ED 117.1188

AUTHOR' Small,'Charles;. And OthersTITLE Arizona) Field Test Report. Vol. 1'. All Units.

-,75.--INSTITUTION -Mesa-Public Schools, Ariz.. Dept: )64' ResearCh and

!valuation.

CI 006 159

SPONS AGENCY Arizona State. Dept. of Educatidii phoenix..

NOTE 75p.; For related documents, see CZ 006 159-170; For1974 field test report, see ED 097 482; Not availablein hard copy due to marginal quality of oriiiitaldocument

EDRs PRICE y NF-$0.83 Plus'posteige BC Not Availaple from rms.'sidareer Education); Data Collectiontl'erformancev*Program Attitudes; *Progtai tffectivetess; *ProgtaaEvaluation.; Questionnaires; Student AttitOdeS; Tableis(Data); Teacher Attitudes; Unit Plan

IDENTIFIERS Arizota; *Field Testing

DESCRIPTORS

'ABSTRACTA field test was'deStgned and conducted to examine

the effectiveness of Arizona-designed career education units,particularly to dxamine the units' success in terms of their abilityto affect positively students' cognitive, affective, and.psychomotorbehavior according to expressed performance and bshaviotalobjectives..Eleven Career education units in nine projects were field.tested. Data were gathered through UNIVAL and i teacher monitoringsystem, with approximately 4,900 students and 152 teachers includedin the study. Of the students, 50 percent were female, 69 percentwere Anglo, and 31 percent from minority groups. Of the teachers. 31were male and 121 mere female. Teachersattitudetoward careereducation was very positive and moderately poeitive toward theparticular units. Student response to the units was yositive, andlearner performance (overall percent of correct scores) was a high 83percent. Measures of unit effectiveness were calculated, bXsed onteacher attitude, learner attitude, and learner perforsance. Studentdemographic data were subjected to an ethnic profile. It wasconcluded that all 11 units in the field set Were sufficiently'satisfactory to be included in the 1975-1976 statewide implesentationprogram. Additional data and the UNITA!. questionnaire are appended.(BP)

****************T*************************************e***************** Documents acquired by ERIC include zany informal unpublished ** materials not &Tellable from other.sourCeso ERICiaket every effort ** to obtain the best cop/ available: levettheleMS,

iteisof marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and ,this affects the quality ** of the microfiche and hardCopy reproductions DR/Csetes available i*

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction. Service '(Eini) .=-ADRSA.SItot-* responsible for the'quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by 2DRS are he best that can be slide from the Original., **N*********************************************************************

cQOVA RESEARCH. OOORDINATING4tilt;

1535 WEST JEFFERSON

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007

FIELD -TEST REPORTVol. rALL UNITS

Charles SmallDon Peterson ,

Frank L. VicinoJames S, DeGracie

ONE'.'-'Or. A SERIES IN THEARIZONA STATEWIDE FIELD TEST 1974-76

Conducted byTHE DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Mega Public Schools

Dr. George N. SmithSuperintendent.

for .

THE ARIZONA S TE EpARTMENT OF EDUCATION4NIke)

Carolyn Warner, Superinten nt. -Eugehe 14;.Dorr.

U.S. DS PARTMENT OP WEALTH,EDUCATION a WILPARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.ATING IT POINTS OF VIEWOR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY .

Dr. James X. ZaharisAssistant SuperintendentEducational Services

Arizona Department of ation Associate Superintendent for1- Career Education

,N4

S

0

0

*Coconino

*Yavapai,

*WACOP/*RoOsevelt*Central Maricopa

*Mesa

*Pin41

*Pima

3ii.

FOREt ORD

So many have contributed major input to the field test

processes of unit delivery, monitoring and instrument completion,

tha 1100 rack:, note, and applaud individual

-tEf=ftit-t-afils-irre-h-08-e involved-in this major -team

effort can see how much has been accomplished and have a posi-

tive view of its educational significance for the young people

of Arizona. By docu enting and analyzing the capabilities of

% .

.the career education units tested, we all have contributed a

Ipositive boost to career education in school districts across the

state.

The.task of Field Test Manager has been simplified consicier-

ably by excellent staf;pport from the Mesa Public. Schools---

Department of Research and Evaluation, responsive assistance

from the State Department of Education, and the effective manage-

---ment shown by the lield test coordinatOrs from,the respective

field-test projects.

0June, 1975

0

r,iank Leo Vicino'Field Test Manager

ry ...1

STATEWIDE FIELD TEST TASK FORCE

Statesbepartment of EducationDr. Beverly Wheeler, Director, Research Coordinating Unit

Mesa Public Schools, Department of Research and EvaluationFrank-Leo-Vicino, Director,--EvaluattonDr. James-S._beraciablietdrsoncResearchAssociateCharles Small, Research AssopiateJulie Lindholm, Research Associate

Site Field Test Coordinators

Robert D. Stanton, WACOPMarilyn Young, PinalStephen McKibben, Tri-CountyBea Langley, CoconinoGeorge O'Reilly, CoconinoJerry O'Brien, CoconinoJean E. VanWinkle, YavapaSandra McCarthy, RooseveltCharleS Small, MesaJean Williamsen, PimaJim Harrison, Central Maricopa

t-

Northern Arizona State UniversityDr. Sam W. Bliss, DirectorEducationaI,Resources Management Centel!Data Reduction

Oa

44

'iv.

tl

6.

PRE FACE

This is one of aseries of field test reports onArizona developed Career .Education Curriculum Units. Thidreport pregents information concerning overall field testrationale and compilation of results for "all .field. testedunits. Oiher reports in thi0-beries contain Unit specific_fie;d-tegt-materlaa.

a

f

The work, presented 'and reportet herein was performedpursuant to contract from the Arizona StateDepartment ofEduca 1,6n. However, the opinions expressed hereih do notnecess rily reflect the position or policy of the ArizonaState apartment of Education and-116-afficial endorsementby the Arizona State Department of Education SHould be in

iferred.

el,

1

V

6

Executive Summary

Objectives

an effort to examine the_effectiveness of Arizona

careet education units, a field test was designed andrco

ducted. The field test examined the success of the units

in terms of the unit's ability to affect positively,

students' cogniti/e, affective and psychomotor behavior

according to expressed performance and behavioral objectives.

The field test of the 11 career education curriculum

units was conducted across the state in the fpllowing*'

hine projects:

Central 'Maricopa RooseveltCoconino

a Tri-Cot iRtyMesa WACOPPima' YavapaiPinal

Approach

Basic unit data was collected by the use of tJNIVAL, do

instrument designed to garner stddent"eacher demographic

information, student/teacher attitude, and student unit

performance. Another evaluation strategyl.teacher

monitoring, was used to gather in-depth unit refinement

data. The data analyzed was from approximately 4,9004

students and 152 teachers with the following general results.

Results

1. .4a1 --approximately 4,900 learners were

expo'sed to the units in the 9 participating,

projects. Fifty percent of the learners w/Ze

vi.

4

female, "and sixty-nine percent of the 'learners.

were Art 41o.

. Of the tea

-mldtan-=sreatt=--bf-=-e-xper-xence-was

between 6-10 years and 93 had 'previously taught.

or developed a carqer education unit or program.

This was more than double last Itar's total of

teachers whO had previously taught a career

education unit.

3. Teacher attitude toward career education was

very high (3.98 on a scale where 5 was the'

highest possible response)., Of the 304 possible

responses, 83% were positive, 11% wer of no

opinion, and only 7% negativ

4. Teacher attitude toward th= units--the teachers

were modera ely positive o erall toward the units

(3.59). Of the possible 6 responses, 68% were

posit v e, 12% were of no opinion and 20%"were

'

negat

5. Teachers that had a high positive attitude toward

career education appeared also to favor,the units

cr.= 0.421-.-

G.- Learner attitude was positive toward all units

across all projects (2.6 on a scale where 3 was

the highest possible response). Sixty-eight

(68) percent of the 27,879 student responses were

positive toward the units, 22% no opinion, and

. 10% wete negative toward the units.

vii.

Executive Summar

tl

. Learner performance op the units--the overall per-

cent of .correct scores for

the proieCtiwas,a hi

variation across projects.

8 Measu'res of unit efftctiveness,based on Teacher

Atitude toward the unit, Learner Attitude

toward the unit, and,Learner Performance on

criterion referenced lessOn imbedded items

were calculated for each unit. A ranking of

the, units in teems of unit effectiveness is

all the units by all

Thar 8-3443.8---.Utortle-

' .

presented in the body of this report.

9. Student demographic data from the field test

site were subjected to an ethnic profiled ". The

Units' effectiveness was ranked in relation

to ethnic'profile, so that districts with

comparable ethnic profiles could use th

information for implementation and/or

dissemination decisions.

Recommendations

1. All 11 units Which were field tested ar

satisfactory enough to be includedin t

1975-76 statewide implementationprogra

2. It is recommended that an attachment con-

taining suggestions,for refinements, listed

individual unit reports, be atta4ed

to the appropriate units for use by the

implementation teachers.

viii. 9

'TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .

Selecting the Units,qi4K

I trumenta00n;and -the _Determination = the Saxcp1in4_Framework

Field Test Instrument' Development

Mesa's Management Role i thePieldTest

Field Test Coordinators' Workshop andManual Development

Evaluation of Workshop

Unit DistribUtion'

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

UNIVAL

Project Monitoring

FIELD TEST RESULTS-- OVERALL UNIT REV;EW

t

Debcription the Perticipants

Att' udinal.Da6

Learperfbrformance

Unit Analysis

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX I on-Significant Data,

APPENDIX II -- UNIVAL

10ix.

Page,

1

14

27

39

51

53

/1qTRODUCTIOtr-2-7-

The major purpose of most.innovative programs such as

career education is to affect positively students' cogni-

tive, affective, and psychomotor behavior according to

expressed performance objectives.

The present field test was designed to determine the

extent to which the performance objectives have been met

by the* Arizona-produced career education units; A

secspdary purpose of the field test was to provide data.

which couloiebe used to refine the units and assist in

determining impletentation strategies. This information

is intended for the Curriculum staff at both the State

Department and participating sites. which ultimately will

be chosen to implement the units.

Mesa Public Schools Department of Research andry

Evaluation, as the Field Test Management team, was

responsible for the development of the field test instru-

ment package anethe general monitoring/managing'of the

field test. The major responsibil' of the Field Test

Management team was to reduce and analyze all"data re-

ceived from those projects field testing career education

units. Other responsibilities included conducting a

11

*It

workshop for the local fiAld test coordinators, and

monitoring visits with instructors, administrators and

122

4

1 es

.

N.

4 SELECTING THE UNITS,,.INSTRUMENTATION, 'Atiq THE' DETERMINATION 6F THE

SAMPLING FRAMEWORK

a

The State'Department (through the Research Coordinating4 r

Unit) utilized a unit selection procedure (criterion check-( 4

list) which restated in the selection of 11 .career units,

_plus 6 special education units.

In conjunction with representatives of the State Depart'

men'1units were distributed to the tine sites using the

(

following instruments to reflect proper *sampling and to take`

intdOtaccount the project's preferenceC

-a.

r, '

Field test site goal deicription

b: Project preference sheets iivr

c. R.andom selection procedures (constrined bygeographical distributions)

41.416 :

4FIELD TEST

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT

41Field tes. instruments were developed by. Mesa's Depart-

ment of Sesviamleh-ana Evaluation, sending working

the State Department for review and critique. A

uation .Instrumen't package (UNIVAL) was,completed

demographic, impact, and assessment data.

1.3

copies to

Unit Eval.-

soliciting

-r-'

Sites across the state were chosen to,,field test

selected units. The following projects were involved

that effort:

1. Coconino 6.

2. Central Maricopa 7.

3. Mesa (non-funded) 8.

.4. Pima - 9.

5. Pinal

Roosevelt

Tri-CountY

WACOP

Yavapai

in

The following list presents the titles and grade

levels of the. nits field tested.

GRADEUNIT LEVEL TITLE

1 1 Grocery Store Occupations2 1 Parents Are Community Workers Too3 . 3 We Need One Another4 4 Yearnings and Earnings5 5 The Workers World6 5 Sailing With Sales7 6 Ranching8 6 . What Does A Secretary Do?9 6 Learn To Earn

10 6 General Job Requirements11 7 Construction Industry Related Math

MESA'S MANAGEMENt ROLEIN THE FIELD TEST L.

In order to insure the efficient, timely and orderly

"flow of the field test a milestone chart outlining act-.

ivities and parallelisms was constructed and served as the

basis management instrument for the conduct of the field

test Figure 1).

144

VP*

-Aik

titam

l

`Sept. 20

Field Test

Coordinator

osen by

Pa ticipating

Project

Sept. 26

State Dept,

and

Monitoring

Site Conduct

Workshop for

Field Test.

Coordinators

Apr. 10-Hay 1

Sept. 26-Oct.

Field Test

Coordiriator

Selects

---4 Teachers to

Field Test the

Units andCom-

piles a List

of Schools and

Grades Involved

Apr. 1 -Apr. 1G

,,eirr*

Oct. 1-Oct. 15

Field Test

Coordinator

Receives and

Prepares

Units and

UNIVALS for

Distribution

to Field Test

Teachers

Apr. 1

Field Test

Field Test

Teachers Send

Field Test

Coordinator

Sends UNIVALS

UNIVALS to

Field Test

<1=

-Teachers

Complete

to Monitor-

Coordinator

Field Test

ing Site

Who Checks.

of Units

Them for

Apr. 10-May 1

Data Reduction

andITBM Sheet

Prepared by

Monitoring

Site

UNIVALS

Received by

Monitoring

Site

Accuracy and

Completeness

May. 1

Data Prepared

and Sent

to NAU

by Monitor-

ing Site

May 16

Monitoring

Site

Receives

Computer

Printout from

NAU

Oct. 15

1

Field Test Coordinator

Distributes Field

Test Units to Field

Test Teachers

Field Test Coordinator,

Conducts Site Field

Test Workshop

Nov. 1 -Apr. 1

Monitoring

Site

Conducts

Monitoring

Visits

May 15 -June 30

Figure 1

FIELD TESTING

1141LEtTONE CHART'

Nov.

Field Test

Teachers,Be-

gin Field

4Test of

Units

'nine 30

11...

m.=

1,Monitoring

Site Sends.

Final Reports

to State,

Department

FIELD, TEST COORDINATORS'WORKSHOP AND MANUAL DEVELOPMENT

On September 26, a Field Test Coordinators' Workshop

was held covering the following topics:

_Introduction -- State's Purpose ofField Testing

, Dr. Beverly Wkeeler.

Role of the Field Test Mahagey Frank Vicino.

Data Collection in l973-(Z4 D . James DeGracie

Role of the Monitoring Site, Dis-cussion of PERT.,.Teacher.Workshopsand Coordinators' Manual Charles Small

Examination of a Sample Unit,Discussion of Kits and Special.Education Units

Workshop Evaluation Discussionand Questions

Beverly Potter

All

The major document used the Field Test Coordinators'

Workshop was the Meaa-devefOped Field Test Coordinators'

Manual. The workshop covered ihe various role demands of

the field test, instrument usage, and instruction for inser-

vicing field test teachers at the various sites.

EVALUATION OF. WORKSHOP

An instrument to evaluate the workshop was designed by

Mesa's*Department of Research and Evaluation and admini-

stered to the field test coordinators. The results of the

166

evaluation were presented to the State Department

previous'report. TO summarize the report:

...The workshop participants felt they hadattained the major objectives of theworkshop.

.The procedures used by the presenters,assisted the participants in attainingthe objectives.

...The objectives were'important.

UNIT 'DISTRIBUTION

in. a

(

During the period froin October, 1974, to April, 1975,

eleven career education curriculuin units were field tested.

The following listing shows the number of classrooms and

corresponding units tested in each project.

177

IN*

STATEWIDE 'UNIT DISTRIBUTION

PROJECTUNITTESTED

*NUMBER-- OrCLASSROOMSCOMDLETED

Central .Maricopa 1 3

2 3-

3

4

5

7

3

3

3

Total= 22

Coconino 2

3

2

1 t

5 3

8

9

2

41.

10

11

Total=

1

12

Mesa (nonfunded project) 1 3

2 2

3 8

4 1

5 2

6 2

7 2

10. L.,

*As of May 1, 1975 8

:3 Total= 21

11

STATEWIDE UNIT DISTRIBUTION

PROJECTUNIT

TESTED

NUtiBER OFCLASSROOMSCOMPLETED

Pima 2 4

3 4

4 2

5 3.

7 2

9 1.

Total= 16

Pinal 1 3

3 4

11 3

crtal. _10.--7**N.

Roosevelt 1 43

5 3

6 3

8 4

10 3

11

Total =. 19

199

11"

STATEWIDE UNIT DISTRIBUTION

PROJECTUNITTESTED

__,MMIBIJRCLASSROOMS'COMPLETED

Tri-CoUhty

40.

4

5

9

10

11

WACOP 4

6

8

9

10

Yavapai

2

3

6

8

1

3

3

Total=

Total=

5

4

2

2

3

6

3

10 2

Total= 15

.1%

20 pvEnALL TOTAL= ,152

10

DATA COLLECTIONAND

ANALYSIS

The field test is, a large-scale muIti-purpose use of

,the_units, generating data to guide product installation

and further refinements. The following list of objectives

is Presented as ax indication of some of the major ob-i

jectives guiding'this field test:

1. To examine product performance underlarge-scale conditions.

2. To shOw under what conditions the productdoes or does not perform.

3. To establish whether aout the, supervision of

4. To determine amount ofthe product to achieve

5. To determine trainingschool staff.

6.

product works with-its developers.

time necessary forits objectives.

requirements for

To determine whether the product is worthyof further investment.

7. To provide product refinement data.

8. lb facilitate eventual widespread dis-semination of the product.

In an effort to answer as many of these outlined

objectives a-s-operAtidnally and logistically possible

the audience and/or contributors to career education were

defined. The two major popthation categories were defined:

Learners, and, of course, Teachers (Fig.2),

11

21

$_

FIGURE 2

COntributors to Career

Education Advancement

N

Career education, in .Qrdc.: to' -be .a viable and eventually

a permanent entry into the educatipn'system, must solicit

from these populations.,

From the learner, performance on the 'unit's of jectives

"ilhould be examined. In addition, it qould be extr mely im-4 .

portant in order.to determine placemeht of the uni,e,'

t

exatine the characteristics of the,studentS'in rel tion

o the unit's success.0.

Learner Attitude toviard the uhit, unfortunately rarely

so eht systematically byproduct developers, should be,ex-

amin d as early in develOpment`as possible. High student

intere t or opposition should serve as a cue to developers

that the product has hit the mark or needs major revisional

work.

At the lassroom teacher's level is where 1acceptability,

ase 1pf use, 0 rriculum conformance, vocabulary, 'and effec-

tiveness with va ious kinds of students can be examined

prior to implement-tion.

The following i. formation ippludes the kindSbf data

the teadher can genera e andsupply concerning the unit's

effectiveness.

1. Teacher

2,. Teacher

Attitude toward the unit

Attitude toward career education

3. Unit refinement info :oration-- classroom. teachercomments concerning ulit activities, objectives,evaluation items, etc. If .general feelings aboutthe' unit are -shared ton istentZy by many teachersthis will lead to unit r finement.

23

13

4. Teacher rcharacteristies-l-here the intent is tosee if thep is.ahy'relationship between teachetcharacterigtics, such as teacher experience,education, age, and success with career edu-4ation

An instrument, UNIVAL, which was included within the

curriculum unit package was designed, to assist in

gathering.the basic data concerning the unit and lessons

dirctly (Appendix II).

The unit and UNIVAL booklet containing the evaluation

instrument'for the unit was deliverea by the field test

coordinator .to the classroom teacher in conjunction with

an inservice session onthe use of the unit and complet,ion

of the UNIVAL.

followingfollowing data was collected' within the UNIVAL:

1. - Learner Unit Performance (Lesson Imbedded Test.-Items)

2. Learner Attitude Toward Unit

3. Learner Charactvistics

4. Teacher Attitude Toward Unit

5. Teacher Attitude Toward Career Education

6. Teacher CharacteristicS

UNIVAL data was collected from approximately 4,900

students and 152 teachers.

f

'2 4

14

. .....

II

PROJECT MONITOpING

Monitoring visits to .ach.of the pArticipating sites

were conducted duri'ng the duration bf he field testing..

The first monitoring visit td each of 'the projects

was conduCt6d in.-MidNovemberand the first week of

Decembei, 1970.

-The second monitoring visit to each .picject 4'0 Con7'. .

.0ducted dUring the month qf February, 1975.

Monitqring instruments were developed 'tb condupt

:uniform interv±ews.with the coordinators, project staff

and teachers. Also, adherence to_the scheduleof the milestone1

chart was examined as wall as &dherence ta' the requiremedts-,

of the.gcals and state requirOlents of the RFP. The inter-,

views provided an opportunity to famiaiarize the monitoring:site staff with the general features and operation of the

.

0

local career education project.

Since the fitst visit was rather early in the year,

the teachers in'most, projects had not started to field test

the units in the classroom.

On the.second visit, two days were set aside to visit

as many schools and teachers as possible.

The data colleted on each visit was analyzed and

presented in a preliMiliary report to the State Department.

2515,

4

This section of the report presenls the overall data, -

summary and analysis for the field test:''

Significant summary statistics will be .presented and,

' . -:

e4

discussed in the. Field Test Results section of this report.. « .

.

Detailed statistical summaries for each unit are presented.... ,

in separate report's. Ak outline of this section tellows:

A. A descHption ofothe field test inclUding'demographic chars teristics of.both par-ticipating teache and students4

B. Attitudinal data from both teachers andstudents concerning the units.

C. Learner performance data on-the lessonspecific items.

Unitanalysis data.

DESCRIPTION OF

THE PARTICIPANTS

Table 1 presents the exact member of classrooms on

which data was available in'time for analysis. Originally

-'it was anticipated that'each unit would be presented in

15 classrooms tkroughout the state. As in any large-scale26

16

'

rr

field test, ,1),(yer, the projects encountered

_:number problems completing some of the u

.tesulting number however, was sufficient to

for-Alid decisions concerning. the units.7

TABLE 1

UNIT TITLES AND FIELD TEST CLASSROOMS

NUMBER OFUNIT TITLE CLASSROOMS

1 Grocery Store OccupationS-2 Parents Are Community Workers3 We Need One Another4 Yearnings and Earnings5 The Workers World6 Sailing With,Sales7 Ranching8 Whab Does .A Secretary Do?9 Learn To Earn

10 General Job Requirements11 Const'ruction Industry Related

. Learners

'2115'23141716119

8

13Math -10

Table 2 presents demographic information onf the

that were exposed to the career education units in the"field'

test. A total of.4,914 learners were exposed to the 11

curriculum units throughout the state. From Table-2 it

can be noted that the learners' demog c characteristics

represented the state fairly well. There was approximately a

50/50 split on male-female learners. The ethnic compositian

included slightly More minority representatives than the

state4Opulation. The equivalent statefigures are 20%

Spanish,' 70% Anglo, 4% Black, 6% Atherican, Indian.

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF-LEARNERS EXPOSED BY

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

SEX

ETHNIC

AMERICAN

SPANISH

PROJECT

MALE

FEMALE

,, INDIAN

BLACK

%SURNAME

Coconino

210,

209

264

10.2

12

Central

Maricopa

394

396

20.3

22

389

.-

Mesa

403 ..

400

34

44

0.5

77

Pinal

205

131

2.0.6

'

.8

2111

Roosevelt

275

278

61

102

18

275

Pima

202

243

11

316

479

Tri--County

263'-

354 ,

65 '11

61

129

WACOP

yav4pai

-

307

183

285

156

30.:5

62

5'

0

003,

0

133 g..:,

Total

2442

2452

393

164 n

944

Percent

50

50

83

19

COMPOSITION

ANGLO'

TOTAL

%WHITE

OTHER %

NUMBER

11

10

33

!$t

'18:

21

22: 2.

139

675

691

33

41

111

3 2 7

0.7

0..3

0.9

419

790-

801-

214

die

10.3

336

,

168

30

20.4

5-53

.137

70'

24

0.4

445

416

61a

1;

0.2

.617:

4497.

76

2043

,.

592

291

ft,

31).:9

: 339

3380

23

491

1111

69

0.5

Out of the students- tested, 1,524 '4310 were repre-

.sentativeof the minority backgrounds [944 (19WSpanish

Surname, 164 (3%) Black, 393 (8%) Indian, 23 classified

as Other], and the remaining 3,380 (69%) were Anglo.

When the ethnic composition or profile of the various,

sites in the field test population are examined we find

-varying patterns. The following table (Table 3)exhibits

an ethnic profile of each of the project's field test

participants in terms of the distribution of the ethnic

'groups.TABLE 3

LEARNER ETHNIC COMPOSITION,PROFILE'

Indian Black Spanish Anglo

0Central Maricopa

Coconino

40ilta

Pima

Pinal

Roosevelt

Tki-County

WACOP

Yavapai

46.

IMO 0

0

0

- 0

IMO

+significantly above field test mean-significantly below field test mean0 no different from field test mean

29

19

ime

0

Tri-County's ethnic profile*was closer to the

average of the group with, iioWaver, a less than aver-

ag4 number of Black students.

Coconino showed a high profileiin Indian students.

Pinal showed, a greater profile of Spanish rather than

Indian and Anglo learners. Roosevelt exhibited a higher

profile of Spanish and Black than Indian and Anglo learners.

Pima had a greater profile' of Anglo learners with lower

than average Indian and near average Black and

Spanish populations.

Central Maricopa had a greater profile of Anglo

with lower than average' Indian and Spanish. WACOP

exhibited nearly the same profile but with near

average Spanish and below average Black populations.

The diiersity of profiles throughout the field

test augurs well for learners' ethnic representationr

in the field test. This diversity can also, assist

other Arizona districts contemplating-the use of the

field tested career education units in implementation.

Administrators from other districts could subject

their district to the same technique of ethnic pro-

filing as employed in this report, and by examining

the various units' success in similarly profiled

projects, could list priorities of unit implementation.

This will be discussed further in the section on unit

effectiveness.

3020

2. Teachers

.Table .4 presents the total number and selected

demographic characteristics of the teachers partici-

pating in the field test.

It can be noted from Table 4 that there were

nearly four times as many female teachers presenting

the units as male teachers. This is probably best

explained by the fact that 10 out of the 11 units

were elementary-units. The median number of years

of teaching experience fell between 6-10.years.

The teachers that presented the units in the. -

field test apeiar. fairly sophisticated concerning

career education. Of the 152 teachers, 140 were

familiar: with career education, and of the 140, 56-

previously.taught a career education unit or program,

and 37 had experience in developing a career education

unit or Program.

A ATTITUDINAL DATA

1: Teacher Attitude

Included.in each UNIVAL (Unit EvaluatiOn instrument)

was an Instructor Attitudinal Data sheet which included

two questions concerning attitUdes toward career educa-

tion in general, and 3 questions concerning the teacher's

attitude toward the specific unit (see Appendix II).

21 31

TABLE

4

NUMBER or INSTRUCTORS BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

IP

SEX

PROJECT

.

MALE

FEMALE

h.)

Coconino

Central

Maricopa

.

5 2

7

20.

h.)Mesa

'4

17

Pinal

37

Roosevelt&

316

Pima

313

Tri-County

615

WACOP

412

Yavapai

.1

14

Total

'31

121

YEARS OF EXPERI t:p-E

CAREER EDUCAT10:Z EXPERItNCE

.

.MORE

DEN.VD.

TAUGHT

READ A

FAMILIAR

HAD NO

LESS

THAN

C. ED.

C. ED.

C. ED.

WITH

EXPOS.

THAN

15

UNIT OR

unIs OR UNIT OR

CAREER

TO

11-5

6-10 11-15 YRS.

PROGRAM

PROGRAM

PROGPAM

-

ED.

C. ED.

4

04

76

5

42

6%

15

'2

11

15

46

3

12

35

5

29

32

111

"

13

3.4

24'

-

13

51

27

28

33

3

.4,

611

15

311

46

6 18

54

37

56

36

0:

03

1

04

0#

3,

20

21

26

3 3

15

32

-12

a. Teacher Attitude Toward Career Education

When the teacher general attitude is

examined toward career education (Table.5)

k

we find.that the mean response across

questions, units, and projects was a high

3.98, on a scale'where 5 is the highest

possible positive response. Of the 304

possible responses 82% (250) were positive

towards career education, 11% (34) were of

no opinion, and only 7% (20) were negative.

There was little variability across project!.

b. Teacher Attitude Toward the Units

Table 6 summarizes the teacher attitudes

toward' tt. units in the field test.

The overall response to the units was a

moderately positive 3.59. Of-the possible

456 responses, 68% (311) were positive, 12%

(55) were of no opinion; and 20% (90) were

negative.

Teachers that'had a high positive attitude

toward career"education appeared also to6

favor the units as ref ec ed by Pearson's

product moment coeffici correlation of.

(r = 0.05 level. Table

33

.23

17tBLE

TEACHER ATTITUDE,TWARD CAREER EDUCATION

(Number, Percent and dean of Instructor PcsponSes

to Attitude Items 1 and 2 Combined)

PROJECT

Coconino

2

STRO:(:GLY

POSITIVE

N

Central

Maricopa

4

,

Mesa

C.16

Pinal

46

12 3

Roosevelt

21

Pima

8

Tri-County

11

WACOP

5

Yavapai

5

9 29

4111

P.."

15

55

25

26

16

17

TOtal

71

23

NO

POSITIVE

NT

-%

NEGATIVE

18

75

28

14

-33

75

4.9

37

20

48

14

......

,..

1

9

P15

75

02

100.

13,

34

410

0

18

56

412

26

25

59

49

25'

24

,75

26

13

13

43

827

41

13

179

59

34

11

19

.6

STRONGLY

NEGATIVE

MEAN

4

00

3.79

3.86

00

13.95

t3.95

00

4.44

00

4.00

00

4.07

00

4.03

V)

03.63

0.3

3.98

CA

.

TABLE' 6

TEACHER ATTITUDE TOWARD EMIT

(NuMber, Percent and Mean of Instructor Rt-s,1_,on.ses

TO Attitude -Items 3, 4 and 5 ComlAnd)

PROJET.

STRONGLY

POSITIVE

POSITIVE

YwI

%

NO

ADPINION %

NEGATIVE

STRONGLY

NEGATIVE

Coconino 7,

Central

322

61

,8

514

'3

8

Maricopa

5f,8

44

67

914.

812

00

Mesa

10

16

27

43

13

14

'22

46

Pinal

517

11

37

12

40

0

Roo6velt

14

25

33

58

34

73

,Pima

48

25

52

12

25'

510

24

Tri-County

46

39

62

813

'

10

16

2

WACOP

715

24

50

715

919

1

Yavapai

12.

27

22

49

37

613

24

Total

64

14

1 24

55

55 .

12

73

16

17

4

MEAN

3.47

3.70

3.40

3.33

saillAaa

3,50

3.52

3.56

3.80

3.59

TABLE '7

MEAN INSTRUCTOR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE UNIT BY INSTRUCTOR ATTITUDE'TOWARD CAREER EDUCATION

PROJECT]

INSTRUCTOR INSTRUCTORUNIT ATTIWDB

-ATTITUDE CAREERED.(WES-. 3-5) OWES.

Coconi o 3.47

Central. Maricopa 3.70

Mesa 3.40'

Pinal 3.30

Roclevelt 3.89

Pima x 3.50

Tri-County 3.52

WACOP 3.56

Yavapai

3.79 -

3.86

3.95'..

3.95

.4i

4. do

4.07

4.03

3.63

r= 0.42

A

3626

2. Learner Attitude..

eg

When learner attitude toward the unit is

examined (Table 8), a fairly high`positive feeling

toward all units across all projects iss,seen.

Sixty-eight percent of-the 27,879 student-

responses were positive toward the unit, 22% no

opinion, and 10% were negative toward the units.

4

'N.--

LEARNER PERFORMANCE

n order to examine the learners' performance on the

units, dumulative.scores over all the

0examined. Table 9 presents the total

percentages for all the units by each

lesson items were

learner scores in

project.

4

The overall percent of correct scores for all the

units by all the projects was a high .83%. There was little

variability across-projects. This variability appears'to

be more related%to'be different units that were field

tested. rather than dependent on project site

Examining, the relatOfishipbetween Learner Atti,tpde

and Learnr PektormanceATAle*10), it can be noted that

`a positive tela.O.onship'OeistS between the two (r = 0.2).ti

ThiWporrelatiOn,%although not high, is significant at

the ci0.05 level. to the relationship between

3727

TABLE .8

LEARNER ATTITUDE TO UNIT(NUMBER, PERCENT AD MEAN OR COMPOSITE

LEARNER ATTITUDE RESPONSES).

YES/iIAPPYPROJECT /4 rJ

.

Coconino 1412 57.

CentralMaricopa 3335 67

,Mesa 3535 78

Pinal 1186 75

Roosevelt 2437 69

Pitha 1010 71

Tri-County 2555 69

WACOP 2117 57

Yavapai 1266 65

Total 18853 68

-IDONITCARE/0X NO/SAD

N L % N ". 'MEAN,

639f

1203

595

289H

7911 ,

. 112

826

'1168

464

6287

26

24

13

407

414

404)

17

8

9

2.41,..

2.59

2.69

18 ' 112 7 2.68

'22 ,290 8 2.41

'101 7 2.6422k

22 339 9, 2.60

31 444 12 2.45

24 12 2.53 .

22 2739 10 .2.58,

28

38

TABLI 9

NUMBER AND PERCENT OF CORRECT LEARNER .RESPONSESTO LESSON IMBEDDED ITEMS FOR A GIVEN UNIT .

PROJECTNUMBER OFRESPONSES

NUMBER OFCORRECT

RESPONSES

PERCENT OFCORRECT

RESPONSES

Coconin6 1642 1321 80

Central.Maricopa 3759 3064- 81

Mesa 4725 3999. 85

Pinal 1115 953 85

Roosevelt 2888 2293 79

Pima 798 684 86

Tri-County 2243 1874 ; 83

WACOP 3574 2865 80

Yavapai 1831 1 -646 90

. Total 22575 18699 83

,Teacher Attitude toward the unit and Learner Performance,

no correlation was found' (r =0.01). This is not significant

at the a ='0.05 level (Table 10).

4

4030

TABLE 10

MEAN INSTRUCTOR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE UNIT pY MEAN"LEARNER ATTITUDE

PROJECT

INSTRUCTORUNIT

ATTITUDE A'LEARNER

ATTITUDE B*LEARNER

.PERFORMANCE C

CoconinC 3.47 2.41130

#Central Maricopa' 3.70 2.59 82

Mesa 3.40 2.69 85

Pinal 3,30 2.68 85

Roosevelt 3.89 2 .61 79

Pima 3.50 2.64' 86

Tri -County 3.52 2.60 84

WACOP 3.56 2.45 80

Yavapai 3.80 2.53 90

Correlation CoefficientrAC = 0.01rAB = 0.28rBC = 0.24

*Percent of students attaining unit objectives

Various other rsdata was collected from ,the teachers in-,

volved in the field test of theunits. This data was compiled

and examined 'and, is presented below.

The data collected:included the following information;

1. Teachers indicated whether they had experience in,

jobs other than teaching and whether this infor-

mation helped in teaching the unit. It was found.4

....0000.00.roommow..000.100,06000.....4that 9''3 of the 152 teachers-61%) had` previous

Pexperience in djob other than teaching. Of these.f.Lx i. 4, - - -ow%

93, 75 indicated that the previous eXpetience helped

in teaching'the unit.(Tables 11 and 12)

2. The teachers were asked how many guest speakers

they used. Sixty-six of the 152 teachers. (44.1004166

laiiitimalsiteigaractiolgiawir A total of 145 guest

speakers were used in the 152 classrooms. (Table 13)

3. The teachers were also asked to indicate the amount

of time devoted to the unit per week and what time

of day (AM or PM) the unit was primarily taught.

The median number of hoArs spent per week teaching

the unit fell, between 2-3 hours."- Ninety -four

(62%) teachers taught tte unit my the afternoon411/$04/4004014*******0011..***,3;Ohro

while,58 (38 %) taught the unit in the morning.

(Tables,14 and l5)

4. The teachers were also asked what kind of classrooM

or method of teaching they used. One hundred.

eleven (73%) of the clasSroOms were self-contained4posoigewomoios«otitmot~,0'4,4,.0.iy..,,t-444.404

24 (16%) were open classroom-and 17 (11%),were

team taught. (Table 16)

322

TA

BL

E 1

1

NU

MB

ER

AN

D P

ER

CE

NT

OF

INST

RU

CT

OR

S T

HA

T T

AU

GH

TE

AC

H U

NIT

BY

'OC

CU

PAT

ION

OT

HE

R T

HA

N T

EA

CH

ING

SOC

IAL

'PH

YSI

CA

LC

HE

MIC

AL

.T

EC

HN

I-C

ON

STR

UC

-SC

IEN

CE

SCIE

NC

ES

SCIE

NC

ES

BU

SIN

ESS

CA

LT

IOM

IND

UST

RY

- O

TT

ER

,N

ON

ET

OT

AL

PRO

JEC

TN

N%

N%

N%

N%

N%

N%

N%

.N.%

NO

.

Coc

onin

o

Cen

tral

Mar

icop

a

Roo

seve

lt

Pim

a

Tri

-Cou

nty

WA

CO

P

Yav

apai

"Tot

al

)0

0

0

.00

60

00

0 00

0 0 0 0

25 320

01

4' 0

240

03

14

200

02

20

947

15

00

1

256

5012

27I

3222

314

1048

21

101

104

4010

55

263

16'

19

7.44

.6

29

637

1067

'

TABLE 12

NUMBER AND-PERCENT OF INSTRUCTORS THAT TAUGHT-EACH UNIT H,Y WHETHER-PREVIOUS:EXPERIENCE HELPS

IN CAREER EDUCATION

PROTECT NYES

7, NNO

%

NOPREVIOUSEXPERIENCE

N 1'0

TOTALNUMBER

Coconino 4 33 2 k17 6 50 12.

Central.Maricopa 13 59 2 9 7 32 22

Mesa 8 38 3 14 10 48 21

Pinal 4 40 2 20 4 40 10

Roosevelt 15 79 1 5 3 le 19

Pimau

6 37 3 19 7 44 16

Tri-County 14 67 1 5 6 * 29 21

WACOP 9 56 1 6 6 37 16

Yavapai, 2 13 10 ,7 15

Total 75 49 18 12 59 39 152: -

4

4434

,.

TABLE 13

NUMBER AND PERCENT OF INSTRUCTORS THAT TAUGHT EACHUNIT BY THE' NUMBER OF GUEST SPEAKERS USED

PROJECT.

0 1

N N NTOTALNUMBER

.Coconino 8 67 3 25 0 0 0 12

CentralMaricopa 6 27 13 59 2 9 1 4 0 0 .s.

s

Mesa 5 24 13- 62 2 9 0 0 1 5 21

Pinal 7 70 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 10. V

Roosevelt 7 37 4 1 21 5 26 1 5 2 10 19

Pima 6 37 2 .12 2 12 1 5 31 16

Tri-Coilnty 9 43 8 38. 0 0 2 9 2 9 21

WACOP 8 50 8 50 0 0 0 0 4. 0 16

Yav/ apai 10 67 3- 20 1 7 0. .. 0 1 7 15

Total 6'6 43 36 14 9 6 4 11 7 152

4 5

35

I

c

TABLE

14

&UMBER AND PERCENT OF

INSTRUCTORS THAT TAUGHT EAQH UNIT

BAMOUNT: -Or TIME DEVOTED TO THE HIUT EACH WEEK

PROTECT

LESS

THAN

1N

s1

172

YS

,HRS.

lT

%

3-5

HRS.

MORN

THAN'

5 HRS.

TOTAL

-%

NUMBER

Coc

onin

o

Cen

tral

,M

aric

opa

t.1-

Mes

aAbb

'CM

Pina

lR

oose

velt

Pim

a

Tri

-Con

nty

WA

CO

P

Yav

apai

0

3 4

37Q.

08

68

.0

5

Tot

al13

48

3317

329

.41

435

244

-30

00

4

21,

842

5

07

443

388

38

50,

425

.3

336

404

3249

3233

.25

2512

14 19 40 26

19

19 19

`27

021

2'2

010

519

.

00

16

521

016

015

.22

152

TABLE 15

NUMBER AND PERCENT OF INSTRUCTORS THAT TAUGHTEACH UNIT BY TIME TAUGHT

PROJECTAM

NPM TOTAL

NUMBER_

Coconino

Central

3 25 75 12

Maricopa 27 16 73 .22

Mesa 43 12 51 21

2 20 8 80 10

Roosevelt 11 58 8 42 15

Pima 4 25 12 75 16

Tri-County 12 57 .9 43

V.

21

WACoP 6 37 10 62 , 16

Yaiapai 5 33 10 67 15

Total 58 94. 62 152

47,37

O

TABLE -7 16

NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS THAT TAUGHT EACH- UNIT._BY TYPE OF CLASSROOM AND METHOD OF ACHINGt.

PROYECT .

OPEN.CLASSROOM

SELFCONTAINEDN- TEAM

TAUGHTN,

Coconino 2 17 8 67 2 17

CentralMaricopa 2 9 14 64 6 27

Mesa 6 29 11 52 4 19.

Pinal 2 20 7 -70 '1 10''

Roosevelt 1 18 95 0 .0

14Pima 3 19 11 69 2 12

Tri-County 4 19 16 76 1 5

WACOP 3 19 12 75 1 6

Yavapai it 93 0

Total 24 16 111 :473 17 11

,t4

When the major unit measures of-effectiveness are

examined they reduce to three major factors:' Teacher

Attiltudl toward the unit, Learner Atitade toward the unit,

and,Learner Oerformance in the form of lesson imbedded test

items.

1. ,Vnit Effectiveness

40 .0 te"N

11

The follbwing model' was employed f to combine the

major measures.of unit effectiveness to arrive at

`an overall unit valud determination (Fig.2}.

These three measures yield a good look at the'

effiediveness of the unit--in both the cognitive

'and affective modes, The units were then ranked

relation to this measure of effectiveness.

This effectiveness ranking could be utilized by

school district administrators to assist them in

choosing units to be implementeein this districts.

The prospective users can examine the unit's

effectiveness in projects with similar demographic

characteristics as his,own. In this way he can

chOose units that have a high probability of success-.

ful impleTentation and local acceptance.

4939

-:TEACHER

ATTITUDE

0

STUDENT

ATTITUDE

STUDENT

PERFORMANCE

Figure 2

Unit Value Model

UN

ITV

ALU

E

The overall effectiveness ranking along with

rankings across units or 'Teacher Attitude, Learner

Attitude and Learker Per;orthAnce,are presented in

Table i.'

%. .

2..Effectivenets and Ethnic profile

In an. effort to assist future'uSers of the unit, in

'term t of; implementing units with higher probabilities

of success within their own district, the following

unit effectiveness rankings were also computed for thea

various ethnic profiles represented 'in the field test)

(Tables 18 through 25).

It must be noted at this time that not all' units

were.tested within all projects. Therefore, a unit

may not be ranked within a particular ethnic profile

because it was not tested within that specific

profile. In that case no data exists concerning that

unit's performance within the specific ethnic profile.

This is not to say that it would not be successfully

implemented in such a district. The data here is

presented only as a guide to implementation, and should

not be used without examining the specific unit and

the associated individual unit report recommendations.

I

5141

bib.

TABLE: 17

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS BANKING BY TEACHER

ATTITUDE TOWARD:THE'UNITS, LEARNER ATTITUDE

-TOWARD THE UNITS, AND LEARNER PERFORMANCE

UNIT

RANKING OF

RANKING OF

RANKING OF

OVERALL

GRADE,

TEACHER ATTITUDE' LEARNER ATTITUDE

LEARNER

EFFECTIVENESS

LEVEL

-TO UNIT

TO UNIT

PERFORMANCE

RANKING

Grocery Store

Occupations

1

Parents Are

Community Workers,

Too:-

What Does a

Secret4ry Do?

6

Yearnings and

CR (EarningsA

4ba

Cattle Ranching

6

The. Workers World

5

We. Need One Another

3

Learn to Earn

General Job

Requirements

Sailing with Sales

Construction Industry

Related Mathematics

71 6

45

39

55

7

63.5*

7

810.5*

3.5*

8

10'

310

9

711

10

11

11

*Tied ranks

TABLE 19

CENTRAL MARCOPA

ALL UNITS

STUDENT'UNITS ATTITUDE

(SA)

2

3

4

1

7

5

4.

.5

2.5*

2.5*

6

TEACHER'ATTITUDE 'PERFORMANCE RANK'

(TA }.

STUDENT EFFECT.

1

2

3

5

5

6

'*Tied ranks

5343

TABLE 22

COCONINO'

ALL UNITS

ETHNICPROFILE

OMR

S. A.

Im

UNITSSTUDENTATTITUDE

(SA)

TEACHERATTITUDE:

(TA)

i STUDBNTPERFORMANCE

EFFECT.RANK

8 2. 2 4.5 *. 1

2 1 7 1 2

9 7 1 3

10 3 3 4.5*

5 5 3 4.5*

3 5 4.5*

11 5 6 7

*Tied ranks

TABLE 18

MESA YAVAPAI

A.I. B S.

ETHNICPROFILE

STUDENT *TEACHER STUDENT EFFECT.UNITS ATTITUDE ATTITUDE PERFORMANCE RANK

(SA) ( TA)

5

1 2.5

9 6

10 9

2 5

3 7

4 10

6 4

1

10

3.5* 5

1 6,e5*

7. 6 5**

835*9

10 10

*Tied ranks

TABLE 25' ALL UNITS

STUDENT

(SA)

TEACHER STUDENT EFFECT;ATTITUDE :PERFORMANCE RANK

(TA}

No Data

ALL UNITS'

STUDENT TEACHER STUDENT EFFECT.UNITS ATTITUDE ATTITUDE PEREORMANCE RANK

( SA) (TA)

ROOSEVELT,

-ETHNICPROFILE Am.

B.

+

.STUDENTUNITS ATTITUDE

(SA)

TEACHERATTITUDE-(TA)

STUDENT EFFECT.PERFORMANCE. .RANK

6o.,

1.5 3

1.5 * 1

4 6

3 5

6

5 3

3

4 5

*Tied ranks400

48

53

TABLE 21

TRItCOUNTY

ALL UNITS

ETHNICPROFILE

A.I. B. S.S. A.

0_ 0

UNITSSTUDENTATTITUDE-

1 (SA)

TEACHERATTITUDE

(TA)

STUDENTPERFORMANCE

EFFECT.RANI<

2 k

1

2

3

1

3'

4 5.5* 1

1 5.5* 6

11 6 3 5 5

9 5 7 3 6

5 7 3 7 7

*Tied ranks

TABLE 20

WACOP

ALL UNITS

UNITSSTUDENTATTITUDE

(SA)

TEACHERATTITUDE

(TA)

STUDENTPERFORMANCE

EFFECT.RANK

6 1 2 4 1.5*

8 1 1 5*

4 2 3 3

9 5 2

10 .4 3

*Tied ranks

050 .

ti

t)

S

#

sr

1. A total of approximately 4,9001arners.were exposed to`

the units in the nine participating projects. Rifty

percent of the learner's were female and sixty-nine

Percent of the learners were Anglo.

"Off the 152 teachers 'that prdsentedathe units, 1121 were

female. The median years of experience was between

6-10 years and 93 had previously taught or developed

a career education unit or program.

3. ,Teacher attitude toward career education was fairly.

high (3.98 on a scale, where 5 w;6, the highest

possible respon'se). Of the-304 possible responses,

83% were positive, 11% were of no opinion, and only

7% were negative.

4. Teacher attitude toward the units--the teachers were

moderately positive overall toward the units (3.59).

Of the possible 456 responses,, 68% were positive,

12% were of no-opinion and 20% were negative.

5. Teachers that had a high positve attitude toward

career education appeared also to favor the units

(r =

61

51

r.

Learner attitudkwasI

positive toward all units across

all projects (2.COln a hcale. where 3 was the highest

possible response): Sixty-eight (68) percent, of the

27 879 student responses were Positive toward the

,Unit 13% no opinion, tnd 10s4 were negative toward

the unit.

Learner performance on the unit--the overall percent

of correct scores for all-the units by all the project

was a high 83%. There was little variation across

projects.

8. mdasures of unit effectiveness based on Teacher Atti-

tude toward the unit, Learner Attitude toward the

unit, and Learner Peeformance on criterion referenced

lesson imbedded items were calculated for each unit.

A ranking of the, units in terms of unit effectiveness

is presented in the report.

9. Student deMi$Jographic data from the field test site

were subjected to an ethnic profile. The units'----

effectiveriess were ranked in relation to ethnic profile,

so that districts with comparable-ethnic profiles

could use the information for implementation decisions.

62

52

I

1. All 11 units which Were field tested are satisfactory

enough to be included in the 1975-76 statewide imple-.

mentation program.

. It is recommended that an attachment containing

ff

suggeStions'for refinements, listed in the individUal

unit reports, be attached,to the appropriate. units

for use by the iMplementation teachers.

6353

4

APPENDIX I

Non-Significant Data

OVERALLMEAN STUDENT ATTITUDE BY TIME OF DAY UNIT VAUGHT-

PROJECTSTUDENTATTITUDE

TIME OF DAY1=PM 2=AM,MEAN

Coconjno 2.41 1.25

Central Maricopa 2.59 2.27

Mesa 2.69 1.43

Pinal 2.68 1.20

Roosevelt 2.61 1.58 ,

Pima 2.64 1.25

Tri-COunty 2.60 1.57

WACOP 2.45 2.38

Yavapai 2.53 1.33

r=

TABLE-II.

OVERALLMEAN STUDENT PERFORMANCE BY TIME OF' DAY UNIT TAUGHT

PROJECT*LEARNER

PERFORMANCE'

TIME OF DAY1=PM 2=AMMEAN

Coconino 80 1.25

Central Maricopa 82, 1.27

Mesa 85 1.43

Pinal 85 , 1.20

Roosevelt 79 1.58

Pima 86 1.25

Tri-County 84 i 1.57

WACOP 80 1.38

Yavapai 90 1.33

r=

*Percent of students attaining unit objectives

#

4

66

APPENDIX n

UNIVAL

FIELD TEST INSTRUMENT PACKAGE

Elsveralcumnitlinina

LEARN TO EARN

GRADE LEVEL: 6

68

4 4.

PART I

CAREER EDUCATION YIELD TESTPROGRAM INFORMATION

Please. print:

Inptructor4 School

Unit or Kit Title' DistriCt

Grade level -Project

Date unit or Kit introduced in the clasSrOomday year

4 Student datii (*the numbers should agree)

*Total number bf students exposed to the unit

*Number.Of stUdent's of eacil sex- a. male4 . .

*.Dumber of students in each ethnic group:

a. American Indian

b. Black e. Other

b. female

d. Angl.o White

c. Spanish Surname

DIRECTIONS: Circle "the letter of- yo9r answor .in, each of thefollowing questtonti.

Teachers,*

0

How many years have you worked in.tbe field of education?'

a. T.,ss than one d. 1r-15years

b.' 1-5 years ?. More than 15 years

c. 6-10 years

Which of the following would best describe, your exposure toCareer E4cation daters' I have:

a. Develor*Id a Career Education unit or program

b.- Taught a Career EdupStion Unit , or> program

c. Rea a Career, Education unit or program

Had some e xposure to Career Education

P. Had no exDosure to Career Education

t is your sex?

a. Male

b. Female

V

Is your classroom: (more than one answer may be applicable)

, a. Open

b. Self-contained

c. Team taught

What time of day were the" lessons taught (predominantly)?

a. AM

b. PM

How much time did you devote to the unit each weeOts

Less than 1 hoUr

b. 1-2 boUrs,

c. hOurs

d, 3-5 hourg

e. Mote than 5 hours

How many guest speakers were'used in conjunction with theunit?

a. 0

b. 1

c. 2

d. 3'

e. 4 or more

HavA you had another occupation-other than teaching?

a, Social sciences e. Technical

b. Physical sciences f. Construction

c. Chemical sciences g. Industry

d. Business h.

4

Did this experience help in teaching the Career Educationunit?

a. Yes

b. No

PART II

Learner Performance Data

Directions: Please provide an indication of how well thelessons delivered the performance objectives.The lesson numbers and methods of evaluationfor each have been indicated. Page- numbers,objective specifications, and item numbers areindicated as appropriate. Please indicate thetotal number of learners responding. Then recordthe number that responded correctly. Completethis form as you teach each lesson of the unit.

Method of Evaluation I- Number of Learners

LessonNirmber

Page No. InstruFtorItem No. Test Checklist Jud ent Resondin

RespondingCorrectl

-a 74 Ai t .. 0 .my. -4241-4. .t..

k V :/-Vit

.7.;,

7

...1." .45

Minimum of8 correct

1

WAPi046

2

--. L 4.4..."..1.

p. 25 . , , Oil rt-;

,,oerW

TYTA --- 44 W.....-r siPV?A$31,7 TiZ$Z.41.44 Vk4:411i

e.tbe-litIt I*

--.*

Minimum of4 ,correct

'V .,:./M.,--p. 67 ''t "Mrtrt'Lfts_ :Parliri.V-vo...

-vvv.A

"104'4

a si:-....,.-.4,-..,.._

73Z., -.4411

,..e.*' ..-

. ..-A; To. _,,,,i

;

i- -- 7 ....9,44,1.4. el:.,..12,

Minimum o6 correct

3_.. 4M/A,,

,...._ . 0

5 ..N.IJ .?p. 87 14,4,J" Ji 4 '''

!r"

`fir: VI,. A Slt * 4

R . /, 4:0:.` ittOry!. *tttnr.14": . e 41%./;:04. 4.0t .

' inimum o3 correct

p. 110 -I.. "..C.:0;'-t-tik., '3n i ...11WETWIP TI P"9.171177M t ',.

Learn to EarnGrade Level 6

72

t

2.

4.

PAitTIII

Instructor- Attitudinal Data

Directions: Mad each statement and place a check in the boxunder the heading that fesoribes your response.

StronglyAgree mazes

NoOpinion Disagree

stronglyDisagro

Classes in rip/ su63octgrade level would bemore meaningful and rele-vant if focused aroundCareer Education objec- 'tives. .

--..

Career Education is justanother fad that willsoon be forgotten.

After minimal revisionsthis unit Will beready for statewidedistribution.

.

The learning activitieswere very effective inhelping meet the per-formance stated.

The content of the unitrelates. directly to myregular class program. ,---

Indicate below. any further 'comments concerning the, strengths orweaknesses of the unit.

it 73

Va.

C,

PARTI/I (Continued)

Learner Attitudinal Data

On the following page is an attitudinal survey Whichwe would like your learners to respond to. Please removethat page from this instrument and reproduce enough copiesfor each of your learners. We feel that it would be bestif your learners responded' to this survey at the completion,of the unit. If your learners do not have the needed readingability to complete the si?rvey, Rlease read and explain theitems to them. After the learners have completed the survey,please tally their responses and record the total number oflearners responding in each manner of the form providedbelow.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

YES

i

HAPPY

4

I DON'TCARE

OK

1.2

74

NO

'SAD

PART III (cont'd)

LEARNER ATTITUDINAL FORM

1. Would you want to know moreabout what we have learnedin these lessons?

2. Do you know more now aboutthese-lessons than before?

3. Were the lessons interestingto you?

4. Do yop think that next year'sclass should be given theselessons?

5. How did you feel about thelessons?

6. How did most of,your.Otherclassmates feel about thelessons?

7. How did your teacher feelabout the lessons?

75