AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD AND THE LECTURE - DISCUSSION 7 METHOD FOR TEACHING VOCATIONAL A AGRICULTURE CLASSES Thesis for the Degree of ‘Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WALTER WILLIAM MCCARLEY ' 1969 i") HM? ARY T E < . - ”LI *2 . x ’mgm State- LA J III II III IIIIIIIIIII III I . . . 3219796 76791 M3 Uan'TI'jlty r This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Experimental Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of an Individualized Instructional Method and the Lecture-Discussion Method for Teaching Vocational Agriculture Classes presented by walter William McCarley has been accepted towards fulfillment [ of the requirements for _P_I]_._D_._ degree in Agricultural Education Date _.June__lfi,_1969__ 0-169 If 7' ' I '4‘ . I I 9 We“ 61 469 ABSTRACT AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD AND THE LECTURE-DISCUSSION METHOD FOR TEACHING VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE CLASSES By Walter William McCarley Pureese. To evaluate the effectiveress of an individualized instruction-laboratory method as compared to the lecture-discussion- laboratory method of instruction as measured by: (l) student achieve- ment, (2) student interest in agriculture and (3) student academic rank; (4) to construct a student personality profile and determine the extent of variation in the student personality profiles for the two methods of instruction. Method. Four selected Michigan high schools with a total of I38 junior and senior vocational agriculture students participated in this study. Each teacher taught one class by the lecture-discussion method and one class by the individualized instructional method. The researcher prepared a forty-six page guidebook and assembled grain grad- ing slides that were used by the individualized instructional group; lesson plans and grain grading specimens of equivalent materials were prepared by the researcher for the lecture-discussion group. Both groups used the same grain grading laboratory equipment and grain grading samples. and they took identical pretest and posttest (Part A - paper and pencil and Part B - laboratory performance). Walter William McCarley Student agricultural interest was assessed with the Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventory; student overall academic rank was secured from the local high school counselor, and student personality was assessed with the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Students in the individualized instructional group completed an evaluation form for the unit. One lesson for each method of instruction was tape recorded. A workshop for the cooperating teachers was held to provide teachers with mimeOgraphed instructions and to answer any questions on the procedure to use. Findings. The individualized instructional method was found to be significantly better than the lecture-discussion method of instruction. It was found that students acquired more knowledge and skills using a combination of psychomotor and cognitive skills than when using cognitive skills alone. Students in the individualized instructional group were more enthusiastic and tried harder, regardless of their academic rank. Student agricultural interest was related to student achievement when the assignment required the use of psychomotor and cognitive skills. Student academic rank was related only for cognitive skill requiring a mathemati- cal calculation. The student personality profile revealed that there was no significant difference in the mean percentile rank of eight of the ten personality variables measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. The two personality variables, general activity and personal relations, were significantly greater. at the .05 level. for the lecture- discussion method of instruction. The student evaluation of the individ- ualized instruction unit clustered toward the favorable end of the semantic differential scale. The tape recordings yielded no audio evidence that teachers deviated from the instructions presented at the workshop. AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY T0 EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD AND THE LECTURE-DISCUSSION METHOD FOR TEACHING VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE CLASSES By Walter william McCarley A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer recoqnizes that debts of gratitude are due the many whose advice, consultation and assistance contributed immeasurably to the successful completion of this study. I am especially grateful to Dr. Guy E. Timmons. chairman of the guidance committee under whose supervision this study was conducted. Aopreciation is expressed to other menbers cf the guidance committee: Dr. Raymcnd M. Clark, Dr. Max R. Raines and Dr. J. Allan Beegle. A special gratitude is due to the teachers of vocational agri- culture who cooperated in this study: Mr. Richard Barnes, Mr. Albert Ackley. Mr. Ronald Stevens and Mr. Hick Rockafellow. Also, Dr. Lawrence Capeland and Dr. Herbert Pettigrove, Crop Science Departnent. Michigan State University. are due special recognition for their technical assistance and useful comments. Indebtedness goes to Mr. Rex Yocum. President of Seedhuro Equipment Pcrpany, and to the State Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Dceartment for arranging the use of the laboratory equipeent. Finally, the writer is deeply grateful to his sons, Everett and Michael, for their patience and understanding. This study is dedicated to my wife. Freeda, for her patience, understanding, abi ing faith and encouragement throughout the course of study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV. IMTRGOUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O Q I C I 0 Need for the Study The Problem Definition of Terms Basic Assumptions REVZE‘fi. 0F LITERATJ'RE O O O O O I O I O O O 0 O C O 0 O I 0 Concept of Individual Differences Not a Twentieth Century Concept A Plea for Student Centered Education America's Challenge for Personalized Educational Exocriences Individualized Instruction in Vocational Agriculture Related Research Conclusions Drawn from Review of Literature RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Research Design Selection of Teachers and Departments Instrumentation and Equipment Data Gathering and Procedure Analysis of Data Limitations of the Study FRESENTATION A320 A‘liqlL-YSIS OF DATA 0 o a a o a o a o o o 0 Description of Sample by Methods of Instruction Analysis of Data for Objective Number One Analysis of Data for Objective Number Two Analysis of Data for Objective Number Three Analysis of Data for Objective Number Four Analysis for Semantic Differential Scale Related Information SUMMARY,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . The Problem iii 22 Chapter BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES Methods and Procedures Analysis of Data Major Findings Implications of This Study Conclusions Recommendations for Further Study Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix 0 Appendix E Appendix F iv Page 98 99 lOl lOS l09 lll ll6 123 l23 I31 I42 150 153 156 Table II. III. I? VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. LIST OF TABLES Page Research design for gathering data to compare the effective- ness of individualized instructional method with the IQCtu?e-dlSCUSSIOn RQChOd o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 4] Occupation of student's parents by individualized instruc- tional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and percent resorting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Tyne of farm ooerated by students' parents by individual- ized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and percent reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Size of farm on which student resides by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruc- tion and percent reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Student occupational goal by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and percent reporting 0 0 O O O O O O I O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 56 Comearison of student gain scores of pretest and paper and pencil posttest {Part A only) by individualized instruc- tional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction . . . 57 Conparison of student achievement on total posttest score (Part A + B) by individualized instructional and lecture- discussion methods of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Comparison of student achievement on paper and pencil post- test (Part A only) by indivi~ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction . . . . . . . . . 59 Comparison of student achievement on assigning numerical grades posttest (Part B only) by individualized instruc- tional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction . . . 60 Student mean scores for paper and pencil posttest questions related to grade determining factors and total possible points by individualized instructional and lecture- discussion methods of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Number of itemized student responses and percentile for assigning numerical grade and laboratory analysis for grade determining factors on assigning numerical grade posttest by individualized instructional and lecture- discussion methods of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 V Table XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. Page Effect of student agricultural interest, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion mthods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on paper and pencil posttest (Part A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Effect of student eoricultural in erest. effect of individualiztd instructional and lecture- discussion rMethods of irstrurzt ion and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on assign- ing numerical grade posttest {Part B) . . . . . . . . . . . 68 fir tof st .dont eoricu“"r*‘ interest effect of ir c1 civid: alvrod instr :ctional and lecture-dis cussion retF ods of irstru" on ard ef’oc‘ of in .oraction of tm so two variv ab'ss on "”’fft achievement on total qttnst shown (P-r+ A + B) 0.0000000000000069 Effect of student agricultural interest, effect of individualized instructional and lec ture-discussion methods of instrict on and Aeffect of in erection of trese tn *9 variables on stu drr ”t echi everent on test weight questions (No.’ s 3. 4 and 5) on paper and pencil posttest (Fart A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O ffect of student agricultural interest, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion metFods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievnnent on moisture questions (No.'s 6, 7, 8 and 9) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7T . t, effect of ectu re-di scussion of interaction of Ti evenent on broken nis {No.' 5 l0, ll and l2) . 72 Effect of student agricultural ir individualized instruct nal an methods of instruction and e. fie these two variables on student nte rd l c a corn and forei agn material guest ti ;)(3_¢+ Effect of student agricultural interest. effect of individualized instructional and lecture- discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on total damage our estions (No.' 5 l3 and 14) on pap er and pencil posttest (Part A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 73 vi Table XIX. xx. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. Effect of agricultural interest, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instructien and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on damaged kerneis question-(No. l5) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Effect of agricultural interest. effect of individuaiized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instrrction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on heat darace eeest on (to. 16) on paper and pencil pnsttest (?art A} o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o I 0 O 0 0 Effect of agricn tural interest, effect of individualized instructions? and lecture-discussion metnods of instrvction and effect of interaction of these two variabies on student achievement on interpretation question (fin. l7) on paper and pencil posttest (?a*t A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of academic rank, effect of individualized instructionai and lecture-discussion metneds of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on paoer and pencil posttest (Part A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of academic rank, effect cf individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achieverent on assigning numerical grade pesttest {Eart B) . . . . . . . . . . Effect of academic rank, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on total pnsttest (Part A + B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on test weight questions (No.'s 3. 4 and S) on paper and pencil post- test (Part A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Table XXVI. XXVII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. Page Effect of academicrank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on moisture questions (ho.'s 6. 7, 8 and 9) on paper and pencil posttest (?art A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8l Effect of academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on broken corn and foreign materiai onestions (”o.'5«l0, ll and 12) on pascr and pencii posttest {?art A) . . . . . . . . . 82 “h n in ructionai and lecture-discussion methods of n traction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on total damage questions (to.'s l3 and l4) on paper and pencil posttest (part A) I O O 0 0 O 9 O O O O O O 0 I O O O O 83 t of academic rank, effect of individualized Effect of academic rank, effect of individualized instrnctional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on damaged kernels question (he. l5) on paper and pencil mStt35t(PartA)oooooooooo000000000 84 Effect of academic rank. effect of individuaiized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student ichievorent on heat damage question (to. l5) on paper and pencil posttest (PartA)oooooooooooooaooooooooo 85 Effect of academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on studen achievement on interpreta- tion question (do. l7) on paper and pencil posttest (PartA)OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 86 viii Table Page XXXII. Mean percentile rank for Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey for high, medium and low student achievement on posttest (Part A + B) by individualized instructional and lecture- discussion methods of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . 88 XXXIII. The relationshio of the Guilford-Zinmerman personality variable General Activity. methods of instruction. student achievement on posttest (Part A + Part B) and the resul s cfa test of di ffe. wnce between group mean percentile reek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 XXXIV. The relatior ship of the Ggi lf ord- Z‘anrman personality vari :hle Fer rson l93letions, ne‘hnns of instruction, stndent achieve ént on oostte—st (?art A + Part B) and the results cf a test 0’ c1fier~nce between group mean percentile rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9l XXXV. Student mean response to the seven point semantic differential scale in student guideoook completed by stoden s in the indivicfiualized instructional method of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure I Page ant mean sceres for caper and pencil posttest 9992995 r9fiat9d to grade d9tennining factors by 1992v2d92aizad 1999*"c2‘2vcl and lecture- 62999.5.99 9999925 of ifistruction . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2. Percent of 52999925 with two r9999999s (s 99 of Cqumns 9, 5 a.A 6. Tank X3) for acsicnin~ 9999r*991 q'ade and 1232'9? cry 999 ys‘s of 99229 r~*9'9 n. 99 factors 99 999. 92999 "'999222‘ gvar‘ postt' ‘st by *nc‘vidualized 19$? 919*2992] 99d 19ctur2~d 9:*:99*99 9925999 of 99929229299 64 O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O O C O O O O CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This decade has been one of transition of vocational agriculture from the traditional preoaration for farming to the preparation for farming and also the preparation for employment in agricultural business and industry. The Vocational Education Act of l963 has broadened the vocational agricultural corricuium and has resulted in students with di‘terent vocational objectives being enrolled in the same classes. Some of the basic principles are needed by each of these groups of students. but the application from one occupation to another may be quite different. The development, publication and evaluation of instructional materials have not kept pace with the broadened vocational agricultural curriculum. Thus, an important challenge to the agricultural educator today is the analyzing, thinking and remolding of many facets of the vocational agricultural curriculon and instrectional methods. Dr. J. Lloyd Trump states: The all-important key to continued growth ... will be the develOp- ment of the experieental point of view-~the constant seeking of better ways to teach. "Better products through research" might also be a useful slogan for education. Skinner states, ”Education must play its part. It must accept the fact that a sweeping revision of educational praCtices is possible ‘J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynham, Guidg_tg Better Schools: Focus gg_Change (Chicago: Rand, McNally and isapany,~T§ET). p. 51. l and inevitable."2 New educational technology can help provide adequate occupational information. Dale urges careful planning.3 These statements emphasize the need for the development of a better and more efficient instruction. Glaser suggests. ”Let us try to apply as much as we know; it might be enough to make a difference."4 This chapter will: (l) present information related to the need for the study, (2) state the probiem in detail, (3) present definition of terms for a better understanding and interpretation and (4) state the assumptions on which this study is based. Traditionally the teacher of vocational agriculture surveyed the local community and identified the major and minor agricultural enter- prises in the connonity and on this basis constructed a curriculum that would communicate the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by students preparing for farming. Clark indicates that the teacher of vocational agriculture has traditionally individualized instruction in several ways. namely: l. Each student conducted on the here farm different kinds of rojects in his Suoervised Farming Prooram. P . . 2B. f. Skinner, "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching,” Harvard Educationai Review, XXIV (Spring, l954). pp. 86-97. 3Edgar Dale, “The Teacher and Technology,” 132_News Letter. XXIX (Minter, l963). p. l. 4Robert Glaser, “Christmas Past. Present, and Future.“ Contempor- ggy_Psychology, V (June. l960). pp. 24-28. 3 2. The teacher made classroom study assignments so that students could apply the subject matter to the home farm situation. 3. The teacher may assign different references to students in relation to their interests or reading ability. 4. In some instances the teacher of vocational agriculture used different evaluation procedures for different students.5 An approach with more versatility is needed to meet the vocational objectives of students who are enrolled in vocational agriculture. Ameri- can agriculture has changed rapidly. The size of farms is much larger, and a large amount of capital is required to become established in farm- ing. Presently, farms are more-Specialized, i.e., crop farms, dairy farms or poultry farms. Thus, there is the occupational Opportunity to employment as technical specialist on these farms. Many activities once performed on the home farm are now being performed by agricultural businesses and usually performed more effi- ciently. Also, many new products and materials such as chemicals, fertilizers and insecticides are new handled by agricultural businesses. There is now a high degree of Specialization in terms of farm supplies and processing of farm products. Vocational agriculture has been expanded horizontally to include not only boys who are preparing for farming, but also boys and girls who are interested in a particular phase of technical agriculture or agri- culture business. Also, vocational agriculture has been expanded . vertically to include full-time, post-high and specialized out of school youth and adult programs. 5Raymond Clark, 'Individualizing Instruction in Vocational Agri- culture” (paper presented to Teachers of Vocational Agriculture, Madison, Wisconsin, July 9, l968). 4 Thus. the above mentioned conditions have resulted in students —; udth different vocational objectives being enrolled in the same classes. ‘ There has been abundant research on presentation variables and response medes, and educators are now able to describe the characteristics of a quality nregramed instructional program with a high degree of confidence. Michigan State University has developed a pat ern for individualized instruction for vncetionel agriculture. The question, how well do students learn free individualized instruction as compared to another method of instruction. can not he answered with any confidence. This study will investigate one hotbed ef selving this problem. The evaluetion of a pattern for individualized instruction is the basis for this study. One of the results of students with different vocational objectives being enrolled in the same class is that the tradi- tional lecture-discussion method is not versatile enough for instructional needs. Succinctly stated. this study will seek probable answers as a solution to the following questions: 1. Hhet is the effect of teaching by the individualized instruction- laboratory method es coweered to the lecture-discussion-leboratory method on student achievement? 2. How does interest in agriculture effect student achievement when students are taught by the individualized instruction-laboratory method and the lecture-discussion method? 3. How does student academic rank in class affect student achieve- ment when students are taught by the individualized instruction-laboratory method and the lecture-discussion-leboratory method? 5 4. How does student personality affect student achievement when students are taught by the individualized instruction-laboratory method and the lecture-discussion-laboratory method? The major objective (Number One) and closely related additional objectives (Numbers Two. Three and Four) of this study are: l. To evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized instruction- laboratory method as compared to the lecture-discussion-laboratory method of instruction. as measured by student achievement. 2. To evaluate the effectiveness of the individualized instruction- laboratory method as compared to the lecture-discussion-laboratory method of instruction. as measured by student interest in agriculture. 3. To evaluate the effectiveness of the individualized instruction- laboratory method as compared to the lecture-discussion-laboratory method of instruction. as measured by student academic rank in class. 4. To construct a student personality profile and to determine the extent of variation in student personality profile for the individualized instruction-laboratory and lecture-discussion-laboratory methods of instruc- tion. based on student achievement on the posttest. The major hypothesis (Number One) and closely related additional hypotheses (Numbers Two, Three and Four) tested are: 1. There will be no significant difference in teaching with the individualized instruction-laboratory method and teaching with the lecture- discussion-laboratory method, as measured by student achievement. 2. There will be no significant difference in teaching with the individualized instruction-laboratory method and teaching with the lecture- discussion-laboratory method. as measured by student interest in agriculture. 3. There will be no significant difference in teaching with the 6 individualized instruction-laboratory method and teaching with the lecture- discussion-laboratory method. as measured by student academic rank in class. 4. There will be no difference in student personality profile for students taught with the individualized instruction-laboratory method and students taught with the lecture-discussion-laboratory method, based on student high. medium and low achievement on the posttest. C. [Definition films.- The foiloving definitions are given in order to clarify the terms which will be used frequently throughout this study. For the sake of brevity. certain contracted terms will be used throughout the remainder of the study. These are indicated in the definitions. 1. ffiflffiuitv'éi_Qg§132§§_3:g,13gg§£;y. Refers to industry and businesses providing materials and services to farmers in the production Of croos and livestock. Also included are those industries and businesses involved in marketing. processing and distributing agricultural products. Off- farm agricultural businesses and services are used synonymously in this study. 2. flg:j52fl§g;zl_g:§jgggigg, Refers to an organization of subject matter and learning activities concerned with principles and practice in production of livestock. field crops, fruits and vegetables, fiber and other crops. on ceemercial and part-time farms. 3. Behavior. Refers to any visible or measurable activity displayed by the learner. 4. Coonitive. Refers to objectives which emphasize remembering or reproducing something which has presumably been learned, as well as objectives which involve the solving of some intellective task for which the individual has to determine the essential problem and then reorder given material or combine it with ideas. methods or procedures previously learned. 5. Criterion. Refers to a test or stand by which terminal behavior may be measured and evaluated. 6. Criteriogntgggg. Referred to in research are the standards of achievement by which the learner will be measured. Specifically. for this study these are tests of application of concepts of grain factors that deternine the numerical grades. 7. 933:3323 3: 333::331 2.7.3.3333" Refers to self-administered examination at the closu e of a lesson and/or unit. used to determine how well the sto -ent has undem tend the concepts presented in the lesson. 8. “ifforontntfif' 2:23.111. Refers to a division of instruc- tion within the classroom rather than dividi ing the total into selected groups. 9. Effectiyennss. Refers to the effects a program produces. not for standards deciding how effective it ought to be in order to be regarded as of acceptable effectiveness. l0. Egglgation. Refers to an appraisal or ordinal ranking. i.e.. in this study the comparison of two methods of instruction. ll. Individualized instruction, Refers to the steps taken to personalize the needs of students. each of when is a unique individual. Personalization will sometimes involve the selection and organization of content. but it will include. as well. the creation of situations in which students will work and be considered both as individuals and as members of groups. law Instructional materials. Refers to any communication aids used to enhance the effects of teaching, i.e.. chalkboard. flat pictures. 8 specimens. displays. tape recorder. still projection and programed instruction. For this study it will refer to a printed student guide- book, 2 x 2 grain‘ slides. projector-viewer and the laboratory equip- ment needed to analyze grain. i.e.. test weight per bushel tester, moisture tester. Gram scale and grain samples. 3, lggfigggggg§_§jg§y, Refers to the teaching and study pro- cedure adapted to the differing interest. abilities and needs of individ- ual students. lhis tyee of instruction is basic to such plans of class- room, shop and laboratory organization as a project method and the probiem method. Steps in the individual study may be listed as: (l) the individual states the problen, (2) he lists questions. (3) he lists refer- ences. (4) he reviews with the teacher before consulting reference, and (5) finally he seeks answers to questions which form the basis for decisions. 14. Lecture-discussion. Refers to the traditional classroom ..m N am instructional procedure utilized in vocational agriculture. Primarily verbal, it consists of problenosolving approach to instruction which relies heavily on interests and needs of student.‘ Most vocational agriculture instruction utilizes resource materials and discussion. l5. Method g:_tgachi:1. Method is a planned procedure to an end. It is the setting up of events. eXperiences or activities so as to get the desired behavioral objectives. Method £3:_sg_does not exist. but is derived from the nature of the following raw materials: (l) the problem to be solved. (2) the group with whom the teacher will be working and (3) the behavioral objectives to be developed. It is standard procedure in the presentation on instructional materials and the content of activ- ities. A.method may, and frequently does, involve more than one instruc- tional practice. 9 l6. Psychomotor. Refers to objectives which emphasize some muscular or motor skill. some manipulation of material and objects, or _some act which requires a neuromuscular coordination. l7. Reinforcement. Conotes a strengthening of the student's capability, readiness and disposition to behave in a certain way. The original use of the term came from Pavlov's experimentation with food and shock forms of reinforcement to animal behavior. l8. Self-instruction. Characterizes learning experiences designed to function relatively independent of the instructor. A prime consider- ation of this approach is maximum allowance for individual differences among students. 19, §§3£3$15_ differential scale. A combination of controlled associations and scaling procedures. The student is provided with the concept to be differentiated and a bipolar set of adjectives on a scale against which to do it. 20. Supervised study. A type of study procedure in which the teacher is present and helps direct or guide the students in their quest for knowledge. It usually is recognized as one of the steps in the problem solving approach to teaching vocational agriculture. It also is considered as a phase of directed study. Zl. Egg: analysis. Refers to a method of organizing the desired termdnal behavioral objectives into logical sequence of small steps. 22. Teacher 2:.vocatioral agriculture. One who is employed by a public school and who teaches one or more classes of vocational agri- culture for which the local district is reimbursed by Vocational Funds. 10 23. Terminal behavior. Refers to the behavior you would like your learner to be able to demonstrate at the time your influence over him ends. 24. Traditional. As used in this study refers to the inherent pattern of thought and action, i.e.. traditional vocational agriculture refers to the vocational agricultural curriculums prior to the Vocational Education Act of l963. 25. EEEE§:2:31_5533§3133.13_agriculture. This term includes those educational activities relating to preparation for farming and for prepa- ration for employment in the agricultural business and industry. The contre-ted term vocational acriculthe has the same meaning. .1.“ uni.- .--I’ ‘- 26. fiecetiooel_3§;:gtivg, This term refers to the specific area of employment that students are prenaring, i.e., preparation for farming or a specified area in agribusiness. 0. Basic Assurotiens .1 - m;.'..l—u.~ Certain assurptions are listed below which were believed to be fundamental to the realization of the purposes of this study. l. It is assumed that students are enrolled in the same classes with different vocational objectives. This study will be based on this assunotion. 2. It is assumed that preparation for an occupation is enhanced by the teacher carrying instruction to the point of having the student make an application to the job for which he is preparing. 3. It is assumed that instructional materials as defined in this study aids in the development of the total curriculum program. 4. It is assumed that one role of teacher-training institutions ll is preparing instructional materials for the teachers of vocational agriculture in the home-state. 5. It is assumed that the teachers of vocational agriculture use the instructional materials prepared by the home-state teacher- training department. 6. It is assumed that students enrolled in vocational agri- culture classes are primarily farm youth. 7. It is assumed that the vocational objective of students enrolled in vocational agriculture classes is agricultural, i.e., production agriculture and/or agriculture business and service. 8. It is assumed that one of the educational responsibilities of public secondary education is to provide vocational training and vocational experiences for high school age students whose vocational objective is agricultural production and/or agricultural business and service. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This review of literature was conducted for the following major reasons: (l) to communicate to the reader an overview of the democratic concept of the individual and individualized instruction, (2) to acquire some knowledge of how individualized instruction has traditionally been structured for students of vocational agr flture and (3) to acquire some knowledge of related research that directly or indirectly affects this study. In preparing this chapter, the literature has been classified into six divisions. These divisions are composed of literature which dealt with: (l) concept of individual differences not a twentieth century idea, (2) a plea for student centered education, (3) America's challenge for personalized educational experiences, (4) individualized instruction in agriculture. (5).related research and (6) conclusions. A. Concept of Individuel_Difference§_§gt_a_Teentieth Century Concept Individualization of instruction is a century-old idea. Centuries ago Plato reCOgnized the existence of human variability. specified its social implications. and proposed tests to measure traits important to the military: ”... for it comes into my mind when you say it. that we are not born all exactly alike out different in nature, for all sorts of different Jobs."6 6w. H. D. Rouse (trans. ). erLat Dialoos on Plato (New York: The New American Library, l956). p. loo“ l2 l3 Conenius. too, treated individual differences at length, admon- ishing teachers to consider their pupils' ages. intelligence and knowledge. He brought teachers to accept ”natural. to adjust methods and materials accordingly and to start instruction at the pupil's level. Children, he observed, excel in memory and curiosity, adolescents in recscn’ng and adults in ”the what and why.”7 Rousseau. recognizing variation both among and within individuals. alncst advanced a tetorial svsten. Harold Taylor, former president of Sarah Lawrence College. was led "... to insist upon sore version of the tutorial system ... to asssre that the student and teacher are known to each other, and that the student may thus beneiit by the fact that his individuality is known. recognized. and respected.“8 Rousseau agreed with Coronius in advocating the method of instruc- ting through the senses. but he went further in thinking that true educa- tion consists less in knowledge than in doing. His proposed teaching methods took into account those inner sen-es or springs of actions known as feelings. The principle of interest was featured-~the teacher's proper strategy lay in maneuvering the pupil into wanting to learn. So important to Rousseau were interest and inclination that he advocated a dependence upon them rather than upon constraint to sustain attention and perseverance in the face of difficulties and distractions.9 fig ‘ i of Comenius (Chicago: University of Chicago Press:"?§§§).”35T"TE§T%EZ"37an§lat33 5y V. Jelnick. 8Harold Taylor. "The Private Man with a Book,” aturday Review, XLIV (Jan. 7. 196l). pp. l7-l9. 7Jon Amos Kamensky, The Analytical Eldest. 9Carroll Atkinson and Eugene lialeska, 33?. Story of Education (New York: Bantam Books, 1962), p. 6?. 14 Pestalozzi insisted that the natural instincts of a child should provide the motives for learning. He believed that free expression would allow the natural powers of the child to develop. Since it is nature that gives drive for life. he maintained the teacher's reSpon- sibiiity is to adapt instruction to each individual according to his particular changing, unfolding nature as required at the varying stages of his develoonzent.m B. A Plea for Student Centered Education “m l. The Colonial Schools and flgggggigg, American educators tended to M“ sq disregard the pleas of these early educational philOSOphers, and curric- ulums remained subject centered ignoring the individuality of the student. ‘ The colonial "common schools“ and later the Latin schools were established for the purpose of religious instruction. Their educational philosophy stressed reading skills as needed for an understanding of the Scriptures. and the Latin schools required students to study the Scrip- tures in the original tongues. These schools offered no opportunity for students to develop humanistic interests, i.e., attention to the world in which the student was living rather than the world-to-be. Because of the lack of secular interests by the Latin schools, the prOSperity of the population and the fact that most books were controlled by the church or government, the colonists began to crowd out religion. Their attention turned toward the scientific movement that was taking place in Europe. Consequently, private schools, known as academies. were established for the purpose of preparing young men to take part in the scientific movement. Although these academies served to unshackle lOIbid.. p. 79. 15 secondary education from the religious domination by the church fathers who were responsible for operating and maintaining the Latin schools. it was not the final answer. A private school for the elite was not consistent with the ideals of a democracy. i.e.. the worth and dignity of every individual. 2. Individual instruction 12_Early Secondary Schools. American society was not displeased with the curriculum content of the academies. In fact. the secondary high schools were established for the purpose of duplicating the academies at public expense. Not only were the curric- ulums duplicated but also the methods of instruction. Many problems arose; and many are with us today: for example, college preparatory courses for a minority and terminal education for others and methods of instruction that makes allowance for individual differences. The curriculums of many of the secondary schools were based on college preparatory courses; the college bound student and the terminal student were provided the same education. However, some educators were cognizant of the inadequacies of mass education that ignored individuality and resulted in equating equality of Opportunity with identity of Oppor- tunity. Two educators that focused upon individual differences were Francis H. Parker and John Dewey. 3. Focusing gghthg.lndividual. Parker held that subjects were not ends in themselves. that they merely existed to promote the development of each pupil. The school should provide an environment where children enter into activities because they desire to do so rather than because they are forced by external incentives in the form of marks. awards and 16 prizes." Parker made the following observations regarding methods and curriculum: Reading meant the acquisition of meanings--not techniques of oral pronounciation. Memorizing of textbook facts received less emphasis because real things were being studied. Lessons on geography and science were largely based 2n first-hand information gathered outside the classroom.1 John Dewey also advocated the value of the individual: The individual is a democratic idea ... each one is equally an individual and entitled to equal opportunity of development of his own capacities. be they large or small in range. Moreover each has needs of his own, as significant to him as those of others are to him. 4 Dewey writes on the value of the individual in society by saying: A society based on custom will utilize variation only up to a limit of confonmity with useege; uniformity is the chief ideal within each class. A progressive society counts individual vari- ation as precious since it finds in them the means of its own growth. Hence a democratic society is a must. in consistency with its ideals, allow for intellectual freedom and play of diverse gifts and interests in its educational measure. 4 4. Mass Education mgflriad 2: Adolescents. If we were to place the academic curriculum of most of the early high schools. as well as the academic curriculum of many of our present high schools. on a continuum from meaningless to meaningful. it becomes evident that much of our present day curriculum often seems meaningless to the non-college bound “lbla.. p. 37. ‘zlbid. ”John Dewey. Problems 9_f_ 533 (New York: Philosoohical Library, Inc.. l946). p. 25. . l4 John Dewey Democra ggg_Education (New York: The Macmillan Capany. l96l). p. shit-“‘5“L m l7 student. Some educators still Operate with the assumption that educa- tion exists for the sake of the curriculum: certain subjects are diffi- cult and therefore are good for students because they “stretch the mind.” Arthur Schlepp. commenting on pupil centered education, wrote: John Dewey's resolution from subject centered to child or pupil centered education ... is the single most important educational adrcnce in a thousand years. As a result. education exists for the sake of the learner and not for the sake of subject matter.15 Even though secondary schctls were based on democratic ideals and supported through public funds, equality of education has not become a realit . The denocratic philosophy that each pupil shall be given an education that will enatle him to develop to the fullest of his desires and capabilities has created many educational problems. The clientele of our schools is composed of a myriad of individ- uals that core from various ethnic and socio-economic groups. These individuals vary; they vary between groups and within groups. They vary according to interests and vocational goals. age, age of puberty, physi- cal health, intellectual adeptness. coenitive style (different approach to thinking by individuals), psychomotor style (di ferent approach to physical mouement by individuals), anxiety levels, achievement, motiva- tion, self-concept, arousement and curiosity, attitudes and values, tolerance of ambiguity, reaction to complexity. empathy with other people and patterns of interests. Thomas and Thomas state about individual differences: Children are not created equal, nor do they become more alike as they grow older. Rather, by the time they enter school. the ‘SJohn P. Ver is. ”Technology: Key to Individualized Instruction," Arizona Teacher, LV September, lsefi), pp. l2-3. quoting Arthur Schlepp, {e3.}. Library gf_Livino Philosoggg. 18 inequalities among them-~intellectually, physically and in social behavior--have increased many fold. As they move ugward through the grades, the differences increase even further. Yet, many educators attempt to provide curriculums that are unifonn. Charles H. Elliot. chairman of the Committee of Ten, observed in l8?2 that: Uniformity is a curse of American schools, that any school or college has a uniform product should be regarded as a demonstra- tion of inferiorityaimoairity to meet the legitimate demands of a social order whose fundamental principle is that every career should be open to talent. Selection of studies for the individ- ual instruction addressed to the individual. ... nest come to the finerican,school, if it is to answer the purposes of a democratic society.“’ Also, theorists descrihe learning in teres of the average. How- ever, the basic data reveal that the course of learning may differ from popil to pepil. Consequently, by aeplying general rules, we may, and most often do, ignore the individual. . An anthroeoloqist writes, "Any human being, unless biologically defective or daraged, has the potential capacity to learn to a reason- ably efficient dogree any cultural tradition to which the individual concerned might be exposed.'18 A psycholOgist states, ”he begin with the hypothesis that any subject can he taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any age of development ... no evidence exists to the con- trary."9 16Robert M. Thomas and Shirley Thomas, Individual_Differences in. Ehg’Classrogg (flew York: ficKay Co.. 1965), p.75~ 17Charles H. Elliot, ”Shortening and Enriching the Grammer School Course,“ in ghgflefi Elliot 333.Poeelar Education_(Ed.:Edward King, New York: Teachers'fbllege Fress, lgoll, pp. 50-55. ‘3Felix M. Kessing, Culteral Anthroeology_(New York: Rinehart and Company. 1958), p. 62. Igderome S. Brener, The Process of Edvcation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19%). 973:. '“""""""'"“""“" -..u-flfla rescue—noun” AW C. America s Cbal ““"° ’“’ “““s'“=li e ”Educational ggfgriences American educators have assumed the tremendous challenge of providing educational experiences for this myriad of adolescents based on the democratic ideal. Numerous approaches have been made to provide for the individual differences of the school clientele, for example: programs, retardation nregrams, nengraded elementary, -fl er scheduling, multi-age grouping, departmentalization, remedial instructie“. enrichment erogrcrz, prograned iewirectien and individu- ali zed 11"rtctifn. The reisinfer of this "“"“ ‘r -"7 be devoted to literature refiarc ng irzivifirslizine the 7723‘ :ties to make allowances l ‘_f O s 0 O , for inotv'dwel ea ~"‘A“A._ppa~¢ l. E£:;:::fi;:i:gfal:fjf‘§:;::: Individualized instruction requires a great deal of self-directien and self-selection by the learner. It is intended to be pupil centered not teacher or content centered. The role of the teacher in this instrtct*“nal appro.ch is primarily a consultant to the learner and a manager and manipulator of the classroom environ- ment. His role is to assist the stadents to learn to plan and evaluate. to provide stinalat‘no experiences, to make the students aware of the many alternatives when making decisions end te provide a variety of appro- priate material. Holfscn cited the b3sic "s*"*p+‘ens for individualized instruction as follows: (1) For real learn'ng to occur , the must see the purpose and meaning in the learning experience .(2) no best method exists for all teachers to use: (3) tee may the teacher interacts with the children affects t'.e anount they learn, their feelings about learning, and their feelings about thefiselves and (4) there is no best segue.ce in skill development.‘U 20Bernice J. wolfson. ”Individualizing Instruction," National Education Journal, LV (November, l956), pp. 3l-40. 20 The reader is cognizant that the traditional lecture-discussion method is not applicable to individualized instruction in a classroom situation. The classrou procedure will vary due to the particular learning situation and the personal traits of the teacher. Holfson observed on classroa procedure: (I) Individualized instruction provides opportunity for individ- uals to work alone and in small groups and (2) for individual and small group conferences with the teacher for pupil-teacher planning and evaluation and for teacher assistance as mood. In the final glysiztficggsw teacher must translate his own values and 2. .71! Successful Pmrus for Different _R_a_t_e_s_ 9; Learning. Foth reports the use of a multi-nedia independent study program for teaching Soil Science 210. “Fundamentals of Soil Science.” at Michigan State University. The class is structured with one discussion or quiz period and a three to four hour structured training program per week. The students cmplete a reading assignment. note the objectives and then mmnmemuinweuMnmnwnnmawmanwui”an.Tm lesson is introduced. discussed and then the student is prepared to pro- ceed with an investigation. The program is designed to be “self- instructional.“ but the instructor is always in the laboratory to answer questions and discuss materials. Materials not suited for study in the carrel are exhibited on a display table. The display table permits students to observe a wide variety of scientific specimens as well as special equipmnt. photographs and models.22 2‘1 1a. ”Henry Foth, Structured Learnin .l_n_d_ Training Environments in Soil Science. Pro ect lo. 201 (East busing. gan: Educational U'o'velopmenf Progruns. m1). pp. l '50 21 Postlethwait reports the use of multi-media approach or Audio- Tutorial System for teaching a freshman botany course at Purdue Univer- sity. The first phase of the program is the independent study session. The student is assigned to a study booth that is equipped with a tape player, an 8mm movie projector and other material appropriate for the week's work. The student listens to the tape. reads the text, examines specimens, manipulates the microscope, views film clips, or performs any other activity that relet-s to the week's objective. The tape and 8mm film can be steered as often 3 necessary for repetition or to provide the student an ooportunity to collect data, set up an experiment. or to perform some other related activity. The second phase of the pregram is the general assembly session which is under the direction of the senior professor. These are consid- ered as help sessions, and student attendance is not required. However, students are encouraged to attend special sessions involving guest lec- tures, tale-lectures. films and orientation sessions. The third phase of the program is a rather unique form of student evaluation. The small assemoly session involves no more than eight students and an instructor. These sessions are on a seminar nature. The instructor has on hand the various items included in the independent study program the preceding week. The instructor selects a student at random who is shown an item and is expected to respond to the item by identify- ing the item. relate it to the week's objective and then proceed to show his mastery of that objective. The instructor then records a grade for the student.23 23Samuel H. Postlethwait. ”The Use of Multi-Media in Science Educa- tion,“ Educational Hegig_in yocatigegl Technical Education (Columbus, Ohio: The Center‘forrvoEationei"Tecfii?cal'EiucaTTEE,‘T§67}, pp. lOO-l06. 22 a) Provision 133.92.23.91 Learning 39; Individual Learning. The results of these programs indicate that they have been extremely success- ful. They make allowances for variations in the rate of learning of individuals and allow students to complete the assignment at varying rates. However, the writer does not perceive the ideal individualized instruction as having each student proceed through the same subject matter, guidebook. view the same slides and listen to identical tapes. Holfson observed: The use c‘ orenrened materials and textbooks with individual pacing is not tsuly indivifual learning. These materials provide for dif- ferent rat es of lonrn‘rn but not responsible to other variations mm‘i le's'3- 9. 53¢?! 35. r’ifdvac 10’!” Sty‘e Of learning, energy Ieve'l’ 6*f1tL/QP anf! DMV{?H: gfiamlfi" an, 0. Individualired Instruction in Veritioeal Periculture 'I‘ iv.“- ‘01-'- mung“ .“- ‘fim New." l. Social and Econcni c “Nosed for Personalired Education. Vocational ”“I‘ Mfr" VW’“ -«m- w . agriculture in secondary schools is a direct result of nineteenth century American society rejecting the classical and theological education for the elite in favor of the practicality of the sciences and practical arts. The conceet of social and economic mobility and the vision of the Western empires were assured by finerican Ceoocracy. Society favored Jefferson's equality: the right of every person to an equal opportunity to the worth and dignity of the individual as a human being and equal representation before the law ’as the cornerstone of America‘s ideal of democracy. Thus, societies rejection of education for the elite and support of the sciences and practical arts resulted in the passage of the Merrill Act of 1862. The reader is cognizant that the Merrill Act was the keystone in 2“Bernice Holfson. 93. 53". 23 the develooment of our land grant institutions of higher learning. The Act also had several consequences for vocational technical education. namely: (l) a liberal and practical education was prescribed; (2) the doors of higher education were Open to a wider public; (3) agriculture and mechanical arts were given important status and (4) the social efficiency of vocational education was proven to a "show me" peOple.25 Thus. a major redirection in the pattern of American education resulted. These land grant institutions led the way for vocational education and soon developed into the highly skilled and professional areas. thus. leaving a vacuum at the middle vocational level of preparation. The secondary schools were the logical place to develoo these middle-level skills. However. this was not to be a reality for some time. Politics. pedagogy and the pressures of tradition prevented this from becoming a reality. The pressure for these middle-level skills continued to develOp. and finally society demanded that it be filled by the secondary schools. The traditional thinking of the prevalent educators was again broken by Federal legislation that resulted in Congress enacting the Smith-Hughes Act of l9l7. a) Agtgcedent g§3§:g_gggggg§_figtggg, The antecedent of the super- vised fann training program of students enrolled in vocational agriculture that was provided for in the Smith-Hughes Act was an outgrowth of the early dormitory agriculture schools. The first school approved and supported by state funds was Smith's Agriculture School. established in l908 at Northampton. Massachusetts. The trustees purchased a farm. equipped 25Grant Venn. Man. Education and Work (Washington. D.C.: American Council on Education.'T§B47. p:“35. 24 it and put it into operation. The concept of boys living in a donnitory and studying school- fann problems never materialized. The new director. Rufus H. Stimson. favored a home project method. and he succeeded in securing permission to disooee of schooleowned livestock. Stimson had related to the trustees: Boys were coming in the morning from home farms bristling with dairy farm probiems. and returning to those farms in the afternoon, and that he did not want them or theiE6 instructors to be thinking for a moment about school- oxrcd cows timscn further alluded to the home—project as a means of per- sonalizing instruction in vocatietal agriculture in the Eleventh 133:7 112.11....0f .122. 32:12:}. 5.1:. e ...-.1. 12:.» ...... 5.1::112‘: .12: 2......1. sum... observed that cooperative work between the school and the home farm is the most effective known means of trying out, under conditions of indi- vidual farms over widel y scattered areas, methods which have proven profitable elsewhere. Stimson gave examples, such as: vegetable gar- dening. flower gardening. growing general fann crops, dairying, horse farming, etc. as the general fields in which numerous projects might be found.27 Mr. C. A. Presser, Beauty Commissioner of Education in Massa- chusetts, and later secretary of the Natienal Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education, strongly supported the project method of indi- vidualizing instruction and was instrumental in the principles being incorporated into the Smith-Hughes Act. 26Rufus H. Stimson and Frank Lathrnp, Histor of agricultural fiducatim moi Less Than Colleee Grade in the t:;;:gg§tajrs. . S. f ice of Education,” 111111 Uwaij~Q sion. uui: -etin 2l7, figricuitural Service No. 55 (Nashington. D. C.: U. S. Govt. Printing Office, l942). pp. 582- 585. Z7Rufus v. Stimson. "Special Emphasis on Part-Time Agriculture" (Chicago: Eleventh Yearbook of the hSSE. Part II, flgglggltural Education, ‘9]2). pp. 32-430 25 2. Personalizing Instruction 15_Production Agriculture. Vocational educators rejected the learning theories of the classical and theological educators, i.e., that education comes from man, books and their lectures, thus, ignoring nature. Rousseau had declared, I'Education comes to us from nature, from men, from things."28 Therefore, vocational educators put nature, applied sciences and land use into curriculums: thus a revolution in teaching objectives and methods of instruction resulted. Therefore, the tool, the farm, the cattle-pen would hold equal place in the curriculum of other disciplines. A teacher skilled in these disciplines would remain essential. As Aristotle had written: Men learn by doing and become builders by erecting houses, lyre players by practicing the lyre, and magistrates by making just and sagacious judgements. They must perform these functions as exper- ienced builders, lyre players, and iudges to do them, and should learn from the most proficient exemplars. ‘ “To fit for gainful employment" was the controlling purpose of the Smith-Hughes Act of l9l7. and the establishment of graduates in farming was the principal criterion for evaluation. Phipps notes that the state— ment of purposes, periodically prepared by committees appointed by the Agricultural Education Division of the American Vocational Association in tOoperation with the Agricultural Education Service, U. S. Office of Educa- tion, in publications issued in l93l, l938, l940 and l955 differ mainly in description.30 Consequently, the State Plans require that each student preparing to farm carry out a planned supervised farming program on the 28Allan Nevins, The Ori in of the Landnerant Colleges and State Universities (Hashington, D. 5.: ”Civil""ar Commi351on, 19377,“ p. l3. 291bid.. 9. l7. 3°Lloyd Phipps. Handbook on A1ricultural Education in Public Schools (Dansville, Ill.: the In.er5Lcte r717373 and ”FMBTTEners,'Tnc., [Jo 55. p. i 3. 26 home farm. The basic educational philOSOphy of vocational education is: learn by doing. This philosophy has resulted in teachers of vocational agriculture individualizing the curriculum, i.e., curriculums that are based on a cross-section of the knowledge and skills needed to efficiently produce the agricultural commodities and to perform related activities in the planned supervised farming programs of students in a particular class. Also, vocational agriculture teachers individualize instruction for each student. namely: (l) visiting prospective ninth grade students and parents, (2) planned supervised farming program, (3) supervised study programs during regular class periods, (4) teacher visits to the home farm and (5) conferences with individual students. The teacher of vocational agriculture will visit prospective ninth grade students during the summer near the starting of school. The teacher will discuss the purposes and objectives of vocational agriculture in the local school. the planned supervised farming program and leadership development through the activities of the Future Farmers of America organization with the prospective student and his parents. The approval of the parents generally means that the family expects to help the student advance toward becoming established in farming. Thus, the foundation has been laid for the possibility of a four-year individualized instructional program for the student. Individualized instruction is provided during regular class time through the supervised study periods. The students are encouraged to use the resources available within the vocational agriculture department to plan the supervised farming proqram, and the teacher of vocational agri- culture is available to give counsel and/or advice if needed. The student 27 may study bulletins, books, farm magazines, father-son agreements, market reports. analyze soil from the home farm, adjust and/or repair a tool. perform a seed germination test and gather any information that will assist him in making a managerial decision relating to his individ- ualized planned supervised farming program. This phase of instruction is of particular importance for students whose supervised farming program differs from the cross-section of agricultural enterprises within the community. Periodically, the teacher of vocational agriculture further individualizes the instruction through teacher-student conferences during regular school hours or through home-farm visits to the student. The instruction will vary depending on the nature of the conference or farm visit. Examples of some purposes are: (l) discuss father-son agreements. (2) discuss securing capital to expand supervised farming program. (3) consulting on managerial decisions related to the supervised fanning program. (4) a farm visit to observe a livestock or crop project or to keep parents infonmed of student progress ... (n) any problem per- taining to becoming established in farming. Stevens illustrates the standard pattern of individual program planning as follows: (1) a small start in a major livestock or crop production enterprise is made the first year, and increases each suc- ceeding year by means of natural livestock increase or reinvestment of earnings; (2) a wise selection of an additional enterprise each year broadens the scape of the student's program as Justified by his advance in knowledge. skill and maturity; (3) acceptance of responsibility by the student for essential conservation. mechanization, automation. con- struction. record keeping. or reorganization activities on the farm and 28 (4) achievement of a status which involves an equity in the entire home farm family business (partnership agreement or corporation member- ship.31 Thus. teachers of vocational agriculture perfected one of the most effective methods of personalizing instruction in agriculture for students whose vocational objective was to become established in the business of farming. The financial statements and leadership accomplish- ments of the many State and American Farmer recipients substantiate the effectiveness of this method. The declining rural population, decrease in the number of farms, increase in size of farms and the increased need for agribusiness and services indicated a need for broadening the agriculture curriculum.32 3. Individualized Instruction for Off-Farm Agricultural Qgcupations. The Vocational Education Act of 1963 expanded the purposes and objectives of vocational agriculture. In addition to develOping competencies for persons preparing to engage in agriculture production, competencies needed by individuals engaged in or preparing to engage in (off-farm) agricultural occupations other than agricultural production have been added.33 Consequently, we have a iarge number of high school students 3‘Glenn Stevens, Arricu tural 'd-rntion (New York: The Center for oaaqh. m '- Applied Research in Education, inc.. lab”), p3. 55- 56. 32Hnnroweg.ggyort 0f the Freeidnrt United States Department of Labor (NaSi‘nq cn.0 0 L.: -Tnembnitud States Government Printing Office, 33gggectives for Vocational and T5chnical Education £2 Agriculture. U. 5. Office 0? E oucation ou.sccsn .sao no. 3 \aasnington, C.: United' States Government Printing Office l9Eg). p.4 . 29 who do not live on fanms and do not plan to engage in production agrio culture. They do, however, plan to engage in one of the specialized business and services that furnish input to farms or perform some function in the processing or marketing of farm products. Thus, students may be enrolled in the some classes with different vocational objectives. Individualized instruction is provided through planned occupational experiences through employment in an off-farm agricultural business. The employment 3 part-time and usually performed during some hours of the regular school day. The planned occupational experience may be performed on a farm other than a fann operated by the student‘s parents; the employ- ment arrangement may be similar to the wage experience in off-fann agri- cultural business, or it may be quite similar to a home—farm planned supervised farming program. Stevens rates that teachers of agriculture have, over the past fifty years, developed highly effective procedures in c00perative education in situations where the farmer-parent is the ”employer” in this instructional relationship.34 Although cooperative education is highly effective in providing individualized instruction in off-farm businesses. it is not an effective model in all situations, for example: (l) students with different voca- tional objectives enrolled within the same class, (2) if there is diffi- culty in securing an adequate number and/or kinds of training stations and (3) concepts or skills that require less than a semester to master. Ohles succinctly summarized the situation when citing the prin- ciples of differentiated learning: the varying needs beg for attention: it is not possible to meet the needs in one group: the answer lies in a 34Glenn Stevens. 22,.gig,. p. Sl. 30 method for selective instruction; and from differentiated instruction, needs will be more satisfactorily reconciled. Ohles concluded by indi- cating that if differentiated teaching is not the answer, we may turn to differentiated learning. This is a division of instruction within the classroom rather than mere division of the total instruction. Differ- entiated learning does not rule out or group separation of intellectuals-- in fact, it is relatively unconcerned with the range within a class. The goal is separate learning experiences rather than separating pupils into groups. Implicitly, the process is for learning not for teaching. dif- ferentiated learning concealed by individual differences.35 There are probably many approaches that will provide adequate instruction for the situations mentioned above. One method is the development of individualized instructional units that are capable of allowing students develop the necessary skills and/or concepts. Todd and Stevens indicate that new patterns of individualized instruction, as well as course scheduling should be devised and tested.36' 37 The figggg:gg_figgggt_gj_the Egesident indicates that one of the methods of strengthening education is to broaden the curriculum to increase appeal to students. Also to make a wider adoption of improved teaching techniques would strengthen education.38 35John Ohles, "Differentiated Learning,“ Education, LXXII (March, l962). pp. 396-398. 36John Todd, ”A Course Combining Production and Industry Agri- culture." Agricultural Education_§§332ine, XXXIX (Feb.. l967), pp. 186-87. 37Stevens, go. sit... p. 52. 3Wmetmflcssmsst. 92. 533.. p. 115. 31 a) Michigan §_t3_t_e_ University Wig Individualized Mg- 5125, Michigan State University provided the leadership in develOping one of the early models for individualizing instruction for agribusiness and service occupations. The first of twelve units developed at Michigan State University was presented and distributed by Clark at the Central States Seminar held in Chicago during February l968.39 This is a manual for students. The paradigm is as follows: [fi— UNIT - TITLE I J BEHAVIORAL ' TEXT - MANUAL ‘ VISUALS: OBJECTIVES TAPE Slides } REFERENCES , Specimens Pictures 1 H H Video - tape Charts Resource Persons Field Trips EVALUATION OCCUPATIONAL LABORATORY AND I EXPERIENCE FIELD DEMONSTRA- Plans TIONS, EXPERIMENTS, * Performance TRIALS This study is based on developing a similar individualized instruc- tional unit and evaluating the effectiveness of the individualized instruc- tional unit with the lecture-discussion method, as measured by student achievement. 39Raywond Clark and Halter HcCarley,‘g_Pattern for Individualizing_ Instruction 12_Vocational A riculture Classes: Grain Sam lTfi' and'GradTn EEESI [3nsing.)fl1cfiigan: cailege o? E ucation, Hicfiigan gtate UETVerSiEy. e ruary. 968 . 32 (1) 11153313 91 the Teacher. The role of the teacher in this system’is more critical than when he is in front of the classroom asking questions. judging answers for conformity to the text and leading discussion. The teacher becomes the leader. suggesting activities and procedures to help each student to learn. He is free to move about, help- ing individual student through difficult situations. stimulating others to greater achievement and suggesting areas for further study to others. Thus. he becomes the facilitator and manipulator of the learning environment. He may make suggestions that students. individually or as a small group, make contacts in the community, arrange for resource per- sons to visit the class or arrange to participate in a learning activity outside of the classroom. The teacher must be actively involved in students' outside activities, making certain that the school-community relationships are maintained. The teacher-pupil learning relationship, role of the teacher and objective of this unit was succinctly stated by Sedgwick when he observed that the student with the assistance of the instructor selects a partic- ular instructional package in his individual learning program and takes a pretest based on behavioral objectives in the instructional package. If the pretest indicates that he is ready, he completes the materials in the instructional package. Next he administers a self-test to determine if he is ready for teacher evaluation. If a student's pretest indicates mastery of that unit. he can skip it in favor of another unit or proceed on to independent study where he defines the problem, sets his goals and carries out the study to achieve some level of solution to the problem. The instructor's role is monitoring each student's progress, diagnosing 33 learning problems and evaluating student's progress in achieving stated behavioral objectives.4o E. Related Research l. General Education. In reviewing research it became quite evident that the boundaries of individual instruction. individual differences. programed instruction and instructional techniques are in need of clarification. Most of the research deals with either presentation variables. namely: prompting or conformation. branch pacing. size of step. machine vs. text. programed television, etc.; or it deals with response modes. namely: overt vs. convert. multiple choice vs. constructed response. etc. Others are concerned with individual differences. namely: the slow learner. accelerated learner. deaf. emotionally disturbed. etc. Among the remaining experiments are a considerable number of evaluative tests. that seek to compare the amount of learning from pragrams with the amount of learning from conventional classroom teaching of the same subject. Educational psychologists have conducted a sufficient amount of research so that they are able to describe the characteristics of a quality program. They have proven that many kinds of students learn from such programs. namely: college. high school. junior high. primary. pre- school. adults. deaf. retarded. laborers. clerical. military. etc. Also. they have established that students learn such subjects as: math. science. English. spelling. electronics. psychology. statistics. reading. instru- ment flying rules. etc. 4oLarry Sedgwick. “Teacher Education for the American Industry Project”‘jbeveloning.Ingggatjzg_!g§3ticnal Technical Education Programs. (2d,) Mary Klauréfi§'(fiinneapolis: 'nesearch"fooroinating.Unit in Occupa- tional Education. Univ. of Minn.. lgoa). pp. 59-60. 34 Research indicates that for almost any kind of subject and for almost any kind of student a considerable amount of learning can be derived from individualized instruction; this learning has been measured by pretest and posttest or time required or number of trials needed to reach a predetermined criterion of performance. But the question. how well do students learn from individualized instruction as compared to how well they learn from other kinds of instruction. can not be answered with any degree of confidence.41 Schramm tabulated thirty-six studies that compared the effective- ness of programed instruction with conventional classroom instruction. These studies were conducted in colleges. in secondary. in primary. with adults and with retarded children. The results indicated that eighteen showed no significant difference when the two groups were measured on the same criterion. Seventeen showed a significant difference in favor of students in the programed instructional group. and one indicated a superiority for students in the conventional classroom.42 2. Individualized Instruction 12_Agricultural Education. In review- ing related research in agricultural education. the following studies relate directly or indirectly to this study. 4Iiuialter Schramm. The Research on Programmed Igstruction: An. Annotated Biblioorapgy, Unitéd”§t§?e$ U?fice of'Education.‘BuTletin a 0. 5 (gashington. D. C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1964). pp. 1'50 ‘Zlbid. 35 Studies by Legg43 McClay and Hull44 evaluated the effectiveness of lecture-discussion with programed instruction for teaching farm credit. Each reported a statistical significance for the lecture-discussion method. Student exposure to the two variables was not constant. The lecture-discussion group received twelve hours of classroom instruction. and the programed instruction group received only five hours of instruc- tion. This writer wonders if there would have been any difference in the results if the instructional time had been constant for the two groups. Hull45 develOped and tested a factor analysis procedure for self- sequencing instructional materials pertaining to concept attainment of human relations abilities. The first phase of the study involved student responses to self-instructional books that were randomly sequenced and then factor analyzed to generate a psychological sequence of concepts. The second phase of the study was the psychological sequence of concepts compared to random sequence. Hull's results indicated no significant difference in the resulting criterion scores. Zarraga46 developed two types of programed instructional material ‘3Otto P. Legg. ”Programmed-Instruction and Lecture-Discussion Methods Compared for Effectiveness in Teaching Agricultural Finance to Vocational Agriculture Students" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. l962). “David R. McClay and William Lee Hull. "A Comparison of Pro- grammed and Lecture-Discussion Methods -- Teaching Farm Credit to High School Youth and Adults“ (unpublished Staff Study. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. l964). ERIC. Spring. T968. ‘5Hilliam Lee Hull. ”A Procedure for Sequencing Self-Instructional Materials for Concept Attainment of Human Relations Abilities in Agri- cultural Business Occupations' (unpublished Doctor's dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. l965). 46Jose Cruz Zarraga. "The Development and Experimental Trials of 36 in farm business management. These progr-s were evaluated by carparing their effectiveness in five high schools. The instructional time was held constant. and Zarraga reported no significant difference in the program. However. he reported the program with review examinations was slightly better but not significant. Ehreslaan“7 evaluated the effectiveness of providing teachers in the experimental group a structured unit designed to assist teachers in organizing and teaching a unit on coooeratives. and teachers in the control group were denied the unit. The pretest and posttest scores resulted in no simificant difference between the groups. Hannealann48 evaluated the effectiveness of a progrmaed instruc- tional booklet designed to teach parliaaentary procedure. A posttest only design. with experimental and control groups. was used. A criterion exuination was administered to both groups. The results indicated the programed instructional unit was significant at the .01 level. Hull‘9 and Zarraga'jo studies evaluated two methods of presenting- concepts to students. Ehresmans‘ and Hannemannsz evaluated a method of ProgranIIed Training Materials in Teaching Farm Business Management to Voca- tional Agriculture Students” (unpublished Doctor's dissertat on. llliversity of Minnesota. Minneapolis. l963). "Norman D. Ehresman. “An Experimental Study to Evaluate the Effec- ti veness of Certain Structured Teaching Materials” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation. wiversity of Illinois. Urbana. 1966). “James H. Hannemann. “The Effectiveness of Teaching Parliamentary Procedure through the Use of Programaed Instruction“ (unpublished Master's thesis. Cornell University. Ithaca. Mew York. 1964). ”Hull. 19;. _c_i_t_. 5°Zarraga. lo_c_. git. S‘Ehrasman. _l_g_g. gig. 52armies u. Hannemann. ”The Effect of Auditory and Visual Motion Picture Descriptive Modalities in Teaching Perceptual-Motor Skills Used in the Grading of Cereal Grain“ (unpublis ed Doctor's dissertation. 37 presenting concepts or structuring a course that was withheld from the control group. LeggS3 and McClay and Hull54 evaluated the lec- ture‘discussion method with a programed book of equivalent materials. Each of these studies fecused on method of teaching. and no reference was made to vocational interest and/or objectives of students within each class. A statement by the Joint Project on the Individual and the School emphasized that conformity in individualized instruction may igrore specie! interests of students: Individuaiized instructional methods often provide for rates of soeed oorrcrr‘ate to the individual. This is not unimportant; pace may be hiohiy irrortant. But speed should not be confused with other out ior etfocts of individual differences. In fact. individ- ueTiZed instruction often forces all students through the same doors with a rigidity and an emohasis on conformity that ignore special aptitude and destroy uniooeoess. This is not to say that various methods of individualized instruction are inherently restrictive. It is only to remind us "that a system" of such teaching does not guarantee respect aod‘care for the individual and his particular capacities.39 F. Conclusions Qraen from Review of Literature The concept of individual differences is a century old idea. America's secondary schools were estaoiished on Jefferson's democratic ideal of equality of education and the worth and dignity of each individ- ual. Hess education tends to equate equality of education with identity of Opportunity. Hichigan State University. East Lansing. l968). 53Legg. jog. £5.33.- 54McClay and Hull. Log. fit. 55A Climate for Individuality. A Statement of the Joint Project on IndividUaTity ideshihgton. 0.6.: onerican Association of School Admini- strators. Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment. National Association of Secondary School Principals and USA Department of Rural Education. l965). 38 Vocational educators introduced and refined the highly effective home-project method of personalized instruction in situations where the farmerbparent is the “employer.” and the student's vocational objective is to become established in farming. The Vocational Education Act of 1963 broadened the curriculum horizontally to include not only girls but persons preparing for an off-farm occupation and vertically to include out of school youth and adults interested in off-farm occupations. The coooerative program personalizes the instruction in situations where agribusiness owners are -_the employer, and the student’s vocational objective is an agricultural occupation other than production agriculture. However, there are numer- ous situations where cooperative education is not feasible or practical. ‘ Most educational research labeled "Programed Instruction" deals with varying the stimulus-response. The number of studies that compare "the'effectiveness of programed or individualized instruction to another method of teaching is reiatively few. In vocational agriculture. Legg56 and McClay and Hull57 evaluated the effectiveness of lecture-discussion with programed materials. Hull58 and Zarraga59 61 varied the stimulus. and 'Ehresmanso and Hannemann compared treatment to no treatment. Hamilton62 identified students with special needs. Varying the stimulus-response in programed units provides allow- ances for student variation due to rate of learning and reading compre- ' “Logo. 195. 51;. 57mm” and Hull. 195. _c_1_t_. 53mm, 135. gig. 592arraga. jog. gig. 6°Ehresman. log. 51;. 6Il-lannemann, _l_9_c_. 531. szames B. hamilton. “Youth with Special needs in Non-Metropolitan Ohio High Schools” (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The Ohio State University. Colunbus, l967). 39 hension. It is not. however, personalized instruction adjusted to the student, which means it may sometimes be individualized or it may be in a group. sometimes including every student in class. It indicates that the individuality of the student is considered, without requiring him to adjust to the interest and rate of learning of other students within the class. This study is based on evaluating an individualized instructional unit designed to personalize instruction in vocational agriculture classes. CRAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE This chapter deals with research design. description and means by which data were obtained and methods of procedure that were used to analyze the data. The chapter is organized to include discussions on the following: (l) research design. (2) selection of teachers and departments of vocational agriculture. (3) instrumentation and equip- ment. (4) data gatheringand procedure. (5) analysis of data and (6) limitations of the study. A. Research 2.92129. The researcher contacted professionals in the Educational Research Department. College of Education. Michigan State University. and explained the purposes and objectives of the study and that the study would be limited to four schools. Based on the purposes. objectives and limitations of the study. research professionals recommended the research design shown in Table I. This design indicates that the sample size for each teaching method should be equal to or greater than thirty-two. thus. resulting in total sample size that is equal to or greater than sixty-four. Each teacher will teach one class using the lecture-discussion method and the remaining class using the individualized instructional method. thus distributing teacher variable equally between methods of instruction. 40 4l Table I. Research design for gathering data to compare the effectiveness of individualized instructional method with the lecture- discussion method Individualized Lecture- School Instruction ' Discussion A Seniors Juniors B Seniors Juniors C Juniors Seniors 0 Juniors Seniors n12.32 7:22.32 N c.6d Classes were randomly assigned to teaching method. i.e.. the senior classes of the first two schools randomly selected. and the junior classes of the remaining two schools were assigned to the individualized instructional method. thus equally distributing student variation due to grade classification. This resulted in each instructional group being composed of two classes of senior and two classes of juniors. Students in each teaching method were administered a pretest and posttest. agricul- tural interest survey and personality inventory; also. student's academic rank in class was secured. The pretest and posttest scores for schools in each teaching method were collapsed. thus pooling teacher variable and eliminating the com- parison of teachers and/or schools. Consequently. variation in student achievement in each teaching method may be statistically treated. The variation in student achievement was analyzed for statistical significance for each teaching method as follows: (l) student achievement on gain scores for pretest and paper and pencil posttest. (2) student achievement 42 on paper and pencil posttest and (3) student achievement on assigning numerical grades posttest. Next. students in each teaching method were blocked on high. medium and low academic rank. based on total number of students in the grade classification for each school. Students' posttest scores for each teaching method were blocked into high. medium and low. based on the range of scores and total number of students; also. the mean personality percentile rank was calculated for each level. The final phase of the research design was a workshop for cooperat- ing teachers under the direction of the researcher. The workshoo was held Jaruary l6. l959. at Michigan State University. Three of the four cooperating teachers attended the workshop. Mimeographed instructions (see Appendix D) were distributed and discussed. and the dates that each school would have the lahoratbry eouipment and teaching materials were finalized. The researcher visited the coooerating teacher who was unable to attend the workshoo and discussed the mimeographed instructions. B. Selection gj_Teachers 535 Departments In order to secure data that would be relevant to the purposes and objectives of this study. the criteria for selecting teachers and depart- ments were as follows: (I) type of grain farming in the community. (2) importance of agriculture in the community. (3) separate classes scheduled for juniors and seniors. (4) students had not been taught grain grading and (5) willingness of vocational agriculture teacher to participate in the study. Through consulting the records in the Vocational Education Division of Michigan Department of Public Education and with the assistance from the doctoral committee chairman and others. a list of eleven schools in central 43 Michigan were selected. The researcher visited eight teachers in the home school. validated the accuracy of information researcher had gathered on schools in terms of selection criteria and presented the teacher with a brief overview of the study. The teacher responded indicating his interest in participating in the study and his willingness to attend the workshop. The teachers in the schools visited were enthusiastic about participating in the study; however. the researcher possessed some invalid data on four schools in terms of the selection criteria. This procedure resulted in the selection of the fellowing four Michigan high schools: Merrill. Ovid-Elsie. Lakewood and Maple Valley. Random assignment of classes to teaching method resulted in the following class and student distribution: Individualizeg_Instruction Lecture-Discussion 2:22.}. A Seniors ll Juniors 27 8 Seniors 26 Juniors 20 C Juniors l5 Seniors 15 D Juniors 39. Seniors lg Total 62 Total 76 C. Instrumentation and Eeuiement .1 mam-u. was In order to secure relevant data. several instruments and grain samples were prepared and laboratory equipment was assembled. Some of these items were used by both teaching methods. others for either the individualized instructional method or the lecture-discussion method. l. Instrumentsamggujpnent for _8__9_t_h_ Teaching Pethods. A sixteen- question pretest (see Appendix A-l) with 2l6 total possible points that measures the student's knowledge of procedures used to determine test weight. moisture. broken corn and foreign material and damaged kernels 44 and to interpret the resulting information in terms of numerical grade to corn was prepared by the researcher. A posttest (see Appendix B-l) with 45l total possible points with two parts: (A) paper and pencil test with 225 total possible points and (B) assigning numerical grades to two samples with 226 total possible points was prepared by the researcher. The paper and pencil pretest measures the same grade determining factors mentioned above. The performance posttest. assigning numerical grades to two samples of corn. measures the student's ability to perform grade detenmining factors in the laboratory and to interpret the results in tenns of assigning numerical grades to corn. The researcher prepared sixty two-quart samples of corn for students use during the instruction-laboratory exercise phase of the study. Number two yellow corn was purchased. and two quarts were measured and placed in cloth sample bags. Thirty bags were assigned Number One and thirty bags assigned number Two. In each Number Two sample. forty- seven grams of damaged kernels were added. Another sixty l l/8 quart samples were prepared using grain samples secured from the Crop Science Department. Michigan State University. These samples were placed in cloth sample bags and assigned numbers loo-160. A moisture test revealed that the percent moisture in both the practice-exercise samples (No.'s l and 2) and posttest samples (No.'s lOO-l60) was lower than desirable for moisture test instructional pur- poses. Consequently. an additional unnumbered sixty practice samples of 350 grams each were prepared from the current season corn crop. These saples were placed in moisture-proof bags to prevent the moisture content frm changing while being stored in the heated classrooms. 45 The laboratory equipment assembled and made available for each school is as follows: one test weight per bushel tester. one Boerner divider. one moisture tester. four gram scales. four l2/64 inch corn sieves and one Steinlite moisture tester. 2. instruments andéor‘gguigggnt f2:_1ndividualizeg_Instructional Method. Using the Pattern £25.1ndividualized Instruction 12.29cationa1 Agriculture Classes: Grain Seaplinq 329_Grading. developed by Clark and HcCarley.63 the researcher wrote a forty-six page student guidebook. flg_lndi::de3lized Instruction Unit for Assigning_Numerical Grades‘tg Corn.64 The unit is composed of four lessons and a review exercise: Lesson One - Determining Test Height Per Bushel Lesson Two - Making the Moisture Test Lesson Three - Analyzing for Broken Corn and Foreign Material Lesson Four - Dereged Kernels Review Exercise - Interpreting and Applying Grain Grading Factors Each lesson is divided into six steps. as follows: A. Importance of the Grain Grading Factor What You will Learn from This Lesson . Text Material Visuals . Review and Application . Laboratory Exercise ‘HNOOW 0 Dr. Lawrence Capeland. Crep Science Department. Michigan State University. read the unit for technical accuracy. Then corrections were made as recommended. and the unit was typed on stencils and mimeographed. Next. it was assembled in booklet form. 63Raymond Clark and Halter McCarley. A Pattern for Individualized Instructien in Vocational Agriculture Classes: rain amolin anderad: 5% (East Lansing. Michigan: College 71735ation.oi Hic gan tate Univer- y). February. l968. 64Raymond Clark and Halter McCarley. An Individualized Instruction Unit for Assigning“ numerical Grades to Corn {East"Lansing.TMichigan: CETTege om pee on. whicnigan iSt ate uniyersity). June. l969. 46 The guidebook contains a student evaluation form based on Osgood's semantic differential scale.65 If you want to find out what something means to a person. you ask him. A verbally fluent student could adequately express his feelings. A less fluent student would encounter difficulty. In either case. recording and reporting responses would be an insurmountable task. In preparing a semantic differential scale. Osgood cites the following principles: (a) a carefully devised sample of alternative verbal responses which can be standard across subjects. (h) these alternatives should be drawn from the subject rather than emitted so that the verbal fluency is eliminated as a variable and (c) these alternatives are to be representative of the major ways in which meanings vary. The selection of successive alternatives grad- ually eliminates the uncertainty as to the concept being thought about. To increase the sensitivity of the instrument. we may insert a scale between each pair of terms so that the subject can indicate both the direction and the intensity of each judgment.55 (See Appendix E) The individualized instructional unit required thirty-five 2 x 2 grain grading slides for student viewing. The slides were assembled from several sources. namely: Michigan State University. Kansas State Univer— sity and slides prepared by the researcher. Four Sawyer projector- viewers were purchased for students use. 3. instruments Mm mmmtecturemiscussion m. In order to structure the lecture-discussion presentation with equivalent 65Charles Osgood. George Suci and Percy Tannenbaum. The Measure- ment'gfi'fleaning (Urbano: Univ. of Ill. Press. l957). pp. 733T? . 661bid.. pp. 19-20. 47 materials. the researcher prepared lesson plans and transparencies (see Appendix C) of the technical information and review and application exercises included in the individualized instructional unit. Corn kernel damage specimens were secured from the Crop Science Oepar nent. Michigan State University. They were as follows: Blue-eyed meld damage. cob-rot damage. mold damage. heat-damaged kernels. discolor- ation not heat damage. drier damage. ground and weather damage. sprout damage. insect damage and cracked corn and foreign material. One hundred copies of Official Graig_Standards gj;thg.United State567 were secured from the United States Government Printing Office. Washington. D. C. Each student in the lecture—discussion method was given a personal copy. D. Data gathering agg_Prccedure Thirteen days per school were required to gather the data. namely: one day for pretest. eight days for instruction. two days for posttest. one day to administer Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inven- tory68 and one day to administer Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.69 The researcher delivered the laboratory. instructional materials and instruments to be administered (except pretest which was distributed at the cupperating teachers' workshOp. January l6. l969) to the first school on January 24. l969 and returned two weeks later to retrieve the 57Official Grain Standards of the United States (Washington. 0. c.: U. S. Govt Frinting’Office. i964. 68R. H. Halker. 6. 2. Stevens and N. K. Hoover. Pennsylvania Voca- tional Agriculture Interest Inventor (University Park. Penn. Teacher Educa- tion Series. Dept. o griculture Education. 1963) ). 69The Guilford-Zirmerman Tennerament Survey (Beverly Hills. Calif. The SheriHEE'Supply'Uompany. 94%;. 48 unit. This procedure was repeated three times. The pretest was administered prior to the start of class instruc- tion. Each class received eight hours of instructional time. and each class was permitted two hours to complete the posttest. The pretest and paper and pencil_posttest papers were graded by the researcher. and the resulting scores and student responses to the semantic differential scale recorded. To determine the student's academic rank in class. based on total number in the school for the grade classification. the cooperating teacher presented the counselor with a prepared list of students in each class. The counselor calculated the students' academic rank and rated them as follows: (1) High - top one-third of the class. (2) Medium - middle one-third of the class and (3) Low - bottom one-third of the class. This information was fonwarded to the researcher and recorded. To measure the student's interest in agriculture. the Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventory was administered by the coop- erating teacher. This test is composed of seventy-five forced choice answers. Students recorded responses on an IBM-type answer sheet. The descriptive manual accompanying the test indicates that the test measures interest in agriculture for farm and non-farm students.70 The answer sheets were forwarded to the researcher. hand scored and raw scores recorded. Students were then rated as follows: (l) High interest - raw scores of 66 and above. (2) Medium interest . raw scores of 43 to 65 and (3) Low interest - raw scores of 42 and below: raw score conversion table was develOped by Pennsylvania State University. 7°Halker. Stevens and Hoover. loc. it. w“ 49 Student's personality was assessed with the Guilford-Zimmerman Teaperament Survey which has ten scores. namely: (1) inactive to general activity. (2) impulsiveness to restraint. (3) submissiveness to ascend- ance. (4) shyness to social interest. (5) emotional instability to emotional stability. (6) subjectiveness to objectiveness. (7) hostility to friendliness. (8) unreflective to reflective. (9) intolerance to cooperativeness and (TO) femininity to masculinity. Students recorded reSponses to the 273 forced choice questions on an IBM-type answer sheet. The researcher hand scored the answer sheets. converted raw scores to percentile rank and recorded the resulting information. An attempt was made to determine teacher consistency in following the directions given by the researcher at the workshop. One lecture- discussion lesson and one individualized instruction lesson was to be tape recorded. The copperating teachers selected the moisture lesson for each method of instruction to tape record. The researcher listened to the recordings in an attempt to identify variation in presentation of the lecture-discussion lesson and in an attempt to determine the extent of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil interaction in the individualized instructional method. At the conclusion of the instructional phase of the study. numer- ical grades were assigned to the sixty posttest grain samples by Dr. Herbert Pettigrove. CrOp Science Department. Michigan State University. Student achievement in analyzing grade determining factor and assigning numerical grades on posttest papers were scored and recorded. The maximum number of points for each grade determining factor and points for assigning numerical grade on the assigning numerical grade posttest were determined 50 (see Appendix 8-3) as recommended by Dr. Lawrence Capeland. Crop Science Department. Michigan State University. E. Analvsis 2131:; The resulting data. i.e.. pretest and posttest scores. agriculture interest scores. academic rank in class. student personality scores and student responses to the semantic differential scale. were recorded on Michigan State University Computer Laberatory-Data Coding Form. These data were key punched on IBM cards and verified by Michigan State Univer- sity Cemputer Center. The researcher retained the services of research specialists in the Educational Research Department. College of Education. Michigan State University. to write the computer program to analyze the data. The Mich- igan State University Agricultural Experiment Station analysis of variance program was used for statistical treatment of data. The IBM cards were run through the 3600 computer at Michigan State University. and a computer program was written to analyze the data as follows. A one way analysis of variance was used to test the difference in the mean scores of student achievement between each method of teaching.71 namely: (l) difference in the mean gain scores between the pretest and paper and pencil posttest (2) difference in the mean scores between paper and pencil posttest. i.e.. by total. test weight. moisture. broken corn and foreign material. damaged kernels and interpretation scores. (3) difference in the mean scores between assigning numerical grade posttest and (4) dif- ference in the mean scores between total posttest. 71Allen Edwards. Experimental Desi n in P5 chol ical Research. (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winstbn.'.' )T'pp. Il7-i33. 5] A two by three analysis of variance test was used to test the difference in the mean scores of student posttest achievement between each method of teaching.72 student academic rank and student interest in agriculture. To construct a student personality profile. the total posttest scores were tabulated into high. medium and low based on range for each method of instruction and total number of scores for each method of instruction. This resulted in a distribution as follows: Ingiziggalized Lecture- Pesttest Score Tnstructleg_ Discpssion High 311 - 420 220 - 380 Medium 25] - Bio 166 - 219 Low 86 - 250 36 - 165 The mean percentile rank of each of the ten personality variables was calculated. and a personality profile for students ranked as high- medium-low on the posttest for each method of instruction was compiled and presented in tabular form (see Appendix F-l for profile chart). The resulting six mean percentile scores were analyzed by the analysis of variance test. This analysis revealed that the mean percentile scores of two of the personality variables were statistically different. The overall mean percentile of these two variables was calculated for each method of instruction and tested for significance at the .05 level using Scheffe's test.73 To further analyze student achievement variation. the mean scores 721bid.. pp. 175-201. 73Hilliam Hays. Statistics for Esychologists (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Hinston. Inc.. 1963). p. 484. 52 of paper and pencil posttest questions relating to each grade determining factor previously calculated are presented in a table and bar graph for each method of instruction. An analysis of student response on assigning numerical grade post- test was made by coding student reSponse for method of instruction and for each grade detevmining factor analyzed. The coding system developed is: l. No response for either sample , . No response for one sample. incorrect response for :ae sample No response for one sample. correct response for one sample Two correct responses for both samples . One correct response one sample. incorrect response one sample . Two incorrect responses for both samples. 050!wa o The total responses for each grade determining factor were recorded for method of instruction. and the percentile for each response was calculated. Student responses to the semantic differential scale were reCO“ded and the mean calculated for each reSponse. The resulting information was presented in tabular form. The researcher listened to the tape recordings of the moisture lesson in order to identify any auditory variation from the directions given at the workshop. F. Limitations pith; Study l. The scepe of this study will be limited to the students of the Junior and senior classes in the four schools participating in this study. 2. The findings of this study may be generalized.to the one hundred twenty-eight students and four teachers of vocational agriculture who participated in this study. 3. This study will also be limited to the extent to which the methodology of this unit adheres to the theoretical construct for individ- ualized instruction. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The data collected and analyzed by the procedures described in Chapter III are presented in this chapter. Each objective stated in Chapter I is presented along with the data gathered to test it. A. Desqution 9: Sample by Methodsgi Instruction Teachers of vocational agriculture who cooperated in this study taught in rural high schools. It was assumed that students enrolled in these vocational agriculture classes were primarily farm youth and that their vocational objective was agricultural. i.e.. production agri- ’ culture and/or agriculture business or service. Also. it was assumed that students with different vocational objectives are enrolled in the same classes. To gather data relevant to these assumptions and relevant to size and types of farms. students completed an information form (see Appendix A-3). This information is presented in Tables II. III. IV and V. Table II shows that students in this study are primarily farm youth. Note that 33.3 percent of the parents are full-time farmers and 44.9 percent of the parents are part-time farmers. This results in 78.2 percent of the parents being full or part-time farmers. The table shows that l4.5 percent of the parents are non-farmers. Thus Table II validates the assumption that students enrolled in the vocational agriculture classes participating in this study are primarily farm youth. 53 54 Table II. Occupation of students' parents by individualized instruc- tional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and percent reporting _L_A _. .__ Individualized Lecture- Category Instruction Discussion Total Percent No Response 6 4 10 7.3 Full-time Farmer 25 2l 46 33.3 Part-time Farmer 28 34 62 44.9 Non-farmer 3 I7 20 l4.5 Total 62 76 I38 l00.0 A ._ -_ A ._ AA Table III shows that 55.9 percent of the students' parents Operate either a general farm or a grain farm. l0.l percent operate a dairy farm and 9.4 percent operate a livestock farm. This results in 76.8 percent of the students' parents Operating farms that are either producing grain or purchasing grain for feeding purposes. A knowledge of grain grading will contribute to student ability in making managerial decisions on marketing and/or purchasing grain. Table III. Type of farm Operated by students' parents by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and percent reporting Category Individualized Lecture- Instruction Discussion Total Percent No Response 5 7 12 8.7 Grain 25 I7 42 30.5 Livestock 8 5 13 9.4 Fruit 0 2 2 1.4 General l4 2l 35 25.4 Dairy 6 8 l4 lO.l None 4 l6 20 l4.5 Total . 62 76 138 100.0 55 Table IV shows that 43.6 percent of the students reside on farms 160 acres or larger. 32.5 percent reside on farms l60 acres or less and .7 percent reside in town but farm. The reader is cognizant that the size Of farms is increasing and the number of farms is declining. bLarge commercial farms have been growing in number and accounting for ever- larger proportion of the agricultural output. As farms increase in size and as more farm Operations become mechanized. the cost of buying or Operating an economically productive farm becomes increasingly prohibitive for rural farm youth. Table IV. Size Of fanm on which student resides by individualized instruc- tional and lecture-discussion methods Of instruction and percent reporting Individualized Lecture- Category ‘Instruction Discussion Total Percent NO Response 5 7 12 8.7 Lives on Faun: l0 - 60 Acres 4 8 l2 8.7 61 - 80 Acres 7 7 l4 l0.l 8l - l59 Acres 9 lo l9 l3.7 I60 Acres or More 34 26 60 43.6 Rural lion-farms 2 l3 l5 10.7 City or Town l 4 5 3.8 Town and Farms 0 l l .7 Total 62 76 I38 l00.0 A study of Table V shows that 3l.9 percent of the students plan to enter production agriculture and that 35.6 percent plan to enter an agri- culture business occupation. Thus. 67.5 percent Of the students did have a vocational objective that was agricultural. This validates the assumption 56 that student vocational objective in this study was agricultural. Due to the trend in size and number Of farms. it is not likely that 3l.9 percent Of these students will become established in farming. This suggests that a greater percentage Of these students may focus their vocational objective on an agriculture service or business. Table V. Student occupational goal by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods Of instruction and percent reporting __‘_. H .— fi v—u- " A _. A ‘ ‘ - A—% A m - ..- ..i .4 ‘— Individualized Lecture- Category Instruction Discussion Total Percent NO ReSponse 5 8 l3 9.4 Plans to Farm 2l 23 44 3l.9 Plans to enter an Agri. Occupation 20 29 49 35.6 NO Agri. Plans 16 i6 32 23.1 Total 62 76 I38 100.0 B. Analysis 9:93—22:93... Objective 331993 The results of the analysis of variance test are presented in Tables VI. VII. VIII and IX. Each table shows the mean scores for the two methods of instruction. At the bottom of each table the total number Of student scores. the F statistic and the level of significance are reported. For example. Table VI should be read as follows: the mean score Of the individualized instructional method is l53.6l; the mean score Of the lecture-discussion method is l22.8l; the F/l22 is the number of student scores in the statistical analysis; the /F ll.4O is the F statistic calculated from the variance. and by referring the F statistic number to a point Of distribution table and using the appropriate degrees 57 of freedom. F ll.4O is significant at the .OOl level. Objective Number One was: to evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized instruction-laboratory method as compared to the lecture- discussion-laboratory method of instruction as measured by student achievement. One way analysis Of variance was used to test the hypotheses relating to Objective Number One. A statement Of each null hypothesis and the results of the analysis of variance test used. are as follows. Null Hypothesis Number One used to test Objective Number One was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on gain scores of the pretest and paper and pencil posttest Of the two methods of Iinstruction. Table VI shows the results Of the analysis Of variance test of the mean gain scores for the two methods Of instruction. One hundred twenty-two students took both pretest and paper and pencil posttest. The comparison Of the means shows that the individualized instructional method was better than the lecture-discussion method at the .OOl level of signif- icance. Table VI. Comparison of student gain scores of pretest and paper and pencil posttest (Part A only) by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction ...4 AA— __ AA _ _._; ‘_““A— M‘— Individualized Lecture Instruction Discussion Means l53.61 l22.8l — F7122 ‘ /F 11.4136" SignificarcomtevelJZO‘Ol44 I Null Hypothesis dumber Two used to tea. Objective Number One was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on total 58 posttest scores of the two methods of instruction. Table VII shows the results of the analysis of variance test of the posttest mean scores of the two methods of instruction. The comparison of the means shows that the individualized instructional method was better than the lecture- discussion method at the .0005 level of significance. Trble VII. Cow parison of student achievement on total posttest score (Partr A plus Part B) by individualized instructional and lec Md scissicn methods of instruction Individualized Lecture- Instruction Discussion Weans 263.09 198.91 “ F/ :22 /F 2l.60 Significance Level .0005 Null Hypothesis Number Three used to test Objective Number One was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper' and pencil posttest scores of the two methods of instruction. Table VIII shows the results of the analysis of variance test of the mean scores of the two methods of instruction. The six additional students previously accounted for were exposed to the respective methods of instruction and did take the paper and pencil posttest and are included in this analysis. The comparison of the means shows that the individualized instructional method was better than the lecture-discussion method at the .049 level of significance. 59 Table VIII. Comparison of student achievement on paper and pencil post- test (Part A only) by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction ___ ea================é==========s- ——4 r:;:======:=:==========: Individualized Lecture- Instruction Discussion .. Means . l7l.56 153.0l F/ l28 /F 3:96 Significance Levelh.009uu‘lh# Null Hypothesis Number Four used to test Objective Number One was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement in assign- ing numerical grades posttest of the two methods of instruction. Table Ix shows the results of the analysis of variance test of the mean scores of the two methods of instruction. There are one hundred twenty-two students with a numerical score for both the paper and pencil and assigning numer- ical grade posttest. The comparison of the means shows that the individ- ualized instructional method was better than the lecture-discussion method at the .0005 level of significance. Table IX. ConpariSon of student achievement on assigning numerical. grades posttest (?art 8 only) by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction A ._4 H AA ..__._. “##MAAA— A4 flAw T Individualized Lecture- Instruction Discussion Means 89.25 44.79 F/ l22 IF 29.87 Significance Level .0005 60 To analyze variation in student achievement by the two methods of instruction other than by statistical analysis. student total numerical score for test questions relating to each grade determining factor on the paper and pencil posttest (see Appendix 8-2) was recorded and mean scores calculated. Table x shows the mean scores for each grain grading factor. the methods of instruction and the total points assigned for questions relating to the Specific grain grading factor. This table is based on student scores previously analyzed and reported in Table VII. Figure l shows the mean scores for student achievement for each method of instruction. Note that the greatest apparent variation is in analyzing broken corn and foreign material. The next greatest apparent variation is in interpretation of grade determining factors in relation to assigning numerical grade. The least amount of apparent variation is in‘determining test weight and moisture. These variations are analyzed statistically later in this chapter and presented with the data for test:_“, ing objectives two and three. Table X. Student mean scores for paper and pencil posttest questions related to grade determining factors and total possible points by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction __- M A—‘MA‘ __ Major method Possible * Ma jor Method Possible Areas of of {Areas of of Posttest Instructiont Points Mean? .jPosttest Instruction* Points .Mean Test T: l 20 13.4, Damaged T:l 20 14.9 Height 1:2 20 12. iii Kerrie. s T: 2 M 20 10.8 Ebisture Tll' 35 20?: Heat T:l 20 14:2 ' T:Z guhOS 25. M .jplrod T:2 __ZO ll.2 Broken 1:1 26 2T2} rife-rZ'TT‘TJ 100 69.5 Corn a T:2 26 l6. l3 épretation T: 2 lOO 64.7 F. Hat. . “Tefal Til 2' TI: Damage 'T:Z Z L f ____ *Tzl - Individualized Instruction T:2 8 Lecture Discussion MEANS 61 1001 90~ 80~ . 69.5 70 64.7 604 50- mi 21.2 16.1 10314.9 11.214'2 ...: I] I: 1.5 L. Test Moisture Broken Total Damaged Heat Interpretation Weight Corn & Damaged Kernels Damaged Foreign Kernels Material GRADE DETERMINING FACTORS Figure 1. Student mean scores for paper and pencil posttest questions related to grade determining factors by individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction - Lecture-Discussion Individualized Instruction 62 To further analyze differences in the two methods of instruction in student achievement. student responses were coded and recorded as indicated in Chapter III for student achievement on performing the laboratory analysis for each grade determining factor and for the assign- ing of numerical grades part of the posttest. Tobie XI shows the tabulated results and percentile for each factor based on student responses previously analyzed in Table VIII. Table XI should be read as follows: for the grade determining factor, moisture, and for the lecture-dis.assion method, represented by T:2, five students (Column 1) gave no response for making the moisture determining analysis for either sample. These five students represent 6.9 percent of the seventy-one students in the lecturondiscussion method of instruction. Student variation on achievement becomes more apparent by carefully studying Columns 4. 5 and 6: these columns represent students who recorded two responses for each factor. Adding the moisture responses and percent- ages for these three columns results in the following: forty-seven students or 63.9 percent of the students in the individualized instruc- tional method and forty~six or 53.9 percent of the students in the lecture- discussion method recorded two responses for determining moisture. The number of student responses and the percentile for each method of instruction have been tabulated for Columns 4, S and 6. Figure 2 shows these results. Note that the least apparent variation is for determining test weight, moisture and analyzing for broken corn and foreign material. The greatest apparent variation is for determining heat damaged and damaged kernels. Table XI and Figure 2 show that the individualized instructional group tried harder.than the lecture-discussion group on performing the laboratory analysis for each grade determining factor and for the assigning of numerical grades part of the posttest. 63 :owwmsumwoamcsuumo u Nu» cowuuaeumCH vaVFuanv>wucm n _"»a 1111 1 11111 11 ii]! i} 1 ii N.o— N— m.w— Np m.N N m.NN oN m.m m N.mN —N N —.NF N o.~m mp w.m_ m _.N_ N N N. op m.m~ w _ . mmummm N... .32852 .» mcwcmwmm< 1| l‘fll‘flu‘biil‘rt‘hfr ’3‘”! IVE-.1" Dali”! - P we es . mgm om w2111m-.1.%mmiwa m a, ¢.NN -m_ m.m. m me _ o m.m_ m Ill llli I in {hi 1 L. n Initial-"labs 7.3.... . 1 i i 11 l i l v mfieflmmu ipimemUiH mcpcwscmueo .511 II‘ . i 4 {‘41} i Jenni 4 on °"‘ 0. o. F-h-i-l— PN . mile.” _ mun «N a. _ age MN unaHMHMMEEMm mN c. m m.o_ e :. aetecELaoaa .Tmemeeeo “mam 9:55.33 pmwcmumm cmvmeod a seam .cxm mcwmmpeeq o v .m. m N.p p N.oN N— o o m .w m i In» >9 i ill-LII. 1511.131‘. .5. n... . . .d‘i‘:i.1~.cllii\ \.U1uut.ni§l§difltfl u 11...). .. ...i ..u... ”‘35!!! m . — m.NN 0N T m ON Q Ch"! . N m. 9 .mp Ng o N m .MN N— m. .mv NN m P61 1 v—NEr—Nir—N r-e-J P-Fq 1 i i a m a o ma... N - 13.. m :uliweiiimiwamiifi mm; 111%.»... 1.- -..,amummmmm ... _ .... M. Z. : .-.- ...... -.. _ ... ... 1 :5 £55.... m.~ N ..m.m e «.mm .w s., _ m.N~ ow m.e m N e.. uememe both 5.. . ~.m m ..e. ma 0.0 o m.m_ m ~.m m .p.» meeeeeLoosu .. .1 ......1._...,.,._...... 1.1.... I] ...... mwmcoammm oncenmwm momeqamom mmcoumm ewcoamum mefimemm acomuuscumcw Louuum acne: mum uueeeou oeoex as» mo mcvc_ecmuea ago»: a uumeeou goeeecu ecu use one one. to» venom: omega oz» ago 02H mmcoemmm oz mmecumem on mmeeemom on E .. E E A... E be I4 11 ......ndfii . u agrarian. .4... ..tn r (If-...!- ..tivx ...I . . (Vivi. .....d. Fail—Ki. ..vllvlaléigItniMU. ...... 7.1.1; 3112 .... Obi? zit... . . . valofli‘o»: 9.11.63 val-... cl 1| ii “H‘u§ . .... .a I .5. fifgui P99 .... n l .r. .. ... ..1. .(...r .c r.....’«. ...... .. . .-&I.i flui .LU’.....TM. ..nnmr‘rfl.v(6.fllrh. «IN .flntvhftaflwiflfll by HE ‘91-’63... “......1'1 QUAIL .Imqknl. {€1.35 ImpI‘laplimufll III-lll. 1 : Fusscume. mo muocuoe.coemmzuuvu-oc:uuop ace pmcowuuacuch uwuuumou mueem ”omega e: ocwcmemmo ca ”genome oeeevpcouou meaco no» mvma_ocm Peopcee e meweowwme to» up.»eeucoa ecu «oncoamwe ”cabana uvaeaup mo canes: “ax «Pomp umNVPuauvswwcv Nu scouacoau— one «team PERCENT 64 801 70- 60- 63—1 60-3 60.4 ’ 56.9 50- F i 40‘ 36.1! 34.8 37-5 35,5 30- 20~ 10- Test Moisture Broken Heat Damaged Tota] Numericai Weight Corn & Damaged Kerneis Damaged Grade Foreign Kerneis Materiai GRADE DETERMINING FACTORS Figure 2. Percent of students with two responses (sum of Coiumns 4, 5 and 6, Tabie XI) for assigning numerica] grade and iaboratory anaiysis of grade determining factors on assigning numerical grade posttest by individuaiized instructional and 1ecture- discussion methods of instruction . . Individuaiized Lecture-Discu551on [::::::::::::::] Instruction 65 C. 5331;339:9131 fog: Objective Pgwber Two The results of the two by three analysis of variance test used to test Objectives Two and Three are presented in two by three tables. Each table shows the mean scores for the methods of instruction and for the variables ranked highmnedium-low; also, (l) the group mean for the grit les ranked high—medivn~low, (2) the drouo mean for the methods of instruction and (3.) (it) the total group man are shown. At the bottom of each table the sienificance levels of the effect of methods of instruc- tion and the effect cf the veriab’ns ranted high-mediunwlow on student 9 agwéeremprt are given, text, the interaction of these variables is renorted, i.e.. no significance is in orrreted to near that there are no generalizations that may be made regarding the combined influence of these variables on student achievement. Objective Number Two was: to evaluate the effectiveness of individ- ualized-instruction-laboratory method as corpared to the lecture~discussion- laboratory method of instruction as measured by student interest in agri- culture. Null hypothesis Nrnber Ore used to test ijective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pen- cil posttest of the two methods of instruction, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XII shows the results of two by three anal- ysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XII are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low interest in agriculture; (2) there is a significant differ- ence in student achievement due to nethods of instruction; the individual— ized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .079 level of significance and (3) there is no significant interaction 66 between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. Table XII. Effect of student agricultural interest. effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) teen Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture- Interest Instruction Discussion Means High lfi5.20 l5l.30 l48.75 Median l6l.75 l4l.37 l51.56 Low l79.7l 33.l2 l55.4l Means l62.88 141.93 it 152.24 Variable Sam of df Mean F Significance Sooares Square Agricultural Interest llfié.6l 2 582.3l 0.1349 0.874 Methods of Instruction l3524.55 l l3524.56 3.1323 0.079 Interaction l3l37.25 2 656?.62 1.523 0.222 A pattern emerges in Table XII that may be observed, also, in some of the following tables in this chapter. Note that the student mean score in the individualized instructional method increases as student interest in agriculture decreases. Conversely, the student mean score of the lecture-discussion method decreases as student interest in agri- culture decreases. The data gathered provides no basis for concluding reasons for this pattern. However, there are some factors that may be related, for example: (1) the unequal distribution of junior and senior students within each method of instruction, i.e.. the lecture-discussion group contained five more Juniors and ten more seniors than the individualized 67 instructional group, (2) the Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventory was administered before the units on grain grading were taught in two schools and after the units on grain grading were taught in two scheels, (3) the lectureodiscussion group contained one more rural non-farm st dent and three more city or town students than the individ- ualized instructinnal group and (4) the Pennsylvania Vocational Agri- culture Interest Inventory used may not have been valid for this pOpula- tion. Null Hyedthesis Number Two used to test Objective Two was: there will be no significant dii‘erence in student achievemert on assigning numerical grade resttest fer the tee retheds of instruction, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XIII shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XIII are as follows: (I) there is a significant difference on student achieve- ment due to high, medium and low agricultural interest; students with low interest doing better than students with high interest at .032 level of significance; (2) there is a significant difference in student achieve- ment due to methud of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better at the .0305 level of significance, and (3) there is no signif- icant interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 68 Table XIII. Effect of student agricultural interest. effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on assigning numerical grade posttest (Part 8) Mean Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture- Interest Instrvctien fliscussion Means High 63.04 33.00 50.52 Fenian 72.29 33.74 56.02 Lew lQQ.CO Sl.00 77.50 Means 83.44 39.25 Xt 6l.3l Variable Sum of df Mean F Significance Severes Square Agricultural Interest 7558l.l4 2 7790.57 3.56 0.032 Methods of Instruction 62l5l.32 62l5l.32 28.34 0.0005 Interaction l5?S.64 2 797.8l 0.3637 0.69 d Null Hypothesis Keener Three used to test Objective Number Two was: there will be no significant dif.erence in student achievement on total posttest score far the two methods of instruction, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XIV shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XIV are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high. medium and lea agricultural interest; (2) there is a significant difference in student achieverent due to metheds of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .0005 level of significence. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruc- tion. 69 Table XIV. Effect of student_agricultural interest, effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of these two variables on student achievement on total posttest score (Part A + Part B) ....— ' —-——- w-v' 'I—vvf Mean Scores Aoricultural lndividuelized Lecture- lntcrost Instruction Discussion Means High 2li.24 l34.30 l99.27 medium 260.00 l75.ll 207.55 Lee 2? .79 l34.l2 233.96 fleans 263.00 l3l.l8 Kt 2l3.59 Variable Sum of of Moon F Significance Scueres Severe Agricultural Interest 253i6.53 2 2583.27 1.3795 0.255 Methods of Instruction l33701.93 l l3370l.93 l4.6576 0.0005 Interaction 23924.76 2 ll962.37 l.3ll4 0.273 hull Hypothesis Number Four used to test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest test weight erections for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student interest in ogriculture. Table XV shows the results of the two by three analysis of orience test. Conclusions from Table XV are as foilcws: (l) there is no significant difference in student achieverent due to high, medium end low agricultural interest; (2) there is no significant difierence in student achievement due to methods of instruction, and (3) there is no interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 70 Table XV. Effect of student agricultural interest, effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of these two variables on student achievement on test'weight questions (No.'s 3. 4 and S) on paper and pencil pesttest (Part A) fl _ M _4_._..- .__._ Mean Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture- Znterest Instruction Biscussicn Means High l2.7l l2.3£ l2.53 Medium 33.12 l3.35 l3.49 Low lé.35 l2.£0 l3.28 Means l3.40 3?.30 at l3.0l Variable Sum of st fists F Significance Saueres Square Agricultural Interest 23.05 2 ll.52 0.4528 0.637 Methods of Instruction ll.3l l ll.3l 0.4442 0.505 Interaction 43.l7 2 2l.59 0.8480 0.43l Null Hypothesis hunter Five used tn test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil pesttest moisture questions for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XVI shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions fran Table XVI are as follows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achieveeect dun to high, medium and low agricultural interest; (2) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction, and (3) there is no significant interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 71 Table XVI. Effect of student agricultural interest. effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on moisture questions (No.' 5 6. 7. 8 and 9) on paper and pencil pasttest (Part A) .— — . . ‘IM- "me vfi-J'U‘r‘wu‘r'mw“ .flf‘ .r ‘ 1.11—- ..-z—. 1* Mean Scores Agriculture? Individualized Lecture- interest instructien Discessien Means High 24.86 4.22 24.54 Meeivm 2d.62 25. 88 25.25 Lew $8.84 26.29 27.47 deans 26.00 25.47 Xt 25.75 ieriebie Sens of df Venn F Significance Severes Severe Agricultural Interest 173. 95 2 89.43 0.7225 0.487 Methods of Instruction l0.58 l l0.54 0.0852 0.771 Interaction 69 42 2 34.7l 0.2804 0.756 Null Hypothesis Nvmber Six used tn test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest broken care and fereign material questions for the two methods of inst m mien, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table xvii shows the resuits of the tee by three eneiysis of variance test. Cenciusions free ieble iii: are as foliows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low agricultural interest; (2) there is a sinr ificant difference in student achievement due to metheds of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .005 level of significance. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 72 Table XVII. Effect of student agricultural interest, effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achieveeent—on broken corn and foreign material questions (Mo.'s l0. ll and l2) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) ' Mean Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture- Interest Instructien Siscussion Means High 18.’7 l3.00 l8.28 Medium Zl.50 l2.55 l7.03 Low 23.55 l7.7l 20.64 mm; 2l.66 l6.09 32': 18.65 Variable Sums of df Mean F Significance Squares Square Agricultural Interest 273.57 2 l3.78 1.3338 0.267 Methcds of Instruction 835.0% 1 836.04 8.1523 0.005 Interaction 4l7.00 2 208.60 2.033l 0.l35 Null Hypothesis Runner Seven used to test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil pcsttest tntal drnage qnestiors fer the two methods of instruction, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XVIII shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XVIII are as tellers: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low agricultural interest; (2) there is a slight significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .064 level of signifi- cance. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student agri- cultural interest and methods of instruction. 73 Table XVIII. Effect of student agricultural interest, effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on total damage questions (No.'s 13 and 14) on paoer and pencil.posttest (Part A) w A A A —_ # __‘ -— _—-— . ’,_.. Mean Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture~ Interest Instruction Discussion Means high 1.58 1.35 1.46 hediun 1.58 1.62 1.60 Low 1.85 1.37 1.61 Means 1.67 1.45 it 1.56 terieble Suns of df Mean F Significance Squares Souere Rgriculturel Interest 0.66 2 0.33 0.75 0.472 Methods of Instruction 1.54 l 1.54 3.49 0.064 Interaction 1.48 2 0.74 1.68 0.191 hull Hypothesis Number Eight used to test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest dome-ed kernels questions for the two methods of instruc- tion. as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XIX shows the results of the tee by three enslysis of veriance test. Conclusions from Tahie XIX are as foiiows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low agricultural interest; (2) there is a significent difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .009 level of significance. and (3) there is no significent interoction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 74 Table XIX. Effect of student_agricultural interest. effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on damaged kernels questions (No. l5) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) .. . _ “1‘21. “_$ ARE-37‘1"...” # ‘—‘-"‘ Mean Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture- interest Instruction Discussion Means High l2.57 ll.9l l2.24 Medium l5.Zi ll.26 13.23 Low 17.00 9.42 l3.2l fie-ans 14.92 10.85 it l2.89 Variable Sues of df Mean F Significance Squares Square Agricultural Interest 28.03 2 14.00 0.l894 0.828 Methods of Instruction 525.34 l 525.34 7.1037 0.009 Interaction 235.!5 2 ll7.58 1.5900 0.208 Null Hypothesis Number Nine used to test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest heat damage questions for the two methods of instruction. as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XX shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XX are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low agricultural interest; (2) there is a significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .058 level of significance, and (3) there is no significant interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 75 Table XX. Effect of student agricultural interest. effect of individ- ‘ ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on heat damage question.(No. l6) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) Mean Scores Agricultural Individualized Lecture- Interest Instruction Discussion Means High 72.57 ll.95 l2.3l fiedinn 35.67 ll.37 l3.5l Low li.36 l0.29 l2.32 ems 14.23 11.20 It 12.71 Variable Sum of of mean F Significance Squares Square Agricultural Interest 44.69 22.34 0.28 0.756 2 Methofls of InstruCticn 290.92 1 290.92 3.6489 0.058 Interaction €8.93 2 44.46 0.5577 0.574 Null Hypothesis Number Ten used to test Objective Two was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest interpretation question for the two methods of instruc- tion, as measured by student interest in agriculture. Table XXI shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXI are as follows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high. medium and low agricultural interest; (2) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction, and (3) there is no significant interaction between student agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 76 Table XXI. Effect of student agricultural interest. effect of individ- ualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on interpretation question (No. l7) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) A M—A— “ww Mean Scores nonicultural Individunlized Lecture- interest Instruction Discussion Means High 63.l9 73.00 68.09 Vedium 67.00 63.70 65.35 Low 73.29 57.37 67.83 Means 59.48 64.69 'i't 67.09 icriable Sum of df Mean F Significance Bounces Square Agricultural Interest 2l4.8l 107.40 0.0839 0.920 2 Methods of Instruction 732.73 1 732.73 0.5722 0.451 Interaction 4626.55 2 2312.28 1.8058 0.169 D. Analvsis of Data for Objective number Three mama...— m ......m ._.. ‘ ... m 7,__ W‘s‘hm Objective Number Three was: to evaluate the effectiveness of individualized instruction-laboratory method as compared to the lecture- discussion-laboratory method of instruction, as measured by student academic rank. hull Hypothesis number One used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student academic rank. Table XXEI shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXII are as follows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high. medium and low academic rank; (2) there is a significant difference in student ~ achievement due to methods of instruction; the individualized instructional 77 method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .051 level of significance, and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. Table XXII. Effect of student academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Discussion Means High l78.l2 145.06 l6l.59 Medium 16l.?5 l50.89 l56.33 Low l50.2] ll8.3l l34.26 Means 103.37 l38.0l it 150.73 Variable Sum of df Mean F Significance Souares Square Academic Rank 15725.97 2 7853.49 l.853l 0.161 Methods of Instruction 35404.08 l 16404.08 3.8707 0.05l Interaction 3389.62 2 T694.8l 0.3999 0.67l Null Hypothesis Number Two used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on assigning numerical grade posttest for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student academic rank. Tabie XXIII shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXIII are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is a high level of significant difference due to the methods of instruction; the individ- ualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .6005 level of significance, and (3) there is no significant inter- action betneen student academic rent and methods of instruction. 78 Table XXIII. Effect of student academic rank, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on assigning numerical grade posttest (Part 3) A4 .4 Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Renk Instruction Discussion Means High 79.25 36.82 58.04 Medium 83.76 42.8l 62.28 Low 77.51 37.06 57.29 Means 79.50 33.90 it 59.20 ' Variable Sum of df Mean F Significance Squares Square Academic Rank 673.33 336.69 0.l4l8 0.868 Methods of Instruction 42336.06 l 42336.06 l7.8338 0.0005 Interaction 48.77 2 24.38 0.0i03 0.990 Null Hypothesis “umber Three used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on total posttest for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student academic rank. Table XXIV shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXIV are as follows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is a significant difference due to methods of instruction: the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .03l level of significance. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 79 Table XXIV. Effect of student academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on total posttest (Part A + Part B) .4 .L. . - _,—— —u .‘.K:fl"’i.¢"f_.r . 4 mafia M ‘ ‘—‘ Mean Scores Acadenic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Discussion Means High 257.37 l8l.88 2l9.63 Medium 243.57 l93.7l 218.64 Low 227.70 l55.37 l9l.54 Means 25.2.89: 175.99 It 209.93 Variable Sum of as Mean F Significance Eoueres Severe Academic Rank 20632.64 2 l03l6.32 l.ll83 0.330 Methods of Instruction lll&65.8l l lll465.8l 12.0826 0.00l Interaction 4il7.4i 2 2058.72 0.2232 0.800 Null Hypothesis Number Four used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest test weight questions for the two methods of instruc- tion, as measured by student academic rank. Table XXV shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXV are as follows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruc- tion. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 80 Table XXV. Effect of student academic rank, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on test weight questions (No.'s 3. 4 and 5) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) _A b.- .u A A__‘ .... wean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Discussion Means High l5.00 13.25 l4.18 hedium l3.09 13.00 13.04 Means 13.57 13.0] it 13.34 Variable Son of df Ween F Significance Squares Square Academic Rnnk 24.73 2 l2.39 0.4943 0.6ll Methods of Instruction 5.55 l 5.86 0.2340 0.629 Interaction 17.69 2 8.84 0.3528 0.703 Null Hypothesis Number Five used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest moisture questions for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student academic rank. Table XXVI shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXVI are as follows: (I) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruc- tion. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 81 Table XXVI. Effect of student academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on moisturerquestions (No.‘s 6. 7. 8 and 9) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Discussion Means High 29.75 23.58 26.67 Medium 25.38 27.65 26.52 Low 23.5l 22.68 23.0l Means 25.22 24.54 3ft 25.43 Variable Sum of df Mean F Significance Squares Square Academic Rank 329.59 2 l64.79 l.3847 0.254 Methods of Instruction 63.35 l 63.35 0.5323 0.467 Interaction 279.49 2 139.74 l.l742 0.3l2 Null Hypothesis Number Six used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest broken corn and foreign material questions for the two methods of instruction. as measured by student academic rank. Table XXVII shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclu- sions from Table XXVI! are as follows: (l) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is a significant difference due to methods of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .003 level of significance. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 82 Table XXVII. Effect of student academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on broken corn and foreign material questions (No.'s 10. ll and l2) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Discussion Means High 22.62 l4.l7 l8.40 Medium 2l.52 l7.2l l9.36 Low 19.57 14.00 l6.79 leans 21.24 15.23 7ft l8.l9 Variable Sun of df Mean F Significance Snurres Square Academic Rank l60.l6 2 80.08 0.7540 0.473 Methods of Instruction 959.22 1 959.22 9.0319 0.003 Interaction 66.38 2 33.l9 0.3l25 0.732 Null Hypothesis Number Seven used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest total damage questions for the two methods of instruction. as measured by student academic rank. Table XXVIII shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXVIII are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction. and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 83 Table.XXVIIL. Effect of student academic rank, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on total damage questions (No.'s l3 and l4) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) w. , ..—-——.—-, w .e F“ A‘— 4 A——— Mean Scores Acedemic Individualized Lecture- Renk Instruction Discussion Means High l.62 l.47 1.54 Medium 1.67 1.52 1.60 Lou l.67 l.44 l.55 Means 1.5.5 1.47 it 1.55 Variable Sum of df fieen F Significance Seflnres Square Academic Rank 0.06 2 0.03 0.07 0.93l thnds of Instruction 0.78 l 0.78 l.79 0.l83 Interaction 0.05 2 0.0025 0.05 0.944 Hull Hypothesis Rumher Eight used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest demaged kernels question for the two methods of instruction, as measured by student academic rank. Table XXIX shows the results of the two by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXIX are as follcws: (l) there is a significant difference in student achievement due to high. medium and low academic rank; high academic rank is superior to lew academic rank at the .036 level of significance; (2) there is a significant difference in student achieve- ment due to methods of instruction; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture-discussion method at the .OlO level of significance and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 84 Table XXIX. Effect of student academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on damaged kernels question (No.15) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- chk Instruction Discussion Means High 15.62 12.88 14.25 Medium 15.05 12.37 13.70 Low i3.51 5.81 9.66 Means 14.33 10.35 ft 12.54 Variobie Sum of of Mean F Significance Squares Square Academic Rank 489.63 2 244.81 3.39 0.036 Methods of Instruction 491.36 1 491.36 6.82 0.010 Interaction 172.36 2 86.08 1.1950 0.306 hull Hypothesis dumber Nine used to test Objective Three was: there wi11 be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest heat damage question for the two methods of instruc- tion. as measured by student academic rank. Table XXX shows the results of the ten by three analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXX are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is a significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruc- tion; the individualized instructional method is better than the lecture- discussion method at the .053 1evel of significance, and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. '- A“ 2.7..E‘ 85 Table XXX. Effect of student academic rank, effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on heat damage question (No. 16) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) A Aww Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Discussion Means __ High 15.52 12.82 14.24 3 Medium' 13.76 12.39 13.08 5 Low 13.60 7.50 10.55 ' Means 14.33 10.90 it 12.62 i *‘ A l variable Sum of Cf Mean F Significance L Squares Square Academic Rank 244.26 2 122.13 1.5481 0.217 Methods of Instruction 301.14 1 301.14 3.8172 0.053 Interaction 136.65 2 68.33 0.8662 0.423 Null Hypothesis hunter Ten used to test Objective Three was: there will be no significant difference in student achievement on paper and pencil posttest interpretation question for the two methods of instruction. as measured by student academic rank. Table XXXI shows the results of the analysis of variance test. Conclusions from Table XXXI are as follows: (1) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to high, medium and low academic rank; (2) there is no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruc- tion, and (3) there is no significant interaction between student academic rank and methods of instruction. 86 Table XXXI.. Effect of student academic rank. effect of individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction and effect of interaction of these two variables on student achievement on interpretation question (No. l7) on paper and pencil posttest (Part A) AA A ._A__ Mean Scores Academic Individualized Lecture- Rank Instruction Biscussion Means High 76.62 66.64 7l.63 Medium 63.0? 67.26 67.68 Low $4.30 55.87 60.09 News 69.67 53.25 3ft 66.47 Variabie Sun of df Mean F Significance Squares Square Academic Rank 2335 40 l167.70 0.9064 0.407 Methods of Instruction 055.74 i l055.74 0.8l95 0.367 Interaction 494. 42 2 247.2l 0.l9l9 0.826 E. Analysis of Data for thective‘humh rigour gective Number Four was: to construct a student personality profile and to determine the extent of variation in student personality 'profile for the individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction, based on student achievement on the posttest. The null hypothesis .0 test Objective Four was: there will be no difference in student personality profile for the two methods of instruction. based on student high, medium and low rank on the posttest. To construct the student personality profile for each method of instruc- tion. student posttest scores were ranked into high, medium and low based on the range and total number of scores as described in Chapter III; the mean percentile of each of the ten personality scores was calculated. The results are presented in Table XXXII. 87 The ten columns for Table XXXII represent a descending to ascending scale as follows: (l) G - inactive to general activity. (2) R - impulsiveness to restraint. (3) A - submissiveness to social boldness. (4) S - shyness to social interest, (5) E - emotional instability to emotional stability, (6) 0 - subjectivity to objectivity. (7) F - hostil- ity to friendliness. (8) T - unreflectiveness to thoughtfulness. (9) P - intolerance to cooperativeness and (l0) M - femininity to masculinity. In reading Table XXXII. the reader should always be COgnizant that the socially accepted mean percentile rank for each of the ten personality variables would lie on the fiftieth percentile. A careful study of Table XXXI! reveals that the mean percentile rank for the lecture-discussion group is consistently higher for each personality variable. except masculinity. The greatest amount of overall personality variance based on student achievement between the instructional groups is found within the low student achievement. A further study of the percentile rank of the two methods of instruction shows that the greatest personality variances are found in general activity, Column l. and personal relations, Column 9; the least amount of personality variance is found in masculinity, Column l0. These percentile rank mean scores were used to construct the personality profile for the two methods of instruction and are analyzed statistically later in this chapter (see Appendix F-l for a profile chart of the two methods of instruction). Conclusions from Table XXXII are as follows: (l) the greatest amount of personality variance is found in the personality variables general activity and personal relations: the least amount of personality variance is found in the personality variable masculinity, (2) the 88 Table XXXII. Mean percentile rank for the Guilford-Zimnerman Tennerment Survey for (l) individualized instruction and lecture- discussion overall group percentile mean scores and (2) high,-medium and law student achievment on posttest (Part A plus Part B) by individualized instructional and lecture- discussion methods of instruction mm. 2 WM.“ “Mu-uni” Hat-v." in W Methods (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (ml of Personality Variables** c__ Instruction* 6 R A S E O F T P M “‘ Mean Percentile Rank Percentile T:l 33 30 32 23 26 23 3l 29 2l 41 Rank T:2 S3 36 37 33 30 27 39 38 33 4l Gverall Group ”eon 66 33 35 29 30 25 35 34 28 4l Posttest Rank High T:l 39 37 28 23 25 2l 4O 33 23 43 T:2 50 44 33 3O 34 33 43 40 33 40 Medium T:l 43 24 29 23 25 26 32 25 24 39 T:2 47 30 34 32 26 2l 36 36 33 44 Low T:l 33 3O 4O 23 28 21 2l 29 l5 40 T:2 Si 33 38 37 40 27 37 38 33 38 *T:l =~Individualized Instruction T:2 - Lecture—Discussion **Personality variabies oefinod in preceding text lecture-disoossion group personality scores were consistently higher for all personality variables except masculinity. and (3) the greatest amount of personality variation is in the low achievement group; the second greatest personality variation is found in the high achievement group. and the least amount of personality variance is found in the medium achieve- ment group. 89 To further analyze student personality variation. the mean percentile rank for high-medium-low student achievement for each method of instruction was analyzed with the analysis of variance. The overall group mean percentile rank for each method of instruction was tested for significance with Scheffe's test (see Appendix F-2). The analysis of variance test revealed that the mean percentile scores of eight of the personality variables were not statistically different. However. student mean percentile rank of general activity and personal relations based on student achievement was found to be statistically different. The results of the analysis of variance test and Scheffe's test of the group neans for general activity and personal relations are presented in Table XXXIII and Table XXXIV. Each table shows the mean personality score for the personality variable indicated in the table heading for each method of instruction. At the bottom of each table, the total number of student personality scores. the F statistic. the level of significance and the range of scores for Scheffe's test are presented. Table XXXIII should be read as follows: student mean personality rank for general activity, for low achievement on the posttest and for the lecture-discussion method is 6l. The overall group mean percentile rank for the lecture-discussion method is 53 and for the individualized instructional method is 38. There were l22 students in the observation; the F statistic is 2.35; it is statistically significant at the .004 level. and Scheffe's test of the two group means results in a range of, ‘4005 to -7050 90 Conclusions from Table XXXIII are as follows: (l) there is a significant difference in personality variable. general activity, based on high-medium-low student achievement on the posttest; this difference is significant at the .004 level; (2) Scheffe's test shows that there is a significant difference between the group percentile means; the general activity variable percentile mean for the lecture-discussion group is statistically greater than the percentile mean for the individ- ualized instructional group at the .05 level of significance. Table XXXIII. The relationship of the Gnilford-Zimnerman personality variable General Activity. methods of instruction, student achievement on posttest (Part A + Part B) and the results of a test of difference between group mean percentile rank t s.;+..escfiaw;:2======================== Mean Percentile Rank Achievement Individualized Lecture- on Posttest Instruction Discussion High 39 50 Medium 43 47 Low 33 6l Group Mean 38 53 F/lZZ /F 2.35 Significance .004 Scheffe's Test -40.5 to ~7.5 Significance .05 The results of the analysis of variance test for the personality variable, personal relations, is presented in Table XXXIV. Conclusions from Table XXXIV are as follows: (l) there is a significant difference in the personality variable. personal relations, based on high-medium- low student achievement on the posttest; this difference is significant 91 at the .003 level; (2) Scheffe's test shows that there is a signif- icant difference between the group percentile means; the variable, personal relations, percentile mean for the lecture-discussion group is statistically greater than the percentile mean for the individualized instructional group at the .05 level of significance. Table XXXIV. The relationship of the Guilford-Zimmerman personality variable Personal Relations. methods of instruction, student achievement on pos test (Part A + Part B) and the results of a test of difference between group mean percentile rank 4‘ p— w”..— Nean Percentile Rank Achievement individualized Lecture- on Posttest Instruction Discussion High 23 33 Medium 24 33 Low 15 33 Group Mean 2l 33 FiiZZ /F 2.54 Significance .003 Scheffe's Test ~49.84 to -25.l6 Significance .05 The data gathered provides no basis for concluding reasons for the statistical higher percentile mean scores for the lecture—discussion group on the personality variables general activity and personal rela- tions. However, there are some factors that may be related. for example: (l) intuitively, a person achieving a high score on personal relations would be expected to perform better in a highly structured situation as the lecture-discussion method. Conversely, a person achieving a lower score on the personal relations variable would be (expected to be more independent and perform better in a situation where 92 he had more freedom. such as the individualized instructional method. (2) Again, intuition would indicate a person achieving a high score on general activity would be expected to do better in the individualized instructional method. However, these data show this to be a false essenption; therefore. general activity may not be related to student achievement in the individualized instructional method. (3) The directions given the students for taking the test may have varied extensively from school to school. (4) The personality test was adnini- stereo after the completion of the instructional unit. Consequently, the students that had just ccnpleted the individualized instructional unit may have felt freer to honestly answer the questions. The lecture- discussion group may have attempted to give the expected answers. F. Analvsis for §§3entic Differential Scale A semantic differential scale to be used for student evaluation was constructed by the researcher as described in Chapter III (see Appendix E). This graphic scale was included in the student guidebook. and students in the individualized instructional method were asked to resoond to the graphic scale items after completing the unit on grain grading. Responses are interpreted as follows: (1) if the student felt the question was veay ctoaefly related. he placed a check-mark in either Column 1 or Colunn 7; if the student felt that the question was quéte closely related, he placed a check-mark in either Column 2 or Column 6; if the student felt that the question was azightty nelaxed, he placed a check-mark in Column 3 or Column 5, and a check-mark in Column 4 was 93 Table XXXV. Student mean reSponse to the seven point semantic differ- ential scale in student guidebook completed by students in the individualized instructional method of instruction __‘ Guidebook Graphic ‘ Guidebook Graphic Division Rating Scale Mean ‘ Division Rating Scale Mean Items Items Lessggg a. difficult~ Review e. valuable - easy 4.l destlggs worthless 2.8 b. clear- r (L駧7nue§) f. important- confusing 3.8 unimportant 3.0 c. meaningful- 9. complete- meaningless 2.9 incomplete 2.4 d.gmfl- bad 2.6 Laboratory a. difficult- Agsingert’ easy 4.7 2 X 2 a. clear- '"'*” '"”"b. clear- Slides confusing 2.l confusing 2.5 b. necessary- c. meaningful- unnecessery 3.2 meaningless 2.5 c. meaningful- d. good- neaningless 3.l ]: bad 2.4 d. important- '“ e. valuable- unimportant 3.3 worthless 2.5 e. valuable- f. important- worthless 3.2 unimportant 2.6 9. complete- Text a. difficult- incomplete 2.4 easy 4.l b. clear- 1 Individ. a. complete- confusing 3.l fgggggggl incomplete 2.8 c. meaningful- ' ‘ b. pleasurable- meaningless 3.l painful 2.7 d. 9004- c. interesting- bad 2.8 boring 2.7 e. complete- d. fair- incomplete 2.4 unfair 2.5 e. valuable- fleview a. fair- 2 worthless1 2.9 Questions unfair 2. f. successfu - b. difficult- unsuccessful 2.8 easy 4.2 9. complex- c. clear- simple 3.8 confusing 2.4 l h. liked- d. meaningful- not liked 3.l meaningless 2.9 ‘ H 94 interpreted as neutaal or completely Laaelevant (unrelated to the question). The mean scores for student responses were calculated and are presented in Table XXXV.. A careful study of Table XXXV shows that the individualized instructional unit was well liked by the students who used it. Note the mean scores for the difficult-easy scale for the lessons, the text. the review questions and laboratory assignments clustered toward the easy end of the scale. The mean for remaining graphic scales lies below four; the lower the number, tie better the student felt about the unit. There- fore. the researcher concluded that the unit on assigning numerical grades to corn was well liked and well received by the high school students. G. Relatgg_lnforration . “—1-..— l. Taped Recording§_for Moisture Lesson. The moisture lessons were tape recorded for both the individualized instructional and lecture-discussion methods of instruction. The c00perating teachers presented the moisture lesson using the lesson plans and transparencies written and prepared by the researcher (see Appendix C) for the lecture- discussion method. The researcher listened to the tape recordings very carefully and was not able to identify any deviation from the directions given at the workshop; granted. each teacher incorporates his own per- sonality into the classroom, i.e.. classroom management, teacher-pupil rapport and teacher expectations of student achievement. The teachers presented the transparencies to the class; the moisture problems were worked as a class project, and then students were given the laboratory assignment. 95 The tape recordings for the individualized instructional group sounded like utter chaos within the classroom. Students were talking to other students. i.e.. helping each other read and interpret the guide- book and discussing the proper procedure for making the moisture test. Also, the microphone was placed by the Boerner;divider which amplified the sound of the grain being divided, thus adding to the impression of confusion. The teachers of vocational agriculture answered questions directed to them. The teachers answered the questions in a direct manner and refrained from orally quizzirg the students on what they were doing and how they were progressing. 2. Teacher Eomrents gg.ttg_Unit. Assigning Numerical Grades tg_Corn. Upon completion of the unit in the school, the researcher returned to the school to retrieve the unit. The teacher had used the instruc- tional unit in his classroom for two weeks, and the researcher was interested in the comments and observations of the teacher regarding the individualized instructional unit. Each teacher reported that ten days was not long enough to adequately teach the unit; they indicated that fifteen days of classroom instruction would be needed to adequately teach the unit on assigning numerical grades to corn. One teacher reported that he had had a discipline problem with some of the students in the individualized instruction group from the time ‘they enrolled as freshmen. He reported that these students became very actively involved in the individualized instruction unit, and he had .absolutely no discipline problems when using this instructional unit. He lfimmarked that this was the longest period of time that these students had saone without causing some type of discipline problem within the classroom. '95 Another teacher reported that he liked the individualized instructional approach; however. he emphasized that he would not like to teach all of his classes this way. He said that he did not think that he was teaching and this fact bothered him. Also, his students were very upset over taking the pretest. In fact, they were very hostile fer several days over the fact that they were being quizzed over material that had not been previously taught in class. They believed that this was very unfair and not the way that scheol was supposed to be. The teacher believed that this affected their performance on the individ- ualized instructienel netted; heeever, in a ceuple of days the students settled down to the task at hand. The reenining tflfl teachers reported that they believed the individualized instructional method was very practical and said that they would like to see mere of these units develoeed for vocational agriculture classes. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The major items to he considered in this chapter are: (l) the problem, (2) metheds of procedure, (3) analysis of data, (4) major find— ings, (S) implications of this study, (5) COHCTUSlOHS and (7) recommen- dations for further study. A. The ”reelem The evaluatien of a pattern for individualized instruction was the basis for this study. One r‘ the results of students with different vocational objectives being enrolled in the same class is that the traditional lecture-discussion method is not versatile enough to ade- quately meet student instructional needs. l. Egggggggg. Specifically. the purposes for which this study'was conducted were as follows. The major objective (a) and closely related additional objectives (b, c and d) of this study were: a) To evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized instruction- laboratory method as compared to the lecture-discussion-laboratory method of instruction, as measured by student achievement. b) To evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized instruction- laboratory method as compared to the lecture-d1scussion-laboratory method of instruction, as measured by student interest in agriculture. c) To evaluate the effectiveness of an individualized instruction- laboratory method as compared to the lecture-discussion-laboratory method 97 98 of instruction. as measured by student academic rank. d) To construct a student personality profile and to determine the extent of student variation in student personality profile for the individualized instruction-laboratory method and the lecture-discussion- laboratory method of teaching. based on student achievement on the post- test. 8. Methods and Procedures Four high schools were selected to participate in this study. A workshop. to discuss the various phases of the study and to provide all cooperating teachers the benefit of questions directed to the researcher, was held at Michigan State University. The following materials were prepared and/or assembled by the researcher to gather data or for instruc- tional purposes. The materials are as follows: (l) a forty-six page student guidebook, including a student semantic differential scale. (2) 2 X 2 colored grain grading slides for use with the student guidebook. (3) one hundred eighty grain samples were prepared. (4) lesson plans and transparencies were prepared, (5) corn kernel damaged samples were secured, (6) grain grading laboratory equipment was assembled. (7) projector- viewers were purchased. (8) pretest and posttest instruments prepared, ' (9) Official M§im Mfii secured, (l0) student academic rank secured from school counselors, (ll) Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventory instruments secured, (l2) Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey instruments secured and (13) a tape recorder provided for each school's use. Each capperating teacher taught one class by the individualized instructional method and one class by the lecture-discussion method. Each 99 method of instruction provided students with 8 one-hour periods of instruction. Students were administered a pretest and a two-day posttest; the posttest consisted of two parts. namely: Part A - the paper and pencil test and Part B - the laboratory performance of assigning numer- ical grades to two samples of corn. One period each was allowed to administer the Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventory and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temoerement Survey. Student academic rank was secured through the local high school counselor. The data were analyzed with the 3600 computer at Michigan State University. Student achievement on the pretest and posttest was analyzed four ways: (1) the mean scores of the pretest and posttest (Part A) of the two methods of instruction, (2) the mean scores of the posttest (Part A + B) of the two methods of instruction. (3) the mean scores of the posttest (Part A) of the two methods of instruction and (4) the mean scores of the posttest (Part B) of the two methods of instruction. Students were blocked into high-medium-low on the Pennsylvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventory and their academic rank in class; these two variabies and student achievement on the posttest were analyzed twenty ways using the two by three analysis of variance, namely: (l) the mean scores of high~oedium-low student academic rank and agriculture interest of posttest (Part A) of the two methods of instruction, (2) the mean scores of high-mediumblow student academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part B) of the two methods of instruction. (3) the mean scores of high-medium-low student academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A + B) of the two methods of instruction, (4) 100 the mean scores of student high-medium-low academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to test weight of the two methods of instruction. (5) the mean scores of student high-medium- low academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to moisture of the twoimethods of instruction, (6) the mean scores of student high-medium-low academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to broken corn and foreign mater- ial of the two methods of instruction, (7) the mean scores of student high-medium-low academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to total damage of the two methods of instruction, (8) the mean scores of student high-medium-low academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to damaged kernels of the two methods of instruction. (9) the mean scores of student high-medium- low academic rank and agriculture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to heat damaged kernels of the two methods of instruction and (lo) the mean scores of student high-medium-low academic rank and agri- culture interest on posttest (Part A) questions relating to interpretation and application by the two methods of instruction Student posttest (Part A + 8) scores were blocked into high-medium- low for both methods of instruction. A personality profile was constructed for high. medium and low level of student achievement for each method of instruction. Student posttest (Part 8) responses for each grain grading factor were coded on the basis of no response. a correct response, an incorrect response or any two combinations of these responses. The coded responses were recorded for each method of instruction. and the percentile for each lOl response total was calculated and presented in tabular form. The coded responses indicating two attempts. right or wrong. were added and the resulting numerical figure for each grain grading factor and for each method of instruction was presented as a bar graph. The mean scores for student responses on the semantic differential scale were calculated and reported in tabular form. D. Maior Finding; The major findings of this study are as follows: 1. Ihg_Effect 9:.Teachino gy_the Individualized Instructional Method 3§_Compared ththe Lecture-Discussigg_Method gj_lnstruction 3§.Measured by_$tudent Achievement Indicated 1233; a) student gain scores on pretest and posttest (Part A) were bet- ter for the individualized instructional method over the lecture- discussion method at the .00l level of significance b) the mean scores on the posttest (Part A) were better for the individualized instructional method over the lecture-discussion method at the .049 level of significance c) the mean scores on the posttest (Part B) were better for the individualized instructional method over the lecture-discussion method at the .0005 level of significance d) the mean scores on the posttest (Part A + B) were better for the individualized instructional method over the lecture-discussion method at the .0005 level of significance e) the mean scores for questions relating to each grain grading factor on posttest (Part A) were higher for the individualized instruc- tional method than for the lecture-discussion questions 102 f) the percent of students with two responses for laboratory analysis part of posttest (Part 8):were higher for the indiVidualized instructional method than for the lecture-discussion method. 2. 1mm g_f_ Agricglture Interest and Student Academic 33.93. 93 m; Athievement 5359. Students m‘mgl the. Individualized Instruc- mm 33.3 Legumtfiegflan m Indicated 1:33.? a) an analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) and blocking student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that the individualized instructional method was significantly better than the lecture-discussion method at the .079 level and .051 level reSpectively. Agricultural interest and academic rank indicated no significant influence on student achievement. and there was no inter- action between academic rank, agricultural interest and methods of instruc- tion. b) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part B) and blocking student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that the individualized instructional method was significantly better than the lecture-discussion method at the .0005 level in both instances. Agricul- tural interest was slightly significant on student achievement for the individualized instructional method at the .032 level; academic rank was not significant. and there was no interaction between methods of instruc- tion and academic rank or interest in agriculture. c) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A + B) and blocking student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that the individualized instructional method was significantly better than the lecture-discussion method at the .0005 level and .00l level respectively. Agricultural interest and academic rark had no significant influence on 103 student achievement; and there was no interaction between agricultural interest. academic.rank and methods of instruction. d) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) questions related to test weight and moisture and the blocking of student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that there was no significant influence on student achievement due to methods of instruction. agricultural interest and academic rank, nor was there any interaction of these variables. e) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) questions related to broken corn and foreign material and block- ing student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that the individualized instructional method was significantly better than the lecture-discussion method at the .005 level and .003 level respectively. There was no significant influence on student achievement due to agricul- tural interest and academic rank. nor was there any interaction of these variables. f) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) questions related to total damage and blocking student agricul- tural interest and academic rank revealed that the individualized instruc- tional method was better (.064 level) than the lecture-discussion method for agricultural interest. but there was no significant difference on student achievement between the two methods of instruction when blocking scores on academic rank. There was no significant influence on student achievement due to agricultural interest and academic rank. nor was there any interaction between these variables. 9) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) 104 questions relating to damaged.kernels and blocking student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed.that the individualized instructional method was better than the lecture-discussion method at the .009 level and .0l0 level reSpectively. Agricultural interest did not influence student achievement, but academic rank was significant at the .036 level of significance. There was no interaction between agricultural interest, academic rank and methods of instruction on student achievement. h) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) questions relating to heat damaged kernels and blocking student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that the individualized instructional method was better than the lecture-discussion method at the .058 level and the .053 level respectively. There was no significant influence on student achievement due to agricultural interest and academic rank. nor was there any interaction between these variables. i) An analysis of the two methods of instruction on posttest (Part A) questions relating to interpretation and application and the blocking of student agricultural interest and academic rank revealed that there was no significant difference in student achievement due to methods of instruction, agricultural interest and academic rank, nor was there any interaction between these variables. Students' scores on the posttest (Part A + B) for both methods of instruction were blocked into high, medium and low based on the range of scores and total number of scores. Students' mean percentile rank for the ten personality variables on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey was used to construct a personality profile for each method of instruction and each level of achievement. The personality profile revealed 105 that students' mean percentile rank for the lecture-discussion group was consistently higher for all personality variables except masculinity. An analysis of variance test of high-medium-low achievement mean percen- tile scores for the two methods of instruction revealed that only the personality variables general activity and personal relations were sig- nificantly different. Also. Scheffe's test revealed that the group per- l' i: centile means for these two variables were statistically greater for the lecture-discussion group than for the individualized instructional group. The semantic differential scale responses by students in the individualized instructional group revealed that the individualized instructional unit was well received and well liked by the students. Also. the tape recordings of the moisture lessons for both methods of instruction and for each of the four schools revealed no audio diversion from the instructional guidelines set forth by the researcher at the c00perating teachers' workshop. E. Implications fimm This study was confined to four teachers of vocational agriculture in four rural high schools in Michigan and to one hundred twenty-eight Junior and senior students of vocational agriculture within these schools who completed the pretest and/or posttest. If application of the findings is to be made to other situations. detailed consideration should be given to these limitations. Conditions in schools and among teachers vary according to location. facilities, teacher competencies and teacher attitude toward individualized instruction. Likewise. the availability of instructional units that lies within the theoretical construct of this model are limited. Therefore. it is possible that findings of this study 106 may differ with similar evaluation studies using a different theoretical model to prepare the.instructional.onits which are conducted at a differ- ent time. covering a different geographical location. with a different group of vocational agriculture teachers and for different classes of vocational agriculture students. Yet, most departments of vocational agriculture are located in rural areas. students enrolled in vocational agricultural classes usually have an agricultural occupational goal and considering the wide range in the number of years of teaching experience of the cooperating teachers would seem to indicate the possibility of applying these findings to similar vocational agriculture teachers, students of vocational agriculture and similar rural areas. Hith the above limitations in mind. the following implications were drawn from the various facets of this study. 1. The findings of this study which dealt with student gain scores on the pretest and posttest ( Part A ). which dealt with student achieve- ment on posttest (Part A + 8). student achievement on posttest (Part A) and student achievement on posttest (Part B) implies that students who were taught by the individualized instructional method acquired more knowledge and skills than the students taught by the lecture-discussion method. However. these findings imply that knowledge and skills were developed to a higher degree of proficiency on the laboratory performance assignment. It may be implied that students may acquire more knowledge and skill with the individualized instructional method and that students develop to a higher degree using a combination of psychomotor and cognitive skills (laboratory assignment) than they do by using only cognitive skills (paper and pencil posttest). l07 2. The findings of this study which dealt with student attempt to complete the laboratory assignment (posttest Part B) implied that students in the individualized instruction group consistently gave more responses to each of the grade determining factors than students in the lecture-discussion group. It may be implied that students in the individualized instruction group were more enthusiastic and tried harder. regardless of their ability rank. I 3. The findings of this study which dealt with student achievement on posttest (Part A + B), achievement on posttest (Part A), achievement on posttest (Part B) and student agricultural interest implies that when student interest in agriculture is ranked. student achievement on cagni- tive skills (posttest Part A) and a combination of psychomotor and cog- nitive skills (posttest Part B) is developed to a higher degree using the individualized instructional method. However, these findings indicate that the combination of cognitive and psychomotor skills (posttest B) are develOped to a higher level of proficiency than when cognititve skills (posttest Part A) are developed exclusively. These findings also indicate that student agricultural interest is related to student achievement when the assignment requires the use of both psychomotor and cognitive skills. However, no interaction or no generalization may be made regarding the combined effects of methods of instruction and student agricultural interest. It may be implied that students who are taught by the individualized instructional method develOped a higher degree of proficiency than students taught by the lecture-discussion method and that students develop to a higher degree of proficiency by using a combination of psychomotor and cognitive skills 108 than when using only cognitive skills. Also. it is implied that agricul- tural interest is related to deveIOping skills and knowledge requiring psychomotor and cognitive skills but not related to develOping only cognitive skills. However. there was no interaction or generalizations that can be made regarding the combined effect of agricultural interest and methods of instruction. 4. The findings of this study which dealt with student achievement on posttest (Part A + B). achievement on posttest (Part A). achievement on posttest (Part B) and student academic rank in class indicate that when student academic rank is considered as a variable. student achievement on the cognitive skills (posttest Part A) and a combination of psychomotor and cognitive skills (posttest Part B) is developed to a higher degree using the individualized instructional method. However. these findings indicate that students develop a higher degree of competency using a combination of psychomotor and cognitive skills. The findings also indicate that student academic rank was an important factor in making mathematical calculations. It may be implied that students who are taught by the individualized instructional method developed a higher degree of proficiency than students who were taught by the lecture-discussion method and that students developed a higher degree of competence by using a com- bination of psychomotor and cagnitive skills than when using cOgnitive skills only. Also. it is implied that academic rank is related to the cagnitive skill, making mathematical calculations; but it is not related to the other cognitive and psychomotor skills develOped by the individ- ualized instructional unit used in this study. Also. it may be implied that no interaction or no generalization can be made regarding the combined 109 effect of academic rank and methods of instruction. 5. The findings of this study which dealt with student person- ality profile and student achievement indicated that eight of the ten personality variables were not statistically different for the two methods of instruction. The mean scores for the personality variables general activity and personal relations were significantly greater for students in the lecture-discussion group than for students in the individualized instructional group. 6. The findings of this study which dealt with student evalua- tion of the individualized instructional unit indicated that the mean scores of the student responses clustered toward the favorable end of the semantic differential scale. It may be implied that the individ- ualized instructional unit on assigning numerical grades to corn was well received. well liked and thought of as being valuable and worth- while by the students who used the individualized instructional unit. F. Conclusions l. The information from this study may be used by persons at the local, state and college levels who are responsible for the development of instructional materials. as a basis for the deveTOpment of additional individualized units. These persons should be encouraged to develOp units that would help students develOp vocational competencies to meet the training needs of students who are enrolled in the same vocational agriculture classes and who have different vocational objectives. 2. The teacher trainers at Michigan State University should develop appropriate ways and means for training student teachers. llO beginning teachers and experienced teachers of vocational agriculture in the use of individualized instructional materials. This may be accomplished in several ways. namely: (l) in-service workshops should be conducted by Michigan State University instructional material specialist in Agricultural Education; (2) student teachers could be clustered in a student teaching center, and a portion of the weekly seminars should be devoted to training student teachers in the use of individualized instructional materials and (3) teacher training institu- tions. such as Michigan State University. that do not issue permanent teaching certificate upon completion of the baccalaureate degree and require post-baccalaureate credits for permanent certification. should develOp and make available a course in the use of individualized instructional materials that would be taken during this interim period. 3. Teachers of vocational agriculture who are going to use individualized instructional units to develop vocational competencies need to have individualized instructional units that would encompass all subject matter areas that would be taught. 4. The information from this study may be used to develop a pilot program based on students completing a predetermined number of individualized instructional units during a semester. Students complet- ing all of these units would earn one-half credit; students completing additional units would earn extra credit and students completing fewer units would earn less credit. This would eliminate failing a student for completing less than the required number of instructional units. For example: .children of migrant workers could move from school to school and earn credit for work completed. lll 5. It may be concluded from this study that teachers of vocational agriculture should put less reliance on student academic ability for students who are working on individualized instructional units. 6. s’ecoax-hendatious f9; Further Study Based on the findings of this study and from the experiences received while conducting it. the following recommendations are made for use in future research studies related to individualized instruction. l. There is a need for further study to identify the combinations of cognitive and psychomotor skills that may be taught effectively by the individualized instructional method. Such a study would be bene- ficial in identifying the technical information that could be taught effectively to students by the individualized instructional method. Students enrolled in the same vocational agriculture classes with different vocational objectives could pursue a course of study that would contribute to each student's vocational objective. This could result in a differentiated curriculum within the same class and provide a means for “truly" individualized instruction. 2. A study should be made that identifies the cognitive skills that may be effectively taught by individualized instruction. This study would be beneficial in determining the technical information related to production agriculture and agricultural business and service that could be presented to students in individualized units. Individ- ualized units that are representative of the kinds of technical informa- tion needed for production agriculture and agricultural business and 112 service would need to be developed and evaluated. This implies a cluster of studies focusing on this problem. 3. A study that identifies the psychomotor skills that may be taught effectively by individualized instruction would be beneficial. This study would be worthwhile in determining the psychomotor skills related to production agriculture and agricultural business and service that could be presented to students in individualized instructional units. Individualized units that are representative of the psychomotor skills needed for production agriculture and agricultural business and service would need to be develOped and evaluated. This implies a cluster of studies focusing on this problem. 4. In agriculture many problems are diagnosed through sound, for example: a tractor engine that has malfunctioned. A study needs to be made that would evaluate individualized instructional units utilizing auditory stimulus as a means of diagnosing problems. 5. In agriculture many problems are diagnosed visually. for example: determining the cause of tire wear. A study needs to be made that would evaluate individualized instructional units utilizing the visual stimulus as a means of diagnosing problems. 6. A study needs to be made in detail on the cognitive and psychomotor skills that may be taught successfully to students with an agricultural objective whose I.Q. scores are ninety-five or lower. There are routine tasks that require a limited amount of technical information that could be performed adequately by such students. 7. Further study needs to be conducted in detail with individ- ualized instructional units that have auxiliary individualized ll3 instructional units for the basic skills needed for successful comple- tion of the major unit. A pretest could identify students that lacked the basic skills required for a unit. The group should be randomly divided. and one group would advance through the unit while the other group would first complete an individualized instructional unit designed to develOp the basic skill required for successful completion of the major unit. The results could be analyzed to determine the benefit of the auxiliary units for teaching the basic skills needed to success- fully complete a unit. This would be valuable in evaluating the effec- tiveness of an individualized instructional unit on basic skills for a specific application. 8. A study needs to be made in detail to identify and catalog the individualized instructional materials that are available in voca- tional agriculture and other vocational disciplines. This study should focus on identifying the individualized instructional materials that are oriented toward student behavior. Such a study would assist teachers of vocational agriculture in identifying sources of instructional mater- ials and in securing individualized instructional materials that would be oriented toward the specific student behavioral objectives. 9. A study needs to be made in detail to determine what percent- age of the total vocational agriculture curriculum could be taught by the individualized instructional method. Teachers c00perating in this study indicated that they liked the individualized instruction unit but also indicated that they would not like to teach every class. every day using the individualized instructional method. Also. the cooperating teachers indicated that they felt that students would not like all of 114 their vocational agriculture classes taught in this manner. Therefore. a detailed study should identify the ideal combination of individ- ualized instruction with other'methods of instruction. 10. A study needs to be made to determine what psychological adjustments that teachers and students need to make when using the individualized instructional units. Students and teachers have tradi- tionally been accustomed to the lecture-discussion and problem-solving methods of teaching. This study would be beneficial in setting guide- lines for an in-service training program for teachers preparing to use the individualized instructional method; it could identify guidelines that these teachers could use in preparing their students for this method of teaching. ll. Further study needs to be conducted in detail on the role of the teacher when using the individualized instructional method. The variation due to teacher differences was pooled in this study. Such a study should be of sufficient size to identify teachers who have been successful with individualized instruction and to identify teachers who were not successful with individualized instruction. An instrument should then be developed to identify and describe the teacher activities of the successful teachers: the results could then be used to develop a theoretical model of the teacher role in individualized instruction. l2. A study needs to be made in detail of the personality profile of teachers of vocational agriculture who have been successful and those who have been unsuccessful in using the individualized instructional method. Such a study would be valuable in identifying prospective teachers who would be likely to be successful using the llS individualized instructional method. l3. A study that would identify the criteria students use in evaluating themselves should be made. Are students more critical in evaluating themselves or fellow students than parents and teachers? This study should identify the peer influence, parental influence and teacher influence related to student personal evaluation. 14. A study that would identify how students establish behavioral objectives for themselves should be made. This study should try to determine the peer influence. parental influence and teacher influence on behavioral objectives and the decision making processes that students experience when they determine their personal behavioral objectives. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS A Climate for Individuality. Joint Project on the Individual and the " c EST. Hashington. D. C.: American Association of School Administrators. Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment. National Association of Secondary School Principals and NEA Department of Rural Education. l966. Atkinson. Carroll and Eugene Maleska. Ihg_Story‘gI.Education. New York: Bantam Books. l962. Bruner. Jerome S. The Process gI_Education. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press. 1960. Campbell. Donald and Julian Stanley. Experimental.gng. . Design jg:.Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company. 1966. Cardozier. V. R. (ed.). mmmmmm. Danville. Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers. l967. Clark. Raymond and Halter NcCarley. A Pattern for Individualizin Instruction in Vocational Agriculturefitlasses: ra n am in and Gradin ."Easf Eansing. c gan: College of Education. Ffiim gan te University. February. l968. Clark. Raymond and Halter McCarley. An Individualized Instruction Unit for Assianin Numerical Grades'ToTom. East Lansing. Michigan: College 0 ucation. Michigan State University. June. l969. Dewey. John. Problems gjhflgg, New York: PhilOSOphical Library. Inc.. l946. Dewey. John. Democracy agd_Education. New York: The Macmillan Company. l96l. Edwards. Allen. WMMWW New York: Holt. Rinehart and Hinston. l965. Foth. Henry. Structured Learnin and Trainin Environments in Soil Science. ProTécthg, . 'East [ansing. Michigan: Educational Eve I opmen rograms .‘T9’67. Glaser. Robert. Teachin Machines and Pro ramed Learnin II. Hashington D. C.: National Educational‘AEsociaEion of the UnitEH’States. l965: ll6 117 Haines. Peter and Ralph Mason. Cooperative Dccu ational Education: and -Hork Ex rience in Curriculum. ‘Dinville. Illinois: Tfie Inter- state PrintErs afia'Pub1ishers. Inc.. l965. Hays. Hilliam. .Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Hinston.‘Inc.. l Hoover. Norman. Handbookm A ricultural Occupations. Danville. Ill.: The Interstate Printtrs and PuBlishers.*1nc.. 1963. Kerlinger. Fred. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt. Rinehart and'winston. 'Inc.. Kessing. Felix M. Cultugalrggthrogology. New York: Rinehart and Company. 1958. Komensky. Jon Amos. The Mal tical Didactic of Comenius. Trans. V. Jelnick. Chicago: UniverSity o? Chicago—Ftess. I953. Lumsdaine. A. A. and Robert Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learnin . Hashington. D. C.: aelionél Luucation'AESOCia on of the United States. l960. Mager. Robert F. Preparing Instructional Dbfiectives. Palo Alto. Cali- fornia: Fearon PubliEhers."Inc..—1 '. Man ower Report gj_the President. United States Department of Labor. Pasnington. D. C.: U1 5. Government Printing Office. l966. Nevins. Allan. The Ori in of Land- Grant Colle es and State Universities. Hashington. D. C. .Vi ar ommlss on. 9322“ Osgood. Charles E.. George J. Suci and Percy Tannenbaum. The Measurement gf_Meaning. Urbana. Illinois: University of IllinBiE' ress. Phipps. Lloyd. Handbook on Aoricui Danville. Illinois. TlE"Intr l965. to re al Education in Public Schools. er st ate Printers and Fu Slisfiers. Inc.. Rouse. w. H. D. (trans. ). Great Dialo s on Plato. New York: The New American Library (Medtbr'tboxs . 9331 ' Silverton. David M.. et al. Instruction Materials Primer: Use and Preparation. tfimttidge. thssaCfiGsétts: ‘Educators PuETisfiifig EervTCe. 1962. Stevens. Glenn. Agricultural Education. New York: The Center for Applied ResearCh in'Educ ation. Inc.. l967. Thomas. Robert. et al. Individual Difference in the Classroom. New York: McKay Company. l965} Trump. J. Lloyd. Ima es of the Future. Washington. D. C.: National Association 0? Secondary School Principals. NEA. 1959. 118 Trump. J. Lloyd and Dorsey Baynham. Guide to Better Schools: Focus on Change. Chicago: Rand McNally and 'C'Enpany. lgtl. '- Venn. Grant. Egg, Education and Work. Washington. D. C.: American Council on Education. 1933. Warmbrod. Robert and Lloyd Phipps. Review and S thesis gf_Research in Agricultural Education. Coluntus. 0576': tile Enter tor Disea'r-c'h and”LeaderSEip DeveTopment in Vocational and Technical Education, August. 1966. B. BULLETINS Ob ectives of Vocational Technical Education in Agricglture. U. 5. Office at EEUcatTon BulTetin 1933. No. I. Wat'h'ihgton. D. C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1965. Official Grain Standards of the United States. Washington. D. C.: United Statts Govemnent Wit—{Tog Oitice. I934. . Schramm. Halter. The Research on P ramned Instruction: An Annotated Bibli ra . U‘T‘D'i'. . fife—Liam uca ion. Bulletin 1934. No. 5. as ng on. . C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office. l964. Stimson. Rufus and Frank Lathrop. Histo of Agricultural Education of Less Than Colle. Grade in the United—States. U. S. Ottice of"' Eaucation. oca ional Ditisitfi} Bulletin 217. Agricultural Services No. 55. Washington. D. C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1942. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. Supplement Numbers 5-16. oCEtional Divition u e n o.'s 233 - 293. United States Depart- ment of Health. Education and Welfare. Washington. D. C.: United States Government Printing Office. l952 - l963. Summaries gI_Studies in Agricultural Education l963 - 1965. American ssociation of'Teac er cued rs in Agriculture. ‘Danville. Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers. Inc.. l968. Dissertation Abstracts. Abstracts of Dissertations and Monographs in Microform. vol. IV. No. 2 through Vol. XXIX. No. 20. Ann Arbor. Michigan: University Microfilms. Inc.. 1943-1969. C. PERIODICALS Bolvin. J. O.‘ 'Now It Can Be Done: Individualized Instruction." Audio- Visual Instructor. 13:238-42. March. 1968. 119 Bush. Robert. “Individualizing Instruction in the Age of Conformity.“ Journal g:_Secondary Education. 36:358-385. November. 1961. Clopton. R. W. “Why We Teach: The Idea of Individualism.“ American Teacher Ma azine. 49:7-8. October. 1964. Dale. Edgar. “The Teacher and Technology.“ IQgDNews Letter. 29:l. Winter. 1963. Frazier Arnold. "Individualized Instruction.“ Educational Leader. isms-24. April. 1968. W Friese. J. F. ”Individualized Education for Every Child." Education. Glaser. Robert. “Christmas Past. Present. and Future.“ Cogtemporary Psvcholggv. 5:24-8. June. 1960. Hunter. F. W. 'Staffing for Variability.“ Educational_Leader. 25:501-4. March. 1967. Kemp. J. E. “Teaching One and Many at the Same Time." Educational Screen. 46:26-7. November. 1967. Lindberg. L. ”What is Individualized Education?” Education Digest. 30:30-]. OCLObel‘. 19640 McKeegan. Hugh. "What Individualizing Instruction Means to the Curricu- lum Director.I Audio-Visual Instruction. 13:23-7. March. 1968. Ohles. John. "Differentiated Learning.” Education. 82:396-8. March. 1962. Pilant. Elizabeth M. 'So You Want to Individualize Instruction.“ School Skinner. 8. F. “The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching.“ Harvard Educational Review. 24:86-97. Spring. 1954. Taylor. Harold. "The Private Man with a Book." aturday Review. 44:17-9. January. 1961. Todd. John. ‘A Course Combining Production Agriculture and Industry Agriculture." Agricultural Education Magazine. 39:186-7. February. 1967. Vergis. John P. ”Technology: Key to Individualized Instruction." Arizona Teacher, 55:12-3. September. 1966. Ouoting Arthur Schlepp. (ed.). rary gj_Living Philosoggx. Wolfson. Bernice J. "Individualizing Instruction.“ National Education Journal. 55:31-40. November. 1966. r ' ‘ A. i— r'J 120 D. PUBLICATIONS. INSTRUMENTS AND PAPER Clark. Raymond. “Individualizing Instruction in Vocational Agriculture.” Paper presented to Teachers of Vocational Agriculture. Madison. Wisconsin. July 9. 1968. Cronbach. Lee. “How Can Instruction Be Adapted to Individual Differences?” Learning and Individual Difference. Robert Gage. editor. tolum5§sz Charlei‘herri11 Books. 1967. Elliot. Charles W. “Shortening and Enriching the Grammar School Course." Diaries W, Ellig£_and Po ular Education. Edward King. editor. New iork: Teachertmtb aege Press. 1961. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temoerement Survey, Beverly Hills. Ca1ifornia: u“.— I‘ "Wu‘. ".9 f m m 39‘" 7:1 . 'q— T eneridan Supply tampdny. 1949. Henry. Nelson 8. (ed.). Individualizing Instructing, The Sixty-first Yearbook of the National Society for'the Study of Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1962. Muessing. Raymond. ”Youth Education: A Social-Philosuphical Perspective." Youth Eggggtion: Problems. Perspective. Promise. Washington. D. C.: Immnacan SOCiety for Curriculum Development. National Educational Association. ‘ Postlethwait. Samuel N. "The Use of Multi-media in Science Education.“ Edggationgl_gegig_in Vocational Technica1_Education. Columbus. Ohio: lhe Center t5?“¥ocationa1 Technical Eaucation. 1967. Richey. Herman G. (ed.). Theories of Learnin and Instruction. The Sixty-third Yearbook 0t tte Nitional Society for the'Study of Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1964. . and Merle M. Coulson (eds.). Pro ramed Instruction. The Sixty- sixth Yearbook of the National Society tor the Study of Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1967. Sedgwick. Larry. ”Teacher Education for the American. Industry Project.“ Developing_lnnovative Vocational Technical Education Programs. Mary Klaurehs. editor._'fiinnea55115. hinnesota: Risearch Coordi- nating Unit in Occupational Education. University of Minnesota. 1968. Stimson. Rufus W. "Special Emphasis on Part-Time Agriculture.“ The Eleventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part 11. Agricultural Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1912. ~ Walker. R. M.. G. 2. Stevens and N. K. Hoover. Penns lvania Vocational Agriculture Interest Inventor . Teacher Education Series. DEpart- ment of Agriculturaf ducation. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. 1963. ‘ 121 E. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Ballard. John Rogers. 'A Study to Determine the Effectiveness of Two Hethods of Instruction on Achievement and Retention in Industrial Arts.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College. College Station. 1966. Christmas. Ellsworth. ”An Experimental Evaluation of Programmed Instruc- tion in Teaching Agronomy at the College Level.” Unpublished Sector's dissertation. Purdue University. Lafayette. 1964. Ehresmar. Mormon. "An Experimental Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Certain Structured Teaching toterials." Unouolished Doctor's dissertation. University of Illinois. Urbana. 1966. Esh’eean. Uinston. "A Cornerison of Programed Instruction with Conven- tional tattoos for Teaching Two Units in Eighth Grade Science." Croeolishcd Doctor's dissertation. University of Arizona. Tucson. 1967. Classman. Jerrold. "The Effectiveness of a Teaching Machine-Program as Cornered with Traditional Instruction in Learning of Correct Responses to Hazardous Driving Conditions.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. how York University. New York. 1965. Gordon. Roger Lawrence. "An Investigation of the Effects of a Programed Instructional Method on Skill Learning in Audio-Visual Education." Urooblished Doctor‘s dissertation. Michigan State University. East Lansing. 1963. hanilton. James B. “Youth with Soecial Needs in Non—Metropolitan Ohio High Schools.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. The Ohio State University. Columbus. l957. Hanneoann. James H. "The Effect of Auditory and Visual Nation Picture Descriptive Modalities in Teaching Perceptual-Motor Skills Used in the Grading of Cereal Grain.“ Unpublished Doctor's disserta- tion. Michigan State University. East Lansing. l968. . ”The Effectiveness of Teaching Parliamentary Procedure through the Use of Programmed Instruction." Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University. Ithaca. New York. 1964. Hull. Uilliam Lee. “A Procedure for Sequencing Self-Instructional Materials for Concept Attainment of Human Relations Abilities in Agricultural Business Occupations." Unpublished Doctor's disser- tation. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. 1965. Huston. Gerald D. “An Analysis of Programed Instruction with Emphasis on the Construction and Testing of a Programed Unit for High School Bookkeeping.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Iowa. Iowa City. 1966. 122 Legg, Otto P. ”Programmed-Instruction and Lecture-Discussion Methods Compared for Effectiveness in Teaching Agricultural Finance to Vocational Agriculture Students.“ Unpublished Doctor's disserta- tion. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. l962. Manchak, Paul J. "An Experimental Comparison of Two Methods of Teaching a Perceptual Motor Task in Industrial Arts.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Maryland. College Park, l965. McClay, David R. and Uillian Lee Pull. "A Comparison of Pregrammed and Lecture-Biscussion Methods -- Teaching Farm Credit to High School Youth and Adults." Unpublished Staff Study, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, l954. ERIC, Spring, l968. Zarraga, Jose Cruz. "The Develocrent and Experimental Trials of Programmed Training Materials in Teaching Farm Business Management to Voca- tional Agriculture Students.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University of Ninnesota, Minneapolis, l963. P“; C, .— Student's Name APPEKDIX A-l GRADING CORN Scheol (PRETEST) Class Date PUMERIC“ 622323, SIVP’- C?PSE PUD GRACE REQUE PEPEUTS PCP C0 PN l“; .ia‘.3’...'-'."‘.i: ‘i w Test 5 Brckcn Grade . He.dht 5 Ccrn a P~~~~cd Kernels No. i Per 0 l"disture 5 Foreign """ Eta.-ca ged - dichel 5 5 Material _ Total Kernels I Penn/i: 5 Percent 5 Percent 5 Percent Percent l 1 .5! 50 1.4.0 5 2.0 3.0 0.1 l i 2 5 ”A i 15.5 3.0 . 5.0 J, 0.2 i ' 5 3 l 52 L 17.5 l 40 I 7.0 5 0.5 ‘ 4 an 20.0 50 i 10.0 5 1.0 l s j as 5 23.0 7_.0 - 15.0 3.0 Sample Steele gr rade shall be cern which does not meet the required grade meets for a.y grades from No. l to N0. 5. inclusive. Directions: Read the questions and/or problems carefully and then select or figure the best possible answer based on the information Place the answers in the space provided. give.. EXANPLE: a. b. c. d. Numerical grades of corn are determined by a . quality and condition shape of the kernel class of corn none of these 123 -r 1‘“! ! II, _— 124 Appendix A-l Continued.... l. List four factors that determine the numerical grades of corn. (1) (3) (2) (4) 2, Complete the following table. -~..: 7 hel Best Nemerical Grade Based on Test Height 3. List the critical factdrs in eating the test weight-per bushel test. a. b. C. d. 4. To determine the test weight per bushel . a. 2 quarts are needed b. 4 quarts are needed c. 1 pint is needed d. l l/8 quart is needed l‘. l25 Appendix A-l Continued.... 5. The beam arm on the test weight per bushel tester weighs directly in . a. pounds b. grams c. pounds per bushel d. none of these 6. The funrel is placed inches above the kettle. a. 2 inches ”“ b. 3 inches c. 4 inches d. 6 inches 7. True or False ‘A . fioisture in a sample of cern relates to the future quality of the grain. 8. List critical steps in determining percent moisture. a. A. b. c. AA, A AAA _A A 4g d. _w _A A A e. A4 9. Qhat numerical grade would you assign the following samples based on moisture? Sample ' Percent l 1 No. ‘ Moisture Best Possible Grade Based on Moisture l L . l l 24 1 2 l 12 I 3 l 2_o‘___ A _ 4 l6 1 , S l4.5 .ee 6 l8 L 126 Appendix A-l Continued.... l0. Determine the percent moisture in the following sample and assign numerical grade to each sample. A- AA ! Samnl E M- Per- Teeper- Correction Percent Best Possible Er .i“:ading§cent ature Factor Moisture Grade i lCO 20.38! 65 +.75 2 g 130 ‘24.se§ 7o +.so i i Y 3 I so io.74§ 74 +.3o i i s . g ,“‘ “ ‘ 4 3 es gia.54§ 59 a +.55 a l s i lCO izo.:3: 53 , +.63 g Si 40 i12.34 7o +.so i ll. How much corn is needed to determine the percent broken corn and foreign material? l2. Calculate the percent of broken corn and foreign material in the following prcblems and then assign numerical grade. I i G. ems oflPercent of t Br C! .en0 Breken Cern Best Possible Grade Sample Original! Cm a a Foreign Based on Broken Corn No. Height Foreign fiateriel and Foreign Material EVaterial [in Sanele u f I 800 grams 16 2 E809 ' 24 3 800 ' 32 4 son ' co _ s 300 ' 55 l3. To determine the percent of broken corn and foreign material, a sample size of is needed. 127 Appendix A-l Continued.... l4. Calculate the percent of damaged kernels in the following problems and assign best numerical grade. l Grams of Percent of Best Possible Numerical Sample Damaged Damaged Grade Based on Damaged I no. I Kernels Kernels Kernels i I t I ' 1 l0 grams * 2 I15 " I 3 I is ' I I I Inf II I 4 ILJ g s Iso ~ I i l5. Calculate the-percent of heat-damaged kernels in the following problems and assign the best nunerical grade. Sample I Heat-damaged Percent Boat- IBest Possible Grade No. _ Kernels damaged Kernels IBased on Heat-damaged I I i . I I I l l P .26 grams I I of . I I 2 .4 I . L , _ f 3 I 1.20 ' I i : 4 I 3.0 I It 5 8.0 ' 128 o.v o.p o.~ o.~_ mm o— m. o.m m.¢ o.o~ pm a _. o.m o.~ m.m~ me o i m. 05 .3 9: o... a e. o.o m.m o.m. Nm m 0.. o.m —.~ o.mp co m 1 1 3.. 3: o; 98 3 . 1 l .31 1 _. o5 o.~ 0.: 3 n i i i _. 2 o.~ 9.: S N 11 ... ..m ..w ..z .m _ .11 .l: Hampton acuugoa ascend; «gouge; venom 33.5.3“... :38 ‘ mpovamuex waaum.o2 Jamvuz manum teamemv $383 383.. an: 3.. $8: .38 2:33.. 83 223 .2. apocgux ummmseo a c.ou oumgu coveted nm*ox amok o—aa-m .122ea cH.‘.e a :Lou - :. ummmm cemee w.n_mmom wmmm m_wcgox commeeo saxosm .mpasmm we» to» acmgm paupgme=c on» mcpsgaaou “NV ucu opasam sumo so» cm>wo. weapon; sac» mg“ co cane so» aua.c «paw.mon ammo mg» acycvsgauou APV »a usage a:_3op—om use ouopanau .m. ....ooac—ucou —u< xwvcoant APPENDIX A-Z POSSIBLE POIflTS FOR EACH QUESTION ON PRETEST gigstien Possible Points Question Possible Oints l 4 l6 Sample Grade 2 4 (5 points each) 50 3 8 Test Height L (l point each) 10 4 1 r Weisture 5 l l (l point each) l0 I 6 l Broken Corn l ‘ (l point each) l0 7 t l Total Damaged 8 l0 t (1 point each) 10 .9 6 Heatodamaged I (l point each) lo 10 MOlStUPE 12 ) Grade 5 ’ 11 1 b Total Possible Points 2l6 l2 Percent Broken Corn . and Foreign Material. l5 Grade 5 : l3 l l4 Percent Damaged Kernels 15 Grade 5 15 Percent Heat-damaged l5 L Grade 5 129 R K \ APPENDIX A-3 STUDENT INFORMATION FORM Name School Age Date of birth Sex M F Grade Jr. or Sr. Father or guardian is: (indicate one) a. full-time farmer b. part-time farmer c. non-farmer 0 .J (D V Type of farm: (indicate a. grain b. liYQSika c. fruit or vegeidfile d. general 2. nene f. dairy Type of soil: Your place or residence: (indicate one) a. on a farm f (fijze, acres) b. in a rural area but net on .erm c. in town or city Do you olan to farm? Enter an agricultural occupation? Oe-the-fermT Off the farm? --after graduation {rem Rage school. FaDl-‘EPlSIX B ‘r- L11] l}m.m-M APPENDIX B-l EXAM 0N GRADING CORN Student's New Class School Date NZKERICAL GRADES, SA%?LE GRADE AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR CORN Minimee; aroken ) Test Corn & Damaged Kernels Grace Reifht Moisture Foreign Do. Per ) fiaterial Heat-damaged .BUSDE} ) Total Kernels -1 EPounos lFercenE" {Percent Percent Percent ] * 56 l 1400 200 3.0 00] L r T 2 i 54 f 15.5 3.0 5.0- .2 ‘3 52 l7.5 4.0 7.0 .5 i l 4 49 2000 L 500 r1000 ‘00 5 46 } 2300 l 7.0 15.0 300 Sample i Sample grade shall be corn which does not meet the.require- grade « ments for any grades from No..l to No. 5, inclusive. Directions: Read the questions and/or problems carefully and then select or figure the best possible answer based on the information given. Place the answers in the space provided. EXAMPLE: Numerical grades of corn are determined by a . a. Q"ality and condition b. shape Of the kernel c. class of corn d. none of these 131 132 Appendix B-l Continued.... l. Quality and condition are determined by the following factor or factors . a. test weight per bushel b. percent of moisture c. percent of broken corn and foreign material d. all of the above: a. b & c 2. The grades of corn shall be . a. .numerical grade b. sample grace c. Special grade d. all of the above: a, b and c 3. Complete the following table: g yegt alight B t Nurori '1 er a 35 a T t w i ht Per Bushel as on.. Ca. z.ase ..se on es 9 g I Pounds ‘ l 43 l i 45 55 l 56 i; 50 t 4. Complete the following table: Grade Minimum Test Height Per Bushel l 01th l33 Appendix B-l Continued.... 5. List the critical steps in: (a) dividing the sample and (b) making the test weight per bushel test. a. Cutting Sample b. Making Test Height Per Bushel lest Il. .2. 3. _. - 4. _LA 5. he. 2.; 6. Ae_e 7. 8:7 .4 4h. tfist the key steps~tn~determining=percent moisture. a. b. c. d. e. — M 7. what numerical grade would you assign the following samples, based on percent moisture? Sample ) Percent No. i Moisture Best Possible‘Grade_§ased on Moisture ) 1600 13.0_ 24.0 g 20.0 18.0 14.5 130145109!» 134 Appendix B-l Continued....‘ 8. Hhat are the maximum limits of percent moisture for the following numerical grades of corn? h. AA Grade Maximum Limits of Moisture 1 4 .E 5 Sample 9. Determine the. percent'moisture in the following samples and then -assign numerical grade.for each sample. ‘ l L L Best Possible SaMple M- Per- Temoer-l Correction Percent Grade Based No. lReading 'cent ature _ Factor ; Moisture Ion Moisture I E II9 I23.04l 7O +.50 wt“.— M— __‘ ‘ 4“ 1 2 40 [12.341 65 +.75 1 3 .1 51 14.10! 71 +.45 4 [ 6l {15.6 74 +.3o 5 77 17.58 69 +.55 6 f 125 123.83‘ 100 -1.00 i 135 Appendix B-l Continued.... l0. The amount of corn needed to determine the percent of broken corn and foreign material . a. one pint b. one quart c. one one-eighth quart d. two quarts ll. Fif re the percent ; age of bm ken corn and foreign material in the follm ing serr’e. and as ig for- ei s nbest numerical grade possible based on broken corn and go m-. terial. e~ 1 weight of Grams of Percent of Best Possible ' _ . Crij‘na Breton Broion Ce? rn Grade Based on iSarplq l l/B L Corn 5 - a Tcrcign Broken Corn 5 I no.“ Quart I Foreign fiaterial * Foreign Material I I I fiaterial i in Sample I . l r 3 ,l I I 2 i000 ' I 100 " I I I I a _._ 3 1000 - t150 ' I I I 4 {moo " I so " 5 '0030 ' I 20 ' V "1... "W9 t 12. Complete the following table. *— _ w,- 2 Grade . Maximum Limits for Broken Corn and Foreign Material W 136 Appendix B-l Continued.... 13. To determine the percent of total damage in a sample of corn, weigh Agrams of cleaned corn. a. 1000 grams b. 500 grams c. 250 grams d. l0 grams id. The total damage in a sample of corn is determined by adding the tetal grams of damaged kernels and . a. heat-damaged kernels b. broken corn and foreign material c. weight in areas of l l/8 quart sample d. none of these 15. Figure the percent of damaged kernels in the following samples and assign the best possible numerical grade based on damaged kernels. I Grams of l Percent of Best Possible Grade Sample Damaged 1 Daeeged Based on Damaged do. Kernels ; Kerrels in Kernels s l Sample b L- be_ ___ _. l 7.5 grams * 2 i 12.5 ' 3 i 17.5 " J 1 4 25.0 ” i T 5 37.5 ' l6. Figure the percent:of heat-damaged kernels in the following sample and assign the best possible grade based on heat-damaged kernels. . 1 Sample_ Heat-damaged Percent heat- Best Possible Grade Ho. Kernels Damageg:ye:pels Basedgpnflfieat~damage .25 gram or (a) g. .5 .gram or (k) g. l.25 gram ..l o: no .. 2.5 gram 7.5 gram 137 e.m m.~ o.~ c.e_ cm a. m. o.o c.~ o.¢p mm m m. o.m m.m o.m_ mm m p. o.~ o.~ m.- cm s _. o.n o.~ o.m~ om [Q m. _.5 —.¢ c.5p me m m.~ _.o— _.m P.o~ me e N. P.m m.~ o.¢— mm m _. m.~ o.~ m.- «e N F. F.m m.P m.- mm — vacuum; acmugaa ucuuema ucwuaoa «venom tonnage Fuwewuo: luau: page» :mwueou oespmwoz Haney: mpaEum umamEcu Peach ~owgmum: was» agape: .0: a ceou acuoaua “wee Lo» .pmoz cmwmgom -mwo: pump opneom m—ocgox mwmaEun cwxogm mange a ccou . co vwmam «cage upawmmoa ummm mfimcgmx nwmmeaa cmxoem .o—QEmm mg» Lee mumem quweossc ecu mcweemumu ANV use anEmm sumo Low cm>_m macaque Lao» on» we guew Lee oueem mpavmmoa umoa esp newcweLaumv A—V xa “Logo memzop—om as» ouopaeou .Np ....ea==_u=ou .-m x_e=aaa< 138 Appendix B-l Continued.... 18. From your instructor secure a l l/8 quart sample of grain and determine the (l) test weight, (2) percent moisture, (3) percent broken corn and foreign material and (4) damaged kernels. Record the sample number, your figures and answers in the spaces provided n the accompanying table. ter you have determined the four factors, assign numerical grade based on your analysis. (Upon ccmeleting the analysis of this sample, return the sample to your instructor and pick up the next sample to analyze.)* EXAMPLE: Sample No. X 1"flow: GRAIN RECORDING TABL Assignment Factor __~ f T85: “0'0"”; w u I 56 LPG—grids thisture l l4.5 percent l Broken Corn and ~ Foreign fiaterial l a. neioht of original { l l/S o'erts l_,000 grams. b. weigrt of brorEi coin and foreign material 20 grams. L I c. Percent of broken corn and foreign material ’ 20/l000= .02 or 2 2 percent l a. heat-damage 442§ grams b. percent heat- darage in sample i rams . 0.1. C. Emma—1i KerneTs #— 6. 5 grams - d. percent damaged kernels in sample ; 0.51250;-~ L g 2.0 I Total Damage (b + d) 2.l 2.l percent Grade for Sample l LA h. It is very important that you return every piece of material back - into the sample container. These samples have not yet been graded. ‘The samples will be assigned grades under the super- vision of Dr. Lawrence Copeland, Agronomy Department, Michigan Stat.e University. To secure_§n accurate49raee, all material must be returned. ' ‘""T H 139 Appendix B-l Continued.... GRAIN RECORDING TABLE Assignment Factor Shmgie I Test Height pounds 50. I A A‘ 1; Moisture percent I Broken Corn and [ Foreign Material ‘ a. weight of original 1 l/B quarts grams. ‘! b. weight of breaen corn and ‘ foreign material grams. l .. :5 ~. ""77“: A g c. percent of proten corn and 1 foreign material percent ‘ a. heat-damage grams L b. percent neat- damage in sample C. Eémageé kernels AAE grams d. percent damaged i kernels in sample I Total Damage (b + d) percent Grade for Sample APPENDIX 8-2 POSSIBLE POINTS FOR EACH QUESTION 0N EXAM Qaestion an” 1 and o H «stoves "oi-ho: L: 11 d ...a—a ...-I U1 #0) N 1 05 General Test Height Moisture Percent Moisture Grade Broken Corn a Foreign Material 1 Broken Corn G Foreign Material Grade 'Total Damage 1 Daraged Kernels Grade : Heat~damage Grade I}..- 001 UT and ..J Nmaicn ...; U" ...-a ...-0 mm mm -‘-‘ 'UTUT Possible Points mm Wan- N 0.. 20 ...26 .0. 2 .0020 ...20 14 O Qgestion Possible ‘ o n 5 l6 Interpretation Sample Grade 50 Test Weight l0 Percent Moisture l0 Broken Corn 5 Foreign Material l0 Total Damage l0 Heat Damage l0 Total Possible Points 225 100 APPENDIX B-3 ASSIGNING NUMERICAL GRADES m mwAnm Test Height 4.0 Moisture 4.0 Broken Corn and Foreign Material l0.0 Heat Damage l0.0 Damaged Kernels l0.0 Total Damage 20.0 Grade for Sample 55.0 Total Points Per Sample ll3.0 I41 APPEi‘i-DI X C APPENDIX C LESSON PLAN Job-Problem Layout . erprise: Grain Month: January Periods: Two bier: Grading Grain Job: Determining Test Height Per Bushel Motivation: world you buy a 50 bushel size wagon of shelled corn without knowing the test weight per bushel? Obviotasly you would prefer a test weig'it of 54 pounds per bushel to a test weight of 49 "needs per 5nshel, assuming that t5e moisture in each sarole was iche same. It is easy to figure how much more dry matter, i. e.. , nutrients available for livestock, the grain wii:h a test we ght of 54 novnds has over a sample with a test weight of 49 pounds. For Example: 50 hp. X 54 lbs. test weight = 2700 total lbs. 50 " X 49 “ " - 2450 "YEU'lbs. more dry matter Behavioral Objectives: At the conclusion of this lesson the students will be able to: (l) properly CL ot a sarple of known size into a l l/8 quart sarple, (2) determine the test weight per bushel and (3) interpret the test weight in terms of assigning nurerical grade. Pivotal Points: 1. Explain the parts of the Boerner divider and demonstrate the preper use and function of the divider. 2. Explain the pa” 5 of the test weight per bushel tester and demon- strate the proper use oi tne tes er. 3. As class proiect, mNce ~5+ororeta ion of how test weight per bushel affects the numerical grade of corn (use transparency No. l). 4. As class exercise, determine the minim. test weight per bushel of grades No. 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 (use transparency No. l). 5. Students will go to laboratory area and determine test weight per bushel of samples of corn. Teaching Methods: Lecture. Discussion, Deaonstration and Laboratory Exercises d 0 References: U. S. D. A., Grain Grading Primer, Miscellaneous Publication No. ids, hashing 5n, D.C.: U. S. Govt. Printing Office, l957. 2. U. S. D. A., Official Grain Stand? .rds of the United States, nasn*egco'1,m0.t.: Ji-Eovtwprmtirg Uiiice,l9.61l 3. U.S D. A., 13st weio5t Per Pes5el of Grain: Methods of Use ”Ni-<9 MI nut-4" and calibrat1on Oi toe Azoalatus, tircucar 92l, wasUEngton, 0.5.: U03. LIOVLo-er rang UnlCC, 19530 l42 143 Appendix C Continued.... TRANSPARENCY N0. 1 1. Complete the following table: _‘ 1 TEST HEIGHT BEST NUMERICAL GRADE POSSIBLE BASED ON TEST WEIGHT 54 lbs. 55 le. ML‘ AA lbs. Sl_lbs. 413. 152;. so lbs MM 56 lbs. Of corn: What is the minieem test weight per bushel for the following grades 1 canoe MINIMUM TEST HEIGHT PER BUSHEL awn) ‘ 5 Seaple Grade; 1 144 Appendix C Continued.... LESSON PLAN Job-Problem Layout Enterprise: Grain Konth: January Periods: Two Problem: Grading Grain Job: Determining Moisture Motivation: Dryness is a must to maintain quality in corn that is to be stored or mixed into feed that will be stored. Corn that contains moisture in the excess of this normal air dry con- dition is nearly always unsafe for storage. The reader is well aware that corn with a high moisture content will soon mold or rot. This results in ruining the feeding value for the farmer, and the grain elevator Operator will have to mechanically dry the corn before it can be stored with other dry grain or mixed into feed. Obviously, if you were buying SO bushel of grain, you would prefer a moisture content of l5.5 percent to a moisture content of 20 percent, assuming that the test weight per bushel for each sample was the same. It is easy to fieure how much more moisture you would have in the sample with 20 percent moisture. Let us assume that each sample has a test weight of 54 pounds per bushel. Sample Ore Sarele Two ”$55730 EE'Cure "EJS'FOWE'ure 54 lbs. test weight fifi_lbs. test weight 8.37 lbs. of water 15736 pounds of water By subtracting l0.8 — 8.37 equals 2.43 more pounds of water per bushel in Sample Two. Considering the 50 bushel that we are purchasing, we would multiply 50 bushel X 2.43 pounds would equal lZlk pounds more water in the SO bushel of corn with 20% moisture. Since water weighs 8 lbs. per gallon, it is easy to figure that lle pounds of water divided by 8 lbs. per gallon would equal over l5 gallons more water in the 50 bushel of corn testing 20 percent moisture. Behavioral Objectives: At the conclusion of this lesson the students will be able to: (l) determine the percent of moisture in a sample of corn and (2) interpret the percent of moisture in terms of numerical grade. Pivotal Points: 1. Lecture demonstration on how to use Steinlite Moisture Tester. 2. As a class exercise determine the percent of moisture in several samples of grain (use transnarency No. 2). 3. Students will go to the laboratory and analyze several samples for moisture and interpret results in terms of grade. Teaching Methods: Lecture, Discussion, Demonstration and Laboratory Exercise. References: 1. Operating Instructions for Steinlite Moisture Tester, Model RCT. 2. U.S;DLQ;,‘Official grain Stand35§§_gj_the United States, Rasfiibgton, 5.5.?_U.S. Uovt. Printing CWTch, IUGK. 145 Appendix C Continued.... TRAflSPARENCY N0. 2 l. Figure the percent of moisture in the following problems: Sample1 H Per- Temper- Correc- Percent Best Possible No. 1 Reading cent ature tion Moisture Grade Based Factor __ _‘ og;§oisture 1 _ _ L?!) 23.13 39” +2.50: 1 2 ldo 26.0? 60 +1;99 __ 3 Bl l8.0€w_ 7l + .45 __ __~ 4 7a l7.22 80 + .00 5 30 l0.74 75 + .25 ._ 6 l 22 9&5 as -A .30 7 33 ll.2? 100 31,00 _‘ .s 8 40 l2.34 70 + .§p ~‘h*_ *_ 9 45 l3.l4 v74*_5 +_;30 ,__ 10 7O l6.74 _v 70 + .50 _g_ i n 58 5.15 ’ so + .00 2. Complete the following table: i GRADE 1 . name: LIMlTS or MOISTURE l 2 3 4 S Sample Grade 146 Appendix C Continued.... LESSON PLAN Job-Problem Layout Enterprise: Grain Month: January Periods: Two Problem: Grading Grain Job: Analyzing for Broken Corn and Foreign Material Motivation: Broken corn and foreign material is important in corn because: (l) an excess amount of broken corn and foreign material affects test weight per bushel, (2) lowers the total amount of food value in a bushel of corn, (3) takes up valuable storage space and (4) foreign material is almost worthless for feeding purposes and broken corn will encourage insect infestation, such as: granary weevil, rice weevil, grain borer and Angoumois grain moth. It is obvious to see that a bushel of corn with a test weight of 52 pounds per bushel and containing 4 percent broken corn and foreign material would result in approximately two pounds per bushel of broken corn and foreign material. For Example: 52 pounds test weight 4 percent broken corn and foreign material 2.b3 pounds of broken corn and foreign material Behavioral ObjeCtives: At the conclusion of this lesson the students will be able to (1) hand sort broken corn and foreign material, (2) weigh the broken corn and foreign material, (3) figure the percentage of broken corn a foreign material and (4) interpret the results in terms of numerical grades. Pivotal Points: l. Explain the proner procedure for weighing l l/8 quart sample. 2. Demonstrate proper sieving procedure and hand picking foreign material that does not pass through l2/64 inch sieve. 3. Demonstrate weighing broken corn and foreign material. 4. Show students how to determine percentage of broken corn and foreign material in sample. 5. As a class exercise, determine the percentage of broken corn and foreign material in several samples (use tranSparency No. 3). 6. Students will go to the laboratory and analyze samples for broken corn and foreign material in several samples of corn and determine the percentage of broken corn and foreign material in samples. Teaching Methods: Lecture, Discussion, Demonstration and Laboratory Exercises. References: l. U.S.D.A., §:aig_6rading Primer, Miscellaneous Publication No. 745:'Hasnington. D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, l957. 147 Appendix C Continued.... TRANSPARENCY N0. 3 l. Calculate the percent of broken corn and foreign material in the following problems: 1 _e __ Sample Height of L Weight of Percent Best Numerical No. l l/B apart Broken Corn Broken Corn Grade Based on and Foreign and Foreign Broken Corn and ‘_ material 4_‘ Material_g_g Foreign Material 1 lOOOLgrams_LL_ 20 grams __‘ 2 890 grams E sgzg:afs L__ 3 900 grams L 4113*???) i 4 950 grams 38_g:§ms 5 QSQJgrams 29.5 grams r 6 i l000_grens l00_grens L 2. Complete the following table: !.__.‘ _‘ ...—- 1 i GRADE MAXIMUM LIMITS OF BROKEN CORN AND FOREIGN MATERIAL .QN 5 Sample Grade ~ 148 Appendix C Continued.... LESSON PLAN Job-Problem Layout Enterprise: Grain Month: January Periods: Two Problem: Grading Grain Job: Determining Damaged Kernels and Heat-damaged Kernels Motivation: Damaged kernels affect the present or future quality of grain as well as the palatability, i.e.. how the grain tastes to the livestock. Soundness is a quality of considerable importance in assigning grade to corn. Field damage such as frost damage and fungus damage such as cobrot are practically beyond the control of the operator. Only a very sn all percent of damaged kernels will result in a lower grade Behavioral ijectives: At the cone usion of this lesson the students will be able to: (l) properly n? ign a 250 gram sample of cleaned corn. hand sort for damaged and heat-o‘eiged kernels, (2) calculate the percent damaged and heat-damaged kernels in the sample and (3) interpret this information in terms of grade. Pivotal Points: 1. Demonstrate and explain how to determine the heat-damaged and damaged kernels. 2. Show students damaged and heat-damaged kernels. 3. Show students how to determine the percentage of damaged kernels in a sample. 4. As a class exercise. determine the percent of damaged kernels in several samples of corn (us e tranSparency No. 6). 5. Students will go to the laboratory and ar alyze samples of corn for total damage and determine percent of damage in the sample. Teaching Methods: Lecture, Discussion. Demonstration and Laboratory Exercises. References: l. U. S. D. A.. Grain Grading Primer. Miscellaneous Publication No. 74o, Naslirg ea, u. CT o. S. Government Printing Office. l957. 2. Corn Kernel Damage. Leaflet E-692, Oklahoma State Uni- versity, animator, Oklahoma. I.’ {1' l. III-I! 149 Appendix C Continued.... TRANSPARENCY N0. 4 l. Assign numerical grade to the following, based on damaged kernels: 4 Sample Total Percent Best Possible Grade Based on do. Damaged Damaged Kernels __# __‘ Kernels __ _*_ 1 lo g_‘ _L‘ _L_ 2 l5 A_ ‘4_ __‘¥*_ 3 5 ggg ' 4 3 _A ee_ 5 __j[_.__ L_* 6 16 f ._ .e 2. Figure the total grams of total damaged kernels that would be in the following samples: _‘_‘_‘ GRADE 1 PERCENT TOTAL TOTAL GRAMS 0r DAMAGED KERNELS oaaaeeo xeaasts IN SAMPLE l 3.0 ..e 2 _h5.g_¥ ._ 3 7.0 *9 _M‘io.0 _‘__. Le _‘_ 5 15.0 ___ APPENDIX D APPENDIX D ORIENTATION fiEETING FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS Thursday, January l6. l969 l. “esirn of the Stud; casino-“1‘“ T:l . Individualized instruction T:2 8 Lecture discussion T:l T:2 maple Valley Juniors - l0 Seniors - l4 eviduElsie Juniors -‘l5 Seniors - l6 La ke Odessa Seniors - 26 Juniors ~ 20 Kerrill Seniors - l2 Juniors - 27 ’33' ‘TD7 2. Directiggg_for T:l (Individualizgg instruction) Each strdent will have a guideiook. Individualized Instruction Unit for Assigning V°rerical Grades to Corn. The unit contains IOur Tin»)- ., him .'. flay: l. Determining Test Height Per Bushel 2. Determining Moisture 3. Analyzing for Broken Corn and Foreign Material 4. Analyzing for Damaged Kernels The students are to read the text material. look at 2 x 2 colored slides. work the review exercises (answers in appendices) and then perform the laboratory exercises. At the conclusion of Lessons One through Four, a review exercise based on the combined effects of test weight. moisture. broken corn and foreign material and damaged kernels has been provided. The teacher is to be in the classroom to answer any student questions. Four Sawyer projector-viewers and 2 x 2 colored slides will be provided for the individualized instructional unit. Divide your class assigned to the individualized instructional unit into four groups. One group will begin on Lesson One. another group on Lesson Two, one group on Lesson Three and the last group on Lesson Four; after two periods. rotate the groups. Repeat this procedure until all students have studied all four lessons. For Example: 26 students Test Hei ht Moisture Broken Corn andF mign Material Dm ma ed Kernels l proSec3ET' I projeCtor l prOJector I projector” 6 students 6 students 7 students 7 students 150 151 Appendix D Continued.... 0n pages 36 and 37 of the individualized instructional guidebook, there is a student evaluation form. Please see that each student assigned to the individualized instructional group completes this form. The Sawyer projector-viewer does not have a fan to cool the bulb; therefore, it is very important that the projectors not be moved or Jarred until the bulb has cooled for at least twenty (20) minutes. 3. gigcctiens for T: 2 (Lecture~discussion) .._. The students in lecture-discussion are not to see the 2 x 2 colored e- slides or the guidebook used for individualized instruction. Lesson plans on Test weight, Foisture. Broken Corn and Foreign Material and Damaged Kernels are provided, also, transparencies with exercises for interpret rg these factors in terns of numerical grade. The teacher is to "lecture“ and answer only student initiated questions: also. work the rhv—Q answers to the transparejhy exercises as a class exercise. not individually. Damaged kernel samples will be provided for the students to examine. Please do not ask the students leading questions, and answer or give examples only to the questions initiated by the students. After the lecture-discussion period, the lecture-discussion group will perform laboratory exercises. 4 - gammy The sane samples will be used by all four schools and for students in individualized instruction and in lecture-discussion. It is very important that the sarples are not mixed and that all metefjal be replaced in the original sarple bags. This will assure that"tle‘HEEt student and the next school will have the oooortunity to work with equivalent material. Samples marked l and 2 are for the laboratory exercises. Each student in the two methods of instruction is to determine: test weight, moisture. broken corn and foreign material and damaged kernels on these samples. A moisture-proof container with over 250 grams of corn harvested this season is provided for determining moisture; use the resulting moisture percentage reading for Sample Two. The two final exam samples numbered 100-160 were secured from the Agronomy Department of Michigan State University. Each sample is different and has not been assigned a numerical grade. fill_material must be returned to the sample bag so that the next class and/or the next school will be working with equivalent materials. At the conclusion of the study. Dr. Lawrence Cooeland of the Agronomy Department of M.S.U. will supervise assigning official numerical grades to these samples. 152 Appendix D Continued.... 5. Contributory Information Needed l. Students in individualized instructional method and lecture- discussion method complete the pretest prior to studying the unit. 2. Students in individualized instructional method and lecture- discussion method complete the student information sheet and interest inventory exam. 3. Students in both methods take the Guilford-Zimmerman Personality Inventory exam. 4. A list of the junior and senior students and their rank in academic courses (academic rank is based on total number of students in each grade classification. 5. Teach a lesson determining percentage and a lesson on gram weight prior to instruction by both methods. 6. 332?. ......slecordin 2f. Pee some One individualized instructional lesson and one lecture-discussion lesson will be tape recorded in each school. For example. if the moisture lesson islto be taped. then moisture lessons for individualized instruction and for lecture-discussion in each school will be taped for comparison by the researcher. 7. Eouioggg§_Provided: One test weight per bushel tester One Boerner divider One Steinlite moisture tester Four gram scales Four l2/6t inch sieves and bottom pans Four Sawyer projector-viewers Thirty-five 2 x 2 colored slides Tape and tape recorder Twelve grain pans Grain samples (180) 8. Have students make the following corrections in the guidebook: Page 13 - Under A. The word “multiple” to ”multiply" Page 35 - Sample No. 4. Test Height . 56 pounds. APPENDIX E SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE STUDENT EVALUATION FORM The writer would like to know what you think and how you feel about this vn3t. You can help by completing the graphic rating scale presented be me. Please make year iud~*=nts on the basis of what these things mean to you. You are to rate the orposing adjectives on each of the scales as toTlews: If you feel that the cu.sti on is xery_ cjoselv related to one end of the scale. you shovld plaCe you r chec? ~r3r< as i5llcws: fair X : : : _: : : unfair or fair : : : : : : X unfair If you feel that the question is_guite closely related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your check- mark as follows: fair : X : : : : : unfair or fair : : : : : X : unfair If you feel that the question is only slich tl related to one side as opposed to the other side (but not really i u.ra ;. you should then place your check-mark as follows: fair' : : X : : : : unfair fair : : : : X : : unfair The direction toward which you check. of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seem most characteristic to you of the ques- tion that you are evaluating. If you consider the question to be negjgel on the scale. both sides of the scale equally associated with the question. or if the question is _gggletely_irrelevant (unrelated to the question), then you should place your chick-mark in the middle of the space as follows: fair : : : X : : : unfair 153 Appendix E Continued.... 154 IMPORTAhT: a. Place your check-marks in the middle of the spaces provided. not on the boundaries. THIS NOT THIS b. Be sure to mark every scale for every question-~do not omit any. c. Never put more than ggg_check-mark on a single scale. 2. 5. The lessons were: a. b. C. d. The difficult clear meaningful gets 2 x 2 slides clear necessary meaningful imeertant valuable text was: difficult clear meaningful geed cereplete (l) (2) Wmuw—w-n—n-n—m : : : : (3) (4) (5) (6) were: OO'OO'OO 0“. I. O. i l l l 0" 00". O. 0. review questions were: fair difficult clear meaningful valuable iwsertant cenplete laboratory assignments were: difficult clear meaningful seed valuable important complete ....LU W... ..L l l l l I. O. O. O. O. .0 O. O. .0 O. '00. (7) easy confusing meaningless ad confusing unnecessary meaningless unimportant worthless easy confusing meaningless ad - incomplete unfair easy confusing meaningless worthless “unimportant incomplete easy confusing meaningless ad worthless unimportant incomplete 155 Appendix E Continued.... 6. The individualized approach was: a. complete : : : : : : b. pleasurable : : ‘ : : :u c. interesting' : : :‘ ' : :' : d. fair : : : : : : e. valuable : : : :' ‘ : : f. successful : : : : : : 9. complex : : : : : : h. liked : ° : : : : “incomplete ainful oring unfair worthless unsuccessful simple *did not like APPsnoxx r PROFILE CHART FOR THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN “WENT SURVEY Appendix F-l 156 For higlhschool, college. and adult can (3 R 1A 5 E (3 F I P AA 5 f = a :1 2: O c E u . .2 3 o :5 a ‘7‘; r. ‘8 a E 5 3 a 2 .3: .5 ‘2‘ x a . s n 2 a s a c o 7 0 =§ a < , .- < r c - 2 x - 2 :5 2 - c a .a , .- . W - ~ 2 51.9 c E 0 -- c o '5 3 - ‘5 g .S 5- ur a g .E .. g x '_' 3 5 £- .2 5 I -.-.- 2 t o E 3 3 8 fig 2.3 <5 2.2 ‘g "8. ~=< 9.3 23 1 4’ 1; 3 W ' n- 8 Q- 5. u 13 .5 51’ .3 M 5 3s) 985 Is 0 M F g 5? :2 8 M F 3 2 so so 29 so :3 3° 30 so so so 30 30 0 1o 29 2e 29 25 so 25 29 29 75 27 25 27 ’6 2a 25 25 27 27 2a 2a 2 9 25 29 7o 25 25 25 2‘ 27 27 24 25 25 27 27 s 25 24 25 23 2s 25 25 23 25 25 25 25 4 95 a 22 22 55 24 23 24 2, 27 25 25 2, 24 24 25 25 5 9o 23 22 ’3 20 25 24 24 20 73 23 24 5 7 22 22 24 .0 50 22 21 2, 19 25 23 23 19 2, 22 2s 7 2, 2o 20 1a 24 22 22 1a 20 2, 22 23 a 5 19 19 17 23 21 21 17 19 21 7o 55 2° 18 1a 15 22 2o 20 15'15 7° 20 77 9 5o 19 17 17 15 21 19 19 15 17 19 19 2, 1o 5 1k 15 15 14 2o 15 1a 14 15 15 1a 50 so 17 V 15 15 1s 19 17 17 1s 15 17 17 2° “ 15\'L\1_4 14 38 '6 15 12 14 15 15 ’ A ‘0 ~ ~- . 17 15 , . 4 15 ‘fi5—1 “~~J- L15,” 15 so 45 15 4-- ._, ,LL‘uLi 14 12 12 ’ *‘~+9'~-'{%-~ 1o 12 14 x 14/// ‘3 ‘3 1s ,1. ,, 1o :3 :f :3 9 11 1s ‘\}4’ 17 ,4 ,0 s 12 9 ‘2 ,0 “ 8 1o 12 15 4o 11 10 1o 5 12 15 ll 9 l0 7 9 ll l5 1 1o 9 9 7 g a 9 5 5 1o 11 14 15 1o 2 9 a a a 7 a 9 1o 13 17 35 a 7 7 6 '7 5 7 5 a 9 12 1a 5 7 5 5 5 ° 5 5 4 5 7 a " 19 1 4 5 5 7 1o 30 5 5 5 3 ‘ 4 5 s 5 5 5 9 2o 5 4 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 4 5 8 2] I o 3 g g 1 f 2 g 1 g g s 5 23 25 l l l 0 O l 1 0 1 1 l 2 25 M. r M r M r a3 s a . - 2 5 3 3 " : " .a 2 5 § 2 f- : as E § : 3 , a :5 2'5 «2 .: 232 IE: >2 9 :3 =53 I? c 35.: -= 3': .9 a g s E - é a ; e s 93 =~ s :3 ~~ ._a 35g .. ,5- .- g 0 0 “.2 5 * 5; 2 3 a >~ 3 z E E 9 E 9 .5 .7. .5. a: .3 55 .3 w o .3 I z a :s U .S 5‘! 2 ‘n'd. ‘nstmt‘m __ (5.791.111 "$5, Shaikh Supply Company. Donny Nilln. (51115151. Lecture-Discussion --- APPENDIX F-2 Explanation of Scheffe‘s test74 of the difference between any pairs of means after an analysis of variance has been calculated. The figures substituted in the formula are for the personality variable. personal relations, found in Table XXXIV. The test is statistically significant at the .05 level if the resulting two numbers both have the same sign. A + . 2 4’ = - V(t-l) F .05 (M519) 1 9L nT $= (23+24 +15) - (33 + 33 + 33) . -37 (the mean percentile ranks from Table XXXIV) (t-l) 8 .5 F .05 for 5 and ll6 degrees of freedom = 2.30 MSW = 484 5; 9‘3 - 1m + mg + 1/22 + 1723 + 1/22 = .2974 ' nT Substituting ‘__~ -37 =1 [/(.5) (2.30) (484) (.2974) U(1.15) (484) (.2974) ”(556) (.2974) - 165 . l2.84 -37 ’3 12.84 - -49.84 to -24.16 74William Hays, Statistics for Esychologists (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Hinston. Inc.. 1§b5 , p. 484. 157 ‘Wrflwmrflmjwifimmflmfljflwrs