THESIS mmmxwwgllll This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Development and Evaluation of a High School Sophomore-Level Employability-Skills Training Pro r . 3 am pnesented by Eldon Arvid Horton has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degree in Educational. Administration Date / MS U is an Aflirman'w Action/Equal Opportunity Invitation 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if‘book is returned after the date stamped below. )1 To 1657 ; 5- [ fl DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORE- LEVEL EMPLOYABILITY-SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM By Eldon Arvid Horton A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1985 Copyright by ELDON ARVID HORTON l985 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my major professor and dissertation director. Dr. James Costar. for his assistance. advice. and encouragement. Special thanks are expressed to the members of the guidance and dissertation committee: Drst Cas Heilman. Stanley Hacker. and Daniel Kruger. for providing valuable review of the proposal and dissertation. Gratitude is expressed to the panel of experts who reviewed and offered their expertise in the development of the test instrument for this study. Appreciation is extended to the officials of Greenville Public Schools and Tom Matchett. high school principal. Above all. I am grateful to the English teachers and the 1984-85 sophomore English classes who participated in the experimental program which provided the data for this dissertation. A special thanks to Richard Moll for preparing many of the graphic materials used in this study to add a professional touch to the materials. My wife. Darlene. deserves my deepest gratitude for her patience. understanding. love. and typing assistance. Our children. Janet and Kevin. have been unusually cooperative in their understanding of the amount of time "Dad" spent at his desk. LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURES APPENDI CE 5 O O O O O C O O O 0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Background of the Study Purpose of the Study . . Statement of the Problem Research Questions . . . Need for the Study . . . Limitations of the Study Definitions of Terms . . Overview . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . Introduction . . . . . . . . Historical Training Programs in Employability Skills Contemporary Training Programs in Employability Ski-I15 C O O O O O O O O O O O O Job-Search Skills Letter of Application Writing a Resume . . . . . . . . Completing an Application Blank Conducting a Job Interview Implications and Summary . . MEWODOLOGY O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . .i. . . . . The Setting for the Study Purpose of the Study . . . Hypotheses to Be Tested . . Description of the Populatio f1 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 24 28 31 35 37 43 44 44 44 45 45 47 The Design of the Study Description of the Instruments . . . . . Pretest-Posttest Instrument Construction Data Collection Teacher Background . . . . . . . . . Teacher Inservice . . . Student Data Sheet . . . Administration of Pretest The Instructional Program Administration of Posttest . Statistical Analysis of the Dat a IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive Information About the Participants Analysis of the Research Questions Statistical Hypothesis l Statistical Hypothesis 2 Statistical Hypothesis 3 Statistical Hypothesis 4 Statistical Hypothesis 5 Related Research Questions Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Interview Data Compared Teacher Daily Log Sheet Summary of Findings . . OOOQQNO‘ V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction . . . . . . . . . Development of the Program . . The Problem Purpose of the Study . . . . . Description of the Population Research Questions . . . . . . Description of the Instruments Findings and Discussion Summary of Findings Conclusions Simulated Employment Interviews Recommendations for Further Research DISCUSSIO" O O O O O O O O O C O O 0 iv Page 48 SO 52 54 54 S4 S7 59 63 64 66 66 66 7O 7O 72 73 74 75 76 76 77 79 81 88 90 90 90 96 96 97 99 107 108 109 110 111 Page APPENDICES O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 115 BIBLIOGRWY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 172 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. A Comparison of Students Attending College and Those Available for Employment in Michigan in a Typical Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Greenville High School l982 Graduates . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Greenville High School and State of Michigan Dropout RateSf0r1980-81ooooooooooooooooooo 1O 4. Demographics of Subjects in the Experimental and centre] Groups 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 67 5. Individual English Classes in the Experimental Group . . 68 6. Individual English Classes in the Control Group . . . . . 68 7. Students Who Had Participated in Areas of Employability Skills Before the Instructional Program . . . . . . . . 69 8. The T¥Value Between the Pretest and Posttest for the Experimental Group on Job Search as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 9. The T-Value Between the Pretest and Posttest for the Experimental Group for Letter of Application as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . 72 l0. The TPValue Between the Pretest and Posttest for the Experimental Group for Writing a Personal Resume as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . 73 11. The T-Value Between the Pretest and Posttest for the Experimental Group for Completing an Employment Application Blank as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 4 . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 l2. The T—Value Between the Pretest and Posttest for the Experimental Group for Preparing for a Job Interview as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . 75 vi 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. A Comparison of the Mean Scores of the Male and Female Students on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Between the Scores of Male and Female Students in the Experimental Group Measured on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Mean Scores of the Students Working Compared to Those Currently Not Working as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Between the Scores of Students Working and Those Not Working in the Experimental Group Measured on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Mean Scores of Students With an Overall Grade Point Average of at Least 2.5 to Those With a Grade Point Average Below 2.5 Measured on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothe- $15 8 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of Variance Between the Scores of Students With a GPA at Least 2.5 or Above and Students With a GPA Below 2.5 in the Experimental Group Measured on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothe- 515 8 O O O O O O O C O O O O C O I O C O O O O O O O A Comparison of the Mean Scores of Students Enrolled in the College-Bound English Classes to Those Enrolled in the Regular English Classes on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 9 . Analysis of Variance Between the Scores of Students Enrolled in the College-Bound English Classes With Students Enrolled in the Regular English Classes in the Experimental Group Measured on the Posttest as Identified in Statistical Hypothesis 9 . . . . . . . A Comparison of Sophomore Students From Greenville High School Who Received Training in Conducting a Job Interview With Sophomore Students From the MEAP Research Who Had No Formal Classroom Training in Job Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 77 78 79 8O 81 82 87 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Sophomore English Sections at Greenville High School . . 49 2. Topics Included in the Employability-Skills Instructional Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6] viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. B. C. LETTER TO ENGLISH TEACHERS FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT LIST OF TOPICS CONSIDERED EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS . LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS WHO VALIDATED THE TEST INSTRUMENT I O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O C O I PANEL OF EXPERTS AND THEIR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION . TIME SCHEDULE FOR TEACHING EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS STUDENT DATA SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRETESTFPOSTTEST INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . GOALS. OBJECTIVES. AND LESSON PLANS FOR THE EMPLOYMILIW-SKILLS PROGRAM 0 o o o o o o e o LETTER OF INSTRUCTION TO EMPLOYERS CONDUCTING SIMULATED JOB INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . SIMULATED NEWSPAPER HELP-WANTED AD AND EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION BLMK O C O O O O O O O O O O O 0 INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS FOR SIMULATED JOB INTERVIEWS EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . TEAG‘ER DAILY Lm SHEET 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O PRETEST SCORES AND POSTTEST SCORES FOR THE EXPERIMEN- TAL GROUP FOR THE EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS TEST AND THE POSTTEST-ONLY SCORES OF THE CONTROL GROUP Page ll6 118 120 122 124 126 128 140 152 154 158 160 162 164 166 Page P. PRETEST SCORES AND POSTTEST SCORES FOR THE EXPERIMEN- TAL GROUP ON INDIVIDUAL AREAS OF THE EMPLOYABILITY- SKILLS TEST COMPARED WITH POSTTESTPONLY SCORES OFTHEOONTROLGROUP................. 168 Q. EAmER DAILY LOG SHEET 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 I70 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND WW Each year near1y 125.000 students graduate from Michigan pub1ic high schoo1s (Michigan Department of Education. 1983a). These gradu- ates enter a 1abor force that is now experiencing a high unemp1oyment rate. During 1983 the unemp1oyment rate in Michigan averaged over 12 percent. whi1e the nationa1 Job1ess rate was about 8 percent (Michigan Emp1oyment Security Commission. 1984). These figures do not inc1ude teenagers who have never worked but are seeking emp1oyment or those who have exhausted their unemp1oyment benefits and have given up the search for a job. Unti1 recent years both students who 1eft high schoo1 before graduation and graduates cou1d easi1y obtain emp1oyment as unski11ed 1aborers in one of the many industries in Michigan. With the 1arge number of 1ayoffs in the automobi1e industry and the southwest movement of other industries to the sunbe1t. this is no 1onger true. About ha1f of those 16 to 24 years of age who are emp1oyed are service workers. c1erks. or nonfarm 1aborers (Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1983). The graduation c1a$s of 1982 in Michigan was typica1 of other years. with 45.2 percent (56.273) of the students continuing their forma1 education in two— and four-year degree-granting institutions. whi1e an additiona1 4.5 percent (5.642) enro11ed in non-degree—granting institutions (Michigan Department of Education. 1983a). This 19ft 50.3 percent.(62u457) who had terminated their forma1 education and were avai1ab1e for fu11-time emp1oyment. This group has experienced a high unemp1oyment rate over the years. According to a recent report. over the past decade Michigan had an average of 86.000 youths between 16 and 19 years o1d unab1e to find emp1oyment. The summer youth unemp10yment is estimated at 32.3 percent or one teenager out of every three. The nonwhite teenage unemp1oyment rate wi11 be 50 percent or one minority teenager out of two wi11 be Job1ess (Michigan Department of Labor. 1981). Many of our youths become discouraged in their job search and giveinm High youth unemp1oyment rates c1ear1y add to high crime rates. higher socia1 services costs. and 1ost productivity (Michigan Department of Labor. 1981). This is a growing concern that is being addressed. The federa1 government first became invo1ved in providing work programs for youths with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) in 1964. This act provided the Neighborhood Youth Corps. a work- training program for youths 16 to 21 years 01d. and the Job Corps. a residentia1 program offering disadvantaged youths basic education. vocationa1 training. counse1ing. and work experience. In 1973 the Comprehensive Emp1oyment and Training Act (CETA) was passed to decen- tra1ize Job training and reach those most in need. Many sections of the CETA 1egis1ation dea1t with youth unemp1oyment. In 1982 the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) was passed and became P.L. 97-300 (Michigan Emp1oyment Training Institute. 1983). Its purpose was: to estab1ish programs to prepare youth and unski11ed adu1ts for entry into the 1abor force and to afford Job training to those economica11y disadvantaged individua1s and other individua1s facing serious barriers to emp1oyment who are in specia1 need of such training to obtain productive emp1oyment.(Job Training Partnership Act. 1982. Section 2. p. 3) Section 205 of the Act has four subparts that dea1 specifica11y with the high youth unemp1oyment prob1em. These are: 1. Education for Emp1oyment Program--provides incentives for no- dip1oma persons to earn a GED dip1oma. 2. Pre-Emp1oyment Ski11s Training Program--provides up to 200 hours of activities for fourteen and fifteen year o1d youth inc1uding testing. counse1ing. vocationa1 exp1oration. Job search assistance. etc. 3. Entry Emp1oyment Experience Program--provides inschoo1 youth sixteen years of age and o1der up to 500 hours of p1acement in a pub1ic or private Job subsidized by JTPA funds. 4. Schoo1-to—Work Transition Assistance--provides high schoo1 seniors with occupationa1 information. Job search assistance. p1acement and Job deve1opment; (Job Training Partnership Act. 1982. Section 205. pp. 43-45) A1so. Section 252. Part B. of Tit1e II of the JTPA provides separate funds for a Summer Youth Emp1oyment and Training Program. These funds may be spent for work experience. on-the—Job training. Job c1ubs. and simi1ar activities as 1ong as they prepare individua1s for emp1oyment or give them emp1oyment. Michigan began to address the prob1em of high youth unemp1oy- ment in 1974 with the passage of the Career Education Act. The act stated that it was: designed to create career awareness. orientation. exp1oration. p1anning. preparation and p1acement. to maximize career options avai1ab1e. and to provide comprehensive career deve1opment... . to maximize the capabi1ities of students to exp1ore. ana1yze. prepare for. gain entry to. and succeed in career choices. (Career Educa- tion Act. 1974. Section 2 [a]) In 1978 the Michigan 1egis1ature passed 1egis1ation to address the issue of unemp1oyment in the state. The act. known as the Fu11 Emp1oyment P1anning Act. was designed as an annua1 p1an to reduce unemp1oyment in a statewide coordinated fashion. Section 3 (d) of the act addresses youth unemp1oyment. It states: "Increasing the effectiveness of the pub1ic education system in equipping youth with ski11s. attitudes and experiences necessary for a successfu1 transition to the 1abor force." On September 28. 1978. a significant piece of 1egis1ation was signed into 1aw. It was known as Pub1ic Act 415 and estab1ished a youth emp1oyment c1earinghouse. As the name imp1ies. the act ca11ed for the formation of a c1earinghouse to monitor a11 youth emp1oyment programs in Michigan. both private and pub1ic. which are tota11y or partia11y funded with state or federa1 money. Some duties or responsi- biTities of the c1earinghouse are: 1. Co11ect and assemb1e data on youth unemp1oyment from fourteen to twenty-three years of age. 2. Estab1ish criteria to eva1uate youth emp1oyment programs. 3. Co11ect data and monitor ongoing youth emp1oyment programs. 4. Make eva1uations of youth emp1oyment programs. 5. Make recommendations concerning youth emp1oyment programs to the governor and the 1egis1ature. [Section 4 (a).(b).(c).(d). and (9)] In 1978. Governor Mi11iam G. Mi11iken signed executive order 1978-6. estab1ishing the Michigan Youth Emp1oyment Counci1 (MYECL. Its purpose is to: review and consider the effectiveness of emp1oyment services to youth and provide recommendations to assure a coordinated effort to achieve the goa1 of enhancing the Job prospects and career opportu- nities of youth. (p. 1) As a resu1t of the creation of the MYEC. a report was prepared entit1ed "Po1icy for Youth Emp1oyment and Training in the State of Michigan" (Michigan Department of Labor. 1981). The four goa1s of the po1icy are: r 1. Improve 1ong-term emp1oyabi1ity of a11 youths 2. Serve youths with specia1 needs 3. Promote the creation of new Jobs 4. Ensure coordination of resources The Michigan State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Labor. in December 1982. approved the po1icy deve1oped by the MYEC. In a 1etter to schoo1 superintendents dated January 10. 1983. Phi11ip Runke1. Superintendent of Pub1ic Instruction. stated: "The aim of this po1icy is to more effective1y prepare youth for future fu11 time emp1oyment." He further stated: The po1icy says by the time youths 1eave the secondary schoo1 system. they shou1d be at 1east minima11y competent in a number of areas. someeof which have been identified by emp1oyers as being critica1 for entry-1eve1 emp1oyees. The pub1ic schoo1s in Michigan have been aware of the high youth unemp1oyment and have worked cooperative1y with both the federa1 and state governments within the 1egis1ation previous1y described. Most of the ear1y efforts of the pub1ic schoo1s to assist youths in making the transition from schoo1 to fu11-time emp1oyment have been in cooperation with the vocationa1 education branch of the Michigan Department of Education.1 One of the o1dest youth emp1oyment programs in the pub1ic schoo1s is vocationa1 cooperative education. Co-op is a vocationa1 education program for Juniors and seniors enro11ed in a re1ated c1ass.2 They are p1aced in an occupation re1ated to their training. with an emp1oyer in the community. A training agreement is drawn up among the student. emp1oyer. and schoo1. stating hours of emp1oyment. 1ength of emp1oyment. work activities the student wi11 be trained to perform. and the rate of pay. The co-op method has been very effective in extending the c1assroom into the rea1 wor1d of work.3 In 1974 the Vocationa1-Technica1 Education Service encouraged 1oca1 schoo1s to imp1ement comprehensive p1acement programs. In the foreword to the position paper on youth p1acement. John M. Porter (then Michigan Superintendent of Pub1ic Instruction) wrote: Because youth do experience difficu1ty in their transition from schoo1 to adu1t work ro1es. especia11y in the areas of fu11-time emp1oyment. and because pi1ot p1acement efforts have demonstrated that organized p1acement and fo11ow-up can effective1y dea1 with the prob1ems of youths' transition from schoo1 to work. it is therefore proposed that p1acement programs. inc1uding the provision 1This branch now is the Vocationa1-Technica1 Education Service. 2A re1ated c1ass refers to a vocationa1 reimbursed c1ass that usua11y meets for two hours or more per day. 3During the 1982 sch001 year. there were 25.000 Juniors and seniors enro11ed in the cooperative education method of instruction in Michigan pub1ic schoo1s. of fo11ow-up services. be estab1ished in Michigan's secondary and post-secondary schoo1s. This was the beginning of a who1e new thrust in vocationa1 education in Michigan. P1acement became a required component for a schoo1 district to receive funding for its approved vocationa1 pro— grams. The program components of job p1acement are: 1. Pre-emp1oyment services 2. Referra1 and p1acement 3. Services to emp1oyers 4. Post-emp1oyment services (Michigan Department of Education. 1984. pp. 1-2) With the imp1ementation of p1acement services as a part of the tota1 vocationa1 education program. about 25 percent of the ninth- through twe1fth-grade students wou1d have emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s instruc- tion avai1ab1e to them as Juniors or seniors. Many of our youths termi- nate their education before their junior or senior year and do not receive the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s training avai1ab1e to their fe11ow students who remain in schoo1. The most recent dropout data avai1ab1e are for 1980-81. which show that 5.239 freshmen. 9.424 sophomores. 9.752 Juniors. and 7.049 seniors quit schoo1 during the year (Michigan Department of Education. nut). This means an additiona1 31.463 stu- dents between 16 and 19 were avai1ab1e for emp1oyment at that time. It was further stated in this report that: Genera11y speaking approximate1y twenty-five percent of Michigan pub1ic schoo1 students entering the 9th grade do not comp1ete their high schoo1 education. In the ten year period of 1969-70 through 1978-79. about 395.000 students in grade nine through twe1ve dropped out of Michigan pub1ic schooTs.(Michigan Department of Education. n.d.. p. 3) The most recent senior fo110w-up conducted on vocationa1 graduates from Michigan high schoo1s revea1ed that 46 percent of the graduating c1ass (57.211) were c1assified as vocationa1 graduates. Of this group. 42 percent:(24.028) were enro11ed in a two- or four-year co11ege or trade schoo1. which 1eft 58 percent (33.183) avaiTab1e for emp1oyment (Michigan Department of Education. 1983b). From the data on the number of graduates. number of dropouts. and the vocationa1 graduate foT1ow-up study. Tab1e 1 was compi1ed. Tab1e 1.--A comparison of students attending co11ege and those avai1ab1e for emp1oyment in Michigan in a typica1 year. Attending Avai1ab1e Students Co11ege for Work Tota1s Vocationa1 graduates 24.028 33.183 57.211 Nonvocationa1 graduates 37.887 29.274 67.161 Dropouts 9-12 .. 31.463 31.463 Tota1s 61.915 93.920 155.835 Based on the data from Tab1e 1. it is rea1istic to assume that approximate1y 94.000 youths from Michigan secondary schoo1s are avai1- ab1e for emp1oyment each year. Near1y two-thirds of them wi11 not have comp1eted a vocationa1 program and thus wi11 have few Job-entry-1eve1 ski11s or forma1 training in how to search for and secure emp1oyment. Greenvi11e Pub1ic Schoo1s has had a 1ong history of recognizing the individua1 needs of its graduates. ‘The maJor emphasis for students not continuing their education beyond high schoo1 has been the strong vocationa1-technica1 component for juniors and seniors. The most recent senior fo110w-up provides the fo11owing information about the success of the Greenvi11e vocationa1 graduates. (See Tab1e 2.) Tab1e 2.--Greenvi11e High Schoo1 1982 graduates (in percent). Montca1m Greenvi11e County Michigan Attending co11ege 40% 37% 43% Use of schoo1 training on Job: a 1ot to some 49 47 55 Satisfaction with job: very to somewhat 79 74 80 Hour1y pay rate: 53.85 or more 50 44 45 Sex: Ma1e 38 45 48 Fema1e 62 55 52 Source: Fo11ow-up of 1982 graduates of vocationa1 programs at Greenvi11e Senior High schoo1. As further evidence that Greenvi11e High Schoo1 assists its students in making the transition from schoo1 to work. the fo11owing figures were taken from the Vocationa1 Department's annua1 report to 10 the superintendent (Annua1 Report of Vocationa1 Activities 1983-84. Greenvi11e High Schoo1. June 1984): "During the 1983-84 schoo1 year 490 students were enro11ed in vocationa1 and home economics c1asses inc1uding cooperative education. The Co-op program served over 118 students with part-time re1ated work. emp1oyed by 54 area businesses" Greenvi11e. 1ike the rest of Michigan's high schoo1s. does have dropouts. The 1980-81 Michigan Department of Education report on dropouts. referred to ear1ier. 1ists them by county and individua1 schoo1s within that county. A study of the most recent data revea1ed Greenvi11e's dropout rate is higher than the state average (Michigan Department of Education. 1982). (See Tab1e 3.) Tab1e 3.—-Greenvi11e High Schoo1 and State of Michigan dropout rates for 1980-81 (in percent). r Grade Greenvi11e Michigan 9th 4.85% 3.64% 10th 9.02 6.57 11th 13.07 6.98 12th 6.09 5.37 Average 8.52 5.63 Tab1e 3 shows that Greenvi11e is consistent1y above the state average for dropouts at each grade 1eve1 and over 30 percent higher than the state average overa11. The board of education fe1t that the Greenvi11e Pub1ic Schoo1s shou1d be doing more for both graduates not godng on to co11ege and students who terminated their education before 11 graduation. From this concern emerged this program to teach emp1oya- bi1ity ski11s to a11 sophomores. The Greenvi11e High Schoo1 p1 acement advisory commitee gathered ten emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s training book1ets from intermediate schoo1 districts. vocationa1 ski11 centers. and other high schoo1s in Michigan:l The p1acement advisory committee a1 so obtained book1ets used by the Michigan Emp1oyment Security Commission (MESC) as we11 as commercia11y prepared textbooks such as W. by Gooch and Huck; W. by Littre11: and W W. by B1ack1edge. B1ack1edge. and Kei1y (see Bib1iography). The p1 acement advisory committee reviewed these materia1s and found that they had severa1 common components (Appendix B has a comp1ete 1ist). From this 1ist of components the committee se1ected the five they fe1t were the most important and. from their experience. wou1d be the most beneficia1 for high schoo1 students. These were: (1) how to 100k for a Job. (2) how to write 1etters of app1ication. (3) how to write a persona1 resume. (4) how to fi11 out app1ication b1anks. and (5) how to interview for a job. The advisory committee conc1uded from their review that most textbooks were too broad in scope and used a reading 1eve1 too difficu1t for high schoo1 sophomores. They a1so fe1t that the MESC 1The p1 acement advisory committee consists of five personne1 managers. an MESC officia1. a business representative. a farmer. and a high schoo1 counse1or. principa1. and vocationa1 director. 12 materia1s were too Timited by topic and aimed at an o1der group. It was found that the book1ets prepared by intermediate schoo1 districts. ski11 centers. and 1oca1 high schoo1s contained the basic information presented by the other sources but presented it more at a sophomore 1eve1 and cou1d be covered in a two- to three-week unit of instruction. One book1et reviewed came c1ose to meeting these requirements...I The advisory committee decided that instead of trying to write a new emp1oyabi1ity-ski115 manua1 it wou1d be easier to make changes in the book1et from Branch Area Career Center. The book1et was pub1ic-domain materia1. its reading 1eve1 was suitab1e for sophomores. and it cou1d easi1y be adapted to the 1ength of time a11ocated for the instruction. The advisory committee began work on the book1et in October 1982. and the fina1 product was printed in November 1983. The format is an 8-1/2" x 11" book1et 56 pages in 1ength that covers the five areas identified as important by the committee. Funding to print 1.000 copies of the book1et was provided by a 1oca1 industry. The next step taken invo1ved presenting the emp1oyabi1ity- ski11s manua1. and a p1an for its use. to the Greenvi11e Board of Education to obtain their approva1 for imp1ementation. ‘This was done at the January 1984 meeting. The board of education approved the fo11owing p1an to pi1ot test and eva1uate the outcomes during the fo11owing semester with fu11 imp1ementation and eva1uation during the 1984-85 schoo1 year (Greenvi11e Board of Education. January 9. 1984). Iflgw_tg_Get_a_lgb is an emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s manua1 produced and used at the Branch Area Career Center in Co1dwater. Michigan. 13 Emp1oyabi1ity ski11s were to be taught to a11 sophomores during their regu1ar1y schedu1ed Eng1ish c1asses by their Eng1ish teachers. The rationa1e was: The Greenvi11e Board of Education fee1s it is important that a11 high schoo1 youth receive training in how to seek emp1oyment. present themse1ves for emp1oyment. and keep a job. .Since these ski11s are reading. writing and communication ski11$ they can best be taught and practiced in the Eng1ish c1asses. The instruction inc1uded (1)Icoverage of the emp1oyabi1ity- ski11s manua1. (2) an introduction to the Michigan Occupationa1 Information System (M015). (3) an introduction to the Career Resource Center in the high schoo1. and (4) starting an emp1oyment fi1e for each student that is kept in the vocationa1 office for the student's use. The fi1e contains the comp1eted emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s manua1. career objectives. and an up-to-date resume. The emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s training program was pi1ot tested on 115 sophomores. about 50 percent of the c1ass. A fo11ow-up opinion- naire was administered to the students upon comp1etion of the instruc- tion. Over 80 percent rated the experience "he1pfu1" to "very he1p- fu1." The Eng1ish teachers received a summary of the resu1ts and genera11y agreed with the students. Shou1d a11 sophomores at Greenvi11e Senior High Schoo1 be taught emp1oyabi1ity ski11s? To answer this question it was necessary to fu11y imp1ement the program and eva1uate its effectiveness. 14 W The purpose of the study was to deve1op an effective program for teaching se1ected emp1oyabi1ity ski115 to high schoo1 sophomores and for eva1uating its effectiveness. To do so. specia1 materia1s and procedures for their use were a1so devised. Re1ated activities inc1uded (1) assessment of student needs. (2) deve1opment of goa1s and objectives to meet those needs. (3) deve1opment of a de1ivery system to carry out the goa1s and objectives. (4) deve1opment of specific instructiona1 materia1s. and (5) assessment of the effectiveness of these activities at the conc1usion of the instruction period. .51a12m3n1_91_1he_8£9h1§m The primary focus of this study was on the 1eve1 of student emp1oyabi1ity ski11s after comp1etion of the fo11owing units in an experimenta1 program for teaching emp1oyabi1ity ski11s to high schoo1 sophomores: 1. Looking for a job 2. Writing a 1etter of app1ication 3. Writing a resume 4. Fi11ing out an app1ication b1ank 5. Conducting an interview More specifica11y. this study sought to answer nine re1ated research questions. which are stated in the fo11owing section. 15 Was There are five major research questions for which answers were sought. a1ong with a cross-ana1ysis of four re1ated questions. The research questions were: .Beseangn_oue§tign_1: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to conducting a job search? .Bgsgangn_gue§t19n_z: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to writing a 1etter of app1ication? .Beseangh_nu§§119n_3: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to preparing a persona1 resume? .Beseangn_0ue§119n_4: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to fi11ing out an emp1oyment app1ication b1ank? .Besea:gh_flu§§t19n_5: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to preparing for a job interview? Re1ated questions for which cross-ana1ysis was conducted are: .Beseangn_nue§tign_§: Wi11 there be a significant difference in the posttest scores of the ma1e students when compared to the fema1e students? ‘Bgsgangn_nue§119n_l: Wi11 students who have he1d a regu1ar job. either fu11 time or part time. score higher on the posttest than students who have never he1d a regu1ar job? .Beseangn_0uestign_8: Wi11 students with an overa11 grade point average of at 1east 2.5 score higher on the posttest than students with an overa11 grade point average be1ow 2.5? .Baseangh_gug§tign_2: Wi11 students enro11ed in the co11ege-bound Eng1ish c1asses score higher on the posttest than students enro11ed in the regu1ar Eng1ish c1asses? 16 W Ear1ier. the on-going invo1vement of the federa1 government. state agencies. and 1oca1 schoo1 systems in addressing the prob1em of high youth unemp1oyment was pointed out. In each case. as part of their so1ution. they indicated the need for teaching youths job-seeking or emp1oyabi1ity ski11s. Federa1 programs. such as the Job Training Partnership Act. are aimed primari1y at youths who come from 1ow-income fami1ies. and thus any pre-emp1oyment training they may offer is not for everyone. The state-sponsored 1egis1ation. such as P.A. 415. which estab1ished the Youth Emp1oyment C1earinghouse. has some exce11ent ideas. but participation for the most part is vo1untary because no monies have been appropriated to fund the c1earinghouse. In addition. pub1ic schoo1s that offer vocationa1 education and a cooperative education component often serve juniors and seniors because this is the group for which the state is most 1ike1y to provide extra funding. With the amount of materia1 avai1ab1e. it is important that it be avai1ab1e to a11 youths. not just the vocationa1 students. Since we 1ose many of the students before their junior year when they cou1d enro11 in a vocationa1 c1ass. it is important to have a program that wi11 reach a11 students with emp1oyabi1ity ski11s ear1y in their high schoo1 careers. There is an abundance of pub1ications avai1ab1e on emp1oyabi1- ity ski11s. but the researcher was ab1e to 1ocate on1y one study that made any attempt to measure the effectiveness of teaching emp1oyabi1ity ski11s (Snyder. 1978). Thus. if it can be shown that a program can be 17 deve1oped to provide forma1 emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s training to sophomores as part of their Eng1ish curricu1um. it wi11 fi11 a need that nationa1 and state 1egis1ators and schoo1 officia1s recognize exists. Informa- tion from the study cou1d be used to imp1ement a simi1ar program in any high schoo1 in Michigan. mm This research study was conducted within the fo11owing 1imita- tions: 1. Since the subjects for the study cou1d not be individua11y random1y assigned to treatment and contro1 groups. the next best method was used. which was to random1y assign entire c1assrooms of students as treatment and contro1 groups. 2. 'There were five different Eng1ish teachers who taught the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s instruction to the sophomores» A1though they received the same inservice instruction and used the same materia1s and 1esson p1ans. some degree of difference in instruction may have occurred because of the individua1 differences of the teachers. 3. Since the eva1uation of the effectiveness of the program was assumed through the use of mu1tip1e-choice questions. it is pos- sib1e that the students' varying degrees of reading abi1ity may have affected the outcomes. 4. The study was 1imited to sophomores at Greenvi11e Senior High Schoo1 enro11ed in Eng1ish. 18 W .Qngpgut: A student who was attending a pub1ic high schoo1 and 1eft without comp1eting the year or receiving a dip1oma. .Eiiagtiyeness: Is determined by measuring the outcome of the educationa1 instruction and comparing it to the scores before instruc- tion took p1ace. A positive score difference represents positive effectiveness. .Emplgyabllity_§kills: Being ab1e to present oneseTf to emp1oyers in such a way as to be considered for emp1oyment. These ski11s inc1ude (1) an understanding and working know1edge of conducting a job search. (2) writing 1etters of inquiry. (3) fi11ing out job app1ication b1anks. (4) preparing a persona1 resume. and (5) conducting an interview. .Eng11§n_1QA: The higher-1eve1 Eng1ish c1ass in which students who p1an to attend co11ege are encouraged to enro11. .Eng115h_JQB: The Eng1ish c1ass designed for those students on a genera1 or vocationa1 curricu1um or who found freshman Eng1ish diffi- cu1t. A student's cumu1ative mathematicai Wags average of the grades he has received in each c1ass taken since the ninth grade. It is based on a 0-4 sca1e. with A=4. B=3. C=2. D=1. and E=0. Graduate: In this research paper. "graduate" refers" to a student who has comp1eted the twe1fth grade and received a dip1oma. 19 ‘lnseny19e412a1n1ng: In this case. specia1 instruction given to the Eng1ish teachers before their presenting the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s instruction to their c1asses. .Begulan_jgb: In this research paper. a regu1ar job refers to emp1oyment for pay that a student wou1d perform week1y. It does not inc1ude 1awnwork. odd jobs. or babysitting. 19b:§§§king_§k111§: A descriptive term used interchangeabTy with emp1oyabi1ity ski11s. .Elagemgnt: As the term is used in this study. it refers to the act of being emp1oyed in a job for which the student was trained and/or qua1ified. ‘fignign_191191:yp: A questionnaire deve1oped by the Vocationa1 Technica1 Education Service and mai1ed to a11 vocationa1 comp1eters by the individua1 high schoo1s nine months after the student has gradu- ated. .unemplgyed: Students who are not working for wages but are e1igib1e for or seeking emp1oyment. 0131:1131: The remaining chapters of the dissertation contain a review of re1ated 1iterature (Chapter II). the methodo1ogy used for the study (Chapter III). an ana1ysis of the data (Chapter IV). and a summary. conc1usions. and recommendations for further research (Chapter V). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE lnILQduQIIQn The research in the area of emp1oyabi1ity ski11$ is quite recent. dating back to on1y the ear1y 19605. The reason for this perhaps is that the United States was primari1y an industria1 society that required a 1arge number of unski11ed 1aborers to produce the durab1e goods. As we moved toward greater techno1ogica1 advances. we became more productive and more efficient. thus requiring fewer workers and more high1y trained emp10yees to provide the goods and services of our modern society. ‘This created unemp1oyment. a1ong with women enter- ing the 1abor force in greater numbers. making it very difficu1t for teenagers and recent graduates to secure emp1oyment. The search of 1iterature wi11 ref1ect the research that has been done in the area of emp1oyabi11ty skiT1s before the mid-19705 and then take a 100k at recent research that has been done to address the more recent prob1em of high youth unemp1oyment. WWW Ear1y research on emp1oyabi1ity ski11s is very 1imited unti1 the time of the Great Depression. Severa1 books were pub1ished about 20 21 how to prepare for and seek emp1oyment. They were intended for the adu1ts who had 1ost their jobs because of the great economic downturn. In 1933 the Wagner-Peyser Act was passed. creating the U.S. Emp1oyment Service. a federa1-state network of pub1ic emp1oyment offices. This was one of the first 1egis1ative achievements of Frank1in Rooseve1t's New Dea1 (Ode11. 1984). The purpose of the 1egis1ation was "to he1p men. women and juniors find jobs" (Ode11. 1984. p. 50). The goa1 of the U.S. Emp1oyment Service then. and of the Job Service as it is now ca11ed. was p1acement. With the bombing of Pear1 Harbor on December 7. 1941. the United States made a sudden change from a country with near1y 25 percent unemp1oyment to a nation with a 1abor shortage. Women and high schoo1 youths were put into the defense p1ants to manufacture the goods necessary for the war effort. Unemp1oyment was not a concern during Wor1d War II. In 1948 the U.S. Emp1oyment Service began a cooperative program with the schoo1s to provide counse1ing and p1acement activities for youths. This program was in effect unti1 1969 and. as Murray (1972) stated. "was probab1y the most usefu1 program ever deve1oped for youth 1eaving schoo1 and entering the 1abor market" (p. 86). After Wor1d War II. schoo1s began operating cooperative education and work-study programs for high schoo1 youths that a11owed them to attend schooT part of the day and work the remainder of the day. 'The 1968 amendments to the Vocationa1 Education Act provided financia1 incentive to offer cooperative education (Murray. 1972). 22 In 1964. the U.S. Emp1oyment Service estab1ished Youth Opportu- nity Centers (YOC) in 1arger cities. The purpose of the YOC's was to provide emp10yment assistance to high schoo1 graduates. dropouts. sum- mer job app1icants. and students seeking part-time jobs. By 1967 there were 168 such offices. and by 1971 they had dec1ined to fewer than 40 (Murray. 1972L AJso in 1964 the Job Corps was authorized with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act. The Job Corps was an away- from-home training program for young men and women between the ages of 16 and 21. The Job Corps provided occupationa1 training for youths who were socia11y and/or economica11y disadvantaged. From January 1965 unti1 November 1970. the Job Corps served 311.000 young men and women (Murray. 1972). In January 1965. a program a1so authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act. the Neighborhood Youth Corps. began. The goa1 was to provide empioyment for economica11y disadvantaged youths. both in schoo1 and out. working in pub1ic and nonprofit organizations. Between January 1965 and Ju1y 1970. 2.888.400 youths were enro11ed (Murray. 1972). Much has been 1earned between 1963 and 1973 about youth unemp1oyment and why programs such as the Job Corps. the Neighborhood Youth Corps. Youth Opportunity Centers. and even a 1arge program 1ike CETA did not have an effect on the youth unemp1oyment prob1em. They 1earned that government-created jobs 1ast on1y as 1ong as the funds are avai1ab1e and that if youths are not taught how to seek emp1oyment themse1ves they are dependent on emp1oyment services and return each time they quit or 1056 their jobs. 23 In 1973 the Comprehensive Emp1oyment and Training Act (CETA) was signed into 1aw. making the U.S. Department of Labor responsib1e for adu1t emp1oyment training and retraining as we11 as working with economica11y disadvantaged youths. The program operated for ten years. unti1 1983. and was rep1aced by new 1egis1ation. the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). whose primary goa1 is to provide training and then p1acement in the private 1abor force. In Chapter I. there was a detai1ed ana1ysis of the sections of JTPA that dea1 with youth training and p1acement. These are the major programs deve1oped by Congress to address the prob1em of youth unemp1oyment in the United States. Most of the programs created jobs for youths. and when the funding ended the programs ended. WWO EmDchabJJJJLSkms Contemporary 1iterature on emp1oyabi1ity ski11s is in agreement as to which ski11s are designated emp1oyabi1ity ski11s. For examp1e. Siefferman (1981). in a recent artic1e. wrote: "Most educators agree that a11 students shou1d at 1east be ab1e to: write a business 1etter. compi1e a resume. comp1ete a job app1ication. and conduct an interview" (pp. 34-35). To this 1ist of four basic emp1oyabi1ity sk111s. researchers such as Trimmer (1984) have added job-search ski11s. In a recent artic1e on conducting job-search workshops. he stated. "It has on1y been in the 1ast ten years that the concept of se1f-p1acement has come 24 to the fore and from that. the concept. group job search has deve1oped" (p. 103). Other research conducted by Jacobson (1984) co11aborated the concept of se1f-p1acement through job-search sk111s presented by Trimmer. Jacobson stated. "The growth of se1f-directed job search programs has been high1ighted by a move away from job deve1opment for individua1s done by professiona1s to an emphasis on se1f-p1acement" (p. 105). There are. of course. other areas that have been inc1uded in the 1iterature as being important parts of emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s training (a 1ist is inc1uded in Appendix B). but the five essentia1 ski11s. (1) job search. (2) the 1etter of app1ication. (3) comp1eting a persona1 resume. (4) f111ing out job app1ications. and (5) conducting a job interview. are considered the primary ones. W Job-search ski11s were described by Trimmer (1984) as a 1ife ski11 that is "the art of 1ocating job openings. so1iciting interviews. and successfu11y obtaining emp1oyment" n» 103). Wa1ker (1980) reported in the findings of his dissertation: Obtaining suitab1e emp1oyment is a serious prob1em for many young peop1e. In spite of the importance of this issue very 1itt1e research has been pub1ished on teaching the actua1 ski11s needed to find emp1oyment. Wegmann (1979). in a review of job-search assistance he conducted. conc1uded that "the need for job search training is serious" (p. 198). 25 Jacobson (1984) fie1d tested a se1f-directed job-search- materia1s package during the 1982-83 schoo1 year on 6.000 high schoo1 students. His study demonstrated that (1) it was possib1e to use existing instruments in occupationa1 c1asses to teach job-search ski11s and that (2) students cou1d 1earn the necessary ski11s in their occupa- tiona1 c1ass to seek emp1oyment. Resu1ts Jacobson reported are as fo11ows (pp. 122-23): How do you now rate your understanding of a11 the necessary steps invo1ved in getting a job? Pretest Posttest N Z N % 1. A 1ot 57 26.1 94 53.4 2. Some 149 68.3 75 42.6 3. None 12 5.5 7 4.0 How we11 do you rate your confidence in your abi1ity to go out and get a job on your own? Pretest Posttest N X N X 1. Extreme1y confident 43 19.7 43 24.4 2. Confident 130 59.6 116 65.9 3. Not confident 45 20.6 17 9.7 Jacobson further stated in his research findings that: Job search training is now a part of most government supported emp1oyment programs. inc1uding we1fare and the Job Training Partnership Act UKL. 97-300). Despite this. pub1ic schoo1s and private programs have been s1ow to adopt the concept. (p. 118) The 1ack of training of high schoo1 youths in job-search techniques was further substantiated by Tippert and Davison (1975) in a study they conducted on graduates one year after high schoo1. They found that the two major prob1ems that seem to hinder students from 26 making the transition from schoo1 to work is not having made approp- riate occupationa1 choices and their inabi1ity to conduct an effective job search. Wa1ker (1980). in his study. a1so demonstrated that teaching job-search ski11s is effective for high schoo1 students. Wa1kerks study presented job-seeking ski11s using a traditiona1 approach of providing instruction through the use of 1ectures. written assignments. and audio-visua1 materia1s. a behaviora1 approach that used most of the traditiona1 methods p1us emphasized practice in the use of a variety of job-seeking techniques. and a controT group. His findings reported that either the traditiona1 or behaviora1 approach was effective when compared to the contro1 group. who received no instruction. Research by Wegmann. Trimmer. and the U.S. Department of Labor a11 confirmed what makes up a successfu1 job-search program. These e1ements are: 1. Seeking a job is a fu11-time job that shou1d be worked at each day. 2. Hunting for a job is discouraging. a1most everyone needs some kind of socia1 support to keep going. 3. There is factua1 information that can be taught about how to find and approach emp1oyers. 4. There are te1ephoning and interviewing techniques that can be demonstrated in group settings. 5. Job seekers must deve1op a positive attitude about themse1ves and their se1f-confidence and se1f-worth. (Wegmann. 1979) It is important to use these e1ements in a structured program for high schoo1 youths because. as Murray (1972) stated. "Youth are 27 usua11y too inexperienced and immature for an effective job hunt and. un1ess guided. often fa11 into unsuitab1e work which they soon 1eave or from which they are fired or 1aid off" (p. 92). When shou1d job-search ski11s be taught and by whom? Contempo- rary research has pointed to high schoo1 youths as the group most in need. Wegmann (1979) stated. Many of the concepts and ski11s of job-search training programs cou1d easi1y be integrated into the regu1ar high schoo1 curricu1um: resume writing in Eng1ish c1ass. interviewing in Speech or Eng1ish. the va1ue of the job market in Economics or SocioTogy. Jacobson (1984) presented research to show that it is very effective1y taught in the high schoo1 occupationa1 c1asses by their instructors. As part of the pretest in his research. Jacobson asked the students. "How often do you think about getting a job?" Their response was: (1)) a 1ot--91 percent. (2) some--6 percent. (3) never-- 3 percent. Wircenski et a1. (1982). in their research with disadvantaged youths. stated that "students appear to be very weak in some job search ski11s. . . . Teachers shou1d teach schoo1 to work transition ski11s as part of the curricu1um." Hoyt et a1. (1972). in their book on career education. charged that ”the schoo1s cannot be responsib1e for the avai1abi1ity of emp1oy- ment but they must become accountab1e for the emp1oyabi1ity of their product" (p. 20). The 1iterature c1ear1y showed that Job-search ski11s shou1d begin with high schoo1 youths as a part of the curricu1um. Banducci (nxL). in an artic1e on youth unemp1oyment. suggested that job-search 28 instruction is not on1y the job of the educationa1 system but shou1d a1so have the active participation of emp1oyers and trade unions. The teaching of job-search ski11s wi11 acquaint youths with the hidden job market. which is where near1y 80 percent of the job openings exist. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (1976). in a recent study. found that the most effective ways to find emp1oyment were: (1) through direct app1ication to an emp1oyer--36.9 percent and (2) through assist- ance of friends and re1atives--27.2 percent. These are both examp1es of finding emp1oyment through the hidden job market. An emp1oyer seeking an emp1oyee does not hire the most qua1ified person; he hires the most qua1ified person who app1ied for the job. LRIISLQf—ARRJmmn Other names for 1etters of app1ication are cover 1etters. 1etters of inquiry. and emp1oyment 1etters. They are a printed way of introducing onese1f to a prospective emp1oyer and may be used as an important too1 in a systematic job search. The 1iterature is very 1imited on research that has been conducted on the use and effectiveness of 1etters of app1ication. Stephen. Watt. and Wade (1979) conc1uded from research they had conducted that "very 1itt1e empirica1 research is avai1ab1e to support the common conc1usions concerning the proper way to write a cover 1etter that wi11 e1icit a favorab1e response to the app1icant" (p. 238). 29 The existing emp1oyment 1iterature. according to Stephen et aL» contains numerous artic1es and guide1ines for preparing 1etters of app1ication but "is based on author opinion. supported on1y with anecdota1 evidence" (p. 238). They found that the theory common1y accepted in the 1iterature is that "in addition to its straightforward purpose in introducing the emp10yment app1ication. the cover 1etter has an impact on the eva1uator as a 'nonverba1 communication'" (p. 238). That is to say. the cover 1etter conveys more to the reader through form. content. and sty1e beyond what is transmitted by the words themse1ves. Stephen et a1. constructed a research questionnaire to test this common1y accepted theory. They se1ected 100 firms at random from the Fortune 500 1ist and sent their questionnaire to the corporate personne1 office. They received 57 responses. Their findings. which agreed with the 1iterature on 1etters of app1ication. were as fo11ows: Personne1 officers prefer 1etters of app1ication that are: Item Mean (S-point sca1e) 1. Sing1e page or 1ess 3.596* 2. Semi-Mock form 2.982 3. Fu11-b1ock form 2.912 4. Error free 3.768 5. Grammatica11y correct 4.403 6. Stress on emp10yer benefit 3.089 *The tab1e is based on a five-point sca1e with 3.0 being neutra1 with items above 34) ref1ecting an increasing preference and items be1ow 3.0 having 1ess impact on the emp1oyer. As the research has pointed out. there was a preference for 1etters of app1ication that are a sing1e page. error free. and 3O grammatica11y correct. What is surprising. however. is that stressing what.you can do for the emp1oyer may carry some risk with it as a neutra1 nonverba1 communication. Stephen et a1. suggested that an app1icant may wish to save some of this for the interview. Stephen at a1Js research a1so created a 1ist of things in a 1etter of app1ication that. according to personne1 officers. evoke negative fee1ings. These are: Item Mean (5-point sca1e) 1. Use of metaphor or simi1e 2.071 2. Use of famous quotations 2.250 3. Use of hard-se11 approach 2.298 4. Use of pronoun "I" 2.893 5. Letter rehash of resume 2.375 6. Omission of 1etter parts 2.393 The preceding items evoked a negative feeTing from personne1 officers except use of the pronoun "I." which was near neutra1. The two Tists deve10ped by Stephen et a1.. based on their research. can serve as a guide for what to inc1ude and what not to inc1ude in a 1etter of app1ication. as we11 as its form and sty1e that wi11 bring forth a positive response. Commercia11y produced books contain many samp1e 1etters of app1ication as we11 as tips on the do's and don'ts of writing 1etters. An examp1e of an exercise in writing a good 1etter of app1ication is presented in the book 5914M (Dumas. 1982). Dumas 1aid out the format for a good 1etter of app1ication. which inc1udes 1ocations for app1icant's name and address. contact person's name and address. describes what to inc1ude in each of the three paragraphs of the body 31 of the 1etter. and a check1ist to eva1uate the 1etter after it is written. Other commercia11y prepared materiaTs that instruct in the proper preparation of Tetters of appTication have been written by Edward Rogers (BMW WW [1982]) and Richard BoTTes (WW [1983]). The 1etter of app1ication is an important first contact when seeking emp1oyment. It not on1y introduces the job seeker to a poten- ti a1 emp1oyer. but it can a1$o make that first impression that may secure a persona1 interview. which is the fina1 screening before emp1oyment. MW A1so ca11ed a persona1 data sheet or a quaTifications brief. the resume is a summary of a person's persona1 data. education. and work experience. As Goodman. Hoppin. and Ken (1984) stated. "more and more emp1oyers are asking for and expecting a resume)‘ This was confirmed by Knouse. Tauber. and Skoniexzka (1979) when they wrote. "Perhaps the most common vehic1e for conveying information about yourseTf to an emp10yer is the resume" (p. 326). They further stated that "from this re1ative1y sma11 amount of data. empTOyers create extensive perceptions of the individua1" (p. 327). This was confirmed by research conducted by Stephen et a1.: in a questionnaire to 32 personne1 managers. 60 percent said they quickTy formed an opinion about the app1icants based on the appearance of the resume a10ne. The resume is a sa1es too1. It is "a written sa1es presenta- tion that creates a first impression of you whi1e presenting your abi1ities and experiences" (Egan. 1977. p. 20). As Knouse et a1. wrote. "Training in resume writing may force ado1escents. for the first time. to identify and differentiate unique qua1ities they have to offer." Previous research concerning resume preparation has genera11y dea1t with two topics. according to a study comp1eted by Stephen et a1. (1979L. They are resume content and resume format. Resume content. as the name imp1ies. is the information component of the resume. This information may inc1ude "the app1icant goaTS. characteristics. and experiences that make the candidate attractive and usefu1 to the emp10ying organization." Resume format refers to the structura1 and mechanicaT component of resume preparation. Stephen et aTJs study sought to obtain empirica1 evidence that wou1d confirm or deny the information about preparing resumes that is pub1ished in the 1iterature. One hundred firms from the Fortune 500 were seTected at random and mai1ed a questionnaire addressed to the senior personne1 officer. A 57 percent response rate was obtained. The findings on resume content are very c1ose to Stephen et a1Js findings. In 1iterature prepared by BTackTedge. B1ack1edge. and KeiTy (1975); Littre11 (1984); and Egan (1977). they indicated the content of a resume shou1d inc1ude (1) persona1 information. 33 (2) education. (3) work experience. (4) student activities. (5) specia1 ski115. and (6) references. BTackTedge et a1. p1aced persona1 informa- tion first on the resume. and Littre11 and Egan said it shou1d be near the end. Stephen et a1. asked the personne1 officers to Tist and rank in order the information by category that they wanted to see on a resume. Their 1ist was (1) persona1 data. (2) education. (3) work experience. (4) awards and achievements. (5) affi1iations. and (6) references. Han of the respondents p1aced persona1 data near the end. This is very CTose to what the Titerature was saying shou1d be inc1uded in the content of the resume. The Titerature. however. did say there is no preferred order (Egan. Littre11. and BTackTedge et aLJ. and if your education is stronger than your work experience. inc1ude it first: if not. 1ist your strongest assets first. Stephen et aTJs research indicated that there is a strong preference for the order in which the content is presented in a resume. A1though the content of the information presented in a resume is impor- tant. format and mechanics of the resume can enhance the app1icantks probabiTity of empTOyment. The 1iterature presented the foTTowing mechanica1 aspects as being important in a we11-prepared resume: (1) one page. (2) 8-1/2" x 11" paper. (3) white bond. (4) neat1y typed and evenTy spaced. (5) grammar and speTTing correct. and (6) visua11y attractive (Egan. 1977; Fitzpatrick. 1974: Gooch. Carrier. and Huck. 1979: Goodman et 61.. 1984; LittreH. 1984). 34 Stephen at a1Js research found agreement on (1) white bond paper. (2) one page. (3) correct spe11ing. (4) proper Eng1ish. and (5) neatness. This is not too surprising since these are a11 common- sense mechanicaT things. The typing format apparent1y had TittTe effect on the personne1 officers. They had no preference for centered headings. headings on the side. or justified right margins; these were not powerfu1 factors in accepting or rejecting an app1icant. The resume is critica1 in gaining access to the emp1oyer and getting his attention. Sometimes candidates are tempted to mis1ead or stretch the truth on information provided under education or work experience. In a recent newspaper coTumn. Sy1via Porter (1985) ton of a nationa1 service for empTOyers that wi11 verify information on app1ications and resumes. Key Henery. Vice-President. NationaT Credentia1 Verification Service of MinneapoTis. Minnesota. was quoted as saying. "The competition to get a job is tough; some'peop1e have gone to overstating their qua1ifications and fudge dates of emp1oyment. This is a disturbing trend." Egan (1977) reported on a survey that was conducted on 200 pub1ic and private emp1oyers asking them if they verified information presented in resumes. 'The resu1ts were as fo110ws: 82 percent veri- fied at 1east some information on the resume. 79 percent said they checked with previous emp1oyers. and 63 percent obtained co11ege transcripts. Shing1eton (1984). in a recent artiCTe. stated that a good resume is not on1y of he1p to a potentiaT emp10yer but a1so has severa1 35 benefits to the preparer which are often over1ooked. He suggested that "a resume gives your ego a chance to ny and it a1so gives you a chance to rea11y think about what you can and can't offer an emp10yer." He a150 said that "composing a resume forces a student to squeeze severa1 years experience onto a sing1e sheet of paper" (p. 7). In a study of 106 high schoo1 seniors. Knouse et a1. (1979) were abTe to demonstrate that as TittTe as one session of teaching high schooT seniors about the importance of and what to inc1ude in a resume was effective. They stated. "A short-term training effort can increase the re1evant information contained in the first resume-writing attempts of novice appTicants." WW Most empToyers require that every appTicant fi11 out an app1ication b1ank. 'This may be true even if the app1icant has written a 1etter of app1ication or app1ied for a job in person. The manner in which the appTicant fi115 out an app1ication b1ank can have a great dea1 to do with whether he is considered for the job or not. B1ack1edge et a1. (1975) stated the importance of the job appTication as: The job app1icant is in much the same position as a sa1esperson who is seT1ing automobi1es. stereos. or any other product. Such a sa1esperson is competing with other sa1espeopTe. .So is an appTicant competing with other appTicants for a job. (p. 45) They further stated. "In fiTing out an appTication form. you are marketing yourse1f .... presenting your assets on the app1ication form 36 indicates to the empToyer that you are a va1uab1e person to emp1oy" (p. 47). In his book. LittreTT (1984) ton the reader that empTOyers use appTication forms to screen job appTicants. Therefore. the information you give on the form is very important. There is not much research avai1ab1e on comp1eting app1ication b1anks. but the 1iterature provided many books and book1ets with tips on the do's and don'ts of fiTTing out emp1oyment appTications. Most of the information given about fi11ing out resumes is app1icab1e to the job app1ication. The information in the Titerature on appTications can be separated into two categories. physica1 appearance and content. An app1ication b1ank that has good eye appeaT may not get the appTicant the job. but it wi11 at 1east entice the emp1oyer to read it: thus. physica1 appearance is important. 'The 1iterature Tisted the fo110wing tips on physica1 appearance of an app1ication. The app1ication shou1d be neat. and free from smudges. b10tches. foning. or tears. Print the information in ink. watch for spe1Ting errors. and fo11ow instructions carefu11y (BTackTedge et a1.. 1975; Dumas. 1982; Goodman et a1.. 1984; Littre11. 1984). Once the app1icant has captured the attention of the empToyer with an app1ication that has eye appea1. it is important that the content se11 the quaTities of the app1icant. Under content. the Titerature suggested that the app1icant answer a11 of the questions comp1ete1y and truthfu11y and p1ace an NA or dash in b1anks that do not 37 app1y to him. Provide as much information as possibTe in the sections marked "emp10yment history" and "education." Check over the comp1eted app1ication carefu11y; then sign and date it (BTackTedge et a1.. 1975: Dumas. 1982; Goodman et a1.. 1984; Littre11. 1984). As soon as the appTicant finishes an app1ication. he shou1d hand it in or maiT it; He may inc1ude a copy of his resume. but he shou1d never expect the resume to take the p1ace of an appTication. Littre11 (1984) stated. "A resume can be optionaT. but a comp1eted app1ication form is a must to be considered for most jobs" (p. 178). W The capstone experience of any job search is the empTOyment interview. If the appTicant has done a good job of searching the 1abor market for emp10yment that matches his qua1ifications and training. if Tetters of app1ication sent out with attractive resumes have resu1ted in 1ocating jobs that are avai1ab1e. and if after fi11ing out an emp1oyment app1ication the app1icant is ca11ed for an interview. it is at this time that the app1icant has the opportunity to se11 himse1f. A11 of the activities that 1ead up to the interview are part of an advertising campaign. which the app1icant conducts just to attract an empToyen. Then. in a one-to-one interview. he must se11 that emp1oyer on his attributes. "A1though psychoTogists may argue that the emp10yment interview is not va1id as a se1ection device. few wou1d disagree that the inter- view remains the most common hurdTe facing the job seeker" (Young & Beier. 1977. p. 154% This was a1so substantiated by C10wers and 38 Fraser (1977) when they wrote. "A variety of methods are used by emp10yers and personne1 staff to screen appTicants. but the emp10yment interview appears to be the principaT method through which hiring decisions are made" (p. 13). In a survey conducted by SpriegeT and James (1958). "the emp10yment interview was utiTized in the hiring process by 99% of the firms (N = 852)" (p. 35). According to research conducted by Cissna and Carter (1982). "the emp10yment interview is essentia11y a communi- cation in which ski11 in communication is the important determinant of success. It is aTSo an uncommon situation in which few individua1s have much experience" (p. 57). The authors conc1uded that: Given the importance of the interview in the job search process. it is surprising the empTOyment counseTing 1iterature has not given more attention to the interview and to training individua1s in improving their interviewing ski115. (p. 60) The emp10yment interview contains both verba1 and nonverba1 communication. This was demonstrated and confirmed by research conducted by Cissna and Carter (1982). Young and Beier (1977). and Ama1fitano and Ka1t (1977). Cissna and Carter identified the nonverba1 communication as facia1 expressions. posture. gestures. appearance. eye contact. and the handshake. They 1isted the verba1 communication as Toudness of voice. voca1 variety. 1anguage choice. and sTang. Young and Beier demonstrated the importance of what they identified as the major nonverba1 communication items: eye contact. smiTing. and hand movement. They video taped 32 women in simu1 ated 39 emp10yment interviews. Fifty persons viewed the tapes and served as interview judges. 'Their findings were: "Those who dispTayed more eye contact. head movement and smi1ing were eva1uated favorab1y and in 87% of the cases were rated as deserving the job." Ama1fitano and Ka1t directed their research to the nonverba1 communication of eye contact. Photographs were taken of a ma1e and a fema1e in two eye-contact positions: 1ooking straight into the camera and Tooking downward. Forty-four job interviewers in an empTOyment agency were random1y assigned to one of the four photographs and asked to rate the stimu1us person. as if it were an actua1 interview. on a series of sca1es. "The findings supported the hypothesis that eye contact is a determinant of the decision to hire" (p. 46). According to a review of Titerature conducted by C1owers and Fraser (1977) on emp1oyment interviews. they found there are two for- mats for interviews: the structured interview and the unstructured interview. The structured interview is preferred because the unstruc- tured interview is inconsistent in the interviewer's coverage of re1e- vant materia1 and differentia1 weighting of app1icants' re1ated infor- mation by the interviewer. The 1iterature is we11 supp1ied with tips for successfu1 inter- views. but most is based on fee1ings and observations by the authors instead of any scientific research. CTowers and Fraser searched the 1iterature and from 102 artic1es on emp10yment-interview research 1isted the foTTowing seven things as important factors used by an emp1oyer when deciding whom to hire after the interview: 4O (1) appearance. (2) academic standing. (3) communication ski11s. (4) motivation. (5) personaTity. (6) work experience. and (7) speech. This was further confirmed by a survey conducted on personne1 officiaTS who were asked to 1ist the perceptuaT factors that inf1uence hiring of app1icants. The three most often Tisted were (1) app1icant appearance. (2) communication sk111s. and (3) individua1's attitude during the interview (C1owers a Fraser. 1977). The creation of a favorab1e first impression is a continuous theme in much of the emp1oyment-interview 1iterature. C1owers and Fraser found in the 1iterature that traditiona11y the handshake has been hera1ded as the key to a positive beginning to the interview. yet a study conducted by Drake and others found that appearance and approach of the job appTicant were most important in estabTishing a first positive impression (8757 percent). whereas on1y 4.1 percent fe1t the handshake was a principaT component in estab1ishing this positive first impression. Hennington (1983). based on severa1 years of conducting interviews. offered ten techniques for app1icants to foTTow when going for an emp10yment interview. which were'in CTose agreement with the Titerature. They were: 1. Dress neat1y 2. Scout the company beforehand 3. Arrive for the interview ear1y 4. Be p1easant 5. Project a positive image 41 6. Ta1k inteTTigentTy about quaTifications 7. Ask the interviewer questions 8. Turn negative questions to your advantage 9. DeveTop a snappy data sheet 10. Write a thank you 1etter after the interview Hennington stated. "These techniques. though not infa11ib1e. can be 1earned readiTy and appTied as a vitaT segment of the interview session" (p. 15). In their search of Titerature on emp10yment interviews. CTowers and Fraser found the research had estabTished that during the interview the interviewer ta1ks 65 percent of the time and the appTicant on1y 35 percent. They found. however. that research has recommended that interviewers shou1d drastica11y reduce their ta1king time during the interview to about 20 percent. This recommendation seems to be confirmed by the 1iterature. based on C1owers and Fraser's review. They stated: One of the major research findings re1ative to decision making in the interview was that interviewers tend to make an overa11 eva1ua- tion of the appTicant very ear1y in the interview; specifica11y. within the first four minutes. With this thought in mind. it becomes very important to provide the best emp1oyment-interview instruction to students as possib1e to prepare them for the interview. Cissna and Carter (1982) conducted emp10yment-interview workshops and Tisted three group-instruction techniques that have proven to be effective. These are: 1. Practice with tria1s in c1ass. One acts as the interviewer. one the app1icant. and the third an observer. 42 2. Video tape simu1ated interviews and eva1uate strengths and weaknesses. 3. Have an "unknown expert" come in and interview trainees in front of the rest of the group. They conc1uded. "In our experience. the more reaTistic the interview workshop is for participants. the more they become invo1ved in it and the more they seem to benefit from it. In 1983. the Michigan State Board of Education (1984). through the Michigan EducationaT Assessment Program (MEAP). se1ected a samp1e of high schooTs in Michigan to conduct simu1ated job interviews on a samp1e of their sophomores. Trained test administrators came to the schooTs to conduct the simu1ated interviews. The sophomores were asked five questions by the interviewers and eva1uated in four categories: (1) persona1 appearance. (2) speech and behavior. (3) content. and (4) empTOyabiTity. The resu1ts showed that there was a definite need for instruction in interviewing. A three-point rating sca1e was used. and the resu1ts are the percentage of students scoring at the three sca1e 1eve1s (pp. 79-80): 1. PersonaT Appearance 2. Speech and Behavior Good 34% Good 43% Adequate 57% Adequate 41% Inadequate 8% Inadequate 16% 3. Content 4. Emp1oyabiTity Good 26% Good 28% Adequate 42% Adequate 47% Inadequate 32% Inadequate 25% 43 The narrative of the report stated: We wou1d expect higher performance from those in schooTs where career and emp1oyab11ity deve1opment programs are provided. Hopefu11y. a11 students wi11 have the opportunity to 1earn these skiTTs before they enter the work force. W The majority of Titerature reviewed suggested that there is a rea1 need for the skiTTs c1assified as emp10yabiTity ski115. It has been on1y in the 1ast ten years that a shift in phiTosophy has taken p1ace from p1acement speciaTists finding emp10yment for c1ients to teaching job-search ski11s to the c1ients and making them responsib1e for finding their own jobs. They 1iterature reviewed a1so indicated that emp10yabi1ity skiT1s can be 1earned and. once 1earned. can be used whenever there is a need for a new job. The methods and techniques used to seek and secure emp10yment are near1y the same. no matter if the person practicing them is a youth Tooking for his first job. a we1fare recipient. or a coT1ege graduate. A recent nationa1 survey indicated that 36 percent of the American work force (more than 40 mi11ion peopTe) are p1anning to make a job or career change (Wegmann. 1979). Coup1ing this with teenagers. recent graduates. and dropouts means there is a 1arge number of job seekers who need emp1oyabi1ity ski11s. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY lflILQQHQIiQn The primary purpose of this study was to deve10p an effective program to teach se1ected emp10yabi1ity ski11s to high schooT sopho- mores. inc1uding materiaTS. methods for impTementation.iand a method for eva1uating the progranfls effectiveness. The major activities re1ated to the study inc1uded (1) assessment of student needs. (2) deve10pment of goa1$ and objectives to meet those needs. (3) deve1- opment of a de1ivery system to carry out the goa1s and objectives. (4) deve1opment of specific materiaTS to be used in instruction. and (5) assessment of the effectiveness of these activities at the conc1u- sion of the instruction period. This chapter wiTT discuss how these five major e1ements of the study were deve1oped and imp1emented in the sophomore EngTish c1asses. mm The setting for the study was Greenvi11e Senior High SchooT. 1ocated in Greenvi11e. Michigan. about 30 miTes northeast of Grand Rapids in Montca1m County. Montca1m County is a rura1 agricu1tura1 county with seven schooT districts. GreenviT1e is Tocated in the southwest corner of the county and is the 1argest schoo1 system. with AA 45 3.500 K-12 students. The city of Greenvi11e is the 1argest town in the county. with a popuTation of 8.000. The community is predominantTy white midd1e c1ass. with 1ess than 1 percent Hispanic and other minori- ties. W The purpose of the study was to deve10p an effective program for teaching se1ected emp10yabi1ity skiT1s to high schooT sophomores. and eva1uating its effectiveness. To do so. specia1 materiaTS and procedures for their use were a150 devised. Re1ated activities inc1uded (1) assessment of student needs. (2) deve10pment of goa1s and objectives to meet those needs. (3) deveTOpment of a deTivery system to carry out the goa15 and objectives. (4) deve10pment of specific instructiona1 materiaTS. and (5) assessment of the effectiveness of these activities at the conc1usion of the instruction period. WW There were five major research questions for which answers were sought. In addition. there were four Tess important but re1ated questions. The research questions and their statistica1 hypotheses are: WW: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to conducting a job search? Students who receive c1assroom instruction in how to conduct a job search wiTT show a significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. 46 .Beseangh_nue§119n_2: W111 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to writing a 1etter of appTication? Students who receive c1assroom instruction in how to write a 1etter of appTication for an advertised job wi11 show a significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. ,Beseangn_flue§119n_3: W111 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions reTated to preparing a persona1 resume? 51a11§119a1_flypgthesis;3: Students who receive c1assroom instruction in how to write a persona1 resume w111 show a signifi- cant increase 1n their scores from the pretest to the posttest. 'Beseangh_fluest19n_fi: W111 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to fiTTing out an emp10yment appTication b1ank? .S1a11511g11_flypg1he§1§_fi: Students who receive c1assroom instruction in how to f111 out an emp1oyment appTication b1ank wi11 show a significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. .Beseangh_0uestign_5: Wi11 students who comp1ete this program be ab1e to correct1y answer written questions re1ated to preparing for a job interview? Statistica1_flypgthesis_5: Students who receive c1assroom instruction in how to prepare themse1ves for a job interview w111 show a significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Re1ated questions for which cross-ana1ysis was conducted are: .Beseangh_fluestign_§: Wi11 there be a significant difference in the posttest scores of the ma1e students when compared to the fema1e students? : Ma1e students who receive emp1oyab111ty- skiTTs training wi11 show no significant increase in their posttest scores when compared to fema1e students whoicomp1ete the same training. 47 ‘Beseangn_9ue§119n_1: W111 students who have he1d a regu1ar job. either fu11 time or part time. score higher on the posttest than students who have never he1d a regu1ar job? Students who hon part-time jobs w111 have significant1y higher average scores on the posttest than students who have never he1d a regu1ar job. ‘Beseangh_nue§tign_8: W111 students with an overa11 grade point average of at 1east 2.5 score higher on the posttest than students with an overa11 grade point average be10w 2.5? j51a;1:11gal_flypgthg§1§_fl: Students with an overa11 grade point average of at Teast 2.5 w111 have significant1y higher scores on the posttest than students with an overa11 grade point average be1ow 2.5. .Beseangh_fluestign_2: W111 students enro11ed 1n the coT1ege-bound EngTish c1asses score higher on the posttest than students enro11ed in the regu1ar EngTish c1asses? Students enroTTed in the coT1ege-bound Eng1ish c1asses wi11 have significant1y higher scores on the post- test than students enro11ed in the regu1ar EngTish c1asses. WM The 9-12 enroTTment at GreenviT1e is 1.050. but on1y grades 10. 11. and 12 are housed in the high schooT. with the freshman c1ass 1ocated at the midd1e schoo1. Thus. for the sophomores. it is their first year in the high schooT bui1ding. The target popuTation for the study was the 1984-85 sophomore c1ass at Greenvi11e Senior High Schoo1. The sophomore c1ass consisted of 276 students. 139 ma1es and 137 fema1es. 48 W: The program which was the focus of this study consisted of a 13-day emp10yabi1ity-ski11s training program for a11 sophomores. taught by EngTish teachers. Its effectiveness was determined primariTy through the use of pre- and posttests. A11 sophomores were enro11ed in either Eng1ish 10A or 108. EngTish 10A is for those students who are in the coTTege-preparation curricu1um. and 108 is for those students enroTTed in either the genera1 or vocationa1 curricu1um. There were six sections of 10A with 141 students enro11ed and six sections of EngTish 108 with 152 stu- dents. There were five EngTish teachers who taught the sophomore-1eve1 Eng1ish c1asses in which the program was inserted. (See Figure 1.) The design used in this study was a pretest-posttest design with random assignment to experimenta1 or controT groups by c1assroom. Since the instructiona1 period was of short duration. 13 days. there was not sufficient time to expect any changes resuTting from the normaT routine of the schoo1. so the controT group received the posttest "on1y." The design for the study may be symboTized as foTTows: R O X 0 R O 49 First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Teacher Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour A 108 108 B 108 108 C 10A 10A 108 D 108 E 10A 10A 10A 10A Figure 1.--Sophomore EngTish sections at GreenviTTe High Schoo1. 1984-85. Since there are 12 EngTish sections. six each of EngTish 10A and 108. three from each were random1y assigned to be in the experimen- ta1 group that received the instruction and three from each c1assifica- tion were p1aced in the controT group. symbo1ized as foT1ows: JOJUNZJDUJUZJJUJUZJZIU OOOOOO XXXXXX OOOOOOOCOOOO The overa11 design can be 50 WW Since the research is an eva1uative study of a new and unique program to teach emp10yab111ty skiT1s at the sophomore 1eve1 and the program materia1s cover five specific areas. it was necessary to deve1op and p11ot test instruments to measure the effectiveness of the program. ‘This decision was reached after an exhaustive search of Buros's MentaT Measurement Yearbooks. Buros's Tests in Print. and a review of over one hundred tests avaiTabTe to Job Training Partnership Act recipient agencies. None was judged to meet the criteria necessary to eva1uate this Toca11y deve1oped program. One test pub1ished by the Co11ege Board. entit1ed Emp10yment-Seeking Sk1115. is an exce11ent test that measures a student's knowTedge of the different sources to use when conducting a job search. which was the first of the five areas in the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s program. The cost of the test was $1.25 per student. so the schooT district cou1d not invest this amount per stu- dent for an ongoing program that wou1d measure the effectiveness of on1y one of the five areas. The instruments that were deveTOped and used in this study are as f011ows: 1. .Stndfin1_dntn_aheet: a form designed to obtain information about the students' previous use of emp10yabi1ity ski11s. The form asks the students if they have ever (1) f111ed out a job appTication form for an emp10yer. (2) written a 1etter to an emp10yer asking for a job. (3) prepared a persona1 resume. (4) interviewed for a job with an empTOyer. or (5) worked for someone for pay. By compi1ing the 51 information. the teachers have a profiTe of the entire c1assfls strengths and weaknesses in the area of emp10yab111ty skiTTs they are about to teach. The student data sheet was comp1eted by the students before they took the pretest. Besides acting as a needs-assessment too1. information from the student data sheet was used in cross- comparison of the re1ated research questions. A copy of the student data sheet can be found in Appendix F. 2. .A_muJId2ls:chD1cs_nLsIsst:nnsttsst.1nstnumen1: a 50- question mu1tip1e-choice test based on the goa1s and objectives covered in the content of the emp1oyabi1ity-ski115 manua1. Ten questions were deve1oped for each of the five topics covered in the c1assroom instruc- tion. Appendix G contains the comp1ete test book1et for the pretest- posttest. 3. .Emp1QymenI_1ntenxiew_eyalua119n_fgnm: a form used by emp10yers whi1e conducting simu1ated job interviews. The form is based on questions used in a 1983 pi1ot test by the Michigan Educationa1 Assessment Program (MEAP) on seTected SOphomores in Michigan to measure their career awareness. p1anning. and p1acement. .Appendix L of this study contains a copy of the emp10yment interview form used to measure the performance of a samp1e of students se1ected from the experimenta1 group by the emp10yers to take part in simu1ated job interviews. 4. .Sghggl_ngggnd§: records containing demographic information such as grade point average (GPA) and c1ass enro11ment information used in cross-comparisons made for the re1ated research questions of this study. 52 .ELaI95I:EQsIIa5I.1nsinumfin1_99n51£usiinn Since no instrument specific enough to measure the accomp1ish- ment of the goa1s and objectives of this study was avaiTab1e. it was necessary to construct and va1idate a specia1 instrument for this purpose. The pretest-posttest instrument was designed to measure the know1edge and understanding a sophomore student has of the five program areas after comp1eting 13 c1assroom hours of instruction. After a carefu1 study of the written methods avai1ab1e (true- faTse. matching. mu1tip1e choice. short answer. fi11 in the b1ank. and essay). it was decided a mu1tip1e-choice test wou1d be deve1oped and used for the fo11owing reasons: 1. It was feTt that students wou1d comp1ete this type of test before instruction with the 1east amount of frustration. 2. When testing 1arge numbers of students. this wou1d be the easiest to grade and summarize. 3. Mu1tip1e-choice tests 1end themse1ves we11 to pretest- posttest statistica1 ana1ysis. 4. Mu1tip1e-choice tests are capabTe of measuring not on1y genera1 understanding but a150 comprehension of specific instructiona1 materiaTS. Ten questions were deve10ped for each of the five areas of instruction. yie1ding a SO-question pretest-posttest instrument. Questions were carefu11y constructed using the foTTowing five steps: 1. Identify the 1earning outcomes to be measured. 2. Write the stem and the correct aTternative. 53 3. Write p1ausibTe distractors. 4. Arrange the distractors and the correct a1ternative. 5. Check for ambiguity and irre1evant c1ues. Once the 50 questions were deve10ped. they were organized under the headings of the areas each was intended to measure. Copies of the instrument with a 1etter of instruction (see Appendix C) were given to a paneT of seven experts (see Appendix D) to review and make sugges- tions for changes. ‘The pane1 members took the test themse1ves. and so did c011eagues as we11 as students who a1ready had some emp1oyab111ty- ski11$ training. Each member of the pane1 returned the test with comments and suggestions for changes. These suggestions were incor- porated into the fina1 pretest-posttest instrument. After the 50 items were rewritten. the ten questions per category were mixed throughout the test in a random fashion. ‘The resuTting test instrument was then fie1d tested in a high schooT Tocated in another schoo1 system. Students there were sophomores enro1Ted in EngTish who had had no previous instruction in emp10yabiTity-sk111s training. Comments and suggestions were so1icited from the students. and a unit ana1ysis was conducted to see if there were questions everyone missed or no one missed. From this came the pretest-posttest instrument used to measure the effectiveness of instruction in this study. The pretest-posttest book1et can be found in Appendix G. 54 Milan The time period seTected to conduct the experimenta1 imp1emen- tation of the emp1oyabi1ity-skiTTs program was after Thanksgiving vaca- tion. This appeared to be suitab1e because it was within a marking period. there were no assembTies p1anned. and other interruptions in instruction were minima1. The experimenta1 program began on November 29. 1984. and ended on December 19. 1984. Appendix E contains the detaiTed schedu1e for the emp10yabi1ity-skiTTs instruction program. The foTTowing pages describe how the program was imp1emented and the data coTTected. Wad There were five Eng1ish teachers invo1ved in the study. three ma1es and two fema1es. They ranged in years of teaching experience from 20 down to the Towest. which was nine years. None of the Eng1ish teachers had previous1y taught a forma1 unit in emp10yabi1ity ski11s. They cou1d a11 be c1assified as the typica1 high schooT Eng1ish teacher with no specia1 training or experience in emp10yabi1ity ski11s before they took part in the research project. W During the preschoo1 teacher inservice training days in August. the researcher met with the Eng1ish teachers to discuss the research project and to answer any questions they may have had. At this time the EngTish teachers tentative1y assigned the end of November as the starting date for the experimenta1 research. 55 The researcher then met with the superintendent to exp1a1n the goa1s and proposed procedures for the research project and to obtain his permission to conduct the study in the sophomore Eng1ish c1asses at GreenviTTe Senior High Schoo1. Appendix A contains a copy of the 1etter written by the superintendent to the Eng1ish Department chairper- son. with copies to the other four Eng1ish teachers and the budeing principa1. After a11 the materia1s for the study had been deve1oped. a meeting was schedu1ed with the budeing principa1. and the entire program was expTained to him. Once his understanding and support were obtained. two 60-minute inservices were p1anned to acquaint the Eng1ish teachers with the materiaTS and their imp1ementation. Since there were on1y three different EngTish teachers with experimenta1 groups and two with contro1 groups. it was decided to ho1d the training sessions on an individua1 basis during the teachers' p1anning periods. Before the first session. the teachers were given the foTTowing materia1s: 1. Goa1s and objectives for the emp10yabiTity-sk111s training program 2. Da11y 1esson p1ans which inc1uded activities and homework assignments 3. A 1oose1eaf notebook of supp1ementa1 materiaTS to use with the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s manua1 4. A teacher's edition of the emp1oyabi1ity-skiT1s manua1 5. A time schedu1e for carrying out the instruction 56 The first training period consisted of the foTTowing activities: 1. Going over the goaTS and objectives to make sure the Eng1ish teachers understood them 2. Discussing the dai1y 1esson p1ans and the time schedu1e with the Eng1ish teachers to make certain they fo110wed them as outTined. 3. Discussing the supp1ementa1 materiaTS in the TooseTeaf notebook and giving teachers suggestions on how they may be used 4. Discussing the five sections of the emp1oyabiTity-sk1115 manua1 and giving the teachers enough copies for a11 of their students 5. Giving the teachers a supp1y of the teacher daiTy 109 sheets and discussing how they shou1d be comp1eted 6. Giving the teachers a supp1y of the student data sheets and instructing them as to how they shou1d be presented to the students 7. Giving the teachers copies of the emp10yabiTity-ski11s test book1et and answer sheets. The teachers were instructed in how to exp1ain the test instructions to the students and how to administer the test. The EngTish teachers fe1t that it wou1d be more meaningfu1 and heTpfuT to them if the second inservice was conducted during the time the experimenta1 program was going on since it dea1t primari1y with preparing for and conducting an emp10yment interview. which is the 1ast unit of instruction. A separate inservice was p1anned for this unit because it is the capstone experience of the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s 57 training. which required more specific timing and cooperation than the other four units. The second inservice training consisted of the fo110wing activities: 1.‘ Discussing the goa1s and objectives and the materiaTs provided to be used to teach the preparation for and conducting an emp1oyment interview 2. Discussing methods that cou1d be used in the c1assroom by a11 students to simu1ate job interviews 3. Discussing how the simu1ated job interviews using area emp1oyers wou1d be conducted 4. Giving the teachers copies of the simu1ated job interview instructions to students and the job interview eva1uation form that wou1d be used by the emp1oyers during the simu1ated job interviews W At the beginning of the first day of the experimenta1 program. a11 students were asked to comp1ete the student data sheet. (Appendix F contains a copy of that form.) The students were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to six questions concerning their previous experience with emp10yabi1ity ski115. The questions were: 1. Have you ever f111ed out a job appTication form for an emp10yer? 2. Have you ever written a 1etter to an emp1oyer asking for a job? 3. Have you ever prepared a persona1 resume? 4. Have you ever interviewed for a job with an emp1oyer? 58 5. Have you ever worked for someone for pay (echuding baby- sitting and your parents)? 6. Are you presentTy working for pay? If "yes." who is your emp10yer? They were then asked to comp1ete the statement: "When I graduate from high schooT I p1an . The students comp1eted the student data sheet before the instructiona1 program was exp1ained to them and before they took the pretest. ‘The information obtained from the student data sheet readiTy gave the teacher a needs assessment for the entire c1ass. This infor- mation was made avai1ab1e to the EngTish teachers at the beginning of the instructiona1 period so they wou1d be better informed about the previous experience of their students. The students were asked to comp1ete the statement. "When I graduate from high schoo1 I p1an . . . ." so that it cou1d be deter- mined if the student perceived himseTf as co11ege-bound or emp10yment- bound after graduation. Of the 233 students in the experimenta1 and controT groups. on1y two did not comp1ete the statement. WW After the students comp1eted the student data sheet. they were each given a copy of the emp1oyabiTity-sk1115 pretest and an answer sheet. (These items can be found in Appendix G.) The teacher carefu11y read the student instruction page to the students. emphasizing that the students were to se1ect the best answer from the four choices. that there was no penaTty for guessing if they did not 59 know the answer. that they were to c19ar1y darken in the appropriate space on the answer sheet. and how they were to erase any answer they wished to change. There was no time 1imit for the pretest. A11 students were ab1e to comp1ete the test within 40 minutes. The test was coT1ected by the instructor and 1ater given to the researcher to score. During the entire 13-day instructiona1 period. there was no further discussion of the test or the resu1ts. 'This was so that the students wou1d not 1earn from the test itseTf. but any improvement in their scores wou1d be the resu1t of the c1assroom instruction that took p1ace. Wm After the students compTeted the student data sheet and the pretest. they were given a copy of the 56-page emp10yabiTity-ski11s manua1 that was specifica11y deveTOped for this program. The Eng1ish teachers went through the various sections of the manua1 with the students to give them an overview. encouraging them to write in the book1et because it was designed to be an instructiona1 workbook. The instructiona1 format was group instruction. Each day a section of the book1et was assigned as homework. The next day that section was discussed in c1ass. Each student was expected to take the materiaTs from the sections and adapt them to their individua1 needs. For examp1e. after comp1eting the c1assroom instruction in how to deve1op and prepare a persona1 resume. each student deve1oped a per- sona1 resume fo11owing the guide1ines he had 1earned from the 6O instructiona1 program in c1ass. This was handed in as homework and eva1uated for format and content by the teacher. The teacher recorded grades for each student who comp1eted the homework assignments. This eva1uation was not used as part of the study because of its threatening nature and the fact that it is a subjective eva1uation that cou1d vary from teacher to teacher. The c1assroom instruction took 13 hours. Figure 2 contains the topics inc1uded in the empToyabi1ity-sk1115 instructiona1 program. Appendix H contains the goa1s and objectives that were deve1oped for the curricu1um. as we11 as the da11y 1esson p1ans used by the teachers during the instructiona1 period. Lesson V. 'i-Iow to Conduct an Interview." was handTed in an -innovative way and deserves more detaiTed discussion. The capstone experience of any emp10yabiTity-sk111s training program is when the persons enroTTed actua11y use their training to present themse1ves in such a manner during an emp10yment interview that they w111 obtain a job offer. Much time was spent in this part of the program on how to get ready for an interview. how to respond to typica1 questions asked during an interview. and how to behave during the interview itseTf. Since it was fe1t that it was unrea1istic to expect that rea1 job interviews cou1d be arranged for each student during the 13-day 1ength of this program. a p1an was deve1oped to have each c1ass app1y for a specific position with an area emp1oyer who typica11y emp1oys high schooT students. The students f111ed out the emp1oyer's app1ica- tion b1ank after they had comp1eted their training in f111ing out job November 29 30 December 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday 61 Student data forms. PRETEST Overview and job search Job-search techniques Letters of app1ication Letters of app1ication Writing persona1 resumes Writing persona1 resumes Writing persona1 resumes F111ing out job appTications Fi111ng out job appTications Fi11ing out job appTications Job interview techniques Job interview techniques Simu1ated job interviews POSTTEST Figure 2.--prics inc1uded in the emp1oyabi1ity-ski11s instructiona1 appTication b1anks. program (Tota1: 15 c1ass days). The emp10yer reviewed a11 of the appTications and seTected three students to be interviewed before the entire c1ass. (Re1ated materiaTs are found in Appendices I. J. K. L. and M.) Since there were six c1asses in the experimenta1 group. it was necessary to secure six emp10yers who wou1d be w1111ng to participate. 'The fo110w- ing emp10yers of high schoo1 students agreed to conduct the interviews: 62 1. Fishers Big Whee1 Discount Department Store 2. United Memoria1 HospitaT 3. Ponderosa Steakhouse 4. Greenvi1Te T001 and Die Company 5. McDonaTd's Restaurant. Inc. 6. Winter Inn Restaurant After the students compTeted their c1assroom instruction on how to fi11 out emp1oyment appTication b1anks. they were given an instruction sheet (see Appendix J) and the emp1oyment appTication for that particuTar business. They were instructed to take the appTication home. f111 it out. and return it the next day. The EngTish teachers co11ected a11 of the app1ications and gave them to the emp1oyer to read and se1ect the three students to interview. The empTOyers received the comp1eted appTications on Friday and ca11ed the schoo1 with their se1ections on Monday. Once the emp10yers had made their se1ections. the students seTected were given the information contained on the sheet in Appendix K. They were not coached by the teacher after being seTected. It.was fe1t that this was as reaTistic as a student receiv- ing a phone ca11 from an emp1oyer to come in the next day for an interview. The next day the c1assroom was set up so that the emp1oyer cou1d come'in and interview the students he had se1ected. A video camera was set up to record the interviews so that 1ater specific things cou1d be pointed out to the entire c1ass. such as eye contact. greeting. types of questions. and appropriate responses. After the 63 emp1oyer comp1eted the three interviews. he conducted a discussion session with the entire c1ass and exp1ained in more detai1 how his company interviewed and hired new emp1oyees. After the c1ass period was over. the emp1oyer comp1eted the emp1oyment interview eva1uation form (see Appendix L) wh11e the information was sti11 fresh in his mind. 'The next day. the students who had participated in the interview were given a copy of the emp10yment interview eva1uation form. which no one e1se wou1d see. They were a150 given a certificate of achievement to show they had been se1ected as one of the three best appTicants. as weTT as a sma11 gift for participating in the interview. (A copy of the certificate is in Appendix M.) .Adm1n15121119n_QI_EQSII§§I After the simu1ated job interviews were comp1eted. the stu- dents in the experimenta1 program were administered the posttest. The teacher carefu11y read the student instruction page to the students. again emphasizing that they were to se1ect the best answer from the four choices. that there was no penaTty for guessing if they did not know the answer. that they were to c1ear1y darken in the appropriate space on the answer sheet. and that they cou1d erase any answer com- p1ete1y that they wished to change. There was no time 11mit for the posttest. but a11 students were ab1e to comp1ete the test within 30 minutes. The posttest was the same test the students had taken as a pretest two weeks ear1ier. 64 The posttests were co11ected by the instructors and given to the researcher for scoring. The next day the students were given the score they had received on the pretest and then their score for the posttest. This was the first time the students or teacher knew how we11 they had done on the pretest. At the same time that the experimenta1 EngTish c1asses were taking the posttest. the controT groups were a1$o taking the same test. The two Eng1ish teachers invo1ved in administering the posttest to the controT group received the same inservice instruction on how to admin- ister the posttest as the EngTish teachers who had the experimenta1 groups. The posttest was administered in exactTy the same manner for the contro1 groups as was described for the experimenta1 groups. Win After a11 of the pretests and posttests were scored. the resu1ts were compi1ed and used to test the nine hypotheses 1isted earTier in this chapter. 'The mean scores and standard deviations were .the units of measurement. The t-test. using the .05 1eve1 of significance. was .used for Hypotheses 1. 2. 3. 4. and 5. The participants' pretest scores were compared to their posttest scores. and the resuTting t-va1ue was compared to the tab1e va1ue at p <.05 to determine if the instruction had been effective. The .05 1eve1 of significance was chosen because the intention of the experiment was to measure effectiveness. If the .01 1eve1 had been se1ected. perhaps this wou1d have been too harsh and not measure effectiveness when it actua11y was. If the.J0 Teve1 had 65 been se1ected. perhaps this wou1d have been too 1oose and given credit for the instruction when perhaps it was something eTse. Since it was an experimenta1 program that shou1d not be adopted un1ess it was effective. the .05 1eve1 cou1d measure effectiveness and be reasonab1y sure it was because of the instructiona1 program. Four reTated research hypotheses were examined to determine whether the independent variab1es of sex. emp1oyment status. grade point average. and type of Eng1ish c1ass (coTTege preparation or regu1ar) the students were enr011ed in had an effect on the emp1oyabiTity-ski115 program. Ana1ysis of variance was used to ana1yze these four hypotheses for the experimenta1 group. A11 five dependent variab1es presented in Research Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. and 5 were ana1yzed in re1ation to the four independent variab1es. The tab1e va1ue of F at p <.05 was used to determine if these variab1es had an inf1uence on the posttest scores. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Inirgductlgn The resu1ts of the investigation are presented in this chapter. Data gathered before and after the experimenta1 program was imp1emented are statisticaTTy ana1yzed and inc1uded. The data are presented in three broad categories for ease of understanding and ana1ysis. These categories are (1) descriptive information about the participants. (2) ana1ysis of the nine research questions in the order in which they were presented in Chapter III. and (3) a comparison of the sophomores from the experimenta1 group. who went through the simu1ated emp1oyment interviews. with sophomores around Michigan who participated in a simi1ar simu1ated emp1oyment interview conducted by the Michigan Educa- tiona1 Assessment Program (MEAP) in Fa11 1983. The mean scores of participants were used to conduct t-tests of StatisticaT Hypotheses 1. 2. 3. 4. and 5. Ana1ysis of variance was used for StatisticaT Hypotheses 6. 7. 8. and 9. WW5 The popuTation for this study inc1uded the entire sophomore c1ass at GreenviT1e Senior High SchooT during the 1984-85 schoo1 year. The students were random1y assigned by entire EngTish c1asses to either 66 67 the experimenta1 or controT group. Tab1e 4 shows the demographics of the subjects. by number and sex. in the experimenta1 and contro1 groups. Tab1e 4.--Demographics of subjects in the experimenta1 and controT groups. Description N Ma1es Fema1es ExperimentaT group 121 65 56 ControT group 112 55 57 Tota1s 233 120 113 Percent 100% 51.5% 48.5% There were 12 c1asses of sophomore EngTish invo1ved in the research. six in the experimenta1 group and six in the contro1 group. Within those 12 groups. six were Eng1ish 10A (coTTege preparation) and six were Eng1ish 108 (genera1 curricuT um). with three from each ran- dom1y assigned to the experimenta1 and contro1 groups. ‘Tab1es 5 and 6 show the assignment of the students by c1asses. inc1uding the number and sex of the participants. Before the experimenta1 group comp1eted the pretest and before the contro1 group comp1eted the posttest. each group was asked six questions (Appendix F) to determine the proportion of students who had had some experience in areas requiring emp10yab111ty ski11s. Tab1e 7 Tists the resu1ts as reported by the students. 68 Table,5.--lndividual English classes in the experimental group. Group Sex English lOA English 108 Experimental Group 1 g :8 Experimental Group 2 E 1? Experimental Group 3 2 lg .. Experimental Group A p '3 Experimental Group 5 p '2 Experimental Group 6 2 .. ‘3 Totals 60 61 Table 6.--lndividua1 English classes in the control group. Group Sex English 10A English 108 Control Group 1 E :3 Control Group 2 p 2 Control Group 3 2 ‘2 Control Group A 2 :3 Control Group 5 p 1: M 6 F Control Group 6 10 Totals 59 53 69 Table 7.--Students who had participated in areas of emp10yabi1ity skiTTs before the instructional program (in percent). Experimental Control Questiona Sex Yes No Yes No 1: Job application form? M 44% 56% 39% 61% F 18 82 28 72 2: Letter of application? M 4 96 5 95 F 2 98 0 100 3: Prepared a resume? M 4 96 6 95 F 2 98 0 100 4: Interviewed for a job? M 31 69 22 78 F 16 84 22 78 5: Worked for pay? M 92 8 93 7 F 64 26 7O 30 6: Presently working? M 35 65 31 69 F 15 85 22 78 aSee Appendix F for complete text of the questions. Near1y twice as many boys as girTs in the sophomore c1ass reported they had previously filled out job applications. Writing a letter to an employer asking for a job was something most sophomores had not done. SimilarTy. most had never prepared a personal resume. A greater number of students said they had interviewed for a job with an employer. with the ma1es in the experimental group reporting the highest positive responses. When asked if they had ever worked for someone for pay. near1y all of the ma1es said "yes." while only about ‘two-thirds of the females said they had. Fina11y. when asked if they 70 were presently working. about one-third of the males said they were. as compared to only about one-fifth of the females. From these self- reported data it can be conc1uded that male students enter the labor market in greater numbers earTier than female students but have had on1y a little more experience with job-seeking ski115 such as writing letters of app1ication or preparing persona1 resumes. AnalstLQLthLBsssarsmesuQDs There were five major research questions for which answers were sought. related to the effectiveness of the experimental instructional program in emp10yability skiTTs. In addition. there were four related questions that ana1yzed the influence of sex. emp10yment status. grade point average. and type of English c1ass upon the effectiveness of the instructiona1 program. The research questions were stated as hypotheses in the nu11 form to test for significant differences between pretest and posttest scores and hence to determine whether the experimenta1 instructional program effective1y accompTished its objectives. It was decided to use thee.05 1eve1 of significance for both the t-test and analysis of variance. Appendices O and P contain a table of comparisons of the means and standard deviations for the experimental and controT groups. W14 .Beseangh_nuestign_l: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to conducting a job search? 71 Ho 1: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to conduct a job search w111 show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Statistica1 Hypothesis 1 was formu1ated to determine the effectiveness of the instructional program in teaching students the knowledge necessary to conduct a job search. There were ten questions on the pretest-posttest re1ated to know1edge necessary to conduct a job search (Appendix G). The experi- mental group took the pretest before receiving instruction. Their mean score on the pretest was 5.48; after instruction had taken p1ace. the same group scored'LOB on the posttest. The t-test was used to deter- mine whether the two means were significantTy different at the .05 probabiTity level. The t-value was 7.09. which was significantly larger than the 1.960 tab1e value at the .05 1eve1 of significance. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Tab1e 8 reports the observed means and standard deviations of the experimental group on their knowl- edge of how to conduct a job search. The t-value is also inc1uded. Tab1e 8.--The t-value between the pretest and posstest for the experimenta1 group on job search as identified in Statistica1 Hypothesis 1. Variable N Test Mean 8.0. t Job search 121 Pretest 5.48 1.78 7.09* 121 Posttest 7.03 1.62 *Significant at p < .05. 72 W ‘Besgaggh_gue§;19n_z: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to writing a letter of application? Ho 2: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to write a letter of application for an advertised job will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Statistica1 Hypothesis 2 was formulated to determine the effectiveness of the instructional program in teaching students the knowledge necessary to write a letter of application. The experimental group's mean score on the pretest was 5.29. At the completion of the instruction their mean score was 133 on the posttest. The t-test was used to determine whether the two means were significantly different at the .05 probability level. The t-value was 9.34. which was significantly larger than the 1.960 tab1e value at the .05 level of significance. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 9 shows the mean. standard deviation. and t-value for the experi- mental group as measured for knowledge necessary to write a letter of application for employment. Tab1e 9.--The t-value between the pretest and posttest for the experi- mental group for letter of application as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 2. Variable N Test Mean 8.0. t Letter of 121 Pretest 5.29 1.64 9.34* appTication 121 Posttest 7.33 1.76 1*Significant at p < .05. 73 WW ‘Beseangh_0ue§119n_3: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to preparing a personal resume? Ho 3: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to write a personal resume will show no increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Statistica1 Hypothesis 3 was formulated to determine the effec- tiveness of the instructional program in teaching the students the knowledge necessary to prepare their own personal resume. The experimental group that received the classroom instruction had a mean score on the pretest of 6.95. and on the posttest after completing instruction their mean score was 8.94. The t-test was used to determine whether the two means were significantly different at the .05 probability level. The t-value was 9.h4. which was significantly larger than the 1.960 tab1e value at the .05 level of significance. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 10 shows the mean. standard deviation. and t-value for the experimental group as measured for knowledge necessary to write a personal resume. Table 10.--The t-value between the pretest and posttest for the experimental group for writing a personal resume as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 3. Variable N Test Mean 5.0. t Personal resume 121 Pretest 6.95 1.73 9.14* 121 Posttest 8.94 1.66 *Significant at p < .05. 74 W154 .Beseangn_flue§t19n_4: Will students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to filling out an employment application? Ho 4: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to fill out an employment application blank will show no increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Statistical Hypothesis 4 was formulated to determine the effec- tiveness of the instructional program in teaching the students the knowledge necessary to fill out an employment application. The experimental group that received the classroom instruction had a mean score on the pretest of 5.65. After completing the instruction. their mean score on the posttest was 8.18. The t-test was used to determine whether the two means were significantly different at the .05 probability level. The t-value was 12.48. which was signifi- cantly larger than the 1.960 tab1e value at the .05 level of signifi- cance. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 11 shows the mean. standard deviation. and t-value for the experimental group as measured for knowledge necessary to complete an employment application. Tab1e 11.--The t-value between the pretest and posttest for the experi- mental group for completing an employment application b1ank as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 4. Variable N Test Mean 8.0. t Employment 121 Pretest 5.65 1.66 12.4 8* application 121 Posttest 8.18 1.49 *Significant at p < .05. 75 51:11:11931_H¥291h£§1§_5 W: Will students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to preparing for a job interview? Ho 5: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to prepare .themselves for a job interview will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Statistica1 Hypothesis 5 was formulated to determine the effec- tiveness of the instructional program in teaching the students the knowledge necessary to prepare for an employment interview. The experimental group that received the classroom instruction had a mean score on the pretest of'LJ4. After completing the instruc- tion. their mean score on the posttest was 8.86. The t-test was used to determine whether the two means were significantly different at the .05 probability level. The t-value was 9:77. which was significantly larger than the 1.960 tab1e value at the .05 level of significance. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. 'Table 12 shows the observed mean. standard deviation. and t-value for the experimental group as measured for knowledge necessary to prepare themselves for a job inter- view. Table 12.--The t-value between the pretest and posttest for the experi- mental group for preparing for a job interview as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 5. A; Variable N Test Mean 8.0. t Job interview 121 Pretest 7.14 1.49 9.77* 121 Posttest 8.86 1.24 *Significant at p < .05. 76 Wallet]: Four related research questions were examined to determine the effect of the independent variables of sex. employment status. grade point average. and English class the students were enrolled in upon the effectiveness of the emp10yability-skills program. Unlike the preceding tests. which compared the pretest scores with the posttest scores for the experimental group. Hypotheses 6. 7. 8. and 9 compared the scores on the independent variables for the posttest only. All five variables presented in Research Questions 1 through 5 were used individually in the cross-ana1ysis. Wu ‘Beseangn_0ue§119n_§: Will there be a significant difference in the posttest scores of the male students when compared to the female students? Ho 6: Male students who receive emp10yability-skills training will show no significant difference in their posttest scores when compared to female students who complete the same training. Statistica1 Hypothesis 6 was formulated to determine if there was any significant difference in scores of the participants based on their sex. The experimental group consisted of 64 male and 57 female subjects. The mean scores for the males were slightly higher on job search and preparing a resume. The female subjects' mean scores were slightly higher on the other three variables. Table 13 shows a two by five comparison of the mean scores for the subjects on the posttest. 77 Table 13.--A comparison of the mean scores of the male and female students on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 6. Job Letter of Preparing Completing Job Search Application a Resume an Applic. Interview Ma1e 7.07 6.85 9.15 8.17 8.82 Female 6.98 6.91 8.94 8.21 8.91 Mean 7.03 6.88 9.05 8.19 8.87 An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variab1es. It was necessary to have an F-value of 3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. Since none of the five F-values reached 3.92. the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. It can thus be stated that the sex of the participants had no effect on how well they scored on the posttest. Table 14 shows the source of variation. sum of squares. degrees of freedom. mean squares. and the F-value for each of the pairs (ma1e-fema1e) derived through analysis of variance. W W: W111 students who have held a regular job. either full time or part time. score higher on the posttest than students who have never held a regular job? Ho 7: Students who hold part-time jobs will not have significantly higher scores on the posttest than students who have never held a regular job. Statistica1 Hypothesis 7 was formulated to determine if there was any significant difference in scores of participants based on their employment status. 78 Table l4.-Ana1ysis of variance between the scores of male and female students in the experimental group measured on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis-6. Source of Sum of Mean Variable Variation Squares df Squares F Job search Between .28 1 .28 .106 Within 315.59 119 2.65 Letter of Between .10 1 .10 .032 application Within 376.29 119 3.16 Preparing a Between 1.32 1 1.32 1.97 resume Within 79.28 119 .67 Completing an Between .05 1 .05 .022 application Within 276.58 119 2.32 Conducting a Between .22 1 .22 .139 job interview Within 187.67 119 1.58 Fail to reject Ho 6. The experimental group consisted of 32 students who reported they were presently working for pay and 89 students who said they were not. It is interesting that the mean scores for those working were slightly higher on all the variables except completing an application. where they scored slightly below the students currently not working. Table 15 shows a two by five comparison of the mean scores for the subjects on the posttest. 79 Table 15.--A comparison of the mean scores of the students working compared to those currently not working as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 7, Job Letter of Preparing Completing Job Search Application a Resume an Applic. Interview Working 7.0 7.1 9.2 8.0 8.9 Not working 6.8 6.7 8.9 8.2 8.8 Mean 6.9 6.9 9.0 8.1 8.8 An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variab1es. It was necessary to have an F-value of 3:92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. Since none of the five F-values reached 3.92. the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. It can thus be stated that the employment status of the participants had no effect on how well they scored on the posttest. Table 16 shows the source of variation. sum of squares. degrees of freedom. mean squares. and the F-value for each of the pairs (working-not working) derived through an analysis of the variance. WWW ‘Beseangh_flue§119n_8: W111 students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 score higher on the posttest than students with an overall grade point average below 2.5? Ho 8: Students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 will not have significantly higher scores on the posttest than students with an overall grade point average below 2.5. 80 Table l6.--Ana1ysis of variance between the scores of students working and those not working in the experimental group measured on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 7. Source of Sum of Mean Variable Variation Squares df Squares F Job search Between 4.66 1 4.66 1.63 Within 339.31 119 2.85 Letter of Between 2.87 1 2.87 .85 application Within 401.01 119 3.37 Preparing a Between 2.72 1 2.72 1.58 resume Within 204.28 119 1.72 Completing an Between .34 1 .34 .147 application Within 275.66 119 2.32 Conducting a Between .60 1 .60 .32 job interview Within 222.72 119 1.87 Fail to reject Ho 7. Statistical Hypothesis 8 was formulated to determine if there was any significant difference in the posttest scores of participants based on their grade point average. The experimental group consisted of 59 students whose grade point average was at least 2.5 or higher and 62 students whose grade point average was below 2.5. Since GPA is a measure of academic achievement. it came as no surprise that the students with the higher average scored better on all five variables. Table 17 shows a two by five comparison of the mean scores for the subjects on the posttest. 81 Table 17.--A comparison of the mean scores of students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 to those with a grade point average below 2.5 measured on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 8. Job Letter of Preparing Completing Job Search Application a Resume an Applic. Interview GPA > 2.5 7.3 7.2 9.3 8.6 9.3 GPA < 2.5 6.7 6.5 8.7 7.7 8.4 Mean 7.0 6.8 9.0 8.1 8.8 An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variables. It was necessary to have an F-val ue of 3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. All of the variables except job search exceeded the F-value of 3:92. Since the other four variab1es exceeded 3.92. the null hypothesis was rejected. It can thus be stated that the grade point average of the participants had an effect on how well they scored on the posttest. Table 18 shows the source of variation. sum of squares. degrees of freedom. mean squares. and the F-value for each of the pairs (GPA > 2.5-GPA < 2.5) derived through an analysis of variance. Wm .Beseargn_flue5119n_2: W111 students enrolled in the college-bound English classes score higher on the posttest than students enrolled in the regular English classes? Ho 9: Students enrolled in the college-bound English classes will not have significantly higher scores on the posttest than students enrolled in the regular English classes. 82 Table 18.--Ana1ysis of variance between the scores of students with a GPA at least 2.5 or above and students with a GPA below 2.5 in the experimental group measured on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 8. Source of Sum of Mean Variable Variation Squares df Squares F Job search Between 9.62 1 9.62 3.74 Within 306.25 119 2.57 Letter of Between 12.99 1 12.99 4.26* application Within 363.38 119 3.05 Preparing a Between 9.05 1 9.05 7.47* resume Within 143.88 119 1.21 Com p1eti ng an Between 22.83 1 22.83 10.71 * application Within 253.17 119 2.13 Conducting a Between 23.76 1 23.76 17.22* job interview Within 164.12 119 1.38 *Significant at p < .05. Statistical Hypothesis 9 was formulated to determine if there was any significant difference in the posttest scores of participants based on the English class in which they were enrolled. The experimental group consisted of 60 students enrolled in the college-bound English classes and 61 students enrolled in the regular English classes. Table 19 shows a two by five comparison of the mean scores for the subjects on the posttest. 83 Table 19.--A comparison of the mean scores of students enrolled in the college-bound English classes to those enrolled in the regular English classes on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 9. Job Letter of Preparing Completing Job Search Application a Resume an Applic. Interview College English 6.9 7.1 9.1 8.4 9.4 Regular 7.0 6.6 8.8 7.9 8.2 English Mean 6.9 6.8 8.9 8.1 8.8 An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variab1es. It was necessary to have an F-value of 3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. It was interesting that the only variable to exceed 3.92 was conducting the job interview. Since the other four variab1es did not exceed 3.92. the null hypothesis could not be rejected. It can thus be stated that being enrolled in a college- bound English class alone had no effect on how well the students performed on the posttest. Table 20 shows the source of variation. sum of squares. degrees of freedom. mean squares. and therF-value for each of the pairs (college bound-regu1ar) derived through analysis of variance. 84 Table 20.--Analysis of variance between the scores of students enrolled in the college-bound English c1asses with students enrolled in the regular English classes in the experimental group measured on the posttest as identified in Statistical Hypothesis 9. Source of Sum of Mean Variable Variation Squares df Squares F Job search Between .83 1 .83 .288 Within 343.14 119 2.88 Letter of Between 8.39 1 8.39 2.52 application Within 395.49 119 3.32 Preparing a Between 3.31 1 3.31 1.94 resume Within 203.69 119 1.71 Completing an Between 7.03 l 7.03 2.93 application within 285.32 119 2.40 Conducting a Between 38.05 1 38.05 24.39* job interview Within 185.27 119 1.56 *Significant at p < .05. W In addition to answering the ten questions on the pretest- posttest instrument. students in the experimental group had the opportunity to apply for a job with a local employer and. if selected. prepare for and participate in a simulated job interview with that employer. Appendices J. K. and L contain the information and forms used in evaluating their performance. All students in the experimental program completed an employ- ment application form. There were six English classes in the 85 experimental group. and each class applied for a specific job with a specific employen. They were as follows: Experimental Group 1 Hospital dietary or housekeeping Experimental Group 2 Store clerk Experimental Group 3 T001 and die pre-apprentice Experimental Group 4 Restaurant waiter/waitress Experimental Group 5 Fast-food counter he1p Experimental Group 6 Restaurant dishwasher Once the applications were completed by the students. the personnel manager or store manager reviewed them and selected three for personal interviews. The students were notified the day before. and then the manager came to the specific English class and interviewed the three candidates he had selected. The evaluation form in Appendix L contains the questions and evaluation criteria developed by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program that was used in an earlier pilot test on 130 sophomores in 18 schools of all sizes and in various geographic locations in Michigan. For the most part. these students had not received any emp10yability- skills training before participating in the interviews. Thus. this group was thought to be a suitable one for comparison with the experi- mental group in this study. Some caution should be exercised when comparing the data for the following reasons: (1) the interview group in this study comprised only 18 students. while the MEAP group consisted of 130: (2) the subjects in the study group were selected by the employers based on 86 information they supplied on an employment application. while the MEAP group was randomly selected from the 18 schools; and (3) participants in the study group were interviewed by six area employers who hire teenagers in their businesses. while the MEAP group was interviewed by Department of Education employees trained to conduct the interviews. Table 21 shows the results of the sophomore students' perform- ance in each of the four areas that are felt to be important parts of an employment interview. The employers asked the same questions as the trained interviewers and completed the evaluation on each student using the same format as the Michigan Educational Assessment Program researchers. MW During the 15 days that the experimental program was in progress. each of the English teachers was asked to keep a daily log sheet of what went on in the classroom that could affect the results. Appendix N contains a copy of the form. and Appendix 0 contains a list of unusual events and problems as perceived by the English teachers. After studying the log sheets. it was felt that there had been no unusual events or problems that are not encountered on a regular basis in most high schools. There were three different English teachers involved in the experimental instruction. and the closest to an unusual event that concerned the researcher was teacher attendance. During the 15 days of instruction. one teacher was absent four days (because of dental problems). another was absent two days. and the third teacher was not absent at all. In each case. the teacher 1eft very good lesson plans for the substitute teacher to follow. Table 21.--A comparison of sophomore students from Greenville 'High School who received training in conducting a job interview with sophomore students from the MEAP research who had no formal classroom training in job interviews. (in percent). Greenville MEAP Sophomores Sophomores Area Who Received With No Training Training W Good 77.0% 34.0% Adequate 17.0 57.0 Inadequate 6.0 8.0 W Good 55.5 43.0 Adequate 39.0 41.0 Inadequate 5.5 16.0 W Good 65.0 26.0 Adequate 35.0 42.0 Inadequate 0.0 32.0 W Good 36.0 28.0 Adequate 53.0 47.0 Inadequate 11.0 25.0 88 Wading: Chapter IV presented the findings of the study. Each of the nine research hypotheses was introduced. along with the results of each analysis. The findings are summarized as follows: Ho 1: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to conduct a job search will show no significant increase in their scores from the Rejected pretest to the posttest. Ho 2: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to write a letter of application for an advertised job will show no significant Rejected increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Ho 3: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to write a personal resume will show no significant increase in their scores from Rejected the pretest to the posttest. Ho 4: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to fill out an employment application blank will show no significant increase in Rejected their scores from the pretest to the post- test. Ho 5: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to prepare themselves for a job interview will show no significant increase Rejected in their scores from the pretest to the post- test. Ho 6: Male students who receive emp10yability- skills training will show no significant Failed difference in their posttest scores when to be compared to female students who complete Rejected the same training. Ho 7: Students who hold part-time jobs will not have significantly higher scores on the Failed posttest than students who have never to be held a regular job. Rejected 89 Ho 8: Students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 will not have significantly higher scores on the post- Rejected test than students with an overall grade point average below 2.5. Ho 9: Students enrolled in the college-bound English classes will not have signifi- Failed cantly higher scores on the posttest to be than students enrolled in the regular Rejected English classes. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIWS. AND RECOWENDATIONS 1310;111:1101: The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the development of the experimental program in employability skills. define the problem that was studied. discuss the methodology used to analyze the problem. summarize the findings. present conclusions drawn from the findings. and make recomendations for further research. WW Before a program could be developed to teach emp10yability skills. it was necessary to establish a need for such a program. The reasons cited to show that there was a need included (1) the high unemployment rate in Michigan. which averaged over 12 percent in 1983: (2) each year 125.000 students graduate from Michigan public schools and 50.3 terminate their formal education and are available for full- time employment in a labor force that is al ready experiencing high unemployment; and (3) 25 percent of the students in Michigan high schools who enter the ninth grade do not graduate. Thus it is often too late to teach emp10yability skills in the junior or senior year because many who need such training the most have left school. 90 91 Once the need was established. this information was discussed with a placement advisory committee. Its recommendation was to develop a program that would make emp10yability skills available to all high school youths before they leave school. The committee felt that if a good emp10yability-skills workbook could be developed. a means could then be devised for its implementation. The advisory committee reviewed ten booklets from intermediate school districts. vocational skills centers. and other high schools in Michigan. To become aware of nationally known materials. they also reviewed book1ets used by the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) as well as commerci ally prepared textbooks. From this review the advisory committee found several common components of emp10yability skills. They selected five. based on their experience. that would be beneficial for high school students. These were: 1. How to 100k for a job 2. How to write letters of application 3. How to write a personal resume 4. How to fill out application blanks 5. How to interview for a job The advisory committee concluded that most textbooks were too broad in their coverage and that their reading level was too difficult. The MESC materials dealt with a limited number of topics. such as preparing a resume. and were for an older audience. 1he booklets from the intermediate schools. vocationa1 skill centers. and high schools 92 were targeted for high school youths. The advisory committee found one booklet from the Branch Area Career Center that met the criteria they were looking for. and since it was public-domain material. it could be altered to meet the needs for the emp10yability-skills program at Greenville. The search and review of emp10yability-skills materials began in October 1982. and the final product was printed in November 1983. The format is an 8-1/2" x 11" booklet. 56 pages in length. that covers the five areas previously listed. which were identified as important by the advisory committee. The next step taken involved presenting the employability- skills manual. and a plan for its use. to the Greenville Board of Education to obtain their approval for implementation. This was done at the January 1984 meeting. The Board of Education approved a plan to pilot test and evaluate the outcomes to determine its effectiveness before it was fully implemented into the curriculum. Once approval was granted by the Board of Education. it was necessary to develop the teaching materials that would be used in conjunction with the emp10yability-skills manual. The instructional objectives for the program were developed based on the materials contained in the emp10yability-skills manua1. Once these were available. it was possible to establish lesson plans that would carry out the objectives (a copy is included in Appendix H). A natural outgrowth of this process was the determination of the number 93 of days necessary to present the instruction (Appendix E lists the teaching schedu1e). To determine if the program was effective. it was necessary to measure the students! knowledge before instruction took place and then again at the conclusion of the program. A search of tests in print was conducted. but due to the unique nature of the program. no test could be found. It was necessary to develop a test that would measure the effectiveness of this specific program. Questions were written for the pretest-posttest. and then seven persons involved in job placement activities were asked to review the questions. suggest changes. and return them. The final result is the pretest-posttest instrument (Appendix 61 used in this study. To determine how much previous experience the students had had with emp10yability skills. it was necessary to develop a student data sheet. 'This was done by the researcher as a simple questionnaire administered to the students before the start of the emp10yability- skills program. Appendix F contains a copy of the Student Data Sheet. Another instrument developed for the study was the employment evaluation form. This was the form used by the employers when they came into the classroom to conduct simu1ated job interviews. The form was adapted from the one used by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) as a pilot test on sophomores in 18 schools throughout Michigan in Fall 1983. The employment interview evaluation form is found in Appendix L. 94 The decision then had to be made as to which class and grade level would receive the emp10yability-skills training. A meeting was held with the superintendent. principal. and the researcher. After much discussion of which c1asses all students have in common. it was decided that English was the most logical choice in which to install this program because that is where emp10yability skills involving reading. writing. and communication are taught. The sophomore level was chosen because it is offered to students before the legal dropout age. It is also the time when students are beginning to think about looking for their first part-time job. The next task was to recruit teachers from the English department willing to participate in the program. The researcher first met with them as a group during the preschool conferences in August. The entire program was explained to them. along with the fact that they would be supplied with the emp10yability-skills book1ets. lesson plans. supp1ementa1 materials. and the pretest-posttest. They were also informed that the Board of Education and the administration supported the program. Once the English teachers were given an overview of the program. the researcher asked the superintendent to send a letter to the English teachers asking for their cooperation in implementing the emp10yability-skills program into the English curricu1um (Appendix A). The teachers were given all of the necessary materials and two 60- minute inservice training sessions on how to conduct the program. The 95 participating teachers received their inservice training from the researcher. It became obvious that a crucial factor in the successful implementation of this program was strong administrative leadership. The success of the program also depended on strong support from the Board of Education. This support should be in the form of a written commitment. Finally. the ultimate success of such a program can only be achieved if the teachers presenting the instruction believe in it and pass this belief on to the students in the form of enthusiastic presentation of the material. mm The importance of students being able to seek and successfully obtain employment has been increasingly recognized as an important addition to the high school curriculum. Instructional materials have been developed to teach these job-seeking skills. but little has been done to determine what should be taught. at what age or grade level it should be taught. or a measure of effectiveness of the instruction at the conclusion of the program. Therefore. this study focused on the level of student achieve- ment after completion of five units in an experimental program for teaching emp10yability skills to high school sophomores. These units of instruction were: 1. Looking for a job 2. Writing a letter of application 3. Writing a resume 96 4. Filling out an application blank 5. Conducting an interview W The purpose of the study was to develop an effective program for teaching selected emp10yability skills.to high school sophomores and evaluating its effectiveness. To do so. special materials and procedures for their use were also devised. Re1ated activities included (1) assessment of student needs. (2) development of goals and objectives to meet those needs.(3) development of a delivery system to carry out the goals and objectives. (4) development of specific instructional materials. and (5)Iassessment of the effectiveness of these activities at the conclusion of the instructional period. .DsscL12112n_o£_the_EonulaI19n The 9-12 enrollment at Greenville is 1.050 students. but only grades 10-12 are housed in the high school. with the freshman class located at the middle schooL. Thus. for the sophomores. it is their first year in the high school building. The target population for the study was the 1984-85 sophomore class at Greenville Senior High School. The sophomore c1ass consisted of 276 students. 139 males and 137 females. Wow: There are five major research questions for which answers were sought. along with a cross-ana1ysis of four related questions. The research questions were: 97 .Beseanch_flue§119n_1: Will students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to conducting a job search? .Beseangn_nue§t19n_z: Will students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to writing a letter of application? WW: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to preparing a personal resume? W: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to filling out an employment application b1ank? WM: Will students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to preparing for a job interview? Related questions for which cross-ana1ysis was conducted are: .Beseangh_9uest19n_§: Will there be a significant difference in the posttest scores of the male students when compared to the female students? W: Will students who have held a regular job. either full time or part time. score higher on the posttest than students who have never held a regular job? .Beseanch_fluestlgn_8: W111 students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 score higher on the posttest than students with an overall grade point average below 2.5? .Bessancb_0uestion_2: W111 students enrolled in the college-bound English classes score higher on the posttest than students enrolled in the regular English classes? Wants Since the research was an eva1uative study of a new and unique program to teach emp10yability skills at the sophomore level and the program materials covered five specific areas. it was necessary to develop and pilot test instruments to measure the effectiveness of the 98 progrann This decision was reached after an exhaustive search of Buros's Mental Measurement Yearbooks. Buros's Tests in Print. and a review of several hundred tests available to Job Training Partnership Act recipient agencies. One test published by the College Board. entit1ed Employment-Seeking Skills. is an excellent test that came close to meeting the'requirements for measuring the effectiveness of the program under study. but it was designed in conjunction with a booklet entit1ed "Guide to Employment-Seeking SkillsJ‘ Thus it was not judged to adequately measure student achievement of the unique goals and objectives of the program used in this research. The instruments that were developed and used in this study are as follows: 1. .Student_data_§neet: a form designed to obtain information about the students! previous use of employability skills. The form asks the students if they have ever (1) filled out a job application form for an employer. (2) written a letter to an employer asking for a job. (3) prepared a personal resume. (4) interviewed for a job with an employer. or (5) worked for someone for pay. By compiling the infor- mation. the teachers have a profile of the entire class's strengths and weaknesses in the area of employability skills they are about to teach. The student data sheet was completed by the students before they took the pretest. Besides acting as a needs-assessment tool. information from the student data sheet was used in cross-comparison of the related research questions. A copy of the student data sheet can be found in Appendix F. 99 2. W: a 50- question multiple-choice test based on the goals and objectives covered in the content of the emp10yability-skills manua1. Ten questions were developed for each of the five topics covered in the classroom instruc- tion. Appendix G contains the complete test booklet for the pretest- posttest. 3. .Emp1gymen1_1ntenylew_eyaluatign_£gnm: a form used by employers while conducting simulated job interviews. The form is based on questions used in a 1983 pilot test by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)Ton selected sophomores in Michigan to measure their career awareness. planning. and placement. Appendix L of this study contains a copy of the employment interview form used to measure the performance of a sample of students selected from the experimental group by the employers to take part in simulated job interviews. 4. .Sgnggl_neggnd§: records containing demographic information such as grade point average (GPA) and class enrollment information used in cross-comparisons made for the related research questions of this study. Walsh The findings of the study are based primarily on the acceptance or rejection of the five hypotheses that dealt with the effectiveness of the experimental instructional program and the four re1ated hypotheses that sought to determine if effectiveness could be attributed to another independent variable. In the discussion following each question. the researcher has included information that provides 100 insights into the findings that are not necessarily apparent from the data. .Bssssngh_nusstign_l: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to conducting a job search? findings: The t-test yielded a t-value of 7.09. which is significantly higher than the table value of 1.960 at the .05 probabil- ity level. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Dissnsslgn: There were ten questions on the pretest-posttest instrument to measure knowledge about how to conduct a job search. Classroom instruction inc1uded learning about the different methods students could use to seek jobs that were available. The mean score on the posttest for the experimental group was 7.03. This was signifi- cantly higher than the 5.48 the same group scored on the pretest. The need for the inclusion of job-search skills was cited earlier in a dissertation by Walker (1980). a study by Wegmann (1977). and research conducted by Wircenski et a1. (1982). related to providing such instruction at the high school level. .Bsssangn_nnss119n_2: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to writing a letter of application? yEindings: The t-test was used to determine if a significant difference existed between the pretest and posttest scores. A t-value of 9.34 was the result. This was significantly higher than the table val ue of 1.960 at the .05 probability level. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. 101 .Disgussign: There were ten questions on the pretest-posttest instrument to measure knowledge about how to write a letter of applica- tion. Classroom instruction inc1uded learning about what should be included in a letter of application. and then each student was required to write a letter of application for an advertised job. The mean score on the posttest for the experimental group was‘133. This was signifi- cantly higher than the 5.29 mean score the same group scored on the pretest. 'The need for the inclusion of instruction in how to write a letter of application was cited earlier in research conducted by Stephen et a1. (1979). W: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to preparing a personal resume? ‘Einfiings: The t-test was used to determine if a significant difference existed between the pretest and posttest scores. A t-value of 9.h4 was the result. This was significantly higher than the table value of 1.960 at the .05 probability level. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Disgusslgn: 'There were ten questions on the pretest-posttest instrument to measure knowledge about preparing a personal resume. Classroom instruction inc1uded learning about what should be included in a personal resume. and then each student was required to develop his own resume. The mean score on the posttest was 8.94 for the experimen- tal group. The pretest score was 6.95. which was higher than any of the two previous pretests discussed. 102 Perhaps the questions were too transparent or the correct answer was too obvious. Classroom instruction did show a significant increase in the posttest scores. however. The need for incl uding a knowledge of preparing a personal resume was cited in the literature review from research conducted by Stephen et a1. (1979). Knouse et a1. (1979). and instructional materials prepared by Littre11 (1984). Gooch et a1. (1979). and Goodman et a1. (1984). W: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions rel ated to filling out an employment application blank? findings: The t-test was used to determine if a significant difference existed between the pretest and posttest scores. A t-val us of 12.48 was the result. This was significantly higher than the table value of 1.960 at the .05 probability level. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Disgussjnn: There were ten questions on the pretest-posttest instrument to measure knowledge about filling out an employment app1 i- cation. Classroom instruction incl uded learning proper techniques for filling out employment applications. completing two trial applications. and then filling out an application for a job with an area employer. The mean score on the posttest was 8.18 for the experimental group. The pretest score for the same group was 5.65. Thus. classroom instruction was effective for teaching students how to fill out emp1 oy- ment app1 ications. The need for including a knowledge of filling out employment applications was cited in the literature review from 103 instructional materials prepared by Blackledge et a1. (1975). Littre11 (1984). and Goodman et a1. (1984). W: W111 students who complete this program be able to correctly answer written questions related to preparing for a job interview? .Einnjngs: The t-test was used to determine if a significant difference existed between the pretest and posttest scores. A t-value of 9.77 was the result. This was significantly higher than the table value of 1.960 at the .05 probability level. Thus. the null hypothesis was rejected. Disgussign: 'There were ten questions on the pretest-posttest instrument to measure knowledge about preparing for a job interview. Classroom instruction inc1uded learning how to dress for an interview. what to take to the interview. questions to ask during the interview. how to follow up after an interview. and a chance to observe or par- ticipate in a simulated interview with an employer. The mean score on the posttest. for the experimental group. was 8.86. The pretest score for the same group was 7.14. The pretest score was the highest of all of the research questions. but a similar result was obtained by MEAP researchers in Fall 1983 when they tested sophomores from 18 schools across Michigan. They concluded that a knowledge of how to interview does not necessarily mean they can perform well in an actual interview. In this research. classroom instruction on job interviews was effective. The literature is rich with research that has cited the importance of teaching job-interview 104 skills. Cited in the literature review was research by Cissna and Carter (1982). Young and Beier (1977). and Hennington (1983). W: Will there be a significant difference in the posttest scores of the male students when compared to the female students? findings: There were 64 males and 57 females in the experimental group. An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variab1es. It was necessary to have an F-val ue of 3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. Since none of the five F-values reached 3.92. the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. It can thus be stated that the sex of the participants did not affect how they scored on the posttest. Disgussign: The researcher was interested in knowing if gender had an effect on how well the students scored on the posttest. The male students scored slightly higher on job search and preparing a resume. while the female students scored slightly higher on the other three variables. Table 13 gave a complete breakdown of the mean scores for both groups. W: Will students who have held a regular job. either full time or part time. score higher on the posttest than students who have never held a regular job? findings: There were 32 students who reported they were presently working for pay and 89 who said they were not. An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variables. It was necessary to have an F-val ue of 3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. Since none of the five F-val ues reached 3.92. the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. It can thus be stated that the 105 employment status of the participants had no effect on how well they scored on the posttest. Disgdssjdn: Since more than one-third of the students reported they were working for pay. the researcher was interested in knowing if there would be an effect on their posttest scores. The mean scores for the students working were slightly higher on all of the variables except completing an application. Table 15 gave a complete breakdown of the mean scores for both groups. WM: Will students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 score higher on the posttest than students with an overall grade point average below 2.5? findings: There were 59 students whose grade point average was at least 2.5 or higher and 62 students whose grade point average was below 2.5. An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variables. It was necessary to have an F-val ue of 3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. All of the variables except job search exceeded the F-val ue of 3.92. Since the other four vari ables exceeded 3.92. the null hypothesis was rejected. It can thus be stated that the grade point average of the participants had an effect on how well they scored on the posttest. msgnssjgn: One purpose of the study was to find out if the academic standing of the students would have an effect on how well they did on the posttest. On all five variables. the students with a grade point average of at least 2.5 or more had a higher mean score on the posttest than students with a grade point average loss than 2.5. Table 17 listed the mean scores for both groups. 106 W: Will students enrolled in the college-bound English classes score higher on the posttest than students enrolled in the regular English classes? .E1nd1ngs: 'There were 60 students enrolled in the college-bound English classes and 61 students enrolled in the regular English classes. An analysis of variance was conducted on each of the pairs for the five variables. It was necessary to have an F-value or'3.92 or higher to reject the null hypothesis. All of the variables except conducting a job interview were less than 3.92. Since the other four variab1es did not exceed 3.92. the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. It can thus be stated that being enrolled in a college-bound English class alone had no effect on how well the students performed on the posttest. .21590551903 This question may appear as though it is measuring the same variable as Question 8. but at Greenville High School students may choose the college-bound English curriculum or the regular English curriculum without a grade point average requirement. In examining the students. the English class in which they were enrolled. and their grade point average. this was often the case. Many students with a GPA higher than 2.5 were in the regular English classes. and many students with a GPA of 2.5 or below were enrolled in the college-bound English class. The mean scores of the students enrolled in the college-bound English classes were higher on all variables except job search. and the only significant difference was in conducting a job interview. Table 19 listed the mean scores for both groups. 107 WWW Besides the posttest. students in the experimental group were given the opportunity to put their knowledge into practice on a simulated employment interview. Each of the sixiclasses in the experimental group was given a different employer; they were given a simulated newspaper ad (Appendix J) and an actual copy of that employer's application b1ank (also in Appendix J). Each student completed the application blank. and they were returned to the employen. The employer reviewed all of the applications and selected three to be interviewed by the employer in front of the rest of the class. The only instructions the selected students were given before the interview are those found in Appendix K. The employers rated the students on the interview using the evaluation form in Appendix L. which contains the same questions and rating scale used by a MEAP pilot test in September 1983 on sophomores in Michigan who did not have emp10yability-skills training. The results were significantly higher in all four categories. Students who received training in how tolconduct an employment interview scored much higher on their personal appearance at the interview. had slightly better speech and eye contact with the interviewer. provided more information to the employer. and were judged slightly more emp10yab1e than students without classroom training. 108 wand: Chapter IV presented the findings of the study. Each of the nine research hypotheses was introduced. along with the results of each analysis. The findings are summarized as follows: Ho 1: Ho 2: Ho 3: Ho 4: Ho 5: Ho 6: Ho 7: Students who receive classroom instruction in how to conduct a job search will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Students who receive classroom instruction in how to write a letter of application for an advertised job will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Students who receive classroom instruction in how to write a personal resume will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the posttest. Students who receive classroom instruction in how to fill out an employment application b1ank will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the post- test. Students who receive classroom instruction in how to prepare themselves for a job interview will show no significant increase in their scores from the pretest to the post- test. Male students who receive employability- skills training will show no significant difference in their posttest scores when compared to female students who complete the same training. Students who hold part-time jobs will not have significantly higher scores on the posttest than students who have never held a regular job. Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Failed to be Rejected Failed to be Rej ected 109 Ho 8: Students with an overall grade point average of at least 2.5 will not have significantly higher scores on the post- Rejected test than students with an overall grade point average below 2.5. Ho 9: Students enrolled in the college-bound English classes will not have signifi- Failed cantly higher scores on the posttest to be than students enrolled in the regular Rejected English classes. Conclusions The results of this study indicated that: 1. This experimental emp10yability-skills program for teaching high school sophomores how to conduct a job search. write a cover letter. prepare a personal resume. fill out employment applications. and interview for a job was effective. 2. Employability skills can be effectively taught to all high school sophomores whether in a college-bound. general. or vocational curriculum. 3. Employability skills can be effectively taught by English teachers as a part of their regular English curricul um with a minimum amount of additional training. 4. Employability skills can be taught equally well to both male and female sophomore students in the same instructional program. 5. Employability-skills training is of importance to both high school sophomores who have had work experience and those who have not. 6. It is reasonable to assume that students who are above average in their overall school performance will do better in an 110 emp10yability-skills training program than those students whose overa11 school performance is below average. 7. ‘The sophomore year is not too early to begin emp10yability- skills training. These students not only are eager to learn the materials. but they can demonstrate the effectiveness of that instruc- tion through multiple-choice tests and simulated job interviews. 8. To successfully implement the emp10yability-skills training program. it is necessary to have strong board of education and adminis- trative support. a dedicated initiator who will coordinate the imple- mentation. and English teachers who understand the program and enthusiastically deliver it to the students. Wm Based on the results of this study. the following recommenda- tions for further research are made: 1. It is recommended that the research be replicated with populations from different geographic locations and with larger and smaller school districts. 2. It is recommended that the emp10yability-skills program be implemented and researched within curriculum areas other than English. 3. It is recommended that the pretest-posttest instrument used during the study be examined to determine if students who perform well on the written test can. in fact. perform that activity. 4. It is recommended that the pretest-posttest instrument be researched to determine if questions regarding preparing a personal 111 resume are transparent and/or whether better questions and distractors could be prepared. 5. It is recommended that further research be conducted to determine the effectiveness of simulated job interviews using trained interviewers versus using area businesspersons. 6. It is recommended that a follow-up study be conducted one to two years from now on a sample from the experimental and control groups to measure long-term effectiveness of the emp10yability-skills training program. Discussion Teaching emp10yability skills to high school youths is important in the 19805. ‘There has been much interest by the state and federal government in offering this training to minorities and the economically disadvantaged. State departments of education include units on employability skills in the vocational curriculum. It has been demonstrated that the need is there. but little has been done to demonstrate how this need can be met so that emp10yability-skills instruction is available to all high school youths. The purpose of this research was to develop an effective program. to implement it in the high school curriculum. and to demonstrate its effectiveness at the sophomore level using the English teachers as the instructors. The child labor laws allow minors to work. beginning at the age of 14. with certain restrictions on hours and jobs they may perform. When a minor reaches the age of 16. the child labor laws allow an increase in how late he may work at night and the types of jobs he may 112 perform. The typical high school sophomore is 15 years old during most of the academic year. with thoughts of getting a job in the minds of most. The researcher provided copies of the student data sheet (Appendix F) to some of the smaller surrounding schools to see if their answers were consistent with those of the students in Greenville. The results closely paralleled those of the Greenville sophomores. lWale sophomores apply for employment at a rate of 2:1 compared to the females. whi1e neither the males nor the females had written letters of application or completed persona1 resumes. This was not too surprising since the types of first jobs they would seek may not require it. Once the need was established. it was necessary to have the English teachers realize they were the most logical ones to deliver the instruction. This was accomplished when. through a request by the board of education. the English teachers agreed to try out the mate- rials on a pilot basis. Instruction was given to the regular English classes during Spring 1984. and the students' enthusiasm for the materials was enough to convince the English teachers to implement the program on an experi- mental basis this year and test its effectiveness. The emp10yability-skills training program will become'a part of the regular English curriculum at Greenville High School for all sophomores as a result of this research. Before the instructional program is implemented in all of the English classes next year. a few changes will be made: ...._J _.I— 113 1. The instructional unit on conducting a job search was presented in one and one-half class periods. This is an important part of the emp10yability-skills instruction. so one more day will be added and the instructional materials for that unit will be rewritten and clarified. 2. The instructional program was presented between Thanksgiv- ing and Christmas. Serious consideration will be given to offering the instruction in late September and early October next year. 3. The ten questions about personal resumes will be reviewed and rewritten where appropriate. The students had said they knew the least about resumes. yet on the pretest they scored very well. 4. The unit on employment interviews was very well received by both the students and the employers. Of the 18 students selected by the employers to take part in the personal interviews. only one expressed any concern about wanting to participate. A change or addition for next year will include having one or two of the students interview in the employer's business as well as doing the interviews in class. 5. The English teachers would like to devote one class period to simulated job interviews before the employers come into the classes. In the research this was recommended. but time did not permit this in all of the classes. 6. All of the simulated job interviews with the students were videotaped. but the microphone was on the camera about eight feet away. 114 so the voice pickup was not always good. There will be a microphone on the desk between the two participants next year. The research study had many positive outcomes. which makes it worth considering for implementation in theicurriculum of any high school. Some of these outcomes are: 1. Interest is high at the sophomore level to study the proper ways to prepare for and seek employment. 2. Instruction is provided to all high school sophomores by teachers trained in reading. writing. and communication skills. 3. Instruction is provided to all students before they reach the legal age to drop out of school. which may make some realize more education and/or training is required for employment. 4. The student data sheet filled out by the students before instruction begins allows the teacher to identify the areas in which students need more instruction. as well as to identify if each student has an occupational goal. 5. The pretest-posttest instrument allows the teacher to measure the effectiveness of instruction and allows students to recognize how much they have learned. 6. Once the emp10yability-skills instruction is complete. each student has a good job-search file containing samples of his resume. letters of application. and application blanks he can use and revise when he starts a job search. 7. An emp10yability-skills instructional program creates much interest and cooperation from area employers who employ teenagers. APPENDICES 115 APPENDIX A LETTER TO ENGLISH TEACHERS FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT 116 117 Greenville Public Schools on: w. CASS sneer / GREENVILLE, m ems / 616 754-3586 m... .. .Ussm ”pt'vnlt‘OC'ti ROBERT N RADUNZEL ass-Stan! oupe'mloodcnt JEN" L CUSHMAN admonirsiuve “maze“ September 12. 1984 Copy to: Pamela Cress David Hannah Kent Ingles Joanne Kroodsma Mr. Thanas Schniedicke Greenville High School Dear Tun: Eldon Horton has given me an update on plans to present the Bnployability Skills Unit of Instruction to 10th grade students in their English classes. My guess would be that the vast majority of students will find the unit of instruction very interesting and really get into the activities. I think we can all agree that the enployability skills information is sanething that all students should have before they leave High School. Whether a student is college bound or not doesn't make a difference because everyone has to apply for a job and be interviewed. I wish to thank you for taking time to study the material and for incorporating this valuable information into your course of study. Sincerely. Elmer J. Russell EJR/nls (:2: Mr. manas Matchett Hr. Eldon Horton 9.5. As a point of information, my son Steve who is a senior in Canputer Science at Michigan State University just mentioned to me the other day that sanetime in October he would like to have me help him write a resune and go over possible interview questions he may be asked when he begins his job interviews around February. SWO SM Sud! Kata. €00de APPENDIX 8 LIST OF TOPICS CONSIDERED EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS 118 ll. l2. I3. 119 EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS Knowing yourself Determining your job goals How to search for a job Deve10ping a resume Contacting employers by letter or phone Filling out employment app1ications Handling the job interview Choosing and keeping a job What is expected of an employee by an employer Fringe benefits, withholdings, etc. Job promotion and advancement How to terminate a job How to handle being fired. Learn from it. APPENDIX C LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS WHO VALIDATED THE TEST INSTRUMENT 120 121 September 18, 1984 Thank you for taking the time to review the questions on Employ- ability-Skills. There are five sections to the test with ten questions in each section for a total of fifty questions. Please read each question carefully and based on your expertise, determine if it meets the following criteria: I. Is the question stated clearly? 2. Are the distractors believable? If you answer no to either of these questions then indicate: 1. How the question could be changed to improve its clarity or 2. What distractors or the correct answer should be changed to improve the question. After you have completed your review of the test items place them in the self addressed stamped envelope along with your name, title and address. Please return to me by September 28, l98h. If you would like a copy of the completed test let me know and I will send it to you. Again, thank you for your assistance in this review. Sincerely, Eldon A. Horton Vocational Director APPENDIX D PANEL OF EXPERTS AND THEIR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS 122 123 The following panel of experts reviewed the Employability-Skills pretest-posttest. The changes they suggested were incorporated into the final draft of the test booklet. MR. ALLEN KOHN CEPD 22 COORDINATOR MONTCALM AREA CAREER CENTER Egoitililiftiii or PLACEMENT SERVICES -———1 KENT SKILLS CENTER MR. RON MCNALLY PROGRAM COORDINATOR NEWAYGO COUNTY AREA VOCATIONAL CENTER MR. GARY S. MARTIN DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ‘1 D‘ISTIRIE'PN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL MS. PAT BAKER PLACEMENT SPECIALIST — WYOMING PUBLIC SCHOOLS MS. KATHY FEYT AREA PLACEMENT COORDINATOR OTTAWA AREA CAREER CENTER MR. .IIM HOLLAND VOCATIONAL DIRECTOR ALLEGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS APPENDIX E TIME SCHEDULE FOR TEACHING EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS 1211 125 >LmEE:m m30_>oouc_ mo:o_c;uoh new 20w 30_>Louc_ hmuhbmom ovum—:E_m has mo:o_c;uoh mco.umu._aa< n03 mosamom 30_>oou:_ m: we. _. .chmLom 305 o ._ .u mc_u_c3 mosamom _chmLom co_umww_oa< moHWwMMMoh mc_u_o3 moouuoh 90w Loemom hmmhmmm 305 new new ELOu 30_>Lo>o mono acooaum >u___am>o_o5m newcomoh to» o_:oo;um meme : xum3 m xmm3 N xwa _ xmmz APPENDIX F STUDENT DATA SHEET 126 127 STUDENT DATA SHEET Name Date English class Teacher Class Period Sex: M F Birth Date YES N0 1. Have you ever filled out a job application form for an employer? 2. Have you ever written a letter to an employer asking for a job? 3. Have you ever prepared a personal resume? 4. Have you ever interviewed for a job with an employer? 5. Have you ever worked for someone for pay (excluding babysitting and your parents)? 6. Are you presently working for pay? If yes, who is your employer? Please complete the following statement: When I graduate from high school, I plan APPENDIX C PRETEST-POSTTEST INSTRUMENT 128 129 EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS T E S T You Got The Job The Job Interview F ll/ing Out The an Application Re sumé / [Letter of Application The Job Search J/ ELDON A HORTON 0.." 0' MVOOIAL M70.“ Greenvil 1e Senior High School I 11 North H illcrest Street Greenville. Michigan 48838 I30 STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS The questions in this booklet were designed to help reveal your skill and knowledge in five selected areas of seeking employment. These areas are: Where and How to Look for a Job How to Write a Letter of Application How to Write a Resume . How to Fill Out an Application Blank How to Conduct a Job Interview U'l:WN-‘ Before beginning the booklet, be sure you understand the instructions. If you have any questions ask your teachers. I. 2. Print your name, your teacher's name, and the hour on the answer sheet. Read each question carefully and then select the best answer from the four choices listed. There is no penalty for guessing. Therefore, you are encouraged to make a best guess on questions about which you are uncertain. Each question has four choices. They are labeled A, B, C, and 0. When you have selected the best answer, darken in the correct space on your answer sheet. For example, if the best answer for question 1 is "8” you would mark it as follows: A a c D l. ()0()() If you wish to change an answer, make certain you erase your first mark completely. Mark only one answer for each question, and please do not write on the test booklet. 131 Your completed application form reflects you; therefore you should: . Have a friend or parent fill it out for you Provide your best guess for answers you do not know. Not fill in sections that may make you look bad. Answer every question--Put NA in blanks that do not apply cow) One disadvantage of sending out letters of application is that you may: . Receive several job offers Never hear from the employer Receive an invitation to interview Make a positive impression on the employer 00W) During an Interview you will have the opportunity to throw the ”hook.” This means: You catch the interviewer in a mistake You ask the interviewer when you may hear from him You tell the interviewer you need the job You ask the interviewer how much the job pays one!) All of the following are public employment agencies except: Michigan Employment Security Commission High School Placement Office Public Library Community College Placement Office COW) The length of a resume is important. Most authorities agree that it should be: One-half page in length One page in length Two pages in length Three pages in length COW) You should do all of the following in preparation for an inter- view except: A. Find out what the company does 8. Find out with whom you will be interviewing C. Get a good night's sleep 0. Take a friend for moral support In a recent survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, new employees were asked, ”How did you get this job?“ The most frequent response (36.9%) was: A. I answered a newspaper advertisement 8. From a state employment service C. I applied directly to the employer 0. From the school placement office 10. ll. 12. 13. 132 An application blank is a formal request to be considered for a job. A. B. C. 0 Where is the best place to obtain an application? Your school counselor The Michigan Employment Security Commission The potential employer Friends and relatives Based on the information below, which applicant was hired after the interview? A. B. C. D. A A. B. C. 0. Applicant A told about the four jobs she had in the past six months Applicant 8 asked several good questions about the job Applicant C apologized for being ten minutes late for the interview Applicant 0 unfolded his application and smoothed it out for the interviewer letter of application should include all of the following except: Tell exactly what position you are applying for Sell yourself personally Three references and their addresses Ask for an interview at their convenience All of the following statements except one describe characteris- tics of a good letter of application. A. 8. C. D The letter is neat and typed There are no misspelled words Your social security number is included The writer uses good grammar To be offered a job, it is important to have a positive interview. All of the following are positive things you can do except: A. B. C. 0 Thank the Interviewer for the interview Introduce yourself and tell the position you are applying for Be polite when asking for an ashtray Keep an attentive, relaxed posture If an application blank asks about your military background and you have never been in the service, you should: A B. C D Write ”Too young for military service" Write N/A on the line Leave that section blank Give the data of parent's military service IA. 15. I6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 133 The main purpose for sending out a letter of application is: A. To establish contact with an employer which may lead to a job 8. To inform employers of your intent to stop and see them C. To provide an employer with a detailed work history 0 To show the employer you are interested and businesslike Resumes are used in all of the following situations except: A. When sending out a letter of application 8. When completing a job application C. Left with an employer after an interview 0. Left with friends to give to their employers Acme Paint Company ) 111 N. Maple St. ) 355-711 ) is an example of: Counter Sales Help ) Contact Ron Smith ) A. A job lead 8. A job search C. An action plan 0. A public agency An example of a poor resume is one that is: A. Meat and organized B. Typed with no erased words C. Accurate in spelling and grammar 0. Three to four years old Once you have decided you want a job and begin a systematic search, this may be referred to as: A. A resume B. A plan of action C. A job lead 0. An interview After an interview that you think you did well in, you should: A. Call the president of the company and ask for a second interview 8. Quit your current job so you are ready to move C. Wait by the phone until they call 0. Send a thank-you letter to the interviewer A letter of application is: A. An important first impression B. An employer's invitation for an interview C. Supplied by the Michigan Employment Security Commission 0. Used when a personal interview is not possible 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 26. 27. 13“ An employment interview: A. Is usually conducted over the telephone B. Is often taken care of with an application C. Is conducted in person with the employer 0. Is the least important part of the job search A good resume contains two or three references. Good references include all except: A. Former employers 8. Teachers and counselors C. Parents and friends 0. Ministers A letter of application may also be referred to by all of the following names except: A. Employment letter 8. Letter of inquiry C. Cover letter 0. Letter of intent Evidence suggests that a good resume used in combination with an application or letter of application will improve your chances at getting: A. A job interview 8. A job C. A job lead 0. A job referral Which of the following is least important when looking for a job? A. What type of job you would like 8. How far away from your home the job is C. Friends', neighbors', and relatives' help 0. The fringe benefits An application blank will ask what job you are applying for. The best response is: A. To write anything, showing you are flexible B. To write open, meaning whatever job is available C. To write down a general field of employment 0. To write down a specific job by name References are people who will say something good about you. Before listing someone as a reference you should: A. Tell them what job you are applying for 8. Ask for their permission C. Check their employment record 0. Tell them your life story 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 135 A letter of application is usually sent: To public employment offices To private employment offices To potential employers To neighbors, relatives, and friends one!) Which of the following is not necessary as part of a job lead? A. The company name 8. The telephone number C. The starting wage D. The contact person Most interviewers decide whether or not they are going to hire you: Within the first three minutes of the interview After they have read your resume Only after they have interviewed everyone After they confer with the president of the company DOW) The best source n u I O < b O a h < 0 u h u h I H 0 eflu“. ; ...). TM... 2 ..€ APPENDIX N TEACHER DAILY LOG SHEET I614 I65 TEACHER DAILY LOG SHEET Teacher 10A 10B Instructional Unit Unusual events (fire drills, pep assemblies, etc.) Problems: Students absent by hour: Suggested improvements in this instructional unit: APPENDIX 0 PRETEST SCORES AND POSTTEST SCORES FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP FOR THE EMPLOYABILITY-SKILLS TEST AND THE POSTTEST-ONLY SCORES OF THE CONTROL GROUP I66 167 Pretest Scores and Posttest Scores for the Experimental Group on the Employability-Skills Test and the Posttest Scores for the Control Group Group Sex N Pretest Posttest Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. Experimental ...... l i3 ii iii 2:22 23:3 3:33 Experimental Group 2 E :2 3;;3 2:2; :8:i 2132 Experimental Group 3 g 13 3;:3 EIE; 23:: g:;; Experimental Group A 2 I; 33:; 2:3: 33:: 2:3; Experimental Group 5 2 ‘2 §;:? 2:2? 32:; 3123 Experimental Group 6 2 I; :?:3 3:?2 33:; 2:?3 Control Group I 2 :3 3;:3 32;; Control Group 2 2 lg 33:? 2:23 Control Group 3 2 .3 32:? ;:23 Control Group A g :3 £32? 2:33 Control Group 5 2 2 ;?:S 32;: Control Group 6 g 1; §;:g 6:32 APPENDIX P PRETEST SCORES AND POSTTEST SCORES FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP ON INDIVIDUAL AREAS OF THE EMPLOYABILITY- SKILLS TEST COMPARED WITH POSTTEST-ONLY SCORES OF THE CONTROL GROUP l68 l69 Pretest Scores and Posttest Scores for the Experimental Group on Individual Areas of the Employability Skills Test Compared With Individual Scores of the Control Group Pretest Posttest Area N Mean 8.0. Mean S.D. Job search l2l S.h8 l.78 7.03 l.62 Letter of application l2l 5.29 l.6h 7.33 l.76 Preparing a resume l2l 6.95 l.73 8.9h l.66 Completing an appli- cation l2l 5.65 l.66 8.l8 l.h9 Conducting a job interview lZl 7.lh l.h9 8.86 l.2h Job search ll2 5.3“ l.95 Letter of application 112 5.25 l.7l Preparing a resume ll2 6.62 l.97 Completing an appli- cation ll2 5.73 l.98 Conducting a job interview ll2 6.95 l.85 APPENDIX Q TEACHER DAILY LOG SHEET I70 l7l Teacher Daily Log Sheet UNUSUAL EVENTS l. Possible distraction from music next door. 2. Two students arrived late during the pretest. 3. Lunch traffic distracts thought process twice during the hour. PROBLEMS l. Many of the students are not completing the homework. 2. The lessons seem a bit accelerated.‘ 3. Not all of the students did their assignments for today. A. The unit on letter of application requires more time. 5. Some students are not bringing their books to class. 6. Passed out wrong applications to class but Will correct the error tomorrow. 7. We did not rehearse enough in class for job interviews. 8. My classes averaged 2 to 3 students absent each day. 9. Substitute teacher two days. BIBLIOGRAPHY I72 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Blackledge. W.; Blackledge. E.; and Kei1y. H. .Ihe 19b Ion Hantzzflou .I9.Get 1:. Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing Co.. 1975. Bolles. Richard N. .flhat £919: 15 Ian: Banagnntel Berkeley. Calif.: Ten Speed Press. 1983. De Blassie. Richard R. Manning and Enlunnng Emu Empress. New York: MSS Information Corp.. 1974. Fink. Arlene. and Kosecoff. Jacqueline. .An.£1a1uatign Brine: flgnkbggk; Emcflnal Examine .tm: Educators. Washington. D.C.: Capital Publications. Inc.. 1978. Gava.R. wmwmwmm cation. 2nd ed. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.. 1981. Gerberich. J. R.; Greene. H. A.; and Albert. N. J. .Measunement and .Exaluniinn.1n.1he Modern School. New York: David McKay Co.. InCOD 19620 Gooch. 8.; Carrier. L.; and Huck. J. ‘flgnk.Eathnay.19 Carbondale. Ill. American Technical Society. Southern Illinois University. 1979. Hoyt. K.; Evans. R.; Mackin. E.; and Mangum. G. .Qaneen Education; .flhflI.II.1&.anfi.HQ!.IQ.DQ.II. Salt Lake City: Olympus Publishing 000' 19720 Lindval. C. M.. and Cos. R. C. ‘Evaluatign.as.a.Iggl.1n‘QuLniculum W 1119 IE1 Exaluatjnn anagram. Washington. 0.0.: American Educational Research Association. Rand McNally and Co.. 1970. Littre11. J. from School to flunk. South Holland. 111.: The Goodheart-Willcox Company. Inc.. 1984. Rogers. Edward J. Getting tilted; Enriching Inn Needed 19 Km About Resumes. mundane. and 1912 Hunting Simmons. Engleuood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1982. 173 l7h Scriven. Michael. .Exaluatign.IhesauLus. 2nd ed. Pt. Reyes. Calif.. 1980. Ten Brink. Terry D. Exaluattdnt A Enaetjtal Guide to: leacnens. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.. 1974. Weiss. Carol H. Exaluatlen Beseancm Methods of. Emgnam yfijjegtiyeness. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1972. MW Goodman: J-i Hoppina J-; and Ken: R. Opening DnemAElzaetjealGane in: 1 b Hunting. Rochester. Mich.: Continuum Center. School of Human and Educational Services. Oakland University. 1984. Michigan Department of Education. YA.E951119n.Eapen.gn.§chg91:aased Elacement.§enxices. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1975. - Enenigan.Edueational.§tatieties.1281:82. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1983. (a) . 1983M SnmxetflflZStudents. Form X0608. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1983. (b) . mmmmmmm. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1982. _. Betenermefiujnemxneatienalfiducatienjnmmnan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1984. Michigan Department of Labor. mm to: leutn Emnlnxment and .Ina1n1n9.1n.the.§tate.QI Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Depart- ment of Labor. 1981. Michigan Employment Security Commission. .Michigan Lang: Manket Beyieu. Detroit: Michigan Employment Security Commission. August 1984. Michigan Employment Training Institute. .JIEA.BnleI1ng::A Basic Deeetintien.nnd.Analxele.e£.the.8ct. Okemos: Michigan Employ- ment Training Institute. January 1893. Michigan State Board of Education. .Qaneen .Bepont. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education. 1984. 175 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. .lob Seeking .Metbods.Used.ox.Amenloan.Wonkens. Bulletin 1886. Washington. 0.0.: Government Printing Office. 1975. _. Studentsu .Gnaduatee. end Dcooouts mtobet 1280:82- Bulletin 2192. Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office. December 1983. Wircenski. Jerry L.. et a1. "Implementing School to Work Transition Skills for Disadvantaged Youth." myocationalzlechnical.Edncatlon .Beeeanon.8eoont. V01. 20. no. 5. Pennsylvania State University. July 1982. EedeLaLand_5tate__Leg_ie.1.at.ion Career Education Act. Michigan Public Act 97. May 7. 1974. Full Employment Planning Act. Michigan Public Act 609. 1978. Job Training Partnership Act. Public Law 97-300. October 13. 1982. Michigan Youth Employment Council. Executive Order 1978-6. December 1978. Youth Employment Clearinghouse. Michigan Public Act 415. September 28. 1978. Maoazineundfioiodjoalo Banducii. Raymond. "Youth Employment: International Perspectives on Transition." .Ihe School Counselor 31(5). p. 415. Cissna. K.. and Carter. D. "The Employment Interview Workshop: A Focus on Communication Skills." Ilonnnal.oi.fimoloxment.Qoun: aiding 19 (June 1982)): 57-66. Clowers. M.. and Fraser. R. "Employment Interview Literature: A Per- spective for the Counselor." Ihe locational Guidanoe Duorteer 26 (September 1977): 13-26. Connolly. Terry. and Deutsch. Stuart. "Performance Measurement: Some Conceptual Issues." .Exalnation.and Program Elannjng 3 (1980): 3 5-43 0 Egan. Christine. "Writing Resumes and Cover Letters." Occupationa1 .Qutlggk Quarterly (Fall 1977): 20-25. l76 Hennington. Jo Ann. "Strategies for Handling the Job Interview Suc- cessfully." ‘Business.Education.flon1d (September-October 1983): 7. 14-15. 18. Jacobson. Thomas J. "Self Directed Job Search Training in Occupational ClassesJ' Janinal of Employment Counseling 21 (September 1984): Knouse. 5.: Tauber. R.; and Skonieczka. K. "The Effect of One-Session Training Upon Resume Writing." 1he locational Guidance Dunn; jenly 27 (June 1979): 326-333. Miller. Robert H.. and Cook. Wells F. "Why Should I Hire You?" .Balance.§heet 59 (March 1978): 255-56. Murray. Evelyn. "Employment Services for Youth." .lounna1.oI.Emolo¥: ment Counseling 9(2): PP. 86-92. Odell. Charles E. "The U.S. Employment Service: The First 50 Years. 1933-1983." plounnal oi.£moloxment.£ouneeling 21 (June 1984): 50-62 0 Dry. John C.. et al. "The Development and Field Test of a Vocational Education Evaluation Model." .Exaluation and Enognam Elanning l (1978): 265-72. Pfeil. Mary Pat. "A Job Service for High School Youth." .Wonklife 3 (July 1978): 2-8. Siefferman. Larry D. "Why Teach Employability Skills?" pygcfid 56 (June 1981): 34-35. Spriegel. W.. and James. V. "Trends in Recruitment and Selection Practice." .Eenaonnel (1958): 35. 42-48. Stephen. 0.; Watt. J.; and Wade. H. "Employer Preferences for the Form and Substance of Employment Application Cover Letters." .Jonnnal of EmDJoxment Counseling 16 (December 1979): 238-42. Tippert. L. G.. and Davison. C. V. "Creating a Career." ‘Sghool Guidance.flonken 30 (August 1975): 43-46. Trimmer. Harvey W. "Group Job Search Workshops: A Concept Whose Time Is Here." .Jounnal of Employment Counseling 21 (September 1984): 103-160 Wegmann. Robert G. "Job Search Assistance: A Review." plounnal.oi Emoloxment.§ouneeling 16 (December 1977): 197-226. 177 Young. D.. and Beier. E. "The Role of Applicant Nonverbal Communica- tion in the Employment Interview." .lQn£n§1.Qf‘Emplg¥mfinI COND- .§filing 14 (December 1977): 154-64. WWW Arthur. James V. "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Learning Packages in the Preparation of Teacher Education Students for a Job Search." Disooctation Absttacts Intonnational (1979): 3800-A. Dumas. Charles V. "How to Get a Job." Coldwater. Mich: Branch Area Career Center. 1982. Johns. Delores. "Job Seeking Behavior Inventory: Self Reported Job Search Data." Dissertation Abstracts Intonnational 42 (1981). Simon. Jerrold D. "An Evaluation of a Job Interview Skills Training Program Designed for Graduate Business Students." .Dissentation Abstnacts Intonnational 40 (March 1980). Snyder. Ruth Ann. "Effectiveness of Employability-Skills Instruction on Achievement by Michigan SEcondary Distributive Education Stu- dents." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1978. Walker. John R. "Teaching Job Seeking Skills to High School Students: Traditional and Behavioral Methods Compared." .Dissentation Abstnacts Intonnational 40 (June 1980). NW Fitzpatrick. Edward. "Resumes." Career Guide 84. Supplement to Ihe State News (Michigan State University). November 15. 1984. p. 6. Porter. Sy1via. "More Employers Are Verifying Resumes and Job Applica- tions." IIQMI.MQnfi¥l§.Ho£th. Syndicated column. January 16. 1985. Shingleton. Jack. "Resume's Value Underestimates." Career Guide 84. Supplement to Ihe State Nous (Michigan State University). November 15: 19849 P. 7. 178 Intentions Burden. Weldon. Michigan Department of Labor. Youth Employment Clearinghouse. Chung. Ki-Suck. Compiler of dropout data. Michigan Department of Education. Jump. Clifford. Michigan State University. . ICHIGAN sm: UNIV. LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 31293105315884