A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP HIGH AND LOW ACCIDENT RATE MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL FARM SHOPS by Richard George Pflster AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education I960 Approved: & 2 RICHARD GEORGE PF1STER ABSTRACT Purpose To discover what significant differences exist between high and low accident rate school farm shops with regard to selected practices and conditions commonly associated with the prevention of accidents. Method Accident experience in the school farm shop was obtained from ninety-six per cent of the Michigan teachers of farm mechanics through the use of semi-annual postal card questionnaires. Schools were ranked on the basis of accident rate, and a stratified sample of eighteen high accident rate schools was made from those schools ranked below the thirtieth percentile. These schools were individually matched with eighteen low accident rate schools ranked above the sixty-ninth percentile. Identical grade level of instruction and similar amounts of student hours of exposure were used as matching criteria. Teachers in each of the thirty-six schools responded to a question­ naire designed to measure various differences. The measurable differences between high and low accident rate school farm shops were statistically compared to provide a basis for supporting or rejecting eleven null hypotheses. Findings and Interpretations Low accident rate schools scored significantly higher 3 RICHARD GEORGE PFISTSR ABSTRACT than high accident rate schools on safety recommendations associated with the: (1) use of protective equipment, (2) maintenance of tools and areas within the shop, (3) super­ vision of students, (4) attitude of the teachers, and (5) availability of power equipment and hand tools. When these five variables were combined through use of the discriminant function, the resultant compound provided a very high degree of discrimination between contrasting accident rate shops (.005> “P ^ . 00l ) . Low accident rate schools scored noticeably higher on recommended safety practices and conditions associated with the orientation of farm mechanics instruction; extent of use of instructional aids; adequacy of the school farm shop structure; and storage of tools, supplies, and projects. However, these differences were not statistically signifi­ cant . There was no recognizable difference between high and low accident rate school farm shops with regard to items associated with the qualifications of the teachers and the arrangement of the school farm shop area. The Michigan school farm shop accident rate was 1571 accidents per million student hours. Hie accident severity ratio was one physician's attention injury for every four­ teen injuries requiring first aid. 4 RICHARD GEORGE PFXSTER ABSTRACT The accident rate and severity of accidents decreased significantly between the tenth and twelfth grade. This decrease was not controlled by student maturity since it occurred between the first and second semester of each grade and not between the last semester of one grade and the first semester of the next higher grade. The findings of this study support recommendations that greater success in preventing accidents in school farm shops can be achieved by: (l) developing more positive attitudes in present and prospective teachers of farm mechanics, (2 ) providing for more consistent and complete use of protective equipment in the farm shop, (3 ) providing continuous supervision of students, with clasps sizes over fifteen students having less than 150 square feet of floor space per student being closely scrutinized, (4) providing adequate supplies of hand tools and power equipment, and (5) prompt maintenance of shop tools and shop area. In contrast, such factors as experienced teachers with long tenure, separate facilities for farm mechanics instruction only, and basing the need for improving shop lighting and ventilation on the teacher*s perception of adequacy are of questionable value in improving school farm shop safety. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HIGH AND LOW ACCIDENT RATE MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL FARM SHOPS by Richard George Pfister A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education I960 P roQ uest Num ber: 10008645 All rights reserved IN FO R M A TIO N TO A LL USER S The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy subm itted. In the unlikely even t that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript and there are m issing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a note w ill indicate the deletion. uest. P roQ uest 10008645 Published by P roQ uest LLC (2016). C opyright of the D issertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This w o rk is protected aga inst unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode M icroform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. P roQ uest LLC. 789 East E isenhow er Parkw ay P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation for the guidance and advice received from his graduate study guidance committee. Tils committee was composed of Dr. Harold M. Byram, Chairman; Dr. Raymond M. Clark; Dr. Merle L. Esmay; and Dr. William A. Mann. The author is grateful for the valuable assistance provided by Dr. William D. Baten, Michigan State University Experiment Station Statistician. Dr. Baten contributed materially to the statistical design of this study, especially In the use of discriminant functions. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to Michigan teachers of farm mechanics who cooperated so faithfully in providing the vital data required in the more macro-analysis phase of this study. The author Is especially grateful to the thirty-six teachers who also cooperated with the collection of data for the more specific comparative analysis phase of this study. This thesis is dedicated to the author's wife, Lydia M. Pflster, whose patience and understanding has contributed so fundamentally towards the undertaking and completion of this work. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. PAGE INTRODUCTION........................... 1 Study Orientation ...................... Importance of the S t u d y ......... 3 Purposes of the Study............ 5 Scope of the Study............... 6 7 Some Basic A s s u m p t i o n s ......... The Research Hypothesis ................ Definition of Terms ................... School Farm S h o p ............... 9 School Farm Shop Accident. . . . Minor Injury Accident. Major Injury Accident............ 9 Student Hours of Exposure. . . . School Farm Shop Accident Frequency Rate........................... 10 School Farm Shop Accident Severity R a t i o ........................ 10 Low Accident Rate School Farm Shops . High Accident Rate School Farm Shops. II. REVIEW OF RELATED L I T E R A T U R E ......... Agricultural Education ................ Industrial Education ................... School Safety Education ................ S u m m a r y ........................... III. PROCEDURE FOR THE S T U D Y ............... Population Survey ...................... Population Determination........ Collection of Data............... Data Summarization............... Selection of S a m p l e ............... Sampling Budget.................. Selection of High Accident RateSchools Matching B a s i s .................. Success of Matched Pairing. . . . Instrumentation..................... Data G a t h e r i n g ..................... Tabulation .............. . . . . . Item A n a l y s i s .................. 3 8 9 9 9 9 11 11 12 13 21 24 26 28 28 28 29 31 31 32 34 35 37 40 44 45 46 iv CHAPTER PAGE Statistical Analysis . Critical Ratio or t-Test. Sign Test................ Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Spearman Rank Correlation Discriminant Function. IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS. Michigan School Farm Shop Accident Situation ......................... Student Hours Scheduled . . . . Accidents by Grade Level. Accidents by Semester............ Accidents by Years of Experience . Accident Severity Ratio . . . . Differences Between High and Low Accident Rate Schools Based on Single Variables ......................... Qualifications of the Teachers. Attitude of the Teachers. Orientation of Instruction . Extent of Use of Instructional Aids Supervision of Students . . . . Adequacy of the School Farm Shop Structure ...................... Storage of Tools, Supplies and Projects......................... Availability of Power Equipment and Hand Tools . . . ............ Maintenance of Tools and Shop Area Use of Protective Equipment. Arrangement of School Farm Shop Area Differences Between High and Low Accident Rate Schools Based on Com­ binations of Variables ............ Combining the Four Variables with Suggestive Differences . . . . Combining the Five Significant Variables ...................... Rank order of Importance . 48 48 49 50 50 51 53 53 54 56 58 60 63 65 67 69 70 74 77 80 83 86 88 90 93 95 96 100 103 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104 Summary ............................ School Farm Shop Accident Situation Differences Between High and Low Accident Rate School Farm Shops . 105 105 108 V CHAPTER PAGE C o n c l u s i o n s ..................... Ill The Research Hypothesis ............ School Farm ShopSafety Perspective . Recommendations.................. 116 Farm Shop Safety Education . . . . Farm Shop Safety Research . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................. 122 A P P E N D I C E S ................................. 128 APPENDIX A — Postal Card Questionnaire . . . . APPENDIX B--Copies of Letters Which Accompanied Postal Card Questionnaire. . . . APPENDIX C--The High 30 Per Cent Accident Rate Group of School Farm Shops . . . APPENDIX D — The Low 30 Per Cent Accident Rate Group of School Farm Shops . . . APPENDIX E--Exposure and Accident Characteristics 139 of Matched Pairs........... APPENDIX F--Variables and Items Included in the S t u d y .................. l4l APPENDIX G--Questionnaire on Instructional Practices and Situations in the High . School Farm Shop............ ... APPENDIX H--Copy of Typical Letter Which Accompanied the Questionnaire . . APPENDIX I — Copy of Follow-Up Letter Requesting Return of the Questionnaire . . . APPENDIX J— Copy of Letter Which Accompanied the Second Questionnaire . . . . APPENDIX K--Item Analysis for Scoring Items . . 112 114 116 119 129 130 135 137 143 151 152 153 154 LIST OP TABLES TABLE I. II. III. IV. V. VT. VII. VIII. IX. X. PAGE Major areas studied in nine theses primarily concerned with school farm shop safety in high schools in the United States, between 1916 and 1958............................... 14 Developing a ten per cent sample budget from the grade level and student hours of exposure In 184 departments of vocational agriculture 33 Exposure and accident characteristics of the low and high accident rate schools which were Included In the sample of eighteen matched pairs............................... 39 Number of student hours in the school farm shops, as reported by 189 Michigan teachers of farm m e c h a n i c s ......................... 55 The number of accidents and accident frequency rates, by grade level of instruction in 189 Michigan high school farm shops............. 57 Accident frequency rate by year of experience in Michigan high school farm shops. . . . 62 The relationship between minor and major accidents by grade level of the students In Michigan high school farm shops............. 64 Results of statistical tests on the null hypotheses applied to eleven Independent variables, on 18 matched pairs of high and low accident rate Michigan high school farm shops.................................. 66 Observed means and differences in means of scores received on four variables as deter­ mined by high and low accident rate grdups of high schools farm s h o p s ............... 98 Analysis of variance between high and low accident rate compounds, composed of measure­ ments on four variables not individually s i g n i f i c a n t ............................... 99 vil PAGE Observed means and differences in means of scores received on five variables, as deter­ mined by high and low accident rate groups of high school farm shops................... 101 Analysis of variance of the high and low accident rate compounds composed of the five variables which were individually significant ............................... 102 Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable A--QualiflcatIons of the teacher ............................ 155 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable B — Attitude of the teacher...................................... 156 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable C--Orientation of farm mechanics instruction ...................... 157 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable D--Extent of use of visual aids ............................... 153 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable E--Supervision of students .................................. 159 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable P — Adequacy of the farm shop structure ............................ 160 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable G — Storage of tools, supplies, and projects...................... 161 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable H — Availability of power equipment and hand tools ................... 162 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable I — Maintenance of tools and shop areas ............................ 163 Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable J — Use of protective equipment .................................. 164 vill TABLE XXIII. PAGE Item analysis of scoring for questions per­ taining to variable K--Arrangement of the farm shop area............................ 166 IilST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. PAGE The proportion of total student hours reported by 189 Michigan high school farm shops, classified into four accident frequency ......................... rate groups. . 59 Michigan high school farm shop accident frequency rates by semester and grade level of instruction............................... 61 Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to teacher qualifications 68 Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to teacher attitudes . 71 Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to the orientation of farm mechanics Instruction ...................... 73 Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on Items related to extent of use of ......................... instructional aids 75 Number of cases In which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on Items related to student supervision 78 Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to adequacy of the school farm shop structure ......................... 81 Number of cases In which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on Items related to storage of tools, supplies, and projects ...................... 85 Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to availability of power equipment and hand tools ................... 87 X FIGURE 11. 12. 13. PAGE Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to maintenance of tools and shop area............................... 89 Number of cases In which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on Items related to use of protective e q u i p m e n t .................................. 92 Number of cases In which one of the schools In a matched pair received the higher score on Items related to arrangement of the farm shop a r e a .................................. 94 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Instruction In farm mechanics was recognized as a part of the agricultural course of study in Michigan high schools as early as 1924. Indications are that the first farm mechanics instruction was provided by the industrial arts teacher in the industrial arts laboratory. By 1937, the State Board of Control for Vocational Education had placed more emphasis on agricultural aspects of farm mechanics instruction. By the 1937-38 school year, over 100 of the 227 vocational agriculture departments In Michigan offered farm mechanics instruction.1 In 1939 j. standards of minimum requirements for the teacher of farm mechanics were developed to "assure meaningful instruction" In the types of work necessary on farms. From 1939 to the present, all teachers of farm mechanics were required to be certified by the State Board of Control for Vocational Education. Rufus W. Stimson and Frank W. Lathrop, History of Agricultural Education of Less Than College Grade In the United states. V o c . Bulletin No. 217 (Washington, D. C T : U. S. Office of Education, 1942), pp. 219-226 . 2Ibid., pp. 228-229- o 2 Since the incipiency of farm mechanics instruction there has been increasing recognition of the need for the type of instruction and environment that would contribute towards the development of safe and efficient student work practices. The Michigan Education Association recognized the financial responsibility of teachers for prudent and intelligent action in preventing student injury while the students are within the school’s jurisdiction. In Sept­ ember, 195^* a $10,000 group liability Insurance policy was established for all Michigan Education Association members, in order to cover a portion of this financial r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .^ Kindschy stated that teachers of farm mechanics must also recognize a moral responsibility to promote accident free experiences in their school farm shop.^ Farming has established an accident frequency rate which is exceeded only by the extractive and construction industries. During 1958, 3*300 fatal farm work accidents and 300,000 farm work injuries were recorded In the United States. This phenomenon is not compatible with the 3 Herman Henkel, "Now--Liability Insurance for All M.E.A. Members," Michigan Educational Journal, September 1, 1954, p. 1 3 . \)wight L. Kindschy, "Can You Prove You Have Taught Shop Safety?," Agricultural Education Magazine, No. 24 (April, 1952 5, P . 2 S S . -----5 Accident Pacts, 1959 Edition, National Safety Council, 425 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago 11, Illinois, p.80. 3 objective to develop proficiency in farming, nor is it compatible with the objectives of vocational agriculture that recognize the importance of the individual. Phlpp3 recognized that instruction in farm mech­ anics provides an opportunity for teachers of vocational agriculture to help students develop safe habits needed in all farming activity. In order to use this opportunity to the greatest advantage, teachers need to know the characteristics which are most directly associated with successful farm mechanics safety programs. I. STUDY ORIENTATION Importance of the Study Summaries of studies in agricultural education^ do not list any research, in the entire Central Region of the United States, in which safety In the school farm shop was of primary concern. Michigan teacher educators have no factual information which will even recognize the scope of the accident situation In the school farm shops. Progress in reducing accidental waste of human and physical resources must challenge every teacher who is con­ cerned with developing higher levels of proficiency in ^Lloyd J. Phipps and Others, Farm Mechanics Text and Handbook (Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Pub­ lishers, 195*0, P* 23. ^ Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Vocational Education Bulletin l8o7 including supplements nos. 1 ,2 ,3 ,4,5 ,6,7 ,8 ,9 ,10,11,and 12**iich list studies through the 1957-58 academic year (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, June, 1959). 4 present and prospective farmers, 'nils challenge can be met more effectively by providing the type of instruction and the kind of environment that will aid in the develop­ ment of student attitudes, habits, and abilities which enable the student to more successfully cope with the hazards of his environment. Stack and Elkow stated that accident frequency rates provide a base from which to measure the effective­ ness of a safety education program and serve as a basis Q for revision of the program. Since the high school farm shop accident frequency rate has not been established, there is no information regarding the level of success that Michigan teachers have reached in school farm shop safety education. Carelessness and hurry are frequently suggested as the main causes of accidents. It may be more valid to suggest that carelessness and hurry are only phenomena that are frequently observed at the time of an accident. TJiere may be a multitude of conditions and practices which nurture the development and association of this or other phenomena with the occurrence of accidents. o Herbert J. Stack and J. Duke Elkow, Education for Safe Living (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19577, P. 29. 5 We have not progressed to the extent that any of these underlying causes of school farm shop accidents have been Identified. Without such progress, school farm 3hop safety programs can only be based on opinion, reason, and logic. The foundation for school farm shop safety education must be based on the results of scientific investigation. Purposes of the Study The specific purposes of this study were as follows: 1. To develop a method for making a comparative analysis of selected characteristics of high and low accident rate high school farm shops. 2. To determine the school farm shop accident frequency rate and severity ratio for the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade levels of instruction in Michigan high school farm shops. 3. To identify a group of high accident rate school farm shops and a group of low accident rate school farm shops, whose accident experience variability is due to other factors than grade level and extent of student hours of school farm shop work. 4. To discover what differences exist between high and low accident rate high school farm shops, with regard to a number of items within eleven selected variables which are purported to prevent shop accidents. 6 Scope of the Study Hiis study was limited to Michigan high schools offering vocational agriculture during the 1957-58 school year. It was further limited to all-day students in those schools which offer farm mechanics instruction in the school farm shop. The basic data needed for establishing the various accident frequency rates were collected during the 1957-58 and 1958-59 school years. Eighty per cent of the teachers with school farm shops cooperated in reporting a full year's accident experience, while an additional sixteen per cent reported one semester’s experience. This amounted to 157 and 32 schools, respectively, out of the population of 197 schools. Characteristics which were included ih this study were selected from those practices and situations which past school farm shop safety studies had shown as popular, recom­ mended, or otherwise implicated with the safety program of teachers of farm mechanics. The more intensive comparative analysis aspect of this study was based on a twenty per cent sample of the schools who cooperated in reporting school farm shop accident experience. This amounts to a nineteen per cent sample of the total population of Michigan high school farm shops, or thirty-six schools. 7 Some Basic Assumptions Certain assumptions were considered rather basic in approaching the problem and designing the study. These assumptions were: 1. In general, it is desirable to introduce those school farm shop safety practices and develop those aspects of school farm shop environment that are identified as characteristics of high school farm shops having low accident frequency rates. 2. Statistically significant differences between the traits of high and low accident rate school farm shops provide an Indication of what may be some of the underlying causes of school farm shop accidents. 3. Teachers of farm mechanics in Michigan are capable and willing to provide accurate Informa­ tion about their practices and the physical environment in their school’s farm shop. 4. Teachers of farm mechanics will be able to accurately recall the frequency and seriousness of accidents that have occurred during one semester’s experience in their school farm shop, if they respond within a period of six months from the beginning of the semester being reported. 5. The total Impact of the Individual psycho- physical factors of the students In eac h of the 8 schools selected In this study will not provide excessive bias to those characteristics being considered in this comparative analysis. IX. THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS The framework of this study is designed to test the research hypothesis that low accident rate high school farm shops exhibit traits which are more compatible with current safety recommendations than are the traits of the high accident rate schools. From this research hypothesis, eleven null hypotheses were developed. These null hypotheses contend that there would be no difference between the high and low accident rate school farm shops with relation to: 1. qualifications of the teachers. 2. attitude of the teachers. 3. orientation aspects of farm mechanics instruction. 4. extent of use of instructional aids. 5. supervision of students. 6. adequacy of the school farm shop structure. 7. storage of tools, supplies, and projects. 8. availability of power equipment and hand tools. 9. maintenance of tools and areas within the school farm shop. 10. use of protective equipment. 11 . arrangement of the school farm shop area. 9 III. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following definitions are pertinent in classifying the techniques and findings of this study. School Farm Shop The building, area, or room provided by the school district for the purpose of providing organized instruction and work experience in the farm mechanics phases of voca­ tional agriculture. School Farm Shop Accident A school farm shop accident 13 recognized by the occurrence of an unintended personal injury which requires elementary first aid and/or a physician’s treatment. Minor Injury Accident That accident which requires first aid treatment only, with no apparent need for a physician's treatment or attention. Major Injury Accident That accident which results In impairment of some part of the body to the extent that a physician's attention or treatment is required. Student Hours of Exposure The sum of the total hours of farm mechanics instruc­ tion scheduled by each student In the school farm shop. 10 Therefore, ten student hours of exposure are equivalent to five students spending two hours of scheduled farm mechanics work in the school farm shop* This term is commonly refer­ red to as student hours. School Farm Shop Accident Frequency Rate The number of accidents per million scheduled student hours. For example, an accident rate of 1506 is equal to 1.506 accidents per thousand student hours. The million student hour base was used to be in accordance with other accident frequency rate definitions used by the National Safety Council.^ This rate also eliminates the need for fractional or decimal expressions. The reciprocal of accident rate is student hours of work per accident, and this is obtained by dividing accident rate into one million. Conversely, accident rate can be obtained by dividing student hours worked per accident into one million. This provides a standard base for accident experience analysis. School Farm Shop Accident Severity Ratio The relationship between the number of minor injury accidents per major injury accident. The severity ratio is obtained by dividing the total number of minor injury accidents by the total number of major injury accidents. ^ Accident FactSj op. clt., p. 9 7 . 11 Low Accident Rate School Farm Shops For the purposes of this study, those school farm shop accident rates which are lower than sixty-six per cent of shops in the study population are considered to have a low accident rate. High Accident Rate School Farm Shops For the purposes of this study, those school farm shop accident rates which are higher than sixty-six per cent of the other shops in the study population are con­ sidered to have a high accident rate. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Safety education research is in its infancy in com­ parison with some other fields of endeavor. Between 1930 and 1956, over 3000 master's theses1 and 420 doctoral dissertations were produced in the field of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. In comparison, Yost found 307 graduate theses on school safety which were written between 1925 and 1950 In the United States.3 The first reported thesis in safety education was a doctoral study made in 1927 by Ruth Streitz at Columbia 2i University. Hie first postgraduate study on school farm shop safety was a master's thesis completed in 1946 by Gordon Baldwin at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.5 *T. K. Cureton, Master's Theses in Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (National Education Association, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1952), p. 2. 2 T. K. Cureton, D octorate Theses Reported by Graduate Departments of Health, ‘FEysical Education, and Recreation"] iq^O-1946, Inclusive^ (National Education Association, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1949)> P- 1* ^Charles Peter Yost, "An Analysis of Graduate Theses In School Safety In the United States from 1925 to 1950" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1956). ^Stack and Brody, op. clt., p. 11. 5 Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, loc. clt*: ’ 13 I. AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION In the field of agricultural education, fifteen studies are reported which relate to school farm shop £ safety. These studies consist of nine master's theses and six master's problems. The master's theses were con­ cerned with programs of safety in farm mechanics in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The accumulated summaries of studies list a total of 2612 studies, of which 189 are concerned with the farm mechanics aspect of instruction in vocational agriculture.^ School farm shop safety was of primary concern in 6.8 per cent of the farm mechanics studies, or in .5 per cent of the total number of studies reported in agricultural edu­ cation. The nine master's theses concerned with safety in the farm shop can be further broken down into areas of study. This is presented in Table I. Only one master's thesis made any effort to evaluate methods employed in teaching safety. Almost all theses attempted to determine the number and nature of accidents and establish apparent causes or agents involved in the accident phenomena. Ibid. 7Ibld. 14 TABLE I — Major areas studied In nine theses primarily concerned with school farm shop safety in high schools in the United States, between 1916 and 1958. Areas Studied in Investigations Involving School Farm Shop Safety No. of Theses Concerned With Tnls Area Number and nature of accidents 8 Apparent causes and/or agents involved in accidents 7 Planning safety programs, on basis of teacher's opinion 5 Status of teaching methods, use of safety techniques, et cetera 4 Evaluate methods employed in teaching safety 1 15 o Master's theses completed by Baldwin, Craig,^ Bums,^ Nordberg,^ Melvin,12 Frye,1^ and C a r n e y ^ report the number of accidents occurring in school farm shops, but do not Indicate the amount of time which students spent in the school farm shop during the accident reporting period. For instance, Baldwin1^ discovered 250 serious accidents in 100 school farm shops over a five year period; ^Gordon Lee Baldwin, 11The Development of a Safety Program for School Farm Shops” (unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 19^6). ^Paul McMinn Burns, ”Accidents in Vocational Agricul­ ture Shops in Pennsylvania” (unpublished Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State College, 1951)* 1(“*Frank R. Craig, "Safety and the Use of Power Equip­ ment in North Carolina School Farm Shops" (unpublished Master’s thesis, North Carolina State College, 1951)* Carl 0. Nordberg, ”A Study Concerning Accidents and the Prevention of Accidents in the Vocational Agriculture Farm Mechanics Shops of Pennsylvania" (unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State College, 1952). 12Jefferson R. Melvin, "School Shop Safety Programs of Selected Departments of Vocational Agriculture in Ten North Carolina Counites" (unpublished Master's thesis, The Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina, 1954). ■^Thomas Neil Frye, "Safety Programs in the High School Farm Shops in Oklahoma" (unpublished Master's thesis, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1955). '1''*John Vf. Carney, "Farm Shop Safety Program for Vocational Agriculture Departments in Tennessee” (unpub­ lished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1958). 1^Baldwin, loc. clt. 16 Frye discovered 116 Injury accidents In 40 school farm shops over a five year period with 20.7 per cent requiring a 16 doctor’s attention; Nordberg found 56 doctor’s injury accidents in 185 school farm shops during a one year p e ri o d ; ^ and Melvin reported 23 accidents within 23 school farm shops l8 over a four year period. The nature of this type of acci­ dent reporting did not permit the authors to determine the significance of any noted differences in frequency of acci­ dents, since such differences might be entirely due to the amount of time spent in the farm shop. Different definitions of an accident were also recognized which would make com­ parison highly speculative. However, previous studies did point out that school farm shop accidents were not very unusual in the groups of schools covered by these studies. Frye found twice as many accidents occurred with second IQ year boys as any other class. * Nordberg reported that 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grade classes had 12, 39, 27, and 20 per cent of the reported school farm shop accidents in Pennsylvania. 20 Neither of these authors indicated whether this ■^^Frye, op. cit., p. 34. ^Nordberg, op. cit., p. 14. ^^Melvin, op. cit., p. 5 2 . 1^prye, op. cit., p. 34. 2^Nordberg, op. cit., p. 14. 17 apparent difference was significant, nor was this apparent difference in number of accidents compared with the differ­ ence in amount of time spent in the school farm shop at the various grade levels. A study by Entrekin was the only investigation located that attempted to establish a farm shop accident rate. 21 This attempt was based on a sample of 101 teachers in a selected geographical area in North Carolina. After the original survey data were received a considerable amount of irrelevant data was discovered, necessitating the preparation and distribution of a supplementary questionnaire. 22 The supplementary questionnaire was handed out to teachers at a state convention in 1951- This questionnaire required that teachers recall the number of injuries that occurred in their first year, advanced, young farmer, and adult farmer classes; and the number of students enrolled and hours spent in each of these classes during the 19^7 to 1950 school years. Entrekin reported .41 accidents per 1000 hours of shop work for first year students, and .33 accidents per 1000 hours of shop work for advanced s t u d e n t s . j j o further analysis was reported concerning whether any statistically 21Wayne G. Entrekin, "A Study of Some of the Factors Which Affect Shop Safety in Vocational Agriculture" (unpub­ lished Master's thesis, Clemson Agricultural College, 1952). 22Ibid., pp. 6-7. 23Ibid., p. 2 2 . significant differences were present. These findings would suggest school farm shop accident rates (accidents per mil­ lion student hours) of 410 and 330 for freshmen and advanced students, respectively. Entrekin's accident rates may not provide a basis for comparison due to the possibility of gross error in recalling accident experience and student exposure over such a long period of time. The teachers were asked to recall injuries, hours of instruction, and number of students enrolled over a three year period, within four different groups. Apparently, teachers were asked to recall situations and accident events that may have occurred as much as four and one-half years previous to the survey date. Entrekin used the number of accidents reported as a basis for establishing groups of the eight poorest and the oh eight best safety records7 It was shown that a greater number of the eight shops with the "best" safety record exhibited such traits as the use of guards on all machines, use of personal protective devices, adequately lighted shops, shops cleaned daily, use of color dynamics, and required supervision of all students. The eight shops with the "best" safety record also reported an average of 340 more square feet of total floor area and teachers with more tenure and more college credits in "shop work." 24Ibld., p. 44. No statistical analysis 19 of the significance of these observed differences was re­ ported. Entrekin concluded that a good safety record may be composed of a combination of safety factors. Nordberg used an "accident to machine ratio" in deter­ mining what equipment was most frequently involved in school farm shop accidents requiring a doctor1s care. He found that table saws were the most frequently involved with a ratio of one accident per 13 machines, followed by jointers with a one to 21 ratio and band saws with a one to 25 ratio. 2 Carelessness was listed the most frequently as the cause of power equipment accidents. Burns used a "tool accident rate" to determine which tools were involved in the greatest number of accidents 27 requiring first aid or doctor’s attention. The jointer was involved in more accidents than any other power tool and the wood chisel had the highest tool accident rate of all. A close relationship was reported between high tool accident rates and tools that teachers considered most dangerous. The forty-one teachers of farm mechanics included in this study indicated that carelessness was the chief cause of accidents. Melvin visited twenty-three departments of vocational agriculture to analyze the status of their safety program. 25Ibid., p. 45. 2^Nordberg, op. cit., p. 24. 2^Burns, op. cit., P* 24. 20 A checklist on school farm shop safety was developed and used to determine the kinds of practices being carried out. The checklist was divided into areas of safety Inspections, shop construction, housekeeping, equipment, personal protec­ tive devices, and teaching aids used to promote safety. A wide range of practices were being adopted by a majority of the teachers, but only twenty-eight per cent used color dynamics; nine per cent had painted safety zones; twenty-six per cent owned respirators; and less than ten per cent used contests, a suggestion box, or pledges to promote safety. Teachers listed student carelessness, failure to carry out instructions, and horseplay as the major causes of accidents. Carney found that teachers reported carelessness, not observing safety rules, not using safety guards, and lack of proper instruction as the major causes of accidents to students in the school farm shop.2^ This study, like those of Nordberg, Melvin, and Burns, did not consider what under­ lying factors may have supported the development of careless­ ness and other phenomena observed at the time of the accident. Foster used a checklist to determine the status of safety practices in fourteen selected school farm shops in 28Me Ivin, op. cit., pp. 30, 39-^2 . 29 Carney, loc. cit. 21 Maryland. 30 Six months after the first interview, the same checklist was submitted to the same teachers to determine whether any change in the adoption of safety practices had occurred. A Chi-Square test showed a significant increase in adoption of sixteen out of the twenty tool safety prac­ tices listed. Foster concluded that the results of his study justify the need for the formulation and adoption of a carefully prepared list of school farm shop safety prac­ tices . Melvin identified the following four areas of school farm shop safety in which further research was needed. 31 1. The effect of teacher’s experience, student enroll­ ment, number of periods of farm mechanics instruction, and the size of the shop on the farm shop accident rate. 2. The types of safety devices which are most effective in promoting farm shop safety among all-day vocational agriculture students. 3. What effect supervisory visits would have on the adoption of safety practices. 4. What grade levels have the greatest proportion of accidents. II. INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION Some of the findings of safety research in vocational Industrial and industrial arts education are applicable to 3^Wendell M. Foster, "Adoption of Farm Shop Safety Practices by Maryland Negro Teachers of Vocational Agricul­ ture as a Result of Attention to a Specially Prepared Check­ list" (unpublished Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State College, 1953). 3lMelvln, op. cit., p. 55. 22 school farm shop safety. The United States Office of Edu­ cation lists 3801 industrial education studies that were completed between 1930 and 1 9 5 5 . This reference lists ninety-seven studies (or 2,5 per cent) oriented towards safety. Ninety of these studies were carried out as master's theses and seven as doctoral dissertations. Some of the studies in industrial education were initiated as a direct response to the demands of industry that the educational system do something to better prepare students for safe performance on the job in industrial plants.33 Estabrooke studied the specific phases of safety and health that were taught or recommended by shop teachers.3^ He discovered a multitude of methods, devices, and practices were being used or recommended for developing greater shop safety. Of the 3^2 teachers who participated in the survey, seventy-five per cent used group safety demonstrations, eighty-seven per cent used safety talks, and forty-two per cent invited in resource speakers to provide safety instruc­ tion. Estabrooke recommended that future study of this problem might be conducted by determining the relative value 32 Research in Industrial Education. Summaries of Studies Between 193# and Vocational Division Bulletin No. 264 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1957). 33carlis C. Davis, "An Analysis of General Safety Edu­ cation for Industry and Vocational Shops with Specific Recom­ mendations for Wood Shops and Machine Shops" (unpublished Master's thesis, North Texas State Teachers College,1943). 3^Edward C. Estabrooke,, "Safety and Health Instruction and Practice in School Shop (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State College, 1939). 23 of the methods and devices suggested in his study, by con­ ducting a parallel group experiment.35 Fillingham determined that ninety per cent of the shop instructors in southwestern Michigan teach safety by inte­ grating it with other shop subjects.36 Ninety per cent of these teachers also used safety lectures and periodical safety inspections in promoting safety. Fillingham recom­ mended a study of accident prevention policies to determine the effectiveness of such policies in the prevention of 37 accidents. Hughes discovered that industrial arts departments in teacher training institutions offering bachelor's degrees in industrial arts education were deficient in setting good safety examples for prospective teachers. Hughes recognized accident causation terms were often meaningless and reclassi­ fied the causes of accidents by using more descriptive terms. The reclassified causation factors were segregated into such categories as unsafe practices, student inability, faulty instruction, poor housekeeping, lack of concentration, 35ibld., p. 214. 3 Hrfallace F. Fillingham, "A Study of Safety Education in Secondary School Shops in Southwestern Michigan” (unpub­ lished Master's thesis, Western Michigan College of Edu­ cation, 1953). 37Ibid., p. 51. 3 vtfayne P. Hughes, "Safety Procedures in the School Shop” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1942), p. 103. 24 mentally unfit, physical hazards, physically unfit, defective equipment, improper working conditipns, improper dress and apparel, improper planning, and unsafe building conditions, Gjeston obtained indications of the relative impor­ tance shop teachers placed on various instructional m e t h o d s . 39 Hie use of demonstrations, motion pictures, posters, photo­ graphs, and film strips received the highest ratings as in­ structional methods. No studies were located which based recommendations on a comparison of the traits of low accident rate school shops with those of school shops having high accident rates. After completing an analysis of graduate theses in school safety, Yost concluded that shop safety research shows that the methods of safety instruction in school shops vary and no one best method had been developed.1*0 it was recognized that demonstrations on the proper use of machines, the use of safety rules, and several other practices were highly regarded by teachers of various shop courses. Ill. SCHOOL SAFETY EDUCATION The field of safety education is developing a body of research findings that may help in solving some common safety 39p/iathew E. Gjestson, ’'Safety in the Use of Woodworking Power Machinery" (unpublished Master’s thesis, Stout Institute, 1940). **°Yost, op. cit., pp. 332-333. 25 problems. There are also some rather significant needs in this field. A review of some of the completed research on the 4l doctoral or equivalent level reveals that some phases of safety education have received considerable attention while other areas have been relatively neglected. Driver education and highway safety appear to have received the greatest amount of attention. After completing a rather comprehensive study of school safety research literature, Yost recommended fifteen areas needing further study. mechanics instruction. Four of these were related to farm iip a. A study of ways and means through which home and farm safety education can be promoted. b. A study of present practices and methods used to insure safety in specific areas (school shops, athletics, traffic, etc.). c. A study of the values of one particular method of safety instruction as compared to another method of safety instruction. d. A study to evaluate the school safety program or any part thereof. Birnbach conducted a comparative type study with general safety implications. Birnbach analyzed the personal character­ istics of junior high school boys, comparing accident ^ W a l t e r A. Cutler and J. Duke Elkow, Twenty-Five Years of Research in Safety Education (New Yorlcl Center for Safety Education, New York University, 1951). ^ Y o s t , op. cit., pp. 410-411. 26 repeaters with accident free p u p i l s . Accident free pupils were better informed about safety practices and were better adjusted to home and school conditions than were the accident repeaters. Birnbach recommended that extensive research be carried out in analyzing the physical, mental, emotional, and environmental factors that result in accidents to children. ^ IV. SUMMARY Most of the research in school farm shop safety has been concerned with the number and nature of accidents, apparent causes or agents involved, the status of the program, and planning programs on the basis of those safety factors which were highly regarded by teachers of farm mechanics. Entre- kin's thesis was the only study located which attempted to evaluate physical situations and practices employed by teachers with varying degrees of success in teaching safety in the school farm shop. Melvin pointed out the need for further research on the effect of various characteristics of the teacher, class, and facility on the farm shop accident rate. ^Sidney B. Birnbach, "A Comparative Study of Accident Repeaters and Accident Free Pupils (unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1948). 44 Ibid., p. 103. 27 Vocational Industrial and Industrial arts shop safety research has been quite extensive. T^iis research is still at the stage of determining the status of various practices and situations without much analysis of the relationship of these traits to successful or unsuccessful safety programs. After completing their doctoral dissertations, Estabrooke, Birnbach, and Yost each presented recommendations that research be conducted to discover the relative value of the various practices and methods that were being recommended by those who teach in school shops. The preceding review of literature relating to school farm shop safety indicates that considerable information had been provided on what safety practices and conditions teachers valued most highly. Some states also had consid­ erable information on the number of accidents, the agents involved in the injury and the apparent causes associated with injuries. A number of those authors who had recently completed shop safety research saw a need for additional research to determine what effectual relationship might exist between the recommended practices and conditions and the safety record in school shops. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE FOR THE STUDY The approach to this problem was determined as a result of experiences in a vocational education seminar during the winter term of 1957 > at Michigan State University. The final study design was determined with the counsel of the author's graduate study guidance committee. The procedure used in carrying out this study was concerned with the following six major types of activity: (l) population survey, (2 ) selection of sample, (3 ) instru­ mentation, (4) data gathering, (5) tabulation, and (6 ) statistical analysis. This chapter will examine the various aspects of each of these activities. I. POPULATION SURVEY This phase of the study was concerned with estab­ lishing the school farm shop accident perspective. Included In this perspective were the accident rates and severity ratios of Michigan school farm shops. Population Determination The population of this study consisted of all voca­ tional agriculture departments offering farm mechanics instruction In the high school farm shop during the 1957-58 29 and/or 1953-59 school years. This was obtained from the farm mechanics category of Supplementary Information Form No. 243, which was completed by all Michigan vocational agriculture departments and held on file with the Office of Vocational Education, Michigan Department of Public Instruction.^* Tiie 197 vocational agriculture departments listed as offering farm mechanics Instruction in the 1957-53 and/or 1953-59 school years were accepted as the total population of Michigan schools which could be directly associated with school farm shop accidents. Collection of Data A brief postal card questionnaire was developed for the collection of basic facts regarding the extent of exposure and the frequency and severity of accidents In school farm shops. 2 No attempt was made to identify tools or other injury transmitting agents Involved in accident situations. The postal card questionnaire was mailed to the study population after the close of the first semester and again after the close of the second semester of the 1957-53 school year. Responses were received from farm mechanics teachers 1"Supplementary Information on Departments of Vocational Agriculture," Form No. 243, Office of Vocational Education, Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan. 2 Appendix A. 30 In eighty-five per cent of the schools in the population, with forty-six per cent returning both first and second semester postal card questionnaires. A follow-up survey was conducted during the 1958-59 school year to obtain additional accident experience. That portion of the population that had not reported first semester accident experience was sent a postal card ques­ tionnaire after the end of the first semester of the 1958-59 school year. At the close of the second semester of the 1958-59 school year, that portion of the population which had not reported both first and second semester experience were sent the postal card questionnaire. Therefore, a minimum of two and a maximum of four letters was sent to each teacher of farm mechanics, providing him with the postal card questionnaire and inviting his participation.^ This data-collecting system yielded information from ninety-six per cent of thi3 study'3 population, or 189 of the 197 schools that offered work experience in the school farm shop. A total of eighty per cent of the study's popu­ lation reported a full year's experience, while 16 per cent reported one semester's experience. The remaining four per cent of the population did not participate in this phase of the study. Appendix B. 31 Data Summarization Data collected in the population survey were used to establish school farm shop accident rate3 for each school. These accident rates were then used to establish ranks among schools from best to poorest safety record. Schools not reporting any accidents during the year were ranked on the basis of student hours of accident-free experience, with schools having the greater amount of student hours of accident-free experience receiving higher rank. Five of the schools discontinued instruction in vocational agriculture during the 1953-59 school year and were dropped, leaving ranks for 184 schools. The accident frequency rate data were further analyzed to discover various population traits and characteristics of the individual schools making up the population. This analysis served as a basis for selecting the sample. II. SELECTION OF SAMPLE This activity was concerned with using the basic knowledge obtained from the previous population survey to select a matched pair sample of high and low accident rate school farm shops which could be subjected to an Intensive comparative analysis. Siegal indicated that the matched pair sample technique may be effectively used to compare 32 one group which has undergone certain treatment with one which has undergone a different treatment.** To facilitate appropriate matched pair sampling a sampling budget was established; high accident rate schools were selected to meet the budget demands; low accident rate schools were matched with the selected high accident rate schools on the basis of two exposure characteristics; and finally, the success of the matched pairing process was analyzed. These four procedures will be discussed individ­ ually . Sampling Budget An effort was made to select a sample which would reflect the various grade levels of instruction and total student hours of exposure of the schools in the study population. The previous population survey permitted the establishment of specific strata in the population on the basis of student hours of exposure in the school farm shop. These strata were further divided into grade combination subdivisions. Table II indicates the characteristics of the population with regard to these strata and their subdivisions. A ten per cent sample budget provided numerical re­ quirements within each stratum and stratum subdivision ^Sidney Siegal, Nonparametrlc Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-klii Book Company, 195b), PP- bl-fo^. I 0 rH Q>-p a co o S 0 Ph CO cd d fH 00 o *rH d cd 43 o o £ 'd k4 ■OW co co o o 2 bO Or d O *H p4 d o Ph CD 43 d 0 •d 4h o i WsAh VO O »>s «H rH 43 d 43 <8 rH rH d C O C O CM rH GO Ph 43 d o 0)00 S 0) co 42 O 43 a K 42 0)43 0 1 cd £ 43 • 0 O Ph 43 d GO 0 o d p. •d X 0 *d 0 43 GO d d 0 T3 43 d O 43 d CO to cd *rH T O I O Ph d O 42 * 0) rH 42 cd Ph cd O* B O o 43 Cd Ph 43 GO U-* o rH 0 > 0 rH 0 «H 43 GO 43 *H 43 8 * * cd #Selected sample. accident TABLE II— Developing a ten per cent sample budget from the grade level and student hours of exposure in 184 departments of vocational agriculture. 0 42 O • 43 0) s O cd *d 0 sample was made from high accident rate schools and was 50 per cent of the total The total sample was composed of the selected sample as matched with 18 low rate schools. 33 34 which would approximately reflect a ten per cent image of the grade combinations and amounts of student exposure in Michigan school farm shops. Accident rates based on less than 1000 student hours of work experience were extremely sensitive to a single accident. Therefore, the nineteen schools that offered less than 1000 student hours of instruction per year in the school farm shop were excluded from the sample budget. The sample reflects the eighty- seven per cent of the population that had over 1000 student hours of exposure in the school farm shop per year. Selection of High Accident Hate Schools The accident frequency rate ranking, from best to poorest safety record, was intersected at the thirtieth percentile and all schools distributed below the thirtieth percentile were classified as the high accident rate group. There were four factors which qualified a high acci­ dent rate school farm shop for further consideration in selecting the sample. 1. These factors were: More than 1000 student hours of exposure in the school farm shop. 2. Teachers had not changed positions since the time when accident experience was reported. 3. A complete year’s farm shop work experience must have been reported by the school. ^Appendix C. 4. The grade sequence In which instruction in the farm shop is scheduled must be among those Included in the sample budget. A total of thirty-three of the fifty-three schools in the high accident rate group met these four qualifications. The sample selection was made from these thirty-three qualified schools. Starting with the highest accident rate school, the sample was selected on the basis of the grade levels and amount of student hours demanded by the sampling budget. Selections were continued from higher to lower accident rates until the needs of the sample budget were satisfied and the eighteen high accident rate schools were estab­ lished .^ Matching Basis The accident frequency rate ranking, from best to poorest safety records, was intersected at the seventieth percentile and all schools distributed at or above the seventieth percentile were termed the low accident rate group. A low accident rate school was required to meet the following qualifications for further consideration as a mate to one of the selected high accident rate schools: Ibid. 36 1. Teachers had not changed positions since the time when the accident experience was reported. 2. A complete year's farm shop work experience must have been reported by the school. A total of thirty-four of the fifty-five schools in the low accident rate group met these two qualifications. Mates for the selected eighteen high accident rate schools were subsequently established from these thirty-four low 7 accident rate schools. The matching process consisted of beginning with the highest accident rate school (which was previously selected and identified as school Number 182) and seeking to find a mate in the low accident group that most nearly matched the grade combination and total hours of school farm shop exposure in this high accident rate school. was selected as this mate. 8 School Number 9 This matching procedure con­ tinued until all high accident rate schools were matched. It was impossible to find a suitable mate for school Number 152 in the low thirty per cent accident rate group, since there were no schools in this group offering approxi­ mately 5080 student hours of shop experience in a tenth grade class. However school Number 58 offered 4830 student hours of experience in a tenth grade class, but it was located at the thirty-second percentile of the accident rate ^Appendix D. 8I b i d . 37 distribution. It was subjectively determined to include school Number 58 in the study rather than mate school Number 58 with school Number 8 which offered only 3114 student hours of farm shop experience in the tenth grade.^ The matched pairs were subsequently ranked on the basis of range between accident rates of the two schools. Therefore, Case No. 1 has the greatest range in accident frequency rate, but the extent and grade level of farm shop exposure are highly similar.^ Success of Matched Pairing There was perfect agreement between all matched pairs with regard to the grade level at which farm mechanics instruction was offered in the school farm shop. Although each school in a matched pair provided Instruction at identical grade levels, this course offering resulted In some variation in the amount of student hours of exposure in the farm shop. A successfully paired group of matched pairs would have a high degree of relationship with regard to the amount of exposure In the school farm shop. To determine the relative success of pairing on the basis of extent of exposure, It was advisable to determine the degree of positive correlation which was associated 9Ibld. 10Appendix S. 38 with this factor. Ttoe following formula was applied to determine this correlation:11 r18 - S_1 + 2 S2 Sx - Sd S2 where 2 s variance of low accident rate group „ 2 Sg a variance of high accident rate group 2 S3 s variance of the difference between high and low accident rate pairs. A positive correlation coefficient of .91 was found with regard to the similarity of the extent of exposure in the sample of high and low accident rate school farm shops. A comparison of characteristics of the eighteen high and eighteen low accident rate school farm shops is shown in Table III. This represents a twenty per cent sample of the schools participating in the previous population survey, or an 18.7 per cent sample of the study population. The sample appeared to be fairly successful in associating all variation in accident rate between matched pairs with other factors than the grade level of the students and the amount of student hours of experience in the school farm shop. ■^George W. Snedecor, Statistical Methods (Fifth edition; Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Coliege Press, 1957), p. 186. 39 TABLE III--Exposure and accident characteristics of the low and high accident rate schools which were Included in the sample of eighteen matched pairs. Low Acc. Rate Group High Acc. Rate Group 27,858 8,950 8,512 45,320 27.558 9,922 6,338 43,818 55,416 18,872 14,850 89,138 Average student hours per school* 2,517 2,434 2,476 Average accident rate 159 4,286 7 1 8 170 15 185 Item Student hours by grade: 10 11 12 Total Number of accidents: Minor Major Total Total 177 16 193 * Success of pairing on basis of student hours of exposure yielded a positive correlation of .91 between matched pairs. 40 III. INSTRUMENTATION A device was needed which would measure the differ­ ences which exist between the eighteen matched pairs in relation to the eleven specific hypotheses being tested in this study. A questionnaire was selected as the most efficient Instrument to determine comparative practices and situations of the thirty-six school farm shops. Complete absence of financial assistance for this study demanded that the mail be used for distributing, administering, and returning the questionnaire. In order for a practice or situation to be available for measurement, it must be found quite frequently in the sample. Related research which sought to determine what practices were being used and/or what conditions existed in school farm shops was used as a guide in developing the content of the questionnaire. A second guide was that the practices and conditions selected had to be measureable by a questionnaire. Eleven Independent variables were recognized in the eleven specific hypotheses which were being tested in this study. Listing these variables as sub-headings, specific factors which were involved in the establishment of the characteristics of each variable were subsequently 41 listed. 12 An effort was made to limit the factors or items listed under each variable to those which would offer the best opportunity for variance. For instance, Nordberg found that ninety-nine per cent of the teachers in Pennsylvania provided goggles for operators of grinders and wood lathes; ninety-seven per cent of the school farm shops had properly insulated electrical conductors; and seven per cent of the teachers used a student safety committee in the school farm shops. 13 ^ Fillinghara reported that less than two per cent of eighty-seven shop teachers in southwestern Michigan l4 used safety bulletin boards. These items are typical of those which were discarded, not on the basis of "good or poor" quality, but on the basis that very little variance would be expected with relation to such items as these. After establishing the items which were to be included within each variable, an appropriate objective question, which could be used to measure response to each item of concern, was placed on a bibliography card. In order to encourage the cooperation of the teachers of farm mechanics, it was decided to arrange the items that were to be included in the questionnaire on the following ■^Appendix F. ^Nordberg, op. cit., pp. 26-27* and 30. l2*Fillingham, op. cit., pp. 48-49. 42 basis: (I) start with multiple choice questions and finish with the more difficult to complete open-ended questions, (2) start with less personal questions and finish with questions which were more personal, and (3) start with ques­ tions less frequently associated with safety and finish with those more frequently associated with safety. This rather subjective procedure was used in an effort to encourage teachers to start responding to the questionnaire, with the assumption that once they were so committed, they would not be discouraged and fail to complete all questions. To help prevent "quick checking” of multiple choice items on the last part of a relatively long questionnaire, the open-end questions were placed in this latter position rather than at the beginning of the questionnaire. The bibliography cards containing questionnaire items were arranged in accordance with these organizational plans. This method of establishing item sequence frequently demanded that items within one variable be scattered throughout the questionnaire, rather than located in a convenient section. The initial questionnaire was revised several times, drawing upon the advice and counsel of the author*s graduate study guidance committee. The semi-final draft then was submitted to eight farm mechanics teachers not included in the matched pair sampling. six of these teachers. Responses were received from This pre-test indicated that several more minor changes were needed in the questionnaire. The 43 final instrument was then prepared for use in measuring differences between matched p a i r s . ^ Ttie reliability of the instrument and the rating scale which was applied was estimated through use of the splithalf technique. This technique correlated the response of thirty-six farm mechanics teachers to odd numbered items with their response to the even numbered items in the ques­ tionnaire . A split-half reliability coefficient of .68 was established. The significance of this correlation coefficient was obtained by dividing the observed correlation by the 16 standard error, which provided a critical ratio of 4.8. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that this corre­ lation is significantly different from zero, with less than .0006 chances in 100 of being in error. It is customary to make allowance for the split-half reliability by estimating the full-length reliability by means of the following Spearman-Brown equation.1?’ r„ - 11 2 r 1/2 1 + r 1/2 where ** estimated reliability coefficient for the whole test; ri/2 m value obtained *>y correlating the two halves. 15Appendix G. 16q . Milton Smith, A Simplified Guide to Statistics (Mew York: Rinehart and Company, 194b), pp. 61-63). 1"^Ibid., p. 79. 44 The full length estimate of the reliability coefficient of this instrument was .81. Smith contended that if a test is intended to differentiate between means of two groups, a reliability coefficient in the area of .80 was adequate. 18 TSie validity of the instrument was based upon an appropriate selection of questionnaire items and the ques­ tionnaire design. The selection of items was based on an & priori selection of all possible items which might have been included. This selection of items and design of the questionnaire was reviewed by the author*s graduate study guidance committee. After making several revisions the questionnaire was pre-tested, obtaining responses from six farm mechanics teachers. Analysis of this response provided additional guidance in the questionnaire design. 'Hiese experiences provided an a posteriori rationale for creating an instrument which would be valid. IV. DATA GATHERING The questionnaire was distributed on October 8, 1959, accompanied by a letter to each of the thirty-six teachers of farm mechanics in the matched pair sampling.1^ Within two weeks, teachers of farm mechanics in twenty-one of the l8Ibid. ^A ppendix H. 45 thirty-six schools (or fifty-eight per cent) had completed and returned their questionnaires. On October 23, 1959, a follow-up form letter, with individual salutation was sent to each of the teachers of farm mechanics, who had not yet returned their question20 naire. Ten questionnaires were returned within the next seven days, making an accumulative total of thirty-one of the thirty-six schools, or an eighty-six per cent return. On October 30, 1959 a personal letter with another copy of the questionnaire was mailed to each of the five 21 remaining schools which had not yet participated. On November 3 and 4, 1959, telephone calls were placed to each of these five teachers of farm mechanics, stressing the importance of their cooperation. Wiese calls were purposely timed to contact the teacher about twenty-four hours after he had received the personal letter and additional ques­ tionnaire. By November 12, 1959, a total of thirty-six com­ pleted questionnaires had been received, making a one hundred per cent return from the total sample of high and low accident rate schools. V. TABULATION After all questionnaires had been completed and returned, the data needed to be transferred from the 2^Appendix I. 21Appendix J. 46 individual questionnaires to a form which would facilitate the various statistical analyses. Each of the items within each of the eleven variables in the study was in need of being arranged in such a way that it could be scored to yield a somewhat continuous numerical measure. An item analysis was made to yield these numerical values. Item Analysis A tabulation of all responses to all items included in the questionnaire was completed and summarized in eleven tables. Each of these tables Indicated the tabulated responses to each of the choices on each item within a particular variable. op This distribution of the responses served as a basis for scoring the items and the subsequent scoring of the variables. *nie various choices or answers for each item were spaced along a continuum, with reference to the single factor each item purported to measure. The numerical dif­ ference In scores between the matched pairs on each Item, was the statistic sought. It was arbitrarily determined that the higher score would be given to choices on that end of the continuum which previous research and/or auth­ oritarian recommendations, had most frequently associated with the prevention of accidents. The review of related research was helpful In determining these associations. pp Appendix K. 47 B u m s projected some rather Implicit safety recommendations for various hand and power tools from a review of litera­ ture. 23 Bristol presented thirty-one situations which were considered to contribute towards accident prevention in P2i school farm s h o p s . ^ The National Safety Council also provided recommendations regarding practices which were considered important in preventing accidents.25*26 These and other sources served as a basis for determining which end of the continuum received the higher numerical assign­ ment. The two guiding criteria used in scoring the items and variables were: (l) each item within a variable must receive equal weight since there is no information to indicate one item within a variable is any more important than another item, and (2 ) each of the choices of a ques­ tion or item were rank scored, using the distribution between the various choices of an item as a guide. The distribution was made as similar as possible, ideally rectangular as ^^Burns, o p . cit., Chapter V. 2^Benton K. Bristol, "Thirty-One Steps to Improved School Farm Shop Safety," Pennsylvania Agricultural Edu­ cation Newsletter, December, 1958 IMimeographJ. g5safety Education in the School Shop, National Safety Council (in cooperation with the U. S. Office of Education), Chicago 11, Illinois. 2^"Safety in the Farm Mechanics Shop,11 Safety Education Data Sheet No. 60 (Chicago, Illinois: National Safety Council). ~ 48 shown In the distribution of item Number 43 in Table XVIII?7 If this type of distribution was impossible, then a more normal distribution, or even J-shaped distribution was used. This ranking procedure was developed from some of the general concepts of rank determination which have been used by Guttman In developing a scale ranking system with large numbers 28 of responses. VI. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The following statistical tests were applied in the analysis of the data and testing of hypotheses. Critical Ratio or t-Test In determining the significance of recognized dif­ ferences in proportions of two groups in a binomial type distribution, the following t-test was t use d : 2^ « pl " p2 --- 7TFT--- -SE «\|pl ^ 1 + P2 <*2 V Ni N2 where = proportion of group one p2 « proportion of group two q1 « 1 Q 2 *= 1 “ p2 ^7Appendix K. 2®Samuel Stauffer and Louis Guttman, et al., Measurement and Prediction (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, I 5 5 ^ T 29smith, op. cit., pp. 61-63. 49 This test was applied in several instances to deter­ mine the significance of apparent differences between high and low accident rate groups in which available data were arranged in a binomial type distribution. Sign Test The sign test was used because of its extreme simplicity in analyzing difference between matched pairs of observations. Frequently the question of significance was determined quickly by the sign test without need for more time consuming calculations. The only assumption which underlies a sign test is that it has a continuous distribution. The sign test is based on the sign (+ or -) of the differences between matched pairs. When the difference between pairs on one variable was zero, this pair was dis­ carded and the sample size was reduced accordingly. A table is used to determine the probability that noted difference is due to chance when "X number" of plus signs are present in comparing the differences between "N" matched pairs.3° The sign test was applied in this study to determine which items and variables exhibit strength or significance in discriminating between high and low accident rate school farm shops. 3°Siegal, op. cit.. pp. 68-70. 50 Wllcoxon Signed Ranks Test This modification of the sign test considers the relative magnitude as well as the direction of the differ­ ence between matched pairs. Tliis test is considered a more powerful test than the sign test, since the Wilcoxon gives more weight to the matched pair which show a large differ­ ence between two conditions, than to a pair which show a small difference.31 This test was used in parallel with the sign test in the matched pair response analysis. In instances where the sign test approached the five per cent level of signifi­ cance, the Wilcoxon determined whether a variable was excluded from or included within this arbitrary level of significance. Spearman Rank Correlation The Spearman rank correlation coefficient Is used to determine the degree of Independence between two variables which have been ranked on a comparative basis. The rank correlation coefficient was developed according to the following equation:J 31 Ibid., p. 75* 32WilfrId Dixon and Frank Massey, Introduction to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill book C o ., 1957), pp. 294-295. 51 rs - X - 6 tedi2) N (N2 - X) where d • difference in rank The significance value for various rank correlation coefficients can be read from statistical tables. In this study the hypothesis of independence between two variables was rejected and the alternate hypothesis of relationship was accepted when the rank correlation coefficient was classified within the five per cent level of significance. This test was applied to determine whether there was significant relationship between rank in safety record and rank In score received on those variables which were found significant in discriminating between high and low accident rate schools. Discriminant Function A discriminant function enabled a test for the significance of the difference between the high and low accident rate school farm shops by using a combination of variables. The discriminant fashion was developed by R. A. Fisher, for use In discriminating between two groups of samples, using several sets of measurements as criteria. ^R. A. Fisher, "Use of Multiple Measurements In Taxonomic Problems,” Annuals of Eugenics, Vol. 7 (1936), pp. 178-188. 52 Use of the discriminant function also identifies those variables which contribute the most towards the gross dif­ ference between two groups. This study used the techniques that are explained in articles by Baten, in developing procedures for solving equations which permitted an analysis of variance between high and low accident rate compounds .3^* 35 The presentation of findings in Chapter V further outline the discriminant function procedures used in this study.36 3 W. D. Baten and H. M. Hatcher, "Distinguishing Method Differences by Use of Discriminant Functions," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 12 (19^4), PPT S tt S U : 35*,. Baten and C. C. DeWitt, "Use of the Discrimin­ ant Function in the Comparison of Proximate Cost Analyses," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, N o . 16 (1944), PP- 32---------------- 36 Infra, pp. 95-103. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS The population survey phase of this study was com­ pleted before the more intensive comparative analysis of selected traits of high and low accident rate schools was begun. This was necessary since the selection of the matched pair sample was contingent upon information gathered from the population survey. Since the procedures followed in the two major phases ofthe over-all study were entirely different, they will be discussed separately, with the macro-analysis phase being covered in the first section and the more intensive analysis being discussed in the two remaining sections of this chapter. I. MICHIGAN SCHOOL FARM SHOP ACCIDENT SITUATION The following data represent the combined 1957-58 and 1958-59 reports of ninety-six per cent of the population of 197 Michigan high school farm shops. Due to data being collected twice, once at the completion of the first semester and once at the completion of the second semester, data on only one semester*s shop experience were received from sixteen per cent of the population. Therefore, data presented In this section of Chapter IV were obtained from 54 ninety-six per cent of the population and Includes approxi­ mately eighty-eight per cent of the total scheduled school farm shop work experience over a one year period. Student Hours Scheduled Table IV contains a numerical summary of the grade level and extent of student hours spent In the school farm shops of the respondents. The respondents reported a total of 450,065 student hours In school farm shops. Tenth grade students accounted for more than one-half of the total student hours, while the number of student hours reported for twelfth grade students was less than one-sixth of the total. The average twelfth grade farm mechanics class reported less than one-half as many student hours as the average tenth grade class. Prima facie evidence would Indicate that this decrease in student hours might be associated more directly with the decrease in number of students In twelfth grade classes, rather than a decrease In number of hours of scheduled Instruction in the farm shop. The average amount of time spent in the school farm shop was 2591 student hours per year. This time was divided into 1345 student hours during the first semester and 1246 student hours during the second semester. This reduction in student hours was influenced by a number of schools dropping farm mechanics instruction for the second semester. rH aj P O e-» CO h p 0 U TABLE IV— Number of student hours in the school farm 189 Michigan teachers of farm mechanics* shops, as reported by EC >H 43 £ Fh CD a> *£2 P h p co 'U CO t o no cti 0$ Fh h CD O > , < U PS E CO Fh C O £ O *0 CO w £ 0) to O 4-> O t o aj £ a> OJ rH 0) c o Fh O T3 0) £ a> > U P x: £ Fh CD U P £ CO Q to t o aj Oj rH Fh O (D > Fh <£ CD pH 55 on bIT\ in -=t OJ on CM ON •V 0 CM rH ON vo in •s on CO in vo 0 0 in st CM bON •i rH rH rH •> rH 0 St 00 on •> rH O O on * in 0 rH VO vo rH O IT i CM on on vo on CO in CO o\ in in 0 on CM bin vo on b04 •V btn c— •» 0 0 brH *v b- b— O CM 00 in CM -=3* rH ■=t bon CM t- st ON vo in O O 0 rH ON rH rH rH CM rH in -=t on •» rH bvo CD CQ to aj rH 0 1— 1 VO -=f CM •» rH 00 * 1 to CD T5 crt I. rH ON in •\ CM O rH rH < u CD a. CD rH bO O aj O u x: CD O > CO rH O vo rH in in in i—i -=t o CO rH o rH -=* CO CO rH on o 1—1 o o- OJ CO CM rH co r-=t co vo co rH vo o o vo vo ON in O rH VO rH CM o CO t- 3d- tCM U O CM 0O o in o 00 in OJ O 43 O TABLE V — The number of accidents and accident frequency rates, by grade instruction in 189 Michigan high school farm shops. rH 03 43 - ON CO vo CO VO -=t ON vo 1—1 rH ON VO O CM ON CO o\ CM CM o o T3 •H O O rH cd 43 O Eh Pi <1> 43 CO Pi O •* “3 cd S 43 00 Pi P* •H £ 00 CO o CO in -=f $ u rate by year of experience frequency H C"in rH P CVJ TABLE VI— Accident o on rH o VO on cn •* •* on ON 8 co a :§ cn CD P cd TJ £ O o co t-on 00 00 OJ o oo rH O W o t- c*OJ 00 ON cd VO rH ON ON in rH o o on rH o\ -=t vo rH to on vo t— OJ vo in <0 cd on OS p O. o Xc! o 00 -^r in rH rH VO rH a H P CO *UH P* o

> .30 * Significant .05 p < .01 « Highly significant p<.01 Possibility of error in rejecting null hypotheses Rank relationship between safety record and score received o G cd cd 43 o O 73 0 X * 0) to o o c .x 1<0 G O tf) G d o td iH r l C o •H00 DC O mnt- tr— O 0 > 0 O CO -=3" I OJ CO h o m h CM O O O O O HCVJOOrl I o 0) *H rH <0 c S3* * * * # * * * G * * * * 3|c .\o OJ v sO OJ o (— i u n o t>- cx\ •o OJ O G 43 to to CO HT CO 525 * O O I t * m o oj co h-C^O o. o• o. s * OJ cd 0 C D73 to 73 0 cd CQ CD «H X> cd •H 0 cd •> 43 G CD 75 G CD 04 CD 73 G M 43 C a ) 43 CQ O <0 CQ •H 0 O 0 rH C <0 43 <0 43 x: o O O O o O 0 o 43 o 43 0 0 CQ 43 CQ CD 43 43 0 G G <0 O O <0 «— I O O G 43 s m O G 0 CD o o cd 04 E c o CQ f>> 43 C ■H O CD XI 0 cd -H CD <0 to <0 43 43 > cd hD cd 43 rH O G G G 0 G Cd cd CD cd a 1 0 •H CD 43 04 0 o cd *CH CD 0 cd 43 •H cd CQ 0 G 43 0 X G 73 43 > cd O 4_3 cd *H 0 cd > CO 5-t •H w O C O> x> T3 0 T3 > C -rH 0 0 bo O 0 5 Ph 0 u o o CQ x: « O 0 0 *o £ n) • Ph pH O P T3 0 > -rH 0 O 0 0 PH P 3 o c u 0 PH o o CQ u U 0 0 SZ J2 cx u o 0 x: cx co X a *w CQ 0 to •bO H *H •rH bO c • SC E-t X3 s s s s s s s m f oo ■ vo CVI o co * vo C 8S B 0 j o aaquiriN I■ -=f s s s I OJ 0 O CX CO X E0 -tta CO £ 0 P HH Figure 1-1 o o JC o CQ 0 P cO 3--Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received higher score on items related to teacher qualifications. the 68 69 There was very little difference between the pairs on any Item within this variable. Hie direction of difference seemed to occur almost by chance and was of insufficient magnitude to Justify application of statistical tests to determine differences. The null hypothesis was not rejected, nor was its validity seriously questioned by the data collected from the four items related to qualifications of high and low accident rate farm mechanics teachers. Attitude of the Teachers A test was made of the null hypothesis that there Is no difference between high and low accident rate schools with regard to the attitude of their teachers of farm mechanics. The alternate hypothesis was that teachers of farm mechanics In low accident rate school farm shops would obtain higher aggregate scores on Items related to attitude than teachers In high accident rate shops. Higher scores on this variable were associated with: 1 . high degree of satisfaction with teaching career. 2 . receiving adequate reward from teaching. 3 . showing high positive Interest in students. 4 . more positive response towards the questionnaire. 5 . greater tendency to perceive students as being very interested in farm mechanics Instruction. 6 . more positive viewpoint towards safety. 70 Figure 4 presents a graphic summary of the number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on the six selected Items related to atti­ tude. Hie low accident rate teachers appeared to score consistently higher on all six items related to attitude. Hie sign-test indicated that teachers of low accident rate schools show significantly more positive interest in their students than teachers of high accident rate schools ( p ^ . . 05). Hie sign-test was applied to the differences between schools In the matched pair on the aggregate scores received on Items related to teacher attitudes. were shown to be significant (p < .05). These differences The Wilcoxon signed ranks test suggested differences at the two per cent level of significance. The Spearman rank correlation was applied to test the relationship between good safety records and high scores on the attitude variable. The correlation coefficient was, r s = .59, which was found to be highly significant (p < .0 1). On the basis of these findings the null hypothesis was rejected. The alternate hypothesis that low accident rate school farm shop teachers score higher than high accident rate teachers on items related to attitude was accepted. Orientation of Instruction The null hypothesis tested here was that there is no difference between high and low accident rate schools with the 71 rH cd 43 03 D 4<3 0 *H 0 O «r4 o 0 0 JC bO >» fit cd * O CD O g (D U G O O O O CQ CQ 43 Q . 03 CQ X -1 1 O O Si 0 (0 CO O 43 43 G CD • *0 43 0 43 43 O CD & U >* CD CD 03 bO o V Cu 43 C *H CD (D CD 43 0 rH 0 CD > •H (D 0 > • 0 a? > •H 43 •H 03 O X sssssss O O cd jC bO CD 0 C O 0 . 03 0 G TJ 0 *H o •H o O cd O 0 XI bO S •H o x: rH ;>> X) T3 0 £ CO TJ 0 0 > > •H ▼H 0 0 tc O O 0 0 5 fn X« 0 0 Ci u O o O o 0 0 c. u 0 0 x: x: 0 ho bO 0 •iH ■H ■H EC EC E-> >» CO -L> C *o c 0 0 cd rH cd CU CO 0 0 0 C cd O O CL, x: O G 0 cd £ cl 0 pH CO r- CO " T - -=f “ T“ CM 3 rH cA —Tvo sdSBO jo aaqumN —r -=fr T" CVI 0 B 40 -> M 5— Number higher 0 H-> Figure o i—t o o JC o o x: 0 o of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the score on items related to the orientation of farm mechanics instruction. 73 74 items related to orientation of instruction lacked consis­ tency (p = .212). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test reflected approximately the same chance of probability (p = .190). Therefore, it appeared quite unproductive to further test the hypothesis on the basis of these data. The null hypothesis was not rejected on the basis of the data collected relating to orientation of farm mechanics instruction. Extent of Use of Instructional Aids The null hypothesis under test indicated that there is no difference between high and low accident rate schools with regard to the frequency with which they utilize instructional aids. The alternate hypothesis holds that teachers in low accident rate school farm shops use instructional aids more frequently than teachers in high accident rate shops. This variable is composed of items concerned with greater use of: 1. individual demonstrations. 2. group demonstrations. 3. slides, filmstrips, and films. 4. group discussion. 5. signs and posters. 6. posted safety regulations. The number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on items related to the extent of use of instructional aids is presented In Figure 6 . o X2 CQ o 00 •rH TO O t- l O O cd a cd x: i > > x> CO TO o> (1) TJ O CQ > > TJ -H C © Q •H <1) Sm O O (0 00 u <1) o x : x: to to « -H w CQ * 0 > rH G & G 3 M CO G G 0) 73 73 •H «tH <1) O O P 3 O G C3 O O 05 cU G G CO to •H ■H g CD £•4 O O IQ r i <1) 4-3 4H rH 73 73 0) > •rH rH (1) 0) O o CD

43 cd >» x> XI CO• iH 0 CQ to < 0) (D Q-t O-i Oh O-* 43 CD * * * »-5 0 CD *H •rH •rH E"1 Q O SID > G to M ctJ •rH E O G 0-4 G G cq • CQ N rH 0) • to CO• G oj rH sae^o jo aaqumN CQ E 4C3D M 7--Number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched higher score on items related to student supervision. O CQ o o Figure JC »— I te rH O O Total r the 78 79 (p = .002) and the decrease in average class size was significant (p = .019). This significance developed despite the leveling effect of using equal number of total student hours of exposure as a criterion in matching high and low accident rate schools. Therefore, this infers that low accident rate schools had fewer students enrolled per class, but had a greater amount of farm mechanics time scheduled than their high accident rate mates. The average class enrollment for the low accident rate group was 15-1 students, compared with 18.6 students in the high accident rate group. Largest size class for the low accident rate group ranged f^om nine to twenty-seven students with a mean of 14.2, while the high accident rate schools ranged from eight to twenty-eight with a mean of 17.0 students. The remaining three items within this variable exhibited less discriminating values. The sign test indicated that the difference between matched pairs was highly significant and in the direction of the low accident rate schools scoring higher on items related to student supervision (p « .006). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test also indicated highly significant differ­ ence (p =s .004). The Spearman rank correlation was applied to see if receiving high scores on items related to the supervision of students was related to good safety records. This test yielded a highly significant correlation of .53 ( p - < . 0l). 80 On the basis of these findings, the null hypothesis was rejected. The decision was made to accept the alternate hypothesis which held that low accident rate school farm shops score higher than high accident rate shops on items related to supervision of students. Adequacy of the School Farm Shop Structure A test was made of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between high and low accident rate schools with regard to the adequacy of the school farm shop structure. The alternate hypothesis was that the low accident rate schools would obtain higher aggregate scores than high acci­ dent rate schools on items related to adequacy of the school farm shop structure. Higher scores on this variable were associated with: 1. newer school farm shop structures. 2. more square feet per student in the largest size shop class. 3. more square feet per student in an average size shop class. 4. more use of concrete floors. 5. more adequate lighting. 6. wider use of color dynamics. 7. more adequate ventilation. Figure 8 presents a graphic summary which indicates the number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched 81 a) m > 43 •H CD CD O O* a> o u sz Q) a> CO *H E Ct5 £. O, Cd 'O CD r—I Xl O O o o 43 SZ cd o cd E co cd j d 43 +> <0 o o SZ Cd o d co cr1 cd r-4 easBO jo asqumN o JU ^ a> cd x» sz E U) s x: i i co CD & •bHO {Xt 82 pair received the higher score on seven selected items related to adequacy of the school farm shop structure. In a greater number of cases, the low accident rate school reported more square feet 'of floor space per student than their high accident rate mate. The sign test indicated that this difference in space per student was significant when the largest size class was using the shop (p = .046). In their largest classes, low accident rate schools ranged from 53 to 299 square feet per student with an average of 173; while high accident rate schools ranged from 32 to 294 with an average of 130 square feet per student. The average number of square feet per student in an average class in the low accident rate schools was 187 square feet, compared with 146 square feet per student in high accident rate schools. In a greater number of cases, the high accident rate school farm shop teacher rated his shop lighting and venti­ lation as more adequate than did his low accident rate mate. The sign test indicated that this difference did not approach significance. However, this does infer that if it were mandatory for all schools to correct inadequate lighting and ventilation on the basis of how teachers per­ ceive the current situation, the low accident rate teachers would recognize need for as much or more improvement than high accident rate teachers. This also suggests further study to determine differences between high and low accident 83 rate teachers on the basis of their ability to accurately Judge situations and perceive hazards. The sign test suggested that the sum of the differ­ ences between matched pairs on items related to adequacy of the school farm shop structure, might be significant (p = .072). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test yielded approxi­ mately the same possibility of significance (p = .087). The Spearman rank correlation technique was applied to see if there was a significant amount of association between the adequacy of the shop structure and good safety records. The coefficient .24 did not suggest a significant amount of relationship. The null hypothesis could not be rejected on the basis of the data which were collected pertaining to the adequacy ofschool farm shop structures. However, it appears that this null hypothesis deserves further and moreintensive testing than was intended by this study. Storage of Tools, Supplies, and Projects A test was made of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between high and low accident rate high school farm shops with regard to storage facilities. The alternate hypothesis was that low accident rate schools would obtain higher total scores on items related to storage facilities. Higher scores on this variable were associated with: 1 . fire resistant storage for paints. 2 . more sufficient lumber storage area. 84 3. adequate and well organized project storage space. 4. centrally located tool storage area. Figure 9 presents a graphic summary of the number or cases In which one of the schools In a matched pair scored higher on the four items related to storage. The item concerned with fire resistant storage for paints showed discrimination between the matched pairs with low accident rate schools achieving higher scores than their high accident rate mate. The sign test indicated that this difference in paint storage facilities was signi­ ficant (p « .046). The sign test indicated that the sum of the difference between high and low accident rate schools on items related to storage facilities was not significant (p » .29). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test, although more suggestive, also lacked significance (p » .14). The Spearman rank correlation was applied to test the relationship between high score on storage facilities and safety record. The correlation .24, was low and not signifi­ cant . The null hypothesis could not be rejected on the basis of the collective response to the four items related to storage of tools, supplies, and projects in high school farm shops. cd P in o GO T3 T3 T3 CD > C «H U Sh CD U O O CQ W o o 0> cd u Fh p 6 o u Ah 09 c. CQ Ci X £ eg eg TJ •H O O cd T p G cd (D eg cd G o CP P CO "3T s es-eo jo aaquiriN 09 a a> p 9--Number higher CD p o o x: Figure O O x: o 09 of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the score on items related to storage of tools, supplies, and projects. 85 86 Availability of Power Equipment and Hand Tools The null hypothesis which was tested stated that there is no difference between high and low accident rate schools with regard to the availability of power equipment and hand tools. The alternate hypothesis contended that low accident rate schools would obtain a higher aggregate score on items related to availability of power equipment and hand tools. Higher scores on this variable were associated with: 1. more adequate supply of hand tools. 2. more adequate array of power equipment. 3. less freedom to usepower equipment without direct supervision of the teacher. All of the items in this variable appear to be con­ sistent in supporting the alternate hypothesis. A graphic summary of this phenomenon is presented in Figure 10. How­ ever, none of the items exhibited sufficient consistency to be significant. The sign test was applied and it suggested significance in the sum of the differences between high and low accident rate school farm shops on items related to availability of power equipment and hand tools (p m .073)- The Wilcoxon signed ranks test showed an even smaller probability that this difference was due to chance (p » .021). The Spearman rank correlation technique indicated a correlation of .40, between high score on this independent 87 o o 44 CD XZ TJ 44 C cd o o xz o CO 0) 44 CCS u 44 c a> tj ■H o o cd tj x z xz o to CO t ♦ TJ > * • 8 3 CL, CO •H XZ xz rH O u Oh to to U) CD P-> O cd 3 O* 0) « TJ CL, < a> oh P>> i—1 O o cd o 3 Fh o * <1) sssssJ • TJ » -f— cvj I O "'I'" oo v£ “ T~ -=d* "ST P»i 44 tO «H H H O *H o > o Fh O S & CD u e *r4 Q< U a> b£> o a> u c cd TJ *H a>

c ■h c cd cd p>> •a > TJ o XZ bO a> LPi O O o x> CO £ CD 44 W x : cd O 1—1 CO XZ cd 44 o Oh 44 O TJ <1) CD C 44 o cd rH XZ CD O U XZ to % £ <1) C 44 •H X xz S bO 3 *r4 55 X Z t i O CD 5$ bO 88 variable and good safety records. This correlation coef­ ficient was significant ( p < . 0 5). On the basis of these findings the null hypothesis was rejected. The alternate hypothesis that low accident rate schools score higher on items related to availability of power equipment and hand tools, was accepted. Maintenance of Tools and Shop Area The null hypothesis stated that there is no difference between high and low accident rate schools regarding main­ tenance of the tools and shop area. The alternate hypothesis proposed that low accident rate schools would earn a higher total score on items related to shop maintenance. Higher scores on this variable were brought about by: 1 . frequent checking of tool conditions. 2 . prompt removal of defective hand tools. 3 . prompt removal of defective power tools, with administrative cooperation. 4. keeping the students* project storage area maintained in good condition. 5 . cleaning the shop after each class, with extra clean-up emphasis at the end of each day. All of the items in this variable appeared to be con­ sistent in supporting the alternate hypothesis. A graphic summary which shows the results is presented in Figure 11. The difference between matched pairs on the item concerned 0* tsO-P tO O 1 -P C 0 cd cd CD u 1 —1CU 0 Figure the 89 90 with prompt removal of defective hand tools was found sig­ nificant by means of the sign test (p *= .046). The sign test was also applied to the sum of the main­ tenance differences between high and low accident rate school farm shops. The consistency of the difference on this variable was found highly significant (p = .002). The Wilcoxon sign test also resulted in showing that the difference on this variable between high and low acci­ dent rate schools was highly significant (p * .005). Tfae Spearman rank correlation was applied to test the relationship between high score on maintenance items and safety record. The correlation coefficient was .33, and was significant ( p < - 05). On the basis of these findings the null hypothesis was rejected. T^ie alternate hypothesis was accepted that low accident rate schools score higher on items related to main­ tenance of tools and shop area. Use of Protective Equipment The null hypothesis contended that there is no differ­ ence between high and low accident rate school farm shops regarding the use of protective equipment. Ttie alternate hypothesis contended that low accident rate schools would accumulate a higher total score on items related to use of protective equipment. Higher scores on this variable were associated with shop situations where: 1. specific shop dress is required or provided. 2. leather gloves and aprons are used when welding. 91 3 . separate waste containers are used for wood,metal, and rags. 4. guards are always used on power equipment. 5. clear goggles or clear shields are always used when chipping arc-welding slag. 6 . a drill press vise is always used when drilling metal. 7. a push stick is always used by all students when a board is ripped with a circular table saw. Figure 12 presents a graphic summary of the number of cases in which one of the schools in a matched pair received the higher score on the seven items related to use of pro­ tective equipment. On two items, use of drill press vise and use of push sticks, the low accident rate school outscored or tied its mate in all eighteen cases. Tie sign test indicated significant dif­ ference in both these items (p ® .031 and p = .004,respectively). On two additional items, (l) using leather gloves and aprons while welding, and (2 ) guarding equipment; the low acci­ dent rate school outscored or tied its mate in all but one or two of the eighteen cases. The sign test indicated that this difference was also significant (p « .02 and p = .033, respectively). Tie sign test indicated that the sum of the differences between matched pairs on items related to use of protective equipment was highly significant (p * .002). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test yielded approximately the same indication of highly significant difference (p « .005). 92 CTJ P o o x: o 03 o o x: 03 03 03 03 £■« 03 o 03 <1> C a> TJ •rtf T J O ■rH O o o ctf CtJ x: bO £ CU > Q P i—1 o o x: o 00 03 U P c a> T tf •rtf O o ctf XI x> TJ 60 -H a TJ 03 > 03 G a M p aj G p P G 03 TJ •rtf O O CtJ x ; to ■H x: 03 a <1) a> u 03 u o o o o s 03 rH V o o cx x: O 0) p rtf o TJ G .01 a. E o u x: to 1 E o x: to iH x: to g O «H 03 f-i to p 03 03 03 SiD U P P G > >> X» x> TJ TJ (I) > «*H iH Sn o o CO u o d> >tQ P 0) a> c Q-t o OJISJ CO o o 00 bD ■rl (0 X3 , and X4 b3 x3 + b2*- represent, respectively, scores on orientation of instruction, use of instructional aids, 97 adequacy of the structure, and storage practices. bl The a^d b 4 were the constants to be found. 9 The compound made up of the numerical measurement for the high accident group was likewise represented by: X 1 * bi x-j^1 4- b2 Xg1 + b^ x^1 + b^ x ^1 where x^l , x 2^ , x^l f and X4I represented the variables as designated above, only pertaining to the high accident rate school scores. The constants b^, b 2 , b^, and b4 are iden­ tical to those in the low accident rate compound. Ttie difference between the means of the above two compounds made up of the four variables D * ^1^1 + ^2^2 + ^3^3 + was: b^dif where d^ represented the difference between means of scores on orientation of instruction for the high and low accident rate groups, d2 represented the difference between means of scores on use of instructional aids for the highand accident rate group, d^ represented the means differencebetween of scores on physical adequacy of the building, dj| represented the difference between means of scores storage practices. low and on Table IX shows the score means and the difference in means between the two groups on these four variables. By using rather lengthy statistical techniques, 98 explained in articles by Baten,^>^ values of the constants bi, b 2 , b 3 , and b 4 were found to be bx = .0097865; b2 = .0033240; b 3 - .0019378, and b4 * .0040454. TABLE IX--Observed means and differences in means of scores received on four variables as determined by hipch and low accident rate groups of high school farm shops. Means of Scores bow Accident Rate Schools High Accident Rate Schools 4.50 4.00 .50 Use of instructional aids 3.83 3.33 .50 11.89 10.11 1.78 5*78 4.72 1.06 Variables Orientation of instruction Adequacy of structure Storage practices Difference The difference between high and low accident rate com­ pound means was found to be .0142703* from application of the D formula, as was previously outlined: D - (.0097865) (.50) + (.0033240) (.50) + (.0019378) (1 .7 8 ) + (.0040454) (1 .0 6 ) = .0048932 + .0016620 + .0034450 + .0042701 » .0142703 = D ■%aten and Hatcher, loc. clt. ^Baten and DeWitt, loc. clt. 99 An analysis of variance, shown In Table X, was carried out to determine whether the value for D represented a sig­ nificant difference between high and low accident rate groups. TABLE X--Analysis of variance between high and low accident rate compounds, composed of measurements on four variables not individually significant. Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Total Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio 35 Between means 4 .0018324* .0004582 995# Within * - 31 n 1n2 D = .0142703 .0004603 . d2 + N2 # Not significant (Fj| .05 = F^2.69) The ratio of the mean square between compounds and the mean square within compounds was .995* A F-table at 4 and 31 degrees of freedom shows an F-value of 2.69 must be equalled or exceeded to be significant at the five per cent level. Therefore, the low accident rate compound derived from the four variables was not significantly dif­ ferent from that compound derived from the group of high accident rate school farm shops. As far as these four variables are concerned, low accident rate schools did not score significantly higher than high accident rate schools. Therefore, the null 100 hypothesis could not be rejected on the basis of the combined measurements which were made on the four variables consisting of: aids, (l) orientation of instruction, (2 ) use of instructional (3 ) adequacy of the shop structure, and (4 ) storage practices. Combining the Five Significant Variables A discriminant function analysis was also made on the five variables which were found to be individually signifi­ cant at the five per cent level. The null hypothesis tested here was that there was no difference between the high and low accident rate schools with regard to the scores they received on a combination of the following variables: 1. Attitude of the teacher. 2. Supervision of students. 3. Availability of power equipment and hand tools. 4. Maintenance of tools and shop area. 5. Use of protective equipment. The alternate hypothesis contended that the low accident rate school farm shops would score higher on these five variables than the high accident rate school farm shops. In this analysis, the X]_, X 2 , X 3, X 4 , and X 5 repre­ sented, respectfully, scores on teachers* attitude; student supervision; tools and equipment availability; maintenance; and use of protective equipment. Table XI shows the score 101 means and difference in means between the two groups of schools, on each of the five variables. TABLE XI--Observed means and differences in means of scores received on five variables, as determined by high and low accident rate groups of high school farm shops. Means of Scores Variables Low Accident Rate Schools High Accident Rate Schools Difference Attitude 8.11 6.17 1.94 Supe rvision 9•28 7-56 1.72 Tools and Equipment 5.94 4.94 1.00 Maintenance 9-89 7.17 2.72 10.17 7.22 2.95 Protective Equipment e: f. Using Baten*s suggested methods-'*^ of solving a five by five item simultaneous equation, values of the constants b^, \>2* *>3 # *>4 * and ^5 were found to be, b^ = .0102536, b 2 - .0132608, b 3 = .0091486, b4 - .0085984, and b 5 » .0088254. The difference between the means of the high and low accident rate compounds was made up of the five variables as follows: ^Baten and Hatcher, loc. cit. ^Baten and DeWitt, loc. cit. 102 D = t>i d^ + X>2 &2 + b^ d^ + d^ + d^ b^ or D = .0199376 + .0228380 + .0091486 + .0234068 + .0259858 « .1013168 « d The analysis of variance is presented in Table XII. TABLE XII--Analysis of variance of the high and low accident rate compounds composed of the five variables which were individually significant. Sources of Variation Degrees of Freedom Total Sum of Squares Mean Square 5 .0923859 .0184772 30 .1013168 *0033772 FRatio 35 Between means Within *** Highly significant, p < 5 .47*** .005. p 5,30 at .005 ® F *5: 4.23 p5,30 at .001 = P > 5 . 5 4 The P-value of 5*47 reveals that there is a highly significant difference between high and low accident rate schools as measured by the accumulative impact of these five variables. This level of significance approached the point where there is only one chance in one thousand of making an error by rejecting the null hypothesis. The alternate hypothesis was accepted, which stated that low accident rate schools scored higher than the high accident schools as measured by the following five variables: 103 (l) attitude of the teacher, (2) supervision of students, (3) availability of power equipment and hand tools, (4 ) maintenance of tools and shop, and (5 ) use of protective equipment. Rank order of importance. The sizes of the terms in the equation solving for D, indicated the importance of each of the variables in discriminating between high and low acci­ dent rate school farm shops. The last term, .0259858, Is the largest In value and, therefore, use of protective equipment was the most important variable for distinguishing the difference between contrasting schools. term, The fourth .0234068, is next in value, therefore, maintenance of tools and shop was next in Importance in distinguishing difference. The score of the third importance was super­ vision of students, of fourth Importance was attitude of the teacher. Of least importance was the variable of availability of power equipment and hand tools, which con­ tributed less than half as much towards distinguishing difference as did the four more important variables. However, all of these five variables were significant in supporting the over-all research hypothesis that low accident rate high school farm shops exhibit traits which are more compatible with current safety recommendations than those traits of the high accident rate schools. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This was a study to discover the accident frequency characteristics of Michigan high school farm shops and to make a comparative analysis of the association of various safety factors with high and low accident rate schools. The specific purposes were to: (l) develop a method for making such a comparative analysis, (2) determine the school farm shop accident situation, (3 ) Identify high and low accident rate school farm shops, and (4) discover what differences exist between high and low accident rate farm shops with regard to eleven selected variables. Teachers of farm mechanics in ninety-six per cent of the Michigan schools offering instruction In the farm shop reported experience which facilitated determination of accident frequency rates. High and low accident rate schools were selected from the high and low thirty per cent groups in the accident rate frequency distribution. A stratified sample of eighteen high accident rate schools was selected on the basis of a statistical sampling technique. This technique determined the number of schools needed, with specific grade levels of instruction and student hours of exposure, to provide a ten per cent approximate reflection 105 of these factors In the population. High accident rate school farm shops were Individually matched with eighteen low accident rate schools, on the basis of identical grade level of instruction and similar amounts of student hours of school farm shop instruction. Teachers of farm mechanics in each of the thirty-six schools in the eighteen matched pairs responded to a questionnaire. Tabulation of the questionnaires provided scores on items classified within eleven variables. The obtained measures were statistically compared to determine what differences might exist between the high and low accident rate schools. The balance of this chapter will present a summary of the findings of the study, with appropriate conclusions, and the recommendations which were developed from this study. I. SUMMARY This study consisted of a macro-analysis of the Michigan school farm shop accident situation during the 1957.59 school years, followed by a more intensive compara­ tive analysis of high and low accident rate school farm shops. School Parm Shop Accident Situation A total of 450,056 student hours of school farm shop work was reported by 189 teachers of farm mechanics. This represented approximately eighty-eight per cent of the expected yearly school farm shop work experience. Fifty-five 106 per* cent of* the student hours were experienced by tenth grade students, twenty-seven per cent by eleventh grade students, and eighteen per cent by twelfth grade students. Three years of farm mechanics instruction was most prevalent and forty-three per cent of the schools reported this pattern. Farm mechanics was offered in the tenth grade only, in twenty-eight per cent of the schools, and in the eleventh and twelfth grades in eighteen per cent of the schools. The average school farm mechanics program involved 2591 student hours in the farm shop per year, of which 1345 were registered during the first semester and 1246 the second semester. A total of 770 school farm shop accidents was reported. The services of a physician were required in forty-seven cases, with the balance receiving only first aid treatment. The average accident frequency rate for Michigan high school farm shops during the 1957-59 school years was found to be 1571 accidents per million scheduled student hours. This was equivalent to 659 student hours of exposure per accident and an average of 4.1 accidents per school per year. The school farm shop accident rate decreased as the grade level of the students increased. The tenth grade accident rate was found to be 1670, the eleventh 1555> and the twelfth grade 1304 accidents per million student hours. The twelfth grade worked in accident free groups forty per 107 cent of the time, while only eighteen per cent of the tenth grade experience was worked within accident free groups. This difference was statistically significant ( p C . O l ) . A statistically significant decrease was also found between the accident rate of the first and second semester of instruction (p < .05). However, it was noted that this decrease was not continuous between the last semester of one grade and the first semester of the next higher grade level. No statistically significant difference could be dis­ covered when the accident rate of the first year of farm mechanics instruction was received in the tenth, eleventh, or twelfth grade level. However, a numerical decrease in accident rate was noted when the first year of farm mechanics instruction was received at higher grade levels. A very small sample of student hours was available for first year farm shop experience at the twelfth grade level, making statistical significance more difficult to establish due to this small sample size. The only exception to a noticeable decline in accident rate, from first to third year of instruction, occurred when the first year of farm mechanics instruction was not obtained in the tenth grade level. Tfte average accident severity ratio in Michigan high school farm shops was one physician*s attention injury for every fourteen first aid injuries. The severity ratio between major and minor injuries widened as the grade level 108 of school farm shop work Increased. The ratio was one to 11.8 in the tenth grade; one to 14.7 in the eleventh grade; and one to 35*3 in the twelfth grade. This decrease in severity (widening of the ratio) between tenth and twelfth grade was found to be statistically significant (p <. .05). Differences Between High and Low Accident Rate School Farm Shops The low accident rate school farm shops received higher scores than the high accident rate schools on forty-five of the fifty-five items included in the questionnaire. This difference in higher scores by low accident rate schools was statistically significant ( p < . 05 ) with regard to the following ten items: 1. Teachers had more positive interest in students. 2. Fewer students in largest size class. 3. Fewer students in average size class. 4. More square feet of shop floor space per student in largest size shop class. 5. Fire resistant storage for paints. 6. Prompt removal of 7. More use of leather gloves and aprons while welding. 8. Guards are always used on power equipment. 9. Drill press vice is always used when drilling metal. 10. defective hand tools. A push stick is always used when ripping a board with a circular saw. 109 T^ie high accident rate schools received higher scores than thelow accident itemsincluded on rate schools on ten of the the questionnaire. fifty-five These ten items included: 1. More years of farm mechanics teaching experience. ' 2. More years in current teaching position. 3- Scheduled safety instruction as separate unit as well as integrated with other instruction. 4. Greater use of slides, filmstrips, and films. 5. Greater use of signs and posters. 6. Separate farm shop, not shared with other shop classes. 7. More adequate lighting, as rated by teachers. 8. More adequate ventilation, as rated by teachers. 9. Shop arranged into distinct areas, with related areas of work grouped together. 10. Traffic lanes free of obstructions. In none of these ten items did the difference approach statistical significance. The sign test and/or the Vfilcoxon signed ranks test indicated that the low accident rate schools received sig­ nificantly higher total scores than high accident rate schools on items related to such variables as attitude of the teacher, supervision of students, availability of power equipment and hand tools, use of protective equipment, and maintenance of tools and shop area (p < .05). 110 The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between safety record and score received on items related to attitude of the teacher; and between safety record and score received on super­ vision of students indicated very significant relationships (p<.0l). There was also a statistically significant relation­ ship between safety record and the score received on items related to the availability of power equipment and hand tools; and between safety record and score received on the use of protective equipment (p-^.05). The scores on Items related to maintenance of tools and shop area approached a significant relationship with shop safety record, lacking .015 In the cor­ relation coefficient size to reach the five per cent level of confidence. A discriminant function was applied to utilize a combin­ ation of variables, including attitude of the teacher; student supervision; availability of power equipment and hand tools; maintenance; and use of protective equipment. When these five variables were combined, the resultant compound provided a very high degree of discrimination between the low and high accident rate groups, with low accident rate schools receiving higher scores (.005 > P P* .001). Scores received on Items related to the use of protec­ tive equipment in school farm shops were the most important in distinguishing the difference between high and low accident rate schools. This variable was closely followed In impor­ tance by scores received in maintenance of tools in shop area, supervision of students, and attitude of the teachers. Of Ill least Importance of the significant variables in distinguish­ ing difference was the score received on items related to availability of power equipment and hand tools. There was no recognizable trend in the direction of difference in scores between contrasting pairs on iteraB related to teacher qualifications and school farm shop arrangement. *Hie low accident rate schools received noticeably higher total scores on items related to orientation of instruction, extent of use of instructional aids, adequacy of the school farm shop structure, and storage of materials. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Items related to adequacy of the farm shop structure did show some strength but it failed to be significant (.07<^ p *<£ .09). When all four of these variables were combined through use of the discriminant function, the combination of these four variables failed to significantly discriminate between high and low accident rate school farm shops. II. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are based on a macro-analysis of accident experience of ninety-six per cent of the Michigan high school farm shops and the subsequent more intensive analysis of eighteen matched pairs of high and low accident rate school farm shops. If application of these conclusions is made to a dif­ ferent population from that included in this study, 112 recognition should be made of the limitation of such manipu­ lations. In some cases, pragmatical testing of these conclusions may be feasible and encouraged In order to determine the scope of application which Is Justified. The conclusions will be reported with respect to the research hypothesis of this study and the school farm shop safety perspective. The Research Hypothesis The findings of this study support the research hypothesis that low accident rate high school farm shops exhibit traits which are more compatible with current safety recommendations than are the traits of the high accident rate schools. The research hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the action taken on the eleven null hypothe­ ses which were developed from the more inclusive research hypothesis.1 The following five null hypotheses are rejected. These hypotheses contended that there would be no difference between high and low accident rate school farm shops with relation to: 1. attitude of the teachers. 2. supervision of students. 3. availability of power equipment and hand tools. XC f . ante., p . 8. 113 4. maintenance of tools and areas within the school farm shop. 5. use of protective equipment. In rejecting these five hypotheses the noted differences between high and low accident rate schools can be ranked In order of their importance in discriminating between the two contrasting accident rate groups. High scores on items related to the use of protective equipment are most important In discriminating between high and low accident rate school farm shops. Maintenance of tools and areas within the school farm shop, supervision of students, and attitude of the teachers are second, third, and fourth, respectively, In order of importance In distinguishing difference between contrasting accident rate schools. The availability of power equipment and hand tools is of less Importance, con­ tributing half as much towards distinguishing difference as the four more important variables. The following four null hypotheses are not rejected on the basis of the collected evidence. Although differ­ ences between contrasting accident rate schools were noticeable and in the direction of low accident rate schools exhibiting traits more compatible with current safety recom­ mendations, such difference may be due to chance. These null hypotheses contend that there Is no difference between high and low accident rate school farm shops with relation to: 114 1. orientation aspects of farm mechanics instruction. 2. extent of use of instructional aids. 3. adequacy of the school farm shop structure. 4. storage of tools, supplies, and projects. Two null hypotheses are supported on the basis of the collected evidence. These hypotheses contend that there is no difference between high and low accident rate school farm shops with regard to: (l) qualifications of the teachers, and (2) arrangement of the school farm shop area. Differences between low and high accident rate schools on these two traits seem to occur by pure chance. Therefore, although the research hypothesis of this study is accepted, reserva­ tions are extended that some current safety recommendations are not very discriminating between high and low accident rate school farm shops. School Farm Shop Safety Perspective The findings of this study, as orientated by the 19571959 population of Michigan high school vocational agricul­ ture departments offering instruction in farm mechanics, 9 Justify the following conclusions: 1. There is an extensive opportunity for on-the-job safety education in Michigan high school farm shops. Over one-half million student hours of instruction are offered during a single school year. 2. There are great differences in the rate of accident occurrence between schools offering similar amounts of student 115 hours of instruction at identical grade levels. For instance, two schools offered 3150 and 3325 student hours of instruc­ tion in a tenth grade class during the 1957-58 school year. One school reported one injury and the other reported a total of sixteen injuries with two of these requiring a physician*s attention. Such drastic differences were common in each of the eighteen cases of matched pairs selected for this study. 3. There is considerable need for improvement in Michigan high school farm shop safety programs. The average accident rate for the 1957-58 and 1958-59 school year was 1571 accidents per million student hours of instruction, with one out of every fourteen accidents requiring a physi­ cian’s attention. On the average, an injury was reported for every 659 student hours of scheduled farm shop work. 4. Michigan school farm shop safety efforts are experiencing some success, as noted by the significant decrease in both accident severity and accident frequency rate as the grade level Increases from tenth through twelfth grade. 5. Physical maturity differences between tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade groups do not have a controlling influence on the school farm shop accident rate. 6. There is an indication that high accident rate teachers rate items related to physical adequacy of the farm shop as high as low accident rate teachers. 116 7. This study provides a fundamental method for making a comparative analysis of selected characteristics of high and low accident rate school farm shops. The measurements made on the fifty-five items within eleven variables could benefit from further elaboration and refine­ ment, based on the exploratory experiences of this study. However, the methods applied in this study can be used as a guide in preparing further exploration in the area of school farm shop safety. III. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of this study are divided into educational and research sections on the basis of the application possibilities. These recommendations are made In cognizance of the findings of this study, as orientated by the author's experience within statewide rural safety education programs, and experiences In teaching farm mechanics at high school and college levels of Instruction. Farm Shop Safety Education Teachers of farm mechanics, teacher educators, educa­ tional consultants, and others who are interested in devel­ oping more effective school farm shop safety programs should apply the following recommendations in accordance with their particular phase of educational responsibility. 1. * Protective equipment should be used extensively In the school farm shop. Teachers should teach students 117 to constantly use leather gloves and aprons while welding, a drill press vise when drilling metal, shields and guards when using power equipment, and a push stick when ripping material with a circular table saw. 2. The maintenance of tools and shop area should receive adequate attention. This emphasis should be con­ cerned with developing such practices as making weekly checks on the condition of shop tools, removing defective hand tools and power equipment promptly, keeping the project storage area in good condition, and cleaning the farm shop area after each class. 3. Teachers of farm mechanics must provide continuous supervision of the activities of the students while they are in the farm shop. Class enrollments in excess of fifteen students should be closely scrutinized, especially when there is less than 150 square feet of shop floor space per student. For example, sixteen of the eighteen low accident rate farm shops as compared to six of the eighteen high accident rate farm shops met this recommendation concerning class size and shop space. 4. School farm shop safety programs should be founded upon a teacher who has a positive attitude towards safety and his students, and one who understands and is satisfied with his position in life. A more negative attitude apparently limits a qualified teacher's ability to apply his training and teaching experience in developing successful safety programs in the school farm shop. 118 5* Schools should provide an adequate supply of hand tools and power equipment. Inadequate supplies of tools and equipment should be viewed as a deterrent to a success­ ful farm shop safety program. 6. Prom a safety viewpoint, farm mechanics instruc­ tion in the school farm shop should be provided to tenth grade students. Teachers of farm mechanics should recog­ nize that tenth grade students are as capable of safe performance as those students who receive their first year of instruction in the farm shop during the eleventh or twelfth grade. 7. Teachers must be reasonably competent In the administration of first aid, since the average teacher has more than four farm shop Injuries to treat every year. Since schools in agricultural areas frequently lack a regular school nurse, the teacher must be able to provide elementary treatment for minor injuries and properly handle the major injuries until the student is under a physicianfs care. The teacher must also have the ability to recognize the difference between a minor and major injury and respond accordingly. 8. In-service safety education must be utilized to improve the safety instruction of present teachers of farm mechanics. It is apparent that more farm mechanics teaching 119 experience will not necessarily lead to greater success In the prevention of student accidents. 9* Separate farm shop facilities, in contrast to sharing shop facilities with other classes, should not be justified on the basis of improving student safety. Only twenty-five per cent of the schools in the eighteen matched pairs included in this study had separate facilities and such phenomenon was present in equal frequency between high and low accident rate school farm shops. 10. School farm shop accident terminology should be made more uniform. It is necessary to derive uniform meanings from such terms as accident, major accident, minor accident, farm shop accident frequency rate, accident severity ratio, and student hours of exposure. The devel­ opment of more uniform terminology would promote compara­ tive analysis between various groups of schools and foster more meaningful evaluation patterns. Farm Shop Safety Research This study has developed a method of determining the school farm shop accident situation, utilizing this perspec­ tive to Identify contrasting accident rate situations, and then discovered several pertinent differences between high and low accident rate school farm shops. Many more areas of farm mechanics safety demand investigation if there is to be an increasingly sound basis for continuous progress in 120 accident prevention. Future safety research might be con­ cerned with answers to the following questions: 1. What Is the trend in Michigan high school farm shop accident rates between the 1957-59 period and the "1962-64 period"? Other states might be concerned with dis­ covering what their situation is with regard to school farm shop accidents, rather than attempting evaluation of the program. 2. What changes in practices and/or environment can be most directly associated with a decrease in accident rate? 3. What Is accident rate and therelationship between school farm shop the home farm shop accident rate of the graduates? 4. What is the relationship between the accident rate of graduates of vocational agriculture programs as compared with non-graduates? 5. What specific part of various farm shop accident transmitting agents (tools, equipment projects, et cetera) cause the accident trauma upon the victim or host? This would involve an epidemiological approach to the accident problem, In hopes that the transmitting agent could be changed in such a way as to prevent or reduce the frequency or extent of trauma upon the host. 6. What psycho-physical factors of individual farm shop students are most closely associated with shop accident repeaters as compared with accident free students? 121 7. How adequate are the farm safety education pro­ grams in the colleges and universities that develop prospec­ tive teachers of vocational agriculture? This study would evaluate the adequacy with which teachers are being prepared to cope with various safety problems In this third most hazardous Industry in the United States. There is also need for more intensive comparative research within the area covered by this study. Intensive work In elaborating and refining measurements In the area of teacher attitude would seem very productive. In addition, It is recommended that more intensive research in refining and testing measurements with regard to the adequacy of the farm shop structure be carried out. For example, use of absolute instruments In measuring light, ventilation, and other factors associated with adequacy of the structure would appear to be Justified. One of the ultimate goals of future school farm shop safety research should be to select measurements of teacher attitude, instructional practices, and school farm shop environment which are most discriminating, and to organize the results of the extensive use of such measurements, into a "School Farm Shop Safety Index," which would have signifi­ cant safety record prediction qualities. This study has provided some fundamental contributions towards this most challenging goal. BIBLIOGRAPHY A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY [This bibliography contains the literature cited In this study and others which were particulary pertin­ ent to this study.] PRIMARY SOURCES Books Dixon, Wilfrid and Frank Massey. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill kook dompany, 1957. Slegal, Sidney. Sciences. Nonparametrie Statistics for the Behavioral Hew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 195&. Smith, G. Milton. A Simplified Guide to Statistics. York: Rinehart and Co., 194b. New Snedecor, George W. Statistical Methods. Fifth edition; Ames, Iowa: Iowa State doliege Press, 1957Publications of the Government, Learned Societies, and Other Organizations “ Stimson, Rufus W. and Frank W. Lathrop. History of Agricul­ tural Education of Less Than College Grade in tEe United States. Vocational Bulletin No. 217. Washing­ ton, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1942. Periodicals Baten, W. D. and C. C. DeWltt. "Use of the Discriminate Function in the Comparison of Proximate Coal Analyses," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 16 (1944), PP .-32-3-4: Baten, W. D. and H. M. Hatcher. "Distinguishing Method Differences by Use of Discriminant Functions," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 12 (1944), pp. 184-186. 124 Unpublished Materials Entrekin, Wayne G. "A Study of Some of the Factors Which Affect Shop Safety in Vocational Agriculture.,f Unpub­ lished Master’s thesis, Clemson Agricultural College, 1952. Melvin, Jefferson R. ’’School Shop Safety Programs of Selected Departments of Vocational Agriculture in Ten North Carolina Counties.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, The Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina, 195^. Yost, Charles Peter. ”An Analysis of Graduate Theses in School Safety in the United States from 1925 to 1950.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pitts­ burgh, 1956. SECONDARY SOURCES Books Phipps, Lloyd J. and Others. Farm Mechanics Text and Hand­ book. Danville, Illinois! interstate Printers and Publishers, 195^. Satterfield, Ted. J. Legal Aspects of Tort Liability in School Districts as Indicated in Recent Court Decisions. Published Doctoral Dissertation^ Temple University, 1949* Stack, Herbert J. and J. Duke Elkow. Education for Safe Living. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.", 1957. Stauffer, Samuel and Louis Guttman, e_t al. Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univer­ sity Press, 1950. Publications of the Government, Learned Societies, and Other Organizations" Bristol, Benton K. ”Thirty-One Steps to Improved School Farm Shop Safety, ’’Pennsylvania Agricultural Education Newsletter, December, 195&. [Mimeograph] Cureton, T. K. Doctorate Theses Reported bv Graduate Departments of Health. Physical Education, and Recrea­ tion, 1 9 3 0 -1 9 4 6 . Inclusive! National Education Association, American Association for Health, Physical Edu­ cation, and Recreation, 19^9- 125 Cure ton, T. K. Master13 Theses In Health. Physical Edu­ cation , and Recreation. National Education Associ­ ation, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1952. Cutler, Walter A. and J. Duke Elkow. Twenty-Five Years of Research in Safety Education. Center for Safety Education, New York University, 1951* Viles, N. E. School Fire Safety, Bulletin No. 13, 1951. Washington, t). C. : U. S. Office of Education, 1951. Accident Facts. 1959 Edition. National Safety Council, 425 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago 11, Illinois. Research in Industrial Education. Summaries of Studies Between 1930 and 19*55. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 2^4. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1957. Safety Education in the School Shop. National Safety Council [In Cooperation with the U. S. Office of Education], Chicago, Illinois. "Safety in the Farm Mechanics Shop." Safety Education Data Sheet No. 60, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. Vocational Education Bulletin l5o, Including supplements Nos. 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 which list studies through the 1957-53 academic year. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education, Supplementary Information on Departments of Vocational Agriculture. Form N o . 243. Office of Vocational Education, Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan. "The Human Touch in Safety Education." Health Bulletin for Teachers, Vol. 19, No. 6 (1938). New York: Metropoli­ tan Life Insurance Company. Training for Safety. Bulletin 279. State Board of Control ----- for Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan, 1944. Periodicals Anderson, Stuart A. "Danger Zones in Shop Safety," Indus trial Arts and Vocational Education Magazine, Vol. 44 (Oc tobe r , 1955), P P • 245-24Y . 126 Busboom, Gorden. Let Color "Work for You,” The Agricultural Education Magazine, Vol. 28 (January, T35F), "ppTT.52155. Bus hong, E. L. and J. R. Moore, uBuilding a Shop Safety Program, Industrial Arts and Vocational Education Magazine, Vol. 42 (Noveroberr"i953 ), p p .~296"-29'l.— Croneman, Chris. "Safety in the School Shop," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education Magazine. Vol. 40 (May, l93l'), pp. 2^A-34A. Cunningham, E. C. "Safety in the Farm Mechanics Program," The Agricultural Education Magazine, Vol. 28 (January, l'95b)7 PP. 1^9. Fisher, R. A. "Use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems," Annuals of Eugenics, Vol. 7 (1936), pp. 178188. Henkel, Herman. "Now— Liability Insurance For All M.E.A. Members," Michigan Educational Journal, September 1 , 1954, p. IT. Kindschy, Dwight L. "Can You Prove You Have Taught Shop Safety?," Agricultural Education Magazine, Vol. 24 (April, 1952), p. 228. Unpublished Materials Baldwin, Gordon Lee. "The Development of a Safety Program for School Farm Shops." Unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1946. Birnbach, Sidney B. "A Comparative Study of Accident Repeaters and Accident Free Pupils." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1948. Burns, Paul McMinn. "Accidents in Vocational Agriculture Shops In Pennsylvania." Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State College, 1951* Carney, John W. "Farm Shop Safety Program for Vocational Agriculture Departments in Tennessee." Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, 1958. Craig, Frank R. "Safety and the Use of Power Equipment in North Carolina School Farm Shops." Unpublished Master's thesis, North Carolina State College, 1951. 127 Davis, Carils C. "An Analysis of General Safety Education for Industry and Vocational Shops With Specific Recom­ mendation for Wood Shops and Machine Shops." Unpub­ lished Master’s thesis, North Texas State Teachers College, 19^3. Estabrooke, Edward C. "Safety and Health Instruction and Practice In School Shops." Unpublished Ph.D. disser­ tation, Pennsylvania State College, 1939. Flllingham, Wallace F. "A Study of Safety Education In Secondary School Shops In Southwestern Michigan." Unpublished Master's thesis, Western Michigan College of Education, 1953. Foster, Wendell M. "Adoption of Farm Shop Safety Practices by Maryland Negro Teachers of Vocational Agriculture as a Result of Attention to a Specially Prepared Check­ list." Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State College, 1953. Frye, 'Hiomas Neil. "Safety Programs in the High School Farm Shops in Oklahoma." Unpublished Master's thesis, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical"College, 1955. Gjestson, Mathew E. "Safety in the Use of Woodworking Power Machinery." Unpublished Master's thesis, Stout Institute, 19^0. Hughes, Wayne P. "Safety Procedures in the School Shop." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 19^2 . Nordberg, Carl 0. "A Study Concerning Accidents and the Prevention of Accidents In the Vocational Agriculture Farm Mechanics Shops of Pennsylvania." Unpublished Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State College, 1952. Schreiber, Robert J. "The Development of Procedures for the Evaluation of Educational Methods Used in Accident Prevention." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1957. APPENDICES 129 APPENDIX A POSTAL CARD QUESTIONNAIRE I IN-SCHOOL FARM SHOP ACCIDENTS— FIRST SEMESTER— 1957-1958 Grade Exposure 10 12 11 . No. of students enrolled for Farm Shop Instruction. No. of weeks spent in Shop-— first semester^ I Av.No.hrs. in Shop each of the above weeks lAccident Treatment I No. of students who needed first aid only | No. of students who needed Doctor’s . attention peverity No. or lost time accidents (over l/2hr.) I No. accidents resulting in permanent injury IComments: |_ Note: __ — — — _ — _ \ , ■■ All four mailings of postal card questionnaires were identical except for appropriate changes in date and semester references. Ditto process was used in the 1957-58 series, but changed to mimeograph for the 1958-59 series. Cards were pin-point marked according to a key which identified each school by number, making it unnecessary for teachers to identify themselves. APPENDIX B COPIES OF LETTERS WHICH ACCOMPANIED POSTAL CARD QUESTIONNAIRE 131 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIERSITY— EAST LANSING AND U. S . DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Reply to: Agricultural Engineering Department March 4, 1958 TO: Teachers of High School Farm Mechanics SUBJECT: Survey of Accidents In the School-Farm Shop We have recently completed the "F.F.A. Safe Corn Harvest Program." Over 70 Chapters participated in this campaign and plans are being developed for a "F.F.A. Safe Tractor Driver Program" as a follow-up to this fine response. Now is an appropriate time to give some attention to safety in the farm shop. I am making a brief survey of school farm shop accidents that occurred during the first semester of the current school year. The enclosed post card is designed so that it can be filled out quickly and accurately by you and your classes. You might use this survey as an activity to re-emphasize safe work habits and environment In your shop. The data you provide will be used as a group data so there Is no need to identify your school. Your cooperation In returning the post card at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. With your cooperation, I will inform you of the results of this survey In the April Spring Clean-Up Packet, which you will receive from my office. Yours sincerely, Richard G. Pfister Agricultural Engineering Safety Specialist RGP/sl Enclosure 132 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY— EAST LANSING AND U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Reply to: Agricultural Engineering Department July 14, 1958 TO: Teachers of High School Farm Mechanics SUBJECT: Continuation of Farm Shop Accident Survey Last February, over two-thirds of the teachers of farm shop responded to my brief survey card on farm shop accidents. Enclosed is a similar survey card for accident data occurring during the second semester of this past school year. It Is my sincere hope that you can justify a few minutes to fill out this post card and enable me to obtain a full year's data. With your cooperation, I will again send you the summary findings of this survey. A prompt response will enable me to include this report in the 1958 F. F. A. Safe Corn Harvest Packet that will again be supplied to you for your Chapter's use. If your Chapter Is participating in the Safe Farm Driveway— Safe Rural Intersection project, don't forget to remind the boys to get their report In by September 1. This will qualify your Chapter for a certificate of participation and place them in the running for the cash awards. Thank you for your cooperation in returning the enclosed survey card at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely, Richard G. Pfister Agricultural Engineering Safety Specialist RGP/sl Enclosure 133 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY— EAST LANSING AND U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Reply to: Agricultural Engineering Department March 11, 1959 TO: Teachers of High School Farm Mechanics SUBJECT: School Farm Shop Accident Survey I am making a brief survey of school farm shop accidents that occurred during the first semester of the 1958-1959 school year. The enclosed post card is designed so that it can be filled out quickly and accurately by you and your classes. The data you provide will be used as group data, so identity is unnecessary. Your cooperation In returning the enclosed post card at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Richard G. Pfister Agricultural Engineering Safety Specialist RGP/nb Enclosure 134 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY— EAST LANSING AND U. S # DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Reply to: Agricultural Engineering Department August 10, 1959 TO: Teachers or High School Farm Mechanics SUBJECT: School Farm Shop Accident Survey I am continuing the brief survey of school farm shop accidents that almost 90# of you cooperated In last winter. The enclosed post card Is designed so that It can be filled out quickly and accurately. I trust that you again will find a few moments to cooperate on this subject. The requested Information will cover the second semester of the past school year and will be used as group data, so Identity Is unnecessary. Your cooperation in returning the enclosed post card at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Richard G. Pfister Agricultural Engineering Safety Specialist RGP/vab Enclosure 135 APPENDIX C THE HIGH 30 PER CENT ACCIDENT RATE GROUP OF SCHOOL FARM SHOPS Rank 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 Incom­ Under plete 1000 hrs. Changed Teachers Student Hours Grade 10 11 12 Comment X X 2590 X X X Selected X X X X X X Selected Selected Selected X X Selected Selected X X S. C.* X X X X X 2232 1344 1540 X 3325 2150 X X X 2000 X X X X 1452 2700 1230 X X X X X Selected Selected Selected 1280 1800 X X X X X X Selected Selected 2643 X 1352 1900 4345 2175 3031 5090 1870 X X X X X X X X Selected X X X X X X X N.S.B.** S.C. Selected Selected Selected Selected S.C. * S .C . - Sample completed on this grade combination and/or on this stratum of hours of exposure. **N.S.B. * Not in sample budget. 136 APPENDIX C— Continued Rank Inc oraplete Under 1 0 0 0 h rs. Changed Teachers 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 1 43 142 141 140 1 3 8 ,5 1 3 8 ,5 137 136 135 134 132 131 130 131 Student Grade Hours 10 1 1 1 2 X 1256 Comment Selected X X 2535 X 2280 X X 361 5 X 203 5 1 40 0 2870 2585 X X 1500 1500 S. C. X X S. C. Selected X X X X X X X X X X S. S. S. S. S. S. X X X X X X C. C. C. C. C. C. X 1520 5080 2386 2 42 3 1 22 4 2052 X X X X X X X s. c. s. c. s. c. s. c. s. c. s. c. 137 APPENDIX D THE LOW 30 PER CENT ACCIDENT RATE GROUP OF SCHOOL FARM SHOPS Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.5 25.5 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Incom­ Under plete 1000 hrs. Changed Teachers Grade 10 11 12 Matched With Sch. No. 3774 X X X X X X X X 155 N. M.* See #5 See #5 153 3420 3114 2846 X X X X X 145 M. C.** 182 X X X X 176 174 165 Student Hours 4068 3370 3822 3800 X X X X X X 2520 2430 2185 X 1800 1794 X X X X 150 171 1575 X X X 161 1313 X X X 166 1005 X X X 162 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X *N.M. = No match In high accident group. **M.C. = Match completed for this grade combination and/or on this stratum of hours of exposure. See #5 = School ranked fifth is a better match to high accident rate mate. 138 APPENDIX D — Continued Rank 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54.5 54.5 Incom- Under plete 1000 hrs. X X X X X Changed Teachers Student Hours Grade 10> 11 12 Matched With Sch. Mo. X X 5310 4166 3810 3611 3245 3150 2830 2430 2070 2000 9515 1900 1794 1710 5130 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X N. M. N. M . M. C. N. M. M. C. 172 154 M. C. 159 175 N. M. See #54.! M. C. 164 N. M. Following three schools above 68th percentile 56 57 58 1704 1640 4830 X X X X X X M. C. M. C. 152 139 APPENDIX E EXPOSURE AND ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS OP MATCHED .PAIRS Accidents Rank of Diff. In Acc. School Rate Acc. Rate Exposure Grade Student Hours Level 1L 1H 9 182 0 7336 7336 2846 2590 10 11 12 10 11 12 2L 2H 11 176 0 5376 5376 2520 2232 11 12 11 12 3L 3H 12 174 0 5195 5195 2430 1340 11 12 11 12 4l 4h 50 175 500 5208 4708 2000 1344 11 12 11 12 5L 5H 17 171 O 4651 4651 1794 2150 10 11 12 10 11 12 6L 6H 22 166 0 4132 4132 1313 1452 10 11 12 10 11 12 7L 7H 13 165 0 4074 4074 2185 2700 10 10 00 00 MIT' Case Number 27 162 0 3096 3906 1005 1280 10 11 12 10 11 12 9L 9H 46 172 317 4812 3899 3150 3325 10 10 10L 10H 19 161 0 3889 3889 1575 1800 10 11 12 10 11 12 11L 11H 1 155 O 3682 3682 4068 4343 10 10 12L 12H 5 153 0 3605 3605 3774 3051 10 11 12 10 11 12 13D 13H 54.5 164 585 4065 3480 1710 1230 10 10 l4L l4H 47 154 353 3678 3325 2830 2175 10 11 12 10 11 12 140 APPENDIX E — Continued Case Number _________ Accidents___________________ Exposure Rank of Acc, Diff. in Student Grade School Rate Acc. Rate Hours Level 10 10 15L 15H 49 159 483 3784 JjWj- 2070 2643 16L i 6h 16 150 0 3185 3185 1800 1256 17L 17H 7 145 0 2043 3043 3420 3615 10 10 18L i 8h 58 152 621 3536 ooi c 2915 4830 5090 10 10 12 12 141 APPENDIX P VARIABLES AND ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY A. B. D. Qualifications of the teachers 1. Years of teaching experience 2. Years of farm shop teaching experience 3. Years In present position 4. Average grade in college farm mechanics Attitude of the teacher 1. Satisfaction with career 2 . Reward from teaching 3. Interest in students 4. Feeling towards the questionnaire 5. Attitude toward students 6 . Attitude towards safety Orientation of farm mechanics instruction 1. Amount of emphasis placed on instruction in the farm shop 2 . Degree to which course plans determine course content 3. How farm mechanics is scheduled (integratedseparate) 4. How farm shop safety is planned (integratedseparate) Extent of use of Instructional aids 1. Individual demonstrations Group demonstrations 2 Slides,filmstrips, and movies 3. 4. Group discussion 5. Signs and posters 6. Posted safety regulations Supervision of students 1. Largest size class 2 . Average size class 3. Leaving shop during class hours 4. Supervision for unscheduled farm shop work 5. Degree of sharing of shop with other classes Adequacy of school farm shop structure 1. Age of building 2 . Space per student In largest class 3. Space per student in average class 4. Type of floor surface 3. Adequacy of lighting 6 . Use of color dynamics 7. Adequacy of ventilation . E. F. (6 ) ( 3 ) (1 ) (4 ) 40a 40b 40c 40d 35 36 4la 4lb 8 9 2 44 43 43a 10 11 12 13 * These numbers refer to the item number in the questionnaire which is concerned with this specific factor. 142 APPENDIX F — Continued G. H. I. J. K. Storage of tools, supplies, and projects 1• Fire resistant flaraable liquid storage 2* Adequacy of lumber storage 3. Adequacy of project storage 4. Hand tool storage Availability of power equipment and hand tools 1. Adequacy of hand toolsupply (24 2. Completeness of powertool supply (46a 3. Amount of supervisionrequired to use power (46b Maintenance of tools and shop areas 1. Frequency of tool checks (Z$ 2. Removal procedure fordefective hand tools (26 3. Removal procedure for defective power tools (30 4. Maintenance of project storage area (18 5. Farm shop clean up procedure (22 Use of protective equipment 1. Type of clothing worn (32 2. Leather apron and gloves worn whilearc welding(33 3. Waste containers (l4 4. Power equipment guards (29 5. Wear clear goggles or shield, whilechipping slag off weld (34 6. Drill press vice (27 7. Push stick (28 Arrangement of the farm shop area 1. General organization (15 2. Safety zones (31 3. Work area and materials storage arearelation­ ship (16 4. Traffic lanes--ease of movement (20 APPENDIX G QUESTIONNAIRE ON INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND SITUATIONS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL FARM SHOP INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND SITUATIONS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL FARM SHOP Your decisions within this questionnaire should be based on teaching experiences and situations during the 1957-58 and 1958-59 school years. In the following multiple choice questions, the ONS CHOICE that best describes your shop situation or instructional practice i3 the right answer. Please encircle the alphabetical letter in front of the one choice containing the most nearly accurate description of your situation. Make any notes you feel are necessary, but check only one response for each item. 1. Instruction in the school farm shop is scheduled as: a. A separate subject, taught by the teacher of industrial arts. b. A separate subject, taught by the teacher of vocational agri­ culture . c. A unit of the vocational agriculture course. d. An integrated part of the vocational agriculture course. 2. Our school farm shop area is: a. Shared with other classes, but never using the shop at the same time. b. Shared with other classes, sometimes using the shop at the same time. c. Shared with other classes, with both regularly using the shop at the same time. d. Used only by students of vocational agriculture. 3. The type by: a. b. c. d. of instruction provided in the school farm shop is determined Student activity, problems, and jobs. Student activity, modifed by course plans. Definite course plans, modified by student activity. Definite course plans. 4. Safety instruction in the school farm shop is: a. Integrated within the farm mechanics instructional program. b. Integrated within the farm mechanics instructional program with occasional demonstrations or films used for safety only. c. A separate unit or area of farm mechanics instruction, but also integrated within the farm mechanics instructional program. d. Featured as a separate unit or area of farm mechanics instruction. 5. My biggest challenge in teaching safety is the: a. Negative nature of safety recommendations. b. Students are not interested in safety. c. Students think the use of safety practices shows timidity. d. Lack of knowledge of the more effective ways of teaching safety. e. Difficulty of developing good, positive attitudes towards safety. f. Difficulty of teaching safety in a positive sense. 6. In comparison with other areas of instruction in vocational agriculture, (crops, livestock, farm management, etc.) instruction which takes place in the school farm shop is: a. Less important. b. Slightly less important. c. About as important. d. Slightly more important. e. More important. ( #7-next page ) using the school farm shop are: lli$ Very interested and concerned with doing high quality work. Quite interested and concerned with doing good work. Interested and concerned with doing their work. Somewhat interested and concerned with doing their work. Not very interested or concerned with doing high quality work. 7. Students a. b. c. d. e. 8. On those occasions when it is necessary for me to leave the school farm shop for a short time: a. The students are placed on their honor and usually work well. b. The class is prohibited from using power equipment. c. A student is placed in charge and the class is prohibited from using power equipment. d. A student is placed in charge of the class. e. The necessity of working with the students takes precedence and I do not leave. 9. Extra time for student work in the school farm shop (during students* study hall, after school, etc.)is: a. Permitted if students are reliable enough to work without me being present. b. Permitted if students are reliable enough to work without me being present all of the time. c. Permitted if I can be with the students all the time. d. Not permitted. 10. The type a. b. c. d. e. of floor in the school farm shop is: Concrete (unpainted). Painted concrete. Tile. Wood or wood block. Combination of _____________ and___________ . (Insert appropriate letters) 11. The lighting in the school farm shop is: a. Not very adequate and will or could be improved considerably. b . Adequate. c . Good. d. Excellent. 12. The color of paint in the school farm shop is: a. Dependent on the color of the equipment, tools, andwalls. b. Uniform for hand tools. c. Uniform for power equipment. d. Uniform for hand tools and power equipment. e. Based on a color dynamics system, having a base color for all equipment and high visibility colors on switches and moving parts. 13. During periods when welding, spray painting, or shop cleanup is taking place, the estimate of odor intensity that is detected by a person with a normal sense of smell would be: a. No odor. b. Very little odor, but it can be detected. c. Weak odor, but readily detected. d. Halfway between weak and strong. e. Strong odor. f. Very strong odor. ( #l4-ne'X'l" r>n rrn N 3. 14. In handling trash or waste, we use: 6 a. Common containers for all materials. b. Separate containers for wood and metal. c. Separate containers for wood, metal and rags. d. Separate containers for wood, metal andrags with the rag container made of metal and equipped with a top. 15. The physical arrangement in our school farm shop: a. Depends on the jobs that are being worked on. b. Is set up according to electrical facilities and available work space. c. Is set up according to various areas of work. d. Is set up according to various areas of work, with areas of related types of work grouped together. 16. In our school farm shop, the work area and materials storage area are: a. Distinct and separate areas. b. Somewhat distinct and separate areas. c. Frequently together due to lack of space, type of work, or other reasons. d. In the same area, for various reasons. 17. The lumber storage area is: a. Sufficient and working well. b. Sufficient, but needs some reorganization. c. Insufficient, but working out satisfactorily. d. Insufficient and difficult to organize. e. Completely inadequate. 18. The students* project storage area is maintained: a. In good condition and neat. b. In pretty good condition. c. In fair condition. d. In poor condition, by some standards. e. In poor condition. 19. The amount of students' project storage space is: a. Adequate and working well. b. Adequate, but needs some reorganization. c. Inadequate, but working out satisfactorily. d. Inadequate and difficult to organize. e. Completely inadequate. 20. The available space for shop work, projects, and equipment makes moving around to supervise student work: a. Easy, with little or no need for stepping over or around ob­ jects . b. Fairly easy, with few objects to obstruct movement. c. Fairly easy, if we do not happen to have a large number of projects in the shop. d. An "obstacle course" at times. 21. Paints, thinners, and paint-brush cleaners are stored in: a. A wood cabinet. b. A metal cabinet. c. Metal cans on open shelves, or other open areas with good air movement. d. Metal cans in a wood cabinet. e. Metal cans placed in a metal cabinet. ( #22-next na^e ) 4. 22. The school farm shop is cleaned: ih j a. After each day. b. After each day, with special clean up regularly scheduled at the end of the week. c. After each class. d. After each class, with special clean up regularly scheduled for the last class of the day. e * After each class, with special clean up regularly scheduled at the end of the week. 23. Hand t o o l s are lo c a te d : a. b. c. d. e. 24. Our su p p ly o f hand t o o l s in th e sch o o l farm shop i s : a. b. c. d. 25. In a central tool room with a tool room attendant. In a central, self-serve tool room or tool rack. Mainly in a tool room, but partly in cabinets. Mainly in cabinets, but partly in a tool room. In cabinets or tool racks located in various areas of the shop. Very adequate. Adequate. Inadequate. Completely inadequate, but can or will be improved. I make a complete check on the condition of shop tools: a. After every class, b • Every day• c. Every week. d. e. Every six weeks. Every semester. 26. A defective or broken hand tool is: a. Usually removed within a few days after noticing the defect. b. Removed if the defect is great enough to be a serious hazard to students. c. Sometimes used due to a tool shortage in our shop, and/or depending on the seriousness of the defect. d. Always removed, regardless of the possiblity that it might still be used without incident. 27. When a one-inch wide strap of steel is placed for drilling on the drill press: a. A pair of pliers is used to hold the strap. b. The str a p i s alw ays C-clamped to th e d r i l l p r e ss t a b le , c. A drill press vise is always used if the hole to be drilled is over 1/8 inch diameter. A drill press vise is always used. A drill press vise should be used, but we don't have one. d. e. 28. When ripping a board with a circular table saw: a. A push stick is always used by all students. b. A push stick is used by most students. c . A second stu d en t or I p u ll the m a te r ia l through the saw to avoid the hazard of having the boy push the material through. d. Push s t i c k s should be u sed , but fo r v a r io u s r e a so n s, th ey are not. ( #29-next page ) 29. Guards at points of power transmission and operation are: **} p a. Always used. -Ln.o b. Almost always used. c. Used frequently. d. Used sporadically due to a lack of good equipment and/or poor student attitude. 30. Power equipment which becomes defective through use or age is: a* Not always taken out of use, or we would not have sufficient equipment to get the job done. b. Taken out of use and reported to the administrator within a day. c. Reported to the administrator, and then taken out of use if we agree that the situation warrants it. d. Taken out of use, but not necessarily reported within a week. e. Used with caution as long as possible. 31. Safety zones are: a. Recognized around power equipment. b. Designated by painted area on the floor around power equipment. c. Designated by painted area on the floor around power equipment and work benches. d. Designated by painted area on the floor around power equipment, work benches and storage areas. e. Not currently recognized by most students. 32. The type of student clothing worn for work within the school farm shop is: a. Up to the student and his parents. b. Up to the student, but I advise him on what to wear. c. Is usually farm work clothes, modified by tucking under pantcuffs while welding, rolling up sleeves while sawing, etc. d. Required to be cover-alls or shop coats, and enforced. e. Provided as a part of the farm shop instruction program. 33. When using the arc welder, students wear a leather apron and gloves: a. Always. b . Most always• c. Sometimes, depending on the job and the student. d. Seldom, depending on the situation. e. Never, for various reasons. 34. When chipping the slag off an arc weld, the students: a. Always wear clear goggles or clear shields. b. Usually wear clear goggles or clear shields. c. Use the arc welding helmet to deflect slag. d. Use the chipping hammer so that slag moves away from them. 35. Signs and posters dealing with shop practices: a. Are not used. b. Would be used if good material were available. c. Are used and changed every semester. d. Are used and changed every six weeks. e. Are used and changed almost every week. 36. Safety regulations and rules are: a. Not used, since they are not appropriate for my situation. b. Discussed by class members, but not posted. c. Posted, and looked over by class members. d. Posted and reviewed by the class from time to time. ( #37-next page ) 6. lif . 9 37. Are you as satisfied with your career as your friends are with theirs? a. I'm more satisfied. b. I'm about as satisfied, c. I don't know. d. Many friends seem more satisfied. e. I'm not as satisfied as they are. 38. Do you feel that the work you put into teaching is adequately rewarded? a. More than adequately. b. My time would be worth more doing something else. c. It's not worth the time put in. d. I think I get a fair return. e . I wonder• 39. The average grade I received in college farm mechanics courses was: a. Between A and B. b. B. c. Between B and C. d. C or lower. ( CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BLANK TO THE RIGHT ON EACH ITEM ) 40- During one semester of instruction in the school farm shop, I use the following teaching practices: D em onstrations fo r one or two s tu d e n ts . Group or c l a s s d em on stration s. S l i d e s , f i lm s t r i p s and m o vies. Group d is c u s s io n . D a ily F req u en tly _____ ________ From tim e to tim e Never — ( COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING IN THE BLANKS PROVIDED ) 41. When students of vocational agriculture are in the school farm shop, the largest number of students using the farm shop area at any one time is __________ . 42. The number of years of teaching experience I have had is: a. b. c. total ____________ years. farm shop _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ years. in present position _____________ years. 43. The school farm shop work area is ______ feet wide and ______ feet long. 44. The building in which the school farm shop is housed is ______ years old. 45. My greatest problem in teaching farm shop is: ( #46-next page ) 1^0 7. 46* After your students complete one semester of instruction in the school farm shop* what per cent of the students are able to use the following equipment with little direct supervision? Note: Encircle the appropriate percentage listed below and cross out any equipment which you do not have. a. circular saw 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 b. band saw 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 c* jig saw 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 d. paint sprayer 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 e. arc welder 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 f. gas welder 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 g- drill press 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 h. grinder 100% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 0 47* What practices have you adopted as a result of student accidents or near accidents in the school farm shop? ___________________________ 48. What do you think of this questionnaire and its content? ( End ) 151 APPENDIX H COPY OP TYPICAL LETTER WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE QUESTIONNAIRE Richard G. Pfister 113^ Sunset Lane East Lansing, Michigan October 8 , 1959 Mr. _____ Teacher of"""Farm Mechanics High School _________ , Michigan Dear Mr. ________ : Enclosed is a questionnaire designed to obtain factual infor­ mation regarding instructional practices and physical situa­ tions within Michigan high school farm shops. I realize that you may have seen more than your share of mail questionnaires, but I believe you will find it within your professional Interest to complete and return this one at your earliest convenience. This questionnaire can be completed and placed In the return envelope in 17 to 25 minutes. I hope you will take the time to return this questionnaire before It gets off your desk top. You will receive a summary of the findings of this study as soon as they are available. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Richard G. Pfister 152 APPENDIX I COPY OP FOLLOW-UP LETTER REQUESTING RETURN OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Richard G. Pfister 113^ Sunset Lane East Lansing, Michigan October 23, 1959 Mr. Teacher of Farm Mechanics ___________ High School , Michigan Dear Mr. _____________: — on-y — th- — tt-rs -n p-rsp--t-v-, -t wou— - 00On-y --- opr— t--- s — — tt-r. You --v-n- - n t— — p ---- 1 w-r- us — ,-n t— s . t-- qu-st-onn--r-s on --r- s-op -nstru-t-on vn r-turn--, so -y — t- --so - 0 0 - s t--s w — r — t--t t— s -- v-s -u— to — --sir-- -n ur-t- -n- m--n-n--ul p-rsp— t-v-. You - - n p -n t-- " n- sp---s” -y r-turn-n- t-qu-st-onn--r- you r v-- on "— r- s-op -nstru-t-on pr--t--- s -n- s-tu-t-ons -s soon -s poss . Your -coop-r-t-on w -— -ppr----1 — . T--n- you. Yours Tru-y, r_ p — st--xt-ns-on --r--u-tur-- -n--n--r r Translation If only half of the letters In the alphabet were used, In perspective, it would look like this. Only half of the questionnaires on farm shop instruction prac­ tices have been returned, so my data also look like this letter. You will agree that this leaves much to be desired in giving an accurate arid meaningful perspective. You can help fill in the "blank spaces" by returning the ques­ tionnaire you received on "farm shop instruction practices and situations" as soon as possible. Your cooperation will be Yours truly, Richard Pfister 153 APPENDIX J COPY OF THE LETTER WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE Richard G. Pfister 113^ Sunset Lane East Lansing, Michigan M r . ______________________ Teacher of Farm Mechanics ____________ High School _____________, Michigan Dear ______________: I received a letter this morning from one of the Farm Shop instructors who indicated that he had either mislaid or lost the Farm Shop Practices Questionnaire. Perhaps this has also happened to you. I am enclosing another copy of the questionnaire complete with return envelope. We would very much appreciate your cooperation, and I will send you a summary of the findings of this study as soon as it is completed. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Richard G. Pfister APPENDIX K ITEM ANALYSIS FOR SCORING ITEMS 155 TABLE XUI-Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to Variable A--Qualifications of the teacher. Items 11 10 7 7 Years 9 7-8 5-6 4 of farm shop teaching experience years or more years years years or less 6 11 8 10 Years 9 6-8 4-5 3 in present position years or more years years years or less 6 8 11 10 Average grade in college farm mechanics Between A and B 16 B 9 Between B and C 10 C or lower 1 Maximum range of variable A = 12 points cocmho 39. of teaching experience years or more years years years or less cocmho 42c. Years 9 7-8 5-6 4 cocuho 42b. Scoring mcviiHO 42a. Responses TABLE X I V — Item analysis of scoring for* questions pertaining to variable B--Attitude of the Teacher Items Responses Scoring Satisfaction with career More satisfied As satisfied D o n 't know Friends seem more satisfied Not as satisfied 15 11 7 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 Reward received from teaching More than adequate Fair return I wonder Time worth more elsewhere Not worth the time put in 8 18 6 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 7 2 13 1 14 0 Feeling towards the questionnaire Positive Neutral or no response Negative 16 13 7 2 1 0 7. Attitude towards students Very interested students Quite interested students Interested students Somewhat interested students Not very interested students 2 19 13 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 5. Biggest challenge In teaching safety Developing positive attitudes Teaching in a positive sense Lack knowledge Students not Interested Students think safety is timid Negative nature of safety 18 2 6 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 * uo 00 37. 45. 48. Interest in student Pupil centered, in positive sense Pupil or teacher and Job or project centered Job, time, and/or physical facility centered Maximum range of variable B — 12 points 157 TABLE XV--Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable C--Orientation of farm mechanics instruction. Items 1. 3. 4. 6. Responses Farm shop Instruction scheduled as Separate subject, taught by teacher of Industrial arts 5 Separate subject, taught by teacher of vocational agriculture 11 Unit of vocational agriculture course 8 Integrated part of vocational agriculture course 12 Type of instruction determined by Course plans Course plans modified by student activity Student activity modified by course plans Student activity Scoring 2 2 1 0 16 2 11 9 1 0 Safety instruction within farm mechanics Is: — Separate Separate unit, but also integrated 9 Integrated, with some separated 13 14 Integrated 2 1 0 Importance on instruction In the farm shop, compared to other areas of instruction Is: More Important Slightly more important As important Slightly less important Less important 2 2 1 0 0 Maximum range at variable C » 8 points 5 3 24 2 2 - 15 8 TABLE XVX--Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable D — Extent of use of visual aids. Items 40a. Responses Scoring Individual demonstrations Daily Frequently From time to time Never 6 20 6 1 1 1 0 0 Group demonstrations Daily Frequently From time to time Never 0 23 13 0 1 0 Slides, filmstrips, and movies Dally Frequently From time to time Never 0 13 19 1 1 0 0 Group discussion Daily Frequently From time to time Never 7 21 6 2 1 1 0 0 35. Use of signs and posters Are used and changed every week Are used and changed every six weeks Are used and changed every semester Would be used if available Not used 3 8 12 8 5 1 1 1 0 0 36. Use of safety regulations Posted and reviewed by class Posted Discussed by class, but not posted Not used 10i. 4 20 2 1 1 0 0 40b. 40c. 40d. Maximum range of variable D = 6 points - 159 TABLE XVII-Item analysis of scoring for Questions pertaining to variable E--Supervision of students. Items 4la. 41. 8. 9. 2. Responses Scoring Average size of classes Less than 13 students 1 3 - 1 4 students 15 - 19 students 20 or more students 9 10 10 7 3 2 1 0 Largest size class Less than 14 students 14 - 15 students 1 6 - 2 0 students 21 or more students 7 9 11 9 3 2 1 0 Supervision during class hours-leaving shop Do not leave 16 Student in charge, no power equipment used 5 Student in charge 3 No power equipment used 5 Students "placed on their honor" 7 Supervision for unscheduled farm shop work Not permitted to work Permitted with constant supervision Permitted with partial supervision Permitted without supervision School farm shop area is: Used only by Voc. Agr. class Shared with other classes used separately Shared with other classes; sometimes used together Shared with other classes; used together 3 2 2 1 0 5 16 11 4 3 2 1 0 8 3 19 2 7 1 2 0 Maximum range of variable E = 15 points 160 TABLE XVIII-Item analysis of* scoring for questions pertaining to variable F--Adequacy of the farm shop structure Items 44. Age of 2 3-4 5-9 10 building or less years years years or more years Responses Scoring 7 8 9 11 3 2 1 0 Space per student In largest class 190 or more square feet 151-190 squarefeet 100-150 squarefeet less than 100 square feet 9 9 8 9 3 2 1 0 43a. Space per student In average class 211 or more square feet 160-210 squarefeet 100-159 squarefeet less than 100 square feet 9 9 9 8 3 2 1 0 43 . 10. 11. 12. 13. Floor surface Concrete Painted concrete Tile Wood or wood block Combination two of the above Lighting Excellent Good Adequate Not very adequate 20 11 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 Av 12 13 7 4 3 2 1 0 Color dynamics Used throughout shop 4 3 Used on hand tools andpower equipment 5 2 Used on power equipment 1 1 Used on hand tools 1 1 None 0 Ventilation— odor No odor 1 3 Very little 5 3 Weak x5 2 Halfway between weak and strong 7 1 Strong 8 1 Very strong______________ ~________ £, M a x i m u m range of variable P = 21 points 161 TABLE XIX--Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable G — Storage of tools, supplies, and projects. Items 21. 17. Responses Paints, thinners, and paint brush cleaner storage Metal cans in metal cabinet Metal cans on open shelves Metal cans in wood cabinet Metal cabinet Wood cabinet Lumber storage area is Sufficient and working well Sufficient, but needs reorganization Insufficient, but working satis­ factory Insufficient and difficult to organize Completely Inadequate 19. Amount of project storage space Adequate and working well Adequate, but needs reorganization Inadequate, but working satisfactory Inadequate and difficult to organize Completely Inadequate 23. Hand tool storage Central tool room with attendant Central tool room, self serve Mainly In tool room, but partily in cabinets Mainly In cabinets, but partly in tool room In cabinets in various shop areas Scoring 7 16 2 5 5 3 2 1 1 0 9 7 3 2 13 1 3 3 0 0 6 6 12 6 6 3 2 1 0 0 3 5 3 3 3 2 2 23 1 0 Maximum range of variable G = 12 points 162 TABLE X X — Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable H--Availability of power equipment and hand tools. Item 24. Responses Supply of hand tools Very adequate Adequate Inadequate Completely inadequate Scoring 3 27 3 1 3 2 1 0 26a. Supply of power tools All 8 listed 7 6 5 or less 13 10 8 5 3 2 1 0 46b. Per cent of students using power tools with little direct supervision (Average on those tools commonly used by matched pairs) 82 per cent or less 83 - 92 per cent 93 - 98 per cent 99 -100 per cent 9 9 9 .5 3 2 1 0 Maximum range of variable H — 9 points 163 TABLE XXX— Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable I--Maintenance of tools and shop areas. Items 25. 26. ♦ o on 18 . 22. Complete After Every Every Every Every Responses check on tool condition every class day week six weeks semester Defective hand tools are Always removed Usually removed Removed if defect is serious hazard Sometimes used Defective power tools are Taken out of use and reported to administrator Taken out of use, not necessarily reported Reported to administrator, to determine what to do Not always taken out of use Used as long as possible Project storage area is maintained In Good condition and neat Pretty good condition Fair condition Poor condition, by some standards Poor condition Farm shop is cleaned After each class, with special clean up each day After each class, with special clean up each week After each class After each day with special clean up each week After each day Maximum range of Variable I Scoring 9 8 8 4 7 3 3 2 1 0 18 4 7 7 3 2 1 0 18 3 6 2 3 7 2 1 0 0 5 10 13 5 2 3 2 1 0 0 5 3 12 14 2 1 —_ — 5 0 15 points 164 TABLE XXII-Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable J — Use of protective equipment. Items 32. 33. 14. 29. 34. 27. Type of clothing worn for shop work Provided Required to be cover-alls or shop coats and enforced Up to student but I advise Usually farm work clothes Up to student and parents Students wear leather apron and gloves Always Most always Sometimes Seldom Never Waste containers Separate for wood, metal and rags— rag container covered Separate for wood, metal, and rags Separate for wood and metal Common containers Power equipment guards Always used Almost always used Used frequently Used sporadically Responses 6 Scoring 4 2 1 0 1 0 7 9 10 7 3 2 2 1 0 0 16 2 11 1 0 0 22 7 2 20 12 4 Chipping slag off arc weld 6 Always wear clear goggles or shields Usually wear clear goggles or shields 8 Use arc welding helmet to deflect 10 slag Use chipping hammer so slag moves 12 away from them When drilling a one-inch wide strap of steel 18 Drill press vice is always used Drill press vice is always used If 12 drill is over l/8 inch dia. 2 C-clamp is always used Drill press vice should be used b u t e 1 we d o n ’t have one 2 Pair of pliers is used to hold strap 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 165 TABLE XXII— Continued Items 28. Responses When ripping board with circular saw Push stick always used 20 Push stick used by most students 13 Push stick should be used, but are not Second student or I pull the material through saw 3 Maximum range of variable J = 14 points Scoring 2 1 - 0 166 TABLE XXIII-Item analysis of scoring for questions pertaining to variable K--Arrangement of the farm shop area. Items 15. 31. 16. 20. Responses Organization Work areas with areas of related work grouped together Work areas According to electrical facilities and available work space Depends on jobs that are being worked on Scoring 18 4 3 2 7 1 7 0 Safety zones Designated by paint--power equipment, benches, and storage areas Designated by paint--power equipment 2 and work benches Designated by paint--power equipment 3 Recognized around power equipment 16 Not recognized 15 3 2 1 0 Relationship of work area to materials storage area Distinct and separate areas Somewhat distinct and separate areas Frequently together In same area 15 9 7 5 3 2 1 0 7 14 3 2 9 5 1 0 Traffic lanes--movement In shop Easy Fairly easy Fairly easy when don't have many projects Obstacle course at times Maximum range of variable K = 12 points