70-15,112 P0L0MSKY, John V. , 1930EVALUATIONS BY STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND MANAGERS OF THE BENTON HARBOR-ST. JOSEPH, MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1969 Education, industrial University Microfilms, A XEROXC om pany, A nn Arbor, M ichigan EVALUATIONS BY STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND MANAGERS OP THE BENTON HARBOR-ST. JOSEPH, MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM By John Victor Polomsky A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum College of Education 1969 ABSTRACT EVALUATIONS BY STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND MANAGERS OF THE BENTON HARBOR-ST. JOSEPH, MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM By John Victor* Polomsky The purpose of the study was to investigate the atti­ tudes and reactions of three groups toward the Industrial Management Training Program (IMTP): curricula, instruc­ tors, and the administrators of the program. These three groups were: companies former students of the program, from which students came, and teachers of the program. The study was conducted in Benton H a r b o r - S t . Joseph, Michigan in 1 9 6 6 . ministered: (a) Questionnaire Student tionnaire Teacher and A battery of four instruments were ad­ (Q.T.), (Q.S.), (b) Ques­ (c) Questionnaire Manager (d) Questionnaire General (Q.M.), (Q.G.), the latter being used only with the student and teacher samples. The Q.G. was an Instrument dealing with attitude toward change based on certain demographic and institutional dissatis­ faction questions. The distribution and administration of the instru­ ments was done by the participating companies through their personnel departments under the supervision of the author. John Victor Polomsky The sample consisted of 330 students, and 20 companies. 29 teachers, The students and teachers were all men from middle management and above; most had some training beyond high school and several held college degrees. The purpose of the study was primarily descriptive but also contained hypothesis testing of relationships such as the following: 1. Number of courses and salary. 2. Number of courses and change orientation. 3. Number of courses and amount of education. 4. Age and change orientation. 5. Education and change orientation. 6. Salary and change orientation. 7. Institutional dissatisfaction and change orientation. 8. Insitutional dissatisfaction and salary. A set of 46 tables contains the descriptive data and the results of the hypotheses testing. Results of the hypotheses testing for the student sample revealed one half or four of the eight general hypotheses wer e con­ firmed. The remaining four were rejected. Student Hypotheses H-l: The data indicated that salary and number of courses taken were related at the accepted. .05 level. H-l was John Victor Polomsky H-2: The data indicated there was no relationship between the number of courses taken and change orientation H-2 was rejected. H-3: The data indicated that the number of courses taken and amount of education are related at the .01 level H-3 was accepted. H-4: The data indicated there was no relation be­ tween change orientation and age. H-5: H-4 was rejected. The data indicated a positive relationship between change orientation and the amount of education at the .05 level. H-6: H-5 was accepted. The data Indicated a positive relationship between change orientation and salary at the .05 level. H-6 was accepted. H-7• The data indicated there was no relation be ­ tween high scores on institutional satisfaction and high scores on change orientation. H-8: H-7 was rejected. The data indicated there was no relation be­ tween high scores on institutional satisfaction and high salaries. H-8 was rejected. The teacher sample was tested for only five of the eight general hypotheses and only one was accepted. The results are shown below. Teacher Hypotheses H-9: The data indicated a positive relationship b e ­ tween change orientation and age at the was accepted. .05 level. H-9 John Victor Polomsky H-10: The data indicated there was no relation be­ tween change orientation and amount of education. H-10 was rejected. H - l l : The data indicated there was no relation be­ tween change orientation and institutional satisfaction. H-ll was rejected. H - 1 2 : The data indicated there was no relation tween change orientation and salary. H - 1 3 : The be­ H-12 was rejected. data indicated there was no relation tween institutional satisfaction and salary. be­ H-13 was rej e c t e d . There were no hypotheses tested on management data. A major implication of the present research is for management to take a more scientific look at their goals and objectives for training personnel, and then to require periodic evaluation to ascertain if these goals are being accomplished in the most effective and efficient manner. There is a great need for more studies utilizing control groups, to ascertain the real worth of the existing training m e t h o d s . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the members of the advisement com­ m i t t e e — Dr. Lawrence Borosage, Dr. John A. Fuzak, John E. Jordan, and Dr. Rollin H. Dr. S l m o n d s — for their CQoperation and guidance throughout my program of study at Michigan State University. I am especially grateful to my thesis chairman, Dr. John E. Jordan, a humane and dynamic person who gave unselfishly of his time and kn ow­ ledge and with whom it was an inspiration to work. feel I owe Dr. Lawrence Borosage, I Chairman of my doctoral program, a great deal for giving me the opportunity to pursue this thesis, and for his tolerance and guidance throughout my graduate studies. The assistance of Mr. Anson Lovellette, Director of Industrial Relations, Lakeshore Division, The Bendix Co rpo ­ ration, St. Joseph, Michigan was extremely helpful in my pursuit of data. I am indebted and thankful to Mr. Lovellette and The Bendix Corporation for the printing of all my questionnaires. To the Board of the Industrial Management Training Program, I give my heartiest thanks for their financial and moral support. To my wife, Ann, who during this degree raised our three children, data, suffered a tragic accident, coded all my gave birth to twin boys, and still found time to ii encourage me to continue, Michele, standing, days. and Sherry, I dedicate this work. To John, I must say thanks for all their un d e r ­ cooperation, and tolerance during some very trying To Michael and Phillip (the twins), may they enjoy the benefits of a full-time father. To John Kapral, I extend my thanks for his help in typing my rough d r a f t . lii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................... LIST OF T A B L E S ................. . LIST OF APPENDICES ................ vli . xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION............................. 1 History and Development of the IMTP . . Hypotheses of the S t u d y ............ Organization of the Thesis ............. II. SURVEY OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . DESIGN AND PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY. 6 7 9 9 13 2*1 26 . . . Instrumentation...................... Research D e s i g n ...................... Participants in the S t u d y ........ Students ............. . . . . M a n a g e r s ......................... T e a c h e r s ................ 27 27 Student Questionnaire............ Teacher Questionnaire............ General Questionnaire................ Management Questionnaire........ iv 5 . Introduction...................... Training Evaluation Approaches. . . Criteria for Evaluation .............. Design for Evaluation............ What is (i.e., Factors) Needed to Improve Evaluation............ S u m m a r y ......................... III. 2 4 28 29 29 29 30 32 . 32 33 33 'Chapter Page Code B o o k .................................. Statistical Procedures ................. 33 34 D e s c r i p t i v e ........................... 34 ................. 35 Student Sample ........................ Teacher Sample ........................ Management Sample .................... 35 35 36 RESULTS OP S T U D Y ........................... 37 Hypotheses IV. . . . . . Descriptive Analysis of Data . . . . 37 S a m p l e .................................. Course Benefit ........................ Reasons Course Taken Course Content Level Reactions to Instruction in IMTP . . . 44 Teacher Effect ive nes s................. Reasons for T e a c h i n g ................. Classroom Facilities ................. Class T i m e ........................... Tuition and P e e s ..................... Night Shift C o u r s e s ................. Reactions to Administration of IMTP . . Administration of I M T P .............. Type of Training' N e e d e d .............. Admission P o l i c i e s .................... College Credit ........................ Reactions to Skill Needs by Type of M a n a g e m e n t ........................... First Line Production Supervisors. . Office S u p e r v i s o r s .................... General F o r e m e n ........................ Su per int end ent s........................ Division or Department Heads . . . Engineering Group Supervisors . . . ................. Vice-presidents. P r e s i d e n t s ........................... Staff P e r s o n n e l ........................ v 37 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 51 Chapter Page Reactions of Students and Teachers to Selected I s s u e s ........................ 53 Aid to E d u c a t i o n ..................... Change O r i e n t a t i o n ..................... 53 5^ Institutional Satisfaction Reactions. 56 S c h o o l s ............................... B u s i n e s s m e n ............................ L a b o r ................................... Local G o v e r n m e n t ..................... Health S e r v i c e s ........................ C h u r c h e s ............................... 56 57 57 57 58 58 Personal-Social O r i e n t a t i o n .............. 59 R e l i g i o n ............................... P e r s o n a l i s m .................... 59 60 Results of Hypotheses Testing . V. . . . . 6l Student Sample . . . . . . . . Teacher Sample ........................ Management Sample ..................... 61 62 6H SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ............................ 66 Managers of the S t u d y ................. Reactions to IMTP Course Offerings . Reactions to Administration of IMTP . Skill Needs by Type of Management. . Reactions to Selected Issues . . . Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .............. Results of Hypotheses Testing . . . . Student Sample ........................ Teacher Sample ........................ Management Sample ................. . I m p l i c a t i o n s ............................... R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ............................ 66 66 67 68 68 69 69 69 70 70 70 71 In R e t r o s p e c t ........................ 72 R E F E R E N C E S ............................................. 73 A P P E N D I C E S ................................... 80 vl LIST OP TABLES Table 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5* 4.6. Page Company, Student, and Teacher Samples Used In S t u d y ........................... 38 Participant Companies in IMTP and Number of Students Prom E a c h ................. 39 Company Classification According to Product and/or Manufacturing Process . . . . 41 Sample Size and Correlations Between Selected Variables for the IMTP Student S a m p l e .................................. 62 Sample Size and Correlations Between Selected Variables for the IMTP Teacher S a m p l e .................................. 63 Sample Size and Correlations Between Selected Variables for the IMTP Manager S a m p l e .................................. 65 Student and Teacher Evaluations of Courses in I M T P .................................. 231 Comparative Results (N's and Percentages) of Student, Company, and Teacher Replies to Selected Items .............. 232 Results (N's and Percentages) of Teacher Responses to Selected Items . . . . 234 Results (N's and Percentages) of Manage­ ment Responses to Type of Training Needed by C o m p a n i e s ..................... 234 Results (N's and Percentages) of Student Responses to Selected Items . . . . 235 Results (N's and Percentages) of Student and Teacher Responses to Selected Items of the General Questionnaire . . . . 236 Appendix G.l. G.2. G.3. G.4. G.5. G.6. vli Table G.7. G.8. G.9. G.10. G.ll. G.12. G.13. G.14. G.15. G.lC. G.17. G.18. G.1 9 . G.20. G.21. Page First Line Production Supervisors: Student Perception of Need by Area. Question 1 7 - A ............................ 24l First Line Production Supervisors: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 1 8 - A ..................... 242 First Line Production Supervisors: Management Perception of Need by Area. Question 1 2 - A ............................ 243 First Line Production Supervisors: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 1 3 - A ..................... 244 Office Supervisors: of Need by Area. Student Perception Question 17-B . . . 245 Office Supervisors: of Competency by Student Perception Area. Question 18-B . 246 Office Supervisors: of Need by Area. Management Perception Question 12-B . . . 247 Office Supervisors: of Competency by Management Perception Area. Question 13-B . 248 General Foremen: Need by Area. Student Perception of Question 17-C . . . . General Foremen: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 18-C . General Need Foremen: by Area. 249 . Management Perception of Question 12-C . . . . 250 251 General Foremen: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 13-C . . 252 Superintendents: Need by Area. 253 Student Perception of Question 17-D . . . . Superintendents: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 18-D . Superintendents: Need by Area. Management Perception of Question 12-D . . . . viii . 254 255 Table G.22. G.23. G.24. G.25. G.26. Page Superintendents: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 13-D . . Division or Department Heads: Student Perception of Need by Area. Question 1 7 - E ................................ 257 Division or Department Heads: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 1 8 - E ...................... 258 Division or Department Heads: Management Perception of Need by Area. Question 1 2 - E ................................ 259 Division or Department Heads: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 1 3 - E ...................... 260 G. 2 7 . Engineering Group Supervisors: Student Perception of Need by Area. Question 1 7 - F ................................ G.28. G.29. 256 Engineering Group Supervisors: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 18-F . . . . . . . . . 261 . 262 Engineering Group Supervisors: Management Perception of Need by Area. Question 1 2 - F ................................ 263 G . 3 0 . Engineering Group Supervisors: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 1 3 - F ...................... 264 G . 3 1 . Vice-Presidents: Need by Area. G.32. G.33. G.34. G. 3 5 . Student Perception of Question 17-G . . . . Vice-Presidents: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 18-G . Vice-Presidents: Need by Area. 265 . 266 Management Perception of Question 12-G . . . . 267 Vice-Presidents: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 13-G . . Presidents: Student Perception of Need Area. Question 1 7 - H ................ ix 268 by 269 Page Table G. 36. G.37. G.38. G.39. G. 40. G.41. G.42. Presidents: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 18-H Presidents: by Area. . Management Perception of Need Question 1 2 - H ................. Presidents: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 13-H Staff Personnel: Need by Area. . Student Perception of Question 17-1 • 270 271 272 273 Staff Personnel: Student Perception of Competency by Area. Question 18-1 . 274 Staff Personnel: Need by Area. Management Perception of Question 12-1 . . . . 275 Staff Personnel: Management Perception of Competency by Area. Question 13-1 • 276 x LIST OP APPENDICES Appendix Page A. LETTERS AND F O R M S ........................ 8l B. QUESTIONNAIRE T E A C H E R ......................... 85 C. QUESTIONNAIRE S T U D E N T ......................... 92 D. QUESTIONNAIRE MANAGEMENT. .................. 101 E. QUESTIONNAIRE G E N E R A L ......................... 112 P. CODE B O O K S ................................... 121 S t u d e n t .................................. T e a c h e r .................................. M a n a g e r .................................. 122 171 201 G. STATISTICAL DATA— TABLES 0.1 H. PCC I AND FCC II VARIABLE COMPUTER PRINT OUT CODE F O R M S ........................ xi to0.42. . . 230 277 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In our fast moving, technological society, the need for skilled labor and trained technicians is increasingly evident. This need, emphasized by technology and our space program, has caused federal, state, and local govern­ ments to give top priority to training programs in tech­ nical areas. Included in this training, in addition to technicians and skilled labor, are personnel who make up a group called ma nag e r s . This management group is most often trained by industry itself with private funds to meet today's challenging industrial demands. Scattered across the country one can find various management training programs, most operating under unique circumstances, but few if any operating with much thought given to the evaluation of what they are accomplishing. The need for evaluation of their training program was voiced by the Executive Committee of the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph, Michigan Industrial Management Train­ ing Program (IMTP). The members of this committee felt it was pertinent to their future operations to find out where they were headed and what should be done to meet the future needs of their industrial community. 1 Out of this 2 realization, came the opportunity to conduct the present * research project. The specific problem of this research was an evaluation of the IMTP over the twelve years of its existence— -195^-1966. History and Development of the IMTP The IMTP had its genesis in the early 1950's under the guiding enthusiasm of Mr. Sid Mitchell, former S upe r­ intendent of the Benton Harbor school system, wh ich then included the local Community College. Another person closely associated with Mr. Mitchell at the inception of the IMTP, was Mr. Russel Adams, Twin Cities' Vocational Director. Mr. Mitchell, now retired, held a broad concept of education, and was aware of and Interested in the many facets of education that he believed were needed by the community. It was in this spirit that Messrs. Mitchell and Adams held some informal conversations with various industrial leaders in the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph area, to try to provide something in the educational realm for management training. Upon finding an interest prevalent in the industrial community, Messrs. Mitchell and Adams, through the College of Education at Michigan State Un i­ versity, obtained the services of Dr. Lawrence Borosage, from the area of Industrial and V ocational Education. After obtaining the services of Dr. Borosage, Messrs. Mitchell and Adams held an Informal luncheon m ee t i n g in Benton Harbor in the summer of 1953. At this meeting, 3 approximately 50 industrial leaders were in attendance. The objective of this meeting was to test broader community interest in developing a program in management training. At this point in the p r o g r a m ’s development, it was felt that small business concerns would desire to participate in such a program. With sufficient interest generated at this meeting, a steering committee was established. working with this committee, While Dr. Borosage presented three assumptions often perceived as pertaining to the estab­ lishment and progress of such programs. One o f the as­ sumptions was; to select a group from local industry who were Interested in working as instructors. A second assumption was; these men would need special training, which could be provided under the direction of Dr. Borosage. What might be called step three in the developmental history of the IMTP, was for Dr. Borosage to conduct ten training sessions for the potential trainees or instructors of the program. sessions, This Dr. Borosage did in ten, three-hour covering ten weeks. While the training phase was being held for Instructors by D,r. Borosage, Messrs. Lovellete, Adams, and others were preparing courses to be started by the local Instructors. In summary, the training pro gram was to develop on three assumptions: 1. Local industries were to supply a group of men who were to work as Instructors in the program. 2. It was postulated that the local community could have a self-sufficient pr ogr am using industrial or adult education people as instructors, and that the cost of such a venture would be paid by industry. 3. The program would move under the direction of local school administrators and a steering com­ mittee. The committee to be composed of people from industry actively par tic ipa tin g in program, the its formation, and important decisions pertaining to its progress. It was initially felt that the p rog ram w ould last three to four years, then taper o ff and possibly cease. Instead, the program has had continued growth, has devel­ oped several top Instructors, and has encouraged some par­ ticipants to continue their education toward degrees. It is still in existence after fifteen years. After twelve years of continuous' operation, the IMTP Steering Committee in 1966, felt that the pr ogr am needed an evaluation to ascertain Its effectveness as well as direction for the future. Hypotheses of the Study Specific hypotheses were formulated between the va ri­ ables of the study in the following areas: 1. Number of courses taken and size of company. 2. Number of courses and salary. 3. Number of courses and change orientation. 4. Number of courses and amount of education. 5- Age and change orientation. 6. Education and change orientation. 7. Salary and change orientation. 8. Institutional dissatisfaction and change orientation. 9. Institutional dissatisfaction and salary. Organization of the Thesis The thesis is organized as follows: In Chapter I, the history of the p ro g r a m is presented also the reason for the need and purpose of the study. Hypotheses formulated between variables are also presented. Chapter II contains a review of previous research relative to the problem. Listed are overviews of some of the most recent and more scientifically oriented studies which utilize experimental techniques. Chapter III describes the methodology and procedures of the study. A general description of the instrum ent a­ tion, design, participants, and the statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data are Included. Chapter IV presents the research data and results in tabular and explanatory form. Chapter V is a discussion of the data, and recommendations. implications, CHAPTER II SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE During the summer of 1966 a preliminary review of the literature on evaluation of training programs had revealed a limited number of studies in the area. Again in the summer of 1969, a thorough survey of the related literature was made under various headings such as the following: (a) employess, training of; (c) executives; of; (d) management; (e) management, evaluation (f) management, development of; ment of; (h) job evaluation; and (b) evaluation; (g) manpower, develop­ (i) training. The bibliographic sources researched were: the American Management Association Index, Business Periodical Index, Journal of American Society of Training Directors (ASTD), Journal of Management Studies, Personnel Journal, Business Horizons, Iron Age, Aviation Week, Psychological Quarterly, Yearbook of Business Studies (Hofstra Univer­ sity, Management Development Programs), Harvard Business Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, PERSONNEL Busi­ ness Index, Administrative Management, Management Index, Factory, Harvard Business School Bulletin, Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, Occupational Psychology, Automation, and college texts related to the , r topic researched. 7 The College of Business and the College of Enginee rin g Libraries at Michigan State University were utilized for research and almost nothing was found on the topic of "Evaluation of a Management Training Program." Further research was completed in the mai n library at Michigan State University. These references pertaini ng to evalu­ ation are discussed below. Introduction The article by Mahoney, Jerdee, and Karman (I960) presented some relevant facts concerning the evaluation of management programs. Considerable effort and resources have been expended on various programs and activities for management development in recent years. This concern for management development reflects a growing awareness of the contribution of management performance to the continued success of our economy as well as the individual enter­ prise. Various pressures during the past fifteen years have contributed to an increasing concern for the efficient utilization of managerial resources, and numerous activi­ ties are being conducted by individual companies to im­ prove the identification of management potential and to develop and utilize this potential more effectively. An examination of management training programs r e ­ veals wide differences of philosophy, objectives, methods. and The diversity of approaches used in management training has increased in recent years with attempts to 8 improve this training. Many of these approaches to m a n a g e ­ ment training are accepted as desirable on the basis of face validity— the objectives appear desirable and the methods employed seem workable. Taylor (1959) says that face validity is not suffi­ cient in the evaluation of management training activities, however; a somewhat more objective evaluation is required. Careful evaluation of these training activites would serve several purposes. First considerable cost is involved in many of these activities and there is a need to det er­ mine whether or not the results justify the expense. Fur- t thermore, objective evaluation of the many different train­ ing approaches would facilitate the choice of training techniques most appropriate for given needs. And finally, precise evaluation of training a c t i v i ­ ties would identify the more effective and the less effec­ tive aspects of each, and thus contribute to the improvement of these activities. The need for management training and development will continue for some time, and precise evalu­ ation of training activites at the present time w ould con­ tribute to improved and more effective training in the future. Face validity alone is not sufficient to identify the differential effects of alternative training a cti vi­ ties. Only careful, objective measurement of the results of management training activities will provide the evalu­ ative information needed. Training Evaluation Approaches The general concept of evaluation is relatively simple. It involves measurement and comparison with a predetermined standard. The evaluation sought in manage­ ment development is basically similar to the evaluation sought for other management practices— how effectively and efficiently are the desired results obtained? The actual procedure for evaluation can be quite involved, however, despite the simplicity of concept. The objectives sought in training must be defined operationally in such a manner that they can be measured, criteria for the evaluation must be specified and measures of these criteria developed, and procedures for measurement and comparison must be developed. All of these factors determine the validity and usefulness of the evaluation. The IMTP committee stated its objectives to be pri­ marily in the development of middle management skills, with emphasis on the small companies in the area and con­ centrated in the technical aspects of management. Criteria for Evaluation Evaluation of management training activities is pos­ sible only where specific objectives and standards can be established as criteria for evaluation. Measurement of the achievement of these objectives or conformity to the estab­ lished standards indicates the effectiveness of the activi­ ty. A distinction often is made between substantive and procedural evaluation. The substantive evaluation Is con­ cerned with the conformity of practice to certain e sta b­ lished standards considered essential to the achievement of desired effects. Both types of evaluation were sought in the IMTP study. Mahler (1958, p. 80-81) notes in a survey of m ana ge­ ment development programs made at the University of Mi chi ­ gan, thirteen ways in which a pr ogram may be considered to be of value: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Improves technical performance. Improves supervision and leadership at each level. Improves interdepartmental cooperation. Highlights individual weaknesses. Attracts good men to the firm. Facilitates sound promotion-from-withln policies. Permits qualifications of key people to be better k n o w n . Creates reserves in management ranks. Makes organization more flexible by increased versatility of its members. Improves organizational structure. Stimulates junior executives to do better work. Keeps abreast of technical progress and econo­ mic conditions. Broadens key men in middle management. Mahler continues to say that these values can be reduced to two major objectives which most organizations say they are striving for in their management development p r o g r a m s . The first is an adequate reserve of qualified managers and the second is improved performance in current p o s i ­ tions. These objectives must be analyzed further. If an individual manager is asked to improve his current p e r ­ formance, he is, in effect, expected to change in some way. 11 If he is expected to become qualified to take over greater responsibilities in the future, over a period of time. he is expected to change Thus both objectives imply the need for change in individuals. The end re s u l t — the payoff of a management development p rog r a m — is individual growth. MacKinney (1957) and Mahler (1957) state that; Choice of criteria for the evaluation of training is determined by the definition of objectives sought in the training. Definition of the objec­ tives of training activities usually reveals several different levels or degrees of objectives, all of which can be relevant in evaluation. For example, the immediate objectives of training may concern the achievement of specific knowledges, skills, or attitudes among those trained. A ch i e v e ­ ment of.these immediate objectives is desired, however, because of the assumed impact upon p e r ­ formance of those trained, a second level of o b ­ jectives concerns improved performance of those trained. A third level of objectives concerns the desired impact upon organization performance which might be measured in terms of growth, costs, returns, turnover, and other indices of or gan i­ zation performance. Criteria for evaluation of training activities can be selected from all of these different levels of objectives. In one sense the third level of objectives, zation performance, is most meaningful. or g a n i ­ However, measures of organization performance often are not relevant in the evaluation of a specific training program since org ani za­ tion performance is influenced by many factors in addition to the training program. Somewhat more immediate objec­ tives of training programs are often measured in evalua­ tion, and relationships between these immediate objectives and the ultimate objectives are assumed. However, relationships between achievement of the immediate logical 12 objectives of training and the ultimate objectives of changed organization performance need not exist in fact; changes in knowledge, skill, and attitude occuring in a training program often are not translated into either changed performance of individuals or organizations (Fleishman, Harris & Burtt, 1955)* Consequently, the limitations of criteria based upon Immediate training objectives should be realized, and conclusions of effec­ tiveness limited to the specific measures employed. Lynton and Pareek (1 9 6 7 , pp* 310-311) state that: If training aims at definite changes on the job in an organization, then two criticisms of prevailing evaluation attempts must follow. . In the first place, the usual rough and ready ’m e a s u r e ’ of training simply do not suffice for our purpose. One, the 'number trained' tells nothing at all, even about the participants learning. They may have learned very little or next to nothing. They may even have learned the opposite of what was intended, for instance, that training is a hateful experience and a waste of time, or a time of rest, or an avenue to high status. If this is so, the training experience has done damage, and the participants may have carried away with them a jaundiced anticipation of future training o ppo r­ tunities for themselves and others and of the r e p u ­ tation of the training institution and its courses. One can be sure the participants will spread these feelings among their friends and collegues. These possibilities are all generally accepted; e.g., the ’number t r a i n e d ’ is used mostly to justify faculty strengths and training budgets, not to measure the effectiveness of training. Measures of the participants' learning at the end of the program provide a much more promising criterion of the effectiveness of tr aining— but at the risk of a different kind of confusion. These measures look specific 13 and are often quantifiable. They satisfy the urge to con­ creteness that helps trainers cover any uncertainty they feel about the effectiveness of their activities. Mahoney, Jerdee, and Korman (i9 6 0 , p. 84) contend: The objectives chosen for evaluation must be operationally defined in terms of specific meas­ ures in the development of criteria for evalua­ tion. Various approaches are used in this mea s­ urement of objectives, the reliability and validity of the approaches varying considerably. Probably the most common and the least reliable approach to measurement Involves the solicitation of opin­ ions from those in a position to observe the training activity. For example, participants in the training are polled for their opinions re­ garding the value of the training. These opin­ ions can be useful as indications of acceptance of the training by participants, but they hardly provide reliable and valid measures of factors such as increase of knowledge, skill and perfor­ mance . Lynton and Pareek (1 9 6 7 , p. 311) state that the effective­ ness of training is determined by all three partners in it; the participant, the institution, and the work organi­ zation . Structured rating scales which focus attention upon specific factors usually provide somewhat more reliable measures, but they still measure opinion and the validity of opinions as measures of knowledge and skill is-ques­ tionable (Mahoney, et_. a l ., I960, p. 84). Design for Evaluation Three basic designs for evaluation are found in current practices. The first of these focuses attention upon the level of achievement of objectives and completion 14 of* training activities; criterion measures are obtained after the training has been completed. This approach indi­ cates the degree to which objectives have been achieved, but it does not indicate the change in achievement associ­ ated with the training; it provides no indication of the increase in achievement of objectives. A second approach involves measurement both before and after completion of the training. These measures are compared to indicate the change in achievement of objectives associated with the training activities. This approach, however, often does not indicate the achievement which can be attributed specifically to training. A third approach involves a p p l i ­ cation of the same measures to a control group similar in all respects to the experimental group undergoing training. Achievement of the experimental group is com­ pared with that of the control group to indicate the achievement specifically associated with the training. Most of the evaluations of management training and development activities have mea sur ed achievement of results following training, with increasing numbers of evaluation studies obtaining both before-and-after measures. There have been relatively few evaluation studies involving con­ trolled experiments, although the experimental approach yields the most useful and relevant measures for evalu­ ation (Baxter, Taafee & Hughes, Mosel and Tsacharis, 1954). 1953; Goodacre, 1957; Application of the experimental 15 approach to evaluation of management training has grown slowly, probably because of a reluctance to withhold training opportunities which appear desirable from a por­ tion of those who might benefit. Also, it is difficult to design a controlled experiment without introducing a bias in the designation of control and experimental groups. Mahler (1957) states that three levels or degrees of thoroughness appear to be characteristic of program evalu­ ations : Common-sense evaluation The evaluator in the common-sense approach, looks around for evidence, which may include reported facts--such as number of promotions made; inferences— conclusions based on experiences or observations; or feelings— reported expressions of convictions. This kind of evaluation obviously lacks precision and— in many cases— authority. While it is impossible to know how much evaluation effort falls into this cate­ gory, it certainly predominates. However, more and more organizations are advancing beyond this level and adopting more precise methods. Systematic evaluation The type of evidence to be collected is decided upon in advance when systematic evaluation is practiced. Methods are used which permit quantification. Judgments or in­ ferences are collected systematically by interviews, questionnaires, or group discussions. Mahler (1957) states that a good example of the use of such a method is provided by Koppers Company, Inc. At Koppers, attitude surveys of employees were used to get information on the extent to which management development activities had resulted in a change In subordin ate s' feelings toward their supervisors and thus toward the company as a whole. Another example is the use of questionnaires by Consolidated Edison to secure systematic reactions to the job-rotation program. In this case, infor­ mation was obtained from participants in the pro­ gram as well as from their s u p e r i o r s . As a third 16 case in point, the interview technique was used by the Psychological Corporation in its study at Detroit Edison, where both subordinates and super­ visors were interviewed on their reaction to the management development program. Mahler further states that: Certain evidence as to the value of a management development program can also be drawn both from regular reports and records and from special re­ ports. Standard Oil (N.J.) has used this tech­ nique in reporting the number of jobs for which replacements are available. Johnson and Johnson has employed it in analyzing the extent to which within-company promotion policies are being fol­ lowed. Occasionally, a situation is sufficiently clear-cut that credit will be given to a develop­ ment program for having made a direct contribution to dollar savings. Lawrence A. Appley cites the example of a Montgomery Ward executive who att ri­ buted to the management development program a 27 per cent increase in tonnage of goods sold— accom­ panied by a reduction in total payroll costs. Efforts to secure systematic judgments, whether by interview questionnaire, some merit-rating plan, or the use of reports and records, are of course preferable to the more casual approach of the "common-sense" evaluation. How­ ever, the systematic method will have to find wider adop­ tion if it is to yield enough precise information to pert■ mit quantification of data, which w ill facilitate inter­ pretation of results. Mahler goes on to explain his third characteristic of program evaluation: Experimental evaluation The data for experi­ mental evaluation are collected under certain controlled conditions. For example, attitudes may be measured be­ fore the pr o g r a m begins and after it has been under way for a while. Measurements may be taken thereafter at regular intervals during the course of the program. 17 The most rigorous design provides for a control and an experimental group, with the aim first to equalize the conditions and then to provide some treatment for the experimental group, leaving the control group alone. If changes are observed in the experimental group but not in the control group, it follows that these are effects of the variable of treatment. Kirkpatrick (i9 6 0 , pp. 14-18) describes briefly some of the best evaluation studies utilizing the experimental techniques mentioned above. His briefs are presented below. The Fleishman-Harrls S t u d i e s .— To evaluate a training program that had been conducted at the Central School of The International Harvester Company, Fleishman developed a study design and a battery of research Instruments for measuring the effectiveness of the training. Seven paper- and-pencil questionnaires were used and the trainees, their superiors, and their subordinates were all surveyed. To supplement the Fleishman data, Harris conducted a follow-up study In the same organization. He used a before-and-after measure of job performance and worked with experimental and control groups. He obtained informa­ tion from the trainees themselves as well as from their s ubordinates. Survey Research Center S t u d i e s .— These studies at the University of Michigan have contributed much to evaluation of training programs in terms of on-the-job behavior. To measure the effectiveness of a human relations program con­ ducted by Maier at the Detroit Edison Company and to measure 18 the results of an experimental program called "feedback," a scientific approach to evaluation was used. A basic design was to use a b efore-and-after measure of on-thejob performance with experimental as well as control groups. The supervisors receiving the training as well as their subordinates were surveyed in order to compare the results of the research. The instrument used for measuring these changes was an attitude and opinion survey designed and developed in the Survey Research Center. The Lindholm S t u d y .— This was carried out in the home office of a small insurance company during the period of October, 1950 to May, 1951. A questionnaire developed as part of the research program of the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota was used. It was given on a before-and-after basis to the subordinates of those who took the training. No control group was used. A statistical analysis of the before-and-after results of the attitude survey determined the effectiveness of the program in terms of on-the-job behavior. The Blocker S t u d y .— A different approach was used in the study, conducted in an insurance company with approxi­ mately 600 employees. Fifteen supervisors who took a course on "Democratic Leadership" were analyzed during the three month period following the course. Eight of the supervisors were classified as authoritarian based on their behavior prior to the program. 19 During the three month period immediately following the program, the changes in behavior of the supervisors were analyzed through a study of their interview records. They used standard printed forms which made provision for recording the reason for the interview, employee, any. attitude of the comments of the supervisor, and action taken, if Each supervisor was required to make a complete record of each interview. They did not know that these records were to be used for an evaluation study. There were a total of 376 interviews with 186 employees. The interview records were classified as authoritarian or democratic. The changes in interview approach and tech­ niques were studied during the three month period following the course to determine if on-the-job behavior of the super­ visor changed. Tarnopol A p p r o a c h .— This example suggests the approach to use as well as a specific example of an evaluation ex­ periment. He believes in the employee attitude survey given on a before-and-after basis using control as well as experimental groups. perience, Tarnopol stresses that "in our e x­ five employees is a good minimum for measuring the behavior of their supervisor." He also stresses that "although canned questionnaires are available, it is a d ­ visable to use measuring instruments that are specifically suited to the requirements of both your company and your training program." 20 In his employee attitude approach, Tarnopol has sug­ gested inserting some neutral questions which do not relate to the training being given. This is an added factor in interpreting the results of the research. The Moon-Hariton S t u d y .— This study was made in an Engineering Section of a department of the General Electric Company in 1956. The staff of the General Electric Company was assisted by a representative of the Psychological C o r p o rat ion . In the spring of 1958, two years after the adoption of a new appraisal and training program, a decision was made to attempt to evaluate its e f f e c t i v e n e s s . It was felt that the opinion of the subordinates about changes in the managers' attitudes and behavior would provide a better measure than what the managers themselves thought about the benefits of the program. Thus a questionnaire was designed to obtain the subordinates' managers. Nevertheless, view about changes In their it was felt that the opinions of the manager would add to the picture. Accordingly, they were also surveyed. The questionnaire asked the respondents to compare present conditions with what they were two years ago. other words, In instead of me asu rin g the attitudes before and after the program, the subordinates and the managers were asked to indicate what changes had taken place during the last two years. 21 The Buchanan-Brunstetter S t u d y .— This study at the Republic Aviation Corporation attempted to measure results of a training program. A questionnaire was used and an experimental and a control group were measured. The ex­ perimental group had received the training program a year previously, while the control group was scheduled to re­ ceive it during the following year. The subordinates of the supervisors in each one of these groups were asked to complete a questionnaire which related to the on-the-job behavior of their supervisor. After answering the ques­ tionnaire in which they described the job behavior of their supervisor they were asked to go over the questionnaire again and to place a check opposite any items: "(a) which you think are more effectively done now than a year ago; (b) which you think are less effectively done now than a year ago." (Kirkpatrick, I960) In this experiment as well as in the Moon-Hariton approach, the subordinates were asked to indicate what changes in behavior had taken place during the last year. This was done because a-before-measure of the behavior had not been made. The Stroud S t u d y .— A new training program called the "Personal Factors in Management" was evaluated at the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania. Several different ap­ proaches were used to compare the results and obtain a more valid indication of on-the-job behavioral changes 22 that resulted from the program. The first step was the formulation of a questionnaire to be filled out by four separate groups: (a) conferees, visors not taking the course), (b) controllees (super­ (c) superiors of the con­ ferees, and (d) superiors of the controllees. The first part of the questionnaire was the "Con­ sideration Scale" taken from the leader behavior descrip­ tion questionnaire originated in the Ohio State Leadership studies. The second part of the questionnaire was called the "Critical Incident" section in which the conferee and control groups were asked to describe four types of inci­ dents that had occurred on the job. The third and final section of the questionnaire applied to the conferees only. They were asked to rate the extent to which they felt the training course had helped them achieve each of its five stated objectives. It was decided to conduct an extensive evaluation of the training program after the program had begun. There­ fore It was not possible to make a before-and-after com­ parison. In this study, an attempt was made to get the questionnaire respondents to compare on-the-job behavior before the program with that following the program. cording to Stroud, Ac­ it would have been better to measure behavior prior to the program and then compare it to be­ havior measured after the program. 23 Kirkpatrick (I960) states that the study on "Evalu­ ating A Human Relations Training Program" is one of the best attempts he has discovered. The various evaluation results are compared and fairly concrete interpretations made. The Sorensen S t u d y .— This is the most comprehensive research that has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program in terms of on-the-job behavior. It was made at the Crotonville Advanced Management Course of the General Electric Company. It was called the "Observed Changes Enquiry." The purpose of the "enquiry" was to answer two qu est ion s: 1. Have manager graduates of General E l e c t r i c ’s Advanced Management Course of 1956 been observed to have changed in their manner of managing? 2. What inferences may be made from similarities and differences of changes observed In graduates and non­ graduates? First of all, the managers (graduates and n o n ­ graduates alike) were asked to indicate changes they had observed In their own ma nne r of managin g during the p re­ vious twelve months. Secondly, subordinates were asked to describe changes they had observed in the managers during the past twelve months. Thirdly, their peers (looking sideways) were asked to describe changes in 2M behavior. And finally, the superiors of the control and experimental groups were asked to describe the same changes In behavior. This gave Sorensen an excellent opportunity to compare the observed changes of all four groups. In this extensive research, mental as well as control groups. Sorensen used experi­ He also used four differ­ ent approaches to measure observed changes. These include the man h i m s e l f , his s u b o r d i n a t e s , his p e e r s , and his supervisors. In this research, he did not use a before- and-after measure but rather asked, each of the participants to indicate what changes, if any, had taken place during the past year. What is (i.e., Factors) Needed to Improve Evaluation Evaluation, as stated, like it or not. is taking place whether we In some companies developmental activities are the first to be dropped during a cost reduction p r o ­ gram— a step that in itself reflects one type of evaluation. Those with long memories can well recall what happened In the 1930's, when development went by the board. In the absence of concrete evidence of the value of development programs, the same thing might happen at some time in the future. warning: Thus a crusader might be mo ved to sound the evaluate or perish. The choice Is between unsystematic, impulsive evaluations and planned, fragmentary, comprehensive, seriously 25 considered studies. If the importance of the management problems Justifies formalizing the approach, then these problems also Justify formalizing the evaluation. A few suggestions for improving evaluation would include the following: (Mahler, 1958, pp. 87-88) 1. Top management should ask for periodic evaluation. 2. Neither top management nor coordinators should be satisfied with "common-sense" evaluation. 3. Courageous pioneers are needed to cross the frontier into the relatively unexplored terri­ tory of experimental evaluation. 4. Evaluation requires as serious attention and as much advance planning as any other phase of executive development. 5. Greater utilization of the professional psy­ chologist is needed. The psychologist can be expected to contribute improved measuring instruments and improved evaluation techniques, and to assist in efficient conduct of studies. 6. The emphasis in all evaluation must be on improving the program, not Justifying it. Evaluation, in the final analysis, reflects how line management, assisted by a staff group, is carrying out its responsibility. 7. Evaluation to determine increased capacity to do a current Job should consider: a. b. c. Final results (reduced cost, higher return on investment, etc.). Intermediate results (improved planning, higher morale, etc.). Practices deemed to influence results (such as regular coaching of subordinates). 8. Exchange of information is a major pastime of coordinators of management d e v e l o p m e n t . Pooling of evaluation results, particularly negative results, will stimulate more and better evaluation. 9. A conviction that evaluation can and must be attempted is an underlying necessity. 26 Summary When reviewing the literature, it is apparent that evaluation has received much greater attention in recent years. Much progress has been made in developing instru­ mentation and in the processing of data to aid in the difficult task of evaluation. Management is mor e aware of the need to train its executives as they are demanding more from them due to technological advances. The college graduate is no longer trained in the practical vein but rather he is more theory oriented, and brings less usable practical skills to his employer. This lack of practical skill has called for more in-house training programs and hence more concern with the evaluation of existing p r o ­ grams. The literature indicates a trend to use more scientific means to evaluate these training programs. The questions being asked most today by management are: "Are we getting the most for our money?" and "Are we training for the right things?" How do we go about [the task of] finding out the tasks for which we should be training? are available and much pressure Few studies is currently being put on Directors of Personnel and Management Training Directors to conduct evaluations to ascertain effectiveness of existing programs and methods. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURE OP THE STUDY The initial step in formulation of the instruments was to contact the chairman of the IMTP, Lovellette, Mr. Anson L and arrange a meeting with the Steering Com­ mittee of the Industrial Management Training Program. This was held in St. Joseph, Mi chi gan on August 20, 1965* to obtain the views and desires of the committee regarding appropriate actions for evaluation of their program. Instrumentation Starting from the first meeting, ideas were generated and a picture of needs and objectives began to unfold. As a result of this meeting, a tentative proposal was formu­ lated. A second m eeting was held to discuss the tenta­ tive proposal, at which time the acting president of Lake Michigan College was in attendance as a member of the committee. A survey of existing doctoral theses, tionnaires, studies, forms, q u e s ­ etc. was made at this time; which covered the M.S.U. Library, Instructional material center, the State of Michigan Library, and the Department of Public Instruction State of Michigan. 27 28 At the Department of Public Instruction, a question­ naire was found from San Bernardino, California, which proved most helpful in devising the form used for that part of the questionnaire dealing with the courses offered in the IMTP. In addition to the management aspect, cer­ tain demographic questions were needed, and also attitudinal questions pertaining to acceptance of change. After further development of instrumentation (see Appendix for final version), a meeting was held again in Benton Harbor to examine the contents in regard to the criteria set down in the proposal. In attendance were Mr. Anson Lovellette, Mr, Walter Laietz, Dr. Clarence Schauer, Mr. Gordon McKnight, Dr. John E. Jordan, and Mr. John Polomsky. The meeting resulted in some revisions and deletions in the research instrument. A decision was also made to cover only those industries included in the IMTP, rather than all industries in the area. The instruments were again revised and another meeting of the IMTP committee was held at Lake Michigan College to approve the first revision. Student Questionnaire The student questionnaire (Q.S.— Appendix C) dealt with questions pertaining to number of courses taken, reasons for taking courses, time course offered, facilities, caliber of instruction, personal evaluation of course 29 content, etc. The questionnaire attempted to reveal the perception of the IMTP as perceived by the student. C er­ tain, variables were built into the questionnaire to verify consistency of the student in his choice of responses. Teacher Questionnaire The teacher questionnaire lelled the Q.S. (Q.T.— Appendix B) p a r a l ­ somewhat, but dealt with the perceptions of the IMTP held by the teaching staff. It also served as control data when analyzed with the data received from students. The teacher stated what he felt were important assets for performing his tasks to meet expected ob jec ­ tives of the course. General Questionnaire Each student and teacher questionnaire was supple­ mented with a general questionnaire (Q.G.— Appendix E). This general questionnaire contained demographic informa­ tion which was used in analysis of attitudes toward change. It has been empirically developed since 1961 in conjunction with an international study conducted by Jordan (1968). Management Questionnaire The management form of the Q.M. different from the Q.S. and Q.T. I and II was entirely The types of information i sought by the questionnaire dealt with those attitudes held by management regarding the value it felt it has o b ­ tained from the program. The Q.M. II contained projections 30 of the companies' ma npower needs for the future, and its perceptions in regards to additional curricula. It also dealt with the competence management felt was required in performing a Job. Q.M. form I covered the same basic questions regarding facilities, in questionnaires Q.S. and Q.T. time, etc., that was used There was no Q.G. at­ tached to the management form. Printing was done by the Bendix Corporation. lating, stapling, Col­ sorting, addressing, posting, and ap pro ­ priate educational and coding stamping was done by the researcher. A code of S, M, or T was stamped on day and week received to permit "wave" and other types of data analysis If desired. At a luncheon held with several companies, the p r o ­ cedures of administration were explained and several h u n ­ dred questionnaires were handed out. Mr. Anson Lovellette, the Director of Industrial Relations for the Bendix Corpo­ ration, agreed to distribute all questionnaires to students and managers, and the committee assigned Lake Mi chi gan College to distribute all teacher forms. Research Design The purpose of the study was to investigate the atti­ tudes and reactions of three groups toward the organization, functioning, and effectiveness of the Industrial Ma nag e­ ment Training Program (IMTP) of Benton Harbor-St. Joseph, Michigan. These three groups were: former students of 31 the program, companies from which the students came, and the teachers of the program. Research design has two basic purposes: (a) to p r o ­ vide answers to the research questions b e i n g investigated and (b) to control unknown variance or fluctuations in the variables being researched. Research design is the plan, structure, and strategy of investigation. The present research is primarily descriptive but also includes hypothesis testing. Its aim is not primarily theory development or testing but a variant of operations research— to describe what is and some of the correlates of the conditions that exist. The overall plan of the present research was simple and straightforward: vestigate how students, companies, to in­ and teachers felt about the IMTP on designated topics. The structure of the present research consisted p r i ­ marily of a parallel set of questions to the three groups of the study; i.e., students, companies, and teachers. The research instruments were planned to enable comparisons between the three groups on similar issues or questions; e.g., do students, companies, and teachers feel the same or differently about the benefit of the courses that have been given by the IMTP? In addition to the parallel three groups, set of questions to the specific Items were formulated for each group to answer designated questions about that particular 32 group; e.g., projected "training needs for companies" and reasons "why teachers taught." Finally, a common set of questions were devised for the teachers and students to ascertain certain demographic aspects such as age, sex, and amount of education as well as how they felt about certain institutions within society and what they felt about change in areas such as automation, birth control, child-rearing practices, and self-change ability. The strategy of the present research was to collect specific information in questionnaire form from students, companies, and teachers and to analyze this data in appro­ priate form. Participants in the Study The participants in the study were the students, companies, and teachers in the IMTP program. Students A list was secured of all students who had taken courses from the IMTP. The records of the course offer­ ings of the IMTP were at Lake Michigan College in Benton Harbor. The student record also contained the company with which he was affiliated since only persons recommended by a company could be students in the IMTP. The final list contained 1,315 students who had taken one or more courses. Questionnaires were made available to 1,315 of these students. 33 Managers The list of companies affiliated with the IMTP were secured from two sources: the student-company list de­ scribed above and a list of companies secured from the executive committee of the IMTP. The final list contained 64 companies who had at least nominal affiliation with the IMTP. Table 4.2 lists the companies, the number of stu­ dents from each who had taken courses in the IMTP, and Table 4.3 contains the classification of the companies by type of product and/or activity. Teachers A list of all teachers who had taught one courses in the IMTP was secured from Lake Michigan or more College. The final list contained 91 names. Code Book The data were analyzed with the aid of the Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer and several programs from the computer library. The use of the computer in a study of this type necessitates the formulation of I nstru­ ments that state questions on an IBM card. In a manner that can be coded This involves careful planning during the formation of the instruments. four separate parts In this study, there were (Q.S., Q.T., Q.M.I., and Q.M.II) to the code book; each part designates the question to be coded and the particular questionnaire to which it pertains. 34 In each case, the code book follows the same format; that is, the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the items, and the fourth column contains the code w ith in each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code (Appendix F). Statistical Procedures Descriptive Two frequency Column Count Programs (Clark, 1964), designated as FCC I and FCC II, were used to compile the frequency distributions for every item. In other studies this has proved to be a useful step in selecting variables for analysis and In gaining a ’’feel" for working with the data. In the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966) a great deal of data can be gathered from one analysis. Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for any number of specified sub-groups, or partitionings, the data. For each specified group dent, teacher, (e.g., manager, of stu­ etc.) a number of statistics can be requested. Those used for each partitioning in this program-were the means and standard deviations for each variable and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. In actual practice, only the descriptive statistics and the zero-order correlations were used In the analysis. 35 Tests of significance of the correlation coefficients from zero were the usual ones. Hypotheses Student Sample H-l: There will be a positive relationship between the number of courses taken and salary earned. H-2: There will be a positive relationship between the number of courses taken and change orientation. H-3: There will be a positive relationship between the number of courses taken and the amount of education. H-4: There will be a negative relationship between change orientation and age; the older a person, the less likely he is to accept change. H-5: There will be a positive relationship between change orientation and the amount of education. H-6: There will be a positive relationship between change orientation and salary; the higher the salary, the more change oriented. H-7: Those who score high on institutional satis­ faction will score high on change orientation. H-8: Those who score high on institutional satis­ faction will receive higher salaries. Teacher Sample H-9: There will be a positive relationship between change orientation and age. 36 H-10: There will be a positive relationship between change orientation and amount of education. H-ll: There will be a positive relationship between change orientation and institutional satisfaction. H-12: There will be a positive relationship between change orientation and salary. H-13: There will be a negative relationship between institutional satisfaction and salary. Management Sample H-m: There will be a positive relationship between number of courses taken and company attitude on paying all of the tuition. H-15: Satisfaction with administrative policies of the program will be related to the number of courses taken by employees. H-16: Courses taken by employees will be viewed as beneficial to the company. H-17: The present administration policies of the program will be approved by management. H-18: Management will desire more courses pertaining to upper management l e v e l s . H- 19: Management will desire only company employees to participate in the IMTP. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF STUDY The results of the study are presented in a series of tables with a narrative description and analysis. A final chapter of the thesis will present an overall sum­ mary of the results. Descriptive Analysis of Data Sample Table 4.1 depicts the sample of companies, students, i and teachers used in the study. The table indicates that only 20 of 64 companies responded to the research investi­ gation; 330 students from a potential of 1,315; and only 29 teachers from a possible list of 91. This means that the results of the study are based on a sample of 30 per cent of the companies, 25 per cent of the students, and 30 per cent of the teachers. Examination of Tables 4.2 and 4.3 also indicates that the sample is not truly r epr esentative of the total group. The teachers do not represent the total range of subjects taught nor do the students represent all the companies. This concurs with Wilson's (January, 1966) survey as reported in the Training and Development Journal, 37 38 In reviewing the original group, it was noted that the great majority of those not replying were the smaller companies. In general the rule of affluence applies. The IMTP is serving best the larger co m­ panies. The smaller companies had few students, thus likely also accounting for the small pe r cent of questionnaire returns from the smaller companies. This issue will be discussed again in the summary chapter. TABLE A.I.— Company, Total Possible Sample Companies Students Teachers 6A 1,715 91 student, and teacher samples used In study. Q ’aires Distributed 6A 1,315 91 Q ’aires Returned M P T 20 311 29 1 11 1 1 21 330 30 1Eight students did not Indicate sex, do not always agree. Usable Q ’aires M P T 19 311 28 1 11 1 20 330 29 thus totals A g e .— Twenty-seven of the 29 teachers reported their age. The range was from 32 to 66 with no concentration at any one age. O f the students, a range from 21 to 6A. 325 reported their age with Most of the students were between the ages of 28 and 51; only 18 were younger than 28 and only 39 were over 51* Age was not requested from the management. E d u c a t i o n - A m o u n t .— Table G.A reveals a wide range of previous educational attainment for the students with 20 per cent having some type of university degree and 60 per cent having at least some training after high school and 38 per cent having some college. 39 TABLE 4.2.— Participating companies in IMTP and number of students from each. Co. No. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 m 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Company Name Auto Specialties Mfg. Co. Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. Bendix Corporation Benton Harbor Malleable Indust. Berrien Co. Highway Commission Canteen Company of S. Michigan Casting Service Corporation City of Benton Harbor Clark Equipment Company Covel Manufacturing Co. Dawn Home Canning Dotmar Industries Electro Voice Corporation Engineering Works (Benton Harbor) Gast Manufacturing Company Heath Company Hughes Plastics Hydraulics Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. Industrial Rubber Goods Jessup Wood Products Kawneer Company (Aircraft D i v . ) Kaywood Corporation Laboratory Equipment Company Martin Fabrication of Steel Supply Michigan Fruit Canners Michigan Tube Company Modar Incorporated Modern Light Metal Inc. Modern Plastics Muellen Container Company New Products Corporation Morton Door Closer Company* Nowlen Lumber Company Paramount Die Casting Company Peer Incorporated Peer Div. of Landis Machine Co. Pemco Product Engineering Co. Produce Engineering & Mfg. Co. F. P. Roeback Company Saranac Machine Company Simonize Company Sodus Fruit Exchange Superior Steel & Malleable Casting 1956 29 0 41 10 1 0 0 1 49 1 4 0 9 3 7 6 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 9 1 1 3 34 12 5 10 1957- I960 1965 1959 25 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 33 6 0 0 0 9 8 26 7 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 15 0 3 0 15 0 0 6 0 16 3 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 7 31 2 99 41 1 6 2 7 146 10 1 1 2 4 26 47 6 1 10 9 2 1 7 18 2 11 11 6 1 54 9 3 1 1 10 1 7 1 5 2 13 6 2 23 4o TABLE 4 .2.— C o n t i n u e d . Co. No. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Company Name Thersin Klemans Company Twin Cities Container Corp. Tyler Refrigeration Corp. Union Bay Camp Paper C o r p . Veloco Machine Voice of Music Corporation Watervliet Paper Company Winkel Machine Whirlpool Corp. (St. Joseph Div.) Whirlpool Seeger Corporation Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpool Corp. (Laundry Group) Whirlpool Corp. (Research & Devel.) Michigan Bell Telephone National Water Lift Company Bohn Aluminum & Brass Co. Okade Controls, Inc. Produce Creamery (Pet) Jewel Tea Company Kat, Inc. Total participants in program Students enrolled between 1957-1959 Students enrolled between 1960-1965 Students enrolled in 1966 only 1956 2 1 4 23 1 27 83 0 1 1957- I960 1965 1959 0 3 11 0 0 49 0 7 36 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 24 1 1 4 -31 3 9 73 13 29 6 6 2 4 9 1 0 1 1 1,715 355 960 395 41 TABLE 4.3-— Company classifications according to product and/or manufacturing process. Code N o . 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Foundry Industry Non Durable M a n u f ac tur ing (soft goods) Heavy Equipment Industry Construction & Building Industry Machine Tool Man ufacturing Durable Manufacturing (component parts) Electronics Industry Appliances (home) Plastics Industry Packaging Industry (containers, etc.) Utilities (public) Wholesale Merchandisers (all products) The teachers educational attainment is higher as would be expected. Seventy-two per cent had some training after high school but less had actual university degrees than did the students. An inference from this with prior knowledge of the program) (coupled is that the teachers likely are not "academiclan-as-such" but come from the industry/company w o r l d - o f - w o r k . Amount of education was not requested from the management representatives. I n c o m e .— Three hundred twenty-three of the 330 stu­ dents reported their income and 27 of the 29 teachers. Forty-one per cent of the students reported incomes above $10,000, only 10 p e r cent in the $6-7*000 bracket, and 76 per cent reported Incomes above $8,000. The salaries of the teachers were much high er— remember they also come from industry. Eighty-nine per cent reported incomes 42 above $10,000 (versus 41 pe r cent for students). Thirty- nine per cent of the incomes were above $15,000 and one about $25,000. No students reported incomes above the $10-11,000 bracket. Salaries were not requested of the management representatives. Marital s t a t u s .— Table G.6 indicates that 94 per cent of the students and 90 per cent of the teachers were married. No teachers were single and only 4 per cent of the students. Where r e a r e d .— There was no real difference between teachers and students in regard to early youth community (Table G.4). They split somewhat evenly between country, country town, and city with some less concentration in city suburb areas. Recent r e s i d e n c e .— Most of the students and teachers live in the city and/or suburbs (Table G.4) wi th a higher concentration of teachers doing so. The te acher also has a higher income! Course Benefit Table G.l (all "G" Tables are in Appendix G) reports the summated reactions to individual course benefit and Table G.2 reports the global reaction to course benefit. Table G.l indicates that teachers felt the subject m atter was better d eve lop ed than did the students: 72 per cent versus 61 per cent for teachers and students respectively. 43 The overall analysis of Table G.l also shows that teachers perceived themselves as more effective than did the students. The evaluation by students and teachers of the bene­ fit of the courses (Table G.l) is not clearcut. Fifty-two per cent of the students and 37 per cent of the teachers perceived the courses as "somewhat11 helpful but 44 per cent of the students versus 63 per cent of the teachers rated the courses as "very" helpful. In general the teachers saw the courses as more helpful than did the students. Reasons Course Taken Table G.2 indicates that 42 per cent of the students took the courses because they saw them as helpful to their job whereas 60 per cent of the management thought that students took courses for this reason! Seventeen per cent of the students took the courses for advancement purposes whereas management saw only 10 per cent doing so for this reason. The inference is that students are advancement oriented and that management is oriented toward training to improve performance on the present job! Course Content Level Teachers felt level was adequate: (Table G.3) that the course content 48 per cent said fair and 41 per cent said good whereas the students (Table G.5) rated the course content development level as 45 per cent fair and 40 per 44 cent good. The teachers were somewhat more positive than the students about course content. Reactions to Instruction Teacher effectiveness Five per cent of the students rated teacher ef fec ­ tiveness as poor, 61 per cent rated it good, and 21 per cent rated it very good on an overall basis (Table G.5). * When the courses were rated on an individual basis, and teacher effectiveness was rated by both students and teachers (Table G.l) the ratings were fairly close. Reasons for Teaching Seventy-six per cent of the teachers stated they did so because they enjoyed teaching but 14 per cent felt "pressured" to do so (Table G.3). None Indicated they did so for the extra money. Classroom Facilities Only 15 per cent of the students and management felt that a central classroom facility (Table G.2) was desirable while 28 per cent of the teachers felt so. were least satisfied with present facilities the students next most satisfied The teachers (45 per cent), (at 47 per cent), and management was the (63 per cent). Both students and teachers felt industrial facilities should be used more and m a n a g e ­ ment felt least so. Perhaps this is because management 5 "inherits” the Job of providing the facilities whereas the students and teachers see the benefit of instruction in the industrial setting. Class Time Responses to this issue varied considerably. Ho w­ ever, analysis of Table G.2 reveals that when time-andday are combined more than half of all three groups are satisfied. Only a small per cent felt that classes had been at the wrong time and day. Tuition and Fees Table G.2 indicates that the student and management perceptions of "who-paid-the-bill" were very close (64 and 65 per cent respectively) while only 44 per cent of the teachers felt that all of the tuition and fees had been paid by the company. The data clearly indicates that 50 per cent or more of the cost was paid by the company and that likely in 60 per cent-plus-cases all of it was so paid. It is interesting to note that, while management reported it had paid all of the fees in 65 per cent of the cases, only 45 per cent felt that management ought to pay all of it (Table G.2). Approximately 5 to 7 per cent of the students, managers, and teachers felt that the students should pay something, but less than 50 per cent. 46 Night Shift Courses Over 65 per cent of the students and teachers felt classes should be provided for night shift employees while only 45 per cent of management felt so (Table G.2). Reactions to Administration of IMTP Administration of IMTP A large percentage (S-75, M - 9 5 a T-83) of the stu­ dents, managers, and teachers felt that the administra­ tive arrangement of the IMTP should be continued as it presently is (Table G.2). Only 4 per cent of the students and teachers felt it should be college operated and none of the management felt so. Type of Training Needed Analysis of Table G.2 reveals that students feel more training is needed for all levels of management while teachers feel that pre-supervisory and technical training is also highly needed. When it is remembered that the teachers come from industry, and tend to come from upper levels according to their incomes, their perceptions take on added significance. The students, who are mostly fore­ men and lower management, may see the needs in their own area while the teachers (who are also upper management) see additional and/or different needs. Analysis of Table G.4 further substantiates the data from Table G.2. In Table G.4, foremen and middle management 47 training and perceived by management as most needed, but pre-supervisory technical and engineering also receive a high rating. Admission policies The data (Table G.2) reflect an interesting picture. Students feel most liberal as to whom should be admitted to the courses, especially with regard to company pe rso n­ nel, whereas managers and especially teachers are opposed to admission being open to "anyone" in the company. Again, it is to be remembered that the teachers represent upper management to some extent and thus likely reflect the management position that "it" should control admission to "its" program and especially if admission is to be open to non-management (i.e., union) personnel. College Credit The data of Table G.2 reveal rather close agreement between students, management, and teachers on this issue. Forty per cent or mor e feel that college credit should not be given for IMTP courses. Further analysis of the data shows that 25 per cent feel credit should be optional and that the option should be the student's. These two alternatives combined indicate that 70 to 80 per cent feel that credit should not be given or that at the most, should be optional and at the student's discretion. it 48 Reactions to Skill Needs by Type of Management First Line Production Supervisors There is fair agreement on p r i o r i t y 1 level of need between supervisors and management: w orking with pr odu c­ tion, with equipment, and with personnel and human rel a­ tions are all ranked high and approximately the same (Table G.7 and G.9). The supervisors' ra tin g of th em­ selves in Table G.8 and management r ating of them in Table G.10 is also close: 32 per cent of the supervisors rate themselves as average and 31 per cent of the managers rate them so. Detailed analysis of Tables G.7 and G.10 reveal many other interesting relationships. Office Supervisors The office supervisors saw the following as being most important: communications, human relations, working with others, and working with reports (Table G.ll). They also saw themselves as being fairly " g o o d - t o - e x c e l l e n t " in these areas (Table G.12). Management agreed on the im­ portance of these areas for office supervisors but saw a c­ counting and general business as also being quite important Tables G . l 3 and G.14). 1For purposes of analysis the ratings of "good" and "excellent" are combined in the students* evaluations of themselves. Examination of the data indicates that students in essence were using the rating of "good" as the top one and avoided the use of "excellent." Perhaps the word "ex­ cellent" implied a kind of "egotism" to the students. ^9 General Foremen The foremen saw the following as most Important: working with equipment, with production, with other p e r ­ sonnel, and human relations (Table G.15). They saw th em­ selves as being somewhat deficient in the human relations aspect (Table G.16). Management perceived the importance of the same two basic factors: a personnel factor and a technical-skill factor, and tended to place more impor­ tance on the latter than did the foremen themselves (Table G.17). Management saw the foremen as being d e f i ­ cient in both factors but being weaker in the personnel factor (Table G.18). Superintendents The superintendents portant: human relations, other personnel, saw the following as most im­ communications, wo rking with and with reports (Table G.19). saw themselves as being w eak in all these areas G.20). They also (Table Management agrees on the importance of the "communications-human relations" factors but also sees working with production as being important to the job of the superintendent (Table G.21). interesting finding: Table G.22 reveals an management sees the superintendent as being quite "good" in working with production but needing considerable help in the "communications-human relations" factor. 50 Division or Department Heads The profile of skill needs for the division heads is very similar to superintendents— a "communicationhuman relation" factor (Tables G.23 and They saw themselves being weak in this area as di d the superinten­ dents . Management perceived the skill needs and present competencies of division heads approximately as they did superintendents: they saw the need being greatest in the communications, human relations a rea w i t h the division heads being stronger in wo rking with reports than in gen­ eral communications (Table G.25). Management also saw importance in "working with production" , as part of the Job of a division head but also saw him as being good at this (Table G . 2 6 ) . Engineering Group Supervisors The profile for this group is interesting. The en ­ gineering supervisors see the following as most important: working with drawings a n d reports, other personnel and human relations with mathematics, with (Table G.27). They also see themselves as weak in all these areas but es­ pecially in mathematics (Table G.28)! Management sees the job as more technical than do the engineering super­ visors themselves (Table G.29) but they also see the en­ gineering supervisors as being more competent in the mathtechnical area than do the engineers themselves (Table G.30). 51 Vice-Presidents The vice-presidents saw the following as most im­ portant: working with reports, other personnel, cations, human relations, and general business communi­ (Table G.31)* This is largely the same as for superintendents and divi­ sion heads but adds accounting-and-general business and the factor is regarded as even more important by vicepresidents. They see themselves as weak in all these areas but especially so in working with drawings and re­ ports. Perhaps the increasing complexity of the techni­ cal aspects of reports in modern science and industrial technology has "caught up" with the vice-president. Presidents The profile for presidents is like that of vicepresidents but even more so! The presidents see communi­ cations, human relations, and accounting-and-general business as being the overwhelming skill needs of their job (Table G.36). Interestingly enough, they see some need for skill in the science technical area and in working with production. However, they see themselves as being fairly good at this but being very weak in the accountingand-general business area and needing some help in the "communications-human relations" area (Table G.37). Staff Personnel Generalizatiofts in this area are difficult because the profile is based on a composite reaction to a number 52 of positions like engineering, sonnel, etc. sales, accounting, per­ Inferences from the data should be inter­ preted accordingly. Staff personnel see the following as important: working with production, with drawings and reports, munications, and human relations technical-communications factor. (Table G.40). com­ This is a They see themselves as being adequate in the technical aspect of the factor but being quite weak In the communication factor (Table G^4l). Management sees the skills needed by staff personnel a little differently. They see more Importance in the com­ munications factor and add the accounting-and-general business dimension (Table G . 4 2). They also see staff p e r ­ sonnel as being wea k In all these areas but especially In the general business aspect. If the staff personnel are "as good" as they feel they are In the technical area and as weak In the communi­ cation area, this may account for the reactions of m a n a g e ­ ment. They see the weakness and respond to it. The addition by management of the accounting-and- general business dimension is also Interesting. This may be based on the conscious or unconscious realization that future vice-presidents and presidents come from this group and that they are weak In this area. Examination of the profile of presidents and vice-presidents indicates the importance attached to skill in the general business area. 53 A second inference can also be entertained. Man a g e ­ ment may be responding to the oft-quoted statement that many upper level staff persons do not understand the goals and purposes of the organization nor the principles of business management in the Americ an free enterprise system. Perhaps they feel that staff personnel are only interested in pay-day rather than also being interested in the ad­ vancement of the company. Reaction of Students and Teachers to Selected Issues Aid to Education Local A i d .— The teachers and students disagree more at the extreme positions (Table G.6). Sixty-five per cent of teachers strongly agree on raising local taxes for edu ­ cation and only 35 per cent of the students. teachers, who are also upper level management, the civic leaders in the community, regarded as both good and bad. Since the are likely this finding can be It Is "good" that they are for education but it also shows them the lack of communi­ cation and/or sales Job they have done in the community. Federal A i d .— Analysis of this question in conjunc­ tion with the above is interesting if not paradoxical. Whereas only three per cent of teachers are "strongly" against raising local taxes for education, are against it at the federal level 41 per cent (Table G.6). It is also Interesting that approximately the same per cent of 54 teachers cation; "slightly agree" on local and federal aid to edu­ 24 and 28 per cent respectively. It is also "somewhat surprising" that 10 to 14 per cent of business­ men strongly support federal aid to education. Change Orientation Health (f luo rid ati on) .— Most of the respondents were in favor of fluoridation; 67 per cent of 79 per cent of the teachers the students and (Table G.6). Child-rearing p r a c t i c e s .— Thirty per cent of students and 27 per cent of teachers were to some extent against trying out new methods in child-rearing and only 16 per cent of students and 20 per cent of teachers were strongly for it (Table G.6). Birth c o n t r o l .— Eighty-six per cent of students and 90 per cent of teachers were to some extent in favor of birth control and only 3 per cent of the students and none of the teachers felt it was always wrong (Table G.6). A u t o m a t i o n .— Ninety-four per cent of the students and 97 per cent of the teachers were to some extent for automation (Table G.6). Political leadership c h a n g e .— An interesting con­ frontation! con. Almost the same per cent strongly pro-and- Twenty-seven per cent of the students were strongly for-and-against regular change of political leaders and 21 per cent of the teachers strongly for-and-against it (Table G . 6 ) . 55 S e l f - c h a n g e .— Fifty-five per cent of the students and only 28 per cent of the teachers find it difficult to "change their ways" (Table G.6). The teachers, who are also upper-level managers, are more change-oriented, but perhaps industry needs to consider that ha lf of their management personnel report they are s e t - i n - t h e l r - w a y s . Rule a d h e r e n c e .— Twenty-five per cent of the students and 17 per cent of the teachers report liking to "follow rules" rather than doing things on their own (Table G.6). Only 31 per cent of teachers and 24 per cent of students strongly dislike following rules. One can speculate whether these are the "dissenters or the Innovators." Job r e g u l a r i t y .— Twenty-three per cent of students and 7 per cent of teachers like a Job with regularity and/ or routine. Fifty-eight per cent of teachers and 45 per cent of students strongly dislike such a Job (Table G.6). P l a n n i n g .— Seventy-two per cent of students and 79 per cent of teachers believe strongly that p lanning is beneficial (Table G.6); only 8 per cent disbelieve to some extent in the benefit of planning, believe so. and none of the teachers The inference is that the teachers (upper level managers) are more planning-oriented and believe more in themselves. Residence c h a n g e .— Fifty-three per cent of the stu­ dents and 48 per cent of the teachers have not changed resi­ dency community in the last ten years. None of the teachers 56 have moved more than three times during the last ten years, and only 4 per cent of the students have done so (Table G . 6 ) . Job c h a n g e .— Sixty-six per cent of the students and 69 per cent of the teachers have not changed jobs during ten years. Only 3 (10 per cent) of the teachers have changed jobs as much as three times during the last ten years, whereas 50 (15 per cent) of the students have done so (Table G.6). The last two questions indicate a very stable residence-job community. Institutional Satisfaction Reactions Schools Elementary s c h o o l s .— Eighty-three per cent of the students and 83 per cent of the teachers feel the elemen­ tary school is doing a good-to-excellent job. Only 2 per cent of the students feel it is doing a poor Job, and none of the teachers feel so (Table G.6). Secondary s c h o o l s .— Seventy-six per cent of the stu­ dents and 80 per cent of the teachers feel the secondary school is doing a good-to-excellent Job and only 4 per cent of the students feel it is doing a poor Job (Table G.6). U n i v e r s i t i e s .— Seventy-nine per cent of the students and 66 per cent of the teachers feel the universities are doing a good-to-excellent job and only 2 per cent of the students feel they are doing a poor job (Table G.6). 57 Businessmen Sixty-four per cent of the students and 48 per cent of the teachers feel that businessmen are doing a goodto-excellent job (Table G.6). that the teachers It is interesting to note (upper level management) are least satis­ fied with businessmen. Is this reaction because they are in-the-know or does "familiarity breed contempt?" Labor Forty per cent of the students and 41 p er cent of the teachers felt that labor was doing a good-to-excellent job in the community, v/hereas 12 per cent of students and 21 per cent of teachers felt it was doing a poor job (Table G.6). The above concluding comment under business­ men applies equally here. The higher the management level the more anti-labor one becomes. Local Government Forty-five per cent of students and 41 per cent of teachers felt that local government was doing a good-toexcellent job in the community while 6 per cent of students and 3 per cent of teachers felt it was doing poorly (Table G.6). Analysis of the local and national government re­ sponses indicates that about 50 per cent of managers are fairly satisfied with local government but that 25 per cent of management felt that the national government was 58 doing a poor .Job. Managers also felt more strongly against the national government the higher up the m a n a g e ­ ment level they went. Health Services Seventy per cent of students and 76 per cent of teachers felt that health services were doing a good-toexcellent job while per cent of students feel the s e r ­ vices are poor (Table G.6). One can speculate on the higher socio-economic level of the teachers (upper level managers) satisfaction with the services, i.e., and their greater they can "pay" for better services and are thus more satisfied. Churches Seventy-two per cent of students and 76 per cent of teachers felt that churches were doing a good-toexcellent job while only H per cent of the students felt they were doing a poor Job and none of the teachers felt so (Table G.6). One can speculate, as with health services, higher level management why (teachers) are more satisfied with churches than are the students. Is higher level m a n a g e ­ ment more active, more informed, et cetera, or are they more subject to "approval pressure" in socially sensitive areas such as religion? adherence, below. See discussion under religion- 59 Personal-Social Orientation Religion R e l i g i o n - a f f i l i a t i o n .— Seventy-seven per cent of the students and 75 per cent of the teachers were Protestant while 19 per cent of the students and 17 per cent of the teachers were Catholic (Table G.6). R e l i g i o n - i m p o r t a n c e .— Approximately 50 per cent of the students and teachers said religion was "fairly" im­ portant in their daily life, about 25 per cent said it was very Important, while 15 to 20 per cent said it was not very important. had no religion Only 6 students (1.8 per cent) said they (Table G.6). R e l i g i o n - a d h e r e n c e .— Approximately 30 per cent of the students and teachers said they always kept the rules and regulations of their religion, 40 per cent said they usually did, 13 per cent stated they did some of the time, while 5 pe r cent of the students versus 10 per cent of the teachers said they seldom kept the rules (Table G.6). The fact that approximately twice as many teachers (upper level managers) do not observe the rules and r e g u ­ lations of their religion adds further light to the dis­ cussion of the teachers' p osi tio n on their satisfaction with the extent to which the church is doing a good Job in the c o m m u n i t y . 60 Personalism Job p e r s o n a l i s m .— Most of the managers did not work a high percentage of the time with people whom they r e ­ garded as close friends; 82 per cent of the students' time and 87 per cent of the t e a c h e r s ’ time was so spent (Table G.6). Pe r s o n a l i s m - i m p o r t a n c e .— Forty-five per cent of the students and 48 per cent of the teachers did not feel it very important to work with close friends while 13 per cent of students and 17 p e r cent of teachers did feel it very important to work with people to wh om they felt close (Table G.6). Happiness p r e r e q u i s i t e s .— Sixty-eight per cent of the students and 59 per cent of the teachers indicated that future happiness was most related to job-and-health (Table G.6). The teachers (upper level managers) tended to be somewhat more oriented outside themselves health) than the students. (Job and Because of their positions, one can speculate they are more involved in community affairs than the students, who are also ma nag eme nt— but lower level. Happiness p o s s i b i l i t i e s .— Forty-two per cent of the students and 66 per cent of the teachers believed that "job and health" were the areas in which they would find future happiness (Table G.6). None of the teachers saw more money as being important and only 2 per cent of the students did so. 61 Further analysis of Table G.6 indicates that the teachers see future happiness from their present job po­ sition (granting good health) whereas the students (lower level management— who have not yet arrived) are less sure and see possibilities in other areas. Results of Hypotheses Testing Student Sample H-l: The data of Table 4 4 indicates that salary and number of IMTP courses taken are related at the level. .05 H-l is accepted. H-2: The data of Table 4.4 indicates there is no relation between the number of courses taken and change orientation. H-3: H-2 is rejected. The data of Table 4.4 indicates that number of IMTP courses taken and amount of education are related at the .01 level. H-4: H-3 is accepted. The data of Table 4.4 indicates there is no relation between change orientation and age. H-4 is rejected. H-5: The data of Table 4.4 indicates a positive lationship between change orientation and the education at the H-6: .05 level. amount of H-5 is accepted. The data of Table 4.4 indicates a positive lationship between change orientation and salary at the .05 level. H-6 is accepted. re­ re­ 62 TABLE 4.4.— Sample size and correlations between selected variables for the IMTP student sample. 1-Course 2-Salary 12(322)* 3-Change 00(330) 4-Ed. amt .-21(320)** 13(329)* -02(324) 5-Age 6-Salary 13(322)* 7- I n s t . Satis. 06(330) Variable 1 Course 2 Salary 3 Change 01(322) 4 Ed. Amt. 5 Age 6 Salary 7 Inst. Satis. *P < .05. #*P < .01. H-7: The data of Table 4.4 Indicates there Is no relation between high scores on institutional satisfaction and high scores on change orientation. H-8: H-7 is rejected. The data of Table 4.4 indicates there is no relation between high scores on institutional satisfaction and high salaries. H-8 is rejected. Teacher Sample H-9: The data of Table 4.5 indicates a positive r e ­ lationship between change orientation and age at the level. H-9 is accepted. .05 ... . 63 TABLE 4.5*— Sample size and correlations between selected variables for the IMTP teacher sample. 1-Change 35(27)# 2-Change 0 8 (2 9 )n.s 3-Change • 05(2 9 )n.s. - 1 0 (2 7 )n.s. 4-Change 5-Inst. Satis. -04(2 7 )n 1 Age Variable 2 Educ. Amount 3 Inst. Sa t i s . 4 Salary 5 Salary *P * .05 n.s. - no significance H-10: The data of Table 4.5 indicates there is no relation between change orientation and amount of educa­ tion. H-10 is rejected. H-ll: The data of Table 4.5 indicates there is no relation between change orientation and institutional satis­ faction. H-ll is rejected. H-12: The data of Table 4.5 indicates there is no relation between change orientation and salary. H-12 is rejected. H-13: The data of Table 4.5 indicates there is no relation between Institutional satisfaction and salary. H-13 is rejected. 64 Management Sample H-14: The data of Table 4.6 Indicates a relationship between number of IMTP courses taken and company attitude on p aying all of the tuition at the .005 level. H-14 is accepted. H-15: The data of Table 4.6 indicates there is no relation between administration policies o f the IMTP and the number of courses taken by employees. H-15 is rej e c t e d . H-16: The frequency data indicates that the compa­ nies view courses taken as somewhat helpful (40 per cent), very helpful H-17: (55 per cent). H-16 is accepted. The frequency data indicates the present policies of administration of the IMTP are overwhelmingly acceptable H-18: (95 per cent). H-17 is accepted. The frequency data indicates management does not desire more upper level management courses. H-18 is rej e c t e d . H-19: The frequency data Indicates that management is evenly divided with respect to who should be allowed to take courses in the IMTP but slightly favoring responses contrary to H-19. H-19 is rejected. TABLE 4.6.— Sample size and correlation between selected variables for the IMTP manager sample. 1-Courses Taken 2-Student Expenses .55(20)** 3-Student Tuition .84(20)** .22(19)n.s. 4-Classroom Facil. 5-Adminis. IMTP 6-Course Admit. 7-College Credit Variable Courses Taken *P < .05. **P < .005. n.s. *= No significance. Student Expenses Student Tuition Classroom Adminis. Facility IMTP .40(19)* n.s. Course Admit. College Credit CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This concluding chapter will present a resume of the findings with implications for the future of the IMTP. Managers of the Study Three hundred thirty students from 20 companies and 29 teachers (most of whom were also managers) participated in the study. Most of the managers were between the ages of 28 and 51, had at least some additional education after high school, and earned income between $8,000 and $11,000. The teachers (upper level managers) had more e duc a­ tion and considerably high incomes; comes above $15,000. 39 per cent w ith in­ Most of the participants were m a r ­ ried and had not changed Jobs or residence community in the last ten years. The data revealed a very stable vocational community with low mobility. As will be seen later, there is also evidence of "being in a rut." Reactions to IMTP Course Offerings The students and teachers generally were quite p o s i ­ tive about the benefit of the past course offerings of 66 67 IMTP with the teachers being a little over-optimistic. Courses were taken for increased performance on the job but students were more concerned about advancement po­ tentials of the courses than was management. All parti­ cipants saw the course content level as being adequate. Most of the reactions to teacher effectiveness, classroom facilities, class time, tuition and fees were positive with teachers again being a little more opti­ mistic than the students. Reaction to Administration of IMTP A rather overwhelming number of the participants felt the program should continue to be administered as in the pa st— by a representative group from industry and Lake Michigan College. There is considerable feeling for a more liberal admission policy as to whom should be al­ lowed to take courses and a fairly strong feeling that college credit should either not be given for the courses or at best that "taking-for-credit11 should be the option of the student. The teachers and students both felt that while m a n ­ agement training should continue to be the main purpose of the IMTP, pre-supervisory and technical training were also needed. 68 Skill Needs by Type of Management Analysis of the data contained in Table G.7 and G.12 reveal some interesting patterns. The main areas of weak­ ness by types of management were: 1. First line production supervisors (a) communications, (b) human relations 2. Office supervisors (a) communications, (b) working with reports, (c) accounting-and-general business 3. General foremen (a) human relations, 4. 5. (b) technical-skill factors Superintendents (a) communications, (b) human relations, working with reports (c) Division or department heads (a) communications, (b) human relations, working with reports (c) 6. Engineering group supervisors (a) working with drawings and reports, (b) mathematics-science factor, (c) human relations 7. Vice-presidents (a) communications, (b) working with reports, (c) human relations, (d) accounting-and-general business 8. Presidents (a) communications, (b) human relations, (c) accounting-and-general business, (c) sciencetechnical factor 9- Staff-personnal (a) working with production, (b) working with drawings and reports, (c) communications, (d) accounting-and-general business Reactions to Selected Issues The participants were generally in favor of increased financial support for local aid to education but against 69 increased federal support. However, 10 to 14 per cent were "strongly for" increased federal support. Analysis of change orientation on several variables dealing with health, self-change, and rule adherence leads to a tentative hypothesis. About 25 per* cent of the m a n ­ agers in the study prefer to merely follow rules and custom and have little motivation for change or innovation. What effect does this have on company progress? The managers generally felt that schools, univer­ sities, businessmen, local government, health services, and churches were doing a good job in the community while they felt that labor and national government were doing a poor job. Personal Characteristics The majority saw religion as being important in their lives and were fairly conscientious about observing the "rules and regulations" of their religion. They saw happiness coming from job-artd-health. Results of Hypothesis Testing Student Sample Salary, number of courses taken, and change orienta­ tion were significantly related. One can postulate that those "more open to change" take more courses and then acquire higher salaries. 70 Teacher Sample Openness to change and age were positively' related for teachers but not for students, managers. i.e., the latter are This implies that teachers stay "open to change" as they get older but that managers do not. Management Sample The more experience the companies have with the IMTP the more they approve its policies of tuition and general administration. Implications 1. There is considerable support for m ain tai nin g the present administrative arrangements for the IMTP. 2. The teaching staff could be more "tuned in" to the aspirations of the students. 3. Management needs to recognize the "desire for advancement" motive more than they do. 4. The IMTP does not serve the smaller companies very well. How they can become more involved should be researched. 5. Training needs to be studied from two aspects: level of management and type of content. (a) In general, there is a communication-human relations vs. a technical or semi-technical content dimension evident from the per­ ceived needs of students, teachers, and 71 management. The communication-human relations need seems to be more seriously felt. (b) High level management, in addition to the communication-human relations factor, sees itself in need of training in accountingand-general business and sees other levels o f management needing training in company objectives and/or objectives and procedures of the American free enterprise system. Recommendat ions From the r eview of literature it was found that the IMTP is consistent wi th current concepts in certain areas and should continue to view these as healthy. 1. Meetings off-plant promote better communications. 2. Designing new courses to fit specific needs. 3. Use non-professional teachers for instructors in certain skilled areas. However, this writer feels there are some areas where much could be done to improve the IMTP. The results of the study bear this out particularly in the area of communica­ tions and human relations. The greatest single deficiency of the IMTP is in the area of self-development of the indi­ vidual. Bennett (1956) states the objective of a man age ­ ment development program "is to imbue the m anager with a professional concept of his Job and this helps him to 72 develop and upgrade his p rofessional proficiency." addition, the American Man age men t Association emphasizes that it must be In (1955) noted that no matter how su c­ cessful a program is, the effect it may have on the growth of the Individual as a ma n a g e r and the organization is dependent upon the r econciliation of the concepts learned with the discovered inadequacies of the individual. In Retrospect While the following observations do not necessarily flow from the hypotheses of the study they reflect my p e r ­ sonal observations and/or intuitions and therefore will be stated in the first person. 1. I feel that the goals and objectives in m a n a g e ­ ment training should involve all people in the company at all l e v e l s . 2. I feel the personal goals of the individual manager should be considered as well as the company ob­ jectives. Personal goal achievement will produce m o t i ­ vations to achieve management goals. 3. I feel that more emphasis needs to be given to courses in communications and self-development. 4. I feel that American management is not as "open to cnange" as it needs to be. With increasing emphasis on world markets, American industry needs to restructure their management training activites to include more o p ­ portunities to induce greater innovativeness among their executives. REFERENCES' 73 REFERENCES Allen, L., Richards, M., & Nielander, W. Evaluating a management development program. In Merrill & Marting (Eds.), A mer i c a n Management A s s o c i a ­ tion . Readings in management, The Haddon Craftsman, Inc., 1958. Attitude change— during man ager education. Administra­ tive Science Q u a r t e r l y . 1 9 6 7 , H * 601. Baxter, B., Taafee, A., & Hughes, J. A training evaluation study. Personnel Psychology, 1953, 6, 403-417. Bennett, W. E. Lecture as a management tr aining tech­ nique. Personnel, 1956, 32, 498. Blocker, C. D. Evaluation of a human relations training course. Journal of the A S T D , 1955, 9* Buchanan, P. C. training. Evaluating the results of supervisory Personnel, 1957, 33, 362-370. Buchanan, P. C., & Brunstetter, P. H. A research a p ­ proach to management improvement. Journal of the A S T D , 1959, 13. Bulban, E. J. LTV aero space now mar ke t i n g job training school programs. Aviation W e e k , 1968, 8 9 , 101. Carlisle, H. M. Measuring the situational value of management. California Management R e v i e w , 1968, 11, 45-52. Change— resistance— coping with resistance to change. A u t o m a t i o n , 1967, 14, 54. Clark, J. Manual of computer p r o g r a m s . Research Ser­ vices, Department of Communications, M ichigan State University, 1964. Crawford, C. C. How to m a k e training s u r v e y s . Angeles, California, n.d. 74 Los 75 Current practice in the development of management personnel. American M a n agement A s s o c i a t i o n , 1955, 26, 5. Denova, C. C. Is this any way to evaluate a training activity? You bet it is. Personnel Journal, 1 9 6 8 , 47, 488, 8 3 . Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological r e s e a r c h . New York: R i n e h a r t , i9 6 0 . Felty, J. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965* Ferguson, G. Management development is important. B e s t fs Insurance N e w s . 1968, 6 9 , 73-75. Festinger, L., & Katz, D. Research methods in the behavioral s c i e n c e s . New York: The Dryden Press, 1953. Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. F., & Buntt, H. E. Lea der ­ ship and supervision in industry: An evaluation of a supervisory training program. Personal Research Board, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1955, 110. Friesen, E. W. Nature and toward education and persons in Columbia, Unpublished doctoral University, 1 9 6 6 . Fritz, R. J. bility. determinants of attitudes toward physically disabled Peru, and the United States. dissertation, Michigan State Management development is your r esp ons i­ Personnel J o u r n a l , 1968, 47, 857-861. Fryer, D. H. Training with special reference to its evaluation. Personnel P s y c ho log y, 1951, 19-37. Glasner, D. M. Why management development goes wrong: Five reasons. Personnel J o u r n a l , 1968, 47, 655-658. Goodacre, D., III. The experimental evaluation of management training: Principles and practices. P e rso n n e l , 1957, 33, 534-538. 76 Haire, M. Managing management manpower. H o r i z o n s . 1967, 10, 23-28. Business Hawrylyshyn, R. Preparing managers for international operations. Business Q u a r t e r l y , 1967, 32, 28-35. How do you evaluate y our executive staff? of M a n a g e m e n t , 1967, 19, 18. How our key executives have been educated. Horizons, n.d. Assoc iat ion Business Huse, E. P. Putting in a management development p r o ­ gram that works. Management R e v i e w . 1966, 9, 73-78. i Husted, E. L. Evaluation: Statement of purpose. American Society of Training Directors J o u r n a l . 1957, 11, 28. Job evaluation myth. 594-597. Personnel J o u r n a l , 1966, • 45, Junior executive evalua tin g— evaluating Junior e x e c u ­ tives— five case examples. B e s t ’s Insurance N e w s , 1967, 68, 7 8 . Kenny, T. Growing pains of management development. Personnel (London), 1968, 1, 30-33* Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavior r e s e a r c h . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1956. Kirkpatrick, D. L. How to start an objective evaluation of your training program. American Society of Training Directors J o u r n a l , 1956, 18, 18. Kirkpatrick, D. L. Techniques for evaluating training p r o g r a m s : Part 3— behavior. Journal of the A S T D . I 9 6 0 , 14, 13- 1 8 . Lee, J. A. Developing managers in developing countries. Harvard Business R e v i e w , 1 9 6 8 , 46, 55-65. Lindholm, T. R. Supervisory training and employee attitudes. Unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1952. Lott, C. C. Evaluate to reduce tra ining costs. and Development J o u r n a l . 1967, 21, 30. Training 77 Lynton, R. P., & Pareek, U. Training for d e v e l o p m e n t . Illinois: Irwin-Dorsey Series in Behavioral Science, 1 9 6 7 . MacKinney, A. C. Progressive levels in the evaluation of training programs. P e r s o n n e l . 1957, 34, 72-77. Mahler, W. R. Evaluation of management development programs. P e r s o n n e l , 1957, 34, 72-77* Mahler, W. R. Evaluation of the management d e v e l o p ­ ment program. In Merrill & Marting (Eds.), American Management A s s o c i a t i o n , Developing ex­ ecutive skills, The Haddon Craftsman, Inc., 1958. Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Korman, A. An experi­ mental evaluation of management development. Personnel P s y c h o l o g y , I960, 13, 81- 9 8 . Management d e v e l o p m e n t — continuing beyond classroom. Business H o r i z o n s , 1966, 9* Management d evelopment program— returns on personnel a sse ts— conceptual framework for a practical management development program. Personnel J o u r n a l , 1967, 46, 502-508. Management development today. 45, 164-167. Personnel J o u r n a l , 1966, Management tra i n i n g — an act of faith. 1968, 92, 46-49. Duns R e v i e w , Managerial needs and skills— perceptions of two national samples. Occupational P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 6 , 40, 1. Managers— be glad y o u ’re not brilliant. 1969, 25, 203. Iron A g e , Mann, P. Human relations in the industrial setting. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Measuring management 1 9 6 8 . F o r b e s , 1969, 103, 31-34. Middle management development p r o g r a m s — are they effective? F a c t o r y , 1 9 6 7 , 125, 14. Moon, C. G., & Hariton, T. Evaluati ng an appraisal and feedback training program. P e r s o n n e l , 1958, 35, 36. 78 Mosel, N., & Tsacnarls, H. J. Evaluating the super­ visors training program. E n g i neering Industry Ps y c h o l o g y . 1959, 1* 18-23. Most manager training ‘miss the mark. 43, 198. Iron A g e , 1966, Moty, C. Evaluation of executive development. American Society of Training Directors J o u r n a l , 195^1 1-10. Mumford, A. Preparing men for courses. (London), 1968, 1, 46-49. Personnel Oppenhelm, A. N. Questionnaire design and attitude m e a s u r e m e n t . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965. Performance appraisal — improved performance as the objective. Journal of the College and University A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967, 6, 22. Raudsepp, E. Creative thinking— i d e a s . Hawthorn Books, n.d. New York: Retraining— industrial— age, speed, and accuracy: Study in individual retraining. Occupational P s y c h o l o g y . 1966, 40, 237Ruble, W. L . , & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of basic statistics when m i s s i n g data is involved (The MDSTAT R o u t i n e ) . Statistics Series Description N o . 115* Agriculture Experiment Station, M i c h i ­ gan State University, 1966. Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. P., & Rafter, M. E. One-day analysis of variance with unequal number of replications permitted (UNEQ I R o u t i n e ) . Statistics Series Description No. 13* Agriculture Experiment Station, M ich igan State University, 1966. (b) Sorensen, O. The observed changed e n q u i r y . Manager Development Consulting Service, General Electric Company, Crotonville, New York, 1958. Stroud, P. V. Evaluating a human relations training program. P e r s o n n e l . 1959* 36, 52. Sugden, V. M. Management development program in selected industries on Long I s l a n d . Hofstra University Yearbook of Business, 1967* 3. 79 Svenson, A. L. Management training needed for survival. Administrative M a n a g e m e n t . 1968, 29, 47-48. Swift, N. A. Ideas that block the development of management ability. Public Utility, 1968, 82. 98. Tarnopol, L. Evaluate your training program. of the A S T D . 1957, 11, 17- Journal Taylor, E. K. Management development at the crossroads. P e r s o n n e l , 1959, 36, 8-23. Training young executives— key questions on. Business School B u l l e t i n , 1967* Harvard APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTERS AND FORMS 81 THE f lS M M H T ' CORPORATION LAKESHORE DIVISION • ST. JO S E P H . M ICHIGAN March Ik, 1966 Mr* John V* Polomsky 22k College of Engineering Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan Dear John: I talked with Russell Adams, who used to be the Twin Cities Vocational Director far the Twin Cities, about the origin of our training program. Sid Mitchell, former Superintendent of Benton Harbor School System — which then included the Community College — now retired, and Russ Adams held seme informal conversations with various industrial people with a view to doing something in management training. Mitchell and Adams then, through the Department of Education, Michigan State University, obtained the services of Larry Borosage who apparently had Just completed his Doctors Thesis in the area of Management Training. The next step was an informal luncheon meeting at which there were about 50 industrial people in attendance to test community re­ action and interest in such a program. There was an interest and a steering committee was then established. The steering committee recommended potential local instructors. The next step was for Borosage to put on two training sessions for trainers. Outlines of courses were then prepared by such people as Adams, Lovellette, and others and courses started with local instructors. 1 believe this is a reasonably accurate outline about the con­ ception of the program. At least it is as Adams and X remembered it. Sincerely, Ahson L. Lovellette Director of Industrial Relations ALL/hp C O R P O R A T I O N ST. J O S E P H D I V I S I O N • ST. J O S E P H , M I C H I f l A N May 13, 1966 Mr. John V. Polomsky 22M- College of Engineering Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Polomsky: Your letter of April 27 addressed to Mr. Anson L. Lovellette of Bendix Corporation has been referred to me for reply. The attached letter was sent to all the participating companies and it is hoped that your response has now improved. Sincerely, Industrial Relations TWM: ra Attach C O R P O R A T I O N ST, JOilfcPP D I V I S I O N J O S E P H . M I C H I G A N Gentlemen: In April, w e sent you a n u m b e r of questionnaires regarding the evaluation of our Industrial M a n a g e m e n t Training P r o g r a m . I would like to encourage you to r e m i n d your e m p l o y e e s w h o w e r e partici­ pants or instructors that their participdlion in this project is important to the continued success of our training p r o g r a m . 1 understand also that the response f r o m the c o m p a n y questionnaires is lagging behind the student response to this survey. M a y I e n c o u r a g e you to have s o m e o n e in your organization complete the c o m p a n y questionnaire at your earliest convenience. If you h a v e a n y questions, please call m e . W e anticipate that this survey will enable us to better evaluate what has been done in the past, what the needs are for the future, a n d to present a better p r o g r a m to local c o m p a n i e s a n d to local industrial e m p l o y e e s . Your cooperation is v e r y m u c h appreciated a n d needed. Sincerely Theodore W . Miller, C h a i r m a n Steering C o m m i t t e e Industrial M a n a g e m e n t Training P r o g r a m APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE TEACHER 85 Q -T C onfidential C om pany M a le Firm (or)___________________________________ F e m a l e _____________________________ School Dat e _________________________________ __________________________________ M a n a g e m e n t Training a n d Education S u r v e y Teacher F o r m This questionnaire has t w o parts to it: 1. T h e first part deals with a n y experience y o u h a v e h a d with the Industrial M a n a g e m e n t Training P r o g r a m as well as your opinion as to its future. 2. T h e second part has to do with aspects of your b a c k g r o u n d a n d h o w y o u feel about certain things. F o r the purpose of this investigation, the a n s w e r s of all p e r s o n s are important. Since the questionnaire is completely a n o n y m o u s , y o u m a y answer all questions freely, without a n y c o n c e r n about being identified. # # * * * R e m e m b e r , no one but the t w o r e s e a r c h people at M i c h i g a n State Universi­ ty will see this data. It is v e r y important that y o u be completely o p e n a n d frank in all your ans w e r s . APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE TEACHER 85 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE TEACHER 85 Q -T Confidential Company_ Male Firm (or) Female School___ Date M a n a g e m e n t Training and Education Survey Teacher F o r m This questionnaire has two parts to it: 1. The first part deals with any experience you have had with the Industrial M a n a g e m e n t Training P r o g r a m as well as your opinion as to its future. 2, The second part has to do with aspects of your background i and h o w you feel about certain things. For the purpose of this investigation, the answers of all persons are important. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous, you m a y answer all questions freely, without any concern about being identified. # S$S # * sjc R e m e m b e r , no one but the two research people at Michigan State Universi­ ty will see this data. It is very important that you be completely open and frank in all your answers. Confidential - 1- Q-T Part X: Industrial M a n a g e m e n t Training P r o g r a m (IMTP) 1, Please list below the kind(s) of experiences you have had with the I M T P . (Check m o r e than one if appropriate.) ( ( ( ( ( } ) ) ) I have been an instructor in the prog r a m . I have taken s o m e of their courses. I have been a coordinator in the program. 1 have been responsible for placing people f r o m m y c o m p a n y or firm in the program. ) I have been on the administrative board of the p r o g r a m . 2, Listed below are all the courses that have been sponsored by the I M T P . a). In the left hand m a r g i n put an X before those you have taught or coordinated. b). In the right hand margin rate only those courses you have taught or w o r k e d with as a coordinator. I^ut an X in the proper c o l u m n to indicate h o w you feel about the subject matter of the course, your effectiveness as a teacher, or coordinator, and the benefit of the course to the persons job. (Check which you are/or have been) ( ) Teacher ( ) Coordinator ( ) Both Teacher (Effectiveness Subject Matter 'O f-l'0 tj o «X 4> 4) ■> -4> ( u o * 8* 5« * f& -H o ^ SJU t o ® is pH 0> *8 I Q Q 2Q 1. Introduction to I B M B^ Intermediate I B M ■3. Basic Industrial Traffic M a n a g e m e n t Bj. y. m -i no. 1 7. W J . Economics Industrial Factory Economics mj.Economics atumnnicB BI Factory Economics for Supervisors^ g. 6ral Communication Power of Small Gro u p DiscussionsBj). How to Speak Effectively ■ 1’ ^eve^°Pr^lenta^ Reading 1*. Effective Speaking (or I Foremen B*. Labor Negotiations M*. Management Management and and Labor La Relations ' B^. Basic Industrial Purchasing Advanced Industrial Purchasi J|. Basic jjiaustrial Industrial u Draftin ratting A dvanced Industrial Drafting V Quality Control Fh O o Oh Benefit of Course to Job 4 o o O A *> 3**H g * Z u X C « to C on fid en tial -2 - (Check which you are/or have been) ( ) Teacher ( ) Coordinator ( ) Both Q -T Subject Matter Teacher Effectiveness Benefit of Course to Job P< )20. Foundry Technology (Survey Course ______for Foremen) )21. Practical Molding (Sand Control) Core Sand Technology" )24. Foremen Training______ )25. Time Study for Foremen" )26. Slide Rule for F o r e m e n )27. Safety for Industrial Supervisors |28. Basic Elements of Supervision Human Dynamics for Supervisory Personnel )30. Work Simplification “£?T JTFT Machine Tool Set-Ui 1407 Ti; lues Fluid Mechanics Improving Machine Shop Inspection Techniques_____________________ '?s: >esign 66 C o n fid e n tia l (Check which you are/or have been) { ) Teacher ( ) Coordinator ( ) B oth -3 - Q -T Subject Matter Teacher !Effectiveness Benefit of Course to Job *3 )53. Human Relations Clinic ~)54. (Conference Leader" 155. Seminar in Personal Administration Case Problems 61. Secretarial Development lift. Techniques of Supervision Industrial Economics for Supervisors 3. On an overall average, how do you feel the students would have rated the courses you taught or coordinated at the end of the course. ( ) Not helpful to their job. ( ) Somewhat helpful to their job. ( ) Very helpful to their job. 4. In general h o w do you feel about the subject matter or content of the individual courses sponsored by the program. ( ( ( )The content was not adequately developed. )The content was fairly well developed. )The content was very well developed. 5. In the past h o w m u c h of the tuition of your students was paid by their C o m p a n y ? ( ( { I ) j ) ) None Less than 50%. 50% or m o r e All ft. In retrospect, how m u c h of the tuition do you feel the company should have paid? ( ( ( ( 166 ) ) ) ) None Less than 50% 50% or m o r e All C on fid en tial -4 - Q -T 7. In the past, classrooms in industry, high schools, hotel rooms, and Lake Michigan College, etc. have been used for Industrial M a nagement Training courses. D o you feel: ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) This pattern is satisfactory and should be continued. A n attempt should be m a d e to provide a central classroom facility. Industrial facilities should be further utilized. Other: specify 8, In general, do you feel that the time-of-day that the classes were offered was: ( )Toolate at night. ( )Time of day was O.K. ( ) On wrong day of week. ( ) Day of week was O. K. 9. Do you feel that some day classes for night shift employees should be added: ( )Yes ( )No 10. In general, was the primary reason w h y you agreed to teach or coordinate for the IMTP? ( { { ( ) ) ) ) No clearly defined reason. Was "pressured" to do so by others. I enjoy teaching. For the added salary. The present expansion of business, industry, and education raises m a n y questions about the future directions of the I M T P . W e are interested in your opinion about several aspects. Please answer each of the following with your frank opinion. 11. What other management or technically oriented courses do you feel the I M T P should provide. C o n fid en tia l -5 - Q -T 12. What in your opinion, would be the best administrative arrangements for the training program sponsored by the IMT P . ( ) The administration of the program should be continued as it is - cooperatively between a Steering Committee (respresentatives of several companies) and Lake Michigan College. ( ) The program should be operated completely by a representative industrial group. ( ) The program should be operated completely by Lake Michigan College. { ) No opinion. ( ) Other: specify __________________________________________ 13. Which of the following types of training are needed by business and industry that could and should be offered by the I M T P ? (Check as m a n y as you desire) { ( ( ( ( ( )Pre-supervisory personnel level. )F o reman and supervisory level. )Middle management level. )Top management level. )Programs for technicians. )Programs for engineering personnel. 14, Who should be admitted to take the classes or programs discussed in questions 12 and 13 above? ( ) Only those persons sponsored directly by a company or firm. ( )Any person within a company or firmwh o wishes to enroll. ( )Any persons in the public-at-large w h o wishes to enroll. ( ) Others: specify____________________________________________________ 15. People have different opinions about the question of College credit for courses like those offered by the Industrial M anagement Training Program, S o m e feel the program should be m o r e organized and give College credit, others feel it should be open to m a n y people and not be restricted to College credit. Please indicate how you feel by choosing one of the following: ( ) The I M T P should be offered as a service to businesses and industry and not be concerned about College credit. ( ) The I M T P should cooperate with s o m e College or University and give College credit for its courses. ( ) The I M T P should be reorganized so that it could give a College degree of some sort in the subject area. ( ) No opinion. ( ) The I M T P should be so organized that it will offer courses for College credit, or non-credit (audit), at the discretion of the student. ( ) The I M T P should best function in the following manner (Please indicate). APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE STUDENT 92 C onfidential Q -S Company________________ - Male Firm (or)________________________ Female_____________________ School___________________________ Date ____________ Job Title Management Training and Education Survey Student F o r m This questionnaire has two parts to it: 1. The first part deals with any experience you have had with the Industrial Management Training P r o g r a m as well as your opinion as to its future. 2. The second part has to do with aspects of your back­ ground and how you feel about certain things. For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all persons are important. Since the questionnaire is c o m ­ pletely anonymous or confidential, you m a y answer all questions freely, without any concern about being identi­ fied. * # * # Jfc sje Remember, no one but the two research people at Michigan State University will see this data. It is very important that you be completely open and frank in all your answers. 166 C o n fid en tia l -1 - Q -S Part I: Industrial Management Training P r o g r a m (IMTP) 1 , Please list below the kind(s) of experiences you have had with the I M T P . (Check m o r e than one if appropriate. ) ( ) No contact. ( ) I have taken s o m e of their courses. ( )1 have been an instructor in the program. ( ) I havebeen a "coordinator" in the program. ( )1 have been responsible for placing people from m y company in the program. ( )1 have been on the administrative board of theprogram. If you have had no contact with the p r o g r a m please skip to question n u mber 12. If you have had any kind of ex­ perience with the p r o g r a m please answer all the following questions. 2. Listed below are all the courses that have been sponsored by the I M T P . a). In the left hand margin put an X before those you have taken. b). In the right hand margin rate only those courses you have taken. Put an X in the proper column to indicate ho w you feel about the subject matter oF the course, the effectiveness of the teacher, and the benefit of the course to your job. Teacher Effectivene s s Subject Matter 'O 0 4 ad)i o o id o —I ' 7 1 O *7} U a> v |> V o F > n° > O & V Q Q 2 Q •d ► * ! I1* Introduction to I B M Lit; Intermediate I B M I! )3. Basic Industrial Traffic Managem e n t 4. Industrial Economics ^4 Factory Economics BI Economics _7. Factory Economics for Supervisors )8. Oral Communication Power of Small Group Discussions "How'to Bpeak 6- -- Effectively--------developmental Reading'_______ Effective Speaking for F o r e m e n n r Labor Negotiations n : Management and Labor Relations j5. Basic - —44, m Industrial mubmtuu Purchasing rurcnaamg 1-- 3 i-'— - - I H-:.: -!--"Advanced industrial Purchasing* _ llo. 6 8 , a> •5 04 _ Benefit of Course to Job n 4) 00 m M 0) a Q) X >4^ f* ^-1 Jo la 04 a* Pvf<" -2 - Q -S V e ry H elpful S om ew hat H elpful 4> 00 a u 4> B e n e fit of C o u r s e to Jo b N ot H elpful W ell D eveloped M o d e ra te ly D eveloped 1 P o o rly D eveloped 1 Good T eacher E f f e c tiv e n e s s S u b je c t M a tte r Poor C on fid en tial [ }17. Basic Industrial Drafting ( )18. Advanced Industrial Drafting { )19. Quality Control \ { )20. Foundry Technology (Survey Course for Foremen) | 2 1 . Practical Molding (Band Control) I | 2 2 . Core Sand Technology r~ ( { I { )li. )Zi, )/5. JZb. Basic elements of Foremanship Foremen Training Time Study for F o r e m e n Slide Rule for F o r e m e n I )ci. Saiety For Industrial Supervisors 1 J2h . Basic Elements of Supervision [ H u m a n Dynamics for Supervisory Personnel ( )ill. Work Simplification { f I ( I )31. Basic M e m e n t s Basic elements J4.S. Electrical CJode )4*. Basic Elements )4i>. Electrical Code of Electricity JJC of Electricity of Electricity A C (Refresher Uourse) t jib. Kelresher Engineering I )37. 1 )38. [39. 40. 41. I .42. Machine Tool Operation Fluid Mechanics Machine Tool Set-up Improving Machine Shop Techniques Fluid Mechanics Improving Machine Shop Inspection Techniques — )43. Instructing the Worker on the Job 44, 45. 7— 4o. L 47. 1 48. I Basic E le m e n ts of H y d r a u lic s H y d ra u lic s E n g in e e rin g H v d ra u lic C o m p o n e n ts In tro d u c tio n to H y d r a u lic s E le m e n ts o f H y d r a u lic s (S eco n d P h a s e H .6 .& .S .0 — • ---- C on fid en tial -3 - Q -S Subject Matter •d H ^d •d 4) 4) 4) n* ? > n ) Hi 4) O 0 4> Q Q SO >% Sj *» ** Q . Teacher effectiveness B enefit of Course to Job 4) 00 nt u 4) > T3 O O O JU A >>«H 8 as e 03 o )50. Basic Elements of Metallurgy TFT m e JL>esign~ pi. 'iool UesigrT )53. Hum a n Relations Clinic )54. Conference Leadership )55. Seminar in Personal Administration )56. Case Problems )57. Secretarial Development 58. Techniques of Supervision ■59. Industrial Economics for Supervisors 66. Advanced Machine Tool Operation Value Analysis' )6Z. Foundry Molding' 3. On an overall average, how would you rate the benefit of the courses you have taken to your work. ( ) Not helpful. ( ) Somewhat helpful. ( ) Very helpful. 4. When you think back to the content or subject matter of the courses ho w would you rate them. ( )The content was not adequately developed. ( }The content was fairly well developed. ( } The content was very well developed. 5. In general how would you rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructors you have had in the program. ( ( ( ( )Very poor )Poor )Good )Very good > «j C o n fid e n tia l -4 - Q -S In the past how m u c h of your tuition w a s paid by the company? ( ) None ( ) Less than 5 0 % ( } 50% or m o r e ( )A U In retrospect, how do you feel that the tuition should have been paid? { ) Paid entirely by the student. ( ) Student should have paid 50% or more. ( ) C o m p a n y should have paid 5 0 % or more. ( ) C o m p a n y should have paid all of the tuition. In the past, classrooms in industry, high schools, hotel rooms, and Lake Michigan College, etc. have been used for Industrial M a n a g e m e n t Training courses. D o you feel: ( ( ( ( ) This pattern is satisfactory and should be continued, ) A n attempt should be m a d e to provide a central classroom facility, ) Industrial facilities should be further utilized. ) Other; specify_________________________ ___________________________ In general, do you feel that the time-of-day that the classes were offered was: ( { ( ( ) Too late at night. ) Time of day was O.K. ) On wrong day of week. ) Day of week was O. K. Do you feel that s o m e day classes for night shift employees should be added: ( ) Yes ( ) No In general, the most important reason w h y you took a course, or courses, was: ( ( ( { ) No clearly defined reason. ) Was suggested to do so by management. ) Felt it would be helpful to m y job. ) Felt it would be helpfulfor advancement or promotion. The present expansion of business, industry, and education raises m a n y questions about the future directions of the In­ dustrial Management Training Program. W e are interested in your opinion about several aspects. Please answer each of the following with your frank opinion. What other m a n a g e m e n t or technically oriented courses do you feel the I M T P should provide? C on fid en tial -5 - Q -S 13, What, in your opinion, would be the best administrative arrangements for the training program Sponsored by the I M T P . ( ) The administration of the program should be continued as it is - - coopera­ tively between a Steering Committee (representatives of several companies) and Lake Michigan College. ( ) The program should be operated completely by a representative industrial group. ( ) The program should be operated completely by Lake Michigan College. ( ) No opinion. _____________________________________ ( ) Other: specify 14. Which of the following types of training are needed by business and industry that could and should be offered by the I M T P ? (Check as m a n y as you desire.) ( )Pre-supervisory personnel level. ( )Foreman and supervisory level. ( )Middle management level. ( )Top management level. ( ) Programs for technicians. ( ) Programs for engineering personnel. 15. Who should be admitted to take the classes or programs discussed in questions 13 and 14 above? ( )Only those persons sponsored directly by a company orfirm. ( ) Any person within a company or firmw h o wishes to enroll. ( ) Any persons in the public-at-large wh o wishes to enroll. ( ) Other: specify___________________________________________________ 16. People have different opinions about the question of College credit for courses like those offered by the Industrial Management Training Program. S o m e feel the pro­ gram should be m o r e organized and give College credit, others feel it should be open to m a n y people and not be restricted to College credit. Please indicate how you feel by choosing one of the following. ( ) The I M T P should be offered as a service to business and industry and not be concerned about College credit. ( ) The I M T P should cooperate with s o m e College or University and give College credit for its courses. ( ) The I M T P should be reorganized so that it could give a. College degree of some sort in the subject area. ( ) No opinion, ( ) The I M T P should be so organized that it will offer courses for College credit, or non-credit (audit), at the discretion of the student. ( ) The I M T P should best function in the following manner (Please indicate). Q-S -6- 17. Listed below are several major divisions of M a n a g e m e n t Classifications. Please circle the one which best describes the division in which your iob would be. Then, please, indicate how m u c h you feel you need to know about each area. M a r k each area according to the following scale: first Line Production Supervisors Office Supervisors , jeneral Foreman >uperintendent division or Department Heads Engineering Croup Supervisors vice-Fresidents 'residents >ta& Personnel: Sng, sales, account., personal, etc. 166 Accounting & general business Management urse ime Conducted by School Name Number Enrolled Location In plant A t school Fee Char g e d Should this course be added to a High School, Adult School, College, or Junior College.____ What m a n a g e m e n t courses or p r o g r a m s should be added to the present High School ______________________________________________________ Adult School Junior College College or University College or University Extension C O N F ID E N T IA L -5 - Q -M -2 12. Listed below are several major divisions of M a n a g e m e n t Classifications. Please indicate for each classification h o w important y ou feel it is for that person to understand the area, subject matter, or activity. M a r k each area according to the following scale: (5) Thoroughly First Line Production Supervisors Office Supervisors General F o r e m a n Superintendent division or Department Heads Engineering Group Supervisors Vice-Presidents Presidents Staff Personnel: Eng, sales, account, personal, etc. Accounting & general business Science and technical Mathematics Working with other personnel w orkmg with drawings & reports Working with machine & tools W orkmg with materials Working with production Working with equipment Management Classifications Management 8t human relations (4) Great 1J (3) S o m e Communications (2) Little 11 (1) None C o n f id e n t ia l 13. -6- Q -M -2 Listed below are the s a m e M a n a g e m e n t Positions as w e r e listed in question #12. N o w please indicate h o w m u c h (on the average) you feel the people in these positions in your c o m p a n y actually k n o w about the area or subject matter. M a r k each area according to the following scale: First Line Production Supervisors General F o r e m a n Superintendent Division or Department Heads f Engineering G r o u p Supervisors Vice-Presidents Presidents Staff Personnel: Eng., sales, account, personal, etc. - 1 Accounting & general business Management & human relations Communications Science and technical Mathematics Working with other personnel Working with drawings & reports (5) Excellent - Office Supervisors 166 Working with machine & tools . Management Classifications (4) G o o d Working with materials (3) A v e r a g e Working with production (2) Fair Working with equipment ( 1 ) Poor APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE GENERAL 112 P a r t II This part has to do with certain aspects of your back­ ground and how you feel about certain things. * * J(c * * R e m e m b e r , no one but the two research people at Michigan State University will see this data. It is very important that you be completely open and frank in all your answers. C o n fid e n tia l -1 - Q-G Part 11: Background Information 1. Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your youth (that is, up to the age of 15 or 16)? (Check only one) ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) country country town city city suburb 2. Where have you mainly lived during the past five years. ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) country country town city city suburb 3. H o w old are you (write age in box) 4. What is your marital status. ( ( { ( ( ) Divorced ) Separated ) Widowed ) Single ) Married 5. H o w m a n y children do you have? (write number in box) 6. About what is your total yearly income before taxes. Include "extra" income from other sources such as dividends, insurance, etc. (please write total in box) 7. If your spouse works, about what is his (her) total yearly in­ come before taxes, (please write total in box) 8. Whatis'yovir religion? ( ( ( ( ( ) Protestant ) Catholic ) Jewish ) None ) Other (please specify)____________________ _____ 9. About how important is your religion in your daily life (check only one) ( ( ( ( 166 ) ) ) ) I have no religion Not very important Fairly important Very important ” C o n fid e n tia l -2 - Q -G 10. During an "average work day", you probably have occasion to talk and m a k e contact with other persons where you are employed. Please estimate about what percent of these contacts and conversations are with people you feel personally close to, w h o m you consider to be close friends, or that are relatives of yours. ( { ( { ( ) ) ) ) ) None Less than 25% Between 25% and 50% Between 50% and 75% M o r e than 75% 11. H o w important is it to you to work with people you feel personally close to? ( { ( ( ) ) ) ) Not at all important Not very important Fairly important Very important 12. Please indicate below how m u c h education you have, if appropriate) (check m o r e than one ( ) Less than 8 years ( ) Between 8 and 12 years ( ) 12 years (1 graduated from High School) ( ) Technical or trade school (indicate length of program and area of study) ( ) Graduated from Junior College (please list major) ( ) College or University (circle years attended) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Please list major and degree_______________________________ ( ) One or m o r e advanced degrees (list major and degree) 13, About how m a n y times have you changed residency (communities not just houses) during the past 10 years? (Check only one) ( ( ( ( ( ( ) None ) 1time )2- 3 times )4- 6 times )7- 10 times ) over 10 times 14. About how m a n y times have you changed jobs during the past 10 years? ( ) None ( ) 1 time ( ) 2 - 3 times ( )4 6 times ( ) 7- 10 times ( ) over 10 times 166 , C o n fid e n tia l 15. P l e a s e s ta t e y o u r o c c u p a tio n . th e n a t u r e o f y o u r w o r k ? -3 - Q -G B r i e f ly s ta t e th e titl e o r n a m e of y o u r jo b a n d 16. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) 1 have no religion Seldom Sometimes Usually Almost always 17. Health experts say adding certain chemicals to drinking water results in less decay in people's teeth. If you could add these chemicals to your water with little cost to you, would you be willing to have the chemicals added? ( ( ( I ) ) ) ) Probably not No Maybe Yes 18. S o m e people feel that in bringing up children, ne w ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? " N e w methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible. " / ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree 19. Family planning on birth control has been discussed by m a n y people. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? D o you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are doing wrong, or rather, that they are doing right? ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) 166 It is It is It is It is always right probably all right usually wrong always wrong C o n fid e n tia l -4 - Q-G 20. People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other n e w ways of doing things. H o w do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar n e w procedures should be encouraged (in govern­ ment, business and industry) since eventually it creates n e w jobs and raises the standard of living. " ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Agr e e strongly Agree slightly 21. Running a village, city, town or any governmental organization is an important job. W h a t is your feeling on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job." ( ( ( { ) ) ) ) Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree 22. S o m e people believe that m o r ^ocal government inc o m e should be used for education even if doing so m e a n s raising the a m o u n t you p a y in taxes. What are your feelings on this ? ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree 23. S o m e people believe that m o r e federal government income should be used for education even if doing so m e a n s raising the a m o u n t you pay in taxes. W h a t are your feelings on tins? ( ( ( { ) ) ) ) Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree 24. People have different ideas about planning for education in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best w a y ? ( ( ( ) Planning for education should be left'entirely to the parents. ) Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local governmental unit. ) Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government. 25. Some people are m o r e set in their ways than others. yourself? ( ) I find it very difficult to change. ( ) 1 find it slightly difficult to change. { ) I find it somewhat easy to change m y ways. { ) 1 find it very easy to change m y ways. 166 H o w would you rate C o n f id e n t ia l -5 - Q-G 26. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on m y own. { ( ( ( ). ) ) ) A g r e e strongly A g r e e slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 27. 1 like the kind of w o r k that lets m e do things about the s a m e w a y f r o m one w e e k to the next. ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) A g r e e strongly A g r e e slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 28. Planning only m a k e s a person unhappy because your plans hardly ever w o r k out anyway. (Check only one) ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) A g r e e strongly A g r e e slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 29. Which of the following requisites do you consider m o s t important to m a k e your life m o r e happy and satisfactory in the future? ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) Nothing More money M o r e friends Better job G o o d health Other (please specify)____________________________________________._____ 30. What do you think you can do to m a k e this possible? the two alternatives below. Nothing ( ) Please specify Please a n s w e r one of C o n fid e n tia l -6- Q -G In every community each group (for example, schools, businessmen, labor, the local government) has a different job to do for the community. In your community, would you say that the schools are doing an excellent, good, fair, or poor job? H o w about businessmen ? Labor? The local govern ment? The doctors and hospitals? The church? Please answer for each group. (Check only one for each). A. Clementary Schools ( ( ( ( B. ) ) ) ) Poor Fair Good Excellent ) ) ) ) Poor Fair Good Excellent ) ) > ) Poor Fair Good Excellent Labor ( ( ( ( F. Poor Fair Good Excellent Businessmen ( ( ( ( E. ) ) ) ) Universities ( ( ( ( O. Poor Fair Good Excellent Secondary Schools ( ( ( ( C. ) ) ) ) Local Government ( ( ( { ) ) ) ) Poor Fair Good Excellent G. National Government ( ( C ( ) ) > ) Poor Fair Good Excellent C o n fid e n tia l H. Health Services (Doctors and Hospitals) ( ( ( ( I. -7 - )Poor )Fair )Good )Excellent Churches ( )Poor ( )Fair ( )Good ( )Excellent \ APPENDIX F CODE BOOKS 1. 2. 3• Student Teacher Manager 121 STUDENT CODE BOOK CODE BOOK STUDENT, TEACHER, AND MANAGEMENT EVALUATIONS OF THE BENTON HARBOR/ST. JOSEPH INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM STUDENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 0. or 00 will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted, 2. Code + for a one column no response, or ^9 for a two column no response, or -99 for a three column no response will mean there was No Information or Respondent did not answer. 3. In each case the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. 4. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. 5. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used, they are not repeated each time, but reference is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with "same." 6. Under Code. the first number is the questionnaire question alter­ native and the second number is the actual code which is entered on the data sheets (i.e., 1-4; one (L) is the questionnaire question alternative and 4 is the code). P 366 Card 1 C a rd /C o l. Q ues. 1 Face Sheet and Q-S-l Ques. 1 Face Sheet p 366 Item D e t a i l Group Company/School Affiliation Page S - l - 1 Code___________________________________ -1. -2. -3. Management Student Teacher -01. Auto Specialities Manufactur­ ing Co. -02. Appliance Buyers Credit Union -03. Bendix Corporation -04. Benton Harbor Malleable Industries -05. Berrien County Highway Commission -06. Canteen Company of South Michigan -07. Casting Service Corporation -08. City of Benton Harbor -09. Clark Equipment Company -10. Covel Manufacturing Company -11. Dawn Home Canning -12. Dotmar Industries -13. Electro Voice Corporation -14. Engineering Works (Benton Harbor) -15. Gast Manufacturing Company -16. Heath Company -17. Hughes Plastics -18. Hydraulics -19. Indiana of Mich. Electric Co. -20. Industrial Rubber Goods -21. Jessup Wood Products -22. Kawneer Company (Aircraft Division) -23. Kaywood Corporation -24. Laboratory Equipment Company -25. Martin Fabrication of Steel Supply Company -26. Mich. Fruit Canners -27. Mich. Tube Company -28. Modar Incorporated -29. Modern Light Metal Incorpor­ ated -30. Modern Plastics -31. Muellen Container Company -32. New Products Corporation -33. Morton Door Closer Company -34. Nowlen Lumber Company -35. Paramount Die Casting Company -36. Peer Incorporated -37. Peer Division of Landis Machine Company -38. Pemco Product Engineering Co. Card 1 C a rd /C o l. OueB. Item D e t a il p 366 Code -39. Produce Engineering & Manf. Company -40. F.P. Rosback Company -41. Saranac Machine Company -42. Simonize Company -43. Sodus Fruit Exchange -44. Superior Steel & Malleable Casting -45. Thersin Clemens Company -46. Twin Cities Container Cor. -47. Tyler Refrigeration Cor. -48. Union Bay Camp Paper Cor. -49. Veloco Machine -50. Voice of Music Corporation -51. Watervliet Paper Company -52. Winkel Machine -53. Whirlpool Corporation (St. Joseph Division) -54. Whirlpool Seeger Corporation -55. Whirlpool Corporation -56. Whirlpool Corporation (Laundry Group) -57. Whirlpool Corporation (Research & Development) -58. Michigan Bell Telephone -59. Memorial Hospital -60. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Company -61. Okade Controls Incorporated -62. Producers Creamery (Pet) -63. Jewel Tea Company -64. KRT Incorporated 2,3 (con't) 4,5 Page S - l - 2 Q-S-l Type of Company -01. Foundry Industry -02. Non Durable Manufacturing (soft goods) -03. Heavy Equipment Industry -04. Construction & Building Industry -05. Machine Tool Manufacturing -06. Durable Manufacturing (compo-07. Electronics Industry nent Parts) -08. Appliances (Home) -09. Plastics Industry -10. Packaging Industry (containers, etc.) -11. Utilities (public) -12. Wholesale Merchandisers (all products) Card 1 Page S - l - 3 C a rd /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 6,7 Face Sheet Occupation (catagory) -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. Skilled Trades & Secretaria Sales Personnel Supervision Production Supervision Technical Supervision Professional Top Management Face Sheet Sex -1. -2, Male Female Postmark Date! returned by week of receipt -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. -11. -12. 4-l2 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 11 12 None None Deck No. Card No. -1. -1. Deck 1 Card 1 13-16 None Respondent No. -0001 -9999 Number respondents con­ secutively by groups as received. 9,10 April 1st week April 2nd week April 3rd week April 4th week May 1st week May 2nd week May 3rd week May 4th week June 1st week June 2nd week June 3rd week June 4th week (Management) 17 Q-S-l Question 1 Experience with IMTP (Kind of) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. None Some courses Instructor Coordinator Co., Assign. Adm. Board 2,3,4 2,3,5 2,3,6 18 Q-S-l Ques. 2-1 Course^ No. 1 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 19 Q-S-l Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 (Subject Matter) (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well *The first Monday of each month is to be used as "starting" the month. received prior to a first Monday goes into the previous month. 2First digit indicates month, second digit indicates week of month. P 366 Data Card 1 Page S Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 20 Q-S-l Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 21 Q-S-l Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 22 Q-S-l Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 23 Q-S-l Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 24 Q-S-l Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 25 Q-S-l Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 26 Q-S-l Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Taken -1. -2. Yes No 27 Q-S-l Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Subject Matter (Deve1opment) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 28 Q-S-l Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 29 Q-S-l Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 30 Q-S-l Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER Each course in question 2 takes 4 columns. The first column designates whether respondent took the course; the second column how he "felt" about subject matter; the third column "teacher effectiveness"; and the fourth column "benefit to job." Card 1 Page S - l - 5 Quea. Item Detail Code Q-S-l Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 Subject Matter (Development -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 32 Q-S-l Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 33 Q-S-l Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 34 Q-S-l Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 35 Q-S-l Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 36 Q-S-l Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 37 Q-S-l Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 38 Q-S-l Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 39 Q-S-l Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 40 Q-S-l Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average GOOd 41 Q-S-l Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 42 Q-S-l Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 43 Q-S-l Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well Card 1 Page S - l - 6 C a rd /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 44 Q-S-I Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 45 Q-S-I Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 46 Q-S-l Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 47 Q-S-l Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 48 Q-S-l Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 49 Q-S-l Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 50 Q-S-l Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 51 Q-S-l Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 52 Q-S-l Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 53 Q-S-l Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 54 Q-S-l Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 (taken) -1. -2. Yes No 55 Q-S-l Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 56 Q-S-l Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 57 Q-S-l Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful P 366 Card 1 Page Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 58 Q-S-l Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 59 Q-S-l Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 60 Q-S-l Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 61 Q-S-l Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 62 Q-S-l Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 63 Q-S-l Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 64 Q-S-l Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 65 Q-S-l Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 66 Q-S-l Ques. 2**13 Course No. 13 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 67 Q-S-l Ques. 2-13 Course No. 13 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 68 Q-S-l Ques. 2*13 Course No. 13 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 69 Q-S-l Ques. 2-13 Course No. 13 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 70 Q-S-l Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 71 Q-S-l Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well p 366 Card 1 Page S - l - 8 C ard /C ol. Ouea. Item D e t a il Code 7Z Q-S-l Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 73 Q-S-l Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful P 366 Card 2 C ard /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a il P age S - 2 -1 Code 1st 10 Col*s. SAME as Management Card 1 11 12 13-16 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -2. -1. -0001 to -9999 Deck 2 (Student) Card 2 Number respondem consecutively by as received, 17 Q-S-l Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 18 Q-S-l Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 19 Q-S-l Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 20 Q-S-l Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 21 Q-S-l Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 22 Q-S-l Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 Subject Matter (Developmental) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 23 Q-S-l Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 24 Q-S-l Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 25 Q-S-l Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 26 Q-S-l Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 Subject Matter (Deve1opment) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 27 Q-S-l Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 28 Q-S-l Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful P 366 Card 2 Page S -2 -2 C a r d /C o l. Q ues, Item D e t a il Code 29 Q-S-l Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 (taken) -1. -2. Yes No 30 Q-S-l Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 31 Q-S-l Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 32 Q-S-l Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 33 Q-S-l Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 34 Q-S-l Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2 • -3. Poor Moderate Well 35 Q-S-l Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 36 Q-S-l Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 37 Q-S-l Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 38 Q-S-l Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Good 39 Q-S-l Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 40 Q-S-l Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 41 Q-S-i Qua s. 2-21 Course No. 21 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No P 366 Card 2 Page S -2 -3 C ard /C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 42 Q-S-l Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 43 Q-S-l Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 44 Q-S-l Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 45 Q-S-l Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 46 Q-S-l Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 47 Q-S-l Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 48 Q-S-l Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3 . Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 49 Q-S-l Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 50 Q-S-l Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 Subject Matter (Deve1opment) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 51 Q-S-l Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 52 Q-S-l Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 53 Q-S-l Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 54 Q-S-l Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well P 366 Card 2 Page S - 2 -4 C ard /C ol. Ques Item D e t a i l Code 55 Q-S-l Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 56 Q-S-l Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 57 Q-S-l Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 58 Q-S-l Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 59 Q-S-l Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 60 Q-S-i Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 61 Q-S-l Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 62 Q-S-l Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 63 Q-S-l Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 64 Q-S-l Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 65 Q-S-l Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 66 Q-S-l Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 67 Q-S-l Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good p 366 Card 2 Page S -2 -5 C a rd /C o l. Ques Item D e t a i l Code 68 Q-S-l Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 69 Q-S-l Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 70 Q-S-l Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 71 Q-S-l Ques • 2-28 Course No. 28 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 72 Q-S-l Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 73 Q-S-l Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 74 Q-S-l Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 75 Q-S-l Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 76 Q-S-l Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful p 366 J Card 3 C a rd /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Page S - 3 -1 Code 1st 10 Col's. SAME as Management Card 1 11 12 13-16 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -2. -1. -0001 to -9999 Deck 2 (Student) Card 3 Number respondents consecutively by groups as received 17 Q-S-l Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 18 Q-S-l Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 19 Q-S-l Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 20 Q-S-l Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 21 Q-S-l Ques. 2-31 Course No, 31 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 22 Q-S-l Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 23 Q-S-l Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 24 Q-S-l Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 25 Q-S-l Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 26 Q-S-l Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 27 Q-S-l Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 28 Q-S-l Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful p 366 Card 3 Page S -3 -2 Q ues. Item Detail Code 29 Q-S-l Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 30 Q-S-l Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 31 Q-S-l Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 32 Q-S-l Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 33 Q-S-l Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 34 Q-S-l Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 35 Q-S-l Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 36 Q-S-l Ques. 2r34 Course No. 34 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 37 Q-S-l Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 38 Q-S-l Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 39 Q-S-l Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 40 Q-S-l Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 41 Q-S-l Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 42 Q-S-l Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2 . -3. Poor Moderate Well P 3 Card 3 Page S Card/Col. Ques. Item Detail Code 43 Q-S-l Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 44 Q-S-l Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 45 Q-S-l Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 46 Q-S-l Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 47 Q-S-l Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 48 Q-S-l Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 49 Q-S-l Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 50 Q-S-l Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 51 Q-S-l Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 52 Q-S-l Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 53 Q-S-l Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 54 Q-S-l Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 55 Q-S-l Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 56 Q-S-l Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful P 366 Card 3 Page S -3 -4 C a r d /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 57 Q-S-l Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 58 Q-S-l Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 59 Q-S-l Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 60 Q-S-l Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 61 Q-S-l Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 62 Q-S-l Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 63 Q-S-l Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 64 Q-S-l Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 65 Q-S-l Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 66 Q-S-l Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 67 Q-S-l Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 68 Q-S-l Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 69 Q-S-l Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 70 Q-S-l, Ques. 2^43 Course No. 43 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well p 366 Card 3 Page S -3 -5 C ard /C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 71 Q-S-l Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 72 Q-S-l Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 73 Q-S-l Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 74 Q-S-l Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 75 Q-S-l Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 76 Q-S-l Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful p 366 Card 4 C ard /C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a il Page S -4 -1 Code 1st 10 Col's. SAME as Management Card 1 11 12 13-16 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -2. -1. -0001 to -9999 Deck 2 (Student) Card 4 Number respondent consecutively by as received. 17 Q-S-l Ques. 2-45 Course No. 45 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No IS Q-S-l Ques. 2-45 Course No. 45 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 19 Q-S-l Ques. 2-45 Course No. 45 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 20 Q-S-l Ques. 2-45 Course No. 45 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 21 Q-S-l Ques. 2-46 Course No. 46 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 22 Q-S-l Ques. 2-46 Course No. 46 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 23 Q-S-l Ques. 2-46 Course No. 46 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 24 Q-S-l Ques. 2-46 Course No. 46 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 25 Q-S-l Ques. 2-47 Course No. 47 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 26 Q-S-l Ques. 2-47 Course No. 47 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 27 Q-S-l Ques. 2-47 Course No. 47 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 28 Q-S-l Ques. 2-47 Course No. 47 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful p 366 Card 4 Page S -4 -2 Oues. Item Detail Code 29 Q-S-l Ques. 2-48 Course Mo. 48 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 30 Q-S-l Ques. 2-48 Course No. 48 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 31 Q-S-l Ques. 2-48 Course No. 48 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 32 Q-S-l Ques. 2-48 Course No. 48 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 33 Q-S-l Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 34 Q-S-l Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 35 Q-S-l Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 36 Q-S-l Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 37 Q-S-l Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 38 Q-S-l Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 39 Q-S-l Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 40 Q-S-l Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 41 Q-S-l Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 42 Q-S-l Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2, -3. Poor Moderate Well 43 Q-S-l Course Mo. 51 Teacher Effectiveness Ques. 2-51 P 3 -1. Poor -2. Average -3, Good Card 4 Page S-4-3 Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 44 Q-S-l Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 45 Q-S-l Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 46 Q-S-l Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 47 Q-S-l Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 48 Q-S-l Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 49 Q-S-l Ques. 2-53 Course No. 53 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 50 Q-S-l Ques. 2-53 Course No. 53 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 51 Q-S-l Ques. 2-53 Course No. 53 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 52 Q-S-l Ques. 2-53 Course No. 53 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 53 Q-S-l Ques. 2-54 Course No. 54 (Taken) -1. -2 . Yes No 54 Q-S-l Ques. 2-54 Course No. 54 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2.m -3. Poor Moderate Well 55 Q-S-l Ques. 2-54 Course No. 54 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 56 Q-S-l Ques. 2-54 Course No. 54 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful P 366 Card 4 Page S-4-4 Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 57 Q-S-l Ques. 2-55 Course Mo. 55 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 58 Q-S-l Ques. 2-55 Course Mo. 55 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 59 Q-S-l Ques. 2-55 Course No. 55 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 60 Q-S-l Ques . 2-55 Course Mo. 55 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 61 Q-S-l Ques. 2-56 Course Mo. 56 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 62 Q-S-l Ques. 2-56 Course Mo. 56 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 63 Q-S-l Ques. 2-56 Course No. 56 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 64 Q-S-l Ques. 2-56 Course No. 56 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 65 Q-S-l Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 66 Q-S-l Ques. 2-57 Course Mo. 57 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 67 Q-S-l Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 68 Q-S-l Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 69 Q-S-l Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 70 Q-S-l Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well P 366 Card 4 Page S -4 -5 C ard /C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 71 Q-S-l Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 72 Q-S-l Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 73 Q-S-l Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 74 Q-S-l Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 75 Q-S-l Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 76 Q-S-l Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful p 366 Card 5 C ard /C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Page S - 5 -1 Code 1st 10 Col's. SAME as Management Card 1 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -2. -1. -0001 to -9999 Deck 2 (Student) Card 5 Number respondents consecutively by groups as received. 17 Q-S-l Ques . 2-60 Course No. 60 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 18 Q-S-l Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 19 Q-S-l Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 20 Q-S-l Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 21 Q-S-l Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 22 Q-S-l Ques. 2?61 Course No. 61 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor M ode r a t e Well 23 Q-S-l Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 24 Q-S-l Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 25 Q-S-l Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 26 Q-S-l Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 27 Q-S-l Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 Teacher Effective­ ness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 28 Q-S-l Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 11 12 13-16 P 366 Card 5 Page S-5-2 Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 29 Q-S-l Ques. 3 Course Benefit -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 30 Q-S-l Ques. 4 Course Adequacy -1. -2. •3. Not Developed Fairly Developed Well Developed 31 Q-S-l Ques. 5 Instructor Effectiveness -1. -2. -3. -4. Very Poor Poor Good Very Good 32 Q-S-l Ques. 6 Student Expenses (past payment policy) -1. -2. -3. -4. None Less than 50% 50% or more All 33 Q-S-l Ques. 7 -1. -2. -3. -4. All 50% 50% All 34 Q-S-l Ques. 8 Classroom Facilities -1. -2. -3. -4. Satisfactory as is Central facility Industrial more Other 35 Q-S-l Ques, 9 Class Time -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Too late Time O.K. Wrong Day Day O.K. 2 & 4 - Time O.K. & 36 Q-S-l Ques. 10 Night Shift -1. -2. Yes No 37 Q-S-l Ques. 11 Courses (reasons taken) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. Undefined Suggested by manager Felt helpful to job Felt helpful to adv, 3 &4 1 & 3 2 & 3 38, 39 Q-S-l Ques. 12 Courses (Specific needs) -01. -02. -03. None Devise Code System on receipt of Data 40 Q-S-l Ques. 13 Administration of IMTP -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. As is By industrial group By Lake Mich. Coll. No opinion Other P 366 Student Tuition (payment policy agreement) by student student company by company Card 5 Page S -5 -3 C ard/C ol. Ques. Item D e ta il Code 41 Q-S-l Ques. 14 Courses (Types needed) -1. -2. -3. •4. ■5. ■6. •7. -8 . •9. Pre-supervision Supervision Middle management Top Management Technician Engineering 1,2,5 1 ,2 ,3 ,5,6 All 42 Q-S-l Ques. 15 Courses (Admittance to) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. thru -9. Company sponsored Company - anyone Public-at-large Other 2,3 Devise later 43 Q-S-l Ques. 16 College credit -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. No credit College Credit Degree No opinion Credit optional 44 Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-1 45 Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-2 46 47 48 P 366 Competencies felt needed by students (Equipment) (Production) Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-3 (Materials) Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-4 (Machine-Tools) Q-S-l (Drawing & reports) -0. -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Devise code later (No rate given) None Little Some Great Thoroughly - 1. thru -5. Same - 1. thru -5. Same - 1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same Card 5 Page S - 5 - 4 C a rd /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 49 Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-6 (Other personnel) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 50 Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same Same 51 52 53 54 Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-10 (Management & Human Relations) None Little Some Great Thoroughly Q-S-l Ques. 17-A-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-l Competencies felt needed by students (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-3 (Materials) 58 Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-4 (Machine & Tools) 59 Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-6 (Other Personnel) Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-7 (Mathematics) 55 56 57 60 61 P 366 -1. thru -5. -1. thru -5. ■ Same Same Same -1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same Card 5 Page S - 5 - 5 C ard /C ol. Ques, Item D e t a i l Code 62 Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-8 (Science & Technical) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 63 Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-9 (Communications) - 1. thru -r5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-10 (Management & Human Relations) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-B-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1 • thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-l Competencies felt needed by students (Equipment) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-2 (Production) 68 Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-3 (Materials) - 1. thru -5. -1. thru -5. 69 Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-4 (Machine & Tools) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-5 (Drawing & Reports) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-6 (Other Personnel) Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-7 (Mathematics) Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-8 Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-9 64 65 66 67 70 71 72 73 74 p 366 - 1. thru -5. None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Same Same . -1 thru -5. Same (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Page S -5 -6 Card 5 C ard /C ol. Q ues._____________ Item D e t a il 75 Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 76 Q-S-l Ques. 17-C-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thtu -5. p 366 Code None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Card 6 Page S - 6 -1 C a rd /C o l. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 17 Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-l Competencies felt needed by students (Equipment) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 18 Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-4 (Machine & Tools) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-D-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 P 366 None Little Some Great Thoroughly Card 6 Page S-6 - 2 C ard/C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 30 Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-3 Competencies felt needed by students (Materials) - 1. Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-4 (Machine & Tools) Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-5 (Drawing & Reports) - 1. thru -5. - 1. thru (Other Personnel) -5. 31 32 33 Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-6 34 Q*S"1 Ques. 17-E-7 (Mathematics) Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-8 (Science & Technical) Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-9 (communications) Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-10 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 P 366 -2. -3. -4. -5. -1 . thru -5. - 1. thru -5. None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Same Same Same -1 . thru -5. Same - 1. thru -5. Same (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-E-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-l (Equipment) -1 . thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-2 (Production) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-3 (Materials) Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-4 (Machine & Tools) Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-5 (Drawing & Reports) thru -5. Same -1 . thru -5. Same - 1. thru -5. Same - 1. thru -5. Same Card 6 Page S - 6 -3 C ard /C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 44 Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-6 Competencies felt needed by students (Other Personnel) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 45 Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-F-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques17-F-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-4 (Machine & Tools) Q-S-l Ques. 17-G"5 (Drawing & Reports) 55 Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-6 (Other Personnel) 56 Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-7 (Mathematics) Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-8 (Science & Technical) 57 P 366 -1. thru -5. -1. thru -5. None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Same -1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same Card 6 Page S - 6 - 4 C a rd /C ol. Ques. Item D e t a i l Code 58 Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-9 Competencies felt needed by students (Communications) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 59 Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-G-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-4 (Machine & Tools) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-6 (other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-9 (Communications) -1, thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-10 (Management) -1. & Human Relations)thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-H-ll (Accounting & General Business) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 P 366 -1. thru -5. None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Card 6 Page S - 6 - 5 C ard/C ol. Q u es, Item D e t a i l Code 72 Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-1 Competencies felt needed by students (Equipment) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 73 Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-2 (Production) -1 . thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-4 (Machine & Tools) Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-5 (Drawing & Reports) 74 75 76 P 366 None Little Some Great Thoroughly -1. thru -5. - 1. thru -5. Same Same Card 7 Page S - 7 - 1 C ard/C ol. Ques. Item D e t a i l Code 17 Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-6 Competencies felt needed by students ((Other Personnel) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 18 Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same -1. thru -5. Same 19 Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-8 (Science & Technical) None Little Some Great Thoroughly Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-9 (Communications) Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 17-1-11 (Accounting & -1. General Business)q thru -5. Same 23 Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-l (Equipment) -0. (No rate given) -1. thru Same -5. 24 Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-4 (Machine & Tools) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 P 366 Card 7 Page S - 7 - 2 C a r d /C o l. Ques. Item D e t a i l Code 30 Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-8 Competencies felt needed by students (Science & Technical) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorouj 31 Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-10 (Management &q Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-A-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-4 (Machine & Tools) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-9 (Communications) —1 thru -5. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 P 366 . Same Card 7 Page S - 7 - 3 C ard/C ol. Ques, Item D e t a i l Code 43 Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-10 Competencies felt needed by students (Management & Human Relations) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 44 Q-S-l Ques. 18-B-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-3 (Materials) 48 Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-4 (Machine & Tools) 49 Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-9 (Communicat ions) Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. -1. thru -5. Q-S-l Ques. 18-C-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Q-S-l (Equipment) -1. 45 46 47 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Ques. 18-D-l p366 -1. thru -5. -1. thru -5. thru -5. None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Same Same Same Same Same Card 7 Page S-7-4 C ard/C ol. Ques. Item D e t a i l Code______________ 57 Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-2 Competencies felt needed by students (Production) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 58 Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-4 (Machine & Tools) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-D-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 P 366 None Little Some Great Thoroughly Card 7 Page S - 7 - 5 C a rd /C o l. Ques, Item D e t a i l Code 70 Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-4 Competencies felt needed by students (Machine & Tools) -1. -2. -3, -4. -5. 71 Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same -5 . 72 73 74 75 76 77 p 366 - 1. Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-6 (Other Personnel) Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-7 (Mathematics) Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-8 (Science & Technical) Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-9 (Communications) Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-E-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same thru -5. - 1. thru -5. Same Same - 1. thru -5. Same - 1. thru -5. Same Card 8 Page S - 8 - 1 C ard/C ol. Ques. Item D e t a i l Code 17 Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-l Competencies felt needed by students (Equipment) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 18 Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-3 (Materials) 20 Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-4 (Machine & Tools) 21 Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-9 (Consnunica tions ) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-F-ll (Accounting & General Bssiness) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-2 (Production) -1 . thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 P 366 -1. thru -5. -1. thru -5. None Little Some Great Thoroughly Same Same Same Card 8 Page S - 8 -2 C ard/C ol. Ques.________ Item Detail Code 31 Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-4 Competencies felt needed by students (Machine & Tools) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 32 Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-6 (Other Personnel) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-7 (Mathematics) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-G-ll (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-l (Equipment) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-2 (Production) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-3 (Materials) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-4 (Machine & Tools) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1. thru -5. Same 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 P 366 None Little Some Great Thoroughly Card 8 Page S - 8 - 3 C a rd /C ol. Ques. Item D e t a i l Code 44 Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-6 Competencies felt needed by students (Other Personnel) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 45 Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-7 (Mathematics) -1 . thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-8 (Science & Technical) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-10 (Management & Human Relations) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-H-ll (Accounting & General Business) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-1 (Equipment) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-2 (Production) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-3 (Materials) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-4 (Machine & Tools) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-5 (Drawing & Reports) -1 . thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-6 (Other Personnel) - 1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-7 (Mathematics) - 1. thru -5. Same 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 p 366 None Little Some Great Thoroughly Card 8 Page S - 8 - 4 C a r d /C o l. Ques, Item D e t a i l Code 57 Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-8 Competencies felt needed by students (Science & Technical) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 58 Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-9 (Communications) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-10 (Management & Human Relations) -1. thru -5. Same Q-S-l Ques. 18-1-11 (Accounting & General Business) -1. thru -5. Same 59 60 P 366 None Little Some Great Thoroughly Card 9 C ard/C ol. Ques Item D e t a i l Page S - 9 - 1 Code 1st 10 Col 's. SAME as Management Card 1 11 12 13-16 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. Deck 2 Card 9 -0001 to -9999 17 Q-S-II Ques. 1 Youth Commiting -1. -2. -3. -4. 18 Q-S-II Ques. 2 Recent Residence -1. -2. -3. -4. Number respondents consecutively by groups as received County Country town City City Suburb Same 20 Q-S-II Ques. 3 Age -00 to -99 21 Q-S-II Ques. 4 Marital Status -1. Divorce -2. Seperated -3. Widowed -4. Single -5. Married 22,23 Q-S-II. Ques. 3 Children (No. of) -00 -01. thru 10 None Record actual number Q-S-l Ques. 6 Salary (Self) -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. 6,000-6,999 7,000-7,999 8,000-8,999 9,000-9,999 10,000-10,999 Q-S-II Ques. 7 Salary (Spouse) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Less than 1,000 1,000-1,999 2,000-2,999 3,000-3,999 4,000-4,999 28,29 Q-S-II Ques. 6 & 7 Salary (Combined) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 6,000-6,999 7,000-7,999 8,000-8,999 9,000-9,999 10,000-10,999 30 Q-S-II Ques. 8 -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Protestant Catholic J ewish None Other 24,23 26,27 p 366 Religion (Adherence) Record actual age Card 9 Page S-9-2 Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 31 Q-S-II Ques. 9 Religion (Importance) -1. -2. -3. -4. No religion Not very important Fairly important Very Important 32 Q-S-II Ques. 10 Personslism (Job-amount) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Less than 25% Between 25-50% Between 50-75% More than 75% 33 Q-S-II Ques. 11 Personalism (Job-importance) -1. -2. -3. -4. Not important Not very important Fairly important Very important 34 Q-S-II Ques. 12 Education (Amount) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Less than 8 8-12 years 12 (grade) Techn school Junior College or 1 yr Two years univ. Three Four years (grad.) Adv. degree 35 Q-S-II Ques. 13 Residency (Change) -1 . -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. None One 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times Over 10 times 36 Q-S-II Ques. 14 Job (Change) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. None 1 time 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times Over 10 times 37,38 Q-S-II Ques. 15 Occupation (Catagory) -1. -2. Devise code later -3. etc. -7. Same one on Card 1 Col. 39 Q-S-II Ques. 16 Religion (Observance) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. No religion Seldom Sometimes Usually Almost always 40 Q-S-II Ques. 17 Change -1. Probably not (Health) -2. -3. -4. No Maybe Yes P 366 Card 9 Page S-9-3 Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 41 Q-S-II Ques. 18 Change (Child rearing) -1. -2. -3. -4. Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly 42 Q-S-II Ques. 19 Change (Birth Control) -1. -2. -3. -4. Always right Probably O.K. Usually wrong Always wrong 43 Q-S-II Ques. 20 Change (Automation -1. -2. -3. -4. Disagree strongly Slightly disagree Agree Strongly Agree Slightly 44 Q-S-II Ques. 21 Change (Pol. Leaders) -1. -2. -3. -4. Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly 45 Q-S-II Ques. 22 Aidj^education (Local) -1. -2. -3. -4. Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly 46 Q-S-II Ques. 23 Aid-Education (Federal) -1. -2. -3. -4. disagree disagree agree agree disagree disagree disagree agree disagre disagre agree agree Same 47 Q-S-II Ques. 24 Education (Planning) -1. -2. -3. Parents Local Government National Government 48 Q-S-II Ques. 25 Change (Self) -1. -2. -3. -4. Very difficult Slightly difficult Somewhat easy Very easy 49 Q-S-II Ques. 26 Change (Role adherence) -1. -2. -3. -4. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 50 Q-S-II Ques. 27 Job (Routine) -1. -2. -3. -4. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 51 Q-S-II Ques. 28 Future Orient. (Planning) -1. -2. -3. -4. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly P 366 Card 9 Page S-9-4 Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 52 Q-S-II Ques. 29 Happiness (Requistes for) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Nothing More money More friends Better Job Good Health Other 3.4.5 2.4.5 5,6 53 Q-S-II Ques* 30 Happiness (Possibilities future) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Nothing More money More friends Better Job Good Health Other 3.4.5 2.4.5 Golden Rule-Education 54 Q-S-II Ques. 31-A Elem Schools -1. -2. -3. -4. Poor Fair Good Excellent 55 Q-S-II Ques. 31-B Sec. Schools -1. thru -4 . Same Q-S-II Ques. 31-C Universities -1. thru -4. Same Q-S-II Ques. 31-D Businessmen -1. thru -4. Same Q-S-II Ques. 31-E Labor -1. thru -4. Same Q-S-II Ques* 31-F Local govern­ ment -1. thru -4. Same Q-S-II Ques. 31-G National government -1. thru -4. Same Q-S-II Ques. 31-H Health Services -1. thru -4. Same Q-S-II Ques. 31-1 Churches -1. thru -4 . Same 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 TEACHER CODE BOOK CODE BOOK STUDENT, TEACHER, AND MANAGEMENT EVALUATIONS OF THE BENTON HARBOR/ST. JOSEPH INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM TEACHER FORM INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 0_ or 00_ will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted. 2. Code + for a one column no response, or ^2. for a two column no response, or -99 for a three column no respons will mean there was No Information or Respondent did not answer. 3. In each case the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. 4. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. 5. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used, they are not repeated each time, but reference is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with "same." 6. Under Code, the first number is the questionnaire question alter­ native and the second number is the actual code which is entered on the data sheets (i.e., 1-4; one is the questionnaire question alternative and 4, is the code). Card 1 C ard/Col.______ Q u e s tio n Item D e t a i l Page T - l - 1 Code________ 1st 10 Col's SAME as Student Card 1 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. 17 Q-T-I Ques. 1 Experience with IMTP -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Instructor Taken courses Coord inator Company placement Adm. Board 1 & 3 1 & 4 All 1,2,4,5 18 Q-T-I Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 19 Q-T-I Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 Subject Matter (Development) -1 . -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 20 Q-T-I Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 21 Q-T-I Ques. 2-1 Course No. 1 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 22 Q-T-I Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 23 Q-T-I Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 24 Q-T-I Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 11 12 13-16 -3.Deck 3 (Teacher) ■1 Card 1 -0001 Number respondents to consecutively by groups ■9999 as received INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER Each course in question 2 takes 4 columns. The first column designates whether respondent took the course; the second column how he "felt" about subject matter; the third column "teacher effectiveness"; and the fourth column "benefit to job." Card 1 Page T-l-2 Q u e stio n Item Detail Code 25 Q-T-I Ques. 2-2 Course No. 2 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 26 Q-T-I Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 27 Q-T-I Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 28 Q-T-I Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 29 Q-T-I Ques. 2-3 Course No. 3 Benefit to Job -1. Not Helpful -2. Somewhat Helpful -3 . Very Helpful 30 Q-T-I Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 (Taken) -1. -2. 31 Q-T-I Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 Subject Matter (Development -1. Poor -2 . Moderate -3. Well 32 Q-T-I Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 33 Q-T-I Ques. 2-4 Course No. 4 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 34 Q-T-I Ques. 2-5 Course No, 5 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 35 Q-T-I Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 36 Q-T-I Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 37 Q-T-I Ques. 2-5 Course No. 5 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 38 Q-T-I Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No Yes No Card 1 Page T - l - 3 Card/Col. Question_______Item Detail________Code______________ 39 Q-T-I Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 40 Q-T-I Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 Teacher Effectivene ss -1. -2. -3 . Poor Average Good 41 Q-T-I Ques. 2-6 Course No. 6 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 42 Q-T-I Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 43 Q-T-I Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 44 Q-T-I Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 45 Q-T-I Ques. 2-7 Course No. 7 Benefit to Job -1 . -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 46 Q-T-I Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 47 Q-T-I Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 48 Q-T-I Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 49 Q-T-I Ques. 2-8 Course No. 8 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 50 Q-T-I Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 51 Q-T-I Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 52 Q-T-I Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good Card 1 Page T - l - 4 Card/Col. Question Item Detail________ Code 53 Q-T-I Ques. 2-9 Course No. 9 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. 54 Q-T-I Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 (Taken) -1. Yes -2 . No 55 Q-T-I Ques, 2-10 Course No. 10 Subject Matter (Development) -1. Poor -2. Moderate -3. Well 56 Q-T-I Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. 57 Q-T-I Ques. 2-10 Course No. 10 Benefit to Job -1. Not Helpful -2. Somewhat Helpful -3 . Very Helpful 58 Q-T-I Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 59 Q-T-I Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 60 Q-T-I Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 61 Q-T-I Ques. 2-11 Course No. 11 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 62 Q-T-I Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 63 Q-T-I Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 64 Q-T-I Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 65 Q-T-I Ques. 2-12 Course No. 12 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 66 Q-T-I Ques, 2-13 Course No. 13 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Poor Average Good Card 1 Page T-l-5 Card/Co1. Question Item Detail Code 67 Q-T-I Ques. 2-13 Course No. 13 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 68 Q-T-I Ques. 2-13 Course No. 13 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 69 Q-T-I Ques. 2-13 Course No. 13 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 70 Q-T-I Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 71 Q-T-I Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 72 Q-T-I Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 73 Q-T-I Ques. 2-14 Course No. 14 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Card 2 Card/Col. Q u e s tio n Item D e t a i l Page T -2 -1 Code 1st 10 Col's SAME as Student Card 1 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. 17 Q-T-I Ques. 2-15 Experience with IMTP 18 Q-T-I Ques. 2-15 19 11 12 13-16 -3. Deck 3 (Teacher)_ -1. Card 2 -0001 Number resp ndents to consecutively by groups -9999 as received. Course No. 15 (Taken) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. -1. -2. Instructor Taken Courses Coord inator Company placement Adm. Board 1 & 3 1 & 4 All 1. 2, 4, 5 Yes No Q-T-I Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 20 Q-T-I Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 21 Q-T-I Ques. 2-15 Course No. 15 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3 . Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 22 Q-T-I Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 23 Q-T-I Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 24 Q-T-I Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 25 Q-T-I Ques. 2-16 Course No. 16 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 26 Q-T-I Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No Card 2 Page T-2-2 Q u e stio n Item D e t a i l Code___________ 27 Q-T-I Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 28 Q-T-I Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 29 Q-T-I Ques. 2-17 Course No. 17 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 30 Q-T-I Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 31 Q-T-I Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 32 Q-T-I Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 33 Q-T-I Ques. 2-18 Course No. 18 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 34 Q-T-I Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 35 Q-T-I Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 36 Q-T-I Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 37 Q-T-I Ques. 2-19 Course No. 19 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 38 Q-T-I Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 39 Q-T-I Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 40 Q-T-I Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good Card 2 Page T-2-; Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 41 Q-T-I Ques. 2-20 Course No. 20 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 42 Q-T-I Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 43 Q-T-I Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 44 Q-T-I Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 45 Q-T-I Ques. 2-21 Course No. 21 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 46 Q-T-I Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 47 Q-T-I Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 48 Q-T-I Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1 . -2. -3. Poor Average Good 49 Q-T-I Ques. 2-22 Course No. 22 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 50 Q-T-I Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 51 Q-T-I Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Moderate 52 Q-T-I Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 53 Q-T-I Ques. 2-23 Course No. 23 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Q-T-I Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 54 Card 2 Q u e s tio n Item D e t a i l Page T -2 -4 Code 55 Q-T-I Ques. 2-24 Course Mo. 24 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 56 Q-T-I Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 Teacher Effectiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 57 Q-T-I Ques. 2-24 Course No. 24 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 58 Q-T-I Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 59 Q-T-I Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 60 Q-T-I Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 Teacher Effectiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 61 Q-T-I Ques. 2-25 Course No. 25 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 62 Q-T-I Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 63 Q-T-I Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 64 Q-T-I Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 Teacher Effectiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 65 Q-T-I Ques. 2-26 Course No. 26 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 66 Q-T-I Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 67 Q-T-I Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 68 Q-T-I Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 Teacher Effectiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good Card 2 Page T-2-5 Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 69 Q-T-I Ques. 2-27 Course No. 27 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 70 q -T-I Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 71 Q-T-I Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 72 Q-T-I Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 73 Q-T-I Ques. 2-28 Course No. 28 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 74 Q-T-I Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 75 Q-T-I Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 76 Q-T-I Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 77 Q-T-I Ques. 2-29 Course No. 29 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Help£ul Card 3 Card/Col. 1st 1 11 Q u e s tio n ________ Item D e t a i l Page T -3 -1 Code Col's SAME as Student Card 1 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -3. Deck 3 (Teacher) -1. Card 3 -0001. Number respondents to consecutively by groups -9999 as received. 17 Q-T-I Ques. 1 Experience with IMTP 18 Q-T-I Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 (Taken) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. -1. -2. Instructor Taken Courses Coordinator Company placement Adm. Board 1-3 1-4 All 1, 2, 4, 5 Yes No 19 Q-T-I Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 20 Q-T-I Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. Poor -2 . Average -3. Good 21 Q-T-I Ques. 2-30 Course No. 30 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 22 Q-T-I Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 23 Q-T-I Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 24 Q-T-I Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 25 Q-T-I Ques. 2-31 Course No. 31 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 26 Q-T-I Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 27 Q-T-I Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 Subject Matter (Development) 12 13-16 -1. Poor -2. Moderate -3. Well Card 3 Page T-3-: Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 28 Q-T-I Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 29 Q-T-I Ques. 2-32 Course No. 32 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 30 Q-T-I Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 31 Q-T-I Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 32 Q-T-I Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 33 Q-T-I Ques. 2-33 Course No. 33 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 34 Q-T-I Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 35 Q-T-I Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 36 Q-T-I Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 37 Q-T-I Ques. 2-34 Course No. 34 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 38 Q-T-I Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 39 Q-T-I Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 40 Q-T-I Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 41 Q-T-I Ques. 2-35 Course No. 35 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Card 3 Page T-3-3 C ard/C ol. Question Item Detail Code 42 Q-T-I Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 43 Q-T-I Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 44 Q-T-I Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 45 Q-T-I Ques. 2-36 Course No. 36 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 46 Q-T-I Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 47 Q-T-I Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 Subject Matter -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 48 Q-T-I Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 49 Q-T-I Ques. 2-37 Course No. 37 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 50 Q-T-I Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 51 Q-T-I Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 (Subject Matter (Development) -1. Poor -2. Moderate -3. Well 52 Q-T-I Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 53 Q-T-I Ques. 2-38 Course No. 38 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 54 Q-T-I Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 55 Q-T-I Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well Card 3 Page T Question Item Detail Code Q-T-I Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 57 Q-T-I Ques. 2-39 Course No. 39 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 58 Q-T-I Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 59 Q-T-I Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 60 Q-T-I Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 61 Q-T-I Ques. 2-40 Course No. 40 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 62 Q-T-I Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 63 Q-T-I Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 64 Q-T-I Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 65 Q-T-I Ques. 2-41 Course No. 41 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 66 Q-T-I Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 67 Q-T-I Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 68 Q-T-I Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 69 Q-T-I Ques. 2-42 Course No. 42 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Card 3 Page T-3-5 Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 70 Q-T-I Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 71 Q-T-I Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 72 Q-T-I Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 73 Q-T-I Ques. 2-43 Course No. 43 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 74 Q-T-I Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 75 Q-T-I Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 76 Q-T-I Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 77 Q-T-I Ques. 2-44 Course No. 44 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Card 4 C ard/C ol. Q uestion.________ Item D e t a il Page T-4-1 Code_______ 1st 10 Col's SAME as Student Card 1 11 12 13-16 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. 17 Q-T-I Ques. 1 Experience with IMTP 18 Q-T-I Ques. 45 19 -3. Deck 3 (Teacher) -1. Card 4 -0001 Number respondents to consecutively by groups -9999 as received Course No. 45 (Taken) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. -1. -2. Instructor Taken Courses Coordinator Company placement Adm. Board 1-3 1-4 All 1, 2, 4, 5 Yes No Q-T-I Ques. 45 Course No. 45 Subject Matter (Deve1opment) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 20 Q-T-I Ques. 45 Course No. 45 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 21 Q-T-I Ques. 45 Course No. 45 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 22 Q-T-I Ques. 46 Course No. 46 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 23 Q-T-I Ques. 46 Course No. 46 Subject Matter (Deve1opment) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 24 Q-T-I Ques. 46 Course No. 46 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 25 Q-T-I Ques. 46 Course No. 46 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 26 Q-T-I Ques. 47 Course No. 47 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 27 Q-T-I Ques. 47 Course No. 47 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well Card 4 Page T -4 -2 C ard/C ol. Question Item Detail________Code__________________ 28 Q-T-I Ques. 47 Course No. 47 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 29 Q-T-I Ques. 47 Course No. 47 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 30 Q-T-I Ques. 48 Course No. 48 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 31 Q-T-I Ques. 48 Course No. 48 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 32 Q-T-I Ques. 2-48 Course No. 48 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 33 Q-T-I Ques. 2-48 Course No. 48 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 34 Q-T-I Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 35 Q-T-I Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 Subject Matter (Development) -1. Poor -2. Moderate -3. Well 36 Q-T-I Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 37 Q-T-I Ques. 2-49 Course No. 49 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 38 Q-T-I Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 39 Q-T-I Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 40 Q-T-I Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 41 Q-T-I Ques. 2-50 Course No. 50 Benefit toJob -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Card 4 Page T-4 Question Item Detail Code Q-T-I Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 43 Q-T-I Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 44 Q-T-I Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 45 Q-T-I Ques. 2-51 Course No. 51 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 46 Q-T-I Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 47 Q-T-I Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 48 Q-T-I Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 49 Q-T-I Ques. 2-52 Course No. 52 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 50 Q-T-I Ques. 2-53 Course No. 52 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 51 Q-T-I Ques. 2-53 Course No. 53 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 52 Q-T-I Ques. 2-53 Course No. 53 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 53 ■I i. 2-53 Course No. 53 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 54 I . 2-54 Course No. 54 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 55 I . 2-54 Course No. 54 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well Card 4 Page T-' Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 56 Q-T-I Ques * 2-54 Course No. 54 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 57 Q-T-I Ques, 2-54 Course No. 54 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 58 Q-T-I Ques. 2-55 Course No. 55 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 59 Q-T-I Ques. 2-55 Course No. 55 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 60 Q-T-I Ques. 2-55 Course No. 55 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 61 Q-T-I Ques. 2-55 Course No. 55 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 62 Q-T-I Ques. 2-56 Course No. 56 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 63 Q-T-I Ques. 2-56 Course No.56 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 64 Q-T-I Ques. 2-56 Course No. 56 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 65 Q-T-I Ques. 2-56 Course No. 56 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 66 Q-T-I Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 67 Q-T-I Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 68 Q-T-I Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 69 Q-T-I Ques. 2-57 Course No. 57 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Card 4 Page T -4 -5 Card/Col. Question_______Item Detail________Code__________________ 70 Q-T-I Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 71 Q-T-I Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 Subject Matter (Deve1opment) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Good 72 Q-T-I QueB. 2-58 Course No. 58 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 73 Q-T-I Ques. 2-58 Course No. 58 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 74 Q-T-I Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 75 Q-T-I Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 Subject Matter -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 76 Q-T-I Ques. 2-59 Course No. 59 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 77 Q-T-I Ques. 2-59 -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful Course No. 59 Benefit to Job Card 5 Page T -5 -1 Card/Col.______Q u estion ________Item D e t a il_________ Code ____________ _ 1st 10 Col's SAME as Student Card 1 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -3. Deck 3 (Teacher) -1. Card 5 -0001 Number respondents to consecutively by groups -9999 as received. 17 Q-T-I Ques. 1 Experience with IMTP 18 Q-T-I Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 (Taken) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. -1. -2. Instructor Taken Courses Coordinator Company placement Adm. Board 1 & 3 1 & 4 All 1, 2, 4, 5 Yes No 19 Q-T-I Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 Subject Matter (Deve 1opment)^ -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 20 Q-T-I Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 21 Q-T-I Ques. 2-60 Course No. 60 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 22 Q-T-I Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 23 Q-T-I Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 24 Q-T-I Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. Poor Average Good 25 Q-T-I Ques. 2-61 Course No. 61 Benefit to Job -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 26 Q-T-I Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 (Taken) -1. -2. Yes No 27 Q-T-I Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 Subject Matter (Development) -1. -2. -3. Poor Moderate Well 11 12 13-16 Card 5 Page T-5-2 Card/Col. Question Item Detail Code 28 Q-T-I Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 Teacher Effec­ tiveness -1. -2. -3. 29 Q-T-I Ques. 2-62 Course No. 62 Benefit to Job -1. Not Helpful -2. Somewhat Helpful -3. Very Helpful 30 Q-T-I Ques. 3 Course Perceived student (rating) -1. -2. -3. Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful 31 Q-T-I Ques. 4 Courses (self-rating^ -1. -2. -3. Content-inadequate Content-fair Content-good 32 Q-T-I Ques. 5 Tuition (Company payment policy) -1. -2. -3. -4. None Less than 50 More than 50 All 33 Q-T-I Ques. 6 Tuition (Payment policy agreement) -1. -2. -3. -4. None Less than 5% More than 50% All 34 Q-T-I Ques. 7 Classroom Facilities -1. -2. -3. -4. OK as is Central facility Industrial more 2 & 3 35 Q-T-I Ques. 8 Class Time -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Too late Time OK Wrong day Day OK Time & day OK 36 Q-T-I Ques. 9 Night Shift -1. -2. Yes No 37 Q-T-I Ques. 10 Taught (Reason for) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Pressured Enj oy Salary 3 & 4 38,39 Q-T-I Ques. 11 Courses (Specific needs as listed by teachers, see folders for l i s t s .) -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. Poor Average Good Card 5 Card/Col. Page T -5 -3 Question Item Detail________Code___________________ Q-T-I Ques. 12 Adm. of IMTP -I. -2. -3. -4. -5. As is By industry L.M.C. No opinion Other Q-T-I Ques. 13 Courses (Types) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Pre supervisor Foreman Middle Management Top Management Technicians Engineering Mgt. type courses Technic ian-type All Q-T-I Ques. 14 Course (Admittance to) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. Company sponsored Company - anyone Public-at-large 1 & 2 2 & 3 1, 2 & 3 Q-T-I Ques. 15 College Credit -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. to -9. No credit College credit College degree No opinion Credit or no credit 3 & 5 Card 6 Card/Col. Page T -6 -1 Question______ Item Detail_______ Code______________ Part II 1st 10 Col’s SAME as Student Card 1 11 12 13-16 None None None Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -2. Deck 2 (Student) -9 Card 9 -0001 Number respondents to consecutively by groups -9999 as received 17 Q-T-II Ques. 1 Youth Commiting -1. -2. -3. -4. 18 Q-T-I Ques. 2 Recent -1. -2. -3. -4. Residence County Country town City City Suburb Same 19,20 Q-T-II Ques. 3 Age -00 to -99 Record actual age 21 Q-T-I Ques. 4 Marital Status -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Divorce Seperated Widowed Single Married 22,23 Q-T-I Ques. 5 Children (No. of) -00 None -01. Record thru actual -10 number Card 6 Page T-6-2 Card/Col. Question Item Detail 24,25 Q-T-II Ques. 6 Salary (Self) -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. -11. -12. -13. -14. -15. -16. -17. -18. -19. -20. -21. -22. -23. -24. 26,27 Q-T-II Ques. 7 Salary (Spouse) -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. Less than 1,000 1,000-1,999 2,000-2,999 3,000-3,999 4,000-4,999 5,000-5,999 28,29 Q-T-II Ques. 6 & 7 Salary (Combined) -01. to -24. Same as Col. 24,25 above 30 Q-T-II Ques. 8 Religion (Adherence) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 31 Q-T-II Ques. 9 Religion (Importance) -1. No religion -2. Not very important -3. Fairly important -4, Very Important 32 Q-T-II Ques. 10 Personalism (Job-amount) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Code 6,000-6,999 7,000-7,999 8,000-8,999 9,000-9,999 10,000-10,999 11,000-11,999 12,000-12,999 13,000-13,999 14,000-14,999 15,000-15,999 16,000-16,999 17,000-17,999 18,000-18,999 19,000-19,999 20,000-20,999 21,000-21,999 22,000-22,999 23,000-23,999 24,000-24,999 25,000-25,999 26,000-26,999 27,000-27,999 28,000-28,999 29,000-29,999 Protestant Catholic Jewish None Other None Less than 23% Between 25-50% Between 50-757. More than 75% Page T-6-3 Card 6 C ard/C ol. Ouestion Item Detail Code 33 Q-T-II Ques. 11 Personalism (Job-importance) -1. -2. -3. -4. Not important Not very important Fairly important Very important 34 Q-T-II Ques. 12 Education (Amount) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Less than 8 8-12 years 12 (grade) Techn school Junior College or 1 yr. Two years univ. Three Four years (grad.) Adv. degree 35 Q-T-II Ques. 13 Residency (Change) -1. None -2. One -3. 2-3 times -4. 4-6 times -5. 7-10 times -6 . Over 10 times 36 Q-T-II Ques. 14 Job (Change) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. None 1 time 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times Over 10 times 37,38 Q-T-II Ques. 15 Occupation (Catagory) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. Skilled Trades & Secretarial Sales Personnel Supervision Production Supervision Technical Supervision Professional Top Management 39 Q-T-II Ques. 16 Religion (Observance) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. No religion Seldom Sometimes Usually Almost always 40 Q-T-II Ques. 17 Change (Health) -1. -2. -3. -4. Probably not No Maybe Yes Q-T-II Ques. 18 Change (Child rearing) -1. -2. -3. -4. Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly disagree disagree agree agree Card 6 Page T-6- C ard/C ol. Question Item Detail Code 42 Q-T-II Ques. 19 Change (birth control) -1. -2. -3. -4. Always right Probably O.K. Usually wrong Always wrong 43 Q-T-II Ques. 20 Change (Automation) -1. -2. -3. -4. Disagree strongly Slightly disagree Agree Strongly Agree slightly 44 Q-T-II Ques. 21 Change (Pol. Leaders) -1. -2. -3. -4. Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly disagree disagree disagree agree 45 Q-T-I Ques. 22 Aid-education (Local) -1. -2. -3. -4. Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly disagree disagree agree agree 46 Q-T-II Ques. 23 Aid-education (Federal) -1. -2. -3. -4. Same 47 Q-T-I Ques * 24 Education (Planning) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. Parents Local Government National Government 1 & 2 1 & 3 2 & 3 48 Q-T-II Ques. 25 Change (Self) -1. -2. -3. -4. Very difficult Slightly difficult Somewhat easy Very easy 49 Q-T-II Ques. 26 Change (Role adherence) -1. -2. -3. -4. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 50 Q-T-II Ques. 27 Job (Routine) -1. -2. -3. -4. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Q-T-II Ques. 28 Future Orient. (Planning) -1. -2. -3. -4. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Card 6 Page T -6 -5 C ard/C ol. Question______ Item Detail_______ Code 52 Q-T-II Ques. 29 Happiness (Requistes for) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Nothing More money More friends Better Job Good Health Other 3.4.5 2.4.5 5,6 53 Q-T-II Ques. 30 Happiness (Possibilities future) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. Nothing More money More friends Better Job Good Health Other 3.4.5 2.4.5 Golden Rule-Education 54 Q-T-II Ques. 31-A Elem Schools -1. Poor -2. Fair -3. Good -4. Excellent 55 Q-T-II Ques. 31-B Sec. Schools -1. thru Same -4. 56 Q-T-II Ques. 31-C Universities -1. thru -4i. Same Q-T-II Ques. 31-D Businessmen -1. thru -4*. Same Q-T-II Ques. 31-E Labor -1. thru -4. Same Q-T-II Ques. 31-F Local govern­ ment -1. thru -4. Same Q-T-II Ques. 31-G National Government -1. thru -4. Same Q-T-II Ques. 31-H Health Services -1. thru -4. Same Q-T-II Ques. 31-1 Churches -1. thru -4. Same 57 58 59 60 61 62 MANAGER CODE BOOK 201 CODE BOOK STUDENT, TEACHER, AND MANAGEMENT EVALUATIONS OF THE BENTON HARBOR/ST, JOSEPH INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 0 or 00 will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted. 2. Code + for a one column no response, or ^3. ^°r a two column no response, or -99 for a three column no response will mean there was No Information or Respondent did not answer. 3. In each case in the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. 4. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. 5. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used, they are not repeated each time, but reference is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with "same." 6. Under Code, the first number is the questionnaire question alter­ native and the second number is the actual code which is entered on the data sheets (i.e., 1-4; one (1) is the questionnaire ques­ tion alternative and 4 is the code). ■ P 366 Page M -l-1 Card 1 Card/Col* Ques. Item Detail Code 1 Face Sheet and Q-l Ques. 1 Group >1. -2. -3• 2,3 Face Sheet Company/School Affiliation 4,5 Q-M-2-II Ques. 5 Type of Company 6,7 Face Sheet Occupation (Specific) Face Sheet Sex -1. —2. 9, 10 Postmark Date1 returned by week of receipt -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. -11. -12. 4-12 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 11 12 None None Deck No. Card No. -1. -1. Deck 1 (Management) Card 1 Management Student Teacher -0. Names of Companies f Alph. + -99. Schools, etc. (See 5-1-1) - 01. List in order from - 22. Q-M-2, Ques. 5 (See 5-1-2) Devise Specific -01t. Occupation Code -99. after receipt of data Male Female April 1st week April 2nd week April 3rd week April 4th week May 1st week May 2nd week May 3rd week May 4th week June 1st week June 2nd week June 3rd week June 4th week 1 The first Monday of each month is to be used as "starting” the month. Date received prior to a first Monday goes into the previous month. 2 First digit indicates month, second digit indicates week of month. p 366 Page M -l-2 Card 1 Card/Col. Ques Item D e t a i l Code 13-16 Hone Respondent No, -0001 -9999 Number respondents consecutively by groups as received MANAGEMENT FORM PART 1 -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -1. -2. -3. No experience Taken courses Taught courses Administrative Board Financed 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 4, 3, 5 2, 3 Not helpful Somewhat helpful Very helpful Student expenses (past payment) policy -1. -2. -3. -4. None Less than 50% 50% or more All Q-M-I Question 4 Student tuition (Payment policy) Agreement) -1. -2. -3. -4. All 50% 50% All 21 Q-M-l Question 5 Classroom facilities -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. Satisfactory as is Central facility Industrial use Other 1 and 3 22 Q-M-l Question 6 Class Time -1. -2. -3* -4. -5. Too late Time o.k. Wrong day Day o.k. Time o.k. - day o.k. 23 Q-M-l Question 7 Night Shift -1. -2*. 24 Q-M-l Questions 8 Courses (Reason taken) (via company) Undefined Suggested by m a n ­ agement Felt helpful to Felt helpful for advancement 2, 3, 4 3 & 4 17 Q-M-l Question 1 Experience with IMTP 18 Q-M-l Question 2 Courses taken (Company evaluation) 19 Q-M-l Question 3 20 -4. -5. -6. * » P 366 by by by by student student company company Card 1 Page M -l-3 C ard/C ol. Q u es. Item D e t a i l Code 25,26 Q-M-l Question 9 Courses (Specific needs) (via company) -01. -02. -03. 27 Q-M-l {fueetlon 10 Administration of IMTP -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. As is By industrial group By Lake Michigan College No opinion Other 28-33 Q-M-l QuMCion Courses-types 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Pre-Supervision 2 Supervision 2 Midd le Management 2 Top Management 2 Technicians 2 Engineering 11 or or or or or or Devise Code system On receipt of data 34 Q-M-l Question 12 Courses (Admittance to) -1. -2. -3. -4. Company sponsored Company-anyone Public-at-large 2, 3 35 Q-M-l Questd-on. 13 College credit -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. -6. -7. -8. -9. No credit College credit Degree No opinion Credit optional 1,5 1 A 2 MANAGEMENT FORM PART IX 36-39 Q-M-II Question Employees (number) -0001. to ■9999. Record actual number from data 40-42 Q-M-II Question 2 Current Vacancies -001. Record actual to number from ■999. data *4-A-l INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER The question grid for Q-M-II #4 is coded as follows: The columns are num­ bered across from 1 to 6 and the rows are lettered down from A to E. Thus B-3 would designate the estimate for 7/1/60 for skilled technicians (i.e. 2nd row down, 3rd column across). P 366 Page M -l-4 Card 1 C ard/C ol. Q u es.______________ Item D e t a i l _____________ Code 43-50 Q-M-II Question 3 Degrees 00-99% 00-99 00-99 00-99 Assoc, of Arts Bachelors Masters Doctoral 51-53 Q-M-II Question 4-A-l Employment Projection (current) -001. to -999. Management Q-M-II Question 4-A-2 " Q-M-II Question 4-A-3 " Q-M-II Question 4-A-4 Employment projection (current) 63-66 Q-M-II Question 4-A-5 " -0000. Unskilled to -9999. 67-70 Q-M-II Question 4-A-6 " -0001. Total Current to -9999. 54-56 57-59 60-62 P 366 -001. to -999. Professor &/or Engr. -001. to -999. Skilled Technicians -001. to -999. Skill trades Card 2 Card/Col. Ques. Page M -2-1 Item D e t a il Code 1st 10 Col's SAME aB Card 1 11 None Deck No. -1 Deck 1 (Management) 12 None Card No. -2 Card 2 13-16 None Respondent number -001. Number of respondents to consecutively by groups -9999. as received. 17-19 Q-M-II Question 4-B-l Estimate as of 7/1/60 *001. 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-32 33-36 37-39 40-42 43-45 p 366 to -999. Q-M-II Question 4-B-2 -001. Q-M-II Question 4-B-3 ■001. to -999. to •999. Q-M-II Question 4-B-4 -001. Q-M-II Question 4-B-5 •0001. Q-M-II Question 4-B-6 -0001. Q-M-II Question 4-C-l to •999. Professor and Engrs. Skilled Technicians Skilled trades to Unskilled •9999. to Total estimate as of -9999. 7/1/60 Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/65) •001. to •999. Management -001. Q-M-II Question 4-C-2 Q-M-II Question 4-C-3 Management to -999. Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/65) Prof. and Engrs. •001. to •999. Skilled Technicians Card 2 Page M -2-2 C ard/C ol, Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 46-48 Q-M-II Question 4-C-4 Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/65) - 001. to -999. 49-52 53-56 57-59 60-62 63-65 66-68 69-72 73-76 P 366 Q-M-II Question 4-C-5 II Q-M-II Question 4-C-6 II Q-M-II Question 4-D-l Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/70) Q-M-II Question 4-D-3 ii Q-M-II Question 4-D-6 - 0001. to Total estimate as of -9999. 7/1/65 ii Q-M-II Question 4-D-5 -0001. to Unskilled -9999. Q-M-II Question 4-0-2 Q-M-II Question 4-D-4 Skilled Trades -001. to -999. -001. to -999. tl Skilled Technicians -001. to -999. Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/70) Prof. and Engrs. -001. to -999. ii Management Skilled Trades -0001. to Unskilled -9999. - 0001. to Total Estimate as of -9999. 7/1/70 Card 3 C ard/C ol. Q ues. Page M -3-1 Item D e t a i l Code 1st 10 Col's SAME as Card 1 11 None Deck No. >1 Deck 1 12 None Card No. -2 Card 3 13-16 None Respondent No. -0001 to -9999 17-19 Q-M-H Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/75) •01. Question 4-E-l 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-32 33-36 37-39 40-42 43-45 P 366 to -001 . Q-M-II Question 4-E-3 - 001 . to -999. to ■999. Employment projection (Estimate as of 7/1/75) to ■999. -001. Q-M-II Question 4-E-6 -0001. to -999. to -9999. Projected Employment (Mgt. & Prof. personnel) Management Prof. and Engrs. Skilled Technicians ■001. Q-M-II Question 4-E-5 Q-M-II Question 6-A Number respondents consecutively by groups as received. •02. Q-M-II Question 4-E-2 Q-M-II Question 4-E-4 (Management) Skilled Trades Unskilled Total estimate as of 7/1/75) •001. to -999. Q-M-II Question 6-B -001. Q-M-II Question 6-C -001. to -999. to -999. Immediately Next 5 years Next 10 years Page M -3-2 Card 3 C ard/C ol. Quea, Item D e t a i l Code 46 Q-M-II Question 7-A Have Mgt. Training Department -1. -2. No Yes 47,48 Q-M-II Question 7-B How many employees in department -00. to -99. Number of Mgt. Training Department Employees 49 Q-M-II Question 8 Company Training! Program since 1960 -1. -2. 50 Q-M-II Question 9 Planned change in training program -1 -2; -3 to -9 51, 52 Q-M-II Question 10-A-l Training Program by other since 1960 (Course name) -00 None 01 Devise after thru data is in -99 53 Q-M-II Question 10-A-2 Name of Training Institute -1. -2. -3. 54,55 Q-M-II Question 10-A-3 Number of students per course -01. thru -09. 56 Q-M-II Question 10-A-4 Course location -1. -2. 57 Q-M-II Question 10-A-5 Course fee -1. Devise after thru data is in -9. 58 Q-M-II Question 10-A-6 Projected Course Sponsorship -1. Devise after thru data is in -9. 59-80 Q-M-II None Yes None Yes Undecided ■ is in Mich. State Univ. U. of Mich. Lake Mich. Colleg Devise after data is in in plant at school INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER 1 After ell management forms are scored decide whether question 8 needs to be coded and recorded for computer processing. If so, IBM card location must be assigned P 366 Page M -4-1 Card 4 C ard/C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 1st 10 Cel's SAME as Card 1 11 None Deck No Deck 1 (Management) 12 None Card No Card 4 13-16 None Respondent No -0001 to -9999 Number respondents consecutively by group as received Q-M-II Question 11-A Management Courses needed by sponsor­ ship (high school) -0001. Q-M-II Question 11-B Adult School -0001. Devise after 25-28 Q-M-II Question 11-C 29-32 33-36 17-20 21-24 39 40 Devise after data is in thru ■9999. data is in Junior College -0001. thru -9999. Devise after data is in Q-M-II Question 11-D College or University -0001. thru -9999. Devise after data is in Q-M-II Question 11-E College or Univ. Extension -0001. thru -9999. Devise after data is in Competencies by Management Class Divisions (Equip.) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough Production -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above 37 38 thru -9999. 12-A-2 12-A-3 12-A-4 Materials Machine and Tools I nstructions t o c o d e r Question 12 is coded as follows: The rows are lettered down from A thru I and the Columns are numbered across from 1 thru 11. Thus B-3 refers to the education of Office Superiors/working with materials. P 366 Paj Card 4 Card/Col• Ques. Item Detail Code 41 12-A-5 Drawings and Reports -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 42 12-A-6 Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science and Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Machine & Tools -1. thru -5. Same as above Drawing & Reports -1. thru ~5. Same as above 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 P 366 12-A-7 12-A-8 12-A-9 12-A-10 12-A-11 12-B-l 12-B-2 12-B-3 12-B-4 12-B-5 Mathematics Production Materials C ard/C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l_____ Code 53 12-B-6 Other Personnel -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 54 12-B-7 Mathematics **1 * thru -5. Same as above Science and Technical "1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru •5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Machine & Tools -1. thru -5. Same as above Drawings & Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above Other Personnel -1. thru “5. Same as above 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 12-B-8 12-B-9 12-B-10 12-B-ll 12-C-l 12-C-2 12-C-3 12-C-4 12-C-5 12-C-6 Production Materials Card 4 Page M -4-4 Card/Col. Ques.____________ Item Detail___________Code 65 12-C-7 Mathematics -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 66 12-C-8 Science and Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above 67 68 69 12-C-9 12-C-10 12-C-ll Card 5 Card/Col. Owes. Page M-5-1 Item Detail Code 1st 10 Col's SAME as Card 1 11 None Deck No. Deck 1 12 None Card no. Card 5 13-16 None Respondent No. - 0001. to -9999. 17 18 Q-M-II Question 12-D-l 12-D-2 Competencies by Management Class Division (Equip.) Production - 1. - 2. -3. -4. -5. 12-D-3 Materials 21 22 23 12-D-4 12-D-5 12-D-6 12-D-7 Machine & Tools - 1. thru -5. Drawings & Reports - 1. Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Mathematics thru -5. 25 P 366 12-D-8 12-D-9 Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above -1. thru -5. 24 None Little Some Great Thorough - 1. thru -5. 20 Number respondents consecutively by group as received - 1. thru -5. 19 (Management) Science and Technical - 1. Communications - 1. thru -5. thru -5. Same as above Same as above Same as above Card 5 Page M-5-2 Card/Col* Q ues. Item D e t a il Code 26 12-D-10 Management & Human Relations -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 P 366 12-D-ll 12-E-l 12-E-2 12-E-3 12-E-4 12-E-5 12-E-6 12-E-7 12-E-8 12-E-9 12-E-10 12-E-ll None Little Some Great Thorough Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Drawings & Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science and Technical -1. thru “5 . Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Production Materials Machine & Tools Mathematics Card 5 Page M -5-3 C ard/C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 39 12-F-l Equipment -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None ' Little Some Great Thorough 40 12-F-2 Production -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Drawings & Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 P 366 12-F-3 12-F-4 12-F-5 12-F-6 12-F-7 12-F-8 12-F-9 12-F-10 12-F-ll 12-G-l Materials Machine & Tools Mathematics Card 5 Page M -5-4 C ard/C ol. Quea. Item D e t a i l Code 51 12-G-2 Production -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 52 12-G-3 Materials -1, thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Drawings and Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science and Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Conmunicat ions -I. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 p 366 12-G-4 12-G-5 12-G-6 12-G-7 12-G-8 12-G-9 12-G-10 12-G-ll 12-H-l 12-H-2 Machine & Tools Mathematics Production Card 5 Page M -5-5 C ard/C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a il Code__________ _ 63 12-H-3 Materials -I. -2. -3. -4. -5. 64 12-H-4 Machine & Tools -1. thru -5. Same as above Drawings and Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science and Technical “1. thru -5. Same as above Commun ications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 12-H-5 12-H-6 12-H-7 12-H-8 12-H-9 12-H-10 12-H-ll Mathematics None Little Some Great Thorough __J Card 6 Card/Col. Ques. Page M -6-1 Item D e t a i l Code -1 -5 1st 10 Col's SAME as Card 1 11 12 13-16 none none none Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. Deck 1 (Management) Card 6 -0001 Number respondents to consecutively by group as received -9999 17 Q-M-II Question 12-1-1 Competencies by Management Class Divisions (Equip.) -1. 18 12- 1-2 Production - 2. -3. -4. -5. - 1. thru -5. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12-1-3 12-1-4 12-1-5 12- 1-6 12-1-7 12- 1-8 12-1-9 27 12- 1-10 12- 1-11 Same as above - 1. thru -5. Same as above Drawings & Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical - 1. thru -5. Same as above Communications - 1. Machine & Tools Mathematics Management & Human Relations Accounting & General Business- “1* thru -5. Same as above Same as above - 1. thru -5 . P 366 Same as above - 1. thru -5. Materials thru -5. 26 None Little Some Great Thorough Same as above Card 6 Page M -6-2 C ard /C ol. Ques* Item D e t a i l C ode 28 Q-M-II Question 13-A-l Competencies by Management Class Divisions (Equip.) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 29 13-A-2 Production -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5 . Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communicat ions -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 P 366 13-A-3 13-A-4 13-A-5 13-A-6 13-A-7 13-A-8 13-A-9 13-A-10 13-A-ll 13-B-l Materials Machine & Tools Drawings & Reports Other Personnel Mathematics Card 6 Page M -6-3 C ard/C ol. Ouea. Item D e t a i l Code 40 13-B-2 Production -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 41 13-B-3 Materials -1. thru -5. Same as above -1, thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communicat ions -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 P 366 13-B-4 13-B-5 13-B-6 13-B-7 13-B-8 13-B-9 13-B-10 13-B-ll 13-C-l 13-C-2 13-C-3 Machine & Tools Drawings & Reports Other Personnel Mathematics Production Materials Card 6 Page M -6-4 C ard/C ol. Ques. Item D e t a il Code 53 13-C-4 Machine & Tools -1. -2. -3. -4, -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 54 13-C-5 Drawings & Reports -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5 . Same as above 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 P 366 13-C-6 13-C-7 13-C-8 13-C-9 13-C-10 13-C-ll 13-D-l 13-D-2 13-D-3 13-D-4 Other Personnel Mathematics Production Materials Machine & Tools Card 6 Page M -6-5 Card /C o l. Q u es. Item D e t a il Code 65 13-D-U Drawings & Reports -1. -2. *3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 66 13-D-6 Other Personnel -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above 67 68 69 70 71 P 366 13-D-7 13-D-8 13-D-9 13-D-10 13-D-ll Mathematics Card 7 C ard/C ol. Q u es. Item D e t a i l Page M -7-1 Code 1st 10 Col's SAME as Card 1 None None None 17 Q-M-II Competencies by Question 13-E-l Management Class Divisions (Equip.) -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 18 13-E-2 -1. thru -5. Same as above 19 13-E-3 Deck No. Card No. Respondent No. -1. Deck 1 (Management) -6. Card 7 -0001 Number respondents to consecutively by -9999 groups as received 11 12 13-16 Production Materials - 1. thru -5. 20 13-E-4 Machine & Tools - 1. thru -5. 21 13-E-5 Drawings & Reports 13-E-6 Other Personnel 13-E-7 Mathematics Same as above Same as above Same as above - 1. thru -5. Same as above - 1. thru -5. Same as above - 1. thru -5. 24 25 26 P 366 13-E-8 13-E-9 13-E-10 Science & Technical Communications Management & Human Relations Same as above - 1. thru -5. 23 Same as above - 1. thru -5. 22 Same as above - 1. thru -5. Card 7 Q ues. Item D e t a il Page M -7-2 Code 27 13-E-ll Accounting & General Business >1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 28 13-F-l Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1* thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business **1. thru -5. Same as above 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 P 2 13-F-2 13-F-3 13-F-4 13-F-5 13-F-6 13-F-7 13-F-8 13-F-9 13-F-10 13-F-ll Production Materials Machine & Tools Drawings & Reports Other Personnel Mathematics Page M 1 Card 7 Card/Col. Oues. Item Detail Code 39 13-G-l Equipment -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 40 13-G-2 Production -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru ~5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1* thru *5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communic at ions -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -I. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 P 366 13-G-3 13-G-4 13-G-5 13-G-6 13-G-7 13-G-8 13-G-9 13-G-10 13-G-ll 13-H-l Materials Machine & Tools Drawings & Reports Other Personnel Mathematics Card 7 Page M-7-4 Card/Col. Ques. Item Detail Code 51 13-H-2 Production -1. r2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Seme Great Thorough 52 13-H-3 Materials -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Commun icat ions -1. thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1. thru -5. Same as above Equipment -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 P 366 13-H-4 13-H-5 13-H-6 13-H-7 13-H-8 13-H-9 13-H-10 13-H-ll 13-1-1 13*1-2 Machine & Tools Drawings & Reports Other Personnel Mathematics Production Card 7 Page M -7-5 C ard/C ol. Q ues. Item D e t a i l Code 63 13-1-3 Materials -1. -2. -3. -4. -5. None Little Some Great Thorough 64 13-1-4 Machine & Tools -1. thru -5, Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above -1. thru -5. Same as above Science & Technical -1. thru -5. Same as above Communications -1* thru -5. Same as above Management & Human Relations -1. thru -5. Same as above Accounting & General Business -1* thru -5. Same as above 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 366 13-1-5 13-1-6 13-1-7 13-1-8 13-1-9 13-1-10 13-1-11 Drawings & Reports Other Personnel Mathematics APPENDIX G STATISTICAL DATA— TABLES G.l TO G.42 230 231 TABLE G.l.— Student and teacher evaluations of courses in IMTP. Subject Matter • 2 C O •H •P 0) O O 1 —1 1 —1 0) 3: 0 Sh O O Oh (U ■P £0 Sh 0) *o O £ Sh O O Pi, O b0 at Sh a> > < T3 O O O rH 3 a rH a> X 4-> O 2 « Q, rH O 35 P 0} X! 3 35 >s Sh O > Per Cent Overall Course S 2 6 33 61 5 36 59 4 52 44 Evaluation T 2 0 28 72 2 44 54 0 37 63 232 TAbLE G . 2 .— C o m p a r a t i v e r e s u l t s (N's a n d p e r c e n t a g e s ) o f c o m p a n y , a n d t e a c h e r r e p l i e s to s e l e c t e d i t e m s . Item Alternatives No Yes T Item^ UQw&xJL Night Shift Classes 4(> 0 I o h s 10 M T student, N 7 9 N 1*5.OC 31 5 * 9.39 >5.00 65.52 9 31.03 225 63.lt 9 19 Item Alternatives Tuition Pees (£ paid by company) Tuition Fees student should pay) Somewhat Not Course Benefit (Overall) N S M 3 2 T 3 S 6 M 3 T S ? 7 M T 6 6 N * Class (time of day) S 3 M 5 T 7 S 9 M 6 3 T ^ee 2 S = N * 1 1 , * 3 0 .0 0 l.?Z 185 55.05 8 1*0.00 11 55.00 -— 18 6 2 .0 7 11 37.93 Leos^iian None 5056 Plus ? N 6 $ 1.82 N 6 * 1.32 _«. __ 7 -- 2.12 — Satisfactory Classroom Facility Very Helpful 13 N 70 * 21.21 N is 211 53.9** 6 30.00 44.83 23-9»* 1? 65.00 1? *4.83 176 33.33 -- .— 2k 7.27 79 1 2 5.00 8 12 6 .9 0 Central 40.00 4 1 .3 8 Industry 46.9" 52 15.76 78 23.6** 6 5 .0 < 3 3 1 5 .0 0 2 10.00 44.8j 27.59 13 3 20.69 Too late Wrong Day Time O.K. 19 — — 5*7< 116 — ... questionnaires student; M 7 13 55-15 35-00 1*4.83 (Appendix = management; A) All 7 1 — for 2.12 5.00 -full T = teacher. i i 1 1 9 4 5 .0 0 15 51-72 i Other 1* 1.21 ---- 2 * 6 .9 0 Day O.K. 25 11 2 1 ciB5. Day 7.58 123 37.27 * 55.00 — 14 — 1 48.28 , 6 .9 0 meaning of question. TABLE G.2.— (continued). s M 3 .91 8 Suggested Helpful-Job Help - adv. H * N • $ 7.27 138 41.82 58 1l7.58 5.00 12 60.00 2 0.0.00 H * 24 1 N i So So reason o * r N 1 s ii Reason took course Item Categories | I Item 1 Detail SugR.ftheln8 f 51 15.45 1 5.00 N IT t 5.15 % IOtQO r T 13 Admission to XKEF Courses 14 48.28 Sponsored 2 6.90 Company S 15 M 12 71 21.52 120 6 30.00 4 T 14 10 34.48 4 Hone College Credit S 16 135 40.91 M 13 T 15 8 40.00 14 48.28 *See questionnaires 2 36 2 2 3 10.34 Fuibllc __ — 1k2 36.36 102 20.00 7 30.91 35.00 5 1.52 2 L0.00 8 27.59 1 13-79 Yes Decree 10.91 38 11.52 10.00 6.90 1 | 5.00 3 110.34 27.14 2 16 4.85 -- — — — 7 2& 3 4 13-79 Optional 9 2.73 _ — -- 1,2,3,5,6 1,2,5 20 6.06 3.33 55 10.67 6.90 1,2,3 1 — — 3.45 Other 0.30 29.09 1 5 25.00 7 27.14 2 10.00 2 6 .9 c 96 (Appendix A) for full meani ng of question. S ■ student; M = management; T = teacher. 11 -- 233 As is Industry College No opinion Other 2 .61 4.55 13 3.9*» 40 12.12 Administra­ S 13 246 T4.55 15 tion of M 12 95.00 XNEP m—— ——— 6.90 T 10 24 82.76 2 3.45 Supervisory ftre-sup. die . Technicians S 14 36 10.91 38 11.52 68 20.61 7.88 Type 7 2.12 26 All 47 14.24 — V Item'*' Detail Question! Ho. 1 TABLE G.3*— Results (N’s and percentages) of teacher responses to selected Items. Item Alternatives Inadequate N f Course Content 4 1 3-45 No reason Reason - teacl Good Pair N 14 H 48.14 Pressure LO 41.38 12 Enjoy Salary 22 175.86 4 |l3.79 .. 1 ... TABLE G.4.— Results (N's and percentages) of management responses to type of training needed by companies. Needed Type (Question 11) No N Yes * Pre-supervisory 11 55.00 8 * 40.00 Foreman & Super. 2 10.00 3.7 85.00 Middle Management 3 12 15.00 16 80.00 60.00 7 35.00 Technicians 9 45.00 10 50.00 Engineering 11 Top Management 25,*29, 8 jtSiSS. / 1See questionnaires of question. (Appendix A) for full meaning 235 TABLL G . 5-— Results 'N's and percentages) responses to selected Items. Item Detail-*- of student a Item Alte •-ratives o • H •fj • F■.ir Good too Inadequate It If It * S Course Conten- 2.73 ? Very poor Teacher Effectiveness N 1 5 Jj . £ -91 ^Sen queitlonnaires of cuestion. 150 k5 M Pc.-T It 17 1 5.15 131 39.70 Good H 201 96 60.91 Very Good It 70 21.21 (A pendix A) for full meaning 2 36 TABlh G.o.— Results (N’s ana percentages) of student and teacher responses to selected items of the general questionnaire. Item Detail-3Where reared Recent residence Marital status Religious affiliation Religion importance c o ** iti +wo C5 & 3 1 T 1 6 20.69 3 2 58 2 o o 17.58 10.34 T S 4 T 4 3 8 T 8 S T 9 9 $ 32 .b 2 N 67 6 1 3-*5 Proi estant N $ 20.30 123 $ 37.27 20.69 44.83 13 50 15.15 108 01 6.90 15 255 oo 77.27 75.86 None 6 — 1.82 — N 8 $ 2 .b 2 - None — — Suburb City c«88Sry Divorced Separated 16 1.82 1 ! .30 None S 16 T 16 importance Country N 107 Religion adherence Job personalism Item Alternatives Catholic Widowed 7 6.90 34.55 24.14 Single Married 14 309 26 4.24 — 93*64 89.66 __ _ __ __ _ Very Fairly Seldom 48.79 55.17 Sometimes 96 29.09 7 24.14 Usually N $ N $ N $ N $ 16 4.85 10.34 46 13-94 13.79 142 43.03 44.83 113 8 34.24 27.59 65 1 19.70 A S 13.79 3 25$ l6l 16 4 25 - 50# 8.48 28 1 3A5 Not 162 49.09 12 41.38 Not very b 11 6l ' 13.48 134 40.6i 9 31.03 Fairly 91 27.58 10 34.48 10 b 114 $ 10.00 Jewish S 10 T 10 Ti’Mi 33 2 -- — 62 18.79 5 17.24 Not very 32.73 51.72 N 78 23.64 13 50 - 75$ 51 15.45 3 10.34 Very 42 12.73 34.48 ___ L Always Over 75$ 11 4 3.33 13.79 17.24 ^See questionnaires (Appendix A) for full meaning of question. ? S = student] M = management] T = teacner. 237 TABLE G.6.— Continued. • Itenr1Detail CO m - Health Child rearing Birth Control Automation Political Leaders Educ. Aid Local Educ. Aid Federal Not No . C3 3& s 17 T 17 N N 17 5.15 1 3.45 Strongly Disagree 39 11.82 5.15 71 Yes N 21.52 221 * 66.97 4 13.79 SL ightly allgtrtly Agree Disagree 60 18.18 169 51.21 23 79.31 Strongly Agree 51 15.5^ 20.34 3 Always wrong T 20 2 6.90 O 58.62 20.69 17 Probably Always Usually right wrong right 34.85 169 51.21 1? 5.76 10 34.48 16 1 55-17 3.45 strongly Slightly rongly agree disagree irfqacree 1 14 4.24 254 •30 76.97 — 1 3.45 28 96.55 S 21 8? 89 26.97 3 W rH# 61 18.48 T S 21 22 6 44 20.69 13.33 17.24 11 15.45 116 T 22 1 3.45 5 51 1 3.45 7 S 23 130 23 12 39.39 41.38 73 22.12 78 6 20.69 S 18 T 18 S T 19 19 S 20 T - - ------------ 1See questionnaires of question. 2 17 * Maybe N * 90 ~ _ 8 I27.27 10 3.03 — slightly 58 17.58 - - 8T 26.36 37.93 6 35.15 115 124.14 20 20_^o9_ 34.85 123.64 45 13.64 J g x ^ 3 10.34 68.97 (Appendix A) for full meaning S = student; M = management; T = teacher. 238 TABLA G .6 .--Continued . ItenPDetail Educational planning Self change Rule adherence Item Alternatives Parents National Local OJ H§ P • WO C5 s p S 24 T 24 N IT f 40.30 145 24.14 18 N 37 11.21 62.18 2 6.90 T Verv easv aomevnat di»SSult w __ .eaa v __ % 22 47.88 129 39.09 18 6.6? 158 5.45 1 2 6.90 24.14 3.45 7 19 65.52 /iprree Disagree /lgree Disagree strongly slightly sligntly stromlv 23.94 IT 5.15 64 19.39 169 51.21 79 133 43.94 ..... S 25 T 25 3 26 T 26 -- r» Job regularity O 2? Planning (fatalism) S 28 T 27 T 28 14 _ _ 17.24 13.94 15 120 2 6.90 10 1.82 20 6.06 — — — 65 6 4.24 _ _ 6 — 5 46 — - 51.72 9 31.03 36.36 149 34.48 17 45.15. 58.62 19.70 238 72.12 20.69 J 2^ L i “Bee questionnaires (Appendix A) for full meaning of question. p ~S = student; M = m a n a g e m e n t ; T = teacher. 239 TABLE G.6.— Continued. Item Detail1 Elementary schools Secondary schools 8 ■H -P • ISO f 6 3 Poor If S 31/ 8 * 2.42 31/> — --- 3XE 12 3-64 T S T 3U S 31C — T 31C — businessmen S 311 20 _— Labor T 311 S 311 T 311 Universities Local government Item Alternatives Pair Good S 7 N 45 5 62 * 13-64 17.24 N 219 54 16.36 20 208 68.97 63.03 4 42 13.79 12.73 19 177 65.52 53-64 4 50 13.79 15.15 2.12 67 18.79 20.69 20.30 --- 10 34.48 17 58.62 2 6.90 6.06 91 14 27.58 48.28 185 11 56.06 29 37.93 3 10 8.79 10.34 — 6 12*12 156 47.27 llQ 6 20.69 11 37.93 12 35.76 41.38 30JF 21 6.36 l?4 46.67 142 43.03 51.72 11 45.45 58.62 93 37.93 28.18 13 13-T? 165 21 50.00 6 22.73 20.69 72.41 19.39 157 47.58 17 58.62 l 3.45 21.21 150 27.59 17 4.24 7? national government 70 8 T 33X3 Health services 31H T 31H 14 Churches S 311 15 4.55 64 T — — 10 S N * 66.36 40 T 31F •u 310 Excellent — 3.03 -- - - 7 1 10 — 2.12 65 1 19.70 79 2 23.94 3.45 3.03 --- 3.45 6.90 xSee questionnaires (Appendix A) for full meaning of question. 2 S = student; M = management; T = teacher. / TABLh G.o.— Continued. Item , Detail1 Biucation amount Residence change fwmiiAn^v i rc ^ ju c u L / f* M X r eA ',j nu i cA n n c^ yv Happiness requisites 1 s T Less 8 N 3 l f .91 3.45 Hone _S_ Li 182 _T Li 55-15 14 48.28 JL ik 218 66.06 20 68.97 T u Hothing _3_ ?9_ 8 2.42 1 3-45 a. Happiness O 12. 80 24.24 possibilitiet JL 30_ 3 10,34 *See questionnaires of question. 8 - 12 H 32 f 9.70 12 - grad H * 98 29.70 Technical Jr.College 2 Yrs.Univ. 3 Yrs.Univ. Univ.Degree Adv.Degree | * H 74 22.42 52 5 17.24 1 97 29-39 10 34.48 2-3 42 12.73 5 17.24 6 62 1.8.79 34 10.30 6 20.69 3 10.34 Friends — --------- 1 time Money 42 12.73 22 6.67 _ _ . . . . . . . . 6 — 1.82 I? *•55 — H 3.45 4-6 It, 15.76 1 3**5 r ----- i 1 7-10 H * --------- — 17 58.62 ----- _ _ — - - - 11 3-33 5 1.52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job . . . Health 1 36 IO.91 102 30.91 9 31.03 10 34.48 3 S * student; H * management; T * teacher. 4 1.21 57 17.27 10 f 3-03 2 6.9 0 . . . . . . . i . . . H .30 Other 28 2 H . . 53 16.06 171 51.82 3 10.34 14 48.28 (Appendix A) for full meaning i Over 10 2.42 . . . N 240 Job change I 8.48 3 *f5 . . 6 20.69 3 .91 — 12 1 2,4,5 . . 10.34 1 . . . 3-*5 3.64 69 20.91 3.45 1 3*45 roideia Ride .Sjiui . . . . . 3 ' *91 4 13*79 TABLE L .7•— First line production supervisors: student perception of need by area. Question 17-A. AREA 1 N Work/equip. Need to Know little none N N % % 2 4.4 „ N some % 12 26.6 erreat N % N % 11 24.4 20 44.4 Work/prod. 46 1 2.1 1 2.1 ? .!9_._i_ 12 26.0 25 54.3 Work/mat'ls. 46 ? 4.3 1 2.1 8 17.3 15 32.6 20 43.4 Work/mach's. 41? 4 8.8 3 6.6 A0 22.2 43 W o r k draw. &rep 45 1 2.2 5 11.1 15 33-3 8 17.7 16 35-5 Work/person. 49 2 4.0 2 4.0 6 12.2 12 24.4 27 35.1 Math. 43 7 16.2 5 11.6 18 41.8 11 25.5 2 4.6 Sc. & tech. 4l 7 17.0 17 41.4 9 21.9 4 9-7 4 9.7 Comm. 45 4 8.8 6 13.3 7 15.5 10 22.2 18 40.0 Mgt. Sthum rel. 44 2 4.5 3 6.8 4 9.0 14 31.8 21 47.7 Acc'tg. & bus. 40 10 25.0 9 22.5 15 37.5 2 5.0 4 10.0 Totals 4 89 42 6.58 52 10.63 L13 2 3 .1 c 112 45 __33,3_ 22.9C L72 1. For full title of areas see question 17 - Student Form. 35*17 242 TABLE G.8.— First line production supervisors: student perception of competency by area. Question 18-A. AREA 1 N N Work/equip. 44 4 Work/prod. poor % N fair % good average N N % 7° 34.0 21 4 7 .7 2.2 3 6.8 ... 4 8.8 11 24.4 26 [nr^ 2 4.6 Work/mat'ls. 43 Work/mach's. k2 2 . 4.7 excellent N % 5 11.9 12 5 7 .7 4 9.0 „ 4 8.8 p 11.6 44.1 i-T 3 9 .5 28.5 .18 42.8 ? 11.9 Work draw. &rep 4l 2 4.8 2 4.8 20 48.7 13 31.7 4 Work/person. 44 ... 2 4.5 10 22.7 23 52.2 9 20.4 Math. 4o 1 2.5 15 37.5 10 2 5 .0 12 30.0 2 5.0 Sc. & tech. 37 8 21.6 17 45.9 8 21.6 2 5-4 2 5.4 Comm. 40 1 2 .5 5 12.5 18 45.0 15 37.5 1 2.5 Mgt. &hum rel. 40 1 2 .5 4 10.0 13 32.5 19 47.5 3 7.5 Acc'tg. & bus. 36 8 22.2 16 44.4 4 ll.l .. ... Totals J 4 52 24 8 22.2 5.30 75 16.59 L44 31.85 170 37.61 39 1. For full title of areas see question 18 - Student Form. 9-7 8 .6 2 243 TABLE 9.9.— First line production supervisors: manage­ ment perception of need by area. Question 12-A. Importance to Job none little some N N % N N % % AREA 1 Work/equip. 16 Work/prod. 16 Work/mat'ls. 16 Work/mach's, 16 — - - Work draw. &rep 16 ------------ _______ . . . 5 6.25 — fitreat N % ------------ thorough!N % 6 37.50 8 4 25.OO 6 37.50 7 43.75 37.50 50.00 11 68.75 1 6.25 1 6.25 1 0.25 2 12.50 6 .^7.3_Q 6 5 31.25 6 37.50 4 25.00 11 68.75 5 31.25 1 6.25 1 6.25 — _ Work/person. 16 Math. 16 2 12.50 4 25.00 8 50.00 Sc. &c tech. 16 1 6.25 5 31.25 9 56.25 Comm. 16 3 10.75 7 43.75 6 37.50 2 12.50 8 50.00 10.75 2 12.50 10 62.50 1 6 .2 5 - - Mgt. ithum rel. 16 Acc'tg. & bus. Totals 1. 16 ----------- . .. .. . 3 1 76 e \ — — — — ------------ — - - - 6 — — 3.4o 13 10.22 40 22.72 56 31.81 54 30.68 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t i o n 12 - Management Form. I 37.50 244 / TABLE G.IO.— First line production supervisors: manage­ ment perception of competency by area. Question 13-A. AREA 1 N W o rk /e q u ip . L7 W o rk /p ro d . 17 W o r k /m a t'ls . 17 W o r k /m a c h 's , 17 P o or N % P r e s e n t Knowledge A verage F a ir N N % % «... .. Good N % 1 5 .8 8 4 23.53 5 29.41 5 29.41 3 17.65 4 23.53 5 29.41 3 17.65 7 41.18 $ 35.39 £ 11.76 — 1 s.38 V 23.53 7 41.18 3 17.65 5 29.41 6 35.29 2 11.76 2 11.76 8 47.06 5 29-41 2 11.76 1 5.88 1 5.88 W o r k d r a w . & r e p 17 •». -— — W o rk /p e rso n . 17 1 5 .8 8 M a th . 17 1 5 .8 8 7 41.18 5 29.41 2 11.76 S c. &c t e c h . 17 1 5 .8 8 5 29.41 7 41.18 1 5.88 Com m . 17 1 5 .8 8 6 35.29 4 23-53 5 29-41 M g t. & h u m r e l . 17 2 11.76 3 1 7 .65 7 4l.l8 3 17.65 A c c 'tg . 17 3 17-65 10 5 8.82 2 11.76 1 5.88 1 87 I 9 4.81 41 T o ta ls it bus. E x c e lle n t N % 21.92 58 | 31.0lj 42 1. For full title of areas see question 13 — -- 22.45 19 - Management Form. ___ 10.16 TAiiLE G.ll.— Office supervisors: student perception of need by area. Question 17-B. AREA 1 N None N % Work/ equip. L7 2 Work/prod, 18 Work/mat'ls. Work/mach's • Need to Knov Some Little N N % % Great N % Thoroughly N % 11.7 5 29.4 5 29.4 2 11.7 3 17.6 1 5.5 — - 9 50.0 6 33.3 2 11.1 l8 2 ll.l 4 22.2 8 44.4 2 11.1 2 11.1 17 7 4l.i 7 4i.i 2 11.7 1 5.8 Work draw. &rep 17 2 11.7 6 35.2 4 23.5 5 29.4 1 5.5 8 44.4 9 50.0 ll.l Work/person,» 18 Math. 18 _M ____ — ——•- _ 2 11.1 10 55.5 3 16.6 2 3 17.6 6 35.2 3 17.6 2 11.7 2 17.6 Comm. 18 1 5.5 1 1 5-5 7 38.8 8 44.4 Mgt. Sthum rel. 18 5 27.7 6 33.3 7 38.8 Acc'tg. & bus • 18 l 8 4 22.2 4 22.2 Sc. &. tech. Totals 1. \ 17 1 94 IS ——» 5.5 9.79 5-5 _ 1 5.5 26 13.30 58 44.4 29.38 44 22.68 46 F o r fu ll t it le o f a r e a s s e e q u e s tio n 17 - S tu d en t Form 23.71 TABLE G.12.— Office supervisors: competency by area. student perception of Question 18-B. Self Ratin# AREA 1 Poor % Good % Excellent N % N N Work/equip. 16 1 6.2 1 6.2 ? 56.2 4 25.0 1 6.2 Work/prod. 17 1 5.8 1 5.8 5 2 9 .h 9 52.9 1 5.8 Work/mat'ls. 16 1 6.2 2 12.5 8 50.0 5 31.2 Work/mach's. 16 3 18.7 2 12.5 9 56.2 2 12.5 W o r k draw, fcrep 17 N % N % N _ _ _ - - - 2 12.5 3 18.7 9 56.2 2 12.5 - - 1 5.8 3 17-6 10 58.8 3 17.6 Work/person. 17 - - - Math. l6 — ------------ 1 6.2 5 31.2 10 62.5 — — Sc. & tech. l6 18.7 6 37.5 4 25.0 3 18.7 - - — Comm. 16 — ------------ 2 12.5 4 25.0 9 56.2 Mgt. &chum rel. 16 ------------ 2 12.5 4 25.0 10 62.5 Acc'tg. & bus. 16 6.2 3 18.7 5 31.2 6 37-5 1 6.2 43.01 9 5.02 T otals 1. 3 — 1 1 79 10j 5.58 23 12.84 59 32.9^ 77 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 18 - S tu d e n t Form 1 6.2 ------------ — TABLE G .13•--Office supervisors: management perception of need by area. Question 12-B. AREA 1 Importance to Job Some None Little N N N % % % N Great N % Work/equip. 16 ? 18,75 7 4;?*7? ? 18.75 Work/prod. 16 4 25.00 4 25.00 7 43.75 M M M Work/mat'ls. 16 5 31.25 6 37.50 3 18.75 M M M Work/mach's. 16 T 43.75 6 37.50 2 12.50 _ 4 25.00 5 31.25 6 37.50 2 12.50 7 43.75 5 43.75 W o r k draw. &rep 16 I 6.25 1 Thoroughly N % 1 6.25 _ 6.25 M M 1 6.25 |-|r ^ Work/person. 16 Math. 16 1 6.25 3 18.75 8 50.00 4 25.00 Sc. it tech. 16 1 6.25 5 31.25 8 50.00 1 6.25 Comm. 16 - . . M _ _ 1 6.25 7 43.75 € 50.00 Mgt. JSthum rel. l6 «•** — M M • •• M M M 2 12.50 7 43.75 1 43.75 Acc'tg. it bus. 16 - - -------- - 3 18.75 4 25.00 9 56.25 T otals 1. M . - - W 1 76 22 12.50 W - - 31 17.61143 124.43 36 M M M - - 20.45 37 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 12 - Management Form. — M M 21.02 TABLE G.14.— Office supervisors: of competency by area. AREA 1 Poor % management perception Question 13-B. Fair % Average N % Good % Excellent N % N N Work/equip. 17 2 11.76 2 17.65 7 41.18 2 11.76 Work/prod. 17 2 11.76 3 17.65 7 4l.l8 3 17.65 Work/mat'ls. 17 2 11.76 6 35.29 6 35.29 1 3 17.65 5 29.41 5 29.41 2, 5.88 ---- 2 11.76 5 29.41 6 35.29 ——— 5 29.41 10 58.82 5 29.41 3 17.65 4 29.41 ---- 6 35.29 5 29.41 3 17.65 ---- 2 11.76 8 47.06 3 17.65 3 17.65 Work/mach's, W o r k draw. Strep 17 N N 1 5.88 5.88 3 17.65 Work/person. 17 — Math. 17 — Sc. St tech. 17 — Comm. 17 — Mgt. Sthum rel. 17 — — 3 17.65 7 41.18 4 23.53 2 H .76 Acc'tg. St bus. 17 — — 3 17.65 1 5.88 6 35*29 6 35.29 20.32 59 31.55 43 22.99 19 10.16 Totals 1. 1 87 9 — - 4.81 38 1 5.88 3 17.65 —- F o r full title of areas see question 13 - Management Form. TABLE G.15-— General foremen: need by area. AREA 1 N student perception of Question 17-C. Need to Know None Little Sane N N N % % % L5 40.5 25.O 10 27.7 15 41.6 33.3 11 30.5 L0 27.7 10 27.7 8 25.2 12 33.3 8.5 10 28.5 7 20.0 1? 34.2 13.1 16 42.1 16 42.1 48.4 12 36.3 2 6.0 2 4.7 2 5.4 10 --- 2 5.5 9 1 2.7 2 5.5 12 36 2 5.5 4 H .1 Wo r k draw. &rep 35 3 8.5 3 37 Work/prod. 36 Work/mat'ls. & Work/mach's. 3 — Dhoroughly N % 7 18.9 8.1 Work/equip. Great N % Work/person. 38 1 2.6 5 Math. 33 3 9.0 16 Sc. & tech. 42 Comm. 27.0 9.5 6 14.2 14 33.3 16 38.0 34 --- 1 2.9 10 29.4 13 38.2 10 29.4 Mgt. &chum rel. 36 ——_ —— ___ 9 25.0 14 38.8 13 36.1 Acc'tg. &c bus. 34 23.5 13 38.2 LI 32.3 1. 8 3 ]97 21 5.28 37 9.31 Ll6 r-l CVI. 0\ CM Totals 4 2 5.8 Ll6 29.21 LOT F o r full title of areas see question 17 - Student Form. — 26.95 250 TABLE G .16.— General foremen: student perception of competency by area. Question 18-C. AREA 1 N Self Rating Poor Fair Average N N N % Jo % N 1 Good % .... Excellent N % _ 2.8 3 8.5 8 22.8 18 51.4 5 14.2 - - - 2 5.7 17 48.5 13 37.1 3 8.5 2 5-7 16 45-7 14 40.0 ? 8.5 38.2 12 35-2 5 14.7 11 33.3 14 42.4 1 3.0 8.3 10 27.7 19 52.7 4 11.1 1 3.0 Work/equip. 35 Work/prod. 35 - - Work/mat'ls. 25 M M Work/mach's, 34 1 2.9 •3 8.8 13 Wo r k draw, fcrep 33 2 6.0 5 15.1 ------- 3 Work/person. 36 Math. 33 1 3-0 6 l8 .l 16 48.4 9 27.2 Sc, & tech. 31 7 22.5 12 38.7 7 22.5 5 16.1 Comm. 33 1 3-0 9 27.2 14 42.4 7 21.2 2 6.0 Mgt. & h u m rel. 34 1 2 .9 8 23-5 16 47.0 6 17.6 3 8.8 A c c ’tg. & bus. 31 12 41.9 9 29-0 5 16.1 1 3.2 3 9.6 Totals 1. — ] 3 TO 27 7.29 — 62 16.75 13: 35.92 lit 31.89 30 F o r full title of areas see question. 18 - Student Form. — 8.10 '251 TABLE G.17.— General foremen: of need by area. AREA 1 Importance :to Job None Little Some N N % N N % % Work/equip. 15 Work/prod, 15 Work/mat'ls. Work/mach's. 15 Great Thoroughly N 7° N % 2 13.33 3 20.00 8 53-33 . . . 5 33.33 waa Work draw. &rep 15 — wm » 8 53-33 2 13.33 ? 33.33 6 4 0 .0 0 2 13.33 4 26.67 7 46.67 2 13-33 1 - - 6.6? 3 20.00 7 4 6 .6 7 5 33-33 8 53.33 15 Math. 15 2 13.33 Sc. & tech. 15 2 13.33 - - Comm. 15 — ------- — Mgt. &hum rel. 15 ------- Acc'tg. & bus. 15 2 13-33 1. ■ B M W — Work/person. Totals management perception Question 12-C. — 1 65 6 3.63 — 1 6.67 5 33.33 4 26.67 1 6 .6 7 ------- 6 40.00 4 26.67 1 6 .6 7 ------- 1 6.67 6 4 0 .0 0 6 4 0 .0 0 1 6.67 l 6.67 5 3 3 .3 3 6 40.00 ------- 8 53.33 3 20.00 4 2.42 28 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 1 6 .9 6 •*« — 47 28.48 58 35.15 12 - Management Form. TABLE G .18.— General foremen: management perception of competency by area. Question 13-C. Present Knowledge Poor N N % 15 - - -- AREA 1 Work/equip. Fair N % Average N % 1 6.67 4 2 6 .6 7 Good N % Excellent N % 2 1 3 .3 3 6 4 0 .0 0 \ Work/prod. 15 Work/mat'ls. 1? Work/mach's. 1? Work draw. &rep 1? Work/person. -- -- 1 6 .6 7 4 2 6 .6 7 6 40.00 2 1 3 .3 3 ..... '2 13.33 P 4 2 6 .6 7 2 1 3 .3 3 ..— 1 6 .6 7 2 20.00 ? 3 3 .3 3 3 20.00 5 33-33 4 2 6 .6 7 4 2 6 .6 7 1 6 .6 7 3 20.00 4 26.67 5 3 3 .3 3 1 6 .6 7 3 20.00 6 40.00 2 1 3 .3 3 1 6 .6 7 k 26.67 3 20.00 3 20.00 1 6 .6 7 5 33.33 4 26.67 2 13.33 1 6 .6 7 2 13.33 1 6 .6 7 ... . . . ??•?? Math. 15 1 6.67 Sc. & tech. 15 Comm. Mgt. &hum rel. 15 1 6 .6 7 15 — ****** 1 6 .6 7 Acc’tg. & bus. 15 2 13.33 8 53.33 2 13.33 1 Totals 1. 2 13.33 9 6 0 .0 0 6 .6 7 — ] 1 65 6 3.63 32 19.39 49 29.69 40 24.24 16 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 13 - Management Form — 9 .6 9 TABLE G .19•--Superintendents: student perception of need by area. Question 17-D. None AREA l N N Work/equip, 17 -- Work/prod. 16 1 Work/mat'ls. * 6.2 . ■ »a a * Work/mach's. 18 4 22.2 Need to Know Some Little N % N % Great N % Thoroughla N % — - 6 35.2 7 4l.l 4 23.5 — - 3 18.7 5 31.2 7 43.7 2 U.7 4 23.5 6 35.2 5 29.4 2 11.1 2 16.6 T ?8.8 2 ll.l W o r k draw. Strep 16 , _ — mm m m ~ 1 6.2 1 6.2 4 25.O 10 62.5 Work/person. mmW mm mm • 1 5.8 2 11.7 ? 29.4 9 52.9 6 37.5 5 31.2 4 25.O 5 31.2 5 31.2 3 18.7 2 12.5 5 31.2 8 50.0 7 38.8 11 61.1 6 35-2 1 5.8 Math. 16 1 Sc. & tech. lo 2 12.5 Comm. 16 1 Mgt. & h u m rel. 18 Acc'tg. tn bus. 17 Totals 1. 1 6.2 6.2 6.2 2 11.7 31* U 1 5.97 3 17.6 10 5 5.43 37 29.4 20.10 62 33.69 64 F o r f u ll t it le o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 1 7 - S tu d e n t Foniw 34.78 254 TABLE G.20.— Superintendents: student perception of competency by area. Question 18-D. Poor AREA 1 N N Work/equip. 14 «•»« Work/prod. 14 -- % MM Fair N IP 1 8.3 Good 7‘ N Rxfifil1fiirfc N % 2 14-.2 p 35.7 p 2?-7 2 14.2 1 7.1 3 21.4 8 57.1 2 14.2 2 23.0 4 30.7 6 46.1 2 16.6 "} 25.0 ■? 4i.6 1 8.3 W o r k / m a t ’ls. Work/mach's. % Average N % W o r k draw. &rep 12 — -- 2 l6.6 4 33.3 4 33*3 2 16.6 Work/person. 13 — --- 1 7.6 4 30.7 6 46.1 2 15-3 Math. 12 2 16.6 2 16.6 3 25.0 5 41.6 Sc. & tech. 12 4 33.3 1 8.3 3 25.0 Comm. 11 l --- 6 54.5 Mgt. Sthum rel. 12 ... 2 l6.6 5 41.6 Acc'tg. & bus. 11 2 18.1 5 45.4 3 27.2 Totals 1. 1 36 10 9.0 7.35 — 21 15.44 43 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n — 25.0 1 36.3 -- 4 33.3 1 1 9.0 -- 31.61 51 37.50 11 4 1 8 - S tu d e n t Form. — 8.3 — <3-3 8.08 255 TABLE G .21.--Superintendents: of need by area. management perception Question 12-D. Importance to Job None AREA 1 ftrest N N % Work/equip. 16 1 6.25 2 Work/prod. 16 -- — 1 6.25 — Work/mat'ls. 16 -- _ __ 1 6.25 Work/mach's. 16 _ — _ ? 18.75 N % 12.50 N 1 % N < ThorooKthl: N % 4 25.00 6 37.50 4 25.00 9 56.25 6.25 p 31.25 7 43.75 2 12.50 4 25.00 5 31.25 W o r k draw. &trep 16 4 25.00 10 62.50 Work/person. 16 p 31.25 ? 56.25 Math. 16 «- — 2 12.50 3 18.75 4 25.00 5 31.25 Sc. it tech. l6 -- — 1 6.25 3 18.75 6 37.50 4 25.00 Comm. 16 4 25.00 10 62.00 Mgt. iihum rel. l6 5 31.25 9 56.25 Acc'tg. it bus. 16 l 6.25 4 25.00 4 25.00 ]76 Om C 1.13 11 49 27.84 78 44.31 Totals 1. j 1 6.25 1 6.25 4 25.00 6.25 14 7.95 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 1 2 - Management Form. 256 TABLE G.22.— Superintendents: management perception of competency by area. Question 13-D. AREA 1 Present Knowledge Fair Average Poor N % N N % > N Work/equip. 15 — Work/prod. 15 — Work/mat'ls. 15 Work/mach's. 15 ---- _ _ _ _ _ Work draw. &rep 15 — ----- Work/person. 15 — ----- Math. 15 — Sc. & tech. 15 Comm. 15 — -- Mgt. &hum rel. 15 -- Acc'tg. & bus. 15 — -- ] 1 65 — -- Totals 1. — -- % Excellent N % 6 .6 7 6 4 0 .0 0 4 2 6 .6 7 — 5 33.33 6 1 6 .6 7 1 6 .6 7 -- 1 6 .6 7 2 13-33 p 33.33 k 2 6 .6 7 1 6 .6 7 2 13.33 f 33.33 k 2 6 .6 7 1 6 .6 7 4 2 6 .6 7 k 2 6 .6 7 2 0 .0 0 3 2 0 .0 0 7 46.67 2 13.33 6 .6 7 5 33.33 5 33.33 1 6 .6 7 4 2 6 .6 7 5 33.33 1 6 .6 7 2 13.33 2 13.33 5 33.33 2 13.33 3 2 0 .0 0 — 6 4 0 .0 0 5 33.33 l 6 .6 7 4 26.67 5 33.33 2 13.33 1 -- — 1 ----- Good N — 16 9.69 1 38 2 3 .0 3 40.00 6 .6 7 47 28.48 31 18.78 For full title of areas see question 13 - Management Form. TABLE G .23.--Division or department heads: student perception of need by area. Question 17-E. AREA 1 None % Need to Know Little Some N N % % Great N % Thoroughly N % N N Work/equip. 39 4 10.2 6 15.3 18 46.1 4 10.2 7 17.9 Work/prod. 39 2 5.1 4 10.2 15 38.4 9 23.0 9 23.0 Work/mat'ls. 3? p 12.8 6 15.3 11 28.2 9 23.0 8 20.5 Work/mach's. 4o 9 22.3 13 32.5 12 30.0 3 7-5 3 7.3 5.0 12 30.0 16 4o.o 9 22.3 5.1 14 35.8 22 56.4 W o r k draw. &rep 40 1 2.5 2 --- 1 2 5.1 6 15.3 19 48.7 6 15.3 6 15.3 39 3 7.6 8 20.5 18 46.1 9 23.0 1 Comm. 40 1 2.5 2 5.0 3 7-5 14 35.0 20 50.0 Mgt. fkhum rel. 40 -- 8 20.0 7 17.5 25 62.5 Acc'tg. & bus. 40 — 4o.o 15 37.5 5 12.5 Work/person. 39 Math. 39 Sc. Ac tech. Totals 1, — — — 4 34 27 — 4 6.22 52 2.5 10.0 2 11.98 L34 30.87 lo6 2.5 24.42]L15 26.49 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 1 7 ~ Student: Form TABLE G .2^4 .--Division or department heads: student perception of competency by area. Question 18-E. o o 4 Self Rating AREA 1 N N % Work/equip. 40 4 10.0 Work/prod. 40 7.5 Work/mat'ls. 4o 4 10.0 Work/mach's. 4o a 20.0 Fal-r % N Average N > Good N % 8 20.0 14 35.0 10 25.0 5 12.5 9 22.5 19 47.5 8 20.0 13 32.5 10 25.0 11 27-5 .32 .5_ _ N % 4 10.0 4 10.0 5 12.5 7 17.5 1 2.5 18 Work draw. Strep 40 i 2.5 l 2.5 16 45.0 4 10.0 — — 2 5.0 10 25.0 22 55.0 6 15.0 5.0 6 15.0 16 10 25.0 6 15.0 11 27*5 11 27.5 12 30.0 2 5.0 Work/person. 40 Math. 40 2 Sc. & tech. 4o 4 10.0 Comm. 4o 1 Mgt. &hum rel. 4o Acc'tg. it bus. 4l 3 7-3 Totals 1. 2.5 4o.o 40.0 4 10.0 14 35.0 18 45.0 3 7.5 3 32.5 17 42.5 3 17.5 21 51.2 5 11.9 2 4 .7 7.5 10 24.3 13 4 4l 30 6.80 69 15.64 15C 34.01 133 .29.70 40 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n l 8 - S tu d e n t Form 9.07 259 TABLE G.25.— Division or department heads: management perception of need by area. Question 12-E. Work/equip. Importance to Job Great rhoroughly Some Little None N % N N % N N N % % % 3 20.00 3 20.00 5 33.33 2 13.33 15 1 6 .6 7 Work/prod. 15 1 6 .6 7 2 13-33 2 13.33 2 13.33 7 1*6 .6 7 Work/mat'ls. 1? 1 6.67 1 6.67 k 26.67 } 1* 2 6 .6 7 Work/mach's. 1? 1 6.67 2 13-33 6 1*0 .0 0 2 12.22 AREA 1 Work draw. &rep 15 ----- -- — --- 4 20.00 6 1*0 .0 0 £ 53.3 3 5 33.33 10 6 6 .6 7 Work/person. 15 Math. 15 — -- 3 20.00 5 3 3 .3 3 5 33.33 2 1 3 .3 3 Sc. & tech. 15 — --- 1 6 .6 7 6 40.00 5 33.3 3 2 1 3 .3 3 Comm. 15 1* 2 6 .6 7 11 7 3 .3 3 6 1*0.00 9 6 0 .0 0 3 20.00 6 1*0 .0 0 1 65 4 2.1*2 13 7.87 31 1 8 .7 8 48 2 9 .0 9 61* 3 8 .7 8 — Mgt. Sihum rel. 15 Acc'tg. 8tbus. Totals 1. 15 — 1 6.67 5 33 .3 3 F o r fu ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s tio n 12 - Management Form. 260 TABLE G .26.— Division or department heads: management perception of competency by area. Question 13-E. Present Knowledge AREA 1 N N Poor % —-- Work/equip. 14 Work/prod. 14 Work/mat'ls. 14 -- Work/mach's, l4 -- ...... - W o r k draw. Ikrep 14 -- Fair % N Average N % N Good % Excellent N % 1 7.14 6 42.86 2 .14.29 3 21.43 1 7.14 3 21.43 4 35.71 3 21.43 1 7.14 5 35.71 3 21.43 4 28.57 2 14.29 4 28.57 4 28.57 2 14.29 --- 5 35.71 3 21.43 4 28.57 2 16.67 3 25.00 2 16.67 2 16.67 3 25.00 1 8.33 3 25.00 2 2 16.67 1 8.33 1 8.33 1 --- -- --- 3.03 ii* 1 0 .6 g --- — 5 1*1.67 8.33 2 16.67 3 25.00 2 16.67 2 16.67 33.33 10 7.57 — 16.67 20 15.15 31 23.1*8 F o r full title of areas see question 13 - Management Form. 269 TABLE G .35.--Presidents: student perception of need by area. Question 17-H. Need to Know AREA 1 N None N % 1 10.0 10 Work/equip. N Little % N % 2 2 0 .0 ' 1 10.0 1 25.0 2 Work/prod. 4 Work/mat'ls. 4 Work/mach's, 4 W o r k draw. &rep 6 Work/person. 5 Math. 5 Sc. & tech. 5 - Comm. 6 — — — ------ 1 l6 . 6 Mgt. Sthum rel. 6 - - --- -------- 2 Acc'tg, & bus. 6 - - - - ------ 1 l6 . 6 18.03 16 26.22 Totals 1. | 61 — — 50.0 1 25.0 1 2^.0 1 25.0 2 2 2 1 25.0 ... 0 3.27 33*3 _mm ——— .... 50.0 % 2 40.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 3 60.0 33.3 Thoromrhlw N % 5 50.0 1 -- 10.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 •mmm 33.3 1 20.0 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n N MM mmmmmi 1 25.0 __— 2 MM M 4 80.0 1 20.0 1 33.3 20.0 -- 1 20.0 1 16.6 4 66.6 - - 4 66.6 --- 2 33.3 9 14.75 23 17 - S tu d e n t Form 3 50.0 37.70 TABLE G. 3 6 .— Presidents: student perception of competency by area. Question 18-H. Self Rating AREA 1 Poor N % N N Pair % Average N % Good % N W o r k /equip. 3 ... 2 66.6 .h ... .« Work/prod. 3 — ... 1 33.3 - -- 1 Work/mat'ls. 3 .. . .. 2 66.6 .. Work/mach's. 3 .. ... 2 66.6 .. W o r k draw. &rep 4 ... 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 Work/person. 4 ... 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 Math. 4 .. 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25*0 Sc. & tech. 4 .. 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 30.0 Comm. 5 2 4o.o 2 40.0 Mgt. &chum rel. 1+ .. 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 Acc'tg. &i bus. 1* 1 2 5 . 0 --- 2 50.0 1 25.0 Totals 1. ] 4l ... .. 1 —— — 2 A 3 ... ... 1 33-3 33-3 1 33-3 ... ... 1 33.3 ... ... 1 33.3 13 31.70 10 24.39 12 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s tio n Excellent N % 29.26 1 8 , S tu d e n t Form .m *•.. -—- -- ... 2 20.0 ... ... ... 5 12.19 271 TABLE G . 3 7 .— Presidents: management perception of need by area. Question 12-H. AREA 1 N Importance to Job T.-t-h-hle Some None N N N % % % N . Work/equip. 11 2 18.18 3 27.27 2 18.18 1 9.09 2 18.18 Work/prod. 11 2 18.18 3 27.27 1 9.09 1 9.09 3 27.27 Work/mat'ls. n ? 18.18 3 27.27. 2 .18.18 1 Q.OQ Work/mach's. 24 ? 18.18 4 36.36 2 18.18 1 2 18.18 W o r k draw. Strep 11 1 Great N 7° 9.09 18.18 2 18.18 3 27.27 4 36.36 2 18.18 8 72.73 Work/person. 11 Math. 11 — -- -- -- 6 54.55 3 27.27 1 9.09 Sc. & tech. n -- -- -- -- 5 45.45 3 27.27 2 18.18 Comm. n 1 9.09 9 81.82 Mgt. Sth u m rel. 11 2 18.18 8 72.73 Acc'tg. St bus. n 4 36.36 6 54.55 17.35 47 38.84 Totals 1. 1 21 c 0.61 14 11.57 20 16.52 21 For full title of areas see question 12 - Management Form. 1 TABLE G . 3 8 .— Presidents: management perception of competency by area. Question 13-H. AREA 1 N Present Knowledge Average Poor Fair N N N % % 12 Work/prod. 12 Work/mat'ls. 12 «*■w Work/mach's. 12 --- Good % R xeel 1 ervt N % _ 2 16.67 3 25.00 3 25.00 1 8.33 1 4 33.33 3 25.00 1 8.33 2 16.67 3 25.00 3 0 0• IT CV1 Work/equip. N I 8.^5 3 2 5 -0 0 3 2 5 .0 0 2 16.67 1 8.33 8.33 W o r k draw. &rep 12 -- -- 2 16.67 2 16.67 3 2 5 .0 0 2 16.67 Work/person. 12 — - -- 3 2 5 .0 0 1 8.33 2 16.67 3 2 5 .0 0 Math. 12 - - --- 2 16.67 3 2 5 .0 0 4 33.33 1 8.33 Sc. & tech. 12 --- 1 8.33 3 2 5 .0 0 3 2 5 .0 0 1 8.33 Comm. 12 - - --- 2 16.67 2 16.67 1 8.33 4 33.33 Mgt. ichum rel. 12 --- ------ 1 8.33 1 8.33 4 33.33 3 2 5 .0 0 Acc'tg. it bus. 12 - - ------ 2 16.67 1 8.33 3 2 5 .0 0 3 2 5 .0 0 19.69 31 23.48 21 1 5 .9 0 Totals 1. J1 33 ------ 21 15.90 26 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 1 3 - Management Form. TABLE G.39.— Staff personnel: student perception of need by area. Question 17-1. AREA 1 N N Need to Know Little Some N N % % % Work/equip. 92 7 7.6 12 13.0 37 Work/prod. 92 6 6.5 10 10.8 Work/mat'ls. ?2 ? _9.7 18 19.5 Work/mach's. 92 18 19.5 1.0 Great N % Thoroughly N % lf0.2 11 11.9 25 27.I 26 28.2 30 32.6 20 21.7 1? 20.6 20 21.7 26 28.2 17 18.if 32 3^*7 9 9.7 L6 17.3 12 12.9 20 21.5 24 25.8 36 38.7 2.0 lif llf.O 28 28.0 50 50.0 32 None 1 Wo rk draw. &rep 93 Work/person. LOO Math. 93 2 2.1 11 11.8 33 35*4 34.4 15 16.1 Sc. & tech. 91 6 6.5 17 18.6 35 38.lf 20 21.9 13 14.2 Comm. 94 4 if.2 Mgt. & h u m rel. L0l|. 2 Acc'tg, & bus. 93 T otals 1. — — 7 10 36 62 2 6.3 20 21.2 28 29.7 36 38.2 1.9 11 10.5 28 26.9 26 25.0 37 35.5 7.5 2if 25.8 3f 40.8 11 11.8 13 13.9 6 5.98 llfO 13*51 30£ 29*15 23S 23.06 28/ 27.70 F o r fu ll t it le o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 17 ~ S tu d en t Form. 274 TABLE G.40.— Staff personnel: competency by area. AREA 1 N student perception of yuestion 1 8 - 1 . Self Rating Poor Fair N N % % Average N Good N % Excellent N % Work/equip. 92 4 4.3 16 17.3 32 34.7 29 31-5 11 11.9 Work/prod. :89 4 4.4 12 13.4 28 31.4 35 39.3 10 11.2 Work/mat'ls. 89 6 6.7 20 22.4 27 29 32.5 7 7.8 Work/mach's. 88 11 12.5 16 18.1 28 31.8 26 29.5 7 7-9 10 11.3 21 23.8 39 44.3 18 20.4 7.6 18 19-5 49 53-2 18 19.5 W o r k draw. &rep 88 Work/person. 92 Math. 91 1 10.1 13 14.2 49 53-8 21 23.O 7 7.6 Sc. & tech. 88 13 14.7 24 27.2 35 39-7 15 17.0 1 1.1 Comm. 89 5 5.6 11 12.3 36 40.4 3C 33-7 7 7.8 Mgt. &chum rel. 91 4 4.3 12 13.1 37 40.6 29 31.8 9 9.3 Acc'tg. & bus. 89 17 19.1 19 21.3 32 35.9 16 17-9 > 5.6 Totals 1. _ 9 66 65 .... 7 6.39 L60 16.22 343 34-.78 3l£ 32.25 10C 10.14 F o r f u ll t it le o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 18 - S tu d e n t Form 275 TABLE G.41.— Staff personnel: of need by area. AREA 1 N management perception Question 12-1. Importance to Job Some Little None N % N N % % Work/equip. 1J 2 23.08 3 23.08 f 38.46 Work/prod. 13 2 15.38 ? 23.08 Work/mat'ls. 13 ? 23.08 Work/mach's. 13 ? 23.08 W o r k draw. &rep 13 Work/person. 13 Math. 13 Sc. tech. 13 Comm. . . . . 1 7.69 2 i?-?8 4 30.77 2 15.38 4 jo.77 4 30.77 4 30.77 5 38.46 2 15.38 . . . . . p 38.46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . 2 15.38 4 30.77 6 46.15 1 7.69 6 46.15 4 30.77 1 1 7.69 5 38.46 5 38.46 . 13 % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . « • 7.69 -------------- 2 15.38 5 76.92 2 15.38 4 38.46 5 38.46 2 15.38 4 30.77 5 38.46 13 Mgt. & h u m rel. Thorouschl: N % Great N i Acc'tg. & bus. Totals 1. 13 --------- ] 1 43 11 7.69 l 7.69 15 10.48 39 2 7 . 2 7 F o r f u ll t i t l e o f a r e a s s e e q u e s t io n 31 21.67 24 12 - Management Form. 16.7£ 276 TABLE G.42.— Staff personnel: of competency by area. AREA 1 N management perception Question 13-1. Present Knowledge Poor Fair Average N N N % % % N Good % Ext ellent N % ——• Work/equip. lk 3 21.k3 2 lk.29 4 28.57 2 lk.29 Work/prod. lk 3 21. k3 1 5 35.71 2 lk.29 Work/mat'ls. lk 3 21.k 3 : tmtm 6 42.86 2 lk.29 —- Work/mach's. lk 3 21.k3 k 28.57 2 lk.29 2 lk.29 ... 2 lk.29 k 28.57 5 35.71 1 7 .1k k 28.57 5 35.71 2 lk.29 7 .1k 6 42.86 3 21.k3 — 7 50.00 3 21.k3 2 lk.29 2 lk.29 k 28.57 k 28.57 6 42.86 3 21.k3 3 21. k3 3 21. k3 k 28.57 1 7 .1k k9 31.81 35 22.72 11 7 .1k W o r k draw. Strep l k — Work/person. ik — Math. lk 1 7 .1k Sc. &c tech. lk 1 7.1k Comm. lk — Mgt. & h u m rel. lk Acc'tg, & bus. lk Totals 1. 1 - - 2 1 5k 16 1 — — — lk.29 7 .1k — 2 lk.29 10.38 15 9.7k 7 .1k — F o r full title of areas see question 13 - Management Form. APPENDIX H FCC I AND PCC II VARIABLE COMPUTER PRINT OUT CODE FORMS 277 PCC I: STUDENT BENTON HARBOR-ST. JOSEPH MANAGEMENT TRAINING STUDY Field Question Variable Name Column Card 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Pace Sheet Q-S-/Q-1 Q-S-/Q-2-1 Q-S-l/Q-2-1 Q-S-l/Q-2-1 Q-S-l/Q-2-1 Q-S-l/Q-2-2 Q-S-l/Q-2-2 Q-S-l/Q-2-2 Q-S-l/Q-2-2 Q-S-l/Q-2-3 Q-S-l/Q-2-3 Q-S-l/Q-2-3 Q-S-l/Q-2-3 Q-S-l/Q-2-4 Q-S-l/Q-2-4 Q-S-l/Q-2-4 Q-S-l/Q-2-4 .Q-S-l/Q-2-5 Q-S-l/Q-2-5 Q-S-l/Q-2-5 Q-S-l/Q-2-5 Q-S-l/Q-2-6 Q-S-l/Q-2-6 Q-S-l/Q-2-6 Q-S-l/Q-2-6 Q-S-l/Q-2-7 Q-S-l/Q-2-7 Q-S-l/Q-2-7 Q-S-l/Q-2-7 Q-S-l/Q-2-8 Q-S-l/Q-2-8 Q-S-l/Q-2-8 Q-S-l/Q-2-8 Q-S-l/Q-2-9 Q-S-l/Q-2-9 Sex Kind of Experience Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development 278 (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) 8 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 279 PCC I: Field 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 STUDENT— Continued. Question Variable Name Q-S-l/Q-2-9 Q-S-l/Q-2-9 Q-S-l/Q-2-10 Q-S-l/Q-2-10 Q-S-l/Q-2-10 Q-S-l/Q-2-10 Q-S-l/Q-2-11 Q-S-l/Q-2-11 Q-S-l/Q-2-11 Q-S-l/Q-2-11 Q-S-l/Q-2-12 Q-S-l/Q-2-12 Q-S-l/Q-2-12 Q-S-l/Q-2-12 Q-S-l/Q-2-13 Q-S-l/Q-2-13 Q-S-l/Q-2-13 Q-S-l/Q-2-13 Q-S-l/Q-2-14 Q-S-l/Q-2-14 Q-S-l/Q-2-14 Q-S-l/Q-2-14 Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Column (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Card 2 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Q-S-l/Q-2-15 Q-S-l/Q-2-15 Q-S-l/Q-2-15 Q-S-l/Q-2-15 Q-S-l/Q-2-16 Q-S-l/Q-2-16 Q-S-l/Q-2-16 Q-S-l/Q-2-16 Q-S-l/Q-2-17 Q-S-l/Q-2-17 Q-S-l/Q-2-17 Q-S-l/Q-2-17 Q-S-l/Q-2-18 Q-S-l/Q-2-18 Q-S-l/Q-2-18 Q-S-l/Q-2-18 Q-S-l/Q-2-19 Q-S-l/Q-2-19 Q-S-l/Q-2-19 Q-S-l/Q-2-19 Q-S-l/Q-2-20 Q-S-l/Q-2-20 Course Taken (Y-N), Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness (P-A-G) Benefit to Job ' Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness (P-A-G) Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness (P-A-G) Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness (P-A-G) Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness (P-A-G) Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 280 PCC I: Field 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 STUDENT— Continued. Question Variable Name Q-S-l/Q-2-20 Q-S-l/Q-2-20 Q-S-l/Q-2-21 Q-S-l/Q-2-21 Q-S-l/Q-2-21 Q-S-l/Q-2-21 Q-S-l/Q-2-22 Q-S-l/Q-2-22 Q-S-l/Q-2-22 Q-S-l/Q-2-22 Q-S-l/Q-2-23 Q-S-l/Q-2-23 Q-S-l/Q-2-23 Q-S-l/Q-2-23 Q-S-l/Q-2-24 Q-S-l/Q-2-24 Q-S-l/Q-2-24 Q-S-l/Q-2-24 Q-S-l/Q-2-25 Q-S-l/Q-2-25 Q-S-l/Q-2-25 Q-S-l/Q-2-25 Q-S-l/Q-2-26 Q-S-l/Q-2-26 Q-S-l/Q-2-26 Q-S-l/Q-2-26 Q-S-l/Q-2-27 Q-S-l/Q-2-27 Q-S-l/Q-2-27 Q-S-l/Q-2-27 Q-S-l/Q-2-28 Q-S-l/Q-2-28 Q-S-l/Q-2-28 Q-S-l/Q-2-28 Q-S-l/Q-2-29 Q-S-l/Q-2-29 Q-S-l/Q-2-29 Q-S-l/Q-2-29 Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N)Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Column (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) . (P-A-G) (P-A-G) 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Card 3 119 120 121 122 123 124 Q-S-l/Q-2-30 Q-S-l/Q-2-30 Q-S-l/Q-2-30 Q-S-l/Q-2-30 Q-S-l/Q-2-31 Q-S-l/Q-2-31 Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development (P-A-G) 17 18 19 20 21 22 281 PCC I: Field 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 STUDENT— Continued. Question Variable Name Q-S-l/Q-2-31 Q-S-l/Q-2-31 Q-S-l/Q-2-32 Q-S-l/Q-2-32 Q-S-l/Q-2-32 Q-S-l/Q-2-32 Q-S-l/Q-2-33 Q-S-l/Q-2-33 Q-S-l/Q-2-33 Q-S-l/Q-2-33 Q-S-l/Q-2-3^ Q-S-l/Q-2-3^ Q-S-l/Q-2-3^ Q-S-l/Q-2-3^ Q-S-l/Q-2-35 Q-S-l/Q-2-35 Q-S-l/Q-2-35 Q-S-l/Q-2-35 Q-S-l/Q-2-36 Q-S-l/Q-2-36 Q-S-l/Q-2-36 Q-S-l/Q-2-36 Q-S-l/Q-2-37 Q-S-l/Q-2-37 Q-S-l/Q-2-37 Q-S-l/Q-2-37 Q-S-l/Q-2-38 Q-S-l/Q-2-38 Q-S-l/Q-2-38 Q-S-l/Q-2-38 Q-S-l/Q-2-39 Q-S-l/Q-2-39 Q-S-l/Q-2-39 Q-S-l/Q-2-39 Q-S-l/Q-2-40 Q-S-l/Q-2-40 Q-S-l/Q-2-40 Q-S-l/Q-2-40 Q-S-l/Q-2-41 Q-S-l/Q-2-41 Q-S-l/Q-2-41 Q-S-l/Q-2-41 Q-S-l/Q-2-42 Q-S-l/Q-2-42 Q-S-l/Q-2-42 Q-S-l/Q-2-42 Q-S-l/Q-2-43 Q-S-l/Q-2-43 Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development • Column (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 282 PCC I: Field 173 174 175 176 177 178 STUDENT— Continued. Question Variable Name Q-S-l/Q-2-43 Q-S-l/Q-2-43 Q-S-l/Q-2-44 Q-S-l/Q-2-44 Q-S-l/Q-2-44 Q-S-l/Q-2-44 Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Column (P-A-G) (P-A-G) 71 72 73 74 75 76 Card 4 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Q-S-l/Q-2-45 Q-S-l/Q-2-45 Q-S-l/Q-2-45 Q-S-l/Q-2-45 Q-S-l/Q-2-46 Q-S-l/Q-2-46 Q-S-l/Q-2-46 Q-S-l/Q-2-46 Q-S-l/Q-2-47 Q-S-l/Q-2-47 Q-S-l/Q-2-47 Q-S-l/Q-2-47 Q-S-l/Q-2-48 Q-S-l/Q-2-48 Q-S-l/Q-2-48 Q-S-l/Q-2-48 Q-S-l/Q-2-49 Q-S-l/Q-2-49 Q-S-l/Q-2-49 Q-S-l/Q-2-49 Q-S-l/Q-2-50 Q-S-l/Q-2-50 Q-S-l/Q-2-50 Q-S-l/Q-2-50 Q-S-l/Q-2-51 Q-S-l/Q-2-51 Q-S-l/Q-2-51 Q-S-l/Q-2-51 Q-S-l/Q-2-52 Q-S-l/Q-2-52 Q-S-l/Q-2-52 Q-S-l/Q-2-52 Q-S-l/Q-2 53 Q-S-l/Q-2-53 Q-S-l/Q-2-53 Q-S-l/Q-2-53 Q-S-l/Q-2-54 Q-S-l/Q-2-54 Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) (P-A-G) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 283 FCC I: Field 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 STUDENT— Continued. Question Variable Name Q-S-l/Q-2-54 Q-S-l/Q-2-54 Q-S-l/Q-2-55 Q-S-l/Q-2-55 Q-S-l/Q-2-55 Q-S-l/Q-2-55 Q-S-l/Q-2-56 Q-S-l/Q-2-56 Q-S-l/Q-2-56 Q-S-l/Q-2-56 Q-S-l/Q-2-57 Q-S-l/Q-2-57 Q-S-l/Q-2-57 Q-S-l/Q-2-57 Q-S-l/Q-2-58 Q-S-l/Q-2-58 Q-S-l/Q-2-58 Q-S-l/Q-2-58 Q-S-l/Q-2-59 Q-S-l/Q-2-59 Q-S-l/Q-2-59 Q-S-l/Q-2-59 Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to Job Course Taken (Y-N) Subject Development Teacher Effectiveness Benefit to,