a V A. \V. VVVV
.V
V V
VmVVuuuVichhﬁg L
Ta 3.

a... ..
3.5:! V... .
r V.. .1 IzrﬁJiVAiViuﬂtw g Ewart: up... VVV vVNKHV. 55+? VVVVVr
. .2krﬁphrmg V.....Vrnkhm 1' . V, V . . E V
. : V. 1
V in”. EV‘SV?
‘%.E'P“nul - 5

V V?
. V {.11.‘ Q 5
q ,5? Y r V‘u‘érs . V in. c . V V -
V.....VVVVHnV VVVV . V. V .V... .3. V meﬂmwnmmq. MMWVVSWMMWVV
V. V n hmﬂywﬂmﬁz a. he 9..wa .V V4 4 V. V. V V. .VuV buggy“. V: V
.V V V. VVVVVVz ammeVVVVVVWVMVVaVVVVVVVVaVVVVVVVJ; Val» 53% V V. :. .VVVV 7 La. V V V V V «wt.
. V. HIM. Ru.#%.tﬂkmmm .71 V..: um. .09 $7.». u .1 a. V V .V
V....VQVQeV-Vowk .vau. r6955; Hungamw.i . V I. 1 V V V
VVVVVnEVVVfVVVVVwEVV V. 5% VVVVV. V V. .V V V
.VIVbWVwV V .5 V2 V3.2.
V .. 1......

V'vuvu. 1 VV V V t
.sVVVVVVmVVVsVVVV .VVVVHVVIVVVVVVV V meVMVVwVVVVV . V V . V
V {31%qu V. VV V» .V V... V . V V

V V tiVVV. V....oalgéwﬁnnu. V..
. V V v VEVvaﬁhnﬁaugi. Virgina}?! V
V :5 g!3§=:€aﬁ.b§h. V2554. Z
zﬁﬁgéwﬁﬁnauagr 2.1... i
V. a V:

uv VLF!

7 V II»

.VVVVVVVVﬁ V . $3... .V
FEE. V V V.. V VVVVV. 53.;

maﬁa 9. 1.1:; «in .V .
.mVVVHV. .LVV

V
w VV V (”15.29.
V V .V V V T V. V .mVVuVVVVwVVVvV... . V
2V V V . . . V . I V V- V 1: VJ . V..\ v. Au 9.x
V." - JLWVVHHM“V .V .V V V VV V . V. VV A V.
72.4»! .V v I: V id? 5 . .1 . _ . V
.7 V S . V T V. V. ﬂan-7 V. n .V V V V V V
«mum... V . VV
V. V
VVSV V.....VV

V. . V
5V in} V‘ 3 V .i V i n V
V V 53!“ . V V V. V V .
V v .;.}8 u. I g: V . V o Mum}... .- V. I fail
I . V 1 V V V 1 V7! .. H I) t» Va V . . ¥V Tl;
V v.5.» 1...an gar. . V.....VVVKWWvVVVV. . 33403333.» VVVVVstanVVVnaVVVV. . V. VV.VVt...a. V V I V. V. 3. 11.23%le
. .I v. u n I. a. V V V ‘1 V VV V V
V: VVZVVVVuVVVVVVVVVVVVVEVVVuuaﬁV VV 4». .V as... .V... V. V V .5. mix): VVaaVnaVﬁVxluvshh wit. V. IR V . V
LaVVVVVVVVvhmrtV4954545.”... raw m, ...VV.V .V V? .. 25.... 2. V ~4ng hr VVIVV .s. . ZVVVV
zVVVVVVVrV+ViVVVVSV VPV 913:. . ..x. V. 5r . V. .VVVy surf} V LVV ..
V E§VVVJWL Mmmkunwiziggrﬁ V... . . Van... . . shumﬂ V... V
V . 1.71....OﬁTot .973. IVV total! til-gt L‘- l V.
$13791??? 'EVFLLVSaivrv I V..}...
I...» 31?;Muuoo. au‘f‘l\: p. to

V.

V

V. VVVVVVVVVVVVV. .VVVVVVVV. numb.

V2.3. . ; VVIVVVVVVVVVVunw uVﬂVVVVVVVVVVanVVVVV... ”an”. VVﬂwVeSnVVL... £834. V....ua V.
VVVVVVLVVVVVVHVLVEVVVVVV. VVVVLVVVVVLVEV.....«VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV V

V . V V anﬁJVVVX=YVVOVﬂVVI.Vfiivttrfttinbﬂwt? V

.V V V.. and. Vﬁmﬂwﬁvzafihﬁainipﬁ ;

V
V. NV . 17":
V Vznuuﬁusmug V .
. rhl 7‘ V ‘0: 1 . V
VL V . SVZVVVVVVINHVSVVIKVJ Vmu. mu. 95.1: “train,
3s. it?!“ V V V 11111 3310838...
. .. If. t)? V?! to." V f If V V . V .
VEVVVVVLV V“ .ViégnwwﬁVVMVVVHVVVVVVVVWVVVVIVVVVVEVVVVVVVS VVquﬁMVV 3V2 VVVVmeMVV.
V. V I V .
VV . razrtvf77¢!éb7r1r1V113V-IV;«V..? "$733.9? ‘0 V. V \gt.aadw..lv.l
vilievttrranV}vtvvvr.wto: frrlvvp rﬂa.frf:r himm: 5.12.... V V V 1&1 ‘20:...Vs2VV317
V 3.5.. VSVVV VV nit... L . VVVVVVVBVVVnaVVnﬂV: .z. . V. _ . Mfg; 3 :2. V . .
2.635.. r1: 1. AH. V. V . V . V V . .
intilﬁlé; V V V I V. V V V V n h V .V $15!;an V 3T1 V .
7: V II! 7 I V V V 57.7. 311,711. V V V V V. V V . V
V. is... V .V... . V Viv V V £5.13: ‘13:: $.53? .1513qu V VJVVuuuiaah V. V.....snxs V V .tVRMu JV VLF-4. V
.VVVVVV VVVVVVVVKVVVVVVVVVV_V .V V . . V IRVNVV. IMVVYVVVVVVUWVNVVV, a. an}: Iambimﬁéia $23"..sz : V V . a»; VstVVuVVVV V V
«.5252?! .1. V. V V V V . . V 3. V.. . V .V V .. V V V { V V
V. r... 1.3;.” .4. VV. . V V V. . V V é? . V. hMVS VIN. 13571V )1 illigbl it. . V..V V 14 “(I VVVHHVVJVunnnth Haw. VMV V.
A! iVﬁ,” IIIVQ—i .l I V V V . I ‘4 . . \lhl V-AVlyﬁnhlVa ‘1 1 :7 . . V V I t “\V‘IKIDV In L. V‘Ei. \-.?bV’i V‘ I
£I,r::rr1..r.iealﬁl . V V V. V V . V V . I V.. . . V 1 .424? .V slut: VﬁbitiuthﬂjLaﬁul .
. . V . . V V 21):. . V V . 2 I .l V
v .V Vv V... V. .V. 1 r V .VV V V . .mmmmaﬁl‘i 1V. ﬂail. V . V VbrrunuhVViVMVVuNhNvaﬁxizﬁVUMJ WU. .VHrﬁYV”
. . $91.. V.....bfrVV. V . V V V . V VV 3‘. ire-)7. V .. V V r Vus Punt. an. Vt Luriﬂﬁwuhwp . ‘VVVCLL 2‘ kg.
V . . vthVszuVahﬁrEiivSVQVaumﬂ. V V V V V. V 1 £11.55 V 4 >39... . Iv :0.
VV V. V. .VVaVVrhtVVVVvv-Vnitri.:!§vrrr!!. V V V . .V VV Vnﬂmn Vt 5...... V! )IVVtVirit.
V Illﬁiwlrlf. T??E:£ti7’.£i‘v12§i V . V \ V Q LK‘JVVWerICKVOZg
€4.72?! .fubﬁn 2:55. Shaw... V31, V V V V. V .V .5.
If". TquIAEDWTV’Il’: V nnrr‘gllry V. . V 31““... .11 VI 5' V VVV . V V V. it
V. :Vl-VRI'ZI";’* Id'fdl’z’fP’V-t’ 2‘s: 1’ u ‘ V. VV V
. V E. V let . N5}. . V
IVLNUVnﬂvﬁauirﬂVi . ggxﬂﬂﬂ as; .
V. V....V .I. V
2. VII 31. .1
1J1§V.Lgvg1xdmvtvhmw‘a
V . . 33i1\~(.)~4\ 733.3 V058“!
. V VV V. . . . V . V .. 3. V gwmmﬁaz V
.ZV V V V .V V .. V . V V . if?
.V Van 5rVrv..-r..V.V... 3 V .V . V . V
Mfr-whoa. ILIQXZJWVO an“. 9A.»... V .. . V V
101%: (a C. V V V
br'rrl):_.ru..s.u:l 4
l .V
In
.

aﬁw.
{‘9‘ h n~£f$ . a
5:258 35!?! VV
V . V g
. VVVVV 11110:. tang» V»
V 4 V
. I w n
1!:
far... “Farting Vikki...
, Li; r V ..
Sizglﬁ . 911'.
V :1

.3.
8V fvloflt’
{fffftVf .

V.. V... .
if Vi! V MFR-Vii“! E...
. #5 .V .V .VVVEVV V. V
V (33.. P VV a VI.. 5 VVVVVVL V..):
VVVVVVHVVHVV V??? .VIJVVVE VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVﬁVVVVV
1V: Inn-bimRV .V V VVIVnVVV‘V 5.25.... V V
99%.. EVVV 627i... V. V. V
. Lt. iiskaEKL‘ .1; 50252.»... V V
V..... VVUVVHWVVVVVVstVuﬂziVIVﬁEtVEt Ting Vﬁ... LVersz.
V . LtVMLFVVVV nLVVLLVHVAEiVVF‘r‘VVg V .‘VVLFVHUVVVVC‘:
V 3; «fix V V V. . V .VVVV V
VVVVVV VJ V NVVVVVVmVVVVtzJVVVVVVIVVzV?
V I I.
. V
V V. “VOL.
1.3L! 2V9. V, . .. . VVVVVrV VVVVVVVVVVanVVVV
V V . i V V
31.....VVVRVVVFVVVV V 2qu HtVzVVVV.VVV.¥VVti
is???) .255th V lliicfttVLEI
V a h: V V

Vvlliasziifr.
V..} (if. '13}! #r‘llll.
Vt!!! flr'?f:$.VI2P
it [5- )3 15-511.??? V
Pitt?!

.V..
V.. V

~ 3.5.2.}. 3...
.9 . V....EVVVavcuHV

V .V. V V {51.21.
V V V 2:2,...sz
V V .V V . HFVVVEVVV

. . .
V . . V V . .NL .IfLén - V.
V V E ”M §,§\¥ K955! [Lt
V .V .2! . V... V V V V .V V. .{5 VuVVnLVVVttzMivﬂjVWVVVVVn... .
Vi! Sit. V..... . V . .13 V V V.
. V I7... Vito. . V V gotyfu‘V 13%“:li . V
. V V V. . V ﬁg! . x: 33’}... n V
. V. . V V . V VVV an: {A V . V
V V V . {E
.V V... V. . V: V . V r V . VVVVLtoV. VthlLtzvaMVIIJV
. V.. V V .V V . V. {hug 32.11.): .11 u. fill
.V V V V V V V . . V V V V .V V V..}! L L. :ltruVV-VVtPMH‘Vuhn-WE.
V. n V VanVt. V .V V .5. V . n! .V V .V. . V V V.. V V V thkmwwﬂtrﬁmt‘eﬁti Elia: 2:.
.VVVVVtIVI : V n V, . :3... .n V V V leluiVﬂw;
~1er f/ vaIIwaVtﬂﬂvV ”Ilka-HUL- V . m V . o‘i?!‘.l<2tlilf$vuﬁkn\trit V . .
V giig¥§..zﬁ:4 V . V V I V L
V . . . rrrl V . V... V
{“14}. V£VTHVVVVVVXEViLVI
V...

.5:
V V
$1.3.“ VVVLV. V. V :2. :n
. r53 VIVVVVVVVVVVE§
. . (21:29:23; rxlﬂ. Vt;
{t -A . V x IV}. V V 1v; u
ENE? V :2; V
c «4

5115
t ..
varz. L?!-

V I L.
. V.. V..;Lfir
Ly??? #25:?ng .9 V. V..;
. 3.5:...vi «EPIKVVVII {.EVKFURIFV
Vftx’zV'qV n. V. VIV 2. VIE: V é’é‘EVEVﬁV

V V. V.. V :1
V
VVVVV .111. (Vt! Lt.
(V.. VEIVVVVVVIVnVcrl:
V V.,. ZVVVVlVV} ix
urgininfit
V V

. V :81...
V. V. V Hunt. JV .3
V..;V 9..ng
1 ‘
1%.??? V.. V V V
{1393)}:er ff: ha» V V, V..}...
V V. .V .
.VVnVVanVrsiuuVﬂSdeVv. Enact .Wrzﬁtbztﬁﬁ
V .. .. V; V . V V..... V
V. V .2: VVV .3 V. V VVV... V V.....V .
Vi V..;VVVVVVVVVVVVVﬁVVVVVVzViV has; $57,553."; V 3%..
V n V. 13....{ gi‘ th.‘ 1» 11.9% gab? X VV-rV.
. V VVVV V....aVVaIVVVVVaVVVVV .ervbnxtiérefrVVrﬁIVxV.
V52: “V92 .VVVVVVVVV VVEVVVnﬂVV.VVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVurVV? VVVVVEVVVVVVVVzVVVVWVVVVVzVVRNVVV
V. r V . V. . V hunt V V
V V V. VVVVVVVVJVVVVVFUVVVVVVVVVHSV 33V 2 $92., .ghwﬁdmwuafl V V «.2.
. .V 1 V obfVEEQﬁV V 1" ’3: V. ‘3 V
V. V: V VﬁliﬁsVVVVﬁﬁiilsiV V E
V VVVVVVVVV.§4VVVVVV

 

. .V
IKwaJvN;
V. Vr. V VV.VVVV.VV V.V .
V VV V V..
V V .VVVVVVVVVV
VV£VV u .h».: VVVVVVVVV .VVVV V

~L8§3

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF A SELECTED SET OF
FORMS TYPENRITING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

presented by

Gloria Hewitt Kielbaso

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph.D. degree in Education

ﬁLPéhAZS /C%«€oq~eL/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Major professor

DateﬂﬂlEﬂlDﬁLIiLJﬂBJ.

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

bViESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS:

Place in book drop to
LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i) ('2 :85, 7} Ci"! 0

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF A SELECTED SET OF
FORMS TYPENRITING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

By

Gloria Hewitt Kielbaso

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Curriculum

1981

ABSTRACT

EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF A SELECTED SET OF
FORMS TYPENRITING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

By

Gloria Hewitt Kielbaso

The study was an evaluation of a set of instructional
materials in forms typewriting by business educators and
business employees whose forms were represented in the
instructional materials. The purpose of the study was:

(1) To determine what content is appropriate for teaching
forms typewriting based on responses made by business
teachers and business employees. (2) To determine if there
is general agreement between teachers and employees on the
types of instructional materials utilized in teaching forms
handling and typewriting. (3) To determine if the changes
that are occurring in the world of work today need to be
considered in evaluation of instructional materials.

(4) To compare the evaluations of the instructional
materials with four groups: (a) users of the current
materials, (b) non-users of the materials, (c) employers
who hire or supervise clerical employees, and (d) employees
currently working in clerical positions.

Questionnaires were mailed to 204 participants, yield-
ing a response rate of 60.7 percent. Information regarding
appropriateness/intention, content/methodology, organization

and evaluation of the materials was obtained. Responses for

Gloria Hewitt Kielbaso
all four groups were analyzed and cross-tabluations were
performed to show comparisons.

The following conclusions were: Content is approprnne
for high school office practice courses, clerical training
programs in business, and adult refresher courses. Materi-
als teach valuable concepts, help attain objectives, repre-
sent real world, and only one known that concentrates on
forms. Change in work world, such as terminology, equip-
ment, and new and emerging businesses should be considered
in revisions. Content needs diversity, clearer directions,
challenging assignments, and wider variety of business
forms. As a result, evaluation of instructional materials
through a systematic process may provide a better rationale
for preparing materials for students making the transition

from school to work.

DEDICATED
to
My husband, Jim, and children, Julie_and Jimmy,

for their patience, understanding,
and constant encouragement.

ii

       

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researcher wishes to acknowledge her sincere
appreciation to the following:

Dr. Robert Poland, Chairman of the Guidance Committee,
whose wise counsel and recommendations made this study
possible.

Professors Ellis Thomas, Billie Rader, Howard Hickey,
and Rosetta Wingo, for their timely suggestions, construc-
tive criticism, and thoughtfulness.

Ms. Gail Modlin and Dr. Richard Peterson, Gregg
Division/McGraw-Hill Book Company, for their support of
this study.

Professors M. V. Moore, Helen Green, and John Kraeer,
for their professional guidance and encouragement.

Dr. Cas Heilman and the Career Education/Vocational
Education Resource Center staff, who added a new dimension
to my professional life.

To business employees and business education teachers
for their cooperation.

To Jean Terrell for her assistance in preparing the
final draft.

To all my friends and colleagues for their constant

reassurance and continued support - thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................... V11
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1
Statement of the Problem .......................... 3
Questions ......................................... 7
Background of the Study ........................... 8
Significance of the Problem ....................... 10
Definition of Terms ............................... 11
Delimitations of the Study ........................ 12
Assumptions ....................................... 12
Organization of the Study ......................... 13
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............... 14

What Has Been to Indicate a Need for This Study ... 15
What Supports Doing the Study ..................... 17

Earlier Studies Justifying Need for Further Reseamﬂi 18

 

 

 

 

Comparison of Similar Kits ........................ 21
Forces That Promote Evaluation .................... 26
CHAPTER 3. PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION ............. 36
Introduction ...................................... 36
Population ........................................ 36
Users ........................................ 37

Non-Users .................................... 38

 

iv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employees .................................... 38
Businesses ................................... 38
Preparation of the Questionnaire .................. 39
Data Collection ................................... 42
Method of Analysis ................................ 44
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS ................................... 46
Introduction ...................................... 46
Research Question No. 1 ........................... 48
Research Question No. 2 ........................... 56
Research Question No. 3 ........................... 59
Content/Methodology .......................... 59
Organization ................................. 64
Evaluation ..... ............................... 68
Research Question No. 4 ........................... 72
Content/Methodology .......................... 72
Organization ................................. 75
Evaluation ................................... 77
Research Question No. 5 ........................... 80
Content/Methodology .......................... 80
Organization ................................. 83
Evaluation ................................... 85
Research Question No. 6 ........................... 87
Research Question No. 7 ........................... 96

 

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105
Introduction ...................................... 105

 

 

 

 

vi

Question #1 .................................. 107
Question #2 .................................. 108
Question #3 .................................. 109
Question #4 .................................. 110
Question #5 .................................. 111
Question #6 .................................. 112
Question #7 .................................. 113
Conclusions ....................................... 114
Recommendations ................................... 116
APPENDIX A. APPLIED OFFICE TYPENRITING ................ 120

APPENDIX B. LIST OF FIRMS REPRESENTED IN
APPLIED OFFICE TYPENRITING ................ 122
APPENDIX C. LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE ................. 123
APPENDIX D. MAP ....................................... 132
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 133

Table

10

11

12

13

 

LIST OF TABLES

Users, Non-Users, and Employees Forming
Population for the Study ........................ 43

Response Rate of Mailed Questionnaires .......... 46

Respondents' Indications of Appropriateness
of Instructional Materials for Secretarial
Courses ......................................... 49

Respondents' Indications of Highly Appropriate
and Appropriateness of Instructional Materials
for Secretarial Courses by Rank Order ........... 51

Indications of Appropriateness of Instructional
Materials for Secretarial Courses by
Profession (Teachers/Employees) ................. 53

Business Teachers' Reasons for Using the
Instructional Materials ......................... 55

Non-Users' Reasons for Making Use of the
Instructional Materials ......................... 56

Reasons Current Non-Users Cannot Make Use of
the Instructional Materials ..................... 58

Respondents' Appraisals of Content/Methodology
of Applied Office Typewriting ................... 62

Comparison of Teacher and Employee Appraisals
of Content and Methodology of Applied Office
Typewriting by Several Criteria ................. 63

 

Respondents' Appraisal of Organization of
Applied Office Typewriting by Several Criteria .. 65

 

Comparison of Teacher and Employee Appraisals
of Applied Office Typewriting, Organization by
Several Criteria ................................ 67

Respondents' Appraisal of Evaluative Methods
of Applied Office Typewriting ................... 69

vii

viii

Comparison of Teacher and Employee Appraisals
of Evaluative Methods of Applied Office
Typewriting .................................... .

 

 

Comparison of Teacher Users' and Teacher Non—
Users' Appraisals of Content and Methodology

of Applied Office Typewriting by Several

Criteria .........................................

 

Comparison of Teacher Users' and Teacher Non-
Users' Appraisals of Applied Office Typewriting,
Organization by Several Criteria ................

 

Comparison of Teacher Users' and Teacher Non-
Users' Appraisal of Evaluative Methods of
Applied Office Typewriting ......................

 

Comparison of Supervisory and Clerical
Evaluations of Content and Methodology of
Applied Office Typewriting by Several Criteria...

 

Comparison of Supervisory and Clerical
Employees' Evaluation of Organization of
Applied Office Typewriting by Several Criteria...

 

Comparison of Supervisory and Clerical
Employees' Appraisal of Evaluative Methods
of Applied Office Typewriting ...................

 

Respondents' Appraisal of Importance of
Subject Matter for Beginning Office Workers .....

Respondents' Opinions of Other Forms That
Should Be Included in Future Revision ...........

Respondents' Appraisal of Other Terms or
Expressions That Should Be Included in a
Future Revision .................................

Respondents' Ratings of Illustrations in the
Current Forms Instructional Materials ...........

Respondents' Opinions of Supplementary
Materials in Future Revision ....................

Years Teaching Experience of Business
Education Teachers by Users and Non-Users
of Instructional Materials ......................

Number of Years Office Work Experience of
Business Education Teachers: Users and Non-
Users Compared ..................................

28

29

3O

31

32
33

ix

Number of Students in Business Education
Department of Teachers: Users and Non-Users

Compared ......................................

Number of Years Work Experience of Employers
and Employees in Firms Represented in

Instructional Materials .......................

Years of Teaching Experience of Employers/
Employees in Firms Represented in

Instructional Materials .......................

Number of Employees Working in Same
Department as Employers and Employees in
Firms Represented in Instructional Materials

Respondents' Place of Employment ..............

Types of Business Represented by

Employers/Employees ...........................

.. 104

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

During the 1970's, a number of innovative activities
and exemplary programs and projects in vocational education
were developed at the federal, state, and local levels.
Personnel associated with these programs are becoming
increasingly aware of the need for information related to
accountability and needed improvements. Review of the lit-
erature indicates that there is a wide variety of approaches
to evaluating programs and materials; however, the real need
is for educators to become acquainted with evaluation models
and materials available for assessing particular programs.

Educators often view their primary role as teaching or
”dispensing knowledge," while evaluation is viewed as a much
lower priority. Others feel that they do not have the
necessary skills in research and evaluation. Still others
look at evaluation as a protection of "self-interest" and as
a subjective assessment.

It is true that some evaluations do not address the
questions that specific audiences are most interested in
finding the answers, and in some cases, comparisons are not
made to determine if the program or materials have really

effected change. The need for evaluating is very real

2
because both programs and materials are necessary for
effective teaching and learning.

Classroom materials generally exert a great deal of
influence over the content and methodology used in the
course. These materials should be adopted only after care-
ful evaluation. Even though subjective judgments do occur
in evaluation, a checklist of elements to be considered may
establish minimal criteria and help organize an examination
process. If the selection is to be made by a committee,
criteria and organization are essential if the process is
to appear systematic.

Local conditions and other variables also influence the
criteria used for selection. Some school systems have a
standard guide to be used by all departments. Business edu-
cation departments or committees may devise a guide. Text-
book evaluation guides such as those suggested by Daughtrey
(1974) and Seldon (1960) provide business education
teachers with pre-established criteria on which to base a
judgment of a textbook. According to Stake (1975), content
is the primary criterion for evaluating a textbook. Under
some conditions, physical features, authorship, cost, pub-
lisher, and adaptability to local conditions have been known
to outrank content.

Trends are forcing school administrators to examine
their budgets and to identify areas where cost-saving prac-
tices can be put into effect. The outcomes are to produce

the best possible results for the least possible expense.

 

3

Gaff (1975) says, "Unless we evaluate our programs and
demonstrate that they produce results in terms of better
courses or better educated students . . . we will all be out
of business" (p. 4).

There are a number of considerations which should apply
to any evaluation scheme. Instructional materials share a
number of characteristics. First, instructional materials
are chosen in a variety of different ways, i.e., state
boards, department Chairpersons, one teacher, several
teachers, parent groups,comxuned citizens. Second, instruc-
tional materials serve a number of different audiences,
especially business education instructional materials;
namely, high school typewriting courses, office procedures
courses, community college courses, four-year programs,
training programs in business, and adult refresher courses.
All of these courses could select the same textbook for a
particular purpose. Third, instructional materials are
highly competitive today. Similar products abound from
various teacher-made products to those produced by pub-
lishers. Fourth, instructional materials are usually not
evaluated by data that would indicate what impact they have

had on the teaching-learning system.

Statement of the Problem

 

During the past ten years, a variety of clerical
instructional materials have been utilized for vocational
settings, i.e., individualized instruction, laboratory

programs, computer-assisted instruction, and televised

instruction. Employment for the 1980's indicates a growing
need for clerical office employees whose duties include

typewriting and handling of forms (Occupational Outlook

 

Quarterly, 1980).

 

Research for this study was conducted to determine if
forms typewriting instructional materials utilized in these
vocational settings are relevant and useful for developing
those clerical skills needed for entry-level positions
today. The purpose of this study was:

(1) To determine what content is appropriate for teaching
forms typewriting based on responses made by business
teachers and business employees.

(2) To determine if there is general agreement between
teachers and employees on the types of instructional
materials utilized in teaching forms handling and
typewriting.

(3) To determine if the changes that are occurring in the
world of work today need to be considered in evaluation
of instructional materials, i.e., terminology, other
businesses and equipment.

(4) To compare the evaluations of the instructional
materials with four groups: (1) users of the current
instructional materials, (2) non-users of the materuﬂs,
(3) employers who hire or supervise clerical employees,
and (4) employees currently working in clerical

positions.

5

In the literature review, four major themes of evalu-
ation were observed. They were: (1) determine relevant
fevaluation criteria, (2) negotiate with various publics to
establish these criteria, (3) design an internal evaluation
process, and (4) determine ways of displaying and presenting
evaluative data.

When determining relevant evaluation criteria, it is
important to identify those individuals who have a vested
interest in the product; namely, the teacher, employer,
employees, publishers, school boards, and other individuals
who are likely to influence the use of the materials. These
individuals are asked to determine what their expectations
are of the product. The responses are then compiled, edited,
and categorized. Secondly, according to Eash (1975), nego-
tiation of evaluative criteria should define changes to be
made, bring together "conflicting viewpoints," and involve
”constituents" early in the evaluation process, thus giving
them a "vested interest" in the project. Next, an internal
evaluation process should be designed to fit the setting.

As noted in Chapter II, Review of Related Literature,
methods and models for conducting evaluation studies are
stated in the professional literature, and no one approach
will fit every situation.

Finally, strategies for displaying and presenting
evaluative data have been subject to debate. Regardless of
what criteria or methods are used or emphasized, a compre-

hensive evaluation scheme is likely to call for complex

6
arrays of data, surveys, or interview findings, statistics,
diaries, etc. According to Scheyer and Stake (1976, p. 1),
"the key is to establish a file or collection of records and
materials which broadly represents the program."

As a case in point, the researcher selected a set of
instructional materials used in business education with
implications for making classroom teachers aware of the
value and limitations of textbooks. As a result of this
study, evaluation of instructional materials through a sys-
tematic process will hopefully provide a better rationale
for preparing materials for students making the transition
from school to work. The objectives of this evaluation wema
(1) to develop a questionnaire based on input from educators
and business employees for the purpose of evaluating the
selected instructional materials, (2) to distribute the
questionnaire to business teachers who are currently using
the instructional materials and to business teachers who are
not using the materials, as well as to employers and
employees of businesses appearing in the selected materials
for the purpose of gathering information regarding the cur-
rent status of forms instructional materials, (3) to analyze
the results of the questionnaires by providing a descriptive
analysis of the responses utilizing the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences, and (4) to provide recommendations
for a set of instructional materials in forms typewriting

based on an analysis of the data gathered.

7

Questions

 

This study provides information to respond to the
following research questions:

1. Is the material appropriate for programs in
education and business/industry?

2. Can respondents who are not currently using the
materials identify ways to incorporate the materials into
their classroom/training program?

3. Does a relationship exist between the responses of
educators and business employees in terms of content/method-
ology and organization of the instructional materials?

4. Does a relationship exist between the responses of
teachers currently using the materials and teachers not
using the materials?

5. Does a relationship exist between the responses of
employees who hire or supervise clerical employees and the
clerical employees?

6. 00 respondents evaluating instructional materials
in forms typewriting emphasize the importance of the subject
matter and offer suggestions for improvement?

7. Is there a relationship between the demographic
characteristics of business teachers (users and non-users)
and business employees (employers and clerical employees) in
terms of number of years of teaching, number of years work
experience, size of class/department, and place of

employment?

8
Background of the Study

 

In 1953, a study by Vern Allen Frisch, "An Analysis of
Clerical Business Typing Papers and Forms for the Improve-
ment of Instructional Materials," was undertaken at New York
University for the requirements for the Ed.D. in business
education. As a result of the study, a set of instructional
materials was developed in 1955 for high school clerical

typewriting classes known as Applied Office Typewriting (see

 

Appendix A). Since 1955, the materials have undergone four
revisions. Current trends in office work; implications of
new technology; social changes, teaching methods; and vari-
ous types of institutions, methods, and materials necessi-
tate evaluation of business education instructional
materials. These instructional materials are used in class-
room settings for the purpose of preparing students to han-
dle forms and perform other clerical duties on the job.

Since the early 1960's, typewriting has been one of the
top electives in secondary schools in the United States.
Most typewriting courses include instruction on forms type-
writing. Forms typing and handling is a skill every typist
needs to know, and should know, for an entry-level position.
Teachers, too, should have knowledge of forms, their nature,
use, and handling in order to provide more effective instnx>
tion. According to Quible (1980):

The purpose of the form must be defined in

order to determine the type of information to be

included on a form, the number of copies that

will be needed, the routing of each copy, and the

nature of the directions or instructions for com-
pleting the form. (p. 531)

9
Most forms are not set up to typewriting line spacing. The
typist needs to know how to make the necessary machine
adjustments on the typewriter in order to type properly on
the form. Quible (1980) further states that much employee
time and effort is expended in aligning forms, and therefore
alignment of items should be a major factor to consider in
designing the form.

Most forms also require 'typing of numbers. Students
should have adequate skill in typing numbers and symbols
before entering the office. They should be able to total
dollar amounts on forms, and know how to compute the inter-
est rates, shipping charges, etc. According to Quible
(1980), adequate identification is another major factor to
consider in forms design and handling. Students should be
able to recognize forms by title, such as wills, medical
records, personnel forms, and income tax forms, invoices,
purchase orders, and other data accounting forms. Grossman
(1976) suggests that even in day-to-day activities, people
complete forms on births, health records, driver's licenses,
applications for jobs and memberships, bank accounts, exams,
income tax forms, postal forms--all an important part of our
society. Quible (1980) states that "As more organizations
are installing extensive printing and duplicating depart-
ments with the necessary specialized equipment to print
forms, the forms are more frequently being printed inter—
nally" (p. 526). This suggests that as more forms are

developed, the need for knowledge in handling forms and

10
using the basic equipment to type forms is even more

crucial.

Significance of the Problem

 

Studies in the past serve as a prologue for the future.
Prior to the 1953 study in which Frisch analyzed business
forms for the purpose of developing instructional materials
for high school clerical typewriting classes, there were few
studies conducted to analyze the work of clerical employees
and the papers that were handled by those employees.

Because of advanced technology and changes in the labor
force, new materials and standards will be developed that
were not even possible in the past. As more sophisticated
hardware is developed to assist in handling office work, it
is probable that office jobs will become even more special-
ized. Specialization could also mean that the general
office clerk of today may be extinct in the 1990's, and
there will be a need for more short-term training to prepare
students to operate equipment or to handle a variety of
papers such as forms. Ondtm-job training is currently being
provided in the private sector as jobs become more special-
ized. The possibility of an instructional packet that can
be used in the classroom, as well as for on-the-job tranung,

is unlimited.

11

Definition of Terms

 

The following definitions of key terms used in this
study are provided:
Applied Office Typewriting (A91) - the instructional materi-
als evaluated for this study. See also "instructional
materials packet" and ”kit."

Business Clerical Employees - clerical personnel who have

 

been identified by the business supervisors as those
employees who spend a large part of their working day
typing on forms and who work in the firms represented

in Applied Office Typewriting.

 

Business Supervisory Employers - personnel who hire or
supervise clerical workers in the firms represented in

Applied Office Typewriting.

 

Evaluation - a process of assessing instructional materials.

[erg - a piece of paper that contains some data that is
printed, and blank spaces in which other data is col-
lected by the typist and recorded, using a typewriter.

Forms Typewriting - printed specimens of forms used in the

 

classroom to teach student typists how to handle, pre-
pare, and type on forms for the purpose of developing
employability skills.

Instructional Materials Packet - the existing packet of

forms materials known as Applied Office Typewriting

 

currently being evaluated (also referred to as ”ACT“

or ”kit").

12

Non-Users - a sample of high school business education
teachers identified by the current users as teachers
who are not using Applied Office Typewriting, but are
qualified to assess the materials.

Deep; - a sample of high school business education teachers
who have been identified by Gregg/McGraw-Hill as
currently using Applied Office Typewriting.

 

Delimitations of the Study
The study was an analysis of a set of instructional
materials designed to teach students how to type on forms.
No attempt was made to evaluate other textbooks or supple-
mentary teaching materials used in typewriting. The forms
were limited to those forms that appear in the instructional
materials packet. A questionnaire was developed for the

purpose of assessing Applied Office Typewriting. The

 

assessment was based on a sample of teachers currently using
the materials, teachers who are not using the materials but
are business education teachers, and business employees who
hire or supervise clerical employees, and clerical workers
in those businesses that are identified in the current

instructional materials.

Assumptions

 

The following basic assumptions are made in this study:
It was assumed that a panel of experts could assist in
developing an instrument for evaluating instructional materi-

als in forms typewriting based on ranking a list of

13
questions concerning content/methodology, organization, and
evaluation of instructional materials.
It was assumed that a sample of teachers would be
identified and selected from McGraw-Hill Publishing Com-

pany's list of current users of Applied Office Typewriting.

 

It was assumed that a sample of teachers known as non-
users would be identified by the current users of Applied

Office Typewriting as business teachers not currently using

 

the materials but qualified to assess materials for that
area.

It was assumed that those businesses represented in the
current instructional materials would cooperate in identify-
ing supervisory and clerical employees who would evaluate
the materials.

It was assumed that on the basis of this study, recom-
mendations could be made for developing an up-to-date
instructional materials packet in forms typewriting based on

an assessment of the evaluations.

Organization of the Study

 

The study will be organized as follows:

A
I

Chapter Introduction to the Study

Chapter Review of Related Literature

Chapter Procedures for Data Collection

Findings

2
3
Chapter 4
5

Chapter Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendations

 

 

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The collection of information and materials for this
dissertation was completed in March, 1981. An ERIC search,
dissertation abstract search, and manual search of the
Business Education Index was conducted to determine what is
available in evaluation of instructional materials in busi-
ness education and in forms typewriting. The National
Institute for Education in Washington, DC, arranged an on-
site visitation at the resource center and provided copies
of several publications on evaluation Of materials and pro-
grams in education. The National Network for Curriculum
Coordination in Vocational-Technical Education (NNCCVTE),
as well as the National Center for Research in Vocational
Education at Columbus, Ohio, and the Maryland Curriculum
Center in Vocational Education conducted a search for cur-
riculum materials in forms typewriting. Inquiries to pub-
lishers of typewriting materials requesting information on
typewriting kits and a study of Phi Delta Kappa's evaluation
of evaluation models was useful for this study.

While there appears to be a limited quantity of
instructional materials in business education that have been

evaluated as a result of a formal research study (many of

14

15

which are done on syllabic intensity, word count, termin-
ology). other forms of textbook evaluations do take place.
One problem is the extent to which evaluation data is used
by decision makers. Through this study, it is anticipated
that feedback from this evaluation could have a substantial
impact on evaluation of other instructional materials in
business education.

In this section,the reseacher hasreviewed and
synthesized the available current literature concerning the
following:

- What has been done to indicate the need for the study.

What supports doing a study.

Earlier studies justifying need for further research.

Forces that promote evaluation.

What Has Been Done to Indicate a Need for This Study

 

Systems changed, attitudes changed. In all of
office history, there has never been a decade as
astounding as the one just past. (Kleinschrod,

1980, p. 26)

It was as early as 1924 that office workers used a
typewriter to prepare business forms. In 1953, Frisch's
study, "An Analysis of Clerical Business Typing Papers and
Forms for the Improvement of Instructional Materials,"
recommended that materials be developed to simulate office
tasks such as forms handling and typewriting.

Most of the research in business education during the

'50's was in the form of descriptive studies of traits of

office workers, effectiveness of teaching methods, and

16
follow-up studies of graduates of office education programs.
The purpose of Frisch's research was to analyze actual busi-
ness papers and forms in order to develop instructional
materials for high school clerical typewriting classes that
would adequately prepare students for entry-level clerical
positions. Frisch taught a clerical practice laboratory
terminal course in New Rochelle, New York, for fourteen
years. It was through this course that he saw the need to
upgrade skills of those students who did not take shorthand
but expected to become clerical typists, filing clerks,
machine operators, receptionists, telephone operators, and
any other type of clerical office work that did not include
shorthand. In this course, Frisch observed that students
needed skill in typing all kinds of forms (sales and purchase
invoices, order forms, checks, financial statements, mail
cards, labels, ruled forms, etc.) and that the transition
from this course to work was not only easy for these stu-
dents,but a bonus to employers because of their high produc-
tivity rate so early in the new job.

Frisch was aware of the need for even better materials
to be produced in order to make his course more effective
and students more employable. His dissertation recommenda-
tions on new materials using real-world specimens of forms
from all types of businesses across the United States
assisted a clerical laboratory approach with omthe-job simu-
lation in the 1950's. Today, as a result of researchers

like Frisch, we have many materials that help develop

17
students' employability skills. These simulated or real-
world specimens used in the classroom are typical of what
one would encountercm the job.

As a result of his study, a set of instructional materi-
als known as Applied Office Typewriting was developed in
1955. To date, there has not been a study to determine if
the materials are still fulfilling the objectives of the
current courses and if the content is current and consistent
with today's business practices. Frisch had the foresight
to know that simulated materials would make a difference in
the learner's behavior. These outcomes make it possible for
this researcher to carry on a goal which Frisch and others
felt was very important for students in order for them to be

better prepared for the world of work.

What Supports Doing the Study
Administrative managers looking back at the

1980's from the perspective of 1991 will know how

they and their colleagues handled the big chal-

lenges of energY, executive productivity, informa-

tion processing, and office automation. The one

outcome that seems certain even now is that the
changes of the next ten years will outpace those

of the astonishing ten we sped through and now

call history. (Kleinschrod, p. 75.)

Technological advances in business machines make it
possible for even a beginning worker to produce products
that have a professional look. According to Quible (1980),
it is possible to develop a form on an office machine today
that looks as if it came from a printer. Business may or
may not expect clerical workers to type on forms. Initial

contact with the businesses represented in the set of

18
instructional materials being reviewed indicated that office
workers are still typing on forms, although many of the
forms and equipment have changed considerably in the past
three to five years. The current instructional materials to
be reviewed represent twentyeﬁnu‘actual businesses located
all over the United States (Appendix B). Considering the
changes that have taken place since 1953, a formal study is
needed to analyze the opinions of teachers and busineSs
workers who have a general knowledge of typewriting and
forms handling. The Gregg Division of McGraw-Hill Book
Company has indicated that while the market for this product
is sound, business and education should be utilized to
assist with revision. The staff at Gregg Division implied
that Frisch had made great advances in determining what
students needed in order to be better prepared for the world
of work, and a similar study in the 1980's could evaldate
earlier conclusions and possibly address some new consider-

ations.

Earlier Studies Justifying Need for Further Research

 

In 1949, Tyler stressed the basic principles of curric-
ulum and instruction in the form of four questions. What
purposes should the school seek? What experiences are pro-
vided to attain these purposes? Can experiences effectively
be organized? Can we determine if purposes are being
attained? During that time, the purpose of business educa-
tion was to provide education to individuals in order to

"seek gainful employment."

19

In the early 1950's, the military identified tasks.
An analysis of tasks determined the desired skill at the
conclusion of a unit. A sequence of tasks were performed to
attain a predetermined terminal performance. It was sug-
gested that learning was incremental. Through this idea.
the concept of programmed learning and computer-assisted
instruction (CAI) evolved.

The most prominent and potentially effective movement
in years was the result of Mager's developing vocational
instruction and preparing performance objectives. The age

of accountability soon came in the early 1970's. Objectives

 

were required as an integral part of planning and evaluatnnu
In an attempt to satisfy the public's interest and demand to
know more about the educational programs, accountability was
the key word (NBEA Yearbook, 1978).

In the November-December 1971 issue of Business Educa-

 

tion World, several objectives of career education for busi—

 

ness education were established by the U.S. Office of
Education. Some of these objectives parallel Frisch's
study. For example: (1) Make educational subject matter
more meaningful; focus it around a career development theme.
Frisch (1953) stated this same concern in his doctoral dis-
sertation. (2) Provide an opportunity to gain a marketable
skill before the student leaves school. (Frisch's study was
intended for this purpose.) (3) Provide an education system
which utilizes and coordinates its activities with all com-

munity resources. (Frisch advocated a strong liaison with

20
business and education.) (4) Increase educational and occu-
pational options to all through a flexible education system
which facilitates entry into the world of work and re-entry
into the educational system. (Frisch's materials and text-
book analysis were one of the earliest addressing this
objective.)

To synthesize the objectives from the U.S. Office of
Education, it is clear that instructional materials should
meet the needs of today's entry-level workers for business
education, and that through the use of up-to-date instruc-
tional materials, a student will most likely increase his/
her options and prepare for an occupation in a variety of
learning situations that continue to develop marketable
skills and provide for "gainful employment."

In 1978, the national outlook for employment of
clerical typists was estimated to be about 1,044,000. An
average of 59,000 annual job openings are well expected
through 1990. Employment is expected to grow about as fast
as the average for all occupations as business expansion
results in increased paperwork. There are very good oppor-
tunities for typists, particularly those who are familiar
with word processing equipment and are able to perform other
office jobs as well as typing (MOIS, Moiscript 65). The
forms instructional kit provides many of these experiences
not encountered routinely in a basiciwpewriting textbook.

In 1977, the Policies Commission for Business and

Economic Education stated "if we are to develop materials

21
for business we should include in our training, materials
about business." The mission of business education was edu-
cation "£91 and Apggt business." The Policies Commission
made twelve statements, three of which are applicable to the
current discussion. Statement 10 is to design programs to
develop communication; Statement 11 is to provide programs
that respond to current societal issues--computation,
skills, sex role stereotyping, bilingual, special needs, and
bicultural; and Statement 12 is to form an alliance with
business firms, associations, labor, or legislative groups.
Through the use of a kit such as is being considered in this
study, the classroom teacher could provide/arrange coopera-
tive work experience for the student, arrange for out-of-
class resource speakers from the businesses represented in
the kit, and provide for job shadowing experiences at these

businesses for their students.

Comparison of Similar Kits

 

Several kits in business education are similar, but

none are exact duplications of the kit Applied Office Typi-

 

writing. For the purpose of analysis, the following have
been reviewed as having similar qualities to the kit:

- Office Simulation Activities, North Carolina State

 

Department of Education, consists of nineteen task
simulations designed for use in developing the office
skills of business education students. Task simula-
tigng make it different from the real tggks listed in

Applied Office Typewriting.

 

22
(The) Gregg Office Job Training Program (OJT), Margaret
Andrews (editor), Gregg/McGraw-Hill, 1973, has similar
resource materials, but is not a forms typewriting kit.
It provides individual self-paced office job training
sequences for fifteen most common entry-level jobs.

Lester Hill Office Simulation, M. Krawitz, Gregg/

 

McGraw-Hill, 1979, includes a variety of jobs in a fic-
titious company for the purpose of developing and
applying a wide range of clerical skills.

Modular Competency-Based Curriculum: Secretary Skills,

 

 

HEW, Washington, DC, prepares an individual to perform
all duties that might be expected of an entry-level
clerical employee.

Office Simulation/Integrated Projects for Clerical

 

Office Practice, Business Education Department, Univer-

 

sity of Southern Mississippi, 1972, provides a simu-
lated set of clerical occupations containing masters of
forms needed for learning activities.

Shadow Mountain Lodge, 0. Church, Gregg/McGraw-Hill,

 

1978, a typewriting practice set including some forms
typing in several sections.

(The) American Wholesale Grocery and the Tennessee

 

Supermarket Integrated Clerical Project, Memphis State
University, includes handling forms, but does not
devote its entire kit to typewriting forms.

Clerical 9: Secretarial Vocational Office Education,

 

Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Florida, includes a

23
section on forms, but includes many other office pro-
cedures. Designed to help students acquire basic
skills needed to perform office jobs.

Clerical Techniques for a Business Career, Allyn and

 

 

Bacon, Inc., a one-year course for 10th, 11th, and 12th
grades provides an understanding of basic clerical
techniques.

Tower Typing: Using Sears, Roebuck p 99., Business

 

Forms, T. Ivarie, Gregg/McGraw-Hill, 1978, designed to
teach the student/typist about Sears forms and clerical
typing skills needed to work at Sears.

A pp Carte Enterprises Office Simulation, M. Ruehy,

 

Gregg/McGraw-Hill, 1976, integrates secretarial and
clerical skills and general office procedures,
includes forms.

Clerk-Typist Exploration, Portsmouth City School Board,

 

Portsmouth, Virginia, presents exercises designed to
simulate the job performed by a clerk-typist.
(The) Clerk/Typist, Indio Paper Company, Inc., Shinn,

 

 

Southwestern Publishing Company, 1974, includes a set
of materials which simulates a clerk/typist position
for a period of five work days.

Better Office Skills p Service: Student Manual, Civil

 

 

Service, Communications and Office Skills Training
Center, Washington, DC, workbook (refresher course)
designed to provide practical applications for govern-

ment clerical assistants.

OVEY‘

24

Competency-Based Clerk Typist Program, Career Aids,

 

Inc., contains 150 self-contained lessons in a two-
semester program which includes business forms in first

semester.

 

 

Aaron Insurance Company, Lee and McDonnell, South-
western Publishing Co., 1981, designed to provide
student with skill needed to work in clerical positions
in insurance companies.

(The) Legal Secretary, Freeman, Southwestern Publishing

 

Co., 1977, simulates legal secretary's position, duties
include working with documents.

Serendipity, Inc., A. Warren and B. Radcliff, South-

 

western Publishing Company, 1975, a simulated office of
a cosmetics firm. Includes forms used by reception-
ists, office managers, sales managers, accounting, and
shipping departments.

Clerical Office Procedures, Pasework and Oliverio,

 

Southwestern Publishing Co., 1978, includes discussion
of modern office procedures, job opportunities avail-
able in word processing and micrographics.

A textbook analysis in Frisch's study indicated that

seventy percent of the copy in a typing text was

straight copy typing, and that the other sources were still

too clear and legible (Frisch, 1953, p. 51):

It is one thing to train our pupils to type
straight copy material and quite another to
train them to PRODUCE work comparable to that
required in the business office . . . if we are
to develop a real program . . . in our class-
room, it means that we must have first-hand

25

information on the type of work performed by
typists in the business office.

Textbooks today, such as those listed on the preceding
pages, are found with many examples of rough drafts and
copies of materials that are not straight-copy typing, i.e.,
tables, financial statements, manuscripts, centering
projects. A review of the above-mentioned materials testi-
fies to the fact that since Frisch's study in 1953, pub-
lishers have been offering more than straight-copy typing
in instructional materials.

Today, office standards are often difficult to deter-
mine and are different for every business. Frisch's plea to
educators, industry, and business was that if we are to con-
tinue to grow, business and education ought to provide
office production standards.

Regardless of the status of testing and

standards, every effort should be made to give

the kinds of training needed in typing business

forms and papers, and to recognize that busi-

ness offices need and require various degrees

and kinds of production abilities. (Frisch,

1953, p. 54)

Frisch did an exhaustive review of related literature prior
to his 1953 study. His review demonstrated a need for
instructional materials in clerical typing training utiliz-
ing business papers. In 1974, Scott Ober, in "An Analysis
of the Business Working Papers Typed by Beginning Office
Workers," studied a random sample of one hundred beginning
office workers (from businesses throughout the United States

stratified by industry) who supplied copies of over 500

items they had typed. These sample items formed the basis

26
of his study. This study is the most recent similar study

comparable to Frisch's 1953 study (Ober, 1974).

Forces That Promote Evaluation

 

The value one puts on education does not

reveal their way of evaluating education.

(Stake, 1967)

Stake suggests that informal evaluation is recognized
by its dependence on casual observation, "implicit goals,
intuitive norms, and subjective judgment." Formal evalu-
ation, according to Stake, is recognized by its dependence
on "checklists, structured visitation by peers, controlled
comparisons, and standardized testing of students."

Instructional materials are being evaluated by a wide
variety of existing models. Depending on the model, the
method can take anywhere from one hour to one year. Schools
have checklists for evaluating textbooks before deciding
which to include in their curriculum. Some publishers pro-
vide checklists to consumers before they decide on a promxm.
State departments determine what should be included in their
curriculum management systems before deciding on materials
to be included in that system. Workshops are provided to
colleges and school districts to provide for a systematic
means of analyzing instructional materials. Educational
practitioners at state and local levels are called upon to
monitor the development of pupil progress and to evaluate
instructional materials. Even representatives of special

interest groups, as well as parents, demand that materials

27
be accountable in both management of activities and outcomes
of student participation.

In the past ten years, numerous training packages have
been developed to help general or specific audiences of
users gain the background or skills they will need to
respond to the demand for evaluation. Some of these train-
ing packages are well known and widely used, others are
inadequately disseminated, or too new. In the preparation
of research on the evaluation of forms instructional materi-
als in typewriting, it was imperative to determine what
evaluation instruments were available, what these instru-
ments were intended to do and for whom, and what resources
in terms of time, cost, and commitment were required by use
of these evaluation materials. It was also important to
determine how the materials were developed, tested, and
used.

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (Public Law 89-10) was passed, schools receiving funds
through this Act were required to submit evaluations of
their projects to state and federal agencies. After the
first reports were submitted, it was clear that personnel
were lacking in evaluation techniques. Evaluation centers
were established in several parts of the country. Dr.Daniel
L. Stufflebeam was director of one of the centers at Ohio
State University. He noted that personnel were not trained
in evaluation or evaluative theory and that there was a lack

of understanding of decision processes and information

28
requirements in programs of educational change. There was
also a lack of appropriate evaluation models for personnel
to use in order to evaluate programs (Stufflebeam, p. 5).
Since the passage of the 1965 Act (PL 89-10), a
variety of evaluation models have been developed. In ajxmer
by Wayne E. Carter given at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Educational Research Association in Washington, 1975, a
taxonomy of evaluation models for use in evaluating educa-
tional practices, programs, and materials was prepared for
the purpose of comparing and identifying those models that
would be beneficial for evaluating one's program. The
models were based on the Phi Delta Kappa National Study
Committee on Evaluation definition of educational evaluation
as the "process of delineating, obtaining, and providing
useful information for judging decision alternatives (Carter,
1975). The models that were presented are as follows:
(1) Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model developed by
Stufflebeam.
(2) Differential Evaluation Model developed by Tripodi,
Fellin, and Epstein.
(3) Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) developed by Provus.
(4) Developmental Evaluation such as the IPI Formative
Evaluation Model by Lindvall and Cos and the New Start
Evaluation System by Lamrock, Smith and Warren.
(5) Priority Decisions Model by Boyle.
(6) Materials Evaluation Models such as the Trade-Off and

Comparative Cost Approach by Crane and Abt.

29
(7) Participant Reaction Approach by Steele.
(8) Cost Effectiveness Model by Alkin.
(9) Decision Oriented Classification Schema by Alkin and

Wooley.

(10) Comprehensive Management Model for Title III projects.
(11) Ontological Evaluation Model by Pepr.

(12) Systems Approach Model by Yost and Monnin.

(13) Apex Model by Morgan.

(14) Cost Utility Models by Costa and Tanner.

(15) Synergistic Model by Hunter and Schooley.

(16) New Eclectic Model by Alkin and Kisecoff.

(17) Ott Model.

Since Carter (1975) has elaborated on each of the above
models, it is not the intent of this dissertation to discuss
the models but to indicate that a fair representation of
models based on Phi Delta Kappa's definition of educational
evaluation is available for the purpose of aiding an evalu-
ator in developing a tailor-made evaluation model for his/
her instructional materials program.

The Trade-Off and Comparative Cost Approach model was
identified by the researcher asafoundation for developing an
evaluation instrument for evaluating forms instructional
materials (Glass, p. 13). The areas considered in this
model are:

(1) product description - a detailed description should be

 

provided;

(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)

30

goals evaluation - to determine the goals of the

 

product and their appropriateness;

clarification p: point g: entry p: the evaluator - to

 

 

determine the reversible and irreversible decisions to
be served;

trade-offs - to determine the kinds of trade-offs;

 

comparative cost analysis - to examine the product

 

cost and compare the cost with the cost of alternative
products;

intrinsic evaluation - to assess the technical quality,

 

content, and uniqueness of the medium involved, and to
survey the availability of resources needed for use of
the product;

outcome evaluation - to assess the learning rate and

 

methods used, the knowledge acquired and rationale
used, and the retention of knowledge;

summative judgments and recommendations - to judge the

 

quality and effectiveness of the product and to make
recommendations for potential consumers, current
developers or sponsors;

circumstances modifying the summative judgments - to

 

examine the scope of the "value claims" and to test
conditions that could cause modification of the
recommendations; and,

evaluate the evaluator — to explore possible motives,

 

biases, and considerations that may have influenced

the evaluator (Carter, 1975).

31

The Weighted Criteria Approach was founded on cost

 

effectiveness techniques and then applied to curriculum
materials to analyze components, quality, and cost of the
product or material under consideration. The components of
the model are weighted by relative importance. The
components are:
(1) coverage in terms of scope and quality;
(2) appropriateness;
(3) motivational effectiveness for both the student and
teacher; and,
(4) cost in terms of dollar amounts and time.
The National Institute of Education (NIE) developed an
NIE Product Rating Form in 1974 to facilitate review of the
quality of educational products. This form was developed
to indicate dimensions of apparent quality even when evi-
dence was not available to confirm the ratings. Following
the development of a product rating form, the National
Institute of Education and Far West Laboratory for Educa-
tional Research and Deve10pment began an effort to meet

evaluation needs by preparing a Guide pp Evaluation Training

 

Materials, which was developed by federally funded R&D lab-

 

oratories and centers in 1976. In the Gplge, the NIE states
that it does not advocate a definition of evaluation but
suggests that the concept of evaluation is "the function of
'judging value' or 'worth.'” For the purpose of this study,
research designed for providing objective, valid, reliable,

and relevant data to better carry out this function of

32

"judgment" would be rather idyllic. According to NIE,
"evaluation is dependent upon the disciplined inquiry of
generating, analyzing, interpreting, applying data, and mak-
ing appropriate use of the findings." The analysis of forms
instructional materials will strive to emulate the
recommendation of NIE.

Benjamin Bloom (1971) provides an overview of the use

of evaluation in education in his Handbook pp Formative and

 

Summative Evaluation 9: Student Learning. Formative evalu-

 

 

gpipp takes place during product or program development and
is intended to improve a program or product that is cur-
rently in operation. Denton, W. T. (1976), in a paper given
at the AECT Convention in Anaheim, California, discussed the
role and methodology of process and interim product evalu-
ation, and contends that formative is the MOST important

form of evaluation. Summative evaluation takes place after

 

a product or program has been completed and put into opera-
tion, the purpose being to determine the worth of the
product or program and to provide information for the deci-
sion as to whether to continue or terminate it. The
research evaluation for-this study will be in the form of

summative evaluation. The instructional materials package

 

was developed in 1955, and has undergone four revisions. A
summative evaluation of these instructional materials has
not been done.

Throughout the literature review, the researcher has

identified another type of evaluation emphasized in

33
materials by Far West Laboratory and the NIE Guide pp

Evaluation known as preformative evaluation. Preformative

 

 

evaluation involves a needs assessment, which provides pro-
gram planning activities that take place before or early in
the development of a product or program. If a summative
evaluation of an instructional materials packet will be
undertaken in this study, it is desirable for performative
evaluation to take place in the preparation of the study.
Preformative evaluation allows for data to be gathered from
a questionnaire, identification of users and potential users
of the product, and content to be assessed. Summative
evaluation then takes place because the product has been on
the market for several years.

Komoski, K. (1975), in an article "Instructional
Materials: 00 They Or Don't They?" describes a means for
providing a systematic flow of information to help teachers
and schools evaluate and select those teaching/learning
materials that are most likely to work well with specific
programs and students. Komoski was responsible for prepar-
ing the final report on the development of a system for an
Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE) for the
EPIE Institute in November, 1967. The EPIE Institute has
developed EPIE kits that include techniques for evaluating
and sources of information for selecting instructional
materials and equipment.

Richard L. Peterson, Director of Research and Develop-

ment at Gregg Division of McGraw-Hill Publishing Company,

34

states that a "reviewer be asked only to assess the congru-
ence between the needs of a given audience and the likely
success of the manuscript in meeting those needs" (Memoran-
dum to Carole O'Keefe, 1980, p. 3). Peterson suggests that
the "intended audience and course be specifically described"
and "By specifying at the outset the prerequisites and
intentions, the problems of reviewing the materials with
the wrong audience in mind will be avoided." Peterson sug-
gests that by making those specifications up front helps the
author "clarify the intended audience, the specific needs
that audience has, how those needs will be addressed in the
manuscript, and how those needs will be met." Peterson
further suggests information that is necessary when review-
ing a manuscript, i.e., grade level of students, reading
level, skill level, background courses, required prerequi-
sites, course in which materials are used, length of course,
objectives of course, teaching style used, level of rigor,
sophistication of instructor, equipment needed. Next,
Peterson suggests that the evaluation reveal the reviewer's
(evaluator's) experience with the intended materials,
biases, and qualifications. Peterson's suggested format for
reviewing materials covers the intentions, content, method-
ology, and evaluation of the material. This strategy allows
for reviewing Stake's model of evaluation.

Stake (1967) suggests that too little effort is made to
spell out "antecedent conditions and classroom transaction,"

and no effort is made to couple those two with the various

35

outcomes. Stake recognized that in order to evaluate manni-

als or programs, an educator has to gather certain data.

The data are likely to be gathered from several different

sources and in different ways. Whatever the method, Stake

noted that three types of information should be utilized:

(1) Antecedent - "condition existing prior to teaching and
learning which may relate to outcomes."

(2) Transactions - ”countless encounters of students with
teacher, student with student, author with reader,
parent with counselor, the presentation of a film, a
class discussion, or working on a homework problem."

(3) The Outcomes - "impact of instruction, applications,
transfer, and relearning effects of the learning
environment.

Stake's model was later expanded to increase information

derived from analyzing educational products. There is a

link between Stake's model and the analysis of products done

by EPIE. In the EPIE system, four constructs of instruc-
tional design are noted: intents, contents, methodology, and

means of evaluation (EPIE Report, No. 71).

In Chapter 3, the researcher will indicate how the use
of these four constructs were used in the development of

the design of the study.

CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION

Introduction

 

The purpose of this descriptive study was:

1. To determine the appropriateness of the content for
teaching forms typewriting based on responses made by high
school business education teachers and office employees.

2. To determine if there is general agreement between
teachers and employees on the types of instructional materi-
als utilized in teaching forms handling and typewriting.

3. To determine if the changes that are occurring in
the world of work today need to be considered in evaluation
of instructional materials, i.e., terminology, other
businesses, and equipment.

4. To compare the evaluations of the instructional
materials with four groups: (1) users of the current
instructional materials, (2) non-users of the materials,

(3) employers who hire or supervise clerical employees, and

(4) employees currently working in clerical positions.

Population

 

The population selected for this study included high
school business education teachers currently using Applied
Office Typewriting, referred to as users; high school

36

37
business education teachers who are not currently using the
instructional materials, referred to as non-users; employers

whose forms are currently included in Applied Office Type-

 

writing, referred to as supervisory employers who hire or
supervise clerical employees; and employees whose forms are
currently included in the text, referred to as clerical

employees.

m
Gregg Division/McGraw-Hill Publishing Company indicated
that large quantities of the instructional materials are
sold each year. The kits are for individual student use and
cannot be re-used. Schools purchase them for distribution
to each student. A complete list of those school districts
using the instructional materials was available. To protect
the privacy of a customer list, a ten percent random sample
of those schools using the instructional materials was
requested. From that list, sixty-two (62) names were ran-
domly selected as users of the instructional materials that
would be requested to perform the evaluation. The users
were contacted by letter requesting that they evaluate the
instructional materials and circulate the other set to a
business teacher in the school or district who is (1) cur-

rently using Applied Office Typewriting, or (2) not using

 

the text but could make use of it in their school, or (3) a

previous user of the materials.

38

Non-Users

 

Non-users were business education teachers employed in
the same school district as the users, but not currently

using the instructional materials being evaluated.

Employees

 

The researcher contacted every business that was
represented in the instructional materials packet requesting
the name of a contact person who would circulate the ques—
tionnaires and materials to be evaluated (Appendix C). Of
the twenty-four businesses represented, two businesses
could not be located, two did not wish to participate at the
time of the study, and eighteen indicated by phone or letter
that they would participate in the evaluation. Twelve busi-
nesses supplied a name of a contact person who would circu-
late the questionnaires and materials to employers who hire
or supervise clerical employees and to clerical employees
currently handling forms in their daily work. Four busi-
nesses indicated that they would circulate as many question-
naires as requested. A total of eighty (80) questionnaires
were distributed to the businesses whose forms are included

in the current instructional materials.

Businesses

 

The companies were a representation of large and
reputable businesses throughout the nation. They repre-
sented: petroleum, food, chemical, steel, carpet, shipping,

newspapers, finance, insurance, wood products, and clothing.

39
Since there was a broad-base representation of businesses
included in the materials being evaluated, the researcher
did not include businesses not represented in the instruc-

tional materials.

Preparation of the Questionnaire

A panel of experts was consulted to rank a list of
questions appropriate for developing an instrument to evalu-
ate instructional materials in forms typewriting. The first
priority was to establish criteria for selecting the members
of the panel. Individuals and criteria for selecting a
panel of experts were: business teachers who currently
Steach clerical typewriting courses; teacher educators who
are experienced in identifying and classifying competencies
and writing performance objectives and goal statements;
employers who hire or supervise clerical personnel to handle
and type forms, and who are familiar with the types of forms
used in their company; professional forms control persons
who design and establish criteria for developing forms for
an organization; and clerical employees who type and handle
forms on a daily basis.

The second priority was to develop a tentative list of
questions with which the panel could work. In accomplishing
the task of developing a list, several practioners were
interviewed, related literature was reviewed, and appropri-
ate methods of evaluation were analyzed. The list contained
examples of major areas for evaluating forms typewriting

training materials such as content, intent, methodology, and

40
evaluation. The panel was asked to rank on a scale from 1
to 10 those questions that were valuable for evaluating an
instructional materials packet in forms typewriting, and to
indicate by a minus (-) those questions that were least vahh
able for evaluating instructional materials in forms type-
writing. Suggestions for improving the questions were also
requested. Upon the recommendation of the panel, questions
were modified or altered slightly, several were eliminated,
three were combined, and three new questions were added.
The researcher developed a proposed list of questions suit-
able for evaluating forms instructional materials for
clerical typewriting classes. The list was prepared in
questionnaire form using partially open-ended statements,
and submitted to four university faculty members who were
knowledgeable in the subject area or in research design.

The questionnaire was divided into four major sections.
Section One contained questions that had to do with the
intention of the instructional materials, whether or not it
was appropriate for certain courses, i.e., high school type-
writing, office procedures, community college. Respondents
were to indicate if they were currently using the materials
and for what reason(s); or if they were not using the materi-
als, in what way could they possibly make use of them. The
intent of the material aids the developer in providing a
rationale for producing the materials. If the responses
reflect certain attitudes or reasons why the materials could

be utilized in a classroom setting, it assists the developer

41
in providing specific goals and objectives for the learner.
Section One was clearly related to the purpose of the
assessment and designed for the respondent to answer with
ease and rapidity. Answer choices were provided, but
respondents had the option of creating their own responses,
thus not forcing a choice.

Section Two and Section Three contained information on
the content, methodology, and means of evaluating the
instructional materials, i.e., scope, sequence, accuracy,
fairness, values, presentation, and performance. A Likert
scale was added to help the respondents rate the appropri-
ateness. The scale allowed respondents to select one of the
five following responses:

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Uncertain

4. Disagree

5. Strongly Disagree

Section Four included demographic information. Respon-
dents were asked to indicate the statements which most
accurately described their profession, the number of years
teaching experience and/or office work experience, size of
class or department, location of employment, and for busi-
ness the type of firm represented.

All questions in the questionnaire were ordered accord-
ing to what the respondent was most likely to see as useful

and easy to answer; questions that required the same kind of

42
answer; questions that created a sense of flow and continu-
ity based on the principle of building on cognitive ties;
and questions regarding demographic information for the pur-
pose of comparing responses with employers and business edu-
cation teachers. After all modifications, corrections, and
changes were made, a final draft was submitted to members of
the guidance committee and a representative of a publishing
company. The questionnaire was printed in booklet form and
distributed in April, 1981.

A cover letter was developed to encourage respondents
to participate in the study. The letter included the fol—
lowing: purpose of the study, usefulness of the study, who
should complete the questionnaire, explanation of the cod-
ing, a promise of anonymity, and appreciation. Copies of
the instructional materials were sent with the cover letter

and questionnaire.

Data Collection

 

The questionnaire(s), cover letter, and instructional
materials were mailed to 204 participants (Appendix C).
Questionnaires were coded for the purpose of facilitating
the sending of follow-ups. The cover letter requested a
four-week return date. Questionnaires were prestamped and
contained the researcher's return address to encourage a
prompt return.

After one month, a follow-up letter (Appendix C) and a
questionnaire were mailed to the non-respondents indicating

that the usefulness of the study was dependent on the return

43
of the questionnaire. If the second attempt to secure a
completed questionnaire failed, the researcher contacted
each non-respondent by telephone to determine if the
individual would participate.

The initial mailing produced a return rate of fifty-one
percent. Subsequent follow-up attempts secured additional
returns which brought the total response to 60.7 percent.
The map in Appendix 0 indicates the geographic areas repre-
sented in the study. Table 1 displays population forming
the study.

Table 1. Users, Non-Users, and Employees Forming
Population for the Study (N = 204).

 

Initial

 

Number Group Total
Group Number
Contacted Responded Percent Percent
Users 62 33 53 27
Non-Users 62 35 58 28
Supervisory
Employers 4O 24 6O 19
Clerical
Employees 40 32 80 26
Total 204 124 60.7

 

Respondents returned the questionnaire to the
researcher during a nine-week period. Upon receipt of the
completed questionnaires, a code book was prepared and the

questionnaires were keypunched.

44

Method of Analysis

 

In order to provide research answers, the following
statements were proposed for analysis:

1. Is the material appropriate for programs in
education and business/industry?

2. Can respondents who are not currently using the
materials identify ways to incorporate the materials in
their classroom/training program?

3. Does a relationship exist between the responses of
educators and business employees in terms of content/
methodology, organization and evaluation of the instruc-
tional materials?

4. Does a relationship exist between the responses of
teachers currently using the materials and teachers not
using the materials?

5. Does a relationship exist between the responses of
employees who hire or supervise clerical employees and the
clerical employees?

6. 00 respondents evaluating instructional materials
in forms typewriting emphasize the importance of the subject
matter and offer suggestions for improvement?

7. Is there a relationship between the demographic
characteristics of business teachers (users and non-users)
and business employees (supervisory and clerical employees)
in terms of number of years of teaching, number of years
work experience, size of class/department, and place of

employment?

45

This study dealt principally with the data that was
collected by the questionnaire and with a specific popula-
tion at a specific point in time. No attempt was made to
generalize the results. Frequencies and percentages were
shown for all respondents. The Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences utilizing the Michigan State University
Cyber 750 computer was used for this descriptive study.

The findings are reported in Chapter Four.

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

Introduction

 

The purpose of this chapter is to present in descrip-
tive form response data from business education teachers
and business employees as well as provide a breakdown of
responses from the questionnaire, which was designed to
evaluate instructional materials in forms typewriting.
Tables present the number of responses (N), frequencies(f),
and percentages (%), and are arranged to follow, in
sequence, the questions researched. Response rates are
shown in Table 2. Percentages may not always total 100%

due to rounding off of numbers.

Table 2. Response Rate of Mailed Questionnaires

 

 

(N = 204)

. . Number<yf Returned Percent
Mailing Questionnaires Returned
First 105 51.
Second 9 4.7
Third/Telephone 10 5.0

Total 124 60.7

 

46

47

Of a possible 204 questionnaires, 124 were returned,
yielding a response rate of 60.7 percent. The percentage
rate at which the questionnaires were returned is shown
above in Table 2. Though high response rates are desirable,
according to Leslie (1972), when surveying populations with
a common identity (i.e., teachers from one school or teach?
ers teaching same types of subjects, employers and employ-
ees working in similar firms), response differences among
respondents, late respondents, and non-respondents are
unlikely. Yet exceptions may occur when the topic overrides
the importance to group membership or concerns a sensitive
area or highly personal situation. Questions asked in this
study were not of a personal nature or about a sensitive
issue; therefore, responses of non-respondents are likely
to be similar to those of the respondent group.

Respondents were composed of the following groups:
33 teachers (users of the material) and 35 non-users; 24
employers who supervise clerical employees in firms repre-
sented in the instructional materials being evaluated; and

32 clerical employees, also whose firms were represented.

48

Research Question No. 1

 

IS THE MATERIAL APPROPRIATE FOR PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION AND
BUSINESS/INDUSTRY?

Table 3 gives the number of responses (N), frequencies,
(f), percentages (%), and totals of data requested for
Research Question #1. Respondents were asked to indicate
how appropriate the instructional materials were for a high
school typewriting course, a high school office practice
course, a clerical training course, an adult refresher
course, a two-year community college course, and a four-year
college secretarial course, as well as to give suggested
other courses. Degrees of appropriateness for each group
were defined by the following descriptive phrases with cor-
responding numerical values: (1) highly appropriate,
(2) appropriate, (3) uncertain, (4) inappropriate, and
(5) highly inappropriate.

The study consisted of 124 respondents; 27% were teach-
ers currently using the instructional materials, and 28%
were teachers not using the materials and known as non-
users. Nineteen percent of the responses were from
employers who supervised clerical employees, and 26% were
from clerical employees. In many instances, respondents
chose to indicate degree of appropriateness for only some
of the variables listed.

Fifty-three percent indicated the materials were
appropriate for a high school office practice course, and

52% indicated the materials were appropriate for a clerical

49

 

 

 

 

Na 0 o o a e N
a: o o o m m .2 .558
ON o «N m. NN m. x mmczou ﬂowcmpmgomm
mN N om m. NN N_ e mmmﬁﬁoo cmm>-c:od
N_ N mF m. _m mN N mmczou ﬁmwcmpmcowm
.N N o_ m. mm mN e mamﬁﬁou Newcaeeou cmw>lozp
mF o NP m_ me N_ N
m: o 3 2 5 £ a 3:50 358:5 :32
m_ o o _. Nm mN N LBoom mpm>_em\ow_n:¢
m_ o o m_ we mN e :_ Emcmoca mcwcwmcb _eu_cm~o
o o e N mm Nm N
_F o m N we oe » wmczoo mmczumuoca wo_ewo Hoozom cu“:
m_ N m mp om NN N
0— m _F o_ we em w mmcaou mcwaxh _oo;om so“:
m_newce>
“ON IN... T. n V VH
80 UI. u u .0 dl.
S 96 9 3 .0 d5
m ww m .... m. mm
U JrA J 1 d d..A :VNF n zv .mwmgzou “memeLomm Low
5 0 0 9 J J
a .d .m m. m. m. mﬁmwcmpmz _m:owpo:cpmcH mo mmmcwpm_caocga<
u. I. q? 1. we mco_umo_u:H .mpcmucoammm .m wﬁnmp
...... .... a a
a 8

 

 

 

 

 

50

training course. For the adult refresher course, 49% cir-
cled appropriate, while 11% circled the materials inappro-
priate. Thirty-six percent of the respondents stated that
the materials were appropriate for a high school typewriting
course. A total of 39% were uncertain as to the appropri-
ateness of the above-mentioned courses. Thirty-one percent
of the respondents indicated the materials were appropriate
for a two-year community college, whereas 2% thought them
highly inappropriate. Conversely, 24% thought the instruc-
tional materials were inappropriate for a four-year college,
and 13% thought them highly appropriate. Most respondents
did not volunteer other possible uses for the materials. Of
those who did, 4% indicated the materials were appropriate
for private business colleges, 2% for vocational-technical
centers, and 2% for cooperative work/experience programs.

Table 4 shows the total number and percentages of
respondents who rated the instructional materials' appropri-
ateness in terms of highly appropriate and appropriate. A
total of 106, or 85% of the respondents, ranked the appro-
priateness of using the kit in an office practice course as
first. Second-ranked for 75% of the respondents was a chad-
cal training program in public/private sector. The use of
the materials in a high school typewriting course ranked
third, with 78 of the respondents (62%) indicating the
materials highly appropriate or appropriate. The adult
refresher course was rated as appropriate for the use of the

forms typewriting materials by 61%, or 76 out of 124

51

 

 

 

om o. N
mFP __ N Lwﬁo
mm NN e? N 1
we NN N. N amazou ~m_cepmeumm mmmﬁﬁoo Lem> Lao;
mm om mN N -
No mm mN N mmczou _ewcepmcuwm mmmﬁﬁou Newczesou eew> oze
_o me N. N
0N Fe m. e mmczou cwcmmcemm uﬁze<
No mm NN N
mN we em N mmezoo m:_qu Noocom cm“:
mN Nm mN N
mm wm mN N Logowm mpe>_ca\o_~n:m :_ Eecmoea m:H:_mce Neowcmﬁo
mm mm Nm N
oo_ mo cw e mmczoo mmczumooca moweeo Noozom no“:
w_aewce>
m. w Wm
..+ .0 d5
D. J JU.
:1 .m .mmM AwNFuzv .queo xcmm Np mmmczou _e_eepmcowm cow
u. u. m~e_cwpez cho_go=cpmcm mo mmmcmNeNLaocqaw use
n. m. mpm_caogaa< N_:m_: mo mcowpmowucH .mpcwecoamwm .w mﬂom»
a ,

 

 

 

52

respondents. Ranking fifth and sixth were the two-year
community college and four-year college secretarial courses.
Although over half (53%) of the respondents indicated the
materials were appropriate for a two-year community college
secretarial course, only 36% stated that the materials were
appropriate for a four—year college secretarial course.

Table 5 further elaborates on the appropriateness and
intention of the instructional materials by profession,
indicating number and percent of teachers and employees
responding. Total teachers responding were 68; employees
responding were fifty-six. While the table shows a similar
pattern in the responses of teachers and employees, it is
interesting to note some of the dissimilarities. For
instance, teachers showed a higher percent of non-response
than did the employees. The percent of teachers and
employers indicating inappropriate or highly inappropriate
with any of the statements was less than 13%, the exception
being the two- and four-year college courses. Eighteen per-
cent of the employees indicated the materials were inappro-
priate for a two-year community college secretarial course
and 46% of the employees indicated inappropriate for a four-
year college secretarial course. No one indicated that the
materials were inappropriate for a clerical training
program in the public/private sector.

Responses from both groups were quite similar in the
highly appropriate category, with the exception of 21% of

the teachers indicating the materials were highly appromﬁate

53

J

 

 

 

 

83m 30 o3 o3 m\w NB N $50
$20 o3 o\o o3 N\m :w a,
N\mm Qw mm\N_ elf _N\NN ENN. N 3:8 323203
ZwN w\m NE 39 Nim. 3m up mmmZou 23-258
NSN Sm $3 elm. ENN mN\NN N 3.38 2236.83
EON EN EB 39 NB. wiﬂ up 03:8 323558 23.03
oRN 3o 3m. 38 wokm E? N
22 as m; 3: 58 SE a 8.58 353:8. :33
EN o3 o3 m\N_ eohw NEN N cowomm municioﬁoza
oh: o3 o3 m8 omEN mCS e E Enema: 9.2;: ~8th
Ne NW. NM NM NNM ...NN N ...... ......g... ...... ...... ......
N\NN 3e :3 I}: mw\mN wm\mN N
:2 Sm 8m £2 58 25 a 3:8 8:5 328 :3:
ND ND ND ND ND mi 833.2;
Nam mu m W W Wm .
S 9mm. 9 3 .0 d5 AQN—uz Hmpoh.
.m m m m ...» N N M ”£72 £333.: ”men: .2288:
w mi m m m MK 4330253358: c3336: .3 32:00
a m m m. m... m... $23953 com 2233: 3:033:35
m... m... a a No 39.323032 No 205335 .m 322.
1+ 1
3 a

 

 

 

 

 

54
for a clerical training program in the public/private sector
while only 9% of the employees indicated the same. In the
appropriate category, percents of responses were similar,
with the exception of the adult refresher course. Sixty-
four percent of the employees felt the materials were
appropriate for an adUlt refresher course, whereas 37% of
the teachers felt they were appropriate. In most instances,
approximately 15% of the teachers and employers were uncer-
tain about the appropriateness of the materials for each
course, with the exception of the high school office prac-
tice course; only 2% of the teachers and employers were
uncertain.

Respondents were asked to give as many reasons for
using the materials as they felt applied to appropriateness/
intention of forms instructional materials. Out of 124 of
the respondents who answered this question, 27%, or thirty-
three business teachers, are currently using the kit being
evaluated, and their reasons are listed in Table 6.

Table 6 shows that more than half of the teachers cur-
rently using the materials indicated the reason as "it helps
to reach the objectives/standards set for my students/
employees." Thirty-six percent stated that it was "better
than similar or competitive kit(s)" and the materials
"represented the real world." Fifteen percent stated that
"cost" was a reason for using the current materials.

There were no instances that the materials were being

used because of departmental chairperson requirements.

55

Table 6. Business Teachers' Reasons for Using
the Instructional Materials. (N = 33)

 

Reasons Teachers

 

f %

1. It helps reach objectives/
standards I have set for my

students/employees. 19 58
2. Better than similar or

competitive kit(s). 12 36
3. Represents the real world. 12 36
4. Teaches valuable concepts. 10 3O

5. Only one I know that

concentrates on forms. 7 21
6 Cost. 5 15
7 Publisher. 2 6
8. District requires it. 1 3
9 Chairperson requires it. 0 O
10. Other* 3 5 15

 

*Supplementary materials, review materials,

drill/skill materials for typewriting classes
Other reasons indicated by 15% of the respondents were:
"valuable supplementary materials in typewriting classes and
office procedures classes," "materials are a good review in
business classes." Some teachers used the materials for
routine drill or skill building exercises in typewriting

courses/classes.

56

Research Question No. 2

 

CAN RESPONDENTS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY USING THE MATERIALS
INDICATE WAYS TO INCORPORATE THE MATERIALS IN THEIR CLASS-
ROOM/TRAINING PROGRAMS?

Of the respondents not using Applied Office Typewritnwp

 

55 teachers and employees answered that they could make use
of the materials. This represents 60% of the non-users,
while 40% said they could not use them. Table 7 shows the
percentage of non-users' reasons for making use of the kit
in the future. Of those who felt they could use the kit,
60% indicated that the materials represented the real world,

56% that the kit taught valuable concepts, 35% marked their

Table 7. Non-Users' Reasons for Making Use of
the Instructional Materials. (N = 55)

 

 

Reasons Non-Users

f %

1. Represents the real world. 33 60
2. Teaches valuable concepts. 31 56

3. It would help reach objectives/
standards I have set for my

students/employees. 19 35
4. My training program needs this

kind of material. 17 31
5. Other* 1 2

 

*Supplementary materials

57
reason as it would help reach objectives/standards set for
students/employees, and 31% that their training program
needs this kind of material. Less than 2% provided other
reasons for making use of the instructional materials.
Table 8 indicates the percentage of respondents who do
not now nor perceive that in the future they can make use of

Applied Office Typewriting. Seventy-two percent of the cur-

 

rent non-users indicated that their company does not have a
clerical training program and therefore cannot make use of
the instructional materials. Thirty-three percent gave
other reasons for not being able to utilize the materials,
such as: ”forms were out of date," "inappropriate for their
company's sophisticated equipment." Some schools were on a
limited budget and indicated they could not afford to buy
consumable materials. Others indicated there was not
enough "variety" in the kit, "the teacher's manual was
poor," and "forms were too vague." Eight percent stated
the kit was too short, whereas 6% stated the kit was too

long.

58

 

 

Table 8. Reasons Current Non-Users Cannot Make
Use of the Instructional Materials.
(N = 36)
Reasons Non-Users
f %
1. My company does not have a
clerical training program. 26 72
2. Content is inappropriate for
my course. 10 28
3. Kit too basic for my classes. 3 8
4. Kit is too short. 3 8
5. My company does not use the
type of forms illustrated in
the kit. 3 8
6. Kit is too advanced for my
class. 2 6
7. Kit is too long. 2 6
8. Other* 12 33

 

*Forms outdated,

inappropriate for word processors,

too vague, company has too sophisticated equip-
ment for such a basic kit, teacher's manual poor,

limited budget,

not enough variety.

59

Research Question No. 3

 

DOES A RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN THE RESPONSES OF EDUCATORS
AND BUSINESS EMPLOYEES IN TERMS OF CONTENT/METHODOLOGY AND
ORGANIZATION OF THE KIT?

Tables 9 through 14 indicate the response rate to
questions regarding content/methodology and organization of

Applied Office Typewriting. For questions relevant to

 

these categories, respondents were asked to indicate levels
of agreement defined by the following phrases with corres-
ponding numerical values: Strongly Agree (1), Agree (2),

Uncertain (3), Disagree (4), and Strongly Disagree (5).

Content/Methodology

 

The variables considered for content/methodology were
as follows:

(1) The kit is appropriate for office education classes.

(2) The kit will help develop work habits that lead to
efficiency in office work.

(3) The materials in the kit should familiarize students/
employees with the application of forms to business
situations.

(4) Having completed the kit, the student/employee should
have entry-level skills sufficient for a clerical job.

(5) The content is clear.

(6) The content is representative of forms used in todayis

offices.

6O
(7) Materials in the kit will provide good foundation for
other higher level units in business courses.
(8) The kit includes business terms and/or expressions

that are current.

(9) Content represents current business practices of a
majority of companies.

(10) The kit is designed to provide simulated work experi-
ence in several different companies. Continue same
format.

(11) Adequate background information about each company is
provided for each company represented in the kit.

(12) The content is sufficiently varied.

A total of 91% indicated the materials were appropriate
for an office education class, and 76% of the respondents
thought the kit would help develop good work habits. NUmﬁy-
seven percent further agreed that the materials would famil-
iarize students or employees with the application of forms
to business situations. Over three-fourths of the individ-
uals (85%) indicated that the content was clear. Eighty-
three percent thought the content represented current
office forms, though 13% were uncertain and 2% disagreed.

The majority of respondents (78%) thought terms and
expressions were current. For the variable regarding foun-
dation for other higher level business courses, 72% of the
individuals agreed that the kit would do so. Sixty-six
percent indicated content as representative of current

business practices,though there was disagreement from 8%

61
of the respondents. On the premise that the kit provided
simulated work experience with various companies, 88% con-
curred that the format should be continued in any possible
revision. Further, 77% of the respondents thought the
background information for companies represented in Applied

Office Typewriting was appropriate. Regarding variety, 87%

 

noted that the content was sufficiently varied; however, 9%
disagreed (see Table 9).

The relationship of these responses between educators
and business employees is shown in Table 10. A similar pat-
tern exists between the percentage of responses for teachers
and employees. Of the twelve items concerning content and
methodology, non-response rates were low, with four (8%) of
the teachers not responding to four items and three (5%) of
the employees not responding to one item; namely, the con-
tent is representative of forms used in today's offices.
Both groups did not show strong disagreement with most of
the items.

Teachers were uncertain about answering the items:
having completed the kit, the student/employee should have
the entry-level skills sufficient for a clerical job (24%);
the kit will help develop work habits that lead to effi-
ciency in office work (21%); materials in the kit will pro-
vide good foundation for other higher level units in
business courses (29%); and content represents current

business practices of a majority of companies (29%).

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N .
w w m. m mm m“ N ew.ee> N.p:m_o.NN:m m. pampcou .N.
. o m e. we m. N .N.x :. umpcwmmeawc Namaeou comm NON uwuw>oca m_
. o .. N. mN o. N Nceaeoo zoom Nnoae cowpeENONc. ocsoemxoen mpmzeme< ...
o o m m on mN N .meNON 85mm m::.g:ou .mmwceasoo pcwngNNU .eem>mm :.
o o e .. wN mm N mo:m.gmaxm xgoz emue.=e.m muN>oea op emcm.mmu m. p.¥ .o.
o o m NN Nm m N .mm_eeasou No Npﬁeohee
o o o. mm ON .. N e No mmo.poeea mmmc.m:n pcwgczu mwcwmmgawg pcmwcou .m
o o N m. we N. N .NchN28 mgm
0 o m N. Na m. N peep mco.mmwcaxw NONece msemp mmm:.m=n mou:.u:. N.¥ .m
. o m mN co N. N .mmmgzoo mmmCNmzn :N maﬁa: .m>w. chm_c chpo
. o 9 mm eN m. N LON co_eeee=ON econ me_>oee _.Nz awe :N m_a_ampaz .N
N o N m. mm m. N .mmUNNNo
m o m m. om NN N m.Nmu0N :. new: mENON No m>.pmp:mmmNQmN m..p:mecoo .o
. o m o eN .. N . .
. o o. N No e. N Nem.o m. pcmpcou m
. . m. mN om m. N .aon .mo.g¢.u L0N pcm.o.NNsm m...xm .m>w.->gp:m w>ez
. . o. mN No 0. N u.:o;m mmNo.aEm\p:wuzpm may .N.x may ewpm.aeoo m:.>e: .w
o o . N mo Nm N .mco.pmzp.m mmm:_m:a op mENON No co.peo..aae 5N.3
o o . m .m Nm N mmeo.asm\mNcmn:pm wN.NeN..EQN e_=ocm p.x :. m.m.prmz .m
o . m ON Nm m. N .xcoz mo.NNo :. No:m_o.NNw
o . e mm .N mm N . ON emm_ page mpwnae xeoz ao.w>mw aﬁa: ..Hz p.¥ .N
o o N m on .m N . .
o o N o. wN mm N mwmme.u :ONNeozum wUNNNo NON mam.Na0Naae m. NNN .
m.nm.cm>
udN as G n V VS
a O 1.1. I. U 5 5 1
S S J S 3 J J J
1 5 NF I my
m mm. mm m. M. 628.20 .238 .3 332333 STE. 8.. <

No Nao.oeocpwz\pcmpcou No m.emﬁegaa< .mwcwucoammm .m m.nmN

63

 

 

 

 

 

N. N N. N NO... .NO ...
ONN ONO wNO. NNO. ONNNO ..NO. N .NNx O. OONOOOONOON NOOOEOO OOOm NON OOO.>ONO m.

ON. ONO NNO wNm. wwNOm ONO. N NOOOEOO OOOO NOOOO OONNOENONON OOOONONOOO ONOOOOO< ...
ONO ONO NNw ONN. .NNOO .NNwm N .NOENON OEOO mOENOOO .OONOOOEOO NOONONN.O .ONm>wm O.

ONO ONO .NO ONO OeNeO N.NON N OOOO_NOOXO ONO; OONOOOENO OOO>ONO ON OOOONOOO O. NNO .O.
ONO ONO O.Ne ONNON OONNO ONO N .OOOOOOOOO NO NNONONOO
ONO ONO NNO O.NON .mNOm ONO N O No OOONNOONO OOOONOOO NOONNOO ONOOOONOON NOONOOO .O
ONO ONO ONw ..NO. OONOO O.NN. N .NOwNNOO ONO
ONO ONO ONO ONO. OmNew NNO N NOON MOONOOONOxm NONOOO OENON mmOONOOO OOOONOO. NNN .O
ONN ONO ONw w.NON OONwO w.NO. N .OOONOOO OOOONOOO ON mN.OO .O>m. NOOONO NOONO

ON. ONO mNm ONON NONNO ONN N NON OONNOOOOON OOOO OON>ONO ..Nz N.¥ O. ONONNONOz .N
ONO ONO ONw w.NN. .ONOO ONNO. N .OOONNNO
mNO ONO ONm ONO emNOe ..N.. N O.NOOON ON OOOO mEON No O>.NONOOOONOON ON NOONOOO .O
ONN ONO NNO. ONO. NONOO O.NN N . .
ON. ONO .NO ONN OONOO ONO N NOOOO ON NOONOOO O
ONN NNO ..NO. .NNwN NONOw w.NN. N .OON .OONNONO NON NOONONNNOO O.NOxm .w>w.-NNNOw O>OO

ON. .NO ONO. N.NO. ONNmm ONO N ONOOOO OONONOEONNOOOONO OON .NNN OON OONONOEOO OON>OI .e
ONO ONO ONN ‘ NNO .NNOO NNNOm N .OOONNOONNO OOOONOOO ON OENON No OONNOONNOOO ONN:
ONO ONO ON. .NN oeN.w O.NeN N OOONONOEONONOOOONO ONNNO..NEON O.OOOO NON ON ONONNONOz .m
ONO ONN ONN ONN.N eONOO .NNO. N .NNoz OONNNO O. NOOONONNNO
ONO ON. ON. ..Ne. OON.e N.N.. N ON OOO. NOON ONNOOO xNoz OONO>OO O.OO ...: NON .N
ONO ONO wNO ONN wONOO emNON N . .
ONO ONO NNO ONO Omew O.NO. N mwmme.u OONNOOOOO OONNNO NON wNONNOONOOO ON NON .
ONN ONN ONN ONN ONN ONN ONOONNO>

mm mm m. m .w Wm NONE. .OONON uOOuz .OOONOEEO

w w m w m a w m m uz .3288: .OCONZO .238 .3 ENE:

N am. N m. ..w - N OOONNO 82%,. NO 32828: OOO NOONOOO

a 3.x 3 m. .A No ONOONONOO< mmNONOEO OOO NmOOOwN NO OOONNOOEOO .O. w.OON

 

 

 

 

 

64

It should be noted that on all of the twelve items
listed in Table 10, over 60% of the teachers and employees
were in agreement with the statements. Only one item
(Item 4, Having completed the kit, the student/employee
should have the entry-level skills sufficient for a cleri—
cal job) showed the lowest percentage of agreement (61%) by
teachers, and the item that showed the highest percentage
of disagreement (15%) by teachers.

Thirteen percent of the teachers disagreed with IUﬂlS
(The content is clear) and Item 11 (Adequate background
information about each company is provided for each company
represented in the kit). Thirteen percent of the employees
disagreed with Item 9 (Content represents current business
practices of a majority of companies) and 11% disagreed wiui
Item 4 (The student/employee will have entry-level skills

sufficient for clerical positions after completing thekit).

Organization

 

Table 11 indicates combined ratings of educators and
business employees for organization of the instructional
materials kit for the following variables:

(1) Units are well organized.

(2) As student works from company to company in the kit,
the jobs appear to progress from simple to complex.

(3) Directions are clear and easy to understand.

(4) Kit includes an adequate number of forms and worksheets

for the student's own use.

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. .. OO O N .me NOOOONO NON ONwmcmNNoz OOO
O. m. wO O. N OENON No NOOEO: wNOOOmOO mmOONOON NNN
.. O. NO O. N .OOONONOOOO ON
e. N. mm N. N NOOO ONO NOONO ONO OOONNOONNO
.xONOsoo
O. O. OO O N ON wNOENm EONN mmmNOONO ON NOOOOO mach
N.. O. NO .. N NOOOEOO ON NOOOEOO EONN meoz NchONm m<
O. O. ON .. N .
N. N. NO m. N OONNOOONO ..wz ONO ONNOO
ONOONNO>
O.“ mm m m .w .wx
$ mm a m a aw :N. u z. .ONNmNNNO
0 EU 5 J a EU . .
w MOW w m mw .ONm>wO NO OONNNNszNN muNNNO OONNOO< No
a ark a m. .A OONNONNOOONO No .OONONOO< .mNcmOcoamwO ... O.OON

66

A total of 124 respondents replied to the first state-
ment of which 81% ofthose responses agreed that the units
were well organized while 10% disagreed and 10% were uncer-
tain. Three-fourths (75%) agreed that as the student works
from company to company in the kit, the jobs appear to
progress from simple to complex. Seventy-seven percent
thought directions were clear and easy to understand; 13% of
the individuals disagreed. Seventy-six percent of the
respondents indicated that forms and work sheets were ade-
quate in number; 12% disagreed.

The relationship of these responses between teachers
and employees is shown in Table 12. This table provides
frequencies and percentages of responses on the organization
of the instructional materials by teachers and employees.
More than 65% of the teachers and employees were in agree-
ment with all of the items listed, and their rates of
response were similar. Item 3 (Directions are clear and
easy to understand) shows the widest discrepancy between
teachers and employees; namely,65% of the teachers agreed
and 91% of the employees agreed.

In the category strongly agree, teachers and employees
rates of responses are similar, differences ranging from 6%
to 14 percent. The highest rate of uncertainty about an
item was shown in Item 2 (As student works from company to
company in the kit, the jobs appear to progress from simple
to complex). Fifteen percent of the teachers were uncer-

tain about this item, while 16% of the employees were

67

 

 

 

 

NNN ONO ONO. O.NO MNNOO NNO N .Om: NOOOONO NON mNOOcmeoz OOO
.N. ONO ONN. NNO .ONmO ONO N mENON NO NOOEOO ONOOOOOO mOOONOON NON .O
ONO ONO NNO. NNN. NNNOO O.NO N .OOONONOOO: ON
ONO ONO .NO. ONO OONQO ONO N NOOO OOO NOO.O ONO mOONNOONNO .O
.x0.0sOO
ONO ONO NNN. O.NO. OONOO ONO N O
N ONOENO EONN mmONOONO ON NOOOOO OOOO
ONO ONO ONO. ONO. mONOO ONO N OOOOEOO ON NOOOEOO EONN meoz NOOOONO m< .N
ONO ONO NNN. NNN. ONNOO ..NO. N . .
ONO ONO ONO ONO NONOO ONN N 82:33 :2, ONO 3:5 .
ONN ONN ONN ONN ONN ONN ONOONNO>
mm mm m. O O Om 3:2 .O....
M wm w m % aw ”OOuz .mOONOaEO ”OOuz .mNOcOOOC
u Jab ..O 1+ .6 .ONNONNNO NONO>OO OO :ONNONNOOONO
S at a DO I
a apn a m. .A OONNNNzOONN OONNNO OONNOOO NO m.OmNONOO<

 

 

 

 

 

 

OONO.OEO OOO NOOOOON NO OOONNOOEOO .N. ONOON

68
uncertain. Nineteen percent of the teachers disagreed that
the directions were clear and easy to understand in the kit,
whereas only 2% of the employees disagreed. Eighteen per-
cent of the teachers disagreed that the kit included an
adequate number of forms and worksheets for student use; 5%
of the employees disagreed. Only 4% of the teachers
strongly disagreed with the statement, "Directions are clear
and easy to understand," while no other statement showed
strong disagreement. While three items out of four elicited
100% response, one teacher and one employee (2%) did not
respond to the item concerning adequate number of forms and

worksheets for student use.

Evaluation

 

Two additional variables, (1) This kit provides suffi-
cient evaluative information to appraise a student's per-
formance, and (2) The teacher or trainer should develop his/
her own evaluative materials to assess student performance,
were rated regarding evaluation. Table 13 depicts the
extent to which total numbers of respondents agreed/dis-
agreed.

Fifty-three percent of the respondents agreed there was
sufficient student performance evaluative information and
10% strongly agreed. Yet 23% were uncertain and 2% strongly
disagreed with this statement. In response to the teacher/
trainer developing his/her own evaluative materials, 35%
agreed that (s)he should do so (14% strongly agreed), 32%

were uncertain, and 13% of the individuals answering did

69

.OOOOENONNOO NOOOONO mmOmmO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O O. NO OO O. N ON ONONNONOE O>NNOONO>O O3O NOONONO
O O O. OO OO O. N OONO>OO ONOOOO NOONONN NO NOOOOON OO. .N
.OOOOENONNOO
O. ON OO O. O.NOOOONO O OONONOOO ON OONNOENONON
O. ON OO N. O>NNOONO>O NOONONNNOO mOON>ONO NNx ..
ONOOONOO
Ow... ma 0 m .w m...
S S.J u. 3 J Jn.
d 90 p. a a 30
0 Eu 5 J e au u
u in .. 1 o NON. z.
O OH O m. .M OENZOOONN OOCNO 82%: NO 305%
u O>NNOO.O>O NO NOONONOO< .ONOOOOOOOOO .O. O.OO.

70
not support this method for providing assessment of student
performance.

Table 14 shows the relationship of these two variables
between teachers and employees. Over half of the employees
(68%) as well as 59% of the teachers agreed that the kit
includes sufficient evaluative information to appraise a
student's performance. Three percent of the teachers
strongly disagreed with this statement, and 2% of the teach-
ers and employees chose not to respond. While 48% of the
teachers and 52% of the employees felt that the teacher/
trainer should develop his/her own evaluation materials, a
similar percentage of teachers (34%) and employees (29%)
were uncertain.

Approximately 16% of both groups disagreed that the
teacher/trainer should develop his or her own evaluation
materials. Five percent of the employees and 2% of the

teachers chose not to respond to this item.

71

.OOOOENONNOO NOOOONO mmOmmO

 

 

 

 

mm wO OxN. OmwOO OO“OO O.NO. N ON SONNONOE O>NNOONO>O Ozo NOONmE
O O O ON ON ON ONO N OONO>OO BOON; NOONONN NO NOOOOON O... .N
. .OOOOENONNOO
.N. ONN ONO O.NO. NONOO ONO N 23335 NOONONNNOO 82.63 N; ..
ONN ONN wNO ONN ONN wNO ONOONNO>
ww NE W W .W WE
m Mm m O N...” mm ONTO .Oﬁow mOmuz .mOONSOOO
u am. a w .m. u ...z .mNOOOOO: . ONNNNzOONH OONNNO
NO 9K 9 m. K OONLmO NO mOOONOz O>NNO3O>O NO ONOONONOONN

 

 

 

 

 

 

OONO.OEO OOO NOOOOON NO OOmNNOOEOO .O. ONOON

72

Research Question No. 4

 

DOES A RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN THE RESPONSES 0F TEACHERS
USING THE MATERIALS AND TEACHERS NOT USING THE MATERIALS?

Tables 15 through 17 show the response rate of teachers
currently using the forms instructional materials and teach-
ers who are not using the materials in terms of content/

methodology. organization, and evaluation of Applied Office

 

Typewriting. There are 68 teachers; 33 are users of the

 

materials and 35 are non-users. Employees did not indicate

that they or their company were using the kit.

Content/Methodology

 

In Table 15, 94% of the users agreed that the materials
were appropriate for office education classes, i.e., 27%
strongly agreed and 67% agreed; and non-users unanimously
agreed that the materials were appropriate for office educa-
tion classes, i.e., 46% strongly agreed and 54% agreed.

Seventy-eight percent of the users agreed that the kit
will help develop work habits that lead to efficiency in
office work; while non-users did not strongly agree with the
statement, 54% did agree. A high response rate (97% users
and 94% non-users) agreed that the materials in the kit
will familiarize students/employees with the application of
forms to business situations--30% users strongly agreed and
67% agreed, while 40% non-users strongly agreed and 54%
agreed. Sixty-seven percent of the users and 54% of the
non—users agreed that the student/employee will have suffi-

cient entry-level skills for clerical jobs, while uncertahﬁw

73

 

 

 

N N .NO ON ON N. O
ONO ONO N.NO ONNN. OONOO ON.N N .NNN ON OONOOOONOON NOOOEOO cOOO NON OOON>ONO ON

ON. ONO ONO ONO N.NO. ONN N NOOOOOO OOOO NOOOO OONNOONONON OOOONOOOOO ONOOOOOO ...
ONO ONO ONO N.NO OONOO ONNOO N .NOONON OOOO OOONNOOO .OONOOOOOO NOONONNNO NONO>OO ON

ONO ONO ONO ONN O.NO. O.NO. N OOOONNOOXO NNOO OONOOOOOO OONNONO ON OOOOOOOO ON NON .O.
ONO ONO ONO NON.N OONON ONO N .OONOOOEOO NO NNNNOOOE
ONO ONO ONO O.NN O.NON ONO N O NO OOONNOONO OOOONOOO NOONNOO ONOOOONOON NOONOOO .O
ONO ONO ONO .ONO OONON ..NN. N .NOONNOO ONO
ONO ONO .NN ..NN O.NON ONO N NOON OOONOOONOXO NONOOO OENON OOOONOOO OOOONOON NNN .O
ONO ONO ONO OONON .ONOO ONN. N .OOONOOO OOOONOOO ON ONNO: _O>O. NOOONN NOONO

.NO ONO .NN N.NO O.NO. ONO N NON OONNOOOOON OOOO OON>ONO N.Nz NNN ON ONONNONOZ .N
ONO ONO ONO O.NO OONON ONNN. N .OOONNNO
ONO ONO NN. ONO .NNOO NNO N O.NOOON ON OOOO OONON NO ONONONOOOONOON ON NOONOOO .O
ONO ONO ONN. ONNO OONON ONO N . .
ON. ONO ONO NNO OONON ONN N NOONO ON NOONOOO O
ONO ONO ONNO ONNON OONOO ..NN. N .OOO NOONNONO NON NOONONNNOO ONNNNO NO>ONuxNNcO O>Oz

.NO ONO NNO ONO O.NO. ONO N ONOOOO OONONOOONNOOOONO OON .NNN OON OONONOOOO OON>OI .O
ONO ONO ONO ONO OONNO OONOO N .OOONNOONNO OOOONOOO ON OONON NO OONNOONNOOO ONN;
ONO ONO ON. NNO ONNN O.NO. N OOONO.OEONONOOOONO ONNNONNNEON O.OO:O NNN ON ONONNONOZ .O.
ONO ONO ONO NON.N OON.O ONNN. N .NNoz OONNNO :N NOOONONNNO

.NO NNO ONO O.NN O.NON O.NO N ON OOO. NOON ONNOO: xNoz OONO>OO ONO; N.Nz NNN .N
wvm wvw wvw w“m memw WW“MN w .OOOO0.0 OONNOOOOO OONNNO NON ONONNOONOOO ON NNN ..
2N: ZNO 2N: 2N: 2N: 2N: ONOONNO>

mm W m. E m. W .W W%

S .0.0 c. 3 J 4.4 mOuz .NONON Mmmuz .ONOOOTOO

w m w m m a a w .ONNONNNO .ONO>OO .3 ENNNzO N OONNNO

w mm. a m .m. OONEONN NO NOONOOOONOZ OOO NOONOOO NO ONOONONOOO

3 ex 9 m. K .ONOOOOOZ NOOOOON O.NO .ONOOO NOOOOON NO OOONNOOEOO .O. ONOON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74
was expressed by 24% of the users and 23% of the non-users,
and 20% of the non-users disagreed while only 9% of the
users disagreed.

Eighty-eight percent of the users agreed that the con-
tent is representative of forms used in today's offices, and
similarly, 80% of the non-users agreed. Regarding Item 8
(Kit includes business terms and/or expressions that are
current) 88% of the users agreed, while only 65% of the non-
users agreed, and 31% of the non-users were uncertain. mmle
79% of the users agreed that the content represents current
business practices of a majority of companies, only 55% of
the non-users agreed, 37% were uncertain, and 9% disagreed.

Regarding adequate background information about each
company represented in the kit, 76% of the users indicated
there was sufficient background information about each com-
pany. Only 58% of the non-users agreed, 26% were uncertain,
and 17% of the non-users disagreed that there was sufficient
background information about each company provided in the
kit. The content was indicated by 94% of the users as being
sufficiently varied, while only 77% of the non-users agreed
with this statement.

Of the twelve items regarding content/methodology, users
and non-users were in agreement with the statements over 53%
of the time. The widest range of dissimilarity in the
agreement category was in response to the statement regard-

ing the content representing current business practices of a

75
majority of companies where 79% of the users agreed with
this statement but only 55% of the non-users agreed.

While there was not a high rate of disagreement between
the two groups about any one item, those that showed some
disagreement were most often non-users. Twenty percent of
the non-users did not agree that the kit will help develop
sufficient skill for entry-level positions; 17% did not
agree there was sufficient information provided about each
company, 14% did not agree there was enough variety in the
content, while 17% of the users disagreed with the statement
that the content is clear. Only one statement had a
response in the strongly disagree category, 6% of the non-
users strongly disagreed that the kit will help develop work
habits that lead to efficiency in office work. Two users
and three non-users chose not to respond to an item, leaving

five items with one no-response.

Organization

 

Table 16 indicates the rate of response of the teachers
currently using the instructional materials versus those
teachers not using them. This table indicates the ratings
of users and non-users for organization of the instruc-
tional materials kit for the following variables:

(1) Units are well organized.
(2) As student works from company to company in the kit,
the jobs appear to progress from simple to complex.

(3) Directions are clear and easy to understand.

 

76

 

 

 

 

 

ONO ONO ..NON ONN. ONNNO ONN. N .O."; NOOOONO NON ONOOOONNOz OOO
.NO ONO ONO NNO ONNN. NNO N OONON NO NOOOOO ONOOOOOO 82.3.: NS. .O
ONO ONO O.NON ONO. OONOO ONO N . .OOONONOOOO ON
ONO ONO ONO ONO ONNO. ON. N NOOO OOO NOO.O ONO OOONNOONNO .O
.xO.OEOO
mww mnw mem ONN” mwmm ONO” w ON OZENO EONN mmONOONO ON NOOOOO OOOO
O NOOOEOO ON OOOOEOO EONN OxNoz NOOOONO O< .N
N O .NO ON ON N. O ._
2N: ZNO 2N: zNO 2NO ZNO OEONNON.
S V VS
WW mu m. m m wn NOOuz ..ONON
w mm .m m % wnuu ”OOuz .ONOmOlcoz ”OOuz .ONOOO. .ONNONNNO
w mmw w m. .m. NONO>OO NO OONNONNOOONO .OONNNNzOONN
a 3.x 3 m. .A OONNNO OONNOOO NO ONOONONOO< .ONOOO-OOz

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOOOOON OOO.ONOOO NOOOOON NO OOONNOOEOO .O. ONOON

77
(4) Kit includes an adequate number of forms and worksheets
for the student's own use.

A total of 68 respondents replied to the first vari-
able, of which 88% of the users and 66% of the non-users
agreed that the units were well organized, while 23% of the
non-users were uncertain. Eighty-eight percent of the
users agreed that the jobs appear to progress from simple to
complex as the student works from company to company;only
60% of the non-users agreed. While 51% of the users indi-
cated that the directions were clear, 33% disagreed with the
statement.

Although 64% of the users agreed that there were ade-
quate numbers of forms and worksheets available for student
use, 24% of the users indicated there were not enough forms

and worksheets available.

Evaluation

 

Table 17 shows the relationship between users and non-
users for the two variables: (1) The kit provides sufficient
evaluative information to appraise a student's performance,
and (2) The teacher/trainer should develop his/her own evahh
ative materials to assess a student's performance. Seventy
percent of the users agreed that the kit includes enough
evaluative information to assess student performance, and a
total of 15% of the users were in disagreement. Non-users
indicated uncertainty about this variable (31%) and 17% dis-
agreed. While both groups stated it was appropriate to

develop one's own evaluative materials, 21% of the users

78

.OOOOENONNOO NOOOONO OOOOOO

 

 

 

 

ONO ONO ..NN. NONOO NONOO ..NO. N O
N ONONNONOE O>NNOO.O>O czo NOONONO
.NO ONO ONO ONNO. O.N.. ONO N OO.O>OO ONOOOO NOONONN NO NOOOOON OON .N
.OOOOENONNOO
.NO ONN ONO ..NO N.NN. ONO N O>NNOO.O>O NOONONNNOO OOON>ONO NNO ..
zNO zNO 2N: zNO ZNO 2N: O.OONNO>
ON ON m m ,w Wm
m Mm m m m mm NOOuz .NSON MOO": .ONOOOOOO "OONON .233
u MOW w m. mw .OONNNNOOONN OONNNO OON.OO< NO
% 9.x 9 m. .A OOOONOz O>NNOO.O>O NO .OONONOO< .ONOOO-OO2

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOOOOON OOO .ONOOO NOOOOON NO OOONNOOEOO

.N. ONOON

disagreed.

regard to

the users

uncertain.

79
The degree of uncertainty was similar with
developing one's own evaluative materials—-30% of

were uncertain and 37% of the non-users were

80

Research Question No. 5

 

DOES A RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN RESPONSES OF EMPLOYERS WHO
HIRE OR SUPERVISE CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES?

Tables 18 through 20 show the relationship between the
responses of employers who hire or supervise clerical
employees and the responses of the clerical employees. Both
groups are employed in companies whose forms are represented

in Applied Office Typewriting. The number of employers who

 

indicated they are employed in a supervisory capacity was
24, and 32 individuals indicated they are clerical employees,
together totaling 56 business employees evaluating the
instructional materials. The following tables display the
ratings of employers and employees regarding content/

methodology, organization, and evaluation of the kit.

Content/Methodology

 

Table 18 describes the variables related to content/
methodology. In the category of strongly agree/agree, a
total of 84% of the employers and 91% of the employees agmﬁm
that the materials are appropriate for office education
courses. Employers unanimously agreed that the materials in
the kit should familiarize students/employees with the
application of forms to business situations; 97% of the
clerical employees agreed and 3% were uncertain. In terms
of the content being clear, 96% of the employers agreed that
the content was clear while complete agreement (100%) was

indicated by clerical employees.

81

 

 

 

 

ONO ONO ONO ONO OONON ONN. N . .
ONO ONO ON. ONO NNNO. NNO N OO.NO> N.NOO.O.NNOO O. NOONOOO N.
ONO ONO ONO O.NO ONNOO ONN. N .N.N O. OONOOOONOON NOOOOOO OOOO NON OOO.>ONO O.

ONO ONO NNO ONO OONON NNO N NOOOOOO OOOO NOOOO OO.NOONONO. OOOONONOOO ONOOOOOO ...
ONO ONO ONO ONO ONNOO O.NON N .NOONON OOOO OOO.NOOO .OO.OOOOOO NOONONN.O .ONO>OO O.

ONO ONO .NO .NO ONNO. ONN N OOOO.NOOXO NNOO OONO.OO.O OO.>ONO ON OOOO.OOO O. N.N .O.
ONO ONO O.NO O.NO. OONOO ONO. N O0.000000 NO NN.NOOOO
ONO ONO ON. ONN O.NO. NNO N O NO OOO.NOONO OOOONOOO NOONNOO ONOOOONOON NOONOOO .O
ONO ONO O.NO O.NO OONON ONN. N .NOONNOO ONO

ONO ONO ON. ONO O.NO. ONO N NOON OOO.OOONOXO NONOOO OONON OOOO.OOO OOOO.OO. N.N .O
ONO ONO ONO O.NN. OONOO ON.N N .OOONOOO OOOO.OOO O. ON.OO .O>O. NOO0.0 NOONO
ONO ONO ONO ONO ONNO. ONO N NON OO.NOOOOON OOOO OO.>ONO ...; N.N O. O.O.NONO2 .N
ONO. ONO ONO O.NO. OONOO O.NON N .OOO.NNO
ONO ONO ONO ONO NNNN. ONO N O.NOOON O. OOOO OONON NO O>.NONOOOONOON O. NOONOOO .O
ONO ONO ONO ONO OONON O.NN. N . .
ONO ONO ON. ONO NNNO. ONO N NOO.O O. NOONOOO O
ONO ONO ONO. ONNN. OONOO ON.N N .OO. .OO.NO.O NON NOO.O.NNOO O...Nm .O>O.-NNNOO O>OO

ONO .NO ONO ONO N.NN. ONO N O.OOOO OONO.OOONNOOOONO OON .N.N OON OONO.OEOO OO.>O= .O
ONO ONO ONO ONO NNN.N ONNON N .OOO.NOON.O OOOO.OOO ON OONON NO OO.NOO..OOO ON.3
ONO ONO ONO .NO ONNN. ONN N OOONO.OOONONOOOONO ON.NO...OON O.OOOO N.N O. 0.0.NONO2 .O
ONO ONO ONO O.NON OONNO O.NOO N .NNOO OO.NNO O. NOOO.O.NNO
ONO ONO ONO ONO ONNO. ONO N ON OOO. NOON ON.OOO NNOO OO.O>OO O.OO ...; N.N .N
wvm www mvw mwm. mmmmw Omwmw w .OOOOO.O OONNOOOOO OONNNO NON ONONNOONOOO O. NNN ..
ONO ONO ONO ONO ONO ONO O.OO.NO>

Nu N 0 S G n V V S

O 0 an N w m mm .OOuz ..ONON .NOuz ..E

.m m m m w 9 am . uz .NNOONNCOOOOO .ONNONNNO .ONO>OO NO 9.323

O NO. N m I -O N OO.NNO 8.3% NO NOOOOOONOO OOO NOONOOO NO

9 9.x 3 m. .A OOO.NOO.O>O .OO.NO.O OOO NNOO.>NOOOO NO OOONNOOEOO .O. O.OON

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

The terms and expressions were rated as current by
most of the employers (96%), but only 68% of the employees
agreed, 19% were uncertain, and 13% disagreed. A total of
92% of the employers suggested that the same format should
be continued in any possible revision; 94% of the clerical
employees agreed as well, though 3% disagreed.

Complete agreement of employers (100%) was given to the
variable suggesting that adequate background information
about each company was provided in the kit; 81% of the cleri-
cal employees agreed, 6% disagreed. In terms of whether
there was sufficient variety in the content, 96% of the
employers agreed, 90% of the employees agreed. Of the
twelve variables, one clerical employee strongly disagreed
with Item 4 (Having completed the kit, the student/employee
should have the entry-level skills sufficient for a cleri-
cal job), and three employers did not choose to respond to
Item 6 (The content is representative of forms used in
today's offices).

Employers and employees were uncertain as to whether or
not the kit would develop work habits that lead to effi-
ciency in office work, i.e., 25% of the supervising employ-
ers and 16% of the clerical employees were uncertain.
Twenty-nine percent of the employers were uncertain that
content represents current business practices of a majority
of companies, and 17% were uncertain asto whether the
student/employee will have entry-level skills sufficient

for a clerical job upon completion of the kit. Clerical

83
employees (19%) were uncertain if the terms and/or expres-
sions used in the kit were current, whereas employers
showed no uncertainty about this variable.
All of the twelve variables elicited response rates

over 60% in agreement by both groups.

Organization

 

Table 19 indicates the ratings of employers and
employees with regard to organization of the instructional
materials in forms typewriting. Ninety-two percent of the
employers agreed that the units are well organized and the
directions are clear and easy to understand. Ninety
percent of the clerical employees also concurred that direc-
tions are clear and easy to understand, while 18% were
uncertain and disagreed that the units in the kit are well
organized.

Eighty-four percent of the employers agreed that the
jobs appear to progress from simple to complex as the stu-
dents work from company to company, and 72% of the clerical
employees agreed while 13% disagreed. Both employers and
employees (87% and 75% respectively) agreed that the kit
includes an adequate number of forms and worksheets for the
student's use, but 19% of the clerical employees were uncer-
tain about this variable. No one group strongly disagreed
with the four variables, and only one employer chose not to

respond to Item 4.

84

 

 

 

 

ONO ONO ONO O.NO OONON ONO N .OOO NOOOONO NON ONOOOONNOO OOO
ON. ONO ON. ON. ONNO. ONN N OONON NO NOOOOO ONOOOOOO OOOO.OO. N... .O
ONO ONO ONO ONO .ONK ONE N. . .OOONONOOO: ON
ONO ONO ON. ON. ON>N. ONO N OOOO OOO NOO.O ONO O:o_pOmN.O .m
.XONOEOO
ONO ONO O.NO O.NN. OON.N ONO. a o
. N O.OE.O EONN OOONOONO ON NOOOOO OOOO
ONO ONO ONO ONO .NNN. NNO N OOOOEOO ON OOOOEOO EONN OxNoz NOOOONO O< .N
ONO ONO ONO ONO OONON ONN. a . .
ONO ONO ON. ON. ONNO. ONO N‘ OOOEOONO ..OO ONO ON.OO .
ONO ONO ONO ONO ONO ONO O.OO.NO>
UN as G n V VS
mo an m... w mp. mm NOOuz ..ONOO .mmnz .3338
w mm m m % mm .Omuz .NNOOCNOOOOO .OCONCO
w mm. m m. I .ONO>OO .3 9.32333 OO.NNO 3.3.:
3 «UK a I. rA
u NO OO.NON.OOONO NO :O.NO:.O>O .OOOOO.OEO

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OO.N0.0 OOO ONOO.>NOOOO NO OOO.NOOEOO .O. O.OOO

85

Evaluation

 

Table 20 considers the statements on evaluation
methods preferred by respondents. Statement 1 (The kit pro-
vides sufficient evaluative information to appraise a stu-
dent's performance) had a response rate of 76% employers in
agreement and 62% employees agreeing, whereas 31% of the
clerical employees were uncertain. Item 2 (The teacher or
trainer should develop his/her own evaluative materials to
assess student performance) shows that over half of the
users and non-users agree, while there was some uncertainty
and disagreement by both groups; 25% of employers and 31%
of employees were uncertain about the statement, 13% of both
groups disagreed, and 3% of the clerical employees strongly
disagreed. Two employers and one employee did not respond

to this item.

86

.OOOOENONNOO NOOOONO OOOOOO

 

 

 

 

ONw ONO O.NON .mNmN OONmO O.NN. N. o... OZOCOHOE m>NHOONO>w :30 szNO...

.NN .NO .NNm O.No :Nm mNO N Qo_w>wU .O.:ocm mewwgp Lo Lwcumwu m...— .N
.OOOOENONNOO

OxO ONO ONO .ONO. OONOO ONO. N O.NOOOONO O OO.ONOOO ON :O.NOENON:.

ON. ONO NNN O.NO N.NO. ONO N O>.NOO.O>O NOO.O.NNOO OOO.>ONO N.¥ ..

ONO ONO ONO. ONO ONO ONO O.OO.NO>

MOW. m3» mm mH ma OWN”

% SJ S 3 J JJ . ﬂ . O . .

w mm .O.. O O NO .OOuz .ONON.OOuz .OO.NO.O.OOWZ .NNOO...

w wmw w m. mw -NOOOOO .O:.N.N3OOON OO.NNO OO..OO< NO

a 3K 9 m. .A 3932.. O>.NO3O>O NO .OO.ONOO< .OOOOONOEO

 

 

 

 

 

 

.OO.NO.O OOO ONOO.>NOOOO NO OOO.NOOEOO .Om ONOON

87

Research Question No. 6

 

DO RESPONDENTS EVALUATING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS IN FORMS
TYPENRITING EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
AND OFFER SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT?

Business teachers and business employees supplied many

suggestions for improving Applied Office Typewriting. These

 

suggestions will be highlighted in the following tables (21
through 25) describing the importance of the subject matter
for beginning office workers, other business forms that
would be appropriate to include in a possible revision,
terms or expressions that should be included, adequacy of
the illustrations, and supplementary materials to make the
kit a more valuable teaching/learning aid.

In Table 21, respondents ranked the importance of the
subject matter of the instructional materials for beginning
office workers. Forty-eight percent indicated the subject
matter was important for beginning office workers, and 32%
thought it very important. Sixteen percent indicated that
the materials were only somewhat important. Three individ-
uals did not answer the question, and of those who did, no
one felt the subject matter not important for beginning
office workers.

Business forms currently included in Applied Office

 

Typewriting covered petroleum, food, chemical, steel, car-

 

pet, shipping, newspapers, finance, insurance, wood prod-
ucts, and clothing. In view of the wide variety of

businesses covered, respondents were asked to indicate

88

Table 21. Respondents' Appraisal of Importance of
Subject Matter for Beginning Office Workers.

 

 

 

(N = 124)
Importance Number of Respondents
Frequency Percent
Very Important 4O 32
Important 60 48
Somewhat Important 20 16
Not Important 0 O
No Response 4 _g

Total 124 99

 

89
additional business forms they considered should be
included in any future instructional materials kit.

Table 22 displays, by rank, forms respondents felt
necessary in future kits. Of the categories listed in the
questionnaire, 44% of the respondents indicated government
as the primary category for which forms should be repre-
sented, followed by finance (40%), law (36%), medicine (30%),
transportation (27%), and education (20%). Other areas sug-
gested by 14% answering this question were real estate;
insurance; travel agencies; local, state, and federal gov-
ernments; electronics; hotels; restaurants; and utilities.

In addition to suggesting other forms, respondents were
also asked to identify other terms and expressions that
should be included in the kit. Terms/expressions listed in
the questionnaire included office management, to which 34%
circled its necessity, reprographics (31%), micrographics
(21%), word processing (73%), and telecommunications (35%),
while 15% were satisfied that the terms and expressions
already in use were adequate. Seven percent proposed the
addition of computer programming and data processing, fil-
ing, financial, statistical, and informational processing
(see Table 23).

Another aspect of 591 which respondents rated was
illustrations in the text as being clear, recent, relevant,
large enough, irrelevant, outdated, too numerous, not
enough, or other (see Table 24). Seventy-three percent of

the respondents indicated that the illustrations were clear,

Table 22. Respondents'

(N = 124)

90

Opinions of Other Forms That
Should Be Included in Future Revision.

 

Types of Forms

Number of Respondents

 

Government6
Finance

Law

Medicine
Transportation
Education

Otherb

Total

Frequency

 

54
49
45
37
34
25
18

124

Percent

44
4O
36
3O
27
20
14

100

 

aGovernment through Education offered as choices.

b

Real estate; insurance; travel agencies; local,

state, and

federal government; electronics; hotels; restaurants;

utilities

91

Table 23. Respondents' Appraisal of Other Terms or
Expressions That Should Be Included in a
Future Revision. (N = 124)

 

 

 

Terms/Expressions Number of Respondents
Frequency Percent
Word Processing 90 73
Telecommunications 43 35
Office Management 42 34
Reprographics 38 31
Micrographics 26 21
Currently Adequate 19 15
Other* 9 7

 

*Computer programming, data processing, filing, financial,
statistical, information processing.

92

Table 24. Respondents'Ratings ofIllustrations in the
Current Forms Instructional Materials.

 

 

 

(N = 124)
Criteria Number of Respondents
Frequency Percent
Clear 90 73
Recent 36 29
Large Enough 59 48
Relevant 77 62
Irrelevant 1 1
Out of Date 10 8
Too Many 1 1
Not Enough 14 11
Other* 8 7
Total 124

 

*Change size of existing forms, need wider variety, revise
same forms, place full-size facsimiles in teacher's manual.

93
20% thought them recent, 48% large enough, and 62% indicated
the illustrations relevant. Less than 1% felt the examples
were irrelevant, while 8% stated they were out of date.

Regarding numbers of illustrations, 11% thought there
were not enough and 1% thought there were too many. Seven
percent made other observations as follows: stay with
basic forms but use different sized stationery, need a wider
variety of forms, inappropriate for word processors, illus-
trations need to be revised, and need full-size facsimile in
teacher's manual.

Table 25 illustrates, in order of preference, which of
the supplementary materials respondents felt the most valu-
able. Respondents were subsequently requested to identify
three out of seven types of supplementary materials that
would potentially make the kit a more valuable teaching/
learning aid. Of these seven variables, goals and perfor-
mance indicators to aid the learner ranked highest (38%),
and the use of overhead transparencies of forms was indi-
cated by 33 percent. Other suggestions were: include a
reference book of forms, develop motivational materials,
and provide forms used in accounting.

Finally, because of the current efforts to eliminate
bias or stereotyping in instructional materials, respondents
were asked if they had encountered any in their review of

Applied Office Typewriting, and if so, was the bias or

 

stereotyping ethnic, sexual, racial, religious, all of the

above, or other in origin. Out of the 124 respondents,

94

Table 25. Respondents' Opinions of Supplementary
Materials in Future Revision. (N = 124)

 

 

 

Supplementary Materials Number of Respondents
Frequency Percent

Goals and Performance Indicators 47 38

Tapes Providing More Company

Background 21 17

Overhead Transparencies of

Forms 41 33

Filmstrips Showing Examples of

Forms 21 17

Slide/Tape Instructions 17 14

None of Above 18 15

Other* 8 7

 

*Reference book of forms, motivational materials,
accounting setups.

95

123, or a total of 99.2%, indicated that they had not

encountered any;

.8% did not respond.

96

Research Question No. 7

 

IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTER-
ISTICS OF BUSINESS TEACHERS (USERS AND NON-USERS) AND
BUSINESS EMPLOYEES (EMPLOYERS AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES) IN
TERMS OF NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING, NUMBER OF YEARS OF
WORK EXPERIENCE, SIZE OF CLASS/DEPARTMENT, AND PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT?

The purpose of this question was to obtain demographic
data to present in table form information regarding the
respondent's profession, number of years employed, size of
class/department currently working, and location of place of
employment. There were 124 respondents answering this sec-
tion; 68 were teachers and 56 were business employees. Of
the 68 teachers, 33 were users of the instructional materi-
als, and 35 were non-users. Of the 56 business employees,
24 were in supervisory positions and 32 were in clerical
positions.

Table 26 shows the number of years teaching experience
of the business education teachers evaluating the kit who
were users and non-users of the materials. Forty-five per-
cent of the users have been teaching for more than 10 years,
whereas 26% of the non-users have taught more than 10 years.
Only 9% of the users and 17% of the non-users have been
teaching for one year or less. Approximately the same num-
ber of users and non-users (39% and 31% respectively) have

been teaching between six and ten years. Six percent of

Table 26. Years Teaching Experience of Business Education
Teachers by Users and Non-Users of Instructional

Materials. (N

 

 

 

 

Years Teaching Users Non-Users

f .% f %

O - 1 3 9 6 17

2 - 5 2 6 9 26

6 - 10 13 39 11 31

10+ 15 45 _9 26
Total 33 35

 

Table 27. Number of Years Office Work Experience of
Users and Non-Users

Business Education Teachers:
Compared. (N

 

Years Work

 

Experience Users Non-Users
r % f %

Less than 1 1 3 O O
1 - 5 2 6 1O 29

6 - 1O 21 64 19 54
10+ 5 15 4 11
None _£ .12 _§ __E'
Total 33 100 35 100

 

 

 

41 ,j

98
the users and 16% of the non-users have between 2 and 5
years teaching experience.

In Table 27, the number of years of office work
experience for business education teachers shows that the
percentage is similar between users and non-users for office
experience of 6 to 10 years and over 10 years; namely, 64%
users and 54% non-users (6-10 years), and 15% users and 11%
non-users with more than 10 years office work experience.

It was also observed that 12% of the users have had no
office experience, while 6% of the non-users have had no
previous work experience.

Table 28 shows the number of students enrolled in the
business education departments of the teachers using the
instructional materials and teachers not using them. Non-
users (18%) indicated having less than 20 students enrolled
in their departments, 29% have between 100 and 199 students,
and 24% have 400 or more. Users have a small percentage of
students in the first three categories: 3% less than 20,
none in the 20-49 range, and 9% have 50-99 students. A
larger percentage exists in the last three categories;
namely, 29% of the users have 100-199 students, 34% have
between 200-399 enrolled, and 25% teach in departments
greater than 399 students.

In terms of the number of years employers and employees
have been working in the business world, Table 29 depicts
this information. It is noted that a large percentage of

employers (54%) have 10 or more years of office experience,

99

Table 28. Number of Students in Business Education
Department of Teachers:

Compared. (N = 66)

Users and Non-Users

 

 

 

 

Number of Students Users Non-Users
f % f %

Less than 20 1 3 6 18
20 - 49 O O 2 6

50 - 99 3 9 4 12

100 - 199 9 28 10 29
200 - 399 11 34 4 12
Greater than 399 __ _25 ._8 I_24
Total 32 100 34 100

 

Table 29. Number of Years Work Experience of Employers and
Employees in Firms Represented in Instructional

Materials. (N = 56)

 

 

 

 

Years Working Employers Employees
f % f , %

O - 1 O O 5 16

2 - 5 7 29 12 38

6 - 10 4 17 9 28

10+ .12 _52 _6 £
Total 24 100 32 100

 

100
as compared with 19% of the employees with 10 or more years.
All employers indicated more than one year office experi-
ence, while 16% of the employees have one year or less. In
the categories 2-5 years and 6-10 years, 11 (46%) employers
and 21 (66%) clerical employees are shown as having work
experience in these two categories.

Business employees indicated that they have had some
teaching experience. Table 30 shows that 37% of the
employers have had between 1 and 10 years of teaching
experience; 41% of the employees have taught between 1 and
10 years. Sixty-four percent of employers and 55% of
employees showed no teaching experience.

The number of employees working in the same department
as the employer and employee evaluating the instructional
materials is shown in Table 31. Twenty-three percent of the
business employees work in departments with less than 10
other employees. Thirty-two percent indicated there are
10-19 employees in their department, while 30% stated they
work with 20-49 employees. A total of 14% of the employees
work in departments that have 50 or more employees. Tabua31
shows that all 56 employees evaluating the instructional
materials responded to this statement.

In Table 32, respondents were asked to identify the
type of location of their firm, i.e., urban, suburban,
rural, or other description of location. Forty-four percent
of the total respondents were located in an urban setting of

which 26% were teachers and 66% employees. Another large

101

Table 30. Years of Teaching Experience of Employers/
Employees in Firms Represented in Instructional

Materials. (N = 51)

 

Years Teaching

Employees

 

 

 

Experience Employers
f % f %
Less than 1 0 0 1 3
1 ' 5 5 23 8 28
6 - 1O 1 5 3 10
10+ 2 9 1 3
None ‘15 ._QE 1. _§§
Total 22 100 29 100

 

Table 31. Number of Employees Working in Same Department as
Employers and Employees in Firms Represented in

 

 

Instructional Materials. (N = 56)
Number of Employees Employers/Employees
f %
1 - 9 13 23
10 - 19 18 32
20 - 49 17 30
Greater than 49 _8 14
Total 56 100

 

102

Table 32. Respondents' Places of Employment.

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 124)
. Total

Location Teachers Employees** Response
f % f % f %

Urban 18 26 37 66 55 44
Suburban 34 50 15 27 49 40
Rural 1O 15 O O 10 8
Other* 3 4 3 5 6 5
No Response _3_ 4 _1_ 2 4 3
Total 68 100 56 100 124 100

 

*"Pleasant," "city," ”metropolitan"

**Includes employers and clerical employees

103

percentage (40% of total respondents) were located in
suburbs, of which 50% were teachers and 27% were employees.
None of the employees indicated they were located in a rural
setting while 15% of those teaching said that they were.
Other responses were: "pleasant," "metropolitan," and
"city." Four respondents chose not to answer this item.

Table 33 shows the types of businesses that were
represented by supervisory employers and clerical employees
evaluating the instructional materials. A large percentage
were in finance, insurance, and real estate firms (34%),
and 29% were in manufacturing. Five percent of the
employees reported that they were in service firms. Others
included chemical, petroleum, steel, and food.

In Chapter 5, the researcher will summarize the

results presented in this chapter.

104

Table 33. Types of Business Represented by Employers/
Employees. (N = 56)

 

Business Respondents

 

f %

 

Finance/Insurance/

Real Estate 19 34
Manufacturing 16 29
Wholesale/Retail 6 11
Transportation/
Public Utilities 6 11
Services 3 5
Other* _6 _11
Total 56 100

 

*Chemicals, petroleum, steel, food

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

 

This chapter will present a summary of the study,
conclusions that were derived from the reported findings,
recommendations for improving the materials that were
evaluated, and recommendations for further research in

evaluation of instructional materials in forms-typewriting.

Summary

The study was conducted to determine if instructional
materials used in teaching forms typewriting are relevant
and useful for developing those clerical skills needed for
current entry-level positions, and to make recommendations
for teaching forms typewriting based on responses made by
business education teachers and business employees.

In order to develop a closer link with business and
education, both groups (employees and teachers) were sur-
veyed to determine if there was general agreement on what
should be included in instructional materials for teaching
forms handling and typewriting. The material selected for

this study was Applied Office Typewriting by Vern Allen

 

Frisch. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company assisted in provid-
ing the kits for evaluation and a ten percent random sample

105

106
of current users of the instructional materials. A ques-
tionnaire was developed by the investigator, with input from
a panel of reviewers, and distributed to four groups;name1y,
current users of the materials, non-users of the materials
who were in teaching positions, employers who hire or super-
vise clerical employees whose firms are represented in the
materials, and clerical employees working in firms that are
represented in the materials being evaluated.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections with the
first section designed to assess the intention and appropri-
ateness of the materials. Section Two was designed to
obtain information on content, organization, methodology,
and means of evaluating the instructional materials. Sec-
tion Three was developed for the purpose of asking partici-
pants for suggestions for improvements of the materials,
and Section Four asked the respondents to provide informatum
regarding their teaching/work experience, location, number
of students/employees in their classroom/department, and
types of firms represented in the study.

The questionnaire, cover letter, and instructional
materials were sent to 62 users; 62 non-users identified by
the users; and 18 companies represented in the materials who
consented to participate and distribute the questionnaires,
cover letter, and instructional materials to two supervisory
employers and two clerical employees in their firms. A
total of 204 questionnaires were distributed, and 124 were

returned giving a response rate of 60.7 percent.

107
Questionnaires were coded, data was keypunched, and the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences utilizing the
Cyber 750 computer was used to develop the findings.

The researcher selected the materials with the inten-
tion of making classroom teachers aware of the value of
textbooks, the limitations of textbooks, and the impact that
evaluation can have on the selection of instructional
materials in business education.

The study demonstrates in Chapter 2, Review of Related
Literature,tmn;a wide variety of evaluation models exists
for evaluating programs, but a limited number of evaluations
exists for the purpose of selecting a textbook for a par-
ticular course, department, or program. The findings
reported in Chapter 4 reveal the following information based
on seven research questions developed for the purpose of
determining the relevancy of instructional materials in
forms typewriting.

Question #1: Is the material appropriate for programs in
education and business/industry?

 

The findings indicated that the materials were highly
appropriate for an office procedures course, high school
typewriting course, clerical training program in school or
industry, and an adult refresher course. Lower percentages
of response rates for appropriateness for two-year and four-
year college secretarial courses were indicated. Materials
for these two courses could be supplementary for review or

additional coverage of subject matter. When comparing the

108
appropriateness of the materials for the above courses with
teachers and employees, the areas of highest agreement were
clerical training program in the public/private sector.
Areas that showed most disagreement between the two groups
were the four-year college secretarial course, with only 16%
of the teachers rating the materials as inappropriate, while
46% of the employees felt the materials were inappropriate
for a four-year college secretarial course. Approximately
16% of both groups showed uncertainty about the appropriate-
ness of the materials for all courses mentioned.
Question #2: Can respondents who are not currently using

the materials identify ways to incorporate the
materials in their classroom/training progmmm?

 

The findings showed that the main reason for using the
materials was that it helped to attain the objectives or
standards which high school teachers had set for their stu-
dents. If non-users could use the kit, they would do so
because the materials represented the real world and taught
valuable concepts. The main reason for not using the materi-
als was that companies did not have a clerical training
program. Non-user teachers indicated that the content was
inappropriate for their courses. Many non-users could have
been teaching courses that would not lend themselves to
utilizing the materials, hence the content was inappropri-
ate. Some indicated the kit was too short, others said the
kit was too long. It could be that types of schedules would
not allow a kit of this nature to fit into some classes.

Thirty-three percent of the non-users indicated that they

109
could not now nor in the future make use of the kit. Some
of their reasons were: "forms were out of date, too vague,
not enough variety, limited budget, company has too
sophisticated equipment for such a basic kit."
Question #3: Does a relationship exist between the
responses of educators and business employees

in terms of content, methodology, and
organization of the kit?

 

The findings of this research study revealed that
teachers and employees were generally in agreement with the
appropriateness of the materials for office education
courses. Employees were more satisfied with content than
were teachers. The areas of highest agreement were:

(a) the materials would familiarize students or employees
with the application of forms to business situations,

(b) the materials were appropriate for an office education
class, (c) the content was representative of forms used in
today's offices, and (d) the kit will help develop work
habits that lead to efficiency in office work. Areas show-
ing most disagreement by both groups were: (a) student will
have entry-level skills sufficient for a clerical job having
completed the kit, (b) units are well organized, and (c) as
student works from company to company, jobs appear to pro-
gress from simple to complex. Areas that showed intergroup
differences were: (a) materials in the kit will provide good
foundation for other higher level units in business courses,
(6) adequate background information about each company is

provided for in the kit, and (c) the directions are easy and

110
clear to understand. The area showing most uncertainty by
both groups was that the teacher or trainer should develop
his/her own evaluative materials to assess student
performance.
Question #4: Does a relationship exist between teachers

currently using the materials and teachers
not using the materials?

 

Current users had the benefit of using the materials in
a real classroom setting, but they tended to agree more
favorably with some of the items than did the non-users.
Non-users were more uncertain about the clarity of the con-
tent, whether or not the terms and/or expressions in the kit
were current, and if the content was sufficiently varied.
Areas of most agreement between the two groups were:
(a) the content is appropriate for office education
classes, (b) the materials should familiarize students/
employees with application of forms to business situations,
(c) the kit is designed to provide simulated work experi-
ence in several different companies, and (d) the format
should be continued in any revision. Areas that both groups
showed most disagreement were: (a) the directions were
clear and easy to understand, and (b) the kit includes ade-
quate numbers of forms and worksheets for student's own use.
Intergroup differences appeared in statements regarding
whether the kit will help develop work habits that lead to
efficiency in office work, content represents current busi-
ness practices of majority of companies, adequate background

information about each company is provided for in the kit,

111
and the content is sufficiently varied. Fewer teacher non-
users agreed with the statements that the units in the kit
were well organized and that as the student works from com-
pany to company the jobs appear to progress from simple to
complex. Users felt the kit provided sufficient evaluative
information to appraise a student's performance and did not
react favorably to the statement that the teacher/trainer
should develop his/her own evaluative materials.
Question #5: Does a relationship exist between the

responses of employers who hire or supervise
clerical employees and the clerical employees?

 

While both groups are hired in companies whose firms
are represented in the materials evaluated, the findings in
this study show that the two groups were not in agreement
as often as the teacher users and teacher non-users. Cleri-
cal employees tended to disagree with the statements more
often than did the supervisory employees. Those areas were:
(a) the kit included business terms and/or expressions that
are current, (b) the content represents current business
practices of a majority of companies, (c) as student works
from company to company, jobs appear to progress from simple
to complex, and (d) the kit will help develop work habits
that lead to efficiency in office work. The areas of high-
est agreement were: (a) the materials should familiarize
students/employees with application of forms to business
situations, (b) the content is clear, (c) the format should
be continued, and (d) the directions were clear and easy to

understand.

112
Areas that showed most intergroup differences were:

(a) as the student works from company to company, jobs
appear to progress from simple to complex, (b) having com-
pleted the kit, the student should have sufficient entry-
level skills for clerical positions, (c) the kit includes
business terms and/or expressions that are current,
(d) adequate background information about each company is
provided, and (e) the kit includes adequate number of forms
and worksheets for the student's use.
Question #6: 00 respondents evaluating instructional

materials in forms typewriting emphasize the

importance of the subject matter and offer
suggestions for improvement?

 

The findings indicate that 80% of the respondents
rated the subject matter of forms typewriting as important
or more important. Respondents gave suggestions for improv-
ing the instructional materials such as, "offer more variety
of forms,” and forms in federal, local, and state govern-
ments, law, finance, medicine, transportation, education,
restaurants, hotels, travel agencies, and electronics were
suggested. Word processing terminology was rated by over
73% of the respondents as the most important terminology to
add to any future revision. Computer terminology, data
processing, office management, reprographics, micrographics,
and telecommunications terms were also suggested.

Respondents rated the illustrations as clear, relevant,
and large enough. While they did not criticize the current

illustrations, they did make suggestions such as, ”change

113

the size of existing forms," ”provide for a wider variety
of illustrations," "revise some of the forms," and ”place
full-size facsimiles in the teacher's manual." The findings

indicated that goals and performance indicators would help
make the kit a better teaching/learning aid. Overhead
transparencies of forms would also be beneficial. Sugges-
tions for developing a reference book of forms, explaining
how calculations are made on invoices, and providing more
company background information, etc., were also indicated.
Respondents did not indicate any bias or stereotyping in
the materials.
Question #7: Is there a relationship between the demogramuc
___________ characteristics of business teachers (users
and non-users) and business employees (employ-
ers and clerical employees) in terms of number
of years of teaching, number of years of work
experience, size of class/department, and
place of employment?

The findings in this research study show that the
majority of users and non-users had between six and ten years
of teaching experience. Similarly, the majority of employers
had between six and ten years of work experience, while the
clerical employees had less than one year to five years of
office work experience. Both users and non-users (teachers)
have had office work experience, 88% and 94%, respectively.
Conversely, 64% of the employers and 55% of the clerical
workers have had no teaching experience. It should be noted
that both groups include respondents who have had both
teaching and office experience. The data show that employers

and employees worked mainly in urban settings, while

114
teachers were working in suburban settings, and a small

percentage of both groups worked in rural settings.

Conclusions

 

The data collected for this descriptive study provided
the basis for a wide variety of comparisons of the instruc-
tional materials based on the responses of business educa-
tion teachers and business employees. The findings support
the following conclusions:

1. The content for teaching forms typewriting is both
appropriate and important for high school office procedures
courses, clerical training courses in public and private
sectors, and adult refresher courses. While it can be used
in high school typewriting courses and two-year community
college secretarial programs, it is more appropriate to use
the kit in high school office procedures, clerical training,
and adult refresher courses.

2. The instructional materials teach valuable concepts
related to entry-level positions and help reach objectives/
standards that teachers establish for their students. These
responses were indicated by current users of the materials
and non-users who could make use of the materials in their
courses.

3. The changes that are occurring in the world of work
today, such as terminology related to word processing, tele-
communications, micrographics, reprographics, and computers,

should be considered in future revisions of the

115
instructional materials in forms typewriting. Responses
relating to these items were supported by both teachers and
employees.

4. The instructional materials need a wider variety of
forms, more supplementary materials to aid the learner,
additional company background, and clearer directions in
future revisions. Both groups (teachers and employers) have
similar responses concerning the support materials to aid
the teaching/learning process.

5. The instructional materials need to be more diver-
sified and challenging. Assignments similar to on-the-job
assignments should include rough drafts, long-hand writing,
notes written in margins, and different sizes of stationery.
Responses relating to these items were open-ended sugges-
tions made by business employees.

6. Teachers will select this set of instructional
materials because it teaches valuable concepts, represents
the real world, is better than similarcN‘competitive kits,
and is the only one known that concentrates on forms.
Employees will select the instructional materials, if the
company has a training program, because it represents the
real world, teaches valuable concepts, and would help reach

objectives/standards set for employees.

116

Recommendations

 

Based on the findings and conclusions derived from the
findings of this research study, the following recommenda-
tions are made for revising the current instructional
materials, and for further research on evaluation of these
materials:

1. Because of the large percentage of available posi-
tions in clerical office work in the 1980's and 1990's,
there is still a need for materials similar to A01. It is
recommended that a revision be done incorporating the sug-
gestions from business educators and business employees in
this research study.

2. Because of the new and emerging companies that have
developed in the past fifteen years, i.e., microcomputers,
fast-food chains, electronics, travel, and transportation,
it is recommended that a broader base of companies be con-
sulted in order to obtain new forms, formats, terminology,
and expressions so as to have a wider diversity of forms
for future revision.

3. It is recommended that a list of performance
objectives and achievement indicators be developed based on
tasks of clerical workers in business today. In this
competency-based format, the materials can be easily
adapted/adopted for several courses in business education.

4. While business education has made great progress
in producing simulated materials for classroom use, it is

recommended that actual real-world specimens of forms be

117
continued in sets of instructional materials. This makes
a kit unique and allows for students to have actual
on-the-job experience while still in a learning environment.

5. With all four groups responding in a constructive
manner to the intent, content, and methodology of the
materials, the results should be utilized by publishers and
authors of new materials developed for forms typewriting
and handling.

6. Based on the findings, it is recommended that the
scope of business forms includes law, government, transpor-
tation, public utilities, electronics, medicine, and educa-
tion, in addition to those forms already included in the
kit.

7. Based on the findings, new instructional materials
developed for forms typewriting should include overhead
transparencies of a wide variety of forms to be utilized
for instruction. A reference booklet consisting of the
same forms could be included in the students' materials.

8. It is recommended that a resource section be
included after each unit to: (1) know more about the com-
pany the student is employed in, (2) opportunities for a
career in the company, and (3) other duties that can be
performed if the student were to take a full-time position
with that firm.

9. It is recommended that teachers using the materials

contact personnel in the branch offices of these large

118
firms, arrange for company visits, or resource speakers
for job shadowing experiences.

10. The materials could be included in a career
exploration program or work-experience program in a high
school in order to provide more real-world training before
graduation.

11. Because of the importance of selecting materials
for students to gain the most knowledge, another study
could test the impact of learning and what has been gained
by students using the materials.

12. Follow-up studies of students that have used the
materials and are working in clerical positions could also
test the adequacy of the materials and allow for another
form of evaluation based on student input.

13. Another study to test the time period students
need to finish a job in the class as compared to the actual
time it takes or should take employees to complete the same
task on the job could be researched.

14. Further research on packaging, color, type of
paper, forms used in business today, could be done to
determine if cost would be prohibitive, if materials in
forms typewriting would be more appealing or less
appealing to users.

The researcher has tried to demonstrate that effective
evaluation of instructional materials should reflect the
nature of the course and its importance to the teaching/

learning system. It would be most gratifying if a

119
significant change in the selection of textbooks in business
education, as well as areas outside of business education,
would take place due partly to the efforts undertaken in
this study.

While there will always be problems in evaluation, a
questionnaire designed to obtain the opinions of concerned
groups does show a commitment to evaluation and would poten-
tially have some impact on textbook selection. It is
important that evaluation remains flexible so that the
requirements of different circumstances can be met and that
institutions and personnel will react favorably to

evaluation as a form of improvement.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING

 

 

Applied Office

“DEW/DITING

This practice set contains these business papers:

JOB 1 Training—Skill Practice Sheets

JOBS 2-4 Administration—Signature Card, Notice of Change
Form (for personnel), Letterhead, lnteroffice Correspon-
dence (memo)

JOBS 5-9 Purchasing—Purchase Order, Request for Quota-
tion, Purchase Requisition/Order (combined), Office Sup-
plies Requisition, Requisition for Duplicating Work, Summary
Memorandum of Justification (for expenditure)

JOBS 10-18 Sales and Shipping-Office Order Memo,
Invoice, Request for Shipment, Bill of Lading, Uniform

Airbill, Insurance Form Letters, Standard Form for Presen-
tation of Loss and Damage Claim, Classified Ad Order, New
Account Information, Securities Receipt

JOBS 19—21 Accounting—Expense Report, Check Request
Form, Service Department Operation Comparison (table),
lnteroffice Clearings Cash Letter, lnteroffice Clearings Entry
Letter, General Debit/Credit Letter

JOBS 22-25 Purchasing, Shipping, Sales—Purchase Order,
Shipment Contract, Marine Insurance Application, Con-
sumption Entry (importing), Carrier’s Certificate and Re-
lease Order, Invoice

JOB 26 Skill Checkup in Accounting and Purchasing—State-
ment, Request for Purchase, Purchase Requisition

120

Employment in Different Departments

At ﬁrst you will work in the personnel and training
divisions of several companies. Then you will pro-
ceed to the purchasing departments of other com-
panies. After you have gained experience in pur-
chasing, you will be assigned to sales departments,
including the classiﬁed advertising department of a
newspaper. You will work in a statistical department
and in a securities ofﬁce, and you will type from
cards used with computers. Since banks employ
many high school graduates each year, you will be
given the opportunity to work in a bank. Then you
will move on to a company that must buy raw
materials from another country, and you will prepare
the papers needed to import goods. Finally you will
work in a billing department.

Administration, purchasing, sales, ﬁnance, and
accounting—these are major functions of an ofﬁce.
Each function requires special forms to make it easy
to circulate and act on the information given on the
forms. Forms get results; they authorize employees
to take action. The typist who prepares the forms is
indispensable in business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I l)
0’
I
\I
' r-
V’ 2
A "a'
l E
I
G Sing
0 y,’ 0°-
3 ' 23.:
u
u- “ '
m x :51 3)!
5 i "-7-" 533'
_ .- “
- U
5 S ,5;- 33’-
t . -.
g g / :2;-
o r“ -
a. .4») 059
3 ' 33;
... - «2:
O 1 .i .4
u r :33
g 5"?!-
3 '3 8‘3“-
2J : 3 00°
.. '3 ’3 =33
- '5‘ x g a so:
> ¢ 2 c 13 Fun
' 8 a 8 3 as:
o 3x-
“ w t“ are"
( > " (02
.u a: - °
N -p ‘ U an
:‘ac as 5 3 8
a: p =10 u" .6 O
“i- x 3 ”w " U a
e< « .. a: 4 .. <
2:53 3 ~ ‘“ 3
.m U ( K

121

 

AOT
4/e

JOB 4

TIME

SHEET

 

Date Job. No. Office No.

 

 

 

Employee Name

 

Employee No.

 

Company Name

 

DAILY
TOTAL

AM PM
MON IN our IN OUT

 

 

TUE

 

WED

 

THU

 

F RI
SAT

 

 

 

 

SUN

 

 

 

EMPLOYEE l
S GNATURE TOTAL

HOURS

 

 

 

Put a check by the statement if it correctly de-
scribes your work; othenwise place a minus sign
beside it.

C) Instructions regarding the style of letter were
followed.

1:] The letter is centered on the letterhead
stationery.

[j The memo was carefully proofread; all errors
on the draft were corrected.

I rate my work:

CI excellent D good I] fair

 

 

Supervisor’s Rating of Employee’s Work
Improvement Needed 1:) Satisfactory D

Comments

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

I!

APPENDIX B

LIST OF FIRMS REPRESENTED IN
APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING

 

Olsten Temporary Services

Exxon Corporation

Prudential Insurance Company of America
Levi Strauss and Company

Peters International, Inc.

Olin Corporation

Union Carbide Corporation

Pet Incorporated

Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Hershey Foods

Mobil Oil Corporation

Sears, Roebuck, and Company

Simmons Company

Eastern Airlines

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
W. R. Grace and Company

New York Times Company

Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corporation

Parker Pen Company

Irving Trust Company
Bigelow-Sanford

D. J. Powers Company, Inc.

Solina, Inc.

122

 

MICHIGAN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

301-0 ERICKSON HALL. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48824 0 PHONE 517/353-4397

Company is currently represented in the textbook APPLIED
OFFICE TYPEWRITING, which I am evaluating for a research project at
Michigan State University to determine what improvements need to be
made in forms typewriting. With your help, I would like to send a
copy of the textbook and an evaluation questionnaire to:

(1) two of your employees who hire or supervise clerical personnel;
(2) two of your clerical employees who spend a large part of their
work day typing on forms.

I am asking each person to briefly examine the textbook, then answer
the questionnaire. They may keep the book, but I would like the
questionnaire returned to me.

is represented in Unit ___, and it would be extremely
useful to have evaluations of the material currently in the text
from yours and other companies illustrated. Would you please direct
this letter to the person you think most appropriate to circulate
the text and questionnaires, and have him/her fill in the information at
the bottom of this letter? I will then send future correspondence to
that contact person.

Thank you for your assistance in this regard. With your company's
help, we can all provide a more meaningful instructional tool for
tomorrow's student.

,rl. /
( CZLMENV<‘“4JN

‘1 oria Kielbaso,
Coordinator

Our company will assist in evaluating the forms instructional text—
book. Send necessary information to:

 

 

 

 

Name: Company:
Dept: Address:
GK/jkt

123

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

APPENDIX C
LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE

124

 

MICHIGAN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

301-0 ERICKSON HALL. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING. MICHIGAN 48824 0 PHONE 517/353-4397

April 5, l98l

T0: Contact Persons Interested in Evaluating Forms
Instructional Materials

FROM: Gloria Kielbaso, Coordinatorqg
SUBJECT: Evaluation of APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING Textbook

Thank you for consenting to evaluate the forms typewriting textbook,
APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING.

With your input the results will provide data for developing current
instructional materials as a result of suggestions from business and
education.

Enclosed you will find a copy of my original letter to you, a copy of
the kit, APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING, and copies of the questionnaire.
You may keep the kit(s), and it would be extremely helpful if you could
return the completed questionnaires by MAY 15, l98l.

Information will be kept confidential and used only for the purpose of
analyzing data for this project. Codes in the upper right-hand corner
are only to keep an account of respondents in order to follow up or
inform them of the progress of this study.

It is a pleasure to know that a firm of your stature and reputation is
willing to take the time and effort to link the educational world with
the world of work.

Enclosures
APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING
Questionnaires

MSU IS an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

125

 

MKHHGAN VOCAHONAL EDUCAUON RESOURCE CENTER

301-0 ERICKSON HALL. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48824 0 PHONE 517/353-4397
April 5, 1981

TO: Business Education Departments Using APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING
FROM: Gloria Kielbaso, Coordinator

SUBJECT: Evaluation of Instructional Materials in Forms Typewriting

Your school district has been identified by Gregg Division/McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, as a user of the textbook, APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING.

I am currently evaluating this textbook for a research project at Michigan
State University. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine what
improvements are needed for instructional materials in forms typewriting.

With your help, I would like for you to review the text and answer the
questionnaire for the project and/or to circulate the questionnaire(s)
and text to:

(l) a teacher who is currently using APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING.
(2) a teacher who has used it previously, or
(3) a teacher who has never used the text

Thank you for your assistance. Any input from current users, past users,
and non-users will be extremely beneficial. Information will be kept
confidential and used only for the purpose of analyzing data for this
project. Codes in the upper right-hand corner are only to keep an account
of respondents in order to follow up or inform them of the progress of
this study. With your school's help, we can all provide more meaningful
instructional materials for tomorrow's student.

Enclosures

APPLIED OFFICE TYPEWRITING kit
Questionnaires

P. S. You may keep the kit(s), and I look forward to receiving your,
completed questionnaire(s) by MAY l5, l98l.

MSU IS an Affirmative Action tqua10ppor un tyl stitu on

 

126

 

MICHIGAN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

301-0 ERICKSON HALL. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48824 0 PHONE 517/353-4397

DATE: May 28, 1981
TO: Contact Persons Evaluating Applied Office Typewriting

FROM: Gloria Kielbaso, Coordinatorb
1

SUBJECT: Follow-up of Evaluations

In April I wrote to you asking for your assistance in evaluating
the instructional materials packet, Applied Office Typewriting.
The responses have been coming in extremely well, but it is still
very important to have input from all of those schools that have
been identified by Gregg Division/McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
as users of Applied Office Typewriting.

I am writing to you again because of the significance each ques-
tionnaire has to the usefulness of this study. In order for the
results to be truly representative of the opinions of business
teachers, and for any revisions to be improved based on your rec-
ommendations, it is essential that each questionnaire be returned.

Enclosed is a copy of the original letter sent to you and an extra
copy of the questionnaire. If you need any other assistance please
feel free to write or call me. May I look fonward to receiving
your reply soon? Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

GK/ec

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

127

 

MICHIGAN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

301-0 ERICKSON HALL. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING. MICHIGAN 48824 0 PHONE 517/353-4397

DATE: May 28, 1981
TO: Contact Persons Evaluating Applied Office Typewriting
FROM: Gloria Kielbaso, Coordinatorﬁﬁtz

SUBJECT: Follow—up of Evaluations

In April I wrote to you asking for your assistance in evaluating
the instructional materials packet, Applied Office Typewriting.
The responses have been coming in extremely well, but it is still
very important to have input from all of those companies that
agreed in December to participate in the study.

I am writing to you again because of the significance each ques-
tionnaire has to the usefulness of this study, and because your
company is currently represented in the text, Applied Office
Typewriting. Since we are making plans for revising these ma-
terials, your contribution now would be most beneficial.

Enclosed is a copy of the original letter sent to you and an extra
copy of the questionnaire. If you need any other assistance
please feel free to write or call me. May I look forward to re—
ceiving your reply soon? Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

GK/ec

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

128

This questionnaire is designed to evaluate the enclosed instructional materials. Applied Office Typewriting. The purpose
of the evaluation is to determine what employers. employees and teachers consider important for forms typewriting
instructional materials. Please review the questionnaire first to determine what type of information is needed, examine
the instructional materials. then answer the questionnaire. Your input is sincerely appreciated.

 

O
s .‘s‘
I h
a 3 a 5‘.
B Q g t .
< '5. 'g g .5
0-1 Now that you have reviewed Applied Office Typewriting, please circle the E a 8 E 5
number that most accurately describes the kit's appropriateness for each f. g g E g

instructional purpose: "
High School Typing Course ' 1 2 3 4 5
High School Office Procedures Course 1 2 3 4 5
Clerical Training Program in Public/Private Sector 1 2 3 4 5
Adult Refresher Course 1 2 3 4 5
Two-Year Community College Secretarial Course 1 2 3 4 5
Four-Year College Secretarial Course 1 2 3 4 5
Other 1 2 3 4 5

0-2 Are you currently using Applied Office Typewriting?

1 YES (go to Question 3)
2 NO (go to Question 4)

0-3 If yes. please circle the reason(s) you are using the kit.

1 Only one I know that concentrates on forms

2 Better than similar or competitive kit(s)

3 It helps reach objectives/standards l have set for my students/
employees

Department chairperson requires it

District requires it

Cost

Represents the real world

Teaches valuable concepts

Publisher

My training program needs this kind of material

Other

HOQQVOM§

dd

 

0-4 If you are not using Applied Office Typewriting. could your firm/school make
use of it?

1 YES (go to Question 5)
2 NO (go to Question 6)

0-5 For what reason(s) could you use this kit?

1 It would help reach objectives/standards I have set for my
students/employees

Represents the real world

Teaches valuable concepts

My training program needs this kind of material

Other

(”#0287

 

0-6 If you cannot make use of this kit, why not? (Circle as many as apply)

My company does not have a clerical training program

Content is inappropriate for my course

Kit too advanced for my classes

Kit too basic for my classes

Kit is too long

Kit is too short

My company does not use the type of forms illustrated in the kit
Other

QNUDU'I‘NN-f

 

The next set of questions has to do with content. methodology. and organization of the kit. Please circle the number that

129

most closely represents your answer to each statement.

0-7
0-8
0-9
0-10

0-11

0-12
0-13
0-14

0-15
0-16
0-17

0-19
0-20
0-21

0-22
0-23

0- 24

0-25

0-26

0-27

The kit is suitable for a high school typewriting course.
The kit is appropriate for office education classes.
The kit will help develop work habits that lead to efficiency in office work.

The materials in the kit should familiarize students/employees with the
application of forms to business situations.

Having completed the kit. the student/employee should have the entry-level
skills sufficient for a clerical job.

The content is clear.
The content is representative of forms used in today’s offices.

Materials in the kit will provide good foundation for other higher level
units in business courses.

The kit includes business terms and/or expressions that are current.
Content represents current business practices of a majority of companies.

The kit is designed to provide simulated work experience in several different
companies. This format should be continued in any potential revision.

Adequate background information about each company is provided for each
company represented in the kit.

The content is sufficiently varied.
Units are well organized.

As student works from company to company in the kit. the jobs appear to
progress from simple to complex.

Directions are clear and easy to understand.

Kit includes an adequate number of forms and worksheets for the
student's own use. c

This kit provides sufficient evaluative information to appraise a student's
performance.

The teacher or trainer should develop his/her own evaluative materials
to assess student performance.

How important is the subject matter of this kit for beginning office workers?

Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important

pun-

What other business terms or expressions should be included in the kit?
(Please circle as many as apply)

Office Management
Reprographics
Micrographics

Word Processing
Telecommunications
Other

 

\IOUI‘QN-P

Terms and expressions are currently adequate

- Strongly Agree

N N N Agree

0 0 9’ Uncertain

P P 3‘ Disagree

0' 0| 0' Strongly Disagree

0-28

0- 29

0- 30

0-31

0-32

0-33

0-35

130

What other business forms should be included in the kit?
(Please circle as many as apply)

Law
Medicine
Government
Education
Transportation
Finance

Other

NQm#wN-ﬁ

 

H do you rate the illustrations in the text? (Circle as many as apply)

Clear
Recent
Relevant
Large Enough
irrelevant
Outdated

Too Numerous
Not Enough
Other

cocoqootnth-og

 

Which of the following supplementary materials would make the kit a more valuable teaching/learning

aid? (Please circle not more than three)

Filmstrips showing examples of forms and typist handling forms
Slide/T ape instructions

Overhead Transparencies of Forms

Tapes which provide more company background

Goals and performance indicators to aid learner

None of the above

Other

NOM‘WN-‘i

 

Did you encounter bias or stereotyping in the kit? (Check box)

[:1 YES (Please circle areas) ———> Ethnic
Sexual
Racial
Religious

All of Above
Other

OM5QN‘

EJNO

 

Please circle the statements which most describe your profession and experience.

Teachers

Employers/ Employees

1

Teaching High School 2 Employed in Business as Supervisor

3 Clerical Employee

How many years have you been teaching? 0-34 How many years have you been working?
(Circle one) (Circle one)

1 0-1 1 0-1

2 2-6 2 2-5

3 6-10 3 6-10

4 10+ 4 10+

How many years of office work experience do 0-36

How many years of teaching experience

you have? do you have?
1 Less than 1 1 Less than 1
2 1-5 2 1—5
3 6-10 3 6-10
4 10+ 4 10+
5 None 5 None
To O-37 To 0-38

 

0-37

0-39

0-40

0-41

0-42

A

13]

Approximately how many students are enrolled
in your business department?

Less than 20
20-49

50—99

100-199
200-399

Greater than 399

001%0N‘

regard my place of employment as:

1 Urban
2 Suburban
3 Rural
4 Other

 

 

0-38 Approximately how many clerical
employees are in your department?

1 1-9
2 10-19

3 20-49
4 Greater than 49

J To 0-39

For employees: Type of business my ﬁrm most nearly represents.

Agriculture/ Forestry/ Fishing
Mining

Construction

Manufacturing
Transportation/Public Utilities
Wholesale-Retail Trade
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
Services

Other

(accumulation-

 

For employees: I like the way our company is represented in the kit and would like to see it in

the next revision.

1 YES
2 NO
3 Other Comments

 

 

it would be beneficial to include the following companies in any revision of the kit:

Name:

 

 

 

Gloria Kielbaso

315 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48824

APPENDIX D
MAP

132

 

 

 

 

. 2‘5.
géﬁag! mswcumwh O Q . no.1- I
wilﬂj Q. «i. a».
n... h... « z 6 .. o
o q 0.
mmhﬂﬁm OmH—ZD .222:
~23th “Pf—b
m m > .P m < m A 0 s
i V
.... ..... Immune... ......awwE ./
a m \e e
Q Q ./ _ e .ﬁzsmSodL—m
./ I _ o .. ..
. . .
a l../.<.O¢Om0’o<1(m<.—#ur o II o I‘.\
.AebwmuwWLiuﬁir ..... m. s
. e \.\ e ummmﬁwwx. ......lmézix
A (zjocaoﬂnnl. ....... .1. 7f
‘52 \o‘ A. .)\l (A. V . .
Ll..l. .\ e .x .J. I
e . . / .1. ....... m<mz<x
. . . . r acme... iiiiii a .
.. .. c. J. ...i. 1 SE
a e. \u . 4 sin,
oiohuzsoz. e m a .
. .1. -523... I. —
.11 I. (26.. .1.(..lim~.m.mmlmﬁ
eQ I. ......... ... m
/. _ e .
J O . _
\ . .. T ..... [9520»
r. a. 262892, a m ..... N 9.1%. :58. . . .
0U . 23:63.]. .w .- 1.1..“
.... .
o \. (.../t (5322.3 .
ee’eo

 

mmwxoaam 4

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£51.... «855 Emoz .

'OOIOO'ear

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alkin, M. C. "Evaluating Net Cost-Effectiveness of
Instructional Programs," Evaluation of Instruction:
Issues and Problems. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1970, pp. 221-238.

 

 

Allendoerfer, Carl B. I'An Experiment in the Evaluation and
Revision of Text Materials." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1969.

Bloom, B. S., Hasting, J. T., and Madaus, G. F. Handbook
on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student
Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, i971.

 

 

Carter, Wayne E. "A Taxonomy of Evaluation Models: Use of
Evaluation Models in Program Evaluation." Paper pre-
sented at annual meeting of AERA, Washington, D.C.,
April, 1975.

Daughtrey, Anne Scott. Methods of Basic Business and
Economic Education. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western
Publishing Company, 1974.

 

 

Denton, W. T. "Context Evaluation, Needs Assessment, and
Goal Setting: The Definite Loop." Paper presented at
Evaluation of Instructional Materials Workshop, AECT
Convention, California, March, 1976.

Eash, Maurice J., et al. Evaluation of Instructional
Materials. National Institute of Education,
Washington, D.C., 1975.

 

 

Educational Products Information Exchange Institute.
Educational Product "In Brief" Report Number 32
5 (Eebruary, 1971): 5-6.

Evaluation and Accountability in Business Education. NBEA
Yearbook. Reston, Virginia: National Business Educa-
tion Association, 1978.

Frisch, Vern Allen. An Analysis of Clerical Business
Typing Papers and Forms for the Improvement of
Instructional Materials. New York University, 1953.

 

133

134

Gaff, J. G. ”An Agenda for Cooperation in Faculty
Development." Faculty Development and Evaluation in
Higher Education, vol. 1, 1975, pp. 2-4.

 

 

Glass, G. V. "Educational Product Evaluation: A Prototype
Format Applied." Educational Researcher 1 (1972):
1-4.

 

Grossman, Lee. Fat Paper: Diets for Trimming Paperwork.
McGraw-Hill BookiCompany, 1976. '

 

Guide to Evaluation Training Materials. National Institute
for Education and Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development, 1976.

 

"Job Outlook in Brief.” Occupational Outlook Quarterly 24
(Spring, 1980).

 

Kleinschrod, Walter A. (editor). ”Did All That Happen in
Only 10 Years?" Administrative Management, January,
1981, p. 26.

 

Komoski, K. "Instructional Materials: Do They Or Don't
They?" Learning 3 (March, 1975): 92-93.

 

Lanham, Frank, et a1. Development of Performance Goals for
a New Office and Business Education Learning System
(NOBEiS). Ohio State University: Center for Research
and Leadership Development in Vocational-Technical
Education, 1970.

 

 

Leslie, L. L. "Are High Response Rates Essential to Valid
Surveys?“ Social Science Quarterly, vol. 1, 1972.

 

Liguori, Frank E. "Criteria for Evaluation of Educational
Resources: Printed Instructional Material." National
Business Education Association Yearbook, 1969,
pp. 141-147.

 

 

Michigan Occupational Information System. "Moiscript 65 -
Typist." Michigan State Board of Education, 1981.

National Institute of Education. NIE Product Rating Form.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of EdUcation, 1974.

 

Ober, Bobby Scot. ”An Analysis of the Business Working
Papers Typed by Beginning Office Workers." Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1974.

Oliver, Lee, and Kind. "Development of a Catalog of
Performance Objectives for Secretarial Stenographic.
Typing, and Related Occupations." Business Education
Forum 31 (October, 1975): 54.

135

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company. "A Systematic Approach
to Evaluating Career Education Materials at the Local
Level." Washington, D.C., 1974.

Quible, Zane K. Introduction to Administrative Office
Management, Second Edition, Winthrop Publishers, 1980.

 

Scheyer, P. T. and Stake, R. E. "A Program's Self-
Evaluation Portfolio." Center for Instructional
Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of
Illinois, 1976. (Mimeographed)

Seldon, William. ”Business Education Textbooks: A Yard-
stick." American Vocational Journal 35 (December,
1960): 14-15.

 

Stake, R. E. ”The Countenance of Educational Evaluation."
Teachers College Record 68 (1967): 523-540.

 

"Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive
Evaluation." Occasional Paper No. 5, Evaluation
Center, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
Michigan, November, 1975.

 

Stufflebeam, D. L. (editor). Educational Evaluation and
Decision Making. Itaska, Illinois: F. E. Peacock
Publishers, 1971.

 

”This We Believe About the Mission of Business Education."
The Policies Commission for Business and Economic
Education--Past, Present and Future, 1977.

(Pamphlet)

Walton, Wesley W., et a1. "Dissemination Recommendations
on and Descriptions of Exemplary Products." WashinguNu
D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1973.

Wykle, J. "Seven Objectives of Career Education for
Business Education." Business Education World
(November-December, 1971), p. 28.

 

 

 

"111111111m