A STUDY OF STUDENT AND FACULTY
REACTIONS TO THE TEACHING OF A
“COURSE {N PRINCIPLES OF
CLOYHENG CONSTRUCHON

Thesis for ”‘9 Degree .0} M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Marilyn ReveII DeLong
1962

 

TH FE { S

__—-

. ‘ L1

L [B R A R Y
Michigan State

Universéty J-I

————

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF STUDENT AND FACUDTY REACTIONS TO THE TEACHING OF
A COURSE IN PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

by Marilyn Revell DeLong

The present trend in home economics at the university
level is toward teaching principles in all phases of the
curriculum. This approach enables students to transfer basic
knowledge to new situations. College clothing construction
courses which previously involved manual skills are changing to
an emphasis on principles. A course which is being changed must
be evaluated for its effectiveness and results.

This study was a part of an evaluation of an experimental
approach to the teaching of Principles of Clothing Construction.
The objectives were: (1) to determine the reactions of college
home economics students to the newly developed course, Principles
of Clothing Construction (T.C.R.A. 152) and to the various parts
of the course, (2) to explore selective factors of grade point
average and sewing experience which may be related to students'
reactions toward the course, (3) to determine the reactions of
college.instructors teaching the course, Principles of Clothing
Construction.

An analysis was made of the reactions of 73 students and
five teachers toward the new course. The instruments developed
to obtain the data were called "reactionnaires." A content

analysis was made of the teacher and student reactionnaires, and

Marilyn Revell DeLong
the product moment formula was used to determine correlations between
student attitudes and grade point average, grade for the course, and
sewing experience scores of the students.

From an analysis of the reactionnaires, the following con-
clusions were drawn: (1) Both teachers and students expressed a
favorable reaction to the course, although several changes were
recommended; (2) A majority of the students felt they understood the
four principles and the construction processes presented during the
course; (3) A majority of the students believed that the course
_would benefit them in their future clothing construction;

(4) Previous sewing experience was advantageous in the course;
students with high previous sewing experience scores tended to
understand the principles and construction processes better than did
those students with no previous sewing experience, and also tended

to receive the higher grades.

A STUDY OF STUDENT AND FACULTY REACTIONS TO THE TEACHING OF

A COURSE IN PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

by
Marilyn Revell DeLong

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts
1962

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer would like to express her appreciation to those
whose assistance was essential to this study: Dr. Mary Gephart
who has Spent countless hours directing this thesis as well as
providing personal guidance, encouragement, and understanding
throughout this graduate program; Dr. Beatrice O'Donnell who gave
invaluable assistance in the preparation of the evaluation instruments;
the five teachers and 73 students involved in the course, Principles
of Clothing Construction, who reSponded to the evaluation instruments.
The writer also wishes to express gratitude to the members of
her graduate committee for their assistance: Dr. Pearl Aldrich,
Dr. Joanne Eicher, Dr. Elinor Nugent, Miss Barbara Loder, Miss Jean

Stange, and Mrs. Stephania'Winkler.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............ . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Chapter

I O INTRODUCT ION O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
II 0 REVIEW OF LHEMTURE O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O 7
Importance of Student Attitude. . . . . . . . . . 7
Measuring Attitudes I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 8

Related Studies in Evaluation of Student
Att itude J O D D O O I I D I O O O O O l O O O O 9
III 0 PROCEDURE 0 O ..... O O O O I I I O O O O O O 0 11+

Instrments O O C C O O O O C O O O O C C O O O 0 12.;
Administration of Instruments. . . . . . . . . . 16
Arm-13's is Of Data- 0 O O C O O O O O O O O C C O O 16
Iv. STUDENT REACEIONS . O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 0 l8

ArlalYSiS Of ReaCtiOnnaireS 4 o o o o o o o o O ‘0 18
“ RESUI‘LS Of COI‘I‘BlatiOflS o o o o o o o o o I o o 42

V. [PEACE-ER MOTIONS O O O O O I O D O O O O O I C O O 46
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 53

Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Recommendations................. 56

APPENDIX. 0 oooooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 57
BIBLIOGRAPI-IYo o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o 72

iii

Table

l.

10

ll

12

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Comparison of the Reactions of Beginning Students
to the Teaching of Principles of Clothing
Construction at Mid-term and at the End of the

Term. 0 O I l O O D O D O O O D O D O O O O I O O O O .19

Comparison of the Degree of Understanding of
Principles of Clothing Construction by Beginning
Students at Mid—term and at the End of the Term. . . . 23

Comparison of the Extent Students Felt the Laboratory
had Helped Them Apply What They Had Learned at Mid-
term and at the End of the Term. . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Extent to Which Students Felt They Understood
Specific Construction Processes at the End of the
Temoooooooooo000.00.000.000027

The Extent to Which Work in Lecture and Laboratory
Helped Beginning Clothing Construction Students in
Making Outside Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ReSponses of Students to the Question "What Part of
the Course Did You Feel Wes Most Difficult?" and
"How Do You Explain Thi57". . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Responses of Students to the Question "What Part of the
Course Did You Feel Was Least Difficult?" and ”How Do
You Explain This?”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Extent to Which Students Foresee the Course in
Principles of Clothing Construction Would Help
Them in the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Reaction of Beginning Students to the Level of Difficulty
of Principles of Clothing Construction . . . . . . . . 38

Reactions of Beginning Students in Clothing Construction
to the Difficulty of the Course in Relation to other
Courses in the College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Reactions of Beginning Students to Amount of Wbrk
Required in Relation to Credits Earned in Principles
of Clothing Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Coefficients of correlation Between Sewing Experience
Scores, Course Grade, Grade Point Average, and Approach
to Clothing Construction, Understanding of Principles,
Understanding of Construction Processes, and Future
Course Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .h3

iv

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Each generation makes its contribution in shaping educational
processes. In this generation, principles are recognized as an impor—
tant part of the educational process. In any act of learning, the
first goal is that the learning will serve us in the future; this can
be accomplished in two ways. One way is through Specific transfer of
skills learned in one situation to other very similar situations. A
second way is through nonSpecific transfer of attitudes and principles
which can be used as a basis for solving other problems of the same
general nature—-the more fundamental the knowledge, the greater the
possibility of application to new situations.1

A course of study is no longer justified at the college level
if its emphasis is on the learning of Specific manual skills. College
clothing construction courses are being carefully scrutinized; and as
a result, the approach to teaching them is changing from.an emphasis
on skills to an emphasis on principles.

When the emphasis of a course is changed. the new approach must
be analyzed.and carefully evaluated for its effectiveness and.results.
To evaluate a course, the attitudes of the personnel involved in the

change need to be considered. In assessing reactions of a group of

 

1Jerome S. Bruner, Th9 Process of Education (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1961). p. 17.

I

2

people toward a course, as determined by a testing instrument, knowing
the factors which have helped form the reactions expressed is essential.

This study is an analysis of the reactions of a group of
students and teachers involved in a new approach to teaching clothing
construction. The purposes are: (l) to determine the reactions of
college home economics students to the newly developed course. Prin-
ciples of Clothing Construction (T.C.R,A. 152) and to the various
parts of the course, ’(2) to explore selective factors of grade point
average and sewing experience which may be related to students'
reactions toward the course, (3) to determine the reactions of college
instructors teaching the course, Principles of Clothing Construction.

In 1957 the faculty of the College of Home Economics at
Michigan State University undertook a major revision of their curri-
culum, which brought about a three year curriculum study. This faculty
decided that the body of common.1earnings which should be a part of the
curriculum for all home economists should: (1) have flexibility,
(2) focus on the family in a changing society, (3) emphasize basic
principles and applications of basic principles from other disciplines.
(4) minimize skills as Such (except as they serve to illuminate prin.
ciples from.other disciplines).and require less laboratory time.
(5) have.a liberalizing rather than a Specializing approach. (6) should
have appeal for students.1 A

The Dean of the College of Home Economics listed the following

 

._r

1RosalindMentzer, A Re rt of th cess Used in Revisi
Curriculum in the Colle e of Home Economi s, iEast Lansing, Michigan:
7 9.

Michigan State University , p.

 

3

questions to be used in evaluating the common.learnings: (1) Do they
implement a philosophy in which we believe? (2) Do they provide an
opportunity to present basic principles? (3) What kind of educational
experiences will these learnings offer to students? (A) 'What do they
provide in the way of incentive for independent learning or study by
the student? (5) would they be vital and interesting to college
students? (6) How do they relate to University requirements--do they
draw on University College courses?1

At the conclusion of the curriculum study in 1960, Mentzer wrote
the following:

The changes. . . are for the most part quantitative.

However, we believe that qualitative changes have also

occurred. Courses being taught for the first time are

being carefully evaluated. Professional courses are

being studied critically. There appears to be a recog-

nition among faculty members that the new program provides

only a framework and that curriculum deve10pment is a
continuous process.2

College teachers of clothing and textiles have long struggled
with the problem of the place of clothing construction in the college
program. Jane Werden, former head of the division of textiles and
clothing in the Department of Home Economics at the University of
Illinois, expressed this problem in the following manner:

With the current emphasis on science and mathematics at

both the high school and college level, the value of

teaching home economics is being seriously questioned.

The teaching of clothing construction at the college

level is one aSpect of home economics that is being

criticized both from without and within the field. The
criticisms concern themselves with the contention that

v————

1Ibid., p. 7. ZIde' ., p. 16.

'4

courses in clothing constfuction are skill courses; they
belong in a trade school.

One solution to the problem might be a change in the course of
study, a revision involving a change of emphasis. Skills are involved
in any course in clothing construction, but the emphasis does not need
to be on skill alone. Basic principles exist in clothing construction,
and the information can and should be taught from this standpoint.2

The problem does not end here. The basic course of study
needed to be revised; but the question was, how could this be done
most effectively. From the Sixteenth Annual Conference of College
Clothing and Textiles Teachers in 1960, part of the summary of
discussions included the following: College clothing teachers are not
clear in their ideas of.how clothing should be taught to emphasize
reasoning and basic principles and therefore, are weak in ideas trans-
mitted to students.3 '

As a result of the three year curriculum study in the College
of Home Economics, the curriculum changes which have affected all
phases of home economics, and a review of national trends in professional
education, the staff in clothing construction was stimulated to try a
different approach to beginning clothing construction. With a change
in emphasis from manual skills to principles, a new approach to the

teaching of beginning clothing construction was initiated on an

 

1Jane Werden, "The Place of Clothing Construction in the College
Program,” Journal of Home Economigs, LII (May, 1960), p. 340.
ZIbid.

3Sixteenth Annual Conference of College Clothing and Textiles
Teachers, Central Region, "Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference of
College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing“ (Chicago, 1960), p. #0.

‘4

courses in clothing constfuction are skill courses; they
belong in a trade school.

One solution to the problem might be a change in the course of
study, a revision involving a change of emphasis. Skills are involved
in any course in clothing construction, but the emphasis does not need
to be on skill alone. Basic principles exist in clothing construction,
and the information can and should be taught from this standpoint.2

The problem does not end here. The basic course of study
needed to be revised; but the question was. how could this be done
most effectively. From the Sixteenth Annual Conference of College
Clothing and Textiles Teachers in 1960, part of the summary of
discussions included the following: College clothing teachers are not
clear in their ideas of how clothing should be taught to emphasize
reasoning and basic principles and therefore, are weak in ideas trans-
mitted to students.3 '

As a result of the three year curriculum study in the College
of Home Economics, the curriculum changes which have affected all
phases of home economics, and a review of national trends in professional
education, the staff in clothing construction was stimulated to try a
different approach to beginning clothing construction. ‘With a change
in emphasis from manual skills to principles, a new approach to the

teaching of beginning clothing construction was initiated on an

 

1Jane worden, "The Place of Clothing Construction in the College
Program,“ Journal of Home Economigs,.LII (May, 1960), p. 340.
2Ihid.

3Sixteenth Annual Conference of College Clothing and Textiles
Teachers, Central Region, "Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference of
College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing" (Chicago, 1960). p. 40.

5

experimental basis in the Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related

Arts, College of Home Economics at Michigan State University, Winter

Term, 1962.

The three objectives deveIOped for beginning clothing con-

struction reflected the basic philosophy of the staff and their

approach to clothing construction at the university level. The

objectives were:

1.

3.

Students should gain an understanding of basic
principles fundamental to all aSpects of clothing
construction and an ability to apply them.

Students should develOp an understanding of
processes and techniques of clothing construction
and learn to evaluate them for Specific end uses.

Students should develOp an ability to recognize and/or
appreciate standards of clothing construction.

The following principles and their associated corollaries were

developed by the faculty for use in the new clothing construction course:

1.

2.

3.

Shaping flat fabric to conform to body curves
requires reducing the perimeter of garment pieces.

Carollary I: The amount of reduction of the perimeter
of garment pieces is-relative to the
degree of prominence of body curves.

Corollary II: Darts, tucks, gathers, and ease
radiate from the most prominent body
curves to be covered by a given garment
piece.

When concentric circles or arcs of different radii are
used in clothing construction, certain adjustments in
the circumferences are necessary.

Manipulation of any given material is dependent upon
its component parts.

Corollary I: Structure is a determinant of the
extensibility of fabric.

Corollary II: Texture is a determinant of the behavior
of the fabric.

6

4. Choice of construction methods and techniques and
choice of fabric are interrelated.

The present study was undertaken in an attempt to discover the
reactions of the students and teachers involved in the newly developed
clothing construction course based on these principles. A course
which is being changed needs to be carefully evaluated from several
aSpects, the function of the evaluation being to assist in the improve-
ment of teaching and learning.1

It is generally agreed that the reactions and attitudes of the
learner as well as those of the teacher toward a course are of primary
importance in the evaluation of a Specific course. Reactions of the
persons involved may be obtained partially through informal discussions
with students and teachers. Reactions may also be obtained through an
instrument which can be used for systematic recording of teacher and
student reactions. Instruments called reactionnaires were used to
record student and teacher reactions to the course. One reactionnaire
was given to the teachers at the end of the first term the course was
taught. Reactionnaires were given to the students twice during the
course, the first brief reactionnaire at mid—term immediately after the
introduction and discussion of the first four principles, the second
more detailed reactionnaire at the end of the term.

It.is hoped that the results of the analysis of these reaction-
naires will contribute to the total evaluation of the newly developed

course, Principles of Clothing Construction.

1Joseph Justman and “alter H. Mais, Colle e Teac ' : Its
Practice and Potential (New York: Harper & Brothers, 195%;, p. 222.

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Importance of Student Attitude

The scope of evaluation has broadened because of a renewed
confidence in the validity of subjective insight and judgment.1
Evaluation has extended to courses or Study, but many times student
evaluation is not used in analyzing a course. ”Most courses today
are conducted with no more reliable evidence of the suitability of
their content and form than is afforded by plausible assumption."2

The relationship of a student to a course is an important
part of the efficiency of the educational process. The caliber of
work a student does may depend upon his attitudes toward a subject.3
If a student has developed positive attitudes, his energies can be
readily directed to the objectives of a course. Adverse attitudes can
result in discord, or apathy, or other behavior which interferes with
the attainment of desirable educational objectives.

A beginning course in any area of study is of great importance.
It may introduce a student to a new area of knowledge, or the course

may bring earlier learning into a basic pattern. Henkel and Seronsy

 

1Justman and Male, p. 220.
21bid.. p. 219.

3Denis Baron and Harold W. Bernard, Evaluation Tech ’ ues for
Classroom Teachers (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958),
p. l 3.

8
report that the success of a beginning course lies not only in the
academic achievement of the students but also in the interests and
attitudes that are created toward the new field.1
The judgment of students can be enlisted in evaluating their
learning. These judgments, used as a supplement to other evaluative
data, may assist in diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of learning
and, thereby, increase the efficiency of the educational processes.2
Roudebush conducted a study using student judgment to find the
strengths and weaknesSes in the college curriculum for home economics
majors at New York State College for teachers. A questionnaire was
given to undergraduate, dropout, and graduate home economics majors.
In the recommendations, Roudebush included the following:
Opportunities should be provided by the college staff to
secure student judgment, and student judgment should be
sought Specifically when curriculum changes are being con—
sidered. The recommendations of young peOple should be
utilized as one source of help in developing a functional
program for home economics majors. Constructive suggestions

and Specific questions raised by students are valuable
resources in planning and evaluating the program.

Measuring Attitudes

Attitude has been defined as "an emotionalized tendency to act

 

1Jean Henkel and Louise B. Seronsy, "First Course in Clothing
and Textiles," Journal of Home Economics, XLIII (March, 1951). p. 195.

2Justman and Mais, p. 240.

3Alma Roudebush, ”A Study of the Utilization of Student Judgment
In Curriculum Revision In the Home Economics Division at the New.York
State College for Teachers At Buffalo," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1951), p. 421.

9

for or against something."1 The existence of attitudes can only be
inferred from what a person says or does. Such inferences are subject
to error. Individuals may wish to conceal real attitudes or may not be
aware of existing attitudes; they may give an answer which they believe
to be representative of an accepted point of view rather than expressing
their own views. The personal stake of an individual in a course and
lack of perception of goals may influence his expressed attitudes.

Deepite the limitations of measuring attitudes, they may be
valuable if analyzed cautiously and critically.2 Steps can be taken to
make the measure of attitudes as valid as possible. The instrument
ldeveloped should be made as clear as possible, each question worded so
that it is free from.ambiguity. Directions should be phrased carefully
to make the purpose of the evaluation known. Emphasis must be placed

on the fact that the evaluation will not be used in grading.

Related Studies in Eggluation of
tudent Attitude

Henkel and Seronsy undertook an experimental study of an
introductory course in clothing and textiles at Purdue University.3
The course was organized on the basis of a preceding study on needs and
interests of the entering freshman student. Students were divided
into two groups, beginners and advanced students. This study revealed

that previous training, as measured by a checklist, bore no relation to

1Paul]... Dressel (ed.), Evaluation in the asic Colle 3 (New
Ybrk: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958). p.-213.

2Baron and Bernard, p. 176.

 

3Henkel and Seronsy, p. 195.

10
achievement, as measured by course grades. This may have been attri-
buted to unfavorable attitudes resulting from repetitious presentations.

To explore student attitudes in the Henkel and Seronsy study.
two instruments were used. The first one given to the students was
”A Scale for Measuring Attitude Toward Any School Subject," by E. B.
Silance and H. H. Remmers. The results of this test were compared with
scores from the same test given to students the previous year before
the course was reorganized. The great difference in the two scores,
showing a change from an indifferent attitude marked by high varia-
bility to an extremely favorable attitude with small variability,
seemed to be attributed to the reorganization of the course.

The second instrument was an Opinion questionnaire designed to
measure Specific attitudes toward the course. From this questionnaire
a favorable attitude toward the course was found to be partly due to
the organization of the course to take care of varied levels of training.
In the beginning group 90 per cent of the students. and in the advanced
group 80 per cent, favored divisioning of students.

Wright and Henkel conducted a study to determine what effect
past experience of students had on achievement in a freshman clothing
construction laboratory.1 The term ”achievement“ included three
phases of.learning: .knowledge as measured by paper and pencil tests:
skill as measured by actual sewing construction; and attitudes as
measured by students' opinions. 4

Students were divided into three groups. beginners. intermediate.

 

1Janet S. wright and Jean Henkel. "Achievement in Clothing
Construction,” Journal of Home Economics, XLIII (October. 1951).
p. 626-628 .

11
and advanced, on the basis of a practical pretest. General attitudes
toward clothing construction were obtained from an anonymous question_
naire, which was developed with multiple choice alternatives. In
answer to a question concerning new processes learned in the beginning
course, 68.1 per cent of the students from all three groupings said
the processes learned were all or partly new to them.

Of the total students, 92.1 per cent favored dividing students
on the basis of previous construction experience; 7.9 were indifferent;
no one was Opposed. After dividing, the students' attitudes toward
the course were more favorable.

In answer to a question concerning attitudes toward sewing.
63.6 per cent checked their attitude as enthusiastic; 28.5 felt sewing
was necessary but were not enthusiastic; and 7.9 per cent strongly
disliked.sewing.

The amount rather than the type of previous experience in
clothing construction was believed.to have a definite effect on the
attitude of the student and on the achievement of the student. From
the questionnaire. 57.4 per cent of the students.fromnall three groups
felt their previous experience helped them a great deal; 37.9 said
previous experience was of some benefit; and 4.6 per cent reported
that previous experience was of no assistance. Evidence showed that
students felt previous.experience in clothing construction was advan-
tageous.

Students who selected fields of specialization related to
clothing upon entering home economics did not Show any greater achieve-
ment in clothing construction than did those selecting other areas.

Students eXpecting to enter the teaching field showed greater

12
achievement than those students in the clothing area.

Attitudes toward clothing construction varied depending on the
amount of previous sewing experience. Students who had previous sewing
experience had better attitudes toward clothing construction at the
university level than those students whoihad no previous experience in
clothing construction.

Cooke conducted a study of the student attitudes toward the
course, Effective Living.1 Among the findings from this study were
the following: (1) students who ranked their instructors high on an
Instructor Rating Scale showed more favorable attitudes toward the
course than those who ranked their teachers lower on the scale;

(2) students earning A or B grades in Effective Living liked the
course better than D or F students; (3) students who.had.finished the
course were more favorable to it than students.who were still in the
course.

A group of sociologists, Riley. Ryan. and Lifshitz. from
Rutgers University studied the.relationship between the student and
teacher at Brooklyn College.2 The halo effect was one condition which
they considered. Halo effect is defined as the tendency to be
influenced in.making a judgment by a general impression created towards
the individual or item being judged. A slight tendency toward the

halo effect was noted in ratings of superior scholars. Inferior

 

1As reported by Dressel, p. 224.

zJohn W. Riley. Jr.. Bryce E. Ryan, and Marcia Lifshitz.
The Student Looks at is Teacher (New Jersey: Rutgers University

13
scholars tended to be more critical in their judgments.

Another aSpect of the study was an analysis of student attitudes
toward presentation of subject matter. facts versus ideas. A great
majority of all students preferred factual presentations in the physical
sciences and ”stimulating” presentations in the social sciences and the
arts. Superior scholars were more favorable to thought stimulation
than inferior students in all fields of study. These three sociologists
reported that home economics majors generally were more favorable to
factual approaches to subject matter than they were to thought provoking
approaches.

In rating of teachers on such items as organization of
subject matter,.attitudes toward students and subject, ability to
explain, and tolerance to disagreement, younger instructors were rated
superior to older instructors; instructors age 40-49 were rated higher

in knowledge of the subject.

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE

Instruments

Three instruments called "reactionnaires” were deve10ped to
obtain the data for this study (see Appendices A. B, 0). Two reaction-
naires were given to the students, and one was given to the teachers
involved in the newly developed course, Principles of Clothing
Construction.

The three reactionnaires were designed in a similar manner
in order that the results could be compared. A combination of
"closed" or ”fixed alternative" questions and ”open-ended" questions
were incorporatedeinto the.three reactionnaires.1 Closed.questions
were used whenever possible, and open—ended questions were employed
when free reSponses were thought to be better for attaining the
desired information.

Pretesting the instruments was not feasible.because.cnly one
pepulation met the requirements of the study. The three instruments
were. however. presented to a class of graduate students involved in
evaluation techniques for analysis. After.revision, the instruments
were examined by faculty members in the Department of Textiles,
Clothing, and Related Arts.

 

1For a description of closed and openeended questions see
Claire Selltiz et al., Research Methods in Social one. (rev. ed..
New Ybrk: Holt, Rinehart and'Winston; l9 . p. 25 .

14

15
To increase the possibility of an unbiased response from the

students, they were requested not to sign their names. Necessary
student information including grade point average, major. lecture
and laboratory section was requested on the reactionnaire.1

The content of the course (see Appendix D) was the foundation
for the questions on the student reactionnaires. Two reactionnairest
were developed. one from the material covered the first half of the
term, and the second from new material covered the second half of the
term with some duplication of questions from the first reactionnaire
for the purpose of comparisons.

The course content of the first half of the term concentrated
on basic principles and standards of construction. The lecture dealt
with the presentation of Principles 1, 2, and 3 and their application.
The laboratory included working with the sewing machine. fitting a
paper pattern, and constructing and analyzing a muslin garment.

Laboratory work was planned as a direct application of the lecture
material.

The second half of the course was built on thermaterial
presented in the.first half of the term and developed the Specific
techniques.and methods necessaryefor.the completion.cf.a.finished
garment. Principle # served as an introduction to the construction
of a garment. Lecture material dealt with various Specific problems
of construction. The laboratory was devoted to selected practice

problems and to limited work on the dress which was finished as an

 

1Student information was available from Elizabeth H.
Stewartson's thesis, "An.Experimental Approach to the Teaching of
Beginning Clothing Construction" (Master's Thesis, Michigan.State
University, in progress).

16
out-of-class project.

The teacher reactionnaire was designed to gain insights con-
cerning the method of teaching as well as to assess attitudes toward
the course. Because the investigator thought that a comparison of
teacher reaction with student reaction might be of some value, some
questions included in the teacher reactionnaire were worded similarly

to those included in the two student reactionnaires.

Administration of Instruments

The first student reactionnaire was given after the mid-term
test during a lecture period. This reactionnaire was administered
by the regular lecturers to the 70 students present that day. Each
reactionnaire was given a code number so that correlations could be
made between a student's reaction and the available background infor—
mation of the student.

Because lecture time was limited and laboratory time was
available, the second student reactionnaire was given before the final
test during a laboratory by.laboratory instructors to a total of
73 students. Sixty-nine of the students who completed this second
reactionnaire had filled out the first reactionnaire at mid-term.

The teacher reactionnaire was given to the five lecture and
laboratory teachers after the completion of the course. This
included five teachers, three involved only with the_laboratory and

two teaching both.lecture and laboratory sections.

Analysis of Data
The student and teacher reactionnaires were analyzed question

by question. Data from closed questions were tabulated, and the

17
content of the open—ended questions was summarized.

The product moment formula (see Appendix E) was used to cor-
relate information about the student with items from the student
reactionnaires. The information about the student included sewing
experience, grade point average. and grade for the course. Sewing
experience was obtained from a total score on a Student Experience
Questionnaire (see Appendix F) given to the students at the beginning
of the course. The grade point average came from student reactionnaires
checked against university student records.

The four items from the student reactionnaires (see Appendix B)
correlated with the information about the student were: approach to
clothing construction, understanding of principles. understanding of
construction processes, and extent this course would help in future

clothing construction.

CHAPTER IV
STUDENT REACTIONS

Analysis of Reactionnaires

The analysis of student reaction was based upon two reaction-
naires given to the students, one at mid-term and one at the end of
the term (see Appendices A and B). Seventy students completed the
reactionnaire at mid—term and 73 students at the end of the term.
Several questions were duplicated on the two reactionnaires in order
that comparisons could be made.

The two reactionnaires were analyzed question by question; the
results are given in the following paragraphs.

One comparison question was ”How do you like this approach
to clothing construction?” (see Table 1). Both at mid-term and at
the end of the term, approximately 41 per cent of the students
checked ”I like it very much." Students answering "I like it fairly
well" numbered approximately 41 per cent at mid-term and 53 per cent
at the end of the term. Approximatelyle per cent and five per cent
at mid-term and at the end of the term, reSpectively, checked "I do
not like it" in answer to this question. Only one per cent of the
students said ”I do not know" at.mid-term. and no one answered the
question in this manner at the end of the term.

Seven per cent of the group who answered "I do not.like.it"

at mid-term moved up to ”I like it fairly well" at the end of the term.

18

19

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF THE REACTIONS OF BEGINNING STUDENTS TO THE TEACHING
OF PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION AT MID-TERM
AND AT THE END OF THE TERM

 

 

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mid-term, End of term
Student Reaction s ,iT
No. % No. %
I like it very much 29 41.43 30 ' 41.09
I like it fairly well 29 41.43 39 53.42
I do not like it 9 12.86 4 5.48
I do not know “ 1 ' 1.43 A 0 --
TOTAL** 68* 97.15 73 99.99

 

 

 

_,—

*Two students did not answer this question.
**Percentage is based on 70 student responses to the
reactionnaire at mid-term and 73 at the end of the term.

20

All students did not explain why they answered this question
as they did. Fifteen students at mid—term explained that they liked
the course because it helped them understand the reasons behind sewing
methods. Seven reported the course improved their basic skills and
knowledge; two liked it because the course was thorough; three
acquired many new ideas; five said it was more interesting than other
approaches; nine students mentioned that inexperienced sewers were at
a disadvantage in the course, while one said the course was good for
both experienced and inexperienced sewers.

Of the group answering "I do not.like it” one student explained
that she had gained no real knowledge she had not known before.
Another student explained that information presented by this approach
was hard to understand.

At the end of the term, fourteen students explained that
learning logical reasons for sewing was helpful. Eleven mentioned
that it was unfair to put experienced and inexperienced sewers together
because the inexperienced students felt disadvantaged, and the experi-
enced sewers were held back by the inexperienced students. Five
students said they gained new experience and new methods; three
explained they liked the course better as it progressed; three men-
tioned that.this approach was most.logical. Other explanations
Vincluded: QI.like.it.because it is on the college.level," [I just
enjoy the class," ”The combination lecturesand.laboratory are
meaningful," "The course is excellent.for teaching majors.“

Of the persons marking ”I do not like it" at the end of the

term, two explained that it was difficult to understand lectures

21

without actually experiencing the techniques before discussion; one

reported that the only interesting part of the course was the dress

project, which was completed outside of class.

In answer to the question "Do you feel any changes should be

made in the lecture?" 23 of the 73 students said "yes." -The changes

and the number of students desiring each change are.liSted in rank

order as follows:

11

\o to \o 4: O1,

More coordination between lecture and laboratory

Too much presented in lectures in the time allowed
Lecture material repetitious

Improve facilities (blackboard visible to all etc.)

More Specific applications of principles

Too much lecture in relationship to the time_allowed for
laboratory

Combine lecture and laboratory so demonstrations would be
possible

Change the textbook

Have all lectures during the.first half of the course and
all laboratories during the last half

Forty-seven of the 73 students felt changes should be made in

the laboratory. Some of the changes which these students felt should

be made included the following, placed inerank order with the number

of reSponses listed:

27
15

More time in laboratory to work on outside projects
Need more.laboratory time to cover Specific techniques such
as finishing, fitting the pattern, and.other techniques

discussed in lecture

22

ll More time allowed for assigned laboratory projects
10 Lower student—teacher ratio

5 More organization and clearer instructions

2 Improved facilities (better sewing machines etc.)

2 would like to examine more ready-to-wear

2 Too much perfection required

2 Laboratory too advanced for beginners

Three principles had been introduced to the students by
mid-term. These three principles were included in both the mid-term
and end-of—the-term reactionnaires. The question was asked ”How
well do you feel you understand Principles 1, 2, and 3?" (see Table 2).1
For Principle 1 both at mid-term and at the end of the term, approxi-
mately 97 per cent checked one of the two categories "Understood very
well" or "Understood most of it." Only one per cent of the students
felt they understood very little of Principle 1; no one answered "Do
not understand."

The degree of understanding of Principle 2 by students
increased slightly from mid-term to the end of the term. Approximately
77 per cent at mid-term and 80 per cent at the end of the term checked
either ”Understood very well“ or I'Understoodcxnost of it." No students
checked "Do not understand" for Principle 2.

Students checking the two categories of Principle 3, "Under-
stood very well" and "Understood most of.it"cincreasedefrom 76 per cent

at mid-term to 79 per cent at the end of the term. The three per cent

1For a listing of the principles discussed in this section,
see Chapter I, page 5.

. .onwmgofiomon “humanoid 0:» a: rope; 3: “on mm? as 92:0:me
*

 

 

 

 

- e em; a - e :43 e... iii. N... i.
- 0 3d N 24. M £4. m 3.2 2 sex: 2 21$ Nm ewes 3 News 3 32...... 3 m
- e - e SS N a: a Sea .2 2.: 2 3.3. on Se... em ewe... mm ewes an N
- o - 0 cm; i - o em; a 8.... N 2:3. mm 8.3 S 3.3 mi. mien me a

 

es .ozee 62 es .czee .02 we .02 we .02 .3 .02 we .02 m. .02 e. .02

 

 

Each. Enos. Such. 5.3a Each. game. Each. Ego» 5.38 Shop
mo cam -32 mo bum :32 mo ram -32 mo cam :32 mo cam :32
non—oeumdou
mfifiouo
UndumroGD 0334 >no> “H mo 080m SH mo umoz :03 >uo> mo
«02 0Q pogmnoodb 603,30th oogmnoodb vocamnoodb mofimwodflnm

 

 

 

 

 

mudopgm can wofimwocwunm mo mnwpdmumnoocb mo acumen

 

 

 

2mm8 NEH. .mO QZH HEB .H.< QZ< EMHHIQHE.
H< MHZMQDBm UZHZZHOHm .wm ZOHBUDMHmZOU OZHEHOAU
.mO mHAanDZHMnH .mO UZHQZ<HmMHQZD rmO HMMUHQ ”NEH. .mO ZOmHm<nmEOU

N. mama.

24
who said they did.not understand Principle 3 at mid-term moved up to
another category by the end of the term.

At least 76 per cent of the students at mid-term and at the end
of the term indicated they understood most of Principles 1, 2, and 3
by checking either "Understood very well" or "Understood most of it.”

Principle 4 was not included in the mid-term reactionnaire. I
The extent of understanding of Principle 4 at the end of the term
appears in Table 2. At the end of the term. 98.6 per cent of the
students checked Principle 4 "Understood very well” or "Understood
most of it." I

The question ”Now that you.have completed this course, how
do you feel the.laboratoryzhas.helped you to apply what you.have
learned?" (see Table 3), was asked in.both the mid-term and the end-
of-the-term reactionnaire so that a comparison could be made. In
comparing the reactions to the laboratory experience of adjusting
and working with the sewing machine, students circling "Exoellently"
or "Very well" increased 13 per cent from mid-term to the end of the
term. The other three laboratory experiences, fitting a paper
pattern, constructing the.muslin.garment, and-analysis of the finished
.muslin garment remained within five per cent of each other in the
extent of understanding from.mid-term to the end of the term on the
two categories of ”Excellently” or ”Very well.”

The reason for the greater change in understanding of the
sewing.machine than in the other laboratory experiences.might be that
students had continuous opportunities to work with the machines as the
term progressed.

Students checking ”Not well enough" and "Poorly" remained

.maoflmosv 05 mo do .3395 you go Samoan 098m.

*

 

2.0m 0N wmdm HM

 

 

 

 

 

 

EN N NNé N, NRA. N. m: e 2.5 ON Ede. sN $.NN 2 $4: : eeefieem a:
$55 bonanza
on» magnifies

:4. N 85 e SN 0 $5 I. :.eN HN :NN oN NN.$ an 3.2. N 2.: N 3.3 2 cementum

.. . :2de 0:»
manned—.3980

54.. N NmN N and. a med o 3.3 E 3.3 2 3.3 «N Noam eN N53 N 3.3 NN ducted ended

. one month

mm.m v mod I. SEN N 2.4 a $12 3 wmdm. NN Eli. Nm mNNw om mefiN 3 2...: NTEEodEmcgos

. at? menses?
can Named“:
5
2
g .02 $ .02 fit .02 g .02 g .02 $ .02 $ .02 g .02 $ .02 g .02
EHOH. EHUH EH08 EHUH EHOH. EHO”— EHQH. EHOH EH08 EHO”...
No ecu: -32 no ecu. -22 we cam -32 No use -22 we cs“ -32 necsenseaxm
>90umnono1~
recon. gmfioefl :03 302 So? 33mm . =03 >uo> Eudofiouxm i

 

 

 

 

 

trounced >23. an; 3.34. E038 “condom moonoiomxnm ewuofiwwoouwd 30h £50va £033 o... 33an

[If

I.

EMHH. "NEH. ho QZM HEB .H< QZ<
Emnmhuez H< QMZM<M1HQ<E VMIH. HE? wdnmnm< SHEER. Qnmnmimmm
Q43 WMOH<MOm<J HEB 84mm mHZHQDBm BZHBXM NIH. .mO ZOmHM<nm200

m HAQ<H

 

 

26
within two per cent of each other from mid-term to the end of the term
in all but one laboratory experience. Students who felt they were not
able to fit a paper pattern decreased from 11 per cent at mid-term to
5.6 per cent at the end of the term.

In answer to the question "How well do you feel you understand
the following Specific construction processes?" (see Table 4). the
processes checked most in either l'Excellently" or "Very'well'
categories were: seams and seam.finishes, 89 per cent; pressing.

79 per cent; handling of curves and hams. both 78 per cent; and
temporary construction. 75 per cent. .Less than two per cent.of the
students felt they did not understand these five construction processes.

The least understood construction processes were: corded
buttonholes with 51 per cent checking either 'Excellently” or
"very well," but 25 per cent or 18 of the students checking "Not well
enough" or *POorly'; and gussets with 37 Per cent understanding at
least 5very'well' and 26 per cent ”Not well enough."

. The question was asked "To what extent did your work in lecture
and laboratory help you in.making your outside.pro3ect (the dress)?"
(see Table 5).1 Approximately #8.per cent of.the students said the
lecture was very helpful; 38 per cent said lecture was somewhat help-
ful; .11 per cent said.leotnre helped usry.little; and three per.cent
said lecture.did notahelp.atdall.in.making outside projects.

The following student explanations of the extent the work in

lecture helped them in their outside projects are given in rank order

 

1Foran outline.of the work done in.lecture and.laboratory.
see Appendix D. I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

- o S .o H 8.: 2 3.3. om 8.3 . FN mEom
: .N N 3.0 m S .3 N No .3 oN m: .2 E 3:338?
i .N N 2 J. N E .3 NN 8.3 N No .N 3 meson 333331
S .H H 2.6 e No.3 2 8.3 N 3N... «N 325: to 238mg 32m

- o S 4. N t. .NN N 2. .3 «UN oeNN CN . mmmoumm

- o S. .H l S .2 2 2.6m “N 2.4.... S a
3 .N N No.8 2 «UN .NN Z S. .3. NN m: .2 E «32833 3200

.. o - o 3.3 w Neam mm No.3 0N Sofia: Emma was mammm

.. o - o 5.: 2 in? mm oeNN oN mwfiso e323 .aosofismsoo resoofioe

- o mad m. N .3. N 8.2. om $4: No wfiofl e5...

.mcwomwhmufiw .wflmeHHOUGS .MGmG: MO ®UMO£U
S .H o 22: m E .8 NN No .3. oN mm. .8 m: mono to squamouefiom
3...... N. No.3 3 No.3 oN oN .NN S 222 S 3326
- o - o NTHN. .2 3.3 3 $4... NN 3:8 so 3
am .oZ_ $5 .02 am .02 cs .02 w» .02
3.30%. gmsoom— So? 32 do? Show :03 >Ho> Epsodooxmm. mommooounm, coflodnumdoo

 

 

 

 

 

mommooonnfi aoflodnuwaou vogmuoch >23. fieh munovam £033 3 .53an

 

 

 

EMHH. "NIH. .mO QZM "NEH. 8.4. mMmmflDOMnH ZOHBUDMHMZOO
UHBDHQM QOOBWMMQZD VETS. HAHM mHZm—QDBm $02.35 OH. HZHBXQ HEB

v HAQ<H

28

for each reSponse:

7

2
l
l
l
1

Has helped to have thorough explanations

Has helped to clarify questions

were presented with new ideas and techniques

Have followed lecture notes in making the outside project
Has helped to learn detailed techniques '

Has helped because I knew reasons behind.steps on the guide
sheet

Have relied on lecture because of lack of previous experience

TABLE 5

THE EXTENT TO WHICH‘NORK IN LECTURE AND LABORATORY HELPED BEGINNING
CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION STUDENTS IN MAKING OUTSIDE PROJECTS

M

Extent to Which work Helped Beginning Students

 

 

 

Tgizszf Very Much Somewhat Very Little NOt at All
No.' i No. i No. % No. fl
Lecture 35 47.94 28 38.36 8 .10.96 2 2.74

 

 

 

 

 

Laboratory 22 30.14 37 50.68 ‘ 11 15.07 3 4.11.

 

Approximately 30 per cent indicated the laboratory helped them

very much in making their outside project; 51 per cent said laboratory

helped somewhat; 15 per cent of the students received very little help;

and four per cent did not believe they.received any.he1p.£rom laboratory

in making outside projects. The students gave the.following expla—

nations.fbr.their.answers, which.are.listed.in.rank order:

7

Helped to apply techniques and.haVe them checked before

doing them on the outside project

29
4 Helped to do zippers
2 Helped to practice buttonholes
Helped because I got used to constructing at a fast pace
Helped in fitting my pattern
Helped because laboratory taught new methods

Helped because instructor was always there when I had a problem

P‘ P4 F4 #4 +4

Helped only somewhat because laboratory was too short to do
anything well
1 Helped somewhat because there were too many students per teacher
1 Helped very little because laboratory projects were not

checked before being done on outside projects and if they

were wrong on the laboratory project. they were wrong on the

outside project

1 Wbuld have helped to finish the muslin for practice
1 Helped very little because of having previous experience

Students were asked (a) "What part of the course did.you feel
was most difficult?" and (b) "How do you explain this?" The reaponses
are given in Table 5. '

Thirty-one students mentioned Specific laboratory procedures
as the most difficult part of the course. Some of the specific
procedures mentioned most often.were bound buttonholes, gussets, paper
pattern fittings,.and muslin construction and.fitting. Other less
mentioned laboratory procedures included zippers, tracing with.dress-
maker's carbon, hand stitches and their application,.and.faeings and
.linings. The explanation given most often for choosing a laboratory
procedure.as the most.diffinult part of the.course was.lack.of previous

experience, given eighteen times.

 

Momma. Co GHmHaxo Ou quonanH m
HooBOHHm 08H» stoco qu m :oHumaHmeo EnouuHoHHZ mH
cocoHuomxo wcHBom mdoH>oum Ho Head H mwcHGHH bum mmGHumh H
cocoHquXo Maison 9903on Ho Head H on: o» 0.5:? Ham monouflm HocmHH H
ooGoHuoNHXo wcHch mega/mum Ho Mood H Fonumo noxmgmmoub :33 $30th H
305500 02 H
cocoHuoNHXo wag/om 3530an Ho Judd H mqumHN N
mocoHHoNon mcHBom msoH>onNH mo vHomA a. GHHmDE wcHuHHm Head mGHHUSHHmGoU Hg
HcoEEoo 02 H
coHHoDuumcH Hocmamuopcs Ho: HUHQ H
mocoHHoNHXo mdoH>onNH Ho Mead Ha muommfio o
0 mGHHHocmaH BoHHm Hon HVHHU .5me H
.3 953.5de
HOG HoHHo 0m 3092mm >8 :0 >udmmoooc won 0.83 N
oocmHoHdw .No 053 Amsoco qu N mcoHumHouHm
0282098 353on Ho vHomA m can mmcHHHHH :Hofimm noNHMnH w
«Goggoo 02 H
oocoHHomxo 95?on m0 vHomA m
umoHo Hon mcofloduumcH v moHoncoHudn Unfiom w
mouspooonm >uoHMHOQmH onHooNHm Hm
mucovam >9 mnoHumdemxm uHsoHHHHnH 302 mm? noncommom
H530 mGOmmom Hodm :oHHmdeNHxH ”Bevan «Hob munoHoBm @9250 Ho 95% Honda
mo Hongsz Ho .NQNHEDZ

 

 

..~.mHH.H.H. ZH<1HnHNH 90> OQ.3OH.H: QZ< ..~.HJDOH.H.MHD HMO; w<3 Aflmh DOM.
GHQ "HmMDOU M38 .mO Bm<nm 843:5: ZOHBMMDO NSF OH. mBZMQDHm .mO mHmZOnmmmm

o Hdm <8

 

50339500 5885 5853
$5350 8.5083 .838 00 30: 085583 >50 H083 H “08.3.5 88850 $583.08 H58 mGHu8uH< H
8058H8AH H0 03.2 50 50308HH8M H 08.33085 888508me H
”585500 02 H 5:00.850an H5380. 88? 8.35084 H
80505898 mag/88 850H>8§H £055 H083 m 3.953% 0805 883 «H H0 8502 m
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII filllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
await .8580 08008385 6888858ch cm H
>50085098H 5H 885055080. 8508 80585898 805 an H
80585898 830H>8§H 5.58855 00. H083 . N
5830.2H 00. 50385
.5053 0500.850an 58 8.3503 >138 0» 030HHHHQ N
80585898 mdoH>8unH H0 #084 N 008flonnH 888.50 8088.00 m530558500 w
lnnllllllllllllIII:Illuunllulnlnllnlullnj llllllllllllllllllll .H lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
3
. 585500 07H H
UHHU H 53.905. H 88 HH83 88 0588858055 ~05 UHQ H
853 53658 002 . H
50385398
H80Hu085m £3658 005 3085838 U8588m m 858H£0Hm
80585898 850H>85H H0 M084 Hg 00 503803558 5H m8HnHH05HunH mchD CH
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu HI---unnuunuuu:nuuuuuuuuuunuuuuunnunnuunuunun:
585500 07H H
8058H0H5m 59558 002 H
5058 00p 5.88 H 8008mounH 888.30
853 «$5058 002 N. 8380.90 50 >508~0£8H 95383500 oH
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll L lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
8.83858 008.500 305% «05 00 HHHum H
850385398 5335.85: 50H 08xm< H
08880305 85008 85. 5.85 8505 ~50an H AH8nH N
”58500 OZ m

 

32

The mid-term examination was felt by 13 students to be the most
difficult aSpect of the course. Some of the reasons given for this
choice included: not enough time allowed, difficult to explain
answers to test questions on paper.

Ten students said they had the most difficulty in completing
the projects which were assigned to them in laboratory or outside of
class. The explanation given by the majority of these students (seven)
was that not enough time was allowed.

Ten students indicated that applying the principles to
Specific problems was most difficult. Four gave "lack of previous
experience" as their explanation, and three students said the principles
seemed too abstract and that they had not been given enough practical
application.

A variety of reasons were given why eight students chose
construction of the outside dress project as the most difficult part
of the course. Among the reasons given were: flack of previous
experience,.difficulty in applying_lecture and laboratory information
to the problem, and no practice in laboratory on some techniques used
on the outside project.

Students were asked (a) "What part of the course did you feel
was least difficult?" and (b) "How do you explain this?” The results
of these questions are listed in Table 7. Twenty students felt a
Specific laboratory procedure was least difficult. Wbrking with the
muslin was mentioned most often, followed by the sewing machine, zippers,
pattern fittings, seam finishes, curves, and pressing. The reason most
often given was that students.had had this sewing experiencepreviously.

Eleven students mentioned clothing construction processes in

33

 

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu c-uunuun-unus--uun-fnun-nun---uuuu:uuuunuuunuuuunuuuuuuuunuuuunu
585500 02 m
35350505 085.398 883 N
388 00. 80H: .53 883 N H85858m 5
80588898 M55588 85058.55 H0 885.808mH m 888880055 503058500 m55HuoHU HH
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII fllIlllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllll
80588898 w5H388 85058.5 H0 885808m H m5Hmm85nm H
80588898 w5H388 8505855 H0 885808m H 88>550 m5HHH58HH H
80588898 m5H388 8503855 H0 885808m H 8858H5HH 588m H
585.398 HH8>> N mw5Hfi—Hh 5.838nH N
80585898 w5H38m 8503855 H0 885808m H. 858nHAHHN He
585500 07H H
80585898 m5H38m 8505855 H0 885808m w 8550.85 m5H38m m
58500 02 N
850385858 38H @3882 H
85503 5 H0858>00 88>? H
80588898 m5H38m 85058.55 H0 885.808m N 53855 85.3. 0
8855080055 950585052 0HHH08nHm om
858625 85038529an «H50HHHHQ 8.884 8.83 m8m5omm8m
>0. 58>HO 850888m H58 50H858H9GH 5855m 5H8...H 85803m 88.5500 H0 «58% 58955
HO 580.552 H0 580.552

 

 

..~.mHH.H.H. ZHjnHXmH DC? CO 303: QZ< :thHHDUHhhHQ Hm<H1H m<~>
Amwnmrm DOW nHHnH MmmDOU HHHH. .mO Bmscanm HEB: ,ZOHBmHDG NEH. OH. mBZHQDBm .mO mflmZOnmmmHm

h Hdmlwh.

 

80585898 m5w38m 85058.5 H0 85808@ H >888 8.83 m55558>m. H
585500 07H H
H8>8H 8w8HH00 85 50 H
085.398 HH8>> H 8858555 m5HH05385805D m
58500 07H. H
w5flm8585H 0 H
358052805 388 0..— 8VHH1H. H
m8HmH05H5nH 85» 3.38 00,305 585.83 H083 H u08n05m 838.50 m53058500 Hg
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllll
58500 34 o
80585898 85058.5 02 m 25550 883 88.3 m55uoz o
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
585500 07H N
330858 58> 883 N
385855 8385833 m0 883 N
H085H8H958 H055 685.5.mw50 :83 H5 88.3.508H m5H5580858H05D OH

 

35
general as being the least difficult part of the course; the reason
most often given was previous sewing experience, followed by enjoy;
ment of sewing and thorough explanations.

Understanding the lectures was indicated by 10 students to be
the least difficult aspect of the course. Reasons given were that
lectures were well-organized, well-explained, well-illustrated, and
very Specific.

Nine students. because of no previous sewing experience, felt
that there was nothing that was not difficult; .only one student
expressed the feeling that everything was easy.

Constructing the.outside project.wasmleast.difficult.forifour
students because they had learned to apply principles. they liked to
sew independently, and it was_interesting. .Ihree students felt that
principles were least difficult to understand because they were well

explained and on the college level.
In both the questions concerning the most and the least

difficult aSpects of the course, the reason given most often for a
part being difficult or easy was previous experience. Previous sewing
eXperiencs seemed to be anoimportanttfactoriin determining.the degree
of difficulty or ease of the various parts of the course.

Students were asked "To what extent do you believe this course
willihelp you in future.elothing construction?" AIhe.resu1ts are.sh0wn
-in Table 8. At least 75 per cent of the students.checked QExcellently'
or ”very well" in each of the_followingxre3ponses: "It willihelp.me
apply principles to new.clothing.constnuction.' ”It will.help.maks
clothing.construction.easier," and "It willfihelp ne.make.my clothing

look more professional." Less than five per cent of the students said

85558850 85a 28 583858 505 050 858038 850m
*

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

 

 

u 0 pm .H H wH .0H 0H 00 .NHV Hm N0 .mm 0N .H5w558m8m05m 8.505 vHooH 50305.38
-500 w55HuoH0 >5 8x85 85 585 HHS? 5H

EHN N hm; H ho.mH HH wodm hm E..mN HN 58888
5030538500 m55HuoH0 8x85 5:85 Hi? 5H
we .m 0 HH .0 m Nm .HN 0H mm .Nm HVN mN .vm mN 50305558500 m5550H0 >058 85 5:85 :05 5H

em .5 5 3 .N N mo .3. 85 8o .3 om 88 .35 m5 .mfififlmcsosbmcoo
5 580585805 8.505 88m 85 QH85H HHS, 0H

- o NM .w a 5m .5m mm 3.3 cm 3.3. S 505055555 mEmBSm
503058500 85:85.8 0» 85 nHH85H H23 «H

S .5, 5 85.4.... e 0515 om 8:3. mm mm .8 m5 .553 0555855 20553350 255 .5558
52855 8.505 583858 05. 85 m8: HHS? 5H
3 .5 5 E .2 5: 3.3 om em .5 mm 5 .2 m5 .3258 55085 8 08 55525 5553 55

pm .H H HH .0 m wH .oH 8H ON .3» mm HVH .om NN .505505558500w5550H0
385 05 885505.55 >558 85 585 HHS, 5H

Q5 .02 Q5 .02 g .02 05 .02 05 .02
HH< u< 502 8354 >58> :83 >H5mh :83 >58> 5:58:80me *m8m5omm8m

 

 

 

 

 

85H8> mo 85 HHS? 88.5500 850. 88m850h 858058m £053 00 5835mm

 

 

 

 

NMDHDH HEB ZH SHEER. “AMI Q4503 ZOHBUDMHMZOU OZHEHOAU

w QJQ<H

ho MMJQHUZHMQ ZH MmMDOU "NIH. Magnum—mom mHZHQDHm EUHHH? OB BZHHNH

37
the course would help them "Very little" or "Not at all" in the above
reSponses.

Approximately 65 per cent of the students answered "Excellently"
or ”Very well" to the extent the course would help them answer more
intelligently the questions pe0ple ask, would help them feel more
independent in constructing clothing. and would help them enjoy clothing
construction. Fifty-six per cent of the students checked that the
course would help them teach others. and 59 per cent said the course
would help them analyze construction problems quickly.

In answer to the question "What is your.reaction to the
general.level of difficulty of this course?" (see Table 9), 47 of the
73 students said it was "About right to be challenging”; 11 students
said there was "Too much busy work for college level“; .nine students
said “Failed to graSp many points"; four said the course was "Too
much repetition"; and five said they "Could have learned this myself."
Other reactions which pertained to this question included the following:
three students said the course was difficult for inexperienced sewers.
while three other students said it was a good level for inexperienced
sewers; one student reported that the principles were difficult to
understand, and one student said it was assumed the students knew
more than they did..

Students were asked "What do you feel about the difficulty
of the course in relation to other courses in the college?” (see
Table 10). Thirty—five out of the 73 students.indicated the course
was ”About as difficult as other courses." Thirteen.students checked
the course as "More difficult than many," and thirteen students said

the course was "Less difficult than other courses." Three students

38

TABLE 9

REACTION OF BEGINNING STUDENTS TO THE LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY OF
PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

W

 

ReSponses Number of Responses

Failed to grasp many points 9
About right to be challenging 47
Too much busy work for college level 11
Too much repetition 4
Could have learned this myself 5
Other reactions 8

TOTAL 84*

 

*Some students gave more than one reSponse.

39

TABLE 10

REACTIONS OF BEGINNING STUDENTS IN CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION
TO THE DIFFICULTY OF THE COURSE IN RELATION TO
OTHER COURSES IN THE COLLEGE

 

 

 

ReSponses Number of ReSponses
Most difficult course I have had . ‘ .3
More difficult than many 13
About as difficult as other courses 35
Less difficult than other courses 13
Least difficult of my courses 4
Other.reactions 5

TOTAL 73

 

40
reported this course the "Most difficult course they had ever had,”
and four said it was their "Least difficult course.“

Other reactions included: two students said it was as difficult
as other clothing courses: one student said the course was hard to
compare to other courses because of the practical skill needed for
this course; two students felt it was very exacting, but not necessarily
difficult.

In answer to the question "What do you feel about the amount
of work required in relation to the credits earned?” (see Table 11),

32 out of the 73 students said the course_required too much work;
37 indicated the course was about right; no one felt there was not

enough work required.

TABLE 11
REACTIONS OF BEGINNING STUDENTS TO AMOUNT OF WORK REQUIRED

IN RELATION TO CREDITS EARNED IN PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING
CONSTRUCTION

M

 

RBSponses {Number
Too much 32
About right 37
Not enough 0

TOTAL 69

 

Explanations of student reactions.and the.nnmber of students
giving each explanation shown in Table 11 were as follows:
23 Too much of the required work had to be completed outside

of class

bl
Time normally Spent in reading in other courses was Spent for
construction in this course
Too much work because of no previous experience
work about right if budget time from the beginning
A lot of work but willing to Spend the time for a good purpose

When asked "would you recommend this course to a friend?"

#5 of 73 students checked "Yes”; six said "No"; and 20 said ”I do

not know.”

Reasons for checking "Yes" and the number of students who

gave each reason included:

22
h

F‘ r4 F4

giving
11
l

1

reasons 3

8

was very beneficial, gained practical knowledge

Depends on the sewing experience of the friend

Taught in a way non-home economics majors can learn sewing
Puts clothing construction on a Scientific level

Helps in fitting dresses

Helps in judging readyeto-wear

Helps in picking up short cuts

Gives self—confidence

Renewed my enthusiasm for sewing

The reasons for checking ”No" and the number of students

each reason were:

was too much work outside of class
Might recommend to a beginner
.Did.n0t gain much

Those students who answered "I do not know” gave the following

Depends on the sewing experience of the friend

42
2 Lost self—confidence
2 Needs some course revision

2 was too exacting

[0

was good idea but too much work

1 was too difficult to do outside sewing in the time the Home
Economics building was open

1 Based too much of the grade on tests

1 was nervous wreck at the end because of so much to do

Resglts of Correlations

The degree of relationship which exists between two variables
is expressed as the coefficient of correlation. If no relationship
exists between two items being correlated, the coefficient will be
zero. From this point, the coefficient will range between the limits
of positive + l and negative - 1 depending upon the degree of relation-
ship, with a coefficient of 3.1 denoting perfect positive and negative
correlation.

The Pearson's Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation
(see Appendix E) was used to determine the statistical relationship
which existed between various factors involved in the course. Principles
of Clothing Construction. A value of r must be greater than i .23
for the number of items to be considered statistically significant
in this study.1

Sewing experience scores (see Appendix F), grade for the course,

 

1The figure was obtained from R. A. Fisher, Statistical Methods
for Research werkers. (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Ltd. .

43
and grade point average of the students were correlated with scores
from the student reactionnaires: (1) approach to clothing construction,
(2) understanding of principles, (3) understanding of construction
processes, and (A) future course value.

The sewing experience scores gave a significant correlation
coefficient of +.31 when correlated with understanding of principles;
+.36 with understanding of construction processes; and +.26 with future
course value (see Table 12). The coefficient -.12 obtained between
sewing experience and approach to clothing construction shows no

significant correlation.

TABLE 12

COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN SEWING EXPERIENCE SCORES, COURSE
GRADE, GRADE POINT AVERA" , AND APPROACH TO CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION.
UNDERSTANDING OF PRINCIPLES, UNDERSTANDING OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES,

AND FUTURE COURSE VALUE

 

U)
33

DD

.5 3

'5 s. ~48

'3 o o a

U 00 ODD-1 Q)

g G Cg: 2

0 0 '” “H o

4-).H 'Um 'U,_, :5

a: 3m 33 8

0:3 “'3‘ +45

M u ”.5 m a 8

0-H HQ He» go

8.2 43’“ «3‘3 :5”

o.o c'E c 0 3'?

‘< L) C>04 23L) h43>
Sewing Experience Scores -.12 ‘ +.31* +.36* +.26*
Course Grade +.15 +.l9 +.2h* +.3l*
Grade Point Average -.14 +.l# -.12 -.16

 

 

*Significant correlations

#4

Table 12 also shows the results of correlations between grades
for the course and approach to clothing, +.15; understanding of
principles, +.l9; understanding of construction processes, +.24;
and future course value, +.31. The former two coefficients are not
statistically Significant; while the latter two can be considered
Significant.

The qualifying remarks which students recorded under their
reaction to the understanding of principles may give some insight into
the lack of this correlation between grade for the course and under-
standing of principles. Some qualifying remarks showed that even though
some students could not apply principles, they still recorded their
understanding as "Excellent.“ Perhaps other students who were beginning
to see the significance of the principles recorded their understanding
low because they felt they did not fully understand all aSpects 0f the
principles.

The results of the correlation of total grade point average
and the four student reaction scores were in each.case not statistically
significant. A possible explanation for this lack of relationship
between these_variab1es is the correlation coefficient obtained between
sewing experience and grade for the course_which was +.33: in contrast,
a value of -.31 was recorded between grade point average and sewing
experience. Hence, students with more previous sewing experience
tended to understand the various aSpects of the course better than
did those students with a lower previous eXperience score.

The student reaction to the approach to clothing construction
was not Significant in any of the three correlations with sewing

experience scores, grade.f0r the course, or grade point average

45
(see Table 12). The lack of correlation might be attributed to the
fact that the continuum for recording scores on approach to clothing
construction only provided a four point Spread which did not give as
much opportunity for distinctions between students' feelings as a
larger Spread might have given. Another reason for this lack of
correlation may be the large grouping of students into the top
categories, approximately 83 per cent of the students checking
"I like it very much” and ”I like it fairly well" to the question

"How do you like this approach to clothing construction?"

CHAPTER V
TEACHER REACTIONS

Five faculty members involved in teaching laboratory and
lecture sections answered a reactionnaire (see Appendix C) given to
them at the end of the course, Principles of Clothing Construction.
Two teachers instructed both a lecture and a laboratory; three
taught only the laboratory.

The teacher reactionnaires were analyzed question by question.
and the results appear in the following paragraphs.

In answer to the question "How do you like teaching this new
approach to clothing Construction?" four teachers answered "I like it
very much"; one answered "I like it fairly well.” The reasons given
by the teachers answering "I like it very much" included:

"More students knew what they were doing and the reasons
why.”

”I like the challenge of a new experimental approach. I
think this is a step in the right direction although many
details are still most frustrating and confusing.“

"Students seem to be learning 'why' rather than simply 'how'
.to do things. This gives the beginner a chance to acquire
knowledge without so much emphasis on skill deve10pment.
It is also more challenging for most advanced students.”

"I feel more organized teaching by this procedure. I am

.not repeating the same points as many times to students as
formerly."

The reason given by the teacher answering "I like it fairly'well” was:

"The dresses were done without enough checking and approval
.by instructors. Periodic check points could eliminate some
of the errors which made some of the garments appear 'home-
made.'"

#6

1+7

A question asked (a) “Do you feel any changes should be made
in the lecture?” and (b) "If you checked yes, explain the changes you
feel should be made?" Four of the five teachers believed changes
should be made. Two teachers said more frequent use of illustrative
materials and better materials would be most beneficial. One teacher
mentioned that there were not enough illustrative materials which
students could see; also, the materials could be mounted on a bulletin
board for later reference by students. Two teachers wrote that some
of the lecture materials were given too late to be of maximum value to
all students on the dress projects. Other suggested changes included:
more emphasis on the reSponsibility of students to keep up to date.
lecture demonstrations of all aSpects of work, and time for more
questions to be answered during lecture.

The question was asked (a) ”Do you feel any changes should be
made in the laboratory?" and (b) "If you checked yes, explain the
changes you feel should be made.” All of the five teachers marked
"Yes.” The changes which Should be made and the number of teachers
desiring each change were as follows:

Q More laboratory time for the dress projects for closer
supervision.
2 Need demonstration on muslin fitting
Delete the buttonhole laboratory

Control the number of students in laboratory

F4 r4 r4

Eliminate either the dress project or some of the laboratory
problems
1 Partners did not work very well, partners were.hesitant to

take the time to help one another because of time pressure

48
1 Need organization on various laboratory projects of samples
so that students understand the standards for a good product
1 Less lecture or elimination of lecture in laboratory
The answers of the five respondents to the question (a) ”What
part of the course did you feel was most difficult to teach?” and.

(b) "How do you explain this?” are summarized in Table 13.

TABLE 13

RESPONSES OF TEACHERS TO THE QUESTION "WHAT PART OF THE COURSE DID YOU
FEEL WAS MOST DIFFICULT TO TEACH?” AND "HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS ?” ‘

 

Y——

Encplamtion Give by

v—

Part of the Course Most

 

N0. Difficult to Teach N°~ Teachers
2 Evaluation and fitting 2 Not completed in length of
of the muslin scheduled
1 Lecture on Specific 1 Material not in orderly steps,
techniques difficult to time lecture to

coincide with student projects

1 Preparation for lecture 1 Because of preparation.which
' ' ' was necessary, preparing
visual aids, etc.

1 Alterations 1 Has always been a problem, but
was easier as a follow up of
a principle

1 Finishing dress 1 Least capable students worked

too independently,.students had
no basis for judging their
level of accomplishment

 

 

Two teachers indicated that the evaluation and fitting of the
muslin was the most difficult part of the course because of the
inadequate length of time allowed in the schedule; two said the.1ecture

was the most difficult because of the preparation involved and because

49
the material to be presented was not in orderly steps. Alterations
and the finishing of the dress were also mentioned as being difficult
to teach.
The question was asked (a) "What part of the course did you
feel was least difficult to teach?" and (b) "How do you explain this?"

The results of this question appear in Table lfl.

TABLE 1#

TOTAL RESPONSES OF TEACHERS TO THE QUESTION “WHAT PART OF THE COURSE DID
YOU FEEL HASIHEST DIFFICULT TO TEACH?” AND “HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?”

 

 

 

 

 

Part of the Course Least Explanation Given by
NO- Difficult to Teach Noo* Teachers
2 Laboratory problems, 2 Directions well written
Specifically gussets l Reasonable amount of work
and curves for 2 hours
1 All students working on
same thing
1 Situation relaxed and
informal
1 Laboratory roblems 1 Because I had enough
(in general experience so that I could
vary the schedule as I saw
problems come up
1 Principle 3 and its 1 More experience in this area
applications in lecture

 

 

*Several reasons were given by each respondent.

Three teachers said laboratory problems were the least
difficult to teach; two mentioned gussets and the handling of curves
Specifically because of well-written.directions, and students were all
working on the same problems in laboratory. One teacher felt that
Principle 3 was the least difficult to teach because of more experience

in this area.

50
The following question contained three parts. Part (a) asked
"To what extent do you feel the work in lecture and laboratory helped
students in making their outside projects (the dresé?" Three teachers
answered this part "Somewhat”; one answered “Very much"; and one
said the extent of help varied with the students between ”Very much"
and ”Somewhat." Part (b) asked ”To what extent did you feel the
principles which were taught were applied to the students' outside
projects?" Four answered "Somewhat" and one answered ”Very much."
Part (c) asked, "What was your impression of the outside projects?"
A summary of the number of teachers giving each answer to Part (0)
appears below:
5 Ranged from very good to very poor
3 Generally,appearance good and fairly well done
2 Students showed independence
2 More laboratory time or time with instructor would have
improved some of the garments
1 Some beginning students seemed to apply principles while
others could not
The answers to the question "How do you feel this course will
affect students in future clothing construction?“ are as follows:
3 Students will understand what they are doing
2 Students will plan more sewing projects because the course
stimulated student interests
2 Students will work more independently.and feel more security
than with traditional method of teaching
1 Some students who failed to understand the course will be

confused and frustrated

51
1 Some students will still need more experience

A question asked "What is your reaction to the general level
of difficulty of this course?" Four teachers checked ”About right to
be challenging”; one commented that "Students failed to grSSp many
points" and went on to explain that some students need additional
help and explanation over and above the general lecture to all students.

In answer to the question ”How do you feel about the difficulty
of the course in relation to other courses with which you are familiar?"
four teachers checked ”More difficult than many," and one said the
difficulty depended on the student and her sewing experience.

The teachers were asked "How do you feel about the amount of
work required of students in relation to the credits earned?" The items
checked and the reasons given were as follows. Three teachers checked
"About right” because outside construction replaced reading from other
courses and the teacher could direct outside projects after judging
skills of students from the samples. Two teachers said students had
too much work for the.number of credits earned and explained that the
dress project could be omitted, making the laboratory projects more
extensive and the course credits could be increased to four credits.

In answer to the question ”In terms to come when.laboratory
time is cut shorter, what do you_feel could be left out of this
course?“ three teachers said bound buttonholes; two teachers said
omit the dress project; one teacher said require the dress project to
be more standardized; and one teacher said omit the lesson on zippers.

Responses to the question "What do you feel about the reading

materials for this course?” included the following:

52
"Mansfield is good for a reference.”
"Mansfield is a little too involved for a beginner and is
.more of a reference book. Students need a book more

related to their experiences.”

"A committee should prepare a workbook with references in
several clothing construction textbooks.“

"Students need several reference books available in the
laboratory or library and students could purchase

current pamphlets as Singer, or U.S.D.A. alterations
bulletin.”

In answer to the question "would you enjoy teaching this
course again?” all five teachers checked "Yes." The reasons given and
the number of teachers making each comment were:

2 was challenging and interesting to teach

2 Can improve presentation by repeating the course

2 Yes, with a few changes

2 ‘Wbuld like to see_how a new group reacts

1 Is not repetitious

l Gives a teacher the satisfaction that students know what
they are doing and why when they finish the course

General comments made by the teachers at the end of the

reactionnaire were:

”If the muslin shell is done again, more should be done
.on the followaup."

”The needed experience for beginners not gained in this
acourse can be gained.in making garments in.T.R.A. 252."

"I do not feel that the meaning of the principles as
.stated can be derived from the statements without
further explanation and interpretation."

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Conclusions

An analysis of the reactions of a group of students and
teachers involved in the newly developed course, Principles of
Clothing Construction, was undertaken in this study. Emphasis was
placed on the principles in clothing construction rather than manual
skills in an effort to provide students of all phases of home
economics with a fundamental knowledge of clothing construction.
The course was taught for the first time Winter Term, 1962, in the
College of Home Economics, Department of Textiles, Clothing, and
Related Arts at Michigan State University. The objectives of the
study were: (1) to determine the reactions of college students
of home economics to the newly developed course, Principles of
Clothing Construction, and to the various parts of the course;
(2) to explore selective factors of grade point.average and sewing
experience which may be related to students' reaction toward the
course; and (3) to determine the reactions of college instructors
teaching the course, Principles of Clothing Construction.

Three instruments called "reactionnaires" were developed to
obtain data for this study. At mid-term and at the end of the term,
reactionnaires were distributed to the 73 students taking the course

'Winter Term.- At the end of the course reactionnaires were given to

54

the five teachers involved in the lectures and laboratories.

The student reactionnaires were developed to determine the
students' reactions toward the lecture and laboratory in the following
aSpects: (1) general satisfaction; (2) general opinions about
experiences concerning the significance, rate, and level of learning;
(3) some indications of the “most” and ”least” difficult aSpects of
the course and recommendations for improvement.

The teacher reactionnaire was developed to determine their
reactions toward teaching the course in terms of general reactions
and some indication of the problems of teaching the course and
recommendations for improvement.

The data from both the student.and teacher.reactionnaires
were analyzed and the results were summarized. Statistical analysis
was employed to determine the relationship between items of the student
reactionnaires and grade point average, grade for the course, and
sewing experience scores of the student. Correlations were determined
by the product moment formula.

The following conclusions were drawn on the basis of an
analysis of the student and teacher reactionnaires:

1. At mid-term.82 per cent and at the end of the term 94 per cent
of the students expressed a favorable attitude toward the course,
Principles of Clothing Construction.

2. A majority of the students and teachers believed that.more time
should be made available for the outside project and for some of
the laboratory problems.

3. A majority of the students indicated they understood the four

principles.

10.

55

A majority of the students felt they understood the construction

process presented during the course; gussets and buttonholes were

the least understood construction processes.

Students thought that previous sewing experience was advantageous

in this course, which was supported by the finding that those

persons with high sewing experience scores tended to receive
higher grades in the course.

Students with previous sewing experience tended to understand

principles and construction processes better than did those

students with little or no previous sewing experience.

A majority of students felt the course would benefit them in

their future clothing construction.

Forty-seven of the 73 students and four of the five teachers

indicated the degree of difficulty of the course was challenging.

All of the teachers expressed a favorable attitude toward teaching

the course although several changes were recommended.

A majority of the students and teachers felt Principles of Clothing

Construction would be a better course if the following changes

were made:

A. Laboratory should be divided on the basis of previous sewing
experience; lecture need not be divided for experienced and
inexperienced groupings. :

B. Explanations in lecture concerning a.laboratory experience
should precede the laboratory experience.

C. Beginning students in clothing construction should take
additional course work (T.R.A. 252) for more sewing

experience before taking advanced clothing courses.

56
D. More time in laboratory should be allowed for supervision of

the dress projects.

Recommendaglgng
From the findings of this study, the following recommendations
are made concerning the course, Principles of Clothing Construction:

1. This experimental_approach should be continued.

2. Laboratory Should be divided on the basis of previous sewing
experience; lecture need not be divided for experienced and
inexperienced groupings.

3. Students needing additional clothing construction experience after
this course Should be directed to additional sewing course work.

Recommendations for further studies include:

1. Other courses in the clothing construction series should be analyzed
and evaluated. ’

2. A comparison study of students who have had the new course and
those who had the course before revision should be conducted as
a part of the evaluation of Principles of Clothing Construction.

3. Other courses in the department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related
Arts should be analyzed and evaluated.

4. A followaup study Should be conducted on the student sample when
they graduate to determine the effectiveness of the course,

Principles of Clothing Construction.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STUDENT 'S REACT IONNAIRE

Grade Point Average Major
Lecture Section: 1. Loder 2. Stewartson

Laboratory Section: 1. Loder 2.Bjorngaard 3.5tewartson

4.Winkler 5.Gephart

Directions: The purpose of this reactionnaire is to determine your

feelings toward your clothing course. You need not sign your name.

Your reactions will not affect your grade in any way and will not be
identified to your teachers.

Carefully consider each question, then record your reaction
by circling the number 5,4, 3, 2, or 1. we are especially interested
in any comments you may wish to make about the course content and the
type of instruction. A Space is provided for you to make comments.

PART I. HOW’WELL DO YOU FEEL YOU UNDERSTAND PRINCIPLES l, 2, and 3?

 

 

 

Understand_Understand Understand Understand Do not

vegy well most of it some of it very little understand
: Shaping "
flat fabric to con-

form to body curves 5 4 3 2 1
requires reducing the

perimeter of garment

pieces

Principle 2: When con-

'centrio circles or arcs

of different radii are

used.in clothing con-

struction, certain ad- 5 4 3 2 l
justments in the cir-

cumference are

necessary, -

Principlef3:IManipula-

tion of any given

material is dependent

upon its component 5 4 3 2 1
parts

 

 

 

57

58

PART II. HOW’WELL HAS THE LABORATORY HELPED YOU TO APPLY WHAT YOU HAVE
LEARNED? ‘

- Fairly Not well
Expellently Very Well well Enough Poorly

Adjusting and working 5 '

 

 

 

with the sewing machine 4 3 2 1
Fitting your paper 7 III
pattern 5 4 J 2 1
Constructing the muslin —I

garment 5 4 3 2 j 1
Analysis of the finished .

muslin garment 5 4 3 2 1

 

PART III. How DO YOU LIKE THIS APPROACH TO CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION?
I like it very much—31 like it fairly well—:1 do not like it ;

I do not know
Explain:

_/

Remarks and Comments on your feelings about this course:

a. Lectures

b. Laboratories

APPENDIX B

STUDENT'S SECOND REACTIONNAIRE

Grade Point Average Major

Lecture Section: l.Loder 2.3tewartson

Laboratory Section: l.Loder___ 2.Bjorngaard____3.StewartsonL__#.Winkler____
5.Gephart____

The purpose of this reactionnaire is to determine your reactions to the

course, T.C.R.A. 152. Your reactions will not affect your grade in

any way and will not be identified to your teacher.

PART I. GENERAL REACTION

I. How do you like this approach to clothing construction?

I like it very muchh___5I like it fairly well___5I do not like it______;

I do not know .

Explain

2. Do you feel any changes should be made in the lecture? yes___no

If you checked 'yes", explain the changes you feel should be made.

3. Do you feel any changes should be made in the laboratory? yes no

If you checked "yes”, explain the changes you feel should be made.

59

 

60
PART II. REACTION TO SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE COURSE

1. How well do you feel you understand principles I, 2, 3, and A?
Record your level of understanding of the following by circling the
number 5, u, 3, 2, or 1.

Understand Understand Understand Understand Do not

vegy well most of it some of it very little understand
Principle 1: Shaping 5
flat fabric to conform
to body curves requires 5 4 3 2 1
reducing the perimeter
gffigarmentgpieces.
Principle 2: When con-
centric circles or arcs
of different radii are
used in clothing con" 5 4 3 2 l
struction, certain ad-
justments in the cir-
cumference are
necessary. L
Principlegj: Manipula— ’
tion of any given
material is dependent 5 4 3 2 1
upon its component
parts.
Principle 4: Choice offi
construction methods and
techniques and choice of 5 4 3 2 i
fabric are interrelated.

Comments:

2. Now that you have completed this course, how well do you feel the
laboratory has helped you to apply what you have learned?
Fairly Not well

 

 

 

Excellently Very well Wéll Enough Poorly
Adjusting and working
with the sewing machine 5 4 3 2 1
Fitting your paper I
pattern 5 4 3 2 1

L_.

Constructing the muslin
garment 5 4 3 2 1

 

Analyzing the finished
muslin garment 5 4 3 2 1

 

61

3. How well do you feel you understand the following Specific construction

 

 

 

 

processes:
Fairly Not well
Excellentlv Very well well enough Poorly

Handling of curves 5 4 3 2 1
Gussets 5 g 3 2 l
Reinforcement of

clips 5 4 3 2 1
Choice of lining,

under-lining, inter— 5 4 3 2 l

facing and facing
Temporary construction,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

basted fittings 5 4 3 2 fil
Seams and seam finishes 5 4 3 2 1
Corded buttonholes 5 4 3 2 1
Pressing 5 4 3 2 l
Facings 5 4 3 2 ' l
Slidefifasteners or

zippers 5 4 3 2 VI,
waistline seams 5 4 3 2 l
waistbands 5 4 3 2 1
Hems 5 4 3 2 A l

 

4. To what extent did your work in lecture and laboratory help you in
making your outside project (the dress)?

LECTURE: Very much Somewhat Very little Not at all

Very little I Not at all

LABORATORY:Very much Somewhat

Explain:

5. What part of the course did you feel was most difficult?

How do you explain this?

62

6. What part of the course did you feel was least difficult?

How do you explain.this?

7. To what extent do you believe this course will help You in future
clothing construction? Record your answer by circling 5, 4, 3, 2. or 1.

Very Fairly Very Not at

Excellently'Well Wbll Little All
It will help me apply principles 5 4 3 2 l

to new clothing constructign-

4 3 2 1

U1

It will help me to teach others.
It will help me to answer more
intelligently the questions people 5
ask.

It will help me to analyze con-
struction problems ouickly.

It will help me feel independent
in constructing clothing.

It will help me enjoy clothing
construction.

It will help make clothing
gppstruction easier.

It will help me make my clothing

construction look more professional.

.1:-
\D
N
I-‘

\nmmknkn
;: e- 4: e- -é
UUWUU
N
H

8. What is your reaction to the general level of difficulty of this
course? Check as many as apply.

A. Failed to graSp many points

B. About right to be challenging

C. Too much busy work for college level
D

. Too much repetition

 

E. Could have learned this by myself
F

. Other reactions

 

 

 

63

9. What do you feel about the difficulty of the course in relation to
other courses in the college? Check_one.

A. Most difficult course I've had

. More difficult than many

. About as difficult as other courses

B
C
D. Less difficult than other courses
E. Least difficult of my courses

F

. Other reactions

 

 

10. What do you feel about the amount of work required in relation to
the credits earned? (This is a three credit course)

A. Too much

B. About right

0. Not enough
Explain:

 

11. Would you recommend this course to a friend? Yes No I don't know
Why?

APPENDIX C
TEACHERJS REACTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this reactionnaire is to determine your reactions to the
course. Principles of Clothing Construction, TCRA 152.
1. What part of Principles of Clothing Construction did you teach?

Lecture Laboratory
2. How do you like teaching this new approach to clothing construction?

I like it very much—:1 like it fairly well—:1 do not like it___;

Explain: I do not know .

3. Do you feel any changes should be made in the lecture? Yes___No___

If you checked yes, explain the changes you feel should be made.

4. Do you feel any changes should be made in the laboratory? Yes No

If you checked yes, explain the changes you feel should be made.

5.

65

What part of the course did you feel was most difficult to teach?

How do you eXplain this?

6. What part of the course did you feel was least difficult to teach?

8.

How do you explain this?

A. To what extent do you feel the work in lecture and laboratory
helped students in making their outside projects (the dress)?

Very much Somewhat Very little Net at all

B. To what extent did you feel the principles which were taught
were applied to the students' outside projects?

Very much Somewhat Very little Not at all

C. What was your impression of the outside projects?

How do you feel this course will affect students in future
clothing construction?

9.

What is
course?

A.

‘66

your reaction to the general level of difficulty of this

Students failed to graSp many points

About right to be challenging

Too much busy work for college level

Too much repetition

Students could have learned this by themselves

Other reactions

 

 

 

10. How do you feel about the difficulty of the course in relation to
other courses with which you are.familiar? Check one.

A.

 

B.
C.

D.

o

E.

F.

 

Most difficult course

More difficult than many

About as difficult as other courses
Less difficult than other courses
Least difficult course

Other reactions

 

 

 

11. How do you feel about the amount of work required of students in
relation to the credits earned? (This is a three credit course)

 

Explain:

Too much
About right

Net enough

 

67

12. In terms to come when laboratory time is cut shorter, what do you
feel could be left out of this course?

13. What do you feel about the reading materials for this course?

14. Wbuld you enjoy teaching this course again? Yes -No

 

'Why? Uncertain

15. General comments about the course not covered in this reactionnaire:

Thank you for your c00peration in filling out this reactionnaire.

APPENDIX D

COURSE SCHEDULE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Week Lecture Laboratory
1 Course Introduction Machine Operation
present Principle 1 I _T
2 Pattern Fitting Pattern Fittings for Muslin
Alterations F_ Masters ‘
3 Alterations (finish) Muslin layouts, Marking
Present Principle III
(grain) , . j a
4 Finish Principle III Analysis of finished muslin
Present Principle II garments
(curves)
5 Present Construction Paper pattern fittings for
Process projects
Midterm
6 Present Principle IV Handling curves, gussets,
‘ Choice of lining, under- reinforcing clips
lining, interfacing,
facing.
7 Temporary construction, Buttonholes, corded and machine
bested fittings made
Seamsgyseam finishes f
8 Pressing, Facings Zippers
9 Whistline seams, waistbands Finishing problems on projects
Hems
10 Review day--summarize prin-

ciples, summarize standards

68

APPENDIX E

The Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation used in

the statistical analysis in Chapter IV, page 42 was as follows:

 

 

 

(2 1042 n
:xr .. N
r =
(21:)2 gar?
[[zxz- N ][£Y2- N J

For a complete explanation of this formula see:

Morris Zelditch, Jr.. A Basic Course in Sociological Statistics,
(New York: Henry Holt and Company, 19597: p. 192.

69

APPENDIX F

Explanation of Sewing_Exoerience Score: Each one of the following
questions which is preceded by an asterisk (*) was given points, making

a total of 50 points. Each student was then given a sewing experience
score from 1 - 50 depending on the way that student answered the question.

STUDENT EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

 

Name ' Class Grade Point
Academic advisor Proposed major
If TCRA 152 required? elective?

 

 

*Do you expect to take additional clothing courses?

Have you had previous courses (high schtol or college) in color and

design? *textiles? plane geometry?

 

*Do you sew for yourself or others at home? Yes No

 

*Have you completed 4-H clothing projects? Yes

 

Approximate number of projects No

 

In high school, did you have clothing work in

Approx. No. weeks Spent No. of projects

on clothing projects completed
*Junior High

 

 

*Senior High

 

 

*Do you usually need advice and assistance from a teacher or more

experienced person in order to complete a sewing project?

*On the basis of your previous experience and present feeling of
confidence about your sewing abilities, would you rate yourself as:
a real beginner -fairly experienced

fairly inexperienced very experienced

7O

71
*Have you ever operated a sewing machine? Yes Electric
I Treadle
No
*List the fabrics with which you have had experience. Underline the one

which you felt was most difficult to work with.

*Describe the most difficult or most advanced sewing project you have

attempted. Indicate what item or items gave you a challenge.

*Have you had experience with:
fitting a pattern
altering a pattern

plaids or napped fabrics

 

set-in sleeves

 

waistline seams

 

applied collars

 

zippers

 

bound buttonholes

 

interfacings

 

facings

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

' Books

Arny, Clara Brown. Evaluation in Home_Economics. New Ybrk: Appleton-
CenturysCrofts, Inc., 1953.

Baron, Denis, and Bernard, Harold W: Evaluation Techniques for
Classroom Teachers. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co.. Inc., 1958.

Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 19 1.

David, Opal D. (ed.) The Education of Wbmen—-Signs for the Future.
washington D. 0.: American Council on Education..1959.

Downie N. M. Fundamentals of Measggement: Techpigges and Practices.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Dressel, Paul L. (ed.) Evaluation in the Ba 10 Colle a. New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958.

Henderson, Algo. Policies and Practices in Hi her Education. New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1960.

Jordan, A. M. Measurement in Education. New Yerk: McGraweHill Book
Co., Inc., 1953.

Justman, Joseph, and Mais,'Walter H. Colle e Teachi : Its Practice
and Its Potential. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1956.

Mueller, Kate Hevner. Educatin 'Wbmen for A Cha World.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955.

Muller, Leo 0. (ed.), and Muller, Ouida C. (ed.) New Horizons for
College. washington, D. 0.: Public Affairs Press, 1960.

Parten, Mildred. SurveygI PollsI and Samples: Practical Procedures.
. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1950.

Payne, Stanley L. The Art of Askipg Questions. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1951.

Remmers. H. H. Introduction to O inion and Attitude Measurement. New
Yerk: Harper & Brothers, 1954.

72

73

Remmers. H. H., and Gage, N. L. Educational Measurement and.Evaluation.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955.

Riley. John W., Jr.. Ryan, Bryce F., and Lifshitz. Marcia. The Studegt
Looks at His Teacher. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers ,
University Press, 1950. '

Selltiz, Claire et a1. Research Methods in Social Relations. rev. ed.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 19 l.

Travers, Robert M. Educational Measurement. New York: The MacMillan
Co., 1955.

Zelditch, Morris, Jr.. A Basic Course in Sociological Statistics.
' New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1959.

Articles and Periodicalg

Benezet, Louis T. "Eligible as a College Subject?" Journal of Home
Economics. LII (April, 1960), 243-244.

Henkel, Jean, and Seronsy, Louise Baird. ”First Course in Clothing
and Textiles," Journal of Home Economics. XLIII (March,
1951), 626-628.

Henkel, Jean. and Wright, Janet Smith. “Achievement in Clothing
Construction," Journal of Home Economics, XLIII (October,
1951), 626-628.

Lyle, Mary S. "Graduates Reflect on Their Education,” Journal of
‘ Home Economics. XLIX (January, 1957), 9-12.

Ray, Elizabeth. "Teacher Concern Related to Teaching Effectiveness,"
Journal of Home Economics, LII (March. 1960), 181-184.

Remmers. H. H. "To What Extent Do Grades Influence Student Ratings

of Instructors?" Journal of Edgcational Research, III
(1930). 314-316.

Sibley, Bradley 8. "Evaluation in Homemaking Education,“ Journal of
Home Economics, LI (April, 1959), 274-275.

Wallace, Martha Dee. ”Integrated Clothing Courses for Prospective

Teachers," Journal of Eggs Economics, LI (January, 1959),
25-27. .

Worden, Jane. ”The Place of Clothing Construction in the College
Program,” Journal of Home Economics, LII (May, 1960), 340-341.

74

Wilson, Mary K. "Graduates Evaluate a Home Economics Program,"
Journal of Home Economics, XLVIII (June, 1956), 414-417.

Winder, T. Vivian, and Gray, Hepe. "Attitudes of Freshman Toward
Home Economics--A Summary," Journal of Home EconomicsI
LIII (April, 1961), 295-296.

Youmans, Rita L. ”Evaluation in Teaching Home Economics," Journal
of Home Economics, LI (June, 1959), 449-452.

Easels.

Administrators' Workshop on Home Economics In Higher Education.
A report compiled by Thelma Porter, College of Home Economics,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, August,
1960.

Mentzer, Rosalind. A Report of the Process Used in Revisigg Curriculum
in the College of Home Economics. East Lansing, Michigan:
College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1962.

Unpublished Material

O'Donnell, Beatrice. Makigg the Teachgpg of Cjothipg Realistic.
Summaries of some Master's Degree problems complet by
graduate students in Home Economics Education,.Michigan
State University, 1957. (Mimeographed.)

Rothgarn, Mildred Marguerite. "The Development of A Method of
Pretesting Student Ability to Understand and Apply Principles
of Clothing Construction," Unpublished.Master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1962. ”

Roudebush, Alma. "A Study of the Utilization of Student Judgment
In Curriculum.Revision in the Home Economics Division at the
New York State College for Teachers at Buffalo," Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1951.

Sixteenth Annual Conference of College Clothing and Textiles Teachers,
Central Region. ”Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference of
College Teachers of Textiles.and Clothing," Chicago, 1960,
(Mimeographed.)

Stewartson, Elizabeth H. "An Experimental Approach to the Teaching
of Beginning Clothing Construction," Unfinished Master's
thesis, Michigan State University,in.progress.

ROOM USE GERRY.

     
    

   

1 JAN "57““ 1%6 .
W273i "

1"

 

 

 

J:

.‘5
yX'A

," :-

3

I

L.

 

mrllull”uninumuummIllunnlummunm

293 030