REPOR TRESUMES ED 010 110 24 APPRAISAL OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS DEVELOPED FOR USE BY SECONDARY HOME ECONOMICS TEACHERS. BY- HORN, FERN M. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS REPORT NUMBER OR-6-.8141 PUB DATE SEP 66 GRANT 0EG-6-C68141-0958 EDRS PRICE MF.40.27HC-$6.32 158P. DESCRIPTORS- RESOURCE MATERIALS, *CLOTHING INSTRUCTION, *HOHE ECONOMICS, *CHILD DEVELOPMENT, SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS, *CURRICULUM EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, *INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA AN APPRAISAL WAS MADE OF THE CLOTHING INSTRUCTION AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM RESOURCE MATERIALS DEVELOPED FOR USE BY SECONDARY HOME ECONOMICS TEACHERS. PROCEDURES INCLUDED (1) A TEACHER SURVEY OF.,THE USES MADE OF RESOURCES AND (2) A PUPIL SURVEY WITH SPECIALCrPREFARED TEST INSTRUMENTS TO DETERMINE IF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CLASSROOMS, GRADES 7 -12, WHERE THE RESOURCE MATERIALS WERE USED WERE BEING FULFILLED. APPROXIMATELY 600 TEACHERS AND 6,000 SVUDENTS FROM A VARIETY OF COMMUNITIES IN MINNESOTA PARTICIPATED. FROM AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTING DATA, IT WAS APPARENT THAT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND INTELLECT WERE HIGHLY CORRELATED WITH THE FUNCTIONAL USAGE OF RESOURCE MATERIALS, AS THE USE MADE WAS A SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE FACTOR IN MEAN TEST SCORES OBTAINED. IT WAS NOTED, HOWEVER THAT MANY TEACHERS NEED HELP IN ORGANIZING THEIR CLASSROOMS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR CLOTHING AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (JH) U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WEL, Office of Education .4' This document has been reproduced eiaay as re:e;ved fr- - person or rgarra:.tion originating it. Points of view or c; .4. stated do not necessarily represent official Office of Edr__-0.t ri position or policy_ Project Number 6-8141 Grant Number OEG 6-068141-0958 4 APPRAISAL OF CURRICULUI MATERIALS DEVELOPED FOR USE BY SECONDARr HOME ECONOMICS TEACHERS September 1966 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education Bureau of Research APPRAISAL OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS DEVELOPED FOR USE BY SECONDARY WEE ECONOMICS TEACHERS Project Number 6-8143. Grant Number OEG 6-068141-0958 Fern M. Horn September, 1966 The research reported herein wasperformed pursuant to a grant withtheOffice ofEducation, U. S.Department of Health, Education, andWelfare. Contractors undertaking such projectsunder Goverment sponsorship are encouraged to express freelytheir professional judgment in the conduct of the project. 'Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education position or policy. University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota SUMMARY OF PROJECT Grant Number: 0EG-3-45-068141-0938 Title: Appraisal of Curriculum MaterialsDeveloped for Use by Secondary Home -Economics .Teachers Investigator: Fern M. Horn Institution: University of Minnesota The purpose of this research project wasto appraise the by clothing and child development resourcematerials developed for use secondary home economics teachers. Thedevelopment and appraisalof these resource materials was conducted over aperiod of three years It is with the last three months devoted to thestatistical analysis. the last phase of this project with whichthis report is concerned. The principle method of analysis wasto treat the use teachers made of the resource units and the IQ orMSAT scores of theirparticipa- ting students as independent variables;the test scores of thestudents, the type of program, the quality ofobjectives of the teachers,service as a supervising teacher,and enrollment in Curriculum16GA were treated as dependent variables. The analysis was guided by thehypotheses that: IQ 1, There is a relationship betweentest score earned and or MSAT score. and 2. The test items will indicatediscrimination among upper lower ability students. i 3. There are differences among themean test scores earned by students whose teachers (a) taught ina total or in a differentiated program, (b) served or did tot serve as supervising teachers, (c) either completed or did not complete the Curriculum 160Acourse,(d) developed or did not use quality objectives, and (e) made varyinguse of the re- source units. l&. There is a different pattern .ofresource unit test means of those students whose teachers (a) taught ina total or in a differentiated program, (b) served or did not serve as a supervising teacher, (c) either completed or did not complete the Curriculum 160Acourse, and (d) developedor did not use quality objectives. To discover whetheror not there were such differences, the students in the classrooms of randomly selected home economics teachers were given tests in clothing and testiles and/or Child development.The results were subjected to analysis of variance and covariance.IQ or MSAT scores were obtained to determine ifthere was a correlation be- tween these and the testscores of the participating students.The test items were further analyzed for their difficulty and discriminating power.The results obtained were compared with the unit objectives of the participating teachers. Data from the administration of the instrumentswere obtained from 300 to 1200 students dependingupon the grade level, from teachers who taught all classes of home economics ina school (total program) as well as those who taught onlyone or two grade levels or one area of home economics (differentiated program), and froma variety of communities .4 ii throughout the State of Minnesota.The data obtained were compiled, tabulated, analyzed, and reported in this study. Within the limitations of this study the findings indicated that: 1.The resource units developed by the classroom teachers pro- vide a wide variety of suggestions for interesting and challenging student experiences. 2. Many teachers have adapted these units to fit the needs of their students and have been creativein their use. 3.The instruments developed for this stucky with minor revisions could be usedquite effectively by classroom teachers as many students not onlycommentedthat they were interesting and challenging, but the testswere also found to have good range of difficulty and discrimina- tion indexes. 4.Thehypotheses developed are generally supported with some variations obtained betweenthe test instruments andthe variables being analyzed. PREFACE This was- a cooperative venture begun under the auspices of the Vocational Division, State Department of Education, the State of Minne- sota, in the fall of 1963. Many people have given generously of their time and talents. A special word of appreciation isgiven to the maw classroom teachers who assisted in the development of curriculum materials and/or in the appraisal phase of the project. Over the period of time the following graduate assistants contributed: Marilyn Halker, Narybelle Hickner, Sharlene Swann; Jo leen Hartung who assumed responsibility particularly inthe initial appraisal phase; Laurencia Alfonso, Marjorie Kadue,and Isabel Quailswho assisted in compiling data;andEditha Jiloca who assumed responsibility in the statistical analysis phase. Among thefaculty of the University of Minnesotawere Roxana R. Ford, Head of Division of Hone Economics Education, Cyril J. Hoyt, Statistical Consultant, College of Education, and Douglas Anderson, Numerical Analysis Center. Those in the State Department of Education who gave continued support include Lyla M. Nallough, State Supervisor of Home Economics Education and 1?$a. staff; Donald Clausen, Curriculum Supervisor; and S. K. Wick, Director, Vocational Division. In addition the cooperation of several Universitydepartments including the School of Home Economics, the Bureau of Educational Research, the State Testing Bureau Program and the Computing Centers was deeply appreciated. iv ) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 Background of the Study Objectives of the Study Assumptions Basic to the Study Hypotheses II. ORGAKEZATION OF THE STUDY . ... 7 Design of the Study Population and Sample Development and Use of Unit Tests Use of Resource Units III, ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS. 12 Relationship Between TestScores and IQ or MSAT Scores Findings Resulting from Item Analysis Differences Found Among Mean TestScores Patterns of Use of Resource Units IV. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.*49 Summary of Findings and Conclusions ImplicationsandRecommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY . OOOOO ... .59 APPENDICES OOOOOOOO . .62 A. Survey Instruments B. Review Committee C. List of Participating Teachers and Schools D. Unit Tests E. Score Cards for Rating Objectives and Block Plans v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Returns from the Survey of Use }lade of Resource Units .. 8 2. Number of Classes Participating in the Clothing Unit Tests . 10 3.Number of Classes Participating in the Child. Development Unit Tests 10 I. Summary of Findings Indicating the Correlation Between Test Score and IQ or '`SAT Score 13 5. Comparison of Item Complexity with Discrimination and Difficulty Indexes for Clothing 7 . ......... 15 6. Analysis of the Coverage of Objectives for Clothing? . 16 7. Comparison of Item Complexity with Discrimination and Difficulty Indexes for Clothing 8. 17 8. Analysis of the Coverage of Objectives for Clothing 8 . 18 9. Comparison of Item Complexity with Discrimination and Difficulty Indexes for Clothing 9 ..... 19 10. Analysis of the Coverage of Objectives for Clothing 9 . 20 11. Comparison of item. Complexity with Discrimination and Difficulty Indexes for Clothing 10 21 12. Analysis of the Coverage of Objectives for Clothing 10 22 13. Comparison of Item Complexity with Discrimination and Difficulty Indexes