INFORMATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original docum ent.
While th e m ost advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
docum ent have been used, th e quality is heavily depend ent upon the quality of
the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings o r patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.

The sign o r " ta rg e t" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to ob tain the
missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity.

2.

When
mark,
co p y
image.

3.

When a map, drawing o r chart, etc., was part o f the material being
p h o t o g r a p h e d th e photographer follow ed a definite m eth o d in
"sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin photoing at the
upp er left hand corner of a large sheet and to con tinu e photoing from
left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and
continuing on until complete.

4.

T h e majority of users indicate th a t the textual co n te n t is of greatest
value, however, a som ew hat higher quality reproduction could be
m ade from "p h o to g rap h s" if essential to th e understanding of the
dissertation. Silver prints of "p h o to g rap h s" may be ordered at
additional charge by writing th e Order Departm ent, giving the catalog
number, title, au th o r an d specific pages yo u wish reproduced.

an image on th e film is obliterated with a large ro un d black
it is an indication th a t th e photographer suspected th a t the
may have m oved during exposure and thus cause a blurred
You will find a good image of th e page in the adjacent frame.

University Microfilms
300 N orth Z eeb R oad
Ann A rbor. M ichigan 46106
A X erox E d u catio n C o m p an y

73-5420
KUEHL, Henry William, 1927A STUDY OF THE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHERS’ SELECTION
OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS.
Michigan State University, Ed.D., 1972
Education, industrial

U n iv ersity M icrofilm s, A XEROX C o m p a n y , A nn A rbor, M ichigan

A STUDY OF THE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHERS'
SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS
By
Henry W. Kuehl

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

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Secondary Education and Curric u l um
1972

PLEASE

NOTE:

Some pages

may have

indistinct

print.

Filmed

as

University Microfilms,

r e ceived.

A Xerox

Education

Company

A STUDY OF THE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS T E A C H E R S '
SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS
By
Henry W. Kuehl

Statement of the Problem
The problem investigated in this study was to d e t e r ­
mine what factors are related to Michigan industrial arts
t e a c h e r s ' selection of instructional u n i t s .
It was hypothesized that those methods of exposure
which demonstrated the units in situations m ost nearly like
the teachers'

own teaching situations would be most frequently

associated with the teachers* use of the units.

It was there­

fore hypothesized that the methods of exposure ranked from
most to least associated with teachers'
follow the order:

use of the units would

observation of fellow teachers teaching

the units; observation of student teaching supervisors t e a c h ­
ing the units;

participation in the units while enrolled in

college classes; observation of teachers in other schools
teaching the units;

observation of video tape, movie, or slide

presentations of secondary or college students performing the
units;

hearing the units described at meetings; discussing

the units in college classes;

and reading about the units.

Henry W. Kuehl
Methodology
Six industrial arts units and ten methods of exposure
to new instructional practices were identified from the liter­
ature and common usage in the field.

An Industrial Arts Unit

Inventory was developed to ascertain whether Michigan secon­
dary industrial arts teachers had been exposed to the six
units in any of the ten identified ways.

The inventory also

requested respondents to indicate reasons why they had taught
or had not taught the u n i t s .
The inventory was mailed to a random sample of 500
secondary industrial arts teachers in the state of Michigan.
Returns were received from 301 members of the s a m p l e .
The Spearman rank-difference correlation and the
analysis of variance were utilized to test the hypothesized
difference in methods of exposure between those teachers who
had taught units and those who had not.
Findings and Conclusions
A correlation of

.90 was found between the predicted

rank of the methods of exposure and the rank of methods of
exposure across all units, w h i c h was based on the proportions
of teachers who reported they used the units.

However, c o r ­

relations computed between predicted and observed ranks of
individual units revealed that only one out of six units was
significantly correlated w ith the predicted rank.
An exposure score was computed for each teacher by
assigning him a certain number of points for each exposure.

Henry W . Kuehl
An analysis of variance was computed to determine whether
there was a significant difference between the means of the
exposure scores for teachers who taught units and those who
did not.

The variance was significant beyond the

.001 level

of confidence.
More teachers appeared to value product design and
project units than the other units.

Teachers frequently

reported lack of funds and inappropriateness of the units
as reasons for not using the units.

Rejection of units to

satisfy the wishes of building principals was not reported
very often as a reason for not teaching the units.
Major conclusions were:
1.

The number of teachers who indicated they use instruc­

tional units increases as the methods by which they have been
exposed to the units follow the order;
in college class; meeting;
experience; movie,
college laboratory;
2,

read about; discussed

junior and/or senior high school

video tape, or slides; other schools;
student teaching;

and fellow teacher.

Teachers frequently indicated they do not select

instructional units because they are inappropriate for the
technical areas they teach,
carrying out the units,

their students are not capable of

they have insufficient operating

budgets, and they lack the knowledge to carry out instructional
tasks.

The teachers did not indicate a high frequency of

rejection of instructional units because of their principals*
requests•

Henry W. Kuehl
Implications and Recommendations
It appears that demonstration of units in settings
which are very similar to those of the observing teachers
should be utilized as a pre-service and in-service model.
Demonstration of units could be accomplished by:
(1)

having teachers perform them in college classes,

(2) demon­

strating them in summer workshops which utilize the teachers'
peers as demonstrating teachers,

<3) showing teachers video

tapes or movies of their peers teaching the units in the n or­
mal course of their teaching, and

(4) selecting student teach­

ing supervisors who teach the u n i t s .
It is recommended that a study be conducted to test
experimentally the conclusions of the study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his gratitude to the
chairman of his guidance committee, Dr. George Myers,
his help and encouragement during this study;

for

to Dr. George

Ferns and Dr. C. B. MacLean for their particular assistance
in matters pertaining to the industrial arts field; and to
the secondary industrial arts teachers who participated in
the study.
The writer is also indebted to his wife, Lois,
her encouragement to carry out the study.

ii

for

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................

V

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

THE NATURE OF THE S T U D Y .......................

1

Statement of the P r o b l e m .....................
Purposes of the S t u d y .......................
Need for the S t u d y ............................
Basic Assumptions of the S t u d y ..............
Delimitation of the S t u d y ..................
Theory and Formulation of Hypothesis. . . .
Summary and O v e r v i e w .........................

1
3
6
11
11
12
16

REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO CHANGING
TEACHERS' SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS.

.

19

I n troduction..................................
Identification of the Elements of Change. .
Elements of Change Related to T e a c h e r s 1
Selection of Instructional U n i t s .........
S u m m a r y .......................................

19
19

DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION OF THE STUDY

20
38

. . .

40

Null and Alternate H y p o t h e s e s ..............
Initial Instrument D e v e l o p m e n t ..............
Pretesting and Refinement of the
I n s t r u m e n t ..................................
Administration of the I n s t r u m e n t ...........
Statistical A n a l y s i s .........................
S u m m a r y .......................................

40
41

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.

47
50
52
53

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

54

Introd u c t i o n..................................
Hypothesized Relationships Between Methods
of Exposure of Teachers to Units and
Their Indicated Use of the U n i t s .........
Reasons Given for Teaching or Not
Teaching the U n i t s .........................
S u m m a r y .......................................

54

iii

55
76
78

Page
V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

.. .

81

S u m m a r y .........................................
C o n c l u s i o n s .....................................
Im plications.....................................
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ................................

81
84
85
86

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................................................

90

A P P E N D I C E S ...................................................

93

APPENDIX A ................................................
APPENDIX B ..................................................

iv

94
101

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.

An Example of Assignment, to Methods of
E x p o s u r e .....................................

56

Calculation of the Rank Across All Methods
of E x p o s u r e ...................................

57

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks
of Methods of Exposure
Across All U n i t s

59

.

3.

Page

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks
of Methods of Exposure
for Quantity Production .
The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks of
Methods of Exposure for Experimentation
and R e s e a r c h .................................

62

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks
of Methods of Exposure
for Selected Industry

..

61

63

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks of
Methods of
Exposure for Practice P i e c e s ..........

64

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks of
Methods of E x posure for Product Design . . . . .

65

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks of
Methods of
Exposure for Projects ................

66

The Spearman Rank-Difference Correlations
Between the Predicted and Reported Ranks of
Methods of
E xposure for All U n i t s ................

67

Values Assigned to Methods of Exposure for
Calculation of Exposure Scores ...................

69

v

Page
12.
13.

14.
15.

An Example of the Determination of a
Teacher's Exposure Scores .......................

71

The Analysis of Variance Between Exposure
Score Means of Teachers Who Taught Units
and Those Who D i d n ' t ..............................

72

Comparison of Respondents and Nonrespondents
on the Basis of School E n r o l l m e n t s ..............

74

Frequencies of Reasons Indicated by Teachers
for Teaching or for Not Teaching U n i t s .........

77

vi

CHAPTER I

THE NATURE OP THE STUDY

Statement of the Problem
Leaders in the field of industrial arts indicate
they would like to have industrial arts teachers teach such
units as experimentation and research,
and product design.

However,

quantity production,

the number of teachers who are

teaching such units appears to be increasing too slowly,

as

viewed by leaders in the field.
Miller and Smalley began their chapter "The Future
Role of the Project in Industrial Arts" by saying:
Has the perpetuation of mediocre projects in the average
shop become a major pitfall of the development of good
industrial arts programs for the space-age curriculum
of our high schools?
Many industrial arts educators
believe so and are considering w h a t should be done to
the project to improve its status.^
In the material w h i c h follows, Glazener, Hostetler,
Mitchell,

Reed,

and Wright all voiced the need to shift the

emphasis from projects as ends to projects as means to teach
problem solving and knowledge of t e c h n o l o g y .

Glazener called

for projects which utilize "experimental and research
*Rex Miller and Lee H. Smalley, Selected Readings
for Industrial Arts (Bloomington:
McKnight and McKnight
Publishing Company, 1963), p. 220.
1

2
techniques,"

for "improvement in design and/or instruction

in design principles" and a "decreasing supply of tie racks,
bird houses,

and milking stools."^

Hostetler said:
. . . When they [projects] are used as goals or ends in
themselves, their worthiness becomes thin and their value
questionable. . . . The real test of a good project is
when it involves investigation and solution of problems
on the part of the student.
. . . The group project may be carried to completion by
the line production method.
In fact, it is hard to see
how industrial arts can achieve its basic function today
without the use of line production methods.
Maley pointed out the value of research and experi­
mentation units, wherein ".

. . the making is now carried on

towards the end of developing experimental apparatus and the
pursuit of product,

tool, material, or process analysis,

testing, or development."

3

Industrial arts leaders have used a variety of t e c h ­
niques to influence teachers*
tion.

However,

selection of units of i n s t r u c ­

little evidence is available which indicates

what factors in the teaching environment or what strategies
are most effective in influencing teachers'
Therefore,

selections.

this study focused on the problem of determining

what factors are related to the selection of instructional
units by Michigan secondary industrial arts teachers.
1I b i d ., p. 222.
2I b i d ., pp. 222-223.
3
Roy 0. Billett, Donald Maley, and James J. Hammond,
The Unit Method (Washington, D. C.:
A merican Industrial Arts
Association, T?60) , p. 6.

3
Purposes of the Study
The purpose of -the study was to determine whether
t e a c h e r s ’ choice of instructional units was related to the
ways the teachers had been exposed to the u n i t s .
For the purpose of this study,

a unit was defined as

a group of related instructional goals about which a teacher
and his pupils develop and implement learning activities.
Teachers usually vary considerably in selecting goals
for units bearing similar titles.

Many teachers stress tec h ­

nical insights about production as their goals for teaching
quantity production units.

Other teachers incorporate the

technical insights, but they also include knowledge and a t t i ­
tudes regarding unions,

employer-employee relationships,

economic aspects of production, and the social significance
of production.

Some teachers structure units themselves,

while others allow the students to generate phases of the
units.
In a similar manner,

individually constructed student

artifacts can be used as vehicles to teach a certain body of
knowledge and to develop skill.

The projects can also be

constructed to teach students how to solve problems, as well
as to develop skill and technical knowledge.
The purpose of the study was to determine whether
teachers used the units identified in the inventory in their
own teaching situations.

The intent was to find out if they

had selected the topics for study, rather than to determine
what instructional goals the teachers had hoped to achieve.

4

The units selected for the study were those which
have been used by teachers.

They have also been frequently

referred to in industrial arts literature,

such as Miller

and Smalley's Selected Readings for Industrial A r t s ^ and
The Unit M e t h o d ,

2

published by the American Industrial Arts

Association.
The units selected for the study were:
Quantity production— The class is organized to function as a
group to produce multiple copies of objects.
The objects are
considered to function interchangeably, and are composed of
interchangeable parts.
Experimentation and r e s e a r c h — Students conduct experiments
with industrial products and equipment, or student-produced
equipment, which result in data collection and analysis.
Major emphasis is on student recognition of experimentation
and research as an industrial process, and on the development
of students' abilities to solve problems.
Model industry— Students construct a scale model of an indus­
trial plant while they also study the plant's sources of
materials, processing methods, human and physical o r g a niza­
tion of the plant, and products produced.
Practice pieces or m o d u l e s — Students produce practice pieces
or modules which are designed to assist students in develop­
ing insights regarding technical relationships, proper tech­
nical procedures, tools, equipment and materials, and manual
skills.
The pieces are not meant to be useful articles beyond
the class setting.
Product d e s i g n — Students plan articles to fulfill functions
specified by the instructor or themselves.
Major instruc­
tional emphasis is placed on student problem solving and
application of elements of design.
Projects— Students individually, or as a group, construct
articles w h i c h are intended to be useful beyond the class
setting.
Interchangeability of parts is not required.

^Miller and Smalley, op. c i t .
2
Billett, Maley, and Hammond, op. cit.

5
The methods by which teachers had been exposed to
units w ere identified by reviewing the processes by which
teachers frequently learn about units.

The methods of e x p o ­

sure used for the study were:
College laboratory--The teacher performed the activities of
the unit in a college laboratory class.
Discussion in college class— The teacher discussed the unit
in a college class.
Student teaching--The teacher observed his student teaching
supervisor teaching the unit.
Fellow teach e r — The teacher observed a fellow teacher in his
school teaching the unit.
Other school— The teacher observed a teacher in another
school teaching the unit.
Junior and/or senior high school— The teacher experienced the
unit while enrolled in a j u n i o r a n d / o r senior high school
class.
Movie, video tape, or slides— The teacher observed movies,
video t a p e s , or slides of the unit being taught to secondary
or college st u d e n t s .
M e e ting— The teacher heard a speaker at a meeting discuss the
unit.
Read a b o u t — The teacher read about how to teach the unit.
The adoption of units of instruction may also be
affected by lack of resources,

student ability,

the instruc­

tor's knowledge of how to provide the leadership,
the instructor does not value the unit.

and/or that

It was assumed that

industrial arts teachers exhibit considerable freedom to adopt
instructional units.

However,

the t e a c h e r s ' reasons for

having taught or for not having taught the units were solicited
to examine whether their choices of units were affected by
their teaching environments.

The teachers were asked to

6
respond to the following selected reasons for teaching or
for not teaching the units identified above.
For Teaching:
You value it--The teacher considered the unit to be a v a l u ­
able experience for his s t u d e n t s .
Other teachers wanted it— Other industrial arts teachers in
the teacher's school system asked him to teach the unit.
Students wanted it— The teacher's students wanted him to
teach the unit.
For Not Teaching:
Other industrial arts c l ass— The t e a c h e r fs students had or
would have experienced the unit in other industrial arts
classes.
Inappropriate— The teacher considered the unit to be inap­
propriate for the technical area that he taught.
Principal didn't want it--The teacher's principal did n't want
the teacher to teach the unit.
Students not capable— The teacher did not think his students
were social l y , p h y s i c a l l y , or mentally capable of profiting
from the unit.
Knowledge to p r o c e e d — The teacher lacked the knowledge to
organize the unit.
Facilities— The teacher thought that his laboratory facilities
were inadequate for teaching the unit.
F u n d s — The teacher thought that his instructional budget was
inadequate for teaching the unit.
Need for the Study
Industrial arts leaders utilize a variety of s t rate­
gies to influence the instructional decisions of industrial
arts teachers.

They attempt to reach them through u n d e r ­

graduate and graduate level courses,
dissemination

by

printed matter.

in-service programs,

However, evidence is

and

7
generally lacking regarding the effectiveness of the various
means used by the leaders;

i.e./ does observation of a stu­

dent teaching supervisor teaching a unit significantly influ­
ence the student teacher's use of the unit later on?

Does

that observation influence the later selection of the unit to
a greater extent than discussion of the unit in an industrial
arts curriculum class?

Does viewing a video tape of the unit

being taught influence a teacher's decision to use the unit
more than his performance of the activities of the unit as a
student in a college laboratory?
Rogers identified four key elements which should be
kept in mind in attempts to bring about any change.
are:

(1) the nature of the innovation itself/

They

(2) the means

of communicating the change to the people who are expected
to change/
process,

(3)

and

the social systems interacting in the change

(4) the time required for the target person or

persons to become aware of and assimilate the change.*1
Industrial arts teachers appear to exhibit a great
deal of personal autonomy in selecting units.

Therefore,

the primary focus of the work was on the relative strengths
of ten methods of communicating to industrial arts teachers
about instructional units.
Some consideration was given to time and social sys­
tems, as they became integral parts of the methods of
^McClelland, Wil l i a m A.
"The Process of Effecting
Change" (Presidential Address, Division of Military P s y c h o l ­
ogy of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco,
California, September, 1968), p. 6.

8

communication.

The nature of the innovations was not c o n ­

sidered as a variable for this study;

rather,

the study

attempted to identify communication processes which would
be closely associated with the use of any of the units studied.
A secondary purpose of the study was to determine the
frequency with which industrial arts teachers reported that
various people

or groups in their local social systems

affected their

selection of instructional units.

Those data

were gathered so industrial arts leaders could determine
whether or not

they need to exert any influence to alter

effects of the

community social systems on selection of

the

industrial arts units.
One often hears the statement,
way they are taught.'*

"Teachers teach the

That assumption is generally used to

support the contention that if it is desired that teachers
use certain methods or content,

the methods or content must

be demonstrated to the teachers in the same manner in which
the teachers are to utilize them.

Lindbeck and Feirer

revealed that industrial arts leaders frequently operate on
the basis of that assumption.^
After completing a survey of teacher-training p r o ­
grams in several universities,

John Jamrich wrote:

To further provide opportunity for the prospective
teacher to become acquainted w ith a variety of teaching
methods, the instructional procedures and materials
employed in the education sequence must be such as to
John L. Feirer and John R. Lindbeck, Industrial Arts
Education (Mew York;
The Center for Applied Research in
E d u c a t i o n , Inc., 1964), p. 70.

9
to demonstrate the application of those methods in
actual learning situations.
This means that use must
be made of a variety of teaching procedures such as the
lecture methods, the discussion method, field trips,
audio-visual materials, and committee work in a manner
w h ich will allow the prospective teacher to evaluate the
effectiveness of these methods.
Again, the application
of these methods must permeate the entire education
sequence, with full support and understanding by the
entire education staff.
In other words, the prospective
teachers should be taught as the institution and instruc­
tors wish them to teach.1
Othanel Smith, Saul Cohen,

and Arthur Pearl also

believed that teachers need demonstrations to implement
a b s tract ideas about teaching,

for they said:

Acceptance and respect for a child as a human being,
belief in his potential, and understanding of his social
and emotional situation are all very good w h e n they are
expressed in appropriate teaching performances.
In the
abstract, they are little more than pious expressions.
The experienced teacher in search of help in his efforts
to work effectively w ith children might in justice lament,
"Show me not the end without the m e a n s !"2
In a discussion of the need to individualize instruc­
tion in public schools,

the organizers of the "New School"

of the University of North Dakota stated,
for this task,

"To prepare teachers

it is essential that they too experience an

individualized program of instruction in their own college
s t u d i e s ."^
Ijohn X. Jamrich, "A Study of Current Practices in
Conducting General Methods and Related Courses in the Prepara­
tion of Secondary School T e a c h e r s ," Journal of Educational
R e s e a r c h , XLVIII (1954), 64.
^Othanel Smith, Saul B. Cohen, and Arthur Pearl,
Teachers for the Real World (Washington, D. C . : The American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969), 155.
^University of North Dakota, "A Description of the New
School:
University of North Dakota" (Paper distributed at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education, Chicago, March 1, 1969), p. 8.
(Mimeographed.

10
Jamrich,

Smith and his associates,

and the organizers

of the "New School" of the University of North Dakota all
assumed that teachers should be taught as they are expected
to teach.

However, Brickell conducted research to support

that assumption.

After interviewing elementary and secondary

teachers in the state of New York, he concluded:
The most effective way to convince a school staff that
it should adopt a new program is to let it observe the
successful new program in action.
Nothing persuades like
a visit.
Written descriptions of the new program,
speeches about it and research reports concerning it
should all be regarded as preliminary or supplementary to
a visit.
The innovation must be demonstrated under con­
ditions which are not abnormal, artificial or unrealistic
— that is, not too different from the everyday c i r c u m ­
stances in the observer's own school and community.
The
most persuasive demonstration consists of the continuing
use of the new approach as a basic part of regular
instruction in a normal school setting.1
Brickell stressed two elements of a strategy for
communicating an innovation:
demonstrated and

(1) The innovation should be

(2) The demonstration should occur in a set­

ting which is very similar to that of the observing teachers.
These conclusions offer possible strategies which could be
utilized by industrial arts leaders to affect the secondary
industrial arts teachers'

selection of units.

The present

study was conducted to determine whether the same conclusions
could be drawn for the field of industrial arts.

Henry M. Brickell, Organizing New York State for
Educational Change (Albany:
New York State Education Departm e n t , 1961), p"I 67.

11
Basic Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were m ade in the process
of conducting the study:
1.

Michigan secondary industrial arts teachers are
allowed some freedom to choose the units they teach.

2.

The goal of identifying

those factors in industrial

arts teaching situations which frequently affect the
selection of instructional units w o uld be deemed
important by industrial arts leaders.
3.

The goal of identifying

the variable relationships

between methods of exposure of industrial arts t e a c h ­
ers to instructional units and their selection of
those units would be deemed important by industrial
arts l e a d e r s .
Delimitation of the Study
The study was delimited
1.

in the following ways:

The units of instruction selected for the study were
limited to quantity production,

experimentation and

research, model industry, practice pieces or modules,
project design, and projects.

The units were further

limited to the definitions provided for each unit
(see page 4) .
2.

The methods of exposure
laboratory;
teaching;

were limited to college

discussion in a college class;

fellow teacher; other school;

student

junior and/or

senior high school experience; movie, video tape.

12
or slides; discussion by a speaker at a meeting;

and

reading.
3.

Data for the study were limited to those collected
via a mailed questionnaire returned by a random sam­
ple of 500 Michigan secondary industrial arts teachers.
No empirical data regarding the industrial arts
t e a c h e r s ' selection of units or means of being exposed
to the units were utilized.

4.

The conclusions of the study may be significant for
other curriculum fields;

however,

this study was

designed specifically for the industrial arts field.
Theory and Formulation of Hypothesis
Brickell stressed that teachers are most influenced
to accept a new program which they have seen demonstrated in
a situation very m uch like their own.^

It was therefore

hypothesized that industrial arts teachers would be most
inclined to use units they had seen demonstrated.

It was

further hypothesized that teachers' use of the units would
increase as the method of exposing the teachers to the units
more closely approximated their teaching situations.
order of exposure,

The

ranked from most closely associated with

their teaching situations to least associated, was hypothesized
as follows:

fellow teacher;

tory; other schools; movie,

1I b i d ., p. 67.

student teaching;

college labora­

video tape, or slides;

junior or

13
senior high school; meeting; discussed in college class;
read about.

and

The order was hypothesized for the following

reasons:
1.

The situation in which a teacher watches a fellow

teacher in the same building should more frequently parallel
his own situation than that which he observed during his s tu­
dent teaching.

T e aching in the same building should provide

essentially the same level of physical resources and students
with similar abilities.
2.

Observation of a student teaching supervisor should

more nearly approximate a t e a c h e r ’s situation than his p a r t i c i ­
pation in the unit in a college class, because the students
taught were secondary rather than college students.

Teachers

might think that instructional goals and methods used for
college classes could not generally be transferred to high
school teaching situations.
3.

Participation in the unit as college students should

be more closely related to the teachers'
observation of teachers in other schools,

use of the units than
because the latter

situation does not allow as m uch time for the assimilation of
instructional goals and organization.

Teachers'

observations

of other teachers is usually for less than one instructional
day.

If teachers' observations of other teachers generally

occur for periods sufficiently long to span the time required
to teach the units,

it would seem that observation of other

teachers would be m o r e closely associated w ith teaching the
unit than participation in the unit as a college student.

14
4.

Observation of teachers in other buildings should be

more closely related to teachers*

use of the units than v i e w ­

ing movies, video tapes, or slides of high school or college
students participating in the units.

The visual aids could

be suspected of having been edited to show primarily the suc­
cessful events, whereas live observation would provide a more
nearly true situation.

Both w o u l d provide approximately the

same viewing time.
5.

Viewing video tapes, movies,

or slides of high school

students should be more closely associated w ith teaching the
units than viewing college students,
ticipating in the same units.

by

the same media, p a r ­

Media showing the high school

students draw from the same age range of students.
6.

Movies, video tapes, and slides of high school or

college students should be m ore closely related to teachers'
use of the units than their own experience in junior or senior
high school, because the teachers watch the media for the
purpose of evaluating the unit as a possible teaching resource.
Therefore,

they more carefully consider the goals and instruc­

tional organization than they did in junior or senior high
school.
7.

Teachers'

performance of the units while enrolled in

junior and/or senior high school classes should be more
closely related to the teachers'

use of the units than hearing

a description of students' performance of the units.

The

teachers would have opportunities actually to see the physical
arrangement of the facilities and the activities of the

15
students.

Experiencing the units should therefore give the

teachers more familiarity w ith the units.

Consequently,

w ould be less fearful of being able to teach the units.

they
Hav­

ing experienced the units as students would also give the
teachers greater opportunities to determine the attitudes of
the students toward the u n i t s .
8.

Hearing units discussed at meetings should be more

closely associated with teaching the units than discussions
of the units in college classes, because the discussions at
the meetings would have focused on s t u d e n t s * performing the
units as opposed to the potential of performance whi c h would
have been related in college c l a s s e s .

The teachers would

therefore gain from the meetings the feeling that the units
could actually be taught successfully.
9.

Discussions of the units in college classes should be

more closely associated w i t h teaching the units than reading
about them, because there would be greater opportunities in
the college classes to ask questions and gain a variety of
viewpoints regarding the merits of the units.

The classes

would also afford greater opportunities to discuss how to
teach the units.

There is also a possibility that the teach­

ers may have identified with the instructor and other students
in the class who endorsed the u n i t s .
Determination of the relationships between methods of
exposing teachers to units and their use of the units was
based on teachers* responses on the

inventory, which indicated

whether they had taught the units and the methods by which

16
they had been exposed to the units.

The incidence of reported

use was then tabulated by methods of exposure to determine
the ranking of methods of exposure by incidence of use of the
units.

The following relationships were hypothesized:

Major H y p o t h e s i s :
When ranking methods by which Michigan secondary
industrial arts teachers had been exposed to selected
industrial arts instructional units from greatest to
least on the basis of reported incidence of use of
the instructional units by those teachers, the f ol­
lowing rank order will occur:
fellow teacher;
student teaching; college laboratory; other schools;
movie, video tape, or slides; junior and/or senior
high school; meeting; discussed in college class;
and read about.
Summary and Overview
The major problem of the study was to determine fac­
tors related to the selection of instructional units by M i c h i ­
gan secondary industrial arts teachers.
were to determine:

Specific purposes

(1) the relationships between teachers'

selection of certain instructional units and the methods by
which the teachers had been exposed to those units and
(2)

the frequency w ith which industrial arts teachers responded

to selected reasons for having taught or for not having taught
the u n i t s .
The need for the study was supported by concern among
industrial arts leaders that industrial arts teachers have
not appeared to select particular instructional units? however,
no systematic data were available to reflect w hat factors were
related to the teachers'

selection of the units.

Furthermore,

data were lacking regarding the relative strengths of various

means of affecting teachers'

choices of instructional

units.
Basic assumptions of the study were that:

(1) M i c h ­

igan secondary industrial arts teachers are allowed some
freedom to choose the units thjy teach and

(2) The goal of

identifying those factors in industrial arts teaching situa­
tions which frequently are associated with t e a c h e r s 1 s elec­
tion of instructional units should be of value to industrial
arts leaders.
The study was delimited to Michigan secondary indus­
trial arts teachers.
quantity production,

Units of instruction wer*

limited to

experimentation and research, model

industry, practice pieces or modules, product design, and
projects.

Methods of exposure of the teachers to the units

were limited to experiencing the unit in college laboratories
discussing in college classes;
teaching;

observation during student

observation of teachers within the same building;

observation of teachers in other schools;

experiencing the

units while enrolled as a junior and/or senior high school
student; observation of video tapes,
tations;

slides, or movie p r e s e n ­

verbal descriptions at meetings;

and reading.

It was hypothesized that the probability that indus­
trial arts teachers would indicate they had taught certain
instructional units would increase as the methods by which
the teachers had been exposed to the units more nearly
matched their own teaching situations and as the methods of
exposure approached a live performance of the unit.

18
The remainder of the study is organized in the follow­
ing manner.

A review of related literature is presented in

Chapter II.

The design of the instrumentation and survey

phase of the study is given in Chapter III.
described,

The sample is

the statistical hypothesis is stated,

analysis

procedures are discussed, and the testing and administration
of the inventory are described.
presented,

In Chapter IV, data are

analyzed, and interpreted.

A summary of the study,

conclusions, and recommendations are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO CHANGING T E A C H E R S '
SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS

Introduction
A discussion of the process of affecting industrial
arts teachers'

selection of instructional units is actually

a discussion of the process of change.

This chapter relates

the purposes and hypothesis of the study to the general frame­
work of research on change.

Also discussed in the chapter is

research concerned with change strategies, which tend to s u p ­
port the hypothesis that teachers are prone to accept those
changes which they see demonstrated in settings which are very
m uch like their own.
Identification of the Elements of Change
Various systems have been developed to account for
all of the elements of change.

The systems appear to be

quite similar, a s is evidenced by the following schemes.
Katz, Levin,

and Hamilton defined the process of d i f ­

fusion of innovations as the

(1) acceptance,

(2) over time,

(3) of some specific i tem— an idea or practice--by
viduals,

groups, or other adapting units,

19

linked to

(4)

indi­

20
(5) specific channels of communication,
structure,

and

(7)

(6) to a social

to a given system of values, or c u l t u r e . 1

Miles included in his discussion of the change process the elements of:

characteristics of educational systems,

the innovation itself,

innovating persons or groups,

of the planning and execution of the change process,
2
eventual fate of innovations advocated.

status
and the

Rogers identified the following as key elements of
change related to diffusion of innovations:
the innovation itself, communication,

the nature of

the social system, and

t i m e .3
Rogers'

elements appear to embody those suggested in

the other two schemes, except that Miles'

category of c h a r ­

acteristics of educational systems may be viewed as being
somewhat outside the social system referred to by all three
schemes.

That element is m o r e completely explored,

with all of the other elements of change,

along

in the following

section.
Elements of Change Related to Teachers'
Selection of Instructional Units
Miles cited the research of Sloan, Wayland,
Flesche, Masters,

Colvard,

and Eliot to support the contention that

^Matthew B. Miles, Innovation in Education (New York:
Teachers College, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1964), p p . 237-252.
2I b l d ., p. 632.
York:

^Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations
The Free Press, 1965)7 p7 12.

(New

21
the United States has a national educational system which
might serve to brake or increase the potential for innovations
in local schools.

The researchers referred to the national

recruitment of teachers,

successful and relatively easy

change from one school to another by students and teachers,
the national market for instructional materials, and national
examination systems as all providing evidence that the c u r ­
ricula of the nation's schools are very similar.^
The heavy reliance in industrial arts curricula on
projects which have been preplanned for students may very
well be attributed,

to a m a r k e d extent,

to professional p e r i ­

odicals and textbooks w h i c h have incorporated such plans.
The use of practice modules was given a similar impe­
tus about 100 years ago.

The use of that particular approach

was accelerated as a result of the Russian display at the
Centennial Exposition at Philadelphia in 187 6.
Runkle, President of the Massachusetts

Or. John R.

Institute of Technology

at that time, was greatly impressed by the Russian display.
He wrote:
At Philadelphia, in 187 6 almost the first thing I saw
was a small case containing three series of m o d e l s—
one of chipping and filing, one of forging, and one of
machine tool work.
I saw at once that they were not
parts of machines, but simply graded models for teaching
manipulations in those arts.2

^Miles,

o p . c i t ., pp. 632,

2

642.

Charles A. Bennett, History of Manual and Industrial
Education 1870 to 1917 (Peoria:
Charles Bennett Co., Inc.,

1337), p. 326.-------

22
Runkle proceeded to set up shop courses at the university
level,

in which students w e r e taught in a similar manner.

Secondary teachers were also trained through that process.
At the same time, C. H. Woodard was traveling around
the country organizing high school shop programs to be taught
in the same way.

His work and Runkle*s training of teachers

thus helped the "practice p i e c e s ” method of shop training to
spread across the n a t i o n . 1
The trend for the establishment of a national curric­
ulum through the processes cited above tends to w ork against
the diffusion of new units of instruction such as quantity
production,

because facilities,

istration, and other teachers'
toward the old units.

textbooks,

students, a d m i n ­

expectations tend to be oriented

Diffusion processes may also work to

establish a new practice.

For example,

the fact that suppliers

for industrial arts programs have sold materials testing
equipment nationwide may tend to augment widespread acceptance
of units in research and experimentation.
Assessment of Results
Miles cited the lack of a visible payoff such as an
economic return as a deterrent to change in schools.

That is,

if industrial arts teachers are unable to detect the d e v e l o p ­
ment of any different student abilities by teaching a differ2
ent unit, they are unlikely to teach it.
1I b i d . , p. 310.
^Miles, op. c i t ., p.

634.

23
Brickell reported that teachers would be more likely
to put into practice new ideas to which they had seen students
r e a c .t .1
Miles* and Brickells*

conclusions support the hypothe­

sis that teachers are more likely to teach those units which
they have seen demonstrated, because they have been able to
evaluate the outcomes.
The Nature of the
Innovation Itself
Rogers identified the following characteristics of
innovations which may affect their diffusion:
advantage,

relative

that is, whether they are perceived to be better

than what they replace;

compatibility w ith the values and

experiences of the client; divisibility of the innovations
into parts which might be adopted a piece at a time; complex­
ity or degree of difficulty encountered in understanding the
innovations.2
Variation between the six units included in the
present study in regard to the above characteristics would
have helped to explain different rates of utilization by
secondary teachers.

However,

those characteristics have not

been discussed in this study because the purpose of the study
was to identify methods of exposure which would be associated
with the use of all of the units.
^Brickell, op. c i t ., p. 33.
2

M c C l e 1l a n d , op. c i t ., p . 7.

24
Social Systems
Rogers defined a social system as:
. , . a population of individuals who are functionally
differentiated and engaged in collective problem­
solving behavior. . . . All of the members cooperate
at least to the extent of having some common problem
which they are seeking to s o l v e d
Industrial arts teachers work wit h i n several types
of social systems which might influence their selection of
instructional units.

Some of these systems are:

classes of students,

industrial arts departments,

faculties,
nities.

school administrators,

However,

school systems,

their
building
and commu­

research regarding the influence of these

social systems on adoption of changes by individual industrial
arts teachers has generally been lacking because individual
teachers have not usually been chosen as the unit of analysis
in research.

In contrasting diffusion research in rural soci­

ology and education,

Eichholz and Rogers noted:

In rural sociology the unit of analysis is usually the
individual farmer.
In some 150 educational studies
completed to date on the diffusion of innovations the
unit of analysis has been the school or the school s ys­
tem .^
The C o m m u n i t y .--After reviewing several research p r o ­
jects regarding the effect of a social system's norms on inno­
vation by its members,

Rogers concluded,

^Rogers, op. c i t ., p. 14.
^Miles, op. c i t ., p. 314.

"An individual's

25
innovativeness varies directly w ith the norms of his social
system on innovativeness.”1
Rogers and Burdge found that 20 per cent of the v a r i ­
ation in Ohio farmers'

innovation scores could be accounted

for by community n o r m s . 2
Brickell found that parents,

citizen groups, and

boards of education did not exert strong influence for the
adoption of innovative practices in schools, but they would
exert strong opposition to programs if they did not favor
t h e m .^
School a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .— There has been considerable
discussion concerning the role of administrators in instruc­
tional leadership.
principals.

That is particularly true of secondary

The research cited below is related to that

issue.
Brickell determined that most changes in instruc­
tional programs w h i c h affected more than one classroom had
been introduced or actively supported by administrators.

4

Demeter stated:
Building principals are key figures in the process.
Where they are aware of and sympathetic to an innova­
tion, it tends to prosper.
Where they are ignorant

^Rogers, o p . c i t ., p. 71.
2Ibid.
^Brickell, o p . c i t ., pp. 20-21.
4I b i d ., p. 22.

26
of its existence, or apathetic if not hostile, it
,
tends to remain outside the bloodstream of the school.
While Brickell*s and Demeter's studies tended to
support the retarding or neutral roles of the principal with
regard to classroom innovation, Chesler,

Schmuck, and Lippitt

found evidence to support the conclusion that principals play
significant roles in stimulating classroom innovations.

They

said:
There is high and significant correlation between the
amount of staff inventiveness, as measured by the mean
number of new practices developed by each teacher, and
the principal's support for innovative teaching.
There
is an even higher correlation between the teacher's
perception of his principal's support and his perception
of his colleagues' support of innovation.2
The Research Division of the Institute for Development
of Educational Activities,

Inc., concluded that the individ­

ual school is the crucial unit for educational change.
found the principal to be the key agent of change,

They

but also

found that principals generally lacked the necessary skills
of managing decision making,
solving procedures,

implementing scientific p r o b l e m ­

becoming aware of a great variety of

resources which can be brought to bear on such problem s o l v ­
ing, becoming more discriminating in selecting such resources,

^■Lee H. Demeter, "Accelerating the Local Use of Improved
Educational Practices in School Systems" (unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951), p . 23
2
Mark Chesler, Richard Schmuck, and Ronald Lippitt,
"The Principal's Role in Facilitating Innovation," Theory
Into Practice, II (December, 1963), 274.

27
and developing the skills to deal with the conflict built in
the middle management role.^
Other t e a c h e r s .--Industrial arts teachers may receive
support or rejection from other industrial arts teachers or
other teachers in the building or system.
Brickell found that as long as a teacher did not
attempt an innovation that would affect other teachers,

the

teacher had almost total control of his instructional d e c i ­
sions;

but when the teacher's choices affected other teachers,

the teacher lacked the authority to proceed against the wishes
of the other staff members.

2

Rogers and Eichholz found that elementary teachers
rejected new instructional media partially because of the
experiences other teachers had had w ith them and because of
the attitudes their colleagues displayed toward them.
Rogers'

3

statement that "An individual's innova tive­

ness varies directly with the norms of his social system" also
could be applied to department or building faculty as c o m muni­
ties in which industrial arts teachers function.

It w ould

therefore appear that social norms in operation within d e p a r t ­
ments or building faculties could either inhibit or enhance
^Institute for Development of Educational Activities,
Inc., /I/D/E/A/ R e p o r t e r . A newsletter prepared by the Insti­
tute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc. (Melbourne,
Florida, Fall Edition, 1969), p. 9.
2

Brickell, o p . c i t ., p. 23.
3
Miles, op. c i t ., p. 307.

28
the prospects of the adoption of new units of instruction by
industrial arts teachers.
S t u d e n t s .— Brickell revealed that teachers are c o n ­
cerned about adopting changes whi c h may not be appropriate
for their students.

In discussing that point, he said:

A n essential purpose of the visit is to enable the
observer to compare conditions in the two s c h o o l s . He is
especially wary of variations in mental ability of
pupils, financial support of the program, physical
facilities, mak e - u p of the community and characteristics
of the teachers.1
Brickell also found that:
Instructional innovations are almost always evaluated
by observing the reactions of the students while they
are receiving the new instruction.
In the eyes of the
practitioner, no other evidence outweighs student r e a c ­
tion as a measure of success.2
In view of Brickell*s statements,

it appears quite

likely that industrial arts teachers may reject new instruc­
tional ideas because they think their students will react
negatively to them.

However,

the teachers may adopt new p r o ­

grams which their students desire.
Individual t e a c h e r s .—

Brickell found in his study of

N ew York State teachers that classroom teachers may make the
following types of changes themselves:
room practice,
(3)

(1) change in c l a s s ­

{2) relocation of existing curriculum content,

introduction of single special courses at the high school

level.

Brickell stated,
^Brickell,

"The teacher exerts almost complete

o p . c i t ., p. 29.

^ I b i d ., p . 33.

29
control over his own classroom work.

In fact the administra­

tor often does not know what the teacher is doing from day
to day."*- Brickell* s research tends to support an underlying
assumption of this stu d y — that teachers exercise some a u t o n ­
omy in the selection of instructional u n i t s .
Time
Rogers indicated that time available for the client
to assimilate the innovation can greatly affect its adoption.

2

He and several other rural sociologists developed an adoption
model with the five stages of
(3) evaluation,

(4) trial,

and

(1) awareness,
(5) adoption.

(2) interest,
3

Rogers said,

"There is not complete agreement as to the number of stages in
the adoption process, although there is general consensus on
the existence of stages,
4
'impulse' decision."

and that adoption is seldom an

If Brickell*s conclusion can be accepted,

that "In

the eyes of the practitioner,

no other evidence outweighs
5
student reaction as a mea s u r e of success,"
it would appear

that the evaluation stage of Rogers' adoption model cannot be
reached until teachers have actually seen units taught.

It

would therefore appear that the time required for teachers to
1I b i d ., p. 25.
‘Rogers, o p . c i t ., p. 17.
^Ibid ., p. 81.
4 I b i d ., p. 80.
5

Brickell,

op. c i t ., p. 33.

30

adopt units could be shortened by exposing them through d e m o n ­
strations rather than by discussion or reading about the
units.

The teachers could thereby reach the evaluation stage

sooner.
in the present study, exposure of teachers to units
through observing teachers in other schools was not ranked as
high as exposure by observing teachers in the same building.
T hat relationship was hypothesized primarily because the
exposure through visitation to other schools is often for only
a portion of a d a y .

The time requirement theorized by Rogers

is thus related to that hypothesized relationship.
Communication
Havighurst and Neugarten identified methods of c o m m u ­
nication in three broad socialization categories of reward
and punishment,

didactic teaching,

and imitation.^"

The m e t h ­

ods of exposure of industrial arts teachers to instructional
units used for the present study may all be identified w i t h
either didactic or imitation methods of communication.

Dis­

cussion of units in college classes, presentations by speak­
ers at meetings,
methods.

and reading about units are all didactic

Being exposed to units by performing the activities

in college laboratories or in junior or senior high school
classes or by observations of other teachers are all means
by which teachers could learn through imitation of instructors.
^Robert J. Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten, Society
and Education (Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), p . 77.

31
It has been hypothesized in this study that teachers
who have been exposed to instructional units by imitative
methods are more likely to teach the units than those who
have been exposed to the units by didactic methods.
Exposure by reading, class discussion,

and l e c t u r e .—

In reviewing methods of teaching, Wingo indicated that the
lecture method, reading, and class discussions have fre­
quently been examined and compared as methods of instruction,
w ith no conclusive evidence indicating the efficiency of one
method over a n o t h e r .^
Wingo also revealed that the lecture method,

reading,

and class discussions have been compared to the project and
laboratory methods of teaching.

He expressed some reserva­

tions about making generalized statements regarding the e f f i c ­
iency of certain methods because of the lack of clear d e f i n i ­
tions of each one.

However,

he did say research generally

indicated the project and laboratory methods were superior to
2
lecture and discussion methods of instruction.
Exposure of
teachers to instructional units by having them participate
in such units as junior or senior high school students or as
college students appears to fall in the category of the l ab­
oratory method of instruction.
sions,

In light of W i n g o 1s c o nc l u ­

it would appear that teachers would be more likely to

^Chester W. Harris and Marie R. Liba, e d s ., E n c y c l o ­
pedia of Educational Research (New York:
The Macmillan
Company7, 1960) , p~. 653.
2I b i d ., pp. 851-852.

32
teach units if they had been exposed to them by p a r ticipa­
tion in them,
meetings,
them.

rather than by presentations by speakers at

discussions in college classes,

or reading about

That relationship was hypothesized for this study.
Exposure through i m i t a t i o n .— Havighurst and Neugarten

wrote:
A large part of w hat the child learns occurs through
unconscious imitation and identification.
Yet parents,
teachers, and other adults, in planning socialization
experiences for children and adolescents, are probably
making less than full use of these processes.
In many
learning situations where adults rely upon the methods
of reward and punishment or upon didactic teaching,
learning might well be left to the child's tendency to
imitate and identify w ith admired people around him.
In
the classroom situation, for example, the processes of
unconscious imitation and identification occur as fre­
quently as elsewhere, they might occur even more fre­
quently if teachers focused their attention upon them.
The teacher who is first admired as a person will be
more effective as a teacher.
Bandura and Walters also reflected on the lack of the use of
imitative learning,

for they said:

The importance of social agents as a source of patterns
of behavior continues to be largely ignored, despite
evidence from informal observation and laboratory e x p e r i ­
mentation that the provision of models in actual or s ym­
bolic form is an exceedingly effective procedure for
transmitting and controlling b e h a v i o r . 2
Bandura and Ross demonstrated that models are e f f e c ­
tive in shaping children's aggressive and problem-solving
behavior,

even though the aggressive techniques exhibited

^Havighurst and Neugarten,
2

o p . c i t ., p. 77.

Albert Bandura and Richard H. Walters, Social L e a r n ­
ing and Personality Development (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc ., 1964) , pTI 51.

33
were contrary to more socially acceptable behavior exhibited
by the children's parents.^1
In discussing the findings in his study of change in
schools in the state of New York/ Brickell stated:
The consultant asked hundreds of teachers and a d m i n i s ­
trators/ "What does it take to persuade you to adopt a
program being used in another school?
What would make
you feel the program might be w o r t h a try?"
Their
answers were remarkably uniform.
The most persuasive
experience a school person can have is to visit a s uc­
cessful new program and to observe it in action.
Speeches, literature, research reports and conversations
w ith participants outside the actual instructional set­
ting are interesting but relatively unconvincing.
Impli­
cation:
Recommended new programs m ust be demonstrated
so they can be observed in a c t i o n . 2
It would appear to be a reasonable assumption that
teachers might adopt instructional goals and methods through
a modeling process very much as children do.

Observation of

other teachers and their student teaching experiences are
two planned phases of their education by which teachers in
training may develop modeling tendencies.

However,

it should

not be forgotten that the teachers have been exposed to teacher
models all through their educational programs,

from elementary

grades through the college level; and that those less formally
designed modeling experiences may greatly influence p r o spec­
tive teachers.

For example, an industrial arts teacher e d u ­

cator who espoused the virtues of teaching units of quantity
production and experimentation and research,

but who provided

his preservice teachers only the activity of individual
^I b i d ., p. 61.
2Brickell, op. c i t ., p. 27.

34
projects, may well have indicated to his students that p r o ­
viding units of instruction

by

individual projects was much

more important than teaching units of quantity production and
experimentation.

The preservice teachers would be especially

prone to model the teacher educators w i t h whom they identi­
fied .
Brickell discovered that while educators in New York
State indicated the most convincing method of communicating
the essence of a new program was through observing it, the
observed situation must be demonstrated in situations very
similar to those of the observers.

If the observed situations

tended to differ from those of the observers,

the observers

were apt to conclude that the programs could not be d u p l i ­
cated in their schools because the differences in teaching
situations w o u l d cause them to fail.1

Likewise, New York

educators rejected the idea of a centrally located d e m o n ­
stration center because they believed it would provide an
artificial situation.

They rejected campus schools as demon2
stration centers for the same reason.
Films as special devices for imitative l e a r n i n g .—

Bandura and his associates found that film mediated models
were as effective as real-life models in transmitting deviant
patterns of beh a v i o r . 1
^Brickell, o p . c i t ., p. 29.
2 I b i d . , pp. 29-30.
^Bandura and Walters,

op. c i t ., p. 61.

35
Orme set up an experiment in which he tested the rela­
tive effects of symbolic and perceptual modeling in teaching
selected instructional skills to student teachers.
bolic modeling was provided

by

The sym­

written and verbal instruc­

tions, whereas the perceptual modeling was provided by means
of a filmed model who portrayed the desired behavior.

Orme

found the perceptual m o deling method to be significantly more
effective than the symbolic method in helping teachers to
acquire the desired behavior;

but he also found that a c o m ­

bination of symbolic and perceptual modeling was m ore effec­
tive than either of the methods used alone.^
Freedman randomly assigned Hunter College elementary
education students to three methods of observing elementary
classrooms.

He concluded that observation

by

kinescope p re­

sentation was superior to observation by live television or
2
direct observation.
Fulton and Rupiper found that preservice teachers
who observed motion pictures of classrooms scored higher on
a test of observed behavior than those who observed classrooms directly.

3

^Michael E. Orme, "The Effects of Modeling and F e e d ­
back Variables on the Acquisition of a Complex Teaching S t r a t ­
egy" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University,
1966), pp. 81-82.
2

Frederick R. Cyphert and Ernest Spaights, A n Analysis
and Projection of Research in Teacher E d u c a t i o n , Cooperative
Research Project No. F-015 (Columbus, O h i o : TKe Ohio State
University Research Foundation, 1964), p. 44.
^ I b i d ., pp. 44-45.

36
Communications through professional m e e t i n g s .—
Brickell found that educators tended to believe that speakers
at professional meetings were not truthful about the successes
and limitations of the innovations they described.

The edu­

cators indicated that speakers tended to make their schools
and programs sound like they were highly successful.3.
Communications through w r i t i n g .— Brickell found that
educators tended to suspect that articles in professional
journals and research reports tended to maximize the successes
of innovative p r o g r a m s .2
Communications through p e e r s .— New York educators
indicated to Brickell that they tended to believe reports
about new programs if the persons giving the reports were
outside the agency which provided the new program.

That was

especially true if the conversations were w ith personal
friends.

However,

those convictions fell short of being as

adequate as observation of the new programs, because there
were too many elements in the new programs which could not be
communicated by any sort of verbal description.

3

In discussing the communication of innovations from
innovative to adopter groups, Miles said:
. . . it seems essential to create explicit c o m m u n i c a ­
tion channels between persons in and out of the innovat­
ing groups, particularly at the peer level.
Such channels
^Brickell, o p . c i t ., pp. 27-28.
2Ibid ■, p. 28,.
3Ibid.

37
not only
vation's
increase
from the

supply feedback on the progress of the inno­
acceptance and development, but serve to
the credibility of innovators and add support
environment.^

After reviewing the conclusions of Katz and Menzel
and Coleman and Rahim, as well as his own research with Beal,
Rogers concluded that personal influence from peers was more
important:

(1) at the evaluative stage and less important at

other stages,
lier adopters,

(2) for relatively later adopters than for e a r ­
(3)

in uncertain situations than in clear-cut

s i t u a t i o n s .^
Brickell also concluded that educators tended to be
influenced by friends to accept new programs.^
Communication of knowledge to p r o c e e d .— Brickell
concluded that innovative programs were more apt to fail
because of the inabilities of the teachers to carry them out
than by teachers'

reluctance to attempt them.

He suggested

that the key to successful implementation of new programs
was to give teachers the assistance they needed to learn to
do new tasks.

He recommended that assistance be given in the

forms of guided practice with an expert at hand,
instructional materials,

lots of

encouragement, and a chance to get

ideas from other teachers who w ere learning the new program.
^Miles, op. c i t ., p. 655.
2
Rogers, o p . c i t ., pp. 219-222.
3
Brickell, op. c i t ., p. 28.
* l b i d ., pp.

31-32.

4

38
Summary
The elements in the process of change, as identified
and considered by several researchers, were discussed in this
chapter.

The relationship of each of the elements to the

present study was also examined.
The characteristics of educational systems,

assessment

of results, and the nature of the innovations undoubtedly
have some differing effects on the adoption of the units
studied.

However,

the present study is concerned w i t h iden­

tifying methods of communication which are strongly related
to teachers' use of all the units.

The purpose of the study

does not involve looking for communication methods w h ich would
be more effective with some units than others.
The research supports the conclusion that p r i n c i ­
pals, other teachers,
selection of units.

and students might influence teachers'
Thus,

those elements of the teachers'

social systems were included in the selected reasons to which
teachers could respond for having taught or for not having
taught the units.

However,

the research also supports the

conclusion that teachers are free to make independent changes
within their classroom programs if the changes do not affect
other teachers.

Industrial arts teachers' choices of instruc­

tional units appear to fall in that category.

Therefore,

the

major thrust of the study focuses on methods by w h i c h individ­
ual teachers were influenced to select units of instruction.
Brickell indicated that teachers fail to continue
new programs because they lack the knowledge to proceed.

39
Therefore,

lack of knowledge was included as a response

teachers could make for not having taught the units.
The research on modeling and Brickell's research
support the hypothesis that teachers are more likely to
accept and use programs which they have seen demonstrated
in situations very much like their own.

The research also

especially indicated that the demonstration and discussion
of the new programs should be done by the t e a c h e r s 1 p e e r s .
The research cited has not been applied to the field
of industrial arts.

Therefore,

the present study represents

an attempt to carry out the research in that field.
Chapter III contains a discussion of the design and
instrumentation of the study.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION OF THE STUDY

The primary purpose of the study was to determine
whether certain relationships exist between selected methods
of exposing M i chigan industrial arts teachers to certain
instructional units and teachers'
units.
null

indicated use of those

The differences hypothesized are presented in the

(H ) and alternate
o

(H, ) form in this chapter,
1

The Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficient
and the analysis of variance were computed as two separate
analyses of the data.

Therefore,

the

(H0 > and

(H^)

statements

of the hypothesis are stated for each method of analysis.
The secondary purpose of the study was to determine
the frequency with which teachers indicated certain reasons
why they had or had not taught the units identified for the
study.
Null and Alternate Hypotheses
H :

Methods of exposure ranked by proportion of teachers
who taught the units to which they had been exposed will
not be significantly correlated to the predicted rank
of methods of e x p o s u r e .

H.:

Methods of exposure ranked by proportion of teachers
w h o taught the units to which they had been exposed will
be significantly correlated to the predicted rank of
methods of exposure.
40

41
Hq :

There will not be a significant difference between the
means of exposure scores for teachers who taught units
and those teachers who did not.
There will be a significant difference between the means
of exposure scores for teachers who taught units and
those teachers who did not.
Initial Instrument Development
The first part of the instrument used in the study

was developed to determine the extent to which teachers
reported use of instructional units was related to the m e t h ­
ods by which they had been exposed to the u n i t s .
The second part of the instrument was designed to
determine the frequency w i t h which teachers indicated c e r ­
tain reasons why they had or had not taught the units.
Development of the instrument involved:

(a)

fication of the instructional units to be included,

identi­
(b) i d e n ­

tification of methods by which teachers m i g h t have been exposed
to the units, and

(c) reasons given for teaching or not teach­

ing the units of instruction.
Identification of Units
of Instruction
Units of instruction were identified through a review
of literature in the industrial arts field.

There was no

attempt to exhaust all possible units; rather, only those
which appeared frequently in the literature were included.
Quantity p r o d u c t i o n .— "Quantity production" is a term
which is frequently used in industrial arts literature as a
name for a unit of instruction in which students are organized

42
to simulate a manufacturing company.
design,

produce,

and sell an article.

The students frequently
The primary purpose of

the unit is generally to help students to understand how c o m ­
panies organize human and material resources to "mass produce"
products which incorporate parts which can be interchanged.
The economic and social significance of "mass production" are
emphasized.

Leaders such as Wilber and Hostetler have a d v o ­

cated teaching units in quantity production.^"

The following

definition was derived for the inventory:
The class is organized to function as a group to
produce multiple copies of objects.
The objects
are considered to function interchangeably and
are composed of interchangeable parts.
Experimentation and r e s e a r c h .— Maley expounded the
virtues of "experimentation and research" as a unit of
instruction.

2

The instructional emphasis in the unit is g e n ­

erally focused on attitudes and problem-solving abilities,
which are reflected in scientific data collection and analysis.
The recognition of research and experimentation as an aspect
of industry is also frequently stressed.

The appearance of

materials testing equipment w h i c h has been designed for indus­
trial arts laboratories is evidence that the unit has become
somewhat accepted by teachers.

The following definition was

developed for the inventory:
Students conduct experiments with industrial products
and equipment, or student-produced equipment, which
result in data collection and analysis.
Major
^Miller and Smalley,
2

o p . c i t ., pp. 205 and 223.

Billett, Maley, and Hammond,

o p . c i t ., pp. 5-13.

43
emphasis is on student recognition of experimenta­
tion and research as an industrial process and the
development of students' abilities to solve problems.
Model

i n d u s t r y .— The study of a "model industry"

seems

to have been given considerable impetus by John Dewey's e m p h a ­
sis on having students learn about something by having them at
least simulate the situation and the thing about which they
were to learn.

In more recent years,

various members of the

staff of the University of Maryland have advocated building
models as a part of the study of the selected industry.

The

instructional emphasis generally appears to be on how a c o m ­
pany procures a raw product and follows a series of steps to
produce an article such as brick or paper.

The study generally

puts less emphasis on the human organization than is required
in the unit on "quantity production."

The following definition

was developed for use with the inventory:
Students construct a scale model of an industrial
plant while they also study the plant's sources of
materials, processing methods, human and physical
organization of the plant, and products produced.
Practice p i e c e s .— Units of instruction oriented toward
"practice pieces or modules" appear to be a holdover from the
impact of the Russian exhibit at the Centennial Exposition in
Philadelphia in 18 76.

Writers such as Fryklund have tended

to encourage the continuation of the unit through their promo­
tion of the analyses of trades as a basis for industrial
arts instruction.^

The practice pieces or modules frequently

^Miller and Smalley, op. c i t ., pp. 164 and 242-253.

44
are not designed to be a useful part of any article,

but are

completed as a means to help students develop technical
insights and manual skills as ends in themselves.

The d e f i n i ­

tion which follows was developed for the inventory:
Students produce practice pieces or modules w h ich
are designed to assist students to develop manual
skills and insights regarding proper procedures,
tools, equipment, and materials.
The practice
pieces are not meant to be useful articles beyond
the class setting.
Product d e s i g n .— "Product design" has been encouraged
by Lindbeck, Lahti, and others as a basis for teaching problem
solving

and the application

of elements of design.^-

is also

offered to help students become

engineering functions of industry.

The unit

more aware of the

The following definition

was developed for the inventory:
Students plan articles to fulfill functions w h ich
have been specified by the instructor or themselves.
Major instructional emphasis is placed on student
problem solving and
application of elements of
design.
P r o j e c t s .— Individually or group-constructed "projects"
which are useful articles have been utilized as instructional
units for many d e c a d e s .

This particular unit appears to have

been offered primarily to attain two instructional goals.
Teachers may provide the unit as a vehicle to teach knowledge
of tools and materials and to help students develop manual
skills.

Other teachers put more instructional emphasis on the

development of students'

abilities to solve problems.

Indus­

trial arts leaders have frequently expressed concern over the
1Miller and Smalley,

op. c i t ., pp. 267-271.

45
emphasis they have seen teachers place on the first rather
than the last of these two goals.^
of purpose was not crucial

However,

for this study.

that distinction
Therefore,

the

following definition was utilized:
Students individually, or as a group, construct
articles which are intended to be useful beyond the
class setting.
Interchangeability of parts is not
required.
The selection of which articles a student
may construct may be made either by the instructor
or the s t u d e n t .
Identification of
Methods of Exposure
Those methods by which industrial arts teachers c om­
monly learn about new instructional programs were identified
as the methods of e x p o s u r e .
The statements of exposure incorporated specified
duration of the exposures so that it might be possible to rep­
licate the r e s e a r c h .
The methods of exposure,

as stated in the inventory,

are listed below:
College lab--You were enrolled in a college class where you
devoted a t l e a s t one week of class time to the performance
of activities designed to achieve the objectives of the unit
as opposed to merely discussing or writing about w h a t activi­
ties should be performed.
Discussed in college c l a s s — You were enrolled in a college
class where at least 30 minutes of class time was devoted to
the discussion of possible activities associated w i t h the
unit, but you did not perform such activities in that class.
Student teaching— You observed your student teaching super­
visor provide his class instructional activities designed to
achieve the goals of the unit for a period of at least 30

1 I b i d . , pp. 220-233.

46
minuses.
(Your student teaching supervisor was the person
who had immediate responsibility for providing the instruc­
tional activities for the class for which you did your student
t e a c h i n g .)
Fellow teacher— You observed a teacher, who taught in the same
building, provide his class instructional activities designed
to achieve the goals of the unit for a period of at least 30
minutes.
other school— You observed a teacher, in a school building
other than your own, provide his class instructional a c t i v i ­
ties designed to achieve the goals of the unit for a period
of at least 30 minutes.
Jr.-Sr. high experi e n c e — You were enrolled in a junior or
senior high school class where you devoted at least one week
of class time to the performance of activities designed to
achieve the objectives of the unit as opposed to mer e ly d i s ­
cussing or writing about what activities should be performed.
Read a b o u t — You have read an account of how to teach the unit.
The length of the text of the account was the equivalent of
one double-spaced 8 - 1 / 2 " x 1 1 " typewritten page.
identification of Reasons for
Teaching or for Not Teaching
the Units
The reasons indicated in the inventory for teaching
or for not teaching the units were those commonly given by
teachers for making choices of instructional units.

They

are listed below:
For Teaching:
Required curric u l u m — The unit is a required part of the
c urr i c u l u m .
Requested by administration— Your administration requested
that you teach the unit.
Other 1A teachers wanted it— Other industrial arts teachers
in your system asked you to teach the unit.
For Not Teaching:
Other IA cla s s — Your students have/or will experience the
unit in other industrial arts classes.

47
Inappropriate for technical a r e a — The unit is inappropriate
for the technical area you teach.
Administration didn't want it— Your administration asked you
not to teach the u n i t .
Students not c a p a b l e --Your students are socially, physically,
or mentally incapable of profiting from the unit.
Knowledge to proceed— You do not know how to organize the
unit.
Facilities— Your industrial arts facilities are inadequate
to teach the unit.
Funds--You do not have sufficient funds in your budget to
provide the unit.
Pretesting and Refinement
of the Instrument
A pilot study was conducted to obtain reactions to
the questionnaire and the cover l e t t e r .*1

Reactions were also

obtained from the members of an industrial arts doctoral s e m ­
inar group at Michigan State University.
Pilot Study Procedures
Twenty-five industrial arts teachers were randomly
selected from the Michigan Department of Education Register
of Certified P e r s o n n e l — Alphabetical List of Industrial Educa­
tion Personnel as of February 1 9 7 1 .
Copies of the proposed cover letter,

inventory, and

reaction and suggestion sheet were mailed on March 22, 1971,
to each of the 25 teachers in the pilot group

(Appendix A ) .

The teachers were asked to:
"^Copies of the proposed pilot study cover letter,
inventory, and reaction and suggestion sheet, and letter to
the pilot group are included in Appendix A.

48
1.

Read the proposed cover l e t t e r .

2.

Read, complete,

and write on the inventory any

comments they might wish to m a k e .
3.

Complete the reaction and suggestion sheet.
The teachers who had not returned the pilot study

material by April

6 th

were sent a follow-up letter.

Results of the Pilot Study
Just seven of the group of 2 5 teachers in the pilot
study returned the material requested.

The results of those

returns are indicated below.
Five of the seven respondents indicated that the
introductory letter would have motivated them to respond to
the inventory.

One responded by checking

not offer any comments.

MNo"f but he did

The seventh teacher commented "so-so"

to the question.
Five teachers indicated that the introductory letter
adequately explained the purpose of the study.
offer any comments.

They did not

The other two respondents indicated that

the letter did not adequately explain the purpose of the study,
but they did not offer any comments.
All seven respondents indicated that the directions
for responding to the inventory were clear and sufficient.
None offered additional comments.

All seven teachers responded

that the directions of the six instructional units were clear
and sufficient.

O n e teacher indicated that the blank columns

should be eliminated from the inventory.

None of the teach­

ers appeared to have any difficulty completing the inventory.

49
Feedback From the Seminar Group
A seminar group of industrial arts doctoral students
from Michigan State University was selected to provide f eed­
back because they all had had recent teaching experience or
were presently teaching at the secondary level.

The students

were also chosen because they were attempting to organize their
own research projects and could therefore bring to bear those
insights gained from their own activities.
As a result of the meeting w ith the seminar group/
the amount of exposure time was dropped from each description
of methods of exposure because members of the group expressed
the belief that people varied too much in the amount of time
they required to make an adequate observation.
The reference to construction of a scale model of
an industrial plant was dropped from the description of the
"Model Industry" unit because several members of the seminar
group indicated that the study of selected industries f re­
quently did not entail the construction cf models.
of the unit was also changed from "Model Industry"

The title
to "Selected

I n d u s t r y ."
The group also suggested that exposure through p r o ­
fessional meetings and by means of movies,

slides, or video

tape should be incorporated in the methods of exposure.

They

also suggested the addition of a category of "You Value It-You consider the unit to be a valuable experience for your
students." should be added to the reasons for having taught
the u n i t s .

50
The seminar group also offered several comments which
were incorporated in the cover l e t t e r .
The Final Instrument
The final instrument incorporated the directions for
completion of the inventory and explanation of methods of
exposure on the same page as the inventory,
a cover page.

rather than as

The reasons for having taught or not having

taught the units were incorporated in a second page of the
inventory.
The final instrument also included a request for the
respondents to indicate the grade level and length of time
for which a unit had been taught.

These data were requested

to provide some insight regarding any differences between
junior and senior high school classes in the selection of
units.

The data were also gathered to determine whether the

teachers tended to carry out the units or drop them after a
brief trial.^
Administration of the Instrument
The Sample
The sample used in the study was randomly selected
from the entire population of industrial arts teachers in
Michigan.

^"Copies of the final inventory, cover letter, and
follow-up letter are found in Appendix B.

51
The sample of 500 teachers was drawn from a computer
printout of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction
Register of Certified Personnel— Alphabetical List of Indus­
trial Education Personnel as of February 1 9 7 1 .
Mailing and Follow-Up Procedures
The cover letter,

inventory, and a self-addressed

return envelope were mailed during the period of May 7-11,
1971.

A follow-up letter and additional copy of the inven­

tory were mailed o n May 26-27,

1971.

Returns
A total of 3 08 of the 500 selected teachers returned
completed inventories.

Seven of the returns were

incomplete

and were therefore not used in the analysis of the data.
Although the teachers who did not respond to the
inventory could seriously have biased the data,

there was no

additional attempt to secure their responses because all
mailing had been done to the teachers'

school addresses.

Due

to the closing of the academic year, and the lack of home
addresses,

it became impractical to attempt to obtain further

responses.
Data Preparation
The data from each inventory were entered on two data
processing cards.
inventory.

A card was used for each page of the

All of the possible methods of exposure for each

unit were assigned a zero or one.

The one indicated that

52
the teacher had been exposed to the unit in that particular
way.

A one was also key punched on the card if the teacher

had taught the

unit. A zero was

not taught the

unit.

utilized if the teacher

had

Statistical Analysis
The Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficient
was used to test the null hypothesis in the first method of
analysis.

The Spearman rank-difference correlation was

chOoen as a method of analysis because the hypothesis had
been stated as

a rank order, and

it was possible to convert

the incidence of reported exposure to units to a similar rank
for statistical analysis.
The

.05 level of significance was used for the Spearman

rank-difference correlation coefficient to determine whether
the null hypothesis would be accepted or rejected.

The c or­

relations were all inspected to determine their magnitude and
direction.
The analysis of variance was utilized as a second
method of analysis of the data.

The method allowed crediting

each method of exposure for each unit to each teacher,

rather

than assigning him his highest level and ignoring all others,
as was necessary in the first method of analysis.
The

.01 level of significance was utilized as a basis

for accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis.
The data from the second page of the inventory indi­
cated the frequencies with which the teachers reported reasons

53
for teaching or not teaching the units.

Those data were

presented as frequencies of responses and as percentages of
total f r e q u e n c i e s .
Summary
This chapter contained a statement of the null and
alternate hypotheses, and a discussion of the development,
testing, and administration of the inventory and statistical
design.

The major hypotheses were that:

(1) Methods of

exposure ranked by proportion of teachers who taught the
units to w h i c h they had been exposed would be significantly
correlated to the predicted rank of the methods of exposure,
and

(2) There would be a significant difference between the

means of exposure scores for those teachers w h o taught units
and those teachers who did not.
The final instrument contained two major parts.

The

first part solicited responses from each teacher to d e ter­
mine their exposure to the units and whether they had taught
them.

The second part requested teachers to indicate why

they had taught or had not taught the units.
The inventory was sent to M i chigan industrial arts
teachers.

Usable returns were received from 301 teachers.

The Spearman rank-difference correlation and the
analysis of varianpe were utilized to analyze the data.

The

.05 level of significance was employed with the first method
of analysis, and the

.01

level was used w ith the latter.

The analysis of the data obtained from the inventory
is presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduc tion
The "Industrial Arts Unit Inventory" was sent to 5 00
Michigan industrial arts teachers in May of 1971.

The statis­

tical analyses of the hypothesized relationships were c o n ­
ducted on 301 usable responses.

The frequencies of reasons

given for teaching or not teaching units w ere also calculated
on the 3 01 usable responses.
The data were analyzed in three ways to maximize the
depth of analysis and to check the conclusions drawn from each
method of analysis.
The first two analyses presented offered the advantage
of analyzing the apparent strength of each type of exposure,
but ignored situations in which teachers had been exposed to
units in more than one w a y .
The third analysis of the data accounted for multiple
methods of exposure of teachers to units, but it did not
allow for an analysis of the apparent strengths of different
types of e x p o s u r e s .

54

55
Hypothesized Relationships Between Methods of
Exposure of Teachers to Units and Their
Indicated Use of the Units
The major hypothesis is restated below for convenient
reference for the following discussion:
When ranking methods by which Michigan secondary
industrial arts teachers had been exposed to selected
industrial arts instructional units from greatest to
least on the basis of reported incidence of use of
the instructional units by those t e a c h e r s , the fol­
lowing rank order will occur:
fellow teacher;
student teaching; college laboratory; other schools;
movie, video tape, or slides; junior and/or senior
high school; meeting; discussed in college class; and
read a b o u t .
Analysis Number One:
Assignment
to One Method of Exposure
Each teacher was categorized according to his highest
level of exposure for each unit.

The levels of the methods

of exposure were determined by the ranking stated in the
hypothesis.

For example,

exposure by fellow teacher was

hypothesized to be more closely associated with teaching the
units than exposure by reading.
been exposed in both ways,

Therefore,

if a teacher had

the teacher was categorized only

as having been exposed by a fellow teacher.

Table 1 presents

a hypothetical example of the assignment process.
The assignment process yielded a group of teachers for
each of the ten sources of exposure

for each unit.

It also

yielded a group who had not been exposed to each of the units.
Those data are represented by the bottom figure of each cell
in Table 2.

TABLE 1.— An example of assignment to methods of exposure.

Fellow teacher
Student teachinq
College laboratory
Other school
Movie, etc. ir-sr hiqh
Movie, etc. college
Jr-sr high experience
Meeting
Discussion— class
Read about
None of above

Quantity
I Production
Exper. &
Research
Selected
Industry
I Practice
| Pieces
Product
Design
Projects

Methods of Exposure

X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X

Predicted
Rank of
Methods of
Exposure

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Quantity
Production
Exper. &
Research
Selected
Industry
Practice
Pieces
Product
Design
Projects

Resulting Assignment
to Highest Order
of Exposure

Hypothetical Pattern
of Exposures for
an Individual

X

X

X
X
X

X

___

57

TA BLE 2 . — Calcul at ion of the rank across all methods o f exposure.

Quantity
Production

•a JZ
o
• >4
M nj
<D 0)
U> tn
X cu
Cd X

Selected
Industry

Practice
Pieces

Product
Design

Projects

Totals
Across
All Units

Number of T e a ch ers Assigned to
Each Unit and Number Who
Taught the U n i ts 3

Pro po r­
tion
Who
Taught

Fe l l o w teacher

26
67

14
29

20
25

48
57

59
67

142
150

309
395

.7823

1

S tudent teaching

8
16

5
12

8
16

24
2B

37
42

40
44

122

.7721

2

1S6

2
4

2
3

0
0

0
0

1

0
0

5

S'

.6250

3

1

Co l l e g e lab.

43
69

31
87

24
54

58
92

77
118

47
57

TTT

280

.6195

4

Other school

5
15

4
12

2
9

4
10

2
6

8
8

US

26

.4166

5

0

1
2

0
0

1
8

2
3

4
10

8

.3077

6

3

TZ

10
20

1
13

2
23

4
6

2
2

0

19

.2969

7

4
4

0
7

2
9

0
3

2
4

0
0

TT

B

.2962

8

Read about

9
15

7
28

4
28

1
12

7
15

1
3

TETT

29

.2871

9

Dis cu ssion--class

10
54

7
45

19
51

6
16

3
13

3
3

HT2

48

.2637

10

8

1
63

10

21

12

18

70

.2272

11

30

26

Me t h o d s of Exposure

Movie,

etc. college

Jr-sr high
Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

Meeting

*one of above

34

86

69

0

TTJF

Rank
Acr oss
All
Units

£

The bottom number in each cell is the number exposed to the unit.
Th e top number is the number wh o taught the u n i t .

58
Procedure to test -the major h y p o t h e s i s .— The number
of teachers in each cell was summed across all units for each
method of exposure.

Those sums appear in Table 2 as the b o t ­

tom numbers in the "Totals Across A l l Units" column.

The top

number in each cell of the same column represents the number
of teachers who indicated they taught units to w h i c h they had
been exposed.

The ratios thus obtained were reduced to d e c i ­

mal equivalents to produce the figures in the column,
portion Who Taught."

"Pro­

Each method of exposure was then ranked

on the basis of the proportions which had been calculated.
Those ranks appear under the column,

"Rank Across All Units"

in Table 2.
The reported rank across all units was compared to
the predicted rank of methods of exposure in Table 3.

The

Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficient was computed
and found to be

.90.

The null hypothesis was rejected and

the alternate hypothesis was accepted,
table value necessary to meet the

since p exceeded the

.05 level of significance.

H : Methods of exposure ranked by proportion of teachers
°
w h o taught the units to which they had been exposed
will not be significantly correlated to the pr e ­
dic t e d rank of methods of exposure.
H.:

Methods of exposure ranked by proportion of teachers
w h o taught the units to which they had been exposed
wi l l be significantly correlated to the predicted
rank of methods of exposure.
It was concluded that the reported rank computed from

teachers*

reported exposure and incidence of use was highly

correlated to the predicted rank of the methods of exposure.

59
TABLE 3.— The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure across all
units.
Reported Rank
Across All Units

Methods of Exposure

Predicted
Rank

Fellow teacher

1

1

Student teaching

2

2

College laboratory

4

3

Other school

5

4

7

5

3

6

Jr-sr high school

6

7

Meeting

8

8

10

9

9

10

11

11

Movie,

etc.

jr-sr high

Movie,

etc. college

Discussion in college class
Read about
None of above

p =

.90; significant at

.05 level

Visual analysis of the computed rank of methods of
exposure reveals that all demonstration methods ranked higher
than exposure through discussion in a college class or by
reading.

That finding supports an underlying premise of the

hypothesis, which indicated that teachers would be more
likely to teach units which they had seen demonstrated.
It appears that exposure by an audio-visual pr esenta­
tion of a college class carrying out the unit was m uch more

60

closely related to teaching the unit than had b een expected.
The same situation appears to be true for exposure through
junior or senior high school experience.

However,

the cells

across all six units for each of those methods of exposure
contained zeros and small numbers of teachers.

They could

have been very susceptible to error l?y chance.

Therefore,

a second analysis of the data was completed by contrasting
the rank order of exposures for each unit w ith the rank order
predicted across all units.
Rank order of exposures for each unit correlated with
rank order predicted across all u n i t s .— The rank of methods
of exposure for each unit was obtained by determining the p r o ­
portion of teachers in each cell who had taught units to which
they had been exposed.

The proportions obtained were ranked

for each unit.
The Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficients
between the rank of each unit and the predicted rank were c o m ­
puted.

Tables 4 through 10 present the calculations of the

ranks of the units and the correlations.
The Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficients
were found to be

.2637 for quantity production,

experimentation and research,

.5910 for selected industry,

.6978 for practice pieces or modules,
design, and

.5454 for

.2978 for projects.

.5069 for product

The null hypothesis was

accepted for all units except practice pieces because that
value of

"p" was the only one w h i c h exceeded the table value

necessary to meet the

.05 level of significance.

61
TABLE 4.--The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure for q u a n ­
tity production.
Methods of
Exposure

Proportions of
Te a c h e r s 3

Fellow teacher

26 = .3881
8

IT

College laboratory

- .5000

43 =

.6232

5 = .3333

Other school
etc.

Predicted
Rank

VT

Student Teaching

Movie,

Proportions
Rank

IT

10 -

jr-sr

3
8

4

.5000

TO

Movie, etc. college

2 = .5000
T

Jr-sr high experience

0
3

Meeting

4 =1.0000
T

=

.0000

10 = .1852

Discussion

11
8
10

9

.6000

3

10

= .2105

9

11

5T
9 =
15

Read about
None of above

8

IT
p =

.2637? not significant at

.05 level

The proportion of those who taught the unit out of
the total exposed.
Calculated for each cell.
The ratios
were taken from Table 2.

62
TABLE 5.--The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure for e x p e r ­
imentation and research.
Methods of
Exposure

Proportions of
Teachers®

Fellow teacher

14 =
29

.4827

Student teaching

5 =
12

.4166

College laboratory

31 =
87

.3565

Other school

4 = .3333
12

Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

1 =
13

Proportions
Hank

Predicted
Rank

.0769

Movie, etc. college

2
3

=

.6666

jr-sr high experience

1 =

.5000

2

Meeting

=

.0000

11

■

*1555

8

7 =
28

.2500

=

.0160

0

8

7
Discussed in class

I

45
Read about
None of above

1

10
10

11

63
p = .5454;

not significant at

.05 level

The proportion of those who taught the unit out of
the total exposed.
Calculated for each cell.
The ratios
were taken from Table 2.

63
TABLE 6 .— The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure for selected
industry.
Methods of
Exposure

Proportions of
Teachers®

Fellow teacher

Proportions
Rank

Predicted
Rank

* .8000

1

1

.5000

2

2

24 = .4444
5T

3

3

5 .5

4

9

5

20

25
Student teaching

8

16
College laboratory
Other school

2

.2222

9
Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

2

= .0869

23
Movie,

etc. college

0
0

jr-sr high experience

0
0

Meeting

2

=

=

.0000

10 .5

6

.0000

10.5

7

.2222

5.5

8

4

9

.1428

7

10

.1149

8

11

9
Discussion in class

19 = .3725
FT
4 -

Read about

2W

None of above

10
§~6

P -

=

.5910;

not significant at

.05 level

a The proportion of those who taught the unit out of
the total exposed.
Calculated for each cell.
The ratios
were taken from Table 2.

64
TABLE 7.— The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure for practice
pieces.
Methods of
Exposure

Proportions of
Teachers 3

Fellow teacher

Proportions
Rank

Predicted
Rank

48 = .8421

TT

Student teaching

24 - .8571

1

JW

58 =

College laboratory

.6304

4

97

Other school
Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

4 =
10

.4000

4 =

.6 6 6 6

3

z

Movie,

etc. college

0

=

.0000

10.5

0
Jr-sr high experience

1 = .1250
8

Meeting

0

=

.0000

8
10 .5

8

3
Discussion

= .3750

6

1 » .0833

9

10

7

11

6

I?
Read about

T7

21 - .2957

None of above
p =

.6978; significant at

.05 level

aThe proportion of those who taught the unit out of
the total exposed.
Calculated for each cell.
The ratios
were taken from Table 2.

65
TABLE 8 .— The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure for product
design.
Methods of
Exposure

Proportions of
Te a c h e r s 3

Fellow teacher

59 = .8805
67

Student teaching

37 * .8809
42

College laboratory

77 - .6525
118
2 -

Other school
Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

Movie,

etc. college

Jr-sr high experience

2
2
1
X
2

.3333

Proportions
Rank

6

3

10

4

=

1.0000

1.5

=

1.0000

1.5

.6666

Predicted
Rank

8

3
Meeting
Discussion

2 = .5000

8

Z

3 = .2307

IT

Read about

7
15

None of above

12 = .4137
30

.4666

p = .5069;

11
8

not significant at

10

11
.05 level

aThe proportion of those who taught the unit out of
the total e x p o s e d . Calculated for each c e l l . The ratios
were taken from Table 2.

66
TABLE 9.— The Spearman rank-difference correlation between the
predicted and reported ranks of methods of exposure for projects
Methods of
Exposure

Proportions of
Teachers 3

142 = .9466
150

Fellow teacher
Student teaching

40 *
44

.9090

College laboratory

47 = .8245
5?

£ = 1.0000

Other school

Proportions
Rank

Predicted
Rank

3
4

1.5

8
Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

0

*

.0000

10

=

.0000

10

_4_ =
10

.4000

7

0

.0000

10

0

Movie, etc. college

0
0

Jr-sr high experience
Meeting

=

8

0

Discussion

_3 =1.0000
3

1.5

Read about

1 = .3333
T

8

18 = .7200

None of above
p =

.2978;

not significant at

10
11

.05 level

a The proportion of those who taught the unit out of
the total exposed.
Calculated for each cell.
The ratios
were taken from Table 2.

67

Experimentation
and Research

Model
Industry

Practice Pieces
or Modules

Product
Design

Fe l l o w teacher

7

3

1

2

4

3

1

St u d e n t teaching

5

4

2

1

3

4

2

Col lege

2

5

3

4

6

5

3

8

6

5.5

5

10

1.5

4

5

9

9

3

5

1

10 .5

11

2

10.5

1

11

5.5

10

8

Read about

3

No n e of above

8

Predicted
Rank

i

Me t h o d s of
Exposure

Projects

Quantity
Production

TABLE 10.--The spearman rank-difference correlations between the predicted
and reported ranks of methods of exposure for all units.

laboratory

Other school
Movie,

etc.

jr-sr

Movie,

etc. college

Jr -sr high experience
Meeting
Di scu ssion-class

C o r r e l a t i o n (p)
w i t h predicted rank

.2637

10

5

1.5

10

6

e

5

7

7

10.5

7

10

8

4

6

1

1.5

7

7

9

B

8

10

10

B

7

9

6

11

.5069

.2976

.5454

♦Significant at .05 level

10 .5

1.5

,5910

.6978*

9

68
It was concluded that the predicted rank was not
significantly correlated w i t h the computed rank for any of
the units except practice pieces*
The conclusion obtained by the correlation of the
rank of each unit w ith the predicted overall rank appears
to be very much different from that which was drawn upon
examination of the correlation between the rank computed over
all units and the predicted rank.

While it could b e assumed

that the goal of the study has been achieved because exposure
methods which seem to hold over all units have been identified,
the lack of significant correlations achieved in analyzing
one unit at a time cast serious doubt upon the validity of
the first analysis.

However,

the analysis of individual

units resulted in the use of cells with low numbers and zeros,
w hich might have subjected the ranking of exposures within
individual units to a great deal of error.

On the other hand,

the analysis across all units combined to form 11 cells which
contained larger numbers of teachers and were therefore less
subject to error by chance.
While the explanation provided above appears to be
plausible,

it could have been subject to error.

A third

method of analysis therefore served to check the results
obtained in the first and second methods of analysis.

69
Analysis Number Two:
The
Calculation of Exposure
Scores for All Respondents
Each method of exposure was assigned a value from one
through ten which reflected its position in the ranking p re­
dicted by the major hypothesis.

The scores ranged from ten

for exposure by a fellow teacher to one for reading about a
unit.

Table 11 presents the values for each of the methods of

exposure.
TABLE 11.— Values assigned to methods of exposure for c a l cula­
tion of exposure scores.
Method of Exposure
Fellow teacher

Value Assigned
10

Student teaching

9

College laboratory

8

Other school

7

Movie,

etc.

jr-sr high

Movie,

etc. college

6

5

Jr-sr high experience

4

Meeting

3

Discussion in college class

2

Read about

1

An exposure score was determined for each teacher for
each unit by assigning him the appropriate number of points
for each exposure he indicated.

Table 12 presents an example

70
of the determination of an i n d i v i d u a l 's exposure score for
each unit.
An analysis of variance was computed to determine if
there were significant differences between the means of
exposure scores for those teachers who taught units and those
who did not teach them.

Table 13 presents that analysis.

The null hypothesis,

H q , was rejected and the alter­

nate hypothesis, H^, was accepted.
H :
°

There will not be significant differences between
the means of exposure scores for teachers who taught
units and those teachers who did not.

H .:

There will be significant differences between the
means of exposure scores for teachers who taught
units and those teachers w h o did not.
Significant differences beyond the

.001 level of

significance were found for all six units between the means
of exposure scores of those teachers who taught the units and
those who did n o t .
The second method of analysis strongly supported the
high correlation found in the first analysis.

Therefore,

there appears to be strong support for the major hypothesis.
Possible Alternatives to the
Hypothesized Relationships
In light of the fact that the

.9 correlation found

in the first analysis above reflects a very powerful theory,
further analyses were conducted to determine whether there
might be some alternative explanations for the perceived
relationships.

TABLE 12.— An example of the determination of a teacher's exposure scores.

Hypothetical Pattern
of Exposures for
An Individual

Resulting Assignmenit
of Exposure Value

c

Methods of Exposure

Fellow teacher
Student teaching
College laboratory
Other school
Movie, etc. jr-sr high
Movie, etc. college
Jr-sr high experience
Meeting
Discussion— class
Read about

0
>i*H
P P
•H 0
P 3
C >0
4 0
3 p
◦ CU

4 XI
0
• p
P 4
4 4
a a
X 4
a

s 4
P
4 P 0
CO o
p p •rf
u n 4_> g 3
4 3 O 0
H *0 4 4 o
4 C P *H P
W H cu tu O.
fo

m
4
Q

X
X

X
X
X

c
O'

DO
P
O
4
■n
O
P
CU

X

X
X

X
X

X

Predicted
Rank of
Methods of
Exposure

1
2
3
4
5

C
0
>rH

to
4 x: T3 >1 4
P
P
0 4 P O
•H O • p P P *H CO O G 0
P 3 P 4 u ao P 4 3 O' 4
G >d 4 4 4 3 O 0 *0 -H ■r>
4 O Cum
4 4 O <n 0
3 P X 4 4 G P -H P 4 P
a c u w g 01 H CU eu cu a CU
p

p

10

10
9

9
8

8

8

7

7“|
6

6

6
X
X
X

X
X

X

4

7

X
X
X

X

8

X
X

9
10

Exposures Scores for Each Unit

3
2
1

3
2
1

2

2
1

2
1

19

20

20

4 17

32

TABLE 13.— -The analysis of variance between exposure score means of teachers who taughi
units and those who didn't.

Exposure Scores
Mean
Did Not
Taught
Teach

Unit

Std
Dev.

Cell Size
Did Not
Teach
Taught

Between
MS

Within
MS

F

Signif,
p<*

Quantity
Production

14.369

10.100

10.662

160

141

1365.78

113.72

12.01

.0007

Experiment.
fc Research

16.603

6.950

9.823

73

228

5150.32

96.50

53.37

.0001

Selected
Industry

13.990

4.758

9.298

90

211

5375.48

86.46

62.17

.0001

Practice
Pieces or
Modules

17.300

6.700

11.914

163

138

8393.14

141.97

59.12

.0001

Product
Design

19.58

9.290

12.754

205

96

6921.33

162.66

42.55

.0001

Projects

27.57

13.000

15.86

264

37

6894.48

251.62

27.40

.0001

•Significant beyond ,001 level.

73
Exposure of teachers to units by observation of fellow
teachers would be most likely to occur in larger schools.
The larger school districts employ more industrial arts
teachers;

thus a teacher would have more colleagues who might

expose him to new units.

The small schools frequently employ

one industrial arts teacher.

Consequently,

the teacher in

the one-teacher situation could not possibly be exposed to
units by a teacher in the same building.

Therefore,

an

analysis of response and nonresponse to the Industrial Arts
Unit Inventory was completed to determine whether either group
tended to represent large or small schools.

The chi-square

test of goodness of fit was used to determine whether
respondents and nonrespondents differed o n the basis of their
school enrollments.

The data for that analysis are presented

in Table 14.
Since the chi-square value of 22.36 exceeded the table
value at the

.05 level of significance,

it was concluded that

the respondents and nonrespondents differed significantly
on the basis of the enrollment of their school districts.
The percentage of respondents for the total sample
by school district category is presented in Table 14.

A

visual analysis of the percentages of respondents does not
reflect a consistent pattern favoring either large or small
school districts.

It was therefore concluded that teachers*

use of the selected units did not appear to be related to
the enrollments of their school districts.

TABLE 14,— Comparison of respondents and nonrespondents on the basis of school
enrollments.

Number of
Respondents by
School District

Number of
Nonrespondents
by School District

50,000 and over

24

14

38

63

20,000 to 49,999

56

38

94

60

10,000 to 19,999

34

42

76

45

Classification of
Schools by Enrollment

Total

Per Cent of
Respondents

5,000 to

9,999

58

34

92

63

4,500 to

4,999

12

4

16

75

4,000 to

4,449

16

7

23

70

3,500 to

3,999

4

14

18

22

3,000 to

3,499

10

7

17

59

2,500 to

2,999

17

9

26

65

2,000 to

2,499

18

10

28

64

1,500 to

1,999

18

8

26

69

1,000 to

1,499

18

2

20

90

500 to

999

15

7

22

68

500

1

3

4

25

301

199

500

below

Totals for All
Districts

75
Since teachers frequently reported they had not taught
units because they lacked sufficient funds,

the average

dollars expended per student in schools represented by r e spon­
dents to the Industrial Arts Unit Inventory was compared to
the average amount expended in schools represented by n o n ­
respondents.

The average for schools represented by r e s p o n ­

dents was $477.52 for the 1970-71 school year.

The average

for schools represented by nonrespondents was $64 8.19.

Since

the respondents taught in schools which spent considerably
less per student,

it was concluded that teachers'

tendency

to teach the selected units was not significantly related to
the dollars expended per student in their school districts.
Teachers'

selection of units might not necessarily be

due to demonstrations by their fellow teachers.

That p e r ­

ceived relationship might rather reflect the desires of the
other industrial arts teachers to have the teachers use the
units.

The research on change cited in Chapter II supports

the contention that teachers m i g h t be influenced by other
industrial arts teachers in their building.

Teachers may be

required to teach units which are portions of fixed curricula
of their school systems.

The teachers may also be discouraged

from attempting new instructional units.

This explanation

seems to suggest the need for further research to isolate
the effects on teachers'

selection of units of demonstration

or encouragement or discouragement from their colleagues.

76
Reasons Given for Teaching or Not
Teaching the Units
The industrial arts teachers sampled were asked to
indicate why they had taught or had not taught the units.
Complete statements of the reasons listed in the inventory
were given on pages 46-47.

The reasons for having taught

the units were referred to as:
teachers wanted it, and

<1 ) you value it,

(3) students wanted it.

(2 ) other
The reasons

for not having taught the units were referred to as:
IA class,

(2)

inappropriate,

(4) students not capable,
ities, and

(1 ) other

<3) principal didn't want it,

(5) knowledge to proceed,

(6 ) f a c i l ­

(7) funds.

The frequencies of all the reasons given for having
taught and for not having taught each of the units are p r e ­
sented in Table 15.
Teachers reported they had taught quantity production,
practice pieces or modules,

product design,

and projects

because they valued them approximately twice as often as they
reported teaching experimentation and research and selected
industry for the same reason.
Teachers reported they valued product design and
projects much more frequently than they reported the other
units.
Inadequate facilities for teaching the units,

lack

of funds, and the inappropriateness of the units for the
technical area taught generally appeared to outweigh other
reasons for not teaching units, although those reasons were

TABLE 15.— Frequencies of reasons indicated by teachers for teaching or for not teaching units.

Quantity
Produc­
tion

Experimen­
tation &
Research

Selected
Industry

Practice
Pieces—
Modules

Product
Design

Projects

Total
Freq.

133

70

86

153

223

241

906

67,3

Other Teachers

10

5

10

15

19

43

102

7.5

Students Wanted

43

18

16

34

61

167

339

25.2

Total Frequency

276

93

112

202

303

451

19.2

7.5

8.8

15.0

21.1

31.4

Other IA Class

25

21

27

8

9

6

96

8.5

Inappropriate

53

66

54

41

19

10

243

21.8

4

5

4

4

2

0

19

1.5

Students Not
Capable

24

72

34

17

19

2

168

15.2

Knowledge

16

43

31

11

8

2

111

10.0

Facilities

68

95

47

31

12

1

254

23.5

Funds

67

64

45

26

13

1

216

19.4

257

366

242

138

82

22

23.3

32.0

21.9

12.6

7.5

1.9

Reasons Indicated

%

For Teaching
You Value It

%
For Not Teaching

Principal

Total Frequency
%

78
seldom used as a reason for rejecting the teaching of
pro j e cts.
Rejection of the units by the building principal was
infrequently given as a reason for rejection of the units.
Summary
The statistical analysis was conducted on 301 usable
responses from the original sample of 500 Michigan industrial
arts teachers.
Two methods of analysis were used to test the major
hypothesis.

The first method assigned teachers to their

highest order of exposure for each unit.

It therefore ignored

multiple exposures to individual units.

It did, however,

allow an analysis for individual units.

The second method

of analysis assigned exposure scores to each exposure so
multiple exposures could be included.

However,

that method

did not allow for an analysis of each unit.
The Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficient
was computed to test the hypothesis that methods of exposure
ranked by proportion of teachers who taught the units to which
they had been exposed would be significantly correlated to
the predicted rank of methods of exposure.
value of the coefficient was

.90 for the correlation of rank

across all units with the predicted rank.
was significant beyond the

The computed

.05 level.

The correlation

If was concluded that

the predicted rank and the rank of exposures across all units
were highly correlated.

79
Spearman rank-difference correlation coefficients
were also computed for the rank of exposures for each unit
and the predicted rank.
quantity production,

The correlations were

.5454 for experimentation and research,

.5910 for selected industry,
modules,

.2637 for

.6978 for practice pieces or

.5069 for product design, and

.2978 for projects.

The null hypothesis of no significant correlation was
accepted for all units except practice pieces.
tion was significant at the

The c o r r e l a ­

.05 level.

A n analysis of variance was computed to test the
hypothesis that there would be significant differences between
the mean exposure scores of teachers who taught units and
those who did not.

Significant differences beyond the

.001

level were found for all six u n i t s .
The reasons w h i c h teachers indicated for teaching or
not teaching the units were presented in a frequency table.
Teachers reported that they taught the other units because
they valued them much more frequently than they reported
teaching experimentation and research and model industry for
the same reason.

More teachers appeared to value product

design and projects than the other units.

Teachers reported

lack of funds and inappropriateness of the unit for their
technical instructional area m uch more frequently than other
reasons for not teaching the units.

Rejection of units by

building principals w a s infrequently given as a reason for
not teaching units.

80

Chapter V presents a summary of the entire study.
Appropriate conclusions and recommendations for further study
are also made.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The problem investigated in this study was to d e t e r ­
mine what factors are related to M i c h i g a n industrial arts
teachers*

selection of instructional units.

The following assumptions were made for the study:
(1) Michigan secondary industrial arts teachers are allowed
some freedom to choose the units they teach and

(2 ) industrial

arts leaders would consider it important to know what factors
in their teaching situations and w hat methods of exposure to
instructional units appeared to influence the teachers'

selec­

tion of units.
It was hypothesized that the methods by w h i c h indus­
trial arts teachers had been exposed to units would be a s s o ­
ciated with their use of the units in their own teaching
situations.

Specifically,

it was hypothesized that those

methods of exposure w h i c h demonstrated the units in situations
most nearly like the teachers'

situations would be m o s t fre­

quently associated with the teachers'

use of the units*

A review of the literature concerned with diffusion
of innovations revealed that researchers in the field g e n ­
erally agreed that a study of diffusion of an innovation
81

82
should account, for the following elements in the process:
the nature of the innovation itself, communication,
systems involved,
be diffused.^

the social

and the time required for the innovation to

The present study was concerned primarily with

the element of communication
instructional units.

by

However,

the exposure of teachers to

the elements of time and social

systems were given consideration.

No effort was made to study

the effects of the characteristics of the units themselves
because the study attempted to ascertain whether certain r e l a ­
tionships held up over all the units included in the study.
The research on change supported the conclusion that
teachers were affected by other teachers,
dents, and the community.

principals,

st u ­

However, Brickell's research s u p ­

ported the assumption that industrial arts teachers have
considerable freedom in selecting instructional units.
The research concerned with communication of innova­
tions revealed that modeling behavior which was exhibited
either in person or

by

film was an effective means of a l t e r ­

ing the behavior of observers.
supported the conclusion,

Brickell found that educators

for they indicated that seeing a

new program being taught in a situation similar to their
own was an effective means of influencing them to attempt
the program.

2

^Rogers, off, c i t ., p. 6 .
2
Brickell, o p . c i t ., p. 27.

83
The research about change indicated that communication
of an innovation by peers was more effective than communication
by other groups.
In the present study it was hypothesized that:
When ranking methods by which M ichigan secondary indus­
trial arts teachers had been exposed to selected indus­
trial arts instructional units from greatest to least
on the basis of reported incidence of use of the instruc­
tional units by those t e a c h e r s , the following rank order
will occur:
fellow teacher; student teaching; college
laboratory; other schools; movie, video tape, or slides;
junior and/or senior high school; meeting; d i s cussed in
college class; and read about.
The Industrial Arts Unit Inventory was mailed to a
random sample of 500 secondary school industrial arts teachers
in the state of Michigan.

Usable returns were r eceived from

301 respondents.
A Spearman rank-difference correlation of

.90 was

found between the predicted rank of the methods of exposure
and the rank of methods of exposure for all units, w h ich was
based on the proportions of teachers w h o reported they used
the units.

The correlation was significant beyond the

level of confidence.

.05

Spearman rank-difference correlations

computed between the predicted rank of the methods of exp o ­
sure and the ranks for each unit were reported to be
for quantity production,
research,

.5454 for experimentation and

.5910 for selected industry,

or modules,

.2637

.5069 for product design,

.6978 for practice pieces
and

.2978 for projects.

The null hypothesis was accepted for all units except p r a c ­
tice pieces, w h i c h was significant at the
■s'

.05 level.

84
An exposure score was computed for each teacher by
assigning him a certain number of points for each exposure.
An analysis of variance was computed to determine whether
there was a significant difference between the means of the
exposure scores for teachers who taught the units and those
who did not.

The variance was significant beyond the

.001

level of confidence.
Teachers most often indicated that they chose units
because they valued them.
production,

They appeared to value quantity

practice pieces,

product design,

and projects

more frequently than experimentation and research and selected
industry units.

More teachers appeared to value product

design and projects more than they did the other units.
Teachers reported lack of funds and inappropriateness of the
units for their technical instructional areas more frequently
than other reasons for not teaching the units.

Rejection of

units by building principals was not reported very often as
a reason for not teaching the units.
Conclusions
The analysis of the data supported the following c o n ­
clusions about the selection by Michigan secondary industrial
arts teachers of the six instructional units studied.

No

attempt should be made to generalize beyond that population
or those six units.
1.

The number of teachers w h o indicate that they use
instructional units increases as the methods by which

85
they have been exposed to the units follow the fol­
lowing order:
meeting;

2.

read about;

discussed in college class;

junior and/or senior high school experience;

movie, video tape, or slides;

other schools;

laboratory;

and fellow teacher.

student teaching;

college

Teachers frequently indicate that they do not select
instructional units because they are inappropriate
for the technical areas they teach, their students
are not capable of carrying out the units,
insufficient operating budgets,

they have

and they lack the

knowledge to carry out instructional tasks.

The

teachers do not indicate a high frequency of rejec­
tion of instructional units because of their principals'
requests.
Implications
If teachers observe units being taught, they will
be more

inclined to teach them than if they are exposed to

the units by reading about them or by hearing them discussed
in college classes or at meetings.
Teachers are most
have seen demonstrated by

likely to teach units w h i c h they
fellow teachers or by student

teaching supervisors.
Teaching instructional units to teachers by having
them perform the units in college laboratories appears to be
a highly promising means of influencing the teachers to use
the units.

86
Secondary school principals do not appear to influ­
ence greatly industrial arts teachers' choices of instruc­
tional units.
Industrial arts teachers appear to repeat those
industrial arts experiences they had in junior and/or senior
high school.
Lack of funds required to teach units of instruction
does not appear to affect greatly industrial arts teachers'
selection of units.
Recommendations
Industrial arts leaders should emphasize demonstration
of units as a means of teaching units to industrial arts
teachers.
University instructors should demonstrate units by
having industrial arts teachers carry out the units.

The

university instructors should not espouse one thing and do
something which is contrary to it.
Supervisors of student teaching should be selected
partially because of their ability to be demonstration teach­
ers.

They should be encouraged to demonstrate a wide range

of units for the benefit of their student teachers.
University courses should be organized to allow for
teachers to see their peers teach students within their nor­
mal classroom and time schedule.

Observation by undergrad­

uates could be scheduled during the school day.

Summer

demonstration classes or movies or video tapes of regularly

87
scheduled

classes could facilitate observation by teachers

in the field.

The observers could view the presentations

at times when they would not be expected to be teaching.
Observation in such a way would also make the demonstrating
teacher available to discuss the demonstration.

The demon­

stration could be viewed many times to obtain added informa­
tion .
Since industrial arts teachers appear to be greatly
influenced by other industrial arts teachers in the same
building, efforts to change the curriculum in that building
should involve all of the industrial arts teachers.

Other­

wise, any change implemented by one teacher may be met with
opposition.
The industrial arts background of undergraduate
industrial arts candidates should be screened for good and
poor experiences which they might tend to carry over to
their teaching situations.
Movies, video tapes, and slide presentations ranked
higher than discussion methods in influencing teachers'
choices of units.

Therefore, those media could be used to

produce programs which would show teachers teaching in their
normal situations.

Those productions could be used at meet­

ings, for in-service programs, and in university courses.
It appears that industrial arts leaders do not have
to be especially concerned about convincing secondary prin­
cipals about the worth of the units, because the teachers
indicated their principals did not frequently object to their

88

choices of units.

However, several studies which were cited

did indicate that the principals can be important positive
forces in the introduction of innovations.

Therefore, indus­

trial arts leaders should continue to inform secondary prin­
cipals of innovations to gain their support.
Many industrial arts teachers continue to reject
quantity production, experimentation and research, and model
industry units on the grounds that their students are not
capable or their facilities or budgets are inadequate.
Industrial arts leaders should examine those issues to deter­
mine whether they are presenting the units with realistic
goals and facilities in mind.
While this study tends to support the conclusion
that teachers are inclined to teach that content and by those
methods by which they have been taught, it is recommended
that the apparent strengths of demonstration teaching should
be tested through experimental research which would control
the methods of exposure available to treatment groups.

It

is also recommended that interviews be held with teachers and
building principals to determine whether the teachers have
tauyht in the manner in which they were taught.

It is par­

ticularly recommended that demonstrations by teachers from
other schools be presented by means of summer programs,
movies, or video tapes to determine whether those methods
could serve as effective and convenient means of communicat­
ing change.

89
Future studies should determine whether teachers in
rural, inner city, and suburban schools differ in their
selection of units.
It is recommended that several case studies of indus
trial arts teachers should be conducted to determine whether
their choices of units are more affected by observations of
teachers in the same buildings than by the social relation­
ships between the industrial arts teachers.
It is recommended that future studies be more spe­
cific in delineating the beliefs and behaviors which are to
be communicated by teaching the units.
Many questions and problems remain to be answered
to determine the possible effects of demonstrating units of
instruction to teachers.

Hopefully, continued effort can be

directed toward extending knowledge in this important area.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bandura, Albert, and Walters, Richard H. Social Learning and
Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 19 64.
Bennett, Charles A. History of Manual and Industrial Education 1870 to 1917. Peoria: Charles Bennett Co., Inc.,

VZTT.----------------

Billett, Roy 0.; Maley, Donald; and Hammond, James J. The
Unit Method. Washington, D. C.: American Industrial
Arts Association, 1960.
Brickell, Henry M. Organizing New York State for Educational
Change. Albany: New York State Education Department,
1961.
Chesler, Mark; Schmuck, Richard; and Lippitt, Ronald.
Principal's Role in Facilitating Innovation."
Into Practice, II (December, 1963), 269-277.

"The
Theory

Cyphert, Frederick R.,
and Spaights, Ernest.An Analysis
and
Projection of Research in Teacher Education. Coopera­
tive Research Project No. F-015. Columbus, Ohio:
The Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1964.
Demeter, Lee H.
"Accelerating the Local Use of Improved
Educational Practices in School Systems.” Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1951.
Feirer, John L., and Lindbeck, John R. Industrial Arts
Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research
in Education, Inc., 1964.
Harris,

Chester W., and
Liba, Marie R., eds.Encyclopedia of
Educational Research. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 19 60.

Havighurst, Robert J., and Neugarten, Bernice L. Society
and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962.
Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc.
/1/D/E/A/ Reporter. A newsletter prepared by the
Institute for Development of Educational Activities,
Inc., Melbourne, Florida, Fall edition, 1969,
91

92
Jamrich, John X. "A Study of Current Practices in Conducting
General Methods and Related Courses in the Preparation
of Secondary School Teachers." Journal of Educational
Research, XLVIII (1954)., 57-65.
McClelland, William A.
"The Process of Effecting Change."
Presidential Address, Division of Military Psychology
of the American Psychological Association, San
Francisco, California, September, 1968.
Michigan Department of Education Register of Certified
Personnel— An Alphabetical List of Industrial Edu­
cation Personnel as of February, 1971.
Miles, Matthew B. Innovation in Education. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 19 64.
Miller, Rex, and Smalley, Lee H. Selected Readings for
Industrial Arts. Bloomington! McKnight and McKnight
Publishing Company, 1963.
Orme, Michael E. "The Effects of Modeling and Feedback
Variables on the Acquisition of a Complex Teaching
Strategy." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University, 1966.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations.
The Free Press, 1965.

New York:

Smith, Othanel; Cohen, Saul B.; and Pearl, Arthur. Teachers
for the Real World. Washington, D. C.: The American
Association o£ Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969.
University of North Dakota.
"A Description of the New School:
University of North Dakota." Paper distributed at
the Annual Meeting of the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, March 1,
1969.
(Mimeographed.)

APPENDICES

93

APPENDIX A

PILOT STUDY FORMS

94

JACKSON COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMMERCIAL EXCHANGE RUILD1NC
» • ) EA ST MICHIGAN AVENUE

TH IIO N H T I I V O .
Wl i V I N I
HANK I

ooroon

JA C K S O N , MICHIGAN 4 « S 0 I
T E L E P H O N E (S17> 7 * 7-OS*0

BOARD OF F.DlCATIO%
pnebbem t

CAIIMII t SCMESKV
OCPUTV BUPEftlNTENOENT
ran a n c u L education

(C M U U H O , V IC I-P4K W M N T
JA M IC S O N , TMEADUMM

HINIV W KUEHl
DEPUTV «UAE(TINTENDENT

ra u l % M o w ata
HAROLD I

o SMtiM

aunnmnNOiNT

tC L C H tt

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Although th e re are numerous demands on your tim e, will you please
take a few minutes of your time to serve as a member of a p i l o t group
to t e s t the adequacy o f some m a te ria ls which may help improve
educational programs for i n d u s t r i a l a r t s te a c h e rs ?
S p e c i f i c a l l y , I would l i k e your candid r e a c tio n s to these m a te r ia l s so
your suggestions may be incorporated into the f i n a l research m a t e r i a l s .
May I suggest the following procedure:
1.
2.
3.

Read the proposed cover l e t t e r .
Read the d i r e c t i o n s f o r the inventory and complete the
inventory.
Complete the r e a c tio n and suggestion s h e e t.

While the r e a c tio n s and suggestion sheet t h a t has been enclosed requests
some s p e c i f i c inform ation, I encourage you to w r i t e d i r e c t l y on th e
l e t t e r , in ventory d i r e c t i o n s or inventory, any questions o r p oints you
would l i k e to bring to my a t t e n t i o n concerning th e l e t t e r , d i r e c t i o n s ,
format, c l a r i t y o f unit d e s c r i p t i o n s o r areas t h a t are confusing. Since
the improvement of th is instrument is my major concern a t t h i s tim e, your
s p e c i f i c responses to the inventory items w ill not be analyzed but w ill be
held in s t r i c t professional confidence.
I would a p p r e c i a t e receiving your reply a t your e a r l i e s t convenience.
Thank you f o r your a s s i s t a n c e and cooperation.
S in c e r e ly ,

Henry Kuehl
Deputy Superintendent
95

JACKSON COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMMERCIAL EXCHANGE BUILDING
1 1 * 1 EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
IHlAftn OF EDUCATION

THCtON M m i l l . M d W N t
mIIVIN I ICHIlltHO, VICI MNtMNT
MAN* I JAMtlSON. T«(»(umA
PAUl S MOWlil
HAIOlD • HlCHlt

JA C K S O N , MICHIGAN 4S S0S
T E L E P H O N E ( S I T ) 7 1 7 -0 1 S 0

O O i O O N O. SMITH

•UPCRINTCNDENT

CASIMI* t SCMISKY
MPUTV AUACItlNTCNDCNt
row aatciAL boucation

O'

HCNftY W KUCHl

PROPOSED COVER LETTER

As one who helps plan local and regional In se r v ic e programs and u n iv e r s i t y extension
courses, I need to receive feedback from te ach e rs to determine what as p e c ts o f t h e i r
professional t r a i n i n g have had th e g r e a t e s t impact on t h e i r teaching p r a c t i c e s . I
am therefore combining rr\y doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n requirement with t h i s o n - th e - jo b
need in an attempt to fin d out whether the ways in which you have been exposed to
six selected u n i t s are r e l a t e d in a p a r t i c u l a r way to whether o r not you teach the
un i t s .
I r e a l i z e th a t your own professional values and f a c t o r s in your teaching s i t u a t i o n
need to be considered in a d d itio n to your professional t r a i n i n g as you s e l e c t
in s t r u c tio n a l u n i t s . Therefore, I am asking t h a t you i n d i c a t e which o f those
factors have a f f e c t e d your s e l e c t i o n o f u n its of i n s t r u c t i o n .
Your response w ill not only a s s i s t me to provide in s e rv ic e education more e f f e c t i v e l y
in Jackson County, but the knowledge gained w ill be disseminated to Michigan school
d i s t r i c t s and Michigan i n d u s t r i a l a r t s te a c h e r educators so t h a t a l t e r a t i o n s may be
made in in s e r v i c e workshops and undergraduate and graduate programs i f the data from
this study so w arrants. I t i s hoped t h a t you would t h e r e f o r e have an o p p o r tu n ity to
bene fit from such changes.
I would a p p r e c ia te i t i f you would complete the enclosed inve ntory a t your e a r l i e s t
convenience and r e t u r n i t t o me in the s e lf - a d d r e s s e d envelope provided.
You need not sign your name to the inventory, f o r only group data will appear in the
report.
If you wish to rece ive a summary o f t h i s r e p o r t , please so i n d i c a t e in the bottom
margin of the second page.
I appreciate your a s s i s t a n c e in t h i s attempt to upgrade s e r v i c e to Michigan
in d u stria l a r t s te a c h e rs .
Sincerely

Henry Kuehl
Enclosure

96

97
JACKSON COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Jackson, Michigan

INDUSTRIAL ARTS UNIT
Inventory
INTRODUCTION: As
to

a teacher 1n the f i e l d o f i n d u s t r i a l a r t s , you a r e asked
i n d i c a t e the following:

1.

The methods by which you have become aware of each
o f the u n its in d ic a te d below.

2.

Whether o r not you provide your s tu d e n ts such u n its
of i n s t r u c t i o n .

SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS:
1.

Please check a l l methods by which you have become aware o f each
unit.

2.

Indicate whether
u n its by marking

or not you have provided your stu d e n ts with such
e i t h e r yes o r no f o r each u n i t .

EXPLANATIONS OF METHODS OF BECOMING AWARE OF UNITS:
College lab - You were e n r o lle d in a co lle g e c l a s s where you devoted
a t l e a s t one
week of c l a s s time
to the performance
o f a c t i v i t i e s designed
to achieve the o b je c tiv e s o f the u n i t as opposed to merely disc u ssin g or
w r i tin g about what a c t i v i t i e s should be performed.
Discussed in c o lle g e c l a s s - You were e n r o lle d in a c o l le g e c l a s s where
a t - f e a s t 30 minutes of c l a s s time was devoted to the d isc u ssio n of
p o s s ib le a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c ia te d with the u n i t , but you did not perform
such a c t i v i t i e s In th a t c l a s s .
Student teaching - You observed your student teaching su p e rv is o r provide
h is c l a s ^ I n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s designed to achieve the goals o f the
u n i t f o r a period of a t l e a s t 30 minutes. (Your stu d e n t teaching super­
v i s o r was the person who had immediate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r providing the
i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r the c l a s s f o r which you did your student
teaching.)
Fellow teacher - You observed a te a c h e r , who taught in the same b u ilding
as you, provide h i s c l a s s i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s designed to achieve
the goals of the u n it f o r a period o f a t l e a s t 30 minutes.
Other school - You observed a te a c h e r , In a school building o th e r than
your own, provide h is c l a s s i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s designed to achieve
th e goals o f the unit f o r a period of a t l e a s t 30 minutes.

98
J r - S r . high experience - You were e n r o lle d in a j u n i o r or se nior
high school c l a s s where you devoted a t l e a s t one week o f c l a s s time
to the performance o f a c t i v i t i e s designed to achieve the o b je c ti v e s
of the u n it as opposed to merely d isc u ssin g or w ri tin g about what
a c t i v i t i e s should be performed.
Read about - You have read an account of how to teach the u n i t . The
length of th e t e x t o f the account was the equ iv ale n t of one double
spaced 8 1/2" x 11" ty p e w ritten page.
EXPLANATIONS OF REASONS FOR OR FOR NOT TEACHING THE UNITS
For Teaching
Required curriculum - The u n i t i s a required p a r t o f the curriculum
i n your sc h o o l.
Requested by a d m in is t ra tio n - Your a d m in is tra tio n has requested t h a t
you teach tn e u n i t .
Other I n d u s t r i a l Arts teachers want i t - Other i n d u s t r i a l a r t s te a c h e rs
in your system asked you to teach t h e u n i t .
For Not Teaching
Other I n d u s t r i a l Arts c la s s - Your stu d e n ts have/or w ill experience
th e u n i t in o t h e r I n d u s t r i a l a r t s c l a s s e s .
In ap p ro p ria te te c h n ic al area - The u n it 1s in a p p ro p r ia te f o r th e
te c h n ic a l area you teach.
A dministration d i d n ' t what - Your a d m in is tra tio n asked you to not teach
the u n it.
Student not capable - Your s tu d e n ts are s o c i a l l y , p h y s ic a lly o r mentally
incapable of p r o f i t i n g from th e u n it.
Knowledge to proceed - You do not know how to organize th e u n i t .
F a c i l i t i e s - Your I n d u s t r i a l a r t s f a c i l i t i e s a r e Inadequate t o teach
the u n it.
Funds - You do not have s u f f i c i e n t funds in your budget to provide the
uni t .

INDUSTRIAL ARTS UNIT
Inventory

1. Quantity Production - The class 1$ organlied to
function « i group to produce Multiple copies
of objects. The objects ere considered to
function Interchangeably end ere composed of
Interchangeable ports.______________________

I. Experimentation end Research - Students conduct
experiments with Industrie! products and equip­
ment, or student produced equipment, which
result In data collection end analysis. Major
emphasis Is on student recognition of experl*
Mentation and research as an industrial process
and the development of students' a b ilitie s to
solve problems.________
3. Model Industry - Students construct a scale
model of an industrial plant while they also
study the plant's sources of Materials, process­
ing methods, huamn end physical organliatlon of
the plant, and products produced._____________

A. Practice Pieces - Students produce practice
pieces or modules which are designed to a ssist
students to develop Manual sk ills and Insights
regarding proper procedures, tools, equtpamnt
end Materials. The practice pieces are not
meant to be useful article s beyond the class
setting.____________________________________
5.

Product Poston - Students plan artic le s to fulf l l l functions specified by the Instructor or
thenselves. Major Instructional emphasis Is
placed on student problem solving and appllcatlon of elements of deslon._________________

6.

Projects - Students Individually, or as a
group, construct articles which are Intended
to be useful beyond the class setting. Interchangeablllty of parts Is not required. The
selection of irfilch article s a student May
construct way be oade either by the Instructor
or the student.

REACTION AND SUGGESTION SHEET
Would the in t r o d u c t o r y l e t t e r m otivate you to respond t o the inventory?
Comments:
"7ES~ T R T "

Did th e in t r o d u c t o r y l e t t e r ad e quate ly e x p l a in the purpose o f the
study?
Comments:
YES

1TO

Were th e d i r e c t i o n s f o r responding c l e a r and s u f f i c i e n t ?
Comments:
"TEE

m ----------

Were the d i r e c t i o n s of th e s i x i n s t r u c t i o n a l u n i t s c l e a r and s u f f i c i e n t ?
YES

_____
NO

Comments:

APPENDIX B

FINAL INVENTORY, COVER AND FOLLOW-UP LETTERS

101

DESCRIPTIONS OF UNITS

INDUSTRIAL ARTS UNIT
Inventory

i*A
rfQ
t

<3

«f»ttFo

*0 %

DIRECTIONS:
1. Check the box fo r each My you have been exposed to
each u n it.
2. If you have taught the u n it, w rite in approximately
the g re a te st number of weeks you have ever taught
i t and follow th a t with the grade l e v e l. If less
than a week, w rite in the number of hours followed
by the grade le v e l. Examples: You taught Quantity
Production fo r fiv e weeks a t the 8th grade level 5wk-8 ..o r 10 hours a t 9th grade level - 10hrs-9.
3. Check the box fo r each reason why you have taught
the u n it . . o r . . have not taught the unit.W rite
in any add itio n al reasons you may wish to add.

WAYS BY WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE UNITS:
College Lab - You performed a c tiv itie s of the u n it in a
___________ ____________
college la b o ra to ry .
Discussed in College Class - You were enrolled in a
college class wnere you discussed a c ti v i t i e s of the
u n it; but you did not perform such a c ti v i t i e s .______
Student Teaching - You observed your student teaching
supervisor teach the u n it to h is secondary school
stu d en ts.
______________________________
Fellow teach er - You observed a teacher in your school
teach the u n it.
TSther School - You observed a teacher in another school
teach the u n it.
T O r HTgh'txpe rfence - Vou were en rolled in a .junior or
sen io r high school c la s s where you performed a c t iv it ie s

of th e u n it.
______________
Hovie, Video Tape or Slides - Vou have seen a movie, video
tape or s lid e p resentation of students performing
a c tiv itie s of the u n it.
The students were secondary students________________
The students were college students
Heating - You attended a meeting where a speaker described
stu d en ts' performance of the u n it.
Read About - You have read an account o f how to teach the
u n it.

Have you taught the u n it?
k r ite In no . . . o r the ngafcer of weeks . . . or th e
nuafcer of~Sours 1f le s s than a week. Also w rite in
grade l e v e T . ________

t V J*

Q

X

I)

v ^ *1

*.Q
*^£>1*J09

f t? '

ts£J*
a
,&

'S/P *.O.i
*
^/Ok.'C1

i/u

> ^
£

i/i
. P S h'XJ

w/
* w* ■v n u

,

4j/K . k} by
O _ / *» N ft ^
^ <
<;£$ J'"/’**'*' oA. «r
tl/Cd?A.

M i * Zpff
jf

o/G
^

,

?b

J * ‘ Q./0 K Q

DESCRIPTION OF UNITS

A ? a?

«?

^

t&
j O Q; ■?Qi*>
*
*
,
-Si *
- F j=
c
*?jf c
-■»
t

-«•

* Q ** A

,<■o o vo
V
# **Jt£<*
S tf <j
A/J? o A *

*£££«?
,*
Ai**
VftVh
<t,/c
*C ,
5 / eM ?£'-s'
’S&AAs'
<tf
J N O' ^ O
&* « ? ? ^/^
*g N .
f
t
i) <«
J S VHjw ^CH C- W *> r° $* * J 1
O/
a
a /w

-W.0^*

A .-Jtt C jfS’S'
*3/<Ta “ wi?J

Reasons Why You “HAVE" Taught the U n it:
You Value I t * You consider the u n it to be a valuable
experience fo r your students
Other Teachers Wanted I t - Other in d u s tria l a r ts
teachers in your system asked you to teach the u n it.
Students Wanted I t - Vour students wanted you to provide
the unit
H
lKiXe. In Qiiivu

Reasons Why You "HAVE NOT" Taught the Unit:
Other IA Class - Your students have/or w ill experienced
the unit In o th er in d u stria l a r ts classe s.
Inappropriate - The u n it is Inappropriate fo r the
technical area vou teach.
P rincipal D idn't hunt i t - Vour principal asked you not
to teach the u n it.
Students Not Capable - Your students are s o c ia lly ,
physically o r m entally incapable of p ro fitin g from
tne u n it.
Knowledge to Proceed - You do not know bow to organize
the u n it.
F a c ilitie s - Your In d u strial a r ts f a c i l i t i e s are
Inadequate to teach the u n it.
Funds - You do not have s u ffic ie n t funds In your budget
to provide the u n it.
tf*Ate In Othe\&

~~

>

i*

JOjm *1 *rf.s
v ^ ^ ft o ^

t&b
O)
<f?
.J5

?*
A

•fjN 4A ? A

" > <C * o .s
X

_,4.

A r / i
'4'.'
y-^fs *o,
A
c1
-V ^ i*

A c °*
* j ? f / *f '
* a. ■f^ o
^ 5 *
/i j / t V .
Jt **\o
“/ ^ y i f i
b
*
^
^ # * > V ja ■»f}|>*b f / j s r
J
b
^ ^ »-> ,C p £
t> <■ % P , / £ “ <f--5’'
OC
A»
3t A
^
■?.<?_*»*--o
** vjA
^
<*
^
ft/ft vft>t
.ooj
- -v*< j
p/i?^
"7OoyO s
■M$>-§gf • “■'••s'“•o .<*/*>■
O / S b>
*~> O
*!*■<
$•,»>.AJ?'
**A' t<
S
HT^ irjr
b
»
*
*
,
/
(j/o . .o,i>_ _ r
*jfc?»„-b
o/C-O A
,*? 5 v ^ A

i

• *i

„, -w ,, „. _o o o

-^ ^ q; ? o’

#<?£

<*

^O
AC/oTV
.O
p/u
oV

JACKSON COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMMERCIAL EXCHANGE BUILDING
I M 1 EAST MICHIGAN AVENUE
hoard o f ed u c a tio n

JACKSON, MICHIGAN 4S 10S
T E L E P H O N E ( S I 7) TS7 0 3 S 0

O O t O O N O SMITM
•U K A IM T IM M N T
CA I I M I t * tCMISKV

M i l VIM L S C H I U I N O , V C I M M M N t
FBAMK f
f*Ul I

H A J T V tU T C A IN T tN O tN T
POM • A B C I A l C D U C A T IO N

JAM1ISON,

HiHtV w

M O W ttt
•

cucm

DiFUTVAUl*C**lNTtMDCNT

ttlC H * *

COVER LETTER

As one who helps plan local and regional inservice programs and u n iv e r s i ty extension
courses, I need to receive feedback from teachers to determine what aspects of t h e i r
professional tra in in g have had the g r e a t e s t impact on t h e i r teaching p r a c t ic e s . I
am th e re fo re combining my doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n requirement with t h i s on-the-job
need in an attempt to find out whether the ways in which you have been exposed to
six selected units are r e la te d in a p a r t i c u l a r way to whether or not you teach the
uni t s .
I r e a l i z e th a t your own professional values and f a c t o r s in your teaching s i t u a t i o n
need to be considered in addition to your professional tra in in g as you s e l e c t
in stru c tio n a l units. Therefore, I am asking th a t you indicate which of those
factors have affected your s e le c tio n of units of in s t r u c t i o n .
Your response will not only a s s i s t me to provide in service education more e f f e c t iv e ly
in Jackson County, but the knowledge gained will be disseminated to Michigan school
d i s t r i c t s and Michigan in d u s tria l a r t s teacher educators so th a t a l t e r a t i o n s may be
made in in se rv ice workshops and undergraduate and graduate programs i f the data from
this study so warrants. I t is hoped t h a t you would th e re fo re have an opportunity to
benefit from such changes.
I would ap preciate i t i f you would complete the enclosed inventory at your e a r l i e s t
convenience and return i t to me in the se lf-addressed envelope provided.
You need not sign your name to the inventory, for only group data w ill appear in the
report.
If you wish to receive a surmiary of t h i s r e p o r t, please so indicate in the bottom
margin of the second page.
I appreciate your ass 1stance in this attempt to upgrade service to Michigan
in dustrial a r t s teachers.
Si ncerely

Henry Kuehl
Enclosure

104

105

May 26, 1971

Please help a fellow industrial arts manl
I cannot complete my dissertation (nor my degree requirements)
if I don't receive more responses from individuals like your­
self.
A short time ago, I sent you a survey like the one enclosed.
If you have not already completed and returned that survey,
I would appreciate having you take a few minutes to complete
it and return it to m e .
You may or may not realize any immediate benefit from this
study, but I appeal to you to help a fellow educator.
Sincerely,

Henry Kuehl
Jackson County Intermediate
School District
2301 East Michigan Avenue
Jackson, Michigan 49202

Enclosure