o 0.-...- ‘ ‘”m I A COMPARISON OF . 8mm FILMLOOP DEMONSTRATION AND TEACHER DEMONSTRATION IN TEACHING CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES Thesis for the Degree of M. A; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. EMILY REID 1973 2 *— —-' ‘."" ' n V"? F51 'l‘V ' I! LI B RA R Y Ichl-gan BIL-5.11:? ; Ur 0 n I v :1 o ‘- M BY H0“ & SIIIIS BOOK BINDEPY INC if ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF 8mm FILMLOOP DEMONSTRATION AND TEACHER DEMONSTRATION IN TEACHING CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES. by Emily Reid The purpose of this study was to investigate the effec- tiveness of 8mm filmloop in teaching selected clothing con- struction techniques to beginning students. Two topics, staystitching and darts, were selected for the investigation using a study pOpulation of seventy-four students - four classes of eighth grade girls enrolled in textiles and clothing at Howard S. Billings Regional High School in Chateauguay. One-way analysis of variance of IQ scores, experience indices (numerical ratings representing levels of sewing experience) and staystitching and darts pre- tests showed no significant initial differences among the four classes. Thus, they were treated as two comparable groups, the experimental classes receiving filmloop demonstrations of staystitching and darts and the control classes having teacher demonstrations. Throughout the term, all students were given some filmlOOp lessons and some teacher presentations to help M.‘ EMIlY REID counteract any possible effects of differential treatment be- tween experimental and control groups. It was hypothesized that the filmloop presentation method would be as effective as the teacher demonstration method in terms of initial understanding, retention of learning, ability to copy the pro- cesses demonstrated and quality of product. Two-way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ level (high, middle or low) was performed for staystitching gain scores, darts gain scores, total gain scores, retention test gain scores, staystitching process scores, staystitching pro— duct scores, darts process scores, darts product scores, average process scores and average product scores. Students' opinions of the methods of instruction were gathered by a written reactionnaire. From the evidence presented in this limited study, the following conclusions may be drawn. 1. The filmloop method of presentation was as effective as the teacher demonstration method in promoting initial understanding of techniques taught. 2. Retention of learning was significantly greater for groups having filmloop demonstrations than for those having teacher presentations. 3. Ability to COpy the techniques demonstrated and to produce good quality products was significantly greater in the experimental classes than in the con- trol classes. EMILY REID Interaction of levels of ability and methods of pre- sentation was not a significant factor in achieve- ment for either written or performance tests. Students accepted and preferred the filmloop method of lesson presentation because it provided increased visibility, made lessons easier to understand and saved time compared to teacher demonstrations. Lack of sound and not being able to stop a lesson to ask questions were considered disadvantages. Teachers' acceptance of the filmloop method of demon— strating sewing techniques was very good because it improves the efficiency of use of students' class time and teachers; preparation and instructional hours by helping provide self-paced instruction which is not dependent on teacher participation. A Comparison of 8mm Filmloop Demonstration and Teacher Demonstration in Teaching Clothing Construction Techniques By Mark) Emily Reid A Thesis Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Human Environment and Design 1973 Copyright by MARY EMILY REID 1973 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Anna Creekmore, Dr. Mary Gephart Donnell, Dr. Norma Bobbitt and Dr. Robert Rice for their thoughtful guidance and en- couragement throughout this study, and to Brooke Beebe of McGraw-Hill Book Company for her advice in the editing and production of the Sewing Techniques Series. Special recog- nition is due Robert Eaman for his sustained personal support and Peter Van Santen without whose professional cinemato- graphic competence and personal dedication this study would never have been possible. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES o o o o o o o o o o o o o b o o o o 0 Vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . , . . . . . . . L . . . . . . 1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . A Relevance: the Demands of Changing Times Teaching Methods Teacher Demonstration 16mm Motion Pictures The Overhead Projector Television Videotape Self—Instructional Media 8mm Filmloop Characteristics of FilmIOOps Focus of the Study III. METHODOLOGY . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Design of the Study Population Development of Instruments Pilot Study Validity Reliability Methods of Presentation Presentation of Lessons Performance Tests Retention Test Methods of Analysis iii Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6 Equivalence of Groups Tests of Understanding Staystitching Gain Scores Darts Gain Scores Total Gain Scores Retention Test Gain Scores Performance Tests Staystitching Process Scores Staystitching Product Scores Darts Process Scores Darts Product Scores Average Process and Product Scores V. REACTIONS OF STUDENTS TO TEACHING METHODS . . 73 VI. EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS USING FILMLOOPS . . . . 78 Use of Time Use of Home Economics Department Budget Attitudes Toward Lessons VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 82 Summary Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 APPENDIX I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Summary of Film: Staystitching Package Label: Staystitching Summary of Film: Darts Package Label: Darts APPENDIX II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Staystitching Pretest Staystitching Post Test Darts Pretest Darts Post Test Retention Test Process Scoresheet: Staystitching Product Scoresheet: Staystitching Process Scoresheet: Darts Product Scoresheet: Darts Student Experience Questionnaire Student Reactionnaire iv Page APPENDIX III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Item Analysis of Pilot Study Test Questions APPENDIX IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 IQ Scores, Experience Indices, Written Test Scores and Performance Test Scores APPENDIX V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A6 Summary of Responses to Student Questionnaire Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Page Original class sizes and numbers of students 32 completing the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minimum and maximum values, range, mean, standard deviation and t-value for differences between means for the item difficulty of pre— tests and post tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Minimum and maximum values, range, mean, standard deviation and t-value for differences between means for scores of pretests and post tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Grades assigned by three scorers and the total possible scores for staystitching and dart samples 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 37 Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for IQ scores of individual and combined classes and of performance test samples . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A8 Computed F ratios and t-values compared to critical values for IQ scores of total groups and performance test samples . . . . . . . . . . “9 Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for experience index scores of individual and combined classes and per- formance test samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Computed F ratios and t—values compared to critical values for IQ scores of total groups and performance test samples . . . . . . . .-. . 51 Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for staystitching pretests scores of individual anui combined classes and performance test groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Computed F ratios and t-values compared to critical ratios for staystitching pretest of total groups and performance test samples . . . 53 vi Table Page 11. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for darts pretest scores of individual and combined classes and perform- ance test groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A 12. Computed F ratios and t—values compared to critical values for darts pretest of total groups and performance test samples . . . . . . 55 13. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for staystitching gain scores . . . 56 1A. Two-way analysis of variance for staystitching gain scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S6 15. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for darts gain scores. . . . . . . . 57 16. Two-way analysis of variance for dart gain scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 17. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for total gain score . . . . . . . . 58 18. Two-way analysis of variance for total gain scores . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 19. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for retention test scores. . . . . . 59 20. Two-way analysis of variance for retention test scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 21. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability level for experimental and control groups' retention test scores. . . . 6O 22. Correlation coefficients of total gain scores, retention test scores and average process scores with average product scores . . . . . . . 62 23. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for staystitching process scores . . 63 vii \ Table Page 2A. Two—way analysis of variance for staystitching process scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 25. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t—values for differences be- tween means by ability levels for experimental and control groups' staystitching process scores 65 26. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for staystitching product scores . . 66 27. Two-way analysis of variance for staystitching product scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 28. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability levels for experimental and control groups’ staystitching product scores 67 29. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for darts process scores . . . . . . 68 30. Two-way analysis of variance for darts pro- cess scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 68 31. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability levels for experimental and control groups' darts process scores . . . . 69 32. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t—value for difference be— tween means for darts product scores . . . . . . 70 33. Two-way analysis of variance for darts pro- cess scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3“. Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t—values for differences be- tween means by levels of ability for experimental and control groups' darts product scores . . . . 72 35. T-values and critical values at the .05 and .01 levels of significance for average process scores and average product scores . . . . . . . . . . . 73 36. Number of positive and negative comments about method of lesson presentation . . . . . . . . . 75 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Programs of education must constantly face evaluation of their relevance and their effectiveness. In home econom- ics, the increasing variety of demands to be met indicates that a broad repetoire of approaches must be considered in order to reach each audience effectively with appropriate curricula. As needs and facilities change, the efficiency of current teaching methods cannot remain unexplored. Criti- cal evaluation is essential to development and improvement of meaningful education systems. The demands of relevancy of content and effectiveness of instruction have caused several modifications in the teaching of clothing construction in the past decade. In secondary schools today, a comprehensive home economics pro- gram provides only a limited amount of time for any one area of study. Since the teacher has many aspects of clothing with which she is expected to. deal, "her use of methods to decrease construction time in order to teach other areas of clothing is a major indication of her willingness to move. forward with the needs of the times."1 Also, it is not un— 1Katharine E. Hall, "Teaching Clothing Realistically," American Vocational Journal, XXXVII October, 1962, p. 32. usual to have overly large classes of extremely mixed abili- ties, backgrounds and needs. With flexible scheduling, and rejection of group norms in favor of individualized programs and independent study, the traditional group lesson demon— stration by the class teacher of any clothing construction principle or technique is impractical in many cases. To be effective, classes need new materials with which to learn as much as possible in the limited time available. Unfortunate— ly, "The vast majority of instructional materials which are presently available were designed to make group-paced in- struction workable, regardless of what is known about how children learn and about their individual learning styles."2 Universities face similar problems of diversity of backgrounds and aims among students in clothing construction courses. Also, increasing enrollments frequently have re— quired develOpment of methods for large group instruction. At the university level, course content emphasizes basic principles so that the student may understand a number of similar examples without exploring each in detail.3 In the same way, particular skills and techniques are taught for their contribution to "the understanding of processes for 2Philip G. Kapfer and Gardner Swenson, "Individual- izing Instruction for Self—paced Learning," Clearing House, XLII (7), March, 1968, p. uos. 3Jane Werden, "The Place of Clothing Construction in the College Program," Journal of Home Economics, LII (9), November, 1960, p. 3A0. transfer to new tasks."u To teach such principles and tech— niques effectively to a broad spectrum of students under present conditions, "We must find better ways to communicate ideas and we must make these means of communications adapt- able to the needs of individuals, whether they work alone or as members of groups."5 This study will evaluate the effec- tiveness of two self-instructional Super 8mm filmIOOps, Stay: stitching and Darts. The two 100ps are part of a series of twenty-eight films deveIOped as a tool for implementing a flexible, individually-paced program for teaching beginning clothing construction techniques. “H. Johnson, B. Clawson and S. Shoffner, "Using Pro- grammed Instruction to Teach a Skill for Transfer," Journal of Home Economics, LXI (1), January, 1969, p. 35. 5Louise~Forsdale, "Communication Technology and Edu- cation," 8mm Sound Film and Education, ed. Louis Forsdale (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962), p. 12. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Relevance: The Demands of Changing Times Contemporary curricula and methodology in home econom- ics have evolved from earlier patterns as a response to changing conditions. In general, before 1900, woman's uni- versity education followed the same literary path as men's. In the sciences, courses in home economics or domestic econ— omy were based on the principles of science and economics and had as their primary purpose preparation for women's role in 6 the home. As schools and colleges teaching home economics courses greatly increased in number during the last quarter 7 of the nineteenth century, the demand for teachers required that the universities engage in their professional prepara— tion which included consideration of teaching methods. Pass- age of the Smith-Lever Act in 191A provided funds for co-oper- ative extension programs and placed home economics on a par EJeanette A. Lee and Paul L. Dressel, Liberal Education and Home Economics (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963), p. 2A. 7Beulah I. Coon, Home Economics Instruction in the Secondary Schools (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965), p. 20. with agriculture.8 The 1917 Smith—Hughes Act made funds available for vocational courses of less than college level and for the preparation, professional improvement or salary of teachers for such courses.9 Relevance in education meant recognizing a broader area of responsibility for home econom- ics educators. In terms of girls' vocational education, "the purpose, to train students for 'useful employment' was interpreted in home economics to mean preparation of girls and women for useful employment as daughters and home- makers."10 Dressel claims that university courses at this time emphasized training personnel to manage the expanding home economics education programs.11 Thus, the place of clothing courses in education has been influenced by several factors; its beginnings in the 12 its development in universities manual training movement, as a subject of study requiring development of principles "from the concrete doing through the scientific to the eco- 8Eileen Elliott Quigley, Introduction to Home Econom- ics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969), p. 20 gcoon, op. cit. p. 22. lOIbid. p. 22. llDressel, op. cit. p. 27. 12Quigley, op. cit. p. 18. 13 its importance in the preparation of teachers for nomic", all levels of education, and its personal use as it contri- butes to self-expression and creativity in home life or to a career in a related area.lu In contemporary curricula, clothing construction courses are still in demand. Regardless of whether the student's in— terest is vocational, professional or recreational, profes— sflonal integrity and educational efficiency dictate that the clothing specialist develop appropriate and effective methods of teaching individuals and groups. "We can and must make each hour of student effort more productive, and we can and must do the same for the teacher."15 Methods of Teaching Methods of presentation used to'teach understanding of clothing construction processes include classroom demon- stration, filmstrips, 8mm motion pictures, slides, trans— parencies for overhead projection, television, programmed materials and 8mm filmloops. 13"Report of Special Committee of Lake Placid Concerence on Home Economics in Elementary and Secondary Schools," Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics 1899-190“, p. 6. luDoris Johnson, "A New Direction in Clothing Construc- tion," Journal of Home Economics, LII (9), November, 1960, p- 753- I 15Bruce Miles, "New Ways of Communicating with Students,‘ Proceedings: National Textiles and Clothing Meeting, ed. Barbara S. Stowe, 1968, p. 23. 'o... -- o a- ~ \ 01A-.- O" I Teacher Demonstration The traditional classroom demonstration has the ad- vantage of reducing dependency on written or oral directions which may be vaguely expressed or may be misinterpreted.16 This particularly benefits the poor reader or the student who does not easily comprehend the language of instruction. At the same time, the instructor can exemplify high standards of performance in procedures and in quality of product.17 The demonstration method, however, is not suitable for large group instruction, for only those who are very close can see adequately.18 Thus the demonstration must be repeated sev~ eral times consuming valuable class contact time as well as demOnstration materials. The necessity of classroom demonstration and supervised laboratory work was questioned by McCrady and Tomljonovich. They conducted an experiment in teaching the principles of clothing construction and selection to two hundred fifty homemakers in groups as large as fifty-two. Lessons were presented with the aid of large illustrations, oversized sam- ples and a system of parallel demonstrations in which the l6Hazel M. Hatcher and Mildred E. Andrews, The Teach— ing of Home Economics (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963), p. 117. 17Ibid. p. 117. 18Evelyn A. Mansfield, Clothing Construction (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953), p. v. 5r- vuv r-- n.. ’1! r I -.'I - . class was divided into small groups to try out the techniques previously explained. All construction work was done at home without supervision. From questionnaires and observations, the researchers concluded that clothing construction and se- lection can be effectively taught to large groups without supervised laboratory experience or close-up demonstrations.19 However, methods of evaluation of understanding and of pro- duct rating were not reported in detail. Further studies have not pursued this approach to group instruction. The relationship of construction techniques used to qual- ity of product produced has also been investigated. Senecal found that the product quality of a class using traditional con- struction techniques was superior in most details to the quality 20 In a comparison of six of garments made by the Bishop method. construction techniques, Smith determined that, in all six processes, thread basting produced better results than pin 21 However, rather than be prescriptive of technique, basting. current thought emphasizes intelligent decision making and considers "sewing within the context of individual investment potential - the individual's interest, aptitude, time, energy 19Christine McCready and Malva Tomljonovich, "Challenge of New Methods of Clothing Construction," Journal of Home Economics, LVII (1), January, 1965, p. 63. 20Evelyn Carlson Senecal, "A Comparison of Clothing Construction Methods," unpublished Master's problem, College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1960, p. 103. 21Margaret Smith, "A Comparison of Pin and Thread Bast— ing in Clothing Construction," Journal of Home Economics, XLIX (1), January, 1957, p. A0. d."22 If the student and money resources which are involve is to learn to evaluate alternatives and to make choices, a variety of methods must be presented. The time element for so doing virtually precludes the demonstration method of teaching as a feasible procedure given current objectives. 16mm Motion Pictures The use of 16mm film for demonstrating clothing con- struction techniques was pioneered by Helen Lohr who pre- pared seven ten-minute black and white sound films called the Young America Sewing,Series in the years l9A7 to 1951.23 In 1956, Almanac Films released the Sew Easy series of twenty- five twelve and one-half minute black and white sound films‘?’4 for the Simplicity Pattern Company. These teaching films were prepared by Lucille Rea as revisions of work done at Iowa State College in 1952-53 in developing films for re- search in instruction by television.25 A survey of the lit- erature shows no record of systematic evaluation of the 22Bernetta Kahabka and Sue Kuehne, 520 Clothing and Textiles 1969—10 Progress Report, Michigan State University Co-operative Extension Service. 23Prederic A. Krahn (ed.), Educational Film Guide, 11th ed., (New York: The H.W. Wilson 00., 1958), p. 68“. 2nIbid., p. 68h. 25Correspondence with Elsie K. Williams, assistant pro- fessor, Department of Textiles and Clothing, College of Home Economics, Iowa State University. lO effectiveness of these commercially distributed films. It is hypothesized that, due to individual preferences in tech— nique, methods other than classroom demonstration were used only in supplementary fashion until the pressure of class sizes and diversity of backgrounds of learners demanded that alternate approaches be explored. In addition, 16mm motion pictures are costly to buy26 and frequently require rigid structuring of time and facilities if borrowed. A twenty minute demonstration given at a time likely days removed from when the learner will use the information cannot be ex- pected to be of maximum effectiveness. The Overhead Projector In dealing with the problems of large group instruc- tion, Stam deveIOped a series of transparencies for teaching selected principles of clothing construction using the over— head projector. Use of the visuals was found to be as effective as the classroom demonstration method of presen- tation as measured by pencil and paper tests.27 The advan— tages of the overhead projector are that the teacher can main— 26Averaging the prices of twenty educational films picked at random from a film catalogue yielded a cost just under $6.00 per minute for black and white sound films and $11.90 for color sound films in 1972. 27Judy Yaryan Stam, "An Evaluation of the Effective— ness of the Overhead Projector in Teaching Clothing Con- struction," unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Eco- nomics, Michigan State University, 196A, p. 56. r.» V . 1; fl 5. «\u ll tain eye contact with the students and can control the rate and order of the presentation. Images may be projected 28 The main clearly in a lighted room and to large groups. limitation of the use of the overhead projector is that lessons are group oriented. A particular learner cannot proceed at his own pace for he is tied to the class sched- ule. The overhead projector is an effective tool but not for all purposes. "We should look carefully at the media we choose in terms of the consequences we are seeking."29 Television The use of television in the teaching of clothing con- struction was initiated by university extension personnel. In 1951, the Office of Information, textiles and clothing division of the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, United States Department of Agriculture presented a series of eleven twelve-minute programs entitled, "How to Make a Dress". A survey of viewers' opinions showed that the series was considered effective in showing new dressmaking ideas and in improving methods.30 The Agricultural Exten- 28Ibid., p. 56. 29Donald K. Smith, "Perspectives on Communication," Proceedings: National Textiles and Clothing Meeting ed. Barbara S. Stowe, 1968, p. 11. 30Eva Medved, "A Review of Home Economics Programs in Television," Journal of Home Economics, LIX (2), February, 1967, p. 106. . 12 sion Service of Iowa State University's series "Let's Make a Dress - T.V." in 1952 indicated that, although the audience size decreased with successive programs, there was a positive relationship between the number of programs a subject watched and her View of their helpfulness. Of the one third of the viewers who reported making a dress as a result of the pro— gram series, ninety-three per cent reported satisfaction with their work, and eighty per cent reported finding the con— struction easy.31 In more formal studies concerning the teaching of university credit courses, at Ohio State University, Meacham taught two clothing classes giving one a televised presen- tation and the other the traditional classroom lecture-demon— stration presentation. The television lessons were develop- ed to utilize the advantages of the medium such as dissolves for transitions, close—up shots for construction demon- 32 An eighteen min- strations and music to establish moods. ute question period in class followed each televised lesson to help equate them with the regular lectures in which ques- tions and discussions were permitted. Results showed no sig- nificant difference in effectiveness of the two methods as measured by three tests of understanding and two of applica- 3lIbid., p. 106. 32Esther Meacham, "Television in the Clothing Class— room," Journal of Home Economics, LVI (2), February, 196A, p. 90. 13 tion.33 The experimental group performed significantly better (t-value = 2.24) in laboratory work.3u Students' negative reactions to the medium were that some found the pace of presentation too fast and that there was no opportunity to ask questions during the presentation. Positive responses included favorable reactions to the num- ber of illustrations used and appreciation of seeing the demonstrations clearly. The instructor found the students more punctual and more attentive for the televised lessons than for the classroom lectures. Also, there was little dis- traction from the lesson in preparation of demonstration ma— madals for these remained out of camera range until needed, and there were no interruptions for questions to break the continuity of the presentation. Although the televised les- sons were time—consuming to prepare, the researcher felt that the investment was justified since the programs could be used to teach future classes, to acquaint new teaChers with the courses and to broadcast to audiences outside the university.35 In a larger context, Kumata's comprehensive studies of . instructional television provide the following information: in relation to achievement - in the overwhelming majority of cases, in subjebt matter 33Ibid., p. 90 3uIbid., p. 90 351bid., p, 91 IA tests including short term (usually thirty to forty- five days) retention tests, there is no significant difference between groups taught by television and by face-to-face lessons. neither increasing the size of the televised class nor having proctors present has a significant effect on learning. students viewing a program at home have slightly higher achievement than students seeing the program in a lecture room. low ability students learn more from televised lessons while high ability students learn more from face-to-face lessons. results indicating the novelty effect of the television presentation are inconclusive. in relation to acceptance attrition rates show no significant difference due to mode of presentation. there is a slight tendency towards rejection of television as a method of presentation; however, students having pre- viously taken televised courses respond more favorably to it than do students for whom it is a new experience. when classes are large, students tend to choose televised presentation over classroom lecture presentation. acceptance of the televised presentation is highest among adults and elementary students and lower among high school l5 and especially among university students. - if no provision is made for asking questions, reactions are unfavorable; however, facilities when provided are seldom used and make no significant difference in achieve— ment. — results indicating the effect of the televised mode of presentation on attitude toward course content are incon- clusive.36 Meacham's study may be interpreted in the light of Kumata's findings. The comparable levels of learning follow the customary pattern while the gain in laboratory perform- ance recommends the television presentation. This suggests that, since the principles taught in each class were the same, differences in the style of presentation, e.g. more illustra- tions used in the televised lessons, contributed to the under- standing and/or motivation of students and resulted in su- perior performance in lab work. The questitnl period :may be valuable more in maintaining interaction leading to positive attitude than in increasing understanding. The promptness and attentiveness of students for the televised classes might be interpreted as evidence of student interest and motivation and it likely contributed to teacher satisfaction. Tentatively, one may conclude that the use of television 36Hideya Kumata, "A Decade of Teaching by Television, "The Impact of Educational Television, ed. Walter Schramm (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1960), p. 177-82 passim. 16 in teaching clothing courses which include construction tech- niques is desirable when close-up demonstrations must be shown to large groups, when the scope of the material cannot be presented as effectively in the same time in a regular class and when material televised is reusable. Facilities and release time for development of programs are more avail— able to universities than to high schools. Thus, the latter usually have access only to educational channel television programs which may not suit the goals or timetable of the class.37 At present, program production for individual schools' needs is not a common practice, and no studies of dial access programs are reported. Videotape In a later study, Losey investigated the effectiveness of videotape in teaching clothing construction techniques. Although there was no significant difference in the samples of work graded, sound videotape presentations had a higher acceptance than either silent videotape presentations or in- struction by written directions.38 The absence of sound track to students accustomed to sound with films proved a 37Louis Forsdale, "8mm Sound Film and Education", 8mm Sound Film and Education, ed. Louis Forsdale (New York: Bur- eau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962) p. 6. 38Kathleen D. Losey, "The Use of Recorded Motion and Sound in Presenting Instructions for Sewing Techniques", un— published Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1968, p. 62. 17 distraction to some. 8mm film was suggested as an improve- ment over videotape as images would be clearer and color would be possible.39 Both videotape and 8mm cartridge films were considered suitable for classroom use and for dial access re- trieval systems.“O Self-Instructional Media Concurrent with studies using the overhead projector and television videotape, research was begun on the develop- ment of auto—instructional lesson units for teaching clothing construction. When a pilot study at the University of North Carolina was initiated in 1952, Fleck reports that there were no such published materials available in home economics.“1 A self-instruction program on the use of the sewing machine was developed by Moore”2 in 1963 and revised by Shoffneru3 in 1964. Written tests and performance tests were developed in A0 39Ioid., p. 6A Ibid., p. 10 ulHenrietta Fleck, Toward Better Teaching of Home Econoe mics, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), p. Al. ”ZCatherine P. Moore, "Development of a Self—Instruc- tional Program on the Sewing Machine", unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, University of North Carolina, 1963. “3Mar3orie A. Shoffner, "Revision and Field Test of a Self—Instructional Program on the Sewing Machine", unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, University of North Carolina, 196”. 18 1965.“" Johnson continued research at the University of North Carolina On self—instructional media for the purpose of teaching clothing construction skills with sufficient comprehension and application of basic processes that new tasks could be handled independently.u5 Recognizing Smith's contention that, "The need is clear for face-to-face in- struction to provide effective support for students",u6 the programmed materials required the student to refer to the instructor periodically for verification of work“7 thus main- taining supportive contact. The five dependent variables in comparing the self— instructional presentation to the traditional classroom presentation were: two pencil and paper tests, one empha- sizing understanding and one emphasizing application, a one- hour performance replication test, a three-hour performance application test and a product rating scale. The study showed discrimination beyond the one per cent level on all five variables.“8 "The variables which most successfully uuCarolyn E. Ross, "Development of a Performance Test and a Paper and Pencil Test to Accompany a Self-Instructional Program on the Sewing Machine", unpublished Master's thesis, Coélege of Home Economics, University of North Carolina, 19 5. . ”5H. Johnson, B. Clawson and S. Shoffner, op.cit., p.35. uéSmith, op. cit., p. 11. “7H. Johnson, B. Clawson and S. Shoffner, op. cit., p.37 u8Ibid., p. 38. l9 discriminated between program taught and teacher taught sections were the blouse rating scale, one—hour performance test and the application test. "The blouse score was the most 'sensitive measure of what was learned."49 Since the test of understanding was one of the two less discriminating variables while the blouse rating scores showed the greatest effect of learning, in effect, the groups differed less in understanding than in performance skill as a result of the method of teaching - programmed instruction or teacher presentation. Wissink found that students working with programmed materials used less time to complete a technique and made fewer referrals to the teacher and more to the instructional materials than did students taught by teacher demonstration lessons. Thus the teacher time spent answering questions was reduced while the quality of product was as good as or supe— riortx>the work of students taught by traditional methods.50 Murphy developed a program which provided for initial differences in understanding by allowing students to by—pass some sections depending on their response to certain "gate" frames. Her study showed that there was no significant dif- ference in learning, retention, construction performance and/ “91bid., p. 39. 50Vivien B. Wissink, "An Experiment in the Use of Pro— grammed Materials in Teaching Clothing Construction", unpub— lished Master's thesis, Mankato State College, 1968, p. AA. 20 or time required for the program between the students com- pleting the entire program and those who by-passed some sec— tflon3.51 HAlthough students by—passed more often than the teacher thought tflmmr should,52 the students' reaction to programmed instruction was not very favorable.53 The main value of by-passing seemed to be decreasing the monotony of strict linear programming.5u Auto-instructional programs have two main advantages over other modes of teaching: they do not require constant teacher participation in the learning process and, as a re— sult, each student may proceed independently without being restricted by a group schedule. Ideally, auto-instructional materials should be capable of individualizing the direction of a program as well as the speed with which the student handles the subject matter. Linear programs by definition must proceed in a sequence toward a goal. Unless they are planned as a series of short, independent lessons, they lack the flexibility and diversity that one would wish for in order to prevent the frustration and boredom of having to follow the programmer's path rather than personal interest. 51Mae George Murphy, "An Evaluation of By—Passing as a Technique for Adjusting a Self-Instructional Clothing Pro- gramme to Initial Individual Differences", unpublished Mas— ter's thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1967, p. A5 - A8 passim. 52Ibid., p. 56. 53Ibid., p. 59. Sulbid., p. 67. 21 Tools which do not have to be used in a prescribed sequence might be more favorably received and more generally useful than a more rigid format. The studies above seem to indicate that programmed in- struction results in equivalent or improved understanding and performance ability while using equivalent or shorter periods of student and teacher time than does the teacher demonstration method. At Oklahoma State University, the beginning course in clothing selection was formerly scheduled as three lecture/ discussion periods per week. This was replaced with one lecture, one quiz and one independent study period.55 A self-instructional open laboratory using tapes, slides, filmstrips, displays and question sheets was provided for independent work. Of the 155 students surveyed, 61% preferred to retain the quiz and laboratory sections and eliminate the one remaining lecture. Only 4% of the students expressed a preference for the lecture/discussion method. In using the laboratory, 67% of the students expressed the desire to have taped commentaries with the visual material while 33% pre- ferred to have mimeographed notes. None of the students felt that a text should be used for the course. In visual materials, 58% preferred filmstrips for their ease of handling, 40% pre- ferred slides for flexibility, 3% stated no preference. However, 55Grovalynn Sisler, "Student Reactions to an Audio- tutorial System", Journal of Home Economics, LXII (1), January, 1970, p. 3“. 22 75% of the students wished to have tapes with the filmstrips 56 or slides to eliminate having to read captions. Sisler re- ported that the course material would undergo constant re- vision to adapt to students' preferences in methods of pre- sentation. Such adaptations to student preferences and to in- dividual learners rather than groups capitalizes on the under- standing that "learning is essentially personal, that the in- dividual student's willingness to learn is the most effective agent for change in his behavior, hence learning."57 "The method is important only insofar as it meets the objectives of an individualized approach to instruction."58 8mm Filmloops In teaching clothing construction techniques, the use of 8mm filmloops is one method of providing repeatable demon- strations for individual or group use without consuming 56Ibid., p. ul 57Beatrice Paolucci, "Principles of College Teaching Illustrated", Journal of Home Economics, XLIX (1), January 1957, p. 3“ 5BC.H. Gausman and J. Vennes, "The Single Concept Film — Tool for Individualized Instruction", American Vocational Journal, XLIV (1) January, 1969, p. 17. 23 teacher time or delaying student progress. A single concept film or filmloop may be defined as "a segment of film with a short describable instructional content".59 Most frequently the film is packaged in continuous loop format in a plastic cassette. The cassette is inserted into a filmloop pro- jector for conventional or rear screen projection whenever required. Strader developed a series of filmloop demonstrations of clothing construction techniques and reported that they were as effective with junior and senior high school stu~ dents and with adults as they were with college classes.60 Methods of evaluation were not reported in detail. Students were more receptive to the filmloops than to a parallel set of slides of the same processes. Seeing the actual handling movements and ease of operation of the filmloop projector were important factors in determining students' preferences.61 In comparing filmloop demonstration and teacher demon- stration, Powers reported no significant difference in the quality of products in a sample of twenty-eight students having little or no previous sewing experience and no previous 59Elwood E. Miller and Charles G, Bollmann, "Promises and Pitfalls", Single Concept Film Clip Project, Part I (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967), p. 73. 6OGayle Gilbert Strader, "DeveIOpment of Single Concept Films", Illinois Teacher, XII (5), Spring 1968—69, p. 30“. 61 Ibid., p. 30”. 2A formal sewing instruction.62 Strader recommends the use of locally prepared film— loops over those commercially available because of costs - six dollars compared to twenty dollars - and because commer- cially prepared loops "may not handle the process in the same manner as an individual teacher".63 Meacham expressed the need for "two or three ways of doing a lot of techniques re- corded on film, to help students with decision making".6u In developing independent study and continuous progress systems in any subject area, Gausman and Vennes believe that "the ultimate success of this approach to individualized instruc— tion will depend greatly on adequate film and tape resources upon which each instructor may draw".65 "The role of the teacher must change if self-paced learning is to replace group-paced learning: the teabher's role must become that of a manager of learning for individual students. The teacher will monitor each student's progress, diagnose learning prob— lems, prescribe possible alternate learning materials and 6~2Jerilyn Ruth Powers, "A Comparison of Teacher Demon- stration and Single Concept Film in the Development of Sew- ing Skills", unpublished Master's thesis, Indiana State Uni- versity, 1968, p. 27. 63Ibid., p. 302-3. 6”Esther Meacham, "8mm Film and Clothing", Proceedings: National Textiles and Clothing Meeting, ed. Barbara S. Stowe, 1968, p. 25. 65Gausman and Vennes, op.cit., p. 16 25 \ activities which will help to solve the problems, and evalu- ate each student's progress in achieving stated behavioral "66 objectives. A multiplicity of resources is essential for continuous progress independent study. Characteristics of Filmloops A filmloop is a continuous loop of 8mm motion picture film permanently sealed in a plastic cassette. The standard Super 8mm cassette has a capacity of forty-one and four tenths feet or four minutes running time. Such filmloops usually deal with one tOpic and are sometimes called single concept films. Longer films can also be encased in cartridges of greater capacity for other models of projectors.67 Film- loops are available with sound track or with printed captions, and they are adaptable to closed circuit television and to dial access retrieval systems. Since filmloops are in one continuous piece, it is not necessary to thread the filmloop projector or to rewind film. Thus they may be used independently by students without a teacher's participation in the lesson. Filmloops provide in- stantly available, perfect, repeatable, color demonstrations. Since not all teachers have the time, skill or financial re- sources for constant demonstration, filmloops represent an 66Kapfer and Swenson, 0p. cit., p. A08. 67A variety of products are available, but sizes are not standardized across brands. 26 efficient, accurate and low cost alternative. In presenting clothing construction techniques, a filmloop can utilize close-up, slow motion, freeze action, and split screen shots to clarify ideas and processes. Also, the loop may be stopped at any point and used as a slide until a detail is mastered. Moreover, it is possible to shoot filmloops from the demon- strator's perspective. In this way, the student sees the de- monstration from the same vieWpoint as he will when he is using his own two hands in performing the same technique. By combining locally prepared and commercially produced loops, a teacher can build a filmloop library of alternative methods for all construction processes. Additional films can be acquired as new fabrics demand new techniques. Focus of the Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the effec- tiveneSSCHTSuper 8mm filmloops in teaching selected clothing construction concepts and techniques. The spe— cific objectives guiding this study are: l. to develop a series of Super 8mm silent filmloops to demonstrate clothing construction techniques. 2. to compare the test results showing change in know- ledge of the filmloop demonstration (experimental) group and the classroom teacher demonstration (con- trol) group. 3. to compare the accuracy with which students copy a technique (process scores) of the experimental group and control group. 27 to compare product test results (product scores) of the experimental group and control group. to compare the correlation of total gain scores and retention test scores with product score averages of the experimental group and the control group. to compare the correlation between process scores averages and product scores averages of the experi- mental group and control group. to compare end-of—term retention test results of the experimental group and the control group. to determine which method - filmloop demonstration or classroom teacher demonstration — is more effec- tive in teaching high ability, middle ability and low ability students. to survey students' opinions about filmloop demon- stration compared to classroom teacher demonstration of clothing construction techniques. Hypothesis The filmloop method of demonstration of clothing con- struction techniques will be as effective as the class- room teacher demonstration method. Assumptions In the design of this study, the following assumptions have been made: 1. It is possible to develop Super 8mm filmloops to demonstrate clothing construction techniques. FilmlOOps are comparable to classroom teacher demon- strations of the same technique. The effectiveness of teaching methods can be measured by pencil and paper tests. a. a pre-test will measure the initial knowledge of clothing construction techniques. b. an equivalent form post test administered immedi- ately after tfimelesson will measure the new level of knowledge of clothing construction tech- niques. 28 c. a retention test administered at the end of the term will measure the knowledge retained. Score sheets can record students' performance. a. process scores will reflect accurately the de— gree to which students' performance copies the techniques demonstrated. b. product scores will reflect accurately the de- gree to which students' products conform to standards demonstrated. Students will attempt to follow the methods demon— strated for each technique. A questionnaire will reflect accurately the students' previous clothing construction experience. IQ scores in the students' personal data files were obtained by means of comparable standardized tests. Limitations The factors which may affect the usefulness of the re— sults of this study are: 1. the number of students in the study is only seventy— four. the classes used by the researcher were not her regu- lar classes. Thus she could not control the methods used or approved in lab experiences during the period between the lessons, the performance test and the end of the term retention test. the time lag between the lessons and the performance tests ranged from one day to three weeks because only the researcher's non-teaching periods could be used for student testing. the time of day and day of the week upon which a class occurred could influence learning. only two techniques are tested in this study. standardization of procedure required that students not be permitted free access to filmloop demonstra- tions for the techniques being tested. Thus the learning recorded does not measure the full useful- ness of filmloops in a normal teaching situation. left-handed students have to adapt right—handed 29 demonstrations to their particular needs. Definitions Specific film100p - cassette - terms used in this study are: a filmloop is a continuous loop of motion picture film permanently sealed in a cartridge for use in a filmloop projector. a cassette is a plastic cartridge which con- tains a filmloop. Super 8mm film — Super 8mm film is motion picture film of standard 8mm width upon which the frame occupies a larger area and the sprocket edg- ing a smaller area than on standard 8mm film. Thus super 8mm film provides clearer pictures than standard 8mm film at comparable cost. process score - a process score is a numerical measure expressed in percentage of the degree to which a student's performance copies a tech- nique demonstrated. Process scores are ob- tained from a checklist completed by the re- searcher while observing a student performing the process being scored. product score - a product score is a numerical measure ex- gain score pressed in percentage of the degree to which a student's product conforms to the standard dem- onstrated. Product scores are obtained from a checklist completed by the researcher while in- specting a sample produced during individual performance tests. - a gain score is a raw score representing the difference between a post test score and a pretest score. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study investigated the effectiveness of 8mm film- loop in teaching beginning clothing construction technqiues. Design of the Study The experimental design of the study consisted of pre- senting the same lesson content to four groups of students. Two of the groups receivedteacher demonstration lessons, and two received filmloop demonstrations. The effectiveness of the methods of presentation was evaluated in terms of the change in knowledge and retention of learning, the ability to perform the processes demonstrated and the quality of products produced. Information concerning students' opin- ions of the two methods of lesson presentation was collected by means of a student reactionnaire. The clothing construction techniques selected for pre- sentation in this study were staystitching and darts. The factors which governed the selection of these two topics were: 1. the two techniques are part of most beginning courses in clothing construction including the course follow- 30 31 ed by the study population. 2. the techniques involve no overlapping of understand- ing or skills required other than the operation of the sewing machine. Population The pOpulation consisted of four classes of eighth grade girls enrolled in a thirteen-week.beginning course in textiles and clothing during spring term 1971 at Howard S. Billings Regional High School in Chateauguay, Quebec. The students are products of a continuous progress program in the six years of elementary school. The previous year, they were admitted to a five year high school at age twelve with- out reference to their level of academic achievement. Un- like English, French and mathematics classes, the home eco- nomics classes are not phased or streamed, and thus they contain students of all abilities with the exception of those enrolled in special education programs for the educable men- tally retarded. Each class has a normal maximum size of twenty students. The population available for the study com- prised seventy—seven students; however, three subjects did not complete the program due to absence or to school transfer. Table 1 shows the original class sizes and the numbers in each class that completed the study. Classes 8A and 8D were randomly selected as experimental groups, while 8B and 80 were designated as control groups. 32 TABLE l.--Origina1 class sizes and numbers of students completing the study. Class Original Size Number Completing the Study 8A l7 16 8B ' 20 20 8C 19 18 8D 21 20 Development of Instruments The researcher's interest in individually-paced in- struction led to the investigation of using 8mm filmloop to demonstrate clothing construction techniques. Film tests made with non—professional equipment proved the feasibility of making extreme close-up motion pictures which could pre- sent construction processes clearly. During 1967, discus- sions with Mr. Mark Else of the McGraw-Hill Book Company Text-Film Division resulted in an agreement to produce twenty-eight Super 8mm filmloops of clothing construction techniques from motion picture scripts written by the re- searcher and approved by the publisher in consultation with Mrs. Frances Gutman, Educational Director of Coats and Clark, Inc. The two filmloOpS, Staystitching and Darts, used in this study are part of the Sewing Techniques Series produced over 33 the next two summers and released for distribution December 1, 1970. The evaluation devices for the study consisted of: 1. Staystitching Pretest 2. Staystitching Post Test 3. Darts Pretest A. Darts Post Test 5. Retention Test 6. Process Scoresheet: Staystitching 7. Product Scoresheet: Staystitching 8. Process Scoresheet: Darts 9. Product Scoresheet: Darts 10 Student Experience Questionnaire 11 Student Reactionnaire Five pencil-and-paper multiple choice tests were de- 68 For each film, velopedIXJmeasure the students' knowledge. a seventeen-item pretest was constructed to measure initial understanding, and an equivalent form seventeen-item post test was constructed to measure the change in learning. A twenty-four item retention test sampling the content of the two lessons was developed to measure retention of knowledge. Four scoresheets of the checklist type were prepared for 69 the study. In order to translate observed behaviors into numerical values for statistical analysis, for each technique 68See Appendix II. 69See Appendix II. 3A there was designed a process observation scoresheet descri- bing a range of observable behaviors, each of which was assigned a numerical value. To grade students' samples of staystitching and of darts, product scoresheets giving the numerical value of a range of observable results were con- structed. Limitations of student and faculty time precluded in- dividual pretesting of all students to determine manual dex— terity and ability to control the sewing machine. Although these factors would be influenced by visual motor co-ordina— tion, such co—ordination was assumed to be a randomly dis- tributed variable and was not tested in this study. However, since Meacham7O and Chadeayne71 both found that the level of students' previous experience affected performance tests, a self-reporting Student Experience Questionnaire was designed to give a numerical value to the students' previous experi- ence with use of the sewing machine, making or mending sewn articles and with formal or informal instruction in sewing. A Student Reactionnaire was developed in order to collect the students' opinions concerning the methods of les— 70Esther Anne Meacham, "The Relative Effectiveness of Face to Face Lecture vs. Instructional Television in a College Clothing Course," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 196A, p. 70. 71Evelyn A.S. Chadeayne, "Reasons for Student Errors in Clothing Construction and their Implications for Teaching Col— lege Clothing Construction Courses," unpublished Master's the- sis, Ohio State University, 196A, p. 71. 35 son presentation which they experienced.72 Pilot Study The entire file of pretest and post test questions was administered to sixty-three grade nine students as a pilot study to aid in refinement of the test items and to provide preliminary data concerning the equivalence of the test forms. Table 2 gives the minimum and maximum values, the range, mean, standard deviation and t-value of the differ- ence between means for the item difficulty for the tests. TABLE 2.--Minimum and maximum values, range, mean, standard deviation and t—value for differences between means for the item difficulty of pretests and post tests. Test Min. Max. Range Mean S.D. t-Value Staystitching 25 62 37 A5.18 ll.A7 Pretest 0.383 # Staystitching 27 67 A0 A3.59 12.65 Post Test Darts ‘ 19 75 56 A7.7l 16.A5 Pretest 0.059 # Darts 16 81 65 A7.35 18.37 Post Test # non—significant at the .05 level The data summarized in Table 2 indicates that there was no significant difference at the .05 level in the diffi— 72See Appendix II. 36 culty of the alternate forms of the tests. Table 3 gives the minimum and maximum values, the range, mean, standard deviation and t-values for the differences be— tween means for the scores of the two alternate forms for each test. TABLE 3.--Minimum and maximum values, range, mean, standard deviation and t-value for differences between means for scores of pretests and post tests. Test Min. Max. Range Mean S.D. t-Value Staystitching 0 16 .16 9.38 A.62 Pretest 0.10A # Staystitching 0 l6 16 9.30 3.90 Post Test Darts A 15 11 9.A9 2.82 Pretest 0.200 # Darts 0 16 16 9.38 3.39 Post Test # non-significant at the .05 level The data summarized in Table 3 indicates that there was no significant difference at the .05 level between the mean scores of the pretest and the post test question files. Thus the tests were accepted as comparable alternate forms. Minor revisions in wording were made to improve the readability of five questions. The product scoresheets were pretested for ease of use and for consistency of scoring in two ways. First, two home 37 economists experienced in the teaching of clothing construc- ‘won and the researcher each scored the sample products inde— pendently. Table A shows the grades assigned by the three scorers and the maximum possible grade for the products. TABLE A.--Grades assigned by three scorers and the total possible score for staystitching and dart samples. Scorer A Scorer B Scorer C Possible Score Staystitching Sample 1 26 25 25 33 Sample 2 . 29 30 29 33 Darts Sample 1 28 27 28 38 Sample 2 31 30 30 38 A week later, the researcher regraded the samples and compared her two sets of scores. Since the grades for the three scorers showed a variation of only one point for each technique, and since rescoring of the samples one week later produced no variation in the grades assigned by the research- er, the product scoresheets and the researcher's judgment were considered sufficiently reliable for use in the study. The process scoresheets were not pretested for con— sistency of the scorer's judgment because scoring sometimes required that the observer question the student without un- duly influencing her performance. Three observers could not 38 simultaneously participate in this process. However, the pro- cess scoresheets were pretested for completeness and for ease of scoring during the pilot study. Validity The purpose of the testing instruments was to record accurately the students' knowledge and performance. The following procedures are considered to have contributed to the validity of the tests and scoresheets: l. The file of test questions with answers and the scoresheets were reviewed during their develop- ment by faculty members teaching courses in tex- tiles and clothing and in home economics educa- tion. 2. Testing procedures were reviewed by faculty mem- bers in Personnel Services and Evaluation Services. 3. The tests, process scoresheets and product score- sheets were pretested in a pilot study. A. The pilot study population experienced no diffi— culties in following the test directions, "Select the correct answer, and fill in the corresponding space on the answer sheet", or in understanding the test questions. 5. All subjects had had previous experience using machine-scored answer sheets; thus the method of response was familiar to them. 6. All students were able to complete each test within the allotted time period. 7. In order to equalize possible effects on achievement of differential treatment, during an explanation of the study, all classes were informed that they would receive some teacher demonstrations and at least three filmloop demonstrations. Each class was told which three films they would see. 8. The possible effect of anxiety on achievement was 39 lessened by assuring the students that test scores would not influence term grades in any way. Reliability The factors which may have influenced the reliability of the testing tools were: 1. Each question used on the post tests was an alter- nate form of a question used on a pretest. Thus, the sampling of lesson content of the post tests was the same as the sampling of the pretests. 2. A pilot study conducted with sixty-three grade nine students showed no significant difference in diffi— culty or in mean scores between the pretest and the post test question files.73 3. The pretests, post tests and retention tests were machine-scored. A. All students did their performance tests at the same sewing machine using identical fabric. 5. All performance tests were scored by the same ob— server. - 6. In order to reduce possible bias caused by knowing control group students from experimental group stu- dents, class sections were not recorded on the stu— dents' scoresheets until grading was completed. Methods of Presentation Prior to the study, the four classes used in the pro- ject had completed with their regular teacher lessons in the following areas related to beginning clothing construction: 1. sewing machine operation 2. figure types and pattern sizing 73See TABLE 2, page 35 and TABLE 3, page 36. A0 3. fabric preparation A. pattern symbols 5. pattern layout, cutting and marking The researcher met twice with each class. During the first visit, she explained that a study was being conducted to investigate how students learn. It was stressed that the results would not affect the term grades in any way. It was explained that some lessons would be presented by filmloop demonstration and some by teacher demonstration. The con- trol groups were informed that they would receive teacher dem- onstrations of staystitching and darts, and filmloop demon- strations of preparing a facing, applying a facing and pre- paring a curved hem. The experimental groups were advised that they would receive filmloop demonstrations of staystitch- ing, darts and preparing a curved hem, and teacher demon- strations of preparing a facing and applying a facing. Furthermore, the students learned that the researcher would conduct the first two classes and that the regular teacher would present the rest. The aforementioned method for ex- posing all classes to an equal number of films was developed in order to help equalize any effect on achievement that might be created by differential treatment. All groups were informed that they would be asked to give their opinions about some of the lessons later in the term. Al Presentation of Lessons The two lessons, one on staystitching and one on darts, were presented in the same manner. First, the pretest was administered. In the experimental groups, the lesson infor- mation on the package label was read to the class, and the filmloop was then projected and allowed to run through twice. The students were asked to observe the film once without com- ment. During the second running, they were permitted to ask 7A questions at will. Due to the darkness of the room, it was not possible to identify the questioners or to keep accurate record of the number or nature of the questions asked. Following the second projection of the filmloops, the appro- priate post test was administered. I In the control groups, following the pretests, a teach- er demonstration was given using materials identical to those shown in the film. A verbal explanation presented the in- formation that the experimental groups had received through the film captions and the lesson information on the package label. During a review of the lesson, questions were permit- ted. Each presentation, whether filmloop or teacher demon- stration, lasted eight minutes; and each complete lesson used one forty-five minute period. 7“Rear screen projection unit generally used in self- paced instruction was not available. Thus, conventional . super 8mm filmloop projectors and screens were used and lights were turned off. A2 Performance Tests Individual performance testing of twelve subjects per class was conducted during the researcher's non-teaching periods over a span of fifteen school days following the completion of the written tests. To help eliminate observer bias, names and grades were not recorded on scoresheets until the end of the tests. As much as possible, students were scheduled to provide sampling from each group each day in order to equalize the effects of lapse of time between the lessons and the performer tests. The performance tests consisted of doing a sample of staystitching and making a dart. At the beginning of the session, the purpose of the process and product scoresheets was explained, and the machine was threaded with the thread color of the student's choice selected from a range of dark- er, matching, lighter and contrasting colors. The operation of the stitch length regulator, the needle thread tension control and the speed control was reviewed, and the student was permitted several minutes' practice with the sewing machine in order to become familiar with its operation. All students used the same sewing machine for their performance tests. - Half of the candidates were given sample back sections of a child's A—line dress and sample bodice darts. The re— maining students were given sample back sections of an A—line skirt. The latter garment sections had one waistline dart A3 traced. The pattern tissues from which the sections were out were available for inspection. The fabric for all samples was 100% cotton poplin in a 1/16 inch polka dot print design. The instructions given to each student were: 1. for staystitching, "Staystitch all edges which re- quire staystitching." 2. for darts, "Make a dart." 3. for both technqiues, "If you make a mistake or want to change your work in any way, stop and tell me. You may correct your work or start over at any time." Retention Test The retention test was given early in June 1971 about five weeks after the completion of the written tests. The arrival of an unscheduled and unsupervised class at the lec- ture room reserved for the research group caused considerable disruption of procedure and atmosphere as well as loss of time. All subjects, however, claimed that there was suffi— cient time for completion of the Student Experience Ques- tionnaire,tfluaRetention Test and the Student Reactionnaire. Methods of Analysis The data collected in the development and execution of this research project were analyzed as follows: 1. Information from the pilot study aided in the devel- opment of alternate forms of tests and in refinement ment of all evaluation devices prepared for the study. AA One-way analysis of variance of IQ scores, experi- ence indices, and of two pretest scores was used to determine the initial equivalence of the four classes. Since, at the .05 level, no significant differences existed among the four classes for the four variables mentioned, the four classes were treated as two groups, control group and experimental group, for most calculations. Two—way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ was performed using gain scores for each lesson, total gain scores and retention test scores. Since the con- trol group high IQ section contained two more students than did each other section, upon the advice of the Office of Research Consultation, two observations at random were dropped from the control group high IQ cell for these four calculations. This permitted using standard analysis of variance methods rather than the less precise unweighted means analysis tech- niques. The .05 level of significance was used as reference standard in the analysis. For the forty-eight students who completed perform— ance tests as well as written tests, one-way analysis of variance of IQ scores, experience indices and of two pretests was used to determine the initial equi- valence of the four groups. Since, at the .05 level, no significant differences existed among the four “5 classes, they were treated as two groups, control group and experimental group, for most Calculations. 5. Using the performance test data, two—way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ was performed for six variables: staystitching process score, staystitching product score, dart process score and dart product score, average process score and average product score. The .05 level of significance was used as reference standard in the analysis. 6. To examine the relationship between grades for written tests and skill performance tests and to de- termine the extent to which product score averages might be predicted from gain score totals, retention test scores, and process score averages, correlation coefficients and coefficients of determination were computed for film and teacher demonstration groups as wholes and for each ability level within the groups. Some of the calculations were performed with the assist- ance of the IBM Call/360 computer service. Scoring of the written tests was performed by the Opscan 100, Office of Evaluation Services. Item analysis of the pilot study and of the final test items was produced by the Michigan State University Data Processing Department using an IBM 360 com- puter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study is to investigate the effec— tiveness of filmloop in teaching certain clothing construction techniques by analyzing written test scores and performance test scores and by summarizing students' and teachers' opin— ions. For each student in the four groups, the following data were obtained:75 1. IQ score (usually Otis-Lennon form B) from school records 2. experience index as determined by the self-rating Student Experience Questionnaire 3. staystitching pretest score A. staystitching post test score 5. staystitching gain score 6. darts pretest score 7. darts post test score 8. darts gain score 75See Appendix IV. A6 A7 9. total post test score 10. total gain score 11. 'retention test score For the forty-eight students who completed performance tests, these additional data were recorded:76 1. staystitching process score 2. staystitching product score darts process score darts product score average process SCOPE O\U'I.=UO average product score Equivalence of Groups One way analysis of variance of IQ scores, experience indices, the staystitching pretest scores and the darts pre- test scores was performed for each class and for the sample of twelve students from each class who completed practical tests. Table 5 summarizes the IQ score data from Appendix IV. 76See Appendix IV. A8 TABLE 5.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for IQ scores of individual and combined classes and of performance test samples. Total Class Class X sd Max. Min. Range 8A 10A.69 12.32 122 8A 38 8B 101.A0 10.97 166 79 37 8C 108.9A . 11.75 13A 92 A2 8D 10A.75 10.Al 125 82 A3 8A & 8D 10A.72 11.13 125 82 A3 88 & 80 10A.97 11.82 13A 79 55 Performance Test Sample Class X’ sd Max. Min. Range 8A 107.5 12.70 122 8A 38 BB 101.58 10.52 116 86 30 80 109.25 11.55 128 92 36 8D 105.83 8.38 125 95 30 8A & 8D 106.67 10.56 125 8A A1 88 & 80 105.A2 ll.A9 128 86 A2 Table 6 gives F ratios and t-values for the IQ score data. Table 6 shows that, at the .05 level of probability, there was no significant difference among the total groups or amongtnuasamples of twelve students per class who completed performance tests. T-tests of the means of combined classes, 8A and 8D, and 88 and 8C, confirmed this finding. On the basis of IQ data, the four classes and their performance A9 TABLE 6.-—Computed F ratios and t-values compared to critical values for IQ scores of total groups and perform— ance test samples. Total Group Sample computed F ratio 0.83 1.09 critical F ratio (.05 level) 2.7A 2.82 computed t-value 0.09 0.27 critical t-value (.05 level) 1.96 1.96 test samples could be treated as two comparable groups. Table 7 summarizes the experience index data from Appendix IV. Table 8 gives F ratios and t-values for the experience index data. Table 8 shows that, at the .05 level of probability, there was no significant difference among the total groups or among the samples of twelve students per class who completed performance tests. T-tests of the means of combined classes, 8A and 8D, and 8B and 80, confirmed this finding. On the basis of experience indices, the four classes and their performance test samples could be treated as two comparable groups. 50 TABLE 7.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for experience index scores of individual and combined classes and per- formance test samples. Total Class Class X sd Max. ‘ Min. Range 8A 0.82 0.63 2.1 0.1 2. 8B 0.81 0.66 2.2 0.2 2. 80 0.82 0.63 2.A 0.2 2.2 SD 0.80 0.67 2.2 0.0 2 2 8A & 8D 0.81 0.6A 2.2 0.0 2.2 SE & 8C 0.82 0.6A 2.A 0.2 2.2 Performance Test Sample Class X sd Max. Min. Range 8A 1.01 0.61 2.1 0.2 1.9 8B 0.98 0.79 2.2 0.2 2.0 8C 0.91 0.69 2.A 0.2 2.2 8D 1.02 0.75 2.2 0.0 2.2 BA & 8D 1.01 0.67 2.2 0.0 2.2 8B & 8C 0.9A 0.73 2.A 0.2 2.2 51 TABLE 8.—-Computed F ratios and t—values compared to critical values for experience indices of total groups and performance test samples. Total Group Sample Computed F ratio 1.63 0.06 Critical ratio (.05 level) 2.7A 2.82 Computed t-value 0.05 0.35 Critical t—value (.05 level) 1.96 1.96 Table 9 summarizes the staystitching pretest data from Appendix IV. Table 10 gives computed F ratios and t-values for the staystitching pretest data. Table 10 shows that, at the .05 level of probability, there was no significant dif- ference among the total groups or among the samples of twelve students who completed performance tests. T-tests of the means of combined classes, 8A and 8D, and 8B and 8C, confirm- ed this finding. On the basis of the staystitching pretest scores, the four classes and their performance test samples could each be treated as two comparable groups. 52 TABLE 9.——Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum val- ues and range for staystitching pretest scores of individual and combined classes and performance test groups. Total Class Class X sd Max. . Min. Range 8A 5.37 1.96 9 2 7 8B 6.15 1.53 10 A 6 8C A.78 1.73 9 2 7 8D 6.15 2.13 10 2 8 8A & 8D 5.81 2.07 10 2 8 8B & 8C 5.50 1.75, 10 2 8 Performance Test Sample Class X sd Max. Min. Range 8A A.92 1.88 7 2 5 8B 6.50 1.73 10 A 6 8C 5.17 1.85 9 3 6 8D 5.25 1.82 8 2 6 8A & 8D 5.08 1.82 8 2 6 8B & 8C 5.83 1.88 10 3 7 53 TABLE 10.~-Computed F ratios and t—values compared to critical ratios for staystitching pretest of total groups and performance test samples. Total Group Sample Computed F ratio 2.A2 1.82 Critical F ratio(.05 level) 2.7A 2.82 Computed t-value 0.68 1.38 Critical t—value(.05 level) 1.96 1.96 Table 11 summarizes the darts pretest data. Table 12 gives the computed F ratios and t-values for the darts pre- test data. Table 12 shows that, at the .05 level of prob- ability, there was no significant difference among the total groups or among the samples of twelve students per class who completed performance tests. T-tests of the means of combined class, 8A and 8D, and 8B and 8C, confirmed this finding. On the basis of the darts pretest scores, the four classes and their performance test samples could each be treated as two comparable groups. 5A TABLE ll.——Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values and range for darts pretest scores of individual and combined classes and perform- ance test groups. Total Class Class X“ sd Max. Min Range 8A 6.00 1.79 10 3 7 8B 5.A5 2.06 9 0 9 8C 6.56 2.0A 10 3 7 8D 6.05 2.56 11 2 9 8A & 8D 6.03 2.22 11 2 9 8B & 8C 5.97 2.10 10 0 10 Peformance Test Sample Class X sd Max. Min. Range 8A 5.58 1.51 8' 3 5 8B 5.58 2.35. 9 0 9 8C 6.83 2.25 10 3 7 8D 6.67 2.39 11 3 8 8A & 8D 6.13 2.03 11 3 8 8B & 8C 6.21 2.3A 10 0 10 55 TABLE 12.--Computed F ratios and t-values compared to critical values for darts pretest of total groups and performance test samples. Total Group Sample Computed F ratio 0.83 1.16 Critical F ratio (.05 level) 2.7A 2.82 Computed t-value 0.11 0.13 critical t—value (.05 level) 1.96 1.96 Tests of Understanding To determine whether method of instruction or inter- action of teaching method and IQ affected written test re- sults, four sets of test scores were examined. These were: 1. staystitching gain score 2. darts gain score 3. total gain score A. retention test gain score , Staystitching Gain Scores Table 13 summarizes the staystitching gain score data from Appendix IV. The t-value for difference between means is. 0.01 indicating no significant effect of method of teach- ing for these classes of mixed levels of ability. Two-way analysis of variance for treatment and IQ shows no signifi- cant interaction between ability group and method of instruc— tion. TABLE l3.—-Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t—value for difference be- tween means for staystitching gain scores. \ Class X' sd Max. Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 3.67 3.21 10 -2 12 8B & 80 3.66 3.10 10 —A 1A 0'01 # # non-Significant at the .05 level TABLE 1A.-—Two-way analysis of variance for staystitching gain scores Computed Critical F ratio Source SS df MS F-ratio (.05 level) IQ 67.75 2 33.88 3.77 3.15 Treatment 1.13 l 1.13 0.12 # A.00 Interaction 1.58 2 0.76 0.8A # 3.15 jError 59A.A2 66 8.99 Total 663.88 71 # non—significant at the .05 level Darts Gain Scores Table 15 summarizes the darts gain score data from lungendix IV. The t-value for difference between means is 1.52 iJudicating no significant effect of method of teaching for tflnese classes of mixed levels of ability. Two-way analysis of vaIriance for treatment and IQ shows no significant interaction betnueen.ability group and method of lesson presentation. 57 TABLE l5.—-Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for darts gain scores. Class X sd Max. Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 2.9A 2.69 7 -3 10 . 1.52 # 8B & 8C 1.95 2.88 7 -5 21 # non-significant at the .05 level TABLE 16.--Two-way analysis of variance for darts gain scores. Computed Critical F ratio Source SS df \ Ms F ratio (.05 level) IQ 26.9A 2 13.A7 1.99 3.15 Treatment 8.68 l 8.68 1.28 # A Interaction 12.78 2 6.39 .9A # 3.15 Error AAA.92 66 6.7A Total A93.32 71 # non-significant at the .05 level Total Gain Scores Table 17 summarizes total gain score data from Appendix IV. The t-value for differences between means is 0.9A. Two- way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ shows no signi- ficant interaction between ability group and method of teach- ing. 58 TABLE l7.--Mean, standard deviatidn, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for total gain scores. A.— _ _L Class X sd Max. Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 6.61 A.23 1A -3 17 0.9A # 8B & 8C 5.61 A.78 1A —8 22 # non-significant at the .05 level TABLE 18.--Two-way analysis of variance for total gain scores. Computed Critical F ratio Source SS df MS F ratio (.05 level) IQ 157.03 2 78.52 A.97 3.15 Treatment 3.56 1 3.56 .22 # A. Interaction 18.36 2 9.18 .58 # 3.15 Error 10A2.l7 66 15.79 Total 1221.12 71 # non—significant at the .05 level Retention Test Scores Table 19 summarizes the retention test data from Appendix IV. The t-value for the difference between means is 2.00 which is significant beyond the .05 level (1.96). This figure indicates that the experimental group retained a significantly greater amount of learning than did the control group. TWO-way analysis of variance of retention test scores shows that method of teaching was a significant factor in re- 59 tention of learning. Interaction between ability groups and method of instruction was not significant. TABLE l9.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t—value for difference be— tween means for retention test scores. Class X,- sd .-..Max. 3 Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 13.39 3.57 21 6 ' 15 2.00 * 8B & 80 11.82 3.10 20 7 13 * significant beyond the .05 level TABLE 20.—-Two-way analysis of variance for retention test scores. Computed Critical F ratio Source SS df MS F ratio (.05 level) IQ 1AA.O8 2 72.0A 7.15 3.15 Treatment A5.13 1 A5.13 A.A8 * A. Interaction 28.58 2 1A.29 1.A2 3.15 IError 665.09 66 10.07 Total 882.88 71 * significant beyond the .05 level Table 21 gives a summary of students' retention test iscores by ability groups. For the middle group, the com-‘ Iiuted t—value of 2.89 for difference between means was sig- rxificant beyond the .05 level (t=2.07) and beyond the .01 level (t=2.81). Although, at all levels, mean scores for ex— 60 perimental classes were higher than for control classes, film presentation was associated with significantly greater re- tention for middle ability students only. TABLE 21.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability level for experimental and control groups retention test scores. Group X sd Max. Min. Range t-value High Exp. 15.25 A.06 21 8 13 .98 # Con. 13.78 2.88 20 8 12 Mid. Exp. 1A.l6 2.6A 19 10 2.89 ** Con. 11.00 2.A5 l3 8 5 Low - Exp. 11.08 2.88 1A 6 8 .65 # Con. 11.00 2.92 16 7 9 ** significant beyond the .01 level # non-significant at the .05 level Performance Tests Performance tests were included in the study for three reasons. First, it was deemed necessary to ascertain that, should filmloop demonstration prove comparable to teacher demonstration as measured by written tests of understanding, students would be able also to produce comparable products when attempting to use their learning. Secondly, several 61 problems traditionally have arisen when evaluating students' performance skills. In everyday practice in secondary schools, the researcher has found that teacher-given grades for practical work tend to be higher and show a narrower range of values than do written test results. This suggests the common error of central tendancy in judgments by graders. The phenomenon of higher and less variable scores for pract- ical work is so widespread that it has become accepted and expected as a natural and correct relationship of skill per- formance marks to written test results. This study provides experience in using product scoresheets designed with this problem in mind, and it contains data for investigation of relationships between grades for written tests versus skill performance tests. A third difficulty encountered in the classroom is that careful evaluation of practical work is very time-consuming and increases the workload of the conscientious teacher far beyond a normal maximum level. Finding an effective pre- dictor of product quality is beyond the scope of this study; however, gain scores and retention test scores can be examin- ed in this regard. Thus, in addition to determining whether the process and product scores of the experimental group were comparable to those of the control group, scores were analyzed to find the correlations of total gain scores, retention test scores and average process scores with average product scores. Table 22 shows that correlations between written tests of 62 understanding as represented by gain scores and by retention test scores were too low to be of any predictive value in forecasting the quality of products. The best overall pre— dictors77 of average product scores were the average process scores, i.e. measures of the extent to which the student copied the techniques demonstrated. This study gives no evidence that, for beginning students, spending increased time on teaching for understanding as opposed to demonstrating techniques is beneficial when the quality of the immediate product is of importance to the student. TABLE 22.-—Corre1ations coefficients of total gain scores, re- tention test scores and average process scores with ‘ average product scores. Total High _ Mid. Low Gain Scores EXP- .55 .A .59 .6 Con. .59 .59 .A3 .93 Retention Test Scores Exp. .29 .65 -.01 .2A Con. .13 -.23 .35 .06 Av; Process Scores Exp. .76 .69 .7 .93 Con. .81 .6A .27 .96 77Coefficients of determination for average process scores of experimental and control groups are 57.76 and 65.61. 63 Staystitching Process Scores Table 23 summarizes the staystitching process score data from Appendix IV. Two-way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ produced the results shown in Table 2A. At the .95 level of confidence, only treatment, i.e. method of instruc- tion, had a significant effect on the students' ability to copy the processes demonstrated. TABLE 23.—-Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t—value for difference be- tween means for staystitching process scores. Class X sd ' Max. Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 79.13 8.96 93 59 3A A.1A ** BB & 8C 67.08 11.07 83 A8 35 ** significant beyond the .01 level. TABLE 2A.——Two—way analysis of variance for staystitching process scores. Computed Critical F ratio Source SS df’ MS F ratio (.05 level)' IQ 232.97 2 116.A0 1,17 3.23 Treatment 1925.33 1 1925.33 19.33 ** A.08 Interaction 133.79 2 66.90 0.67 3.23 Error A18A.00 A2 99.62 Total 6A76.09 A7 ** significant beyond the .01 level 6A Table 25 gives a summary of the students' staystitching process scores by ability groups. Mean scores for film classes showed unexpected stability varying only 13% across levels. The control classes showed a broader range of 8% per- centage points. At all levels, the experimental group showed superior achievement to their equivalent control groups, and the best control group mean score (middle level) was 9.13 per- centage points below the poorest experimental group mean score (low level). The low ability groups showed the greatest dif— ference in mean scores (17.38 percentage points). The com- puted t-values for the differences between means are signifi- cant beyond the .05 level for the high ability group and beyond the .01 level for the low ability group (critical values 2.13 and 2.95 respectively). A comparison of total group means yields a t—value of A.1A compared to critical ratios of 2.02 at the .05 level of significance and 2.7 at the .01 level. (See Table 23.) 65 TABLE 25.-—Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability levels for experimental and control groups' staystitching process scores. Group X sd Maxi— Min. Range t-value High ‘ Exp. 79.13 A.75 87 70 17 2.18 * Con. 69.13 11.17 81 56- 25 Mid. Exp. 79.88 9.02 91 66 25 2.02 Con. 69.25 10.60 83 A8 35 Low Exp. 78.38 11.10 59 93 3A 3.A3 ** Con. 61.00 7.A5 7A 52 22 * significant beyond the .05 level ** significant beyond the .01 level Staystitching Product Scores Table 26 summarizes the staystitching product score data from Appendix IV. Two-way analysis of variance by treat: ment and IQ produced the results shown in Table 27. At the .95 level of confidence, only the method of treatment may be considered to have had a significant effect on the quality of test sample staystitching done by students. 66 TABLE 26.-~Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum value, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for staystitching product scores. Class X sd Max. Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 77.83 l2.Al 97 53 AA 8B & 8C 3.27 ** 8B & 8C 65.29 1A.08 91 35 56 ** significant beyond the .01 level TABLE 27.-~Two-way analysis of variance for staystitching product scores. V—w— Computed Critical F ratio Source SS df MS F ratio (.05 level) IQ 5A7.0A 2 273.52 1.5A 3.23 Treatment 1518.75 1 1518.75 8.56** A.08 Interaction 151.13 2 75.56 0.A3 3.23 Error 7AA9.00 A2 Total 9665.91 A7 ** significant beyond the .01 level Table 28 shows a summary of students' scores by levels of ability. Mean scores of experimental groups showed a range of 10.63 percentage points while the control groups exhibited a range of 5.37 points. At all ability levels, the experi- mental groups were superior in achievement to their parallel control groups. The mean score for the control group having the highest achievement (the high ability group) was 5.25 67 points lower than the mean score for the experimental group having the lowest achievement (the low ability group). At every level of ability, thecontrol group showed a wider range of scores than did the experimental group. The great~ est difference between means was found at the high IQ level where the difference was 15.88 percentage points. The com- puted t—values for the difference between'means are signifi- cant beyond the .05 level for the high ability group (critical value is 2.13 at the .05 level of significance.). A com- parison of total group means yields a t-value of 3.27 com— pared to critical ratios of 2.02 at the .05 level and 2.7 at the .01 level of significance.(see Table 23.). TABLE 28.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum amd minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability levels for experimental and control groups' staystitching product scores. Group X sd Max. Min. Range t-value High Exp. 8A.75 10.2 95 71 2A 2.57 * Con. 68.87 12.72 88 53 35 Mid. Exp. 7A.62 10.3 .91 59 32 -l.08 Con. 67.37 1A.53 77 35 A2 Low Exp. 7A.12 12.75 89 50 39 1.A3 Con. 63.5 1A.81 91 AA A7 * significant beyond the .05 level 68 Darts Process Scores Table 29 summarizes the darts process scores data from Appendix IV. Two-way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ are given in Table 30. At the .95 level of confidence, only treatment may be considered to have a significant effect on students' ability to copy the process of making a dart. TABLE 29.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for darts process scores. Class X‘ sd Max. Min. Range t—value 8A & 8D 79.25 9.07 A7 56 Al 3_27 a; 8B & 80 68.63 13.10 89 36 53 ** significant beyond the -01 level TABLE 30.--Two—way analysis of variance for darts process scores. . Computed Critical F value Source SS df MS F value (.05 level) IQ 563.17 2 281.59 2.30 3.23 Treatment 1A08.33 1 1A08.33 ll.A9 ** A.08 Interaction 197.17 2 98.58 0.81 3.23 Error 51A9.97 A2 122.62 Total 7318.66 A7 ** significant beyond the .01 level Table 31 gives a summary of students' scores by ability 69 groups. The experimental group showed a range of 11.75 per— centage points in mean score across IQ levels while the con— trol group exhibited a range of 7 points. At all levels of ability, the experimental groups were superior to the con- trol groups, and the mean score for the control group showing highest achievement (the high ability group) was .75 percent- age points lower than the experimental group having the low— est achievement. The high ability level showed the greatest difference in mean scores between treatment groups, i.e. 12.5 points. The computed t—values for the differences between means by treatment groups are significant beyond the .01 level for the high ability group (critical ratios 2.13 and 2.95 for TABLE 31.--Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by ability levels for experimental and control groups' darts process scores. Group X sd Max. Min. Range t-value High Exp. 8A.75 6.0A 97 77 20 3.10 ** Con. 72.25 8.7A 89 59 30 Mid. Exp. ' 80.13 5.35 93 72 21 1.0A Con. 65.25 15.37 79 AA 35 Low Exp. 73.00 8.97 87 56 31 0.A6 Con. 70.25 12.81 87 50 37 ** significant beyond the .01 level 70 the .05 level and .01 level of significance respectively). A comparison of total groups (see Table 29) yields a t-value of 3.27 compared to a critical ratio of 2.02 at the .05 level and 2.7 at the .01 level of significance. Darts Product Scores Table 32 summarizes the darts product scores data from Appendix IV. Two—way analysis of variance by treatment and IQ produced the results given in Table 33. TABLE 32.—~Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-value for difference be- tween means for darts product scores. Class X sd Max. Min. Range t-value 8A & 8D 78.A2 9.6A 92 A7 A5 2.27 * SB & 80 70.00 15.39 95 37 58 * significant beyond the .05 level TABLE 33.--Two—way analysis of variance for darts product scores. ___4_ Computed Critical F value Source SS df _Ms F—value (.05 level) IQ 355.29 2 177.65 1.0A 3.23 Treatment 792.12 1 792.19 A.62 * A.08 Interaction 96.13 2 A8.06 0.28 3.23 Error 7209.38 A2 171.65 Total 8A52.98 .E «a * significant beyond the .05 level 71 At the .95 level of confidence, only treatment may be consid- ered to have a significant effect on the quality of test sample darts made by the students. Table 3A gives a summary of the subjects' scores by level of ability. Mean scores of the experimental and con- trol classes showed ranges of 6.88 and 6.75 percentage points respectively. At all ability levels, the experimental group showed achievement superior to that of the control group; and the mean score for the control group having highest achieve- ment (the high ability level) was 3.12 points lower than the mean score for the experimental group having lowest achieve- ment (the middle ability level). The greatest difference be- tween means occurred at the high IQ level where the differ- ence was ten percentage points. The computed t-values for the differences between means are significant beyond the .05 level for the high ability group (critical ratio 2.13 at the .05 level of significance). A comparison of total classes (see Table 32) yields a t-value of 2.27 compared to a criti- cal value of 2.02 at the .05 level. 72 TABLE 3A.-—Mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values, range and t-values for differences be- tween means by levels of ability for experi- mental and control groups' darts product scores. Group X sd Max. Min. Range t-value High Exp. 82.88 8.69 92 66 26 2.3 * Con. 72.88 7.75 87 60 27 Mid. Exp. 76.00 11.65 85 A7 38 0.69 Con. 71.88 16.98 95 39 56 Low Exp. 76.38 5.00 87 70 17 1.A7 Con. 66.13 17.70 8A 37 A7 * significant beyond the .05 level. Average Process and Product Scores By the same methods of analysis used above, the data in Table 35 may be obtained from information in Appendix IV. 73 Average Process and Product Scores By the same methods of analysis used above, the data in Table 35 may be obtained from information in Appendix IV. TABLE 35.--T-values and critical values at the .05 and .01 levels of significance for average process scores and average product scores. T—values Average Pro- Average Pro- Computed Computed cess Score duct Score t-value t-value (.05 level) (.01 level) High 3.A ** 3.A7 ** 2.13 2.95 Mid. 2.9A * 0.91 2.13 2.95 Low ' 2.A3 * 1.5 2.13 2.95 Total A.88 ** 3.55 ** 2.02 2.70 * significant beyond the .05 level ** significant beyond the .01 level. CHAPTER V REACTIONS OF STUDENTS TO TEACHING METHODS 78 The Student Reactionnaire was used to gather stu- dents' ideas and feelings about film demonstration compared to teacher demonstration of clothing construction techniques. The form asked students to state their likes and dislikes of film demonstration in general and of teacher demonstration in general and then to give comments about each of the four lessons. Space was also provided at the end for other com- ments and suggestions. Specific opinions of the lessons on making a facing and applying a facing have been omitted from this summary as these topics comprised part of the study only insofar as film presentations were used to balance the number of teacher demonstrations for the control group. More opinions were stated about the lessons in general than about specific lessons. Table 36 gives the number of positive and negative comments for the lessons in general. The staystitching lesson elicited twenty-two positive and two negative comments while, for the dart lesson, twenty-two positive and four negative statements were recorded. Tabu- lation of the nature and frequency of each reply is given in 78See Appendix II. 7A 75 Appendix V. TABLE 36.--Number of positive and negative comments about method of lesson presentation. . _ . . . I No. of Comments Film Positive 70 Negative 19 Teacher Positive 17 Negative 3A While the students gave a great variety of reasons for their likes and dislikes, the most common advantages listed for the film presentation were that they were able to see clearly (ten responses), that films saved time (nine re- sponses), that they liked seeing the detail of close-up shots (seven responses) and that they were easy to understand (seven responses) and thorough (five responses). Other comments in— cluded that the films were fun, that students felt that they learned more than from other lessons, that they would be able to see lessons more than once if they needed to and that they could still ask questions. The main criticisms of the film lessons were the lack of audio (nine responses), that students felt that they could not ask questions during the films (three responses) that processes were not well enough explained (two responses), 76 and that there was less personal attention (two responses). The positive statements about the teacher demonstra— tions ineluded that the students liked explanations (six re- sponses), that they could stop the teacher to ask questions (six responses), and that they liked looking at samples. Negative comments about teacher demonstrations included that students could not see (fourteen responses), that they were uncomfortable (four responses), that explanations were bor- ing (three responses), not as clear (two responses), longer (two responses) and seemed complicated. Comments recorded about specific lessons tended to follow the pattern of the general comments. In order to re- duce the amount of repetition, only those statements that particularly mentioned teaching method were tabulated. Since the film demonstration was novel, the control group tended to mention its advantages and disadvantages only in the two lessons on making and applying a facing - topics essentially outside the scope of this study. The experimen— tal group mentioned teaching method only for the film les- sons in most cases. Thus this summary tends to reflect al- most entirely the opinions of the experimental group. The general pattern of responses of the control group to their film lessons, however, was very similar to that for the two films tested in this study. The main positive statements made about the staystitch- ing film were that it was easy to do after seeing the film 77 (three responses), that the film made learning easier (three responses), saved time (four responses), and made the test easy (one response). Some mentioned that they liked the film method (two responses) and enjoyed seeing the lessons twice (two responses). Some students also found that staystitching was hard to remember (one response) and not enough explana- tion was given (two responses). The main positive comments made about the dart film were that they were easy to do after seeing the film (five responses), that it was a faster way of teaching (four re— sponses), and that students liked being able to see lessons more than once (three responses). Film was thought to be a good method for teaching darts because they were found hard— er than staystitching, students could see clearly and they learned that they had to be accurate.‘ Negative comments were that darts seemed hard to remember and to do (one re— sponse)euuithat sound would improve the film (one response). In summary, 88% of all comments about film lessons were positive. The students saw their main advantages to be that they were able to see clearly and understand more eas- ily. They liked the fact that film lessons were much less time-consuming than teacher demonstrations and that they would be readily available whenever needed. The use of captions instead of sound track was consid— ered a weakness, and some students disliked the discipline of not being able to stop a group lesson to ask a question 78 until the second showing of the filmlOOp. It should be noted_ that, since the films were designed for individual as well as group use, sound was purposely rejected in favor of captions in order to allow a number to be used simultaneously in one class as needed. Also, during the study, students were not allowed free access to the films. In order to simulate teacher demonstration methods, they were shown only as planned parts of class lessons. Had the full potential of the film- loop format been permitted, noticeable differences may have occurred both in students' achievements and opinions of the method of instruction. The conditions of this study repre- sent a minimum level of utilization of the filmloop medium. CHAPTER VI EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS USING FILMLOOPS Evaluation of the effectiveness of film100ps in pre- senting clothing construction techniques includes examina- tion of the use of time and of money, and consideration of the reactions of teachers as well as documentation of stu— dents' test results and opinions. Both concomittant with and subsequent to the controlled study of the effectiveness of the two filmloops, Staystitching and Darts, several home economists in other schools and three colleagues teaching clothing courses at Howard S. Billings Regional High School made frequent and varied use of the twenty—eight Sewing Techniques Series filmloops with both beginning and ad— vanced classes. Among the information and impressions gath- ered informally by the researcher in working with these teachers, the following observations concerning use of time, use of school budget and reactions of teachers are pertinent to the evaluation of the filmlo0p method of demonstrating clothing construction techniques. Use of Time The filmloop method of teaching has resulted in 79 80 greatly reducing both preparation time and minutes spent in repetition of standard demonstrations. On the basis of eleven years of experience teaching clothing, the research- er estimates that, for the simpler construction techniques, she had to allow at least fifteen minutes to prepare, cut, mark and organize materials for each technique demonstrated. This did not include time and effort spent shopping for sup- plies. Filmloop lesson preparation requires less than one minute to find, select and insert in the projector the cas— sette for the required film. During class, the minutes form- erly spent in manipulating tools and fabrics can now be spent helping students.' This fact, plus the positive stu- dent attitude79 engendered by having many demonstrations al— ways available as needed, resulted in frequent expression of teacher satisfaction and in the acceptance by teachers of film100ps as an aide to the improved utilization of teacher time. Use of Home Economics Department Budget During 1971-72, the average cost of a four-minute color filmloop (before educational and quantity order discounts) was twenty dollars. The expected life'of a filmloop given normal handling is in excess of five thousand showings — less than $0.00A per lesson. For teacher demonstration, if the cost of fabric and supplies could be restricted to ten cents 7gsee Chapter V. 81 per demonstration sample, this is a figure twenty-five times the cost of the filmloop demonstration method even before the use of the teacher's time is considered. Since most distributors sell filmloops individually as well as in sets, tailoring purchases to fit home economics department budgets does not seem to present a major problem. On several occasions, teachers expressed. satisfaction that each lesson was complete and independent in itself, and thus the filmloops did not require that an entire series be pur- chased if only part of the set would fit the needs and/or financial resources of their programs. Attitudes Toward Lessons The last observation which bears comment as part of the experience of teachers who use filmloop presentations in teaching clothing construction is that the researcher has noted a subtle but definite change in the attitudes of some students and teachers since the introduction of filmloop as one step towards self-paced instruction. This shift in out— look might best be described as an increase in self-esteem and in regard for the courses in which they are involved. Although myriad factors could contribute towards explaining this observation, one possible cause of the heightened regard for their work on the part of some teachers and students could be the increasing availability in home economics classes of the effective communications technology that man- 81a kind has developed and has harnessed to the tasks he consid— ers important. Perhaps providing the means to accomplish a task efficiently is one way people show that they consider the activity_to be worthwhile. In teaching clothing con- struction, the use of filmloops may be one of a number of events which help to create a positive attitude in the class- room. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary In education, the adaptability of curricula, materials and methods is a critical factor in the effective management of change. As home economics programs have grown and de- veloped, the use of self-paced auto-instructional materials has emerged as one way of providing flexible yet guided in- struction. A survey of the literature concerning techniques of teaching clothing construction indicated that there ex- isted a need for repeatable and instantly available demon— strations of sewing techniques at low cost in order to help individualize the teaching of students in heterogeneous groups. Since the 8mm filmloop fulfilled these requirements, a series of twenty-eight films was produced. Two sample films were evaluated for their effectiveness with beginning students of high, middle and low IQ levels in terms of changes in students' understanding, ability to copy the pro— cesses demonstrated and the quality of the sample products created using the techniques demonstrated. A student reac— tionnaire gathered the opinions of the participants concerning the filmloop method of lesson presentation. The test data 82 83 were analyzed for significant differences between comparable control and experimental groups using two—way analysis of variance by treatment and level of ability. Conclusions From the evidence presented in this study, the follow- ing conclusions may be drawn: 1. The filmloop method of presentation was as effective as the classroom demonstration method in promoting initial understanding of techniques taught. Retention of learning was significantly greater for the groups having filmloop demonstrations than for those having classroom teacher presentations. Ability to copy the techniques demonstrated and to produce good quality products was significantly greater in the experimental groups than in the con- trol groups. Interaction of levels of ability and method of pre- sentation was not a significant factor in achieve— ment for either written or performance tests. Students accepted and preferred the filmloop method of lesson presentation because it provided increased visibility, made lessons easier to understand and saved time compared to teacher demonstrations. Stu- dents felt that the 1ack of sound and having to wait until the end of each film to ask questions were dis- 8A advantages. The filmlo0p method of demonstrating sewing tech- niques helps improve the efficiency of use of stu— dents' class time and teachers' preparation and in— structional hours by helping provide self-paced in— struction which is not dependent on teacher partici- pation. Recommendations This study was limited to evaluating the effectiveness of two filmloops, Staystitching and Darts, part of a series of twenty-eight films designed to present beginning clothing construction techniques. Recommendations for further study are: that additional filmloops be produced to expand the number of clothing construction filmloops available. These films should include techniques for left-hand— ed students. that the instructional effectiveness of the remaining° filmloops in the Sewing Techniques Series be evaluat- ed. that pretests, post tests and product rating scales be developed for use with other film100ps and that their use in self-instructional programs be inveSti- gated. that self-instructional sound filmloops of clothing 85 construction techniques be developed and evaluated for instructional effectiveness. that the relationship between grades earned on com- prehension tests and on product rating scales be examined in order to determine the nature of possible mathematical relationships between such variables. that the effectiveness of the filmloops method of instruction be examined under conditions of free access to the filmloop lessons whenever desired rather than under the restrictions imposed in this limited study. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Coon, Beulah I.Home Economics Instruction in the Secondary Schools. pw York: Center for Applied Research in Educationyncos 1965- ‘ Fleck, Henriema- Toward Better Teaching of Home Economics. New York;'Ihe Macmillan Company, 1968. Forsdale, Imps. "Communication Technology and Education," 8mm Sour Film and Education, ed. Louis Forsdale, New York: preau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Universcy, 1962. Forsdale, puis. "8mm Sound Film and Education," 8mm Sound Film ad Education. ed. Louis Forsdale, New York: Burealof Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versiy, 1962- Hatcher,flazel M. and Andrews, Mildred E. The Teaching of HomeEconomics. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963. Kahaba,Bernetta and Kuehne, Sue. 520 Clothing and Textiles ng-70 Progress Report. Michigan State University Co— opaetive Extension Service. Krahn,Frederic A. (ed.) Educational Film Guide, 11th ed; New York: The H.W. Wilson 00., 1958. Kumata, Hideya, "A Decade of Teaching by Television," The Impact of Educational Television. ed. Walter Schramm, Urbana: University of Illinois Pres, 1960. lee, Jeanette A. and Dressel, Paul L. Liberal Education and Home Economics. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Mansfield, Evelyn A. Clothing Construction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953. and Bollman, Charles G. "Promises and Pit- Miller, Elwood E. East falls," Single Concept Film Clip Project, Part I. Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967. 86 87 Quigley, Eileen Elliott. Introduction to Home Economics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969. "Report of Special Committee on Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics in Elementary and Secondary Schools," Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics 1899-190A. Smith, Donald K. "Perspectives on Communication," Proceed- ings: National Textiles and Clothing Meeting. ed. Barbara S. Stowe, 1968. Periodicals Gausman, C.H. and Vennes, J. "The Single Concept Film - Tool for Individualized Instruction," American Vocation- al Journal, XLIV (1), January, 1969. Hall, Katharine B. "Teaching Clothing Realistically," American.Vocational Journal, XXXVII, October, 1962. Johnson, Doris. "A New Direction in Clothing Construction," Journal of Home Economics, LII (9), November, 1960. Johnson, H., Clauson, B. and Shoffner, S. "Using Programmed Instruction to Teach a Skill for Transfer," Journal of Home Economics, LXI (1), January, 1969. Kapfer, Philip G. and Swenson, Gardner. "Individualizing Instruction for Self-paced Learning," Clearing House, XLII (7). March, 1968. McCready, Christine and Tomljonovich, Malva. "Challenge of New Methods of Clothing Construction," Journal of Home Boonomics, LVII (1), January, 1965. Meacham, Esther. "8mm Film and Clothing," Proceedings: National Textiles and Clothing Meeting. ed. Barbara S. Stowe, 1968. "Television in the Clothing Classroom," Journal of —Home Economics, LVI (2), February, 196A. Medved, Eva. "A Review of Home Economics Programs in Tele- vision," Journal of Home Economics, LIX (2), February, 1967. Miles, Bruce. "New Ways of Communicating with Students," Proceedings: National Textiles and Clothing Meeting. ed. Barbara S. Stowe, 1968. 88 Paolucci, Beatrice. "Principles of College Teaching Illus- trated," Journal of Home Economics, XLIX (1), January, 1957- Sisler, Grovalynn. "Student Reactions to an Audiotutorial System," Journal of Home Economics, LXII (1), January, 1970. Smith, Margaret. "A Comparison of Pin and Thread Basting in Clothing Construction," Journal of Home Economics, XLIX (1), January, 1957. ' Strader, Gayle Gilbert. "Development of Single Concept Films," Illinois Teacher, XII (5), Spring 1968-69. Werden, Jane. "The Place of Clothing Construction in the College Program," Journal of Home Economics, LII (9), November, 1960. Unpublished.Materials Chadeayne, Evelyn A.S. "Reasons for Student Errors in Cloth— ing Construction and their Implications for Teaching College Clothing Construction Courses." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 196A. Losey, Kathleen D. "The Use of Recorded Motion and Sound in Presenting Instructions for Sewing Techniques." Unpub- lished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1968. Meacham, Esther Anne. "The Relative Effectiveness of Face to Face Lecture vs. Instructional Television in a Col- lege Clothing Course." Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Ohio State University, 196A. Moore, Catherine P. "Development of a Self-Instructional Program on the Sewing Machine." Unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, University of North Carolina, 196A. Murphy, Mae George. "An Evaluation of By—Passing as a Tech— nique for Adjusting a Self—Instructional Clothing Pro- gram to Initial Individual Differences." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of North Carolina at Greens- boro, 1967. Powers, Jerilyn Ruth. "A Comparison of Teacher Demonstration and Single Concept Film in the Development of Sewing Skills." Unpublished Master's thesis, Indiana State University, 1968. 89 Ross, Carolyn E. "Development of a Performance Test and a Paper and Pencil Test to Accompany a Self-Instructional Program on the Sewing Machine." Unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, University of North Carolina, 1965. Senecal, Evelyn Carlson. "A Comparison of Clothing Construc- tion Methods." Unpublished Master's problem, College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1960. Shoffner, Marjorie A. "Revision and Field Test of a Self- Instructional Program on the Sewing Machine." Unpub- lished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, University of North Carolina, 196A. Stam, Judy Yaryan. "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Overhead Projector in Teaching Clothing Construction. Unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 196A. Williams, Elsie K. Correspondence with Elsie K. Williams, assistant professor, Department of Textiles and Clothing, College of Home Economics, Iowa State University. Wissink, Vivian B. "An Experiment in the Use of Programmed Materials in Teaching Clothing Construction." Unpub— 1ished Master's thesis, Mankato State College, 1968. —-9-- magma-m?" Appendix I Summaries of Films and Film Package Label Information 90 —~ «in. .. fimiw— 91 SUMMARY OF FILM Staystitching The film has three main parts: ' 1. grain behavior and the function of staystitching 2. how to find the direction of grain for stitching 3. how to staystitch Part 1 The opening.shot shows a bodice front cut from a bright fabric having a fine line check printed (on grain) on it. As hands enter,the shot cuts to a closeup of the neckline area. Fingers stretch the fabric lengthwise, caption: lengthwise grain crosswise, caption: crosswise grain and in bias and true bias directions. caption: bias Repeating the bias pulling on a staystitched sample of the neck area shows almost no yarn movement or distortion. Part 2 After an establishing shot, 92 hands enter and show checking of the direction of the grain by running a pin against, caption: against the grain and then with the grain of the cut edge. caption: with the grain Once the grain direction is established, the film cuts to and arrows appear to indicate the direction of staystitching of the neckline curve. caption: staystitching \’ d This sequence is repeated for the shoulder and armscye seams, the waistline seam, and the bodice and skirt side seams. Part 3 After an establishing shot of the bodice front, the stay- stitching of the bodice at the neckline curve is shown in extreme closeup. caption: almost 5/8" from out edge The stitching stops at the center front, caption: stop at center the fabric is turned face down, and the other side of the neckline is staystitched from the shoulder edge to the center front so that the stitching meets exactly in extreme closeup. caption: staystitch with the grain After thread tails are cut, the staystitched seam line is again pulled on the bias to review the fact that caption: staystitching prevents stretching. 93 PACKAGE LABEL Staystitching (Ezrain means the direction of yarns in a fabric. When fabric gglrain is straight, crosswise yarns are exactly at right Eixigles to lengthwise yarns. When fabric is handled, yarns move and edges may stretch out of shape. A :row of stitching a scant 5/8" from out edges prevents stretching. Straight grain edges usually do not require staystitching; bias and curved edges do. Hi nts on Method: To determine in what direction to staystitch, run a pin along the cut edge of the seam allowance. Going one way, (against the grain), will push yarn ends out of place. Going the other way, (with the grain), will smoothe yarn ends into place. Always, staystitch, stitch and press with the grain. Use regular length stitches, l2 - 15 stitches per inch. Use matching colored thread; for staystitching, unlike bast— ing, remains in the garment. 9A SUMMARY OF FILM Darts The opening shot shows a bodice front and cuts to a <>ZL\\\\\ //’//<:::;I::;F\\\\\ G. /////<::;:;::;>\\\\\ C“ ,//’//;:::T::j;\\\\\\ b. d. 103 12. In which diagram is the staystitching in the correct location? (The dots represent staystitching; the dashes mark the seam line.) 13. Which stitch length is most appropriate for staystitching? a. 18 stitches per inch b. 1A stitches per inch 0. 10 stitches per inch d. 6 stitches per inch 1A. To staystitch bright orange fabric, use: a. one shade lighter orange thread b. matching orange thread 0. several shades darker bright orange thread d. any color thread except bright orange 15. Thread ends of staystitching are: a. cut off without tying b. reversed and cut off c. reversed or tied in a knot and cut off d. tied in a knot and cut off 16. The distorted appearance of the fabric shown below is caused by: stitching against the grain stitching a bias edge stretching during stitching using very small stitches QOO‘QJ 10A 17. Select the statement that is always true: If staystitching is done with the grain: a. the fabric is face up during stitching b. the fabric is face down during stitching c. the fabric has right sides together during stitching d. it does not matter which side of the fabric is up during stitching 105 DARTS PRETEST . The first pin in a dart is placed: a. through the point of the dart b. matching cross marks on the dart c. through the fold line of the dart d. across the wide end of the dart Pins are placed across sewing lines, A i not along sewing lines, 1 because: a. the fabric will stretch less b. the sewing lines will match better c. the pins are easier to remove d. the pins will hold the fabric more securely In pinning darts, pins are placed at right angles to the: a. lengthwise grain of fabric b. dart fold line c. dart stitching line d. dart pressing direction Which dart is pinned most accurately? (Pins are not shown through the cloth to prevent giving clues to other answers.) If 74 \ 3c \*\" X; \ - x a. 3, b. 56* CA: d. \ IS / 1» \. ' I 5. The diagrams below show two layers of cloth pinned together. Which pinning method would best match the sewing lines with the least handling of the cloth? 3 ‘3 y I 3“ ——— r—4 ———— —a ;——A ——I -———J--—4 a. b. C. , CI ____ __4 ——*--—fl ———J “”7 ’4 4 I I 4 'J 106 6. Select the false statement: a. Pins may be removed while a dart is being stitched. b. Pins must not be removed from fabric while the sewing machine is running. 0. It is possible to stitch over pins. d. It is not necessary to remove pins to sew a dart. 7. Which construction step follows pinning? a. pressing the fold with the fingers b. pressing the stitching area with the iron c. stitching d. removing pins 8. Why are pins which are first placed through dart sewing lines directed away from oneself? - a. to help prevent personal injury b. to help prevent fabric damage 0. to have pin heads visible when stitching d. to hold the sewing lines together most firmly and most accurately 9. If darts are pinned accurately, which statement is true? a. the dart will be stitched the correct length b. the dart will be stitched the correct width c. the sewing lines will be matched d. the stitching line will be straight 10. In which diagram does the X indicate the location to begin stitching the dart? (Pinning is not included in this diagram to avoid giving hints about other answers.) Ii ,/” ///4 I f I I I I II III 11. In preparing to stitch a dart, thread ends are: a. tied together out of the way of the stitching b. held together in front of the needle c. moved out of the way to prevent knotting d. held in the right or left hand during stitching W I )6” / / /o ’L’ /‘ I I III 12. The first step in stitching a dart is: a. lower the needle into the cloth b. lower the presser foot c. remove the pins d. hold the thread ends 107 13. In sewing a dart, what method would you use to prevent the beginning stitches from coming undone? a. tying a knot, because generally a firm knot is necessary to prevent stitching from coming undone b. tying a knot, because hand work improves the quality of a garment c. reversing, because two rows of stitching are needed at points of strain d. reversing, because it generally saves handling time 1A. Select the false statement: When using reverse stitching to fasten off the threads at the point of a dart, the stitching may acceptably be placed: a. along the fold line b. beside the original stitching inside the dart c. beside the original stitching outside the dart d. exactly on top of the original stitching 15. Which diagram shows the first step in pressing a dart to press only the area that needs pressing? 16. Which diagram shows the best method of pressing a dart to the left? 108 17. Which statement about pressing a dart is false? a. all dart stitching is prssed . b. darts are pressed flat 0. fabric near the dart is pressed d. the fold of the dart is not pressed 109 DARTS POST TEST 1. Which diagram correctly shows starting to pin a dart? I ,//’ fi/’// //T ///l 0. I b I C“ I (j- l I l l V ID 2. Select the true statement: Pinning across sewing lines, ____i___“_.______ not along sewing lines, __1 , __ a. holds fabric more securely b. makes pin removal easier 0. makes sewing lines match better d. prevents fabric from stretching 3. In pinning darts, pins are placed at right angles to the: a. dart stitching line b. lengthwise grain of fabric 0. dart pressing direction d. dart fold line A. Which dart is pinned most accurately? (Pins are not shown through the cloth to prevent giving clues to other answers.) /\/‘ "fl” // /\/~ 5}. j: \/\. \ A 0. AK 8. A j j i \ j 110 5. The diagram below shows two layers of cloth pinned to- gether. Which pinning method would best match the sewing lines with the least handling of the cloth? 6. Select the true statement: a. b. C. d. a. ‘ I -... _I . __ T b. I a. CI. I 1.. _I . __ “I—‘I A; it is necessary to remove pins to sew a dart stitching over pins will break the sewing machine needle pins may be removed from fabric while the sewing machine is running pins may not be removed from a dart until stitching is finished 7. Which construction step follows pinning? a. b. c. d. the fold is pressed with the fingers the stitching area is ironed to remove wrinkles the dart is sewn without previous pressing all the pins are removed for stitching 8. In the diagram below, why are all the pins in the dart sewing lines except the pin at the point of the dart directed away from oneself? I I I to have pin heads visible when stitching to help prevent fabric damage to help prevent personal injury to hold sewing lines together most firmly and most accurately 9. Dart sewing lines will be correctly matched if: a. b. the stitching is straight the dart is sewn the correct length c. the dart is accurately pinned d. the dart is sewn the correct width 10. 111 In which diagram does the X indicate the location to be- gin stitching the dart? (Pinning is not included in this diagram to prevent giving hints about other answers.) V - 14 ‘\ "\ I G. 11. 12. 13. 1A. \ b. e] d. I III I,‘ .I IJ Moving the beginning threads out of the way of the needle means: a. the threads won't tangle under the stitching b. the top thread will not break c. the needle will not become unthreaded d. reversing will not be needed Lowering the machine needle into the cloth to stitch a dart is done: a. after lowering the presser foot so that the cloth will stay still b. before lowering the presser foot so that the cloth can be moved as needed 0. after lowering the presser foot so that pins can be removed d. before lowering the presser foot so that the threads will not tangle Select the true statement about preventing the beginning stitches of a dart from coming undone: a. tying a knot is faster than reversing b. tying a knot is firmer than reversing c. reversing is needed for strength d. reversing is faster than tying a knot When reversing to fasten off threads at the point of a dart, the reverse stitching: a. may be placed on top of the original stitching b. must fall entirely outside the dart c. may fall inside or outside the dart d. must not fall on top 0f the original stitching 112 15. Examine the diagram below: darI ‘FoId .I/ Fabric )CoIcI I pOI’nTIfi .............. shitting 7f ~~~~~~~~ To begin pressing the dart area, the iron is first placed to press: a. the point only b. the stitching only c. the stitching and the dart fold only d. the stitching, point area and fabric fold 16. Which diagram shows the best method of pressing a dart to the left? c. d. 17. Which direction about pressing darts is wrong? a. press all stitching b. press darts flat 0. press fabric near the dart. d. do not press the dart fold 113 Name Grade Date Process Scoresheet: Staystitching Pieces observed: bodice skirt A. Stitch length checks setting changes incorrect setting accepts incorrect setting changes correct setting accepts correct setting does not check setting OFJCHDFJH B. Tension changes incorrect tension accepts incorrect tension changes correct tension accepts correct tension recacna C. Bodice neckline stitched with the grain stitched against the grain not staystitched main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle armscye stitched with the grain stitched against the grain not staystitched main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle shoulder seam stitched with the grain stitched against the grain not staystitched main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle side seam stitched with the grain stitched against the grain not staystitched main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle other (specify) how done OI—‘OI—‘N OI—‘OI—‘N OI—‘OI—JN Ol—‘OI—‘N 11“ D. Skirt waistline stitched with the grain stitched against the grain not staystitched main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle side seam stitched with the grain stitched against the grain not staystitched main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle other (specify) how done E. Stitching method lowers needle, moves threads, lowers foot lowers needle, lowers foot, forgets threads lowers foot, lowers needle, moves threads lowers foot, lowers needle, forgets threads lowers foot, forgets threads and/or needle lowers needle, forgets foot and/or threads speed very quickly, affects control moderate speed in relation to skill extremely slowly thread ends cuts all threads as soon as stitching is done cuts end threads; later cuts beginning threads cuts only ending threads breaks threads; cuts later does not cut threads ONON-fi" ONONJ: TOTAL SCORE % score Ol—‘F—‘MUJ I—‘NO OOHNNU) 115 Name Grade Date Product Scoresheet: Staystitching Piece of garment graded: bodice skirt A. Stitch length very small (over 20 per inch) slightly too small for fabric (usually 15-20 per inch) regular length (usually l2-15 per inch) slightly too large for fabric (usually 8—12 per inch) very large (6-8 per inch) B. Thread color selected closest match available selected contrasting color C. Tension balanced almost balanced; thread from reverse side may show between stitches unbalanced; one thread lies along surface of fabric D. Location of stitching more than E" from seam line 1/8" - &" from seam line l/l6"-l/8" from seam line one thread to 1/16" from seam line on seam line E. Evenness of stitching stitching follows intended line exactly stitching shows minor wavers from intended line stitching wavers up to 1/8" from intended line stitching wavers 1/8" to %" from intended line stitching wavers more than %" from intended line F. Endings of stitching location starts and ends at out edges (l/8" tolerance) starts and ends l/8"-%" from out edges starts and ends more than %" from out edges thread ends all ends cut at end of fabric (%" tolerance) knotted or reversed and cut (%" tolerance) thread ends out leaving %"-%" thread ends longer than %" left knotted or reversed and cut leavin g H knotted or reversed and cut leaving I” more ll 1 l 113 ’2 é_n O ONtNO NU'IUOI—‘O Ol—' OH on—mel': OI—‘HNNJ: l—‘M-t' 116 G. Completeness completed all required staystitching completed'most of required staystitching completed half of required staystitching omitted the majority of required staystitching I—‘NWJ‘: does not staystitch straight grain edges staystitches straight grain edges ON H. Grain fabric matches pattern exactly; no distortion at seam line ‘ H seam line and/or edges slightly distorted; threads at seam line shifted slightly 2 seam line and/or edges distorted; shape of fabric no longer matches pattern; threads at seam line shifted O TOTAL % SCORE 117 Name Grade Date Process Scoresheet: Darts A. Stitch length checks setting changes incorrect setting accepts incorrect setting changes correct setting accepts correct setting does not check setting B. Tension changes incorrect tension accepts incorrect tension changes correct tension accepts correct tension C. Pinning places first pin through point places pin through point eventually does not place pin at point uses pin to match traced lines folds fabric to match traced lines; checks both layers during pinning folds fabric; pins following top layer traced lines ignores traced lines in pinning does not pin dart pins through all cross marks pins through some cross marks does not pin cross marks turns pins perpendicular to stitching, heads to right turns pins generally crosswise, heads to right turns pins another direction score adjustment for left handed students accept as demonstrated or reversal takes adequate fabric on pins takes excess fabric on pins uses too many pins (more than one per inch) uses sufficient pins uses too few pins (less than one per two inches) OFJFHDFJH OOI—‘N U.) OI—‘N l-'OOl-‘ OH Ol-‘N OI—'|\J Oi—‘O ll8 Stitching beginning location wide end of dart point of dart method lowers needle, moves threads, lowers foot lowers needle, lowers foot, forgets threads lowers foot, lowers needle, moves threads lowers foot, lowers needle, forgets threads lowers needle, forgets foot and/or threads lowers foot, forgets needle position and threads fabric placement main fabric left of needle main fabric right of needle pins on top changed to top before stitching underneath stitching direction reverses double reverses or reverses and ties knot stitches forward; later ties knot stitches forward; does not fasten threads speed very quickly, affects control moderate speed in relation to skill extremely slowly ending reverses or ties knot double reverses or reverses and ties knot does not fasten thread ends thread ends cuts all thread ends at one time cuts end threads; later cuts beginning threads cuts only ending threads breaks threads; cuts later does not cut threads OH OOD—‘MMLAJ OI-‘M Ol-J HMO Ol—‘l—‘M OI-‘I-‘MLAJ OHM Pressing Step 1 presses stitching and fold presses stitching only presses fold only avoids pressing crease beyond point of dart presses crease beyond point of dart minimum handling and motion; correct pressure excess handline or motion; incorrect pressure omits step 1 OOHOI—‘D—H—‘M 119 Pressing (continued) step 2 presses dart into place, avoids fold "presses dart into place, presses over fold avoids creasing fabric flattens or creases fabric; removes creases flattens or creases fabric; leaves creases minimum handling and motion; correct pressure excess handling or motion; incorrect pressure omits step 2 step 3 checks outside appearance does not check outside appearance TOTAL SCORE % score OOI—‘Ol—‘Mi—‘M OI—' 120 Name Grade Date Product Scoresheet: Darts A. Stitch length very small (over 20 per inch) 0 slightly too small for fabric (usually 15—20 per inch) 2 regular length (usually l2-15 per inch) A slightly too large for fabric (usually 8-12 per inch) 2 very large (6-8 per inch) 0 B. Thread color selected closest match available 1 selected contrasting color 0 C. Tension balanced 2 almost balanced; thread from reverse side may show between stitches 1 unbalanced; one thread lies along surface of fabric 0 D. Accuracy of pinning traced lines match exactly “ traced lines match within 1/8" 2 traced lines mismatched by more than l/8" 0 E. Accuracy of stitching exactly on traced line H wavers not more than 1/16" from traced line 3 wavers l/l6"-l/8" from traced line 2 wavers 1/8" -l/N" from traced line 1 wavers more than &" from traced line 0 F. Dart Length wide end stitched to the cut edge 3 stitched to within 1/8" of the cut edge 2 stitched to within l/8"-l/H" of the cut edge 1 stitching ends more than %" from the end mark 0 point - stitched exactly to the end mark 3 stitched to within l/8" of the end mark 2 stitched to within l/8"-l/u" of the end mark 1 stitching ends more than %" from the end mark 0 G. Endings wide end neat, firm knot or reversed 3-6 stitches 2 loose or lumpy knot; bobbin thread tangled; reversed less than 3 or more than 6 stitches 1 double reversed or reversed and knotted 1 thread ends not fastened 0 121 point neat, firm knot or reversed 3-6 stitches loose or lumpy knot; reversed less than 3 or more than 6 stitches double reversed or reversed and knotted thread ends not fastened reversing falls on stitching line falls inside dart falls outside dart H. Thread ends wide end cut at end of stitching (%" tolerance) out leaving %"-%" ends left longer than %" point out at end of stitching out leaving %"-%" ends left longer than %" I. Pressing‘ fold fold well pressed fold pressed, results mediocre fold not pressed creases or pleats in dart fabric direction pressed down or to center of body pressed up or to outside of body not pressed to either side outside appearance smooth, well pressed not smooth, fabric appears handled creases near fold or beyond dart point no press mark of dart, iron marks or shine shows press mark of dart, iron marks or shine TOTAL SCORE % score M Oi—‘M OI—‘M OI—‘M OHM OI-' Ol-‘M OI-JM OOI—‘M 122 Name Grade The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what exper— ience you may have had in sewing before you started this course. This information will greatly help your teachers in planning lessons for you; so please answer each question as carefully as you can. Directions: Put an X before one answer in each group that best describes you. 1. I have used a sewing machine: never two or three times quite often many times I understand how to adjust and operate a sewing machine: not at all a little quite well very well Have you ever made articles of clothing or home furnishings? no yes, one two or three four or more Considering your previous experience, in which sewing class do you think you would fit best? beginner Junior intermediate expert 5. Have you ever hadsewing lessons before? (You may have more than one answer to this question.) no yes, at home grade 6 grade 7 grade 8' Girl Guides C.G.I.T. A H Club church group other 123 Student Reactionnaire During the past few weeks, you have observed several demonstrations of clothing construction techniques. Some lessons were presented on film, and others were regular dem- onstrations by your teacher. We are very interested in finding out how well you liked the film demonstrations in comparison to the classroom demonstrations. This is not a test, and it cannot affect your marks in any way. There are no right or wrong answers. However, please answer the questions below as completely as you can. Your opinions are important to your teachers be— cause knowing what you think will help us in planning lessons for you. A!!! Q.-.— _. . 1214 Name Grade 1. For each technique, check which kind of demonstration you saw. Staystitching a. film demonstration b. class demonstration c. absent from class Preparing a Facing a. film demonstration b. class demonstration Darts a. film demonstration b. class demonstration 0. absent from class Applying a Facing a. film demonstration b. class demonstration 0. absent from class 0. absent from class 2. Thinking aboutymnu°gllm demonstrations in general, explain what you did like and what you gig not like about this method of having a lesson presented. Things I liked: Things I did not like: 3. Thinking about your classroom demonstrations in general, ex- plain what you gig like and what you did not like about this method of having a lesson presented. Things I liked: 125 Things I did not like: The spaces below are provided for your comments and opinions about each particular lesson. Staystitching Darts Preparing a Facing Applying a Facing Other comments or suggestions: Appendix III Item Analysis of Pilot Study Test Questions 126 ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS Staystitching Test Items ITEM 1 L 47 O “1 ITEM 2 1* 2 3 U 100 O O L 29 35 12 ITEM 3 1 2* 3 U 0 76 18 L 35 35 2“ ITEM 4 1* 2 3 U ll? 6 147 L 35 12 “7 ITEM 5 1 2 3* U 18 6 71 L 53 0 35 ITEM 6 1* 2 3 U88 0 O L 2” O 12 ITEM 7 127 OO-E OO\J=' axon:- 12 59 u* 91! 35 OMIT OMIT 12 OMIT OMIT 6 12 NO. DIFF. DISC. NO NO DIFF. DISC. No DIFF. DISC. NO NO. DIFF. DISC. NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. 63 A1 63 25 71 63 ill 63 56 12 63 36 63 All 6'4 63 32 59 128 ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) ITEM 8 1 2 3* A OMIT NO. 63 U 0 0 100 l O O DIFF. 30 L O 71 18 6 6 DISC. 82 ITEM 9 1 2* 3 A OMIT NO. 63 U 6 71 6 12 6 DIFF. SA L 35 6 35 18 6 DISC. 65 ITEM 10 1* 2 3 4 OMIT NO 63 u 76 6 6 6 6 DIFF. 62 L O 59 12 12 12 DISC. 76 ITEM 11 1 2* 3 u OMIT NO. 63 U 6 82 O 12 O DIFF. 37 L 0 2H “7 2H 6 DISC. 58 ITEM 12 1 2* 3 H OMIT NO. 63 U 0 65 18 12 6 DIFF. 56 L 12 18 65 O 6 DISC. “7 ITEM 13 1 2 3* H OMIT NO. 63 U 0 O 100 O O DIFF. 37 L 12 6 6 71 6 DISC. 9” ITEM 1“ 1 2 3 4* OMIT NO 63 U 0 O 0 100 O DIFF. A8 L 59 2M 12 O 6 DISC. 100 ITEM 15 1* 2 U 100 O L 12 12 ITEM 16 1 2 U 2“ O L 2“ 0 ITEM 17 1 2 U 0 O L 59 12 ITEM 18 1* 2 U 82 18 L 12 59 ITEM 19 1 2* U 6 91! L 18 18 ITEM 20 1 2* U 6 71 L 18 A7 ITEM 21 1 2 U 2’4 6 L 29 12 3* 65 2’4 3 12 18 18 3* 53 18 129 ONO-P: A 12 ’47 14* 88 OOJ: ll 18 29 OMIT l8 OMIT OMIT 12 OMIT OMIT O 12 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 63 62 Lll 63 51 88 63 3O 76 63 59 35 ITEM 22 1 2* 3 U 0 82 6 L 2“ 18 29 ITEM 23 1 2 3 U 12 18 o L 53 12 6 ITEM 2n 1* 2 3 U 100 o o L ”7 29 6 ITEM 25 1* 2 3 U 88 O 12 L 18 29 18 ITEM 26 1 2* 3 U 12 88 O L 12 35 12 ITEM 27 1 2 3 U 12 18 18 L 6 65 6 ITEM 28 1 2* 3 U 0 9H 0 L 12 65 6 130 A 12 2A u* 71 18 1:03 MOJ: (1302 u* 53 6 6 OMIT OMIT 12 OMIT OMIT 12 OMIT 2A OMIT 18 OMIT 12 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 63 6O 53 32 53 63 7O 63 35 53 63 A7 63 27 29 ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 131 ITEM 29 l 2* 3 u OMIT NO. 63 U 0 88 6 6 o DIFF. 32 L 6 59 2A 0 12 DISC. 29 ITEM 30 l 2* 3 u OMIT NO. 63 U o 88 l2 0 o DIFF. 30 L 12 53 12 12 12 DISC. 35 ITEM 31 1 2* 3 u OMIT NO. 63 U 0 9A 0 o 6 DIF . A6 L M7 6 12 12 2M DISC. 88 ITEM 32 1* 2 3 A CMIT NO. 63 U 9n 0 6 o o DIFF. 33 L A7 12 18 12 12 DISC. A7 ITEM 33 1* 2 3 u OMIT NO. 63 U 59 o 35 o 6 DIFF. 51 L ul 6 12 29 12 DISC. 18 ITEM 3A 1 2 3 u* OMIT NO. 63 U 0 O 12 76 12 DIFF. 52 L 18 2M 12 18 29 DISC. 58 Items 18-3A are alternate forms of items 1-17. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) Darts Test Items ITEM 1 1* U88 L53 ITEM 2 ITEM 4 1* U 76 L “1 ITEM 5 1* U29 L35 ITEM 6 2 12 214 18 12 O\OM Al 29 2* 88 71 132 3 A o o 6 l2 3* A ill 18 147 29 . 3, u 65 0 A7 0 3 ll 6 12 35 12 3 it 6 18 12 18 3 u 0 6 12 o 3* 14 76 6 71 6 OMIT OMIT 12 2’4 OMIT OMIT 12 OMIT NO NO NO NO NO NO DIFF. DISC. NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. 63 27 35 63 -6 63 148 18 63 148 35 63 73 -6 63 19 17 63 32 ITEM 8 1 ITEM 10 1 U 2“ L 111 ITEM 11 1 U 12 L 35 ITEM 1* U76 L35 ITEM 13 1 U 0 L35 ITEM 19 12 O\OM 2* 76 12 OOM 2 12 6 O\OM 3* 2H 3* 82 59 53 59 29 3* 111 12 133 A Al 14 6 18 '4 14* 29 1| ill 2L! OMIT OMIT 18 OMIT OMIT 12 214 NO NO NO NO NO. DIFF. DISC. NO NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 63 3O 23 63 37 12 63 116 ill ITEM 15 1 2 3 U Al 18 o L ul 2“ 6 ITEM 16 1* 2 3 U 76 6 12 L 29 29 18 ITEM 17 1 2 3 U 0 18 O L 18 35 18 ITEM 18 1 2 3 U 0 18 18 L 29 18 12 ITEM 19 '1 2* 3 U 18 47 2“ L 6 35 18 ITEM 20 1* 2 3 U 59 12 6 L “1 18 6 ITEM 21 1 2 3 U 0 12 O L 12 2A 18 13A 14* Al 2“ u* 82 29 Ex 35 4:01: 18 u* 88 A7 OMIT O 6 OMIT OMIT 12 18 OMIT 12 OMIT O O NO NO NO NO NO NO NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 63 73 17 63 35 63 52 53 63 62 30 63 12 63 an 18 63 30 U1 ITEM 22 1 2 U 6 12 L 29 12 ITEM 23 1 2 U 0 6 L 6 12 ITEM 2“ 1 2 U 18 O L 29 18 ITEM 25 1* 2 U 65 O L 18 12 ITEM 26 1 2 U 0 O L 18 6 ITEM 27 1 2 U 0 6 L 12 6 ITEM 28 1* 2 U 88 6 L 59 6 135 3 11* 214 L17 35 0 3* A 88 6 M7 18 3* A 82 0 A1 6 3 A 18 18 2A ill 3* A 88 0 59 12 3* ’4 7l 2L: 29 35 3 u 6 0 l2 0 ITEM 12 214 OMIT l8 OMIT OMIT 12 OMIT 18 OMIT 214 NO. DIFF. DISC. NO NO NO NO. DIFF. DISC. NO NO DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 63 81 “7 63 25 141 63 35 ill 63 ‘47 63 16 29 63 62 142 63 27 29 ITEM 29 1 2* U 29 59 L 2“ 35 ITEM 30 1 2 U 0 O L 12 6 ITEM 31 1* 2 U 88 O L “1 12 ITEM 32 1 2 U 6 O L 12 2“ ITEM 33 1 2 U 6 18 L 12 29 ITEM 3“ 1 2 U O 24 L 18 A1 3 6 A1 2“ 3* 71 18 12 12 3 18 18 136 u* 53 29 2A 147 14* 65 ’47 [4* 59 18 OMIT OMIT 29 OMIT 12 OMIT OMIT 0 O OMIT 0 6 NO. DIFF. DISC. NO NO NO NO NO. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. DIFF. DISC. ITEM ANALYSIS OF PILOT STUDY TEST QUESTIONS (Continued) 63 52 2A 63 32 A7 63 53 63 33 18 63 60 A1 Items l8-3A are alternate forms of items 1-17. w—‘S 0'; 3; Appendix IV IQ Scores, Experience Indices, Written Test Scores and Performance Test Scores 137 . ...4 138 m.ow mm on up mm mm m o OH m N m ml m m N.H am mOH om mm mm um Hm Hm NH m om mu m w w :H w H.m mHH mOH aw mp HS up pm Hm mH HH mm m HH m m NH 5 m.H omH NOH m.ow m.m> mu mm mm an mH 0H wH m 0H s z m z m. MOH moH m.mw om mm mu mm Hm Hm mH mm m HH m m 2H m ~.H mmH moH mm mm pm mm mm Hm :H w Hm : NH m n m m m. mm :OH m.mw m.mm ms nu mm Hm :H o wH m HH m H NH m m. mOH moH m.:m mm um mm mm pm HH HH om m HH m m m m m. mHH mOH ms m.ms mm mm mm mm NH m mH 5 NH m H: m s m.H mOH HOH V V G G S S H I ..m G G G S S S H I S A A B e 3 Q. a o o B B B 1. 0, a. X .0 1. . . J J B B a. 1. Q. J J J B E B d n 1. 1. on K a B B 1. 1. 1. K "A K . S D. ..a .d . . u T. T. . . . o a J J d d d 1 D .d .d I O u 0 O J J d J T. nu .d B O J 9 d .d u J 3. D. O O 0 J O O B O I. S 8 B O J D. 9 . . D. o o o u I. S u 1. 1. I. S a a N . . D. . u 3. a U 1. 1 X n S S . I S L S e w o o S S S a S L o e 3. S Tu S O. o o o o S o S o e o S o e . d. a J J o o o O 3 o S J 3 O S J a a J J o J J 3 a J 3 3 a M 8 3 9 mmmoom Emmy 02¢ mmoHQzH mozmHmmmxm .mmmoom 0H O am O» NO mm NH O. OH m m O m w : m.m pm wow 0000 0000 o. o. 00 00 HH N. ml” 0 m m N. MH @ we m5 NON mo m.mm so ms as so w m NH m m. m H: s m H.H OOH mom m5 mO. am OF NO NO OH OH :N 3 NH O O NH O N. mm mON m: mm am .sm mm mm m H- m m m o a- m s N. ow sow hm O: mm :2 mm O: NH H OH ml m m : OH O :. mOH MON wO m.wm OO mm ON mm OH O OH N O O m HH O m. OHH NON m.:m m.>> mm NF :5 mm mH m mm m m O O MH w. H.m mOH HON "V "V a a S S H Tu .m a G G S S S ..d I S A A e B 4 n+ as o o as e 9 n4 1 a. x ho 1 . . J J 9 9 1. 1. n... J J J B P. P d n 3. a. K“ «A a Do Do 1. n4. 1. PA nA 0A . S p d .d . . u _L T. . . . o a J J 10 Ta 3. D .d .d I O U 0 O J J .d ..d T. 9 _d 9 O J D ..d a U J 3. D. 0 O O J J O B O _L. S 3 9 O J D. 8 o . p O O O u T. S U 1. Q. _L. S a 3 N . . D. O u 1. a U Q. Q X 0 S S o o Tm 8 Tu S 8 . O O S S a S Tm O 3 n4. l S O O 0 O S S S O a O S 9 n... J J O O O 0 n4. 0 S J n... S 3 9 J J O O J n... 8 fl. 8 9 M W 3 mmmoom Emma 62¢ mmOHmzH mozmHmmaxm .mmmoom @H mm 8B IQ SCORES, EXPERIENCE INDICES AND TEST SCORES (Continued) eaoog °pon 'AV eJoog 'OOJd 'AV eaoos 'poad qaeq eJoog °ooad qaeq eaoog °pon °Aeqs eaoos 'ooaa °Aeqs use; uotiueqag eJoos uteg 1910; 1891 4808 IEQOL eJoog urea qaeq 1891 3908 QJPG qseqeaa idea eaoos UIBQ °Aeqs 988T 9808 'KBQS qseiead °Keqs xepuI °dxg eJoos DI 'ON quepnqs 1A1 .5 71 ll 59 56 79 87 69 A 16 .2 11 115 212 AA 50 A0 56 A2 62 1A 93 1.7 7 112 213 22 10 12 10 21A A 18 10 7 11 5 105 1.0 215 10- 105 216 7 2A 1A 13 .. 12 11 10A 217 87 116 218 15 -1 10 18 12 12 219 —2 6 101 .2 220 1A2 OO mm HO OM mN :N NH :H HN O OH 3 O HH M O.H MOH HHM ON HN NO :O :N ON O N OH O O O N OH M N. MOH OHM m.ON m.:N mN mN NO ON MH N NH M m O Hl O m N. Na mom m.mO m.NN OO :O OO HO mH N NH N O O m m 2 O. OHH OOM m.OO m.NO HN mO om Om MH NI HH ml m O H O m N. OHH NOM :O ON ON ON mO HO NH HH ON O HH m m m z :. OHH OOM m.NN m.MO HN OO :N ON NH O HN O OH OH O HH O O.H ONH mOM m.OO :O ON mO mm mm NH NH NN m HH O N HH 3 N. OHH :OM OO HN MO ON NN MO OH O NN O OH OH O NH N :.N mm MOM O.HO HN NO :O Om ON O OI m ml N N ml M O N.H OOH NOM 0000 0000 o. o. o. .0 Mn” m mn—H m CH m m m m 30H :OH Hom V V G G S S H L ..m G G G S S S 3 I S A A B 9 n4 1. e. O O E as no 4+ “4 Q. X ho “4 . . J J P 9 Q. 1. 1. J J J E B B d n 1. n... nA nA 8 by D» n4. n4. 1. nA nA nA . S D. d .d . . u T. T. . . . o a J J .d .d n... S .d 1d I O U 0 O J J .d .d Tr nu ..d B O J 9 TC ..d H J A... D. O O O J J O 9 O T: S a 9 O J D. 3 . . D. O O O u T. S u Q. 1. I. S a e N . o D. O u n... 8 ..u 3. 3. X 0 S HS . . .m HS I as a . O O S S a S Tu O a n... S 3. S O O O 0 S S S O a .O S 0 a n4. J J O O O 0 n4. 0 S J 1. O S a 9 J J O O J n... 3 J 1. 3 3 «Tm MW 3 3 mmmoom Emma mza mmOHozH mozmHmmaxm .mmmoom 3H om 8C IQ SCORES, EXPERIENCE INDICES AND TEST SCORES (Continued) 1A3 eJoog °p0Ja °Av eaoos °ooaa 'AV eaoos °poaa qaeq eaoos 'ooag qaeq eJoog °poaa 'ABQS eaoos °ooaa °Aeqs 9 7A 91 59 61 66.5 76 193; uoIquequ t3 eaoos Utes 7920; t‘ S} 9.93.1. 480.1 IPAOJ. S ‘8. eJoog uICQ qaeq ‘“ "1 439E 9808 qaea qseqeaa idea W3 a> eaoog uteg °Aeqs ‘3 S 21981. 0.80.1 'Keqs S ”.3 qseqead 'Kqu b— Ln xepuI °dxg ‘9 S H N .:r eJoos DI 0\ cm H (\l m °oN quepnqs .4 H m m 12 1A .2 31A 110 13 81 82 7A 71 77.5 76.5 6 2 19 17 1A 11 11A 315 98 10A 316 10 317 10 2 -3 1A 5 8 100 318 1AA 0000 00.. oo oo oo 00 MH w ON 3 HH N. A: m m N. mm HH: 0 o oo o oo o o o o o oo on :H N wH m HH m Hui N. w m. HHH O.H: m.mO 0.00 :N :N mm mm OH O HH N m m H O m N. NO mo: m.mO mO mN Om Om ON N ml OH HI 3 m Nl O O O. mm OO: HO HO HN NN HO mO mH N NH Ml O HH O O O O.H NOH NO: NO m.ON mO NN ON OO O O HH HI : m H N O O. OOH OOO m.ON NO NO NO Om NO OH MH ON O OH O N :H N N.H OOH mo: m.OO mO NN :O NO OO mH N OH N O N O O z 0.0 HOH :0: ON OO :N NN NO MO :H O OH Nl O O OH NH N N. OO MOO ON OO ON ON OO ON :H 2 OH N N m N O N O.H OOH No: MO NO NO OO :O OO OH OH ON 3 MH O OH MH M O.H OOH Ho: V V G G S S H Tm ..m G G G S S S H I S A A B S a. 1 e o o as B B 1. 1. as x My 1 . . J J B B Q. 1. 1. J J J B B E d n 1. 3. K nA 8 by by n4. n4. 1. nA nA nA . S D. d .d . . u I I . . . o a J J 1a .d Q. S .d .d I O U 0 O J J 10 Ta I. 9 .d B O J S .d .d U J 3. D. O O O J J . O B O Tr S 3 B O J D. 9 . . “P o o o u I. c. u .4 1. T. as e e N . . D. O U n... 9 U Q. 1. X 0 S S . . Tm S l S a . o o S S a S TO 0 a 1. S Tm S O O O O S S S O 8 O S O 8 1. J J O O O O n... O S J 1. O S 8 8 J J O O J 1. 9 J n... 8 8 M “W 3 9 mmmoom Emma Oza mOOHmzH mozmHmmaxm .mmmoom OH Ow 1A5 Om m.OO N: NN mO NO MH O OH O O : M OH N 0.0 OOH ON: 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0H 0 mm m 3H m 3 NH m :- MHH an“: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o :H N NH N N. m 0 OH OH No “Q mufl: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 OH m Hm 0 m m m NH 0 No HOH N.H: OO :O OO NO NO HO OH MH ON m MH O O MH m N.N mHH OH: 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 OH m N.H N N. m I: OH 0. No :OH mafia o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m H m m m N N' m m H.H mm :H: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o :H OH Hm m m N 3 MH m O.H mNn—H MH: m.:O m.MO :O NO mO ON NH HH NN m HH O O HH m H.H ONH NH: V "V G G S S H L . L G G G S S S 3 I S A A no 9 Q. Q. 9 O O 9 P B 1. n4. 1. X .0 1. . . J J B E 1. fl. .3. J J J by 9 E d n 3, Q. "A "A a B B a... 1. 3 A A A . S D. d Ta 0 o u I I o o o O a J J .d .d 1. nu .d .d T... O U 0 O J J 1a 1Q T: S .d B O J S .d .d U J n... D. O O O J J O E O T. S 9 B O J D. 9 . . o. o o o u _L. s u a. 3 I. s a e N S S . . L S Tm S a . o o S S e S TO 0 e a. S Tm S O O O 0 S S S O 8 O S O 8 Q. J J O O 0 O . 1. O S J 3. O S 8 8 J J 0 O J 1. 8 J n... 3 a MW «1% 9 9 Aemscflpcoov mmmoum Emma Oza mOOHOzH mozmHmmmxm .mmmoom OH Om Appendix V Summary of Responses to Student Reactionnaire 11:6 1“? SUMMARY OF STUDENT REACTIONNAIRE Comment . Number of Responses Film Demonstration Positive comments was able to see saved time liked close-up View of details were easy to understand were more interesting (not boring) were thorough learned more using film answered all questions _ do not hear the same teacher's voice all the time should always have film demonstrations should have more films were clear paid more attention liked films films are better can see films more than once saves teacher's voice were fun went slowly liked reference tips on the package were precise were fast were short can still answer questions were well-explained nq 'HFJFHJPJHFJFHHFJHFJNHURJNPO Lounmanrquao \] Q Total Negative comments should have sound can't ask questions were too fast were not explained well enough was less personal attention were too short l—' \O |i—'I\JI\JI\DUO\D Total 1H8 Comment Teacher Demonstration Positive comments 'can stop to ask questions was explained (verbally) were okay liked seeing samples Total Negative comments could not see (too crowded) was uncomfortable was not as interesting (boring) teacher is too busy to finish off most things teacher lacks time to demonstrate most things did not explain as clearly as film were longer were impersonal teacher gets tired answering questions seemed complicated were harder to understand were terrible Total Staystitching Filmloop Positive comments . was quick (saves time) was easy to do after seeing was easier to learn learned as much as possible liked film could see clearly was able to see it twice was well-done was less trouble to staystitch film made the test easy was interesting Total Number of Responses [.4 \‘l lmwOO ...s ll—‘I—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘NNN N Usz'J: LA) .I: the film could IHFJNWJRHURJMLOQLE N N 1H9 Comment Number of Responses Staystitching Filmloop (cont'd.) Negative comments was not enough explanation 2 was hard to remember ‘_l_ Total 3 Dart Filmloop Positive comments was easy to do after seeing film 5 was faster way of learning N liked seeing film twice 3 could see clearly 2 liked film 2 was well-done l was change from classroom demonstration 1 was better 1 film was good because darts are harder than staystitching l was enjoyable 1 learned one has to be accurate _l_ Total 22 Negative comments was hard to do at first was hard to remember would like sound was hard Total 4: [Hm—w "I7'1’lillll'ill‘llfllIFS