Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' ATTITUDES
AND GARMENT CONSTRUCTION SCORES UNDER
TWO METHODS OF EVALUATION
by
JANET LYNN SCHULTZE WHEATLEY, B.S. in H.E.
A THESIS
IN
HOME ECONOMICS EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
HOME ECONOMICS
Approved
Accepted
December, 1977
fa^^
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researcher wishes to express sincere apprecia
tion to Dr. Merrilyn Cummings for her professional
guidance and encouragement throughout the study. Ap
preciation is also expressed to Dr. Valerie M. Chamberlain
and Dr. Patricia E. Horridga for their interest and help
ful suggestions. In addition, I wish to thank my husband,
Jamas Gregory Whaatlay, for his support and understanding
in this endeavor.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purposes of the Study 5
Hypotheses 7
Scope and Limitations 8
Definition of Terms 9
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
Clothing Construction 11
Trends in Clothing Construction 11
Reasons People Sew 13
Trends in Sewing Aids 16
Clothing Construction in Educational
Programs 19
Educational Evaluation 22
Evaluation Defined 22
Objectives and Evaluation 23
Purposes of Evaluation 25
Characteristics of Good Evaluation. . . . 26
111
Characteristics of Good Evaluation
Instruments 28
Self-Evaluation 29
Non-Tasting Devices for Laboratory
Self-Evaluation 31
Attitudes 34
Definitions of Attitudes 34
Characteristics of Attitudes 35
Methods of Attitude Assessment 37
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY. . . . 40
Development of Evaluation Instruments . . 40
Attitude Scale 40
Scorecard for Garment Evaluation. . . . 44
Selection and Description of the Sample . 48
Collection of Data ^^
Treatment of Data 51
IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA . . . . 53
Hypotheses Examined and Discussed . . . . 54
Hypothesis 1 ^^
Hypothesis 2 •^
Hypothesis 3 ^"
Hypothesis 4 ^"
Hypothesis 5 ^^
Hypothesis 6 60
Hypothesis 7 ^^
Hypothesis 8 ^^
iv
Summary 65
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 67
Summary of the Study 67
Evaluation Instruments 68
Data Analysis 70
Findings of the Study 70
Conclusions 72
Recommendations for Further Study 75
LIST OF REFERENCES 77
APPENDIX 81
A. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TEACHERS 82
B. FORM A - GARMENT SCORECARD 83
C. FORM B - GARMENT SCORECARD 88
D. TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS 94
E. ATTITUDE SCALE 95
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Difference Between the Mean Pre-Test Attitude Scores of Students in Groups A and B 55
2. Difference Between the Mean Post-Test Attitude Scores of Students in Groups A and B 57
3. Differences Between the Mean Pre-Test Attitude Scores and Post-Test Attitude Scores Within Groups A and B 58
4. Difference Between the Mean Teacher Garment Scorecard Scores For Students in Groups A and B 59
5. Difference Between the Mean Student Garment Scorecard Scores For Students in Groups A and B 60
6. Correlations Between Students' Final Garment Scorecard Scores and Pra-Tast Attitude Scores Within Groups A and B . . . 61
7. Correlations Between Students' Final Garment Scorecard Scores and Students' Post-Test Attitude Scores Within Groups A and B 63
8. Differences Between Mean Teacher Garment Scorecard Scores and Mean Student Garment Scorecard Scores Within Groups A and B. . 64
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The skill of clothing construction, which was at one
time taught only at home, has turned into a multi-million
dollar business venture. Pacey (32) and Baltera (7) have
estimated that in 1977, 58,500,000 adults and teenagers
engaged in home sewing will generate annual sales in the
total home sewing market of over $5 billion. According
to Baltera (7), this compares with $3.5 billion spent in
19 73 in the total home sawing market. Twenty years ago,
in 195 7, home sewers spent approximately $810 million in
the total home sewing market as compared to $1 billion in
1967 and $2.5 to $3 billion in 1970 (13, 26, 36, 42).
In addition to the increase in dollars being spent,
the number of people sewing at home and in schools has
increased. In 1955, approximately thirty-five to forty
million adults and teenagers constructed a garment as
compared to forty-one million in 1967 and forty-five
million in 1973 (7, 13, 23). Teenagers are an important
part of these statistics relating to home sawing. Ac
cording to Baltera (7), in 1974, four out of five teenage
girls could saw. They had learned the skills by the age
of twelve years. The purchasing power of these teens
1
dominated twenty-three percent of the retail fabric
market, and their sawing efforts produced eighty-three
million garments a year (1, 7). Smith (37) has emphasized
that young teens at twelve years of age are beginning to
enroll in their first homemaking courses in the sixth,
seventh, and eighth grades across the country. Male
participation in the home sewing boom has continuously
risen since the early sixties. Hurt (24) has pointed out
that as of 1972 approximately thirteen percent of all
students enrolled in home economics courses ware males.
According to Kim (28), the number of males enrolled in
1975-76 secondary home economics programs rose to twenty-
five percent. With the continuing boom in teenage sewing,
it is important to continue to include clothing construc
tion skills in the home economics curriculum.
Fleck (18) has stated that teaching methods and
accurate evaluation methods are essential in maintaining
a high quality home economics program. According to
Osborn (31), evaluation is an integral part of teaching
that needs to be part of the planning process from the
beginning in order to be effective. When used correctly,
evaluation will not only reveal information of value to
the student and the parent, but it will also yield in
formation of importance to the instructor.
While different evaluation methods are available
to the instructor, Chadderdon (11) has determined that
student self-evaluation plus teacher cooperative evalu
ation best produce the information the instructor is
seeking. During student self-evaluation, the student's
self-concept is being affected.
The devices used in clothing construction evaluation
vary. Some are easier for students and teachers to
construct and use than others. Scorecards, checklists,
and rating scales can be used to measure the psychomotor
skills used in clothing construction. While researchers
(3, 5, 21, 30) have agreed that evaluation is a must, they
have sometimes disagreed on what methods or instruments
to use.
The cognitive and psychomotor domains are often
well evaluated while the affective domain is often
neglected. This happens because the affective domain of
learning, which deals with attitudes, values, beliefs,
and feelings, is more difficult to describe and measure.
According to Spitza and Griggs (40), affective objectives
must be a part of our curriculum planning and evaluation.
While teaching and evaluating the basic clothing skills
is still vary important. Fleck (16) has contended that
learning is more lively when emotional aspects are con
sidered with cognitive emphasis. Ahmann and Clock (3)
have noted that the evaluation of attitude formation and
attitude change is as important as achievement in the
basic skills.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of the study was three-fold. The first
aspect of the problem was to assess the attitudes of high
school students towards clothing construction before and
after they completed a clothing project in the present
study. All students involved in the study had constructed
garments previously. A Likart-type attitude scale was
developed for this assessment. The instrument consisted
of statements concerning various aspects of clothing
construction including fabric and pattern preparation,
sawing techniques, finishing skills, and garment evalu
ation.
The second problem of the study was to compare the
affects of two approaches to evaluation of garment con
struction on final garment ratings. Students in one group
evaluated their garments frequently throughout construction;
the other group of students evaluated their garments only
upon completion. An evaluation instrument in the form of
a scorecard was developed and administered utilizing these
two separata procedures.
The third aspect of the problem was to compare the
attitudes of students with the final evaluations of their
garments under the two approaches to evaluation. Upon
completion of their garments, students completed the post'
test attitude scale.
Purposes of the Study
In order to solve the problems of the study, the
following purposes were set forth:
First, a review of literature was undertaken to
determine current national trends in the area of home
sewing and clothing construction, to assess the growth
or decline of clothing construction in high schools and
collages, to review the purposes for evaluation, and to
determine devices appropriate for evaluation in clothing
construction. In addition, studies concerning attitudes
and behaviors were reviewed.
Second, a valid and reliable instrument for assess
ing students' attitudes towards clothing construction was
developed. This instrument was used for both the pre-
assassmant and post-assessment of attitudes.
Third, a valid and reliable garment evaluation
instrument was developed. A scorecard format was used
for this evaluation instrument. Two slightly different
versions of the scorecard were developed. One was used
for the frequently evaluated group of students and one
for the group of students whose garments were evaluated
only upon completion.
Fourth, a sample of homemaking teachers and high
school students in the Lubbock, Texas, area was
selected for participation in the study. The sample was
one of convenience. Teachers who participated had to be
willing to give time to the study and had to have two
homemaking classes in which to use the two evaluation
approaches of the study.
Fifth, data were collected from students in the
sample. These data included pre-test and post-test at
titude scores of the high school students towards
clothing construction. Pre-test attitude scores were
obtained. Then each student constructed a garment. At
the completion of the garment, post-test attitude scores,
as well as final scorecard ratings of the garment, ware
obtained. Half of the students and their teachers had
evaluated their garments periodically throughout the
construction process, the other half of the teachers and
students rated them only at the completion of the garment.
Implications and conclusions from the analyses of the
data were drawn.
Sixth, recommendations for further research in the
area of attitude assessment of high school students re
lating to clothing construction were determined. Further
research in the areas of clothing construction and
evaluation is recommended.
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tasted in the
study:
1. There is no significant difference between the
mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group A
and the mean pre-test attitude score of those students
in Group B.
2. There is no significant difference between the
mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group A
and the mean post-test attitude score of those students
in Group B.
3. There are no significant differences between
the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test
attitude scores within Groups A and B.
4. There is no significant difference between the
mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in
Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score for
students in Group B.
5. There is no significant difference between the
mean student garment scorecard score for students in
Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score for
students in Group B.
6. There are no significant relationships between
students' final garment scorecard scores and students'
pra-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
8
7. There are no significant relationships between
students' final garment scorecard scores and students'
post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
8. There are no significant differences between
mean teacher garment scorecard scores and mean student
garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B.
Scope and Limitations
The study was conducted in the fall of 1977.
Ninety-five high school homemaking students responded to
the attitude and garment scorecard evaluation instruments
used in the study. The teachers who indicated willingness
to have their students participate in the study were
known by or referred to the researcher. The sample was
one of convenience. Schools represented in the study
ware Wilson High School, Wilson, Texas; Tahoka High
School, Tahoka, Texas; Lamesa High School, Lamesa, Texas;
New Deal High School, New Deal, Texas; and Ira High School,
Ira, Texas. Findings of the study were limited in scope
by the nature of the sample. All conclusions of the
study are limited to the sample.
Skills of students may have varied due to grade
level and prior clothing construction experiences at
home, in homemaking classes, extension programs, or
commercial situations. Teaching skills of home economics
9
teachers varied according to individual capabilities.
The researcher had no control over students' skills,
the types of garments constructed, or the teaching
techniques utilized by the teachers in the study.
The instruments developed were based on a review
of literature and a study of methods for preparing evalu
ation devices. The instruments were submitted to a
professional panel who critiqued the instruments and
offered suggestions for revision.
In spite of the precautions, the scope of the study
was limited by inheritant imperfections of written score-
cards and attitude assessment instruments. The possibility
existed that the high school students and teachers in
terpreted various terms differently. Also, the high
school students may not have been familiar with soma of
the terminology used in the evaluation instrument such as
"finished and understitched all facings." Estimates may
have been given by the high school students at times.
Definition of Terms
The definition of words used in the study are:
1. Attitude--a term used to refer to the way in
dividuals react and think toward and about people, objects,
and situations they encounter as a result of their previous
experiences.
10
2. Evaluation--the process of determining the
effect of educational endeavors based on evidences.
3. Garment--a clothing construction project com
pleted by the student in a given class period.
4. Group A--a group of students who evaluated their
garments only upon completion using a scorecard developed
by the researcher.
5. Group B--a group of students who evaluated their
garments periodically during construction using a score-
card developed by the researcher.
6. Likert-type attitude scala--an evaluation in
strument that measures a person's degree of agreement or
disagreement with given statements on a five point
continuum from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
7. Self-evaluation--the student's ability to rate
or judge his/her own garment in a clothing construction
class.
8. Scorecard--an evaluation instrument in which a
list of described characteristics or dimensions stated in
concise phrases is each assigned a total possible score.
The rater then judges each characteristic assigning it a
given score up to, but not exceeding, the possible score.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature was divided into three
sections. The first part was concerned with trends in
clothing construction related to home sewing as well as
in our educational institutions. The second aspect was
concerned with educational evaluation, including
definitions, purposes, and various non-tasting methods
of evaluation that would be appropriate for clothing
and textiles. The third section dealt with attitudes
toward clothing construction. Definitions and character
istics of attitudes and means of attitude assessment were
covered.
Clothing Construction
Trends in Clothing Construction
Wharton (43) has stated that fashion conscious
young people have turned sewing into one of the fastest
growing industries in America. In American Fabrics (23)
it was stated that not only is the art of sewing an
economical venture, but it carries with it a positive,
if not prestigious, image.
11
12
In the mid-sixties there was a definite rise in
the number of garments being made in schools and homes.
Wharton (43) has noted that from 1960 to 1975 there was
a fifty percent increase in the number of garments made
in the United States. Wharton (43) has also pointed out
that at the rate of 300 million a year, Americans con
tinue to add to their wardrobes with highly stylized,
economical, well made, and better fitting garments. Not
only has the number of teenagers who are sewing increased,
but there are also increasing numbers of middle age and
older adults sewing as well. After many years of slow,
sluggish sales, the sewing market has become stimulated
by fashion, individuality, creativity, and ready-to-wear
obsolescence. According to research (1), the sewing
market is presently one of the top ten industries in the
United States. No longer is the American consumer held
captive by the ready-to-wear world.
In the last few years there have been changes in
who is sewing and the annual incomes of these people.
In Business Week (2) it has been reported that the
demographic location of sewers has changed from the rural
to urban areas. Eighty-two percent of the sewers are
coming from the North Central and Southern United States.
Pat Carrier (7), McCalls Pattern market researcher,
has stated that the average home sewer falls into the
13
middle and upper-middle income brackets. Clothes are no
longer sewn merely to save money. In Business Week it
was stated that, "Dispelling the poverty notion, two-
thirds of women sewers have incomes of more than $7,500
a year, and more than a quarter have more than $12,000"
(2:56).
Reasons People Sew
Adults and teens tend to be sewing for a variety of
reasons. According to Baltera (7), sewing customers
are outraged at the skyrocketing prices of ready-to-wear
garments, poor workmanship in ready-to-wear garments, and
unimaginative mass styling. The increased interest in
sewing may have affected trends in the ready-to-wear
market. According to Pacey (32), it is becoming in
creasingly difficult for consumers to buy what they
want when they want it. It is not uncommon to find fall
and winter clothing in the retail department stores during
mid-July and to find spring and summer clothing available
in mid-January.
Robbins (35) has classified reasons for sewing
into six major categories. The six major categories
are:
increased leisure time
economic necessity
rising incomes
14
education and maturity
fashion, fit and independence
machine sophistication and pattern sales.
Wharton (43) has stressed that not only is making a
garment a satisfying experience, but it is also a
creative outlet as well. Promoters of sewing like to
emphasize the desire to be creative. In Changing Times
(13) magazine it was stated that sewing calls for in
dividuality and creative ability.
In the American society today, the amount of leisure
time one has is increasing. Brightbill (9) has explained
that the ability of adults to cope with leisure time has
become extremely important. For many people, working
with fabrics and patterns can meet the need for using
leisure time constructively. Working with one's hands
through sewing can be a relaxing use of leisure time.
Although findings in the literature are somewhat
contradictory with regard to the importance of the
economic factor in sewing, this factor is listed as
being a reason for sewing. However, it is generally
listed as secondary to other reasons. In Forbes (25)
magazine it was stated that sewing is generally an
economic necessity. By sewing, the cost of a garment
in the majority of cases is reduced in comparison to a
ready-to-wear garment. Authors in Changing Times (13)
15
magazine have noted that clothing costs can be cut by
as much as one-third to one-half or more by sewing.
It has been determined that the importance of the
economic factor may be associated with the age of the
person doing the sewing. According to Baltera (7),
mature sewers emphasized the "double wardrobe" benefits
of sewing. The survey results showed that seven out of
ten teenagers agreed with the statement that "sewing
clothes is a good way to save money," while three out
of four agreed that "you can have more clothes if you
sew some."
People who sew today also stress fit as a reason
for sewing. In Consumer Bulletin (15) it was stated
that sewing is almost a necessity in obtaining a properly
fitting garment. Many patterns have come out with
double and triple sizes in one garment for adjustment
to one's proportions.
Baltera (7) has noted that one reason adults sew
is because of dissatisfaction with the selection of
fabrics used in clothing in the ready-to-wear market.
With increased communication between the customer and
persons in the design, pattern, and fabric industries,
it is becoming increasingly easy for customers to select
the appropriate fabrics, weights, colors, and designs for
their garment needs.
16
Trends in Sewing Aids
One contribution to the rise in the number of
people sewing has been the availability of simple-to-
sew patterns, easy care fabrics, professional sewing
aids, and easy to operate sewing machines. According
to Baltera (7), the consumer spent close to $3.5 billion
in 1975 on fabrics, sewing machines, patterns, and
notions.
According to Robbins (35), pattern companies which
at one time offered limited size and style selections,
now provide a multiplicity of up-to-date styles and
patterns for all shapes and sizes. Designers of patterns
emphasize extreme ease in construction. Often very
limited sewing ability is required. Wharton (43) has
emphasized that the pattern companies watch the styles
emerging from New York, California, Paris, London, and
Rome closer than the ready-to-wear buyers.
Baltera (7) has noted that pattern sales in 1975
totaled $289 million. The four major pattern companies,
Butterick, Vogue, Simplicity, and McCalls continually
advertise budget stretcher, jiffy, pounds thinner, and
quick and easy styles for all sewers. According to
Baltera (7), in 1975 Simplicity Pattern Company spent
close to $750 thousand in advertising their new line of
budget stretcher patterns. Baltera (7) has also noted
17
that customers have little or no brand loyalty in select
ing their patterns. Customers are very likely to switch
from one pattern company to another looking for one
certain pattern style. With large pattern catalogs being
the major vehicle for advertising patterns for the
companies, it has become increasingly important that the
largest part of the advertising dollar be spent there.
Additional pamphlets and television advertisements re
mind customers to sew, be creative, and save money.
According to Baltera (7), $2.1 billion was spent
on apparel fabrics in 1975. Robbins (35) has noted that
fabric sales have doubled since the mid-sixties. Accord
ing to Baltera (7), in 1975 teenagers purchased an
average of twenty-four yards of fabric a year for a
total of 2.8 billion yards or twenty-three percent of
the retail fabric market. A trend toward natural fabrics
and away from synthetic fabrics has taken place in the
last few years. In Retail Directions (14) magazine it was
stated that many people purchase fabrics structured from
natural fibers because the short supply of oil has caused
the price of synthetic fabrics to rise. More and more
woven fabrics constructed from fibers of a natural origin
are being treated to render the customer with ease of
care, fresh appearance, comfort, and fashion.
18
Authors of Department Store Economist (1) magazine
have stated that during 1972 the majority of sewers
spent nearly equal amounts of their fabric dollars in
the fabric speciality shop and national chain department
stores. Figures compiled by the authors of Department
Store Economist (1) magazine showed that forty-five
percent of sewers spent their fabric dollars in fabric
speciality stores, thirty-five percent in national
chain department stores, and fifteen percent patronized
other stores.
The increase in sewing has brought with it an in
crease in the number of sewing machines being purchased.
Baltera (7) estimated that a total of $450 million was
spent in 1975 on the purchase of sewing machines. Years
ago sewing machines featured only the straight and reverse
stitching feature. Sewing machines manufactured today
feature computerized zig-zag stitching, stretch stitching,
buttonhole makers, and an endless variety of decorative
stitches. Wharton (43) has emphasized that with new
modern machines, adults and teens are able to work on
fabrics that previously could be sewn only in the factory.
Wharton (43) has noted that many new sewing notions
have come into the market to make better and more at
tractive garments. Many sewing notions once available
only to personnel in sewing factories can be purchased
19
on the retail market. According to Baltera (7), total
notion sales for 1975 were $720 million. This was an
increase from $650 million in 1971. Wharton (43) has
stressed that devices such as buttonhole guides, iron-on
hem bindings, decorative patches, invisible zippers, and
button attachments are readily available on the market
to aid the sewer.
Clothing Construction in Educational Programs
According to Robbins (35) , approximately ninety
percent of all teenagers know how to sew and fifty-eight
percent of those who know how to sew, learned how to do
so in school. Robbins (35) also noted that the secondary
school system is now teaching 7.2 million additional
consumers to sew each year. The number of males taking
clothing construction courses has rapidly increased in
the last few years. Hurt (24) found that in 1970 thirteen
percent of the students enrolled in home economics
clothing classes were males. According to Kim (28), in
1975-76 the male enrollment in secondary home economics
courses rose to twenty-five percent.
According to Hurt (24), all students profit from
taking some course in home economics. Those students
choosing to continue home economics courses in college
will enter colleges varying in their abilities and
20
experiences in clothing construction. Souligny and
Grovalynn (38) have noted that many college students
have completed as many as six years of home economics
courses in junior and senior high school. Many have
had several years of clothing construction work in 4-H.
On the other hand, many students who enter home economics
clothing courses in college have had no formal instruction
in sewing. Souligny and Grovalynn (38) found that earlier
experiences in clothing construction affected one's
achievement in university clothing courses. The amount,
rather than type of clothing experience, affected achieve
ment.
At various grade levels different aspects of cloth
ing and textiles are taught. Anderson (4) conducted a
study at Lamar University in 1971 investigating clothing
and textiles subject matter taught in elementary schools.
As part of the study, 392 elementary school teachers
ranked several aspects of clothing and textiles with
regard to the perceived importance of selected topics
for elementary school children. The order in which
the aspects were ranked was:
Personal grooming
Posture and poise
Care of clothes
Choosing clothes for the individual
21
Fabric care and choice
Clothing selection and principles
Wardrobe budget
Clothing Construction.
Lare (29) has noted that in an effort to make
students confident in their sewing abilities, instructors
tended to overemphasize how easy sewing is. Textbook
authors and pattern companies reinforce the idea that
sewing is easy, simple, and uncomplicated. According
to Lare (29) , the effect of this emphasis is that the
student believes that only the "how" of sewing is im
portant, not the "where," "when," or "why." If the
student can not achieve at this "easy, simple, and quick
task," a feeling of defeat may be felt.
Lare (29) has stressed that the process of decision
making in addition to construction skills should be
taught at the secondary level. The completed garment is
only proof to the instructor that the student knows how
to perform certain skills. High grades are awarded to
those students who can follow directions, not necessarily
to those making independent decisions. According to
Lare (29), by putting less emphasis on specific techniques
and by putting more emphasis on choices that are avail
able to the student in patterns, fabrics, and construction
techniques, students' abilities to make decisions, to
22
analyze new situations, and to solve problems will be
maximized.
As a result of teaching decision making in clothing
construction, the teacher will take on a new role. Lare
(29) has stated that teachers will find themselves acting
as helpmates, guides, and trouble shooters in the clothing
classroom. Creative sewing is not just the art of follow
ing pattern directions or the instructor's demonstration.
It is the art of choosing and making decisions.
Educational Evaluation
Evaluation Defined
The literature reviewed has revealed that evaluation
is a complex and involved process. Fults, Lutz, and
Eddleman (19) have stated that evaluation is a process
of getting, assembling, and interpreting evidence which
helps educators make valid judgments with respect to
significant objectives, goals, and values. According to
Spafford (39), evaluation involves selecting, preparing,
and using instruments to measure what has or has not been
learned in the educational process. Spitze and Griggs
(40) have considered evaluation as a cooperative and
continuous process in which judgments in terms of recog
nized objectives or standards are made. Evaluation
should also provide the basis for reviewing past per-
23
formances in order to plan effectively for future per
formance. According to Cross, "Evaluation is a process
which determines the extent to which objectives have been
achieved" (12:5).
In the evaluation process, it is important to
distinguish between evaluation and measurement. Accord
ing to Ahmann and Clock (3), measurement is a quantitative
description of a phenomenon, while evaluation determines
the worth or value of a phenomenon. The idea of evalua
tion encompasses the concept of a value judgment. Good
sound evaluation is based upon accurate and adequate
measurement.
Objectives and Evaluation
Cross (12) has defined an objective as a statement
describing a proposed change as a result of learning.
Evaluation of each objective should take place with the
results used to determine how much learning has taken
place and what changes if any need to take place in one's
planning and teaching. In a study conducted by Phillips
(33) , it was determined that evaluation is the most im
portant phase of the teaching-learning process. In
planning a unit of study, evaluation should be as impor
tant as the teaching of the subject matter and the stating
of objectives. Selecting evaluation procedures at the
time of planning assures the instructor that an assess-
24
ment will be made of the extent to which educational ob
jectives have been achieved. Ahmann and Clock (3) have
concluded that evaluation must reflect changes in learn
ing behavior due to teaching specific objectives.
According to Arny (6), when possible, students should
be allowed to help the teacher plan goals for instruction.
By cooperatively planning with the instructor, the student
is likely to feel a sense of self worth. With adequate
planning, teaching, and evaluating of relevent subject
matter, the needs of the students can be met.
Arny (5) has stated that teacher goals and student
goals may be quite different. According to Arny (5),
many times teacher goals tend to be broad and long term,
while student goals are specific and short term. Many
times teachers set goals for students that are hard to
achieve or can not be reached at all. A combination of
the two types of goals balances curriculum planning.
According to Hall and Paolucci (20), evaluation
can help students formulate new goals and procedures
pertinent to learning. As teachers develop and define
specific objectives in lesson plans, two aspects must
be considered. First, teachers should formulate a series
of possible experiences which enable students to reach
the desired objectives. Second, methods of measurement
must be set up to determine if the students have met the
objectives.
25
Purposes of Evaluation
According to Brown (10), there are eight major
purposes of evaluation. These purposes include:
to improve in-class instruction
to enable schools to measure educational
efficiency and discover where changes need to be
made
to furnish parents and students with in
formation regarding achievment in light of the
student's abilities and aptitudes
to serve as a basis for guidance
to provide information to higher in
stitutions regarding the capacity and achievement
of the student
to furnish information to prospective
employers
to provide tools for educational research
to enable schools to demonstrate what they
are accomplishing.
Ahmann and Clock (3) have concluded that one im
portant purpose of evaluacion is to permit teachers to
better know their students. By getting to know the
students, the teacher will be better able to plan
educational experiences for them and to determine the
degree to which educational experiences have been met.
26
Evaluation is a means by which an instructor can determine
what students already know. According to Cross, "Past
experiences and already developed skills can be a basis
for instruction" (12:17).
Sweet (41) has maintained that evaluation can prove
to be a difficult task. Differences in students' charac
teristics, learning styles, and differences in methods
of teaching on the part of the instructor affect the
total evaluation process. However, if evaluation is
done correctly it will reveal the status of the pupil
to not only the teacher, but also to the parents and to
the student as well. It is of utmost importance that the
results of evaluation be used for the purpose or purposes
intended. Too many times evaluation is used only to
categorize and sterotype. Students and teachers alike
tend to react to evaluation in a painful way by avoiding
it or by using it improperly.
Characteristics of Good Evaluation
Smith (37) has stated that evaluation has much to
offer the student and the teacher if it is used before,
during, and after a learning experience. Cross (12) has
noted that evaluation is not an end of the unit process,
but an ongoing, daily activity. Since a product is the
sum of many involved processes, evaluation of that product
27
should reflect the quality of those procedures followed
in arriving at the product. Continuous evaluation allows
the student to see the progress made throughout a project
and to indentify areas of needed improvement. According
to Cross (12), continuous evaluation tends to motivate
students and alleviate repetition of errors in a process.
Mather (30) has stated that evaluation is effective when
it measures each part of a total learning process.
Chadderdon (11) has noted that traditionally it
has been the teacher's responsibility to do all the
evaluating. Recently it has been more acceptable for
the student to be actively involved in the total evalua
tion process. Cross has stated:
Cooperative evaluation is a dual process of insuring the simultaneous involvement of both teacher and student from the objective-stating outset to the final grading end. Both the teacher and the students should express their concerns, their opinions as to whether or not objectives are being reached, and their satisfaction. This is a give and take process that pays high dividends (12:13).
According to Brown (10), to be successful at co
operative evaluation there must be an accepting attitude
on the part of both the student and the teacher. The
student must see that the teacher is making a sincere
effort to make cooperative evaluation a truly cooperative
enterprise.
28
Characteristics of Good Evaluation Instruments
Cross (12) has stated that there are five concepts
that comprise the basis for the characteristics considered
to be desirable in evaluation procedures: validity,
reliability, usability, objectivity, and discrimination.
Validity of an evaluation instrument refers to the degree
to which it measures what it claims to measure. Validity
is the most important aspect of an evaluation device.
Cross (12) has stated that a valid test or instrument
will measure the degree to which educational objectives
or goals have been met.
Arny (5) has stated that adequate sampling of
content, with a variety of types of items and proper
directions for administration can help increase the
reliability of an instrument. Ahmann and Clock (3) have
stated that each instructor is obligated to inspect the
reliability and validity of an evaluative instrument
before using it. One of the most important character
istics of a good evaluation instrument is usability.
According to Cross (12), usability refers to the con
venience, advantage, practicality, and availability of
an evaluation instrument. The ease of administering a
test or evaluation instrument, ease of scoring, and the
reasonable cost of the instrument can determine the
usability of an evaluation device.
29
Cross (12) has stated that objectivity helps the
teacher eliminate personal judgment from the evaluation
situation. A teacher must set up a scoring key for the
evaluation instrument that is inflexible. When students'
scores are spread along a scale of merit, the evaluative
method is said to be discriminating. Arny (5) has ex
plained that a discriminating evaluation instrument will
distinguish between the high-achieving student and the
low-achieving student. By looking at the range of
students' actual scores from an evaluation instrument,
the degree of discrimination can be determined.
Self-Evaluation
Cross has stated that, "Self-evaluation demands
that the students make decisions" (12:11). Fleck (18)
has pointed out that through evaluation students learn
to take a look at themselves in an objective and imper
sonal manner. Cross (12) has stated that students can
help in constructing instruments for self-evaluation,
the scoring of the devices, and the determining of grades.
Self-evaluation, if used early in the educational process,
can be a learned process. Students will learn to recog
nize their strengths and weaknesses when they are allowed
to self-evaluate or appraise themselves. Smith (37) has
stated that self-evaluation was never meant to take the
30
place of evaluation done by the instructor. Self-
evaluation is effective when it is used as part of
cooperative evaluation.
Arny (5) has stated that it is not necessary for
students to construct the evaluation devices used in
self-evaluation. It is only important for students to
have experience in evaluating. When students are first
allowed to evaluate themselves, the teacher should not
be impatient or discouraged with the scores. According
to Arny (5), it is common for student scores and teacher
scores to vary greatly when students first start to self-
evaluate.
In a study conducted by Hatcher (22) in thirty-
five high schools using 900 high school students in foods
classes as subjects, scores given by the students on
food labs and scores given by the teacher on the same
food labs at the beginning of a twelve week nutrition
unit, varied greatly. At the end of the twelve week
unit when continual, cooperative evaluation and self-
evaluation were emphasized, the teachers' and students'
scores were very similar. With time and practice, the
students developed judgment and a more objective point
of view of their own capabilities. According to Brown
(10), when adequate methods of appraisal have been
developed with the student as well as the teacher learning
31
to evaluate, then there will probably be less frustration,
nervous tension, antagonism, and cheating.
Non-Testing Devices for Laboratory Self-Evaluation
When selecting or developing an evaluation device,
an instructor should consider how it is to be used and
what it will measure. Arny (6) has noted that evaluation
devices range from very informal to those that are rela
tively complex. If they are to be used for self-evalua
tion, evaluation devices must be simple enough for the
students to use and understand. Certain evaluation
devices are easier to use and give the student more
confidence in the evaluation process than others.
Observational devices require students to decide where
they stand and to make decisions about the level of their
performance. Among the typical observational devices
are rating scales, checklists, and scorecards. Accord
ing to Cross, "The major uses of rating devices are
evaluating personal qualities and appraising processes
and products" (12:177). Hall and Paolucci (20) have
suggested that scorecards, diaries, written instruments
by parents, self-inventories, rating scales, and check
lists are effective evaluation devices for home economics.
Cross (12) has indicated that checklists can be
used to meet the needs of both instructors and students.
32
They are easy to construct and use with a minimum amount
of explanation to the student. A checklist consists of
a list of attributes. The presence or absence of each
attribute is indicated by the presence or absence of a
check mark. Cross (12) has listed some of the dis
advantages of checklists as being that they are not
easily scored or graded, they give only surface evaluation,
and they are lacking in reliability.
Spitze and Griggs (40) have defined a rating scale
as a reporting device that has a list of qualities to be
judged and a scale for checking the degree each attribute
is present. Descriptions are written indicating various
possible levels of achievement. Numerical scores are
assigned to the descriptive levels and performance or
products are then scored accordingly. According to
Cross (12), some of the advantages of rating scales are
that:
behaviors are precisely defined
descriptive levels provide a continuum
students can see the lowest and highest
possible score
scores can be used as grades.
According to Cross (12), the chief disadvantages of
rating scales are the time involved in their construction
33
and the limited opportunities for student involvement
in their construction. Students prefer to use an ob
servational device they have helped to construct.
Arny (5) has defined a scorecard as a list of
characteristics for which standard scores are established.
Space for a recorded score is available next to each
characteristic with additional spaces sometimes provided
for teachers' or parents' scores.
According to Arny (5), the scorecard was one of the
first rating devices used in home economics. It was
frequently used in food preparation. Scorecards can be
used to evaluate products and processes including clothing
skills. As with the checklist, students can easily be
involved in the construction of the scorecard. Cross (12)
has noted that by helping in the construction of the
scorecard, students see the list of attributes or dimen
sions that must be met and the standard scores considered
acceptable. As with rating scales, the scorecard score
can be used for a grade. One disadvantage of a score-
card is the range of possible scores from which an in
dividual can choose for scoring each attribute. Cross
(12) has stated that it becomes frustrating for an in
experienced grader to work with a scorecard.
34
Attitudes
Spitze and Griggs (40) have determined that of the
three learning domains, the affective domain is probably
the least effectively evaluated. Included in this domain
are such variables as attitudes, values, interests, and
feelings. According to Arny (5), before the 1930's
adequate methods to measure subjective elements such as
attitude were unavailable or unreliable. According to
vSpitze and Griggs (40) , it has been determined that in
many cases without certain feelings and affective states,
the acquisition of knowledge would be difficult, if not
impossible.
Definitions of Attitudes
Many varied definitions of attitudes have been
proposed. Zimbardo and Ebbesen have stated that,
"Attitudes have generally been regarded as either mental
readiness or implicit predispositions which exert some
general and consistent influence on a fairly large class
of evaluative responses" (44:6). These responses are
usually directed toward some object, person, or group.
Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44) have noted that the attitude
response is learned rather than innate.
Reich and Adcock (34) have defined attitudes as
systems of positive or negative evaluations, emotional
feelings, and pro or con action techniques with respect
35
to social objects. These attitudes cannot be directly
observed, but only inferred.
Katz has defined an attitude by stating that,
"It is the predisposition of the individual to evaluate
some symbol or object or aspect of his world in a favor
able or unfavorable manner" (27:168). Attitudes are more
easily measured than defined.
According to Borg and Gall (8), the concept of
attitude refers to the way individuals act and think to
ward people, objects, and situations. The reactions are
a result of previous experiences.
Characteristics of Attitudes
Arny (5) has expressed the same opinion as Katz (27)
relating to the fact that attitudes are difficult to
measure. People tend to react in some given situations
according to how society or the teacher would want them
to react. Many times it is difficult for people to stand
up for or express their attitudes on given subjects.
Reich and Adcock (34) have pointed out that attitudes
are governed by characteristics of one's personality.
With a change of personality comes a possible change in
attitudes. One's group membership has also been determined
to be a factor influencing or molding ones' attitudes.
Membership in a group means one must follow the norms
of that group. According to Reich and Adcock (34),
36
membership in a group can act both to define, modify,
and maintain individuals' attitudes and values with
pressure to change the attitudes of individuals if they
do not voluntarily do so.
A characteristic of attitudes is that they can
change. Changes in attitude are not necessarily accompa
nied by changes in behavior. Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44)
have noted that rewards and punishments should be highly
effective means of producing attitude changes.
Fleck (17) has determined that attitudes can be
identified only when the conditions are right for their
emergence. When students are in a conducive atmosphere,
confident, and free to express themselves, attitudes
can be observed. Attitudes are never to be classed as
right or wrong and should only be considered in terms
of the individual student and the situation.
Fleck (17) has also added that students' past
experiences will guide and mold their attitudes. She has
stressed that the more open minded the student is, the
easier it will be to accept or reject and to weigh
evidence carefully before forming an opinion.
According to Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44), attitudes
possess three possible components. These three com
ponents are affect, cognition, and behavior. The affect
component consists of a person's evaluation or liking of
37
an object or person. A persons' beliefs about or
factual knowledge of an object or person are classified
as the cognition component. The behavior component in
volves overt action toward an object or person. Each of
the three components requires measurement in a different
way. The affect component must be measured by responses
or verbal statements of like or dislike. The cognition
aspect is measured by the amount of knowledge one has
about some topic. The behavior aspect is measured by
direct observation of a person in a specific situation.
Methods of Attitude Assessment
The measurement of attitudes is a difficult task
to undertake. Since attitudes are given to frequent
change, accurate measurement devices must be employed.
Reich and Adcock have noted that, "Attitudes, not being
directly observable, can only be measured indirectly"
(34:30).
A variety of methods can be used in measuring
attitudes. Reich and Adcock (34) have listed the Thurstone
scale, Likert scale, Osgood's Semantic Differential,
opinion polls, social distance scales, and sociometric
techniques as means for measuring attitudes. Open-ended
sentences can also be used to measure attitudes. The
type of technique one uses to measure attitudes depends
on the kind of question one wants answered. Reich and
38
Adcock (34) have stated that such instruments as the
Likert-type scale, Osgood's Semantic Differential, and
social distance scales lend themselves to easy use and
quick scoring of results. Combining a variety of measur
ing instruments will allow the researcher to see all
components of attitudes more easily.
Attitude scales frequently used in attitude assess
ment are the Thurstone and Likert scales. These methods
require the respondents to indicate their agreement or
disagreement with given statements. According to Reich
and Adcock (34), the Thurstone scale consists of a series
of items which represent intervals along a continuum
ranging from favorable to unfavorable. Graduated opinions
on the scale are arranged evenly on the scale so that
most people notice shifts in attitudes toward the subject.
Respondents are asked only to check items with which they
agree.
Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44) have stated that the
Likert-type scale consists of a series of opinion state
ments about some issue. Approximately one-half of the
opinion statements are positively worded and one-half
of the opinion statements are negatively worded. Re
spondents are asked to indicate if they strongly agree,
agree, are undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree with
each statement. Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44) have added
39
that in contrast to the Thurstone scale, the Likert-
type scale measures people's attitudes by asking them to
indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement
with each item. There may not be equal intervals between
scale values. Numerical values of five, four, three,
two, and one are given respectively for the positively
worded items. Scores are reversed for negatively worded
items. The more favorable the individual's attitude
toward a subject, the higher the score for that subject.
The final score for the attitude scale is the sum of all
the individual items. According to Zimbardo and Ebbesen,
"This means that a Likert scale can provide information
on the ordering of people's attitudes on a continuum, ....
(44:126).
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
FOR THE STUDY
Based on a review of literature and a study of
methods for preparing data gathering instruments, two
evaluation instruments were developed. The first was
a Likert-type attitude scale designed to assess the
attitudes of high school students towards clothing con
struction. The students were enrolled in comprehensive
sequence homemaking courses. It was used as a pre- and
post-assessment instrument. The second instrument was
a scorecard for evaluating garments constructed by high
school students enrolled in comprehensive sequence home-
making courses. Two parallel versions of the scorecard
were developed. One was designed so that it could be
used for periodic evaluation during garment construction,
and the other was designed to be used only upon completion
of the garment.
Development of Evaluation Instruments
Attitude Scale
After reviewing literature pertinent to attitude
assessment, an attitude scale was developed to assess
40
41
attitudes of high school students towards clothing con
struction. A Likert-type format was utilized. The
Likert-type attitude scale consisted of thirty statements
related to the following nine areas of clothing con
struction: pattern selection, fabric preparation,
sewing equipment, sewing skills, construction procedures,
evaluation of clothing projects, time and expense involved
in sewing, teacher and teaching of sewing, and values and
appropriateness of sewing.
There were approximately equal numbers of positively
and negatively worded items on the scale. Each statement
was followed by five possible responses. Students could
strongly agree, agree, be undecided, disagree, or strongly
disagree with each item. Items were scored using a five
point scale. Positively worded statements were scored
using points from five to one, with five points assigned
to strongly agree and one point assigned to strongly
disagree responses. Negatively worded statements were
reverse scored with one point assigned to strongly agree
responses and five points assigned to strongly disagree
responses.
In the process of developing the instrument, the
researcher initially generated a pool of statements.
These statements were submitted to a panel of six judges
consisting of three faculty members in the Department of
42
Home Economics Education at Texas Tech University and
three graduate students in the Department of Home Eco
nomics Education at Texas Tech University. The panel
members were asked to judge each statement and indicate
whether they felt it was positively or negatively worded.
In addition, they were asked to make any suggestions for
the wording of the statements which would increase
clarity. The results were tabulated and agreement of
four or more judges was determined to signify a clear,
well written positively or negatively worded statement.
The statements marked undecided by more than two judges
were considered unclear with regard to whether they were
positive or negative. These statements were then either
rewritten or omitted from the instrument.
The researcher had written statements pertaining
to the nine areas of clothing construction towards which
attitudes were being assessed. To establish content
validity, the statements were submitted to a panel of
judges consisting of two faculty members in the Depart
ment of Home Economics Education at Texas Tech University,
four graduate students in the Department of Home Economics
Education at Texas Tech University, and two high school
home economics teachers. The panel members were asked
to classify each of the statements into one of the nine
areas of clothing construction. Results were tabulated
43
and agreement of five or more of the judges signified to
the researcher that the statements should be classified
into a specific category representing one of the nine
areas of clothing construction. Statements on which there
was not agreement by five or more of the judges as to
their classification, were rewritten or omitted from the
instrument. The distribution of statements among the
nine categories is summarized in a Table of Specifications
found in Appendix D.
During the development of the attitude scale, a
pilot study was conducted. The attitude scale was ad
ministered to a sample of twenty-seven high school
students enrolled in homemaking courses during the
summer phase of homemaking education in 1977. The stu
dents were similar in nature to the proposed sample group.
Data from the pilot study were collected, and revisions
in wording were made in statements confusing to the stu
dents. To determine the discriminating power of the
attitude statements, the scores of the pilot sample were
analyzed using the formula for computing the index of
discrimination. Any statement not discriminating was
reworded or omitted from the scale.
The final attitude scale consisted of thirty items
developed to assess the attitudes of high school students
towards clothing construction. There were three items
44
related to pattern selection, two items related to fabric
preparation, two items related to sewing equipment, four
items related to sewing skills, three items related to
construction procedures, four items related to evaluation
of clothing projects, five items related to time and
expense of sewing, three items related to teacher and
teaching of clothing construction, and four items related
to values and appropriateness of sewing. The final
attitude scale is included in Appendix E.
Reliability of the attitude scale was established
using the internal consistency split-half procedure.
This procedure was applied to the pre-test attitude scores
of ninety-five students in the sample. The students'
scores on the odd and even halves of the attitude scale
were correlated. This correlation was then stepped up
to an expected full length value utilizing the Spearman-
Brown "Prophecy Formula." A reliability coefficient of
.78 was obtained which was significant at the .01 level.
Scorecard for Garment Evaluation
The garment evaluation instrument designed for
use in the study was a scorecard. The garment scorecard
was designed so that it could be used to evaluate all
types of garments. The scorecard consisted of forty
dimensions or aspects of clothing construction. These
45
forty dimensions were grouped under five major areas of
clothing construction. These five areas were pattern
preparation, fabric preparation, sewing techniques,
finishing techniques, and work habits. Of the forty
dimensions, three were under the category of pattern
preparation, seven were under the category of fabric
preparation, sixteen were under the category of sewing
techniques, nine were under the category of finishing
techniques, and five were under the category of work
habits. In each case, the dimensions were listed in the
order in which they were most likely to be completed in
a typical clothing construction project. Each dimension
was assigned a standard score. Students and teachers
evaluating the garments could assign any number of points
up to the standard score to each dimension. There were
100 total possible points on the scorecard. If a dimension
did not apply to the garment being completed by the stu
dent, a check was to be placed in the "does not apply"
column. Next to each dimension on the scorecard there
were four columns. These columns provided a place for
the student's score, the teacher's score, an indication
of "does not apply," and comments. Blanks at the bottom
of each score column were provided for the tallying and
recording of total points.
46
For the purposes of the study, two forms of the
scorecard were developed and utilized. Forms A and B of
the garment scorecard were identical in content with
regard to the dimensions outlined. The only difference
was that Form B of the garment scorecard contained stop
check points for those students in the study who period
ically evaluated their garments. Form A did not have
any stop check points. The students utilizing Form A
evaluated their garments upon completion only. Form A
was used by Group A, and Form B was used by Group B.
Once the students in Group A completed their garments,
they worked through the entire scorecard without stopping.
Upon completing the scorecard, students in Group A were
instructed to have the teacher evaluate their garments.
Form B of the garment scorecard was designed with
ten stopping points placed throughout the dimensions to
indicate when periodic evaluations by the teacher and
student should take place. Stopping points were placed
at the end of pattern preparation, fabric preparation,
pinning pattern pieces, cutting pattern pieces, stay-
stitching and darts, seams and zipper, interfacing and
facings, collar and/or waistband, sleeves, and finishing
techniques. As the students completed these various
parts of their garments, they were asked to evaluate these
aspects of their garment and record the appropriate scores
47
on the garment scorecard. A "Stop See Teacher"
phrase on the scorecard reminded the students to have
their garments evaluated by the teacher at the ten check
points during construction.
On the top of the scorecard there were items that
allowed the researcher to gather demographic background
information of the student, the clothing project completed,
the school, the homemaking class, and the date of project
completion. A sample of Form A of the garment scorecard
is included in Appendix B. A sample of Form B of the
garment scorecard is included in Appendix C.
To establish the content validity of the scorecard,
several processes were employed. Initially, scorecards
developed by secondary homemaking teachers in the Lubbock,
Texas, area were used as references for determining aspects
or dimensions of clothing construction typically evaluated
in the high school classroom. To strengthen validity, the
scorecard was submitted to a panel of twenty judges con
sisting of three faculty members in the Department of
Home Economics Education at Texas Tech University, seven
graduate students in the Department of Home Economics
Education at Texas Tech University, and ten high school
home economics teachers in the Lubbock, Texas, area. The
panel members were asked to critique the scorecard and
to offer suggestions for revision. In particular, they
48
were asked to assess the importance, relevance, complete
ness, and sequencing of content in the scorecard. Based
on their suggestions, necessary revisions were made to
refine the scorecard and thus, to improve content validity.
Reliability for the scorecard was increased by
keeping the subject matter content of the instrument
specific to high school homemaking students. All the
statements were clearly worded and directions were ex
plicit. The scorecard was reviewed and revised in order
to keep the length to a minimum.
Selection and Description of the Sample
Five high school homemaking teachers in the Lubbock,
Texas, area participated in the study. The sample was
one of convenience. These teachers represented Lamesa
High School, Ira High School, New Deal High School,
Tahoka High School, and Wilson High School. Ninety-five
high school homemaking students enrolled in the clothing
construction classes of these five teachers participated
in the study during the fall of 1977.
In order to participate in the study, the teachers
had to have at least two comparable Homemaking II or
Homemaking III classes involved in clothing construction
during the first six to eight weeks of the school quarter.
Students in the classes had previous clothing construction
49
experience either in a Homemaking I clothing construction
class, 4H, or through private instruction. One of each
of the teacher's two classes was designated as Group A.
This group received and utilized Form A of the garment
scorecard. The other class was designated as Group B,
and this class utilized Form B of the garment scorecard.
The teacher determined which class would be Group A and
which would be Group B. The five teachers participating
in the study received the pre-attitude scales. Form A and
Form B of the garment scorecards, and the post-attitude
scales for administration to their homemaking classes.
Ninety-five complete sets of pre-attitude scales, Forms
A and B of the garment scorecards, and post-attitude
scales were returned to the researcher. Demographic
data were obtained for each of the ninety-five students
on the attitude scale and scorecard. These data included
information on the school, the clothing project, the
homemaking class, and the sex of the student. The projects
completed by the students in the study included blouses,
skirts, vests, gauchos, dresses, and pants. Ninety-one
females and four males participated in the study.
Collection of Data
Copies of the pre- and post-attitude scales used
to assess the attitudes of high school students towards
50
clothing construction were sent, along with copies of
Forms A and B of the garment scorecards, to the five high
school homemaking teachers participating in the study.
These five teachers reached a potential of 133 high school
students in the Lubbock, Texas, area who would have been
eligible to participate in the study. Instructions sent
to the five homemaking teachers contained all necessary
information needed for the teachers to have the students
complete the attitude scales and the garment scorecards.
A copy of the instructions is included in Appendix A.
The teachers were asked to administer the pre-attitude
scales immediately upon receiving them. They were asked
to return them to the researcher in prepaid envelopes
before September 1, 1977. The researcher requested that
all garment scorecards and post-attitude scales be com
pleted and returned in the prepaid envelopes by November
1, 1977.
Groups A and B consisted of students in comparable
homemaking courses. Students in one homemaking class
were designated as Group A and were instructed to com
plete their garments as they normally would in the cloth
ing class. Upon completion of their garments, the stu
dents were asked to self-evaluate their garments using
Form A of the garment scorecard. The garments were then
graded by the teacher, and a final grade was recorded.
51
Students in the class designated as Group B were in
structed to self-evaluate their garments periodically
throughout construction. There were check points on the
garment scorecard where they were told to stop and com
plete their evaluation and then allow the teacher to also
evaluate their progress.
All data were returned to the researcher by Novem
ber 7, 1977. Ninety-five complete sets of attitude
scales and garment scorecards were returned. There were
forty-eight students who had completed Form A of the
garment scorecard and forty-seven students who had com
pleted Form B.
Treatment of Data
Data obtained from the pre-attitude scales. Forms A
and B of the garment scorecard, and the post-attitude
scales of ninety-five high school students in the sample
were processed in a computer located at the Texas Tech
University Computer Center. Data were considered sig
nificant at the .05 level. The data were statistically
treated by the following methods:
1. Descriptive statistics were obtained for all
variables.
2. A series of five _t-tests were run to determine
if significant differences existed between:
52
a. the mean pre-test attitude socres of
students in Groups A and B
b. the mean post-test attitude scores of
students in Groups A and B
c. the mean pre-test attitude scores and
the mean post-test attitude scores within
Groups A and B
d. the mean teacher garment scorecard scores
for students in Groups A and B
e. the mean teacher scorecard scores and
mean student scorecard scores in Groups
A and B.
3. Correlations were computed to assess the relation
ship between:
a. the students' final garment scorecard
scores and the students' pre-test at
titude scores within Groups A and B
b. the students' final garment scorecard
scores and the students' post-test at
titude scores within Groups A and B.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
OF DATA
The data obtained in the study were collected from
ninety-five high school students enrolled in compre
hensive sequence homemaking classes in five high schools
in the Lubbock, Texas, area. To participate in the
study, each teacher had to have two comparable homemaking
classes studying clothing construction. One class was
designated as Group A and the other as Group B. Copies
of the Likert-type attitude scale and Forms A and B of
the garment scorecard were sent to each teacher. The
Likert-type scale was used to assess the high school
students' attitudes towards clothing construction before
and after constructing a garment in class. All students,
whether in Group A or B, completed the pre- and post-
test attitude scale. The Likert-type attitude scale data
were analyzed to determine if there were any significant
differences between the following variables: pre-test
attitude scores in Groups A and B, post-test attitude
scores in Groups A and B, and pre-test and post-test
attitude scores within Groups A and B.
53
54
Data were also collected from the garment scorecard
Group A students and teachers completed Form A of the
garment scorecard only upon completion of their gannents.
Group B students and teachers completed Form B of the
garment scorecard continuously throughout garment con
struction. The garment scorecard data were analyzed
to determine if there were any significant differences
between the following variables: mean teacher garment
scorecard scores within Groups A and B, mean student
garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B, and mean
teacher garment scorecard scores and mean student garment
scorecard scores within Groups A and B. Data were also
analyzed to determine if there were any significant re
lationships between students' final garment scorecard
scores and students' pre-test attitude scores within
Groups A and B and between the students' final garment
scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude scores
within Groups A and B.
Hypotheses Examined and Discussed
Eight null hypotheses were tested in the study.
Six hypotheses were tested using ^-tests. For two
hypotheses, Pearson product-moment coefficient cor
relations were computed and their levels of significance
determined.
55
Hypothesis 1
The mean pre-test attitude score of the students
m Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score of the
students in Group B were compared in hypothesis one which
stated:
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant dif-ference between the mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group B.
Hypothesis one was analyzed through the use of a _t-test.
The statistics related to hypothesis one are summarized
in Table 1. On the basis of the analysis of the data
presented in Table 1, hypothesis one was accepted. The
;t-value obtained indicated that no significant difference
existed between the mean pre-test attitude score of those
students in Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score
of those students in Group B. Groups A and B did not
differ with regard to their pre-test attitude scores.
TABLE 1
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN PRE-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES OF STUDENTS IN GROUPS A AND B
Groups
A
B
N
47
48
Mean Pre-Test Attitude Scores
111.49
108.00
t-value
1.53
Level of Significance
N.S.
'Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.
56
Hypothesis 2
The mean post-test attitude score of the students
in Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of the
students in Group B were compared in hypothesis two which
stated:
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group B.
Hypothesis two was analyzed through the use of a t -test.
The statistics related to hypothesis two are summarized
in Table 2. Based on the analysis of the data presented
in Table 2, hypothesis two was accepted. The t_-value
obtained indicated that no significant difference existed
between the mean post-test attitude score of those stu
dents in Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of
those students in Group B. Whether the garment evaluation
was continuous or done only at the end of garment con
struction did not seem to affect attitudes of the stu
dents towards garment construction.
Hypothesis 3
The mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean
post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B were
analyzed in hypothesis three which stated:
57
TABLE 2
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN POST-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES OF STUDENTS IN GROUPS A AND B
Mean Post-Test Attitude Level of
Groups N Scores t-value Significance
A 47 113.09
B 48 109.40 1.52 N.S.''
Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.
Hypothesis 3: There was no significant dif-ferences between the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
Hypothesis three was analyzed through the use of a t -test.
The statistics related to hypothesis three are summarized
in Table 3. On the basis of the analysis of the data
presented in Table 3, hypothesis three was accepted. The
t-values obtained indicated that no significant differences
existed between the mean pre-test attitude scores and the
mean post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
During the time of the study, students attitudes did not
change significantly in Group A or Group B. It should
be noted that there was a slight positive increase in
attitudes in both groups.
58
TABLE 3
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN PRE-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES AND POST-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES
WITHIN GROUPS A AND B
Mean Attitude Levels of
Groups Assessments Scores t-values Significance
A Pre-Test 111.49
Post-Test 113.09
B Pre-Test 108.00
Post-Test 109.40
-.69 N.S
-.59 N.S
'Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.
Hypothesis 4
The mean teacher garment scorecard score for stu
dents in Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard
score for students in Group B were analyzed in terms of
the fourth hypothesis which stated:
Hypothesis 4: There is no significant dif-ference between the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in Group B.
Hypothesis four was analyzed through the use of a ;t-test.
The statistics related to hypothesis four are summarized
in Table 4. On the basis of the analysis of the data
presented in Table 4, hypothesis four was accepted. The
59
;t-value obtained indicated that no significant difference
existed between the mean teacher garment scorecard score
for students in Group A and the mean teacher scorecard
score for students in Group B. Whether students' garments
were graded once at the end of construction or continually
throughout construction did not lead to a difference in
the teachers' final garment scores for the two groups.
TABLE 4
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN TEACHER GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES FOR STUDENTS
IN GROUPS A AND B
Groups
A
B
N
47
48
Mean Teacher Garment Score-card Scores
88.32
87.00
t-value
.78
Level of Significance
N.S."
"Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.
Hypothesis 5
The mean student garment scorecard score for stu
dents in Group A and the mean student garment scorecard
score for students in Group B were compared in hypothesis
five which stated:
Hypothesis 5: There is no significant dif-ference between the mean student garment scorecard score for students in Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score for students in Group B.
60
Hypothesis five was analyzed through the use of a t -test.
The statistics related to hypothesis five are summarized
in Table 5. On the basis of the analysis of the data
presented in Table 5, hypothesis five was accepted. The
;t-value obtained indicated that no significant difference
existed between the mean student garment scorecard score
for students in Group A and the mean student garment
scorecard score for students in Group B. Whether students
scored their garments once upon completion or continually
throughout the construction process did not seem to affect
the final garment scores.
TABLE 5
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN STUDENT GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES FOR STUDENTS
IN GROUPS A AND B
Mean Student Garment Score- Level of
Groups N card Scores t_-value Significance
A 47 92.32
B 48 87.44
*»-1.88 N.S
"Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.
Hypothesis 6
The students' final garment scorecard scores and
students' pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B
61
were compared in hypothesis six which stated:
Hypothesis 6: There are no significant relationships between students' final garment scorecard scores and students' pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
Hypothesis six was analyzed through the use of the Pearson
product-moment coefficient of correlation. The statistics
related to hypothesis six are summarized in Table 6. On
the basis of the analysis of the data presented in Table
6, hypothesis six was rejected for both Groups A and B.
The correlations indicated that significant relationships
did exist between students' final garment scorecard
scores and students' pre-test attitude scores within
Groups A and B. Those students with higher garment
construction scores had higher pre-test attitude scores.
TABLE 6
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS' FINAL GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES AND PRE-TEST ATTITUDE
SCORES WITHIN GROUPS A AND B
Correlations Between Final Garment Score-card Scores and Pre- Levels of
Groups Test Attitude Scores Significance
A .51 .001
B .30 .05
62
Hypothesis 7
Students' final garment scorecard scores and stu
dents' post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B
were compared in hypothesis seven which stated:
Hypothesis 7: There are no significant re-lationships between students' final garment scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
Hypothesis seven was analyzed through the use of the
Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation. The
statistics related to hypothesis seven are summarized
in Table 7. On the basis of the analysis of the data
presented in Table 7, hypothesis seven was rejected for
Group A and accepted for Group B. For Group A the
correlation indicated that a significant relationship
existed between students' final garment scorecard scores
and students' post-test attitude scores. Those students
with higher garment scores had higher post-test attitude
scores. For Group B the correlation indicated that no
significant relationship existed between students' final
garment scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude
scores.
Hypothesis 8
The mean teacher garment scorecard scores and mean
student garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B
were compared in terms of the eighth hypothesis which
stated:
63
TABLE 7
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS' FINAL GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES AND STUDENTS' POST-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES WITHIN GROUPS A AND B
Correlations Between Final Garment Scorecard Scores and Post-Test Attitude Levels of
Groups Scores Significance
A .51 .001
B .23 N.S."
"Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.
Hypothesis 8: There are no significant dif-ferences between mean teacher garment score-card scores and mean student garment score-card scores within Groups A and B.
Hypothesis eight was analyzed through the use of a t_-test.
The statistics related to hypothesis eight are summarized
in Table 8. On the basis of the analysis of the data
presented in Table 8, hypothesis eight was rejected for
Group A and accepted for Group B. The ;t-value for Group
A indicated that a significant difference existed between
the mean teacher garment scorecard score and the mean stu
dent garment scorecard score. The students rated their
garments significantly higher than the teachers rated
their garments. The t_-value for Group B indicated that
a significant difference did not exist between the mean
64
teacher garment scorecard score and the mean student
garment scorecard score for that group. Teacher and
student garment scorecard scores were significantly
different when only one evaluation was done of the stu
dent's garment at the end of the construction process.
On the other hand, when continual evaluation by both
teachers and students took place throughout the con
struction process the final garment scores of teachers
and students were not significantly different.
TABLE 8
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN TEACHER GAR14ENT SCORECARD SCORES AND MEAN STUDENT
SCORECARD SCORES WITHIN GROUPS A AND B
Groups Evaluators
Mean Garment Scores
Levels of _t-values Significance
Teacher
Student
88.32
92.32 2.84 .01
B Teacher
Student
87.00
87.44 23
'Not significant at the .05 level or beyond
N.S
65
Summary
In summary, the following were the significant
findings as a result of analyses of the hypotheses in
this chapter:
1. No significant difference was found between the
mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group A
and the mean pre-test attitude score of those students
in Group B.
2. No significant difference was found between the
mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group
A and the mean post-test attitude score of those students
in Group B.
3. No significant differences were found between
the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test
attitude scores of students within Groups A and B.
4. No significant difference was found between the
mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in
Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score for
students in Group B.
5. No significant difference was found between
the mean student garment scorecard score for students
in Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score
for students in Group B.
66
6. Significant relationships were found between
the students' final garment scorecard scores and students'
pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
7. A significant relationship was found between
the students' final garment scorecard scores and students'
post-test attitude scores within Group A. No significant
relationship was found between the students' final garment
scorecard scores and students' post-test scores within
Group B.
8. A significant difference was found between the
mean teacher garment scorecard score and the mean student
garment scorecard score in Group A. No significant dif
ference was found between the mean teacher garment score-
card score and the mean student garment scorecard score
in Group B.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purposes of this chapter are to summarize the
study and to draw from an analysis of the data conclusions
which appear to be justified. Recommendations for further
study in the area of attitudes of high school students
towards clothing construction evaluation are based upon
the findings of the study.
Summary of the Study
The study had two major goals. The first was to
assess the attitudes of high school students towards
clothing construction. The second goal was to determine
if the garment construction scores of students in a
clothing construction unit were affected by two different
methods of evaluation.
The study was conducted from August to November of
1977. Data were collected from students in five high
schools in West Texas. The sample included ninety-five
high school students who were enrolled in home economics
classes. In order to qualify for participation in the
study, each high school had to have two home economics
67
68
classes at the same level involved in similar clothing
construction projects. One class was designed as Group A
and the other class as Group B. All students were ad
ministered the pre-test attitude and post-test attitude
scale. Group A students and teachers completed Form A
of the garment scorecard only upon completion of the
garments. Group B students and teachers completed Form B
of the garment scorecard periodically during garment
construction.
Evaluation Instruments
Based on a review of literature and a study of
methods for preparing attitude scales and scorecards,
the evaluation instruments were developed. The evaluation
instruments consisted of two scorecards and a Likert-
type attitude scale. The instruments were reviewed and
critiqued by a panel of judges before being finalized
and administered to the sample.
The scorecards were developed to evaluate clothing
projects completed by the students in a comprehensive
sequence home economics class. Two versions of the gar
ment scorecard were developed for the study. Form A of the
garment scorecard was used by Group A for evaluating gar
ment construction upon completion of the garment. Form B
of the garment scorecard was used by Group for evaluating
garment construction at periodic check points during gar
ment construction.
69
The garment scorecards consisted of forty dimensions
or aspects of clothing construction. These forty dimen
sions were grouped under the following five areas of
clothing construction: pattern preparation, fabric
preparation, sewing techniques, finishing techniques,
and work habits. A standard score was assigned to each
of the forty dimensions. The teachers and students could
assign each dimension a number of points up to, but not
exceeding, the standard score.
A Likert-type attitude scale was constructed for
assessing the attitudes of high school students towards
clothing construction. The Likert-type attitude scale
consisted of thirty items equally representing the follow
ing nine areas of clothing construction: pattern selection,
fabric preparation, sewing equipment, sewing skills,
construction procedures, evaluation of clothing projects,
time and expense of sewing, teacher and teaching of sewing,
and values and appropriateness of sewing. Students were
asked to indicate on the scale their agreement or dis
agreement with each statement by circling a number from
five to one. The scale was used as a pre-test and post-
test instrument to assess the attitudes of high school
students towards clothing construction.
70
Data Analysis
Data collected from the garment scorecards and
attitude scales were analyzed through the following
methods. First, a series of ;t-tests were run to determine
if significant differences existed between the mean pre
test attitude scores of students in Groups A and B, the
mean post-test attitude scores of students in Groups A
and B, and the pre-test and post-test attitude scores of
students within Groups A and B. Second, t_-tests were
used to determine if significant differences existed
between the mean teacher garment scorecard scores for
students in Groups A and B, the mean student garment
scorecard scores for students in Groups A and B, and the
mean teacher garment scorecard scores and the mean student
garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B. Third,
Pearson product-moment coefficient correlations were run
to determine if any significant relationships existed
between students' final garment scorecard scores and
students' pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B
and between students' final garment scorecard scores and
students' post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.
Findings of the Study
Findings resulting from analyses of data in the
study were as follows:
71
1. There was no significant difference between
the mean pre-test attitude score of those students in
Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score of those
students in Group B.
2. There was no significant difference between
the mean post-test attitude score of those students in
Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of those
students in Group B.
3. There were no significant differences between
the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test
attitude scores within Groups A and B.
4. There was no significant difference between
the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students
in Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score
for students in Group B.
5. There was no significant difference between the
mean student garment scorecard score for students in
Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score for
students in Group B.
6. There were significant relationships between
students' final scorecard scores and students' pre-test
attitude scores within Groups A and B.
7. There was a significant relationship between
students' final garment scorecard scores and students'
post-test attitude scores in Group A. There was no
72
significant relationship between students' final garment
scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude scores
in Group B.
8. There was a significant difference between the
mean teacher gartnent scorecard score and the mean student
garment scorecard score in Group A. There was no sig
nificant difference between the mean teacher garment
scorecard score and the mean student garment scorecard
score in Group B.
Conclusions
Based upon the findings of the study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The mean pre-test attitude scores of students
in Groups A and B were not significantly different.
Students with high and low attitude scores seemed to be
well distributed between the two groups.
2. Students in Groups A and B did not have sig
nificantly different post-test attitude scores. Students
with high and low attitude scores seemed to be well
distributed between the two groups.
3. In comparing the attitudes of students before
constructing a garment and after constructing a garment,
no significant differences existed between the mean pre
test attitude scores and the mean post-test attitude
73
scores of students within Groups A and B. Whether garment
evaluation was done continuously or only upon completion
of a garment did not affect students' attitudes towards
clothing construction.
4. The mean teacher garment scorecard score for
students in Group A was not significantly different from
the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students
in Group B. The method by which the teachers evaluated
their students did not have a significant effect upon
the final teachers' garment scorecard scores. Teachers
evaluating students in Groups A and B scored the students
the same no matter which evaluation method was used. It
can be concluded that teachers will grade students'
garments about the same whether the evaluation is done
continuously throughout the unit or only upon garment
completion.
5. The mean student garment scorecard score in
Group A was not significantly different from the mean
student garment scorecard score in Group B. Scores of
students evaluating themselves periodically throughout
construction of a garment did not vary significantly from
scores of students evaluating their garments only upon
completion. A trend in the data indicated that students
who evaluated their garments only upon completion scored
their garments higher than the students who continually
evaluated their garments.
74
6. Final garment scorecard scores and pre-test
attitude scores of students in Groups A and B were
significantly related. It appeared that the more positive
the students' attitudes were initially, the higher they
rated their garments. Thus, initial positive attitudes
towards clothing construction may result in garments of
higher quality being produced. It appears that this will
be true regardless of the method of evaluation used.
7. Students' post-test attitude scores and final
garment scorecard scores in Group A were significantly
related. Based on these findings, it can be concluded
that the more positive the students' attitude towards
clothing construction upon completing a project the higher
the final garment scorecard score. This was found to be
true in the group of students that evaluated their garments
only upon completion of their projects. Students' post-
test attitude scores and final garment scorecard scores
in Group B were not significantly related. It appears
that further research is needed.
8. In comparing the mean teacher garment scorecard
scores and the mean student garment scorecard scores, it
was noted that a significant difference existed in Group
A where evaluation only took place upon completion of
the garment. Students in Group A were allowed to see
the garment scorecard only upon garment completion, and
75
thus, they may not have been aware of the acceptable
criteria for constructing a garment. Students in Group A
may have forgotten whether they completed various steps
in construction or their performance in certain work
habits. Therefore, they may have estimated a final
garment score. No significant difference was found in
comparing the mean teacher garment scorecard score and
the mean student garment scorecard score in Group B.
Because students in Group B were continually made aware
of the acceptable criteria needed in constructing a gar
ment, they may have scored their garments as their
teachers scored their garments. Also, since they were
continually aware of how their teachers were scoring
their garments, they may have become more aware of their
teachers' standards. Thus, they may have scored their
garments more like they thought their teachers would
score them at each check point along the way.
Recommendations for Further Study
Recommendations for further study include:
1. To revise the attitude scale based on the
students' recommendations in order to further simplify
and clarify the wording.
2. To modify both forms of the garment scorecard
omitting 'work habits'. Work habits could be evaluated
76
on a weekly or daily basis by the teacher. To reduce
the number of pages and improve the appearance of the
garment scorecard, it would be wise to have the instrument
professionally printed on both sides of the paper.
3. To revise the teachers' instructions for ad
ministering the attitude scale and garment scorecard
making them more explicit.
4. To adapt the garment scorecard and attitude
scale for use in evaluating other subject matter fields
such as foods and nutrition and home experience projects.
5. To conduct a study using more experienced home-
making students or 4-H members to determine if other
students' attitudes and final garment scorecard scores
were related in a manner similar to or different from the
results in this study.
6. To gather other demographic data on the students
including race, I.Q., overall homemaking or academic
grade point average, and previous clothing construction
experience. This data could be compared to final garment
scorecard scores and attitude scores.
7. To develop an attitude scale to assess the
teachers' attitudes towards the two methods of garment
evaluation.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. "A Time to Sew and a Time to Reap Profits." Department Store Economist. 34 (June 197177 20-23. ~
2. "A $3-Billion Boom in Home Sewing." Business Week. 2144 (October 3, 1970): 56-57.
3. Ahmann, J. Stanley, and Clock, Marvin D. Evaluating Pupil Growth. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975.
4. Anderson, Virginia. "Home Economics and the Three R's." Journal of Home Economics. 65 (February 1973): 15-18.
5. Arny, Clara Brown. Evaluation in Home Economics. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts Publishers, 1953.
6. . The Effectiveness of the High School Program in Home Economics. Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minneapolis Press, 1952.
7. Baltera, Lorraine. "Home Sewing Sales Flat; Pattern Markerters Hope New Styles Will Catch On." Advertising Age. 46 (April 21, 1975): 52.
8. Borg, Walter R., and Gall, Meredity D. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Publishing Company, 1974.
9. Brightbill, Charles K. Education for Leisure-Centered Living. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Stackpole Company, 1966.
10. Brown, Clara M. Evaluation and Investigation in Home Economics. New York: F. S. Crofts and Company, 1941.
11. Chadderson, Hester. "Determining Effectiveness of Teaching Home Economics." Home Economics Education Association. Washington, D. C.
77
78
12. Cross, Aleene. Home Economics Evaluation. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishers, 1973.
13. "Everybody's Sewing Like Mad!" Changing Times. 21 (May 1967): 41-43.
14. "Fabric Barometer." Retail Directions. 128 (January-February 1974): 22-32:
15. "Fashion, Fit, and Sewing Machines." Consumer Bulletin. 51 (May 1968): 7-9.
16. Fleck, Henrietta. "Are We Neglecting Affective Education?" Forecast. 20 (February 1975): F-53.
17 -. How to Evaluate Students. Bloomington, llinois: McKnight and McKnight Publishing I
Company, 1953.
18. . Toward Better Teaching of Home Economics. New Jersery: MacMillian Publishers'; 1968.
19. Fults, Anna C.; Lutz, Rowena; and Eddleman, Jacque. Readings in Evaluation. Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1972.
20. Hall, Olive A., and Paolucci, Beatrice. Teaching Home Economics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961.
21. Hanna, Agnes. Home Economics in the Elementary and Secondary Schools. Boston: M. Barrows and Company, 1924.
22. Hatcher, Hazel M. "An Experimental Study to Determine the Relative Effectiveness at the Secondary Level of Two Methods of Instruction.' Journal of Experimental Education. 10 (Septem-ber 1941): 41-47.
23. "Home Sewing Never Had It So Good:" American Fabrics. 31 (Fall-Winter, 1954-1955): 79,84.
24. Hurt, Mary Lee. "Vocational Home Economics Present and Future." 64 (May 1972): 26-31.
79
25. "I Made it Myself!" Forbes. 107 (April 15, 1971): 43-44.
26. "Instant Wedding Dress." Life. 71 (December 3, 1971): 57-58.
27. Katz, D. "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960.
28. Kim, Eun-Young Rhee. "A Comparative Study of Secondary Home Economics Programs in the United States and in the Republic of Korea." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, August, 1977.
29. Lare, Joan H. "A New Look at Teaching Clothing Construction." Journal of Home Economics. 67 (September 1975): 30-32.
30. Mather, Mary. "Evaluation—More Than Tests." Illinois Teacher. 8 (July-August 1970): 263^T65.
31. Osborn, Barbara. "Evaluation." Penney's Fashions and Fabrics. (Fall-Winter T5^y7~TT.
32. Pacey, Margaret D. "Picking Up the Pieces." Barron's 53 (March 5, 1973): 3, 12, 14, 16.
33. Phillips, Ray C. Evaluation in Education. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishers, 1968.
34. Reich, Ben, and Adcock, Christine. Values, Attitudes and Behavior Change. Great Britain: Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd., 1976.
35. Robbins, Stuart M. "The Fabric Retailing Industry." Financial Analysts Journal. 29 (May-June 1^7377 70-92.
36. "Sew and Reap." Time. 72 (November 10, 1958): 78, 81.
37. Smith, Shelly Harp. "Development and Evaluation of Graphic-Verbal Rating Scales for Measuring Achievement in Clothing Construction at the Secondary Level." Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas Tech University, 1977.
80
38. Souligny, Dorothy, and Grovalynn, Sisler. "Analysis of Clothing Exemption Test Scores." Journal of Home Economics. 64 (March 1972): 23-25.
39. Spafford, Ivol. Fundamentals in Teaching Home Economics . London: Chapman and Hall, 1935.
40. Spitze, Hazel T., and Griggs, Mildred B. Choosing Evaluation Techniques. Home Economics Education Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.
41. Sweet, Jeanette. "Teaching Selected Clothing Concepts Through Independent Study in Beginning Clothing Construction." Unpublished Master's thesis, South Dakota State University, 1970, p. 23.
42. "The Billion Dollar Customer." American Fabrics. 31 (Fall-Winter 1954-1955): 78.
43. Wharton, Don. "Big 'Happening' in Home Sewing." Reader's Digest. 95 (July 1959): 25-28.
44. Zimbardo, Philip, and Ebbesen, Ebbe B. Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1959.
APPENDIX
A. Instructions to Tea chers
B. Score Card For Evaluation of Garment-Form A
C. Score Card For Evaluation of Garment-Form B
D. Table of Specifications For Attitude Scale
E. Attitudes Towards Clothing Construction
81
82
APPENDIX A
INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHERS
The two classes of students you have chosen to
participate in the study will complete the following:
1. Pre-Attitude Scale 2. Garment Score Card (form A or B) 3. Post-Attitude Scale
1. The pre-attitude scale must be administered and returned to me by mail before September 1, 1977. Have the students in both classes complete the information in the upper left hand corner of both the attitude scale and garment score card.
2. Teach the clothing unit as you usually have. Only the evaluation will change. One class will evaluate their garment throughout construction while the other class will evaluate their garment only at the end.
3. Select one class to be group A to use form A of the garment score card only upon the completion of their garments. The other class will be group B and use form B of the garment score card throughout the construction process.
4. As the teacher, you will evaluate group A garments after the students and group B garments throughout construction.
5. Tally all points (both students and teacher) on both garment score cards and record on the scale where designated. Re-check the points please.
6. Administer the post-attitude scale to the students in both classes and return these to me by mail before November 1, 1977.
83
PQ
X M Q w
H IS
<: o
o
o M H
>o
o
Q P <:
o u en
0) S cd
s:
cu 4J CO Q
• P
a cu
• > — )
o u p-l
rH
o O ^ a
CO
CO CO oi
r-l O
• CO u •U r H (U C ciJ CU . E ;
P^•^^ -P CO O CU o c o ^ Cd
bO-P Ok-rH H (U C CO i J
•rH MH d , [5 rC O CU • (U }-l <u o P >H w) :3 CO cd j-< CO t-J cd o
<i) Q) P^ Q.>, CO .JQ (U FL, CO O g ^ <J p o cd -P ::3 4J CO P
r-l C H cd .
cu O P ) O O t-H <U X)
X c u x ) S ^ J-i cu I—1 cu cd ^3 2 ^ P CO X l O O ' H O U p CO >^ CO C O
• CO Q fl! cu cu X) O ' d o ^ ^1 CU P H - H Ct P O rG XJ g T J O CO P ^H U Q) CO - H CO ^J t—1 o >
a cu O O O -H O 'H ^ >-, O cu O PM-I W3 U
•H m cu T 3 rH j : : : M ^ TJ •
cd
txO
M :3 o >^
cu -1
;3 W)
•H <+-!
CU 1—1 -P C CO x ) CO cd cu cd ^ ^) ^ . ^ - s U
CO -P P \ M-l cd CU-H fH ^ ^ g
rO O cu ' - ^ CU CU P -P X) CO J^
rH (U ( X P O :3 M •H 6 ^3 CO cu O O 15 M ^ >,14-I
cd CU X) o cu txO }H CU (U c
.-1 o.:^ c > e cd 5-1 u }^ cu cd ^J o ;d CO cd 4:d W ) T - I CO o B P o
!>^ }H ^3 O bO CU JH - O C a ^ S P >^ CO
•H (u e 3 C P [3 X ; ^) r - l (U CO c
o ;$ c o p p (u ^ O h C g r-l p Cd cd -H B . G O cu W) o o
UH cu cu ;c: PH o •r-, a P M
CU o cd m cu cu
a cd
p
c cu
p cd bO
5-1 :3 o >^
cu !-i
o o CO
-H —1 H ^
(U ^ l i ^ ^ r H C O ^ ^ ^ H a . Pu'H > ^ P P CO
en 3 o M H CJ
s 1-1 Q
en H IS w g o CJ
H o s >-•
H J en pL, W PM o < i : Q
CO
P i
w ffi CJ < : w H
CO
H IS w Q :z) H CO
w H-Jen P Q H M S en M coo OP-( p^
• - S i n \^
2; o M H
w < : PL.
w p^ Pn
§ w H H < : PM
a
M
r H
1 cu U CO
p T3 C C cu cd e
cu <+H -1 M ^ cu CO CO cd
cu Ti g cu ^ ' d J cu
cox) cd }^
cu o S o
rH
CM
>^ r H p o cu u 5-1 o o c }H cu p p cd cu p •iH
p^
CM
84
O
CO P^ W PL. o <: Q
en
w u <: w
en
H w Q ;=) H en
w PQ M en en O Pu
en H
M o PH
CM <r CM ro CM CN CO <t-
X) CU
X} cu CU
a x> cu
•p
c CO CU Cd g
o ; 3
cu
pL. cu
CO
i n
3 o l-H
H p^
PH
P-i
e j M P i pq < :
M
•p o cu }-l }H
o
cu bO cd
O X J }H
X3 cu CO
cd o
cd
XI rH U
0 Cd P M M H
a 5H
(U •P
O -P •rH
cd MH
cd CU
}H O
MH
CU Q) CO t—I cd Xi
^ cd O i J }H -H
P H CO
CM
o -rA U
Xi cd
MH
CO
CU
u
CO
•H Cd j-i bO
X ) cu
cu p
bO •iH cd }H P) CO
CO bO CU 0 O -H CU M
•H d Cu CO
cd
cu d }H CU P >^ P X cd cu a
•H xJ cd CO cu }H ;? O bO O cd u
rH C! }H PH O cd
m
I
o o o
•H J-l
.CI cd
MH
P P >^ O rH
P P O ::> (u
U }H
vO
I u o a o
•H U
X cd
MH
X3 >^ CU rH
^ P" U o cd cu
o
en w M
e j w H
M M
X o t: p o •H -rH P CO CO Cl
CU P P) O cux)
V^ cd o ox
p X ) bO cu C CO cu
(U • H P
Cd
X3 CU CO
X -^ o cd p cu •H 5H p . d
CO P
U M cd rH PQ cd
CM
85
H O
en PL, w p.. o <C
en
Pi w ej <: w
en
H
w Q :=) H en
w PQ M en en O P-.
en H M O PL^
CO CO m ro CM <r CO
•P o cu JH VH o o
X ) cu
^ a p •H p CO x: > , p cd XJ p) en
•H ^
p
c •iH O CU
o p
CO p u cd x» '•0 cu [2 cu en
art
X )
XJ
cu 15 cu CO
XJ c: Cd
XJ cu CO CO CU u
P^
P o
•H P O (U }-l
•H XJ
P O CU jH }H o o
c •H
CO
g cd cu CO
p Xi bO
•H cd M P» CO
XJ CU 15 CU en
c: cu a. o CO
g cd cu CO
X3 CU CO CO Q) u
PL.
CO cd
CO
g cd CU CO
'O QJ
X xJ CO CU
•r\ XJ C
•H Px
(U CU
c:
-ci cu y^
1 ' g CU •H X3 > }H CU }H P X3 Cl
CU O XJ CU CJ d ~ Cd P
CO Xi X) cd bO cu -iH CU CO cd p. g 5H
•H cd P r- l CU CO CJ CO ^ -
1
u o o }-l cu PU cu
•H N
'd 0) >^
•H rH rH P
cuo P . CU
< : u
1
u cu
XJ CO d bO J a
•iH X) o c: cd Cd MH
X ) XJ cu cu
xxi CO O •H P d'H
•rH P piH CO
p cd
CO bO a •H U >% cd rH
MH d O
X3 CU CO
^ g o Cd cd cu
H CO
bO C
•H O Cd
M^ u u cu o P MH C
•H nd (U
X I ^ cu M
•H cd t - l o p. Cu CO
<C cd
CO -^ in vo 00 CTN CN CO
86
H O
en p W PL, O <C
CO
Pi w
w
CO
H iz; w Q
H CO
W
PQ M en en O pL.
CO H
M
o pL.
VO vo vO
XJ CU
X^ CO (U
•iH P C O
• H CU MH U
•rH XJ X)
cd CO cd
- d cu
•H -1
cd
CUrH cu O <: o
< ^
- d
cd
p CO
•rH Cd x3 [5 cu
P XJ o
cu cu X u O -H cd XJ p p CO <C cd
i n
CO cd
> <u 0)
r H CO
13 -cu MH U UH cu
j : : p cd bO
XJ (U
•iH
-d cu p o
r H cu CUJH C U T H
vO
:3 u
•H CU
CU P CO cu
-> o cu cd cd r H o pu
i n
M
en
H
M
rH P Cd cu C!
' d CU x: o p p •H XI P bO CO - H I Cd PUSH O P
H CO
I u o o CO
d o p p
XJ cu
x: !> cd p P o P CU
<: u
CM
I }H O
o CO
}-l cu d cu p CO cd
MH X) r-\ CU P [5 O cu CU
en j-i
CO
u o o CO
• H
P
XJ (U >-,
• H r H r H P
cu o c u CU < U
<t
I CU
cd
cu CO d
X) cu ex cd
cu X ) P cu cd P •H o u cu cu
r H O cu u
en cu
i n
'd cu
x : a p
• H p CO
X I M Cd x;
r H P Cd CU
2 :
vO
CO 'a
cd cu }-^ x; p
cu CO o o
cd
P MH d MH
U O
87
pi d cu B u cd bO
cu u
•H p» d cu
X3 cu CO CO cu U
PL.
OD
CU 13 P» d cu
}H Cd bO
P •H
CJ
i n
en H M PQ
O
cu
(U
• H P
^ 3 CU CO
p cd
X J CO O CO o cd bOrH
o X) cu d
•H cd
d •H
CU P xJ d
•H Cd S
d p •H P
CM
O P
d o
• H P cd CO }H cu
> y § 1 O •H
d P -H CU g (U
{^ cd
CO
p d cu g cu PU o
•H cd d M cr cu cu
s-i x J cu cu cu d }H d p cu Pi
o u pu
o p
CO cu cd 5H
o CO
CU d
' d CU d u Cd cu cu cu
rH cd
o cu
i n
o o
CO p d
•H O CU
cu
X • H
CO p d
•H O P .
P d cu
CO ' d CO
o d p
cu CO
cd p o H
cd p o H
CO p d
•H o cu }H CU
X ! o cd cu p
cd p o H
H J P-i pL. <C
H O 23
CO w o Q
g o }H
MH
CO P
d •H ^ O CU P
d rH CU Cd ' d p o
d p en
5 ^ CU
x: o cd cu
H
88
X M Q W pL. P-I <:
o [ i . o 2:
o M H < PQ
> o W Pu
Pi o P
Q Pi < ej
o
en
cu g cd
cu p cd
Q
p o cu
• > — )
o }H
PL.
o o
x: o en
v^ cu XJ d
i H - H O cd XJ !>^ O 1 CO CO d CU
bO O O • ^ d cu &. >-,>-i cd P
•rA X KJ] P CO 15 p p tH pL, d cu CO M pLi ^ - r - ) CO d cu < i Pi
O X ! W d
5-J cu
coxi p d r H
•H cd O P a, o
p cu
CO bO . H K O X l ^ H CO CU^H P O U > ^ P r H cd cu x; d 13 <3 • H
r H P cu W CO r H 15
o CO cuxJcoH cued XJ d w cu
J-l Xl P P O W P d o CO Q W CO o cd o en >> cu p XJ d 1 cu
p cu ox: p en
" cu g pL, x : ' d •
cu cu cu.ii^ d o p h P d M rH H o cu cd o en cu O rH cu g O U CO cu J-t CO o
g o d cu >. o
cu J x l cu CO x l
• H O d cd
•H cu O O O g x l c d C O M H P p O CO d P CO
r H r H iH cu XJ d U O x - ^ P r H r H X i cu O cu O - Cd -H CO >,x ^ x : 12 d g cu^^P
CO d x l cu cu < d ptri p x; X O O CO
cd d cu cu j—i • - H X ! CO X J tH bo cu o d •H d cu CO cd cd [5 O P P d
rH CO d cu O J-l cu cd -H x l p cu
rH P O P x l cd o Cd cu cu o O bOXl " g cd CO P MH c u O cu
d o cu o p bO O O P (U > ^ p j ^ CO d cu
•H cu O x l ^ CO P XI cu > ^ P o cd X g XI
i-\ cu d p J- o rH p qj c cu P o o o >
MH cu cu (U x l cu cu •r~, O ,-\ C i-\
cu o cd Xl P cu cd XJ J-l -H -H O ^ O H pu Pu CO d 12 CO
, , CO
s o H H CJ
s M
cd P
CO O • H P
p cu d > cu •H g bO v-l cd XJ bOd
cd u dMH O r H >%(U
CO d M
. cu
1 3 cd J-l bO
v d o > .
cu u d bO
• H cu d MH xl o 3 >^xl
Q) • >
13 cd
d cd
CO
cu bOP jH
0 d o o
d • H
o CO > ^ p ^
en H iz;
§ g o CJ
o ;z: >H
l-J CO PL, W PL,
o <: Q
en _ Pi w ffi CJ < : w H
en _ H S W Q P H CO
w HJ en pq H M s CO M CO o O P^ P-.
/-^ i n s_x
13 o M H
S < P-.
S PL.
*Z PM
w H
< pL.
T H
1
cu J-l CO
p X3 C d CU Cd g
cu MH jH r-< d
CU CO CO cd
cu -d g cu J H X ) d cu CO ""d cd U cu o S d
• r H
CM
> . r H P O CU J-l jH
o U
d J-4
cu p p cd cu
p •H PH
. Csj
CO CO
cd
u
89
H O S >-i
en p-t PiJ PH O < : Q
CO
Pi PLI
u <: p j H
CO
H
PiJ Q
H en
PLI
PQ M CO en O pL.
CO H
M O P
CM CM CO Cvj CM
1 cu
•H d CT CU
XJ CU
X3 CU CU
c X I cu CO cd
x l o u d
PL.
. oo
p d cu g
Pi Pi:3 pel u <: P3j H
Pil Pij en
ST
OP
---
/—N
i n rH s_^
^ o IH EH
^ <: p-<
a PL.
C_)
BR
I
<d
II.
F.
p o cu M cu jH bO o cd O 13
jH XJ cd cu >-. CO cd o
x : TH O jH V XI d cd P^MH
. ^
d jH cu p
O P •H cd n p-
X cd u
MH O MH
13 CU CU CO r H cd X I
X cd O P jH -H d d
pLi CO
. CM
o •H J-l
X cd
MH
^
P jH X CO 1 (U jH P
. CO
d •H cd jH bO
T3 CU d cu p X bO
•H cd jH p en
. <t-
Pi PiJ ffi u < i^ H
PxJ Px:i en
ST
OP
---
>^ X
CO
^ ^ ^ d -H o J-l cd jH cu J-l jH p bo cd p cd d bo cu o d
•H X J CO J-l
cu cu d O O CO
cd cu cd .H -H cu pL. cu g
• i n
Pi u^ X CJ <: pq H
pij pi en
ST
OP
---
o •H J-l
X cd
MH >^ rH
P P d o O cu
jH P jH d o o o
• vO
1 jH o o
o •H jH
X cd
MH
XJ >^ (U rH
^ P> jH O Cd cu S }H
• r^
Pi PiJ Pd CLJ <C PJ H
PJ PJ CO
ST
OP
---
90
H O
en pL,
§ ^ PQ
en
Pi PiJ pd
< Pij H
en
H
pq CQ :=i H CO
Ptj hJ en PQ H M Z en M CO o O pL. PL.
CO CO CO CO CO CM
. -^
o vo V . X
en pq 13 cy IH
CH
N
pq H
• H M M
xi o d P o •H .H P CO CO d
0) p p o cux) }H d J-l cd
o ox p
XJ bO <u d CO cu
PDrH
• r-^
X3 (U
•H P
X3 d cd
XJ cu CO
X J X I o Cd p cu •H jH P X CO P»
^ O r H Cd r H
PQ Cd
•
CM
p o cu J-l J-l o o
13 cu
X o p •H p CO X > ^ p Cd 13 P I
en
• CO
•H ^
P d
•H o CU
o P
CO P jH Cd
13
XJ cu 15 cu en
•
•<r
CO P jH Cd
x) 13 cu [5 CU CO
13 d cd
13 cu CO CO CU jH
PH
. i n
CO
d o
•H p o cu J-l
•H ' d
p
o cu jH J-l o o
d •H
P i pq Pd u < pq H
PiJ PiJ en
PL. o H en
CO
e cd cu CO
p X bO
•H cd jH p CO
• d cu 15 CU en
. vO
d cu PU o CO
g cd
cu CO
x) Q) CO CO
cu jH
p^
. r^
13
cu x) cu cu d
CO cd
CO
g cd cu CO
13 CU
X CO
•H
d •H P
. 00
13 CU g g
•H X) J-l CU P X l
CU XJ CU d d Cd
CO - d cd
cu cu CO
cu g •H cd r-i CU CJ CO
. CJ
^--N
13 CU >
u d o
•> p X bO
•H cd jH P CO
^^
>^ r-A P o cu J-l J-l o o J- CU CU PU
•H N
13 CU
•H r H CU cu
<c .
o r H
Pi pq m u < pq H
PiJ pq en
P-. o H en
91 C O H
Px^
o e j
H o .-q
en PL< PiJ P^ O <:
en
Pi
PC CJ < : pq
CO
H
pq Q
H en
pq ^q PQ M CO en O P
en H 2 : M O P
CO vO vO vD
jH CU
X J CO d d
bO d
•H XJ O d cd cd MH
X) XJ cu cu
X X CO O
•H P P'rA
•H P) pi-i CO
P Cd
CO bO d
•H O >^ Cd r H
MH d
o 1 3
CU CO
^ B o cd cd cu
H CO
Csl
CO bO d
•H o cd
MH jH cu p d
•H
13 cu
•H
J^
o C+H X )
CU
cd o
PU cu CO
<: cd
CO
Pd pq Pd CJ <: pq H Pxq pq CO
pL.
o H CO
1 3 CU
X 1 3 CO cu
•H P d o
•H CU MH jH
•H 1 3 X 3 d Cd CO
cd 1 3
CU j H •H cd rH rH CUi-H Cu O
<; o
CO cd
1 3 d cd
X p CO
•iH cd
13 13 (U cu
X P> O O cd cu P jH P) -H <C 13
i n
Pi pq Pd CJ < w H
pq pq en
P o H en
x) « CO cu MH Cd ^^ MH
CU d CU X O > P ^-x (U cd ~ g CU bO d <u
rH ^-^-H X CO I
XJ P •> XJ CU CU P (U P CO CU
• H O J^ rH CU - O CU J-l PU cd P l i 'H cd rH
<3 13 O PU
VO
Pi pq Pd CJ < pq H
pq pq en
CO
M
en M
U*
P^ o H en
,-i p cd cu d
x) cu
X o p p •H X P) bO CO -H I cd pL, U O P
H CO
92 en H
PLI
o CJ
H O
^q en PL, PiJ PH o <: Q
en Pi pq Pd u < pq H
CO
EH
pq Q :=) H CO
pq ^q en PQ H M 2 ; en M en o OPL. PL.
CN
CO d o p» p d
X l >^
XJ rH CU PJ
X o o cu cd u P jH P o <; o
. CM
CO jH CU d cu p CO >> cd r H
MH P) O
XJ cu cu J-l
^ u Q) O en o
» CO
CO
g •H jH P >^
T-i X) P CU O
•H CU nH ^ CU jH PU o
<J o
-d-
Pi pq Pd CJ < pq H
pq PiJ en
ST
OP
---
XI cu CO
d 13 d cd
13 cu p o cu
r H
cu en
• i n
g cu
X
cu p cd
•H jH Pu o jH cu cu cd
13 cu
X o p •H p CO
13 d cd
X >^
.H P Cd cu 13
^ vO
CO T 3 cd CU jH
X P
cu CO
o o
r H
r H i H cd
P MH dMH
CJ o
^
r--
p d cu g jH Cd bO
cu jH
•H p d cu
13 CU CO CO
cu u Pu
, 0 0
T-\
r H
cu 15 p d cu e u cd bfl
p •H PM
, CTv
/—\ m v_«'
en H M pq < Pd K V
o :2
>
r H r H CU 15
CU P •H P
13 CU CO
PD
• r H
I P Cd
' d CO O CO o cd bOrH
o 13 CU d d-rH
•H cd (U P X J d d
•H P cd-H
S PI
• CM
cd
o p
d o
•H P» cd CO jH
cu > d o g o d
g P -H CU d cu -H ;^ g
. CO
93
o p
p) d cu e p .
•H d cu cr o cu cd
rH XJ cu
<u d u u <u d cu p o cu jH Pi cu
CO cu cd u o CO
cu d
o o
CO p d
•H O CU
cu
X •H
CO CO o cu
cd p o H
CO p d
•H o cu p d cu
X J d p CO
cd p o
EH
CO p d
•H o PU
J-l (U
X o cd cu p
cd p o
H
13 CU d cd cu
r H
JH
cu (X cd
>-• ^q PH
H O
CO pq O Q
g o J-l
C+H
CO
p d
•H O CU
cd p o H
P d (U
13 d p en
J ^ cu
X o cd cu
H
CJ cu
Ln
94
APPENDIX D
TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR ATTITUDE SCALE
Areas of Clothing Construction • Item Numbers
Pattern Selection and Use 1, 11, 22
Fabric Preparation 14, 29
Sewing Equipment 12, 40
Sewing Skills 18, 23, 37, 9
Construction Procedures 5, 28, 4
Evaluation 8, 10, 25, 20
Time/Expense of o ^ ^ OA -q Clothing Construction ^, D, /, ZO, J5J
Teacher/Teaching of Clothing Construction 15, 17, 24
Value/Appropriateness of Clothing Construction 3, 16, 21, 38
95
APPENDIX E
ATTITUDES TOWARDS CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION
Name
School
Male Female
Date
Directions: Respond to each of the following statements below on the basis of your feelings. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers will not affect your grade. Circle an answer for each of the statements according to the following key.
SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree U = Undecided D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree
1. It is a good idea to use the table of suggested fabrics on the pattern envelope. 1. SA A U D SD
2. There is too little time in class to properly sew a garment. 2. SA A U D SD
3. Sewing courses are valuable for the student. 3. SA A U D SD
4. Staystitching a garment is a waste of time. 4. SA A U D SD
5. Many steps in sewing a garment can be left out. 5. SA A U D SD
6. Sewing costs too much. 6. SA A U D SD
96
7. Sewing takes too much time,
8. A garment should be graded many times during a clothing course.
9. Many sewing skills should be taught in a clothing course.
10. Grades on garments do not show the true time and effort put into making the garment.
11. All pattern guide sheets are easy to read and follow.
7. SA A U D SD
8. SA A U D SD
9. SA A U D SD
10. SA A U D SD
11. SA A U D SD
12. One should always test the machine tension and stitching on sample fabric before starting to sew.
13. All fabrics need to be pre-shrunk before sewing can begin.
14. The teacher should not be concerned with what pattern the student chooses.
15. Clothing courses are for the low ability student.
16. The way I am taught helps me in sewing a garment.
17. A person can understand the skills in sewing and still not construct a good garment.
18. A sewing home experience can help the teacher see what a student has learned in class.
12. SA A U D SD
13. SA A U D SD
14. SA A U D SD
15. SA A U D SD
16. SA A U D SD
17. SA A U D SD
18. SA A U D SD
97
19. All high school students should take one course in sewing.
20. It is wise to take one's measurements before selecting a pattern.
21. Poor sewing skills are easy to correct.
22. Most clothing teachers are impatient with students .
23. The student should have a chance to show or model the garment made in class
24. Too much time is allowed during the quarter for sewing a garment.
25. Garments will fit well when you plan and prepare your sewing.
26. Cutting out a garment off grain has little effect on the way the final garment looks.
27. Using time well is necessary in constructing a good garment.
28. Using various hand stitches is unimportant to the finished garment.
29. Sewing courses are for the students who have a high sewing ability.
30. Selecting good equipment helps one sew a good garment.
19. SA A U D SD
20. SA A U D SD
21. SA A U D SD
22. SA A U D SD
23. SA A U D SD
24. SA A U D SD
25. SA A U D SD
26. SA A U D SD
27. SA A U D SD
28. SA A U D SD
29. SA A U D SD
30. SA A U D SD