DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 075 636 VT 019 952

AUTHOR Nee, John G.TITLE The Identification and Comparison of the Tasks for

the Occupational Role of Industrial ProductionTechnologist.

INSTITUTION Lincoln Land Community Coil., Springfield, Ill.PUB DATE Feb 73NOTE 26p.; Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association (New Orleans, La.,February 1973)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Community Colleges; Curriculum Development;

*Enginee,ring Technicians; Industrial Education;*Industrial Technology; *Job Analysis; Job Skills;Occupational Information; *Produc"ion Technicians;*Task Analysis

ABSTRACTThis paper describes a project designed to: (1)

develop a model for determining occupational activity components tobe used in any vocational-technical program, (2) produce a list ofoccupational activity components (tasks) for the occupational rolesidentified, (3) determine scores, ranks and percentages for eachcomponent from each occupational group per selected industry, (4)

determine the percentage of time devoted to each component, (5)statistically determine the degree of likeness between occupationalgroups, and (6) prepare a report of the findings for use incurriculum development for a 2-year Industrial Projection Technologyprogram at the community college level. The thesis advanced duringthe project was that there is a common core of skills amongsuccessful industrial production technologists and that this coreshould serve as the basis for any proposed program of studies forIndustrial Production Technology. The instrument used in accumulatinginformation for the project included a list of 100 components todenote the job requirements for a given industrial job descriptionadministered to different employee groups participating Li theproject. Results in graphs and tables are presented with implicationsfor curriculum development. (MF)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPYUS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING ll POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

TH17 IDENTIFICAT:ON AND COMPARISONOF THE TASKS FOR THE OCCUPATIONAL

ROLE OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIST

Presentedby

John G. Nee, Project DeveloperDivision of Mathematical Sciences and Technologies

Lincoln Land Community Collegeat

The Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association

New Orleans

February 1973

Conducted in Cooperation With and Funded byLincoln Land Community College, District 526

3865 South Sixth Street, Frontage RoadSpringfield, Illinois 62703

(217) 529-6661

SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE

The ERIC Facility has assignedthus docu meritto:

AllIn our judgement, this documentis also of interest to the clearinghouses noted to the right. Index-ing should reflect their specialpoints of view.

71-4 OF THEFOR TI-TE TilDUSTF.:?1-. TrIFICTGTST.

The Problem

The central problem of me projec7f was the determination of the coreof skills required by the individuals successfully employed as industrialproduction technologists. The basic thesis advanced during the project wasthat there is a common core skills among those individuals assuming thisoccupational role. This core of skills must serve as the basis for validcontent selection, curriculum development, and evaluation for any proposedprogram of studies for industrial Production Technology. The project in-volved the following major premises:

1. The determination of activity component items or tasks for usein the development of an instrument which should properly measuresupervisors and technicians judgements;

2. The administration of the instrument to selected representativesfrom an identified target population of industrial productionsupervisors and technicians;

3. The assignment of scores, ranks, and frequencies to each activitycomponent item by samples of employed workers to denote a judge-ment as to the amount cf knowledge and/or experience required.The groups of employed workers were drawn from various industriesin Springfield, Illinois;

L. The statistical analysis of the collected data to determine thepresence or lack of agreement among the occupational levels andthe selected industries; and

5. The formulation of implications for curriculum planning and tech-nician training.

The Definitions

It seems advisable to define and clarify the meaning of the followingterms or phrases as they are used in the project report.

1. Activity components are those constituent elements comprising thetasks which a worker uses in performing normal functions relativeto his particular occupation.

2. The curriculum is broadly defined as those activities and exper-iences utilized by the school to achieve the goals of education.

3. Curriculum development is the process of determining content andplanning, organizing, implementing, and evaluating educationalchange.

LL Industrial Production Technology is defined as the occupationalarea which identifies certain industrial production problems,solves them by research, production planning, quality control,time and motion study, plant planning, and human engineering.

Objectives of the Project

The project was translated into an appropriate set of objectives. Theproject objectives and approximate completion times were:

;enera' :odel :or use inoccupational activity o-.)rponent Tha, model ,-hDuld be aleto he used for aeeicpinz ar Vs2ational-Technical crogram.(1.0 v;eek

2. TO produce a a n:n-,--xilaive list_f actIvit i=or.er: items occupa-tional role previous i5 definect. See Appendix B. WO week).

3. lo determine average scores, ranks, and percentage: for each com-ponent item from each occupational group per selected industry.(1.0 week).

4. To determine the percentage of time devoted to each coronent itemby each occupational group per selected industry. (0.5 week).

5. To statistically determine the degree of likeness between occupa-tional groups per selected industry. (2.0 weeks).

6. To organize and prepare a complete report and summary of the find-ings for use in curriculum development for a two-year IndustrialProduction Technology program at the community college level.(3.0 weeks).

The project began on June 12, 1972 and terminated on August 12 1972.

Description of Activities

The developmental plan for completing the project involved the activitiesdescribed graphically in Figure 1.

(Project START: 6-12-72)

Computer Search ofERIC System (I) viaMinnesota

Initial Tryoutof theInstrument (VI)

Review of Lit-erature (II)

Refinementof theInstrument (VII)

Identification> of the Target

Population (III)

Developmentof theInstrument (V)

Job DescriptionAnalysis (TV)

Preparation ofthe ProjectReport (XII)

(Project FINISH: 8-12-72)

Administrationof the instru-ment to theTarget Popula-tion (VIII)

Analysis and In-terpretation (XI)

Compilation--27> of the

Data (IX)

FIGURE 1ACTIVAY SEQUENCE

FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT

VStatisticalAnalysis (X)

Conpu-,er Search of ERIC System ,i)

In an attempt to obtain a c=plete flstin o tc;

the problem, the project developer comn,L.eted a C:):r;UI-Ef oh ri e ,".inhc.-

sota Research Coordinating Unit fol VocationalMinnesota RCU receives materials from ':he ER1,7 jlea_i_n_I.J..eand Technical Education, The Ohio State Un_ve-sits. and n -.T

rrafntained a relatively complete collection of haf.,:J_microfiche available for use by researchers.

Key words were supplied to the Mannesotl FICU -s-oaTfded with the computer printout. This printout carved _ 2 theproject bibliography used during the review of

The Related Literature and the Rationale for the J's ].1)

In recent years, many approaches have been use,-,: so hitin inf'orma-tion which may serve as a basis for occupational preoaratn. 1 rL1..7., section

of the z-eport presents statements based on the related Literam2'e ind bro-ceeds through to the evolvement of the theoretical conor,rut o: tire 1-rojeot.

Smith and Pucel [8, pp. 2-3] indicate that one of the mc-Ft ridelyused and accepted techniques for identifying and orp:aniini, the inoLructionalgoals for occupational training programs is the trade and jib anlo(Fryklund [3]). The basic rationale of the trade and analysio techniqueis to identify and then to teach to students the manipu.lat.Lve doingoperations) and knowledges (technical information) po'sse.e.i iDy on-the-jobworkers. Operationally, this means that subject matter experts observe theperformances of on-the-job workers and record the type and frequency of eachpsychomotor behavior. Cognitive knowledges possessed by each woricran arethen inferred from specific psychomotor tasks which were previou,sli identi-fied.

The structure of the criterion behaviors of the workers is obtainedby developing a rank order listing of the psychomotor tehaviors based onthe frequency and complexity of each. The most frequent, less complex oper-ations and knowledges are taught to students first and are followed by lessfrequent, more complex operations, until all of the on-the-job psychomotorbehaviors have been mastered.

Task analysis techniques were discussed by Smith and Pucel [8, pp.3-4] as a second method used in curriculum development. Recently, psychol-ogists working with military training research, have studied and writtenextensively (Ammerman and Melching, [1]; Smith, [10]; Melchine [6]) aboutusing task analysis to identify, analyze and classify Instructional objectives.Because of the wide range of jobs and the large number of servicemen who mustreceive specific occupational training, the military services have spent con-siderable time and effort in developing task analysis as the single, mostgeneralizable technique for identifying the criterion p2rformance standardsfor military courses of instruction. While there are similarities betweentrade and job analysis and task analysis, task analysis strongly reflects themilitary services' increasing concern with the problems of (a) identifyingthe major criterion behaviors for each job, (b) developing the optimal se-quence of instructional elements and (c) writing standards of performance toevaluate each objective.

Task analysis is predicated on the principle (Gagne, Hi) that anyhuman task can be analyzed into relatively distinct component behaviors which

are med:7s=ome.-

.and psentjobpracti-7al andc.ombinatiLn r -e6 [71.re

Leclat= a.nd

and _naisatecurric-uim

Le pro Thelaso

ihd:i_atedfur This

teff:re

job are

which, trainingmeat proess is

Crawford H;cyst ems engineeringmust be anayzed tr.The steps foliol,,ingthcrouines 4 the

L7i "=tated tnat we are to L,c.se rule :oknowlede and -_,k7111 requiz.einenZ.::

Step 1: Fi preliminary task an,Tentory ilizingexpert opinion, jou aandard:z,, doct.ine, oodescriptions. Ao a .:tartsr psint, an inventor 7 ,,ould bedeiised usin source: of -infatisn and Then be sub-rrited to te'2hni:....al /.perts for f1.2 JrLial

Step 2: The prelimlhary f.aseL inventsryfor comInent Job .inca::bent:::. and otn p:-'in-

cipal '11S step to gather

identify

theadcittion c: deie-i,ion of ltirj wled6es an,_1 site pi'e-limirar task insinof.

Step The finai inventory will be d.eveloped Ly a:-,sesin.s. the fieldcomments fn the preii;:iSnal-y invent A F:a.-:of. ;LI.dementhere -will -,)e wheiner the field ocrentu refieut: local jobvariation rather -than knowledge and componentsthat should be taught at a school,

Step 4: Ine final inventory will be .-obmitted to job incumbents for2mment. The basic: !ntoIrratl:Dn zrsught oonzist of whichknow1edges and Lkilis turn the ilot are LE -114: performed, howmu(:h time reciolrect to complete tnem, and how important theyare so mission acorrpA.ienment

Step 5: When completed and recurred t(.- the research staff, the datawill he :,,ut:,-,jeoed to ,':.-tati'stIcal axial The anaijsis willdevelop the iniumlation from which the training tasks andinstruotinal c.:::),Jec_ti.ve, can be deteildned L7, pp. 23-25].

Figure 2 illustrates the ef,,:iuenue of the above five

The anal4t,i6Tem allutrc.-d by F--16,1e 2 should mult.adimensional,example, dimensions dealing ',q1T.h: job entry vs career development

tasks; (2) specifcc related jc:C. tasks and; (3) preJforriinately cognitivevs psychomotor vs afteolve rasK.

Moss and Smith 119, pp. 4-5j Indicate criteria fur selecting the tasksto be taught. The folic:wing are some of the crlteria: (1) ti-:e practicallimit on the number- of ue taught is a zunct]un of the total timeavailable and the time it to teach each selected ta.::x to a reasonablelevel of "funetIcnal uti_lit-"; ;2; the tasks Must he L,eleot,ed in 'sash a manneras to be representative tne t,J7c:n -.ask domain; task s should be selected

,?(

- Lxpert Opinion2 - Jcb Standards3 - Doctrine4 - Jcb Descriptions5 - Job Incumbents

FIGURE 2AliArYSIS SYSTEM

:Select Tasksfcr

Letermar:eCt`urriculum

5:-ments

that permit the greatest generalizability; (4) tasks which have the greatestfrequency of use in the job (or rime spent on them) might be selected; (5)tasks which have emergency value or grave consequences for poor' performanceshould be selected; (6) tasks that are more "economical" to learn in the for-mal training program than on-the-job should be selected; and (7) tasks whoseperformance might reasonably be considered a prerequisite to the training pro-gram should not be selected.

Rational vs empirical approaches to job/task descriptions were dis-cussed by Kopstein [5]. He was of the opinion that it is difficult to find apure example of either approach. Kopstein [5] clarified the contrast betweenthe purely rational and purely empirical approach. The purely rational ap-proach will develop an exhaustive set of the behavioral capabilities requisitefor a certain job or task constellation (group) [5, p.3]. This is shown inFigure 3. The illustration shows the capabilities as discrete elements (0in the total set, that is, some hypothetical job or task. The elements aresubscribed merely for identification within the total set. It some order wasdefined, the dashed ling in giguxe 3 should be regarded as an abscissa.

Kopstein [51 indicated that the purely empirical approach will developa set of behavioral kmvledge and skill components together with associatedfrequencies of occurence (probabilities), as illustrated in Figure 4.

In addition to observing the probabilities of occurrence of compon-ents, ore might wish to examine optimal task allocations to job-levels so asto minimize training time and cost. Figure 5 illustrates the range of prob-abilities for each level within an occupation.

3 E,

FIC3UHE. 3

3CHEMATIC PRESENTATIONOF BEHAVIORAL CAPABILITIESWITHIN SOME CBS TASK SET

L

3

FIGURE 4SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OFFREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF

AUZIWTY COMPONENTS

FIGURE 5SEGMENTING TASKSBY JOB LEVELS

Cn

E,

cited the following stat<,nents -zere fonTuThtedfor purzose 3,ettln,-,.- the basis cf the theoretical framework-for the rrojet:

--2-cpati-cn= :7.ay te classified, and studied, ty a variety of tech-

called 'no,r, arcaches eeL,

3 uri,aticnai studie,.,, have utilized data collection check lists,the methodolog of factor analysis and cc:r.:nonen't:

freouenc.0 entifIcatich.

Identificatlon Tafget Population (ITT)

For this project the subjects were selected by the project develouerwith the advice cf industrial supervisory personnel. Representative subjectswere selected from the following industries:

1, SanE,-;a;iio Electric Company

i. 0. Box 3347 - Eleventh and ConverseSpnngfield, Illinois 62708(john A. Patton, Manager _Industrial Relations)(217)544-6411

2. Bunn-C-Matic1400 Stevenson DriveSprinfield, Illinois 62703(Gene Rescho, Assistant Chief Engineer)(217)529-6601Allis-Chalmer,i. Manufacturing CompanyBox 2988 - 3000 South Sixth StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62710(Charles Shepard, Manager Personnel Services)(217544-6431

4, Hobbs DivisionStewart-Warner CorporationYale Boulevard and Ash StreetSprngfield, Illinois 62705(Vaughn Ripley, Manager Industrial Relations)(,217)525-0330

Job Description Analysis (IV)

The initial and most critical step in the development of any technicaltraining program is to specify and describe chat a person must know and be ableto do in the job situations for which he is being trained. The more preciselythese perf)rmance specifications can be defined, the easier it is to developefficient programs of instruction.

The job descriptions reviewed and analyzed during this phase of the pro-ject include:

1. Chief Manufacturing Engineer2. Chief Industrial Engineer3. Chief Process Engineer4. Assistant Chief Manufacturing Engineer5. Manufacturing Engineer (Senior)6. Process Engineer (Chemical)

Enineer "Senlof.)En;4ineer .Meta.J_Luflst)Eno-'nt=e-

En,.rlineer Liaisen)

:Eleotr:nic)Enp7inee-

EnEinee2 .Curacr). :tanager, ?reduction and inventory Contrel

17. Vianager, .:rodction and Invent-r-it. Produt Leader19. Section Leader20. Expedf_ter21. Manager, QlaAity As and Inspecti,n27. Chief Qualaty Control Engineer

.:ualaty Control Engineer2L. Dependability Statistician29. (..u,-alat.,y Control Systems Analyst5. Quality Assurance Engineer

27. Preproduction Planning Analyst28. Production Control Analyst29. Junior industrial Engineer30. Supervisor of Quality Assurance31- Inventory Control Clerk

Development (DI the Instrument (V)

The instrument used during this project consisted cf a list of 100 com-ponents, together with a system of assigning scores, ranks, and frequenciesto each component to denote the job requirements for a given industrial jobdescription. The actual selection of the 100 components included in the studywas made by the project Developer.' in attempting to control bias, no attemptwas made to classify components according to subject matter area. The 100components were grouped in fives by the use of a table of random numbers.

Initial Tryout of the instrument.(V1)

Before the instrument was used in the field, it was administered on atrial basis and was deemed to be satisfactory for use during the project. Theproject developer utilized upper management personnel in the review and ini-tial tryout of the instrument.

Refinement of the instrument (VII)

During the initial tryout of the instrument a number of suggestionswere made in respect to the addition or deletion of components. Generally,there were no major revisions made as a result of the initial tryout of theinstrument.

Admfri:7-1-atOcn o= instreht -ro Tar-et

A total oO ,,=;rQuPs of unecl;_e_i ooze: were c.art:-_patein the rrcct. The tyre and size if each iiy fli-ta-eifl the iitzer ofindividuals ai1ace drin..7 the cijecL. A total o7- tni-t:from the t,=,-et ocnulat1n sere ,-;eiecred ';:th the. -='=7i.1,7

personnel fm::: each industry.

Compilation of the Data (IX)

The project developer gathered the necessary raw data by use ihequestionnaire schedule exhibited in Appendix B. Hach ec Icyce is: thelected groups was asked to score the 100 activity comp:nent: by, u.Je ,2 thefollowing key:

1. My job requires no knowledge or e)goerience witn :his activity.2. My job requires some knowledge or experience with this activity.3. My job requires a reasonable amount Of knowledge or experience with

this activity.4 My job requires a thorough knowledge and considerable experience

with this activity.5. My job requires a complete knowledge or experience with this activ-

ity so that it is essential to the job.The responses indicated by the 30 employees to each of the 100 cr)np9nents

provided 3,000 cells in a total response matrix. These raw data were used todetermine: (1) average (2) component score per group; (2) average (5T) subjectscores; and (3) average (X) group scores.

Table 1 inicates the average item scores for Group I. The sane kinds ofdata were found for Groups II, III and IV. Figure. 6 graphically aeticts thesesame average item scores per group with appropriate interpretations. Only thefirst ten components are illustrated in this report.

Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 indicate the average (X) subject scores and average(X) group scores.

Each employee was also asked to respond by indicating the approximatenumber of times the activity component was performed during the past month andthe past year. Table 6 indicates these responses and the number (n) of subjectsfrom Group I experiencing the activity. The same kinds of data were found forGroups II, III and IV. Interpretations accompany each table.

In addition to component scoring and frequency approximation, each em-ployee was asked to rank order in groups of five each activity conponent. Theemployees were to rank each component in terms of priority of need for thetechnician to have knowledge of a given component in order to solve technicalproblems and to progress in his work. A one (1) indicated the greatest needand a five (5) indicated the least need.

Figure 6 illustrates the percentages of first ranks for the first fiveconvonents by Group I. The number (n) of employees selecting a component itemas most important in terms of priority of need to progress in his work is in-dicated together with the appropriate percentage of the total group number.Interpretations accompany each figure.

a)

11.

\H

\D 01 01

N - C

r) CV

lUN

LC C

.) 01 q) 0t-- 0 0 01C

0 rnUlm

cLc) u;C)C

O (A

lS

- Cn ts

oomo

NC

\I N r i C

U N

N(N

I r-i r-I 0)NN

NH

H r-1 H

N N

H r-1 N

I1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1II

I

(x.) Q\O

H N

Crl =

1 LC

\ ,..0H

N1/4.0 N

-00 0\ C)

r -

N--

a) (. X) U

S) CO

CO

CO

CO

CC

) fa) c),J0\ a

\ a 0\ UN

C\ 0\0

Zr

Zr

H o csA

CO

07) nHH

H G

A C

.) 0 N(:) LC

,Cr) a) Lnk.4) CC) 0 t-- CO CY) (Yl r-4 J CX) CO CO C) 0

0 C--C

X3 C

X)

91, *O

HH

Zr C

,1 Csj C

l RI C

) RI

CV

CV

CO

(\j 03 cn Nal N

H c\I esi

11111111111111M1111!1111

(A) CY) Zr LC1\1)

CO CY1 O

-UC\1 CY) L7.,r

r-- CO C":", O

H N

cr)

Lc)

In Lc Li\ Li\ LC\

L11\f) \I) \I) \I) \I) \I)

CO

\L) r-- r-- r-- N- r-- r--

L11 ifl 0') H C

r)`..0 CD

C.-- C

O C

r) N (Y

-) Cr)

L.C1 01 H

Zr In 0 L.C

1 01C

Oco C

TlL

) LC

\ 0C

D C

OIn

LP.

0`.co

CU

H- Z

oHrirIr -iO

3NN

NH

NH

NH

NH

,-- INN

NN

NN

11

11

11

It

11

'1'1

11

11

11

11

11

11

CO

C)\ O

H C

\JC'1-=r (.4-1 q) C-- CX) C3\ 0

HC') Celzi In q)

N-co C

T 0

()J

C-.1 N

Cl C

vl(Y) Cr) Cel (11 (Y) 03 Cel Cr)

-7r

Zr =1' Zr Lc)

C)1 Z

r Zr LO

CO

\ 00 (NJ

\ (31 1"--- 00CC) N ti

oo CO

N 0'1 00 o

tiO

LP 11.--n

CD

H N

- O .D

N H

HH

cr\ (NI C

O H

C) cv

.:NNNr--IN-NNNr-iN01NN

er1Crlr-IN

NN

NN

NN

Crl

1111111111111111111111111H

N O

r)\D

ti CO

03 0 Hop

oH

HH

HH

HH

tIHH

NR

INR

IRIN

Legend:Group I (

Group lI (------

Group III (Group IV (

COMPONENT

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

7

/ -10411111166.1

%..,

--....,.,.,

1

SCORE

3

FIGURE 6GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION

OF AVERAGE COMPONENT SCORES PER GROUP

Interpretation -- High need components were: (5) develop management controlsystems; (6) perform liaison between engineering and pro-duction; and (8) prepare layouts of machinery or equipment.

Low need components were: (4) perform plant location sur-veys; and (10) develop wage and salary administration pro-grams.

12

TAEAVERAGE SUBJECT Jii0UP I

Subject 7 X

1.90S2 1.87s3 3.14s4 3.22s5s6

3.162.89

2.3)4

S7 1.57s8 1.66S9 2.32

1.97Si 2.14

*Item N=100

TASTE 3AVERAGE SUBJECT* SCORES FOR GROUP II

Subject 31:- 7 (Group)

S12 2.18S13 1.35 1.75S14 1.74

*Item N=100

13

TABLE 4AVERAGE SUBJECT* SCORES FOF GROUP III

Subject x X (Group)

S15 2.20S16 2.68S17 2.40S18 1.41S19' 2.85S20 2.40

'2.40S21 1.84S22 2.19S23 2.86S24 2.41S25 2.89S26 2.68

*Item N=100

TABU', 5AVERAGE SUBJECT* SCORES FOR GROUP IV

Subject 7

S27 2.54S28 2.64S29 1.94S30 2.33

7 Group)

2.36

*Item N=100

14

TABLE 6ITEM FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE FOR GROUP I

ItemNumber TimesPer Last Month 7

Number TimesPer.Year n*

1 6 2.00 310 3 103.332 8 4 2.00 83 4 20.753 52 7 7.42 700 7 100.004 2 1 2.00. 12 2 6.005 7 2 3.50 56 3 18.666 134 9 14.88 2393 9 265.887 112 4 28.00 1640 4 410.008 15 3 5.00 283 5 56.609 7 3 2.33 89 5 17.80

10 1 1 1.00 5 2 2.5011 55 4 13.75 2482 5 496.4012 25 5 5.00 349 9 38.7713 35 5 7.00 196 6 32.6014 9 5 Leo 211 7 30.1415 31 5 6.;0 643 7 91.8516 15 4 3.75 364 8 45.5017 0 0 0.00 3 2 1.5018 4 3 1.33 116 5 23.2019 8 3 2.66 102 6 17.0020 5 4 1.25 45 6 7.5021 2 1 2.00 9 2 4.5022 248 5 49.60 3501 6 583.5023 7 4 1.75 104 5 20.8024 54 3 18.00 675 3 225.0025 73 8 9.12 855 10 85.5026 13 5 2.60 290 6 48.3327 51 2 25.50 410 2 205.0028 337 10 33.70 4285 11 389.5429 9 3 3.00 100 3 33.3330 1 1 1.00 5 2 2.5031 1 1 1.00 7 2 3.5032 1802 3 600.66 21792 4 5448.0033 46 6 7.66 782 10 78.2034 8 2 4.00 102 4 25.5035 154 3 51.33 2271 6 378.5036 72 6 12.00 1404 6 234.0037 0 0 0.00 2 1 2,0038 61 4 15.25 712 7 101.7139 1 1 1.00 25 1 25.0040 5 2 2.50 63 4 15.7541 1 1 1.00 30 1 30.0042 3 3 1.00 34 5 6,8o43 26 3 8.66 710 3 236. 66

*Group n varies per item depending on job.

TABIE 6 (Cont'd.)

44 0 0 0.00 5 1 5.0045 32 2 16.00 414 1 103.5046 11 2 5.50 803 2 401.5047 37 5 7.4o 48n 6 80.0048 3 4.66 249 4 62.2549 2 1.00 70 3 23.335o 52 6 8.66 830 6 1,38.3351 0 0 0.00 3 2 1.5052 434 8 54.25 21460 8 307.5053 1801 2 900.50 21810 3 7270.0054 1 1 1.00 8 1 8.0055 4863 9 540.33 57215 10 5721.5056 161 3 53.66 530 4 132.5057 14 4 3.5o 250 5 50.0058 9 3 3.00 180 4 45.0059 2 .2 1.00 46 3 15.336o 19 1 19.00 327 3 109.0061 6 2 3.00 160 4 40.0062 132 5 26.40 1629 8 203.6263 14 3 4.66 103 4 25.7564 2 a 2.00 40 2 20.0065 44 6 7.33 372 7 53.1466 71 7 10.14 838 7 119.2867 163 6 27.16 1865 8 232.1268 161 5 32.20 2472 7 353.1469 31 4 7.75 1310 3 436.6670 2 2 1.00 90 3 30.0071 5 1 5.00 106 3 35.3372 2 1 2.00 10 1 10.0073 4 2 2.00 75 2 37.5074 3o 1 30.00 666 4 166.5075 2 2 1.00 4o 4 10.0076 37 3 12.33 575 5 115.0077 9 3 3.0o 262 3 87.3378 27 4 6.75 245 4 61.2579 4 3 1.33 56 4 14.0080 1 1 1.00 21 3 7.0081 34 3 11.33 710 5 142.0o82 5155 6 859.16 62010 7 8858.5783 30 3 10.00 36o 5 72.0o84 o 0 0.00 0 0 0.0085 20 1 20.00 550 2 275.0086 0 0 0.00 14 2 7.0087 5 1 5.00 6o 1 60.0088 59 5 11.80 447 6 74.5089 12 5 2.4o 123 7 17.5790 12 2 6.00 115 3 38.3391 23 4 5.75 324 5 64.8092 3 2 1.50 20 4 5.0093 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

16

TABLE 6 (0ont'd.)

94 0 0 0.00 4 1 4.0095 0 0 0.00 15 1 15.0096 19 3 6.33 1300 3 433.3397 0 0 0.00 25 1 25.0098 0 u 0.00 2 1 2.0099 0 0 0.00 2 1 2.00

100 2 2 1.00 9 3 3.00

Interpretation -- The following components were judged to have a highfrequency of occurrence:

(06) perform liaison between engineering and production;(07) conduct time and motion studies;(11) arrange the transportation of raw materials or

finished products;(22) complete route sheets;(24) apply basic AC or DC electrical theory;(27) utilize waiting line or queuing models;(28) interpret industrial sketches or prints;(32) determine job standards;(35) determine production costs;(36) specify machine tool utilization;(38) utilize electronic measuring devices;(45) perform personnel rating;(52) perform process trouble shooting;(53) set work standards;(55) perform arithmetic calculations;(56) appraise safety performance;(60) establish work flow;(62) estimate labor costs;(66) interpret geometric and positional tolerancing;(67) utilize mechanical measuring devices;(68) select manufacturing tools;(74) rate worker performance;(76) monitor for safe working conditions;(81) standardize work methods;(82) operate ..,calculator;(83) perform trigonometric calculations;(85) supervise welding operations; and(88) design manufacturing tools.

n

17

Component

2 18.18 a

2 18.18 2

5 45.46 3

0 0.00 4

2 18.18 511 100.00

ZZ,

20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT OF FIRST RANKS FOR COMPONENTSONE THROUGH FIVE FOR GROUP I

FIGURE 6

Interpretation -- The factor marked most consistently as the first choicefor this group was #3 (utilize data processing systems).

Selected Activities with High Response by Presently Employed Workers

The following activities were judged to be critical in that employeesbelieved them to be necessary for job success. They were judged to representthose activities requiring considerable to complete experience, greatest fre-quency of occurrence on the job, and were critical for the technician to pro-gress in his work. In decreasing order of importance they are:

HighestGroup

(06) perform liaison between engineering and production;(28) interpret industrial sketches and prints;(82) operate a calculator;

NextHighestGroup

(25) supervise workers;(52) perform process trouble shooting;(55) perform arithmetic calculations;(91) plan work assignments;

(22) .:-,orr.piete J:neets;(32) determirc-i, joL, ::Tandards;

35) Jet tel-man prc,duction costs;(36) L-Jpef',,, maThlne too i utilization;(47) analyze .:36t5;(60) estabtrn flow;(62) estimate iatJr cots;(74) rate T4orker performance;(81) standard:ze ..,%;L,rk methods;

(88) design manufacturing tools;

(16) give presentation;(2/4 appl AC or DC electrical theory;

plan the flow of work;(38) utilize eiectroni measuring devices;(45) perform peronnel rating;(65) develop written repJrts;(Co) interpret geometric and positional tolerancing;(68) select manufacturing tools;

(03) utilize data processing systems;(05) develop management control systems;(07) conduct time and motion studies;(12) train production workers;(20) balance production line work stations;(53) set work standards;(59) write training material;(67) utilize mechanical measuring devices;(70) estimate set-up times;(76) monitor for safe working conditions;(83) perform trigonometric calculations;(97) estimate production rates of departments;

(08) prepare lacuts of machinery or equipment;(11) arrange the transportation of raw materials or

finished products;(13) determine material specifications;(14) develop financial planning and cost analysis;(15) apply operations research techniques to production

problems;(18) develop material handling techniques;(23) forecast work loads;(27) utilize waiting line or queuing models;.(30) design floor layouts;(31) serve as a company sales representative;(43) write data processing programs;(50) perforM algebraic calculations;(56) appraise safety performance;(73) complete inspection forms and records;(77) interpret nomographs;(78) perform statistical calculations;(85) supervise welding operations; and(OA) liniz-r,17-icc5

19

Summary of the Methods Used in idertifyin- and Comoarin:: t he r!'cix:-, rc,r.theOccupational Role of industrial Production Technologist

During the period the project developer was invHhrc,1 '!.

of the data gathering instrument, collectingmodels, a generalizable developmental process. began to evolve. The steps111 -11e ce.7,s are summarized as follows:

i. The Jccupational role for which t:aining is to he provided shouldbe defined in specie fic

2. Local industrial job desciptions should serve as the basis forthe development of task inventory. At this time the targetpopulation of selecTed woli'kers should be demographically definedby occupational and by industry.The task inventory _nstrurent should be developed utilizing thosetasks performed by the total target population. The instrumentshould provide for ±sponsles that indicate the frequency of occur-ance of an activit: during- the past month and during the pastear. The individual worker should also be permitted. to indicatehis opinion as to the degree of need for knowledge or experiencefor an activity 1.- 2espect to his job. should also be permittedto express his opinion as to which activities are important inrespect to his atiJity to progress in his work.

4. The task inventory inztrument must be presented to supervisoryand management person:2.e' for review and criticism. At this timeis appropriate tasks rnast be eliminated and tasks not identifiedby the researcher must be added.

5. The task inventory should be utilized with employees defined asbeing members of the target population. An attempt should bemade to enlist an exhaustive number of employees from each joblevel and each respective industry.

6. The data gathered from the employee responses should be statistic-ally analyzed and presented for use by instructional staff andadvisory committees in further planning, development and evalua-tion of programs of instruction.

Suggested Additional Planning Activities

In order to provide for an unders'6arding of the planned continuity andarticulation between the results of thfs project and additional developmentactivity, the following outline is provided. The general areas of concernshould be:

1. Development of program philosophy, rationale, and general objec-tives based on industrial needs, school philosophy, and studentneeds;

2. Development of general program outline based on the program phil-osophy and rationale

3. Development of term:: oehavioral objectives based on data gatheredduring this project.

L. Development of gene:- evaluation structure;Development of forma i ve evaluation syster.and the instruments tobe used in relation the terminal behavLbral objectives;Development of summa" -e evaluation sys71 and the instruments tobe used;

7. Development of Pvci'-ram les for inclusion :1: an on_rt tor''zhandbcm;

8. Ddentify the required instructional staff specifications;9. identify the required instruction facilities and equipment;

10. Determination of the required administrative structure; and11. Determination of the required guidance activities and materials.in order to determine the ultimate effectiveness and efficiency of

the program a valid total evaluation system should be designed taking intoconsideration items four, five and six of the about outline. The evaluationdesign will emphasize employee performance in respect to:

1. Empdoyee satisfaction in respect to the work environi rent. and theeducation program; and

2. Employer satisfaction in respect to worker performance on the job.The project developer has developed a number of graphic models which

illustrate the integration of the findings of this project with an idealisticeducational enabling system. The considerations outlined above are also in-corporated into the models. It is hoped that this report and the modelsprovided will serve as stimuli to instructional personnel and the adminis-tration of community colleges for the improvement of vocational-technicalcurriculums.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ammerman, Harry L., and Melching, William J. The Derivation, Analysiz,and Classification of Instructional Objectives. HumRRO Technical Report

May, 19III

2. Crawford, Meredith P. HumRRO Techniques in Course Development. HumRROProfessional Paper 15-66, December, 1968.

3. Fryklund, Verne C. Analysis Technique for Instructors. Milwaukee:The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956

4. Gagne, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, Inc., 1965.

5. Kopstein, Felix F. Rational vs Empirical A proaches to Job/Task Descritions for COBOL Programmers. HumRRO Professional Paper 1 -70, June, 1970.

6. Melching, William H. (et. al.). Derivingi Specifying and Using Instruc-tional Objectives. HumRRO Professional Paper 10-66, 1966.

7. Powers, Theodore R. "Work Unit CAMBCOM Knowledges, Skills and ThoughtProcesses of the Battalion Commander and Primary Staff", in Use of Joband Task Analysis in Training. HumRRO Professional Paper 1-69, January,1969.

8. Smith, Brandon B., and Pucel, David. "Goal Structure and Change Defini-tion in the Process of Curriculum Development" (Mimeograph). MinnesotaResearch Coordinating Unit for Vocational Education, University of Minne-sota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

9. Smith, Brandon B., and Moss, Jerome Jr. Report of a Seminar: Processand Techniques of Vocational Curriculum Development. Minnesota ResearchCoordination Unit for Vocational Education, University of Minnesota,Minneapolis, Minnesota, April, 1970.

10. Smith, Robert S. Jr. The Development of Training Objectives. HumRROResearch Bulletin No. II, 1964.

APPENDIX A

TrU

DE

NT

SIE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TS

AN

D A

BIL

ITIE

S

rCT

)UN

SET

PRO

CE

DU

RE

S

PRE

SEN

TL

YE

MPL

OY

ED

WORKERS

..1. 1

:1M

-..0

111

HIGH SCHOOL

GRADUATES

DEMOGRAPHIC

DESCRIPTION OF

ENTERING

STUDENT BEHAVIOP

I

UNIQUE

NEEDS

GROUPS

1

RE

LE

VA

NT

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

RE

SEA

RC

H

AD

VIS

OR

YC

OM

MIT

1IN

PUT

'

I-EDUCATIONAL

- - ENVIRONMENT

TRANSFER

STUDMTS

EN

AB

LIN

GIN

STR

UC

TIO

NA

LSY

STE

M

..=1

I

01IIM

IR

FOR

MA

TIV

E &

SUM

IVIA

TIV

E

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NPR

OC

ESS

EM

PLO

YE

DW

OR

KE

RIT

J?'U

ii-

RO

JEC

T)

--O

ST1

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

'PE

RT

, OR

MA

N C

1

DE

SIR

ED

BE

-1A

VIO

1=11

-',L

UT

I?

(11'

FIGURE

EDUCATIONAL CHANGE MODFL

MA

NPO

WE

R

PEQ

UIP

ET

EN

TST

UD

tHS

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE SCHEDULE

Industrial Production Activity Inventory

Lincoln Land Community College

General Information:

1.

Name of firm or company

2.

Position or title of

individual completing questionnaire

Directions:

The following is a list of activity items related to training needs and requirements for

industrial Pro-

duction Technicians.

For each statement (item) decide which one of the following ratings (1 2 3 4 5) best

evaluates

your feeling about the necessity for the activity item with regard to your job.

The following key should be used in

completing the questionnaire.

1.

My job requires no knowledge or experience with this activity.

2.

My job requires some knowledge or experience with this activity.

3.

My job requires a reasonable amount of knowledge

or experience with this activity.

4.

My job requires a thorough knowledge and considerable experience with this activity,

5.

My job requires a complete knowledge or experience with this activity

so that it is essential to the jou.

PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH BFST INDICATES YOUR ANSWER FOR EACH STATEMENT,

You should have encircled one number

for each item when you are finished.

You should also indicate the approximate number of times

you performed the ac-

tivity during the past month and year in the appropriate columns.

In addition, the attached questionnaire should be

completed using a rank order marking system for each of the general

groups of the form.

Please make sure you mark

every blank the the category.

This means that you have five ranks (1 through 5) for each category.

Rank the items

in terms of priority of need for the technician to have knowledge of in order to

solve technical problems and to pro-

gress in his work.

A one (1) indicates the greates need and a five (5) indicates the least need.

Be sure to use all

the ranks (1 through 5).

(EYAMPTF)

Number Times

Number Times

Score

Performed In

Performed In

Rank

1.

Activity-The ability to:

No Experience

Complete Experience

Past Month

Pa:;t Year

(2.)

1.

Formulate written job specifica-

tions

(I)

2.

Estimate job time

(3)

3.

Check a drawing

(5)

4.

Make an inked tracing

(.4)

5.

Make an assembly drawing

.

12

12

12

(I)

2 2

3 3 CD 3 3

45

4 45

ii

5

45

()

(90 )

7(2

Q)

(300)

(/

)( /5- )

( Q

)( e)

;

( 0

)( 0 )