STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNDER m) mus or - SECONDARY OFFICE EDUCATION- V ,i cooeemwe PLAN VERSUS IN—SCIIOOLPLAU Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D _ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MERLINE TOUCHET ‘BRDUSSARD ' ' 1973, ’ ’ ’ /- _- II’III/III’IIIU’IIIII liq This is to certify that the thesis entitled STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNDER TWO PLANS OF SECONDARY OFFICE EDUCATION -- COOPERATIVE PLAN VERSUS IN-SCHOOL PLAN presented by Merline Touchet Broussard has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Wd Distributive Education ‘flm Hawk I Major professor I Date February 16, 1973 I 0-7639 full“ 2‘74 3;ng ‘0 AUG-3mm ABSTRACT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNDER TWO PLANS OF SECONDARY OFFICE EDUCATION -- COOPERATIVE PLAN VERSUS IN-SCHOOL PLAN BY Merline Touchet Broussard vThe purpose of the study was to discover whether the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan achieved better results than the students enrolled in the In—School Plan in the development of selected production skills and clerical abilities. The selected production skills were shorthand and typewriting; the seven areas of clerical abilities were business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions — oral and written, language, and arithmetic. I Three-hundred students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan and 1,three4hundred students enrolled in the In-School Plan were involved Vin this study. Both groups attended twenty selected high schools that offered both the Cooperative and the In-School Plans. Data on the achievement of both Plans were obtained from the administration of a shorthand speed test, a standardized typewriting test, and the standardized Short Tests of Clerical Ability. Findings 1. There is a significant difference between the achievement of senior office education students under the Cooperative Plan and those under the In-School Plan when achievement is defined as: (a) A total package of skill competencies composed of the basics of shorthand, Merline Touchet Broussard typewriting, and common clerical tasks. (b) Any single sub—skill measured separately in isolation from the total skill competencies; namely — business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions — oral and written, language, and arithmetic. 2. If students under one plan of instruction demonstrate greater achievement than those under the other plan of instruction, that achievement will be due to measurable factors of student learning capacity and potential as measured by intelligence quotient, grade point average, and achievement in basic skills. 3. If both groups of students demonstrate achievement gains over the period of a year, it is under the Cooperative Plan that students will show a larger net gain. Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn from an analysis of the findings of the study: 1. As a total group, students under the Cooperative Plan attain a higher level of adhievement than those students under the In~School Plan. 2. The Cooperative Plan can be recommended not only because it produces larger gains in a total skill, but because it also produces larger gains in eaCh of the sub-skills. However, the gains are not uniform among schools. 3 3. The factor of the capacity to learn and high achievement in :- basic skills appears to be a factor in the higher achievement shown by V cooperative students. Merline Touchet Broussard . 4. If one uses a finite scoring scale for skill achievement, the Cooperative Plan will not produce a net gain in achievement that is proportionally larger than the net gain from students in the In-School Plan. However, in the practical labor market it does not make any ‘ difference where a student starts; it is the terminal performance which is important and therefore the cooperative students do better. 5. A tentative conclusion is that the total standard of performance in office skills for both the cooperative and the in—school student was lower than what leading business educators and many classroom teachers would like to think is desirable. However, there is a lack of data in Louisiana as well as in the United States on the actual terminal performance of large groups of senior office education students. The level of performance is in reality only significant in that it must be such for each student to allow him to obtain and to keep a job. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNDER TWO PLANS OF SECONDARY OFFICE EDUCATION -— COOPERATIVE PLAN VERSUS IN—SCHOOL PLAN BY Merline Touchet Broussard A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.OF PHILOSOPHY Business and Distributive Education 1973 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With sincere appreciation and gratitude the researcher acknowledges the contribution of those who made this study possible. Dr. Peter G. Haines, Dr. James F. Rainey, Dr. Rex E. Ray, members of the Guidance Committee, provided encouragement and advice throughout the program and the research project. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Peter Dickinson, University of Southwestern Louisiana, who provided direction in the statistical design of the study and in the analysis of the data. Special acknowledgments are expressed to the many who have given of their time and energies during the course of this study. To the administrators who consented to participate in this study and to the coordinators who gave of their time in order to furnish data for the study, a sincere debt of gratitude is acknowledged. I am also grateful to the students who participated in this study. A.most warm and sincere expression of indebtedness is extended to Dr. Robert P. Poland, Guidance Committee Chairman, whose inspiration, counsel, and friendship made this project and the doctoral program a rewarding and enjoyable experience. Finally, to my family I give my heartfelt thanks and express my deepest appreciation for their constant encouragement during my years of study and continued assistance during the progress of this thesis. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I . THE PmBLEM o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . Cooperative Versus In-School Plans . Values, Practices, and Outcomes of the Cooperative Plans and Employment . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . Population and Sample . . . . . . . Randomization of Student Choice . Development of Production Tests . Development of Clerical Ability Tests Administration of Tests . . . . . . Testing room . . . . . . . . . . . Timing O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Distribution of Production and Clerical Instructions to the exazinee . . . Post—Testing Procedures . . . . . Mal-ysis Of Data 0 O O O O O O O O C IV. FINDINGS............... Comparative Analysis of the Acadezic in the Two Plans . . . . . . . Comparative Analyses of Terzinal Production Skills: Shorthand Shorthand . . . . . . . . . . . . Typewritiag . . . . . Cozparative Analyses of Terri. Lara Abilities O O O O O O I O O O O . tn. -0- Cooperative Plan Page mummmbwe— p—a O 11 15 19 22 24 ‘\ \ ‘ \x’ s‘ x.‘ d‘ U‘ 1‘ F \s‘ Chapter Business Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions Oral and Written . . . . . . Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Rate of Student Performance and Co petence in the Cooperative Plan if the Training Experiences Do Not Permit the Same Varied Practices as Can Be Obtained in the School Classroom . . . . . . . . . . Smary O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O C O V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Procedures . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O Q 0 O O 0 APPENDIX iv Page 43 47 SO 53 56 62 66 66 69 69 7O 7O 71 73 77 79 8O 83 87 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Enrollment in Federally Aided Vocational Office Education LIST OF TABLES Classes in Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Indicating Better Student Achievement Indicating Better Student Adhievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Better Results in Student Achievement Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan. in Shorthand in Schools Indicating the Cooperative Plan . . . . . . . . in Shorthand in Schools Indicating the In-SChOOI Plan I o o o o 0 o o o in Typewriting in Schools Indicating the Cooperative Plan . . . . . . . . in Typewriting in Schools Indicating the In-SChOOI P1811 0 o o o o o o o o in Business Vocabulary in Schools Results in the Cooperative Plan . . in Business Vocabulary in Schools Results in the In—School Plan . . . in Checking in Schools Indicating the Cooperative Plan . . . . . . . . in Checking in Schools Indicating the In-School Plan . . . . . . . . in Coding in Schools Indicating the Cooperative Plan . . . . . . . in Coding in SChools Indicating the In—School Plan . . a . . . . . in Filing in Schools Indicating the Cooperative Plan . . . . . . . in Filing in Schools Indicating the In—School Plan . . . . . . . . in Directions — Oral and Written in Page 38 39 42 43 44 46 47 49 5O 52 S3 55 56 Table 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Student Achievement in Directions — Oral and Written in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In—School Plan Student Achievement in Language in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan . Student Achievement in Language in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In-School Plan Student Achievement in Arithmetic in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan . . Student Achievement in Arithmetic Better Results in the In—School Multivariate Analysis of Variance Multivariate Analysis of Variance Multivariate Analysis of Variance Academic Ability of Thirty Randomly Enrolled in the Cooperative Plan . . Academic Ability of Thirty Randomly Selected Students Enrolled in the In—School Plan . . Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in vi on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School 0 Selected Students in Schools Indicating Plan . . Academic Ability . . and Post-Tests in I O and Post-Tests II . and Post—Tests III and Post-Tests IV D and Post-Tests V . and Post-Tests VI . and Post-Tests VII and Post—Tests VIII Shorthand and Typewriting. Clerical Ability Tests . Page 57 61 61 64 64 97 98 99 100 102 . 104 105 106 107 108 109 . 110 111 Table 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Mbans and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in Means and Differences Attained Both Plans of Instruction in on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School on Pre School and Post—Tests IX 0 O O O I O and Post-Tests X 0 O O l O O and Post-Tests XI 0 I O O O O and Post-Tests XII O O O O O and Post—Tests XIII O O I O O and Post—Tests XIV O O O O O and Post-Tests XV. o a o o o and Post—Tests XVI O O O O O and Post—Tests XVII O O l O I and Post—Tests XVIII . . . . and Post-Tests XIX . . . . . and Post—Tests XX 0 I I O I O Shorthand Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . Typewriting Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . Business Vbcabulary Means and Differences Attained on Pre and PostJTests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools Checking Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . vii Page 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 . 120 121 122 123 124 126 128 130 Table 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Coding Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Filing Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Directions - Oral and Written - Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . Language Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Arithmetic Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Shorthand Scores Attained on Pre and PostJTests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Typewriting Scores Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Business Vocabulary Scores Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . Differences in Checking Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Coding Scores Attained on Pre Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Sohools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Filing Scores Attained on Pre Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Directions - Oral and Written - Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools Differences in Language Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . viii Page 132 134 136 138 140 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Table Page 62. Differences in Arithmetic Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 63. Cooperative Students in the Twenty Selected Schools Indicated a High Level of Achievement in the Marked Selected Tests at the End of the 1971—72 School Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 64. In—School Students in the Twenty Selected Schools Indicated a High Level of Achievement in the Marked Selected Tests at the End of the 1971—72 School Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Figure 10. LIST OF FIGURES Differences in Shorthand Achievement Between the Cooperative and In—School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Typewriting Achievement Between the Cooperative and In-School Plans in the Twenty Selected SChOOlS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Differences in Business Vocabulary Achievement Between the Cooperative and In—School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . Differences in Checking Achievement Between the Cooperative and In—School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Coding Achievement Between the Cooperative and In-School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Filing Achievement Between the Cooperative and In-School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Directions — Oral and Written Achievement Between the CooPerative and In—School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . Differences in Language Achievement Between the Cooperative and In-School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Arithmetic Achievement Between the Cooperative and In—School Plans in the Twenty Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locations of the Twenty Randomly Selected Schools That Participated in This Study . . . . . . . . Page 37 41 45 48 51 54 58 60 63 87 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Today, business education is an integral part of the educational plan in most high schools. According to Barkley, these business education plans have two distinct objectives.1 The first objective is to provide general or basic business information of educational value to all stu- dents. The second objective is to provide vocational preparation for those students interested in the business and office occupations area. One way business educators can accomplish the second objective of voca— tional preparation is through relevant occupational experiences.2 In many cases attempts are being made to provide opportunities to obtain these occupational experiences as a part of the regular business education curriculum in the vocational business education programs in most secondary schools. Various plans of providing occupational experience include: (1) a series of single skill courses, (2) intensive senior in—school laboratories, (3) directed work projects or work experience, and (4) the cooperative plan. The single course plan provides for occupational 1Joseph R. Barkley, "Vbcational Business Education in Florida," National Business Education Quarterly, 34:2, (December, 1965), 25. 2Occupational experiences are defined as "Training experiences which help the student to learn valuable skills and to become more efficient, thereby giving him a chance to advance to a better job while he is working." training through such single courses as shorthand, typewriting, office practice, and bookkeeping. Intensive senior in—school laboratories provide individualized experiences related to occupational objectives that have been formulated through an analysis of performance require- ments: duties, skills, abilities, and attitudes necessary for employment in the office occupation selected by the student. The directed work projects or experiences provide an occupational pattern for preparatory instruction in which regularly scheduled school activities give students the opportunity to apply theory while developing competencies through projects or experiences related to the objectives in office occupations. Cooperative education can be defined as an instructional process used in vocational education to aid the student-learner in bridging the gap between school and the world of work. Generally, in the cooperative education plan, students attend classes in the school for the first portion of the day and then work in the business community for laboratory experiences the remainder of the day. Students in cooperative office education perform in the same capacity as other employees in a business firm except that they are in a super- vised learning situation as well as in an earning situation. The instruction given to the students in the classroom relates to the occupational experience that they are receiving on the job. The cooperative office education plan is a cooperative venture between the school, administration, the coordinator of the cooperative plan, and the business firm which provides employment and a supervisor for each student employee. The cooperative education plan trains the student for job competencies. The student is exposed to attitudes, rules of conduct, and interpersonal skills involving relations with fellow workers, super- visors and clients. This plan also aids in building a student's self— identity as a future worker and assists him in knowing his strengths, limitations, aspirations, and personal values. Ultimately, it provides an experience which will prepare the student for occupational flexibility and mobility and assists him in maturing socially and psychologically. Not all business education leaders, however, advocate the use of the cooperative plan. Some leaders in business education question the value of the cooperative plan. Instead, they believe that training sponsors do not provide the student employee with a variety of activities and experiences on the job; many plans lack training stations which have educational value for students with a wide range of job objectives and abilities; and that students are often placed in jobs for monetary reasons rather than for the educational benefits derived.3 These disagreements between leaders in business education would appear to justify an evaluation of the cooperative and in-school plans in this research. Statement of the Problem The problem associated with this study was whether the cooperative plan in selected high schools in Louisiana was more 3Marguerite Crumley, "Cooperative Part-Time Programs: Weaknesses of the Past and Present," Chapter 18 in Business Education: An Evaluative Inygntozyg National Business Education Yearbook, No. E‘TWaShington, D.C.: National Business Education Association, 1968), pp. 205-216. effective than the in-school plan. An attempt was made to answer the following questions: (1) are there any differences in the production skills and clerical abilities of students enrolled in the cooperative office education plan versus those enrolled in the in—school office education plan; (2) if differences do exist, how significant are these differences; and (3) to what extent might these differences be attributed to the cooperative office education plan? Hypotheses to be Tested The following were the research hypotheses for this study: 1. There will be no significant difference between the achievement of senior office education students under the cooperative plan and those under the in-school plan when achievement is defined as: a. A total package of skill competencies composed of the basics of shorthand, typewriting, and common clerical tasks. b. Any single sub—skill measured separately in isolation from the total skill competencies; namely — business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. 2. If students under one plan of instruction demonstrate greater achievement than those under the other plan of instruction, that achieve— ment will be due to measurable factors of student learning capacity and potential as measured by intelligence quotient, grade point average, and achievement in basic skills. \‘3. If both groups of students demonstrate achievement gains over (the period of a year, it is under the cooperative plan that students will show a larger net gain. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to discover whether the students enrolled in the cooperative plan achieved better results than the students enrolled in the in-school plan in the development of selected production skills and clerical abilities. The selected production skills were shorthand and typewriting; the seven areas of clerical abilities were business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. The study was an attempt to determine the impact that the cooperative plan had on the acquisition of selected production skills and clerical abilities. For this reason, the study investigated the differences, if any, in the production skills and clerical abilities of students in the cooperative office education plan as compared with students in the in-school office education plan. It was recognized that the outcomes of vocational education were much more than skills and abilities. The total competencies include job adjustment, job intelli- gence, and career development. However, only the terminal achievement in selected production skills and clerical abilities was investigated. Outcomes The results of the study could be used to (1) assist Louisiana schools in revising their office education curricula and in their development of new office education plans, and (2) to assess the effectiveness of the cooperative office education plan. Need for the Study The value of the cooperative plan has been justified by the fact that there are some leaders in business education who advocate them as an aid to students in reaching their career objectives. Value might be ascribed because the enrollment in federally aided vocational education classes in secondary schools has been increasing continuously. The percentage change from 1969 to 1970 was +18.6 as illustrated in Table 1.4 Table 1 Enrollment in Federally Aided Vocational Office Education Classes in Secondary Schools Year Enrollment 1966 790,368 1967 985,398 1968 1,059,656 1969 1,122,198 1970 1,331,257 However, other leaders as well as classroom teachers in business education question the value of these cooperative office plans. There- fore, it becomes necessary to reassess the strengths and weaknesses of these plans. Tb date, all the research material available pertains only to principles and current practices, advantages and disadvantages, and 4U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, and Unpublished Data, Digest of Educational Statistics 1971, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 36. the evaluation of cooperative office education plans. The studies which have been completed were mainly follow-ups of cooperative office educa— tion students. No research studies or professional journal articles dealing with the development of production skills and/or clerical abilities were located. Therefore, there was a lack of evidence to justify the value of cooperative versus the in—school plan on the selected production skills of shorthand and typewriting and the clerical abilities of business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. This study attempted to measure the production skills and the clerical abilities at the beginning of the 1971-72 school session and again at the time of graduation. It compared students enrolled in the in-school office education plan in an effort to determine whether there was objective evidence relating to the impact the cooperative office education plan had on the development of production skills and clerical abilities in comparison to the in-school office education plan. The Louisiana Department of Education acknowledged the need for this study. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to selected cooperative and in—school office education plans that met the standards of the state plan, and to selected schools that offered both plans of instruction. The study was limited to a comparison of the terminal level of selected production skills and clerical abilities of students in both plans and did not include success on the job, attitudes toward office work, or practices and procedures in office education. No attempt was made to follow-up participants in the study to determine if subsequent performance differences can be attributed to the cooperative office education plan. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined according to the way they were used in this study: Cooperative Office Education Plan. A plan that offers general and specific occupational education. The instruction is correlated; there is a direct relationship between the study in school and the activities of the training job, both of which are based on a career objective. This correlation involves the sequence and the application of learning.5 Each student employee must work a minimum of fifteen hours per week. Teacher—Coordinator. The teacher appointed by the school to instruct the students participating in the cooperative office education plan. Training Sponsor or Supervisor. The employee of the business firm who is delegated the responsibility of supervising a student employee. InfSchool Plan. A plan that provides students with knowledge and skills needed for initial employment upon graduation through classroom experiences in single skill courses. The traditional method of instruction is used - sixty-minutes for eaCh class period. t‘fi fi" ‘fifiv 5Ralph E. Mason and Peter G. Haines, Cooperative Occupational Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum (2d ed.; Danville: The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1972), p. 14. Student Employee. A student enrolled in the cooperative office education plan. Training Station. The position at the cooperating business in which the student employee obtains actual job experience. Production Skills. This involves performing such tasks as taking dictation and typewriting. Clerical Ability. The performance of tasks that are common parts of various office jobs. Example: business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. Office Education. This body of subject matter, or combination of courses and practical experience, is organized into plans of instruction to provide opportunities for students to prepare for or advance in selected office occupations.6 6U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Vocational Education and Occupations, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 57. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Cooperative office education is a part—time cooperative plan which is reputed to be one of the best plans in vocational education. It has combined vocational instruction and planned employment experience in its attempt to bridge the gap between school life and occupational competency. One reason for its prominence is that it has consistently yielded high placement records, high employment stability, and high job satisfaction.1 On the whole, cooperative office education strives to increase job competencies. Consequently, the success of such a training plan is largely attributed to the attitudes of the participants since the plan is an interdependent combination of specific and related instruction and planned, coordinated office employment experience. The learners have career interest, goals, and a career plan. The teacher is vocationally competent. The employer provides on—the—job experiences based on a training agreement. Thus, harmonious working relations is a requisite for this plan which purports to train part-time employees how to be successful in business. Many studies have been undertaken to evaluate the impact of the cooperative plan at the secondary school level. The majority of fife, 1Louise J. Keller, "The Teaching and Coordination of Cooperative Office Education," Chapter 13 in Contributions of Research to Improvement of Instruction in Business Education, National Business‘Education‘Year- book, No. 9 (Washington, D.C.: National Business Education Association, 1971), p. 115. 10 11 these studies have resulted in comparative analyses of surveys taken in state public schools to explore the differences in success on the job between the cooperative plan and the in—school plan. Other studies have been made to appraise the value of the cooperative plan relative to selected employment factors and to the status and future of cooperative plans in business occupations. Chapter II reviews the literature most closely related to this study. It is divided into three parts: (1) cooperative versus in-school plans, (2) values, practices and outcomes of cooperative plans, and (3) cooperative plans and employment. Cooperative Versus In—School Plans The Beck study.2 Beck conducted an evaluation of students who participated in the cooperative plan and the students who did not parti— cipate in the plan in the public, secondary high schools of four selected counties in Southeastern Pennsylvania in 1968. He concluded that both groups of students, those who had participated in a secondary school cooperative office plan and those who had not, had no differences in rating of success on the job. However, students of varying ability did have different ratings of success on the job. There was no interaction found between cooperative office experience and ability with regard to ratings of success on the job. 2James Flory Beck, "An Evaluation of Secondary School Cooperative Office Work Experience" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Temple University, 1971). 12 _Ih9.§l§§§°§~$EPdY-3 Bledsoe investigated the difference between the educational development of students who had participated in the state approved diversified cooperative education plan and that of students who had not participated in the cooperative vocational education plan in selected secondary schools in Indiana. Subjects for the study were full-time secondary school students. Each student was matched within a school and graduating class according to sex, age, achievement as measured by the Pretest Composite Score of the Iowa Tests of Educational Development, and attendance during the school year in which the pretest was administered. Bledsoe concluded that the state approved diversified cooperative education plan afforded participants an opportunity for general educational development. The Madden StUQY-4 Madden's study was a follow-up study of the graduates to consider the success of the cooperative office education students as compared to the success of stenographic students. She also compared job satisfaction of the two groups of students. The findings indicated that both groups were similar in the ability to secure and retain satisfactory full-time employment, but the cooperative office education students were more successful in 3Harry James Bledsoe, "A Comparison of the Educational Development of Diversified Cooperative Educational Students and Non-Diversified Cooperative Education Students in Selected Indiana High Schools" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Purdue University, 1968). 4Mary J. Madden, "A Comparative Study of Graduates of the Cooperative Office Education Stenographic Curriculum with Graduates of the Regular Stenographic Curriculum from Francis T. Nichols High School, New Orleans, Louisiana, for the years 1960—1963, Inclusive" (unpublished Master's thesis, Catholic University, 1964). 13 securing an initial job that met their expectations. Both groups were very similar, if not identical, in characteristics such.as number of job changes, job stability, reasons for leaving the first job, and job duties. Average earnings and job satisfaction for cooperative office education students were slightly higher than for stenographic students. The differences between the two groups, however, were not statistically significant. The Driska study.5 Driska studied the current and recommended practices and procedures in office education at the public secondary school level. The study included both cooperative and in—school plans. State supervisors of business education were asked to report current practices and procedures in office education in their states. Chairmen of business teacher education departments belonging to the National Association of Business Teacher Education schools and teacher educators of office education were asked to recommend practices and procedures in office education for their state. Based on the data he collected, Driska concluded: (1) Cooperative office education plans and block plans are, and should be, the most frequently offered office education plans at the secondary school level. (2) Cooperative office education classes are, and should be, offered at the senior grade level; in-school office education classes are, and should be, offered in the junior and senior levels. (3) Data processing, human relations, and office machines are the areas of office education in which educational materials are most needed; simulated office materials and programmed materials are 5Robert S. Driska, Wlffice Education on the Secondary School Level: A Critical Analysis" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Arizona State University, 1967). 14 the kinds of materials most needed. (4) Cooperative office education students, are, and should be, selected on the basis of career objectives in office occupations and employability from the standpoint of having fundamental skills and personality traits. The Hermanstorfer study.6 The purpose of this study was to compare selected Iowa schools with and without cooperative plans, and the following conclusions were drawn: There was 93.9 percent agreement among superintendents of schools with the cooperative plan that "Work experience is now an accepted need as a part of the educational program for American Youth." Only 78.7 percent of superintendents of schools without such a plan agreed with this statement. In response to the statement, "American Youth, American educational prestige, and American community life all will gain much from good educational work—experience " there was 95.9 percent agreement among superintendents of schools plans, with a cooperative plan and only 78.7 percent agreement among superintendents of schools without a cooperative plan. Hermanstorfer found 90 percent or more agreement among superin- tendent respondents in 1962 on the following statements: (1) The responsibility of the high school is to provide for eaCh youth the kind of an education he needs to equip him as a citizen, home member, and worker. (2) The primary purpose of the plan is educational and not "providing help" or "earning money." (3) The employer and the school are cooperating to assure maximum learning by the student while on the job. 6Judith Hermanstorfer, "A Comparative Analysis of Surveys Taken in Iowa Public Schools in 1952 and 1962 Relative to the Status and Future of Cooperative Work-Experience Programs in Business Occupations." (unpublished Master's thesis, State College of Iowa, 1963). 15 Values, Practices, and Outcomes of the Cooperative Plan The Hodge study.7 In a doctoral study at Arizona State University, Hodge investigated the goal of cooperative office education in the development of favorable attitudes toward office work. The study utilized the group technique with an experimental group of one-hundred randomly selected participants from a population of two—hundred fifteen female students enrolled in cooperative office education which was paralleled with a group of one-hundred randomly selected participants from a population of five—hundred twenty female students not enrolled in the cooperative office education plan. Cooperative office education was the variable experimental factor with attitudes formed toward office work as the criterion. The results of Hodge's study indicated support of his null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between attitudes of students enrolled in the cooperative office education plan and students not enrolled in the cooperative office education plan toward office education. According to Hodge, both groups had positive attitudes and any difference could be attributed to chance. 8 The Schultz study. Schultz conducted a survey to determine the value, outcomes, and experiences accruing to students enrolled in the 7 James Leslie Hodge, "Cooperative Office Education and Its Effect on Attitudes Toward Office Employment" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Arizona State University, 1968). 8Kenneth Shultz, "A Study of Cooperative Office WOrk-Experience Programs in A Selected Group of Secondary Schools of the State of Pennsylvania for 1957—58" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Temple University, 1961). 16 cooperative plan under school supervision in the state of Pennsylvania, 1957—58. He included a historical background of the plan and reported on the then current practices in the state of Pennsylvania. Among the conclusions reported were: (1) Participants showed certain value growths, particularly in the area of personal traits. (2) Cooperative training reduced the period of time ordinarily necessary for adjustment to the job situation upon graduation. (3) Although, finally, the trainees seemed to think they made more progress in their school work as a result of participation in the plan, it was evident that their views were not shared by some of their peers and by some of their school principals. The ShEPe StQéng In 1962 Shupe conducted a study in Michigan in one district to determine the value of the cooperative occupational education plan at the high school level. This study was based on the teacher opinion of the cooperative plan by teachers of two high schools in Michigan. The study indicated that the teachers involved felt quite strongly that the cooperative occupations education plan was a necessary and vital part of the total school program. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents agreed that cooperative education should have a place in the curriculum of the comprehensive high school. Approximately eighty-six percent believed that the cooperative plan should be made available to more students who could benefit from it. In answer to the question, "If you believe there are values in the cooperative plan, what do you believe is its greatest strength?", 9Richard J. Shupe, "A Question of Values: How High School Teachers View Cooperative Education" (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, College of Education, 1962). 17 randomly selected responses were: "This plan helps students to bridge the gap between school and work." "Development of responsibility by the youngster." "I believe this plan gives the student an opportunity to apply theory to an actual job situation." "Helps some students remain in school." The Rowe studyloand the Ferguson study.11 In Distributive Education Rowe and Ferguson conducted studies similar to the present study. The two studies were designed to compare the effectiveness of a cooperative vocational plan with an alternative plan type. They investigated a system.which omitted the on—the-job training component entirely and replaced it with a blockrtime plan of school sponsored learning activities called "project training" or "the project method". The purpose of the Rowe and Ferguson studies was to compare the effectiveness of the traditional cooperative plan in Distributive Education with a block—time school sponsored laboratory approach without training stations or training sponsors from the employment community. The Rowe study was conducted in the State of Arizona; Ferguson studied plans in MiChigan. The research design, procedures, and findings were essentially similar. Rowe concluded there were little 10KennethL. Rowe, "Development of Selected Marketing Competencies Through Utilization of Two Methods of Teaching in the Secondary School" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 11Edward 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" (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Research & Development Program in Vocational Technical Education Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, College of Education, 1967). 18 differences, if any, in the sales comprehension and economic under— standings of eleventh and twelfth.grade students in the project and cooperative plan. Ferguson concluded that the students in the cooperative plan obtained higher scores on the tests of sales comprehension. The preceding studies revealed the values, practices, and results of the cooperative plan as stated by students, teachers, administrators, and businessmen associated with the plan. Hodge concluded that there was no significant difference between attitudes of students enrolled in cooperative and in—school plans towards office education; and added that since both groups revealed positive attitudes, any differences could be attributed to chance. On the other hand, Shultz maintained that students enrolled in the cooperative plan showed certain value growths particularly in the area of personal traits and the job adjustment period was reduced. Both Shupe and Martin justified the need for the cooperative plan as a total and vital part of the comprehensive program in that it offers correct techniques in office procedures and develops good business personality. Rowe and Ferguson concluded that there were little differences between the c00perative and the project plan. All of the studies inferred that the values, practices, and outcomes of the cooperative plan did justify its existence in the curriculum and its expansion because the researchers in these studies implied that this was an effective way to provide the student with the opportunities to prepare himself for the business world and to be better equipped to serve in our society. 19 Cooperative Plans and Employment The Panek’study.12 The purpose of the Panek study was to evaluate the cooperative plan from the point of view of the businessman providing the training station. A questionnaire was mailed to 48 businessmen; Panek interviewed the 44 respondents. The findings revealed that businessmen preferred to hire new employees who were experienced and viewed the trainees from the cooperative plan as better prospective employees than those not having training through the cooperative plan. Businessmen did not like to pay trainees the minimum hourly wage. Students accepted into the plan were rated low in the skills of penman- ship, spelling, and grammar. Businessmen favored the cooperative plan in that they felt they were contributing to the youth of the community. The Haines and Coleman studies.13 These studies measured the effectiveness of the cooperative plan in secondary schools by an assess- ment of the employment status of former trainees after graduation. These studies indicated that cooperative trainees fared well in the labor market; employment was quickly obtained, and residual unemployment was low. The employers who trained the c00perative trainees were benefiting by securing full—time workers. The trainees represented all levels of 2James Panek, "An Evaluation of the Work-Experience Program at Chico (California) Senior High School" (unpublished Master's thesis, Chico (California) State College, 1967). 3Peter G. Haines and Brendan G. Coleman, "How High School Cooperative Trainees Fare in the Labor Market, Phases A and B" (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Educational Research Series, ER16, November, 1963 and ER23, May, 1965). 20 academic achievement but, as a whole, the trainees were superior to their graduating class. Many trainees remained with.the same employer they had while in the cooperative plan. About one—fifth.of the trainees entered college. Haines and Coleman concluded that the cooperative plan does provide trained employees. The MUIEhX_3tudX-14 The study was conducted to examine selected factors in business education training plans of secondary schools and to determine whether the factors were significant in the success of high school graduates in securing initial employment in office occupations. Random samples were taken from graduates who, as seniors, were enrolled in an advanced office education class and classified as business majors; participated in a cooperative office plan; or participated in a general office work-experience plan. A sample of one-hundred students in each graduating group was selected in ten high schools in Phoenix. Murphy concluded that participation in a cooperative plan while in high school enhances the student's self concept which in turn gives him.more self-confidence when applying for his first job after graduation. He further concluded that a work-experience mystique apparently does exist with prospective employers which becomes a factor in the success of the cooperative student in securing initial employment after graduation from high school. A work-experience mystique apparently exists also with high school graduates as reflected by their responses to the five alter- natives for the statements related to the skills, adaptability, and attitudes of cooperative students. *7.Yw v rw—Ifivx— 148am‘Murphy, "Selected Factors in.Office Education Programs Relating to the Success of High.School Graduates in Securing Initial Employment" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Arizona State University, 1972). 21 The Sharp_study.15 The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which.beginning office workers who participated in either an in—school office work.experience, a cooperative plan, or a non—office work—experience plan during high school had adjusted at the end of eight months and one year and eight months to beginning office positions. Among the answers sought to specific questions, the following was most pertinent to this current study. Is there a relationship between the type of business training in high school and job adjustment? The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which a student is helped and the values he receives in preparation for employ- ment after graduation from either an in—school experience plan or a cooperative plan. It was believed that one way of determining the values of the cooperative plan was to appraise the adjustment made by students from both plans to their post high school employment. The following conclusions were reported: (1) The employers evaluate the beginning cooperative office education employee as being more adjusted than the non-office work-experience employee. (2) There was a relationship between the type of business training in high school and job adjustment. This was shown in the first eight months of full- time employment. The more office experience a student has, the more readily he adjusts to beginning office work. It was recommended that schools preparing workers for office positions should include office work experience in the curriculum of .w—v 15Walter Maynard Sharp, Jr., "An Appraisal of the Values Derived From In—School Office Wbrk Experience, Cooperative Office Practice, and Non—Office work—Experience Programs as Related to Occupational Adjustment (unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1961). H 22 the business student. The office experience plan should be so arranged to give the student a preview of what to expect in full—time.employment. This may be done through a cooperative office work plan or an in—school office work plan. All of the studies reviewed concerning the cooperative plan and employment suggested that there is a greater tendency for the cooperative graduate to feel secure in obtaining the job than his non—cooperative fellow graduate. Panek observed that businessmen preferred to hire employees who were experienced; Murphy, that the cooperative plan gives the students more self-confidence when applying for their first job after graduation; Sharp, that the cooperative plan employees are more adjusted to office work than the in—school plan employees; and Haines and Coleman, that the trainees fared well in the labor market. These studies indicated that the cooperative plan provided trained employees. Summary A comprehensive search failed to reveal any literature which specifically revealed information as to whether there were any differ- ences in the production skills and the clerical abilities of students enrolled in the in—school plan as compared to students enrolled in the cooperative plan. Granted, however, is the fact that cooperative students have the advantage of being hired before the applicants of in-school plan because employers believe that they will have more productive employees if they hire cooperative students instead of in-school students. Moreover, studies also indicated that cooperative plans are an effective.manner of providing students with the opportunities to prepare themselves for the business world and to be better equipped to 23 serve in our society. It seems fair to conclude from the studies reviewed that the cooperative plan provides trained employees. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES This chapter describes the methods and procedures used in the present study. To simplify these descriptions, the chapter is divided into three sections. The first section explains the population and the selection of the two sample groups and discusses the instruments used in gathering the data. The second section explains the administration of the tests. The third section discusses the method used in processing the data. Population and Sample The sample for this study consisted of twenty selected Louisiana high schools out of a total population of eighty-two schools, all of which offered both the Cooperative and the In-School Plan. These twenty secondary schools were drawn by lot from the eighty—two to yield a random selection. To provide a valid sample, six hundred students were selected to participate in this study: three hundred were enrolled in the Cooperative Plan and three hundred in the In—School Plan. A Louisiana map showing the location of the twenty randomly selected schools that participated in this study is found in the Appendix on page 87. A letter explaining the purpose of this study was mailed to the principal and Cooperative Office Education Coordinator of each selected school. This letter explained the need for the study, students to be tested, and the manner in which.these students should be selected. A 24 25 copy of this letter is found in the Appendix on page 88. “10 weeks later, the coordinators who had not responded to the first request to participate in the study were contacted by telephone. This resulted in a one hundred percent favorable response for the study. Randomization of Student Choice Each participating coordinator was requested to select at random fifteen students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan and fifteen other students enrolled in the In-School Plan. The method of random selection was determined by the coordinator doing the testing in conference with the investigator. Development of Production Tests In selecting test material for the pretest and the post-test, several alternatives were considered. The Gregg Division of McGraw-Hill Book Compapy, parent organization holding copyrights on Gregg shorthand, was contacted to determine whether it could provide standardized short- hand test materials appropriate for this study. However, the Gregg Division indicated there were no standardized tests nor any special material designed for testing purposes other than a series of letters published in their house organ, The Business Teacher. The Gregg-prepared materials were not used because The Business Teacher is a free publication sent to all business teachers who generally use the letters for testing. It was therefore possible that a student participating in the study could have been exposed to these letters in his previous shorthand experience. 26 The alternative chosen for this research on the Shorthand section was the composing of a letter with.a 1.5 syllabic intensity control by the researcher.1 This letter, which contained 240 words, was to be dictated at the rate of eighty-words per minute. The student was to be allowed fifteen minutes for a typewritten transcription. The test, how— ever, was designed for shorthand speed, not for transcription ability. To grade these tests the average score was converted to 100 percent. Example: 240 e 100 - .42 off per error. Only incorrect words were considered as errors. A copy of the Shorthand Test can be found in the Appendix on page 90. The standardized Typewriting Test prepared by the Science Research Associates, Incorporated was also used. Science Research Associates determined the reliability and validity of the typewriting skill test by administering it to experienced and inexperienced office applicants throughout the United States. This standardized typewriting test consisted of a business letter, approximately two hundred twenty— five words long, to be copied as often as possible in a ten—minute period. It was scored according to the International Typewriting Contest Rules, which convert the number of total strokes into the conventional score of net words per minute (also called the International Speed Score). Scoring also provided an Accuracy Ratio to indicate the prOportion of words typed without error. The test was short, easy to administer, and simple to score. It yielded results that were closely related to those obtained on tabular materials, handwritten drafts, and similar assignments. 1The letter was reviewed and approved by-a panel of shorthand teachers. 27 Development of Clerical Ability Tests The standardized Science Research Associates Short Tests of Clerical Ability is a battery of seven short instruments, each designed to measure an aptitude or ability important to the successful performance of tasks, common parts of various office jobs. Science Research Associates determined the reliability and validity of the Short Tests of Clerical Ability by administering them to employed female office workers in the Chicago area. All types of office classifications were represented -- secretaries, stenographers, general clerks, filing clerks, statistical and accounting clerks, clerk typists, and order—billing clerks. The tests incorporate certain realistic aspects of the job tasks as they are performed in the typical office. The battery included: Business Vocabulary. This five-minute test was designed to measure general verbal ability, as well as knowledge of conmon business terms and office procedures. It consisted of thirty incomplete state- ments, each followed by five alternatives. The selection of the correct response required the examinee to know office procedures, the meaning of business terms, and/or the meaning of words in the general English Vocabulary. Checking. The examinee had to check the accuracy of a list of eighty names and numbers against a "correct list" in this five-minute test. An item could be "wrong" because of an error in either the name or the number. Simulating the checking task to a typical office situation, the items in the two lists were out of alignment by one to four positions, and required a short vertical and longer horizontal eye movement. 28 Coding. The proper code to be associated with a list of adjectives and a list of objects, singly and in combination, was checked by the examinee in this fivevminute test. It was to measure the ability to memorize rote material rapidly and to code information accurately. One-hundred five adjectives and objects were listed on the test. Filing. The fifty—four items in this five~minute test required the examinee to indicate the proper placement of new material into an "existing file." The test measured ability to alphabetize rapidly, as well as knowledge of standard filing practices. Directions - Oral and Written. This test was designed to measure the ability to take useful notes, to memorize from oral instructions, and to follow written directions. The sixty—four items in this five—minute test were based on information read previously to the examinees by the test administrator. These "oral instructions," which required about seven minutes to read, contained information of the type a new employee might receive in an orientation meeting. The examinee was permitted to take whatever notes he desired while the instructions were being read, and to use these notes when answering the test items. Language. The examinee was required to indicate the number of errors appearing in each of the twenty sentences on the five-minute test. The errors could have been in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling. The examinee's attention was not directed to any word or part of the sentence which might be in error. Since some sentences contained no errors, the examinee had to know proper spelling and usage in addition to being able to detect such_errors when reading printed or typewritten material. 29 Arithmetic. This test was divided into two parts. Part I, with a testing time of three minutes, measured the examinee's ability to solve twenty-eight simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems rapidly and accurately. Part II, with a time limit of six minutes, consisted of sixteen business arithmetic problems. Solution of the problems required the handling of percentages, decimals, and fractions, in addition to the simple computations. All of the clerical ability tests were scored by using the plastic scoring stencils provided for the Short Tests of Clerical Ability. The correct responses to each item were printed on the stencils. Scoring was determined by counting the number of responses which appeared in these "correct" positions and recording the raw score. As a means of predicting and interpreting the scores on selected production skills and clerical abilities, a study was made of the academic ability of a cross-section of the selected sample of partici— pants. The following information was obtained from ten percent of the participants, thirty cooperative students and thirty in-school students: intelligence quotient, grade point average at the beginning of their senior year, and the scores attained on the achievement tests in English, reading, spelling and number computation. The intelligence quotient for each student was derived by averaging the scores attained on the Q_t_i_s_ Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test: Beta Test, Form FM administered to students in the sixth and eighth grades, and the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test: Gamma Test, Form J given to students at the tenth grade level. The achievement test scores were attained by averaging the percentile rank achieved by each student on the Stanford Achievement 30 \Test, High School Basic_§atte£y, Form W administered at the tenth grade level; and Form'X, at the eleventh grade level. If the oro339section sample showed that the cooperative students were better academic students, then it might be assumed that this group would achieve higher results when tested in selected production skills and clerical abilities. Thus, if this ten percent sample was a true cross—section of the whole, academic ability would definitely become a factor in analyzing and comparing scores achieved by the cooperative and in—school groups. Administration of Tests Testing room. Each coordinator agreed to adhere to the researcher's request that the testing rooms had good lighting, and the furnishings provided each examinee with adequate writing space.2 During testing sessions every effort was made to avoid unnecessary noise and interruption. This was especially important since the tests were short and timed. Timing. To assure valid results, it was extremely important that the exact time limits for the tests be observed. Sufficient time was allowed before each test to permit the examinee to read the instruc- tions and to work the examples for the test. The tests were administered during the regular class periods. Distribution of Production and Clerical Ability Tests. The Shorthand Test composed by the researcher and the Science Research i tfififi 2The researcher was able to review test administration procedures in a series of meetings with a majority of the cooperating teachers. 31 Associages _TypingSkills‘TesE and the Short Tests‘of‘ClericalpAbiliEy, fi'T‘w—fl“ were mailed to the twenty schools that had agreed to participate in the study. Each test was packed in groups of fifteen and was labeled for the two respective groups of students -- Cooperative Students and In— School Students. Specific instructions were sent to each Cooperative Office Education Coordinator who administered the tests. A copy of these instructions is found in the Appendix on pages 92 through 94. Approximately two weeks after the packages had been mailed, a followeup letter was sent to the coordinators who had not returned the completed answer sheets of the tests. A copy of this letter is found in the Appendix on page. 95. After another two weeks, the coordinators who had not responded were contacted by telephone, the result of which was that all materials were received by the researcher. Instructions to the examinee. The coordinator was particularly careful to note that each person taking the tests understood exactly what he was to do and how he should mark his answers. The participant was informed that he was going to take some selected production and clerical ability tests. It was explained that the scores on these tests would aid in determining whether there was a difference between the terminal clerical abilities of students enrolled in the cooperative office education plan and of students enrolled in the in-school plan in high schools in the State Of Louisiana. Therefore, it was essential that the participant understood his role in this study. Post—Testing Procedures. In May a post—test was given to each 8r0up. The coordinator was advised not to correct any of the tests. Instead, he was instructed to return the tests to the researcher with 32 the identifying sheet for each respective group. A copy of the letter mailed with the tests is found in the Appendix on page 96. Analysis of Data An analysis of the data involved a series of steps: (1) all tests were scored, (2) the raw data was compiled, and (3) tables of results for each plan within each school were constructed.3 Multiresponse twoaway classification, with replication in both pre— and post—testing, was employed in this study. The two factors considered were the types of plans, cooperative and in-school; and the scores of the pretests and the post—tests. Since the multivariate analysis of variance is considered to be a competent statistical tool, it was used to determine if the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group differed significantly in September and again in May. According to Traverse, the analysis of variance is a technique used for testing the null hypothesis and provides an estimate of the probability that a particular difference could have occurred as a result of variation produced by sampling.4 Since the samples in this study consisted of two similar groups, equal in number; and as randomization of the parent population was possible; and because there were several responses, not independent 3Because of the voluminous nature of the tables, they are not included in the Appendix. They~would, however, be available for uamfiration upon request to the researcher. 4Robert’M. W: Traverse, An Introduction'to Educational Research (New York4 The Macmillan Company,719581, p.fi388. 33 of each other, a multivariate analysis of variance seemed the most appropriate statistical technique. In order to compare differences in levels of achievement and to determine whether the differences were significant, certain statis— tical procedures were followed. The facilities of the University of Southwestern Louisiana Computer Center were used to perform multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Program BMDX69, Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance, programmed by the Health Science Computing Facility, UCLA, was used. This program was selected because it involves a number of statistical techniques that are useful in interpreting these kinds of data. Program BMDX69 could take into consideration the possible effect that two different stenographic programs might have had on the perfor— mance of students in selected production skills and clerical abilities. Therefore, this procedure was used for analyzing the two selected production skills, shorthand and typewriting, in addition to the clerical abilities in business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions — oral and written, language, and arithmetic. The same program and procedure was used in striving to determine the academic ability of a cross—section of the selected sample of participants. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This portion of the study contains the results of the comparison of cooperative office education students and in—school office education students on selected production skills and clerical abilities. The following list constitutes the areas from which findings are reported in this chapter in order of their presentation: 1. Comparative analysis of the academic ability of students in the two plans. 2. Comparative analyses of terminal level of selected production skills: shorthand and typewriting. 3. Comparative analyses of terminal level clerical abilities. 4. The rate of student performance and competence in the cooperative plan if the training experiences do not permit the same varied practices as can be obtained in the school classroom. Comparative Analysis of the Academic Ability of Students in the Two Plans The study of the academic ability of a cross-section of the selected sample of participants revealed the following information: The average intelligence quotient was 103 for the Cooperative students and 101 for the In-School students. The grade point average was 2.686 for the Cooperative students and 2.384 for the In-School students. The Achievement Tests Scores revealed the average means for each group. The English mean was 59.63 for the Cooperative group and 40.87 for the 35 In—School group; the reading mean was 45.47 for the Cooperative group and 26.07 for the In«School group; the Spelling mean was 56.00 for the Cooperative group and 43.17 for the In—School group; the number compu— tation mean was 43.33 for the Cooperative group and 31.47 for the In—School group. These results indicate that there was a significant difference at the .005 level of significance between the academic ability (as defined by the responses) of the students in the Cooperative and In— School Plans. The range between the intelligence quotient and the grade point average of both groups was similar; this indicates that both groups did have similar capacities and performance abilities. On the other hand, the achievement test results portrayed a different view. The Cooperative students showed a higher level of achievement. There— fore, the hypothesis that if students under one plan of instruction demonstrate greater achievement than those under the other plan of instruction, that achievement will be due to measurable factors of student learning capacity and potential as measured by intelligence quotient, grade point average, and achievement in basic skills was accepted. Comparative Analyses of Terminal Level of Selected Production Skills: Shorthand and Typewriting This section of the study presents the results of the analyses of the two groups in relation to shorthand and typewriting achievement at the end of two semesters of instruction. The results of the short— hand achievement will be presented, followed by the typewriting results. 36 Shorthand Based on the possible score of 100, the average mean on the pretest of the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan was 84.97, and the average mean of the post-test was 88.20. The difference of +3.2 indicated an improvement in shorthand speed at the end of the school session. In the In-School Plan, the average mean on the pretest was 75.84; on the post—test, 80.40 — a difference of +4.6. The data collected on this test indicated that the students enrolled in the In-School Plan showed a greater increase in shorthand speed than the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan. The In—School Plan students showed an increase of +1.4 more than the Cooperative Plan students. It should be noted that the Cooperative students rated higher on the pretest and therefore had less to gain than the In-School students. Figure 1 shows that the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in nine of the twenty selected schools accomplished a higher level of achievement than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan in those respective schools. Cooperative students in some schools projected better results in shorthand speed than in other schools. Figure 1 also indicates that Cooperative students in two schools and the In-School students in one school did not improve upon reaching the terminal level of instruction. Nor did some schools show any great difference in the achievement of the students enrolled in either plan. It can be seen from Figure 1 that nine schools indicated a higher level of achievement in the Cooperative Plan; eight schools indicated a higher level of achievement in the In—School Plan; and three schools indicated the same level of achievement in both Plans. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 124. 37 and» Hooeumnam nude «>«uouoaooo .aooaum ouuuoaom saunas can as cases economuau was o>uunuoeooo on» soozuom usuaobounu< cannuuonm :« cocoouomuwa a «sauna ON- mu m" h~ 0— mg «a nu Nu - cu a m n o m c m N H Oat m- o~+ Nn+ ¢~+ < 2+ ~_v.. , ., - _. M, ;e~+ l.T.I||I|-.|Il . . . . V t . .. V , . I . . \ 1 38 The differences in achievement between the two plans in the nine schools where the Cooperative Plan had better results are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Student Achievement in Shorthand in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In—School Difference II + 5.5 + 3.9 +1.6 IV + 3.5 + 2.3 +1.2 V + 9.3 + 4.6 +4.7 VI +11.9 + 6.3 +5.6 XI + 2.7 + 1.6 +1.1 XIV +13.2 +11.6 +1.6 XVII + 1.0 — 1.0 +2.0 XVIII + 4.7 + .5 +4.2 XX + 9.5 + 8.5 +1.0 39 The significant differences in achievement between the two plans in the eight schools where the In—School Plan attained better results are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Student Achievement in Shorthand in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In—School Plan School In—School Cooperative Difference I + 4.7 + 3.4 + 1.3 VIII +16.3 + 1.7 +14.6 X + 3.1. + 1.4 + 1.7 XII + 4.0 -10.8 +14.8 XIII + 1.3 — 4.7 + 6.0 XV + 7.6 + 1.2 + 6.4 XVI + 3.3 + 1.7 + 1.6 XIX + 6.6 + 2.3 + 4.3 The data in Tables 2 and 3 point out that there is very little difference in shorthand achievement in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results than the In-School Plan, with the exception of two schools where the level of achievement at the end of the school session was much higher in the In-School Plan. 40 Typewritipg_ The Typewriting Skill Test, administered to the students enrolled in the Cooperative and In-School Plans, was scored on the maximum that can be attained by the individual typist within a timed limit. Coopera— tive students averaged a mean of 30.20 on the pretest and 32.98 on the post—test. The difference of +2.8 indicated an improvement in typewriting skills for this group. In comparison, the In—School students averaged a mean of 29.27 on the pretest and 30.65 on the post-test. The difference of +1.4 also indicated an increase in the typewriting skills, although this increase was half that of the Cooperative Plan. Data in Figure 2 reveals that the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in eight of the twenty selected schools accomplished a higher level of achievement in typewriting skills than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan in those respective sChools. To illus- trate, students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in some schools produced better results in typewriting skills than cooperative students in other schools. One point that cannot be overlooked is that the students enrolled in both plans in three schools did not indicate elevated scores in typewriting skills. In four schools it was noted that there was not a great difference in the achievement of the students enrolled in the two plans upon reaching the terminal level of instruction. However, the Cooperative Plan in eight schools did show a gain in the typewriting skills whereas only five In-School Plans showed an increase in this skill. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 126. 41 SE Susanna IIIIII and 053.888 uaoofim vouooaoa bug on» 5 3: dovoTIH and 0532—08 05 3030: unlisted-04 33E 5 308.5qu N 95»: ON 3 2 z 3 n— .2 Ma Na 3 cu m m h o . n 0—... Nu... if? 42 The differences in achievement of the typewriting skills between the two plans in the eight schools where the Cooperative Plan's performance was better are presented in Table 4. Table 4 Student Achievement in Typewriting in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In-School Difference III + 4.5 0 + 4.5 VI + 5.3 +3.9 + 1.4 VII + 3.5 +1.9 + 1.6 IX + 4.6 -l.3 + 5.9 XI + 8.9 +4.4 + 4.5 XII + 4.2 —1.4 + 5.6 XIV +13.3 +1.2 +12.l XVIII + 8.1 -4.8 +12.9 The students in the In-School Plan in one school rated much higher than the students in the Cooperative Plan. The difference in the means of these two plans was +7.6. However, in some schools students in the Cooperative Plan rated higher than those in the In- School Plan. The differences in the means of these two plans was respectively +5.9, +12.1, and +12.9. 43 The differences in achievement between the two plans in the five schools where the In-School Plan indicated better results are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Student Achievement in Typewriting in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In-School Plan School In-School Cooperative Difference V +4.5 +2.2 +2.3 X +3.3 -2.1 +5.4 XV +7.3 - .3 +7.6 XVI + .4 -2.6 +3.0 XX +2.8 + .3 +2.5 Comparative Analyses of Terminal Level Clerical Abilities The standardized Science Research Associates Short Tests of Clerical Ability, a battery of seven short instruments, were administered to students enrolled in Cooperative and In—School Plans in the twenty randomly selected schools. Business Vocabula£y_ Based on a possible score of 30, the average mean of Cooperative students was 14.35 on the pretest and 18.26 on the post—test. Thus, the difference of +3.9 indicated an improvement in business vocabulary for this group at the end of the school session. The average mean of the 44 pretest administered to the In—School students was 14.87; of the post- test, 15.14. The difference of +.3 indicated a slight improvement at the end of the school session. On the whole, students of the Cooperative Plan, according to the average means, gained +3.6 more than the In-School Plan in business vocabulary skills. From Figure 3 on page 45 it can be seen that students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in six schools accomplished a higher level of achievement in business vocabulary than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan in those respective schools. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 128. Table 6 indicates the differences in achievement between the two plans in the six sdhools showing better results in the Cooperative Plan. Table 6 Student Achievement in Business Vocabulary in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In-School Difference II +7.1 +3.9 +3.2 IV +9.7 +2.3 +7.4 IX +4.7 +1.9 +2.8 XI +6.9 +3.3 +3.6 XIV +3.9 + .9 +3.0 XIX +9.1 +1.7 +7.4 p '4 VD '4 as so as '-""7' / \ / I / ‘—— / 45 a... N+ n+ 5... 6+ an... 46 In three schools students enrolled in the In—School Plan attained better results in business vocabulary achievement than the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in those reapective schools. The differences in achievement between the two plans in these schools are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Student Achievement in Business Vocabulary in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In-School Plan School In-School Cooperative Difference V +2.3 +1.2 +1.1 VII +3.7 +2.4 +1.3 XVIII +7.7 +5.2 +2.5 Tables 6 and 7 show that there is a greater difference in adhievement in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results in business vocabulary than the In-School Plan than in the schools where the In-School Plan accomplished better results than the Cooperative Plan. In ten schools it was observed that there was little difference in business vocabulary achievement improvement for the students enrolled in the two plans. Yet, students enrolled in both plans in one school did not indicate an improvement upon reaching the terminal level of instruction. 47 Checking The highest possible score for this test was 80. The Cooperative students averaged 32.36 on the pretest and 38.63 on the post—test, regis- tering a difference of +6.3 to indicate an improvement in checking ability at the end of the school session. The In-School students averaged 31.44 on the pretest and 36.39 on the post—test — a difference of +5.0, indicating an improvement in checking ability at the end of the school session. Thus, the increase of the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan, according to the average means, was +1.3 more than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan. The data in Figure 4 on page 48 reveal that the Cooperative Plan students in only seven schools showed an increase in checking ability. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 130. The differences in achievement in checking ability between the two plans in the seven schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results are presented in Table 8. Table 8 Student Achievement in Checking in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan SChool Cooperative In—School Difference II +13.3 +7.3 + 6.0 III + 4.5 -3.6 + 8.1 IV +19.5 +3.7 +15.8 VI + 8.9 +5.5 + 3.4 XI +20.7 +2.4 +18.3 XIII +10.7 +6.4 + 4.3 .XIX~ - +18.8 +4.5‘ +14.3 lllll scam Hoosomlun swam ovuunuoeooo aw aside Hooeumuaw and—005 3" .3283: caooAum anaconda mucosa a on. o>aunuoeooo any casino: uni-i» a 25m: on an as b~ cu «a nu Nu um 48 .. H: H a... it» L...ilr|.i.r-._J-Tti,l! .. -.-- L-i . -.I-.- .Ly... T: H.. . L _ ,. _ . . f. up... ... H , 1 . I T .-_. .71... 9...; _ ._._ .. ._.. A“ . .. T 5.. “7:1.” , IKE L ;— .e +.- . . ._ . .e a, ... u - ..l o Sam.“ Pm cu: / N+ 49 The In—School Plan students in eight schools achieved better results in checking ability than students in the Cooperative Plan. The differences in achievement between the two plans in these eight schools where the In-School Plan students attained better results are shown in Table 9. Table 9 Student Achievement in Checking in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In-School Plan School In-School Cooperative Difference V + 2.8 +1.6 + 1.2 VII + 3.5 +2.1 , + 1.4 VIII + 1.6 + .6 + 1.0 XV + 3.4 -9.1 +12.5 XVI + 3.6 -3.9 + 7.5 XVII + 3.3 +2.1 + 1.2 XVIII +12.3 +6.3 + 6.0 XX + 9.4 +5.4 + 4.0 The data in Tables 8 and 9 reveal that there was a greater improvement in checking ability in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results than in the schools where the In—School Plan accomplished the better results. In five schools, however, it was noted that there was not a great difference in the achievement of the students enrolled in the two plans. Also, the Cooperative students in two schools and the In—School students in one school did not indicate an improvement upon reaching the terminal level of instruction. 50 Coding The coding score was based on a possible 105. The average mean of the pretest administered to the Cooperative students was 72.57; of the post-test, 78.02. This group improved in coding ability by the end of the school session. The average mean of the pretest administered to the In—School students was 67.73; of the post—test, 74.93. Noteworthy here is that the difference was +7.2, which suggests a greater improve- ment in the In—School Plan students, by +1.7 over the Cooperative students. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 132. Only seven schools in the In-School Plan showed an increase in coding ability; while there were nine schools in the Cooperative Plan showing increases. The data are indicated in Figure 5 on page 51. The differences in achievement between the two plans in the nine schools where students in the Cooperative Plan performed better are presented in Table 10. Table 10 Student Achievement in Coding in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In—School Difference II +13.1 + 8.4 + 4.7 III + 7.9 + 4.9 + 3.0 IV 2+11.6 + 8.7 + 2.9 IX + 9.3 - .3 + 9.6 XI +13.2 + .7 +12.5 XIII +15.1 +11.0 + 4.1 XIV + 6.2 + .7 + 5.5 XVII + 4.6 - 1.3 + 5.9 *XIX . +15;8“ + 4.9 +10.9 an gauuuoaooo 51 “““ a ‘a \ a an aofiom H oaoonom 3333 53.3... a as dooaoméa can 9330908 on» 3253 ages»: 338 3 .883qu n 0.33 on 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 a w w o m a . n u a . 9v . .1 N‘ o i , .1. a... «a... 3+ 3+ 3+ cu... an... on... .91. 52 Differences in achievement between the two plans in the seven schools where the In-School students achieved better results are indicated in Table 11. Table 11 Student Achievement in Coding in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In—School Plan School In—School Cooperative Difference I + 1.5 -5.7 + 7.2 V + 3.1 —2.1 + 5.2 VIII + 4.5 —2.9 + 7.4 XII + 5.8 +2.9 + 2.9 XV + 1.1 —1.0 + 2.1 XVI + 5.4 -4.1 + 9.5 XVIII +35.6 +9.9 +25.7 Tables 10 and 11 reveal that in all but one case there is a larger improvement factor in the schools where the Cooperative Plan students accomplished better results than the In—School Plan students. In the one school, the students enrolled in the In-School Plan achieved higher results than the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan. In four schools it was observed that there was little difference in coding achievement improvement for the students enrolled in the two plans. 53 Filing Based on a possible score of 54, the average mean of the pretest administered to the Cooperative students was 16.70; and of the post—test was 22.45, indicating an improvement of +5.7 at the end of the school session. For the In-School students the average mean of the pretest was 15.32; of the post—test, 18.99 - an improvement of +3.7 in this plan. According to the average means, the increase in the achievement of the students in the Cooperative Plan was +2.0 better than the students in the In-School Plan. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 134. The information in Figure 6 on page 54 reveals that in ten schools students in the Cooperative Plan showed a greater increase in filing achievement than students in the In—School Plan. Table 12 indicates the differences in achievement between the two plans in these ten schools. Table 12 Student Adhievement in Filing in SChools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School . Cooperative In-School Difference II +14.5 +4.1 +10.4 III + 9.4 +4.3 + 5.1 IV +13.7 +3.7 +10.0 VI +10.1 +3.8 + 6.3 VII +14.5 +5.3 + 9.2 X + 5.5 +2.2 + 3.3 XI +10.7 +4.1 + 6.6 XIII + 7.1 +5.1 + 2.0 XVIII + 7.7 +1.4 + 6.3 XIX +11.5 +5.1 + 6.4 on a 2 .T-I'n-VLO-o-A. nu an: nodal—80 509.0» 3033 ha! I.» 5 ca: «Rx—uni: SI sou-house I.» '25.- »; .32 in 30.5.3.3 consul 3 an 3 nu .2 =. S. o a s o n or. , Nd... Qu+ on... 55 The data also reveal that the students in the In-School Plan in seven schools attained greater improvement in filing achievement than the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in those respective schools. The differences in filing achievement between the two plans in these schools are presented in Table 13. Table 13 Student Adhievement in Filing in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In-School Plan School In-School Cooperative Difference V + .5 -6.5 +7.0 VIII +6.9 +2.5 +4.4 XII +7.2 +3.9 +3.3 XIV +1.6 - .2 +1.8 XV +1.0 -1.9 +2.9 XVI +7.1 +3.9 +3.2 XVII +2.5 + .5 +2.0 The figures in Tables 12 and 13 give evidence that there is a greater improvement factor in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results than the In—School Plan than in the schools where the In-School Plan accomplished better results than the Cooperative Plan. Yet, students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in three schools have not indicated an improvement upon reaching the terminal level of instruction. Also, in three other schools there was little change in the achievement levels of the students enrolled in the two plans. 56 Directions — Oral and Written The highest possible score on this test was 64. The Cooperative students averaged 18.47 on the pretest and 24.04 on the post—test, thus improving +5.6 at the end of the school session. In comparison, the In—School students averaged 17.31 on the pretest and 21.03 on the post- test, an improvement of +3.7 for this group. The increase in the achievement of the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan, according to the average means, was +1.9 more than the students enrolled in the In—School Plan. The data in Figure 7 indicate that in twelve schools students in the Cooperative Plan showed a greater increase in directions - oral and written than students in the In—School Plan. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 136. Table 14 lists the differences in achievement between the two plans in these schools. Table 14 Student Achievement in Directions — Oral and Written in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In-School Difference I + 7.0 + 5.9 +1.1 II +1l.5 + 6.9 +4.6 IV +12.1 + 5.4 +6.7 V + 5.1 + 2.7 +2.4 VI + 6.3 + 3.1 +3.2 VII +12.4 + 4.0 +8.4 X + 4.5 + 1.5 +3.0 57 Table 14 (continued) School Cooperative In-School Difference XI + 7.9 + 4.9 +3.0 XII + 5.3 - 2.1 +7.4 XVIII +19.7 +12.9 +6.8 XIX +10.9 + 4.7 +6.2 XX + 3.1 + .4 +2.7 In comparison, however, the students enrolled in the In—School Plan in seven schools attained greater improvement than the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in those respective schools. These differences in achievement in oral and written directions between the two plans are shown in Table 15. Table 15 Student Achievement in Directions - Oral and Written in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In—School Plan School In-School Cooperative Difference III +5.3 +1.1 +4.2 IX +2.1 0 +2.1 XIII +6.1 +1.3 +4.8 XIV + .5 - .1 + .6 xv +2.2 + .5 +1.7 XVI +3.9 +1.5 +2.4 XVII + .5 -2.5 +3.0 58 ON an nu «a ma aiHm HOOAUMIGH auafi oven-uoaooo nuoonom vouooaom hunuaa can a“ naqau Hoozumuun van o>uuauoaooo OJu noosuon uallu>oano< souuauzvenu Huuo_l uaouuoouaa ad couaououuun nu c~ nu \2 \\ // / \a /< «— ~83: : S \l/ x x \ ( \ u+ o~+ N~+ ¢~+ o~+ o~+ o~+ 59 Tables 14 and 15 indicate that there is a greater improvement factor in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results than the In—School Plan in comparison to schools where the In—School Plan accomplished better results than the Cooperative Plan. In one school the increase in the achievement levels of the students enrolled in the two plans was identical. La ua e On a maximum score of 20, the Cooperative students averaged 5.92 on the pretest and 8.37 on the post—test. The difference was +2.5, indicating an improvement in language at the end of the school session. The average mean of the pretest administered to the In—School students was 6.08, and the average mean of the post—test was 6.67. The difference of +.6 indicated an improvement in language in this plan. However, according to the average means, students in the Cooperative Plan improved +1.9 more than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan by the end of the school session. Figure 8 on page 60 gives evidence that in ten schools the Cooperative Plan students showed a greater increase in language achievement than students in the In—School Plan, while the In-School Plan students showed a greater increase in only three schools. The differences in language achievement improvement between the two plans in the ten schools where the Cooperative Plan achieved better results are presented in Table 16 on page 61. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 138. 60 and» Hoogumunu gnaw apauauoaooo .Hoanum coco-Hem mucosa on» nu canes economuaa can gnu-usage on“. .8258 age-30¢ «gang 5 30:803.:— Q ouanfih c~.4; om nu . ha o~ an «a an «a mu an o o n w n _ ( 4.- . . . . . O O u ~ .. . . .w .- . a r T . _“ .1 . ., ,. _ s r. . . 1.1111 . o. .1.. .I . , <4 .. .. . . .,. .. I 1%. .Hhr.u. : . . u T. ... w- . :7; :1. 11 llow .. .4“ .h. . 4‘s .. , .. . . 1111.. We .... . ..i .. . . 4 ._ h 111 v. . . I. . .... .. 11.171 4.. _ .. . . ..w u 11 111‘ . . . . . .. . .. . , .. A H +1 4.1 911V...“Olpfio|ntl .| . . . V. . , v . YYHle or. ..... -.¢ .- . . .m I fix r. 2.. “fl... ....:. M . ILLILW ...- ; .....F : . a F»4 .. .4 ... .1: . a a- «.1 irklr. i. 1.1{11111 |.illll'l.‘, . .1. 61 Table 16 Student Achievement in Language in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In-School Difference II +4.4 +1.2 + 3.2 VI +5.4 + .5 + 4.9 VII +7.6 +2.9 + 4.7 VIII + .7 - .7 + 1.4 X + .9 - .1 + 1.0 XI +3.5 - .2 + 3.7 XII + .7 —1.4 + 2.1 XIII + .6 - .1 + .7 XVIII +8.9 —5.8 +14.7 XIX +7.3 + .1 + 7.2 Table 17 shows the differences in achievement between the two plans in the three schools where the In-School Plan students showed a greater improvement in language than the Cooperative Plan students at the end of two semesters of instruction. Table.17 Student Achievement in Language in Schools Indicating Better Results in the In—School Plan School _ In-School Cooperative Difference III +1.3 +.4 + .9 V +5.5 +.6 +4.9 XV + .5 -.9 +1.4 62 The information in Tables 16 and 17 indicated that there was little difference in the improvement factors in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better reSults in language than the In- School Plan, with the exception of one school. In this particular school the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan achieved greater improvement than the students enrolled in the In—School Plan. Yet, students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in one school and students enrolled in the In-School Plan in six schools indicated no improvement upon reaching the terminal level of instruction. Arithmetic Based on 44 possible points, the average mean of the pretest administered to the Cooperative students was 20.98 and of the post-test was 23.67. The difference was +2.7 for this group, indicating an improvement at the terminal point of instruction. In comparison, the average mean of the pretest administered to the In—School students was 20.21 and of the post—test was 22.74. The difference for this group was +2.5, also indicating an improvement in this plan. According to the average means, the increase in the achievement of the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan was +.2 greater than for the students enrolled in the In—School Plan. Figure 9 on page 63 reveals, however, that in only five schools did Cooperative Plan students show a greater increase in improvement in arithmetic than the In—School Plan students in those respective schools. The scores can be found in the Appendix on page 140. _63 w” 2 2 2 in .\i \ , --_. , w - a x V:-.- I . . . .,.. _ . x ., (1L m. VV 'ln. diam Hoosumlun diam o>auquonooo unconum vouooaom mucosa one a« ocean Hooaomuan can obwuauonooo any auosuon you-obowsu< announuwu< nu nooauuuuugn a 95»: 2 2 3 2 S 2 S n... ----..nl- + -:.- lan¥ 64 Table 18 shows the differences in achievement between the two plans in the five schools where the students in the Cooperative Plan indicated better results than the students enrolled in the In—School Plan. Table 18 Student Achievement in Arithmetic in Schools Indicating Better Results in the Cooperative Plan School Cooperative In—School Difference IV +11.3 +2.5 +8.8 VI + 4.0 +1.4 +2.6 IX + 3.5 +2.4 +1.1 XI +11.9 +2.2 +9.7 XIX + 9.1 + .3 +8.8 Students enrolled in the In-School Plan in eleven schools showed greater improvement than the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan in those respective schools. Table 19 shows the differences in achievement between the two plans in these eleven schools. Table 19 Student AChievement in Arithmetic in Schools Indicating Better Results tn.the§ln+3chool Plan School In—School Cooperative Difference I +1.2 “201 +303 II +8.3 +7.1 +1.2 65 Table 19 (continued) School In—School Cooperative Difference V +2.3 — .3 +2.6 X +1.2 - .7 +1.9 XII +7.1 -1.1 +8.2 XIV + .9 " .5 +1.4 XV +1.7 + .7 +1.0 XVI +1.9 +1.3 + .6 XVII +4.1 — .7 +4.8 XVIII +4.2 +2.6 +1.6 XX + .9 - .4 +1.3 Tables 18 and 19 disclose that there is very little difference in the levels of improvement in the schools where the Cooperative Plan accomplished better results than the In—School Plan in comparison to schools where the In-School Plan accomplished better results than the Cooperative Plan. In four schools the improvement factor of the students enrolled in the two plans had only a slight variation. Based on the data in this study, it was found that there is a significant difference between the Cooperative Plan and the In—School Plan as reflected in the results of the testing of selected production Skills and of selected clerical abilities. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the achievement of senior office education students under the cooperative plan and those under the in-school plan when achievement is defined as: (a) a total 66 package of skill competencies composed of the basics of shorthand, typewriting, and common clerical tasks — and (b) any single sub—skill measured separately in isolation from the total skill competencies; namely — business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic was rejected. The Rate of Student Performance and Competence in the Cooperative Plan if the Training Experiences Do Not Permit the Same Varied Practices as Can Be Obtained in the School Classroom Cooperative students attained a higher terminal level of achievement in the selected production skills, namely shorthand and typewriting; and in the selected clerical abilities of business vocab— ulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. Therefore, the hypothesis that if both groups of students demonstrate achievement gains over the period of a year, it is under the cooperative plan that students will show a larger net gain was accepted. Summary A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to test the three hypotheses because all of the schools in the sample met the standards of the state plan. This analysis of variance was performed on the data obtained from the pretests given at the beginning of the 1971-72 school session and the post-tests at the end of that school session. The same procedure was used to determine the academic ability of a cross—section of the selected sample of participants. The results of the academic ability of a cross-section of the selected sample of participants revealed that there was a significant 67 difference at the .005 level of significance between the academic ability of the students in the Cooperative and In-School Plans. The range between the intelligence quotient and the grade point average of both groups were similar, but the achievement tests results portrayed a different view. The Cooperative students achieved better results. Table 20 shows this significant difference at the .005 level of significance and can be found in the Appendix on page 97. The differences between the means of the pretests and post—tests were used in determining whether there were differences between students in the Cooperative and In-School Plans in the selected production skills and the selected clerical abilities. The results indicated that there was a significant interaction between plans, schools, and tests. The differences in post—test mean scores minus pretest mean scores in most schools were relatively higher in the Cooperative Office Education Plan than in the In-School Office Education Plan. In some schools, however, the In-School Plan did score higher on both tests, and a few schools projected no differences between the two groups. Based on all of the findings in this study, there is a signifi— cant difference between the plans, in the tests, and among the schools. Table 21 shows the statistically significant interaction between plans, tests, and schools at the .0005 level of significance in the selected production skills - shorthand and typewriting. Table 21 can be tonnd in the Appendix on page 98. Table 22 shows a highly significant interaction between plans, tests, and schools at the .0005 level of significance in the selected clerical abilities - business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, 68 directions — oral and written, language, and arithmetic. Table 22 can be found in the Appendix on page 99. The study of the selected production and clerical abilities revealed that the probability of observing an F value as large as, or larger than, 0.9909 and 6.9105 respectively by chance alone was less than .0005. Therefore, there was a statistically significant interaction between plans, tests, and schools. In other words, the differences between pre and post—tests in the two responses and the seven responses, respectively, vary over the two plans in the twenty selected schools. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study was conducted to determine the effect that Cooperative Office Education Plans have on the development of selected production skills and clerical abilities, if any, in comparison to In-School Office Education Plans. Hypotheses to be Tested The hypotheses tested in the study were: 1. There will be no significant difference between the achievement of senior office education students under the cooperative plan and those under the in-school plan when achievement is defined as: a. A total package of skill competencies composed of the basics of shorthand, typewriting, and common clerical tasks. b. Any single sub—skill measured separately in isolation from the total skill competencies; namely — business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions — oral and written, language, and arithmetic. 2. If students under one plan of instruction demonstrate greater achievement than those under the other plan of instruction, that achieve— ment will be due to measurable factors of student learning capacity and potential as measured by intelligence quotient, grade point average, and achievement in basic skills. 69 70 3. If both groups of students demonstrate achievement gains over the period of a year, it is under the cooperative plan that students will show a larger net gain. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to discover whether students enrolled in the cooperative plan achieved better results than students enrolled in the in-school plan in the development of selected production skills and clerical abilities. The selected production skills were shorthand and typewriting; the seven areas of clerical abilities were business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. The study determined the impact that the cooperative plan had on the acquisition of selected production skills and clerical abilities. For this reason, the study investigated the differences, if any, in the production skills and clerical abilities of students in the cooperative office education plan as compared with students in the in-school office education plan. Furthermore, if differences did exist, the study attempted to determine the extent of the differences and the degree to which these differences might be attributed to the cooperative office education plan. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to students enrolled in twenty selected Louisiana high schools in the Cooperative Office Education Plan and in the In-School Office Education Plan during the 1971-72 school session. The study was further limited to a comparison of the terminal level of 71 selected production skills and clerical abilities of students enrolled in the cooperative office education plan with the terminal level of selected production skills and clerical abilities of students enrolled in the in-school office education plan in high school. As a basis for the comparison, an analysis of the academic abilities of both plans was also included. No attempt was made to measure factors such as person— ality, job adjustment, and job satisfaction. Measurement of production skills and clerical abilities in this study was limited to a pretest and post—test in a one—year school session. Summary of the Procedures Definition of the Population The study sample consisted of three—hundred Cooperative Office Education students and three—hundred In—School Office Education students in twenty Louisiana high schools out of a total population of eighty—two schools, all of which offered both the Cooperative and the In—School Plan. It was assumed that, because the twenty schools that were randomly selected had both plans in their curriculum, this would provide an adequate sample for the series of examinations. The students chosen to participate in this study were randomly selected by their coordinators. Collection of the Data The data pertaining to student performance levels were collected using a pretest and a post-test. The pretest was administered at the beginning of the school year; the same test was administered at the end 72 of that school year. The thirty-six weeks between the two tests was sufficient time to guard against students remembering specifics from one test to the next. The two skill areas tested were shorthand and typewriting. A standardized typewriting production test was administered, and a letter was dictated at the rate of eighty words per minute for three minutes. Fifteen minutes were allotted for transcription; any letter style was acceptable. Standardized clerical ability tests were administered in the areas of business vocabulary, checking, coding, directions - oral and written, filing, language, and arithmetic. . As a means of predicting and interpreting the scores on selected production skills and clerical abilities, a study was made of the academic ability of a cross«section of the selected sample of partici— pants. The following information was obtained from ten percent of the participants, thirty cooperative students and thirty in-school students: intelligence quotient, grade point average at the beginning of their senior year, and the scores attained on the achievement tests in English, reading, spelling, and number computation. The intelligence quotient for each student was derived by averaging the scores attained on the Otis, Quick—Scoring Mental Ability;Test: Beta Test, Form FM administered to students in the sixth and eighth grades, and the Otis—Lennon Mental Ability Test: Gamma Test, Form J given to students at the tenth grade level. The achievement test scores were attained by averaging the percentile rank achieved by each student on the Stanford Achievement Test, High School Basic Battery, Form W administered at the tenth grade level: and Form X, at the eleventh grade level. 73 Findings Terminal Performance of the Two Groups On the basis of the data in this study it was found that: 1. There is a significant difference in the intelligence quotient, grade point average, and achievement tests of the students in favor of the cooperative students. Cooperative students show a higher intelligence quotient, grade point average, and achievement test results than the in-school students. The academic ability of a cross-section of the selected sample of participants revealed that the average intelligence quotient was 103 for the cooperative students and 101 for the in—school students. The grade point average was 2.686 for the cooperative students and 2.384 for the in-school students. The achievement test scores revealed the average means for each group. The English mean was 59.63 for the cooperative group and 40.87 for the in—school group; the reading mean was 45.47 for the cooperative group and 26.07 for the in—school group; the spelling mean was 56.00 for the cooperative group and 43.17 for the in—school group; the number computa— tion mean was 43.33 for the cooperative group and 31.47 for the in—school group. 2. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in shorthand than did the in—school students. However, the in-school students evidenced a larger net gain than did the cooperative students. Based on the possible score of 100, the average mean on the pretest of the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan was 84.97, and the average mean of the post-test was 88.20. The difference of +3.2 indicated an improvement in shorthand speed at the end of the school 74 session. In the In—School Plan, the average mean on the pretest was 75.84; on the post—test, 80.40 - a difference of +4.6 3. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in typewriting, and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in-school students. The Typewriting Skill Test, administered to the students enrolled in the Cooperative and In—School Plans, was scored on the maximum that can be attained by the individual typist within a timed limit. Cooperative students averaged a mean of 30.20 on the pretest and 32.98 on the post—test. The difference of +2.8 indicated an improvement in typewriting skills for this group. In comparison, the in-school students averaged a mean of 29.27 on the pretest and 30.65 on the post-test. Their difference of +1.4 also indicated an increase in the typewriting skills, although this increase was half that of the Cooperative Plan students. 4. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in business vocabulary and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in-school students. Based on a possible score of 30, the average mean of the cooperative students was 14.35 on the pretest and on the post-test it was 18.26. Thus, the difference of +3.9 indicated an improvement in business vocabulary for this group at the end of the school session. The average mean of the pretest administered to the in-school students was 14.87; of the post-test, 15.14. The difference of +.3 indicated a slight improvement at the end of the school session. Students in the Cooperative Plan, according to the average means, gained +3.6 more than the students enrolled in the In—School Plan in business vocabulary. 75 5. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in checking, and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in—school students. The highest possible score for this test was 80. The cooperative students averaged 32.36 on the pretest and 38.63 on the post-test, registering a difference of +6.3 to indicate an improve— ment in their checking ability at the end of the school session. The in—school students averaged 31.44 on the pretest and 36.39 on the post— test — a difference of +5.0, indicating an improvement in their checking ability at the end of the school session. The increase of the students enrolled in the Cooperative Plan, according to the average means was +1.3 more than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan. 6. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in coding than did the in—school students. However, the in-school students evidenced a larger net gain than did the cooperative students. The coding score was based on a possible 105. The average mean of the pretest administered to the cooperative students was 72.57; of the post—test, 78.02. The average mean of the pretest administered to the in-school students was 67.73; of the post—test, 74.93. The difference of +7.2 suggests an improvement in the In-School Plan of +1.7 over the Cooperative Plan. 7. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in filing, and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in-school students. Based on a possible score of 54, the average mean of the pretest administered to the cooperative students was 16.70; and of the post-test was 22.45, indicating an improvement of +5.7 at the end of the school session. For the in-school students the average mean of the pretest was 15.32; of the post—test, 18.99 — an improvement of 76 +3.7 in this plan. According to the average means, the increase in the achievement of the students in the Cooperative Plan was +2.0 better than the students in the In—School Plan. 8. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in directions - oral and written, and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in-school students. The highest possible score on this test was 64. The cooperative students averaged 18.47 on the pretest and 24.04 on the post-test. The in-school students averaged 17.31 on the pretest and 21.03 on the post-test. According to the average means, the increase in the achievement of the students in the Cooperative Plan was +1.9 more than the students in the In-School Plan. 9. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in language, and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in-school students. On a maximum score of 20, the cooperative students averaged 5.92 on the pretest and 8.37 on the post-test. The in-school students averaged 6.08 on the pretest and 6.67 on the post-test. Cooperative students improved +1.9 more than the in—school students. 10. Cooperative students reached a higher level of terminal achievement in arithmetic, and evidenced a larger net gain than did the in-school students. Based on 44 possible points, the average mean of the pretest administered to the cooperative students was 20.98 and of the post-test was 23.67. The average mean of the pretest administered to the in-school students was 20.21 and of the post-test was 22.74. The cooperative students improved +.2 more than the students enrolled in the In-School Plan. 77 Summary of Findings 1. The total number of cooperative students show higher mean scores of achievement when all skill and ability scores are combined. 2. Cooperative students, as a whole, are superior in terms of vocational capacity, performance, and achievement in comparison to in-school students. 3. The achievement scores of cooperative and in—school students vary considerably between schools and plans. Conclusions From an analysis of the findings of the study pertaining to the differences at the end of two semesters of instruction between the terminal level of selected production skills, shorthand and typewriting, and the clerical and academic abilities of students enrolled in coopera— tive office education plans and students enrolled in in—school plans in twenty selected high schools in the State of Louisiana, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. As a total group, students under the cooperative plan attain a higher level of adhievement than those students under the in—school plan. Therefore, the cooperative plan of instruction can be recommended to the public schools of Louisiana. However, this over—all gain of students is not consistent among schools. In some schools, the coopera— tive plan evidenced a larger net gain; in other schools, the in-school plan evidenced a larger net gain. While it was not measured in this study, it appears that there are selected causal factors operating in a given school in a particular community which might preclude the use of the cooPerative plan and which might reinforce the use of the in-school 78 plan. These factors appear to be: (a) Size and location of community, e.g., small schools in small rural isolated communities probably can offer a greater variety of related experiences in school than can the very small businesses of that community. (b) The recommendation of the use of the cooperative plan is legitimate only where the school adminis— tration assures itself that the plan is being operated efficiently and in accordance with the basic principles of the cooperative plan of instruction. (c) The cooperative plan is not necessarily a better plan in any community, in any school, or for any particular student if the primary outcomes for that student are non-skill instruction. This study did not measure whether or not the cooperative plan could provide such learning outcomes as the ability to be supervised, requirement of poise and confidence, the solidification of the career goal, and the motivation to succeed for students who have a failure syndrome. (d) It is the researcher's personal viewpoint based on professional services in Louisi- ana, but not based on the data of this study that some form of limited cooperative experience may be valuable for the black student who has concerns and anxieties about working in the white labor market. 2. The cooperative plan can be recommended not only because it produces larger gains in a total skill, but because it also produces larger gains in each of the sub-skills. Again, however, the gains are not uniform among schools. 3. On the basis of the data in this study it is not known whether it is the job experience or the correlated instruction in school or the combination of both which is producing these gains. 4. The factor of the capacity to learn and high achievement in basic skills appears to be a factor in the higher achievement shown by 79 cooperative students. It cannot be determined from this study whether the selection of better students for cooperative office education is the reason for the demonstrable higher achievement of cooperative students. 5. If one uses a finite scoring scale for skill achievement, the cooperative plan will not produce a net gain in achievement that is proportionally larger than the net gain from students in the in-school plan. However, in the practical labor market it does not make any difference where a student starts; it is the terminal performance which is important and therefore the cooperative students do better. 6. Students enrolled in the c00perative plan should be skilled in shorthand and typewriting and knowledgeable in business vocabulary, checking, coding, filing, directions - oral and written, language, and arithmetic. 7. A tentative conclusion is that the total standard of performance in office skills for both the cooperative and the in-school student was lower than what leading business educators and many classroom teachers would like to think is desirable. However, there is a lack of data in Louisiana as well as in the United States on the actual terminal performance of large groups of senior office education students. On the other hand, the level of performance is in reality only significant in that it must be such for each student to allOW'luUn to obtain a job and to keep a job. Recommendations The following recommendations are made from the findings and conclusions of the research and the thoughts of the researcher as a result of conducting this study. 80 1. Research should be carried on regarding both Cooperative. Office Education and In-School Office Education Plans to determine, if possible, the most effective manner to prepare the future employee through: a. Studies in which a student employee is tested at different points in his occupational experience to determine his rate of achievement in selected production skills and clerical abilities. b. Studies in which a student in a model office situation is tested at different intervals throughout a respective school session. 2. Studies are needed which determine the results between school systems that emphasize the In—School Plan and those that emphasize the Cooperative Plan in preparing the student for the world of work. 3. Studies should be conducted to determine how Cooperative Plans compare to In—School Plans in terms of cost, time, results, types of students, content, and activities. Implications The following implications are stated on the basis of data and the experience of the researCher in Louisiana schools as a teacher— coordinator. 1. Students who enroll in a cooperative plan have a career goal and they strive to fulfill the objectives that will lead them to this goal; therefore, they strive to exercise to their fullest potentials the knowledge and skills that will enable them to become vocationally competent. 81 2. In some communities the cooperative students seldom have the opportunity to practice the skills of dictation and transcription at their respective training stations. Either dictation is not given or the transcribing unit is used. 3. Some c00perative students are not confronted with numerous typewriting tasks at their training stations, whereas others are required to do a large amount of typewriting tasks. 4. Student employees are presumed to be exposed to more business terms and office procedures than students who have only classroom exposure. 5. Student employees may have more Opportunities to check the accuracy of listed names and numbers against a "correct list" than students who are in a classroom situation. 6. It appears that student employees are not frequently required to check a proper code associated with a list of adjectives and a list of objects, singly and in combination. Nor are they often required to memorize rote material rapidly and to code information. Students in the classroom might be required to do more memorizing than students in training stations. 7. Student employees probably have more opportunities to file written correspondence in comparison to students who remain in the classroom. It was evident that some students in the In—School Plan had Filing Practice Sets as part of their classwork. 8. Student employees are exposed to receiving more oral and written directions and are more aware of these directions as part of the job at their training station. 9. Student employees are frequently assigned the responsibility of allowing only error-free communication material to leave the training 82 station, but the results of the language test indicated that a minimum amount of written communication is exercised or that spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure are not being taught in the cooperative related class. 10. In a number of schools, the increments in the achievement in any of the skills and clerical abilities was slight or even null. It could be argued that the taxpayer‘s money and student's time was being misused. However, this study did not measure the other factors involved in these classes such as personal grooming, personality, human relations, initiative, trustworthiness, dependability, and loyalty. These factors are of the utmost importance in a cooperative plan. In some communities, it is essential for a teacher—coordinator to devote more time to the personal need of students than to production skills and clerical abilities. 11. The cooperative students in the more industrialized sections of the state seemed to indicate a greater increase in the achievement of selected production skills and clerical abilities than the cooperative students in the non-industrial areas. Although no hypothesis was originally stated, the data began to uncover this and it could have generated a new hypothesis. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, T. W. An Introduction to Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Bacon, Willie Mae. "A Study of the Cooperative Office Education Programs in the State of Louisiana to Determine the Nature and Extent to Which Such Programs Serve the Needs of Low—Average-Ability Students." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Mentana, 1970. Barkley, Joseph R. "Vocational Business Education in Florida," National Business Education Quarterly, 34:2, (December, 1965), 3-6. Beck, James Flory. "An Evaluation of Secondary School Cooperative Office Work Experience." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Temple University, 1971. Berry, Doris Anita. "The Role of Office Practice Instruction in the Training for General Office Assignments." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Indiana University, 1963. Bledsoe, Harry James. "A Comparison of the Educational Development of Diversified Cooperative Educational Students and Non-Diversified Cooperative Education Students in Selected Indiana High Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Purdue University, 1968. Bobbit, Norma S. "A Comparative Study of Undergraduates, Homemaking Teachers and Occupational Teachers to Ascertain Attitudes, Knowledge and Plans in Relation to an Employment Emphasis in High School Home Economics." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969. Bomkamp, Loraine. "A Cooperative Office Education Program," The Balance Sheet, 48:6, (February, 1967), 250—255, 285. Brown, Francis J. "A Final Outcome Analysis to Compare the Effectiveness of an Experimental Business Education System Versus a Traditional Business Education System to Prepare Students to Secure Entry Jobs in Office and Retail Occupations." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Wayne State University, 1968. Bukowski, Wanda L. "A Study of Cooperative Office Work-Experience Programs in the State of Connecticut with Implications for Business Education at Rocky Hill High School." Unpublished Master's thesis, Central Connecticut State College, 1963. 83 84 Dixon, W. J. BMDX69, Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance. Health Science Computing Facility, UCLA, University of California Press, 1969. Driska, Robert S. "Office Education on the Secondary School Level: A Critical Analysis." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Arizona State University, 1967. Ferguson, Edward T., Jr. "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Project and Cooperative Methods of Instruction on Selected Competencies in Distributive Education at the Secondary Level." East Lansing: Michigan State University. Research & Development Program in VOcational Technical Education Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, College of Education, 1967. Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966. Gratz, Jerry E. "Identification and Analysis of the Major Issues in Selected Business Education Subjects of the Public Secondary Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Houston, 1961. Haines, Peter G., and Brendan G. Coleman. "How High School Cooperative Trainees Fare in the Labor Market, Phases A and B." East Lansing: Michigan State University. Educational Research Series, ER16, November, 1963 and ER23, May, 1965. Hedley, Martha Kay. "A Comparison of Employed Indiana Secretarial and Stenographic Employees' Competencies with Indiana State-Supported Secondary and Post—Secondary Terminal Stenographic Students' Competencies." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Indiana State University, 1971. Hermanstorfer, Judith. "A Comparative Analysis of Surveys Taken in Iowa Public Schools in 1952 and 1962 Relative to the Status and Future of Cooperative Work-Experience Programs in Business Occupations." Unpublished Master's thesis, State College of Iowa, 1963. Hodge, James Leslie. "CooPerative Office Education and Its Effect on Attitudes Toward Office Employment." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Arizona State University, 1968. Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Experiments in Psychology and Education. New York: Haughton Mifflin Company, 1953. Lowe, Calvin D. "The Need for and Ability to Support a Program of Co-operative VOcational Business Education in the Salt Lake City High Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Utah State University, 1963. ‘Madden, Mary J. "A Comparative Study of Graduates of the Cooperative Office Education Stenographic Curriculum with Graduates of the Regular Stenographic Curriculum from Francis T. Nichols High School, New Orleans, Louisiana, for the Years 1960—1963, Inclusive." Unpublished Master's thesis, Catholic University, 1964. 85 Martin, Charles Milford. "A Study of the Cooperative Office Work— Experience Program in New Jersey, 1958—59." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Temple University, 1962. Mason, Ralph E., and Peter G. Haines. Copperative Occupational Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum. Danville: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1972. Mills, Chester Otto. "Academic Status of High School Distributive Education Cooperative Students." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963. Murphy, Sam. "Selected Factors in Office Education Programs Relating to the Success of High School Graduates in Securing Initial Employment." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Arizona State University, 1972. National Business Education Yearbook. Enrichment of the Subject Matter - Selected Readings in Business and Office Occupations. Washington: National Business Education Association, 1967. National Business Education Yearbook. Business_Education: An Evaluative InventoEy. Washington: National Business Education Association, 1968. National Business Education Yearbook. Contributions of Research to Improvement of Instruction in Business Education. Washington: National Business Education Association, 1971. Panek, James. "An Evaluation of the Work—Experience Program at Chico (California) Senior High School." Unpublished Master's thesis, Chico (California) State College, 1967. Robertson, Leonard F. "An Exploratory Study of the Effect of the Cooperative Education Programs in Beginning Occupations on Selected Employment Factors." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Colorado State College, 1965. Rowe, Kenneth L. "Development of Selected Marketing Competencies Through Utilization of Two Methods of Teaching in a Secondary School." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Sanders, Lester E. "A Comparison of Two Methods of Preparing Youth For Employment: Cooperative Occupational Education Versus the Preparatory VOcational-Technical School." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Missouri, 1967. Sharp, Walter Maynard, Jr. "An Appraisal of the Values Derived From In-School Office Work Experience, Cooperative Office Practice, and Non—Office Work Experience Programs as Related to Occupational Adjustment." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1961. 86 Shultz, Kenneth. "A Study of COOperative Office WorkrExperience Programs in a Selected Group of Secondary Schools of the State of Pennsylvania for 1957-58." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Temple University, 1961. Shupe, Richard J. "A Question of Values: How High School Teachers View Cooperative Education." East Lansing: Michigan State University. Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, College of Education, 1962. Siebert, Annie Price. "A Study of the VOcational Office Training Program of Elbert County High School, Elberton Georgia, For the Years 1959, 1960, and 1961." Unpublished Master's thesis, Auburn University, 1963. National Business Education Qparterly, XXXIII (October, 1964), 49—50. Slaten, Lenell M. "Business Subjects in the Secondary School Curriculum," The Balance Sheet, 48:4, (December, 1966), 159—163. Traverse, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational Research. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958. Tribbey, Walter J. "What Is Office Education?" The Balance Sheet, 44:4, (December, 1962), 164, 192. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education. Digest of Educational Statistics 1971. Washington: Government Printing Office , 1972 . U.S. Department of Health, Education, and welfare. Office of Education. Vocational Education and Occppations. washington: Government Printing Office, 1969. White, Gladys M. "A Study to Determine the Feasibility of An Office Cooperative WOrk-Experience Program in the Henderson Attendance Area of the Clark County School District, Las Vegas, Nevada." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of NOrth Dakota, 1963. Witherow, Mary. "An Up-To-Date Secondary Clerical Program," Business Education Forum, 25:5, (February, 1971), 17—18. APPENDIX 87 53m 5:. 5 33333.: are oHoosum vouoofiom Masons-u bug on» no 23.333 2 as: ...-GUqu O 2.50 Non—3.00414 gbuh‘ g .. o a. named 0.10-da1u- #10 N 43.3 A ludotdl c263. _ 3.9.3.2 u 0 4 I a 3 3 _ I o r as 5.8 . . . , . >0 4 .3 603.: 39:3 ”to. ,9 ~v . 3i p .. q .. o . J 2...: «5.03 94.2. .8 Eugene . I, . o _ . x >0 3.2g . .38 3 Sacco-'28!!! . ca .133. . . . ,. 32.5.3. . . . I ‘ - . L .. g3 .— . .. L... in. a .. .9“. t . . , . :00 I up 33.‘\\ VWH.‘ N Ibo-10:“ uaa.>tu.o (r.!o<:°rx'.|..l-lh|... 1|- ”.858: WI, 83.: . 0 hi . ..Plnth. 425290.— mo whim .. . . . _. 3.333% . . m a 1 in .. 5.1!! k.,..u.i.t§.L.:L .. -, m. < m 2 < x m ABBEVILLE HIE’H SCHOOL cccu. J. meant: no: semen HIGH omve J. v. MULA mncmt ABBEVILLE. LOUISIANA 70510 ass'r. semen-Al. PHONE sss-1s74 PHONE sss-Ises Mr. Frank.M. Lampkin, Principal Bossier High School Coleman Street Bossier City, LA 71010 Dear Mr. Lampkin I am a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University and I am presently working towards earning a PhD Degree in Business Education. I have twelve years of teaching experience in the field of Business Educa- tion in the state of Louisiana. I was granted a sabbatical leave last year in order to complete my course work, and this year I have returned to my home state to resume teaching as well as write and gather data for my dissertation entitled TWO PLANS OF'HIGB SCHOOL STENOGRAPHIC INSTRUCTION IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Through random sampling your school has been selected as one of the schools that will be included in this study. Mr. Ferguson is cooperating with me in this study because it is felt that there is a definite need to determine whether there is a significant difference in the skills and clerical ability areas between students enrolled in a non-cooperative program and students enrolled in a Cooperative Office Education program. With these results we will know the areas of strengths and weaknesses. we can use this informa— tion to strengthen our Business Education program in Louisiana because we have mere and more students who want immediate employment upon graduating from high school. The labor market is getting tighter each day; therefOre. we must prepare students to achieve the highest level Of productivity and competence in order to meet the present demands of labor. we feel that the State Department as well as all business education teachers and principals should be vitally interested in this study. All can profit from it. we are hopeful that you‘and Mr. Melvin H. Baire, the ODE Coordinator, will cooperate in this study. we request the aid of Mr. Hairs in administering these tests to fifteen ODE students and to fifteen students who are in the non-cooperative program. These students are to be selected at random, and the same group that will be pre-tested must be post-tested. Students in a non-cooperative program are enrolled in the business courses offered -— Typewriting, Shorthand I and II, Bookkeeping, Clerical Practice, Data Processing, etc. - but do not enroll in the ODE Program. 89 Mr. Frank M. Lampkin, Principal Page 2 It is requested that Mr. Haire test the students that he is presently teaching. The pre-testing will be in September and the post-testing will be in May. If you or the OOE Coordinator do not wish to participate in this study, please inform me immediately; but Mr. Ferguson and I feel that both of you will be cooperative. If you wish to call me, my office telephone number at the Abbeville High School is 318 893-0944 and my home telephone number is 318 893-1660. Please fill in and return the enclosed self-addressed postal card today. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely Mrs. Merline T. Broussard COB Coordinator Andrew H. Ferguson, State Director Business & Office Education State Department of Education Enclosure: Postal card cc: Mr. Melvin H. Haire I will I will not participate in the study entitled TWO PLANS OF HIGH SCHOOL STENOGRAPHIC INSTRUCTION IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. rank M. Lampkin, Principal Melvin H. Haire. Bossier High School 00E Coordinator lease check, sign, and mail this postal card today. ank you for your cooperation. 9O SHORTHAND TEST DIRECTIONS: This letter is to be dictated at the rate of 80 wpm for a 3 minute period of time. The transcription time is 15 minutes. Any letter style is acceptable. Gentlemen When I was at the Apparel Mart in Dallas, Texas, on August 24, I purchased merchandise / from your sales representative. I received a shipment today, but it is not the merchandise that I / requested. I am enclosing a copy of the customer's invoice indicating the merchandise I purchased I from your firm on August 24 and the duplicate invoice of the goods I received today. You can readily (1) see that the articles I ordered from your sales representative and the articles you mailed to me are / totally different. I believe that you mailed the merchandise I ordered to one of your other customers / and mailed to me the merchandise he ordered. In the meantime, please send me a shipping label so that I may / return the merchandise to you. Place a tracer on my order immediately or, if you wish, refill my (2) order and ship it right away. If I should receive a second shipment of my original order, I / will return it to you at once. Please take action today because I need this merchandise for the coming season. / If I do not receive it shortly, I will not be able to sell these goods because this is seasonal merchandise. / I expect immediate action from your firm. Thank you for your cooperation and interest. Sincerely (3) STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WILLIAM J. 0000 start SUPERINTENDENT BATON ROUGE 70604 Dear COB Coordinator Thank you for participating in the study entitled Two Plans of High School Stenographic Instruction in the State of Louisiana. I am enclosing the Typewriting Skill Test, the Shorthand Skill Test, and the Clerical Ability Tests. Each test is in groups of fifteen and labeled for the two groups of students that will be tested -- Cooperative Office Education Students and Regular Stenographic Program Students. Please return these tests to me with the identifying sheet for each respective group. Do not correct any of these tests. The directions for each test are also enclosed. Please return all tests to me in the enclosed self-addressed and stamped box. Please use the enclosed tape to seal for security measures. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely (Mrs.) Merline T. Broussard COB Coordinator Abbeville High School 92 ADMINISTRATION OF THE TYPEWRITING TEST All necessary information is on the front page of the test booklet. While the typists read directions and type the practice paragraphs, make certain that all are following the instructions correctly. Two points should be watched carefully: 1. The entire first section of the directions — beginning with "The SRA Typing Skills measures..." through typing the practice exercises"—-must be typed at least once for warm—up and practice. 2. The test letter must be kept folded under throughout the preliminary period until the worksheet is to be detached from the booklet. DO NOT ALLOW ANY READING OF THE TEST LETTER BEFORE THE TEST. Allow as much time as is needed for warm-up and reading the instructions. However, a period of seven to ten minutes is usually sufficient. It is important that each person know exactly what to do. If there are any questions about the operation of the typewriter, answer them, but do not set the machine correctly for the test. Moreover, do NOT answer questions relevant to the nature of the test. After everyone is ready to begin, say: "Are you ready? Be sure to follow the directions you have read. Work carefully and accurately. You will have EXACTLY TEN MINUTES. Ready? Begin." Time the test carefully. Deviation of even one minute can increase a score by 10 percent or more. The score on an incorrectly timed test is worthless. If a stopwatch is not available, record the starting time in minutes and seconds. The addition of ten minutes to the starting time will give the stopping time; write it down and keep it in sight continuously. At the end of exactly ten minutes, call time and collect all papers immediately. 93 ADMINISTRATION OF CLERICAL ABILITY TESTS Materials The examinees should have two sharp, hard lead—pencils. It is desirable to distribute and collect the tests singly as they are administered. Timing If the test results are to be valid, it is extremely important that the exact time limits for the tests are Observed. Sufficient time should be allowed before each test to permit the examinees to read the instructions and work the examples for the test. The time limits for the tests are as follows: Business Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . 5 minutes Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 minutes Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 minutes Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 minutes Directions, Oral & Written . . . . . 5 minutes Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 minutes Arithmetic, Part I . . . . . . . . . 3 minutes Arithmetic, Part II . . . . . . . . . 6 minutes INSTRUCTIONS FOR.ADMINISTERING THE TESTS OF -- BUSINESS VOCABULARY, CHECKING, CODING, FILING, LANGUAGE "This test is called . Fill in your name along the leftehand side." Then say: "Now read the instructions for the test that are printed on the front and do the practice problems. DO NOT TURN THE SHEET OVER UNTIL I TELL YOU TO DO SO." Allow enough time.for the examinees to read the instructions and do the practice problems —— about 2 minutes. "Ready? Turn the test sheet over and begin." Start the timer or stop watch. After exactly five minutes, say: "Stop. Pass the test papers forward." Collect the test papers and distribute the next test. 94 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE ARITHMETIC TEST At the end of exactly three minutes the test administrator should say: "Stop working on Part I. Begin working on Part II." Then after exactly six minutes: "Stop. Pass the test papers forward." INSTRUCTIONS FOR.ADMINISTERING DIRECTIONS, ORAL AND WRITTEN After the test booklets are distributed and the examinees have filled in the identifying information along the left-hand side, say: "Read the instructions for this test that are printed on the front." (about 1 to 1% minutes) Then: "Turn the test booklets over so that the blank page is before you. You should take your notes on this page." Then begin reading the special "Oral Directions to be Read by the Examiner." These instructions lead into the test itself. Note that no questions are answered about the test. Part of the test is understanding the printed instructions. After telling the examinees to begin the test, start the timer or stop watch. In exactly five minutes, say: "Stop. Pass your test booklets forward." THANK.YOU FOR.YOUR COOPERATION. 95 ABBEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL CECIL J. 'ICARO I305 SENIOR HIGH DRIVE J. Y. ”ULA 'IIICIPAL ABBEVILLE. LOUISIANA 70510 ass-1'. "menu. . PHON: G.,-I07. PHONE 0.34.33 Mrs. Adelene Lee, (DE Coordinator DeBidder High School P. 0. Drawer 589 DeEidder, LA 70634 Dear Mrs. Lee Thank you for participating in the study entitled Two Plans of High School Stenographic Instruction in the State of Louisiana. Please return the tests for the two groups of students that were tested -- Cooperative Office Education Students and the students enrolled in the Non-(boperative Program. Return these tests to me with the identifying sheet for each respective group. Do not correct any of these tests, but do return them in the self-addressed and stuped box that was sent to you. Please return this material as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely Mrs. Merline T. Broussard (DE Coordinator 96 ABBEVI LLE HIGH SCHOOL CICIL J. means "0' "NI" "'0" 9"" .I. I. won mamas ABBEVILLE. LOUIIIANA 70810 new. sum snows ssmsu snows sssasss Dear (DE Coordinator The tins for post-testing has arrived and I want to thank you for participating in the study entitled Two Plans of High School Stsnographic Instruction in the Stats of Louisiana. I am enclosing the same nubsr of Typewriting Skill Tests and Clerical Ability Tests that you used in the prstssting. Each test is in groups and labeled for the two groups of students that will be tested - Cooperative Office Education Students and Regular Stenographic Program Students. Please return these tssts to as with the idsntitying shsst for each respective group. Do not correct any of those tssts. The directions for each test are also enclosed. Plssss return all tssts to ms in the enclosed self-addressed and stamped box. Please use the enclosed taps to seal for security measures. Thank you for your cooperation and I as looking forward to seeing you so that I m personally thank you. Sincerely Marlins T. Broussard (DB Coordinator 97 .Gmam coaumosvm mofimmo HoosumlaH mSu aw vaHouam wuamwoum mnu can Guam coauwuowm mofimmo m>aumummooo msu Ga vmaaouam muaovoum onu mo Ammmoommmu mnu kn umawwmw mmv muHHHnm oHemwmom onu amm3umn ouchHMHame mo Hm>ma moo. map um moCmHmMMHw uamuwmaawam m ma mumsu .muommumSH .manuulm on» Scum o=Hm> Hmowufiuo onu swap Hmwuma ma «mmo.q« Hmoam.wq Ava oo.mm o «ummo.q mm a o mfiqomo.o womo~.mq H Eovmmum uaumfiumumlm Bowmmum uwumfiumumls Amocwfiuw> vaHHmuwaouv mousom mo mmouwmn mumaaxouam< mo mmouwmo moa huHHfiA< afiamwmo< I moawaum> mo mwmkawc< muwaum>fluasz 0N manna 98 coauomuouaH u Hoonom x umme x swam nuaa mucmwoum «Amamvm coauomnmucH I Hoonom x ummH an coauumnmucH u Hoosum x umma x amHm "mam coauomnmuaH n Hoonum x swam umm coauomumucH n umma x swam a 9m Hoofium n m umme n H Gmfim n m anmmo.m~ Amemvm oo.mmNN mm ocmm.o ONHH ma N oma~om.o m~nmo.mN mam oo.meN mm mNHm.H QNHH aH N mnwmmm.o nwnno.mN me oo.meN mm moqfi.m ONHH ma N mommom.o mMNNm.mN mm oo.mHHH N omom.H ONHH H N mwmomm.o Haemo.mN Hm oo.wMNN mm meno.NN ONHH mH N meomNm.o quNN.qN m oo.mHHH N quo.cH ONHH H N noHNnm.o wONmm.MN H oo.mHHH N omww.mq ONHH H N Nqfimaa.o mHmH~.mN m Bowmmum oaumfiumumlm Bowmmum oHumwumumID Amoamflum> meHHmuwamuv muuoom mo momuwma oumaaxoumm¢ mo mmouwmm woa wcfiuwuzmmme wow vamfiuuonm I modmflum> mo mHm%Hmc< oumfium>fiuaoz HN wanna .mufinowmadwam mo Hm>ma mooo. map um mHoonom wow .mummu .mamaa ammzumn cowuowumucfi uchHMHame swan Num> m mmumofiwaa manhk nowuuwumucH n Hoogom x umme x swam afifiufi3 mucmwoum nAmHme coauumumuaH u Hoofiom x umme x swam "mam coauuwumuaH I Hoocom x ummh ImH dowuomumuaH a Hoonom x swam "mm 99 coauomumuaH u umma x swam a 9m Hoo:om n m “wow u H swam n m mmwNm.qN Amemvm mw.HNmN mmH kmofim.o ONHH ma N mmooo¢.o ommmfi.mN mHm mw.HNmN mmH qum.o ONHH ma N mmawmq.o commfi.mN we mm.HNmN mmH ommq.m ONHH ma N Nqommm.o OHON«.mN mm oo.qHHH N omoN.mH ONHH a N qqomNm.o mommq.qN Hm mw.HNmN mmfi mNNm.HH ONHH ma N moONmN.o ooNNo.mN m oo.eHHH N ooN¢.oq ONHN H N NmNNmN.o mmmoo.qN H oo.qH~H N mNNo.NH ONfifi H N amNon.o mNqu.qN m Bowmmum oaumfiumumlm Eowomum ofiumwuwumlb Amocmfium> wmnaamumawwv condom mo mmwpwmo mumefixonma< mo mmmuwoa mod mummH Nuwafin¢ Hmoaumau I monwfium> mo mHmNHma< muwflum>fiuasz NN manna 100 Table 23 Academic Ability of Thirty Randomly Selected Students Enrolled in the Cooperative Plan Achievement Tests - Scores Student Number Number I.Q. G.P.A. English. Reading Spelling Computation 1 119 3.609 74 89 86 94 2 122 3.350 48 56 46 36 3 85 1.610 18 16 42 23 4 102 3.066 92 40 76 46 5 100 2.766 54 26 66 52 6 87 1.785 44 20 42 30 7 95 2.530 44 32 64 34 8 103 2.300 62 20 72 20 9 94 3.292 40 16 20 22 10 109 3.052 66 52 40 48 11 109 2.400 92 60 44 52 12 96 3.000 56 68 58 56 13 113 2.878 52 44 56 40 14 92 2.263 21 22 18 38 15 83 2.333 36 4O 48 26 16 103 3.000 62 28 40 68 17 95 2.666 70 62 76 46 18 97 2.789 52 44 76 24 19 90 2.684 32 38 50 30 20 103 2.500 58 60 66 56 101 Table 23 (continued) Achievement Tests — Scores Student Number Number I.Q. G.P.A. English Reading Spelling Computation 21 99 2.333 54 44 4O 52 22 114 3.157 84 76 72 38 23 123 3.150 88 78 54 60 24 101 2.200 46 62 52 48 25 117 3.050 78 48 50 54 26 103 2.073 94 48 72 26 27 100 2.133 74 30 82 52 28 116 3.000 86 70 52 56 29 105 2.900 62 42 56 46 30 102 2.714 50 33 64 34 Average: 103 2.686 59.63 45.47 56.00 43.33 102 Table 24 Academic Ability of Thirty Randomly Selected Students Enrolled in the In—School Plan Achievement Tests — Scores Student Number Number I.Q. G.P.A. English. Reading Spelling Computation 1 96 1.560 2 1 8 6 2 109 2.250 89 52 50 77 3 97 2.850 60 28 58 40 4 97 1.894 32 8 50 72 5 104 2.611 48 28 6 44 6 103 2.800 6 8 6 11 7 84 1.200 16 20 42 8 8 102 2.736 40 11 64 14 9 111 3.222 60 38 72 36 10 107 3.300 32 23 42 36 11 107 3.100 74 48 36 18 12 83 .925 2 5 6 4 13 96 2.105 10 4 62 16 14 100 3.153 62 66 80 36 15 105 2.000 56 20 24 28 16 96 2.902 40 28 78 36 17 102 2.238 52 20 50 36 18 91 1.761 28 34 20 14 19 109 2.487 40 28 4 44 20 89 1.142 11 2 24 10 103 Table 24 (continued) Achievement Tests — Scores Student Number Number I.Q. G.P.A. English Reading Spelling Computation 21 97 2.523 36 23 58 28 22 96 2.000 16 2 28 44 23 102 2.400 44 10 36 60 24 104 2.200 56 48 36 16 25 98 2.850 44 28 78 24 26 103 2.750 32 23 24 6 27 116 2.800 70 56 89 44 28 95 2.564 32 28 68 32 29 114 2.368 74 44 76 44 30 104 2.842 62 48 50 60 Average: 101 2.384 40.87 26.07 43.17 31.47 Means and 104 Table 25 of Instruction in School I Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 89.39999 92.79999 +3.4 88.86665 93.53333 +4.7 Typewriting 37.26666 40.06667 +2.8 30.06667 33.06667 +3.0 Business Vocabulary 12.73333 15.93333 +3.2 13.13333 15.60000 +2.5 Checking 35.26666 37.66666 +2.4 34.73332 36.79999 +2.1 Coding 78.59999 72.86665 —5.7 75.59999 77.13333 +1.5 Filing 18.13333 21.06667 +2.9 17.79999 20.13333 +2.3 Directions 17.46666 24.46666 +7.0 16.33333 22.20000 +5.9 Language 5.06667 5.46667 + .4 5.33333 5.86667 + .5 Arithmetic 21.66666 19.59999 -2.1 21.39999 +1.2 22.59999 105 Table 26 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School II Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 89.79999 95.33333 + 5.5 73.79999 77.73332 +3.9 Typewriting 32.26666 36.86665 + 4.6 26.33333 31.13333 +4.8 Business ' VOcabulary 13.66667 20.79999 + 7.1 11.00000 14.86667 +3.9 Checking 33.39999 46.66666 +13.3 32.20000 39.53333 +7.3 Coding 75.59999 88.66666 +13.1 75.20000 83.59999 +8.4 Filing 15.20000 29.66666 +14.5 15.13333 19.26666 +4.1 Directions 16.53333 28.06667 +11.5 14.06667 20.93332 +6.9 Language 8.60000 13.00000 + 4.4 5.66667 6.86667 +1.2 Arithmetic 21.73332 28.79999~u~ +7.1. .20.06667 ”28.33333 ...... +8.3.. 106 Table 27 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School III Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 96.06667 98.20000 +2.1 89.66666 91.86665 +2.2 Typewriting 28.13333 32.66666 +4.5 30.13333 30.13333 0 Business Vocabulary 15.00000 18.26666 +3.3 11.00000 13.66667 +2.7 Checking 39.20000 43.66666 +4.5 36.79999 33.20000 —3.6 Coding 73.86665 81.73332 +7.9 67.46666 72.33333 +4.9 Filing 19.53333 28.93332 +9.4 12.73333 17.06667 +4.3 Directions 26.00000 27.06667 +1.1 18.73332 24.06667 +5.3 Language 7.20000 7.60000 + .4 6.06667 7.40000 +1.3 Arithmetic 22.66666 25.26666 +2.6 19.46666 21.86665 +2.4 107 Table 28 Means and Differences attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School IV Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post. Difference Shorthand 86.39999 89.93332 + 3.5 85.53333 87.79999 +2.3 Typewriting 35.93332 38.20000 + 2.3 33.53333 35.26666 +1.7 Business Vocabulary 14.26667 24.00000 + 9.7 13.60000 15.93333 +2.3 Checking 35.59999 55.13333 +19.5 33.53333 37.26666 +3.7 Coding 77.00000 88.59999 +11.6 71.53333 80.20000 +8.7 Filing 17.39999 31.13333 +13.7 18.13333 21.79999 +3.7 Directions 21.00000 33.13333 +12.1 19.73332 25.13333 +5.4 Language 5.40000 9.60000 + 4.2 6.46667 10.20000 +3.7 Arithmetic 21.06667 32.33333 +11.3 23.26666 25.73332 +2.5 108 Table 29 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School V Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 66.46666 75.73332 +9.3 74.13333 78.73332 +4.6 Typewriting 30.79999 33.00000 +2.2 23.59999 28.06667 +4.5 Business Vocabulary 12.26667 13.46667 +1.2 7.93333 10.26667 +2.3 Checking 22.13333 23.73332 +1.6 25.26666 28.00000 +2.8 Coding 76.20000 74.06667 —2.1 61.06667 64.13333 +3.1 Filing 13.60000 7.33333 —6.5 6.80000 7.33333 + .5 Directions 10.60000 15.73333 +5.1 12.93333 15.60000 +2.7 Language 4.86667 5.46667 + 6 4.93333 10.40000 +5.5 Arithmetic 18.66666 18.33333 - .3 12.53333 14.80000 +2.3 109 Table 30 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School VI Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 78.39999 90.26666 +11.9 68.20000 74.53333 +6.3 Typewriting 29.73332 35.00000 + 5.3 27.53333 31.39999 +3.9 Business V0cabulary 12.40000 15.53333 + 3.1 11.80000 14.00000 +2.2 Checking 22.59999 31.46666 + 8.9 31.33333 36.86665 +5.5 Coding 69.00000 74.39999 + 5.4 72.39999 75.59999 +5.2 Filing 9.53333 19.66666 +10.1 12.66667 16.46666 +3.8 Directions 8.73333 15.00000 + 6.3 14.00000 17.06667 +3.1 Language 4.33333 9.73333 + 5.4 5.46667 5.93333 + .5 Arithmetic 16.66666 + 4.0 17.13333 18.53333 +1.4 12.66667 110 Table 31 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Posthests in Both Plans of Instruction in School VII Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 93.13333 95.93332 + 2.8 85.66666 87.73332 +2.1 Typewriting 29.00000 32.46666 + 3.5 28.46666 30.33333 +1.9 Business Vocabulary 15.40000 17.79999 + 2.4 13.40000 17.13333 +3.7 Checking 39.39999 41.53333 + 2.1 33.59999 37.13333 +3.5 Coding 74.00000 81.93332 + 7.9 68.93332 76.53333 +7.6 Filing 23.06667 37.53333 +14.5 17.79999 23.13333 +5.3 Directions 21.73332 34.13333 +12.4 17.06667 21.06667 +4.0 Language 5.60000 13.20000 + 7.6 5.53333 8.46667 +2.9 Arithmetic 22.79999 25.20000 + 2.4 20.33333 23.26666 +2.9 111 Table 32 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School VIII Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 59.53333 61.20000 +1.7 57.66666 74.00000 +16.3 Typewriting 31.59999 28.26666 —3.3 34.53333 28.79999 — 5.7 Business Vocabulary 13.40000 15.40000 +2.0 13.40000 15.46667 + 2.1 Checking 30.93332 31.53333 + .6 34.06667 35.66666 + 1.6 Coding 74.20000 71.26666 -2.9 69.20000 73.73332 + 4.5 Filing 10.53333 13.00000 +2.5 10.46667 17.39999 + 6.9 Directions 14.66667 18.26666 +3.6 14.06667 17.66666 + 3.6 Language 7.80000 8.53333 + .7 6.60000 5.93333 - .7 Arithmetic 19.33333 18.79999 — .5 21.13333 19.59999 - 1.5 112 Table 33 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School IX Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 93.66666 96.20000 +2.5 83.33333 85.00000 +1.7 Typewriting 26.79999 31.39999 +4.6 28.46666 27.20000 —1.3 Business Vocabulary 12.40000 17.13333 +4.7 9.86667 11.80000 +1.9 Checking 29.86665 34.46666 +4.6 27.73332 29.26666 +1.5 Coding 64.33333 73.66666 +9.3 68.66666 68.39999 — .3 Filing 13.06667 14.46667 +1.4 12.26667 13.33333 +1.1 Directions 17.26666 17.26666 0 14.73333 16.79999 +2.1 Language 5.73333 5.93333 + .2 5.20000 5.33333 + .1 Arithmetic 19.59999 23.13333 +3.5 18.00000 20.39999 +2.4 113 Table 34 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School X Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 92.39999 93.79999 +1.4 72.66666 75.79999 +3.1 Typewriting 35.86665 33.73332 —2.1 25.73332 29.00000 +3.3 Business Vocabulary 17.39999 19.46666 +2.1 17.39999 19.46666 +2.1 Checking 34.26666 39.73332 +5.5 36.00000 37.13333 +1.1 Coding 78.73332 79.06667 + 3 72.73332 73.39999 + .7 Filing 20.06667 25.59999 +5.5 15.33333 17.53333 +2.2 Directions 21.00000 25.46666 +4.5 15.93333 17.39999 +1.5 Language 5.46667 6.40000 + .9 5.66677 5.53333 - .1 Arithmetic 23.66666 23.00000 — .7 20.13333 21.33333 +1.2 114 Table 35 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XI Cooperative.P1an Ineschool Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 95.06667 97.33333 + 2.7 73.93332 75.53333 +1.6 Typewriting 17.46666 26.33333 + 8.9 24.13333 28.53333 +4.4 Business Vocabulary 16.66666 23.59999 + 6.9 11.06667 14.33333 +3.3 Checking 33.33333 54.00000 +20.7 35.06667 37.46666 +2.4 Coding 71.59999 84.79999 +13.2 74.39999 75.06667 + .7 Filing 19.66666 30.33333 +10.7 15.26667 19.39999 +4.1 Directions 19.13333 27.00000 + 7.9 14.40000119.26666 +4.9 Language 5.86667 9.33333 + 3.5 5.66667 5.46667 — .2 Arithmetic +2.2 21.66666 33.59999 +11.9 20.00000 22.20000 115 Table 36 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XII Cooperative Plan In~School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 56.13333 45.33333 v10.8 63.93332 67.93332 +4.0 Typewriting 28.26666 32.46666 + 4.2 32.86665 31.46666 —1.4 Business Vocabulary 14.20000 18.33333 + 4.1 13.66667 16.00000 +2.3 Checking 36.26666 42.39999 + 6.1 29.66666 36.33333 +6.7 Coding 76.06667 79.00000 + 2.9 69.26666 75.06667 +5.8 Filing 21.46666 25.33333 + 3.9 22.33333 29.53333 +7.2 Directions 22.79999 28.13333 + 5.3 22.33333 20.26666 ~2.1 Language 5.86667 6.53333 + .7 7.26667 5.86667 —1.4 Arithmetic 21.73332 — 1.1 18.20000 +7.1 22.86665 25.26666 116 Table 37 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XIII Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 92.79999 88.13333 — 4.7 ‘ 89.93332 91.20000 + 1.3 Typewriting 32.66666 29.46666 — 3.2 31.53333 31.06667 - .5 Business Vocabulary 16.93332 19.26666 + 2.3 11.53333 13.53333 + 2.0 Checking 37.33333 48.00000 +10.7 35.39999 41.79999 + 6.4 Coding 76.66666 91.79999 +15.1 70.26666 81.26666 +11.0 Filing 20.73332 27.79999 + 7.1 15.40000 20.46666 + 5.1 Directions 23.20000 24.46666 + 1.3 22.20000 28.33333 + 6.1 Language 6.40000 7.00000 + 6 5.86667 5.73333 — .1 Arithmetic 28.46666 + 4.3 24.93332 + 3.5 .20.33333 724.66666 117 Table 38 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XIV Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference‘ Pre Post Difference Shorthand 61.33333 74.53333 +13.2 37.66666 49.26666 +11.6 Typewriting 17.26666 30.59999 +13.3 34.46666 35.66666 + 1.2 Business V0cabulary 14.53333 18.46666 + 3.9 15.40000 16.26666 + 9 Checking 34.06667 39.66666 + 5.6 37.46666 38.73332 + 1.3 Coding 71.73332 77.93332 + 6.2 77.46666 78.13333 + 7 Filing 17.06667 16.86665 — .2 16.00000 17.59999 + 1.6 Directions 19.66666 19.53333 — .1 23.33333 23.86665 + .5 Language 4.93333 7.00000 + 2.1 4.86667 6.53333 + 1.7 Arithmetic + ..9 21.00000 21.46660 ~20.93332 21.799994 118 Table 39 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XV Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference _ Pre Post Difference Shorthand 88.93332 90.13333 +1.2 45.79999 53.39999 +7.6 Typewriting 22.59999 22.33333 — .3 22.59999 29.86665 +7.3 Business Vocabulary 12.06667 14.00000 +1.9 14.06667 16.33333 +2.3 Checking 38.13333 29.06667 —9.1 34.20000 37.59999 +3.4 Coding 76.53333 75.53332 -1.0 71.13333 72.20000 +1.1 Filing 20.33333 18.46666 —1.9 18.00000 19.00000 +1.0 Directions 20.13333 20.66666 + .5 21.79999 24.00000 +2.2 Language 6.53333 5.66667 — .9 5.66667 6.20000 + .5 Arithmetic "21.46666 +1.7 22.13333 22.59999 24.26666 119 Table 40 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XVI Cooperative Plan In-School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 96.66666 98.39999 +1.7 82.06667 85.33333 +3.3 Typewriting 34.46666 31.86665 —2.6 33.66666 34.06667 + .4 Business Vocabulary 14.46667 15.53333 +1.1 11.53333 13.53333 +2.0 Checking 30.93332 27.00000 —3.9 26.86665 30.46666 +3.6 Coding 72.20000 68.06667 —4.1 69.86665 75.26666 +5.4 Filing 16.93332 20.86665 +3.9 13.26667 20.39999 +7.1 Directions 20.06667 21.59999 +1.5 16.26666 20.20000 +3.9 Language 4.73333 5.60000 + .9 6.73333 7.00000 + .3 Arithmetic 20.66666 22.00000 +1.3 21.06667 22.93332 +1.9 120 Table 41 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XVII Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 95.00000 96.00000 +1.0 94.39999 93.39999 +1.0 Typewriting 31.00000 30.79999 — .2 29.73332 28.00000' —1.7 Business Vocabulary 13.73333 15.53333 +1.8 15.53333 15.60000 + 1 Checking 29.20000 31.26666 +2.1 35.26666 38.59999 +3.3 Coding 67.26666 71.86665 +4.6 65.73332 64.39999 —1.3 Filing 16.33333 16.79999 + 5 15.53333 18.06667 +2.5 Directions 19.26666 16.79999 -2.5 17.13333 17.59999 + .5 Language 5.73333 5.86667 + .1 5.53333 5.93333 + .4 Arithmetic 24.20000 23.53333 — .7 22.59999 26.73332 +4.1 121 Table 42 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XVIII Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 89.59999 94.33333 + 4.7 87.00000 87.53333 + .5 Typewriting 30.33333 38.39999 + 8.1 34.79999 30.00000 - 4.8 Business Vocabulary 16.53333 21.73332 + 5.2 8.66667 16.39999 + 7.7 Checking 30.26666 36.53333 + 6.3 28.39999 40.66666 +12.3 Coding 65.73332 75.66666 + 9.9 46.39999 82.00000 +35.6 Filing 9.40000 17.13333 + 7.7 21.20000 22.59999 + 1.4 Directions 12.86667 32.59999 +19.7 18.00000 30.86665 +12.9 Language 7.20000 16.13333 + 8.9 '11.46667 5.66667 — 5.8 Arithmetic 17.33333 19.93332 + 2.6 18.59999 22.79999 + 4.2 122 Table 43 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XIX Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 93.20000 95.46666 + 2.3 73.46666 80.06667 +6.6 Typewriting 35.66666 38.53333 + 2.9 21.06667 25.00000 +3.9 Business Vocabulary 14.26667 23.39999 + 9.1 11.86667 13.60000 +1.7 Checking 19.86665 38.66666 +18.8 35.26666 39.79999 +4.5 Coding 56.79999 72.59999 +15.8 72.00000 76.86665 +4.9 Filing 11.53333 23.00000 +11.5 14.20000 19.33333 +5.1 Directions 20.73332 31.66666 +10.9 15.13333 19.86665 +4.7 Language 5.00000 12.26667 + 7.3 5.86667 6.00000 + .1 Arithmetic 20.13333 29.26666 + 9.1 21.79999 22.06667 + .3 123 Table 44 Means and Differences Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in School XX Cooperative Plan In—School Plan Test Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference Shorthand 85.39999 94.93332 +9.5 89.06667 97.59999 +8.5 Typewriting 36.86665 37.20000 + .3 32.20000 35.00000 +2.8 Business Vocabulary 14.66667 17.59999 +2.9 15.60000 18.66666 +3.1 Checking 35.06667 40.46666 +5.4 26.13333 35.53333 +9.4 Coding 75.20000 76.86665 +1.7 72.26666 73.20000 + .9 Filing 20.39999 24.13333 +3.7 16.13333 20.00000 +3.9 Directions 16.59999 19.66666 +3.1 18.06667 18.46666 + .4 Language 6.00000 7.00000 +1.0 5.73333 7.13333 +1.4 Arithmetic 21.06667 20.66666 — .4 24.59999 25.53333 + .9 124 0.0 + 0000N.0N 00000.NN 0.0 + 0000N.m0 00000.N0 x N.H + 00000.00 00000.00 0.N + OOOON.00 00000.00 xH 0.0H+ ooooo.¢N 00000.N0 N.N + COCON.H0 00000.00 HHH> H.N + NmmMN.N0 00000.00 0.N + Nmmm0.00 mmmm~.m0 HH> 0.0 + mmmm0.qN OOOON.00 0.HH+ 0000N.o0 00000.0N H> 0.0 + NmmmN.0N mmmmfi.qN 0.0 + NmmmN.0N 00000.00 > m.N + 0000N.N0 00000.00 0.0 + Nmmm0.00 00000.00 >H N.N + 00000.00 00000.00 H.N + ooocN.00 N000o.00 HHH 0.0 + NmmmN.NN 0000N.0N 0.0 + 00000.00 0000N.00 HH N.q + 00000.00 00000.00 «.0 + 0000N.N0 00000.00 H monoMmMMHn umom ohm oudouommwn umom ohm Hoosom swam Hoosomch swam o>Humummooo 000 n whoom manwmmom mHoosom wouooaom Noumea may ca aofiuoauumaH mo woman zoom CH mumoelumom can own so vocawuu< mooconoMMfia 0am memo: 0amSuuo£0 00 wanna 125 0.0 + 00000.00 00000.0N N.0 + 0000N.00 00000.00 wwwum>< 0.0 + 00000.N0 N0000.00 0.0 + N0000.00 00000.00 xx 0.0 + N0000.00 00000.0N 0.N + 00000.00 0000N.00 xHx 0. + 00000.N0 00000.N0 N.0 + 00000.00 00000.00 HHH>x 0.H I 00000.00 00000.00 0.0 + 00000.00 00000.00 HH>x 0.0 + 00000.00 N0000.N0 N.H + 00000.00 00000.00 H>x 0.N + 00000.00 0000N.00 N.H + 0000H.00 N0000.00 >0 0.HH+ 0000N.00 00000.N0 N.0H+ 00000.0N 00000.H0 >Hx 0.H + 0000N.H0 N0000.00 N.0 I 00000.00 0000N.N0 HHHx 0.0 + N0000.N0 N0000.00 0.0a: 00000.00 0000H.00 HHx 0.H + 00000.0N N0000.0N N.N + 00000.N0 N0000.00 Hx mucouomwaa umom mum moamumMMHa umom mum Hoonom swam Hoosomch swam o>fiuwuomooo 000 n ouoom manfiwmom Annsnancoov m0 nanny 126 0.0+ 00000.0N N000N.0N ~.N N000N.00 00000.00 x 0.01 0000N.NN 00000.0N 0.0 00000.H0 0000N.0N xH N.0I 0000N.0N 00000.00 0.0 0000N.0N 00000.00 HHH> 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.0N 0.0 00000.N0 00000.0N HH> 0.0+ 00000.H0 00000.NN 0.0 00000.00 N000N.0N H> 0.0+ N0000.0N 00000.0N N.N 00000.00 0000N.00 > N.H+ 0000N.00 00000.00 0.N 0000N.00 N0000.00 >H 0 0000H.00 0000H.00 0.0 00000.N0 0000H.0N HHH 0.0+ 0000H.H0 00000.0N 0.0 00000.00 0000N.N0 HH 0.0+ N0000.00 N0000.00 0.N N0000.00 0000N.N0 H moooHoMMHn umom mum moooHoMMNa umom mum Hoosom swam Hoo£omuoH swam 0>Humuomoo0 mHoonom wouooaom hucose onu o0 coauosuumaH no woman zoom :0 mumoysumom 0am mum so woaamuu< moosoquMHQ 0am memo: moauwusomha as manna 127 000NN.0N 0.0+ N0000.00 0.N + N0000.N0 0000N.00 mwmuo>< 0.N+ 00000.00 0000N.N0 0. + 0000N.N0 00000.00 xx 0.0+ 00000.0N N0000.0N 0.N + 00000.00 00000.00 xHx 0.0I 00000.00 0000N.00 0.0 + 00000.00 00000.00 HHH>x N.0I 00000.0N N000N.0N N. I 0000N.00 00000.00 00>x 0. + N0000.00 00000.00 0.N I 00000.00 00000.00 H>x 0.N+ 00000.0N 00000.NN 0. I 00000.NN 00000.NN >x N.0+ 00000.00 00000.00 0.00+ 00000.00 0000N.N0 >0x 0. I N0000.00 00000.00 N.0 I 00000.0N 00000.N0 000x 0.0I 00000.00 00000.N0 N.0 + 00000.N0 0000N.0N 00x 0.0+ 00000.0N 00000.0N 0.0 + 00000.0N 00000.N0 Hx mucoummwfin umom _ ohm mucouomm0o umom 000 000500 c600 0oonumIc0 nm0m w>0umuomooo 00060000600 00 00060 128 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.N0 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.N0 x 0.0+ 00000.00 N0000.0 N.0+ 00000.N0 00000.N0 x0 0.N+ N0000.00 00000.00 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 000> N.0+ 00000.N0 00000.00 0.N+ 0000N.N0 00000.00 00> N.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.N0 H> 0.N+ N000N.00 00000.N N.0+ N0000.00 N000N.N0 > 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 N.0+ 00000.0N N000N.00 >0 N.N+ N0000.00 00000.00 0.0+ 0000N.00 00000.00 000 0.0+ N0000.00 00000.00 0.N+ 0000N.0N N0000.00 00 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 N.0+ 00000.00 0000N.N0 0 0000000000 0000 mum 0000000000 0000 mum 000000 0000 000:00I00 000m 0>0umu00000 00 1 00000 00000000 0000000 00000000 000039 000 00 00000090000 00 00000 £000 00 mumoHIumom 000 mum do 00000004 00000H00000 000 00002 >un000000> 00000000 3 0260 129 00 I 00000 00000000 0. + 00000.00 00050.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.00 00000>< 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.00 0.N+ 00000.50 50000.00 xx 5.0+ 00000.00 50000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 50000.00 00x 5.5+ 00000.00 50000.0 N.0+ 00005.00 00000.00 000>x 0. + 00000.00 00000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00005.00 00>x 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 50000.00 0>x 0.N+ 00000.00 50000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 50000.00 >x 0. + 00000.00 00000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.00 >0x 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 0.N+ 00000.00 00000.00 000x 0.N+ 00000.00 50000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.00 00x 0.0+ 00000.00 50000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.00 0x 0000000000 0000 000 0000000000 0000 000 000000 0000 000000100 0000 0>000000000 Awmsc0uaoov 00 00000 130 ~.H + mmmm~.nm ooooo.om m.m Nmmmn.mm mooe~.¢m x m.H + mooom.am Nmmmn.n~ o.¢ + coooq.qm mooow.m~ xH o.H + oomoo.mm ncmoo.¢m o. mmmmm.~m Nmmmm.om HHH> m.m + mmmm~.nm mmmom.mm H.N mmmmm.~q m¢mmm.mm HH> m.m + moocw.om mmmmm.~m m.m ooooq.~m momam.- H> w.~ + ooooo.m~ cooow.mm o.~ ~mmmm.m~ mmmmH.NN > n.m + cooom.mm mmmmm.mm m.m~+ mmmm~.mm m¢mmm.mm >H o.m I oooom.mm mmmmn.om m.¢ + ooooo.m¢ oooo~.¢m HHH m.m + mmmmm.mm oooo~.~m m.m~+ ooooo.oq ammmm.mm HH H.~ + m¢m¢n.om Nmmmn.qm q.N + cocoo.nm mooou.mm H moamumMMHm umom mum wocmuwmmam umom mum Hoosom swam HoosumIcH swam w>aumummooo ow I muoum manfimmom mHoocom vmuomamm uucmse mnu ca coauusuumaH mo mamam nuom SH mummHlumom vam mum do wmafimuu¢ wmoamummmwn wan mummz wawxomau we “...—”Amy 131 o.m +. mmmmm.om mmmqq.~m m.o + mmmmo.wm coomm.~m mwmum>< «.¢ + mmmmm.mm mmmmH.oN q.m + oomoq.oq noooo.mm xx m.q + mommn.mm oeoc~.mm w.w~+ ooooo.wm mcoow.mH xHN m.NH+ cocoo.oq mommm.wm m.© + mmmmm.om coocm.om HHH>x m.m + omamm.wm wooow.mm H.N + coooN.Hm ooooN.mN HH>x o.m + ooocq.om momww.om m.m I ooooo.nm Nmmmm.om H>x q.m + mmmmm.nm oooom.qm H.m I noooo.mm mmmmfi.wm >x m.H + ammmn.wm wocoq.nm o.m + oeooo.mm noooo.HN «.0 + maman.fiq ¢amam.mm n.oH+ ooooo.wq mmmmm.nm HHHN n.o + mmmmm.wm oommm.m~ H.w + mmm¢m.~q oomom.mm HHN q.~ + oeeoe.nm noooo.mm n.0m+ ooooo.qm mmmmm.mm Hx muamumMMfin umom mum oodmummmag umom mum Hoosum swam HoonomuaH cmam m>Huwummooo om n muoum manfimmom Awosafluaouv mq mflnme 132 m. + o¢mam.mn «mmmn.~n m. + neoco.mm Nmmmn.wn x m. I ¢mmmm.mo ooooo.mo m.m + oomoo.mn mmmmm.¢o NH m.q + Nmmmn.mn oooo~.mo m.~ I oooo~.Hn oooou.q~ HHH> 0.5 + mmmmm.om Nmmmm.wo m.m + Nmmmm.fiw ooooo.qm HH> ~.m + mmmam.mm mm¢¢m.~n q.m + am¢mm.qn ooooo.mo H> H.m + mmmmH.qo noooo.fio H.N I moooo.¢n oooou.om > n.m + oooo~.om mmmmm.~n o.HH+ mm¢mm.ww ooooo.nn >H m.q + mmmmm.mm wooe¢.no m.n + «mmmn.fim mooow.mn HHH q.m + ammom.mm oooom.mn H.mH+ cwooo.mw mooam.mn HH m.~ + mmmm~.mm aam¢m.mm m.n I mooow.~n ¢aamm.wn H muamumMMHn umom mum mocmnmmwaa uwom mum Hoocum swam HoosumIcH swam w>aumummoou moH n muoom manammom mHoocum umuumamm kuawae mnu dH cowuonuumcH mo mcmHm nuom aw mummelumom wax mum do wmawmuu< mmoamummmwa cam mammz wcfiwou me manmfi 133 N.N + noomm.¢m Nmmmn.no m.m + mwo~o.mn noocm.~w mwmum>< m. + oooo~.mn oomom.~n n.H + mooow.on oooom.mm xx a.q + mcocw.om ooooo.- w.mH+ mmamm.~m mmman.om xHx c.mm+ ooooo.~w mmmmm.oq m.m + cwooo.mm Nmmmn.mo HHH>x m.H I mmmom.qo Nmmmn.mo o.q + mooom.an cooo~.no HH>x q.m + oomom.mn momow.¢o H.c I noooo.wo oooom.Nm H>x H.~ + oooom.Nn mmmm~.am 0.x I Nmmmm.mn mmmmm.on >x m. + mmmmfi.mn mooo¢.nn N.0 + Nmmmm.xm Nmmmn.an >Hx o.HH+ ooomN.Hw omoow.o~ H.mH+ ommmn.am occeo.ox HHHx m.m + moooo.mm oommm.mo m.N + ooooo.mn noooo.on HHx m. + nooo¢.mn mmmmm.qn N.mH+ mmmmn.qw m¢mam.fin Hx muamnmmm«m umom mum wudmummman umom mum Hoonom swam HoonomIcH Guam m>fiumumaooo moH u muoom manfimmom Awmsaauaoov mq oHan 134 N.N+ mmmmm.x~ mmmmm.m~ m.m + mmmmm.mm noooo.om x H.H+ mmmmm.m~ nooo~.~H q.H + noooq.¢fi noooo.mH xH o.o+ mm¢mm.nx moooq.ofi m.N + ooooo.mH mmmmm.oH HHH> m.m+ mmmm~.m~ mammm.n~ m.qH+ mmmmm.nm moooo.mm HH> w.m+ coooq.ofi momoo.mfi H.oH+ oomoo.a~ mmmmm.m H> m. + mmmmm.n oooom.o m.o I mmmmm.m ooooc.m~ > n.m+ wmmmm.fiw mmmmH.wH x.mH+ mmmmH.Hm mmmmm.n~ >H m.q+ moooo.nH mmmmn.NH q.m + Nmmmm.wm mmmmm.m~ HHH H.q+ oomom.m~ mmmm~.mH m.q~+ moooo.mm oooo~.mH HH m.~+ mmmm~.om mm¢mn.hfi ¢.N + neoco.~m mmmmH.wH H moamumMMfiQ umom mum moawummmam umom mum Hoocom swam HooaumIaH swam m>fiumummooo qm n muoom manfimmom mHoonum vmuuwamm magmas mnu ca defiuosuumcH mo mamam :uom CH mummHIumom vam mum do vmaawuu< mmoamuwmmwn vdm mammz waHHHm om MHQMH 135 oom¢q.- h.m+ mmmm¢.mfi mmm~m.m~ ~.m + oooo~.ofil ommum>< ¢.m+ ooooo.o~ mmmmfi.ofi N.m + mmmmfi.q~ mammm.o~ xx H.m+ mmmmm.mfi oooo~.qH m.HH+ ooooo.mm mmmmm.HH xHx q.~+ m¢amm.- oooo~.H~ 5.5 + mmmmfi.hfi coooq.m HHH>x m.~+ homoo.mfi mmmmm.mfi m. + momm~.ofi mmmmm.o~ HH>x H.~+ mmmam.o~ homo~.mfi $.m + moomw.o~ Nmmmm.oH H>x o.H+ ooooo.aH ooooo.mfi m.H I oomoq.mH mmmmm.o~ >x e.H+ ¢momm.mfi ooooo.ofi N. I memow.ofi Newco.nfi >Hx H.m+ oomoq.o~ ooooq.mH H.“ + mamm~.- Nmmm~.om HHHx N.N+ mmmmm.m~ mmmmm.- m.m + mmmmm.m~ oeooq.fiw HHx H.«+ ¢m¢am.mfi Roco~.mfi ~.oH+ mmmmm.om oomoe.mfi Hx moamumMMHm uwom mum mocwumMMHa umom mum Hooaom swam m>aumummooo «m n muoom manammom swam HoocomsaH xwmsafiuaoov on magma 136 m.H + o¢mmm.n~ mmmmm.ma m.q + omomq.mu ooooo.- x H.N + ¢mmmn.ofi mmmmn.qfl o oeooN.mH cooom.n~ xH o.m + oomoo.n~ noooo.qfi o.m + oomom.w~ noooe.qa HHH> o.q + noooo.- sooco.nfi q.-+ mmmmfi.qm Nmmmn.am HH> H.m + homoo.nfi ooooo.¢~ m.o + ooooo.mH mmmmn.w H> N.N + ooooo.mH mmmmm.NH H.m + mmmmn.m~ ooooo.oH > q.m + mmmmfi.mm Nmmmn.mfi H.N~+ mmmm~.mm coooo.- >H m.m + nowoc.¢~ Nmmmn.mfi H.H + noooo.m~ ooooo.ow HHH m.o + Nmmmm.o~ noooo.qfi m.HH+ nooco.w~ mmmmm.oH HH ¢.m + oooom.um mmmmm.oH 0.5 + cooo¢.q~ oomo<.mfi H mocmuwmmao umom mum monoummman uwom mum Hoozum swam HooaumIaH swam 0>Huwumaooo co n whoom mHnHmmom mHoozom vmuuwamm kucm3e mnu aH coauonuude mo mamam nuom ca mummelumom wan mum do wmafimuu< mmuamHmMMHo wax mammz I cmuufiuz wax Hmuo I macauumufin Hm magma 137 mmmmo.- Nmmam.nn mammo.¢~ mmmnq.wa x.m + c.m + mwmum>< x. + ooeoq.wx ‘xoooo.wx H.m + ooeom.mx mmomm.ox xx x.¢ + mooom.ax mmmmx.mx a.ox+ moooo.xm Nmmmx.ox xxx o.~x+ moomw.om ooooo.mx x.mx+ ammmm.xm xooom.xx HHH>x m. + mmmmm.xx mmmmx.xx m.~ I mmmox.ox wooo~.mx xxxx m.m + oooo~.o~ oomo~.ox m.x + ¢mmmm.xx xomoo.ox H>x N.N + ooooo.qx ¢mmax.xx m. + oomom.¢x mmmmx.c~ >x m. + momox.mx mmmmm.m~ H. I mmmmm.mx ommoo.mx >Hx H.o + mmmmm.w~ oooox.- m.x + moooq.qx oooo~.m~ HHHx x.~ I oomo~.ox mmmmm.~x m.m + mmmmx.xx ¢mmmx.xx HHx m.q + mooox.mx ooooq.qx a.x + ooooo.x~ mmmmx.mx xx moamHQMMHQ umom wpm muawumMMHm uwom wpm Hoonom swam HoonumIcH swam m>aumummooo we I whoom mHnHmmom Awmzafiucoov Hm maan 138 H. I mmmmm.m 50000.0 m. + 00000.0 50000.0 x H. + mmmmm.m oocom.m N. + mmmmm.m mmmm~.m xH n. I mmmmm.m oooo0.0 n. + mmmmm.0 oooow.n HHH> m.~+ n000q.w mmmmm.m 0.N+ oooom.mH 00000.m HH> m. + mmmmm.m n000e.m 0.0+ mmmm~.m mmmmm.q H> 0.0+ ooooq.oH mmmma.q 0. + 50000.0 x000w.q > n.m+ oooou.oH 50000.0 N.0+ ooo00.¢ ooooq.m >H m.H+ 00000.5 50000.0 N.0+ oooo0.n oooo~.n HHH ~.H+ n000w.0 50000.0 0.0+ ooooo.mH oo000.0 HH 0. + n00m.m mmmmm.m q. + x000q.m n000o.m H modwdmmman umom mum modmummmfim umom mum Hoosom swam HoocumIcH dem m>fiumdmdooo ON I mdoom mHnfimwom mHoocom wouomHmm hudmae man dH doHuoduude Ho mdem zoom dH mummHIumom odd mum do oodamuu< moodmdmmmxn odd mdwwz mwmdwqu mm UHan 139 .ooowo.0. .m000m.w; .000Hm.n 0. + mmm~0.0 0.N+ mwmdm>< 0.0+ 00000.0 00000.0 0.0+ 00000.0 00000.0 xx 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.0 xxx 0.0I 00000.0 00000.00 0.0+ 00000.00 00000.0 HHH>x 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 000x 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 00x 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 0. I 00000.0 00000.0 0x 0.0+ 00000.0 00000.0 0.0+ 00000.0 00000.0 00x 0. I 00000.0 00000.0 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 000x 0.0I 00000.0 00000.0 0. + 00000.0 00000.0 00x 0. I 00000.0 00000.0 0.0+ 00000.0 00000.0 0x modemMMHm umom mum modmummmam umom mum Hoozom dem m>0umumdooo om n whoom mHAmeom dem HoosomIdH 00000000000 00 00000 140 N.H+ mmmmm.H~ mmmmH.cm n. I ooooo.mm 00000.mm x 0.N+ mmmmm.o~ ooooo.0H m.m + mmmmH.mN mamom.mH xH m.HI mammm.mH mmmmH.HN m. I mmmmm.mH mmmmm.mH HHH> m.~+ 0000N.mm mmmmm.o~ 0.N + oooou.mm ommmm.~N HH> 0.H+ mmmmm.0H mmmmH.0H 0.0 + 00000.0H 00000.~H H> m.m+ oooow.0H mmmmm.NH m. I mmmmm.wH 00000.0H > 0.N+ Nmmmm.m~ 0000N.mN m.HH+ mmmmm.~m 0000o.HN >H 0.N+ 00000.HN 0000¢.mH 0.N + 0000N.mN 00000.N~ HHH 0.0+ mmmmm.wm n000o.o~ H.m + mammn.wm Nmmmn.H~ HH N.H+ mommm.mm mmomm.HN H.N I mwmom.¢H 00000.HN H modmuommxm umom mum mododeMHQ umom ohm Hoosom dem HoonomIdH dMHm m>0umnmmooo 00 u whoom mHnfimmom mHoonom wouomHMm hudUBB mnu d0 dowuoduude 00 mdem doom d0 mummHIumom 0dm mum do vmdfimuud moodmumMMHn 0dm mdmmz oHumEcqu< mm mHQMH 141 0.N+ 000mn.NN mmmom.om n.~ + Nmmn0.mm Nmmwm.oN wwwum>< m. + mmmmm.m~ mmmmm.q~ q. I 00000.o~ x000o.HN xx m. + n000o.NN ¢mamn.HN H.m + 0000N.aN mmmmH.om xHx N.0+ ammmn.NN ammmm.wH 0.N + Nmmmm.mH mmmmm.xH HHH>x H.0+ Nmmmn.0m mmmmm.~m 0. I mmmmm.mm oooom.qm HH>x m.H+ Nmmmm.NN n000o.HN m.H + ooooo.- 00000.0N H>x 0.H+ 0000~.0N mommm.~m x. + mmmmH.NN 00000.HN >x m. + mmmmw.HN Nmmmm.om m. I 00000.HN ooooo.HN >Hx m.q+ 00000.0N mmmmm.om m.m + 00000.0N Nmmmm.qm HHHx H.m+ 0000N.mN oooom.wH H.H I mmmmn.HN m0000.- HHx N.N+ oocom.- ooooo.o~ ¢.HH+ mammm.mm 00000.HN Hx modwdeMHm umom mum modwdmmmaa umom mum Hoonom dem m>0umummoou 00 I muoom mHnfimmom dem HoofiomIdH 00000000000 00 00000 142 Table 54 Differences in Shorthand Scores Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In-School Plan I + 3.4 + 4.7 II + 5.5 + 3.9 III + 2.1 + 2.2 IV + 3.5 + 2.3 V + 9.3 + 4.6 VI +11.9 + 6.3 VII + 2.8 + 2.1 VIII + 1.7 +16.3 IX + 2.5 + 1.7 X + 1.4 + 3.1 XI + 2.7 + 1.6_ XII -10.8 + 4.0 XIII _,4.7 + 1.3 XIV +13.2 +11.6 XV + 1.2 + 7.6 XVI + 1.7 + 3.3 XVII + 1.0 — 1.0 XVIII + 4.7 + 5 XIX + 2.3 + 6.6 XX + 9.5 + 8.5 143 Table 55 Differences in Typewriting Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In-School Plan I + 2.8 +3.0 II + 4.6 +4.8 III + 4.5 0 IV + 2.3 +1.7 V + 2.2 +4.5 VI + 5.3 +3.9 VII + 3.5 +1.9 . VIII — 3.3 —5.7 IX + 4.6 —1.3 X - 2.1 +3.3 XI + 8.9 +4.4 XII + 4.2 —1.4 XIII — 3.2 — .5 XIV +13.3 +1.2 XV - .3 +7 3 XVI - 2.6 + .4 XVII — .2 -1.7 XVIII + 8.1 —4.8 XIX + 2.9 +3.9 144 Table 56 Differences in Business Vocabulary Scores Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both.P1ans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In—School Plan I +3.2 +2.5 II +7.1 +3.9 III +3.3 +2.7 IV +9.7 +2.3 V +1.2 +2.3 VI +3.1 +2.2 VII +2.4 +3.7 VIII +2.0 +2.1 IX +4.7 +1.9 X +2.1 +2.1 XI +6.9 +3.3 XII +4.1 +2.3 XIII +2.3 +2.0 XIV +3.9 + .9 XV +1.9 +2.3 XVI +1.1 +2.0 XVII +1.8 + .1 XVIII +5.2 +7.7 XIX +9.1 +1.7 XX +2.9 +3.1 145 Table 57 Differences in Checking Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In—School Plan I + 2.4 + 2.1 II +13.3 + 7.3 III + 4.5 - 3.6 IV +19.5 + 3.7 V + 1.6 + 2.8 VI + 8.9 + 5.5 VII + 2.1 + 3.5 VIII + .6 + 1.6 IX + 4.6 + 1.5 X + 5.5 + 1.1 XI +20.7 + 2.4 XII + 6.1 + 6.7 XIII +10.7 + 6.4 XIV + 5.6 + 1.3 XV «09.1 + 3.4 XVI‘ 0.3.9 + 3.6 ‘XVII + 2.1 + 3.3 XVIII‘ + 6.3 +12.3 XIX +18.8 + 4.5 XX + 5.4 + 9.4 146 Table 58 Differences in Coding Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In-School Plan I — 5.7 + 1.5 II +13.1 + 8.4 III + 7.9 + 4.9 IV +11.6 + 8.7 V — 2.1 + 3.1 VI + 5.4 + 5.2 VII + 7.9 + 7.6 VIII — 2.9 + 4.5 IX + 9.3 - .3 X + 3 + .7 XI +13.2 + 7 XII + 2.9 + 5.8 XIII +15.1 +11.0 XIV + 6.2 + .7 XV 0 1.0 + 1.1 XVI 0 4.1 + 5.4 XVII + 4.6 0 1.3 XVIII + 9.9 +35.6 XIX '+15.8 + 4.9 + .9 + 1.7 147 Table 59 Differences in Filing Scores Attained on Pre and Post-Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In—School Plan I + 2.9 +2.3 II +14.5 +4.1 III + 9.4 +4.3 IV +13.7 +3.7 V - 6.5 + .5 VI +10.1 +3.8 VII +14.5 +5.3 VIII + 2.5 +6.9 IX + 1.4 +1.1 X + 5.5 +2.2 XI +10.7 +4.1 XII + 3.9 +7.2 XIII + 7.1 +5.1 XIV - .2 +1.6 XV - 1.9 +1.0 XVI + 3.9 +7.1 XVII + .5 +2.5 XVIII + 7.7 +1.4 XIX +11.5 +5.1 XX + 3.7 +3.9 - 148 Table 60 Differences in Directions — Oral and Written — Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In-School Plan I + 7.0 + 5.9 II +11.5 + 6.9 III + 1.1 + 5.3 IV +12.1 + 5.4 V + 5.1 + 2.7 VI + 6.3 + 3.1 VII +12.4 + 4.0 VIII + 3.6 + 3.6 IX 0 + 2.1 X + 4.5 + 1.5 XI + 7.9 + 4.9 XII + 5.3 — 2.1 XIII + 1.3 + 6.1 XIV — .1 + .5 XV + .5 + 2.2 XVI + 1.5 + 3.9 XVII ~ 2.5 + .5 XVIII +19.7 +12.9 XIX +10.9 + 4.7 XX + 3.1 + 4 149 Table 61 Differences in Language Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan IneSchool Plan I + .4 + .5 II +4.4 +1.2 III + .4 +1.3 IV +4.2 +3.7 V + .6 +5.5 VI +5.4 + .5 VII +7.6 +2.9 VIII + .7 - .7 IX + .2 + .1 X + .9 - .1 XI +3.5 — .2 XII + .7 «1.4 XIII + 6 — .1 XIV +2.1 +1.7 XV 0 .9 + .5 XVI + .9 + .3 XVII + .1 + .4 XVIII +8.9 —5.8 XIX +7.3 + .1 XX +1.4 +1.0 150 Table 62 Differences in Arithmetic Scores Attained on Pre and Post—Tests in Both Plans of Instruction in the Twenty Selected Schools School Cooperative Plan In—School Plan I 0 2.1 +2.1 II + 7.1 +8.3 III + 2.6 +2.4 IV +11.3 +2.5 V - .3 +2.3 VI + 4.0 +1.4 VII + 2.4 +2.9 VIII - .5 —1.5 IX + 3.5 +2.4 X — .7 +1.2 XI +11.9 +2.2 XII — 1.1 +7.1 XIII + 3.5 +4.3 XIV — .5 + .9 XV + .7 +1.7 XVI + 1.3 +1.9 XVII - .7 +4.1 XVIII + 2.6 +4.2 XIX + 9.1 + .3 151 x x x x x uwumafiufiu< x x x x x x x x x ownswqu x x x x x x x x x x x x dmuu003 0 H000 mdofiuoodwm x x x x x x x x x x 00000.0 x x x x x x x x x wdeoo x x x x x x x 00000000 x x x x x x xdednmoo> mmodfimdm x x x wdxufldsomxs x x 0dm£uuonm om mH 0H NH 0H 0H 0H mH NH HH 0H m m n 0 m 0 m N H mHoodom 0000000 000000 00I0000 000 00 000 000 00 00000 00000000 000002 000 00 udodo>mH£o< mo Ho>oH swam m woumofiodH mHoodom wouooHom xudmze mnu d0 mudowdum o>Humxmdoou m0 mHan 152 x x x x x x x x x x x 0000000000 x x x owddwde x x x x x x x dmuufidz 0 Hmdo mdoHuomme x x x x x x x wdHme x x x x x x x wdeoo x x x x x x x x 00000000 x x x xudenmoo> mmodxmdm x wdwufiuzmdxa x 0dm£udonm om mH 0H NH 0H 0H 0H mH NH HH 0H m m x 0 m e m N H mHoonom doxmmom Hoonom NnImeH wan wo 0dm mfiu um mummH kuooHom 00x00: mau d0 udodo>mH£o< mo Hw>oH.£wa m wmumoawdH mHoonom vmuooHom mudm3e «do d0 mudocdum HoonomIdH 00 mHnMH nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES llWWWW11111111111“W1111111111111 31293103062141