[PDF] DOCUMENT RESUME. Daugherty, Ronald D.; And Others

Download DOCUMENT RESUME. Daugherty, Ronald D.; And Others...

DOCUMENT RESUME VT 016 942

ED 069 848

AUTHOR

TIME INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE NOTE

EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

Daugherty, Ronald D.; And Others Accident Investigation Technician Instructor Training Institute. Final Report. Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Center for Vocational and Technical Education. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. National Highway Safety Bureau. Oct 72 167p.

MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 Course Content; *Curriculum Development; Curriculum Guides; *Inservice Teacher Education; Investigations; Lesson Plans; Post Secondary Education; Subprofessionals; *Teacher Workshops; *Technical Occupations; *Traffic Accidents

ABSTRACT To assist States in iffplementing Highway Safety Program Standard 18, "Accident Investigation and Reporting", the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funded an instructor training program for a new occupational field in highway safety, accident investigation technician. The Center for Vocational and Technical Education executed this program by developing a curriculum model and by conducting five regional training workshops. The workshops had two purposes, the primary one to evolve a basic curriculum package from the model and the secondary to train instructors and improve teaching skills. The curriculum package consisted of a course guide, the instructor's lesson plan guide, and .a student study guide. The workshops provided 30 hours of teacher training for the 64 participants from 35 States, a nationwide sampling selected for their knowledge of accident investigation and major teaching or coordinating responsibilities. The curriculum package developed at the workshops is not a final product; field testing and evaluation will be performed before acceptance and publication. The report includes pre-workshop information, workshop programs, and participant evaluation forms. (CD)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Accident Investigation Technician INSTRUCTOR TRAINING INSTITUTE

Final Report

Prepared tor: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

THE CENTEE ION VOCATIONAl AND TECHNIC Al EDUCATION

AWOL

THE OHIO STATE UNIVEESITY 1900 Kenny Ed.. Co WNW'. OND. 43210

MISSION OF THE CENTER The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, an independent unit on The Ohio State University campus, operates under a grant from the National Center for Educational Research and Development, U.S. Office of Education. It serves a catalytic role in establishing consortia to focus on relevant problems in vocational and technical education. The Center is comprehensive in its commitment and responsibility, multidisciplinary in its apDrcach and interinstitutional in its program. The Center's mission is to strengthen the capacity of state educational systems to provide effective occupational education programs consistent with individual needs and manpower requirements by: Conducting research and development to fill voids in existing knowledge and to develop methods for applying knowledge. Programmatic focus on state leadership development, vocational teacher education, curriculum, vocational choice and adjustment. Stimulating and strengthening the capacity of other agencies and institutions to create durable solutions to significant problems. Providing a national information storage, retrieval and dissemination system for vocational and technical education through the affiliated ERIC Clearinghouse.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG

MATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN IONS STATED DO NO1 NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE C.F EDU CATION POSITION OR POLICY

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TECHNICIAN INSTRUCTOR TRAINING INSTITUTE

RONALD D. DAUGHERTY ANNE C. HAYES SANDRA R. ORLETSKY

The Center for Vocational and Technical Education The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 October 1972

Final Report Con[ract DOT-H.S.-115-1-1GO

Contracting undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgment in profesPoints of views or opinions do not, sional and technical matters. therefoe, necessarily represent those of the National Highway Safety Administration. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20590

PREFACE

The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), supported an instructor training program for the newly developed accident investigation technician field. The Instructor's Lesson Plan Guide, Student Study Guide, and Course Guide were developed to provide a standardized approach for training individuals concerned with accident investigation and with the implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard 18, "Accident Investigation and Reporting." To assist states in making the accident investigation program operational, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered it important to develop an initial cadre of trained state and local instructors throughout the nation to be familiar with the curriculum materials. NHTSA, therefore, supported the conduct of five regional accident investigation technician instructor training workshops in the spring of 1972. The workshops were conducted by The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. The project was directed by Ronald Daugherty, assistant direcProject tor of Field Services and Special Projects at The Center. associates were Anne C. Hayes and Sandra R. Orletsky, graduate research associates, and Kenneth Spooner served as evaluation consultant to analyze the evaluation of the project. Cheryl Meredith edited the final report. Aaron Adams of NHTSA served as contract technical manager. Educators who served as consultants for the regional workshops were: Bernard T. fa*gan, associate professor of trade and industrial education, University of Kentucky (Atlanta and Manchester workshops); Carroll Hyder, assistant professor, Department of Industrial Education, East Tennessee State University (Chicago workshop); and Ivan Valentine, professor of vocational research, Colorado State University (Denver and San Francisco workshops). The names of state and local instructors who contributed the original draft of the lesson plans for the curriculum guide appear at the beginning of this report. Also contributing to the total curriculum package were Richard Fredericks and John Keryeski from NHTSA and Sgt. D. G. Siemer of the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy. The NHTSA regional representatives were invited to attend the training workshops for the purpose of presenting certificates of

completion to the ,4orkshop participants and answering questions relating to the function of NHTSA. We acknowledge with special thanks the following NHTSA regional representatives: Winsor Coleman, Region I; Larry Thompson, Region III; Robert O'Connell, Region VIII; and W. Eugene Beck, Region IX.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Lca(2

PREFACE

PARTICIPANT ROSTERS

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE STUDY

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Highway Safety Literature Accident Investigation Literature Manpower Literature Curriculum Development Literature METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Task I. Curriculum Materials Development Development of a Model Special Curriculum Development and Workshop Planning Session Identification and Selection of Workshop Locations and Personnel Selection of Workshop Sites and Dates Participating States Enrollment of Participants Improvement of Teaching Skills of Task II. Participants Teacher Educator Consultant's Selection Teacher Educator Consultant's Workshop Planning Meeting Results of Planning Meeting Evaluation Plans for Formative (Process) Evaluation Instructional Objectives for Wcrkshop Participants Follow-up Workshop Task III. Selection of Workshop Participants

13 14 16 17 19 19 19 19 24 25 26 27 29 30

31 31 33 35 37 37

Page

Workshop Sites and Dates Pre-Workshop Activities WorkShop Outline and Schedule Workshop Procedures Summary Comments FINDINGS

18 38 38 38 4? I

-1

Curriculum Materials Development Workshop Conduct and Procedures Findings Teaching Skills Improvement Workshop Participants Role in Accident Investigation Training Organizations Represented Accident InVestigation Experience Teaching Experience Teacher Educator Consultants Presentations Improvement of Teaching Skills Summary Evaluation of the Workshops Daily Evaluation Meetings Atlanta Denver San Francisco Chicago Manchester Planning Activities

General Reactions Instructional Objectives Implementation of Curriculum Materials Results of the. Follow-up Workshop

45 06 47 47 47 48 48 51 51 55 55 55 56 56 56 57 57 57 by

59 59 61 63

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

A. B.

C. D. E. F. G.

Pre-Workshop Information Guidelines for the Development of Behavioral Objectives Letter Requesting Nominations of Participants Letter Requesting Confirmation of Workshop Attendance Evaluation Forms Completed by Participants Follow-up Workshop Information Workshop Schedil]eF

RIATELNCE LIST vi

LIST OF FIGURES Pagc Figure

Figure

Matrix for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum

Course Content Outline for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum

Figure

Instructor's Lesson Plan

rigure

Revised Instructor's Lesson Plan

Figure

Regional Workshops for Training State and Local Instructors in the Use of Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum Package

Proposed Agenda for Accident Investigation Workshops

Revised Course Content Outline for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum

Agenda for Accident Investigation Workshop--Atlanta

Agenda for Accident Investigation Workshop--Denver

155

Agenda for Accident Investigation Workshop--San Francisco

156

Agenda for Accident Investigation Workshop--Chicago

157

Agenda for Accident Investigation Workshop--Manchester

158

Final Course Content Outline for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum

Figure Figure

Figure

Figure 10

Figure 11 Figure 12

Figure 13

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

Table 7

Institutional Profile, Types of Training Institutions by Group

Institutional Profile, Number ami Types of Accident Investigation Programs by Group

Participants Profile, Average Years of Accident Investigation Experience by Group

Participants Profile, Number of Years of Teaching Experience by Group

Average Participant Evaluation of Planning Activities by Workshop

Reactions of Participants to Instructional Quality and Overall Workshop Worth

Mean Score of Participants' Rating of Their Confidence in Achieving the Fi'.'e Conference Objectives

PARTICIPANTS AT ATLANTA WORKSH0P MARCH 20-24, 1.972

James H. Amick, Sergeant Criminal Justice Academy South Carolina Highway Patrol 4242 Broad River Road Columbia, South Carolina

L. Prince, Resident Instructor

Highway Patrol Academy Ridgeway and Eisenhower Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 576-1244

Charles E. Blackstock, Superintendent Vehicle Operations Knoxville Post Office Knoxville, Tennessee 37901 (615) 637-9300, ext. 4545

James Rose, Coordinator Adult Education Programs Athens Area VocationalTechnical School U. S. 29

Athens, Georgia (404) 549-2360

William M. Brewer, Colonel and Director Department of Law Enforcement Mississippi Gulf Coast Junior College Jefferson Davis Campus Gulfport, Mississippi 39501 (601) 896-3355

Wayne Seal, Sergeant and Training Instructor II Arkansas Law Enforcement Academy Post Office !Box 3106

East Camden, Arkansas (501) 574-1810

Harry L. Myersohn, Captain Training Bureau Dade County Public Safety Department 1320 Northwest 14th Street Florida 33125 0 05) 377-7808

71701

Ralph Strother, Captain ana Coordinator Traffic Safety Programs Department of Community Colleges

Law Enforcement Training Room 173 Education Building Raleigh, North. Carolina 27610 (919) 829-7661

Ralph O'Brian, Materia lsA Specialist Tndustrial and Technical Education Instructional Materials Laboratory University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 30506 (806) 257-4730

Christopher Vail, Instructor Department of Criminal Justice Clayton Junior College Morrow, Georgia 30260 (404) 363-3800

Erich Wachsmuth, Training Coordinator Pinellas Police Academy Technical Education Center 6100-154th Avenue, North Clearwater, Florida 33516 (813) 531-3531 Richard Wright, Director Law Enforcement Education Lively Area VocationalTechnical Center 500 North Appleyard Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 576-3181 Ben Yarbrough, Director Central Savannah River Area Law Enforcement Training Center 1688 Broad Street Augusta, Georgia 30904 (404) 738-5488

xii

PARTICIPANTS AT DENVER WORKSHOP APRIL 3-7, 1972 Robert G. Bond, General Foreman Vehicle Operations United States Postal Service Main Post Office Garage Terminal Annex Seattle, Washington 98134 (205) 442-2460

Robert J. Kilpatrick, Assistant Professor Florissant Valley Community College 3400 Pershall Road Ferguson, Missouri 63135 JA4-2020

Herman B. Davis, Instructor Department of Criminal Justice 500 Longview Rd. Longview Community College Lees Summit, Missouri 64063 S03-7777, ext. 76

Arnold L. Miller, ChairmanInstructor Department of Law Enforcement and Administration Arapahoe Community College 5900 So. Santa Fe Drive Littleton, Colorado 80210 (303) 761-2289

Hobart L. Erickson, Instructor Coordinator Police Science

H. Wayne Overson, Instructor Police Science Weber State College 3750 Harrison Blvd. Ogden, Utah 84403 (801) 399-5941

F.] Centro College

Main and Lamar 75202 Dallas, Texas (214) 746-2360 Lee Hughs, Coordinator-Instructor Department of Criminal Justice Western Wyoming College 2500 College Drive Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 (307) 382-2121, ext. 51 or 362-2900

Gordon R. Tassi, Instructor of Police Science Cowley County Community College 67005 Arkansas City, Kansas (316) 44 2 -0 340

Albert VanderLinde, Director Mitchell Area VocationalTechnical School Mitchell, South Dakota 57301 (605) 996-6671, ext. 24

Newell G. Knight, Training Officer Utah Highway Patrol 309 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 (801) 328-5621

John E. Williams, Instructor Colorado Law Enforcement Training Academy 15000 Golden Road Golden, Colorado 80401 (303) 279-2511, ext. 237

PARTICIPANTS AT SAN FRANCISCO WORKSHOP APRIL 17-21, 1972 Herbert Allen Peace Officer Instruction Lewis-Clark State College Lewison, Idaho 83501 (208) 746-2341, ext. 326

Karl Hutchinson, Coordinator Law Enforcement Ft. Steilacoom Community College P. 0. Box 3186 Tacoma, Washington 98499 (206) 588-3623 or 582-5648

David L. Cox Hawaii Community College 1175 Manano Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Home: 935-2581 Office: 935: 935-0091

John Knight, Sergeant California Highway Patrol Academy 3100 Meadow View Road Sacramento, California 95832 (916) 422-5770

Peter Gardner, Instructor City College of San Francisco 683 Miramar Avenue San Francisco, California

John Kocher, Instructor Law Enforcement Lane Community College 4000 East 30th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97405 (503) 747-4501

94112 (415) 585-5055

Richard Helgeson, Attorney Law Enforcement and Business Law Instructor Clackamas Community College 19600 South Molalla Avenue Oregon Coity, Oregon (503) 656-2631

Jerry W. Lockwood, Officer California Highway Patrol 8341 Indiana Avenue Riverside, California 92504

97045

Wallace Hughling, Chairman Law Enforcement Department Phoenix Community College 1202 West Thomas Road Phoenix, Arizona 85013 (602) 264-2495, ext. 357

Floyd Nelson Vehicle Operations 550 Beale Street San Francisco, California

Robert R. Hunter Clark College 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, Washington 98663 (206) 694-6521

James Pollard, Instructor Spokane Community College 3403 E. Mission Avenue Spokane, Washington 99205 (509) 456-2902

9 4105

(415) 556-6499

xiv

Hrcld Thovrson, Instructor Law Enforcement Po'tland Community College ] 2000 S. W. 49th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97219 (503) 244-6111

PARTICIPANTS AT CHICAGO WORKSHOP APRIL 24-28, 1972 Kenneth L. J. McCormick, Instructor Law Enforcement Alpena Community College 666 Johnson Street Alpena, Michigan 49707 (517) 354-3511

William F. Blumer, Instructor Police Science Fox Valley Technical Institute 1025 North Bluemound Drive Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 (414) 739-8831 John L. Boots Preparatory Career Education Police Science Program Hawkeye Institute of Technology Waterloo, Iowa 50704 (319) 234-5951

John Megerson, Chairman Law Enforcement Program Des Moines Area Community College 2006 Ankeny Boulevard Ankeny, Iowa 50021 (515) 964-0651

John Bullaro Elmhurst Police Department 409 Canterberry Lane Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 (312) 323-4738

Paul. H. Moore, Coordinator Criminal Justice Program William Rainey Harper College Algonquin and Roselle Roads Palatine, Illinois 60067 (312) 359-4200, ext. 463

Glenn E. Clark, Instructor Law Enforcement Columbus Technical Institute 550 East Spring Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 221-6743, ext. 75 Home:

Harold D. Padley, Jr. U. S. Post Office 435 South St. Clair Street Toledo, Ohio 43601 (419) 259-6457

231-8764

Robert Johnson, Instructor Law Enforcement Program Black Hawk College 6600 34th Avenue Moline, Illinois 61265 (309) 755-1311, ext. 210

Robert tee*ts, Instructor Police Science District One Technical Institute 620 West Clairemont Avenue Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701 (715) 834-3171

Clarence F. Knight, Chairman Law Enforcement Education St. Clair County Community College 323 Erie Street Port Huron, Michigan 48060 (313) 984-3881, ext. 274

Jim Todd, Executive Officer Lakeland Community College Mentor, Ohio 44060 (216) 951-1000, ext. 243

xvi

Keith Weaver Preparatory Career. Education Police Science Program id(!:; torn Iowa Tech

3075 Ployd Boulevard ioux City, Iowa 51105

Robert R. Westby, Vocational Education Consultant Law Enforcement Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education 137 East Wilson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53705 (608) 266-7993

xvii

PARTICIPANTS AT MANCHESTER WORKSHOP MAY 1-5, 1972 J. Thomas Accuosti Hudson Valley Community College 80 Vandenburgh Avenue Troy, New York 12180

Harry Babb, Captain Suffolk County Police Department c/o State University of New York Agricultural and Technical College Farmingdale, New York (516) 888-5543 Eugene L. Bell, Superintendent Vehicle Operations Harrisburg Post Office Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 (717) 782-4436 Thomas Connors, Assistant Direc-

Wolcott S. Gaines, Instructor Law Enforcement Technology Southern Main VocationalTechnical Institute South Portland, Maine 04106 (207) 799-7303 John P. (Jack) Hill, Colonel and Division Chairman Public Services Technologies Thomas Nelson Community College Riverdale Station, Drawer K Hampton, Virginia 23366 (703) 826-4800 Edward Lennox, First Sergeant Maryland State Police Headquarters Pikesville, Maryland 21208 (301) 486-3101

tor

Gerald Marshall, Corporal Vermont State Police 05478 St. Albans, Vermont (802) 483-6228

Division of Social Science and Public Services 60 Bidwell Street Manchester, Connecticut (203) 646-4900

John McAllister Northwestern Connecticut Community College Park Place East Winsted, Connecticut 06098 (203) 379-8543

John Doyle, Instructor Police Science Mattatuck Community College 236 Grand Street Waterbury, Connecticut 06702 (203) 757-9661

Marvin Mills, Professcr Traffic Law Enforcement Marshall University Safety Education Department of Safety rducatiun Huntington, West Virginias

Marvin Ericson, Instructor Police Science (former Chief of Westchester County Parkway Police) Westchster Community College 75 (rasslands Road Vdihdlla, New York 10f95

25701

('.t 14) 946-1616

Trvin B. 17,mith, Lieutenant :';tate Police Headquarter:.

North DuPont Highway Dover, Delaware 19901 ( 3fl2) 678-4471

xix

PARTICIPANTS AT FOLLOW-UP WORKSHOP JULY 17-19, 1972 Richard Fredericks NHTSA U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

Glen E. Clark, Instructor Law Enforcement Columbus Technical Institute Columbus, Ohio Karl Hutchinson, Coordinator Law Enforcement Ft. Steilacoom Community College Tacoma, Washington Wayne Seal, Sergeant and Training Instructor Arkansas Law Enforcement Academy East Camden, Arkansas Irvin B. Smith, Lieutenant State Police Headquarters Dover, Delaware John Keryeski NHTSA U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

John Knight, Sergeant California Highway Patrol Academy Sacramento, California

H. Wayne Overson, Instructor Police Science Weber State College Ogden, Utah Aaron Adams Manpower Development Office NHTSA U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. xx

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TECHNICIAN INSTRUCTOR TRAINING INSTITUTE

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Transportation funded four projects for teacher training institutes in the area of highway safety during fiscal year 1972. Contracts were issued by NHTSA for preparing teachers to train technicians in the following areas: 1)

Emergency medical technician--ambulance

Breath examiner specialist

Driver license examiner

Accident investigation technician

Three of the contracts were to train instructors to utilize existing NHTSA curriculum materials for the first three types of technicians listed above. The accident investigation institute contract, awarded to The Center for Vccational and Technical Education at The Ohio State University, differed in scope and objectives. The objectives for the accident investigation technician proj ect were: 1)

To identify existing resources for developing a curriculum package to train accident investigation technicians

To identify and involve 75 professional public education institutions and state a commitment to develop and implement a age for training accident investigation

To hold five regional conferences for the purpose of developing materials for the curriculum package in accident investigation and to train 75 instructors in the utilization of this curriculum package

To develop a curriculum package, consisting of a course guide, instructor's lesson plans, and a student activities guide, for NHTSA to assist agencies in designing and implementing accident investigation training programs.

instructors from agencies who had curriculum packtechnicians

The need for accident investigation technician training has evolved as a result of a number of different rulings and events in the short history of the federal government's highway safety efforts. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 was a milestone in national highway safety efforts and brought about the original highway

safety program standards. Highway safety program standard 9 was issued on June 27, 1967, and deals with the identification and surveillance of accident locations. At that same time, highway safety program standard 10 was also established and called for an improved system of collecting, analyzing, and issuing information regarding all phases of highway safety. In May 1972 NHTSA issued standard 18 to emphasize the level of sophistication necessary to investigate accidents in such a way as to provide information that could lead to safer highways. In June 1972 NHTSA inaugurated a sophisticated computerized program to serve as a researchoriented effort in the analysis of auto fatalities statistics. The fatality analysis file emphasized increasing information In August 1972 gathering activities in accident investigations. NHTSA issued proposed rule making which served as a revision of the original program standards in highway safety. Article 246.7 of this proposed rule making deals with accident investigation and emphasizes the importance of increased accuracy and availability of accident data.

Several manpower studies have been conducted in the area of highway safety to identify and project manpower needs for the future. A variety of estimates are given for the number of accident investigation technicians employed by the public sector needed within the next five-year period, and the figures range somewhere between 8,000 and 12,000 persons. No projected manpower requirements for accident investigation technicians were identified by the project staff. At the present time, very few programs offer the occupational training needed to prepare accident investigation technicians. Although there are in-service programs for training law enforcement personnel in the area of accident investigation, a recent survey of vocational and technical public education programs revealed no formal efforts for preparing individuals in the occupational category of accident investigation technician. If existing and emerging manpower needs are to be met in this occupational category, competent teachers must be developed and occupational preparation programs must be implemented within a very short time. Training of this magnitude can be accomplished only through the combined efforts and resources of federal, state, and local agencies and institutions. NHTSA contracted with The Center for Vocational and Technical Education to undertake the development of a basic curriculum packThe curriculum package is to consist of a detailed Tnstrucage. tor's Lesson Plan Guide designed for the instructor to use in the day-to-day conduct of the course, a Course Guide designed ro a!;sist etdministrators and coordinators in planning the course, and a Student Study Guide designed as a student reference. ThP initial efforts for the three documents appear in the separatc, tached appendices.

Thr! curriculum m-!teriaJ content ha'; c()rnoll Aornnautical i,abnratory's Accident

1 c11tr,!

frc.!:l

th,

In:','..Y3;:.13n 7p:!, invc:.tigations to 'orovic!e, moro (!m,:husi:,

th,f pr4,-crw5h, cra!th, and post-crash aspo(2h; o

Jocidont invo :ti-

gallon and to facilitate teaching the content at the technician Because of the needed adjustment of the material, training level. the development of the curriculum package was incorporated into the original purpose of the project, thereby becoming a second phase of the training program. Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, provided a task analysis of job functions for an accident investigation technician. It was from Battelle's task analysis and the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory's accident investigation materials that the project staff developed a curriculum model for an accident investigation technician. After developing a course outline and pre-workshop information based on the accident investigator's model, the project staff conducted a series of five regional workshops to develop the accident investigation technician curriculum and improve the teaching techniques of the participants. The significant contribution of the regional workshops was the 30 hours of training they provided participants. The key emphasis in this training was on the teacher training-curriculum development aspect. This emphasis consisted of instruction by the teacher educator consultant on these topics teaching and learning principles, the four-step lesson plan, the analysis process, behavioral objectives, and how to give a demonstration. Based upon the change in the original purpose of the project, it was determined that workshop participants would have to be selected for their expertise in the area of accident investigation as well as their having a major teaching responsibility in a police science program at the community-junior college, area vocational school, or a highway patrol academy. Assuming that many of the participants attending the course might have responsibilities for programs already in existance, it was determined that a commitment to initiate a course within 90 days after the workshop should not be required. In addition, it was determined that the nature of follow-up as originally conceived (e.g., on-site assistance with the first solo course) would be inappropriate or not required in most cases. In developing a curriculum to train accident investigation technicians, the project staff had to take into consideration the role of the policeman, the individual who, historically, has conducted the routine investigations of accidents. The policeman's concern centers around law enforcement and the fdentification of blame for an accident, whereas the accident investigation technician

will lend a new emphasis in the area of providing data on highway accidents. It is with this new, additional data that researchers and highway safety program administrators may find some solutions to the prevention of accidents. The need for data will require more sophisticated and in-depth efforts beyond what a policeman has been either qualified to do or granted the time to do properly. It was not the purpoSe of this project to identify who the accident investigation technician is or who is responsible for specific functions or tasks. The purpose was to identify job functions of an accident investigation technician, regardless of the agency that employs him. The purpose was to develop a curriculum to train that technician and to improve the teaching techniques of those who were developing the curriculum.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The project staff was to develop a curriculum to train entrylevel accident investigation technicians, employees for which NHTSA has predicted a great need in the future. The project staff decided on the development of a curriculum package that would in(1) a Course Guide intended to help planclude three documents: ners and administrators decide whether or not to adopt the accident investigation technician curriculum and to provide a detailed outline of the course content to be covered, prerequisites for learning the content, suggestions for equipment, reference materials, guidelines for conducting the course, and the manpower needs and general setting for a training program; (2) the Instructor's Lesson Plan Guide, with objectives written in behavioral terms to place emphasis on student activity and involvement, to be utilized by the instructor in conducting the course; and (3) the Student Study Guide designed for the student to supplement lesson units as presented by the instructor. Reflecting the current manpower supply and job market in the area of accident investigations, a review of the literature revealed that almost all existing publications in the area of accident investigation are oriented toward law enforcement and court There were no published curriculum materials avail.onvictions. able at the post-secondary technical level that complied with the Therefore, the project staff developed beguidelines of NHTSA. fore the workshops a course outline for training accident investigation technician.

A secondary purpose was established to improve the teaching techniques of workshop participants once the staff decided to utilize a series of five regional workshops at which participants could combine technical information with the course outline. One of the problems encountered in conducting this study revolved around the changing "state of the art" of accident investiNew standards and guidelines are continually being develgation. NHTSA determined the need for oped through the efforts of NHTSA. entry-level accident investigation technicians from the existing standards within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore a contract was let to develop a curriculum package for training accident investigation technicians.

ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE STUDY

The staff made the following assumptions in conducting this project: 1)

It was assumed that the project staff could help technicians develop a curriculum in a related area of their own expertise.

It was assumed that a viable job market will exist for the future employment of an accident investigation technician.

It was assumed that the project staff and teacher educator consultants could improve the teaching skills of the participants through the program and information provided during the workshops.

It was assumed that a curriculum for training accident investigation technicians could be designed on a behavioral basis.

It was assumed that the selection process identified the most knowledgeable accident investigation instructors in the United States who were both interested in implementing a new curriculum in the near future and who were available to participate in the workshops:

It was assumed that the existing literature provided validated analysis and materials necessary to achieve the project objective of curriculum development.

It was assumed that a curriculum package could be developed with a competency base that would be flexible and adaptable to the changing "state of the art" of accident investigation.

3/9

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The limitations of the study are defined as follows. 1)

The project staff was not designing a curriculum for training technicians who would qualify as "expert witnesses" oriented to giving court testimony.

The project staff was not attempting to train workshop participants in accident investigation skills.

The project staff had to work with participants who were nominated through the process agreed upon by the contractor and NHTSA.

It)

The project staff was developing a curriculum to prepare technicians for the public sector of employment. The project staff was to develop a curriculum package that would not be able to be field tested within the parameters or scope of this project as funded. .

The project staff designed the curriculum package only as a guideline for instructors and did not intend it to be used without other references, experienced personnel, and appropriate visual aids.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE The project staff determined that a review of :literature for this study should encompass four major areas identified by the staff as a result of previous studies completed in the area of (1) highway safety A review was conducted of: highway safety. literature, (2) accident investigation literature, (3) manpower An extenliterature, and (4) curriculum development literature. sive number of publications were reviewed by the project staff in All of these materials the planning and conduct of the project. were examined to reflect the current state of accident investigation and to assist in the development of a curriculum that would provide the appropriate training for an entry-level accident investigation technician. The review of literature section of this report reflects selected summaries of the major publications which contributed to the conduct of this project in the four areas mentioned.

Highway Safety Literature

The rapidly growing body of literature in the field of highway safety reflects the concerted efforts of federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, to expand research studies and provide information for the general public regarding highway safety measures. In 1966 the federal government began major legislative efforts to deal with the problems of highway safety by enacting public laws 89-563 and 89-564, aimed at the reduction of traffic accidents, deaths, and injuries and the establishment in each state of a highway safety program to accomplish this reduction by adhering to the 16 federally issued standards.

NHTSA issued four contracts in 1972 to prepare teachers in the areas of emergency medical technician, breath examiner specialists, driver license examiners, and accident investigation technician. The project staff reviewed materials from the institutes funded by the three other contracts, searching for areas which could be combined with the accident investigation technician curriculum development study. The Traffic Digest and Review, published by the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University, provided current information on traffic and highway safety. Another valuable source of data on the current status of highway safety was the biweekly NHTSA

publications Highway Safety Literature. These documents were helpful in keeping the project staff aware of the most recent research acquisitions of NHTSA in several areas vital to this project. Specifically helpful were the sections on accident investigation, highway safety, human factors, and vehicle safety. The National Safety Council's monthly publication Traffic Safety was reviewed to provide further information in the general area of highway safety.

A weekly review of NHTSA publications The News and the Weekly helped to advise the project staff on the changing status of the various federal standards relating to highway safety and accident investigation. Standard 18, issued in May 1972, dealt specifically with accident investigation. However, by August 1972, several changes were about to take place involving standard 18, according to the Federal Register (vol. 37, no. 150). This reorganization appeared to reflect the move to place accident investigation within the area of police traffic services, standard 6, and would have a major effect on the relevancy of the curriculum developed for this project because the police role of law enforcement and court testimony had been purposely deleted from this project. Accident Investigation Literature In reviewing literature on accident investigation, the project staff found a plethora of information that dealt with how a policeman investigates an accident and how special highly trained multidisciplinary teams of accident investigators conduct their activities. However, no available literature reflected how a nonpoliceman or an entry-level technician would investigate an accident. Therefore, NHTSA contracted with Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, to perform a task analysis of those activities essential to investigating an accident. Staff members from Battelle studied the activities of local policemen and gained a wealth of information from which evolved a specific task analysis. It was this task analysis which was instrumental in the development of one part of the model upon which the curriculum is based. The second major publication instrumental in providing information for the curriculum model for the accident investigation technician was Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory's Program of Instruction for Highway Collision Investigation Training Program and Accident Investigation Training for Multi-Disciplinary Investigations. NHTSA purchased the Cornell studies, developed under contract for use by the project staff in curriculum material development. The Cornell materials were adapted by the project staff to place more emphasis on the pre-crash, crash, and post-crash aspects of accident investigation. Further adaptations by the project staff facilitated the teaching of the curriculum content HI the technician-training level. Because of the needed adjustment

of the Cornell materials, the development of the curriculum package was incorporated into the original purpose of the project, becoming a second phase of the training program.

The accident investigation technician curriculum evolved from the information synthesized from the Battelle Memorial Institute task analysis and the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory multidisciplinary accident investigation materials. Additional sources of information related to the multidisciplinary aspect of accident investigation were reviewed by the project staff. Of particular assistance in acquiring detailed information on investigative procedures and case studies were NHTSA's Multi-Disciplinary Accident Investigation Summaries from 1968-1971. Further case studies of accidents were examined by the project staff to acquire additional background data regarding the functions performed by accident investigators. Of particular assistance were the U.S. Department of Transportation's A Study of Severe Vehicular Accidents, edited by Paul H. Wright, and (general Motors Corporation's Collision Performance and Injury Report.

The National Safety Council's Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents also provided valuable information for the development of information utilized in preparing the accident investigation technician curriculum materials. In 1969 the U.S. Department of Transportation contracted with The Travelers Research Corporation of Hartford, Connecticut, to study a state accident investigation program. The Staff reviewed the final report of this study, A State Accident Investigation Program, issued in three volumes. The majority of the information contained in the final report reflected a law enforcement orientation and was, therefore, of limited use to the preparation of curriculum materials for this project.

A series of Research Reports published in 1960-63 by The Traffic Institute at Northwestern University, under contract with the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, was reviewed by the project staff to provide background information in the area of determining causes of traffic accidents. Two text books provided basic information essential for developing a curriculum to train accident investigation technicians. The project staff utilized the information in J. Stannard Baker's Traffic Accident Investigator's Manual for Police and James Collins' Baker's text was And Joe Morris' Highway Collision Analysis. designed for use by law enforcement personnel and much of the information contained therein was not useful to the project staff for purposes of curriculum development in training entry-level non-law enforcement personnel. The text by Collins and Morris

31 lamommow'

provided a different approach to accident investigation by including valuable information on the motor vehicle and how it functions. Baker's manual provided little or no information on the vehicle Both texts but concentrated on the accident investigator's tasks. provided a sophisticated level of mathematical computation in technical areas of measurement that were not necessary for training entry-level non-law enforcement personnel.

Another text provided valuable information for the project staff in the areas of investigative techniques with special refThat was erence to obtaining information through interviews. This Charles E. O'Hara's Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation. was written as a manual to use in training F.B.I. agents and other law enforcement personnel. Instrumental in providing technical data for curriculum development were two manuals regarding accident investigation procedures utilized in training law enforcement officers by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and instructing law enforcement officers at the community college level in North Carolina. Manpower Literature One of the major references examined by the project staff relating to manpower needs in the area of highway safety was Daugherty, Brooks, and Hyder's Highway Safety Occupational Program Development Guide which projected an estimated manpower need in the area of accident investigation technician at 6,000 on the state In accord level in 1977 and 12,000 at the local level in 1978. with this, the study by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Safety Specialist Manpower, was reviewed for projected manpower requirements and needs. Other resources consulted by the project staff were the National Safety Council's Highway Safety Manpower and Training which offers recommendations on a wide range of manpower needs within the general area of highway safety. There was very little reference to the specific manpower needs for accident investigator technicians in this publication. In 1971 R. W. Bishop and associates published Manpower Development in Highway Safety which discussed the general needs, issues and alternative plans of action as it related to the manpower problem. Specific manpower needs for accident investigators were specified at a technical level in a 1969 Stanford Research Institute study entitled The Feasibility of Establishing Highway Safety Manpower Development and Research Centers at University - Level. This study specified the educational requiremenis Inatttutions. for accident investigator technicians as being either a junior college associate degree or a non-degree short course given in

vocational or technical schools, high school vocational programs, or on-the-job apprentice programs. Curriculum Development Literature The project staff decided to limit the literature search in the area of curriculum development to two general areas: developing a format for writing lesson plans and writing effective behavioral objectives for lesson plans. Robert Mager's Preparing Instructional Objectives was selected as the major guide for writing behavioral objectives that involved the student learner in some form of activity. Other references consulted by the project staff were Norman E. Grunlund's Stating Behavioral Objectives for Classroom Instruction and David E. Hernandez's Writing Behavioral Objectives. The project staff also utilized A Systematic Approach to Developing A Handbook Designed to Increase the Communication of Laymen and Educators by Robert Armstrong and associates and Behavioral Objectives and Instruction by Robert Kibler, Larry Barnes, and David Miles. An extensive set of instructions and information was developed by the project staff to assist workshop participants in preparing lesson units on specifically assigned topics in accident investigation, including writing all lesson objectives in behavioral terms. The major resources reviewed in determining the lesson plan format thought to be most effective for this project were The Preparation of Occupational Instructors by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Ohio State Department of Education's Trade and Industrial Education Service Instructor Training Manual. Both of these references provided the project staff with a uniform acceptable format for the instructor's lesson plan involving the four-step method of preparation of the learner, presentation of information, application, and evaluation.

METHOWL0GY AND PROCEDUKEL;

The project staff designed the study to include three major ta:;k areas that reflected the stated purposes of the project. The purposes were aimed at developing curriculum materials for training entry-level accident investigator technicians and improving teaching techniques of workshop participants. Task I.

Curriculum Materials Development

Task I was to design and develop a model and a curriculum package to train entry-level accident investigator technicians. The major references utilized in the curriculum development were the Battelle task analysis and the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory materials for training accident investigators. The Multi-Disciplinary Accident Investigation Summary Reports of the NHTSA were utilized to provide further technical materials for curriculum development. Additional references have been cited in the section on review of the literature. Development of a Model The four basic task functions on an entry-level accident investigator technician evolved as a synthesis of the data gathered from the reference sources previously cited. These functions were identified as the skills involved in identifying, collecting, recording, and reporting. As identified from the traffic accident investigation literature, there are three phases of an accident, labeled pre-crash, crash, and post-crash. Within a traffic accident itself there are three components, identified by previous research materials as the environment, the vehicle, and the driver. In synthesizing this information, the project staff developed a model that, contained these three basic matrices. The model is presented in Figure 1. Special Curriculum Development and Workshop. Planning Session

Two special consultants assisted the project staff in determining the technical subject matter to be included in the curriculum package and in developing guidelines for adapting the curriculum content to the four-step lesson plan presented in The Preparation of Occupational Instructors. The consultants were Dr. B. T.

Figure 1

MATRIX FOR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR TECHNICIAN CURRICULUM

Post-crash Crash

Pre-crash Environment

Vehicle

Driver

4' ..-1

a 0

10 0

0 TS

..d

k 0 0 0

a 0 C4

fa*gan, associate professor, Department of Vocational Education, University of Kentucky, and Sgt. D. G. Slemmer, instructor, The Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy. The workshop planning session was conducted at The Center for Vocational and Technical Education on February 1-2, 1972. The primary responsibilities of the two consultants were: .

To develop a subject matter outline of essential skills related to traffic accident investigation To identify the subject matter in relation to possible individual lesson plan topics Adapting identified subject matter material to fit the four-step lesson plan To write the precise instructions for workshop participants to follow in writing the lesson plans To develop two sample lesson plans to be included in the participant's package

The results of the two-day planning session were included in the workshop participant's package information. It consists of the Course Content Outline for Traffic Accident Investigation, Les ;on Planning for Teachers of Accident Investigators, Im;tructor':; Lesson Plan (format) , Sample Instructor's Lesson Plan (Aill), and sample instructor's Lesson Plan (information). Further di!;cussion of the results of this curriculum development task will be found in the section of this report called Findings and in Appendix A. The course content outline developed by the project staff to use in conducting the five regional workshops is presented in Figure 2. A complete description of the objectives for each lesson topic can be found in the Course Content Outline for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum and in Appendix A. As previously described, the project staff developed a course outline that was limited to a specific number of investigative units (see Figure 2). The traditional four-step format of lesson plan writing was modified and adapted by the project staff in response to the curriculum development needs identified as the Specifically, the four-step lesson workshops were conducted. plan method was modified to a three-step method by incorporating the evaluation step into the application step. The original format for lesson plan writing appears in Figure 3 and the revised format appears in Figure 4. The project staff developed Guidelines for the Development of Behavioral Objectives as a part of the pre-workshop curriculum The complete text of this guide appears in materials package. Appendix B.

Identification and Selection of Workshop Locations and Personnel The project staff decided to utilize five regional workshops to develop the lesson units for the preestablished course outline. The first step was to determine the workshop sites and dates. The second step was to select and enroll the most competent accident investigation practitioners who could meet the selection criteria established by the project staff. There were multifaceted activities involved in planning the workshops with reference to the identification and selection of site locations and participants. A description of the procedures for this phase of the study follows. 21

Figure 2

Course Content Outline for Accident Inventigatton Technician Curricu]um T.

Course Background Highway Transportation System B. Definitions and Classifications C. Purposes, Responsibilities and Objectives of the Accident Investigator D. Planning the Investigation E. Protecting the Scene F. Accident Scene Photography G. Locating and Interviewing Witnesses

II.

Driver Examination for Pre-crash Contributory Conditions 1. Natural Abilities 2. Learned Capabilities 3. Personality and Attitude 4. Distractions 5. Physical Condition at Accident Time a. Alcoholic Influence b. Drug Influence c. Emotion, Fatigue, and Physical Illness B. Pre-crash Actions and Reactions C. Locating and Identifying the Drivers D. Techniques in Interviewing Drivers E. Non-motor Vehicle Units Involved

III.

Vehicle A. Examination for Pre-crash Damage and Defects not Contributory B. Examination for Preceeding and Contributory Disrepair C. Examination for Crash Damage 1. Differentiating Between Contact and Induced Damage 2. Evaluation of Position and Angle of Infliction 3. Segregating Damage from Multiple Impacts 4. Matching Vehicle Parts with Crash Marks on the Roadway and Environment 5. Examination of the Vehicle for Source of Injury D. Techniques of Vehicle Examination E. Methods of Gathering and Recording Vehicle Data

Environment A. Recognizing, Determining and Recording Physical Environment Attributes B. Determining Modifiers of the Environmental Attributes at the Accident Time C. Evaluation of Debris

IV.

rip,urri 2 (continiwd)

E. F. G.

VI.

:liontdor Prt?.-crash Mark:; on thUtilizatinn and Environment Determining Area of Impact from Marks on the Roadway Post-Crash Data to Final Position Methods of Recording Environmenta: Data Relocation Measurements 1. Field Sketching Physical Evidence 2. 3. Scale Reconstruction Diagramming Collecting and Preserving Physical Evidence 4. 5. Photography Speed Estimates Techniques in Making TeL;t Skids 1. 2. Skidmarks Critical Speed Scuff 3.

Related Essentials Reconstruction Principals and Causation Analysis A. B. Formulating Opinions and Conclusions C. Use and Preparation of Accident Report Forms D. Expert Assistance Available E. Potential Employers of Accident Investigators

Evaluation Exercise Simulated Traffic Crash Investigation A.

Figure 3

Instructor's Lesson Plan Unit

Lesson TOPIC:

OBJECTIVE(S):

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT: MATERIALS:

TEACHING AIDS: REFERENCES:

PREPARATION (of the learner):

PRESENTATION (of the skills) METHOD: Operation or Steps Key Points (things to remember to do or say) APPLICATION (practice by learner under close supervision):

II.

III. IV.

TEST (performance of skill to acceptable standards)

".1

N o

H o 0. >1

OW "Cni

:Iji

fou m<

la.

>,0

r-I

I-I W

W >1

f-I

f) ti;

,00 ¢ < :Iji

..-4

0 5 gW

.1-1

C 1-1

'a'

bO W

.0,

U I-,

El i-:

C.)

4-3

44 U

1-D I

ts0

W 1-1

4: >1 4-4

P f-1

';1 0 E-I

2 i))

4-1 04

0 u)

Atlanta

Denver

San Francisco

Chicago

Manchester

TOTALS

T:101

*Others includes non-respondents. *More than one type of program in same institution.

Table 2 Institutional Profiles Number and Types of Accident Investigation Programs by Group

Number of and Types of Accident Investigation Programs at Participants' Institutions**

Workshop

,-1

4-,

bp C W ,-1 C.) C 11 r-1 o--I

rci

O ;I C14

E-4

4-1

r0 bp

C ri

W 4-1

VIn 0 > O c

1-1 W =4

.-.

8-1

r-I

,1 >1 14-1

4-1

14-1 W c t i 4-I

1P W

4- C

C.)

4-1

11 W

H .1-1

-1.- i

C-1

;.I

;.I 0

E.-4

o 0

C.) 1-D

C14 ci)

1-1

4-1 1-I

rd b0 ri c

c- N

4-I

I 110

C a

0-I--)

C/)

Atlanta

Denver

San Francisco

Chicago

Manchester

TOTALS

**More than one type of program in same institution.

T:105

it should be noted that three of the 13 who indicated no experience in accident investigation were the the teacher-educators who served as consultants to the workshops. Table 3 provides information on the participant's profile including the average years of accident investigation experience by group. The Manchester group averages the highest number of years of experience (6.6 year) with the Chicago group (4.3 year) being the second most experienced group. The Atlanta, Denver, and San Francisco participants reported an average of 3.7, 3.6, and 3.4 years of accident investigation experience, respectively. The overall average years of accident investigation experience for participants of all five workshops was 4.32 years.

The average age of participants in the Manchester and Chicago groups was 46.9 and 35.3 years, respectively. The average age for all participants was 40.78 years. Teaching Experience

Twenty-two participants each reported in excess of six years teaching experience while three individuals indicated no years of teaching experience. Twenty persons had one to three years of teaching experience while the remaining (20) participants reported a range of teaching experiences ranging from three to six years. The total of 65 responses reflects one teacher educator who served as a consultant in the Atlanta workshop. The average years of teaching experience by groups indicates that the Manchester workshop reported the most teaching experience (4.9 years) followed by the San Francisco group (4.6 years) and the Atlanta group (4.5 years). Groups in Denver and Chicago showed 3.6 years and 3.5 years teaching experience,, respectively. The overall averages of teaching experience for all five workshops was 4.22 years. Table 4 presents a complete breakdown by workshop of the average years of teaching experience. Teacher Educator Consultants Presentations In attempting to meet the stated purpose of improving the teaching skills of participants, it is necessary to discuss the effects of the pragmatic presentation of information by the consultants. The actual agenda for the workshops (see Figure 8) provides a capsule view of what the consultants taught. Basically, the pragmatic presentations were closely related to the five instructional objectives of the workshop. The consultants utilized the inductive method to enhance the learning and teaching abilities of the participants instead of the lecture method. Tables 6 and 51

Table 3 Participants Profile (Average Years of Accident Investigation Experience by Group)

Workshops

Average Year of Age of Participant

Average years 01 Accident Investigation Experience by Group*

Number of Years of Accident Investigation Experience Per Participant 0

/t Tanta

40.8

3.7

Denver

40.0

3.6

San Francisco

40.9

3 . 4

Chicago

35.3

4.3

Manchester

46.9

6.6

TOTALS

40.78

4.32

1-2 2-3 0

3-14

4-5 S-6

*These are conservative estimates because of the categorization of six or more years experience was interpreted as seven years of experience.

Table 4 Participants Profile (Number of Years of Teaching Experience By Group)

Workshops

Average Years of Teaching Experience By Group

Number of Years of Teaching Experience Per Participant 0

1-2 2-3 3-4'4-5 5-6

Atlanta

4.5

Denver

3.6

Francisco

4.6

Chicago

3.4

Manchester

4.9

TOTALS

4.22

:emonstrations

4-Step Method

Evaluation

Adjournment

3:30

F.-.al.:ati:n

::morrcw's Flan

Audiovisual Aids Film

Work on Mate-

Analysis Process

3:00L:00

Evaluation

Tomorrowrs Fla-

rials

Work on ME7.-

Small Groups

Break

rials

Work on Mate-

Evaluation

Tomorrow's Flan

Tour of Technical School

Break

Adjournment

Presentation of Certificates Larry Thompson

Summation, Center: Travel Form, Final Evaluation

Tour of Technical School

Audiovisual Aids Film Small Groups

Lunch

rials

Work on Mate-

Informal Presentations (4)

Small Groups

Lunch

Break

i::B;

Break

Lunch

Break

Critique of Demonstration

Lunch

Work on Mate-

rial First Day Evaluation

Lunch

Small Groups

Work on Mate-

Teaching and Learning Principles of Learning rials

Break

Informal Presentatations to Entire Group

How to Give a Demonstration

Cone of Experiences

Behavioral Objectives

Demonstration and Critique

Daily Plan

Daily Flan

Daily Plan

Friday 2/24

Welcome Introductions Center Overview Highway Occupation Overview Purposes Workshop Plans

3:00

2:45-

1:152:45

11:451:15

10:1511:45

10:0010:15

8:307 10:00

Thursday 3/23

Tuesday 3/21

Monday 3/20

Wednesday 3/22

Workshop -- Atlanta

Figure 8 Agenda for Accident Investigation

in the section Evaluation of Workshops present information regording the achievement of instructional objectives as well as participants' reactions to the instructional quality and overall worth of the workshops. 7

Improvement of Teaching Skills

There were no provisions for a long-range follow-up study to be conducted in order to determine what effect the information regarding teaching techniques presented in the workshops had on the participants. Therefore, the project staff had no way to measure whether the participants benefited from the workshop activities in relation to the project's second major objective of improving teaching skills of participants. Summary

The 64 participants represented a nationwide sampling of individuals primarily involved with some phase of police training, police science, accident investigation, and traffic engineering programs at community colleges, police academies, or state highway patrol agencies. Five participants represented the U.S. Postal Service.

The average participant could be described as caucasian male, age 40, with slightly more than four years of accident investigation experience.in addition to four years of teaching experience. There were no female participants in the workshops. The draft lesson plan units provided the nucleus for the Instructor's Lesson Plan Guide. The participants utilized a modified version of the four-step lesson plan to develop the lesson plan units. The two major influences in the development of the course outline and curriculum model were the task analysis conducted by Battelle Memorial Institute and the accident investigation training materials from the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. Evaluation of the Workshops The presentation of the data will be as follows: 1.

A brief presentation of each workshop's daily evaluation sessions and the presentation of the actual agendas

Presentation of the participants' evaluation of selected planning activities

Presentation of the participants' evaluation of the quality of instruction and their general reactions to the workshops

Presentation of the participants' evaluation of how effectively the workshops met their instructional objectives

Presentation of the participants' perception of how the curriculum materials would be implemented at their institutions

Daily Evaluation Meetings

Each workshop administrator conducted a daily evaluation meeting during which three participants were asked to give their perceptions of the workshop and to offer suggestions on how the purposes might be met. Changes were made in the proposed agendas as a result of these meetings. This section will present the agendas and highlight the evaluation meetings. Atlanta. Figure 8 gives the actual agenda for the Atlanta workshop. A major shift in the format was from presentation and demonstration to small group sessions aimed at developing materials.

The Atlanta evaluation meeting brought out several key points. There was some confusion as to what were the purposes of the workshop. This was, in the main, due to the conflicting statements between the pre-conference material and necessary changes as expressed in the introductory remarks by the project director. A second major change was the deletion of the 20-minute presentation by participants. The participants expressed irritation at the manner and style of criticism given the presenter by some of their peers. The primary purpose of developing curriculum material was given more time and the participants were arranged in small workLater in the ing groups in which each refined his lesson plan. week, it was felt that short, descriptive presentations of the lesson plans might be useful, and these were given on a voluntary Over all, the evaluation meeting pointed out the need for basis. more explicit statements of the workshop's purposes and the necessity of reallocating the workshops time so that a major portion of it could be devoted to the writing of curriculum material.

Figure 9, Appendix G gives the actual agenda for Denver. A more complete listing of comments from the Denver workshop. the daily evaluation meetings is available from The Center for Vocational and Technical Education. The tone of the Denver daily evaluation meetings were different in that there was little concern expressed about the 20-minute presentations; most discussion

'70

centered around the context of the developing curriculum, concern about logical sequence of course outline, adequate physical settng, and getting the job done. It was felt that working in small groups might aid in developing better curriculum materials, and modifications were made in the schedule to accommodate this request.

Overall the evaluation meeting brought out two major ques(1) Is the course sequence correct? and (2) Will the curriculum meet the needs of community college programs and police academy programs? tions:

San Francisco. Figure 10, Appendix G shows the actual agen da for the San Francisco workshops. The daily evaluation meetings at San Francisco dealt mainly with the instructional content and the method used for instruction at the workshop. It was felt by several of the evaluation teams that the instruction on behavioral objectives should come sooner in the workshop format, that more time should be given for this instruction, and that the instructional method used should more fully involve the participants. Also, there was still some confusion as to the purposes of the workshop. The agenda reflected a redirection of time away from the teacher education purpose to the curriculum development objectives. The actual agenda is more in line with that developed at the Atlanta workshop. A more complete account of the meetings is available from The Center for Vocational and Technical Education. Chicago. Figure 11, Appendix G gives the actual agenda for the Chicago workshop. A summary of the daily evaluation meetings is available from The Center for Vocational and Technical Education. A brief account of the action of these meetings follow. The actual agenda for the Chicago workshop resembled that of the San Francisco workshop.

The major concerns in the evaluation meetings were the adequacy and availability of resource materials for participant use. The need for more basic information about the workshop by participants prior to arriving at the workshop was again mentioned and the need to know types of groups or people that the curriculum is targeted toward was of some concern. There was some minor concern experienced about the format of the lesson plans. Manchester. Figure 12, Appendix G gives the actual agenda for the Manchester workshop. The daily evaluation meetings again brought up The concern about the purposes of the workshop. The agenda was very similar to that of the Chicago and San Francisco workshops, and the participant reactions at the evaluation meetings were very positive. One concern expressed was that the curriculum material may not be useable in the junior-community college setting because there is some question regarding the potential job market for a non-law enforcement accident investigator. 57

Planning Activities

In an effort to meet the needs of the participants, the project staff made decisions that directly affected the workshop Table 5 gives the ratings of participants on 10 participants. of the most relevant areas. In reference to the total planning (1) refeffort, only two areas were rates less than adequate: erence materials and (2) pre-workshop information.

Apparently the reference material available was not indexed well or was not conspicuously placed; as for pre-workshop information disseminated caused some confusion as the the purposes of In all, the ratings show a well planned workshop the workshop. effort.

The participants agreed that five days was an appropriate length for the workshops and 86 percent agreed that there should be no organized instructional night sessions. General Reactions

There were two measurements of the general quality and worth of the workshop as viewed by the participants. The first was an evaluation by participants of instructional quality of five workshops; Table 6 shows the five mean scores. There is little difference in these scores, all of which represent rating of more !thin adequate instructional quality. The participants' goneral r4-,wtion, monitored at all workshops is on a 10-point scalP (1 (I being The Kinclw:001. the worst reaction and one being the best reaction). participants had the best general reaction to the work!;hop. ,

Instructional Objectives

Each workshop had five instructional objectives: 1.

To identify factors peculiar to instruction of adults in relation to how they learn, how they differ, and how to arouse and maintain their interest in classroom discussion and participation

To demonstrate a variety of methods and techniques which will enhance trainee learning in the conduct of local training programs

To apply the basic four-step lesson plan a:; sct up in Mc Preparation of Occupational InBtructor8

To write project plans for local training prng,ni!;

'72

'Fable 5

Average Participant Evaluation of Planning Activities by Workshop

WORKSHOPS

K(y:

The following activities are: 1. 2. 3.

not at all adequate somewhat adequate adequate extremely adequate

m 0 c

PLANNING ACTIVITIES

c.4

w 4-.

P-4

> c

c M M

Meeting Facilities

3.3

2.9

Reference Materials

3.0

Pre-workshop Information

M 0

c M

. H

4-,

3.5

3.1

3.7

3.3

2.8

2.7

2.3

3.3

2.8

2.2

2.4

1.8

2.0

3.1

2.3

Accommodations

2.8

3.6

2.8

3.0

3.4

3.1

Meals

3.0

3.5

3.2

3.1' 3.3

3.2

Transportation

3.2

3.6

3.5

Training Equipment

3.2

3.1

2.9

3.1

3.6

3.2

Length of Workshop Day

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.5

3.2

Recommended Length of Workshop in Days

15% 85%

27% 73%

8% 0% 92% 100%

23% 77%

14% 86%

Should There be Night Sessions?

Yes No

Table 6 Reactions of Participants to Instructional Quality and Overall Workshop Worth

Workshops

Participant* General Reaction Mean Score

Participant** Evaluation of Instructional Quality Mean Score

Atlanta

3.27

3.28

Denver

3.62

3.09

San Francisco

4.84

3.18

Chicago

3.95

3.12

Manchester

2.52

3.38

1 1

very good; 10 = very bad very bad; 4 = very good

To evaluate the trainees and the training programs as he conducts local training activities

Table 7 summarizes the participants assessment of their confidence in performing the five tasks related to each of the objecObjective 4 was least achieved with a rating of less than tives. adequate. The writing of project plans for a local training program would basically be the same task as they performed in =the workshop setting under the guidance of the workshop presenter. Table 7 also shows that the Manchester participants' ratings were again the highest. Implementation of Curriculum Materials An open-ended portion of the evaluation dealt with questions The complete responses to this item are about imp]ementation. available from The Center for Vocational and Technical Education. A summary of responses to each question are given below: What role do you see yourself playing in the implementation of the training program developed for accident investigation at the local level? The participants answered this question by saying they would (1) instruct, (2) institute all or part of the proeither: posed curriculum, or (3) disseminate the ideas and materials received at the workshop, or (4) that they count or will not be involved with the accident investigation program. A followup study may be helpful in determining the impact of the workshop on the implementation of the materials. What problems might be encountered in implementing the program? The problem most often mentioned was that of funding for the program. Other problems mentioned were a lack of administration support and a lack of need for the program. So far, do you see any serious errors of ommission or commission in the accident investigation curriculum? Most of the participants believed there were no serious problems with the materials. Other participants mentioned the need for an audiovisual reference list, that the sequence should be changed, that the specific user (instructor and student) of the materials is not identified. These comments are in the minority, but they should be considered as possible ways of improving the curriculum materials.

Table 7 Mean Score of Participants' Rating of Their Confidence in Achieving the Five Conlorence Objectives

W ORK:.;HOPS

Tho extent to which the below objectives were met: 1 = not at all 2 = somewhat 3 = adequate 4 = extremely

o u w .-1

4-)

M E-1

4-,

Cl)

1. To identify factors peculiar to instruction of adults in relation to how they learn, how they differ, and how to arouse and maintain their interest in classroom discussion and participation

3.1

3.0

2.8

3.1

3.5

3.1

2. To demonstrate a variety of methods and techniques which will enhance trainee learning in the conduct local training programs.

3.2

3.0

3.2

3.5

3.2

3. To apply the basic fourstep lesson plan as set up in The Preparation of Occupational Instructors.

3.6.

3.3

3.1

3.3

3.6

3.4

4. To write project plans for local training programs.

3.2

2.7

2.9

3.2

2.9

5. To evaluate the trainees and the training programs as you conduct local training activities.

3.2

3.0

2.8

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.3

3.0

2.9

3.1

3.4

TOTALS

In your opinion, how much time will be required to implement the program? Of the 48 responding to the question, 29 felt it would take less than a year to implement the program and 15 felt it would take a year or longer. Results of the Follow-Up Workshop The general refinement and technical editing of the Instructor's Lesson Plans were carried out in the follow-up workshop by three NHTSA representatives, the project staff, and six workshop participants representing each of the regional workshops and possessing expertise in the field of accident investigation. Each workshop participant represented one of the geographical areas.

In evaluating the results of the follow-up workshop it was evident to the project staff that each of the workshop participants arrived at the workshop with the assigned tasks completed. Considerable strength was added to both the co%Jrse outline and the lesson plans as a result of recommendations and changes outlined by the participants in the follow-up workshop. Based upon the concensus of the participants it was recommended that further revision of the technical content would be essential to Specific changes that produce a completed curriculum package. were suggested in relationship to the course outline appear in the Final Course Content Outline for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum, Figure 13.

Based upon the results of the follow-up workshop, the draft curriculum package consists of the Course Guide (Appendix II), the Instructor Plan Guide (Appendix I), and the Student Study Guide (Appendix J).

Figure 13 Final Course Content Outline For Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum

Introduction Highway transportation system Purposes, responsibilities and objectives of the accident investigator Reconstruction principles and causation analysis C. D. Definitions and classifications E. Plan the investigation

A. B.

Identify The driver Identify the driver 1. 2. Examine for and identify pre-crash and post-crash contributing conditions of the driver a. Identify pre-crash physical conditions Sobriety (alcohol/drugs) (1) (2) Emotions, fatigue, physical illness b. Identify behaviors as driver personality and attitude 3. Identify actions--reactions of the driver a. Natural abilities b. Learned capabilities 4. Identify persons other than the driver as potential sources of information B. The vehicles 1. Identify vehicle types and components 2. Examine and identify pre-crash, crash, and postcrash vehicle damage and defects 3. Examine the vehicle and identify for courses of injury to occupants and/or pedestrians C. The environment 1. Identify and determine environmental attributes 2. Identify pre-crash marks on the roadway, shoulder, and environment 3. Identify position and angle of infliction 4. Identify debris 5. Identify vehicle parts with crash marks on the roadway and surrounding environment 6. Determine point of impact from marks on the roadway 7. Identify post-crash roadway marks in relation to the accidents Collect Pre-crash actions and reactions A. B. Interview

II.

III.

C. D. E. F.

Collect and preserve physical evidenm Make relocation measurements Photograph Make speed estimates

TV.

Record introduction to methods of recording data How h.) record via photography I. How to record via field skeicho.; ?. i. Wm to record via notes from inlorview;

VT.

Report rinalize case, rile material A. Catalog report forms B.

Simulated (mock) traffic accident investigation

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

NHTSA recently funded four technical teacher-training institutes in the area of 1,_ghway safety. The four areas studied were: (1) emergency medical technician-ambulance; (2) breath examiner specialist; (3) driver license examiner: and (4) acci.ent investigation technician. The Center for Vocational and Technical Education was awarded a contract to develop a curriculum package to train entry-level accident investigation technicians. In devel-Jping a curriculum model, the project staff utilized a to : -.k analysis performed for the

NHTSA by Battelle Memorial Institut( and the multidisciplinary team training materials developed 13y the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. A multidisciplinary matrix was developed by the project staff from these two major references, The matrix for accident investigation technician curriculum included the following pre-crash, crash, and post-crash as phases of an accielements: dent; vehicle, driver, and environment as elements in an accident; and identify, collect, record, and report as tasks performed by an accident investigator. An extensive review of the literature was conducted in four major areas: (l) highway safety literat..:re; (2) accident investigalion literature; (3) manpower literature; and, (4) curriculum development literature. The changing "state of the art" of accident investigation had a profound effect on the development of a curriculum to train accident investigation technicians in that legislative and administrative efforts dictate certain directional flow and emphases which in turn change the job functions and job market for an entry-leve] accident investigation technician. The methodology employed by the project staff to develop curriculum materials was as follows: (1) develop a curriculum model to include all available data and project objectives; (2) develop a proposed course content outline for curriculum; (3) establish criteria and select teacher educator consultants; (4) establish criteria and select workshop participants; (5) plan and conduct five regional workshops to develop assigned lesson units; (6) edit and revise draft lesson units; and, (7) plan and conduct follow-up workshops.

80 .:116111MMitimitmemmte

The project findings were discussed in relationshop to the two overall project purposes of curriculum materials development and improvement of participants teaching skills. The project findings lend credence to the conclusions about the materials presented. Specifically, the project staff experienced difficulty with developing curriculum materials due to the changing "state of the art" of accident investigation and the lack of previous research applicable to training entry-level accident investigation technicians. The project staff was able to forward to all participants the resource materials in the form of a pre-workshop package including a proposed course content outline, instructions for writing behavioral objectives, and sample lesson plans. However, the project staff and participants needed more lead time to allow for more effective development of curriculum materials. The workshop participants had difficulty in comprehending the project purposes and this directly effected the quality and quantity of the product. There seemed to be an inability on the part of the workshop participants to write lesson plans of the pedagogical quality desired by the project staff to correspond with the project objectives. Many participants also had difficulty accepting the inductive method versus the lecture method of instruction from the teacher educator consultants and project staff. When the project staff attempted to change or revise the pre-workshop materials, many of the participants resisted changing from the four- to a three-step method of lesson plan writing. The project staff concluded that much of the participant resistance to change was related to the lockstep approach and chain of command aproach that most participants were familar with. The other major factor influencing resistance to change was the participants' view of the credibility of the realistic potential for a job market for a non-law enforcement accident investigator technician. Some workshop participants seemed to have an ability to perceive a realistic application of the lesson units in the proposed curriculum setting, while others did not.

The project staff anticipated that there would be some difficulty in curriculum development for a non-law enforcement accident investigation technician due to widely known commercially developed materials, such as the J.S. Baker text. The influence of commercial materials became evident to the project staff during the workshops as well as during the editing process prior to the follow-up workshop. It was prior to and during the follow-up workshop that the final Course Content Outline for Accident Investigation Technician Curriculum was developed to minimize the law enforcement influence as much as possible. Therefore, the project staff concluded that it is difficult develop an initial cadre of trained instructors to teach a nonlaw enforcement accident investigation technician when most or tho 68

instructors possess a law enforcement-oriented accident investigation background and a strong belief that accident investigation must be done by law enforcement personnel. t a l r riTdvding !'he major conclusion reached by the proiect curriculum development is that the curriculum package as suhmitted in the attached appendices is nct a fina3 product, hut is unpruven ;ince if has not been field tested. Thus, the acceptability of the !inal product is questionable until an ongoing formative evaluation ,;cheme is undertaken to assess the content validity and curriculum acceptability.

Two conclusions relating to the improvement of participants' teaching skills were reached by the project staff. There was a high degree of compatibility among community college and police academy'instructors as evidenced by the cooperation observed by the project staff during the workshops. The teacher educator consultants' presentations seemed to enhance the learning and teaching abilities of the participants as indicated by the participants' reactions to an evaluation questionnaire.

A number of participants with coordinating (as opposed to Their attenteaching) responsibilities attended the workshops. dance by no means was undesirable. Exposing such individuals to teacher training and curriculum development processes can only serve to make them appreciative of the value of such programs and provide them with the impetus to implement such programs at the local level. The project staff concluded that having a secondary project purpose such as instructor training does in fact complement the primary purpose ofcurriculum development. This conclusion is based on the observations of the project staff and the data interpretation of the participants' evaluation of the overall worth of the workshop (see Table 6).

Pi:COMMENDATIONS

f-indings In con junction with the proceeding infor:7,acon nr thi:; project, the following recommendations are made by the project staff for future training programs for highway safety occupations: 1.

Generally, there needs to be more lead time for the project staff and participants to develop curriculum materials.

Selection of workshop participants should be completed as early in the planning phase as possible to insure representation from all states and to allow sufficient time for participants to receive information regarding the workshop.

The selection of workshop participants should be under the direction of those conducting the workshop, as was Less breakdown in communithe case for this project. cating criteria for nomination and selection will result when the contractor has the freedom to seek out those most appropriate for the workshops. The use of teacher educators as consultants should be continued in future projects. The positive comments received from the workshop participants regarding the teacher trainers in addition to the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the teacher trainers by the project staff are sufficient to recommend the continuation of such personnel in instructor training programs for other highway safety projects.

It is recommended that the evaluation instruments and resulting data for workshop planning and assessment should be utilized in planning for future workshops.

It is recommended that workshops should continue to be conducted in various areas of the country to allow for representation across the nation and to minimize participant travel time and cost.

It is recommended that consideration should be given to the continuation of the use of colleges as hosts for

the workshop.

They proved helpful in locating facilities, lodgings, meals, and audiovisual aids equipment. in addition, they might provide impetus for future training programs for highway safety occupations.

It is recommended that provisions should he made for the draft of the curriculum package to be field tested for a specified time period (one year) at selected institutes throughout the nation. The field test sites and personnel should be selected from those participating in this project to develop the curriculum. It is further suggested that NHTSA identify and appropriate funds necessary to field test the curriculum package. 9.

It is recommended that there be more correlation of accident investigation standards and curriculum development with the "state of the art" of accident investigation. A closer correlation between what exists and what is desired would benefit both the contractor and the contracting agent, as well as improve the final product.

10.

Concurrently, it is recommended that the potential job market be more clearly defined so that the potential employment opportunities are obvious to potential employers, employees, and those institutions that will offer a curriculum designed to train accident investigation technicians.

11.

It is recommended that the improvement of teaching skills aspect of the project be continued in conjunction with curriculum development provided enough time is allotted to conduct both activities adequately.

12.

It is recommended that a follow-up study be conducted to determine how effective the project staff and the workshops were in achieving the two overall purposes of curriculum materials development and -the improvement of participants' teaching skills.

13.

It is recommended that the draft curriculum package be implemented after field testing for training an entrylevel accident investigation technician and not for training members of multidisciplinary accident investigation teams.

14.

It is recommended that copies of the finalized curriculum package for training accident investigation technicians be distributed to each state director of vocational education, state director of community junior colleges,. and governor's highway safety representative.

APPENDIX A

Pre-Workshop Information

THE CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION Phone

(614) 486-3655

TO:

Workshop Participants

FROM:

Dr. Ronald Daugherty, Project Director

RE:

Regional Workshop in Accident Site Investigation

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1900 KENNY ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210

We are pleased that you will be participating in the regional workshop for developing curriculum materials and training instructors in the use of a curriculum package for automobile accident site investigation. Enclosed in the package of materials are the following items: 1. 2. 3.

Objectives for the Regional Workshop in Accident Site Investigation. Lesson Planning for Teachers of Accident Site Investigators. Guidelines for the Development of Behavioral Objectives.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

Instructor's Lesson Plan Format for both Skill and Information Lessons. Instructor's Lesson Plan--sample lesson plans for both skill and information lessons. Course Content Outline for Traffic Accident Site Investigation. Reference List for Accident Site Investigation. Room reservation cards.

Prior to your arrival at the workshop it will be essential for you Using the blank Instructor's Lesson to complete the following assignment. Plan formats would you please develop a lesson plan(s) for the topic that is encircled in red on the Course Content Outline for Traffic Accident Site Investigation. When developing the lesson plan, please follow the instructions as presented in the enclosure entitled Lesson Planning for Teachers of Accident Site Investigation. Will you develop a skill lesson plan and when necessary develop an information lesson. You will find the sample lesson plans helpful in illustrating the proper use of the Lesson Plan formats. The reference list is only a suggested list and far from being inclusive so please feel free to add additional sources that you have found useful from your experience.

i75

During your lesson essary, for compiled by

the course of the workshop, two consultants will critique plan(s) and assist you in making minor revisions, if necinclusion in the final curriculum package which will be the project staff at the end of the project.

The second responsibility consists of presenting a twenty (20) minute teaching demonstration based upon the lesson plan you have developed. (Due to the time element you may not be able to present the lesson in its entirety.) The presentation will be critiqued on the basis of being a learning experience for all the workshop participants. Please bring with you the necessary tools, equipment, materials, etc. (within reason) that you will need when presenting your demonstration. We will have available the standard audio visual aids equipment such as overhead projector, tape recorder, and slide projector for your use in the presentation. Please feel free, also, to share any additional teaching aids, references, etc., that you have found useful in the area of accident investigation. We strongly encourage you to use techniques in your presentation that allow hands-on experiences and with a minimum of lecture. This demonstration is to address the group as though they were your students learning accident investigation. We cannot stress enough the importance of you fulfilling these two responsibilities: --preparing the lesson plan prior to coming to the workshop and --preparing to give a 20 minute teaching demonstration.

A major proportion of the workshop success will be determined by your activities prior to the workshop. The enclosed reservation card is for you to fill out and return directly to the motel/hotel for accommodations. The motel/hotel will assign two people to a room prior to your arrival in Atlanta. If you have any questions please contact us at 614-422-2973. We are looking forward to working with you during the workshop. When you check in at the hotel/motel, you may want to check with one of our staff for a schedule of the workshop. We will assemble in the lobby Monday morning by 8 a.m. for our trip to the workshop site.

RD/pf

COURSE CONTENT OUTLINE FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SITE INVESTIGATION

COURSE BACKGROUND A.

HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The student will indicate an overall view of the highway transportation system emphasizing the traffic accident problem and explain the need for specific accident information.

DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS The student will apply the legal and investigative terms assigned to the various elements in an accident investigation and use the "Manual of Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents."

PURPOSES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR The student will be able to explain the scope and underlying principles of accident investigation and describe the role of the investigator in accident investigation.

PLANNING THE INVESTIGATION The student will be able to write a proper plan using the methods for efficient accident investigation and to arrange the many facets of the investigation into a reasonable order of priority within the scope of any governing policies.

PROTECTING THE SCENE The student will be able to perform the many activities involved upon arrival at the accident scene to keep it from getting worse or disturbed. The student will be able to perform the necessary activities to protect the scene from further traffic damage, fire, theft, explosion, corrosion, and other hazards.

ACCIDENT SCENE PHOTOGRAPHY The student will be able to demonstrate the mechanics of photography unique to accident investigation. The student will be able to explain the evidentuary value of photography and its potential use in accident investigation to document and record physical evidence.

LOCATING AND INTERVIEWING WITNESSES The student will be able to interview witnesses and define the legal implications in admitting the statements into court.

II.

DRIVER A.

EXAMINATION FOR PRE-CRASH CONTRIBUTORY CONDITIONS The student will be able to recognize and identify any condition or factor of the driver that would explain the direct cause of the accident. 1.

NATURAL ABILITIES The student will be able to identify and explain the relationship of vision, hearing, reaction, disabilities, I.Q., etc., to accident causation.

LEARNED CAPABILITIES

The student will describe laws, signs, and evasive action and recognize hazards and conditions of the particular vehicle. 3.

PERSONALITY AND ATTITUDE The student will be able to describe the effects of show-off, over-aggressive, over-confident, etc., behavior in relation to accident investigation.

DISTRACTICN6 The student will be able to identify passenger actions, driver distractions, operational distractions, etc., in relation to accidents.

PHYSICAL CONDITION AT ACCIDENT TIME a.

ALCOHOLIC INFLUENCE The student will be able to conclude the alcoholic influence in relation to the accident.

DRUG INFLUENCE (unlawful and prescribed)

The student will be able to conclude the drug influence in relation to the accident.

EMOTION, FATIGUE, AND PHYSICAL ILLNESS The student will be able to conclude the effects of emotion, fatigue, and physical illness in relation to the accident.

PRE-CRASH ACTIONS AND REACTIONS The student will be able to study the driver actions and reconstruct the chain of events from his point of possible perception of the hazard through perception, recognition, reaction, evasive action, impact and final position.

LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING THE DRIVERS

The student will be able to locate the drivers involved as soon as possible and apply the methods and techniques involved in initiating a "hit and run" investigation immediately if one of the drivers has fled the scene. D.

TECHNIQUES IN INTERVIEWING DRIVERS

The student will be able to apply the proper methods of diplomatically extracting from the driver all of his knowledge of the accident and to explain the many factors which effect driver testimony. E.

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE UNITS INVOLVED The student will be able to retrieve the necessary information if one of the units involved is a pedestrian, bicyclist, horseback rider, etc.

III. VEHICLE

EXAMINATION FOR PRE-CRASH DAMAGE AND DEFECTS NOT CONTRIBUTORY The student will be able to identify and record all damage and defects found at the accident scene which had been either present or caused previous to this accident yet was not a causation factor in it.

EXAMINATION FOR PRECEEDING AND CONTRIBUTORY DISREPAIR The student will be able to identify and record all damage and defects found at the accident scene which had been either present or caused previous to this accident yet was not a causation factor in it.

EXAMINATION FOR CRASH DAMAGE

The student will be able to write a critical evaluation of the damage not only to estimate monitarily but to establish exactly "HOW" the accident happened. 1.

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN CONTACT AND INDUCED DAMAGE The student will be able to explain the difference between contact and induced damage.

EVALUATION OF POSITION AND ANGLE OF INFLICTION The student will be able to evaluate and describe the position and angle of infliction.

SEGREGATING DAMAGE FROM MULTIPLE IMPACTS

The student will be able to segregate and explain damage from multiple impacts. 4.

MATCHING VEHICLE PARTS WITH CRASH MARKS ON THE ROADWAY AND ENVIRONMENT The student will be able to match and explain relationship of vehicle parts with crash marks on the roadway and environment.

EXAMINATION OF THE VEHICLE FOR SOURCE OF INJURY The student will be ab...e to locate and identify sources of injury when examining the vehicle.

TECHNIQUES OF VEHICLE EXAMINATION

The student will be able to apply the methods of examination and disassembly of certain parts and to determine if certain factors were present prior to the accident. E.

METHODS OF GATHERING AND RECORDING VEHICLE DATA The student will be able to apply specific photographic techniques in recording damage and demonstrate the proper method of removing and preserving items of physical evidence.

IV.

ENVIRONMENT A.

RECOGNIZING, DETERMINING AND RECORDING PHYSICAL MNVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES The student will be able to recognize, to collect information and to determine characteristics of the roadway and environment such as percent of grade, degree of curve, etc., in relation to the accident.

DETERMINING MODIFIERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES AT THE ACCIDENT TIME The student will te able to identify modifiers of the environmental attributes and ascertaining conditions such as glare, wet surface, ice, view obstructions, etc., in relation to the accident.

EVALUATION OF DEBRIS The student will be able to evaluate the debris and explain the how and why of the accident from the type, amount, location, and direction of underbody debris, vehicle parts, vehicle fluids, loose cargo, etc.

UTILIZATION OF PRE-CRASH MARKS ON THE ROAD, SHOULDER AND ENVIRONMENT The student will be able to detect and read pre-crash marks on the roadway such as skidmarks, scuffmarks, shoulder marks, etc., in determining the behavior of the driver and vehicle prior to impact.

DETERMINING AREA OF IMPACT FROM MARKS ON THE ROADWAY The student will be able to analyze roadway marks such as skids, scrubs, chips, chops, and gouges to determine the position of vehicles at impact.

POST CRASH DATA TO FINAL POSITION The student will be able to demonstrate how to trace the path of each vehicle from initial impact through each subsequent impact until its final position.

METHODS OF RECORDING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA 1.

RELOCATION MEASUREMENTS The student will be able to make relocation measurements that would permit him to reconstruct the actual scene.

FIELD SKETCHING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

The student will be be able to make a free-hand sketch of all the physical evidence at the scene including only what he actually observes and can give direct testimony tu. 3.

SCALe RECONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMMING The student will be able to take the measurements by using triangulation coordinate methods and to draw a scale map of the scene or to draw a reconstruction diagram from a free hand sketch.

COLLECTING AND PRESERVING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE The student will be able to identify, collect and preserve significant physical evidence to be removed physically from the accident scene and demonstrate the methods that should be employed in the gathering, preserving, transporting, analyzing and storing of it.

PHOTOGRAPHY The student will be able to apply the specific techniques of photographing the attributes and modifiers of the environment and the physical signs left from the crash.

SPEED ESTIMATES The student will be able to identify the elements that are necessary to determine the minimum speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. 1.

TECHNIQUES IN MAKING Ik.:ST SKIDS

The student will be able to make a safe accurate test skid to determine the coefficient of friction of a road surface which will be necessary to determine vehicle speeds. 2.

SKIDMARKS

The student will be able to demonstrate the application of a "speed nomograph" and be able to determine the coefficient of friction of a road surface, the percent of grade, and combine them with the average length in the skid to calculate a vehicle minimum speed.

93:

CRITICAL SPEED SCUFF The student will be able to apply the "critical speed nomograph" and be able to combine the chord and middle ordinate of a curve scuff with the coefficient of friction, grade, and superelevation to determine the minimum speed that a vehicle had to be traveling to go off a curve.

RELATED ESSENTIALS A.

RECONSTRUCTION PRINCIPALS AND CAUSATION ANALYSIS The student will be able to combine all of the data gathered from a study of the vehicle, driver and environment at the accident site and determine exactly "how and why" the accident occurred.

FORMULATING OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The student will apply the proper steps in the opinion forming process and explain where in an investigation an investigator has the right and the responsibility to record his opinions and conclusions and be able to differentiate among facts, opinions, and conclusions. C.

USE AND PREPARATION OF ACCIDENT REPORT FORMS The student will be able to identify the forms that should be used in each circ*mstance and apply the proper method in filling out each form and describe the data that is essential.

EXPERT ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE The student will be able to identify what experts and facilities are available to the investigator such as coroners, police. university, industrial and governmental laboratories, etc., and identify the information and evidence that must be obtained at the scene to properly utilize these facilities.

POTENTIAL EMPLOYERS OF ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS The student will be able to identify potential employers of accident investigators.

VI.

EVALUATION EXERCISE A.

SIMULATE TRAFFIC CRASH SITE INVESTIGATION The student will demonstrate expertise of accident site investigation by applying knowledge and skills acquired to a simulated traffic crash site.

LESSON PLANNING for Teachers of ACCIDENT SITE INVESTIGATORS

Efficiency in teaching and learning can be achieved only by planning the lesson and following the plan.

The best lesson plan is usually

done by the one who is to teach the lesson--planned in the light of student background and ability, the teacher's special talent, the specific objective(s) to be achieved, and the physical facilities that are available at the teaching site.

Lesson planning is an on-going and never

ending task for one who would teach.

You are being asked to prepare one lesson before you come to the planning seminar. seminar.

You will be expected to teach this lesson during the

The training session will be of greatest value to you if you

have tried your hand at planning several lessons.

The enclosed Lesson

Plan Sheets will serve as a guide as you make this preparation. There are two types of lessons: 1.

The Skill Lesson -- a lesson designed to teach a person how to perform a task.

The Information Lesson -- a lesson designed to aid the learner to acquire information necessary to the intelligence performance of skills.

In this seminar, we are concerned with the skills or tasks that a person must be able to perform if he is to be an Accident Site Investigator.

And we are equally concerned with the knowledge that he must

acquire so that he may use judgment in doing whatever he does.

The

planning of these two kinds of lessons is somewhat different, so two kinds of planning sheets are provided.

The first page of each type is

the same; but subsequent pages are different.

This brief explahation

will serve.as a guide as you proceed with filling out your first lesson. plan.

TOPIC:

Here you will write a few words telling what the lesson is about.

Possible topics might be "Photographing Skidmarks

on the Highway" (skill lesson) or "Accident Information from Accident Site Debris" (information lesson).

There may be

several lessons under the same title, some skill and/or some information.

OBJECTIVE;

The objective is always stated in terms of what the learner is to do.

(Not what the teacher is to do!)

is the "bull's-eye" of the lesson. one objective in a lesson.

The objective

There may be more than

Writing objectives is a very

important step in the preparation of a lesson--so important that a detailed sheet entitled "Guidelines for the Development of Behavioral Objectives" is enclosed. your guide as best you can.

Let this be

Once the objective has been

clearly stated, the rest of the planning is much easier.

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT:

This point calls for a listing of the things

you will need to have at hand to teach the lesson.

the lesson is one of teaching the learner how to photograph skidmarks on hard surface highway, one would need a. certain

type of camera, light source (perhaps)

skidmarks on con-

crete, skidmarks on blacktop, etc., etc. Make the list so complete that you would not have to omit a single step in the process due to failure to have the proper item on hand.

Information lessons may require overhead projectors,

spare bulbs, blackboard, erasers, etc.

MATERIALS:

This item refers to expendable supplies such as a bucket of sand (to set up sand on highway situation), chalk, film, gasoline (to show marks left by gaspline fire on the highway) and other items that are used up in the process of teaching the lesson.

TEACHING AIDS:

This item refers to all types of visual aids--aids that

help the student to learn.

Such items may include trans-

parencies, slides, motion picture film, hand-out instruction sheets, models, mock-ups, cut - sways, charts, or samples of

items taken from other accident sites.

REFERENCES:

Good students invariably want more information than you can give them in short class periods.

Provide

them with a list of the best references you can find.

And be specific with author, title, and exact page of references.

(Remove any excuse a student might have

for not reading the material.) Many lessons are better understood if students have done some reading before class time to establish a common base for the lesson.

PREPARATION: It is already obvious that there are two parts to lesson preparation: 1.

What the teacher does to prepare himself.

What the teacher does to prepare the learners to receive the lesson.

(Let's call it motivation!)

Our work thus far has been done by the teacher in preparing himself for teaching a specific lesson. One cannot assume that simply because the students are there, they are ready to learn what you want them to learn.

Generally, for

adults, a concise statement or illustration which points out the need for learning this lesson is sufficient. Another approach might be to show or tell what happened to an investigator who failed to have this knowledge or skill at the right moment.

When one works with adults,

motivation is seldom a problem for the teacher who has a carefUlly selected and well-planned lesson.

PRESENTATION: (Skills)

The teacher should be concerned with helping

the student acquire a skill.

Skills are performed

learned--one step at a time.

The teacher should analyze

and

the skill, write down the step-by-step procedure in a

logical order which, if followed, is almost certain of successful performance of the task.

Key points include

safety precautions, important observations, limits of operation, etc., that will serve as guides for each step. The teaching of skills leaves little choice as to method of teaching. method.

The demonstration is the acceptable

You will be taught how to put on an effective

demonstration during this seminar.

But from the begin-

ning, remember this--no demonstration has been completed until each of the learners has returned the demonstration for the teacher.

APPLICATION:

(Skills)

The fact that each learner has returned the

demonstration does not give much assurance of one's being It is the teacher's respon-

able to perform in the future.

sibility to provide opportunity for the student to practice

the skill that he is to learn. Practice should be aimed toward improving one's performance.

And practice--per se,

does not assure perfection. 1.

One must practice correctly.

One must strive to improve.

1.3 0

One must be aware of errors.

One must know how to correct his errors.

One must have a conception of what the desirable practice or product should be.

This calls for supervision by the teacher.

EVALUATION:

The real test lies in the ability of the learner to perform the skill satisfactorily without aid. from others.

Paper and pencil tests have poor validity in

measuring a student's ability to perform a skill.

PRESENTATION: (Information)

Here, in the left column, the teacher

should make a careful outline of the information that is to be included in the lessons.

In the right column,

illustrations may be included, attention called to charts, slides, transparencies, models, etc.

That will

be used to illustrate the points of information.

To the

extent possible, tie the new information with information the student has already acquired.

The teacher has a wide choice of teaching methods. He should adapt the method to the kind of information to be taught and the background of students he is teaching. It may be a lecture, a discussion, a class report, a supervised study period, an assignment sheet procedure, etc.

APPLICATION:

(Information)

This step is appropriately named.

Here

provisions must be made to apply the information to situations that made it desirable to learn it in the first place.

If the learner sees that the information he is

learning is enabling him to operate more efficiently as an Accident Site Investigator, he will learn more rapidly. Discussion questions, problem situations, or situations

for diagnosis offer students an opportunity to learn how to apply knowledge.

EVALUATION:

Paper and pencil tests can test for knowledge.

Such tests

are best if they are problem-solving situations.

Adults do not like tests if the only outcome is a grade.

grading.

They do not wish to be embarrassed by competitive They do want to know how well they are doing.

Testing procedures should be directed toward finding areas in which the student has not learned and hence areas in which re-teaching must be done.

The student should be

aware of the fact that the evaluation process is in reality helping him and his classmates rather than to serve as a degrading exercise for purposes of assigning rewards and punishment.

INSTRUCTOR `S LESSON PLAN

Unit Lesson

TOPIC:

OBJECTIVE ( S ) :

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT:

MATERIALS :

TEACHING AIDS:

REFERENCES:

II.

PREPARATION (of the learner)

PRESENTATION (of the information) METHOD: Instructional Topics

Things to remember to do or say

10 4

ET.

PRESENTATION, Continued

Instructional Topics

Things to remember to do or say

105

III.

IV.

APPLICATION (drills, illustrations, analogies, oral questions, or assignments)

TEST (final check on students comprehension of material presented)

SUGGESTED READING FOR STUDENT:

103

114

APPENDIX B Guidelines for the Development of Behavioral Objectives

Appendix B Guidelines for the Development of Behavioral Objectives

This material is to define a behavioral objective, to state the purpose of behavioral objectives and to present guidelines for the development of behavioral objectives.

These objectives are to be devel-

oped in relation to the Accident Site Investigation Technician Guide. Definition of a Behavioral Objective:

A Behavioral Objective is a specific, precise statement of the type of behavior ourcome expected, the conditions under which it is expected, and the level of performance expected which aid in planning, implementing and evaluating the learner. Purpose of a Behavioral Objective: The purpose of a statement of objectives is to indicate the kinds of changes in the student to be brought about so that instructional activities

can be planned and developed in a way likely to attain these objectives; that is, to bring about changes in students. Writing Behavioral Objectives:

A behavioral objective may include: (a)

who will perform the desired behavior (e.g., the Accident Site Investigation Technician, the learner).

(b)

what the learner is expected to be able to do at the completion of the course. (e.g., identify factors; apply measuring techniques).

(c)

how well the behavior is expected to be performed. (e.g., number of errors permitted --Give three out of

five items; number of times completed--percentage of successful trials, speed). (d)

under what circ*mstances the learner is expected to perform.

(e.g., an oral test; a written test; a

written plan).

io8

Checklist for Developing BehaVioral Objectives

Behavioral objectives should be brief, clear statements that des-

cribe instructional intent in terms of the desired learning outcomes on simply educational ends--Any statement of the objectives should be a statement of changes to take place in students.

In evaluating your

list of objectives, general criteria have been incorporated into this checklist.

This checklist is intended as a diagnostic tool for detecting and correcting errors in the behavioral objectives.

Any negative answer

indicates an area where improvement is needed.

The checklist is also

useful as a guide for developing the original list of behavioral objectives.

CHECK LIST Criteria

Yes

No -

Does each behavioral objective emphasize a verb that requires action on the part of the student?

Is each behavioral objective stated in terms of student performance (rather than teacher performance?) Does it describe what the learner will do when demonstrating this achievement of the objective?

Is each behavioral objective stated so that it indicates terminal behavior (rather than subject matter to be covered during instruction)?

Is each behavioral objective stated so that it includes only one learning outcome (rather than a combination of several outcomes TT

Is there a sufficient number of behavioral objectives to adequately describe the desired achievement of the learners?

.._

109

118

Behavioral Terms

Illustrative verbs for stating general instructional objectives: analyze apply appreciate comprehend compute

II.

create demonstrate evaluate interpret

know

listen locate perform recognize speak

think translate understand use write

Illustrative verbs for stating specific learning outcomes:

Creative Behaviors alter ask change design generalize modify paraphrase

predict question rearrange recombine reconstruct regroup

rename reorganize reorder rephrase restate restructure retell

revise rewrite simplify synthesize systematize vary

Complex, Logical, Judgmental Behaviors analyze appraise combine compare conclude

contrast criticize decide deduce defend

evaluate explain formulate generate induce

infer plan structure substitute

General Discriminative Behaviors choose collect define describe detect

differentiate digEriminate distinguish identify indicate

isolate list match omit order

pick place point select separate

copy diagram find follow

locate look map mark name note

organize quote record reproduce search sort underline

Study Behaviors arrange categorize chart cite circle compile

itemize label

110

119

Mathematical Behaviors

add bisect calculate check compute count derive

interpolate measure multiply number plot prove reduce

divide estimate extrapolate extract graph group integrate

solve square subtract tabulate tally

verify

Laboratory Science Behaviors apply calibrate conduct connect convert decrease demonstrate

dissect feed grow increase insert keep lengthen

limit manipulate operate plant prepare remove replace

120

report reset set

specify straighten time transfer weigh

Suggested References for Writing Behavioral Objectives

Armstrong, Robert J., Cornell, Terry D., KrOner, Robert E:, and Roberson, E. Wayne, eds. A Systematic Approach to Developing A Handbook Designed to Increase the Communication of Laymen Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press, and Educators. Inc., 1968.

Stating Behavioral Objectives for Classroom Gronlund, Norman E. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1970. Instruction.

Writing Behavioral Objectives. Hernandez, David E. and Noble, Inc., 1971.

New York:

Barnes

Kibler, Robert J. Barner, Larry L., and Miles, David T. Behavioral Objectives and Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970.

Mager, Robert F. California:

Preparing Instructional Objectives. Fearon Publisher, 1962.

112

121

Palo Alto,

"s.

APPENDIX C Letter Requesting Nominations. of Participants

THE CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION Phone

(614) 486-3655

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1900 KENNY ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210

February 2, 1972

The Center for Vocational and Technical Education in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of planning five regional workshops for developing curriculum materials and training instructors in the use of a curriculum package for automobile accident site investigation. One of our major responsibiitties includes the selection of participants within each region to attend the workshop. Would you, as state director of the community college system, assist us in this task by nominating from one to three people from the community-college programs within your state that we might consider in our selection of workshop participants? We strongly recommend that the person(s) you nominate be an instructor and have experience in the Police Science program and in the investigation of vehicle accidents. The responsibilities for participants will consist of: 1.

attending the one-week workshop within a designated region of the nation.

developing a lesson plan in accident investigation, prior to the workshop following designated guidelines.

taking an active role in the workshop activities.

applying expertise gained from the workshop upon return to his home state.

123

Page 2 February 2, 1972

We are prepared to reimburse participants for one round-trip, economy class plane ticket, lodging, and meals. Please send the nominees name, title, institution address, and phone number to: Dr. Ronald Daugherty, Project Director The Center for.Vocational and Technical Education 1900 Kenny Road Columbus, Ohio 43210 I would appreciate having your nominations by no later than February 16, 1972. If you have any questions, please contact us at area code 614-422-2973. Any assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Ron Daugherty Project Director

RD/pf

116

124

THE CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

mbLAIIIIk

Phone

wiNE101..

(614) 486-3655

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1900 KENNY ROAD 43210 . COLUMBUS, OHIO

February 2, 1972

The Center for Vocational and Technical Education in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of planning five regional workshops for developing curriculum materials and training instructors in the use of a curriculum package for automobile accident site investigation. One of our major responsibilities includes the selection of participants within each region to attend the workshop. Would you assist us in this task by nominating one person from your vocational educational curriculum laboratory that we might consider in our selection of workshop participants? We strongly recommend that the person. you nominate have a knowledge of the U. S. Office Publication, The Preparation of Occupational Instructions, as this provides the format for developing the curriculum. The person you nominate should also be oriented to post-secondary curriculum development, since this is the level for which the curriculum will be structured. The responsibilities for participants will consist of: 1.

attending the one-week workshop within a designated region of the nation.

developing a lesson plan prior to the workshop following designated guidelines.

taking an active role in the workshop activities.

applying expertise gained from the workshop upon return to his home state.

117

Page 2 February 2, 1972

We are prepared to reimburse participants for one round-trip, economy class plane ticket, lodging, and meals. Please send the nominees name, title, institution address, and phone number to:

Dr. Ronald Daugherty, Project Director The Center for Vocational and Technical Education 1900 Kenny Road Columbus, Ohio 43210 I would appreciate having your nominations by no later than February 16, 1972. If you have any questions, please contact us at area code 614-422-2973. Any assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ron Daugherty Project Director

RD/pf

118

126

APPENDIX D Letter Requesting Confirmation of Workshop Attendance

127

THE CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION Phone (614) 486-3655

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1900 KENNY ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210

February 28, 1972

We are pleased to inform you that you have been selected to attend the Regional Workshop in Automobile Accident Site Investigation to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, from March 20-24, 1972, at the Atlanta Area Technical School. The workshop will begin on lifonds,y, March 20, 1972, at 8:30 a.m. The workshop is being conducted by The Center for Vocational and Technical Education in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The purpose is to develop curriculum materials for national distribution and to train instructors in the use of a curriculum package for automobile accident site investigation. Your responsibilities will consist of: 1. 2.

3. 4.

Attending the one week workshop. Developing a lesson plan in accident investigation prior to the workshop following designated guidelines with an assigned topic. Taking an active role in the workshop activities. Applying expertise gained fnmn the workshop upon return to your home state.

Under separate cover you will receive the essential information in regard to your responsibilities for the workshop. It is essential that you fulfill these requirements prior to coming to the workshop. If you do not receive the packet of materials by March 7, 1972, please let us know.

121

128

Page 2 February 28, 1972

We are prepared to reimburse you for one round-trip, economy class plane ticket or automobile mileage as well as lodging, and meals up to $25 per day. Your room reservation card will be enclosed in the packet of materials to be sent later. Tentative reservations have been made for the group to stay at the Holiday Inn South for Sunday, March 19, through Friday, March 24. Transportation from the motel/hotel to the workshop site will be provided.

Please fill out the enclosed postcard to inform us as to whether you can accept this invitation under the conditions outlined herein and return to us do later than March 8. Your most prompt reply on this is essential. We hope you may be able to accept this invitation and that we will have the chance to work with you during the workshop. If you have any questions, please contact us at (614) 422-2973. Sincerely,

on Daugherty Project Director

RD/pf enclosure

122

APPENDIX E Evaluation Forms Completed by Participants

130

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE: Rb;CIONAL WORKSHOP ON AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT SITE INVESTIGATION

The following information will assist us in improving future training workshops and training materials. Please complete each item by providing the appropriate response.

Name Age: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

25 or under 35 26 36 - 45

46- 55 56 or over

Years of Experience in Automobile Accident Site Investigation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

None (0) Less than 1 1 but less than 2 but less than 3 but less than 4 but less than 5 but less than 6 or more

(Circle one)

2 3 4 5 6 specify

Years of Teaching Experience: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

None (0) Less than 1 1 but less than 2 but less than 3 but less than 4 but less than 5 but less than 6 or more

(Circle one)

2 3 4 5 6 specify

Type of Accident Investigation Program at your Inititution: (Circle one) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Police Training Accident Investigation Traffic Safety Criminal Justice Police Science Traffic Engineering Other (specify)

425

131

Type of Training:

(Circle only one)

1. 2. 3.

Basic Police Academy Advance Police Academy

4. 5. 6.

Community-Junior College Four-year College On-the-job Training Others (specify)

Technical. Institute

Please indicate to what extent the workshop planning met your needs in the (Use back side for additional following areas. Please comment on any item. comments.)

Extremely Well

Not at All

Somewhat

Adequate

- Transportation (travel while at workshop, etc.)

7 Training Equipment

- Meeting Facilities (comfortable, etc.) (comments)

- Reference Materials (helpful, etc.) (comments)

Pre workshop Information

(meets needs)

(comments)

- Accommodations (comfortable, etc.) (comments)

- Meals (convenient, etc.) (comments)

(comments)

- Length of workshop Day (comments)

126

Recommended Length of Workshop: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(Circle one)

or less days days days dAys days days or more days

Comment .

Should there be Night Sessions? 1.

Yes No

Comment Directions:

Please indicate the extent you now feel confident to:

Ade-

All

Somewhat

mate

Write project plans for local training programs.

Evaluate the trainees, the training programs, and your own performance as you conduct local training activities.

Not At

Identify factors peculiar to instruction of adults in relation to how they learn, how they differ, and how to arouse and maintain their interest in classroom discussion and participation. Demonstrate a variety of methods and techniques which will enhance trainee learning as you conduct local training programs. Apply the basic four-step lesson plan as set up in The Preparation of Occupational Instructors.

127

133

Extremely

WORKSHOP EVALUATION

Read all twenty of the following Please follow directions carefully. Check as many statements as necessary to describe your statements. reaction to the workshop.

It was one of the most rewarding experiences I have ever had.

Exactly what I wanted.

I hope we can have another one in the near future. 4.

It provided the kind of experience that I can apply to my own situation.

It helped me personally.

It solved some problems for me.

I think it served its purpose.

It had some merits.

It was fair.

10.

It was neither very good nor very poor.

11.

I was mildly disappointed.

12.

It was not exactly what I needed.

13.

It was too general.

14.

I am not taking any new ideas away.

15.

It didn't hold my interest.

16.

It was much too superficial.

17.

I leave dissatisfied.

18.

It was very poorly planned.

19.

I didn't learn a thing.

20.

It was a complete waste of time.

128

134

Implementation

Please indicate your commitment and your Implementation of Curriculum. institution's commitment (as you see it) to implementing the site accident investigation curriculum by answering the following questions. 1.

What is the status of site accident training programs in your institution? (Circle one) A.

Presently have a program operating.

A program planned and funded.

A program planned and waiting for funds.

Presently planning a program.

Presently not planning a program. Other (specify)

What role do you see for yourself in implementing the training program for site accident investigation at the local level?

What problems might be encountered in implementing the program?

So far, do you see arty serious errors of omission or commission in the site accident investigation curriculum?

In your opinion, how much time will be required to implement the programs?

Identify those individuals which are in a position of influencing highway safety training in your state.

129

.111.1"

135

Presenter Date

Lesson Title

Observation Profile for

Information Lesson

Each of the items below relates to an aspect of the teaching demonstration. Rate the presenter by placing a check mark (N./ ) at the appropriate point on the scale. Example: acceptable no further

acceptable, but further

/work needed / work needed /

not acceptable because

not applicable

Write in any additional comments that you wish to make in the space provided. Rating Scale acceptable no further work needed 1.

Was the purpose of the lesson clearly stated? Comments:

Was all material and equipment on hand at the proper time? Comments:

Was the class well arranged for the lesson? Comments:

Was the need for this this lesson explained and was it related to

accident investi gation? Comments:

130

136

acceptable, but further work needed

not,

acceptable because

not applic

not not acceptable available , work needed / because / / acceptable, but further

acceptable no further work needed 5.

Did thn instructor develop the topic in a logical manner?

Comments:

Was the instructor's voice and other mannerisms appropriate? Comments:

Was opportunity afforded for the group to practice the new learnings?

Comments:

Did the instructor do an effective job of questioning? Comments:

Was the evaluation procedure appropriate to the lesson? Comments:

10.

Was there reasonable assurance of the level of learning / of each student? Comments:

11.

Were audio-visual aids appropriately / used?

1 /

Comments:

12.

Was the lesson completed in a reasonable length of time? Comments: 131

acceptable no further work needed 13.

Did the instructor sufficiently motivate the class to maintain continued interest of students? Comments:

14.

Was the group actively involved in the learning process? Comments:

15.

Did the total lesson period represent a professional teaching effort? Comments:

132

138

acceptable, but further work needed

not

acceptable , because

not applicz

Presenter Date

Lesson Title

Observation Profile for

Skill Lesson

Each of the items below relates to an asepct of the teaching demonstraIndicate your rating of the presenter by placing a check mark (v') at the appropriate point on the scale.

tion.

Example:

acceptable acceptable not not acceptable applicable but further no further / twork needed / work needed / because Write in any additional comments that you wish to make in the space provided.

acceptable acceptable not but further acceptable no further / work needed / work needed / because I.

not applicable

Preparation 1.

To what extent do you think the demonstration was well planned?

Comments:

To what degree did the demonstration proceed without interruption or mishap? Comments:

To what extent were all tools and materials available during the demonstration? Comments:

133

139

acceptable but further /work needed /work needed acceptable no further

how well were additional audiovisual aids used in the demonstration? Comments:

To what degree was the demonstration skill performed by the demonstrator? Comments:

To what extent were samples of finished or unfinished jobs used in the demonstration? Comments:

II. Presentation 1.

How well did the demonstrator explain the purpose of the lesson without being too lengthy in the explanation? Comments:

To what degree do you think the group could see and hear what was being done and said? Comments:

To what extent were members in the group encouraged to ask questions? Comments:

134

140

not

acceptable because

applicable

not acceptable acceptable acceptable but further no further /work needed / work needed / because

not

applicable

To what degree was the presentation

performed at a rate that the group could see what was actually being done? Comments:

To what extent did the demonstrator explain what he was doing while he was performing? Comments:

To what extent did the demonstrator ask questions during his presentation? Comments:

To what degree was the demonstration centered around one method? Comments:

To what extent did members of the group participate in the demonstration? Comments:

III. Evaluation 1.

To what extent were summarizing questions asked at the end of the presentation phase of the demonstration? Comments:

135

141

acceptable acceptable not no further but further acceptable /work needed / work needed / because 2.

136

To what degree were provisions made for the group to perform what they had seen and heard? Comments:

not

applicable

LESSON PLAN CRITIQUE

Critique's Name Presenter's Name Lesson Topic

What are the major technical strengths of this plan from an accident investigator's point of view?

What are the major technical weaknesses of this plan from the accident investigator's point of view?

What technical areas which were omitted should be included?

What technical changes would you recommend?

137

143

DAILY REVIEW Region M T

NO NAME REWIRED

Directions:

Answer evaluative statements A, 13, and C by placing the most appropriate evaluative remark 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the matrix cell for each of the daily program dimensions listed. Feel free to comment.

Evaluative Remarks:

1 2 3 4

= = = =

not at all somewhat adequately extremely

Program Dimensions:

0 M0

c+ct M

c+ 0 c+

0 m

0 -

Evaluative Statements:

A. This was useful to me. B. The time spent, on

this activity was ? appropriate. C. The organization of this activity was ? well done. Comments:

(Additional space on back)

138

144

DAILY REVIEW Region M T

NO NAME REQUIRED

Directions:

Answer evaluative statements A, B, and C by placing the most appropriate evaluative remark 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the matrix cell for each of the daily program dimensions listed. Feel free to comment.

Evaluative Remarks: 1 2 3 4

= = = =

not at all somewhat adequately extremely Program Dimensions:

Evaluative Statements:

A. This was useful to me. B. The time spent on this activity was ? appropriate. C. The organization of this activity was ? well done. Comments:

(Additional space on back)

139

DAILY EVALUATION MEETINGS

M T W Region

Reaction of Participants

Questions and Concerns

Discussion

Summary and Actions

11 0

WORKSHOP SUMMARY

Region

Major Problems (and Solutions):

Summary:

147

APPENDDC F Follow -up Workshop Information

148

THE CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION Phone (614) 486-3655

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1900 KENNY ROAD 43210 COLUMBUS, OHIO

June 13, 1972

This letter is a follow-up to Mrs. Hayes' telephone conversation with you regarding the workshop for editing the technical content of the Accident Investigation Curriculum Package. The workshop will be held at The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, 1900 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio, from July 17-19, 1972. We plan to begin at 8:30 a.m. Monday and to complete our work by 4:30 p.m. WednesWe have made motel day. You shoad arrange your travel around these times. reservations at Stouffer's University Inn, Olentangy River Road, for Sunday night, July 16, until checkout time, Wednesday, July 19, 1972. The procedure for the workshop will be to work in two small groups on Monday and Tuesday for the purpose of editing the lesson plans for technical content. On Vednesday we plan to work in a large group for the purpose of combining the information. The final outcome of the three days should consist oi technically accurate lesson plans ready for inclusion into the Teachers' Guide. Enclosed is a copy of the revised course outline. Please react to the outline for inclusiveness of essential skills for an accident investigation technician to acquire in order to perform on-the-job. Your critiquing should be from the standpoint of a technician and not as a police function. Please try to avoid major revisions unless absolutely necessary. Please return the outline with your recommendations by June 28, 1972.

.1145

149

Page 2

We will pay you an honorarium of $100 a day or a total of $300 for the three days in Columbus. Reimbursem*nt will consist of one round-trip economy class plane fare and up to $25 per day for actual costs of meals end lodging. Receipts for plane fare and lodging are essential. Procedures for reimbursem*nt will be the same as for the regional workshops. Please send me a letter, at your earliest convenience, confirming your acceptance of this request. If you have any questions, please call me collect at (614) 422-2973. We will be looking forward to working with you in Columbus. Sincerely,

Ron Daugherty Assistant Director fcr Field Services and Special Projects

RD/pf enclosure

146

150

THE CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

wrIbtAIAIL

Phone

(614) 486-3655

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

1900 KENNY ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210

June 30, 1972

TO:

Workshop Participants

FROM:

Ron Daugherty, Assistant Director for Field Services and Special Projects

RE:

July Workshop

Plans for the July 17-19 workshop are progressing. To accomplish the objectives for the workshop we are requesting your assistance in the following activities prior to arrival in Columbus. 1.

Critiquing of enclosed lesson plans. Enclosed are selected copies of the revised lesson plans and a Lesson Plan Critique form. Using the eight questions on the critique form as guidelines would you please analyze each lesson to make it more thorough and accurate. It is our intention to use this same critique form at the workshop for reviewing the remaining lesson plans. In using the critique form it is not necessary for you to write out answers to the questions. We suggest that you insert revisions right on the actual lesson plan.

Writing a descriptive paragraph for the enclosed lesson topics. Based upon each of the enclosed lesson plans, would you write a brief description paragraph for each lesson topic. This paragraph will become the description of each lesson topic on the outline which will be included in the course guide.

Preparing a list of trainee activity skills for the enclosed lesson topics. During the workshop one task is to develop a Trainee Activity Chart to be included in the curriculum package. The purpose of the trainee activity chart will be to have each trainee, as he proceeds through the program, complete designated investigation activities illustrating accomplishments of desired competencies for an accident investigation technician. Wuuld you prepare a suggested list of skills related to the enclosed lesson topics that you consider essential for an accident investigation technician to achieve proficiency in and the method that he might use to demonstrate this proficiency. We will compile all the participants ideas and finalize the trainee activity chart during the workshop.

1147

June 30, 1972 Page 2

Preparing written suggestions for Trainee Study Guide. The project plans include the preparation of a Trainee Study Guide. The intent of the guide is to include materials appropriate for trainee use throughout the course and to supplement the instructor's lesson plans. Would you bring to the workshop any ideas and any prepared materials that might be incorporated into the guide. These materials could include trainee handouts, activity sheets, assignment sheets, etc., that would enhance the learning process. As a group at the workshop we will finalize the materials for the trainee study guide.

Reservations in your name are confirmed for late arrival on Sunday, July 16, 1972, at Stouffers University Inn, 3025 Olentangy River Road. The only available transportation from the airport to the motel is by taxi. In order to be refunded for your taxi fare be certain to get a receipt. We are looking forward to your arrival in Columbus and to a profitable work session. Please bring all revised lesson plans, descriptive paragraphs, and trainee guide suggestions with you to Columbus rather than sending the information through the mail. If you should have any questions regarding this informatioh, please do not hesitate to call us collect at (614) 422-2973

RD/pf enclosures

148

152

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION WORKSHOP The Center for Vocational and Technical Education 1900 Kenny Road Columbus, Ohio AGENDA

MONDAY, JULY 17, 1972 (Conference Room 1 and 3) 8:30

Orientation to workshop

9 :30

Discuss example for workshop procedure

10:30

Review previously assigned lesson plans (groups of 2)

11:30

Lunch

1:00

Work on lesson plans (groups of 3)