DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED MARKETING COMPETENCIES THROUGH UTILIZATION OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL By Kenneth L. Rowe AN ABSTRACT Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Business and Distributive Education) College of Education 1969 ABSTRACT DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED MARKETING COMPETENCIES THROUGH UTILIZATION OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL by Kenneth L. Rowe Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement of eleventh grade high school distributive education students who received instruction through the "project method" with that of twelfth grade distributive education students who received instruction through the "cooperative method." The study also included a descrip- tive analysis and a comparison of student achievement of twelfth grade distributive education students who received instruction through the "project method” and twelfth grade distributive education students who received instruction through the "cooperative method." To more accurately compare the effectiveness of the two methods of instruction, the variables of the socio-economic background, age, sex of the student, and prior achievement of the students were also considered. Kenneth L. Rowe Procedures The sample for the study consisted of twelve hundred students in eleven Arizona high schools. Each school contained four groups of students included in the study: an eleventh grade "project method" distributive education class, an eleventh grade control non-distributive education group, a twelfth grade "cooperative method" distributive education class, and a twelfth grade control (non-distributive education) group. Three of these high schools included an additional class, a twelfth grade "project method" distribu- tive education class. The types of data gathered were: (1) socio-economic status information about the school communities and the students in the study; (2) reading scores as a measure of students' prior achievement; (3) scores on the tests of economic understanding, forms A and B (pre-tests and post-tests); (4) the test of sales aptitude (test for measuring knowledge of basic principles of selling) and the sales terms tests (prectest and post-test); and, (5) personal data on all the students. The statistical procedure used in the analysis of the data were correlations analyses for analysis of covariance. III I]. Ill 1 I I Kenneth L. Rowe Major Findings 1. There was no statistically significant correlation between students' socio-economic status-- students' age--students' sex and scores attained on standard- ized tests measuring economic understanding and sales comprehension. 2. Scores of the control groups and the respective distributive education groups were not significantly different on the tests of sales comprehension and economic understanding. There appeared to be a significant differ- ence in the scores of the twelfth grade cooperative distributive education students and the twelfth grade project distributive education students on the test of economic understanding. DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED MARKETING COMPETENCIES THROUGH UTILIZATION OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL BY 5?) Kenneth L. Rowe A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Business and Distributive Education) College of Education 1969 {L{0C’Z(/2 /-55'76 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to express his sincere thanks to the following people for their guidance and direction and their constant encouragement in making the completion of this study possible: ‘Peter G. Haines, Committee Chairman, for his assistance and advice throughout the entire doctoral program, and especially for the direction of this study. Frank Blackington III, Donald Taylor, and Ray Clark, members of the guidance committee, for their assistance and encouragement during the writing of this study, and to Harold Wallace for his participation in the final stages of the degree. The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of all who made this study possible. His sincere thanks go to the eleven teachers of distributive education, the school administrators, and the students who ii cooperated with the researcher in the conducting of the study. teachers in those Arizona schools The participating schools and the distributive Alhambra High School Jeanne Carver Camelback High School John Myers Catalina High School Bill Konopnicki Central High School Charlene Lyons East High School Roxie Roels Palo Verde High School William Antrim are listed below. Pueblo High School Tony Fuscaldo Safford High School Zelma Hawthorne Washington High School Hallie Jimerson West High School Patricia Dugan Yuma High School Tom.Daniel Credit is due also to Frederick Whitney, Arizona State University, who provided direction in the statistical design of the study and in the analysis of the data. A special thanks to Mark and Jan. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM OF THE STUDY . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Source of the problem Statement of the Problem Importance of the study The question of replication Basic assumptions Delimitations Definition of Terms II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . Research Measuring Competency Development Socio-economic factor Scholastic ability Subjects completed in school Sex of the student and grade level Follow-up Studies in Distributive Education The Project Method in Distributive Education Recent Reflections on the Project Method . iv PAGE 10 13 15 l6 17 20 20 22 25 25 27 32 36 CHAPTER PAGE III. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT THE STUDY . . . 40 Sample and Population . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Experimental Treatments . . . . . . . . . . 49 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Socio-economic status . . . . . . . . . . 50 Student prior achievement . . . . . . . . 52 Test of economic understanding . . . . . . 52 Test of sales aptitude and sales terms . . 54 Student information sheets . . . . . . . 55 Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Experimental Design and Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Treatment of the data . . . . . . . . . . 61 IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . .V. . . . . 63 Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Sex of the student . . . . . . . . . . . 67 CHAPTER PAGE Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Econmmics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Sales Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Sex of the student . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Sales Aptitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Sex of the student . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Discussion of the Findings . . . . . . . . 103 Summary of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . 106 v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Problem and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 108 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 vi CHAPTER PAGE APPENDIX A. Documents Relating to Establishment of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 APPENDIX B. Documents Used to Secure Data from Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 vii TABLE LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of the Eleven Arizona Public High Schools Included in the Study . . . . Sources of Internal and External Invalidity Applicable to the Non-equivalent Control Group Design . . . Mean Scores for Subjects in Five Programs on Reading Achievement and the Socio-Economic Variables Number of Pupils Completing Pre-treatment and Post-treatment Criterion Instruments by Program Mean Pre-treatment and Post-treatment Scores for Programs on the Instrument Economics . Frequencies of Subjects by Program and Sex for the Instrument (1) Economics . Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (1) Economics for Subjects Classified by Program and Sex . viii PAGE 42 64 66 68 69 7O TABLE 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. PAGE Frequencies of Subjects by Program and Age for the Instrument (1) Economics . . . . . . . . 72 Summary of Analyses of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (1) Economics for Eleventh Grade Control and Eleventh Grade Marketing in the Age Groups 15-16 and 17-18-19 years . 73 Summary of Analyses of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (1) Economics for Twelfth Grade Control, Twelfth Grade Co-op and Twelfth Grade Merchandising in the Age Groups 15-16-17 and 18-19 Years . . . . . . . . . . 74 Adjusted Post-treatment Mean Scores in Economics for Twelfth Grade Control, Co-op, and Marketing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Marketing on the Instrument (1) Economics . . . . . . 77 Summary of Analyses of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument Economics for Twelfth Grade Co-op and Twelfth Grade Merchandising When Classified by Status of a Marketing Course . . . . . . . 78 Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Economics on the Instrument (1) Economics . . . . . . 79 ix TABLE PAGE 15. Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (1) Economics for Eleventh Grade Marketing and Twelfth Grade Co-op Programs When Classified by Status of an Economics Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 16. Pre-treatment and Post-treatment Scores for Programs on the Instrument Sales Terms 82 17. Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Sex on Instrument (2) Sales Terms . . . . . . . . . 83 18. Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (2) Sales Terms for Subjects Classified by Program.and Sex . . . . . . . 85 19. Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Age on the Instrument (2) Sales Terms . . . . . . . 86 20. Summary of Analyses of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (2) Sales Terms for Eleventh Grade Marketing and Twelfth Grade Co-Op in the Age Groups 16-17 and 18-19 Years . . . . . . 87 21. Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Market- ing on the Instrument (2) Sales Terms . . . 89 22. Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument Sales Terms for Subjects Classified by Prior Education in Marketing . . . . . . 9O TABLE PAGE 23. Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Economics on the Instrument (2) Sales Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 24. Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument Sales Terms for Eleventh Grade Marketing and Twelfth Grade Co-op Programs When Classified by Status of an Economics Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 25. Pre—treatment and Post-treatment Mean Scores on Sales Aptitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 26. Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Sex on the Instrument (3) Sales Aptitude . . . . . 95 27. Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (3) Sales Aptitudes for Sub- jects Classified by Program.and Sex . . . . 97 28. Frequencies for Subjects by Program.and Age on the Instrument (3) Sales Aptitude . . . . . 98 29. Summary of Analyses of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument (3) Sales Aptitude for Eleventh Grade Marketing, Twelfth Grade Co-op, and Twelfth Grade Merchandising in Age Groups 16-17 and 18-19 Years . . . . . . . . . . . 99 xi TABLE 30. 31. 32. 33. Frequencies for Subjects by Program.and Status of a Marketing Course on the Instrument Sales Aptitude . Summary of Analyses of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument Sales Aptitude for Eleventh Grade Marketing, Twelfth Grade Co-Op, and Twelfth Grade Merchandising for Status on a Marketing Course Frequencies for Subjects by Program and Status of an Economics Course on the Instrument Sales Aptitude . Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Scores on the Instrument Sales Aptitude for Eleventh Grade Marketing and Twelfth Grade Co-op for Status on an Economics Course xii PAGE 100 101 102 104 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM OF THE STUDY Education, historically speaking, has never given to vocational education so much time nor space on the printed page as has been the case in the decade of the sixties. Not in its history has vocational education merited so much federal and state legislative attention or been exposed to such opportunities for growth and development. Never before in history have vocational educators been faced with the range and scope of challenges that are reflected in current legislation affecting vocational education. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed a Panel of Consultants to study the vocational needs of this country. The Panel's report suggested several changes in existing programs in vocational education and recommended additional programs. The Panel recognized that the present programs as designed were not "doing the job." Not enough people were benefiting from existing programs. Programs were too narrow in scope and content. Foremost among the Panel's recommendations was "vocational education programs would be 2 made available to more students in the secondary schools."1 As a result of the Panel's report, The Vocational Education Act of 1963 was passed. I. INTRODUCTION Source of the problem. One of the most dramatic changes in the development of programming of education in the field of marketing and distribution was envisioned as a result of the federal Vocational Education Act of 1963. Specifically, a recommendation was made that would avail instruction to more students by the establishment of in-school training programs in marketing and distribution which would operate in addition to the existing cooperative occupational experience programs. Prior to the passage of this Act, only employed workers sixteen years or older could receive training in distributive education under federal statutes. The 1963 Act provided great latitude for program development in the field of marketing and distribution. Section 10(d) of the Act reads as follows: Any amounts allotted . . . for distributive occu- pations may be used for vocational education for any 1U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education for a Changing_Wor1d of_Work, DE 80021 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 226. 3 person over fourteen years of age who has entered upon or is preparing to enter upon such an occupation, and such education need n05 be pro- vided in part-time or evening schools. John Beaumont, Director of the Distributive Education Branch of the united States Office of Education, addressed a National Clinic on Distributive Education in October of 1963. In his address, Mr. Beaumont made reference to the impact of the report of the Panel of Consultants when he said, This report and the proposed legislation challenge distributive educators to think first of people in organizing programs for the distributive occupations . . . The major concern in the past history of distributive education has been with an extension program. Instruction has been limited to employed persons . . . There is, however, this emerging opportunity to consider the needs of people in the developing occupational mix. Further, there is the added challenge to prepare individuals for the initial job. In this context, employment would follow education, rather than as at present precede education. 2Edwin L. Nelson, "Project Training--Its Impact on Program Development," Division of Vocational and Technical Education, U. 8. Office of Education, prepared for the 1967 National Seminar in Distributive Education. In Readings in_Distributive Education, Peter G. Haines, gt a1. (East Lansing: Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Michigan State university, 1968), p. 7. 3John A. Beaumont, "The Emerging Program of Dis- tributive Education," (address before the National Clinic on Distributive Education, Washington, D. C., October 14, 1963), pp. 7-8. (USOE Mimeo Printing.) 4 The "proposed legislation" referred to by Mr. Beaumont be- came the Vocational Education Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-210). Until the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, distributive education and the cooperative method were synonomous as far as the secondary education program was concerned. Currently, distributive educators are being asked to pursue other methods of instruction and yet preserve the vocational integrity of the distributive education program, Mary V. Marks, USOE Program.Specialist in Distributive Education, suggested how instruction could be provided in this new program concept. She stated: With the evidence mounting that learning which is to be assessed by performance is best achieved through participation activities, there is ample justification for us to continue to require these in the methodology of distributive education. But let us not be limited to cooperative training on a school-work schedule as we now know it. Let us find other ways to provide for experiences to develop and consolidate employment qualifications at entry and career levels. In the same presentation, Marks made first mention of utilization of another method of instruction and called it the "project method." In addition to the cooperative method of training, participation activities . . . also include group or 4Mary V. Marks, "The Vocational Approach in Education for Distribution," (address before the National Clinic on Distributive Education, Washington, D. C., October, 1963), p. 3. (USOE Mimeo Printing.) 5 individual projects which may be used by the instructor to encourage vocationally-centered learning. These may take place in a specially equipped classroom, in a field assigmment of narrow scape, and in situations simulating experiences of varying degrees of saphistication related to employment opportunities.5 Evidence continued to mount that the "project method" would be the method utilized by distributive educators to put into practice the recommendations outlined in the Act of 1963. At a meeting of the National Association of Distributive Education Teachers in December 1965, Marks reported that the "project method" as a teaching device "seeks the same learning outcomes as does the cooperative ‘method . . ."6 She concluded in 1967 that "the goals of project and cOOperative training are the same. No matter how instruction is organized, when it is identified as vocational distributive education, there are no differ- ences in the results desired."7 51bid., pp. 4-5. 6Mary V. Marks, "The Project Method in Action," (address before the National Association of Distributive Education Teachers, American Vocational Association Convention, Miami Beach, Florida, December 9, 1965), p. 2. (USOE Mimeo.) 7Mary V. Marks, "Similarities and Differences in Project and Cooperative Training," Division of Vocational & Technical Education, U. S. Office of Education, prepared for the 1967 National Seminar in Distributive Teacher Education. In Readings in_Distributive Education, Peter G. Haines, et_§l, (East Lansing: Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum,.Michigan State University, 1968), p. 11. 6 The United States Office of Education gave further endorsement of the"project method" when in 1967 Edwin Nelson, Distributive Education Specialist, Division of Vocational and Technical Education, United States Office of Education, said, Project training in distributive education represents a promising technique in preparing persons for employment in distribution and marketing. Join- ing cooperative training as a principal method in achieving vocational purposes, project training provides the needed flexibility in program.design-- needed if distributive education is to make a greater impact upon the manpower requirements in the extensive field of distribution. The passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 freed distributive educators from the limitations for program expansion imposed by the "cooperative method." No longer would it be necessary to depend upon required daily on-the-job training in order to provide instruction for the field of marketing and distribution. It was believed that_employment of the "project method" would: 1. allow the immature student a longer period of time to develop under a controlled situation. 2. offer pre-employment training for the student whose physical development or appearance makes on-the-job training during high school inappropriate 8Nelson, op. cit., p. 5. 7 3. allow students of lesser academic ability a longer period of time to develop under a controlled situation 4. provide instruction for those students who do not meet employment qualifications because of age 5. provide instruction for an unlimited number of students in an in-school program in communities that are feeling a strain to provide adequate on-the-job training stations for their cooperative students 6. allow for the student who has a definite career interest in the field of marketing and distribution, but desires to participate in other campus activities and also perhaps the need to carry a heavy course load. He cannot schedule a course in distributive education not requiring the block of time for on-the-job training as a part of his school schedule. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The experts agree that students should be equally as employable upon completion of distributive education programs employing the "project method" as those who enroll in classes employing the "cooperative method." Therefore, this study is both a descriptive analysis as well as a comparison of 8 student achievement between distributive education students who received instruction through the "project method" and those who received instruction through the "cooperative method." The study includes eleventh and twelfth grade distributive education students. The prime research hypothesis under test was: the results of the"project method" of instruction for prepara- tory distributive education will not be materially different for selected outcomes9 from those now being obtained from the "cooperative method" of instruction. The problem was specified by the following questions: 1. Are the results on certain standardized tests in sales comprehension significantly different for eleventh grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "project method" of instruction and twelfth grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "cooperative method" of instruction? 2. Are the results on certain standardized tests in economic understanding significantly different for eleventh grade distributive education students who have been taught 9The study attempted to measure competency development only in the areas of sales aptitudes, sales terms, and economic understandings. The two methods of instruction are being compared only in these competency areas. It is these "selected outcomes" that the research was concerned a cut. 9 by the "project method" Of instruction and twelfth grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "cooperative method" of instruction? 3. Are the results on certain standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding significantly different for twelfth grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "project method" of instruction and twelfth grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "cooperative method" of instruction? 4. Of what importance is students' level of prior achievement in determining the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? 5. Of what importance are the socio-economic status, age, and sex of students in determining the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? 6. Are the results on certain standardized tests in sales comprehension significantly different for eleventh and twelfth grade distributive education students who are enrolled or have completed a course in marketing? 7. Are the results on certain standardized tests in economic understanding significantly different for eleventh 10 or twelfth graders who are enrolled in or have completed a course in economics? Importance g§_the study. Nelson in his impact paper of 1967 pointed out that: undoubtedly the import of project training relates to the very fundamental fact that through this method more peOple can be served. A balance between supply and demand is suggested in the foregoing discussion. It is our responsibility to place in the pipeline sufficient numbers who will fortify quality per- formance in the marketing process. At the same time, an expanded distributive education program will also make a contribution to the alleviation of certain social, economic, and education problems facing this nation. Nelson was talking about both quantity and quality when he referred to the expanding program. It is, therefore, imperative that project training be subjected to some form of analysis and evaluation before it comes under common usage. This study not only analyzes, but also compares the outcomes of student learnings taught by the "project method" with those taught by the "cooperative method." Distributive education programs in the past have, through utilization of the "cooperative method" of instruc- tion, striven for student employability as their standard of measurement. Instructional materials and methodology 10Nelson, 192, cit. 11 were planned with this goal in mind. Personnel in the field looked with a certain degree of satisfaction and success upon follow-up studies which reflected statistics showing a high degree of successful employment on the part of graduates of distributive education programs. If the "project method" is going to be utilized successfully, then it must achieve the same results that have been achieved by the "cooperative method." Because the "project method" is relatively new to distributive education, many have had doubts as to whether it can achieve these same results.11 Before any new method of teaching can gain wide acceptance, it should be tested and evaluated as to its effectiveness and feasibility as an educational tool for the classroom. School administrators in Arizona public high schools have generally accepted the "project method" of instruction in distributive education largely on faith and belief in the recommendations of the State Department of Vocational Education and their own teacher-coordinator. They have in turn allowed their distributive education programs to expand, but more or less on a pilot program basis hoping for 11From discussions at the 1967 National Seminar in Distributive Teacher Education conducted at Michigan State University and Arizona State university; the author was the co-director. a “.NIIDII‘I‘LtMQa 12 further evidence of the success of the method. They, too, know that the only real test of learning is performance.12 The immediate feedback provided through the "cooperative method" has conditioned school administrators to hope for tangible evidence of this same vocational competence through any other instructional method employed. They are not alone in this concern. The Arizona State Department of Vocational Education, local district teacher-coordinators, and this researcher as a teacher-educator, would join the public school administrators in searching for more concrete evidence of learning outcomes before allowing distributive education programs in Arizona to expand further. ‘With the urging of the State Department of Vocational Education in Arizona and the concerns of other affected personnel, the researcher investigated the feelings of the public school administrators in cooperating in such a study. They were eager to endorse the idea and promised to cooperate in the testing and to provide other information as it was needed. 12Most learning theory experts would agree that immedi- ate application of theory reinforces the theory learned and more often than not results in a change of behavior in the learner. It also provides a chance for immediate evaluation by the observer to determine whether the theory has been learned correctly or not and whether the learner has learned it adequately to practice it in a realistic situation and, thus, eXhibit acceptance of the theory by continued practice. The 'cooperative method" provides for this immediate application. 13 It is believed that the findings of this study might contribute not only to a better understanding of the merits of the'broject method" of instruction, but also provide information concerning the relationships between distribu- tive education students and non-distributive education students. The.question of replication. The Ferguson study done in ten Michigan high schools was the first formal research attempt, since the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, to compare and analyze the two methods of instruction in distributive education.13 Though the results may be considered to be valid in those ten high schools in Michigan, distributive educators want more evidence to either support or differ with the findings of the Ferguson study before they react to his conclusions. The purpose of this study is not to replicate exactly the Ferguson study, but rather to add to the body of knowledge 13Edward T. Ferguson, Jr., "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Project and Cooperative Methods of Instruction on Selected Competencies in Distributive Education at the Secondary Level" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1967); and Edward T. Ferguson, Jr., "A Selected and Annotated Bibliography Related to Cooperative and Project Methods in Distributive Education" (a document published by the Research and Develop- ment Program in Vocational-Technical Education as a result of the Ferguson study, 1967). 14 which resulted from.the Ferguson study. Ferguson tested 733 students in ten Michigan high schools (about 5 ‘per cent of the distributive education enrollments). The researcher in this study tested twelve hundred students in eleven Arizona high schools (about 33 per cent of the distributive education enrollments). The same standardized tests to measure com- petency deveIOpment in the areas of sales and economics were used in both studies. This study differs from the Ferguson study in the following areas: 1. The period of time between the pre-test and post-test was twice as long. 2. This study includes a sample which is larger in number of students and more representative of various school sizes, socio-economic levels, and geographic locations in the state. 3. All schools included in this study have offered distributive education at both the junior and senior levels for a minimum of two years. The juniors were taught via the "project method." (Some MiChigan schools were first-year programs.) 4. Three high schools included in this study offer classes at the twelfth grade level utilizing the "project method" and in the same school, classes taught by the traditional "cooperative method." Therefore, in these 15 three schools, the researcher can measure seniors against seniors comparing the two methods. (Not possible in the Ferguson study.) Basic assumptions. Underlying the study were the following basic assumptions: 1. that the competencies of selling and economic understanding can be indirectly measured through student performance on standardized tests 2. that student performance on these tests repre- sents a valid index of the effectiveness of some areas of instruction in distributive education 3. that scores on reading achievement tests are valid indications of students' prior achievement 4. that the effects of maturation can be statisti- cally controlled for by the inclusion of two control groups, one for each grade level 5. that socio-economic data gathered from students and school administrators are accurate representations of the socio-economic status of the students and schools included in the study 6. that each of the teachers performed with equal effectiveness in teaching by the two methods of instruction. l6 7. that the content taught and the amount of emphasis placed on certain aspects of the content is similar among schools included in the study. Delimitations. The delimiting factors established for this study were as follows: 1. The data collected were drawn from eleven high schools located in the State of Arizona. This was 33 per cent of schools having distributive education. 2. Students enroll in the distributive education classes on the basis of an expressed interest in a career in the field of marketing and distribution. (Those reg- istering for the twelfth grade "cooperative method" classes are screened to be sure they can be placed in on-the-job Situations since this is a requirement of the program.) 3. Measures of prior academic achievement of Students were limited to scores achieved on standard reading achievement tests . 4. Measures of student achievement for selected COmpetencies were limited to scores on tests of the COmpetencies of economic understanding and sales comprehens ion . 5. The data accepted for analysis were limited to the scores on standardized tests and socio-economic indices 17 gathered by student information data sheets and interviews with school administrators. III. DEFINITION OF TERMS It is important that agreement is reached on the definition of certain terms used throughout this study. The meanings intended are as follows: Distributive occupation. . an occupation that is followed by proprietors, managers, or employees engaged primarily in marketing or merchandising of goods or services. These occupations are commonly found in various (kinds of) business establishments such as retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, storing, transporting, financ- ing, and risk-bearing."14 Competency. Skill, knowledge, or understanding necessary for the successful performance of those tasks which compose the job. Cooperative method. The coordination of classroom instruction with a series of on-the-job learning 14U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, "Rules and Regulations," Administration 9: Vocational Education, Bulletin No. 1 (Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1966), p. 44. 18 experiences related to each student's occupational interest. Cooperative plan. "Organizational pattern for preparatory instruction in which regularly scheduled part- time employment gives students an opportunity to experience theory in practice while developing competencies through training on a job related to their distributive occupational objectives."15 Project. "A significant, practical unit of activity having educational value and aimed at one or more definite goals of understanding; involves investigation and solution of problems and, frequently, the use and manipu- lation of physical materials; planned and carried to completion by the pupils and teacher in a natural, 'real-life'manner."16 Project method. "Coordination of classroom instruction with a series of individually designed learning 15U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Distributive Education in the High School (Washington: U.S. Office of Education, 1965), p. 92. 16Carter V. Good, (ed.), Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 314. 19 activities or projects related to each student's occu- pational objective."17 Project plan. "Organizational pattern for preparatory instruction which involves a regularly scheduled series of individually designed learning activities that give students an opportunity to apply theory in practice while developing competencies through projects related to their distributive occupational objectives."18 17U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Distributive Education ig_the High School,_gp. cit., p. 93. 18Ib1d. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE For the purposes of this study, the related litera- ture was examined from two points of view: (1) other research studies done where students were tested on similar competency areas, and (2) literature directly related to the "project method" of instruction and its application to distributive education. In general, the review indicated that extensive material exists emphasizing the need for educational programs to prepare young people for employment in the field of marketing and distribution. However, compara- tively little research has been done to measure the competency development in the various areas that make up the field or the methodology utilized to teach the content. I. RESEARCH MEASURING COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT The researcher was especially interested in finding related research which utilized the same or similar test instruments as being utilized in this research study. 20 21 Only one was discovered utilizing the same test instrument for‘measuring marketing competency development as was used in this study. In fact, it was the only study found that attempted to measure what was being taught in the market- ing competency area in the distributive education classrooms This was the Ferguson study done at Michigan State University in 1967.1 As one reflects historically on the structure of the distributive education program at the high school level, one will quickly recognize that it was centered entirely around the "COOperative method." This meant that in order for a student to be enrolled in the program, he had to be employed. This employability factor seemed to indicate adequate competency development. Personnel in the field of distributive education believed that the measurement of learning was performance and if a student could adequately perform on the job, then apparently the content being taught and the methodology were also adequate. Therefore, it was thought that there was no need for research to examine what was being taught in the classroom. 1Edward T. Ferguson, Jr., "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Project and Cooperative Methods of Instruction on Selected Competencies in Distributive Education at the Secondary Level" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1961) 22 In examining related studies in the area of economic understanding, it was noted that the same or similar tests were used in several studies. However, not all of them pertained to distributive education programs. In all cases, in the studies of economic understandings and in the Ferguson study as well, the findings are characterized by certain influential factors which were also being examined in this study. The factors include socio-economic background as reflected by parental occupations, scholastic ability, subjects completed in school, sex of the student, and grade level. Socio-economic factor. Most related studies indicate that socio-economic background and occupation of parents bear no relationship to the economic understanding of the students as measured by achievement tests. Clarkz in 1960 and Ousdigian3 in 1962, conducted similar studies 2Marvin A. Clark, "Economic Understandings of Tenth Grade Students; A Comparison of Students Who Have Taken General Business With Those Who Have Not Taken the Course" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1960). 3Theodore O. Ousdigian, "Economic Understandings of Ninth Grade Students: A Comparison of Students' Knowledge of Fundamental Economic Concepts Before and After a Course in Basic Business" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1962). 23 using the Standard Achievement Test ig_Economic Underm Standings for Secondary Schools developed by E. C. Alft. Clark administered the test to a group of tenth grade students, while Ousdigian used the prewtest and post-test technique with ninth graders. Both reported that parental occupation was unrelated to the economic understanding of the students. Marmas, in a 1961 study utilizing college students, reported similar findings.4 His study utilized an Economic Topics Test developed by John Linn5 and WilliamM'ason.6 Among the factors that he reported as not being significantly related to achievement in economics were sex and father's occupation. Vivian7 administered the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B using a pre-test post-test design. He too found that socio-economic 4James Gust Marmas, "Teacher Preparation in Econom~ ics at California State Colleges" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation,lxfland Stanford University, Palo Alto, 1961). 5John Howard Linn, "An Analysis of the Teaching of Certain Economic Topics in the California Public Junior Colleges" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1959). 6William John Mason, "Studies in Economic Education in Iowa, Part II: A Survey of the Status of Economic Education in Social Studies and Business Education in Iowa Accredited Public High Schools" (unpublished Doctoral dis~ sertation, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1949. 7Neal Edward Vivian, "Economic Understanding of Distributive Education Students" (unpublished Doctoral dis~ sertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1966). 24 background as measured by parental occupation is not significantly related to the level of economic understand- ing of the student. Vivian administered the test to 5,047 seniors in selected Indiana high schools offering 8 administered the same distributive education. Ferguson test using Form A for the prertest and Form B for the post-test. Unlike Vivian's study which measured student growth for an entire school year, the Ferguson study ‘measured student growth over a period of one semester. Ferguson tested students in ten Michigan high schools where he compared distributive education students enrolled in eleventh and twelfth grade classes with students not enrolled in distributive education. He found no signifi- cant difference in student's performance on the standard- ized tests in economic understanding or sales comprehension in relation to the socio-economic status of the parents. Therefore, all studies examined find no relationship between socio-economic background and occupation of parents and the economic understanding of students. 8Edward T. Ferguson, Jr., "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Project and Cooperative Methods of Instruction on Selected Competencies in Distributive Education at the Secondary Level" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1967). 25 Scholastic ability. Results of all research exam- ined indicate that the scholastic ability or the student's prior achievement test scores do indeed have a relationship to the student's economic understanding. Different 'measures of scholastic ability were utilized by researchers. Clark and Ousdigian used scores on general intelligence tests; Marmas used grade point averages. Vivian used rank in the senior class as his means of classification due to the variety of different intelligence tests used in his selected schools. Ferguson believed that use of a reading comprehension test was an adequate means of measuring stu- dent's prior achievement and, therefore, used the STEP- Reading Test. Vivian reported that scholastic ability of the students as indicated by class rank is significantly related to the level of their economic understanding. Ferguson found a positive correlation between student prior achievement, as inferred from test scores achieved on the STEP-Reading Test, and scores students attain on standardized achievement tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension. Subjects completed in school.~ Researchers are not conclusive in their evidence that other instructional 26 subject matter is related to economic understandings. Breneman9 and Tidman10 both reported no evidence that pupils electing economics and those required to take it made significantly different scores on the test. Madsen11 reported no significant differences in achievement between the students who had taken classes with economic content and those students who had not taken them. Linn, in his study found that college students who had not had any economics in high school scored significantly better (at the l per cent level) than the students who had had some previous high school economics training. Vivian reports that formal instruction in economics and participation in the distributive education program and in the Junior Achievement program are not significantly related to the level of economic understanding of high school seniors. 9Everett W. Breneman, "An Item.Analysis of the Iowa 1936 Every-Pupil Test in Economics" (unpublished Master's thesis, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1937). 10Raymond Joseph Tidman, "Analysis of the Data Secured from the Every~Pupi1 Test in Economics" (unpub- lished Master’s thesis, State university of Iowa, Iowa City, 1932). 11Gibb Russell Madsen, "Economic Concepts and Under» standings of Senior High School Students" (unpublished Igggforal dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 27 Swenson12 used the test instrument develOped by Linn and Mason in 180 students in teacher education at Chico State College in California. He reported that the following factors failed to show any significant relation- ship to economic literacy: 1. high school economics and business courses 2. college economics and business courses 3. college upper division social science courses, excluding economics 4. business experience. §g§ of the student and grade level. The findings of several studies concerning the sex of the student as a factor in achievement of economic understandings were inconsistent. As many reported male students to be superior as the opposite. Tidman, Peterson,13 and Bucknell,14 reported male students as being superior to female students fin 12Daniel Hart Swenson, "A Comparative Study of the Economic Literacy and the Economic and Business Education of Prospective Secondary and Elementary School Teachers" (un ublished Master's thesis, Chico State College, Chico, California, 1962). 13Rudolph Peterson, "Some Aspects of the College Course in the Principles of Economics, Its Objectives, Con- tent and Achievement," The Journal of Political Economy, 34:7420762, December,l926. 14LeRoy Bucknell, "The Status of Economics in Cerufin Junior Colleges of California" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1941). 28 economic undeestandings. On the other hand, Frost,15 Larson, 16 and Linn reported females to be superior. The Marmas study reported little or no difference. Ferguson reported no significant difference. Most studies reported test results in favor of older or more advanced students. Studies by Marmas, Linn and Mbrrman, and Tidman and Breneman, reported higher results for high school seniors when compared to their underclass« men, but the differences were not large enough to be statistically significant. Ferguson reported that seniors scored higher than juniors on the test of economic under~ standing, but not statistically significantly higher. To summarize briefly, it appears that in examining research related to the measuring of competency development in scholastic ability or prior achievement, age and grade level seem to be the only consistent factors that affect student achievement. There is no evidence to show that 15Anita Frost, "Students' Interest in High School Economics Prior to Taking the Course as Shown in Response to Statements and Questions" (unpublished Master's thesis, College of the City of New York, New York City, 1933). 16Etta Lillian Larson, "Results from the Use of an Objective Test and a Questionnaire in a Senior High School Course in Economics" (unpublished Master's thesis, Universi- ty of Chicago, Chicago, 1936). huh I NV] you 29 factors such as parental occupation, sex of the student, and related educational programs affect student achievement. II. FOLLOW-UP STUDIES IN DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION Distributive education programs almost exclusively reflect findings from follow-up studies of students rather than experimental research measuring competency growth. In examining the literature, two such follow- up studies are somewhat related to the problem being investigated in this study. Zancanella attempted to determine whether or not there were important differ- ences between employees in distributive occupations who participated in a secondary school distributive education cooperative program and those who did not.17 His papulation included ten cities from the states of Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, involving fifty-eight high school distributive education program graduates, and eight-six non-distributive education program graduates, who were both employed in distributive occupations. There seemed to be very little conclusive evidence in his study. The sample was too small to be representative of such an 17James A. Zancanella, "An Exploratory Study of the Effect of the Secondary School Cooperative Part-Time Training Program.in the Distributive Education Occupations on Selected Employment Factors" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, Greeley, 1965. 30 extensive geographical area. He did point out that the non-distributive education program graduates included in the study had a higher grade point average than did the distributive education students which in itself might influence their success on the job. The primary signifi- cant difference discovered was that a majority of the distributive education program employees planned to cone tinue in a distributive occupation as compared to the non-distributive education group. A study by Ralph Mason in 1961 examined the related classroom.instruction and its value to the future success of the distributive education student.18 His hypotheses and conclusions were as follows: 1. Major hypothesis. Distributive education related instruction in the high school classroom and in the cooperating business establishments prepares student learners for occupational growth and advancement in the distributive occupations. 18Ralph A. mason, "An AnaIySIS of Related Instruction for C00perative Parthime Programs in Distribu- tive Education in Illinois”(unpublished Doctoral disserta» tion, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1961). II. 31 A0 Conclusions 1. Growth and advancement on the job as the result of training was not pronounced when comparing the distribu= tive education graduates and the nonadistributive education graduates. Employer Opinion, however, gave stronger indication of growth and advancement of the distributive education graduates when compared to the non-distributive education graduates° Sub-hypothesis an The basic and specific information learned in distributive education has been useful in the distributive education graduate's occupational progresso A. Conclusions 1. Supported through employer Opinion and through the returns from graduate respondents indicating the distributive education graduates were relatively more in the top management bracket than the nonodistributive education graduates and indicating the distributive education graduates were prepared for 32 advanced positions rather than for entry positions. III. Sub-hypothesis b. Teacher-coordinators plan related instruction for the occupational growth and advancement of graduates in the distributive occupations. A. Conclusion 1. Not fully supported by the fact there was not a precise fit between what business wants from training and what teacher” coordinators do in providing the training. III. THE PROJECT METHOD IN DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION Ferguson provides an excellent review of the historical development of the "project method" in educa- tion in general and its acceptance and utilization by distributive educators. He points out that the "project method" is certainly not new to education and was mentioned in the field of distributive education as early as 1939 by A. L. Demond, who suggested that projects be used to complement c00perative training and "to provide a sub- stitute for it where it has been found impractical."19 19A. L.Ibmond, "Practical Projects for Courses in Distributive Education," National Business Education Quar- terly, VII (May, 1939), 30-35. 33 The Ferguson Study. Because this study is a partial replication of the Ferguson study, there is a very close relationship in the problem being investigated in both studies. Therefore, in this chapter concerning related research and related literature it is necessary to examine the problem that was being investigated in the Ferguson study and his findings. His investigation intended to test the hypothesis that: the eleventh grade "project method" of instruction for preparatory distributive education can produce outcomes in student achievement on tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension as high as those now being obtained through the "cooperative method" of instruction in the traditional twelfth grade distributive education class. Specifically, Ferguson posed his problem as several questions which consider the association between these items:20 1. Are the results on certain standardized tests in sales comprehension significantly different for eleventh grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "project method" of instruction and twelfth grade 20Ferguson, op. cit., p. 6°7. 34 distributive education students who have been taught by'the "cooperative method" of instruction. 2. Are the results on certain standardized tests in economic understanding significantly different for eleventh grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "project method" of instruction and twelfth grade distributive education students who have been taught by the "cooperative method" of instruction? 3. Of what importance is students' level of prior achievement in determining the significance of stu- dents' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? 4. Of what importance are the socio=economdc status, age, and sex of students in determining the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? 5. Of what importance is teacher attitude in determining the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? His study extended over the period of one semester and utilized the pre-test and post-test design. Standard» ized tests of economic understanding, sales comprehension, 35 and reading comprehension were administered to 733 students representing ten Michigan high schools. The major findings of the Ferguson study were as follows: 1. There was no statistically significant corm relation between: (a) the variables of students0 socio-economic status, students' age, students' sex, and teachers' attitude inventory scores; and (b) the scores students attain on standardized achievement tests measuring reading comprehension, economic understanding, and sales comprehension. 2. There was a positive correlation between students' prior achievement and scores students attain on standardized achievement tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension. This was inferred from scores achieved on the STEP-Reading Tests. 3. The two control groups (English and/or social science classes) on the whole performed as well as or, in some cases, better than the two distributive education groups on the tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension. However, the differences in the scores of the two grade level control groups and their respective distributive education groups were not significant. 36 4. The achievement of twelfth grade "cooperative method" classes on the tests of sales comprehension were significantly higher than those of the eleventh grade "project method" classes. 5. There was no significant difference between the scores of the "project method" and "cOOperative method" groups on the tests of economic understanding.21 Ferguson concluded that on the whole, the "cooperative method" group performed somewhat better than the "project method" group. IV. RECENT REFLECTIONS ON THE PROJECT METHOD Since the completion of the Ferguson study, others in the field have reacted to the implementation of project training in distributive education programs at the high school level. In 1967 Nelson said: Project training in distributive education represents a promising technique in preparing persons for employment in distribution and marketing. Joining cooperative training as a principal-method in achieving vocational pur- poses, project training provides the needed flexibility in program design-~needed if distributive education is to make a greater 21Ferguson, 92. 935., pp. 1205124. 37 impact upon the manpower requireggnts in the extensive field of distribution. Several teachers and leaders in distributive education have raised questions concerning the ability of the "project method" to duplicate the learning outcomes of the "cooperative method." Nelson summarized some of these doubts when he said: Perhaps one of the chief doubts about project training is its ability to produce the same kind of results that are achieved through cooperative training. A list might include: the opportunity to gain job experience, to give meaning to course content, to develop judgment abilities, to interpret consumer needs, to improve personality, to learn how to get along with people, to confirm or reject an occupational choice, to recognize the demands of the adult world, to see the marketing process in action, to participate in.marketing techniques. These are some of the values placed on cooperative training. The question facing us today is, "Can we have the same expectations for project training?"23 Marks partially answered this question when she said, "The goals of project and cooperative training are the same. No matter how instruction is organized, when 22Edwin L. Nelson, "Project Training-~Its Impact on Program Development," Division of Vocational and Technical Education, U. S. Office of Education, prepared for the 1967 National Seminar in Distributive Teacher Education. In Readin s in Distributive Education, Peter G. Haines, g£_§l. (East Einsing: Department ofSecondary Education and Our- riculum, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 5. 23Ibid., p. 10. 38 it is identified as vocational distributive education, there are no differences in the results desired."24 Cooperative training has survived the test of experience and is recognized and accepted as being a successful, valid method of instruction. The term, cooperative education, had been synonomous with distributive education until 1963 when distributive education programs were released from this limitation. Many educators in the field of marketing and distribution are skeptical of the results of any other method. As Marks said in 1967: Distributive education, as is all of education, is in a period of self-testing and adaptation as it seeks to respond to the emerging economic and social value system being identified with manpower training and development. During the past twenty-nine years distributive cOOperative training has gained the confidence of educators and employers because teacher—coordinators have successfully blended coordination, instructional materials and evaluation. This has yet to be adequately ggmonstrated in distributive project training. Dr. Ernest E. Bayles, Professor of Education at the University of Kansas, discussed the history of the "project 2(“Mary V. Marks, "Similarities and Differences in Project and Cooperative Training," Division of Vocational and Technical Education, U. S. Office of Education, pre» pared for the 1967 National Seminar in Distributive Teacher Education. In Readin s in Distributive Education, Peter G. Haines, g; a1. (East Kansing: Department of Secondary Eduigtion and Curriculum, MiChigan State University, 1968), p. . 251bid., p. 17. 39 method" in education in a paper entitled, "Project Method in Education." Dr. Bayles defined and clarified the method as it pertained to education in general. He went on to say: I see no reason that Distributive Education could not make use of the project idea, if only it is clearly understood and kept in mind that project ‘method is indeed a method. It is not a philosophy or a program, for it seemingly suffers when stretched to include ends as well as ways and means. That, I think, is what contributed to the progressive dilemma of seeming to tell us that pupil purposes should rule, yet all of us (including the Progressives) know that we as teachers are obligated to see that things do not get out of hand. The point in theory seems to be that teachers have to have a basic, overall educational purpose; one that is clearly formulated, consistently followed, and can be explained and defended when needful. Then, and only then, can any ‘method be judged as applicable or not applicable in particular cases and, if applicable, put to work with successful results. groject method igfla method; not a philosophy.2 26Ernest E. Bayles, "Project Method in Education," Division of Vocational and Technical Education, U. S. Office of Education, prepared for the 1967 National Seminar in Distributive Teacher Education. In Readin s in_Distributive Education, Peter G. Haines, gt al. (East Lansing: Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Michigan State university, 1968), p. 26. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT THE STUDY The description of the procedures followed throughout this study will be presented in four divisions: (1) sample and population, (2) experimental treatments, (3) analysis procedures, and (4) experimental design and treatment of the data. I. SAMPLE AND POPULATION Eleven Arizona high schools (33 per cent of those offering distributive education) were chosen to provide the population for the study. This selection was made on the basis of administrative support, teacher-coordinator interest, size and geographical location of school, varia- tion of socio-economic background of the student body, mixture of racial-ethnic groups, a complete distributive education program that had been in operation a minimum of two years, and teachers who understood and were practicing the "project method" of instruction. 40 41 Schools. In each of the eleven schools selected for this research, the same teacher-coordinator taught both the preparatory "project method" class, called marketing, and the "cooperative method" related class. The marketing class was offered at the eleventh grade level and the "cooperative method" class at the twelfth grade level. Three high schools included in the study also offered a class at the twelfth grade level employing the "project method" for those students who could not schedule the occupational experience requirement of the "cooperative method." The schools represented communities of various sizes, distributed throughout the state in proportion to concentration of population. (See Table 1.) It was decided that this study should be representa» tive of the population of the state. The papulation of the State of Arizona is heavily concentrated in the two largest cities, Phoenix and Tucson (Maricopa and Pima Counties). This concentration is reflected in the high school population of this study. But, several schools were selected from within these two areas so as to be repre- sentative of different socio-economic levels within these communities. The class sizes in all schools tested were about the same. The distributive education laboratories in all 42 mono Hamam mono AHDASm c308 mono spec suns mono mono mono sueo hufiobeaoo mo oaks XE! ome.a use» was» oeo.m anemone use; oqm.H «assumes aouwasnmmz one epooomm spooomm amm.~ canons ceases N0N.¢ cowosfi oouo> oaom Naw.u sausage ummm omm.~ seasons kuuamo cmn.~ oomooe mafiaoumu mam.~ seasons somnumawo ~mm.m seasons munawse< NH-oH aoeumoou Hoonom swam m QUQHU m O 052 u GGEH H CHEM WQDHm mmH ZH QMDDAUZH maoomum mUHm UHAmDm mum mmH ho mUHHmHMMHUmaao< waaemmm ANHV ANHV AHHV Amav aflav mam oszHozaeommz mo-oo wzHHmemaz aomezou somezoo mMAm UHZOZOUMIOHUOm HE 072 BZMZEMHEU< 073% 20 mguomm MSHh ZH mHUMWmDm Mom mMMOUm g m and; 65 these differences was adjusted, however, to obtain greater precision in the results. The total number of subjects completing the premtreatment and post-treatment instruments was shown in Table 4. The statistical strategy used in analysis of data was that in which groups and cross- classifications were equalized by random selection of subjects from each group or cross~classification. This strategy was used so as to insure robustness of the F-Statistic. III. ECONOMICS Subjects' achievement in economics was analyzed in order to reveal the relationship to distributive educa- tion programs. The analysis was accomplished by using two-way analyses of covariance where program was one factor and the second factor was either sex of student, age, prerious marketing course, or previous economics course. The analyses were performed, first, using premtreatment achievement in economics as a covariate and, second, using pre-treatment achievement in economics, premtreatment achievement in reading, and sociomeconomic status as covariates. Thus, it was possible to ascertain differences first, on the basis of control for prior achievement in economics and, second, on the basis of control for prior 66 e8 Em «8 Sense 3 mm om a: managements: moa 00H mm ANHV mouoo MS EN SN :3 @3382 o o m: as 33:8 0 0 H3 :3 H9380 mSEE< mmim mam”; mafia monozoom 7360mm azasfimzH Zoo a z so momsom xmm nzoo mo mHme¢z< mo wa<22pm h mam¢H 71 where (l) the covariate was pre-treatment achievement in economics, or (2) the covariates were pre-treatment achievement in economics and socio-economic status vari- ables. Consequently, it was assumed that there were no differences between groups when classified by sex of the students. .553: When subjects were classified by age and pro- grmm, the number of subjects in cross-classifications was obviously directly related with age, as shown in Table 8. Inspection of the frequencies reveals a logical division; programs one and three with age groups 15-16 and 17-19 and programs two, four, and five with age groups 15-17 and 18-19. The analysis of covariance for the former comparison, summarized in Table 9, page 73, reveals no significant F-values at the 0.05 level for groups, age, or interaction regardless of whether the covariate was pre-treatment achievement in economics and socio-economic status variables. The summary of the analyses of covariance for twelfth grade programs by age groups 15-16-17 and 18-19 reveals a significant F-value of 3.87 at the 0.05 level for groups when the only covariate was pre-treatment achievement, as shown in Table 10, page 74 After post-treatment mean scores were adjusted, the control 72 .m>Hw paw audom .osu mamuwoua How pommmHHoun .mmunu paw mao.wamuwoum pom vommmaaoom Hoe «H mOH cam new m Hayes cm Ho oHV AmH H ova ANHV wchHecmsonmz m No Ho omv Aem o ova ANHV ao-oo s MHN AH HH oav xHHH ovm AHHV waHumxumz m mHH As oqv Ace H Hon ANHV Houuaoo N HnH A0 a Hmv Amm Now xHHV Honuaoo H Hayes mH mH NH sH nH zoo a z mo momDOm mmMHm oz< Homezoo enema mazm>mHm mom monczoom HHV ezmzamemzH may zo mmmoom mo mozoo so mmmeoo m z mo mom:Om mmOO ho mMmMH8 z ho MUMDOm mmMDOU UZHHMMMOU ho mmmWHm<22Dm MH MHmoo a z mo momsom mmmaou moH20200m z< mo maamHm mom mononumHHv ezmznmamzH was 20 mmmoom mo mozoo mo mHme ho MUMDOm 11‘ |11l|1llll|nl |l Nam QZ<.zCU mo mHm>Hoo m z mo mUMDOm Il‘ll'"! II mmmHm mom mZMHH mmqoo ho mMmWH ho NUMDOm UZHHNMMOU ho mHmMH ho MUMDOm MWMDOU mUHzozoum z< mo mDHmdm mom QZKHH mMAOU mo mHmeoo m mm<=om NemazoN zoommme az< z mo mammoN New nzoo mo NHNNHoo m z ho MUMDOm madmw mHuwH nz< NHuoH mmbomu mo< ZH GszHoz¢mUmmz maMHm mom MDDHHHA< mmHoo ho mmquoo N 24m: mo mzam mo Nmmmomn nz< onN mo momaom mmMDOU UZHHMMmmam mom NDDHHHN< mNHOU ho mmmMHmHm mom MGDHHHAOU mo mHmMH Profit motive Markets Corporations Prices Of the following, the principle of diminishing returns is best illustrated by A. B. C. D. small firms being driven out of business by large firms any decline in the average rate of profits a slowing rate of increase in output as a farmer adds increasing amounts of fertilizer to his land the decline in personal income as workers age Business firms wish to sell their products at a high price; households wish to buy products at low prices. In a private enterprise economy this conflict of interests A. is reconciled by competitive markets B. is reconciled by government regulation C. does not exist; there is really no conflict of interest between households and firms D. is not reconciled; since all household heads are members of firms, the interests of firms prevail 145 TEST OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING, FORM A (contd) 7. In a private enterprise economy, government encourages freedom of choice by A. guaranteeing complete freedom of choice to households and firms B. limiting this freedom for some if their choices might reduce freedom of choice significantly for others C. requiring individuals and firms to use their freedom of choice wisely D. seeing that individuals and firms choose what the majority believes best 8. A rise in the price of which product would be likely to increase the demand for butter A. Butter B. Oleomargarine C. Bread D. Any of the above 9. Assuming that the supply of a product remains constant as the demand for it increases, its price will normally A. fall B. rise C. stay the same D. either rise or fall 10. Which of the following elements is the most essential for a private enterprise economy? Active competition in the marketplace The functioning of labor unions . Action by reSponsible business leaders Extensive government regulation c:c>o1>- 11. The price of shoes is likely to be increased by A. more capital investment by producers B. a decrease in the demand for shoes C. a decrease in the supply of shoes D. new machines reducing the cost of shoe production ’ 146 TEST OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING, FORM A (contd) 12. If the govermment were to levy a tax of one dollar on every pair of shoes sold, which of the following would most likely result? A. Consumers would pay a higher price for shoes and probably buy a smaller quantity. B. Suppliers would increase the quantity sold in order to offset the taxes paid to the government C. Consumers would pay a higher price and as a result suppliers would make larger profits. D. Suppliers would sell more and charge a higher price. 147 (Sample) TEST OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING FORM B 1. When a nation's human and material resources are being fully and efficiently used, more of any one product A. cannot be produced B. cannot be produced unless private enterprise rather than government does so C. can be produced only if there is less pro- duction of some other products D. can be produced only if there is a general decrease in prices 2. All economic systems (capitalist, communist, feudal, or any other) face similar economic problems. Which one of the following questions would some but not all economies face? A. What will be produced and how? B. How can markets be kept competitive? G How many resources will be devoted to main- taining and increasing future capacity? D. For whom will the goods be produced? 3. In a basically private enterprise economy, which group exercises the principal influence on the choice of goods produced over a long period of time? A. consumers B. government C. big business D. labor unions 4. Of the following, which is not a function of profits in a basically private enterprise economy? A, Providing an incentive for efficient production by business 148 TEST OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING, FORM B (continued) B. C. D. Rewarding producers who give consumers what they demand Inducing businessmen to assume necessary business risks Indicating to the government where wages are too low 5. How does a family's saving most clearly influence capital formation? A. Saving means spending less; therefore family saving hurts the seller and thus discourages capital formationo Savings are always invested by the saver; therefore an increase in family saving increases capital formation. A family's savings are normally channeled through financial institutions to firms that usually use the savings for capital formation. A family's savings lead to capital formation when they are used to pay off debts. 6. In a basically private enterprise economy, the main objective of businessmen is to A. B. C. D. provide good jobs for workers at reasonable wages secure government regulation that is favorable to business try to make profits provide highest-quality products 7. If a consumer is to exercise his freedom of choice wisely in a private enterprise economy, A. B. he should know whether a product was produced by a monopolist he must know where products are produced so that he may purchase those made locally if possible he should know what alternative goods and services are available as well as their qualities and prices he must have sufficient income to permit him to purchase whatever he chooses 149 TEST OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING, FORM B (continued) 8. 10. ll. Assume that the demand increases for a commodity pro- duced by many competitive firms. The resulting rise in price of the commodity will usually lead to less being produced more being produced no change in production elimination of inefficient businesses from the market cacaus> If the supply of a commodity increases at the same time the demand for it falls, in the absence of counteracting forces its price will rise fall stay the same be indeterminate Ucocn3> In a private enterprise economy, the public interest is served even when individuals pursue their own private economic goals, because of A. the social responsibility of private businessmen B. careful planning and coordination of economic activity C. the operation of competitive markets D. individuals who understand what is in the public interest Under a private enterprise economy the function of competition is to A. eliminate wasteful advertising B. eliminate interest and profits C. prevent large firms from driving small ones out of business D. force prices to the lowest level consistent with a reasonable profit (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) <1) (2) (3) <4) (1) 150 (Sample Page) TEST OF SALES APTITUDE A woman has requested a radiator cover firm to send one of their salesmen. Upon his arrival she says she has changed her mind. What is the best thing for the salesman to do? Politely explain that she is obligated to see the samples. Ask her, "Have you purchased some already?" Tell her she is making a serious mistake. Say to her, "As long as I am here, I may as well show you the samples." A job lot dealer has bought up a large number of second hand cameras.. He wishes to get rid of them quickly, but at a decent profit. Which one of the following groups will probably be the best market? camera shops selling second hand equipment schools offering art courses newspaper photography departments student camera clubs Which one of the following items sells better in rural districts than in cities? overalls sporting goods books on animal husbandry building materials A prospective customer comes to the stationery depart~ ment of a store in search of desk accessories advertised in newspapers. After seeing the items as well as others not advertised, the man leaves without having purchased anything. What is the most probable reason for this? The best thing for a hardware store salesman to do when a prospective customer indicates that he has not decided what to buy is to follow him about, pointing out the merits of each item 151 SALES APTITUDE (Continued) (2) (3) (4) 9. (1) (2) (3) (4) 10. (1) (2) (3) (4) ll. (1) (2) (3) (4) bring to his attention the most needed carpenter's tools stick close by, being ready to offer assistance in purchases show him a sample of the sale of the day Most of the salesmen of a particular soap company are doing better than ever before but George is doing worse. He could probably MOST by finding out more about the product he is selling requesting a change in territory develOping pleasant personality traits studying the methods of successful salesmen In selling baby carriages to dealers it would be best to emphasize which one of the following points? all metal parts are chrome plated to resist rust only our carriages have the new "knee action" feature more of these carriages have been sold in the past year than any other make our company has Spent $100,000 advertising this model In a large city a telephone directory would be most helpful in selecting prospective buyers of which one of the following items? electric refrigerators automobiles magazine subscriptions vacuum.cleaners 10. ll. 13. 14. 15. CONTRACT means the same as: Area to which sales- man is assigned He paid on the installment plan. (the underlined word means the sames as: PURCHASE means the Opposite of: Sale of goods in large quantity. Orders are backlogged for this product. COMMODITY means the same as: Payment made when goods delivered We underwrite the machine for one year COMPETITOR means the Opposite of: To return money paid for goods. A price quotation was furnished. INVOICE means the same as: Annual account of goods. He was an accredited agent. 152 (Sample) TEST OF SALES TERMS l 2 3 4 policy connection agreement Option distribution market coverage territory on time in full by check in advance client sale buy commerce retail mail order wholesale manufacture slack cancelled fluctuating unfilled service consumer merchandise market c.o.d. store-door charge cash sale put on trial guarantee lease service merchant clientele huckster partner discount rebate concession receipt tariff account valuation concession bill endorsement receipt account catalog audit ledger inventory commissioned abrogated proxy accessory 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 27. CONFIRMATION means the Opposite of: PeOple to whom product is sold. It was a clearance sale. 153 ITEMIZE means the same as: An investment policy of insurance He appraised the Jewelry. DIVERSIFICAIION means the Opposite of: Estimated volume Of sales. The price was made retroactive. CONTINGENT means the same as: Retail association eliminating middle- man. The net profit was small. 1 2 3 1+ requisition cancellation contract affirmation volume outlet market demand wholesale bankruptcy budget liquidation underline add invoice detail endowment floater casualty liability rebated analyzed set price promoted innovation permanence variety transferable commission budget assessment quota backward reduced transferred subsequent confirmatory contractual conditional consecutive concession syndicate COOperative supermarket unit clear retail gross 154 (Sample Page) DUNCAN'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group index Professional, technical, and kindred workers Accountants and auditors 78 ' Actors and actresses 60 Airplane pilots and navigators 79 Architects 90 Artists and art teachers 67 Athletes 52 Authors 76 Chemists 79 Chiropractors 75 Clergmen 52 College presidents, professors, and instructors (n.e.c.) 84 Dancers and dancing teachers 45 Dentists 96 Designers 73 Dieticians and nutritionists 39 Draftsmen 67 Editors and reporters 82 Engineers, technical 85 Aeronautical 87 Chemical 90 Civil 84 Electrical 84 Industrial 86 Mechanical 82 Metallurgical and metallurgists 82 Mining 85 Not elsewhere classified 87 Entertainers (n.e.c.) 31 Farm and hom.management advisors 83 Foresters and conservationists 48 Funeral directors and embalmers 59 Lawyers and judges 93 Librarians 6O Musicians and music teachers 52 155 Occupations, by major occupation group, Natural scientists (n.e.c.) Nurses, professional Nurses, student professional Optometrists Osteopaths Personnel and labor relations workers Pharmacists Photographers Physicians and surgeons Radio Operators Recreation and group workers Religious workers Social and welfare workers, except group Social scientists Sports instructors and officials Surveyors Teachers (n.e.c.) Technicians, medical and dental Technicians, testing Technicians (n.e.c.) Therapists and healers (n.e.c.) Veterinarians Professional, technical, and kindred workers (n.e.c.) Farmers and farm managers Farmers (owners and tenants) Farm‘managers Managers, Officials, and prOprietors, except farm Buyers and department heads, store Buyers and shippers, farm products Conductors, railroad Credit men Floormen and floor managers, store Inspectors, public administration Federal public administration and postal services State public administration Local public administration Socio-economic index 80 46 51 79 96 84 82 50 92 69 67 56 64 81 64 48 72 48 53 62 58 78 65 14 36 72 33 58 74 50 63 72 54 56 156 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation groupg, index Managers and superintendents, building 32 Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship 54 Officials & administrators (n.e.c.) public administration 66 Federal public administration and postal service 84 State public administration 66 Local public administration 54 Officials, lodge, society, union, etc. 58 Postmasters 60 Purchasing agents and buyers (n.e.c.) 77 Managers, officials, & proprietors (n.e.c.) salaried 68 Construction 60 Manufacturing 79 Transportation 71 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 76 Wholesale trade 70 Retail trade 56 Food and dairy products stores, and milk retailing 50 General merchandise and five and ten cent stores 68 Apparel and accessories stores 69 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 68 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 65 Gasoline service stations 31 Eating and drinking places 39 Hardware, farm implement, & bldg. material retail 64 Other retail trade 59 Banking and other finance 85 Insurance and real estate 84 Business services 60 Automobile repair services and garages 47 Miscellaneous repair services 53 Personal services 50 All other industries (incl. not reported) 62 Managers, Officials, & propr's (n.e.c.) - self employed 48 157 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group index Construction 51 Manufacturing 61 Transportation 43 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 44 Wholesale trade 59 Retail trade 43 Food and dairy products stores, and milk retailing 33 General merchandise and five and ten cent stores 47 Apparel and accessories stores 65 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 59 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 7O Gasoline service stations 33 Eating and drinking places 37 Hardware, farm emplement, & bldg. material retail 61 Other retail trade 49 Banking and other finance 85 Insurance and real estate 76 Business services 67 Automobile repair services and garages 36 Miscellaneous repair services 34 Personal services 41 All other industries (incl not reported) 49 Clerical and kindred workers Agents (n.e.c.) 68 Attendants and assistants, library 44 Attendants, physician's and dentist's office 38 Baggagemen, transportation 25 Bank tellers 52 Bookkeepers 51 Cashiers 44 Collectors, bill and account 39 Dispatchers and starters, vehicle 40 Express messengers and railway mail clerks 67 Mail carriers 53 Messengers and office boys 28 Office machine operators 45 158 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group index Shipping and receiving clerks 22 Stenographers, typists, and secretaries 61 Telegraph messengers 22 Telegraph operators 47 Telephone operators 45 Ticket, station, and express agents 60 Clerical and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 44 Sales workers Advertising agents and salesmen 66 Auctioneers 40 Demonstrators 35 Hucksters and peddlers 8 Insurance agents and brokers 66 Newsboys 27 Real estate agents and brokers 62 Stock and bond salesmen 73 Salesmen and sales clerks (n.e.c.) 47 Manufacturing 65 Wholesale trade 61 Retail trade 39 Other industries (incl. not reported) 50 Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers Bakers 22 Blacksmiths l6 Boilermakers 33 Bookbinders 39 Brickmasons, stonemasons, and tile setters 27 Cabinetmakers 23 Carpenters l9 Cement and concrete finishers l9 Compositors and typesetters 52 Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen 21 Decorators and window dressers 4O Electricians 44 Electrotypers and stereotypers 55 Engravers, except photoengravers 47 Excavating, grading, and road machinery operators 24 159 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group index Foreman (n.e.c.) 49 Construction 40 Manufacturing 53 Metal industries 54 Machinery, incl. electrical 60 Transportation equipment 66 Other durable goods 4 41 Textiles, textile products, and apparel 39 Other nondurable goods (incl. not specified mfg.) 53 Railroads and railway express service 36 Transportation, except railroad 45 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 56 Other industries (incl. not reported) 44 Forgemen and hammermen 23 Furriers 39 Glaziers 26 Heat treaters, annealers, & temperers 22 Inspectors, sealers, and graders, log and lumber 23 Inspectors (n.e.c.) 41 Construction 46 Railroads & railway express service 41 Transport, exc. rr., communication & other public utilities 45 Other industries (incl. not reported) 38 Jewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths 36 Job setters, metal 28 Linemen and servicemen, telegraph, tele- phone, and power 49 Locomotive engineers 58 Locomotive firemen 45 Loom fixers 10 Machinists 33 Mechanics and repairmen 25 Airplane 48 Automobile 19 Office machine 36 Radio and television 36 A 160 Occupations, by major occupation group Railroad and car shop Not elsewhere classified Millers, grain, flour, fee, etc. Millwrights Molders, metal Motion picture projectionists Opticians, and lens grinders & polishers Painters, construction & maintenance Paperhangers Pattern & model makers, except paper Photoengravers and lithographers Piano and organ tuners & repairmen Plasterers Plumbers & pipe fitters Pressmen & plate printers, printing Rollers and roll hands, metal Roofers and slaters Shoemakers & repairers, exc. factory Stationary engineers Stonecutters and stone carvers Structural metal workers Tailors and tailoresses Tinsmiths, coppersmiths, & sheet metal workers Toolmaker, and die makers and setters Upholsterers Craftsmen & kindred workers (n.e.c.) Members of the armed forces Operatives and kindred workers Apprentices Auto mechanics Bricklayers and masons Carpenters Electricians Machinists & toolmakers Mechanics, except auto Plumbers & pipefitters Building trades (n.e.c.) Metal working trades (n.e.c.) Printing trades Socio-economic index 23 27 19 31 12 43 39 16 10 44 64 38 25 34 49 22 15 12 47 25 34 23 33 50 22 32 18 35 25 32 31 37 41 34 33 29 33 4O 161 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group index Other specified trades 31 Trade not specified 39 Asbestos and insulation 32 Attendants, auto service & parking 19 Blasters & powdermen ll Boatmen, canalmen, & lock keepers 24 Brakemen, railroad 42 Bus drivers 24 Chainmen, rodmen, and asmen, surveying 25 Conductors, bus & street railway 3O Deliverymen & routemen 32 Dressmakers & seamstresses, exc. factory 23 Dyers 12 Filers, grinders, & polishers, metal 22 Fruit, nut, & vegetable graders & packers, exc. factory 10 Furnacemen, smeltermen, & pourers 18 Heaters, metal 29 Laundry & dry cleaning Operatives 15 Meat cutters, except slaughter & packing house 29 Milliners 46 Mine operatives & laborers (n.e.c.) 10 Gold mining 2 Crude petroleum & natural gas extraction 38 Mining & quarrying, exc. fuel 12 Mbtormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc. 3 Motormen, street, subway & elevated rr. 34 Oilers & greasers, except auto 15 Painters, exc. construction & maintenance 18 Photographic process workers 42 Power station operators 50 Sailors & deck hands 16 Sawyers 5 Spinners, textile 5 Stationary firemen l7 Switchmen, railroad 44 Taxicab drivers & chauffeurs 10 Truck & tractor drivers 15 Weavers, textile 6 Welders & flame-cutters 24 Operatives & kindred workers (n.e.c.) 18 Manufacturing 17 162 Occupations, by major occupation group Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, & Misc. wood products Sawmills, planing mills, & mill work Misc. wood products Furniture & fixtures Stone, clay, & glass products Glass & glass products Cement, & concrete, gypsum & plaster products Structural clay products Pottery & related products Misc. nonmetallic mineral & stone products Metal industries Primary metal industries Blast furnaces, steel works & rolling mills Other primary iron & steel industries Primary nonferrous industries Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal) Fabricated steel products Fabricated nonferrous metal products Not spec. metal industries Machinery, except electrical Agricultural mach. & tractors Office & store machines & devices Misc. machinery Electrical mach., equipment, & supplies Transportation equipment Motor vehicles & motor vehicle equip. Aircraft & parts Ship & boat building & repairing Railroad & misc. transportation equipment Professional & photographic equipment & watches Professional equipment & supplies Photographic equipment & supplies Watches, clocks, & clockwork-operated devices Socio-economic index 163 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group index Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 16 Food 8 kindred products 16 Meat products 16 Dairy products 22 Canning 8 preserving fruits, vegetables, 8 sea foods 9 Grain-mill products 14 Bakery products 15 Confectionery 8 related products 12 Beverage industries 19 Misc. food preparations 8 kindred products 11 Not specified food industries 19 Tobacco manufacturers 2 Textile mill products 6 Knitting mills 21 Dyeing 8 finishing textiles, exc. knit goods 8 Carpets, rugs, 8 other floor coverings l4 Yarn, thread, 8 fabric mills 2 Misc. textile mill products 10 Apparel 8 other fabricated textile products 21 Apparel 8 accessories 22 Misc. fabricated textile products 17 Paper 8 allied products 19 Pulp, paper, 8 paperboard mills l9 Paperboard containers 8 boxes 17 Misc. paper 8 pulp products 19 Printing, publishing 8 allied industries 31 Chemicals 8 allied products 20 Synthetic fibers 9 Drugs 8 medecines 26 Paints, varnishes, 8 related products 15 Misc. chemicals 8 allied products 23 Petroleum 8 coal products 51 Petroleum refining 56 Misc. petroleum 8 coal products 14 Rubber products 22 Leather 8 leather products 16 Leather: tanned, curried 8 finished 10 Footwear, except rubber 9 Leather products, exc. footwear 14 Not Specified manufacturing industries 16 Non-manufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 18 - 164 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group _, index Construction 18 Railroads 8 railway express service 15 Transportation, except railroads 23 Telecommunications, 8 utilities 8 sanitary services 21 Wholesale 8 retail trade 17 Business 8 repair services 19 Personal services 11 Public administration 17 All other industries (incl. not reported) 20 Private household workers Housekeepers, private household 19 Living in 10 Living out 21 Laundresses, private household 12 Living in -- Living out 12 Private household workers (n.e.c.) 7 Living in 12 Living out 6 Service workers, except private household Attendants, hospital 8 other institutions 13 Attendants, professional 8 personal service (n.e.c.) 26 Attendants, recreation 8 amusement 19 Barbers, beauticians, 8 manicurists 17 Bartenders 19 Boarding 8 lodging housekeepers 30 Bootblacks 8 Charwomen 8 cleaners 10 Cooks, except private household 15 Counter 8 fountain workers 17 Elevator Operators lO Firemen, fire protection 37 Guards, watchmen, 8 doorkeepers 18 Housekeepers 8 stewards, except private household 31 Janitors 8 sextons 9 Marshals 8 constables 21 165 Occupations, by major Socio-economic .pgcupation group index Midwives 37 Policemen 8 detectives 39 Government 40 Private 36 Porters 4 Practical nurses 22 Sheriffs 8 bailiffs 34 Ushers, recreation 8 amusement 25 ‘Waiters 8 waitresses 16 Watchmen (crossing) 8 bridge tenders 17 Service workers, except private household (n.e.c.) 11 Farm laborers 8 foremen Farm foremen 20 Farm laborers, wage workers 6 Farm laborers, unpaid family workers 17 Farm service laborers, self-employed 22 Fishermen 8 oystermen 10 Garage laborers, and car washers 8 greasers 8 Gardeners, except farm, 8 groundkeepers 11 Longshoremen 8 stevedores ll Lumbermen, raftsmen, 8 wood choppers 4 Teamsters 8 Laborers (n.e.c.) Manufacturing 8 Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills 8 misc. wood products Sawmills, planing mills 8 mill work Misc. wood products Furniture 8 fixtures Stone, clay, 8 glass products Glass 8 glass products 1 Cement, 8 concrete, gypsum 8 plaster prod. Structural clay prod. Pottery 8 related prod. Misc.nonmetallic mineral 8 stone products 5 «bume to \IU'IUI A 166 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation group_r index Metal industries 7 Primary metal ind. 7 Blast furnaces, steel works 8 rolling mills 9 Other primary iron 8 steel industries 4 Primary nonferrous industries 6 Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal) 7 Fabricated steel prod. 7 Fabricated nonferrous metal products 10 Not spec. metal ind. 9 Machinery, exc. electrical 11 Agricultural machinery 8 tractors 14 Office 8 store machines 8 devices 17 Misc. machinery 10 Electrical mach., equipment, 8 supplies 14 Transportation equipment 11 Motor vehicles 8 motor vehicle equipment 13 Aircraft 8 parts 15 Ship 8 boat bldg. 8 repairing 2 Railroad 8 misc. trans- portation equipment 8 Prof. 8 photographic equip. 8 watches 11 Prof. equip. 8 supplies 10 Photographic Equip. 8 supplies 16 Watches, clocks 8 clock- work-operated devices -- Misc. manufacturing industries 12 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products 9 Meat products 8 Dairy products 13 Canning 8 preserving fruits,veg.,8 sea foods 6 167 Occu at ons b major Socio-economic occu at on grozps index Grain-mill products 6 Bakery products 10 Confectionery 8 related products 10 Beverage industries 16 Misc. food preparations 8 kindred products 5 Not specified food industries 14 Tobacco manufacturers 0 Textile mill products 3 Knitting mills Dyeing 8 finishing textiles, exc. knit goods Carpets, rugs, 8 other floor coverings l Yarn, thread, and fabric mills Misc. textile mill products Apparel 8 other fabricated textile products Apparel 8 accessories 1 Misc. fabricated textile products Paper 8 allied products Pulp, paper, 8 paperboard mills Paperboard containers 8 boxes Misc. fabricated textile products Printing, publishing, 8 allied industries Chemicals 8 allied products Synthetic fibers Drugs 8 medicines Paints, varnishes, 8 related products Misc. chemicals 8 allied products Petroleum 8 coal products Petroleum refining Misc. petroleum 8 coal products Rubber products Leather 8 leather products Leather: tanned, curried, 8 finished Footwear, except rubber Leather products, except footwear Not specified manufacturing industries Manufacturing industries (incl. not reported) Construction Railroads and railway express service Transportation, except railroad Telecommunications, 8 utilities and sanitary services N N H \OUJVVGDNONCBNUJGNmmN-L‘mumOONOD-‘DO‘HdFO HNN P‘F‘ 0‘ 168 Occupations, by major Socio-economic occupation groups index Wholesale and retail trade 12 Business and repair services 9 Personal services 5 Public administration 7 All other industries (incl. not reported) 6 Occupation not reported 19 .‘n. MICHIGAN STnTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES llHI”WINWIWIIWINIll‘”WWW”!HI 31293102409780