AN EVALUATIVE AND COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDUSTRIAL ARTS PROGRAMS IN SELECTED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS OF PENNSYLVANIA AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF FINANCIAL EXPENDITURE

167 Pages·07.03 MB·English

by  PENDERED, NORMAN C

The Pennsylvania State College
The Graduate School
Department of Industrial Education
An Evaluative and Comparative Study
of Industrial Arts Programs in Selected Junior
High Schools of Pennsylvania at Various Levels
of Financial Expenditure
A Dissertation
by
Norman C. Pendered
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
January 1951
Approved:
artment of Industrial Education
HD7 Head of the Department
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREFACE
The problem of evaluation is of growing sig­
nificance in the field of industrial arts education,,
And, it may become still more important as its poten­
tialities and possibilities become more fully realized
by all teachers. Now, as always, conscientious teachers
are interested genuinely in devising means and methods
to improve their teaching and their industrial arts
programs. Evaluation is one approach to the solution
of this problem. Through intelligent evaluation, the
way is opened to improvement and growth.
Evaluation can be a link between educational
philosophy and educational practice. Educational
philosophy becomes more meaningful for the teacher
when it is translated into practical and specific edu­
cational practices. Evaluative criteria may be com­
posed of selected educational practices which are in
harmony with a sound philosophy of education. Regular
and conscientious us e of such criteria may make the
guiding philosophy more meaningful to the teacher and
bring about a general improvement in his teaching.
i ■> i— f \
■ y JL
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer is greatly indebted to all who have
contributed to this study. Special acknowledgment is
given to Professor John P. Priese for his wise counsel­
ing throughout the work for the doctorate and for his
excellent guidance in the preparation of this disser­
tation. Credit is also given to Dr. Ralph 0. Gallington
for his fine suggestions and help in the initial stages
of the study; to Dr. Hugh M. Davison for his assistance
in outlining statistical procedures; to my father,
Prank C. Pendered, for his splendid help in handling
the statistical calculations; to my colleague at the
State Teachers College, Millersville, Pennsylvania:
Dr, Lee Boyer for his excellent suggestions and general
assistance; to the members of the national committees,
whose names are listed in the appendices, for their con­
tributions to the development of the descriptive rating
scale. Also, the writer wishes to express his appre­
ciation to the other members of his graduate committee:
Dr0 S. Lewis Land, Dr. James H. Moyer, Dr. William S.
Vincent and Dr. Willis E. Pratt for their help in the
preparation of this dissertation.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, the writer wishes to express humble
gratitude to his mother and father, his first and best
teachers, for those countless sacrifices made on his
behalf these many years, and to his vsrife, whose stead­
fast devotion and affection have inspired him ever
onward to new heights#
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE.................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... iii
LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................... vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................ lx
Chapter
PART I - INTRODUCTION
I. FORMULATION AND DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM , . 1
Statement of the Problem
The Plan for the Study
Terminology
Origin of the Study
Scope of the Study
Those to Whom Results May Be Useful
Justification and Importance of Study
II. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH .................. 19
Sources for Related Materials
Doctoral Dissertations
Masters’ Theses
Related Research in General Education
Professional Books and Other Literature
III. INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURES .................. 32
Normative-Survey Method
Construction of the Descriptive Rating
Scale
The Validation Juries
The Item-Weighting Jury
Reliability of the Descriptive Rating
Scale
Problems Involved in Gathering Cost Data
The Questionnaire Returns and Cost
Computations
Selection of the Programs to be Included
Application of Rating Scale to Selected
Programs
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Chapter
.PART II - THE FINDINGS
IV. GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ...........
Introduction
Rating Scale Scores for Selected Programs
Pertinent Supplementary Data
General Treatment of the Data
V. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AMONG GROUP MEANS AT
THE THREE LEVELS OF FINANCIAL EXPENDITURE. .
The Problem
Interpretation of the Mean Differences
in Terms of Significance Levels
Interpretation of the Critical Ratios
Obtained When the Mean Differences Are
Tested for Significance
Summary
Conclusions
VI. RELATIONSHIPS EXISTING AMONG THE SEVERAL
SELECTED FACTORS INVOLVED IN THIS STUDY . .
Presentation of the Coefficients of
Correlation
Interpretation of the Correlation
Coefficients
Reliability of the Correlation
Coefficients
Summary
Conclusions
VII. RELATIVE CONTRIBUTORY WEIGHTS OF EACH OF THE
SELECTED FACTORS TO THE QUALITY OF THE
INDUSTRIAL ARTS PROGRAM ....................
Presentation of the Partial Regression
Coefficients
Interpretation of the Regression
Coefficients
Presentation of the Coefficient of
Multiple Correlation
Summary
Conclusions
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
TABLE OF COMMENTS— Continued
Chapter Page
PART III - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
VIII. SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION, SUMMARY OF
THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS „ 111
Summary of the Investigation
Summary of the Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
PART IV - APPENDICES ........... 137
APPENDIX A
Members of Preliminary Validation Jury
APPENDIX B
Members of Final Validation Jury
APPENDIX C
Members of Item-Weighting Jury
APPENDIX D
The Descriptive Rating Scale
APPENDIX E
Letter Accompanying the Questionnaire
The Questionnaire
Follow-up Postal Card
Sample Form for Recording Data
APPENDIX F
Selected Bibliography
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1. Respective Weights in Percentages Assign­
ed by the Validation Jury to Each of the
Major Factors of the Rating Scale........... 40
2. Median Weights in Percentages Assigned to
the Major Factors by the Validation Jury • 41
3. Values Assigned to Items in Major Factor
1 by the Item-WeightingJ u r y ............... 43
4* Values Assigned to Items in Major Factor
2 by theI tem-WeightingJ u r y ............... 44
5. Values Assigned to Items in Major Factor
3 by theI tem-Weighting Jury ............ 45
6. Values Assigned to Items in Major Factor
4 by theI tem-WeightingJ u r y .............. 46
7. Effects of Possible Mis judgments by the
Industrial Arts Teacher on Instructional
Period Costs . . 58
8. Descriptive Rating Scale Scores for High-
Expenditure Level Industrial Arts Programs. 66
9. Descriptive Rating Scale Scores for Middle-
Expenditure Level Industrial Arts Programs. 67
10o Descriptive Rating Scale Scores for Low-
Expenditure Level Industrial Arts Programs. 68
11o Supplementary Data Concerning High-Expen-
diture Level Industrial Arts Programs . . . 69
12. Supplementary Data Concerning Middle-Ex-
penditure Level Industrial Arts Programs • 70
13. Supplementary Data Concerning Low-Expen-
diture Level Industrial Arts Programs . . . 71
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OP TABLES— Continued
Table Page
14. Critical Ratios Obtained When the Dif­
ferences in Means of the Groups Are
Tested for Significance.................... 75
15. Coefficients of Correlation Among the
Various Factors Involved .................. 87
16. Coefficients of Correlation in Rank Order
from Highest to L o w e s t .................... 88
17. Coefficients of Correlation Arranged by
G r o u p s ...................................... 89
18. Classification of the Coefficients of
Correlation Under Verbal Descriptions . . . 93
19. Work Sheet for the Doolittle Method . . . . 101
20. Obtained Partial Regression Coefficients . 104
21. Selected Factors in Rank Order of Impor­
tance Which Contribute Most to the
Quality of an Industrial Arts Program . . . 106
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Number of Questionnaires and Returns
by Counties.................................... 53
2. Location by County of the Selected
Industrial Arts P r o g r a m s .................... 60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.