a “I ' . av ;‘ ‘mml?

 

 

 

 
   
    
   
     

l
‘1...

    
    

. A
. ff“ '- ."/\'.' .

' \4

4 gem.“ 'L‘
.1 "I“ ..
a r \7 .TI ‘ m " v
‘. 1 ”3234115":

F :
murmmrim

RETUMUB LIBRARY MTERMLS:

Place in book return to raw:
charge from circulation record:

0“!

 

 

 

 

 

1ul‘l‘|ll I

 

III" I'lr.| .,.. ht! Q ‘5‘...
a

.0 .IIOIIIIQI ‘4 «hlrui‘ I'L1VII.

0.41‘l10 .

AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED OHIO PUBLIC
SCHOOLS DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

By

Joe Steven Shrader

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education
and Curriculum

1979

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED OHIO PUBLIC
SCHOOLS DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

By

Joe Steven Shrader

Statement of the Problem

 

The funding of driver education in the high
schools is being questioned as budgets become tighter
and school systems search for ways to reduce operating
costs. If the funding of driver education is to continue,
evaluation of high school driver education programs is a
necessity.

The state of Ohio has not conducted an evalua-
tion of its driver education programs in recent years,
and the State Department of Education, Driver Education
Section, recognized the importance of such an evaluation.

The purpose of this study was to measure cogni-
tive knowledge of those students who had completed or
were just completing a recent driver education course in
, randomly selected high schools in Ohio. Specifically,
this study had a three-fold purpose. The first was to
evaluate cognitive knowledge of driver education stu-

dents. The second was to attempt to determine if one

Joe Steven Shrader

of six types of driver education programs was providing
more cognitive knowledge under present conditions than
the others. The third purpose was to attempt to identify
those variables which may have had an influence on stu-

dent success in acquiring cognitive knowledge.

Methods of Procedure

 

The Program Research in Driver Education (PRIDE)
fifty question multiple-choice test was selected as the
measure of cognitive knowledge for this study.

A random sample of twelve schools in Ohio was
made. These twelve schools fit into six different pro-
grams. One class per school was then selected for the
evaluation. Students were randomly selected from each
class in order to achieve equal cell size for the three
analyses of variance (ANOVA) tests for significance

which were conducted.

The Major Findings

 

1. Students tested in Ohio were significantly deficient
on an 80 percent success criterion. Sixty-three
percent of the 326 students achieved 80 percent or
more correct. This deficiency was significant at
the .95 level.

2. In none of the three programs were 80 percent of the
students achieving 80 percent success. Program one
(two-phase), program two (three-phase simulation),
and program three (four-phase) had 56 percent, 66
percent, and 70 percent respectively. All three
were significantly deficient at the .95 level of
confidence.

10.

ll.

12.

Joe Steven Shrader

Student scores were significantly deficient on
questions their instructors indicated had been
covered in their classes. Seventy-one percent of
the students achieved 80 percent or more correct.
This was significantly deficient at the .95 level
of confidence.

Program three (four-phase) was significantly better
than program one (two-phase) or program two (three-
phase simulation). Significance was measured at
the .95 level of confidence.

No significant difference was found between programs
with multimedia and those programs without multimedia.
Significance was measured at the .95 level of confi-
dence.

None of the three programs was significantly better
with high, middle, or low GPA students. Significance
was measured at the .95 level of confidence.

Student score was moderately correlated with cost of
the program. A correlation coefficient (r) of .1737
was found. An ”r" of .40 was needed to determine a

significant relationship.

Student score was not significantly correlated with
hours of instruction in the program. An "r" of -.0978
was found, when an "r" of .40 was necessary for signif-
icance.

Student score was not significantly correlated with
class size. An "r” of .0340 was found when an "r" of
.40 was needed for significance.

Student score was not significantly correlated with
the instructors' education in driver education. An
"r" of -.0729 was found when an "r" of .40 was needed
for significance.

Student score was not significantly correlated with
the instructors' age. An "r" of .0103 was found,
when an "r" of .40 was necessary in order to be

significant.

Student score was not significantly correlated with
the number of years their instructor had taught
driver education. An "r" of .0043 was found, when
an "r" of .40 was necessary for significance.

The author would like to dedicate this study to
his parents. His father's dedication to the field of
traffic safety has been an inspiration to all who have
come in contact with him. To follow in his footsteps is
a rewarding challenge.

To his mother, a special thanks for typing,
editing and moral support, without which, this study may
never have been completed.

Thank you for being parents who taught your
children to set their sights high and to realize that

"all things are possible."

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank Dr. Robert E.
Gustafson for serving as his advisor during the graduate
program. His insight made the author's total graduate
program as complete as possible. The author would
further like to thank him for serving as his committee
chairman. His help and encouragement insured the com-
pletion of this dissertation.

The author would like to also thank Dr. Robert O.
Nolan, Dr. Norman T. Bell and Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis for
their time and assistance while serving on the guidance
committee of this study.

A special note of thanks goes to Mr. Larry
Cathell and his staff at the Ohio State Department of
Education for their assistance before and during this
study. Without their help this study would not have
been attempted in the state of Ohio.

And thanks to you Jane, for your support during

this study and graduate program.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES

Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM

The Problem . . .
Statement of the Problem .
Purpose of the Study .
Importance of the Study

The Research . .
Research Questions
Research Hypotheses

Methods and Procedures
Evaluation Instrument .
Scope of the Study .
Generalizability . .
Limitations of the Study .

Definition of Terms
Class "C" Test Items
Cognitive Knowledge
GPA . . .
Multimedia
Program One
Program Two
Program Three
Range
Simulation
Special Test Set

Organization of Remaining Chapters

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .
Driver Education Evaluation Measures

Educational Evaluations .
Driver Education Evaluation Studies

iv

Page
vi
vii

viii

Chapter

Driver Education Phases
Summary

III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .

Selection of Ohio
Selection of Schools
Data Collection

Contact Letters

Telephone Contacts
Testing Procedure .
Methods of Analysis
Organization of Data
Summary

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The Sample Data
Total Student Achievement
Individual Program Analysis
Teacher Item Analysis
Comparison of Programs
GPA/Program Effect
Variable Correlations
Summary

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

Summary of the Study .
Research Design
Findings

Conclusions
Recommendations

Recommendations for Further Research

Discussion

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

Page

Table

c~ 4> .b p~ ¢~
O‘U'IDUON

.10

LIST OF TABLES

Student Distribution for t Analysis
Analysis of Program One

Analysis of Program Two

Analysis of Program Three

Analysis of Teacher Covered Material

Contrast One: Program Two Contrasted with
Program Three

Contrast Two: Program One Contrasted with
Program Two

Two-way ANOVA Table
Two-way ANOVA Table

Correlations Between Student Scores and
Related Variables

vi

Page
54
61
62
63
64

65

66
68
70

71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
3.1 ANOVA Design . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2 Two-way ANOVA Design . . . . . . . 56
3.3 Two-way ANOVA Design . . . . . . . 56

vii

Appendix
A.

B.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Sample Letter to Superintendents

Sample Letter to Principals of Selected
Schools . . . . . . . .

Sample Letter to Principals of Alternate
Schools

Sample Form of Telephone Questions

Sample Driver Education Knowledge Test
and Answer Sheet

Sample Record of Test Scores
Sample of Items Taught

Sample of Teacher Information

viii

Page
85

87

89
91

93
104
107
117

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Formal driver education programs have existed in
the United States for more than forty-five years, and
some form of education for drivers has been utilized
since soon after the invention of the automobile. Per-
haps one of the earliest forms of education for drivers
occurred when the first car salesman taught their pros-
pective customers to drive the automobile, frequently a
prerequisite of purchase.

The popularity, and the availability, of the
"horseless carriage" increased the number of vehicles
more rapidly than road conditions and education of
drivers could accommodate. By the 1930s, schools were
beginning to respond to the need to educate the auto-
mobile driver, and the first formal driver education
courses were inaugurated. In 1930, Amos Neyhart, the
"father of driver education," began teaching students
behind the wheel on a voluntary basis. In 1934, Neyhart
taught at Pennsylvania State College the first complete

classroom and laboratory course in driver education.

Another early name in driver education was Herbert Stack
who offered the first classroom driver education course
(81, p. 25).

The 19303 further saw the development of the
simulator, the range, the combination of classroom,
simulation, and behind-the-wheel instruction, as well
as the publication of textbooks for driver education
(85, pp. A3, 60-62).

World War II brought many of these programs to
a halt except as training could be used for wartime
driving. Car production gave way to airplanes and war
materiel. Gasoline was rationed, and replacement parts
for existing automobiles were limited to necessary
emergencies (85, pp. 75-79).

The war had barely ended when the first Presi-
dent's Conference for Highway Safety was held in 1945.
Four years later the National Conference on High School
Driver Education was conducted by the National Commis-
sion on Safety Education (81, p. 26).

By the early 19505, post World War II production
of automobiles was rapidly accelerating to meet the
demands of the people who were intent on loosening the
wartime restrictions on travel and the use of the auto-
mobile (57, p. 25). MOney was more accessible, new
highways and super highways were becoming a reality,

and mobility became a way of American life. Cars

became larger, more powerful, and capable of greater
speeds.
Vehicle accidents, and the resulting deaths,
injuries, and property damage soared, as did the number
of drivers and vehicles on the roads (59, p. 59).
More and more high schools began offering driver
education. The Allstate Insurance Company substantiated
its belief in the worth of high school driver education
by being the first insurance company to provide insurance
reductions for students completing high school driver
education. Colleges became more involved in safety pro-
grams, and in 1956, The American Driver and Traffic
Safety Education Association was organized (81, p. 26).
The Driver Education Evaluation Program (DEEP)
Study Report to Congress of July 1975 stated that:
Basically, the idea of training persons to
operate motor vehicles stems from the assumption
that trained or experienced persons will perform
better in most traffic situations than untrained
or inexperienced persons. The beginning of
driver and safety education was based primarily
on this assumption, and most programs were imple-
mented on the basis of their validity for acci-
dent prevention. In addition to the common sense
emphasis placed on the skills required for driv-
ing, a similar emphasis was placed on the develop-
ment of assumed safe-driving attitudes, with the
belief that such attitudes would result in fewer
crashes and that such attitudes could be manipu-
lated or developed.
The report continued:

Unfortunately, it was not until very recently

that an attempt has been made to determine scien-
tifically which behavioral variables (including

attitudes and skills) have a causal relationship
with crashes. Recent efforts have also sought

to determine whether such variables can be manipu-
lated or developed by means of effective training.
Measurement of the extent to which a curriculum
meets such instructional objectives and various
performance requirements has also been emphasized
recently. Furthermore, serious attempts are now
being made to assess the degree to which such pro-
grams are successful in meeting their ultimate
goal of crash prevention (81, p. 25).

The DEEP Study called the 19608 "the critical
period" in high school driver education. It stated that,
"Beginning with studies by independent researchers in the
early 60's and continuing with the Moynihan and McGuire
and Kersh reports in 1968, high school driver education
came under severe attack with regard to its claimed
effectiveness in crash prevention" (81, p. 28).

The study further quoted R. Kaywood as suggesting
for the most part that "these voices went unheeded, for
during this period HSDE was expanded from providing
training for approximately 1 million students to pro-
viding training for more than 2 million students" (81,
p. 28).

If the 603 were the critical period in high school
driver education, then the 19703 might be called "the
hopeful period." The DEEP Study explained that after
the Fifth National Conference for Traffic Safety Educa-

tion in December of 1973:

It was apparent that four primary thrusts
were underway in the traffic safety education
area, as follows:

Qualitative improvement was being emphasized
abbve the need for quantitative expansion.

 

HSDE was becoming an integrated component of
a much larger traffic safety education pro-
gram for various driver groups.

 

Increasing emphasis was being placed on cost-
effective safety education with built-in
evaluation based on measurable objectives.

 

Instructional management was moving more
toward criterion-referenced courses for
students as opposed to time-based instruc-
tion (81, p. 28).

 

The state of Ohio has long been active in traffic
safety programs. (The first driving simulator, and the
first range were developed at Ohio State University in
1930) (80, p. 26). Since 1953, driver education pro-
grams have been available in the public schools in the
state of Ohio. In 1969, the state recognized the impor—
tance of the driver education program in the school
curriculum and began subsidizing a part of the cost of
the program to the local school districts. In 1969,
thirty dollars per pupil was made available to local
school districts for the instruction of driver education.
This money was derived from driver license fees. By
1972, costs of the programs had risen sharply and the
state raised the subsidy to the local school districts
to fifty dollars per pupil enrolled in a school-sponsored

driver education program. This now amounts to over eight

million dollars per year for state support of driver
education. In addition, each district may assess a
maximum ten dollar fee to each student for program
improvement.

The death rate per 100 million vehicle miles was
enviably lower in Ohio (2.68) than the national average
(3.38) in 1977. A supposition might be drawn that there
is a correlation between the pertinent interest in driver
education programs in the state of Ohio and in the lower
number of traffic deaths in the state.

There is a trend across the nation to challenge
the funding of driver education, and consideration is
being given to the possibility of eliminating funding for
local high school programs. Partly, this has been brought
about because of tightening budgets, but perhaps to an
even greater degree, it has been the failure of schools
to adequately evaluate their programs to substantiate
that students are gaining what they are supposed to gain

from driver education classes.

The Problem

 

Statement of the Problem

 

To offset this trend of challenge to the funding
of driver education, program evaluation will be a neces-
sity in each state if legislatures are to continue fund-

ing programs. The state of Ohio had not conducted such

an evaluation of its driver education programs in recent
years, and recognized the need for an updated evaluation.
This study attempted to isolate and evaluate several var-
iables which have an effect on driver education students

in Ohio.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study was to measure the
level of cognitive knowledge of those students who had
completed or were just completing a recent driver educa-
tion course.

Specifically, this study had a threefold purpose.
The first was to evaluate cognitive knowledge of driver
education students. The second was to attempt to deter-
mine if one of three types of driver education program
was providing more cognitive knowledge under present
conditions than the others. The third purpose was to
attempt to identify those variables which may have had
an influence on student success in acquiring the cogni-

tive knowledge.

Importance of the Study

The former tradition of believing that driver
education must be good has been challenged. High school
driver education has come under question from several
sources in recent years. The most critical of these has

been the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's study

on driver education which concluded that driver education
causes 2,000 teenage deaths each year (66). Although
conclusions of this study have been highly criticized by
competent highway safety research personnel, and have
since been revised by the IIHS, these negative research
conclusions have been damaging to traffic safety programs.
Presently, knowledge of driver education effectiveness
was best described in a statement in the DEEP Study.
". . No such study has succeeded in producing unequiv-
ocal results concerning high school driver education
effectiveness (or the lack of it)" (81, p. 84).

State and federal agencies which helped fund
driver education in the high school have questioned the
worth of these programs in terms of the money being spent.
Many state legislatures and/or departments of education
have requested studies to determine the effectiveness of
current driver education programs in reducing accidents
and the resulting deaths and injuries on the nation's
highways.

The Driver Education Section of the Ohio Depart-
ment of Education has been interested in conducting such
an evaluation of high school programs in that state;
hence, the conducting of this study.

It was believed that this study could make the
following contributions to the driver education programs

in the state of Ohio and to the field of traffic safety:

Promote better understanding of current
driver education programs in Ohio.

Give input to the Ohio Department of Educa-
tion on their future assistance to driver
education programs.

Supply information to persons in the traffic
safety field in regards to driver education
evaluation, both in terms of the results of
this study, and its recommendations for

similar types of evaluation studies.

The Research

 

Research Questions

 

The following research questions were considered

in the investigation of selected high school driver edu-

cation programs in Ohio:

1.

Is driver education in Ohio effective in
teaching students cognitive knowledge?

Is any of three program types effective in
teaching students cognitive knowledge?

Is driver education in Ohio effective in
teaching what teachers believe they are
teaching?

Is one of three program types more effective

in teaching cognitive knowledge?

10.

11.
12.

13.

10

Is one program.more effective than another
with higher, middle, or lower GPA students

in teaching cognitive knowledge?

Is multimedia in the classroom a major factor
in terms of students' success?

Is multimedia in the classroom more effective
in teaching cognitive knowledge to high,
middle, or low GPA students than those class-
rooms without multimedia?

Is the cost of a program a factor in terms of
students' success?

Is the number of years of teaching experience
in driver education a factor in terms of
students' success?

Are the total hours of the program related

to students' success?

Is class size related to students' success?
Is teacher age a major factor in terms of
students' success?

Are teacher preparation hours a major factor

in terms of students' success?

Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were analyzed

and tested in this study:

10.

11.

11

Driver education in Ohio is effective in
teaching students cognitive knowledge.

One of the three programs is effective in
teaching cognitive knowledge.

Driver education in Ohio is effective in
teaching what teachers believe they are
teaching.

One of the three programs is more effective
in teaching cognitive knowledge.

One program is more effective than another
with higher, middle, or lower GPA students

in teaching cognitive knowledge.

Multimedia in the classroom is a major factor
in terms of students' success.

Multimedia in the classroom is more effective
in teaching cognitive knowledge to high,
middle, or low GPA students than those class-
rooms without multimedia.

Cost of a program is a factor in terms of
students' success.

The number of years teaching driver education
is a factor in terms of students' success.
The total hours of the program are related

to students' success.

Class size is related to students' success.

12

12. Teacher age is a major factor in terms of

students' success.

13. Teacher preparation hours are a major factor

in terms of students' success.

Methods and Procedures

 

Three teacher variables, one pupil variable, and
four program variables were selected to be evaluated.
The teacher variables were teacher age, their hours of
education in driver education, and their years teaching
driver education. The pupil variable was the student
GPA. The four program variables were program type, the
cost per pupil, total hours of instruction, and number
of students in the class.

With these program types and variables selected,
twelve schools in Ohio were randomly selected and an

evaluation was conducted.

Evaluation Instrument

 

The evaluation instrument used in the evaluation
was a 50 item knowledge test used by the Program Research
in Driver Education (PRIDE) project in Iowa. It was
developed from class "C" questions developed by Pollack
and McDole. These questions were selected from those
which covered the critical and most critical subject

areas as defined by the HumRRO report (62; 75, p. 131).

13

The test seemed to be the shortest test available which
was considered valid and reliable. The test limited
reading level as a major factor for student success by
using only those questions which had a correlation of
.25 or less with reading ability, and further used only
those questions which had a reliability coefficient of

between .50 and .95 (75, p. 132).

Scope of the Study

 

There were several factors which determined the
scope of this study. The students were only from the
state of Ohio and most of them were selected from the
southwest quadrant of the state when programs were avail-
able in that area. Not all programs were evaluated, just
three types: two-phase, three-phase simulation, and
four-phase. In each of the three programs, the programs
with multimedia and two programs without multimedia
within each of the three programs were selected.

Only cognitive knowledge was evaluated. Accident
and violation records, driving ability or attitude mea-
sures were not used. These evaluation criteria may or
may not be better evaluation tools.

The results of this study, therefore, are limited
to these three programs in Ohio and further, only with

regards to levels of cognitive knowledge.

l4

Generalizability

 

Since the pupils involved in the study were from
within normal classrooms in the state of Ohio and since
there was no reason to believe that there was any differ-
ence between the southwest quadrant, from.which most of
the schools were selected, and the rest of the state, it
can be assumed that the findings of this study will hold
for all similar driver education programs in the state.

There was also no reason to believe that the
school selected was greatly different from other schools
with similar programs. Therefore, the results of this

study can be generalized to those similar programs.

Limitations of the Study

 

There are several means to evaluate driver per-
formance. This study, however, did not attempt to eval-
uate or to predict driver performance, but only to look
at one aspect of the driver--his/her cognitive knowledge
as measured by a 50 question written exam. Cognitive
knowledge cannot predict safe and efficient operation
of an automobile..

Due to the cost of the Driver Performance Measure-
ment on-road evaluation of driver performance developed
at Michigan State University, it or a similar measure was
ruled out as a viable alternative for use in this study

(30). The years involved in the study of accident and

15

violation records made the evaluation of such records
undesirable. Further, some questions have also been
raised in regard to accident and violation records
because of the inconsistency of both reporting and con-
victions. The main objection to this type of evaluation
is the extremely small percentage of the driving popula-
tion involved each year.

The use of only 50 questions on the written exam
might be considered too few to measure adequately the
students' knowledge of critical and most critical driving
knowledge as defined in the Human Resources Research
Organization (HumRRO) report. However, the 246 questions
(Special Test Set) suggested by Pollack and McDole in
the University of Michigan Study, if used, would have
increased the number of schools needed as well as make
reading level a major concern (64, p. 6).

The 50 questions were selected from Pollack and
‘McDole's class "C" item bank. Although the 50 questions
‘were not all directly taken from the 246 queStions in
the Special Test Set, they were similar in content area
covered.

This study was not an experimental study, but
rather an evaluation of cognitive knowledge of existing
programs. Thus, the results of the study are limited to

what was determined to be the best program under present

16

conditions. Recommendations on which program should be
used in the future could not be made.

Although objectivity is stressed throughout this
study, it was impossible to eliminate the author's bias
towards driver education--not so much in the conducting
of the study, but in terms of what was studied and what
questions were asked. These reflected the author's ideas

and thoughts.

Definition of Terms

 

Class "C" Test Items

 

Class "C" referred to test items developed by
Pollack and McDole to measure cognitive knowledge needed

for operation of an automobile (64).

Cognitive Knowledge

 

"Cognitive knowledge involves the recall of speci-
fics and universals, the recall of methods and processes,
or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting. For
measurement purposes, the recall situation involves little
more than bringing to mind the appropriate material" (9,

p. 201).

GPA
Grade point average was the average of all grades

received at the high school level. Low GPA as used in

17

this study was 0.0 to 1.5, middle GPA was 1.6 to 2.5,
and high GPA was 2.6 to 4.0.

Multimedia

 

Multimedia integrates audio and visual materials
into a teaching/learning unit to produce a more complete
teaching system. It makes use of instructional materials

incorporating immediate feedback to and from the student.

Program One

 

A basic driver education course consisting of at
least 36 hours of classroom instruction and six hours of

in-car behind-the-wheel instruction.

Program Two

 

A three-phase driver education program consisting
of at least 36 hours of classroom instruction, six to
twelve hours of simulation instruction, and four to six

hours of in-car behind-the-wheel instruction.

Program Three

 

A four-phase driver education program consisting
of at least 36 hours of classroom instruction, six to
twelve hours of range (multiple-car, off-street driving
facility) instruction, six to twelve hours of simulation,
and two to six hours of in-car behind-the-wheel instruc-

tion.

18

Range

”An off-street area designed and built to incor-
porate a variety of realistic traffic situations where
a number of cars are used simultaneously, under the super-

vision of one of more teachers" (2, p. 247).

Simulation

 

"An electromechanical device designed to repre-
sent the driver's compartment of the automobile, includ-
ing typical controls and gauges. A programmed, group
instructional system which employs student interaction

with filmed driving environments" (2, p. 152).

Special Test Set

 

Two hundred and forty-six test questiOns chosen
by Pollack and McDole as ideal questions for measurement
of critical automobile driving knowledge test items, as

defined by the HumRRO report (64, 46).

Organization of Remaining Chapters

 

The succeeding chapters are organized in the
following manner: Chapter II is a review of related
literature. Chapter III deals with the procedure and
‘methodology used in this study. Chapter IV presents
the analysis of data, and Chapter V summarizes the
study and discusses the conclusions and recommendations

of this study.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of the literature
related to this evaluation of driver education programs.
The review of the literature was divided into four areas
which dealt with evaluation measures in driver education
and training, educational evaluation in other subject
areas which used similar formats, driver education evalu-
ation studies, and evaluation measures used in the evalu-

ation of driver education effectiveness.

Driver Education Evaluation Measures

The use of a written test for evaluation and pre-
diction of driver performance has been discussed since
evaluation of driver education began.

The concept of driver education has been to pro-
vide knowledge, skills, and proper attitudes to those
participants, which.would in turn make them safer drivers.

The major problem has been the evaluation of these
three areas. There were varied ideas about which form of
evaluation should be utilized. The federal government has

‘mandated that state driver education programs be evaluated

19

20

on the bases of reduction of accidents, and the resulting
deaths and injuries of those drivers completing the pro-
gram. Although reduction of accidents is one of the
rationales for driver education, evaluation on these
criteria alone cannot be valid. William Lybrand stated:

Prior studies using accident data as criteria
have been conducted ex post facto, and in that
situation there are no completely valid statisti—
cal techniques for separating the influence of
driver education from the independent influence
of the personal characteristics of the drivers
studied.

 

 

With few exceptions, official accident records
were used as criteria in prior evaluative studies
and these are known to be incomplete, but that
further, there are serious questions about the
adequacy of accident data as comprehensive, reli-
able, and valid measures of driving performance
proficiency, as distinguished from their obvious
validity as one measure of highway transportation
system effectiveness (41, p. vi).

Although accident records should not be used as
a sole measure of driver education effectiveness, they
can be a useful tool in the overall evaluation. Accord-
ing to R. L. Tack:

An important measure of the effectiveness of
driver education is a student's record of acci-
‘dents and violations. Although driving records
may be the most significant measure of driver
education's effectiveness, they are only one
index of a student's driving behavior. A sub-
stantial portion of a student's driving behavior
is not measured if only the variables obtained
from driving records are considered. Such vari-
ables as knowledge gain, the student's perception
of the course, classroom and behind—the-wheel
activities and total hours of instruction received,
as well as various pre-driver education, driver

21

education and post-driver education factors
should be considered when examining the effec-
tiveness of driver education (75, p. 3).

LeRoy Dunn felt that reduction of crashes must
be a goal of driver education. He stated that:

In order to survive as a viable highway
safety countermeasure, rather than just a
training service for society, traffic safety
education programs must meet the challenge of
reducing crashes or their negative consequences
(27, p. 18).

William Mann felt that "knowledge of both manmade
and natural laws are important to a driver, but, the most
important area of concentration and evaluation is on the
driver's attitude" (42). Richard Bishop reiterated the
"we drive as we are" concept. His emphasis was also on
developing the attitudes of the young drivers to make
them safer vehicle operators (6).

Bishop further stated that knowledge alone would

not insure safe driving:

Any perceptive driver education teacher real-
izes the distinction between knowing and behaving.
For example, a student may learn the traffic laws
and score 100 percent on a written test covering
this topic, and then violate many of the same laws
following completion of the course. This does not
mean that learning facts is not useful in develop-
ing proper attitudes and sound judgment. Exposing
students to factual information is an excellent
beginning when attempting to modify behavior. How-
ever, facts alone will not change behavior, so our
challenge lies in using facts to influence the
understandings, perceptions, emotions, attitudes,
values, and motivations which determine behavior

(7).

22

For evaluation of programs and students' learn-
ing, written tests can be useful. According to Bishop:

Pencil and paper tests, although possessing
many weaknesses as an evaluation instrument can
(1) stimulate learning; (2) furnish useful infor-
mation for counseling individual pupils; and (3)
evaluate teaching and learning. Test responses
and erroneous thinking that may involve the
learner in an accident if not corrected (5).

Francis Kenel further stated regarding knowledge
evaluation:

The attitude approach must be replaced by
acceptance of the fact that the primary objec-
tive of driver education is to assist students
in acquiring those abilities needed to travel
efficiently and effectively from one point to
another with minimal risk of collision, within
the highway transportation system.

The accomplishment of this objective involves
providing students with the required tools and
knowledge to perform the driving task.

What are we talking about when we say driver
error--poor attitudes, social disabilities? Not
really. Research indicates that of those cases
in which the driver contributed the primary cause,
72% resulted from inappropriate decisions.
Drivers did not know what to do. They did not
know relevant factors to consider when processing
information. Perceptual failure contributed to
over 66 percent of the cases. Either the driver
did not want to see, or did not know what or how
to look for information in the first place. In
an additional 33 percent of the cases, drivers
took inappropriate evasive action. Inappropriate
evasive action includes everything from locking
the brakes to absolutely no response at all.

It is generally agreed that the prevention
of such failure is possible through education or
training.

If one believes that accident reduction is
a realistic goal of driver education, then it is
essential that we assist drivers to develop those
abilities needed to drive in an efficient-effective
manner. It is critical that they develop the

23

ability to make decisions necessary to adequate
management of time and space within a stream of
moving traffic. This necessitates that they be
taught how and what to look for and how to clas-
sify information into meaningful data. This must
be based on knowledge and anticipation of what to
expect (39, pp. 7, 8).

Does knowledge produce safer drivers? There was
a consensus that it did. W. Worick said:

Knowledge is the foundation for understanding
and the springboard for the development of desir-
able attitudes toward safe behavior. Ideally
every individual should learn and appreciate safety
rules; unfortunately this is not always the case.
The dramatic reduction in industrial accidents in
recent years is the direct result of safety pro-
grams designed to educate the worker and, in turn,
develop good habits and attitudes. We are realiz-
ing similar results with driver education programs.
Every technological advance brings new hazards with
which man must cope; thus education and the develop-
ment of knowledge are a never ending process. Ade-
quate knowledge enables the individual to recognize
and evaluate dangerous situations (89, p. 24).

Richard Kaywood commented that:

Some young drivers place too much emphasis on
the physical part of the driving task. They think
skillful car-handling is good driving. These basic
skills must be learned well enough to become almost
automatic. But it is the mental part of the driv-
ing task that gets most drivers into trouble.

To make decisions, drivers use their stored
knowledge and the facts gathered from the present
traffic situation. . . .

Knowledge and skill are essential in the safe
operation of motor vehicles.

The prediction is based on this information and
also on the driver's stored knowledge (38, pp. 7, 8).

Kenel again observed:

The driving process would be impossible if
every time we drive were the first time. What
saves us is our ability to store information.
we develop a "memory bank" of driving facts
which help us predict correctly (39, p. 9).

24

James Aaron gave further credence to the consensus
that knowledge produces safer drivers:

Experience and information stored in one's
memory can have a profound influence on what is
perceived, how it is interpreted and therefore
what decision is made. In the operation of motor
vehicles there are two classes of stored or
retained information. These are the long-term
and short- term.retention of information.

To estimate or predict relationships to other
highway users, stored memory banks of traffic laws,
rules and regulations, vehicle dynamics, and driver
behavior must be called upon. Concepts and strate-
gies are recalled for the more complex decision-
making problem—solving situation. Further, the
performance of life-saving evasive actions under
emergency conditions is based on stored informa-
tion (2, p. 37).

Aaron further stated:

Essentially the question must be asked, what
does a safe driver really need to know? Further,
how can young drivers be taught so that behavioral
patterns can be influenced to the point they will
become reliable and competent drivers? A systems-
analysis approach may be used to define the scope
and breadth that driver education must take in
order to meet the challenge it faces. Using such
an approach, the content of the driver education
curriculum should be selected on the basis of
those perceptions, judgments, decisions, and
actions required to perform the driving task
safely and efficiently (2, p. 43).

One study conducted in California by Dell Dreyer
asserted:

Only the written test appears to have some
predictive validity. . . . Better performance on
the written test tended to be associated with
fewer accidents and convictions.

The relationship between written test score
and subsequent driving record for first time
applicants showed that as the number of errors
increases, the frequency of accidents and con-
victions increase moderately. Those with seven

25
or more errors had more than twice as many acci-
dents as those with no errors (25, p. 6).

These findings seemed to be consistent with other
research. In another study, conducted by Carpenter in
California, similar results were found:

For all DMV test forms combined, correla-

tions of total test scores with driving record
variables were all significant, indicating
renewal applicants with better prior driving
records obtained higher test scores (14, p. 2).

Although written knowledge tests are only one
means of evaluating driver performance, it is an important

and useful tool for evaluating the success of driver edu-

cation.

Educational Evaluations

 

In reviewing evaluations of educational programs,
Michigan's Educational Assessment Program seemed to be
similar, if not better than other states' evaluations.

In the introduction to the program it was stated that,
”For the purpose of the Michigan Assessment Program,
assessment will be defined as the gathering of informa-
tion about student achievement which is useful for educa-
tional decision making" (55, p. 1). Obtaining copies of
evaluation or assessment reports from Ohio, as well as
from other states, however, was a problem.

Michigan's evaluation reports which were studied
were more in terms of results of the evaluations, or the

rationale for them, than in the methodology of the

26

evaluation; therefore, not pertinent to this design (48,
49, 51, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55). All the programs evaluated
were as a total program. They were not divided into dif-
ferent teaching methods to determine if one method was
better than another. Although this idea was suggested
for evaluation of science programs (55, p. 25) the eval-
uation was not conducted in this manner.

Several means were employed in Michigan's Educa-
tional Assessment Program to evaluate these programs.
Written tests were used in vocabulary, reading compre-
hension, English usage, and arithmetic. In each case,
standardized, norm-referenced tests were used. In addi-
tion, an attitude survey and a questionnaire of the
child's home environment were used (55, p. 3).

The method used in these evaluations was to
select or develop objectives for each subject and grade
level, and to evaluate accomplishment of those objectives
by students (55, p. 11). Although the goal was to eval-
uate all students, where tests had to be individually
administered, samples of approximately 500 students were
used (55, p. 23).

Individual student success rate ranged from 48
percent to 87 percent accomplishment in all subject

areas (52). The success rate on successful completion

27

of the objectives ranged from 60 percent to 80 percent

(51, 52, 54).

Driver Education Evaluation Studies

 

Several methods have been employed over the
years to evaluate driver education. Usually, these eval-

uations were ex post facto type studies, where data

 

gathered for a different purpose was later used to eval-
uate the effectiveness of the driver education program.
In some instances, these evaluations took place many
years later.

Until recently, experimental research in driver
education had not been attempted. The reason for this
was that it was too serious a matter to have a true con-
trol group. If the hypothesis of the experimental
research was to validate driver education as a viable
means of accident reduction, then conversely, the hypoth-
esis would postulate that a control was being subjected
to greater risks of being involved in a vehicle accident
with resultant death, injury, or property damage. The
DeKalb County, Georgia, program fell short of being a
true experimental study, but it was an attempt to meet
the requirements of an experiment (85).

The following driver education evaluation studies

were reviewed on two factors, format and criterion (or

28

criteria) used to measure success. Results applicable
to this study were noted.

The Program Research in Driver Education (PRIDE)
was conducted in Iowa. The sc0pe of the study was state-
wide. The purpose was to evaluate programs in Iowa uti-
lizing different phases.

The study looked at three different program
types: two-phase, three-phase simulation, and four-phase.
Two other factors included were (1) when the program was
offered (summer, fall, or spring) and (2) whether or not
the school was urban or rural.

The study used a 50 question pre-post test to
evaluate the cognitive knowledge of students. (The same
test used in this Ohio evaluation study.) The students
were also tested on the Driving Attitude Survey developed
by Schuster and Guilford, success on the driver license
exam, and accident and violation records for the two-
year period following completion of driver education
(75).

Some conclusions and recommendations in the PRIDE
study relative to this evaluation study were (1) regular
school programs showed significant gains in knowledge
over summer programs, (2) GPA was highly correlated with
knowledge test success, and (3) two-phase programs seemed

to be superior to the three- and four-phase programs in

29

reduction of accidents. Overall, as in most studies of
a behavioral science, no clearcut conclusions were made
other than a need for increased parental involvement
(75).

The California Driver Training Evaluation Study
by Margaret Hubbard Jones looked at two programs: two-
phase and three—phase simulation taught by both commer-
cial and the public schools.

Evaluation of programs was conducted by using
three criteria: teacher evaluation, license exam records,
and accident and violation records. No significant dif-
ference was found on any of the three variables. The
three-phase simulation program cost an average of eighteen
dollars more per pupil than the two-phase with no signifi-
cant differences over the two-phase programs (12, p. 11).

Several criticisms of this study were noted:

(1) All simulation programs were conducted during the
regular school day, whereas the two-phase programs were
conducted after school, and (2) of the population of 158
schools selected, 34 refused to participate and 13 were
finally used (12, p. 11). Further, neither pupils nor
instructors were randomly selected (12, p. 9).

Michigan's Driver Education Evaluation Project,

conducted under the direction of Kara Schmitt, was also

30

an evaluation of existing programs in the state of
Michigan.

The study examined five different programs: two-
phase, two-phase range, three-phase range, three-phase
simulation, and four-phase. All students in the state
who took driver education during the 1976-77 school year
were tested. Evaluation was conducted by use of 75
question written tests developed from Michigan's driver
education performance objectives. Some schools were
randomly selected for administration of a pre-test as
well as the post-test (30).

Findings indicated that the after-school and
summer programs were significantly better in producing
cognitive knowledge than were the regular school-day
programs. Teacher age was correlated with test scores.
The older the teacher, the lower the scores. Part-time
teachers had better results than full-time teachers, and
three-phase simulation and three-phase range programs
‘were the best of the five.

A driver education evaluation study directed by
William Cole at Texas A&M University used an experimental
approach to his evaluation. He developed a five-phase
program using multimedia as the first phase. The com-

parison was based on several variables of the students

31

participating. A written test and an on-road evaluation
(The McGlade Road Test) were used (45).

The study concluded that there were no signifi-
cant correlations between any of the variables such as
length of programs or IQ test score. The only variable
which significantly correlated was entry-level skills of
the students in both cognitive and psychomotor learning.
The recommendation was to assure better assessment of
[entry level skills and to build upon them.

In a study conducted by Charles E. McDaniel,
four selected programs were evaluated. They were two-
phase, three-phase simulation, three-phase range, and
four-phase. The study also examined program length as
well as sex of drivers.

Three criterion measures were employed: driving
knowledge, driving performance (45), and a traffic analy-
sis written test. Significant gains were noted in knowl-
edge test scores for all programs.

Robert E. Gustafson conducted a comparison between
a three-phase range program and a four-phase. Three mea-
sures of success were used: knowledge, attitude,and skill.

Although all groups showed significant improve-
ment in knowledge, there was no significant difference
between groups on the measure. No significant improve-

ment was shown for either group on the Mann Personal

32

Attitude Survey (43), although improvement was shown on
the Siebrecht Attitude Scale (70, pp. 2-4). There was
a significant correlation between IQ and success on the
knowledge test and on the Siebrecht Attitude Scale.

The DeKalb County, Georgia, project under the
direction of Jack Weaver was the first real effort at
an experimental study using a control group in driver
education.

The groups were randomly assigned from 18,000
students (volunteers) into three different programs.
One was the control group with no formal training. The
second group received the Safe Performance Curriculum
(86, p. 18) of 72 clock hours, and the third group, the
Pre-Driver Licensing curriculum of 20 clock hours of
instruction.

This entire project was designed to provide
ideal conditions for the instruction of the Safe Per-
formance Curriculum. The evaluation has not yet been
completed, but will be conducted by using accident and
violation records, as well as intermediate criteria of

knowledge and attitudes.

Driver Education Phases

 

This section deals with some of the phases which
are used in different driver education programs. It is

sometimes difficult to separate these methods of teaching

33

into distinctively separate phases. Any teacher, in any
given subject area, uses more than one method of instruc-
tion for his/her pupils. Driver education methods of
instruction have been so divided because the laws govern-
ing driver education have set the format of instruction
by hours for each of the methods of phases. Further,
evaluation of total programs was often used to infer the
worth of a particular phase (or phases) used in that pro-
gram. Therefore, this section is somewhat of a continu-
ation of the preceding section which dealt with driver
education evaluation studies as a whole.

This section will briefly look at three methods
of instruction in the context of the driver education
program--simulation, range, and the use of the multi-
media response system.

The use of driving simulators in high school
driver education programs in Ohio was increasing despite
the high initial cost to purchase a unit. One obvious
reason was the rising cost of vehicles, insurance, gaso-
line, and instructors. A simulator can save a school
(or schools) money if scheduled properly.

Even though simulation can reduce the cost of
driver education, one must still consider whether they
were better for instruction of students than another

method or methods.

34

In a study conducted in California, there was no
significant difference in student performance between
those students who were instructed with simulation and
those who were not (12).

One significant difference was that the cost of
simulation was $18 per pupil. One explanation for this
might be that all the simulation programs were in-school
programs, whereas the others were all after-school
instruction.

A leading authority on the use of simulators,
Richard Bishop, had several comments on simulation for
high school driver education programs:

A simulator is a laboratory device that

enables the operator to reproduce under test
conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual

performance.

Simulators are helping to meet the quality-
quantity cost challenge facing driver education.

Research with both aircraft and driving simu-
lators used for education purposes strongly sup-
ports the premise that a transfer of learning
occurs from the simulator environment to the
actual task (8).

Richard A. Meyerhoff, Chairman, Driver Education
Department of Waterloo Public Schools, Waterloo, Iowa,
explained that simulation can be effective as a tool in
helping the student take in and process data from the
driving environment. He also called for updated simula-

tion films:

35

I am firmly convinced that a new generation
of simulation films can save valuable in-car time

and at the same time produce more competent drivers
(47, p. 12).

He further put the burden on the teacher for
making simulation successful:

In the simulator setting much teacher inter-
vention is needed to make things fly (47, p. 12).

Vernon P. Sample pointed out that the idea of
simulation was not unique to driver education and that
it was very successful in other fields as well:

The U.S. Air Force and all commercial airlines
have for years capitalized on the simulator as a
training aid in preparing their pilots. Submarine
and tug boat crews receive simulator training.
Atomic power plant personnel, diesel locomotive
engineers and, of course, astronauts all have
received simulator training, to name but a few,
and all with very positive results. Why then has
the driver training simulator alone been singled
out from all others and subjected to so many chal-
lenges as to its value as a training aid and its
cost effectiveness? (68, p. 29)

Sample also noted that two areas must be closely
examined: the instructor and equipment utilization.
Sample added:

A poorly prepared and motivated instructor
teaching in a simulator that has been poorly
scheduled leads the most objective observer to
the obvious conclusion that this type of train-
ing is ineffective and costly, and the simulator
takes the bum rap (68, p. 29).

Glenn Winningham pointed out the difficulty of

trying to separate one phase of a program as the cause

of success or failure of that program:

36

Simulation represents only one phase of a
multi-phase curriculum and must be coordinated
with other instructional phases if optimum bene-
fits are to be realized. Therefore, communica-
tion between all driver education staff members
is vitally important to assure consistency and
positive transfer throughout multiple-phase
learning activities (88, p. 28).

Ming H. Land explained that some of the teaching
methods used in simulators are the same as those used in
the instruction of industrial arts (or other subject
areas) and have been for some time (40).

One of these techniques was to have the students
"drill" a procedure or skill. Land observed that John
Locke once proposed the method of teaching in habit
formation which was a matter of repetition. "In other
words," Land elaborated, "it was a matter of 'drill' in
the time-honored sense of the term."

Land went on to indicate the various uses of

technological advances:

One of the concommitant benefits of the tech-
nological developments in the area of educational
methodology has been the development of media and
techniques to improve the teaching-learning pro-
cess. A representative sample of the recent inno-
vative practices that incorporate media and teach-
ing methodology to achieve specified behavioral
goals are reported by Buffer to include simulation,
micro-teaching, video tape, programmed learning,

cybernetics, and computer assisted instruction
(40, p. 27).

There appears to be a continually expanding
interest in programmed instruction. Programmed
texts and lessons presented via a teaching machine
are used in a variety of programs and courses.

37

Some schools already have programmed learning
centers and some have developed multimedia pro-
grams. . . . Programmed instruction which utilizes
multimedia instructional materials and diversified
methods of teaching will become an important fea-
ture in American education . . . (40, p. 79).

There were further benefits from the use of simu-
lation in a teaching program, according to Land:

Simulation and games also may have special
values for motivating low achieving students as
they add a new dimension of reality to teach-
1ng. . . .
The climate today favors educating capable
students more than was done a few years ago; also
slower learners are provided greater assistance
with their learning problems than ever before.
Various individualized instruction plans and
approaches on all levels of education have been
tried . . . (40, p. 54).

Rummel and Pine studied the effectiveness of
simulation against non-simulation in teaching
numerical control concepts. Experience indicated
that games have high potential for stimulating
interest and for motivating students. Plans for
capitalizing on this motivation need to be
developed and put into practice (40, p. 68).

Land went on to caution that simulation or any
other teaching method was not a panacea:

Susskind fears that education may prove to be
one of the fields in which the province of tech-
nology has been oversold. He advises educators
to take advantages of technology in every field
of human endeavor and, at the same time, to recog-
nize the limitations of it (40, p. 2).

The application of new media and advance tech-
nology to educational method will be developed
gradually into a large scale in the future. The
process, however, will be an evolution one con-
trolled by rational decisions. It is not and
will not become a revolution in teaching methods

. . (40, p. 78).

38

Another phase of driver education instruction
used sparingly in Ohio was the off-road driving facility
or range. Similar to simulation, it can reduce cost over
a long period of time, but the high initial cost pro-
hibited many schools from utilizing this learning tool.
Further, teachers who were properly trained in the use
of a range were at a premium.

Several studies have attempted to determine if
the inclusion of the range program was as effective or
more effective than another form of teaching.

A study was conducted in North Carolina to
determine if range programs resulted in a better score
on driver license exam than did non-range programs (19).
The conclusion was that they did not. In fact, it
appeared that the non-range programs did better than
the range programs.

Although the study was relatively well designed,
it did have two problems. Driver license examiners were
used to evaluate a driver education program, and in the
analysis of variance test, equal variance was assumed
but~ggll size was not equal. Further, two— and three-
way interactions were also significant. To attempt to
draw any conclusions from this form of analysis was not
warranted.

In a study of range and simulation programs con-

ducted by Robert O. Nolan at Michigan State University,

39

no significant differences were found between the two
methods of instruction in driving skill, attitude, or
knowledge (60).

In a study discussed elsewhere in this chapter,
Robert E. Gustafson found that a range program was
better than a combination range and simulation program
on driving skill. No significant differences were found
between general driving knowledge, specific driving
knowledge, driving attitudes, or on the traffic problems
and road problems sections of the final read test (35).

In a literature search conducted by Forrest M.
Council, et a1. (2), several studies were noted in the
use of range facilities for advanced driver education

programs:

In a small but well controlled evaluation of
their program, the GM staff used 60 patrol offi-
cers from the Oakland County Michigan Sheriff's
Department. One group received the 8 hour train-
ing program and one group was the control. The
trained group exhibited a 50% reduction in acci-
dents and an 80% reduction in cost per accident
(20, p. 17).

Peevey (1975) suggests that, "The goal of any
emergency instructional program should be to give
the student cognitive and manipulative information
and skills, experience to reduce the trauma of the
emergency,skills related to his general driving
performance (some may prefer defensive driving),
and optimum vehicle maintenance procedures (20,

p. 17).

Existing literature concerning advanced driver
education programs which include training in emer-
gency skill indicates that there is (l) a set of
consensus maneuvers which are employed, with some

4O

modification, almost universally and (2) there is

a lack of well controlled evaluation and conclu-
sive findings concerning the effectiveness of these
programs (20, p. 17).

There seems to be no conclusive proof that the
range phase of driver education was either beneficial or
harmful to driver education students in high school driver
education programs (20, p. 17).

The last method of instruction to be covered is
the use of a multimedia response system. The state of
Ohio has been installing more and more of these systems
each year.

R. Samuel Parker stated that there were many
advantages to the use of multimedia in the driver educa-
tion classroom (63):

Advantages to the teacher:

Provides uniformity and flexibility to the
classroom curriculum.

Provides immediate feedback on individual
student and group performance.

Captures real life traffic situations and
attitudinal role-playing sequences which gener-
ate good group discussion opportunities.

Brings scientific equipment and experiments
via photography to the driver education classroom.
Gives the teacher an opportunity to concen-
trate on the highest functions of his profession--
to counsel, guide, and tutor according to the

identified individual and group needs.

Provides a communication system that has
almost limitless applications. It can be used
to administer tests, take roll, receive and
reflect opinions, value judgments and feelings,
test levels of comprehension, etc.

41

Advantages for the student:

Provides continuous opportunities to interact
with the programmed lessons and through peer group
discussions.

Provides learning experiences in a dynamic
way that is challenging, yet holds attention.

Provides immediate reinforcement for correct
responses.

Provides for active participation rather than
passive, "told what to do" observations.

Provides private response communication with

the teacher (63, p. 16).

Parker emphasized that multimedia use was only
effective when used by a competent instructor. As did
Land, Parker noted that multimedia was not a panacea.

Gail H. Silver expressed the same basic feelings
about the use of multimedia in the classroom. "The
system is flexible; the only restriction is the teacher's
creativity."

Silver also pointed out that multimedia was not
skill oriented as was a simulator; it was knowledge
oriented:

When it comes to developing actual skill, our simu-
lators are more effective, and naturally some amount
of on-street driving is needed. However, it is hard
to evaluate just how effective a multimedia response
system is because of simulation (71, p. 11).

Further, according to Silver, the biggest advan-
tage was the number of students who could be instructed

at one time:

The biggest advantage, in my estimation, would
be the number of students that can be taught effec-
tively at one time. We know from our evaluation
that it is an effective means of providing large

42

group instruction, and that in this approach, each
student is attentive and responsive. He has to be.
The system is structured that way (71, p. 11).

The only study found which tried to isolate the
effect of multimedia instruction on driver education
instruction was conducted by Charles E. McDaniel at
Michigan State University. He found no significant dif-

ference attributable to the AEtna Drivocator (multimedia)

instruction (44).

Summary

This chapter presented a review of the literature
related to this evaluation of driver education programs.

A major problem in driver education has been the
evaluation of its programs. It has been difficult to
reach a consensus as to which type of evaluation was more
valid and reliable. While the federal government man-
dated that state driver education programs be evaluated
on the basis of reduction of accidents, and the resulting
deaths and injuries of those drivers completing the pro-
gram, most experts in the field asserted that evaluation
on these criteria alone cannot be valid.

There was a general consensus that knowledge pro-
duced safer drivers, and that written knowledge tests
were an important tool for evaluating the success of

driver education.

43

Evaluation measures cannot minimize the impor—
tance of attitude, of the "we drive as we are" concept
as stated by Bishop.

Michigan's Educational Assessment Program used
written tests to evaluate students in vocabulary, reading
comprehension, English usage, and arithmetic. In each
case, standardized, non-referenced tests were used, as
well as an attitude survey and a questionnaire on the
child's home environment.

Until recently, most driver education evaluation

studies were ex post facto type studies. More recently,

 

the Program Research in Driver Education PRIDE conducted
a statewide study in Iowa. The purpose was to evaluate
programs in Iowa utilizing different phases. Some con—
clusions and recommendations of the PRIDE study were
pertinent to this evaluation study.

Other studies and evaluations looked at a variety
of program types, attempting to ascertain if one program
was more effective in driver education than another or
others. Findings and conclusions varied, as did the
methods of evaluations. General summarization of these
evaluations was not possible.

Jones' study found no significant difference in
driver education taught by commercial and by public

schools.

44

Schmitt found that summer programs were signifi-
cantly better in producing cognitive knowledge, that
older teachers were less effective than younger ones,
that part-time teachers had better results than full-
time teachers, and that three-phase simulation and
three-phase range programs were best of the five tested.

Cole's study recommended better assessment of
entry level skills for driver education.

McDaniel conducted a study of four programs and
concluded that significant gains were noted in knowledge
scores for all programs.

The study by Gustafson found a significant cor-
relation between IQ and success on the knowledge test
and on the Siebrecht Attitude Scale.

The DeKalb County, Georgia, project has not been
completed, but was using accident and violation records
to test three groups of students.

Simulation, range, and the use of multimedia
response systems have been used and evaluated by numerous
teachers of driver education. Generally, studies con-
cluded that simulation was beneficial when scheduled and
used by a competent instructor, and that multimedia had
many advantages for students of various ability and learn-
ing levels. Conclusions as to the effectiveness of the
range in driver education were varied. There seemed to

be no conclusive proof that the range phase of driver

45

education was an effective teaching/learning tool--or

that it was not.

The next chapter will describe the design and

methodology used to complete the study. It will describe

in detail the selection of Ohio, data collection, contact

letters, telephone contacts, testing procedures, methods

of data analysis, and organization of data.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the design and methodology
used in the study. Topics described in detail are selec-
tion of Ohio as the location for the study, selection of
specific schools in Ohio, data collection, contact
letters, telephone contacts, testing procedures, methods

of data analysis, and organization of data.

Selection of Ohio

 

The state of Ohio had not evaluated its driver
education programs in recent years and recognized the
need for such a procedure. When personnel in the state
were contacted concerning an evaluation of the state's
driver education program, the cooperation and assistance
from the state Department of Education were excellent.
Further, the author was from the state of Ohio and was
familiar with driver education in that state. The
state of Michigan was considered because of the author's
immediate proximity, but was eliminated because of recent
studies which had been conducted by the Michigan Depart-

ment of Education.

46

47

Selection of Schools

 

Seventeen schools were selected for use in this
study. Twelve schools were selected for the evaluation,
and five schools were selected as alternates. These
seventeen schools were randomly selected from a list
supplied by Mr. Larry Cathell of the Ohio Department of
Education, Driver Education Section. The schools selected
had driver education programs which fit into the six cate-
gories selected for evaluation in this study. When pos-
sible, the schools on the list were in the southwest
quadrant of Ohio. Of the schools selected, fourteen were
in the southwest quadrant, three were not. Further, of
the twelve schools evaluated, ten were from the southwest
quadrant and two were not. Use of schools not in the
southwest quadrant was necessitated by the insufficient

number of suitable programs in the southwest quadrant.

Data Collection

 

The collection of data for this study consisted
of three phases: initial contact with the school by
letter; telephone contact with the principal, driver
education supervisor, and/or the driver education teacher;

and the school visitation for testing.

Contact Letters
Three different letters were sent to the schools

which participated in this study. The first letter was

48

sent to each superintendent, explaining the study, how
the school was selected, and requesting his cooperation
in completing the study (see Appendix A for a sample
form).

The second letter was sent to the building
principal, explaining the study and asking his coopera-
tion. The letter informed him that he would be contacted
by telephone to arrange the details of the visitation
(see Appendix B for a sample of the form sent to the
principal).

The third letter was sent to the building prin-
cipals of the alternate schools selected, informing them
of their selection, and that they would be contacted if
their school was needed for the completion of the study
(see Appendix C for a sample form).

A letter from.Mr. Larry Cathell of the Ohio
Department of Education was to be included in the letter
to the school principal. However, this communication
was not received, and thus was not used. This omission
caused some confusion as to whether the state of Ohio or
the author was conducting the study. Contact was made
by telephone to each building principal. The author
clarified that this study was conducted for a doctoral
dissertation with the cooperation of the Ohio Department
of Education. There were no further problems in this

regard.

49

Telephone Contacts

Approximately one week after the contact letters
were mailed, a telephone call was made to each principal
to determine a convenient date and time for the visita-
tion and testing procedure. Two of the schools contacted
had changed programs, necessitating the use of alternate
schools. Dates and times for the administration of the
test were determined by the telephone contact (see
Appendix D for a sample form).

The principals were asked to have ready at the
time of the visitation the GPA's for the students to be
tested, and the cost per pupil of the driver education
program.

Two schools requested and received further
information before the administration of the test.

In a few instances, further contact had to be
made with the classroom teacher, driver education
supervisor/coordinator, or supervisors of instruction
to obtain information. These contacts were made as
necessary by telephone.

Two of the schools contacted had completed their
spring programs, and arrangements were made to administer

the test at the completion of the summer term.

50

Testing Procedure

 

The testing procedure was consistent at all
schools. Students at each school were informed of the
reason for the evaluation. They were asked to do their
best on the test, even though the results would not be
used for grading purposes. The students were given a
test booklet andzn1answer sheet. They were asked to put
their name on the answer sheet in order to match the GPA
and the test score of each student. The CPA and the test
score were the only items of information kept by the
author for the purposes of data analysis (see Appendix E
for test and answer sheet).

The tests were scored and the scores were recorded
with GPA's, when available. Two schools did not have a
record of student GPA's (see Appendix F for sample form).

While the students were taking the test, the
teachers were asked to read the test and to indicate the
items which had been taught during the current term, as
well as those which had not been taught at the time of
the testing, but would be covered. They were also
requested to indicate those items which they did not
plan to teach by the completion of the current term.
These data were also tabulated for later analyses (see
Appendix G for sample form).

Instructor and program data information were

requested for use in the data analysis. Instructors

51

completed this information form while the students were

taking the test (see sample form in Appendix H).

Methods of Analysis

 

Two methods of data analysis were used. One
method, t-tests, were hand scored and analyzed based on
an 80 percent success criterion.

The other analyses were done by computer. These
included three analyses of variance and six Pearson cor-
relations. All analyses were conducted using a .05

alpha level when applicable.

Organization of Data

 

The dependent variable for the study was cogni-
tive knowledge as measured by the PRIDE fifty question
multiple-choice test.

Three analyses were conducted to determine pro-
gram effectiveness. In each of the three analyses a
t-test was used in which the number of students who
achieved 80 percent or more correct was compared to an
80 percent success criterion.

In the first of these three analyses, all 326
student scores were used to determine if students tested
in Ohio were achieving 80 percent success. The hypoth-

eses to be tested were:

52

H0: U 3 80%

H .

1. u > 80%.

For the second analysis, program one (two-phase)
used 102 student scores, program two (three-phase simu-
lation) used 114 student scores, and in program three
(four-phase) 110 student scores were used. Three separate
t-tests were compared to an 80 percent success criterion.

Hypotheses tested were:

0: uPl > 80%

H1: UP]. < 800/0

HO: uPZ > 80%

H1: uPZ < 80%

HO: UPB > 800/0

H1: UP3 < 8070.

The third analysis compared all 326 adjusted
student scores. To determine each student's adjusted
score, each test question that the individual instructors
indicated not having covered in his class was eliminated
from the total possible for his/her students. The per-
centage correct for each student was then tabulated,

compiled for all 326, and the percentage achieving 80

53

percent was again compared to the 80 percent success

criterion. Hypotheses tested were:

H uA 3 80%

0:
H1: “A < 8070.

Three different analyses of variance (ANOVA)
were used to analyze the data.

The first ANOVA was a one—way, planned compari-
son, to determine if one of the three programs tested
was significantly better than another. Program one
(two-phase) was contrasted with program two (three-phase
simulation), and program two was contrasted with program

three (four-phase). The hypotheses were:

II
0

II
O

HO: $2 + uPl - uP2

For this ANOVA, eighteen students were randomly
selected from each of the twelve schools in order to
achieve equal cell size (see Figure 3.1).

The second ANOVA conducted was to determine the
relationship of programs and GPA's. The purpose was to
see if one program was better than another for low,
middle, or high GPA students. A two-way ANOVA was used

with the following hypotheses:

P1

 

M1

M2

 

C1

C2

C3

C4

54

P2

 

M1

M2

 

 

18

 

18

M1
M2

18

 

 

18

C5

C6

C7

C8

P3

 

M1

M2

 

 

l8

 

18

With Multimedia
Without Multimedia
Program Type
Classroom

Replications per cell

 

18

18

 

C9

C10

C11

C12

 

18

Figure 3.l.--ANOVA Design.

 

l8

 

18

 

L

18

55

HO: a1 = O GPA
HO: Bj = 0 Program
HO: aBij = 0 Interaction.

For this ANOVA, seven students in each of the
nine cells were selected. The small number was due to
the availability of these students (see Figure 3.2).

The third ANOVA also used a two-way design to
determine the relationship of multimedia and programs.
Specifically to see if multimedia worked better in one

program than in another. The hypotheses were:

HO: ai = 0 Multimedia
H0: Bj = 0 Program
HO: aBij = 0 Interaction.

A total of 174 student scores were used for this
analysis, 29 in each cell (see Figure 3.3).

A fourth ANOVA which was to be conducted was
eliminated because the data did not allow for equal cell
size. Several cells would have had no student scores in
them, so it was decided not to attempt to analyze this

research question.

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

P1 P2 P3
G1 R; R; R;
G7- R7= R7= 7=
6 3 R7= R7= R7:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Program Type
G1 = GPA.0.0 - 1.5
CZ = GPA 1.6 - 2.5
G3 = GPA 2.6 - 4.0
R = Replications per cell
Figure 3.2.--Two-way ANOVA Design.
P1 P2 P3
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
= = = = R: =
29 29 29 29 29 29
P = Program Type
M1 = With Multimedia
M2 = Without Multimedia
R = Replications per cell

Figure 3.3.--Two-way ANOVA Design.

57

Six correlations were studied to determine the
relationship of variables to students' success as
measured by the written test.

Student scores were correlated with cost of the
program, education in driver education of the teacher,
total hours of instruction in the program, number of
students in the class, age of the teacher, and years of
teaching experience in driver education. For these cor-

relations, all 326 student scores were used.

Summary
This chapter outlined the design and methodology

used in the study. Topics described were the selection
of Ohio for the study, selection of schools to be used,
data collection, contact letters, telephone contact, test
procedures, methods of data analysis, and organization of
data.

The data and the results found in the study are

organized and displayed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Chapter III described the design and methodology

used in the study. This chapter reports the findings of

the twelve analyses which were conducted.

The Sample Data

 

Total Student Achievement

 

The first analysis conducted was a t-test to
determine if 80 percent of the students were achieving
80 percent or more correct on a test of cognitive knowl-
ledge. The t-test used was designed for dichotomous
data where t = x - u/s % /7T. Table 4.1 displays the
data for this analysis.

Of 326 students tested, 208 achieved 80 percent
or more correct. This was 63 percent of the students who
had satisfactory achievement. When this 63 percent was
compared to an 80 percent success criterion, it was found
to be significantly deficient. The results of the analy-
sis indicated a t of 12.6. A.t of 1.658 was needed at the
.05 alpha level to reject. Therefore, the hypothesis was

rejected.

58

59

TABLE 4.1.--Student Distribution for t Analysis.

 

 

 

Percent Correct N %
90-99 76 23
80-89 131 40
70-79 73 22
60-69 34 10
50-59 8 2
40-49 4 1
30-39 0 0
20-29 0 0
10-19 0 0

0- 9 0 0
Total 326 100*
H1 p < 80

 

Critical t 12.6

1.658 @ .05

Tabled t

 

*
May not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

60

Individual Program Analysis

 

The second analysis conducted consisted of three
separate t-tests. These tests also used a t-test for
dichotomous data. Each of the three programs was sepa-
rately tested to determine if any one of the three was
achieving the goal of 80 percent or more correct.

Table 4.2 displays the data for program one (two-
phase). This table indicates that 56 of 102 students, or
54 percent, achieved 80 percent or more. When 54 percent
was compared to the 80 percent success criterion, it was
determined to be significantly deficient. A t of 10.40
was found compared to a tabled t of 1.671 needed to
reject at the .05 alpha level. The hypothesis was,
therefore, rejected.

Program two (three-phase simulation) had 75 of
114 (66 percent) of the students achieve 80 percent or
better. When 66 percent was compared to 80 percent, it
was found to be significantly deficient. A t of 6.67 was
determined when a t of 1.671 was needed to reject at the
.05 alpha level. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected.
Table 4.3 displays the data for this analysis.

Table 4.4 displays the data for program three
(four-phase). This table indicates that in program three
(four-phase), 77 of 110 students, or 70 percent, achieved
80 percent or better. When 70 percent was compared to

80 percent, it was also significantly deficient. A t of

61

TABLE 4.2.--Analysis of Program One.

 

 

 

 

Percent Correct N %
90-99 13 13
80-89 43 43
70-79 34 34
60-69 8 8
50-59 3 3
40-49 1 1
30-39 0 0
20-29 0 0
10-19 0 0

0- 9 0 0
Total 102 100*
H0: 11 Z 80
H1: 1.] < 80
Critical t = 10.40
Tabled t = 1.671 @ .05

 

*
May not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

62

TABLE 4.3.--Ana1ysis of Program Two.

 

 

 

Percent Correct N %
90-99 26 23
80-89 48 42
70-79 25 22
60-69 12 11
50-59 2 2
40-49 1 1
30-39 0 0
20-29 0 0
10-19 0 0

0- 9 0 0
Total 114 100*
H11 Ll < 80

 

6.67
1.671 @ .05

Critical t

Tabled t

 

*
May not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

63

TABLE 4.4.--Analysis of Program Three.

 

 

 

Percent Correct N %
90-99 37 34
80-89 40 36
70-79 14 13
60-69 14 13
50-59 3 3
40-49 2 2
30-39 0 0
20-29 0 0
10-19 0 0

0- 9 0 0
Total 110 100*
H0: 11 3 80
H1: 11 < 80

 

5.0
1.671 @ .05

Critical t

Tabled t

 

*
May not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

64

5.0 was tabulated when a t of 1.671 was needed to reject
at the .05 alpha level. The hypothesis was, therefore,

rejected.

Teacher Item Analysis

 

The third analysis, which also used a dichotomous
data t-test, was to determine if students were success-
fully learning what teachers indicated they were covering
in the class. Table 4.5 displays the data for this analy-
sis. Of 326 students tested, 231 achieved 80 percent or
more correct. This figure computed to 71 percent. The
71 percent was compared to 80 percent and was found to be
significantly deficient. The results of the analysis
indicated a t of 7.89. A t of 1.658 was needed to reject
at the .05 alpha level; therefore, the hypothesis was

rejected.

TABLE 4.5.--Analysis of Teacher Covered Material.

 

 

 

 

N %
Achievement 80% or greater 231 71
Achievement less than 80% 95 29
Total 326 100
H0: 11 Z 80
Critical t = 7.89
Tabled t = 1.658 @ .05

 

65

Comparison of Programs

 

The fourth analysis was to determine if any one
of three programs was significantly better than any of
the other programs. A one-way, planned comparison,
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized. A significant
difference was found between program two (three-phase
simulation) and program three (four-phase) in favor of
program three. A t of -2.504 was found when a t of
i 1.980 was needed for significance at the .05 alpha

level. Table 4.6 presents the data for contrast one.

TABLE 4.6.--Contrast One: Program Two Contrasted with
Program Three.

 

 

Estimated

Population Standard t t
Value Error value ZDF Probability
-1.9444 .7765 -2.504 213 .013

 

Tabled t = i 1.980 @ .05

 

*
Contrast 1

HO: UPZ - UP3 = 0

H1: UPZ - UP3 75 0
Critical t -2.504

Tabled t = i 1.985 @ .05
H0: rejected

 

*
P2 = Program Two; P3 = Program Three.

66

No significant difference was found between pro-
gram one (two-phase) and program two (three-phase simula-
tion). A t of .0972 was found when a t of i 1.980 was
needed for significance at the .05 alpha level.

Table 4.7 presents the data for contrast two.

TABLE 4.7.--Contrast Two: Program One Contrasted with
Program Two.

 

 

Estimated 213

Population Standard t t
Value Error value 'DF Probability
.0972 .7765 .125 213 .900

 

Tabled t = i 1.980 @ .05

 

*
Contrast 2

H uPl - uP2 = O

02
H1: UPI - UPZ # 0
Critical t .125

Tabled t = i 1.980 @ .05
HO: not rejected

 

*
P1 = Program One; P2 = Program Two.

GPA/Program Effect

 

The second ANOVA was conducted to measure if one
one of the three programs was significantly better than

another with low, middle, or high GPA students.

69

explained in the first ANOVA conducted which concluded
that program three was better than program one or program
tWO.

Two-way interaction (aBij) was not significant.
An F of 1.192 was tabulated when an F of 3.07 was needed
for significance at the .05 alpha level.

Data for the two-way ANOVA where H0: Bj = 0 was

rejected is presented in Table 4.9.

Variable Correlations

 

The final six research questions were correla-
tions between student score and six variables. The data
for these correlations are contained in Table 4.10.
Three program variables and three teacher variables were
selected to be correlated. The three program variables
were the cost per pupil, total hours of instruction, and
number of students in the class. The teacher variables
were teacher age, their hours of education in driver
education, and their years of teaching driver education.

Student score was moderately correlated with
cost of the program. A correlation coefficient (r) of
.1737 was found. An "r" of .40 was needed to determine
a significant relationship.

Student score was not significantly correlated

with hours of instruction in the program. An "r" of

70

TABLE 4.9.--Two-way ANOVA Table.

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Mean Significance
Variation Squares DF Square F of F
Multimedia 42.618 1 42.618 2.057 .153
Program 358.259 2 179.129 8.645 .001
Interaction 49.380 2 24.690 1.192 .306
Error 3501.959 169 20.722
Total 174 22.706
HO: ai = 0 Multimedia
H0 not rejected
HO: Bj = 0 Program
H0 rejected
HO: dBij = 0 Interaction

HO not rejected

 

Tabled F Interaction

Tabled F Programs

Tabled F Multimedia

3.92
3.07
3.07

 

71

TABLE 4.10.--Correlations Between Student Scores and
Related Variables.

 

 

Variable *Value of rxy
Cost of Program .1737
Hours of Program -.0978
Class Size .0340
Teacher Education -.0729
Teacher Age .0103
Years Teaching .0043

 

%
7Significant r = .40.

-.0978 was found, when an "r" of .40 was necessary for
significance.

Student score was not significantly correlated
with class size. An "r" of .0340 was found when an "r"
of .40 was needed for significance.

Student score was not significantly correlated
with the instructors' education in driver education. An
”r" of -.0729 was found when an "r" of .40 was needed
for significance.

Student score was not significantly correlated
with the instructors' age. An "r" of .0103 was found,

and an r of .40 was necessary in order to be significant.

72

Student score was not significantly correlated
with the number of years their instructor had taught
driver education. An "r" of .0043 was found, when an

"r" of .40 was necessary for significance.

Summary
'This chapter reported the results of the data as

analyzed. Several significant findings were discovered,
and these will be discussed in Chapter V. Chapter V will
also include a brief summary of the study, conclusions,
recommendations, recommendations for further research,

and a discussion.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter IV contained the findings of this study.
This chapter contains a brief summary of the study, a
brief description of the research design, findings, con-
clusions, recommendations, recommendations for further

research, and a discussion.

Summary of the Study

 

The primary purpose of this study was to measure
the level of cognitive knowledge of those students who
had completed or were just completing a high school
driver education course. Additional information concern-
ing program type, use of multimedia, instructors, and
pupils that could have a significant effect on student
achievement was also gathered. The following research
questions were examined:

1. Is driver education in Ohio effective in

teaching cognitive knowledge?

2. Is any one of the three programs effective

in teaching students cognitive knowledge?

73

74

3. Is driver education in Ohio effective in
teaching what teachers believe they are
teaching?

4. Is one of three programs more effective in
teaching cognitive knowledge?

5. Is one program more effective than another
with higher, middle, or lower GPA students
in teaching cognitive knowledge?

6. Is multimedia in the classroom a major factor
in terms of students' success?

7. Is the cost of a program a factor in terms of
students' success?

8. Is the number of years teaching driver educa-
tion a factor in terms of students' success?

9. Are the total hours of the program related
to students' success?

10. Is class size related to students' success?

11. Is teacher age a major factor in terms of
students' success?

12. Are teacher preparation hours a major factor

in terms of students' success?

Research Design

 

TWelve schools from Ohio were randomly selected
for use in this evaluation study. The names of schools

which fit into the six categories selected were obtained

75

from Mr. Larry Cathell, Section Chief, Driver Education
Section, Ohio Department of Education. A total of 326
students were tested at the twelve schools, using the 50
question PRIDE driver education cognitive knowledge test.
Five separate t-tests were conducted as well as three
ANOVA and six correlations to best analyze the data

collected.

Findings

1. Sixty-three percent of the students in Ohio
scored 80 percent or better in cognitive knowledge. This
was significantly below the hypothesized 80 percent at
the .95 level of confidence.

2. Program one had 56 percent achieving 80 per-
cent or more correct. Program two had 66 percent achiev-
ing 80 or more correct and program three had 70 percent
of the students achieving 80 percent or more correct.

All three of these programs were significantly below the
hypothesized 80 percent success criterion at the .95
level of confidence.

3. Seventy-one percent of the students achieved
80 percent or more correct in cognitive knowledge on the
material which instructors said they had taught. Overall
improvement was noted (from 63 percent to 71 percent
achieving 80 percent or more correct) when items which

had not been covered were eliminated. This was

76

significantly below the 80 percent hypothesized at the
.95 level of confidence.

4. Program three (four-phase) was significantly
better (.95 level) than program one (two-phase) or pro-
gram two (three-phase simulation). There was no signifi-
cant difference at the .95 level between programs one
and two.

5. None of the three programs was significantly
better at the .95 level with any of the three GPA groups.
However, the higher the GPA, the higher the student score.
This produced a significant GPA main effect in the ANOVA
test.

6. Multimedia had no significant effect on stu-
dents' cognitive knowledge at the .95 level of confidence.
There was a significant main effect for program, again
suggesting program three to be more effective than pro-
gram one or program two.

7. Cost of the program had a moderate correla-
tion (.17) with students' score. This moderate correla-
tion was not significant and cannot be considered a major
reason for student success. A correlation "r" of .40
was needed for significance.

8. No significant correlation "r" was found
between students' score and their instructor's experience
teaching driver education. An "r" of -.0978 was found

when an "r" of .40 was needed for significance.

77

9. Hours of the program were not significantly
correlated with student scores. An "r" of .0340 was
found when an "r" of .40 was needed for significance.

10. Class size was not significantly correlated
with student scores. An "r" of .0103 was found when an
"r" of .40 was needed for significance.

11. There was no significant correlation found
'between student scores and the hours of teacher prepara-
tion. An "r" of -.0729 was found when an "r" of .40 was
needed to be significant.

12. Instructor years teaching driver education
showed no significant correlation with student scores.
An "r" of .0043 was found when an "r" of .40 was neces-

sary for significance.

Conclusions

 

The following conclusions are based upon the
findings of the study.

1. Driver education students in the state of
Ohio have a deficient level of cognitive knowledge when
tested on an 80 percent success criterion.

2. In none of the three programs were students
achieving 80 percent mastery. Three separate t-tests

concluded a significant deficiency in each program.

78

3. Students were significantly deficient of 80
percent correct on those items which their instructors
indicated had been taught.

4. The four-phase program (program three) was
significantly better than the three-phase simulation
(program two) or the two-phase (program one).

5. No program was significantly better than
another with any of the three GPA groupings. Students
with higher GPA in each program did score higher as a
group than lower GPA groupings, as should be expected
on a written cognitive knowledge test.

6. Multimedia had no significant effect on
student achievement.

7. The cost of the program had no significant
effect on student success.

8. The number of hours in the driver education
program did not have a significant effect on student
success.

9. Class size had no significant effect on
student scores.

10. Teacher age did not have a significant effect
on student scores.
11. Instructor hours of teacher preparation had

no significant effect on student scores.

79

12. The number of years instructors had been
teaching driver education had no significant effect on

student scores.

Recommendations

 

The following recommendations are based on the
observations, findings, and conclusions of the study.

1. Ohio teachers of driver education should
have made available to them a set of specific instruc-
tional objectives for their driver education students.
Testing could then be conducted on accomplishment of
those objectives. There were no such set of objectives
available in Ohio at the time of this study.

2. Four-phase programs should be utilized when
schools have access to a range and simulator, and when
these can be made available to students without signifi-
cant cost increase.

3. A close examination needs to be made on the
use of multimedia in driver education classrooms. The
use of multimedia showed no significant gain over those

programs without multimedia.

Recommendations for Further Research
The following are recommendations for further
research based on the observations, findings, conclusions,

and recommendations of this study.

80

l. A study should be conducted to determine
what type of teacher preparation, and how much, can
increase student achievement.

2. This study should be replicated after the
teachers of Ohio are provided objectives.

3. This study should be replicated using other
criteria such as an attitude scale and an in-car perform-
ance test .

4. A study should be conducted to determine if
students can learn an acceptable level of information in
36 hours of classroom instruction, or if increased hours
of instruction can significantly improve student achieve-
ment.

5. A study should be conducted to compare three-
phase range programs with four-phase programs, three-
phase simulation, and two-phase programs. This would
help determine if range instruction can improve student
achievement when not in combination with simulation, as
this study indicated.

6. A study should be conducted to determine the
relationship of students' IQ or GPA and achievement on a
knowledge test, achievement on an on-road BTW evaluation,
and subsequent accident and violation involvement.

7. A study should be conducted to determine the
effectiveness of multimedia instruction in the driver

education classroom.

81

Discussion

 

The t-tests conducted showed the students tested
in Ohio, as a whole, to be deficient on an eighty percent
or more correct criterion. Although an eighty percent
criterion is the standard which is most used, it may have
been too stringent for this evaluation. A large segment
of the students were in the 75 to 80 percent correct
category. Although computation placed these students in
a deficient grouping, most teachers would agree that 75
percent correct would be a passing score. Driver license
examiners also set their criteria at 70 to 75 percent to
"pass."

If the criterion was 75 percent, the number of
students making acceptable scores would increase to 75
percent for all the test questions. Further, 83 percent
of the students achieved 75 percent or more correct of
the questions which teachers indicated they had covered
in the driver education class. These figures tend to
show that, in general, the students were achieving rela-
tively well in learning that material which the teachers
were teaching.

One might question if the teachers are teaching
what needs to be taught. As previously stated, a set of
objectives should be developed, adopted, and made avail-
able to the driver education teachers in Ohio. This

could help to insure more uniform.and complete instruction

82

for the students. Beyond that, evaluation of driver edu-
cation would be easier and more accurate. The end result
might be better drivers.

Multimedia as a method of instruction showed no
significant improvement in student scores. This may have
been due to mechanical problems or to an overuse of
packaged instruction. Students may be tired of watching
just films or packaged units which can leave the teacher
out of teaching.

Clarification of service contracts of state-owned
multimdeia units, as well as provisions for replacement
of worn-out equipment, needs to be studied. Most of the
schools which the author visited had experienced problems
‘with mechanical failure of the multimedia equipment.

It was the author's opinion that the most import-
ant variable was the teacher and his/her dedication to
the students. A well prepared, enthusiastic teacher will
teach students adequately regardless of the program type
which he/she has available. The added phases make
instruction easier, quicker, more complete, and can be
less expensive. They can make an effective teacher more
effective.

The number of questions that instructors indi-
cated that they had not covered in class was relatively
small. A trend not to teach all of the natural forces

affecting driving was noted. Other questions frequently

83

not covered were methods of insuring compliance with the
posted speed limits. Once again, it should be noted that
if a set of objectives was available and utilized this
situation could be improved, providing the objectives
were designed to cover these areas.

Several programs were taught one phase at a time.
Teachers were not informed as to what other teachers in
the same school were doing in other phases. This lack of
communication between programs can only be a detriment to
the programs' effectiveness, as well as to the students
within these programs.

The state should mandate integration of all
phases of any driver education program. This might insure
coordination and communication between teachers who are

teaching the same students.

APPENDICES

84

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

85

May 1, 1979

Room 70 Kellogg Center
Highway Traffic Safety Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

Mr. C. M. Roush, Superintendent
Madison Local Schools

601 Hill Street

Middletown, OH 45042

Dear Sir:
Madison High School is one of eighteen schools randomly
selected for an evaluation of selected driver education

programs in Ohio.

This study is under the guidance of the Ohio Department
of Education, Mr. Larry Cathell, Section Chief.

Your cooperation for this evaluation is essential and
greatly appreciated.

The evaluation will consist of a brief knowledge test
which I will administer at your school's convenience.

I will make arrangements directly with the high school
for the evaluation, but I wanted to inform you of it.

If you have any questions, please contact me at the above
address or Mr. Larry Cathell, Section Chief, Driver
Education Section, Ohio Department of Education,

(614) 466-4230.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Joe Shrader
Ph.D. Candidate
Graduate Assistant

JS:1j1

86

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE LETTER TO PRINCIPALS
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS

87

April 30, 1979

Room 70 Kellogg Center
Highway Traffic Safety Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

(517) 353-1790

Mr. Jack Davis, Principal
Madison High School
1368 Middletown-Eaton Road

Dear Mr. Davis:

Madison High School is one of 18 schools randomly
selected for an evaluation of selected driver education
programs in Ohio.

This study is under the guidance of the Ohio Department
of Education headed by Mr. Larry Cathell, Section Chief.
Your cooperation for this evaluation is essential and
greatly appreciated.

The evaluation will consist of a brief knowledge test
which I will administer at your school's convenience.
The test should not take more than 50 minutes.

I will need two items of information from.your school
which I will discuss with you when I call next week.
They are Grade Point Average for those pupils tested
(to remain anonymous) and the approximate cost per
pupil for driver education.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Joe Shrader
Ph.D. Candidate
Graduate Assistant

88

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE LETTER TO PRINCIPALS
OF ALTERNATE SCHOOLS

89

April 30, 1979

Highway Traffic Safety Center
Room 70 Kellogg Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

Mr. Larry E. Irwin, Principal
Lakota High School

5050 Tylersville Road

West Chester, OH 45069

Dear Mr. Irwin:

Lakota High School was one of 18 schools, in a random
selection, to be selected as an alternate for an evalu-
ation of selected driver education programs in Ohio.
This study is under the guidance of the Ohio Department
of Education, headed by Mr. Larry Cathell, Section Chief.
Your cooperation is essential and greatly appreciated.
Since your school was selected as an alternative, I may
not have to contact you, but I wanted to inform you in
case your school was needed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Joe Shreader
Ph.D. Candidate
Graduate Assistant

90

APPENDIX D

SAMPLE FORM OF TELEPHONE QUESTIONS

91

TELEPHONE QUESTIONS

Principal's Name

 

Teacher's Name

 

# of Driver Education Classes

 

Class Period Time of Class

 

 

Approximate Class Completion Date / /

 

Approximate Number of Students in Class

 

Date for Evaluation / /

 

Type of Class Procedure:

Days per week Hours per day

 

 

Information Needed

 

1. Approximate cost per pupil

2. GPA of each pupil in class (coded)

92

APPENDIX E

SAMPLE DRIVER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE TEST
AND ANSWER SHEET

93

DRIVER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE TEST

Instructions: Read the statement and all possible answers. Select

The

the best answer and mark the corresponding letter on
the answer sheet provided. Please do not write on
the test booklet. Put your social security number
on the answer sheet only. If you do not have a
social security number available, put your name on
the answer sheet.

most effective devices for protecting passengers when in an

accident are:

a.
b.
c.
d.

You

a.
b.
c.
d.

It
day

a.
b.
c.
d.

Seat belts

Safety door latches

Padded instrument panels
Deep center steering wheels

need not obey a traffic control device when:

Other vehicles ignore the device

No other traffic is present

A police officer directs you to do otherwise
If is safe to ignore it

is important to drive slower at night than you do during the

because:

There is more traffic

You may get sleepy

You cannot see as far ahead

Drivers tend to be more careless at night

When driving in an area where there are many pedestrians it is
most important to:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Put your headlights on so they can see you better
Keep your speed down to 15 mph

Watch for an indication that they will enter the road
Stop at every intersection and proceed when safe

94

10.

95

If you miss your exit on a freeway you should not:

a. Proceed to the next exit where you can reenter the freeway
and return to your proper exit

b. Back up on the road or on the shoulder

c. Continue on the freeway and find an alternate route

d. Resume normal speed until you approach next exit

If you are about to drive away from the curb, you should:

Sound your horn and go ahead

Signal and pull into the street

Signal, yield right-of—way and pull into the street
Signal, wait for the first vehicle to pass and pull into
the street

Q-DU‘QJ

0

If you are backing up and want the rear of your vehicle to go
left turn the:

a. Top of the steering wheel to the right

b. Bottom of the steering wheel to the left

c. Top of the steering wheel to the left

d. Left side of the steering wheel to the right

When driving you should stay at least:

a. 1/2 of a second behind the vehicle in front of you
b. 3/4 of a second behind the vehicle in front of you
c. 1 second behind the vehicle in front of you

d. 2 seconds behind the vehicle in front of you

You should drive in the right lane of a 6-lane highway when:

a. Driving slower than the traffic in the other lanes

b. You are preparing to exit on the left

c. When you see traffic entering the highway from the right
d. You want to pass other vehicles on the highway

The most important reason for passing a truck traveling at
45 miles per hours in a 55 miles per hour zone is:

a. To improve your ability to see

b. To advance your position in traffic
c. To reduce your travel time

d. To avoid exhaust fumes

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

96

As your speed increases it is most important to:

O-OU‘OJ

It

a.
b.
c.
d.

You

a.
b.
c.
d.

Put on your headlights

Look farther ahead

Drive with both hands on the wheel
Roll up all the windows

is unsafe to:

Glance at the outside mirror

Check your controls

Focus on the road just in front of the hood
Look along the left and right side of the road

should signal a turn:

Well in advance of the turn
Right before the turn

Upon turning

Only at controlled intersections

If 1 or 2 of your wheels drop off the edge of the pavement:

QaOU‘W

You

a.
b.
c.
d.

Hold the steering wheel loosely

Ease back onto the road after slowing down
Slow down quickly by braking hard

Increase your speed and drive back on the road

should be most careful when turning or stopping:

Just before it starts to rain
During the first half hour of rain
After it has been raining all day
A half hour after it stops raining

When driving in heavy fog during the day you should use:

a.
b.
c.
d.

High beam headlights
Low beam headlights
Parking lights

No lights

If the rear of your vehicle is skidding to the left you should:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Move the steering wheel back and forth in a zig-zag pattern
Turn the top of your steering wheel to the left

Hold your steering wheel from moving until out of skid
Turn the top of your steering wheel to the right

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

97

When there is a strong wind coming from your left or right you

should:

a. Slow down and steer away from the wind

b. Steer into the wind being careful not to oversteer

c. Let the steering wheel slip through your hands

d. Stay in the right lane as close to the shoulder as possible

In order to get out of a skid you should:

Keep your foot off the brake

Turn the front wheels towards the edge of the road
Let the steering wheel slip through your hands
Keep a constant pressure on the gas pedal

When nearing the top of a hill on a narrow road:

a.
b.
c.
d.

If

Keep far to the right

Speed up

Avoid blowing your horn

Get ready to pass any slow vehicles in front of you

a speed limit is not posted before a curve:

Continue at the same speed

Assume that it is better to take this curve at a higher
speed

Slow down to 35 to 40 mph

Judge how sharp the curve is and change your speed
accordingly

If you cannot see around a curve you should:

Slow down more than you normally would

Continue as you would through any curve

Speed up to get out of that hazardous area quickly
Drive around the curve at 5 to 10 mph

Because there is often slow-moving traffic on country highways
you should:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Stay in the left lane and drive at the speed limit

Be ready to adjust your speed to the speed of traffic

Pass slower vehicles on turns if they are slowing down
Generally drive 10 to 15 mph under the speed limit in

order to be safe

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

98

When driving around a curve your vehicle will tend to:

a. Speed up

b. Move to the outside of the curve
c. Stay in the center of the lane
d. Move to the inside of the curve

If you know that you will soon be making a turn you should:

a. Look well ahead to locate the turning point

b. Blow the horn several hundred feet before the turn
c. Flash your bright lights to warn other traffic

d. Speed up so as to avoid making other vehicles wait

If there is a change in the legal speed limit you should first:

Quickly slow down

Slow down and proceed cautiously
Look in your rearview mirror

. Check your speedometer

moo‘m

To avoid spinning the tires on a slippery surface you should:

a. Alternately use the brake and gas

b. Increase speed slowly

c. Shift from drive to neutral

d. Start in second gear with fast but steady power

When coming to an intersection it is most important to:

a. Stay in the same lane

b. Look for and follow traffic controls
c. Flash your brake lights

d. Open a window and turn down the radio

Cross traffic should be checked before entering an intersection:

a. When traffic has been heavy

b. Only when you have a stop sign
c. Where there is a traffic light
d. At all times

When you come to an intersection where there are no traffic
controls you should:

a. Speed up and blow your horn

b. Slow down so you can stop before the intersection
c. Come to a stop before you come to a crosswalk

6. Continue at the same speed and watch for traffic

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

99

When about to pass you should generally:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Move up very close to the lead vehicle, then change lanes
Drop back and change lanes far behind lead vehicle
Maintain usual following distance until you change lanes
Move up close to lead vehicle and drop back to warn him
you are about to pass

a 2-lane road, do not:

Pass moving traffic on the left

Pass vehicles making a left turn from the right lane
Look in front of the vehicle you want to pass

Change your speed in order to pass

After passing a vehicle on a 2-lane road you should generally:

a.
b.
c.
d.

As

Turn sharply back to the right lane

Gradually turn back into the right lane

Stay in the left lane until you see oncoming traffic
Slow down and then move into the right lane

you approach a freeway on an entrance you should:

Keep checking traffic ahead on the entrance and behind on
the freeway

Not take your eyes off the vehicle ahead of you on the
entrance

Begin to pick up speed and pass other vehicles on the
entrance if necessary

Drive around the vehicle in front of you if it is taking
too long to enter the freeway

you freeway exit has a deceleration lane you should:

Slow down as much as possible on the main road before
entering the deceleration lane

Drive alongside and pull in front of slower moving traffic

in the deceleration lane

Move into the deceleration lane as soon as possible

Keep your speed constant once you enter the deceleration lane

When entering a freeway from an entrance with an acceleration
lane, you should:

Stop to check for traffic at the end of the entrance
Enter the freeway at top speed and slow down to the speed
limit afterward

Use the acceleration lane to get up to the speed of the
freeway traffic

Use the shoulder to gain speed before you enter

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

100

If you get sleepy while driving it is best to:

Take anti-sleep pills

Stop for a cup of coffee

Stop and exercise until you wake up
Rest or change drivers if possible

040703

If you are taking medicine for a cold you should:

a. Know the effects of the medicine before you drive

b. Not drive with anyone else in the vehicle

c. Not drive at night or just after taking the medicine
d. Only drive if it is an emergency

When possible pedestrians walking along the road should walk:

a. On the left side facing traffic

b. On the right side with traffic

c. On the edge of the road rather than on the shoulder
d. On the side with the least traffic

Before you change lanes or turn you must:

a. See if it can safely be done and then signal
b. Check traffic by using your sideview mirror
c. Blow the born before pulling into traffic

d. Move into the far left lane

Under normal conditions the top speed limit for driving in a
business district is:

a. 15 mph
b. 20 mph
c. 25 mph
d. 30 mph

You must stOp at a railroad crossing when:

a. A train is stopped less than 200 feet from the crossing

b. The crossing does not have a gate or a signal on it

c. There is more than 1 set of tracks at the crossing

d. The crossing signal is on or a train is close and approaching

If you must leave the road at high speeds, you should:

a. Head toward oncoming moving objects

b. DrOp to the floor

c. Apply the brakes as hard as possible
d. Steer away from large, rigid objects

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

101

If an oncoming vehicle crosses the center line and drives into
your lane you should:

a. Speed up and drive on the shoulder

b. Stop as quickly as you can

c. Drive into his lane if it is empty

d. Slow down and steer to the right

If you drive off the road when traveling at a high speed you
should:

3. Turn the wheels sharply toward the road and apply the brakes
b. Straighten the wheels gradually and pump the brakes

c. Step hard on the brake and straighten the wheels

d. Speed up and turn the wheels toward the road

The message on this sign might be:

0‘0)

Stop Ahead, Side Road, Reverse Turn

One Way, Keep Right, No U-Turn

Pass With Care, Slower Traffic Keep Right,
Do Not Pass

Trucks Use Right Lane, Yield Right-of-Way,
Reduce Speed Ahead

When you see this sign at a corner you should first come to

a stop:

a. Out far enough to see cross traffic
b. Before the crosswalk

c. Within the crosswalk

d. After crossing the crosswalk

 

This sign means:

 

Slow down to 35 mph and prepare to

enter curve

Exit ahead, exit speed 35 mph

Construction area, slow down to 35 mph

and use right lane only 35'
Vehicles turning right must reduce speed upw'
to 35 mph

This sign means:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Barricade ahead, prepare to detour

Slow down, pavement ends

Right lane ends, prepare to merge
Construction ahead, caution, no shoulder

 

102

50. The message on this sign might be:

a. Stop Ahead, Detour 1000 feet, Pedestrian "‘="“‘
Crossing

b. Speed Limit 30 mph, Reduce Speed Ahead,
No U-Turn

c. Soft Shoulder, Bump, Dip

 

 

d. Divided Highway, Hill Road Narrows

Go back and answer any questions you may have skipped over.

Check your answer sheet to make sure all your answers are clearly
marked and that any erasures are completed.

Check your answer sheet to make sure your social security number or
name is on it.

103

ANSWER SHEET

Social Security Number

A B C D

A B C D

 

0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000

6
2

27.

8901
2233

32.

34
33

35

678901
3333/44

42.

3
4

44.

56 8
4].». 4

47.
49.
50.

0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000

O. .0
12345678901
11

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

17.

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE RECORD OF TEST SCORES

104

Social Security Number Name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\OCX)\ICJ\U'|J-‘UJNil-m|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25.

 

 

 

 

27.

 

 

28.

 

 

29.

 

 

30.

 

 

31.

 

 

32.

 

 

33.

 

 

34.

 

 

35.

 

 

36.

 

 

37.

 

 

38.

 

 

39.

 

 

40.

 

 

105

HH
Howoouo‘mbwml-i
000.0000

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Social Security Number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

High School #

 

63

PA

llllHlHlllilllllllHilllllllltllllllll

APPENDIX G

SAMPLE OF ITEMS TAUGHT

107

School

School #

 

Program Type

 

Instructors: Please read all the test questions and mark all ques-

tions in the appropriate column. The evaluation will
be on those questions covered in your class.

1 = Subject has been covered

2 = Subject has not been covered but will be before
completion of the course

3 = Subject has not and will not be covered in this
course

The most effective devices for protecting passengers 1 2
in an accident are:

a. Seat belts

b. Safety door latches

c. Padded instrument panels

d. Deep center steering wheels

You need not obey a traffic control device when: 1 2
3. Other vehicles ignore the device

b. No other traffic is present

c. A police officer directs you to do otherwise

d. It is safe to ignore it

It is important to drive slower at night than you 1 2

do during the day because:

a. There is more traffic

b. You may get sleepy

c. You cannot see as far ahead

d. Drivers tend to be more careless at night

When driving in an area where there are many 1 2
pedestrians it is most important to:

a. Put your headlights on so they can see you better

b. Keep your speed down to 15 mph

c. Watch for an indication that they will enter the road
d. Stop at every intersection and proceed when safe

‘108

10.

109

If you miss your exit on a freeway you should not:

a. Proceed to the next exit where you can reenter the
freeway and return to your proper exit

b. Back up on the road or on the shoulder

c. Continue on the freeway and find an alternate route

d. Resume normal speed until you approach next exit

If you are about to drive away from the curb, you

should:

a. Sound your horn and go ahead

b. Signal and pull into the street

c. Signal, yield right-of—way and pull into the street

d. Signal, wait for the first vehicle to pass and pull into

the street

If you are backing up and want the rear of your
vehicle to go left turn the:

Top of the steering wheel to the right
Bottom of the steering wheel to the left

Top of the steering wheel to the left

Left side of the steering wheel to the right

When driving you should stay at least:

a.
b.
c.
d.

1/2 of a second behind the vehicle in front of you
3/4 of a second behind the vehicle in front of you
1 second behind the vehicle in front of you
2 seconds behind the vehicle in front of you

You should drive in the right lane of a 6-1ane
highway when:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Driving slower than the traffic in the other lanes
You are preparing to exit on the left

When you see traffic entering the highway from the
You want to pass other vehicles on the highway

The most important reason for passing a truck
traveling at 45 miles per hours in a 55 miles
per hour zone is:

a.
b.
c.
d.

To improve your ability to see

To advance your position in traffic
To reduce your travel time

To avoid exhaust fumes

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

It

If
pav

a.

110

your speed increases it is most important to: l 2 3

Put on your headlights

Look farther ahead

Drive with both hands on the wheel
Roll up all the windows

is unsafe to: l 2 3

Glance at the outside mirror

Check your controls

Focus on the road just in front of the hood
Look along the left and right side of the road

should signal a turn: 1 2 3
Well in advance of the turn

Right before the turn

Upon turning

Only at controlled intersections

l or 2 of your wheels drop off the edge of the 1 2 3
ement:

Hold the steering wheel loosely

b. Ease back onto the road after slowing down

c. Slow down quickly by braking hard

d. Increase your speed and drive back on the road

You should be most careful when turning or stopping: l 2 3
a. Just before it starts to rain

b. During the first half hour of rain

C.
d.

Whe
sho

If
1ef

a.
b.
c.
d.

After it has been raining all day
A half hour after it stops raining

n driving in heavy fog during the day you 1 2 3
uld use:

High beam headlights
Low beam headlights
Parking lights

No lights

the rear of your vehicle is skidding to the 1 2 3
t you should:

Move the steering wheel back and forth in a zig-zag pattern
Turn the top of your steering wheel to the left

Hold your steering wheel from moving until out of skid

Turn the top of your steering wheel to the right

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

111

When there is a strong wind coming from your left 1 2 3

or

In

right you should:

Slow down and steer away from the wind

Steer into the wind being careful not to oversteer

Let the steering wheel slip through your hands

Stay in the right lane as close to the shoulder as possible
order to get out of a skid you should: 1 2 3

Keep your foot off the brake

b. Turn the front wheels towards the edge of the road

c. Let the steering wheel slip through your hands

d. Keep a constant pressure on the gas pedal

When nearing the top of a hill on a narrow road: 1 2 3
a. Keep far to the right

b.
c.
d.

If

If

a.
b.
c.
d.

Speed up
Avoid blowing your horn
Get ready to pass any slow vehicles in front of you

a speed limit is not posted before a curve: 1 2 3

Continue at the same speed

Assume that it is better to take this curve at a
higher speed

Slow down to 35 to 50 mph

Judge how sharp the curve is and change your speed
accordingly

you cannot see around a curve you should: 1 2 3

Slow down more than you normally would

Continue as you would through any curve

Speed up to get out of that hazardous area quickly
Drive around the curve at 5 to 10 mph

Because there is often slow-moving traffic on 1 2 3
country highways you should:

Stay in the left lane and drive at the speed limit

Be ready to adjust your speed to the speed of traffic
Pass slower vehicles on turns if they are slowing down
Generally drive 10 to 15 mph under the speed limit in
order to be safe

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

112

When driving around a curve your vehicle will
tend to:

a. Speed up

b. Move to the outside of the curve
c. Stay in the center of the lane
d. Move to the inside of the curve

If you know that you will soon be making a turn
you should:

a. Look well ahead to locate the turning point

b. Blow the horn several hundred feet before the turn
c. Flash you bright lights to warn other traffic

d. Speed up so as to avoid making other vehicles wait

If there is a change in the legal speed limit you
should first:

Quickly slow down

. Slow down and proceed cautiously
. Look in your rearview mirror

. Check your speedometer

D-DO‘OJ

To avoid spinning the tires on a slippery surface
you should:

a. Alternately use the brake and gas

b. Increase speed slowly

c. Shift from drive to neutral

d. Start in second gear with fast but steady power

When coming to an intersection it is most important
to:

a. Stay in the same lane

b. Look for and follow traffic controls
c. Flash your brake lights

d. Open a window and turn down the radio

Cross traffic should be checked before entering an
intersection:

a. When traffic has been heavy

b. Only when you have a stop sign
c. Where there is a traffic light
d. At all times

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

113

When you come to an intersection where there are no 1 2 3
traffic controls you should:

a. Speed up and blow your horn

b. Slow down so you can stop before the intersection
c. Come to a stop before you come to a crosswalk

d. Continue at the same speed and watch for traffic

When about to pass you should generally: 1 2 3
a. Move up very close to the lead vehicle, then change lanes
b. Drop back and change lanes far behind lead vehicle

d. Maintain usual following distance until you change lanes

d. Move up close to lead vehicle and drop back to warn

him you are about to pass
On a 2-lane road, do not: 1 2 3

a. Pass moving traffic on the left

b. Pass vehicles making a left turn from the right lane
c. Look in front of the vehicle you want to pass

d. Change your speed in order to pass

After passing a vehicle on a 2-lane road you should 1 2 3
generally:

a. Turn sharply back to the right lane

b. Gradually turn back into the right lane

c. Stay in the left lane until you see oncoming traffic
d. Slow down and then move into the right lane

As you approach a freeway on an entrance you should: 1 2 3

3. Keep checking traffic ahead on the entrance and behind
on the freeway

b. Not take your eyes off the vehicle ahead of you on the
entrance

c. Begin to pick up speed and pass other vehicles on the
entrance if necessary

d. Drive around the vehicle in front of you if it is taking
too long to enter the freeway

If your freeway exit has a deceleration lane you 1 2 3
should:

a. Slow down as much as possible on the main road before
entering the deceleration lane

b. Drive alongside and pull in front of slower moving traffic
in the decleration lane

c. Move into the deceleration lane as soon as possible

d. Keep your speed constant once you enter the deceleration lane

114

When entering a freeway from an entrance with an 1
acceleration lane, you should:

a. Stop to check for traffic at the end of the entrance

b. Enter the freeway at top speed and slow down to the
speed limit afterward

c. Use the acceleration lane to get up to the speed of the
freeway traffic

d. Use the shoulder to gain speed before you enter

If you get sleepy while driving it is best to: l

a. Take anti-sleep pills

b. Stop for a cup of coffee

c. Stop and exercise until you wake up
d. Rest or change drivers if possible

If you are taking medicine for a cold you should: 1

a. Know the effects of the medicine before you drive

b. Not drive with anyone else in the vehicle

c. Not drive at night or just after taking the medicine
d. Only drive if it is an emergency

When possible pedestrians walking along the road 1
should walk:

a. On the left side facing traffic

b. On the right side with traffic

c. On the edge of the road rather than on the shoulder
d. On the side with the least traffic

Before you change lanes or turn you must: 1

a. See if it can safely be done and then signal
b. Check traffic by using your sideview mirror
c. Blow the horn before pulling into traffic

d. Move into the far left lane

Under normal conditions the top speed limit for 1
driving in a business district is:

a. 15 mph
b. 20 mph
c. 25 mph

d. 30 mph

115

You must stop at a railroad crossing when: l 2 3
a. A train is stopped less than 200 feet from the crossing

b. The crossing does not have a gate or a signal on it

c. There is more than 1 set of tracks at the crossing

d. The crossing signal is on or a train is close and

approaching
If you must leave the road at high speeds, you should: 1 2 3

a. Head toward oncoming moving objects
b. Drop to the floor

c. Apply the brakes as hard as possible
d. Steer away from large, rigid objects

If an oncoming vehicle crosses the center line and l 2 3
drives into your lane you should:

3. Speed up and drive on the shoulder

b. Stop as quickly as you can

c. Drive into his lane if it is empty

d. Slow down and steer to the right

If you drive off the road when traveling at a high 1 2 3

speed you should:

a. Turn the wheels sharply toward the road and apply the brakes
b. Straighten the wheels gradually and pump the brakes

c. Step hard on the brake and straighten the wheels

d. Speed up and turn the wheels toward the road

The message on this sign might be: 1 2 3

a. Step Ahead, Side Road, Reverse Turn

b. One Way, Keep Right, No U-Turn

c. Pass With Care, Slower Traffic Keep Right,
Do Not Pass

d. Trucks Use Right Lane, Yield Right-of-Way,
Reduce Speed Ahead

When you see this sign at a corner you should first 1 2 3
come to a step:

a. Out far enough to see cross traffic
b. Before the crosswalk

c. Within the crosswalk

d. After crossing the crosswalk

 

116

48. This sign means: 1 2 3
a. Slow down to 35 mph and prepare to
enter curve
b. Exit ahead, exit speed 35 mph
c. Construction area, slow down to 35 mph
and use right lane only I
d. Vehicles turning right must reduce l§'§j

 

speed to 35 mph

49. This sign means: 1 2 3

 

a. Barricade ahead, prepare to detour
b. Slow down, pavement ends
c. Right lane ends, prepare to merge
d. Construction ahead, caution, no
shoulder
50. The message on this sign might be: 1 2 3

a. Stop Ahead, Detour 1000 feet,
Pedestrian Crossing

b. Speed Limit 30 mph, Reduce Speed
Ahead, No U-Turn

c. Soft Shoulder, Bump, Dip

d. Divided Highway, Hill, Road Narrows

 

 

Go back and answer any questions you may have skipped over.

Check your answer sheet to make sure all your answers are clearly
marked and that any erasures are completed.

Check your answer sheet to make sure your social security number
or name is on it.

APPENDIX H

SAMPLE OF TEACHER INFORMATION

117

School # Name

 

Class # # of Students

 

 

Program 1 2 3 4 Multi—media Yes

Teacher Information

 

1. Age

 

2. Years teaching driver education

3. # of quarter hours driver education teacher preparation

Program Information

 

1. Total hours of the program

2. Cost per pupil

Student Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student # Test Score Student # Test Score
1. 16.
2. 17.
3. l8.
4. l9.
5. 20.
6. 21.
7. 22.
8. 23.
9. 24.

10. 25.
11. 26.
12. 27.
13. 28.
14. 29.
15. 30.

 

118

 

No

 

GPA

lllllllllllilll

BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

10.

11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaron, James E., and Marland K. Strasser. Driver
and Traffic Safety Education. 2nd ed. New York:
Macmillan, 1977.

 

Driving Task Instruction. New York:

r—TI—dacml {1,1974.

 

Allgaier, E., and S. Williams. "Effectiveness of a
Driving Simulator." Traffic Safety Research Review,
1959.

 

Bachmann. "Dropping Out Not So Bad." The Educa-
tion Digest, December, 1971.

 

 

Bishop, Richard. "A System of Grading for Driver
Education." Report of a committee appointed by the
State Department of Education. Tallahassee.

. "A Theory of Driving Behavior." East
Lansing: Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan
State University.

. "Learning and Crading--Do They Mix?" The
Florida Institute for Continuing University Studies,
Tallahassee.

. "Questions and Answers About Driving Simu-
Iators." East Lansing: Highway Traffic Safety
Center, Michigan State University.

Bloom, Benjamin S. Taxonomy of Educational Objec-
tives. New York: David MCKay, 1956.

 

Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. Gall. Educational
Research, An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: *David

McKa , 1971.

 

 

Bromley, David G., Mary Lynn Crow, and Martha S.
Gibson. "Grade Inflation, Trends, Causes, and Impli-
cations." Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1978.

 

120

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

121

California Committee for Traffic Safety Education.
"The California Driver Training Evaluation Study:

A Comparative Analysis." Journal of Traffic Safety
Education, April, 1975.

 

 

Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. Ex eri-
mental andeuasi-Experimental Designs for Research.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

 

Carpenter, David W. ”An Evaluation of the California
Knowledge Test and the University of Michigan Item
Pool." U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, 1976.

Chall, Jeanne S. "Minimum Competency in Reading:
An Informal Survey of the States." Phi Delta Kappan,
January, 1979.

 

Chansky, Norman M. "Resolving the Grading Problem."
Phi Delta Kappan, January, 1973.

 

Cole, William M. "The Texas A & M University Compe-
tency Based Five-Phase Driver Education Program."
Journal of Traffic Safety Education, October, 1976.

 

Coppin, Ronald, and Margaret Hubbard Jones. "The
California Driver Training Evaluation Study: A Reply
to W. G. Patterson." Journal of Traffic Safety Edu-
cation, July, 1975.

Council, Forrest M., et al. "Effect of Range Train-
ing: Comparison of Road Test Scores for Driver Edu-
cation Students." Highway Safety Research Center,
University of North Carolina.

. "Emergency Skills Resources for Range
ReIated Driver Education." Highway Safety Research
Center, University of North Carolina, September,
1975.

Council, Forrest, Rita Roper, and Michael C. Sadof.
Evaluation of North Carolina's Multi-vehicle Range
Program in Driver Education: A Comparison of Driving
Histories of Range and Non-range Students. Highway
Traffic Research Center, University of North Carolina,
August, 1975.

 

 

 

Cox, D. R. Planningof Experiments. New York:
John Wiley and Sons{’l958.

 

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

122

Dayton, C. Mitchell, and Clayton L. Stunkard. Sta-
tistics for Problem Solving. New York: McCraw-Hill,
1971. '

 

Delahanty, B. David. "Myths About Older Teachers."
Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1977.

 

Dreyer, Dell R. "An Evaluation of California's
Drivers Licensing Examination." Research Report No.
51, March, 1976.

 

Driver Education Committee, Transportation Research
Board. "Current Activities in Driver Education
Research." Journal of Traffic Safety Education,
October, 1975.

 

Dunn, LeRoy. "Driver Education Evaluation." Journal
of Traffic Safety Education, January, 1977.

 

Edwards, Dorthy S. Evaluation of Laboratornyethods
for the Study of Driver Behavior: FinaI Rgport.
American Institute for Research, Silver Springs,
Maryland, May, 1969.

 

 

Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control. "Personal
Characteristics of Traffic Accident Repeaters."
Saugutuck, Connecticut, 1948.

Forbes, T. W., et a1. Research on Driver Performance
Measures: Task 1. East Lansing: CHighwayTraffic
Safety Center, Michigan State University, 1971.

 

 

Freeberg, Norman E. Development of Driver Performance
Measures for Use in the N.CT”Licensing Program: A
Study Plan. Highway Safety Research Center, Uni-
versity of North Carolina, 1970.

 

 

 

Glass, Gene V., and Julian C. Stanley. Statistical
Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

 

 

Goldstein, Leon G. "The California Driver Training
Evaluation Study: Rejoinder to Peck and Jones'
Reply." Journal of Traffic Safety Education,
October, 1975.

Griffin, Lindsay I., Brian Powers, and Catherine
Mullen. Impediments to the Evaluation of Highway
Safety Programs. Chapel Hill: Highway Safety
Research center, University of North Carolina,
June, 1975.

 

 

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

123

Gustafson, Robert Earl. "A Study to Compare the
Effectiveness of Instruction in the Allstate Good
Driver Trainer and on the Multiple Car Off-Street
Driving Range with the Multiple Car Off-Street
Driving Range." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1965.

Evaluation of Driver Education. Paper
presented to driver education class, Michigan State
University.

Hagen, Roger E. "Sex Differences in Driving Per-
formances." Human Factors, April, 1975.

 

Kaywood, Richard, et a1. Drive Ri ht. Clenview,
Illinois: Scott, Foresman, I977.

Kenel, Francis. "Quality in Driver Education."
Journal of Traffic Safety Education, April, 1977.

 

Land, Ming H. 29th Yearbook of ACIATE. Oxford,
Ohio: Miami University, 1979.

 

Lybrand, William. "A Study on Evaluation of Driver
Education." Clearinghouse, Springfield, Virginia,
July 31, 1968.

 

Mann, William A. "Difficulties in Changing Human
Behavior." Paper presented to the National Safety
Congress, 1968.

"Personal Attitude Survey." East Lansing:

Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State Uni-
versity.

McDaniel, Charles E. "A Study to Compare the Rela-
tive Effectiveness of Selected Laboratory and Class-

room Programs in Driver and Traffic Safety Education.‘

Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.

McGlade, Francis S. "A New Test for Use in Driver
Licensing, Education, and Employment." New York:
Center for Safety Education, New York University,
1962.

McKnight, A. James. Driver Education Task Analysis:
Task Descriptions. 4 vols. CSpringfiéld, Virginia:
National Technical Information Service, 1970.

 

 

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

124

Meyerhoff, Richard A. "Simulation Now and the 80's."
Journal of Traffic Safety Education, January, 1979.

 

Michigan Department of Education. An Educational
Health Check: The Michigan Educational Assessment

Program. 41978.

Michigan Department of Education. Interpretive
Manual 1977-78 Michigan Educational Assessment

Program. 1978.

Michigan Department of Education. Needs Assessment:
A Step Toward Quality Education. February, 1975.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Department of Education. State Summary of
Results, 1975-76 Michigan Educational Assessment
Program, 3rd’Report. 1976.

 

 

Michigan Department of Education. The Status of
Basic Skills Attainment in Michigan Public Schools.
1978.

 

 

Michigan Department of Education. Technical Report,
Michigan Educational Assessment Program. June, 1977.

 

 

Michigan Department of Education. Technical Report,
1975-76 Michigan Educational AssessmentIProgram, 4th

Report. 1976.

Michigan Department of Education. The Long Range
Plan of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program.
July, 1977. "

 

 

 

 

Miller, Thomas L. "An Inventory of Critical Driver
Knowledge for Motor Vehicle Operators Age 65 and
Older in Ingham County, Michigan." Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1978.

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. MVMA Motor
Vehicle Facts and Figures. Detroit, 1979.

 

 

National Commission Safety Education. Summary of
Results of Studies Evaluatiog Driver Education.
Washifigton,CD.C.: National Commission onCSafety
Education, 1961.

 

 

National Safety Council. Accident Facts. Chicago,
1978.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

125

Nolan, Robert O. "A Comparative Study of the Teach-
ing Effectiveness of the Multiple Car Off-Street
Driving Range and the Aetna Drivotrainer." Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965.

Ohio Department of Education. ”Standards for Driver
Education Programs." 1977.

Ohio Department of Education. The Development and
Validation of Attitude, Knowledge, and Performance
Tests for Evaluation Driver Education Curricula.
Systems Research Group, The OhioCStatePUniversity,
1974.

 

 

 

 

Parker, R. Samuel. "Using Multimedia in the Class-
room." Journal of Traffic Safety Education, April,
1977.

Pollock, W. T., and T. L. McDole. Development of a
National Item Bank for Tests of Driving Knowledge:
Final Technical Report. Ann Afbor: Highway safety
Research Institute, 1973.

 

 

 

Prothero, Jon C. "Improving the Driver Education
Curriculum." Journal of Traffic Safety Education,
April, 1975.

 

Robertson, Leon S., and Paul L. Zabor. "Driver
Education and Fatal Crash Involvement of Teenaged
Drivers.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Washington, 1979. (Mimeographed.)

Robinson, Allen. "A Post-Test for Driver Education
Based On: A Resource Curriculum in Driver and
Traffic Safety Education." Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972.

Sample, Vernon P. "A Case for Driving Simulators."
Journal of Traffic Safety Education, October, 1976.

 

Schmitt, Kara. Michigan Driver Education Evaluation
Project. Lansing: Department of Education, 1978.

Siebrecht, Elmer B. Manual of Directions: Siebrecht
Attitude Scale. New York: New York UniVersity
center fOrPSafety Education.

 

Silver, Gail H. "Driver Education and the Multimedia
Response System." Journal of Traffic Safety Educa-
tion, October, 1971.

 

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

126

Silvernale, Leslie R. and Malcom D. Whale. "Does
Driver Education Go Far Enough?" Traffic Safety,
September, 1969.

 

Smith, Donald L. "Critique of the Michigan Driver
Education Evaluation Study." Journal of Traffic
Safety Education, January, 1979.

 

 

Swensen, Raymond O. "The Development and Testing of
a Simulated Dynamic Driving Hazard Perception Test."
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976.

Tack, R. L. Iowa Driver Education Evaluation Study:
Final Report, Program Research in Driver Education,
PRIDE. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Public
Instruction, 1975.

 

U.S. Department of Commerce. A Study on Evaluation
of Driver Education. [by William A. Lybrand].
Washington, D.C.: The American University, July 31,
1968.

 

 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Driver Education
and Training: Final Report. Darien, Cdnnecticut:
Dunlap and Associates, 1968.

 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Driver Education and
TrainingProgect for the National Highway Safety
Bureau. E1 egundo, GaIifOrnia: *Institute for
Educational Development, June 30, 1968.

 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Driver Education and
Training:-Plans for Evaluating the Effdctiveness of
Programs. New York: New YorkCUniversity, May, 1968.

 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Evaluation of Driver
Education and Training Programs. [by Harry H. Harman].
‘Washington,*D.C}: ’Highway Research Board, March,
1969.

 

U.S. Department of Transportation. The Driver Educa-
tion Evaluation Program (DEEP) Study. waShington,
D.CL: ICovernment Printing Office, 1975.

Vernon, R. J., and M. B. Phillips. A Study of Public
School Driver Education in Texas. Texas Transporta-
tion Institute, Texas A & M University, 1972.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

127

Waller, Patricia F. "Have the Schools Failed?”
Paper presented to the Annual American Medical

Association--American School Health Association
Session on School Health, New York, 1973.

. "How Effective Are Driver and Traffic
Safety Programs?" Traffic Safety, July 1976.

 

Warner, W. L. "The Educational Evolution of Instruc-
tional Programs of Driver Education." Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Wisconsin, 1969.

Weaver, Jack K. "Does Quality Driver Education Pro-
duce Safer Drivers?" Journal of Traffic Safety
Education, June 1978.

 

Wenzinger, Carl J., Jr. ”Trends in Driver Educa-
tion." Journal of Traffic Safety Education,
October, 1976.

 

Winningham, Glenn. "New to Simulation? How to Get
Help." South Central Regional Educational Repre-
sentative Aetna Life & Casualty. Journal of Traffic
Safetnyducation, October, 1978.

 

 

WOrick, W. Wayne. Safety Education: Man, His
Machines, and His Envifonment. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1975.