71-18,287
SAIN, Laurence William, 1912A STUDY OF SELECTED FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
HIGH SCHOOL DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE
UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, curriculum development

U niversity Microfilms, A XEROX Com pany , A nn Arbor, M ichigan

A STUDY OF SELECTED FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
HIGH SCHOOL DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
IN THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN
By

Laurence William Sain

A THESIS

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

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum
1970

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF SELECTED FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
HIGH SCHOOL DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
IN THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN
By
Laurence William Sain

The primary purpose of this investigation was to
select certain factors for study which seem to have an
important bearing on the effectiveness of driver education
programs and to make recommendations for changes that
would result in program improvement.
The secondary purpose was to discover the
weaknesses of the existing programs and to compile infor­
mation that would be valuable to both high schools and
institutions of higher education for the improvement of
driver education programs in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.
In order to accomplish these goals it was decided
to use a three-fold approach which included a study of the
school programs,

teacher qualifications, and the student

driver.
Of the fifty-seven high schools in the region,
fifty-five participated in the study.

Driver education

Laurence William Sain

instructors from all of these schools were interviewed.
Students from all of these schools who had satisfactorily
completed the driver education course, had become licensed
drivers,

and established a driving record were interviewed

and tested as to their driving record, knowledge,
personal attitudes.

and

These interviews and tests were used

to evaluate the effectiveness of the driver education
programs in the schools.
One hundred thirteen teachers and 1,264 students
participated.

This represented 98 per cent of the driver

education teachers and 96 per cent of the high schools
engaged in driver education in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.
From the questionnaires for program evaluation the
following information was recorded and after comparison
with national standards these recommendations were made:
1.

Recommendation:

Increase driver education

requirements to forty-five clock hours of
classroom and eight clock hours of laboratory
instruction.
Most schools

(74 per cent)

provide only minimum

hours of instruction as required by the state for reim­
bursement.
2.

Recommendation:

Encourage

all high schools to

correlate laboratory and classroom instruction.

Laurence William Sain

About one-half

(51 per cent) of the schools corre­

late laboratory and classroom instruction.
3.

Recommendation:

Require schools to keep

programs up-dated through use of current
material
Ninety per cent of the schools were using textbooks
and materials that were more than five years old.
4.

Recommendation:

Encourage teachers and students

to actively participate in community traffic
safety activities.
Less than 20 per cent of the teachers or programs
are involved in community related safety activities.
5.

Recommendation:

Require schools to offer the

program during the regular school day for a
full semester.
About one-half of the schools do not offer driver
education during the regular school day for a full se­
mester .
6.

Recommendation:

Encourage schools to utilize

resource people and related information.
About one-fourth of

the programs do not make use

of resource persons and related information.
7.

Recommendation:

Urge schools to investigate

the possibility of cooperatively developing
the use of program a i d e s .

Laurence William Sain

Practically no schools use simulation, range
programs, or programmed instruction for program enrichment.
8.

Recommendation:

Encourage schools,

nancially if possible,

fi­

to carry out follow-up

studies of their g r aduates.
No schools were making follow-up studies of their
driver education graduates.
9.

Recommendation:

Urge schools to provide for

parent-teacher consultation on student
progress.
Parents are not involved and are poorly informed
on student progress.
10.

Recommendation:

Limit class size to allow

opportunities for group discussion and
interaction.
Classroom instruction in many schools is carried
on in very large groups.
The interviews on teacher qualifications revealed
the following information:
1.

63.7 per cent of the teachers had minimum
q ualifications.

2.

30.1 per cent of the teachers had average
qualifications.

3.

6.2 per cent of the teachers had higher
qualifications.

4.

4.4 per cent of the teachers were teaching
driver education full time.

Laurence William Sain

5.

95.6 per cent of the teachers were teaching
driver education part time.

Recommendations
1.

Provide additional state funds for operation
of driver education programs including teacher
r eimbursement.

2.

Encourage universities to offer more than the
basic courses for teacher preparation in
driver education.

3.

Encourage universities and the State Department
of Education to provide more in-service
training programs.

The interviews,

tests and inventories revealed the

following information on students:
1.

Students had only a fair knowledge of traffic
laws,

2.

rules,

and regulations.

16.5 per cent of the students had violation
records.

3.

21.1 per cent of the students had accident
records.

4.

94.5 per cent of the students believed that
driver education had helped them to become
better d r i v e r s .

5.

14.1 per cent of the students failed to develop
proper attitudes.

Laurence William Sain

Recommendations
1.

More emphasis be placed on learning and under­
standing laws, rules,

2.

and regulations.

More emphasis be placed on accident causation
and prevention.

3.

More stress be placed on group discussion and
interaction for the development of better
attitudes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Dr. William A. Mann, my major advisor, my
friend,

and Chairman of my Guidance Committee.
To the other members of my Guidance Committee:

Dr. Charles Blackman, Professor Gordon S h e e h e , and
Dr. James Costar.
To the Northern Michigan University Board of
Control and the Administration for encouragement by
granting a sabbatical leave for advanced graduate study.
To the superintendents, teachers and students who
cooperated with me in this study.
Finally to my wife, Olive, whose patience,
assistance,

confidence, and encouragement were a source

of inspiration enabling me to finish this thesis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

Page

INTRODUCTION

..................................

Rationale ..................................
P u r p o s e .....................................
Statement of the Problem .................
Significance of the S t u d y .................
Delimitations...............................
Definition of T e r m s ........................
II.

III.

IV.

1
1
8
9
11
13
15

REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ........................

18

Literature on Program Standards.
. . .
Literature on Teacher Certification
in G e n e r a l ..................................
Literature on Teacher Preparation for
Driver E d u c a t i o n ...........................
Literature on Student Evaluation
. . .
Maturation and Attitudes .................
Other Related Literature .................
S umm a r y.....................................

18

30
31
33
35
38

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE .....................

41

Selection of Geographical Area . . . .
Program Evaluation ........................
Teacher Qualifications.
. . . . . .
Student Evaluation ........................
Basic A s s u m p t i o n s ........................
P r o c e d u r e ..................................

41
42
45
47
51
51

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

. . . .

General Information. . . . . . . .
Program Evaluation
. . .
Teacher Qualifications and Program
S t a n d a r d s ...........................
Student Evaluation
. . .
Program Effectiveness Evaluation
. . .

iii

20

57
57
58
61
62
68

Chapter
V.

Page
S U M M A R Y .........................................

74

Data and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .................
The Composite Picture
....................
Conclusions ....................
Weaknesses of the S t u d y ....................
Implications for Future Studies . . . .

75
82
83
86
89

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................

92

A P P E N D I X ................................................

98

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Program Evaluation

............................

59

2.

Data on Teacher Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ..............

62

3.

Data on S t u dents...............................

63

4.

Program

Effectiveness by Knowledge.

. . .

69

5.

Program

Effectiveness by Violations

. . .

70

6.

Program

Effectiveness by Accidents.

. . .

71

7.

Program

Effectiveness by Attitudes.

. . .

71

8.

Composite of Program Effectiveness Ratings

v

.

73

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Rationale
With the ever increasing concern for traffic
safety;

as evidenced by the comments of the general public,

law enforcement officials,

automobile manufacturers,

insurance company officials,

educators,

the state and national governments;

and officials of

it behooves us to

reassess and re-evaluate what is already being done in the
name of traffic safety and driver education.
As a result of this,

the controversy stirred up by

Ralph Nader's Book, Unsafe At Any S p e e d ,'*' and some of our
national legislators1 congressional speeches,

the Highway

Safety Act of 1966 was enacted as Public Law 89-564.

One

of the requirements of this law is that each state must:
. . . provide for comprehensive driver training
programs, including (1) the initiation of a state
program for driver education in the school system or
for a significant expansion and improvement of such a
program already in existence, to be administered by
appropriate school officials under the governor as set
forth in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph; (2) the
training of qualified school instructors and their
certification; (3) appropriate regulation of other

"'■Ralph Nader, Unsafe At Any Speed
Pocket Books, 1966).
1

(New York:

2

driver training schools and the certification of their
instructors; (4) adult driver training programs and
programs for the retraining of selected drivers; and
(5) adequate research, development and procurement of
practice driving facilities, simulators, and other
similar teaching aids for both school and other driver
training use.2
Michigan has had,

since 1956, compulsory driver

education for all new drivers under eighteen years of age
and permissive county driver improvement schools.
the Federal Highway Safety Act specifically states,

Because
"for

significant expansion and improvement of such a program
already in existence," many educators are seeking ways and
means to do so.
needed?

The question exists, what improvements are

Some point to the low teacher qualification re­

quirement and suggest that the raising of standards for
approval would be a positive step in the right direction
as this should insure a better understanding of highway
traffic safety problems and could result in the develop­
ment of more comprehensive driver education programs in
our schools.

Other educators point to the shocking fact

that teenagers, who should be our better drivers, have the
greatest percentage of our fatal accidents among the v ari­
ous age groups.

They appear to believe that more time

should be required for maturation and the development of
driving skills.

There are still others who are concerned

with the attitudes of drivers on our highways.
2

It is

National Highway Safety Act of 1 9 6 6 , Public Law
89-564.
Congressional Record, Vol. CXII (Washington,
D.C.:
Congressional Library, 1966).

3

their belief that driver and traffic safety education
should begin at an earlier age and be spread over a longer
period of time in order that there be more opportunity for
development of good driver attitudes.
Although Michigan was one of the pioneer states
to institute compulsory driver education in 1956,

little

had been done by the State until 1966 to improve the
quality of teacher certification or the programs of the
various schools.

The initial program was established very

hurriedly due to the public and legislative concern for
the

ever

increasing mayhem and death on Michigan highways.

As a result of this sudden implementation of the program
it took on the aspect of a "crash program" which has never
been thoroughly relinquished even after a decade of oper­
ation.

One phase of the "crash program" was the immediate

necessity for approval of teachers to carry it out.
resulted in very low standards

This

(a certified secondary

teacher with two semester hours of preparation in driver
education)

for teacher approval.

It also provided a

"grandfather clause" which allowed teachers who had had
forty clock hours of instruction under the American
Automobile Association

(no official college credit)

to

become approved driver education instructors.
Because of these sub-standard qualifications many
administrators and so-called driver education teachers
have looked upon it as a "moon-lighting" job to supplement

4

the teacher's salary.

In many schools it is considered a

sub-standard subject, taught completely outside of the
daily school program, and receives little or no academic
credit.

Also due to the sub-standard qualifications,

administrators who were justifiably attempting to econo­
mize, were able to employ poorly qualified teachers at low
salary rates and still meet minimum state requirements and
qualify for state reimbursement.

This did very little to

create interest or improvement and generally resulted in
only a minimum program.
Because the death rate dropped during the following
y e a r s , whether or not it was due to driver education or
other laws and regulations enacted at the same legislative
session,

there appeared to be a "laissez-faire" policy

adopted until 1966.

At this time approval requirements

were increased to four semester hours by July 1, 1967, six
semester hours by July 1, 1968,
hours by July 1, 1972.

and to eight semester

This does not meet the requirements

of the North Central Association of Secondary Schools and
Colleges,

a minor of twenty semester hours,

for teaching

an academic subject in the curriculum of an approved high
school.

It is also surpassed by many other states who

watched Michigan as an experiment and then entered the
field at a later date.

It is probable that the state

requirements will be increased eventually to at least a
minor in driver education and what is now approval will
become certification.

However, one provision which is

5

still included in the new certification code for teacher
approval tends to serve as a hampering effect.

That is

the continuation of the "grandfather clause" which allows
those teachers already engaged in teaching driver edu­
cation to continue even with the minimum qualifications of
1956.

Perhaps continued pressure of the state and national

organizations plus that of professional educators can
assist in hastening the raising of the standards and the
elimination of the "grandfather clause."
A recent study made by the staff of the Michigan
State University Highway Traffic Safety Center, How to
3
Improve Driver Education in M i c h i g a n , found among many
other weaknesses,
adequate,

that teacher qualifications were in­

that laboratory and classroom sessions were not

taught concurrently, that most schools were only meeting
minimum requirements for reimbursement,

and that classes

were too large to encourage group discussions and inter­
action which could assist in the development of good
a ttitudes.
While the Michigan State University study is a
very comprehensive analysis of how to improve driver
education in Michigan,

it was the belief of the investi­

gator that as it was conducted in such breadth,

covering

3
Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety
Center, How to Improve Driver Education in Michigan (East
Lansing, M i c h . : Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan
State University, 1966).

6

the entire state with only a sampling of each area, that
it might fail to present a true picture of the programs
taught in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is unique in many
ways as compared to the metropolitan areas as well as the
suburban areas of the state and as a result some of its
problems are different from those which are representative
of the state as a whole.

Thus different methods and

procedures for program improvement might be required.
Some of the differences which could be important
factors in determining what should be considered are:
many small high schools, mostly rural communities, greater
distances from resource centers, differences in driving
conditions such as lack of freeways and traffic congestion,
climatic conditions,

and school finances.

The Upper Peninsula is noted for its number of
small high schools resulting in high instructional cost
per pupil because of the low teacher-pupil ratio.

This

could be one of the factors responsible for the employment
of teaching personnel with minimum qualifications and
programs which meet only the minimum requirements.
The differences in traffic conditions are directly
related to being mostly rural communities.

The Upper

Peninsula student learns to drive under situations that
are not representative of the state and nation as a whole.
He learns on streets and highways that are not heavily

7

congested, has little experience with one-way streets or
expressways,

and has not had sufficient experience with

the various traffic signs and controls common in m etro­
politan areas.

Yet,

after he is licensed, he is expected

to be able to drive anywhere in the state or nation as a
qualified driver.
The long distance from resource centers is another
problem of the area.

It makes it difficult for interested

teachers to improve themselves by taking additional courses
and attending in-service training programs to up-date
themselves in the field, it poses problems for higher edu­
cational institutions to offer field courses as the
distances create a hardship for the instructor as well as
students,

and it also results in classes too small to be

economically feasible.

Many of the high school programs

are in operation during the summer thus keeping the teacher
occupied when advanced courses are being offered at v a r i ­
ous institutions of higher education.
Climatic conditions affect the programs.
schools offer no winter programs except classroom,

Some
thus

denying the students an opportunity to learn to drive
under adverse conditions which they must face as licensed
drivers.

Due to heavy snows range and off-the-street

programs have limited use unless teachers are properly
taught and motivated as to their use.

Finances have been mentioned briefly but perhaps
further clarification is necessary.

Smaller schools

result in smaller budgets for each area of instruction and
many schools attempt to present the course as economically
as possible which results in low teacher reimbursement.
The well-qualified professional and interested driver
education teacher is not attracted to accept such a p o ­
sition when more challenging and remunerative opportunities
are available.
available.

As a result only the "moonlighter" is

This generally results in low standards and

poor quality instruction.
Purpose
It was the purpose of this study to investigate
selected factors recognized in the Michigan State University
study, which seem to affect the quality of driver education
programs in the high schools of the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.

Although it may appear that the study takes a

negative approach to the problem by studying weaknesses
rather than strengths,

it was believed that recommendations

for improvements could only be made if the probable
weaknesses were identified and investigated.
It was already known, because of the author's close
association with teachers and programs in the area, that
there was a great diversity in the manner in which various
school programs were presented.
from many sources,

These differences stemmed

i.e., administrative procedures,

school

9

size,

facilities,

availability,

finances,

teacher qualification and

local prejudices,

and environment.

It

remained to be determined which of these diverse procedures
exhibited either strength or weaknesses and thus pave the
way for suggestions for improvement.
Statement of the Problem
In viewing the traffic safety problems of the
seventies as compared to the middle fifties many changes
have occurred.

Changes which have not been met by present

driver education programs.

Many of the high schools are

still operating programs in the same manner as at their
first inception.

Some of the changes which must be con­

sidered in recognizing the need for program improvement
are:
1.

The driving task has become more complex
because of higher speed, kinds of highways,
more drivers,

2.

and more vehicles.

More students desire driver education because
"wheels" are now a status symbol in our
affluent society with the two-car family.

3.

New methods and techniques for teaching driver
education have been developed.

4.

State reimbursement has not kept pace with the
increase in teacher salaries.

5.

Broader curriculums present scheduling problems.

10

In order to recognize and identify the causes for
some of the weaknesses and to be able to make suggestions
for improvement it was decided to use a three-fold
approach.
of:
and

The three-fold approach would include a study

(1) the school program,

(2) teacher qualifications,

(3) the student driver.
The school programs were to be surveyed and the

results compared to national standards of policies and
practices established by recognized leaders in the field
of driver and traffic safety education.
Teacher qualifications were determined through a
questionnaire which showed the amount of professional
preparation and interest in the field of driver and
traffic safety education.

These results were compared to

the amount of preparation required to teach in other
academic fields.

It was expected that better qualified

teachers would present better programs that would produce
more competent and knowledgeable traffic citizens.
The students were evaluated as the product of the
program.

They were interviewed as to their driving

records and experience, tested for knowledge,
toried as to their personal attitudes.

and inven­

These results were

used to determine the effectiveness of the programs and to
assist in pointing out the various weaknesses.

11

Significance of the Study
Michigan's driver education program,

as originally

conceived, has been recognized by educators, parents, and
traffic safety specialists as one of the best in the nation.
It has served as a model for many other states in es­
tablishing their programs.

It was enacted a full decade

before the enactment of the Federal Highway Safety Act of
1966 which made driver education the obligation of every
state in the union.
driver education,

It established a legal basis for

set minimum requirements,

and provided

for reimbursement to the schools for the students p a r ­
ticipating.

However,

those who are interested in the

program and are associated with it realize that there is
need for improvement.

It is only through continuous study

and research that improvement can occur.

No program can

rest on its laurels but must be constantly reevaluated
through research and an application made of its findings.
Technological and societal changes occur at a rapid pace
and every program must be prepared to fulfill the needs
created by these chan g e s .
No one has ever been able to state that the thirty
clock hours of classroom instruction and six hours of
laboratory instruction

(established as minimum standards)

are sufficient to prepare drivers adequately for the
complicated task facing them on our streets and highways.
A study which takes an unbiased look at programs and

12

compares them to recognized national standards should be
beneficial in assisting in program improvement.
It has long been the policy of the schools,
administrators,

and state certification agencies to accept

the requirements of the North Central Association, which
approves or disapproves schools and their programs in this
geographical area, as the minimum requirements for the
teaching of any academic subject.

The minimum requirement

at present for teaching such a subject is a teaching minor
of twenty semester hours in that field.

The requirements

for initial approval to teach driver education in the State
of Michigan have long violated this requirement,

thus

relegating the subject to that of an extra-curricular
activity or at most a sub-standard subject.
The Michigan Driver Education Association,

the

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association,
and many professional educators have been repeatedly
recommending the raising of certification standards for
driver education teachers as one means to assist in the
improvement of high school programs.

However,

as no

satisfactory evidence could be found to enable them to
substantiate their claims,

it was felt that such a study

as this could furnish more information in this area.
Also,

it could be used to influence certification agencies

to recognize the need for well-qualified teachers in
driver education and would result in the raising of

13

standards and the elimination of the "grandfather clause"
at the earliest possible moment.
The information gathered in this study should be
valuable to all institutions of higher education,

es­

pecially Northern Michigan University which is the chief
source of supply of driver education instructors in the
geographical area studied,

for the purpose of improving

and modifying their teacher-preparation programs and
services which should result in the improvement of high
school driver education teachers and their programs.
Delimitations
It was recognized by the author that the results
of this study could not be treated statistically because
of the uncontrolled variables which would affect its
validity.

Such uncontrolled variables as:

1.

Varying support from administration.

2.

Lack of facilities and equipment.

3.

Size of the school systems.

4.

School and local environment.

5.

Attitudes of parents and the general public.

6.

Teacher's personal attitudes and performance.

7.

Availability of well-qualified teachers.

8.

School finances.

9.

Lack of a clear definition of the driving task.

14

It is possible that there might have been other hidden
variables which would have an even greater effect on the
results.
While in many instances a well-qualified teacher
through his initiative,

ambition and foresight will be

able to overcome many of these variables;

it was the belief

of the author that the majority being minimally qualified
teachers, would lack the knowledge and incentive to do so.
In order to narrow the scope and attempt to make
it more meaningful the study:
1.

Was confined to only those schools operating
driver education programs in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan.

2.

Involved only those teachers who were pa r ­
ticipating in the complete program

(classroom

and laboratory).
3.

Was concerned with the professional preparation
of the teachers and their professional interest
in driver education.

4.

Was concerned with the high school program as
to how it compared with national standards and
the type of product that it produced.

5.

Involved a sampling of the students from each
high school who had satisfactorily completed
the driver education course and had established
a driving record of not more than two years.

15

These were either junior or senior high school
students.
6.

Was concerned with the student's driving
record as to months of driving experience,
miles driven, violations, and accidents.

7.

Was concerned with the student's attitude
toward driver education, his knowledge of
driving regulations,

and his personal atti­

tudes .

Definition of Terms
In order that a better understanding of the study
may be realized the following terms are identified by
definition as they were used in this study:

T e a c h e r .— The person or persons responsible for
both phases of the driver education program in the school
program.

Prog r a m .— The complete driver education program
including both classroom and laboratory instruction.

Teacher-Preparation.--The amount of formal in­
struction in driver education or related studies that a
teacher has had to prepare himself for approval or certi­
fication to engage in the teaching of driver education.

16

Formal Instruction.— Preparation
in driver education,

traffic safety,

(college credit)

and other related

fields of instruction.
Minimum Qualifications.— That amount of formal
instruction originally necessary, now protected by the
"grandfather clause," to obtain initial approval from the
State Department of Education to teach driver education.
(Two to four semester hours or less.)
Average Qualifications.— Those requirements now
necessary under the present improvement program for initial
approval.

(Six to eight semester hours.)

Higher Qualifications.— That amount of formal
instruction over and above the eight semester hour re­
quirement,

such as a minor or more.

S t u d e n t .--One who has successfully completed a
driver education course, has become a licensed driver, has
established a driving record,

and is still in high school.

Driving R e c o r d .— The record that the student has
established as a licensed driver.
A p p r o v a l .— Permission from the State Department of
Education to teach driver education in Michigan.
Certification.--Requires at least a teaching minor
of twenty semester hours in the area to be taught.

17

C orrelation.— The procedure of teaching both phases
of the driver education program concurrently.
Ma turation.--The process of maturing or developing
into a more nearly finished product.

As teaching the

course over a longer period of time to allow for this
development.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature relevant to this study was
confined to that which had been published during the past
decade.

It was necessary to consider literature which

dealt with the various aspects of the driver education
program which were related to the problem as well as with
views on educational standards in general.

This review

included such topics as program standards, teacher approval
and certification,
ration,

student evaluation,

attitudes, m atu­

and other related information.

Literature on Program Standards
One of the best references discovered for driver
education program standards,

their improvement and develop­

ment, was published by the National Commission on Safety
Education.

This was the result of the Fourth National

Conference on Driver Education which brought together many
of the nation's foremost driver educators.

It does not

attempt to establish rigid rules and regulations for a
standardized guide but rather sets guidelines for the
teacher to follow as stated in its introduction:
18

19

This report reflects the result of a search for
more effective processes to enhance the growth of
driver education.
Rather than prescribe static forms
and rigid criteria, the Conference endeavored to
evolve guidelines that will stimulate imaginative
practices as driver education develops in response to
the technological discoveries of the future.^
It sets up purposes,

suggests criteria for learning ex­

periences, develops organization for instruction, discusses
methods and techniques of instruction,

recommends the use

of innovations and traffic safety activities,
on materials and equipment.

and comments

Although it does all of this

it still leaves the way clear for teachers to demonstrate
their own initiative, versatility,
accomplish the same.

and ingenuity to

It does, however, recommend certain

minimum standards as to the number of clock hours for both
classroom and laboratory instruction.

It further recom­

mends equivalencies for the use of simulators,
programs,
placement,

academic credit,
and licensing.

student selection,
In fact,

range
grade

it may be considered

as the best guide available in program standards as it is
the thinking of specialists and is closely followed by all
recently published teacher-preparation textbooks,

such as

National Commission on Safety Education, Policies
and Practices for Driver Education and Traffic Safety
(Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, 1964).

20
the one by Aaron and Strasser
Automobile Association.

2

and another by the American

3

Literature on Teacher Certification
in General
The literature on teacher certification can be
both confusing and enlightening in that most writers on
the subject are not always in agreement as to the amount
of formal teacher preparation necessary for the efficient
teaching of any one subject.

This is not only true of

authors but of institutions of higher learning and state
certification agencies as well.
James B. Conant in his book, The Education of
4
American Teach e r s , points out that certification re­
quirements vary in all of the states and are constantly in
a state of revision and what is true today may not be true
several years hence.

He further contends that professors

of various subject fields are jealous of their fields and
exert much pressure on certification requirements in their
favored fields.

Conant recommends that teachers be

2

James E. Aaron and Marland K. Strasser, Driver
and Traffic Safety Education (New York:
MacMillan Co.,
1966) .
3

American Automobile Association, Teaching Driver
and Traffic Safety Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1965).
4
Teachers

James B. Conant, The Education of American
(New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963).

21

certified primarily as elementary or secondary teachers
but that the teacher should be assigned only in that area
for which he has prepared himself satisfactorily.

He

believes that a teacher cannot teach efficiently in
several fields as the result of only a baccalaureate
degree.

He is concerned with the lack of opportunity to

do student teaching in more than one area, thus resulting
in a poorly prepared teacher.

Conant believes that u n i ­

versities and colleges should have "freedom" in the certi­
fication of teachers but must also accept "responsibility"
for the quality of their products.

Although Conant is one

of education's severest critics, he has done considerable
investigation and observation of higher education in the
United States and his views must be considered in the
ever-changing educational process.
James D. Koerner^ is concerned with the limited
amount of actual experience and knowledge required for
certification in all fields of teaching.

He feels that

most teachers lack the essential background necessary
because of requiring, what he labels, unessential edu­
cation courses.

He presents factual evidence from

various college curriculums which show that from 35 to
50 per cent of credit for baccalaureate degrees is derived
from education courses and practically no liberal arts

5
James D. Koerner, The Miseducation of American
Teachers (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin C o . , 1962).

22

credit is required for advanced graduate degrees in edu­
cation.

Here again is shown the concern for more prepa­

ration in the specialized field.
In the summary of the book,

Improving Teacher E d u ­

cation in the United S t a t e s , published by Phi Delta Kappa,
Don Davies,

Executive Secretary of the National Commission

on Teacher Education and Professional Standards,

lists four

prospects for improvement of teacher certification.
them is one for "more relevant preparation."

Among

He further

clarifies it by stating:
Effective subject-matter preparation is another
important side of the training-relevance question.
Morris Cogan demonstrates the importance of rejecting
the cliche's about "good solid majors" and "excel­
lence" and searching for better questions and better
answers to old questions about subject-matter prepa­
ration .6
T h i s , too tends to re-enforce the recommendations of more
and better preparation for all fields of teacher certifi­
cation .
Lucian B. Kinney discusses the lack of uniformity
in certification practices throughout the states.

He also

discusses the difference between approval and certifi­
cation.

He describes approval as an emergency,

status until certification requirements are met.

temporary
He

further points out that this can be a continuing process
until there are sufficient numbers of certified teachers

^Stanley Elam, Improving Teacher Education in the
United States (Bloomington, I n d . : Phi Delta Kappa, 1967).

23

to make approval unnecessary.

In his final chapter titled,

"Certification and Professional Autonomy," he champions
the cause that a profession is responsible for the quality
of its membership.

He compares the teaching profession to

that of the medical and legal professions which set their
own standards rather than having a state board or other
agency to determine what standards should be.

He further

states:
. . . if we are convinced of the seriousness of
the situation then it is our professional responsibility
to convince the public of the dangers presented by
the unqualified teacher in the classroom and explain
the measures to exclude them.
The task is one of
education, first with the profession, and then with the
public.
Before embarking on any ambitious project to e s ­
tablish its control over the quality of its membership,
the professional membership in education must itself be
convinced, and be prepared to convince the public, that
it is better to leave a classroom unstaffed than to
employ a teacher with substandard preparation.
If this
is not the case, no process of licensure is needed
because no profession exists.
There is no backdoor
entry to a genuine p rofession.7
Thus Kinney places the blame back on the profession itself
for substandard qualifications and like Conant stresses
"freedom" and "responsibility" of the profession.
In the Journal of Research and Development in
Education, Joseph C. Bledsoe of the University of Georgia
is concerned with the personality characteristics and
teaching performance of beginning teachers in relationship
to certification status.
7

He has found that regardless

Lucian B. Kinney, Certification in Education
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1964).

24

of certification standards beginning teachers look to their
immediate superior,
direction.

the principal,

for assistance and

Thus, the success or failure of communications

between these two individuals has much to do with the
effectiveness of the educational programs.

He points out

that beginning teachers often view the principal as the
key person in solving school problems and also as the one
who determines what and how a subject is taught.

He states

that the principal's behavior represents the full range of
the continuum and therefore can have an adverse effect as
well as a beneficial one or it can lie somewhere in
between.

He writes as follows:

Teachers sought help from the Principal with
instructional problems relating to classroom organi­
zation and subject content.
A conflict of philosophy,
a lack of effective two-way communication, a lack of
time for providing help, and a lack of knowledge and
skill in instructional leadership stood in the way of
securing as much help as desired in problem areas.8
This would appear to indicate that principals should be
more knowledgeable of the content and problems of the
various fields offered within their high school curriculum.
From the same journal,

Iva D. Brown and Fred W.

Brown of the University of Southern Mississippi state:
"Reliable knowledge concerning teacher effectiveness is
limited and fully valid methods of measuring teacher
O

Joseph C. Bledsoe, "Personality Characteristics
and Teaching Performance of Beginning Teachers as Related
to Certification Status," Journal of Research and Develop­
ment in Education, II, No.- 1 (Fall, 1968) , 4 4.

25

competencies are yet to be devised."

9

Even though they

make this statement they appear to feel that a study made
by Combs in 195 5 presents some valuable information on
teacher effectiveness in his five major areas of perceptual
organization of a good teacher:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Rich, extensive, and available perceptions
about his subject field.
Actual perceptions about what people are like.
Perceptions of self leading to adequacy.
Accurate perceptions about the purpose and
process of learning.
Personal perception about appropriate methods
for carrying out his p u r p o s e . 10

Of these Combs found that pupils ranked being knowledgeable
as the most important.

Again this appears to reenforce the

theme of more formal teacher-preparation.
Gardner,
standards.

He

in his book, Excellence, comments on

acknowledges that there are adverse as well

asfavorable standards that
ness or excellence.

affect a teacher's effective­

He states:

Standards!
That is a word for every American to
write on his bulletin board.
We must face the fact
that there are a good many things in our character
and in our national life which are inimical to
standards— laziness, complacency, the desire for a
fast buck, the American fondness for shortcuts,
reluctance to criticize slackness, to name only a few.

9

Iva D. Brown and Fred W. Brown, "Variations on a
Theme by Combs:
The Professional Education of Teachers,"
Journal of Research and Development in Edu c a t i o n , II, No. 1
(Fall, 1968), 50.

26

Every American knows in his heart that we must sooner
or later come to terms with these f a i l i n g s . H
One could interpret from this that Gardner is concerned
with personal attitudes of the individual regardless of
whether he be a teacher, craftsman, politician, or what
have you.
Louis Filler,

in his treatise on Horace Mann on

the Crises of E d ucation, appears to believe that Mann
established some valuable criteria for the requisites of
a good teacher which are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

K n o w l e d g e - t h o r o u g h , critical and always at
command.
Art of teaching or aptness to teach.
(How to
teach.)
Experience.
Good behavior or c i t i z e n s h i p . 1 2

This would tend to infer that standards had not changed
very rapidly and would signify that knowledge is still of
considerable importance.
Howard Pollock,

in The Trouble With Our Schools,

condemns unqualified instructors.

He writes:

"Unquali­

fied instructors teaching unfamiliar subjects is one of
our major troubles."

13

''■''■John W. Gardner, Excellence
Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 158-59.

(Evanston, 111.:

12

cation

Louis Filler, Horace Mann on the Crises of E d u ­
(Antioch Press, 1965), pp. 69-75.
13

(New York:

Howard X. Pollock, The Trouble With Our Schools
Vantage Press, 1964), p. 259.

27

Frederick Mayer,

in The Perspective for Edu c a t i o n ,

s tates:
The fundamental problem of Education is the problem
of life.
Education, to use the German term, depends
upon Lebensanschaung (life view) more than on
Weitanschaung (world v i e w ) . The task of the teacher
is not merely to transmit knowledge, but to create an
awareness of the possibilities of life.14
This statement could be used as a strong argument for an
effective driver education program.
Mayer further continues in The Goals of E d ucation:
The deadly danger in teaching is routine.
Routine
can be conquered only as we grow and develop in in­
sight.
A mediocre instructor can make any subject
dull.
A great teacher can make the most minute details
significant.15
In Professional Preparation, prepared by the
National Education Association,

it is contended that:

A responsible profession concerns itself with the
standards of service its members provide.
It must
assume the responsibility for protecting the public
against the incompetent practitioners.1°
In a series of papers prepared by the National
Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards

14

Frederick Mayer, The New Perspective for Ed u cation (Washington, D.C.:
Public Affairs Press, 1962),
pp. 137-39.
15

Frederick Mayer, The Goals of Education (Wash­
ington, D.C.:
Public Affairs Press, 1960) , pT 9"3.

16

National Education Association, Professional
Preparation (Washington, D.C.:
National Education
Association, 1960).

28
17
and titled The Certification of T e a c h e r s ,
the following
quotations were taken:
T. M. Stinnett, Executive Secretary of the Com­
mission states:
We must in a professional manner, secure in the
knowledge that this is our field, that we have spent
our lives studying it, that we ought to know more
about it than anyone else in the world; proceed to
set up provisions which will assure everyone of this
vast clientele, a qualified teacher in the future.
Lucian B. Kinney, Professor of Education at
Stanford University,

states:

Control of admission to membership is both the
earmark and obligation of a profession.
This re­
sponsibility is inherent in the importance of its
service to society.
The consequences of incompetence
are severe and far-reaching, but only the members of
the profession itself can appraise qualifications prior
to results.
There is a need for a definition of a good teacher;
most present definitions are hazy.
Suggested avenues for action:
1.
Statewide accreditation programs.
2.
Statewide program building.
3.
Certification requirements around the
accreditation program.
Herman Cooper, Executive Dean of State University
of New York, writes:
Requirements for a good teacher:
1.
Knowledgeable of subject matter.
2.
School psychologist.
3.
Behavior and learning diagnostician.
4. Measurement expert.
5.
Guidance worker.
6. A student of American values.

17

National Commission on Teacher Education and
Professional Standards, The Certification of Teachers
(Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association,
1965).

29

7.
8.

A broadly educated person.
A scholar in his teaching field.

Ralph W. McDonald, President of Bowling Green
State University,

offers the following:

Three tools available to teachers for raising to
a professional level:
1. Minimum requirement of college graduation for
admission to practice.
2.
Sound accreditation of colleges and un i ­
versities that engage in teacher preparation.
3.
Requirement of professional preparation for
admission to national and state associations
of teachers.
It is definitely valid to say that the adoption
of high standards of certification will tend to reduce
teacher turnover and increase the supply of qualified
t e a chers.
Francis S. Chase, Professor of Educational A d ­
ministration of the University of Chicago,

states:

"We

need careful study leading to re-definition of what is
meant by a qualified teacher."
Robert H. Morrison, Assistant Commissioner for
Higher Education of New Jersey, writes:

"The certification

process should be strengthened by using democratic p r o ­
cedures in developing standards,
lations,

in formulating regu­

and in appraising colleges."
From these professional educators one can infer

that they tend to believe that knowledge and personal
attitudes are the most important aspects of teacher
qualifications.

They also appear to be in agreement that

it is the responsibility of the profession to determine
what standards should be set for teacher qualifications
for certification in the various fields.

30

Literature on Teacher Preparation
for Driver Education
One of the most important publications in the
field of teacher preparation and certification for driver
education is that published by the National Committee on
Safety Education,

18

E d ucation.

Policies and Guidelines for Teacher

It is the result of a conference of the

nation's foremost driver educators who were assembled for
the purpose of establishing policies and guidelines for
preparation and certification in their field.
with the following:

It deals

Elements of the Traffic Problem,

Curriculum for Professional Preparation and Growth, College
and University Responsibilities,
Education Responsibilities.

and State Department of

Above all it emphasizes a

"Body of Knowledge" which is further emphasized in a
deposition in the appendix written by Dr. William A. Mann,
Professor in the College of Education at Michigan State
University, which specifies such a "Body of Knowledge"
that could never be successfully achieved by the minimum
requirements needed for initial approval in Michigan.
It recommends,

as a minimum requirement for teacher

certification,

an undergraduate minor in the field of

driver and traffic safety education.

18

If such a

National Commission on Safety Education,
Policies and Guidelines for Teacher Preparation and Certi­
fication in Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington, D.C.:
National Commission on Safety Education,
National Education Association, 1965).

31

recommendation was adopted, teacher education standards
for driver education would become comparable to those of
other educational fields.

As this is the result of the

thinking of national experts in the field it is accepted
by and recommended by other writers in recent publications.
Literature on Student Evaluation
Dunn

19

developed a knowledge test on safe driving

practices to differentiate between violators and no n ­
violators.

He was able to validate statistically this test

as a predictive instrument for the purpose of evaluating
beginning drivers.

Dunn's test was selected for use in

this study.
Kenel

20

validated the Mann Inventory as a pre­

dictive instrument of student behavior.

It was validated

by the process of comparing the results of the question­
naire with observed driving behavior.

It was further

investigated as to whether the observed behavior categories
were reflected in the student's subsequent driving record.
As a result the Mann Inventory was selected as one of the

19

LeRoy W. Dunn, "An Experimental Study of S e ­
lected Traffic Safety Concepts and Their Ability to
Differentiate Violators from Non-violators" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962).
20

Francis C. Kenel, "The Effectiveness of the Mann
Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral
Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver
Performance" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1967).

32

instruments utilized for the evaluation of students in
this study.
Long
attitudes,

21

investigated various tests for knowledge,

and skills of students of driver education and

by comparing their validity and reliability she recommends
that certain ones should be used in evaluating student
competencies in those areas.

One would expect to find in

this piece of literature newly developed and validated
tests;

however,

such was not the case.

It was merely a

survey of the various tests now in existence and through
comparison the author comes up with recommendations of
tests to be used which she believes to be the most valid
and reliable for student evaluation.
A list of competencies that a student should
achieve as the result of having completed a driver edu­
cation course was developed.
tencies for attitudes,

skills,

This list included compe­
and knowledge.

She

recommended that teachers should use these lists of
competencies

for determining what should be taught and

that they should consider using the evaluative instruments
available for pre- and post-testing of students to d e ­
termine whether these competencies had been achieved.

21

Teresa L. Long, "Development of Instruments for
the Evaluation of Driver Education" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas, 1965).

33
Maturation and Attitudes
Cummins and Fagin

22

define maturation as:

" . . .

the interaction between developing physiological functions
and experiences."

They further clarify it by stating:

"Learning passes into maturation and maturation becomes
the basis of further learning."

23

"At best, hurrying and

forcing the child at a rate in advance of his maturational
readiness is a waste of effort."
Edwards and Scannel

25

24

state that maturation is

reinforced by discussion of experiences in the classroom.
These statements would seem to indicate the need
for correlation of laboratory experience and classroom
discussion as a basis for maturation.

Another indication

would appear to be that maturation cannot take place in a
short period of time but is the result of having sufficient
opportunity for thought and application of what has been
learned which then becomes the basis for further learning.
Mouly

26

recognizes the importance of attitudes in

the educative process by the following statement:
22

W. D. Cummins and Barry Fagin, Principles of
Educational Psychology (New York:
Ronald Press, 1954),
p. 151.
23

I b i d . , p. 151.

24

I b i d . , p. 162.

25
Allen J. Edwards and Dale P. Scannel, Educational
Psychology (Scranton, Pennsylvania:
International Textbook
Company, 1968).
26

(New York:

George J. Mouly, Psychology for Effective Teaching
Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1961), p. 342.

34

Educators are becoming progressively more aware
of the importance of attitudes in the over-all edu­
cative process.
Whereas up to the turn of the century,
schools existed primarily, if not solely, for the
purpose of imparting knowledge and skill, it has
become evident that attitudes that come as by-products
of whatever is taught are often of much greater
importance than the primary learning from the stand­
point of both academic progress of the learner and the
effect it will have throughout his life.
He continues:
In view of the importance of attitudes, the school,
if it is to fulfill its responsibility to society,
cannot escape from its responsibility in embarking
upon a deliberate campaign to influence for good the
attitudes of children.27
In attempting to explain how attitudes develop Mouly
st a t e s :
Attitudes tend to develop incidentally, gradually
and generally unconsciously.
They arise as by-products
of the experiences the child undergoes and, conversely,
everything that goes on in the classroom as it affects
the child leads to the formation on his part of certain
attitudes.2 8
Attitudes can be developed most successfully
through meaningful participation in worthwhile activi­
ties designed to influence attitudes. . . . Similarly
attitudes underlying moral behavior are not developed
by preaching and having rules memorized but by
providing the child with practice in integrating moral
concepts into his total behavior patterns and, whereas
part of this integration must involve a verbalization
of the basis for one's behavior.29
These statements not only point out the importance
of the development of good attitudes in any educative
process, but would appear to agree with the statements
concerning time needed for maturation.

27I b i d ., p. 344.
29I b i d ., p. 347.

2 8I b i d ., p.

346.

35

McGlade

30

expresses very strongly the difficulties

in measuring attitudes:
To date, no driver attitude inventory has been
developed which can separate, within acceptable
margins of error, the accident-free from the accidentrepeating driver.
(Footnote): I would like to go on
record, parenthetically, in stating that no self
respecting attitude measurement specialist would ever
expect results to be even remotely close to perfection.
In contrast, accident prevention specialists have
demanded just such a tool.
Given the current state of
the art, attitude assessment in particular and socialpsychological measurement in general, are far from
perfe c t i o n .
This would indicate the difficulty encountered in
measuring attitudes and also points out that any instrument
used for this purpose could be indicative but certainly not
conclusive evidence for evaluation.

Other Related Literature
The staff of the Michigan State University Highway
Traffic Safety Center made a very comprehensive study, How
31
to Improve Driver Education in M i c h i g a n .

This report

developed recommendations for improvement of all phases of
the driver education program from the responsibilities of
the legislature,

state department of education,

school

administration,

institutions of higher education,

school program,

teacher certification,

the

to student

30

Francis S. McGlade, Adjustive Behavior and Safe
Performance (Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas,
Publisher, 1970), p. 82.
31 .
Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety
Center, How to Improve Driver Education in M i c h i g a n .

36

evaluation.

It surveyed programs representative of all

schools in the State of Michigan.
important to this research were:
teacher qualifications,

The parts of the study
program standards,

and student evaluations.

Definite

recommendations were made for the improvement of programs
along the lines of national standards developed by "Poli­
cies and Practices."

It recommended as a minimum for

teacher qualifications,

a teaching minor in the field of

driver education and traffic safety.

It further recom­

mended standards for student achievement and evaluation.
This was one of the most comprehensive and thorough
studies,

treating all phases of driver education, d i s ­

covered by this investigator.
Lorenzen

32

studied the driving records of driver

education teachers in California.

His study recommends a

closer surveillance of the driving records of teachers for
the purpose of initial and continuing certification of
driver education teachers and shows the need for such
continued surveillance.
A study, Summary of Results of Studies Evaluating
Driver Edu c a t i o n , published by the National Commission on
Safety Education,

33

summarizes numerous theses and

32

Ed F. Lorenzen, "A Study of Driver Records of
California Public School Driver Instruction Teachers"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University
Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1968).
33
National Commission on Safety Education,
of Results of Studies Evaluating Driver Education

Summary

37

dissertations on driver education evaluation.

While the

studies were consistent in establishing favorable con­
clusions on trained drivers versus untrained drivers,

it

concluded that better criteria other than violations and
accidents be established for future studies.
It was learned that the Educational Testing Service
was working on an evaluation project for driver education
programs.

This investigator was informed that the work was

as yet incomplete and was not available at the present
time.

However,

the following quote from an abstract

presented at a driver education symposium should help to
reveal its intent:
As a general principle, any proposal for the
evaluation of driver education and training programs
must be sufficiently specific to provide a clear guide
as to the course to follow, but general enough to
allow sufficient degrees of freedom for the investi­
gator to be able to work effectively, including the
exploration of some unforeseen avenues.
It should not
be implied that the plans under development are
unalterable.
Quite the contrary; because they are
still in the formative stage, suggestions or reactions
of this symposium will have an influence on our final
recommendations.34
The above quote would indicate that the evaluative instru­
ment or instruments should not be too narrow or confining.
It would also indicate that the instruments are not near

(Washington, D.C.:
National Commission on Safety E d u ­
cation, National Education Association, 1961).
34

Harry H. Harman, Toward a Comprehensive Plan
for Evaluation of Driver Education and Training P r o g r a m s ,
Educational Testing Service, 1968, Abstract.

38

completion and that suggestions were welcomed for its
p e rfection.

Summary
An effort was made to keep the review of literature
current by utilizing only that which had been published
since 1960.

The reasoning for this should be obvious in

that much of the earlier research in driver education has
been severely criticized as to its lack of sophistication.
This has led to less quantity and more quality research.
The following observations were made as a result of
this investigation:
1.

The literature reviewed on program standards
appeared to re-enforce strongly the recom­
mendations of interested driver educators
throughout the country, which it should, as it
is the result of the thinking of the most
prominent driver educators in the nation.

2.

The literature on teacher certification, which
considered certification of teachers in general
in all areas of education, provides additional
proof that driver educators are in accord with
those in other areas of education.

The phil­

osophy of "freedom" and "responsibility" of the
profession for establishment of its own
standards for certification was especially
noteworthy.

Another aspect stressed by many

39

of the authors was the need for sufficient
formal preparation so as to produce knowledge­
able instructors.
3.

The literature reviewed which was specifically
for certification of driver education teachers
was consistent with that for teachers in
general.

Therefore the recommendations for

certification of high school driver education
instructors could not be considered exorbitant
or unjust.
4.

The literature on student evaluation was found
to be vague and uncertain in most instances.
The two studies completed at Michigan State
University,

35

appeared to present the more

positive view towards a satisfactory testing
program by establishing and validating pr e ­
dictive instruments.

Others were content to

use tests already existing which have not
proven to be altogether satisfactory.
5.

The literature on maturation appeared to re­
inforce the recommendation of classroom and
laboratory correlation along with the need for

35

Dunn, "An Experimental Study of Selected Traffic
Concepts and Their Ability to Differentiate Violators from
Non-violators"; Kenel, "The Effectiveness of the Mann
Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers into Behavioral
Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver
Performance."

40

the course to extend over a longer period of
time for maturation to occur.

It also pointed

out the difficulty encountered in measuring
attitudes.
6.

In other related areas of literature the most
comprehensive study was that made by the
Michigan State University Highway Traffic
Safety Center Staff,

36

which was concerned

with the improvement of all phases of the
driver education program in Michigan.

It

appeared to be more positive in its recom­
mendations and more thorough in its investi­
gation than most of the other research.
Most of the literature reviewed was concerned with
some phase of this study and bears directly upon the study
in that it provides the standards for evaluation of the
programs as well as establishing valid tests for student
evaluation.

It further agrees that violations and

accidents alone are not valid criteria for the evaluation
of student driving records.

36
Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety
Center, How to Improve Driver Education in M i c h i g a n .

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

In order to make this comparative study manageable
the following decisions were made:
of the study;
area;

third,

second,

first,

limit the scope

limit the size of the geographical

select recognized standards for measuring

teacher qualifications;

fourth,

select criteria that would

satisfactorily evaluate the physical aspects of the high
school programs;

and fifth, select criteria that would

effectively evaluate the product of the program,

the

driver.

Selection of Geographical Area
The Upper Peninsula of Michigan was selected as
the area to be surveyed because it was believed,

as stated

in Chapter I, that it was somewhat unique and quite differ­
ent from the urban and suburban areas of the state.
the opinion of the investigator,

It was

that by limiting the size

of the area, a more complete survey could be made and thus
a more realistic picture would result.

Although there are

some differences in school size within the area,

41

it was

42

felt that problems would likely be more nearly similar
within these boundaries than in the entire state.
Another reason for the selection of this area was
the fact that Northern Michigan University is the chief
source of supply for teachers of Driver Education in the
Upper Peninsula and the author was interested in how this
University can assist in the improvement of the high school
pr o grams.

Program Evaluation
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of traffic
safety education it was necessary first, to evaluate the
various aspects of the program and second,
the program,

the driver.

the product of

It was believed that a well-

defined picture of each school's program would be developed
by utilizing these two factors.
The questionnaire for the evaluation of the vari­
ous aspects of the programs was developed from the
Michigan State University study, How to Improve Driver
Education in Michigan and Policies and Practices for Driver
Education and Traffic Safety Education published by the
National Commission on Safety Education, both of which
were reviewed in Chapter II.
From the above mentioned Michigan State University
(MSU) study and the National Commission on Safety Edu­
cation

(NCSE) publication the following ten recommendations

43

were selected as criteria for evaluating the high school
programs:
1.

(MSU)— The minimum hours of classroom in­
struction be increased from thirty to fortyfive clock hours and the minimum for the
laboratory instruction be increased from six
to eight clock hours.

2.

(NCSE)— Correlation of classroom and laboratory
instruction to provide satisfactory articu­
lation .

3.

(NCSE)— Materials and equipment should be upto-date and in agreement with current edu­
cational practice.

4.

(NCSE)— Consideration should be given to
student participation in community projects
such as surveys,

interviews, observation

projects and opinion polls.
5.

(NCSE)--It is recommended that the standard
high school driver and traffic safety edu­
cation course extend over a full semester
(ninety h o u r s ) .

6.

(NCSE)— Consideration should be given to the
use of visiting specialists and resource
persons.

7.

(NCSE)— Periodic analyses of statistics on
accident and moving violation records ac­
quired by graduates are recommended.

44

8.

(NCSE)— Innovations such as team teaching,
programmed instruction,

simulation and

multiple-car range instruction are recom­
mended for possible use in driver and traffic
safety education.
9.

(MSU and NCSE)--Parents should be wellinformed concerning the program.

Students

should have written parental approval and
frequent parent-teacher consultations are
a d visable.
10.

(MSU and N CSE)— Ample opportunity should be
provided for small group discussion and no
more than four students in the automobile for
on-the-street laboratory instruction.

A questionnaire was formulated which could be
completed by the teacher or filled in by a personal
interviewer.

Each of the fifteen questions in the

questionnaire were to be compared separately to national
standards and to the recommendations made in the Michigan
State University study.

The comparison was not for the

purpose of rating each school separately but rather to
determine what percentage of the schools exceeded or
failed to exceed minimum standards.
dealt with the following items:
instruction,

The questionnaire

classroom and laboratory

integration or correlation of the two phases,

currency of textbooks,

community involvement, when

45

program is offered,
films, pamphlets,

length of course,

resource persons,

programmed instruction,
and class size.

film strips and

driving experience,

student records,

informing parents,

It was believed that some indication of

program weaknesses would become evident by a comparison of
these selected items with national recommendations.

Teacher Qualifications
A questionnaire was developed that would effectively
measure teacher qualifications.

The following references,

reviewed in Chapter II, were used as guidelines:
1.

Policies and Guidelines for Teacher Prepa­
ration , published by the National Commission
on Safety Education,

2.

1965.

How to Improve Driver Education in M i c h i g a n ,
published by Michigan State University Highway
Traffic Safety Center,

1966.

The requirements of the North Central Association, which
sets standards for teacher certification in this geo­
graphical area were also considered.
Formal teacher-preparation, college credit, was
considered as the principal factor in the evaluation of
teacher qualifications.
the questionnaire:

The following items were used in

teacher certification,

credit, credit in related courses
mechanics,

driver education

(general safety,

auto

etc.), other course credit that would improve

their preparation

(guidance and counseling,

advanced

46

psychology,

learning theory, etc.)/

and inservice training

courses.
Another factor also taken into consideration was
whether the instructor taught driver education full-time
or part-time.

This would tend to indicate whether or not

there was special interest in or dedication to driver
education and traffic safety.
The factors selected were chosen first, because
they represented some of the most frequent recommendations
of the foremost traffic safety experts in the nation and,
secondly, because they represented measurable, controllable
factors which when tabulated would produce valid infor­
mation for analysis.
The following classification of standards of
teacher-preparation was established for the evaluation of
teacher qualifications for the purpose of this study:
a.

Minimum qualifications.— A certified teacher
with two to four semester hours or less of
college credit in driver education, no recent
refresher courses,

and are protected by the

"grandfather clause."
b.

Average qualifications.— A certified teacher
with six to eight semester hours of college
credit in driver education and acceptable
related areas, recent refresher course,

and

were meeting present requirements for initial
approval.

47

c.

Higher qualifications.--A certified teacher
with more than eight semester hours of college
credit in driver education and acceptable
related areas, recent refresher courses or
inservice training.

These would be mostly

teachers specializing in the field with a
minor or more.
The above standards were more fully explained in the
definition of terms in Chapter I.

Student Evaluation
The testing of students was considered to be a
necessary and most important part of program evaluation as
the purpose of the driver education program is primarily
that of producing drivers who are good traffic citizens.
In the process of developing such traffic citizens it is
hoped that competent,

knowledgeable,

courteous,

and conscientious drivers are the result.

skillful,

Regardless of

how good the physical aspects of the program appears, the
results depend upon how well the objectives are achieved
and that can only be determined by an evaluation of its
product,

the driver.
The following criteria were selected for the

evaluation of the students:
a.

Amount of E x p o s u r e .--The number of months'
driving experience and the approximate number
of miles driven.

48

b.

Number of Devi a t i o n s .— The number of traffic
violations and accidents in which the driver
was involved.

c.

Attitude Toward Driver Edu c a t i o n .— Either
positive or negative and determined by whether
or not the student believed that driver edu­
cation had been beneficial to his driving.

d.

Kno w l e d g e .--Is the student knowledgeable con­
cerning traffic laws and safe driving
practices?

e.

Personal A t t i t u d e s .— It is the belief of most
traffic safety experts that a person drives as
he lives,

therefore personal attitudes were

considered as an acceptable criterion.
The months of driving experience were determined
by the length of time that the student had been a licensed
driver.

These were set up in three categories as, one to

six months,
months.

seven to twelve months,

and thirteen or more

In no instance, using junior and senior students,

were more than twenty-four months of driving experience
recorded.
To determine the approximate number of miles driven
the student was asked to estimate how many miles he usually
drove each week and this was multiplied by the number of
weeks that he had been a licensed driver.

It was realized

that there was a possibility of error by such calculations

49

but it seemed to be the most satisfactory method by which
this factor could be determined.
The number of deviations, violations and accidents,
were accepted from the student questionnaire.

However,

several from each school were cross-checked with local and
state police records and were found to be in accord with
those records.

In fact, the students were prone to report

even minor accidents on their questionnaires which had not
been reported to law enforcement officials.

Therefore

this criterion on the questionnaire was considered more
informative for evaluating this phase than were the
official records.

Violations and accidents were first

tabulated in three division,

0, 1-3, and 4 or more, but as

there were so few who had more than three it was cut to
two division of 0 and 1-4.
Attitudes toward the driver education program were
secured by simply asking the question,

"Do you feel that

driver education helped you to become a better driver?",
and why or why not.

The students could be expected to be

frank in answering this question as they were informed
that only the investigators would read the answers.
To test the knowledge of the students as to traffic
laws and safe driving practices,

the knowledge test vali­

dated by Dunn and quoted in the review of literature was
selected as the best available knowledge test.

It was

evaluated by placing the students into either of two

50
groups,

those who scored 66 per cent or more in the top

group and those below 66 per cent in the second.
Dunn's study was concerned with a general popu­
lation group including persons who had had no driver
education background as well as those who had.

It was

concerned with all ages and primarily with violators.

It

was therefore necessary to arbitrarily select a cutoff
score for this sample which included only driver education
graduates.

The cutoff score of 66 per cent was considered

very liberal but it was decided that it was preferable to
err in favor of the student rather than vice versa.

It was

also believed that by giving credence to the National
Drivers test presented on television in past years that
66 per cent would be higher than the average knowledge of
the nation's drivers.
Selection of a questionnaire for the measurement
of personal attitudes was a very important step as national
experts in traffic safety are generally in accord that this
is one of the most important objectives in the development
of a good traffic citizen and therefore could be a sig­
nificant factor in the student evaluative process.

After

considering many personal attitude tests and surveys, the
Mann Inventory, which was validated by Kenel's study, was
selected for use in this study.

The method of scoring

recommended by the author was used.

51

Basic Assumptions
The investigation of these selected factors was
based on the following assumptions:
1.

Weaknesses do exist in the present high school
driver education programs of the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan.

2.

There would be a variation of program
standards,

teacher qualifications,

and student

drivers.
3.

Minimum standards do not produce the desired
effect

4.

(competent traffic c i t izens).

High school driver education programs are not
meeting student needs as well as expected.

5.

Relevant areas would be identified on which
future studies could be based.

Procedure
A list of high schools in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan which were operating approved driver education
programs was secured from the State Department of E d u ­
cation along with a list of superintendents of these
schools.

Further information relative to the high school

programs was not available from this source.
Permission from each superintendent to use this
school in the study was accomplished by a letter stating
the purpose of the study, pointing out that no school or
student would be identified in the study,

and requesting

52

permission to include his school in the study.

After

several follow-up letters, phone calls, and personal
contacts permission was secured to include fifty-seven of
the fifty-eight high schools in the area.
Following receipt of approval,

letters were sent

out to each driver education teacher in charge of the high
school programs.

This letter again stated the purpose of

the study, noted that permission had been granted by the
superintendent,

and requested the teacher's cooperation.

It also requested the names of other teachers involved in
the driver education program in that school.

A teacher

qualification questionnaire as well as a checklist for the
physical aspects of the driver education program was
enclosed in this first letter to be completed and returned.
Upon receiving the names of the other teachers involved,
letters were sent to each of them with a copy of the
teacher qualification questionnaire to be completed and
returned.

Replies were received from all fifty-seven of

the high schools after numerous follow-up letters, phone
calls and personal contacts.
In order to eliminate biases on the part of the
investigator,

it was decided that it would be important to

the validity of the study to have others interview and
test the students.

For this purpose a group of future

teachers of driver education, who were members of advanced
driver education classes, were trained in administering

53

the student questionnaire,
tory .

knowledge test, and Mann Inven­

They were also given the responsibility of contact­

ing the teacher in charge to arrange a date and time to
administer the test that would be convenient to school
personnel,

students,

and interviewer.

The author sent a

letter to each teacher in charge informing him of these
arrangements.

For the most part the interviewers reported

that they were well-received and cooperation was excellent.
As a result,

interviews were completed in fifty-five of

the fifty-seven high schools.

One of those in which no

interviews were obtained had no licensed drivers in the
high school.
Interviewers were supplied with mimeographed copies
of the questionnaire, knowledge tests,

and inventories

along with instruction sheets for administering the same.
The interviewers were instructed to contact the
teacher in charge of the driver education program to
arrange a time for the survey and request the teachers to
inform the students that a survey was being made to
attempt to determine the effectiveness of driver education.
They were further requested to have as many volunteers as
possible to participate in the survey.

In most instances

these groups were complete junior and/or senior classes.
The variation in numbers resulted from the size of the
sc h o o l .

54

The interviews were conducted in group situations.
After the interviewer was introduced he explained that the
survey would consist of a questionnaire, knowledge test,
and an attitude survey.

He distributed the questionnaire

first and requested that it be left face down until all
were distributed and instructions given.

The students

were then told that each question would be explained and
answered one at a time.

It was explained that accurate

answers were needed in order to make the study meaningful.
They were also asked to be frank with their answers as no
one would be identified in the study and only the in­
vestigator would read them.
After each question was fully explained the
students were requested to record their answers.
to the question,

Example:

"How many miles have you driven?" it was

broken down into how many miles do you drive per week and
then multiply by the number of weeks you have been driving,
etc.
Immediately after the collection of the question­
naires, the knowledge test was administered.

The students

were informed that this area was being tested to attempt to
discover how their knowledge of laws, rules and regulations
compared with older drivers who had not had driver edu­
cation.

It was pointed out that it was believed that they,

the students, would be more knowledgeable than the general
driving public.

55

When the students had completed the knowledge test
they were allowed ten minutes to move about before the
administration of the Mann Inventory.

The students were

informed that many of the questions in this survey would
not appear to apply to driving an automobile but that it
was believed by many safety specialists that our feelings,
beliefs,

and personal attitudes have a great influence on

how we act and react behind the wheel of our automobiles.
Therefore it was necessary that they answer each question
to the best of their ability.

They were also informed that

when they had completed the questions they were to state
how they felt about answering the questions.

When this was

completed the surveys were collected and thanks were
expressed to both teacher and students for their pa r ­
ticipation .
After the interviews and tests were concluded each
interviewer was provided with correction stencils and
information for scoring the tests and inventories.
the tests were rechecked by the investigator.
of the questionnaires,

All of

The results

test scores, and inventory scores

were than tabulated by the investigator.
Twelve hundred sixty-four students were interviewed
and tested in the fifty-five high schools participating.
The number from each school varied according to the school
enrollment with as few as eleven in smaller schools and
up to thirty-five in large schools.

The size of the sample

in each school had to be dependent upon the school

56

personnel.

They were requested to have as many as possible

of their licensed drivers participate.

They were also

instructed that a suitable cross-section could not be
obtained if the students were hand selected.

In most

instances excellent cooperation was obtained and whole
classes were present for the interview and tests.

Pa r ­

ticipation was placed on a voluntary basis and no student
was compelled to participate which eliminated those who
might falsify the study by prejudiced answers.

It was the

belief of the investigator that this procedure produced a
satisfactory sample for the comparisons carried out in
this study.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
General Information
There are fifty-eight high schools in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan offering state-approved driver edu­
cation courses to youth under eighteen years of age.
these fifty-eight high schools,

fifty-seven participated

in the first survey questionnaire or 98.3 per cent.
hundred fifteen

(115)

Of

One

teachers were contacted with

questionnaires concerning their qualifications and program
standards.

Of these 113 responded or 9 8.26 per cent of

the teachers engaged in Upper Peninsula high school driver
education programs participated.
Fifty-five of the original fifty-seven schools
participated in the student evaluation tests, question­
naires,

and inventories.

Of the two schools not partici­

pating, one had no licensed drivers and the other was a
small school which would produce little influence on the
obtained results.

This resulted in 96.5 per cent of all

the schools being represented in the student evaluations.
Twelve hundred sixty-four

(1,264)

and tested in the survey.
57

students were interviewed

58

Program Evaluation
A review of the results from the program evaluation
questionnaire

(see Table 1) shows that:

(1) 74 per cent

of the schools were meeting only the minimum classroom
instruction requirements of the state department for
reimbursement;

(2) 79 per cent of the schools were providing

the minimum of an average of six clock hours of behind-thewheel instruction;

(3) integration or correlation of

classroom and laboratory instruction was being carried out
by approximately one-half or 51 per cent of the schools;
(4) currency of textbooks which would tend to indicate
up-dating of the program,

revealed that 10 per cent of the

schools were using textbooks which were ten or more years
old,

65 per cent were using books five to nine years old,

and only 25 per cent were using books with copyrights
during the past five years;

(5) only 23 per cent of the

high school programs attempted to involve students in
concerning themselves with community problems for traffic
improvement;

(6) only 25 per cent of the schools offer the

program during the regular school day and as a part of the
regular school program,

26 per cent offer it only as an

extra-curricular activity after school hours or during the
summer,
program,

and 49 per cent offer a combination of regular
after school,

and summer programs;

(7) 46 per

cent offer the course as a partial subject of twelve weeks
or less duration, while 56 per cent offer it over an

59

TABLE 1.— Program evaluation.

Number of
Schools

Question
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Per cent

Classroom instruction:
a. 28-30 clock hours
b. 32-36 clock hours
c. More than 36 clock hours

42
13
2

74
23
3

Driving instruction:
a. Average of 6 clock hours
b. 6-8 clock hours
c. More than 8 clock hours

45
8
4

79
14
7

Integration of classroom & lab.:
a. Yes
b. No

29
28

51
49

Currency of textbooks,
a. 1956-60
b. 1961-65
c. 1966-69

6
37
14

10
65
25

Community involvement:
a. Yes
b. No

13
44

23
77

When program is offered:
a. Regular day
b. Summer or after school
c. Combination

14
15
28

25
26
49

Length of course:
a. 7 weeks or less
b. 8-12 weeks
c. More than 12 weeks

15
11
31

26
20
54

Films and film strips:
a. Some
b. None

42
15

74
26

Pamphlets used:
a. Some
b. None

40
17

70
30

copyright:

60

TABLE 1.— (cont'd) .

Question

Number of
Schools

Per cent

12
45

21
79

Type of driving experience:
Dual control car, on the
street

57

100

Programmed instruction:
a.
Some
b.
None

3
54

5
95

Student records:
a.
Class
b.
Individual
c.
Follow-up

17
40
0

30
70
0

—l

1— \

o

Resource persons used:
a.
Some
b.
None

Parents informed by:
a.
Letter
b.
Consultation
c.
Report card

23
11
23

40
20
40

15.

Class size:
a.
Classroom
Under 3 0
Over 3 0
b.
Laboratory
2-4 students
5 or more students

33
24

58
42

47
10

82
18

11.

12 .

13.

i

61

eighteen week period;

(8) 74 per cent use films and film

strips to reenforce program objectives;

(9) 70 per cent

use pamphlets and outside readings to keep the program
current;

(10) 21 per cent involve the public through the

use of resource persons;

(11)

almost 100 per cent make use

of the dual-control automobile in on-the-street programs as
the laboratory experience,

indicating a lack of simulation

installations or ranges for off-the-street activity;

(12)

programmed instruction is almost non-existent in this area
as only three schools or 5 per cent use any of it;
no schools have records from follow-up studies,

(13)

70 per cent

keep individual records, and 30 per cent only the class
records;

(14) only 20 per cent were consulting with

parents,

40 per cent informed them by letter and 40 per

cent relied on report cards to keep parents informed;

(15)

42 per cent had classroom groups over thirty and 18 per
cent had laboratory groups of five or more students.
Teacher Qualifications and
Program Standards
Of the 113 participating teachers,
had only minimum qualifications,

63.7 per cent

30.1 per cent had average

qualifications,

and 6.2 per cent had higher qualifications

(see Table 2).

Five schools had one or more teachers with

higher qualifications,

twenty-seven schools had one or

more teachers with average qualifications,

and forty-two

schools had one or more teachers with only minimum

62

TABLE 2.--Data on teacher qualifications.

Number

57
115

Per cent

Total
Per cent

Schools surveyed
Teachers contacted

113 Teachers participating
72 Teachers with minimum qualifications
34 Teachers with average qualifications
7 Teachers with higher qualifications

63.7
30.1
6.2
100

5 Teachers teaching D.E.
full-time
108 Teachers teaching D.E.
part-time

4.4
95.6
100

qualifications.

Twenty-seven schools had only teachers

with minimum qualifications engaged in their programs.
Schools,

depending on their size, varied from one to eleven

in the number of teachers engaged in their programs.
Table 2 also shows that only 4.4 per cent were
employed full-time as driver education teachers and most
of the others taught it over and above their regular class
loads for which they received extra remuneration.
Student Evaluation
The results of the student questionnaire,
and inventory are compiled in Table 3.

test,

The data show

that most of the students participating in the study had

63

TABLE 3.--Data on students.

Number of schools
Number of students

55
1,264

Months of driving experience:

1-6
192
15.2%

7-12
470
37 .2%

13+
602
47.6%

Thousands of miles driven:

0-1
420
33.2%

1-5
411
32.5%

5+
433
34.3%

Violations:

None
1056
83 .5%

1-4
208
16 .5%

Accidents

None
924
73 .9%

1-4
340
26.1%

Attitude toward D.E.:

Pos.
1194
94 .5%

Neg .
70
5.5%

Knowledge test:

5-20
200
15 .8%

21-29
1064
84 .2%

Attitude MI score:

0-35
1086
85.9%

36-75
178
14 .1%

Evaluation of driving record:

Good
992
78.5%

Ques .
91
7.2%

Poor
181
14.3%

Note:
Students from fifty-five out of fifty-seven
nigh schools in the Upper Peninsula participated or 96.5
per cent.
1,264 students were interviewed and tested
23 schools had scores that grouped themselves
low on the Mann Inventory
12 schools had scores that grouped themselves
high on the Mann Inventory
20 schools had scores that grouped themselves
evenly above and below the mean on the Mann
Inventory

64

been licensed for more than six months;
one to six months,
months,

15.2 per cent for

37.2 per cent for seven to twelve

and 47.6 per cent for more than twelve months.

Very few students had been licensed for more than twentyfour months.

The miles of driving experience which would

indicate the amount of exposure were fairly well d i s ­
tributed into three categories:
1.000 miles or less,

33.2 per cent had driven

32.5 per cent had driven between

1.000 and 5,000 miles, and 34.3 per cent had driven over
5.000 miles.
The drivers with violation-free records were clearly
in the majority.

Eighty-three and five-tenths per cent

had no violations and 16.5 per cent had from one to four
violations.

As stated previously most of these had only

one or two violations and as there were so few with more
than two violations no division was made in this group.
As this information was recorded it was noted that students
with violations were most often residents of larger cities
or towns or lived adjacent to areas where State Police
Posts were established while those who resided in small
towns or very rural areas had relatively few or no v i o ­
lations .
There were fewer drivers with accident-free driving
records than those with violation-free records.

Seventy-

three and nine-tenths per cent of all the drivers inter­
viewed were accident free while 26.1 per cent had had one

65

to four a c c idents.

Many of these accidents were of a minor

nature and did not involve reporting to law enforcement
officials and therefore were not investigated nor were any
summonses issued.

Here again it was observed that acci­

dents were more prevalent in areas where traffic was
heavier such as in larger cities and towns while those
students from remote rural areas were more likely to be
accident free.

It was also noted that many accidents and

violations were companion occurrences.
A very large majority,
interviewed,

94.5 per cent of the students

had a positive attitude toward driver edu­

cation in that they believed that it had helped them to
become better drivers.

Those who did have a negative

attitude scored well above the cutoff score on the Mann
Inventory denoting a relationship to this and other personal
attitudes.

The Mann Inventory is scored by counting the

number of points away from the acceptable answer or
answers and as a result a high score denotes poor or
questionable attitudes while a low score
lower)

(thirty-five or

denotes fair to good personal attitudes.
Most of the students tested had at least a fair

knowledge of safe driving practices and traffic laws and
regulations as was indicated by the results of the knowledge
test.

Eighty-four and two-tenths per cent had a score of

7 0 per cent or better which when compared with national
averages would indicate fairly knowledgeable drivers.

66

The Mann Inventory, which was used to evaluate
student attitudes, was first used with norms which had been
established approximately ten years ago and produced rather
startling results,

50.5 per cent of all the students tested

had poor or questionable attitudes.

Upon consultation with

the author and viewing the results discovered in other
schools using the instrument recently,

it was decided that

more realistic results would be obtained by calculating the
mean and the standard deviation and making the cutoff
score one standard deviation above the mean.

Dr. Mann

attributed this need for changing norms to ".

. . loosened

controls by parents who have become increasingly uncertain
of their roles in the child's development."
The mean thus established was 24.8 and the standard
deviation was 10.8.

Adding one standard deviation to the

mean produced a cutoff score of 3 5.6, thus any score under
36 was considered as indicating satisfactory attitudes.
By using these norms it was found that 14.1 per cent
of the students tested had poor or questionable attitudes.
These results were more nearly in line with results that
should be expected.

It was observed while recording the

grades that some of the school's scores tended to cluster
themselves below the mean while others tended to cluster
around or above the mean.

In all twenty-three schools'

scores were clustered below,
remainder

(twenty schools)

twelve above,

around the mean.

and the
Upon

67

examination it was discovered that those clustering below
the mean tended to be the schools located in more rurally
segregated environments or those which have been noted for
exceptionally high disciplinary standards a

Those which

tended to cluster above the mean were noted to be generally
located in the more populous areas.

It would appear from

these observations that environment has an important
bearing upon the attitudes of the individual, which would
include the home,

the school,

and the community.

It would

appear to indicate that the parents and the school in more
rural areas still continue to exert considerable influence
on youth as compared to more metropolitan areas where
youth are influenced by more and varied stimuli.

These

influences seem to develop such firmly imbedded attitudes
that the educational process fails to develop as much
change as educators would like.
As a further analysis of the Mann Inventory,
students'
controlled

tests were also checked as to their being under­
(aggressive)

and overcontrolled

(constricted).

This analysis was made by using information furnished by
the author of the Inventory.

It was discovered that 106

or 8.4 per cent of the students tested could be classified
as undercontrolled and 92 or 7.3 per cent as overcontrolled.
It was observed as these data were being recorded that most
of the undercontrolled or aggressive individuals were from
the more densely populated areas while most of the

68

individuals who qualified as overcontrolled or constricted
were more likely to be from the rural areas.
Again from Table 3 it can be observed that by using
violations,
knowledge,

accidents,

attitudes toward driver education,

and personal attitudes and giving them equal

value that 7 8.5 per cent of the students tested had good
driving records,

14.3 per cent had poor records,

7.2 per cent had questionable records.

and

This gave a total

of 21.5 per cent with questionable or poor attitudes.
These ratings were determined by the following method:

if

a student was rated as poor in three or more of the five
categories, violations,
education, knowledge,

accidents, attitude toward driver

and personal attitudes, he was con­

sidered to have a poor record.

If he was poor in two

areas his record was considered questionable.

If his

rating was poor in only one or no area his record was
recorded as good.

Program Effectiveness Evaluation
In Table 4 the program effectiveness was evaluated
by knowledge alone.

In this evaluation if all of the

students scored above 7 0 per cent the program was rated as
good,

if 7 5 per cent or more achieved that score the

program was rated as fair,

and if less than 75 per cent

achieved the cutoff score the program was rated as poor.
According to these data two schools were rated as having

69

TABLE 4.--Program effectiveness by knowledge.

Program Ratings
Number of Schools

Good

55

Key:

2

Good program:
Fair program:
Poor program:

good programs,

Fair

46

Poor

7

All of the students achieved a score
of 70 per cent or above.
75 per cent of the students achieved
a score of 70 per cent or above.
Less than 7 5 per cent of the students
achieved a score of 70 per cent or
above.

forty-six schools had fair programs, and

seven schools had poor programs.
In Table 5 program effectiveness was rated by
violations and the same formula for evaluation was used as
in the preceding table.
tained:

The following results were o b ­

of the fifty-five schools surveyed eight were

rated as having good programs,
programs,

thirty-seven as having fair

and ten as having poor programs.

It was noted in

recording these ratings that most of the schools receiving
poor ratings were located in the larger cities or in
locations where State Police Posts were established nearby.
This seems to indicate that schools located in areas where
a higher degree of law-enforcement was maintained probably
would have students charged with more violations than those
located in extremely rural areas where the degree of lawenforcement was very low or almost nil.

70
TABLE 5.— Program effectiveness by violations.

Program Ratings
Number of Schools

Good

55

Key:

8

Good program:
Fair program:
Poor program:

Fair

Poor

37

10

Students had no violations.
75 per cent of the students had no
viola t i o n s .
More than 25 per cent of the students
had violations.

Table 6 shows program effectiveness ratings
according to accident records.

In this table it can be

seen that of the fifty-five schools surveyed;

two schools

were rated as having good programs, thirty schools had
fair programs,
programs.

and twenty-three schools as having poor

As mentioned previously accident records and

violation records appeared to be held by the same indi­
viduals,

thus,

the same inference could be drawn for them

as was drawn for violation records.

However,

it was noted

that there were some individuals who reported minor
accidents which had not been investigated by law enforcement
officers and hence no summonses were issued.

This would

account for more students having accidents than those
having violations.
When rated for program effectiveness according to
personal attitudes in Table 7 the following results were
obtained:

ten schools were rated as having good programs,

71

TABLE 6.--Program effectiveness by accidents.

Program Ratings
Number of Schools

2

55

Key:

Good programs:
Fair programs:
Poor p r o g r a m s :

Good

Fair

Poor

30

23

Students had no accidents.
7 5 per cent of the students had no
accidents.
More than 25 per cent of the students
had accidents.

TABLE 7.--Program effectiveness by attitudes.

Program Ratings
Number of Schools

55

Key:

Good program:
Fair program:
Poor program:

Good

Fair

10

37

Poor

8

All students had good attitudes.
7 5 per cent or more students had good
a t titudes.
More than 2 5 per cent of the students
had poor attitudes.

72

thirty-seven schools as having fair programs,
schools as having poor programs.

and eight

The size of the school

system or community did not appear to affect these results
in that small schools as well as large school systems
received similar ratings.

This could in all probability

be attributed to the fact that when checked for over­
controlled and undercontrolled it was found that there
were approximately the same number of each

(overcontrolled

7.3 per cent and undercontrolled 8.4 per cent).

As the

overcontrolled were mostly from small schools in very rural
areas and the undercontrolled from larger schools in more
densely populated areas it would appear that one group
offset the other as each would tend to deviate from the
well-adjusted individual with good personal attitudes.
Table 8 is a composite of Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7
and program effectiveness was rated according to an average
of the combined ratings of the

four tables.

always possible to average the

four and

As it was not

find definitely

that a program was absolutely poor, good or average the
ratings were considered to be placed on a continuum.

As

an example if a school program had two fair ratings and
two poor it was considered to be placed on the continuum
somewhere between fair and poor and
P-F.

However,

as it could not

was

meet the

given a rating of
standards of a

fair program adequately it would then be classified as a
poor program because it would be below fair on the

73

TABLE 8.— Composite of program effectiveness ratings.

Program Ratings
Number of Schools

55
Key:

Good
Fair
Poor

continuum.

program:
program:
program:

Good

1

Fair

Poor

41

13

Had three out of four good ratings.
Had three out of four fair ratings.
Had two out of four poor ratings.

This process was applied to the final ratings

of the fair and good programs also.

If, however,

any

school program had three ratings out of four that were in
the same category and only one rating higher or lower the
majority rating was used.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

It was the purpose of this study to investigate
selected factors which appear to affect the quality of
driver education programs in the high schools of the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan.

It was hoped that such a study

would provide information for high schools as well as
institutions of higher education for the improvement of
high school programs and the teacher preparation programs.
The study was concerned with one geographical
area,

i.e., the Upper Peninsula of Michigan,

in order that

a relatively complete survey could be made and significant
results evolve.

It was further believed that such an area

would provide uniform conditions of environment,
size,

finances,

school

facilities, equipment and economic status,

thus providing relatively equitable groups for comparison.
Questionnaires were utilized to gather information
on school programs,
drivers.

teacher qualifications,

and the student

After the information was secured it was compared

to state and national standards to discover weaknesses,
recommend improvements,

and generate hypotheses for future

studies.
74

75

In carrying out the study 9 8 per cent of the
schools and 9 8 per cent of the teachers engaged in high
school driver education in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
participated.

Over twelve hundred students who were

licensed drivers with one to twenty-four months of driving
experience were interviewed and tested.

It was assumed

that comparative analyses could be made from these data.

Data and Recommendations
From the questionnaire for program evaluation the
following information was gathered and compared with the
ten evaluative criteria enumerated in Chapter III on
Methodology and Procedure.

The following comparisons were

made with those recommendations:
1.

The minimum hours of classroom instruction be
increased from thirty to forty-five clock hours
and the minimum for laboratory instruction be
increased from six to eight clock h o u r s .
Most of the schools

(74 per cent)

provide only the minimum hours of instruction
in both classroom and laboratory as required by
the state for reimbursement.

According to the

above recommendation the minimum of thirty
clock hours of classroom instruction and six
clock hours behind-the-wheel are insufficient
for covering the necessary material and allowing
for maturation to occur.

Correlation of classroom and laboratory in­
struction to provide satisfactory articulation.
Only about one-half

(51 per cent) of

the schools correlate laboratory instruction
with classroom instruction.

It is the belief

of most traffic specialists that this is
necessary to provide opportunities for dis­
cussion of learning experiences which occur in
the laboratory.
Materials and equipment should be up-to-date
and in agreement with current educational
practice.
Ninety per cent of the schools surveyed
were using textbooks and materials that were
five or more years old.

This would tend to

indicate a lack of up-to-date materials for a
subject which is constantly in need of im­
provement to keep pace with the ever-changing
technology and societal needs.
Consideration should be given to student p a r ­
ticipation in community projects such as
surveys,

interviews,

observation projects and

opinion p o l l s .
Very few teachers or programs
cent)

(23 per

are involved in community related safety

activities which shows a lack of interest and
dedication to the subject.

77

5.

It is recommended that the standard high school
driver and traffic safety education course
extend over a full semester

(ninety h o u r s ) .

About one-half of the schools do not
offer driver education during the regular
school program as a regular subject and for a
full semester.

Most specialists agree that

this does not develop a good learning experi­
ence nor allow for maturation.
6.

Consideration should be given to the use of
visiting specialists and resource p e r s o n s .
About one-fourth of the programs do not
make use of resource persons and visiting
specialists for related information.

As driver

and traffic safety education is a broad field
and no one person can be expected to be
knowledgeable in all areas, the use of resource
persons not only produces good learning situ­
ations but develops good public relations.
7.

Periodic analyses of statistics on accident and
moving violation records acquired by graduates
are recommended.
The questionnaire indicated that no
schools were making follow-up studies of their
driver education graduates.

Specialists agree

that more studies of this type are needed for

78

program improvement.

Such studies help to show

whether driver education is meeting student
needs and whether it has a lasting effect.
8.

Innovations such as team teaching, programmed
instruction,

simulation and multiple-car-range

instruction are recommended for possible use in
driver and traffic safety edu c a t i o n .
Practically all of the schools were
teaching the laboratory phase in dual-control
cars in on-the-street programs.

While this

type of instruction with actual experience is
excellent,

there are other methods such as

simulation, range and programmed instruction
that could be used to enrich the program by
providing more comprehensive experiences,
result in some economy of operation.

and

Schools

could cooperate in such enterprises.
9.

Parents should be well-informed concerning the
program.

Students should have written parental

approval and frequent parent-teacher consul­
tations are advisable.
Indications from the data gathered show
that parents are involved very little in the
programs and that they are not properly informed
of the student's progress.

Less than half of

the parents are informed in any other manner

79

than by a report card.

This would appear to be

inadequate for the cooperation needed between
parent and teacher for the successful culmi­
nation of the learning process.
10.

Ample opportunity should be provided for small
group discussion and no more than four students
in the automobile for on-the-street laboratory
instruction.
Classroom instruction in many of the
schools is carried on in very large groups.
While this may be satisfactory for some phases
of the subject matter such as films and
resource persons,

and then in the hands of a

skillful teacher, opportunities should be
provided for small discussion groups to allow
for interaction to facilitate attitudinal
change.
The information on teacher qualifications revealed
the following information:
1.

63.7 per cent of the teachers had only minimum
q ualifications.

2.

3 0.1 per cent of the teachers had average
qualifications.

3.

6.2 per cent of the teachers had higher
q ualifications.

4.

4.4 per cent of the teachers were teaching
driver education full time.

80

5.

95.6 per cent of the teachers were teaching
driver education part time.

This information would tend to indicate that most
of the teachers had minimal or average qualifications.
This could stem from a number of reasons,
operation

i.e., economy of

(low salaries do not attract the well qualified

t e a cher), "moon-lighting"

job

in supplementing salaries),

(teachers only interested

sub-standard subject status

(serves to dull incentive for program or teacher im­
provement) , few universities offering courses above minimum
requirements

(teachers lack opportunities for improvement),

and lack of in-service or extension programs for teachers
(distances make it difficult to service the a r e a ) .

As a

result the following recommendations are made:
1.

Provide additional state funds for operation
of driver education p r o g r a m s .

2.

Encourage

teachers to improve themselves by

offering salaries equivalent to that for other
academic c o u r s e s .
3.

Universities be encouraged to
the basic

offer more than

courses for teacher preparation in

driver education.
4.

Universities and State Department be encouraged
to provide more in-service programs and ex­
tension courses.

81
The interviews,

tests,

and inventories revealed

the following information on students:
1.

The students had only a fair knowledge of
traffic laws, rules, and regulations.

2.

16.5 per cent of the students had violation
records.

3.

21.1 per cent of the students had accident
records.

4.

94.5 per cent believed that driver education
helped them to become better drivers.

5.

14.1 per cent failed to show good attitudes.

This information resulted in recommending:
1.

More time and emphasis be placed on learning
and understanding laws, rules, and regulations
in order that students might become more
knowledgeable d r i v e r s .

2.

More emphasis should be placed upon accident
causation and how they can be avoided.

3.

Programs should be developed to better prepare
students and to justify their belief in the
value of the driver education program.

4.

More stress be placed on group discussion and
interaction for the development of better
attitudes.

82

The Composite Picture
In viewing the information which was gathered in
this survey of Upper Peninsula high school driver education
programs the following composite picture developed:
1.

A majority

(63.7 per cent)

of the teachers

engaged in teaching driver education have only
minimum qualifications.
2.

Most teachers

(95.6 per cent)

teaching driver

education are only part-time teachers whose
interests lie in other subject matter fields.
3.

Most of the high schools

(70.2 per cent)

operate programs that meet only minimum
s tandards.
4.

Approximately one-half of the schools do not
correlate classroom and laboratory instruction.

5.

Most of the students

(94.5 per cent) have a

positive attitude that driver education has
helped them to become better drivers.
6.

Students with violation and accident records
tend to come from more congested areas or areas
with better enforcement.

7.

About one-fifth

(21.5 per cent)

complete the

course without having developed good attitudes.
8.

Most of the students

(84.2 per cent)

have a

fair knowledge of laws, rules, regulations,
and safe driving practices.

83

9.

More than 50 per cent of the programs are
taught outside the regular class program and
are of short duration.

Conclusions
The analysis of these data tend to indicate the
need for program revision in order that the high school
driver education courses may more effectively attain their
goal,

i.e.,

conscientious traffic citizens.

Because these data show that most of the school
programs in driver and traffic safety education do not
approach the standards of performance recommended by the
best informed traffic safety specialists,

it can be

concluded that they tend to indicate a need for program
revision.

Such revision is necessary in order that

schools may more effectively attain their goal.
When numbers one and two of the composite picture
are considered,

the large percentage of teachers with

minimum qualifications and serving as part-time teachers,
it would appear that there is both a lack of interest in
the subject and little realization of its importance.

This

could only result in the lowering of its status in relation
to other school subjects.

It would also appear that most

teachers look upon it as a "moon-lighting" job for which
they receive additional reimbursement to supplement their
regular salaries.

This could only result in sub-standard

performance and a lack of incentive for improvement.

84

Number three which shows the large percentage of
schools with programs that meet only minimum standards,
would seem to indicate that teachers and administrators
were only interested in qualifying for the State reim­
bursement and not with the quality of the program.
Numbers four and nine, which indicate that
approximately one-half of the schools do not integrate
classroom and laboratory instruction nor include it in the
regular school program, would appear to indicate that very
little effort is expended in scheduling classes during the
regular school day.

There would also appear to be a lack

of concern for class size for group interaction in the
classroom as a result of the experiences in the laboratory
whether it be range,

simulation or on the street.

Number seven, which indicates that better than
21 per cent of the students fail to develop good attitudes,
would appear to indicate that more emphasis is needed in
the area of responsibility,
attitudes.

judgment,

Dr. William A. Mann,

used in this study,

and personal

author of the inventory

stated by personal letter to the

author of the study the following:
Scores on the Attitude Survey have been shown to
be changed little by a Driver Education class.
This
results from the nature of the items which tend to get
at underlying factors rather than immediate response.
It is difficult to change the underlying factors in
ordinary classroom situations unless the instruction
and other experiences are specifically aimed at this
problem.
Hence, the value of the instrument is in
determining the composition of the student group as
a guide to the instructional process and to identify
particular individuals who require extra attention.

85

This could be due to the fact that most driver education
teachers are too concerned with skills and knowledge and
are lacking in understanding of how to develop good
attitudes.
ment,

Even if they are interested in this develop­

the time allotment and procedures used in most of

the classes would make it almost impossible to provide
comprehensive concentration on this phase.

It would also

appear to indicate that few driver education teachers have
the in-depth preparation for understanding and utilizing
such procedures.

It would therefore appear that better

qualified teachers,

along with course re-organization and

increased time allotments, could, over a period of time,
reduce the number of students with poor or questionable
attitudes after course completion.
Number five, which shows that most of the students
believe that driver education has helped them to become
better drivers,

is somewhat different from the rest of the

facts discovered in this study and should provoke much
thought on the part of educators.

If the type of program

now in existence can produce this much faith of students
in what it does for them, surely a more comprehensive,
in-depth program would better justify this faith and
result in the development of traffic citizens who more
nearly approach the excellence which our mobile society
needs for the decrease in traffic accidents,
fatalities.

injuries,

and

86

Number six

would appear to indicate that violations

and accident records are not valid criteria for comparison
as environment and exposure would tend to have a definite
effect on these two factors.

The reason for this con­

clusion was due to the fact that while tabulating the
results it was discovered that both violations and acci­
dents were more likely to be found among the students who
were living in the more densely populated areas where
there was a greater degree of law enforcement.

Therefore

they were not considered valid criteria for comparing these
students with those from very rural areas with a lesser
degree of law enforcement and traffic congestion.
Number eight would appear to indicate that more
time should be spent on laws,

rules, and regulations in

order that students who complete driver education courses
would be more knowledgeable.
Weaknesses of the Study
There were
used

in

several factors which affected the data

this study contributing to

the impossibility of

obtaining valid conclusions by statistical analysis.

They

are here recognized and presented in order that future
investigators designing similar or related studies might
find them helpful.
1.

One of the most important factors was the lack
of adequate objective measuring devices.

It

has long been the contention of researchers

87

that no one has ever successfully defined the
driving task and as a result no one has been
able to develop a satisfactory and valid
instrument for its measurement.

Thus, the

results can be considered only as indicative.
2.

Another factor which made significant com­
parison difficult was the fact that no school
programs were completely staffed with teachers
having similar qualifications and no teacher in
such instances had the complete program.
was a case of fragmentation.

It

As a result no

one teacher could be credited with the excel­
lence or lack of it in a school program
involving more than one teacher.
3.

Because the study was confined to a certain
geographical area it included communities with
varying degrees of population and law en­
forcement.

These variations made valid

comparisons between programs impossible.

A

comparison of selected like communities with
comparable programs would have been better.
4.

The questionnaire on program standards revealed
another factor recognized as a weakness of this
study.

Upon examining the results of the

questionnaire it was discovered that a majority
(7 0 per cent) of the programs in operation met

88

only minimum standards set by the State
Department of Education for reimbursement.

It

has been recognized in the Michigan State Un i ­
versity Study and in National Policies and
Practices that the minimums of "30 and 6" are
inadequate to develop good traffic citizens.
5.

Another variable difficult to control would be
administrative fiat.

It was ignored in this

study but does have an important effect on the
school program.

The administrator is re­

sponsible for all school programs and can
control them by the finances budgeted for them.
In the case of driver education the program is
often geared financially to state reimbursement.
6.

Characteristics of the teacher was another
v a n a n l e which was uncontrolled in this study.
The very nature of this variable makes its use
almost prohibitive.

The initiative,

interest,

versatility and other personal factors along
with driving record present only a small
fraction of the scope necessary for this
measurement.

Some phases might have been

measured but no instrument or standards have
as yet been developed that successfully measure
what makes a good teacher.

89

Implications for Future Studies
Some related areas that this study seems to point
out for further investigation are

(the exact titles and

hypotheses are left to the ingenuity of the investigator
as these will be determined by the approach t a k e n ) :
1.

Teachers' Driving Records.

Perhaps an in­

vestigation of these d r i v e r s 1 records would
present a better understanding of why some
teachers provide better programs than o t h e r s .
2.

Teachers' Personal Attitudes.

Such an in­

vestigation should show the type of individual
who is a successful teacher.

It would tend to

present a clearer picture of the type of indi­
vidual who becomes a successful teacher,
perhaps regardless of formal preparation.
This could be an invaluable aid in the se­
lection of teachers of driver education in the
future.
3.

Relationship of the Driving Record to Exposure
and Enforcement.

An investigation of these

factors might make for a better understanding
of driving records and as a result make the
evaluation of students by their driving records
more meaningful.
4.

Positive and Negative Attitudes of Students.
Such a study would necessarily entail the why,

90

causes,

and development of attitudes.

It could

be valuable in developing new programs as well
as improving old ones.

Perhaps it could assist

in answering as to when driver education should
begin and when it should end as far as the
school is concerned.
5.

Academic Record Versus Driving Record.

Some

studies have already been made in this area
but there is a definite need for more compre­
hensive and sophisticated investigations to
make it more meaningful to educators and the
general public.
6.

Traffic Safety Knowledge of Students.

This

could be done by pre- and post-testing of
students over a number of years and would give
some indication of the value of the driver
education program by determining what knowledge
the average student gains from the course.

It

could be used in determining what priorities
exist.
7.

P a r e n t s ’ Attitudes Toward Driver Education.
This could be a revealing study because p a ­
rental attitudes are often reflected in the
students'

attitudes.

Such a study might also

investigate the effect of the student's
participation in driver education on the
p a r e n t s ' driving h a b i t s .

Often ideas adopted

91

in the home are a result of the student's
educational experiences.

This could be carried

out using various intellectual and economic
levels.

Perhaps as a result it could be

determined where there is a greater need for
concentrated efforts for improvement.
8.

Enforcement,

Its Nature, Extent, and Effect.

This should be a valuable study and stems from
the feeling that the author developed while
interviewing s t u d e n t s , that the teenager as a
group is often persecuted by the traffic law
enforcement officer.

It is the opinion of the

author that this group is watched more closely
than more mature individuals and are not fairly
dealt with in all situations.

This type of

study could be valuable in improving law
enforcement programs as well as serving toward
a better understanding of youth for law e n ­
forcement and its problems.
9.

A Replication of This Study.

If it were done

an attempt should be made to control the var i ­
ables and avoid the weaknesses recognized in
the previous chapter.

If such were done it

could possibly result in more conclusive
r esu l t s .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Traffic Safety Edu­
cation for Scho o l s . Washington, D.C. : AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1965.
Aaron, James E . , and Strasser, Marland K.
Driver and
Traffic Safety E d ucation. New York:
MacMillan
C o ., 19 66.
Allgaier, Earl.
"Human Behavior and Traffic Accidents."
International Road Safety and Traffic R e v i e w , V I ,
No. 1 (Winter, 1958).
American Automobile Association.
Teaching Driver and
Traffic Safety Ed u c a t i o n . New York:
McGraw-Hill
Book C o . , 1965.
_________ . Sportsmanlike Driving, Teachers' Handbook.
6th ed.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Perceiving, Behaving, Becom i n g . Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, 1962.
Baker, J. Stannard.
Single-Vehicle Acc i d e n t s . Traffic
Institute, Northwestern University.
Washington,
D.C.:
Automotive Safety Foundation, 1968.
Bishop,

Richard W.
"Case Studies of One-Car Accidents
Involving Young Drivers."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1962.

Bledsoe, Joseph C.
"Personality Characteristics and
Teaching Performance of Beginning Teachers as
Related to Certification Status." Journal of
Research and Development in Education, II, No. 1
(Fall, 1968).

92

93
Borkenstein, R. F . , et a l . The Role of the Drinking
Driver in Traffic A c c i d e n t s . Bloomi n g t o n , I n d . :
Department of Police Administration, Indiana Uni­
versity, 1964.
Brody, Leon.
"Personal Characteristics of Chronic V i o ­
lators and Accident Repeaters."
National Academy
of S c i e n c e s , Bulletin No. CLII.
Washington, D . C . :
National Research Council.
_________ , and Stack, Herbert J.
Highway Safety and Driver
Education. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.
Brown,

Iva D . , and Brown, Fred W.
"Variations on a Theme
by Combes:
The Professional Education of Teachers."
Journal of Research and Development in E d u c a t i o n ,
II, No. 1 (Fall, 1968).

Brown, Paul L.
Driver Behavior:
A Study of Personality
Characteristics. Minneapolis:
University of
Minnesota Highway Department, January, 1959.
Case, Harry W.
Development of a Driving Attitude S c a l e .
Bulletin No. CLXXII.
Washington, D . C . : Highway
Research Board, 1958.
Chapman,

Robert L.
Plan for Critical Appraisal of Driver
Education P r o grams. Institute for Educational
Development, 1968.
Abstract.

Conant, James B.
The Education of American T e a chers.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963.
Cummins, W. E., and Fagin, Barry.
Principles of Ed u ­
cational P sychology. New York:
Ronal Press, 1954.
Dunbar, Flanders, and Brody, Leon.
The Psychology of
Safety. New York:
Center for Safety Education,
New York University, 1959.
Dunn, LeRoy W.
"An Experimental Study of Selected Traffic
Safety Concepts and Their Ability to Differentiate
Violators from Non-violators."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962.
Edwards, Allen J., and Scannell, Dale P.
Educational
P sych o l o g y . Scranton, Penn.:
International
Textbook Co., 1968.
Edwards, Allen L.
Sciences.
Elam, Stanley.
States.
1967.

Statistical Methods for Behavioral
New York:
Rinehart and Co., 1954.

Improving Teacher Education in the United
Bloomington, Ind."
Phi Delta Kappa,

94
Eno Foundation for Traffic Control.
Personal Character­
istics of Traffic Accident Repeaters. Saugatuck,
Conn.:
Eno Foundation, 1948.
Filler, Louis,
Horace Mann on the Crises of E d ucation.
Antioch Press, 1965.
Flanders, Ned A.
Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes,
Achievement. Minneapolis:
University of
Minnesota, 1960.

and

Florio, A. E . , and Stafford, G. T.
Safety E d u cation.
2nd ed.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962.
Freeman,

F . , et a l . The Role of Human Factors in Accident
Cont r o l . Accident Prevention Program.
Washington,
D.C.:
U.S. Dept, of Health, Education, and We l ­
fare, 1960.

Gardner, John W.
Excellence.
Row, 1961.
Garrett,

Evanston,

111.:

Harper and

Henry W.
Statistics in Psychology and Education.
5th ed.
New York:
McKay Co., Inc., 1964.

Goldstein, L. G . , and Nosel, J. N.
A Factor Study of
Driver Attitudes, with Further Study on Driver
Aggr e s s i o n . Bulletin No. CLXXII.
Washington,
D.C.:
Highway Research Board, 1958.
Griffin, Garnet M.
The Teenager, and Safe D r i v i n g .
New York:
Richards Rosen Press, Inc., 1968.
Guilford, J. P.
Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1950.
Hall, Calvin S., and Lindzey, Gardner.
Theories of
Personality. New York:
John Wiley and Sons,
1957.

Inc.,

Harman, Harry H.
"Toward a Comprehensive Plan for Evalu­
ation of Driver Education and Training Programs."
Educational Testing S e r v i c e , 1968, Abstract.
Kelley, Earl C.
In Defense of Y o u t h .
N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Englewood Cliffs,

Kenel, Francis C.
"The Effectiveness of the Mann Inven­
tory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral
Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent
Driver Performance."
Unpublished Ph.D. disser­
tation, Michigan State University, 1967.
Kennedy, Alexander,
The Teacher in The M a k i n g .
Clark, Irwin and Co., Ltd., 1961.

Toronto:

95

Kinney, Lucian B.
Certification in E d ucation.
Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Englewood

Koerner, James D.
The Miseducation of American T e a chers.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin C o . , 1962.
L a u e r , A. R.
The Psychology of Driving.
Charles C. Thomas, Pub., 1970.

Springfield,

111.:

Long, Teresa L.
"The Development of Instruments for the
Evaluation of Driver Education."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas, 1965.
Lorenzen, Ed F.
"A Study of Driver Records of California
Public School Driver Education Teachers."
Unpub­
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Automotive Safety
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Mann, William A.
Difficulties in Changing Human B e h avior.
East Lansing, Mich.:
Michigan State University,
1968.
_________ . "Let's Talk It Over."
Analogy (Charter Issue),
Allstate Insurance Co., 1966.
Pp. 4-9.
_________. The Nature of the Problem Dr i v e r . East Lansing,
M i c h . : Michigan State University, 1965.
_________. The Long Leap B a c kward.
Michigan State University.

East Lansing, Mich.:

Mayer, Frederick.
The New Perspective for E d u cation.
Washington, D.C.:
Public Affairs Press, 1962.
_________. The Goals of Education. Washington,
Public Affairs Press, 1960.

D.C.:

McGlade, Francis S. Adjustive Behavior and Safe P e r formance.
Springfield, 1 1 1 .: Charles C. T E o m a s ,
1970.
Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety Center
Staff.
How to Improve Driver Education in M i c h i g a n .
East Lansing:
Highway Traffic Safety Center,
Michigan State University, 1966.
_________. Legislation Needed for Improving Driver Edu­
cation in M i c h i g a n . East Lansing:
Highway Traffic
Safety Center, Michigan State University, 1966.
_________. The Driver Education Graduate in Lansing
T r a f f i c . East Lansing:
Highway Traffic Safety
Center, Michigan State University, 1961.

96
Mouly, George J.
Psychology for Effective T e a c h i n g .
New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19^1.
Myrick,

Nader,

Richard; Schlesinger, Lawrence; and Marx, Barbara.
A Manual for Instructors Conducting Discussions on
Driver Att i t u d e s . Washington, D.C.:
George
Washington University, November, 1962.
Ralph.
Unsafe At Any S p e e d . New York:
Pocket
Books, 1966.

National Commission on Safety Education.
Policies and
Guidelines for Teacher Preparation and Certification
in Driver and Traffic Safety E d u cation. Washington,
D.C.:
National Education Association, 1965.
_________. Policies and Practices for Driver Education and
Traffic Safety. Washington, D.C.:
National Edu­
cation Association, 1964.
_________. Summary of Results of Studies Evaluating Driver
E d u cation. Washington, D.C.:
National Education
Association, 1961.
National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional
Standards.
The Certification of T e a c h e r s .
Washington, D . C . : National Education Association,
1965.
National Education Association.
Professional Preparation.
Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association.
National Highway Safety Act of 1 9 6 6 . Public Law 89-564.
Congressional R e c o r d , Vol. CXII.
Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Library, 1966.
National Safety Council.
Accident F a c t s .
National Safety Council, 1968.
Pollock,

Chicago:

Howard X.
The Trouble With Our S c h o o l s .
York:
Vantage Press, 1964.

New

Schaff, John G.
"Personal Attitude Survey."
Unpublished
Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1957.
Smith, G. Kerry.
In Search of L e a d e r s . Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Higher Education, 1967.
Stack, J. Herbert.
History of Driver Education in the
United States. Washington, D.C.:
National Edu­
cation Association, 1966.
Tassell,

Richard.
"Teaching Traffic Citizenship."
Safety (Nov.-Dec., 1968), 24-28.

97

Wilson,

Charles H. A Teacher is a P e r s o n .
Holt Publishing Co., 1956.

New York:

Young, James D.
A Teacher Is Many Things.
Bloomington,
Ind.:
Indiana University Press, 1968.

APPENDIX

98

November 27, 1968

Superintendent of Schools
Dear
I am on sabbatical leave from Northern Michigan Uni­
versity to complete work on a doctoral dissertation in the
field of Driver and Traffic Safety Education.
I am on the
doctoral program at Michigan State University.
Dr.
William A. Mann of the College of Education is chairman
of my graduate committee.
The dissertation will be concerned with teacher
qualifications and the effectiveness of high school programs
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Its primary purpose is
to secure information whereby we at Northern may be better
able to modify and improve our courses, program, and ser­
vices so that we may more efficiently serve the teachers
and high schools of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
I am requesting permission from you to include your
school system in the study.
The study will require Driver
Education teacher questionnaires and interviews as well as
interviews and testing of high school students who have
successfully completed the course and are now licensed
drivers.
No school, teacher, or student will be identified
in the study as all information will be grouped.
Each
school's identity will be held strictly confidential.
Copies of the abstract of the study will be made available
to participating schools upon the completion of the project.
I hope that you will see your way clear to grant
this permission as I would like to include all schools in
the Upper Peninsula.
A self-addressed, stamped envelope
is enclosed for your convenience.
An early reply will be
a ppreciated.
Sincerely,
Laurence W. Sain
Associate Professor
Industrial Education
Northern Michigan University

Permission is granted to include our school in the study
Permission is not granted to include our school in the
study____
School_________________

Supt.________________________ Date__

99

Driver Education Instructor

Dear
I am conducting a study of teacher qualifications
and high school driver education programs in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan.
This is being done as one of the
requirements of the doctoral degree through Michigan State
University.
I am hoping that the information collected
through this study will assist us at Northern to modify and
improve our courses, programs, and services so that we may
better serve the teachers and high schools of the Upper
Peninsula.
I have received permission from your Superintendent
to include your school in the study and trust that I may
have your cooperation.
No teacher, school, or student
will be identified in the study as all information will be
grouped.
Each person, student, and school's identity will
be held strictly confidential.
Please fill out the enclosed blank or blanks at your
earliest convenience and return to me.
A stamped, selfaddressed envelope is enclosed for your reply.
Your prompt attention to this letter will be greatly
appreciated and will facilitate the gathering of the neces­
sary data for the completion of the project.
Sin c e r e l y ,

Laurence W. Sain
Associate Professor
Industrial Education
Northern Michigan University
P.S.

Please enclose a list of other teachers in your
school system engaged in the teaching of driver
education.
L.W.S.

100
TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS
Name___________________________________ Birthdate_____________
School___________________________ County________City__________
Type of Teaching Certificate presently held______________
Operator's License No.__________ Expiration Date___________
Driver Education
Courses Taken

Where Taken Length of Sem. Hrs.
(College)
Course
Credit

Year
Taken

1 . _______________________________________________________
2

._________________________________________

3 ._____________________________________________________________
4 ._____________________________________________________________
5 ._____________________________________________________________
6 .___________________________________________________
Courses Taken
in Related Areas_____________________________________________
1 . _______________________________________________________
2

._________________________________________

3 ._____________________________________________________________
4 ._____________________________________________________________
Other Courses_________________________________________________
1 .____________________________________________
2 .___________________________________________________
3 ._____________________________________________________________
4 ._____________________________________________________________
Do you teach Driver Education full time?

Yes____

Number of periods per day in D.E. classroom
Do you teach D.E. during regular day
school
, Summer
?

No__

Driving

, Before or after

101
CHECKLIST FOR DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM

Check the items that are most nearly indicative of your
Driver Education program.
School__________________________City_________________________
Person filing report____________________ Title_
1.

2.

Classroom Instruction:
a.

28 to 30

clock hrs._____,

b.

32 to 36

clock hrs._____,

More

c.

More

Driving Instruction:
a.
b.

3.

c.

Av. of 6

clock hrs._____,

6 to 8 clock hrs.

,

Is classroom instruction integrated with driving
instruction?

Yes____ ,

No____ .

4.

Textbook used

5.

Are students involved in community traffic studies and
Yes____ ,

surveys?
6.

Copyright Date____

No____ .

When is the program offered?
Part of regular school program____ ,
Before or after school____ ,
Summer

,

Combination

Length of the course:
one sem.

, 9-12 weks.

, 6-8 wks.

4 weeks or less
List at least five films or film strips used:
a ._________________________

d.__________________

b ._______________________ _

e «________________

c.

f•

102
List at least five pamphlets used:

10 .

11.

12

.

13 .

a.

d.

b.

e.

c.

f.

List, resource persons participating in the program:
a.

c.

b.

d.

Type of driving experiences included in the course:
a.

Simulation_____

b.

Off-street driving range_____

c.

On-the-street_____

d.

Night driving_____

e.

Winter driving_____

f.

Special hazards

g.

Emergency situations

Programmed instruction:
Records:
a.

14.

15.

Yes__ ,

No___

(student progress)

Individual____ , b.

Class

,

c.

Follow-up

Parents and other teachers informed by:
a.

Letter

,

b. Consultation___ ,

c.

News Media____ .

Class size:
Classroom:

16-20___ ,

Laboratory or Car:

20-30__ ,

2-4___ ,

Over 30____ .

5 or more

.

103

March 3, 196 9

Dear Fellow Driver Edicator:
It is now
time for the final phase of my survey of
the driver education programs of the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.
This will consist of a short questionnaire and two
tests for high school students who have successfully com­
pleted the course and have been driving for six months or
more.
In most cases this will be Juniors or Seniors who
are still in your
high school.
This will be done in a
group session and
will not take more than an hour or an
hour and a half to complete.
The two tests consist of a short knowledge test and
Mann's Personal Attitude Survey.
Both have been validated
in previous studies to show that they do differentiate
between good drivers and potentially poor drivers.
These questionnaires and tests will be administered
for the most part by Senior and/or Graduate students from
my classes who will have been instructed as to how it should
be done.
These students will contact you within the next
few weeks to make arrangements for the interviewing and
testing program.
We would like the group to consist of from ten to
thirty-five students, depending upon the size of your school,
and should be a fairly representative cross-section in order
to have meaningful results.
I hope that we may have your cooperation for this
final phase.
Sincerely,

L. W. Sain
Associate Professor
Industrial Education Dept.
Northern Michigan University

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING STUDENT
QUESTIONNAIRES AND TESTS
Selection of school or schools by choice or assignment.
Contact the supervising Driver Education Teacher to make
arrangements.
Personal contacts are best, telephone is
next best, but if necessary arrange by mail.
Be sure
that you have the date and time correct.
Be on time
for the appointment 1
Ask for ten to thirty-five students, depending upon the
size of the school.
Be sure to get a definite commit­
ment as to number of students and time of the m e e t i n g .
Request from me the number of questionnaires, answer
sheets, and test booklets needed in writing sufficiently
in advance so you can become acquainted with the
materials.
Explain to the students that the tests and questionnaires
are being used in every high school in the U.P. and that
they are to be a part of a research paper in driver edu­
cation.
School and student names will not be used in
the study.
Administer the questionnaire first going over each
question as it is filled in to be sure that it is under­
stood.
Truthful answers are necessary in order to have
meaningful results.
Collect questionnaires as soon as
completed.
(About 1/2 hour.)
Administer the Attitude Survey.
(About forty minutes.)
a.
Write only on the answer sheet.
There are no right
or wrong answers.
Cross out letter that reflects
your feelings best.
b.
Collect all test booklets and answer sheets.
Administer Knowledge Test.
(About twenty minutes.)
a.
Write only on the answer sheet.
b.
Cross out T for true and F for flase whichever is
correct in the first part and cross out letter of
the statement which best answers the question in
the second part.
c.
Collect all test booklets and answer sheets.
Thank the Instructor and the students for participating.
L. W. Sain, Researcher

105
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS

Name__________________________ Birthdate________Sex:

M___ F___

School____________________ County____________ City_______________
Date D.E.

course completed___________ Date Licensed___________

License number_________________ Expiration Date________________
How many months have you been driving?_______________________
Estimate how many miles you have driven______________________
Have you received any traffic tickets since being licensed?
Yes

No

If the answer is yes, what were they for?

1 .___________________________________________________
2

._________________________________________

3 ._____________________________________________________________
4 . _______________________________________________________________________________________

If more than four list on the back of sheet.
Have you been involved in accidents since being licensed?
Yes

No

If answer is yes answer the following:

How many accidents?

How many were you to blame for,

that is how many were you ticketed for?

How many

were not reported because they seemed to be of a minor
nature?

How many were other persons ticketed for?

Do you feel that Driver Education helped you to become a
better driver?

Yes

No

Briefly state why or why

not.

Knowledge Test Score

Attitude Test Score

106
ANSWER SHEET FOR DRIVER EDUCATION
KNOWLEDGE TEST

N arae_________________________________Ag e_________ S ex________
Month's Driving Experience__________________________________
DO NOT WRITE ON THE TEST FORM.
I.

II.

Cross out the correct answer.
false.

T for true and F for

1.

T

F

7.

T

F

13.

T

F

2.

T

F

8.

T

F

14.

T

F

3.

T

F

9.

T

F

15.

T

F

4.

T

F

10.

T

F

16.

T

F

5.

T

F

11.

T

F

18.

T

F

6.

T

F

12.

T

F

Select the best answer and cross out the letter on
this answer sheet.
1.

A

B

C

5.

A

B

C

9.

A

B

C

2.

A

B

C

6.

A

B

C

10.

A

B

C

3.

A

B

C

7.

A

B

C

11.

A

B

C

4.

A

B

C

8.

A

B

C

12.

A

B

C

107
ANSWER SHEET FOR PERSONAL ATTITUDE SURVEY
Name_______________ A ge__________ Sex______ Mo . 1s Driv. Exp.___
MO NOT MAKR ON THE TEST BOOKLET
There are no correct or incorrect answers.
Mark according
to your feelings.
Cross out the letter that you feel
answers it best.
A. Always

B. Usually

C. Sometimes

D. Rarely

E. Never

1.

A B C D E

22.

A B C D E

43.

A B C D E

2.

A B C D E

23.

A B C D E

44.

A B C D E

3.

A B

D E

24.

A B

45.

A B C D E

A B

D E

25.

A B

D E

46.

A B C D E

5.

A B

D E

26.

A B

D E '

47.

A B C D E

6.

A B

D E

27.

A B

D E

48.

A B C D E

7.

A B

D E

28.

A B

D E

49.

A B C D E

8.

A B

D E

29.

A B

D E

50.

A B

9.

A B

D E

30.

A B

D E

51.

A B

10.

A B

D E

31.

A B

D E

52.

A B

11.

A B

D E

32.

A B

D E

53.

A B

12.

A B

D E

33 .

A B

D E

54.

A B

13.

A B

D E

34.

A B

D E

55.

A B

14.

A B

D E

35.

A B

D E

56.

A B

15.

A B

D E

36.

A B

D E

57.

A B

16.

A B

D E

37.

A B

D E

58.

A B

17.

A B

D E

38.

A B

D E

59.

A B

18.

A B

D E

39.

A B

D E

60.

A B

19.

A B

D E

40.

A B

D E

61.

A B

20.

A B

D E

41.

A B

D E

62.

A B

21.

A B

D E

42.

A B

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

D E

4.

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

D E

63.

A B

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E
D E

108
DRIVER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE TEST

Answer all questions on the answer sheet.
Do not write on
test form.
The first group of statements are to be answered
true or false.
The second group are multiple-choice in
which you select the correct answer.
I.

1.

Mark True or False by crossing out the correct letter
on answer sheet.
It is unlawful not to stop and exchange information
if one is involved in an accident.

2.

The need for trained drivers increases with the rise
in traffic volume.

3.

When approaching a school bus stopped on the highway,
to load or unload passengers, one should slow down and
pass with care.

4.

The effects of alcohol on one's driving can be compen­
sated for by one's driving skill.

5.

New headlights will increase a driver's visibility,
thus eliminating the need to reduce one's speed at
night.

6.

Pedestrians have the right-of-way at all times.

7.

In educating the future driver, a great deal of
emphasis should be placed on attitude development.

8.

When approaching an intersection, one should look left
then right and then back left again before proceeding
ac r o s s .

9.

The faster one drives, the more likely he is to have
an accident.

10.

Pedestrians who disregard traffic regulations should
be punished.

II.

A comfortable sitting position in the driver's seat
is important to safe driving.

12.

A vehicle has more traction on gravel surfaces than
any other type.

13.

Driving is a social task.

109
14.

The posted speed is the safe speed and maximum speed
at which one can drive at all times without being
a r r ested.

15.

"Dragging" from stop lights is not as dangerous as
open highway racing.

16.

Most accidents happen at intersections.

17.

When the right wheels slip off the pavement the driver
should pull them on immediately.

II.

Select the best answer and mark out that letter on
answer sheet.

1.

Driver A meets a school bus on a four-lane undivided
highway discharging passengers.
Driver A should:
A.
Proceed with caution.
B.
Stop and wait for the flashing red lights to be
turned off.
C.
Stop, honk his horn and then proceed.

2.

Driver A is traveling on a black-top highway.
This
road does not have a posted speed limit.
Driver A's
speed should be governed by:
A.
The ability of his vehicle to operate at high
speeds.
B.
His driving skill.
C.
Road conditions and the traffic around him.

3.

Driver A is driving at night and
he approaches Driver B
traveling in the opposite direction.
Driver A should:
A.
Move to the right in order to give more room.
B.
Reduce speed.
C.
Dim headlights.

4.

Driver A approaches Driver B who is traveling 50 mph.
on an open country road.
A wishes to overtake and
pass B.
While waiting to pass A should stay:
A.
Three car lengths behind B.
B.
Four car lengths behind B.
C.
Five car lengths behind B.

5.

Driver A, while traveling on a hardtop surface road,
discovers that he has a flat tire.
What should he do?
A.
Pull partially off the roadway.
B.
Stay on the roadway so as not to ruin his tire.
C.
Pull completely off the roadway.

110
6.

Pedestrians must know and understand driving problems
so they will:
A.
Understand the driver's problems.
B.
Be better drivers.
C.
Have a better understanding of traffic laws.

7.

Driver A approaches an intersection.
The light is in
his favor.
However, a pedestrian steps from the curb
and starts across the street.
What should A do?
A.
Blow horn and continue on slowly.
B.
Stop and yield to the pedestrian.
C.
Continue through the intersection but at a
reduced speed.

8.

The most important part of driver education programs
should be:
A.
The development of driving skills.
B.
The development of a sense of responsibility and
courtesy.
C.
Development of a complete knowledge of traffic
laws.

9.

Which of the following aspects of athletics is
unwanted in driving?
A. Fair play.
B. Competition.
C.
Sportsmanlike conduct.

10.

After one has passed a vehicle in heavy traffic he
should:
A. Honk his horn.
B. Check his mirror and look over his right shoulder.
C. Blink his lights before returning to his proper
lane at night.

11.

Which of the following will most likely help to improve
the driving records of teen-agers and young adults?
A. Stricter traffic law enforcement?
B. An understanding of their responsibility to other
drivers.
C.
Increased knowledge of traffic laws.

12.

Which of the following has precedence in controlling
traffic?
A.
Traffic signal light.
B. Stop sign.
C. Traffic officer.

Ill
PERSONAL ATTITUDE SURVEY
Name___________________________________ Age__________ Sex__________
Month's Driving Experience_____________________________________
The following statements reflect your attitude and feelings
about yourself and your relations to others.
There are no
right or wrong answers.
Fill in on the answer sheet the
answer that reflects your feelings best.
Do not mark on the test booklet:
A. Always
1.

B. Usually

C. Sometimes

D. Rarely

E. Never

I like (liked) to take part in organized extra­
curricular activities in school.

2.

Young people are much better drivers than middleaged people.

3.

Policemen are sincere in enforcing the laws.

4.

My parents are reasonable in their relations with me.

5.

My community is a

6.

I put off until tomorrow things I should do today.

7.

I like to daydream while I am driving.

8.

I feel full of pep when I get behind the wheel.

9.

I live in a home that is happy.

10.

11.

If I see a police
c are f u l .

happy place to live.

officer when I am driving I am more

Over-careful drivers cause more accidents than the
so-called reckless ones.

12.

I enjoy being out late at night and sleeping mornings.

13.

I get a feeling of real power when driving a car.

14.

Courses in school are set up to meet the needs and
interest of the student.

15.

I am concerned about the way my clothes look.

112
16.

Slow drivers should be kept off the highways.

17.

All young people should be required to take a course
in driver education.

18.

Unsafe drivers should be deprived of the right to
drive.

19.

Accidents don't just happen; they are

caused.

20.

I like to get everything out of a car

that it has in it.

21.

The chief work of most policemen should be traffic
control.

22.

My parents exert too much control over me.

23.

The people in my community want the traffic laws
enforced.

24.

I have been tempted to cheat on a test at school.

25.

I get impatient when driving in heavy

26.

There are times when it seems as if everyone is
against me.

27.

Old, defective cars should be kept off the road.

28.

Drivers should be given more freedom in obeying
traffic signs.

29.

People should drive when they are angry.

30.

Passing on hills and curves is exceedingly dangerous.

31.

It is necessary to stop at "stop" signs if no other
cars are in sight.

32.

I like to put extras on my car to attract attention.

33.

I am good at talking police out of giving me a traffic
ti c k e t .

34.

Strong discipline in practice makes a better team.

35.

I am

36.

Cops are rougher on teenagers than on adults.

37.

Teachers want to help students with their problems.

38.

My father gets traffic tickets for moving violations.

traffic.

(was) popular with most of the kids in my class.

113
39.

I have as good table manners at home as when I eat
out.

40.

I have been wrong in an argument but wouldn't admit
it to my opponent.

41.

The school should have the right to question the
way I drive.

42.

I like to razz the team when it is losing.

43.

I am proud of my reputation in the community.

44.

I am considered a friendly person.

45.

I like most of my school work.

46.

Our family spends a great deal of time together.

47.

Attitudes toward driving are more important than
ability to handle the car.

48.

I like to take chances when I'm driving.

49.

Traffic laws are set up to promote safety.

50.

Courtesy toward other drivers is important.

51.

I like a great deal of freedom.

52.

I don't mind being told what to

53.

I find that older people tend to be bossy.

54.

My grades in school are
my ability.

55.

I sometimes become concerned about what other
people think of me.

56.

I feel somewhat nervous when I drive

57.

I think courtesy towards others
of a person's character.

58.

I get more fun out of driving a car than in any
other activity.

59.

The police are only trying to do the job for which
they were hired.

(were)

do.

a good indication of

a car.

is a good reflection

114
60.

My folks insist that I spend most week-day evenings
at h o m e .

61.

I am considered a reliable person.

62.

I like to help a person who is in trouble.

63.

I am more courteous than the average.
How do you feel about answering these questions?
(Write on back of the answer sheet).