I

71-11,969
RYAN, James Raymond, 1932PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD
THE UNIT STEP PROGRAM IN ITS FIRST YEAR OF
OPERATION IN ONE MICHIGAN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, administration

U niversity M icrofilms, A XEROX C om pany , A n n A rbor, M ichigan

©
James

1971

R a ym on d

Ryan

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD THE UNIT
STEP PROGRAM IN ITS FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION IN ONE
MICHIGAN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
By
James R. Ryan

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1970

ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD THE UNIT
STEP PROGRAM IN ITS FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION IN ONE
MICHIGAN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
By
James R. Ryan

This research was designed to measure the differences
in perception toward the Unit Step program on an intraand inter-group basis of teachers and students in one M i c h ­
igan senior high school.
test-only.

The design of the study was post-

The treatment for both teachers and students

was the Unit Step program in its first year of operation.
The questionnaires administered to faculty and
students were constructed for this purpose.

The forms

were matching in content and were administered on the same
day to both groups in separate locations.
The questionnaires were separated into three parts.
The parts, Perception of Program and Others, Perception of
Program and Self, and Perception of Program, were used to
categorize responses of students and teachers to the ques­
tionnaires.

The parts were applied to the questions this

study considered.

They are:

James R. Ryan
What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among teachers in the
various length-of-service categories?
2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between male and female
teachers?

3.

What is the estimate of differt^-ce in perception
of the Unit Step program between teachers who
have bachelor's degrees to teachers who have
master's degrees?

4.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between tenure and
probationary teachers?

5.

What is the estimate of difference among the
various curricular departments in the perception
of the Unit Step program?

6.

What is the estimate of difference in the percep­
tion of the Unit Step program between 10th and
12th graders?

7.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between boys and girls
in grades 10 to 12?

8.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among students in grades
10 to 12 in the various academic grade categories?

9.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between students who
will continue their education beyond high school
and those who do not plan on continuing their
education beyond high school?

10.

How do the perceptions of teachers compare with
those of students in the following three areas:
a.
b.
c.

11.

Perception
Perception
Perception

of this program
of this program
of this program

and others
and self

What are the most favorable and least favorable
aspects of the Unit Step program as perceived
by teachers and students?

James R. Ryan
Estimates of differences in program perception as
analyzed from responses to survey instruments constituted
the criteria measures.
The total Unit Step population of teachers and
students was surveyed.

Among the teachers# 38 out of a

total high school staff of 48 were involved in Unit Step
and each responded to the questionnaire.
There was a total of 974 students enrolled at Howell
Senior High School for the 1969-70 school year.
number 86 3 were present for the survey.

Of this

Because of spoiled

optical scanning sheets from this group, it was possible
to use only 680.
One of three techniques was applied in this study for
analysis of each question considered in this study:

1)

the t statistic or a combination of t statistic and analysis
of contingency table

(ACT); 2) a combination of one-way

analysis of variance and ACT; or# 3) content analysis.

The

level of significance for rejecting similarity of program
perception was set at five per cent.
The major findings which emerged from this study were:
1.

Of the fifteen categories of teacher perception that
were studied and measured, three showed a significant
difference in how those parts of the Unit Step program
were perceived.

Those parts were:

how male and female

teachers viewed the program affecting others# and how
they saw it affecting themselves; and how tenure and

James R. Ryan
probationary teachers saw the program affecting them­
selves .
There were very few teachers who took extreme positions
in program perception.
disagree in their views.

Most either tended to agree or
Students tended to more favor­

ably rate the program.
There was a total of twelve categories of student percep­
tion that were studied and measured.

Of these,

five

displayed a significant difference in how those parts
of the Unit Step program were perceived.

Those five

areas were:
a.

Male and female student perception of the program
and others;

b.

Male and female student perception of the program
and t h e m s e l v e s ;

c.

Male and female student perception of the program,
per s e ; and

d.

Students who will and won't continue their educa­
tion and their perception of the program and its
relationship to others and to themselves.

Significant differences were present when the means
of students and teachers were compared.

Each group

perceived the Unit Step program differently in rela­
tion to others,

self, and program.

A word is offered in reference to the findings.

The

ndings as l'.stori above which reflect upon the category

James R. Ryan
1'erception of program for both teachers and students are
inconclusive.

It is this category which showed low instru­

ment reliability.

The sections explaining reliability of

instruments in Chapter IV and recommended replication of
study in Chapter V give further information on this.

DEDICATION

To Phyllis, my wife, whose love and patience
throughout this project were both invaluable
and inexhaustible.
To Scarlett and Sheridan, my other two lovely
girls, who seemed to thoroughly enjoy this
entire venture at Michigan State University.
To my Father and Mother, whose faith and encouragement
in the beginning made this possible.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My graduate committee was composed of especially
fine people.

Special appreciation is extended to Dr.

Dale V. Alam, my major advisor,
and admiration.

for whom I have much respect

To the other members of my committee, Dr.

Richard L. Featherstone,

Dr. Marvin E. Grandstaff, and Dr.

James B. McKee, their humanness was expressed in ways that
will always be appreciated and remembered.
Miss Jo Lynn Cunningham, Mr. John Draper, and Mr.
Robert Herrmann of the Office of Research Consultation,
and Mr. James Mullin of Applications Programming were of
invaluable assistance.

Miss Cunningham critiqued my orig­

inal proposal, Mr. Draper suggested research design methods
and analysis techniques,

and Mr. Herrmann gave guidance in

the structure of the dissertation.

Mr. Mullin was espe­

cially helpful in computer programming.

I also wish to

thank Dr. Richard Brandt, Coordinator of Data Processing,
who gave technical assistance.
This study would have been impossible to undertake
had it not been for the cooperation of the Howell administra­
tion, faculty, and student body.

Special thanks is extended

to Mr. John Kremkow, Mr. Loren Whitney,

and Mr. William

Christopherson for agreeing to the undertaking of this
study and for their assistance in it.
iii

The faculty and students at Albion Senior High School
who took part in the field test are a valuable part of
this study.
principal,

I am grateful to them and to Mr. Max Matson,
for participating.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION

................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................... iii
LIST OF T A B L E S .............................................. viii
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION......................................

1

The P r o b l e m ..................................
1
Need for C h a n g e ...........................
1
Howell's Effort to Change .................
2
7
Purpose of this S t u d y ........................
Need for this S t u d y ...........................
8
Questions for S t u d y ...........................
9
Limitations of this S t u d y ........................ 10
Definition of T e r m s ............................... 11
Plan for the S t u d y ............................... 12
II.

PROGRAM RATIONALE, CONCEPTION AND
D E S C R I P T I O N ..........................................14
R a t i o n a l e ..........................................14
H o w e l l ..........................................14
East Lansing, Haslett and Okemos.
. . .
15
F owlerville...................................... 17
Newton Centre, Massachusetts ..............
18
Conception of Howell Unit S t e p ..................21
How Unit Step E m e r g e d ........................ 21
Introduction of Unit Step in Howell.
. .
22
Description of the Howell Program . . . .
23
What is Unit S t e p ? ........................ 2 3
Role of the T e a c h e r ............................ 26
Role of the C o u n s e l o r ........................ 31
Student and Principal Roles
..............
32
Planned Evaluation
........................
33
S u m m a r y ............................................. 35

III.

DESIGN AND METHOD OF S T U D Y .........................37
S a m p l e ............................................. 37
Survey Instruments ...........................
38
v

Chapter

Page
Field T e s t ..........................................38
Demographic Variables ........................
39
Perception
of this Program and Others . .
40
Perception
of this Program and Self.
. .
40
Perception
of this P r o g r a m ................40
Reliability of Instruments................ 40
Questions for S t u d y ............................... 41
The S u r v e y ..........................................42
Comparison of R e s p o n s e s........................ 42
Method of A n a l y s i s ............................... 44
S u m m a r y ............................................. 46

IV.

ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S ................................ 47
47
Reliability Scores ...........................
Explanation of S c o r i n g ............................ 48
Variable O n e ...................................... 49
Question O n e ................................... 49
Variable T w o ...................................... 53
Question T w o ................................... 53
Variable Three
...............................
53
Question T h r e e ................................... 57
Variable F o u r ...................................... 57
Question F o u r ................................... 57
Variable F i v e ...................................... 61
Question F i v e ................................... 61
Variable S i x ...................................... 66
Question S i x ................................... 66
Variable Seven
...............................
71
Question S e v e n ................................... 71
Variable Eight
...............................
76
Question E i g h t ................................... 76
Variable N i n e ...................................... 76
Question N i n e ................................... 80
Variable T e n ...................................... 80
Question T e n ................................... 80
Variable Eleven ...............................
84
Faculty Favorable C o m m e n t s ..................... 84
Teacher Objections
........................
90
Student A t t i t u d e s ............................... 93
Summary of A n a l y s e s ............................... 97

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................... 101
S u m m a r y ............................................ 101
Perception of this Program and Others . . 104
Perception of this Program and Self.
. . 104
Perception of this P r o g r a m .................... 104
vi

Chapter

Page
F i n d i n g s .................................... 105
C o n c l u s i o n s ................................ 106
Discussion and Recommendations.. ............
108
Recommendations for Further Research . . . 115
116
Author's Observations ........................

BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................118
A P P E N D I C E S ................................................... 122
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Faculty Instrument ............................
Student Instrument ............................
Complete Course Offerings By Title.
. . .
Course Selection S h e e t .......................145
Change-In-Program Information
............
Survey Instructions to Faculty and Students.

vii

123
132
141
147
153

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.1

Teacher--Length of

Service and Others

.

.

1.2

Teacher— Length of

Service and S e l f ............ 51

1.3

Teacher— Length of

Service and Program

2.1

Teacher--Sex and O t h e r s ................................ 54

2.2

Teacher— Sex and S e l f ................................... 55

2.3

Teacher— Sex and P r o g r a m ................................ 56

3.1

Teacher— Degree and O t h e r s ............................ 58

3.2

Teacher— Degree and S e l f ................................ 59

3.3

Teacher— Degree and P r o g r a m ............................ 60

.

4.1

Teacher— Tenure/Probationary

and Others.

4.2

Teacher— Tenure/Probationary

and Self

4.3

Teacher— Tenure/Probationary

and Program

.

.

.

.

.

. . .

.

.

.

50

52

62

.

63

. . .

64

5.1

Teacher— Department and O t h e r s .....................65

5.2

Teacher— Department and S e l f ......................... 67

5.3

Teacher--Department and Program

6.1

Student— Grade and O t h e r s ............................ 69

6.2

Student— Grade and S e l f ...........................

6.3

Student— Grade and P r o g r a m ............................ 72

7.1

Student— Sex

and O t h e r s ................................73

7.2

Student— Sex

and S e l f ................................... 74

7.3

Student— Sex

and P r o g r a m ................................75

8.1

Student— GPA

and O t h e r s ................................77
vui

.

.

.

.

.

.

68

70

Table

Page

8.2

Student--GPA and S e l f ................................... 78

8.3

Student--GPA and P r o g r a m ................................ 79

9.1

Student--Continuing Education

and Others

9.2

Student--Continu±ng Education

and Self .

9.3

Student— Continuing Education

and Program

. . .
.

.

81

.

.

82
.

83

10.1

Teacher/Student Comparison, Others

..............

85

10.2

Teacher/Student Comparison, Self ..................

86

10.3

Teacher/Student Comparison, Program ..............

87

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The Problem
Need for Change
Leaders in education are voicing increased concern over
the need for change in the schools of America.

The demand

for relevance in our schools which began in the sixties will
continue into our present decade where evidence of fruition
will be the new demand.
The late Earl C. Kelley as early as 19 47 remarked that
change is so certain that it is a constant; J. Lloyd Trump
(1961) says it's time to focus on change in an atmosphere
where traditional ways of doing things have hardened p o t e n ­
tial change agents;

in another work. Trump

(1965) directs

the educator to forces of individual student worth instead
of maintaining a school atmosphere which turns people into
automatons; Glen Heathers

(1966) speaks of the nation's

concerns with regard to the full utilization and recognition
of individual student talent.
Robert N. Bush and Dwight W. Allen

(1964) describe new

societal demands for change within the schools and remark:
1

2
. . . the new possibilities now envisioned for
realizing the potential inherent in each person have
combined to cause the level of education considered
minimum for each young person to leap far ahead of
that for the current generation of a d u l t s . These
new possibilities and demands have generated p r e s ­
sures that so bear down upon the high school as to
cause it to burst apart unless a new design with
greater flexibility is introduced to guide its pre­
sent operation and to permit it to respond and adapt.
Education as it is commonly practiced today deals with
problems in terms of what tradition demands.

Bigge

(1964)

succinctly cites a historical educational frustration.
Ever since education became formalized in
schools, teachers have been aware that learning in
school is often highly inefficient.
Material to be
learned may be presented to students innumerable
times without noticeable results.
Many students
appear uninterested.
Many become rebellious and
make serious trouble for teachers.
Consequently,
classrooms often have seemed like battlegrounds in
which teachers and students made war against each
other.
Generally,

Bigge concludes, improvement is fragmented

as evidenced by a haphazard addition or subtraction of
courses which turn out a finished product not unlike a
patchwork quilt.
Howell's Effort to Change
Implementation of the Unit Step program at Howell
brought broad curriculum changes.

The ungrading of d isci­

plines affected by Unit Step was undertaken by teachers and
provided a number of courses for students that didn't exist
in the traditional p r o g r a m .
The 3 R 's .— This expansion of the curriculum could
raise some concern regarding the teaching of the familiar

3
and traditional 3 R's.

The benefit to be derived from the

expansion of course offerings need not be accompanied by a
deterioration of these concepts.

Evidently the decreased

amount of time spent on reading, writing,

and arithmetic

has been more than compensated for by the incidental learn­
ing of the fundamentals in the process of studying these
other subjects

(Ausubel,

1966).

David Ausubel points to the desirability of an expanded
curriculum by highlighting the merits to be gained.
Generally speaking, maximal breadth of the cur­
riculum consistent with adequate mastery of its con­
stituent parts is developmentally desirable at all
ages because of the tremendously wide scope of human
abilities.
The wider the range of intellectual
stimulation to which pupils are exposed, the greater
are the chances that all of the diverse potential,
both within a group of children and within a single
child, will be brought to fruition.
A broad c u r ­
riculum makes it possible for more pupils to exp e ri­
ence success in the performance of school activities
and thus to develop the necessary self-confidence
and motivation for continued academic striving and
achieving.
{From John D e C e c c o 1s Human Learning in
the C l a s s r o o m . )
Tracking of C u r r i c u l u m .— When the Unit Step was incor­
porated into the Howell p r o g r a m , tracking of the curriculum
was removed.

Until recently the proponents of either

heterogeneous or homogeneous ability grouped classes found
supporting research to be fairly evenly divided.
by Eckstrom

A study

(1959) where mean scores in student achieve­

ment were compared between control and experimental popula­
tion showed no clear and consistent effects of ability
grouping on achievement

(Borg,

1966).

Passow

(1962)

4
suggested a need for more research into the area of ability
grouping because virtually all of the studies in this area
that had been conducted up to this time failed to measure
ways in which the instruction given to ability groups com­
pared with that given to heterogeneous groups.
But other major studies in the 1960's seem to weigh
against the tracking program.

Heathers

(1967) showed that

teachers don't employ as effective teaching techniques with
the slow learner as w ith the superior student.
of a study by Squire

The results

(1966) also showed that teachers tend

to employ dull, unimaginative approaches with slow learning
groups.

The Equality of Educational Opportunity Report of

1967 issued by the United States Civil Rights Commission
and the 1967 Report of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights both provide evidence of the harmful effects upon
children of ability grouping.

The 1967 decision of Judge

J. Skelly Wright of the federal district court of Washington,
D. c . , to abolish the tracking program in the high schools
of that city was arrived at on two counts:

schools both

racially and socially segregated "damage the minds and
spirits of all who attend them."

Rosenthal and Jacobson

(1968) refer to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" in their
studies that is produced by ability grouping when slow
learners receive continual reinforcement from their environ­
ment which convinces them of their lack of ability.

5
Program N o v e l t y .— It is predicted that program novelty
will have an effect upon the responses to the questionnaires
from both teachers and students.

Experiments indicate that

increased novelty is associated with high reinforcement
potential

(satiation)

and, conversely, decreased novelty

is associated with diminished reinforcement potential
(Glaser, 1969).
The variable novelty stimulus can usually be mani p u ­
lated by prior exposure of the subjects to similar or d is­
similar stimuli

(Encyclopedia of Educational Research,

1969).

Prior exposure would require considering involvement of
students and teachers in the planning stages of Unit Step,
thus raising a question regarding the value of student
participation in curriculum change.
Adolescent I nvolvement.--Research by Piaget, Inhelder
and their associates
(ages 11-15)
ment.

(19 58) ascribes to early adolescence

the end of the stage of intellectual develop­

From this point on in intellectual development the

adolescent is now capable of arriving at conclusions without
external assistance.

In general, the adolescent at this

time achieves capabilities possessed by most adults.
of these characteristics are:

Some

critical evaluation of

one's own thinking, theory construction, and capacity for
abstraction.
Involvement of adolescents in programs designed speci­
fically for them was shown to be important as a result of

6
a study done in ten northern Illinois high schools
1961).

(Coleman,

This research discovered the presence of an "adoles­

cent sub-culture” which has certain norms, values, and
aspirations unlike those found in the adult culture and,
indeed, which may be in conflict w i t h the adult culture.
The adolescent sub-culture relies heavily on the values
and aspirations of the peer group rather than on the family
or teacher.

Adolescents generally do not follow models for

behavior of an intellectual nature.

Rather, boys are m o t i ­

vated by models representing masculine roles,

for example,

athletics, and girls motivated by models representing femi­
nine roles, for example, certain school extra-curricular
activities.

Knowledge of these and other adolescent charac­

teristics could significantly contribute to subject matter
content by involving

adolescents in curriculum decision­

making .
Ausubel

(1966) found that many students at the adoles­

cent stage of development are ready for exposure to solid
academic material, but unfortunately suitable instructional
programs geared to an advanced level of critical and inde­
pendent thinking are rarely available.

Very little has,

in fact, been done in the way of providing high school stu­
dents with a meaningful,

integrated, systematic view of the

major ideas in a given field of knowledge.

Adolescent

involvement in programs designed for them would provide
another perspective on course development.

7
It may be assumed from

previous research

(Glaser,

1969) that novel or unfamiliar situations increase explora­
tory behavior.

The opportunity to choose from a greater

variety of courses in the curriculum should provide for
students several channels for exploration.
Novelty is a variable that is very difficult to con­
trol in this study.

This shouldn't, however, detract from

the value of the results.

Novelty is an enigma in research

that will be present in each subsequent Unit Step program,
controlled only by the degree and type of introductory
methods used.
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the extent
of similarity and difference between students and teachers
on how each perceives various phases of the Unit Step p r o ­
gram.

These determinations will enable directors of the

Unit Step in Howell to discover where weaknesses may lie
in order to make needed corrections before procedures be­
come routine.

Weaknesses in this case would be situations

that display sharp diversities of opinion toward the Unit
Step program between teachers and students and within their
own r a nks .
This study is concerned only with perceptual strengths
and weaknesses on an intra-school basis and within and b e ­
tween two groups of people.

No attempt will be made to make

comparisons b e t w e e n >Howell and any other school functioning

on the Unit Step

(or similar p r o g r a m ) , or with traditional

school programs used as control models.
This comparison of perception of program effective­
ness may reveal a high degree of program approval by both
teachers and students.

This fact, however, would not

necessarily mean that the Unit Step is a good program.

It

is not the purpose of this study to measure the merit of
Unit Step, but rather how it is perceived by two groups of
people and the degree of relationship between those p er­
ceptions .
Need for this Study
The need for this study is twofold.

In order for the

Unit Step to succeed it is necessary that the on-going
information provided teachers and administrators who are
directing the program in Howell be accurate and complete.
Proper methods of evaluation and analysis are, therefore,
essential.

Two instruments have been constructed, one for

the faculty at Howell Senior High School and the other for
the students at Howell Senior High School

(Appendices A

and B ).
Secondly, results of this study may be of value to
other schools initiating the Unit Step program.

The Unit

Step concept is presently being practiced in five Michigan
senior high schools.

The Fall of 1970 will see additional

schools implement the Unit Step.

Administrators who ini­

tiate this program in the future will have this study of
first year perceptions available to them.

Questions for Study
The questions that this study will attempt to answer

1.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among teachers in the
various length-of-service categories?

2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between male

and female

teachers?
3.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between teachers who
have bachelor's degrees to teachers who have
master's degrees?

4.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between tenure and p r o ­
bationary teachers?

5.

What is the estimate of difference among the
various curricular departments in the perception
of the Unit Step program?

6.

What is the estimate of difference in the percep­
tion of the Unit Step program between 10th and
12th graders?

7.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between boys and girls
in grades 10 to 12?

10
8.

What is the estimate of difference

in perception

of the Unit Step program among students in grades
10 to 12 in the various academic grade categories?
9.

What is the estimate of difference

in perception

of the Unit Step program between students who
will continue their education beyond high school
and those who do not plan on continuing their
education beyond high school?
10.

How do the perceptions of teachers

compare with

those of students in the following three areas:

11.

a.

Perception of this

program

and others

b.

Perception of this

program

and self

c.

Perception of this

program

What are the most favorable and least

favorable

aspects of the Unit Step program as perceived by
teachers and students?
Limitations of this Study
There was a number of student responses that were
either totally unusable or usable only in part.

The total

number of students participating in this study was 863.
Of that n u m b e r , 91 forms were spoiled because of patterned
answers, failure to respond to several statements, and
marking in areas where no answer was called for.

This indi­

cated that either instructions that were given were vague
or misunderstood by this segment of the student population,
or that some students lacked the proper attitude required

11
for the survey.

The failure of the survey to include this

point of view omits what could have been an important part
of the total student attitude.
It addition, there was another set of optical scanning
sheets turned in that could not be used.

There were 9 2

returned which did not have demographic information in­
cluded.

This is attributed to either instructions not

being made clear enough, or simply that these students were
sitting in those parts of the gymnasium which weren't well
covered by the public address system.

This information

would have been included in the results of this study, but
there would have been no way to allow for accountability
when necessary to do so.
Definition of Terms
The following definition of terms is given before
discussing educational research that tends to reflect upon
the Unit Step concept.
Other program (traditional)— Semester or yearly basis
program at Howell before introduction of Unit Step.
Perception--Personal interpretations given to various
aspects of the school organization and toward people who
comprise the school setting in the Unit Step program.
Shift— One eight week time period in which an average
class load of five courses may be taken.
Courses may be
completed during this time and a letter grade and credit
earned.
Some courses may be sequential in nature, or of a
y e a r ’s duration, with a letter grade and credits awarded
after satisfactory completion of the total sequence.
This
latter example is not referred to as a shift.

12
This program (Unit Step)--A method
organizing the
school curriculum and fitting it into shorter modules of
time rather than into the traditional semester or year plan.
Tracking— Ability grouping of youngsters in the senior
high school wnere placement in the groups (college prepara­
tory, vocational, business, general) is determined by stan­
dardized test results.
Ungraded— The addition of courses into various disciplines which are selected by students with some staff
assistance, on the basis of interest rather than by grade
(10,11,12) classification.
Plan for the Study
Chapter I deals with an introduction to a study of
the Unit Step plan in one Michigan senior high school.
This chapter looks at the problem by examining the need for
change and Howell's effort to create change.
and need for this study are also examined.

The purpose
The questions

that this study attempts to answer are stated, along with
the limitations of the study.

Finally,

a glossary of terms

and their definitions as applied to the study are given.
Chapter II looks at the rationale, conception and
description of the Unit Step plan.

Rationale for similar

programs in other school districts is given.

Conception

and description in this chapter apply to the Howell p r o ­
gram, per s e .

The various roles of the teacher, counselor,

student, and principal are reviewed.

The evaluation plan

of the school is briefly described.
Chapter III deals with the design and method of the
study.

The sample and survey instruments are examined,

along with the method of analysis.

Demographic variables

13
are defined and explained.

The field test and survey are

also described.
Chapter IV contains the analysis of the data, and
Chapter V reports on summary, conclusions, discussion and
recommendations.

CHAPTER II
PROGRAM R A T I O N A L E , CONCEPTION AND DESCRIPTION
Rationale
Howell
Before implementation of Unit Step the educational
program at Howell followed a traditional pattern. Every course
was taught for a full year, or at least a semester.

The

degree of course exposure to all students was, consequently,
extremely limited.

Howell subsequently shifted into shorter

terms to accomplish a number of goals that were considered
unattainable in a semester arrangement.

The vastly increased

opportunity to take more courses is, in fact, the raison
d'etre for the Unit Step.

There are several features p er­

taining to this point which provide support.
For one thing, courses can be taught at levels designed
to meet student n e e d s .

Courses traditionally taught in a

year are divided into subject areas of greatest interest
to students.

Students in turn are, except where adult

guidance is desired and necessary,
that interest them most.

to select those courses

Teachers can also specialize

more with their particular concerns and major areas,

thereby

giving the students daily material that is presented from
a broader interest-base.
14

15
Special interest opportunities are available to students
in other ways.

The students with special academic abilities

have a greater opportunity to explore and engage in their
particular interests.

Eight week courses will also give

students who are weak in particular areas a chance to become
better acquainted with a body of knowledge with less invest­
ment of their t i m e .
Investment of time is important in another way.
Students pass or fail in eight weeks,

not a semester or year.

The penalty for loss of time because of failure in this
situation is less severe than in a traditionally set school
year.

Students who do fail an eight week course have two

options.

They may pick the course up again the same year

or in some succeeding year, or may select another course in
an area that more closely matches the interest and ability
levels of the student.
The rationale for shorter terms in Howell was used
to implement the Unit Step at other Michigan high schools
in Albion, Saugatuck and Hesperia.

Ring Lardner Junior High

School in Niles will be embarking upon the quarter system
at the beginning of the 1970-71 school year.

The rationale

for the Niles program is not unlike the programs at other
schools described in this chapter.

East Lansing, Haslett and Okemos
In August of 1969 a feasibility study of three contiguous
Michigan school systems was completed.

The study centered on

16
the extended school year and the quarter system

(four 9 week

terms) and their applicability to the East Lansing, Haslett,
and Okemos school d i s t r i c t s .

For each the quarter system

was recommended because the increase in course offerings
would better meet the needs and interests of students in
preparing for their life's work.

The shorter terms require

greater student participation in the selection of courses
and in scheduling of classes than is normally found in a
semester arrangement.
It was further suggested in this study that shortened
courses will allow for more exposure to subject-area disci­
plines and to a greater number of people.

Students would

have an opportunity to come in contact with some vocational
areas that they otherwise might m i s s .

This early contact

may help some decide which vocational areas to avoid and
which are attractive to them, thereby sparing for many
students this process of elimination as adults.
on the quarter system will,

Students

in addition, meet many more

people, both students and teachers, because this opportunity
is created by taking a greater number of classes.
it is the feeling of Okemos educators that not w i t h ­
standing several changes in recent years in the mechanics
of education, e.g., reorganization of the school curriculum
and different class scheduling techniques,

the American high

school has changed relatively little in purpose.

While our,

society and environment grow more complex, schools generally

17
fail to provide students with educational breadth.

Rather,

they are both narrowly trained and fail to receive adequate
exposure to the various disciplines.
In addition to the
additional rationale for

feasibility study, Okemos has
the quarter system:

Currently an American history teacher with interests
in a particular aspect of the subject spends much
more class time in his interest area than many stu­
dents may feel is deserved . . . although it
may be
excellently done, it
is still at the expense of
students who may not share teacher's interest in the
particular area.
(In the quarter s y s t e m ) , the
teacher would more likely be teaching in an area
of his interest and would be teaching those students
whose interests would more nearly coincide with his
particular expertise.
The student, on the other
hand, would have many additional options to choose
(sections) from within traditional courses for an
'in-depth* study, which would be more in line with
his personal i n t e re st s .

Fowlerville
Another Michigan senior high school that operates with
the shorter term is located in Fowlerville.

Nine week terms

have been in existence there for five years and are referred
to as "flexible content."

The four subject areas that are

taught on this basis are communication, social science,
home economics, and physical education.
Shorter terms were developed at Fowlerville in order
to accomplish a set of objectives considered to be unattain­
able via the traditional semester structure:
.The content of the curriculum should be relevant to
the student;

18
.The student should have an opportunity to choose
content that will satisfy a known need;
.The curriculum should provide specific and in-depth
study opportunities; and
.The teacher should have an opportunity to teach
content that reflects his major interest in his major field.

Newton Centre, Massachusetts
At Meadowbrook Junior High School in Newton Centre,
Massachusetts, classes are of a twelve week duration.

The

shorter classes impress one as being more a means to an
end rather than as ends in themselves.

Little emphasis, in

fact, is placed on the shorter terms in the material that
is written about this program.

Apparently,

the twelve week

terms are not treated merely as vehicles for the singular
purpose of providing more opportunity for students to take
a greater number of classes in their school career.
Officials at Meadowbrook recognize that this is a
period in American history that rivals no other in abundance
of material goods.

At the same time racial unrest,

the

increasing crime rate, drug use and abuse, and other
societal problems could destroy this supe r- ab un d an ce .

With

all our ability to produce and distribute goods, say the
officials at Meadowbrook,

there are growing human problems

that are incessant in their demand for our attention.
Meadowbrook the problems of society are considered to be
those of the s c h o o l .

At

19
There are two primary objectives in embarking on the
Meadowbrook plan that arose from the problems of American
society.

First,

there is an attempt to develop in students

the skills and competencies needed for living in a highly
technical society.

Secondly,

there is an attempt to develop

in students the skills and competencies for living coopera­
tively and fruitfully with the full range of cultural and
individual differences which are represented in our society.
To accomplish this dual purpose,

it is thought necessary

that the school and community recognize that "HOW the student
learns to think about himself in the society is equally as
important as WHAT he l e a r n s ."
Following is a brief description of the Meadowbrook
organization structure:
Classes are divided into units.

There are four units

or parts that operate within this framework:
Gamma, and Sigma.

Alpha, Beta,

Each part has the following composition:
2 32
2
6
2
2
1

students
science teachers
social studies/English teachers
mathematics teachers
foreign language teachers
guidance counselor

In addition, all units share in the use of teachers
from specialty areas:
2
2
3
2

art teachers
music teachers
industrial arts teachers
home economics teachers

5
1
1
1
1
8
Charles E. Goff,

physical education teachers
typing teacher
librarian
reading specialist
audio-visual specialist
teacher aides

the director of research at Meadowbrook

explains the function of these p a r t s .
students are broken down into

'Houses' and each academic

teacher becomes a 'House Advisor*
students.

"Within each unit the

for approximately 20

The House is made up of a balance of seventh

grade, eighth grade, and ninth grade students.

It is in

this setting where students and advisor talk, plan, and think
together.

Course selections,

long and short range educa­

tional planning, as well as discussion of personal goals and
aspirations, are some of the concerns brought to House."
It is the intent of officials at Meadowbrook to
construct an organization which serves three fundamental
purposes:
1.

To provide a supportive environment through the

house advisor and the teaching team;
2.

To provide a choice for students through course

selection; and
3.

To provide a more appealing and meaningful curricu­

lum.
From this comes the rationale for the Meadowbrook
program:

21

The Meadowbrook program is concerned with a way of
living and learning.
This way of living and learn­
ing can be used by any group of teachers and pupils
in a school of any size. It has been designed to
bring together the inseparable activities of teaching
and learning and to provide an opportunity for both
students and faculty to work to their best advant­
age; a favorable environment in which to do it; a
closer and more cooperative relationship.
It is an organization of school life based upon
the following philosophical ideals . . . that inherent in man's existence is the
right to develop this individual potential
. . . that given the opportunity, man will
select goals which are beneficial to both self and
society
In order to implement the purposes of the p r o ­
ject, a unique setting must be provided, and the
philosophical attitude toward the individual and
the learning climate must be described.

Conception of Howell Unit Step
How Unit Step Emerged
John Kremkow,

administrative assistant in the Howell

Public Schools, has developed a different system of organi­
zing the curriculum in the senior high school.

Before

coming to Howell in 196 8, Mr. Krenkow was a senior high
school principal when he first developed this concept which
he has labeled "Unit Step."
While working in a small school before coming to
Howell, several educational travesties came to the a tten­
tion of Mr. Kremkow.

He noticed that many teachers, because

of the size of the school, were instructing classes that
were out of their fields of preparation.

It was also apparent

22

that those with vastly opposed philosophies of approach to
teaching were finding their relationship to colleagues
becoming strained.

From this came the idea of matching

teacher abilities and interests as closely as possible to
subject area preparation along with contact to colleagues
of compatible educational viewpoints.

This produced a

noticeable increase in staff harmony and resulted in similar
student needs being recognized.
It was decided to give youngsters a similar oppor­
tunity by providing for them what was felt to be fundamental
educational needs.

It is generally believed that youngsters

have abilities that educators often are not able to develop
properly because of administrative problems created by
traditional a p p r o a c h e s .

This initial thought led to the

expansion of the school curriculum in several disciplines
and was the beginning of the Unit Step program.

Introduction of Unit Step in Howell
Introduction of Unit Step to the Howell staff was
gradual.

Exposure first began on an individual and then

on a departmental basis.

After teachers began to show

sufficient interest, a workshop was set up for staff members
wishing to participate.

It was here that the Howell teachers

first heard of the Unit Step program from other teachers
and students who were experiencing this concept in another
school system.

23
Following this, various departments began to work on
a list of courses which were thought to be stimulating and
of interest to students.

After preparing a complete list

of course offerings, the administrative assistant and teachers
from the junior and senior high schools met with the Howell
Board of Education to present their proposal on Unit Step.
The Board of Education approved the idea and it was then
that the staff began to think about working on course
content.
This program wasn't given the hard sell approach in
Howell.

Outside of speeches to groups such as the Parent-

Teachers Association and sundry articles on Unit Step appear­
ing in the local newspaper, publicity was primarily con­
tained in an intra-school environment.

It is at this point

in the program, however, that efforts are being made to
achieve parent and community participation in the program
by such methods as the encouragement of constructive
criticism and the use of local adult talent in classroom
lecturing as the Unit Step program e x p a n d s .

The philosophy

behind this approach apparently is one that recognizes the
school had better know where it's going before laymen are
invited on the trip.

Description of the Howell Program
What is Unit Step?
The Unit Step concept, as stated above, is a different
way of organizing the curriculum.

Traditionally, courses

24
are set up on either a semester or two semester b a s i s , but
Unit Step divides the school year into smaller parts.

The

school year in Howell is divided into five eight week
"shifts."

The curriculum areas which offer eight week

courses are E n g l i s h , h i s t o r y , physical education, homemaking,
industrial arts, art, science and some mathematics and
business c o u r s e s .

Courses that remain full year courses

are algebra I and II, geometry, pre-calculus,

chemistry,

physics, typing, choir, band, French, Spanish, Latin,

and

some business courses.
The five shifts in a sense represent the traditional
marking p e r i o d s .

Within each of these periods of time

students may be enrolled for as many as five or six differ­
ent courses, but each

(with some exception)

is completed

within the eight week span of time and a final grade and
credit are awarded.

Upon completion of one shift,

in other

w o rd s, a student then moves on to another set of c o u r s e s .
Those courses that are taught on a full year or sequential
basis are worth five credits at the end of the year if
each course is completed satisfactorily.

For example,

in

the foreign language area a student would take a language
for five consecutive shifts during the regular academic
school year; as each is passed a credit and grade are awarded.
To graduate, a student must have at least 75 credits.
Of these credits, up to 15 may be from the non-academic
areas--physical education,

art, band and chorus.

25
While Howell has retained the A to E grading system
as an evaluation measure, the philosophy has changed s ome­
what toward grading from what it was in the traditional
program.

A failure in the Unit Step program is a failure

for only eight weeks, not for a semester or full year as
is true in sequential courses.

The counseling department

reports that while grades have generally improved in the
Unit Step, when E's are issued it is realized that this
has less of a punishing effect because of the eight week
period of time.
There are no required courses in the curriculum.
There are, however, a required number of credits to
accumulate in four subject areas.

Ten credits are required

in English and social studies, as are three in government
and five in American history.

A selection of 89 courses

is available in the social studies discipline,
history, 6 in government and the remainder,
subject areas.

27 in American

56, in diverse

The English department offers 69 courses.

One of the primary differences between the Unit Step
and traditional approach are the number of courses to which
a student is exposed.

Assuming that a normal course load

of six classes for a semester are carried by a student, the
number of individual course exposures that are possible in
the semester arrangement could not exceed twelve for a
school year.

On the same daily schedule with the Unit Step

this number of course exposures grows to a maximum of thirty

26
for the academic year, providing sequential courses with only
one title,

for example, French, aren't considered.

A complete listing of course offerings by titles is
contained in Appendix C.

These offerings, with synopses,

are prepared in three separate booklets, one for students
in each grade,

10-12.

This establishes guidelines for

spreading out required and elective courses.

There is, of

course, a good deal of overlapping of courses which enables
sophomores,

for example,

to be in classes with juniors and

seniors.

Hole of the Teacher
The Unit Step program has made it necessary for teachers
to become directly involved in scheduling of classes and
academic counseling of students.
Lach year students are given a full list of course
offerings and their synopses.

Students are requested to take

this information home and discuss it with their parents.

In

addition, supplemental course exposure is given at a
designated time when teachers,

in their classrooms, discuss

their various courses and answer questions of students in
regards to course offerings just prior to the pre-enrollment
date.
Placement of students in the various courses offered
by Unit Ctep is accomplished primarily through a testing
program.

In information given to teachers regarding testing,

27
Kowell school officials have described the role tests are to
play in the Unit Step program.

"Tests will indicate when

a child needs more work in vocubulary or grammar and they
are placed in a reading class with others who have similar
difficulty.

Testing,

such as the Iowa Basic Skill tests

or the SRA Iowa Test of Educational Skill, will indicate
to all what skills need improvement and what skills are
subject to advanced development."
In addition to tests being a determinant in student
placement, counselor and teacher assistance is rendered.

In

courses where the skill areas are not stressed students
maintain a large degree of freedom of choice.
The most important counseling assist given by the
classroom teacher is through a large group assembly program.
There are two days set aside for this activity in the school
gymnasium.

Each grade is presented this program at separate

assemblies.

In actual planning for this program the various

departments meet and decide on those courses which will be
presented for discussion in the assembly.

Generally,

courses

are emphasized that have low enrollments.

The presentation

is also moved over to the junior high school for the 9th
graders.

Seniors, who are not included in this program,

may leave school at the conclusion of any shift if all
graduation requirements have been met.
graduation ceremonies in the Spring.

They then return for

28

In about the middle of each school year

(February or

Karch), students select courses for the next year during pre­
enrollment.

At this time between 25-35 courses are chosen

by each student.

Twenty-five may be first-choice courses

and 5 or more may be alternate choices.

The number of first-

choice courses for each student will be based upon his desire
to take 5 or 6 courses per shift.

Half-day students may

only sign up for 3 or 4 courses per shift, bringing their
total to 15 or 20 courses for the year.
Like the large group assembly, pre-enrollment also takes
place in the gymnasium.

Here teachers, upon request of the

students, may again give out specific information to students
about their courses.
sheets.

In addition,

One contains test scores

students possess two data
(ITED)

and the titles of

courses that the student is enrolled in for the present school
year, and the other contains the next year's tentative course
schedule

(Appendix D ) .

After students definitely decide on a particular set of
courses for the next school year,

it is then necessary for

them to visit each instructor in the gymnasium on pre-enroll­
ment day.

They must obtain an instructor's signature for

each course desired,

including alternate courses

(Appendix E ) .

Before deciding to include a student in his class,

the

instructor first peruses the three pieces of information dis­
cussed above that are found on the two data sheets--ITED test
scores and present courses on one sheet,
program for next year on the other.

and the tentative

For multiple-section

29
courses, one teacher may be designated to represent a group
of teachers by being the one to approve, or sdgn for, courses
for a group of teachers.
Pre-enrollment determines the size of the following
year's classes.

In addition,

those courses which have fewer

than twelve students are usually dropped.

When this occurs

students who are thus affected are informed by the counseling
department and advised to make an alternate course choice.
Pre-enrollment, besides determining how many sections
of a course will be offered,

also affects teacher assignment.

Each department has teachers 'in reserve"
overloaded sections.

In other words,

to cope with

instead of some

teachers being given 25 course assignments for the next
school year at scheduling time, they may receive only 22
or 23 assignments in order to absorb expected overloads
occurring from popular elective courses.
Teacher involvement in scheduling of classes is quite
extensive.

The number of courses a student selects at p re ­

enrollment time determines what courses will be retained
and which will be dropped from the curriculum for the coming
school year.

Teachers are given a card for each class they

will be teaching by the principal after he determines how
many sections are to be given to each course.

Kis office

distributes the necessary number of cards to each teacher.
This means that each teacher would receive 25 cards, based
upon a 5 hour teaching day,

5 shifts per school year.

Those

30
not included are teachers kept

"in reserve," as mentioned

above, or who teach sequential courses.
Teachers then meet, by departments,
schedule boards.
in size.

to fill in the

There are five schedule boards, each 5' x 8'

There are five boards in order to accommodate the

entire staff and afford easy visibility and make it simpler
to make needed alterations.

Horizontally,

divided into the five shifts per year.

the boards are

Vertically,

are listed alphabetically and by department.
then takes the 2 5 cards

(or less)

teachers

Each teacher

he received from the pre­

enrollment data compiled in the principal's office and
assigns himself five courses per shift.

Assignments are

made on the basis of when the instructor wants to teach a
particular set of courses.

Single section courses may

create a problem when two instructors,

for example, want the

same group of students the same hour during the same shift.
Comprimises are necessary in cases such as this.
Stepladders are used by the staff to assist teachers
in filling in the schedule board.
listed first.

Pre-requisite courses are

If a course has no pre-requisite it can be

placed anywhere.

Teachers who teach sequential courses rather

than Unit Step courses must also schedule their own classes
in the same manner and at the same time.

When each teacher

has placed his program for the next school year on the
schedule board, this constitutes the beginning of the master
schedule.

This information, when completed,

programmed.

is then computer

31
Role of the Counselor
The role of the counselor has also taken on new dimen­
sions.

Most of a counselor's time is now devoted to the

Unit Step program.

Shortage of time for counseling with

individual students is created by the demands placed upon
counselors in scheduling and for preparation of the following
year's academic program.

The counselor/student ratio at

Howell is 1:250, which is quite favorable under ordinary
circumstances.

Notwithstanding this ratio, however,

the

amount of time that is required for counselors to spend on
program administration has necessitated moving into group
counseling.
Group counseling has replaced individual counseling
for yet another reason besides the shortage of time.

Unit

Step has made it necessary to see students more often than
was necessary in the other program.

The Unit Step has

forced a situation whereby counselors must see their students
four times a year in order to evaluate academic programs
and to make schedule changes.

These group meetings begin

two weeks before the start of each new shift.
students are in each group.

Four or more

Although counselors have become

more knowledgeable about counselee academic needs,
allows little time, except on an emergency basis,
ing with any personal problems of students.

this
for deal­

32
Student and Principal Roles
Students have become much more aware of course content
and selection procedure.

Unit Step has made it necessary

for them to be more responsible than previously in making
choices of courses.

A cc ording to the counseling department,

students also have become aware of being careful to choose
courses on the basis of who the teacher is, i.e.,

is his

or her personality one which encourages rapport with students?
In the traditional program,

of course,

ability for a

student to choose either a course or a teacher was very
limited.

More students are therefore making it a point to

know as much about the teacher and the course content as
they can before m a k in g final program decisions.
The principal's

role in the Unit Step pro gr am in Howell

isn't clearly defined.

There are indications, however, of

what the future expectations will be.
There has been a gradual withdr aw al of those r e s p o n s i ­
bilities that are normally considered to be those be lo ng in g
to the school principal.

There are three indications of this:

the existence of a c ur r ic ul um council w here all curriculum
changes are presented and finalized;

the emergence of a

Unit Step supervising committee w h ic h will control the d i r e c ­
tion of the Unit Step program;

and the newly created p o s i ­

tion, coordinator of scheduling, w h i ch will be responsible
for all aspects of Unit Step programming and scheduling.
His remaining role apparently lies in the areas of business
manager,

attendance, discipline,

activities .

and o rg anizer of student

33
Planned Evaluation
Program improvement is the responsibility of a curricu­
lum council.
cipals

This group comprises twenty people— 7 prin­

(elementary,

junior and senior high school)

and 13

teachers who represent the various disciplines, kindergarten
through twelfth grade.

Representatives are school-wide in

order to assure program continuity.
The procedure for change is orderly and methodical.
Any recommendation for change in the Unit Step program must
be made by a department to the curriculum council.

Recom­

mended changes must be signed by all teachers in a depart­
ment, stating whether or not each favors the proposed change.
This is done in order to have a record of committment and
accountability.

Courses are then changed, added or dropped,

by permission of the council

(Appendix E ) .

In addition to the curriculum council,

another super­

vising body will be set up after the present school year
(1969-70).

The function of this group will be to deal with

the problems engendered by the Unit Step, per s e .

At

the present time one man is supervising and correlating the
program in both junior and senior high schools,
to other duties.

in addition

This has been considered necessary because

of a general lack of knoweldge and experience in working
with the Unit Step program by other administrators in the
Howell school system.

34
The membership in this group will comprise four people
--administrative assistant, coordinator of scheduling for
junior and senior high schools, senior high school principal,
and junior high school principal.

These four will be

coordinating the departmental program, grades 7-12, and will
be responsible for preparing recommended changes for the
curriculum council.

The administrative assistant will chair

the meetings of this new group.
The position of coordinator of scheduling is newly
created and will be filled beginning with the 1970-71 school
year.

The person who performs this function will have the

responsibility of scheduling classes for the Unit Step p r o ­
gram in both junior and senior high schools.

This person

will also be responsible for total Unit Step coordination.
Scheduling problems have necessitated improvement in
this part of the Unit Step program.

A scheduling program

is being developed for the Unit Step program which will
reduce conflicts to a minimum.

This year the number of

students with schedule conflicts numbers between 600 and
700 after each new shift is started.

This includes the

most minor to the most severe conflicts.

At the present

time the counseling department is responsible for these
changes.

This has been a burdensome problem, but consider­

able relief is anticipated by the function of the coordinator
of scheduling.

35
The following time sequence for counseling and schedul­
ing is observed by the Howell staff and students:
November - Counselors, the final two weeks of each
shift, meet their counselees to evaluate
academic performance
Janaury - Complete course synopses are issued to
students (grades 9-11) to take home, d i s­
cuss with parents, and assist in the choice
of courses for the next school year
February - Teachers take class time to discuss course
offerings in their specific areas with
students
Large group assembly program covering a
two day period in the gymnasium.
Presented
to grades 9-11 at separate assemblies.
Classes with low enrollment are especially
explained by teachers
February
or
March

Pre-enrollment time.
Student, with their
data sheets, attend this activity in the
gymnasium.
They must obtain the instructor's
signature for all desired courses

March - Enrollment figures taken by principal, who
figures number of sections per class.
Class
cards are issued, next, to all teachers
March
or
April

Teachers take class cards and transfer this
information upon the schedule boards for the
ensuing school year.
This master schedule
is then computer programmed.

Summary
The rationale for the Unit Step program is established
at the beginning of this chapter.

The primary motivating

factor behind this approach is that it enable students to

36
have a wider range of course offerings than is possible in
a traditional program, even one that is ungraded.

Other

favorable points about the shorter terms are discussed.
The rationale reviewed is from Howell and other school
systems having time patterns and curriculum structure similar
to Howell's.
The beginnings of Unit Step and how it got started in
Howell are focused upon,

along with a complete description

of the Howell program.
Various roles are described in the school setting.
functions and responsibilities of the teacher, counselor,
student and principal are examined.
This chapter concludes with a look at Unit Step
coordination and curriculum evaluation techniques.

The

CHAPTER III
THE DESIGN AND METHOD OF STUDY

Sample
The population surveyed,

863 students and 3 8 teachers,

came from a total population of 974 students and 46 teachers
Student absenteeism and the fact that some teachers teach
only sequential courses allow for these differences.

The

student body surveyed is from Howell Senior High School,
grades 10 to 12.
The following demographic information reveals more
about the composition of the two samples:
Teachers

Students

Number male: 23
Number female: 15
Average years of
teaching:
Less than 7
Teachers with B . A . : 24
Teachers with M . A . : 14
Number tenure teachers:
24
Probationary teachers:
14
Total school population, K-12 : 4 ,856
State equalized value:
$68,412,742
Per pupil expenditure:
$14,0 88

Number male:
289
Number female:
391
Number in 12th
grade: 196
Number in 11th
grade: 215
Number in 10th
grade: 269
Responses to open
ended questions: 435

The community of Howell has a population over 5,000
and is located between Lansing and Detroit in Livingston
County.

37

38

Survey Instruments
The instruments used in this study were constructed
specifically for this purpose.

They are, for both faculty

and students, 90 item questionnaires.

The final two state­

ments in both instruments are open-ended.

Respondents

wishing to express what they like most or least about the
Unit Step program could write in spaces provided on the
test booklet

(Appendices A and B) .

Optical scanning sheets were provided to record
responses.

A four-point scale measured feelings about

statements from a strongly agree-agree-disagree-strongly
disagree range.
In the instruments it was attempted to use statements
which cover as many facets of the school environment as
practicable.

The statements on each group's questionnaire

were numbered correspondingly to facilitate matching of
responses.
Field Test
A field test of the instruments was given on February
12th.

A sampling of faculty members and students from

Albion Senior High School were administered the q u estion­
naires.

The Unit Step program at Albion was begun three

years ago by the person who introduced it to the Howell
school system.
The sampling used was small.

The six students were

sophomores in Albion, on their first year of the Unit Step

39

program.

The three teachers were ra ndomly pi c k e d fr o m the

faculty.

A f t e r each group took the survey,

received f ro m each.

The pri ma ry w e a k n e s s d i s c o v e r e d was

instructions to students.
that a clearer,

a c ri t i q u e was

T h e A l b i o n students

s t e p - b y - s t e p app ro ac h

in

su gg e st ed

just b e f o r e the survey

is a dm i n i s t e r e d m i g h t d i s a l l o w some s t u d en t c o n t a mi na ti on .
Consequently,

in st ru ct i on s

for t a k i n g the survey for b ot h

teachers and students we r e r e v i ew ed and reworked.
tion,

In a d d i ­

the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the survey to the tea c he rs and s t u ­

dents at Howel l was r e - e v a l u a t e d

(Appendix F ) .

Demographic Variables
C o m p ar is on s w ill be made b e t w e e n the var io us d e m o ­
graphic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on the f o l l o w i n g bases:
1.

The c o m p a r i s o n of s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s
of total r es ponses b e t w e e n teachers and students;

2.

The c o m p a r i s o n of s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s
w i t h i n the teac he r gr oup and s t u de n t group;

3.

and

C o m p a r i s o n of the most f a v o r ab le and least
f av orable aspects of the U ni t Step p r o g r a m b e t w e e n
students

and teachers as i n d i c a t e d by the final

two o p e n - e n d e d sta te me nt s

i n c l u d e d in the i n s t r u ­

ments in b ot h g r o u p s .
For the first two c o m p a r is on s

lis te d above, the

teacher and stud en t in st r um en ts w e r e d i v i d e d into three
parts.

In di vi du a l stateme nt s

in the i ns t ru me nt s w e r e

included into one of these parts,

listed and d e f i n e d below.

[

40

Perception of this Program and Others
Perception of parts of this program in relationship
to how it affects people other than oneself.

For example,

students and teachers were asked to respond to statements
which required them to give their opinion about how they
think other students and teachers are perceiving parts of
the Unit Step program.
Perception of this Program and Self
Perception of parts of this program in relationship
to how it directly affects oneself.

For example, students

and teachers were asked to respond to statements which
required them to give their opinion about how they think
they personally perceive parts of the Unit Step program.
Perception of this Program
This involves personal evaluation of parts of the
Unit Step program.

Both students and teachers were requested

to respond to statements which related to their opinion of
the Unit Step program,

independent of student or teacher

considerations.
Reliability of Instruments
Reliability of this study was determined from analyz­
ing the results of the Hoyt analysis of variance technique
on both teacher and student i ns t r u m e n t s .

The higher the

degree of correlation in the scores for all categories of
teachers and students indicates a high degree of reliability.

41
Questions for Study
This study will concern itself with these questions:
1.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among teachers in the
various length-of-service categories?

2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between male and female
teachers?

3.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between teachers who have
b a c h e l o r ’s degrees to teachers who have master's
degrees?

4.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between tenure and
probationary teachers?

5.

What is the estimate of difference among the
various curricular departments in the perception
of the Unit Step program?

6.

What is the estimate of difference in the p e r ce p ­
tion of the Unit Step program between 10th and
12th graders?

7.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between boys and girls
in grades 10 to 12?

8.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among students in grades
10 to 12 in the various academic grade categories?

9.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between students who
will continue their education beyond high school
and those who do not plan on continuing their
education beyond high school?

10.

How do the perceptions of teachers compare with
those of students in the following three a r e a s :
a.
b.
c.

Perception
Perception
Perception

of
of
of

this program
this program
this program

and others
and self

42
11.

What are the most favorable and least favorable
aspects of the Unit Step program as perceived by
teachers and students?
The Survey

Both questionnaires were administered at the start of
the school day, Friday, February 20, 1970.

The four proctors

who assisted in passing out and collecting materials on the
day of the survey were briefed on their responsibilities on
February 13th.

The guidance director explained and admin­

istered the survey to teachers in a separate classroom after
having been briefed himself.
This was considered to be a good time of the school
year to administer the survey.

Both students and faculty

had an opportunity to experience three shifts.

Based upon

the field test of sophomores who were in their first year
of Unit Step, there should have been provided sufficient
exposure to the program in Howell to enable both student
and faculty respondents to participate with confidence.
Comparison of Responses
Comparisons of perceptions of the program will be
made in three w a y s :

comparison of responses of teachers

to teachers, of students to students, and of students to
teachers.

Data will be furnished from the information

regarding individual group differences supplied by the
demographic section of the questionnaire Instruction Sheet.
Analysis will be made from the following categories of
questions:

43
Questions comparing responses of teachers to t e a c h e r s .—
1.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among teachers in the
various length-of-service categories?

2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between male and female
teachers ?

3.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between teachers who
have bachelor's degrees to teachers who have
master's degrees?

4.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between tenure and
probationary teachers?

5.

What is the estimate of difference among the
various curricular departments in the perception
of the Unit Step program?

Questions comparing responses of students to s t u d e n t s .—
1.

What is the estimate of difference in the perception
of the Unit Step program between 10th and 12
graders?

2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between boys and girls
in grades 10 to 12?

3.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program among students in grades
10 to 12 in the various academic grade categories?

4.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between students who will
continue their education beyond high school and
those who do not plan on continuing their education
beyond high school?

Question comparing responses of students to t e a c h e r s .—
1.

How do the perceptions of teachers compare with
those of students in the following three a r e a s :
a.
b.
c.

Perception of this program
Perception of this program
Perception of this program

and others
and self

44
In regards to the final question above, reference is
made to the definition of these three categories on page
40.

There are statements on the questionnaires of

both teachers and students which pertain to these three
categories.

The comparison of perceptions between teachers

and students will be answered from the responses to these
specific statements.
Methods of Analysis
In this descriptive study, various statistical methods
will be applied to the following approach:

This signifies that the treatment
been applied to both groups studied
and that both teachers

(X = Unit Step) has

(teachers and students)

(0^) and students

(O j ) will be given

the questionnaire.
Means and variances will be calculated using the
t statistic,

and one-way analysis of variance.

The t statistic will be applied to the questions
which require comparisons between only two variables:
1.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between male and female
teachers?

2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit Step program between teachers w h o have
bachelor's degrees to teachers who have master's
degrees?

45
3.

W ha t is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit S t e p p r o g r a m b e t w e e n t e n ur e and
p r o b a t i o n a r y t ea chers?

4.

W h a t is
the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in the p e r c e p ­
tion of
the U nit S tep p r o g r a m b e t w e e n 10th and
12th graders?

5.

W h a t is
the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U n i t Step p r o g r a m b e t w e e n b o y s and girls
in grades 10 to 12?

6.

W h a t is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U nit S te p p r o g r a m b e t w e e n s t u d e n t s w h o
w i l l c ontinue their e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d high school
and those w h o do not p l an on c o n t i n u i n g th eir
e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d h igh school?

7.

H o w d o the p e r c e p t i o n s o f t e a c he rs compare w i t h
those of s t u d en ts in the f o l l o w i n g t hree a r e a s :
a.
b.
c.

P e r c e p t i o n of this p r o g r a m
P e r c e p t i o n of this p r o g r a m
P e r c e p t i o n of this p r o g r a m

and others
and self

The o n e - w a y a nalysis of v a r i a n c e s t a t i s t i c a l m e t h o d
will be applied to tho se q u e s t i o n s w h i c h r e q u i r e c o m p a r i s o n s
between m ore than two v a r i a b l e s :
1.W h a t is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e
in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U n i t S t e p p r o g r a m a m o n g t eachers in the
various length-of-service categories?
2.

W h a t is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e a m o ng the
various c u r r i c u l a r d e p a r t m e n t s in the p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit S t e p pr og ra m?

3.

W h a t is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U n i t S t e p p r o g r a m a m o n g s t u de nt s in grad e s
10 to 12 in the v a r i o u s a c a d e m i c g r a d e c a t e g o r i e s ?

A na ly s i s o f c o n t i n g e n c y tab le s
frequency counts

(ACT) w i l l

to m o s t of the a b o ve qu e s t i o n s .

mation w ill present,

in g r a p h ic form,

furn is h
This i n f o r ­

e l a b o r a t i o n of the

t statistic and an alysis of v a r i a n c e data.

46
In the open-ended statements on the questionnaires

(89

and 90) , content analysis will be used to provide a summary
of strong and weak parts of the Unit Step program as p e r ­
ceived by teachers and students.
Summary
This chapter on design and method of study included
a description of the sample and survey instruments, and
included the citing of benefits gained from the field test.
Demographic variables were listed and defined in rela­
tion to their overall importance in this study.

After

listing the questions this study will examine, survey com­
parisons were described.
Finally, the methods of analysis of data were described
in detail.

The t statistic, one-way analysis of variance,

and content analysis will be used in this study.

Analysis

of contingency tables will be used for frequency counts and
percentage spreads.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

In Chapter IV the analysis of results are reported.

All

the

questions considered in this study were tested with one

of

the

following techniques:

of

the t statistic or a combination

the t statistic and analysis of contingency table

(ACT); a com­

bination of one-way analysis of variance and ACT; or, content
analysis.
Teacher variables will be analyzed first and will be
followed by an analysis of the student variables.

This c hap­

ter will conclude with a content analysis of the two openended questions which were identical on both student and
teacher questionnaires.
Reliability Scores
The Hoyt analysis of variance technique was applied to
obtain reliability scores.

Those scores are given in the

table below:
Full Scale
Teachers
Students

0.72
0.80

Other

Self

0.55
0.92

0.52
0.64

Before considering the first question,

0.04
0.38

an explanation

will be given in regards to the scoring of results.
47

Program

48
Explanation of Scoring
It may be recalled that

on the questionnaires given to

bothfaculty and students, there

was the possibility of choos­

ing one of four responses to questionnaire s t a t e m e n t s .

These

statements were given weights that corresponded with the re ­
sponse number.

In other words,

on the optical scanning sheet
of 1

was assigned.

if space number 1 was marked
by the test respondent,

a weight

If choice number 2 was made, a weight of

2 was assigned, and so forth up to number 4.
Keeping the breakdown of the two questionnaires in mind,
the scoring assignments can be readily seen.

The three parts

mentioned on pages 36 and 37 had a minimum and maximum score
assigned to them for all the combinations of variables in the
questions this study is examining.

What then follows is to

simply divide each of the score ranges into four equal
near equal)

(or

parts for each of the variable combinations.

To make this point clearer, the part Perception of
program for the faculty will be considered.
questionnaire,

On the teacher

there was a total of 18 statements out of 90

that dealt solely with teacher program perception.

If all

the teachers had marked the first space on the optical scan­
ning sheets for all of the 18 items, this would have meant
the faculty was in unanimously strong agreement with that
part of the program.

Thus, the lowest

score possible would have been 18.
(or least favorable)

(or most favorable)

Conversely,

the highest

score possible would have been 72.

The

!
49
four categories that are constructed within this range will be
used in the analysis of most of the questions that this study
is focusing on.
Variable One
The first question was tested by one-way analysis of
variance and analysis contingency table.
Question One
1.

What is the estimate of difference in perception of
the Unit Step program among teachers in the various
length of service categories?

Table 1.1 shows there are no significant differences in
the means of length of service category among teachers in how
each perceives the Unit Step program in relationship to others.
Figures for the mean, standard deviation and frequency spread
are also presented.
Table 1.2 indicates no significant differences among the
means of length of service category among teachers in how each
group perceives the Unit Step program in its relationship to
themselves.

Figures for the mean, standard deviation and fre­

quency spread are also presented.
Table 1.3 indicates no significant differences among the
means of length of service category among teachers in how each
group perceives the Unit Step program, per s e .

Figures for

the mean, standard deviation and frequency spread are also p r e ­
sented .

50
TABLE 1.1.— Dependent Va ri ab le --Perception of This P r o gr am and
Others.
Category V a r i a b l e — Length of Service.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Length of
service

5

142.8761

Error

32

147.8343

No. of Years
Experience

Frequency

0-3
4-7
8-11
12-15
16-20
21 or more

Mean
Square

F Ratio
0.9665

Mean

14
9
7
2
3
3

Probability
0.453

Standard Deviation

91.3571
92.4444
93.2857
92.5000
77.6666
84 .3333

9.2454
15.1088
11.9403
7.7781
12 .2202
17.0098

Frequency Count for Table 1.1
Choice Categories
1

2

3

4

0-3

0

6

8

0

4-7

0

4

5

0

CO

1

0

2

5

0

1-Strongly agree

12-15

0

1

1

0

2-Tend to agree

16-20

0

2

1

0

3-Tend to disagree

21 or
more

0

1

2

0

4-Strongly disagree

in Years

Choice Category
Definitions:

•H

51
T ABLE

1.2.— Dependent Variable— Perception of This Program a m
Self.
Category Va r ia b l e — Length of Service.

Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Mean
Square

Length of
service

5

98.8761

Error

32

No. of Years
Experience

F Ratio

Probability

0.7535

0.590

131.2093

Frequency

Mean

0-3
4-7
8-11

14

77.6428

9
7

81.8888
80.2857

12-15
16-20

2
3

83 .5000
68.6666

21 or more

3

84.3333

Standard Deviation
8.7231
13.9234
11.4559
10.6066
12 .7410
17.0098

Frequency Count for Table 1.2
Length of
Service
in Years

Choice Categories
1 2
3
4

0-3
4-7
8-11

0
1
0

11
4
4

12-15
16-20
21 or
more

0
1
0

1
2
2

3
4
3
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0

Choice Category
D e f i ni ti on s:
1-Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

52
TABLE 1.3.--Dependent V ariable— Perception of This Program.
Category V a r i ab le — Length of Service.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Length of
Service

5

46 .7709

32

44.3630

Error

No. of Years
Experience

Mean
Square

Frequency

F Ratio

Probability

1.0542

0.404

Standard Deviation

Mean

14

42 .0714

4.4456

4-7
8-11

9
7

45.0000

8.4113
4 .2983

12-15
16-20
21 or more

0-3

2
3

42 .1428
46.5000
35.6666

6.3639
10.0166

3

41.6666

11.0604

Frequency Count for Table 1.3
Length of
Service
in Years

Choice Categories
1
2
3
4

0-3
4-7
8-11

0

9

5

0
0

4

12-15
16-20
21 or
more

0
1

1
1
1

1

5

5
2

0
0
0

Choice Category
Def in it io n s:

1
1

1
0

2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree

1

0

4-Strongly disagre

1-Strongly agree

53
Variable Two
The second question was tested by the t statistic and
analysis contingency table.
Question Two
2.

What is the estimate of difference in perception of
the Unit Step program between male and female tea­
chers?

Table
between the

2.1 indicates there is a significant difference
means of male and female teachers in how each

group perceives the Unit Step program and its relationship to
others.

Figures for the mean,

standard deviation and fre­

quency spread are also presented.
Table 2.2 indicates no significant difference between
the means of male and female teachers in how each group per­
ceives the Unit Step program and its relationship to themselves
Figures for the mean, standard deviation and frequency spread
are also presented.
Table
between the

2.3 indicates there is a significant difference
means of male and female teachers in how each

group perceives the Unit Step program, per s e .

Figures are

also presented for the mean, standard deviation, and fre­
quency spread.
Variable Three
The third question was tested by the t statistic and
analysis of contingency table.

54

TABLE 2.1.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — Perception of This Program and
Others.
Category V a r i a b l e — Sex.
Source of
Variation
Sex
Error

Sex

Degrees of
Freedom

Mean
Square

1

637.5195

36

133.5433

Frequency

Mean

F Ratio
4.7738

Probability
0.035

Standard Deviation

Male

23

87 .0869

13.9019

Female

15

95.4666

6.3004

Frequency Count for Table 2.1
Sex

Choice Categories
4
1 2
3

Male

0

14

9

0

Choice Category
Definitions:

Female

0

2

13

0

1-Strongly agree
2-Tend

to agree

3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

I

55

TABLE 2.2.--Dependent Variable— Perception of This Program and
Self.
Category V ariable— Sex.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Sex
Error

Sex

Mean
Square

Probability

F Ratio

1

242 .4934

36

126.6273

1.9614

0 .170

Standard Deviation

Frequency

Mean

Male

23

76.5652

11.9233

Female

15

81.7333

9 .7208

Frequency Count for Table 2.2
Sex

Choice Categories
1 2
3
4

Male

2

15

6

0

Choice Category
D ef in it io ns :

Female

0

9

6

0

1-Strongly agree
2 -Tend
to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

56

TABLE 2.3.— Dependent V a r ia bl e— Perception of This Program.
Category Var ia bl e— Sex.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Sex

1

Error

F Ratio

263.3229

36

Sex

flean
Square

6.8191

Probability
0.013

38.6152

Frequency

Mean

Standard Deviation

Male

23

40.3478

6.5754

Female

15

45.7333

5.5993

Frequency Count for Table 2 .3
Sex

Choice Categories
1 2
3
4

Male

2

15

Female

1

6

6
9

0
0

Choice Category
D ef in it io ns :
. _.
.
_
1-Strongly agree
2 -Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

57
Question Three
3.

What is the estimate of difference in perception
of the Unit S tep p r o g r a m betw ee n teachers w h o have
bachelor's degrees to teachers w h o have master's
degrees?

Table 3.1 indicates no s ignificant difference between
the means of teachers w h o have either bachelor's or master's
degrees

and how each group perceives

its relationship to others.

Figures for

the Unit Step p r o g r a m and
the mean, standard

deviation and frequency spread are also presented.
Table

3.2 indicates no significant difference b e tw ee n

the means of teachers w h o have either bachelor's or master's
degrees and how each g roup perceives the Unit Step p r o g r a m and
its relationship to themselves.
for the mean,
Table

Figures are also pres en te d

standard deviation,

and frequency spread.

3.3 indicates no significant difference b e tw ee n

the means of teachers w h o have either bachelor's or master's
degrees
per s e .

and how each g r ou p perceives
Figures for the mean,

the Unit Step program,

standard deviation, and fr e ­

quency spread are also presented.
Variable Four
The fourth q u e s ti on was tested by the t statistic and
analysis of c ontingency table.
Question Four
4.

What is the estimate of differ en ce in pe rc eption of
the Unit Step p r o g r a m bet we en tenure and probationary
teachers?

58

TABLE 3.1.- - D e p en de nt V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
C a t e g o r y V a r i a b l e — Degree.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom
1

470.8884

36

138.1719

Degree
Error

Degree

M ea n
Square

F Ratio
3.4080

M ean

Frequency

Probability
0.073

Standard De vi at io n

B a c h e l o r 's

24

93.0833

11.6392

M a s t e r 's

14

85.7857

11.9561

C ount for Table
Frequency 1
Degree

3.1

Choi ce Ca t eg or ie s
1

2

3

4

Bachelor *s

0

7

17

0

C h oi ce C a t e g o r y
Definitions:

M a s t e r 's

0

9

5

0

1 -S trongly agree
2 -Tend

to agree

3-Tend to d isagree
4 - S t r on g ly dis a gr ee

59

TABLE 3.2.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — Perception of This Pro gr am and
Self.
Category V a r i a b l e — Degree.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Fre ed o m

Mean
Square

1

158.8170

36

125.9517

Degree
Error

Degree

F Ratio
1.2609

Mean

Frequency

Probability
0.269

Standard Deviation

Bachelor's

24

80.1666

11.6307

Master's

14

75.9285

10.4621

Frequency Count for Table
Degree

3.2

Choice Categories
1

2

Bachelor's

2

14

Master's

0

10

3

4

8

0

4

0

Choice Category
Definitions:
___
.
_.
. agree
1-Strongly
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

60

TABLE 3.3.--Dependent V a r i a b l e - - P e r c e p t i o n of This Program.
Category V a r i a b l e — Degree.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
F r e e d om

Degree
Error

Degree

Mean
Square

1

80.2117

36

43.7017

Frequency

F Ratio

Pr ob ability

1.8354

Mean

0.184

Standard D ev iation

Bachelor *s

24

43.5833

6.4195

M a s t e r 's

14

40.5714

6.9361

Frequency Count for Table 3.3
Degr ee

Choice Categories
1

2

3

4

Bachelor 1s

1

11

12

0

Choice Category
Definitions:

M a s t e r 's

1

10

3

0

1-Strongly agree
2-Tend

to agree

3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

61
Table 4.1 indicates no significant difference between
the means of teachers who have either tenure or probationary
status and how each group perceives the Unit Step program and
its relationship to others.

Figures for the mean, standard

deviation, and frequency spread are also presented.
Table 4.2 indicates the presence of a significant d i f ­
ference between the means of teachers who have either tenure
or probationary status and how each group perceives the Unit
Step program and its relationship to themselves.
the mean, standard deviation,

Figures for

and frequency spread are also

g i ve n.
Table 4.3 indicates no significant difference between
the means of teachers who have either tenure or probationary
status and how each group perceives the Unit Step program,
per s e .

Figures for the mean, standard deviation,

and fre­

quency spread are also presented.
Variable Five
The fifth question was tested by one-way analysis of
variance and analysis of contingency table.
Question Five
5.

What is the estimate of difference among the various
curricular departments in the perception of the Unit
Step program?

Table 5.1 indicates no significant differences among the
means of teachers in various departments and how each department
perceives the Unit Step program and its relationship to others

62

TABLE 4.1.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
Category V a r i a b l e — T e n u r e / Pr ob at i on ar y ( T / P ) .
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
F r e e do m
1

167. 8646

36

146. 5892

T/P
Error

T/P

M ean
Square

Fr e quency

F Ratio

P ro b a b i l i t y

1.1451

M ea n

0.292

St andard Dev ia ti on

Tenure

24

92 .0000

11.6283

Probationary

14

87 .6428

12.9115

F re quency Count for Table 4.1
T/P

Choice Categories
1

2

3

4

Tenure

0

9

15

0

Probationary

0

7

7

0

Cho ic e Category
Definitions:
1-Strongly agree
2 -Tend
to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

63

TABLE 4. 2 . — D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Self.
C a t e g o r y V a r i a b l e — T e n u r e / P r o b a t i o n a r y (T/P).
Source of
Variation

Mean
Square

Degrees of
Freedom

T/P
Error

T/P

F Ra tio

1

499 .7396

36

116.4816

0 .046

4 .2903

Mean

Frequency

Probability

S t a n d a r d De vi at io n

Tenure

24

81.3750

10 .9059

Probationary

14

73.8571

10 .5892

F r e q u e n c y Co unt for Tab le 4.2
T/P

Choi ce C at eg or ie s
1

2

3

4

Tenure

1

13

10

0

Cho ic e C a t e g o r y
Definitions:

Probationary

1

11

2

0

1 - S t ro ng ly agree
2-Tend

to agree

3-Tend to di sa gr e e
4 - S t r on gl y d i s a gr ee

64

TABLE 4.3.--Dependent V a r i a b l e — Perception of This Program.
Category V a r i a bl e -- Te nu re /P ro ba ti o na ry (T/P).
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

T/P
Error

T/P

Mean
Square

1

99 .3010

36

43.1714

F Ratio

0.138

2.3001

Mean

Frequency

P ro ba bility

Standard Deviation

Tenure

24

43 .7083

7.2440

Probationary

14

40 .3571

5.1680

Frequency Count for Table 4.3
T/P

Choice Category
1 2
3
4

Tenure

1

12

11

0

Probationary

1

19

4

0

Choice Category
Definitions:
1-Strongly agree
2-Tend

to agree

3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

65

TABLE 5.1.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — P er ception of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
Category V a r i a b l e — Department.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Department
Error

Department

Mean
Square

F Ratio

8

187.3777

29

136.0709

Frequency

Art
Business
English
Home Economics
Math
Physical Education
Sc}ence
Shcp
Social Studies

Mean

2
5
7
1
6
3
5
3
6

Probab i li ty

1.3770

0.248

Standard Deviation

104 .5000
97.6000
85 .1428
91.0000
97.5000
85 .0000
87 .0000
89.3333
84 .6666

16.2634
7.0922
13.8495
0.0000
6.1756
2.6457
17.3060
9 .5043
11.9275

Frequency Count for Table 5.1
Department

Choice Category
1 2
3
4

Art
Business
English
Home E c o n .
Math
Physical Ed.
Science
Shop
Social Stu.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
3
0
1
3
2
2
5

2
5
4
1
5
0
3
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Choice C ategory
Definitions:
1-Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

66
Figures

for the mean, standard deviation,

and frequency spread

are also presented.
Table 5.2 indicates no significant d ifferences among the
means of teachers in various depart me n ts and how each d e p a r t m e n
perceives the Unit Step p r o g r a m and its re l at io ns hi p to t h e m ­
selves.

Figures for the mean, s t a n d a r d deviation,

and frequenc

spread are also given.
Table 5.3 indicates no signifi ca n t di ff erences among the
means of teachers in various departm en ts and how each d e p a r t ­
ment perceives the Unit Step program,
mean, standard deviation,

per s e .

Figures

for the

and frequency spread are also given.

Vari ab le Six
The sixth q uestion was tested by the t s ta tistic and
analysis of conting en cy table.
Question Six
6.

What is the est im at e of d i f f e re nc e in the p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit Step p r o g r a m b e t we en 10th and 12 graders?

Table 6.1 indicates there is no si gn if i ca nt d if fe r en ce
between the means of 10th grade and 12th grade students in how
each grade perceives the Unit Step p r o g r a m and its relationship
to others.

Figures for the mean,

sta nd a rd deviation,

and fre­

quency spread are also presented.
Table 6.2 indicates there is no s ig n i f i c a n t difference
between the means of 10th grade and 12 grade students in how
each grade perceives the U ni t Step p r o g r a m and its relationship
to themselves.

Figures

for the mean,

frequency spread are also presented.

s tandard de v iation and

67

TABLE 5 .2.--Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Self.
Ca te go ry V a r i a b l e — D e p a r t m e n t .
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
F r ee do m

Department
Error

Department

Mean
Square

8

83.6539

29

138.7533

F r equency
2
5
7
1
6
3
5
3
6

Art
Business
English
Home Economics
Math
Physical Education
Science
Shop
Social Studies

F Ratio

Probability

0.6029

0.768

S t a n da rd De vi at io n

M ea n
87.5000
83 .2000
78.5714
77.0000
83.1666
76.0000
75.0000
75.6666
73.3333

10.6066
14.1315
11.0281
0.0000
11.7884
1.0000
12.3490
12 .4230
12.3881

F re quency Count for Table 5.2
Department

Choice Category
1

Art
Business
English
Home E c o n .
Math
Physical Ed.
Science
Shop
Social Stu.

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
1
3
4
1
3
3
3
2
4

3

4

1
2
3
0
3
0
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Cho ic e Category
Definitions:
1-Strongly agree
2 -Tend to agree
3-Tend to d isagree
4-Strongly di sa gr ee

68

TABLE 5.3.- -Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This Program.
C ategory V a r i a b l e — De pa rt me nt
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Department

Mean
Square

8

36.5681

Error

29

46.9285

Department

F r e q u en cy

Mean

2
5
7
1
6
3
5
3
6

47.5000
45 .2000
42 .2857
46.0000
45.1666
41.3333
41.4000
40.6666
37.8333

Art
Business
English
Home Economics
Math
Physical Education
Science
Shop
Social Studies

F Ratio

Probability

0.7792

0.624

Sta nd a rd Dev ia ti on
6 .36 39
3 .1144
8.9389
0 .0000
7.2778
3.0550
5.0299
8.3266
7.4677

Fre qu e nc y Count for Table 5.3
Department

Choice C a t e go ry
1 2
3
4

Art
Business
English
Home E c o n .
Math
Physical Ed.
Science
Shop
Social Stu.

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
2
3
0
3
3
3
2
4

1
3
3
1
3
0
2
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

C ho i c e C a te g o r y
Definitions:
1 -Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to d isagree
4-Strongly dis ag re e

69

TABLE 6 . 1 . - - D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e - - P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
C a t e g o r y V a r i a b l e — 10th and 12th G r a d e Students.
Source of
V ar iation

Degr ee s of
Freedom

Grade

1

Error

463

Mean
Square

F Ratio

2 0 9 .2 68 7

Probability

1.67062

0.194

125.2640

Grade

Frequency

Mean

10th

269

78.7435

11.7501

12th

196

80.1020

10.3764

Frequency Percentages
Grade

Standard Deviation

for T a bl e 6.1

C h o ic e C a t e g o r i e s
1

2

3

4

10th

4.08

72.86 2 1 . 93

1.11

12th

3.57

68.87

1.53

26.02

Choice Category
Definitions:
agree
2 - T e n d to agree
3-Tend to d i s a g r e e
4-Strongly disagree

70

TABLE 6 .2 .--Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Self.
Cat eg or y V a r i a b l e — 10th and 12th Graders.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
F re ed om

Mean
Square

F Ratio

P r o b a bi li ty

Grade

1

29.2894

0.2256

Error

463

129.8370

Grade

F re quency

10th

269

82 .8029

11.7658

12th

196

83.3112

10.8637

M ea n

0.640

S t a n d a r d D e v i at io n

Frequency p er c e n t a g e s for Table 6.2
Grade
1

Choice Categories
2
3
4

10th

3.34

63.19

32.71

.74

Choice C ategory
Definitions:

12th

4.08

61.22

34.18

.51

X-Strongly agree
2 -Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly di sagree

71
Table 6.3 indicates there is no significant difference
between the means of 10th grade and 12 grade students in how
each grade perceives the Unit Step program, per s e .
for the mean,

standard deviation,

Figures

and frequency spread are als<

presented.
Variable Seven
The seventh ques ti on was tested by the t statistic and
analysis of contingency table.
Question Seven
7.

What is the estimate of difference in perception of
the Unit Step p r o g r a m b e tw ee n boys and girls in
grades 10 to 12?

Table 7.1 indicates there is a significant difference
between the means of male and female students in h ow each p e r ­
ceives the Unit Step p r o g r a m in r elationship to o t h e r s .
ures for the mean,

standard deviation,

Fig­

and frequency spread

are also presented.
Table 7.2 indicates there is a significant difference
between the means of male and female students in how each p e r ­
ceives the Unit Step p r o g ra m and its re lationship to t h e m ­
selves.

Figures for the mean,

sta nd ar d deviation,

and fre­

quency spread are also presented.
Table 7.3 indicates the presence of a signif ic a nt d i f ­
ference b etween the means of male and female students in how
each perceives the Un i t Step program, per s e .
mean, standard deviation,
sented .

Figures for the

and frequency spread are also p r e ­

72

TABLE 6 .3 . --Dependent Var ia bl e- - Pe rc ep ti on of This Program.
Category Variab le -- 10 th and 12th G r a d e r s .
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Grade

1

Error

463

Mean
Square

F Ratio

16.2112

Probability

0.4619

0.504

35.0927

Grade

Frequency

Mean

10th

269

39.1933

6.0962

12th

196

39.5714

5.6785

Frequency percentages
Grade

Standard Deviation

for Table 6.3

Choice categories
1
2
3
4

10 th

15.24 76.20

8.55

0.00

Choice Category
Definitions:

12th

12.75 77.55

9.96

0.00

1-Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4 -Strongly disagree

73

T A B L E 7 . 1 . — D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
C a t egory V a r i a b l e — Boys and Girls, G r ades 10 to 12.

Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Sex
Error

Sex

Mean
Squar e

1

1106.2227

678

126.1223

Frequency

F Ra tio

Probability

8.7710

Mean

0.003

Standard Deviation

Male

289

80.7923

11.6963

Female

391

78.2122

10.87.35

Frequency Percentages
Sex

for T a b l e 7.1

C ho i c e C a t e g o r i e s
1

2

3

4

Male

2.76

69.89

24.56

2.76

Female

5.11

72.37

22.25

0.25

Choice Category
Definitions:
1 _s t r o n , ly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to d i s ag re e
4 - S t r on gl y d i s a g r e e

74

TABLE 7.2.— Dependent Variable--Percep tion of This Progra m and
Self.
Category Variable--Boys and Girls, Grades 10 to 12.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
F r e ed om

Sex

Mean
Square

1

Error

580.0795

678

Sex

F Ratio

Probability

4.4302

0.034

130.9378

Frequency

Mean

Male

289

84.0346

11.3776

Female

391

82.1662

11.4907

Frequency Percentages
Sex

Standard Deviation

for Table 7.2

Choice Categories
2

Male

2.42

59.16

Female

3.83

65.47

3
37.71
30.17

4
0.69

Choice Category
Definitions:

0.51

1-Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

75

TABLE

7.3.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — Perception of This Program.
Category Varia ble--Boys and Girls, Grades 10 to 12.
Degrees of
Freedom

Source of
Variation
Sex
Error

Sex

Mean
Square

1

216.3271

678

36.0680

F Ratio

Probab il i ty

5.997

0.014

Frequency

Mean

Male

289

39 ,,9031

6 .0802

Female

391

38.7621

5.9499

Standard Deviation

Frequency percentages for Table 7.3
Choice Categories

Sex
1

2

3

4

Male

12.11

77.85

10 .03

0.00

Choice Category
Definitions:

Female

17.64

74.16

8 .18

0.00

1-Strongly agree
2-Tend
to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

76
Var ia bl e Eight
The eighth q uestion was tested by one-way analysis of
variance and analysis of co nt ingency table.
Question Eight
8.

What is the est im at e of differ en c e in pe rc eption of
the U nit Step p r o g r a m among students in grades 10
to 12 in the various academic grade categories?

Table 8.1 indicates no signif ic an t differences among the
means of grade point average groups

in how each perceives the

unit Step p r o g ra m in re lationship to o t h e r s .
mean,

standard deviation,

Figures

for the

and frequency spread are also p r e ­

sented .
Table 8.2 indicates no significant differences among the
means of grade point average groups in h o w each perceives the
Unz.t Step p r o g r a m in r elationship to themselves.
the mean,

standard deviation,

Figures

for

and frequency spread are also

p r e s en te d.
Table 8.3 indicates no s i g n i fi ca nt d ifferences among the
means of grade point average groups in how each perceives the
Unit Step program, per s e .
deviation,

Figures

for the mean,

standard

and frequency spread are also presented.
V a r i a b l e Nine

The ninth ques ti on was tested by the t statistic and
analysis of contin g en cy table.

77

8.1 . --Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
Ca teg o r y V a r i a b l e — Grade Point Average (GPA).

TABLE

Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

GPA
Error

Mean
Square

3

103.1270

676

127.6742

GPA

Fre qu e nc y

Mean

0.493

S t a n d a r d D e v i at io n

259

14 .3982
11.4661

339
52

78.6401
79.6346

11.0499
10.0059

30

C- to C+
B- to B+
A- or above

F re quency Pe rc entages

D+ or below
C- to C+
B- to B+
A- or above

0.8077

P r o b a b il it y

80.0000
80 .0386

D+ or below

GPA

F Ratio

Choice Categories
1
2
3

for Table 8.1

4

10 .00

46 .66

43 .33

0 .00

3.47

24 .71
20 .64

1.93

4.42

69 .88
74 .04

1.92

75 .00

21 .15

0.88
1.92

Choi ce Ca te go r y
Definitions:
1-Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

78

TABLE 8 . 2 . — D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Self.
C a t e g o r y V a r i a b l e — G r ade P o i n t A v e r a g e ( G P A ) .
Source of
Variation

D egrees of
Freedom

GPA
Error

GPA

Mean
Square

3

252 .4724

676

131.0628

1.9263

Mean

Frequency

D+ or b e lo w

F Rati o

Probability
0.122

Standard Deviation

30

81. 0666

13.9405

C- to C+

259

84 .2277

11.2159

B- to B+

339

82 .1327

11.4815

52

83 .1346

10 .8012

A- or above

Frequency Percentages
GPA
1
D+ or below

C h o i c e Ca t e g o r i e s
2
3

for T a b l e 8.2
4

10.00

53.33

36 .66

0 .00

C- to C+

2.70

60.23

36 .67

0 .38

B- to B+

2.94

66.07

30 .08

0 .88

A- or above

3.84

59.61

36 .53

0 .00

Choice Category
Definitions:
1 - S t r on g ly agree
2-Tend to ag ree
3-Tend to d i s a g r e e
4-Strongly disagree

79

TABLE 8.3.--Dependent V a r i a b l e — Perception of This Program.
Category V a r i a b l e — Grade Point Average (GPA).
Source of
Variation
GPA
Error

GPA

Degrees of
Freedom

Mean
Square

3
676

43.4328
36.3020

Frequency

F Ratio
1.1964

Mean

Probability
0.310

Standard Deviation

D+
C-

or below
to C+

30
259

39.9333
39.3243

6.6640
6.1822

BA-

to B+
or above

339
52

38.9351
40.5000

6.0109
4.8080

Frequency Percentages for Table 8.3
GPA

Choice Categories

D+
C-

or below
to C+

10.00
16.60

83.33
74.90

6.66
8.49

0.00
0.00

BA-

to B+
or above

16.22
5.76

74.33
84.61

9.43
9.61

0.00
0.00

Choice Category
Definitions:
1-Strongly agree
2-Tend to agree
3-Tend to disagree
4-Strongly disagree

80
Question Nine
9.

What is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n of
the Unit Step p r o g r a m b e t w e e n students w h o w i l l c o n ­
tinue their e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d high school and those
who do not p l a n on c o n t i n u i n g their e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d
high school?

Table 9.1 indicates

the pr es e n c e of a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­

ference b e t w ee n the m e a ns of those w h o w i l l or w o n ' t con ti nu e
their e d u c at io n and h o w each g r o u p p e r c e i v e s the U n i t S tep
program in its r e l a t i o n s h i p to others.

Figures for the mean,

standard d e v i a t i o n and fre q ue nc y s pr e a d are also presented.
Table 9.2 in dicates the p r e se nc e of a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­
ference b e t we en the m e a n s of those w h o will o r w o n ' t c o n t i n u e
their e d u c at io n and h ow e ac h g r o up p e r c ei ve s the U n i t S t e p
program and themselves.

Figu re s

for the mean,

standard devi­

ation and frequency sp re a d are also presented.
Table 9.3 i nd icates no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
the means of those w h o w i l l or w o n ' t c on ti n u e their e d u c a t i o n
and how each g r ou p p e r c e i v e s the U ni t Step program,
Figures for the mean,

per s e .

s t a nd ar d d e v i a t i o n and fr eq ue nc y spre a d

are also presented.
V a r i a b l e Ten
The tenth q u e s t i o n was

tested by the t statistic.

Question Ten
10.

How do the p e r c e p t i o n s of te ac h e r s compare wi t h
those of s tudents in the fol lo w in g three areas:
a.
b.
c.

Perception
Perception
Perception

of this p r o g r a m and others?
of this p r o g r a m and self?
of this program?

81

TABLE 9.1.- - D e pe nd en t V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Others.
Cat eg or y V a r i a b l e — C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n B e y on d High
School.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Mean
Square

1

855 .9497

678

126.4914

Continue e d .
Error

Continue E d .

Frequency

F Ratio
6 .7668

Mean

Probability
0 .009

Standard Deviation

Will

522

79 .6915

11.0134

Won ’t

158

81 .3481

11.9888

F r e q ue nc y P e r c e n t a g e s
Continue Ed.

Ch oi c e C a t e g o r i e s
1
2
3

for Table 9.1

4

Will

4.21

72.60

22.03

1.14

C h o i c e C a t e go r y
Definitions:

Won *t

3.79

67.08

27.21

1.89

1 -S tr on gl y agree
2-Tend
to agree
3-Tend to d i s a g r e e
4-S tr on gl y d i s a g r e e

82

TABLE 9 .2.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
Self.
Category V a r i a b l e — C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n B e y o n d High
School.
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Continue e d .
Error

Continue Ed.

Mean
S q ua re

1

652.2874

678

130.8313

F Ratio
4.9857

M ean

F r e qu en c y

Probability
0.024

Standard Deviation

Will

522

82.4214

11. 3478

W o n 't

158

84 .7405

11.7327

Fre qu e nc y P e r c e n t a g e s
Continue E d .
1

for T a b le 9.2

Choi ce Ca t e g o r i e s
2
3
4

Will

3.44

63.60

32.56

0.38

W o n 't

2.53

60.12

36.07

1.26

Choice Category
Definitions:
1-S tr on gl y agree
2-T en d
to agree
3-Tend to dis ag re e
4 - S t r o n g l y dis ag re e

83

TABLE 9.3.— Dependent V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This Program.
Category V a r i a b l e — C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n B e yond High S c h o o l .
Source of
Variation

Degrees of
Freedom

Continue Ed.
Error

Mean
S q u ar e

1

38.0845

678

36.3309

Continue E d .

Frequency

F R atio
1 .0482

M ea n

Probability
0.307

Standard Deviation

Will

522

39.1168

5.9279

W o n 't

158

39.6772

6.3157

Fre qu en cy P e r c e n t a g e s
Continue Ed.
1

for T a b le 9,3

C h oi ce C a t e g o r i e s
2
3
4

will

16.28

75.28

8.42

0.00

C h oi ce C a t e g o r y
Definitions:

Won ’t

12.02

77.21

10.75

0.00

1 - S t ro ng ly agree
2-Tend
to agree
3-Tend to d i s a g r e e
4 - S t ro ng ly d i s a g r e e

84
Table 10.1 indicates there is a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
between the means of st udents and tea c he rs in h o w e ach g r o u p
perceives the Unit Step p r o g r a m and its r e l a t i o n s h i p to others
Other figures included are those for the m ea n and s t a n d a r d
deviation.
Table 10.2 indicates there is a s ig n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
between the means of students and teac he rs in ho w each g r o up
perceives the U n it Step p r o g r a m and its r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e m ­
selves.

Other figures i ncluded are t hose for the m e a n and

standard deviation.
Table 10.3 indicates the p r e s e n c e of a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­
ference between the means of stu de nt s and tea ch er s
group perceives the U n i t Step program,

p er se.

in h o w each

Fig ur e s

for

the mean and sta n da rd d e v i a t i o n are also included.
V a r i a b l e Elev en
The e l e v e n t h q u e s t i o n was t e s te d by c o n t e n t analysis.
11.

What are the mo s t favorable and least favorable
aspects of the Unit Step p r o g r a m as p e r c e i v e d by
teachers and students?

Faculty Favorable Com me nt s
In ex pr essing w ha t they liked mo s t a b ou t the Unit Step
program, most teachers we r e a p p a r e nt ly m or e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the
needs of students bei ng met rather than their own.

Many re­

marked that Unit Step has p r o v i d e d a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y

for

students to choose courses that b e tt er m e e t th eir special
needs or interests because of the g r e a t e r v a r i e t y offered.

85

TABLE 10.1.— D e p e nd e nt V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m and
others.
C ategory V a r i a b l e — S tudents and T e a c h e r s (Population).
Source of
Variance
Population
Error

Population

Deg re es of
Freedom
1
716

Frequency

Mean
Square

F R a ti o

4422 .9 39 7

34.3987

Probability
0.0005

128.5785

Mean

Standard Deviation

Students

680

79.3088

11.2945

Teachers

38

90 .3947

12.1311

86

TABLE 10.2.— De p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This P r o g r a m
and Self.
C a t e g o r y V a r i a b l e — St udents and T e a ch e rs (Population!
Source of
Variation
Population

Degrees of
Freedom

Mean
Square

1

682.5752

Error

716

1 31.3533

Population

Frequency

F Ratio
5.1964

Mean

P r o b a b i 1 i ty
0 .002

S t a n d a r d Deviati<

Students

680

82.9603

11.4716

Teachers

38

78.6052

11.2623

87

TABLE 10.3.— Dependent. V a r i a b l e — P e r c e p t i o n of This Program.
Category V a r i a b l e — Students and Tea c he rs
(Population).
Source of
Variation
Population
Error

Population

Degrees of
Freedom

Mean
Square

F Ratio

1

374.6840

10 .1912

716

36.7653

Frequency

M ea n

Probability
0.002

Standard Deviation

Students

680

39.2470

6 .0277

Teachers

38

42.4736

6 .6849

88
Teachers g e n e r al ly re c o g n i z e that the w i d e r s e l e c t i o n of
courses makes it p o s s i b l e

for s tu de n t s to e x p e r i e m n t w i t h

increased e x p os ur e to b oth courses and t e a c h e r s ; in the t r a ­
ditional p r o g r a m the a b i l it y to sch ed ul e in this m a n n e r was
extremely limited.

The faculty also feels the w i d e r v a r i e t y

of courses better me ets the needs of all students w i t h v a r y ­
ing abilities,

i nc luding the slow and e x c e p t i o n a l l y able.

Over half the te achers c o m m e n t e d on the p r e s e n c e of a
high degree of s t u d en t and t e a c he r i nterest in this program.
Several reasons are a t t r i b u t e d to this.

It was p o i n t e d out

that full year courses can be as b o r i n g for the t e a c he r as
they are for the student,
less possible.

It was

b ut that s h o rt er terms m a d e this

s u g g e st ed that student inte re st m i g h t

have been e n h a n c e d s o m e wh at b e c a u s e of b e t t e r c l a s s r o o m d i s ­
cipline resulting,
nongraded classes.

in part,

from the h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y mixed,

T e a c h e r interest,

it was

felt,

is i n ­

creased in part due to the c h a l l e n g e of p r e p a r i n g new course
content and the tendency to do a m o r e t h o r o u g h job in p l a n n i n g
daily and w e e kl y lessons.

Last yea r' s

lesson p lans that w e r e

used in the traditi on al p r o g r a m are of no use in U n i t Step.
A fresh approach to wa r d p l a n n i n g has e n c o u r a g e d teachers to
examine traditional m e t h o d s of course p r e p a r a t i o n and c l a s s ­
room t e a c h i n g .
Interest of teachers

is e n h a n c e d in a n o t he r way.

Teacher

now have a gre a te r o p p o r t u n i t y to teach in areas w i t h i n their
fields of preparation.

One reason for this is that the courses

in Unit Step have b ee n p l a n n e d by those w h o teach them.

89
Unit Step also stimulates mo r e i nterest among t eachers
because it provides

an o p p o r t u n i t y to meet more people.

As

indicated by the responses to the o p e n - e n d e d statements,
students like this aspect of the p r o g r a m as m u c h as teachers.
The faculty r e c o g ni ze d failures

in class w o r k and d i f ­

ficulties e xp e r i e n c e d in t e a c h e r / s t u d e n t p e r s o n a l i t y a d j u s t ­
ment to be less p u n i s h i n g in Unit Step than was true in the
traditional program.

One t e a c he r e l a b o r a t e d by s ay i n g these

are less punishing in the sense that the e i g ht w ee k p e r io d of
time helps e st ablish a p s y c h o l o g i c a l

frame of m i n d w h e r e b y one

can live with an u n c o m f o r t a b l e s i t u a t i o n if there is at least
hope that things can be improved upon in the n e x t shift.
When a student has an i n s t r uc to r and a c o u rs e for a full year,
neither of w h i ch he p a r t i c u l a r l y cares
haps, of his choosing,

for and w e r e not, p e r ­

his frame of m i n d to wa r d s t u dy in g and

personal adjustment m ay be negative.
Some teachers feel this p r o g r a m is an a t te mp t to m o d e r n ­
ize and improve e d u c a t i o n in Howell.

As r e p or te d by one,

there is nothing in the h i s t o r y of e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e that
should be con si de r ed sacrosanct.

A n o t h e r r e m a r k e d there are

those innumerable sacr ed cows in e d u c a t i o n that e d u c a to rs and
lay people alike refu se to sac r if ic e b e c a u s e of t r a d it io n
and/or sentimentality.

The faculty g e n e r a l l y felt that Unit

Step appears to more p r a c t i c a l l y m e e t m o d e r n needs of s tudents
than does a t raditional p r o g r a m b e c a u s e of the i n c r e a s e d
variety of courses and an i n -depth appr oa ch to sp ec i f i c areas

90
of interest.

Th ere is hope that Un i t St e p is just the b e ­

ginning of e x p l o r a t i o n into n e w and b e t t e r wa y s of ed u c a t i n g
youngsters.
Teacher O bj ections
Teachers'

o b j e c t i o n s to the Unit Step p r o g r a m w e r e m ore

varied and in g r e at er v o lu me than w e r e their favorable c o m ­
ments.

Co m pl ai nt s c e n t e r e d a ro u n d four p r i m a r y areas:

dent reaction to the p r o g r a m as teachers
preparation,

s ch e d u l i n g of classes,

see this,

stu­

classroom

and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support.

Some feel that the p r o g r a m makes no p r o v i s i o n for the
immature student.

This

i m m a t u r i t y suggests that there w i ll

not be as high a capability,

as wi l l be fo und w it h m o r e m a t u r e

students, to make s uitable p r o g r a m c hoices

for himself.

This

student needs to be m o re q u i c k l y i d e n t i f i e d than is pre se nt l y
the case; gu idance sh ou l d be s t r u c t u r e d in such a m a n n e r that
it will be flexible e no u g h to deal w ith these s p e ci fi c needs.
If the immature student d o e s n ' t receive p r o p e r guidance,
may be tempted to enroll

he

in courses that r e q ui re the least

amount of academic e f f or t on his part.
The p r o b l e m c r e at ed by the student w h o decides to q uit
working in a course needs to be explored,

some felt.

W h en a

student decides to take a failing grade for a course after
being in it for o nl y two or three w e e k s , the r e m a i n d e r of his
time in class is v i r t u al ly wasted.

This attitude,

it is r e ­

ported, is hardly c o n d u ci ve to p r e p a r a t i o n for life after the
high school e x p e r i e n c e is completed.

Some suggest that shifts

91
be extended from eight to ten weeks to better cope w i th this
and other problems.

Perhaps,

as suggested,

this w ould p r o ­

vide a better chance to know and u nd erstand a student and his
individual problems by infusing personableness into an o t h e r ­
wise impersonal structure.
Academic p reparation for teachers in daily lessons has
apparently increased with the introduction of Unit Step.
Some described this as a " b u r d e n " , expecially for those areas
of instruction that require the most paperwork assignments
from students.

Some groups of students may also require more

preparation than do others.

For example,

in the opinion e x ­

pressed by one teacher, classes that are pr edominantly composed
of low achievers require more creative planning if the classes
are to be "alive and interesting."

A n o th er teacher felt that

this general excess w ork load justifies extra compensation.
The need to prepare four or five daily preparations comes
in for criticism from m any staff members.

Some feel this could

be alleviated somewhat if the number of course offerings were
compatible with the size of the staff.

It is su ggested that

the program may have grown too fast because the size of the
teaching staff hasn't made a gain commensurate with that of
the number of course offerings.

This, of course, necessitates

more daily preparations per teacher.

One teacher remarked

that exclusive of his first year of teaching, he's never put
as much extra time on p reparation of lessons as was required
this year.

92
The remark of one teacher in regards to s c h e d u l i n g of
classes for students was put s u c c i nc tl y and perhaps best e x ­
presses the feelings of his colleagues.
"is for the birds."

"Scheduling," he said,

There are several reasons for this p r e ­

vailing attitude.
What is g e n e r a l l y thought to have b e e n the res ul t of
lack of adequate p r o g r a m p r e p a r a t i o n and s u f f i c i e n t o r g a n i z a ­
tion is at tr i bu te d to this a ttitude t ow a r d scheduling.

Many

teachers feel that co un selors are r e q u ir ed to spend too m u c h
time in the s c h e d ul in g phase of the p r o g r a m and not e n o ug h in
the area of counseling.

This results,

in the v i e w of the

faculty, in s tudents not b e i n g s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f o r m e d about
courses before p r e - e n r o l l m e n t day comes around.
Other sc h e d u l i n g cr it ic is ms are:
1.

Counselors n ee d more time to fa mi li ar iz e t h e m ­

selves with all aspects of Unit S te p and s h o ul d c o n c e n t r a t e on
direct assistance to students.

They should not,

as s u g g e s t e d

above, have p rimary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for s c h e d u l i n g of students
into classes;
2.

There are too m a n y c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n U n i t Step and

year-round courses.

Because of this stud en ts may find t h e m ­

selves having to m a ke some very d i f f i c u l t de c i s i o n s that
shouldn't be req ui re d of them;
3.

Th ere shou ld be m or e cour se s to facilitate b e t te r

scheduling;

93
4.

Too many students can't get the classes they want

and are too often put into sections just because they are
available;
5.

There's a tendency on the part of the counselors to

make too many choice-of-course decisions for the students; and
6.

The upheaval every eight weeks created by the t erm­

ination of one shift and the start of another is upsetting to
students.
Many teachers ex pressed the opinion that the hi g h school
administrative staff tends to remain aloof from the Unit Step
program.

It was generally felt the Unit Step p r o g r a m w o u ld

stand a better chance of succeeding if the ad m in istration was
more directly involved in the problems created by the program.
Teachers seemed to be either directly or indirectly im­
plying that the pro gr am needs more intensive leadership on
this level.

Apparently a ma jo ri t y on the teaching staff felt

there is a lack of en th us ia sm and/or approval for the Unit
Step program from building administrator's.

Some teachers

feel the administrators are more or less separate from their
group in trying to make the p r o g ra m succeed.
Student Attitudes
Student responses favoring the U ni t Step p r o g r a m can be
classified into one general category.

For the most part,

this

program has made school more interesting than did the tradi­
tional program.

This classification can in turn be sub­

classified into two additional a r e a s — variety of courses and

94
student/teacher relations.

N e g at iv e o b j e c t i o n s to the Unit

Step program follow the p a t te rn set by the t e a c h e r s .

T h at i s ,

these responses w ere more v ar i e d and almost twice that of
favorable comments.
The g reatest n u mb er of stud en t responses
program focuses on variety of courses.

f avoring the

For the m o s t part,

students regard this to be a boon for c a re er preparation.
They appreciate not h a v i n g to sit thro ug h a limited n u mb e r of
courses for an e n t ir e y ea r w h e r e only a small p e r c e n t a g e of
pertinent or in te re st in g m a t e r i a l m a y be presented.
categorizes various

Unit Step

i nterest levels as e v i d e n c e d by the cour se

titles, providing a v a r i et y w h i c h m a ke s it p o s s i b l e that there
is even a choice of courses in the r e q u i r e d areas is a p p r e ­
ciated.

It is also r e c o g n i z e d that the i n c re as e d v a r i e t y of

courses encourages a degree of s t u d e n t i n d e p e n d e n c e in s e l e c ­
tion of c o u r s e s .
This p r o g r a m is in t e r p r e t e d b y m a n y s t u de nt s as a l m o s t
a means of escape.

Several cited a p p ro va l of the short,

e ight

week shifts p r i m a r i l y b e c a u se they feel there is a less
strained relation b e t w e e n th e m and the t e a ch er w h o m they may
dislike,

for w h a t e v e r reason.

several i n s t a n c e s .

This w as state d e m p h a t i c a l l y in

But m a n y stu d en ts are a lso a p p r e c i a t i v e of

the fact that they n o w have an o p p o r t u n i t y to be e x p o s e d to
more instructors.

Some c o m m e n t e d that teac he r s a p pe ar to

communicate wi t h them more

like friends than as teachers.

This is an i nteresting distinction.

95
Several responses w e r e ma d e w h i c h r e f l e c t e d n e g a t i v e l y
upon the eight week per io d of time.
be too short.

Some felt the shifts to

No sooner does one get into a class and b e g i n

to understand what is b eing tau gh t w h e n it's time to mo v e on
to another shift.

As one c o n s e q u e n c e of this,

ideas of a

broad and general natu re are not g iven e no u g h emphasis.

Stu­

dents recognize that some subjects r e q ui re m o r e time to be
examined in depth and m ore thoroughly.

M o r e time w o u l d also

allow greater o p p o r t u n i t y to get to k n o w teachers and students
b ette r .
But the e i g ht w ee k shift is o b j e c t e d to for a n o t h er and
perhaps more p e r t i n e n t reason by others.

It appears to some

students that there are some teac h er s w h o h a v e n ' t yet m a d e an
adjustment away from the t ra d i t i o n a l approach.
denced by several

factors.

given in greater amounts.

This is e v i ­

For one thing, h o m e w o r k is b e i n g
In addition, w o r k

in the c l a s s r o o m

or assignments o u t si de of class aren't s p r e ad ou t e v e n l y o ver
the eight week period.

In some classes,

obj ec ti ve s are

reached too early in the shift and as a c o n s e q u e n c e there's
nothing to do d u r in g the r e m a i ni ng time.

At o t h e r times, w o rk

that should have be e n g i v en e a r l i e r in the s h if t is c r a m m e d
into the final two weeks,

c a u s in g an inc re as e in h o m e w o r k

assignments during p r e p a r a t i o n for e x a m i n a t i o n s in this and
other classes.

Some students

i n t e r p r e t these factors as a

lack of interest on the part of some tea ch er s to do their b est
to see that the Unit Step p r o g r a m s u c c e e d s .

96
Many students h a v e the i m p r e s s i o n there aren't enou gh
teachers and/or cour s es

for the program.

This

is perhaps due

in part to a gen er al state of c o n f u s i o n s u r r o u n d i n g the p r o ­
gram from a stu de n t perspective.
ions contribute to this view:

The f o l lo wi ng stu d en t o p i n ­

there are i n s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c ­

tions given out b e t w e e n shift changes to tell students w h a t
is expected of them;
what the synopses

some classes as taught a r e n' t always

lead one to b e l i e v e is to be the course

content; the stu de nt b o d y w a s n ' t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e p a r e d for
this program;

there seems to be a lack of p r o p e r o r g a n i z a t i o n

on the part of the those a d m i n i s t e r i n g the program;

in s e v ­

eral instances teachers have not r e c e i v e d their t e a c h i n g
materials on time;

and,

the e nd and start of each n ew shift

are viewed as p a n d e m o n i u m b e c a u s e of the lack o f p r o p e r g u i d ­
ance on course se l e c t i o n and the m a n y p r o bl em s c r e a t e d by
class scheduling.
The scheduling p r o bl e ms are ma n y and varied.
several who state they c o u ld n 't get the classes
pre-enrolled.

There are

for w h i c h they

S ections of some cou rs es are too q u i c k l y filled

and too often study hall is the only alternative.

Finally,

the number of class c on flicts in the s c h e du le s are a p p a r e n t l y
numerous at the start of each n e w shift.
Additional comments that w e r e m ad e b y s t udents are:
1.
of their peers.

Students ap p re ci at e the o p p o r t u n i t y to m e e t m an y
The d e v e l o p m e n t of f riendships is thought to

be an important asset of this program.

97
2.

The o p p o rt un it y to c o m pl et e course re qu ir em en ts

leading to gr a d u a t i o n e a r l i e r than us ual gives some seniors
the opportunity to leave school to e n t er c o l l e ge or get a job
before the end of a normal school y e a r — this is also c o n s i d e r e d
as a definite p r o g r a m asset;
3.
program.
grades,

Some students feel they are learning m o r e on this
The only e vi d e n c e g i ve n for this o p i n i o n is that
for some, are h i g h e r in U ni t Step c ourses than was

true in the traditional program;
4.

and

The focus upon specific events or areas in a cours e

helps some to bet t er u n d e r s t a n d the total picture.

T h ere are

less who feel that focusing on s p e c i fi c things caus es c o n f u ­
sion of the total picture.
S ummary of An al ys es
The following summary of analyses of teacher and s t u ­
dent responses lists the various c a t e go ry b r e a k d o w n s w it h
accompanying p r o b a bi li ty tables.

The summary c o n c l ud es wi t h

coirments in regards to the o p e n - e n d e d response items .
Categories of teacher p e r c e p t i o n

Probabilities

Length of service
Others
Self

(Table 1.1)

(Table 1.2)

P r o g ra m

(Table 1.3)

0.453
0.590
0.404

Categories of t e a ch er p e r c e p t i o n

Probabilities

Sex
O t he rs
Self

(Table 2.1)

(Table 2.2)

Program

(Table 2.3)

0 .035*
0 .170
0.013*

Degree
Oth er
Self

(Table 3.1)
(Table 3.2)

Program

(Table 3.3)

0.073
0 .269
0 .184

Tenure/probation
O t he r
Self

(Table 4.1)
(Table 4.2)

Program

(Table 4.3)

0 .292
0 .046*
0 .138

Department
Others
Self

(Table 5.1)

(Table 5.2)

Program

(Table 5.3)

Categories of student p e r c e p t i o n

0 .248
0 .768
0 .624
Probabilities

10th and 12th graders
Others
Self

(Table 6.1)

(Table 6.2)

Program

(Table 6.3)

0 .194
0 .640
0 .504

Sex
Others
Self

(Table 7.1)

(Table 7.2)

Program

(Table 7.3)

0 .003*
0.034*
0.014*

99
Categories of stud en t p e r c e p t i o n

Probabilities

Grade p o i nt average
Others
Self

(Table 8.1)

0 .493

(Table 8.2)

Program

0 .122

(Table 8.3)

0 .310

Continue e d u c a t i o n
Others
Self

0 .009*

(Table 9.1)

0.024*

(Table 9.2)

P r o g ra m

0 . 307

(Table 9.3)

Categories of st ud e n t / s t a f f p e r c e p t i o n
Other
Self

(Table 10.1)

0 .0005*
0 .0 0 2 *

(Table 10.2)

Program

Probabilities

(Table 10.3)

0 .0 0 2 *

(* denotes a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in p r o g r a m p e r ­
ception .)
In response to the o p e n - e n d e d s t a t em en ts on bo t h student
and teacher q ue st ionnaires,
ism by both groups.

there was an air of ca utious o p t i m ­

There is d e f i ni t e i nterest e x p r e s s e d in

the advantages to be g a i n e d in U n i t Step over the t r a d i t i o n a l
programs, but there is at the same time little h e s i t a t i o n to
list the p r o b le m areas along w i t h the p e r c e i v e d a d v a n t a g e s .
This is indicated by the fact that d i s a d v a n t a g e s that w e r e
listed o u tn um be re d the adv an ta ge s by a w i d e m a r g i n for both
groups.

The m a j o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s of this p r o g r a m w e r e a t t r i b u ­

ted to its o r g a n i z a t i o n a l structure.
There seems to be, on the whole,

a d e s ir e on the part of

most teachers and students to con ti nu e w o r k i n g w it h this

100
arrangement.

What is seen as three m a j o r a dv an ta ge s over

the other p r o g r a m are the e x p a n d e d curriculum,
duration,

s h o r t e r class

and improved s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r relations.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY,

CO N CLUSIONS,

DI S C U S S I O N

AND RECOMMENDATIONS
S um ma ry
Within the scope of this study the p e r c e pt io n s of
teachers and students on an intra- and i n t e r - gr ou p basis
at Howell Senior High School w e r e examined.

This p r o v i ­

ded a cross-sectional v i e w of the Unit S te p w i t h m o r e m e a n ­
ingful results than if only p e r c e p ti on s b e t w e e n teachers
and students had been examined.

T h e a wa reness of d i f f e r ­

ence of p rogram p e r c ep ti o n w i t h i n the s t u d en t and teacher
groups should be as m e a n i n g f u l as w o u l d the d if f e r e n c e s
between student and t e a c h e r groups.
The treatment to b o t h g ro u p s was

in the form of the

Unit Step pro gr a m in its first year of operation.

Estimates

of differences in p r og r am p e r c e p t i o n as an al y z e d from
responses to survey i nstruments
measures.

c o n s t i t u t e d the c r i t e r i a

The samples u s e d in the study w e r e total p o p u l a ­

tion g r o u p s .
The purpose of this study was to d e t e r m i n e the extent
of similarity and di ff er en ce b e t w e e n students and teachers
on how each perceives various phases of the Unit S t e p program.
101

102

The needs of this study w e r e to assist the H o w e l l staff
in Unit Step p r o g r a m p r o g r e s s i o n and in a s s i s t i n g o t h e r
schools w hich may be c o n t e m p l a t i n g m o v i n g into the U nit Step
or similar concept.
The

q ue stions c o n s id er ed in this study

were:

1.

W ha t is the e s t im at e o f d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit Step p r o g r a m a m on g teachers in the
various l e n g t h - o f - s e r v i c e ca te go ri es ?

2.

W ha t is the e s t im at e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit Step p r o g r a m b e t w e e n male and female
teachers?

3.

W h at is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U n it Step p r o g r a m b e t w e e n te ac he rs w h o have
bac he lo r' s deg re es to teachers w h o have m a s te r' s
degrees?

4.

Wh a t is the e st im a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit Step p r o g r a m b e t w e e n tenure and p r o ­
b a t i o n a r y teachers?

5.

What is the e s t im at e of d i f f e r e n c e a m on g the
v arious c u r r ic ul ar d e p a r t m e n t s in the p e r c e p t i o n
of the U n it Step pr ogram?

6.

Wh a t is the e s t i m a t e of d i f f e r e n c e in the p e r c e p ­
tion of the Unit S tep p r o g r a m b e t w e e n 10th and 12th
graders?

7.

W h a t is the e s t i ma te of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the Unit S te p p r o g r a m b e t w e e n boys and girls in
grades 10 to 12?

8.

Wh a t is the e s t i ma te of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U nit Step p r o g r a m a m o n g stu de nt s in grades
10 to 12 in the v a r io us academic grade c a t e g o r i e s ?

9.

W h a t is the e s t im at e of d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n
of the U nit S t e p p r o g r a m b e t w e e n stud en ts w h o w i l l
continue their e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d h ig h scho ol and
those w h o do n ot plan on c o n t i n u i n g t h e i r e d u c a t i o n
beyond hi g h school?

103
10.

How do the p e r c e pt i on s o f teachers compare w ith
those of students in the f o l l o w i n g three areas:
a.
b.
c.

11.

Perception
Perception
Perception

of this
of this
of this

p r o g r a m and others
p r o g r a m and self
program

What are the mo s t f av orable and least favorable
aspects of the Unit Step p r o g r a m as p e r c e i v e d
by teachers and students?

One of
for analysis

three techniques was a p p l i ed in this
of e ac h of these questions:

study

1) t sta t is ti c

or a combination of t st a ti st ic and analysis of co n t i n g e n c y
table

(ACT);

variance and

2)

a c o m b i n a t i o n o f o n e - w a y analysis

ACT; or,

of

3) c o n t e n t analysis.

The total Unit Step p o p u l a t i o n of te a ch e r s and students
was surveyed.

A m o n g the teachers,

staff of 48 were

38 o f a total hi g h school

involved in U n it Step and each re sp o nd ed

to the questionnaire.

There was a total of 97 4 students

enrolled at Howell Senior High School for the 1969-70 school
year.

Of this number 863 w e r e p r e s en t for the survey.

Because of spoiled optical s c a nn i ng sheets f ro m this group,
it was possible to use only 680.
Both students and teachers were g i v e n m a t c h i n g survey
instruments.

These w e re de si g n e d for this study and w ere

submitted to a field
Howell.

test b e f or e b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d in

The statements in the i nstruments c o v er ed a broad

spectrum of the total school atmosphere.

The instruments

were administered to the two groups at the same time.
Respondents w e r e re quested to r e c o r d their answers on
optical scanning sheets.

A f t e r this was completed,

the

104

sheets were co ll e ct ed and turned into the Test S c o r i n g O f f ic e
at Michigan Sta te University.

A set of w e i g ht s

for each of

the four p o s si bl e choices a c c o m p a n i e d on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
for teachers and students

to be s e p a ra te d into three c a t e ­

gories, P e r c ep t io n of p r o g r a m and others,
program and self,

P e r c e p t i o n of

and P e r c e p t i o n of program.

of these categories

A definition

follows:

Perception of this P r o g r a m and Othe rs
Perception of parts of this p r o g r a m in r e l a t i o n s h i p to
how it affects people other than oneself.

For example,

stu­

dents and teachers w er e asked to r e s p on d to s t a t em en ts w h i c h
required them to give their o p i ni on about h o w they think
other students and teachers

are p e r c e i v i n g parts of the Unit

Step program.
Perception of this P r o g r a m and Self
Perception of parts of this p r o g r a m in r e l a t i o n s h i p to
how it d ir e c t l y affects oneself.

For example,

s tudents and

teachers were asked to respond to s t a t em en ts w h i c h req ui re d
them to give their o p i ni on about h o w they p e r s o n a l l y p e r c e i v e
parts of the Unit Step program.
Perception of this P r o g r a m
This involves p e r so na l e v a l u a t i o n of parts of
Step program.

the Unit

Both students and teachers w e r e r e q u e s t e d to

respond to statements w h i c h rel a te d to their o p i n i o n of the
Unit Step program,
erations .

i n d e p e n d e n t of s t u d en t or teac h er c o n s i d ­

105
These three cat eg or ie s w e re ass ig ne d to e a ch of the
variable comparisons as found in the q u e s t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d
in this study.

A n a ly si s was then made on the b a s i s of scores

received in each of these categories.
Findings
Five major findings e m e rg e d f r om this study:
1.

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

in how Unit

Step is perceived by male and female teachers in the c a t e ­
gories of P er ception of this p r o g r a m and others and P e r c e p ­
tion of this program.

Male teachers tended to rate the

program higher than d i d female teachers.
2.

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e

in how U ni t Step

is perceived by tenure and p r o b a t i o n a r y teachers in the c a t e ­
gory Perception and this p r o g r a m and self.

Probationary

teachers tended to rate the p r o g r a m h i g h e r than tenure
3.

There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f er nc es

student categories.

T h o se were:

sex

in al mo s t h al f the

(others,

self and p r o ­

gram) , and b e t w ee n those w h o w il l or w o n ' t continue
education b e y on d high school

(others,

of the program more than boys,

self).

teachers

their

Girls approve

as do those w h o w i l l con ti nu e

their education vis -a - vi s students w h o d o n o t pl a n on c o n t i n u ­
ing their ed ucation b e y o n d high s c h o o l .
4.

As ind ic at ed by the fr eq ue nc y counts of teacher

categories most tended to e i t h e r agree or d i s a g r e e in p r o g r a m
perception as is i nd icated by the f r e q ue nc y counts in the
tables.

Only 21 teacher s el e ct io ns w er e made for the S t r o n g l y

106
Agree category, w h i l e none was re co r d e d in the S t r o n g l y
Disagree category.

W h e n students took e x t re me p os itions,

there w ere d e c i d e d l y more choices m a d e for S t r o n gl y A g r ee
than for Strongly D is ag r e e

in the seve ra l categories,

especially in P e r c e p t i o n of the program,

per s e , in r e l a ­

tionship to the catego ri es of 10th to 12th graders,
grade point average,
5.

sex,

and c o n t i n u i n g education.

T eachers and students have d i f f e r e n t pe r c e p t i o n s

of the Unit Step program.

This finding is b a se d upon c o m ­

parison of the m a t c h i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e st at em e nt s

that w e r e

divided into three p a r t s , P e r c e p t i o n of this p r o g r a m and
others, P e r c e p t i o n of this p r o g r a m and self,
of this program.

and P e r c e p t i o n

S tudents g e n e ra ll y tend to favor the Unit

Step p r o g r a m more than teachers.
Conclusions
A n e x a m i n a t i o n of the d a t a revealed:
1.

W h i le r es ponses of both teachers

the open-en de d s ta te me n ts

and students to

in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e c o m ­

patible in s everal respects,

i.e., p e r c e p t i o n s of the Unit

Step p r o g r a m w e r e similar in e x p r e s s e d a d v a n t a g e s and d i s ­
advantages,

the d a t a show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in how

both groups p e r c e i v e the p r o g r a m on the t h r e e - p a r t b r e a k ­
down , P e r c e p ti on of p r o g r a m and o t h e r s , P e r c e p t i o n of p r o g r a m
and self, and P e r c e p t i o n of the program.

107
2.

Males and females am ong t eachers and students

tend to differ s i g n i f i c a n t l y in their p e r c e p t i o n s of the
Unit Step program.

This c a t e g o r y

(sex)

is found to have

the greatest s i m i l a r i t y of d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n teachers
and students.

Females in b ot h groups

tend to rate the

program hig he r than do m a l e s .
3.

For the mo s t part,

the v a ri ou s

produced i n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e s

teacher categories

in p e r c e p t i o n of

the Unit Step program, b u t the s t ud en t group p r o d u c e d
almost half

(5) of its 12 catego r ie s as s i g n i f i c a n t l y

different.

A m o n g the students,

therefore,

there w ere

more who d i s a g r e e d in t h e ir p e r c e p t i o n s of the Unit S tep
program.
4.

N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the views e x p r e s s e d by b o t h

teacher and student groups in n e g a t i v e terms, both
groups expressed p o s i ti v e o pinions

that tend to w a r r a n t

continuation of the Unit Step program.

T h e d a t a show

the program to be s u f f i c ie n tl y i n t e r e s t i n g and r e w a r d i n g
to reach this conclusion.

A t t e n t i o n ap p a r e n t l y needs

to be focused u po n vari o us o r g a n i z a t i o n a l aspects of the
Unit Step p r o g r a m in order
of success.

to assure a h ig h e r m e a s u r e

108
D i s c u s s i o n and R e c o m m en da ti on s
There was a total of 10 tables that d ealt w i t h ana ly si s
of the category P e r c e p t i o n of this program.

Of those 10

there were 3 w h i c h d i s p la ye d si g ni fi ca nt d i f f e r e n c e s
findings.

in

The findings and c on cl u si on s of this study, h o w ­

ever, which pertain to the P e r c e p t i o n of this p r o g r a m ca te go ry
are inconclusive b e c a u s e of the low teacher and stud en t
reliability scores in this area.

(See r e l i a b i l i t y scores

on page V — 1).
There could be s everal reasons

for this.

For one thing,

there was a low n u mb er of teachers w h o r e s p o n d e d to the
faculty instrument.

Also,

the c at e g o r y P e r c e p t i o n of this

program was co mp ri s ed of only

18 sta te me nt s in the q u e s t i o n ­

naire for teachers and 19 for students.
(Perception of this p r o g r a m and others,

The other categories
P e r c e p t i o n of this

program and self)

c o m p r i s e d w el l over 30 q u e s t i o n n a i r e items

each.

to k ee p in m i n d that i n s t r um en t r e l i a b i l i t y

It is good

decreases when an i n s t r um e nt is div id ed into s ub -parts for
analysis purposes.

W h e r e these d iv isions

are desired,

how­

ever, they should be e s t a b l i s h e d e i t h e r on the ba sis of
total instrument item analysis, or from field test analysis.
If there are shown to be,

in fact, no n a t u ra l c a t e go ri es the

researcher must then co ns i d e r a n a l y z i n g o nl y the total
instrument rather than its parts.

For this study the c a t e ­

gories were ar b i t r a r i l y established.

109
This study c o n c e r n e d itself w i t h d i f f e re n ce s that m i g h t
exist among teachers and students in regards to th eir p e r ­
ceptions of the Unit S t e p program.
were examined,

there w er e

Of the 27 areas that

11 that w er e

found to contain

significant d if f e r e n c e s in perception.
in the teacher gr oup
self)

and 5 w er e

program;

(sex— others,

T h re e w e r e c o n t a i n e d

program;

in the student g r ou p

continue e d u c a t i o n — others,

tenure-probation—

( s e x - - o t h e r s , self,
self).

T h r ee more

significant d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d in the c o m p a r i s o n of
student/staff p e r c e p ti on s

(others,

self,

and program).

These 11 s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s occur pr i m a r i l y
between sexes and b e t w e e n a do le scents a n d adults.

The e a r l i e r

citing of Co leman's w ork w i t h the a d o l e s c e n t su b- c ul tu re
in ten northern Illinois high schools b ears
(1966)

in her study on student pe r c e p t i o n s

high school found that residence,

this out.

C a u di ll

in a m i d w e s t e r n

sex and social ac ti vities

are significantly strong in a f f e c t i n g s t u d en t p e r c e pt io n s
of environment.

McNemar

(1942)

d i s c o v e r e d that m a le s

more likely to give g o o d answers
questions,

are

to some kinds of test

and females to others.

Supportive e v i d e n c e su ggests that it is only p r a c t ic al
to begin tapping the re source of ad ol es c en ts
planning.

in c u r r i c u l u m

C u r r i c u l u m pl anners s ho u l d c o n c e n t r a t e more h e a v il y

on diversified interests and in te r p r e t a t i o n s
between the sexes and age groups.
authorities alone possess

that occur

T he noti o n that school

the e x p e r t i s e n e c e s s a r y to e s t a b l i s h

viable education o b j e c ti v es

for the young deni e s

the exi st en c e

110
of an adolescent s ub -c ul tu re and all it has to offer.
is not unlike the a ttitude of p l an t m a n a g e r s

This

toward w o r k e r s

in the bank w i r i n g r oo m in the W e s t e r n E l e ct ri c C o m p a n y in
Hawthorne,

Illinois,

d u r in g the years the famous H a w t ho rn e

studies were conducted.
within the t e a ch er g r o up the d a ta i nd icated three
significant differences.

A p p a r e n t l y the m ale te achers have

a more optimistic o p i n io n than do female teachers

toward

how the Unit Step p r o g r a m is related to others,

as ind ic at e d

by the mean d ifferences in Table 2.1.

2.3 a

In T able

similar analysis can be m ad e w h e n one exam in es the m eans
of men and women in their p e r c e p ti on s of the Unit S t e p p r o ­
gram, per s e .

There could c o n c e i va bl y be m o r e parts of

the Unit Step p r o g r a m that appeal to men than to women.
Men may have been more in volved in the p r e p a ra t io n of the
Unit Step program.

Table 4.2 depicts a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­

ence between tenure and pr o b a t i o n a r y teachers toward the
program and its r e l a t io ns h ip to themselves.

The higher

percentage of p r o b a t i o n a r y teachers fav or in g the p r o g r a m
on a proportional basis could m e a n that y o u ng er teachers
are more w illing to accept this p r o g r a m change than are
the older, more e x p e r i e n c e d staff members.
Each of these di ff er en ce s is b e t w e e n sex and age
categories.

In almost all the o t h e r t e a c he r c at eg or ie s

where differences are not significant,
differences are not present.

sex and age

Ill
The data for the s t ud en t g r ou p r e v ea le d five significant:
differences wi th i n it.

In all three sections of the sex

category

and program)

(others,

self,

the girls s e e m to have

a brighter view toward the Un i t S te p p r o gr am than do the
boys overall.

Perhaps m o r e girls

liking, or enjoy

find m or e courses to their

the in c reased o p p o r t u n i t y

for mo r e social

contacts to a g r e at er degr ee than do boys.
Tables 9.1 and 9.2 indicate that the Unit Step p r o g r a m
is better thought of by students w h o w i ll continue their
education b e y o n d high school than by those w h o won't.

This

may indicate the needs of the n o n - c ol le ge bound a r e n ’t b e i ng
met as well as are those of t heir counterparts.
The di ff er en ce s w h i c h e x is t b e t w e en students and
teachers in p r o g r a m p e r c e pt io n are r a t h e r profound.

Before

too quickly citing the g e n e r a t i o n gap as the rea so n for this,
however,

it w o u l d be w el l to c o n s i d e r that the di ff er e nc e

in size of these two po pu l at io ns makes it d i f f i c u l t to reach
any conclusive reasons
perception.

for the d i f f e re nc e s

Nevertheless,

the d i f f e re nc es

in p r o g r a m
in m e a ns of

students and teachers do indicate the students have b e t t e r
opinions of the Unit Step p r o g r a m than do teachers.
may be due in part to y outhful idealism,

This

or b e c a u s e students

benefit m os t from the p r o g r a m and t h e r e fo re are most able
to appreciate its benefits.

T h e n again,

m a t u r i t y of teachers

may allow for q u i c k e r re co g ni ti on of g e n ui ne d i s a d v a n t a g e s
of the Unit Step program.

112
Levels of le g it im at e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g m a y e x is t b e t w e e n
the teachers

and students in

regards

functions of

the Unit St e p program.

to the p u r p os es and

If i m p r o v e d c o m m u n i c a ­

tions between these two groups could s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce
the difference of u nd er standing,

the e f f o r t s ho u l d be u n d e r ­

taken .
The o p e n - e n d e d re sp on se s of teachers
cited o r g a n i za ti on al d e f i c i e n c i e s
The job r e sp on si b il it ie s

and students

in the Unit S tep program.

for the p r i n ci p al and a s s i s ta nt

principal at

the high school

appear to be in n eed of re-

evaluation.

The p r e s e n c e of

a c u r r i c u l u m council,

Step supervising committee,

and a c o o r d in at or

aUnit

for sc h e d u l i n g

places into jeopardy the functions of the p r i n c i p a l s h i p .
There are s everal q u e s t i o n s
that should be answered.

r e g a r di n g this po si ti o n

For w h a t and to w h o m is the

principal going to be h el d ac c ou nt ab le ?
ship positions nec es sa ry ?

H ow di re c t l y i n v ol ve d sh ou l d the

high school p r i n c ip al b e co me in m a t te rs
personnel management,

Are two p r i n c i p a l ­

r e l a te d to curriculum,

a n d student affairs?

Is the p r i n c i p a l ­

ship thought of as w h e r e i n d e p e n d e n t l e a d e r s h i p w i t h i n a
building is encouraged,

or is the abi li ty to follow p r e ­

scribed methods of o p e r a t i o n a p r e r e q u i s i t e ?

Wh a t ac t ivities

make the position viab le and tenable?
The person o c c u p y i n g the p r i n c i p a l s h i p and the p o s i ­
tion itself must b ot h be r e s p e c t e d by the various segments
of the school community.

T h e degree that this ma y be lacking

within a school c o u ld make the p o s i ti on an embarrassment.

113
As stated above,

there we r e several e xp r e s s i o n s made

by both students and teachers to the effect that o r g a n i z a ­
tional structure of the Unit Step p r o g r a m was r e s p o ns ib le
for many of its problems.

This w o u ld n e c e s s i t a t e the

identification of p r o b l e m areas

and seeking o ut ap p r o p r i a t e

solutions.
Some q u e s ti on s to be raised by this approach w o u l d be:
How are p r o bl em areas g o in g to b e identified?

Who wi l l be

involved in id en ti fy in g p r o b l e m areas and re co m m e n d i n g
solutions?

Will in -s er vi ce or w o r k s h o p e x p e r i e n c e s need

to be organized,

and if so, w hat

format will be used?

One approach to c onsider m i g h t be the im p l e m e n t i n g of
a structure w h ic h w o u l d involve all people w o r k i n g w i t h the
Unit Step p r o g r a m in w a y s that w o u l d be m o r e direct.

The

method could be a team approach, w h e r e b y every Unit Step
staff member w o u l d be a s s ig ne d to w o r k w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y
25 students during the year on Unit Step counseling.

At

these meetings, w h i ch could be o p e r a t e d on a h o m e r o o m basis,
all facets of the p r o g r a m could be discussed.

This w o u l d

require faculty m e m be rs who are b ot h e n t h u s i a s t i c a n d
thoroughly k n o w l e d g e a b l e about the Unit Step program.

A

variation of this plan w o u l d be to have larger teams w i t h
several teachers w o r k i n g in each team.

This proc ed u re

could then more easily include those teachers w h o do not
teach in the Unit Step program,
affected by it.

but w h o n e v e r t h e l e s s are

114
In the e a r l i e r cit i ng of the l im it ations of this study
in Chapter I , m e n t io n was m a d e of a n u m b e r of student
optical scanning sheets

that were spoiled.

W hile it is

difficult to c o n j e ct ur e u po n wh a t m a y be internal rea so n s
within the school that could have c o n t r i b u t e d in part to
this, the giving of a test of this n at u r e to this

large a

student pop ul a ti on at one g a t h e r i n g s h ou ld not have b een
attempted.

Rather,

it shou l d have b e e n a d m i n i s t e r e d by

classroom teachers in their rooms.

Tea ch er s

could have been

instructed on the p r o c e d u r e and m e t h o d s to use.
This technique,
in this study.

however,

It w a s

had b ee n p u r p os el y avo i de d

feared that students m i g h t have

responded to the Unit Step p r o g ra m on the basis of t h eir
personal reactions to the t e a c he r a d m i n i s t e r i n g the test.
In other words,

had st ud en ts taken the survey in rooms of

popular, w e l l - l i k e d teachers,
to rate the p r o g ra m high er
Conversely, had students

they co uld have b e e n se ns i ti ze d

than they h o n e s t l y felt about

it.

taken the survey in rooms of less

popular and d i s l i k e d teachers,

they in turn could have been

sensitized to rate the Unit S t e p p r o g r a m lower than they
honestly felt about it.

T h e o p e n - e n d e d s t a t em e nt s could

have been p ar t i c u l a r l y b i a s e d in e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n had this
technique of test a dm i n i s t r a t i o n been employed.

115
There is res ea rc h w h i c h supports this position.

C o gan

(19 63) p rovided e v i d e n c e sho wi ng that pupil a t t i t ud e towar d
tests depends upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h exists b e t w e e n
teacher and student.

Miller

(19 64)

f ound that to the degree

students are involved in the learning process in the c l a s s ­
room will their att it u de s be p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y
expressed on q ue st io nnaires.
work of W a s hb ur ne and Heil

Letzels and J a c k s o n cite the

(1960) w h i c h p r o d u c e d ev i de nc e

showing the teacher's p e r s o n a l i t y has a "marked and m e a s u r e able e f f e c t ” on the progress of pupils a c a d e m i c a l l y and
socially.

They

found the s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g t eacher gets

the most ac hi ev em en t from the several d i f f e r e n t kinds of
youngsters, while the fearful t e a c he r gets the least
achievement.

R e co mm en d at io ns

for F u r th er Res ea rc h

Future studies of the Unit Step p r o g r a m in Howell
should focus upon p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n and g r o u p processes.
There are some s p e ci fi c things to c o n s i d e r in e v a l u a ­
tion and group dynamics.

E v a l u a t i o n will r e q ui re a span of

approximately two or three years to pass b e f o r e such an
undertaking should be attempted,

however.

This is n e c e s s a r y

because a p r e - t e s t - p o s t - t e s t technique has n e ve r b e en applied,
and this partic ul ar study is not an e v a l u a t i o n of the p r o ­
gram.

Had the p r e - t e s t - p o s t - t e s t te c h n i q u e b e en applied,

it would have been poss ib le to compare aspects of the Unit

116
Step and traditional programs.

Future program evaluation

should c oncentrate on b ot h the c o g n it iv e and a f f ec ti v e areas
of the curriculum.
A dm in is tr at or s and teachers w h o truly desire p r o g r a m
feedback from each o t he r and from students should have an
understanding of group dynamics.
and Zander

(1960),

Knowles

T h e w orks of C a r t w r i g h t

(1950),

P f e i f fe r and Jones

(1970),

and the National T r a i n i n g L a b o r a t o r i e s b o o kl e t on g r o u p
development

(1961)

are g i v e n as references.

A u t h o r 's O b s e r v a t i o n s
The Unit Step p r o g r a m has a good cogn it iv e beginning.
Among other adv an ta ge s there are m o r e course off e ri ng s

for

students and most of t hem the s tudents seem to e n joy this
new experiment,

in spite of the f r us tr at io ns it has created.

The question the p r o g r a m initiators
face is:

in Howell will ul t i m a t e l y

"Where do we go from here?"

Educators typically do not trust students.

If e v e r y ­

thing isn't done for y o u n gs te rs by the p r o f e s s i o n a l l y
trained ed ucator there can be little merit, of course,
any scheme.

in

But why not let the students choose w h o th eir

teachers will be in Unit Step?

A n d w h y not give c o n s i d e r a t i o n

to letting the students work w i th t eachers in p l a n n i n g vari ou s
course outlines and in setting up new courses?

Some of

the research cited in this d i s s e r t a t i o n indicates that
high school students do,

in fact, have so mething c o n s t r uc ti v e

117
to offer

in c u r r i c u l u m suggestions.

is enlisted in our high schools

U n l es s their talent

it is a m i s n o m e r to label

schools as child-centered.
John K r e m k o w , the staff and s tudents at Howell Senior
High School are to be c o m m e nd ed for h a vi ng the c o u r a ge to
try something different.

He a v e n k n o w s

sion needs new m od e l s to look at.

the e d u c at io n p r o f e s ­

The Unit Step p r o g r a m

provides a base from w h i c h some e x c i t i n g things could happen.

BIB L I O G R A P H Y

118

BIB L I O G R A P H Y
"Adolescence."

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E du c a t i o n a l Research.

Ausubel, David P.
"Learning."
R e s e a r c h . 1969.

1969.

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

___________ . "The Link B e t w e e n L a b o ra to ry and C l a s s ro om ."
In DeCecco, John P. ( e d .), H u ma n L e a r n i n g in the
C l a s s r o o m . Chicago:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966.
Bigge, Morris L.
L e a r n i n g T h e o r ie s for T e a c h e r s .
Harper & Row^ P u b l i s h e r s , 1964.
Borg, Walt er R.
"Grouping."
R e s e a r c h . 1969.
Bush,

N e w York:

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

Robert N. and Allen, W. Dwight.
A N e w Desi gn for High
School Education.
N e w York:
M c G r a w - H i l i Book C o m p a n y ,
196T.

Cartwright, D a rw in and Zander, A l v i n ( e d i t o r s ) .
D y n a m i c s - - R e s e a r c h and T h e o r y . N e w York:
R o w , P u b l i s h e r s , 1960.

Group
Harper &

Caudill, Anne Conrad.
"Student P er ce pt io ns of a M i d w e s t e r n
High School E n v i r o nm en t ."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r ­
tation, Indiana University, 1966.
Cogan, M. L.
"Teacher Ef fe c t i v e n e s s . "
E d u c at io na l R e s e a r c h . 1969.

E n c y c l o p e d i a of

Coleman, James S.
" Ci t i z e n s h i p and P o l i t i c a l S o c i a l i za ti on ."
E nc y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 1969.
Eckstrom, Ruth B.
"Grouping."
R e s e a r c h . 1969 .

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

Glaser, Robert.
Research.

" L e a r n i n g ."
1969 .

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

Heathers, Glen.
Research.

"G r o u p i n g ."
1969 .

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

119

120
Heathers, Glen.
School O rg an i za ti on :
N on g r a d i n ^ , Dual
Progress, and T e a m T e a c h i n g .
N a t i o n a l S o c ie ty for
the Study of E d u c a t i o n Yearbook, P a r t II.
Chicago,
111.: U ni v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o Press, 1966.
Kelley, Earl C.
E d u c a t i o n for Wh a t is R e a l .
Harper & B r o t h e r s , 1947.

N e w York:

Knowles, M a l c o l m and Knowles, Hulda.
I n t r o d u c t i o n to Group
D y n a m i c s . N e w York:
A s s o c i a t i o n Press, 1960 .

Letzels, J. W. and Jackson, J. P.
"The T e a c h er 's P e r s o n a l i t y
and C h ar ac te ri st ic s ."
H a n db oo k of R e s ea r ch on T e a c h i n g .
Edited by N. L. Gage.
C h i c a g o , i l l .:
Rand McNally,
1963 .
M c N e m a r , Quinn.
"Social and E m o t i on a l Devel op me nt ."
E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 1969.
Miller, George L.
"Teacher Ef fe c t i v e n e s s . "
Educational R e s e a r c h . 1969.

E n c y c l o p e d i a of

National T r a i n i n g Labora to ri es .
S e l e c t e d R e a d i n g Series One.
Group D e v e l o p m e n t . W ashington, D. C.:
N E A Press, 1961.
Passow, Harry A.
Research.

"Grouping."
1969.

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

Pfeiffer, J. W i l l i a m and Jones, Jo h n E.
Structured Expe ri­
ences for H u ma n Re lations T r a i n i n g . V o l . I I . Iowa
City, Iowa:
U n i v e r s i t y A s s o c i a t e s Press, 1970.
Piaget, Jean and Inhelder, B.
"Adolescence."
of E du c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 1969.

Encyclopedia

Rosenthal, R o b er t and Jacobson, L e n o r e . P y g m a l i o n in the
Classroom.
N e w York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Wi nston,
1968 .
Squire, James R.
Research.

"Grouping."
1969.

E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l

Trump, j. Lloyd.
Focus o n C h a n g e — Guide to B e t t e r S c h o o l s .
Chicago, IllTl
Rand M c N a l l y & C o . , T9?TT
Trump, j. L l o yd and Karasik, S. Lois.
Focus on the
In d i v i d u a l — A L e a d e r s h i p R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . W a s h i n g t o n ,
D. C . : N E A Press, 1965.
U. s. C o m m i ss io n on C i v il Rights.
Public S c h o o l s . W ashington,
P rinting Office, 1967.

Racial Isolation in the
D. C.:
Government

121
U. S. D e p a r t m e n t of Health, Ed uc at io n, and Welfare.
E quality of E du c a t i o n a l O p p o r t u n i t y . Washin gt on ,
D . C .:
G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g office, 1966.
Wright, J. Skelly.
C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d , June 21, 1967.
Vol. 113, No. $6.
W a s h i ng to n, D"I C.:
Government
P ri nt i n g Office, 1967.
Feasibility Study
The Feasibility of E x t e n d i n g the E d u c a t i o n a l E x p e r i e n c e of
S e c o n d a r y School Students in Haslett, O k e m o s , and E ast
Lansing, Michigan.
J ames H e a l d , Ch airman.
Lansing,
Michigan:
H a s s e l b r i n g Co.

APPENDICES

122

APPENDIX A
F A C U L T Y I N S T RU ME NT

123

I N S T R U C T I O N SHEET

Faculty:
You are being asked to take p a r t in an e v a l u a t i o n of
the Unit Step program.
T hi s is n e c e s s a r y in o r d e r to d e t e r ­
mine where i mp r ov em en ts are to be made.
No a t t e m p t w i l l be
made to identify i n d i v i d u a l respondents.
Respond to a series of s ta t e m e n t s using a four p o i n t
scale.
Use the answer sheet provided.
T h e re are no answers
that are n e c e s sa r il y e i t he r r i gh t or wrong.
M a r k the space
on the answer sheet that w il l b est re c o r d your true feelings
according to the e x a m pl e below:
"Vanilla ice c r e am is b e t t e r than s t r a w be rr y ice cream."
Key:

Mark space 1 if you str on gl y
agree.
( I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e r e 's
no doubt in your m i n d that v a n ­
illa ice cr eam is b e t t e r than
strawberry ice c r e a m . )
Mark space 2 if yo u agree w i t h
the statement.
(In other words,
w it h some p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n
you w o u l d alm os t a l w a ys agree
w i th this statement.)
Ilark space 3 if you disagree.
( I n o t n e r words, w i t h some p o s ­
sible e x c e p t i o n y o u w o u l d almost
always d i s a g r e e w i t h this s t a t e ­
ment. )
Mark space 4 if you s t r o ng ly
disagree.
Tin other words,
There's no d o u b t in yo u r m i n d
but that the s t a t e m e n t is
definitely wrong.)

1.
2.
3.
4.

1 == 2 —

The 5th answer space w i l l n o t be used
1 to 90.

124

St ro n g l y agree
A g r ee
Disa gr e e
S t r on gl y d i s a g r e e
3 == 4 =*

in answ er s

125
Definitions:

"This p r o g r a m " — U nit Step
"Other p r o g r a m " — S e m e s t e r or y e a r l y basis p r o g r a m at
your school b e f or e i n t r o d u c t i o n of the U n i t Step
Before r e s p o n d i n g to the s t a t em en t s that have been
p r e p a r e d for you, p l e a s e turn to #93 on your answer sheet
to p r o v i d e the following information.
M a r k only w i t h a #2
lead p e n c i l .
(If y ou don't have a #2 lead pencil, one w i l l
be m a d e available to you upon request.
Do not use any
o t h e r t y p e of penci l or a b a l l p o i n t pen.)

Mark w i t h your p e n ci l the space that best applies
you in the f ol lowing manner:
1 == 2 == 3 ==, etc.

to

93.

Length of service in t eaching in y e a rs (include 196970).
M a r k space 1 if y o u 'v e be e n teaching from 0 to
3 years; 2 if from 4 to 7 years; 3 if from 8 to 11
years; 4 if from 12 to 15 years; 5 if from 16 to 20
years; 6 if 21 years or over.

94.

If male, m a r k space

95.

if you p o s se ss a b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e only, m a r k space 1;
if you p o s s e s s a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e or more, m a r k space 2.

96.

Mark in w h i c h d e p a r t m e n t you teach at the p r e s e n t time.
Mark as o f t en as necessary.
1 -Art; 2 - Business;
3 - E n g l i s h (language); 4 - Home economics; 5 - Math;
6 - Music; 7 - P h y s i c a l education; 8 - Science;
9 - Shop; 10 - Social Studies.

97.

If you are t eaching p r e s e n t l y on the Unit Step p r o g r a m
(full or p a r t ) , m a r k space 1.
If you are not t e a c h ­
ing p r e s e n t l y on the U n it Step p r o g r a m (full o r part),
mark space 2.

98.

if you have taught in the U ni t Step c o n c e p t at ano th er
school b e s id es Howell, m a r k space 1.
If you have not
taught in this c o n c e p t b e f o re it w a s i nt r o d u c e d to
Howell, ma r k space 2.

99.

if you are at p r e s e n t a tenure teacher, m a r k space 1.
If you are at p r e s e n t a p r o b a t i o n a r y teacher, m a r k
space 2.

1; if female, m ar k space 2.

After y ou have c om pleted all that has been asked of
you up to this point, turn the p ag e and b e g i n re s p o n d i n g to
items 1 to 90.
Thank you for taking p a r t in this study.

126
1.
Students need m or e a s s i s t a n c e from co un s el or s in
choosing courses in Unit Step than they did in the o ther
program.
2.
Students feel that g r a de s are m o r e i m p o rt an t in this
program than they d i d in the other program.
3.
Unit Step has made m e curious a b o ut o t h e r courses
being taught o u t s i d e of m y p r e p a r a t i o n area.
4. This p r o g r a m is g o i ng to be tt e r p r e p a r e st u de nt s for
the challenges of the a d u lt w o r l d than d id the o ther p r o ­
gram.
5. Ily lessons for e ac h d a y fs i n s t ru ct io n in Unit Step
are well prepared.
6. This p r o g r a m has m a d e teachers g e n e r a l l y m or e in t e r e s t e d
in school affairs than they were in the o t h e r program.
7.
In Unit Step s tudents are not s pe a k i n g out and e x p r e s ­
sing their op inions on v a r i o u s topics in the c l a s s r o o m
anymore than they did in the other program.
8.

I like issuing a credit and gr ade e v er y e i gh t weeks.

9.
I have n o ti ce d less d e s t r u c t i o n (writing on desks,
breaking windows) in Un i t Step than there was in the
other program.
10.
I'm not d o i n g as g oo d a job of c o m m u n ic a ti ng m y subject
to students in this p r o g r a m as I d i d in the other program.
11.
The s tudying of part s of a larger s u b j e ct has m a d e m o r e
sense out of the larger subject.
12.
I prefer using p a p e r b a c k b o o k s in p l a ce of h a r d c o v e r
books in eight w e e k courses.
13.

This p r o g r a m has r e al ly m a d e m e feel stupid!

14.
I'm ma ki n g good use of m y time in p r e p a r i n g m y d a i l y
lessons in Unit Step.
15.

I w i s h every course in school w a s o nl y e i gh t w e ek s

long.

16.
Because of Un i t Step, I'm m o r e e n c o u r a g e d to involve
students in c l a s s r o o m work, such as small g r o u p discus si on s,
than I was in the o t h e r program.
17.
This p r o g r a m has br ok e n up cou rs e s into too m a n y par ts
for the parts to be meaningful.

127
18.
Teachers and students s e em to get along bette r on the
Unit Step than they did in the oth er program.
19.
Students s eem to be less p r e p a r e d for their lessons
in Unit Step than they w ere in
the other program.
20.
This p r o g r a m has c a u se d me to b ec o m e m o re c o n f u s e d in
what I'm doing.
21.
This p r o g r a m has c a us ed g r e a te r i nd i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n
of teachers toward students.
22.
Eight w e e k s essions at five sessions per year seems
to be the best w a y to o p e r a te this program.
23.
This p r o g r a m d o e s n ' t e n c o u ra ge s tudents to speak out
and express their o p i ni on on v a r i o u s topics in the c l a s s ­
room.
24.
I w o u l d like to become i nvolved in
p l a n n i n g Unit
Step courses w i t h students in the future.
25.
Most teachers like U ni t Step and w o u l d like to stay
on i t .
26.

Shifting classes e v e ry eight w e e k s b o t h e r s me.

27.
Unit Step has m a d e teaching so d ull and bor in g that 1
can hardly stand it.
28.
In this p r o g r a m teachers seem to be coming to m o r e
extracurricular e v en ts (plays, sp orting events, etc.) a fter
regular w o r ki ng hours.
29.
I w o u ld p r ef er teaching students
rather than in U n i t Step.

in the other p r o g r a m

30.
This p r o g r a m has e n c o u r a g e d p o t e n t i a l d r o p o u t s to stay
in school w hen they o t h e r w i s e m i g h t have q u i t school.
31.
step

I think students are g e t t in g w o r s e gr ad e s
than they did in the o t he r program.

in Unit

32.
Teaching two courses or m o r e in the same s ubject area
(for example, two E n g l i s h
courses) to the same
students in
the same shift d o e s n ' t (or wouldn't) bother me.
33.
I'm giving a b o u t the same a m ou nt of w o r k o n h o m ew or k
assignments in U n i t Step as I d i d in the o t h e r program.
34.
in Unit Step I'm not g e t t i n g anymore students i n v o lv ed
in class d i s c u ss io ns than I d id in the o t h e r program.

128
35.
I'm using m o r e a ud i o - v i s u a l e q u i p m e n t and m a t e r i a l
in this p r o g r a m than I did in the o t h er program.
36.
In this p r o g r a m stu de nt s a r en 't w a s t i n g their time in
doing their lessons.
37.
I o f te n find students talking to their n e i gh bo rs in
class about things o t h e r t ha n school w o r k w h e n they should
be listening to me.
38. This p r o g r a m is g o in g to p r e p a r e s tudents
b e t t e r for
any schooling after h ig h school than d id the other program.
39. Many teachers w o u l d like to b e co me i n v o lv ed in p l a n n i n g
Unit Step cou rs es in the future w i t h students.
40. Eight w e e k c o u r se s are e a si er for s tudents to pass
than are semester or year long courses.
41.
This p r o g r a m m a k e s it p o s s i b l e for students to take
many more courses th a n they w e r e able to in the o t he r p r o ­
gram.
42.
I'm e n j oy in g w o r k i n g w i t h students bet t er in Unit Step
than I did in the o t h er program.
43.
I think I'm issuing lower g r a d e s in U ni t Step than I
did in the other program.
44.

This p r o g r a m has hel pe d m e m e e t m or e teachers.

45. In Unit Step I'm m o r e i n t e r e s t e d in students as people,
not just as students.
46.
in this p r o g r a m I find students taking easy courses
in order to avoid more c h a l l e n g i n g courses.
47.
Shifting classes e v e ry e i gh t w e e k s b o t he rs m o s t other
teachers.
48.

Unit Step has m ad e the honor roll s y s te m obsolete.

49.
In Unit Step the h o m e wo rk a s s i gn me n ts of students are
turned in on time more r e g u l a r l y than they we r e in the
other program.
50.
This p r o g r a m has caused students to do mo r e p l e a s u r e
reading outside of school and o n their own t ha n d id the
other program.
51.
Teaching two courses or m ore in the same s u b je c t area
(for example, two E n g l i s h courses) to the same students in
the same shift d o e s n ’t bothe r m o s t o t h e r teachers.

129
52.
My a s s i gn me nt s in U n i t S t ep have i n c r e a s e d the need
for my students to use the school library m or e often.
53.
This p r o g r a m i nc reased the ne e d for m or e clubs and
organizations in the school.
54.
unit Step has m a d e m e involve s tudents m o r e in c l a s s ­
room work, such as small g r o u p d i s c u ss io ns , them I did in
the other program.
55.
This p r o g r a m has i n c r ea se d the need for s tudents to
do more m e m o r i z i n g than w a s n e c e s s a r y in the o t h e r program.
56.
In this p r o g r a m stu d en ts are listening m o r e car ef ul ly
to what a teacher says w h e n ass ig ni n g homework.
57.
Unit Step has ma d e me r e a l i ze that m o s t of the r e s p o n ­
sibility for g e t ti ng school w o r k d o ne rests w i t h the student.
58.
Many teachers d o n ' t like the idea of g e t t in g n e w
classes of students so often, w h i c h is r e q u i r e d b y U nit
Step.
59.
Eight w e e k shifts have m a d e courses m o r e in t e r e s t i n g
to me than they w e r e in the o t h er program.
60.

Students seem to be less e n t h u s i a s t i c in this p r o g r a m
th an in the o t he r program.
61.
This p r o g r a m has i n c re as e d m y s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e as a
t e acher.
62.
In Unit Step I'm m o r e anxious than I was in the other
program to have v a c a t i o n s end so that I can g e t b a ck to
scho ol .
63.

I w a s n ' t in vo l v e d e n o ug h in p l a n n i n g this program.

64.
Most teachers like to a ward a c r e d it and g r a d e e v e r y
eight w e e k s .
65.
In this p r o g r a m I'm c om i n g to m o r e e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r
events (plays, s porting events, etc.) after r e g ul a r w o r k i n g
ho urs.
66.
This p r o g r a m has m a d e m o r e r e s p o n s i b l e citi ze ns of
students.
67.
Most teachers p r e f e r u sing p a p e r b a c k books in p l ac e
of hardcover b ooks in ei ght w e e k courses.

130
68.
Students seem to be q u i t e anx io us and w o r r i e d in Unit
Step about such things as g e t t in g their h o m e w o r k done,
passing or failing, and the g r a d e they are g o i n g to receive.
69.
It's easier for m e to "live with" students I d o n 't
like in U ni t Step than it was in the o t he r program.
70.
In this p r o g r a m m o s t s tudents feel as though they are
graded unfairly.
71.
Since Unit Step, parents seem to be less in te r es te d in
what their c h i ld re n ar e doin g in school.
72.
This p r o g r a m has e n c o u r a g e d s tudents to come to m e to
have personal talks.
73.
I think m or e courses o u g ht to be r e q u i r e d in this
p r o g ra m.
74.
I d o n ' t like the idea of g e t t i n g n ew classes
dents so often, w h i c h is r e q u i r e d by U ni t Step.
75.

of s t u ­

I like Unit Step and h o p e it continues.

76.
This p r o g r a m has i nc reased m y in te re st in school
s port s .
77.
I feel well p r e p a r e d for each s u b s e q u e n t cour se I
teach in Unit Step.
78.
In U ni t Step I find that I'm g i v i n g students m o r e i n d i ­
vidual attention.
79.
This p r o g r a m has made me g e n e r a l l y m o r e i n t e r e s t e d in
school affairs than d i d the o t he r program.
80.
Most of the st udents s e e m to be very c o n f u s e d by this
program.
81.
I think this p r o g r a m has t a ke n a wa y some of the i n t e r ­
est students have had in a t h l e t i c r i v a lr y w i t h o t h er schools.
82.
I think I'm g i v i n g students s u f f i c i e n t h e l p in c h o o s i n g
courses in Unit Step.
83.
Students are taking better care of school p r o p e r t y in
Unit Step than they did in the other program.
84. Many teachers find s tudents talking to th eir nei gh b or s
in class about things o t he r than school w o r k w h e n they
should be listening to teachers.

131
85.
H os t t eachers w o u l d like to have all cou rs es be e i g ht
weeks long.
86.
This p r o g r a m m a k e s it h a r de r to get to k n o w the s t u ­
dents compared to the o t h e r program.
87.
This p r o g r a m s h ou ld b e tt e r e n c o u r a g e st u de nt s to think
about teaching as a c a r ee r than d i d the o t h e r program.
88.
This p r o g r a m has c a u se d s tudents to find less of an
interest in their courses.
89.
The thing I like m o s t about this p r o g r a m is:
(If y o u
wish to m ak e an e n t r y here, p l e a s e w r i t e it in this space.)

90.
My str on g es t o b j e c t i o n to this p r o g r a m is:
(If y ou
have an objection, p l e a s e w r i t e it in this space.)

APPENDIX B
S T U D E N T IN S T R U M E N T

132

I NS T R U C T I O N S H E E T

Students:
You are being a s ke d to take p a r t in an e v a l u a t i o n of
the Unit Step program.
Yo u r h on e s t a p p r a i s a l is n e ed ed in
order to m ak e any n e c e s s a r y changes that wi l l lead to i m­
provements . N o a t t em pt will be m ad e to i d e nt if y individual
respondents.
Respond to a series of sta t em en ts u s in g a four p o in t
scale.
Use the answer sheet provided.
T h e re are no answers
that are ne c e s s a r i l y e i t h e r r i g ht or wrong.
H a r k the space
on the answer s h ee t that w i l l b es t r e co r d your true feelings
according to the e x am pl e below:
"Vanilla ice c r e a m is b et t e r than st ra w be rr y ice cream."
Key:

Mark space 1 if y o u stro n gl y
agree.
(In o t he r words, there's
no d o ubt in your m i n d that v a n ­
illa ice c ream is be tt e r than
strawberry ice cream.)
Ilark space 2 if y o u agree w it h
the statement.
(In other words,
w i t h some p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n you
would almost always agree w i t h
this statement.)
Hark space 3 if y ou disagree.
(In o t n er words, w i t h some p o s ­
sible e x c e p t i o n you w o u l d almost
always d i s a g r e e w i t h this s t a t e ­
ment. )
Hark space 4 if y o u s trongly d i s ­
agree.
(In other w o r d s , there *s
no d o u bt in your m i n d b u t that
the s ta tement is d e f i n i t e l y
w r o n g .)

1.
2.
3.
4.

S t r o n g l y agree
A gree
Dis ag re e
Strongly disagree

1 == 2 =*=* 3 «

4 ==

The 5th answer space w i l l not be used in answers 1 to
90.

133

134
Definitions:

"This p r o g r a m " — Unit Step
"Other p r o g r a m " — S e m e s te r or y e a r l y basis p r o g r a m at
your school b e fo re i n t r o d u c t i o n of the U n i t Step.
Before r e s p o nd in g to the s t a t e me nt s that have b e e n p r e ­
pared for you, p l e a s e turn to #9 3 o n y o u r answer s h ee t to
provide the fo l lo wi ng information.
M a r k o n l y w i t h a #2
lead pencil.
(If y o u d o n ' t have a #2 lead pencil, one w i l l
be made a va ilable to y o u u pon request.
R e m em be r to r e t u r n
the pencil y o u b o r r o w along w i t h your q u e s t i o n n a i r e and
answer sheet.
Do not use any o t h er type of p e n c i l or a
ballpoint pen.)
you

Mark w it h your p e n c i l the space that b e s t a p p l ie s to
in the f ol lowing manner: 1 *= 2
^
3 =** 4 ==«, etc.

93.

Mark space 1 if y o u are in the 10th grade;
an 11th grader; space 3 if a 12th grader.

94.

Mark space 1 if y o u 'r e a boy; m a r k space 2 if y o u ' r e
a girl.

95.

Approximate gr ade p o i n t ave ra ge in the 1968-69 school
year (last y e a r ) . M a r k space 1 if y ou r a verage w as a
D+ or below; m a r k space 2 if your a v e ra g e was b e t w e e n
a C- and a C + ; m a r k space 3 if y o u r a v e ra ge w a s b e ­
tween a B- and a B+; m a r k space 4 if y o u r a v e r a ge was
A- or a b o v e .

96.

If you p lan to continue your e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d h igh
school, m a r k space 1.
If you do not p l a n to con t in ue
your e d u c a t i o n b ey o n d high s c h o o l , m a r k space 2.

97.

If you w e re a s t u de nt in Unit Step at a n ot he r sch oo l
before co m i n g to Howell, m a r k space 1.
If the p r o g r a m
at Howell has been y ou r first e x p e r i e n c e w i t h U n i t
Step, mark space 2.

space 2 if

Next, w r i te at the top of y ou r answer s h e et by the
space where it says "Name,
w h a t y ou r p r i m a r y v o c a t i o n a l
interest is.
For example, nursing, tool and d i e making,
lawyer, carpenter, doctor, teacher, etc.
If y o u d o n ' t
know, do not w r i t e anything in this space.
After you have c o m p l e t e d all that has b ee n asked of
you up to this point, turn the p a g e and b e g in r e s p o n d i n g
to i t e m s 1 to 90.

135
1.
Students need m or e a s s i st an ce fr o m co u n s e l o r s in cho os in g
courses in U ni t St e p than they did in the other program,
2.
I feel that g ra d e s are m o r e im p o r t a n t to m e in this
program than I d i d in the o t h e r program.
3. Unit Step has m a d e me cur io us about o t he r c o u r s e s be ing
taught in our school.
4. This p r o g r a m is g oing to b e t te r p r e p a r e stud e nt s for
the challenges of the a d u lt w o r l d th a n did the o t h e r p r o ­
gram.
5. Teachers seem to be w el l p r e p a r e d for their classes
in Unit Step.
6.
This p r o g r a m has m a d e s tudents g e n e r a l l y m o r e int e re st ed
in school affairs than did the othe r program.
7.
This p r o g r a m d o e s n ' t e n c o u r a g e me to speak out and
express m y o p i n i o n anymore than the other p r o g r a m on
various topics in the classroom.
8.

1 like re c ei vi ng a c r e d i t and g r a d e e v e ry e i g h t weeks.

9.
This p r o g r a m has i nc reased m y concern w i t h h e l pi ng to
stop the d e s t r u c t i o n of school p r o p e r t y (writing on d e s k s ,
breaking windows, etc.)
10.
Teachers aren't d o in g as good a job of c o m m u n i c a t i n g
their subject to students in U nit Step as they d i d in the
other program.
11.
more

The studying of parts of a lar ge r subject has m ad e
sense out of the larger subjects.

12.
I prefer using p a p e r b a c k books in p l a ce of h a r d c o v e r
books in e ight w e e k courses.
13.

This p r o g r a m has really m a d e m e

feel stupid!

14.
I'm m ak i n g g o o d use of m y time in p r e p a r i n g m y lessons
in this program.
15

I w is h e v e ry course in school was o n ly e i gh t w e e k s long.

16.
Unit Step has m a d e me w i s h t eachers w o u l d involve m e
more in c l a s s ro om work, such as small g r o u p discussions.
17.
This p r o g r a m has b ro k e n up
for the parts to be meaningful.

courses into too m a n y parts

136
18.
Unit

Teachers and students seem to g e t along be tt e r in the
Step p r o g r a m than they d i d on the o t h er program.

19.
Unit

I d o n' t seem to be as w e l l p r e p a r e d for m y lessons in
Step as I wa s in the other program.

20.
This p r o g r a m has cau se d s t u d e nt s to be m o r e con fu s ed
in school.
21.
This p r o g r a m has caused g r e a t e r in di vi du al a t t e n t i o n
of teachers toward students.
22.
Eight w e e k sessions at five sess io ns per y ea r seems to
be the best w a y to o p e ra te this program.
23.
This p r o g r a m h a sn ' t e n c o u r a g e d m y c l a s s m a t e s to speak
out in the c l a s s r o o m and express their opinion.
24.
I would like to bec om e invo lv ed in p l a n n i n g U ni t
courses w i t h teachers in the future.
25.
Most students
c on ti nu e.
26.

Step

like Un i t Step and w o u l d like to see it

Shifting c lasses every e i g h t w e e k s b o t h e rs me.

27.
Unit Step has m a d e school so d ull and bo ri n g that m o s t
of the time I can h a rd l y stand it.
2 8.
in this p r o g r a m students s ee m to be coming to m or e
extracurricular events (plays, sporting events, etc.).
29. Many teachers w o u l d o b v i o u s l y p r e f e r to teach students
in the other p r o g r a m rather than w i t h U n i t Step.
30.
This p r o g r a m has e n c o u r a g e d s tudents to stay in school
when they o t h e r w i s e m i g h t have d r o p p e d out.
31.
Most students seem to be g e t t i n g w o r s e grades in U nit
Step than they did in the other program.
32. Taking two courses or m or e in the same s u b j e ct area
(for example, two E n g l i s h courses) in the same shift d o e s n ' t
(or wouldn't) b o t h er me.
33. This p r o g r a m has in cr ea se d h o m ew or k a s s i gn me nt s for
students to the p o i n t w h e r e m a n y te achers are unfair.
34.
in Unit Step m o s t teac he rs do not let students get
anymore involved in class d i s c u s s i o n than they did in the
other program.

137
35.
T e a c he rs are u s i ng m o r e filmstrips, recordings, and
other a u d i o -v is ua l e q u i p m e n t and m a t e r i a l in U n i t Step
than they did in the o t h e r program.
36.
In this p r o g r a m I'm not w a s t i n g m y time in
lessons.

d o i ng m y

37.
I o f t e n find m y s e l f talking to m y ne i g h b o r s in class
about things o t h er than sch oo lw o rk w h e n I sh o u l d be l i s t e n ­
ing to the teachers.
38.
This p r o g r a m is g o in g to p r e p a r e st ud en ts b e tt er for
any schooling they m i g h t have after high scho ol than d i d
the other program.
39.
Ma n y students w o u l d like to get i n v o lv ed in p l a n n i n g
Unit Step courses w i t h teachers in the future.
40.
Ei ght w ee k c o u rs es are e a si er for stu d en ts
than are semester or y ea r long courses.

to pass

41.
This p r o g r a m make s it p o s s i b l e for s tu de n t s to take
many m or e courses than they w e r e able to in the ot her
program.
42.
I'm e n jo y i n g m y teachers m or e in U nit Step than I did
in the ot her program.
4 3.
I think I'm g e t t i n g lower grade s
did in the o t he r program.
44.

This p r o gr am has h e l pe d students

in U n i t S te p than I
g e t to k n o w m o r e kids.

45. In this p r o g r a m te achers seem
t o be m o r e i nt e re st ed
in me as a person, not just as a student.
46.
In this p r o g r a m I find m y s e l f taking e as y c o u rs es in
order to avoid m o r e c ha l l e n g i n g courses.
47.
Shifting classes e v er y e i g h t w e e k s b o t he rs m o s t
stu de n ts .
48.
The honor roll system should be done away w i t h b e c au se
of Unit Step.
49.
in Un i t Step m y h omework ass ig nm e nt s are turned in on
time m o re r e g u la rl y them they were
in the ot her program.
50. This p r o g ra m has c a u s ed me to
d o m ore p l e a s u r e read in g
outside of school and on m y own time than did the other
program.

138
51.
T a k in g two cour se s or m o r e in the same s u b je ct area
{for e x a m p l e f two E n g l i s h courses) in the same shift d o e s n ' t
(or wouldn't) both er m o s t students.
52.
S tudents are using the school libr ar y m o r e n o w since
we've been on Unit Step.
53.
This p r o g r a m inc re as es the n ee d for m o r e clubs and
o rgani za ti on s in the school.
54. Because of Unit Step I think m a n y st udents w o u l d
like to become m or e i nvolved in c l a s s r o o m work, such as
small g r o up discussions.
55.
This p r o g r a m has increased the need for me to do m or e
m em or iz in g than was n e c e ss a ry in
the o ther program.
56.
In this p r o g r a m I'm li s tening m o r e ca r e f u l l y w h e n a
teacher assigns homework.
57.
Unit Step has m a d e stu de nt s r e a li ze that m o s t of the
r espon si bi li ty for g e t t i n g sc h o o l w o r k done rests w i t h the
individual student.
58.

Many students d o n ' t like c h a n g i n g teac he rs so often.

59.
Eight w eek shifts have m a d e courses m o r e i n t e r es ti ng
to me than they w e r e in the o t h e r program.
60.

Te ac he rs appear to be less e n t h u s i a s t i c in this program.

61. This p r o g r a m has in cr ea se d my s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e as a
student.
62.
In Unit Step I'm m o r e anxious than I was in the othe r
program to have v a c at io ns end so that I c a n g et ba c k to
school.
63. I woul d like to have b ee n in vo l v e d in p l a n n i n g this
program.
64. M o s t students like r e c e i v i n g a c r e di t and g r ade e v e ry
eight weeks.
65. in this p r o g r a m I'm c o mi ng to m o r e e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r
events (plays, sporting events, etc.).
66.

This p r o g r a m has m a d e a m o r e r e s p o n s i b l e c i t i z e n of me.

67. M ost students p r e f e r using p a p e r b a c k books r a t he r than
hardcover books in eight w e e k courses.

139
68.
I'm q u it e anx io us and w o r r i e d in U n i t St e p ab out such
things as g e t t i ng m y h o m e wo rk done, p a s s i n g or failing, and
what grade I'm g o i n g to get.
69.
It's eas ie r for me to "live with" te achers I d o n ' t like
in Unit Step than it w as in the o t he r program.
70.

In this p r o g r a m m o s t teachers g r ad e me unfairly.

71.
Since Unit Step, m y p a re nt s have b ec o m e less i n t e r ­
ested in w h a t I'm d o i ng in school.
72.
This p r o g r a m has e n c o u r a g e d me to have p e r s o n a l talks
with teachers.
73.
I think m or e courses o u g h t to be r e q u i r e d in this
program.
74.
I d o n ' t like c h anging t eachers so o f t e n w h i c h is r e ­
quired by Unit Step.
75.

I like U ni t S t e p and hope it continues.

76. This p r o g r a m has in c reased my i n t e re st in school
sports, e i th er as a n o b s e r v e r or participant.
77.
I feel w e ll p r e p a r e d for e a c h n ew course I take in
Unit Step.
78.
I think I'm r e c e i v i n g g r e a t e r in di vi d ua l a t t e n t i o n from
teachers in Unit Step than I did in the oth er program.
79.
This p r o g r a m has made m e g e n e r a l l y m o re i n t e r e s t e d in
school affairs than I was in the o t h e r program.
80.

M os t s tudents seem to be v er y c o n f u s e d by this program.

81. This p r o g r a m has taken away some of the i n t e r e s t I've
had in a t h l e t i c r i v a lr y (competition) w i t h ot her schools.
82.
I could use more as si st an c e from tea ch er s in c h o o si ng
courses in Unit Step.
83.
The U n it Step has e n c o u r a g e d students to take b et t e r
care of school p r o p e r t y than they d i d in the o t h er program.
84. other students are o f t e n talk i ng to their n e i g h b o r s
in class about things other than sch oo lw or k w h e n they should
be listening to the teacher.
85.
M o s t other students w o u l d like to see all cou r se s
be only e i g ht wee ks long.

140

86.
This p r o g r a m m a k e s it: h ar d e r to g et to k n o w the
teachers c o m p a r e d to the
o t h e r program.
87.
This p r o g r a m w o u l d be m o r e of an e n c o u r a g e m e n t to m e
to think a b o ut teaching as a career than w o u l d the o t h e r
program.
88.
This p r o g r a m has caused me to find less of an i n t e r e s t
in m y courses.
89.
The thing I like m o s t about this p r o g r a m is:
(If
you w is h to m a k e an e n tr y here, p l e a s e w r i t e it in this
s p a c e .)

90.
My s tr ongest o b j e c t i o n to this p r o g r a m is:
(If y o u
have an objection, p l e a s e w r i t e it in this space.)

APPENDIX C
C O M P L E T E C O U R S E O F F E R I N G S BY T ITLE

141

C OM PL E T E C OU R S E O F F E R I N G S BY TITLE
Sequential O f f e r i n g s
Business
Shorthand I/II
Typing 1/11
B o o k k e e p i n g / A c c *t g .
Drafting and Shop
Basic d r a w i n g
Mechanical dra wi ng
Bench w o o d w o r k i n g
Of fice/trade
A dvanced w o o d w o r k i n g
Language
French 1/11
Spanish 1/11
Latin 1/11
Mathematics
Essential math
Secondary math
Algebra
Geometry
Pre-calculus

Mus ic
V a r s i t y b an d
C o n c e r t band
C o n c er t choi r
G eneral choir I/II
H i g h l a n d e r chorale
P h y s ic al e d u c a t i o n
B asic gym b o y s / g i r l s
A d v a n c e d games bo y s / g i r l s
S ci en ce
Academic biology
Chemistry
P hysics
Social studies
Basic U.S. his to ry

Unit Step Off er in gs
Art
Art survey
Drawing I/II/III
Design
Intro, ceramics
Ceramics
Intro, sculpture
Intro, pai nt in g
Leather crafts
J e we l r y / c o p p e r ena ma li ng
Business
Notehand 1/11
Personal typing I/II
Term paper, report typing
Personal finance
S t o c k s , bonds
Planning use of mo ney
Banking services

B us in es s o p p o r t u n i t i e s
Charm, per so na li ty
Income tax
Intro. B o o k k e e p i n g
Business filing
B u siness lett er w r i t i n g
D ata pr o c e s s i n g I/II
Salesmanship
Marketing
O f f i c e M a c h i n e s I/II
D rafting and Shop
P r e - e n g i n e e r i n g draw i ng
B a si c arch d e t a i l i n g
Adv. arch d e t a i l i n g
Arch house planning
Arch e l e v a ti on d r a w i n g
W e l d in g I / H
F oundry I/II
142

143
Machine shop I/II
P ub l i c speaking I/II
O ra l r e a di ng i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
Sheet me tal
Furniture re f in is hi ng
Debate I/II
Avo ca ti on a l w o o d w o r k I/II
Radio, T V w r i t i n g
Engine theory
G r ou p d is c u s s i o n
Small engines I/II
J o u r n a l i s m I/II
T ra n s m i s s i o n s I/II
P h ot o j o u r n a l i s m
P r o p a g a n d a in mass commo.
Fuel Systems
Test equipment
P e r s o n a l r e a d in g i ns t r u c t i o n
Body repair I/II
D e v e l o p m e n t a l reading
English
Speed reading
A nglo saxon, m e d ie va l lit.
H o w to read a book
Eli za be th a n Age Lit.
M y t h o l o g y I/II
Eng lit. of 17-19th cent.
Stagecraft
Romantic Age lit.
P h i l o s o p h y p roblems and
Vic to r ia n Age lit.
pri nc i pl es
Sha ke sp ea r e wor ks
Inc re a si ng v o c a b u l a r y
Modern British novel
N e w s p a p e r j o u r na l is m
Puritan, Yankee rebel
Y e a r bo ok jo u r n a l i s m
American r o m a n t i c i s m
Home eco no mi cs
Amer. realism, n a t u r a l i s m
I t ’s fun to sew
Dimensions of the novel
Sewing I/II/III
Modern Amer. novel
Party pla nn i ng
Modern Amer. poetry, d r a m a
C o o k in g and p r i ci ng m eals
Contem p or ar y plays
I nterior d e c o r a t i o n
Modern Amer. short story
Poise
American short story
C h i l d care
20th century Amer. authors
F i rs t aid, healt h
The short story
Hous in g
Modern short story
F u r n i s h i n g the home
Reflective short story
Meal service
Reading plays
Beauty, v i t a l i t y
Voices in poetry
P l a n n i n g for company
C on te mp or ar y essays
Foreign, o u t d o o r cook in g
Bible as lit.
Canning, freezing
Negro lit. contr ib u ti on s
Cake decorating
World lit. - Russian
Marriage, family I/II
World lit. - general
Home eco no mi cs
Drama I/II
M a t h em at ic s
Humor, satire, parody
Math, im a g i n a t i o n
Pleasure reading
F o u n d a t i o n s of ma t h
Science fiction
R e v i e w of funda me nt al s
Problems of usage I/II
Fractions, perc en t s
Practical pu n c t u a t i o n
P h y s ic al e d u c a t i o n
Sentence pa tterns
M a t e r sports
The paragraph
Fishing, h u n t i n g
Writing I/II
W i n t e r sports
Composition I/II/III
Camping, arc he r y
Writing research pa per
I n t e r pr e ti ve dan ci ng
Creative w r i t i n g
Tenn is
Adv. grammar
Golf
Par liamentary pr ocedure
Adv. v o l l ey ba ll

144
Soci al studies
Physical fitness
P r a c ti ca l law
Softball
Adv. g y m n as ti c s
S upreme court
T r a c k , field
Comparative government
Ideas in con fl ic t
Elem. w e i g h t lifting
Adv. w e i gh t lifting
Local, state g o v e r n m e n t
Gymnastics
National government
Health I/II
Archeology, museum
Intro, folk, rock m u s i c
A m e r i c a befor e colonies
Science
Coloni z at io n, new w o r l d
Light optics color
E n g l i s h colonial perio d
Lab apparatus m e a s u r e
Jefferson, J a c k s o n
Radio activity
A m e r i c a n West
Space science
Reform, p r ot es t liberals
Instruments, commo.
A r m s , armor
Basic e le c t r i c i t y
C o n t e m p o r a r y U.S. his to ry
Astronomy
Amer. fore ig n policy
Nature of m a t t e r
Party p olitics in U.S.
Weather
W o r l d Wars I and II
Earth's surface
R e v o l u t i o n s - F r .- R u s s .- U .S .
Top og ra ph y
Cau s e s of Civil War
Minerals, rocks
C i vi l War
Drugs, alcohol
R o a r in g Twen ti e s
R eproduction of life
The thirties
The Big G e r m
Industrial re v o l u t i o n
Behavior plant, animal
D e v e l o p i n g Amer. colonies
Your feathered friends
A d j u s t m e n t s to depression, wai
Natural r es ources
Crime, p u n i s h m e n t
Human anatomy digest
Banks
Plant c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
Taxes - i n c o m e , ou tgo
Ecology
M i c h i g a n in C ivil War
Human anatomy, c i r c u l a t i o n
C h u r ch il l - man, times
Human anatomy, nerves
Dic ta t or s
Human anatomy, m u s c l e s
F un d a m e n t a l so ci ol og y
Homan anatomy, r e p r o d u c t i o n
Social self and status

APPENDIX D
C O U R S E S E L E C T I O N SH EET

145

TEST DATA SHEET

HOWELL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

DIRECTIONS

UNIT STEP SELECTION SHEET 1969-70

146

1. Print data neatly.
2. Use numbers for courses.
3. To take 1 year of a subject you must have
5 classes listed. You may add more Units
if you wish.
4. Be sure to check the requirements on page
5. Year courses are listed in separate boxes.'
6. List at least two alternates to help solve
scheduling problems early'.
7. A normal load would be S hours per day for
5 marking periods of 25 Units. A year
course would count as 5 Units or credits.
8. Have each class initialed by a teacher in
the area you are signing up for.
9. Maximum number that can be signed up for
(year courses x 5 ♦ Units ■ 30).
Courses X want
All Year

NAME
ADDRESS
GRADE NEXT YEAR
PHONE

COLLEGE PREP

□

BUSINESS
GENERAL

UNIT STEP COURSES (Each Lasts • Weeks)
act Area

1*QK B B

□

T.Ot

□
□
Alternates, list below, if above cannot be scheduled

□ 1 1 1 I I I

I -I I -

COUNSELOR SIGNATURE

PARENTS SIGNATURE

OE

LLfll

APPENDIX E
C H A N G E —I N —P R O G R A M I N F O R MA TI ON

147

C H A N G E — I N —P R O G R A M I NF O R M A T I O N
Textbook
Used

C o u r s e Name

Course N u m b e r

Prerequisite
Number

Type
course

N u m b e r of
w e e k s long
7

8

9

10

11

1.

W ha t y o u w il l study.

Examples

2.

Inclusive of

3.

W h a t w il l it teach the stu de nt s?

4.

If there is a p re re qu i si te , w h y ?

5.

W h a t m a t e r i a l s / p r o j e c t s if a ny w i l l the
s t u d en t be e x p e c t e d to supply or do?

(what are the bounds?)
Skill

Best S h i f t to O f fe r Cou rs e
A u t h o r Sign at ur e

148

12

149

To:
U n it Step T e a c h e r s
From:
U NIT STEP
The a t t a c h e d form w i l l be used by g r a de s 7-12, U nit Step
c ourses as a g u i d e for teachers.
W e have tried to m a k e the
form as simple as possible, y e t r e q ui re some thought and
consis t en t f o l l o w - t h r o u g h from y o u w h o are p r e p a r i n g these
guides.
The purpose, first of all, is to e s t a b l i s h a bo na fi de course,
i.e., one w h i c h students have ne e d for and interest in.
1 am sure a c o ur se such as "Term Paper" can be justified
with m an y objectives.
However, courses w i t h a title such
as "Card Games F o r Today" or the " F e a s i b i l i t y of Dynamic
Balance" need o b j e c t i v e s justifying w h y a h igh school or
junior high s h o ul d be inv ol ve d w i t h tea ch in g c h i l d r e n these
things.
O b j e c t i v e s are, therefore, w h a t w e are g o i n g to
ask you to c o n c e n t r a t e on.
If y o u have not had a chance to
look over P r e p a r i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s - M a g e r , d o so,
as this p a p e r b a c k has m u c h to h el p y o u and w i l l m a k e the
task m u c h simpler.
Yo u r p r i n c i p a l has b ee n g i ve n several
copies.
So that we do not have to ask that y o u r e wr it e the o b j e c ­
tives, p l e as e read the following c a r e f u l l y as it w i l l help
you in saying e x a c t l y w h a t needs to be said in o rder to
develop concise c u r r i c u l u m guides.
The first o b j e c t i v e s y o u w r i t e w i l l be that of the general,
overall p u r p o s e of the unit.
The un i t length wi l l be e i g h t
weeks.
Therefore, ask yo ur s e l f w h a t a s t u de nt in your
class will have learned, or be a b le to d o or d e m o n s t r a t e
by having t a ke n your class.
W h a t w i l l be his o b s e r va bl e
and/or m e a s u r a b l e at tr ib ut e s?
D es c r i b e th e m in the part
marked O v e r al l O b j e c t i v e s .
The weekly o b j e c t i v e s are listed as such and no goals or
sub-goals are a s k ed for.
W h a t w e do w a n t for this year is
a good clear and c o n c is e objective.
T h e following kinds
of q u e s ti on s s h ou ld be an swered w h e n y o u w r i t e these w e e k l y
objectives.
1.
2.
3.

W h a t k in d of p e r f o r m a n c e do I expect?
What
limits, if any, should there be?
W h a t s pe cifics am I d o in g w h i c h the student can
see as i ns t r u c t i o n a l and/or m ea n i n g f u l ?
W h a t w i l l be the b a si s of e v a l u a t i o n by w e e k or
by course?
Tests?
If others, wh a t others?

150
4.
5.

W h a t c o n d i ti on s w i l l you impose to eff ec t w hat
kind of terminal b e h a v io r ?
W it h w h a t or to what w il l a student be able to
d e m o n s t r a t e this k n o w l e d g e you are giving him?
W h a t kinds of si tu at io ns can be c r ea te d to show
his learning achiev em en t s?

Some of the above statements are
hope will clarify them.
Not all
every w e e k l y objective.
What we
think through ca refully w h a t you
child in e i gh t w e e k s and how y ou
do i t .

r e p e a t e d in w o r d s w h i c h we
of these can be listed for
w o u l d like is for you to
are g oing to do for that
are g oing to p r o c e e d to

If you use phrases such as the f o l l o w i n g — to know, to u n d e r ­
stand, to really understand, to appreciate, to g r o u p the
significance of, to enjoy, to believe, to have f a i t h — we are
in trouble.
We all have d i f f e r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these
words and they th er ef or e have m a n y interpretations.
Phrases m o r e d e s c r i p t i v e w it h fewer i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e —
to write, to recite, to identify, to d if fe re nt ia t e, to
solve, to construct, to list, to compare, to contrast.
As
you write your w e e k l y o bjectives, think in terms of w h a t
you expect stu de n ts to end up w i t h after they have fini sh ed
this course.
In d o i n g this, b ot h yo u and the s t u d e nt w ill
have much mo r e to go on.
Although one obj ec t iv e or more m a y run t h r ou gh for m o r e
than one week, it is n e c e s s a r y to list at least one o b j e c ­
tive per week.
For example, " O b j e c t i v e — T h e stu de nt w i l l
be able to identify the tools used o n a m e t a l lathe as
well as o p e ra te same and turn a p r o j e c t in one half hour's
time wi t h g i v e n tolerance."
The form on the next page applies on l y to Unit Step cour s es
and not to y e a r - r o u n d courses as a l r e ad y offered.

151
U N I T S TE P C O U R S E O U T L I N E
C I R C L E G R A D E S W H ICH AP PLY
□

S E N I O R H IG H

7

8

9

10

11

12

J U N I O R H IG H

□

C O U R S E T I T LE ________________________________________________________
PAP ER B AC KS F O R T E XT S _______________________________________________
A U T H OR S ______________________________________________________________
C O M P AN Y

(ADDRESS)

C O P Y W R I T E DATE __________________
NAMES OF P R E R E Q U I S I T E S

(IF ANY)

LIST REASON F O R

O V ER AL L C O U R S E O B J E C T I V E S

FIRST W E E K OB J E C T I V E S

SECOND WE E K O B J E C T I V E S

(USE BACK OF THIS S H EE T F O R A D D I T I O N A L EXPLANATIONS)

152
T H IR D W E E K O B J E C T I V E S

FOURTH W EE K O B J E C T I V E S

FIFTH W EE K O B J E C T I V E S

SIXTH WE E K O B J E C T I V E S

SEVENTH W EEK O B J E C T I V E S

EIGHTH WEEK O B J E C T I V E S

(USE BACK OF T HI S S H E E T FOR A D D I T I O N A L EXPLANATIONS)

APPENDIX F
SURVEY

INSTRUC T IO NS TO

FACULTY A N D STUDENTS

153

Faculty Instructions
A n n o un ce two days prior to the survey d a t e i
"On (date)
Unit

y o u will take part in an

Step program.

After 1st hour roll

e v a l u a t i o n of the

is taken and

students are exc us ed to go to the g y m n a s i u m

y our

(please w ai t

for the a nn o u n c e m e n t over the p u bl ic address s y s t e m ) , you
are to go to r oom #--- .
let and answer sheet.
do so.

There you will r e c e iv e a test b o o k ­
Do not w r i t e an yt hi ng until told to

Thank you."
A n n o u n c e at r oo m #---

just prior to the test on the

survey d a t e :
".Do not put your name on the answer sheet.
.Use only a #2 lead pencil.
ment

is to be used.

Ask a proctor

No o t h e r w r i t i n g i n s t r u ­
for a #2 lead penci l if

you don't have one.
.Turn to the last page of the test booklet.
89and 90

are only

Numbers

to be give n one answe r each.

.Answer g o i n g across the page on the answer sheet,
down.
.Some sta t em en ts will sound similar, but
exactly alike.

There is a purpose for this.

154

are not

not

155
.Keep tests and answer sheets together w h e n you turn
them both in.
.If there are no questions,

you m a y begin."

S t u d en t I nstructions
A n n o un ce two days p rior to the survey d a t e :
"On

{date)

y ou will be taking part in an e v a l u a t i o n

of the Unit Step program.

Report to first period class and

from there you w il l be e x c us ed to go to the g y m n a s i u m after
roll

is taken to take part in the evaluation.

be able to c o m pl et e this in less than an hour.

You should
Be sure to

take a #2 lead pencil w ith you and a book to w r i t e on.
other type of w r i t i n g

A ny

instrument b e s i de s a #2 lead pencil

cannot be used."
A n n o un ce to students pr ior to their being dis mi ss ed
from first hour class on the survey date:
"You will shortly be e x cu se d to go to the gym to take
part in an e v a l u at io n of the Unit S te p program.
ing guidelines
1.)

The f o l l o w ­

are to be observed:

Take w i t h you a 92 lead pencil.

It is sug ge st ed

that you take a b oo k to w r it e on.
2.)

Upon e n t e ri ng the gym,

pick up a test b o o kl et and

answer w h e e t from s t u de n t proctors.
proper area.

Seniors - lower bl e a c h e r s n o rt h side;

bleachers s o u t h e a s t side;
side).

Go i m m e d ia te ly to the
juniors -

s op homores - b l e a c h e r s s ou thwest

156

3.)

Do not w r i t e a n y t h in g until told to do s o . ”

A n n o un ce

to students after they have a s s e m b l e d in

the g y m n a s iu m on the survey d a t e :
"This m o r n in g you w il l be taking part in e v a l u a t i o n
of the Unit Step program.

Your responses

order to make any ne cessary changes
You should all have
test

booklet,

are n e e de d in

in the program.

the following three items:

an answer sheet,

and a #2 lead pencil.

a
If you

don't have all of these items go to a proctor to receive
what you need.
Next,

be sure there is a number on your answer sheet

in the upper right hand corner.

W he n an swering reme mb er

that the answers go across the page,

not down.

Now turn to the last page of your

test booklet.

When

you come to items n u mb e r 89 and 90, put

down only one

answer

in the space provided.

If you put down that the p r o g r a m is

either good or b a d give a sp ec i f i c rea so n if you can.
Turn back

to the front page.

Some statements will sound similar, b u t are not exactly
alike.

T h er e is a s p e c if ic reaso n for this.

T he e x a m pl e on

the front page of the test b o o k l e t is how statements
88 are to be answered.
If you have any question,

come d ow n to see me.

1 through

157
As soon as you're done,
test b o o k le t and pencil
exit.

turn in your a n s we r sheet,

in the boxes p r o v i d e d by the W e s t

Go to your second hour class.
You may b e g in by turning to page two of your test b o o k i e

and respond in g to items as instructed."