classroom subject areas, schoolbus ridership practices, pedestrian safety and car passenger safety concerns. Bicycle riding practices in on-street locations were presented to generate K-3 audience responses in classroom settings. K-9 students served as actors in real-life dramatization episodes devised to trigger student self-discovery classroom discussions. Just Like a Car (Film Loops, Inc., PO Box 2233, Princeton, New Jersey, 1971) This 12-minute film and accompanying instructor's guide was initially prepared for use within 3-6 grade classroom settings to assist in bicycle safety education instruction. Bicycle rules of the road, bicycle riding habits, hazard identification exercises and road sharing practices were presented. The program also included teacher lesson plans, classroom posters and four filmstrips that emphasized defensive driving habits, rule obeyance practices, hazard avoidance strategies and traffic mix formulas for survival. Traffic and Pedestrian Education Systems (Elisar Research Corporation, 15th East 48th Street, New York, New York, 1971) This privately produced traffic safety program was designed for use in existing 3-6 classroom settings. The package included modular units on bicycle safety topics that included bicycle sizing concerns, bicycle safety equipment, bicycle care and maintenance concerns and operator riding habits. Animated student presentations, a classroom use filmstrip, a teacher's guide and instructor ditto masters were included in the bicycle program. 44 8995; Several books on bicycle safety instructional activities in the K-3 grades were reviewed. Classroom and "on-bike" educational topics were examined for possible inclusion as questionnaire items. Better Bicycling for Boys and Girls (George Sullivan, Dodd, Mead and Company, 79 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 1974) This 64-page book included detailed descriptions of bicycle use, fit, riding habits, club formation procedures, "on-bike" skill activities and touring strategies. It was designed for use in 3-6 grades. Bicycles--A11 About Them (McPhee Gribble Publishers, Penguin Books, Inc., 7110 Ambasson Road, Baltimore, Maryland, 1976) This 32-page book described bicycle operations, repair pro- cedures and operator improvement strategies. Authors also included safety tips and hazard avoidance strategies. The Bicycle Book (Lillian and Godfrey Frankel, Simon and Schuster Publishers, 630 5th Avenue, New York, New York, 1971) This 22-page book contained bicycle selection, bikeway development, security methods, recreation uses, laws and safe riding practices and equipment and maintenance procedures. A bicycle game section was also included for use in classroom sessions. 45 Bicycle Racing (Robert B. Jackson, Henry Z. Walck, Inc., 19 Union Square West, New York, New York, 1971) This 7l-page book described the merits of bicycle racing for 3-6 grades. Publishers also included bicycle types, racing styles and associated careers for increased interests. Bic clin (Wiiliam Morrow and Co., 105 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 1972) Charles Coombs and the William Morrow Publishing Company developed a 172 page book that included bicycle uses, history, selection, maintenance and home repair procedures. Future uses and prototypes were also discussed. Fifty-nine photographs were included to assist readers. Pamphlets and Booklets Several bicycle safety printed materials and pamphlets for use in K-3 grades were also reviewed. Classroom and "on-bike" instructional topics were reviewed for possible inclusion as questionnaire items. Allstate Insurancegompany Bicycle Safety Education K-3 Grade Pamphlets (Allstate Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1978) Allstate Insurance Company produced two bicycle safety education K-3 grade pamphlets for use in classroom programs: "Allstate the Joy of Bicycling” (1978) This 4-page bicycle safety education instruction pamphlet contained bicycle use, bicycle terminology, bicycle riding procedures and bicycle care and maintenance concerns. 46 "Hi! Bike Pi1ots!" (1977) This 4-page bicycle safety education instruction pamphlet contained bicycle operator safe riding practices plus care and maintenance procedures. Both pamphlets were prepared for use by all ages. American Automobile Association K-3 Grade Bicycle Safety Education Instructor Pamphlets (American Automobile Association, 8111 Gatehouse Road, Falls Church, Virginia, 1971-1977) These pamphlets were reviewed in order to ascertain class- room and "on-bike" topics of bicycle safety education for possible use as questionnaire items. "Bicycle Driver's License" (1972) lst, 2nd and 3rd grade bicycling licensing material offered sample liCense format and rules. "Bicycle Information Test" (1973) 3-6 grade material contained 25 tests and scoring sheets for teacher/student use. “Bicycle Inspection Checklist" (1971) 3-6 grade material provided 25 checklists for teacher/student use. "Bicycle Safety Skill Tests" (1973) 3-6 grade material included rodeo "on-bike" blueprints, 12 pages. "Bicycling Is Great Fun" (1972) 3-6 grade material in a 2-page foldout contained rules/laws and maintenance procedures. "Bike Safety Posters" (1973) K-6 grade material included ten brightly colored posters for classroom purposes. 47 "Teacher's Guide to Bicycle Safety Activities and Projects" (1977) K-6 grade information offered classroom and outdoor “on-bike" projects and activities for use in bicycle safety education programs. "Terry the Tricycle" (1975) This Kindergarten level 6-page story was prepared for classroom instructional use. "Be a Bike Expert--Have Fun, Know the Rules" (Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State High Building, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1978 Revised) This 6-page, K-3 grade pamphlet was developed to inform bicyclists of rules of the road, signs, signals, pavement markings, required bicycle equipment,night riding procedures, operator registration procedures and inspection procedures. "Bicycle Safety Information Test" (National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois, 1975, 1976) This 1-page commercially produced quiz included 25 items covering rules of the road and related maintenance/equipment items in a checklist format. "Bicycle Safety Program Kit" (Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State Highway Building, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1974) This community development and planning kit booklet included K-3 grade and adult bicycle instruction information covering campaign strategies, pamphlets, public relations information, "on-bike" strategies, fact sheets and club development suggestions. 48' "Bicycle Safety Quiz" (Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State Highway Building, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1975) This 8-page, 20 item True/False bicycle safety information quiz was developed to survey bicyclists concerning bicycle operator habits, bicycle equipment, bicycle inspection procedures, bicycle rules of the road and additional equipment and maintenance concerns. It was designed for use by all ages. "Bikes--and Boys and Girls" (Kemper Insurance Company, Route 22, Design Studio A-l, Long Grove, Illinois, 1966) This pamphlet provided a general overview of bicycle rules and laws, maintenance procedures and theft concerns. It contained bicycle vocabulary and safety terms for use in K-8 grades. Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service Bicycle Safety Education Pamphlets (U.S. Department of Agriculture -- 4-H, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108) The Minnesota Agriculture Extension Service prepared and distributed two K-3 grade bicycle safety education pamphlets for use in 4-H related bicycle safety education classrooms and “on-bike" programs. These were reviewed in order to determine classroom and "on-bike" topics of instruction for possible inclusion as question- naire items. "4-H Bicycle Program - Unit 1. Your Bicycle and You" (1971) This 4-page pamphlet provided a general overview of bicycle size and fit concerns, operator riding habits and care and maintenance concerns. It was designed for use by all ages. 49 ”4-H Bicycle Program - Unit II. Maintaining Your Bicycle"l(l979) This 4-page pamphlet provided specific bicycle maintenance and care techniques written in step- by-step bicycle operator self-repair formats. Bicycle operator safe riding habits were also discussed. The pamphlet was designed for use by all ages. Schwinn Bicycle Company Bicycle Safety Edficatibn Pamphlets (Schwinn Bicycle Company, 1856 North Kostner Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60639) Schwinn Bicycle Company has prepared several bicycle safety education K-3 grade pamphlets for use in classroom bicycle safety education presentations. These were reviewed in order to ascertain classroom and "on-bike" topics of instruction for possible inclusion as questionnaire items. "Bicycle Safety" (1972) This 5-page pamphlet included bicycle operator safe riding rules of the road and bicycle nomenclature and repair techniques. The pamphlet was designed for use by all ages. "Tire Care Guide" (1972) This 6-page pamphlet included tire maintenance techniques written in a self-repair format. In addition, a tire pressure chart plus tire care products were included for bicycle operator use and reference. It was designed for use by all ages. "Lock Your Bike" (1972) This 4-page pamphlet included bicycle security and protection techniques plus descriptions and photographs of bicycle locking mechanisms. It also was designed for use by all ages. 50 "Modern Woodmen Bicycle Safety Program" (Modern Woodmen of America, Director of Fraternal Activities, Rock Island, Illinois, 1977) This program was designed for use by 4th, 5th and 6th graders in bicycle safety education programs covering bicycle safety knowledge, "on-bike" skill activities and bicycle maintenance and inspection procedures. It included sample citations, an 8-page "Bicycling for Fun and Safety" pamphlet, public awareness sample campaign materials, scoring sheets and evaluation forms. Teachers were encouraged to use the bicycle safety materials within regular subject areas. "Sidewalk Vehicles: Safety Education Data Sheet #17" (National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 1967) This pamphlet included brief discussions of tricycle safety concerns for use in bicycle safety instruction. It contained specific bicycle safety concepts and factual information for orientation with classroom bicycle safety education topics of instruction. State of Minnesota Bicycle Safety Education K23 Grade Pamphlets (Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State Highway Building, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1976-1977) The Minnesota Department of Public Safety produced two bicycle safety education instruction pamphlets for use in K-3 grade classroom and "on-bike" sessions. "Bicycle Safety Quiz" (1977 Revised) This 8-page fold-out pamphlet included 20 operator rules of the road and safe riding/maintenance 51 questions with answers. In addition, teacher and parent introductory statements were included. The pamphlet was designed for use by all ages. "Be a Bike Expert" (1976) This 6-page pamphlet included diagrams and captions in colorful presentations covering rules of the road, traffic signs and signals plus driver rights, duties and registration procedures. The pamphlet was designed for use by all ages. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Pamphlets (U.S. Cbnsumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C., Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975-1977) These bicycle safety education instruction materials were produced for free distribution and available in limited quantities. They covered a wide range of bicycle safety education topics of instruction. "A Bicycle Built For You" (1977) This 4-page teacher's guide is a curriculum designed for grades 3-6 containing teacher introductory information and six reproducible masters. Specific topics noted were bicycle equipment, hazard identifi- cation activities, route selection concerns, safe driving practices, games and other activities, laws/ regulations, accident analysis, safe protection clothing, a resource/bibliography pamphlet and fact sheets. "Bicycles: Buy Right . . . Drive Right" (1976) This lO-page pamphlet included bike uses, bike selection concerns and bike driver strategies. It may be used with all ages. "Bicycles--Fact Sheet No. 10" (1975 revision) This fact sheet contained bicycle concerns and safety features developed to assist classroom teachers. The pamphlet was designed for use by all ages. 52 "Bicycling: Fun With Safety" (1975) This 6-page guide included bicycle selection, maintenance procedures and safe riding habits. The pamphlet was designed for use by all ages. "Catalogue of Publications" (1977) This 30-page pamphlet of visual sources presented available bicycle safety materials and fact sheets designed for use by all ages. "cprocket Man" (1975) This 28-page animated coloring book included bicycle uses, riding practices, control tips, bicycle safety concerns, equipment concerns, night riding practices and defensive riding practices. It also included bicycle theft/security practices, accident statistics. care and maintenance procedures plus introductory instructor remarks. It was designed for use in K-6 grades. "Your Life Rides on Your Tires" (1975) This pamphlet included bicycle maintenance and equipment concerns. It was designed for use in 3-6 grades. State and Local Programs These K-3 grade classroom and "on-bike" printed bicycle safety education materials were prepared with the assistance of local bicycle instructors in selected areas. These were reviewed to ascertain bicycle safety education instructional topical areas for possible inclusion as questionnaire items. "Public Awareness in North‘Carolina" (North Carolina Office of Transportation Planning, Transportation Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1977) This 1977 program originated as a multi-faceted public awareness program for all age levels in North Carolina, with Curtis 53 Yates, North Carolina Bicycle Coordinator, North Carolina Department of Transportation as chairman. The program components included the development of mass media spot announcements; portable booths for public service promotions; a "road show" package of pre-planned discussions and movies and reproduced pamphlets. Other key elements included a series of "Bicycle Awareness Projects" statewide work- shops; a statewide survey to establish baseline bicycle safety data, packaged as "The Bicycle Awareness Project"; updated bikeways manual entitled "Bicycle Highways"; preparation of a "Bicycle Safety Rodeo Manual"; creation of a full "Bike Information Service" (literature, films, research); demonstration projects in two communities that produced a model community education program guide ("Bicycle Safety Cities"); a developed course for adult bicyclists that included curriculum guides and continuing education programs; and continued in-service training programs for bicycle instructors. "Wisconsin's Statewide Safety Programs" (Wisconsin Division of Highway Safety Coordinators, 131 West Wilson Street, Room 803, Madison, Wisconsin, 1977-1979) This program was sponsored by the Wisconsin Division of Highway Safety Coordinators in 1977 and revised in 1979 to upgrade and disseminate bicycle and pedestrian safety activities statewide for all ages. The Department of Public Instruction produced a series of nine 25-minute instructional television programs for use in K-8 levels, entitled "It's Your Move." The packet included videotapes, a student bicycle driver handbook, and teacher guides with themes, objectives, film synopses and suggested follow-up activities. 54 Efforts were expanded in 1979 to include three additional lS-minute video programs for use by junior high groups. Also, the Madison area public school system produced a pilot traffic safety curriculum for use in K-8 grades. Additional K—3 level instructional curricula produced by the Division of Highway Safety Coordinator staff included: "Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Films" (1977, update 1979), film list. "Bicycle Inspection Sheet" - l-page inspection checklist. "Bicycle Law Sheet #4"-Wisconsin bicycle law information. "Bicycle Rights & Rules" - Bicyclists' duties and operator procedures. "Bicycle Safety Certificate" - Recognition card for use in bicycle safety programs. "Bicycle Safety Test for Grades K-3" - "On-bike" skills test diagram and instruction sheet. "Guidelines for Bicycle Club Rides & Bike'A'Thons" - Information sheets for bicycle tours and trips. "Leaflet Order Form" (1977, 1979) - Order form for bicycle and pedestrian safety materials. "My Safety Coloring Book -- Teacher's Guide to Coloring Book" (1977) - Classroom booklet and teacher information materials. "Model Programs in Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety for Wisconsin Communities" (1977) - 98-page booklet for development and implementation of community pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs. "Planning Guide for the Development of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities" (1977) - l36-page community planning and information booklet in pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs. "Planning the Bicycle Tour" - Instructor planning tips and suggestions concerning bicycle tours. 55 "Reasons for Not Driving a Bicycle on Left Side of Roadway" - Bicycle operator's information and fact sheet. "Rules to Live By“ - Bicycle operator's riding information sheet concerning accident avoidance techniques. "Suggested Bicycle Touring Equipment“ - Bicycle operator's information concerning touring gear and over-night bicycle trips. "Ways Youth Groups Can Assist in Bicycle Safety Programs" - Guidelines for youth agencies concerning bicycle safety education program activities. "Wisconsin Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Plan" (1977) - 172-page document concerning state and regional pedes- trian and bicycle safety school and community programs. This document included state resources available for local instructors. CommunitycPrograms Selected community bicycle safety education classroom and "on—bike" programs were reviewed. Bicycle safety education topics of instruction were reviewed for possible inclusion as questionnaire items. "Mesa, K-12 Traffic Safety Program" (Mesa City, Arizona schools, Mesa, Arizona, 1973) Mesa, Arizona city schools developed a concept formation, skill adoption and recognition program project in 1973 for use in traffic safety education courses in the K-12 grades. K-3 levels profitted from classroom instruction that included bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" instruction, in addition to other traffic safety topics within established subject areas. Opportuni- ties to practice "on-bike“ riding procedures were provided for 4-6 grade youth. The project was initiated following three years of development and pilot test attivities in the Mesa, Arizona region. 56 "E1 chon Bicycle Safety Court" (El Cajon Police Department, 100 Fletcher Parkway, El Cajon, California, 1977) This project was initially developed in 1963 by the El Cajon Police Department for use in 3-8 grades for the promotion of bicycle safety awareness. Police officers delivered safety talks concerning safe bicycle riding practices in nearby elementary schools. In each school, all third through eighth grade students were assembled for the bicycle presentations. The police program also included bicycle rules of the road, safety checks, bicycle rodeos and "Bicycle Safety Court" sessions. Peer court decisions included warnings, safety essays, bicycle safety school attendance and safety pamphlet read- ings. The program revealed a noted reduction in reported police fatality/accident experience data. "School Traffic and Safety Education Section of the Los Angeles School District Community Support Eyperiment Brings It all Together (School Traffic and Education Section, Los Angeles City Unified School District, 1200 Cornwell Street, Los Angeles, California, 1977) This program was developed for pre-kindergarten and grades 1-8 youth for the Traffic and Safety Education section of the Los Angeles United School District by 23 comnunity agencies (including (Optimists, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Automobile Association state chapters and local police agencies). The instructors used lectures, films and "on-bike" rodeo sessions in pre-kindergarten and elementary school presentations. Bicycle instructors utilized adapted educational curricula from other states and integrated local environments during "on-bike" trips. The project utilized 57 junior high school students as instructors in the elementary grade programs. The project produced videotape/filmstrip risk detection presentations and a teacher activity resource guide. Program materials were developed following an investigation of the accident experience data available from school, police and research files. "Sterling, Illinois Evaluates Its Bike Safety Program" (Sterling, Illinois School District No. 5, 1800 6th Avenue, Sterling, Illinois, 1977) The Sterling, Illinois School District No. 5 developed an extensive traffic safety education program that included a bicycle safety evaluation project. Teacher curriculum guides, teacher in- service training sessions, bicycle maintenance clinics, bicycle rodeo activities and a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Park" (15 acre simulated street and intersection complex) were developed to provide bicycle instruction. In addition, police enforcement efforts were included to curb bicycle violations. Community speakers and community newsletters complemented educational and enforcement efforts. The survey and checklist evaluation procedures provided valuable data concerning bicycle knowledge and self-esteem measures. Bicycle knowledge scores and self-attitude indices showed significantly higher scores after the project's initial year of implementation. "On-Street Bike Training for 3rd and 4th Grades" ‘(Newton, Massachusetts Public Safety Office, 1321 Washington Street, West Newton, Massachusetts, 1977) This "on-bike" street training program was conducted for 13rd and 4th grades following completion of assembly programs that stressed bicycle rules of the road and operator riding procedures. 58 The "on-bike" tours stressed student hazard recognition and avoidance procedures in a 3-mile bicycle riding session. "An Auto Club's Bicycle Safety Training and Involvement" *(The Auto Club of Missouri, Cycling Activities Office, 201 Progress Parkway, Maryland Heights, Missouri, 1977) The Auto Club of Missouri Cycling Activities Office established information release centers for media personnel, community planners, police, educators and legislators. Members and non-members receivedeivariety of safety research training materials, tour preparation information sheets and printed bicycle safety pamphlet materials. Cyclists learned bicycle maintenance procedures and operator riding procedures in one day and extended riding programs. K-3 youth participated in special instruction seminars, which included a "Cycling Skills Proficiency Course." "Other services provided for members and non-members included newsletters, bike riding maps, public service announcements and K-9 teacher materials. State Summaries Several states have prepared a summary list of state bicycle safety activities (curricula, media, projects and resource per- sonnel packages). Classroom and "on—bike" activities used in K-3 instructional settings were reviewed in earlier sections. ALABAMA Statewide K-8 Bicycle-Pedestrian Safety Curriculum (school use) "Rules of the Road" pamphlet Television spots ALASKA K-12 Traffic Safety Curriculum (included educational presentation in rules, laws, maintenance, fit and rodeo guidelines) ARKANSAS COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE FLORIDA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KENTUCKY 59 Two-hour bicycle safety integration programs for schools One-hour teacher-oriented program for school use One-hour bike maintenance rodeo and registration program for schools Comprehensive traffic safety curriculum (bicycle units included) K-6 bicycle safety resource curriculum for schools "Bike Right Awareness Program (5th graders) (designed to be used within existing classes) Slide Show Presentations for classroom use on bike safety Rodeo, on-road riding and skill testing procedures for schools provided K-6 Statewide Bicycle Safety Curriculum (bicycle units included) "Rules of the Road" pamphlets distributed and assemblies conducted for schools by Florida Highway Patrol K-12 Highway Safety Curriculum (pilot-tested for distribution); bicycle units included; cooperation with Modern Woodmen of America Bicycle Safety Kit and Test Materials source materials "K-12 Statewide Curriculum." Emphasis in 4th and 5th grades on bike safety units. Supported by Texas Rangers Safety Kit, Bicycle Rodeos Seminars, Community College Bike Skill Test Rodeos, 4-H Club Bike Activities and "Rules of the Road" pamphlet distributed Elementary Traffic Safety Curriculum (included 26-page pamphlet on Bicycle Fairs); 24-page "Bicycle Safety Manual" (skill tests, film) K-6 Curriculum Guide (bicycle safety units); teacher- training 2-hour workshops; sponsored Bicycle Safety Clubs, Bicycle Safety Fairs; Bike Inspection Days and Bike-A-Thons (civic club activities); school conducted assemblies and bike inspections (Iowa State Patrol) Bike Safety requirement in all school systems School conducted presentations (Kentucky State Police, Blue Grass Wheelman Association) 6-page pamphlet, "Bicycling in Kentucky" (tour suggestions) , Bicycle Drivers Handbook (Kentucky-oriented) developed _'for educational use; Local television spot announcements; School Pedestrian and Bike Safety Curriculum MAINE MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA N EW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY 6O School-use film lists AAA; "All About Bikes" (National Safety Council) Goodyear Bicycle Safety Educational Materials distributed for school use (guide, suggestions) Police conducted rodeos for schools Curriculum Guide for Safety Education, Grades K-6 (bicycle safety integrated units) Films and filmstrip distributed upon request K-12 safety education program (bike safety materials were distributed to schools upon request) K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide (bicycle safety unitsliand Instructor Guide Minnesota Bicycle Drivers Guide (school use) Film/media distribution upon request Teacher in-service workshops provided School district bike safety educational instructional materials Junior High bicycle safety program (civic club sponsors, television spot announcements) for schools and community use 4-12 Bic cle Safety program kit (teaching suggestions, advice AAA of Missouri (bicycle program, riding/touring suggestions) K-6 Bicycle Safety Curriculum (integration, separate subject referrals) K-6 Bicycle Safety Curriculum (integration, separate subject use) "Safest Show on Earth" (4th grade emphasis) — bike safety materials Bike Safety Program presentations by civic clubs and state AAA Nevada Youth Traffic Safety Association (bicycle safety concerns programs preparation) Bicycle Safety Programs upon request (state assistance; high school assistance at elementary grades) K-6 Bicycle Safety Program upon request (Agricultural Extension Service, 4-H Clubs) 4-6 Bicycle Safety visual/content program ("Just Like a Car") Local police and civic group support 61 NEW YORK 4-6 Curriculum Guide (27-page bicycle guide with goals, outcomes, teaching tips in affective, psycho-motor and cognitive areas) NORTH CAROLINA K-9, 4-volume traffic safety curriculum (includes bicycle safety materials with emphasis on recognition skills, rules/laws) OHIO 4-6 grades utilize commercially produced content/ media materials; "Ohio Bicycle Drivers Guide" 30-page reader - school use Statewide workshops for teachers and administrators upon request Chamber of Commerce, civic groups and AAA assistance offered OREGON K-6 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide includes comprehensive rules/laws, hazard recognition activities, maintenance concerns, fit/selection concerns and motor skill development sections PENNSYLVANIA Bicycle Safety program kits available to school physical education teachers (K-12 levels) WASHINGTON 4-9 grades receive kits upon request (films, filmstrips, resource materials) Washington Bicycle Ehjver's Guide (BO-page pamphlet for school use, upon request WISCONSIN "It's Your Move" (traffic safety educational pedestrian, bicycle safety television K-8 series via videotape for school use) 30-page teacher/instructor pamphlet, Wisconsin Bicycle Driver's Handbook (upper grades upon request. Additional support materials from Wisconsin Division of Highway Safety Coordination available, upon request Statewide bicycle instructor teacher workshops (Summer) Summary The review of related literature was undertaken to gain a greater understanding of the use of bicycle safety education programs land survey evaluation techniques. National, state and local 62 evaluations of classroom and "on-bike" programs of instruction pro- duced information concerning bicycle safety education programs of instruction offered in the K-3 grades. Studies and research docu- ments also produced information relative to teacher instructional practices in bicycle safety education programs. Bicycle safety education printed curricula resource materials from national, state and local sources produced information concerning bicycle safety education courses of instruction that include classroom and "on-bike" topics for use in K-3 grade subject areas. Chapter II was divided into four sections. The first section pertained to various surveys conducted by states and reported the extent of bicycle safety education programs of instruction. The second section reported specific documents and studies that described the extent and basis for local, state and national bicycle safety education activities. International efforts were also described. The greatest depth of investigation concerned printed cur- ricula material for K-3 grades produced by state agencies, school districts and commercial interests. Statewide and local curriculum guides, privately produced programs, books and pamphlets plus com- inunity programs of instruction were investigated. Information used by individual states in the form of teacher curriculum guides, safety Inanuals, state requirements, resource books, packets of instruction arnd bicycle safety education pamphlets were examined. 63 Finally, a review of bicycle safety instructional practices used in numerous states was presented. Classroom printed materials and "on-bike" activities were noted. Chapter III will present the method of procedure for the study. Development of the survey instrument, sampling procedures utilized and data analysis procedures will be noted. CHAPTER II: FOOTNOTES 1Thomas W. Chlapeka, Teacher Evaluation of the National Safety Council's "All About Bikes" Program, August 1974, p. 1. 2 1919.. pp. 3-5, 10-13, 29-30. 3Beverly J. Hammond, Special Survey on Bicycling and Bicycle Accident Records, 1972, pp. 1-2, 7-10. 4On-line searches conducted with assistance of St. Cloud State University's computer terminal. Individual sources examined were National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Clearinghouse, Educational Resources Information Center documents (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts reviews. 5City of Santa Barbara Transportation Division, Bicycle Safety: A Program of Implementation and Study. A Final Report, 1975. PP. 1-56. 6National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Highway SafetyALiterature, HSL No. 76-08 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation), pp. 5-6, 8-12, 15, 22, 27, 36, 39, 46. 7Peter Arnberg, et al., "The Ability of Pre-School- and School Children to Maneuver Their Bicycles," VII Rapport, No. 149A (1978), 1:1-39. 8Robert E. Dewar, "Bicycle Riding Practices: Implications for Safety Campaigns," Journal of Safety Research 10 (Spring 1978): 40-41. ' 9Colin G. Drury, "The Law and Bicycle Safety,” Traffic Quarterly 32:4 (1978): 618-620. 10Pekka Trainen, "Investigations Into Use and Outfit of €choolchildren's Bicycles," Investigations into Light Traffic #1 1975 : 1-16. nLeslie Baldwin, "Federal Bicycle Programs and Projects," Bicycle Forum I (Spring 1978): 30-32. 12Ibid, p. 32. 64 65 13 14Ibid, pp. 33-34; U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bicycle Safety Education: Preface--A Guide to Materials and Resources (CPSC-C-77-OO27) (Washington: Lawrence Johnson and Associates, Inc.), p. 1. 15Jane Lawson, et al., Travel On! Mini-units and Learning Activities on Transportation for Grades K-3 (Cambridge, Mass.: ABT Associates, Inc., 1977), pp. 1-2. 16Governor's Highway Safety Program Office, K-9 Traffic Safety Resource Curriculum. Level B. Professional Guide (Raleigh, N.C.: Governor's Highway Safety Program Office; Durham, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1975). 17Governor's Highway Safety Program Office, K-9 Traffic Safety Resource Curriculum. Level A. Professional Guide (Raleigh, N.C.: Governor's Highway Safety Program Office; Durham, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1975). 18Jean Flagg and Walter Hawkins, School Pedestrian Safety for Elementary Schools (Dix Hills, N.Y.: Sufffilk County Board of Education, 1976). Ibid’ Pp. 33-34. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY This chapter presented the sources of data, development of the survey instrument, the methods used in obtaining the data and the procedures used in the evaluation of the data. Selection of Sample One hundred and one K-3 grade elementary schools within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota comprised the sample and specific target population surveyed in this study. This figure represented all K-3 grade schools within the sampling area. The writer concluded that the geography; i.e. terrain, map features, etc., population distribution; i.e. density, levels, etc. and physical land features; i.e. water sources, rural- urban areas, etc. in the sampling area were similar to the geographi- cal composition, p0pulation characteristics and physical land features found elsewhere in the state. Hence, the sampling area was determined to be representative of most areas of Minnesota. The 1970 United States Census Bureau data served as the baseline source of information reported as population trends, geographical compositions and physical land features used to support the writer's conclusions (see Appendices J, K, and L). 66 67 Bicycle instructors that offered bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" programs of instruction in K-3 grades within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota were initially identified via phone calls and personal visits to the chief administrative officer in each elementary school. These administrators identified the bicycle insturctor in K-3 grades in their respective schools. The bicycle instructors were then asked via phone calls and personal visits to assist in the collection of information regarding the nature and extent of the bicycle safety education program of instruction within their respective schools. An initial letter was fOrwarded to each identified bicycle instructor, emphasizing the earlier request for questionnaire completion (see Appendix 0). Preparation of the Questionnaire The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" was developed to produce information relative to the nature of bicycle safety education program components in classroom and "on-bike" settings in K-3 grades of the 101 surveyed schools. The questionnaire was initially drafted following a review of bicycle safety education printed curricula materials. State curriculum guides and programs relative to bicycle safety education were reviewed to identify bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" topics of instruction which could assist in the construc- tion of specific questionnaire items. In addition, previous surveys used in conjunction with bicycle safety education programs of instruction were reviewed. Specific questionnaire items were 68 designed to provide information concerning school oriented charac- teristics; iue. school location--urban vs. rural locales, instructor sex, grade levels utilized and bicycle instructor status--teacher, agency representative, etc. Survey items were also develOped to collect information relative to bicycle safety education program components; i.e. course scheduling practices, enrollment levels, teaching strategies, curriculum materials, accident data, evaluation techniques, goal/objective statements and instructor preparation levels. In addition, four Open-ended (personal response) items were developed and included in the questionnaire. Two items assessed the use of bicycle safety education program resource material and the extent of outside agency utilization. Another Open-ended item surveyed the use of curriculum materials. The last Open-ended item asked the instructors to evaluate the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire." The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" was comprised of 27 questionnaire items (see Appendix 0). The initial draft of the questionnaire was forwarded to a state panel of specialists for their review and comments. This committee was chosen with the assistance of the Traffic Safety Section, Minnesota Department of Education and the Center for Driver Education and Safety, St. Cloud State University. Five individuals were selected to assist as specialists based on (1) previous bicycle safety education experience; i.e., bicycle safety education program offerings, preparation of the bicycle safety education section, Minnesota K-3 Curriculum Guide, etc. or (2) 69 currently serving as a bicycle instructor in the state (see Appendix M). These individuals assisted with efforts to determine congruency of agreement concerning content validity with respect to the bicycle safety education program content items in the questionnaire. High levels of agreement were reported later in this chapter. Noted differences among the specialists were used as a basis to assist with the modification of the questionnaire prior to the actual pilot study phase. Pilot Study The questionnaire was then forwarded to a random sample of six bicycle instructors in K-3 grades in elementary schools in the St. Cloud, Minnesota MetrOpolitan Area. The bicycle instructors reviewed and completed the questionnaire prior to the administration of a bicycle safety education program of instruction at their respective schools. The six individuals selected at random for participation in the pilot study phase met the following criteria: (1) current instructors in the Kindergarten, first, second, or third grade levels in a K-6 school located within 60-miles of St. Cloud, Minnesota, and (2) offered a bicycle safety education program of instruction at their school during the pilot study phase. Initial meetings and follow-up visits to the six sites were scheduled with the pilot study group prior to distribution of the questionnaire. These arrangements were made to insure questionnaire completion. 70 Following the receipt of the questionnaires from the pilot study raters, visits to three of the six pilot study schools during periods of bicycle safety education programs of instruction were scheduled to observe and report bicycle instructor practices. The three sites were randomly selected from the six elementary schools that participated in the pilot study phase. Statistical comparisons were made between the bicycle instructor reported responses and the observed bicycle safety education program practices. High rater reliability levels were reported later in this chapter. The pilot study bicycle instructors also assisted in the efforts to report congruency of agreement concerning content validity with respect to the bicycle safety education program con- tent items included in the questionnaire. High levels of content validity were reported later in this chapter. Noted differences among the six pilot study bicycle instructors were used as a basis to assist with the modification of the questionnaire prior to actual study use. Following the review by the state panel of specialists and completion of the pilot study phase, rater input assisted in the modification of the questionnaire. A final revision of the question- naire was made based on additional input provided by the writer's guidance committee. The 27 item questionnaire was prepared in its final format with the assistance of statisticians and computer center consultants at the Computer Center, St. Cloud State University. Survey format, 71 coding/reporting techniques and statistical treatment process pro- cedures were reviewed prior to final revisions of the questionnaire. Program Qpestionnaire The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" was basically designed to determine the nature, the extent, the reported differ- ences and the factors associated with K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. Among the objectives of the questionnaire was a determination of the number of various classroom and "on-bike" components contained in the bicycle safety education program of instruction offered within the K-3 grades in elementary schools within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. In addition, course scheduling practices, enrollment levels, teaching strategies, curricula utilized, accident data and instructional sites were also surveyed. The total bicycle safety education program at each site was investigated, with specific questionnaire items devoted to care and maintenance concerns, bicycle rules and regulations, safe driving and handling practices, bicycle safety curricula resources and "on-bike" skill test practices. Bicycle safety education pro- gram instructors were also asked to provide personal comments con- cerning the use of curriculum and resource materials. Two additional Open-ended items surveyed the extent of outside agency utilization and produced questionnaire evaluation information. A cover letter was forwarded with each of the questionnaire packets, which were mailed to the bicycle instructors. The letter urged these individuals to reply to the questionnaire within two 72 weeks from the date of receipt (see Appendix P). A postage-paid return enve10pe was included. Responsibility for the completion and return of the question- naire was assigned to the identified K-3 grade bicycle instructor in each surveyed site. The questionnaire packets; i.e. questionnaire cover letter and return envelope were prepared for distribution and fbrwarded to each site. Follow-pp Response Fifty-five questionnaires were returned within the first two weeks. At that point a follow-up phone call was personally made to the bicycle instructors that had not returned the question- naire. The second contact proved to be instrumental in the return of the remaining 46 questionnaires. Processing_Data All 101 individual K-3 grade bicycle instructors returned the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire." Frequency distribution tables were prepared to report both the aggregate responses and the central tendency measures; i.e. mean, median, mode, standard deviation, etc. for each questionnaire item. Following the computation of the frequency findings, compari- sons between the questionnaire variables of interest; i.€h bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" topics of instruction derived from the review of the literature phase of the study were performed. The variables of interest in this study were bicycle safety education course scheduling practices, enrollment levels, 73 teaching strategies, curriculum materials, accident data, evaluation techniques, goal/objective statements and bicycle instructor prepara- tion levels. In addition, school oriented characteristics; i.e. school location--urban vs. rural locales, instructor sex, grade levels utilized and bicycle instructor status--teacher, agency representative, etc. were also questionnaire variables of interest. Specific comparisons were performed on the following variables of interest: - City vs. rural programs - Bicycle instructor sex - Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 levels - Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 class sizes - Bicycle instructor status; i.e. teacher, enforcement officer, agency representative, judicial department representative, parent, etc. - Season instructional program offered - Program length - Curricula utilized; i.e. state, local, privately produced, etc. - Instructional strategies - Minnesota bicycle laws - Bicycle riding and safety concepts - Bicycle safety equipment concepts - Bicycle care and maintenance concepts - "On-bike" skill test performance activities - Bicycle safety education resource personnel utilized - Bicycle safety education agency utilization 74 - Bicycle instructor qualifications - Bicycle accident experience data - Bicycle safety education program requirement levels; i.e. mandatory, strongly suggested, suggested, no Opinion, disagree, strongly disagree or no place in curriculum-- ranked by appropriate grade level (Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3). Comparisons between variables of interest as reported by the bicycle instructor in each school were statistically treated and reported in Chapter IV. Chi-square "cross-tabulation" was chosen in order to (1) determine frequency levels of reported responses for each school site, (2) determine the shape (frequency) of the reported scores for each questionnaire item; i.e. distribu- tion of scores for each item as reported by individual, total schools, and (3) determine the comparisons between‘the reported school oriented characteristics; i.e. school location, grade levels utilized, etc. and the comparisons between the reported bicycle safety education t0pics of instruction; i.e. teaching strategies, bicycle care and maintenance concerns, etc. and K-3 grade bicycle instructor status in frequency distribution terms; i.e. distribution curves, "goodness of fit," etc. Significance was reported for com- parisons performed on the variables of interest when probability values for the chi-square yields at or below the .05 level of significance was attained. Chi-square significance tables, plus a narrative description of the findings and interpretations of the analyzed data were presented for each questionnaire item. Summary responses, statisti- cal percentages and chi-square significance levels were included for each reported questionnaire item. 75 Review by State Panel of Specialists Prior to the presentation of the summary of frequency responses and chi-square cross-tabulation contrasts plus data analyses, results of the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" review by the state panel of specialists and the pilot study phase were reported. The writer utilized a review by the state panel of specialists to determine congruency of agreement concerning validity of bicycle safety education content items in the questionnaire (see Appendix M). It was found that four of the five Specialists (80 percent of reSpondents) were in total agreement concerning the validity of the bicycle safety education content items in the "Bicycle Safety Education" Questionnaire. These individuals determined that 1. The 27 questionnaire items were in agreement with the bicycle safety education content material as stated in the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide; 2. The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" was adequate for use in measuring the nature and extent of bicycle safety education programs in K-3 grades in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area; 3. The questionnaire items were clear and concise as stated; and 4. The bicycle safety education dominant themes; i.e. bicycle safety education program descriptors, bicycle safety education concept utilization. etc. and 76 corresponding questionnaire items in the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" were apprOpriate for use by K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area. On the other hand, one specialist (20 percent of aggregate respondents) offered technical revisions concerning specific questionnaire items; i.e. substitute terminology, review items for added clarity. The final revisions of the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" incorporated these suggestions. Results of the Pilot Study The pilot study phase was conducted to determine: 1. The validity of the bicycle safety education component themes; i.e. bicycle safety education program descrip- tors, bicycle safety education concept utilization, etc. and corresponding questionnaire items used in "The Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire;" The clarity and conciseness of questionnaire items used in "The Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire"; Agreement with bicycle safety education content material contained in the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety_Curriculum Guide; and Adequacy of the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" to measure the nature and extent of bicycle safety education programs of instruction conducted in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area (see Appendix N for a list of pilot studyinstructors). 77 One hundred percent of the six pilot study bicycle instructors reported the 27 questionnaire items were valid with reSpect to the incorporated bicycle safety education content materials. Returns indicated the questionnaire items were clear and concise as stated. In addition, these bicycle instructors con- firmed the questionnaire items adequately reflected and agreed with bicycle safety education content material as stated in The Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide. There was 100 percent agreement that the questionnaire items and component themes; i.e. bicycle safety education program descriptors, bicycle safety education con- cept utilization, etc. adequately measured K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction at their schools. No technical revisions or changes were reported by the six bicycle instructors. Visits to three of the six pilot study sites during periods of bicycle safety education classroom and "on-bike" programs of instruction confirmed bicycle instructor reported practices as stated in the returned "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaires." Thus, a 100 percent rater reliability level was attained by means of the visits to the three sites. As a result of the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" review by the state panel of specialists and completion of the pilot study phase, the final revision of the questionnaire was completed prior to mailing and distribution processes. Suggested revisions also assisted in the development of the"Bicycle Safety Education Program Coding Manual" (see Table l, p. 81). 78 Summary There were 101 K-3 grade bicycle instructors contacted for the purposes of the questionnaire phase of the study. A "Bicycle Safety Education Questionniare" was fbrwarded to each bicycle instructor for completion and return processes following identifi- cation at each site. The questionnaire was prepared with the assistance of information gained from previous bicycle safety education studies, from a review of related literature, and with the consultation assistance provided by a state panel of specialists, a pool of pilot study K-3 grade bicycle instructors, the Computer Center at St. Cloud State University and the writer's guidance committee. A 100 percent return rate of the questionnaire was deemed necessary for data processing. This was accomplished with the return of all 101 questionnaires, which were processed for further statistical analyses. Data based on the 100 percent return rate were presented in Chapter IV. The separate questionnaire items were analyzed and the data organized into chi-square "cross tabulation" significance tables. In addition, summary frequency response tables were prepared which included abbreviated questionnaire items and corre- sponding nominal frequencies. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The primary purpose of this study was to describe the nature, the extent, the reported differences and to analyze factors associated with K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction in elementary schools within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The study utilized a "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" to solicit bicycle instructor responses concerning classroom and “on-bike” programs of instruction in 101 K-3 grade schools in central Minnesota. The sample population of the study consisted of 101 K-3 grade elementary teachers identified as bicycle instructors in each K-3 grade school within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Final returns revealed bicycle safety education programs were con- ducted in 97 of the 101 surveyed sites. Since school-oriented characteristics; i.e. school location-- urban vs. rural locales, instructor sex, etc. and Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructor status versus reported bicycle safety education program components, i.e. course scheduling practices, enrollment levels, etc. were contrasted, these analyses centered on the strength of relationships between the two groups of variables. Therefore, the findings were presented in two formats 79 80 and delineated as follows: Part I presented a summary of frequency responses of each of the 27 "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" items in Tables 2 through 6. Narrative findings of the data were also included. Part 11 presented the chi-square “cross tabulation" contrasts and analyses of the data performed on each of the questionnaire items. Part II also included statistical Tables 7 through 10, summary findings, interpretations and hypotheses state- ments. "Open-ended" questionnaire responses were presented in narrative format as reported by responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors. The specific responses and questionnaire items were not listed as Part II cross-tabulated data. For this study, the aggregate responses to the 27 question-. naire items were grouped according to the dominant bicycle safety education program component themes that follow. 1. Bicycle safety education program descriptors; i.e. teaching formats, teaching personnel, etc.; 2. Bicycle safety education concept utilization; i.e. bicycle safety equipment, bicycle care and maintenance, etc.; 3. Bicycle safety education program evaluation practices;, i.e. skill exercises, reported accident data, etc.; 4. Bicycle safety education program duration; i.e. seasonal programs, instructional hours, etc.; 5. "Open ended" response items; i.e. support agency utilization, audio-visual aid utilization, etc. The five dominant bicycle safety education program component ‘themes were contained within bicycle safety education curriculum 81 guides, bicycle safety education programs of instruction and reviewed bicycle safety education questionnaires. These five dominant themes and corresponding questionnaire items were presented in a"Bicyc1e Safety Education Coding Manual" format in Table 1. Research Questions The writer developed the following research questions from the stated research objectives of the study. In addition to the major research questions, specific research hypotheses were pre- pared in the null form and presented prior to presentation of the data and narrative analyses. Major Research Questions 1. Are there any significant differences in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to reported school and bicycle instructor characteristics (e.g., urban vs. rural locations, instructor sex, actual bicycle instructor occupation, grade levels offered and instructor preparation levels)? 2. Are there any significant differences in K-3 grade classroom bicycle safety education instructional components as reported by K-3 grade bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota? 3. Are there any significant differences in K-3 grade "on-bike" bicycle safety education instructional activities as reported by K-3 grade bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota? 82 TABLE 1.--Bicyc1e Safety Education Program Coding Manual. Questionnaire Items Grouped by Bicycle Safety Education Content Area. Bicycle Safety Education Component Area (Theme) Questionnaire Item Number 1. Bicycle Safety Education Program Descriptors, Enrollment Levels 2. Bicycle Safety Education Concept Utilization 3. Bicycle Safety Education Program Evaluation Practices 4. Bicycle Safety Education Program Duration 5. Bicycle Safety Education "Open-Ended Response" Items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 23 2, 3, 4 7, 9, 10, 27 Specific Research Hypotheses (Null FOrm) HO]: There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to urban vs. rural programs as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. HO 2: There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mi1e radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to instructor sex status as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. HO 3: There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to bicycle instructor occupations as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. HO: HO : HO : H0 : HO : HO : 83 There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 level bicycle safety education programs as reported by Kinder- garten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following bicycle safety education formal bi- cycle instructor preparation levels as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: I have received no formal instruction in bicycle safety education - Formal course in bicycle safety education - Formal course in traffic safety education with bicycle safety component (e.g., K-6 traffic safety education) - In-service workshop or seminar in bicycle safety education There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to time of year (seasonal) offerings (e.g., Fall, Winter, etc.) as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to student contact hours as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors, There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to program meeting times (e.g., before school, during school, etc.) as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to student enrollment levels as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. H0 10‘ 11‘ 12‘ 13‘ 14‘ 15‘ 84 There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to instructional format (e.g., separate unit, integrated within existing classes, etc.) as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to resource personnel utilized in classroom pro- grams as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to bicycle safety education curricula (guides) utilized by reporting Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to audio-visual aids or models used in conjunction with bicycle safety education programs as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to outside agencies involved in bicycle safety education programs as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "instructional techniques" utilized by reporting Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: Teacher-led discussions Teacher lecture format Teacher-led informal discussions Teacher-led small group activities Guest speakers, bicycle safety experts Audio-visual aids, models Student-led formal presentations H016: H017: 85 Student-led informal discussions, activities Student-led small group work Use of prepared curriculums or instruction materials Other There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following types of bicycle safety education activities as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: Classroom presentations Off-road skill test(s) On-street riding Bicycle hikes (trips) Bicycle registration Bicycle licensing Bicycle maintenance Special assemblies, seminars Special instruction: - Handicapped - Special Education - Adult(s) - Other There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Minnesota Bicycle Laws" as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: - I do not teach bicycle safety education laws - Bicycle as a vehicle - Obedience of traffic signs, signals, pavement markings and sidewalk crossing ordinances - Licensing or registration of bicycles - Riding in self-propelled fashion - Riding with flow of traffic outside central business district - Proper riding techniques inside central business district Riding procedures to insure proper visibility Riding no more than two abreast Riding on the right-hand side of the roadway Riding within a single lane of travel on laned roadways - Riding close to the right curb-edge 18‘ 86 Yield the right of way to pedestrians and other vehicles Carrying only the number of persons designed for the bicycle Keeping hand(s) on the handlebars, except when signaling, or stopped and prepared to complete turn When walking a bicycle, face the traffic Staying off roadways that prohibit bicycle riding Use of bicycle paths or lanes when provided Use bell or horn when necessary Use of light during night riding Authorized use of highly visible reflective clothing during night riding Procedures for operation of special bicycle events (e.g., parades, contests, or races) at is a misdemeanor to break safety laws ther There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "bicycle riding and safety" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: I do not teach bicycle riding and safety concepts Proper mountand dismount Proper riding positions astride bicycle Proper pedaling Proper braking Proper stopping procedures Proper procedures for turning Emergency stopping and maneuvering Defensive riding Hazards that face the bicyclist (e.g., weather, pavement, vehicles) Crossing railroad tracks Crossing intersections Correct lane placement Overtaking other bicycles or vehicles Night-time riding Using safety flags Using reflective materials Proper clothing for increased visibility Skill and performance tests Touring techniques and packing procedures Trip planning Conducting special bicycle events (e.g., parades, contests, or races) Other 19‘ 20‘ 87 There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "bicycle safety equipment" 2 concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, and 3 bicycle instructors: I do not teach bicycle safety equipment concepts History of bicycling How to measure a bicycle for proper size and fit Bicycle anatomy (e.g., pedals, seats, frame) Classification of bicycles (e.g., lightweight, touring, 3-speed) Selection of bicycles and accessories Required equipment (e.g., brakes, horn/bell) Required equipment on newly sold bicycles (e.g., pedal and wheel reflectors) Required equipment for night-riding (e.g., lights, reflectors) Recommended equipment (e.g., rear tail light, basket, grips) Optional equipment for visibility and safety (e.g., flags, clothing, mirrors) Tripping, touring or traveling equipment (e.g., bags, tool kit) Other There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "bicycle care and maintenance" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: I do not teach bicycle care and maintenance concepts Proper bicycle storage Theft prevention Parking procedures Brakes (e.g., adjustment for even wear) Saddle (seat) (e.g., adjustment for proper size) Handlebars (e.g., tighten often, proper height) Wheels (e.g., nuts tight to prevent sway, uneven wear on rim) Tires (e.g., properly inflated, no defects) Spokes (e.g., tight, wear) Pedals (e.g., spin freely, tight) Chain (e.g., wear, lubrication) Gears (e.g., adjustment, replacement of cables) Keeping all working parts clean and lubricated Others H022: 21‘ 88 There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following specific skill exercises, offered in conjunction with "on-bike" performance or skill tests as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: I do not offer "on-bike" performance or skill tests - Sign, signal, pavement marking recognition - Balancing exercises (e.g., straight line, weave, zig-zag) Relay races Riding planks, narrow surfaces Serpentine, slalom, or weave riding Slow-poke races (coasting races) Ride and pitch exercise (hit the target, bean bag toss) Traffic mix situations Timed speed races Circling and balance exercise Figure-8 with weave U or Y turn-about exercise Stopping drills Braking with/without skids Evasive riding exercise(s) - Riding on rough surfaces (e.g., gravel, wet/bumpy grassy areas) - Riding on wet surfaces - Pair or group riding exercise - Passing exercise - Merging exercise - Simulated turning exercises (e.g., one-way, two-way, 4-1ane, divided and undivided roadways) - Do you provide awards or certificates to participants? (If yes, circle appropriate grades) - Do you utilize reflectorized tape in conjunction with inspections? (If yes, circle appropriate levels) There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to utilization of expertise from others in their community at performance, skill test activities as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. HO HO H0 23‘ 24‘ 25‘ 26‘ 89 There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to incorporation of the bicycle safety skill test or an evaluation performance program at the site of the local high school Driver Education range/off-street practice area as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60- mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the rank ordering by bicycle safety education instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors- There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the rank ordering of the following instructional groups as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: Pre-elementary grade teachers Elementary teachers, K-3 Elementary teachers, 4-6 Junior high teachers, 7-8 or 7-9 Senior high teachers, 9-12 or 10-12 Youth agency leaders (Y's, Scouts, etc.) Bicycle organization representatives (American Youth Hostels, Gopher Wheelman) Police department personnel Judicial department personnel Bicycle shop representatives Parental instruction Community broad-based support groups (e.g., educational instructors, police personnel, judicial support, parental involvement, and community agency support) - Parks and recreation department personnel - Other There is no significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to bicycle safety-related accidents and fatalities on school grounds during the 1977-78 school year as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors. 90 HO There is no significant difference in selected K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following items as reported by Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructors: 27‘ - Interest in nearby K-3 grade reported bicycle safety education programs contents and instructor practices - Interest in receiving a copy of the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide; and - Reported additional K-3 grade bicycle instructor comments relative to bicycle safety education instructional practices not listed in the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire." Summarycof Frequency Responses Following in tabular (Tables 2 through 6) and narrative form are the reported K-3 grade bicycle instructor responses by frequency. These aggregate responses to the 27 "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire“ Items were grouped according to the five dominant bicycle safety education program component themes listed in Table 1. The five summary frequency response tables (Tables 2 through 6) contained abbreviated questionnaire item statements plus corresponding nominal frequencies (see Appendix Q). Findings of Demographic Data Ninety-seven of the 101 surveyed K-3 grade bicycle instructors reported offering bicycle safety education activities. Of these 97 there were 83 men and 14 women. Bicycle safety education activities were offered in 46 rural locales and 51 urban locales. There were 58 bicycle safety education activities conducted in Kindergarten, 89 in grade 1, 91 in grade 2 and 97 in grade 3. 91 More bicycle safety education classes were conducted in class enrollment sizes of I'60 or more students" at the Kindergarten through grade 3 levels than in smaller class sizes. More ”Integrated Within Regular Class" bicycle safety educa- tion programs were conducted in the 97 reported K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs than those taught as "Separate Units," "Assembly" or "Other Means (Holiday Programs)." "Police Personnel” were used more frequently to assist as "Resource Personnel" in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs than "Other Groups (Jaycees)," "Guest Speakers," "Bike Shop Person- nel," "Amateur Cyclists” or "Park/Recreation Personnel." No "Judicial Representatives" were used in reported K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. The "Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Education Curriculum Guide" was reportedly used more frequently in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs than "Other Units/Guides (”Essentials of Good Bicycling"),""SchoolCurricula," "Commercial Guides" or "Other State Curricula." "Teacher-Led Discussions," "Guest Speakers/Experts," "Audio-Visual Guides/Models" and "Use of Curricula/Materials" were reportedly used more frequently as "Instructional Techniques" in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs than "Teacher Lectures," "Teacher-Led Informal Discussions," "Teacher-Led Small Groups," "Student-Led Small Group Work," "Student-Led Informal Discussions," "Student-Led Small Group Work" or "Other Methods (Independent Outside Work)." 92 "Classroom Presentations" were used more frequently as "Specific Instructional Activities" in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs than "Off-Road Skill Tests,""SpecialAssemblies (seminars)," "Bicycle Maintenance Procedures," "Bicycle Registra- tions," "Bicycle Hikes/Trips," "On-Street Riding Programs," "Special Activities For Pre-School," "Handicapped Instruction," "Special Education Programs" or "Special Group Instruction." It appears that no "Adult Activities" were conducted in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. "Riding on The Right Side," "Carrying Proper Number of Riders," "Obedience of Signs/Signals/Markings," "Use of Lights at Night,“ "Use of Visible Clothing," I'Keeping Hands on Handlebars," "Riding Close to Right Curb," "Yielding to Vehicles," "Use of Bell/ Horn," "Riding Two Abreast," "Riding with Traffic," "Bicycle as a Vehicle," "Face Traffic When Walking," "Staying Off Roadways Where Prohibited," "Use of Bicycle Paths/Lanes," "It is a Misdemeanor to Break Laws," "Use of Sidewalks When Permitted," "Riding Within a Traffic Lane," "Riding in a Self-Propelled Manner," "Riding Proce- dures Inside Central Business Districts," "Riding For Visibility," and "Proper Licensing Procedures" were reportedly presented more often as "Minnesota Bicycle Laws" in K-3 grade bicycle safety educa- tion programs than "Special Events Procedures/Rules" or "Seminar/ Violation School Procedures." Most K-3 grade bicycle instructors reportedly offered "Minnesota Bicycle Safety Laws." K-3 grade bicycle instructors reported bicycle safety education instruction should be a requirement. More instructors felt 93 it should be a requirement in grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle safety education programs than in Kindergarten or in grade 3 bicycle safety education programs. "Elementary Level Instructors (K-3, 4-6)" received higher ratings as bicycle instructors than either "Pre-elementary Instruc- tors," "Junior High Teachers," "Senior High Teachers," "Youth Groups," "Bicycle Riding Organizations," "Police Personnel," "Judicial Personnel," "Park/Recreation Personnel," "Bicycle Shop Representa- tives," "Parents," "Community Groups" or "Other Groups (Scouts, Patrols)." Most of the responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors re- quested "Information Concerning Contents and Instructional Practices of Nearby K-3 Grade Bicycle Safety Education Programs." Reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors were divided con- cerning "Requests for Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide." More reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors received "No Formal Instruction" in bicycle safety education than "In-Service Workshops/Seminars," "Formal Courses in Traffic Safety Education,“ or "Formal Courses in Bicycle Safety Education." No reporting instructor received a "Formal Course in Bicycle Safetyu" The findings of "Demographic Data" are reported in tabular form in Table 2. Findings of "Concept Utilization" Reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors offered "Turning Pro- cedures," "Reflective Materials," "Hazard Elements," "Defensive Riding Procedures," "Stopping Procedures," “Riding Positions," 94 TABLE 2.--Bicycle Safety Education Demographic Data Program Descriptors - Enrollment Levels. Instructor Sex (Questionnaire Item 41. Appendix Q) Male Female 83 14 School Location (Questionnaire Item #1. Appendix Q) Rural (R) Urban (U) 46 51 Number of Programs by Grade Levels (Questionnaire Item #1, Appendix Q) Kindergarten (K) Ist Grade (1) 2nd Grade (2) 3rd Grade (3) (n - 58) (n - 89) (n - 91) (n - 97) 37 R - 21 U 41 R - 48 U 43 R - 48 U 46 R - 51 C 51 M - 7 F 80 M - 9 F 82 M - 9 F 83 M - 14 F Reported Student Enrollments in Bicycle Safety Education Programs (Number of Programs for Each Grade Level by Class Size) (Questionnaire Item #5, Appendix Q) 1-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 61 or more Total K 4 11 6 6 31 58 l 4 ll 6 6 62 89 2 3 12 6 6 64 91 3 3 12 7 6 69 97 Grand Total 335 Reported Bicycle Safety Education Instructional Formats (Number of Programs for Each Format. by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #6, Appendix Q) Instructional Format K 1 2 3 Separate Unit 14 16 14 22 Integrated 33 61 64 61 Assembly 32 37 39 39 Other 3 30 31 31 Not Offered 2 1 l 0 Reported Use of Resource Personnel (Number of Programs for Each Resource Personnel, by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #7, Appendix Q) Resource K I 2 3 Classroom guest speakers 9 12 ll 15 Park. Recreation sponsor l l l 2 Police 41 7o 71 75 Judicial representative 0 0 0 0 Bicycle shop sponsor l l 2 5 Amateur cyclist 2 4 4 4 8 9 10 12 Others (Jaycees) 95 TABLE 2.--Continued. Reported Use of Curricula/Guide(s) (Number of Programs for Each Curriculum/Guide. by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #8. Appendix Q) Curriculum(s)/Guide(s) K 1 2 School curriculum 6 31 31 Minnesota K-3 Traffic ngety Curriculum Guide 34 64 66 Other State curriculum 4 4 4 Commercial guide 8 10 10 Other unit/guide 13 39 4D Reported Use of Instructional Techniques (Number of Programs for Each Instructional Technique. by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #11. Appendix Q) Instructional Techniques K I 2 3 Teacher-led discussions 44 74 76 82 Teacher lectures 8 35 37 42 Teacher-led informal discussions 16 20 22 27 Teacher-led small group work 7 9 10 14 Guest speakers. experts 40 68 7D 74 Audio-visual guides. models 34 66 68 73 Student-led presentations 2 2 3 4 Student-led informal discussions 2 2 3 4 Student-led small group work 2 2 3 5 Use of curricula, materials 32 59 61 67 Other techniques (independent work) 2 3 3 4 Reported Use of Specific Instructional Activities (Number of Programs for Each Instructional Activity, b Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #12, Appendix Q) Instructional Activities K I 2 3 Classroom presentations 40 71 72 77 Off-road skill test 8 36 38 42 Dn-street riding 4 5 6 9 Bicycle hikes. trips 1 1 1 4 Bicycle registration 5 6 6 8 Bicycle licensing 5 6 7 7 Bicycle maintenance 7 9 9 15 Special assembly (seminar) 30 31 32 34 Special activities (pre-school) 0 0 0 2 Handicapped 2 3 3 3 Special education 2 2 2 3 Adult 0 D D 0 Other (special groups) 1 1 1 2 Reported Incorporation of ”Minnesota Bicycle Laws" (Number of Programs for Each “Minnesota Bicycle Law", by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item 013. Appendix Q) Minnesota Bicycle Laws K 1 2 3 Not offered 8 9 9 9 Bicycle as a vehicle 37 64 67 71 Obey signs, signals 41 72 75 82 Riding self-propelled 27 55 58 62 Riding with traffic 33 64 64 73 Riding inside central business district 29 56 57 68 Riding for visibility 32 60 64 69 Riding two-abreast 38 67 69 75 Riding on right side 43 76 78 83 Riding within a single lane 29 57 61 66 Riding too close to curb 36 70 72 7B Yielding to other vehicles 39 70 72 78 Carrying proper number on vehicle 41 72 73 80 Keeping hands on handlebars 39 7D 73 79 Face traffic when walking bicycle 31 59 63 69 Staying off roadways where prohibited 29 51 62 67 Use of paths. lanes where provided 29 51 62 67 Use of sidewalks when permitted 25 53 56 60 Use of bell, horn when necessary 33 64 68 7; Licensing procedures 22 49 52 5 96 TABLE 2.--Continued. Reported Incorporation of "Minnesota Bicycle Laws" (cont.) Minnesota Bicycle Laws K I 2 3 Use of light at night 37 7O 73 79 Use of visible clothing 42 74 75 79 Special events procedures 7 8 8 ll Misdemeanor penalty 22 50 53 59 Other bicycle laws (seminars, convictions) l 1 1 1 Reported Responses Concerning Offering Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject - by Number of Programs (Questionnaire Item #20. Appendix Q) Yes No No Response 36 15 46 Reported Responses concerning Rank Ordering by K-3 Grade Bicycle Instructors with Respect to Offering Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject - by Number of Programs (Number of Programs for Each Rank Order. by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #21. Appendix Q) Priority Level Selected by Instructors K I 2 3 Highest (Ist) Priority 5 8 7 7 2nd Priority 0 7 l4 6 3rd Priority 4 12 6 5 4th Priority (Last Priority) 18 0 D 9 'Képorteo neSponses'cuuCerhufig'xanx Ordering by K-3 Grade Bicycle Instructors with Respect to Instructional Groups if Bicycle Safety Education Has a Required Subject - by Number of Programs (Number of Programs for Each Instructional Group. by Priority Level Selected by Instructors) (Questionnaire Item #22. Appendix Q) Priority Level Selected by Instructors Instructional Groups No Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 l4 Pre-Elementary 85 1 1 4 2 1 l 2 Elementary. Ko3 53 25 7 6 3 2 1 Elementary. 4-6 63 3 20 8 2 1 Junior High 78 1 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 Senior High 85 1 l 2 l l l l 2 1 Youth Groups 81 2 2 2 l 1 3 l l l 1 l 1 Bicycle Organizations 82 2 1 l 4 l l l l 2 1 Police 61 6 6 7 9 2 3 l 2 Judicial Personnel 85 l 1 l 3 3 2 l Park/Recreation sponsor 78 1 l l 4 2 l 4 l 1 2 1 Bicycle Shop sponsor 82 1 l 3 1 l 2 l 4 1 Parents 76 5 2 2 Z 3 3 l 2 1 Community support group 72 B 3 3 2 l l l 2 l l 2 Other group (Scouts) 94 l 2 Reported Expressed Interest Concerning Receiving Information with Respect to Area K-3 Bicycle Instructor Programs and Practices - by Number of Programs (Questionnaire Item #24. Appendix Q) Yes No No Response 87 8 2 97 TABLE 2.--Continued. Reported Responses Concerning Expressed Interest in Receiving A Copy of the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide - by Number of Programs (Questionnaire Item 425. Appendix Q) Yes No No Response 46 47 4 Reported Responses Concerning Types of Formal Instruction Received by Bicycle Instructors with Respect to Bicycle Safety Education - by Number of Programs for Each Type of Formal Instruction (Questionnaire Item #26. Appendix Q) Number of Programs Response 0 Formal Course in Bicycle Safety Education 4 Formal Course in Traffic Safety Education that included Bicycle Safety Education Component (e.g., K-9 Traffic Safety Education) 10 Local In-Service workshop or Seminar in Bicycle Safety Education 83 No Instruction in Bicycle Safety Education 98 "Mount/Dismount Procedures," "Pedaling Procedures," "Night Riding Procedures," "Safety Flags Usage," "Crossing Intersections." "Skill Test Procedures," "Railroad Crossings," and "Overtaking Others," as "Bicycle Riding/Safety Concepts" in greater frequencies than "Not Being Offered," "Touring/Packing Procedures," "Special Events," "Demonstrations," or "Trip Planning." Reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors offered "Required Equipment." "Proper Size, Fit," "Bicycle Anatomy," "Required Equip- ment--(New Models)," "Required Equipment For Night Use," "Recommended Equipment," and "Optional Equipment (Baskets)" as "Bicycle Safety Equipment" in greater frequencies than "Bicycle History," ”Not Being Offered," "Bicycle Trip Equipment" or "Other Concepts (Bicycle Frame Construction)." Reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors offered "Handlebars," "Tires," "Chain," "Wheels," "Spokes," "Pedals," "Theft Prevention," "Parking Procedures," "Clean/Lubricate All Parts" and "Brakes" as "Bicycle Care and Maintenance" concepts in greater frequencies than "Bicycle Storage," "Not Being Offered" or "Other Concepts (Mainte- nance Schedules)." The findings of "Concept Utilization" are reported in tabular form in Table 3. Findingsgof Program Evaluation Practices Reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors offered "No Specific .Skill Exercises" in greater frequencies than "Sign/Signal Recogni- ‘tion," "Balancing Exercises," "Stopping Drills," "Serpentine/Weave," "Circling/Balance," "Slow Races," "Braking/Skids," "Rough Surface 99 TABLE 3.--Bicycle Safety Education Concept Utilization. Reported Incorporation of "Bicycle Riding and Safety" Concepts (Number of Programs for each Concept, by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #14, Appendix Q) "Bicycle Riding and Safety" Concept K 1 2 3 Not offered 12 12 13 11 Mount, dismount procedures 23 54 53 59 Riding positions 26 57 57 66 Pedaling procedures 23 55 52 58 Braking procedures 26 58 57 63 Stopping procedures 29 62 61 66 Turning procedures 29 64 64 69 Emergency stops 8 37 36 42 Defensive riding procedures 30 57 58 66 Riding in hazards (weather) 30 57 6O 67 Railroad crossing procedures 27 31 33 38 Crossing intersections 35 42 42 48 Lane placement procedures 27 29 30 36 Overtaking others 19 22 24 30 Night riding procedures 32 36 41 49 Use of safety flags 22 46 48 48 Use of reflective materials 37 66 67 74 Use of reflective clothing 32 62 65 71 Skill tests 8 32 35 39 Touring, packing procedures 2 3 3 4 Trip planning procedures 1 l l 1 Special events 1 2 2 3 Other "bicycle riding, safety" concepts 2 2 2 3 (demonstrations) 100 TABLE 3.--Continued. Reported Incorporation of "Bicycle Safety Equipment" Concepts (Number of Programs for each Concept, by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #15, Appendix Q) "Bicycle Safety Equipment" Concept K 1 2 3 Not offered l4 l3 14 13 Bicycling history 11 12 13 17 Proper size, fit 24 54 55 60 Bicycle nomenclature 24 52 53 53 Bicycle classification 18 19 20 25 Bicycle selection 17 18 19 24 Required equipment ~ 29 60 63 68 Required equipment on new models 21 47 48 54 Required equipment for night use 31 36 39 46 Recommended equipment 26 3O 32 4O Optional equipment 19 22 24 31 Bicycle trip riding equipment 2 2 3 4 Other "bicycle safety equipment" concepts 3 3 3 3 (bicycle frames) Reported Incorporation of "Bicycle Care and Maintenance" Concepts (Number of Programs for each Concept, by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #16, Appendix Q) "Bicycle Care and Maintenance" Concept K 1 2 3 Not offered 17 17 16 15 Bicycle storage 17 19 22 21 Theft prevention 27 32 34 40 Parking procedures 22 25 28 33 Brakes 19 22 26 31 Saddle (seat) 21 SO 54 56 Handlebars 21 50 54 57 Wheels 20 49 51 55 Tires 20 48 51 56 Spokes 18 46 49 55 Pedals 19 47 51 54 Chain 20 48 52 56 Gear 16 19 23 27 Clean, lubricate parts 20 23 27 32 Other "bicycle care and maintenance" 2 2 3 3 concepts (maintenance schedules) 101 Riding," "Reflectorized Tape," ”Awards/Certificates," "Figure-8 Nith Weave," "Riding Planks," "Timed Races," "Passing Exercise," "Relay Races," "Traffic Mix," "Merging Exercise," "Group Riding," "Net Surface Riding," or "Ride/Pitch" as "Specific Skill Exercises" in conjunction with performance/skill tests. K-3 grade bicycle instructors reported using "Local Bicycle Safety Expertise at Their Skill/Performance Tests." An equal number of K—3 grade bicycle instructors did not respond to the item. These instructors indicated "Non-Use of Expertise at Their Skill Tests." 11.5nmll number of reporting bicycle instructors "Would Like to Use Local Expertise at Their Skill Tests." Most K-3 grade bicycle instructors did not conduct the "Skill Tes t or Performance Evaluation Program at The Local High School Ran ge/Practice Area. " Many reporting K-3 grade bicycle instructors did not supply "Bi<:3/cle Safety Related Accident or Fatality Data." Most of the restoc>nding K-3 grade bicycle instructors indicated bicycle-safety related accident/fatality data was "Unavailable" for reporting Purposes. One accident and zero fatalities were reported by responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors. The findings of "Program Eva'l uation Practices" are reported in tabular form in Table 4. Findings of Program Duration More K-3 grade bicycle programs were offered in "Spring" as C°‘“Dared to "Fall," "Integrated Within Regular Classes (Year Round)," "Sufivner" or "Winter." No K-3 grade bicycle safety education pro- grams were offered as "Winter" offerings. 102 TABLE 4.--Bicycle Safety Education Program Evaluation Practices. Reported Incorporation of Specific Skill Exercises for Bicycle Safety Skill/Performance Test (Number of Programs for each Category, by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #17, Appendix Q) K 1 2 3 Not offered 43 46 47 49 Sign, signal recognition 8 36 37 4O Balancing exercises 8 35 37 41 Relay races 0 0 l 2 Riding on planks 2 3 3 4 Serpentine, weave 5 32 33 37 Slow races 3 30 31 33 Ride, pitch exercises O 0 O 1 Traffic mix exercises 0 0 1 2 Timed races 1 2 2 3 Circling, balance exercises 7 32 33 36 Figure-8, weave exercises 4 5 6 9 U, Y turn-about exercises 2 2 2 3 Stopping drills 6 33 . 35 38 Braking with, without skids 4 3O 31 33 Evasive exercises O 0 O 1 Riding on rough surfaces 2 28 29 29 Riding on wet surfaces 1 0 l 1 Group riding exercises 1 0 l O Passing exercises 2 2 2 ‘ 2 Merging exercises 2 l l 1 Turning exercises 3 3 3 3 Presentation of awards, certificates 7 7 8 11 Use of reflectorized tape 7 9 ll 12 Reported Use of Community Personnel for Bicycle Safety Skill/Performance Test - By Number of Programs (Questionnaire Item #18,Appendix Q) Yes No Would Like To No Response 49 22 7 19 103 TABLE 4.--Continued. Reported Incorporation of Bicycle Safety Skill Test or an Evaluation Performance Program at Driver Education Range/Off-Street Practice Area -- by Number of Programs (Questionnaire Item #19, Appendix Q) Yes No No Response 6 82 9 Reported Responses Concerning Bicycle Safety-Related Accidents, Fatalities that Occurred on School Grounds During the 1977-78 School Year (Questionnaire Item #23, Appendix Q) Accidents Fatalities Unavailable No Response 1 0 55 41 104 Reported K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs were more often presented in "1-2 Hour Formats" in Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle safety education programs than in "3-5," "6-8," "9-11" or "12 or More Hour" formats. One grade 3 bicycle safety education program was conducted in "12 or More Hours." All but one reported K-3 grade bicycle safety education pro- gram was conducted "During School Hours." One reported K—3 grade bicycle safety education program was conducted "After School Hours." No reported K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs were con- ducted "Before School Hours" or on "Saturdays/Other Times." The findings of "Program Duration" are reported in tabular form in Table 5. Findings of "Open-Ended" Response Items The responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors reported use of the "Minnesota Highway Patrol (25 sites)" and "Anoka Police Depart- ment (25 sites)" more often than "Other Individuals/Agencies" as reported by agency/title and grade levels (roles) in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. A variety of "Specific Audio Visual Aids or Models" were used on an equal basis by K-3 grade bicycle instructors. A variety of "Outside Agencies" were used on an equal basis by K-3 grade bicycle instructors. A variety of "Additional Instructor Comments" and K-3 grade "Bicycle Safety Educational Practices" were offered by responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors. ‘The findings of "Open-Ended" response items are reported in tabular form in Table 6. 105 TABLE 5.--Bicycle Safety Education Program Duration. Reported Seasonal Offerings (Number of Programs for Each Category) (Questionnaire Item #2, Appendix Q) Integrated Within Regular Classes, Fall Winter Spring Summer Year-Round 29 0 90 2 4 Reported Student Contact Hours (Number of Programs for Each Category, by Grade Level) (Questionnaire Item #3, Appendix Q) Student Contact Hours K 1 2 3 1-2 39 34 3O 27 3-5 14 24 29 35 6-8 4 30 A 28 29 9-11 1 1 4 5 " 12 Plus _9 _Q .9 .1 TOTAL 58 89 91 97 .335 (Grand Total) Reported Meeting Times (Number of Programs for Each Category) (Questionnaire Item #4, Appendix Q) Saturdays/Other Before School During School After School Times (Holidays) 0 96 1 0 TABLE 6.--Open-Ended Response 106 Items--(Questionnaire Items 7, 9, 10, 26, Appendix 0). Question Item #7: safety education program. Please Identify the individuals used as resource personnel in your school's bicycle Name Agency/Title Role(s)/Grade(s) Mr. Art Berry .............. Atwater Police Department ..................... K-3 Mr. Tim Thompson ......... .. Police Chief (Winsted) ........................ K—3 Assemblies Reverend Earnest Carolson .. Rush Point Lutheran Church (Pastor) .. ......... K-3 Bicycle Inspection Leader (Southview Elementary) Ms. Dixie Peterson ......... 4-H Member (Southview Elementary) ............. Bike Safety Instructor Mr. Leroy Pearson .......... Braham Chief of Police (Southview Elementary) . Coordinator Mr. Larry Southurland ...... Isanti County Sheriff ......................... (South) Instructor (Land) Mr. Nelson ................. Minnesota State Patrol (Southland Elementar ) . Assemblies Rev. Harold Fowler ......... Braham Police Officer (Southland Elementary Bike Inspection Leader Dusty Rhode ...... . ......... Minnesota State Patrol (Silver Lake) .......... K-3 Assemblies Highway Patrol Officer ..... Minnesota State Patrol (St. Cloud) ............ K-3 St. Cloud Police Department. St. Cloud Police Department ................... K-3 Minnesota Highway Patrol ... Minnesota Patrol (Minneapolis; Anoka) ......... K-3 Anoka Police Department .... Anoka Police Department ....................... K-3 Chief Akers ................ Cambridge Police Department (Cambridge) ....... K-3 Speaker Sheriff Harder ............. Isanti County Sheriff (Cambridge) ............. K-3 Materials officer Jim Smith .......... St. Cloud Police Department ................... K-3 Speaker SCSU Students .............. SCSU (Madison Elementary, St. Cloud) .......... K-3 Speaker St. Cloud Bike Shop ........ Bike Shop (St. Cloud) ........................ K-3 Speaker Officer Frank McCarthy ..... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Crosby-Ironton) ..... K-3 Speaker, films. "Mike the Bike“ St. Louis Park Officers .... St. Louis Park Police Department .............. K-3 Mr. Richard Haage .......... Hutchinson Police Department .................. Grade 3 Speaker Lt. Moreland ............... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Long Prairie) ........ K-3 Mr. Joe Winkler ............ Long Prairie Police Chief ..................... K-3 Officer Richard Moreland ... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Sauk Centre) ........ K-3 Speaker Officer Tim Sturvie ........ Albany Police Department ...................... K-3 Speaker officer R. Burlingame ...... Cedar Island Police Department (Chief) ........ K-3 Speaker Officer R. Henning ......... Cedar Island Police Department ................ K-3 Speaker Officer Norman Nelson ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Albertville) ........ K-3 Speaker. Safety Checks. Bike Course. Reflectivity Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Benson) ............. K-3 Speaker Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Harding Elementary) . K-3 Speaker Officer Shull ........... ... Osseo Police Officer (Fair Oaks) .............. K-3 Speaker Mr. Larry Converse ......... Motley Police Department ........... . ........ . K-3 Speaker Officer Frank McCarthy ..... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Motley) ............. K-3 Speaker Mr. Robert Knoche .... ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Chisago Lakes) ...... K-3 Speaker Officer Tom Zerwas ......... Elk River Police Department ................... K-3 Juvenile Liaison Officer Officer Bob Knoche ....... .. Minnesota Highway Patrol ...................... K-3 Speaker Chisago County Sheriff ..... Chisago County Sheriffs Office ................ K-3 Speaker Officer Frank McCarthy ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Princeton) .......... Grade 3 Speaker Officer Bob Petterman ...... Princeton Police Department .................... Grade 3 Speaker Officer Frank McCarthy ..... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Lincoln Elementary) . K-3 Speaker (Little Falls) Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Brooten) ............ K-3 Speaker Brooten P.O. Officers ...... Brooten Police Department ..................... K-3 Speakers Officer Norman Nelson ...... Mi?nesota Highway Patrol (Southview Elementary) K-3 Speaker Waconia Officer Frank McCarthy ..... Minaesota Highway Patrol (Knight Elementary) K-3 Speaker andall Coon Rapids P. D. Officers .. Coon Rapids, Police Department(8damSCo. ) ..... K-3 Speaker Browerville v. F. W. ..... . Browerville. V. F. H. ........ . ................ K-3 Speaker Minn. Hwy. Patrol Officers . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Browerville) ........ K-3 Minn. Hwy. Patrol Officers . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Buffalo Lake) ....... K-3 Buffalo Lake Cub Scouts .... Buffalo Lake Cub Scouts ....................... K-3 Eagle Bend Boy Scouts ...... Eagle Bend Boy Scouts ..................... .. K-3 Local County Sheriffs ...... Local County Sheriffs (Hagner Elementary) ..... K-3 Grey Eagle 4-H ............. Grey Eagle 4-H .... ........... . ............. ... K-3 Rodeos Becker Bicycle Club ........ Becker Bicycle Club ............... ........... 1-3 Officer Frank McCarthy. . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Baxter). ......... 1-3 Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Howard Lake-Haverly) 2-3 Wright County Sheriffs ..... Hright County Sheriffs (Howard Lake-Haverly). 2-3 Howard Lake Police Chief. Howard Lake Police Department ...... .... ....... 2 Officer Kiltridge .......... Minnesota Highway Patrol . ..................... 1-3 Sauk Rapids Police ......... Sauk Rapids Police Department ... .............. 1-3 Officer Dick Moreland. .... Minnesota Highway Patrol (New London) ......... 2-3 Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Delano) ............. K-3 Officer Howard Sander ...... Olivia Police Department Chief ..... ........... K—3 Minn. Hwy. Patrol Officers . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Aitkin) .. ........... K-3 Milaca Merchants. Bike Shop. Milaca Merchants (inc. Bike Shops) ............ 2-3 Milaca Civic Clubs ......... Milaca Civic Clubs ............................ 2-3 Officers Chuck Stanbaugh.Me1rose Police Department ..................... K-3 8 Ron Holt (Chief) 107 TABLE 6.--Continued. Mame Agency/Title Role(s)/Grade(s) County Sheriffs ............ County Sheriff Department (Lake Ripley) ......... Ko3 (Laws, Riding Practice) Lester Prairie Officers ..... Lester Prairie Police Department ................. K-3 Minn. Hwy. Patrol Officers . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Hector) ............... K-3 Minn. Hwy. Patrol Officers . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Fairview) . ............ K-3 Local Merchants. American .. Fairview ........................................ K-3 Rodeos. Laws, Rules. Legion, Service Clubs. Riding Procedures Local Police Department Officer Richard Moreland ... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Cold Spring) .......... K-3 Rules/Laws Local P.O., Bike Shop ...... Pinewood Elementary ............................ K-3 Laws. Size/Fit, Riding Cyclists Practices New London Police Officers.. New London Police Department ................... K-3 Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Cokato) ............... K-3 Local Police Officers ...... Local Police Department (Helen Baker, Lincoln ... Grade 3 Elementary) Officer Dick Moreland ...... Minnesota Highway Patrol (Eden Valley/Hatkins) .. K-3 Speaker Local Jaycee (Ron .......... Local Jaycees (Bendix Elementary) ...... ......... K-3 Remington) Minn. Hwy. Patrol Officers . Minnesota Highway Patrol (Garfield, St. Cloud) .. K-3 Officer Jim Smith .......... St. Cloud Police Department ..................... K-3 Mr. Paul Rooney ............ St. Cloud Public Schools ........................ K-3 Question Item #9: Identify specific audio-visual aids or models used in conjunction with your bicycle safety education program (e.g.. slides, transparencies. films, cassette/filmstrip). Aid Model/Title Source Topic Grade(s) Filmstrips: "How to Ride your Bike Safely" ... Bicycle Institute ....... Riding Safety ...... K-3 of America "Street Safety" ................... Encyclopedia Britannica .. Riding Safety . ..... K-3 "Pooh Rides the Bus" ............. Local Media Center ....... Classroom Topics ... 2 ”Bicycle Safety" .................. Local Media Center ....... Classroom Topics ... 2, 3 "I'm no Fool with a Bicycle” ...... Local Media Center ....... Classroom Topiss ... 3 "Hazards in Sight“ ................ Local Media Center ....... Classroom Tapics .... 3 ”The Bear's Bicycle" .............. Viking Press ............ . Bike Riding ......... K-3 "Be a Better Pedal Pusher“ ........ S. V. E. ......... .......... Bike Riding .... ..... K-3 "Bike Behavior" ................... S. V. E. ................... Bike Riding ......... K-3 ”Safety on the Bicycle" ........... Young America ............ Bike Riding ....... .. K-3 Films: “If Bicycles Could Talk" .......... American Legion ... ....... Riding Skills ....... 1-3 “Bike-Hise To Be Sure” ............. St. Cloud Film Library ... Maintenance 6 Riding. 3 “The Bicycle Clown“ ...... ......... Dept. of Public Safety ... Riding Skills ....... 1-3 “Drive Your Bike" ..... . ........... Dept. of Public Safety ... Riding Skills ....... 1-3 “Just Like a Car” ................. Dept. of Public Safety ... Riding Skills ....... 1-3 “A Monkey Tale" ................. Dept. of Public Safety .. Riding Skills ....... 1-3 "The Day the Bicycles Disappeared“. St. Cloud Film Library ... Riding Skills ....... 3 ”Bike People" . .................... St. Louis Park School .... Riding Skills ....... 3 Library “Bicycles are Beautiful" .......... Local Media Center ....... Riding Skills ....... 3 Kit: “Mike the Talking Bike" .. ........ Minn. State Police . ...... Laws .... .......... K-3 “Cars. Bikes, and People" ......... Local Media Center ....... Bicycling Concerns .. 1-3 “Minnesota Bicycle Safety Kit" .... S.C.S.U. ................. Bike Selection, ..... 3 (Instructors) Riding and Maintenance Tech. Question Item 410: Please identify any outside agencies involved in your bicycle safety education program (e.g., Department of Education, Department of Public Safety). Agency Topical Area Grade(s) Winsted Police Department ...... ............ .... Bicycle Riding Concepts ..... . ................... K-3 Elk River Police Department .................... Bicycle Selection ............................... K-3 Minnesota State Police ......................... Bicycle Riding .................................. K-3 Department of Public Safety .................... Rules and Riding Practices ... ................... K-3 Benson Police Department ....................... Rules and Riding Safety ......................... K-3 St. Cloud Police ............................... Rules and Riding Safety ......................... K-2 Minnesota Safety Council ....................... Bicycle Safety Materials ........................ 3 108 TABLE 6.--Continued. Agency Topical Area Grade(s) Coon Rapids Police ............................ Rules ............................................ K-3 Glencoe Police ................................. Bike Rodeo .............. . ........................ 3 American Automobile Association ................ Bike Safety Materials ............................ 3 Bicycle Institute of America ................ ... Rules . ........................................... K-3 Allstate Insurance Company . ................... Bicycle Riding Techniques ... .................. ... 3 St. Louis Park Police .......................... Bike Rodeo ................ . ...................... K-3 Modern woodmen of America ...................... Bicycle Safety ..... . ............................. 1-3 Lions Club .................................... Bicycle Inspection and Rodeo .............. ....... 1-3 Braham Civic and Commerce Association .......... Bicycle Inspection and Rodeo ..... ................ 1-3 Braham Junior Chamber of Commerce . ............. Bicycle Inspection and Rodeo ..................... 1-3 4-H Club ....................................... Selection. Maintenance, Riding, Skills 8 Touring . 1-3 St. Cloud A.V.T.I. ............. .. ............. Bicycle Laws ..................................... K-3 Osseo Police Department ........................ Bicycle Safety ............. . ............. . ....... K-3 Anoka Police Department ........................ Bicycle Laws/Regulations ......................... 1-3 Question Item #26: If you have any additional instructional areas or conments relative to bicycle safety education instruction which were not covered in the preceding survey items, please include this information in the space below. Mr. Curtis Levang ............................. ”Bike Fair“ testing, bike riding skills. Howard Lake-Waverly Elementary Mr. James Nelson ............................. Have own bike programs already in operation in K-3 grades. Eden Valley-Watkings Elementary Mr. R. Conklin .............................. Bicycle Safety is taught incidentally in schools. No Atwater Elementary great demand for mandated programs at present time. Mr. Jack L. Horton ............................. Hopefully provided valuable information. Lincoln Elementary (St. Cloud) Ms. Mary Olmsted .............................. Seeks bicycle safety education materials for use in Cedar Manor Elementary (St. Louis Park) upper elementary grades. Mr. Karl A. Berlin ............................ Currently bicycle safety program is incidentally taught. Foley Elementary Lately local police and highway troopers not conducted programs. Receive some National Safety Council materials. Requests assistance in proper bicycle safety and information programs . Mr. Rodney Ferber .. ........................... He do some unit teaching of bicycle safety within general Fair Oaks Elementary (Osseo) safety units in K-3 grades. Mr. M. Nelson .......... .. ....... . ............. Mostly teach bicycle safety in 4-6 levels. Rush City Elementary Mr. Vern S. Hagen .. ........................... Has used Highway Patrol officers with ”Mike The Bike" Brooten Elementary presentations. plus AAA, VFW, local American Legion and local police department in rodeos. Mr. Paul Olinger .............................. Requests a blank survey or two to distribute to staff to Osakis Elementary assess thoroughness of teacher instruction in bicycle safety education. Mr. Ronald D. Rude ............................ A special bicycle safety program is not needed. He cover Coon Rapids (Adams Elementary) general safety rules all the time. Ms. Sue Rieland. ........................... Thoroughly enjoyed the bicycle safety materials you shared Eden Valley-Watkins Community Education with me. I'd heartily recommend them for any beginning or ongoing bicycle safety program. 108 109 Chi-ngare "Cross Tabulation" Contrasts-- Data Analyses In Part II are presented tables (Tables 7-10) and narrative descriptions of the summary findings/interpretations, plus hypotheses statements of the chi-square "cross tabulation" treatments performed on the 27 "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" items. The writer grouped the statistical treatment results and summary descriptions (significant interpretations and hypotheses statements) according to the five dominant bicycle safety education program component themes listed in the "Bicycle Safety Education Coding Manual" (Table l, p. 81). The specific responses to the "open-ended" questionnaire items (component area #5) were presented in narrative format as reported by responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors. The specific responses and questionnaire items were not listed in Part II as cross-tabulated data. Tables 7-lO contained the chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts of the selected school-oriented and instructor variables; i.e., school location--urban vs. rural locales, instructor sex, etc. These tables also contained contrasts per- formed for Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 and 3 bicycle instructor status with the reported bicycle safety education program components-~i.e. scheduling practices, enrollment levels, etc. These were pre- sented in cluster fashion (Table l, p. 81). Also presented were group data statistics and the HO decisions for the particular questionnaire items. The following example illustrates the reporting method: 110 Contrasts for Cluster #1 (Bicycle Safety Education Program Descriptors) Cluster #1 Chi- Hzo Contrast “N _d: sguare p < .05 Decision Instructor Sex 97 l .006 .936 Do not versus reject School Location Definitions of Statistical Terms Instructor Sex: (Instr. Sex) surveyed in this study referred to surveyed K-3 grade male and female bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. School Location: (School Loc.) K—3 grade bicycle instructors. classified school sites as rural or urban locales. N; Referred to the total number of reported (returned) questionnaires. gf: Referred to chi-square degrees of freedom (# row cells -1) (# column cells - l). Chi-square: Referred to computed chi-square "cross tabulation" value for each contrast, corrected for possible varia- tion due to uneven reported cell sizes. 2 s..05: Referred to the probability that the computed chi-square "cross tabulation" value would fall at or below the .05 alpha level. liuaDecision: No significant relationship exists between the contrasted variables--no significant differences exist between the contrasted variables--Do Not Reject. 111 A significant relationship exists between the contrasted variables. A significant difference exists between the contrasted variables-- eject. Immediately following the summary narratives for each cluster, the chi-square "cross tabulation“ contrast results were presented in tabular form. Bicycle safety education program content material con- tained in the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" items was contrasted with the Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructor responses. These contrasts were reported as chi-square "cross-tabulation" data. These data were the basis for the decision to reject or to not reject the null hypotheses. Reference to "insufficient data" contained in the following cluster tables refers to comparisons between the variables of study not performed by the computer due to the presence of "affirma- tive only" or "totally negative" responses noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor status and other designated variables. Reference to "insufficient data" reported in the following summary-analyses/interpretations sections indicates complete absence of contrasted variables due to presence of "affirmative only" or "totally negative" responses noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor status and other designated variables. 112 Summary - Data Analyses/Interpretations Contrast 1 Bicycle Safety Education Program Descriptors Reported School, Bicycle Instructor Characteristics There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to contrasted instructor sex, school location (urban vs. rural locales), Kindergarten bicycle instructors, grade 1 bicycle instructors, Kindergarten bicycle safety education programs, grade 1 bicycle safety education programs and grade 2 bicycle safety education programs as school, bicycle instructor characteristics. Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. The null hypotheses (H01, H02, H03, and H04) were rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, con- trasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. Grade 3 bicycle safety education programs and bicycle safety education programs were conducted in every reported K-3 grade site; hence, con- trasts could not be performed for these variables. Insufficient reported data was also noted for grade 3 bicycle safety education programs and reported bicycle safety education programs in K-3 grades in the survey region. The contrasts for "Reported School, Bicycle Instructor Characteristics" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. 113 Reported Student Enrollment Levels There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Student Enrollment Levels" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Chi-square values of 11.070 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H09) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Student Enrollment Levels" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Reported Instructional Formats A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Separate Unit" format, "Integrated Within Existing Classes" for- mat, and "Assemblies" format as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H010) was rejected for these variables. Insignifi- cant X2 values were obtained for "Other Instructional Formats (Special Assignments)." Insignificant X2 values were also obtained for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Bicycle Safety 114 Education Programs Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors."1 The null hypothesis (H010) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative'only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. "Totally negative" responses from responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors with respect to partial contrasts performed for “Bicycle Safety Education Programs Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors" prevented chi-square "cross- tabulation contrasts" being performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was also noted for partial contrasts performed with respect to ”Bicycle Safety Education Programs Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors." The contrasts for "Reported Instructional Formats" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Reported Resource Personnel A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Resource Personnel Utilized in Classroom Programs" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: "Classroom Guest Speakers," "Police Officers," and “Other Personnel (Jaycees, YMCA, etc.)." Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H011) was rejected for these variables. Chi- square values were insignificant for "Park and Recreation Department Personnel," "Local Bicycle Shop Representatives," and "Amateur Cyclists." The null hypothesis (H011) was not rejected for these 115 variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirma- tive only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. Since "Judicial Department Representatives" received "totally negative" responses from K-3 grade responding bicycle instructors, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was also noted for "Judicial Department Representatives." The con- trasts for "Reported Resource Personnel" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. One hundred twenty-eight aggregate responses and narrative findings with respect to "Individuals Used as Resource Personnel" in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area were reported in Part I findings. Reported Bicycle Safety Education Curricula,,Guide(s) A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following “Bicycle Safety Education Curricula, Guide(s)" utilizedtnn Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. "School Developed Bicycle Safety Education Curriculum," Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide and "Other Prepared Unit Guide (e.g. "Essentials of Good Bicycling")." Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of signi- ficance, the null hypothesis (H012) was rejected for these variables. 116 Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "Other State(s) Curriculum Guide(s)" and "Commercially Prepared Curriculum Guide(s) ." Hence, the null hypothesis (H012) was not rejected for these items. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported “affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instruc- tor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Safety Education Curricula, Guide(s)" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Reported "Instructional Techniques" ' A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in selected K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Instructional Techniques" utilized by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: "Teacher- Led Discussions," "Teacher Lecture Format," "Teacher-Led Informal Discussions," "Guest Speakers/Bicycle Safety Experts," "Audio-Visual Aids/Models," "Student-Led Small Group Work," and "Use of Prepared Curricula/Instructional Material." Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H015) was rejected for these variables. Insig- nificant X2 values were obtained for "Teacher-Led Small Group Activi- ties," "Student-Led Formal Presentations," "Student-Led Informal Discussions/Activities" and "Other Procedures (Independent Assign- ments)." The null hypothesis (H015) was not rejected for these items. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items , contrasts could not be 117 performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts . The contrasts for "Reported Instructional Techniques" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Reported Bicycle Safety Education Activities A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following types of "Bicycle Safety Education Activities" offered by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: "Classroom Presentations," "Off-Road Skill Test(s)," "Bicycle Main- tenance," "Special Assemblies/Seminars." Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H016) was rejected for these variables. Insignifi- cant X2 values were obtained for "On-Street Riding," “Bicycle Hikes/ Trips," "Bicycle Registration" and "Bicycle Licensing Procedures." Insignificant X2 values were also obtained for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Special Instruction" and for contrasts performed for "Handicapped Instruction,“ "Special Education Instruc- tion" and "Other Bicycle Safety Education Activities (Special Groups)." The null hypothesis (H016) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" re- sponses for all the questionnaire items and "Adult Programs" received "totally negative" responses from K-3 bicycle instructors, contrasts could not be performed for these variables. 118 "Totally negative" responses were also noted for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Special Instruction;" hence, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts, contrasts perfromed for "Adult Programs" and partial contrasts per- formed with reSpect to "Special Instruction." The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Safety Education Activities" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Reported "Minnesota Bicycle Laws" A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Minnesota Bicycle Laws" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Bicycle as a vehicle - Obeyance of traffic signs, signals, pavement markings and sidewalk crossing ordinances - Licensing or registration of bicycles - Riding in self-propelled fashion - Riding with flow of traffic outside Central Businesstfistrict - Proper riding techniques inside Central Business District - Riding procedures to insure proper visibility - Riding no more than two abreast - Riding on the right hand side of the roadway - Riding within single lane of travel on laned roadways - Riding close to right curb edge - Yield the right of way to pedestrians/other vehicles 119 - Carrying only number designed for bicycle - Keeping hand(s) on handlebars except when signaling, or stopped and prepared to complete turn - When walking a bicycle, face traffic - Staying off roadways that prohibit bicycle riding - Use of bicycle paths or lanes when provided - Use of sidewalks when encouraged - Use of bell or horn when necessary - Use of light during night riding - Authorized use of highly visible reflective clothing during night riding - Procedures for operation of special events (e.g. parades, contests, or races) and - It is a misdemeanor to break safety laws Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for signi- ficance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H017) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for partial contrasts performed with respect to “Minnesota Bicycle Laws Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors." Insignificant X2 values were also obtained for "Other Minnesota Bicycle Laws Offered (Seminar Violation Procedures)." The null hypothesis (H017) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items and partial responses from Kindergarten bicycle instructors were incorrectly reported by com- puter operators, complete contrasts could not be performed for these 2 variables. "Totally negative" responses for partial contrasts 120 performed with respect to "Minnesota Bicycle Laws Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors" also prevented contrasts for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for contrasts performed for grade 3 bicycle instructors, complete contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructors and partial contrasts performed with respect to "Minnesota Bicycle Laws Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors." The contrasts for "Reported Minnesota Bicycle Laws“ are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Bigycle Safety Education - Regpired’Subject A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to offering bicycle safety education as a required subject by Kindergarten bicycle instructors. A X2 value of 5.991 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H024) was rejected for this variable. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. The null hypothesis (H024) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. 121 Bicycle Safety Educptjon as Required Subject Rank Offerings A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the rank ordering by K-3 grade bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 levels by responding: 1. Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the Kindergarten level; 2. Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the grade 1 level; 3. Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the grade 2 level; 4. Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the grade 3 level. A X2 value of 7.815 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level for Kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 level bicycle instructors; a X2 value of 9.488 or higher was needed for signifi- cance at the .05 level for grade 3 bicycle instructors. Since the p values obtained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H024) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors concerning "Offering Bicycle Safety Educa- tion as a Required Subject at the Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 Levels." The null hypothesis (H024) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts 122 could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject by K-3 Grade Bicycle Instructors" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Rank Ordering of Instructional Groupiseqpired Bicycle Safety EducatTon A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the "Rank Ordering of The Following Instructional Groups" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Elementary teachers, K-3 - Elementary teachers, 4-6 - Youth agency leaders (Y's, Scouts, etc.) - Bicycle organization representatives (American Youth Hostels, Gopher Wheelman) - Police department personnel - Parks and recreation department personnel - Bicycle shop representatives - Parental groups. and - Other instructional groups (special groups) Chi-square values of 12.592 or higher were needed for signi— ficance at the .05 level for "Elementary Teachers, K-3" and "Elemen- tary Teachers, 4-6." A X2 value of 14.067 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level for "Pre-Elementary Teachers." Chi- square values of 15.507 or higher were needed for significance at 123 the .05 level for "Police Department Personnel" and "Judicial Department Representatives." Chi-square values of 16.919 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level for "Bicycle Shop Representatives" and "Parental Groups." Chi-square values of 18.307 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level for "Junior High Teachers (7-8 or 7-9)," "Senior High Teachers (9-12 or lO-12)" and "Bicycle Organization Representatives (American Youth Hostels, Gopher Wheelman)." Chi-square values of 19.675 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level for "Park/Recreation Department Personnel" and "Community Broad-Based Support Groups (e.g. Educa- tional Personnel, Police Personnel, Judicial Representatives, Parental Groups and Community Agencies)." A X2 value of 21.026 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level for "Youth 2 value of 5.991 or higher Agency Leaders (Y's, Scouts, etc.)." A X was needed for significance at the .05 level for "Other Formats (Special Groups)." Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H025) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "Pre-Elementary Grade Teachers," "Junior High Teachers (7-8 or 7-9)," “Senior High Teachers (9-12 or lO-12)," "Judicial Department Repre- sentatives" and "Community Broad-Based Support Groups (e.g. Educa- tional Personnel, Police Personnel, Judicial Representatives, Parental Groups and Community Agencies)." The null hypothesis (H025) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this 124 variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Rank Ordering of Instructional Groups Concerning Offering Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Reported Responses to Formal Bicycle Instructor PreparatTon Levels A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Bicycle Safety Education Formal Bicycle Instructor Preparation Levels" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 _ bicycle instructors: I have received no formal instruction in bicycle safety education - Formal course in bicycle safety education - Formal course in traffic safety education with bicycle safety component (e.g., K—6 traffic safety education) - In-service workshop or seminar in bicycle safety education A X2 value of 7.815 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H05) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, con- trasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Responses to Bicycle Safety Education 125 Formal Bicycle Instructor Preparation Levels" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Interest in Receiving a Copy of the Minnesota K—3 Traffic Safetngurriculum Guide A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Expressed Interest in Receiving a Copy of The Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instruc- tors. A X2 value of 5.991 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H027) was rejected for this variable. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; hence, the null hypothesis (H027) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instruc- tors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Interest in Receiving a Copy of The Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safcty Curriculum Guide" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Interest in Nearby K-3 Grade Bpported'Bicycle Safety Education Program Contents and Instructor Practices No significant difference was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Interest in Nearby K-3 Grade Bicycle Safety Education Program Contents And Instructor 126 Practices." A X2 value of 5.991 or higher was needed for signifi- cance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors were higher than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H027) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported “affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, con- trasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Interest in Nearby K-3 Grade Reported Bicycle Safety Education Program Contents and Instructor Practices" are reported in tabular form in Table 7. Contrast 2 Concept Utilization Reported "Bicycle Riding and Safety" Concgpts A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Bicycle Riding and Safety" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Bicycle riding and safety concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) - Proper mount and dismount - Proper riding positions astride bicycle - Proper pedaling - Proper braking - Proper stopping procedures CONTRASTS FOR CLUSTER #1 127 TABLE 7 BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTORS Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 Hzo Decision Instr.Sex Vs. Sch.Loc. 97 l .006 .936 Do Not Reject Instr.Sex Vs. Grade K 97 1 .264 .608 Do Not Reject Instr.Sex Vs. Grade 1 97 1 12.346 .0004 Reject Instr.Sex Vs. Grade 2 97 1 18.997 .0000 Reject Instr.Sex Vs. Grade 3 Insufficient Data Instr.Sex Vs. Ques.#1 Insufficient Data SchoolLoc.Vs. Grade K 97 1 13.915 .0002 Reject SchoolLoc.Vs. Grade 1 97 1 .272 .6017 Do Not Reject SchoolLoc.Vs. Grade 2 97 1 .085 .7707 Do Not Reject SchoolLoc.Vs. Grade 3 Insufficient Data SchoolLoc.Vs. Ques.#1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. GradelProg. 97 1 10.398 .0013 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. GradeZProg. 97 1 7.045 .0079 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Grade3Prog. Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. GradeZProg. 97 1 58.814 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Grade3Prog. Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Grade3Prog. Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#S-K 97 5 78.188 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#S-l 97 5 15.656 .0079 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#5-2 97 5 14.068 .0152 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#5-3 97 5 9.550 .0891 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#S-K 97 5 11.625 .0403 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#S-l 97 5 75.526 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#S-Z 97 5 51.574 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#5-3 97 5 3.783 _ .5810 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#S-K 97 5 9.250 .0995 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#5-l 97 5 51.764 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#5-2 97 5 71.151 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#5-3 97 5 4.839 .4358 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#S-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#S-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#5-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#5-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#GA-K 97 1 9.134 .0025 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#GA-l 97 1 10.959 .0009 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6A-2 97 1 9.134 .0025 Reject GradeKIns.Vs.Ques.#6A—3 97 1 1.345 .2461 Do Not Reject 128 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H : 0 Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#68-K 97 1 14.687 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6B-l 97 1 4.546 .0330 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6B-2 97 1 6.356 .0117 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#68-3 97 1 8.937 .0028 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#GC-K 97 1 25.060 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6C-l 97 1 19.568 0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6C—2 97 1 18.487 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6C-3 97 1 18.487 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#60-K 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#GD—l 97 1 36.250 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#60-2 97 1 38.852 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6D-3 97 1 38.852 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6E-K 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#GE-l 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6E-2 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#6E-3 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6A-K 97 1 .473 .4917 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GA-l 97 l .664 .4150 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6A-2 97 l .473 .4917 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6A-3 97 1 5.603 .0179 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6B-K 97 1 2.996 .0835 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GB-l 97 1 11.983 .0005 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GB-Z 97 1 4.685 .0304 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6B-3 97 1 3.739 .0532 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6C-K 97 1 .800 .3712 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6C-l 97 1 1.390 .2384 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GC-Z 97 1 .291 .5896 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6C-3 97 l .046 .8310 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GD-K 97 l .290 5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6D-1 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GD-Z 97 1 .700 .4029 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6D-3 97 1 .700 .4029 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#GE-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6E-l 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6E-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#6E-3 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GA-K 97 1 .193 .6607 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GA-l , 97 l .309 .5781 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#6A-2 97 l .193 .6607 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6A-3 97 1 4.636 .0313 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GB-K 97 1 1.880 1703 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6B-l 97 1 8.155 .0043 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GB-Z 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#68-3 97 1 3.933 .0473 Reject TABLE 7 Cont'd) Cluster #1 129 Ch 1. Contrast N df square PSLOS Hzo Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6C-K 97 l .085 .6674 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6C-1 97 1 .468 .4938 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6C-2 97 l .615 .4329 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6C-3 97 l .006 .9400 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GD-K 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#60-l 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#60-2 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#60-3 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GE-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6E-1 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#GE-Z 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#6E-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6A-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6A-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6A-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6A-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6B-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#6B-1 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#6B-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6B-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6C-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#GC-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#6C-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6C-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6D-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#GD-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#60-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6D—3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#GE-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#GE-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6E-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#6E-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-K 97 1 4.955 .0260 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7A—1 97 1 4.372 .0365 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-2 97 1 3.643 .0563 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-3 97 l .769 .3806 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-K 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-l ~ 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-2 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-3 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-K 97 1 39.458 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-1 97 l .027 .8695 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-2 97 l .199 .6557 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-3 97 1 .443 .5059 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques. Insufficient Data #7D-K TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 130 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-l Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-K 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-l 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-2 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-3 97 l .210 .6465 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-l 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-2 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-3 - 97 l .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-K 97 1 4.182 .0409 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-l 97 1 2.286 .1305 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-2 97 1 2.946 .0861 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-3 97 1 2.138 .1437 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-K 97 1 .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-l 97 1 .301 .5830 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-2 97 1 .225 .6355 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7A-3 97 1 .072 7884 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-l 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7B-3 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-K 97 1 4.635 .0313 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-1 97 1 18.859 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-2 97 1 7.819 .0052 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7C-3 97 1 2.207 1374 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-2 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7D-3 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-K 97 1 2.327 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-l 97 1 2.327 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-2 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7E-3 97 1 .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-1 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7F~2 . 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7F-3 97 1 .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-K 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-1 97 1 .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-2 97 1 .155 .6934 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#7G-3 97 l .301 .5830 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7A-K 97 l .007 .9343 Do Not Reject TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7A-1 97 l .096 .7565 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7A-2 97 1 .058 .8105 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7A-3 97 l .445 .5048 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7B-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7B-l 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7B-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7B-3 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7C-K 97 1 3.018 .0823 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7C-1 97 1 12.973 .0003 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7C-2 97 1 13.714 .0002 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7C-3 97 1 4.636 .0313 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7D-K Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7D-l Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7D-2 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7D-3 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7E-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7E-1 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#7E-2 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7E-3 97 1 .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7F-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7F-l 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7F-2 97 l .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7F-3 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7G-K 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7G-1 97 l .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7G-2 97 1 .027 .8695 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#7G-3 97 1 .096 .7565 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7A-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7A-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7A-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7A-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7B-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7B-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7B-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7B-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7C-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7C-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7C-2 “Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7C-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7D-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7D-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs.-Ques.#7D-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7D-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7E-K Insufficient Data TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 132 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7E-1 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7E-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7E-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7F-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7F-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7F-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7F-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7G—K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7G-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#7G-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#7G-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-K 97 l .615 .4329 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-l 97 1 33.513 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-Z 97 1 33.513 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-3 97 1 33.525 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BB-K 97 1 23.503 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BB-l 97 1 2.712 .0996 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BB-Z 97 1 4.859 .0275 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BB-B 97 1 7.747 .0054 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-l 97 l .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-Z 97 l .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-3 97 1 .210 .6465 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-K 97 1 1.700 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-l 97 1 1.072 .3004 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-Z 97 1 1.072 .3004 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-B 97 l .363 .5468 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-K 97 1 8.255 .0041 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-l 97 1 13.875 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-2 97 1 15.695 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-3 97 1 27 287 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-K 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-l 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-Z 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BA-B 97 l .088 .7664 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BB-K 97 1 3.177 .0747 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BB-l 97 1 13.858 .0002 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#88-2 97 1 5.427 .0198 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#88-3 . 97 1 .088 .7669 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-K 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-l 97 l .100 .7522 ‘Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-Z 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BC-3 97 l .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-K 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-l 97 l .155 .6934 Do Not Reject TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 133 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS Hzo Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BD-Z 97 l .155 .6934 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#80-3 97 1 .225 .6355 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-K 97 1 .384 .5353 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-l 97 1 4.182 .0409 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-Z 97 1 1.819 .1774 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#BE-3 97 1 .023 .8802 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BA-K 97 1 .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BA-l 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BA-Z 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BA-3 97 1 .086 .7687 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BB-K 97 1 2.005 .1567 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BB-l 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BB-Z 97 1 10.485 .0012 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#88-3 97 l .720 .3961 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BC-K 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BC-l 97 l .287 5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BC-Z 97 l .287 5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BC-3 97 1 .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BD-K 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BD-l 97 1 .027 .8695 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BD-Z 97 l .027 .8695 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#80-3 97 1 .058 .8105 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BE-K 97 l .142 .7067 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BE-l 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BE-Z 97 1 2.857 .0910 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#BE-3 97 l .000 .9824 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BA-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BA-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BA-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BA-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BB-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BB-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BB-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#88-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BC-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BC-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BC-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BC-3 “ Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BD-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BD-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BD-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BD-B Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BE—K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BE-l Insufficient Data TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 134 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#BE-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#BE-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lA-K 97 1 45.355 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11A—1 97 l .372 .5419 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11A-2 97 1 .282 .5952 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11A—3 97 l .092 .7611 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-K 97 1 .291 .5896 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-l 97 1 33.525 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-2 97 1 33.733 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-3 97 1 37.300 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-K 97 1 10.959 .0009 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-l 97 1 8.045 .0046 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-2 97 1 4.617 .0317 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11C-3 97 1 1.185 .2764 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llD-K 97 1 .063 .8013 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llD-l 97 1 .007 .9326 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lD-2 97 1 .106 .7441 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llD-3 97 1 .006 .9395 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11E-K 97 1 23.740 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llE-l 97 1 2.043 .1529 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llE-Z 97 1 4.050 .0442 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llE-3 97 1 3.329 .0681 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11F-K 97 1 27.899 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11F-l 97 l .183 .6686 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lF-2 97 1 .954 .3286 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lF-3 97 1 3.965 .0464 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llG-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-1 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llG-Z 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-3 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-1 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11H-2 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-3 97 l .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llI-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llI-l 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lll-Z 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lI-3 ~97 l ‘ .210 .6465 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lJ-K 97 1 10.525 .0012 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11J-l 97 1 8.269 .0040 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lJ-2 97 1 8.937 .0028 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11J-3 97 1 14.715 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llK-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#1lK-1 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#llK-2 97 l .714 .3983 Do Not Reject TABLE 7 Cont'd) 135 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS Hzo Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#11K-3 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lA—K 97 1 5.381 .0204 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#11A-l 97 1 23.644 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lA-2 97 1 18.259 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#11A-3 97 1 .072 .7884 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llB-K 97 1 .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-1 97 1 3.365 .0666 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-2 97 1 1.390 .2384 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llB-3 97 l .001 .9786 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llc-K 97 1 .664 .4150 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llC-l 97 1 1.100 .2943 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-2 97 l .077 .7817 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#11C-3 97 1 7.266 .0070 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llD-K 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lD-l 97 l .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lD-2 97 l .155 .6934 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lD-3 97 1 1.997 .1576 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llE-K 97 1 1.819 .1774 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lE-1 97 1 10.971 .0009 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llE-2 97 1 3.505 .0612 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lE-3 97 1 1.935 .1642 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lF-K 97 1 3.177 .0747 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lF-1 97 1 15.310 .0001 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llF-Z 97 1 6.280 .0122 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llF-3 97 l .168 .6818 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llG-K 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-l 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-2 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-3 97 1 .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-l 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-2 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llH-3 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lI-K 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llI-l 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llI-Z 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#111-3~ 97 1 12.145 .0005 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lJ-K' 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-l 97 1 10.898 .0010 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-Z 97 1 7.277 .0070 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-3 97 l .000 .9836 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#1lK-K 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llK-l 97 1 .290 5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llK-Z 97 l .290 5902 Do Not Reject 136 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS Hzo Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#llK-3 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lA-K 97 1 3.538 .0600 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lA-1 97 1 16.327 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lA-2 97 1 18.484 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lA-3 97 1 .445 .5048 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-K 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llB-l 97 1 2.135 .1439 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llB-Z 97 1 2.409 .1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lB-3 97 l .007 .9336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-K 97 1 .309 .5781 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#11C-l 97 1 .589 .4425 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-2 97 1 .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lC-3 97 1 2.962 .0853 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llD-K 97 l .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lD-l 97 l .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lD-2 97 1 .027 .8695 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#110-3 97 1 .578 .4470 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llE-K 97 1 .696 .4042 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lE-1 97 1 6.208 .0127 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lE-2 97 1 7.083 .0078 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lE-3 97 1 1.140 .2857 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lF-K 97 1 2.005 .1567 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#1lF-l 97 1 10.485 .0012 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#11F-2 97 1 11.643 .0006 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lF-3 97 l .000 .9879 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#11G-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-1 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lG-2 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llG-3 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llH-K .97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#11H-l 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-2 -97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lH-3 97 l .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lll-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns. s. Ques.#llI-l 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llI-Z 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lI-3 97 l .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lJ-K 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-l 97 1 7.395 .0065 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-Z 97 1 8.155 .0043 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-3 97 1 .105 .7457 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lK-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lK-l 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#1lK-2 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#llK-B 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 137 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS Hzo Decision Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llA-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llA-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llA-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llA-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llB-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llB-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llB-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llB-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llC-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#11C-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#11C-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#11C-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#110-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llD-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llD-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llD-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llE-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llE-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#11E-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llE-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llF-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llF-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llF-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llF-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llG-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llG-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#11G—2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llG-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llH-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llH-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llH-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llH-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llI-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llI-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llI-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llI-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llJ-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llJ-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llJ-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#11J-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llK-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#llK—l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llK-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#llK-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#le-K 97 1 28.017 .0000 Reject TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 138 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PfLOS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12A-l 97 1 .199 .6557 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-Z 97 1 1.459 .2270 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12A-3 97 1 5.403 .0201 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lzB-K 97 1 4.182 .0409 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lzB-l 97 1 26.572 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZB-Z 97 1 22.662 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#128-3 O7 1 23.558 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZC-K 97 1 1.332 .2484 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZC-l 97 1 2.001 .1572 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12C-2 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12C-3 97 1 .637 .4247 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#120-K 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZD-l 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZD-Z 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#120-3 97 1 1.332 .2484 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-K 97 l .228 .6327 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZE-l 97 l .615 .4329 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-2 97 l .615 .4329 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-3 97 1 1.670 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZF-K 97 1 2.001 .1572 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#le-l 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZF-Z 97 1 3.431 .0640 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12F-3 97 1 3.431 .0640 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZG-K 97 1 3.431 .0640 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZG-l 97 1 4.955 .0260 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12G—2 97 1 4.955 .0260 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12G-3 97 1 .769 .3806 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#le-K 97 1 22.393 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#le-l 97 1 23.705 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12H-2 97 1 25.059 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12H-3 97 1 19.483 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#121-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12I-1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZI-Z Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#121-3 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lzJ-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZJ-l 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12J-2 97 l .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12J-3 97 l .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZK-K 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12K-1 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12K-2 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12K-3 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lzL-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZL-l Insufficient Data TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12L-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12L-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#le-K 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lZM-l 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12M-2 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#le-3 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-K 97 1 4.404 .0358 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-l 97 1 19.917 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12A-2 97 1 8.418 .0037 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12A-3 97 l .019 .8915 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzB-K 97 1 .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzB-l 97 1 3.558 .0592 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZB-Z 97 1 3.967 .0464 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#128-3 97 l .516 .4727 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZC-K 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZC-l 97 1 .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12C-2 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12C-3 97 1 .929 .3351 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZD-K 97 1 2.327 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzD-l 97 1 2.327 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#120-2 97 1 2.327 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#120-3 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-K 97 1 .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#le-l 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-2 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-3 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#le-K 97 l .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12F-l 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12F-2 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZF-S 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZG-K 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzG—l 97 1 .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZG-Z 97 1 .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZG-3 97 1 1.662 .1973 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZH-K 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12H-l 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZH-Z 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12H-3 97 1 .055 .8140 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzl-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZI-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZI-Z Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#121-3 97 l .757 3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzJ-K 97 1 .757 3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12J-l 97 l .290 5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12J-2 97 1 .290 5902 Do Not Reject TABLE 7 Cont'd) 140 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H : 0 Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12J-3 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lzK-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12K-1 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12K-2 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12K-3 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12L-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lZL-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12L-2 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12L-3 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12M-K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12M-1 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12M-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#12M-3 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-K 97 1 2.857 .0910 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-l 97 1 13.714 .0002 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-Z 97 1 14.516 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZA-3 97 l .075 .7842 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZB-K 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZB-l 97 1 2.270 .1319 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZB-Z 97 1 2.553 .1101 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#128-3 97 1 .007 .9336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12C-K 97 l .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lZC-l 97 1 .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12C-2 97 l .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12C-3 97 1 .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lzD-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lzD-l 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#120—2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#120-3 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12E-K 97 1 .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#le-l 97 1 .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12E-2 97 1 .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12E-3 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12F-K 97 1 .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12F-1 97 1 .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12F-2 97 1 .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12F-3 97 l .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lzG-K 97 1 .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12G-1 97 l .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12G-2 97 l .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12G-3 97 1 3.360 0668 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12H-K 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#le-l 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#12H-2 97 1 1.759 1848 Do Not Reject TABLE 7 Cont'd) Cluster #1 Contrast Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. .Vs. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Ques Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. #12H-3 #121-K #121-1 #121-2 #121-3 #12J-K #12J-l #12J-2 #123-3 #12K-K #12K—1 #12K-2 #12K-3 #12L-K #12L-1 #12L-2 #12L-3 #12M-K #12M-1 #12M-2 #12M-3 #12A-K #12A-1 #12A-2 #128-K #128-1 #128-2 #128-3 #12C-K .#12C-1 #120-2 #12C-3 #120-K #120-1 #120-2 #120-3 #IZE-K #12E-1 #12E-2 #12E-3 #lZF-K #12F-1 #12F-2 N 97 df 1 Chi- square 284 Insufficient Data Insufficient Data Insufficient Data 97 c—l—l—J—J—l—l—l—l 1 1 l 1 1 l .246 .246 .586 .586 .586 .246 .246 .246 586 Insufficient Data Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient 97 1 97 l 97 l 97 1 Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Data Data Data 3.343 3.343 3.343 . 1.246 Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data PS. 05 .5942 .2644 .2644 .4440 .4440 .4440 .2644 .2644 .2644 .4440 .0675 .0675 .0675 .2644 H:o Decision 00 Not Reject Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Contrast Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins GradeKIns GradeKIns. Vs. Vs. Vs. . Ques. Vs. Vs. Vs. . Ques. Vs. Vs. . Ques. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. . Ques. Vs. .Vs. Grade31ns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Vs. Vs. . Ques. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. #12F-3 #128-K #128-1 #128-2 #128-3 #12H-K #12H-1 #12H-2 #12H-3 #121-K #121-1 #121-2 #121-3 #TZJ-K #12J-1 #128-2 #12J-3 #12K—K #12K—1 #12K-2 #12K-3 #12L-K #12L-1 #12L-2 #12L-3 #12M-K #12M-1 #12M-2 #12M-3 #13A-K #13A-1 #13A-2 #13A-3 #13A-K #138-1 #138-2 #138-3 #13C-K #13C—1 #13C-2 #13C-3 #13D-K #130-1 #130-2 N df 142 Chi- Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Sggflre Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data, Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data H:o Decision 143 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi— Contrast N df squgre PfiEOS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3D-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#12E-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lBF-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-l Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13F-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3F-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13G-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3G-1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13G-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3G-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lBH-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13H-l Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3H-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13H-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3I-K 97 1 29.386 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13I-l 97 l .063 .8012 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3I-2 97 1 1.588 .2076 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#131-3 97 1 4.617 .0312 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13J-K 97 1 38.003 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3J-l 97 1 .001 .9773 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13J-2 97 1 .005 .9421 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13J-3 97 1 3.399 .0652 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13K-K 97 1 21.120 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13K-1 97 1 2.271 .1318 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13K-2 97 1 4.546 .0330 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3K-3 97 1 7.014 .0081 Rejec GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-K 97 1 30.928 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-l 97 1 .027 .8695 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-2 97 l .540 .4626 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-3 97 1 4.664 .0308 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lBM-K 97 1 35.868 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13M—1 97 1 .027 .8695 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13M-2 97 1 .540 .4626 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13M-3 97 1 4.664 .0308 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3N-K 97 1 34.367 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3N-1 97 l .068 .7940 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13N-3 97 1 1.064 .3023 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13N-3 97 1 5.575 .0182 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#130-K 97 1 35.868 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l30-l 97 1 .392 .5311 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#130-2 97 1 1.064 .3023 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques. 97 1 6.367 .0116 Reject #130—3 TABLE 7 Cont'd) 144 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square P5§05 H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3P—K 97 1 23.705 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3P-1 97 1 1.389 .2385 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13P-2 97 1 3.276 .0203 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13P—3 97 1 9.532 .0020 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13Q-K 97 1 21.120 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Q-1 97 1 3.716 .0539 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13Q-2 97 1 5.773 .0163 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#130-3 97 1 14.715 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13R-K 97 1 16.392 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13R-l 97 1 6.631 .0100 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13R-2 97 1 7.668 .0056 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13R-3 97 1 14.797 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lBS-K 97 1 16.392 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13S-l 97 1 4.662 .0308 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13S-2 97 1 6.294 .0121 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13S-3 97 1 12.752 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3T-K 97 1 26.457 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-1 97 1 1.464 .2263 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-2 97 1 3.540 .0599 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-3 97 1 9.846 .0017 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lBU-K 97 1 32.519 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-1 97 1 .027 .8695 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-2 97 1 1.064 .3023 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-3 97 1 6.367 .0116 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13V-K 97 1 36.152 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3V-l 97 1 .045 .8319 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13V—2 97 l .443 .5059 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3V-3 97 1 6.367 .0116 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13W-K 97 1 3.431 .0640 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13W-l 97 1 1.670 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13W—2 97 1 1.670 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13W-3 97 l .002 .9597 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3X-K 97 1 13.194 .0003 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13X-1 97 1 9.394 .0022 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3X-2 97 1 11.607 .0007 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l3X-3 97 1 17.208 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-K 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-1 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-2 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-3 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13A-K 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3A-l 97 1 .095 .7579 Do Not Reject 145 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square PSQOS H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13A-2 97 1 .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3A-3 97 l .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13B-K 97 1 3.759 .0525 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13B-l 97 1 13.858 .0002 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3B-2 97 1 10.336 .0013 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13B-3 97 1 .088 .7669 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13C-K 97 1 4.635 .0313 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13C-l 97 1 21.060 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13C-2 97 1 10.553 .0012 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13C-3 97 l .072 .7884 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3D-K 97 1 1.342 .2466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#130-1 97 1 6.834 .0089 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13D-2 97 1 7.863 .0050 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13D-3 97 1 2.300 .1293 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-K 97 1 2.022 .1550 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-l 97 1 9.039 .0026 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-2 97 1 6.110 .0134 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13E-3 97 1 .088 .7664 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13F—K 97 1 2.996 .0835 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13F-l 97 1 13.858 .0002 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13F-2 97 1 8.664 .0032 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13F-3 97 1 .198 .6561 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13G-K 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3G-l 97 1 9.470 .0021 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13G-2 97 1 5.761 .0164 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3G-3 97 1 .008 .9305 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13H-K 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13H-l 97 1 11.426 .0007 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13H-2 97 1 4.685 .0304 'Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3H-3 97 l .024 .8765 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13I-K 97 1 3.967 .0464 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#IBI-l 97 1 16.108 .0001 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13I-2 97 1 6.755 .0093 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3I-3 97 1 .077 .7817 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lBJ-K 97 1 5.123 .0236 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13J-1 97 1 26.721 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13J-2 97 1 13.379 .0003 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3J-3 97 l .132 7168 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13K-K 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13K-l 97 1 9.922 .0016 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3K-2 97 1 3.739 .0532 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13K-3 97 l .002 .9642 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-K 97 1 3.558 .0592 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-1 97 1 18.859 .0000 Reject 146 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square EROS H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3L-2 97 1 8.418 .0037 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13L-3 97 l .004 .9503 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13M-K 97 1 4.182 .0409 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13M-1 97 1 18.859 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13M-2 97 1 8.418 .0037 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3M-3 97 1 .004 .9503 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3N-K 97 1 4.635 .0313 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13N-l 97 1 21.060 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3N-2 97 1 9.086 .0026 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13N-3 97 l .009 .9242 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lBO-K 97 1 4.182 .0409 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#130-1 97 1 18.859 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#130-2 97 1 9.068 .0026 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#130-3 97 1 .000 .9883 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13P-K 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13P-1 97 1 10.989 .0010 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13P-2 97 1 4.349 .0370 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13P-3 97 l .434 .5098 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Q-K 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13Q-l 97 1 9.922 .0016 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13Q-2 97 1 4.034 .0446 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Q-3 97 l .605 .4366 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lBR-K 97 1 1.737 .1875 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3R-1 97 1 8.237 .0041 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13R-2 97 1 2.724 .0984 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13R-3 97 1 .128 .7201 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13S-K 97 1 1.737 .1875 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3S-l 97 1 8.237 .0041 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13S-2 97 1 2.506 .1134 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#135-3 97 l .116 .7333 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-K 97 1 2.996 .0835 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-l 97 1 13.858 .0002 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-2 97 1 6.280 .0122 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13T-3 97 1 .077 .7817 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-K 97 1 3.759 .0525 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-1 97 1 18.859 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-2 97 1 9.068 .0026 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13U-3 97 1 .000 .9883 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lBV-K 97 1 4.875 .0273 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13V-1 97 1 21.060 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13V-2 97 1 10.553 .0012 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13V-3 97 1 .000 .9883 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13W-K 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. 8ues.#13W-l 97 1 .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. ues.#l3W-2 97 1 .046 .8302 Do Not Reject 147 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square FEEDS H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13W—3 97 1 3.438 .0637 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13X-K 97 1 1.342 .2466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3X-1 97 1 7.163 .0074 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13X—2 97 1 1.924 .1654 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#13X—3 97 1 .230 .6316 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Y-K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Y-1 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Y—2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l3Y—3 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13A-K 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Quesa#l3A-l 97 1 .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3A-2 97 1 .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13A-3 97 1 .007 .9343 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13B-K 97 1 2.409 .1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13B-l 97 1 9.468 40021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13B-2 97 1 11.045 .0009 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13B-3 97 1 .011 .9180 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13C-K 97 1 3.018 .0823 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13C-l 97 1 14.516 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13C-2 97 1 17.357 0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3C-3 97 1 .249 6180 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3D-K 97 l .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13D-l 97 1 4.552 .0329 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13D-2 97 1 5.271 .0217 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3D-3 97 1 .589 .4429 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13E-K 97 1 1.211 .2712 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3E-1 97 1 6.094 .0136 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13E-2 97 1 7.045 .0079 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13E-3 97 1 .086 7687 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13F-K 97 1 1.880 .1703 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3F-1 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13F-2 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13F-3 97 1 .000 .9879 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13G-K 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13G-l 97 1 6.396 .0114 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3G-2 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13G-3 97 l .073 7868 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#13H-K 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3H-1 97 1 7.765 .0053 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3H—2 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13H-3 97 1 .046 .8292 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13I-K 97 1 2.553 .1101 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3I-1 97 1 11.045 .0009 Reject 148 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square P5305 H:o Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3I-2 97 1 12.284 .0005 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#131-3 97 1 .020 .8886 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13J-K 97 1 3.358 .0669 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13J-l 97 1 18.484 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3J-2 97 1 21.096 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13J-3 97 l .193 .6607 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3K—K 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13K—1 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13K-2 97 1 8.155 .0043 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13K-3 97 1 .277 .5986 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lBL-K 97 1 2.270 .1319 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3L-1 97 1 12.973 .0003 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13L-2 97 1 14.516 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13L-3 97 1 .119 .7302 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3M-K 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13M-1 97 1 12.973 .0003 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13M-2 97 1 14.516 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13M-3 97 1 .119 .7302 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13N-K 97 1 3.018 .0823 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13N-l 97 1 14.516 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3N-2 97 1 15.384 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13N-3 97 l .247 .6191 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#130-K 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#130-l 97 1 12.973 .0003 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l30-2 97 1 15.334 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#130—3 97 1 .176 .6751 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3P-K 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3P-l 97 1 7.395 .0065 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13P-2 97 1 9.005 .0027 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13P-3 97 l .046 .8292 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lBQ—K 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13Q-l 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13Q-2 97 1 8.568 .0034 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3Q-3 97 l .105 .7457 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13R-K 97 1 1.017 .3133 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13R-1 97 1 5.533 .0187 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13R-2 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3R-3 97 1 .057 .8116 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13S-K 97 1 1.017 .3133 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13S-l 97 1 5.533 .0197 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lBS-Z 97 1 6.396 .0114 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#135-3 97 1 .034 .8545 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lBT-K 97 1 1.880 .1703 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13T-1 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13T-2 97 1 11.643 .0006 Rejett TABLE 7 Cont'd) 149 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square Pgos H:o Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3T-3 97 1 .020 .8886 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13U-K 97 1 2.409 .1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13U-1 97 1 12.973 .0003 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3U-2 97 1 15.384 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13U-3 97 1 .176 .6751 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13V-K 97 1 3.185 .0743 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13V—1 97 1 14.516 .0001 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13V-2 97 1 17.357 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13V-3 97 1 .176 .6751 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lBW-K 97 l .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3W-l 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l3W-2 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13W-3 97 1 5.850 .0156 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13X-K 97 1 .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#13X-1 97 1 4.782 .0288 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13X—2 '97 1 5.533 .0187 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13X-3 97 l .017 .8973 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13Y—K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13Y—l 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-3 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13A-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13A-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13A-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13A-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13B-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13B-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l3B-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l3B-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l3C-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13C-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13C-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13C-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13D-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3D-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3D-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3D-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13E-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13E-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13E-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13E-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13F-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13F-l Insufficient Data TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Contrast Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. . Ques . Ques. . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. .#13F-2 #13F-3 .#13G-K #13G-1 #13G-2 #138-3 #13H-K #13H-1 #13H-2 #13H-3 #13I-K #13I-1 #131-2 #131-3 #13J—K #13J-1 #138-2 #13J-3 #13K-K #13K—1 #13K-2 #13K-3 #13L-K #13L-1 #13L-2 #13L-3 #13M-K #13M-1 #13M-2 #13M—3 #13N-K #13N-1 #13N-2 #13N-3 .#130-K #130-1 #130-2 #130-3 #13P-K #13P-1 #13P-2 #13P-3 #13Q-K #130-1 #130-2 N df 150 Chi- Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient square Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Hzo Decision TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 151 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square P305 H:o Decision Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lBQ-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13R-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13R-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13R-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13R-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13S-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13S-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3S-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13S-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13T-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13T-1 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13T-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3T-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l3U-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l3U-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13U-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13U-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13V-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13V-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13V-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13V—3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13W-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13W-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13W-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13W-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13X-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13X-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13X-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13X-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lBY-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13Y-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#13Y-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#13Y-3 Insufficient Data _ GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#20 97 2 18.982 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#Zl-K 97 3 17.309 .0006 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#Zl-l 97 3 17.029 .0007 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#21-2 97 3 18.780 .0003 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#21-3 97 4 17.424 .0016 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-1 97 7 9.282 .2331 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-2 97 6 18.703 .0047 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-3 97 6 14.978 .0204 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-4 97 10 13.176 .2140 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-5 97 10 7.202 .7063 Do Not Reject 152 TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square P5. 05 H :0 Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-6 97 12 12.884 .3775 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22—7 97 10 12.134 .2762 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-8 97 8 15.228 .0549 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-9 97 8 4.449 .8145 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-10 97 11 14.688 .1972 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-ll 97 9 8.321 .5021 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-12 97 9 7.689 .5658 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-13 97 11 11.786 .3799 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#22-14 97 2 1.595 .4505 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#24 97 2 2.309 .3151 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#25 97 2 15.646 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#26 97 3 162.280* .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#20 97 2 4.269 '.1183 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#214K 97 3 .541 .9098 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#Zl-l 97 3 .126 .9886 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#21-2 97 3 .956 .8119 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#21-3 97 4 .702 .9510 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-l 97 7 10.093 .1834 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-2 97 6 9.936 .1274 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-3 97 6 3.712 .7156 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-4 97 10 5.875 .8256 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-5 97 10 10.093 .4324 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-6 97 12 28.397 .0048 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-7 97 10 28.347 .0016 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-8 97 8 31.477 .0001 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-9 97 8 7.957 .4377 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-10 97 11 30.333 .0014 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-ll 97 9 26.145 .0019 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-12 97 9 23.136 .0059 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-13 97 11 8.534 .6649 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#22-l4 97 2 11.384 .0034 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#24 97 2 .376 .8288 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#25 97 2 5.639 .0596 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#26 97 3 191.090* .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#20 97 2 2.883 .2366 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#Zl-K 97 3 .553 .9072 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#Zl-l 97 3 1.365 .7138 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#21-2 97 3 1.174 .7591 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#21-3 97 4 .886 .9266 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-l 97 7 7.289 .3994 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-2 97 6 12.417 .0533 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-3 97 6 4.632 .5918 Do Not Reject * Actual Raw (chi-square) value TABLE 7 (Cont'd) 153 Cluster #1 Chi- Contrast N df square _,05 H:o Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-4 97 10 7.444 .6538 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-5 97 10 7.289 .6979 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-6 97 12 22.857 .0290 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-7 97 10 22.816 .0114 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-8 97 8 27.942 .0005 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-9 97 8 4.477 .8117 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-10 97 11 34.366 .0003 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-ll 97 9 19.944 .0183 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-12 97 9 16.324 .0604 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-13 97 11 5.332 .9140 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#22-l4 97 2 15.420 .0004 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#24 97 2 .710 .7010 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#25 97 2 3.337 .1886 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#26 97 3 189.960* .0000 Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#20 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#21-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#Zl-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#21-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#21-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#22-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-4 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#22-5 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-6 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#22-7 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#ZZ-B Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#22-9 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-10 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-ll Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#22-12 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#22-13 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#22-14 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#24 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#25 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#26 Insufficient Data *Actual Raw (chi-square) value 154 Proper procedures for turning Emergency stopping and maneuvering Defensive riding Hazards that face the bicyclist (weather, pavement, vehicles) Crossing railroad tracks Crossing intersections Correct lane placement Overtaking other bicycles, vehicles Night-time riding Using safety flags Using reflective materials Proper clothing for increased visibility Skill and performance tests Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for signi- ficance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H018) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for: Bicycle riding and safety concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) Bicycle tour techniques/packing procedures Trip-planning techniques Conducting special bicycle events (e.g., parades, contests or races) and Other "Bicycle riding and safety" event concepts (special demonstrations) 155 The null hypothesis (H018) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" respon- ses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts fOr "Reported Bicycle Riding and Safety Concepts" are reported in tabular form in Table 8. Reported "Bicycle Safetx Equipment" Concepts A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Bicycle Safety Equipment" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Bicycle safety equipment concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) - How to measure a bicycle for proper size and fit - Bicycle anatomy (e.g., pedals, seats, frame) - Classification of bicycles (e.g., lightweight, touring, 3-speed) .' Selection of bicycles, accessories - Required equipment (e.g., brakes, horn/bell) - Required equipment on newly sold bicycles (e.g., pedal, wheel reflectors) - Required equipment for night riding (e.g., lights, reflectors) - Recommended equipment (e.g., rear taillight, basket, grips) - Optional equipment for visibility, safety (e.g., flags, clothing, mirrors) Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for signi- ficance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower 156 than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H019) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for: Bicycle safety equipment concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) History of bicycling Bicycle trips/touring/traveling equipment (e.g., bags, tool kit) and Other "Bicycle safety equipment" concepts (bicycle frame construction) The null hypothesis (H019) was not rejected for these varia- bles. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be per- formed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Safety Equipment Concepts " are reported in tabular form in Table 8. Reported "Bicycle Care and Maintenance" Concepts A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K—3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Bicycle Care and Maintenance" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Bicycle care and maintenance concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) - Proper bicycle storage - Theft prevention - Parking procedures - Brakes (e.g., adjustment for even wear) - Saddle (seat) (e.g., adjustment for proper size) 157 - Handlebars (e.g., tighten often, proper height) - Wheels (e.g., nuts tight to prevent sway, uneven wear on rim) - Tires (e.g., properly inflated, no defects) - Spokes (e.g., tight, wear) - Pedals (e.g., spin freely, tight) - Chain (e.g., wear, lubrication) - Gears (e.g., adjustment, replacement of cables) - Keeping all working parts clean and lubricated Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for signifi- cance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H020) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for: - Bicycle care and maintenance concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) - Other "Bicycle care and maintenance" procedures (main- tenance schedules) The null hypothesis (H020) was not rejected for these varia- bles. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. "Totally negative" responses recorded for partial contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructors also prevented complete contrasts being performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts and for partial contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructors. The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Care and Maintenance Concepts" are reported in tabular form in Table 8. 158 TABLE 8 BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION CONCEPT UTILIZATION Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4A-K 97 1 4.373 . .0365 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14A-1 97 1 4.373 .0365 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14A-2 97 1 5.132. .0235 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14A-3 97 1 6-563 .0104 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14B-K 97 1 14.229 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4B-1 97 1 8.008 .0047 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14B-2 97 1 14.615 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4B-3 97 1 17.208 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14C-K 97 1 17.522 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4C-1 97 1 5.515 .0189 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4C-2 97 1 7.668 .0056 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14C-3 97 1 15.846 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14D—K 97 1 14.229 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14D—l 97 1 7.124 .0076 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4D-2 97 1 9.940 .0016 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4D-3 97 1 15.033 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14E-K 97 1 13.827 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14E-l 97 1 4.787 .0287 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14E-2 97 1 10.174 .0014 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4E-3 97 1 15.840 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4F-K 97 1 17.167 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14F-1 97 1 3.887 .0487 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14F-2 97 1 8.937 .0028 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4F-3 97 1 12.508 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4G-K 97 1 21.120 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14G-1 97 1 2.712 .0996 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14G-2 97 1 6.356 .0117 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4G-3 97 1 12.568 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14H-K 97 1 4.182 .0409 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14H-1 97 1 20.513 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14H-2 97 1 22.336 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4H-3 97 1 27.789 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14I-K 97 1 18.353 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4I-l 97 1 5.515 .0189 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14I-2 97 1 4.787 .0287 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14I-3 97 1 9.564 .0020 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4J-K 97 1 18.353 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14J-1 97 1 3.716 .0539 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4J-2 97 1 5.523 .0219 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14J-3 97 1 14.715 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4K-K 97 1 14.905 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14K-l 97 1 12.508 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. #14K-2 97 1 8.751 .0031 Reject Ques. 159 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square P$.05 H: 0 Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14K-3 97 1 4.109 .0427 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14L—K 97 1 24.900 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14L-l 97 1 22.646 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4L-2 97 1 15.390 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14L-3 97 1 7.930 .0049 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14M-K 97 1 11.551 .0007 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14M-l 97 1 13.623 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14M-2 97 1 14.715 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4M-3 97 1 8.937 .0028 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14N-K 97 1 10.261 .0014 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14N-l 97 1 6.987 .0082 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14N-2 97 1 6.107 .0135 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4N-3 97 1 4.177 .0410 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#140-K 97 1 25.060 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l40-l 97 1 22.128 .0000. Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l40-2 97 1 14.185 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l40-3 97 1 8.896 .0029 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-K 97 1 6.987 .0082 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-l 97 1 6.202 .0128 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-2 97 1 6.596 .0102 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-3 97 1 8.896 .0029 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14Q-K 97 1 19.568 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14Q-l 97 l .761 .3831 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4Q-2 97 1 4.177 .0410 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4Q-3 97 1 7.831 .0051 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14R-K 97 1 17.016 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4R-1 97 1 2.373 .1235 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4R-2 97 1 5.585 .0181 Reject . GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14R-3 97 1 10.568 .0012 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14S-K 97 1 .291 .5846 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4S-1 97 1 26.255 £0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14S-2 97 1 24.282 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14S-3 97 1 24.919 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14T-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14T-l 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4T-2 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14T-3 97 l .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14U-K 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14U-l 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4U-2 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4U-3 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14V—K 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4V—l 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14V-2 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4V—3 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject 160 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14W-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14W-l 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l4W-2 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#14W-3 97 l .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4A-K 97 1 .301 .5830 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14A-l 97 1 .301 .5830 DO Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14A-2 97 1 .215 .5430 DO Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4A-3 97 1 .225 .5355 DO Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14B-K 97 1 1.470 .2254 ' Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4B—l 97 1 8.629 .0033 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14B-2 97 1 1.924 .1654 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14B-3 97 l .076 .7820 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4C-K 97 1 1.878 .1706 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14C-l 97 1 9.922 .0016 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14C-2 97 1 5.761 .0164. Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4C-3 97 1 .002 .9642 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14D-K 97 1 1.470 .2254 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4D-1 97 1 9.039 .0026 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4D—2 97 1 7.863 .0050 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14D-3 97 1 .046 .8310 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14E-K 97 1 1.878 .1706 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14E-l 97 1 10.398 .0013 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4E-2 97 1 2.724 .0989 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14E-3 97 1 .055 .8140 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14F-K 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14F-l 97 1 12.572 .0004 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4F-2 97 1 3.739 .0532 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14F-3 97 1 .002 .9642 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14G-K 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4G-1 97 1 13.858 .0002 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4G-2 97 1 4.685 .0304 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14G-3 97 l .024 .8765 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4H-K 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14H-1 97 1 3.759 .0525 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14H-2 97 1 3.558 .0592 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14H-3 97 l .001 .9786 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4I-K 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4I-l 97 1 9.922 .0016 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14I-2 97 1 10.398 .0013 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14I-3 97 l .557 .4553 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4J-K 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4J-1 97 1 9.922 .0016 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14J-2 97 1 6.866 .0088 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14J-3 97 l .605 .4366 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14K-K 97 1 2.022 1550 Do Not Reject 161 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square P5505 H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4K-l 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14K-2 97 1 .906 .3412 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14K-3 97 1 1.067 .3017 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14L-K 97 1 3.365 .0666 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4L-l 97 1 4.875 .0273 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14L-2 97 1 .516 .4727 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14L-3 97 1 3.520 .0606 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4M-K 97 1 2.022 .1550 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14M-l 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4M-2 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14M-3 97 1 .128 .7201 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4N-K 97 1 .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4N-l 97 1 1.342 .2466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14N-2 97 1 1.601 .2057 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14N-3 97 1 .000 .9836 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#140-K 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#140-1 97 1 3.558 .0592 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l40-2 97 l .434 .5101 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l40-3 97 1 3.295 .0695 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-K 97 1 1.342 .2466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14P-l 97 1 5.928 .0149 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-2 97 1 6.520 .0107 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14P-3 97 1 1.160 .2815 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14Q-K 97 1 3.759 .0525 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14Q-l 97 1 15.310 .0001 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14Q-2 97 1 5.839 0157 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4Q-3 97 1 .119 .7305 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4R-K 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14R-1 97 1 12.572 .0004 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14R-2 97 1 5.014 .0247 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14R-3 97 l .288 .5913 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4S-K 97 1 .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14S-l 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14S-2 97 1 3.365 .0666 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14S-3 97 1 .046 .8310 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14T-K 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4T-1 97 l .290 5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4T-2 97 1 .290 5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14T-3 97 1 .100 7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4U—K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4U-l 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14U-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14U-3 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14V—K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4V—1 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject 162 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- , , Contrast N df square 95.05 H:o Dec1s1on GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14V—2 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14V-3 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14W-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14W-l 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l4W-2 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#14W-3 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14A-K 97 1 .096 .7565 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14A-1 97 l .096 .7565 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14A-2 97 l .142 .7067 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14A-3 97 1 -.058 . .8105 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#14B-K 9/ 1 .836 .3605 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14B-l 97 1 5.807 .0160 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4B-2 97 1 5.533 .0187 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4B—3 97 1 .017 .8973 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14C-K 97 1 1.112 .2916 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14C-l 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14C-2 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14C-3 97 1 .142 .7059 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14D-K 97 1 .836 .3605 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14D-l 97 1 6.094 .0136 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4D-2 97 1 5.271 .0217 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14D-3 97 1 .006 .9400 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14E-K 97 1 1.112 .2916 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14E-l 97 1 7.045 .0079 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14E-2 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14E-3 97 l .284 5942 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14F-K 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14F-l 97 1 8.568 .0034 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4F-2 97 1 8.155 .0043 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14F-3 97 l .142 .7059 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4G-K 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14G-l 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4G-2 97 1 9.468 .0021 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14G-3 97 l .046 .8292 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4H-K 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not_Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4H-l 97 1 2.409 .1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14H-2 97 1 2.270 .1319 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4H-3 97 1 .589 .4429 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4I-K 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4I-1 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4I-2 97 1 7.045 .0079 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14I-3 97 1 .142 .7059 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4J-K 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14J-1 97 1 6.712 .0096 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14J-2 97 1 7.765 .0053 Reject 163 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- . Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Dec1sion Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4J-3 97 l .105 .7457 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4K-K 97 1 1.211 .2712 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14K-1 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14K-2 97 1 1.880 .1703 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4K-3 97 l .985 .3209 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4L-K 97 1 2.135 .1439 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14L-l 97 1 3.185 .0743 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4L-2 97 1 3.185 .0743 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4L-3 97 1 1.666 .1968 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14M-K 97 1 1.211 .2712 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4M-l 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14M-2 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4M-3 97 l .057 .8116 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14N-K 97 1 .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4N-1 97 1 .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14N-2 97 1 .925 .3362 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14N-3 97 1 .105 .7457 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l40-K 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l40-l 97 1 2.270 .1314 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#140-2 97 1 3.018 .0823 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l40-3 97 1 1.534 .2155 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14P-K 97 l .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14P-l 97 1 3.919 .0477 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-2 97 1 4.333 .0374 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4P-3 97 1 .156 .6925 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4Q-K 97 1 2.409 .1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4Q-l 97 1 10.485 .0012 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4Q-2 97 1 11.045 .0009 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14Q-3 97 1 .006 .9389 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14R-K 97 1 1:759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4R-l 97 1 8.568 .0034 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4R-2 97 1 9.961 .0016 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4R-3 97 l .011 .9180 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14S-K 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14S-l 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4S-2 97 1 2.135 .1439 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14S-3 97 1 .006 .9400 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14T-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4T-l 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4T-2 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4T-3 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4U-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l4U-l 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#14U-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#14U-3 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Contrast 164 Chi- N df square PS. 05 H:o Decision Grade21ns. .Vs Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. GradeZIns GradeZIns GradeZIns Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. .Vs Grade3Ins Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Grade31ns. .Vs Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Grade3Ins Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs .Vs .Vs Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Vs Vs .Vs Grade31ns. Vs .Vs Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. .Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs .Vs Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. .Vs Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. .Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs Vs .Vs Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. .Vs Grade31ns. Vs Vs Vs Vs . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. .‘Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. .#140-1 .#140-2 . Ques . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. .#14F-3 . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. .#141-3 . Ques . Ques. #14V-K #14V-1 #14V-2 #14V-3 #14W-K #14W-1 #14W-2 #14W-3 #14A-K #14A-1 #14A-2 #14A-3 #14B-K #148-1 #148-2 #148-3 #14C-K #14C-1 #14C-2 #14C-3 #14D-K #140-3 #14E-K #14E-1 #14E-2 #14E-3 #14F-K #14F-1 #14F-2 #14G-K #148-1 #148-2 #148-3 #14H-K #14H-1 #14H-2 #14H-3 #14I-K #141-1 #14I-2 #14J-K 3. 1 1 1 1 1 \D \l 97 Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient 343 .246 .246 .586 .246 .246 .246 .586 Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data .0675 .2644 .2644 .4440 .2644 .2644 .2644 .4440 Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Contrast Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. #14J-1 #14J-2 #14J-3 #14K-K #14K-1 #14K-2 #14K—3 #14L-K #14L-1 #14L-2 #14L-3 #14M-K #14M-1 #14M-2 #14M-3 #14N-K #14N-1 #14N-2 #14N-3 #140-K #140-1 #140-2 #140-3 #14P-K #14P-1 #14P-2 #14P-3 #14Q-K #140-1 #140-2 #140-3 #14R-K #14R-1 #14R-2 #14R-3 #14S-K #145-1 #145-2 #14S-3 #14T-K #14T-1 #14T-2 #14T-3 #14U-K #14U-1 165 Chi- N df Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient sguare Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data H:o Decision TABLE 8 (Cont'd) 166 Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H:o Decision Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#14U-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#14U-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#14V—K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#14V-1 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#14V—2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l4V-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#14W-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#14W-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l4W-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#14W-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lsA-K 97 1 5.919 .0150 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15A-l 97 1 5.132 .0235 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15A-2 97 1 5.919 .0150 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-B 97 1 5.132 .0235 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15B-K 97 1 3.643 .0563 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15B-l 97 1 2.138 .1437 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l5B-2 97 1 1.102 .2939 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-3 97 1 .529 .4671 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15C-K 97 1 15.295 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15C-l 97 1 5.822 .0158 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15C-2 97 1 7.124 .0076 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15C-3 97 1 9.889 .0017 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15D-K 97 1 15.295 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#150-l 97 1 7.494 .0062 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#150-2 97 1 8.946 .0028 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15D-3 97 1 13.868 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15E-K 97 1 9.339 .0022 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-l 97 1 7.190 .0073 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15E-2 97 1 5.403 .0201 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15E-3 97 1 6.908 .0086 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-K 97 1 8.444 .0037 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15F-1 97 1 6.367 .0116 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15F-2 97 1 4.664 .0308 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15F-3 97 1 6.107 .0135 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-K 97 1 21.120 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-l 97 1 3.481 .0621 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15G-2 97 1 7.171 .0074 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-3 97 1 10.488 .0012 RejeCt GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15H-K 97 1 12.188 .0005 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-l 97 1 7.486 .0062 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-Z 97 1 8.896 .0029 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15H-3 97 1 13.422 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-K 97 1 19.578 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#151-1 97 1 18.279 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-Z 97 1 11.936 .0006 Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) 167 Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df squpre EROS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-3 97 1 8.415 .0037 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-K 97 1 17.522 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-l 97 1 14.715 .0001 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-Z 97 1 10.525 .0012 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15J-3 97 1 5.515 .0189 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-K 97 1 10.261 .0014 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-l 97 1 6.487 .0082 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15K—2 97 1 6.107 .0135 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#15K—3 97 1 1.732 .1881 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-l 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-Z 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-3 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-K 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-l 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-Z 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-3 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSAéK 97 1 -132 -7153 DO Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-l 97' 1 -215 ~5430 DO Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-Z 97 1 -132 - -7153 00 Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-B 97 1 .215. .6430 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-K 97 1 .225 .6355 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-l 97 1 .301 .5830 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-Z 97 1 .215 .6430 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#158-3 97 1 .009 .9242 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-K 97 1 1.601 .2057 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-l 97 1 8.629 .0033 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-Z 97 1 5.115 .0237 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15C-3 97 1 1.211 .2711 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-K 97 1 1.601 .2057 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-l 97 1 7.863 .0050 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-2 97 1 4.531 .0333 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-3 97 l .076 .7820 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-K 97 1 .874 .3499 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-l 97 l .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE—Z 97 1 .019 .8915 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-3 97 1 .137 .7116 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-K 97 l .767 .3812 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-l 97 l .874 .3499 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-Z 97 1 .004 .9503 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15F-3 97 1 .168 .6818' Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-K 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15641 97 1 11.426 .0007 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-Z 97 1 4.349 .0370 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-3 97 1 .008 .9305 Do Not Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) 168 Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLDS H:o DeCision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-K 97 1 1.219 .2696 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-l 97 1 6.218 .0126 Reject . GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15H-2 97 1 3.295 .0695 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15H-3 97 1 .001 .9725 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-K 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-l 97 1 3.558 .0592 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-Z 97 1 .291 .5896 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-3 97 1 1.591 .2072 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-K 97 1 1.878 .1706 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-l 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15J-2 97 l .800 .3712 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#15J-3 97 l .811 .3678 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-K 97 1 .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-l 97 1 1.342 .2466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-Z 97 1 .168 .6818 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-3 97 1 2.366 .1240 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-l 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-Z 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-3 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-K 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-l 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-Z 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-3 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-K 97 1 .193 .6607 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-l 97 1 .142 .7067 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-Z 97 1 .193 .6607 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15A-3 97 l .142 .7067 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-K 97 l .058 .8105 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-l 97 1 .096 .7565 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-Z 97 1 .142 .7067 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-3 97 1 .247 .6191 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-K 97 l .925 .3362 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-l 97 1 5.807 .0160 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-Z 97 1 6.094 .0136 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15C-3 97 1 1.105 .2932 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-K 97 l .925 .3362 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-l 97 1 5.271 .0217 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-Z 97 1 5.533 .0187 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#150-3 97 l .017 .8973 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-K 97 1 .442 .5060 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-l 97 l .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-Z 97 1 .590 .4425 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-B 97 l .002 .9643 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-K 97 1 .374 .5409 Do Not Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) 169 Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-l 97 I .442 .5060 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-Z 97 l .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15F-3 97 1 .000 .9879 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-K 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-l 97 1 7.765 .0053 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-Z 97 1 9.005 .0027 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-B 97 1 .423 .5156 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-K 97 l .668 .4135 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-l 97 1 4.122 .0423 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-Z 97 1 4.333 .0374 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15H-3 97 1 .018 .8922 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-K 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-l 97 1 2.270 .1319 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-Z 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-3 97 l .305 .5805 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-K 97 1 1.112 .2916 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-l 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-Z 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15J-3 97 1 .000 .9824 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-K 97 l .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-l 97 l .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-Z 97 1 .925 .3362 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15K-3 97 1 2.046 .1526 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-l 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-Z 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#15L-3 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-K 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-l 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-Z 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSM—3 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSA-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSA-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSA-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSB-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSB-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSB-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSC-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSC-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSD-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSD-l Insufficient Data TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Contrast Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. GradeKIns. . Ques . Ques . Ques . Ques . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques . Ques Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. .#150-2 .#150-3 .#15E-K .#15E-1 .#15E-2 #15E-3 #15F-K #15F-1 #15F-2 #15F-3 #1SG-K #158-1 #158—2 #158-3 #15H-K #15H-1 #15H-2 #15H-3 #151-K #151-1 #151-2 #151-3 #15J-K #158-1 #150-2 #150-3 #15K-K .#15K-1 .#15K-2 #15K-3 #15L-K #15L-1 #15L-2 #15L-3 #15M-K #15M-1 #15M-2 #15M-3 #16A-K #16A-1 #16A-2 #16A-3 #168-K #168-1 #168-2 N df 170 Chi- Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 —l-l—-l—J—l-—l—l ,pguare Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data ‘11.906 8.444 10.959 10.035 5.575 2.683 2.737 PS. 05 .0006 .0037 .0009 .0015 .0182 .1014 .0981 H:o Decision Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Do Not Reject Do Not Reject 171 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square R5.05 H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#168-3 97 1 2.190 .1389 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-K 97 1 18.686 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-l 97 1 13.577 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16C-2 97 1 9.684 .0019 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD—K 97 1 13.194 .0003 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-l 97 1 9.621 .0019 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#160-2 97 1 9.537 .0020 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-3 97 1 4.343 .0372 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-K 97 1 10.261 .0014 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-l 97 1 6.987 .0082 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-2 97 1 7.747 .0054 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16E-3 97 1 4.859 .0275 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-K 97 1 12.188 .0005 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-l 97 1 9.394 .0022 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16F-2 97 1 13.422 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16F-3 97 1 11.203 .0008 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-K 97 1 12.188 .0005 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-l 97 1 9.394 .0022 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16G-2 97 1 13.422 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16G-3 97 1 13.035 .0003 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-K 97 1 11.210 .0008 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16H-1 97 1 10.434 .0012 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16H-2 97 1 10.993 .0009 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16H-3 97 1 12.285 .0005 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-K 97 1 11.210 .0008 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lGI-l 97 1 11.538 .0007 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSI-Z 97 1 10.993 .0009 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#161-3 97 1 11.203 .0008 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-K 97 1 9.339 .0022 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16J-l 97 1 ' 13.947 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-Z 97 1 13.282 .0003 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16J-3 97 1 12.285 .0005 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l6K-K 97 1 10.261 .0014 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-l 97 1 12.708 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK—Z 97 1 10.993 .0009 1 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16K-3 97 1 13.422 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-K 97 1 11.210 .0008 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-l 97 1 11.538 .0007 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-Z 97 1 9.940 .0016 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16L-3 97 1 14.185 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-K 97 1 7.576 .0059 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-l 97 1 4.664 .0308 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16M-2 97 1 5.343 .0208 Reject 'GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16M-3 97 1 2.404 .1210 Do Not Reject 172 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- . Contrast N df square P5305 H:o Deci51on GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSN-K 97 1 11.210 .0008 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSN-l 97 1 7.831 .0051 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16N-2 97 1 6.123 .0133 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#16N-3 97 1 5.585 .1081 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSO-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#lSO-l 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#160-2 97 1 .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#160-3 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16A-K 97. 1 .767 .3812 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-l 97 1 .767 .3812 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16A-2 97 1 .664 .4150 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16A-3 97 1 .566 .4518 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-K 97 1 .767 .3812 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-l 97 1 .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-Z 97 1 .077 .7817 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#168-3 97 l .043 .8353 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-K 97 1 2.022 .1550 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16C-l 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16C-2 97 1 1.018 .3130 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16C-3 97 l .811 3678 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-K 97 1 1.342 2466 Do NOt Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-l 97 1 1.737 1875 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSD-Z 97 1 .434 .5098 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#160-3 97 l .368 .5443 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16E-K 97 l .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-l 97 1 1.342 2466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-Z 97 1 1.878 1706 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16E-3 97 1 .002 9642 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-K 97 1 1.219 .2696 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-l 97 1 7.163 .0074 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16F-2 97 1 2.107 1466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l6F-3 97 1 2.506 1134 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-K 97 1 1.219 .2696 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-l 97 1 7.163 .0074 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSG—Z 97 1 2.107 .1466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16G-3 97 1 .811 .3678 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-K 97 1 1.100 2943 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSH-l 97 1 6.834 .0089 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16H-2 97 1 7.505 .0062 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16H-3 97 1 2.300 .1293 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l6I-K 97 1 1.100 .2943 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lGI-l 97 1 6.520 .0107 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l6I-2 97 1 7.505 .0062 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#161-3 97 1 2.506 1134 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-K 97 1 .874 3499 Do Not Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) 173 Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square FEEDS H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lEJ-l 97 1 5.928 .0149 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16J-2 97 1 6.834 .0089 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16J-3 97 1 2.300 .1293 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-K 97 1 .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16K-1 97 1 6.218 .0126 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16K-2 97 1 7.505 .0062 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16K-3 97 1 2.107 .1466 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16L-K 97 1 1.100 .2943 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-l 97 1 6.520 .0107 Reject ‘ GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16L-2 97 1 7.863 .0050 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16L-3 97 l .698 .4033 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-K 97 l .664 .4150 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-l 97 1 .985 .3210 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l6M-2 97 1 1.470 .2254 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16M-3 97 1 .051 .8220 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l6N-K 97 1 1.100 .2943 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16N-l 97 1 1.470 .2254 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16N-2 97 l .358 .5495 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#16N-3 97 l .012 .9130 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSO-K 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#lSO—l 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#160-2 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#160-3 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-K 97 1 .374 .5409 DO NOt Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-l 97 l ..374 .5409 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSA-Z 97 1 -309 .5781 DO Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16A-3 97 1 .-249 .5180 DO NOt REJECt Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l6B—K 97 1 .374 .5409 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSB-l 97 l .524 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16B-2 97 1 .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l6B-3 97 1 .042 .8370 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-K 97 1 1.211 .2712 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16C-l 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSC-Z 97 1 2.005 .1567 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16C-3 97 l .000 .9824 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16D-K 97 1 .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l6D-l 97 1 1.017 .3133 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#160-2 97 1 1.313 .2518 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#160-3 97 1 .167 .6832 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#l6E-K 97 l .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSE-l 97 1 .751 .3863 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16E-2 97 1 1.112 .2916 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#16E-3 97 1 .142 .7059 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-K 97 l .669 4135 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-l 97 1 4.782 0288 Reject TABLE 8 (Cont'd) 174 Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSF-Z 97 I 5.807 .0160 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16F-3 97 1 .676 .4108 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #16G-K 97 1 .669 .4135 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSG-l 97 1 4.782 .0288 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #166-2 97 1 5.807 .0160 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #166-3 97 l .771 .3798 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #16H-K 97 l .590 .4425 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #16H-1 97 1 4.552 .0329 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #16H-2 97 1 5.021 .0250 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #16H-3 97 1 .589 .4429 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #161-K 97 l .590 .4425 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #161-1 97 1 4.333 .0374 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #161-2 97 1 5.021 .0250 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques #161-3 97 1 .676 .4108 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-K 97 1 .442 .5060 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSJ-l 97 1 3.919 .0477 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16J-2 97 1 4.552 .0329 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16J-3 97 1 .589 .4429 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-K 97 1 .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSK-l 97 1 4.122 .0423 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16K-2 97 1 5.021 .0250 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16K-3 97 l .508 .4759 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-K 97 l .590 .4425 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-l 97 1 4.333 .0324 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16L-2 97 1 5.271 .0217 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSL-3 97 1 .676 .4108 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSMLK 97 1 .309 .5781 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSM-l 97 1 .514 .4733 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16M-2 97 l .836 .3605 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16M-3 97 1 .026 .8729 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSN-K 97 1 .590 .4425 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSN-l 97 1 .836 .3605 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#16N-2 97 1 1.211 .2712 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#16N-3 97 l .185 .6674 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lSO-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#lGO-l 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#160-2 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#160-3 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSA-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSA-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSA-Z Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#16A-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSB-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSB-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques #168-2 Insufficient Data TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Contrast Grade31ns. Grade31ns Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns Grade3Ins. Grade31ns Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. V5. V5. Vs. .Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. V5. V5. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. 'Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. .#16L-2 Ques Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Oues. #168-3 #1GC-K #16C-1 #160-2 #16C-3 #160-K #160-1 #160-2 #160-3 #16E-K #16E-1 #16E-2 #16E-3 #16F-K #16F-1 #16F-2 #16F-3 #TGG-K #168-1 #168—2 #16G-3 #16H-K #16H—1 #16H-2 #16H-3 #161-K #161-1 #161-2 #161-3 #16J-K #16J-1 #168-2 #16J-3 #16K-K #16K-l #16K—2 #16K-3 #16L-K #16L-1 #16L-3 #16M-K #16M-1 #16M-2 #16M-3 175 Chi- N df Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient square Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data .Data Data Data Data Data Data H:o Decision 176 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Cluster #2 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSN-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSN-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSN-Z Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#16N-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#lSO-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#lSO-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#160-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#160-3 Insufficient Data 177 Contrast 3 Program Evaluation Practices Reported "On-Bike" Performance or Skill Test Exercises A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following reported "Specific Skill Exercises Offered in Conjunction With 'On-Bike' Performance or Skill Tests" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instructors: - "On-bike" performance/skill exercises not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) - Sign, signal, pavement marking recognition - Balancing exercises (e.g., straight line, weave, zig-zag) - Serpentine, Slalom, or weave riding - Slow-poke races (coasting races) - Circling and balance exercise - Stopping drills - Braking with, without skids - Riding on rough surfaces (e.g., gravel, wet/bumpy, grassy areas Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for signi- ficance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H021) was 2 rejected for these variables. Insignificant X values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. 2 Insignificant X values were also obtained for the following variables: 178 - "On-bike" performance/skill exercises not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) - Relay races (partial contrasts) - Riding planks, narrow surfaces - Ride and pitch exercise (hit the target, bean bag toss) (partial contrasts) - Traffic mix situations (partial contrasts) - Timed speed races - Figure-8 with weave - U or Y turn-about exercises - Evasive riding exercise(s) (partial contrasts) - Riding on wet surfaces (partial contrasts) - Pair or group riding exercise (partial contrasts) - Passing exercise — Merging exercise - Simulated turning exercises (e.g., one-way, two-way, 4-lane, divided and undivided roadways) - Do you provide awards or certificates to participants (If yes, circle appropriate grades) - Do you utilize reflectorized tape in conjunction with inspections (If yes, circle appropriate levels) The null hypothesis (H021) was not rejected for these varia- bles. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. "Totally negative" responses for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Relay Races," "Ride And Pitch Exercise(s) (Hit The Target, Bean Bag Toss),“ "Traffic Mix Situations," "Evasive Riding Exercise(s)," "Riding on Wet Surfaces" and "Pair, Group Riding.Exercises" also prevented chi-square Across 179 tabulation" contrasts being performed for these variables. Insuf- ficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor con- trasts and for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Relay Races," "Ride And Pitch Exercise(s) (Hit The Target, Bean Bag Toss)," "Traffic Mix Situations," "Evasive Riding Exercise(s)," "Riding on Wet Surfaces" and "Pair, Group Riding Exercises." The contrasts for "Reported 'On-Bike' Performance or Skill Test Exercises" are reported in tabular form in Table 9. Repprted Utilization of Expertise at Perf6rmanceZSkill Tests A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the "Utilization of Expertise From Others in Their Own Community at Performance, Skill Test Activities" as reported by 2 value of 7.815 or higher Kindergarten bicycle instructors. A X was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H022) was rejected for this variable. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. The null hypothesis (H022) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicyCle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Utilization of Expertise at Performance or Skill Tests" are reported in tabular form in Table 9. 180 chorted Bicycle Skill Tests or Evaluation Performance Program at Local Driver Education Rangg/ Off-Street Practice Area No significant difference was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Incorporation of The Bicycle Safety Skill Test or an Evaluation Performance Program at The Local Driver Education Range/Off-Street Practice Area" as re- ported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. A x2 value of 5.991 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were higher than the .05 level of significance for these variables, the null hypothesis (H023) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Skill Tests or Evaluation Performance Program at The Local Driver Education Range/ Off-Street Practice Area" are reported in tabular form in Table 9. Rpported Bicycle Safety-Related Accidents and Fatalities A significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Bicycle Safety-Related Accidents and Fatalities on School Grounds During the 1977-78 School Year" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 2 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. A X value of 5.991 or higher was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained 181 were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H026) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Safety-Related Accidents And Fatalities" are reported in tabular form in Table 9. Contrast 4 Bicycle Safety Education Program Duration Reported Seasonal Offerings A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Time of Year (Seasonal) Offerings" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instructors for "Fall Term Bicycle Safety Education Programs." Chi-square values of 3.841 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H06) was rejected for this variable. Insignificant x2 values were obtained for grade 1 bicycle instructors and grade 2 bicycle instructors, "Spring Bicycle Safety Education Programs," "Summer Bicycle Safety Education Programs" and "Bicycle Safety Education Programs Integrated Within Existing Classes on a Year- Round Basis." The null hypothesis (H06) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items and "Winter Term" TABLE 9 BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION PRACTICES Cluster #3 Chi- Contrast N df square PSLOS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques #17A-K 97 1 33.037 ' .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques #17A-1 97 1 29.043 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques #17A-2 97 1 22.301 . .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques #17A-3 97 l 17.857~ .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques #17B-K 97 1 1.670 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7B-l 97 1 26.572 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17B-2 97 1 24.556 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17B-3 97 1 27.287 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7C-K 97 1 1.670 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17C-l 97 1 28.718 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7C-2 97 1 24.556 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17C-3 97 1 25.371 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17D—K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7D-l Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7D-2 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17D-3 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17E-K 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17E-1 97 1 .714 3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17E-2 97 1 .714 3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7E-3 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-K 97 1 .228 .6327 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17F-l 97 1 36.058 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-2 97 1 33.448 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17F—3 97 1 33.733 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17G-K 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17G-l 97 1 41.846 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7G-2 97 1 38.852 0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17G-3 97 1 44.324 0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7H-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7H-l Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7H-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17H-3 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-l Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-2 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17I-3 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17J-K 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques #17J-1 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques-#17J-2 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-3 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17K-K 97 1 .063 .8013 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17K-l 97 1 30.923 .0000 Reject 182 TABLE 9 (Cont'd) 183 Cluster #3 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17K-2 97 1 28.584 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7K-3 97 1 26.572 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17L-K 97 1 1.332 .2484 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17L-l 97 1 2.001 .1572 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17L-2 97 1 2.702 .1002 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7L-3 97 l .637 .4247 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17M-K 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7M-l 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17M-2 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7M-3 97 l .124 .7253 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7N-K 97 l .615 .4329 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17N-1 97 1 33.448 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17N-2 97 1 28.718 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7N-3 97 1 31.460 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#170-K 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#170-1 97 1 41.846 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#170-2 97 1 38.852 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#170-3 97 1 38.695 .0000 Rejett GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17P-K Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7P-1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17P-2 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7P-3 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17Q-1 97 1 42.362 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-2 97 1 39.192 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17Q-3 97 1 39.192 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17R-K 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17R-1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17R-2 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17R-3 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17S-K 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17S-1 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7S-2 97 l .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17S-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17T-K 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject , GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17T-1 97 l .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17T-2 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17T-3 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7U-K 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17U-l 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17U-2 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7U-3 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17V-K 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. 8ues.#17V-l 97 l .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. ues.#l7V—2 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject TABLE 9 (Cont'd) 184 Cluster #3 Chi- Contrast N df square FEEDS H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17V-3 97 1 .714 .3983 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17W-K 97 1 1.106 .2928 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17W-l 97 1 1.106 .2928 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7W-2 97 1 1.670 .1963 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17W-3 97 l .363 .5468 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17X-K 97 1 1.106 .2928 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#17X-l 97 1 2.286 .1305 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7X-2 97 1 3.643 .0563 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#l7X-3 97 1 2.138 .1437 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17A-K 97 1 2.312 .1284 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17A-1 97 1 2.875 .0900 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7A-2 97 l .077‘ .7811 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7A-3 97 l .115 .7349 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17B-K 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17B-l 97 1 3.558 .0592 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17B-2 97 1 3.759 .0525 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17B-3 97 l .359 .5491 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7C-K 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17C-l 97 1 3.365 .0666 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7C-2 97 1 3.759 .0525 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17C-3 97 l .434 .5101 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17D-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7D—1 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17D-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17D-3 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7E-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17E-1 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17E-2 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7E-3 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-K 97 1 .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7F—l 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-2 97 1 2.946 .0835 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17F-3 97 1 .176 .6751 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7G-K 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7G-1 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17G—2 97 1 2.650 .1035 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17G-3 97 l .030 .8629 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17H-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17H-1 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17H-2 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7H-3 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17I-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17I-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17I-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-3 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject TABLE 9 (Cont'd) 185 Cluster #3 Chi- Contrast N df square 5:05 H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17J-K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-1 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-2 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-3 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17K-K 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17K-l 97 1 2.820 .0931 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17K-2 97 1 2.996 .0835 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7K-3 97 1 1.260 .2617 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7L-K 97 l .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17L-l 97 1 .021 .8837 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17L-2 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17L-3 97 1 .929 .3351 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7M-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17M-1 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17M-2 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17M—3 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7N-K 97 1 .000 .9937 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17N-l 97 1 2.996 .0835 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7N—2 97 1 3.365 .0666 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7N-3 97 1 .230 .6316 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l70-K 97 1 .100 .7522 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#170-l 97 1 2.486 .1149 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l70-2 97 1 2.650 .1073 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l70-3 97 1 .906 .3412 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17P-K Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7P-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17P-2 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-3 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17Q-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17Q-l 97 1 2.172 .1406 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-2 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-3 97 1 2.326 .1272 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17R-K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7R-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7R-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17R-3 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17S-K 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17S-l Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7S-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17S-3 Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7T-K 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7T-1 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7T-2 97 l .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7T-3 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17U-K 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject 186 TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Cluster #3 Chi- Contrast N df square PS;05 H:o Decision GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7U-1 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17U-2 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7U-3 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17V—K 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7V-l 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17V-2 97 1 .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17V-3 97 l .290 .5902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7W-K 97 l .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17W-1 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17W—2 97 l .046 .8302 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#l7W-3 97 l .476 .4902 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17X-K 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17X—l 97 l .095 .7579 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17X—2 97 1 .225 .6355 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#17X-3 97 1 .301 .5830 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17A-K 97 1 .968 .3251 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17A-1 97 1 1.290 .2561 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17A-2 97 1 1.409 .2353 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17A-3 97 1 .156 .6925 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7B-K 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17B-l 97 1 2.270 .1319 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17B-2 97 1 2.409 .1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l78-3 97 l .000 .9824 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17C-K 97 l .000 .9937 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7C-l 97 1 2.135 .1439 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17C-2 97 1 2.409 1206 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17C-3 97 l .001 9754 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7D-K Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7D-1 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17D-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7D-3 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7E-K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17E-1 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17E-2 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17E-3 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject - Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-K 97 l .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7F-l 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17F-2 97 1 1.880 .1703 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17F-3 97 1 .034 .8545 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17G-K 97 1 .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17G-1 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17G-2 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7G-3 97 1 .166 .6832 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17H-K Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17H-1 Insufficient Data TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Cluster #3 187 Chi- Contrast N df square PS. 05 H: 0 Decision Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7H-2 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7H-3 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-K Insufficient Data Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7I-l Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7I-3 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-l 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7J-2 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17J-3 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17K-K 97 1 .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7K-l 97 1 1.759 .1848 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7K-2 97 1 1.880 .1703 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#17K—3 97 1 .402 .5260 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17L-K 97 1 .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17L-l 97 1 .132 .7162 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7L-2 97 1 .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17L-3 97 1 1.878 .1706 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17M—K 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7M-l 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7M-2 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7M—3 97 l .586 .4440 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17N-K 97 l .051 .8216 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17N-l 97 1 1.880 .1703 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17N-2 97 1 2.135 .1439 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7N-3 97 1 .017 .8973 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#170-K 97 l .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#170-l 97 1 1.528 .2164 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l70-2 97 1 1.642 .2001 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#170-3 97 l .232 .6302 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7P-K Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17P-1 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7P-2 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7P-3 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-K 97 1 11246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-l 97 1 1.313 .2518 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17Q-2 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7Q-3 97 1 1.419 .2336 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17R-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17R-1 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17R-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7R-3 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#17S-K 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7S-1 Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#l7S-2 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Cluster #3 Contrast 188 Ch N df ii- square PS. 05 H:o Decision Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. GradeZIns Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade21ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns Grade3Ins. Grade31ns Grade3Ins Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. .Vs. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Vs. Vs. .Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs. Ques .#17S-3 Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. . Ques. Ques. Ques. Ques. #17T-K #17T-1 #17T-2 #17T-3 #17U-K #170-1 #17U-2 #17U-3 #17V-K #17V-l #17V-2 #17V-3 #17W-K #17W-1 #17W-2 #17W-3 #17X-K #17X-1 #17X-2 #17X-3 #17A-K #17A-1 #17A-2 #17A-3 #17B-K #178-1 #178-2 #178-3 #17C-K #17C-1 #17C-2 #17C-3 #17D-K #170-1 #170-2 #170-3 #17E-K #17E-1 #17E-2 #17E-3 #17F-K #17F—l #17F-2 #17F-3 Insufficient 97 l “wood—Jada SO \a d—l-J—J-J—I—I—Jd—l-J-J-J—Ju—l—i—J—O 97 1 Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Data .246 .246 .246 .246 .246 .343 .343 .343 .586 .586 .586 .586 .012 .012 .000 .187 .012 .007 .058 .096 Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data .2644 .2644 .2644 .2644 .2644 .0675 .0675 .0675 .4440 .4440 .4440 .4440 .9131 .9131 .9937 .2760 .9131 .9343 .8105 .7565 Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Cluster #3 Contrast Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade31ns. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. Grade3Ins. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. . Ques. #17G-K #178-1 #178-2 #17G-3 #17H-K #17H-1 #17H-2 #17H-3 #17I-K #171-1 #171-2 #17I-3 #17J-K #17J-1 .#17J-2 #17J-3 #17K—K #17K-1 #17K-2 #17K-3 #17L-K #17L-1 .#17L-2 #17L-3 #17M-K #17M-1 #17M-2 #17M-3 #17N-K .#17N-1 #17N-2 #17N-3 #170-K #170-1 #170-2 #170-3 #17P-K #17P-1 #17P-2 #17P-3 #17Q-K #170-1 #170-2 #170-3 #17R-K N df 189 Chi- Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient square Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Hzo Decision 190 TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Cluster #3 Chl- Contrast N df square PS.05 H:o Decision Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l7R-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17R-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#17R-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7S-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17S-l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#17S-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17S-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l7T-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7T-1 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l7T-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17T-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17U-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7U-l Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17U-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#17U-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17V—K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17V-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17V-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l7V-3 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l7W-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#17W-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7W-2 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#17W-3 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#17X-K Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#17X—l Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#l7X-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#l7x-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#18 97 18.468 .0004 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. 0ues.#19 97 1.504 .4714 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#23 97 27.986 .0000' Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#18 97 1.698 .6375 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. 0ues.#19 97 1.380: .5016 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#23 97 11.241 .0036' Reject - Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#18 97 3.819 .2817 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. 0ues.#19 97 1.730 .4210 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#23 97 15.338- .0005 Reject Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#18 Insufficient Data . ‘ Grade31ns.Vs. 0ues.#19 Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#23 Insufficient Data NNwNNwNNw 191 bicycle safety education programs received "totally negative" responses from K-3 grade bicycle instructors, contrasts could not be performed for these variables. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts and for "Winter Term" bicycle safety education program contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Seasonal Offerings" are reported in tabular form in Table 10. Reported Student Contact Hours A significant difference at the .05 level of significance was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Student Contact Hours" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Chi-square values of 9.488 or higher were needed for significance at the .05 level. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H07) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Student Contact Hours" are reported in tabular form in Table 10. Reported Bicycle Safety Education Pregram Meeting Times No significant difference was indicated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to the following "Program Meeting Times" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 joo .5 bicycle instructors: "Before School Programs," "During School Hour Programs," "After School Programs," "Saturday Programs" and "Other 2 value of 3.841 or higher Program Meeting Times (Holidays)." A X was needed for significance at the .05 level. Since frequency results indicated K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs were conducted “During School Hours" and "After School Hours," chi-square "cross tabulation" statistical treatments were made for these two variables as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Since the p values attained were higher than the .05 level of significance on these variables, the null hypothesis (H08) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. The contrasts for "Reported Bicycle Safety Education Program Meeting Times" are reported in tabular form in Table 10. Summary - Statistical Analysis of the Data Revealed 1. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signifi- cance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60 mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Urban vs. Rural Programs" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instruc- tors. (X2 = 13.915) There were more "Rural Programs" than "Urban Programs" offered by Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of 193 TABLE 10 BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM DURATION Cluster #4 Chi- Contrast N df square 3.05 H:o Decision GradeKIns.Vs. Fall Term 97 1 13.623 .0002 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Winter Term Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Spring‘Term 97 l .063 .8013 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Summer Term 97 1 .196 .6576 Do Not Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Integ.Prog. 97 1 .013 .9102 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Fall Term 97 1 .008 .9305 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Winter Term Insufficient Data GradelIns.Vs. Spring Term 97 1 .012 .9122 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Summer Term 97 1 .757 .3842 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Integ.Prog. 97 1 .100 .7522 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Fall Term 97 l .073 .7868 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Winter Term Insufficient Data Grade21ns.Vs. Spring Term 97 l .012 .9131 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Summer Term 97 1 1.246 .2644 Do Not Reject Grade2Ins.Vs. Integ. Frog. 97 l .287 .5924 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Fall Term Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Winter Term Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Spring Term Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Summer Term Insufficient Data Grade31ns.Vs. Integ.Prog. Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#3-K 97 4 77.344 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#3-l 97 4 50.786 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#3-2 97 4 54.661 .0000 Reject GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#3-3 97 4 38.763 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#3-K 97 4 8.660 .0702 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#B-l 97 4 72.611 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#3-2 97 4 59.558 .0000 Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#3-3 97 4 9.852 .0430 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#3-K 97 4 5.383 .2502 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#3-l 97 4 47.963 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#3-2 97 4 80.341 .0000 Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#3-3 97 4 11.913 .0180 Reject Grade31ns.Vs. Ques.#3-K Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#3-1 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#3-2 Insufficient Data Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#3-3 Insufficient Data GradeKIns.Vs. Ques.#4 97 1 .040 .8409 Do Not Reject GradelIns.Vs. Ques.#4 97 1 2.328 .1271 Do Not Reject Grade21ns.Vs. Ques.#4 97 1 3.343 .0675 Do Not Reject Grade3Ins.Vs. Ques.#4 Insufficient Data 194 significance, the null hypothesis (H01) was rejected for this 2 values were obtained for grade 1 variable. Insignificant X and grade 2 bicycle instructors. The null hypothesis (H01) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signifi- cance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60 mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Instruc- tor Sex Status" as reported by grade 1 (X2 = 12.346) and grade 2 (X2 = 18.997) bicycle instructors. There were more "Males" than "Females" as grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H02) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. The null hypothesis (H02) was not rejected for this variable. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. Since bicycle safety education program activities were offered in every reported K-3 site, contrasts could not be performed for 195 this variable. Insufficient reported data was also noted for bicycle safety education program activity contrasts. There was pp_significance test calculated in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Bicycle Safety Educa- tion Program Instructor Occupations.” Since reported data for the 97 conducted K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs indicated K-3 grade teachers were identified as K-3 grade bicycle instructors, "affirmative only“ responses prevented chi-square "cross tabulation" contrasts for the K-3 grade bicycle instructors. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to contrasts performed between "Kindergarten Bicycle Instructors and Grade 1 Bicycle Safety Education Programs" (X2 = 10.398), "Kindergarten Bicycle Instructors and Grade 2 Bicycle Safety 2 = 7.045) and "Grade 1 Bicycle Instruc- Education Programs" (X tors and Grade 2 Bicycle Safety Education Programs" (X2 = 58.814). There were more "Kindergarten Bicycle Instructors" than "Grade 1 or Grade 2 Bicycle Instructors" involved with "Grade 1 and Grade 2 Bicycle Safety Education Programs;" there were more "Grade 1 Bicycle Instructors" than "Kindergarten or Grade 2 Bicycle Instructors" involved with "Grade 2 Bicycle Programs." Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of 196 significance, the null hypothesis (H04) was rejected for 2 values were obtained for these variables. Insignificant X "Grade 2 Bicycle Instructors" and "Kindergarten Level Programs." The null hypothesis (H04) was not rejected for these variables. Since "Grade 3 Bicycle Instructors" reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, "Grade 3 Bicycle Programs" were offered at every reported site and "Bicycle Safety Education Program Activities" were offered in every reported K-3 site, contrasts could not be performed for these variables. Insufficient reported data was noted for "Grade 3 Bicycle Instructors," "Grade 3 Bicycle Programs“ and "Bicycle Safety Education Program Activities" contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Bicycle Safety Education Formal Instructor Prepara- tion Levels" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: I have received no formal instruction in bicycle safety education - Formal course in bicycle safety education - Formal course in traffic safety education with bicycle safety component - In-service workshop or seminar in bicycle safety education 2 - By the Kindergarten bicycle instructors (X = 162.280) 197 2 191.090) 189.960) - By the grade 1 bicycle instructors (X - By the grade 2 bicycle instructors (X2 There were more K-2 grade bicycle instructor responses for the "No Formal Instruction in Bicycle Safety Education" cate- gory than for the "Formal Course in Bicycle Safety Education," "Formal Workshop in Bicycle Safety Education" or "In-Service Program in Bicycle Safety Education" categories. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H05) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of sig- nificance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Time of Year (Seasonal) Offerings" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instructors for "Fall Term Bicycle Safety Education Programs" (X2 = 13.623). Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H06) was rejected for this variable. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 bicycle instructors, grade 2 bicycle instructors, "Spring Bicycle Safety Education Programs," "Summer Bicycle Safety Educa- tion Programs" and "Bicycle Safety Education Programs Inte- grated Within Existing Classes on a Year-Round Basis." The 198 null hypothesis (H06) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items and "Winter Term" bicycle safety education programs received "totally negative" responses from K-3 grade bicycle instructors, contrasts could not be performed for these variables. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts and "Winter Term" bicycle safety education program contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Student Contact Hours" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Kindergarten bicycle instructors (X2 = 77.344 with "1-2 Contact Hours") - Grade 1 bicycle instructors (x2 = 72.611 with "1-2 Contact Hours," "3-5 Contact Hours," "6-8 Contact Hours") - Grade 2 bicycle instructors (X2 = 80.341 with "1-2 Contact Hours," "3-5 Contact Hours," "6-8 Contact Hours") Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H07) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. 199 There was pp_significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Program Meet- ing Times" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: "Before School Programs," "During School Programs," "After School Programs," "Saturday Programs" and "Other Program Meeting Times (Holidays)." Reported frequencies indicated most of the programs were conducted "During School Hours" with one program conducted "After School Hours;" hence chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts were made for these two variables as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Since the p values attained were higher than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H08) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Student Enrollment Levels" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Kindergarten bicycle instructors (X2 = 78.188 with class sizes of "60 or More Students") - Grade 1 bicycle instructors (X2 = 75.526 with class sizes of "60 or More Students") 200 - Grade 2 bicycle instructors (x2 = 71.151 with class sizes of "60 or More Students") Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H09) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only“ responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Instructional Formats" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Separate unit (X5 = 9.134-Kindergarten bicycleinstructors) (X = 5.603-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 4.636-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Integrated in existing courses (X2 = 14.687-Kindergarten bicycle instruc- tors) (X2 (x2 - Assemblies (X2 tors) 11.983-grade 1 bicycle instruCtors) 9.468-grade 2 bicycle instructors) 25.060-Kindergarten bicycle instruc- Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H010) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "Other Instructional Formats (Special Assignments)” and partial contrasts performed with respect to ”Bicycle Safety Education 11. 201 Programs Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors." The null hypothesis (H010) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. In addition, partial contrasts performed with respect to "Bicycle Safety Education Programs Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors" received "totally negative" responses from responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors. Hence, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructors and for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Bicycle Safety Education Programs Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors." There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Resource Personnel Utilized in Classroom Programs" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Classroom guest speakers (X = 4.955-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Police officers (x2 (x2 (X2 39.458-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 18.859-grade 1 bicycle instructors) 13.714-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Other personnel (X2 = 4.182-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 202 Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H011) was rejected for these 2 values were obtained for "Park and variables. Insignificant X Recreation Department Personnel," "Local Bicycle Shop Representa- tives" and “Amateur Cyclists." The null hypothesis (H011) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items and "Judicial Department Representatives" received "totally negative" responses from K-Bgradetficycle instructors, complete con- trasts could not be performed for these variables. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructors and "Judicial Department Representatives." One hundred twenty-eight aggregate responses and narrative findings with respect to "Individual Used as Resource Personnel" in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area were reported in Part I findings. 12. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Bicycle Safety Education Curricula, Guide(s) Utilized" by reporting Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - School developed curriculum (X2 = 33.513-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Minnesota K73 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide _(X4 = 23.503-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 13.858-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 10.485-grade 2 bicycle instructors) 13. 14. 203 - Other prepared unit, guide » (XE 27.287-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X 4.182-grade 1 bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H012) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "Use of Other State(s) Curriculum Guide(s)" and “Commercially Developed Curriculum Guide(s)." The null hypothesis (H012) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses _ for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There were no chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts per- formed with respectix1"Audio—Visual Aids or Models" used in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area. There were twenty-two separate responses from K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the central Minnesota area. Specific responses and narrative findings were reported in Part I findings. There were no chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts per- formed with respect to "Outside Agencies Involved" in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area. There Were twenty-one separate responses from K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the central Minnesota area. Specific responses and narrative findings were reported in Part I findings. 15. 204 There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Instructional Techniques" utilized by reporting Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: Teacher-ledzdiscussions (X = 45.355-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 23.644-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 18.484-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Teacher lec ure format (X = 37.300-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Teacher-led informal discussions (X2 = 7.266-grade 1 bicycle instructors) Guest speakgrs/experts (X 23.740-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 10.971-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 7.083-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Audio-visual aids/models (X2 = 27,399-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 15.310-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 11.643-grade 2 b1cyc1e instructors) Student-led small group work (X2 = 12.145-grade 1 bicycle instructors) Use of prepgred curricula (X 10.525 Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 10.898-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 8.155-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H015) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "Teacher-Led Small Group Activities," “Student-Led Formal Presentations," "Student-Led Informal Discussions/Activities" and "Other Instructional Techniques (Independent Assignments)." 16. 205 The null hypothesis (H015) was not rejected for these varia- bles. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirma- tive only" responses for all the questionnaire items, con- trasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following types of "Bicycle Safety Education Activities" as reported by Kindergarten,grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instruc- tors: - Classroom pEesentations (X = 23.017-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X3 = 19.917-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X = 14.516-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Off-road skill test(s) (XE 4.182-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X 3.967-grade 1 bicycle instructors) - Bicycle mai tenance (X = 4.955-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Special assemblies/seminars (X2 = 22.393-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H016) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "On-Street Riding," "Bicycle Hikes/Trips," "Bicycle Registra- tion" and "Bicycle Licensing Procedures." Insignificant X2 values were also obtained for partial contrasts performed with 17. 206, respect to "Special Instruction" and for contrasts performed for "Handicapped Instruction," "Special Education Instruction" and "Other Activities (Special Groups)." The null hypothesis (H016) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses to all the questionnaire items and "Adult Programs" received "totally negative" responses from K-3 grade bicycle instructors, contrasts could not be performed for these variables. "Totally negative" responses were also noted for partial contrasts performed with respect to ”Special Instruc- tion;" hence, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts, contrasts performed for "Adult Programs" and partial contrasts performed with respect to "Special Instruction." There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Minnesota Bicycle Laws" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Bicycle as 3 vehicle . . (X - 13.858-grade 1 bicycle 1nstructors) (X2 = 11.045-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Obeyance of signs/signals, pavement markings and crosswalk oEdinances (X 21.060-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 17.357-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Licensing/registration of bicycles X2 6.834-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 5.271-grade 2 bicycle instructors) 207 Riding in sglf-propelled fashion (X 9.039-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 7.045-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding with traffic outside central business district (X2 - 13.858-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 9.468-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding techniques inside central business district (X2 9.470-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 6.712-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding proc dures to insure visibility (X = 11.426-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 9.468-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding no more than two abreast (X2 = 29.386-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 16.108-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 12.284-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding on right side of roadway (X2 = 38.003-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 26.721-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 21.096-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding within a single lane of traffic (x2 = 21.120-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 9.922-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 8.155-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Riding close to right curb edge (X2 = 30.928-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) = 18.859-grade 1 bicycle instructors) = 14.516-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Yield right of way to pedestrians, other vehicles (X2 35.868-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 18.859-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 14.516-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Carrying on}y number designed for vehicle X 34.367-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) x2 21.060-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 15.384-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Keep hands on handlebars, except when signaling, stopped (prgpared to turn) (x = 35.868-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 18.859-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 = 15.384-grade 2 bicyC1e instructors) 208 23.705-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Egg 10.898-grade 1 bicycle instructors) - When walking bicycle, face traffic X = = 9.005-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Staying off roadways prohibiting bicycle riding (X2 21.120-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (x5 = 9.922-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X = 8.568-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Use of bicygle paths/lanes when provided (X = 16.392-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 8.237-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 6.712-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Use of sidewalks when encouraged (X2 = 16.392-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X3 = 8.237-grade 1bicycle instructors) (X = 6.396-grade 2tficycle instructors) - Use of belléhorn when necessary (X = 26.457-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 13.858-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 11.643-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Use of lighg during night riding (X. 32.519-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 18.859-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 15.384-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Use of highly visible reflective clothing during night riding (X x2 1x2 36.152-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 21.060-grade 1 bicycle instructors) 17.357-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Procedures for operation of special events (X2 = 5.850-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - It is a misdemeanor to break safety laws (x2 13.194-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 7.163-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 5.533-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H017) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for partial contrasts with respect to “Minnesota Bicycle Laws Not 18. 209 Offered by Bicycle Instructors." Insignificant X2 values were also obtained for "Other Minnesota Bicycle Laws Offered (Seminar Violation Procedures)." The null hypothesis (H017) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instruc- tors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the question- naire items and partial responses from Kindergarten bicycle instructors were incorrectly reported by computer operators, complete contrasts could not be performed for these variables. "Totally negative" responses for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Minnesota Bicycle Laws Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors" also prevented contrasts for this variable. Insuf- ficient reported data was noted for contrasts performed for grade 3 bicycle instructors, complete contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructors and partial contrasts performed with respect to "Minnesota Bicycle Laws Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors." There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a SO-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Bicycle Riding and Safety" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Bicycle riding and safety concepts not offered by bicycle insEructors (partial contrasts) (X = 4.373-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 210- Proper mount and dismount (X2 14.229-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 8.629-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 5.533-grade 2 bicycle instructors) positions astride bicycle 17.522-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 9.922-grade 1 bicycle instructors) 6.712-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Proper ridgn x2 1x2 II II II to Proper pedgling (X 14.229-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 9.039-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 5.271—grade 2 bicycle instructors) Proper braking x2 X2 1x2 13.827-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 10.398-grade 1 bicycle instructors) 6.712-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Proper stopping procedures (X 17.167-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 12.572-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 8.155-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Proper progedures for turning X = 21.120-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 13.858-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 9.468-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Emergency stopping/maneuvering . . (X = 4.182-Kindergarten blcycle 1nstructors) (x2 = 3.759-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 2.270—grade 2 bicycle instructors) Defensive rgding X = 18.353-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (x2 = 9.922-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 7.045-grade 2 bicycle instructors) bicyclist (weather, pavement, vehicles) 18.353-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 9.922-grade 1 bicycle instructors) 7.765-grade 2 bicycle instructors) II II II (D Crossing rajlroad tracks (X = 14.905-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Crossing ingersections X 24.900-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 4.875-grade 1 bicycle instructors) 211 - Correct lans placement 11. 551- -Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Overtaking bicycles/vehicles (x = 10.261-Kindergarten bicycle instructorS) - Night- ~time (XEiding 25. 060- -Kindergarten bicycle instructorS) - Using safety flags X2 = 6.987-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X = 5.928-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 = 4.333-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Using reflegtive materials 19. 568- -Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 15. 310- -grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 11. 045- -grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Proper clothing for increased visibility 2 17.016-Kindergarten bicycle instructorS) (X2 12.572-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 9.961-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Skill and (pgrformance tests 26. 255- -Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H018) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were attained for "Bicycle Riding And Safety Concepts Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors (Partial Contrasts)," "Bicycle Tours/Packing Procedures," "Bicycle Trip Planning Techniques," "Conducting Special Bicycle Events (e.g. Parades, Contests, Races)" and "Other Bicycle Riding And Safety Event Concepts (Special Demonstrations)." The null hypothesis (H018) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the question- naire items, contrasts could not be performed for this 19. 212 variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Bicycle Safety Equipment" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: Bicycle safety equipment concepts not offered by bicycle 'nstructors (partial contrasts) (X = 5.919-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) How to meas re for proper size and fit (X = 15.295-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 8.629-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 = 6.094-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Bicycle anatomy (e.g., pedals, seats, frame) 2 15.295-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 7.863-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 5.533-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Classification of bicycles (e.g., lightweight, touring, 3-speed) (X2 = 9.339-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Selection of bicycles, accessories (X2 = 8.444-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Required quipment (e.g., brakes, horn/bell) (X 21 .120-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (XE 11.426-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X 9.005-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Required equipment on newly sold bicycle (e.g. pedal, wheel reflegtors) X 12.188-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 6.218-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 4.333-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Required quipment for night riding 1 (X = 19.578-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 20. 213 - Recommended equipment (e.g. rear tail light, basket, grips (X2 = 17.522-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Optional equipment for visibility, safety (e.g. flags, clothing, mirrors) (X2 = 10.261-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H019) was rejected for 2 values obtained for these variables. Insignificant X "Bicycle Safety Equipment Concepts Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors (Partial Contrasts)," for "Bicycle Touring/Traveling Equipment (e.g. bags, tool kit)," for "Bicycle History" and for "Other Bicycle Safety Equipment Concepts (Bicycle Frame Con- struction)." The null hypothesis (H019) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmativecwfljfl'responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a SO-mile radius of St. Cloud,Minnesota with respect to the following "Bicycle Care and Maintenance" concepts as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle in- structors: - Bicycle care and maintenance concepts not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) (X2 = 11.906-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Proper bicygle storage (X = 5.575-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 214 Theft preveBtion 18. 686- -Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Parking progedures 13.194-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Brakes (adjustment for even wear) (X2 - 10.261-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Saddle (seat) (e.g. adjustment for proper size) (X2 12.188-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 7.163-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 5.807-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Handlebars Xée. .g. tighten often, proper height) 12.188-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 7.163-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 5.807-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Wheels (e.g. nuts tight to prevent sway, uneven wear on r1m (X2 11.210-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (x2 = 6.834-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 5.021-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Tires (e g. properly inflated, no defects) (XE = 11.210-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X = 6.520-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 5.021-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Spokes (e.g tight, wear) (X2 = 9. 339- -Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 5. 928- -grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 4. 552- -grade 2 bicycle instructors) Pedals (e 9 spin freely, tight) 8(X2 = 10.261-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 6.218-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 5.021-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Chain (e.g. wear, lubricated) (X2 = 11.210-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) (X2 = 6.520-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X2 = 5.271-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Gears (e. 9.2adjustment, replacement of cables) (X 7. 576- -Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Keeping all working parts clean and lubricated (X = 11.210-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 21. 215 Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H020) was rejected for 2 values were obtained for these variables. Insignificant X ”Bicycle Care and Maintenance Concepts Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors (Partial Contrasts)" and "Other Bicycle Care and Maintenance Procedures (Maintenance Schedules)." The null hypothesis (H020) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. "Totally negative" responses recorded for partial contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructors also prevented complete contrasts being performed for this variable. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts and for partial contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructors. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the following "Specific Skill Exercises Offered in Conjunc- tion With 'On-Bike' Performance or Skill Tests" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instructors: - "On-bike“ performance/skill tests exercises not offered by bicycle instructors (partial contrasts) (X2 = 33.037-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Sign, signag, pavement marking recognition (X = 26.572-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 216 - Balancing exercises (e.g. straight line, weave, zig-zag) 2 (X = 28.718-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Serpentine,251alom, or weave riding (X = 36.058-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Slow-poke races (coasting races) (X = 41.846-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Circling an? balance exercises (X = 30.923-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Stopping drglls (X = 33.448-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Braking with, without skids (X2 = 41.846-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Riding on rough surfaces (e.g. gravel, wet/bumpy, grassy area§)- . . . (X - 42.362-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H021) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Insignificant X2 values were also obtained for "Riding Planks, Narrow Surfaces," "Timed Speed Races," "Figure 8 With Weave," "U or Y Turn-About Exercises," "Passing Exercises," "Merging Exercises," "Simu- lated Turning Exercises (e.g. One Way, Two Way, 4-Lanes, Divided And Undivided Roadways)," "Providing Awards, Certificates to Participants” and "Utilizing Reflectorized Tape in Conjunction With Inspections." In addition, insignificant X2 values were also obtained for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Relay Races," "Ride And Pitch Exercises," "Traffic Mix Situa- tions," “Evasive Riding Exercises," "Riding on Wet Surfaces," "Pair, Group Riding Exercises” and "On-Bike Performance/Skill 22. 217 Test Exercises Not Offered by Bicycle Instructors (Partial Contrasts)." The null hypothesis (H021) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. "Totally negative" responses for partial contrasts performed with respect to "Relay Races," "Ride And Pitch Exercises (Hit The Target, Bean Bag Toss)," "Traffic Mix Situations," "Evasive Riding Exercise(s)," "Riding on Wet Surfaces" and "Fair, Group Riding Exercises" also prevented contrasts being performed for these variables. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts and partial contrasts performed with respect to "Relay Races," "Ride And Pitch Exercises (Hit The Target, Bean Bag Toss)," "Traffic Mix Situations," "Evasive Riding Exercise(s)," "Riding on Wet Surfaces" and "Fair, Group Riding Exercises." There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the "Utilization of Expertise From Others in Their Own Community at Performance, Skill Test Activities" as reported by Kindergarten bicycle instructors (X2 = 18.468). There were more Kindergarten bicycle instructors than grade 1 or grade 2 bicycle instructors that reported "Utilization of Expertise From others in Their Own Community at Performance, Skill Test Activities." 23. 24. 218 Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H022) was rejected for 2 values were obtained for this variable. Insignificant X grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. The null hypothe- sis (H022) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor con- trasts. There was pp_significant differenceirlK-B grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Incorporation of The Bicycle Safety Skill Test or an Evaluation Performance Program at The Local High School Driver Education Range/ Off-Street Practice Area." Since the p values attained for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors were higher than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H023) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within 219 a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Offering Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject" by 2 = 18.982) There were Kindergarten bicycle instructors. (X more Kindergarten bicycle instructors than grade 1 or grade 2 bicycle instructors who responded affirmatively concerning "Offering Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject." Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H024) was rejected for 2 values were obtained for this variable. Insignificant X grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. The null hypothesis (H024) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the "Rank Ordering by K-3 Grade Bicycle Instructors." Concerning "Offering Bicycle Safety Education as a Required Subject at The K-3 Grade Levels," bicycle instructor responses were reported as follows: - Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education 25: a required subject at the K1ndergarten level (X 17. 309) '- Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety educagion as a required subject at the grade 1 level 17.029). 25. 220 - Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the grade 2 level (X2 = 18.780). - Kindergarten bicycle instructors concerning offering bicycle safety education as a required subject at the grade 3 level (X = 17.424). Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H024) was rejected for 2 values were obtained for these variables. Insignificant X grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors concerning "Offering Bicycle Safety Education as Required Subject at The K-3 Grade Levels." The null hypothesis (H024) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirma- tive only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor con- trasts . There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to the "Rank Ordering of The Following Instructional Groups" as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: - Elementary Eeachers, K-3 (X = 18.703-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) - Elementary teachers, 4-6 (X = 14.978-Kindergarten bicycle instructors) 221 - Youth agency leaders (Y's, Scouts, etc.) (X 28.397-grade 1 bicycle instructors (x2 = 22.857-grade 2 bicycle instructors - Bicycle organization representatives (AYH, Gopher Wheelman) 2 (X2 = 28.347-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X = 22.816-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Police depaEtment personnel X 2 31.477-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X 27.942-grade 2 bicycle instructors) - Park and regreation department personnel (X2 30.333-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (X 34.366-grade 2 bicycle instructors - Bicycle shop representative (X = 26.145-grade 1 bicycle instructors) (x2 = 19.944-grade 2 blcyc1e instructors - Parental grgups (X = 23.136-grade 1 bicycle instructors) ' ""Silrfiiisdmui.505.922.2952....) (X2 = 15.420-grade 2 bicycle instructors) Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H025) was rejected for these variables. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for "Pre- Elementary Grade Teachers," "Junior High Teachers (7-8 or 7-9),“ "Senior High Teachers (9-12 or 10-12)," "Judicial Department Representatives" and "Community Broad-Based Support Groups (e.g. Educational Personnel, Police Personnel, Judicial Repre- sentatives, Parental Groups and Community Agencies)." The null hypothesis (H025) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not 26. 27. 221 be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of signi- ficance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with respect to "Bicycle Safety-Related Accidents And Fatalities on School Grounds During The 1977-78 School Year" as reported by Kindergarten (x2 = 27.986), grade 1 (x2 = 11.241) and grade 2 2 = 15.338). Kindergarten, grade 1 and bicycle instructors (X grade 2 bicycle instructors responded more frequently to the "Data Unavailable" category than to the "Reported Accidents" or the "Reported Fatality" categories. K-3 grade bicycle instructors also reported one accident occurred during the 1977-78 school year. This datum was reported by a female, grade 3 bicycle instructor from the rural locales of Central Minnesota. Many Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors did not respond to this item. Since the p values attained were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H026) was rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable. Insufficient data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was pp_significant difference in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect to "Interest in Nearby K-3 \ 223 Grade Bicycle Safety Education Program Contents And Instruc- tor Practices." Since the p values attained for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors were higher than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H027) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There was a significant difference at the .05 level of significance in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota with respect 'U)"Expressed1nterest in Receiving a Copy of The Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide" as reported by Kinder- garten bicycle instructors (X2 = 15.646). There were more . Kindergarten bicycle instructors than grade 1 or grade 2 bicycle instructors who responded affirmatively to receiving a copy of the state guide. Since the p values attained for Kindergarten bicycle instructors were lower than the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H027) was rejected for this variable. Insignificant X2 values were obtained for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. The null hypothesis (H027) was not rejected for these variables. Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, contrasts could 224 not be performed for this variable; hence, insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts. There were no chi-square "cross-tabulation” contrasts performed with respect to "Reported Additional K-3 Grade Bicycle Instruc- tor Comments Relative to Bicycle Safety Education Instructional Practices Not Listed in The Bicycle Safety Education Question- naire." There were twelve separate responses from K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area. Specific responses and narrative findings were reported in Part I findings. Chapter IV contained the general research questions of the study, the specific research hypotheses in null form, the nominal findings of the study, the chi-square "cross-tabulated" statistical findings with corresponding interpretations plus a summary of the data analyses. In Chapter V, the summary, the conclusions, the recommenda- tions, the discussion and the recommendations for further study were presented. 225 CHAPTER IV: FOOTNOTES 1Partial Contrasts--some K-3 grade bicycle instructors did not respond to all the questionnaire items. Therefore, chi-square "cross-tabulations" were performed on the questionnaire items to which there were responses. 2Complete Contrasts--though K-3 grade bicycle instructors responded to all the questionnaire items, computer operators failed to complete chi-square "cross-tabulations" for all variables. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The concluding chapter of this study includes: (1) a summation of the study, including methods and findings; (2) the conclusions warranted by the resulting data; (3) the recommendations based on study results; (4) a discussion of the study implications . and (5) recommendations for further study. Summar The primary purpose of this study was to describe the nature, the extent, the reported differences and to analyze the factors asso- ciated with K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruc- tion in elementary schools within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The study was conducted by utilizing a "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" to solicit K-3 grade bicycle instructor re- sponses with respect to classroom and "on-bike" programs of instruc- tion in 101 K-3 grade schools in the St. Cloud, Minnesota area. The sample population of this study consisted of 101 K-3 grade teachers identified as bicycle instructors in each K-3 grade school within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud Minnesota. Final returns resulted in returned questionnaires from 97 K-3 grade bicycle instructors. Aggregate frequency responses revealed 226 227 classroom and "on-bike" phases of instruction were conducted in ninety-seven of the 101 K-3 grade sites. To determine the presence of significant differences with reSpect to reported practices of K-3 grade bicycle instructors and reported school characteristics, contrasted selected school charac- teristics; i.e., school location--urban vs. rural locales, instructor sex, etc. and Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructor status versus reported bicycle safety education program components; i.e., course scheduling practices, enrollment levels, etc. contained in the 27 "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" items. Two types of formats were prepared to present the study findings. A summary and analyses of the frequency responses for each of the questionnaire items was presented in the first part of Chapter IV. Four cluster tables and summary interpretations of the data created by chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts was presented in the second part of Chapter IV. Significant findings and hypotheses statements were summarized at the close of Chapter IV. Specifically, this study investigated the following questions and produced the corresponding results. 1. Are there any significant differences in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, with respect to reported school and bicycle instructor characteris- tics (e.g., “urban vs. rural locales," "instructor sex," "actual bicycle instructor occupation," "grade levels utilized" and "bicycle instructor preparation levels")? Chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts between selected school and bicycle instructor characteristics indicated significant differences 228 at the .05 level with reSpect to four separate school and bicycle instructor contrasted characteristics: Types of formal instruction in bicycle safety education in favor of: “No formal instruction in bicycle safety education" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. K-3 bicycle safety educationyprograms as reported by K-3 bicycle instructorsirlfavor of: Kindergarten bicycle instructors involved with "Grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle safety education programs.”' Grade 1 bicycle instructors involved with "grade 2 bicycle safety education programs." Male-female bicycle instructors in favor of: "Male bicycle instructors" for "Grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle safety education programs." Rural-urban bicycle safety education_prOgrams in favor of: "Rural bicycle safety education programs" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. ("Instructor sex" vs. "School location," "Instructor sex" vs. "Kindergarten bicycle safety education programs," "School location" vs. "Grade 1 bicycle safety education programs" and "School location" vs. "Grade 2 bicycle safety education programs" yielded no significant differences for these contrasts). Since grade 3 bicycle instructors reported "affirmative only" responses for all the questionnaire items, "Grade 3 bicycle safety education programs" were offered at every reported K-3 grade site and "Bicycle safety education activities" were offered in every reported site, chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts could not be performed with respect to these variables. Hence, this major 229 research question could not be completely answered for all contrasts. Insufficient reported data was noted for grade 3 bicycle instructor contrasts, "Grade 3 bicycle safety education program" contrasts and "Bicycle safety education program activity" contrasts. 2. Are there any significant differences in K-3 grade classroom bicycle safety education instructional compo- nents as reported by K-3 grade bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota? Contrasts between selected Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructors and K-3 grade classroom bicycle safety education instructional components indicated significant differences at the .05 level with respect to eighteen separate K-3 grade classroom instructional components and strategies: Seasonal bicycle safety education offerings in favor of: ”Fall programs" for Kindergarten level bicycle instructors. Student contact hours in favor of: "1-2 hours" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "1-2 hours, 3-5 hours, 6-8 hours" for grade 1 bicycle instructors, and "1-2 hours, 3-5 hours, 6-8 hours" fOr grade 2 bicycle instructors. Student enrollment levels in favor of: "60 plus hours" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "60 plus hours" for grade 1 bicycle instructors and "60 plus hours" for grade 2 bicycle instructors. Bicycle safety education instructional formats in favor of: "Separate unit instruction" and "Integrated within existingcjasses" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors and "Assembly format" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Resource personnel utilized in favor of: "Classroom guest speakers“ for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Pol ice Personnel " for 230 Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors and "Other special bicycle specialists (e.g. Scouts)" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Bicycle safety curricula,yguide(s) utilized in favor of: "Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriclum Guide," "School developed curriculum" and "Other prepared unit, guide (e.g., "Essentials of Good Bicycling") for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safetngurriculum Guide" and "Other Prepared Unit/Guide (e.g., "Essentials of Good Bicycling") for grade 1 bicycle instruc- tors and "Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide" for grade 2 bicycle instructors. "Instructional techniques" utilized in favor of: "Teacher- 1ed discussions" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Teacher lecture format" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Guest speakers, experts" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Audio visual aids, models“ for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Student-led small group work" for grade 1 bicycle instructors and "Use of pre- pared curricula" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. "Bicycle safety education activities" offered in favor of: "Classroom presentations" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Off-road skill tests" for Kindergarten and grade 1 bicycle instructors; "Bicycle maintenance activities" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors and "Special assemblies, seminars" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. 231 "Minnesota bicycle laws" offered in favor of: "Bicycle as a vehicle" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; “Obeyance of signs, signals, pavement markings, crosswalk procedures" fOr grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Licensing, registration proced- ures" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors: "Riding in self- propelled fashion" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding with the flow of traffic outside the central business district" for grade land grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding techniques inside the central business district" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding to insure visibility" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding no more than 2 abreast" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding on the right side of the roadway" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding within a single lane of travel" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Riding close to the curb edge" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Yield the right of way to pedestrians, other vehicles" fOr Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Carrying only the number designed for the vehicle" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Keeping hands on the handlebars except when stopped or signaling for turns" for Kinder- garten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Face traffic when walking a bicycle" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Staying off roadways that prohibit bicycle riding" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Use of bicycle paths, lanes when provided" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and 232 grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Use of sidewalks when encouraged" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Use of bell, born when necessary" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Use of light during night riding" for Kinder- garten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Use of highly visible clothing during night riding" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Procedures for operation of special events" for grade 2 bicycle instructors and "Misdemeanor penalties for breaking bicycle safety laws" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. "Bicycle riding_and safety" concepts in favor of: "Pr0per mount, dismount procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Proper riding positions astride the bicycle" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Proper pedaling procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "PrOper braking procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Proper stapping procedures" fer Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Fraper procedures fer turning" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Emergency st0pping, maneuvering" for Kinder- garten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Defensive riding procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instruc- tors; "Hazards facing bicyclist" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Crossing railroad tracks" for Kinder- garten bicycle instructors; "Crossing intersections" for Kindergarten and grade 1 bicycle instructors; "Correct lane placement" for 233 Kindergarten bicycle instructors; ”Overtaking other bicycles, vehicles" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Night-time riding procedures" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Use of safety flags for safety, visibility" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Use of reflective materials" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors and "Proper clothing for increased visibility" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. "Bicycle safety equipment" concepts in favor of: "Measure- ment for proper size and fit" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Bicycle anatomy" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Bicycle classification procedures" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Selection of bicycles, acces- sories" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Required equipment" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Required equipment on newly sold bicycles" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Required equipment for night-riding" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Recommended equipment" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors and "Optional equipment for visibility, safety" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. "Bicycle care and maintenance" concepts in favor of: "Proper bicycle storage" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Theft pre- vention procedures" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Parking procedures" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Brake care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Saddle (seat) care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 234 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Handlebar care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Wheel care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Tire care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Spoke care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Pedal care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicyC1e instructors; "Chain care, maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; “Gear care. maintenance procedures" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors and "Keeping all working parts clean, lubricated" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Offering bicycle safety education as a required subject in faygr_gf: Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Offeripg bicycle safety education as a required subject at Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 levels in favor of: Kindergarten bicycle instructors at the "Kindergarten level“; Kinder- garten bicycle instructors at the "Grade 1 level“; Kindergarten bicycle instructors at the "Grade 2 level"; Kindergarten bicycle instructors at the "Grade 3 level." Rank ordering of bicycle safety education as a required subject by instructional groups in favor of: "K-3 grade teachers" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Grade 4-6 teachers" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Youth agency leaders (Y's, Scouts, etc.)" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Bicycle 235 organization representatives (American Youth Hostels, Gopher Wheel- men)" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Police personnel" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Park, recreation personnel" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Bicycle shop representatives"for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; "Parental groups" for grade 1 bicycle instructors and "Special group instructors (Scouts)" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Reported bicycle safety-related accidents and fatalities in favor of: "Unavailable data" for grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors; Reported frequency data in favor of "No response" for Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors. Expressed interest in receiving a copy_of Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide in favor of: Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Reported frequency responses to "open-ended" response items with regards to "Resource personnel utilizedgt "Audio-visual aids/ models utilized," "Resource agencies utilized" and "Additional Bicycle instructor practices,ystratagies" indicated: A variety of aggregate responses as reported by Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructors. ("Reported program meeting times" and "Interest in nearby programs, practices" when contrasted with Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructor status yielded "No significant difference" for these contrasts). However, insufficient reported data with respect to: (1) Grade 3 bicycle instructor status; (2) Incorrectly reported Kindergarten bicycle instructor responses; 236 (3) "Winter term bicycle safety education programs;" (4) "Adult bicycle safety education programs," (5) "Judicial Department repre- sentatives" and (6) Partial contrasts performed with respect to Kindergarten bicycle instructor status, "Special instructions with respect to bicycle safety education activities," "Bicycle safety education programs luyt offered by bicycle instructors," and "Minnesota bicycle laws not offered by bicycle instructors" were noted. "Affirmative only" or "totally negative" responses by K-3 grade bicycle instructors prevented chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts being performed with respect to these variables. Hence, this major research question could not be completely answered. 3. Are there any significant differences in K-3 grade "on-bike" bicycle safety education instructional activities as reported by K-3 grade bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota? Chi-square "cross-tabulation" contrasts between selected Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructors and K-3 grade "on-bike" instructional activities indicated significant differences at the .05 level with respect to two separate K-3 grade "on-bike" instructional activities: Specific skill exercises offered in conjunction with "on- bike" performance/skill tests in favor of: "Sign, signal, pavement marking recognition" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Balancing exercises" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Serpentine, slalom, weave riding" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Slow-poke races" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Circling/balance 237 exercises" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Stopping drills" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; "Braking with, without skids" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors; and "Riding on rough surfaces" for Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Utilization of expertise in their own community at perform- ance, skill test activities in favor of: Kindergarten bicycle instructors. Conclusions The following conclusions were based on the findings in this study: 1. Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3 bicycle instructor programs within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, were conducted at 97 of the 101 surveyed K-3 grades sites. However, they were not equally distributed with respect to: a. Instructor sex status; b. Kindergarten,grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 con- ducted instructional bicycle safety education programs with classroom and "on-bike" activities. 2. Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors within a 60-mileradius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, offered a variety of classroom programs and practices. 3. Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota, offered a variety of "on-bike" instructional com- ponents and practices. 4. Grade 3 bicycle instructors offered classroom and "on-bike" instructional programs and practices at 97 of the 101 surveyed K-3 grade sites within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. 238 Recommendations 1. Disseminate the study results to traffic safety personnel in Minnesota state agencies, to Minnesota State Bicycle Committee members and to other interested individuals throughout Minnesota. 2. The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" indicated an obvious lack of any in-service training for K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the Central Minnesota area. Therefore, formal in-service bicycle safety education classes and seminars should be implemented with respect to: A. Recommended uses, practices contained in Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide, 1'State of Minnesota Bicycle Safety Instructor Guide." 8. Sharing K-3 grade bicycle instructor practices, programs with other bicycle instructors in study area; C. "On-bike" and other field experience phases of K-3 grade 3 bicycle safety education programs; and 0. Evaluation and recognition programs, practices utilized in K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. 3. Reported bicycle safety-related accident and fatality data, questionnaire results and local citizen input should be utilized by K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the Central Minnesota area to periodically update their bicycle safety education programs. Discussion Based on the findings of this study, it appeared that Kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 bicycle instructor programs 239 and practices were offered in 97 of the 101 surveyed K-3 grade sites within a 60-mile radius of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Ninety-seven bicycle instructors offered a variety of classroom practices and few "on-bike" skill/performance test exercises as measured by the descrip- tive "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire." It is also signifi- cant to note that grade 3 bicycle safety education classroom and "on- bike" programs of instruction were conducted in every reported K-3 grade site in the surveyed area. As the frequency data indicated, bicycle safety education instruction was offered more frequently at the grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 levels than at the Kindergarten level. It appears that bicycle instructors and K-3 grade administrators were convinced of the importance of bicycle safety education for 3rd graders. Aggregate responses revealed a majority of the K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the St. Cloud, Minnesota, area felt bicycle safety education should be a required subject. Rank ordering of bicycle safety education as a required subject by responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors favored K-3 grade instructors. These same educators next ranked grade 4-6 teachers. However, bicycle safety education programs as taught by pre-school, pre-elementary instructors received little reSponse. Follow-up contact with the respondents revealed pre-elementary school programs in bicycle safety education instruction were practically non-existent in the survey area. Efforts to initiate such programs received little support prior to the questionnaire use. It appears from the reported responses that K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the survey region received little formal I"! 240 teacher preparation with reSpect to bicycle safety education pro- grams and instructional practices prior to implementation of bicycle safety education programs of instruction at their sites. Few K-3 grade bicycle instructors identified workshop or course credentials in traffic safety education or bicycle safety instruc- tion through teacher preparation or in-service education programs. K-3 grade bicycle instructor in-service activities coupled with dissemination and recommended use of the Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide bicycle safety content and instructional practices were not offered to K-3 grade bicycle instructors on a regular basis. Insights with respect to recommended bicycle safety education course scheduling and "on-bike" field experiences (e.g., skill tests, tours) with the aid of local resource personnel (e.g., "Pedal Power" youth bicycle instructors) were lacking. Although the majority of the surveyed K-3 grade bicycle instructors indicated use of the State K-3 Guide, follow-up phone calls and visits to a majority of the bicycle instructors revealed few of the educators could recall specific recommended instructional strategies or activities for use in K-3 grades. Questionnaire responses also revealed many of these bicycle instructors requested a 2nd copy of the guide. 241 Responding K-3 grade bicycle instructors appeared to rely on teacher-oriented lecture and discussion classroom activities. Use of student-oriented discussions and small-group activites with outside assignments would provide Opportunities for students with special needs to be served. In addition, assemblies, skill tests and classroom activities in the K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs in central Minnesota should include registration, licensing, maintenance procedures, on-street riding activities (trips, tours) and special events fOr other community members as the needs arise (e.g., adult programs, handicapped programs, etc.) A significant majority of the K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs in the survey area were conducted during regular school hours and offered during Spring term. It appeared logical to conduct bicycle safety education instruction during student enrollment periods prior to the advent of the Summer bicycle operator season. However, it seemed unfortunate that additional K-3 grade bicycle instructors and administrators did not review or evaluate bicycle safety education practices at the start of the school year (Fall term) with bicycle classroom and "on-bike“ field experiences. Remedial instruction and reinforced safe riding prac- tices would appear necessary during the Fall season when K-3 cyclists (and others) are still highly visible on the roadways. This would also allow increased bicycle instructor student contact '242 hours, increased traffic safety activities at the K-3 grade levels and permit youth to assume an active role in life-saving educational activities. It was interesting to note the prevalence of Kindergarten level bicycle instructors in grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle safety education programs of instruction. Also, it appeared that many of the K-3 grade schools utilized the same bicycle instructor in all of the grades. Follow-up contatts and visits to a majority of the surveyed sites confirmed these facts. With reSpect to chi-square "cross-tabulation" treatments, it appeared that "Instructor sex" did not make a significant difference when contrasted with "School location." "Male and female bicycle instructors" did not significantly differ when contrasted with "Rural and urban bicycle safety education programs" (evenly divided in survey region). "Male and female bicycle instructors" were not significantly different when contrasted with "Kindergarten bicycle safety education programs." There was insufficient reported frequency variations (cell frequency data) with respect to the following contrasted K-3 grade bicycle safety education program and bicycle instructor variables: (1) "Urban-rural programs" with "Kindergarten level bicycle safety education programs;" (2) "Urban- rural programs" with "Grade 2 conducted bicycle safety education programs;" (3) "Reported bicycle safety education program meeting times" when contrasted with Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors in the survey area and (4) "Interest in nearby bicycle safety education programs, bicycle instructor practices" 243 when contrasted with Kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2 bicycle instructors in the survey area. Hence, no significant differences were found for these contrasts. Personal visits and contacts to a majority of the K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the survey area indicated: 1. Many K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the survey area were unaware of the National Safety Council "Bicycle Program Questionnaire" for local use. These bicycle instructors were not cognizant of the need for adequately measuring the differences in riding practices of the youth in their local communities. 2. Many K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the survey area were unaware of previous attempts by the traffic safety unit, Minnesota Department of Education to adequately measure programs and practices of K-3 grade bicycle instructors in the survey area. K-3 grade school administrators were highly receptive to the writer's attempts to secure the data. Many requested additional copies of the questionnaire results and the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" instrument to assist with future evaluations of local K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs of instruction. These officials were determined to implement local in-service instructor preparation programs in bicycle safety education for their bicycle instructors and to adopt local K-3 grade bicycle safety curricula, guide(s) and State of Minnesota "Bicycle Safety Education Instructor Guide" materials. The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" produced a valid composite of the nature and extent of K-3 grade bicycle 244 instructor practices in K-3 grades in central Minnesota. Requests for additional use of the questionnaire were received from K-3 grade bicycle instructors and administrators outside the study area. Study results have also been requested by State agency personnel and out-of-state traffic safety personnel. Recommendations for Further Study 1. The study should be replicated in the survey area following the completion of K-3 grade bicycle instructor in-service classes or seminars. These activities would assist K-3 grade bicycle instructors with bicycle safety education program evaluation procedures. 2. The study should be replicated in other areas of the state to assist State traffic safety agencies with traffic safety survey, evaluation procedures with respect to K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs. 3. The "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" should be revised to survey grade 4-6 bicycle safety education programs in the state. 4. A follow-up study should be conducted in the survey area to measure the retention of bicycle safety education program principles and practices as demonstrated by K-3 grade students in later years. 5. A study should be conducted in the survey area comparing students exposed to K-3 grade bicycle safety education programs with students new to or outside the study area not exposed to bicycle instruction. BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 BIBLIOGRAPHY Study References Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. Glass, Gene V. and Julian C. Stanley. Statistical Methods in Educa- tional Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973. Good, Carter V., ed. Dictionary of Education. Prepared under the auspices of Phi Delta Kappg. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Minnesota State Legislature. "State of Minnesota Legislature--An Act relating to Highway Traffic Regulations, specifically bicycles, motor vehicles and other human powered vehicles," H.F. No. 475, No. 169.222, Chapter 739. Legislative Law. St. Paul, Minn.: State of Minnesota Legislature, May 5, 1978, p. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population--Minnesota Publication. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1971. Walpole, Ronald E. Introduction to Statistics -- 2nd Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1974. Secondary Sources Farrah, George. Professor of Education, St. Cloud, Minnesota. hmerviews, September 1977-March 1980. Kolb, Randy. Computer Center Director, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Interviews, November 1978-March 1980. Shoemaker, Daniel. Michigan State University Office of Institu- tional Research. Interviews. May-June 1980. 246 247 Surveys from Other States Automobile Club of Southern California. "American Automobile Association Special Survey on Bicycling and Bicycle Accident Records." Los Angeles: Automobile Club of Southern California Public Safety Department, 1972. Chlapeka, Thomas W. Teacher Evaluation of the National Safety Council's "All About Bikes" Program. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1974. Cleckner, Robert M. "The Long Look at Bicycle Safety." New York: Bicycle Institute of America, 1974. Hammond, Beverly J. "Special Survey on Bicycling and Bicycle Acci- dents," Los Angeles: Automobile Club of Southern California Public Safety Department, 1972. Michigan State Department of Education. "State of Michigan 1976 Bicycle Safety Education Concepts Questionnaire." Lansing: Michigan State Department of Education, 1976. Minnesota Department of Education. "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Report." St Paul: Minnesota Department of Education, 1976. Minnesota Department of Education. "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Report -- Survey Results." St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education, 1976. National Safety Council. "National Safety Council 1974 'All About Bikes' Instructor Evaluation Questionnaire." Chicago: National Safety Council, 1974. National Safety Council. "National Safety Council 1974 'All About Bikes' Student Report Form." Chicago: National Safety Council, 1974. Studies--Classroom, "On-Bike" Practices Arnberg, Peter, et al. "The Ability of Preschool and School Children to Maneuver Their Bicycles." VTI Rapport, No. 149A (1978) I:l-39. City of Santa Barbara Transportation Division. Bicycle Safety: A Program of Implementation and Study: A Final Report. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Transportation Division, 1975. 248 Dewar, Robert E. "Bicycle Riding and Safety Campaigns." Journal of Safetnyesearch, 10:1 (1978): 40-41. Drury, (kfliri G. "The Law and Bicycle Safety." Traffic Quarterly 32:4 (1978): 618-620. Flagg, Jean and Walter Hawkins. School Pedestrian Safety for Elementary Schools. Dix Hills, N.Y.: Suffolk County Board of Education, 1976. Governor's Highway Safety Program Office. K-9 Traffic Safety Resource Curriculum. Level A. Professional Guide. Raleigh, N.C.: Governor's Highway Safety Program Office; Durham, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1975. Governor's Highway Safety Program Office. K-9 Traffic Safety Resource Curriculum. Level 8. Professional Guide. Raleigh, N.C.: Governor's Highway Safety Program Office; Durham, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1975. Lawson, Jane, et a1. Travel On: Mini-Units and Learning Activities on Transportation for Grades K-3. Cambridge, Mass.: ABT Associates, Inc., 1977. Popish, Lloyd N. and Roger B. Lytel. "A Study of Bicycle Motor Vehicle Accidents." Santa Barbara, California: Traffic Safety Program, 1973. Trainen, Pekka. "Investigations Into Use and Outfit of Schoolchildren's Bicycles." Investigations Into Light Traffic, No. 152 (1979). U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Highway Safety Literature. HSL No. 7608- Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1976. Curriculum Guides Alaska State Department of Education. K-12 Traffic Safety Education Program for Alaska. Juneau: Alaska State Department of Education, 1974. Board of Cooperative Educational Services and Suffolk County Organization for the Promotion of Education. School Pedestrian Safety for Elementary Schools (SCOPE/Boces). Suffolk County, Iowa: Board of Cooperative Educational Services and Suffolk County Organization for the Promotion of Education, 1973. 249 California State Department of Education. California Guide to Bicycle Education. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1977. Colorado State Department of Education. Colorado Traffic Safety Education Guide. Denver: Colorado State Department of Education, 1974. Illinois State Department of Education. Illinois Traffic Safety Education Guide. Springfield: Illinois State Department of Education, 1969. Illinois State Department of Education. Safety Education Units for Illinois Schools. Springfield: Illinois State Department of Education, 1969. Indiana State Department of Education. Indiana K-6 Traffic Safety Education Curriculum. Indianapolis: Indiana State Department of Education, 1975. Iowa State Department of Education. Bicycle Safety Club Handbook for State of Iowa. Des Moines: Iowa State Deaprtment of Education, 1975. Iowa State Department of Education. K-6 Traffic Safety Education for Iowa Schools. Des Moines: Iowa State Department of Education, 1975. Kentucky State Department of Education. The Kentucky Bicycle Driver's Guide. Lexington: Kentucky State Department of Education, 1975. Kokomo-Center Township Consolidated School Corporation. A Traffic Safety Multi-Media Program K-12. Kokomo, Ind.: Kokomo- Center Township Consolidated School Corporation, 1973. Maryland State Department of Education. Maryland Safety Instructional System. Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education, 1973. Michigan State Department of Education. Curriculum Guide for Safety Education, Grades K-6. Lansing: Michigan State Department of Education, 1973. Michigan State Department of Education. Traffic Safety Education Curriculum Guide Grades 7-9. Lansing: Michigan State Department of Education, 1975. Minnesota State Department of Education. Minnesota K-3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide. St. Paul: Minnesota State Department of Education, 1970. 250 Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The Minnesota Bicycle Driver's Guide. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 1978. Montana State Department of Education. Traffic Education for Montana Elementary Schools--Bicycle Safety. Helena: Montana State Department of Education, 1974. North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction and Governor's Highway Safety Program Office. Professional Guide: K-9 Traffic Safety Curriculum, Levels C and 0. Raleigh: North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction and Governor's Highway Safety Program Office, 1975. Ohio State Department of Education. The Bicycle Driver's Guide. Columbus: Ohio State Department of Educatidn, 1975. Oklahoma State Department of Education. Oklahoma Curriculum Guide and Student Handbook for Teaching Pedestrian Safety Eddca- tion. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Department of Education, 1973. Oregon State Department of Education. Traffic Safety Education for Oregon Schoolsg K-3; and Traffic Safety Education for Oregon Schools, 4-6. Eugene: OFegon State Department of Education, 1973. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Trans- portation--South Carolina's Bicycle Driver's Handbook. Charleston: South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 1978. State of Washington, Department of Education. State of Washington Bicycle Driver's Guide. Olympia: State of Washington, Department of Education, 1975. State of Washington, Department of Education. Washington Traffic Safety Education Guide. Olympia: State of Washington, Department of Education, 1973. Transportation Consumer Education for Adults. Ride On! Pedal On! Cambridge, Mass.: Transportation Consumer Education fer Adults, 1975. West Virginia, State Department of Education. Safety Program Guide for West Virginia Schools. Wheeling: West Virginia State Department of Education, 1971. 251 Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. Project T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Madison: Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 1976. Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. Traffic Safety K-12 Curriculum Guide for Wisconsin. Madison: Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 1972. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and Governor's Office of Highway Safety Programs. Wisconsin Bicycle Driver's Guide. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruc- tion and Governor's Office of Highway Safety Programs, 1978. Privately Produced Programs Aetna Safety Instructional Services National Office. Aetna's PedestrianjBitycle Safety Program. Binghampton, N.Y.: Aetna Safety Instructional Services, 1977. American Automobile Association National Office. AAA Teacher's Guide to Bicycle Safety Activities and Proiects. Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1977. Automotive Safety Foundation. Discovering Traffic Safety. Washington D.C.: Automotive SafetyFoundation, 1977. Boy Scouts of America National Office. Cub Scout Bicycle Safety Program. North Brunswick, N.J.: Boy Scouts of America, 1977. Elisar Research Corporation. Traffic and Pedestrian Education Systems. New York: Elisar Research Corporation, 1971. Film Loops, Inc. Just Like A Car. Princeton, N.J.: Film Loops, Inc., 1971. Kilby Associates, Inc. "How Do You Drive a Bike (KIT)." Pendleton, 0re.: Kilby Associates, Inc., 1970. Milner Fenwick, Inc. Bicycle Safety Program--Basic. Baltimore, Md.: Milner Fenwick, Inc.,71976. National Safety Council National Office. All About Bikes: A Bitycle Safety Program. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1971, 1972. 252 Books Coombs, Charles. Bicycling. New York: The William Morrow Publish- ing Co., 1972. English, John W., Craig W. Conreth and Michael L. Gallavan. Bicycle Laws in the United States: Traffic Laws Commentary. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1974, (111, No. 2). Frankel, Lillian and Godfrey. The Bicycle Book. New York: Simon and Schuster Publishers, 1971. Jackson, Robert B. Bicycle Racing. New York: Henry 2. Walck, Inc., 1971. McPhee Gribble Publishers. Bicycles--All About Them. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, Inc., 1976. Sullivan, George. Better Bicycling for Boys and Girls. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1974. Pamphlets and Booklets AHstate Insurance Company. "Allstate --the Joy of Bicycling." Chicago: Allstate Insurance Co., 1978. Allstate Insurance Company. "Hi! Bike Pilots." Chicago: Allstate Insurance Co., 1977. American Automobile Association. "Bicycle Driver's License." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1972. American Automobile Association. "Bicycle Information Test." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1973. American Automobile Association. "Bicycle Inspection Checklist." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1971. American Automobile Association. "Bicycle Safety Skill Tests." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1973. American Automobile Association. "Bicycling Is Great Fun.“ Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1972. American Automobile Association. "Bike Safety Posters." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1973. 253’ American Automobile Association. "Teacher's Guide to Bicycle Safety Activities and Projects." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1977. American Automobile Association. "Terry the Tricycle." Falls Church, Va.: American Automobile Association, 1975. Kemper Insurance Company. "Bikes--and Boys and Girls." Long Grove, Ill.: Kemper Insurance Company, 1966. Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture--4H). "4-H Bicycle Program Unit 1. Your Bicycle and You." St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1971. Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture--4-H). "4-H Bicycle Program Unit II. Maintain- ing Your Bicycle." St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1970. Minnesota State Department of Education. "Minnesota 1977, 1978, 1979 Education Directories." St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education, 1977, 1978, 1979. Minnesota Department of Public Safety. "Be a Bike Expert." St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 1976. Minnesota Department of Public Safety. "Be a Bike Expert--Have Fun, Know the Rules." St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 1978 revised. Minnesota Department of Public Safety. "Bicycle Safety Program Kit.“ St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 1974. Minnesota Department of Public Safety. "Bicycle Safety Quiz." St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 1975, 1977 (Revised). Minnesota State Planning Agency, Development Planning Division, Planning Information Base. "Minnesota Pocket Data Book, 1976." St. Paul: Minnesota State Planning Agency, Development Planning Division, Planning Information Base, 1976. Modern Woodmen of America. "Modern Woodmen Bicycle Safety Program." Rock Island, 111.: Modern Woodmen of America, 1977. National Safety Council. "Bicycle Safety Information Test." Chicago: National Safety Council, 1975, 1976. National Safety Council. "Sidewalk Vehicles: Safety Education Data Sheet #17." Chicago: National Safety Council, 1967. 254 Schwinn Bicycle Company. "Bicycle Safety." Chicago: Schwinn Bicycle Company, 1972. Schwinn Bicycle Company. "Lock Your Bike." Chicago: Schwinn Bicycle Company, 1972. Schwinn Bicycle Company. "Tire Care Guide." Chicago: Schwinn Bicycle Company, 1972. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. I'A Bicycle Built for You." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1977. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Bicycles: Buy Right . . . Drive Right." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1976. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Bicycles--Fact Sheet No. 10." Washington D.C.: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1975. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. I'Bicycling: Fun With Safety." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1975. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Catalogue of Publications." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1977. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Sprocket Man." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1975. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. "Your Life Rides on Your Tires." Washington, D.C.: Consumer Product Safety Commission, Superintendent of Documents, 1975. State and Local Programs North Carolina Office of Transportation Plannin "The Bicycle Awareness Project (survey) ; "Bicycle Highways (bikeways manual)"; "Bicycle Safety Rodeo Manual"; "Bike Information Service (literature, films, research)"; and "Bicycle Safety Cities (Model Bicycle Safety Education Program)." . Rgigigh: North Carolina Office of Transportation Planning, 255 St. Cloud Public Schools. "Guidelines for Teaching Bicycle Safety Education." St. Cloud, Minn.: St. Cloud Public Schools, 1975. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, and Wisconsin Division of Highway Safety Coordinators: "It's Your Move" (nine 25-minute, 1977; three, 15 minute Instructional Television (ITV) Bicycle Pedestrian Safety Education Programs); ”Bicycle Inspection Sheet" "Bicycle Law Sheet #4" "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Films (LIST)" "Bicycle Rights and Rules" "Bicycle Safety Certificate," "Bicycle Safety Test for Grades K-3" "Guidelines for Bicycle Club Rides and BikeAthons" "Leaflet Order Form" "My Safety Coloring Book--Teacher's Guide to Coloring Book" ”Model Programs in Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety for Wisconsin Communities, 1977" "Planning Guide for the Development of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, 1977" "Planning the Bicycle Tour" "Reasons for not Driving a Bicycle on Left Side of Roadway" "Rules to Live By" "Suggested Bicycle Touring Equipment" "Ways Youth Groups Can Assist in Bicycle Safety Programs" "Wisconsin Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Plan, 1977" APPENDICES 256 APPENDIX A "MINNESOTA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROGRAM REPORT - 1976" 257 .52.. 2.5.3.5. 3.3 5% 5 so: :8. be 33...}... 233% :8 35:33:58 88.3 . .. u ... N ..l. ... N w . N. s c m V. 59.52 8.3... 88.: .333. .5381 :3 333 89:83 .32. e3 88.3.8.3: 3.3.. 818.. 2.8. as. 83 .n .325: .m 5&5! E. 29 8 unguwzho 35$. zigwamm wt... c... 5.55. 8 mg... .mw:§~5< >5an 39.93 was. .52 $99 39.8 56> u: 5: 8.. .5393 3.3 389.3 .56: 5 .58.. 5.. .3385 as. 8.53... :52. so: . .833 9.3 5 : a m ... 8.3.. 9a 38:3 55.. 9...... ...—353 5 .3353 .3 ses Bee. .N ... n v . I1 I m N. s c n o. oz 3.. 2 .5383... 2.3 5% 5 .58: 5.. 383.353: 2. 338. 5563.1 :3 3.3 u «5.5. :8: a. .9. E .8538... e 3 95% .335... 9.3. 2.8 we 83583 .35: 2. 3:8. 3:3. . oz 3.. oz 3.. $8183.... 95.8.. 58.3% oz 8.. egg... 3:39.53 2. 88 .853 88.3 :HwSe-Eo .833 8.53% .8838 5:33 88:35:85 3. 3.83. 333 “.5: 83:. .883... 3.3 55: 8.5 . 89:8... 3539 2. 333 3.5 $983.83 :5. 93:. 862.3 (:2. 3.5 .. Emma H.935 a. SS. .8... 585:2 8:8 8:3... 33.. .282 as. 5.95383“ 3.9: .35 5.... a... 3...... a...» use... 38an use: .333 55:38.. .5. 392.. 28a... 8.... as. 99:. 5.9.3. gut tuna. 25$me 92< 3935 .5“-.. «m.-.va ooumiooT mm 32:53.89 ~50: .6... .6: 32¢...— 55: 3:3: :32: lllo35v3 33 395.589.. 98.2... 8.589 33:5 99:33.3: 9383: 8. 3:8. 53:3... :5833: SS: 8:: 3:3: 3.33:. 9:8. :: :32: 5...... . :2 3.. 3933.89: 39.3 5.3833: 395795-:9. 8.3.3:: ::: :9 . .53.:31 =§33n §:: 5. 94: ::: .... 3.93:: 5.3%.... 2: 35.33.53... 3:... . 2 m N Illl u ... N w . N. o : ... v. 33:3... 585.93... 323:9: §:: .... .53: 5... .3335 95. 8.539: :::... 3:: . IIII... .. a m N ... s v . N. : o m V. 33:3... :53331 :3: 5 .53: 5... 8:93»: : :a 3.9:... .332: 95¢ .: 98.3.33 :3: 2. 3:9: 3:3 . ..2 3: :2 3.. .3333: :52. 23:99.53... 2338.53... 3:88:58 ”.5: 93:: 23:31 39:3 5.38.33... 38: .93 . 5332 9.6.... 98.: :35: 25333.. :33 3.9.3 54533: 5...: .3. 93.32839: :33... 991:9... 9:» 9:: 2.3 .m . .....m... m... 8... :2... ...m: :9. ....s: .33.... 2.: «a: a... 5... .... 8.35.8 355:»: £2.58 :2 3.. .39.... 5:333 5 :53: 95. 88:9: 58: 98...: 9.8.5.9» 5 38.3583. 9.. 2.: 33:... .... 3.. 33339: 2. 3:8. 33::5 .3333 39.3 585493: : :5...» .5: .... ...: E :2 3.. ... 89 .8293 32...... :g... .8298 3399:: $8.339 5:93» 33:82.. 3 ...:3. 3.9.3 333: 3.598 9.. 3:3 98:... 893.89: :5. 93:. 88:9: .58: 8:9 .. .82 8.5 no: .mm~...§:o< .....mufiw 233.563.. was. 82 38 ..ooza «a: n: 5P7 5:8: 3:3: 33:55... 35:... 9.38 3.95.3.9: 9.38. 33:... 3.38. 9958.33: 9.88:: S. :2 .9: 3.3: $3.95. 2.3 5:: 3:: 3:3: 9.353% 9:». w: :93} 5...... ... N33433: :89?! :3 ..3.......u9:w..::.. 93:: .5: :9 .: Emma. 255mg... a: .23.— APPENDIX B NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL "1974 ALL ABOUT BIKES STUDENT REPORT FORM" 260 TO. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 261 STUDENT FORM My name is I am a [ J boy [ ] girl 3. I am years old Today is (Day of Week) (Monthj' (Day) (Year) The last day I rode a bike was [ ] yesterday [ ] 2 days ago [ ] 3 days ago [ ] 4 days ago [ ] l week ago [ ] l month ago [ ] more than l month ago On that day I fell off my bike when I was riding. Since the beginning of last summer up to now, I have had to go to a doctor or hospital because I hurt myself when I was riding a bike. I am too young to be a "rider.“ It is harder to balance on a high—rise than on other kinds of bikes. A bike is the right size if I have to stretch a little to reach the pedals. When starting up I should keep my eyes on by bike. Standing on the pedals is dangerous when I am braking. It is unsafe to play games on a bicycle. A traffic area is anyplace cars, trucks, and buses go. Car drivers will always stop for stop signs and red lights. Yes [I [I [J I] [I I] I] I] [I [I No [I [I [I [J [J [J [I [I [I [I Don't Know I] [I [I [I [I [J [J [I [I I] 16. T7. 18. T9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 262 Don't Yes No Know A bicyclist should signal a right turn [ ] [ ] [ ] with his hand. Playing bike games in the street is dumb. [ ] [ J [ ] On a bike, I wish I could On a bike, I am good at If I were going to show others about bike driving, I would be sure they learned The most dangerous thing I do on a bike is I think I could keep from having bike accidents if I My favorite bike game is APPENDIX C NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL "1974 ALL ABOUT BIKES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE" 263 APPENDIX C 1974 ALL ABOUT BIKES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION Since October 1972 the ALL ABOUT BIKES program has been distributed to educational institutions, local safety councils, and various civic groups. The purpose of the curriculum is to instruct and motivate the young "bicycle driver" toward safer use of his bicycle both as a toy and as a vehicle. The course was pilot-tested in actual elementary school situations before it was implemented and extensive changes were made on the basis of teacher recommendations. Again, before the second edition is written and the teaching aids compiled, a field evaluation of the course is being conducted. The primary purpose of this current ALL ABOUT BIKES evaluation is to collect constructive criticism from users so that the second edition may more closely meet contemporary teaching needs. Our records indicate that at some point in the recent past, you used part or all of the ALL ABOUT BIKES program. Please answer the following questions that pertain to any sections you used. Give your name only if you wish. All information will be kept confidential and a summary report will be available to all participants. If you are now in the process of administering ALL ABOUT BIKES, please complete this form after the course is completed. Please give the short student quiz to those children who participated in the program, and return completed forms by June I, l974. IF YOU CAN NOT PARTICIPATE in the evaluation, CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING and return this form. [ ] Not involved with ALL ABOUT BIKES [ ] Unable to do evaluation [ ] Other Thank you. 264 265 Are you a: [ J volunteer instructor professional teacher Years of professional teaching Does your background for teaching safety include: [ J in-service [ J pre-service [ J classroom experience [ J none of these [ J other Is your attitude toward teaching bicycle safety in school: [ J very positive [ J positive [ J neutral [ J somewhat negative [ J very negative In your school, is safety taught as: [ J a separate curriculum subject [ J part of a broader subject [ J a related subject in many areas of the curriculum [ J other Is your personal experience with bicycle riding: [ J extensive [ J moderate [ J minimal [ J non-existent Rank order of importance the three most important causes of bicycle accidents: faulty bicycle design improper bicycle maintenance inadequate rider education lack of parental supervision lack of law enforcement dangerous traffic conditions miscellaneous road hazards kids being kids F-fl—1l—‘1t—1t—1Hf—1F'1 HHL-JI—JL—JL—JL—JL—J What was the age level of your ALL ABOUT BIKES (AAB) class? Number of boys and girls in you AAB class: [ J Boys J Girls APPENDIX D AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION "SPECIAL SURVEY ON BICYCLING AND BICYCLE ACCIDENT RECORDS" 266 267 __ City State SPECIAL SURVEY ON BICYCLING AND BICYCLE ACCIDENT RECORDS The recent explosive popularity of the bicycle as a com- muter vehicle as well as for recreation has created new and greater traffic problems that must be understood and identified to effectively provide for safer roadway use by all vehicles. The purpose of this survey is to gain a greater understanding of the bicycle' accident problem and its relationship to current cycling trends and activities. Your cooperation in completing the following questionnaire and returning it to your local AAA Club will be greatly appreciated. The data collected will be summarized and made available to the participants in the AAA Pedestrian Safety Inventory Program for use in strengthening their Traffic Safety programs. '(Uniform Vehicle Code definition of bicycle: Every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride. having two tandem wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in diameter. Revised 1968 - For the purpose of this survey. please include all bicycles regardless of wheel diameter size.) Does your community have an ordinance specifying the rights and duties of bicycle drivers? YES NO.____ If yes. please submit copy. 2. Are bicycles required to be ridden on sidewalks under certain circumstances? YES NO Explain 3. Have recreational bike-paths or trails been established in your community? YES NO If yes. how have these been financed? Have special routes or bikeways been provided for bicycle commuters to travel to and from work? YES_____ NO a. How are these provisions paid for? Estimate the number of bicycle commuters per day in your city. (estimate) TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 8. SAFETY DEPARTMENT - American Automobile Association Washington. DC. 20006 5 10. 11. 268 Does your community Open specific streets or lanes to bicycles exclusively and ban motor vehicles during cer- tain days or hours? YES___ NO___ If yes. what has been your experience with this system? Are citations or written warnings issued to bicycle traffic violators? YES— NO Does your community require bicycles to be registered? YES_____ NO How many bicycle thefts occurred in 1971? Are bicycle racks provided in the downtown area? YES___ NO Please describe briefly all bicycle safety activities such as rodeos. inspections. etc. which took place in your community during 1971. APPENDIX E STATE OF MICHIGAN I976 "BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION CONCEPTS" QUESTIONNAIRE 269 27D BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION CONCEPTS Directions: For each of the following questions place a check on the line that best characterizes how you teach bicycle safety. Note: For the purpose of the study, the following definitions will be used: Bicycle safety concept--an idea that a child would be knowledgeable about or is able to demonstrate as it pertains to riding a bicycle; Bicycle Iaws--motor vehicle laws having direct application to bicycle riders. I. Is bicycle safety included in the elementary currriculum of your school? Yes No Do ygg teach any bicycle safety concepts to your students? Yes No What time of year do you teach bicycle safety? (check as many as apply) ______ Fall Winter __ Spring Integrated year-round in curriculum How do you teach the bicycle safety concepts? (check as many as apply) Separate unit Integrated in existing courses (e.g., social studies, language arts) Assemblies Classroom guest speakers Parks and recreation department personnel Police officer 27l Local bicycle shop representative Amateur cyclist Other Other 5. Which of the following "Michigan bicycle laws" do you teach at your grade level? I do not teach bicycle laws Traffic signs and signals Licensing or registration of bicycles _____ Riding with flow of traffic ______Riding on the right side of the roadway Turning and stopping hand signals Hitching a tow by holding on to a moving vehicle is illegal _____ Riding between traffic lines is illegal Carrying only the number of persons designed for the bicycle ______Keeping both hands on handlebars except for signaling When walking a bicycle face the traffic ______Staying off limited-access highways Use of bicycle paths when provided Use of bell or horn _____ Use of light during night riding It is a misdemeanor to break safety laws __ Other 272 Which of the following "bicycle riding and safety" concepts do you teach at your grade level? (check as many as apply) Proper mounting and dismounting ._____ Proper pedaling Proper braking Correct procedure for turning Emergency stopping and manuevering Defensive riding Overtaking other bicycles or vehicles Crossing intersections Bicycle hazards (e.g., weather, animals, pavement) ______Night-time riding Proper clothing for increased visibility Using safety flags and/or reflective materials _____ Trip planning Skill and performance testing _____ Touring techniques and packing Other Which of the following “bicycle equipment" concepts do you teach at your grade level? (check as many as apply) I do not teach bicycle equipment concepts _____ History of bicycling How to measure a bicycle for proper size and fit Bicycle anatomy (e.g., pedals, frame) Classification of bicycles (e.g., styles, types) Selection of bicycles and accessories Required equipment (e.g., brakes, horn/bell) 273 Required equipment for night riding (e.g., lights, reflectors) Recommended equipment (e.g., front reflectors, rear tail light Optional equipment for visibility and safety (e.g., flags, clothing) Tripping or traveling equipment (e.g., baskets, bags, tool kit Other Which of the following "bicycle care and maintenance" concepts do you teach at your grade level? (check as many as apply) I do not teach bicycle care and maintenance concepts Proper bicycle storage ______Theft prevention Brakes (e.g., adjustment for even wear) Saddle (seat) (e.g., adjustment for proper size) ______Handlebars (e.g., tighten often, proper height) Wheels (e.g., nuts tight to prevent sway, wear on rim) Tires (e.g., properly inflated, no defects) ______Spokes (e.g., tight, wear) ______ Pedals (e.g., spin freely, tight) Chain (e.g., wear, lubrication) Gears (e.g., adjustment, replacement of cables) ._____ Keeping all working parts clean and lubricated Other Do you think bicycle safety should be a required subject? Yes No 10. ll. 274 If yes, at which level(s) should it be taught? (rank order with I being highest) __ K-3 __ 4-6 __ 7-9 __ lO-IZ If bicycle safety is required, which of the following ways would be the most effective? (rank order with I being highest) Elementary teachers K-3 Elementary teachers 4-6 Junior high teachers 7-9 Senior high teachers lO-lZ Youth agency leaders (Y's, Scounts, etc.) Bicycle organization representatives (American Youth Hostels, etc.) Police department personnel Parks and recreation department personnel Bicycle shop representatives Other Are you aware of the Curriculum Guide for Safety Education: Grades K-6 published by the Michigan Department of Education which contains bicycle safety education concepts? Yes No If Yes, have you used the guide? If No, would you like a c0py? Yes Yes No No 275 I2. Are you aware of in-service workshops on safety (including bicycle safety) offered by the Michigan Department of Education? Yes No The following space is provided for your individual comments. Please indicate if you desire a c0py of the questionnaire results. Thank you for your cooperation. Return to: Sally Janecek 370 W. Iroquois Pontiac, Michigan 48053 APPENDIX F STATE OF MINNESOTA MAP/STUDY AREA 276 277 STATE OF MINNESOTA W\___ APPENDIX G STUDY AREA MAP 278 279 STUDY AREA II I BRAINERD a ‘0 .\‘~ / J. N . ' QARR!SON l - "W CROW WING : v 1.-. 7‘ -—.d I” ‘ O- . «ANSAH J; ‘I ;-" ! WIISL:7 I ' Ht’tctt. " I 0U“ " .. J» . ICNAMIA ‘ MORRISON MILLE LACS ”“3 r-°. Um I rKANABEC PWE PAL" . "W i MORA 0."..-1- - .... LGWI‘ DOUGLAS _._. . BENTON ' GRASSTOIN ._. , 7 ‘\ I MILACA _- _ ‘35 g :3 I ‘ aaxwuv . GLENWOOD I” FOLEY I :mtac ' I . .. 5 «mm, I CHISAGO ‘ I _ I” '1‘ DPIPIQETZIN ‘ . CAMBRIDGE as . STEARNS SI- CLOUD -- -—--— 05 -- - __ 4A 3'5 SHERBURNEE— 5 POPE 4.41:9; .‘ " .i‘ u: -ALI ANTI b . Nt‘t‘i'” ‘ ‘ BRANCH —. 0A. —. C T. .- ‘ r,_Aq\‘-I‘~ . a...” 7. fruJ. _' I ‘ F47 :I'f '. . ' L - . WYOMING ' \ a l ELK RIVER ' Id. .. g I I . l . ANOKA ' ‘ ' I 77 ’_ VHIL L O ANOKA IO ,«v .t ;‘~ " . ’- a: i' '1.” HI") L jfi o .0. I::- ‘ WILLMAP . C E E.) ""‘ “\kk .~ MEEKER 12 HENNEPIN ' KANDIYOHIT ! ‘ _IWR'SSHT . .1...th --._ A'AINNEAPOLIC "t. I h - IT‘I ’_" L --—. .CAR\IFK 4 1 VJ RENVILLE '.‘l ...‘n‘. N“ CHASKA , . ..GLENCOE. a 'i.. ' MILES Cum ) C- ‘ SCSI. B ‘r-Wa- '6 4970 APPENDIX H SURVEYED COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA 280 2'81 SURVEYED COUNTIES IN MINNESOTA Aitkin Anoka Benton Carver Cass Chippewa Chisago Crow Wing Douglas Hennepin Isanti Kandiyohi McLeod Meeker Mille Lacs Morrison Pine Ramsey Renville Sherburne Stearns Swift Todd Wright 2h counties out of 87 = 24% APPENDIX I SURVEYED SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MINNESOTA 282 SURVEYED SCHOOL DISTRICTS Aitkin Albany Alexandria Annandale Anoka Atwater Becker Belgrade Benson Bertha-Hewitt Big Lake Bird Island Braham Brainerd Brooklyn Center Brooten Browerville Buffalo Lake Cambridge Centennial Chaska Chisolm Clarissa Cold Spring Columbia Heights Cosmos Crosby Dassel-Cokato Delano Eagle Bend Eden Valley-Watkins Elk River Foley Fridley Glencoe Golden Valley Grey Eagle Grove City Hector Hinckley Holdingford Hopkins Howard Lake Hutchinson Isle 95 School districts out of 443 = 21% IN MINNESOTA Maple Lake Melrose Milaca Minnetonka Monticello Mora Motley Mounds View Murdock New London-Spicer North Branch Norwood Ogilvie Olivia Onamia Orono Osakis Osseo Paynesville Pierz Pillager Pine City Princeton Raymond Robbinsdale Rockford Royalton Rush City St. CIOud St. Francis St. Louis Park St. Michael-Albertville Sartell Sauk Centre Sauk Rapids Silver Lake Spring Lake Park Staples Stewart Swanville Upsala Waconia Wayzata Winsted APPENDIX J U. S. CENSUS BUREAU POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS, - 1970 — STATE OF MINNESOTA '284 285 pp 0 p e a. v n000—000 meCODQN D 0' N. pawn MM —0— 0 .Vs—-ovm Ibo—N ' u— 'N' .- N M P \O VIVID—00". Q .. . . . N N M '- NONQ—Q 00 (VF-GD vvvvvvuv mmv SN. me~.o N. owe vam.n on. Km... A. —' fi—ONNU'I— — 0' m'NO‘O'. v'vvvwvv .0..vv. .... .m .m on eat—_ou .eogtm _cogtm go.: we. ..ceu oxcc. -:i&m.o -:¢Eb.e macs_ca :. 0:002 go.; vco .oogum c. ee,_oteu e_c Stag, an-" sconce: ..n.. .00.. n0... .0... 0n. v0~.~ 0.0.. ..0 000.. o~n.~ com.” mo» o.m._ omo.~ ~.~.~ mwa... «mo .00.n0n 00 .aogum za.: 0.0.. 0.0 0.nv 0.0 0.0. 000.0 vmn.n 0.n 0.0. 0.. 0.0. .~0.0. .0... ..0 0..m ..~ 0.0. 0.0.0. 0.... 0.0 0..n 0.. 0.0 .0... 0-.. n.0 0.0m 0.n 0.0 000.~ ..0.0 0.0 0.0. ~.n 0.0. '0n.0. '00.. ..0 0.0. ..~ 0... 0.0.0. '00.. 0.n 0.00 ..n 0.0 00... 000.0 0.. 0.00 0.0 0... 000... 0.. 0.0 0.00 ..0 .... 000.0 .N..n 0.. ..00 0.. ~.~. 000.0 .00.. 0.0 ..00 0.~ 0.0. 000.0 .vv.n 0.0 0.00 0.0 0... ..0.0 0'... 0.0 ..nv 0.. 0.0. 000.. 0.0.0 ... 0.0. ..~ .... .00... n0... 0.0 0.00 ..~ 0.0. 000.0 000.0 0.0 ~.0v v.~ 0... ~0..0 000.. ~.. ..0v 0.n 0.0. 0...0. 000.. ..0 0.0. 0.0 0.0. 0'..0 0.0.. 0.0 0.0. ..u n... 00~.0 .~m.n 0.0 ~..v ~.~ n... 0.~.0 000.00. 0.0. 0..0 0.. 0.0. 00...00 0~n.. 0.0 0.00 0.. 0.0. 000.. 0.0.0 0.. 0.~m 0.. ..~. .0v.0. 0N... ~.0 ~._0 0.. 0.~. 0...0~ .00.. n.0 ~.0v ... 0... ....0. 000.n 0.0 0.00 ~.n 0.~. .00.~. ..0.v n.0 .... 0.0 0... 000.0. 000.. 0.0 v.~m 0.0 .... 000.. ~v..~m 0.0. 0.00 0.. 0.~. .mo.00 .0~.0 0.. 0.00 ~.0 0... 000.0. .m..~ 0.. 0... ... 0... 000.0 000 0.0 0..m 0.. ~.~. ..0.~ 00... 0.0 0..» 0.0 0.0 0.0.0 0mn.0 m... 0.00 ... n.~. ~.n..~ ~.m.n 0.0 ..om n.~ 0.0. 0.0.0 .00.. ..0 ~.00 ..~ 0... 0v..0 ~v_.n 0.0 ..mv 0.. 0.0. ..m.0. 0.0.0 0.0 ...0 ~.~ 0.0. 0.0... 000.0 n.0 n.0m ... 0... 000.0. m.0.0 0.0 0.00 0.~ 0.0. 0.0.0. ncm.0 0... 0.00 0.. 0.0. 000.v~ omm.. ... «.0. ~.~ 0... 000.. 00m.v 0.0 0.00 0.n 0.~. 000.0 00... 0.0. 0.00 ..n 0... 00~.~. ~00.0 ..0 a... 0.0 n.0. .0_.n. 0N...m m.0 ..00 ... a... v0..00 v00.. 0.. ..0n ..n ..0 000.0 ~vo.-~ .... o..m ..~ ~.~_ Non.ooo._ 0w .N 0~ m0 0. n. ..e. use: ocol mcoo. :o.vmx .oao. -:uev.0 so to 0:» moo—.00 _o¢£.m :vach .0 50.: -L90:.x «Loo» v .0 0590. v away—QIOQ «Lao» .oocun Lo>0 :c- 0.0 «coo. m~ ficance: 0.0. .:o.uou:00 . PINK 0 u o . . M0008 ”No-N FN- . . . . . . . . - . o a.— ...-I- NNa—a- g 9‘ N A v Q 0 0 v N O UDFIh-uifliup n ¢~ a) C u: pl-N In hh O O D Cbirubh-OICIHaCB U\—-Uthoh~ruou91 unit—~9~0r¢99\h- SR u)¢!¢:9\0re\huna E 0 o h p .— .— tn 0 N ~3¢hnr~v49n0u- NN—PN—N- D vs hi . on OONVOQD— —-aa a. 953' 0 a-u—NN N Q Do. on N §~a DC OOQQ' 0 00000040 00~~0—v §§§ § NNNN—N St “E ”HOOP—NO “50-0)000 N m I15 .— N N 0 N o 0 ... 000. 000. c. c. .w>&a 0'09:— Blow:— as; )O_00 0:00:00 0.v~a 0.0.0 0..~- 000.0 ....- 000.. n.n~. «no.0 ..n~t 000.. 0.0.- 0n... 0.0.- 0.0.0 0.0.- ..0.0 0.0.- -n.0 ~.0nt 000 ..00- 0~. 0...- 00~.0 0..0- n00 0.00- 0.~.~ 0.0~- 000.. 0.00- .0o.n 0.0.- Nnm.0 n..v. n0~.~ 0.... 0...» ..m~- ..0.. 0.0.- -..0 0.00- 0.~.n ~.~n- 0.0.n 0..~- .v0.0 ..0~- 000.. ~.-- 0n..0 ..0~- 0.0.. 0.0.- nmn.0 v._~- ~.0.0 0.n~- 0N..0 n.0~- .0... 0.0~- 0-.0 0.0~- 000.n v.0~. ....0 0..n- ~00.n 0...- 000.. 0...- 0n0.~ ~...- vv~.0 ...v- 0~n.~ ..n.- 009.0 ~.n.- 0.0.0 0.0~- ..0.~ 0.0.- ~0~.m 0.0m- ....n 0.00- 000.0 ... 0.0.. 0.0.. n0..n 0.-- 0.0.00. 0 0.. 00. 0.0. ...o. -000. .o0cqgu 0.0. .:O.u~.:aca Isa. zeta!» ¢::~ a. oogN— 0‘ 00¢ MOCMNOOU a— O a- 'fi N M .ve.~ 0'0.~. ..m.~ 0...0 000... 000... 000.0. 0v~.0 000.n~0 PMQNOQND 000- C N— . a a e assesses a n-ano—QM O—POmNr-o QNNmov-IDO N NNnHMN NNMNNM . Ncfi'QOU’ON . e NNHNN NNMMNNMH 0") 0099—0 a, N ..0n 0.00 0.0. n.n0 ..0 0... 0.n0 0.. .... ..00 0.. N... 0..0 n.0 0.~. 0.00 0.0 0.0. ..00 0.0 0... 0.00 ~.0 0.0. 0.00 0.0 N... ..00 0.0 0.0. 0.00 0.. 0.0 0.00 ..0 0... 0 v0 ... ..0 0..0 ~.0 0.0. 0.00 0.. v.n. 0.00 0.. 0.0. ...0 0.0 0.0. 0.00 0.. n... 0..0 ... 0.~. 0..0 0.0 ..0. 0.00 0.0 v.n. ..~0 0.0 ..0 0.00 0.0 ~.0. 0.00 0.0 0... ..n0 ... 0.0. 0.00 ..0 0.0. 0.v0 0.. 0.0. 0.00 0.. ~.0. 0.00 0.. 0... 0..0 v.0 ~.0 ..00 0... .... 0.00 0.. 0.0. 0.00 0.. ~.~. 0.00 0.. m... m.v0 0.. 0.0 0.00 0.. 0.n. 0.00 0.0 0.0. ~.v0 0.. 0.0. ..00 0.0 ..0. ..00 ..0 0.0. 0..0 0.0 ..n. ..n0 0.0 ~.0. ..00 0.. 0.0. v.v0 n.. 0.0 n.00 0.0. 0.0. ..00 0.. 0.0. v..0 ..0 ..n «.00 ..~. ~.0. ~.00 ..0 0.0. 0.n0 ..0 N u u v. m. N. Lo>0 Lo>o mtov> see vce m mceu> atom» Lovc0 m0 0. w0< mood 0...: cogent :....: ..ogmcux eolccgez vocab: co». :.ou:.0 Laeam a; “coo: as. .9 use; use; 0.5-. .39 bad «e.gu_guoog comuu.x .go..v:nx uonecox gonzo-0 come“. _~:aa_ usages: ecuwao: :.no:cmx acasw oacvcow egoauosu o:ot.... . «0.:e. «c.0390 ooeoo aucxeo 0:.) 10:0 voorccauou meow .5033: »¢_u ooew.gu cloon_:u mung so>cou co..ceu cross gated taLa 28¢ a; coucwa .sLu—wa Losuou sacc< =_.L_< vuaum 0;. (.00022_x xu:=:0 .oaomo::.t .o u«~.m-0.0. .uu.gm.:oouo:o:u :o..o.::oa aawuam m:w:~u .0.0--.0 000<. x_020a:< 0 00. cos. may. a. :o..-.::oe 0:003 :nogn no: no.0.0. aces..e::o :ousooguve.x not:.u:.o . - ll-Ir. - . tl-t- 0. 0.. Maw .00.. .00.0 n.0 0.00 0.0 .... .00.0 0... 000.0 0.0.- .n0.0 000.0 0.00 0.0. 0.n0 0.0 oc.u.vnt no .0» 000 0... 0 mon.n 000.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0... 00..0. 0.0. .00.0 0.00- 00..0 0.0.00 ..00 0... 0.00 ..0. a: .53 000.0 n.0. 0. 000.n 000.. 0.0. ..00 0.0 ..0. .00.00 0... 000.0 0.00- 000.0 0.0.0. 0.00 0.0. 0..0 0.. c:o:.: an. n.. 0. 000 000.. ..0 0..0 0.n 0... mn0.m 0.00 000.0 0.0.- 000.n 00... 0.00 0.n. ...0 0.. e.g..) 00. n.m 0. n.... . 000.0 0.0 0.00 n.. .... 000.. 0.0. 00..0 ..0.- 000.0 000.0 ..0n 0.0. ..00 0.. :cxcouox 000.. n.0 .0. 0...0 000.0. 0.0. n.00 0.. n... 0nn.0n 0.0. 000.0 n..0- 000.0 0.0..0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0... :o.0:.:m~3 .00 ..n. .0. 000.. 00..n ..0 ..00 0.0 0.0. 0n..0 ..0. .0... n.0.- .n0.0 000.0 ..00 ~.n. 0.00 0.0 «down: .0 ... .0. 00... 000.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0. .0.. 0.00 .00.0 ...n- 000.0 000.0 0.00 ..0. 0..0 0.0 acme-x mo. ... a. 0.0.. 0.n.n n.m ..00 0.0 0... 000.0 0.0. 00n.0 0.0.- 0.0.0 0n..0 0.0m ..0. ..n0 n.0 ogmonex mm ... a. 000 ..n.. 0.0 0..0 0.0 n... .00.. ..00 000.0 0...- .m0.0 .0..n 0.0. 0.0. ..00 ... o«o>e:. 00 0.0 m. 000.. n.m.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 00n.0. 0.0m .0n.0 0..0- 0...0 000.0 0... 0.0. n.00 0.0 and. S ... .3 SN. .8... ....o ...: 9.. A...: .3... 9: $3 93- v8; 25... 93 Z. 98 ..o :3. 00... 0.. .0. .00.. 0.0.0 0.0 0.00 ..0 ..0. 000.0 m... ..0.. ..on- n.n.n 000.0 0.00 ..0. n.00 n.. ace>o.m .mm «.0. .0. 000.0 000.0 0.0 ..00 0.. ..0. 0.0.0. ..0. 00..0 0.00- 00n.0 000.0 0.00 0... 0.00 0.0 o.u~.m 0.0.0 0.00 .0. .00.0 00..0. n.0 n.00 ..0 0... .m0.00 0.0m ....0 0.0.- 0...0. 0...0n 0..0 0.0 0.00 0.0 necomum 0.. 0.0 .0. 0.... 0...n ... n.0n 0.0 0.0 000.0 m..0 0.0.. 0.0.- 0n0.. 0.0.0 0..n ..n. 0.n0 0.. ao.a.m m.m 0 0 .0. 00m.. .00.n 0.0. 0.mm ..0 0.0. 000.0 ..0. 0om.0 0.0.. m0..0 .0.... 0.00 0.0. 0..0 0.0 ocuaacwzm ~00 m.m0 .0. 0m0.0 00... 0.. ..Nm 0.. ..0. .0m.m. 0.0. 000.0 0. - 00..m 000.0. 0.00 0.. ..00 .... uuoom 000.. 0.0 m. .00.0. 00n.00 0.0 0.00 n.n 0.0. 000.00. 0.0 .n..0 ..00- 0...0 nv0..m 0.00 0... 0.m0 0.. n...... ..m «m m. .0. 0.0.. n0..0 m.m ..0n 0.0 0.0 00n.0 ..n0 0.0.0 m..0- .n0.0 00m.0 n.0n 0.0. 0..0 0.0 aaewox 0.. 0.0 .mw 000.. .00.0 ..m m.m0 ..0 0.0. 000.0 ..n. 00n.. 0.0.- n0n.0 000.0 0.00 0.0. 0.00 ..0 .ucd vmm.n 0.0. .0 000.0 000.. 0... m.mm 0.0 ..0. 00m.00 0.0. ..0.. 0.0.- 00... 0n... n.00 0... 0.00 0.. 09.x m. 0.0. .0. 000.. 0...0 0.0 0.00 0.0 n.0. 000.0. 0.0. 0.0.0 ..00- 000.0 000.0 n.0n 0.0. ..00 ... 0...»:0a «0 0.m. .0. 0.... 000.0 0.0 n..0 0.0 n... 000... 0.00 000.0 ..0.- 00..0 000.. ...n ..0. 0.00 0.0 voozvux :0 0.0 .0. 00m 00... n.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 00..0 n..0 000.0 0.0.- ..m.0 ..0.0 0..0 ..n. 0.00 0.0 o.c. pm: 00.... 0.00 0.0 00..0n 00n.00 «.0. 0.00 n.~ n.0. 0.0.000 . v .0. 0..0- 0 000.. 0.00 ..0. 0.00 ..0 .ewsex m0. 0. .0. 000 0.0.. 0.0 0.00 ..0 0... .00.0 0.0. 0...0 n.n0- 000.0 n.0.n 0.00 0... 0.00 0.0 wad. rnv :20 m... .m. ~0..m 0.0.0 0.0 0.00 ..n 0.0. mn0.0. 0.00 000.0 0.00- 0...0 00..0 0.0. 0.0. n.m0 0.. ..oa nxu 0:. 0.0 .m. .00.. n.0.0 0.0 0..0 0.. 0.0 000.. 0.0m .n0.0 0.00- 000.0 0m0.n 0..n 0.0. 0.00 0.. acoumvn.u n/L .. 0.0 .m. 000.. 000.n 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0. .m..0 ..0 0.0.. 0.0.- 000.0 ....0. 0.0a 0.0. 0.n0 0.. o:.n 0.0 0.m .0. 000 000.0 n.. 0.00 0.0 0... ..... 0.0. 000.0 0.00- 000.0 nm0.. 0.00 0.n. 0.00 0.. co.0:.ccea owe ~.n .0. 0:0.m =0..0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 00...0 n.00 000.0 0.00- 050.0. 0..... n.0n 0.0. ..m0 0.. ..o. L3.0 an... ..m .m. m...m 00..0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.. 0.0. 00..~0 ..0. 000.. ..m0- 00..0 000... m.m0 0.0 0.00 0.0. vauws.0 «a. .. .0. 00. 0.... 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0...0 0.m0 0.0.0 0..0- 000.0 0...m 0... 0.0. ...0 0.. :oscoz 0:0 .... .0. 000.. 000.0 0.0 o..« 0.0 n... 000.0. 0..0 000.0 n.0.- m.0.. 00..0 0.00 n.0. 0.00 0.0 no.0oz 0a... 0.30 .0. 0w... ncv.0 ..o. 0.00 ..n 0.0. 0.0... 0.0. 00... n.0.- 000.0 00m.n 0.00 0.0 ..00 ..0 a»..oo.z ... 0.0. .0. 0.... .mm.~ 0.0 0.m0 0.. m.0. 0.0.0 0.00 n.0.m 0.n0- 000.0 .0n.0 ..0n ~.n. 0.00 ... .oL.:: ..x .... .0. ....0 nmo.0 ... ~..m 0.. 0.0. 0.0.n0 0.0. 0.0.. 0.00- 00... 0m0... 0.00 0... 0.00 ... Lose: 0;. _.n_ .m. cam.~ ....m 0.0 ...m 0.0 0.0 .m..n. 0.00 000.0 0.0.- .00.: .xo.o . 0. ..p. n.0w 0.0 :cu.cucz \c_.ve. .... 0.. .xo.ncm 000.00. .... 0..m 0.0 0.0. .0m.000.. ..00 .m..0 0.00- 0.m.0mv 000.000 0.00 0.0. m.n0 ..0 e.g.m 0:. . w . u mien. u n u <.om.zz_: 0n .n 0. 00 00 .0 00 m0 00 n0 0.. ... o.— 00. 00. m. 0. n. 0. s:._.=c .ss;.m _;;..m .ac:_m .... are: v.9: we... :~.u~: ...e. owe. owe. e.g. ...o. a... ea¢ ...o ...o ...». ..ezod :o.z :a.: :r.: -cwio.. Lo to c. c. -000. :o.. :~.uwx cce cc: 0 we: wen ecu m0~..ou .oczon .~>m. used:— .e0:o;u -e.:aon meow. ween. vacz ...». ...e. ce.eqo .o 20.; msou:_ Eta. m0 0. -ceev.e -cicu.u -Lev:.x meow. 0 .o no. -:o: :.=>.La =. wkoo. 0 no.00 .c:=¢ _ :Laez illi.t-t:- -.t :atlzt.ttI;-.:tl n:¢mcos .sondm :. u»..o::0 v.0 mega» 0m-m “comgmm 0.0. .:c..eu000 v~.w.0§bu «Leo. .oogum Lo>o cco v.0 meow. m. uEOmLua o.o. .co_...=aoa a... w0< ...o.~cc.x :o o...m-o.o_ .wu..m....uatogu cc....:aoa sauces mawceu .m.:--.1 u.e<. x_cz.aa< APPENDIX K MINNESOTA PERSONAL INCOME BY INDUSTRY CHART - 1973 287 288 Personal Income PERSONAL INCOME IN MINNESOTA BY INDUSTRY, I973 ... ., , «. .. . ..l I .' .. , ' .. . -. ~.‘ .' Mining ‘ " ""' . -' !‘ ~ .- . . -.~ -. n,- . V-, '. , . ~- .. ~ ...\ .. . “ . I 0 .00.. *_ 'i’ifiiva faCTur ng;j a “U l u' .\.'0-‘ . ’ -- '3',- “". ~ ',,,.":'..-‘. .~ .- o . Farm .\ VV'I“.Y \. _ . ‘ ' inqs ~ -'-‘. .‘."‘ I. '. 4‘ .“ r. "-"-'_‘.'.' ._..- f :7 . v : v.1. '-~‘t .'.j'...-\.“..’-* ~ ‘ ~u‘v"w_ -...:“ ~ f“".'l“0;.' f‘. .- '. 54.: ...: 1"- .." -. 7‘9X5 ‘ W Governmerffii“ r' - 2.. _-- -‘ — “.5; - '. .2. .'=.' _ :2... -:. ~ -. , 2 ; '“3.-p ‘*~;;f “y~ ' ."i}nfisrg {23:33.45' .' ‘—~"..’.' "' .' :‘ ‘34.} '.%35ervicesj"fi 5 ‘aflxkimaf"t - .y ?_'$; Other industries . -‘ '1'. " .55'.;fiNflf)jjtnfi_'lwga rlnance, InSurance, =:;},ygg§ygguffi11jiaw and real estale ”‘“'<7 3” Transpoclgfion, communicafion, and public ufillfies Nor-farm Dollars In millions Percent chal labor and propriefors' income by place of work l6,24l I00.0 Farm 2,498 l5.4 Nonfarm I3,743 84.6 Manufacfuring 3,697 Vining I77 Contracf consfrucfion 93l Wholesale and refail Trade 2,638 Finance, insurance and real estate 74! Transportafion, communications and public u$lll1les l,l66 Services 2,063 Owner industries 34 Government 2,294 .. N NNlbOU'V-N O a I —N\JNO‘N\J—m b SC;RCE: U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. OFFICE OF BtSlNESS ECONOMICS (See: C-9) APPENDIX L WORK FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT IN MINNESOTA, 1970-1974 289 290 Unemployment WORK FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT IN MINNESOTA 1970—I974 Annual average In thOusands Civilian Work Force UnempIOyment Unemployment rate EmpIOyment AngCUlture Non-agriculture2 (S) Wage and salary Manufacturing Durable goods Primary fabricated metal Ncn-electrical machinery Electrical machinery Transportation equipment hood, stone,clav. glass products Other durable goods Non-durable goods Food and kindred products Apparel, textile. fabric products Paper and allied products Printing and publishing Other non-durable goods DPOUUCTS Non-Manufacturing Mining and quarrying Construction Transportation Communication and public utilities Retail trade Wholesale trade Finance, inscranca. real estate Services GOVernment ' 0 Includes workers Involved in includes domestic and non-agricultural familv workers not shown separately I974 civilian work force figures are preliminary SOURCE: I97I l655.0 97.3 5.4 l557.7 l25.9 l430.2 I3|l.6 299.4 l65.8 25.4 57.7 23.l II.3 I9.l 29.3 l33.6 53.8 IO.4 30.3 23.6 l5.6 l0l2.2 l3.9 63.2 56.0 26.9 237.4 8|.7 65.0 225.7 239.7 I972 l697.0 94.5 5.6 l602.5 l2l.0 I477.0 l358.6 3l0.8 I74.8 27.3 60.6 23.9 Il.8 20.6 30.6 l36.0 52.6 Il.0 30.8 24.5 l7.0 lO47.6 l3.2 62.I 56.7 30.0 249.3 82.7 66.7 240.8 246.! labor-management disputes I973 I766.9 82.5 4.7 l684.4 l26.l l557.2 l436.6 33|.0 |90.7 29.6 66.6 28.9 ll.6 2.6 3l.4 l40.3 5|.5 l2.8 32.8 25.7 l7.7 ll05.8 l4.| 67.4 60.0 30.7 265.3 86.9 7|.4 254.8 255.2 self-employed and unpaid MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (See: C-4) I974 I863.2 96.6 5.2 I766.5 l30.9 l635.6 l485.7 343. 20C. APPENDIX M STATE PANEL OF BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION SPECIALISTS 291 292 MINNESOTA STATE PANEL 0F BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION SPECIALISTS Mr. Joseph E. Meyerring, Specialist Traffic Safety Unit, Minnesota Department of Education. Mr. Tom Powell, Director 4-H Programs, Minnesota Agricultural Extension Agency, University of Minnesota. Mr. Paul Rooney, Director, Safety Education Programs, Independent School District #742, St. Cloud, MN. Dr. Howard E. Matthias, Director, Center for Driver Education and Safety, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN. Officer Jim Smith, Bicycle Safety Liaison Officer, St. Cloud Police Department, St. Cloud, MN. APPENDIX N LIST OF PILOT STUDY RATERS 293 294 LIST OF PILOT STUDY RATERS ihn ChuckClausen, Garfield Elementary School, St. Cloud, MN. Mr. Richard Savolainen, Lester Prairie Elementary School, Lester Prairie, MN. Mrs. Marilyn Stanley, Madison Elementary School, St. Cloud District, 742, St. Cloud, MN. Mr. Jack L. Horton, Lincoln Elementary School, St. Cloud District 742, St. Cloud, MN 56301. Ms. Sue Rieland, Eden Valley-Watkins Elementary' School, Eden Valley, MN. Ms. Anita Spartz, Pleasantview Elementary School, Sauk Rapids, MN. APPENDIX 0 INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO K-3 GRADE BICYCLE INSTRUCTORS 295 296 ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY xi 9" \ ., .0 "in l l CENTER FOR DRIVER EDUCATION & SAFETY v St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 (6l2) 2554251 February 8, l979 Dear Educator: Approximately 2 years ago, you were asked by the State Department of Education to respond to an "Annual Fact Sheet - Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Education Survey Report." At that time, you responded to approximately 20 questions that dealt specifically with the nature and extent of Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education programs offered by your elementary school staff. Results of that survey eventually prompted concerned agencies to create a Bicycle Safety Committee, and to continue funding efforts to improve the levels of bicycle safety education activities within Minnesota. Presently, it is not the intent of the Department of Education, Traffic Safety Section, to survey existing bicycle safety education programs in your area. However, I feel it is extremely important to provide such information to concerned agencies, and to fellow members of the State Bicycle Committee. Efforts to improve the levels of bicycle safety activities with funding and educational support can be more directly channeled once complete information is received. Your time and efforts to provide responses concerning the nature and extent of present bicycle safety education activities would assist me in pro- viding this information to the appropriate agencies. Therefore, a Bicycle Safety Education Survey will be forwarded to your office within the next three weeks. I would appreciate you or the designated bicycle instructor in your school to respond to the mailed questionnaire. Prompt return would be appreciated. Thank you for your efforts to assist us in continuing to serve the teachers in your school and to provide input to concerned agencies with accurate, up-to-date data. Sincerely, Evan K. Rowe, Jr. Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Activities Coordinator SCSI} 15 .m cuuaf ummrlzmin r'.lI‘II:nl.lII\i‘ .H‘iinn i-mnlmnranJ ishtrnmniiil‘n‘v \xilh gull stnvanli lmirml l.i\\\11l‘(ll‘.ll“li!‘l\_‘ llixtrimirmlinll. APPENDIX P LETTER ACCOMPANYING "BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE" 297 298 ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR DRIVER EDUCATION & SAFETY Si. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 (6l2) 255-425I March 6, I979 Dear Educator: Approximately 2 weeks ago, you were contacted by the Center for Driver Education & Safety concerning the need to determine the status of bicycle safety education programs in your school. Enclosed you will find the "Bicycle Safety Education Questionnaire" for your completion. Please be frank in your efforts to identify the extent of classroom and “on—bike" activities offered by you or the designated bicycle instructor in your school. A return within two weeks would be appreciated. Thank-you for your time and efforts to assist us in continuing to improve the levels of bicycle safety education activities and to serve the teachers in your school. Be assured the 15-20 minutes spent to respond to the enumerated items will assist various agencies charged with funding decisions. Sincerely, Evan K. Rowe, Jr. Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Activities Coordinator APPENDIX Q "BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE" 299 300 APPENDIX BICYCLE SAFETY EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Sex: M 7 School: School Location: City Rural Grade Level(s): K__ 1 2 3— Directions: For each of the following'questions, place a check on the line that best characterizes how you teach bicycle safety education. Note: For the purpose of this study, the following definitions 1. 2. will be used: Bicycle safety education concept-an idea that a child would.be knowledgeable about and is able to demonstrate as it pertains to riding a'bicycle. Bicycle laws—~Minnesota.Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws that have direct application to bicycle riders. Does your school have any activity that could be termed bicycle safety education? (e.g., individual teacher efforts, special events, community/school events) Yes No What time of year do you teach.bicycle safety? (check as many as apply Fall Winter Spring Summer Integrated yearbround in curriculum What would.be your estimate of the hours spent by a student, in each grade level, in your school's bic ole safety education program? (complete applicable grade totalsg Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 0—2 0-2 0-2 0-2 _3-5 __3-5 __3-5 ___3-5 6-8 6-8 6-8 6—8 9—11 9-11 9-11 9-11 12 or'more 12 or 12 or 12 or more - more more Ii. 5. 301 When is your bicycle safety education program.offered? Before School After School During School Saturdays Other Times (Specify) How many students are involved per year, in each grade level, in your school's bicycle safety education program? (Complete applicable grade totals) Kindergggten 1st 2nd 3rd 0-15 0-15 0—15 0-15 16-30 16-30 16-30 16-30 __ 31-145 _ 31-145 __ 31445 _, 31-li5 h6-60 lie-60 h6-60 b6-60 61 or more 61 or more 61 or more 61 or more How do you teach your bicycle safety education program? (Circle appropriate grade levels for each format). K 1 2 3 Separate Unit K 1 2 3 Integrated in existing course (e.g., social studies, language arts) K 1 2 3 Assemblies K 1 2 3 Other K 1 2 3 I do not teach a bicycle safety education program Identify resource personnel utilized in_ygg;|classroom'bicycle safety education program. (Circle apprOpriate grade forugggg resource). Classroom guest speakers Parks and recreation department personnel Police officer Judicial department representative Local bicycle shop representative Amateur cyclist Other (e.g., Jaycees, YMCA, YWCA, LE, Scouts, FFA, etc. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NNNP‘INNN 4444444 wwwwwww (Please complete section below) Please identify the individuals used as resource personnel in your school's bicycle safety education program. Name AggncyZTitle Role(s)[Grade(s) 8. 10. 302. Do you utilize or does your bicycle safety education program include: (Circle apprOpriate grade levels for each item) K 1 2 3 School developed bicycle safety education curriculum K 1 2 3 Minnesota K—3 may; 5531,! 911121911133 93313 K 1 2 3 Other state(s) curriculum guide(s) K 1 2 3 Commercially developed curriculum guide(s) K 1 2 3 Other prepared unit or guide (e.g., "Essentials of Good Bicycling. ") Identify specific audio-visual aids or models used in conjunction with your bicycle safety education program. (e.g., slides, transparencies, films, cassette/filmstrip) Model Title Source Topic Grade 8 Please identify any outside agencies involved in your bicycle safety education program. (e.g. , Department of Education, Dapartment of Public Safety.) m T021 cal Area Grade s 303 11. Do you utilize any of the following instructional techniques in your bicycle safety education program? (Circle appropriate grade levels for each item) 12. N NNNNNNNNNN Ad—de—l-DA-fi—b—Q NNNNNNNNNMN wwwwwwuwww w Teacherbled discussions Teacher lecture format Teacher—led informal discussions Teacher—led small group activities Guest speakers, bicycle safety experts Audio-visual aids, models Student-led formal presentations Student-led informal discussions, activities Student-led small group work Use of prepared curriculums or instruction materials Other Indicate type(s) of activities offered in your bicycle safety education program. (Circle appropriate grade levels for each item) NNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNMNNNNNN wwwwwwwwwwwuw Classroom presentations Off-road skill test(s) On-street riding Bicycle hikes, trips Bicycle registration Bicycle licensing Bicycle maintenance Special assemblies, seminars Special instruction: Handicapped Special Education Adult(s). Other 304 13. Which of the following "Minnesota bicycle laws" do you teach at your ads level(s)? (Circle apprOpriate grade levels for each item?r K 1 2 3 I do not teach bicycle safety education laws State of Minnesota bicycle rights and duties, which include: K 1 2 3 Bicycle as a vehicle K 1 2 3 Obeyance of traffic signs, signals, pavement markings, and sidewalk crossing ordinances K 1 2 3 Licensing or registration of bicycles Riding in self-propelled fashion 1 2 3 Riding with flow of traffic outside central business district Proper riding techniques inside central business district Riding procedures to insure preper visibility Riding no more than 2 abreast Riding on the right-hand side of the roadway Riding within a single lane of travel on laned roadways Riding close to the right curb edge I": 4 \JJ NNNN N .8444 4 mwmm m wwww L.) N 4 Us) K 1 3 Yield the right of way to pedestrians and other vehicles K 1 2 3 Carrying only the number of persons designed for the bicycle K 1 2 3 Keeping hand(s) on the handlebars, except when sigialing, or stepped and prepared to complete turn K 1 2 3 When walking a bicycle face the traffic K 1 2 3 Staying off roadways that prohibit bicycle riding K 1 2 3 Use of bicycle paths or lanes when provided K 1 2 3 Use of bell or horn when necessary K 1 2 3 Use of light during night riding K 1 2 3 Authorized use of highly visible reflective clothing during night riding K 1 2 3 Procedures for operation of special bicycle events (e.g., parades, contests, or races) K 1 2 3 It is a misdemeanor to break safety laws K 1 2 3 ' Other 305 11:. Which of the following "bic ole riding and safety" concepts do you teach at your grade level(s ? (Circle appropriate grade levels for each item.) K 1 2 3 I do not teach bicycle safety riding and safety concepts K 1 2 3 Proper mounting and dismount K 1 2 3 Preper riding positions astride bicycle K 1 2 3 Proper pedaling K 1 2 3 Proper braking K 1 2 3 Proper stepping procedures K 1 2 3 Preper procedures for turning K 1 2 3 Energency stopping and maneuvering K 1 2 3 Defensive riding K 1 2 3 Hazards that face the bicyclist (e.g., weather, pavement, vehicles) K 1 2 3 Crossing railroad tracks K 1 2 3 Crossing intersections K 1 2 3 Correct lane placement K 1 2 3 Overtaking other bicycles or vehicles K 1 2 3 Night-time riding K 1 2 3 Using safety flags K 1 2 3 Using reflective materials K 1 2 3 Preper clothing for increased visibility K 1 2 3 Skill and performance tests K 1 2 3 Touring techniques and packing procedures K 1 2 3 Trip—planning K 1 2 3 Conducting special bicycle events (e.g., parades, contests , or races) Other PS 4 N w 306 15. Which of the following "bio cle safety equipment" concepts do you teach at your grade level(s ? (Circle appropriate grade levels for each item.) K 1 2 3 I do not teach bicycle safety education equipment concepts K 1’ 2 3 History of bicycling K 1 2 3 How to measure a bicycle for preper size and fit K 1 2 3 Bicycle anatomy (e.g., pedals, seats, frame) K 1 2 3 Classification of bicycles (e.g., lightweight, touring, 3—speed) K 1 3 Selection of bicycles and accessories K 1 3 Required equipment (e.g., brakes, horn/bell) K 1 2 3 Required equipment on newl sold bicycles (e.g., pedal and wheel reflectors K 1 2 3 Required equipment for night riding (e.g., lights, reflectors) K 1 2 3 Recomended equipment (e.g., rear tail light, basket, grips) K 1 2 3 Optional equipment for visibility and safety (e.g., flags, clothing, mirrors) K 1 2 3 Tripping, touring, or traveling equipment (e.g. , bags, tool kit) K 1 2 3 Other 16. Which of the following "bicycle care and maintenance" concepts do you teach at your pads level(s)? (Circle apprOpriate grade levels for each item.) K 3 I do not teach bicycle care and maintenance concepts Proper bicycle storage Theft prevention Parking procedures Brakes (e.g., adjustment for even wear) Saddle (seat) (e.g., adjustment for proper size) Handlebars (e.g. , tighten often, proper height) Wheels (e.g., nuts tight to prevent sway, uneven wear on rim NNNNNNN 44444444 NNNNNNNN wwwwwww N 4 W Tires (e.g., preperly inflated, no defects) N 4 W Spokes (e.g., tight, wear) K 1 2 3 Pedals (e.g., spin freely, tidit) 17. FINN X If you offer "on the bike" performance or skill tests in conjunction with your bicycle safety education program, which of the following specific skill exercises do you provide? (Circle appropriate grade levels for each item.) K FIN NNNNNP‘INNN NNNNN NNNNP‘I N N 1 dédé-J—l—D-I—I ddddd MNNN 2 NNMNMNNNN NNNNM NNNNN wwww 3 WW wwwwwwwww wwwww wwwww 307 Chain (e.g., wear, lubrication) Gears (e.g., adjustment, replacement of cables) Keeping all working parts clean and lubricated Other I do not offer "on the bike" performance or skill tests Sign, signal, pavement marking recognition Balancing exercises (e.g., straight line, weave, zig-zag) Relay races Riding planks, narrow surfaces Serpentine, slalom, or weave riding Slow-poke races (coasting races) Ride)and pitch exercise (hit the target, bean bag toss Traffic mix situations Timed speed races Circling and balance exercise Fi gure-B with weave U or Y turn-about exercise Stopping drills Braking with/without skids Evasive riding exercise(s) Riding on rough surfaces (e.g., gravel, wet/bumpy grassy areas) Riding on wet surfaces Pair or group riding exercise Passing exercise Merging exercise Simulated turning exercises (e.g., one ways, two ways, li-lanes, divided and undivided roadways) Do you provide awards or certificates to participants? (If yes, circle appmpriate grades) Do you utilize reflectorized tape in conjunction with inspections? (If yes, circle apprOpriate levels) 18. 19c 20. 21. 22. 23. 308 Do you attempt to utilize expertise from others in own community at performance, or skill test activities? Yes If Yes, please identify No Whuld like to be able to utilize available area personnel Do you incorporate the bicycle skill test or performance program at the site of the high school's Driver Education range/off-street 'practice area? Yes None available No Time conflicts Do you think bicycle safety education should be a required subject? Yes No If yes, at which level(s; should it be taught? (Rank order with 1 being’highest priority Kindergarten 2nd Grade 1st Grade 3rd Grade If bicycle safety education instruction is re uired, which of the following'ways would be the most effective? (Rank order with 1 being highest priority) Pro-elementary grade teachers Elementary teachers, K93 Elementary teachers, h—6 Junior high teachers, 7-8 or 7-9 Senior high teachers, 9—12 or 10-12 Youth agency leaders (Y's, Scouts, etc.) Bicycle organization representatives (American Youth Hostels, COpher Wheelman) Police department personnel Judicial department representative Parks and recreation department personnel Bicycle shop representative Parental instruction Community broadebased support groups (e.g., educational instruc- tors, police personnel, judicial support, parental involvement, and community agency support Other How many bicycle safety-related accidents and fatalities occurred on your school grounds during the 1977-78 school year? Reported accidents Reported fatalities Unavailable 2h. 25. 26. 27. 309 Would you be interested in learning what other nearby K93 grade level elementary teachers and schools are doing in bicycle safety education programs? Yes No Wauld you like to receive a copy of the Minnesota Ke3 Traffic Safety Curriculum Guide which includes bicycle safety education instructional materials? Yes No What type(s) of formal instruction have you received in bicycle safety education? I have received no formal instruction in bicycle safety education Formal course in bicycle safety education Formal course in traffic safety education with bicycle safety component (e.g., K-6 traffic safety education) Inpservice workshop or seminar on.bicyc1e safety education If you have any additional instructional areas or comments relative to bicycle safety education instruction which were not covered in the preceding'survey items, please include this information in the space below. PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED SURVEY TO: Mr. Evan K. Rowe, Jr. Assistant Professor St. Cloud State University St. Cloud, MN 56301