THE AD‘EQUACY OF A COURSE IN VOCATiOMAL EDUCATiON FOR HAMMCAPPED STUDENTS FOR SPECEAL EDUCATWN UNDERGRADUATE MMORS Dissestation. for the Degree of Ph. D. MICE-{EGAN STATE UNIVERSITY VIRGINEA BERNICE KOZLOWSKl 1976 LIBRARY Michigan State ~ _- University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE ADEQUACY OF A COURSE IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS presented by Virginia Bernice KozTowski has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pth degree in_Ser._Edm:. 8: Curric. aim Major professor Date October 29, 1976 0-7639 2: s -‘ BINDING BY : MUAB a SUNS' 8‘9 at many mc. Bum ambcns "Miran menu- ABSTRACT THE ADEQUACY OF A COURSE IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS By Virginia 8. Kozlowski Federal and state legislation has mandated that handicapped students be given the opportunity to participate in vocational education programs at the secondary level. Teacher education programs in colleges and universities for the most part, have not provided for the prepara- tion of teachers to work with these programs. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a new course entitled "Vocational Education for Handicapped Students" which was specifically developed for special education undergraduate majors at Michigan State University, would adequately prepare them to begin serving handicapped students in vocational programs at the secondary level. Both formative and summative procedures were used to evaluate the new course. The formative evaluation procedure was a detailed description of the extent to which the objectives and activities of the course accomplished what was intended. The summative evaluation procedure consisted of measuring the increase in student knowledge on a pre- and post-test instrument, and a measure of the change in attitudes toward vocational education for handicapped students, using a pre- and post-questionnaire. Virginia B. Kozlowski Four experts in the field of vocational education for handicapped students in Michigan validated the content of the course, and as represented on the test instrument. Four people working in the field in special needs related programs rated a set of 20 test instruments according to the scoring manual developed. A high measure of inter- rater reliability was found. A pilot test group of 8 special education undergraduate majors was used winter term l976 to help determine which course objectives and activities were most effective for implementation for the experimental class. Fourteen special education undergraduate majors were enrolled in the experimental class spring term, l976. The pre- and post-test questions for the experimental class consisted of seven course objectives deemed to be of highest priority. A one way analysis of variance test was used to determine if there were any significant differences in total mean score between the pre- and post- test for the MSU class as well as for the scores for each of the seven test questions. The total mean score for the l4 MSU students on both the pre- and post-test as well as the mean scores for each of the seven test questions, were then compared with responses from: (a) 2T special education teachers working in Vocational Special Needs Funded Projects at the secondary level. (b) 13 special education teachers at the elementary level not working in vocational training programs. (c) 22 special education teachers at the secondary level not working in vocational training programs. Virginia B. Kozlowski The Newman-Keuls Post-Hoc Procedure was used to determine where the differences in mean scores existed among the groups in the analysis. The Procedure was used for the total mean score on the test as well as for each of the seven test questions. The results of the study were as follows: I. A ten week undergraduate course was adequate for the special education undergraduate majors to begin serving handicapped students in vocational training programs at the secondary level. Formative and summative evaluation procedures produced evidence that the undergraduate majors gained the ability to plan, implement, and evaluate voca— tional training programs for handicapped students. The competency level of the special education undergraduate majors, as indicated by the post-test instrument, was significantly greater than that of special education teachers working with vocational education special needs funded projects as well as that of special education teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels in local school districts who were not working directly with vocational training programs. The attitudes of the MSU undergraduate majors were significantly more positive towards vocational training programs for handi- capped students, at the end of the course as compared to the beginning, as measured by the attitude questionnaire. THE ADEQUACY OF A COURSE IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS By Virginia Bernice Kozlowski A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1976 © Copyright by Virginia Bernice Kozlowski 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is the result of an inspiration and forwardness in educational thinking of my dissertation chairman, Dr. Donald Burke. Most grateful appreciation is extended to him for his continued support and guidance. Deep appreciation is extended to Dr. Peter Haines, doctoral program chairman, for his guidance throughout the time of doctoral work and especially for his strong and continued personal support. Gratitude is also expressed to committee members Dr. Lawrence Lezotte for his valuable contributions on the evaluation format, Dr. John Jordan for his expertise in attitude research, and Dr. Sam Corl for his personal reflections and encouragement. Special thanks is extended to Dr. Steven Yelon for his guidance on competency-based instruction. Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Larry Barber, Mr. Gene Thurber, and Mr. Jan Baxter from the Michigan State Department of Education. Without their leadership in vocational special needs programming and assistance, this study would not have been possible. A special feeling of thanks is given to the students, teachers, and administrators who participated in this study. Finally,mw most profound feelings of appreciation are extended to my family and friends for their personal support and encouragement in this endeavor. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page List of Tables ........................... v List of Figures .......................... viii INTERPRETING THE TASK .................... l The Problem ........................ Background ........................ 3 Review of Literature on Need for Teacher Preparation . . . 5 Application to Present Study ............... 18 Purpose of the Study ................... 19 Limitations of the Study ................. 19 EVALUATION PLAN AND PROCEDURE ................ 21 Description of Participants ................. 2l Definition of Terms .................... 22 Evaluation Plan ...................... 24 Research Questions .................... 26 Evaluation Procedure ................... 27 Summary of Robert Stake's Evaluation Model ....... 27 Formative Evaluation Procedure ............. 34 Summative Evaluation Procedure ............. 37 Data Analysis Procedure .................. 42 Instrumentation ..................... 44 Content Validity .................... 45 Rater Reliability .................... 46 Pilot Study ....................... 47 Recommendations for Course Instruction as a Result of Pilot Test ................ 58 Summary of Pilot Group's Recommendations ........ 58 Directions Suggested for Course by Pilot Group ..... 58 Revisions and Additions Made for Experimental Class as a Result of Pilot Test Group ............ 60 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................... 62 Competency of MSU Class .................. 62 Results of Formative Evaluation ............ 62 Summary of Recommendations Made by Experimental Class . 66 Standards and Judgments in Course Evaluation ..... 67 Results of Summative Evaluation ............ 68 Discussion ...................... 70 Competency of MSU Class Compared to Special Education Teachers in the Field ................. 71 Discussion ...................... 96 Attitude of MSU Class Towards Vocational Education for the Handicapped .................... 99 Discussion and Interpretation ............. 110 IV. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ Summary ....................... Conclusions ..................... Recommendations ................... Implications for the Future ............. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... APPENDICES .......................... Appendix A.Course Schedule, Module Rationale, Objectives, Activities ..................... B.Descriptive Matrixes for Modules I-VI ........ C.Test Instrument ................... D.Attitude Questionnaire ................ E.Modu1e Evaluation Form ................ F.Final Course Evaluation Form ............. G.Letter to Vocational Education Special Needs Project Directors ................. H.Letter to Special Education Teachers Working in Vocational Training Programs ............ I.Background Information for Special Education Teachers Working in Vocational Training Programs . . . J.Letter to Special Education Directors for Local School Districts .................. K.Letter to Special Education Teachers Not Working in Vocational Training Programs .......... L.Background Information for Special Education Teachers Not Working in Vocational Training Programs . M.Content Validity Form N.Inter-Rater Reliability Score Sheet iv Page 112 112 120 120 123 126 129 129 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Description of Participants Consisting of MSU Special Education Undergraduate Majors and Comparison Groups of Special Education Teachers in the Field ......... 23 2. Kinds of Data Collected During Pilot Test of Course and During the Actual Implementation of Course "Vocational Education for Handicapped Students" ............ 36 3. Number of Special Education Teachers with Type of Certification Held for Those Working in Special Needs Funded Projects and Those Not Working in Vocational Training Programs ................ 4O 4. Data Collected in Summative Evaluation Procedure For the Three Groups ........................ 41 5. Correlation Coefficients of Inter-Rater Reliability ..... 46 6. Descriptive Matrix for Module I ............... 64 7. Mean Scores on Pre- and Post-Test on Each Test Question and on Total Test for MSU Experimental Class .......... 69 8. Analysis of Variance on the Mean Total Scores on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the field ...... 73 8.1. Post-Hoc Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) for the Mean Total Scores on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field . 73 9. Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 1 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field . 76 9.1. Post-Hoe Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 1 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ................... 76 10. Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 2 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field . 78 10.1. Post-Hoc Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 2 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field .................... 79 Table 11. 12. 12.1 13. 13.1 14. 14.1 15. Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 3 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ...................... Post-Hoc Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 3 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ................. Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 4 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ....................... Post-Hoc Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 4 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ................ Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 5 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ...................... Post-Hoe Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 5 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ................ Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 6 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ..................... Post-Hoc Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 6 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ................ Analysis of Variance on the Mean Scores for Question 7 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ........................ vi Page 82 84 90 15.1 Post-Hoc Comparisons (Newman-Keuls) on the Mean Scores for Question 7 on the Pre- and Post-Test for the MSU Group and on the Post-Test for the Special Education Teachers in the Field ................. 94 16. Analysis of Variance of the Change in Attitudes of the MSU Class Towards Vocational Education for Handicapped Students from the Pre- to the Post Questionnaire . . . . 100 17. Frequency of Experiences or Contact the MSU Students had with Vocational Education with the Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Item ................ 100 18. Responses of the MSU Students to the Items on the Pre- and Post Attitude Questionnaire with the Frequency for Each Response Chosen and the Percent of the Total MSU Group ......................... 103 vii (y. . K. 73‘- LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. 2. A Layout of Statements and Data to be Collected by the Evaluator of an Educational Program ........ 30 A Representation of the Processing of Descriptive Data . .32 Total Mean Scores for the MSU Group on the Pre-Test (1) and Post-Test (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level_Ngt_ Working with Vocational Training Programs (5) ..... 74 Mean Scores on Question 1 "the Steps in a Management System for Planning and Implementing a Vocational Class for Handicapped Students" for the MSU Pre-Test Group (1) and MSU Post-Test Group (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (5) ................. 77 Mean Scores on Question 2 "the Alternative Vocational Education Programs Available for Handicapped Students" for the MSU Pre-Test Group (1) and MSU Post-Test Group (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (4),_ and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level Not Working with Voca- tional Training Programs (5) .............. 30 Mean Scores on Question 3 "the Services of the Three Main Agencies Serving Handicapped Students, i.e. Special Education, Vocational Education, and Vocational Rehab- ilitation” for the MSU Pre-Test Group (1) and MSU Post- Test Group (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs ........... 83 viii 7. Mean Scores on Question 4 "a Model Vocational Education Delivery System for Handicapped Students" for the MSU Pre-Test Group (1) and the MSU Post-Test Group (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Voca- tional Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level N93_Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs ..................... 85 8. Mean Scores on Question 5 "Dialogue of the Special Needs Team Helping a Handicapped Student Succeed in a Lesson for a Vocational Training Program" for the MSU Pre-Test Group (1) and the MSU Post-Test Group (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3),Specia1 Education Teachers at the Elementary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level N9t_Working with Vocational Training Programs (5) ........................ 89 9. Mean Scores on Question 6 "Comparison of a Regular C00pera- tive Vocational Education Work Training Program vs. a Special Education Work Study Program" for the MSU Pre- Test Group (1) and the MSU Post-Test Group (2) and for the Special Education Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level N9t_Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level Ngt_Working with Vocational Training Programs (5) ........................ 92 10. Mean Scores on Question 7 "Interpretation of Follow-Up Data for Handicapped Students Who Have Graduated from a Voca- tional Training Program" for the MSU Pre-Test Group (1) and the MSU Post-Test Group (2) and for the Special Educa- tion Teachers Working with Vocational Training Programs (3), Special Education Teachers at the Elementary Level Not Working with Vocational Training Programs (4), and Special Education Teachers at the Secondary Level N93_Working with Vocational Training Programs (5) .............. 95 ix CHAPTER I INTERPRETING THE TASK The Problem One of the problems in institutions of higher education is keeping up with the educational and societal needs as expressed by such groups as local educational agencies, teachers in the field, parents, citizen advocate groups, and by the students themselves. There have been civil rights suits for the right to education for the handicapped and the right to earn a living. There has been federal legislation, namely the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, mandating that handicapped students be given the opportunity to participate in vocational education programs at the secondary level. In Michigan, the Mandatory Special Education Law states that special education students must have as a minimum before they can graduate from high school, the following: (1) personal adjustment training, (2) pre-vocational training, and (3) vocational training. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in November of 1975, provides for a free and appropriate education for every handicapped child. As a result of this legislation, greater levels of federal support will be available to extend vocational education programs and services to all handicapped individuals for whom it is appropriate, when the law is implemented in the 1977-78 school year. (Phelps and Halloran, 1976) .I (I. .5 '5‘; C C .4. III I I. 'A.& ~J 1.: v I i 115 .—4~. ‘ u Discrimination against the handicapped is prohibited by law in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1963. Under the law, no otherwise qualified handicapped individual can be excluded from participation in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, solely by reason of his handicap. The law applies to every public or private agency or business receiving federal dollars, including public school systems. Special education and vocational education teachers and administra- tors find themselves working in schools which are attempting to meet the requirements of this legislation but have had little or no training or experience on how to provide these new services. (The services are new in terms of educational technology being developed for the special needs area but not exactly new when one considers the Vocational Act of 1963 which spoke to integration of the handicapped into vocational education programs.) The new programs require the cooperation of vocational education, special education, and vocational rehabilitation personnel at the local level. Teacher education programs in colleges and universities for the most part, have not provided for the preparation of teachers with competency in vocational education, special education, and vocational rehabilitation. Most of the teachers presently working with handi- capped students at the secondary level have either been trained in special education at the elementary level or have been trained as vocational subject matter specialists with little or no training in special education. The specific problem that was being addressed in this study was that the special education majors at MSU had little in their curriculum which prepared them to work at the secondary level or to serve handi- capped students in vocational training programs. Background The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 stipulated that ten percent of each state's basic grant for vocational education (Part B) be used exclusively to finance programs "for handicapped persons who because gf_their handicapping condition cannot succeed jg_the regular vocational education program without special education assistance gr_ who require a_modified educational program." As a result of these .Amendments, states have increased their appropriations for education of the handicapped on the average of about 60 percent. (Walsh et a1, 1974) The expected coordination between Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation Services was clearly intended by Congress and is specified in the Senate Report on the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 (Gallagher, 1969). The following statement appears in the report: That all state vocational education agencies be required to develop jointly with the state special education agency a comprehensive plan providing voca- tional education for the handicapped and that this plan be coordinated with the general state vocational educa- tion plan (Senate Report No. 1386, p. 15). Cooperation between vocational education and special education is forced at the local level by legislation requiring the participa- tion of special education personnel in the identification and classi- fication of handicapped students (Walsh et a1, 1974). In a study of vocational education programs for the handicapped under Part B of the 1968 Vocational Education Amendments, Walsh felt that the most important finding of the study was that Part B set-aside has resulted in vocational education programs for the handicapped that would never have occurred had there been no set-aside enacted into law. Walsh found that most of the set-asides were in fact being used to provide direct services for handicapped students. Further, Walsh stated that right-to-education suits, universal education legislation, and the Part B set-aside program have contributed to rising expectations similar to those experienced during the civil rights movements of the last decade. To the date of Walsh's report, 36 right-to-education lawsuits had been filed and pending or concluded in 25 states. Citizen advocate groups for the rights of the handicapped have supported the vocational development of the handicapped. The 1974 Annual Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped stated as one of its priority recommendations: We affirm that every handicapped individual has a right to be prepared by the public educational system to enter the world of work. We, therefore, recommend that programs for the handicapped be instituted in all appro- priate.vocational education facilities supported under the Vocational Education Act. In Michigan, implementation of a model special education delivery system is based upon the assumption that special education teachers have or are willing to obtain the skills necessary to teach specific vocational subject matter such as industrial arts or health. In vocational programs at the secondary level, the special education teacher is responsible for supportive services, material adaptations or related instruction (Baxter et a1, 1975). Review of Literature on Need for Teacher Preparation The review of literature on the need for teacher preparation for those who work or will be working with handicapped students in vocational education programs is divided into the following eight statements of need: 1. The Vocational Education/Special Education/Vocational Rehabilitation marriage by law should be reflected in the university pre-service and inservice program. There have been some national surveys which show evidence of the need for teacher preparation for those working with handicapped students dn;vocational education programs. Special education teachers are trained primarily for the elementary level. Hence, there is a lack of training and preparation of the special education teacher at the secondary level, which includes the training of work-study coordinators. Certification problems or lack of certification exists for special education teachers and vocational education teachers serving handicapped students at the secondary level. 5. A new and different kind of competency is required for Special education teachers at the secondary level. Some experts in the field have ventured some suggestions on what this competency should consist of. 6. There is a lack of preparation of vocational education personnel serving handicapped students in vocational programs as well as that of special education personnel. 7. There is also lack of preparation of the Special Needs Coordinator who may be either vocational education certi- fied or special education certified, or in a few cases, certified in both areas. 8. Both vocational education and special education personnel see a need for training in order to serve handicapped students in vocational education programs adequately. The Vocational Education7§pecial Education/Vocational Rehabilitation marrigge byTTaw should Be reflected in the university pre-service and inservice program. Vogler (1975) spoke to the fact that in the past, vocational education has provided minimal services to the handicapped student and special education has often ignored the vocational aspects of the special education student. Vocational education and special education have been united in Michigan via the Mandatory Special Education Act (PA 198, Section 340.10). The purpose of the present study is supported by Vogler: The success or failure of this partnership will depend upon the quality of the personnel who deliver programs and services. No doubt inservice programs provided by the Michigan Department of Education and various universities in the state will contribute toward the improvement in quality of personnel. However, inservice is primarily a cure, not a prevention. The prevention approach must be provided through cooperative pre-service programs. Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilita- tion are expected to c00perate for effective service at the community level and therefore, Young (1971) questions why joint efforts are not undertaken at the college or university level. He suggested that students in pre-service programs be given training and exposure in all three fields through experiences conducted jointly by the college faculty. Young called on universities to become familiar with vocational education programs for the handicapped, as they are developed at the local level, so that they will be training educational personnel both in Special education as well as in vocational education who are able to work in a cooperative and team approach. There have been some national surveys which show evidence of the need for teacher_preparation for those working with handicapped students in vocational training programs. Thirty-three state special needs supervisors and/or universities responded in a 1975 survey to the open-ended question: "What are the three pressing problems or needs in teacher or supervisor preparation or training for special needs personnel?" Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated the need for increased teacher education, both at the pre-service and inservice level. Curriculum development was also frequently mentioned (Sathre, 1975). Sheppard (1975) administered a survey to 108 vocational administrators, teachers, and counselors working with the disadvantaged and/or handicapped. It was concluded that the majority had gg_beneficial experiences and did not participate in any worthwhile programs which prepared them for their present positions. Thirty percent of the 107 respondents filled out the list of programs and/or experiences which best prepared them for their present position of working with the disadvantaged and/or handicapped. Half of these respondents gave university courses and work experiences a rank of number one towards their preparation. Items ranked number one by the remaining half of the 30 percent responding included: intern teaching experience in disadvantaged and/or handicapped programs; own readings; inservice programs related to disadvantaged and/or handicapped sponsored by the local school system; inservice program sponsored by the state department of education; university courses in Special Education; and Consultants. As a result of a national study, there has been at least one teacher training institution which has developed a model for curriculum development to prepare teachers of Industrial Education to work with disadvantaged and handicapped students at the secondary level. Evidence from a series of special meetings, interviews, and results from a national survey of industrial education teacher training institutions indicated a critical need exists for pre-service programs through which personnel can be trained to fill the existing positions and others which must be created at the secondary level (Kruppa, 1973). Special Education teachers are trained primarily for the elementary Tevel. Hénce, there is a lack of training and preparation of the special education teaCher at the secondary TevéT] Which inETudes the trainihg ofwork-studyAcoordinators. Kruppa (1973) in his study noted that colleges and universities with teacher preparation programs, have not provided for the preparation of teachers with knowledge in both special education and vocational education. Kruppa went on to say that specially designed programs for serving handicapped students at the secondary level have been almost non-existent in the past because most teachers in special educa- tion have been prepared to work at the elementary level. Kruppa speaks to the issue well, stating that the importance of training special education teachers to know about the world of work comes from the realization that one of the needs of handicapped students is that of becoming partially or totally self-supporting. There are fewer unskilled jobs available today and our programs for special educa- tion students should be examined in light of this. Brolin (1972) summarized previous literature on this topic by saying that: Because most special education teachers are trained to teach academics, they naturally tend to emphasize them and minimize the important vocational aspects. In addition, Brolin stated that schools attempting to utilize a work- study approach often find themselves without teachers who are experienced or trained in this area. 10 Brolin in his studies also supported the fact that a secondary special education teacher may be expected to provide for all of the students' school related needs, from remedial reading to vocational evaluation and follow-up. He claimed that universities with their traditional teacher preparation approach offer few courses that can prepare teachers to be effective in vocationally-oriented high school programs. Clark and Oliverson (1973) spoke to the lack of specific certi- fication requirements which explicitly set forth competencies or require- ments that are unique to secondary special education teachers. Clark and Oliverson recognized that in a large number of high school programs there are not enough personnel available to warrant role differentiation between classroom teaching and work-study coordination functions, thus resulting in a teacher-coordinator role described by Younie and Clark (1969). There are many secondary level special education teachers who are charged with the sole responsibility of accomplishing all or most of the following tasks in addition to teaching: teacher counselor, pre-vocational coordinator, vocational counselor, vocational adjustment coordinator, work adjustment coordinator, and pro-vocational counselor. Sparks and Younie (1969) claimed that secondary teachers in work- study programs have had to take certification courses in Special education ‘that were exclusively oriented to developing elementary teaching skills. “These writers felt that it could be that students in special class place- Inent at the secondary level do not demonstrate superior academic gains because of this elementary preparation of secondary level special class 11 teachers. Perhaps they are not equipped to carry the students beyond preconceived levels of achievement. Henderson (1971) found that state leadership personnel viewed the work-study coordinator as primarily responsible for work evaluations, use of vocational information, and individual and/or group counseling. He also found that almost half of the states indicated that the require- ments for work-study coordinators were identical to the special education teacher requirements. In one-third of the states there were no specific special education requirements for work-study coordinators. Ross (1971) interviewed vocational educators and special educators at the federal, state, and local levels. Each interviewee expressed the feeling that work experience programs at the high school level without a background of job orientation and skill training for the youth was a deterrant for good community relations for programs for youth with special needs. Again, the need for pre-service teacher training was demonstrated to achieve community wide acceptance of handicapped youth. Contrucci (1971) also spoke to the problem of taking elementary special education teachers, who are excellent teachers, and putting them in the secondary classroom where they don't have the tools for the job. He claimed that we are asking work-study teachers to be administrators, yet we don't teach them to be organizational people - to work with the community, school, counseling departments, and parent organizations. And we can, Contrucci said, go to others outside education to train our teachers. Certification problems or lack Of certificatign exists ' 76? special education teachers and vocational education teachers servingghandicapped students at the secondary level. 12 Various approaches for certification have been suggested ranging from some type of dual certification to a new kind of special certifi- cation for those working with the handicapped at the secondary level. Sparks and Younie (1969) felt it would be wiser to begin educating secondary teachers to be both subject matter specialists and disability specialists. As a conclusion of his dissertation, Ross (1971) stated that While current certification regulations seem adequate for both traditional vocational and special education teachers, the broad area of vocational educa- tion for youth with special needs may require a new category of teachers. A new and different kind of competengy is required for special education teachers at the secondary level. Some experts in the field have ventured some suggestions on what this competency should consist of. In Brolin's study (1972) in the state of Wisconsin, 205 special education teachers ranked teacher competencies in order of importance. Of the seven ranked "very important" five were in the Occupational Information and Curriculum area. These five were: Work Adjustment, Job Seeking, Job Tryouts, Job Placement and Vocational Evaluation. The other two ranked very important - Personal Care and Socially Acceptable behavior - are very closely related to occupational success. The teachers felt that someone other than the traditional special education teacher should primarily provide many of these competencies, but in practice they usually must provide these occupational experi- ences themselves. 13 The teachers in Brolin's study said they were inadequately prepared and experienced to teach their students about the skills needed for specific jobs, industrial approaches and employer-employee relation- ships. The majority of the teachers had no training in vocational education and vocational rehabilitation, the two areas essential for competency in offering a curriculum on Occupational Information and Preparation. Brolin claimed that special education teachers at the secondary level must receive training in vocational education and vocational reha- bilitation if they are to adequately do vocational evaluation, work adjustment, job placement, and prepare their students for independent living skills. Competency in these areas would prepare teachersfor the variety of job tasks that exist. Brolin (1972) directed a research project, the end result of which was a model teacher education curriculum for university students in the area of mental impairment at the University of Wisconsin - Stout. The basis for the course selection and experiences provided for the students in the bachelor's level teacher training program, was a research project and development of a curriculum for mentally impaired students at the high school level. Though the curriculum at Stout was developed for the mentally impaired disability area, the vocational and pre-vocational aspects have applicability to all disability areas. This teacher training curriculum is also supportive of career education concepts. 14 Below is an outline of the competencies teachers from the new training program were expected to acquire (Project Report # 2, p. 42): A. Develop, teach, and evaluate an individualized curriculum consisting of the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Social and vocationally related academics (communications, mathematics, social science, driver's education) Remedial academics Instruction in work habits development, work skills, manual abilities, activities of daily living (cooking, sewing, managing a home, purchasing, raising a family, leisure activities, civic responsibilities) Vocational evaluation procedures and techniques (interests and aptitude tests, job samples, work tasks, situational assessments, on-the-job evaluation) Behavior modification and other adjustment approaches. Devise a learning (or engineered) classroom setting using psychological and skill training techniques to improve performance and learning. Vocational training and skill development experiences (industrial arts, homemaking) School and community work experience Coordinate the special education program with: 1) Regular classroom teachers 2) Vocational Rehabilitation 3) Employment Service 15 4) Social Services 5) Sheltered Workshops 6) Industry and other employment sources C. Analyze the employment opportunities available for special education students and devise a plan for assisting students in securing employment utilizing: 1) Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Guide to Jobs for the Mentally Retarded, Minnesota Occupational Adjustment Patterns. 2) Manpower Reports 3) Employment Service Information 4) Community surveys 0. Write vocational evaluation reports and recommendations E. Conduct follow-up activities on former students and provide assistance when necessary F. Conduct public relations activities G. Recognize and identify organizations which can assist the retarded In a previous study Younie and Clark (1969) listed the following competencies as essential or highly desirable for secondary teachers of the retarded: employment experience, knowledge of the academic demands of the jobs typically performed by the mentally retarded, competency in vocational diagnosis and remediation, and willingness to expand the classroom into the community. These competencies are needed by teachers of other categories of handicapped students as well. 16 There is a lack of preparation of vocational education personnel serving_handicapped students in vocational programs as well as that of gpecial educationpersonnel. Clark and Oliverson (1973) spoke to the lack of preparation of vocational education teachers. With new programs developed in voca- tional education for students with special needs, vocational education teachers have been pressed into service to teach without adequate prep- aration for the specific needs and problems of students with handicaps. A frequently mentioned problem in a study directed by Walsh (1974) was the lack of regular vocational education staff sensitivity to and skill in dealing with the problems of the handicapped. Several adminis- trators believed that there must be an increase in staff training if the widespread use of integrated programming was to become a reality. Because of the few persons trained in both special education and voca- tional education, a major recommendation in the study was the need for undergraduate and graduate teacher education programs which would produce individuals qualified in both fields. Walsh also recommended that both types of programs require internships in Part 8 (Vocational Education Amendments of 1968) projects. There is also lack of preparation of the Special Needs Coordinator who may be either vocationaT'education certified or special education certified. Weatherman and Krantz (1975) spoke to the expansion of Vocational Education programs serving handicapped and disadvantaged students with the resulting increase of managerial positions at the local level throughout the country. With this expansion and since the passage of 17 the 1968 Vocational Education Amendments, there still is no known pre-service training program or comprehensive inservice training program for those who must function in these managerial positions. The report by Weatherman and Krantz also cited the need of the joint use of Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation resources. While it is rare to find an administrator involved in special needs programming with adequate background in the operation of the three agencies, each agency represents a teachable core discipline. In light of the absence of an established professional tradition and of the fact special needs programming in vocational education is still in its formative years, the report recommended training opportunities be provided. Young (1971) also noted that one level where pre-service training has been generally the weakest is in supervision. The author of the present study feels that the competencies suggested for special education teachers are partly the competencies needed by those in managerial positions. Both vocational education and special education personnel see a need for trainihg in order to serve handicgpped students in vocationaT education programs adequately. A major conclusion drawn by Ross (1971) in his study was that both sPecial educators and vocational educators see a need for providing vocational training programs for youth with Special needs under the auspices of vocational education which would not be stigmatized by any SeOregation of services offered to these youth. If special education 18 teachers are expected to do the job of vocational education alone or if vocational education teachers are expected to do the job of educating the youth with special needs alone, there would never be enough resources or educational sophistication to educate the relatively large number of students who need modified vocational education programs. Application to Present Stugy_ The review of literature supports the premise that there is a gap between the existing programs in vocational education for handicapped students at the local level mandated by state and federal legislation, and the preparation of personnel at the pre-service level to fulfill the mandate successfully. The curriculum developed at the University of Wisconsin - Stout (Brolin, 1972) is the only known attempt to provide pre-service training for special education teachers at the secondary level, and it is designed to prepare teachers of the mentally impaired. Various universities have attempted dual certification programs in vocational education and special education. There is no known university course or curriculum at the pre-service level to prepare special education teachers of all disability areas to work in local programs meeting the federal and state mandates. The present study attempted to bridge the gap in part with the development, implementation and evaluation of a new course for special education undergraduate majors in all disability areas at Michigan State University. The course was designed to demonstrate the functions 0f Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation 19 in a cooperative approach in serving handicapped students in vocational training programs. The course was also designed to project some curric- ulum development ideas appropriate for handicapped students at the secondary level. Ppgpose of the Stugy The purpose of this study was to determine whether a new course specifically developed for special education undergraduate majors at Michigan State University adequately prepared them to pegjn_serving handicapped students in vocational programs at the secondary level. The ultimate mission of the new course was to implement in part, the national mandate presented in the Vocational Education Act of 1963 and the Amendments of 1968 and 1972. Although there is a need for vocational education personnel to be trained at the pre-service level as well, this study was an evaluation of the development and implementation of a ten week course for special education undergraduate majors only. Limitations of the Study The content of the new course was arrived at informally through interviews with leaders in the field and through a review of the litera- ture. A pilot group was used only to test instructional procedures. N0 fonmal survey was undertaken to determine the course content. The conclusions of the study are limited to the MSU class. This evaluation plan does not represent the final evaluation of the course. 20 The course will be reexamined when it is taught again the next school year. Further evaluation beyond this study will answer questions such as what affect the course will have on other courses in the curriculum, and whether there are other sources from which the under- graduate majors can obtain the information in the course. CHAPTER II EVALUATION PLAN AND PROCEDURE Description of Participants There are approximately 250 juniors and seniors majoring in special education at Michigan State University. The group used in this study were 14 juniors and seniors who volunteered to enroll in the course "Vocational Education for the Handicapped" primarily because of an interest in teaching at the secondary level. One comparison group was drawn from special education teachers who were working directly with the 85 vocational education special needs funded projects in Michigan. There is no listing of the exact number of special education teachers working with these funded projects. This group is referred to as "special education teachers working in voca— tional training programs" throughout this study. A group of 21 teachers certified to teach special education who had part-time or full time responsibility in one or more of the following roles in a vocational education program at the secondary level was used: 1) teacher of a special class in vocational education. 2) teacher and counselor of supportive academic and personal/ social skills related to the vocational training area. The vocational training area is within a regular or modified vocational education program. i 3) work-study coordinator for special education students. 21 22 A second comparison group was drawn from special education teachers who were npt_working directly with a vocational training program. There are approximately 5600 special education teachers in the state of Michigan. A group of 35 teachers certified to teach special education was used. The responsibility of these teachers may have included the teaching of pre-vocational skills but they had no responsibility with the vocational training program at the secondary level. The three groups used in this study are summarized in Table 1. Definition of Terms Vocational Education Program: Vocational education means vocational or technical training or retraining which is given in schools or classes, including field or laboratory work incidental thereto, under public supervision and control, and is conducted as part of a program designed to fit individuals for gainful employment as semi-skilled or skilled workers or technicians in recognized occupations, but excluding any program to fit individuals for employment in occupations which the superintendent of public instruction determines, and specifies to be generally considered professional or as requiring a baccalaureate or higher degree. The term includes vocational guidance and counseling in connection with the training, instruction related to occupations for which the student is being trained or necessary for him to benefit from training, and the acquisition and maintenance and repair of instruc- tional supplies, teaching aids and equipment, and construction or initial eOUlpment of buildings and the acquisition or rental of land. (Section 340.291 a(i) of PA 198 of 1971) 23 TABLE 1 Description of Participants Consisting of MSU Special Education Undergraduate Majors and Comparison Groups of Special Education Teachers in the Field Group Description MSU class juniors and seniors interested in teaching n=14 special education at the secondary level Special education teachers working in voc. ed. special needs funded pro- jects n=21 Special education teachers not work- ing with vocational training programs at secondary level n=35 teacher of special class in vocational education and/or teacher-counselor with support role in academic and personal/ social skills related to the vocational training area, and/or work-study coordinator no responsibility with vocational training program at the secondary level; may be responsible for teaching pre-vocational skills 24 Regular Vocational Education Program for Special Needs Students: Students receive non-instructional special education services such as speech therapy and special materials such as talking books. Modified Vocational Education Program: Regular vocational education programs are altered to accommodate special education students who could not otherwise be placed in the program. Special materials and added support personnel such as special education teachers, counselors, and paraprofes- sionals are examples of a modified program. ngk-Study Coordinator: Coordinates on-the-job training for special Education students with related counseling and follow-up services. Students must have completed vocational training or be within one year 01’ completing school . c&1Petency--Based Instruction: Competency-based instruction as used in this study means opportunity to practice the behavior or competency On which tested. The achievement of the competency is determined through a paper and pencil test. Evaluation Plan The evaluation of the new course consisted of making an educational judgment as to whether the course achieved what was intended; and deter- mining whether the special education undergraduate majors gained the Competency needed to work in vocational education programs serving handi- caDped students, as compared to special education teachers already wor‘king in existing vocational programs for handicapped students at the secondary level . 25 The terminal outcome of the evaluation was to determine the overall course effectiveness on student achievement as measured by scores on a summative instrument. The evaluation also included procedures to determine which enabling objectives of the course were prerequisite to the terminal outcome. The enabling objectives are presented in Appendix A. The basis for the selection of the enabling or instructional objectives came from a review of the literature, informal documented conments and suggestions from interviews with special education and Vocational education leaders working with handicapped students in the field in the state of Michigan, and from the author's own back- ground and experience. The real terminal outcomes will be the actual use of the information and strategies in the classroom as practicing teachers, which is beyond the scope of this study. The first phase of the evaluation described in some detail the degree to which the stated course objectives were achieved. The Second phase addressed the questions directly pertaining to the nleasurable effects of the course on the students involved. In other words, there was first, a formative evaluation procedure to assess the effectiveness of the specific course objectives and activities for the purpose of revising them and deciding which of them were prerequisite to the terminal outcome. Secondly, there was a smnnative evaluation procedure to test the efficacy of the course in total for the purpose of reconmending its continuation or adoption as Dar-t of the special education pre-service curriculum. 26 In summary, the evaluation plan of this study was designed to answer the following questions: 1) 2) Is a ten week undergraduate course adequate for special education undergraduate majors to develop the ability to plan, implement, and evaluate vocational training programs for handicapped students at the secondary level? What is the effect of the course on the special education undergraduate majors in terms of competence and attitudes towards serving handicapped students in vocational training programs? Research Questions Specifically, this evaluation plan attempted to answer the following questions: 1) 2) 3) What is the gain in competency evidenced by the special education undergraduate majors taking the course? How does the competency level of special education under- graduate majors after taking the course compare with that of special education teachers working with existing vocational training programs in local school districts for two years or more? How does the competency level of special education undergraduate majors after taking the course compare with that of the special education teachers in local school districts npt_working with vocational training programs? 27 4) What is the change in attitudes toward vocational education for handicapped students, of the Special education undergraduate majors taking the course? Evaluation Procedure The evaluation used in this particular plan included both formative and summative evaluation procedures. The formative evaluation was a detailed description of the course objectives and activities and answered 'the question of whether or not the students achieved the objectives of the course as intended. The sunmative evaluation was more formal and Objective with the use of measuring instruments and informs the educa- ‘titanal community as to the merit of the course. Robert Stake's (1967) model of evaluation was used as a guide for 'ttiis evaluation plan. A summary of his model follows. .§!£flmnry of Robert Stake's Evaluation Model Stake's model of educational evaluation encompasses both formal and informal evaluation. Informal evaluation is dependent upon casual observation, intuitive norms, implicit goals, and subjective judgment. Formal evaluation is dependent on such things as check-lists, controlled comparisons, structured visitations by peers, and standardized testing of students. Stake feels that educators rely little on formal evaluation because it seldom answers questions they are asking. Informal evaluation, on the other hand, is seldom questioned because it is characteristic of day-to-day personal styles of living. 28 Stake says that an educator seldom attempts to measure the match between what he intends to do and what he does do. In other words, he doesn't spell out the antecedent conditions and classroom transactions and relate them with various outcomes. Stake questions the traditional concern of educational measurement specialists for reliability of individual student scores and predictive validity. When evaluating curricula, Stake feels that attention to individual differences among students should give way to attention to the contingencies among background conditions, classroom activities, and scholastic outcomes. Stake's model is oriented around educational programs rather than educational products. His model is designed to help educators develop an evaluation plan. It is not designed to help educators measure what Should be measured. In his plan, the evaluation of a program includes the evaluation of its materials. The plan is relevant to any curriculum, whether oriented to subject matter content or to student process. In Stake's model of evaluation, the educational program must be fully described and fully judged in order to be fully under- stood. Rather than just administering normative achievement tests, the evaluator emphasizes the development of habits, skills, and attitudes which permit the individual to be a craftsman or scholar, in or out of school. Whether the immediate purpose of the evaluation is description or judgment, three bodies of information should be tapped. It is helpful to distinguish between antecedent, transaction, and outcome data. 29 An antecedent is any condition which exists prior to teaching and learning and is related to outcomes. The status of the student prior to his lesson, such as his aptitude, previous experiences, interest, and willingness to learn, is a complex antecedent. Transactions are the countless encounters of student with student, student with teacher, author with reader, parent with counselor, etc. Some examples are the presentation of a film, the class discussion, the administration of a test. Outcomes are the consequences of education--immediate and long range, cognitive and conative, personal and community-wide. Outcomes to be considered include not only those that are evident as learning sessions end, but also applications, transfer, and re-learning effects which may not be available for measurement until long after. Antecedents and outcomes are relatively static whereas transactions are dynamic. The boundaries between them are not distinct. Certain outcomes can be identified during a transaction which are feedback antecedents for subsequent learning. The categories are used to stimulate data collection.. Antecedents, transactions, and outcomes have a place in both «descriptive and judgment data as shown in Figure 1. The evaluator (Ian prepare a record of what educators intend, or what observers [Derceive, of what patrons generally expect, and of what judges \Ialue the immediate program to be. Antecedents, transactions, and outcomes can be treated separately within the four classes identified as Intents, Observations, Standards, and Judgments. 30 Intents Observatipn§_ Standards Juggmentspfip l Antecedents Transactions Outcomes Descriptive Matrix ' Judgment Matrix Figure l A Layout of Statements and Data to be Collected by the Evaluator of an Educational Program. (Stake, 1967, p. 529. Descriptive Data Matrix Stake considers "goals," "objectives," and "intents" to be synonymous. He uses the category title Intents because many educators now equate "goals" and "objectives" with "intended student outcomes." In this model, Intents includes the planned-for environ- mental conditions, the planned-for demonstrations, the planned- for coverage of certain subject matter, as well as the planned- ‘for student behavior. This three—cell column of data includes Egoals and plans that others have, especially the students. The (:ollection of Intents is a priority listing of all that may happen. 31 Intents can be the global goals of the Educational Policies Commission or the detailed behavioral objectives of the instructor. Stake feels the methodology for obtaining authentic statements of intent is a new challenge for the evaluator and yet remains to be developed. Observational Choice The data for the Observation column of the Descriptive Matrix are sOmetimes collected in a direct and personal way and at other times instruments are used. The educator is often his own evaluator or a member of an evaluation team. The evaluator gives primary attention to the variables specifi- cally indicated by the educator's objectives, but he must also search for unwanted side effects and incidental gains. Choice of characteristics to be observed is an equally important contribution of the evaluator as is the selection of measuring techniques. antingency and Congruence Figure 2 shows that there are two principal ways of processing descriptive evaluation data in an educational program: (1) finding the contingencies among antecedents, transactions, and outcomes, and (2) finding the congruence between Intents and Observations. A first step in evaluation is to record the intuitive contin- SJencies between the antecedents, transactions, and outcomes. When ?Intents are evaluated the contingency criterion is one of logic. liere the evaluator relies on previous experience and perhaps on ‘Fesearch experience with similar observable characteristics. 32 Evaluation of Observation contingencies depends on empirical evidence. Here also, the evaluator relies on previous experience with similar observable characteristics. The data for an educational program are congruent if what was intended actually happens. Within each row of the data matrix (for the antecedents, transactions, and outcomes), the evaluator compares the cells containing Intents and Observations. The discrepancies between what was intended and what was observed happening for each row is noted and the amount of congruence for each row (antecedents, transactions, and outcomes) is described. Congruence does not indicate that outcomes are reliable or valid but that what was intended did actually occur. Descriptive Data I ntended C m Observed A" tecedents ongruence Antecedents LOG CAL EMPIJRICAL CONTINGENCY CONTINGENCY I ntended 1 Observed OI."€insactions Congruence Transactions C Loelcm EMPJRICAL ONTINGENCY CONTIlNGENCY Intended ' Observed ()utcomes -———-—————Congruencev Outcomes I \_ Figure 2 A Representation of the Processing of Descriptive Data. (Stake, 1967, p. 533) 1’! 33 Standards and Judgments The contingencies and congruences identified by the evaluator are subject to judgment by experts and participants. Standards by which judgments are made vary from student to student, from instructor to instructor, and from reference group to reference group. Evaluation is complicated by this multiplicity of standards, even when measurements are effectively interpreted. Stake's model allows for change in an educator's Intents over a period of time. It is expected that the educator will change both his criteria and his standards during instruction. There are different criteria at each successive curriculum- development stage. Criteria tend to be unspecified in informal evaluation. Criteria are more specific for formal evaluation procedures. Comparing_and Judging There are two bases for judging the characteristics of a program. One is with respect to absolute standards as reflected by personal judgments. The other is with respect to relative standards as reflected by characteristics of alternate programs. Each set of absolute standards indicate acceptable levels for antecedents, transactions, and outcomes. Judging is deciding which set of standards to heed or assigning a weight of importance to each set of standards. 34 The evaluator must make a decision as to how much to pay attention to the standards of each reference group (point of view). Deciding which variables to study and deciding which standards to employ are subjective commitments in evaluation. Relative standards are taken from the descriptions of other programs. The evaluator selects which reference programs to compare to. From absolute and relative judgment of a program, the evaluator can obtain an overall or composite rating of merit to be used in making an educational decision. F'o mative Evaluation Procedure The formative evaluation procedure used in this study was both Cieasscwjptive and judgmental but primarily descriptive. Applying Stake's "iodel to this study the logical contingency between the antecedents ( Such as the students' previous experiences with vocational education For the handicapped), the transactions (such as the module activities and field experiences to on-Site vocational training programs for handi- capped students), and the outcomes (such as the ability to identify and describe the components of an effective vocational training program “=(3" handicapped students) was determined. In other words, an attempt was made to find out what conditions ex‘issted prior to the students starting each module of the course which aF‘Fected the accomplishment of the various module activities and objec- tiVes of the course. An attempt was also made to determine how well the Iy'anned module activities helped the students in the course to achieve the stated performance objectives. 35 Again applying Stake's model, the congruence between what was intended for the course and what actually occurred was determined. For example, the transaction of on-site visitations to vocational training programs for the handicapped was intended to give the students in the course information on the components necessary for effective vocational programs for the handicapped. If after the field 'visitation the students in the course could not describe an effective Tarogram, then there was an incongruency. Questions were asked about 1.“. .‘DF"-i..‘_“I-1 . . . :3 ‘the transaction selected and the procedure used to carry it out. A pilot test group of 8 special education undergraduate majors \weas used to help determine which course objectives and activities Hetero most effective for implementation. The pilot group was also used to help determine if there was a need for a change in course direction and to make decisions as to which course activities and objectives to £3 lter, revise, delete, or add. Problems were uncovered so that what ‘Vvas thought feasible for the course was not so in the actual implementa- tlion. It is expected that the course objectives and activities will be revised again after the present study for subsequent use. The kind of data collected during the pilot test of the new course ”‘5 nter term, 1976 are listed in Table 2. Also listed in Table 2 are the kind of data collected during the implementation of the course S pring term, 1976. TABLE 2 Kinds of Data Collected During Pilot Test of Course and During the Actual Implementation of the Course "Vocational Education for Handicapped Students" Pilot Group Course Tryout Student performance in each module. Informal observation of each module. Student critiques of each module. TF'itneliness and appropriateness (of key course components. Di rections for each module clear? Activities appealing and interesting? Students achieve objectives Student performance in each module. Descriptive observation of each module. Student critique of each module. Instructor critique of each module. Student performance on summative instru- ment. Interviews with students on reaction to course. Program can function in a variety of of course? class structures? Survey on attitudes towards vocational education for the handicapped. Pre- and post-test gains. \ 37 Summative Evaluation Procedure The effectiveness of the course is reported in this study in terms of'achievement of selected (of highest priority) course objectives as 1~ell as in terms of changes in attitudes which the MSU students had towards vocational education for the handicapped. Unintended as well as intended outcomes are reported in Chapter Three. Fourteen special education undergraduate majors were enrolled in the course tryout spring term, 1976 and made up the experimental group. The group included majors from the disability areas of mental impairment, hearing impairment, and emotional impairment. A pre- and post-test was uSed to measure how well the students achieved the selected course objec- t1 ves (Test Instrument in Appendix C). To help determine whether or not the selected course objectives related to information and skill needed by special education teachers Working in existing vocational training programs for handicapped students iit.the local level, the test instrument develOped for the MSU class was Sent to the 85 Vocational Education Special Needs Funded Projects in lflichigan. The competency level of the special education majors at MSU. irfter taking the course, was compared to that of special education teachers \working in the Special needs funded projects for two years or more. Thwenty-one special education teachers working in these projects returned Completed test instruments. These teachers were special education certi- f’ied and state approved and were located through the State of Michigan beational Education Special Needs Projects Contact Lists. The details 38 of the kind and areas of certification for these teachers are given in Table 3. Although it is a goal of the Michigan Department of Education to have Special education teachers working directly with the Vocational Education Special Needs Funded Projects, not all of the special needs Tarojects had this happening at the time of the study. In many cases, another professional such as a counselor or reading teacher or a [Daraprofessional alone provided the support services to the handicapped Situdents in a vocational training program. Quite often the coordinators (31’ the projects were special education certified and took part of the Sitrpport role. However, this study was concerned with the position of the special education teacher in a vocational training program only. The test instrument was sent to the Special education teachers in 1:he field in early May, 1976 which was late in the school year, so the participants consisted of those special education teachers who responded. It was proposed that 30 special education teachers working directly with vocational training programs be used in this study. Because of the way the group of 21 special education teachers was selected, the results cannot be considered representative of the 130pulation of special education teachers working with vocational training Drog rams . In order to find out if it was justifiable to assume that special (education teachers working in vocational education special needs funded [Drojects had the competency level expected and gained this competency (an the job, the test instrument was also given to Special education 39 teachers in local school districts who were npt_working directly with vocational training programs. The instrument was sent to the 138 directors of special education for local school districts in Michigan. Twenty-two special education teachers working at the secondary level and 13 teachers working at the elementary level responded. These teachers were also special education certified and state approved. They were :5 located through the Directory of Special Education Contact Persons for 1 Intermediate and Local School Districts. The details of the kind and aireas of certification for these teachers are also given in Table 3. t The test instrument taken by the special education teachers in the . ‘Field is referred to as a "post-test" in this study, even though “it was the only test taken by these teachers. The same post-test was Irsed for the MSU undergraduate majors as a standard for comparison. It was anticipated that (l) the pre-test scores of the MSU class ‘would be similar to the post-test scores of the special education teachers ppt_working directly with vocational training programs, and (2) the post-test scores of the MSU class would be Similar to the post-test scores of special education teachers working directly with vocational training programs. 40 TABLE 3 Number of Special Education Teachers with Type of Certification Held for Those Working in Special Needs Funded Projects and Those Not Working in Vocational Training Programs Teachers in Teachers Not in Special Needs Voc. Training Projects Programs Certificate 9—94 EEC—- Elementary 5 12 11 Secondary 13 2 12 Provisional 6 3 7 Permanent 15 10 14 Approval Temporary 1 Full 19 13 22 Areas Mentally Impaired 13 10 19 Emotionally Impaired 4 3 4 Visually Impaired l 1 Hearing Impaired l l 2 Physically Impaired l 3 Learning Disabled 4 8 6 Speech Impaired 2 1 Counseling 6 41 An attitude questionnaire was used for the students in the MSU class to determine if their attitudes towards vocational educa- tion for handicapped students changed after taking the course. The questionnaire was administered both at the beginning and at the end of the course (Questionnaire in Appendix D). The format for the items on the questionnaire was adapted from that of a study done by Jordan (1976) . The data collected in the summative evaluation procedure are Shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 Data Collected in Summative Evaluation Procedure For the Three Groups \ (Broups Pre-test Treatment Aafiéggde Post-test ‘____‘__7 . MSU class Instru- Course Yes Instru- l1=14 ment Instr. ment EFecTaT Ed. ‘ :achers None None No Instru- voc. ed. ment s\"=§ tgemal Ed. achers (3t in voc. None None No Instru \n=35 ment 42 Data Analysis Procedure To determine the effect of the new course on the competency level of the MSU students in the area of vocational education for the handi- capped, the mean score gain between the pre- and post-test was computed. A one way analysis of variance test was used to determine if there were significant differences in the total mean score between the MSU group ea (an the pre- and post-test and the total mean scores for the comparison sgroups, that is (l) the special education teachers working in vocational tucaining programs, (2) special education teachers at the elementary Teevel not working with vocational education programs, and (3) special L; Education teachers at the secondary level not working directly with vocational training programs. The analysis of variance test was also lased to determine if there were any significant differences between ‘the groups for each of the seven test questions. The Newman-Keuls |>ost-Hoc Procedure was used to show where the differences between the groups existed. Four experts1 in the field of vocational education for handicapped students in Michigan were used to validate the content of the new course as represented on the pre- and post-test instrument. C0pies of the rationale, objectives, and activities for each module as well as the Inaterials used for the course were distributed along with the test instrument, to these four persons. 1Larry Barber, Specialist, Handicapped Programs, Vocational- Technical Services, Michigan Department of Education; Gene Thurber, Specialist, Special Education, Michigan Department of Education; James Jay, Coordinator, Pre—Vocational Project, Central Michigan University; Cleo Johnson, Inservice Coordinator, Special Needs Vocational Education Projects, Central Michigan University. 43 To determine the rater reliability in scoring the test instrument, four people2 working in the field in special needs related programs, were used to rate the same set of 20 completed test instruments aaccording to the scoring manual develOped for the instrument. A measure of this inter-rater reliability was computed using 10 pre-test instruments and 10 post-test instruments. Five of the post-test m... instruments were from the MSU class and five were from special educa- tion teachers working in vocational training programs at the local level. 1 An analysis of variance test was used to determine if there was any Change in attitudes of the MSU class towards vocational education for :7 the handicapped, from the beginning of the course to the end. A two- tailed test of significance was used to determine the most frequent type of experiences or contact the MSU students had with vocational education in terms of means, amount, kind, and importance of contact. The frequency for each attitude response on the questionnaire was also Computed for both the pre- and post-questionnaire. A pilot test of the new course was conducted to determine if the (ijectives planned fulfilled the purpose of the course and to determine to what extent the planned course activities were able to help the Students achieve the objectives. Recommendations made by the pilot test group of students helped to determine the instructional procedures Used and the general directions for the experimental course. \ 2Pat Sullivan, Special Needs Projects Coordinator, Capital Area Career Center, Mason, Michigan; Byron Rogers, Special Education Work-Study Coordinator, Capital Area Career Center. Mason, Michigan; Connie Zajac, Former Consultant, Handicapped Programs, Vocational-Technical Services, l“lichigan Department of Education; Virginia Kozlowski, Graduate Assistant and Course Developer, Michigan State University. 44 Instrumentation The same instrument was used for both the pre- and post-test for the MSU class. This instrument was competency-based for the MSU class in that the questions represented module objectives taught during the course. How the MSU students were asked to perform on the test was the same behavior asked of them as part of their class activities. ‘The students were able to check themselves in a form of self-evaluation 'for several objectives including those represented on the pre- and roost-test, as they progressed through each module. Therefore, the #j test questions represent part of the instructional process, or treatment, of the MSU class which the other groups in this study did not receive. Because competency-based instruction was chosen as the teaching IJlrocess for the course, the test instrument was appropriate in that it Y‘cepresented behaviorally what was taught in the course. The validity and reliability of the test instrument are discussed in the following Sections of this study. The test instrument used for the MSU class to determine gain in *<:ompetency level was also used to determine the competency level of Sipecial education teachers working in local school districts. The Siame instrument was appropriately used in terms of looking at a body ()f knowledge the special education teachers working in vocational ‘training programs were expected to have, as judged by educators and ‘practitioners as they attempt to meet the state and federal guidelines, and as stated in the content validity section of this study. 45 Because the information and educational technology that is needed by teachers working in vocational training programs for handicapped students, is relatively new, the test instrument may not have been a good representation of what was happening out in the field. The test instrument was lengthy time-consuming, and complex for teachers just beginning to become familiar with vocational education special needs programming, and is a factor to be considered in the low return rate from this group. Content Validity Four leaders in the field who were directly involved in developing vocational education programs for handicapped students in the state of Michigan rated each of the seven test items as to its relevancy to the area of teacher training for handicapped students in vocational education. All four indicated that all seven test items were relevant. All four raters felt that there ought to be some additions to the course and reflected in the test instrument. Following are the additions suggested: 1) Separate test item on pre-vocational education. 2) Incorporation of services handicapped students have access to in addition to Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation. 3) Additional stress upon how Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation can work together in serving handicapped students. 46 4) More emphasis directed to all of the components of the Michigan Career Education Model. These suggested additions reflect some limitations of the test instrument in that it was not as encompassing as experts in the field viewed it should have been. Rater Reliability Cronbach's coefficient alpha method (1967) was used to measure P the degree of internal consistency between the four raters for the five test questions requiring a short answer written response. The {J raters were treated as test items in this method. Both inter-rater reliability coefficients and repeated measures of analysis of variance were computed to check the extent of agreement between the raters' judgment on the scores given according to the scoring manual. The results showed substantial agreement among the raters as to how they scored each test question on the set of 20 instruments. The reliability coefficients for the five questions requiring written short answer responses are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Correlation Coefficients of Inter-Rater Reliability Question Alpha wanna-a+ no «1 47 Pilot Study A pilot group of eight special education undergraduate majors was used to determine the appropriateness of the course content for the pre-service level and to determine whether or not the objectives and activities planned for the course were logical, interesting, and meaningful. The pilot group made recommendations for the course ’1 . ‘ try-out in terms of suggested revisions, additions, and changes in 7* course direction. An outline of the course content for each module follows. The details of the Rationale, Objectives, and Activities for each module are in Appendix A. L; 48 MODULE I TOPIC ACTIVITIES What is Vocational Education? A. Vocational Education- 1. Career Brainstorming a definition. Exercise. 1) U.S.O.E. Clusters : 2) Entry level skills 2. Classify vocational ' programs into U.S.O.E. l{ 8. Task listing and task Clusters. ?j detailing. L 3. Read article on vocational C. Management system education as part of for a vocational career education. education program. 4. View illustrations of D. Competency-Based vocational education Curriculum. and career education as part of total school program. 5. Interview person on job to list tasks and detail tasks as to performance required. 6. Read and discuss hand- outs on trends towards competency-based educa- tion for handicapped. 49 MODULE II TOPIC ACTIVITIES Identification and Eligibility of Handi- cgpped Students for Vocational Training Programs. A. Function of EPPC. 1. Read the functions and procedures for EPPC. B. Roles of partici- pants. 2. Read case study material and role play EPPC making C. Crucial vocational recommendations for voca- and career decisions. tional placement. 0. Criteria for effec- 3. Assess role play accord- tive EPPC meetings. ing to criteria for effective meetings. 54‘ IO. '4’3'2. "J ‘. 1] 4"!“an . _ 1. MIL ‘G‘L.’ - TOPIC Money and Resources - Who to Contact A. Federal and state legislation. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) B. Descriptions of voca— Criteria for selection of students. Alternatives in programming for handicapped stu- dents. Handicapped stu- dents integrated in regular voca- tional education programs. Reimbursable costs for state funded projects. Roles of person- nel involved in vocational educa- tion programs for the handi- capped. 50 MODULE III ACTIVITIES 1. Read and discuss excerpts from federal legislation in vocational education for handicapped. 2. Participate in discussion of the Michigan State Plan for Vocational Educa- tion and how services for handicapped are coordi- nated. 3. Discuss the Michigan guidelines for handi- capped in vocational education programs. React to problem situa- tions regarding sources of information and funding using the information in the guidelines. tional education alter- natives for handi- capped students. C. Resources and funds available from state agencies (Voc. Ed., Special Ed., Voc. Rehab.) 51 MODULE IV TOPIC ACTIVITIES How to Sequence Programming Part A - Career Develop— ment Goals 1) Career education 1. Fill in "Coat of Arms." for handicapped K-adult. 2. Check values in "Things I Like" 2) Sample career educa- exercise. tion activities for handicapped students. 3. Participate in Career Choice Game. 3) Career education related to 4. Participate in Stereo- academics. types exercise. 4) Sample career educa- 5. Discuss Work Ethics tion resources situations. for handicapped students. 6. Discuss basic academic skills related to life- centered activity. 7. Study career education materials available for handicapped and how you would use them. 52 MODULE IV TOPIC ACTIVITIES Part B — Pre-Vocational Components 1) Job pyramids. 1. 00 work Sheets on hier- archy of jobs. 2) Vocational Evalua- tion Systems. 2. Observe work evaluation samples at Area Career 3) Methods for pre- Center. vocational assess- ment. 3. Read about other voca- tional evaluation sys— tems. 4. Discuss method of evalua- tion used by Vocational Rehabilitation Service. 5. Listen to explanation of Pro-Vocational Project at Central Michigan University. 53 MODULE IV TOPIC ACTIVITIES Part C — Vocational Training 1) Criteria for model 1. Observe handicapped vocational education students at Area Career delivery system for Center and adaptation handicapped. of instruction. 2) Vocational education 2. Visit one type of programs for handi- delivery system for capped in "Action." handicapped and discuss in class how it meets 3) Adaptation of instruc- the criteria for a model tion for handicapped program. in vocational educa- tion programs. 3. Trace one student's development from pre- vocational through plans for post school placement - at school program visited. 54 MODULE IV TOPIC ACTIVITIES Part D - Post School Vocational Training 1) Options at post high 1. Listen to project school level avail- personnel discuss new able to handicapped. post-secondary programs which involve job modifi- 2) Job modification cation to enable handi- for handicapped. capped to succeed. 2. Discuss with personnel from community college the options available for handicapped there. 3. Read Case Study and discuss options you would choose for post school placement. 55 MODULE V TOPIC Liaison Activities in VocationaT Programming_ Serving_Handicapped Students. A. Contributions of voca- tional education, special education, and support persons on a special needs team for handi- capped students. 8. Program decisions based on student needs. C. Dealing with nega- tive attitudes towards handicapped in school programs. 0. On-the-job training experiences for handicapped. E. Procedures for obtaining successful work experiences for handicapped students. ACTIVITIES 1. Role play special needs team coordinating efforts so handicapped students can succeed in vocational education class lesson. 2. Discuss case study of handicapped student's job interests late in high school career. 3. Listen to handicapped adult on problems with job placement and train- ing. 4. Discuss vocational interest surveys, on-the- job work experiences, and evaluation reports for handicapped students with Work-Study Coordi- nator from local School. 5. Participate in simulation on negative attitudes and lack of coordination among school and community person- nel towards handicapped. 6. View slide-tapes on Voca- tional Education Cooperative Education Programs. 7. Discuss Case Study on Work- Study vs. regular vocational education co-op program. 56 MODULE V (continued) TOPIC ACTIVITIES 10. Read and discuss guide- lines for Special Educa- tion Work-Study Programs. Discuss steps in setting up a vocational educa- tion delivery system for the handicapped. React to state department of education personnel from Vocational Education Services and Special Education Services, on what makes a local program in vocational education for handicapped work. 57 MODULE VI TOPIC ACTIVITIES Evaluation and Follow- DppServices of Voca- tional Education Pro- grems for the Handi- capp d. A. Follow-up process 1. Study follow-up data for for handicapped four schools and make students. decision as to probable success of programs. B. Using follow-up data to improve 2. Read and discuss sample school program. follow-up surveys. 3. Discuss sample evaluation stddies and give ideas as to components of an entire follow-up process. 58 Recommendations for Course Instruction As A Result of Pilot Test Summary of Pilot Group's Recommendations The pilot group of special education undergradUate majors taking the course generally felt that they achieved the objectives of the course but not thoroughly enough. Too much material was covered. The group suggested adding another course rather than eliminating any content covered in the class in which they participated. The pilot group felt the sequencing of course modules was appropriate but that an overall stronger emphasis on career education should be made at the beginning of the course. The directions for module activities were not clearly stated nor written. The group also felt that the guest speakers were not preceded by enough introductory remarks towards the particular objective the speakers fulfilled. For strategies in teaching the course, role play situations, case studies, and simulations were most appealing. The group would have liked to have had more practice in seeing the vocational education materials used and adapted for handicapped students. Video tapes or films of other vocational education delivery systems for handicapped students, other than the one visited, were suggested for more effective use of time. The group also felt that the modules on post-school training and on follow-up procedures were too short to be really meaningful. Directions Suggested for Course by Pilot Group Out of the pilot group came some suggestions for some general directions in which the new course should go. Some of these suggestions 59 were not feasible due to time restrictions or management problems as the experimental course was implemented. Other suggestions became points of emphasis during the experimental class spring term, 1976. Following are the directions suggested by the pilot group: 1. The field visitations to the vocational training centers for handicapped students had the greatest effect on more positive attitudes towards the provision of vocational education for the handicapped. The pilot group suggested visits to at least two centers or programs, but preferably more. However, because of student schedules, the original plan of three visitations had to be revised to only two. Case studies and other assignments could be done at the vocational training centers visited. Again, student schedules did not allow for this practice. The "affective" areas of vocational training ought to be emphasized more. This suggestion was not managed for the experimental class but was made even more clear after it. Practitioners in the field such as the work-study coordinator, state department of education supervisor, etc. were highly recommended and were continued for the experimental class. The activities where decisions must be made were highly valued and continued in the experimental class. There was not enough emphasis on the responsibilities of the cooperative arrangement in serving handicapped students, namely vocational education, special education, and 60 vocational rehabilitation services. More time was Spent on this Cooperative Agreement for the experimental class. The Guidelines from the State Department of Education need to be dealt with in a more clear and interesting manner. A new strategy was not worked on this for the experimental group. Too much material was presented for a ten week course. More time is needed to cover each module. The pilot group recommended that this be a two-term course at the minimum. More could be gained from the course if offered two or three times a week rather than just once. Revisions and Additions Made for Experimental Class as a Result of Pilot Test Group The following revisions or additions were made as the experimental class was taught spring term, 1976 based on the recommendations made by the pilot group of special education majors as well as the instructor's evaluation: 1. The activities requiring the listing of teaching ideas were deleted because of the students' lack of teaching experience. (This was especially recommended by those who had not yet done their student teaching.) Simulations and role play activities were emphasized. Some discussion activities during the pilot were made into role play Situations for the experimental class. 61 A written rationale and list of activities were developed for each module to add organization and clarity to the course content. A physically handicapped adult was brought in to the experimental class to explain problems of seeking and keeping employment. A flow chart depicting the vocational alternatives was developed and presented at the beginning of the experimental class to clear up some of the confusion as to "how the parts make the whole." The video-tape of a meeting between the vocational education teacher.. special education teacher, reading support teacher, work-study coordinator, and special needs counselor using the CMU Task Moddles was eliminated because it was "performed after school and appeared fake." The objective pre- and post-test for the pilot group was changed to a more criterion referenced test that was more "situational" as were the objectives and activities in class. CHAPTER III ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Competency of MSU Class Both formative and summative evaluation procedures were used to determine the gain in competency of the special education under- graduate majors at MSU taking the course "Vocational Education for Handicapped Students." The results of the formative evaluation procedure and the summative evaluation procedures used in this study are explained in the following sections. Results of Formative Evaluation The pilot test group of undergraduate special education majors at MSU indicated that there was a logical contingency between the antecedents (background conditions of the students), the transactions (activities the students participated in), and the outcomes (behavioral objectives) of the course. During the experimental class, the congruence between what was intended for the course and what actually was observed happening was determined by both the MSU students in the class and by the instructor. The Descriptive Matrix explaining this congruency for Module I is found in Table 6. The Descriptive Matrixes for the other modules can be found in Appendix B. The Descriptive Matrixes report the congruencies or discrepancies between what was intended and what actually occurred for the antecedents, transactions, and outcomes for the module. 62 63 The antecedents stated are the prerequisite or background information the MSU students were expected to have at the beginning of the module. As Stake (1967) points out, the antecedents can be— come quite complex if such things as aptitude, interest, and willingness to learn are all considered. To simplify the procedure for the purpose of this course evaluation, only the antecedent of previous experience or background information related to the module being described was used. The intended transactions and intended outcomes for the experimental course are stated clearly in Appendix A under Activities and Objectives for each of the Six modules. The reader is expected to refer to this appendix when looking at the Observations being described for each module in the Descriptive Matrixes. The data for the Observation column in the Descriptive Matrix for the antecedents, transactions, and outcomes for each module were collected through one or more of the following ways: (1) student verbal reports, (2) information from demographic data, (3) feedback from student evaluation forms for each module, (4) instructor observa- tion, and (5) pre-and post-test results. The descriptions indicate which of these ways were used. In most instances, the background conditions that existed and the activities and objectives accomplished as the course was taught were congruent with what was planned for the course. After the Descriptive Matrix for each module, are some suggestions for improving instruction for that module. These suggestions could possibly eliminate some of the discrepancies described, if the course were taught again. 64 TABLE 6 Descriptive Matrix for Module I INTENTS OBSERVATIONS Antecedents Students not 1. The majority of students were aware that aware of role vocational and career centers existed but as Special edu- were not familiar with what vocational cation teacher education really is. in a vocational education pro- 2. Student verbal reports revealed that five gram. students had work experience in some of Students have the vocational training areas but the little or no majority of students did not realize these experience with were actually vocational training areas. or knowledge of vocational edu- 3. Demographic data revealed that one cation. student participated in a vocational training program herself in high school. Transactions 1. Feedback from evaluation forms revealed that the activities were successful in See Module I enabling all of the students to identify the vocational training areas and how they are part of the total career education program. Activities in Appendix A. 2. Feedback from student evaluation forms revealed that interviews with people on the job were contingent to learning task analysis and task detailing and how the performance of these is taught to special education students. This was the cgse for all of the students in the MSU c ass. 3. The activity on CBE was presented in isolation and not as an integral part of the module. Though it was interesting to the majority of the students, its purpose here was confusing according to student verbal reports and instructor observation. - INTENTS 65 OBSERVATIONS Outcomes See Module I Objectives in Appendix A. Student verbal reports and evaluation forms revealed that all students were able to identify the vocational train- ing areas and apply the definition of vocational education as intended. According to student verbal reports, all the students were able to do task listing and task detailing and apply this information to teaching the performance required. Verbal reports and post-test results revealed that all of the students were able to list and explain the steps involved in setting up and managing a vocational training pro- gram at the high school level with at least 60 percent accuracy. Instructor evaluation revealed that the objective on CBE was meaningless as presented in this module, though it was interesting to the students. Suggestions for Improving Instruction: Competency-Based-Education is a growing trend in curriculum development for Special needs students and a meaningful way needs to be found to integrate this concept into this module. 66 Summary of Recommendations Made by Experimental Class The special education undergraduate majors in the MSU experimental class made the following recommendations for teaching the class on the end of course evaluation forms: 1. More dialogue should take place with students and teachers in vocational education programs in local school districts. Needs of the handicapped in vocational education would be more clear if more handicapped people themselves were involved in the MSU class. More experience with the alternate delivery systems in vocational education serving handicapped students is needed, especially with the special education teacher's role in each of these delivery systems. Modules III, IV, and V are the most valuable and Should be emphasized. (These modules are on Money and Resources-- Who to Contact, How to Sequence Programming, and Liaison Activities in Vocational Programming Serving Handicapped Students.) The teaching strategies of simulations, role play, problem- solving and decision-making Situations, and case studies are most valuable and Should be continued to be emphasized. Practitioners from the field and materials for actual use in the classroom are valuable and Should be continued. 67 Standards and Judgments in Course Evaluation The criteria or standards used for judging the transactions and outcomes of the experimental course were established through informal interviews with leaders in the field as well as through continuous student feedback from both the pilot test group and the experimental class. The experts in the field of vocational education for handicapped students who validated the content of the course also helped to set the standards for the course. Together these groups represented what patrons generally expected from this new course. There was no comparable program with which the standards for the new course could be judged. Student evaluation of each module and of the course in total; content of the inservice workshops in the state offered by the Disadvantaged/Handicapped Unit, Vocational and Technical Services, Michigan Department of Education; and needs expressed by state department of education personnel as well as by teachers and administrators in the field, all were used in judging the worth of this course. The informal evaluation described above indicates that this new course made a valuable contribution towards meeting the pre-service needs of Special education teachers working directly with vocational education programs for handicapped students. A more formal evaluation of the worth of the course is described in the following section. 68 Results of Summative Evaluation A pre— and post-test was used to measure how well the students in the MSU Experimental class achieved seven highest priority objectives for the course (test instrument in Appendix C). These objectives dealt with the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) 7) the steps in a management system for planning and implementing a vocational class for handicapped students the alternative vocational education programs available for handicapped students the services of the three main agencies serving handicapped students in vocational training programs, i.e. Special Education, Vocational Education, and Vocational Rehabili- tation a model vocational education delivery system for handicapped students dialogue of the special needs team helping a handicapped student succeed in a lesson for a vocational training program comparison of a regular cooperative vocational education work program with a special education work-study program interpretation of follow-up data for handicapped students who have graduated from a vocational training program. The mean scores of the MSU class for each of the test questions over the seven highest priority objectives, as well as the total mean scores on both the pre- and post-test are presented in Table 7. The total number of possible points for the test was 146. 69 m~.mm~ a m_ om._p mm _A.N_ me.m_ km.em once mN.mN e ep.m mN.m o ew.m m.e em.~ eta we? Amy Ao_v ANPV Aoev Ampv Ae_v Aoev m_nemmoa mpceoa _aooe N a m a m N _ amass: coepmoao e_nz mmepu ~eucmeegmaxm 2m: co+ amok Peach no new cowummao amok seem so ummklumoa new -mga co mmeoum cam: n m4mt“¢a- and post-questionnaire to Show how the attitudes of the MSU Si‘t:t1dents changed from the beginning of the course to the end. The most desired response for 'T’ftte results are reported in Table 18. This number represents the most accumulation each item is number (4). (>1F' points towards positive attitudes. 103 TABLE 18 Responses of the MSU Students to the Items on the Pre- and Post-Attitude Questionnaire with the Frequency for Each Response Chosen and the Percent of the Total MSU Group N=l4 Item Pre Post freg §_ freg .t AS compared to other kinds of high school education for handicapped students, I believe that vocational education is: 1) much less important 0 O O O 2) leSs important 0 0 O O 3) more important 10 71 7 50 4) much more important 4 29 7 50 I believe that vocational education for handicapped students at the high school level is a waste of time. 1) strongly agree 0 O O O 2) agree 0 O O O 3) disagree 2 l4 1 7 4) strongly disagree 12 86 13 93 I believe that handicapped students would be interested in vocational education to satisfy their life goals. 1) strongly disagree 0 O O 0 2) disagree 0 O O O 3) agree . 10 71 7 50 6 43 4) strongly agree 4 29 104 TABLE 18 (Continued) Item Pre Post freg §_ freg g 4. I believe that vocational education for handicapped students helps to raise their social adaptability level. 1) strongly disagree 0 0 O O 2 disagree 0 0 O O 3 agree 4 29 4 29 4) strongly agree 10 71 10 71 5. I believe that vocational education is primarily for handicapped students who are mentally impaired. 1; strongly agree 1 7 O 0 2 agree 1 7 1 7 3) disagree 5 36 3 21 4) strongly disagree 7 50 10 71 6. I believe it is more difficult for a handicapped high school student to be accepted by his peers socially if he/ She is in a vocational education program. 1) strongly agree 0 O 0 O 2) agree 3 21 3 21 3) disagree 7 50 7 50 4) strongly disagree 4 29 4 29 7. I believe that vocational education at the high school level equips the handicapped student for practical work. 1) strongly disagree 0 O l 7 2 disagree 0 O O O 3 agree ll 79 10 71 4) strongly agree 3 21 3 21 105 TABLE 18 (Continued) Item Pre Post 8. 10. 11. I believe that vocational education for handicapped students at the high school level facilitates early employment. 1) strongly disagree 2) disagree 3) agree 4) strongly agree With regards to on-the—job performance, I believe that handicapped students who graduate from vocational educa- tion programs, as compared to those who do not, are: 1) much leSS efficient 2) less efficient 3) more efficient 4) much more efficient I believe that vocational education Should be provided for handicapped boys only. 1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 disagree 4) strongly disagree I believe that the intelligent handicapped student does not participate in vocational educa- tion at the high school level. 1) strongly agree 2) agree 3) disagree 4) strongly disagree freg woowo O‘CDCO woo—i % WOCN 79 14 freg OWN-“O woo-I O-bOO ©0100 0000‘] ‘ do? .m: Arno-(mp ', 106 TABLE 18 (Continued) Item Pre Post freg .2 free .2 12. I believe that handicapped students with manual skills are the onl ones who parti- cipate in vocat1ona1 education programs at the high school level. 1) strongly agree 0 O 0 O 2) agree 2 14 O O 3) disagree 10 71 7 50 4) strongly disagree 2 l4 7 50 13. I believe that vocational education for handicapped students should not be the primary responsihTTity of the Special education teacher. 1) strongly agree 0 O 3 21 2) agree 8 57 8 57 3) disagree 6 43 2 l4 4) strongly disagree 0 O l 7 14. I believe that vocational training at the high school level does not prepare handicapped students for entry level job skills. 1 strongly agree 0 O O O 2 agree 0 O 1 7 3 disagree ll 79 5 36 4 strongly disagree 3 21 8 57 15. I believe that in most high schools, vocational training is designed to take care of special education and disadvantaged students. 1; Strongly agree 0 O O O 2 agree 4 29 O O 3) disagree 10 71 10 71 4) strongly disagree 0 O 4 29 107 TABLE 18 (Continued) Item Pre Post freg or freg or 16. I believe that most handicapped students are not capable of completing a regular high school vocational program. 1) strongly agree 0 0 0 0 2) agree 2 l4 1 7 3) disagree 9 64 9 64 4) strongly disagree 3 21 4 29 17. I believe that special "segregated" vocational training programs are necessary for most handicapped students to be able to acquire the necessary job skills. 1) strongly agree 0 O O O 2) agree 4 29 l 7 3) disagree 9 64 12 86 4) strongly disagree 1 7 l 7 18. I believe that handicapped students ought to be hired for a job onl if there are no qualified people w o are not handicapped seeking the job. 1) strongly agree 0 O l 7 2) agree 0 O O O 3) disagree 3 21 l 7 4) strongly disagree ll 79 12 86 19. I believe that certain jobs ought to be reserved for the handicapped. 1) strongly disagree 0 O O O 2) disagree 10 71 9 64 3) agree 3 21 5 36 4) strongly agree 1 7 O O 108 TABLE 18 (Continued) Item Pre Pos t freg (Z freg ‘g 20. I believe that handicapped ' students should not be allowed to prepare for any kind of hazardous occupations. 1) strongly agree 0 O O O 2) agree 0 O O O 3) disagree 14 100 12 92 4) strongly disagree 0 O l 8 21. I believe that the less employers know about the handicapping conditions, then the better chance the handicapped student has to succeed on the job. 1) strongly agree 0 O 0 O 2) agree 6 43 5 36 3) disagree 4 29 5 36 4) strongly disagree 4 29 4 29 22. I believe that handicapped students when employed lose their jobs more often than those who are not handicapped. 1; strongly agree 0 O O O 2 agree 9 64 5 36 3; disagree 3 21 7 SO 4 strongly disagree 2 l4 2 14 23. I believe that when handicapped students lose their jobs, it is usually because of their inability to perform the job tasks involved. 1) strongly agree 0 O O 0 2 agree 4 29 3 21 3; disagree 7 50 8 57 4 strongly disagree 3 21 3 21 -_< < A . 109 TABLE 18 (Continued) Item Pre Post freg Z freg % 24. I believe that handicapped students are less satisfied with their work when employed than the non-handicapped. 1) strongly agree 0 O O O 2) agree 3 21 3 21 3) disagree 7 50 8 57 4) strongly disagree 4 29 3 21 25. I believe that employers are generally less satisfied with the job performance of handicapped students than they are of those who are not handicapped. 1; strongly agree 0 O O O 2 agree 5 36 4 29 3) disagree 6 43 7 50 4) strongly disagree 3 21 3 21 110 Discussion and Interpretation With a possible score range from 25 to 100 on the attitude questionnaire, the MSU class started out with quite positive attitudes towards vocational education for handicapped students, as shown in Table 16. However, the attitudes became significantly more positive after taking the course. Data from Table 17 indicates that the experience with the new course "Vocational Education for Handicapped Students" may be one of the primary contacts the MSU students have had with vocational education. Some facts concerning the realities of the work world and situations observed during field visitations, may have influenced some of the attitude responses given by the students in the MSU class. For example, for the attitude depicted in item 6 in Table 18, some coordinators and teachers of programs visited by the MSU students spoke to more difficulty of acceptance of the handicapped by their peers when placed in a vocational class, even though this isn't necessarily always the case. Regarding item 22, the follow-up statistics of some vocational programs Show a low job placement rate for handicapped students, though it may have been true for the general student popula- tion as well because of the economy. For purposes of the MSU class item 13 is probably poorly worded. The special education teacher does have a primary responsibility in making a vocational program successful for handicapped students. At the same time, success for the handicapped is dependent upon the 111 responsibility of vocational education, special education, and vocational rehabilitation. To what extent this philosophy reiterated in the MSU class, influenced attitudes the students came out with is hard to determine. Item 15 refers to a philosophy in vocational education in that it is not a dumping ground for those who can't make it academically. It appears that the students in the MSU class came out with the attitude that vocational education can be beneficial to all students. Instruction during the MSU class emphasized equal opportunity for the handicapped in the work world and making them competitive. I j Though laws passed on equal employment Opportunity for the handicapped were referred to in class, item 19 was not spoken to directly. This item clearly finds out the prevailing attitude of the students on whether they feel society has an obligation to reserve certain jobs for the handicapped. Factual information from programs the MSU students visited probably influenced their responses to item 21. The students saw pro- grams where employers did not know all of the handicapping conditions and others where they did. More successful programs were seen of the latter. Ta . a p14 at a I: a I. .1; CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summa y Federal legislation, namely the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, has mandated that handicapped students be given the opportunity T1 to participate in vocational education programs at the secondary level. r In Michigan, the Mandatory Special Education Law states that special education students must have as a minimum before they can graduate 1:5"? " the ifiallowing: (1) personal adjustment training, (2) pro-vocational training, and (3) vocational training. Special education and vocational education teachers and administra- tors iiind themselves working in schools which are attempting to meet the requirements of this legislation but have no training or experience on how to work with these new programs. The review of literature on the need for teacher preparation for those who work or will be working in vocational programs serving handicapped students is sunmarized with the following statements: 1. The national and state mandate that the three agencies of Vocational Education, Special Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation Services are expected to c00perate at the local level when serving handicapped students in vocational training programs, ought to be reflected in the university pre-service teacher training programs for the personnel who will work on this team. 112 113 National surveys administered to vocational education personnel serving handicapped students in vocational programs indicate that a critical need exists for pre- service programs to train these personnel for their existing or future positions. Because special education teachers are trained for the ER elementary level, the special education teacher finding him- ‘-~_ i; F.‘ :37 ~ . le— v u . self or herself teaching at the secondary level is at a loss as to what to expect in achievement as well as how to devel- op 21 vocationally oriented curriculum. Work-study coordi- L“ nators at the secondary level have a need for additional organizational skill which is not obtained through special education elementary certification programs. Some suggested approaches for certification of teachers working with the handicapped at the secondary level are the dual certification in subject matter and disability area, or a new type of Special certification for this role. In order to prepare handicapped students for today's work world, Special education teachers at the secondary level must be trained both in aspects of vocational education and voca- tional rehabilitation. Suggested areas for competence include Work Adjustment, Job Seeking, Job Tryouts, Job Place- ment, Job Analysis, Vocational Evaluation and Diagnosis, Academic Demands of Jobs, Techniques for Development of a .‘u {Wan—V i 114 Work Study Program, Community/Social Welfare/ Rehabili- tation Agencies, and study of the pro-vocational areas of Industrial Arts, Homemaking, Family Living, Health and Safety. 6. In order for handicapped students to be truly integrated r: into vocational education programs, vocational education 5 personnel must be trained in the area of handicapping é conditions and in how to program students with the various i handicaps into vocational programs. _ L~ 7. Pre-service and inservice training programs are also needed for those personnel who are in the growing number of managerial positions in vocational programs serving handicapped students at the local level. This applies to the personnel whether they are vocationally certified or Special education certified. 8. Both vocational educators and special educators see a need for a cooperative approach in integrating handicapped students into vocational programs and see a need for training to accomplish this from the university teacher training program. 'The specific problem that was being addressed in this study was that the Special education majors at MSU had little in their curriculum which Prepared them to work at the secondary level or to serve handicapped students in vocational training programs. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a new course entitlecl "Vocational Education for Handicapped Students" specifically 115 developed for special education undergraduate majors at Michigan State University, adequately prepared them to begin serving handi- capped students in vocational programs at the secondary level. Both formative and summative procedures were used to evaluate the new course. The formative evaluation procedure was a detailed description of the extent to which the objectives and activities of )F the course accomplished what was intended. The sumnative evaluation E procedure consisted of measuring the increase in scores on a pre- and post-test instrument, and a measure of the change in attitudes i toward vocational education for handicapped students, using a pre- and post-questionnaire. A pilot test group of eight special education undergraduate ma.lors was used to help determine which course objectives and activi- ties were most effective for implementation for the experimental class. Fourteen special education undergraduate majors were enrolled in the experimental class spring term, 1976. The pre- and post-test questions for the experimental class consisted of seven course objectives deemed to be of highest priority. A one way analysis of variance test was used to determine if there WWe any Significant differences in total mean score between the pre- and post-test for the MSU class as well as for the scores for each of the seven test questions. The total mean score for the 14 MSU students on both the pre- a"d Post-test as well as the mean scores for each of the seven test o use and: undo uoH .u moaugzozu .uocuou cu soon and can nocuoo acme mucouuav o as uuouo .a 5:. 23: 3»: «32309.8 .333 £5 «35 .3 e on .9: .e «.3533. pgpquumS noun—umuxme» "wad—663 vuoon calico no aoaauzu muuauouncu haw «Hausa no“ mafiaoHAOu onu uncuuon .n .oaoquouaa vunuuaww uo cowuouaaanu yaw «can a ouw>oun .n .ouauusuuu cu huuvunuu eve .o .aoasuauuae wea>oe cacao madame: "ucwuoodu Gd VOUOQHUUGH 0H6 0&3 Quflflfifiufl Hflwmmouuaa QUEUUQE HUEUQ”? O infim HO DOOflhflfi UHOQD 0:“ QDHHUQNV .N .aaoquuqa uxou vououuoaaau sow>ou mucovaum o o>ooum can usuaOu .u .vuaoauonfiu .o naaauzo .A .mcuuooaunam mo acumma o>uomao cu ouau nan muuou> mango o uvuoon coaflou .v voozhua .a uuuoauouus 1L .A..o..— I :C mcwuooCIaam no «2:3 25.33:. 3.3303 in .Nu u sowuuoa mason doves 33m co «0260003 332:: mace—Sum o 1PM. m. 23: 35:: o m. m P .uauuoozana uo mucosa .99.» Co ucoeouman any 3 3a.; 0.3 £231.65. 3.2.150» one 3:03.260 “HM. M van ucwunoaaa a no: woof. gnu: m we ocwuuao aaou mucogum 0 333.3»: .300» romance 0.: so>wo “We.” W. 323. 52852: «:5 5.258833 a: 3.8328 Vacuum“. "use: 233m 22. -zolmu "one”. 168 «aquacuua macaw no «magnum Hannah uoaam um_e.ceuex .ucovuuacumcu o>.usoan=m mo yawn: aw mason ozu nos: manauouoa vozuacau Baum .xafisn annual upon moon uo: .uswuouum unnav auauawau .uu no no» no adds: up coo so: no uuou on .uuau a ucouuu pucwuoo~unso uo mono: use: 0» oaonuaa mu nus: muommme mcowuuoao .mouauaaa ion caucuses: van nuaoocou mo gouge Java: 25.53.30 can #00... 3.36 .2286 upon a no «can unwau co nuance «own: «wcuuooHupao uo omoauaa mu nos: "coauuaac «ugh: ucovsuo o>oz “nuance csov canoe a“ mafia goose avaum so 0 .cowouauuwv now u00u ouuaan won uumou o>uuoaou you uoqaanam douoa.u~:u=ou o .uOuoauuaau annouuooo> scum uaouuouul woodwaau mo uoaau mo moanaou uoouaoo o uncovumoomam .auo: mean to .0.“ .oueaua9uaaa on an! nous: uoaau Hue: can mean awe: woodman fi.mcx.q~ NO «one so uo>ou cu vovooc woo: Ixfia uo muoogm uo noses: as” mewauouon .A.mx.qv vooaxan uo goose a 6% uoOu ouaacm no amass: onu azaauouoa o>oouu van oaucoa avuooa col-co audaaem whooauonum canon Hoouuuem noucou no munuucou o>_ueu_uce:c sue» on» we umeaucua acwsueo» e>_uecogoou so» covquLoucu uvmam ucuuoOHuaaa sunuu< "um