AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODE AND THE LEARNING STYLE OF THE STUDENT Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOHN JELLEMA 1976 . III IIIIIII 3129 00640 IIIIIIIIIIII‘IIII This is to certify that the . . thesis entitled AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONAL NDDE AND THE LEARNING STYLE OF THE STUDENT presented by JOHN JELLEMA has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Secondary Education and Curriculum (Industrial Arts) 0‘ ’ ajor professor Date May 21, 1976 0-7 639 ABSTRACT AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODE AND THE LEARNING STYLE OF THE STUDENT By John Jellema It has been pr0posed that the educational process could be more efficacious if the instruction and learning materials were developed in harmony with the way in which students prefer to learn. This study was designed to measure the learning styles of the stu- dents, and to provide experimental research evidence of the effec- tiveness of matching the learning style of the student with an instructional mode. The concern that motivated this study was the applicability of matching a student's learning style with an instructional mode in an educational setting that is based upon the concept of individual- ized instruction. The four objectives of the study were: I. to identify the learning styles of the students in the various occupational areas at the Capital Area Career Center at Mason, Michigan; 2. to measure the effectiveness on achievement of the experi- mental matching of learning style with instructional mode; John Jellema 3. to measure the extent to which the student characteris- tics of sex, age, reading comprehension level, and compu- tational skill relate to achievement; and 4. to identify and recommend directions for ongoing and future curriculum development in the light of the measured learning styles of the students. Approximately 100 students from the Capital Area Career Center in Michigan served as subjects for the experiment. These students were randomly selected from most of the occupational program offer- ings at the Center. The preferred learning styles of the students were measured using the Learning Activities Survey. This instrument measures learning styles on two continua, concrete/symbolic and structured/ unstructured. The two selected instructional modes were direct-detailed and directed-discovery. It was felt that these modes would be compatible with the learning styles to be measured. They had the advantage of requiring little or no student-teacher interaction. A learning style-instructional mode matrix was developed to categorize the rela- tion between style and treatment. The learning task which was chosen related to the metric sys- tem of measurement. The instructional materials were develOped in two parts: (a) conversion within the metric system, and (b) conversion between the metric and customary (English) systems of measurement. John Jellema Initial learning tests were completed immediately after instruction, and the same instruments were used five weeks later for the retention testing. Using the results of the Learning Activities Survey, graphs were deveIOped showing the locus of each student on the two continua, concrete/symbolic and structured/unstructured. These graphs may be readily interpreted for the learning style preference of each occu- pational area and the school as a whole. The study sample showed a preference for "hands-on" learning activities with a mixture of teacher-centered/student-centered learning environments. The learning data on student achievement, when analyzed with regard to the matching of learning style with instructional mode, yielded inconclusive results. Two confounding variables were identi- fied. Secondary hypotheses relating to the matching were posed and were not rejected. This experimental study used a group of secondary school students enrolled in an area vocational school. The following con- clusions are drawn as a result of this research. 1. It is possible to assess the learning styles of secondary school students using a relatively simple, easy-to-use questionnaire. 2. The experimental matching of learning style with instruc- tional mode yielded inconclusive results. 3. There is a positive correlation between reading comprehen- sion level and achieved scores when using learning materials John Jellema that are in a reading format, even though the materials are written at the sixth grade equivalent reading level. 4. There is a positive correlation between the sex of the student and achieved scores when using learning materials which concern mathematics. 5. Recommendations to the Center are: a. that a variety of learning styles exist among the students in each of the occupational areas and the Center may wish to consider this in developing learn- ing environments, b. that the student characteristics of sex and reading comprehension level do appear to influence overall achievement as measured in this study, and c. that the Center should consider conducting a longer- term study before accepting or rejecting the need to consider student learning style as a factor in the development of curriculum. The recommendation for further research is that others should continue to pursue the question: "Will students achieve better if their learning styles match the instructional mode?" AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODE AND THE LEARNING STYLE OF THE STUDENT By John Jellema A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1976 C) C0pyright by JOHN JELLEMA 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude to his advisor and major professor, Dr. George N. Ferns, for his continued guidance and support during all stages of this study. Sincere thanks are also expressed to the other members of my committee, Dr. C. Blair MacLean, Industrial Education; Dr. Dale Alam, Secondary Education and Curric- ulum; and Professor James W. Burnett, Computer Science, for their guidance of my studies at Michigan State University. In appreciation, the writer wishes to thank Ms. Jan Danford, Curriculum Director of the Capital Area Career Center, for her part in making it possible to conduct this experiment at the Center. The students who took part in the study are also thanked for their efforts and cooperation. The pe0ple working as consultants in the Educational Research I Services of the College of Education deserve thanks for their assistance, with a special thank-you to Ms. Janet Tillman. The writer wishes to acknowledge his spouse, Milly, for her continued support, encouragement, and tireless efforts in typing the manuscript; and 41.24 Scores < 32.84, Business 6 (6.5%) 3 (3.3%) Health 2 (2.1%) 5 (5.4%) Trade & Industry 6 (6.5%) 4 (4.3%) Total group 14 (15.2%) 12 (13.0%) Structured/Unstructured Structured/unstructured instrument.--The second eleven items on the Learning Activities Survey measure the learning style con- tinuum defined by structured at one pole and unstructured at the Opposite pole. Items 12-16 contain statements which relate to the use of preplanned, highly organized experiences in the learning environment, to which the student has little, if any, input. These items, thus, measure the structured dimension. The remaining six items contain statements which relate to the use Of student involve- ment in the planning and organizing Of experiences in the learning environment. Thus these items, 17-22, measure the unstructured dimension. 93 Scoring for this portion Of the survey was accomplished by assigning values Of 1-2-3-4-5 tO the response categories Of "Of NO Value," "Of Little Value," "Of Average Value," "Very Valuable,“ and "Extremely Valuable" for the first five items. For the remaining six items, the reverse values Of 5-4-3-2-1 were assigned to the same response categories. _ An individual's position on the structured/unstructured con- tinuum depends upon that person's acceptance or rejection Of the type Of learning experiences defined in each statement Of the instru- ment. Individuals located, therefore, along the continuum, with location toward either end indicating a strong preference for that style. Locating near the midpoint (thirty-three) would indicate a desire for a mixture of learning styles. A highly structured individual would have accepted items 12-16 at the "Extremely Valuable" level and would have rejected items 17-22 at the "Of NO Value" level. This would yield a maximum score of fifty-five. There were no students who attained that score. Responding to these items in a completely Opposite manner would have produced a minimum score Of eleven. This score would indicate a highly unstructured individual and, again, there were nO students who attained this minimum score. Frequency distribution.--A graphic presentation of the range on the structured/unstructured continuum for each Of the occupational areas is provided by Figures 8, 9, and 10. The potential range Of scores varies from a value Of fifty-five for the highly structured Structured Unstructured 49 48 47 46 45 44 I 43 42 41 4O 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 3O 29 28 94 ** N = 25 ** **** *** ** ** ...... .‘1- X = 34.64 Structured/Unstructured Continuum Midpoint *** *** Fig. 8.--Structured/unstructured continuum showing the frequency distribution Of students from the Business Occupational Area at the Capital Area Career Center. 95 42 Structured 41 * 40 * 39 38 *** 37 * N = 23 Y = 32.00 36 ** 35 ** 34 * 33 *** ----- Structured/Unstructured Continuum Midpoint 32 ***"): 31 * 30 29 28 *1: 27 26 25 24 23 *1: Unstructured 22 Fig. 9.--Structured/unstructured continuum showing the frequency distribution Of students from the Health Occupational Area at the Capital Area Career Center. 96 43 Structured 42 * 4] *** 4O ** 39 ** 38 *** N = 44 X'= 33.00 37 * 36 ** 35 ** 34 **** 33 *** ----- Structured-Unstructured 32 ***** Continuum Midpoint 3" *** 30 * 29 ** 28 * 2 7 ***-int 26 ** 25 24 23 * 22 * Unstructured 21 Fig. 10.--Structured/unstructured continuum Showing the frequency distribution Of students from the Trade & Industry Occu- pational Area at the Capital Area Career Center. 97 to a value Of eleven for the highly unstructured. Figure 8 is a frequency distribution for the students from the Business Occupational Area on the Structured/Unstructured Learning Style Continuum. Figure 9 shows the frequency distribution for the students from the Health Occupational Area and Figure 10 provides similar information for the students from the Trade & Industry Occupational Area. The midpoint on the scale (thirty-three) was determined by a response average Of three. Of the total students (ninety-two) who responded to the instrument, it might be Of interest to point out that not one responded to all Of the statements in any one column, although some achieved the score of thirty-three. The students from the Business Occupational Area were the only group who had a mean score (34.64) which was above the midpoint Of the continuum. Thus, on the basis Of this instrument, these students tend to prefer the structured learning style. The group had nine individuals (36 percent) who attained scores below the midpoint, while sixteen (64 percent) attained scores ranging from the midpoint to a high score of forty-eight. This high score was also the highest maximum score attained by the three groups. The Health Occupational Area students Obtained the only mean score (32.00) that fell below the midpoint of the continuum. This group, therefore, leans toward the unstructured end Of the scale. The frequency distribution of this group shows that there were nine individuals (39 percent Of this group) who attained values below the midpoint (thirty-three), with the remaining fourteen students attain- ing scores which ranged from thirty-three to forty-one. 98 The students in the Trade & Industry Occupational Area had a mean Score (33.00) which fell exactly at the midpoint Of the con- tinuum. This group may be thought of, therefore, as desiring a mixture of both structured and unstructured learning strategies. In this group there were twenty-one individuals (47 percent of the group, and the largest group percentage) who attained values below the midpoint. The remaining twenty-three students attained scores which ranged from thirty-three to forty-two. Occupational area comparison.--Figure 11 provides a visual comparison Of the mean scores achieved by students in each occupa- tional area on the structured/unstructured scale. Only the Business Occupational Area tended to view itself as preferring a structured learning style. The Health OCCUpational Area was the only area that tended tO prefer an unstructured learning style, while the Trade 8 Industry Occupational Area showed a preference for a mixture of both structured and unstructured learning styles. The mean score of the total group (33.51) is only slightly above the continuum midpoint (thirty-three). The mean score of the Business Occupational Area (34.64) was the only mean score which was above both the midpoint (thirty-three) and the mean score of the total group (33.51). Both the Health Occupational Area mean score (32.00) and the mean score of the Trade & Industry Occupational Area (33.00) were below the mean score of the total group (33.51). The Trade & Industry Occupational Area mean score (33.00) was at the mid- point of the continuum, while the mean score Of the Health Occupational 99 55 Structured if 40+ 39 ' 38 ‘ 37 i 36 ‘ 35 ' 34 ‘ 34.64 Total Mean __ .. ———————————— 33.51 33 a — --IL--- -.——-—--- - - —--W- -Midp010t 32: W 31 ' 30 ‘ 29 ' 28 ' 27 ' 26 ‘ 25 i ll - - - a Business Health Trade & Industry nvé 25 n"2 23 n = 44 Fig. ll.--Comparison of the mean scores achieved by the three occupational areas on the structured/unstructured continuum. 100 Area (32.00) was the only score which fell below the midpoint of the structured/unstructured.continuum. Plots Of the individual's placement along both continua may be found following the next section. The graphs are formed by the concrete/symbolic continuum as the X-axis and the structured/ unstructured continuum as the Y-axis. Separate figures are shown I for the Business, Health, and Trade & Industry Occupational Areas, p I and for the total group. f Discussion of results on the structured/unstructured continuum.--The typical style evident within the total group can be (determined from the mean of the total group. A mean score above or below the midpoint would indicate a tendency toward the style indi- cated at the end pole. A mean near the midpoint would suggest that a mixture Of learning strategies would be favored. The standard deviation may be used to decide whether a range Of learning styles exists to a sufficient degree to demand a variety Of learning strate- gies. The ninety-two individuals who comprised the sample for this study achieved a mean score of 33.51, with a standard deviation Of 4.95. This mean score (of the total group) is very near the midpoint (thirty-three) of the structured/unstructured continuum and would indicate that a mixture of learning strategies is desired by the group. It should be fair to say that individuals who attained a score greater than 38.46 (one standard deviation above the group mean) would prefer a structured learning strategy. There were fifteen individuals (16.3 percent of the total group) who scored above this 101 point. Likewise, it should be fair tO state that individuals who attained a score less than 28.56 (one standard deviation below the group mean) would prefer an unstructured learning strategy. Of the total group of ninety-two students, there were fourteen individuals (15.2 percent) who attained scores which were below this point. ' It is evident, therefore, that within this randomly selected sample of students who attend the Capital Area Career Center there are preferences for structured, unstructured, and a mixture of learn- 3 ing strategies. Table 10 shows the number of students by occupational area and total group who attained scores which were one standard deviation or more above or below the group mean. The Business Occupational Area showed the strongest preference for the structured style. More than 20 percent Of the students in this group attained scores which were above 38.46 (one standard deviation above the total group mean). The Trade & Industry Occupational Area had more than 18 percent of its students who scored above this point, while only about 9 percent Of the Health Occupational Area students scored above the total group mean. In the Opposite direction, it is evident that no students from the Business Occupational Area scored below 28.56 (one standard deviation below the total group mean). Students in both the Health and the Trade & Industry Occupational Areas, however, showed a preference for the unstructured end Of the continuum. More than ' 17 percent of the Health Occupational Area students and almost 23 per- cent Of the Trade & Industry Occupational Area students attained 102 scores below 28.56. It would appear that these two latter occupa- tional areas have students who strongly favor an unstructured learn- ing environment. Table 10.--Number Of students by occupational area with scores greater than one standard deviation above or below the total group mean on the structured/unstructured continuum. I Number of Students (%) Pl Occupational Area Scores > 38.46 Scores < 28.56 ‘. Business 5 (20.0%) 0 ( 0.0%) Health 2 ( 8.6%) 4 (17.4%) Trade & Industry 8 (18.2%) 10 (22.7%) Total group 15 (16.3%) 14 (15.2%) There are considerable numbers Of students who attained scores between the two extremes discussed here. These individuals should not be overlooked, but rather be considered as students who would prob- ably achieve best within learning environments which use a mixture Of both structured and unstructured learning strategies. The Learning Activities Survey used in this study yields scores on the concrete/symbolic and the structured/unstructured con- tinua. The two scores that an individual achieves on these may be plotted on a graph, using the two continua as axes. The group means (7 and Y) may be shown by lines on the figure, and standard deviation lines (+ and -ls) above and below the mean also. Plotting a group of 103 scores in this manner yields a figure that may be readily interpreted for the learning styles present within the group. In the figures that follow, the concrete/symbolic continuum lies along the horizontal axis and the structured/unstructured con- tinuum is represented by the vertical axis. The occupational areas of Business, Health, and Trade & Industry are shown respectively as Figures 12, 13, and 14. The scores Of the total group are shown in Figure 15. A brief discussion of Figure 13, that Of the Health Occupa- tional Area, will serve to illustrate the concept used in these figures. There are twenty-three students whose scores form various points on the graph. Two of the scores are identical; hence there are only 21 points actually shown on the graph. The exact location for any one individual is determined by the intercept Of that student's projected score on the concrete/symbolic continuum (the X-axis) and his projected score on the structured/unstructured continuum (the Y-axis). Referring still to Figure 13, it is apparent that fourteen students locate near the midpoint (thirty-three) Of the Structured/ unstructured continuum. The remaining nine individuals locate at points which tend toward one or the other continuum endpoints, and can be seen from the figure to be one standard deviation (ls), or more, above or below the mean. Based on this knowledge, and an understanding Of the means and standard deviations, the graph can be visually interpreted, i.e. that some individuals Show a desire for either a structured or an unstructured learning strategy. The group 104 -ls 7' +1s 55 - I . Structured I 55 44 -i ." x' o ..0 0x0: 0 o o+15 . g ._ 33 . X——-x . it)? : 44 Y X )1 .X..:x 8. x . -15 22, .. j Unstructured I 11 ‘ , . . o LVL . . ‘ A ’. ' —a 0 ll 22 33 44 55 Symbolic, Concrete N = 25 X = 37.64 St. Dev. = 4.03 'v"= 34.64 St. Dev. = 4.59 Fig. 12.--Graph showing the scores achieved on the Learning Activities Survey by students from the Business Occupational Area. 105 -1s X"+ls 55 m ' ' Structured 44 ‘ .x x: >0 o o o c o o o o o o o o o ixx*Xo o o o o o+1s . ,‘ , 33 igs‘jESIV'zi ' 7' ° ’5”): . x4 . . . -15 22 -‘ )6 )( Unstructured 11 ‘ l I 0 ' r I L ’3' v' .5 O 11 22 33 44 55 Symbolic Concrete N = 23 X'= 36.57 St. Dev. = 4.02 Y'= 32.00 St. Dev. = 4.80 Fig. 13.--Graph showing the scores achieved on the Learning Activities Survey by students from the Health Occupational Area. 106 -1s “Y +15 55 d . ' Structured . 44 -, fix it x . . 'X‘x'x . x. o .+]s_ 3%,“ 33 x 3388")?” V X )‘ ' Ix} 1: ls ~ . o o x .mxeA .- XK . 22 “I x ' x aUnstructured . ll - ' . 0 b I r L ‘1 . 1‘ 1 0 ll 22 33 ’ 44 55 Symbolic Coherete N = 44 11‘ = 36.89 St. Dev. = 4.36 Y'= 33.00 St. Dev. = 5.10 Fig. 14.--Graph showing the scores achieved on the Learning Activities Survey by students from the Trade & Industry Occupational Area. 107 -1s 7' +15 55 .1 ° ° Structured 5‘ 44 a. , 9'} " x x s . gx-x 12°fl?‘ x ' “+15 . ’88:: ’1 x , x 93“": " 'x 7 33 T “X! ii! ’5’ r i‘-£§, 295x 0 o o . o o . o o o o o o .1- xx u .X o o o o -15 ’ ‘xxx' 'xx 22 ~ ’5 I 'x x Unstructured ' 11 i 0 ‘ ' ‘ I A I I ‘3 o 11 22 33 '44 55 Symbolic Concrete N = 92 )T = 37.04 St. Dev. = 4.20 'v’ = 33.51 St. Dev. = 4.95 Fig. 15.--Graph showing the scores achieved on the Learning Activities Survey by all students in the sample. '14- i 108 mean of 32.00 indicates that this particular group desires a mixture of learning strategies, Since it is relatively close to the midpoint of the continuum. On this basis, it can be argued that alterna- tive modes of instruction should be provided. Again, looking at the X-axis (concrete/symbolic continuum), fourteen of the twenty-three members Of the Health Occupational Area group are located near the point of the group mean (36.57). The remaining individuals are located at points one standard deviation (1s) or more above or below the mean of the group. One individual is located nearly two standard deviations below the group mean, indicating a preference for the symbolic learning style. This indi- vidual shows a high mixture Of symbolic/structured-unstructured learning styles. Most of the students in the Health Occupational Area Show a concrete/structured-unstructured learning style preference. The other occupational area figures can be inspected and interpreted in a similar manner. Interpretation of these graphs may provide valuable insight into the learning styles Of individuals in each group. The dispersion Of the points on the graphs is an indi- cation that alternative modes Of instruction may need to be provided. Figure 15 is a composite Of the previous three figures. This depicts the variability of the total group on the two continua. The majority Of all students participating in the study show a preference for the concrete learning style; more than half of the total group also show a preference for a mixture Of structured-unstructured learning styles. l09 There were ninety-two students whose scores form the various points on the graph of the total group (Fig. l5). Nineteen of the scores were identical; hence, there are only seventy-three points actually shown. Projection lines from both axes are provided for the mean (7 or V) and also one standard deviation above (+ls) and below (~ls) the mean, to aid in the interpretation of the distri- bution. The learning style assessment has been discussed in the first section of this chapter. The subjects were randomly selected from the three occupational areas of the Capital Area Career Center. Approximately lO percent of the students from each occupational area, and consequently from the total enrollment, were used in this experi- ment. Although seventeen of the twenty-two occupational programs offered at the Center are represented in the sample, not one program had a sufficiently large sample to be considered alone. Consequently, the figures presented allow only for interpretation of the collected learning style data for the Center and the three occupational areas. The conclusions which were reached are that the students from the Business Occupational Area showed a preference for concrete/ structured learning styles, the students from the Health Occupational Area showed a preference for concrete/unstructured learning styles, while the students from the Trade & Industry Occupational Area showed a preference for concrete with a mixture of structured-unstructured learning styles. 110 Analysis of Learning Data Another of the objectives of this study was to measure the effectiveness on learning achievement of an experimental matching of learning styles with instructional mode. The assessment of the learning styles of the students in this study was discussed in the previous section of this chapter. This section presents the learning data which were collected as a result of the experimental matching, and a discussion of the results of the learning data analysis. Learning Scores The two tables which follow present the means and standard deviations of the learning scores by cell and level of match for the two criteria tests. Table ll shows the learning scores achieved on the initial learning tests, which were administered immediately after the students had completed the instructional materials. The left column lists the mean scores achieved by the students from all of the occupational areas on the test for conversion within the metric system of measurement. The total group of ninety-two students achieved a mean score of 4.l4, with a standard deviation of 2.91. The criterion for a grade of pa§§_on this module (or learning packet) at the Capital Area Career Center was a minimum score of seven cor- rect out of a total of ten questions. Twenty-three (25 percent) of the students achieved this minimum score. The right column lists the mean scores achieved on the test for changing between the metric and customary (English) systems of measurement. The total group (n = 92) achieved a mean score of l.59 with a standard deviation of 2.l2. The criterion for a grade of pass on this module was also a lll minimum score of seven correct out of a total of ten questions. Only five (5.4 percent) of the ninety-two students comprising the sample population achieved a grade of pass on this module. Table ll.--Means and standard deviations of learning scores on initial learning tests and number of subjects by cell and level. 6 Conversion Within Change Between the Level Of Match Metric System Metric-English Systems Match (K)a ‘x‘= 4.21 Y= 1.82 s = 2.89 s = 1.79 n = 28 n = 28 Nonmatch (L) 'x'= 4.41 Y= 2.04 s = 2.98 s = 2.56 n = 27 n = 27 Mismatch l (M) Y'= 4.05 Y'= l.65 - s = 2.96 s = 1.93 n = 20 n = 20 Mismatch 2 (N) Y = 3.71 Y = 1.00 s = 2.91 s = 1.19 n = 17 n = 17 7'= 4.14 7'= 1.59 Total Group 5 = 2.91 s = 2.12 n = 92 n = 92 aLevel of Match code letter refers to letters assigned in the Learning Styles-Treatment matrix (Table 5), p. 71. Table 12 shows the learning scores on the retention tests which were administered five weeks after the completion of the initial instruction. The instruments used were identical to those used for 112 the initial learning tests. Due to a number of conflicts which occurred, only fifty-three (57.6 percent) of the ninety-two students in the study were available for retesting (see p. 70). The left column lists the scores which were achieved by the students on the retention test for conversion within the metric system of measurement. The total group of fifty-three students achieved a mean score of 3.17, with a standard deviation of 2.66. Only six (11.3 percent) of fifty-three students Table 12.--Means and standard deviations of learning scores on retention tests and number of subjects by cell and level. Conversion Within Change Between the Level Of Match Metric System Metric-English Systems Match (10“1 7 = 2.45 7: 2.27 s = 2.42 s = 2.38 n = 11 n = 11 Nonmatch (L) 7’= 3.39 7'= 1.61 s = 2.19 s = 1.53 n = 18 n = 18 Mismatch 1 (M) 7'= 3.13 7'= 1.07 s = 2.45 s = 1.48 n = 15 n = 15 Mismatch 2 (N) 7'= 3.67 7'= 0.89 s = 3.43 s = 1.29 n = 9 n = 9 7'= 3.17 7'= 1.47 Total Group 5 = 2.66 s = 1.78 n = 53 n = 53 aLevel of Match code leter refers to letters assigned in the Learning Styles-Treatment matrix (Table 5), p. 71. ll3 achieved a grade of pa§§_(minimum score of seven correct) on this retention test. The right column lists the scores achieved on the retention test for changing between the metric and Engligh (cus- tomary) systems of measurement. The total group (n = 53) achieved a mean score of 1.47, with a standard deviation of 1.78. None of the fifty-three students achieved a grade of pa§§_on this retention test. Statistical Analysis The two learning styles considered along with the two treat- ments used in this study would have yielded a 2 x 2 x 2 statistical design, that is, a design using concrete/symbolic x structured/ unstructured x direct-detailed/directed-discovery. This design would have lent itself well to the analysis of variance and regres- sion analysis as originally considered. Unfortunately, the decision was made that the students would be randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups without regard for their scores on the Learning Activities Survey. In retrospect, it appears that certain learning styles were poorly represented numerically at the Capital Area Career Center. This led to an imbalance in cell size, which rendered this design unsuitable statistically. As a result of this imbalance in cell size, the four specific hypotheses (presented on p. 77) could not be tested in the proposed manner. Therefore, it was concluded that the effectiveness on learn- ing achievement of an experimental matching of learning style with instructional mode was inconclusive. 114 The fifth hypothesis, which considered the student char- acteristics of sex, age, reading comprehension level, and computa- tional skill in four subcategory hypotheses (see p. 78; a, b, c, and d) was analyzed separately using the stepwise regression technique. The results of this analysis (Table 13) indicated that the student char- acteristics of sex and reading comprehension level were significant at the 0.05 level. The student characteristics of age and computa- tional skill were found not to be significant. As the student char- acteristics of sex and reading comprehension level were significant factors, these two characteristics were used as covariates in subsequent analyses of the learning data. Table l3.--Regression analysis on student characteristics. . . Degrees of . . Character1st1c F-Value Freedom Probability Sex 3.6389 4 and 84 0.0088* Age 2.0374 4 and 83 0.0967 Reading comprehension level 10.2204 4 and 85 0.0001* Computational skill (a) Whole number 0.9831 4 and 84 0.4214 (b) Decimal number 0.6579 4 and 83 0.6231 *Significant at the 0.05 level. Two summary tables are presented as a matter of interest. The first, Table 14, shows the means and standard deviations of initial learning scores achieved in this experiment, arranged by sex and 115 instructional mode. It is apparent that, on the average, males did achieve higher mean scores than did females, regardless of the mode of instruction employed. Table l4.--Summary of initial learning score means by sex. Initial Learning Scores Instructional Mode Test ]a Test 26 Male Female Male Female 7'= 4.54 Y'= 3.73 7'= 1.57 X'= 1.05 Direct-detailed s = 3.07 s = 0.96 s = 2.01 s = 2.64 n = 28 n = 22 n = 28 n = 22 7'= 5.77 Y'= 2.75 7'= 2.45 Y°= 1.25 Directed-discovery s = 3.04 s = 1.79 s = 2.53 s = 1.86 n = 22 n = 20 n = 22 n = 20 aTest on change within the metric system. bTest on conversion between the metric-English systems. The second, Table 15, shows the mean scores of students on the initial learning test arranged by reading comprehension level and instructional mode. The reading comprehension level grades were sep- arated into three arbitrary groups (high, mid, and low level readers). The high level was set at the eleventh grade or higher, the mid level between ninth and eleventh, and the low level consisted of those reading below the ninth grade level. As even a cursory inspection of Table 15 will show, there was a definite, positive correlation between the reading level of the students and the mean scores achieved, regardless of the treatment. 116 Table 15.--Summary of mean scores by reading level and instructional mode. Instructional Mode Reading Comprehension Level and Test High > 11.0 Mid 9-10.9 Low < 8.9 Direct-detailed 7'= 7.14 7': 3.89 7'= 2.62 ' Test 1a n = 7 n = 29 n = 13 Directed-discovery 7'= 6.06 7'= 5.00 7'= 1.40 Test la n = 17 n = 16 n = 10 Direct-detgiled 7'= 3.14 Y'= 1.34 7'= 0.13 Test 2 n = 7 n = 29 n = 13 Directed-discovery 7'= 3.47 7'= 1.46 7'= 0.10 Test 2 n = 17 n = 16 n = 10 aTest on change within the metric system. bTest on conversion between the metric-English systems. Before further analysis is considered, it is useful to sum- marize the results obtained thus far. With regard to the four spe- cific hypotheses considered, relative to the effectiveness on learning achievement of an experimental matching, the results were inconclusive. The fifth hypothesis was tested using the stepwise regression tech- nique. With regard to the student characteristics of age, sex, reading comprehension level, and computational skill, only sex and reading comprehension level were found to be significant factors. Hypotheses on matching,--After studying the learning assessment data, and the collected learning data on the use of the instructional materials in this experimental study, the conclusion was reached that 117 several questions could be asked. These questions address themselves to the original hypotheses presented in Chapter III. The questions, which relate to the results of the experiment, are: 1. Do the students who prefer the concrete learning style differ in overall achievement from those who prefer the symbolic learning style? 00 the students who prefer the structured learning style differ in overall achievement from those who prefer the unstructured learning style? Is the effect on the overall achievement of the direct- detailed instructional mode different from the effect of the directed-discovery instructional mode? Does the matched group (K) as a whole tend to differ in overall achievement from the nonmatched group (L) as a whole? Does the mismatched 1 group (M) as a whole tend to differ in overall achievement from the mismatched 2 group (N) as a whole? In order to consider these five questions, the collected data needed to be rearranged into eight cells, as shown in Table 16. The eight cells, or types of interest, are derived from the two learning style continua as measured on the Learning Activities Survey, and the two instructional modes, or treatments, used in this experiment. The resultant number of students in each cell is shown in the frequency column. 118 Table l6.--Cell identification and frequencies. Cell Learning Style x Instructional Mode Frequency 1 Concrete/Structured x Direct-Detailed 25 2 Concrete/Structured x Directed-Discovery 22 3 Concrete/Unstructured x Direct-Detailed 16 4 Concrete/Unstructured x Directed-Discovery l4 5 Symbolic/Structured x Direct-Detailed 3 6 Symbolic/Structured x Directed-Discovery 4 7 Symbolic/Unstructured x Direct-Detailed 5 8 Symbolic/Unstructured x Directed-Discovery 3 Total -EM;—_ In order to analyze these rearranged data, the technique of one-way multivariate analysis of covariance with planned comparisons was performed. It had previously been determined, by a stepwise regres- sion technique, that the student characteristics of sex and reading comprehension level g9_influence the students' overall achievement on this experiment (see Table 13), and to verify that sex and reading com- prehension level could still be used as the covariates, a second regres- sion analysis was performed on the rearranged data. Using 2 and 82 degrees of freedom, and the 0.05 level of significance, the two covari- ates were found to be of significance in every test. Table 17 sum- marizes this analysis. 119 Table l7.--Statistics for regression analysis with two covariates. % of Variance of Variable F P< Test Accounted for Initial learning-- within metrics test 17'0955 0°0001 2943% Initial learning-- between metric-English test 13'2526 0°0001 24-43 Retention-- within metrics test 5‘1124 0'008] 11°09 Retention-- between metric-English test 4'7681 0'0110 10-42 The five questions presented previously were developed into five secondary hypotheses. These secondary hypotheses were tested using the one-way multivariate analysis of covariance with planned comparisons. Following the statement of each secondary hypothesis is a discussion of the statistical analysis as it pertains to that par- ticular hypothesis. Secondary Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in overall achievement between students who indicate a preference for the concrete learning style and students who indi- cate a preference for the symbolic learning style. The multivariate test of equality of mean vectors indicated an F-ratio of 1.2938, using 4 and 79 degrees of freedom. The probability of this large a value occurring due to chance alone is less than 0.2797. Using the 0.05 level of significance, the conclusion was reached that this hypothesis cannot be rejected. _7 ._.fl 120 Secondary Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in overall achievement between students who indicate a preference for the structured learning style and students who indicate a preference for the unstructured learning sty e. The multivariate test of equality of mean vectors indicated an F—ratio of 0.6310, using 4 and 79 degrees of freedom. The probability of this large a value occurring due to chance alone is less than 0.6419. Using the 0.05 level of significance, it was concluded that this hypothesis cannot be rejected. Secondary Hypothesis 3: There is no difference between the effect of the direct-detailed instructional mode and the effect of the directed-discovery instructional mode on the overall achievement of the students. The multivariate test of equality of mean vectors indicates an F-ratio of 1.0197, using 4 and 79 degrees of freedom. The proba- bility of this large a value occurring due to chance alone is less than 0.4024. Using the 0.05 level of significance, it was concluded that this hypothesis cannot be rejected. Secondary Hypothesis 4: There is no difference between the matched groups as a whole and the nonmatched groups as a whole on overall achievement. The multivariate test of equality of mean vectors indicated an F-ratio of 0.3515, using 4 and 79 degrees of freedom. The proba- bility of this large a value occurring due to chance alone is less than 0.8423. Using the 0.05 level of significance, the conclusion was reached that this hypothesis cannot be rejected. Secondary Hypothesis 5: There is no difference between the mismatched’l groups as a whole and the mismatched 2 groups as a whole on overall achievement. The multivariate test of equality of mean vectors indicated an F-ratio of 0.9350, using 4 and 79 degrees of freedom. The probability 121 of this large a value occurring due to chance alone is 0.4482. Using the 0.05 level of significance, it was therefore concluded that this hypothesis also cannot be rejected. Discussion The original intent of this study was to test for the efficacy on oVerall achievement of an experimental matching between learning style and instructional mode. However, the proposed statistical analysis was not carried out due to the inadequacy of the learning data which were obtained. An error was made in randomly assigning subjects to treatments before the analysis of the data collected from the admin- istration of the Learning Activities Survey was completed. The possi~ bility that there would be a great disparity in numbers of students preferring the various learning styles had not been foreseen. This error, of randomly assigning subjects to treatments before the analysis of the data collected from the administration of the Learning Activities Survey was completed, was identified as one of the confounding variables in this experimental study. It was con- cluded that in order to avoid this error in subsequent studies of this nature, the Learning Activities Survey should be administered first and the learning assessment data analyzed for the number of students per cell of the level of learning style. From these students, equal num- bers should be randomly chosen to fit the learning styles-treatments matrix of Table 5 (see p. 71). These subjects then should be used for the subsequent part of the experiment involving the use of the learn- ing materials under the two instructional modes. 122 Since this error was made, the resultant imbalance of fre- quencies in the various cells would have yielded meaningless results from the proposed level-by-treatment analysis. A second problem that occurred in this study was that a small percentage of the students who participated in the learning exercise actually achieved criterion level (pass = a minimum grade of’seven). on the initial learning tests. Thus, a large number of students (who had not learned the material originally) could not be expected to achieve criterion level on the retention test, as was indeed the case. These numbers, shown in Table 18, illustrate that there were too few individuals in any one cell to yield meaningful results from statis- tical analysis. Table l8.--Number of students who achieved criterion-level on initial learning and retention tests by level of match. Initial Learning Retention Level of Match Metric Metric-English Metric Metric-English System Systems System Systems Match (k)‘1 7 1 1 0 Nonmatch (L) 7 3 2 0 Mismatch l (M) 6 l 2 0 Mismatch 2 (N) 3 0 1 0 Total 23 5 6 0 aLevel of Match code letter refers to letters assigned in the Learning Styles-Treatment matrix (Table 5), p. 71. 123 This small percentage of students who achieved criterion level on the initial learning test was identified as the second confounding variable. Had a meaningful balance in cell size been achieved, using the random assignment to treatments as carried out in this experiment, the collected data would still have been difficult to analyze for meaningful results. The several factors which may have contributed to the large number of students who failed to achieve the criterion level on the initial learning and retention tests were identified as: (a) the enforced nonrepetition of the learning materials once the tests had been attempted, (b) the absence of interaction between the student and the instructor during the initial learning session, (c) the newness of the instructional materials to the students. It was reasoned that, to a lesser extent, the factors of (a) the overall time limitation, (b) the presentation of the learning materials to the students in a reading format only, (c) the lack of interest for the content of the instructional materials by the students, and (d) the possible complexity of the learning materials may all have contributed to the result of more students not achieving criterion level. Nhat had appeared to the experimenter as a fairly simple task may have been perceived by the students as being quite complex and different from their normal routine at the Center. The student characteristics of sex and reading comprehension level were found to be significant factors in the interaction between student characteristics and instructional mode (see Tables 13 and 17). The five secondary hypotheses were tested using the one-way multivariate 124 analysis of covariance with planned comparisons. Using the 0.05 level of significance, it was found that none of these five secondary hypotheses could be rejected. This reiterates the conclusion that the effectiveness on overall achievement of the experimental matching of learning style with instructional mode was inconclusive. m This chapter contains the presentation and discussion of the major findings of the study. The first three objectives of the study were discussed, while the fourth objective will be considered in the next chapter. The chapter was divided into two major sections, the first relating to the learning style assessment and the second deal- ing with the analysis of the learning data. The assessment of the learning styles of the students at the Capital Area Career Center was discussed in the first section of this chapter. With the learning styles identified and the distribution of thelearning style scores presented, it was concluded that the first objective of this study had been fulfilled. Graphs were included which show the distribution of the scores by occupational area and for the group as a whole. These figures may be readily interpreted for the learning styles within the occupational areas or of the group. A brief summary of the findings shows that the students from the Business Occupational Area preferred the concrete/structured styles, while the students from the Health Occupational Area favored the concrete/unstructured styles. The students from the Trade & Industry Occupational Area, and the group as a whole, showed a preference for the concrete with a mixture of structured/unstructured styles. 125 The second section of the chapter contains the presentation and discussion of the learning data analysis. It was concluded that the second objective of this study was not fully met. The results of the measurement of the effectiveness on achievement of an experimental matching of learning style with instructional mode were inconclusive. Two confounding variables hindered the testing of the hypotheses relating to the experimental matching. These variables were identi- fied as (a) the disparity in the distribution of numbers of students who preferred the various learning styles, and (b) the small per- centage of students who achieved the criterion level on the initial learning and retention tests. Several questions were then presented which addressed them- selves to the second objective of the study. The collected learning data were rearranged in order to test the five secondary hypotheses with regard to these questions. None of the hypotheses was rejected, using the 0.05 level of significance. This reinforced the conclusion that the experimental matching which was attempted in this study yielded inconclusive results. The second section of the chapter contains the discussion of the third objective of this study. The technique of regression analy- sis was used to determine the existence of interactions between student characteristics (age, sex, reading comprehension level, and computa- tional skill) and overall achievement. It was found that the char- acteristics of sex and reading comprehension level did contribute to overall achievement. No interactions were found for the other two 126 student characteristics--age and computational skill. It was con- cluded that the third objective of this study had been met. The next chapter contains the discussion of the fourth objec- tive of the study--the recommendations to the Center. The chapter also contains the summary, conclusions, and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS Summary This experimental study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I contains the statement of the problem and its significance. In the statement of the problem, the four objectives of this study were identified. They are: 1. to identify the learning styles of the students in the various occupational areas at the Capital Area Career Center in Mason, Michigan; to measure the effectiveness on achievement of an experi- mental matching of learning style with instructional mode; to measure the extent to which the student characteris- tics of sex, age, reading comprehension level, and compu- tional skills relate to achievement; and to identify and recommend directions for ongoing and future curriculum deve10pment in the light of the measured learning styles of the students. Chapter 11 contains the review of related research. The t0pics reviewed were: (1) individual differences, (2) modes of instruction, and (3) learning styles. The format of the experiment is described in Chapter III. The rationale for the use of the learning materials is presented. These 127 128 learning materials relate to the use of the metric system and conver- sions between the metric and customary systems. Students at the Capital Area Career Center served as subjects for the study. The Learning Activities Survey, used to identify the preferred learning style of the student, is also described. The chapter con- cludes with a description of the statistical treatment and a presen- tation of the specific hypotheses which were considered. Chapter IV contains the results of the experiment. The chapter is divided into two major sections: (1) assessment of learning styles and (2) analysis of the learning data. The results of the assessment of the learning styles of the students at the Capital Area Career Center are presented and discussed. The distribution of scores in each of the three occupational areas is displayed graphically. The results of the experimental matching of student learning style and instructional mode were inconclusive. Two confounding vari- ables were identified, and therefore the first two hypotheses could not be tested as originally planned. However, in regard to the third hypothesis, interactions were found to exist between the student characteristics of sex and reading comprehension level and the two instructional modes used. No interactions were found on the student 1 characteristics of age or computational skills. Five secondary hypotheses were then posed. These relate to the overall results of the experiment. Using the collected learning data in a rearranged format, along with another statistical technique, these secondary hypotheses were not rejected. 129 Chapter V is divided into the following five sections: (1) Summary, (2) Conclusions, (3) Limitations, (4) Recommendations, and (5) Suggestions for Further Research. The summary has been pre- sented and the next section will deal with the conclusions which were reached as a result of this study. The section on limitations relates to those limitations that are a direct result of having undertaken this study, and are presented in addition to those previously listed in Chapter I. The recommendations which are made relate specifically to the Capital Area Career Center in regard to their ongoing and future curriculum revisions. This section discusses the fourth objective of the study. The final section, Suggestions for Further Research, lists a number of suggestions of possible directions for future research with regard to the experimental matching which was considered in this study. Conclusions On the basis of the results obtained under the conditions of this study, several conclusions seem warranted. These conclusions follow, grouped in order of their relation to each of the four objec- tives of this study. Objective 1: To identify the learning styles of the students in the various occupational areas at the Capital Area Career Center in Mason, Michigan. Learning style assessment of the students at the Capital Area Career Center yielded valuable information and insight. The instru- ' ment which was used, the Learning Activities Survey, measured learning style on two continua, concrete/symbolic and structured/unstructured. 130 The following conclusions were reached as a result of the assessment: 1. It is possible to provide a visual display of the distribu- tion of the learning styles (see Figures 12, l3, l4, and 15, pp. 104- 107). These figures may be readily interpreted to provide insight into the learning styles preferred by students in each occupational area and in the Center as a whole. 2. The population of the Center is composed of students who prefer a number of different learning styles. The Learning Activities Survey did measure a preference for each of the four possible learning style combinations among the students at the Center. There were indi- vidual learners who indicated a preference for concrete/unstructured, concrete/structured, symbolic/unstructured, and symbolic/structured. 3. The students at the Center show a preference (in.general) for the concrete learning style, indicating that they prefer "hands- on" activities as a means of learning. 4. The students at the Center show a preference (in general) for a mixture of the structured/unstructured learning styles, indi- cating that they prefer a mixture of highly organized activities with self-organized and self-paced activities. 5. With regard to each of the three occupational areas at the Center, the following conclusions can be made: a. Students of the Business Occupational Area showed a preference for the concrete/structured styles. This indicates that (in general) the students in this area prefer "hands-on" activities that are highly organized. 131 b. Students from the Health Occupational Area showed a preference for the concrete/unstructured styles. This indi- cates that these students (in general) prefer "handsaon" activities that are self-organized and self-paced. c. Students from the Trade & Industry Occupational Area showed a preference for the concrete with a mixture of the structured/unstructured styles. This indicates that these students (in general) prefer "hands-on" activities that are a mixture of highly organized and self-organized and self-paced activities. Objective 2: To measure the effectiveness on achievement of an experimental matching of learning style with instructional mode. Part of the intent of this study was to attempt an experimental matching of learning style and instructional mode. On the basis of the results obtained, it was concluded that the effectiveness of the experi- mental matching was inconclusive. Two confounding variables were identified which impeded the proposed analysis of the learning data. Random assignment of subjects to the treatments was concluded prior to the analysis of the learning style assessment data; also there was a high frequency of scores below the criterion level on both the initial learning and retention tests. It was concluded that the error of random assignment to treat- ments before the analysis of the learning style assessment yielded an unbalanced learning style matrix for the sample used. A better tech- nique would have been to administer the Learning Activities Survey to a larger sample, analyze these data for the distribution of student 132 preferences for each cell of the learning style matrix, and then draw an equalized random sample from each cell for participation in the subsequent part of the experiment. Several factors which may have contributed to the large num- bers of students who failed to reach the criterion level on the initial learning and retention tests were identified. Some of these were imposed as controls in the experiment, while others relate to the content of the learning materials and the motivation of the students. It was concluded that what appeared to be a relatively simple task may have been perceived by the students as being quite complex and different from their normal routine at the Center. The inconclusive nature of the initial analysis of the learning data directed the researcher to try to meet the second objective via a different route. Several questions were formulated to address the original hypothesis. These questions were restated as five secondary hypotheses. 1 None of the secondary hypotheses was rejected. The conclusion reached was that there was no difference in the overall achievement of the students in this study regardless of the students' preferred learn- ing style, the instructional modes employed, or the experimental match- ing or nonmatching achieved. Objective 3: To measure the extent to which the student char- acteristics of sex, age, reading comprehension level, and computational skills relate to achievement. Other researchers have identified several student characteris- tics that were considered as possible indicators of overall student 133 achievement. The four student characteristics that were used in this study are age, sex, reading comprehension level, and computational skill. On the basis of the results obtained in this study, it was concluded that the instructional modes employed were more effective with one of the sexes, and that there was a positive correlation between the reading comprehension level of the student and his/her overall achievement. No interactions were found to exist on the student char- acteristics of age and computational skill. Objective 4: To identify and recommend directions for ongoing and future curriculum deve10pment in the light of the measured learn- ing styles of the students. A The presence of differing learning styles among the students attending the Center was demonstrated. However, the inconclusive nature of the experimental matching makes the results of this study less useful for formulating and recommending directions for curriculum deve10pment than might have been expected. It was concluded that the staff of the Center may find that the individual student's identified learning style is a useful indi- cator in the diagnosis of the student's learning difficulties at the Center. The recommendations for the Center in regard to this objective are discussed fully in a subsequent section of this chapter. Limitations Before discussing the recommendations of this study, considera- tion should be given to the several limitations of the study. These 134 limitations are presented in addition to those which were previously discussed in the first chapter of the study. 1. The subjects used in this study were randomly selected by the General Learnings Coordinator from the total number of students attending the Capital Area Career Center. The subjects were grouped by occupational area rather than by occupational program, due to the small numbers representing each program. It is therefore not possible to draw any inferences about the individual occupational programs. Since the mixture of occupational programs in each occupational area may differ from one area skill center to another, generalization is only possible concerning the occupational areas at the Capital Area Career Center and the Capital Area Career Center itself. 2. In the second chapter of this study, it was indicated that other learning styles exist, as well as other learner variables. No attempt is made to imply that the variables which were used in this study are the only significant ones. When dealing with individuals and their learning characteristics, many variables are involved, and among these variables is learning style. 3. Only two instructional modes were selected, one of which closely parallels the one in use at the Capital Area Career Center. The related research indicated the existence of other instructional modes. The instructional materials were presented to the student in a reading format, which is the format in use at the Center. No attempt is made to imply that these modes are the only significant ones; they were imposed merely for control purposes. 135 4. During the period of instruction, discussion and/or ques- tions were not allowed. Only one period, of approximately 2-1/4 hours,'was provided for the completion of the two mods. Although a student could repeat an instructional packet as often as desired before attempting the test for that mod, no repetition of the learning materials was permitted after completion of the test. These were necessary constraints, imposed for control purposes, but are factors which differentiate the learning process of this experiment from that of the typical Center experience. 5. Another possible limitation of this study may be the instructional materials (or mods) which were written and used in this study only. Although the author had had prior experience in writing curricular materials for use at the Center, the instructional materials used in this study had not been tested with students at the Center prior to this study. It is possible, therefore, that these learning materials failed to some extent to serve the intended purpose. Recommendations The results of this study have a direct impact on the fourth objective. The first three objectives were discussed in Chapter IV, while the fourth, because of its nature, pr0perly belongs here in Chapter V. The fourth objective, as presented in Chapter I, is to identify and recommend directions for ongoing and future curriculum development, in light of the measured learning styles of the students. It had been anticipated that the result of meeting the first three objectives would allow for the identification and subsequent recommendations for curriculum development at the Center. However, 136 since only the first and third objectives were met fully, while the second objective yielded inconclusive results, the recommendations that can be made to the Center are more limited. The subsequent discussion and recommendations are made in light of the results which were obtained. . A variety of learning style combinations exists among the students at the Center, as is evident from an inspection of Figure 15 (p. 107). This figure shows the distribution of scores on the Learn- ing Activities Survey for the total group. Points, representing indi- vidual group members, occur in each of the four quadrants formed by the projections of the midpoints of the two continua. Figures 12, 13, and 14 display similar data for each of the occupational areas. It is evident from these figures that, at the Center, and in each occupational area, there were students who displayed a preference for each of the four learning styles: (1) concrete/structured, -(2) concrete/unstructured, (3) symbolic/unstructured, and (4) symbolic/ structured. Some individuals, at or near the midpoint of the continuum, showed a preference for a combination of several learning styles. The experimental matching performed in this study neither proved nor disproved the premise that matching between learning style and instructional mode would be of benefit to the student in terms of his/her overall learning achievement. The works of Tallmadge and lShearer, Hill and Nunney, Oen, and others appear to indicate that a match is of benefit. Considering the student characteristics of sex, age, reading comprehension level, and c0mputational skill, significant interactions 137 were found to exist between sex and reading comprehension level and the instructional modes employed in this study. It is evident from a perusal of Table 13 (p. 114) that males did better than females when the content of the learning materials relates to mathematics. It also appears (see Table 14, p. 115) that the higher the reading comprehension level of a student, the more likely that he/she will succeed with learning materials that are in a reading format. The recommendations that are made, then, to the Capital Area Career Center are: l. The identification of the preferred learning styles, as measured in this study, is an indication of the range of interests among the students. The staff at the Center may wish to consider these differing learning styles when deve10ping mods, or even in their routine classroom operations. 2. That there be further exploration into the use of learning style preference questionnaires in order to provide more insight into learning difficulties of individual students. 3. Research has indicated a need for concern about learning style in the deve10pment of curricula. This study measured learning style on two continua, but the experimental matching performed on these using the two selected instructional modes proved inconclusive. It is recommended that the Center consider a longer-term study, con- trolling for the two confounding variables which have been identified. 4. Learning styles and instructional modes, other than those used for this experiment. The Center may wish to explore these, as 138 one or more may prove more pertinent to the success of the educational process. 5. The significant interaction exhibited between the student characteristics of reading comprehension level and instructional mode yields the recommendation that every student should be helped to improve his/her reading Comprehension level. A corollary to this would be to deve10p mods which are less dependent upon the student's reading comprehension. 6. The significant interaction exhibited between the student characteristic of sex and instructional modes yields a recommendation that is somewhat cautious because of the nature and content of the instructional materials used. It is recommended that the Center explore the relation between this characteristic and overall achieve- ment. Suggestions for Further Research With all the collected data analyzed, and the results tabu- lated, a number of questions remain unanswered. Other, new questions have occurred as a result of the study itself. These questions may well form the basis of worthwhile future research. Some avenues of research that should be more fully explored are: l. The replication of the concept of this study with the additional requirement of criterion level achievement on initial learning tests. 2. The replication of the concept of this study, using stu- dents from an area which could continue the experiment over a much longer period of time. 139 The application of the concept of this study to an experi- ment using a nonindividualized instructional setting, such as the traditional classroom. The application of the concept of this study to an experi- ment using a setting where multi-sensory instructional modes are used. The replication of the concept of this study with assess- ment of learning Style being done prigr_to the assignment to treatment groups, thus ensuring equal cell sizes. The replication of the concept of this study using stu- dents from a specific occupational program rather than using all students through a generalized learnings area. The application of the concept of this study to an experi- ment using different learning style measurements and, possibly, other instructional modes. APPENDICES 140 APPENDIX A LEARNING MATERIALS AND TESTS 141 REA 446113 INTERCHANGE UNITS WITHIN THE METRIC SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS (FORM A) You can be one of the first ready to use the Metric System. It is easy, once you learn the new names. Don't let anyone scare you away from it, just dig in and be "one of the first". The Metric System is really much easier to use than the English System. There are just three new names to learn: the METER, which is used for length or distance measurements; the GRAM, which 15 used for mass or weight measurements; and the LITER, which is uSed for liquid volume measurements. There are other names also, But for now, you will study only these three. To these names of measurement, are added prefixes, of which the three most commonly used are kilo-, centi-, and milli. (For example, in measuring length, you can have a millimeter, a centimeter, a meter, or a kilometer. It is these prefixes that make the Metric System so very easy to use. The prefixes are all related to each other by multiples of ten (10). You are already familiar with multiples of ten from our everyday counting system. Our counting or number system is a decimal system. Look at the way we add the following group of numbers - hundreds 00 NH tens NwVNuMB Answer 1 2 4 Adding the units column first, we get 14; you write down a 4 (in the answer row) and carry the 10 (from 14 = 10 + 4) into the tens column as a 1. Adding the tens column, we get 12; you write down a 2 (in the answer row) and carry the 10 (from 12 = 10 + 2) into the hundreds column as a 1. Since there are no other numbers in the hundreds column, you have nothing to add to the 1 carried over, and so you simply write the 1 in the answer in the hundreds column. We therefore say that our number system is a decimal system because it centers around the base 10, and the prefix deci- means 10. It takes 10-units to make l-tens, and it takes 10-tens to make l-hundreds. 142 143 Now, let's try and learn what the prefix names mean. First, look at the fellowing Kilo- = 1000 centi- = 1/100 = .01 milli- = 1/1000 = .001 The prefix Kilo- means 1000 times whatever word it is attached to. You may be familiar with it from an electric bill, where the power used is measured in Kilowatts. In the Metric System, we can have a length of 1 Kilometer or 1000 meters. Likewise, we can weigh 1 Kilogram of meat or 1000 grams, and we might buy 1 Kiloliter or 1000 liters of fuel-oil. The capital letter K is used for Kilo- (Km., Kg., and K1.). The prefix centi- means 1/100 of, or .01 times whatever word it is attached to. Centi- is just like the word for penny in our money system. One cent is 1/100 of a dollar, or $ .01. Since you already know that it takes 100 cents to make a dollar, it should be simple to learn that 100 centimeters make a meter. Or, you could say that 1 centimeter is 1/100 of a meter. Likewise, 1 centigram is 1/100 of a.gram, and 1 centiliter is 1/100 of a liter. The small letter c is used for centi- (cm., cg., and cl.). Finally, the prefix milli- means 1/1000 of, or .001 times the word that it is attached to. Remember that some of our cigarettes are advertised as being 100 mm., or 100 millimeters long. One is even advertised as being 'a silly millimeter longer'. Actually, milli- is a very small part, and one millimeter is about the width of a pencil line. You will also find some of the harmful ingredients of cigarettes listed as so many milligrams of tar, nicotene,etc. This is a very small quantity by weight. Volume measurements are made in milliliters, which are sometimes also called cubic centimeters. For example, the displacement of many motorcycle engines is measured in cubic centimeters (cc.), like a 350 cc.Honda. A can of floor wax may contain 800 ml. or 800 milliliters of liquid wax. The small letter m is used for milli- (mm., mg., and m1. . ~ To summarize then, look at the following chart NAME USED FOR LETTER Meter length or distance m. Gram mass or weight 9. Liter liquid volume 1. 144 PREFIX AND NAME LETTERS MEAMIM§_ Kilometer Km. 1000 meters centimeter cm. .01 meter length millimeter mm. .001 meter Kilogram Kg. 1000 grams centigram cg. .01 gram mass milligram mg. .001 gram Kiloliter Kl. 1000 liters centiliter cl. .01 liter volume milliliter ml. .001 liter Here are some problems of conversions within the Metric System for you to read and try. Conversions mean changes. For example, if the distance from your school to the Career Center is 5.4 Km., then the distance in meters is 5400, or 5.4 x 1000 = 5400 meters. If you live 16.5 Km. (16.5 Kilometers) from the Career Center [about 10 miles] then the distance in meters can be found by multiplying the 16.5 by 1000 (for Kilo-) and the distance would be 16,500 meters. Suppose you are 1.6 m. (1.6 meters) tall, how many centimeters would that be? 1.6 m. x 100 = 160 cm. Remember, 1 centimeter is .01 meter and it takes 100 cm. to make 1 meter. Thinking of the 100 mm. cigarette, how long would it be in cm. and m.? Let's see, 1 mm. = .001 m., then that should mean that if you multiplied the 100 mm. by .001, you would have the answer in meters, or 100 mm. And since 1 cm. = .01 m. while 1 mm. = .001 m. x .001 100 that must mean that 1 cm. = 10 mm. 000 000 Then 100 mm. cigarette +-10 mm. per 1 cm. is 00.100 meters 100 mm. _ -jRT-—- - 10 cm. long. Or you can say that 100 mm. = 10 cm. =.1 m. They are all identical. Let's see how to do the conversions in the measurements for mass,or weight. If you buy a box of Tide soap powder that weighs 1.39 Kg., how many grams of powder do you have? Well, the prefix Kilo- means times 1000, so that must mean that the box contains 1.39 x 1000 grams, or 1390 grams. A pound of butter is 454 grams, which you can change to Kilograms by dividing by 1000. So, 454 grams = %%%U- Kilograms or .454 Kg. 145 To convert centigrams to grams, you must remember to divide by 100, since when you convert grams to centigrams, you multiply by 100. Thus, if you bought a candy bar which weighed 3350 cg., its weight in grams is §%%%_cg. a 33.5 9. Similarly, if your letter weighs 11 grams, it weighs 11 x 100 = 1100 cg. Now let's look at the milligram. The cigarette package says 11 mg. of tar. That means that to find the tar content in grams, you must divide by 1000, 11 since 1 milligram = 15%5-gram. The cigarette then contains jfi§§'= .011 grams of tar. This may not seem like very much, but the U.S. Surgeon General says 1 that it is dangerous to your health. 1min; 1. i In the measurement of liquid volume, you will find that the most common measurement is the liter (1.) with the milliliter (ml.) being used for small quantities. The can of liquid floor wax contained 800 ml., which you can 800 ml. change to liters by dividing by 1000. 155§—-—- = .8 1. Although the centiliter unit isn't commonly used, you could change 800 ml. to cl. by dividing by 10, or 80g m1. = 80 cl. Let's look once more at the prefixes and how they are related. (1) 1 Km. = 1000 m. or 1 m. = .001 Km. 1 m. = 100 cm. or 1 cm.= .01 m. 1 m. = 1000 mm. or 1 mm.= .001 m. 1 cm. = 10 mm. or 1 mm.= .1 cm. (2) 1 Kg. = 1000 g. ' or 1 g. = .001 Kg. 1 g. = 100 cg. or 1 cg. = .01 g. 1 g. = 1000 mg. or 1 mg. = .001 g. 1 c . = 10 mg. or 1 mg. = .1 cg. (3) 1 K1. = 1000 l. or 1 l. = .001 K1. 1 l. = 100 cl. or 1 cl. = .01 l. 1 l. = 1000 ml. or 1 ml. = .001 l. 1 cl. = 10 ml. or 1 ml. = .1 cl. You should see from this that the decimal form and relationship within our number system (and money system) are like that of the Metric System. Every- thing is in multiples of ten (10) and the prefixes are merely a code for this relationship. 146 1 Here are a few problems for you to read. Please g9_got_fill-in the blanks, the correct answers are given in the right-hand column. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. HHH NHOQQN (”014:me O O O O O O O O O O I O 2.54 37 35 2.54 3.27 125 3.2 227 73 2.2 800 1.5 825 1.3 15 43 1273 3.4 EROBL§M§_ ANSWERS m. = cm. 2.54 x 100 = 254 cm. cm. = m. 37 e 100 = .37 m. I m. = "— cm. 85 4 10 = 8.5 cm. 1 cm. = mm. 2.54 x 10 8 25.4 mm. , Km. = m. 3.27 x 1000 = 3270 m. f m. = Km. 125 i 1000 = .125 Km. A g. = mg. 3.2 x 1000 = 3200 mg. mg. = g. 227 i 1000 = .227 9. mg. = cg 73 i 10 = 7.3 cg. cg. = mg. 2.2 x 10 = 22 mg. g. = Kg. 800 i 1000 = .8 Kg. Kg. = g. 1.5 x 1000 = 1500 g. ml. = . l. 825 i 1000 = .825 l. l. = ml 1.3 x 1000 = 1300 ml. ml. = cl 15 4 10 8 1.5 cl. c1. = ml 43 x 10 = 430 m1. 1. = Kl. 1273 5 1000 = 1.273 K1. K1. = l. 3.4 x 1000 = 3400 1. You should now be ready to try the test for this mod. 147 REA 446113 INTERCHANGE UNITS WITHIN THE METRIC SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS (FORM B) You can be one of the first ready to use the Metric System. It is easy, once you learn the new names. Don't let anyone scare you away from it, just dig in and be "one of the first". The Metric System is really much easier to use than the English System. There are just three new names to learn: the METER, which is used for length or distance measurements; the GRAM, which 15 used for mass or weight measurements; and the LITER, which is used for liquid volume measurements. There are other names also, but for now, you will study only these three. To these names of measurement, are added prefixes, of which the three most commonly used are kilo-, centi-, and milli-. For example, in measuring length, you can have a millimeter, a centimeter, a meter, or a kilometer. It is these prefixes that make the Metric System so very easy to use. The prefixes are all related to each other by multiples of ten (10). You are already familiar with multiples of ten from our everyday counting system. Our counting or number system is a decimal system. Try your hand at adding the numbers in the following group - hundreds 0° N” tens “’me units Answer Did you add the units column first? What number did you put in the answer for units? A 4? Right! What did you do with the left-over 10? Carried it as a 1 or as a 10 to the tens column? As a 1? Right again! Did your final answer equal 124? Good. Our number system is a decimal system because it centers around the base 10, and the prefix deci- means 10. It takes 10-units to make I-tens, and it takes IO-tens to make I-hundreds. 148 Let's try to learn the meaning of the prefix names. First, look at the following chart Kilo- = 1000 centi- - 1/100 = .01 milli- = 1/1000 = .001 The prefix Kilo- means 1000 times whatever word it is attached to. Kilowatts is probably already a familiar term to you (as on your electric bill), and 2 Kilowatts = 2000 watts. In the Metric System you can have a length of 1 Kilometer 8 meters; you might weigh 1 Kilogram or grams of meat; and you might Buy 1 Kiloliter or liters of fuel-oil. The capital letter K is used for Kilo- (Km., Kg., and K1.). The prefix centi- means 1/100 of, or .01 times whatever word it is attached to. Centi- is just like the word for penny in our money system. One cent is of a dollar, or $ .01 Since you already know that it takes 100 cents to make a dollar, it should be easy to remember that centimeters make 1 meter. You could say that 1 centimeter is 1/100 of a meter. One centigram is then of a gram, and 1 centiliter is of a liter. The small letter c 15 used for centi- (cm., cg., and cl.). Finally, the prefix milli- means 1/1000 of, or .001 times the word it is attached to. Remember that some of our cigarettes are advertised as being 100 mm., or 100 millimeters long. One is even advertised as being 'a silly millimeter longer'. Actually, milli- is a very small part, and 1 millimeter is about the width of a pencil line. You will also find some of the harmful ingredients of cigarettes listed as so many milligrams of tar, nicotene, etc. This is a very small quantity by weight. Volume measurements are made in milliliters, which are sometimes also called cubic centimeters. For example, the displacement of many motorcycle engines is measured in cubic centimeters (cc.), like a 350 cc. Honda. A can of floor wax may contain 800 ml. or milliliters of liquid wax. The small letter m is used for milli- (mm., mg., and ml.). To summarize then, look at the following chart PREFIX AND NAME LETTERS MEANING Kilometer Km. 1000 meters centimeter cm. .01 meter length millimeter mm. .001 meter Kilogram Kg. 1000 grams centigram cg. .01 gram mass milligram mg. .001 gram Kiloliter K1. 1000 liters centiliter cl. .01 liter volume milliliter m1. .001 liter 149 Here are some problems of conversion within the Metric System for you to try. Conversion means change. For example, if the distance from your school to the Career Center is 5.4 Km., then the distance in meters is 5.4 x 1000 = 5400 meters. If you live 16.5 Km. (16.5 Kilometers) from the Career Center [about 10 miles] then the distance in meters is m. Suppose you are 1.6 m. (1.6 meters) tall, how many centimeters would that 1 e. cm. Thinking of the 100 mm. cigarette, how long would it be in cm? i and in m? “““““ . Did you get the following answers for the above questions? 16.5 Km. = 16,500 m.; 1.6 m. = 160 cm.; and 100 mm. = 10 cm. = .1 m. Good! Notice that the last answer is all multiples of ten (10). This is a good illus- tration of the decimal relationship in the Metric System. Now some conversions in the measurements for mass, or weight. If you buy a box of Tide soap powder that weighs 1.39 Kg., how many grams of powder do you have? 9. A pound of butter is 454 grams, which changed to Kilograms is Kg. To convert centigrams to grams, you must remember to divide By 100, since when you convert grams to centigrams, you multiple by 100. If you bought a candy bar which weighs 3350 cg., its weight in grams is . Similarly, if your letter weighs 11 grams, it weighs cg. Now let's look at the milligram. The cigarette package says 11 mg. of tar. That means that the tar content in grams is g. This might not seem like very much, but the U.S. Surgeon General says that it is dangerous to your health. Did you get the following answers for the previous blanks? 1.39 Kg. = 1390 g. 454 g. = 454 Kg 3350 cg. 8 33.5 g 11 g. = 1100 cg 11 mg. = 011 g In the measurement of liquid volume, you will find that the most common measurement is the liter (1.) and the millimeter (ml.) being used for small quantities. The can of liquid floor wax contained 800 ml., which is 1. Although the centiliter unit isn't commonly used, you should be able to change 800 ml. to cl. by now. LII Ill-1111 1 150 Let's look once more at the prefixes and how they are related. (1) 1 Km. = 1000 m. or 1 m. - .001 Km. 1 m. = 100 cm. or 1 cm. = .01 m. 1 m. = 1000 mm. or 1 mm. = .001 m. 1 cm. = 10 mm. or 1 mm. = .1 cm. (2) 1 Kg. = 1000 g. or I g. = 001 Kg - 1 g. = 100 cg. or 1 cg. = .01 g. 1 g. = 1000 mg. or 1 mg. = .001 g. 1 cg. = 10 mg. or 1 mg. = .1 cg. (3) 1 K1. = 1000 1. or 1 l. = .001 K1 1 l. = 100 cl. or 1 cl. = .01 l 1 l. = 1000 ml. or 1 ml = 001 l. 1 cl. = 10 ml. or 1 ml. = 1 cl. You can see from this that the decimal form and relationship within our number system (and money system) are like the Metric System. Everything is in multiples of ten (10) and the prefixes are merely a code for this relationship. Another way of thinking of this relationship is that the numbers are always the same in any conversion within the Metric System, but the decimal point is moved about. Here are a few problems for you to try. 1. 2.54 m. = cm. 10. 2.2 cg. = mg. 2. 37 cm. = _ m. 11. 800 g. = Kg. 3. 35 mm. = cm. 12. 1.5 Kg. = g. 4. 2.54 cm. = mm. 13. 825 ml. = l. 5. 3.27 Km. = m. 14. 1.3 l. = ml. 6. 125 m. = Km. 15. 15 ml. = cl. 7. 3.2 g. = mg. 16. 43 cl. = ml. 8. 227 mg. = g. 17. 1273 l. = K1. 9. 73 mg. = cg. 18. 3.4 Kl. = 1. You may check your answers with the instructor, who has the answer list. Having completed this, you should now be ready to try the test for this mod. 151 REA 446111/112 INTERCHANGE UNITS IN THE METRIC AND ENGLISH SYSTEMS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL (FORM A) 1 , . _‘In perhaps another five years almost all of’our measurements will be expressed in the Metric System. The English System will be used less and less. >The purpose of this mod is to help you to learn a simple way to change between the two systems. To'interchange between two systems of measurement, you must know both systems.- You are already familiar with the English System. That's the yards and feet, pounds and ounces, gallons and quarts which you use now in everyday measurement. The Metric System you have learned in the pzevious mod (REA 446113) Instructional Material. Now let's see if you c,n learn a simple way to convert or interchange between the two systems. The diagram below shows the form of how we'll convert between the two systems, in a simple way. English 1 Metric ' miles Kilometers 3.5 yards change ‘ meters 35 5 5 feet F—E'é'fi‘é‘éfi—‘J centimeters 5 ‘5 '5 inches millimeters 5'5 Ybu must know how to do two things: (1) to change within the English . System, and (2) to change within the Metric System. . - You already have used the English System for propably ten years and should be able to change yards to feet to inches, pounds to ounces, and gallons to quarts to pints to liquid ounces. You studied changing within the Metric System in the previous mod's Instructional Material, so you should now be able to change Kilometers to meters to millimeters, Kilograms to grams to milligrams, and liters to milliliters. What you will learn new is ONE STEP to convert.between the length measure- ments of the two systems, ONE STEP to convert between the mass or’weight measurements, and ONE STEP to convert between the liquid volumes of the two systems. Actually, these three steps all follow the same idea, so it Should prove easy fOr you to learn. Let's begin with the length measurements of the two systems, and learn to convert or interchange between their units. In the English System, we measure length in yards, feet and inches - oh yes, very long distances are measured in miles. . ~ am I '4 152 am the Metric System you should remember that we measure length in meters, centimeters, and millimeters, and the long distances in Kilometers. . Look at the diagram below. English System @191 W m 6 miles (mi) Kiloneters (Km) 1. g; yards (yd) x 2.54 meters (111) - 8.5 2: feet (ft) . centimeters cm 55 u: inches (in) : - millimeters mm '5'; Notice the arrows between the two systems - they indicate how you can Simply change between the two systems. A length measured in INCHES can be changed to a length in centimeters by E!%%%;%fi%$% the number of inches by 2.54. To go the other way, a length in RS can be changed to . a length in inches by dividing the number of centimeters by 2.54. F Fer example, this page is 11 inches long which in centimeters is: a; 11 x 2.54 - ‘ 11 x 2.54 ""'7HT 55 22 27.94 cm (or almost 28 centimeters) If you measured the width of this paper as 21 centimeters and you wanted :0 know how wide it is in inches, you would divide the 21 centimeters by .54. ‘ in (or about 8% inches) 2.54 1.00.00 1 2032 1'80 50 8 17 20 15 24 1 96 Let's see how tall you are in meters if.your height is 5 feet, 8 inches. In order to use the simple conversion you must do three steps: 1) Change within the English System - so that the height is expressed all in inches. 2) Change between the English and the Metric Systems - so that the inches are converted to centimeters. 3) Change within the Metric System - so that your height is all in _ meters. Step 1 ’ 5 ft 8 in - inches (5 ft x 12 in/ft + 8 in - ___) 5 . x 12 _1'0' 5 60 in + 8 in - 68 inches 153 ' Step 2 68 in - cm (68 in x 2.54 chi/in - ) 68 x 2.54 1 32 O 136 170.72 cm (or about 171 centimeters) Step 3 171 cm - m ' (171 all e 100 cm/m - ) 1,21 m (or about 1.7 meters) 100 1 1.00 100 '71’0 70 0 I 00 1 00 If you wanted to go in reverse, from meters to feet, you would do the steps backwards. Follow the steps in the fellowing problem. An Olympic size swimming pool is 25 meters long, how many feet is this? Step 3 25 m 8 cm (25 m x 100 cm/m - ) 25 x 100 1 OO 00 25 2500 cm (2500 centimeters) Step 2 2500 cm 3 in (2500 cm 9 2.54 cm/in - ) 9 84.2 in (or about 984 inches) 2.54A/2500700:0' 2286 214 O 203 2 ‘10'80 10 16 64 0 50 8 13'2' Step 1 984 in - ft (984 in e 12 ft/in - ) 2 82. ft (or 82 feet - the length of the pool) 1 . 96 '24 24 154 You will find this Simple method works well fOr any length conversion between the Metric and English Systems. Just REMEMBER the steps, and the number 2.54 that you use to multiply or divide with. Try one more. A new pencil measures 7.5 inches. How long would this be in millimeters? Step 1 7.5 in (no change needed here - the measurement is in inches) Step 2 7.5 in - __ cm 7.5 in x 2.54 in/cm - 19.05 cm (or about 19 centimeters) Step 3 19 cm - ____nan ' ' 19 cm x 10 mm/cm - 190 mm (The pencil is 190 millimeters) OK, you say - I've got it; but what if I want to figure the distance from my home to the Career Center in Kilometers. I know the distance in miles is 13.3 mi. 00 I first have to change all the miles to inches? How many inches is there in a mile anyway? The answer is - you could. .Remember there are 5280 feet in a mile, and 12 inches in one foot. There is an easier way to do this though - if you will memorize the following: a) ___ miles x 1.6 - ____Kilometers. b) _Kilometers e 1.6 - _miles. Thus, for this conversion, you have to remember the number 1.6. Let's try your problem of the distance of 13.3 miles from your home to the Career Center - 13.3.mix16Km/mi- Km. 1 ' 13.3 x 1.6 ’35 13 21. 28 Km (or slightly more than 21 Kilometers) The distance from LanSing to Chicago is 340 Km. How far is this in m as 340 Km 9 1.6 mi/Km I mi 21 2.5 mi (or about 213 miles is the distance) 1.6J‘540'0‘0‘. A 32 '20 16 '7f 3 la.81...a 0. O 155 Take a look at the one step conversion between the mass or weight measurements.- In the English System, we measure mass in pounds and ounces, while in the Metric System you Should remember that we measure mass in milligrams, grams, and Kilograms - and sometimes in centigrams. Look at the diagram below: English System Mass or Weight Metric System Pounds (lbs) Kilograms) (Kg) x 28.3 Ounces (oz) tr' ; 28 3 9: 3;:gggrgms (cg; ' ' milligrams Notice the arrows between the two systems. They indicate how you can easle change between the two systems. A mass measured in ounces can be changed to a mass in grams by multiplying the number of ounces by 28.3.10 go the other way, a mass“ih grams can be changed to a mass in ounces by dividing the number of grams by 28. 3. For example, a 6-ounce jar of instant coffee weighs 6 oz x 28.3 g/oz - grams 6 x 28.3 ""1Fl§ 48 12 - s 169.8 gm (or about 170 grams) If you weighed the jar and the coffee on a scale and found that its mass is 250 grams, then its mass in the English System would be 250 gm e 28.3 g/oz - _ounces 9. 39 02 (or almost 9. 4 ounces) 28. 3 /'25070'00' 238 7 11 3 O 8 4 9 2 8 10 2 5 47 '"2'63' .Let's try the following: .A 3 pound 4 ounce (3 lb, 4 oz) box of soap powder weighs how many Kilograms? 156 To do this conversion,you must use the three steps: Step 1 Change within the English System so that the mass is all . in ounces. 3 lb 4 oz - oz (3 lb x 16 oz/lb) + 4 oz e 48 02 + 4 oz - 52 ounces Step 2 Change between the English and Metric Systems so that the ounces are converted to grams. 52 oz - gm 52 02 x 28.3 g/oz - grams 52 x 28.3 "'12711 416 104 1471.6 gm (or about 1472 grams) Step 3 Change within the Metric System so that the mass is in Kilometers. 1472 gm - Kg . 1472 gm % 1000 g/Kg - Kilograms 1.472 K (or about 1.5 Kilograms is the 1000 / 1473.000' weight of the box of soap powder) 00 pryou wanted to know how many pounds there are in 5 Kilograms, you 'would do the steps in reverse order. ‘ .Step 3 5 Kg - gm 5 Kg x 1000 g/Kg - gm 5 . x 1000 “"'0' 0 0 5 '5000'gm 157 Step 2 5000 gm - 02 5000 gm 9 28.3 g/oz - _____oz 17 6.67 oz (or about 177 ounces) eat/100117030 283 2170 1981 1890 1698 192 0 169 8 22 20 19.81 Step I 177 oz = 1b 177 oz 4 16 oz/lb - _____lb 11.06 lb (or about 11 pounds) 16/ 177.00 16 '17 16 ”1'00 96 '_-71 You Should find this simple method will work well for almost any mass or weight conversion between the English and the Metric Systems. Just SEMESBERitne steps, and the number 28.3 that you use to multiply or v e w t . Try another mass conversion problem. A box of table salt contains 1 pound, 10 ounces (1 1b, 10 02). What is the weight in grams? Step 1 1 lb 10 oz - ____ oz ' (1 lb x 16 oz/lb) +10 oz - __'__ oz 1 16 oz + 10 oz - 26 oz Step 2 26 oz - _gm 26 oz x 28.3 g/oz - __ gm 26 x 28.3 208 52 785.8 gm (or about 736 grams) Ill 11 I111 2" 158 Step 3 ‘Since the answtr we wanted was to be in grams. you need do 8 no further conversion. The answer is that the box of salt weighs 736 grams. Last, let's take a look at the one-step conversion between the liquid volume measurements. In the English System, we measure the liquid volume in fluid ounces, pints, quarts and gallons. 1n the Metric System you will measure ligui? volume in milliliters, (sometimes centiliters), liters, and K o ters. Look at the diagram below for the conversions. English System Liguid Volume Metric System gallons (gal) x .961 Kiloliters (Kl) quarts ( t) 8 ‘Ti liters (1) pints (pt) t -95 centiliters (cl) . fluid ounces (fl oz) - ~ mill1liters ml) . thice the arrows between the two systems. They indicate how.you can easily change between the two systems. A liquid volume measured in quarts can be simply changed to a volume in liters by multiplying the number of quarts by .96. To go the other way, a liquid vOlume measured in liters can be changed to a volume in quarts by dividing the number of liters by .96. For example, 2 quarts of milk would be equal to 2 x .96 - liters. 2 x .96 1 "——12" ; 18. 1.92 l (or about 1.9 liters of milk) If you had 4 liters of motor oil in a container, you would have 4 e .96 - qt 4.16 qt (or about 4.2 quarts of oil) .96AI'ITDDIDD' 384 16 0 9 6 6 40 5 76 "'TRI Let's try the following: A 1.5 gallon container of liquid bleach equals how many liters of bleach? Again, to do this type of conversion, you must use the three steps. 159 Step 1 Change within the English System, so that you'll have the liquid volume all in quarts. . 1.5 gal - qt 1.5 gal x 4 qt/gal - qt 1.5 x 4 ECU qt , Step 2 Change between the English and the Metric Systems so that the quarts are converted to liters. 6 qt - l' 6th.961/qt-- l 5.76 l (or about 5.8 liters) Step 3 Change within the Metric System. Since you wanted your answer in liters, no further conversion is needed. The answer is that the container has 5.8 liters of bleach. If you wanted to know how many fluid ounces there are in a 59 milliliter bottle of ink, you would have to do the steps in reverse order. Step 3 59 ml - l 59 ml 4 1000 m1/1 . l .059 1 (.059 liter) 1000 7'597000' - 50 00 9 000 ' 9 000 Step 2 .059 l - qt .059 1 t .96 l/qt ' qt ‘ .061 qt (or about .06 quart)' .98A . A 5 75 “140 96 —u . 160 Step 1 .06 qt - fl oz .06 qt x 32 oz/qt - fl oz .06 x 32 18 1.82 fl oz (or about 1.9 fluid ounces of ink) You Should find this simple method will work very well for almost any liquid volume conversion. Just REMMEMBER the steps, and the number .96 that you use to multiply or divide with. Try another liquid volume conversion problem. A can of spray cleaner contains 1 pint, 6 ounces of cleaner - How many liters does it contain? Step 1 1 pt 6 oz -' qt (1 pt x 16 oz/pt) + 6 oz - .fl oz (convert all to ounces) 16 02 + 6 oz - 22 Tl oz 22 oz 4 32 oz/qt - qt (then convert to quarts) .687 qt (or about .69 quart) 32 / 22.000 19 2 2 8O 2 56 240 2.2.9. 16 Step 2 ..69 qt - l .69 qt x .96 1/qt - l .69 x .96 621 T6624 1 (or about .66 liters) Step 3 Since the answer to step 2 is already in liters, our answer is that the can contains .66 liters of cleaner. Suppose you had wanted to know how many milliliters the 1 pint, 6 ounce can of spray cleaner contained. You would then do the fellowing: Step 3 .66 l x 1000 ml/l - ml .66 x 1000 ~ '660700'm1 (or the can contains 660 milliliters) 161 You now have all the information you will need to convert between the English System and the Metric System. shown you how to: This learning packet should have 1) Convert in the English System by first changing all units to one of the common units of measurement - the inch (or the mile), the ounce, or the quart. 2) Convert between the English and the Metric by remembering only four numbers - 2.54 for length (1.6 for long lengths), 28.3 for mass or weight and .96 for liquid volume. AND remember to multigly if you are going from English to.Metric, or to divide if you are going from Metric to English. 3) Convert in the Metric System by first changing all units to one of the three common units of measurement - the centimeter, the gram, or the liter. Don't forget that changing within the Metric System is simply a matter of moving the decimal point. Here are a few problems for you to read. Please do not fill in the blanks, the correct answers are given in the righithifia'column. Problems 1. 3 ft I. m 2. 2.3mI___ft 3. 7 in I mm 4. 100 mm I in 5. 25 mi I Km 6. 100 Km I mi 7. 3200 mg I 02 8. .5 oz I mg Answers 3 ft x 12 ft/in I 36 in 36 in x 2.54 cm/in I 91.4 cm 91 cm E 100 cm/m I .91 m 2.3 m x 100' cm/m - 230 cm . 230 cm a 2.54 cmVin I 90.5 in 90.5 in s 12 in/ft I 7 ft 7 in 7 in x 2.54 cm/in I 17.8 cm 17.8 cm x 10 inn/cm I 178 am 100 mm 5 10 mm/cm I 10 cm 10 cm i 2.54 cm/in I 3.9 in 25 mi x 1.6 Km/mi I 40 Km 100 Km t 1.6 Km/mi I 62.5 mi 3200 mg a 1000 mg/g I 3.2 gm 3.2 gm 4 28.3 g/oz I .1 oz .5 02 x 28.3 g/oz I 1.415 gm 1.415 gm x 1000 mg/gm I 1415 mg 162 9. .8 Kg I _mfl_.lb .8 Kg x 1000 g/Kg I 800 gm 800 gm 5 28.3 9/02 I 28.25 oz 28.3 oz 9 16 oz/lb I 1.9 lb 10. 160 lb - m__m_Kg 160 lb x 16 oz/lb - 2560 Oz 2560 02 x 28.3 g/oz I 72440 gm 72440 gm 4 1000 g/Kg - 72.4 Kg 11. 5'lb 6 oz I Kg (5 lb x 16 oz/lb) + 6 oz I 86 oz 86 oz x 28.3 g/oz I 2433.8 gm 2434 gm e 1000 g/Kg I 2.4 Kg 12. 227 cg I oz 227 cg e 100 cg/g I 2.27 gm 2.27 gm 4 28.3 g/oz I .08 oz 13. 825 m1 I qt 825 m1 i 1000 m1/1 I .825 1 .825 1 9 .96 1/qt I .86 gt 1 x 4 qt/gal) + 2 qt I 6 qt .96 l/qt I 5.76 l l x 1000 ml/l I 5760 ml q + (1 pt t Zpt/qt) I 1.5 qt .5 qt x .96 l/qt I 1.44 l 14. 1 gal 2 qt I ml 1 a .96 l/qt I 3.1 qt .1 qt x Z pt/qt I 6.2 gt 17. 50 K1 I 'gal 50 K1 x 1000 Kl/l I 50,000 1 . 50,000 1 4 .96 l/qt I 52,083 qt 52,083 qt e 4 qt/gal I 13,020 gal 18. 10,000 gal I Kl 10,000 gal x 4 qt/gal I 40,000 qt 40,000 qt x .96 l/qt I 38,400 1 38,400 l e 1000 l/Kl I 38.4 Kl 16. 3 l I pt 1 6 _ 5 15. 1 qt 1 pt - 1 1 1 3 3 You should now be ready to try the test for this mod. 163 REA 446111/112 INTERCHANGE UNITS IN THE METRIC AND ENGLISH SYSTEMS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL (fORM B) In perhaps another five years almost all of our measurements will be expressed in the Metric System. The English System will be used less and less. The purpose of this mod is to help you to learn a simple way to change between the two systems. To interchange between two systems of measurement, you must know both systems. You are already familiar with the English System. That's the yards and feet, pounds and ounces, gallons and quarts which you use now in everyday measurement. The Metric System you have learned in the previous mod (REA 446113) Instructional Material. Now let's see if you can learn a Simple way to convert or interchange between the two systems. The diagram below shows the form of how we'll convert between the two systems, in a simple way. English Metric 1 g :: miles Kilometers a, c c: ”5' yards change 1 meters 2"; g 45 feet ‘———betweeTr——— centimeters 2:: inches millimeters1, ° 3 You must know how to do two things: (1) to change within the English System, and (2) to change within the Metric System. You already have used the English System for probably ten years and Should be able to change yards to feet to inches, pounds to ounces, and gallons to quarts to pints to liquid ounces. You studied changing within the Metric System in the previous mod's Instructional Material, so you Should now be able to change Kilometers to meters to millimeters, Kilograms to grams to milligrams, and liters to milliliters. What you will now learn is ONE STEP to convert between the length measure- ments of the two systems, ONE STEP to convert between the mass or weight measurements, and ONE STEP to convert between the liquid volumes of the two systems. Actually, these three steps all fellow the same idea, so it should prove easy fOr you to learn. 1 Let's begin with the length measurements of the two systems, and learn to convert or interchange between their units. In the English System, we measure length in yards, feet and inches - oh yes, very long distances ‘ are Measured in miles. 164 In the Metric System you should remember that we measure length in meters, centimeters, and millimeters, and the long distances in Kilometers. Look at the diagram below. EngliShSystem Length Metric System miles (mi) ‘ Kilometers (Km) 315 yards (yd) 54 meters (m) 8.5 5'5 feet (ft) x 2' :1; centimeters (an; 55 ‘5"; inches (in) ‘T a 2.54 millimeters Inn 5’; Did you notice the arrows between the two systems? They indicate how you can Simply Change between the two systems. Notice that a length in inches can be changed to alength in centimeters by multi l in the number of inches by 2.54. To go the other way, a length in BENTIMETERS can be changed to a length in inches by dividing the number of centimeters by 2.54. Far example, this page is 11 inches long which in centimeters is: 11 in x 2.54 cm/in I 27.94 cm (or almost 28 centimeters) If you measured the width of this paper as 21 centimeters and you wanted to know how wide it is in inches, you would divide - 21 cm 5 2.54 cm/in I Did you get 8.26 in, or about 8% inches? Good. 'Let's see how tall you are in meters if your height is 5 feet, 8 inches. In order to use the simple conversion you must do three steps: 1) Change within the English System - so that the height is expressed all in inches. 2) Change between the English and the Metric Systems - so that the inches are converted to centimeters. 3) Change within the Metric System - so that your height is all in meters. an. ~ . .— Now, you try the steps - .——. 7.. - .. Step 1 5 ft 8 in I ------ in (5ft x 12 in/ft) + 8 in I inches Step 2 in I ------ cm in x 2.54 cm/in I centimeters Step 3 cm I ------ m cm I 100 cm/m I meters If your answers agree roughly with the following, you did it right. (68 inches, 171 centimeters, 1.7 meters) 7 by 165 If you wanted to go from meters to feet, you would do the steps in reverse order. For example, how many feet long is an Olympic Size swimming pool of 25 meters? Step 3 7 25 m I ------ cm 25 m x 100 cm/m I centimeters Step 2 cm I ------ in cm 5 2.54 cm/in I inches Step 1 in I ------- ft in e 12 in/ft I feet Again, if your answers about agree with the following, you are doing the problem correctly. (2500 centimeters, 984 inches, 82 feet) The 25-meter swimming pool is about 82-feet long. You will find that this simple method works well for any length conversion between the Metric and English Systems. Just REMEMBER the steps, and the number 2.54 that you use to multiply or divide with. Try this one. A new pencil measures 7.5 inches. How long would it be in millimeters? Step 1 7.5 in I ------ inches Step 2 in x 2.54 in/cm I ------ centimeters Step 3 cm % 100 cm/m I millimeters Did you find that your answers to the three steps were 7.5 inches, 19 centimeters, and 190 millimeters? These are about the correct answers if rounded off to the nearest centimeter. Got it? Good!’ What if you wanted to find the distance from your home to , the Career Center in Kilometers? Say that the distance is 13.3 miles in the English System. You could change the miles to inches as we did above! Remember - 5280 feet per mile, and 12 inches per foot? It would make quite a few inches. There is an easier way to handle long distances, just memorize the following: a) __ miles x 1.6 I __ Kilometers b) __ Kilometers e- 1.6 I ____miles Let's try the problem about the distance to the Career Center now. 13.3 x 1.6 Km/mi I __ Kilometers If you got the answer of a little more than 21 Kilometers, you did it right. Try the following problem which is the reverse. How many miles is it to Chicago from Lansing, if the distance is 340 Km? 340 Km e 1.6 Km/mi I miles 166 Did you get an answer of about 213 miles as the distance from Chicago to Lansing? Great. You have been doing things right so far. Now take a look at the one-step conversion between the mass or weight measurements. In the English System, we measure mass in pounds and ounces, while in the Metric System you should remember that we measure mass in milligrams, grams, and Kilograms - and sometimes in centigrams. Look at the diagram below: English System Mass or Weight Metric System pounds (lb) Kilograms (Kg) ounces (02) r x 28'3 _Js grams (gm) 1 3. 23.3 centigrams milligrams Did you notice the arrows between the two systems? They indicate how you can eas11y Efiinge Between the two systems. Notice that a mass measured in ounces can be changed to a mass in grams by multiplying» by 28.3. To go the other way, a mass measured in grams can be changed to a weight in ounces by dividing the number of grams- by 28.3. Try this example problem. A 6-ounce jar of instant coffee weighs ____gm? 6 oz x 28.3 g/oz I grams . If you multiplied correctly, and rounded-up to the nearest gram, you should have gotten an answer of 170 grams. Agree? Suppose you weighed the jar and contents on a scale and it was 250 grams, - how many ounces would this be? 250 gm % 28.3 g/oz I (ounces This time did you get 9.4 ounces, after dividing correctly and rounding- up? Very good. Now let's try the following problem. A 3 pound, 4 ounce (3 lb 4 oz) box of soap powder weighs how many Kilograms? To do this, remember the three steps that you used before. Use them again in this problem. Step 1 Change within the English System. 3 1b 4 02 I ------ oz . (3 lb x 16 oz/lb) + 4 oz I ounces Step 2 Change between the English and Metric Systems. 02 I ------ gm 02 x 28.3 g/oz I grams Step 3 Change within the Metric System. 9m I K9 gm a 1000 g/Kg I Kilograms 167 Do your answers agree roughly with the following? (52 ounces, 1472 grams, 1.5 Kilograms) If so, you've done it correctly again! Suppose you wanted to know how many pounds there are in 5 Kilograms. What would you do? The steps in reverse order? Right on. Step 3 5 Kg I ------ gm 5 Kg x 1000 g/Kg I grams Step 2 gm I ------ oz gm a 28.3 g/oz I ounces Step 3 02 I ------ lb ' oz I 16 oz/lb I pounds The answers to these three steps are: 5000 grams, 177 ounces, and 11 pounds. 00 your answers agree? They should, if you remembered to round-up on the ounces, and to round-off on the pounds. You should find that this simple method will work well for almost any mass or weight conversion between the English and the Metric Systems. Just REMEMBER the steps, and the number 28.3 that you use to multiply or divide with. Try another mass conversion problem. A box of table salt contains 1 pound, 10 ounces ( 1 lb, 10 02). What is the weight in grams? Step 1 1 lb 10 ozI ------ (1 lb x 16 oz/lb) + 10 oz . ounces Step 2 02 I ------ gm 02 x 28.3 g/oz I grams Step 3 _ gm I ------ gm Since the answer to step 2 is already in grams, you have no work to do in step 3. Did you get the following answers? (26 ounces, 736 grams, 736 gm) Very good for you. Lastly, take a look at the one-step conversion between the liquid volume measurements. In the English System, we measure the liquid volume in fluid ounces, pints, quarts, and gallons. In the Metric System you will measure liquid volume in milliliters, (sometimes centiliters), liters, and Kiloliters. Look at the diagram below for the conversions. English System Liquid Volume Metric System gallons (gal) . Kiloliters (Kl) quarts (qt) 11 X -95 ; liters (1) pints (pt) ‘ t .96 centiliters C1; fluid ounces (fl oz) milliliters ml 168 Did you notice the arrows between the two systems? They indicate how you can easily change between the two systems. A liquid volume measured in quarts can be Simply changed to a volume in liters by multiplying_the number of quarts by ggg, To go the other way, a liquid volume measured :? litegs 632 be changed to a volume in quarts by dividing the number of ‘ ters y g__, Fer example, 2 quarts of milk would be how many liters? 2 qt x .96 l/qt I liters If you had 4 liters of motor oil in a container, how many quarts do you have? 4 l t .96 1/qt I quarts Do your answers agree with the following? If you rounded-off in the first problem, you should have 1.9 liters of milk; and by rounding-up _ in the second problem, you should have 4.2 quarts. Now try this problem. A 1.5 gallon liquid bleach container holds how many liters of bleach? To do this conversion, use the three steps. Step 1 Change within the English System. 1.5 gal I ------ qt 1.5 gal x 4 qt/gal I quarts Step 2 Change between the English and Metric Systems. th ------ _ qt x .96 llqt I liters Step 3 Change within the Metric System. Since the answer in step 2 is already in liters, you didn't have to do anything in step 3. Were your answers to steps 1 and 2 as fellows? 6 quarts, 5.8 liters Suppose you had 59 milliliters of ink in a bottle, how many fluid ounces would this be? Do this problem by doing the steps in reverse order again. Step 3 59 ml I ------ l 59 ml 9 1000 ml/l I liters Step 2 l -' ------ qt ~ ~ 1 I .96 l/qt I quarts Step 1 qt I ------ fl oz qt x 32 oz/qt I fluid ounces Doing the dividing and multiplying correctly, did you get .059 liters, .06 quarts, and 1.9 fluid ounces? You should have rounded-off your answers to steps 2 and 1. Agreed? Good. 169 You should find that this simple method will work very well fOr almost any liquid volume conversion. Just REMEMBER the steps, and the number .96 that you use to multiply or divide with. Now try another liquid volume conversion problem. A can of spray cleaner contains 1 pint 6 ounces of cleaner. How many liters is this? Step 1 1 pt 6 02 I ---I-- qt (1 pt x 16 oz/pt + 6 02 I quarts Step 2 qt I ------ 1 qt x .96 l/qt I liters Step 3 l I ------ liters (The answer is the same as that of step 2) Did you remember to round-up on the quarts? You should have .69 quarts. Did you round-off the liters? Did you get .66 liters? Very good. Now suppose that you had wanted the answer to be in milliliters - would the answer to step 3 be 660 milliliters? The change within the Metric System would require you to do the following: .66 l x 1000 ml/l I milliliters You now have all the information you will need to convert between the English and the Metric Systems. This learning packet should have helped you to learn ” — ---n. - . _. ,1) To convert within the English System by first changing all units to one of the three common units of measurement - for length it is the (or the for long lengths), for mass or weight it is the , ana for liquid volume it is the Did you answer incfi, (m11e), ounce and quart? Very good. 2) To convert between the English and the Metric Systems, you only need to remember four numbers. Can you recall them? for length, (or for long distances), for mass or weigfit, and for liquid volume. Think a minute, these numbers you really should remember to be able to change between the two systems with ease. They are 2.54, (1.6), 28.3 and .96. All correct? Hey, nice going. 3) To convert within the Metric System, first change all units to one of the common units of measurement - for length it is the (or the for long lengths), for mass or weight it 15 the , and for liquid volume it is the It Should be easy for you by now to fill in the last few blanks with the correct answers - centimeters are for length (or Kilo- meters for long distances), the gram is used for mass or weight measurements, and for liquid volume measurements you use the liter. 170 You should now be able to convert easily between the English and the Metric Systems of measurement! Here are a few problems for you to try. 1. 3 ft I m 10. 160 1b I Kg 2. 2.3 m I _____ ft ____ in 11. 5 lb 6 oz I Kg ‘ 3. 7 in I . mm 12. 227 cg I oz. ‘4. 100 mm I in 13. 825 ml I) ’ qt 5. 25miI Km 14. 1ga12qt= ml. 6. 100 Km I mi 15. 1 qt 1 pt I l 7. 3200 mg - oz 16. 3 l - pt 8. .5 oz I mg 17. 50 K1 I gal 9. .8 Kg I lb ‘ 18. 10,0009al I Kl You may check your answers with the instructor, who has the answer list. Having completed this, you should now be ready to try the test for this .mod. ‘ 171 REA 446113 INTERCHANGE UNITS WITHIN THE METRIC SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONS: You should do all ten problems on this man: 10. post-test. After havTfig-Sihdied the learning materials for this mod, you will probably find it soczaa.seconrrr a easy to do. Work the problems on this paper. Place your answer on the blank line in the problem. Please fill-in the starting time and your stopping time Your height of 165 cm I m tall. A small amount of salt weighs.2.3 gm I mg as mass on a balance. A fuel oil tank contains 2.2 Kl I l in volume. A distance of 16,500 m I Km from home to the Career Center. A cigarette measuring 199_mm_I cm in length. A can of pop contains §§Q_gl I cl of soda pop. If your weight is §I_Kg_I gm is your mass. A package of sliced lunch meat is Z§Q_gg I K9 in weight. Use 125 ml I l of motor oil for each liter of gasoline in a 2-cyc1e engine. A closet door is 2.1 m I cm high. 172 REA 446111/112 INTERCHANGE UNITS IN THE METRIC & ENGLISH SYSTEMS INSTRUCTIONS: You should do all ten problems on this 10. post-test. After having studied the learning NAME materials for this mod, you will probably find it very easy. Work the problems on this paper. SOCIAL SECURITY 4 Place your answer on the blank line in the problem. Please fill-in your starting time & stopping time The length of 4 ft 10 in I m long. A speed of §§_m1_per hour I ' Km per hour. . A can of coffee weighs g_19_= Kg of coffee. A fill-up of gasoline is g;§_gg__I' l of gasoline. A short line length is 42_mm I in long. A bottle of rubbing alcohol contains 3gpt I ml of alcohol. A tank for fuel oil holds §§Q_gg_ I Kl of oil. .Tva-your mass is §1_Kg_I lb is your weight in pounds. A wedding ring has g§§_gg_I oz of gold in it. A speed limit of 40 Km per hour I mi per hour. APPENDIX B LEARNING ACTIVITIES OPINIONNAIRE 173 APPENDIX B LEARNING ACTIVITIE OPINIONNAIRE The relieving survey form.describes various activities that you may use in learning skills and knowledges. Some of these activities m be or more value to you than other activities. What we want you to think about is "hggr you are best able to learn. What things motivate you to learn and.while learning, what activities prove valuable to you. This is gg§.an evaluation of the class you are presently in, but an attempt to determine which learning activities are best suited to you as an individual. When you read these statements, think about g;;.of the classes you.haxe taken and the learning activities that proved valuable to you. lam Date Age Sex 1 LAST FIRST .MIDDLE Bi rthdate School City Grade Program Used with permission from John C. Banks, Center for Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin. 174 DIRECTIONS: learn skills and knowledges. 175 Below is a list of different things that you can do to Read each statement carefully. Think about how much the activity helps y_o_u_ to learn. Show your reaction according to the following scale: : Of no value : Somewhat valuable : Average value : Very valuable : Extremely valuable Put an x in the square that best fits your response. The way you answer these statements will not affect your school marks in any war. There are no right or wrong answers. The answers apply only to what is best for you; 1. 2. 3. Of no value an A ___v Somewhat valuable Average value Very valuable thremly valuable Working with tools, equipment, apparatus 5 materials . Working and meeting with individuals or groups of people to learn new information and ideas. Activities involving the use of scale models, devices, and simulated situations. (Role plying, driver training simulator, games). Activities that teach Job skills. Learning activities in which information and skills are presented by television, teacher or a classmate. Activities that allow me to immediately apply what I learn to actual problems that I face. Learning experiences that only require me to listen to learn new information. Instruction using media (films, tapes, slides) to pictorially and graphically describe events , skills and procedures. Instruction dealing with formulas and symbols which describe the knowledges to be learned. Instruction based mainly on reading. Written or oral instruction presented by a teacher with support of films, slides, and tapes. 10 11 13. 11:. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 176 Of no value Somewhat valuable Ive rage value 113 an Ex reme Classes where everything is set up, allowing me no choice in determining goals or objectives. Teacher-organized instruction where I have little influence on the type of instructional material and learning activities used. Class situations that lead me from simple to complex learning activities with pre-determined goals, objectives and sequence. Working alone but with constant teacher- supervision and organisation. Organised situations, from simple to complex, which give me a choice of where I want to start, stop, or branch out to new experiences. Learning activities that have no pre-set goals, you Just set your own goals and do what you want. Working alone and setting w own pace, determining w own goals and objectives. Courses that allow me to establish aw own learning sequence and activities. Student designed and directed instructional activities. Classes involving a minimum amount of organisation. Instruction organised completely by me. 13 lb 15 16 l? 18 19 2O 21 APPENDIX C LEARNING ACTIVITIES SURVEY 177 APPENDIX C LEARNING ACTIVITIES SURVEY Please print the following information - Name Date LAST FIRST MIDDLE Age Sex Birthdate MONTH DAY YEAR Home School Grade CACC Program What follows is a list of different things you can do (activities) that may help you to learn skills or to know things. Some of these activities may have more value or meaning to you than others. What you should think about when checking this form is "how" you feel you best learn. What things make ygu_want to learn, and while learning, what sort of activities are valuable to you. The survey is a list of choices. There are no right or wrong answers. Answer all of the questions as well as you can. Your answers will have no effect on your grades in school or on your studies here at the Career Center. , ' THIS IS NOT A MEASURE OF THE PROGRAM (CLASS) THAT YOU ARE NOW ATTENDING AT THE CAREER CENTER. We are trying to find out which kind of learning activ- ities are best suited to you as a person. When you read the list, think about all of the classes that you have taken and about those things which ‘ you did—that helped you to learn. Remember, the survey is about ygu_and ou alone. It is not a survey of (val what you can do, but of what you feel ue) is the easiest way for you to learn. Adapted with permission from John C. Banks' Learning Activities Opinionnaire. 178 179 LEARNING ACTIVITIES SURVEY DIRECTIONS: 10. 11. to learn skills. Read each sentence carefully. value that best fits your feelings. You will have a choice of the following - 0f no value Somewhat valuable Average value Very valuable Extremely valuable Working with tools, equipment and materials. Working and meeting with one or more other people to learn new information and ideas. Activities using scale models, machines, or make-believe (like games or acting). Activities that teach job skills. Learning activities in which information and skills are given by television, teacher or classmate. Activities that allow me to immediately apply what I learn to actual problems that I face. Learning experiences that only require me to listen to learn new information. Instruction using films, tapes, or slides to show by pictures or graphs the event or skill. Instruction using formulas and symbols which describe the things to be learned. Instruction using mostly reading. Written or oral instruction given by a teacher and using films, slides, and tapes. Below is a list of different things that you can do (activities) Think about how much the activity helps ygg_to learn. Put an "X" in the square under the Of no value Somewhat valuable Average value Very valuable Extremely valuable 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 180 A course in which everything is planned, allowing me no say in the goals or objectives. Instruction where I have little to say abogt the learning materials or things we 0. Class conditions that lead me from simple to complex activities which have planned goals, objectives and steps to follow. Working alone but with the teacher always nearby to supervise and direct. Organized situations, from simple to complex, which give me a choice of where I want to start, stop, or branch out to something new. Learning activities that have no planned goals, you set your own and do what you want. Working alone and setting my own pace, choosing my own goals and objectives. A course that allows me to plan my own learning steps to follow. Student designed and directed instruct- ional activities. Classes which have as little organization as possible. Instruction completely planned and set up by me. 0f no value Somewhat valuable Average value Very valuable Extremely valuable 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. .4». .._.._..._.. --'.-< a“‘-v- -o—nfiy 19. 20. 21. 22. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Atkinson, Carol, and Maleska, Eugene. The Story of Education. Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1962. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, Inc., 1960. De Cecco, J. P. The Psychology of Learning and Instruction. Engle- wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education (Free Press Paperback Edition). New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966. How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1910. Problems of Men. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945. Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Holland, John L. The Psychology of Vocational Choice. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell, 1966. Katona, G. Organizing and Memorizing. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. Komensky, Jan Amos. The Analytical Didactic of Comenius. Translated by Vladimir Jelinek. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. Plato. Great Dialogs of Plato (The Republic, Book II). Translated by William H. D. Rouse. New York: The New American Library, 1956. Rosenberg, M. B. Diagnostic Teaching. Seattle: Special Child Pub- lications, 1968. Taba, Hilda; Levine, 5.; and Freeman, F. Elzey. Thinking in Elemen- tacy School Children. San Francisco: San Francisco State College Press,—1964. Thomas, Robert, and Thomas, Shirley. Individual Differences in the Classroom. New York: McKay Company,T1965. 182 183 Articles Berliner, David C., and Cohen, Leonard S. "Trait-Treatment Interac- tion and Learning." In Review of Research in Education. Edited by Fred N. Kerlinger. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishing, Inc., 1973. Boeck, C. H. "The Relative Efficiency of Reading and Demonstration Methods of Instruction in Developing Scientific Understanding." Science Education 40, 2 (1956): 92-97. Craig, R. C. "Directed Versus Independent Discovery of Established Relations." Journal of Educational Psychology_47, 4 (1956): 223-34. Dunn, James A. "The Accommodation of Individual Differences in the DevelOpment of Personal Programs of Study." In Develogmental Efforts in Individualized Learning. Edited by Robert A. Weisgerber. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971. Guilford, .J. P. "Three Faces of Intellect." The American Psycholo- gist 14. 8 (1959): 469-79. Hester, Florence M., and Tagatz, Glenn E. "The Effects of Cognitive Style and Instructional Strategy on Concept Attainment." Journal of General Psychology 85 (1971): 229-37. Hill, Joseph E., and Nunney, Derek N. "Career Mobility Through Personalized Occupational Education." American Vocational Journal 46 (1971): 36-39. Johnson, D. M., and Moore, J. C. "An Investigation of Holland's Theory of Vocational Psychology." Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 5, 4 (1973): 488-95. Kagan, Jerome; Moss, Howard A.; and Sigel, Irving E. "The Psychologi- cal Significance of Styles of Conceptualization." In Basic Cognitive Processes in Children. Edited by J. F. Wright and J. Kagan. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child DevelOpment 28 (1963): 73-112. McLaughlin, G. Harry. "SMOG Gradin --A New Readability Formula." Journal of Reading 12 (1969?: 639. Michael, R. E. "The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods of Teaching Certain T0pics in Ninth Grade Algebra." The Mathematics Teacher 42 (1949): 83-87. Moore, Richard. "The Influence of an Interaction Between College Students' Personalities and Their Teachers' Personalities Upon the Students' Achievement." Research in Education 7, 10 (1972). 184 Newman, 5. E. "The Design of Materials and Procedures for Learning." American Psychologist 11 (1958): 380. (Abstract) Tallmadge, G. Kasten, and Shearer, James W. "Relationships Among Learning Styles, Instructional Methods, and the Nature of Learning Experiences." Journal of Educational Psychology 60, 3 (1969): 222-30. Thorndike, R. L. "How Children Learn the Principles and Techniques of Problem-Solving." In Learning and Instruction. The Forty- Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pt.l. Edited by N. B. Henry. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1950, 192-216. Wilhelms, F. T. "The Curriculum and the Individual Differences." In Individualized Instruction. The Sixty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pt. 1. Edited by Né 8. Henry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, 6 -74. Wolfson, Bernice J. "What the Teacher Is and Does Remains the Crucial Variable in Individualized Instruction." National Education Association Journal 55, 8 (1966): 31-33. Reports Banks, John C. "An Investigation of the Interaction of Learning Styles and Types of Learning Experiences in Vocational-Technical Education. Final Report." Menomonie, Wisconsin: Center for Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, University of Wis- consin-Stout, June 1973. Cronbach, Lee J., and Snow, R. E. "Individual Differences in Learning Ability as a Function of Instructional Variables. Final Report." Palo Alto: Stanford University, School of Education, 1969. DeSimone, Daniel V. A Metric America. Special Publication 345. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, July 1971. Haskell, Roger W. "Effect of Personality Characteristics Upon Learning Via Selected Modes of Instruction--An Experimental Investigaa' tion." In Review and Synthesis of Research on Individualizing Instruction in Vocational and Technical Education. Edited by J. T. Impellitteri'and C. R. Finch. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University, December 1971. Hill, Joseph E., and Nunney, Derek N. "The Educational Sciences." Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Oakland Community College, 1971. 185 . "Personalizing Educational Programs Utilizing Cognitive Style Mapping." Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Oakland Commu- nity College, Revised January 1974. Impellitteri, Joseph T., and Finch, Curtis R., eds. Review and Syn- thesis of Research on Individualized Instruction in Vocational and Technical Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University, 1971. Oen, Urban T. "Investigating the Interaction of Learning Styles and Types of Learning Experiences in Vocational-Technical Education." Interim Report. Appleton, Wisconsin: Fox Valley Technical Institute, August 1973. "Relevant Curriculum and Individual Progress--0ne Answer." Mason, Michigan: Division of Vocational Education, Ingham Inter- mediate School District, Spring 1974. Tuckman, Bruce W. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Directive Versus Non-Directive Vocational Teachers as a Function of Student Characteristics and Course Format." Final Report. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers, The State University, September 1968. ' Unpublished Materials‘ Brenner, Carl J. "An Experimental Comparison of Direct-Detailed Versus Directed Discovery Laboratory Exercises in Teaching Selected Elements of Basic Electricity." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1968. Finn, Jeremy D. "A Generalized Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Covariance and Regression Program." Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, Department of Edu- cational Psychology. 1968. Grote, C. N. "A Comparison of the Relative Effectiveness of Direct- Detailed and Directed Discovery Methods of Teaching Selected Principles of Mechanics in the Area of Physics." Ed.D. dis- sertation, University of Illinois, 1960. Lange, Crystal M. "A Study of the Effects on Learning of Matching the Cognitive Styles of Students and Instructors in Nursing Educa- tion." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Moss, Jerome. "An Experimental Study of the Relative Effectiveness of the Direct-Detailed and the Directed Discovery Methods of Teaching Letter-Press Imposition." Dissertation Abstracts 21 (April 1961): 2992. 186 Public Law 90-472. Approved August 9, 1968, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America. Washing- ton, D.C., 1968. Ray, Willis E. "An Experimental Comparison of Direct and Detailed and Directed Discovery Methods of Teaching Micrometer Princi- ples and Skills." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1957. Rowlett, John D. "An Experimental Comparison of Direct-Detailed and Directed-Discovery Methods of Teaching Orthographic Projection Principles and Skills." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1960. Sobel, M. A. "A Comparison of Two Methods of Teaching Certain Topics in Ninth Grade Algebra." Dissertation Abstracts 14 (October 1954): 1647. Stans, Maurice H., Secretary of Commerce. Cover letter submitted with the U.S. Metric Study Report to the Congress of the United States of America. Washington, D.C., 1971. Suess, Allyn R. "An Experimental Study Comparing the Effectiveness of Varying Degrees of Manipulation on the Directed Discovery Methods of Presenting Orthographic Projection." Dissertation Abstracts 23 (May 1963): 4269. ICHIan STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1|“1111111111HI111111111“1111111111111111111 31293006401156