a ‘ . ~ ' " :2... . 0 l V ¥ ‘ 1 J C me-MLV'WV‘ 'j ' " J r :4 7‘ t5.-." i . WV‘kthfQ :. 100 0 9n;. ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT AND COOPERATIVE METHODS OF INSTRUCTION ON SELECTED COMPETENCIES IN DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL by Edward T. Ferguson, Jr. gurpose of the Study This study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of the project and c00perative methods of teaching high school distributive education. The study focused upon the teaching of two competencies in distritutive education: economic understanding and sales comprehension. To more accurately compare the effectiveness of the two methods, the project method in eleventh-grade distributive education classes and the c00perative method in twelfth-grade dis- tributive education classes, the variables of the socio- economic background, age, sex, and prior achievement of the students and teachers' attitude were also considered. Procedures The sample for the study consisted of 735 students in ten Michigan high schools. Each school contained four A groups of students: an eleventh-grade project method dis- tributive education class, an eleventh-grade English or Edward T. Ferguson, Jr. social science control class, a twelfth—grade cooperative method distributive education class, and a twelfth-grade English or social science control class. The five types of data gathered were (1) socio- economic status information about the school communities and the students in the study; (2) scores on the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Reading, Form 2A, as a measure of students' prior achievement; (5) scores on the Test of Economic Understanding, Forms A and B (pre- and post-tests), the Test of Sales Aptitude (A Test For Measur- ing Knowledge of Basic Principles of Selling). and the Sales Terms Test (post-tests); (4) scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for the ten distributive education teachers in the study; and (5) personal data on all the stu- dents and the distributive education teachers. The three statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data were correlations analyses, t-tests, and analy- ses of covariance. Major Findings 1. The control (non-distributive education) groups, on the whole, performed as well as or better than the two distributive education groups on the tests of economic under- standing and sales comprehension. After initial differences were adjusted for through the analyses of covariance, the Edward T. Ferguson, Jr. difference in the scores of the control groups and their respective distributive education groups were not signifi- cant. The differences in the scores of the c00perative method classes and the project method classes on the tests of sales comprehension were significant, with the c00pera- tive method classes scoring higher. There was no signifi- cant difference between the scores of the two distributive education groups on the test of economic understanding. 2. There was a positive correlation between student prior achievement, as inferred from test scores achieved on the STEP-Reading, and scores students attained on standardized tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension. However, there was no significant difference on the reading comprehension test between the scores of the two distribu- tive education groups. 3. There was no statistically significant correlation between students' socio—economic status, students' age, students' sex, or teachers' attitude inventory scores and scores students attained on the standardized tests measuring reading comprehension, economic understanding, and sales comprehension. A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT AND COOPERATIVE METHODS OF INSTRUCTION ON SELECTED COMPETENCIES IN DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL BY e°0( Edward Tf Ferguson, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to express his sincere thanks to the following people who made this study possible: Peter G. Haines, guidance committee chairman and director of the Research and Development Program in Vocational- Technical Education, for his assistance and advice through- out the doctoral program and the research project. Raymond M. Clark, Russell J. Kleis, and Robert P. Poland, members of the guidance committee, for their assistance and encouragement during the writing of this study. The ten distributive education teachers, for their coopera- tion and understanding during the data-gathering period of this study. And most of all to Dorothy. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. TABLES. . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES. . . . . . . . THE PROBLEM OF THE STUDY. Introduction. . . . . . . Statement of the Problem. Purpose of the Study Setting of the Study. Importance of the Study. Basic Assumptions. . Delimitations. . . . Definition of Terms. Organization of the Presentation. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. The Cooperative Method of Instruction Early Educational Philosophers and Their Thoughts on Practical Edu- cation. . . . . Early Development of the Cooperative Method. . . . . Refinement Period in the Development of the Cooperative Method . More Recent Developments in the COOperative Method. The Project Method of Instruction . iii Page ii vii 15 21 27 51 55 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Chapter Page Early Use of Projects in Vocational Education. . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Development of the Project Method in General Education . . . . . . . 56 Early Development of the Project Method in Distributive Education. . . . . 45 Recent Developments of the.Project Method in Distributive Education . 45 III. PROCEDURES IN THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . 50 The Nature of the Experimental Instruction . 50 SChOOlS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 52 TeaCherS O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 55 Student S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 55 Type of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . 55 Nature of the Data Collected . . . . . . . . 57 Socio-Economic Status . . . . . . . . . 58 Student Prior Achievement . . . . . . . 59 Test of Economic Understanding. . . 61 Test of Sales Aptitude and Sales Terms Test 0 I O O O O O I O I O O I I O 63 Student Information Sheets. . . . . . . 67 Teacher Information Sheets. . . . . . . 67 Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. . 67 Processing of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Socio-Economic Status . . . . . . . . . 68 Student Prior Achievement . . . . . . . 7O Standardized Tests of Economic Under- standing, Sales Aptitude, and Sales Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Personal Data on Students and Teachers. 71 Teacher Attitude Inventory. . . . . . . 71 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Simple Correlations . . . . . . . . . . 75 T-Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Analyses of Covariance. . . . . . . . . 75 Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Chapter Page IV. FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Student Achievement on Standardized Tests and Collateral Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Student Prior Achievement. . . . . . . . 77 Tests for the Economic Understanding Competency. . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Tests of Economic Understanding . . 80 Tests for the Sales Comprehension Competency. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Test of Sales Aptitude and Sales Terms Test . . . . . . . . . . 84 Socio-Economic Status. . . . . . . . . . 86 Personal Data on Students and Teachers . 91 Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Teacher Attitude. . . . . . . . . . 95 Interpretation of the Statistical Tests . . . 97 Simple Correlations and T—Tests. . . . . 97 Student Prior Achievement . . . . . 97 Tests of Economic Understanding and Sales Comprehension. . . . . . 101 Socio-Economic Status . . . . . . . 104 Personal Data on Students . . . . . 106 Teacher Attitude. . . . . . . . . . 108 Interpretation of the Analyses of Covariance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Summary of the Stated Hypotheses. . . . . . . 115 V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMNDAT IONS . O I O C O O O O O O O O O I 11 6 The Study and Its Design. . . . . . . . . . . 116 The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Procedures of the Study. . . . . . . . . 118 Nature of the Instruction . . . . . 118 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . 119 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . 120 Procedures of Analysis. . . . . . . 120 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Chapter Page Summary of Major Findings. . . . . . . . . . 120 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 10. 11. Characteristics of the Ten Michigan Public High Schools in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Ten Distributive Educa- tion Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Population of the Study . . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentile Ranks For Each of the Four Groups in Each of the Ten Schools--STEP-Reading, Form 2A. . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentile Ranks For Each of the Four Groups in Each of the Ten Schools--Test of Economic Understanding, Form A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentile Ranks For Each of the Four Groups in Each of the Ten Schools--Test of Economic Understanding, Form B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentile Ranks For Each of the Four Groups in Each of the Ten Schools--Test of Sales Aptitude . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentile Bands For Each of the Four Groups in Each of the Ten Schools--Sales Terms Test . . . . . . . Socio-Economic Status Data for the Ten School Communities--Messier Index. . . . . . . . . . . Socio-Economic Data Based On Occupation of Head of Household For the Four Groups in the Schools --Duncan Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socio-Economic Data Based on Occupation of Head of Household For Each Group in the Schools-- Duncan Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 52 54 56 79 81 85 85 87 88 90 92 LIST OF TABLES — Continued Table 12. 15. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. 24. Mean Age of Student Population Indicated by Group and School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations For the Five Standardized Tests Indicated by Groups For Boys and Girls Separately . . . . . . . . . . MTAI Scores and Percentile Ranks for the Ten Distributive Education Teachers . . . . . . . Correlations of STEP-Reading and Four Other Standardized Tests For Each Group And the Total Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and T-Tests For the Two Distributive Education Groups On the STEP-Reading. . . . . Means and T-Tests For the Eleventh-Grade Groups On the STEP-Reading. . . . . . . . . . Means and T-Tests For the Twelfth-Grade Groups On the STEP-Reading. . . . . . . . . . Means and T-Tests For the Two Distributive Education Groups on the Four Standardized Tests 0 O O O C O C C I O O O O O .0 O O O O 0 Means and T-Tests For the Eleventh-Grade Groups On the Four Standardized Tests . . . . Means and T-Tests For the Twelfth-Grade Groups On the Four Standardized Tests . . . . Correlations of the Test of Economic Under— standing, Form A, and the Three Other Standardized Tests for Each of the Three Combinations of Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between the Socio-Economic Indices and the Standardized Tests. . . . . . Means and T-Tests For Boys and Girls in Groups One, Two, Three, and Four For the Five Standardized Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 94 95 96 98 100 100 100 102 102 102 105 105 107 LIST OF TABLES - Continued Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 50. 51. Page Correlations of Teacher. Attitude Scores and Student Scores on the Five Standardized Tests For Groups One and Three. . . . . . . . . . . 108 Means, Adjusted Means, and F Results For the Eleventh-Grade Group For the Three Criterion Instruments 0 o o o, 0 ¥ 0 o o o o o o o o o o 112 Means, Adjusted Means, and F Results For the Twelfth-Grade Group For the Three Criterion Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Means, Adjusted Means, and F Results For the Project Method and COOperative Method Groups For the Three Criterion Instruments . . . . . 115 Adjusted Analysis of Variance For Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, And Test of Exonomic Understanding, Form B, with STEP- Reading and Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates--E1eventh-Grade Group . 171 Adjusted Analysis of Variance For Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, with STEP- Reading and Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates--Twelfth-Grade Group. . 172 Adjusted Analysis of Variance For Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, with STEP- Reading and Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates——Project Method and Cooperative Method Groups . . . . . . . . . . 175 ix LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Documents Relating to Establishment of the Distributive Education Curriculum Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1 Letter of Invitation to Vocational Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Information Sheet for Vocational Directors and Superintendents. . . . . . A.5 Form Letter to Superintendents . . . . . A.4 Memorandum of Agreement for Pilot Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documents Used to Secure Data from Population B.1 Messier Index Instrument . . . . . . . . B.2 Student Information Sheet. . . . . . . . B.5 Teacher Information Sheet. . . . . . . . Documents Used to Measure Achievement and Analyze Data. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C.1 Sample Page of Test of Economic Under- standing . O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O C.2 Sample Page of Test of Sales Aptitude... C.5 Sample Page of Sales Terms Test. . . . . C.4 Duncan's Socio-Economic Index. . . . . . Supporting Statistical Data . . . . . . . . D.1 Table 29--Adjusted Analysis of Variance For Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, with STEP-Reading and Test of Econom- ic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates-- Eleventh-Grade Group . . . . . . . . . . X Page 157 158 140 141 142 146 147 152 155 154 155 156 157 158 170 171 LIST OF APPENDICES - Continued Appendix D.2 D.5 Page Table 50--Adjusted Analysis of Variance For Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, with STEP-Reading and Test of Eco- nomic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates--Twelfth-Grade Group. . . . . 172 Table 51--Adjusted Analysis of Variance For Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, with STEP-Reading and Test of Eco- nomic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates--Project and Cooperative Method Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 xi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM OF THE STUDY Introduction In his concern for the status and direction of American education, thelate President John F. Kennedy delivered a message to Congress in 1961 in which he called for the establishment of an advisory group to review and evaluate existing federal commitments to vocational education. Thus, in October 1961 the Panel of Consultants on Vocational Edu— cation was officially appointed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The 1965 report of the Panel sug- gested several changes for existing programs of vocational education. Foremost among these was a recommendation that vocational education programs be made available to more stu- dents in the secondary schools.1 The members of the Panel recommended, specifically in the field of distributive edu- cation, the development of pre-employment in-school training programs which would be offered in addition to the existing cooperative work-study programs. The members implied that 1U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education for a Changing World of Work, OE 80021 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 226. this was desirable to make needed vocational instruction available to more students.2 That same year, a report entitled "The Federal Govern- ment and Education," issued by the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, stated that distributive education was "handicapped by the legislative limitation which restricts training to persons sixteen years old who are already employed in distributive work."3 In his keynote speech at the National Clinic on Distribu- tive Education in October 1965, John Beaumont, Director of the Distributive Education Branch of the United States Office of Education, made reference to the impact of the report of the Panel of Consultants and the House report, stating: These reports and the pr0posed legislation challenge distributive educators to think first of people in organizing programs for the distributive occupations. ...The major concern in the past history of distribu- tive education has been with an extension program. Instruction has been limited to employed persons. . . . There is, however, this emerging opportunity to con- sider the needs of people in the developing occupational mix. Further, there is the added challenge to prepare individuals for the initial job. In this context, employment would follow education, rather than as at present precede education.4 21bid., p. 227. 3U. S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, The Federal Government and Education, 88th Congress, lst Session, 1965, p. 47. 4John A. Beaumont, "The Emerging Program of Distributive Education," (Address before the National Clinic on Distribu- tive Education, Washington, D. C., October 14, 1965) (USOE Mimeo Printing), PP- 7-8. The "proposed legislation" to which Beaumont referred in his address became the Vocational Education Act of 1965 (PL 88- 210), which embodied many of the recommendations in the report of the Panel of Consultants and the House report. The Act specifically provided for the establishment of pre- employment, in-school preparatory training programs in distributive education. Such programs in distributive edu- cation now, under the Act, are available to unemployed youth over fourteen years of age.5 Mary V. Marks, USOE Program Specialist in Distributive Education, in a paper delivered at the 1965 National Clinic, made first mention of how instruction would be provided in the newly emerging programs of pre-employment education in distribution and marketing. She stated: With the evidence mounting that learning which is to be assessed by performance is best achieved through participation activities, there is ample justification for us to continue to require these in the methodology ‘ of distributive education. But let us not be limited to cooperative training on a school-work schedule as we now know it. Let us find other ways to provide for experiences to develop and consolidate employment qualifications at entry and career levels.6 Marks then suggested and described another approach to the teaching of distributive education: 5U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Selected Education Acts of 1965, 88th Congress, lst Session, 1965, p. 97. QMary V. Marks, "The Vocational Approach in Education for Distribution," (Address before the National Clinic on Distributive Education, Washington, D. C., October, 1965) (USOE Mimeo Printing), p. 5. In addition to the cooperative method of training, participation activities . . . also include group or individual projects which may be used by the instructor to encourage vocationally-centered learning. These may take place in a specially—equipped classroom, in a field assignment of narrow scope, and in situations simulating experiences of varying degrees of sophis- tication related to employment opportunities. Also at this 1965 National Clinic, members of Task Force I on High School Age Youth recognized the need for additional program development. They encouraged “further program expansion . . . through the development of addition- al plans such as . . . using the vocational approach with simulated work experience. . . ."8 More recently,the United States Office of Education has formally endorsed the project method of instruction as a vehicle for providing in-school preparatory distributive education, as it is provided for in the Vocational Educa- tion Act of 1965. At a meeting of the National Association of Distributive Education Teachers in December 1965, Mary V. Marks reported that the project method as a teach— ing device "seeks the same learning outcomes as does the cooperative method. . . ."9 Therefore, Marks concluded, 7Ibid., pp. 4-5. 8National Clinic on Distributive Education, Report of Task Force I: High School Age Youth (Washington, D. C., 1965), p. 5. 9Mary V. Marks, "The Project Method in Action,“ (Address before the National Association of Distributive Education Teachers, American Vocational Association Conven- tion, Miami Beach, Florida, December 9, 1965) (USOE Mimeo Printing), p. 2. it is the objective of the project method of instruction to accomplish goals similar to those of the cooperative method of instruction. It can be seen that the legislation and interpreta- tion of this legislation have provided the distributive educator with another method of teaching distributive edu- cation and maintaining a vocational approach. In her speech in December, 1965, Marks put official endorsement of the USOE on the project method of instruction in dis- tributive education. She stated: . . . we are designating the project method and the c00perative method as the two broad categories of participation activities used by distributive edu- cators to prepare students for employment in distribu- tion and marketing. . . . We rely on you to prove that distributive education is ready to incorporate into its program a new method of vocationalizing preparatory instruction.lo Before any new method of teaching can be widely adopted, it must be tested and evaluated as to its effectiveness and feasibility as an educational tool for the classroom. The project method, if it proves efficient in achieving the purposes of pre-employment training, will provide answers to several problems persistently associated with the co- operative method. Employing in-school instruction as con- trasted to dependence upon on-the—job training, the project method would: 1. permit a longer period of development within a more fully controlled environment for the immature stu- dent. lOIbid., p. 7. 2. offer pre-employment training for the student whose physical development or appearance makes on-the—job training during high school inappro- priate. 5. allow longer time and helpful experiences for the student whose vocational choice is undefined. 4. accommodate larger numbers of students in communi- ties which have limited numbers of on-the-job training stations. 5. reduce the cost in time and dollars of providing pre-employment vocational preparation. (Teachers can accommodate more students by having larger classes and more class periods, thus decreasing the teacher-pupil contact cost.) Statement of the Problem This study is an analysis and comparison of selected areas of achievement by eleventh-grade distributive educa- tion students who received instruction through the project method as opposed to twelfth—grade distributive education students who received instruction through the c00perative method. The investigation was intended to test the hypothesis that: the eleventh-grade project method of instruction for preparatory distributive education can produce outcomes in student achievement on tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension as high as those now being obtained through the c00perative method of instruction in the tradi- tional twelfth-grade distributive education class. Specifically, the problem which this study investi— gated may be posed as several questions which consider the association between these items: 1. Are the results on certain standardized tests in sales comprehension significantly different for eleventh- grade distributive education students who have been taught by the project method of instruction and twelfth-grade distributive education students who have been taught by the cooperative method of instruction? 2. Are the results on certain standardized tests in economic understanding significantly different for eleventh- grade distributive education students who have been taught by the project method of instruction and twelfth-grade distributive education students who have been taught by the cooperative method of instruction? 5. Of what importance is students' level of prior achievement in determining the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? 4. Of what importance are the socio-economic status, age, and sex of students in determining the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales compre— hension and economic understanding? 5. Of what importance is teacher attitude in determin— ing the significance of students' scores on standardized tests in sales comprehension and economic understanding? Purpose of the Study It is believed that the findings of this study might (1) contribute to a better understanding of the merits of the project and cooperative methods of instruction, (2) pro- vide certain kinds of information about distributive education students in relation to non—distributive educa- tion students, and (5) identify procedures and problems in measuring the competencies in distributive education. Setting of the Study There existed at Michigan State University the Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical Education11 which was engaged in a distributive education curriculum deve10pment project. The project involved seventeen high schools, of which ten were used for this research study. Four groups in each of the ten schools were used in the study: an eleventh-grade distributive education project method class, a twelfth-grade distributive education cooper- ative method class, an eleventh-grade non—distributive edu- cation class (English or social science), and a twelfth- grade non-distributive education class (English or social science). Both groups of distributive education and the 11The Research and Development Program in Vocational- Technical Education at Michigan State University, under the direction of Dr. Peter G. Haines and supported by funds from USOE grants, Michigan State University, and the Michi- gan State Department of Education, was established in 1965. The basic aim of the R&D Program is to improve vocational- technical education within the State of Michigan, as well as regionally, by the establishment of contractual clinical schools which serve as sites for pilot and demonstration programs in vocational-technical education. In January 1966 the Distributive Education Pilot School Project was initiated with a selection of seventeen participating high schools within Michigan. The researcher was the R&D Project Leader for the curriculum development project in distribu- tive education. eleventh- and twelfth—grade students in the non—distributive education classes, a total pOpulation of 755 students, were administered, in pre- and post-test situations, standard- ized tests of reading comprehension, economic understanding, and sales comprehension. Evaluating students' learning of the economic understanding and sales comprehension compe- tencies was considered an effective means of examining each of the two methods of instruction in distributive education. Importance of the Study Neither the project nor the cooperative methods of instruction in distributive education has been subjected to empirical testing regarding their effectiveness in the teach- ing of the various competencies essential to a successful distributive worker. Because of the absence of sufficient research and literature on the relative effectiveness of the project and cooperative methods as devices in teaching high school distribution and marketing, it was decided that a study concerned with an analysis and comparison of these two methods of teaching could contribute to the existing knowledge in the field of distributive education as well as identify problems for future research in this area. There is too a need to investigate the project method as a means of teaching high school distribution and marketing in light of the recent federal legislation and the endorsement of the USOE of this method as a way to provide in-school pre- paratory distributive education. 10 Basic Assumptions Underlying the study were the following basic assump- tions: 1. That the competencies of selling and economic understanding can be indirectly measured through student performance on standardized tests. That student performance on these tests repre- sents a valid index of the effectiveness of some areas of instruction in distributive education. That student performance on a standardized reading comprehension test is a valid indication of stu- dents' prior achievement. That the effects of maturation can be statistical- ly controlled for by the inclusion of two control groups, one for each grade level. That socio-economic data gathered from students and school administrators are accurate represen- tations of the socio-economic status of the stu- dents and schools included in the study. That, though students' prior work experience may have an influence, the prior work experience was essentially the same for all students in the study who may have worked. That teacher attitudes can be measured as a basis for determining the correlation, if any, these attitudes have with student achievement. 8. 11 That each of the teachers performed with equal effectiveness in teaching by the two methods of instruction. Delimitations The delimiting factors established for this study were as follows: 1. The data collected were drawn from ten high schools located in the State of Michigan. The same teacher in each school taught both the project method and the cooperative method classes. The data accepted for analysis were limited to the scores on standardized tests and socio-economic indices gathered by student information data sheets and interviews with school administrators. Measures of pupil achievement were limited to scores on tests of the competencies of economic understanding and sales comprehension. Measures of prior achievement of students were limited to scores on standardized tests of reading comprehension. There were no selection procedures for including or excluding students from either the project method or the cooperative method classes. There were also no measures of the variability among individuals-~personality, attitudes, interests-- in the study. 12 Definition of Terms In order to convey consistent meanings, applicable to this study, the terms presented below have been defined. Competency. Skill, knowledge, or understanding necessary for the successful performance of those tasks which compose the job. Cooperative Method. The coordination of class- room instruction with a series of on-the-job learning experiences related to each student's occupational objective. Cooperative Plan. An organizational pattern for preparatory vocational education, in which regularly scheduled part-time employment is coordinated with classroom instruction that gives students an opportun- ity to apply theory in practice, while developing competencies through training on a job related to their occupational objectives. Distributive Occupation. ". . . an occupation that is followed by proprietors, managers, or employees engaged primarily in marketing or merchandising of goods or services. These occupations are commonly found in various [kinds of] business establishments such as retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, stor- ing, transporting, financing, and risk-bearing."12 12U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, "Rules and Regulations," Administra- tion of Vocational Education, Bulletin No. 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 44. nent 15 Project. "A significant, practical unit of activ- ity having educational value and aimed at one or more definite goals of understanding; involves investigation and solution of problems and, frequently, the use and manipulation of physical materials; planned and carried to completion by the pupils and teacher in a natural, 'real-life' manner."13 Project Method. The coordination of classroom instruction with a series of individually designed learning activities or projects related to a student's occupational objective. Project Plan. An organizational pattern for in- school, pre-employment, preparatory vocational instruc- tion in distributive education, which involves a regu— larly scheduled series of individually designed activi- ties which simulate the work environment and are correlated with classroom instruction to give students an opportunity to apply theory to simulated practice while developing competencies through projects simulat- ing work situations and related to their occupational objectives. Organization of the Presentation Chapter II consists of a review of literature perti- to the problem under study. No reports of empirical 13Carter V. Good, (ed.), Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 514. 14 studies of the project and cooperative methods were found. Therefore, the review of the literature covers: (1) the development and use of the cooperative method of instruc- tion, (2) the development and use of the project method of instruction, with focus on distributive education. Chapter III outlines the specific procedures involved in conducting the study, as follows: (1) the nature of the experimental instruction, (2) the data collected, (5) processing of the data, (4) procedures of analysis of the data. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study and in- cludes: (1) test results and information on student achieve- ment and the collateral data, (2) findings from calculations of simple correlations and t-tests, (5) interpretation of the analyses of covariance, (4) tests of the stated hypothe- ses and summary. Chapter V concludes the presentation with the summary of the major findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE1 This chapter will be primarily a summary of the his- torical development and the philosophical and psychological bases of the cooperative and project methods of instruction in distributive education. This study has revealed no reports of empirical research comparing these two methods of instruction. This review is divided into two major sections: (1) the cooperative method of instruction and (2) the pro- ject method of instruction, as they have developed in the United States. The Cooperative Method of Instruction Early Educational Philosophers and Their Thogghts on Practical Education It would be difficult to assess the ideas and philos- Ophies of those men who, in their lifetimes, have directly 1Much of the material in this chapter was initially obtained from the library search conducted by William Woolf and Donald Pettit, graduate research assistants in the Research and DevelOpment Program in Vocational-Technical Education at Michigan State University. Their compilation of data is reported in A Selected And Anpotatedggibliggraphy Related to Coopegative and:gggject Methods in Distributive Education (Research and Development Program in Vocational— Technical Education, Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michi- gan, April 1967). 15 16 or indirectly exerted contributory influences on the de- velopment of cooperative education. When a search is made to discover philosophical and psychological bases for the cooperative method of instruction, several early philos- ophers stand out for their insistent urging that education be made more life-like and practical. To them is owed the conceptual framework for present-day vocational education. Before cooperative education could develop as a method of instruction, educators had to come to accept the theory of vocational education as an integral part of the educa- tional enterprise. Among these early philosophers who recognized the value of practical activity as an integral and functioning part of organized education were Comenius, Locke, Francke, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Fellenberg, Froebel, Woodward, Dewey, along with many others. Comenius (1592-1670) felt that, besides being able to read and write their native language, all young people should have a knowledge of the trades and occupations of life. He apparently had an unusual understanding for his time of the development and needs of youth. He felt that the manual arts and crafts could be closely related to the spontaneous activities and interests of children. These arts were included in his "Pansophic curriculum" with the following emphasis: There is nothing in Heaven or Earth, or in the waters, nothing in the Abyss under the earth, nothing in the Human body, nothing in the Soul, nothing in Holy Writ, nothing in the Arts, nothing in Economy, fFLll'l'illllfllll 17 nothing in Polity, nothing in the Church of which the2 little candidates of Wisdom shall be wholly ignorant.2 As head (rector) of the Gymnasium at Lissa, Poland, in 1656, Comenius had ample opportunities to try his ideas in the classroom and to direct his attention to the improvement of teaching methods and materials.3 Locke's (1652-1704) idea of the subject matter of edu- cation was somewhat different from that of Comenius. Locke maintained continually and persistently that each child was to be educated (or trained?) for his place in life, and not for some other. He pointed out this principle of education for use in the following passage from his work Some Thoughts Concerning Education: . . . Could it be believed, unless we had everywhere amongst us examples, of it, that a child should be forced to learn the rudiments of a language which he is never to use in the course of life that he is designed to, and neglect all the while the writing a good hand and casting accounts, which are of great advantage in all conditions of life, and to most trades indispensably necessary? But though these qualifica- tions, requisite to trade and commerce and the business of the world, are seldom or never to be had at grammar- schools, yet thither not only gentlemen send their younger sons, intended for trades, but even tradesmen and farmers fail not to send their children, though they have neither intention nor ability to make them scholars.4 2The Great Didactic of John Amos LComenius, quoted in Frederick Eby and Charles F. Arrowood, Development of Modern Education (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1941). pp. 270-271. 3Ernest E. Bayles and Bruce L. Hood, ngwth of_Ameri- can Educatipnal Thought and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 24. ‘Ibid., pp. 54-55. 18 Francke (1665-1727) may also, to a certain extent, be considered as an early contributor to the acceptance of the vocational aspect of education and hence to the development of cooperative education. Though his emphasis was more in the nature of work as an extra-curricular activity, in his school for young nobles he provided: . . . equipment for courses in mechanics, glass blow- ing, copper engraving, wood carving, and health guidance; a natural history museum and dissecting apparatus; an herbarium; and physical and chemical laboratories.5 While he apparently intended that these practical extra—cur- ricular experiences had no significance for the vocational preparation of his students, nevertheless the fact that he considered such training important enough to provide them, albeit on an extra-curricular basis, is worthy of note. The impracticality of the education and training which children received at home and in school stirred Pestalozzi (1745-1827) more than most of the other early philosophers. His concern for the plight of the lower classes, a concern very much in evidence today, challenged him to search out some way to improve their status through education. Pestalozzi felt that a combination of work and schooling would be a solution to the deplorable educational situation. Believing in the now time-honored phrase "we learn by doing, he pointed out: sEby and Arrowood, p. 556. 19 . . . I know how useful the common needs of life are in teaching men the relations of things, in bringing out their natural intelligence, in forming their judgment, and in arousing faculties which, buried, as it were, beneath the coarser elements of their nature, cannot become active and useful till they are set free. It was my object then to arouse these faculties, and bring them to bear on the pure and simple circumstances of domestic life, for I was con- vinced that in this way I should be able to form the hearts and minds of children almost as I wished.6 To accomplish this aim and test his theory, Pestalozzi established an orphanage for eighty homeless children, in which he proposed to: . . . teach all the children to read, write, and count; and the boys the chief occupations of farming and tillage as far as I can, the care of meadows and pasture; the different kinds of grasses, care of fruit and forest trees, & c. The care of the house also will teach the girls gardening, domestic work and sewing. The occupation for winter will chiefly be the spinning of cotton.7 To Pestalozzi then should go much credit for the recog- nition of the urgent need for practical training, One can also see in his beliefs and practices the beginnings of comprehension of the feasibility of combining work and edu- cation. The influence of Pestalozzi's ideas on education was far-reaching; his methods were adopted in many countries. In Germany, Baron von Fellenberg (1771-1844) developed a school at Hofwyl which was very much in keeping with 6Eby and Arrowood, p. 668. 7Bayles and Hood, pp. 99-100. 20 Pestalozzi's philosophy. Fellenberg especially emphasized the need for vocational preparation in all levels of society. In addition to farming, there were established printing, tailoring, shoemaking, and other lines of work. With this practical training went the educa- tion of the common school branches.8 Fellenberg's school exercised as great an influence as that of Pestalozzi, and both were instrumental in the populari— zation of agriculture education.9 Of course the great American contributor to the accept- ance of the idea of "learning by doing" as an important factor in the curriculum of the schools was John Dewey (1859-1952). Direct experience, Dewey urged, should be the basis of all education. The Dewey school in Chicago (1897- 1905) emphasized the practical activities of life outside the school as an integral part of the curriculum. In the school the children did things with their hands, such as gardening, weaving, and carpenter work. Dewey stated: The first approach to any subject in school, if thought is to be aroused and not words acquired, should be as unscholastic as possible. To realize what an experience, or empirical situation means, we have to call to mind the sort of occupations that interest and engage activity in ordinary life. And careful inspec- tion of methods which are permanently successful in formal education, whether in arithmetic or learning to read, or studying geography, or learning physics or a foreign language, will reveal that they depend for their efficiency upon the fact that they go back to the type of situation which causes reflection out of school in ordinary life. They give the pupils something to do, 8Eby and Arrowood, p. 668. 9Ibid. 21 not something to learn: and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional not- ing of connections; learning naturally results.10 It must be pointed out that what the early educational philosophers were discussing above was not vocational edu- cation as it is seen today. But it was an acceptance of the theory that schools and colleges did have a role in some- thing other than general education. The concept of voca- tional training as a part of the total school framework, then, became a development of man's belief that education must serve a vocational as well as academic end. It was from these philosophical threads that proponents of the cooPerative method of instruction wove the fabric of what was to become an accepted segment of educational practice. Earlyggevelopmentggf the Cooperative Method The development of cooperative education as it has grown in the United States to its present-day proportions is said to owe its initial impetus to Dean Herman Schneider of the College of Engineering of the University of Cincinnati. As early as 1899, while a student at Lehigh University, Schneider was contemplating the cooperative method of education. He began his teaching career in 1905 at the University of Cincin— nati, which inaugurated a cooperative system of education in 1906. Reporting Schneider's early struggles with the idea, 10John Dewey, Democracy in Education (New York: Macmillan Co., 1916), p. 181. 22 Clyde Park wrote: Schneider's own dissatisfaction with instruction- al methods was not his only reason for thinking about the gap between theory and practice. He had talked with many employers of engineers in order to learn their views of the effectiveness of engineering edu- cation. These men said that the young engineers they employed might have book learning, but that generally they could not put their knowledge to use until after they had gone through a discouraging period of probation. In other words, the young men did not know where and how to take hold. He wondered whether students could not be given sufficient acquaintance with industry to vitalize their professional studies and to fit them for immediate usefulness upon gradu- ation. As he saw it, the practical question was: 'How could theoretical knowledge and first-hand experi- ence be hitched together?‘ One evening after teaching hours, Herman Schneider was pondering this question while he walked across the Lehigh University campus. Suddenly he was started out of his reverie by the blast of a Bessemer converter at a nearby steel plant. In that moment an idea came to him that offered a possible solution to his problem. Here was a huge modern industry existing side by side with a university-—a vast industrial laboratory filled with the latest, most expensive equipment made to order for his scheme of training. At the end of their col- lege course many young men now studying in Lehigh Uni- versity would find employment in these steel mills, as other graduates had done before them. Why not have this employment begin on a part-time basis while they were still in college, and make the work a recognized part of their training? Swiftly his imagination fol- lowed out the possibilities of the scheme. He went home in an exalted frame of mind and sat up late, map- ping out details of an educational project that became increasingly absorbing as he considered its far-reach- ing implications. Although Schneider's most direct influence was felt on the post-secondary level in technical schools, colleges, and universities, his work and his ideas were also indirectly 11Clyde Park, Ambassador to Industry (New York: Bobbs- Merrill Co., 1945), p. 44. 25 influential on the secondary level. It was Schneider's beliefs and practices as he expressed them that greatly influenced the first high school cooperative program at Fitchburg, Massachusetts, for: . . . at a meeting held in New York City in the spring of 1908, Professor Herman Schneider, Dean of the College of Engineering of the University of Cincinnati, presented to a group of metal manufacturers gathered from all parts of the country the plan of cooperative industrial education used successfully under his di- rection, by which arrangements had been made with several shops of Cincinnati to give the students in engineering the larger part of the practical training required for graduation. Among those who were present was Mr. Daniel Simonds, a manufacturer from Fitchburg, Massachusetts, a broadminded and public-Spirited citizen of one of the most successful industrial centers of Massachusetts. Immediately he saw the possibility of adapting the plan to his home town, and through it of solving the problem of industrial education for boys and his city. Mr. Simonds returned to Fitchburg and presented his ideas to the school authorities. The feasibility of the plan was conceded, and a committee was appointed to inspect the work in Operation in Cincinnati. The committee reported in favor of the immediate adoption of a similar plan in connection with the high school of Fitchburg. Several employers of skilled labor in Fitchburg came forward to assist in the movement and to give that phase of c00peration without which the course would be impracticable, namely, the use of their shops and machinery.12 In 1905, also while Schneider was developing his ideas for cooperative education, Mrs. Lucinda Wyman Prince, through her work with the Women's Educational and Industrial Union of Boston, Massachusetts, became interested in the vo- cational training needs of girls and started a class of lZMatthew R. McCann, Theggitchbgrg Plan of Cooperative Indgptrial:§ducation (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1915), p. 56. 24 eight girls whose lack of training kept them unemployable. Upon completing the course, the girls took sales positions with the Boston Stores department store. Because of the success of this first class, Mrs. Prince continued offer- ing such training. After doing everything possible to interest mer- chants in the value of organized training which would include work in a store as a sales person, and after many interviews with store executives, Mrs. Prince secured a promise from‘William Filene's Sons Company to allow the students she was training to secure practical store experience by working in the store on Mondays. Organized training of store workers in this country today is a direct outgrowth of a desire on the part of the Women's Educational and Industrial Union of Boston to aid working girls and women by sponsoring attempts on the part of these workers to advance themselves educationally, industrially, or socially.l3 As she continued to work with girls in her classes, Mrs. Prince began to recognize the need for more practical experi- ence in stores. She then developed the idea of a definite alternation of class work with store experience. Accordingly, she arranged a schedule with the advisory committee under which students attend the school each morning from 8:50 to 11:00 and each after- noon from 4:50 to 5:50 spending the intervening hours in the stores. For this half-time work the girls received three dollars a week, a higher wage than formerly given students. Mrs. Prince was, therefore, responsible for the origination and early promotion of c00perative edu- cation for retail store clerks on both the secondary and college level.14 13Kenneth B. Haas, COOperative Pagt-time Retail Train- ing Pgograms (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959), p. 2. l4Ibid., pp. 5-4. 25 The influence of Mrs. Prince on distributive education in the Boston Public Schools was to be felt for many years. In 1912, through her efforts, the first retail training co- 15LuBy 1914 nine high schools in operative program began. Boston were offering instruction in distributive education combined with a cooperative occupational experience. In 1921 alternate-week programs were established, enabling Boston school students to spend a longer period of time on the job. By 1927 the half-day program of occupational ex- perience as it is known today was a reality.16 In 1951 the first signs of evaluation of the coopera- tive method became evident. A study conducted by Professor P. Evans Coleman of the marketing department of the Uni- versity of Detroit showed that cooperative commercial stu- dents progressed very well on the job and were well able to find areas of specialization in their work situations.l7 Coleman's study represented a follow-up for five years of a group of eighty-five youths who were graduated in 1924 from junior high schools that had no c00perative relationships 15T. Carl Brown and William B. Logan (eds.), "50 Years of Progress in Distributive Education," American Vocational Jgurnal, XXXI (December, 1956), 57. 16Helen M. Moran, "Distributive Education in the Boston Public Schools," The Balance Shget, XL (January, 1959), 211- 215. 17P. Evans Coleman, "COOperation: The New Tie Between Education and Industry," Nation's Schoolg, VIII (August, 1951), 49-52. 26 with industry, in contrast to a five-year cooperative experi- ence undertaken by sixty commercial‘students from the University of Cincinnati. Osgood reported in 1952 that New York was experiencing favorable results with their high school cooperative programs. Students were working the week-in, week-out method (a concept in vocational education which denotes that students are paired so that one can work while the other is in school, alternating a week in school with a week on the job) in the areas of industry, retail stores, and offices. He reported that 91% of the students receiving cooPerative training in high school were placed and that promotions and higher pay followed quickly in most cases.18 The literature of the early thirties provided several examples of successful cooperative plans within the high schools. Articles by Weaver,19 Burmahln,20 Brockman,21 Small,22 and Rowse23 each.described successful cooPerative 18E. L. Osgood, “Part-time Cooperative Education in New York," School_Review (September, 1952), pp. 495-494. 19G. G. Weaver, "Some Problems of Cooperative Educa- tion," Industrial Education Magazine, XXXII (May, 1951), 552-555. 20E. F. Burmahln, "Students Manage Department Store," The Jougnal of Business Education, IX (April, 1954), 19-20. 21L. O. Brockman, "A Work Try-Out Scheme for High School Students," Monthly;Labor Review, XL (April, 1955), 954-955. 22Robert Small, "C00perative Schools and Continuation Schools," Ipdustrial Education Magazine, XXXVII (September, 1955), 194-195. 23Edward J. Rowse, "Securing the Cooperation of 27 work experience programs in retailing within their particu- lar locale and fitting their particular situations. It was not, though, until the enactment of the George- Deen Act (1956) that direction in the c00perative method of instruction in distributive education started to develop. This federal legislation provided the basis for what was to become the shape and format of distributive education for the next twenty-seven years. An annual appropriation of $1,250,000 was authorized on a matching basis to states and territories for salaries and necessary travel expenses of teachers, supervisors, and directors, and for teacher train- ing in distributive occupational subjects}?4 Refinement Period in the Development of the Qgpperative Method: If one were to characterize the period of growth in the c00perative method from 1956 to 1965, the word "refinement" would adequately describe the situation. The journals of this period are replete with articles which deal with the sophisti- cation of the cooperative plan through the refinement and adaptation of the cooperative method. The period between 1956 and 1965 may be further analyzed to show the evolution of the cooperative method in distributive education. The period from 1956 to the end of World War II was one of ex- pounding the virtues of the cooPerative method and learning Merchants in Training Salespeople in Secondary Schools," The National Business Education Quarterly, IV (December, 1955), 18-20+. 24v. s., Statgtes at Large, XLIX, Part 1, 1488. 28 how to establish a cooPerative program, including illustra- tions of how the cooperative method had effectively pro- vided industry with competent workers. During this time, Horace B. English, a psychologist, treated the c00perative method from a psychological stand- point, stating that young people are restless and need and want to work because of their biological and psychological make-up. He believed the difficulties of the Depression had a deep bearing on the development of the c00perative method.25 Keller also emphasized the need for an occupational experience as a help to methodology and motivation. He suggested several areas for work experience for both boys and girls in light of his belief that peOple experience a need to work.26 Another writer who stressed the importance of the c00perative experience to youth of the times who were troubled by problems of employment and assimilation into the working world was Douglas.27r28 Typifying the "how to start a cooperative program" series was an article by Banks of the A. S. Beck Shoe 25Horace B. English, "Education Through Work in a Time of Social Change," Educational Method (November, 1955), pp. 26F. J. Keller, “Earning and Learning in 1957," _ Jougnal of Adult Education, IX (April, 1957), 141-145. 27Harl R. Douglas, "Youth, School, Work, and Community," School and Society (July 15, 1959), pp. 65-71. 28Harl R. Douglas, “Youth Needs Work Experience," Busi- ness Education World, XX (May, 1940), 784-785. 29 Corporation. In his article he gave his own “recipe" for organizing a c00perative program, emphasizing the role of the coordinator in making job placements and the need for standards and requirements for both student and store selection.29 Schindel's view typified that of industry regarding the cooperative method. The author believed that business and education had a number of areas of common concern-- student character, intelligence, intuition, and adaptability. He viewed the cooperative experience as a method that would mutually enhance both business and the schools in turning out an especially trained individual as well as a better generally educated person.so After World War II the refinement process in the co- operative method became even more intense. At this time the refining involved the classroom aspect of the method. Previously, vocational educators were more concerned with improving and defining the cooperative method as it involved cooperation with businesses in the community. Articles in journals during this period emphasized the virtues of the cooperative method in terms of what it could -..- 29(M. Banks, "Establishing Store Relationships for a COOperative Program of Distributive Education," Industrial Artigducation, XXXII (November, 1945), 570-572. 3°Philip W. Schindel, "The Role of Business in Cooperat- ing With the School,“ Community Cooperation in Business Edu- cation, American Business Education Yearbook, I (Somerville, N. J.: Somerset Press, 1944), 181-187. 50 do for the child in the classroom to improve learning. Horn's chapter in the 1955 Businessggducation Yearbook, for example, stressed the fact that the cooperative method allowed for students' individual differences and enabled teachers to design individual curricula to suit each 1 In the same Yearbook, child's needs and interests.3 Cooper's chapter made the point that the cooperative method, having reached its full maturity in this era of evaluation, could be easily evaluated by asking the following questions: Did the coOperative experience bring the student closer to everyday living? Did the experience create interest in the business world? Did the experience provide up-to-date information not available in textbook form? Did the experience enrich the classroom discussion? .Did the cooperative program supply resource material for the student? Did the experience develop desirable attitudes? Can the graduates get and hold the jobs they were prepared for?32 Another commonly used means of evaluating and ulti- mately bringing about the refinement of the c00perative method was explained by Severson. The process he discussed 31D. C. Horn, "Criteria For Individual Instruction," American Business Education Yearbook, X (Somerville, N. J.: Somerset Press, 1955), 540-545. 32Walter A. COOper, "Evaluating Effective Learning Through School-Business C00peration," ibid., 420-455. 51 was the survey questionnaire sent to distributive educa— tion coordinators, in this particular instance to sixty- one teachers, to ascertain problem areas and suggestions for alleviating certain common problems in Operating a cooperative program. In 1956 Severson's survey revealed that the most common problems experienced by the distribu- tive education teacher-coordinators were maintaining student interest in related classwork, loss of interest in jobs, and practical application of the subject matter.33 Mgge Recentyggveippments in the Cooperative Method In 1962 the cooperative method in distributive education shifted into another stage of development. Hartzler identi- fied this stage as one in which distributive education could be characterized as a "body of knowledge to be taught."34 He stated that prior to this time distributive education was treated as a method of teaching synonomous with the coopera- tive method. Now in this period of development distributive education had come into its own as a distinct body of knowl- edge, whereas the c00perative method was considered distinct from distributive education per se but characteristic of vocational education in general. Hartzler also predicted 33L. C. Severson, "How Teacher-Coordinators Rate Their Problems," UBEA Forum, II (December, 1956), 26-28. 3‘F. E. Hartzler, "The Three Stages of Distributive Education," Journal of Businességducation, XXXIX (April, 1964). 289-290. 52 that within the body of knowledge of distributive education would come a decrease in emphasis upon the cooperative method and occupational experience.35 With the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1965 came a reappraisal of the cooperative method in dis- tributive education. As-such, distributive education and the cooperative method were no longer synonomous, and several leaders in the field feared that the total distribu- tive education program might suffer from this development. However, in its new and more comprehensive role, distribu- tive education, which had been successful in the past with the cooperative method, would now be able to expand its program. This, according to Warren Meyer, was the most significant consideration, for the needs and interests of the children involved are of more importance than dedication to a particular method of instruction. What should develOp from this sequence of happenings is a larger expansion and a more comprehensive field, encompassing the cooperative method and other methods which help achieve the goals of 36 Perhaps Nelson in his recent article the total program. has best characterized the most exact thinking on the c00perative method as it relates to distributive education. 351bid., 290. 36Warren G. Meyer, "A New Era in Distributive Occupa- tions," Bgsiness Education Forum, XVIII (April, 1964), 6. 55 The distinction between method and discipline is important to any assessment of concepts relating to curriculum identification and organization. Much progress has been made in projecting a discipline of distribution that was made vocational through the specialized methodology of cooperative training. It must be recognized at the outset that the dis- cipline of distribution or any segment thereof can be and is taught for general education purposes. To teach for vocational purposes, certain participation activities must be evident in each distributive edu- cation curriculum which directs and measures the achievement of employment qualifications. The Vocational Education Act of 1965 outlines exciting new challenges for distributive education. Now an Opportunity has been given to prove that the achievement of employment qualifications for distribu- tive occupations can be developed through a method other than through continuing employment experiences. Keeping in mind the earlier concept that the COOpera- tive plan of instruction in effect prepared students for subsequent employment responsibilities, prepara- tory instruction under the new legislation can now be defined as pre-employment instruction in distribu- tion and marketing utilizing either the COOperative plan or the new project plan of training.37 The historical development of the COOperative method as it relates to the educative process and in more recent years to distributive education has had root in a practical philo-- sophical and gsychological base. NO matter what its emphasis at any one point of time within its development, one primary tenet has been evident--the COOperative method has contributed much to making education more meaningful to the learner. The Project Method of Instruction The project method of instruction has been and is being used on all levels of teaching-~elementary through the '37Edwin L. Nelson, "A Conceptual Framework for Curricu- lum Development in Distributive Education," Bysiness Educa- tion Forum, XX (April, 1966), 10. 54 university. The method is not a new one but the results of the ideas, thinking, and practices of many educators who strove to provide for realism in the teaching-learning situation. Egrly Use of Projects in VocationalgEducation One of the earliest mentions in vocational education of the term "project" appeared in publications of the United States Department of Agriculture. When Franklin Ernest Heald, as specialist in Agricul- ture Education (1914-1918), first organized vocational agri- culture education; he described the use of projects as a teaching method particularly suited to vocational agricul- ture training.38 Previous to this, a bulletin of the U. S. Department of Agriculture by W. M. Hays (1896) on several methods of instruction in teaching vocational agriculture included both individual and group projects, referred to as "laboratory work" by Hays.39 When these agriculture educa- tors referred to projects, they had in mind such practical, out-of-school activities as the students' growing their own corn, raising livestock, or participating in group activities such as managing a slaughterhouse or building a barn.40 38Bayles and Hood, p. 256. 39W. M. Hays, Methods of Instruction in Teaching Agri- culture, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin No. 50 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1896), pp. 37-39. 4°Ibid. 55 At this time the Department of Agriculture accepted the term "project" to mean "an outlined plan for carrying on a piece of cooperative work."41 Other vocational educa- tors (Stimson, Snedden, Prosser, Allen, and others) in Massachusetts' vocational schools also developed "projects" and "home projects" during this same period.42 It is appar- ent, then, that much of what was project work in agriculture education in the early part of the century was similar in theory and practice to what later deveIOped as the coopera- tive method of instruction in other areas of vocational education. Each supplemented classroom instruction with practical activities both in and out of the classroom. Projects and the project method of instruction received widespread attention and acceptance not only in agriculture education but also in other areas of vocational education, such as home economics and trade and industrial education. The projects recommended by leaders in the fields and de- signed by individual classroom teachers fit well into the vocational curriculum for their ends-in-view were the prac- tical outcome of the student's experience with and knowledge of the activity. As such, the project method as a supplement to classroom instruction furthered the practical nature of the vocational curriculum. ‘lJohn A. Stevenson, The Project Method of Teaching (New York: Macmillan Co., 1921), p. 40. ‘2Ibid., p. 41. 56 ‘The Development of the Project Method in General Edpcation Whether and how "projects" as known by these vocational educators came into general education as the "project method" can be the subject of intense academic debate. William Heard Kilpatrick of Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, is generally credited with early recognition of the merits of the method and its applicability to the philos- ophy of the Progressive movement in education. In general terms, Progressive Education develOped in answer to early twentieth-century rejection of teacher-dominated schools. In line with the thinking of Rousseau, Froebel, Dewey, Kilpatrick, and others, Progressive Educationists believed quite sincerely in the idea that children's own interests should play a greater part in the selection and treatment of subject matter.43 It is not the purpose of this review to either defend or condemn--or expound-~the Progressive move- ment. It is only necessary to be aware of the reasoning A behind the movement that adopted and adapted the use of pro- jects into a method of instruction somewhat different from its previous function. And, it was Kilpatrick and his fol- lowers who have been also generally recognized as the found- ers of the project method of instruction.*‘ In a recent article (February 1966) in the Teachers College Record, a colleague of Kilpatrick, George Douglas Hofe, 43Bayles and Hood, p. 221. “Ibid., p. 228. 57 shed some light on the relationship at Teachers College Of Kilpatrick, J. F. Woodhull, and the project method. The project method, said Hofe, ". . . was the name given to a method of teaching conceived earlier in the century."45 According to Hofe, it was J. F. Woodhull who not only con- ceived the method but also gave it its name, as he proposed the project method for the teaching of science. Both Hofe and Woodhull even then (around 1916-1918) admitted "there is nothing new or unusual in the development of a project. . ." and the method was "the result of a long train of thought."46 However, Hofe contended that the project method had never been utilized or put into practice until Woodhull-~before Kilpatrick. Hofe described a conversation he had with Kilpatrick in 1917 about Woodhull's project method; Hofe also gave Kilpatrick several science and mathematics journals which contained some of Woodhull's and Hofe's articles and speeches about the project method.47 This was well before any publications or public statements by Kilpatrick on the project method. Apparently, several of the faculty at Teachers College were actively involved in the development of the project method in general education during this period, #7. 45George D. Hofe, "The Project Method and Its Origin," Teachgrs College Record, LXVII (February, 1966), 571. 46Ibid., 572. ‘7Ibid. 58 the same time, it may be noted, during which the Depart- ment of Agriculture devoted attention to the development of projects. The direction many of these educators at Teachers College took in their thinking can be summarized by the following paragraphs from Tenenbaum's biography of Kilpatrick. Agreeing with Dewey that life was a social pro- cess; that the very personality of the human being was socially built; that there existed no conflict between social institutions and individul needs; that institutions were made to serve man and that they were necessary for man, Kilpatrick sought to isolate a unit of behavior that would be educative in nature, a unit of behavior that offered the maxi- mum possibilities Of growth for the whole person, his ethical, moral, intellectual, and social self; a unit of behavior that would fit the needs of an individual living in a changing, dynamic, democratic society; a unit of behavior that would in itself be a prototype of a life good to live and would lead a person to grow into an ever-better life; a unit of behavior that would permit him to interact with his environment and with society, so that he might link his self with a promise of intertwined personal and social growth. In 1915 he arrived at such a unit of behavior; and this he published in 1918 in the Teachers College Record under the title "The Project Method: The Use Of the Purposeful Act in the Educative Process. "48 In this article, reprinted later as a pamphlet which . had a tremendous impact upon education (over 60,000 copies sold),49 Kilpatrick said he found this "unit of behavior" 4'BSamuel Tenenbaum, William Heard Kilpatrick: Trail‘ Blazer in Education (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 140. 49Ibid., p. 88. 59 to be "in the conception of wholehearted purposeful activity proceeding in a social environment."50 To this "hearty purposeful act" Kilpatrick gave the name the "project method," also giving to the terms project and project method a unique and original interpretation.51 Believing that children are naturally both active and social, Kilpatrick contended that "wholehearted purposeful activity in a social situation as the typical unit of school procedure is the best guarantee of the utilization of the child's native capacities."52 He defined “purposeful act" as an activity having a purpose for and by the child, an activity "purposed" by the child himself, or by a group of children. "The worthy life," said Kilpatrick, "consists of purposive activity and not mere drifting."53 Since society rewards the man of action, then children must be acclimated to the idea of purpose to their activities. If education be considered as life itself, then, Kilpatrick contended, "it follows that to base education on purposeful acts is exactly to identify the process of education with worthy living itself.“54 The purposeful act then became, 50William H. Kilpatrick, Theggroject Method: The Ugg of the Purposeful Actrin the Educative Process, Teachers College Bulletin No. 1918 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918), p. 4. 51Te‘nenbaum,’p. 140.. szKilpatrick, p. 18. 531bid., p. 6. S‘Ibid. 40 in Kilpatrick's theory, the "typical unit of instruction"-- hence the project method and entire curricula built around teaching by the project method. At the height, then, of the growth and development of Progressive Education, Kilpatrick developed his project method, which was based on his formula, "pupil purposing, pupil planning, pupil executing, pupil judging.“55 The point of Kilpatrick's interpretation of a project was that it was to be pgpil chosen. He rejected the theory of .teacher-dominated classrooms by stating that the project method was not to be used "to put over prior-chosen subject matter."56 Pupil interests--choices--then were to determine curriculum. It seemed easy to recognize here the "blatant" permissiveness attributed to Progressive Educationists, such as Kilpatrick, Dewey, Collings, McMurry, et al. Criticism caf the Progressive Education movement, and the project method, was directed at the permissive nature of this theory when put into practice by educators who did not fully understand and thereby misinterpreted the philosophy and psychology underlying the Progressivists' thinking. All too often educators adopt an "either/or" attitude. Such was the case here, when educators swung from "teacher-dominated" to "child-centered" schools.S7 Kilpatrick and his colleagues 55Bayles and Hood, p. 227. 56Ibid., p. 228. 57Ibid., p. 230. 41 did not intend to do away with the teacher in the classroom. Through the project method, Kilpatrick hoped to see the development of . . . children so engrossed in their tasks, so able to manage the techniques and skills necessary for their tasks, that they became increasingly independ- ent of external direction. This was the aim, to be sure, to strive for, but the teacher must be there to guide as needed.58 Consequently, when put into practice, Kilpatrick's theory did not in reality work, unless the teacher took an active role in the four aspects of the project method, purposing, planning, executing, judging--a role Kilpatrick seemed to say should not exist. In the decades following World War I, the project method gained widespread attention and acceptance in a variety of implementations in general education. Many advocates of the project method adopted Kilpatrick's vieWpoint and de- veloped or attempted to develop entire curricula.based on teaching by the project method. Margaret Wells attempted to organize the curriculum of the elementary school by designing a project for each grade level.59 As more teachers became involved in the use of the project method, some nega- tive reactions were recorded. Teachers soon discovered that they needed training to teach by the project method76° 58Tenenbaum, p. 177. 59Margaret E. Wells, A Prgject Curriculum (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1921). 60W. E. Blaine, "The Present Status and Future Possi- bilities of the Project Method in Public School Teaching," Egucational Method, IX (Nov.-Dec., 1929), 94-104. 42 that the method was not a "magic potion," but merely an ad- ditional and effective teaching technique.°1'62'63'°‘ Evidence of teacher frustration and inadequacy in adopting Kilpatrick's version of the project method was found, in 1959, by Tenenbaum. He discovered that teachers and admin- istrators were incorrectly implementing the project method; over 90% of the projects Tenenbaum saw were teacher-conceived and all too many were also teacher-executed.65 The professional journals are replete with articles written by teachers in which they explained and described effective uses of the project method in their classes--in 6 7 geography,6 in industrial arts,6 in speech,68 in a combined 61W. O. Stark, "Problem of Discipline in the Project Method of Learning," Education, XLI (January, 1921), 510-511. 82H. B. Alberty, A Studygor the Project Method in Edu- cation (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 1927). 63R. C. Perry, "Project Method: Some Advantages and Disadvantages," High School Teacher, VI (February, 1950), 59-60. 64T. L. Lancaster, "Project Teaching,” Education, LI (January, 1951), 510-515. 65Samuel Tenenbaum, "Project Method: A Criticism of. Its Operation in the School System," School and Society, XLIX (June. 1959), 770—772. 68Eleanor Rayne, "Four Years of Experimentation With the Project Method" (unpublished Master's dissertation, Tulane University, 1927). 67C. B. Hillard, "Individual Projects Made On the Group Method Plan," InduStrial Arts Magazine (August, 1925), pp. 505-506. 68Lucille March, "The Project Method in Speech Educa- tion," Quarterlnyournal of Speech, XV (April, 1926), 181-188. 45 English-social studies class.69 In all of these, the project method was used as an additional teaching technique. No mention was made of designing a curriculum based solely on the project method. Early DeveEppment orithe Project Method in Distribgtive Education Specifically in distributive education, teaching by projects also gained widespread attention. In 1950 Reno Knouse discussed the need to vary methods in teaching sales- manship on the secondary level. He made the statement, I should like to recommend the student-project method of teaching as insurance against loss of student interest and retardation of the learning process. I believe that this method will do more to pep up a class than any other technique, if properly alternated with other teaching methods.70 There are many examples in the journals Of projects which have built and maintained interest and "pepped up" distributive education classes. The most obvious and com— prehensive project is, of course, the school store."1"’2«v73 69A. C. Armstrong, "Project Teaching Develops Language Arts," English Journai, XLI (December, 1952), 544-547. 70R. S. Knouse, "How to Teach Salesmanship," UBEA Forum, IV (April, 1950). 19-21. 71Gilbert Peart, "Business Experience Through School Stores," Journal ofrEusiness Education, XVI (April, 1941), 22-24. 72L..P. Balletto, "Outside Activities in Business Edu- cation Pay Off," School Activities, XXXI (April, 1960) , 251-254. 73E. T. Ferguson, Jr., "Coordinators, Start That School Stozre Today," ThegEalance Sheet, XLV (September, 1965), 20-21. 44 Merchandise manuals were also mentioned as an effective 7‘ One distributive education teacher also describ- project. ed the merits of a project in which distributive education students handle the merchandising of their school's publi- cations.75 Additional effective uses of teaching by projects which many journal articles discussed were those concerned with projects which furthered better public relations as well as served the needs of the students involved. Most common among these were the projects in which the distributive edu- cation students assumed the complete responsibility of manag- 76, 77, 78,79, 80 ing a local store. Distributive education stu- dents also participated in window display projects in 74Donald K. Beckley, "Merchandise Manuals Vitalize Retail- ing Courses," Journal of Businesngducation, XVII (February, 1942), 17-18. 75H. D. Smith, "Merchandising and the School Publica- tions,“ Business Education World, XXV (February, 1950), 284- 285. ‘ 76George F. Dean, "A Vocational School Day,“ Business Education World, XX (June, 1940), 872-875. 77A. E. Forsman, "Christmas Selling," Clearing House, XV (September, 1940), 44-46. 78Forsman, "High SChOOl Day in Dubuque Retail Stores," Journal orngpiness Education, XVI (December, 1940), 19-20. 79Gloria Clements, "Store For a Week," Business Educa- tion World, XXXIII (June, 1955), 507-508. 80Peter G. Haines and E. T. Ferguson, Jr., "Distributive Education," Business Education World, XLVII (January, 1967), 54. 45 81,82 83,84 cooperation with local stores, in fashion shows, and in shopping surveys done in cooperation with the busi- ness community.85'865 The survey of the literature of the period from the 1920's to the early 1960's thus revealed the status of the project method to be somewhat similar to that of the period before the Progressive Education movement. In practice, the project method as interpreted and developed by Kilpatrick was found to be impractical, for teachers discovered that no one method could serve all purpOses in the classroom. The project method existed then as an effective and supplemental teaching method, both in and out of the classroom in both general and vocational education. Recent Develgpments Q§:£he Project Method in Eistributive Education In 1965 the project method again came into the fore- front in vocational education, this time primarily in 81Joseph C. Hecht, "Retail Display Window Training," American Vocational Jogrnal, XXV (December, 1950), 21-22. 82H. H. Gram, "Use Your DE Club to Build Good Public Relations," The Balance Eheet, XLII (October, 1960), 61. 88R. F. Heiss, "Cooperative Fashion Show: Retailing Project," Business Education World, XXIX (June, 1929), 592- 595 . 84C. H. Henry, "Some Techniques for Staging the Retail Fashion Show," EpsinessjEducation World, XXX (October, 1949), 77. 85W. B. Weale, "Business and School COOperation," Journal or BusinessyEducation, XXII (May, 1947), 17-18. 86R. S. Knouse, "Students Service Shoppers," Business Education World, XXVIII (October, 1947), 108-109. 46 distributive education. (It is interesting to note here that as far back as 1959 A. L. Demond made this statement in referring to distributive education: . . . Having passed the experimental stage, it has been definitely realized that such courses cannot be taught in the traditional way of most commercial or vocational courses. He suggested that projects be used to complement cooperative training and "to provide a substitute for it where it has been found impractical."87 And in 1961, G. E. Dittamo sug- gested the use of projects to establish distributive edu- cation programs when the COOperative method was not feasible.88) The President's Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education suggested in their 1965 report that vocational education programs be made available to more students in secondary schools.89 The Vocational Education Act of 1965 provided for distributive education a means to expand and enlarge programs through the establishment of pre-employment in-school prepara- tory training programs in distributive education.90 This provision made possible the introduction of the project method into the field of distributive education. Members of 87A. L. Demond, "Practical Projects for Courses in Dis- tributive Education," National Business Education Qparterly, v11 (May. 1939), 50-54. 88G. E. Dittamo, "A Practical Beginning for a Program in DE," Businesp_Education Forum, XVI (December, 1961), 26. 89D. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education for a Changing World of Work, p. 226. 9°U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Selected Education Acts o§,1965, p. 97. 47 the Distributive Branch of the USOE recognized the project method as a natural, realistic method of instruction which readily enabled the education of more students in a pre- employment situation. In October 1965, Mary V. Marks, Program Specialist in Distributive Education of the USOE, told the National Clinic on Distributive Education that "participation activities will be used to re-enforce learning."91 Miss Marks then went on to include both "COOperative training" and “project training" as types of participation activities. She said, In addition to cooperative training, participation activities as we have described them also include group or individual projects which may be used by the instruc- tor to encourage vocationally-centered learning. . . . From the outset students should find in the project plan opportunities for working as members of a team as well as opportunities for self-directed achievement.92 In April 1965, John A. Beaumont, director of the Occu- pational Branch in the division of Vocational and Technical Education of the USOE, wrote: The project plan, which now may be offered, is based upon individualized learning activities, which would be enhanced by supervised work experience. .~. . When a cooperative plan proves impractical for one reason or another, the project training approach may serve as the total sequence of training. . . . Provision for the development of preparatory pro— grams utilizing participation activities may be 90U. 8. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Selected Education Acts ofpg965, p. 97. 91Mary V. Marks, "The Vocational Approach in Education for Distribution," p. 4. 92Ibid., pp. 4-5. 48 expected to Open the doors to a career in distribution for many youth who miggt not normally be selected for cooperative programs. Then, in December 1965 at the AVA Convention, Mary V. Marks, in a speech in which she described the project method and its applicability to distributive education, formally desig- nated "the project method and the COOperative method as the two broad categories of participation activities used by distributive educators to prepare students for employment in distribution and marketing."94 The project method was then officially endorsed as equal to the COOperative method as a means of providing edu- cation to students in the field of distribution and market- ing. As adapted by distributive educators, the project method "centers around individually designed learning activi- ties which are coordinated with classroom instruction and related to a student's occupational objective."95 Projects, then, are teacher-purposed, with the teacher taking an active role in all aspects of the projects, in contrast to Kilpatrick's interpretation which placed greater emphasis on the interest of the child. Hence this new adaptation of the project method has such learning objectives as: 93John A. Beaumont, "Distributive Education and the Vo- cational Education Act Of 1965," Business Educationngrum, xxx (April, 1965), 6. 94Mary V. Marks, "The Project Method in Action," p. 7. 95Kay B. Brown, EistributivejEducation in the High School (Richmond: Richmond Professional Institute, 1965), p. 49. 49 . . . to refine and strengthen competencies needed for success in the field of occupational choice . . . to demonstrate ability to use the discipline of distribution effectively on behalf of people, products or services, and profits . . . to evaluate the maturation process of a dis- tributive worker-in-training . . . to appraise subjectively trends, requirements, and opportunities for career growth in distribution and marketing.96 In May 1967 the USOE sponsored two one-week national seminars in distributive teacher education at Michigan State University and Arizona State University. The purpose of the seminars was to bring the distributive teacher educators up-to-date on the latest ideas and developments relating to the project method of instruction in distributive education. In essence, this historical survey of the cooperative and project methods of instruction in distributive education revealed that both teaching methods have well-grounded philo- sophical and psychological bases. Much of the literature included was "opinion" literature which presented ideas for implementation and adaptation and ideas about the advantages and/or disadvantages of the teaching method. What is needed at this point in time are empirical studies of the effective- ness of the project method as a means of reaching the estab- lished learning objectives of distribution and marketing. 96Mary V. Marks, "The Visibility of Vocational Integ- rity in Distributive Education,“ Business EducationgEorum, xx (May, 1966), 15. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES IN THE STUDY This chapter describes the procedures used in the study, presented in four sections: (1) the nature of the experimental instruction, (2) the data collected, (5) pro- cessing of the data, and (4) the procedures employed in analysis of the data. The Nature of the Experimental Instruction In January 1966 a meeting was called:L at Michigan State University for the purpose of informing vocational directors, principals, and other interested administrative personnel that the Research and Development Program in Vocational- Technical Education at Michigan State University was inter- ested in entering into a joint research venture in the area of distributive education with the public schools of Michigan. During the meeting, the curriculum development project and the research proposal outlined in Chapter I of this report were explained to the school officials. The administrators completed information sheets2 if they believed sufficient lSee Appendix A.1 for a copy of the letter of invitation. 2See Appendix A.2 for a copy of the information sheet. 50 51 interest in participating would be generated in their school districts. Fifty-three school districts expressed interest. Later, a form letter was sent to all secondary school superintendents in the State of Michigan, informing them of the research to be conducted during the coming year. Twenty-eight more inquiry sheets were submitted in response to this mailing.3 From January 1966 to June 1966 visits were made to the schools interested in participating in the curriculum development project and the proposed research study. Twenty schools were initially chosen to participate. Final selec- tion of these schools was made on the basis of administra- tive support, teacher willingness, size and location of school, and the availability of distributive education laboratory equipment. Because of local administrative and personnel problems, during the summer of 1966 three of the twenty schools withdrew from participation. Contracts were signed between the seventeen participating schools and the Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical Education.4 On August 15, 1966, these seventeen schools started the initial phase of the Research and Development curriculum development project. 3See Appendix A.5 for a copy of the form letter. 4See Appendix A.4 for the details of the contract. 52 Schools Ten of the seventeen schools were included in this study. Selection of these ten schools was based upon the fact that in each of the ten schools, the same teacher taught both the preparatory project method class and the cooperative method class. It was believed that the teacher variable could be more readily controlled by limiting the study to these ten schools. Each school contained a reimbursed5 eleventh-grade preparatory distributive education class and a reimbursed twelfth-grade cooperative distributive education class. The schools represented communities of various sizes, distributed throughout the state in proportion to concentration of popu- lation (see Table 1). Table 1. Characteristics of the Ten Michigan Public High Schools in the Study ame of Enrollmenta Type of igh School Location (grades 10-EE) Community enton Harbor Benton Harbor 2590 City Grosse Pointe Grosse Pointe 1599 Suburb Highland Park Highland Park 1580 City incoln Park Lincoln Park ' 5109 Suburb onroe Monroe 1750 Small City Petoskey Petoskey 458 Town ake Shore St. Clair Shores 1296 Suburb Utica Utica 2510 Suburb itzgerald Warren 1005 Suburb arren Woods Warren 850 Suburb aAs of fourth Friday, September 1966. 5The term "reimbursed" is used to denote an instructional program which conforms to the requirements set forth in the Michigan StateEEan for Vocational Education. 55 Teachers All the participating teachers had had in their under- graduate Or graduate teacher preparation programs a minimum of one course in the methods of teaching cooperative dis- tributive education. Table 2 presents information obtained from each of the ten teachers about their professional preparation and teaching experience and includes additional data regarding age and sex. Since the project method of instruction is new to dis- tributive education, each teacher attended a two-week summer workshop on "Teaching by the Project Method of Instruction in Distributive Education." In addition, four one-day work- shops were provided for the participating teachers in October, December, April, and May. During these workshops the project teaching methods and materials were reinforced, evaluated, and revised. To observe the classes and provide any needed assistance, the researcher and his staff made a total of four visits to each of the schools during the period from September to May. Students The students involved in the study were enrolled in one of four different courses at each of the ten schools. Group one consisted of the eleventh-grade students enrolled in the project method distributive education class; group two, a control group of eleventh-grade English or social science students; group three, the twelfth-grade students enrolled in 54 Table 2. Characteristics of the Ten Distributive Education Teachers Quarter Number of Number of Hours Years’ Years in Age Beyond Teaching Present Teachera Sex Range Degree Degree Experience Position 1 M 25—29 MA 5 1 1 2 F 50-54 MA 46 5 5 5 M 50-54 MA 18 6 5 4 M 50-54 BA 15 6 6 5 M 25-29 BA 15 2 2 6 F 25-29 BA 17 4 1 7 M 25-29 BA 16 2 2 8 M 40-44 MA 28 7 --1b 9 F 25-29 BA 15 4 4 10 M 20-24 BA 27 -1 -1 aListed by school code number. hDenotes less than one year. the cooperative distributive education class; group four, a control group of twelfth-grade English or social science students. who were present for all testing. The final sample comprised only those students The only criteria used in selecting the students were that they be eleventh graders if enrolled in the preparatory class, eleventh graders and not distributive education students if enrolled inythe eleventh-grade control class, twelfth graders if enrolled in the COOperative class, and twelfth graders and not dis- tributive education students if enrolled in the twelfth- grade control class. were not grouped by ability. The students in the control classes In the selection procedure, students' prior experiences relating to distributive edu- cation were not taken into consideration. 55 This selection procedure produced a final sample of 169 subjects in the eleventh-grade project method group, 186 in the eleventh-grade control group, 188 in the twelfth- grade COOperative method group, and 190 in the twelfth- grade control group, making a total p0pulation of 755 stu- dents. Table 5 delineates the student sample by school, class group, and sex. Eype of Instruction Each of the eleventh-grade distributive education pro- ject method classes was a single period in length (usually fifty minutes) and met five days a week. The curriculum for the eleventh-grade project method class was developed at Michigan State University. Each teacher was provided with curriculum guides and units of study which included content material integrated with projects designed for indi- vidual students as well as groups of students. The units of instruction included in the period from September 1966 to January 1967 were entitled "Employment Orientation," "Self Improvement: Vocational, Educational, and Personal," and "The Sales Process." Basic economic concepts are in- cluded in all these units. The twelfth-grade distributive education cooperative method classes were also a single period in length, five days a week, with students employed in distributive occupa-’ tions on the average of fifteen hours a week. The coopera- tive classes were taught in the traditional manner, relating 56 .Hmuoe ozone mms omd mm em mmd hm flow mod mm mm mma mm cad "mamuoa em as s me mm m om mm m we (mm, m m oe om «mm +w e m n m mm 8 mm, em w is m no em as we ,ww, ow .8 mm, ,w+ em a e m m me he «a m mm ww ,ww, me oe m me e rme s mm em we ,wn, we me e mm as all. me n es 8 mm pm, me m as m ea ca 8 m, me e m m Nu ma , m ma pH > OH ma s dd ma ,flfl m e em we we e mm mm, .mm, we mm, e an «a on m we om as a mm m e we. me 6 mm 8 ca m 11mm ,ww ow «mm mm ea. a, we «a s we m oe e Hoonom Hmuoa maom mauau HMuOB whom mHHHO Hmuoa whom mHHHw Hmuoa whom mHHHO Hmnfipa £08m Aaouusou OUMHOISuNHV AO>Hu Aaouueoo monumlnuaav .Auomnoum monumlnuddv moon How d meouw [mummooo opmumlnumav N msouw H moose Hoonom Hmuoa - m moouw - - spasm we» mo coeumasmom unmpsum .m magma 57 classroom instruction to the students' occupational ex- periences. The control classes were either English or social science classes, not grouped by ability, comprised of non- distributive education students, and were used for compari- son purposes only. Nature of the Data Collected Several types of data were collected concerning the schools, students, and teachers: (1) information regarding the socio-economic status of the school community and of the parents of the students included in the study; (2) esti- mates Of each student's prior achievement based on results of a standardized test in reading; (5) scores for each stu- dent On certain standardized tests of economic understand- ing, sales comprehension, and sales terms; (4) personal data sheets on each student and distributive education teachers; and (5) scores on a teacher attitude inventory for each distributive education teacher. The factors of age, sex, socio-economic status, prior student achievement, and teacher attitude were identified as independent variables which might contribute to the re- sults of the standardized tests and thus to the apparent effects of the treatment. Not knowing to what extent these factors would bias the results of the treatment, it was assumed that these factors could make all, or one hundred 58 per cent, of the difference in student achievement on the standardized tests measuring sales comprehension and eco- nomic understanding. Thus, only when these factors were successfully controlled or adjusted for could any differ- ence in scores be attributed to the treatment. Socio-econpmic §tatus The process used to measure the socio-economic status of the school communities was an interview with the princi- pal or superintendent of each school, using an interview sheet and an index previously developed for this purpose and used in a prior Michigan State University educational research study.6 Developed by Paul Messier, assistant director of that study, the instrument was designed to estimate the socio-economic status of the students involved in the study. Items used in the instrument were derived from the "Index of Status Characteristics" develOped by W. L. Warner, et al.7 Messier's instrument includes the same general social, economic, educational, and ethnic categories as Warner's index. Some of the descriptive statements were modified by Messier for the sake of 6Karl T. Hereford et al., Relatipnships Among Schoo; Eesign, Utilization, Personnel Interggtion, and Attitudes ("Educational Research Series," NO. 7, East Lansing, Michi- gan: Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1965) , p. A.4.5. 7W. L. Warner et al., Social Class in America (Chicago, 111.: Science Research Associates, 1949). PP. 121-129, 177-185. 59 simplicity.8 After the interviews with the administrators, scores were derived from their responses to the items on the instrument. The scores from the first four categories were grouped and labeled the socio-economic index. The remaining two scores, racial-ethnic intermix and occupa- tional level, were treated separately. An additional index of socio-economic status was ob- tained through the use of Duncan's Socio-Economic Index, which provides ratings based on the occupation of the head of household. An index score expressing the income and educational level coefficient, ranging from 00-99, was Ob- tained for each student in the study. This information enabled comparisons to be made with the information derived from the Messier index.9 Student Prior Achievement The Sequential Test of Educational Progress--Reading, Form 2A, was used as a measure of prior achievement.10 This particular test was chosen as an adequate indicator of prior achievement on the advice of Dr. Robert L. Ebel, Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational 8See Appendix B.1 for a sample of the instrument. 9Hereford reported the Rho-Rank Difference correlation between the results of the Messier index and the Duncan index to be r = -.69. (Hereford et al., pp. A.6.1-A.6.11.) 10Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (Princeton, N. J.: Cooperative Test Division, Educational Testing Service, 1957). 60 1 Psychology. Michigan State University.1 The researcher also considered the following information, as summarized from the Eechnical Reporp_provided by the test publishers, to be pertinent in determining selection of the test: Estimates of reliability of the test, using the Kuder- Richardson Formula #20 on 488 eleventh-grade students, showed a mean in raw score units of 45.58 (standard deviation 11.82), with a reliability of .92. The test is primarily intended as aimeasure Of develOped abilities in reading; its content validity is of primary importance. Content validity is best insured by relying on well-qualified persons in con- structing a test, as was done for the STEP-Reading. Sex is a factor on the STEP-Reading. On a sample of boys, 462 eleventh graders and 567 twelfth graders, the means converted to score units were 287.6 and 291.7, respectively. On a sample of girls, 509 eleventh graders and 425 twelfth graders, the mean' in converted score units was 291.5 and 295.4.12 The STEP-Reading, containing two sections of thirty-five questions each, was administered on two successive days to each student in all of the groups between September 12, 1966, and September 50, 1966. Each section of the test was timed and administered according to the publisher's directions. Machine—scoring answer sheets were used, and scoring was done through the Michigan State University Evaluation Services. Prior to machine-scoring, each score sheet was 11Interview with Dr. Robert L. Ebel, Professor of Counseling and Personnel Services, Michigan State Univer- sity, April 21, 1966. 12"Technical Report," Seguential Tests of Educational Progress (Princeton, N.J.: Cooperative Test Division, Educational Testing Service, 1957). 61 examined to determine if headings were complete and if di- rections had been followed.13 Eest orfEconomic Understanding The standardized Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, was administered to all students during the period from 'september 20, 1966, to October 14, 1966.14 Form B of the same test was administered during the period from January 9, 1967, to January 20, 1967. Since concepts of economic understanding are woven throughout the units of instruction to which distributive education students are exposed, both the projecttmethod group and the cooperative method group would gain some understanding of economic concepts during the first semester. It would also be expected that both the eleventh- and twelfth-grade control groups would gain, to some degree, additional economic understanding through their course work during that period of time. For this reason pre- and post-tests were given and mean scores and percentile ranks were observed. The items included in the Test of Economic Understand- ing were designed to cover those aspects of economics con- sidered by a group of experts, a National Task Force on Economic Education, to be basic economic concepts. Both 13These procedures were followed for all the standard- ized tests administered in the study. l4I§§t or Economic Understanding (Chicago, 111,: Science Research Associates, 1965). (See Appendix C.1 for Sample page of test.) 62 forms of the test contain questions which deal with the three pasic economic problems: 1. What shall we produce with our productive resources; 2. How much can we produce in total and how fast should the economy grow; 5. Epp_shall get the goods and services produced?15 The test items can be grouped into four main heads: (1) What does the economy produce, and how?; (2) Economic growth and stability; (5) The distribution of income; and (4) Comparison of economic systems.16 The following are test items representative of each of these four categories, numbered according to category: 1. Three of the following are essential to the Operation of a private enterprise economy. Which one might such an economy operate without? A. Profit motive B. Markets C. Corporations D. Prices 2. Of the following, the principle of diminishing re- turns is best illustrated by A. small firms being driven out of business by large firms B. any decline in the average rate of profits C. a slowing rate of increase in output as a farmer adds increasing amounts of fertilizer to his land D. the decline in personal income as workers age 5. In the United States, the high wages received by most workers depend largely on A. actions of the federal government B. the social responsibility shown by business 15"Interpretive Manual and Discussion Guide," Test of .Egonomic Understanding (Chicago, 111.: Science Research Associates, 1965), pp. 28-29. 1°Ibid.. pp. 29-51. 65 C. our minimum wage laws D. the high output per worker 4. What is meant by the assertion that every economic system (such as socialism, capitalism, communism) faces the fact of scarcity? A. There are insufficient productive resources to satisfy all wants of a society. B. There are times when some products can be had only by paying high prices. C. In the beginning every society faces shortages, but a mature economy, such as our own, over- comes scarcity in time. D. All economies have depressions during which scarcities exist. The researcher believed that the items on the tests were appropriate to measuring economic understanding, one of the five competencies identified for curricular content in dis- tribution and marketing. The publishers provided additional information which further indicated the appropriateness of these tests: Estimates of the reliability of the tests, using the Kuder-Richardson Formula #20, were computed for scaled scores, raw scores, differences between Forms A and B, for over 500 high school students of the eleventh- and twelfth-grade levels. No significant difference in means on test performance was found between male and female students tested. Measurement showed no significant differences between eleventh- and twelfth-grade students.l7 Te§t Of Sales Aptitude apg the Egles Tprms Tegp It was determined prior to the testing period that none of the control-group students had had a high school course relating to the sales competency; therefore, pre- and l711318., pp. 54-56. 64 post-tests were not given. It was decided that results of the one testing would give sufficient indications as to the effect the project method and COOperative method had on greater understanding of the sales competency. The Test of Sales Aptitude (A Test For Measuring Knowledge of Basic Principles of Selling) by Martin M. Bruce18 and the Sales Terms Test by Joseph E. King19 were administered to the students in the four groups in January 1967. Several tests of sales comprehension were examined; the Bruce test was chosen after much consideration. According to the publisher, the ". . . Test of Sales Aptitude is de- signed to aid in the appraisal of sales aptitude. It pro- vides an objective measure of one important appect of that aptitude, namely knowledge and understanding of basic princi- "20 ples of selling. Additional relevant information provided by the publisher follows: ,Norms have been established for both beginning dis- tributive workers and high school students. Computations for sales and non-sales groups yielded a t of 15.1, suggesting that there is less than one chance in 100 that the means of these groups are not significantly different. '— l8Test 9; Sales Aptitude (New Rochelle, New York: Martin M. Bruce, Ph.D., 1960). (See Appendix C.2 for sample page of test.) 19Factored Aptirpde Series, Sales Terms Test (New York: Industrial Psychology, Inc., 1956). (See Appendix C.5 for sample page of test.) 20"Examiner's Manual," Test o§pSales Aptitude (New Rochelle, New York: Martin M. Bruce, Ph.D., 1960), p. 2. 65 Scores were correlated with final grades of college students studying salesmanship, showing an r of .68, indicating that the test measures comprehension similar to that gained by students studying sales— manship in school. The following are several sample test items: 1. Which one of the following will best aid a sales— man in making a sale? A. B. C. D. 2. In a demonstrate and otherwise explain the full use of the product determine if his potential customers need his product offer the product on time payments allow the potential customers to use the product on trial large city a telephone directory would be most helpful in selecting prospective buyers of which one , of the following items? A. B. C. D. electric refrigerators automobiles magazine subscriptions vacuum cleaners 5. "Staple" and "specialty" refer to A. B. C. D. materials sold in the hardware and tool busi- ness styles of approach in selling necessities and luxuries _ an item that has a dual purpose and is there- fore a good buy 4. The most important personal characreristic in a successful salesman is A. B. C. D. good speech pleasant appearance confidence determination The Sales Terms Test was included as a supporting test, for it was designed to test ability to comprehend informa— tion of a sales and contact nature that is used in sales or other contact job fields. It was believed that the selling 21Ibid., pp. 2-7. 66 competency could be more accurately assessed by consider- ing also the vocabulary of the field. The test is one of a battery of tests, The Factored Aptitude Series, which measures the eight basic aptitude-intelligence factors: comprehension, systems, perceptual-speed, reasoning, fluency-in-expression, rote memory, space relations, and coordination. All the tests which measure the comprehen- sion factor are terms tests (e.g., office terms, sales terms, factory terms).22 Sample test items follow: 1. Payment made when goods delivered. A. C.O.D. B. store—door C. charge D. cash sale 2. It was a cleargpce sale. A. wholesale B. bankruptcy C. budget D. liquidation 5. The price was made retroactive. A. backward B. reduced C. transferred D. subsequent 4. Choice of advertising media is important. A. merchandise B. methods C. promotion D. publications aamPre-Validation and Initial Validation Studies of Aptitude-Intelligence Tests in the Job-Test Program," Factored Aptitude Series (New York: Industrial Psychology, Inc., 1956). PP. 1-2. 67 Student Information Sheetp. Each student in the four groups completed a data sheet at the time of the first testing in September 1966. Infor- mation supplied on the sheets consisted of: name, age, date of birth, sex, school, grade, and father's occupation. Pertinent student informationxnas derived from these data sheets in order to draw comparisons among the four groups.23 Teacher Information Sheets Each of the ten distributive education teachers com- pleted a data sheet which drew together pertinent informa- tion. No data sheets were obtained from the control group teachers, as it was not considered essential to collect information on these teachers because they did not administer the tests. (Tests were administered by the guidance personnel and/or the distributive education teachers.) The data sheets included the following information: name, age, sex, years of teaching experience, degrees earned and amount of graduate study, and father's occupation.24 Mippesota Teacher Attitude Inventory The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was adminis- tered to each of the ten teachers who taught the project and 23See Appendix B.2 for a sample of the student informa- tion sheet. 2‘See Appendix B.5 for a sample of the teacher informa- tion sheet. 68 cooperative methods classes.25 This inventory was se- lected to measure teacher attitudes in order that estimates might be made of the effect of teacher attitudes on stu- dent achievement On the standardized tests. Processing of the Data The data concerning the schools, students, and teachers in the study were in five separate categories: (1) socio- economic status information; (2) reading test scores; (5) scores on standardized tests of economic understanding (pre and post), sales comprehension, and sales terms; (4) personal data on all students and the ten distributive education teachers; and (5) scores on the teacher attitude inventory. The several different kinds of data were pre- pared and processed for analysis in a variety of ways. Socio-Economic Status The first step in the preparation of this data for analysis was to check through each of the ten interview sheets to verify that the percentages in each section totaled 100%. Then weightings26 were assigned to each of the statements within each of the categories according to status levels, e.g., 1 = highest status statement, 2 = next 25Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1951). 26Hereford et al., pp. A.4.0-A.4.1. 69 highest status statement, etc.27 This weighting system was used for each of the first four categories (Area live in, House type, Source of income, and Education) and was totaled to provide the socio-economic index for each school. This procedure netted an index range from 4.00 to 28.00, with a low index indicating a high socio-economic level within the community. The remaining two groups, racial-ethnic intermix and occupations, were weighted according to the size (percentage) of the groups represented in the student bodies, e.g., 1 = largest proportion, etc. This procedure netted a racial- ethnic intermix index ranging from 1.00 to 4.00, with a low index indicating a low racial-ethnic intermix within the com- munity; and an occupations index ranging from 1.00 to 15.00, with a low index indicating a high occupational level among members of the community. The socio-economic, the racial-ethnic intermix, and the occupations indices were posted on worksheets28 for each school in preparation for data processing and analysis. The information on father's occupation used for Duncan's Socio-Economic Index was obtained by means of the student information sheets, filled out by each student in the study 27The status statements are listed in descending order on the instrument. See Appendix B.1. 28A worksheet was prepared for each treatment in each of the ten schools, totaling 40 worksheets. 70 during the September testing period. The students were directed to provide their father's occupation or the occu- pation of their mother or guardian if the father were deceased. If the head of the household was unemployed, students were asked to indicate the usual line of work of this person. In a few instances, the researcher had to contact guidance personnel to clarify a student's statement concerning his father's occupation. Using Duncan's scale,29 the researcher determined the index number applicable for each of the 755 occupations reported by the students. A mean index rating was derived for each school in order to facilitate analysis and compari- son Of the Duncan index with the occupations index derived from the Messier index, which obtained information from school administrators. The individual and school Duncan index ratings were also entered on worksheets in preparation for data processing. Student Prior Achievement After the raw scores were Obtained in the Sequential Test of Educational Progress--Reading, Form 2A, a conversion sheet prepared by the publisher was used to convert raw scores to converted scores in order to facilitate comparison with national norms. Both scores were posted on the work- sheets. 29See Appendix C.4 for Duncan's Socio-Economic Index. 71 ‘Standardized Tests of Economic Understanding, Sales Aptitude, and Sales Tprpg (After the raw scores were obtained on both Forms A and B of the Test of Economic Understanding, they were converted into standard scores provided by the publisher in order to compare these results with national norms. Both the raw and standard scores for the Test of Economic Understanding, along with the raw scores on the Test of Sales Aptitude and Sales Terms Test, were posted on the worksheets. gprsonalgEata on Stgdents and Teachgrg From the student information sheets received from each student, the following information was posted on the work- sheets: student's name (coded by number), school, age in years and months, sex, group, and whether the student had had a prior course in economics, sales, retailing, or dis- tributive education. The information obtained on each of the ten distribu- tive education teachers was posted on a chart which contained the teacher's name, age range, sex, number of years of teach- ing experience, number of years in this school system, high- est degree held, and the number of quarter hours beyond' highest degree (see Table 2, p. 54). Egacher Attitude_;nventory The raw scores obtained on the Minnesota Teacher Atti- tude Inventory were converted into percentiles and both were posted on the worksheets. 72 Egtavgrocessing The initial procedure of the data processing involved a statistical analysis of the raw scores of the standard- ized tests used in the study (STEP-Reading, Form 2A; Test of Economic Understanding, Forms A and B; Test of Sales Aptitude; and Sales Terms Test). After the raw scores were obtained from the Office of Evaluation Services, they were processed on the IBM 1401 Computer, which yielded the mean scores, the standard deviations, and percentile ranks and standard scores for each of the four groups in each school. The Test of Sales Aptitude could not be processed by the 1401 Computer, because of negative scores, which could necessarily result on this test because of its weight- ing, with a raw score range of -120 to +120. Consequently, this test was processed by the CDC 5600 Computer, which provided mean scores and standard deviations for each of the four groups in each school. This statistical analysis was conducted in order to provide the researcher with information needed to determine the feasibility of more complex statistical comparisons and analyses. From the worksheets prepared by the researcher and his staff, a data processing card was key punched for each of the 755 students included in the study. These cards con- tained the following twenty-one variables: school (coded by number); group; age; student (coded by number): STEP (raw score); STEP (converted score); Economics Test Form A 75 (raw score); Economics Test Form A (converted score); Test of Sales Aptitude score; Sales Terms Test score; Economics Test, Form B (raw score); Economics Test, Form B (converted score); the Duncan Socio-Economic Index (the student's); yes, no, in process, if student had a course in economics; yes/no if student had a course in sales; sex; socio-economic status index (the school's): occupations level (the school's); racial intermix (the school's); the MTAI score (raw); and the MTAI score (in percentiles). Analysis of the Data Three statistical procedures were used in the analysis of the total data: (1) simple correlations, (2) t-tests, and (5) analyses of covariance. Simple Correlations Nine different treatments of the twenty-one variables were run to obtain simple correlations and mean scores and standard deviations in order to determine the effects, if any, of the independent variables (age, sex, socio-economic status, prior student achievement, and teacher attitude) on the dependent variables (student scores on standardized tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension). The nine runs were as follows: Run I, correlations within the total group--all ten schools and all four groups, 755 Observations: Run II, correlations within the total eleventh- grade group--project method classes (group one) and control 74 classes (group two) in all ten schools, 555 Observations; Run III, correlations within the twelfth-grade group-— cooperative method classes (group three) and control classes (group four) in all ten schools, 578 observations; Run IV, correlations within the eleventh-grade project method classes (group one) in all ten schools, 169 observations; Run V, correlations within the eleventh-grade control classes (group two) in all ten schools, 186 observations; Run VI, correlations within the twelfth-grade cooperative method.classes (group three) in all ten schoOls,H188)observa— tions: Run VII, correlations within the twelfth-grade con- trol classes (group four) in all ten schools, 190 observa- tions; Run VIII, correlations within the eleventh-grade project method classes (group one)-and the twelfth-grade COOperative method classes (group three) in all ten schools, 557 observations; and Run IX, correlations within the eleventh-grade control classes (group two) and the twelfth- grade control classes (group four) in all ten schools, 576 Observations. These data were then analyzed to determine whether a relationship existed between and among the twenty- one variables. T-Tests T-tests were computed on the STEP-Reading scores; the Test of Economic Understanding, Forms A and B; scores; the Sales Aptitude Test scores; and the Sales Terms Test scores to determine the significance of the differences Of the mean scores Obtained by each of the four groups. 75 Anaryses of;Covariance In addition and as a result of the simple correlations that were run, there were performed one-way classification analyses of covariance with respect to scores on the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, the Test of Sales Apti- tude, and the Sales Terms Test--the criterion instruments of this study--, using the scores on the Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, and the STEP-Reading, Form 2A,-— pre-test information in this study, as concomitant or auxiliary information. Group means, rather than individual student scores, were used as the unit of analysis, since the researcher was interested in the total groups, not individual student per- formance. Null Hypptheses In the series of main analyses, the null hypotheses30 under test were: H01: that there is no significant difference in student achievement on tests of sales comprehension between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the cooperative method of instruction in distribu- tive education. H02: that there is no significant difference in student achievement on tests of economic understanding be- tween students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the COOperative method of instruction in dis- tributive education. 30See p. 6 for statement of research hypotheses. H03: H04: H05: H06: H07: 76 that prior achievement, as inferred from scores on the STEP-Reading, Form 2A, is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. that socio-economic status is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. that students' age is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. that sex of students is of no significance in assess- ing the effect of each of the two methods of instruc- tion, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. that teacher attitude, as measured by a teacher atti- tude inventory, is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents an analysis and interpretation of the findings of the study. The first section of the chapter reports (1) test results and information compiled which is concerned with the achievement of the students in the study on the tests of prior achievement, economic under- standing, and sales comprehension; and (2) additional information compiled on the socio-economic status of the school communities and the students, teacher attitude, and other personal data on the students and teachers. The second section of the chapter includes the findings from calculations of simple correlations and t-tests among these variables, the interpretation of the analyses Of covariance among them, and tests of the stated hypotheses and summary. Student Achievement on Standardized Tests and Collateral Data Studept Prior Achievement The STEP-Reading, Form 2A, scores were used as indi- cators of students' prior achievement as a measure of the homogeneity of the population. When grand mean scores for each group in the ten schools were Observed; the grand mean 77 78 scores of the two control groups (English and social science), groups two and four, were higher than the grand mean scores of the two treatment groups (distributive education), groups one and three. In the eleventh grade, the control group students scored, on the whole, in the range of one percentile band higher than the distributive education project group students. In the twelfth grade, the control group students scored, on the whole, in the range of four percentile bands higher than the distributive education cooperative group students. In general, the con- trol group students in all ten schools indicated greater reading ability, and thus were most likely academically more able students, than the distributive education stu- dents. In some cases, however, (4 out of the 40), the eleventh- or twelfth-grade distributive education students, as a group, did score higher than their control classes. Table 4 presents the STEP-Reading mean raw scores,1 the standard deviations, and the appropriate percentile bands (for eleventh- or twelfth-grade, based on national norms) for each group in each of the ten schools. Also represented on the table are the mean raw scores and the standard deviations of each group as a total. For group one, the mean raw score was 41.20, with mean scores ranging from 50.79 to 49.22. For group two, the mean raw score 1The STEP-Reading contains seventy items and the raw scores indicate number of right responses out of seventy. 79 mmloe «$.0a om.>e Nelom ha.m mm.a¢ emlmm mm.OH m¢.m¢ meldm mm.oa om.d¢ manuoa omnmm no.m m>.mm Nelom wa.n ¢O.N¢ dmlwm em.oa >m.mw mwudm mn.dd m>.o¢ OH melon ma.m m>.¢e mnlha am.ma oo.>m mmlow mm.m mm.m¢ mmlde om.m em.m¢ m mmumm «m.NH mm.m¢ Nelom mm.m mm.me meld” mm.da o¢.ae abldm mo.m NN.m¢ m perom Hm.m mm.m¢ melom Om.m oo.a¢ ddlmm mm.m na.oe «m.mm oe.oa ma.m¢ n mmlme ha.m ¢¢.om mmlhfi mo.wa om.>m >mum¢ em.ad em.>¢ mmloe mm.m oo.m¢ m mmlme mm.> em.om melem a>.m mm.m¢ eduwm ¢H.m oo.mm 081mm wm.m hd.mm m mmlha mm.dd hm.mm mmuwd am.m oo.mm eelmm um.dd mm.mm mNIHH hm.m mu. d mwlme mm.> w¢.dm melon hm.> em.me hwlmw ¢¢.afi oo.>¢ mmloe n>.m up. n Netom om.dd md.a¢ mm.o¢ oa.m >H.>¢ mmloe mm.m mm.e¢ onlmm me.oa md.mm N mmlde mewmu mm.we m¢.om ma.m em.d¢ dmtmm om.m om.m¢ «elmm hm.m mm.oe OHHucmoumm .Qému sum H maausmonmm .mjw, ame maaucmommm rm.m smmz mHfiusmouOm .Q.m smm Aaouucou momuOISuNaq ESHDMHOQOOU OUMHOInuNaV Aaouusoo mpmuwlnuaav Auomnoum mpmuwlsudfiv e QSOHO m QDOHU m msonw H msouw \rt I il dN Such .msflpmmmlmmamlmaoonom :09 one no £08m CH mmsouw noon on» NO 50mm How mpsmm mHfluchHmm pom .mGOHHMA>mQ pumpcmum .msmmz .¢ THEME 80 was 45.49, with means ranging from 59.00 to 47.54. For group three, the mean raw score was 41.59, with means rang- ing from 57.00 to 47.17. For group four, the mean raw score was 47.20, with means ranging from 56.67 to 52.75. Tests for the Economic Understanding Competency Tests Of Economic Understanding: The Test of Economic Understanding was administered in pre- and post-test situ- ations. On the pre-test, Form A (see Table 5), the control group (non—distributive education students), on the whole, scored higher than the distributive education students. In the eleventh-grade, the mean score2 for the distributive education project group students was 16.96, whereas the mean score for the control group students was 18.54. However, the six-point difference between the percentile. ranks of the two groups indicates a wide difference between the project and the control group students. In the twelfth grade, the distributive education cooperative group students' mean score was 18.18; the control group students', 21.80. Again, the wide difference between the two percentile ranks, 15 to 51, is indicative of a significant initial difference in economic understanding between the two twelfth-grade groups. It may be observed, however, that the proportion of differ- ences in mean scores for the four groups on this test is 2The Test of Economic Understanding contains fifty items and the score indicates number right out of fifty. 81 .GOHuosuumsH moHaocoow HOHHQ nuHB musmpsum now msomHHmmEOU xcmu OHHusmouwm Op pwuum>soom Hm Hm.m om.HN mH HN.m mH.mH mH Hm.m em.mH mH mo.m mm.mH mHmuOB mm mw.m mw.mm mm mN.H mm.mH mm um.> NN.om mH mm.m mn.>H OH mm OH.m mm.mH Hm mm.m >m.HN Hm mm.¢ mm.om mH mH.m mm.nH m Hm mm.m mm.om :. ..... m mo.m oo.mH mH me.¢ mm.mH Hm mm.w HH.HN m Hm m>.m mm.HN mH Hm.m mm.mH mH mo.m mm.>H m Hm.m mH.mH m Hm mm.¢ 0>.HN m mo.¢ mm.eH mH mm.e mH.mH MH HH.H mH. m mmm me.m wo.mm mm pH.m mm.>H m mm.m oo.mH m w>.H mm.¢H m mH mm.m mn.mH mH om.¢ NH.>H mH mH.m m>.>H% m >m.¢ wm.mH H MHm >N.m em.mm mm mm.w oo.om mm No.m HH.mH mH m¢.m >m.mH m mm HH.m o>.mH mH mH.H m>.mH mH mm.e mm.mH MH om.¢ om.mH N mm mm.e Hm.mm MH mm.w mm.>H m mw.e mm.mH m N>.H mm.mH H OHHusmoumm .Q.m new I OHHusmOHmm wmww cams OHHusmUHOm .mvm cam: OHHuemommm .Q.m AHOHusoo womuwlnumHg ESHumummooo downwinumHv AHouusOU momuolnuHHv Auomnoum OOMHOI£UHHV H moose . ,n ozone m moouw H meono mo 30mm CH mmsouw Hoom mnu mo 30mm How mxcmm mHHuamoumm paw .mGOHHMH>mQ Unmocmum .msmmz Aumwaloumv d Euom .mersmumnmosD OHEOGOOM mo umOBImHOOSUm COB mnu .m OHQMB 82 similar to the differences in mean scores observed on the STEP-Reading (see Table 4). On the post-test, Form B (see Table 6), the distribu— tive education students, on the whole, showed an improve- ment in their scores on the economic understanding test. Although the mean scores for the eleventh-grade project group were 16.96 and 17.66 on Forms A and B respectively, the percentile rank increased by six points on the post- test. The eleventh-grade control classes, on the whole, made no improvement in the scores. The twelfth-grade COOperative group also substantially increased their scores on the post-test, in terms of increase in percentile rank, from 15 to 19. The twelfth-grade control group also made a marked improvement from the pre- to the post-test on economic understanding from 51 to 59. To understand better Tables 5 and 6 it must be noted that some students in the population had had a~prior course in economics. Since more than fifty per cent of the stu- dents in four of the classes (school #5, groups’two and four, and school #5, groups three and four) had had such a course prior to the testing period, the percentile rank comparisons for these four classes were computed from a table for stu- dents with prior economic instruction. Since only four of the forty classes were involved, the researcher did not consider the number significant enough to make a difference in the totals. .GOHuosnumsH mOHEosoom HOHHQ SUH3 muompoum How msomHHmmEOU xcmu mHHusmoumm 0p Umuum>e00m . mm mm.m N>.HN mH >O.m mo.mH= mH HN.w NH.mH mH .Ho.m mm.hH mHmuoa mm mm.m mw.mN mH >>.H HH.mH Hm mo.m H>.0N mH mH.m oo.mH OH mH mm.m oo.mH mH mo.w mm.mH Hm hw.m mm.ON m mH.H HN.mH m mN mN.m NN.ON nH >m.m mm.wH mH mm.N ON.>H mm OH.w m>.HN m an HH.m NH.mN mH hm.H Nm.mH mN HH.m nm.mH mH oo.H mm.>H S M Hm Hm.m mH.HN m mm.N om.HH mH m>.m HH.mH mH HN.m mo.mH m mmH mm.> mm.MN; Mm- m>.m NH.mH mH mm.m ow.mH mH mm.m MH.hH m mH HH.m mm.mH m Hm.H oo.mH MH mm.m mm.mH m mm.m H>.mH H mmm mm.m mm.~N mH m>.m mN.mH mmH mH.m mm.NN mH mm.H mH.mH m Hm mm.m mm.ON mH mN.H SH.mH mN m>.H mN.ON nH mo.H MH.>H N mH mm.H mm.mH mH mH.m oo.mH m mm.m mo.mH m mm.m pH.wH H OHHusmonmm .Q.m new OHHuemonmm .o.m smoz mHHusmoumm .a.m sow: mHHusmonmm .n.m sum Hones AHOHusoo momuwnsuNHv >Humuumooo OUMHOInuNHV “Houusoo momuwnnuHHv Auownoum OOMHOI£UHHV 000 H msouo n msouw = N macaw PF H QSOHO H0030 Aummelumomv m Euom .msHpsmumumpsb OHEOGOUM mo ummHImHoosom :08 0:» m0 £00m OH mmsouw noon on» no soon you mxsmm mHHusmoumm paw .mGOHuMH>mQ pumpsmum .mcmwz .w OHQMB 84 Tests fgr the SaLesLCQmprepepsign4Competency7 TestApf Sales Aptitude and Sales Terms Test: The sales comprehension competency was measured by two post-tests, the Test of Sales Aptitude and the Sales Terms Test. No stu- dent in groups one (eleventh-grade distributive education project method), two (eleventh-grade non-distributive educa- tion), and four (twelfth-grade non-distributive education) had had a prior course in sales, retailing, or distributive education. In five of the ten classes in group three, the twelfth-grade cooperative method classes, all of the students had had such a course. A few students (15) in the other five classes also had had a course. The mean scores3 on the Test of Sales Aptitude (see Table 7) indicated that, on the whole, group one, the dis- tributive education project group students, scored only slightly higher than the eleventh-grade control group. The twelfth-grade distributive education cooperative group, however, scored lower, on the whole, than the twelfth-grade control group, though the cooperative group did score higher than both eleventh-grade groups. The results on this test Of knowledge of basic selling principles indicated, there- fore, that the twelfth-grade distributive education coopera- tive students performed, on the whole, better than the eleventh-grade distributive education project students; and 3Possible scores on the Test of Sales Aptitude range from -120 to +120. 85 O>HusQHHumHU HO .msHHHmumu .mOHMm CH ownsoo HOHHQ m on: on: mommMHO Ononu eH .GOHumoopm muempsum Adam mH mo.hH Nm.ON mm 5H.>H Nm.>H mN mN.mH mH.mH wN Nm.>H mm.mH mHmuoa Nm Hm.ON oo.mN mmN hm.mH mH.mH om OH.HH Hm.HH OH HH.mH mm.mH OH on mH.mH wN.mH mH mm.ON SH.m mN mH.mH HH.nH Nm bH.mH mo.mH m mH mw.HH mm.ON mm Hm.>H mN.mN Nm mo.HH OH.mH mm mN.HH NN.mH m mm N>.mH mH.mH mNm H®.mH om.mH mN mH.ON hm.NH Hm om.ON mw.mH w mH mN.mH hm.HN mmH mo.HN HH.HN NN OH.mH mH.HH mm ON.mH mm.>H m 5H mm.mN HH.MN Hm mo.HH NH.>H mN sH.mN oh.nH mN >H.>H m>.HH m mN mo.mH om.MH on mN.>H HH.mH NN mm.HH m>.0H NN mm.mH oo.HH H mH mm.MH; mm.ON Nm oh.mH hm.mH on >O.HH NN.mH ON mm.mH mH.oH m mH Hc.mH.H om.NN mom om.HH: >m.mN mm axaNH.m mN.HH HH N>.HH Hm.H N mm mm.mH: m>.mH . mom mNumH. HH.mH om ww:HN mm.HH NM mN.mH ON.mH H OHHusmoumm .n.m ame: meusmouwm .Q.m new: OHHuewouwm .m.m emoz mHHucmouom .Q.m saw: Hones AHouusou mpmuwlnuNHg WSHumummooo monuOISUNHV AHouusoo mpmnwlnuHHv Auownoum mpmuwlsuHHv 000 H moose m msouw N macaw H meouw H0050 L OOSUHum< mmHmm mo ummsTmHoonom :09 may. mo £08m sH mmsouw Hsom on» no spam How mxcmm mHHuchHOm pom .mGOHu0H>0Q pumpsmum .msmwz .5 teams 86 both treatment groups scored either lower or roughly equal to their control groups. 4 on the Sales Terms Test (see Table 8) The mean scores revealed that neither treatment group scored higher than the corresponding control group. The eleventh-grade dis- tributive education project group scored two points lower than the eleventh-grade control group, though both mean scores fell in the same percentile band. The twelfth-grade distributive education cooperative group scored approxi— mately 1.5 points lower than the control group but in the same percentile band. And, the twelfth-grade cooperative group scored approximately three points higher than the eleventh-grade project group. Eppio-Economic Statgp Information obtained from the school administrators, using the Messier Index, revealed that nine of the ten .u schools in the study had computed socio-economic indices which tended to cluster about the middle of the scale (16.00 in the 4.00-28.00 range). The socio-economic index included the four categories: area live in, house type, source of income, and education of head of household. Weightings could range from 4.00 to 28.00, with a low index indicating a high socio-economic level within the school community. In this study, the socio-economic indices ranged 4The Sales Terms Test contains fifty-four items and scores indicate number right out of fifty-four. 87, 0>HuOQHHumHO H0 .OOHHHmumH .mmHmm OH mmusoo HOHHO m was pm: mommmHo OmOOu OH .OOHuOUOOm mucmtsum Hats mmIOH >H.m manN mmIOH Nm.m mm.NN mmuHN mm.m NH.NN mmIHN m>.m mm.ON mHmuoa mmIOH ©H.H mO.>N mmmlHN Hm.H OH.NN mmIOH Nm.m mO.NN mmIOH Nm.h Hn.NN OH mmIHN Hm.n OH.HN mmIOH mm.m mm.HN mmIHN mm.m mm.HN mmIHN HN.m HN.HN m mmIOH NN.m H>.mN mmIHN mm.m H>.mH mmIHN H0.0 Om.mH mmIHN mm.m NN.HN m mmIHN mm.m NH.NN mmmIOH HH.H Nn.mN mmIOH m0.0 OO.HN mmlHN HO.H mH.NN n mmIOH ON.m mm.mN maanN HN.m mH.NN mmIOH HH.m m>.HN mmIHN Hm.m Hm.HN_ m mmIOH mm.m NN.>N mmIHN nN.m ON.HN mmIHN OH.m Om.mH mNINH Hm.m >m.mH_ m OMIHN Hm.> Om.mH mmIHN HH.H w>.HN mmIHN mO.H OO.HN mNINH mm.m mm.>H_ H mmIOH mo.m Hm.mN mmIHN mN.m OO.NN mmIOH OH.m Hm.mN OMIHN mH.m ON.HN_ m mmLHN Hm.m .WH.HN mmmIOH Nm.m >O.MN mmLOH HH.O OO.HN mmnHN >m.m Hm.mH_ N mmIOH mm.H mH.HN mmmuHN Hm.m OO.NN (mmeN ON.H HH.HN OMLHN HH.O mH.mH_ H _0HHOO00HOMIdmdw O80: mHHquoumm .Q.m OmwflfMHflwmwoumm .O.m mmmz OHHuOooumm .O.m OM02 Hogan. AHOHOOOO OOOHOIOUNHV .@>Humummooo OomuOIOuNHV AHOHOOOO OOMMOIOOHHV Auomfloum OOOHOIOOHHV H moose m macaw N moouw H moouw Home wanes mOHmmlmHOOOUm O08 05» mo 50mm OH mmsouw noon 0:» m0 team How mOme mHHuOmoumm OOm .mOOHuwH>0Q OHOOOmum .mOmmz .m manta 88 from 9.74 to 17.95, with a mean index of 15.52. With the exception of the school with the lowest index (9.74), the indices of the other nine schools were generally similar, varying within a total range of only 5.76 points, indicat- ing that the nine school communities were average, middle- class communities in terms of socio-economic level (see Table 9). Table 9. Socio-Economic Status Data for the Ten School Communities (Messier Index) m= : School Socio-Economic LRacial-Ethnic Occupations Code Number Index Intermix Index Index 1 17.95 1.70 7.25 2 16.90 1.28 9.22 5 9.74 1.65 5.55 4 16.51 2.40 6.70 5 15.56 2.20 7.22 6 15.71 2.26 5.87 7 16.04 2.45 8.10 8 14.54 1.42 8.50 9 16.22 1.80 7.25 10 14.19 1.62 8.55 Mean 15.52 1.88 7.18 The low ratings computed for the racial-ethnic inter- mix index for the ten school communities (all ten were below 89 the 2.50 or middle index) indicated that the school communi- ties included in the study were composed of generally homo- geneous populations. That is, the communities each had a low proportion of mixed types of racial and ethnic groups. The racial-ethnic intermix index could range from 1.00 to 4.00, with a low index indicating a low racial and ethnic intermix within the community. The racial-ethnic intermix indices of the ten school communities ranged from 1.28 to 2.45, with a mean of 1.88 (see Table 9). The occupations index could range from 1.00 to 15.00, with a low index indicating a high occupational status (e.g., lawyer, minister, teacher, architect, manager) among members of the community. In the study, the indices of the school communities ranged from 5.55 to 9.22, with a mean of 7.18 (see Table 9). Three of the communities had occupa- tions indices which were above the middle level (indicated by a rating of 7.00 or less) of occupational status, which indicated that most of the communities were composed of people who were employed in such occupations as farming, sales, building trades, industrial workers, etc. The results of the computations of the Duncan Index, which is based on the occupation of the head of household for each student in the study, were in agreement with the portion of the Messier Index that rated the occupational level of the school communities. On the Duncan Index, a high number (00-99 range) indicates a high or prestigious 9O occupational level among the families of the students in the study. The mean index for the ten schools was 40.6, with the mean indices for each of the ten schools ranging from 26.5 to 60.7 (see Table 10). The Duncan Index re- vealed much the same information, then, as the Messier Index, in that most of the population of the school com- munities was employed in occupations of the middle- or low- prestige job classification. The similarity in results on the Duncan Index and the Messier Index indicated that the students enrolled in each of the four groups in the ten schools were from families comparable to others in their schools. Table 10. Socio-Economic Data Based on Occupation of Head of Household for the Four Groups in the Schools (Duncan Index) School Number of Students Duncan Code Number in Population Index Mean 1 69 56.5 2 66 54.2 5 94 60.7 4 72 26.5 5 62 50.0 6 85 58.8 7 75 29.5 8 65 56.6 9 60 58.5 10 87 47.6 Total 735 ' 40.6 91 Table 11 illustrates the Duncan Index information for each group within the total ten schools. For group one, the mean index of all students in all ten schools was 58.4, with mean indices ranging from 19.6 to 61.5. For group two, the overall mean index was 42.4, with a range of mean in- dices from 25.5 to 64.2. For group three, the overall mean index was 57.7, with a range of mean indices from 25.9 to 52.7. For group four, the overall mean index was 45.6, with a range of mean indices from 50.0 to 70.2. Although the mean indices varied widely within each group computed for each school, when a total mean index was computed for each group, the mean indices were quite close. For example, in group two, the ten mean indices computed ranged from 25.5 to 64.2, whereas the four total mean indices only varied from 57.7 to 45.6. Considering, then, the total population, the students were homogeneous in terms of socio-economic status as measured by the Duncan Index. Personal Data onrgrudents and Teachers Students: Much of the information obtained from the student information sheets has already been discussed, in terms of numbers of boys and girls in each group in each school (see Table 5, p. 56). Information regarding father's occupation was used to compute the Duncan Index (see Tables 10 and 11, pp. 90 and 92). Of the 755 students in the population, only 86 (12%) had had a course in economics. The 86 students were members -1- 92 0.0H OOH >.>O OOH H.NH OOH H.OO OOH Hmuoa >.>H NN O.HH ON 0.00 ON N.OH HH 4 OH H.>O HH O.HO O H.OH NN H.ON HN O O.NO SN H.>N HH N.HH OH >.HO O O O.HO NH 0.0N ON N.OO OH 0.0H OH > 0.0H 5N H.>O OH 0.00 ON H.ON OH O >.NO OH 0.0H OH 0.0H OH H.OH OH O H.HO OH 0.0N NH 0.0N OH O.NN OH H N.Ow OH >.NO ON N.HO OH O.HO HO O 0.00 ON 0.00 NH O.NO OH N.OH OH N 0.0H HH N.hO NN H.HO OH 0.0N OH H Ommz muOOOOuO Ommz OUOOUOOO Ommz muOOOOuO Ommz muOmUOuO MODES xOOOH m0 HOQEOZ xOOOH m0 HOQEOZ xOOOH mo HOQEOZ XOOOH m0 HOQEOZ OOO AHOMOOOO OOOHOIOuNHV AO>HOOHOQOOO OOOHOIOuNHV AHOHuOOU OOOHOIOOHHV Auomnoum OUOHOIOuHHV HOOOUO . H OOOHO O QOOHO . N @5090 H QOOMO fl , in.» AxOUOH OOUOOOV mHOOOUO OOu OH OOOHO 50mm How OHOOOOOOO m0 Ommm m0 OOHummOOOO O0 Ummmm mama UHEOOOUMIOHOOO .HH OHQOB 95 of one of four classes (see Table 6, p. 85). Students who had had a prior course in sales, retailing, or distributive education comprised five entire classes of group three (see Table 7, p. 85), with an additional thirteen students scattered throughout the other five group three classes. These 116 students represented 16% of the total population (755) and 62% of the group three population (188). Table 12 shows the mean age for the students in each group in each of the ten schools. As could be expected, there was a 9-12 month difference in the mean age between the eleventh and twelfth graders. For group one, the mean age was 16.6, with a range of 16.5 to 17.2. For group two, the mean age was 16.4, with a range of 16.2 to 16.8. For group three, the mean age was 17.5, with a range of 16.7 to 17.6. For group four, the mean age was 17.4, with a range of 17.2 to 17.6. Table 15 shows the means and standard deviations for scores on the five standardized tests, presented by group and indicating girls' and boys' scores separately. Teachers: All of the pertinent information obtained from the ten distributive education teachers appears on Table 2, p. 54. EeachergAttitude: As a measure of teacher attitudes, which might have had an effect on student achievement on the standardized tests, the Minnesota Teacher Attitude In- ventory was administered to the ten distributive education 94 H.>H N.>H O.hH O.NH H.5H N.>H N.>H O.NH H.>H O.NH O.NH O.NH N.OH O.NH O.NH H.5H H.>H O.NH O.NH O.NH O.NH O.NH H.OH 0.0H H.OH 0.0H 0.0H N.OH H.OH N.OH N.OH H.OH H.OH 0.0H N.OH 0.0H N.>H 0.0H 0.0H 0.0H 0.0H 0.0H 0.0H 0.0H mHmuoa O ‘4 NWfi'LDCONmO) AHOHuOOU OOOHOIOuNflv H OOOHO AO>HumHOmooo OOOHOIOONH . O Ozone AHoquOU OOOHOIOuHHV N OOOHO Auuuflonm OOOHOIOOHHV H OOOHO HOOOUO GOO moonw >9 OOUOUHOOH OOHuOHsmom pOmOsuO m0 OON Ommz .NH manta 95 om.o mm.o mo.m mH.H mo.m oH.m oo.m no.m om mete O0.0N O>.NN ON.ON OO.HN OH.ON ON.HN ON.HN H0.0H Ommz mOHmm HN.>H O0.0H NO.>H OO.NH HH.>H O0.0H OO.>H OO.>H Om OOOLHUOO. OO.NN OH.OH H>.OH OO.NH N0.0H OH.OH >H.NH HO.HH Ommz mem Hm.o om.o mH.m ne.H we.m HH.m Ho.o om.H om m .moeeoeooe O0.0N O0.0H O0.0H O0.0H O0.0N O0.0H HH.HH OO.>H Ommz mm.m es.m mo.m ooHH («Ohm mo.m ms.m mp.w mm a .moHEoeqmw H>.ON HN.ON H>.>H H0.0H OH.OH O0.0H >H.>H O0.0H Ommz mH.m ,HH.~H mHmoe mH.e om.oe mm.H, me.oH swwoe am oqflomm N0.0H ON.OH N0.00 O0.0H HH.NH OH.HH OH.OO OO.NH Ommz Immam IIWMOO OHOHO m>om ,mHHHO m>om mHuHO m>om WHHHO AHOHOOOO A0>Humuwmooo AHOHuOOU Auomnoum umms OOOHOIOONHV OOOHOIOONHO OOOHOIOUHHV OOOHOIOuHHV H OOOHO -O mOOHO N OOOHO H OOOHO OHOOOHOOOO mHHHO OOO mwom How mOOouw an OOOMOHOOH mamas OONHOHOOOMuO O>Hm On» How mOOHOMH>OQ Oumvemum OOO mOmOS .OH OHQOB teachers. Table 14 presents the raw scores and the appro- 96 priate percentile rank for the distributive education teachers, the teachers of treatment groups one and three. The MTAI was scored on a right minus wrong basis, with possible scores ranging from -150 to +150. Table 14. MTAI Scores and Percentile Ranks for the Ten Distributive Education Teachers Teachera Score Percentile Rank 1 42 62* 2 55 74* 5 56 54* 4 52 82 5 50 81 6 50 81 7 58 74 8 -5 24* 9 -5 55 10 42 76 Mean: 55.9 S.D.: 20.1 aListed by school code number: * Computed on table for vocational high school teachers with five years of preparation; all others, four years of preparation. 97 Interpretation of the Statistical Tests Simple Corrplations and T-Tests Simple correlations and t-tests were computed to de- termine the relationships between and among the variables in the study. Analyses and interpretations of these statis- tical tests5 are presented in terms of students' prior achievement, student achievement on the tests for the economic understanding and sales comprehension competencies, socio-economic status, and the additional personal data on the students and teachers. Eppggntjgrior Achievement: A perusal of the correla- tions coefficients computed on the total group revealed that the scores received on the STEP-Reading correlated signifi- cantly with the scores on the other four standardized tests twith Economics, Form A, .558; with Economics, Form B, .512; with Sales Aptitude, .555; with Sales Terms, .527). When correlations were run on an individual group basis, the coefficients of correlation were highly significant in each case. Table 15 shows the correlations for the STEP- Reading with the other standardized tests for each group and for the total group. As a further test Of significance of prior achievement, t-tests,6 were computed on the STEP-Reading scores for three 5The .05 level of confidence was used in all analyses. 6Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavior- al Sciences (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 254. .Nom..o .moumrtmn , . . . .. _. .mOmmHOOO OOu OH mOHOOm 3mm O0 OOOOE OOO OOHOUO 3mm H0O OOOHOOHOHMOU OOH OOmO HOOOHOOOOH OOu .AOOO. ou OOO. SOHO OOHOOOHV OOOOHOHOOHO OHOOHO OOOB mumOu OONHOHOOOOOO OOu HHO m0 mOuoom OOOHO>OOU OOO 3mm OOu OOOBOOQ OOOHuOHOHHOOHOuOH OOu OUOHms m.mso. .msouo Hmuoe .mHH. .H moouo “HHH. .O OOOHO “HHH. .N OOOHO “NOH. OH H OOOHO H0O OOOOOHOHOOHO mo HO>OH OOH 8 o. . 5mm. mam. mmm. mmm. mmm. magma modem mmm. mmm. mmm. mmm. Hem. mooueuoe monm New. Hem. on. msH. mom. m .moflaoeoo own. set. Noe. owe. omH. a .muflsoooo immsuzo iomHuzO immense iomHuzc imoHuzO HOHOOOU O>HUOHOOOOO HoquOU uUOnOHm umOB msouw OOOOOIOUNH OOOuOIOuNH OOOHOIOOHH OOOHOIOuHH Hmuoa H OOOHO O Ozone N Ozone H OOOHO OOOHO HOOOB OOu OOO OOOHO Oomm H0O mumOB OONHOMOOOOUO HOOuO usom OOO NOOHOOOOIOOBO mo OOOHuOHOuHOU .OH OHQOB 99 combinations of groups: groups one and three (between project method classes and cooperative method classes), groups one and two (between project method classes and eleventh-grade control classes), and groups three and four (between COOperative method classes and twelfth—grade control classes). The results of the t-tests showed that the differences between the mean scores were highly sig- nificant (at the .05 level of confidencee) when comparing each of the distributive education groups (project and cooperative methods) with their respective control classes, with the control classes sooring higher. Tables 16, 17, and 18 present the t-test results and indicate the statis- tical significance. Since there existed a significant relationship between students' reading comprehension scores and scores Obtained on the other tests, together with high levels of signifie cance of differences between mean scores on the STEP-Reading between the project and COOperative method classes and their control classes, the variable of reading comprehension was included as a covariate in the analyses of covariance. At this point, therefore, the null hypothesis H03 that prior achievement, as inferred from stores in the STEP-Read- ing, Form 2A, is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and 91bid., p. 501. 100 Table 16. Means and T-Tests for the Two Distributive Edu- cation Groups on the STEP-Reading . Group 1 Group 5 11th-Grade 12th-Grade Test Project Cooperative Values of Means Means t (N=169) (N=188) ,STEP-Reading 41.20 41.95 -.65 Table 17. Means and T-Tests for the Eleventh-Grade Groups on the STEP-Reading mi. Group 1 Group 2 11th-Grade 11th-Grade Test Project Control Values of Means Means t (N=169) (N=186) STEP-Reading 41.20 45.49 8.48* * Significant at the .05 level of confidence, tabled value of 1.96. Table 18. Means and T-Tests for the Twelfth-Grade Groups on the STEP-Reading Group 5 Group 4 12th-Grade 12th-Grade Test Cooperative Control Values of Means Means t (N=188) (N=190) STEP-Reading 41.95 47.20 4.15* *- 'Significant at the .05 level of confidence, tabled value of 1.96. _101 sales comprehension, could neither be accepted nor rejected until further statistical analyses were made. Tests of Economic Understanding and Sales Comprehen- §igp: In order to determine the significance of the differ- ences of the mean scores obtained by each of the groups on the four standardized tests included in this area, t-tests were computed on three combinations of the groups: (1) groups one and three, to examine differences between the two different distributive education methods classes; (2) groups one and two, to examine differences between the eleventh-grade project method and control classes; and (5) groups three and four, to examine differences between the twelfth-grade cooperative method and control classes. Tables 19, 20, and 21 present the results of these computa- tions and indicate which of the differences between means are significant (at the .05 level of confidence, tabled value of 1.96), for groups one and three, one and two, and three and four, respectively. It would seem from the results indicated on Table 19 that there was a significant difference between the mean scores of the project method classes and the COOperative method classes on these four tests, with the COOperative method classes scoring higher. There were also significant differences indicated between the project method classes and the control classes on the Test of Economic Understand- ing, Form A, and the Sales Terms Test, with the control 102 Table 19. Means and T-Tests for the Two Distributive Edu- cation Groups on the Four Standardized Tests . . Group 1 Group 5 11th-Grade 12th-Grade Test Project Cooperative Values of Means Means t 1N=169) (N=188) conomics, A 16.96 18.18 -9.58* conomics, B 17.66 18.09 14.55* Sales Aptitude 15.56 17.52 -26.40* Sales Terms 20.55 22.59 -4.87* *- Significant at the .05 level of confidence. Table 20. Means and T-Tests for the Eleventh-Grade Groups on the Four Standardized Tests Group 1 Group 2 11th-Grade 11th-Grade Test Project Control Values of Means Means t (N=169) (N=186) Economics, A 16.96 18.54 5.67* Economics, B 17.66 19.12 1.21 Sales Aptitude 15.56 15.46 -.07 Sales Terms 20.55 22.42 29.57* * Significant at the .05 level of confidence. Table 21. Means and T-Tests for the Twelfth-Grade Groups on the Four Standardized Tests Group 5 Group 4 12th-Grade 12th-Grade Test COOperative Control Values of Means Means t (N=188) (N=190) Economics, A 18.18 21.80 4.96* Economics, B 18.09 21.72 1.92 Sales Aptitude 17.52 20.82 -8.46* Sales Terms 22.59 24.59 1.57 *- Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ,105 classes scoring higher; and between the cooperative method claSSes and the control classes On the Test of EconOmiO Understanding, Form A, and the Test of Sales Aptitude, with the control classes scoring higher (Tables 20 and 21). All three sets of groups, then, showed significant differences between means on the Test of Economic Under- standing, Form A, a pre-test. Observation of the simple correlations between the Economics A test and the other three tests also revealed significance. Table 22 indicates the correlations for the Economics A test with the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, the Test of Sales Aptitude, and the Sales Terms Test, for these three combinations of groups. Table 22. Correlations of the Test of Economic Understand- ing Form A, and the Three Other Standardized Tests for Each of the Three Combinations of Groups Groups 1 & 5 Groups 1 & 2 Groups 5 & 4 Test Project and Project and COOperative and Cooperative 11th Control 12th Control (N=557) (u=355) (N=578) Economics, B .512 .572 .595 Sales Aptitude .275 .258 .296 Sales Terms .440 .511 .477 The level of significance for Treatments 1 and 5 is .105; Treatments 1 and 2, .105; Treatments 5 and 4, .101. 104 In order to derive a clearer picture of the relation- ship of the standardized test scores for the groups, the variable of prior economic understanding, as measured by the pre-test, was also included as a covariate in the analy- ses of covariance. In addition, before arriving at a decision to accept or reject the appropriate hypotheses (H01 and H02), that there is no significant difference in student achievement on tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the COOperative method of instruction in dis- tributive education, several other variables had to be con- sidered. SociO-Economicfitatug: Four of the variables were con- sidered in the analysis of the correlation between socio- economic status and student achievement on the several standardized tests: the Duncan Index, the Socio-Economic Index, the Racial-Ethnic Intermix Index, and the Occupa- tions Index. When the correlation coefficients were observed for the total group (755), the information obtained through the Messier Index (Socio-Economic Index, Racial-Ethnic Inter- mix Index, and Occupations Index) showed internal correlation but a negative correlation with the Duncan Index. The Messier Index information showed no significant correlation with the scores of the standardized tests, although the Duncan Index correlates significantly with four of the five tests--the 105 STEP-Reading, the Tests of Economic Understanding, Forms A and B, and the Sales Terms Test. Table 25 shows the co- efficients of correlation between these variables. Table 25. Correlations Between the Socio-Economic Indices and the Standardized Tests STEP- Economics, Economics, Sales . Sales Index Reading* Form A Form B Aptitude Terms Socio- conomic acial- Ethnic Index -.105 —.O87 -.102 -.041 .006 Occupa- tions buncan Index .155 .157 .157 .021 .152 L_ The level of significance for N-2df (751) at p < .05 is .076 (two-tailed tests). On the basis of these sporadic correlations, the vari- able of socio-economic status was not considered to be a sig— nificant factor and was consequently not included in the analyses of covariance. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H04) that socio-economic status is of no significance in assessing the effect Of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. 106 Personal Data on Students: The variables included in this area were prior course in economics; prior course in sales, retailing or distributive education; age of student; and sex of student. No correlations between either type of prior course and/or age of students and scores on the standardized tests were found to be significant. As a study of Tables 5, 6, 7, and 81° revealed, the students who had had a prior course in economics (only 4 of the 40 classes involved) and the students who had had a prior course in sales (members of 5 of the 10 classes in group 5) did not score significantly different from their peers, which ac- counted for the lack of signigicant correlation in each of the total groups. As shown in Table 12,11 there was a slight age differ- ence between the four groups of students. Consequently, statistical analysis revealed a lack of correlation between age and test scores. As a result, the null hypothesis (H05) that students' age is of no signigicance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized tests scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. To discover the extent of the significance of the differ— ences between the means of the standardized test scores be- tween girls and boys, t—tests were computed. Table 24 10See pages 81, 85, 85» and 87. 11See page 94. .mmod HO 05HM> UOHQMU .OUCQUHHCOU MO HO>OH m0. OS“ HM DGMUHHHCOHW * h- b *107 *OO.OI O0.0N Ob.NN HO.H O>.NN OO.HN *O0.0 OH.ON ON.HN *OO.> ON.HN H0.0H OEHOB OOHOO *O0.0 OO.NN OH.OH *nO.N H>.OH OO.NH HN. N0.0H OH.OH *O0.0 >H.NH HO.HH OOOuHumd OOHOO *H0.0 O0.0N O0.0H no. u O0.0H O0.0H OO.H O0.0N O0.0H HH. HH.NH OO.NH m m0HEOOO0 *HN.ONI H>.ON HN.ON NO. I H>.>H H0.0H OO.H OH.OH O0.0H Ow. HH.>H O0.0H O OOHEOOOU H0.0 I N0.0H ON.OH OH.HI N0.00 O0.0H *ON.NI HH.NH OH.HH *hO.HO OH.OO OO.NH OOHOOOOIOOBO u m0 u m0 u «0 u no OOHO> mwom OHHHO O5HO> whom mHuHO OOHO> mmom mHHHO OOHO> whom mHHHO umOB HoquOO OOOHOIOONH O>HumHOmooo OOOHOIOONH HOHUOOO OOOHOIOOHH uUOmoum OOOHOIOOHH H OOOHO O OOOHO N OOOHO . H msouo mumOB OONHOHOOOOOO O>Hm OOu H0O usom OOO .OOHOB .039 .OOo mmoouo OH OHHHO OOO whom Mom mumOBIB OOO mOOOS. .HN OHQOB 108 indicates the values of t and indicates which are significant at the .05 level of confidence. The sporadic significance between means indicated by the t-tests, coupled with the total lack of correlation between sex and the test scores as shown in the simple corre- lations, led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis (Hoe) that sex of students is of no signigicance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measur— ed by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. Teacher Attitude: Observation of the simple correla- tions run on groups one and three (the groups involving the ten distributive education teachers) revealed low coefficients of correlation between teacher attitude inventory (MTAI) scores and student scores on the five standardized tests. Table 25 shows these correlations. Table 25. Correlations of Teacher Attitude Scores and Student ' Scores on the Five Standardized Tests for Groups 1 and 5 Group 1 Group 5 Test 11th-Grade Project 12th-Grade COOperative (N=169) (N=188) STEP-Reading —.524 .108 conomics, A -.175 -.052 Economics, B . -.068 -.055 Sales Aptitude -.120 -.025 Sales Terms -.125 .060 The level of significance for Treatment 1 is .152; for Treat- ment 5, .144. 109 The null hypothesis (H07) that teacher attitude, as measured by a teacher attitude inventory, is of no signifi- cance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. Interpretation of the Analyses of Covgriance To Obtain a clearer and more precise interpretation of the significance of the test scores, one-way classifica- tion analyses of covariance were performed with respect to scores on the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, the Test of Sales Aptitude, and the Sales Terms Test (the three criterion instruments), using scores on the Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, and the STEP-Reading, Form 2A, (pre— test data) as concomitant information. The purpose was to adjust for the initial differences between the groups of students. The unit of analysis was group means, and analyses of covariance were computed for the total eleventh-grade group--groups one and two--(Table 29), for the total twelfth- grade group--groups three and four--(Table 50), and for the total distributive education groups--the project and COOpera- tive groups, one and three--(Table 51). These three tables may be found in Appendix D, pp. 171-175. As the simple correlations and the t-tests indicated, the variable of prior achievement, as measured by the STEP- Reading, and the variable of economic understanding, as measured by the pre-test Test of Economic Understanding, 110 Form A, both had an effect on students' scores on the three criterion instruments. For the eleventh-grade, prior achievement had a significant effect on students' scores on the Test of Sales Aptitude, The Sales Terms Test, and the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B (see Table 29). For the twelfth-grade, prior achievement had a significant effect on students' scores on the Test of Sales Aptitude, the Sales Terms Test, and the Test of Economic Understand- ing, Form B (see Table 50). For the two treatment groups, prior achievement had a significant effect on students' scores on the Test of Sales Aptitude and the Test of Eco- nomic Understanding, Form B (see Table 51). On the basis of these results, coupled with the signifi- cant correlations of the STEP-Reading and the Test of Eco- nomic Understanding, Form A, with each of the other test results, and the significance of the t-test results, the evi- dence compiled indicated the significance of prior achieve- ment between distributive education and non-distributive education students. However, in terms Of the null hypothe- sis (H03), there is no evidence indicating that prior achievement is of significance in assessing the effective- ness of the two methods of instruction. Consequently, since the project and cooperative method groups were not signifi- cantly different in prior achievement (reading ability). the null hypothesis (H03) that prior achievement, as inferred from scores in the STEP-Reading, Form 2A, is of no signifi- cance in assessing the effectiveness of each of the two 111 methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension was accepted. Means on the three criterion instruments (Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms Test, Test of Economic Understanding, Form B) were adjusted after initial differences in the groups were accounted for and F tests were computed. Tables 26, 27, and 28 present the adjusted means, the F results, and the significance for the three combinations of groups. When initial differences between students in the eleventh-grade groups (groups one and two) were adjusted for through the analysis of covariance, there was no sig- nificant difference between the scores of the two groups on any of the three tests. The same results occurred for the twelfth-grade groups (groups three and four). However, Table 28 indicates significance between the project method and the cooperative method students in the sales aptitude and sales terms tests. This indicated that the cooperative method students appeared to have done significantly better on these two tests. The lack of significance of difference between the two groups in the results on the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, warranted acceptance of the null hypothesis (H02) that there is no signigicant difference in student achieve- ment on tests of economic understanding between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and 112 Table 26. Means, Adjusted Means, and F Results for the Eleventh-Grade Group for the Three Criterion Instruments Raw Adjusted Test Group Means Means F Sig. Sales Aptitude 1 15.56 -.175 .041 NS Sales Aptitude 2 15.46 .175 Sales Terms 1 20.55 -.675 5.055 NS Sales Terms 2 22.42 .675 Economics, B 1 17.66 -.140 .188 NS Economics, B 2 19.12 ' .140 *- Significance at the .05 confidence level = 5.24. Table 27. Means, Adjusted Means, and F Results for the Twelfth-Grade Group for the Three Criterion Instruments Raw Adjusted Test Group Means Means F Sig. Sales Aptitude 5 17.52 -1.564 2.679 NS Sales Aptitude 47 20.82 1.564 Sales Terms 5 22.59 - .712 1.674 NS Sales Terms 4 24.59 .71; Economics, B 5 18.09 - .067 .024 NS iEconomics, B 4 E1. 7; .067 *- Significance at the .05 confidence level = 5.24. 115 Table 28. Means, Adjusted Means, and F Results for the Project Method and Cooperative Method Groups for the Three Criterion Instruments Raw Adjusted Test Group Means Means F Sig. Sales Aptitude 1 15.56 -2.607 9.045 * Sales Aptitude 5 17.52 2.607 Sales Terms 1 20.55 - .872 4.601 * Sales Terms 5 22.59 .87grg Economics B 1 17.66 - .290 1.592 NS Economics B 5 18.09 .290 * Significance at the .05 confidence level = 5.24. students who have studied under the cooperative method of instruction in distributive education. The significant difference between the two groups in the results on the Test of Sales Aptitude and The Sales Terms Test warranted rejection of the null hypothesis (H01) that there is no significant difference in student achieve- ment on tests of sales comprehension between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the COOperative method of instruction in distributive education. Summary of the Stated Hypotheses The null hypotheses under test were: H01: that there is no significant difference in stu- dent achievement On tests of sales comprehension 114 between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the cooperative method of instruction in distributive education. The null hypothesis was rejected on the basis of the significance of difference in the scores of the project method and the cooperative method groups on the two tests measuring sales comprehension. The cooperative method group scored significantly higher than the project method students on both tests measuring the sales competency. H02: that there is no significant difference in stn- dent achievement on tests of economic understand- ing between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the cooperative method of instruction in distributive education. The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the lack of significance of difference in the scores of the project method and the cooperative method groups on the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B. H03: that prior achievement, as inferred from scores on the STEP-Reading, Form 2A, is of no signifi- cance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standard- ized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the lack of signigicance of difference in prior achievement (reading ability) between the project and cooperative method groups, resulting in the inability to use prior achievement in assessing the effectiveness of each of the two methods of instruction. 115 H04: that socio-economic status is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standard- ized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the low and sporadic correlations between the socio—economic indices and the scores on the five standardized tests. H05: that students' age is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods Of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the slight differences between the mean ages for the groups and the lack of correlation between students' age and scores on the five standardized tests. H06: that sex of students is of no significance in ‘assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the sporadic significance between means on test scores and the lack of correlation between sex of students and scores in the five standardized tests. H07: that teacher attitude, as measured by a teacher attitude inventory, is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension. The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the low correlations between teacher attitude inventory scores and student scores on the five standardized tests. CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to review briefly the nature and conduct of the study, present a recapitulation of the significant findings, and make certain conclusions and recommendations on the basis of these findings. The Study and Its Design Recent federal legislation has focused attention upon the project method of instruction as a vehicle for providing in-school preparatory distributive education. The U. S. Office of Education has endorsed the project method of instruction as a teaching device which seeks the same learn- ing outcomes as the cooperative method of instruction. Evaluation of the effectiveness of an innovation in the -methods of teaching and organizing distributive education programs is necessary before widespread acceptance is feasi- ble. This initial study was conducted to compare and describe the project and the cooperative methods of teach- ing distributive education. With the present growth and expansion of distributive education programs in high schools throughout the country, there is now a need to evaluate both methods of instruction in light of growing demands upon them in distributive education. 116 117 The Problem It was the purpose of this study to make a descriptive analysis and comparison of eleventh-grade distributive edu- cation students who received instruction through the project method to twelfth-grade distributive education students who received instruction through the cooperative method. More specifically, the study was concerned with (H01) the sig- nificance of the difference in student achievement on tests of sales comprehension between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the COOperative method of instruction in distributive education; (H02) the significance of the differ— ence in student achievement on tests of economic understand- ing between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the cooperative method of instruction in distributive edu- cation; (H03) the relationship of students' prior achieve- ment, as measured by a test of reading comprehension, and achievement on tests of sales comprehension and economic understanding; (H04) the relationship of students' socio- economic status and achievement on tests of economic under- standing and sales comprehension; (H05) the relationship of students' age and achievement on tests of economic under- standing and sales comprehension; (H03) the relationship of sex of students and achievement on tests of economic under- standing and sales comprehension; and (H07) the relationship 118 of teacher attitude and students' achievement on tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension. ‘Erocedures of the Study This section is presented in four parts for the pur- pose of simplification and clarity: (1) nature of the instruction, (2) data collection, (5) data processing, and (4) procedures of analysis. Natgre of the Enstruction: The ten public high schools included in the study were part of the distributive educa- tion curriculum development project of the Michigan State University Research and Development Program in Vocational- Technical Education. Each school had a single-period eleventh— grade distributive education project method class and a single- period twelfth-grade distributive education cooperative method class. Alsl in each school, an eleventh-grade English or social science class and a twelfth-grade English or social science class were used as control groups. The curriculum for the project method classes included content material inte- grated with individually and group designed projects. During the testing period, September 1966 to January 1967, the units of study dealt with employment orientation, self improvement, and the sales process. The twelfth-grade cooperative method classes were taught in the traditional manner, relating classroom instruction with the students' occupational experience. 119 Eata Coilection: The data used in the study was gathe ered from the ten public high schools. In each school, the same teacher taught both the eleventh-grade project method class and the twelfth-grade COOperative method class. Data were also collected on one eleventh-grade and one twelfth- grade English or social science class in each of the ten schools. These were control classes. In the study, the eleventh-grade project method classes were labeled group one; the eleventh-grade control classes, group two; the twelfth— grade cooperative method classes, group three; and the twelfth-grade control classes, group four. Information was gathered on all students (755) in the following five areas: (1) socio-economic information (Messier Index and Duncan Index); (2) student prior achievement (scores on STEP-Reading, Form 2A): (5) scores on tests of economic understanding (pre and post) and sales comprehension; (4) data on students in regard to age, sex, prior courses in economics and sales, and father's occupation; and (5) data on teachers in regard to age, educational background, teaching experience and scores on a teacher attitude inventory. tha Procesging: Punched cards were prepared for each student, with the following data: school; group; age; STEP-Reading score; Test Of Economic Understanding, Form A, score; Test of EconomicIUnderstanding, Form B, score; Test of Sales Aptitude score; Sales Terms Test score; the Duncan Index; if student had had a prior course in economics; if .120 student had had a prior course in sales; the school's socio- economic index, the school's racial-ethnic intermix index, the school's occupations index (these last three represent the Messier Index); and the teacher's MTAI score. Procedures of AnaEysis: Three statistical procedures were used in the analysis of the total data: simple corre- lations, t-tests, and analyses of covariance. Simple corre- lations were computed between the several variables in several combinations of groups: the total groups, each group independently, the total eleventh-grade groups, the total twelfth-grade groups, groups one and three, and groups two and four. Where applicable t-tests were computed to determine the extent of significance. Analyses of covariance were performed with respect to the scores in the Test of Economic Understanding, Form B, the Test of Sales Aptitude, and the Sales Terms Test, using the scores on the STEP-Read- ing and the Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as oo- variates. Group means were the units of analysis in all of the analyses. Hypotheses were accepted or rejected on the basis of the .05 level of confidence. Summary of Major Findings 1. There was no statistically significant correlation between the variables of students' socio-economic status, students' age, students' sex, and teachers' attitude inven- tory scores and the scores students attain on standardized _121 achievement tests measuring reading comprehension, economic understanding, and sales comprehension. The null hypothesis H04 that socio-economic status is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. The simple correlations indicated low and sporadic correlations between the Messier Index and the Duncan Index and the students' scores on the several achieve- ment tests. The null hypothesis H05 that students' age is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. The simple correlations indicated a lack of correlation between students' age and scores on the achieve— ment tests. The null hypothesis H05 that sex of students is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. The simple correlations showed a lack of correlation between students' sex and test scores, and the t-tests computed revealed only intermittent significance. The null hypothesis H07 that teacher attitude is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test 122 scores in economic understanding and sales comprehension, was accepted. The simple correlations revealed low corre- lations between the teachers' MTAI scores and students' scores on the standardized tests. 2. There was a positive correlation between student prior achievement, as inferred from test scores achieved on the STEP-Reading, and scores students attain on standard- ized achievement tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension. Use of a reading comprehension test was considered to be an adequate means of measuring students' prior achieve- ment level. Results of the analyses indicated that students who scored high on the STEP-Reading performed equally well on the other standardized tests. On the whole, the students in the two control groups scored higher than the distributive education students on the reading comprehension test. There were high correlations between the STEP-Reading scores and the other standardized test scores. The t-tests performed also revealed a high level of correlation. Also, when the analyses of covariance were computed, the STEP-Reading scores again were significantly correlated to several of the other test scores. However, the scores on the STEP-Reading were not significantly different for the project method and the cooperative method groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis H03 that prior achieve— ment, as inferred from scores in the STEP-Reading, Form 2A, 125 is of no significance in assessing the effect of each of the two methods of instruction, as measured by standardized test scores in economic understanding and sales comprehen- sion, had to be accepted. 5. The results showed that the two control groups (English and/Or social science classes), on the whole per- formed as well as or, in some cases, better than the two distributive education groups on the tests of economic under— standing and sales comprehension. However, after initial differences were adjusted for through the analyses of covari- ance, the differences in the scores of the two grade-level control groups and their respective distributive education groups were not significant. 4. The differences in the scores of the COOperative method classes and the project method classes on the tests of sales comprehension were significant. There was no sig- nificant difference between the scores of these two groups on the test Of economic understanding. On the whole, the COOperative method classes scored higher on all the tests, though only significantly higher on the tests of sales comprehension. The null hypothesis H01 that there is no significant difference in student achievement on tests of sales compre— hension between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the COOperative method of instruction in distributive edu- cation was rejected. 124 The null hypothesis H02 that there is no significant difference in student achievement on tests of economic understanding between students who have studied under the project method of instruction and students who have studied under the cooperative method of instruction in distributive education was accepted. Conclusions The following conclusions are drawn from the findings of this study. These conclusions are pertinent to and limited by the assumptions and design of the study. Any con- clusions based upon the results of the study are tentative and in need of further substantiating research. 1. Certainly, because of the lack of significant differ- ences in scores between the control classes and the distribu- tive education classes, one cannot conclude here that non- distributive education students and distributive education students are being taught and are learning the same concepts of economic understanding and sales comprehension. It can perhaps be concluded that the standardized tests utilized in this study were so general in nature of content that the specialized content of the distributive education curriculum was not effectively measured by these tests._ It may also be concluded from this study that the compe- tencies and objectives in distributive education cannot now be easily measured because they have not yet been accurately and adequately defined. 125 2. The results and the design of this study led the researcher to conclude that the cooperative method group, on the whole, performs somewhat better than the project method group. Perhaps, again, it may be said that the standardized tests of economic understanding and sales comprehension, because of their generalized content, were not sufficiently sophisticated instruments to measure effectively the differ- ence between these two groups, and, therefore, the two methods of instruction. The cooperative method students have additional experiences in their on-the-job activities; the project method students have various and different experiences in the projects they complete. It is plausible that these tests do not measure differences in the amount and kind of learning such differing experiences bring about. The teachers themselves may have been a contributory factor in the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of the two methods of instruction. All ten had had no previous experience in teaching by the project method. These ten teachers did have available to them a wide variety of materials, teaching aids, assistance, and teacher training for use with their project method classes. It is conceivable that this attention and assistance caused these teachers to be not only effective project method teachers but also teachers who unconsciously incorporated some of these methods and materials into their COOperative method classes. 126 This would obviously result in a lessening of measurable differences between the two groups. Any new method of instruction or any innovation in education needs a period of time to take hold. It may also be concluded in this study that the teachers had not had sufficient time and experience to become completely familiar with their materials and with the project method of instruc- tion, prior to the period in which their students were being evaluated. 5. It may be concluded from the results of this study that students who enroll in a distributive education program are not so academically talented as non-distributive educa- tion students. 4. It may be concluded that in programing students for distributive education classes, the factors of age, sex, and socio-economic background should be of little or no consideration. 5. The design of the study did not include selection procedures for including or excluding students from either the project method or the cooperative method classes. Perhaps, then, there were some unknown variables operating in the population of the study which may have caused a nullifying effect, rendering conclusive analysis of the effectiveness of methods of instruction difficult. 127 Recommendations In view of the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made. It is suggested that the study be replicated with several changes and addi- tions: 1. Of primary importance is the development and use of instruments which effectively measure the outcomes expected for distributive education classes. 2. Students should be selected for inclusion in the project method class on the basis of results of tests and inventories which measure attitude, interests, personality, and prior achievement. Information of this kind should be collected on all students included in the study for the purpose of determining the effect on individuals of each of the methods of instruction. Also, this information would permit the use of the paired-comparisons technique of analysis. 5. A variety of measurements need to be made on all' students in the study.’ In addition to paper-and-pencil tests which measure knowledge in one or all of the compe- tencies, students' attitudes and reactions should be measured in a pre- and post—test situation. General measures of ability and prior achievement might also prove helpful (e.g., grades, intelligence tests). 4. There should be included in the study teachers who teach both the project method and cooperative method classes, 128 teachers who teach only the project method classes, and teachers who teach only the cOOperative method classes. It is suggested, also, that some project method classes and cooperative method classes be in different schools. 5. Built into the study, there should be provision for a longer period of evaluation and follow-up studies. Test- ing of students in the study should take place periodially during an entire school year, and these students should also be evaluated during the next school year, in'class or on the job. The conclusions and recommendations also point out several areas for other kinds of research. 1. There is an imperative need for the development and validation of adequate instruments to measure outcomes in distributive education. 2. There is a need for distributive education to define through research the competencies basic to distributive edu- cation in behavioral terms so that outcomes in distributive ‘education may be more accurately measured. 5. Future designs of studies of the effectiveness of the project method and cooperative method of instruction should include several different class arrangements. Com- parisons and studies should be made of eleventh-grade project method classes with eleventh-grade traditional (non-project method, non-cooperative method) distributive education classes; twelfth-grade cooperative distributive education 129 students who have had the eleventh-grade project method class with the twelfth-grade cooperative method distribu- tive education students who have had the traditional eleventh-grade distributive education class. Research is also needed to examine other plans of distributive education project method teaching, such as a double-period class in which the second period is a project- laboratory experience. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Pamphlets Alberty, H. B. A Study of the Project Method of Instruc- tion. Columbus: Ohio University Press, 1927. Bayles, Ernest E., and Hood, Bruce L. Growth of American ,Educational Thought and Practice. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Brown, Kay B. Eistributive Edgcation in the High School. Richmond: Richmond Professional Institute, 1965. Dewey, John. Eemocragy in Education. New York: Macmillan Co., 1916. Eby, Frederick, and Arrowood, Charles F. Epvelopment of Modern Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1941. Edwards, Allen L. StatisticaT Methods for the EehavioraT Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Good, Carter V. (ed.). Eictionary Or_Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. Haas, Kenneth B. Cgoperative Part-time Retail Training Programs. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959. Kilpatrick, William H. The Project Eetho : The Ups Of the Purposeful Act in the Educative Process. (Teachers College Bulletin No. 1918.) New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1918. McCann, Matthew R. The thchburg Plan orrCOODerative Industrial Education. Washington: Government Print- ing Office, 1915. Park, Clyde. Ambassador to Industry, New York: Bobbs- ,Merrill Co., 1945. Stevenson, John A. The Project Method of Teaching. New York: Macmillan Co., 1921. 160 151 Tenenbaum, Samuel. WilTiam Heard Kilpatrick:ngrail Blazer in Education. New York: Harper &*Brothers, 1951. Warner, W. L., et al. SociaT Class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949. Wells, Margaret E. A Project Cgrriculum. New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1921. Public Documents and Reports Hays, W. M. Methodsng Instruction in Teaching Agriculture. (U. 3. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin No. 50.) Washington: Government Printing Office, 1896. Hereford, Karl T., et al. EpTationships Among School Design, Utilization, Personnel Interaction, and Attitudes. ("Educational Research Series," NO. 7.) East Lansing: Bureau of Educational Research, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1965. National Clinic on Distributive Education. Report of Task Force I: Hggh_§choo; Age Youth. Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1965. U. S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor. The Federe; Government and Education. 88th Congress, lst Session, 1965. U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Selected Education Acts 0:419dfi. 88th Congress, 1st ,Session, 1965. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Administration OT Vocationaleducation (Bulletin No. 1). Washington: Government Printing Office, 1966. . Education Eor a Changing World orWorE_(OE 80021) Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965. U. S. Statutes at Large. Vol. XLIX. Articles and Periodicals Armstrong, A. C. "Project Teaching DevelOps Language Arts," English Journal, XLI (December, 1952), 544-547. 152 Balletto, L. P. "Outside Activities in Business Education Pay Off," School Activities xxx1 (April, 1960), 251-254. Banks, M. "Establishing Store Relationships for a Coopera- tive Program of Distributive Education," Industrial Art Education, XXXII (November, 1945), 570-572. Beaumont, John A. "Distributive Education and the Voca- tional Education Act of 1965," BusinesspEducation Forum, XIX (April, 1965), 5-7. Beckley, Donald K. "Merchandise Manuals Vitalize Retailing Courses," Joprnal of Business Education, XVII (February, 1942), 17-18. Blaine, W. E. "The Present Status and Future Possibilities of the Project Method in Public School Teaching,“ Educational Method, IX (Nov.-Dec., 1929), 94-104. Brockman, L. O. "A Work Try-Out Scheme for High School Students," Monthly Labor_Review, XL (April, 1955), 954-955. Brown, T. Carl and Logan, William B. (eds.). "50 Years of Progress in Distributive Education," Emerican Vocational Journal, XXXI (December, 1956), 57-66+. Burmahln, E. F. "Students Manage Department Store," The Journal'of Bpriness Education, IX (April, 1954), 19-20. Clements, Gloria. "Store For a Week," Epsiness Educative World, XXXIII (June, 1953), 507-508. Coleman, P. Evans. "COOperation: The New Tie Between Edu- cation and Industry," Nation's Schools, VIII (August, 1951), 49-52. Cooper, Walter A. "Evaluating Effective Learning Through School-Business COOperation," in American Eusiness Edu- cation Yearbook (Somerville: Somerset Press, 1955). X. 420-455. Dean, George F. "A Vocational School Day," Business Edu- cation World, XX (June, 1940), 872-875. Demond, A. L. "Practical Projects for Courses in Distribu- tive Education," National Businesngducation Quarterly, VII (May, 1959), 50-54. Dittamo, G. E. "A Practical Beginning for a Program in DE," Eusiness EducationlEorum, XVI (December, 1961), 26. 155 Douglas, Harl R. "Youth Needs Work Experience," Business Education World, XX (May, 1940), 784-785. . "Youth, School, Work, and Community," School and Society (July 15, 1959), pp. 65-71. English, Horace B. "Education Through Work in a Time of Social Change," Educational Method (November, 1955), pp. 67-71. Ferguson, E. T., Jr. "Coordinator, Start That School Store Today," The Balancer§heet, XLV (September, 1965), 20-21. Forsman, A. E. "Christmas Selling," Clearing House, XV (September, 1965), 20-21. . "High School Day in Dubuque Retail Stores," Journal of Business Education, XVI (December, 1940), 19-20. Gram, H. H. "Use Your DE Club to Build Good Public Rela- tions," The Balance Sheet, XLII (October, 1960), 61. Haines, Peter G., and Ferguson, E. T., Jr. "Distributive Education," Egsipeee Edugatiop Wgrld, XLVII (January, 1967), 54. Hartzler, F. E. "The Three Stages of Distributive Educa- tion," Journal of nginess Education, XXXIX (April, 1964), 289-290. Hecht, Joseph C. "Retail Display Window Training," American VocationaliJournal, XXV (December, 1950), 21-22. Heiss, R. F. "Cooperative Fashion Show: Retailing Project," Business Education World, XXIX (June, 1929), 592-595. Henry, C. H. "Some Techniques For Staging the Retail Fashion Show," Business Education World, XXX (October, 1949), 77. Hillard, C. B. "Individual Projects Made on the Group Method Plan," Industrial Arts Magazine (August, 1925), pp. 505-506. Hofe, George D. "The Project Method and Its Origin," Teachers College Record, LXVII (February, 1966), 571-575. Horn, D. C. "Criteria For Individual Instruction," in American Business Edpgation Yearbook (Somerville: Somerset Press, 1955), X, 540-545. Keller, F. J. "Earning and Learning in 1957," Journal of Adult Educatlpn, IX (April, 1957), 141-145. 154 Knouse, Reno S. "How to Teach Salesmanship," EEEATEprum, IV (April, 1950), 19-21. . "Students Service Shoppers," Business Education World, XXVIII (October, 1947), 108-109. Lancaster, T. L. "Project Training," Education, LI (January, 1951). 510-515. March, Lucille. "The Project Method in Speech Education," Quarterly Journal of §peech, XV (April, 1926), 181-188. Marks, Mary V. "The Visibility of Vocational Integrity in Distributive Education," Business Education Eorum, XX (May, 1966). 14-16. Meyer, Warren G. "A New Era in Distributive Occupations,“ Business Education Forpp, XVIII (April, 1964), 6. Moran, Helen M. "Distributive Education in the Boston Public Schools," The Balance Sheet, XL (January, 1959), 211-215. Nelson, Edwin L. "A Conceptual Framework for Curriculum Development in Distributive Education," Business Edu- cation Forum, XX (April, 1966), 10-15. Osgood, E. L. "Part-time Cooperative Education in New York," School Review (September, 1952), pp. 495-494. Peart, Gilbert. "Business Experience Through School Stores," Jourpal ongusinesngducation, XVI (April, 1941), 22-24. Perry, R. C. "Project Method: Some Advantages and Dis- advantages," High Eghool Teacher, VI (February, 1950), 59-60. Rowse, Edward J. "Securing the COOperation of Merchants in Training Salespeople in Secondary Schools," The National Business Education Quarterly, IV (December, 1955), 18- 20+. Schindel, Philip W. "The Role of Business in Cooperating With the School," in American Business Education Year- book (Somerville: Somerset Press, 1944), I, 181- 187. Severson, L. C. "How Teacher-Coordinators Rate Their Problems," UBEA Forum, II (December, 1956), 26-28. Small, Robert. "Cooperative Schools and Continuation Schools," lndustrial Education Magazine, XXXVII (September, 1955), 194-195. 155 Smith, H. D. "Merchandising and the School Publications," Business Education World, XXV (February, 1950), 384- 385. Stark, W. 0. "Problem of Discipline in the Project Method of Learning," Education, XLI (January, 1921), 310-511. Tenenbaum, Samuel. "Project Method: A Criticism of Its Operation in the School System," School and Society, XLIX (June, 1939), 770-772. Weale, W. B. "Business and School COOperation," Journal of Business Education, XXII (May, 1947), 17-18. Weaver, G. G. "Some Problems of COOperative Education,“ Industrial Education Magazine, XXXII (May, 1931), 352- 355. Tests and Testing Materials Bruce, Martin M. Test 0; Sales Aptitude. New Rochelle, New York: Martin M. Bruce, Ph.D., 1960. Council on Economic Education. Test of Economic Understand- ing. Chicago, 111.: Science Research Associates, 1965. Educational Testing Service. Seguential Tests ofggducational Prggress. Princeton, New Jersey: COOperative Testing Division, 1957. King, Joseph E. Factored Aptitude SeriesI Sales Terms Test. New York: Industrial Psychology, Inc., 1956. Unpublished Material Beaumont, John A. “The Emerging Program of Distributive Education." Address before the National Clinic on Distributive Education, Washington, D. C., October 14, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Marks, Mary V. "The Project Method in Action." Address be- fore the meeting of the National Association of Distribu- tive Education Teachers, American Vocational Association, Miami Beach, Florida, December 9, 1965. (Mimeographed.) 156 Marks, Mary V. "The Vocational Approach in Education for Distribution." Address before the National Clinic on Distributive Education, Washington, D. C., October, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Michigan State University. Personal Interview with Dr. Robert L. Ebel, Professor of Counseling and Personnel Services. April 21, 1966. Rayne, Eleanor. "Four Years of Experimentation With the Project Method." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Tulane University, 1927. APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ~ 157, 158 APPENDIX A.1 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM 515 Erickson Hall December 17, 1965 Dear Mr. The recent American Vocational Association conference in Miami, Florida, pointed up many changes that are taking place in the future programs of education for distribution. Michigan State University under a USOE Research and Develop- ment Project in Vocational/Technical Education (ERD 261-65) will develop a series of pilot demonstration programs in distributive education using the "project" method of instruc- tion. The project statement of problem is as follows: To establish a series of pilot programs in distributive education organ- ized according to a project plan in order to test the hypothe- ses that: in-school preparatory work environment to prepare students for occupational objectives, can produce outcomes comparable, in student achievement, personality growth, and job success, to those now being gained through the coopera- tive method of instruction in the traditional distributive education program. Interested vocational directors, administrators, and other supervisory personnel are invited to attend an orientation session at the MSU campus on Wednesday, January 12, 1966, from 1 to 4 p.m. The meeting will be held in Room 55 of the Union Building. 159 -2- December 17, 1965 At this meeting the project will be outlined in detail in order for you to determine whether your school would be interested in this curriculum improvement program as a pilot demonstration school or an associate demonstration school. The responsibilities of the sponsoring institution and the participating school districts will be discussed. Schools now having a cooperative distributive education program, as well as those who are not involved in a program of distributive education, are eligible for participation. Sincerely yours, Peter G. Haines, Director Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical Education Edward T. Ferguson, Jr. Distributive Education Pilot Project Leader pl Name of School Size of School (5) Name of Vocational Director 1. 140 APPENDIX A.2 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION Pilot Program Address Street City or Town County Is there interest in Pilot Program participation? Yes No Is there at present a cooperative distributive education program operating in your school district? Yes No How Many Name of DE teacher Number of years teaching experience __ Certificate Held Number of years of occupational experience Does your school district have a qualified teacher who could teach in the pilot program? Yes No Name Does your school district have distributive education laboratory facilities? Yes No 14d. ZXPPEMUDIXIZX.3 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 43823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION . ERICKSON HALL February 11, 1966 To: Michigan Superintendents of Schools From: Edward T. Ferguson, Jr., Project Leader Re: Pilot Programs in Distributive Education The recent American Vocational Association conference in Miami, Florida, pointed up many changes that are taking place in the future programs of education for distribution and marketing. Michigan State university under a USOE Research and Development Project in Vocational-Technical Education (ERD 261-65) will develOp a series of pilot demonstration programs in distributive education using the "project" method of instruction. The project statement of problem is as follows: To establish a series of twenty programs in distributive education organized according to the project plan in order to test the hypotheses that: in-school preparatory work environment to prepare students for occupational objectives can produce outcomes comparable, in student achievement, personality growth, and job success, to those now being gained through the cOOperative method of instruc- tion in the traditional distributive education program. At a recent meeting in Lansing, vocational directors from the State of Michigan were brought together to discuss this research project. Forty school districts have shown interest in participating in this research venture. If your school district was not represented at this meeting, and there is interest on the part of your district, please contact me within the near future. Final selection of the twenty pilot schools and twenty associate schools will be made by March 15. A prospectus of the pilot program is enclosed for your convenience. I may be reached by telephone at 355-1773, East Lansing. Sincerely yours, ETF Enclosure 142 APPENDIX A.4 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION Michigan State University, 510 Erickson Hall - MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT The Research and Development Program in Vocational-Technical Education at Michigan State University and the School District, City of , State of agree in principle via this memorandum to conducting a re- search program in vocational education. This agreement is one of cooperative intent to work for the improvement of vocational education, rather than a legal contract. The research activity to which this memorandum pertains is mainly supported by a grant from the United States Office of Education to Michigan State University under contract #OE-5-85-111. Both Michigan State University and the ' VSchool District agree to carry out the research and development effort beginning 1966 and continue at least through , depending on United States Office of Educa- tion continuation of fund support. The personnel at Michi- gan State University and at School District recognize that each should be free to suggest modification of this research and development program at any time and that either may withdraw at any time. In such event the school district agrees to repay the pro-rata share of funds paid. The specifications of this research and development endeavor are shown on the attachment. Considerations of this agreement include: 1. All research data and reports are confidential and the property of the United States Office of Educa- tion until formally released by the M. S. U. Project Director in conformity with the terms of the U.S.O.E. contract. 2. Pilot schools and state departments involved in this research and development program are considered for payment purposes as providing consultant services. 145 Subject to U.S.O.E. approval, payments will be made by purchase order directly to schools in- volved. /s/ /5/ Peter G. Haines, Director Research and Development Superintendent or Authorized Program in Vocational- Representative Technical Education School Michigan State University City State --provide for standardized testing of students in the pilot program, control group and cooperative program (if one exists in the school) at the start, middle and the end of the school year. --provide usual instructional materials such as textbooks, reference books and materials, and audio-visual materials. --provide M.S.U. research staff with opportunity for ob- servation of the pilot program. --provide for adequate room space and for distributive education laboratory facilities, furniture and fixtures. --provide for follow-up of pilot demonstration class and cooperative class (where existing) on a one year, two year, three year and five year basis. Financial Considerations M.S.U. will provide funds to the local district equivalent to: the cost of 50% of the pilot teacher's planning period based on the number of class periods in the school day. Each M.S.U. contribution will be paid in installments on November 50, 1966, March 51, 1967, and June 20, 1967. Local School Contact Person--regarding administration of pilot program Address Phone Classroom teacher of pilot program Address Phone Michigan State University Project Leader: Mr. Edward T. Ferguson 515 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Phone: 555-1775 144 Distributive Educationggilot Program Description of Program: To establish a pilot program in distributive education at school district, city of Michigan, organized according to a "project method" in order to test the hypothesis that: in school preparatory instruc- tion utilizing the project method of instruction to assimi- late the work environment to prepare students for occupa- tional objectives, can produce outcomes comparable in student achievement, and job success, to those now being gained through the cooperative method of instruction in the tradi- tional distributive education program. Responsibilities of Michigan State University --provide experimental teaching materials, aids, course outlines, curriculum guides, and teacher manual. --provide consultant time of M.S.U. research staff for visitation at participating school and for teacher education conferences and workshops. (Five visita- tions to each school; two week workshop: seven one day workshops.) --provide a two week summer workshop and seven one day workshops during the school year. Room, board, tuition, travel, books and materials to be provided by Michigan State University. --reimburse 50% of the period of teacher time daily devoted to evaluation and research (approximately Zé-hours per week). --provide follow-up instruments for the one year, two year, three year, and five year follow-up of gradu- ates of pilot and COOperative program students. --provide standardized testing instruments and computer scoring for project method class, cooperative method class and control class. Responsibilities of Local_§chool District --initiate and operate program according to pilot plan specifications. --provide 7 days released time, including substitute's salary, for teacher to attend workshops during the school year. 145 --send teacher to a two week summer workshop at M.S.U. during August, 1966. —-provide period daily for teacher preparation and pro- gram evaluation of pilot project and submit monthly reports on progress of pilot program to project leader. (Planning time approximately 2fi-hours per week. APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS USED TO SECURE DATA FROM POPULATION 146 '147 APPENDIX B.1 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PILOT PROJECT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT PERSONNEL INDEX Please indicate the percentage of parents of students that have the following circumstances. A. Area 1. 7. PERCENTAGE IN THIS SCHOOL live in: Select residential area (or areas) of highest repute in the community (homes over $55,000) Better suburban and apartment house area; homes with lar e grounds (over é-acre, homes ,25-55,000) Preferred residential areas, ade- quate grounds, good apartment buildings (homes $15,000-25,000) Residential neighborhoods with no deterioration, reputed to be average (homes $10,000-15,000) Area beginning to deteriorate; busi- ness or industry entering into it (homes $10,000-Under) Area considerably deteriorated but not a slum area; depreciated repu- tation. Slum area (or areas) of the commun- ity neighborhood in bad repute. B. House type: 1. Large houses in good condition: adequate grounds (estate type; more than 12 rooms) Large house in medium condition; large apartments in well-kept buildings (8-12 rooms) 7. 148 PERCENTAGE Moderate house in medium condition; large apartments in well-kept build- ings (6-8 rooms) Large house and moderate house in fair condition; apartment buildings in medium condition (6-8 rooms) Small house in good condition; good apartments in remodelled houses (4-5 rooms) Small house in medium condition or fair condition; apartments in fair condition (4-5 rooms) All houses and apartments in bad condition; store fronts, etc. C. Source of income: 1. 2. Savings and investments, inherited-- 50% or more of the income. Savings and investments, gained by the earner--not retirement pensions. Profits and fees--including higher executives who share in profits. Salary or commission--including re- tirement earned thereby. Wages, based upon hourly rates on piece-work. (Time Card Personnel.) Private aid or assistance-~may be supplemented by part-time work. Public relief and non-respectable income, according to reputation. D. Education: 1. Completed one or more years of graduate work at college or uni- versity. Graduated from four-year college, university, etc. or professional school. 7. 149 PERCENTAGE Attended college for two or more years, or equivalent higher educa- tion. Graduated from high school, or equivalent secondary education. Attended high school, completed at least one year but did not graduate. Completed no more than three to eight years of grade school. Completed no more than three years of grade school. E. Racial Background: 1. 2. 5. 4. Old American or Old established community names. Assimilated American or community leader, etc., but not of "old names." French Canadian or Irish. Northern European ethnic group or sect. Southern European or Jewish. Eastern European or Near East. Colored--Negro, Oriental. F. Occupations: 1. Lawyer, doctor, dentist, judge, minister, professor, engineer, or comparable occupations. High school teacher, trained nurse (RN), chiropodist, chiropractor, architect, undertaker, minister (no college), asst. office and dept. managers or supervisors, real estate salesmen in reputed firms, columnist or editorial writers, accountant, etc. 10. 11. 150 PERCENTAGE Grade school teacher, optometrist, pharmacist (employee), mgrs. of small branch stores and similar businesses, salesmen, buyers, bank and broker's clerks, RR agent, elected civic and county officials, newspaper reporter, etc. Stenographer, bookkeeper, rural mail clerk, ticket agent, auto salesmen, auto, clothing, book, drygoods, salesmen, etc. Drugstore, hardware, grocery, dime store clerks, telephone or beauty operators, dressmaker, practical nurse, etc. Gentlemen farmers, large landowners and operators who patronize the local activities. Managers and land operators with active urban life. Small contractor who works at or superintends his jobs; commercial pilot; owners and operators of good mechanized farms. Factory or mine foreman; carpenter, electrician, plumber, welder, master mech., RR engineer and trainmen, linotype operator, printer, police captain, butcher, tailor, dry cleaner, small landowners and the "forgotten farmer" who owns a "decent" place, etc. Apprentice to skilled trades; time- keeper, RR firemen and brakeman, tel and tel-lineman, medium-skilled factory worker, policeman, barber, gas station operators, bartender, liquor salesman, head waiter, tenants on good farms, owners of farms who ' just manage to make a living, etc. Semi-skilled factory and production workers, warehouseman, janitor, watchman, cook, taxi and truck driv- ers, baggageman, delivery man, gas station attendant, waiter or wait- ress, etc. 151 PERCENTAGE 12. Laborer, miner, mill hand, migrant worker, section hand, scrub woman, laundress, domestic servent, bus boy, etc. 15. Reputed lawbreakers, etc. 152 APPENDIX B.2 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATA SHEET Name Date last first initial month day year Age Date of Birth Sex M F month day year (circle one) School __ Instructor Grade Course Father's Occupation Have you had a course in Economics? Yes No In process (check one) Have you had a course in sales, retailing, or distributive education prior to the one you are taking now? Yes No (check one) 155 APPENDIX B.5 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PILOT PROJECT GENERAL; INFORMATION Name (Please Print) 1. Last _First How many years of teaching experiences have you had? (check one) less than 1 _ 1 __ 2 _ 4 _ 5-9 _ 10-15 _ 16-20 _ 21 or more ___ What is your age? (check one) 20-24 __ 25-29 __ 50-54.__ 35-39 __ 40-44 _ 45-49 __ 50-59 __ 60 or more _. A. What is your seX? Male____: Female B. Are you married? Yes NO How many years have you been employed on this high school staff? less than 1 ___1 2 5 4 5 6-9 __ 10-15.__ 16-20 _ 21 or mor—e- _ What is the highest academic degree that you hold? Bachelors ___ Masters __ Doctorate __ Others (specify).__ How many hours Of credit (indicate quarter or semester) do you have a) beyond Bachelors, but less than Masters b) beyond Masters What is your father's occupation? (If deceased, what was it? Please be precise.) Give the name of your school and the total enrollment of grades 10-12: 10/12/66 APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS USED TO MEASURE ACHIEVEMENT AND ANALYZE DATA 154 155 APPENDIX C . 1 TEST OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING Form A I. Every economic system faces the need to economize. In this context, which of the following is the best defi- nition of “to economize"? To save money and thus reduce the national debt To dispense with the production Of luxuries To balance the government’s budget by reducing spending To make the best use of scarce resources that have alternative uses POP? 2. What is meant by the assertion that every economic system (such as socialism, capitalism. communism) faces the fact of scarcity? A. There are insufficient productive resources to satisfy all wants of a society. I. There are times when some products can be had only by paying high prices. C. In the beginning every society faces shortages, but a mature economy, such as our own, overcomes scarcity in time. D. All economies have depressions during which scarcities exist. 3. Which of the following best characterizes the relation between producers, consumers, and government in a private enterprise economy? A. Producers decide what to produce, government how it shall be produced, and consumers who shall receive the product. I. Consumer spending leads producers to decide what shall be produced and how resources shall be used. Government seeks to maintain competition and the rights Of private property. C. Consumers decide what should be produced, producers how best to produce it, and government who shall receive which products. D. Government ultimately decides what shall be produced and how. Consumers and producers. as voters, control the government. 4. Three of the following are essential to the operation of a private enterprise economy. Which one might such an economy operate without? A. Profit motive I. Markets C Corporations D Prices 5. Of the following, the principle of diminishing returns is best illustrated by small firms being driven out of business by large firms any decline in the average rate of profits a slowing rate of increase in output as a farmer adds increasing amounts of fertilizer to his land the decline in personal income as workers age 909? 156 APPENDIX C . 2 (Test of Sales Aptitude) 4. A woman has requested a radiator cover firm to send one of their salesmen. U n his arrival she says she has changed her mind.)0 What is the best thing for the salesman to do? __Politely explain that she is obligated to see the amp . ___Ask her, “Have you purchased some already?" ___Tell her she is making a serious mistake. _Say to her, "A: long as I am here, I may as well show you the samples.’ .A job lot dealer has bought up a large number of second hand cameras. He wishes to In“ rid of them uickly but at a decent fit. Whic one of the to wing groups will proba ly be the best market? ___camera shops selling second hand equipment __schools oflering art courses ___nowspaper photography departments ___.student camera clubs 6. Which one of the following items sells better in rural dis- trict: than in cities? ___overalls ___—sporting good: ___books on animal husbandry building materials 7. A prospective customer comes to the stationery department a store in search of csk accessories advertised in newspapers. After seeing the items as well as other: not advertised, the man leaves without having pur- chased anything. What is the most probable reason for this? __the raleunan failed to make the items appear as at- tractive as the ad presented them __thc items were poorly displayed, making them un- attractive ..__ths potential customer could not make up his mind as to just what he wanted ___ho was not asked by the salesman to make a purchase on 8. The best thing for a hardware store salesman to do when a prospective customer indicates that he has not de- cidcd what to buy is to __follow him about, pointing out the merits of each item ___bringbto his attention the most needed carpenter's too ___stick close by, being ready to offer assistance in purchases __rhowhimasamplcofthesaleoftheday . Most of the salesmen of a particular soap company are do- ing better than ever before ut George is doing worse. He could probably improve MOST by ___finding out more about the product he is selling ___—requesting a change in territory developing pleasant personality traits _studying the methods of successful salesmen @ IO. In selling baby carriages to dealers, it would be best to 1 mp which one of the following points? ___.all metal parts are chrome plated to resist rust __.___only our carriages have the new ”knee action” feature ___moro of these carriages have been sold in the past year than any other make ___—our company has spent $100,000 advertising this model ~ . In a large ci a telephone directory would be most helpful in ac ting prospective buyers of which one of the following items? electric refrigerators ___.automobilcs ___magazinc subscriptions vacuum cleaners 12.1'he same book would sell best under which one of the following titles? ___.."Sing for Your Supper” ...__“How to Sing for Money" 1.-....1"Dollar Serenade" ___."Manual of Voice Training” 13. Which one of the following leads will best serve to start a sales interview ___.“If I could show you how to save enough money to buy a new factory, would you be interested?" ___"Would you be interested in something new in labor saving machinery?" ___"I have an item here that everyone is interested in.” ___...“This plan I have here will cut your overhead 25!.” his wife. He complete 14. A man enters a clothing store accompanied has tried on a suit that he likes. To the sale. the salesman’s best move is to ___assure the man that the suit look: good on Hm ___.pnint out to the wife that the suit will wear well and is the latest model __ tomnvlncethecoulethatthisisav bu ”considering the poorpmatcrials gsnotalIyr'ya‘voatidlhblsy ___.mentionthefactthatthisputicularmodelhasbaan selling better than any other IS. Which one of the followin,g will best serve to improve a an's business. ___invito prospective customers to dinner __read recent publications relating to his field take courses in psychology ___read up on economic theories IO. “Staple" and “specialty" rdcr to ___Jnatcrials sold in the hardware and tool business ___styles of approach in selling __necessities and luaurirds __anitem thathasa ualpurpoaeandisthsrofoua 800d buy 17. During the discussion behvecn a corn 'r bu and a salesman. thc buyer has to mini. meet”: sched- uled a pointmcnt. In this instance, which one of the folfiwing should the salesman do? ___tell the buyer he will wait for him to return ___leave and call later for an appointment __askdtfii go along with the buyer so as to continue the ___requut another interview .0 l8. In trying to persuade a client to increase the tire insurance on is which one the following tales dom- onstrations would serve best? __show him that fire insurance today is cheaper than it ever was before ___point out that his insurance does not cover the pros- cnt value of the house __point out that millions of dollars were collected last year by fire victims point out similar homes in the neighborhood that are insured for more 19. Which one of the following is “capital goods”? __aaving bonds ___—sewing machines unbleached muslin ___any item whose price is regulated by the federal government see him that day. In such an instance the for the salesman to do is ___tsll him his order will only take a short time to place __Jncntion the company's special sale ___tcllhirtnhewillcalllatcrinthewcekforanappoht- men ___ask the secretary to telephone him when the boss is not busy 20.Aaalcsman is toldbyanold account thatheistoobu to bertt’hlng (Test of Sales Terms) CONTRACT means the some 05.- Area to which salesman is assigned. He paid on the installment plan. "be underlined u'nrrl mean: the more li'l PURCHASE means the opposite of.- Sole of goods in large quantity. Orders are bocklogged for this product. COMMODITY means the some as: Payment mode when goods delivered. We underwrite the machine for one year. COMPETITOR means the opposite of .- To return money paid for goods. A price quotation was furnished. INVOICE means the some as: Annual account of goods. He was an accredited ogent. CONFIRMATION means the opposite of.- People to whom product is sold. It was a clearance sole. ITEMIZE means the some as: An investment policy of insurance. He appraised the iewelry. DIVERSIFICATION means the opposite of: Estimated volume of sales. The price was made retroactive. CONTINGENT means the some as: Retail association eliminating middleman. The El profit was small. 157 APPENDIX C . 5 policy distribution on time client retail slack service C.O.D. put on trial connecfion market in full sole mail order concefled consumer store-door guarantee agreement coverage by check buy wholesale fluctuating merchandise charge opfion territory in advance commerce manufacture unfilled market cosh sole service merchant discount tariff bill catalog commissioned requisition volume wholesale clientele A rebate account endorsement audit abrogated cancellation ouflet bankruptcy huckster concession valuation receipt ledger proxy contract market budget partner receipt concession account inventory accessory affirmation demand liquidation underline endowment rebated innovation commission backward confirmatory concession unit odd floater onolyzed permanence budget reduced contractual syndicate clear invoice casualty set price variety assessment transferred conditional cooperative retail detoil liability promoted transference quota subsequent consecutive supermarket gross DDDDDDDDD“ UDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD GO AHEAD 158 APPENDIX C.4 DUNCAN INDEX Socio-economic Occupationstby major occupation group index Professional, technical, and kindred workers Accountants and auditors 78 Actors and actresses 6O Airplane pilots and navigators 79 Architects 90 Artists and art teachers 67 Athletes 52 Authors 76 Chemists 79 Chiropractors 75 Clergymen 52 College presidents, professors, and instructors(n.e;c.)84 Dancers and dancing teachers 45 Dentists 96 Designers 75 Dietitians and nutritionists 59 Draftsmen 67 Editors and reporters 82 Engineers, technical 85 Aeronautical . 87 Chemical 90 Civil 84 Electrical 84 Industrial 86 Mechanical 82 Metallurgical and metallurgists 82 Mining 85 Not elsewhere classified 87 Entertainers (n.e.c.) 51 Farm and home management advisors 85 Foresters and conservationists 48 Funeral directors and embalmers 59 Lawyers and judges 95 Librarians 6O Musicians and music teachers 52 Natural scientists (n.e.c.) 80 Nurses, professional 46 Nurses, student professional 51 Optometrists 79 Osteopaths 96 Personnel and labor relations workers 84 Pharmacists 82 Photographers . 50 ‘159 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation group, - index Physicians and surgeons 92 Radio operators 69 Recreation and group workers 67 Religious workers 56 Social and welfare workers, except group 64 Social scientists 81 Sports instructors and officials 64 Surveyors 48 Teachers (n.e.c.) 72 Technicians, medical and dental 48 Technicians, testing 55 Technicians (n.e.c.) 62 Therapists and healers (n.e.c.) 58 Veterinarians 78 Professional, technical, and kindred workers(n.e.c.) 65 Farmers and farm managers Farmers (owners and tenants) 14 Farm managers 56 MapagersI officials, and proprietors, exc. farm Buyers and department heads, store 72 Buyers and shippers, farm products 55 Conductors, railroad 58 Credit men 74 Floormen and floor managers, store 50 Inspectors, public administration 63 Federal public administration and postal services 72 State public administration 54 Local public administration 56 Managers and superintendents, building 52 Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship 54 Officials & administrators (n.e.c.) public adminis- tration 66 Federal public administration and postal service 84 State public administration 66 Local public administration 54 Officials, lodge, society, union, etc. 58 Postmasters 60 Purchasing agents and buyers (n.e.c.) 77 Managers, officials, & proprietors (n.e.c.) - salaried 68 Construction 60 Manufacturing 79 Transportation 71 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 76 Wholesale trade 70 Retail trade 56 Food and dairy products stores, and milk retailingSO 160 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation gppup index General merchandise and five and ten cent stores 68 Apparel and accessories stores 69 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment . stores 68 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 65 Gasdline service Stations 51 Eating and drinking places 59 Hardware, farm implement, & bldg. material retail 64 Other retail trade 59 Banking and other finance 85 Insurance and real estate 84 Business services 60 Automobile repair services and garages 47 Miscellaneous repair services 55 Personal services 50 All other industries (incl. not reported) 62 Managers, officials, - propr's (n.e.c.)--self employed 48 Construction 51 Manufacturing 61 Transportation 45 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 44 Wholesale trade 59 Retail trade 45 Food and dairy products stores, and milk retailing 55 General merchandise and five and ten cent stores 47 Apparel and accessories stores 65 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 59 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 7O Gasoline service stations 55 Eating and drinking places 57 Hardware, farm emplement, & bldg. material retail 61 Other retail trade 49 Banking and other finance 85 Insurance and real estate 76 Business services 67 Automobile repair services and garages 56 Miscellaneous repair services 54 Personal services 41 All other industries (incl. not reported) 49 Clericalpand kindred workers Agents (n.e.c.) 68 Attendants and assistants, library 44 Attendants, physician's and dentist's office 58 25 Baggagemen, transportation .161 Socio-economic Occupations, bypmaior occupation group_l pindex Bank tellers 52 Bookkeepers 51 Cashiers 44 Collectors, bill and account 59 Dispatchers and starters, vehicle 40 Express messengers and railway mail clerks 67 Mail carriers 55 Messengers and office boys 28 Office machine operators 45 Shipping and receiving clerks 22 Stenographers, typists, and secretaries 61 Telegraph messengers 22 Telegraph operators 47 Telephone operators 45 Ticket, station, and express agents 60 Clerical and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 44 Sales‘workers Advertising agents and salesmen 66 Auctioneers 4O Demonstrators 55 Hucksters and peddlers 8 Insurance agents and brokers 66 Newsboys 27 Real estate agents and brokers 62 Stock and bond salesmen 75 Salesmen and sales clerks (n.e.c.) 47 Manufacturing 65 Wholesale trade 61 Retail trade 59 Other industries (incl. not reported) 50 Craftsmen, foremen,pgpd kindred workers Bakers 22 Blacksmiths 16 Boilermakers 55 Bookbinders 59 Brickmasons, stonemasons, and tile setters 27 Cabinetmakers 25 Carpenters 19 Cement and concrete finishers 19 Compositors and typesetters 52 Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen 21 Decorators and window dressers 4O Electricians 44 Electrotypers and stereotypers 55 Engravers, except photoengravers 47 Excavating, grading, and road machinery operators 24 162 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation group _ index Foremen (n.e.c.) 49 Construction _ 40 Manufacturing 55 Metal industries 54 Machinery, including electrical 60 Transportation equipment 66 Other durable goods 41 Textiles, textile products, and apparel 59 Othertnondurable goods (incl. not specified mfg.) 55 Railroads and railway express service 56 Transportation, except railroad 45 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 56 Other industries (incl. not reported) 44 Forgemen and hammermen 25 Furriers 59 Glaziers 26 Heat treaters, annealers, and temperers 22 Inspectors, scalers, and graders, log and lumber 25 Inspectors (n.e.c.) 41 Construction 46 Railroads and railway express service 41 Transport, exc. rr., communic'n, & other public util. 45 Other industries (incl. not reported) 58 Jewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths 56 Job setters, metal 28 Lineman and servicemen, telegraph, telephone, and power 49 Locomotive engineers 58 Locomotive firemen 45 Loom fixers 1O Machinists 55 Mechanics and repairmen 25 Airplane 48 Automobile 19 Office machine 56 Radio and television 56 Railroad and car shop 25 Not elsewhere classified 27 Millers, grain, flour, feed, etc. 19 Millwrights 51 Molders, metal 12 Motion picture projectionists 45 Opticians, and lens grinders and polishers 59 Painters, construction and maintenance 16 Paperhangers 10 Pattern and model makers, except paper 44 Photoengravers and lithographers 64 Piano and organ tuners and repairmen 58 165 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation group index Plasterers 25 Plumbers and pipe fitters 54 Pressmen and plate printers, printing 49 Rollers and r051 hands, metal 22 Roofers and slaters 15 Shoemakers and repairers, except factory 12 Stationary engineers 47 Stonecutters and stone carvers 25 Structuralfmetal workers 54 Tailors and tailoresses 25 Tinssmiths, coppersmiths, and sheet metal workers 55 Toolmaker, and die makers and setters 50 Upholsterers 22 Craftsmen and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 52 Members of the armed forces 18 Opepgtives and kindred workers Apprentices 55 Auto mechanics 25 Bricklayers and masons 52 Carpenters 51 Electricians 57 Machinists and toolmakers 41 Mechanics, except auto 54 Plumbers and pipe fitters 55 Building trades (n.e.c.) 29 Metal working trades (n.e.c.) 55 Printing trades 40 Other specified trades 51 Trade not specified 59 Asbestos and insulation workers 52 Attendants, auto service and parking 19 Blasters and powdermen 11 Boatmen, canalmen, and lock keepers 24 Brakemen, railroad 42 Bus drivers 24 Chainmen, rodmen, and asmen, surveying 25 Conductors, bus and street railway 5O Deliverymen and routemen 52 Dressmakers and seamstresses, except factory 25 Dyers 12 Filers, grinders, and polishers, metal 22 Fruit, nut, & Vegetable graders & packers, exc. factory 10 Furnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers 18 Heaters, metal 29 Laundry and dry cleaning operatives 15 Meat cutters, except slaughter and packing house 29 Milliners 46 164 Socio-economic Qgcupations, by major pccupatiop group, .‘ index Mine operatives and laborers (n.e.c.) 10 Gold mining ‘ 2 Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 58 Mining and quarrying, except fuel 12 Motormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc. 5 Motormen, street, subway, and elevated railway 54 Oilers and greasers, except auto 15 Painters, except construction and maintenance 18 Photographic process workers 42 Power station operators 50 Sailors and deck hands 16 Sawyers 5 Spinners, textile 5 Stationary firemen 17 Switchmen, railroad 44 Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs 10 Truck and tractor drivers 15 Weavers, textile 6 Welders and flame-cutters 24 Operatives and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 18 Manufacturing 17 Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, & misc. wood products 7 Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 7 Miscellaneous wood products 9 Furniture and fixtures 9 Stone, clay, and glass products 17 Glass and glass products 25 Cement, & concrete, gypsum, & plaster ; products 10 Structural clay products 10 Pottery and related products 21 Misc. nonmetallic mineral & stone products 15 Metal industries 16 Primary metal indsutries 15 Blast furnaces, steel works, & rolling mills 17 Other primary iron and steel industries 12 Primary nonferrous industries 15 Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal) 16 Fabricated steel products 16 Fabricated nonferrous metal products 15 Not specified metal industries 14 Machinery, except electrical 22 Agricultural machinery and tractors 21 Office and store machines and devices 51 Miscellaneous machinery 22 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies '26 Transportation equipment 25 Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 21 165 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation ggoup _ , index Aircraft and parts . 54 Ship and boat building and repairing 16 Railroad & misc. transportation equipment 25 Professional & Photographic equip., & watches 29 Professional equipment and supplies 25 Photographic equipment and supplies 40 Watches, clocks, & clockwork-operated devices 28 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 16 Food and kindred products 16 Meat products 16 Dairy products 22 Canning & preserving fruits, veget., & sea foods 9 Grain-mill products 14 Bakery products 15 Confectionary and related products 12 Beverage industries 19 Misc. food preparations and kindred products 11 Not specified food industries 19 Tobacco manufactures 2 Textile mill products .6 Knitting mills 21 Dyeing and finishing textiles, exc. knit goods ’8 Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings 14 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 2 Miscellaneous textile mill products 10 Apparel and other fabricated textile products 21 Apparel and accessories 22 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 17 Paper and allied products 19 ' Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 19 Paperboard containers and boxes 17 Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 19 Printing, publishing and allied industries 51 Chemicals and allied products 20 Synthetic fibers 9 Drugs and medicines 26 .Paints, varnishes, and related products 15 Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 25 Petroleum and coal products 51 Petroleum refining 56 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 14 Rubber products 22 Leather and leather products 16 Leather: tanned, curried, and finished 10 Footwear, except rubber 9 Leather products, except footwear 14 Not specified manufacturing industries 16 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 18 Construction 18 166 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation group index Railroads and railway express service 15 Transportation, except railroad 25 Telecommunications, & utilities & sanitary services 21 Wholesale and retail trade 17 Business and repair services 19 Personal services 11 Public administration 17 All other industries (incl. not reported) 20 Private hogsehold workers Housekeepers, private household 19 Living in 10 Living out 21 Laundresses, private household 12 Living in -- Living out 12 Private household workers (n.e.c.) 7 Living in 12 Living out 6 §ervice workersj_exceptjprivate household Attendants, hOSpital and other institution 15 Attendants, professional and personal service(n.e.c.) 26 Attendants, recreation and amusement 19 Barbers, beauticians, and manicurists 17 Bartenders 19 Boarding and lodging housekeepers 5O Bootblacks 8 Charwomen and cleaners 10 Cooks, except private household 15 Counter and fountain workers 17 Elevator Operators 10 Firemen, fire protection 57 Guards, watchmen,nandfidoorkeepers 18 Housekeepers and stewards, except private household 51 Janitors and sextons _ 9 Marshals and constables 21 Midwives 57 Policemen and detectives 59 Government 40 Private 56 Porters 4 Practical nurses 22 Sheriffs and bailiffs 54 Ushers, recreation and amusement 25 Waiters and waitresses 16 Watchmen (crossing) and bridge tenders 17 Service workers, except private household (n.e.c.) 11 167 Socio-economic Occupations. by majpr occupation group index Farm laborers and foremen Farm foremen 20 Farm laborers, wage workers 6 Farm laborers, unpaid family workers 17 Farm service laborers, self-employed 22 Fishermen and oystermen 10 Garage laborers, and car washers and greasers 8 Gardeners, except farm, and groundskeepers 11 Longshoremen and stevedores 11 Lumbermen, raftsmen, and wood choppers 4 Teamsters 8 Laborers (n.e.c.) Manufacturing 8 Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, & misc. wood products Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work Miscellaneous wood products Furniture and fixtures Stone, clay, and glass products Glass and glass products 1 Cement, & concrete, gypsum, & plaster prod. Structural clay products Pottery and related products Misc. nonmetallic mineral & stone products \IU'IUT tP-xlUlNUl 01 Metal industries Primary metal industries Blast furnaces, steel works, & rolling mills Other primary iron and steel industries Primary nonferrous industries Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal) Fabricated steel products Febricated nonferrous metal prod. 1 Not specified metal industries Machinery, except electrical 11 Agricultural machinery and tractors 14 Offide and store machines and devices 17 Miscellaneous machinery 10 5-401 (00le (DD-P LO 168 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation group index Electrical machinery, equipment, _. and supplies _ 14 Transportation equipment 11 ' Motor vehicles and motor , vehicle equipment 15 Aircraft and parts 15 Ship and boat building and repairing 2 Railroad - misc. transportation equipment 8 Professional & photographic equip., & watches 11 Professional equipment and supplies 10 Photographic equipment and supplies 16 Watches, clocks, & clockwork- operated devices . -- Miscellaneous manufacturing indusb tries 12 Nondurable goodg Food and kipdred products 9 Meat products 8 Dairy products 15 Canning & preserving fruits, veg., & sea foods 6 Grain-mill products 6 Bakery products 10 Confectionery and related products 10 Beverage industries 16 Misc. food preparations and kindred products 5 Not specified food industries 14 Tobacco manufactures O Textile mill products 5 Knitting mills 4 Dyeing and finishing textiles, exc. knit goods 9 Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings 14 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 1 Miscellaneous textile mill products 6 Apparel and other fabricated textile products 9 Apparel and accessories 11 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 6 Paper and allied products 7 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 6 Paperboard containers and boxes 10 Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 8 Printing, publishing, and allied industries 25 Chemicals and allied products 8 Synthetic fibers 4 Drugs and medicines 22 Paints, varnishes, and related products 8 169 Socio-economic Occupations, by major occupation grodp, index Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 8 Petroleum and coal products 22 Petroleum refining 26 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 5 Rubber products 12 Leather and leather products 6 Leather: tanned, curried, and finished 2 Footwear, except rubber 10 Leather products, except footwear 12 Not specified manufacturing industries 8 Manufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 7 Construction 7 Railroads and railway express service 5 Transportation, except railroad 9 Telecommunications, & utilities and sanitary services 6 Wholesale and retail trade 12 Business and repair services 9 Personal services 5 Public administration 7 All other industries (incl. not reported) 6 Occupation not reported 19 APPENDIX D SUPPORTING STATISTICAL DATA 170 171 APPENDIX D.1 Table 29. Adjusted Analysis of Variance for Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Under- standing, Form B, with STEP-Reading and Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates Eleventh Grade (Groups One and Two) Sum of. Mean Squares DF Square F Sig. ales Aptitude .509 1 .509 .041 .82 STEP-Reading 86.049 1 86.049 6.890 .02? conomics, A . 6.895 1 6.895 1.457 .25 rror ' 199.828 16 12.489 .............. ---._-_.._...._(.-_.. Sales Terms 7.740 1 7.740 5.055 .11 STEP-Reading 9.015 1 9.015 5.559 .08** Economics, A 1.092 1 1.092 .451 .55 Error 40.554 16 2.555 ________ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ L - _ - - _ _ _ Economics, B .554 1 .554 .188 .67 STEP-Reading .540 1 .540 .505 .59 Economics, A 16.680 1 16.680 9.415 .01* Error 28.558 16 1.772 *Significant at the .05 level of confidence. *- *Significant at the .10 level of confidence. 172 APPENDIX D.2 Table 50. Adjusted Analysis of Variance for Test of Sales Aptitude, Sales Terms, and Test of Economic Under- standing, Form B, with STEP-Reading and Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates Twelfth Grade (Groups Three and Four) Sum of Mean Squares DF Square F Sig. Sales Aptitude 20.865 1 20.865 2.679 .12 TEP-Reading 215.474 1 215.474 27.671 <.005* conomics, A 111.206 1 111.206 14.281 <.005* rror 124.594 16 7.787 Sales Terms 5.695 1 5.695 1.674 .21 STEP-Reading 10.856 1 10.856 5.186 .10** conomics, A 12.546 1 12.546 5.650 .08** rror 54.415 16 5.401 .............. - - - _ _ _ - - _ - - _ 1 _ _ - _ conomics, B .050 1 .050 .024 .85 STEP-Reading 7.587 1 7.586 5.609 .08** conomics, A 55.191 1 55.191 15.790 <.005* rror 55.658 16 2.102 *- Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ** Significant at the .10 level of confidence. Table 51. Aptitude, 175 APPENDIX D.5 Sales Terms, Adjusted Analysis of Variance for Test of Sales and Test of Economic under- standing, Form B, with STEP-Reading and Test of Economic Understanding, Form A, as Covariates 4‘ fl Project Method and Cooperative Method Groupgl (Groups One and Three) " - Sum of 2 Mean Squares DF Square F Sig. Sales Aptitude 121.146 1 121.146 9.045 .01 STEP-Reading 242.249 1 242.249 18.085 < .005* Economics, A 151.217 1 151.217 9.796 .01* Error 214.512 16 15.595 Sales Terms 15.550 1 15.550 4.601 .05 STEP-Reading 2.059 1 2.059 .699 .42 Economics, A 6.565 1 6.565 2.500 .15 Error 47.122 16 2.945 Economics, B 1.496 1 1.496 1.592 .22 STEP-Reading 5.785 1 5.785 4.029 .07** Economics, A 21.752 1 21.752 25.165 < .005* Error 15.051 16 .959 * Significant at ** Significant at the .10 level of confidence. the .05 level of confidence. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES llHl “(0| W WI ("I W |( W || "(W l)" I" ”WI 31293107133823