CRITERIA FROM JOB ANALYSES FOR DEVELOPING CURRICULUMS IN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY By NINA MAY SANDBERG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UKIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TI-IE REQUIBEMENTS FOR TI-IE DEGREE OF DOCrOR OF EDUCATION UNIVEHSITY OF FLORIDA HJGS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In paraphrase of Sir Winston Churchill, never has so few as one owed so much to so many: To Dr. Douglas E. Scates for help with the initial plan of the study; To my advisory committee: Dr. Luther A. Arnold, Dr. N. Eldred Bingham, Dr. Robert L. Curran, Dr. Edwin L. Kurth, and Dr. Harry H. Sisler, who have been kindly critical, enthusiastically supportive, and genuinely interested; To my col leagues at Rochester Institute of Technology who not only provided the spur of ambition but also supported me during the development and conclusion of the study; To the hundreds of individual members of the chemical industry who added time and effort to their regular duties in contributing the data upon which this study is based; To Mrs. Frankie Hammond who added speed and sparkle to the dull business of preparing the manuscript; To my family and friends for lighting the days by the quality of their love, their principles, and their vision. ' To my beloved chairman, Dr. N. Eldred Bingham, for painstaking patience above and beyond the call of duty. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... ................ .. ...................... ii LI ST OF TABLES............................................. V CHAPTER I. THE NATURE OF THE STUDY ...... ... ............ .. ... Introduction.................................... l The Problem..................................... 5 Purposes of the Study........................... 6 Limitations of the Study........................ 7 I I . RELATED LITERATURE.. 8 Job Analysis. 8 Related Studies................................. 9 11 I. THE PROCEDURE..................................... 14 Overview........................................ 14 Sources of the Job Descriptions ................. 14 The Initial Survey .............................. 16 Development of the Summary Validation Check List .................................. 17 The Fol low-Up Survey. 20 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................ 22 The Initial Survey .............................. 22 Returns ... .............. .. ................. 22 Analysis .................................... 23 Comments from Cover Letters ................. 23 General Observations ........................ 24 The Fol low-Up Survey ............................ 26 Sampling and Returns ................. ...... 26 General Techniques.......................... 27 Interpretation of the Tally ..................... 29 Discussion of the Tally .........•...•........... 31 V. CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 35 Introduction ......... ..... ...................... 35 Job Descri ptions from Job Analyses ......•....... 36 The Apprentice Chemical Technician .......... 36 The Junior Chemical Technician ..........••.. 38 The Senior Chemical Technician ...... .. ...... 41 The Chemical Technologist .........•......... 44 iii TAB LE OF CONT ENTS ( con t inued) Page CHAPTER V ( con t inued) Ev a lua tive Criter i a For Curriculums ... ....... L17 Gene r a l Crite rir1 . .• • .. .•....•... .•• .... ... 47 Sequential Crite ria . ........... .... .. 48 Summary ...... ........... ........ ............ 51 APP Elrn l X A. CAREER OPPORTUNITY CATEGORIES ..•.... ••••• . .•..... 55 B. FIRST LETTER OF SOLICITATION ...•...... • . .• ..•....• 56 C. SECOND LETTER OF SOLICITATION .... • ••... ... •. .. • .. 58 D. FINAL TALLY SHEET FROM 328 JOB ANALYSES ..... ..•.. 60 E. COVER LETTER FOR VAL I DAT I ON STUDY. • . • 68 F. EXPLANATION OF VALIDATION STUDY ........... • ..••... 69 G. TALLY SHEET FROM SUMMARY VALIDATION CHECK LIST •••. 71 H. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED TIME . ......... 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY. • • • • . • . • . • • • • . • • . • • . • • . • • • . • • • • . 82 iv LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE I. ESTIMATED TIMES IN HOURS FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES BASED ON A 40-HOUR WEEK .......... 30 V CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE STUDY Introduction The history of the chemical industry in the United States is a long and fascinating story. Powder-making on the Delaware has been a tradition since the American Revolution. The growth of the modern chemical industry, however, is usually attributed to the demands of the first world war. In 1910 the census figures reported 16,598 chemists; by 1920 this figure had doubled. By 1964 the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that 120,000 chemists were available to American industry. In addition, there were approximately 45,000 chemical engineers, a profession little known in 1920. Chemical education grew in pace with the demands placed on it by the growth of the chemical industry. As research opened new frontiers and manufacturing processes became more diverse, college curriculums, especially at the upper division and graduate levels, changed to ref lect the new knowledge and the new industrial demands. Since the second world war, chemical research, development, and production have increasingly been done by the team approach, combining into a cooperative effort the skills of scientists, engineers, administrators, and technical workers. The chemical 2 technician is, according to the Manufacturing Chemists• Association, 11 a relatively new'' member of the team for whom 11 there is a steadily growing demand 11 (l l, p. 2), but the nature of his contribution appears to have become more controversial as the team approach became more common. These teams are often hierarchical with the technician somewhere in the middle of the structure. His position is best summarized by the fol lowing chart considering several continuums and adapted from Ziol (22). Scientist Why Head Theory Research Engineer t Technician Craftsman + Laborer How Hand Practice Product ion While the line of demarcation between the engineer and the technician is often defined by an academic degree, no easy distinction among the members of the hierarchy is possible. There does appear to be general agreement that the term technician covers many job areas requiring a broad range of experience and education, but the limits of this broad range of competence have not been clearly defined. In consequence, there are few objective bases for deciding how these technicians should be trained. Those who view the technician as contributing a broad range of competencies suggest a level of training equivalent to the bachelor 1 s degree in chemistry or chemica l engineering. This view has merit 3 because the bachelor's degree attests to a fairly uniform level of competenc e among different colleges due to the accreditation procedures of the respective professional organizations. On the other hand, many who see the technician at the lower level of the hierarchy suggest that high school graduation can be supplemented by on-the-job training to provide the needed competencies. Finally, there is a t h ird group which takes the currently popular intermediate position. In its view, the technician exercises a relatively high level of competence, usually as the result of two years of intensive post high school training. The nature of those two years of intensive training has been subject to considerable scrutiny in recent years. The American Chemical Society, the Manufacturing Chemists' Association and the President's Science Advisory Committee have al 1 undertaken studies of the curricular offerings of various institutions. With the rise of the junior colleges and the increased emphasis on vocational education, a decision as to the role of the technician and a realistic curriculum designed for his training became issues of immediate interest. It has been common (2) to provide education in chemistry or chemical engineering through the first two years of the typical bachelors• programs, and then to award the degree of Associate in Applied Science, presumably attesting to the student 1 s competency as a chemical technician. At this point, students are theoretically provided with two alternatives: they can continue in the bachelors• program, or they can take a position in industry. Unfortunately, 4 this type of training makes no concessions to the possibility that the work of the technician might be qualitatively different from that of the chemist, or that the technician might be required to approach his work from a different orientation. Furthermore, since such programs are in no sense terminal, only those students unwilling or unable to complete the bachelors 1 program are available to ease the technician shortage. The tacit assumption that training appropriate for the chemist is also appropriate for the technician is supported by occupational criteria for technician education developed by the U. S. Office of Education (20). These criteria describe the activities performed by technicians in words implying a high level of conceptual and judgemental attainment (analyzes information, designs, develops, interprets, plans, advises, recommends, etc.). On the other hand, the curriculum guide for technician education based on these criteria and prepared by the U. S. Office of Education frankly says of a technician: His specific task usually is to obtain laboratory or pilot-plant test data which prove or disprove the possibility of new processes or systems proposed by scientists and engineers for developing new products or improving production methods. Under the supervision of the chemist or chemical engineer and with the assistance