\ INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs^ may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75- 11,326 CASTERLINE, Larry Earl, 1942- THE EFFECTS OF TRAINING PLANS ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION AS A TRAINING PROGRAM. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 Education, vocational

Xerox University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

0 1975

LARRY EARL CASTERLINE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE EFFECTS OF TRAINING PLANS ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION AS A TRAINING PROGRAM

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Larry E. C a ste rlin e , B.S., M.Ed.

*****

The Ohio State University 1974

Reading Committee: Approved By

Dr. Neal E. Vivian Dr. William Dowling Dr. Robert McCormick Adviser lollege of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his appreciation for the counsel and guidance provided by Dr. Neal Vivian, Professor of Education, His dedication to distributive education and desire to help further knowledge in the field of expertise is unquestioned. A special thanks goes to Dr. William Dowling, P rofessor of A dult Education, and Dr. Robert McCormick, Professor and Assistant Vice-President for Continuing Education. These gentlemen were always ready and willing to offer suggestions and ideas. Their assistance in reading and criticizing the manual was invaluable. The writer wishes to express thanks to Mr. Roger Brown, computer specialist, and the educational development consulting center at The Ohio State University. Their help in data analysis was extensive. Finally, the encouragement and understanding given by the w riter's immediate family and close friends is acknowledged and appreciated.

ii VITA

June 20, 1942 Born - Warren, Ohio 1964 B.S., Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 1965 M.Ed. in Business and Distributive Educa­ tion, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 1965-1966 Teacher-Coordinator of Distributive Educa­ tion, Rogers High School, Toledo, Ohio 1966-1969 Teacher-Coordinator of Distributive Educa­ tion, Medina High School, Medina, Ohio 1969-1970 Adult Consultant of Distributive Education, Northwestern, Ohio, Vocational Division, State Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio 1970-1974 State Supervisor of Distributive Education, Northwestern, Ohio, Vocational Division, State Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio Fields of Study Major Fields; Business Education in Undergraduate School, Dr. Mearl Guthrie, Advisor, Bowling Green State University Business and Distributive Education in Graduate School, Dr. Chester Mills, Advisor, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio Vocational and Technical Education, Adult Education, Distributive Education in Gradu­ ate School, Dr. Neal Vivian, Advisor, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Minor Fields: Speech in Undergraduate School, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio School Administration in Graduate School, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... i i VITA ...... i i i Chapter I . INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 5 Need fo r the S t u d y...... 7 Hypotheses ...... 9 Delimitations ...... 10 Definition of Terms...... 11 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 14 Cooperative Education ...... 14 Distributive Education ...... 22 Training Plans ...... 24 Related Research ...... 34 III. PROCEDURES...... 38 Population and S c a le...... 38 D e s i g n ...... 41 Collection of D a ta ...... 44 R e sp o n se s...... 46 Instrumentation ...... 50 IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS...... 54 Statistical Technique ...... 54 Mean Value Interpretation ...... 58 Analysis of the Pre-Test D ata...... 59 Pre-Test Student D ata ...... 61 Pre-Test Teacher-Coordinator Data ...... 62 Pre-Test Training Sponsor Data ...... 64 A nalysis of the P o st-T est D a t a ...... 67 Post-Test Student Data ...... 67 Post-Test Teacher-Coordinator D a ta ...... 77 Post-Test Training Sponsor Data ...... 79 Summary...... 87

iv V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 95 Summary...... 95 Conclusions...... 96 Training Sponsors ...... 97 Teacher-Coordinators ...... 99 S t u d e n t s ...... 100 Recommendations ...... 102

Append!x A TEACHER-COORDINATORQUESTIONNAIRE ...... 106 B STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE...... 110 C TRAINING SPONSOR QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 114 D LETTER SENT TO TEACHER-COORDINATORS FOR PRE-TEST 119 E LETTER SENT TO TEACHER-COORDINATORS FOR POST-TEST 121 F LETTER SENT TO TRAINING SPONSORS FOR POST-TEST . 123 G DATA FOR SCHEFFE POST-HOC TEST: STUDENTS .... 125 H DATA FOR SCHEFFE POST-HOC TEST: TRAINING SPONSORS...... 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 129

v LIST OF TABLES

1. Pre-Test Numbers and Percentages of Returned Questionnaires for Control and Experimental Groups by Students, Teacher-Coordinators and Training Sponsors ...... 46 2. P ost-T est Numbers and P ercentages of Returned Questionnaires for Control and Experimental Groups by Students, Teacher-Coordinators and Training Sponsors ...... 49 3. P re-T est Means of Students by Control and Experimental Group ...... 60 4. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Students on the Pre-Test for Control and Experimental Groups . 61 5. Pre-Test Means of Teacher-Coordinators by Control and Experimental Group ...... 63 6. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Teacher- Coordinators on the Pre-Test for Control and Experimental Groups ...... 64 7. P re-T est Means of T rain in g Sponsors by C ontrol and Experimental Groups ...... 65 8. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Training Sponsors on the Pre-Test for Control and Experimental G ro u p s...... 66 9. Cell Mean, Standard Deviation, and Size of Group of Students by Control Group, Experimental Group, U tiliz a tio n of T raining Plan or Non- Utilization of a Training P lan ...... 68 10. Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Students Grouped by Control or Experimental and by Utilization or Non-Utilization of a Training Plan .... 69 11. Mean, Standard D eviation, and Size of Group of Teacher-Coordinators by Control Group and Experimental Group ...... 78

vi 12. One-Way Analysis of Variance Grouped by Control and Experimental...... 79 13. Cell Mean, Standard Deviation, and Size of Group of Training Sponsors by Control Group, Experimental Group, Utilization of Training Plan or Non-Utilization of Training Plan . . . 80 14. Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Training Sponsors Grouped by Control and Experimental and by Utilization or Non-Utilization of a Training Plan 61

vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Graphic Illustration of Interaction between Students by Control Group, Experimental Group, U tiliz a tio n of T raining Plans and Non- Utilization of Training Plans ...... Graphic Illustration of Interaction between Training Sponsors by Control Group, Experimental Group, Utilization of Training Plans and Non-Utilization of Training Plans

viii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Vocational education has been an important element in America's history since the early days when the appren­ ticeship method was used to train youth for employment. As technologies grew, the need for vocational education in the secondary schools became apparent. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was the f i r s t F ederal le g is la tio n fo r th is purpose. From that date, vocational education has grown, and larger numbers of students are being served every year. In order to provide these vocational programs, various methods of instruction have been developed. One method is known as cooperative education. "Cooperative edu­ ca tio n has been commonly defined as an arrangement between the school and the employers which enables a student to receive vocational instruction in the school and on-the-job training through part-time employment."1 Cooperative educa­ tion has been utilized by educators for many years. Over fifty years ago, the University of Cincinnati started placing the engineering students in related employment as

^Benton Miles, "The Measurement of the Perceptions of Distributive Education as a Training Program Held by Dis­ tributive Education Students and Training Sponsors" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1971), p. 1. 2

p a rt of th e ir program. The cooperative movement in second­ ary education started in the southern states and spread across the United States. Today, cooperative programs enjoy a respectable position in the area of vocational education. The National Advisory Council for Vocational Educa­ tion recognized the potential in cooperative education by "stating flatly that cooperative education had the best record of all vocational programs in terms of the proportion of students placed in the occupation for which they were tra in e d ." ^ Distributive education has extensively utilized the cooperative method fo r many years. The f i r s t known coopera­ tive programs to train students in retail store work was started in Boston in 1912. The originator was Lucinda Wyman 3 Prince. From that program, cooperative distributive educa­ tion grew to an enrollment of 640,423 high school students 4 in the United States during the 1972 fiscal year. In Ohio, the first cooperative distributive educa-

2 Rupert Evans, "Advantages, Disadvantages and Factors in Development of Cooperative Programs," American Vocational Journal XLIV (May 1969):19. 3 Susan S. Schrumpf, ed., The Origin and Development of Distributive Education (New Jersey: Gregg/McGraw-Hill, 1972), p. 2. 4 U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Summary Data Vocational Education Fiscal Year 1972 (Washing- ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 2. 5 tio n program was s ta rte d in 1933 in S p rin g fie ld , Ohio. The programs have grown in number until during the 1973-74 school g year there were approximately 390 programs. If continued growth is an indication, it appears that cooperative distri­ butive education has established itself as an effective vocational program. Most authors in the area of vocational distributive education agree that a cooperative program is composed of three elements. These are on-the-job training, related classroom instruction activity, and student youth organiza­ tions. On-the-job training allows the student to put into use what he has learned in the classroom. The related classroom instruction gives the student the opportunity to learn those competencies necessary to succeed in his chosen occupation. The youth club activities provide the oppor­ tunity to develop leadership. If a cooperative program is to meet the objective of training students for a career, there must be a plan to insure that the on-the-job training and classroom instruc­ tion are coordinated. It is important that the learning activities are planned and not accidental or incidental.

5 Paul Shoemaker, "History of Distributive Education in Ohio" (Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1971), p. 22. ^Ohio Department of Distributive Education, Annual Report. 1974. 4

The instrument that is used to accomplish this task is a training plan. A training plan is developed in conjunction with the employer, student, teacher-coordinator, and sometimes parent or school official. It will usually identify the competen­ cies that the student needs at the completion of the program to meet his occupational objective. It will identify whether the student receives instruction in each of the com­ petencies in the classroom, on-the-job, or both. If instruction is received in the classroom, it would be iden­ tified as group instruction or individual project. Once an item on the training plan has been accomplished, the teacher-coordinator will record a completion date. It is a cooperative effort by the business and school to guide the student in reaching his occupational goal. Even though the training plan is an important part of a cooperative program, there are some teacher-coordinators in Ohio who are not utilizing this instrument. This fact became evident as a result of program evaluations that are mandated in the V ocational Education Amendments of 1968. The Ohio Vocational Education Division of the Ohio Depart­ ment of Education developed an evaluation system known as PRIDE (Program Review for the Improvement, Development, and Expansion of Vocational Education and Guidance). During the 1972-73 school year, eighteen cooperative distributive edu­ cation programs were evaluated in Northwest Ohio using the 5

PRIDE instruments. Only one of the eighteen programs had a training plan for each student. When teacher-coordinators were questioned as to why they were not using training plans, responses were received which included: they take too much time, they are not necessary, employers do not want to be bothered. Most responses seem to indicate that the teacher-coordinator is not convinced as to the value of training plans.

Statement of the Problem The problem of this study is to determine whether in-service training for teacher-coordinators on training plans affects how cooperating employers, distributive educa­ tion students, and distributive education teacher-coordina­ tors perceive distributive education as a training program. More specifically, the study will seek to compare perceptions of employers, students, and distributive educa­ tion teacher-coordinators where the teacher-coordinator is participating in in-service training on the development and use of training plans with the perceptions of employers, students, and teacher-coordinators where the teacher- coordinator is not receiving in-service training on training plans. It will compare changes occurring over an eight- month period of time as measured by a pre-test and post-test. The specific objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To compare the perceptions of cooperating employers concerning distributive education as a training program who work with teachers who have participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans with the perceptions of cooperating employers who work with teachers who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. To compare the perceptions of distributive education students concerning distributive education as a training program who work with teachers who have participated in an in- service program on the development and use of training plans with the perceptions of distri­ butive education students who work with teachers who have not participated in an in- service program on the development and use of training plans. To compare the perceptions of distributive education teacher-coordinators of distributive education as a training program who have par­ ticipated |n an in-service program on the development and use of training plans with the perceptions of distributive education teacher- coordinators who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. Need fo r th e Study There is a need for research in distributive educa­ tion in areas such as training plans and perceptions of distributive education. Most of the present research does not concern itself with topics such as these. According to 7 Logan and Meyer, 75 percent of the studies reported in distributive education in 1966 were concerned with four major areas: examination of teaching methods, guidance and personnel services, curriculum, and evaluation. The writer was able to locate only one study that was closely related g to this topic. Much emphasis has been put on training plans in the literature. They have been described as an important ele­ ment in the distributive education program. Mason and 9 Haines explain that: The development of these specific training plans, together with follow-up activities on them, becomes one of the most important activities of the teacher-coordinator during his coordination duty.

7 Warren G. Meyer and William B. Logan, Review and Synthesis of Research in Distributive Education (Columbus: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, 1967), p. 4. Q Miles, "The Measurement of the Perceptions of Dis­ tributive Education.as a Training Program Held by Distribu­ tive Education Students and Training Sponsors." g Ralph E. Mason and P eter G. Haines, Cooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum (Danville: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1965), p. 364. 8

Not only are the teacher-coordinators encouraged in pre-service education to use training plans, but they are mandated by Federal legislation to use them when they start to teach. The Federal Register of the Department of Health, Education, and W elfare s ta te s in Volume 35 th a t, "the cooperative program provides on-the-job training that is conducted in accordance with written training agreements between local educational agencies and employers. . .1,10 A training plan is part of a training agreement. There are many sources such as those cited above that say training plans should or must be used in coopera­ tive distributive education programs, but through the PRIDE evaluations, it is evident that teacher-coordinators are not using this instrument. It is hoped that this study will determine if the use of training plans makes a positive difference in how the distributive education program is perceived as a training program by employers, students, and teacher-coordinators. It is believed that a more positive perception of distribu­ tive education as a training program on the part of students, employers, and teacher-coordinators will result in a better learning situation for the student. Also, if it is deter­ mined that training plans do make a positive difference, the Ohio Department of Distributive Education may wish to

^U .S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Federal Register 35, no. 91 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 7349. 9

consider closer supervision of local programs to insure their use. Other states may wish to consider the findings of this study when evaluating the necessity of training plans in their local schools. It is also believed that if it is concluded that training plans do not make a difference, further study may be needed to determine if training plans are a necessary part of a cooperative program.

Hypotheses To accomplish the purpose of this study, the follow­ ing hypotheses will be tested. 1. The perceptions of cooperating employers con­ cerning distributive education as a training program who work with teachers who have par­ ticipated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans will be more positive than the perceptions of cooper­ ating employers who work with teachers who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. 2. The perceptions of distributive education stu­ dents concerning distributive education as a training program who work with teachers who have participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans will be more positive than the perceptions of dis­ tributive education students who work with 10

teachers who have not participated in an in- service program on the development and use of training plans. 3. The perceptions of distributive education teacher-coordinators of distributive education as a training program who have participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans will be more positive than the perceptions of distributive education teacher-coordinators who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans.

Delimitations 1. This study is limited to the students, employers, and teacher-coordinators of distributive educa­ tion cooperative programs in twenty-eight counties in Northwest Ohio. These counties are: A llen Henry Richland Ashland Huron Sandusky A uglaize Logan Seneca Crawford Lucas Shelby Defiance Marion Union E rie Mercer Van Wert Fulton Morroy W illiams Hancock Ottawa Wood Hardin Paulding Wyandot Putnam 2. This study is limited to senior cooperative dis­ tributive educatiqn students, their employers, and teacher-coordinators. 11

D e fin itio n of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined. | Cooperative education refers to a program for persons who are enrolled in a school and who, through a cooperative arrangement between the school and employers, receive part-time vocational instruction in the school, and on-the-job training through part-time employment. It pro­ vides for alternation of study in school with a job in industry or business, the two experiences being planned and supervised by school and employer so that each contributes definitely to the student's development in his chosen occu- p atio n . 11 The cooperative method in distributive education refers to a means by which an organized sequence of on-the- job learning experiences to develop competencies related to each student's distributive occupational interest is corre­ lated with classroom instruction. For the purpose of this study, the term distributive education will refer only to the cooperative method. 12 Coordination refers to the process of organizing, developing and maintaining effective relationships among all groups involved in the distributive education program to the

11Definitions of Terms in Vocational Technical and Practical Arts Education (Washington. D.C.: American Voca- tional Association, undated). 12

end that the student receives the best possible preparation for a career in distribution. 13 Distributive education refers to a vocational instructional program to enter a distributive occupation or an occupation requiring competency in one or more of the 14 marketing functions. Distributive education teacher-coordinator refers to a member of the local school staff who teaches distributive education and related subject matter to students preparing for employment and coordinates classroom instruction with on-the-job training or with occupationally oriented learning activities. . . of students. 15 Distributive occupations refers to those occupations followed by proprietors, managers, or employees engaged primarily in marketing or merchandising of goods and ser­ v ic es. These occupations are commonly found in various business establishments such as retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, storing, transporting, financing and risk b e a rin g .16 Training plan refers to a plan indicating what is to be learned by a specific student-learner. It is derived

13 Lucy C. Crawford, A Competency Pattern Approach to Curriculum Construction in Distributive Teacher Education (Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1968). 14 AVA D efinitions. 15 Ib id . 13 from a realistic analysis of the tasks, duties, and respon­ sibilities of the student-learner in his part-time occupa­ tion, and is developed jointly by the teacher-coordinator and the training station sponsor. 17 Training station refers to the business establish­ ment where the student-learner receives supervised occupa­ tional learning experiences through part-time employment. Training stations are selected and developed by teacher- coordinators. 18 Training station sponsor refers to the person who is directly responsible for the occupational learning exper- 19 iences of the student-learner at the training station.

17 Mason and Haines, Cooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum, p. 58. 18Ib id . 19 Ibid. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE

The cooperative distributive education program in­ volves many interlocking facets. The development and imple­ mentation of training plans is one of these facets. Because training plans depend upon and are depended upon for other aspects of the cooperative program, it is believed a review of the literature of cooperative education and distributive education is necessary before training plans are reviewed.

Cooperative Education The cooperative program of vocational education is designed to combine on-the-job experiences with classroom instruction. This allows a student to have the advantage of an "uptown faculty" to help train him as well as the teacher- coordinator in the local school. The Center for Vocational and Technical Education has described the co-op program as: . . . a program of vocational education developed jointly by the school and business or industry in which job skills and job adjustment are secured through an organized sequence of job experiences in paid part-time employment and through classroom experiences in related instruction.1

Harry Huffman, Guidelines in Cooperative Education (Columbus: The Center for Vocational and Technical Educa­ tion, 1967), p. 4.

14 15

Mason and Haines are active writers in the area of cooperative education. In their latest book, they have explained that: Cooperative occupational experience programs have as their central purpose the development of occupa­ tional competence, using employment in a real-life job as a source of learning. The school selects as a training agency a firm that will provide the occu­ pational experiences needed by the student, and the school supervises the student's experience. Class- work in school provides those learnings basic to employment and to the occupation sought. The occu­ pational experience is expected to be the source for gaining knowledge as well as a vehicle for applying and testing what has been learned in school.* The American Association of School Administrators are more specific about the training being related to the

student's occupational interest. T h e y defined the coopera­ tive program as: . . . an organizational pattern of instruction which involves regularly scheduled part-time employ­ ment and which gives students an opportunity to apply classroom learnings in practice. It enables them to develop occupational competencies through training on jobs related to their occupational i n t e r e s t . 3 The above descriptions and definitions are broad and are not intended to describe a complex program in one para­ graph, but one can easily identify common elements that the three sources have identified. These include the basic

o Mason and H aines, Cooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum, p. 15. 3 Lucy C. Crawford and Warren G. Meyer, Organization and Administration of Distributive Education, quoted in Lucy Crawford, A Competency Pattern Approach to Curriculum Con­ struction in Distributive Teacher Education, p. 11. purpose of occupational competence, instruction on-the-job and in the classroom,; learning experiences in an organized sequence, and the training station being a roal-life situa tion. Mason and Haines agree with these elements and have included additional ones in their eight key conditions of cooperative program. They are: 1. The primary and overriding purpose is to provide occupational competence at a defined entry level. 2. The instruction both in-school and at the train­ ing station is based upon the student's career goal. 3. The kind, extent, and sequence of the training station learning experiences are correlated closely with the kind, extent, and sequence of the in-school learning experiences. 4. Students may elect the cooperative plan, only when they possess the employability character­ istics acceptable in the market place as well as necessary basic knowledges and skills prerequi­ site to employment. 5. The employment situation must be truly a train­ ing station where the firm understands and accepts its teaching responsibility and where an individual is given time to act as a training sponsor, one who can fulfill the role of the downtown la b o ra to ry teach er. 6. The employment conditions are not only legal employment, but acceptable by all other stan­ dards of the school. 7. The coordinator has sufficient time to carry out his coordination responsibilities and be account­ able for quality education. 8. Instruction is characterized by its individual­ ization, by the use of projects, by remediation 17

as required, and by interaction with the program of a youth organization.4 A quality cooperative program that meets the above key conditions is an asset to all involved parties. The literature almost totally accepts the previous statement as assumption because of the success and growth of cooperative programs. The parties that receive the greatest advantages are the student, school, and employer. The student has the advantage of a realistic work situation. He has a training sponsor and teacher-coordinator who have the responsibility of helping him reach his occupational objective. He has hands-on experience to develop and utilize good work habits and human relations techniques. These and other advantages to the student were identified by the Center for Vocational and Technical Education at The Ohio State University. They are enumerated in the Guidelines in Cooperative Education as: Provides a realistic learning setting in which the student may discover his true interests and abilities. Develops a good understanding of employment opportu­ nities and responsibilities through direct on-the-job experience. Exposes students to basic information regarding busi­ ness, industry, and off-farm agriculture needed for intelligent life choices. Develops work habits and attitudes necessary for indi­ vidual maturity and job competence. Provides a laboratory for developing marketable skills.

4 Mason and H aines, C ooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum, pp. 15-l6. 18

Gives meaning and purpose to the theoretical and practice assignments presented in the school situa­ tio n . Provides first-hand experience with other employees which leads to a better understanding of the human factors in business and industry. Provides financial rewards while learning employ­ ment skills and understanding. Provides an opportunity to participate in and profit by two types of learning environment—school life and employment. Provides an effective test of aptitude for chosen field of work.5 When one considers the advantages of a cooperative program, he must consider the school. The most noticeable advantage to the school is that it can expand its facilities into the community. This can be done at a minimum of cost as compared to duplicating similar facilities in the school. Another advantage to the school is that it helps integrate the school into the community and vice versa. The school and community are working together toward a common goal of student improvement. These and other advantages as identified by the Voca­ tional and Technical Center are: Enlarges the learning facilities available for stu­ dents enrolled without a major expenditure for shop and laboratory equipment. Brings business, industry, agriculture, and the school together in a training effort to develop a strong vocational program. Brings to the school at a low per capita cost a wealth of social and technical information which

^Huffman, Guidelines in Cooperative Education, p. 8. 19

may be used as the basis for effective instruction for the varied needs of the students. Gives the school an effective means of evaluating its overall instructional program. Increases the holding power of the school by help­ ing students clarify career goals and providing a p r a c tic a l means of reaching them.® The advantages to the employer for working with a cooperative program are numerous. Probably the most impor­ tant is that it provides the employer with the opportunity to train the student while he is in school so he can assume a p o s itio n of le a d e rsh ip in th e company a f te r graduation. He receives a student who is receptive to instruction and is motivated to work toward a chosen career. The employer also has the advantage of being re­ lieved of some of the responsibilities for training. In many cases, the company does not have any training program. The cooperative program helps the training sponsor to organ­ ize his efforts toward training the student. Other advantages include: The employer becomes a partner in selecting, instruc­ ting, and training young workers in the skills and understandings needed for effective job performance. The employer has the assistance of the school in in­ structing and counseling the cooperative student during the transition and adjustment period from school to the job. As follow-up studies show, employers retain a large percent of cooperative students after graduation in positions of real responsibility and leadership.

®Ibid., p. 8. 20

Employers participate in keeping in-school and on- the-job instruction consistent with current prac­ tice in business, industry, and agriculture. Employers have the advantage of hiring workers with a basic understanding of the technology of the trade, including advanced mathematics and applied science, which give the worker the "know-why" as well as the "know-how." Employers are provided an opportunity to render an important public service.7 It should be emphasized that the above advantages pertain to a cooperative program and not programs classified as work experience. Work experience programs tend to have more general objectives such as retaining youth in school or providing general work experience. In most cases, work ex­ perience programs would not contain all of the key condi­ tions of a cooperative program that were mentioned earlier. The main difference would be the lack of close ties between the job and classroom. Mason and Haines have reported many differences in the two types of programs and have developed a comprehensive list of comparisons. The following eight items are from that list. It is hoped that they are sufficient to illus­ trate the need for "correlation of school and job learnings in tandem with a defined career objective." 8

^Ibid., p. 9. g Mason and Haines, Cooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum, p. 13. 21

Cooperative Occupational General Education .____ Work Experience Has as its primary goal Usually has as its pri­ the development of occu­ mary goal the improve­ pational competency. ment of general educa­ tion, the gaining of ex­ ploratory occupational experiences, or the holding of the student in school. Is based on the stu­ Is based on student's dent's stated career ob­ general education needs je c tiv e s . or need for employment to remain in school.

Student hired as a Student hired as a "learning worker." "producing worker" or as an observer. Places the trainee in a Often utilizes any job commensurate with available part-time job. his ability and his career objectives. Provides classroom ac­ Usually relies on the tivities directly re­ job to provide trainee lated to job activities experiences; the in­ and trainee's occupa­ school class is not tional goal. usually directly related to the job. Provides the trainee Job rotation is usually with a variety of ;job coincidental rather than experiences, often in­ part of a planned pro­ volving rotation gram. through different de­ partments of the firm. Selects students who Usually open to any stu­ "need the instruction, dent without restric­ want it, and can profit tions of a selection from i t . " process. Utilizes as training Utilizes any firm that stations those firms can provide employment that responsibly can and within legal and moral will provide training. l i m i t s .9

^Ibid. , p. 20. 22

In summary, it is important to distinguish between work experience and cooperative education. The most impor­ tant condition of a cooperative program is that the on-the- job training is coordinated with classroom instruction to help the student reach his occupational objective. The instrument that accomplishes this is the training plan.

Distributive Education In the previous discussion, it was established that this paper deals with cooperative distributive education pro­ grams. Distributive education is designed for students with occupational objectives in the field of marketing and distri­ bution. Distributive occupations include those in whole­ saling, retailing, and service industries. They are involved with the marketing, merchandising, and management phases of distribution. Most distributive education programs in Ohio and specifically Northwest Ohio where this research was conducted are cooperative. The students are in distributive education classes for two periods in the morning and have released time from school in the afternoon for on-the-job training. It is a requirement in Ohio for the teacher-coordinator to have a minimum of three uninterrupted hours of coordination time to supervise the students on the job and perform other duties related to the program. The key element of a quality distributive education program is the teacher-coordinator. It is his responsibility 1 23 to place the student in a training station that will help him reach his occupational objective. Mason and Haines have stated that where the coordinator has not fulfilled his responsibilities, "confusion has arisen from poorly operated cooperative programs."^ They contend that, "through such errors as inadequate supervision, lack of correlated class­ room instruction, and the enrollment of any student without qualification,the cooperative programs tend to be just plain work experience. When working on the task of student placement, there are logical steps to follow to help assure that the student's placement will be related to his occupational objective. A Guide for Cooperative Vocational Education has suggested the following steps: Arrange for on-the-job training with employers. —Select training stations (employers of stu­ dents) . —Explain the program purposes, policies, and procedures. —Obtain training agreements. —Select and appoint training sponsors (on- the-job trai ners). —Orient training sponsors. —Develop training plans. Arrange placement of students.

10Ibid., p. 19. 24

—Match students with training stations where they are likely to succeed and find satis­ faction in the work. —Arrange job interviews. c —Prepare students for job interviews and successful entry. —Check with employers on their decisions and follow up with individual conferences with stu d en ts. —Continue arranging interviews until all students are placed.12 As one can see, the teacher-coordinator does have many activities relating to student placement. All of these tasks are designed to eventually help the student reach his occupational objective. The one duty that is neglected prob­ ably more than any is the development and implementation of training plans.

Training Plans It is common knowledge among teacher-educators and state supervisors that one of the most serious concerns in the cooperative distributive education programs is the lack of training plans. Koeninger13 reported that in a recent

^Warren G. Meyer, Mary K. Klaurens, and Richard D. Ashmun, A Guide fo r C ooperative V ocational Education (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1969), p. 121. 13Jimmy G. Koeninger, Robert G. Whittington, and Gregory L. Williams, A Comprehensive Process for Developing Training Plans in Distributive Education (Greeley? Univer­ sity of Northern Colorado, 1973), p. 1. 25

study, less than 30 percent of the teacher-coordinators interviewed used training plans. It appears that many teacher-coordinators are frightened by the term. If one were to reverse the words and call it a plan of training, the phrase seems to take on a more d e s c rip tiv e d e fin itio n . The training plan is an important element in a qual­ ity program. The teacher-coordinator should "provide a training plan for each student as an individual and be sure 14 the student understands it." Some teacher-coordinators often assume that one training plan can be developed for several students utilizing the same training station or similar training stations. According to Thompson, "the coordinator should take precaution to avoid the 'stereo­ typing' of training plans which apply to the same type of business." 15 Background, occupational objective, and train­ ing station responsibilities must be evaluated for each stu­ dent. Koeninger states that, "training plans must be indi- vidualized for each student." 16 He further states that: . . . individualization of training plans is accom­ plished when the teacher-coordinator considers the following: (a) background of the student dis­ covered through a student analysis process; (b) the

14Huffman, Guidelines in Cooperative Education, p. 131. ^Meyer, Klaurens, and Ashmun, A Guide for Coopera­ tive Vocational Bducationr p. 66. *®Koeninger, Whittington, and Williams, A Comprehen­ sive Process for Developing Training Plans in Distributive Education, p. 6. 26

occupational goal and objective of the student; and (c) the immediate on-the-job requirements demanded of the student.17 If the teacher-coordinator were to take a student's present skills and knowledges and decide where the student should or wants to be (occupational objective) at the end of the year, the plan developed to get him there utilizing on- the-job and classroom experiences would be a training plan. Therefore, a separate plan must be developed for each stu­ dent, because it is very unlikely that two students will start with the same skills and knowledges and desire to end the year with exactly the same occupational objective. The development of the training plan should be a joint effort between the teacher-coordinator, student, and training sponsor. It is suggested that the teacher-coordin­ ator first draw up a tentative plan utilizing his profes­ sional background. He may also ask the student to become involved by either adding to the teacher-coordinator's plan or developing one of his own. Either process is good because the student is now involved in his own plan of training. He has personal involvement and will probably gain a great deal of knowledge concerning his chosen occupational objective. At this time, he may choose to change his occupational goal. If so, his involvement has been invaluable because his deci­ sion to change objectives was made at the beginning of the school year and not in the middle or end. Also, "if a

17Ibid., p. 5. 27 student assists in the development of his own plan, he may be more willing to follow the plan to completion than if the teacher-coordinator developed the plan in isolation for him ."18 After the teacher-coordinator and student have had input into the training plan, it is suggested that the em­ ployer become involved in the written instrument. This helps insure the involvement of the "downtown faculty" in developing the student's plan of training. The involvement of employers has been questioned by teacher-coordinators at various times. Some contend that "the on-the-job training aspect ought to be left up to the demands and duties of the job and that educators ought to 19 trust his judgment." According to Lynch and White, if the training sponsor is not involved in the planning, "in many cases the on-the-job training experiences for distributive education students may really be no different than the ex­ periences enjoyed by other part-time high school employees in that firm."28 In 1971, White and Lynch surveyed state supervisors of distributive education concerning their state's involve-

19 Richard L. Lynch and Thomas R. White, Training Plans for High School Cooperative Distributive Education Programs: A Developmental Project (Bloomington; Indiana University, 1971), pp. 1-2.

20Ibid., p. 2. 28 ment with training plans. Of the 84 percent who returned the questionnaire, 90 percent believed the job supervisor should be involved in "the development of an individual stu- dent's training plan." 21 Ninety percent also believed the student should be involved and all the respondents said the teacher-coordinator should be involved. There are several logical reasons why the training sponsor should be involved. The employer can more easily identify his potential as a training sponsor and realize that the learning experiences he is helping to plan will help direct a student to his occupational objective. By working with the training sponsor, it will also help the teacher-coordinator analyze the training experiences that are available at the training station. It may encourage the training sponsor to "open up" his business to the student when the a c t iv i t ie s are planned. The lit e r a t u r e almost a l­ ways concludes that "when an employer helps develop a train­ ing plan, he can realize his function in the learning process and assume more responsibility for implementing on-the-job activities."22 The training plan is the actual instrument used to coordinate the on-the-job and classroom experiences. Train­ ing plans take on many shapes and forms, but the objective

21I b i d . , p. 88. 22Ohio D is trib u tiv e Education C oordinators Handbook (Columbus; The Ohio State University, 1974), p.2-R-74. 29 is the same. The Center for Vocational and Technical Educa­ tion has described the instrument as: . . . an individualized course outline developed for the student-trainee. Its aim is to list the learn­ ing experiences which will assist him toward his career goal. The best plan provides a systematic method of keeping progress records of work completed, skills learned, and operations performed. . .23 The elements of a training plan vary according to the author. According to Thompson, a training plan should include: A listing of the on-the-job experiences which the student will receive. These experiences should show progression from simple to more complex job assign­ ments. Space for entering the periodic employer's rating of the student's performance on the job. A listing of the individual or specific lesson as­ signments which will be selected or written by the coordinator in accordance with the student's planned job progression. Space for entering the grade which the student earns for each series of individual assignments. Data on the student's beginning wage established by the employer. Information regarding the length of the student's training period. Approval signatures by the student, the parent, the chairman of the advisory committee, the employer, the teacher-coordinator and the state program director.24

23 Huffman, Guidelines in Cooperative Education. p. 80. 24 Meyer, K laurens, and Ashmun, A Guide fo r Coopera­ tive Vocational Education, p. 71. 30

The Ohio Department of Distributive Education in conjunction with The Ohio State University developed a coordinator's handbook which states that a training plan should include: Occupation title A brief job description A list of on-the-job learning experiences Space for a periodic employer's rating A list of related instruction Space for coordinator's evaluation The date the trainee starts and completes each step Names of: Student learner Training station Training sponsor Coordinator School 25

During a national conference in Minnesota, a group of selected participants from business, industry, labor, education, government and community interests from across the nation stated, "the training plan should include items such as the following: A listing of the on-the-job learning experiences which the student will receive. Space for entering the periodic employer's rating of the student's performance on the job. Space for indicating which of the on-the-job learn­ ing experiences are correlated with classroom in­ struction and individual study projects."26 The above are good examples to illustrate that "there is considerable disagreement as to what should be

25Ohio Distributive Education Coordinators Handbook. p. l-R -74. 26 Meyer, K laurens, and Ashmun, A Guide fo r Coopera­ tive Vocational Education, p. 71. 31 included on a training plan."27 Some authors perceive the training plan as quite detailed, while others view it in broad categories of four or five competencies that the stu­ dent will be developing. There is often a tendency to want to include in the training plan such items as wage and hour agreements. Actu­ ally, these items should be included in a training agreement which is a separate item. The training agreement is consid­ ered more encompassing and often includes the training plan as part of the document. It is the belief of this writer that there is no set level of simplicity or complexity to a training plan. It should be designed to best serve the needs of the student, teacher-coordinator, and employer. It is believed that when one is first using training plans, it may be better to keep them less complicated. As one grows in experience with training plans, he should be expected to become more complex in his approach. This would also be true with the number of years a teacher-coordinator has worked with a particular business establishment or the number of distributive educa­ tion students the establishment has trained. Harris deter­ mined that: . . . employers representing firms that had trained four or more distributive education students indi­ cated that working with the training sponsor in de­

27 Lynch and White, Training Plans for High School Cooperative D istributive Education Programs: A Developmental Project, p. 4. 32

veloping and implementing on-the-job training plans is a more important teacher-coordinator activity than did employers who had trained fewer distribu­ tive education students.28 It appears that according to Harris' study which surveyed teacher-coordinators and employers in five states, training plans can become an effective tool in the program if the teacher-coordinator is willing to work at their development. The employers indicated in certain situations that they felt the need for and were willing to work with training plans. To summarize the review of the literature concerning cooperative distributive education and training plans can best be done by identifying Koeninger's basic principles underlying distributive education. They are: The primary goal of distributive education is to prepare persons for careers in the marketing occupa­ tions field. Students who are admitted and retained in the dis­ tributive education program must have an occupa­ tional goal and objective in the marketing field. The learning experiences provided in the instruc­ tional program should be based upon the knowledges, skills, and attitudes which are needed to accomplish the occupational goals of the individual students. The learning experiences provided both in the class­ room and on the job should be relevant, realistic, and timely. Training plans are a vital component of the distri­ butive education program.

28E. Edward Harris, Employer Preferences and Teacher- Coordinator Practices in Distributive Education (Hightstown. New Jersey: Gregg/McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. W. 33

Training plans must be individualized for each stu­ dent. Training plans must be constantly evaluated, modi­ fied, and revised. If the student changes his occupational goal, it may be necessary to modify or redesign the training plan. Every effort should be extended to see that the on- the-job placement of the student is a logical entry level step toward attainment of the student's occupa­ tional goal. Training plans should be designed for all students upon entry into the distributive education program. Training plans should include the following informa­ tio n : instructional area related group instruction and the degree of learning prescribed learning on tne job and the degree of learning prescribed special projects and the degree of learning prescribed evaluative remarks The design of an individualized training plan for each student is the responsibility of the teacher- coordinator; however, students may and should be used in developing their own preliminary plan. Training plans should be finalized by the teacher- coordinator and a copy provided the student, the training sponsor, the student's parents, and a copy retained in the teacher-coordinator's files. Training plans may be designed using input from: students, training sponsors, qualified and exper­ ienced businessmen, the advisory committee, teacher education personnel, state supervisory personnel, and previously developed training plans. Completed training plans should be kept on file so that future reference can be made to them.29

29Koeninger, Whittington, and Williams, A Comprehen­ sive Process for Developing Training Plans in Distributive Education, pp. 1-6. 34

Related Research There is little research available that concerns itself with the effects that training plans have on the dis­ tributive education program. Several studies have been done on distributive education which have implications for train­ ing plans or included training plans along with other factors. 30 One such study was done by Benton Miles at The Ohio State University. Miles' problem was to determine the cooperative distributive education training sponsors' and students' per­ ceptions of the directed occupational experience portion of the distributive education program. The first group surveyed was employers to determine their perception of distributive education as a training program as related to the size of his business, type of his business, utilization of training plans, character of his community and number of years he has been involved in the distributive education program. The second group surveyed was the students to determine their perception of distributive education as a training program as related to the sex of the student, socio-economic class of the student, utilization of a training plan, and type of business in which he is employed. Of the above, the only factor that was significant at the .05 level of significance was the employers' perception of distributive education as a

30Miles, "The Measurement of the Perceptions of Dis­ tributive Education as a Training Program Held by Distribu­ tive Education Students and Training Sponsors." 35

training program and the utilization of the training plan. This lead Miles to conclude that: As a result of this finding one can state within the limitations of this study that employers who utilized training plans perceived distributive edu­ cation more as a training program than employers who did not utilize training plans.31 As a result of his findings on training plans, Miles made the following recommendation: That a study should be conducted to further in­ vestigate the effect of the utilization of the training plan by distributive education students.32 An additional recommendation is that, "an experi­ mental study should be conducted to compare the effects of 33 the use of the training plan in distributive education." In 1972, Hephner34 studied the attitudinal differ­ ences between cooperative distributive education students and general or academic students of similar backgrounds toward retailing as a career goal. As a result of his find­ ings, Hephner recommended that: Employers should be surveyed to determine whe­ ther or not training plans are used in working with distributive education students. An attitudinal comparison should be made of those students who are

31I b i d . , p. 71. 32Ibid., p. 81. 33Ib id . , p. 82. 34 Thomas Hephner, "A Study of Attitudinal Differ­ ences between Cooperative Distributive Education Students and General or Academic Students of Similar Background" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972), p. 68. 36

being trained with training plans compared to those students who do not benefit from the use of training p la n s .35 i He also recommended that "distributive educators should work more closely with business to emphasize that dis­ tributive education is much more than a work experience pro- 36 3 7 gram." Mason and Haines c la s s ify one of the major differences between a cooperative program and a work exper­ ience program as the use of a training plan. 38 Wallace Conard surveyed 219 graduates of distribu­ tive education in Ohio to determine the effectiveness of dis­ tributive education training stations. He found that 29 percent of the respondents said that a written individual training program was followed by their distributive educa­ tion instructor and by their employer. Seventy-two percent indicated no individual training plan was prepared. He also determined the number of students who worked in a large de­ partment store who were and were not rotated from department to department for greater knowledge of store operations. He found that 47.5 percent rotated and 52.5 percent did not rotate, but of the students who were rotated, 100 percent were still in a distributive occupation. Since the training

- - - - *■ 36Ib id , 37 Mason and Haines, Cooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum, p. 58. 3®Wallace E. Conard, "The Effectiveness of the Dis­ tributive Education Training Station in the State of Ohio" (Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1969). 37

plan could be considered a written plan of rotation, this study gives some indication as to the importance and poten­ tial effectiveness of the training plan. Even though there has been little research done that concerns itself witn the effects that training plans have on the distributive education program, the Miles study did con­ clude that the perception of distributive education as a training program was related to the utilization of the train­ ing plan.

/ CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

The procedure for this research was to utilize a Likert scale to test the perceptions of distributive educa­ tion as a training program. The research was quasi-experi- mental utilizing a pre-test and post-test.

Population and Scale The target population of this study is cooperative distributive education teacher-coordinators in Northwest Ohio. This includes twenty-eight counties and is considered by the Ohio Department of Distributive Education as a super­ visory region within the State of Ohio. This region is the supervisory responsibility of the researcher. The entire population was studied; therefore, the target population and accessible population wero the same. A sample was not used because it is believed that the total population was small enough to be a workable group, and the in-service training on the development and use of training plans was done during in-service sessions that were automatically scheduled for all teacher-coordinators. There were four treatment groups. Two were randomly assigned to be the experimental group and two the control

38 39 group. The two experimental groups were combined for data analysis, and the two control groups were combined for data a n a ly sis. The two experim ental groups each had eighteen d is ­ tributive education program involved. Experimental group number one included: Beliefontaine Hign School Coldwater High School Continental High School Crestview High School Delphos High School Elida High School Elmwood High School Kenton High School Lima High School (th re e programs) Lima Central Catholic High School St. Mary's Memorial High School Ottawa-Glandorf High School Upper Sandusky High School Lincolnview High School Van Wert High School Wapakoneta High School Experimental group number two included: Avon High School Bellevue High School Brookside High School Elyria High School Lorain High School Lorain Admiral King High School Lorain Southview High School North Ridgeville High School Norwalk High School Port Clinton High School Sandusky High School T iffin Columbian High School Vanguard Joint Vocational School (two programs) Vermilion High School Ehove Joint Vocational School Lorain Joint Vocational School Hopewell Loudon High School The two control groups were nineteen and twenty-nine distributive programs respectively. The reason for the 40 larger number of programs in the one control group is that it included the City of Toledo. Since there were sixteen programs in the City of Toledo, it was believed that this should be a larger group to include the perceptions of stu­ dents, teacher-coordinators, and employers outside tne city. It was felt that since the two control groups would be com­ bined for data analysis, this problem would not be a factor. Control group number one included: Ashland High School Bucyrus High School Findlay High School (two programs) Fostoria High School Galion High School Leipsic High School Mansfield Madison High School (two programs) Mansfield Malabar High School Marion Harding High School (two programs) Mount G ilead High School Ontario High School Patrick Henry High School River Valley High School Seneca East High School Ashland Joint Vocational School Pioneer Joint Vocational School Control group number two included: Bowling Green High School (two programs) Oregon Clay High School Defiance High School Edon Northwest High School Lake High School Napoleon High School Sylvania High School (two programs) Toledo Bowsher High School Toledo DeVilbiss High School Toledo Libbey H igh School Toledo Rogers High School (two programs) Toledo Scott High School Toledo Start High School (two programs) Toledo Waite High School (two programs) Toledo Cardinal Stritch High School Toledo Whitney Voc-Tech High School Toledo Woodward High School (two programs) 41

Wauseon High School Whitmer High School Pour County Joint Vocational School Penta County Joint Vocational School (two programs) Toledo Central Catholic High School The number of distributive education programs to be included in each group was determined by geographic location of the school. One distributive education program means there was one teacher-coordinator involved in in-service training and in the research.

Design This is a quasi-experimental study using Campbell and Stanley's1 nonequivalent control group design. The fol­ lowing graphic presentation illustrates Campbell and Stanley's quasi-experimental design number 10 with the 0^ and O2 being the pre-test of the control group and experi­ mental group. The 0g and 0^ are the post-test of the control group and experimental group. The X is the treat­ ment or in-service training the experimental group received on the development and use of training plans.

Campbell and Stanley's Design #10 Nonequivalent Control Group Design

1 Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963), p. 40. 42

The independent variable of this study is in-service training for distributive education teacher-coordinators about the development and use of training plans. The depen­ dent variables are perceptions of distributive education as a training program by teacher-coordinators, students, and employers. The independent v a ria b le was m anipulated. The ex­ perimental group received in-service training on the use and

i development of training plans, and the control group received no in-service training on the use and development of training plans. The control group received in-service training on topics other than training plans. The teacher-coordinators in Northwest Ohio were as­ signed to one of four groups. This was done geographically to minimize the distance the teacher-coordinators must travel for the in-service training. Two of these intact groups were assigned at random to receive the in-service training on the use and development of training plans. These groups were the experimental groups. The other two groups received in- service training on topics other than the use and development of training plans and were considered the control groups. There are several extraneous variables that could have intervened into the project. The researcher was also the supervisor of the teacher-coordinators involved in the study. It is believed that this did not affect the outcome of the project, because in-service training is not new to 43

teacher-coordinators. The researcher has conducted in- service sessions in Northwest Ohio for the past three years. There is nothing new to the approach except that in-service training has never been held on the same topic for one entire meeting or three consecutive meetings. The problem of supervision also raises the question of whether the teacher-coordinators answered the questions in a manner that made them look favorable in the eyes of the j supervisor. It was explained to the groups that they were not identified individually but rather the scores would be looked at as a group. The threats to the internal and external validity of 2 the design vary. According to Campbell and Stanley, the internal threats of history, maturation, testing, instrumen­ tation, selection and mortality were controlled by the re­ search design. The external sources of invalidity according to Campbell and Stanley are interaction of testing and the treatment, interaction of selection and the treatment, and reactive arrangement. It is believed that interaction of testing and the treatment was not a concern in this study. The pre-test was administered at the beginning of the first of three in- service sessions. The pre-test was designed to test percep­ tions of distributive education as a training program while

2Ibid. 44 the in-service training for the experimental group was in­ volved in cognitive technical information on the development and use of training plans. For the control group, the pre­ test and in-service training will have little relationship and should not have interacted with each other. The interaction of selection and treatment should not have been of concern since the total population is being utilized. There were no identifiable outside factors to in­ fluence the selection since the teacher-coordinators were put into the groups because of geographical location. There was concern over the reactive arrangements. There was a possibility of the teacher-coordinators reacting to the pre-test and post-test based on what they believe should have been their perceptions. This could happen be­ cause the experimenter was also the supervisor. The teacher- coordinators were told that they were being tested as a group and not as individuals.

Collection of Data In this particular study, it was necessary to collect data from the teacher-coordinator, his distributive education students, and the cooperating employers he worked with in the cooperative part of the program. The teacher-coordinator had the responsibility of completing the teacher-coordinator questionnaire and returning it to the researcher. He also administered the questionnaire to his students and delivered 45

a questionnaire to each of his cooperating employers. This same procedure was used for tne pre-test and post-test. Pro­ visions were made for the return of the questionnaires in self-addressed envelopes. Each envelope was stamped and had a variation in the address to indicate one of the four groups. Each teacher-coordinator also received a post card with the pre-test and a separate card with the post-test. This card asked exactly how many student and training spon­ sor questionnaires were used. If the card was not received within a reasonable length of time, a follow-up letter was sent to the teacher-coordinator. In some cases, a telephone call was necessary. One hundred percent of the post cards for the pre-test were received, and eighty-three percent for the post-test were received. If the post card for the post­ test was not returned, it was assumed the coordinator used the same number of questionnaires as in the pre-test. The teacher-coordinators were originally sent one questionnaire for each student reported to the Ohio Depart­ ment of Vocational Education on the opening report in Octo­ ber. The teacher-coordinator was also sent one questionnaire for each student's training station sponsor. The researcher knew that each student would not need a training sponsor questionnaire because of the overlap of students working at the same training station, but one was sent for each student to insure maximum coverage. The post card returned to the researcher indicated the number of questionnaires used as compared to the number received.

Responses The returns for the pre-test and post-test were cal­ culated into percentages for analysis. Table 1 contains the number and percentage of returns for the pre-test based on what the teacher-coordinator reported using.

TABLE 1 PRE-TEST NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRES FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS BY STUDENTS, TEACHER-COORDINATORS AND TRAINING SPONSORS

Respondents Control Experimental

Students Number retu rn ed ...... 742 584 Percentage of return . . 95.12 97.33 Teacher-Coordi nator s Number retu rn ed ...... 43 31 Percentage of return . . 89.58 86.11 Training Sponsors Number retu rn ed ..... 315 207 Percentage returned . . . .67.59 65.71 Training sponsor return as percentage of student re tu rn ...... 42.45 35.44

It is believed that the percentage of return for the training sponsors may be higher than reported. Several months after the questionnaires for the pre-test had been delivered to training station sponsors, verbal replies were 47

received from teacher-coordinators stating that some training sponsors had re&eiired more than one questionnaire. This may have happened in cases where the training sponsor employed students from several schools. The training sponsor may have received questionnaires from two teacher-coordinators and only returned one. Each of the teacher-coordinators may have reported delivering a questionnaire, while actually only one of the two would be returned. Another indication that the percentage of training sponsor returns may be higher is that the percentage of return on the post-test is higher. This could indicate that the training sponsor was aware of the duplication of surveys that he received for the pre-test and consequently informed the teacher-coordinators before receiving additional ques­ tionnaires for the post-test. Another factor to consider from the pre-test was the percentage of returns of training sponsor questionnaires as compared to student return. This figure was reported in Table 1. The smaller number of returns from training spon­ sors could partially be attributed to the fact that students from several distributive education programs may be employed by the same training sponsor. In cities such as Toledo, Lima, Mansfield, Lorain, and Findlay, there may be from four to twenty distributive education programs placing students in the same company. The la rg e r r e t a i l chains such as Lazarus, Halle's Higbees, Woolworths, Grants, Lions, 48

LaSalle's are particularly susceptible to this factor. Even smaller communities may hire several students from the same distributive education program or various nearby programs. Miles used the same approach of surveying students and training sponsors. He reported a return of 140 employ- 3 ers and 275 students. This calculates to a return of 50.9 percent of training sponsors' questionnaires compared to student returns. It appears logical that his return would be higher than the 39.4 percent return for this study. Miles used one program from a particular area identified as rural, suburban, or urban; therefore, his chance of duplica­ tion of training sponsors is not as great. He used one pro­ gram in Toledo where this study included twenty-two programs in Toledo and the surrounding area. Table 2 gives the post-test data for the control and experim ental groups. I t was ca lc u la te d in the same manner as the pre-test. The percentage of training sponsor questionnaires to student returns for the post-test remained consistent with the pre-test. The percentage for the total post-test was 39.1 was compared to 39.4 on the pre-test. The percentages of return exceed the minimum lim its, arbitrarily set by the researcher. The minimum limits were: 90 percent for students, 80 percent for teacher-coordinators,

3 Miles, "The Measurement of tne Perceptions of Dis­ tributive Education as a Training Program Held by Distribu­ tive Education Students and Training Sponsors," p. 49. 49

TABLE 2 POST-TEST NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRES FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS BY STUDENTS, TEACHER-COORDINATORS, AND TRAINING SPONSORS

Respondents Control Experimental

S tu d e n ts Number returned 590 523 Percentage of return . . 91.75 90.17 Teacher-Coordi nators Number returned 43 34 Percentage of return . . 89.58 94.44 Training Sponsors Number returned ..... 225 210 Percentage of return . . 77.85 74.46 Training sponsor return as percentage of student return 38.13 40.15 and 50 percent for training sponsors. The actual number involved decreased in all cases but two. Those were the teacher-coordinator and training sponsor in the experimental group. It is believed this de­ crease was due to several reasons. There is a natural stu­ dent attrition that could have happened between the beginning of November and the end of May. Students may drop the pro­ gram because of lack of interest after being in the program several months. Some students may not have been able to find or maintain a training station and were consequently dropped from the program. The 1973-74 school year seemed to produce a number of students who entered the program and then 50

graduated mid-year. Even though the number decreased from the pre-test to thie pbst-test in all but two exceptions, it is believed the percentage of return in all cases is suffi­ cient for data analysis.

Instrumentation The instrument used in this research was developed by Miles at The Ohio State University in 1971. It was used at that time by Miles to measure the perceptions of distributive education as a training program. Miles searched the litera­ ture to "determine which factors distinguished between dis­ tributive education as a training method or solely a means of 4 obtaining work experience." The information was used to develop a Likert scale with a five point equal interval range. After Miles had originally developed the instrument, he had it reviewed by leaders in the field of distributive education. The leaders gave input on positiveness or nega­ tiveness of the individual items and on content validity. The instrument was revised and field tested by eighty-one cooperative distributive education students in Columbus, Ohio. The results of the field test were analyzed by the P. T. Cleaver Program for "Internal Consistency Item Analysis." After analysis, Miles states that:

4 Miles, "The Measurement of the Perceptions of Dis­ tributive Education as a Training Program Held by Distribu­ tive Education Students and Training Sponsors," p. 33. 51

. . . the instrument produced a split half reliabil­ ity coefficient of internal consistency of .52 and a corrected coefficient of .68. All incorrectly weighted items and items with less than a 2.00 critical ratio were eliminated from the scale. The refined scale was then analyzed by the Cleaver Program for Internal Consistency.5 The final instrument Miles used "produced a split half reliability coefficient of internal consistency of .90. Included in this instrument were twenty-five items that would relate to both the training sponsor and the student." Since this research is partially based on the find­ ings of Miles, it was determined that the same instrument could best serve the needs of this project. The instrument was taken to a panel of distributive education leaders in Ohio for a content review based on the proposed research. This panel included the following: —three State Supervisors of distributive education i n Ohio —distributive education curriculum consultant at The Ohio State University —graduate student in distributive education —city supervisor of distributive education —teacher-educator of distributive education at The Ohio State University The conclusion of the committee was that the instru­ ment should remain the same with one exception. Miles used the abbreviation of D.E. to represent distributive education. It was felt that distributive education should be spelled out to avoid any confusion.

5Ibid., p. 40.

6Ibid., p. 41. 52

The researcher also had the opportunity to discuss the research with Miles at a conference in New Jersey. It was his contention that the instrument should be used in its present form. Even though Miles had tested the total instrument by using the split half reliability coefficient of internal con­ sistency, it was believed another test should be used. The instrument was checked by coefficient alpha to determine the reliability based on internal consistency. Nunnally states that cofficient alpha "should be applied to all new measure- 7 ment methods." He further states that: Even though potentially there are important sources of measurement error that are not considered by co­ efficient alpha, it is surprising what little differ­ ence these sources of measurement error usually make. This is particularly so if the test instructions are easily understood and there is little subjectivity of s c o r in g .8

The Likert scale used in this instrument meets the above criteria. The instructions were clear and there was no subjectivity in the scoring. The formula for coefficient alpha is:

The Za* »* i s th e sum o f th e item v a ria n c e . The V* is the variance total for the instrument. The number of items is represented by K. n Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 210. 8 Ib id ., pp. 210-211 53

For the total instrument, the coefficient alpha score is .84. This compares to Miles' .90 utilizing the split half reliability coefficient of internal consistency. CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OP FINDINGS

S tatistical Technique The one-way analysis of variance, the two-way analy­ sis of variance, and the H. A. Scheffe post hoc test were utilized in this research. All data were analyzed separately by student, teacher-coordinator, and training sponsor. The pre-test was analyzed by the one-way analysis of variance. This was done for students, teacher-coordinators, and training sponsors by control and experimental groups. The post-test was analyzed by the two-way analysis of variance. In addition to the control and experimental groups for the one-way analysis, the post-test added the factor of those who used training plans with those who did i not use training plans. This was done only with the student and training sponsor data and not with teacher-coordinator data. The training plan is not a factor for the teacher- coordinator. After the two-way analysis of the student and training sponsor data, the H. A. Scheffe test was admini­ stered to determine significance among cells. The teacher- coordinator data for the post-test were analyzed by the one­ way analysis of variance.

54 55

It is believed that these analyses will allow the researcher to test the following hypotheses. There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of students, according to control and experimental groups. Hj There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of teacher- coordinators according to control and experi­ mental groups. There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors according to control and experimental g ro u p s. There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of students in the control group and students in the experimental group. Hj. There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of students who utilized training plans and students who did not utilize training plans. Hg There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized train­ ing plans with students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. There is no significant difference on the 56

post-test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized train­ ing plans with students in the control group who utilized training plans. Hg There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized train­ ing plans with students in the control group who d id n o t u t i l i z e tr a in i n g p la n s . Hg There is no significant difference on the l post-test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans with students in the control group who did not utilize training plans. H^g There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of students in the control group who utilized training plans with students in the control group who did not utilize training plans.

H11 T^ere *s no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of students in the control group who utilized training plans with students in the experimental group who d id n o t u t i l i z e tr a in i n g p la n s . H12 There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of teacher- 57

coordinators in the control group and teacher- coordinators in the experimental group. H13 There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the control group and training sponsors in the experimental group. H14 There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of training sponsors who utilized training plans and training sponsors who did not utilize training p la n s . H^j. There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the experimental group who uti­ lized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training p la n s . There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the experimental group who uti­ lized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans. H^7 There is no significant difference on the post-test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the experimental group who uti­ lized training plans with training sponsors 58

in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. H.Q There is no significant difference on the lo post-test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans.

H19 There *s no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the control group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans.

H2Q There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the control group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans.

Mean Value Interpretation The mean is a measure of central tendency. As such, it was valuable in the interpretation of the data. The instrument utilized in this research was a five interval Likert scale. The choices ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For the analysis, all items were scored so that a positive response of strongly agree 59

was rated as five points. If a respondent were to rate all twenty-five items on the instrument with a maximum positive value, the total score would be 125. If a respondent were to rate all items on the instrument with maximum negative values, the score would be twenty-five. The central point would be seventy-five. A mean over seventy-five would be interpreted as positive perceptions toward distributive edu­ cation as a training program on the part of the respondents. Scores under seventy-five would be interpreted as negative perceptions by the respondents of distributive education as a training program. It is interesting to note that none of the groups had a negative mean score. All groups had a positive perception of distributive education as a training program . To determine to what degree a group's mean is posi­ tive or negative, one should refer to the standard devia­ tions. The standard deviation is a kind of average of all the deviations from the mean. They are included for the pre-test and post-test.

Analysis of the Pre-Test Data The pre-test in this research is used to determine if the control and experimental groups were equal before the treatment started. This will be done by comparing the means of each group and analyzing the findings of the one-way anal­ ysis of variance of the control and experimental groups. TABLE 3

PRE-TEST MEANS OF STUDENTS BY CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Control Standard Experimental S tan d ard Mean Group D e v ia tio n Group Deviation D iffe re n c e

Total instrument 94.345 11.575 94.390 12.237 .045 61

Pre-Test Student Data Table 3 illustrates the means of the students on the pre-test. There was .045 difference between the control and experimental group means in the pre-test. Based on this fact, it is concluded that the control and experimental groups for students are close enough to be considered equal. To further determine if the control and experimental groups were the same at the beginning of the research, a one-way analysis of variance was performed to determine at what level there was a significant difference. Table 4 illustrates that the control and experi­ mental groups for students in the pre-test are significantly different at the .94 level of confidence.

TABLE 4 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF STUDENTS ON THE PRE-TEST FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Source o f Degrees of Sum of Mean F V arian ce Freedom Squares Square R a tio

Between treatment groups .... 1 .78354 .78354 .0056* Within groups . . 1323 186571.6 141.02 Total . . . 1324 186572.4

* Statistically significant at the .94 level of confidence.

Based on the mean difference of less than one point and the fact that analysis of variance indicated no signifi- 62

cant difference until the .94 level of confidence, the fol­ lowing hypothesis cannot be rejected. ^ There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of students according to control and experimental groups.

Pre-Test Teacher-Coordinator Data The teacher-coordinator pre-test data will be pre­ sented by two methods. The mean scores of the control and experimental groups will be reported as well as the data for the one-way analysis of variance. The scores reported in Table 5 show the control group of teacher-coordinators higher by .141 means. Based on a mean difference of less than one point, it can be concluded that the groups were the same in the b eg in n in g . The one-way analysis of variance test was also u ti­ lized in the teacher-coordinator data to help determine at what level there was significant difference in the beginning. Table 6 reports this data for the one-way analysis of vari­ ance for the teadher-coordinators. There was significant difference at the .93 level of confidence between the con­ trol and experimental groups. With the mean difference for teacher-coordinators between the control and experimental groups less than one point, and the analysis of variance indicating no signifi- TABLE 5

PRE-TEST MEANS OF TEACHER-COORDINATORS BY CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

C o n tro l S tan d ard Experimental Standard Mean Group D e v ia tio n Group D e v ia tio n D iffe re n c e

Total instrument 103.302 6.903 103.161 7.304. .141 64

TABLE 6 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TEACHER-COORDINATORS ON THE PRE-TEST FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Source o f Degrees of Sum o f Mean F V arian ce Freedom Squares Square R a tio

Between treatment groups .... 1 .35831 .35831 .0072* Within groups . . 72 3601.26 50.017 Total . . . 73 3601.62

* Significant difference at the .93 level of confidence.

cant difference until the .93 level of confidence, the fol­ lowing hypothesis cannot be rejected.

H2 There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of teacher- coordinators according to control and experi­ mental groups.

Pre-Test Training Sponsor Data Presentation of the data for training sponsors will follow the same format as students and teacher-coordinators. Table 7 reports the mean scores of the training sponsors for the control and experimental groups. The mean difference for the training sponsors on the pre-test was .855. As with the students and teacher-coordi­ nators, based on a mean difference of less than one point, TABLE 7

PRE-TEST MEANS OF TRAINING SPONSORS BY CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

C o n tro l S tan d a rd Experimental S tan d ard Mean Group D e v ia tio n Group D e v ia tio n D iffe re n c e

Total instrument 96.502 9.468 97.357 11.976 .855

cn U 1 66

it is concluded that the control and experimental groups were the same in the beginning. The one-way analysis of variance test was also ad­ ministered to the training sponsor's pre-test to determine at what level there was a significant difference. Table 8 presents the data on the one-way analysis of variance for the training sponsors. There is a significant difference in the control group and experimental group at the .42 level of confidence.

TABLE 8 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRAINING SPONSORS ON THE PRE-TEST FOR CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

Source of Degrees of Sum o f Mean F V arian ce Freedom S quares Square R a tio

Between treatment groups .... 1 71.4816 71.4816 .6455* Within groups . . 518 57365.52 110.7442 Total . . . 519 57437.00

* Statistically significant at the .42 level of confidence.

The one-way analysis of variance indicated that there is a significant difference at the .42 level of confidence between the control group and the experimental group on the pre-test. The mean difference between the control and exper­ imental groups was less than one point. Considering this, the following hypothesis cannot be rejected. 67

There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors according to control and experimental g ro u p s.

Analysis of the Post-Test Data The post-test data for the students and training sponsors was analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. The teacher-coordinator data was analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance. The Scheffe multiple post-hoc comparisons were completed for the students and training sponsors.

Post-Test Student Data To report the findings for the post-test student data, the mean, standard deviation, and size of group are presented in cells. The data from the two-way analysis is presented in table form for interpretation. The means from the cell cure put into graph form, and the results from the Scheffe test are reported to detect significant interaction among cells. The students were categorized by control or experi­ mental group, and whether they utilized a training plan or did not utilize a training plan. Table 9 is a cell presen­ tation of the data for these four classifications. Follow­ ing each row and at the bottom of each column is the weighted mean and mean difference. The student data was analyzed by two-way analysis of 68

TABLE 9 CELL MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND SIZE OF GROUP OF STUDENTS BY CONTROL GROUP, EXPERIMENTAL GROUP, UTILIZATION OF TRAINING PLAN OR NON-UTILIZATION OF A TRAINING PLAN C o n tro l Experimental A, A2

Mean = 89.16 Mean = 95.99 W eighted Mean U tilization Standard 1A S tan d ard . - 7n 93.66 of Training Deviation " Deviation “ P lan Mean B, Size of _ 95 S ize o f - 77 D iffe re n c e Group Group ” J ' 6 .83

Mean = 90.98 Mean « 88. 25 W eighted Non- Mean U tilization Standard .n S tan d ard , 0 nn 90. 26 of Training Deviation = 1Z* Deviation “ 12-00 P lan Mean B„ S ize o f _ Size of _ i “jq D iffe re n c e Group " Group ~ •LJ 2.03

Weighted Mean 90.38 Weighted Mean 93.91 91.09 Mean Difference 1.82 Mean Difference 7.74 variance. The first source of variance is between control group and experimental group (A). The second source of variance is utilization of a training plan and non-utiliza­ tion of a training plan (B). The third source of variance is between A and B. Table 10 is a report on the two-way analysis of the data for students. The two-way analysis of variance reports that there is significant difference between the control group and ex­ perimental group (A) at less than the .05 level of confidence. I 69

TABLE 10 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF STUDENTS GROUPED BY CONTROL OR EXPERIMENTAL AND BY UTILIZATION OR NON-UTILIZATION OF A TRAINING PLAN

Source of Degrees of Sum o f Mean F V arian ce Freedom Squares Square R a tio

Between control and ex p erim en ta l (A) 1 954.06 954.06 4.9765* Between utilization and non-utiliza­ tion of training plans (B) . . . 1 1998.68 1998.68 10.4255** A X B ...... 1 5227.26 5227.26 27.2663** E rro r ...... 1101 211074.6 191.71 T o ta l .... 1104 210254.6

* Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ** Significant at the .01 level of confidence.

The experimental group scored a higher mean score of 3.53 points. Based on this significant difference and a mean difference between the two groups of 3.53, the following hypothesis can be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the control group and students in the experimental group. The two-way analysis of variance indicates there is significant difference at less than the .01 level of confi­ dence between those students who reported utilizing a train- 70

ing plan and students who reported not utilizing a training plan (B). The means also indicate a difference. The mean for students utilizing training plans is 3.40 higher than for students not utilizing training plans. This leads to the rejection of the following hypothesis. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students who utilized training plans and students who did not utilize a training plan. The third factor reported by the two-way analysis of variance is between A and B. There is a significant differ­ ence at less than the .01 level of confidence for the inter­ action of A and B. To help analyze this significance, a graphic presentation is made to illustrate the interaction. Figure 1 is a graphic presentation of the interac­ tion of the variables for students taken from table 9. It is designed to graphically illustrate the cell means and visually show the interaction. The graphic presentation is designed to illustrate interaction of the independent variables with the values of the dependent variable on the vertical axis. In this case, the independent variables on the horizontal axis are u tili­ zation of training plans (B^) and non-utilization of train­ ing plans (Bg). The dependent values on the vertical axis are mean scores from the instrument that was used to test perceptions of distributive education as a training program. 71

Y

96 94 92 90 88 B B Utilization of Non-Utilization Training Plan of Training Plan Figure 1. Graphic illustration of interaction between students by control group, experimental group, uti­ lization of training plans and non-utilization of training p la n s .

A^ is the control group and is the experimental group. The measurement of the dependent variable on the vertical axis will be referred to as Y. The literature is not clear on what slope is neces­ sary to definitely indicate interaction. According to Guilford, if the lines are parallel, the interaction vari­ ance would be nil. He also states that, "... the lines do not need to run in opposite directions . . . to indicate interaction variance."*’ He further writes that a difference in the slope could indicate interaction variance if the F ratio proved to be significant. Kerlinger states that, "The slope of the lines roughly indicates the extent of the rela-

P. Guilford and Benjamin Fruchter, Fundamental S tatistics in Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw- H ill, 1973), p. 251. 72 tion . . . If the plotted line is horizontal, obviously there is no relation." He further states that, ". . . to the extent that the lines make different angles with the horizontal axis (are not parallel), to this extent there is 3 interaction present." Interaction according to Hayes is the "unique 4 effects of combinations of treatments." If one were to make predictions based on the two-way analysis of variance, he must consider the interaction of A and B. Because of the interaction effect, the prediction should not be made on just A or just B. The interaction effect, according to Hayes, is the "experimental effect created by the combina­ tion of treatments . . . over and above any effects asso- 5 ciated with treatments . . . considered separately." In this research, the treatments that Hayes refers to are A and B. When there is significant interaction, it serves as a signal that treatment differences do exist. According to Hayes, "to specify exactly how the treatments differ, and

2 Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Re­ search (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), p . 238. 3I b id . ^William L. Hayes, Statistics for Psychologists (Chicago:. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963), p. 386.

5Ibid., p. 388. 73

i

especially to make good individual predictions, one must look within levels of the other factor." Hayes further states that, "the presence of interaction effects is a signal that in any predictive use of the experimental results, effects attributed to particular treatments repre­ senting one factor are best qualified by specifying the level of the other factor."6 There is significant interaction between A and B which was determined to be at less than the .01 level of confidence. This means that treatment differences do exist. Based on the graphic presentation in figure 1, it appears that the students in the experimental group that utilize training plans create the greatest amount of interaction between B^, B^, and Y. According to the graph, &^B^, aiB2» and A^Bg appear to have little influence on the interaction except when compared to A2B^. There is a strong main effect for the experimental group. This is supported by the mean difference of 7.74. There appears to be little main effect for the control group. This is apparent from the tendency of the control group line to be horizontal. To further indicate interaction variance, the Scheffe multiple post-hoc comparisons were completed to determine if these differences in means between the various groups are statistically significant. Since the factor

6Ibid., p. 391. 74

needed is part of the P test, it was necessary to Set a pre­ determined level of significance. This was set at .05. The formula used was: V|/ 2 F (a-1) a3 +-±- TJJi ) (MSA) The Scheffe test according to Kerlinger, "... can be used to test the differences between any pairs of means 7 after an analysis of variance." He believes it is a very conservative test and should be used with discretion, but ". . . it is a general test that can be conveniently applied g to all comparisons of means after an analysis of variance." Myers believes the Scheffe test is also particularly appli- 9 cable to unequal cell replications. It was determined that for two given cells to have significant difference, the mean difference between the two must be larger than the Psi score. Tables are presented in Appendix G&H to show the actual mean difference and Psi score for each cell combination. There are six possible combinations between the cells that the Scheffe test compared at the .05 level of confidence. The first comparison was between the students in the experimental group who utilized training plans and

7Ibid., p. 199. 8I b id . 9 Jerome L. Myers, Fundamentals of Experimental Design (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972), pp. 191-203. 75

students in the experimental group who did not utilize train­ ing plans. The Scheffe test showed a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. This showed that students in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a significantly higher mean score of 7.74 points than students in the experimental group who do not utilize training plans • The following hypothesis must be rejected. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized training plans with students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. The Scheffe test also showed that students in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a signi­ ficantly higher mean score of 6.83 points at the .05 level of confidence than students in the control group who uti­

lized training plans (A2B1/A1B1>. The following hypothesis must be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized training plans with students in the control group who utilized training plans. At the .05 level of confidence, the Scheffe test showed that students in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a significantly higher mean score of 5.0 76

i points than students in the control group who did not uti­ lize training plans lA2Bl^AlB2^* T^e f°H °w*n9 hypothesis must be rejected. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized training plans with students in the control group who did not utilize training plans. The final cell combination that showed a significant difference at the .05 level was between students in the ex­ perimental group who do not utilize training plans and stu­ dents in the control group who did not utilize training plans (A2B2/A1B2). The students in the control group who did not utilize training plans had a higher mean score of 2.74 points. The following hypothesis must be rejected. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans with students in the control group who did not utilize training plans. There were two cell combinations that did not have significantly different mean scores at the .05 level of con­ fidence. The first combination is between students in the control group who utilized training plans and students in the control group who did not utilize training plans (A^B^/A^B^,). Those students in the control group who did 77 not utilize training plans had a higher mean score of 1.83 points. The following hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the control group who utilized training plans with students in the control group who did not uti­ lize training plans. The Scheffe test reported no significant difference between those students in the control group who utilized a training plan with those in the experimental group who did not utilize a training plan Those students in the control group who utilized training plans had a higher mean score of .91 points. The following hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the control group who utilized training plans with students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans.

Post-Test Teacher-Coordinator Data The teacher-coordinator data was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance. The teacher-coordinators were not aslced a question concerning their use of training plans; therefore, a two-way analysis would not be applicable. Table 11 is the means, standard deviations, and size of 78

TABLE 11 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND SIZE OP GROUP OF TEACHER-COORDINATORS BY CONTROL GROUP AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Standard Size of Group Mean D eviation Group

Control ..... 101.28 8.322 43 Experimental . . . 105.24 9.339 34 Mean difference 3.96

samples of the post-test for teacher-coordinators. The teacher-coordinators in the experimental group produced a higher mean of 3.96. It is believed this is mean­ ingful since the teacher-coordinator means are the highest among the students, teacher-coordinators, and training spon­ so rs. Table 12 is the data from the one-way analysis of variance for teacher-coordinators. There is a significant difference between the control and experimental group at the .05 level of confidence. It is believed that with a mean difference of 3.96, and significance at the .05 level on the one-way analysis of variance, the following hypothesis must be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of teacher- coordinators in the control group and teacher- coordinators in the experimental group. 79

TABLE 12 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE GROUPED BY CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL

Source of Degrees of Sm of Mean F Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio

Between control and experimental . . 1 297.18 297.18 3.8423* E rror ...... 75 5800.77 77.34 T otal .... 76 6097.95

* Significant at the .05 level of confidence.

Post-Test Training Sponsor Data The training sponsor data will be presented in three ways. First, the mean, standard deviation, and size of group will be reported in cells for the control group, ex­ perimental group, utilization of training plans and non­ utilization of training plans. Next, the results of the two-way analysis of variance will be reported. Third, a graphic illustration will be presented of the interaction of the variables and the Scheffe multiple post-hoc comparisons. The training sponsors were categorized by control or experimental group, and whether they utilized a training plan or did not utilize a training plan. Table 13 is a cell presentation of the data for these four classifications. The data for training sponsors was analyzed by two- way analysis of variance. The first source of variance is between control group and experimental group (A). The 80

TABLE 13 CELL MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND SIZE OF GROUP OF TRAINING SPONSORS BY CONTROL GROUP, EXPERIMENTAL GROUP, UTILIZATION OF TRAINING PLAN OR NON-UTILIZATION OF TRAINING PLAN Control Experimental A, *2

Mean = 92.0 Mean = 109.8 Weighted Mean Utilization Standard . , QA Standard _ q aq 104.0 of Training Deviation “ -LD*SD Deviation ~ Plan Mean B, Size of Size of D ifference Group • 3 Group " 135 17.80

Mean = 91.8 Mean = 99.15 Weighted Non- Mean Utilization Standard ,, Standard Q 94.2 of Training Deviation “ Deviation “ Plan Mean B„ Size of cc Size of . ,,- D ifference Group = 65 Group " 135 7.35

Weighted Mean 91.9 Weighted Mean 106.0 98.2 Mean Difference .2 Mean Difference 10.65

second source of variance is utilization of a training plan and non-utilization of a training plan (B). The third source of variance is between A and B. Table 14 is a report on the two-way analysis of the data for training sponsors. The two-way analysis of variance reports that there is significant difference between the control group and ex­ perimental group (A) at less than the .01 level of confidence. The experimental group had a higher mean score of 14.1 points. Based on this significance and a mean difference, the following hypothesis must be rejected. 81

TABLE 14 TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRAINING SPONSORS GROUPED BY CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL AND BY UTILIZATION OR NON-UTILIZATION OF A TRAINING PLAN

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean F Variance Freedom Squares Square R atio

Between control and experimental (A) 1 14967.26 14967.26 80.41** Between utilization and non-utiliza- tion of training plans (B) . . . 1 2830.77 2830.77 15.2078** Between A and B . . 1 2566.36 2566.36 13.79** E rror ...... 431 80226.18 186.14 T otal .... 434 100590.57

** Statistically significant at the .01 level.

H13 There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the control group and training sponsors in the experimental group. The two-way analysis of variance indicates there is significant difference at less than the .01 level of confi­ dence between those training sponsors who reported utilizing a training plan and training sponsors who reported not uti­ lizing a training plan (B). The mean difference between the two is 9.8 points hicpier for training sponsors who utilize a training plan than for training sponsors who do not utilize 82

a training plan. Baaed on the mean difference and the signi­ ficance reported by the two-way analysis of variance, the i following hypothesis must be rejected. H^4 There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training sponsors who utilized training plans and training sponsors who did not utilize training plans. There is a significant difference at less than the .01 level of confidence for the interaction of A and B. To help analyze this significance, a graphic presentation is presented to illustrate the interaction. Figure 2 is a graphic presentation of the interaction of the variables for training sponsors. The means were taken from table 13. The graphic illustration is designed to evaluate interaction of the independent variables with the values of the dependent variable on the vertical axis. The independent variables on the horizontal axis are utilization of training plans (B^) and non-utilization of training plans (B^). The dependent values on the vertical axis are mean scores from the instrument that was used to test perceptions of distri­ butive education as a training program. A^ is the control group and A^ is the experimental group. The measurement of the dependent variable on the vertical axis will be referred to as Y. In figure 2, the control group (A^) produced a line 83

Y 112 — ■ n o ~ 108 106 104 102- : 100 98-* 96 94 92 —" Control 90 - i B. B Utilization of 2 Non-Utilization Training Plan of Training Plan

Figure 2. Graphic illustration of interaction between training sponsors by control group, experimental group, utilization of training plans and non-utilization of training plans. that is almost parallel with the horizontal line. The actual mean difference is .2. This indicates that the control group produced little if any interaction. It apparently made little difference whether training sponsors in the control group utilized or did not utilize training plans. There is little main effect. The experimental group (A^) produced a larger amount of interaction between and Y* training sponsors who utilized training plans and those who did not utilize training plans scored higher means than the control group. It is also obvious that those training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans scored much higher means and thus caused greated interaction between B^, B2, and Y. 84

To further indicate interaction variance, the Scheffe multiple post-hoc comparisons were completed to determine significant differences in means between the various cells. The results will be reported here, but tables are included in Appendix G&H th a t show the ac tu al mean d iffe re n c e and Psi score for each cell combination. The predetermined level of confidence fo r the Scheffe t e s t was .05. The Scheffe test showed five combinations that were significantly different at the .05 level of confidence. The cell combination that showed the largest mean difference and was significant at the .05 level of confidence was between training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans and training sponsors in the control group

who did not utilize training plans (A2B^/A^B2). The tra in in g sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a higher mean score of 18.0 points. The following hypothesis must be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans. There was a significant difference between those training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans and training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans (AgB^/A^B^). The training 85

sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a higher mean score of 17.8 points. The following hypothesis must be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans. The Scheffe test showed a significant difference between training sponsors in the experimental group who uti­ lized training plans and training sponsors in the experi­ mental group who did not utilize training plans • The mean difference was 10.65 points in favor of training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans. The following hypothesis must be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. There was significant difference between the training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize train­ ing plans and training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans . The training spon­ sors in the experimental group who did not utilize training 86 i plans had a higher mean score of 7.35 points. The following hypothesis must be rejected.

H1q There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize train­ ing plan s. The Scheffe test showed a significant difference between training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did utilize training plans (A2B2/A^B^). The training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans had a higher mean score of 7.15 points. The following hypothesis must be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the control group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. There was one cell combination that did not show a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. That cell combination included those training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans and training spon­ sors in the control group who did not utilize training plans (A ^B ^/A j^). The mean d iffe re n c e was .2 p o in ts in favor of 87

the training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans. The following hypothesis cannot be rejected. H20 There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the control group who utilize^ training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans.

Summary The p r e - te s t was used to compare th e co n tro l and experimental groups to determine if they were different before the treatment. A one-way analysis of variance was used as well as evaluating the mean difference. The post-test utilized a two-way analysis of vari­ ance for the student and training sponsor data and a one-way analysis for the teacher-coordinator data. The Scheffe multiple post-hoc test was administered to the student and training sponsor data. For the purpose of a summary, the statistical hypo­ theses are being restated with the findings and conclusions. There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of students, according to control and experimental groups. Findings: There was no significant difference until the .94 level of confidence. Conclusion: There was no difference in the control 88

and experimental groups of students in the beginning. The hypothesis cannot be re je c te d . There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of teacher- coordinators according to control and experi­ mental groups. Findings: There was no significant difference until the .93 level of confidence. Conclusion: There was no difference in the control and experimental groups of teacher-coordinators in the beginning. The hypothesis cannot be rejected. H3 There is no significant difference on the pre­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors according to control and experimental groups. Findings: There was no significant difference until the .42 level of confidence. Conclusion: There was no difference in the control and experimental groups of training sponsors in the beginning. The hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the control group and students in the experimental group. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Students in the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score. 89

Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected, H,- There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students who utilized training plans and students who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence. Those students who utilized training plans had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized training plans with students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Those students in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a s ig n ific a n tly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized training plans with students in the control group who utilized training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Those students in the 90

experimental group who utilized training plans had a s ig n ific a n tly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who utilized training plans with students in the control group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Those students in the experimental group who utilized training plans had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. Hg There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans with students in the control group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between the two groups at the .05 level of confi­ dence. Conclusion: The hypothesis cannot be rejected. H10 There is no significant difference on the post­ t e s t between the mean scores of stu d en ts in the control group who utilized training plans with 91

students in the control group who did not uti­ lize training plans. Findings: There was no significant difference between the two groups at the .05 level of confi­ dence. Conclusion: The hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of students in the control group who utilized training plans with students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Students in the control group who utilized training plans had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected.

H^2 There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of teacher- coordinators in the control group and teacher- coordinators in the experimental group. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Teacher-coordinators in the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post- t

92

test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the control group and training sponsors in the experimental group. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence. Training sponsors in the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors who utilized training plans and training sponsors who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence. Those training sponsors who utilized training plans had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. H^5 There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans had significantly higher mean scores. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans. Findings: There was significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans had significantly higher mean scores. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans had s ig n ific a n tly higher mean scores. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training spon­ sors in the experimental group who did not uti­ lize training plans with training sponsors in 94

the control group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans had significantly higher mean scores. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans had a significantly higher mean score. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. HgQ There is no significant difference on the post­ test between the mean scores of training sponsors in the control group who utilized training plans with training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training plans. Findings: There was no significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Conclusion: The hypothesis cannot be rejected. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The problem of this study is to determine whether in-service training for teacher-coordinators on the develop­ ment and use of training plans affects how cooperative training sponsors, distributive education students, and dis­ tributive education teacher-coordinators perceive distribu­ tive education as a training program. The study is designed to compare the perceptions of students and training sponsors who work with teacher-coordinators in the experimental group with students and training sponsors who work with teacher- coordinators in the control group. The perceptions of the teacher-coordinators in these two groups were also compared. The population for this study consisted of students, teacher-coordinators, and training sponsors in Northwest Ohio. This includes twenty-eight counties and is considered a supervisory region by the Ohio Department of Distributive Education. All of the high school programs were included in one of four geographic groups. Two of these were randomly selected to be the control group and two were randomly selected to be the experimental group.

95 96

A twenty-five item Likert scale was utilized on a pre-test and post-test for students, teacher-coordinators, and training sponsors. The scale assumed a five equal interval range from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The instrum ent was u tiliz e d as a whole. The study utilized a pre-test to determine if there was any significant difference between the control and ex­ perimental groups at the .05 level of confidence before the in-service treatment started. The pre-test utilized a one­ way analysis of variance on the student, teacher-coordinator, and training sponsor data for the total instrument. The analysis compared the control group with the experimental group. A mean comparison was also made fo r each of the above groups. The post-test utilized two-way analysis of variance for the student and training sponsor data and a one-way analysis for the teacher-coordinator data. The results of the two-way analysis were evaluated by the Scheffe multiple post-hoc test.

Conclusions The following conclusions by the researcher are based on the data from this study. Three directional re­ search hypotheses were postulated for this study. Each of th ese w ill be l i s t e d w ith a summary of the fin d in g s p e rta in ­ ing to that hypothesis. 97

Tra.iriing Sponsors The perceptions ol cooperative employers concern­ ing distributive education as a training program who work with teachers who have participated in an in- service program on the development and use of train­ ing plans will be more positive than the perceptions of cooperative employers who work with teachers who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. In the above hypothesis, those training sponsors who work with teacher-coordinators who have participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans are the experimental group. The control group is those training sponsors who work with teacher-coordinators who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. The training sponsors who reported in the survey that they utilize a training plan are classified as "utilizing" or "utilization" of a training plan. The training sponsors who reported not using a training plan are classified as "non- utilization" of a training plan. The results of the two-way analysis of variance sup­ ported the above hypothesis. There was a significant differ­ ence in the mean scores at the .05 level of confidence between the control group and experimental group. There was / also a significant difference between training sponsors who 98

reported utilization of training plans and those reporting non-utilization of training plans. The significance between the control and experi­ mental group is meaningful because there were seventy-live training sponsors in the experimental group who reported non-utilization of training plans. Even with these re­ sponses, the experimental group had a more positive percep­ tion of distributive education as a training program than did the control group. The significance at the .05 level of confidence between those who reported utilizing a training plan and those who did not utilize a training plan is also meaning­ ful. Even though this comparison is not categorized by con­ trol and experimental groups, it does support the general hypothesis held by many distributive educators that those training sponsors who utilize training plans have a more positive perception of distributive education as a training program than those who do not utilize training plans. The results of the Scheffe multiple post-hoc test give further evidence for the conclusion that the research hypothesis can be accepted. Training sponsors in the exper­ imental group who utilized training plans had significantly higher means than training sponsors in: the experimental group who did not utilize training plans, the control group who did utilize training plans, and in the control group who did not utilize training plans. 99

The mean d iffe re n c e between groups i s another in d i­ cator. The training sponsors in the experimental group who utilized training plans scored a mean difference of 18.0 points higher than the training sponsors in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans, 17.8 points higher than the training sponsors in the control group who did uti­ lize training plans and 10.7 points higher than training sponsors in the control group who did not utilize training p lans. It can be concluded that those training sponsors who work with teacher-coordinators who participated in the in- service sessions on the development and use of training plans definitely have significantly better perceptions of distribu­ tive education as a training program than those who do not utilize training plans. They also have a better perception of distributive education as a training program than the training sponsors who work with teacher-coordinators who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans.

Teacher-Coordinators The following is the research hypothesis that per­ tains to teacher-coordinators and a summary of the findings pertaining to that hypothesis. The perceptions of distributive education teacher-coordinators of distributive education as a training program who have participated in an in­ 100

service program on the development and use of train­ ing plans will be more positive than the perceptions of distributive education teacher-coordinators who have not participated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. The data for the teacher-coordinators were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance. The control and experi­ mental groups showed a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. The experimental group scored a higher mean score of 3.96 points on the instrument. It can be concluded that the teacher-coordinators who did participate in the in-service program on the develop­ ment and use of training plans have a more positive percep­ tion of distributive education as a training program than the teacher-coordinators who did not participate in the in- service program on the development and use o1 training plans.

Students The following hypothesis pertains to the students. I t is follow ed by a summary of the fin d in g s p e rta in in g to that hypothesis. The perceptions of distributive education stu­ dents concerning distributive education as a train­ ing program who work with teachers who have parti­ cipated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans will be more positive than the perceptions of distributive education 101

students who work with teachers who have not parti­ cipated in an in-service program on the development and use of training plans. The student data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. The results of the analysis showed there was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence between control and experimental groups. The experimental group had a higher mean score of 3.53 points. Based on this data, the above hypothesis should be accepted. To further indicate the conclusion that the hypo­ thesis should be accepted is the fact that there is signifi­ cant difference at the .05 level o£ confidence between those students who utilized training plans and those who did not utilize training plans. Those students who utilized training plans had a higher mean score of 3.40 points. Even though this data is not divided by control or experimental groups, it signifies that those students who utilize a training plan have a more positive perception of distributive education as a training program than the students who do not utilize a training plan. The results of the Scheffe test gave further sub­ stance to the conclusion to accept the research hypothesis. The data disclosed that those students in the experimental group who utilized training plans had more positive percep­ tions of distributive education as a training program than: the students in the experimental group who did not utilize training plans, the students in the control group who did 102 utilize training plans, and the students in the control group who did not utilize training plans. It can be concluded from the two-way analysis and the Scheffe multiple post-hoc test that those students who utilize training plans and work with teachers who partici­ pated in the in-service on the development and use of train­ ing plans have a more positive attitude toward distributive education as a training program than those students who do not utilize training plans. They also have a more positive perception of distributive education as a training program than do students who work with a teacher-coordinator who did not participate in the in-service program on the development and use of training plans.

. > Recommendations The findings of this study have indicated that those students and training sponsors who utilize training plans have a more positive perception of distributive education as a training program. As a result of these general findings, the following recommendations are presented. 1. Further in-service sessions be held for teacher- coordinators of distributive education. The purpose should be to encourage the use of train­ ing plans. 2. All cooperative distributive education students 103

have a training plan as part of their total pro­ gram. 3. The distributive education teacher-coordinator spend a considerable amount of time and energy encouraging training sponsors to help develop and use training plans. 4. This study should be replicated in other parts of the country and possibly other parts of the State of Ohio. It is believed data similar to this would be valuable to any regional or state supervisor. 5. It is believed that research on the perceptions of distributive education as a training program would be valuable to large city systems with multiple programs. It appears that data on this topic would help city supervisors of distributive education to set goals. They may find it neces­ sary to plan an intensive campaign to improve the student’s and training sponsor's perceptions of distributive education as a training program. 6. There needs to be a study similar to this study that continues for more than one year. It should concern itself with the effects training plans have on the distributive education program. 7. Research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the training pertaining to training plans that 104

potential teacher-coordinators are receiving in the teacher training institutions. 8. Research is needed on distributive education graduates who have remained in the field of dis­ tribution to determine their perceptions of dis­ tributive education as a training program after they have been out of school several years. 9. There is need for information on how the youth club activities effect the distributive education program and student. It would be valuable infor­ mation to know how graduates who were active in the club activities perceived their distributive education experience as compared to graduates who were not active in the club activities. 10. A study should be carried out to provide informa­ tion on the effects advisory committees have on the distributive education program. This infor­ mation is needed on the local and state level. 11. A study should be carried out to determine if teacher-coordinators of distributive education who actively participate in adult distributive education have a better program as possibly determined by the PRIDE review from the Ohio De­ partment of Vocational Education. 12. There is a need for data to determine if sludents who participate in a two-year distributive 105

program are more successful and tend to stay in distributive occupations after graduation more than students who were in a one-year program. Many other studies could be recommended. There is a need for studies that provide information about subjects such as training plans, advisory committees, adult education and youth club activities. These topics and others are often mentioned in the literature as being a necessary part of the program. It is professed that a positive attitude and affirmative action on the part of teacher-coordinators toward these topics will help provide a quality program. It is difficult to find empirical data that will support these claims. More research is needed. A P P E N D I X A 107

TEACIIER-COORDINATOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Personal Data: Number of completed years of teaching distributive education in Ohio! 0 or 1 ___ 2 3____ 4_ _ 5 or more ___

In distributive education, are you fully certified ______temporarilycertified ___

Instructions: For the following statements, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by circling your choice. Your choice should reflect how you personally feel about the statement,not how you think others feel. Choose the answer that comqs the closest to the way you feel about the statement. Example: Statement: He exerts a strong influence for good govern­ ment. Possible answers: SA — Strongly agree A — Agree U — Undecided D — D isagree SD — Strongly disagree 1 »H> 1 T3 O H ■HU G

3. Distributive education students receive little training. SA A U D SD 4. Distributive education is a good source of future leaders in distribution. SA A U D SD 5. Distributive education students never leave the bottom of the employment ladder. SA A U D SD 6. The employer's primary benefit from distributive education is well-trained future employees. SA A U D SD 7. Distributive education is a dead-end s tr e e t. SA A U D SD 8. Classroom instruction is as important as job experience. SA A U D SD 9. Students enroll in distributive educa­ tion primarily to earn money. SA A U D SD 10. Employers should be required to work students during the entire school year. SA A U D SD 11. The coordinator should not be involved in determining the student's training experience. SA A I) D SD 12. The primary purpose of distributive education is to keep students in school. SA A U D SD 13. Distributive education is primarily a means of obtaining inexpensive labor. SA A U D SD 14. Students should be employed consis­ tently throughout the school year. SA A U D SD 15. The employer should discuss the training progress with the student. SA A U D SD 16. Classroom activities are relatively useless. SA A U D SD 17. Distributive education Is just for ]ow- ability students. SA A 11 D SD 18. Employers should nol be involved in the distributive education school experience. SA A U D SD 109

19. Distributive education students only want to leave school early. SA A U D SD

20. The coordinator should be consulted about students' problems on the job. SA A U D SD

2 1. The chief value of distributive educa­ tion is that it enables the student to earn money. SA A U D SD

22. The employer should be consulted about distributive education students' school problems. SA A U D SD 23. Most students learn very little from distributive education. SA A U D SD 24. Distributive education students are usually only able to perform routine ta sk s. SA A U D SD 25. Distributive education students have an opportunity for early promotion. SA A U D SD APPENDIX B

L10 Ill

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Personal Data; Sex: Male Female _ ___ Were you in distributive education your junior year? Yes ___ No____ Do you have a written training plan developed by your coor­ dinator and employer stating the tasks which you are to per­ form or learn? Yes ___ No____ Check the type of business which best describes where you are employed. Check a l l th a t apply. Department store Speciality store Variety store___ Food store Other retail stores Financial establish­ ment Gasoline service station Other service esta­ blishment Wholesale establishment Other (please s ta te ) ___

Instructions: For the following statements, decide the amount you agree or disagree with each statement by circling your choice. Your choice should tell how you personally feel about the state­ ment, not how you think others feel. Example: Statement: History is an interesting subject. Possible answers: SA — Strongly agree A — Agree U — Undecided D — Disagree SD — Strongly disagree Choose the answer which comes the clo sest to the way you feel about the statement. Answer every statement. Work quickly. It is your first im­ pressions, the immediate "feelings" which are important. 112

Read each statement carefully, then answer it quickly and go on to the next item. Make a separate and independent judg­ ment for each statement. Q) a) M (U O' a> flj W & •H «d •0 TJ >i . H •0 a> r—1 O' •H MO' a a) u O' c 0 at 0) as 0 u T3 u +» O' C +J l/l < D Q co 1. Distributive education students, who are not rotated on the job, receive a more realistic work experience. SA A U D SD 2. Many successful businessmen began their careers as distributive education stu­ dents. SA A U D SD 3. Distributive education students receive little training. SA A U D SD 4. Distributive education is a good source of future leaders in distribution* SA A U D SD 5. Distributive education students never leave the bottom of the employment ladder. SA A U D SD 6. The employer's primary benefit from distributive education is well-trained future employees. SA A U D SD 7. Distributive education is a dead-end s tr e e t. SA A U D SD 8. Classroom instruction is as important as job experience. SA A U D SD 9. Students enroll in distributive educa­ tio n p rim arily to earn money. SA A U D SD 10. Employers should be required to work students during the entire school year. SA A U D SD 11. The coordinator should not be involved in determining the student's training experience. SA A U D SD 113

12. The primary purpose of distributive edu­ cation is to keep students in school. SA A U D SD 13. Distributive education is primarily a means of obtaining inexpensive .labor. SA A U D SD

14. Students should be employed consis­ tently throughout the school year. SA A U D SD

15. The employer should discuss the train­ ing progress with the student. SA A U D SD

16. Classroom activities are relatively useless. SA A U D SD

17. Distributive education is just for low- ability students. SA A U D SD

18. Employers should not be involved in the distributive education school exper­ ien ce. SA A U D SD

19. Distributive education students only want to leave school early. SA A U D SD

20. The coordinator should be consulted about students' problems on the job. SA A U D SD

21. The chief value of distributive educa­ tion is that it enables the student to earn money. SA A U D SD

22. The employer should be consulted about distributive education students' school problems. SA A U D SD

23. Most students learn very little from distributive education. SA A U D SD

24. Distributive education students are usually only able to perform routine ta sk s. SA A U D SD

25. Distributive education students have an opportunity for early promotion. SA A U D SD APPENDIX C

114 115

TRAINING SPONSOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Training Sponsor: You have been selected to participate in a study con­ cerning your attitudes about distributive education as it exists in Northwest Ohio. The information you submit shall remain confidential and will only be identified as it is compiled with other similar data. Please seal the completed questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Do not sign the question­ n a ire . Thank you for your assistance in this research endeavor.

Business Data: Check the number of full-time personnel employed by your firm. 1-10_____ 11-20_ 21-50___ more than 50___ Do you have a written training plan, developed by you and the distributive education coordinator, stating the tasks your distributive education student is to perform or learn? Yes No___ Check the type of business which best describes your organi­ zation. Check all that apply. Department store Speciality store Variety store Food store Other retail stores Finan­ cial establishment Gasoline service station ___ Other service establishment Wholesale establish­ ment Other (please state)______Check the number of years you have participated in the distri­ butive education program. 0-1 2-3 4-5 more than 5 116

Instructions: For the following statements, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by circling your choice. Your choice should reflect how you personally feel about the statement, not how you think others feel. Choose the answer that comes the closest to the way you feel about the statement. Example: Statement: He exerts a strong influence for good government. Possible answers: SA — Strongly agree A — Agree U — Undecided D — Disagree SD — Strongly disagree ^ o < a> a) >1 pH 0) iH 0* h u o> c a o o»a o C -H -P xn < D Q to 1. Distributive education students, who are not rotated on the job, receive a more realistic work experience. SA A U D SD 2. Many successful businessmen began their careers as distributive education stu­ d en ts. SA A U D SD 3. Distributive education students receive little training. SA A U D SD 4. Distributive education is a good source of future leaders in distribution. SA A U D SD 5. Distributive education students never leave the bottom of the employment 1 adder. SA A U D SD 6. The em ployer’s prim ary boneTit from distributive education is wol1-trained future employees. SA A U D SD 117

7. Distributive education is a dead-end s tr e e t. SA A U D SD 8. Classroom instruction is as important as job experience. SA A U D SD 9. Students enroll in distributive educa­ tion primarily to earn money. SA A U D SD 10. Employers should be required to work students during the entireschool year. SA A U D SD 11. The coordinator should not be involved in determining the student's training experience. SA A U D SD 12. The primary purpose of distributive edu­ cation is to keep students in schdol. SA A U D SD 13. Distributive education is primarily a means of obtaining inexpensive labor. SA A U D SD 14. Students should be employed consis­ tently throughout the school year. SA A U D SD 15. The employer should discuss the train­ ing progress with the student. SA A U D SD 16. Classroom activities are relatively useless. SA A U D SD 17. Distributive education is just for low- ability students. SA A U D SD 18. Employers should not be involved in the distributive education school exper­ ience. SA A U D SD 19. Distributive education students only want to leave school early. SA A U D SD 20. The coordinator should be consulted about students' problems on the job. SA A U D SD 21. The chief value of distributive educa­ tion is that it enables the student to earn money. SA A U D SD 22. The employer should be consulted about distributive education students' school problems. SA A U D SD 118

23. Most students learn very little from distributive education. SA A U D SD 24. Distributive education students are usually only able to perform routine tasks. SA A U D SD 25. Distributive education students have an opportunity for early promotion. SA AU D SD

I APPENDIX D 120

LETTER SENT TO TEACHER-COORDINATORS FOR PRE-TEST

TO: Teacher-Coordinators, Distributive Education, Northwest Ohio FROM: Larry Casterline SUBJECT: Questionnaire on perceptions of distributive edu­ cation as a training program.

Enclosed is a twenty-five item questionnaire that I would like to have you complete and return in the self-addressed envelope. It will only take a few minutes of your time and will help me with some research I am doing in Northwest Ohio. Your answers w ill not be looked a t as an in d iv id u a l. Your answers will be added to those of approximately twenty other teacher-coordinators in your area. You have my assurance that there is no way for me to determine who a particular questionnaire came from. I personally have no desire to know who sent which questionnaire. This will in no way affect the supervision of your program. Please be honest and return the questionnaire as soon as possible. If you have any objections to participating, please contact me immediately. In several days, I will be sending you a packet of question­ naires for your students and a separate packet for employers. The same rules of privacy apply to these questionnaires. Please administer these to your students and return them in the self-addressed envelope. The questionnaires for the em­ ployers will have self-addressed envelopes that permit them to send them directly to me. Again, there will be no way for me to know who answered what questionnaire. Because there is no way of identifying the instruments, the success of this research depends on you to administer the questionnaire to your students and distribute them to your cooperating employers. Thank you for the help. If there are questions, please con­ ta c t me. APPENDIX E 12?.

LETTER SENT TO TEACHER-COORDINATORS FOR POST-TEST

TO: Teacher-Coordinators in Northwest Ohio FROM: Larry Casterline SUBJECT: Surveys

Enclosed is the post-test questionnaire of my study of the perceptions of distributive education as a training program. This study is designed with a pre-test and post-test. I would appreciate a prompt reply. In the near future, you will be receiving a packet with stu­ dent and employer questionnaires. The same process for dis­ tributing the employer questionnaires should be followed as before. I will send you the number that you indicated were actually used on the pre-test. Your help is greatly appreciated. APPENDIX F PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE - or ie n c i rton i eaty aprcae . reciated app tly a re g is n according eratio s sid n n co estio u q and time Your enty-five tw the t. s complete te t- s o lease p P and t s te - e r p eerh o te re i o di rbutve educa­ e tiv u trib is d may of t I s n tio ercep . p aire n the n on estio u q research enclosed e th complete lease P o or ure atiudes. s e d ttitu a This t rren cu your year. to school the in r lie r a e aire n n estio u q r a l tio n as a tra in in g program i s designed to have a a have to designed s i program g in in tra a as n tio em amii bcue o my ae opee a i i­ sim a completed have may you because r ilia m fa seem LETTER SENT TRAINING TO SPONSORS FOR POST-TEST oubs Oi 43229 Ohio Columbus, e rlin ste a C Larry 1386 Seaton Court Court Seaton 1386 incerely, S

124 LAE PES - PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE APPENDIX G

i I 125 NUMBER, MEAN, MEAN DIFFERENCE, AND PSI SCORE FOR STUDENTS USED TO DETERMINE SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SCHEFFE POST-HOC TEST

C ell Number Number Mean.. Mean- Mean Psi Combi nations 1 2 (mx)

AiV AiBi 394 195 90.98 89.16 1.82 2.63 AlV A2B2 394 139 90.98 88. 25 2.73 2.66 AlV A2Bl 394 377 90.98 95.99 5.01 1.93 AlV A2B2 195 139 89.16 88.25 .91 2.99 AlV A2Bl 195 377 89.16 95.99 6.83 2.38 A2B2/A2B1 139 377 88. 25 95.99 7.74 2.67

* Significant at the .05 level of confidence. 126 APPENDIX H

127 NUMBER, MEAN, MEAN DIFFERENCE, AND PSI SCORE FOR TRAINING SPONSORS USED TO DETERMINE SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SCHEFFE POST-HOC TEST

C ell Number Number Mean.. Mean, Mean P si Combinations 1 2 (n^)1 (m2>2 D ifference Score

AiV AiBi 160 65 91.80 92.0 .2 3.92 AlV A2B2 160 75 91.80 99.15 7.35 3.73 AlV A2Bl 160 135 91.80 109.80 18.0 3.12

AlV A2B2 65 75 92.0 99.15 7.15 4.52

AlV A2Bl 65 135 92.0 109.80 17.8 4.03 A2V A2B1 75 135 99.15 109.80 10.65 3.85

* Significant at the .05 level of confidence. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Campbell, Donald and Stanley, Julian. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Crawford, Lucy C. and Meyer, Warren G. Organization and Administration of Distributive Education. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e rrill Company, 1972. Downie, N. M. and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Gross, Edward. Work and S o ciety . New York: The Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1958. Guilford, J. P. and Fruchter, Benjamin. Fundamental Statis­ tics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Hayes, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963. Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; and Snyderman, Barbara. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Kroll, Arthur M., et al. Career Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970. Lawrence, Thomas. The O rganizational S tru c tu re and Educa­ tion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1956. Mason, Ralph E. Methods in Distributive Education. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1965.

129 130

Mason, Ralph E. and Haines, Peter G. Cooperative Occupation Education and Work Experience in the Curriculum. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Pub­ lishers, Inc., 1965. Miller, Delbert C. and Form, William H. Industrial Sociol­ ogy: An Introduction to the Sociology of Work Rela­ tions. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Myers, Jerome L. Fundamentals of Experimental Design. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972. Nadler, David. The New Employee. Houston, Texas: Gulf P ublishing Company, 1971. Nichols, Daryl E. Qualifying. Placement, and Evaluation in Distributive Education. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Dis­ tributive Education Materials Laboratory, 1971. Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1967. Patterson, Cecil. Man in a World of Work. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. Schrumpf, Susan S., ed. The Origin and Development of Dis­ tributive Education. New Jersey: Gregg/McGraw- Hill, 1972. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Super, Donald E. Vocational Behavior: Readings in Theory and Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Man in a World of Work. Boston: Houghton-Mifflip, 1964.

Journals and Magazines

Crawford, Lucy C. "Developing Training Plans." D.E. Today: A Report to Marketing Educators 75, Fall, 1970, p. 9. Dansereau, H. Kirk. "Work and the Teenager." Annals of the fonerican Academy of P o litic a l and S ocial Science 338 (November 1961):44-5 2. 131

Evans, Rupert. "Advantages, Disadvantages and Factors in Development of Cooperative Programs." American Voca­ tional Journal XLIV (May 1969):19. Hecht, Robert, et al. "Let's Stop Worrying about Aptitudes and Look at Attitudes." Personnel Journal (December 1965):616-620. Henry, W. E. "The Business Executive: Psychodynamics of a Social Role." American Journal of Sociology 54 (1949):286-291. Hodge, E. W. and Siegel, P. M. "Occupational Prestige in the United States, 1925-1963." American Journal of Sociology (1964):286-301. Joseph, J. "A Research Note on Attitudes to Work and Marriage of Six Hundred Adolescent Girls." British Journal of Sociology (1961):176-183. Kinnane, John F. and Gaubinger, Joseph R. "Life Values and Work Values." Journal of Counselling Psychology 10 (1963):362-36 7. Ronan, W. W. "Variables Relating to Job Satisfaction." Journal or Applied Psychology Monograph (1970):1-31. Rowe, Kenneth L. "Making the Trainee More Responsible for His Training." Business Education Forum, vol. 17, April, 1963, pp. 12-13. Shotwell, H. D. "Training Agreements." D.E. Today: A Report to Marketing Educators 75, Fall, 1971, p. 5. Vroom, Victor. "The Effects of Attitudes on Perception of Organizational Goals." Human Relations, vol. 13, 1960, pp. 229-240.

Public Documents

Arizona, State Department of Vocational Education. A Case Study of Weaknesses in Coordination Practices, by Eugene L. Dorr. Distributive Teacher Education Professional Bulletin Series No. 2. Distributive Education Service, 400 Arizona State Building, Tucson, Arizona, 1962. Virginia. Five Year Follow-Up Survey of Distributive Educa­ tion Part-Time Cooperative Training Students. 1957- 61. by Vivian K. Ely. Printed Bulletin. School of Distribution, Richmond Professional Institute, 1964. 132

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Federal Register 35, no. 91. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970, p. 7349. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Summary Data Vocational Education Fiscal Year 1972. Washing­ ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973, p. 2.

R eports

Butler, Roy L. and York, Edwin G. What Teacher-Coordinators Should Know about Cooperative Vocational Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Tech­ nical Education, (1971). Crawford, Lucy C. A Competency Pattern Approach to Curri­ culum Construction in Distributive Teacher Education. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, (1968). Definitions of Terms in Vocational. Technical and Practical Arts Education. Washington, D.C.: American Voca­ tional Association, undated. Garbin, Albeno, et al. Problems in the Transition from High School to Work as Perceived by Vocational Educators. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Tech­ nical Education, (1967). Garrett, Henry E. and Woodworth, R. S. Statistics in Psy­ chologychologv and and Education. New York: David McKay Com- pany,pany. (1964)(] Haines, Peter. How High School Cooperative Trainees Fare in the Labor Market. Phase B: A Ebilow-Up Study of 1965 Graduates Ten Months After Graduation. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, (1967). Harris, E. Edward. Employer Preferences and Teacher- Coordinator Practices in Distributive Education. Hightstown, New Jersey: Gregg/McGraw-Hill, (1971). Helfant, Seymour. Training and Motivating Retail Sales People. New York: National Retail Merchants Asso­ ciation, (1969). Huffman, Harry. Guidelines in Cooperative Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Tech­ nical Education, (1967). 133

Koeninger, Jimmy G.; Whittington, Robert G.; and Williams, Gregory L. A Comprehensive Process for Developing Training Plans in Distributive Education. r Greeley: University of Northern Colorado, (1973). Lee, Sylvia, et al. High School Senior Girls and the World of Work: O ccupational Knowledge. A ttitu d e s , and Plans. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, (1971). Lynch, Richard L. and White, Thomas R* Training Plans for High School Cooperative Distributive Education Pro­ grams: A Developmental Project. Bloomington: Indiana University, (1971J. Meyer, Warren G .; K laurens, Mary K .; and Ashmun, Richard D. A Guide for Cooperative Vocational Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, (1969). Meyer, Warren G. and Logan, William B. Review and Synthesis of Research in Distributive Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center fo r V ocational and Technical Edu­ ca tio n , (1967). Ohio Department of Distributive Education. Annual Report. Columbus, Ohio: State Department of Education, (T974) Ohio Distributive Education Coordinators Handbook. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, (1974). T uttle,'David C. A Follow-Up Study of Graduates and Employ­ ers* Opinions of a Cooperative Training Program. Greeley: Colorado State College, (19£>5). Wallace, Harold R. Review and Analysis of Instructional Materials for Cooperative Vocational Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Tech­ nical Education, (1972). Review and Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Vocational Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, (1970). Wohl, Seth F. Evaluation of the Municipal Cooperative Edu­ cation Program of the Hicfo Schools of the City of New York. New York: Bureau of Educational Program Research and Statistics, Board of Education, (1968). 134

Unpublished Material

Bennett, James G. "Disadvantaged and Non-Disadvantaged Urban High School Students' Perceptions of Work Within General Merchandise Retail Department Stores." Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1969. Bicanich, William P. "Distributive Education Students' Reactions to the Cooperative Part-Time Distributive Education Programs in Minnesota." Masters thesis, University of Minnesota, 1964. Conard, Wallace E. "The Effectiveness of the Distributive Education Training Station in the State of Ohio." Masters thesis. The Ohio State University, 1969. Hephner, Thomas. "A Study of Attitudinal Differences between Cooperative Distributive Education Students and General or Academic Students of Similar Background." Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972. Miles, Benton. "The Measurement of the Perceptions of Dis­ tributive Education as a Training Program Held by Distributive Education Students and Training Spon­ sors." Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State Univer­ sity, 1971. Pasquale, Matthew. "A Survey of the Perceptions of Eleventh Grade Students Regarding Essential Occupational Characteristics." Masters thesis, The Ohio State University, 1971. Patterson, Gerald E. "Attitudes of Distributive Education Students toward School and Work." Masters thesis, The Ohio State University, 1963. Riley, Edwin C. "An Experimental Comparison of the Effects of Three Methods of Conducting V isitation Confer­ ences in Cooperative Distributive Education Programs." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1970. Rountree, W. Daniel. "An Analysis of Distributive Educa­ tion Students' Attitudes toward Their Classroom Instruction, Their Work Experience, and Careers in Distribution." University of North Carolina, 1965. Shoemaker, Paul A. "Current Issues in Adult Distributive Education in Ohio." Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1973. 135

Shoemaker, Paul A. "History of Distributive Education in Ohio." Masters thesis, The Ohio State University, 1971. Vetter, Louise B. "A Factor Analytic Study of the Attitudes toward Work of High School Senior Girls." ,Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1968. Vivian, Neal E. "Economic Understanding of Distributive Education Students." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1966.