This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]On: 16 November 2014, At: 18:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

A Longitudinal CorrelationalStudy of Students’ Performancein Supervised Industrial WorkExperience and ClassroomInstructionTitus Iloduba Eze aa School of Science and Technology Education, FederalUniversity of Technology , NigeriaPublished online: 09 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Titus Iloduba Eze (1985) A Longitudinal Correlational Study of Students’Performance in Supervised Industrial Work Experience and Classroom Instruction, Research inScience & Technological Education, 3:2, 119-128, DOI: 10.1080/0263514850030104a

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514850030104a

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1985 119

A Longitudinal CorrelationalStudy of Students' Performancein Supervised Industrial WorkExperience and ClassroomInstruction

TITUS ILODUBA EZESchool of Science and Technology Education, Federal University of Technology, Nigeria

ABSTRACT Scholars in technology education are of the view that there should be some relationship betweensupervised industrial work-experience and classroom instruction in order that the theory learned at schoolwould have relevance to practice at the work place, especially as supervised industrial work-experience hasbecome an important component of well-planned technology education programmes.

This study was therefore designed to determine the nature and extent of the relationship betweensupervised industrial work-experience and classroom instruction. A research sample of 64 (comprising of 30mechanical, 20 electrical and 14 civil) engineering technology students were alternatively exposed for threeyears to classroom instruction and its consequent sessional examinations on the one hand and supervisedindustrial work-experience and the consequent performance assessment process on the other. Performancescores—in percentages—were collected from the two research situations. Product moment correlationcoefficients were computed for the pairs of performance scores; first all the students' scores were analysedtogether and then they were analysed in each engineering specialty.

It was found that:(1) generally there was no statistically significant relationship between the students' performances inclassroom instruction and supervised industrial work-experience;(2) additionally (a) statistically significant relationship did not exist between students' performancesduring the different periods of supervised industrial work-experience and (b) there was a statisticallysignificant relationship between the students' performances in the classroom-instruction situation.It was recommended that industries should participate in the preparation of curricula for technology

education programmes; and should train students on projects that have educational value and practical utilitywhile more industrial-work-related instructions should be provided in technology education programmes.

Introduction

Recently, in Nigeria supervised industrial work-experience has become an importantcomponent of a well-planned technology-education programme particularly because

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

120 T. I. Eze

it is capable of enhancing labour productivity, efficiency and job satisfaction for theprogramme graduates. In the field of technology education some scholars have theview that there should be a structured and conscious relationship between theconcepts learned in supervised industrial work-experience and the content ofclassroom instruction, (for example, see Evans & Herr, 1979; Mitchel, 1977; Levitan& Mangum, 1969) in order to facilitate the possible carry-over of the acquiredknowledge, occupational skills, desirable work attitudes and habits to the place ofeventual employment. But it can be argued that even though it is desirable todiversify the pattern of learning experiences and opportunities provided in techno-logy education programmes, by interphasing supervised industrial work-experiencewith classroom instruction, the conscious and structured relationship may notnecessarily need to exist all the time between learning outcome (students' perform-ances) in the classroom instruction and the supervised industrial work-experiences.

Consequently, periods of the supervised industrial work-experience (SIWES) wereinterspersed with periods of classroom instruction (see Fig. 1) in the three-year(1977-80) sandwich engineering-technology programme of the School of Techno-logy at The Kwara State College of Technology, Ilorin, Nigeria to determine thenature and extent of the relationship between the students' performances inclassroom instruction and the supervised industrial work-experience over a period oftime.

Firstquarter[121

Secondquarter(121

Thirdquarter(121

Fourthquarter(121

•YearOne

YearTwo

YearThree

i Training in industry

| Sessional/remedial examinations

1 Vacations

FIG. 1. Structure of the sandwich programme in the college (period in weeks for eachactivity is shown in parenthesis).

Research studies on the application of formative evaluation in education andtraining have typically involved criterion reference tests (Arlin, 1974), provision offeedback and correction based on tests, and the provision of adequate learning timeto achieve mastery in each criterion instructional unit (Airasian, 1969, 1974; Block,1970, 1971, 1973; Laue et al. 1973; Bloom, Hastings & Madeus, 1971; Kim, 1971).Researches have consistently found that formative evaluation can raise achievementlevel and minimise 'between-student' achievement variance. For example Block(1971) generalised for over 40 mastery learning studies to state that the lower 75% of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Industrial Work Experience and Classroom Instruction 121

the students are generally helped to achieve at the levels formerly reached by onlythe highest 25%.

However, Arlin (1974) maintained that the goal of formative evaluation was toimprove instruction which should result in high student achievement means, andshould substantially minimise achievement variances among students. But the sameauthor had earlier pointed out the usual empirical problem associated with thiseducational process. As a result of the extra time and help necessary to bring the lowand under achievers up to high achievement levels, the learning rate variances couldincrease.

In the three-year technician-engineering programme studied, in Nigeria between1977 to 1980, there was formative evaluation, and the students were being preparedto gain mastery in their engineering specialties. The written examinations, asexemplified by tests administered in classroom instruction, measured the students'performance, predominantly, at the cognitive levels of learning, whereas the practi-cal tests measured mainly the students' performance at the psychomotor andaffective levels of learning, and less at cognitive. Although the practical tests couldbe based on what has been taught, performance in these tests would depend on theextent to which the students were able to transfer their mental acquisitions to solvethe problems posed by practical tests. Some reported research studies support theabove assertions. For example, Head (1966) devised 'O-Level' (high school) testscovering a range of practical abilities and obtained correlation coefficients in theorder of +040 to +0-48 with the results obtained on written (theory) tests.Abouseif & Lee (1965) while working with students constructed, with the help oftheir colleagues, three different practical tests on the same subject matter. Theresults were correlated with those written (theory) attainment tests. The correlationcoefficients obtained were +0-42 for the first tests, —0-16 for the second test and+ 015 for the third test.

Additionally, during the World War II, Struit (1974) found that in a NavalService School, workshop performance tests grades were not closely correlated withwritten test grades. During 'try out' in a gunners' mate unit, the same author foundthat performance test grades positively correlated from +0'14 to +0-35 withwritten test grades, and only slightly higher with final grades in which the writtentest grades formed the integral part. However, in the torpedoman unit whereworkshop grading was quite good, performance test grades correlated +0-63 withfinal grades but only +0-38 with grades in the multiple choice final examination. Inthis particular case, the workshop grades were known to have substantially contri-buted to the final grades and that accounted for its comparatively very highcorrelation with the shop grades.

From the foregoing review, evidence abounds that not only could the abilities,measured by practical tests, differ somewhat from those measured by written tests,but that different practical tests could also produce different performance measures.Those studies, however were conducted mainly in developed countries, but it isknown that the research situation and environmental conditions could substantiallyaffect the results of well designed research studies. Hence the main objective of ourinvestigation was to determine the nature and extent of the relationship betweenstudents' performance in industrial work-experience (in which practical work wasessentially evaluated) and their performance in classroom instructions (in whichmainly the theoretical concepts of the subject matter were evaluated) in theNigerian situation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

122 T. I. Eze

Hypotheses

This research study was therefore designed to empirically test three main hypothesesas follows.

There is no significant relationship between the students performance in:(a) the first sessional examination and the first SIWES;(b) the second sessional examination and the first SIWES;(c) the third sessional examination and the second SIWES.

Research Methodology

For the purpose of the investigation, a research sample was alternatively exposed toindustrial work-experience (SIWES) and classroom instruction during a three-yearperiod. Performance scores were systematically collected in the two situations asresearch data and then analysed.

Sample

The sample was made up of a set of students who enrolled in a three-yeartechnician-engineering programme in the School of Technology of the Kwara StateCollege of Technology, Ilorin, Nigeria. Of this set of students, 30 were readingmechanical engineering, 20 were in electrical engineering, and 14 in civil engineer-ing. Since the total (iV=64) of the students was conceivably manageable, andconstituted an intact group, all were used in the study.

All the students aged between 17 and 22 years were domiciled in the college hallsof residence that received equal care and maintenance. These students satisfied thebasic admission requirements of the institution, started receiving classroom instruc-tion in their courses in September 1977, actively participated in the supervisedindustrial work-experience (SIWES) organised by the college, and finally graduatedin June 1980. Training plans (or work schedules) which were developed by theSchool of Technology and the co-operating employers were used. Without sacrific-ing the essence of industrial work-experience, the students were placed in industriesat locations where they could easily obtain suitable accommodation comparable towhat is provided at the halls of residence. To maintain anonymity in the study, thestudents were assigned identification numbers soon after they were admitted to theengineering programme.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

The learning outcome in the classroom instruction ended with summative evalua-tion in the form of in-class tests at the end of the session as shown in Fig. 1. For thethree-year period, the tests were administered in all the courses taken by thestudents, and the raw scores obtained by each student in every test were convertedto percentage scores after the credit-load conversion parameters had been applied.

The performance score in the supervised industrial work-experience (SIWES) wasmeasured by a combination of the scores from the following three sources: (1) theassessment by the academic staff; (2) the assessment by the industry-based supervi-sor; (3) the student's technical report.

Test-retest reliability coefficients of +0-78 and +0-83 respectively were obtained

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Industrial Work Experience and Classroom Instruction 123

when the information blanks (forms) for the first and second assessment criteriawere administered on another sample of students essentially similar to those whowould participate in the research study. All the forms [1] were designed by theCollege Industrial Training Co-ordinator (the present researcher).

During monthly visits to the students' industrial training stations academic staffwere issued with the Academic Staff Assessment Forms on which they recorded theirimpressions and observations about the industrial work-experience itself and thestudents' performance. The visiting staff scrutinized the student's log-book, exam-ined the work already done and the work in progress and finally assessed the studenton the selected and predetermined 10-item occupational skills which the studentwas expected to exhibit at his work place. Additionally, the staff assessed theprogrammes' effectiveness and efficiency, and the adequacy of the training facilities.

A five-point scale (Excellent scored 5) was used in the students' assessment whichpermits the most able student (s) to obtain a maximum of 50 points for each of the sixvisits during each training period. Finally the mean of the scores obtained during thevisit(s) was calculated in order to fix the Academic Staff Assessment score for the period.

The industry-based supervisors, who work daily with the students, assessed on amonthly basis their performance at work in the selected ten-item occupationalskills—each on the five point scale. The supervisors used the Industry's AssessmentForm, in which the most able student (s) could score a maximum of 50 points. Themeans of each set of scores was then taken at the end of the six-month trainingperiod.

In addition, students individually wrote and submitted concise technical reportsof all work done in industry to summarise their technical experiences during theindustrial training as developed from the content of their log-books[2]. Eachtechnical report was scored on one-hundred (100) points when using the markingguide designed to assess specific occupational information required in the report.

Like the scores in all the subject-matter courses taken in the three-year engineer-ing program, the performance score for each period of SIWES was reported inpercentages and was computed as follows:

fO-25X 1 T0-25X ] fO-5X ] S I W E S

10Q lAcademic ^industry's IjTechnical f o r m a n c e

stall assessment report t m r "l̂ score J ^score J |_score J score

Data Analysis Techniques

To determine the nature and extent of the relationship between the students'performance in the classroom instruction and industrial work-experience (SIWES),the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, r, was calculated between theperformance scores in the sessional examinations and the SIWES. Each engineeringspecialty was separately considered in the analyses. A t test (H0:p=0) was conductedon each of the resulting Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients to deter-mine the statistical significance (jb<-05) of the relationship.

Results

When the performance scores from the mechanical engineering group were separatelyanalysed, the correlation coefficients obtained between the sessional examination

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

124 T. I. Eze

scores and the SIWES scores; and between first and second SIWES were low and notstatistically significant. But the correlation coefficients obtained in-between the threesessional examination scores were high and statistically significant. The performancescores of the electrical engineering group had a somewhat different correlationalpattern. All the correlation coefficients (shown on Table II) were positive.

TABLE I. Pearson Correlation Coefficients of sessional examinationscores with SIWES scores within mechanical engineering group(N=30)

SIWES 1 SIWES 2 SESS 1 SESS 2

SIWESSESS 1SESS 2SESS 3

2 0-17220-04700-16510-0922

016520056200366

00

•7340**•6877** 0-6800**

**p<-0\.

TABLE II. Pearson Correlation Coefficients of sessional examinationscores with SIWES scores within electrical engineering group (N= 20)

SIWES 1 SIWES 2 SESS 1 SESS 2

SIWES 2SESS 1SESS 2SESS 3

0-31850-4341*0-26550-4315**

000

•3925*•1581•2580

0-8866**0-9251**

*/-<-05; **/><-01.

Unlike all the other groups, the correlation coefficients obtained between the firstsessional examination scores and the first SIWES scores (r= +0-4341; p<-05), andbetween the second SIWES scores and the first sessional (r= +0-3925; p<-05) andbetween the first SIWES scores and the third sessional (r= +0-4315; p<-05) were allstatistically significant. In addition, the correlation coefficients obtained between thethree sessional examination scores were high and statistically significant.

TABLE III. Pearson Correlation Coefficients of sessional examinationscores with SIWES scores within civil engineering group (7V= 14)

SIWES 1 SIWES 2 SESS 1 SESS 2

SIWES 2SESS 1SESS 2SESS 3

0-3891-0-3651

0-3851-0-1293

- 0 -0-

- 0 -

124513130359

0-5390*X-7107** 0-6322**

*/><-05; **p<-01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Industrial Work Experience and Classroom Instruction 125

In the case of the civil engineering students (Table III), the nature of therelationships of the performance scores presents an entirely different pattern fromthat obtained for the other two engineering groups. The direction of the correlationsbetween the scores was not the same; some were positive and some were negative.The correlation coefficients obtained between the first SIWES scores and the firstsessional examination scores; and the second SIWES and the third sessionalexamination scores were low, negative, and not statistically significant. The sessionalexamination scores, as in the other groups, correlated highly and positively witheach other and were statistically significant.

Summary of the Results

The analyses of the data yielded the following important results. It was found that:(1) there was no statistically significant correlation between the students' perform-

ance scores in any of the sessional examinations, except in the case of electricalengineering students; thus performance relationship statistically did not exist be-tween the classroom instruction and work-experience; specifically, good performance(for example) in one situation did not necessarily depend on the performance in theother situation;

(2) there was statistically no significant correlation between the first SIWESperformance scores and the second SIWES performance scores; thus a performancerelationship did not statistically exist between the two periods of industrial work-experience; students' performances in one SIWES period were not necessarilypredictable or even dependent on the other;

(3) high positive and statistically significant correlation coefficients were foundbetween the sessional examination scores; thus, a student who performed well in asessional examination would more likely perform well in subsequent sessionalexaminations; hence, performance in a particular classroom instruction would likelydepend on the performance in the previous classroom instruction and could predictfuture performance in subsequent instructional classes.

Discussion

The correlation coefficients obtained between (1) the first sessional examinationscores and the first SIWES scores (2) the second sessional examination scores andthe first SIWES scores (3) the third sessional examination scores and the secondSIWES scores, were not statistically significant (except for electrical engineeringstudents) when all the relevant students' performance scores of all engineeringgroups were correlated. That would imply that for most engineering students theirperformance behaviour in the SIWES might not necessarily predict their perform-ance behaviour in the sessional examination and vice-versa.

The different relationship pattern obtained for the electrical and civil engineeringgroups, when the scores for the three groups were separately analysed, provided anapparent deviation from the trend. The statistically significant corrrelation coeffici-ents obtained between the SIWES and the sessional examination scores of theelectrical engineering group would suggest that the students who performed well inthe sessional examinations should also perform well in the SIWES and vice-versa. Butit is possible that the majority of the electrical engineering students have hadpractical experience prior to enrolment in the programme. For example, the SIWES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

126 T. I. Eze

mean peformance scores of the group were the highest in both the first (M = 69-l;a = 6-2) and the second SIWES (M = 72-2; CT = 5-8). On the other hand, the signifi-cant coefficients could be due to placement arrangements which disproportionatelyprovided favourable industrial training stations for the electrical engineering stu-dents. It is also possible that, in their own case, the work schedules used had greaterrelevance to the materials learned in the classroom instruction. However, it isoutside the scope of the present study to accurately determine the most plausiblealternative.

In the case of the civil engineering group, the negative (though statistically non-significant) correlation coefficients obtained between the SIWES and the sessionalexamination scores could depend on the nature of in-school learning experiences towhich the students were exposed prior to SIWES. For example, laboratory work atschool for this group comprised, mainly, the construction of mock houses, whereasduring SIWES, the students were placed on road construction projects whichrequired somewhat different skills and knowledge.

Additionally, the high positive correlations observed between all the sessionalexamination scores, implies that in the three-year engineering programme, thestudents who performed well in one sessional examination would likely consistentlyperform well in other sessional examinations. Consequently, prediction of anystudent's performance in one sessional examination is therefore possible fromanother. The non-significant relationship between the SIWES scores themselves maybe understood from the circumstances of the generation of the scores. Most of thestudents were not placed at the same industries for the first and second SIWESwhich is a design to provide the students with varied experiences with differentemployers, employees and equipment. Moreover, the first few weeks in the industryduring each SIWES was spent as the initial learning period of low productivity andreduced performance. Since the work schedule for the SIWES changed with eachnew industrial training station, the types of learning experiences could havechanged.

Significance and Implications

It is important to note that, as a result of this study, one would confidently holdthat the growth of learning materials in the classroom instruction has beensequential. Predictions of students' performance in one sessional examination couldbe confidently made from another. Such predictions could not be made of oneSIWES from another, neither could we predict students' performance in thesessional examination from their performance in the SIWES.

Each SIWES period and the sessional examination should be seen as distinctsituations providing new performance challenges to the students. This is more sobecause they have provided different learning experiences by exposure to apparentlydistinct learning materials. Thus the abilities of the students to perform differentlyin the two situations should be recognised. It does appear that the types of skillsdemonstrated by the students and measured in the classroom instruction and theSIWES are not the same. At the work place, there was much use of the psychomotorand affective skills manifesting themselves in doing, valuing and acquiring occupa-tional survival skills (Nelson, 1977; Leach & Kazanas, 1979). In the sessionalexaminations, more cognitive skills (Bloom et al, 1971) are required. Moreover, sincethe use of technical knowledge on the job required the ability to transfer theory into

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Industrial Work Experience and Classroom Instruction 127

practice, each students' performance on the SIWES could depend on the extent towhich the student was able to bring about this transfer, and on his ability todecipher which knowledge was appropriate for use at the material time.

Since industry provides funds, time, equipment and materials to support both theSIWES programme and technology education, the results of this study may enableindustrialists to maintain a more balanced attitude towards the diplomas thegraduates of the three-year engineering programme present to them when seekingemployment. Specifically, industry should realise that good performance in sessionalexaminations may not necessarily translate to good job performance (for example,see Clark, 1983).

Since the SIWES has become the bedrock for effective technology education inNigeria, some operational details revealed in the study might provide a recipe forinitiating and operating new SIWES programmes in the country. Furthermore,since the sandwich programme and its accompanying SIWES are gaining accep-tance among developing countries, (see Aklilu, Pscharopoulous & Heyneman, 1983)as a means of manpower training and human resources development, such countriesmight obtain from the study, useful information for implementing their ownprogrammes.

Recommendations

Even though safeguards for keeping the SIWES free from bias were provided, theydo not seem adequate and exhaustive. They should be improved. There should bemore information on cognitive skills within the SIWES assessment forms.

To improve the nature of the relationship between performances in classroominstruction and industrial work-experience, experienced industrial personnel shouldbe invited to participate in the curricular preparation of technology educationprogrammes, and particularly in the development of SIWES assessment instru-ments. Industrial personnel should properly understand what the assessment is allabout. Industry should be encouraged to train students on projects that have botheducational value and practical utility as it appears that this is not happening.Industry-related instruction should accompany the subject-matter of classroominstruction so that students can more profitably apply the acquired knowledge andskill within industrial work-experience.

Correspondence: Dr Titus I. Eze, School of Science & Technology Education, FederalUniversity of Technology, P.M.B. 2076, Yola, Gongola State, Nigeria.

NOTES

[1] Copies of the assessment forms can be obtained on request from the author.[2] The record book in which the students entered, with diagrams and notes, all the activities

accomplished daily.

REFERENCES

ABOUSIEF, A.A. & LEE, D.M. (1965) Evaluation of certain science practical tests at thesecondary school level, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, pp. 41-49.

AIRASIN, P. (1969) Formation evaluation instruments: a construction and validation of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

128 T. I. Eze

tests to evaluate learning over short-time periods. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Universityof Chicago.

AIRASIN, P. (1971) The role of evaluation in mastery learning, in: J. H. BLOCK (Ed.) MasteryLearning: theory and practice (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).

AKLILU, H., PSACHAROPOULAS G. & HEYMEMAN, S. (1983) Education and Development: views fromthe World Bank (Washington, World Bank).

ARLIN, MARSHALL, N., J R (1974) The effects of formative evaluation on students' performance,in: HANS F. CROMBAG, & DATO N. DE GRUIJTER (Ed.) Contemporary Issues in EducationalTesting (Hague: Mouton).

BLOCK, J.H. (1970) The effects of various levels of performance on selected cognitive, affectiveand time variables. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

BLOCK, J.H. (Ed.) (1971) Mastery Learning: theory and practice (New York, Holt, Rinchart &Winston).

BLOCK, J.H. (1973) New Developments in Mastery Learning in Elementary School, paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association New Orleans,Louisiana, Febraury 1973.

BLOOM, B.S., HASTINGS, J.H. & MADEUS, G.F. (Eds) (1971) Handbook of Formative and SummativeEvaluation of Student Learning (1983) (New York, McGraw Hill).

CLARK, D. (1983) How Secondary School Graduates Perform in the Labor Market: a study of Indonesia,Staff Working Paper No. 165 (Washington, World Bank).

EVANS, RUPERT N. & HERR, EDWIN L. (1979) Foundation of Vocational Education (Columbus,Ohio, Charles E. Merril).

HEAD, J.J. (1966) An objectively marked practical examination in O-level biology, SchoolScience Review, 48 (164), pp. 85-94.

HILLS, P.W. & MCGAW, B. (1981) Testing the Dimplex assumptions underlying Bloom'sTaxonomy, American Educational Research Journal, 18, pp. 93-101.

KELLY, P J . & LISTER, E.E. (1969) Assessing practical ability in Nuffield A-level biology, in:JAMES F. EGGLESTON & JOHN F. KERR (Eds) Studies in Assessment (Liverpool, EnglishUniversities Press).

KIM, H. (1971) Mastery learning in the Korean middle schools, Unesco Regional Office forEducation in Asia, 6(1), pp. 55-60.

KNIPE, W. & KRAHMER, E.F. (1973) Application of criterion referenced testing, Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,Louisiana.

KUNIS, S., COHEN, R. & SOLMAN, R. (1981) A-levels: a levels-of-processing analysis of Bloom'sTaxonomy, Journal of Educational Psychology, 23, pp. 202-211.

LEACH, JAMES A. & KAZANAS, H.C. (1979) Teaching occupational survival skills, School Shop:Journal of Industrial-Technical Education, 38(8), 1979.

LEVITAN, SAR A. & MANGUM, GARTH L. (1969) Federal Training and Work Programs in the Sixties(Ann Arbor: Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations, University of Michigan).

LAUE, W.E. III., EWELLE, K.W. & STOLTE, J.J.B. (1973) A formative evaluation of individualisedscience: an innovative system, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

MITCHEL, E.F. (1977) Cooperative Vocational Education: principles, methods & problems, (Boston:Allyn & Bacon).

MINIUM, W. EDWARD (1978) Statistical Reasoning in Psychology & Education, 2nd edn (New York,Wiley).

NELSON, ROBERT E. (1977) Methods and Materials for Teaching Occupational Survival Skills(Urbana, Dept. of Vocational-Technical Education, University of Illinois).

PSACHAROPOULOS, G. & TOXLEY, W. (1984) Secondary Education and Development: a report on theDISCUS study (Washington, World Bank, Educational Department).

STADT, ROWLAND & GOOCH, BILL W. (1977) Co-operative Education: vocational occupational, career(Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merril).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

AD

EL

AID

E L

IBR

AR

IES]

at 1

8:24

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14