A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ATTITUDE COMPARISON OF
IOWA CAREER EDUCATION PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND‘
NON PARTICIPANTS TOWARD CAREER EDUCATION

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
WAYNE LESLIE SCHMADEKA

' 1976»

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII L re R A R y

31293 00632 7302

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Semantic Differential Attitude Comparison
of Secondary Iowa Career Education
Project Participants and Non Participants

Toward Career Education

presented by

Wayne Leslie Schmadeka

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Education

degree in

 

 

Major professor

 

[hue October 12, 1976

 

0-7 639

 

ABSTRACT

A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ATTITUDE COMPARISON OF IOWA
CAREER EDUCATION PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND
NON PARTICIPANTS TOWARD CAREER EDUCATION

BY

Wayne Leslie Schmadeka

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to measure the effect
of a comprehensive, secondary level, Career Education Ex-
emplary Project, as indicated by the meanings or attitudes
held by school personnel (superintendents, principals,
and teachers) toward certain career education concepts.
The problem stated was: Do personnel in the Iowa Career
Education Project (ICEP) have different attitudes toward
certain career education concepts when compared with atti-
tudes of school personnel in Non ICEP schools, and, what

is the nature and extent of any attitudinal variation?

Procedure

 

Data was gathered by means of a semantic differ-
ential and follow-up personal interviews from superintend-
ents, principals, and teachers in Iowa public schools.

Two sub-populations were identified. One sub-population

Wayne Leslie Schmadeka

was a random sample of personnel from eight schools iden-
tified as the pilot secondary schools of the ICEP. The
other sub-population consisted of a random sample of
personnel from eight schools that had not been involved
in the ICEP. The Non ICEP schools were matched with the
ICEP schools relative to rural, suburban, or metropolitan
characteristics.

Participants in the study judged twelve career
education concepts along ten bipolar scales. The con-
cepts were: Career Exploration, Iowa Career Education
Model, Career Information Center, Hands—On Experiences,
Occupational Clusters, Career Awareness, Vocational Edu-
cation, Career Integration, World of Work, Career Prepa-
ration, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept.

Responses were subjected to an analysis on the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The means,

 

standard deviations, and t-ratios were computed by con-
cepts, by scales, and by position of the respondent.

The same personnel from the equivalent of three
randomly selected districts of the eight districts in-
volved in the ICEP and Non ICEP subgroups responded to
11 questions in a personal interview to clarify why the
subjects expressed the attitudes indicated by the mailed
semantic differential. With the exception of the personal
interviews, this study is parallel to a previous study

done on the elementary level ICEP.

Wayne Leslie Schmadeka

Results of the Study

 

Results derived from analysis of the data were:

1. School personnel in the ICEP schools differ
in their attitudes toward career education from school
personnel in Non ICEP schools. The group of adminis-
trators and teachers of the ICEP schools have a more
positive attitude on all of the concepts judged.

2. Ninety-three percent of the time ICEP person-
nel have a higher mean for the concepts rated. A higher
mean score on a concept rated indicates a more positive
meaning or attitude held toward that concept. Thus the
ICEP personnel have attitudes that are more positively
polarized than the Non ICEP personnel.

3. The ICEP personnel have smaller standard devi-
ations for the concepts being judged 80.6 percent of the
time. A smaller standard deviation indicates less vari-
ation in the responses toward the concepts. Thus ICEP
personnel were found to hold a more common core of mean-
ing relative to the concepts judged.

4. In tests conducted to determine the t-ratios
for the difference between the means of the two groups
(ICEP and Non ICEP), it was found that 36.9 percent of
the Concepts had significant t-ratios at the .05 level

of significance.

A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ATTITUDE COMPARISON OF IOWA
CAREER EDUCATION PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND

NON PARTICIPANTS TOWARD CAREER EDUCATION

BY

Wayne Leslie Schmadeka

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Curriculum

1976

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An expression of sincere thanks is extended to
those who have aided in this study. Special acknowledg-
ment is due to the following:

Professor Robert Poland for his assistance as the
writer's advisor.

Professors Max Raines, Casmer Heilman, and Zane
Quible for serving on the thesis committee.

Professor Van Dusseldorp, University of Iowa; and
Professor Kahler, Iowa State University; and the Career
Education Division of the Iowa Department of Public
Instruction for their interest in the study.

Maharishi International University for making the
study possible.

Miss Laura Calvert and Miss Jan Overholtzer for
typing the manuscript.

This thesis is a humble and inadequate reflection
of the great love, wisdom and guidance that have been so
generously given to me by my Father and Mother, my sister,
Wayne, Jim.and Anna Wiggins, my wife, Kathy and Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi. To them it is respectfully and lovingly

dedicated.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O C O O O C 0
LIST OF TABLES . O O O O O O C O O I 0

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem .
Statistical Hypotheses .
Purpose of the Study . .
Need for the Study . . .

Definition of Terms .
Limitations of the Study

II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . .

Introduction . . . .

Definition of Attitude . . . . . .
Congruity Theory . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . .
Abstract of Parallel Study on Elementary
ICEP . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Similar Studies . . . . .

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . .
The Semantic Differential . .
Semantic Differential Validity . .
Semantic Differential Reliability .
The POpulation . . . . . . . .
The Sample . . . . . . . . .
Sample One: Participating ICEP Schools
Sample Two: Nonparticipating ICEP
Schools . . . . . . .
Construction of the Semantic Differential

iii

Page

ii

vii

NDSD \O «humane-w H

NM NH
\lub Nth

u
C

wwwwwwww
O‘OSU'lebtbl-‘OO

Law
\103

Chapter

IV. AN

V. SU

FOOTNOTES

Selection of Concepts . . . . . . .
Selection of Scales . . . . . . .
Administering the Instrument . . . .
The Semantic Differential Scoring ‘
Techniques . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . .
The Personal Interviews . . . . . .

ALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
ICEP with Non ICEP . . ‘. . . . . .
ICEP Teachers with Non ICEP Teachers .
Administrators (ICEP) with Administrators
(Non ICEP) . . . . . . . .
Teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP) with
Administrators (ICEP and Non ICEP) . .
Summary of Tables I Through XVI . . .
Examination of Specific Questions Under
Consideration . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Specific Questions . . . .
The Personal Interviews . . . . . .

MMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . .
smary 0 O C O O O O O O O 0

Conclusions and Implications . . . .
Recommendations for Further Study . . .

APPENDICES O O O I O O O C O O O O .

BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

iv

Page
38
39
41
41
42
42
44
44
46
49
57

63
66

75
82
90
90
99
102
109
143

Table

II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

LIST OF TABLES

ICEP with Non ICEP: All Factors . .

ICEP with Non ICEP: Evaluative Factor
ICEP with Non ICEP: Potency Factor .
ICEP with Non ICEP: Activity Factor .

Teachers with Teachers: All Factors .

Teachers with Teachers:
Teachers with Teachers: Potency Factor
Teachers with Teachers: Activity Factor

Administrators with Administrators: All
Factors . . . . . . . . . .

Administrators with Administrators:
Evaluative Factor . . . . . . .

Administrators with Administrators:
Potency Factor . . . . . . . .

Administrators with Administrators:
Activity Factor . . . . . . .

All Teachers with All Administrators: All

Factors 0 O O O O O O O O C

All Teachers with All Administrators:
Evaluative Factor . . . .

All Teachers with All Administrators:
Potency Factor . . . . . . . .

All Teachers with All Administrators:
Activity Factor . . . . . . .

Evaluative Factor

Page
47
48
50
51
53
54
55
56

58

59

61

62

64

65

67

68

Table

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII.

Page

Summary of Standard Deviations: All
Concepts--ICEP with Non ICEP . . . . . 70

Summary of Standard Deviations: All
Concepts--All Teachers with All
Administrators . . . . . . . . . . 71

Summary of Means: All Concepts--ICEP with
Non ICEP O O O O O O O I O O O O 7 2

Summary of Means: All Concepts--All
Teachers with All Administrators . . . . 73

Summary of t-ratios: All Concepts--ICEP
With Non ICEP O O O O O O O I O O 7 4

Summary of t-ratios: All Concepts--All
Teachers with All Administrators . . . . 76

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. The Bipolar Adjectives . . . . . . . 110
B. Letter to Superintendents . . . . . . 112
C. Letter to Principals . . . . . . . . 114
D. Letter to Teachers . . . . . . . . 116
E. Directions for Respondents . . . . . . 118
F. Semantic Differential Instrument . . . . 121
G. Questionnaire Distribution and Return . . 136
H. Personal Interviews . . . . . . . . 138
I. Model for Career Development . . . . . 141

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Former Commissioner Marland has stated: "Career
Education, as indeed any educational reform, will succeed
only to the degree that state and local officials and
supporters of the schools accept its worth and press for
its adoption."1 Thus before any educational reform can
succeed, the attitude of officials and supporters must be
positive. In the case of implementation of educational
reform through an exemplary project, the attitudes of
personnel being asked to be the exemplifiers must be
positive toward the concept being exemplified. Thus in
any exemplary project it may be useful to assess the ex-
emplifiers' attitudes toward the concept being exemplified,
and thus to some extent, to determine the eventual success
of the project in helping effect the desired educational
reform.

In the past three years there has been an inten-
sive effort to emplement career education concepts in
public schools. Often this effort has taken the form of
an exemplary project designed to encourage and support

the development of pilot and demonstration projects based

on sound research findings to improve educational prac-
tice. Career Education exemplary projects generally
receive funding for a three-year period and are to serve
as an example worth imitating.

In Iowa, three comprehensive exemplary projects
have received funding through the State Department of
Public Instruction. These projects are: The Iowa Project
Models for Pre-Career Education in Iowa, the Des Moines
Project--Comprehensive Career Curriculum, and the Pot-
tawattamie County Project--Area Wide Project for Occu-
pational Orientation, Exploration, Counseling, Job Train-
ing, and Placement for Elementary and Secondary Schools.2
The largest of these three comprehensive projects is the
Iowa Project (ICEP), both in terms of dollars allocated
and school districts served. The ICEP received state
funds while the other two comprehensive projects received
federal funds.

The ICEP (Proposal for Exemplary Programs of
Projects in Pre-Career Education), was transmitted for
funding to the Iowa State Board of Public Instruction on
February 2, 1971. The project is conducted under the
direction of Iowa State University, through the Department
of Agriculture Education. The nine elementary schools and
eight secondary schools selected for the project represent
rural, metropolitan and suburban communities in the state.

Implementation of the elementary project began in March,

1971 with termination of the funding scheduled for Febru-.
ary 28, 1974. The secondary project began July, 1972 with
termination of funding scheduled for June 30, 1975.
Although it is generally surmised that an ex-
emplary project such as the ICEP succeeds in bringing
about a positive polarization of attitudes of school per-
sonnel involved, as a prerequisite for involvement, there
is often inconclusive evidence. The issues, when stated
as questions are: Is there indication of positive atti-
tudes associated with selected career education concepts
by school personnel in exemplary projects of ICEP pilot
schools? Are the results of an intensive effort, such
as the ICEP, reflected in positive attitudes of personnel
involved in the effort? The answers to these questions
and issues (at the secondary 1evel--hereafter referred to

as the secondary ICEP) form the basis for this study.

Statement of the Problem

Do school personnel in the secondary ICEP have
different attitudes toward certain career education con-
cepts when compared with attitudes of similar school per-
sonnel in non ICEP schools, if so, what is the nature and
extent of such attitudinal variation?

The specific questions to be studied were:

1. Do superintendents, principals, and teachers

of secondary ICEP schools differ in their attitudes toward

career education concepts from superintendents, princi-
pals, and teachers in non ICEP schools?

2. Do intensive efforts, such as the ICEP ex-
emplary project, result in positive attitudes related
to the concept being exemplified?

3. Does a relationship exist between direction
of polarization in attitudes toward a concept and the
fact that the program received impetus as an exemplary
project?

4. Do school personnel, in the secondary ICEP
exemplary project schools, agree regarding attitudes
held toward selected career education concepts?

5. Do school personnel, in non ICEP exemplary
school districts, agree regarding attitudes held toward
selected career education concepts?

6. Does the level of responsibility of the
personnel in the secondary ICEP or non ICEP schools
influence the clustering of attitudes regarding selected

career education concepts?

Statistical Hypotheses
From the preceding specific questions these
statistical hypotheses were formulated:
1. Superintendents, principals, and teachers in
secondary ICEP schools do not differ as a group in their

attitudes toward selected career education concepts from

superintendents, principals, and teachers, as a group,
in non ICEP schools.

2. Participation in the ICEP is not related to
differences in direction of polarization of attitudes
held by ICEP and non ICEP personnel toward the concept
being exemplified.

3. Participation in the ICEP does not affect
the degree of concentration of polarization of atti-
tudes held by ICEP and non ICEP personnel toward the
concept being exemplified.

4. Attitudes of school personnel in secondary
ICEP schools regarding selected career education con-
cepts are not polarized in any particular direction.

5. Attitudes of school personnel in secondary
non ICEP schools regarding selected career education
concepts are not polarized in any particular direction.

6. The level of responsibility is not related
to polarization of attitudes expressed by personnel in

the ICEP and non ICEP schools.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to measure the
effect of a comprehensive secondary Career Education
exemplary project, as indicated by the meanings or atti-
tudes held by school personnel (superintendents, princi-
pals, and teachers), toward certain career education con-

cepts. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum have stated:

Most social scientists would agree . . . that how

a person behaves in a situation depends upon what

that situation means or signifies to him. And

most would also agree that one of the most impor-

tant factors in social activity is meaning and

change in meaning--whether it be termed 'atti-

tude,‘ or 'value,‘ or something else again.3
The "attitude" or "value" in the situation for this study
was determined for personnel who participated in the ICEP.
The staffs of the eight selected schools, in the partici-
pating districts, were to develop a locally unique program.
They were guided by a Model for Career Development (Ap-
pendix I), created as part of the ICEP by the central
project consultants. This model, the basic ideas of
career education, and references for the participants
were disseminated at workshops and conferences that were
held. This was to provide consistency in all phases of
development and implementation. This study measures

the effect of these efforts on the attitudes of the

personnel involved.

Need for the Study

The exemplary project is an often employed pro-
cedure for the implementation of a new concept into a
school district. The intent of the exemplary funding
is to provide money to develop a model program that will
continue after the funding ends. If continuation of a
project is to occur once the funding ends, the attitudes
of the school's personnel being asked to be the inno-

vators must become positively polarized toward the

innovation. The secondary phase of the ICEP was termi-
nated on June 30, 1975.4 The timing is ideal for an
assessment of attitudes held by school personnel who
are involved.

Evidence of the attitudes held by school per-
sonnel is needed to encourage federal and state legis-
lators to continue funding. In the past funding for
exemplary programs has been cut from the State of Iowa
Department of Public Instruction and from the National
Institute of Education budgets because, in part, legis-
lators have not seen enough evidence to indicate that
exemplary efforts accomplish attitudinal change.5 With-

out these sources of funding, future exemplary efforts

will be limited.

 

Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined to make clear the
the meaning_and scope of key words and phrases that are
to be used in the study.
Attitude.--". . . mental and neural state of
.readiness, organized through experience upon

the individual's response to all objects and
situations with which it is related."

 

Bipolar Adjectives.--A set of paired adjectives
which are opposite in meaning.7 One example of
such a pair is "strong--weak." ‘

 

Conce t.--This term is applied to the generalized
1dea, having a "common cultural meaning," the
form of the concept is generally dictated by

the nature of the problem.

Career Education.--". . . is defined as the
sequence of career development experiences,
beginning in early childhood and continuing
through adult life, that prepare individuals
for present and future career opportunities.
These experiences are offered through various
programs, services, and activities which are
designed and implemented to assist youth and
adults to develop attitudes and occupational
competencies which will lead to entry employ-
ment and advancement in employment."

 

Semantic Differential.--". . . is a method of
observing and measuring the psychological mean-
ing of concepts. Although everyone sees things
a bit differently, sometimes very differently,
there must be some common core of meaning in all
concepts."9 The instrument, as designed by I
Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum was used to measure
attitudes of superintendents, principals, and
teachers on certain career concepts.

 

Limitations of the Study

 

The study is limited to an assessment of data
collected from: (1) secondary schools identified as
pilot schools in the ICEP participating district, (2)
secondary schools that were identified from districts
not participating in the ICEP or the other comprehensive
exemplary career education projects in Iowa (The Des
Moines Project, the Pottawattamie County Project,
Monticello Project and the Fort Dodge Project), and
(3) superintendents, principals, and teachers from the

two samples identified.

CHAPTER II

SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

This section contains a review of the literature
and research that is related to this study.

Within the realm of social psychology in the
past 25 years the concept of attitude has attracted
much attention. This interest has been accompanied
by a corresponding proliferation of writing and re-
search.

This review of literature concerns selected
studies related to the definition of attitude, con-
gruity theory on attitude formation and change, the
efficacy of the semantic differential to measure atti-
tude and change, and the parallel study completed on

the elementary ICEP.

Definition of Attitude
Attitude has been defined in a number of dif-
ferent ways. With the number of definitions proposed,
there was some disagreement. This disagreement was
often based upon a slightly different conception of

what an attitude is or what emphasis is given within

9

10

the theory base of the concept on the different aspects
of attitude.

In a 1967 review of the early literature, Spies
noted: "Experimental psychologists came to identify
attitudes with such things as cortical sets and brain
fields and, therefore, consigned them to the mysterious
realm of 'motivation' where they were content to leave

them."10

Typical of this school of thought is the use
of the term by Washburn who referred to attitude as:
". . . static movement systems within the body and the
mind."11 I
During this same time period social psychology
was defined as the scientific study of attitudes and
the term attitudes was used by Thomas and Znanieck to
mean: ". . . mental processes which determine responses,
as a 'state of mind.”12
Sometime later, Thurstone and Chave used the
term attitude to explain: "man's inclinations and
feelings, prejudices or biases, preconceived notions,
ideas, fears, threats, and emotions about any specific
topic."13
The term “attitude" became fairly well estab-
lished in the behavioral sciences during the 1930's.
Allport observed that "all investigators, even the most
orthodox came to admit attitudes as an indispensable

14.

part of their psychological armamentarium." His 1935

ll

definition with an emphasis on behavior implications is
still highly regarded.

An attitude is a mental and neural state of readi-
ness, organized through experience, exerting a
directive or dynamic influence upon the individu-
al's response to all objects and situations with
which it is related.15

In contrast, a predispositional definition was
developed by Nelson: "An attitude may be considered a
felt disposition arising from integration or experience
and innate tendencies, which disposition modifies in a
general way the responses to psychological objects."16

Eysenck viewed attitudes as a "generalized and

17 This seemed to agree with

pervasive disposition."
Rokeach who defined attitude as: ". . . a relatively
enduring organization of beliefs around an object or
situation predisposing one to respond to some preferen-
tial manner."18
While Green considered an attitude as a latent

psychological process which mediates between stimuli
and observable response, attitude was latent in that
it was not defined as directly observable and, there-
fore, must be inferred.

Attitude does not refer to any one specific act or

response to an individual, but is an abstraction

from a large number of related acts. . . . The

latent variable is useful because it unifies a
set of data namely, the observed responses.1

20

Secord and Backman delineated attitude as

consisting of three components: affective, cognitive,

12

and behavioral. A similar view was taken by Remmers21

who described two dimensions: verbal or symbolic and
physical action. This emphasis on the components of
attitude is popular with theorists. Rosenberg,22 who
sees attitude as a complex response that serves the indi-
vidual in adapting to his inner and outer worlds and
Kerlinger who describes attitude as "a predisposition

to behave towards persons or objects in one's environ-
ment, or a predisposition to perceive, feel, think, and

23 is an example of multiple

behave toward something"
component attitude conceptualization.

The widespread acceptance of the concept "atti-
tude" consisting of components is represented in the

following three facet model:24

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measureable‘ Intervening Measurable Dependent
Independent Variables Variables
STIMULI N\‘ __u_. sympathetic nervous

. . . AFHEHP responses, verbal

(individuals, ._u_.__va statements of affect

1tuat1ons, AHTEHIES

gglgthéisgiii- TI 51.... perceptual responses,
. / OOG'NITIQI verbal statements of

ude objects) -—-————— belief

 

 

overt actions,
BEHAVIOR verbal statements
concerning behavior

 

 

 

13

The model places the concept “attitude“ within a
theoretical framework that suggest that in any given
situation an individual may select some of the available
stimuli and neglect others. Once the stimuli has been
selected it is processed by the individual who reacts
affectively by exciting certain behavior tendencies which
finally emerge as the observable behavior under the given
conditions. The connection between the stimulus and the
behavior is the intervening variable or mediating re-
sponse here defined as attitude. The component (affect,
cognition, and behavior) can be observed and measured
from the dependent variables in the model.

An understanding of the schematic is important
as Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum build on the model and
define attitude as a learned process, potentially bi-
polar, with variable intensity which mediates between
most stimulus and response patterns.

Most authorities are agreed that attitudes are
learned and implicit. . . . Further they are
predispositions to respond, but are distinguished
from other such states of readiness in that they
predispose toward an evaluative response . . . on
a bipolar continuum with a neutral or zero refer-
ence point, implying that they have both direction
and intensity providing a basis for the quantita-
tive indexing of attitudes.

It became apparent that attitudes of people do
not exist in a vacuum, but only in relation to some

specific thing. Osgood, et al., suggest that "every

concept that has meaning also has an evaluative

14

component, either positive, or negative, or neutral,
and, therefore, every concept has an attitudinal com-

26 The measurement of

ponent as part of its meaning."
this attitudinal component is a key to understanding

attitude formation and change.

Congruity Theory

 

Of the major approaches described in the litera-
ture related to attitude formation and change, cognitive
consistency theory, specifically congruity theory, has
been selected as the theory base for this study.

Congruity theory, proposed by Osgood and
Tannenbaum,27 contains a model that attempts to cover
those variables believed to be the most significant
with regard to direction of change to be predicted in
any given situation. The variables are outlined in an
assertion-message-cognition paradigm as (a) the existing
attitude toward the source of a message, (b) the exist-
ing attitude toward the concept evaluated by the source,
and (c) the nature of the evaluating assertion which
relates source and concept in the message.28 The pre-
dictions that are generated by the model identify both
direction and degree of attitude change given measures
of the sources and concepts under study.

Congruity theory can be understood as a special

case of general balance theory which consists of a series

15

of theoretical assertions associated with Lewin, Heider,
Abelson, Festinger, Brehm, Cohen, Newcomb, Cartwright,
Harvey, Rosenberg, Osgood, and others. Congruity
theory, like other balance theories, is concerned with
predicting the effect of one person taking a position
(positive or negative) toward another person or object.
"That is, when person A says something good or bad about
person (object) B, what effect does it have on someone

29 This important

else's attitude toward both A and B?"
concept, that attitudes tend to be evaluated on a good-
bad dimension is often referred to a "maximum simplicity"
or "maximum polarization."
A second assumption of congruity theory can be
stated in the form: when two attitude objects (signs)
of differing evaluation are linked with an assertion,
there is a tendency for the evaluations of each object
to shift toward a point of equilibrium or congruity.
For example, Osgood, et al., state:
The general congruity principal may be stated as
follows: Whenever two signs are related by an
assertion, the mediating reaction characteristic
of the other, the magnitude of the shift being
proportional to intensities of the interacting
reactions.
Third, congruity theory is closely tied to this
study as the use of the semantic differential (SD) serves
as the measurement instrument. Designed by Osgood, et

31

al., the SD is integrally involved with and was

16

developed from this or from any other theory of attitude
formation and change.

It is assumed that before the principle of con-
gruity can function, there has to be a link, by an
assertion, between the two signs. These assertions
can be associative or dissociative. The distinction
between associative and dissociative assertions is not
precisely drawn and no definition of an assertion is
offered by the authors. To quote:

We realize that these examples do not provide a
precise definition to 'assertion.‘ Although we
are able to distinguish situations involving as-
sertions (and hence dynamic interaction among
sign-processes) from situations not involving
assertions on an intuitive basis, so far we have
not been able to make explicit the criteria on
which we operate.32
This apparent weakness is overshadowed by the strength
of the congruity principle to predict direction of con-
gruity theory is in the prediction of a communications
effectiveness in producing attitude change."33

On a seven-point scale (+3 to -3), the pressure
toward congruity is ascertained as being equal to the
difference in evaluative scale units between the two
objects of judgments. The sign of this pressure (direc-
tion) is positive when the direction of congruence is
negative.

"Using our principle, we may now define the

location of congruence, pc, for each sign as follows:

17

for associative assertions, pCl = p2 and

for dissociative assertion, pcl = -p2 and,
pc2 = -pl '

where subscripts refer to sign 1 and 2 respectively."34

the factor pl represents the p-larization of a value
for a factor score on a given dimension.

The pressure of incongruity is symbolized by P:

1 = pcl 'P1 and'

_ _ 35
2 Pcz 92

Thus substituting for the original equations:

for associative assertions,Pl = p2 -p1 and,

P2 = Pl 'Pz ‘

for dissociative assertion, Pl p2 -p1 and,

= - 35
P2 Pl p2

Following the formulation of the theory further,
(:ongruity theory posits that the shift is reaction
tzoward congruity and is inversely proportional to the
<>riginal intensities of the reactions to the sign.
Osgood et al., offer the following to take this into

account:

18

 

 

P2
c = P and
1 1 '
Pi + 92
c = p
2 2
91 + 92

where C is the symbol of change.37

Congruity theory has also built into its mathe-
matical formulae a 'correction for incredulity' to ex-
plain the reduction in obtained change when the subject
does not wholly accept that which is supposed to exist.
This 'correction' is appropriate at times when the infor-
mation is so unlikely that rather than change an atti-
tude to restore consistency, the individual decides that
the information is not believable. The formula for

correction of incredulity is:

 

 

where pR is the degree of polarization, in one direction
or the other at the point of resolution."38
Kiesler39 suggests that congruity theory suffers,
as all theory in the field of social psychology ap-
parently does, from the lack of power. He also is con-

cerned with the vagueness of the definition of an "as-

sertion" and by the fact that "prestige research," the

19

area of attitude research that congruity theory is most
closely related to, is not all that clear.

On the other hand, Kiesler suggests that Osgood
and Tannenbaum's congruity theory is the "best predictor"
of the many consistency theories and pays the "most at-

40 Suedfeld41

tention to the degree of inconsistency."
commends the theory for its use of seven-point scale, for
the concept of the evaluation source being able to change
along with the attitude toward the object of assertion,
for the use of mathematical formulae, and because of

the fact that any number of assertions can be included

in the prediction formula.

I Congruity theory states that the linking of a
source with a concept will change the evaluation of the
concept (doctrine of prestige) as well as the source.

The numerical predictions as to the extent of the change
have been supported by several experiments.

Osgood and Tannenbaum,42 in 1955, tested the
theory of congruity with data from Tannenbaum's Ph.D.
thesis. Using 100 college students, they had subjects
rate sources and concepts on a Semantic Differential
and demonstrated that obtained change, when compared
with predicted change as corrected for incredulity, has
a high degree of correspondence. This correlation between
the obtained and predicted change was +.9l. They also

concluded that obtained change is typically less than

20

predicted change which they attributed to the "limited
effect of a single message."

A 1956 study by Tannenbaum43

with 405 college
students using a Semantic Differential upheld the theory
of congruity in regard to the susceptibility to change
being inversely proportional to the intensity of the

' initial score.

A study involving two groups of 40 students by
Kerrick,44 demonstrated that congruity theory predicts
significantly better for relevant than nonrelevant
situations.

45 1959, that used two

A later study by Kerrick,
groups of 50 college students demonstrated further that
the theory predicts a point of resolution or equilibrium
somewhere between the associated objects of judgment and
any obtained summation effect is directly contrary to
the theory. In this study it was demonstrated that both
positive and negative captions for pictures produced a
significant change in the evaluation of the picture.

It was demonstrated that uninformed groups will
change more in the advocated direction than will informed
groups and that informed groups change more in the non-
advocated direction than uninformed groups in a study

46

using 44 college students by Kerrick and McMillan in

1961.

21

Two studies, one by Tannenbaum and Gengel47 in

1966 and the other by Tannenbaum in 1966,48

documented
that a change in attitudes toward a given concept will
generalize so as to produce a change in attitude toward
a given source which previously made an assertion about
the concept and that a change in attitude toward a
source which previously made an assertion about the
concept as well as to an additional concept about which
the source has not made an assertion; thus lending sup-
port to the notion of source diffusion across concepts
in a consistent direction.

Related research that indicates that congruity
theory prediction, with regard to perceived evaluation
of complex stimuli, is not always as accurate as some
competing formulae, but nevertheless "good predictors"
are studies using "summation procedures."

The first such study, by Triandis and Fishbein49
in 1963, using 25 college students from the University
of Illinois and 25 students from the University of
Athens discovered that a congruity model was not as
accurate in predicting as was a summation formula
developed earlier by Fishbein.

Fishbein and Hunter50 in a 1964 study using four
groups of 40 subjects supported the summation variation

when predicting the effect of increasing amounts of

information upon the evaluation of the stimulus person.

22

Further demonstration of the summation effect
was offered by Anderson and Fishbein51 in a 1965 study
using five groups of 20 students to compare the sum-
mation concept and the congruity concept. They demon-
strated that the summation effect has a better pre-
diction record when subjects are treated to different
degrees of positively evaluated information.

The area of disagreement, the power of the sum-
mation effect to predict versus the congruity theory's
ability to predict, was further investigated by Anderson52
in 1965 with 49 male college students. He documented
that congruity theory and its averaging concept is more
applicable to judgments of single objects while Fishbein's

summation effect is more applicable to judgments of col-

lections of objects.

Summary

While there is not complete agreement among the
social psychologists regarding the definition of atti-
tude, Suefeld stated the issue as being that of: "To
many workers, the concept has three components: cogni-
tive, affect, and behavior. Some writers restrict the
term to the first two dimensions, and view behavior as
independent dimension that may be, but does not have to
be a function of attitude. Still others use 'attitude'
to mean only emotional reactions, and refer to cognitive

response as believe."53 Despite this weakness of common

23

agreement on a definition of attitude, it remains a con—
cept capable of explaining more broadly than any other
the behavior of the individual. Hollaran states: "In
short, despite its limitations, it is a step in the
right direction of reducing the complex to the simple,
it helps to make sense and give meaning to individual
behavior and in all probability it is the best basis

54 It can be concluded that

for prediction yet devised."
regardless of which definition is applied, attitude
refers to the complex concept that incorporates meaning
and evaluation of an object or concept. The meaning
and evaluation may very in quality and intensity from
negative to positive to neutral. Disregarding the lack
of precise terminology with which to differentiate the
various components, the value of the concept, if deter-
mined by its use, is indispensable. Even without common
agreement as to its precise definition, the concept
"attitude" best explains the evaluation activities of
man and provides a construct with which to attribute
behavioral variations.

Congruity theory, as a measure of attitude, has
shown to be reliable as a predictor in situations where
the more prestigious the source of an assertion or mes-

sage, the greater the change in attitude toward the

object of the assertion. It has also been demonstrated

24

in the research that the averaging concept of congruity
theory is best suited for judgments of single objects.
Congruity theory has not been without its critics.
Brown55 and others have found reason to cite its limits.
Nevertheless there is significant support for the model:
"The theory nonetheless is a vast improvement over the
old verbally stated doctrine of prestige suggestions."56
"Except for problems involving the amount of change and
the relevance of the source and concept, the attitude
change studies give an encouraging degree of support to

the congruity principle."57

Abstract of Parallel Study on
Elementary ICEP

 

Cronin conducted a study on the elementary ICEP
during the conclusion of the elementary ICEP (February
28, 1974). The study detailed herein is parallel to
the Crghin study. The purpose of the study was to
measure the effect of a comprehensive Career Education
Exemplary Project, as indicated by the meanings or atti-
tudes held by school personnel (superintendents, princi-
pals, and teachers), toward certain career education
concepts. The problem stated was: Do selected per-
sonnel in the elementary Iowa Career Education Project
(ICEP) have different attitudes toward certain career

education concepts when compared with attitudes of cor-

responding school personnel in non-ICEP schools and,

25

what is the nature and extent of such attitudinal vari-
ation?

Data was gathered by means of a semantic dif-
ferential from superintendents, principals and teachers
in Iowa public schools. Two sub-populations were identi-
fied. One sub-population was a random sample of per-
sonnel from nine schools identified as the pilot ele-
mentary schools of the ICEP. The other sub-pOpulation
consisted of a random sample of personnel from nine ele-
mentary schools that had not been involved in the ele-
mentary ICEP. The non-ICEP schools were matched with
the elementary ICEP schools relative to rural, suburban,
or metropolitan characteristics.

Participants in the study jedged twelve career
education concepts along ten bipolar scales. The con-
cepts were: Career Explorations, Iowa Career Education
Model, Career Information Center, Hands-On Experiences,
Occupational Clusters, Career Awareness, Vocational
Education, Career Integration, World of Work, Career
Preparation, Career Accommodation and Selvaoncept.

Responses were subjected to an analysis with the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The means,
standard deviations, and t-ratios were computed across
concepts, by scales. Results derived from analysis

follow:

sonnel

cation

26

School personnel in the ICEP schools differ in
their attitudes toward career education from
school personnel in non-ICEP schools. Adminis-
trators and teachers of the ICEP schools have a
more positive attitude on all but two of the
concepts judged;

The ICEP personnel have a higher mean score for
the concepts judged 86.8 percent of the time.

A higher mean score on a concept rated indicates
a more positive meaning or attitude held toward
that concept. Thus the ICEP personnel have
attitudes that are more positively polarized
than the non-ICEP personnel;

The ICEP personnel have found to hold a more
common core of meaning relative to the concepts
judged;

In tests conducted to determine the t-ratios for
the difference between the means of the two
groups (ICEP and non-ICEP) it was found that
56.9 percent of the concepts had significant t-
ratios at the .05 level of significance;

The non-ICEP personnel exhabited a lower mean
score and larger standard deviation for the con-
cepts being judged. This indicated that the non-
ICEP personnel had less positive attitudes toward
the concepts being judged. The non-ICEP personnel
showed a tendency toward a neutral position on

the seven point rating scale used.

The level of responsibility (administrator or
teacher) had little significant bearing on the
meaning held by the ICEP or non-ICEP per-
sonnel.

Cronin concluded that the elementary ICEP per-

hold more positive attitudes toward career edu-

than personnel from non-ICEP schools; that the

ICEP was successful in cultivating a positive polari-

zation of attitudes held by elementary ICEP personnel

towards the concepts. The concepts judged most posi-

tively by elementary ICEP personnel disclosed a definite

27

relationship to the Model For Career Development created

as part of the ICEP.

Summary of Similar Studies

The following is a summary of a survey of recent
and similar educational research using the semantic
differential as an instrument to measure attitudes.

A study by Jensen in 1971 of 836 students (two
groups) found that students in a flexible scheduled
school had more positive attitudes toward concepts such
as "the work we do in school," "the’things we can do
outside of class in school," and "the way this school is
arranged" than did students in a traditionally scheduled
school.

A 1971 study by Pegram of 81 nursing students
supported the idea that meaning is related to behavior.
Specifically, he found that the meaning of nursing and
other related concepts, as measured on a semantic differ-
ential, was related to academic achievement in a nursing
education program.

Leary's 1972 study of 247 teachers to determine
the effects of a program of drug abuse education on the
post-training attitudes of individuals who had undergone
a series of workshop training sessions found significant
(difference between the trained and untrained and no sta-
‘tistically significant correlation between the "learning

and post-worksh0p attitudes in the treatment group."

28

In a 1973 study of 240 teachers, Zelenak found
that teachers who perceive evaluation as an adminis-
trative function hold less favorable attitudes toward
the concept than teachers who view evaluation as an
instructional function.

In a 1974 study to determine differences between
85 innovative and 87 traditional elementary school
teachers in their perceptions of semantic differential
concepts reflecting receptivity to change, Frear con-
cluded "the basic hypothesis . . . that innovative
teachers . . . would be more receptive to change was
not supported."59

Somerick's 1974 study was designed to find
whether the selected Ohio legislature liaisons of six
state-supported universities could assess the attitudes
of the legislators and of their own university presi-
dents. She concludes that "liaisons were more accurate
in assessing the attitudes of the majority of the state
legislators than . . . of their own presidents."6o

Vaughanls 1974 study compared attitudes of 100
deans of colleges of education, 100 curriculum directors
in public schools, and 100 public school teachers toward
educational technology. He found that attitudes toward
educational technology were related to the subjects'
levels of responsibility and formal education of the

teacher.61

29

In 1973 Ahron examined 328 male and female coun-
selors' and 153 academic women's perceptions of women's
career roles. "The most significant finding is the
difference in perceptions about male and female roles,
which suggests that the traditional views of women's
roles . . . create barriers to constructive vocational
counseling and vocational development of women."62

Smith's 1974 study measured the correlation of
attitude changes with participation in the implementation
of career education instructional units. Analysis of
two samples of 100 teachers indicated that teachers'
involvement in career education activities resulted in
more positive attitudes on all three scales of (1)
factOrial composition, (2) relevance, and (3) semantic
stability: that "male subjects viewed career education
and industrial arts more positively than female subjects,"
and "intermediate teachers viewed industrial arts more

favorably than primary teachers."63

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction'

 

This chapter includes a restatement of the prob-
lem and specific questions of the study, the atatistical
hypotheses, a discussion of the instrument used to
gather data, its reliability and validity, a descrip-
tion of the sampling procedure used, analysis of com-
parison devices used to analyze the data, and the per-

sonal interviews.

Statement of the Problem

Do school personnel in the ICEP have a different
common core of meaning or attitude toward certain career
education concepts when compared with the common core
of meaning or attitude of school personnel in non-ICEP
schools? If so, what is the nature and extent of such
attitudinal variation?

The specific questions studied were:

1. Do superintendents, principals, and teachers
of ICEP schools differ in their attitudes toward career
education from superintendents, principals, and teachers

in non-ICEP schools?

30

31

2. Do intensive effots, such as the ICEP ex-
emplary project, result in positive attitudes related
to the concept being exemplified?

3. Does a relationship exist between direction
of polarization in attitudes toward a concept and the
fact that the program received impetus as an exemplary
project?

4. Do school personnel, in the ICEP exemplary
project schools agree regarding attitudes held toward
selected career education concepts?

5. Do school personnel, in the non ICEP ex-
emplary school districts, agree regarding attitudes held
toward selected career education concepts?

6. Does the level of responsibility of the
personnel in the ICEP or non ICEP schools influence the
clustering of attitudes regarding selected career edu-

cation concepts?

The Semantic Differential
The instrument to be used to collect the data on
attitudes for this study is the semantic differential
(SD) as develOped by Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci,
and Percy H. Tannenbaum.64 "The semantic differential
is a method for measuring the meaning of concepts. In

practice, it has had application as an attitude scale."

The semantic differential was designed to be a general

32

measurement instrument that could be used in a wide

variety of research problems.65

Isaac and Michael describe the semantic differ-
ential as containing three elements. The first element
is the concept to be evaluated in terms of semantic or
attitudinal properties. The second element deals with
a pair of polar adjectives, opposite in meaning, that
anchor the scale and the third element is a series of
undefined scaled positions which can be five to nine
steps, with seven steps considered optimal.66

Sax made these observations of the appraising
and evaluating characteristics of the semantic differ-
ential:

Al. The semantic differential is not an entirely
new procedure, but a combination of the usual

type of rating scale with factor analysis.

2. The technique is extremely flexible and is
simple to construct, administer and score.

3. The semantic differential is subject to all
the limitations which seem to be present in
rating scales, namely, the possibilities of
faking responses of acquiescing, and of having
to mark a concept on a rather meaningless scale.

4. A number of studies have demonstrated validity
for the semantic differential.

5. The semantic differential has found its widest
application in the study of personality develop-
ment and in the evaluation of psychotherapy.

Its use in education has not been widespread,
although it appears to be a rather promising
tool.6

33

This lack of application for the semantic differ-

ential in education is referred to by Kerlinger:

One of the difficulties in communicating about edu-
cation is the different interpretation put upon
education ideas. 'Take progressive education,‘ the
'3 R's,‘ 'discipline,‘ and so on. It is likely
that different kinds of people have quite different
connotative meaning structure of these words. It
is likely, for example, that exponents of progres-
sive education have sharply different semantic
spaces surrounding these concepts than exponents

of more traditional viewpoints. Investigating such
structures and their correlates should enrich psy-
chological theory pertinent to education. The SD
can aid such research.68

The semantic differential yields a large amount

of data. It can be administered easily and the scale

used can easily be converted to numerical qualities for

treatment statistically. Because the scores can be

analyzed for a difference between concepts, between
scales, between subject, or any combination thereof,
use of the semantic differential is a desirable tool
for answering the questions asked by educational re-

searchers.

Although not all researchers accept the SD with-

out reservation, there appears to be overwhelming sup-

port for the use of the Semantic differential, Kerlinger

states: "We have here a useful and perhaps sensitive

tool to help in the exploration of an extremely impor-

tant area of psychological and educational concern:

. . 69
connotat1ve mean1ng."

34

Semantic Differential Validity

According to Osgood, et al.: "An instrument is
said to be valid when it measures what it is supposed
to measure."70 The semantic differential is an instru-
ment used to measure meaning.’ Therefore, SD scores
should be correlated with some independent criteria of
meaning but there is no commonly accepted quantitative
criterion for meaning. In line with such criterion,
Osgood, et al. have fallen back on what is usually
called "face validity." Thus, the semantic differential
instrument is valid to the degree it corresponds with
observations made without the aid of the instrument.

Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum go to great lengths
to test the validity of the semantic differential. As
a result of their work they conclude: "Throughout our
work with the semantic differential, we have found no
reasons to question the validity of the instrument on
the basis of its correspondence with the results to be

71
expected from common sense.”

Semantic Differential Reliability
According to Osgood, et al., "The reliability
of an instrument is usually said to be the degree to

Which the same scores can be reproduced when the same

Cflajects are measured repeatedly."72 Ongod, Suci and

Tannenbaum investigated reliability in three categories:

35

item reliability which refers to the reproducibility of
the basic scores, factor-score reliability which refers
to the reducibility of the values under retest condi-
tions and concept-meaning reliability which deals with
the reproducibility of points in the semantic space and
repetition of the measurement Operation.

In their efforts to evaluate and refine the
semantic differential as a measuring technique, Osgood,
et al., amassed a considerable amount of data on relia-
bility. They conclude:

The evidence shows that for individual subjects, a
shift of more than two scale units probably repre-
sents a significant change or difference in measur-
ing, and a shift of more than 1.00 to 1.40 scale
units in factor score (depending on the particular
factor) is.probably significant. For group data
('cultural meanings'), changes or differences in
measured meaning as small as one-half of a scale
unit are significant at the 5 percent level. These
levels of reliability should be satisfactory for
most applications of the instrument.73
_ The Population
. The population of interest in this study was
superintendents, principals, and teachers of the public
schools in Iowa in 1974-75. One sub-population group
was the personnel from the eight secondary ICEP schools
and the other sub-population group was corresponding
(school personnel from eight non ICEP schools. Excluded

:Erom each of these sub-populations are school personnel

janolved in the other comprehensive career education

36

exemplary projects in Iowa (The Des Moines Project, and
the Pottawattamie County Project, the Monticello Project

and the Fort Dodge Project).

The Sample

 

The two samples for this study were generated in

the following manner:

Sample One: Participating_ICEP Schools

 

There are eight participating secondary schools
in the ICEP which were selected as pilot secondary
schools when the project began. The superintendents
of the eight ICEP schools were selected as were the
principals of the eight secondary pilot schools. One
teacher from each of three subject matter areas (humani-
ties, math and sciences, vocational-technical) was
selected by the principal. Selection of a teacher was
accomplished by selecting the teacher from each of the
three respective subject matter areas with the beginning

letter of the last name closest to the letter "A."

Sample Two: Nonparticipating ICEP Schools
Eight Non Iowa Career Education Project school
districts in Iowa were selected from all other districts
in the state with the exception of these districts in-
volved in the Pottawattamie County Project and the Des

Moines Project, the Monticello Project and Storm Lake

37

Project. This sample was selected to match the non-
participating schools with the ICEP schools, relative

to the rural, suburban, or metropolitan characteristics.
School districts selected with more than one secondary
school required further random selection of one secondary
school for the study. The completed sample included:

the eight superintendents from the schools selected, the
principals of the secondary schools selected, and one
teacher from each of the three subject matter areas of
the schools selected. The selection of one teacher from
each of the three areas was accomplished by selecting the
teacher from each area with a beginning letter of the

last name closest to the letter "A."

Construction of the Semantic Differential

The semantic differential consists of a number
of scales, each of which contain bipolar adjectives,
chosen from a large number of possible scales together
with the concepts to be rated with the scales. Osgood,
et al., states: "The scales or bipolar adjectives, are
usually seven point rating scales, the underlying nature

of which has been determined empirically."74

Each scale
may measure one or two of the factors that Osgood and
colleagues found to be behind the scales. The factors

are referred to as evaluation, potency and activity.

38

Selection of Concepts
Regarding the selection of concepts, Kerlinger
recommends: "In using the SD in research, the first
step is to choose the concepts or other stimuli that

will be rated with the bipolar adjectives. This is the

75

most important part of the job." The concepts selected

must be relevant to the research problems and must meet
certain requirements for selection: (1) concepts must
elicit varied responses from different persons--they must
produce large variation, and (2) concepts should cover
semantic space.

The following concepts were selected for this

study and are identical to those used by Cronin:76

Career Accommodation--That stage in the sequence of
career development where the individual interrelated
the factors inherent in the self concept and the
world of work.

Career Awareness-~The process by which an individual
becomes cognizant of personal attributes and atti-
tudes and develops understandings of and apprecia-
tions for self, the worker, and the world of work.

Career Information Center--A center in which all
materials for use in a career development program
are gathered so that they are available to both
students and teachers.

Career Exploration--The level where students broaden
their knowledge of self, the world of work, and the

occupational clusters and investigate in more depth

selected occupational areas of interest to them.

Hands-on Experiences--Contrived educational experi-
ences designed to cause students to explore in more
depth self interest activities and an occupational

area. Such experiences may include observations as
well as manipulative tasks.

39

Career Integration--Fitting career development con-
cepts and learning activities into the existing
curriculum and instructional goals, teaching objec-
tives and classroom learning activities of the school.

Occupational Cluster--A cluster of occupations com-
posed or recognized job titles which are logically
related because they include identical or similar
teachable skills and knowledge requirements.

Career Preparation--The development of genuine job
entry level skills.

Iowa Career Education Model--A model that reflects
the Iowa Department of Public Instruction defini-
tion of Career Education and shows two central
themes: the self and the world of work.

Self-concept--Involves understanding one's self--
physically, mentally, socially, emotionally--and
his relationships with other people in the environ-
ment.

Vocational Education--An educational program with
three basic objectives to meet the manpower and
economic needs of the nations, to increase the
options available to students and to increase the
intelligibility of both general and occupational
education.

World of Work--A framework where people live, work,

. produce, learn and create in the communities that
they have established. '

Selection of Scales

 

Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum list three criteria
to be used in the selection of scales. These criteria
result from the absence of a specific scale that is
perfectly aligned with factors and perfectly reliable.
The first criterion for selection is factorial composi-
tion to provide the subject with a balanced space which
he may actually use as he sees fit. The second criterion

for selection is relevance to the concepts being judged

40

which is determined by the investigation depending on
the purpose of the research. The third criterion govern-
ing the selection of scales is their semantic stability
for the concept and subjects of the particular study.77
Another important consideration in selection
of scales is the possibility that the three standard
scales; evaluative, potency, and activity, do not exhaust
the total number of possibilities and dimensions highly
significant for a particular study and might be lost if
one sticks only to these scales. Osgood, et a1. states:
"Although there are, we believe, standard factors of
judgment the particular scales which may, in any given
research problem, best represent these factors, are
variable and must be carefully selected by the experi-

78 Cronin states that he

menter to suit his purposes."
". . . selected ten scales that were relative to the
concepts being measured and that were all loaded to

some degree on the evaluation dimension. The resulting
ten scales contained four with evaluative loading, three
with potency loading and three with activity loading."79
Cronin field tested the instrument by administering it
to two groups of 15 persons each. One group consisted
of Iowa public school personnel doing evaluative research
on Iowa career education projects through the University
of Iowa. The other group consisted of Iowa public school
personnel with no formal involvement with career edu-

cation.80

41

Administeringythe'Instrument

 

The data for this study was acquired through
mailings to superintendents, principals, and teachers
of ICEP schools and randomly selected non ICEP schools.
A phone call was then made to superintendents requesting
permission to conduct the study. When permission was
granted, a latter of explanation with directions and
the SD instrument was then sent to the superintendents,
principals, and teachers (Appendices B, C, and D).

Follow-up on nonrespondents was by phone.

The Semantic Differential Scoring Techniques

Each respondent was asked to place a check in one
of the seven spaces for each bipolar adjective pair for
each concept. There were 12 concepts and 10 scales,
thus each respondent marked 120 spaces. Demographic
data was also acquired from each respondent so the level
of responsibility could be determined.

Using a scheme suggested by Isaac and Michael,81
numerical values of seVen (the most positive end of the
scale) and one 1(the most negative end of the scale)
were assigned to each response. By using this pattern,
the data could be easily treated statistically and a

higher "numerical" value would indicate a more positive

value.

42

Data Analysis
82

 

Isaac and Michael and Kerlinger83 suggested
the use of a t-test of the significance of the differ-

ence between means. A computer program, Statistical

 

Package for the Social Sciences,84 was used to compute
mean scores, standard deviations, and t-ratios for
responses across all concepts, by all scales, by factors
and position.

Tables displaying means, standard deviations,
and t-ratios were employed to determine tendencies for

the respondents over the twelve concepts.

The Personal Interviews

 

Administration of the semantic differential career
education mailed questionnaire indicated how the subjects
felt about selected career education concepts on a scale
of one to seven bipolar adjectives. The questionnaire
did not indicate yhy the subjects felt as they indicated.
To further clarify the reason(s) why subjects felt as
they did, personal interviews (see Appendix 4, Personal
Interview Questions) were conducted by the investigator
with randomly selected subjects. The subjectinnter-
viewed represented the ICEP, non ICEP, teachers, princi-
pals, and superintendents shown in the chart below.
Teachers interviewed were equally distributed among
the three areas in the initial selection of subjects:

Math and/or science, humanities, vocational-technical.

43

 

 

Superin-
Teachers Principals tendents Total
ICEP 9 3 3 15
Non ICEP 9 3 3 15
TOTAL 18 6 6 30

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.

Introduction

 

The purpose of this study was to measure the
effect of a secondary level comprehensive career edu-
cation exemplary project, the Iowa Career Education
Project (ICEP), as indicated by the meanings or atti-
tudes held by school personnel (superintendents, princi-
pals, and teachers) toward certain career education con-
cepts. The technique used to collect the data to ac-
complish this purpose was the semantic differential,
developed by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum,85 and per-
sonal interviews following the completion of the ques-
tionnaire.

A total of 80 copies of the semantic differ-
ential were distributed to school personnel in the two
subpopulations of the example. Seventy-six useable
forms were returned, which constituted a return rate
of approximately 95 percent (see Appendix G).

The responses to the twelve concepts being
judged along the ten bipolar scales were processed by

using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,

44

45

SSPSS H-version 5.01,86

which was last updated January
29, 1974.

Use was also made of the sub-program "Breakdown"
which computed the means, standard deviations, and t-
ratios.87

This chapter consists of four parts. Part one
is a written and tabular description of the responses
across all concepts and by all scales. A composite table
from which overall inferences were made precedes tables
that break down each test conducted into factors. The
three factors used in this study, after Osgood et al.,
were identified as evaluative, potency, and activity.
The evaluative factor consisted of the scales: meaning-
ful-meaningless, good-bad, positive-negative, and success-
ful-unsuccessful. The potency factor consisted of the
scales: Progressive-traditional, expanding, limiting,
and strong-weak. The activity factor consisted of the
scales: interesting-boring, important-unimportant, and
new-old. The final written and tabular description in
part one is broken down by factor and position. Position
refers to administrators, superintendents, and principals,
and teachers from three subject areas: math/science,
humanities, and vocational-technical.

Part two of this chapter presents a summary of

the standard deviations, means, and t-ratios for each of

the concepts, across the scales, broken down by factor

46

and position.- Part three is an examination of the
specific questions under consideration in this study.
Part four is a thematic analysis of the data obtained

from the personal interviews.

ICEP with Non ICEP

 

An analysis of the means, standard deviations,
and t-test of significance for the difference between
means, was conducted to consider the difference of
responses for the respective groups (ICEP and Non ICEP)
across all concepts and by all scales. Table I presents
an analysis of this data. The table discloses that ICEP
personnel have higher mean scores on all twelve of the
concepts rated and smaller standard deviations on eleven
of the twelve concepts rated. The difference between
means for eight concepts--Iowa Career Education Model,
Career Information Center, Hands-on Experiences, Career
Awareness, Vocational Education, Career Integration,
Career Accommodation, and Self Concept--is significant
at the .05 level.

Further analysis for the two groups across con-
cepts, by scales, was achieved by breaking down the
concepts into the three factors that have been defined.
Table II represents a breakdown on the evaluative factor
and exhibits higher mean scores on all twelve concepts
for the ICEP personnel and smaller standard deviations

on nine of twelve concepts for this same group. Seven

47

TABLE I.--ICEP with Non ICEP:

All Factors.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=36 N=40 t p(2—tail)
Career Exploration 5.583 5.34 1.25 0.22
0.76b 0.90
Iowa Career Education 5.42 4.92 2.28 0.03c
Model 0.91 0.98
Career Information 5.59 5.16 2.21 0.03c
0.78 0.13
Hands-On Experiences 5.76 5.34 2.10 0.04c
0.73 1.00
Occupational Clusters 5.32 5.14 0.96 0.34
0.82 0.88
Career Awareness 5.76 5.30 2.24 0.03c
0.72 1.00
Vocational Education 5.59 4.93 2.93 0.00c
0.76 1.14
Career Integration 5.51 5.06 2.53 0.01C
0.77 0.78
World of Work 5.36 5.23 0.51 0.61
1.09 1.01
Career Preparation 5.58 5.22 1.79 0.08
0.78 0.94
Career Accommodation 5.35 4.66 3.50 0.00C
0.86 0.88
Self Concept 6.00 5.37 2.90 0.01c
0.79 1.07

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

Deontes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a =

.05 (t=1.96).

TABLE II.--ICEP with Non ICEP:

48

Evaluative Factor.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=36 N=40 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.86a 5.48 1.83 0.07
0.75b 1.05
Iowa Career Education 5.47 4.96 2.22 0.03C
Model 0.99 1.03
Career Information 5.66 5.23 1.92 0.06
Center 0.93 1.00
Hands-On Experiences 6.07 5.64 1.95 0.06
0.81 1.06
Occupational Clusters 5.45 5.32 0.64 0.52
0.83 0.95
Career Awareness 6.09 5.66 2.26 0.03c
0.67 0.96
Vocational Education 6.12 0.84 3.12 0.00c
5.39 1.16
Career Integration 5.66 5.19 2.36 0.02c
0.91 0.83
World of Work 5.60 5.48 0.52 0.61
1.14 1.03
Career Preparation 6.01 5.49 2.53 0.01c
0.78 1.01
Career Accommodation 5.40 4.76 2.90 0.01C
0.98 0.95
Self Concept 6.24 5.55 3.18 0.00C
0.68 1.12

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96)..

49

concepts--Iowa Career Education Model, Career Awareness,
Vocational Education, Career Integration, Career Prepa-
tation, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept--are
significant at the .05 level. None of these concepts
have a significant negative t-ratio.

Table III presents a breakdown on the potency
factor. Examination of the table discloses that the
ICEP personnel have a higher mean score on all twelve
concepts and smaller standard deviations on six of the
twelve concepts. Five concepts--Hands-on Experiences,
Career Awareness, Vocational Education, Career Accommo-
dation, and Self Concept--are significant at the .05
level. No concepts have negative t-ratios.

Table IV represents a breakdown on the activity
factor and exhibits a higher mean score on all twelve
concepts for the ICEP personnel and smaller standard
deviations on all twelve concepts for the same group.
Six of the concepts are reported significant at the .05
level. They are: Iowa Career Education Model, Career
Information Center, Vocational Education, Career Inte-
gration, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept. None

of the concepts have negative t-ratios.

ICEP Teachers with Non ICEP Teachers
An analysis of the means, standard deviations,
and t-test of significance of the difference between

means, was conducted to consider the differences of

TABLE III.--ICEP with Non ICEP:

50

Potency Factor.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=36 N=40 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.20a 5.15 0.22 0.82
1.04b 1.04
Iowa Career Education 5.21 4.84 1.45 0.15
Model 1.14 1.09 '
Career Information 5.40 5.10 1.27 0.21
Center 0.94 1.08
Hands-On Experiences 5.49 4.97 2.02 0.05c
1.00 1.23
Occupational Clusters 5.19 4.92 ' 1.11 0.27
1.01 1.09
Career Awareness 5.46 4.88 2.10 0.04c
0.96 1.41
Vocational Education 5.08 4.37 2.35 0.02C
1.27 1.38
Career Integration 5.11 4.92 0.97 0.34
0.88 0.87
World of Work 4.99 4.97 0.08 0.94
1.36 1.29
Career Preparation 5.16 4.89 1.02 0.31
1.22 1.06
Career Accommodation 5.20 4.48 3.31 0.00C
0.99 0.93
Self Concept 5.72 5.15 2.08 0.040
1.24

1.16

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

CDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

TABLE IV.--ICEP with Non ICEP:

51

Activity Factor.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=36 N=40 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.57a 5.33 1.09 0.28
0.91b 0.93
Iowa Career Education 5.55 4.95 2.57 0.01c
Model 0.96 1.05
Career Information 5.70 5.12 2.84 0.010
Center 0.82 0.96
Hands-On Experiences 5.63 5.30 1.38 0.17
0.89 1.16
Occupational Clusters 5.29 5.11 0.81 0.42
0.89 1.03
Career Awareness 5.60 5.26 1.50 0.14
0.85 1.11
Vocational Education 5.38 4.88 2.14 0.040
0.89 1.14
Career Integration 5.69 5.02 3.23 0.00c
0.86 0.96
WOrld of Work 5.39 5.18 0.88 0.38
1.06 1.07
Career Preparation 5.43 5.20 1.05 0.30
0.78 1.05
Career Accommodation 5.44 4.69 3.76 0.00c
0.78 0.93
Self Concept 5.97 5.35 2.77 0.01c
0.85 1.08

 

aDenotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

52

responses for the teachers of the respective groups
(ICEP and Non ICEP) across all concepts and by all
scales. Table V presents this analysis. The table
displays that eleven of the twelve concepts have higher
means and smaller standard deviations on ten to twelve
concepts for the ICEP teachers. One concept, Career Ac-
commodation, is significant at .05 level. The concept,
World of Work, has a negative t-ratio, but not at a
significant level.

Table VI presents a breakdown for the teachers
groups on the evaluation factor and discloses that ten
of twelve means are higher and nine of twelve standard
deviations are smaller for the ICEP teachers. None of
the concepts have significant t-ratios at the .05 level.
Two concepts, Occupational Clusters and World of Work,
have negative t-ratios but not at the significance level.

Table VII presents a breakdown for teachers on
the potency factor and exhibits that eleven of the twelve
concepts have higher mean scores and seven of the twelve
concepts have smaller standard deviations for the ICEP
teachers. One of the concepts, Career Accommodation,
is significant at the .05 level; one of the concepts,
World of Work, has a negative t-ratio, but at a level
less than significant.

Table VIII presents a breakdown for teachers on

the activity factor and displays higher means on nine

TABLE V.--Teachers with Teachers:

53

All Factors.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=21 N=24 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.39a 5.25 0.56 0.58
0.83b 0.87
Iowa Career Education 5.20 4.86 1.14 0.26
Model 1.01 0.99
Career Information 5.54 5.08 1.66 0.10
Center 0.84 1.00
Hands-On Experiences 5.61 5.38 0.87 0.39
0.83 0.99
Occupational Clusters 5.18 5.15 0.08 0.94
0.92 1.00
Career Awareness 5.55 5.30 0.91 0.37
0.77 1.03
Vocational Education 5.60 5.02 1.74 0.09
0.87 1.29
Career Integration 5.25 5.03 0.87 0.39
0.79 0.86
World of Work 4.95 5.14 -0.58 0.57
1.18 1.02
Career Preparation 5.41 5.19 0.81 0.42
0.85 0.97
Career Accommodation 5.12 4.51 2.42 0.02c
0.83 0.86
Self Concept 5.69 5.35 1.21 0.24
0.87 0.98

 

aDenotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

54

TABLE VI.--Teachers with Teachers:

Evaluative Factor.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=21 N=24 t p(2-tail)

Career Exploration 5.63a 5.47 0.58 0.56
0.84b 1.01

Iowa Career Education 5.18 4.89 0.95 0.35
Model 1.07 1.00

Career Information 5.56 5.10 1.52 0.14
Center 0.95 1.04

Hands-On Experiences 5.96 5.70 0.87 0.39
0.96 1.07

Occupational Clusters 5.25 5.35 -0.36 0.72
0.91 1.04

Career Awareness 5.94 5.74 0.79 0.44
0.77 0.92

Vocational Education 6.02 1.05 1.59 0.12
5.45 1.34

Career Integration 5.44 1.05 1.02 0.31
5.15 0.89

WOrld of Work 5.23 5.34 -0.33 0.74
1.30 1.09

Career Preparation 5.93 5.49 1.50 0.14
0.91 1.03

Career Accommodation 5.14 4.65 1.64 0.11
1.03 1.00

Self Concept 6.01 5.49 1.88 0.07
0.79 1004

 

aDenotes Mean.

bDenotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

55

TABLE VII.--Teachers with Teachers:

Potency Factor.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=21 N=24 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.14a 4.97 0.55 0.59
1.10b 0.99
Iowa Career Education 5.02 4.72 0.82 0.42
Model 1.28 1.12
Career Information 5.40 4.97 1.27 0.21
Center 1.04 1.19
Hands-On Experiences 5.27 4.82 1.25 - 0.22
1.10 1.29
Occupational Clusters 5.13 4.83 0.78 0.44
1.17 1.34
Career Awareness 5.16 4.63 1.30 0.20
1.03 1.61
Vocational Education 5.25 4.49 1.71 0.09
1.40 1.58
Career Integration 4.81 4.79 0.07 0.95
0.79 0.96
World of Work 4.56 4.81 -0.59 0.56
1.53 1.33
Career Preparation 4.98 4.81 0.47 0.64
1.42 1.11
Career Accommodation 4.95 4.28 2.34 0.02c
1.01 0.92
Self Concept 5.33 5.18 0.40 0.69
1.33 1.22

 

aDenotes Mean.

bDenotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

56

TABLE VIII.--Teachers with Teachers:

Activity Factor.

 

 

Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=21 N=24 t p(2—tai1)

Career Exploration 5.32a 5.24 0.28 0.78
0.97b 0.98

Iowa Career Education 5.41 4.96 1.43 0.16
Model 1.02 1.10

Career Information 5.67 5.17 1.82 0.08
Center 0.80 1.01

Hands-On Experiences 5.49 5.50 -0.03 0.98
0.83 1.02

Occupational Clusters 5.13 5.21 -0.25 0.80
1.03 1.12

Career Awareness 5.43 5.40 0.09 0.93
0.86 1.03

Vocational Education 5.38 4.99 1.18 0.24
1.02 1.19

Career Integration 5.43 5.13 1.05 0.30
0.94 0.98

World of Work 4.98 5.21 -0.74 0.46
1.07 0.96

Career Preparation 5.16 5.18 -0.08 0.94
0.74 1.09

Career Accommodation 5.25 4.56 3.05 0.00
0.66 0.85

Self Concept 5.62 5.35 0.99 0.33
0.91 0.93

 

aDenotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

57

of twelve and smaller standard deviations on eleven of
twelve concepts for the ICEP teachers. One concept,
Career Accommodation, is significant at the .05 level.
Four concepts, Hands-on Experiences, Occupational
Clusters, WOrld of Work, and Career Preparation, have
negative t-ratios although not significant.

Administrators (ICEP) with
Administrators (Non ICEP)

 

An analysis of the means, standard deviations,
and t-test of significance of the difference between
means was conducted to consider the difference of
responses for the administrators (superintendents and
principals) of the respective groups (ICEP and Non ICEP),
across all concepts, by all scales. Table IX presents
this analysis.

Examination of the table discloses higher means
on all twelve concepts for the ICEP administrators. All
twelve of the standard deviations are smaller for this
same group. The seven concepts of: Iowa Career Edu-
cation Model, Hands-On Experiences, Career Awareness,
Vocational Education, Career Integration, Career Accommo-
dation, and Self Concept, are significant at the .05
level. There are no negative t-ratios reported in
Table IX.

Table X presents a breakdown for administrators

on the evaluative factor and exhibits higher means on

58

TABLE IX.--Administrators with Administrators: All

 

 

Factors.
Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=15 N=16 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.83a 5.46 1.29 0.21
0.59b 0.96
Iowa Career Education 5.72 5.01 2.34 0.03c
Model 0.65 0.99
Career Information 5.67 5.27 1.43 0.16
Center 0.73 0.82
Hands-On Experiences 5.97 5.28 2.29 0.03C
0.51 1.06
Occupational Clusters 5.53 5.11 1.79 0.08
0.63 0.68
Career Awareness 6.04 5.30 2.55 0.02c
0.54 1.00
vocational Education 5.57 4.79 2.86 0.010
0.60 0.88
Career Integration 5.87 5.09 3.40 0.00
0.59 0.68
World of Work 5.92 5.37 1.79 0.08
0.64 1.02
Career Preparation 5.81 5.27 1.90 0.07
0.62 0.94
Career Accommodation 5.68 4.88 2.62 0.01c
0.81 0.89
Self Concept 6.44 5.39 3.17 0.00c
0.35 1.23

 

aDenotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

59

 

 

TABLE X.-—Administrators with Administrators: Evaluative
Factor.
Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=15 N=16 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 6.18a 5.48 2.21 0.04c
0.48b 1.14
Iowa Career Education 5.88 5.06 2.46 0.020
Model 0.70 1.10
Career Information 5.80 5.42 1.13 0.27
Center 0.92 0.94
Hands-On Experiences 6.22 5.56 2.13 0.04c
0.52 1.08
Occupational Clusters 5.73 5.27 1.71 0.10
0.68 0.83
Career Awareness 6.30 5.53 2.64 0.01C
0.47 1.03
Vocational Education 6.25 5.30 4.00 0.00C
0.40 0.84
Career Integration 5.97 5.25 2.92 0.01C
0.60 0.75
World of Work 6.13 5.67 1.63 0.12
0.59 0.94
Career Preparation 6.13 5.48 2.21 0.040
0.57 1.00
Career Accommodation 5.77 4.94 2.76 0.01c
0.81 0.86
Self Concept 6.55 5.64 2.72 0.010
0.30 .1.26

$

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

60

all concepts and smaller standard deviations on all of
the twelve concepts for the ICEP administrators. The
ten concepts that are significant at the .05 level are:
Career Exploration, Iowa Career Education Model, Hands-
On Experiences, Occupational Clusters, Career Awareness,
Vocational Education, Career Integration, Career Prepa-
ration, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept. No
negative t-ratios are indicated.

Table XI presents a breakdown for administrators
on the potency factor. Examination of the table dis-
closes higher means on eleven of twelve concepts for the
ICEP administrators. Nine of the standard deviations
are smaller for the same group. The three concepts of
.Career Awareness, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept
are significant at the .05 level. Career Exploration is
the only concept with a negative t-ratio.

Table XII displays a breakdown for administrators
on the activity factor and exhibits higher means on all
twelve concepts and smaller standard deviations on all
twelve concepts for the ICEP administrators. Nine con-
cepts-~Iowa Career Education Model, Career Information
Center, Occupational Clusters, Career Awareness, Voca-
tional Education, Career Integration, World of Work,
Career Accommodation, and Self Concept are significant

at the .05 level.

61

 

 

TABLE XI.--Administrators with Administrators: Potency
Factor.
Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=15 N=16 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.29a 5.42 -0.34 0.74
0.99b 1.09
Iowa Career Education 5.49 5.02 1.35 0.19
Model 0.87 1.04
Career Information 5.40 5.29 0.35 0.73
Center 0.83 0.89
Hands-On Experiences 5.80 5.19 1.74 0.09
0.76 1.15
Occupational Clusters 5.27 5.04 0.95 0.35
0.77 0.54
Career Awareness 5.89 5.25 2.10 0.04c
0.66 0.99
Vocational Education 4.84 4.19 1.74 0.09
1.06 1.04
Career Integration 5.53 5.10 1.55 0.13
0.84 0.70
World of Work 5.60 5.21 1.05 0.30
0.80 1.22
Career Preparation 5.40 5.02 1.16 0.26
0.83 0.99
Career Accommodation 5.56 4.77 2.48 0.02
0.88 0.88
Self Concept 6.27 5.10 3.19 0.00
0.54 1.31

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

62

 

 

TABLE XII.--Administrators with Administrators: Activity
Factor.
Non
ICEP ICEP
Concepts N=15 N=16 t p(2-tail)
Career Exploration 5.91a 5.48 1.51 0.14
0.72b 0.86
Iowa Career Education 5.73 4.94 2.34 0.03C
Model 0.87 1.01
Career Information 5.76 5.04 2.22 0.03c
Center 0.88 0.91
Hands-On Experiences 5.82 5.00 1.96 0.06
0.97 1.33
Occupational Clusters 5.51 4.96 2.03 0.05C
0.62 0.87
Career Awareness 5.84 5.04 2.16 0.04c
0.81 1.21
Vocational Education 5.38 4.71 2.06 0.05C
.0.69 1.07
Career Integration 6.07 4.85 4.36 0.00c
0.57 0.93
World of Work 5.96 5.13 2.24 0.03c
0.74 1.24
Career Preparation 5.80 5.23 1.79 0.08
0.70 1.03
Career Accommodation 5.69 4.90 2.29 0.03c
0.90 1.02
Self Concept 6.47 5.35 3.13 0.00C
0.41 1.31

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

Denotes Standard Deviation.

c 0 ‘ O
Denotes Slgnlflcance at a =

.05 (t=l.96).

63

Teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP) with
Administrators (ICEP and Non ICEP)

 

An analysis of the means, standard deviations,
and t-test of significance of the difference between
'means was conducted to consider the difference of
responses for the teachers of the ICEP and Non ICEP
schools with the responses of the administrators of the
ICEP and Non ICEP schools across all concepts, by all
scales. This analysis, with disregard to ICEP affili-
ation, was executed to display the effect participation
in the ICEP had on responses.

Table XIII reveals that teachers (ICEP and Non
ICEP) have higher means on one of the twelve concepts
and smaller standard deviations on two of the twelve
concepts. The concepts of World of Work and Career
Accommodation have negative t-ratios and are significant
at the .05 level. This table discloses that disregarding
the affiliation with the ICEP drastically changes the
amount of significance and suggests that participation
in the ICEP influenced the respondents' judgments.

Table XIV presents a breakdown for this grouping
(all teachers with all administrators) on the evaluative
factor. The table discloses no higher means and three
smaller standard deviations for the teachers (ICEP and
Non ICEP). The concept, Career Accommodation, has a

significant negative t-ratio. This table further

64

TABLE XIII.-—All Teachers with All Administrators: All

 

 

Factors.
Adminis-
Teachers trators
Concepts N=45 N=3l t p(2-tai1)

Career Exploration 5.32a 5.64 -1.69 0.10
0.84b 0.81

Iowa Career Education 5.02 5.36 -1.50 0.14

Model 1.01 0.90
Career Information 5.30 5.46 -0.79 0.43
Center 0.95 0.79

Hands-On Experiences 5.49 5.62 -0.61 0.54
0.91 0.90

Occupational Clusters 5.16 5.31 -0.73 0.47
0.95 0.68

Career Awareness 5.42 5.66 -l.l3 0.26
0.91 0.88

Vocational Education 5.29 5.17 0.53 0.60
1.14 0.84

Career Integration 5.13 5.47 -l.79 0.08
0.83 0.74

World of Work 5.05 5.64 -2.46 0.02c
1.09 0.89

Career Preparation 5.30 5.53 —l.15 0.25
0.91 0.83

Career Accommodation 4.79 5.27 -2.22 0.030
0.89 0.93

Self Concept 5.51 5.90 -l.69 0.10
0.94 1.05

 

a
Denotes Mean.

bDenotes Standard Deviation.

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

65

TABLE XIV.--A11 Teachers with All Administrators:
Evaluative Factor.

 

 

Adminis-
Teachers trators
Concepts N=45 N=3l t p(2-tail)

Career Exploration 5.54a 5.82 -1.28 0.20
0.93b 0.94

Iowa Career Education 5.02 5.46 -l.83 0.07

Model 1.04 1.00
Career Information 5.32 5.61 -l.25 0.21
Center 1.02 0.94

Hands-On Experiences 5.82 5.88 -0.25 0.80
1.02 0.90

Occupational Clusters 5.31 5.49 -0.89 0.38
0.97 0.79

Career Awareness 5.83 5.90 -0.35 0.73
0.85 0.89 '

Vocational Education 5.72 5.76 -0.16 0.87
1.24 0.81

Career Integration 5.28 5.60 -l.51 0.14
0.97 0.76

World of Work 5.29 5.90 -2.48 0.02c
1.18 0.81

Career Preparation 5.69 5.80 -0.47 0.64
0.99 0.87

Career Accommodation 4.88 5.34 -2.00 0.05c
1.03 0.92

Self Concept 5.73 6.08 -l.51 0.14
80.96 1.02

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

cDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

Denotes Standard Deviation.

66

suggests that involvement in the ICEP influenced the
responses to the concepts across the scales.

Table XV is a breakdown for this grouping on the
potency factor and displays higher means on one concept
and smaller standard deviations on none of the twelve
concepts for the teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP). The
difference between means for the four concepts of Career
Awareness, Career Integration, World of Work, and Career
Accommodation have negative t-ratios significant at the
.05 level.

Table XVI is a breakdown for this grouping on the
activity dimension. Examination of the table reveals
higher mean scores for three concepts and lgygg standard
deviations for seven concepts for the teachers (ICEP and
Non ICEP) as a group. The concept of Career Exploration
has a negative t-ratio and is significant at the .05
level.

These sixteen tables, when taken as a whole,
disclose a pattern of higher means and smaller standard
deviations for the ICEP personnel. The tables also
suggest that certain of the twelve concepts judged were
emphasized in the secondary school portion of the ICEP

and that ICEP participation influenced the responses.

Summary of Tables I Through XVI
A summary of the tables for the standard devi-

ations, means, and t-ratios is presented in Part Two of

67

 

 

TABLE XV.--All Teachers with All Administrators: Potency
Factor.
Adminis-
Teachers trators
Concepts N=45 N=3l t p(2-tail)

Career Exploration 5.05a 5.36 -l.26 0.21
1.03b 1.03

Iowa Career Education 4.86 5.25 -l.50 0.14

Model 1.19 0.98
Career Information 5.17 5.34 —0.73 0.47
Center 1.13 0.85

Hands-On Experiences 5.03 5.48 -l.7l 0.09
1.21 1.01

Occupational Clusters 4.97 5.15 -0.73 0.47
1.26 0.66

Career Awareness 4.87 5.56 -2.43 0.02c
1.38 0.89

Vocational Education 4.84 4.51 1.06 0.29
1.53 1.09

Career Integration 4.80 5.31 -2.60 0.01C
0.88 0.79

World of Work 4.69 5.40 -2.38 0.02c
1.42 1.04

Career Preparation 4.89 5.20 -l.20 0.24
1.26 0.92

Career Accommodation 4.59 5.15 -2.42 0.02c
1.01 0.95

Self Concept 5.25 5.67 -1.46 0.15
1.26 1.16

 

aDenotes Mean.

b

cDenotessignificance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

Denotes Standard Deviation.

68

TABLE XVI.--All Teachers with All Administrators:
Activity Factor.

 

 

Adminis-
Teachers trators
Concepts N=45 N=31 t p(2-tail)

Career Exploration 5.27a 5.69 -l.96 0.05
0.97b 0.81

Iowa Career Education 5.17 5.32 -0.62 0.54
Model 1.08 1.01

Career Information 5.40 5.39 0.06 0.95
Center 0.94 0.95

Hands-On Experiences 5.50 5.40 0.40 0.69
0.92 1.22

Occupational Clusters 5.17 5.23 -0.25 0.81
1.07 0.80

Career Awareness 5.42 5.43 -0.06 0.95
0.95 1.10

Vocational Education 5.17 .5.03 0.56 0.58
1.12 0.95

Career Integration 5.27 5.44 —0.77 0.45
0.97 0.98

World of Work 5.10 5.53 -l.74 0.09
1.01 1.10

Career Preparation 5.17 5.51 -l.55 0.13
0.93 0.92

Career Accommodation 4.88 5.28 -1.86 0.07
0.84 1.03

Self Concept 5.47 5.89 -1.78 0.08
0.92 .1.12

 

a
Denotes Mean.

b

CDenotes significance at a = .05 (t=l.96).

Denotes Standard Deviation.

69

this chapter. Table XVII presents a composite of Tables
I through XII for the standard deviations for all con-
cepts, ICEP with Non ICEP. Examination of the table
reveals that 115 out of a possible 144 standard devi-
ations were smaller for the ICEP personnel.

Table XVIII presents a composite view of Tables
XIII through XVI for the standard deviations for all
concepts when ICEP affiliation is disregarded.

The table reveals that twelve out of a possible
forty-eight standard deviations were smaller for teachers
(ICEP and Non ICEP) when compared with administrators
(ICEP and Non ICEP).

Table XIX presents a composite of Tables I through
XII for the means for all concepts, ICEP and Non ICEP.
Examination of the tables reveals that 135 out of 144
means were higher for ICEP personnel.

Table XX presents a composite of Tables XIII
through XVI for means for all concepts when ICEP affili-I
ation is disregarded. The table reveals that four out
of forty-eight means were higher for teachers (ICEP and
Non ICEP) when compared with administrators (ICEP and
Non ICEP).

Table XXI presents a composite of Tables I through
XII for t-ratios for all concepts, ICEP with Non ICEP.
Examination of the table reveals that 56 out Of 144

t-ratios were significant at the .05 level.

7O

.Hmcc0muom mmoH How coauma>mp

cnmccmum Ho3oH monocmo x "maoz

 

 

ooa\maa qaeoe
IMMI x x x x x x x x x x umoocoo mamm
m x x x x I x x I I x coauocoEEoood Homumo
ca x x x x x x x I x x coauoummwum Romano
m x x x I I I x I I I EH03 mo cauoz
m x I x x I x x I I x cowumnmmucH Hmmumo
AH x I x x x x x x x x cofluoosom accedumoo>
HH x x x x x x x I x x mmmcmum3¢ Hmonoo
OH x I x x x x x I x x mnmumsao Hmcowummsooo
AH x x x x x x x I x x mmocmfiuomxm coImccmm
Houcoo
oH x x x x x x x I I x coaumenomcH Homumo
Hmooz
m x x x x x I x I x x coaumoscm Hmmumo msoH
ca x x x x x x x I x x cowumuoamxm Homuoo
maouoa HHx Hx xH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H mummocoo

 

moanoa Scum

 

.dmoH coz sues omoHIInuooodoo Ham

uncowumw>oa oumccmum

no suuseomII.HH>x mamas

71

TABLE XVIII.--Summary of Standard Deviations:
Concepts--All Teachers with All Administrators.

A11

 

From Tables

 

 

Concepts XIII XIV XV XVI Totals
Career Exploration - x — - 1
Iowa Career Education - — - - 0

Model
Career Information - — - x 1

Center
Hands-On Experiences - - - x 1
Occupational Clusters — - - - 0
Career Awareness - x - x 2
Vocational Education — - - - 0
Career Integration - - - x l
WCrld of Work - - - x 1
Career Preparation - - - - 0
Career Accommodation xi - - x 2
Self Concept x x - x 3
TOTAL, 12/48

 

NOTE: x Denotes lower standard deviation for all

teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP).

72

.Hocc0muom mmUH uom memos umsch mmuocmo x «maoz

 

 

3H\mmH . egos
IMMI x x x x x x x x x x x x ummucoo MHom
NH x x x x x x x x x x x x GOHuCCOEEoood Hooumo
NH x x x x x x x x x x x x GOHumnommHm Romano
m x x x x I I I I x x x x xnoz mo oHHoz
NH x x x x x x x x x x x x GOHuonoucH ummumo
NH x x x x x x x x x x x x GOHumosom HCGOHumoo>
NH x x x x x x x x x x x x mmocwnmzm Hmmumo
OH x I x x x x I x x x x x mumumSHU HmGOHuomsooo
HH x x x x I x x x x x x x moocmHnomxm GOImccmm
Houcoo
HH x I x x x x N x x x x x QOHuoauomcH Hmmumo
Hocoz
NH x x x x x x x x x x x x cowumosom Hmmuoo oon
HH x I x x x x x x x x x x :oHuMHOmem Homumo
33.09 Has 5 x on HHH> H; S > 5 HHH HH H 3888

 

mmHnme Bonn

 

.mNUH G02 QHHS mmUHllmumOOCOU Hdfl umcmoz mo Khuman—EsmlldnHun mHm¢B

73

TABLES XX.--Summary of Means: All Concepts-~All Teachers
with All Administrators.

 

From Tables

 

 

Concepts XIII XIV XV XVI Totals
Career Exploration - - - - 0
Iowa Career Education - - - - 0

Model
Career Information - - - x 1

Center
Hands-On Experiences - - - x 1
Occupational Clusters - - - - 0
Career Awareness - - - - 0
Vocational Education x - x x 3
Career Integration — - - - 0
World of WOrk - - - - 0
Career Preparation - - - - 0
Career Accommodation - - - - 0
Self Concept - - - - 0
TOTAL 5/48

 

NOTE: x Denotes higher mean for all teachers (ICEP and
Non ICEP).

73

TABLES XX.--Summary of Means: All Concepts--All Teachers
with All Administrators.

 

From Tables

 

 

Concepts XIII XIV XV XVI Totals
Career Exploration - - - - 0
Iowa Career Education - - - - 0

Model
Career Information - - - x 1

Center
Hands-On Experiences - - - x 1
Occupational Clusters - - - - 0
Career Awareness - - - - 0
Vocational Education x - x x 3
Career Integration - - - - 0
WOrld of Work - - - - 0
Career Preparation - - - - 0
Career Accommodation - - - - 0
Self Concept - - - - 0
TOTAL 5/48

 

NOTE: x Denotes higher mean for all teachers (ICEP and
Non ICEP).

74

.mocmoHMHcmHm monocoo x ”maoz

 

 

seqem .2909
IMII x x x x I I I I x x x x umoocoo MHmm
HH x x x x x x I x x x x x GOHumcoeaooo¢ Hmoumo
N I I x I I I I I I I x I :oHuonmoum umoumo
H x I I I I I I I I I I I 0.63 90 3.83
m I I x x I I I I x I x _ x cOHumumoucH Homumo
h x I x x I I I I x x x x COHumosom HMGOHumoo>
h x x x x I I I I I x x x mmmcmum3¢ meumo
H I I x I I I I I I I I I muwumoHo HmcoHummsooo
v I I x x I I I I I x I x moocwHummxm GOImccmm
Hmucoo
m x I I I I I I I x I I x GOHumfiuomcH Hmwumo
Hmcoz
m x I x x I I I I x I x x coHuooscm Hmmumo oon
H I I x I I I I I I I I I COHumuonxm ummumo
mHmuoa HHX Hx x xH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H mummonoo

 

.mmHnme Scum

 

.mmUH coz nufl3 mmOHllmumOOGOU Hdd “mowumulu Mo kAHMEEH—mll.HVSH mqmdfi

75

Table XXII presents a composite of Tables XIII
through XVI for t-ratios for all concepts when ICEP
affiliation is disregarded. This table reveals that
seven out of forty-eight t-ratios were significant at
the .05 level when the difference of the means for all
teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP) were compared with the
means for all administrators (ICEP and Non ICEP).

Tables XV, XVI, XVIII, XX, and XXII, when taken
collectively, disclose that disregarding ICEP affili-
ation affects the standard deviation, means, and number
of significant t-ratios. This suggests that partici-
pation in the ICEP influenced the meanings or attitudes
of the personnel responding to the career education con-
cepts being judged. This influence results in higher

means and smaller standard deviations for the ICEP

personnel.

Examination of Specific Questions
Under Consideration

Part Three consists of an examination of the
specific questions under examination for this study and

a.test of the corresponding hypothesis.

@estion One

Do superintendents, principals, and teachers of
ICEP schools differ in their attitudes toward career
education concepts from superintendents, principals,

311d teachers in Non ICEP schools?

76

TABLE XXII.--Summary of t-ratios: All Concepts--All
Teachers with All Administrators.

 

From Tables

 

 

Concepts XIII XIV XV XVI Totals
Career Exploration - - - x 1
Iowa Career Education - - - - 0

Model
Career Information - - - - 0
Center
Hands-On Experiences - - - - 0
Occupational Clusters - - - - 0
Career Awareness - - x - 1
Vocational Education - - - x 1
Career Integration - - x - 1
World of Work x x x - 3
Career Preparation - - - - 0
Career Accommodation x x x - 3
Self Concept - - - - 0
TOTAL 10/48

 

NOTE: x Denotes significant t-ratio at a = .05 (t=l.96)
for all teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP).

77

The hypothesis used to arrive at an answer to
this question was: Superintendents, principals, and
teachers in ICEP schools do not differ, as a group, in
their attitudes toward selected career education con-
cepts from superintendents, principals, and teachers
in Non ICEP schools.

The t-tests conducted show a significant differ-
ence between means at the .05 level for seven of the
concepts, as indicated by Table I. It is also shown
by Table XIX that 135 of 144 mean scores for the ICEP
personnel were higher for the concepts being judged.

Thus the null hypothesis is rejected.

Question Two

Do intensive efforts, such as the ICEP exemplary
project, result in positive attitudes related to the
concept being exemplified?

The hypothesis used to arrive at an answer to
this question was: Participation in the ICEP is not
related to differences in the direction of polarization
of attitudes held by ICEP and Non ICEP personnel toward
the concept being exemplified.

The null hypothesis is rejected because as has
been displayed in Table I, the t-tests conducted show
a significant difference between means at the .05 level

for seven of the concepts. In addition, 135 of 144

78

mean scores for the ICEP group were higher than for the
Non ICEP group. A higher mean score indicates a more
positive meaning or attitude toward the concept being
judged. The concepts of Iowa Career Education Model,
Career Awareness, Vocational Education, Career Integ-
ration, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept all

have mean scores higher for the ICEP group. The null
hypothesis is also rejected when the concepts are broken
down by the evaluative, potency, and activity factors,

as indicated by Tables II, III, and IV.

Question Three

 

Does a relationship exist between direction of
polarization in attitudes toward a concept and the fact
that the program received impetus as an examplary pro-
ject?

The hypothesis used to arrive at an answer to
this question was: Participation in the ICEP does not
affect the degree of concentration of polarization of
attitudes held by ICEP and Non ICEP personnel toward
the concept being exemplified.

The null hypothesis is rejected because, as
has been reported in tabular form, 115 of 144 standard
deviations for the ICEP personnel are smaller. A smaller
standard deviation indicates less variability and a
"clustering" of meaning for responses of the concepts

being judged. Somewhat of an exception is the concept

79

of World of Work, as indicated by Table XVII, which is
illustrative of a concept that received greater emphasis

at the elementary level in the ICEP.

Question Four

 

Do school personnel, in the ICEP exemplary pro-
ject schools, agree regarding attitudes held toward
selected career education concepts?

The hypothesis used to arrive at an answer to
this question was: Attitudes of school personnel in
ICEP schools regarding selected career education con-
cepts are not polarized in any particular direction.

The hypothesis was rejected because there is
evidence to indicate that attitudes are polarized in
a positive direction for ICEP personnel. The tables
presented in this chapter indicate that teachers and.
administrators in ICEP schools have higher mean scores
in 135 out of 144 cases indicating more positive atti-
tude or meaning than Non ICEP personnel. Fifty-five
out of 144 significant t-ratios were also found for
the difference between the means for the two groups
supporting the hypothesis that the ICEP groups are

more positively polarized.

Question Five
Do school personnel, in the Non ICEP exemplary
school districts, agree regarding attitudes held toward

selected career education concepts?

80

The hypothesis used to arrive at an answer to
this question was: Attitudes of school personnel in
Non ICEP schools regarding selected career education
concepts are not polarized in any particular direction.

The hypothesis was rejected because the tables
presented indicate that Non ICEP personnel share the
same direction of polarization with each other. This
polarization is not as positive as the ICEP group, and
has a tendency toward neutrality. The mean scores for
the Non ICEP group are consistently lower, which also

supports this hypothesis.

Question Six

Does the level of responsibility of the personnel
in the ICEP and Non ICEP schools influence the clustering
of attitudes regarding selected career education con-
cepts?

The hypothesis used to arrive at an answer to
this question was: The level of responsibility is not
related to the polarization of attitudes expressed by
personnel in ICEP and Non ICEP schools.

The hypothesis was accepted because, as indi-
cated while, when all teachers (ICEP and Non ICEP) were
compared with all administrators, 43 of 48 (Table XX)
or 89.6 percent of the means were higher and 36 of 48

(Table XVIII) or 75.0 percent of the standard deviations

81

were smaller for the administrators, only 10 of 48

(Table XXII) or 20.8 percent of the means were signifi-
cantly higher for all administrators at the 0.05 level
of significance. These results indicate that the level
of responsibility has little significant bearing on the

polarization of attitudes.

Summary of Specific Questions

 

The analysis of the data related to the specific

questions under consideration for this study has led to:

Question One:

 

The rejection of H1 because the mean scores and
t-ratios indicate that ICEP personnel hold different

attitudes than do Non ICEP personnel.

Question Two:
The rejection of H2 because the higher mean
scores for the ICEP personnel indicate a more positive

attitude or meaning toward the concepts being judged.

Question Three:

The rejection of H3 because the lower standard
deviations for the ICEP personnel indicate less varia-
bility in their responses toward the concepts being

judged.

82

Question Four:

 

The rejection of H4 because responses from ICEP
personnel indicate a common core of meaning in a posi-

tive direction for the concepts being judged.

Question Five:

The rejection of H5 because responses from Non
ICEP personnel indicate a common core of meaning, with
a tendency toward neutrality, for the concept being

judged.

Question Six:

The acceptance of H6 because there is no indi-
cation that the level of responsibility in either the
ICEP or Non ICEP has a significant bearing on the atti-

tudes held toward the concepts being judged.

The Personal Interviews

Part Four consists of a thematic analysis of the
data obtained from the personal interviews.

Administration of the semantic differential career
education mailed questionnaire indicated Egg the subjects
felt about selected career education concepts on a scale
of one to seven bipolar adjectives. The questionnaire
did not indicate why the subjects felt as they indicated.
To further clarify the reason(s) why subjects felt as
Ithey did, personal interviews (see Appendix 4, Personal

Interview Questions) were conducted by the investigator

83

with randomly selected subjects. The subjects inter-
viewed represented the ICEP, Non ICEP, teachers, princi-
pals, and superintendents as shown in the chart below.
Teachers interviewed were equally distributed among

-the three areas in the initial selection of subjects:

math and/or science, humanities, vocational-technical.

 

 

Superin-
Teachers Principals tendents Total
ICEP 9 3 3 15
Non ICEP 9 3 3 15
TOTAL 18 6 6 30

 

A summary of the responses to the questions of
each of the groups follows.

ICEP teachers expressed their support of career
education because they think 1. . . it's good for kids."
They cited as deve10pers of positive attitudes their
experience in one- and two-week summer workshops, the
influence of the principal, classroom teaching, informal
student discussions, and exemplary project involvement.
They expressed concern most often for (l) the need for
continued and increased funds to further integrate
career education into the curriculum; (2) the lack of

time to integrate career education into the curriculum

84

when other competing priorities also demand attention
(environmental education, family life education, etc.).
Secondary concerns (mentioned less frequently) were
fear of overemphasis on work and neglect of other
aspects of life; the need for increased communication
of the results of the program to governmental decision-
making bodies to increase awareness of these decision
makers of career education benefits; apparent lack of
common definition of career education among those held
to be career education leaders; and the need to have
stronger career education leadership.

ICEP principals reported they were positive
about career education because of their experience in
workshops on curriculum development, the enthusiasm of
their teachers, and contact with state officials. They
were concerned about teachers' nonacceptance of career
education and the need for increased communication with
all involved with career education to increase active
participation. They pointed to the need for increased
public relations, both internally and externally; for
liaison person(s) to connect the school, the public,
the advisory committee, and work stations; for con-
tinuous effort and pressure for involvement, and
especially for in-service training.

ICEP superintendents expressed their support

of career education based on need of students that

85

career education appears to fill, participation in
State Department of Public Instruction workshops, and
involvement in the exemplary project. The superintend-
ents expressed concern for some high school teachers'
resistance to integrating career education into the
curriculum, and expressed the need for more funds for
in-service and extended summer contracts. The superin-
tendents observed that momentum for implementation of
career education can be maintained and increased by

the favorable response of the public, parents, and
students, and is also aided by rewarding those who help,
by peer pressure, and by teacher training institutions'
involvement. Concern was expressed for the need to
establish priorities-~state and federal-~in curriculum
planning. The curriculum can be continually supplemented
only when something else is removed to make adequate
room for the new supplement.

The ICEP principals and superintendents were
concerned with teachers who weren't integrating career
education into the curriculum. They pointed to the
need for increased in-service training. The principals
pointed also to the need for an internal and external
public relations officer.

The superintendents emphasized the response of

students, parents, and the public as the main motivator

85

career education appears to fill, participation in
State Department of Public Instruction workshops, and
involvement in the exemplary project. The superintend-
ents expressed concern for some high school teachers'
resistance to integrating career education into the
curriculum, and expressed the need for more funds for
in-service and extended summer contracts. The superin-
tendents observed that momentum for implementation of
career education can be maintained and increased by

the favorable response of the public, parents, and
students, and is also aided by rewarding those who help,
by peer pressure, and by teacher training institutions'
involvement. Concern was expressed for the need to
establish priorities-~state and federa1--in curriculum
planning. The curriculum can be continually supplemented
only when something else is removed to make adequate
room for the new supplement.

The ICEP principals and superintendents were
concerned with teachers who weren't integrating career
education into the curriculum. They pointed to the
need for increased in-service training. The principals
pointed also to the need for an internal and external
public relations officer.

The superintendents emphasized the response of

students, parents, and the public as the main motivator

86

of continued development and implementation of career
education.

It appears that the superintendents expressed
the clearest understanding of career education and the
conditions for and mechanics of its implementation.

The understanding of the principals was nearly equiva-
lent, but more localized, as if directed by their greater
(compared to superintendents) emphasis on teachers as

the key. Teachers' understanding was more in terms of
the curriculum. All shared the views on the importance
of more time and money.

The similarities of responses from the three
groups of ICEP interviewees are the support of the
career education concepts because of the belief that
career education "is good for kids." This belief re-
sulted from in-service training, participation in the
ICEP, and interaction with students, parents, and others.
High school teachers were concerned with possible over-
emphasis on the world of work to the exclusion of other
areas of life and the need for improved and continuous
leadership.

A summary of the Non ICEP interviewees' responses
is reported below according to their group. Non ICEP
teachers were positive towards career education because
of the belief that career education has something valu-

able for students. This belief is based on their

87

observations of students' interests and needs, and
understanding of the role career education plays in
meeting those interests and needs. They expressed
caution to "wait and see" the results of career edu-
cation and expressed the idea that it is a fad, sug-
gested less enthusiasm and more precision from its
prOponents, and expressed confusion as to how to inte-
grate career education into some areas of the curri-
culum.

I Non ICEP principals expressed support of career
education based on their analyses of students' needs
and exposure to vocational-technical programs such as
cooperative and work-study education. They expressed
concern for the need for clarification of terms, e.g.,
is vocational education the same as career education.
They observed the need for more in-service training to
'help teachers who feel too busy, or who are reluctant
to change. They expressed the need for a career edu-
cation director at the building level and for an active
advisory committee. They were concerned with the lack
of time and money to do the job. They felt the mass
media can do much to change the stereotype about certain
jobs and that area schools deserve more emphasis. A key
to implementation was seen as placement of career edu-
-cation-oriented personnel in key decision-making

Positions.

88

Non ICEP superintendents were positive toward
career education because of the success of vocational
programs in their districts, and seminars on and visit-
ations to career education programs. They feel that
most college-educated educators are reluctant to accept
the idea that success is not based on college education;
this hinders acceptance of career education. Superin-
tendents expressed that community involvement is a key
to career education's implementation as is in-service
training, and increased awareness of the changing job
market. Non ICEP superintendents emphasized increased
and continued funding as an aid to career education's
implementation.

In summary, the non ICEP interviewees expressed
support of career education based on the belief that it
fills some important needs of students. Non ICEP
teachers were tentative in the commitment and wanted
to know more about career education. The principals'
exposure to vocational programs made them more favorable.
They wanted personnel, time, and money for career edu-
cation's implementation and were concerned with teachers'
sometimes reluctant attitudes. They saw education of
the public as an important means of increasing enthusi-
asm of teachers. Superintendents were favorably influ-
enced by the vocational programs in their districts and

by visits to other schools where career education was

89

being implemented. They were concerned for more money
and public education to gain the support of educators
who are not career education oriented. The relative
during-the-job mobility of administrators and relative
isolation of classroom teachers may be an important

factor in their attitude development.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to measure the
effect of a comprehensive secondary Career Education
exemplary project, as indicated by the meanings or atti-
tudes held by school personnel (superintendents, princi-
pals, and teachers) toward certain career education
concepts. The staffs of eight selected schools, in
the participating districts, were to develop a locally
unique program. They were guided by a Model For Career
Development (Appendix F), created as part of the ICEP
by the central project consultants. This model, the
basic ideas of career education, and references for
the participants were disseminated at workshops and
conferences that were held. This was to provide con-
sistency in all phases of development and implementation.
This study measures the relation of these efforts to the

attitudes of the personnel involved.

90

91

Statement of the Problem

Do school personnel in the secondary ICEP have
different attitudes toward certain career education
concepts when compared with attitudes of similar school
personnel in Non ICEP schools, if so, what is the nature
and extent of such attitudinal variation?

The specific questions to be studied were:

1. Do superintendents, principals, and teachers
of secondary ICEP schools differ in their attitudes
toward career education concepts from superintendents,
principals, and teachers in Non ICEP schools?

2. Do intensive efforts, such as the ICEP
exemplary project, result in positive attitudes related
to the concept being exemplified?

3. Does a relationship exist between direction
of polarization in attitudes toward a concept and the
fact that the program received impetus as an exemplary
project?

4. Do school personnel, in the secondary ICEP
exemplary project schools, agree regarding attitudes
held toward selected career education concepts?

5. Do school personnel, in Non ICEP exemplary
school districts, agree regarding attitudes held toward
selected career education concepts?

6. Does the level of responsibility of the

personnel in the secondary ICEP or Non ICEP schools

“I.

 

91

Statement of the Problem

Do school personnel in the secondary ICEP have
different attitudes toward certain career education
concepts when compared with attitudes of similar school
personnel in Non ICEP schools, if so, what is the nature
and extent of such attitudinal variation?

The specific questions to be studied were:

1. Do superintendents, principals, and teachers
of secondary ICEP schools differ in their attitudes
toward career education concepts from superintendents,
principals, and teachers in Non ICEP schools?

2. Do intensive efforts, such as the ICEP
exemplary project, result in positive attitudes related
to the concept being exemplified?

3. Does a relationship exist between direction
of polarization in attitudes toward a concept and the
fact that the program received impetus as an exemplary
project?

4. Do school personnel, in the secondary ICEP
exemplary project schools, agree regarding attitudes
held toward selected career education concepts?

5. Do school personnel, in Non ICEP exemplary
school districts, agree regarding attitudes held toward
selected career education concepts?

6. Does the level of responsibility of the

personnel in the secondary ICEP or Non ICEP schools

92

influence the clustering of attitudes regarding selected

career education concepts?

Methods and Procedures

The population of interest in this study was
superintendents, principals, and teachers in Iowa
public schools. Two sub-populations were identified.
One sub-population was the personnel from the eight
ICEP pilot secondary schools. The superintendent of
the ICEP school district, the principal of the pilot
secondary school in the ICEP district, and one randomly
selected teacher from each of three academic areas
(science and/or math, humanities, and vocational—
technical) in the pilot secondary school made up this
sub-population.

The other sub-population consisted of personnel
from eight randomly selected Non ICEP school districts.
These districts were not involved in the ICEP or other
major comprehensive career education exemplary projects.
The superintendent of these Non ICEP school districts,
the principal of the randomly selected secondary school
in the Non ICEP district, and one randomly selected
teacher from each of the three academic areas in the
selected secondary school made up this sub-population.
Care was exercised to match the Non ICEP school district
with ICEP districts, relative to rural, suburban, or

metropolitan characteristics.

L

93

A semantic differential was used to collect data
for this study. It was supplemented by personal inter-
views with thirty-eight percent of the subjects of the
sub-populations. Participants in the study responded
to twelve career education concepts that made up the
semantic differential instrument. The concepts were:
Career Exploration, Iowa Career Education Model, Career
Information Center, Hands-On Experiences, Occupational
Clusters, Career Awareness, Vocational Education, Career
Integration, World of Work, Career Preparation, Career
Accommodation, and Self Concept. Each concept was rated
on a series of tne bipolar adjective pairs: meaningful-
meaningless, traditional-progressive, good-bad, limiting-
expanding, interesting-boring, weak-strong, positive-
negative, unsuccessful-successful, important-unimportant,
and old-new. The subjects responded by checking one of
seven positions on a seven-point scale appearing between
each bipolar adjective pair.

Three distinct factors were identified. The
evaluative factor was represented by the bipolar adjec-
tive pairs: meaningful-meaningless, good-bad, positive-
negative, and successful-unsuccessful. The potency
factor was represented by the bipolar adjective pairs:
progressive-traditional, expanding-limiting, and strong-

weak. The activity factor was represented by the bipolar

94

adjective pairs: interesting-boring, important-
unimportant, and new-old.

The responses were processed by use of the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The
means, standard deviations, and t-ratios were completed
across concepts, by scales, and by position.

Personal interviews were conducted in order to
help clarify why subjects held the attitudes indicated
by their responses to the semantic differential. Re-
sponses of the randomly selected interviewees (pro-
portionally distributed among teachers and administrators,
ICEP and Non ICEP) were reported for subgroups by ICEP

and Non ICEP affiliations using a thematic analysis.

Summary of Results

 

The summary of results is reported according to
the listing of the specific questions for this study as
stated in this chapter under "Statement of the Problem":

1. It was found that school personnel in the
ICEP schools differ in their attitudes toward career
education concepts from school personnel in Non ICEP
schools. The ICEP personnel, as a group, have a more
positive attitude on all of the concepts judged. ICEP
personnel were most positive on the concepts: Iowa
Career Education Model, Career Awareness, Vocational
Education, Career Accommodation, and Self Concept, as

indicated by Table I. However, ICEP teachers were

a.
,.

95

significantly positive only toward Career Accommodation,
as shown by Table V. ICEP administrators were signifi-
cantly positive towards all the above concepts except
Career Information Center, as shown by Table IX.

2. It is indicated that 93.8 percent of the
time, the ICEP personnel have a higher mean score for
the concepts judged. A higher mean score on a concept
indicates a more positive meaning or attitude toward
the concept. This suggests that attitudes of the ICEP
personnel, when compared with the Non ICEP personnel,
are polarized in a more positive direction.

3. It was found that 80.6 percent of the time
there was a smaller standard deviatiOn for the ICEP
personnel for the concepts judged. A smaller standard
deviation indicates less variation in the responses
toward the concepts. This suggests that participation
in the ICEP sensitized the personnel to a more common
core of meaning for the concepts judged.

4. It has been reported that 93.8 percent of
the time the ICEP personnel had a higher mean score
for the concepts being judged. It is important to
note also, that 36.9 percent of the t-ratios conducted
to determine the difference between the means for the
two groups (ICEP and Non ICEP) were significant at the
.05 level. This further supports the assertion that

ICEP personnel have attitudes toward the career

95

significantly positive only toward Career Accommodation,
as shown by Table V. ICEP administrators were signifi-
cantly positive towards all the above concepts except
Career Information Center, as shown by Table IX.

2. It is indicated that 93.8 percent of the
time, the ICEP personnel have a higher mean score for
the concepts judged. A higher mean score on a concept
indicates a more positive meaning or attitude toward
the concept. This suggests that attitudes of the ICEP
personnel, when compared with the Non ICEP personnel,
are polarized in a more positive direction.

3. It was found that 80.6 percent of the time
there was a smaller standard deviatiOn for the ICEP
personnel for the concepts judged. A smaller standard
deviation indicates less variation in the responses
toward the concepts. This suggests that participation
in the ICEP sensitized the personnel to a more common
core of meaning for the concepts judged.

4. It has been reported that 93.8 percent of
the time the ICEP personnel had a higher mean score
‘for the concepts being judged. It is important to
note also, that 36.9 percent of the t-ratios conducted
to determine the difference between the means for the
two groups (ICEP and Non ICEP) were significant at the
.05 level. This further supports the assertion that

ICEP personnel have attitudes toward the career

96

education concepts judged that are polarized in a like
(positive) direction.

5. It was found that Non ICEP personnel exhibit
a lower mean score and larger standard deviation than
the ICEP personnel. This indicates that Non ICEP per-
sonnel have less positive attitudes toward the career
education concepts judged than do ICEP personnel. This
group has a tendency toward a neutral position on the
seven point rating scale used.

6. It was found that the level of reSponsi-
bility (teacher and administrator) had little signifi-
cant bearing on the meaning or attitude exhibited by
ICEP or Non ICEP personnel. While 89.6 percent of the
means were higher and 75.0 percent of the standard
deviations were smaller for the administrators than
for the teachers, only 20.8 percent of the t-ratio
conducted to determine the difference between the means
for the two groups (administrators and teachers) were

significant at the 0.05 level.

Conclusions and Implications
The concepts of Iowa Career Education Model,
Career Awareness, Vocational Education, Career Accommo-
dation, and Self Concept are most positive for the ICEP

personnel.

97

These concepts, which the ICEP personnel hold as

most positive, are related to the Model for Career

 

Development (Appendix I), created as part of the ICEP.

 

The ICEP was designed to encourage each local
staff to evolve its own program. However, Awareness,
Accommodation, Exploration, and Preparation are identi-
fied in the model as the basic concepts for the project.
The workshops, conferences, and communications have
emphasized a common set of ideas about career education,
such as integration of the concepts into the total cur-
riculum rather than development of a separate unit or
course.

A finding of this research is that the con-
centrated, intensive effort known as the ICEP is cor-
related with a positive polarization of attitudes held
by personnel involved. This is important because ex-
emplary efforts are to serve as a model to guide the
development of education. Before any exemplary effort
can succeed, the attitude of the personnel being asked
to be the exemplifiers must be positive toward the
concept being exemplified.

Knowledge of the correlation of the ICEP with
the positive polarization of attitudes held by partici-
pating personnel should be of interest to decision makers

considering the funding of future exemplary efforts.

98

The scope of this study is very limited. It
suggests that attitude is an important factor in imple-
mentation of educational change and because partici-
pation in the ICEP is correlated with positive attitudes
toward selected career education concepts, the ICEP has
been successful in some respect. The study is not
precise in defining the nature or importance of this
success. The causal relationship that may exist between
attitude and adoption of the object of attitude and the
results of the adoption are not examined by this study.

This study's results do give rise to some
unsubstantiated but possibly meaningful speculation.

Why did the Non ICEP groups rate the concept of World
of Work more highly than the ICEP groups? It may have
been because the Model for Career Development (Appendix
I) which is a guideline for the implementation of the
ICEP emphasizes WOrld of Work at the primary grade level.
Thus the job of developing the curriculum.and taking
the other steps to fulfill the purpose of the World of
Work is the responsibility of the primary teachers and
administrators, not the secondary ICEP teachers and
administrators. However, in the Non ICEP districts,
the WOrld of Work concept has not generally been a
concern of the pre-secondary educators. Thus World

of WOrk is a concept with which Non ICEP secondary

educators are concerned. The fact that ICEP teachers

99

tended to rate World of WOrk lower than other concepts
suggests a common understanding about the model and its
application among ICEP participants. The high rating
given World of Work by ICEP administrators may indicate
a most wholistic vision of and acceptance of responsi-
bility for the model at all levels. The fact that Non
ICEP teachers tended to rate WOrld of Work high relative
to other concepts they rated (as well as relative to
the ratings of ICEP teachers) may be an affirmation of
the design, or at least the terminology, of the model
which places World of Work as an elementary concept.
Another interesting observation is that self
concept received higher ratings among ICEP personnel
suggesting a greater awareness of the need for develop-
ment of the subjective aspects of the student. This
suggests a deeper understanding of the needs of students
and a less mechanistic, overly work-oriented approach
that career education advocates are sometimes suspected

of by their critics.

Recommendations for Further Study
The semantic differential proved to be a very
useful and efficient instrument to collect data. Because
it takes a limited amount of the respondents' time and
is very nonthreatening, the return rate is high. For

these reasons, use of the semantic differential could

100

easily be extended to the students involved in the
project. It would also be useful to compare data from
personnel involved in a project where exemplary funds
are administered directly to the local school district.
Additional research could provide the decision makers
at the funding agencies with information comparing the
effect of a locally administered project with a project
administered through an intermediate agency.

Another aspect of ICEP-related investigation
is the analysis of participating personnel's attitudes
toward the effectiveness of various aspects of the
program for implementation of the ICEP (e.g., work-
shops, extended summer contracts, etc.).

Also of possible interest to both supporters
and critics of career educations are the questions that
arise in considering the question: "What is the value
of this study?" In seeking the value of this study,
it is necessary to ask "does this study imply that the
ICEP has been successful?" which may lead to such
philosophical questions as "what is the purpose of the
ICEP?" "what is the purpose of education?" "how can
career education, or other educational changes be
facilitated?" "what are the steps of institutionali—
zation of educational change?" "what are the appro-

priate criteria of success?" "which aspects of the

100

easily be extended to the students involved in the
project. It would also be useful to compare data from
personnel involved in a project where exemplary funds
are administered directly to the local school district.
Additional research could provide the decision makers
at the funding agencies with information comparing the
effect of a locally administered project with a project
administered through an intermediate agency.

Another aspect of ICEP-related investigation
is the analysis of participating personnel's attitudes
toward the effectiveness of various aspects of the
program for implementation of the ICEP (e.g., work-
shops, extended summer contracts, etc.).

Also of possible interest to both supporters
and critics of career educations are the questions that
arise in considering the question: "What is the value
of this study?" In seeking the value of this study,
it is necessary to ask "does this study imply that the
ICEP has been successful?" which may lead to such
philosophical questions as "what is the purpose of the
ICEP?" "what is the purpose of education?" "how can
career education, or other educational changes be
facilitated?" "what are the steps of institutionali-
zation of educational change?" "what are the appro-

priate criteria of success?" "which aspects of the

 

101

ICEP have contributed most to whatever degree of suc-
cess it has realized?" "can cost-benefit analysis be

applied to answer this question?"

FOOTNOTES

102

FOOTNOTES

”1"Career Education Not Job Training," Social

Education, Vol. 37, No. 6 (October, 1973), p. 504.

ZState Department of Public Instruction, Direc-
tory of Selected Iowa Careergducation Offerings (Des
Moines, Iowa), October 17, 1973, pp. 1-3.

3Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H.
Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: Uni-
versity of Illinois Press, 1957), p. l.

 

 

4Career Education Offerings, pp. 1-3.

5Des Moines Register, November 1, 1973, p. l.

 

6G. W. Allport, "Attitudes," A Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. by C. Murchison (Worchester,
Mass.: Clarke University Press, 1935), p. 800.

7Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral
Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc., 1973),
p. 566.

 

 

 

8State Department of Public Instruction, Iowa
State Plan for the Administrationigf Career Education
(Des Moines, Iowa), Part I, 1972-73.

9Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 566.

10W. H. Spies, "A Study of the Relationship
Between Selected Variables and Attitudes of Headstart
Personnel in Iowa" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Iowa, 1967), p. 24.

11M. F. Washburn, Movement and Mental Imagery
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), P. 31.

12W. I. Thomas and F. Znanieck, The Polish Peasant
in Europe and America (Boston: R. C. Badger, 1918), Vol.
I, p. 19.

13L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave, The Measurement
of Attitudes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929),

p. 6.
103

104

14Allport, "Attitudes," p. 800.

15Ibid., p. 810..

16E. Nelson, "Attitudes: Their Nature and De-
velopment," Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 21, 1939.

17H. J. Eysenck, "Primary Social Attitudes: The
Organization and Measurement of Social Attitudes," Inter-
national Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Vol.
I, 1947, p. 49.

18M. Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A
Theory of Organization and Change (San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Inc., 1968), P. 112.

193. F. Green, "Attitude Measurement," Handbook
of Social Psychology, ed. by G. Lindzey (Readley, Mass.:
Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954), p. 335.

20P. F. Secord and C. W. Backman, Social Psy-
chology (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964): p. 57.

21H. H. Remmers, Introduction to Opinion and
Attitude Measurement (New York: Harper, 1954), p. 190.

22M. J. Rosenberg, "Cognitive Reorganization in
Response to the Hypnotic Reversal of Attitudinal Affect,”
Problems in Social Psychology: Selected Readings, ed.
by C. W. Backman and P. E. Secord (New York: McGraw
Hill, 1966), p. 116.

23

 

Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 375.

24M. J. Rosenberg and C. I. Hovland, "Cognitive,
Affective, and Behavioral Components of Attitudes,“
Attitude Organization and Change, ed. by M. J. Rosenberg,
et al. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960),
p. 14. ‘

25Osgood, et al., Measurement of Meaning, p. 189.

26Ibid., p. 190.

27C. E. Osgood and P. H. Tannenbaum, "The Princi-
ples of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude Change,"
Psychological Review, Vol. 62, pp. 42-55.

28Ibid.,p. 42.

105

29J. L. Freedman, J. M. Carlsmith, and S. 0. Sears,
Social Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Inc.), p. 251.

30

 

Osgood, et al., Measurement of Meaning, p. 201.

3lIbid., p. 201.

32Ibid., p. 202.

33Freedman, et al., Social Psychology, p. 262.

34Osgood, et al., Measurement of Meaning, p. 205.

3SIbid., p. 205..

361bid., p. 205.

37Ibid., p. 206.

3BIbid., p. 207.

39C. A. Kiesler, B. E. Collins, N. Miller, Attitude
Change (Wiley and Company, 1969), p. 178.

4oIbid., p. 183.

41P. Suedfeld, Attitude Change: The Cgmpeting
Views (Chicago/New York: Aldine, Atherton, 1971), p. 13.

42
pp. 42—55.

43P. Tannenbaum, "Initial Attitude Toward Source
and Concept as Factors in Attitude Change Through Come
munications," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1958,
pp. 413-425.

44J. S. Kerrick, "The Effect of Relevant and Non
Relevant Sources on Attitude Change," Journal of Social
Psychology: Journalismguarterly, Vol. 35, 1958, pp. 15-

Osgood, et al., "Principles of Congruity,"

45J. S. Kerrick, "The New Pictures, Captions and
the Point of Resolution," Journalismygparterly, Vol. 36,
1959, pp. 183-188.

46J. S. Kerrick and J. McMillan III, "The Effects
of Instructional Set on the Measurement of Attitude
Change Through Communication," Journal of Social Psy-
chology, Vol. 53, 1961, pp. 113-120.

 

106

47F. Tannenbaum and R. Gengel, "Generalization
of Attitude Change Through Congruity Principle Rela-
tionships," Journal of Personal Social Psychology, Vol.
3, 1966: PP- 299-304.

48F. Tannenbaum, "Medical Generalizations of
Attitude Change Via the Principle of Congruity," Journal
of Personal Social Psychology, Vol. 3, 1966, pp. 493-500.

49H. Triandis and M. Fishbein, "Cognitive Inter-
action in Personal Perception," Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 446-453.

50M. Fishbein and R. Hunter, "Summation Versus
Balance in Attitude Organization and Change," Journal
of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 39, 1964, pp. 505-
510.

 

 

 

51L. Anderson and N. Fishbein, "Predictions of
Attitude from the Number, Strength and Evaluative Aspects
of Beliefs About Attitude Object," Journal of Personal
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 1965, pp. 437-443.

52N. Anderson, "Averaging Versus Adding as a
Stimulus Combination Rule in Impression Formation,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 70, 1965,
pp. 394-400.

53

 

 

Suedfeld, Attitude Change, p. 4.

 

54J. D. Holloran, Attitude Formation and Change
(Paris: Leicester Press, 1967), p. 28.

55R. Brown, C. Galenter, E. Hess, and G. Mandler,
New Directions in Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston, 1962), pp. 1-85.

56Chester A. Insko, Theories of Attitude Change
(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), p. 140.

57

 

Ibid., p. 138.

58David L. Cronin, "The Effect of an Exemplary
Project on Attitudes of Iowa Educators Toward Career
Education" (unpublished dissertation, University of
Iowa, 1974), pp. 1-4.

59Andrew Frear, "Differences Between Innovative
and Traditional Elementary School Teachers in the Per-
ceptions of Semantic Differential Concepts Reflecting

107

Receptivity to Change" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Southern California), Dissertation Abstracts
International, Vol. 35, 1974, p. 2617-A.

60Nancy Marie Somerick, "An Investigation into
the Roles of Legislative Liaisons of Six State-Supported
Universities as Measured by a Semantic Differential"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University),
Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 35, 1974,
p. 2926-A.

61Ted Wayne Vaughan, "A Semantic Differential
Inquiry into Divergent Attitudes Toward Educational
Technology" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New Mexico
State University), Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol. 35, 1974, p. 2664-A.

62Constance Ruth Ahrons, "A Semantic Differential
Study of Career Images of Women Held by High School
Counselors and Academic Women" (unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Wisconsin), Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 34, 1974, p. 7529-A.

63William Frank Smith, "Career Education, Indus-
trial Arts, and Vocational Education--A Semantic Differ-
ential Study" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona
State University): Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol. 34, 1974, p. 4007-A.

64

 

Osgood, et al., Measurement of Meaning, pp. 76-
125.

65Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 566.

66Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael, Handbook
in Research and Evaluation (San Diego, California:
.Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1971), p. 102.

67Silbert Sax, Empirical Foundations of Edu-
cational Research (Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 272.

68Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 580.

691bid., p. 531.

7OOsgood, et al., Measurement of Meaning, p. 140.

7lIbid., p. 140.

721bid., p. 141.

108

73Ibid., p. 126.

74Ibid., p. 328.

75Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 568.

 

76State Department of Public Instruction, "Career
Development Model and Explanations," Models for Career
Education in Iowa (Des Moines, Iowa, 1973), pp. 25-27.

 

 

 

 

77Osgood, et al., Measurement of Meaning, pp. 78-
80.
781bid., p. 80.
79Cronin, "Exemplary Project," p. 44.
80Cronin, Telephone Interview, January 21, 1975.
81Isaac and Michael, Research and Evaluation,
p. 103.

821bid., p. 103.

83Kerlinger, Behavioral Research, p. 566.

 

84SPSS Statistical Package For the Social Sciences,
N. E. Norman, Dale H. Bent, C. H. Hull (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1970), p. 235.

85Osgood et al., Measurement of Meaning, pp. 1-333.

 

86SPSS Statistical Package, p. 235.

 

87A negative t-ratio indicates the mean of the
first group is smaller than the second group's mean.

APPENDICES

109

APPENDIX A

THE BIPOLAR ADJECTIVES

110

APPENDIX A

THE BIPOLAR ADJECTIVES

Meaningful - Meaningless
Traditional - Progressive
Good - Bad

Limiting - Expanding
Interesting - Boring
Weak - Strong

Positive - Negative
Unsuccessful - Successful
Important - Unimportant

Old - New

111

\OCDNIO‘U'Iuwal-J

1.:
O

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

112

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

Dear Superintendent:

Thank you for your willingness to participate in
this study of the secondary phase of the Iowa Career
Education Project (ICEP). The purpose of this study is
to measure the effect on selected attitudes of the three-
year ICEP exemplary project. Data collected on meanings
or attitudes held by school personnel from the eight
participating ICEP school districts will be compared with
data from eight randomly selected non-participating ICEP
school districts relative to certain career education
concepts.

The sampling procedure makes it imperative that all
selected in the sample complete and return the question-

naires. You will find the task easy and brief. The
questionnaire will take less than ten minutes to complete.

Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please call me. If we do not
receive the completed questionnaire in a week to ten days,
we will call to confirm your receipt of the questionnaire
and provide any additional information you need.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

W. Les Schmadeka
Researcher

WLS:1ac

Enclosure

113

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO PRINCIPALS

114

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO PRINCIPALS

Dear Principal:

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this
study of the secondary phase of the Iowa Career Education
Project (ICEP) authorized by your superintendent. The
purpose of this study is to measure the effect on selected
attitudes of the three-year ICEP exemplary project. Data
collected on meanings or attitudes held by school personnel
from the eight participating ICEP school districts will be
compared with data from eight randomly selected non-
participating ICEP school districts relative to certain
career education concepts.

The sampling procedure makes it imperative that all
selected in the sample complete and return the question-
naires. Enclosed are sufficient copies of directions and
the questionnaire to be completed by yourself and one
teacher from each of three areas: math/sciences, humani-
ties, and vocational/technical. Please select the teacher
with a last name closest to the letter "A" to complete the
questionnaire from each of the three areas.

Participants will find the task easy and brief. The
questionnaire will take less than ten minutes to complete.
We have instructed each teacher participating to complete
the questionnaire and return it to you for mailing in the
enclosed stamped, addressed envelope.

Please distribute, complete and return the question-
naires as soon as possible. If you have any questions,
please call me. If we do not receive the completed ques-
tionnaire in a week to ten days, we will call to confirm
your receipt of the materials and provide any additional
information you need.

Thank you for your c00peration.

Sincerely,

W. Les Schmadeka
Researcher

WLS:1ac
Enclosures

115

APPENDIX D

LETTER TO TEACHERS

116

APPENDIX D

LETTER TO TEACHERS

Dear Fellow Educator:

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this
study of the secondary phase of the Iowa Career Education
Project (ICEP) authorized by your superintendent. The
purpose of this study is to measure the effect on selected
attitudes of the three-year ICEP exemplary project. Data
collected on meanings or attitudes held by school personnel
from the eight participating ICEP school districts will be
compared with data from eight randomly selected non-
participating ICEP school districts relative to certain
career education concepts.

The sampling procedure makes it imperative that all
selected in the sample complete and return the question-
naires. You will find the task easy and brief. The ques-
tionnaire will take less than ten minutes to complete.

Please complete and return the questionnaire to your
principal. If you have any questions, please call. If
we do not receive the completed questionnaire in a week to
ten days, we will call to confirm your receipt of the
materials and provide any additional information you need.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

W. Les Schmadeka
Researcher

WLS:1ac

117

APPENDIX E

DIRECTIONS FOR RESPONDENTS

118

APPENDIX E

DIRECTIONS FOR RESPONDENTS

DIRECTIONS

The purpose of this study is to measure the meanings
of certain things to various people by having them judge
them against a series of descriptive scales. In completing
this questionnaire, please make your judgments on the basis
of what these things mean to ygg. On each page of this
booklet you will find a different concept from Career
Education to be judged and beneath it a set of scales. You
are to rate the concept on each of these scales in order.

Here is how to use these scales:
If you feel that the concept at the tOp of the page

is very closely related to one end of the scale, you should
place your check mark as follows:

 

Unfair

Fair' X :

 

 

or

Unfair

N

Fair

 

 

If you feel that the concept is quite closely related
to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely),
you should mark as follows:

X : Unfair

Fair

 

or

X ° Unfair

Fair

 

 

 

If the concept seems only slightly related to one
side as opposed to the other Side (but is not really
neutral), then you should mark as follows:

: Unfair

X :

Fair :

 

 

or

119

120

X : : ,: Unfair

Fair :

 

 

 

The direction toward which you place your mark, of
course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale
seem most characteristic of the thing you are judging.

If you consider the concept to be neutral on the
scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the
concept, or if the scale is completelyyirrelevant, unre-
lated to the concept, then you should mark in the middle
space:

: Unfair

>4

Fair

 

 

 

IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check-marks in the middle
of spaces, not on the boundaries:

 

Not
This This
Fair : : : X : :X : : Unfair

 

 

 

 

(2) Be sure you check every scale for every
concept - do not omit any.

 

(3) Never put more than one check-mark on a
' single scale.

Sometimes you may feel as though you have had the
same item before on the questionnaire. This will not be
the case, so do not look back and forth through the items.
Do not try to remember how you checked similar items
earlier in the questionnaire. MakeJeach item a separate
and independent judgment. Work at fairly high speed
through this questionnaire. Do not worry or puzzle over
individual items. It is your first impression, the imme-
diate "feelings" about the items, that we want. On the
other hand, please do not be careless, because we want
your true impressions.

 

APPENDIX F

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT

121

CAREER EXPLORATION

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak
positive
unsuccessful
important
old

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

CAREER EXPLORATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningful : : : : : : meaningless
traditional : : : : : : progressive
good : : : : : : bad
limiting : : : : : : expanding
interesting : : : : : : boring
weak : : : : : : strong
positive : : : : : : negative
unsuccessful : : : : : : successful
important : : : : : : unimportant
old : : : : : : new

 

122

123

IOWA CAREER EDUCATION MODEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningful : : : : : : meaningless
traditional : : : : : : progressive
good : : : : : : bad
limiting : : : : : : expanding
interesting : : : : : : boring
weak ___fi___° : : : : strong
positive : : :___3 : : negative
unsuccessful : : : : : : successful
important : : : : : : unimportant
old : : : : : : new

 

CAREER INFORMATION CENTER

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak
positive
unsuccessful
important

old

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful.
unimportant

new

125

CAREER INFORMATION CENTER

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak
positive
unsuccessful
important

old

 

 

 

O.
O.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

HANDS-ON EXPERIENCES

126

 

 

 

 

meaningful : :
traditional : :
‘ good __:_:
limiting ___5___;
interesting : :
weak :, :
positive ___:___:
unsuccessful : :
important : :

 

 

old : :

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

OCCUPATIONAL CLUSTERS

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak
positive
unsuccessful
important

old

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

CAREER AWARENESS

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak
positive
unsuccessful
important 6
old

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

meaningful

129

 

traditional

good

 

limiting

 

interesting

 

weak

 

positive

 

unsuccessful
important
old

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding.
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

CAREER INTEGRATION

meaningful

130

 

traditional

good

limiting

 

 

interesting

 

weak

 

positive
unsuccessful

important

 

 

old

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant -

new

WORLD OF WORK

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak

positive

unsuccessful

important
old

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

CAREER PREPARATION

meaningful

traditional

132

 

 

good

 

limiting

interesting

 

 

 

 

weak

 

positive

 

unsuccessful

 

important

 

old

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring

strong

-negative

successful
unimportant

new

CAREER ACCOMMODATION

meaningful

133

 

traditional

good

 

 

limiting

interesting

 

weak
positive

unsuccessful

 

important

 

 

old

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

SELF CONCEPT

meaningful
traditional
good
limiting
interesting
weak
positive
unsuccessful
important

old

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaningless
progressive
bad
expanding
boring
strong
negative
successful
unimportant

new

135

Please Check Your Subject Matter Responsibility

Math and/or Science . Principal
Humanities Superintendent

Vocational/Technical

Is your district/school in the ICEP? ' yes

no

Please be sure you have made a check mark for every scale
on each of the concepts.

Please return to your principal for mailing. Thank you,
very much. '

135

Please Check Your Subject Matter Responsibility

Math and/or Science Principal
Humanities Superintendent

Vocational/Technical

Is your district/school in the ICEP? ‘ yes

no

Please be sure you have made a check mark for every scale
on each of the concepts.

Please return to your principal for mailing. Thank you,
very much. '

APPENDIX G

QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN

136

APPENDIX G

QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN

The following tables show the pattern of distribution

and return of useable questionnaires.

Distribution of Questionnaires

 

 

 

 

ICEP Non ICEP Total
Teachers 24 24 48
Administrators 16 16 32
Total 40 40 80

 

 

 

Return of UseableQuestionnaires

 

 

 

ICEP Non ICEP Tota1
Teachers 21 24 45
Administrators 15 16 31
Total 36 40 76

 

 

 

137

APPENDIX H

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

138

APPENDIX H

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

Following are the questions used for the personal

interviews.

1.

What experiences have been most influential in
develOping any positive attitudes toward career
education?

What experiences have been most influential in
developing any negative attitudes toward career
education?

What personal feelings and/or emotions have you
noticed in yourself or others that promote the
acceptance of career education?

What personal feelings and/or emotions have you
noticed in yourself or others that hinder the
acceptance of career education?

How might these personal feelings and/or emotions
you have noticed in yourself or others that
promote the acceptance of career education be
strengthened?

How might these personal feelings and/or emotions
you have noticed in yourself or others that hinder
the acceptance of career education be reduced?

What organizational and/or environmental conditions
have you noticed at the local, state, and/or
national levels in the past and/or present within
and/or without education that promote the acceptance
of career education?

What organizational and/or environmental conditions
have you noticed at the local, state, and/or
national levels in the past and/or present within
and/or without education that hinder the acceptance
of career education?

139

10.

11.

140

How might these organizational and/or environmental
conditions you have noticed at the local, state, and/
or national levels in the past and/or present within
and/or without education that promote the acceptance
of career education be strengthened?

How might these organizational and/or environmental
conditions you have noticed at the local, state, and/
or national levels in the past and/or present within
and/or without education that hinder the acceptance
of career education be reduced?

Do you have any other observations or comments about
career education you would like to make?

APPENDIX I

MODEL FOR CAREER DEVELOPMENT

141

 

_ a

H ma qr ma «H as as m m a .m m s

.onom seam umom

 

 

 

 

.\A1 auukm

\\\\wm:0fiummsooo

Hooaom page so“ :.

 

 

sowumuonx . soap

 

soHumummou cowumuoamxm Imposfioood

mmm¢mm fizmzmoqm>ma mmmm¢0

BZHZAOQN>HO MNHM<U mom Ammo:

-uun woumacmsumusH

mufimum>flca mumum s30H .uomnoum cowumoscm ummumu mo uumm mm cwmoao>mo

m 7 m H &
aumsflum

70"

.22. .0...
cauoz .x
\\.
\\. mammozou
1 on<m
mamm
mwmcmumsg

 

142

BIBLIOGRAPHY

143

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahrons, Constance Ruth. "A Semantic Differential Study
of Career Images of Women Held by High School
Counselors and Academic Women." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 234,
1974.

 

Allport, G. W. "Attitudes." A Handbook of Social Psyr
chology. Edited by C. Murchison. Worchester,
Mass." Clarke University Press, 1935.

Anderson, L. and Fishbein, N. "Predictions of Attitude
from the number, Strength and Evaluative Aspects
of Beliefs About Attitude Object." Joprnal of
Personal Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 1965.

 

Anderson, N. "Averaging Versus Adding as a Stimulus
Combination Rule in Impression Formation."
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 70,
I965.

Brown, R.: Galanter, G.; Hess, E.; and Mandler, G.
(Contributors) New Directions in Psychology.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, Urnsten, 1962.

Cronin, David L. "The Effect of an Exemplary Project
on Attitudes of Iowa Educators Toward Career
Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1974.

Des Moines Register, November 1, 1973.

Eysenck, H. J. "Primary Social Attitudes: The Organi-
zation and Measurement of Social Attitudes."
International Journa1_of Opinion and Attitude
Research, Vol. 1, 1947.

 

Fishbein, M. and Hunter, R. "Summation Versus Balance
in Attitude Organization and Change." Journal
of Abnormal Social Psychology: Vol. 39, 1964.

Frear, A. "Differences Between Innovative and Tradi-
tional Elementary School Teachers in the

144

145

Perceptions of Semantic Differential Concepts
Reflecting Receptivity to Change." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, Vol. 35, 1974.

Freedman, J. L.: Carlsmith, J. M.; and Sears, D. 0.
Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Green, B. F. "Attitude Measurement." Handbook of Social
Psychology. Edited by G. Lindzey. Readey, Mass.:
Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954.

 

 

Hollaran, J. D. Attitude Formation and_Chang§. Paris:
Leicester University Press, 1967.

 

Insko, Chester A. Theories of Attitude Change. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.

 

Isaac, Stephen and Michael, William B. Handbook in
Research and Evaluation. San Diego, California:
Robert R. Knapp: Publisher, 1971.

 

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1973.

 

Kerrick, J. 8. "News Pictures, Captions and the Point
of Resolution." Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 36,
1959.

 

Kerrick, J. S. "The Effect of Relevant and Non Relevant
Sources on Attitude Change." Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 47, 1958.

 

 

Kerrick, J. S. and McMillan, J. III. "The Effects of
Instructional Set on the Measurement of Attitude
Change Through Communication." Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 53, 1961.

 

 

Kiesler, C. A.; Collins, B. E.; and Miller, N. Attitude
Change. Wiley and Company, 1969.

Nelson, E. "Attitudes: Their Nature and Development."
Journal of General Psychology. Vol. 21, 1939.

 

Osgood, Charles E.: Suci, George J.; and Tannenbaum,
Percy H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1957.

 

146

Osgood, C. E. and Tannenbaum, P. H. "The Principles
of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude
Change." Psychological Review, Vol. 62.

Remmers, H. H. Introduction to Opinion and Attitude
Measurement. New York: Harper, 1954.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theopy
of Organization and Change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1968.

Rosenberg, M. J. and Hovland, C. I. "Cognitive,
Affective, and Behavioral Components of
Attitudes." Attitude Organization and Change.
Edited by M. J. Rosenberg, et al. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1960.

Rosenberg, M. J. "Cognitive Reorganization in Response
to the Hypnotic Reversal of Attitudinal Affect."
Problems in Social Psychology: Selected Read-
ings. Edited by C. W. Backman and P. F. Secord.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Educational
Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc., 1968.

Secord, P. F. and Backman, C. W. Social Psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Smith, W. F. "Career Education, Industrial Arts, and
Vocational Education--A Semantic Differential
Study." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona
State University. Qissertation_§bstracts Inter-
national, Vol. 34, 1974, p. 4007-A.

Social Educatign, "Career Education Not Job Training."
Vol. 37, October, 1973.

Somerick, N. M. "An Investigation into the Roles of
Legislative Liaisons of Six State-supported
Universities as Measured by a Semantic Differ-
ential." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio
University. Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol. 35, 1974, p. 2926-A.

Spies, William H., Jr. "A Study of the Relationship
Between Selected Variables and Attitudes of Head
Start Personnel in Iowa.” Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Iowa, 1967.

147

State Department of Public Instruction. ”Career Develop-
ment Model and Explanations." Models for Career
Education in Iowa. Des Moines, Iowa, 1973.

 

State Department of Public Instruction. "Directory of
Selected Iowa Career Education Offerings." Des
Moines, Iowa, October 17, 1973.

State Department of Public Instruction. "Iowa State Plan
for the Administration of Career Education." Des
Moines, Iowa, Part 1, 1972-73.

Suedfeld, P. Attitude Change: The Competing Views.
Chicago/New York: Aldine, Atherton, 1971.

Tannenbaum, P. "Initial Attitude Toward Source and Con-
cept as Factors in Attitude Change Through Com-
munication." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 20,
1956.

Tannenbaum, P. "Medical Generalizations of Attitude
Change Via the Principle of Congruity." Journal
of Personal Social Psychology, Vol. 3, 1966.

Thomas, W. I. and Znanieck, F. The Polish Peasant in
Europe and America. Boston: R. C. Badger,
Vol. 1, 1918.

Thurstone, L. L. and Chave, E. J. The Measurement of
Attitudes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1929.

 

Triandis, H. and Fishbein, H. "Cognitive Interaction in
Personal Perception." Journal of Abnormal Social

Psychology, Vol. 67.

 

Vaughan, T. W. "A Semantic Differential Inquiry into
Divergent Attitudes Toward Educational Technology.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New Mexico State
University. Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol. 35, 1974, p. 2664-A.

Washburn, M. F. Movement and Mental Imagery. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1916.

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
‘HWIWIIWIWMIU‘IV”llHmIIHI‘IHWWIW
31293006327302