Home economics evaluation in Montana : the state of the art, 1982-83 and implications for teacher
training
by Suzanne Edsall Bohleen
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Suzanne Edsall Bohleen (1983)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to. determine the current evaluation practices' of secondary home
economics teachers in Montana regarding the use of evaluation, items and instruments. The theoretical
framework for this research is "based on the acknowledgement by many educators that evaluation is an
integral part of the learning-teaching process.
The following aspects of evaluation in home economics in Montana were studied: 1 ) difference in the
frequency that home economics teachers use items and instruments in the cognitive domain, the
affective domain, and the performance domain in the seven subject areas of home economics used in
the research, 2) differences in the frequency that teachers "frequently use" each domain; 3) the rate that
home economics teachers themselves evaluate the students and the rate that the students participate in
evaluation of their own progress.
A questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of one hundred secondary home economics
teachers. AOVONEWAY, one-way Analysis of Variance, was used to determine if there was a
significant difference among the variables. Both the Scheffe Test and the Tukey Method were used for
multiple comparisons of pairs-of-means to determine which pairs were significantly different. Results
of the research were tested with significance established at the .05 level. Significant differences were
found in the use of the domains of learning in several pairs-of-means for subject areas.
The cognitive domain was found to be used with the most frequency in all but one subject area,
clothing construction. In the affective domain child development and relationships had the highest
mean and in the psychomotor/performance domain food preparation had the highest mean. These
results are consistent with the literature cited. ' Montana home economics teachers did use evaluation
by the teacher alone more frequently than self-evaluation by the student or evaluation by peers. This is
contrary to the literature cited that stated evaluation should be a cooperative process. It is evident that a
gap exists between what is stated by the experts and the actual practices of Montana's secondary home
economics teachers. HOME ECONOMICS EVALUATION IN MONTANA
The S t a t e o f t h e A r t ,
1982-83 a n d .
I m p lic a tio n s f o r Teacher T r a i n i n g .
by
Suzanne. E d s a l l B b h l e e n
A t h e s i s subm itted in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
of th e req u irem en ts f o r th e degree .
of
M aster o f S cien c e
i,
.
Home Economics
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
December 1983
MAIN LIB.
ii
APPROVAL
o f a t h e s i s s u b m i t t e d by
Su zan n e E d s a l l B o h l e e n
T h i s t h e s i s h a s b e en r e a d by e a c h member o f t h e t h e s i s
c o m m i tt e e and h a s b e e n fo u n d t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y
regarding
c o n te n t, E nglish u sa g e , fo rm a t, c i t a t i o n s , b ib lio g ra p h ic
s t y l e , and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s r e a d y f o r s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e
C ollege of G raduate S tu d ie s .
Approved f o r t h e Major D e p a r t m e n t
te
7
Approved f o r t h e C o l l e g e o f G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s
Date
G r a d u a t e Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In
the
presenting
requirem ents
U niversity,
I
t h i s t h e s is in p a r t i a l f u l f il l m e n t
f o r a m a s t e r 's degree a t
agree
that
the
lib rary
a v a ila b le to borrow ers under r u le s of the
quotations
fro m
perm ission,
Montana
sh all
provided
that
accurate
S tate
make
lib ra ry .
t h i s paper are allow able w ithout
of
it
B rief
special
ack n o w le d g em en t
of
s o u r c e i s m ad e .
P erm ission
reproduction
professor,
when,
in
of
for
extensive
quotation
t h i s t h e s i s may be g r a n t e d
from
by
my
or
major
o r i n h i s / h e r a b s e n c e , by t h e Dean o f l i b r a r i e s
th e opinion of e i t h e r ,
th e proposed use of
m aterial is for sch o larly purposes.
Any c o p y i n g o r u s e o f
th e m a te r ia l in t h i s paper f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not
a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .
Signature^
D a te
"TiJ l - A f r - ^ .5
the
be
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Deep a p p r e c i a t i o n i s e x t e n d e d t o Dr.
th esis
a d v i s o r and m a j o r p r o f e s s o r ,
encouragement
through
A ngelina P a r s o n s ,
H erhster,
D r. . Kathy Davison, and D r.
tim e
and
fo r her guidance
th is research p ro cess.
t h a n k Dr.
th eir
M argaret B rig g s ,
assistance
I wish
and
to
Dr. M a r t h a Q u ic k , Dr. Douglas
as
LeRoy C a s a g r a n d a f o r
members
of
my. G r a d u a t e
C om m ittee.
S p e c i a l ack n o w led g m en t i s e x t e n d e d t o D r.
Tim' S c h r o c k
fo r h is ,assistan ce w ith the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ,
Ms.. Mary
E l i z a b e t h McAulay f o r h e r a i d i n s e c u r i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s
support,
and
p articip ated
q uestionnaire.
and
t h e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s i n home e c o n o m i c s ' who
in
the
development
process
of
the
W i t h o u t t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n t h i s s t u d y would
•
n o t ha ve b e e n p o s s i b l e .
■
vi
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION. . . ..................................................................................
S t a t e m e n t o f P r o b l e m ..........................................................
H y p o t h e s i s ...................................
. A s s u m p t i o n s ..................
L i m i t a t i o n s . .............................................
D e f i n i t i o n s o f T e r m s ............................... ......................... .
2.
3.
4.
REVIEW OP LITERATURE. . . . . . ............
4
4
5
5
6
8
R e la tio n sh ip of E valuation to T each in g .. . . . . .
The Domains o f L e a r n i n g ...................
E v a l u a t i o n and S t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n ...................
8
10
14
METHODOLOGY.................................................................... ......... ...........
19
D e s c r i p t i o n o f P o p u l a t i o n ...................................... .. ...
S u r v e y I n s t r u m e n t ...................
V a r i a b l e s .....................................
A n a l y s i s o f D a t a .....................
19
20
22
22
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. ........................ ..................................... : 25
S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s o f D a t a . . . . . . ..............
C o g n i t i v e D o m a i n . . . . ..........................
A f f e c t i v e Domain............................................
P s y c h o m o t o r / P e r f o r m a n c e Domain..................
C o m p ariso n o f Use o f t h e T h ree Domains
o f L e a r n i n g ......................................
E v a l u a t i o n and S t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n , Who
E v a l u a t e s ? .......................
5.
. I
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................
Summary...................
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . .....................
26
27
31
34
38
42
48
48
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY...............
53
APPENDICES...................................................... ............. .... .......... . . . . . . . .
57
A p p en d ix A. T e s t / R e t e s t ..............
58
T e s t / R e t e s t P a r t i c i p a n t s ................
59
. Cover L e t t e r f o r T e s t / R e t e s t . . . . ............................. ' 60
vii
TABLE OP CONTENTS— C o n t i n u e d
Page
A p p en d ix B. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .................................
Cover L e t t e r f o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..................................
Sample Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .......................
Reminder P o s t C a r d ............................
61
62
63
67
A p p e n d ix C. T e s t / R e t e s t D a t a T a b l e s ..................................
T a b l e 19* Summary o f ■t h e P e a r s o n P r o d u c t Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s From t h e
T e s t / R e t e s t o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ......................................
68
69
Table 20.
Summary o f t h e P a i r s o f
R e s p o n s e s f o r t h e T e s t / R e t e s t f o r t h e Who
E v a l u a t e s Q e c t i o n o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...............
70
viii
LIST OP TABLES
Page
1.
2.
3•
4«
5.
6.
7«
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Number o f T e a c h e r s i n Each C l a s s S i z e and T o t a l
R e s p o n s e s Used f o r A n a l y s i s o f D a t a ......................
26
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S u b j e c t A r e a s T au g h t by Home
Economic T e a c h e r s ......................................................
26
Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s i n t h e C o g n i t i v e
Domain......................................
27
C o m p u t a t i o n f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; One-Way
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s
i n t h e C o g n i t i v e D o m a i n . . . . .......................
28
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Be tw een P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f S and
Tukey T e s t s f o r t h e C o g n i t i v e D o m a i n . .................
29
Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s i n t h e A f f e c t i v e
Domain.....................
31
C o m p u t a t i o n f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; One-Way
C lassificatio n .
Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s
i n t h e A f f e c t i v e Domain..................................................
33
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Be tw een P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f e and
Tukey T e s t s f o r t h e A f f e c t i v e Domain...................
34
Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s i n t h e P s y c h o m o t o r /
P e r f o r m a n c e D o m a i n . .......... ..........................................
35
C o m p u t a t i o n f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; OneWay C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
Use o f I t e m s and
I n s t r u m e n t s in th e Psychom otor/Perform anceDomain .....................
37
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Between P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f e and
Tukey T e s t s f o r t h e . P s y c h o m o t o r / P e r f o r m a n c e
Domain..............................................................
37
I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s R a t e d a s F r e q u e n t l y U s e d . . . . ■ 38
ix
LIST OF ' TABLES— C o n t i n u e d
Page
13*
C o m p u t a t i o n f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; One-Way
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s
R e p o r t e d a s F r e q u e n t l y U s e d .........................................
39
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Be tw een P a i r s - o f ■
Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f e and
Tukey T e s t s I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s R e p o r t e d
as' F r e q u e n t l y Used . ....................... .................... ..
40
Summary o f Means o f t h e Domains o f L e a r n i n g f o r
Each S u b j e c t A r e a . ........................................... ...................
41
16.
Who E v a l u a t e s t h e B e h a v i o r o r P r o d u c t ? ..........................
43
17-
Com putations f o r th e A n a ly s is o f V a ria n ce ;
OneWay C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . E v a l u a t o r o f S t u d e n t
B e h a v i o r s and P r o d u c t s . , . . . ........................................
44
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Between P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f 6 and
Tukey T e s t s E v a l u a t o r o f S t u d e n t B e h a v i o r
and P r o d u c t ............ .................................................................
45
14«
15«
18.
X
LIST OF FIGURES
. Page
1.
2.
3•
4-
5.
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means i n t h e
C o g n i t i v e Domain f o r Each S u b j e c t
A r e a C a t e g o r y .......................................................................
28
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means i n t h e
A f f e c t i v e Domain f o r Each S u b j e c t A rea
C a t e g o r y . ..........................
32
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means i n t h e
P s y c h o m d to r / P e r f o r m a n c e Domain f o r Each .
S u b j e c t A r e a C a t e g o r y . ....................................................
36
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means f o r I t e m s and
I n s t r u m e n t F r e q u e n t l y Used f o r t h e Domains
o f L e a r n i n g . .....................................
39
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means f o r E v a l u a t o r s
o f S t u d e n t B e h a v i o r s o r P r o d u c t s .............................
44.
xi
ABSTRACT
The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y was to . d e t e r m i n e t h e c u r r e n t
e v a l u a t i o n p r a c t i c e s ' o f s e c o n d a r y home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s
in M ontana, r e g a r d i n g th e use of ' e v a l u a t i o n
i t e m s and
instrum ents.
The t h e o r e t i c a l fram ew ork f o r t h i s
research
i s "based on t h e a ck n o w le d g em en t by many e d u c a t o r s t h a t
evaluation
is
an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e l e a r n i n g - t e a c h i n g
process.
The f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s o f e v a l u a t i o n i n home • e co n o m ic s
i n Montana were s t u d i e d :
1) d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e f r e q u e n c y
t h a t home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s u s e i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s
in
the
cognitive
dom ain,
the a f f e c t i v e
dom ain,
and t h e
p e r f o r m a n c e domain i n t h e s e v e n s u b j e c t a r e a s o f home
e c o n o m ic s u s e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h ,
2)
d i f f e r e n c e s in the
f r e q u e n c y t h a t t e a c h e r s " f r e q u e n t l y u s e " e a c h domain;
3)
t h e r a t e t h a t home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s t h e m s e l v e s e v a l u a t e
t h e s t u d e n t s and t h e r a t e t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e
in
e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i r own p r o g r e s s .
A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was s e n t t o a ra n d o m ly s e l e c t e d
sa m p le o f one h u n d r e d s e c o n d a r y home e co n o m ic s
teachers.
AOVOEEWAY, one-w ay A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ,
was u s e d t o
determ ine
i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among t h e
v ariab les.
B o th t h e S c h e f f e T e s t and t h e Tukey Method
were u s e d f o r m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s o f p a i r s - o f - m e a n s t o
determ ine
w h ic h p a i r s were
sig n ifican tly
differen t.
R esu lts of the
r e s e a r c h were t e s t e d w i t h s i g n i f i c a n c e
e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l .
S i g n i f i c a n t , d i f f e r e n c e s were
f o u n d i n t h e u s e o f t h e domains o f l e a r n i n g i n s e v e r a l
pairs-of-m eans fo r su b ject a reas.
The c o g n i t i v e
domain was fo u n d t o be u s e d w i t h t h e
most f r e q u e n c y i n a l l b u t one s u b j e c t a r e a ,
clothing
co n stru ctio n .
I n t h e a f f e c t i v e domain c h i l d
development
and
relatio n sh ip s
had t h e h i g h e s t mean and i n
the
p s y c h o m o t o r / p e r f o r m a n c e domain f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n had t h e
h i g h e s t mean.
T hes e r e s u l t s
a re c o n s i s t e n t with the
l i t e r a t u r e c i t e d . ' Montana home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s d i d u s e
e v a l u a t i o n by t h e t e a c h e r a l o n e more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n s e l f e v a l u a t i o n by t h e s . t u d e n t o r e v a l u a t i o n by p e e r s .
T h is i s
co n tra ry to the l i t e r a t u r e c ite d th a t
stated
evaluation
s h o u l d be a c o o p e r a t i v e p r o c e s s .
I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t a gap
e x i s t s b e tw e e n what i s s t a t e d by t h e e x p e r t s and t h e a c t u a l
p r a c t i c e s o f M o n t a n a ' s s e c o n d a r y home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s . ' .
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
E valuation
is
an
te a c h in g process (Cross,
in teg ral
part
of
the
learning­
1973:8).
I t i s im possible to lead
a d i s c u s s i o n on l e a r n i n g w i t h o u t e v a l u a t i o n a s a segment o f
th a t process.
or
T yler s t a t e s t h a t a d is c u s s io n of curriculum
in stru ctio n
evaluation
is
incom plete w ith o u t
(1950:104).
successful
teaching
e v a lu a tio n (1973:201).
workshops
June
inclusion
and H a l c h i n
Hatcher
calls
the
■f o r
the
state
com petent
of
th at
use
of
T hrough p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n . c u r r i c u l u m
a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y i n J u n e o f 1978
and
o f 1980 t h i s r e s e a r c h e r h a s become more aw are o f
the
in teg ral
part
evaluation
should
play
in
curriculum
d e v e l o p m e n t and t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s .
E v a l u a t i o n i n home e c o n o m ic s h a s a u n i q u e n e s s fo u n d i n
the
" p ro b le m -s o lv in g approach" t h a t i s o f te n used
the
"hands-on e x p erien c es" included in the cu rricu lu m t h a t
are
not
found
in
many o t h e r
field s
of
and
study
in
(C ross,
1973:3).
E v a l u a t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e means a s w e l l a s
end.
(Fleck,
1974:366).
T herefore
throughout
the
learn in g process.
evaluation
can
fo rm t h e b a s i s f o r
it
• The
s h o u l d be
use
learning
of
the
fo u n d
periodic
experiences,
i.e .
f e e d b a c k and r e m e d i a t i o n ( C h a d d e r d o n , 1 9 7 4 : 1 8 ) .
Home
Econom ic s T e a c h e r E v a l u a t o r s i n Iovra p l a c e d a g r e a t d e a l o f
im portance
on
evaluation
and
The
a b ilities
evaluation
plans
the
a b ility
of
a
of
a home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r
appropriate
Teacher
(Io w a
and
solving
than
G riggs
that
learning
in
by
o th e r type o f
plan
to
for
develop
opp o rtu n ities,
Iowa a s c o m p e t e n c i e s
1978:19).
for
process.
Home
Economics
of
teaching
Cross a ls o s t a t e d t h a t
problem­
o b j e c t i v e s h ave more v a l i d i t y f o r
any
plan
to
t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s and
e v a l u a t i o n were l i s t e d
E valuators
S tate,
to
feedback throughout the le a r n in g
th a t in te g ra te o b jectiv es,
resources
teacher
e co n o m ic s
o b jectiv e.
(1973:29).
i d e n t i f i e s im portant te a c h in g s k i l l s as
techniques
assist
the
student
k n o w le d g e
home
in
r e te n tio n . of
development o f in d ep e n d en t l e a r n i n g s k i l l s
co ntent
and
(1979:28).
E v a lu a tio n i s a c o o p e r a tiv e p ro c e s s (M ather,
1 9 7 0 :2 6 4 ;
G r o n l u n d , 1 9 7 6 : 4 3 2 ; C r o s s , 1973:1-3; C h a d d e r d o n , 1 9 7 4 : 2 ) .
the
s tu d e n t i s to develop th e a b i l i t y to e v a lu a te
w ork,
be
h is/her
t h e n t h e t e a c h e r must be a b l e t o h e l p t h e s t u d e n t t o .
rea listic
ju stific atio n s
stated
If
and
must
also
be
w illin g
by t h e s t u d e n t . H a l l and
to
listen
Paolucci
t h a t an e f f e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n program s h o u l d
d e m o c r a t i c human r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,
e ffe c tiv e learn in g s itu a tio n ,
to
further
aid in
be a c o n t i n u o u s p a r t o f an
and h e l p b o t h t h e t e a c h e r and
t h e s t u d e n t s t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r own s t r e n g t h s and w e a k n e s s e s
and t o p l a n i n t e l l i g e n t l y f o r t h e n e x t s t e p ( 1 9 6 1 : 2 8 7 - 8 ) ,
3
The e x p e r t s i n e v a l u a t i o n a g r e e t h a t ' e v a l u a t i o n s h o u l d
be i n t e r m s o f s e l e c t e d
1973:23;
Iowa S t a t e ,
Chadderdon,
or
1978:19;
1974:16)..
in stru m en t
used
(Bloom,
1981:18;
S p i t z e and G r i g g s ,
Cross,
1976:7;
T h i s means t h e e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e
s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e
ob jectiv e.
O bjectives
co g n itiv e,
affectiv e,
been d iv id e d
ob jectiv es
are
classified
in to .three
and p s y c h o m b to r .
in to a h ierarch y
type of
d o m ain s:
Each dom ain has
of lev e ls.
The c o g n i t i v e
d o m a i n w a s c a t e g o r i z e d i n 1965 b y B e n j a m i n S. B l o o m .
c o g n itiv e
dom ain i s
concerned w ith
ratio n al
k n o w in g and t h i n k i n g ( C h a m b e r l a i n and K e l l y ,
affectiv e
dom ain
was
categ o rized
in
learn in g -
1 9 8 1 :1 8 ) .
1964
The
by
David
K r a t h w o h l , B e n j a m i n S. B l o o m , a n d B e r t r a m B. M a s i a .
The
R.
The
a f f e c t i v e dom ain d e a l s w i t h e m o t i o n a l l e a r n i n g - c a r i n g and
feelin g
( C h a m b e r l a i n and K e l l y ,
dom ain was c l a s s i f i e d
1981:18).
The p s y c h o m o t o r
b y a home e c o n o m i s t ,
E liz a b e th J.
S i m p s o n i n 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 a nd a l s o b y D e n n i s E e r s c h b r o k i n 1973«
The p s y c h o m o t o r dom ain r e l a t e s t o p h y s i c a l l e a r n i n g - d o i n g
and m a n i p u l a t i n g ( C h a m b e r l a i n and K e l l y ,
1 9 8 1 :1 8 ) .
T his proposed r e s e a r c h i s l i m i t e d to th e " s t a t e of th e
art"
or c u rre n t p r a c tic e s
Montana.
o f home e c o n o m i c s t e a c h e r s
The c o l l e c t i o n o f t h i s
in
i n f o r m a ti o n w i l l se rv e as
a b a s i s f o r th e co n tin u ed s y s t e m a t i c approach to c u rric u lu m
developm ent
fo rm u lated
in
the
Scope
and
Sequence
for
4
V o c a t i o n a l Home E c o n o m ic s E d u c a t i o n i n Montana p u b l i s h e d i n
August,
1980.
S t a t e m e n t o f P ro b le m
The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c u r r e n t
evaluation
in
p ractices
M ontana
o f s e c o n d a r y home e c o n o m i c s
reg ard in g
the
use
of
evaluation
i n s t r u m e n t s u t i l i z e d to a s s e s s s t u d e n t knowledge,
and p r o d u c t s .
teachers
item s
an d
behaviors
T h erefo re t h i s stu d y w i l l i n v e s ti g a t e the
e v a l u a t i o n o f s t u d e n t k n o w le d g e , b e h a v i o r s and p r o d u c t s ,
not th e m easurem ent
planning,
program
alth o u g h
it
is
o f t h e many o t h e r f a c e t s o f p r o g r a m
evaluation,
recognized
and e v a l u a t i o n
th at
stu d en t
of
teachers,
ev alu atio n
and
program e v a l u a t i o n a r e n o t m u tu a l ly e x c l u s i v e .
H ypothesis
T his
research
was
designed
to
test
the
fo llo w in g
hypotheses.
1.
T h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e
r a t e t h a t home e c o n o m i c s t e a c h e r s u s e t h e
i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s w h ich m e a s u re t h e
c o g n i t i v e dom ain f o r each o f th e se v e n
su b ject a re a s :
c lo th in g c o n stru c tio n ;
c l o t h i n g s e l e c t i o n , t e x t i l e s , and g r o o m in g ;
n u tritio n ;
food p r e p a r a t i o n ; consum er
e d u c a tio n ;
c h ild
d ev elo p m en t
and
r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and h o u s i n g / h o m e f u r n i s h i n g s .
2.
T h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e
r a t e t h a t home e c o n o m i c s t e a c h e r s u s e i t e m s
and i n s t r u m e n t s w h ic h m e a s u r e t h e a f f e c t i v e
d om ain f o r e a c h o f t h e s e v e n s u b j e c t a r e a s : . '
clo th in g c o n s tru c tio n ; c lo th in g s e l e c ti o n ,
tex tile s,
and. g r o o m i n g ; n u t r i t i o n ; . f o o d
p r e p a r a tio n ; consum er e d u c a tio n ; c h ild
5.
development
and
relatio n sh ip s;
housing/home f u r n i s h i n g s .
3°
4«
5•
and
There
is
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
in the
r a t e t h a t home econom ic s,
te a c h e rs use
the
i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s w h ich m e a s u r e t h e
p s y c h o m o t o r / p e r f o r m a n c e domain i n t h e s e v e n
subject
areas:
clo th in g
construction;
clothing se lec tio n ,
t e x t i l e s , and g r o o m in g ;
n u tritio n ;
food
preparation;
consumer
education;
child
development
and
r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and h o u s i n g / h o m e f u r n i s h i n g s ,
.:
There
is
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n t
in the
f r e q u e n c y t h a t home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s r a t e
item s
from
the
cognitive
domain
as
" f r e q u e n t ly used" in a l l s u b je c t a re a s than
t h o s e i t e m s i n t h e a f f e c t i v e or p e r f o r m a n c e
d o m ain .
:
There
is
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
in the
f r e q u e n c y t h a t , t h e home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r
a l o n e u s e s t h e i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s and t h e
frequency t h a t th e s tu d e n ts are involved in
th e e v a lu a tio n p ro c e ss in the use of th e se
i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s .
' Assum ptions
1.
extent
Home e c o n o m ic s
te a c h e r s are able to reco g n ize the
t o w h ic h t h e y u s e e v a l u a t i o n i t e m s and
instrum ents
■i n t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s .
2.
extent
Home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s a r e a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e t h e
to
w h ic h t h e y i n v o l v e s t u d e n t s i n
the
evaluation
process.
L im itatio n s
The
findings
of
t h i s s t u d y w i l l be l i m i t e d
opinions
of
s e c o n d a r y consu m er
employed
in
t h e S t a t e o f Montana d u r i n g t h e
1982-83.
and
homemaking
to
the
teachers
school
year
6
D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms
Some t e r m s t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p a p e r may h ave a v a r i e t y o f
in terp retatio n s.
The f o l l o w i n g t e r m s are. d e f i n e d
in order
to c l a r i f y t h e i r usage in t h i s study:
A f f e c t i v e Domain - Those o b j e c t i v e s w h ic h d e s c r i b e c h a n g e s
i n i n t e r e s t , a t t i t u d e s , and v a l u e s and t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
o f a p p r e c i a t i o n and a d e q u a t e a d j u s t m e n t . ( K r a t h w o h l ,
Bloom, and M a s i a , 1 9 6 4 :6 2 ) .
B e h a v io r a l O b je c tiv e s - A s t a t e m e n t d e s c r i b i n g a proposed
ch an g e a s a r e s u l t o f l e a r n i n g .
The- b e h a v i o r m ust be
o b s e r v a b l e ( C r o s s , 1973:25)C o g n i t i v e Domain - Those o b j e c t i v e s c o n c e r n e d w i t h r a t i o n a l
l e a r n i n g , k n o w le d g e , and t h i n k i n g (B loom , H a s t i n g s ,
1971:10).
E v a l u a t i o n - I). A p r o c e s s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s t h e e x t e n t t o
w h i c h o b j e c t i v e s h av e b e e n a c h i e v e d .
2) A - p r o c e s s o f
m a k in g an a s s e s s m e n t o f a s t u d e n t ' s g r o w t h ( C r o s s ,
1973:5,6).
M easurem ent - 1 )
A process of o b tain in g q u a n tita tiv e
ev id en ce.
2)
The s c o r e s r e c e i v e d , , d u r i n g t h e
e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s (Arny, 1 9 5 3 : 4 , 5 ) O b j e c t i v i t y - The e x t e n t t o w h i c h p e r s o n a l j u d g e m e n t i s
e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e r a t i n g o r s c o r i n g s i t u a t i o n (Cross-,
1973:69).
P s y c h o m o t o r / P e r f o r m a n c e D o m a in - T h o s e o b j e c t i v e s w h i c h
d e s c r i b e s k i l l s , m u s c u l a r o r m o t o r , a n d h a v i n g t o do
w i t h t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l s and o b j e c t s (Bloom,
1971: 10) .
R e l i a b i l i t y - A h i g h d e g r e e o f a c c u r a c y and c o n s i s t e n c y , a
high degree of o b j e c t i v i t y .
The a c c u r a c y w i t h w h i c h
th e e v a lu a tio n in s tru m e n t m easures w h atev er i t is
m ea n t t o m e a s u r e .
( C r o s s , 1 9 73:72).
S c h e f f S T e s t - A m u l t i p l e - c o m p a r i s o n m e t h o d u s e d t o make
a l l p o s s i b l e c o m p a r i s o n s among K g r o u p s .
It
c a n be
u s e d t o c o m p a r e e a c h g r o u p w i t h t h e m ean o f tw o o r
m o r e g r o u p s o r t o c o m p a r e a m ean o f t w o o r m o r e g r o u p s
w i t h t h e mean o f t w o o r m o r e o t h e r g r o u p s . . The
S c h e ff^ T est has been c r i t i c i z e d as too c o n s e r v a tiv e
( S p a t z and J o h n s t o n , 1 9 8 1 : 2 3 8 ) .
7
Tukey Method
- A m u l t i p l e - c o m p a r i s o n method ' u s e d
to
d e t e r m i n e a minimum d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n , means t h a t
would a l l o w t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t o be r e j e c t e d .
This
difference
is
term ed
the
honest
sig n ifican t
d i f f e r e n c e , HSD. (H o p k in s and G l a s s , 1978:3641*
U s a b ility - Im plies convenience, a v a i l a b i l i t y ,
service­
ab ility ,
and
p racticality .
It
involves
ad m in istratio n ,
s c o r i n g , c o n s t r u c t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n
of d ata.
(C ross, 1973:67).
V a l i d i t y - The e x t e n t
a s s e s s e s what i t
1975:75).
C hapter
literatu re.
study.
The
II
w ill
t o w h i c h a fo rm o f e v a l u a t i o n
i s expected to a s s e s s .
(Cross,
present
a
review
of
current
C hapter I I I . w i l l o u t l i n e th e p ro ce d u res of th e
r e s u l t s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e
C h a p t e r s IV and V.
reported
in
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s u r v e y w i l l p r o v i d e
a b a s i s f o r recommendations f o r p r e s e r v i c e a n d /o r i n s e r v i c e
preparation
regarding
b e h a v i o r s , and p r o d u c t s .
evaluation
of
student
knowledge,
8
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OE LITERATURE
The
of
p u r p o s e o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o p r e s e n t an o v e r v i e w
the l i t e r a t u r e
knowledge,
r e la te d to e v a lu a tio n to a s s e s s
behaviors
classroom .
and p r o d u c t s in. t h e
home
student
e c o n o m ic s
The c i t e d l i t e r a t u r e w i l l p r o v i d e a b a c k g r o u n d
in the fo llo w in g a re a s :
teaching,
(1) r e l a t i o n s h i p of e v a l u a t i o n to
(2) e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e t h r e e domains o f l e a r n i n g ,
and ( 3 ) e v a l u a t i o n and s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
R e l a t i o n s h i p of E v a lu a tio n to Teaching
E valuation
is
a
p a rt of the
i n s e p a r a b l e fro m t e a c h i n g ( C r o s s ,
Teacher
E valuators
in
Iowa
learning
1973:8).
placed
a
process
and
Home Economics
great
deal
of
im portance in th e a b i l i t y of a te a c h e r to p lan f o r feedback
and
evaluation.
They
felt
th at
the
com petent
home
e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s h o u l d p l a n f o r e v a l u a t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e t o
t h e o b j e c t i v e s and d e v e l o p p l a n s t h a t i n t e g r a t e o b j e c t i v e s ,
learn in g
S tate,
to
opp o rtu n ities,
1978:19)*
involve
resources
and e v a l u a t i o n
(Iowa
A n o t h e r c o m p e te n c y o u t l i n e d was t h e need
t h e l e a r n e r so t h e h e / s h e
a ssu m e s
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s / h e r own l e a r n i n g ( i b i d . ,
in creasin g
p. 23).
9
F l e c k d e s c r i b e s a good- t e a c h e r a s :
"She a r o u s e s c u r i o s i t y ,
g e n e ra te s id e a s, perm its
s tu d e n ts to express them selves,
is supportive,
and p r o v i d e s u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a f f e c t i o n f o r
s t u d e n t s t o f i n d m ea n in g i n t h e i r own l i v e s and
gain
insight
into
the l i v e s
and f e e l i n g s
of
others.
F u r t h e r m o r e , a s t i m u l a t i n g t e a c h e r has
the c ap a city to ex p lain w e ll,
to i n s t i l l in her
students a d esire for learn in g ,
and t o e n c o u r a g e
them t o become i n d e p e n d e n t . l e a r n e r s "
(Fleck,
1974:72).
The t o t a l e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s h a s two p u r p o s e s :
determ ine
the
level
achieved,
and
(2)
pu p ils
as
1974:1).
instruction
( Ahmann
are
( Arny,
six
to
and
have
know
been
h is/her
Grlock,
1964:6;
E v a l u a t i o n must r e l a t e t o t h e g o a l s
1953:13)
b e h a v i o r ( Ahmann and C l o c k ,
There
ob jectiv es
to help the te a c h e r
individuals
Chadderdon,
of
t o w h ic h t h e
(I) to
or
the
desired
pupil
1964:7).
p rin cip les
of
evaluation
that
are
g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d by a u t h o r i t i e s .
(1 )
E v a l u a t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h means and e n d s .
(2)
E valuation is a co n tin u o u s. p ro c e ss.
(3 )
E v a lu a tio n em phasizes
in d iv id u al.
(4)
E valuation
i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e
learn in g process.
(5)
E valuation is a cooperative process.
(6)
E v aluation involves r e c o n s tr u c tio n .
(Fleck,
1974;
Ahmann and C l o c k ,
1953; H a t c h e r , 1973; and M a t h e r ,
Cronlund
learn in g
as:
lists
the
im portance
1964; C r o s s ,
of
the
teaching­
1973; Arny,
1970).
the ro le s of e v a lu a tio n in
(1 ) c l a r i f y i n g t h e g o a l s o f
improving
learn in g ,
(2)
10
un d erstan d in g the le a r n e r ,
in cre asin g
rete n tio n
diagnosing
and
(3 ) m o t i v a t i n g t h e l e a r n e r ,
and t r a n s f e r
rem edying l e a r n i n g
of
lea rn in g ,
d ifficu lties
The I n d i a n a Home E co n o m ic s A s s o c i a t i o n
lik en in g
process,
ev alu atio n
never
to
a
c o n tin u al
(5 )
( 1 9 7 1: 4 7 0 ).
reinforces
c irc le ,
a nd
(4 )
th is
by
a constant
e n d i n g ( 1974: 11).
C r o s s a d a p t s t h e u s e o f e v a l u a t i o n t o home e c o n o m i c s
and i d e n t i f i e s f o u r s p e c i f i c ways t h a t e v a l u a t i o n i s a p a r t
of the
lea rn in g -teach in g process:
id e n tify in g objectives,
d eterm in in g le a rn in g ex p erien ces,
in tro d u cin g
s e lf -e v a lu a tio n 's
se ttin g
im portance
d e c is io n - m a k in g s k i l l s (1973:8).
s t a n d a r d s and
in
dev elo p in g
H a t c h e r a s k e d , "How c a n
we make o u r
teach in g
more, r e l e v a n t
to
to d a y 's
society"
(1973:100)?
E v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s can p l a y an i m p o r t a n t
ro le.
E v a l u a t i o n can be u s e d t o c l a r i f y t h e g o a l s to w a rd
w hich
a person
is
w orking
(In d ian a
Home
E conom ics
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1974:1)«
The Domains o f L e a r n i n g
E v a lu a tio n s h o u ld ,b e in te rm s of o b je c tiv e s (C ross,
1973:23).
of
The o b j e c t i v e s h a v e b e e n c l a s s i f i e d
lea rn in g
K r a t h w o h l and
by
B loom ,
H astin g s
and
M a sia ; Sim p so n ; and Harrow.
in to types
M adaus;
B loom ,
The t h r e e ty p e s ,
a r e c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and p s y c h o m o t o r d o m a i n s .
Erickson
f e e l s t h a t th e taxonom ies a re very h e lp f u l in dev elo p in g
i t e m s .in a s s e s s i n g t h e l e a r n i n g - t e a c h i n g p r o c e s s ( 1 9 7 7: 5 7 );
Bloom d e f i n e s t h e c o g n i t i v e domain a s c o n t a i n i n g o b j e c t i v e s
w hich
inv o lv e
reco g n itio n
d iffic u lt
action
is
in te lle c tu a l
of
to
term s
sta te
ev alu atio n
related
facts.
recall
an d
they
are
term s
because
little
1 9 7 3 :2 7 ).
some c r i t e r i a
sy stem .
to
T herefore,
b eh av io ral
demanded ( C r o s s ,
C h a d d erd o n s e t s
o n e 's
in
and
task s
fo r the
The m o s t
im p r o v e m e n t o f
im p o rtan t
c riterio n
d eals w ith the h ig h er c o g n itiv e le v e ls of b eh av io r.
ch allen g ed
teach ers
to
req u ire
more t h a n
the
She
recall
of.
facts.
" O t h e r w i s e , t h e e v a l u a t i o n i s n o t v a l i d and
t h e p u p i l s a r e ' t o l d ' t h a t l e a r n i n g f a c t s i s more
i m p o r t a n t t h a n l e a r n i n g t o t h i n k and t o a p p l y
what th e y le a r n .
I f h ig h er le v e ls of c o g n itiv e
b e h a v i o r a r e t o be a s s e s s e d , t h e s t u d e n t s h o u ld
be a s k e d t o :
ex p lain ,
illu stra te ,
select a
course of a c tio n , so lv e problem s, rec o g n ize
r e l a t i o n s h i p s , p la n , c r e a t e , d e sig n , com pare,
j u d g e , and a p p r a i s e " ( 1 9 7 4 : 1 6 ) .
K r a t h w o h l and o t h e r s
of behavior;
c l a s s i f i e d . the
affective
levels
th e y a re concerned w ith changes in i n t e r e s t 's ,
a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s , a p p r e c i a t i o n , and p e r s o n a l a d j u s t m e n t
(1964:41)«
E rick so n
stated
th at
Kra t h w o h l 's
taxonom y
p r o v i d e s an e x c e l l e n t g u i d e f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g
o c c u p a ti o n a l program o b j e c t i v e s concerned w ith th e d e s i r e d
a f f e c t i v e b e h av io r of each s t u d e n t,
program o f i n s t r u c t i o n
(1977:58).
upon c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e
He a l s o s t a t e s ,
"The p o s i t i v e i m p a c t t h a t o c c u p a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n
p r o g r a m s h a v e on d e v e l o p i n g a p p r o p r i a t e
a t t i t u d i n a l or a f f e c t i v e b e h a v io rs i s w id e ly
a c k n o w l e d g e d b u t o f t e n o v e r l o o k e d when d e v e l o p i n g
i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and a s s e s s i n g s t u d e n t
a tta in m e n t of those o b je c tiv e s " (E rickson, loc.
C ite )
.
1
■
12
The c o g n i t i v e domain h a s l o n g b e en e m p h a s i z e d o v e r t h e
affective
domain
dom ain.
Bloom
is w ell d e fin e d ,
development
of
(1981:197)« •
p o in ts out t h a t
the
cognitive
w h i l e t h e a f f e c t i v e domain
d e d u c t i v e and i n d u c t i v e h a b i t s o f
T y l e r l i s t e d t h r e e r e a s o n s why t h e
is
a
thought
affectiv e
domain i s o f t e n n e g l e c t e d . (1 ) The d e v e l o p m e n t o f f e e l i n g s ,
values
and commitment h a s b e e n t h o u g h t t h e p r o p e r t a s k
home and r e l i g i o n ,
not of the school.
of
(2) An a p p r o p r i a t e
a f f e c t d e v e l o p s a u t o m a t i c a l l y from k n o w led g e and e x p e r i e n c e
w i t h c o n t e n t and d o e s n o t n eed s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n .
(3.) I t
is
Bloom,
an
invasion
1981:298,9)•
a
do
of
privacy
(As
quoted
in
Bloom a g r e e s w i t h T y l e r and a d d s t o t h e l i s t
f e e l i n g of h e s ita n c y t h a t o fte n appears because te a c h e rs
not
feel
o b j e c ti v e s in th e a f f e c t i v e
domain
can
be
a c h i e v e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t im e
(1981:299)«
O b jectives ■ fo r ' s k i l l s are the a c tio n p a rts
e c o n o m ic s
for
occupation
they
are the
w hether
1973:32).
inside
esse n tia ls
needed
or o u t s i d e th e
of
home
for
the
home
(Cross,
The u n i q u e n e s s o f t h e " p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a p p r o a c h "
and t h e u s e o f " h a n d s - o n e x p e r i e n c e s " t o p r o d u c e a
product
h ave p l a c e d more e m p h a s i s on t h e p s y c h o m o to r d o m ain .
domain
was
Sim p so n ,
taxonom ies
one
first
classified
a home e c o n o m i s t .
presented,
by A n i t a H arrow ,
in
1966
by
E lizab eth
This
J.
. T h e r e have b e e n s e v e r a l o t h e r
t h e most w i d e l y q u o t e d seems t o
w r i t t e n i n 1972.
be
I n home e co n o m ic s
13
t h e l a b e l c o u l d be e x p a n d e d t o i n c l u d e b o t h p r o d u c t s and
p r o c e s s e s , f o r i n c l u d e d i n t h e s k i l l s l i s t e d would be t h o s e
c o n c e rn e d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s e s o f management o f r e s o u r c e s ,
o p e r a t i o n o f e q u i p m e n t an d c r e a t i o n o f a p r o d u c t ( C r o s s ,
1973:32, 33).
It
is
d iffic u lt
to
sep arate
the
dom ains.
D ennis
H erschback p o i n t s 'o u t t h a t n e a r l y a l l p sychom otor s k i l l s
in clu d e
c o g n itiv e as w e ll as a f f e c t i v e
1981:60).
C ross
secondary
suggest
th at
e l e m e n t s (Bloom,
a system
of
prim ary
an d
o b j e c t i v e s can be u s e d .
"A p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e c a n l e a d t o a s e c o n d a r y
o b je c tiv e in a s e r i e s of a c t i v i t i e s .
Know ledge
i s g a in e d b e f o r e a t a s k i s u n d e r t a k e n ; a t a s k or
s e r i e s o f a c t i v i t i e s i s sum m arized in s t a t i n g
g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s and p r i n c i p l e s ; a t t i t u d e s or
v a l u e s - r e s u l t from e i t h e r o f t h e s e p r o c e s s e s ;
i n t e r e s t s t h a t have been i d e n t i f i e d p o i n t to
n e ed e d k n o w l e d g e and s k i l l s " (1973:33,4)«
The d e s i r e d
th e
i n s t r u c t i o n a l o u tco m e w i l l d e t e r m i n e
dom ains
procedures
sh o u ld
and
in stru ctio n al
(E rickson,
m aintain
of
the
em phasized
tech n iq u es
o b jec tiv e s
1978:60).
im portance
be
home
for
when
m easuring
w h ic h o f
co n stru ctin g
attain m en t
i n v o l v i n g tw o o r more d o m a in s
R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e dom ain u se d ,
econom ics
a p p ro p ria te
of
teach ers
rela tio n sh ip
b ein g
ab le
b etw een
the
to
th eir
i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and t h e e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and
tech n iq u e s they use to a s s e s s stu d e n t a tta in m e n t
ob jectiv es
c a n n o t be o v e r e m p h a s i z e d ( i b i d . ,
56).
of course
H
E v a l u a t i o n and S t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n
H i s t o r i c a l l y i t has been th e t e a c h e r s '
to
do
a l l of the e v a lu a tio n of the
recently
resp o n sib ility
stu d e n t's
work,
r e c o g n i t i o n has been g iv en to th e v a lu e o f a c t i v e
p u p i l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n more ways t h a n j u s t b e i n g t h e
of
tests.
Many
im portance
process
on
student
to
in
the
of
evaluation
1973:216;
Fleck,
1 9 7 6 : 4 3 2 ; M a t h e r , 197.0:265 ) •
H atcher
sig n ifican t
i s g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e (him)
u tilize
when
a
herself
S p i t z e and G r i g g s s t a t e d t h a t "when l e a r n e r s
■
'
■
■
s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s t h e y a r e more a b l e
id en tify
learn in g "
H atcher,
e v a l u a t i o n becomes h i g h l y
(1973:230).
can
p articip atio n
1973:13;
Gronlund,
th at
taker
a u th o r s reviewed p lac ed a g r e a t d e a l
student
(Cross,
19 7 4 : 3 6 7 ;
felt
but
th eir
own n e e d s and t o
(1976:10).
take
in itiativ e
They a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i f
in
evaluation
p r o c e d u r e s p r o v i d e t h e l e a r n e r w i t h k n o w led g e o f o b j e c t i v e s
and e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s ,
h i s / h e r m o t i v a t i o n and a c h i e v e m e n t
a r e l i k e l y t o be e n h a n c e d ( S p i t z e and G r i g g s , I o c . c i t . ) .
Aleene
coincide
feelin g
Cross'
r e a s o n s f o r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n by s t u d e n t s
w i t h S p i t z e and G r i g g s ' .
of
p sychological s e c u r ity ,
The d e v e l o p m e n t
of
a
or t h e r e m o v a l
of
a
f e e l i n g o f f e a r i s a common theme i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f s t u d e n t
p articip atio n .
more
. The f a c t t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . makes l e a r n i n g
sig n ifican t
to
the stu d e n t is
illu strated
in
the
i n c r e a s e d m o t i v a t i o n t h a t comes from p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Cross s t a t e d t h a t e v a l u a t i o n h elp ed th e s t u d e n t to c l a s s i f y
15
and.
accept
the
in stru ctio n al
objectives
of
a
course
(1975:54).
G ro n lu n d
a g r e e s t h a t s e l f - r a t i n g by t h e p u p i l
conference
w ith
the
teacher
has a
b en efits.
It
can
help the p u p il understand
ob jectiv es
of
the
course,
recognize
p r o g r e s s h e / s h e i s making t o w a r d t h e
more
effectiv ely
h is/h er
number
own
and
of
more
possible
b etter
the
clearly
the
o b jectiv es,
p articu lar
a
diagnose
stren g th s
and
w e a k n e s s e s , and d e v e l o p i n c r e a s e d s k i l l i n . s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n .
He
the
feels
t h a t the s p e c ia l in s ig h t the te a c h e r gains
opportunity
learn in g
t o s e e how e a c h p u p i l v i e w s
from
h is/h er
and d e v e l o p m e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e g o a l s
own
of
the
course w i l l aid in b e t t e r te a c h in g (1971:452).
M a th e r
when
it
s t a t e d t h a t " E v a l u a t i o n h e l p s t h e l e a r n e r most
is
cooperative,
done
w ith
him,
(1970:264).
By
the
i s r e in f o r c e d as to h i s / h e r
student
not
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n h i s / h e r own
own
jto
him"
evaluation,
self-w orth.
F l e c k s t a t e d t h a t any e v a l u a t i o n m u st s t r e s s t h e i m p o r t a n c e
of the i n d iv i d u a l .
when
h e/she
observe
is
is
The s t u d e n t h a s l e s s f e a r o f
allow ed to p a r t i c i p a t e r a t h e r
(1974:565)«
necessary.
ob jectiv es
The
fo r the
How ever,
teacher
class
m odify i t
(H a tc h e r, 1975:422).
than
ju st
p r e p l a n n i n g by t h e t e a c h e r
should
develop
(Chadderdon,
o b j e c t i v e s s h o u l d be a g u i d e ;
failu re,
o n e 's
1974:5) •
own
These
s t u d e n t s can a d d , d e l e t e ,
or
C r o s s a l s o recommends t h a t
16
stu d en ts
p articip ate
self-ev alu atio n
in th e development o f in s tr u m e n ts f o r
(1973:60).
Arny d i s a g r e e s w i t h C r o s s and H a t c h e r and s t a t e s
w hile s tu d e n t should p a r t i c i p a t e
it
they
in the e v a lu a tio n p ro c e ss , .
i s not n ecessary fo r s tu d e n ts to c o n s tru c t the
use.
that
devices
The i m p o r t a n t t h i n g i s f o r t h e s t u d e n t t o h ave
experience
in
evaluation,
in order
to
develop
h is/h er
j u d g e m e n t (195 3:191 ) .
The
Indiana
Home
Econom ic s
A ssociation
stated
in
E v a l u a t i o n I n Home E c o n o m i c s ;
"Together w ith th e c o o p e ra tiv e a s p e c t,
self­
a p p r a i s a l o f p r o g r e s s makes f o r g r o w t h and s e l f d irectio n .
As p u p i l s
l e a r n t o compete w i t h
them selves, r a t h e r than w ith o t h e r s , th ey l e a r n to
p o sitiv ely
j u d g e t h e i r p r o g r e s s on t h e b a s i s
of
t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s r a t h e r t h a n on t h e i r f a i l u r e s .
When an i n d i v i d u a l s h a r e s
in the e v a lu a tio n
p r o c e s s , he ( s h e ) becomes more aware o f h i s ( h e r )
n e e d s and i t f o l l o w s t h a t he ( s h e ) u n d e r s t a n d s
his
(her)
c a p a b i l i t i e s more.
S elf-ev alu atio n
prom otes s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
P articip atio n
in
th e e v a lu a tio n p ro cess s u p p lie s the l e a r n e r w ith
' in trin sic
m otivation.
M o t i v a t i o n coming from
w ith in
is
more
effectiv e
than
ex trin sic
m otivation" (1974:1).
The
student
G ro n lu n d
causing
self-ev alu atio n
to
r e c o g n i z e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f what
feels
the
q u alities
. to
(1971:432).
declared
p r o c e s s makes i t e a s i e r f o r
that
th a t sej-f-evaluation d ire c ts
pupils
to th in k
striv e
Home
for
in
Econ omics
involving
more
is
perform ance
learned.
learning
carefully
about
or
Teacher E v a lu a to rs
learners
so
that
the
they
by
the
product
in
Iowa
assume
17
increasin g
resp o n sib ility
for
t h e i r own
c o m p e te n c y o f t e a c h i n g (Iowa S t a t e ,
Students
progress
n eed
toward
actu alizin g
to
ad u lts.
if
A lso
they
evaluate
are
they
is
a
1 9 7 8 :2 3 ) »
l e a r n how t o
goals
learn in g
th eir
to
become
a r e more
lik ely
own
self-
to
be
m o t i v a t e d t o l e a r n i f t h e y can s e e t h e i r p r o g r e s s and t h e i r
l e a r n i n g needs (Chadderdon,
1974:23)»
H elping s tu d e n ts to
see p r o g r e s s toward a c c e p te d g o a l s , to d e te rm in e s t r e n g t h s ,
and
to
d i s c o v e r how much, t h e r e i s t o l e a r n
means
of m o tivation.
pupil
relatio n sh ip ,
(ib id .,
2).
extrem ely
The
are
p o sitiv e
This im p lie s a m ean in g fu l
teacher-
working
relatio n sh ip
im portant
teacher
try in g
m istake,
id eally i t
for
to
common
o f t e a c h e r and
in s e l f - e v a l u a ti o n .
t r a p or c a t c h
the
goals
pupil
In ste a d of
pupil
is
the
making
the
i s t h e two w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r t o d i s c o v e r
progress
and
Teachers
are ' su c c e ss fu l
h elp fu l
together
areas
where l e a r n i n g n e e d s t o
in
e stab lish in g
go
the
further.
m utually
r e l a t i o n s h i p when t h e y a r e p r o v i d i n g an a t m o s p h e r e
t h a t a l l o w s a p u p i l t o a d m i t t h e need f o r f u r t h e r l e a r n i n g .
When
grades
d iffic u lt,
and
if
com petition
not
im possible,
are
t o have
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in e v a lu a tio n ( i b i d . ,
S pitze
illu stra te
used
the
most e f f e c t i v e .
provide:
an
adaptation
em phasized,
it
effective
is
pupil
24)»
of
V e r n e r 1s
scale
t e a c h e r who w i s h e s h i s / h e r t e a c h i n g t o
to
be
H e / s h e w i l l c h o o s e t h o s e t e c h n i q u e s which
18
(1)
(2)
(3 )
t h e most a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n by s t u d e n t s ,
t h e g r e a t e s t d e g r e e o f c o n c r e t e n e s s , and
t h e most p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t or ego i n v o l v e m e n t
s t u d e n t s (I 9 7 3 : 3 ) •
of
D eg ree o f
concreteness
Psychological
ownership
A ctive P a r t i c i p a t i o n
Ch a d d erd o n
early
su g g e sts t h a t judging p roducts is
experience
tangible
judging
in s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n sin c e i t
elem ents.
at
an
C are
part,
ie.
a
garm ent.
judge
She
sta te s,
sim ple,
level u n til
in e v a lu a tio n .
zip p er,
of
good
deals
w ith
n e e d s t o be t a k e n t o
elem entary
d e v e l o p e d some a b i l i t y
a
the
keep
the
student
has
She s u g g e s t j u d g i n g
a g a rm e n t r a t h e r t h a n
a
whole
"As p u p i l s d e v e l o p t h e a b i l i t y
tangible r e s u l ts ,
they a re ready fo r
to
more
d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m s i n v o l v i n g more a s p e c t s and l e s s t a n g i b l e
elem ents"
(1974:23).
Thus
to
t h i s review r e v e a l s t h a t e v a l u a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l
the le a rn in g -te a c h in g p ro ce ss.
It
therefore
becomes
i m p o r t a n t t o a l l t e a c h e r s and e d u c a t o r s t o be aware o f t h a t
im portance.
done.
A
testin g
of t h a t awareness rem ains
to
be
19
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The
purpose
evaluation
in
of
t h i s study i s to
determ ine
current
p r a c t i c e s o f s e c o n d a r y home e c o n o m ic s
Montana
regarding
th e use
of
evaluation
teachers
item s
and
in s tr u m e n ts u t i l i z e d to a s s e s s s t u d e n t knowledge, b e h a v io rs
and p r o d u c t s ,
d u r i n g t h e 1982 -83 s c h o o l y e a r .
D e sc rip tio n of P opulation
Por th e purpose of t h i s stu d y th e c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s of
secondary
home
e c o n o m ic s
population
used
in
teachers
from
provided
excluded
study
was
191
home
The
e co n o m ic s
high
Montana Home Economics T e a c h e r s ,
1982-
by t h e O f f i c e o f
home
sought.
as
Public
liste d
In stru ctio n .
e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s a t j u n i o r h i g h
the B i l l i n g s Career C e n te r,
This
schools,
t h e Young M o t h e r ' s Program arid
M o u n t a in View S c h o o l i n H e l e n a .
schools
were
p u b l i c s c h o o l s w h ic h were
s c h o o l s on t h e l i s t ,
83
the
teachers
The p o p u l a t i o n d i d i n c l u d e
o r g a n i z e d w i t h b o t h g r a d e s n i n e t o t w e l v e and
ten
to tw e lv e .
The
home
s a m p le c o n s i s t e d o f one h u n d r e d
e c o n o m ic s
teachers
fo rm ed by s c h o o l c l a s s s i z e
selected
( AA,
( 1 0O)
r an d o m ly
secondary
from
B, C) s t r a t i f i e d
groups
t o match
t h e s t a t e w i d e p e r c e n t a g e o f home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s i n e a c h
20
classificatio n .
T his
was
fifty -tw o
(5 2) p e r c e n t o f
t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . ■ In o r d e r to s e l e c t randomly,
the
the t o t a l
number
o f t e a c h e r s i n e a c h c l a s s s i z e was d i v i d e d
number
n e e d e d fro m t h a t g r o u p and t h e r e s u l t i n g number was
t h e s p a c i n g u s e d f o r s e l e c t i o n from t h e l i s t ,
E cono m ics T e a c h e r s ,
The
(28)
teachers
the
Montana Home
1982-85°
s a m p le c o n s i s t e d o f t w e n t y - f o u r ' ( 2 4 ) t e a c h e r s
AA h i g h s c h o o l s ,
eight
by
in
t w e l v e (12) t e a c h e r s i n A s c h o o l s , t w e n t y -
te a c h e rs in B
in C sc h o o ls.
schools,
and
th irty -six
In a l l c a se s e v e ry o t h e r
(3 6 )
teacher
was t a k e n from t h a t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
Survey In stru m e n t
A
questionnaire
desired
inform ation.
evaluation
was t h e method u s e d t o
co llect
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d r a f t e d u s i n g
t e x t s and r e f e r e n c e s .
The l i s t
of
item s
i n s t r u m e n t s was c o m p i l e d from Home Economics E v a l u a t i o n
Cross
and
c h e c k e d f o r c o m p l e t e n e s s u s i n g M easu rem en t
E v a l u a t i o n i n T e a c h i n g by G r o n l u n d .
then
were
and
test
and
f o r m e r s e c o n d a r y home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s was. done f o r
M odifications
made i n t h e f o r m a t and d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e
l i s t o f d e f i n i t i o n s o f s u b j e c t a r e a s was a d d e d .
letter
by
A r e v i e w by s e v e n (7 ) . g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s who
r e a d a b i l i t y , u s a b i l i t y and c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y .
were
and
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was
c r i t i q u e d by an i n s t r u c t o r i n t h e f i e l d o f
measurements -
the
term s.
A
The c o v e r
(A p p e n d ix A) e x p l a i n e d t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y
as
21
w ell
as
assuring
the
c o n fid en tiality
that,
was
to
be
e x e r c i s e d and m a i n t a i n e d i n t h e h a n d l i n g o f t h e d a t a .
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t e s t e d and r e t e s t e d u s i n g a . two
week i n t e r v a l by t e n (10) s e c o n d a r y home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s
selected
sa m p le
f ro m
was
co u n ties
and
o fficial
l i s t of te a c h e r s rem aining
selected .
curriculum
chosen
the
Teachers
in
Park
t h o s e who had worked on t h e
workshops
sa m p le
were
given
was s e l e c t e d .
after
and
G allatin
home
preference
the
eco nom ics
after
, the
Nine (9) o u t o f t e n
(1 0 )
responded to th e t e s t - r e t e s t .
One o f t h e n i n e was
i n c o m p l e t e and t h e r e f o r e n o t u s e d i n t h e t o t a l .
Part
one o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d t o c o l l e c t
d e m o g r a p h ic i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e r e s p o n d e n t .
the
questionnaire
instrum ents
for
was
divided
i n s t r u m e n t was p r o v i d e d .
used
S cale,
each
Montana
furnishings.
divided
in to
and
The
two
and
learning
item
or
The r e s p o n d e n t was a s k e d , u s i n g a
in the f iv e s u b je c t a re as l i s t e d
Home
clothing se le c tio n ,
food
development
item s
A d e f i n i t i o n f o r each
Scope and S eq u en ce i n
n u tritio n ;
evaluation
t o i d e n t i f y t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h which
item
construction;
of
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e domains' o f
w h ic h t h e y a r e u s e d .
L eikert
a list
P a r t two o f
preparation;
E c o n o m ic s :
tex tile s,
consumer
relatio n sh ip s;
in
the
clothing
and groom in g;
education;
• and
they
child
housing/home
s u b j e c t a r e a s o f f o o d s and c l o t h i n g were
s e c t i o n s each to
n a t u r e o f t o p i c s and a c t i v i t i e s .
reflect
-
the
diverse
22
The
t h i r d p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was
id en tify
item s
who i s i n v o l v e d i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n
designed
process.
fro m t h e c o g n i t i v e domain were n o t i n c l u d e d ,
■ evaluation
to
The
as t h e
o f t h e s e i t e m s i s u s u a l l y p r e d e t e r m i n e d ' "by
the
in stru cto r.
P e a r s o n . Prod u ct-M o m en t C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s
were
computed b e tw e e n t h e two s e t s o f s c o r e s on t h e t e s t / r e t e s t ..
F ifteen
(15)
o f t h e t w e n t y - o n e (2 1 ) s c o r e s computed
s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l .
b e lo w
.05
and
two
T h r e e c o e f f i c i e n t s were j u s t
were v e r y
low.
The
co efficien ts
i s f o u n d i n A p p e n d ix C ( T a b l e
the
reliab ility
o verall
form at
and
of th e
table
.19) •
questionnaire
was. c o n s i d e r e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t by t h e
sta tistica l
current
were
consultant for th is
study
of
the
However,
item s
and
researcher
to
determ ine
p r a c t i c e s o f s e c o n d a r y home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s
in
e v a l u a t i o n o f s t u d e n t k n o w l e d g e , b e h a v i o r s and p r o d u c t s .
V ariables
The i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e i s :
are.:
the su b je c t a re a .
dependent
v ariab les
"who does t h e e v a l u a t i n g "
frequency
o f u s e o f i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s i n e a c h
of
The
and
the
t h r e e domains o f l e a r n i n g .
A n a ly sis of Data
The
the
score
d a t a c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h was c o m p i l e d
r e s e a r c h e r and coded f o r m e c h a n i c a l
processing.
by
The
f o r e a c h s u b j e c t a r e a was d e t e r m i n e d by t o t a l i n g t h e
23
frequency
score
each
respondent
gave
i n s t r u m e n t s l i s t e d u n d e r e a c h dom ain.
the
item s
and
The p o s s i b l e
range
f o r t h e s c o r e s o f e a c h s u b j e c t a r e a i n t h e c o g n i t i v e domain
was
zero
to
tw enty-four.
The p o s s i b l e
range
for
s c o r e s o f t h e a f f e c t i v e domain was
subject
area
th irty ,
and
the
seven.
The
score
dom ains
was d e t e r m i n e d by t o t a l i n g t h e number o f t i m e s t h e
p e r f o r m a n c e domain was z e r o
zero
the
to
to
tw enty-
f o r " f r e q u e n t l y used" in each
of
the
resp o n d en t s e l e c t e d " f r e q u e n t ly used" in a l l s u b je c t a re a s .
The
to
p o s s i b l e r a n g e f o r t h e s c o r e f o r e a c h domain was
fifty -six
the
i n t h e c o g n i t i v e dom ain,
affectiv e
dom ain,
p e r f o r m a n c e d o m ain .
was
scored
by
respondent
scores
package
to talin g
used
t h e number
as u s in g ,
zero to
was
zero to
In th e s e c t i o n ,
checked
was
and
nineteen.
to
zero to seventy
six ty -th ree
in
analyze the
in
the
"Who E v a l u a t e s , " which
of
item s
th at
the
of
the
th e p o s s ib le range
The
zero
MINITAB
d ata.
sta tistic a l
■ The
level
of
were
used
to
s i g n i f i c a n c e s e l e c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s was . 0 5 .
The
follow ing
sta tistica l
analyses
a n a l y z e t h e d a t a t a k e n from t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
one-way
A nalysis
of V arian ce,
was u s e d t o
AOVONEWAY,
determ ine
if
t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among (1 ) any o f t h e means
f o r e a c h domain o f l e a r n i n g i n e a c h s u b j e c t a r e a ; 2) any o f
the
rated
means
as
o f t h o s e i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s i n
f r e q u e n t ly used;
each
3) any o f t h e means
e v a lu a to r in the e v a lu a tio n p r o c e s s .
for
domain
e ac h
Bo th t h e S c h e f f e T e s t
24
and
t h e Tukey Method were u s e d f o r m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s o f
pairs-o f-m ean s
d ifferen t.
been
t o d e t e r m i n e w h ic h p a i r s a r e
B o th
t e s t s were u s e d a s t h e S c h e f f e T e s t
c r i t i c i z e d . as
Jo h n sto n ’s
sig n ifican tly
too
conservative.
In
Spatz
has
and
Basic S t a t i s t i c s the conservatism i s a t t r i b u t e d
to th e f a c t t h a t th e Scheffe Test e r r s in the d i r e c t i o n
t o o many Type I I e r r o r s
( 1 . 9 8 1 :2 3 8 ) .
of
25
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The
co llected
purpose
hy
of t h i s chapter is to p re se n t
the
questionnaire
used in
the
th is
data
study
Montana home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s e v a l u a t i o n p r a c t i c e s .
h u n d r e d (100) q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were s e n t ,
were
returned.
One
s e v e n t y - t h r e e (75)
T a b l e 1 i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f
resp o n d in g in each c l a s s s i z e .
of
teachers
The d i f f e r e n c e i n number o f
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d and t h e number u s a b l e was c a u s e d by
f o u r (4) q u e s t i o n n a i r e s b e i n g r e t u r n e d by t h e p o s t
one ( 1 ) t e a c h e r i n g r a d u a t e s c h o o l ,
office,
one ( I ) t e a c h e r i n t h e
j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l , and two (2) t e a c h e r s no l o n g e r t e a c h i n g
home e c o n o m i c s .
not
u p dating
T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was due t o s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s
the
l i s t Montana Home
Econom ic s
Teachers,
1982-85.
On t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
whether
were
t h e s e c o n d a r y home e c o n o m ic s c o u r s e s
com prehensive,
areas
liste d
C lothing,
or
sp ecialized
in the
they
five
i n t h e Scope and S e q u e n c e i n Home
taught
subject
Eco nom ics:
F o o d s , Consumer E d u c a t i o n , C h i l d Developm ent and
R elationships,
reports
r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o c h ec k
the
and
number
Housing/Home
checking each
F urnishings.
area.
The
Table
to tal
2.
is
26
g reater
than
the
number o f t e a c h e r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g a s many
t e a c h e r s t a u g h t b o t h c o m p r e h e n s i v e and s p e c i a l i z e d c l a s s e s .
T a b l e 1 ■ Num ber o f T e a c h e r s i n E a c h C l a s s S i z e a n d T o t a l
R e s p o n s e s . U s e d f o r A n a l y s i s o f D ata.
School
Size
Number o f
Teachers
Number
R eturned
Number
Usable
Percent
Response
#
T otal
AA
A
B
C
32
14
24
30
17
14
19
23
15
13
17
20
47#
93#
71#
67#
23#
20#
26#
31#
73
65
65#*
T otal
■
100
it
is
the
rate
of
100#
response
*T his i s
sam ple.
n o t a sum,
T a b l e 2.
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S u b je c t. Areas. T aught
Econ omics T e a c h e r s
C o m p r e h e n siv e
C lothing
Foods
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Developm ent and
R elatio n sh ip s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
for
the
b y Home
21
48
49
33
• 41
34
T otal
226
N=65
S t a t i s t i c a l A n a ly s is of Data
The
sta tistic a l
m ethod
u tilize d
h y p o t h e s i s was a o n e -w a y A n a l y s i s
to
test
of V ariance,
the
n u ll
AOVONEWAY,
w i t h t h e S c h e f f e T e s t and Tukey M ethod u s e d f o r p o s t e r i o r
27
com parisons.
The .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was u t i l i z e d i n
t e s t i n g a l l hypotheses.
C o g n i t i v e Domain
The. . f i r s t
n u ll h y pothesis s t a t e s th a t
there
is
no
d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e r a t e t h a t home e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s u s e t h e
i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s w h ic h m e a s u r e t h e c o g n i t i v e domain i n
each of th e seven s u b j e c t a r e a s i d e n t i f i e d .
The mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n were computed f o r e a c h
s u b j e c t a r e a , a s r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 5«
Table
5« Use o f
Domain
Subject
Area
C lothing
C onstruction
C lothing S e le c tio n ,
T ex tiles,
Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Developm ent
and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
H o u s in g / H o m e '
Furnishings
I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s i n
the
C ognitive
Standard
D eviation
N
Range
57
5-21
14-52
4.58
56
58
59
46
7-20
7-21
7-21
5 -2 2
14-95
1 6 .4 5
16.10 .
15.52
4.04
5.40
5.45
5.87
52
9 -2 5
16.50
5.71
44
7-22
15 .0 5
4* 60
Mean
.
Pooled S ta n d ard D e v ia tio n 5.92
F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s a brea k d o w n on t h e C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l
/
f o r L e v e l Means i n t h e C o g n i t i v e Domain.
T h i s i s b a s e d on
28
the
Pooled
S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n and a 95
percent
C ritical
In terv al.
F i g u r e 1.
+-
A-1
A- 2
B-I
B-2
C
D
E
C ritical
I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means i n
the
C o g n i t i v e Domain f o r Each S u b j e c t A rea C a t e g o r y
———— ——i-----------------1—
——————------ 1----------------- 1-----------
•+
I*********j*********I
% *********% **********!
j**********j*********j
j *********j* * * * * * * * * j
j *********j ************j
j***********j**********j
j **********j ***********j
+-
13- 0
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-2
C
D
E
A
computed
— — - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — H- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I— —
H -O
1 5 -0
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16.0
-+
17.0
18.0
C lothing C o n stru ctio n
C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n , T e x t i l e s , Grooming
N utrition
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Dev elopm en t and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
one-w ay A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ,
using
the
means
AOVONEWAY,
of the su b je c t
was t h e n
areas
in
the
c o g n i t i v e domain and i s r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 4.
T a b l e 4•
Factor
E rror
T otal
*P<.0 5
C o m p u t a t i o n f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; One-Way
C lassific atio n .
Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s i n
t h e C o g n i t i v e Domain
df
SS
m s= ss/d f
6
365
371
230.0
5597-3
582 7-3
38.3
15.3
F-R atio
2.50*
29
T h i s t e s t fo u n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among t h e means
of
th e s u b je c t a re a groups t h e r e f o r e the
related
and
t o t h e c o g n i t i v e domain i s r e j e c t e d . :
Tukey
w h ich
null
p o s t e r i o r i t e s t s w ere t h e n
used
hypothesis
The S c h e f f e
to
determ ine
p a i r s o f sa m p le means were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d ifferen t.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e two t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 5«
T a b l e 5*
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Between P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f e and Tukey
T e s t s f o r t h e C o g n i t i v e Domain
A-1
X
X-X1
A-2
14.32
E
C
14.95 15.05
.6 5
.75
.10
1 5 .5 2
1.20
.5 7
.47
B-2
B-i
D
16.10 ’ 16.45* 16.50*
2.18
1.78
2.15
1
.
5
0
1 .1 5
1 .5 5
1 .40
1 .05
1 .45
• 58
.98
.9 3
.40
.35
.05
* P < .05 Tukey T e s t
Key
A-1
A-2
B-I
B-2
C
D
E
C lothing c o n stru c tio n
C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n , T e x t i l e s , Grooming
N u tritio n
Eood P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Dev elo p m en t and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
The
Scheffe
d ifference
groups.
among
Test
construction
not
show
a
. sig n ifican t
the p airs-o f-m ean s of the
H o w ev er,
d ifference
d id .
b e tw e e n
subject
t h e Tukey T e s t i n d i c a t e d a
the
and n u t r i t i o n ,
pairs-of-m eans
for
area
sig n ifican t
clo th in g
and c l o t h i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n and
.30
ch ild
d e v e l o p m e n t and r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
c lo th in g
c o n stru ctio n
su b ject
The f a c t t h a t t h e
a re a has
the
low est
mean
s c o r e i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e l e s s e r d e g r e e o f e m p h a s i s on
t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e c o g n i t i v e dom ain in t h i s seg m en t o f
th is
su b je c t area.
It
is
in d ic ate d
therefore
th at
the
home e c o n o m i c s
t e a c h e r s i n M ontana do n o t r e l y on t h e c o g n i t i v e domain t o
e v a l u a t e th e s t u d e n t 's knowledge,
freq u en tly
b e h av io rs or p ro d u cts as
in th e s u b je c t a re a of c lo t h i n g c o n s t r u c t io n as
in the o th er s ix s u b je c t are as.
The n u t r i t i o n
score
in
th e
C ham berlain
su b ject
c o g n itiv e
and
K elly.
area
had
dom ain.
the
second h ig h e s t
T h is
They s t a t e d
agrees
t h a t . the
w ith
study
of
n u t r i t i o n and t e x t i l e s a r e m o st c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
cognitive
l e a r n i n g (1981:18).
com bined
w ith
study,
th at
it
clo th in g
How ever,
se lec tio n
a nd
since
tex tiles
groom ing
in
was.
th is
i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o a g r e e w i t h t h e i r p r e m i s e on
s u b je c t area.
C h i l d d e v e l o p m e n t an d r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a d t h e h i g h e s t
f r e q u e n c y mean s c o r e f o r a l l o f t h e s u b j e c t a r e a s .
reflects
an
increased
in terest
by t e a c h e r s i n t h i s
T his
subject
a r e a and a s o l i d b a c k g r o u n d o f r e s e a r c h and i n f o r m a t i o n
a v a i la b l e f o r the classroom te a c h e r to use.
The
fact
d ifferen ces
th at
in
the
th ere
w ere
o n ly
p a ir-o f-m ea n s
in s tr u m e n ts in th e c o g n itiv e
tw o
in
th e
sig n ific a n t
item s
and
d o m a i n was n o t s u r p r i s i n g .
31
T h i s i s an i n d i c a t o r o f t h e e m p h a s i s p l a c e d on t h e i t e m s
and i n s t r u m e n t s fr o m t h e c o g n i t i v e domain i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n
textbooks
and c o u r s e s
used
in
teach er
train in g
i n home
e c o n o m i c s and e x p l a i n s t h e c l o s e n e s s o f t h e mean s c o r e s f o r
t h e n i n e t e e n p a i r s - o f - m e a n s i n t h e c o g n i t i v e d o m ain .
A f f e c t i v e Domain
The s e c o n d n u l l h y p o t h e s i s
stated
th at
th ere
i s no
d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e r a t e t h a t home e c o n o m i c s t e a c h e r s upe t h e
i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s w h i c h m e a s u r e t h e a f f e c t i v e domain i n
each o f th e seven s u b j e c t a re a s
id en tified .
The m e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n w e r e c o m p u t e d f o r
e a c h s u b j e c t a r e a and r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 6.
T a b l e 6.
Use o f I t e m s a n d . I n s t r u m e n t s
Domain
Subject
A re a
C lothing
C onstruction
C lothing S e le c tio n ,
T ex tiles,
■ Grooming
N u tritio n
Pood P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Developm ent
and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home
F urnishings
in th e A f f e c tiv e
Range
Mean
Standard
D eviation
57
3-18
1 0 .4 6
4.70.
56
58
59
46
1 -1 8
2-21
2-19
2-20
9.45
9.62
1 0 .4 6
10.11
5.00
5-05
4 -5 8
5.19
52
3 -2 6
14.81
5.86
44
2-21
8.61
5.19 . ■
N
P o o l e d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n 5*08
'
32
The
subject
relatio nsh ip s
d o m ain .
area
scored
This
is
of
child
t h e h i g h e s t mean
consistent
with
development
in
the
the
and
affectiv e
statem ent
of
Cham berlain
and K e l l y t h a t f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s and
human
development
a r e most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e a f f e c t i v e
domain ( I 9 8 1 : 9 ) •
T yler
and
also sta te d
Instru ctio n
easily
and
children
in B asic P r i n c i p l e s
of
t h a t p e r s o n a l - s o c i a l adjustm ent
v alid ly
under
appraised
through
is
more
observations
c o n d i t i o n s i n which s o c i a l
involved (1949:108).
Curriculum
of
relatio n s
are
T h i s o c c u r s i n c h i l d d e v e l o p m e n t and
relatio n sh ip s.
F i g u r e 2.
+A-I
A-2
B-1
B-2
C
D
E
C ritical
Interval
f o r L e v e l Means i n
the
A f f e c t i v e Domain f o r Each S u b j e c t Area C a t e g o r y
————4— ———— ———4-------———------- 4-—
J-*****! ****** j
j***** j ******];
j ***** j ******j
4-
+
j*****j******j
j *******J ******J
j ****** j «*****];
%*******%*******%
+ -
6.0
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-2
C
D
E
— ——I— ------------------ I— ————————4—
8.0
10.0
12.0
------ + --------------------- 4 ~
14.0
C lothing C o n stru ctio n
C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n , T e x t i l e s , Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Develop m ent and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
1 6 .0
33
F i g u r e 2 p r e s e n t s a br eakdown on t h e C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l
f o r L e v e l Means i n t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n .
the
Pooled
S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n and a 95
. T h i s i s b a s e d on
percent
C ritical
In terv al.
A one-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ,
computed
AOVONFWAY,
u s i n g t h e means o f t h e a f f e c t i v e
was
dom ain.
then
• These
r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 7T a b l e 7»
Com putations f o r th e A n a ly s is o f V a ria n c e ;
OneWay C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
Use o f I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s
i n t h e A f f e c t i v e Domain.
df
Factor
E rror
T otal
SS
1235.6
9 4 1 3 -2
10648.8
6
365
371
F -R atio
m s= ss/d f
. 7.89*
205.9
25.8
*P<.05
This
means
of
test
found
the
subject
hypothesis
The
related
sig n ific a n t differences
area
groups
therefore
t o t h e a f f e c t i v e domain
is
S c h e f f e and Tukey p o s t e r i o r i t e s t s were t h e n
determ ine
w h ic h
d ifferen t. .
p a i r s o f sa m p le means were
among
the
the
null
rejected .
used
to
sig n ifican tly
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e two t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n
Table 8.
The
sig n ifican t
Scheffe
and
difference
.Tukey
T ests
both
in d icated
when c o m p a r i n g t h e mean
of
a
child
d e v e l o p m e n t and r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h a l l o t h e r s u b j e c t a r e a s .
34
Table 8.
Su m m ary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n P a i r s - o f M ean s a n d t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f ^ a n d T u k ey
T e s t s f o r t h e A f f e c t i v e Domain.
A f f e c t i v e Domain
E
A-2
B-1
X
X-X1
9.4 5 '
.8 4
9 -6 2 ,
1.01
.1 7
C
10.11
1.50
. 66
.4 9
A-1
B-2
1 0 .4 6
1.85
1 .01
.84
.35
10.46
1.85
1 .01
.8 4
.3 5
.0 0
D
14.81
6.20*
5.36*
m
4 .3 5
*P <.0 5 on B o th Tukey and S c h e f f S T e s t s
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-2
C
D
E
C lothing c o n s tru c tio n
C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n , T e x t i l e s , Grooming
N utritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Dev elopm en t and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
P s y c h o m o t o r / P e r f o r m a n c e Domain
The t h i r d
n u ll
h y p o th esis
stated
th at
th ere
is
no
d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e r a t e t h a t home e c o n o m i c s t e a c h e r s u s e t h e
ite m s
and
in stru m e n ts
w h ich
m easure
th e
p s y c h o m o t o r / p e r f o r m a n c e domain i n e a c h o f t h e s e v e n s u b j e c t
areas
id en tified .
The mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n were co m p u ted f o r e ac h
s u b j e c t a r e a and r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 9»
clo th in g
co n stru ctio n
and
food
The s u b j e c t a r e a s o f
p rep aratio n
scored
h i g h e s t means i n t h e p s y c h o m o t o r / p e r f o r m a n c e dom ain.
is
the
T his
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C h a m b e r l a i n and K e l l y ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t
35
f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n and c l o t h i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e m o st c l o s e l y
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p s y c h o m o t o r d e v e l o p m e n t (1 9 7 5:9)T a b l e 9«
Use
of
Item s
and
In stru m en ts
P s y c h o m o t o r / P e r f o r m a n c e Domain
Subject
Area
th e
Mean
Standard
D eviation
3-21
14.98 .
5.22
56
58
59
46
1-22
0-18
5-24
3-22
9 -5 9
8.57
15-6 8
9.02
6.62
6.28
4-7 6
5.81
52
2-1 9
9-.06.
44.
2-21
9.66
Range
N
C lothing
C onstruction
C lothing S e le c tio n ,
T ex tiles,
Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d D e v elo p m en t
and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home
Furnishings
in
5,7
•
4.65
■ 5-47 .
Pooled S ta n d a rd D e v ia tio n 5.59
C r o s s a g r e e s w i t h C h a m b e r l a i n and K e l l y by s t a t i n g :
" O b j e c t i v e f o c u s i n g on p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s a r e .
e s s e n t i a l i n home e c o n o m i c s a n d i n c l u d e t h o s e
t r a i t s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a re u n i q u e l y one's
own.
P e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s a r e a f f e c t e d by s t u d y i n
o t h e r s u b j e c t a r e a s , b u t p e r h a p s n o t a s much a s
i n home e c o n o m i c s s i n c e t h e s e a r e a n i n t e g r a l
p a r t o f c h i l d and f a m i l y d e v e l o p m e n t " ( 1 9 7 3 : 2 9 ) .
F ig u re
In terv als
3
for
p resen ts
Level
S tan d ard
In terv al.
breakdow n
Me ans f o r
psychom oto r/p e rfo rm a n c e
P ooled
a
the
dom ain.
D ev iatio n
and
th e
C ritic a l
su b ject areas
T his
a
of
is
based
95 p e r c e n t
in th e
on t h e
C ritic a l
36
F i g u r e 3*
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means i n t h e
Psychomot o r / P e r f o r m a n c e Domain f o r Each S u b j e c t
A re a C a t e g o r y
------+ ----------------- + ----------------- + -
+ -
A-I
A-2
B-1
B-2
C
D
E
— — h — — — — — — — — t— —
J*****J******J
j*****j******j
j *****I***** j
I*****J*******J
j******I******I
j*****j******j
j * *****j * * *****j
------h————---- —H------—— —H—
8.0
10.0
12.0
+-
6.0
A-I
A-2
B-I
B-2
C
D
E
----1--------------- I—
14*0
16.0
C lothing C o n stru ctio n
C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n , T e x t i l e s , Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Dev elopm en t and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
A o n e - w a y A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , AOVONEWAY, was t h e n
com puted u s i n g t h e means o f t h e p s y c h o m o t o r / p e r f o r m a n c e
d o m ain .
T hese r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 10.
This t e s t
fo u n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among t h e means o f t h e s u b j e c t
a re a groups;
t h e r e f o r e th e n u ll h y p o th e s is r e l a t e d to th e
p s y c h o m o t o r / p e r f o r m a n c e domain i s r e j e c t e d .
The S c h e f f S and Tukey p o s t e r i o r i t e s t s w e r e t h e n u se d
t o d e t e r m i n e w h ic h p a i r s o f s a m p l e means w e re s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d ifferen t.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e two t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n
T a b l e I 1.
The
S cheffe
sig n ific a n t
and
Tukey
d ifferen ce
te sts
b etw een
b oth
th e
in d ic a te d
scores
of
a
food
37
preparation
and c l o t h i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n and a l l o t h e r s c o r e s
o f th e f i v e (5) re m a in in g s u b j e c t a r e a s .
T a b l e 10.
C om putations f o r th e A n a ly sis of V a ria n c e :
OneWay
C lassificatio n .
Use
of
Item s
and
. Instrum ents
in
the
Psychom otor/Perform ance
Domain
df
Factor
E rror
T otal
SS
m s=ss/df
517.0
31 .3
3101 .9
11407- 3
1 4 5 0 9 .2
6
365
371
F-R atio
1 6 .5 4 *
*P <.0 5
T a b l e 11 .
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Be tw een P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f e and Tukey
T e s t s o f t h e P s y ch o m o to r / P e r f o r m a n c e Domain
B-1
X
X-X1
8.57
C
9.02
.45
D
9-0 6
.4 9
.04
B-2
A-2
E
A-I
9 -5 9
. 1.02
.57
.53
9.66
1 .0 9
.6 4
. 60
.0 7
14.98* 15.63*
I
l
I
.70
* P < .05 on B o th Tukey and S c h e f f e T e s t s
Key
A-I
A-2
B-I
B-2
C
D
E
C lothing c o n s tru c tio n
C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n , T e x t i l e s , Grooming
N u tritio n
Pood P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Developm ent and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s _________________
38
The e m p h a s i s
on' p ro jec ts
and p r o d u c t s
i n t h e s e two
s u b j e c t a r e a s i s e v i d e n t i n t h e h ig h means o f s c o r e s f o r
them .
m ore
The " h a n d s - o n - a p p r O a c h ” o f home e c o n o m i c s a p p e a r s
p rev a len t
in
c lo th in g
co n stru ctio n
and
foods
p r e p a r a t i o n th an in th e o th e r f i v e s u b je c t areas..
C o m p ariso n o f Use o f t h e T hree Domains o f L e a r n i n g
The f o u r t h
difference
n u ll h y p o th esis
stated
th at
th ere
i s no
i n t h e d e g r e e t h a t home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s r a t e
i t e m s f ro m t h e c o g n i t i v e dom ain a s " f r e q u e n t l y u s e d " i n a l l
su b ject
areas
perform ance
th an
th o se
dom ain.
ite m s
The
in
num ber
th e
of
a ffe ctiv e
item s
rated
" f r e q u e n t l y used" were t o t a l e d f o r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
or
as
The
mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n w e re com puted f o r e a c h d o m a i n ,
a s r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 12.
T a b l e 12.
I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s R a t e d a s F r e q u e n t l y U s e d .
Mean
C o g n i t i v e Domain
A f f e c t i v e Domain
P e r f o r m a n c e Domain
Standard D ev iatio n
17.02
13-80
15.34
7-48
6.13
7.28
'
Pooled S ta n d a rd D e v ia tio n 6.99
The C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Me ans f o r t h e t h r e e
dom ains a r e . i l l u s t r a t e d
i n F i g u r e 4»
The f i g u r e i s b a s e d
on t h e P o o l e d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n and a 93 p e r c e n t C r i t i c a l
In terv al.
39
F i g u r e 4«
C r i t i c a l I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means f o r I t e m s and
I n s t r u m e n t a s F r e q u e n t l y Used f o r t h e Domains o f
L earning
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - 1— - - - - - - - - - —
Y
— — I— — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - — I— - —
— - - - - - - - - - - - - 1—
J *********** J ***#***-Ktt* J
2
j *********** j *********** j
4----------------------- h------ —-------------1----------------------- 1---------- —---- — 4-------- —---- —----- 1-—
12.0
13*5
15.0
. 16.5
18.0
1 9 .5
Key
X
Y
Z
Cognitive Domain
Affective Domain
Performance Domain
A o n e - w a y A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , AOVONFWAY, w a s t h e n
com puted
using
the
means
of the
re p o r te d as f r e q u e n t ly used.
item s
and
in stru m en ts
T h ese r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n
T a b l e 13T a b l e 13»
C o m p u t a t i o n s f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; OneWay C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
I t e m s and I n s t r u m e n t s
R eported as F r e q u e n tly U sed.
df
Factor
Error
T otal
2
192
194
SS
336.2
9375.9
m s=ss/df
168.1
48.8
F-R atio
3 .4 4 *
9712.2
*P< .05
N=65
T his a n a l y s i s
means o f
is
fo u n d
sig n ific an t
th e t h r e e domains;
rejected .
In
order
to
difference
among t h e
t h e r e f o r e the n u l l h y p othesis
determ in e
w hich, p a i r s
were
40
sig n ifican tly
used.
d i f f e r e n t t h e S c h e f f e and Tukey
tests
were
The r e s u l t s o f b o t h t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 14 .
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s Between P a i r s - o f Means and t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f fS and Tukey
T ests
T a b l e 14*
A ffective
Performance
C ognitive
15*35
1.54
17 *02
13*8
X
X-X1
.
?:§!•*
* P < .0 5 on S c h e f f e T e s t and Tukey T e s t
P< .0 5 on Tukey T e s t
The
Scheffe Test in d ic a te d a s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e
b e t w e e n t h e p a i r s - o f - m e a n s o f t h e c o g n i t i v e domain and
affective
dom ain.
sig n ifican t
The
Tukey t e s t i n a d d i t i o n
the
showed
a
d i f f e r e n c e betw een th e s c o r e s of t h e c o g n i t i v e
domain and t h e p e r f o r m a n c e dom ain.
Bloom s t a t e d t h a t ,
"The c o g n i t i v e domain h a s l o n g b e en
e m p h a s i z e d o v e r t h e a f f e c t i v e domain"
that
the
(1981:297)*
main r e a s o n t h e c o g n i t i v e domain was
He f e l t
e m p h a siz e d
more was t h a t t h e c o g n i t i v e domain i s so w e l l d e f i n e d w h i l e
the
affective
inductive
emphasis
and
the
h ab its
on
of
thought
(Bloom,
of
deductive
and
c it.).
The
Ioc.
a c c o u n ta b ility of te a c h e rs fo r t h e i r
methods
evaluation
domain i s a d e v e l o p m e n t
in
the
classroom
of the s tu d e n t.
cognitive
has
carried
actions
over
The p a p e r and p e n c i l t e s t
domain i s e a s i e r t o o b j e c t i v e l y
score
into
of
and
41
grade
than
T herefore
the
the
instrum ents
of
the
affective
c o g n i t i v e domain a p p e a r s t o
be
dom ain.
used
more
o fte n in the e v a lu a tio n pro cess.
T a b l e 15•
Summary o f Means o f t h e Domains o f L e a r n i n g f o r
Each S u b j e c t A rea
S u b j e c t A rea
C lothing
C onstruction
C lothing S e le c tio n ,
T ex tiles,
Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Dev elo p m en t
and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home
Furnishings
Table
15
area.
the
lists
A ffective
Performance
1 4 .3 2
1 0 .4 6
14.98
1 4 .9 5
16.45
16.10
15-52
9.45
9.62
1 0 .4 6
. 10.11
9 -59
8.57
15-68
9.02
16.50
14.81
15-56
1 0 .5 0
,
9.06
1 0 .9 4
t h e mean f o r e a c h domain i n
each
subject
The a f f e c t i v e domain had o n l y one mean o v e r 14, f o r
child
Since
development
th is
fee lin g s,
subject
area.
s u b j e c t i s b a s e d on t h e e x p l o r a t i o n s o f
one’s
b eliefs
development
and
people
feel it
using
and
relatio n sh ip s
and c om m itm ents,
relatio n sh ip s
understandable.
fro m
C ognitive
T yler
the f a c t
scored
expressed
hig h est,
the opinion
that
child
is
some
i s an i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y and t h i s d e t r a c t s
the
affective
domain
C h a m b e r l a i n and K e l l y a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i t
form ulate
the
that
ob jectiv es
(Bloom,1981:299)•
i s much e a s i e r t o
and e v a l u a t e . a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s i n
the
42
c o g n i t i v e and p s y c h o m o to r d o m a in s th a n , in t h e a f f e c t i v e
domain ( 1 9 8 1 : 2 2 ) .
One p o s s i b l e
h ig h er
than
reason th a t
the
affectiv e
the
and
cognitive
d om ain s c o r e d
psychom otor/perform ance
d o m a i n s i s t h a t t h e y a r e h a r d t o t o t a l l y s e p a r a t e fro m e a c h
o th er•
C ross e x p re sse d th e f e e l i n g t h a t th e th r e e ty p e s of
o b jec tiv e s
-
affectiv e,
perform ance
- have
a
c o g n itiv e
rela tio n sh ip
and
to
psy ch o m o to r/
each
o th er.
She
states,
"A s t u d e n t may b e d e v e l o p i n g a s k i l l a n d a t
t h e same t i m e be a c q u i r i n g an a t t i t u d e o r v a l u e
as w e ll as a know ledge o f p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e d to
the s k i l l .
Very f r e q u e n t l y t h e a c q u i r i n g o f
know ledge r e s u l t s in p e rfo rm a n c e o f a s k i l l or
task .
The s u c c e s s o r l a c k o f i t a f f e c t s an
a t t i t u d e o r v a l u e " ( 1 973:33>4)*
D e n n is H e r s c h b a c k a g r e e d and p o i n t e d o u t t h a t n e a r l y a l l
psychom otor s k i l l s
e l e m e n t s (Bloom,
The
co g n itiv e
as w e ll as a f f e c t i v e
1981:60).
q u e stio n n a ire
■i n t r o s p e c t i v e
survey.
include
th in k in g
m ust
among
have
the
triggeredsome
p a rticip a n ts
in
the
One t e a c h e r w r o t e a t t h e end o f h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
" I g u e s s I'm j u s t a p a p e r and p e n c i l p e r s o n . "
E v a l u a t i o n and S t u d e n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n , Who E v a l u a t e s ?
The f i f t h
n u ll
h y p o th esis
sta te s
th at
th ere
is
no
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e f r e q u e n c y t h a t home e c o n o m ic s
teach ers
alone
use
the
item s
frequency th a t the stu d e n ts are
and
in stru m en ts
included
a nd
the
in th e e v a lu a tio n
43
p r o c e s s i n t h e u s e o f t h e s e i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s .
For t h e
p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s t h e 19 i t e m s i n s e c t i o n t h r e e
the
questionnaire
w ere summed;
th e te n (10)
instrum ents
u s e d t o m e a s u r e t h e a f f e c t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t and t h e n i n e
instrum ents
given
a
R ates."
each
u s e d t o m e a s u r e s t u d e n t p e r f o r m a n c e were
value
o f one o r z e r o f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y
of
A s c o r e o f z e r o t o n i n e t e e n was t h e n p o s s i b l e
category
of
evaluator.
The
mean
d e v i a t i o n were computed f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y ,
of
and
(9)
each
"Who
for
standard
as rep o rte d
in
T a b l e 16.
T a b l e 16.
Who E v a l u a t e s t h e B e h a v i o r o r P r o d u c t ?
Mean.
I n s t r u c t o r , Only
Peer (S tudent)
S e lf (Student)
B o th I n s t r u c t o r and S t u d e n t
Other
Standard D eviation
9.08
5-33
3.01
4.21
2.5 5
4 .9 1
4-40
1 .5 6 .
5 .63
N=65
Pooled S ta n d ard D e v ia tio n = 3 ,9 3
The
C ritical
categories
based
on
are
I n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means f o r
i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 9*
the
The
t h e P o o l e d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n and a
figure
95
five
is
percent
C ritic a l In terv al.
A
computed
one-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ,
using
the
mean s c o r e s
for
AOVONEWAY,
the
was t h e n
evaluators
of
44
s t u d e n t b e h a v i o r s and p r o d u c t s .
T hes e r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d
i n T a b l e 1?•
F i g u r e 5«
—
C r i t i c a l i n t e r v a l f o r L e v e l Means f o r E v a l u a t o r s
of S tudent B ehaviors of Products
+ ------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------- + ------------------- + ------
I
1****%****%
P
%****!***!
%****%*»**%
S
B
0
H------- —--------h
%***%****-[
%****%**#*%
— I-------------------------1------------------------- 1------------------------ 1--------
0.0
I
P
S
B
0
2.0
4-0
— -------------------k —
8.0
10.0
I n s t r u c t o r alone
Peer ( s tu d e n t)
S e lf (student)
Bo th I n s t r u c t o r and S t u d e n t
Other
T a b l e 17-
C o m p u t a t i o n s f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e ; OneWay C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
E v a lu a te r of S tu d en t
B e h a v i o r s and P r o d u c t s .
df
Factor
Error
Total
6.0
4
320
324
SS
2713.3
4931.3
7644.6
m s=ss/df
678.3
15.4
F-Ratio
44.02*
*P<.0 5
N=65
This a n a l y s i s
fou n d
sig n ifican t
means o f t h e f i v e c a t e g o r i e s .
difference
among t h e
I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h ic h
45
p a i r s w e re s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t t h e S c h e f f e and Tukey
T e s t s w e re u s e d .
T a b l e 18.
Summary o f E x a c t D i f f e r e n c e s B e tw e e n P a i r s - o f M ean s a n d t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e S c h e f f e a n d T ukey
T ests.
E v a l u a t o r o f . S t u d e n t B e h a v i o r s and
Products.
Other
X
X -I1
The r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 18.
.55
Peer
(Student)
S elf
(Student)
2.55*
2.00
4.91*
4.36*
2.36
Bo th
Instructor
And
Student
Instructor
Alone
9.08
8.53*
5.63*
5.08*
3.08*
.72
'
3 .4 5
*P<.05 on Bo th S c h e f f e and Tukey T e s t s
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y r e j e c t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s
t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e r a t e t h a t home e c o n o m ic s
teachers
B oth th e
evaluate
S cheffe
differences
categ o ries.
t h e s t u d e n t and t h e s t u d e n t
is
and Tukey T e s t s
sig n ific an t
betw een th e
The
score
category
for
each
in d icated
Instructor
category
involved.
and a l l
co uld
other
not
be
c o n s i d e r e d c u m u la tiv e as th e r e s p o n d e n ts were n o t asked to
s e l e c t o n l y one c a t e g o r y f o r e a c h i n s t r u m e n t ,
b u t to check
any and a l l c a t e g o r i e s t h a t e a c h i n s t r u m e n t was u s e d i n .
This a n a l y s i s
shows t h a t
home e c o n o m i c s
teachers
in
Mon tana h ave r e m a i n e d i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e o f p r i m a r i l y
46
being
the
s o le e v a lu a to r in the
learning
process.
r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y have n o t g i v e n much
to
the
The
recognition
value of a c tiv e p u p il p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
more
ways
than the ta k e r of t e s t s .
Many
of
the a u th o rs c ite d in the
literatu re
p l a c e d a g r e a t d e a l o f i m p o r t a n c e on s t u d e n t
in
the e v a lu a tio n pro cess
Fleck,
1974;
H alchin
G r o n l u n d , 1976;
emphasized
p a rticip atio n ,
t o be
that
recognition
H atcher,
M ather, 1970).
the g r e a te r the
1973;
H a t c h e r and
extent
of
of
the
lik ely
R e c e n t y e a r s a r e marked w i t h a g r o w in g
the
during
im portance
of
self-ev alu atio n ,
the adolescent p erio d .
becomes more i n d e p e n d e n t ,
for
p articip atio n
t h e more v a l u a b l e t h e e v a l u a t i o n i s
(1973:230).
especially
( G r o s s , . 1973;
review
As
a
student
h e/she u s u a lly l i k e s to fin d out
h i m / h e r s e l f w h e re h e / s h e s t a n d s i n r e l a t i o n t o what i s
expected of h im /h er.
S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n tends to give him /her
p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h h i s / h e r p r o g r e s s and t o m o t i v a t e
f u r t h e r a c h i e v e m e n t ( H a t c h e r and H a l c h i n , Ioc.. c i t . ) .
Cross
sta te s
p articip atio n
evaluation
secu rity ,
learn in g
is
by
that
the
lik ely
the
greater
s t u d e n t , . . the
t o be
in
the
more
term s . of
reco g n itio n , personal s a tis f a c tio n ,
(1973:53)»
Montana home
extent
of
valuable
the
p sy chological
and i n c r e a s e d
e co n o m ic s t e a c h e r s do
n o t seem t o u t i l i z e t h e recommended p r a c t i c e s o f
the stu d e n t in the e v a lu a tio n p ro ce ss.
involving
47
Montana home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s d i d u s e e v a l u a t i o n
both
by
the- i n s t r u c t q r and s t u d e n t more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n s e l f -
evaluation
E valuation
by
the
should
student
be
a
or
evaluation
cooperative
1976:432; G ross,
by
process
peers.
(M ather,
1970:264;
G ronlund,
1973:13; Chadderdon,
1974:2).
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n t h e s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r
is
extrem ely im portant in c o o p e ra tiv e e v a lu a tio n ;
it
is
places
t h e two w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r t o d i s c o v e r
where l e a r n i n g n e e d s t o go f u r t h e r .
s u c c e s s fu l in e s t a b l i s h i n g . a m utually h e lp fu l
when
to
progress
and
.. T e a c h e r s
are
relatio n sh ip
t h e y a r e p r o v i d i n g an a t m o s p h e r e t h a t a l l o w s a
admit
1974:24).
the
n e ed
for
fu rth er
learning
id eally
pupil
(Chadderdon,
48
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
E valuation
is
learn in g -teach in g
an
indispensable
process.
It
se g m en t
is im possible
of
to
the
discuss
e v a l u a t i o n i n home e c o n o m ic s w i t h o u t an a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e
u n i q u e n e s s o f t h e ' ' p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g approach." and " h a n d s - o n e x p e r i e n c e s " i t o f f e r s t h e s t u d e n t and t h e t e a c h e r .
Since
longer
ev alu atio n is a cooperative p ro c e ss,
appropriate
for
the
tea ch e r to
e v a l u a t i n g o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s work.
indicated
e c o n o m ic s
that
current
do
i t is
a ll
of
no
the
The r e v i e w o f l i t e r a t u r e
evaluation
p ractices
of
home
t e a c h e r s had n o t b e e n s t u d i e d i n r e l a t i o n t o who
e v a l u a t e s t h e s t u d e n t ' s wor k.
The
determ ine
purpose
if
of
th is
study
was
tw ofold:
d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d b e tw e e n t h e u s e
1)
of
to
the
i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s from t h e t h r e e domains i n e a c h o f t h e
seven s u b j e c t m a tte r a re a ;
2) t o d e t e r m i n e i f
differences
e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e u s e o f e v a l u a t i o n i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s
by
home e c o n o m ic s t e a c h e r s and by s t u d e n t s .
co llected
(100)
fro m
a stratified
Montana home e c o n o m ic s
random sample o f one
teachers.
Data
was
hundred
S ix ty -fiv e
(6 5)
u s a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d a f t e r two ( 2 ) m a i l i n g s .
49
AOVONEWAY
determine
any
of
if
the
subject
, o n e - w a y Analysis, of V a r i a n c e
there
means
area,
in
any
means
the
process.
multiple
pairs
The
the
at
null
least
domain
of
this
hypothesis.
one
Tukey
research
Significant
pair-of-means
for
the
tests
each
items
used,
and
and
5)
evaluation
were
used
to. d e t e r m i n e
for
which
rejected
differences
all
were
five
of
found
in
hypothesis.
i n Montana do n o t u s e e ac h o f
c o g n itiv e,
affectiv e
an d
e q u a lly in each of th e seven s u b je c t a re a s
liste d ;
c lo th in g
tex tile s,
groom ing;
developm ent
have
each
dom ains o f l e a r n i n g ;
perform ance,
in
in
1)
different.
Home e c o n o m i c s t e a c h e r s
the th re e
frequently
evaluator
and
those
to
among
learning
of
pairs-of-means
significantly
results
as
difference
of
means
rated
each
of
domain
the
Scheffe
comparisons
were
of
for
the
significant
each
any
each
Both
a
for
2)
instruments
of
was
was used
and
c o n stru ctio n ;
n u tritio n ;
relatio n sh ip s;
housing/hom e f u r n i s h i n g s .
c lo th in g
se lec tio n ,
food p r e p a r a t i o n ;
consum er
ch ild
ed u catio n ;
a nd
The c o g n i t i v e dom ain was r a n k e d
h i g h e s t in s i x o f t h e s e v e n s u b j e c t a r e a s (T ab le 15), th e
lone
e x cep tio n
b ein g
c lo th in g
c o n stru ctio n ,
w here
the
p e r f o r m a n c e d o m ain r a n k e d h i g h e r t h a n t h e c o g n i t i v e domain.
C hild
in
d e v e l o p m e n t and r e l a t i o n s h i p s
had t h e
highest
score
t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a in , and f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n and c l o t h i n g
co n stru ctio n
had t h e
h ig h est
scores
in th e
perform ance
50
domain.
These
literature
cited.
This
results
study
teachers
of
also
do
process
student's
score.
practices
recommended
literature
process
the
as
student's
a
not
much
that
they
the
the
the
the
cooperative
participation
process
in
that
in
the
determine
the
reflect
the
not
literature
the
economics
student
does
importance
with
home
themselves
finding
in
agreement
include
as
This
emphasized
being
in
indicated
Montana
evaluation
were
cited.
of
the
a n d .the
The
evaluation
importance
of
process.
Recommendations
The
results
of
this, s t u d y
between
the
economics
teachers.in
experts
in
actual
the
preponderance
home
economics
a
need
Montana
use
of
of
teachers
investigated.
out
.e v a l u a t i o n
field
of
The
to
in
knowledge,
b e h a v i o r s , and
should
the
this
be
taken
subject
experts
and
this
the
a
the
It
gap
not
becomes
exists
actual
domain
should
evaluation
/
and
the
The
home
ideals
The
preliminary
products.
of,,
of
background
in
approach"
areas.
survey, t h a t
of
differences
opinion.and
cognitive
receive
advantage
the
evaluation,
results
teachers
practices
and
the
economics
the
evaluation.
examine
"problem-solving
delineate
of
apparent
by
Montana
be
further
study
point
training
’h o m e
of
student
uniqueness
of
the
"hands-on-experiences"
limited
evident
between
practices
to
from
what
of
is
only
the
a few
of
results
of
stated
Montana's
by
the
home
51
e c o n o m ic s
te a c h e rs in e v a lu a tio n of
students'
knowledge,
b e h a v i o r s and p r o d u c t s .
T his
of
r e s e a r c h i s a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f s t u d y and i n t e r e s t
t h i s re se a rc h e r in the a rea of
in itiated
and
during
1980.
curriculum
development
t h e C u r r i c u l u m U p d ate Workshops i n
The r e s e a r c h e r f e e l s t h a t t h i s
current
1978
study
p o i n t s o u t a need f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g :
1.
Exam ination
evaluation
of
tea ch e r t r a i n in g r e la te d to
p r o c e s s f o r home e co n o m ic s
stu d en ts,
b o t h i n t h e Home Economics
and
Secondary
the
E ducational
the
education
Department
and
E ducation
Foundations D epartm ent.
2.
D e v elo p m en t
o f an i n s e r v i c e p ro g ram o r
workshop
a v a i l a b l e t o t e a c h e r s i n home e c o n o m ic s t o
bring
them u p - t o - d a t e and o f f e r p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e i n
i m p r o v i n g e v a l u a t i o n i n home e c o n o m i c s .
3.
Developm ent
e c o n o m ic s
of
the
w ith
of
a guide in e v a lu a tio n
t e a c h e r s i n Montana a s a
c u rr ic u lu m development
the
for
home
continuation
process
Scope and S e q u e n ce f o r Home
started
Economics
d e v e l o p e d i n 1978 and r e v i s e d i n 1980.'
W h ile
sp ecifically
the
th is
was n o t d e s i g n e d t o
co llect
on a t t i t u d e s o r t h e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g
researcher
fo llo w in g .
study
wishes
to
p o in t out
the
n e ed
data
approach
for
the
V
52
1.
D e v elo p m en t
of
sp ecifically
addresses
a
course
in
fo r v o catio n al subject
. evaluation
areas
that
th e uniqueness of the "problem -solving
approach" to e v a lu a tio n .
2. •
E xam ination
E cono mics
of
the a t t i t u d e s
of
Montana
Home •
t e a c h e r s toward th e e v a l u a t i o n p ro c e s s
and i t s p l a c e i n t h e l e a r n i n g - t e a c h i n g c y c l e .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
________________ , A Guide f o r H e l p i n g S t u d e n t E v a l u a t e T h e i r
Gro w th , Handbook f o r T e a c h e r s , F u t u r e Homemakers o f
A merica,
W ashington,
D . C . ,. O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n ,
D e p a r t m e n t o f HEW.
______ ___, E v a l u a t i o n i n Home E c o n o m i c s , I n d i a n a Home
Econom ic s A s s o c i a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y Book S t o r e , West
L a f a y e t t e , I n d i a n a , 1974.
________________ ,
Instrum ents
for
A ssessing
Selected
P r o f e s s i o n a l C o m p e t e n c i e s f o r Home Economics T e a c h e r s ,
Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ames, Iowa , 1978.
________________ ,
M e a s u r i n g S t u d e n t A c h iev e m e n t i n Home
Econom ics,
New
York S t a t e E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ,
A l b a n y , B u r e a u o f E l e m e n t a r y and S e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n a l
T e s t i n g ; Bureau, o f Home Economics E d u c a t i o n , 1978. .
Ahmann, J . S t a n l e y and M arv in D. G l o c k , E v a l u a t i n g P u p i l
G r o w th , A l l y n and Bacon, I n c . , B o s t o n , .1 964.
A r n y , C l a r a Brown, E v a l u a t i o n i n Home E c o n o m i c s , A p p l e t b n C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , New York, 1965.
Bloom, B e n ja m in S . , E v a l u a t i o n t o Improve L e a r n i n g , McGrawH i l l , New York, 1981,
'
'
Bloom, B e n ja m in S . ,
Thomas H a s t i n g s ,
and George Madaus,
Handbook on F o r m a t i v e and Summative E v a l u a t i o n o f
S t u d e n t L e a r n i n g , M c G r a w - H i l l , New York, 1971.
Brodinsky,
Public
B e n e d ., G r a d i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g , N a t i o n a l S c h o o l
Relations
Association,
Arlington,
Virginia,
1972.
Chamberlain,
Economics
Valerie
and
Joan
Kelly,
Creative
Instruction,
Webster/McGraw-Hill, New
Home
York,
1975.
Chadderdon,
Hester,
Determining
the
Effectiveness
of
T e a c h i n g Home E c o n o m i c s , A H E A , Washington, D.C., 1974.
Cross,
Aleene,
Home
Economics
Evaluation,
Charles
M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g C o . , C o l u m b u s , O h i o , 19 7 5 •
E.
55
E b e l, R .L .,
Es s e n t i a l s
of E d u c a tio n a l M easurem ent,
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . , 1972•
E r i c k s o n , R i c h a r d C. and Tim L. M a n t l i n g , M e a s u r i n g S t u d e n t
G r o w t h - T e c h n i q u e s and P r o c e d u r e s f o r ' O c c u p a t i o n a l
E d u c a t i o n , A l l y n and Bacon, B o s t o n , 1977F l e c k , H e n r i e t t a , Toward B e t t e r T e a c h i n g o f Home E c o n o m i c s ,
M a c m i ll a n P u b l i s h i n g C o . , New York, 1974»
F u l t z , Ann a R o u e m a n , e t a l , Re a d i n g s i n E v a l u a t i o n - A
C o l l e c t i o n f o r E d u c a t o r s , The I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and
P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , D a n v i l l e , 1 1 1 . , 1972.
G r i g g s , M i l d r e d B a r n e s , "Ready, S e t , T e a c h ; T e a c h e r and
S t u d e n t E v a l u a t i o n , " F o r e c a s t , March 1.979» Volume 24»
Number 7*
G r o n l u n d , N o r m a n E . , Mea s u r e m e n t a n d E v a l u a t i o n - i n
T e a c h i n g , M a c m i l l i a n , New York, 1971 and 1976.
H a l l , O l i v e A. a n d B e a t r i c e P a o l u c c i ,
Te a c h i n g Home
E c o n o m i c s , J o h n W il e y and Sons , I n c . , New York, 1961.
H a l l , O l i v e A., R e s e a r c h H a n d b o o k f o r Home E c o n o m i c s
E d u c a t i o n , B u r g e s s P u b l i s h i n g Com pany, M i n n e a p o l i s ,
. M i n n e s o t a , 1962.
H o p k i n s , K e n n e t h a n d Gene G l a s s , Ba s i c S t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e
B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Eng lewood C l i f f s ,
N . J . , 1978.
H a r r o w , A n i t a , A T a x o n o m y f o r t h e P s y c h o m o t o r D o m a in ; A
Guide f o r D e v e l o p i n g B e h a v i o r a l O b j e c t i v e s , McKay, New
York 1972.
H a t c h e r , H a z e l , L i l i a H a l c h i n , T h e T e a c h i n g o f Home
E c o n o m i c s , Hough ton M i f f l i n C o . , B o s t o n , 1973K r a t h w o h l , D a v i d R., B e n j a m i n 8. B l o o m , B e r t r a m B. M a s i a ,
Taxonom y
of
E d u c a tio n a l
O b je c tiv e s:
The
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n a l G o a l s , Handbook I I ;
The
A f f e c t i v e Domain, David McKay, New York, 19f>4»
Joseph,
M a rjo ry and W illia m
D.
Joseph,
Re s e a r c h
F u n d a m e n t a l s i n Home E c o n o m ic s , P l y c o n P r e s s , B u r g e s s
P u b l i s h i n g Co.,
M inneapolis,
M ackenzie, L o u ise , E v a lu a tio n
E c o n o m i c s , The I n t e r s t a t e
I n c . , D a n v i l l e , 1 1 1 . , 1970.
M innesota,
1979«
i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f Home
P r i n t e r s and P u b l i s h e r s , •
56
M a t h e r , M a r y , " E v a l u a t i o n - More T han T e s t s , " I l l i n o i s
T e a c h e r , Volume X I I I , Number 6, J u l y - A u g u s t 1970.
S c h r a d e r , M a r v i n A. a n d R i c h a r d W e s t p h a l , R e l i a b i l i t y o f
Student E v alu atio n s of Student Perform ances, O ffice of
E d u c a t i o n (HEW), W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., 1976. ~
S h o e m a k e r , B y r l R. a n d D a r r i l l L . P a r k s , An I n s t r u c t i o n a l
S y s tem D e s i g n f o r V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n ^ J u n e 1976.
S i m p s o n , E l i z a b e t h J . , The G l a s s i f i c a t i o n
O b jectiv es:
P sy ch o m o to r , C o lle g e
U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , U r b a n a , 1966.
of E d u catio n al
of E d u ca tio n ,
S p a t z , C h r i s a n d J a m e s D. J o h n s t o n , B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s ,
T a b l e s o f D i s t r i b u t i o n s , 2 n d . E d . ,■ B r o o k s / C o l e
P u b l i s h i n g Co., M o n t e r e y , Ca., 1981.
S p i t z e , H a z e l , Ch o o s i n g
T e c h n i q u e s f o r T e a c h i n g and
■ l e a r n i n g , Home E c o n o m i c s . E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ,
N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.,
1970 .
T y l e r , R a l p h W., Ba s i c P r i n c i p l e s o f C u r r i c u l u m a n d
I n s t r u c t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , C h i c a g o , 1950.
"
W i l l i a m s o n , Maude, and Mary L y l e , Homemaking E d u c a t i o n i n
t h e H i g h S c h o o l , A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , New Y o r k ,
1961.
W o o ste r, Ju d y , "T each in g S tu d e n ts th e A rt of S e lf E v a l u a t i o n , " l e a r n i n g , V o lu m e 7> Num ber 6, F e b r u a r y , .
1979.
APPENDICES
58
APPENDIX A
TEST/RETEST
59
TEST/RETEST PARTICIPANTS
M arlene Ja c o b s e n
West J u n i o r High S c h o o l
G r e a t P a l l s , MT 59404
**
Nancy L i n n e l l
*
N o r t h T o o le Coun ty High S c h o o l
S u n b u r s t , MT 59482
L i n d a McGregor
**
Twin B r i d g e s J u n i o r High S c h o o l
Twin B r i d g e s , MT 59754
**
V ickie M ille r
Bozeman J u n i o r High S c h o o l
Bozeman, MT 59715
Mary J o n G e r n a t t
C. M. R u s s e l l High S c h o o l
G r e a t P a l l s , MT 59404
P r i s c i l l a Hedgecock
J e f f e r s o n High S c h o o l
B o u l d e r , MT 59652
Mary J o W ertz
Clyd e P a r k High S c h o o l
Cly d e P a r k , MT 59018
C athleen Z ie b a rth
P a r k S e n i o r High S c h o o l
L i v i n g s t o n , MT 59047
C a r e n W alker
M a n h a t t a n High S c h o o l
M a n h a t t a n , MT 59741
C harla L e th e rt
Columbus High S c h o o l
Columbus, MT 59019
*#-]
^ P a r t i c i p a t e d - i n 1978 and 1980 Workshop S e s s i o n s
. P a r t i c i p a t e d i n 1980 Workshop S e s s i o n .
1
Did n o t r e s p o n d .
2Did n o t c o m p l e t e r e t e s t . q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
60
March
, 19.8.3
T h a n k y o u f o r h e l p i n g me t o t e s t my i n s t r u m e n t .
I
a p p r e c i a t e your h e lp in t h i s im p o rta n t s te p . T his is th e
q u e s tio n n a ir e in i t s
f i n a l form .
P le a se com plete th e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s i f t h i s was t h e f i r s t t i m e you had s e e n
it.
I am u s i n g t h e t e s t / r e t e s t m e t h o d o f c h e c k i n g f o r
reliab ility .
Thank you a g a i n f o r y o u r h e l p .
I f you a r e i n t e r e s t e d in
r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y , p l e a s e
e n c l o s e a 3 x 5 c a r d w i t h y o u r name an d a d d r e s s w i t h t h e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e when you r e t u r n i t .
Again I h ave e n c l o s e d a
s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , stamped envelope f o r your convenience.
Very s i n c e r e l y y o u r s ,
Suzanne E. B o h l e e n
Box 105
W i l s a l l , MT 59086
61
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE
62
A p r i l 29,
1983
As a f o r m e r home e c o n o m i c 1s t e a c h e r who i s w o r k i n g t o w a rd a
M a s t e r s D e g ree i n home e c o n o m i c s , I am r e q u e s t i n g y o u r
h elp .
I am n o t a s k i n g f o r money, j u s t 20 t o 30 m i n u t e s o f
your t i m e .
As a f o r m e r c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r f o r t e n y e a r s ,
I am
in terested
i n i m p r o v i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n i n home
econom ics,
The f a c e t o f t h e e d u c a t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t I am
in v estig atin g
is
the e v alu atio n p ro cess.
I
. became
in terested
in e v a lu a tio n a f t e r
p articip atin g
in
the
C u r r i c u l u m w o r k s h o p s a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y i n 1978
and 1980 .
The p u r p o s e o f my s t u d y i s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
current
e v a l u a t i o n p r a c t i c e s o f s e c o n d a r y home e c o n o m i c 1s
teachers
i n M o n ta n a.
I have d e f i n e d s e c o n d a r y home
e c o n o m i c 1s t e a c h e r s a s t h o s e who t e a c h i n a s c h o o l t h a t t h e
d i s t r i c t c a l l s "High S c h o o l . "
The i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s have b e e n d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e domain o f l e a r n i n g t h e y a r e u s e d t o e v a l u a t e .
Please
c h e c k t h e f r e q u e n c y o f t h e i t e m s and i n s t r u m e n t s YOU have
u s e d i n t h e p a s t y e a r i n e a c h s u b j e c t a r e a t h a t you c o v e r .
The s u b j e c t a r e a s a r e t h e same a s t h o s e l i s t e d
in the
Mon tana Scope and S e q u e n ce f o r Home E c o n o m i c s .
The a r e a s
o f c l o t h i n g and f o c u s h ave b e e n s u b d i v i d e d t o r e f l e c t t h e
v ariety
o f a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e s e two s u b j e c t a r e a s .
The
s u b j e c t a r e a s a r e f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d on t h e D e f i n i t i o n P a g e .
The r e t u r n
envelope
is
coded so t h a t I c a n c h e c k o f f
r e s p o n s e s and s e n d f o l l o w - u p r e m i n d e r s .
the q u e stio n n a ire
answ ers w i l l rem ain p o n f i d e n t i a l .
The r e s u l t s
of the
survey
w i l l provide a b a s is fo r
recommendations f o r
preservice
and/or
inservice preparation
of
teachers
r e g a r d i n g e v a l u a t i o n o f s t u d e n t knowledge,
behaviors,
and
products.
Please
r e t u r n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e by May 14,
1983'
Thank You. ■
'
Very s i n c e r e l y y o u r s ,
Suzanne E. B o h l e e n
Box 105
W i l s a l l , MT 59086
63
SUBJECT AREA DEFINITIONS
A-1
C l o t h i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n - A u n i t w hich c o n t a i n s
a c tu a l c o n stru ctio n of a p ro jec t.
the
A-2
T e x t i l e s , Groom ing, C l o t h i n g S e l e c t i o n - A u n i t or
u n i t s t h a t cover th e b alan ce of th e t o p ic s l i s t e d
i n t h e c l o t h i n g s e c t i o n o f t h e Montana Scope and
Sequence.
B-1
N u tr itio n - U n its c o v erin g the to p ic s of:
basic
n u t r i t i o n , . m eal p l a n n i n g , b u d g e t i n g and b a s i c
knowledge o f foods.
B-2
Food P r e p a r a t i o n - A u n i t w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e han d s on
p r e p a r a t i o n o f f o o d d i s h e s and m e a l s .
C
Consumer E d u c a ti o n - U n i t s c o v e r i n g t h e t o p i c s o f :
v a lu e s , g o a ls , management of r e s o u r c e s , buying
guidelines, ad v ertisin g , c re d it, taxes, e tc.
D
C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t and R e l a t i o n s h i p s - U n i t s t h a t c o v e r
t h e t o p i c s a s l i s t e d i n t h e M o n tan a Scope and
Sequence.
E
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s - U n i t s t h a t c o v e r t h e t o p i c s
a s l i s t e d i n t h e Montana Scope and S e q u e n c e .
DEFINITIONS FOR WHO RATES
I n s t r u c t o r - The s e c o n d a r y home
eco n o m ics
e v a l u a t e d t h e s t u d e n t ’ s work.
P e e r ' ( S t u d e n t ) - The s t u d e n t ' s w o r k i s
o th e r s t u d e n t( s ) in th e c la s s .
teach er
e v a l u a t e d b y th'e
S e l f ( S t u d e n t ) - The s t u d e n t e v a l u a t e s h i s / h e r own work.
B o th I n s t r u c t o r a n d S t u d e n t - The w o r k i s e v a l u a t e d i n a
c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t by b o t h t h e s t u d e n t and
teacher.
Other - T h is c o u l d i n c l u d e :
a d m in istrato rs,
p aren ts,
g u e s t s , o r any o t h e r o b s e r v e r i n t h e c l a s s r o o m .
64
E V A L U A T I O N IN HOflC E C O N O M I C S
01
Semeater or Year courses YOU currently teach.
Please check thgae that apply*.
Comprehensive
S p e c i a l i z e d Area(e)
A.
8.
C.
I
0.
c.
f|2.
Clothing
__________
F oode
Consumer Education _
Child Development &
Relationship# ______
Houeing/Home
Furnishings ______
Subject Area/Frequency
The following section deals with evaluation items end instruments used to evaluate student
knowledge, behaviors and/or products in home economics, and the frequency each item or instrument
is usod in each subject area. Please indicate the frequency each item or instrument is used in
each subject area using the following scale.
..
F requentIy use
3
Occasionally use
2
Seldom uee
I
Never use
O
e
Io i r
: ti
I
-H
-H r
+» 4>
HO
-*
-H O
U U
2
i
5
Si
A-I
A— 2
U IU
5 -
C
D
B-2
B-I
Ir,
> 1
Ti
FM
O U
u. a
*
M
> O
® -H
Q **
O
—« t.
z: ♦>
02-A.
-H
S
E
MCASURES UF COGNITIVE ACHIEVCMENT:
I. Recognition Items:
a.
Multiple Choice Items
a stimulus statement (stem) followed by a Ilet of three to five possible responses
or alternatives.
b.
True-False Items
a Declarative statement that the test taker is asked to mark true or false, agree
or disagree.
c.
Matching Iterns
a sot of multiple stems or premises ae well
FREQUENCY OF USE
FREQUENCY OF USE
FREQUENCY OF USE
_ ] _ _ _ _ _ L - - - - - - 1- - - - - - I
I'
I
2.
I
i
I
I
I - - - - - - 1—
I
I
I
i
multiple alternatives to ho matched.
~T~
I
I
J____ I
Constructed-Pns^rnsa Items:
a.
Short-answer Items
I)
Completion Iterns
an incomplete sentence, which the student must complete with a word or phrase
to make it correct.
2)
FREQUENCY Of USE________________|
|
|
j
[
|
|
Definition Items
e definition of a given term or a statement of principle or convention
constructed from memory.
3)
FREQUENCY OF USE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identification Items
an object identified using visual, olfactory, auoltory or kinesthetic senses.
FREQUENCY OF USE
|
[
|
f
I
65
02. Cont•
frequently uee
Occaelonelly uee
Seldom use
Never uee
b.
I
Ii
*
Si
2
£
° S £
O^-U
S
*
C__ «
?S£
ZSZ
5M
A-1
A-2
B-I
O
B-2 - L E
Cesey Items
I) Restricted Response Items
en item that limits response by including epeclfIc delimiters in content or
form. (l.e. List four (d) factors.)
2)
rqrquCNCV or u s e
I
I
I
I
|
Extended Response Items
an item that allows unlimited freedom to relate any end all factors
pertaining to the question.
FREQUENCY OF USE
Q2— 0.
U
3
2
I
O
Il k I
I
*e •
KEY:
|
I
|
|
|
I
|- - - - - - - -
MEASURES OF AFFECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT:
I. Direct Observation
the viewing ano recording of e behavior with regard to a stimulus object.
FREQUENCY OF U j E
2.
3.
(
I
I
l
l
l
l
Interview
the asking of open- and closed-ended questions In e face-to-face situation.
FREQUENCY CF USE
Self-Reportinq Items:
|
|
|
|
I ' ' I '
I
I
I
I
a.
Questionnaires and Inventories
e printed set of questions or items to be completed.
b.
Checklist
s list of behaviors or activities that are checked as having been completed.
c.
Open-ended Items
a sentence to be completed, so that the thought Is complete.
d.
Rating Items
a items rated according to egree/dieagree/undecided, etc.
e.
FREQUENCY UF USE
I
I
l
l
l
l
l
Forced-Choice Items
a set of statements selected by choosing one over the other ee paired in all
possible combinations.
f.
Ranking of Items
a set of items listed in order or Importance.
Q.
Q-aort
• t a t ■ about a concept or object sorted Into piles representing e range of
attitudes.
h.
Diaries and Logs
a continuous record kept over a period of time.
FREQUENCY OF USE
FREQUENCY OF USE
FREQUENCY OF USE
FREQUENCY CF USE
I
|
I
|
I
I
|
|
|
I
|
[
I
|
]- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - 1- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - -
|
|
FREqilCNCY OF USE
FREQUENCY CF USE
I
FREQUENCY OF USE_______________ |
Q2-C.
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T
MEASURES OF Ir IFORriNC E :
I.
2.
The Process Cb'ervatlcn
the viewing snn recording of the methods used to produce the product.
1
FREQUENCY OF USE
------1------ ------ 1------ 1---- 1------ LTh. Product:
e. Ranking
the comparison of products by placing them in order from beet to pooreat.
FREQUENCY OF USE
I
b.
i
i
i
i
i
Product Scale
a product compared to a collection of aamplee or products tnat vary in degree
or quality.
FREQUENCY CF USE
I
T
I
I
I
I
-
Checkllet
e Ilet of beheviore or proem
FRcqucNcv or use_ _ _ _ _
k.
Z
i
i
11 HI
A-I
»-2
POOj
frequently uee
Occeelonelly uee
Seldom uee
Never uee
S
B-I
ug
Il
B-?
.5
Child
?
-H
u u n e je d e z d
02. Cont•
Nutrition
66
C
II
O
thet are checked ee having been completed.
X
I
d.
Scorecard
a product1e characterletIce eeeeured by aeelgnlng numbers to epeclflc rating
categorlee.
_________FREQUENCY OF USE___________
e, Graphic-Rating Scale
a product's char acter let ice meeeured by aeelgnlng category deecrlptlone on an
unbroken horizontal line.
f.
FREQUENCY OF USE
I
Identification Teet
the identification of objecte or parte of objecte; dietlngulehlng between
correct end incorrect procedures; or ldentlfylng»the adequacy of products.
________ FREQUENCY OF USE___________
g. Work-Sample
the controlled making o f # sample product.
X
X
________FRCQUCNCV or USE ________________ I
Simulation Test
an activity designed to duplicate the real life situation by using specialized
equipment or making modifacatione In existing equipment.
X
X
FREQUENCY OF USE
L
The following section deals with who usee the evaluation
items end instruments to do the evaluation. Uho Ie the
scorer or evaluator of the behavior or product? Please
check those which have been weed in your cleat (e)
during the school year. The items ere defined in the
previous section.
Q3-A.
Measures of Affective Achievement:
I.
2,
3.
A.
C
I
I
filr act Observation
Intsrv.^u
. .ostionnaircs af:i Inventories
Cn--C1*I i ’it
on- OOtitJ vMOtnncas
ST nalin7 7
Frrcoc-Choicn Ilsns
3, 3ioK ing n Ttena
_-3crt
10. Diaries *od Loce
f
Q3-B.
Both Instructor
and Student
Who Evaluetes
Instructor
13.
I
i
------- 1- ■
----------------------
i-------
Moasures of Performance:
I.
2,
%
5.
ST
7.
ST
57
Tho Prnrp is t'fcer ua
dan. ina Jr-' Jucta
r_-uct lcsla
Zn 2K11st
Sr recar
Cr i .h!c-.*l*t Io-i Srale
I-!notification Ycst
JorK-Samnie
Simulation T p s E
_____ ______
I
67
May 10, 1983 .
Dear
I f you h ave n o t a l r e a d y r e t u r n e d y o u r c o m p l e t e d
q u e s t i o n n a i r e p l e a s e t a k e 20 t o 30 m i n u t e s t o f i l l i t
out
and r e t u r n i t .
' I r e a l i z e t h a t t h i s i s a b u s y t im e o f t h e
year but the
i n f o r m a t i o n you h ave i s . i m p o r t a n t t o my
survey.
I f you n e ed a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
please c a ll
COLLECT 5 7 8 - 2 3 6 9 .
Thank y o u ,
Suzanne B o h l e e n
Box 105
W i l s a l l , MT 59086
68
APPENDIX C
TEST/RETEST DATA TABLES
69-
T a b l e 19 •
Summary of t h e P e a r s o n P ro d u c t^ M o m e n t
C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s fro m t h e T e s t / R e t e s t o f
the Q uestionnaire
C o g n i t i v e Domain:
C lothing C o n stru ctio n
C lothing S e le c tio n , T e x tile s
Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Developm ent and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
..9 2 0 9 *
.0152 *
.9 7 5 5
.1306 *
.9 9 5 0 *
.9 9 1 7 *
.9 9 7 6
A f f e c t i v e Domain:
C lothing C o nstruction
C lothing S e le c tio n , T e x tile s
Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d D e velopm ent and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
•4672
.8 5 4 9 *
.7 0 8 9
.4 7 3 6 *
.9 0 3 6 *
.9 6 9 8
.4 7 6 7
P e r f o r m a n c e Domain:
C lothing C o n stru ctio n
C lothing S e le c tio n , T e x tile s
Grooming
N u tritio n
Food P r e p a r a t i o n
Consumer E d u c a t i o n
C h i l d Developm ent and R e l a t i o n s h i p s
Housing/Home F u r n i s h i n g s
* P < .0 5
.7 4 9 6 *
.7 4 4 2 *
.4 3 7 4 *
.9 2 0 5 *
.8 7 7 4 *
• 9103 *
.8 5 8 3
70
T a b l e 20 .
Respondent
A
B
C
D
E
P
G
H
I
J
Summary o f t h e P a i r s o f R e s p o n s e s f o r t h e T e s t R e t e s t f o r t h e Who E v a l u a t e s S e c t i o n o f t h e
Q uestionnaire
Checked f i r s t
tim e b u t not
second
2
5
5
6
10
10
16
10
2
Checked s e c o n d
Same
tim e b u t n o t
Responses
first '
both times
0
17
• 4
5
11
0
13
0
—
2
5
10
16
14
7
3
—
17
MONT A N A STATE UNIVERSITY I Trradtcc
3 1762 10054615 7