vt 004 395 curricular needs of north bay schools, a … · grade 0, grade 12, california, taxonomy...
TRANSCRIPT
VT 004 395
CURRICULAR NEEDS OF NORTH BAY SCHOOLS, A STUDY OF OPINIONSCONCERNING CURRICULAR NEEDS IN THE NORTH BAY COUNTIES OF
MARINI NAPA SONOMA AND SOLANO.BY KASE: DONALD'.NORTH 8A1 PACE CENTER, NAPA, CALIF.REPORT NUMBER N8PCCURRICULAR-MEED-PSTUDY-I PUB DATE I SEP 6?
ERRS PRICE MF.40.50 HCf4!2.66 115P.
DESCRIPTORS. *STUDENT NEEDS, *CURRICULUM EVALUATION,'*BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES, *EDUCATIONAL NEEDS, QUESTIONNAIRES,PARENT ATTITUDES, TEACHER ATTITUDES, STUDENT ATTITUDES,ADMINISTRATOR ATTITUDES, *EDUCATIONAL ATTITUDES, GRADE 6,
GRADE 0, GRADE 12, CALIFORNIA, TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL
OBJECTIVES,
TH1 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT WERE TO IDENTIFYEDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL. NEEDS OF STUDENTS AND TO ESTABL/SHPRIORITIES AMONG THESE NEEDS. IN AUGUST 1966, QUESTIONNAIRESRETURNED BY 90 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOaS IDENTIFIED FIVE BROADAREAS OF IMPORTANT STUDENT NEEDS. 'HE TWO MOST OFTEN41ENTIONED, CURRICULUM METHODS ANP CURRICULUM CONTENT, WERESTUDIED, STUDENT BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES FOR THE 11 LEVELSINDICATED IN THE *TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES,NANDBOOKS1 AND It* WERE DETERMINED FOR EACH OF 2G COMMONSUBJECT AREAS. A 1i7-ITEM QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGNED TO ALLOWCOMPARISON OF RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS OF CURRENT EDUCATIONALPRACTICES WITH THEIR EXPECTATIONS WAS COMPLETED BY APERCENT SAMPLE OF INTACT CLASSROOMS IN GRADES 6, 9, AND 12,PARENTS OF THESE STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND ADMINISTRATORS. FROMTHESE 2,220 USABLE QUESTIONNAIRES, FINDINGS INDICATED (I)VOCATIONAL EDUCATION' SOCIAL STUDIES, AND HOME ECONOMICS WERETHE MOST KEENLY FELT CURRICULAR NEEDS OF STUDENTS, (2)PHYSICAL EDUCATION, FOREIGN LANGUAGE, AND MUSIC WERE THE MOST
SATISFACTORILY ACHIEVED. LEARNING GOALS 0 (3) EMOTIONALCOMPONENTS OF LEARNING IN ALL SUBJECTS WERE NEEDED MORE THAN
:.:ADDITIONAL STRESS ON PURELY INTELLECTUAL LEARNING, (4) ASSTUDENTS PROGRESSED THROUGH SCNOOLI THEIR OPINIONS REGARDINGA two FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, SOCIAL STUDIES, AND HOMEECONOMICS INCREASED IN STRENGTH, (5) THE !MLITT TO MAKE ANDREVISE JUDGMENTS ON THE BASIS OF A CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY OFLIFE WAS VIEWED AS IMPORTANT IN ALL SUBJECT AREAS, AND (6)
ThE NEED FOR INCREASED EMPHASIS ON SYNTHESIZING ANDEVALUAT/M0 KNOWLEDGE INCREASED WITH GRADE LEVEL. THEQUESTIONNAInE AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES ARE INCLUDED. (EN)
NORTH BAY
PACE/
1./
.
U.S. DEPARTMiNT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVE) FROM TM
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCEION
POSITION OR POLICY.
!834 FIRST STREET NAiA, c.thiLiFORNIA .94558
701 255-2883
"Projects to .4dvance Creativity hs Education"
Virgil Hollis Piercy Holliday tired 14cCoubs Delorest HamiltonMaria County Napa County: Salsa* County Sonoma County
Supt. of Schools Supt. of Schools Supt. of Schools Supt. of Schools
IlleMININIMINI01111110
cuuicuL NEES OFNOILTH BAY SCHOOLS,
(Curricular Need Study #1)
A Study ofOpinions Concerning Curricular Needs
in the North Bay Counties ofMars, Napa, Sonoma and SoUno
Conducted by theNorth Bay PACT C.6nter
jiDonald Kass, ***search Associate
lispa CaliornlaSeptZubst
arolirammorsopourommilmommilmilmoriforaraursa ou'rals!rw-
ii
MARIN NAPA SOLANO
L
TABLE OF,
Acknowledgments
Preface ft.
Introduction -
0IP 00 1111 ..... 1,10 00 Aft lilt IPS 011 Mit WIN ii
00 00 Mr W 00 40 101 101 410 00
M W 00 mr W 00 00 00 M w or m WO 00 00. 00 60 00
Summary of Most Significant Findings .WSW
How This Study of Curricular Needs Came About
Procedures
Pilot Study -
Sampling -
M An am 00 SW SW w .. 11r . w w W 00
110 1110 00 00 W 011 SW et
0 00 00
00 410 00 0100 00 00 00 00 00
Instrument As ninistration
Reliability 00 410 SW 1400 W SW 00 S M W 110 (10 M1
Results - . ... W 00 00 Ob 01 00
Gross Findings for the. Total Semplc . 00 art Oa AP 10 *A 60 SW 00
Detailed FinAings 00
Cogaitive Needs -
Affective Needs
SW 1110 100 MW w r>e mor 05 Et* 101 WA 00 00
Ow 00 10 IPt am 00 MI 00 .0 011
General Attitude Toward Sch(ols 00 10 40, 00 00 40
Other Classifications of th( Data -
Analysis in Terms of Bloom's Taxi:waxy
.. SW 00 40 10
SW SW 00 00 00
5
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
18
20
21
23
24
Ai alysis of Variance Among Data Classifications 26
Statistical and content Analysis cf Learning Coals Defining
Vocational Education, Home Econcalcst, and Social Studies 30
Vocational Education (Table Va . 30
Home Economics ('Zs ale 1r4 37
SocSal Studies (Table Vc) /110 00 Mb 00 00 10 100 011 44
Comment on Statistical and Content Analysis 4.* MR 01 w 52
IMWMMMM.MMMMMMAMIPMMMPmmmMmmmmmmmmmftkMo.m...
TAB Lt OF C9.11 T E N TS (Contid)
Limitations of This Study
Appendixes
Appendix A - Initial "Unmet Needs" Survey of School-Oriented Personnel (The "Administrator Survey") - 58
PNI a* a NIPP MP AIM Mo MD OP
Appendix B - Frequency Distribution of SchoolAdministrators' Responses to Need Survey rr Por wit 64
Appendix C Table IIa - Man Dic:repancy Scores (0)fOr the CognitiOe Vomain i U Curricuitz Areas,with Respect to Respcudent e-roups 4nd OtherClasaificationd of the Data xiw wr ww - ri s 67
Appendix Teble /Ib - Mead Discrepancy Scores (ri)for the Affective Domain in 11 Curriculum Areaswith Respect to Respondent Groups and OtherClassifications of the Data - - PP MO 1M Os OP OP 71
Appendix E Tables IT.a and lib (Coned) - MeanDiscrepancy Scores (D) for the Comitive andAffective Domains in 11 Curricitlun Areas withRespect to the Kind of Job the Schools are Doing -
Appendix F - Table III Mean Discrepancy Scores (17)
for each level of the Cognitive and AffectiveDomaine with Respect to Respondent Groups and otherClassification of the Data - " 77
Appendix G - Description of Bloom' +s Taxonomy ofEducational Objectives - --- Me Pl. 81
Appendix H - Learning Goals Questionnaire (CurriculumNeed Study 01) ---- - " Mk op Pe 85
Appendix 1 Item Analysis of Learning Goals forCurri-ulun Need Identification Study (Study #1 103
DIIK/jm9/28/67
.11061V.I.
ACKNOWRDAGMENTS
Both educators and students are continuous 1y assailed by requests
to assist others in education as well as in other disciplines, by
providing them with information, or by direct participation in a study
of one kind or another. The staff of the PACE Center, and the
Superintendents of Marin, Solano, Sonoma, and Napa Counties, are most
appreciative of the extra time and extra effort of the many educators
and students who have made this study possible. Their efforts should
have a direct and "felt" impact on future educational programs
Special thanks are due Mt. Bruce Wainwright, Research Consultant
in the Office of the Napa County Superintendent of Schools, for his
technical assistance in the design of the questionnaire and in pro-
viding editorial assistance on the Learning Goals.
Dr. Carmen Finley, Dirnctor of Data Processing in the Office of
the Sonoma Courty SuperinvAdent of Schools, was instrumental is making
the computer analysis of the data both possible and rapid by her deter -
mination to overcome many technical difficulties.
Millers of the Marin, Solano, Sonoma, and Nape advisory committees
to the PACE Center played a key role in collecting questionnaires from
the parent sample. The Center is most grateful for their active assis-
tance and participation in this regard.
Vr.'Ralph Tyler, Director, Center for Advanced Stud., in the
Behavioral. Sciences, gave freely of his time to critically review theo-
retical assumptions underlying this study, as well as the battle method-
ology. The Center is grateful for his encouraging and helpful comments.
Construction of the Learning G08114 and selected technf-cal consid-
erations of r"s study were cooperatively developed with Mr. Paul Preisine,
Director of ReJearch, Supplementary Educational Center, 1110 North Tenth
Street, San Jose, California 95112.
The work reported herein wan conducted pursuant to a Grant from
the U. S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
DIE0C/jui9/18167
PEACE
The logical place to start improving education is with the ldenti
fication and analysis of problems or needs. The estRblishment cf justi
Liable priority for this work is possible only if the seacih for needs
encompasses a wide spectrum of the educational scene.
There avre many types of educational needs, e.g., pupil needs,
teadher needs, needs of society, curricular needs, and institutional
needs. All of these are interrelated. Based on the findings of a
preliminary survay a decision was made for the North Bay PACE Center to
concentrate on an examination of curricular needs during 1,966-67: more
specifically, to study the difference of opinions between what students
and adults think phould be, as compared with their perception of what
ASA2M42Y124,
This document reports the development, conduct, findings, and some
implications of that study for the four county North Bay area.
The work was conducted under the general direction of the then
Project Director, Dr. Penrod Moss, assisted by the PACE Center staff.
Technical development of the survey, and analysis and reporting of the
data has been prepared by Mr. Dorald Kase, Research Associate on the
PACE staff.
It is hoped that the information reported herein will not only
:moist in the identification of needs to aid in the development of
successful Title III Projects, but will also be of help to school
districts in their ongoing program of curriculum development.
NCP/jr9/6/67
iii
46407Nelson C. PriceDirectcrNorth Bay PACE Center
INTRODUCTION,
This report is a presentation of the results of activities of the
PACE Center during the first year of its operation in the interest of
achieving ti of the specific objectives described in the contract
between the U. S. Office of Education and the Office of the Napa
County Superintendent of Schools.
These two objectives are (1) to identify educational and culture/
needs of the 165,000 public and non-public preschool, elementary and
secondary students residing In Naps, Marin, Solano and Sonoma counties .-
the North Say Region, and (Z) to establish priorities among these needs
for purposes of program development in school districts within the region.
The contract with the U. S. Office of Education also calls for two
highly interrelated strategies for achieving these objectives. For the
first objective the basic strategy is to conduct need studies in the
manor of the befavioral sciences, i.e., use of the scientific methods
This strategy should be augmented with other, morel: subjective, activities
for identifying etude** needs, especially those of the various advisory
committees.
The second objective of the Center calls for the use of an advi3ory-
executive structure for setting priorities on Identified needs. The
intent of the contact is that teachers, students, parents, businessmen,
skilled and unskilled workers, the clergy, artists, school administrators
and others, should actively participate in the affairs of the Center. One
of the critical activities of the advisor committees is to recommend to
DIIK/j
9/6/67
the Execut.ive Board priorities for action. This is in addition to their
active participation in identifying student needs, identifying local
resources, assisting with increasing an awareness of developing educe
tional events, and becoming involved in creative prograa develooment.
/t should be pointed out that those two objectives, together with
the strategies for attainine them, are alp, objectives and strategies
of the other twenty PACE centers covering the $6 counties in California,
all of which centers are funded under ESEA, Title 11.0
1Progr_aa toward the attaitment of the remaiving primary objectivesof the PACE Center will be reported tf. the Board under separate cover.These objectives are! (1) to identify regional xescurces that migt.t be
used to facilitate the fulfillment of hiph rriority needs Identific4 by
the Center and the various advisory committees and get by the Executive
',card,, (2) to develop and/or facilitate developing educational prorrams
rAesitmed specifcally to fulfill high priority needs, and (3) to dis-seminate information regarding activities of the Center, new programs,
ideas, and developments in education. Implied in this last objective is
that the Center, as an agent of the intermediate unit, should assist with
the spread, or adopt! on of fully functional program that are exemplary
or innovative in nature.
DHIcifjm
9/6/67
SUMMARY OF HOST SIGNIFICANT PXNDINGS
Vocational Education, Social Studies, and Home Economics, ad measured
by the Learning Goals in the questionnaire, are the three most keenly
felt curricular needs of students in the North Bay Region.
Physical Education, Foreign Language, and tic are teArning alma*
that are viewed ae being achieved to a more satisfactory degree in
relation to other curricular areas.
Emotional (Affective) components of learning are felt to be moreearnestly needed in the students' education than additional stress
on purely intellectual (Cognitive) learning* This is true for
nearly all curriculum areas.
As studunts progress through school, their olinions regarding a need
for Vocational Education, Social Studies, and Rome Economics Increase
in strength, This is true bar both the intellectual and emotionalcomponents of these curriculum areas.
Both students ane adults generally tend to feel, quite satisfied with
the overall job the schools are doing.
6. Ability to make and revise judgmento on the basis of a consistentphilosophy of life was viewed by almost every group of respondentsas either the most needed, or second most needed Learning Goal ofthe Affective domain for almost every curriculum area.
A need vu expressed for increased emphasis on the intellectualactivities of synthesizing and evaluating knowledge (the two highest
Cognitive levels studied)* Again, the feeling for this nee0 in-
creaaes with increasing grade levels.
DBRija9n1/67
An objective study of educational needs is a
teciaical undertaking. It is at times hard to
eAp3stn. Despite this, the PAC? staff has in this
report, triad to b2 accurate and cfmpre*hensive, and
still brief god understandabIo.
The next 'twer p). pages r,71 why and how the
study was made. If you are 4.uteretwed In rational
and methodole*gy paps 3 throng 1:: are twortam..
If you are $ntetested simply in the :v4sults,
tern to page lb.
DHKIjm9/19/67
HOW TRIS ST Of (ARRICULAR NEEDS CAME ABOUT
The North Bay PACE Center began operation in July, 1966. During the
month of August, 1966, a questionnaire (See. Appendix A) was sent to 250
public and non-public school administrators asking them to list the three
most important student needs from their points of view.
Of these questionnaires, 362 were returned within a short period.
The responses were then coded and tabulated. The Director reported to the
Board on October 13, 1966, the results of these tabulations (See Appendix B).
rive of the needs most frequently mentioned were adopted by the brecutive
Board for further study and programmatic development. These are in other
of frequency of mention
1. Curriculum Methods.2. Curriculum Content.3. Library aad Audiovisual equipment.4, Preschool Education.5. Recreation.
Since the first two most frequently mentioned needs were both concerned
with curriculum, the decision was made to study in some iepth needs of
students in terms of curricular objectives. The results of this
Administrator Survey were also taken as a direction for other future
investigation. Ideally, this direction should have been further substan-
tiated by the four county advisory committees as well. Powever, immediate
action was imperative because of approaching deadlines for project sub-
mission and the Center could not wait for the developing advisory committees
to become viable with respect to this responsibility.
Several method and technique problems were considered for assessing
curricular needs. One central problem tc consider was that of sampling:
DIRC/jm
9/6/67
What curricular areas should be identified and sampled and to what extant?
What groups of persons and haw many in each group should be sampled? What
demographic variables (sehool districts, ealth, population density, etc.)
should be considered, and how should the sample be decion?
Another critical Issue was that of deciding what instruments to use
for determining need. Should the Center use already developed questions.
sexes, If any were available? Should questionnaires be used at all, or
should use be =Ale of published criticisms of gaps In the curriculum?
Should one technique be used for selected "target" groups (e.g., have
anthropologists and/or sociologists interview low income and minority
groups) audanother technique for other target groups (e.g., use Q-Sort
technique, semantic differential, or open-ended interviews on selected
students and teachers)? Should the Center develop its own instruments
designed specifically to measure an operational definition of "need"?
Would such an Instrument obtain identical measures on all persons in
several samplis, and would it have high communication value to both lay
persons and educators?
The latter course of action was selected for several reasons. No
existing avallale techniques appropriate to the problem were located.
It was felt necessary to measure directly a clearly defined concept of
student curricular needs. In addition, techniques that are understand-
able to lay people were considered an essential ingredient if the results
of the study were to have impact for program development through the
advisory structure of the Center. Also important among these reasons was
an Executive Board ntscision not to use outside anthropologists and
sociologists for th4s study during the 1966-67 schwilyear.
DRIC/jot9/6/67
Definition of a Curriculum "Reed"
One of the first tasks was to define "need". The chosen definition
was: "Need is a measmed discre anc between o inion of the extent f
resoondent EXPECTATIONS what should be of the curriculum and *maks
illatags.02.extent to which these a ectations ARE BEING PULFILLED.
(that is) 1 All of the PACE centers in California have struggled with
me problzr. of defining "need' in such a way that its meaning is clear,
both to lay persons in the advisory committees and to professional
educators.. It is extremely difficult to obtain agreement on thw nean-
ing of words that have value connotations, or which have an emotional
(tarp, unless they are defiuud in terms of ELAsattoulacan be
observed and described accuratel b others. Words defined in this
manner are termed "operational" definitions and are used extensively
in the behavioral and physical sciences.
1The formal mathematical model is:. N a E (e o) 0 O. That is, Need
equals the Expectation that the difference between the expected and the
observed "reality" is sera. This is the null hypothesis. Thus, averagepositively signed differences between "e" and "o for any one group ofrespondents is interpreted as a "need", whereas negatively signed dif-
ferences are taken as excessive emphasis in that part of the curriculum.Zero discrepaacies imply satisfaction - no need, and no excess. Thu nax-
imum possible positive discrepancy is 43, and the maximum negative die
crepancy is -3. There are four possible ratings of "what is" and four
ratings of "what should be". Pbr example, if a respondent rates a curriculum Learning Coal as existing to the extent "2", but believes it
should exist to the extent "4", his score is 42. These scores areaveraged for each curriculum area for each group of respondents end are
labeled throughout the remaindeof this report as D, meaning averagediscrepancy. D refers to an average of several Ps.
DEK/jta
9/6/67
aggIlmapire Construction
Once this operational definition of curriculum "need" was established,
the next task was to construct an instrument to measure the discrepancies
between opinions about what is expected from the schools with respect to
the curriculum, aad opinions about what seems to be actually happening.'
Th first step in the scientific method is to stew an objective in
measurable terms. SiLilarly, the first step in system analysis, as
applied to education, is to describe educational objectives in terms of
measurable behavior - knowing, doing, feeling. After exploring alterna-
tive approaches to this first step, the staff decided to work within the
structure of the eleven standard curriculum areas in California schools.
Three of these curriculum areas (Language Arts, Social Studies, and Art)
were further subdivided into more specific subject areas as shown on
the .following page.
1,A third variable planned for study was that of "actual" reaitty,viz to what extent in fact are these various curriculum areas beingtaught or offered to students measured by this questionnaire. Theplan was to see in what manner, if any, the measured opinion discrep-ancies correlated with the ongoing curricular reality in those schooldistricts included in the sample. Regrettably, limited time, resources,and per:x:1nel did not allow this prvtion of the study to be conductedduring 1966-67.
DIU Vim
9/6/67
T."
rivraffitirusa AlmE9P IIES.LMANKILELeMtte
11 lurriulu
Mathematics
Language Arts
Social Studies
Science
Art
Music
Vocational Education
Home Economics
Foreign Language
Health Education
Physical Education
Hat h4natico
ReadingSpellingWiltingSpeakingGrammar
HistoryCtvicsGeographyEconomics
Science
Fine ArtApplied ArtPlastic Art
Music
Vocational Education
Home Economics
Foreign Language
Health Education
Physical. Education
Several student behavioral objectives, or, as they wire labeled "Learning
- oafs", wig written by the staff for each of the 20 subject areas using
Bloom's Taxt11.20',..OLVymitioast Obi ectivres as a theoretical guide.192
'Bloom, Benjamin S. (Ed.) Taxonomattlpitemattei,Handbook 99snitive Domain. New York: David McKay, 1936.
2Kratwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia.Taxonomy of Educatiolatsciva, Handbook /I: Affective Domain.New York: David licKay, 1964.
=ha946/67
A 'taxonomy" is a claesification system. Bloom's Illeammat
Educational Oblectives is described in some detail in Appendix G. These
objectives are stated in terms of student belvinr. This behavior is
classified Into three types: "Cognitive", or mowing, "Affective", or
feelini4 ant "Psycho-motor", or doing. For purposes of this study, only
the Cognitive and Affective types of behavior are being studied*
smut's behavior accordim to Bloom has six levels of increasing
complexity. These ate:
Level Behavior
1. Kunming knowledge and information.2. Understanding knowledge and information.3. Applying knowledge and information.4. Analysis of knowledge and inZormuZion.5. Synthesis of knowledge and information.6. Evaluation of knowledge and information.
=active behavior has five levels of increasingly complex function-
ing. These are:
Level Behavior
1. Receiving.2. Responding to.3. Valuing*4. Organising value systems.5. Behaving in accordance with a
value system.
In this report the 'levels" refer to those cited above.
Each of the questions on the questionnaire was written specifically
to measure one of these eleven "levels" in the ta=r. Thus, not only
is each curriculum area measured, but also measured is the intellectual
(Cognitive) "level" and its associated emotional (Affective) "level" of
maturity for each area of a., curriculum. A behavioral objective (or
Learning Coal) becomes a need if it has not been attained to the degree
EM gym9/7/67
considered desirable by the respondent group.
The next step in constructing the questionnaire was to determine
the teat4que for measuring discrepancies consistent with our estab-
lished definition of "used% Since opinion was being assessed, a four-
point scale was developed for measuring the extent to which retpondents
believed Learning Coals attLiaLtut attained in the schools. The same
scale was used to evaluate respondent opinion with respect to the extent
they believed these goals should be attained. Thus, the discrep Alley be-
tween vlat "should be" and 'what is measured by the numerical dif-
ference between the two opinions on a four point scale (sec footnote,
Page 5)
raltija9/1/67
PILOT STUD!
One hundred and twenty items or Learning Goals were assembled into
a trial format. This preliminary quesaonnaire was then reviek,d by
Dr. Ralph Tyler, Director, National Assessment Program, Stanford
University, His comments and criticisms were supportive of the Learning
Goal concept, and of the kind of assessment technique that was being
developed. The trial questionnaire was then administered to three
classes of sixth graders in three different counties. As a result of
this pilot study, about half of the questions were revised. Sixth
graders were used for this purpose because it was known that they
were very likely to point out unwarranted assumptions which the staff
might be making when writing the Learning Coals. Since the question
uaire was to be administered to respondents with a aide .range of
reading ability, it was necessary to write items at the lowest ex
pected reading level. In the judgment of the staff this also was the
sixth grade. In, the final form 117 Learning Goals were used. (See
Appendix 1.1 for copy of this questionnaire.)
SAMPLING
A grid was constructed taking into account population density in
terms of geographic distributim, ADA, and the income level of arents
in the various school districts Each of the public and non-public
school districts was placed in this grid. A five percent sample of
intact classrooms for grades 6, 9* and 12 was selected in each cell
in the grid. In some instances this procedure of taking intact
classes resulted in more than a five percent sample and in others less
than five percent. Overall, a total of 4.2Z (or 2,220) of the approxi
mately 41,000 students in these grades completed useable questionnaires.'
The adult saiple was obtained by having teachers, administrators,
and parents of the participating students also fill out the question-
naire. Special service Nrsonnelwm: mainly county office and district
pupil personnel staff, and library And curriculum personnel. In
addition, other interested adults weary eekcd to ilumplSCO the question-
naire, especially members of the county advisory committees. These
latter groups obtained man) additional questionnaires from parents
and teachers on an informal basis.
1Nearly 400 questionnaires had to be discarded as incomplete.No systematic bias was noted in the discarded questionnaires.
Di ilt/ja9/8/67
INSTRUMENT ADHINISTRATION
Each of the four olanninE- associates on the PACE staff made
arrangements for administering and collecting the questionnaires in
conformity with the sampling plan for his county. Approximately 2,000
of the 2,220 successfully completed questionnaires were admintstered
directly by the staff. The questionnaire responses were then key-
punched onto IBM cards, which were then placed on tape for analysis
at the Univrasity of California Computer Center. This was accomplished
through a special arrangement between the PACE Center, the Sonoma
County Office Data Processing Center, and the University.
DIUCtim
9/8/67
12
Consistency (reliability) of respondent opinion among the several
Learning Goals is of great importance, for consistency len.k. credibility
to the results. Table I on the following page skive this questionnaire
As having a high degree of lonsistency because the reliability coefficso
tents are uhifermly high.
It is interesting to note that for each respondent group shown
in this tr"le the reliability confficiental ate slightly lower for
the Affective domain than for the Cognitive demaih. This means findings
regarding the emotional components of the curriculun are c little less
consistent than the intellectual components. The difference however,
is of minor importance insofar as the main conclusions drawn from
this study are concerned.
'The technique used to compute these coefficients is known as the"odde.even split half technique'. That is, one half of the items on thequestionnaire were correlated with the remaining half. The resultingcorrelation coefficients are then "corrected" by the Spearman-BronProphecy formula shown at the bottom of the table. See Garrett, H. E.,IlLitiapistlallyskdaynclEdec...........ation, 5th EC" Longmans, Green & Co.,New York, 1958, p. 339.
DHK/cd9/7/67
13
SpearmanwarownIkeliability Coefficients
NmwmwmmmummpmmpvgwnwmmmmmsmmowmsmummmmmCorrelatOn SpearnnwBrown
Description .Correction1112
".otal Sample
Al] Learning Goals .908 1618 .952
Cognitive Learning Goals; Only .893 1796 .943
Affective Learning Coale Oniy .764 1731 .866
Grade 9
All Learning Goats .905 441 .950Cognitive Learning Goals Only .872 497 .932
Affective Learning Goals Only .763 418 .866
Grade 12
All Learning Goals .929 533 .963
Cognitive Learning Goals Only .938 580 .968
Affective Loarniug Goals Only .759 570 .863
Teachers
All Leaning Goals .896 76 .945
Cognitive Learning Goals Only .891 79 .942
kal,..ctive Learnt, Goals Only .757 81 .862
Parents Plus Businesomen
All Learning Goals .929 105 .963
Cognitive Learning Goals Only .913 109 .355
Affective Learning Goals Only .776 107 .874
Administrators Plus SpecialSantee Personnel
all Learning Goals *910 111 .953
Cognitive Learning Goals Only .895 118 745Affective Learning Goals Only .774 117 *873
2vr(142)
14T12
DHlt/cd
9/7/67
14
muiriammilomm,yxwAiliftlimilsommftftimmilow.;
It is hoped that you have read the "why" and "how" of this study.
However, whether or riot you did you may wish to analyse the results.
These technical results, or findings, are reported in the next several
pages in sufficient detail to allow an independent and critical, evaluai
titan of the conclusions by those readers who desire to do so. The
major findings are sumnewixed on page 1
DHK/cd9/7/67
15
fiBMIZENSILZIONall
Eh. total of 2,220 questionnaires obtained from the several response,
dent groups were analysed. CoLlIbining all 2,220 questionnaires yields
the tabulations shown in Table /I on the following page. The most,
mext based cUlaWrim..........aALssalas.21241Lia92242k142.2iSki
es ons.p.sttntLamlesie ueAgeaviadouwiLttinjociakStud es and Home Economics as measured b the ea instamodUp jilts
st are he th erg most ke I f t c ricula needs of a 0412,a,A,
1.121.#43113 jatkatga. Vocational Education was rated as the greatest
need in both the Cognitive (knowing) and Affective (feeling) domains
of learning. By contrast, Physical Education, Foreign, Language, and
Music are Learning Goals titst are viewed as being already achieved
to a more satisfacimman degree in relation to all other curricular
areas studied. Math, Art, Language Arts, Science and Health Education
fall batmen the three highest and three lowest ranked discrepaacies of
the eleven curricular areas.
Overall, this average discrepancy between "what is" ead "what
should be" is slightly greater in the Affective domain than in the
Cognitive domain, 1.ndi... esti that em al con oreenqtratagarnitux are
felt to be more earneati needed in the students' education thatl
additional stress on trivet intellectual learning. Almost without
exception, this is consistent for each of the eleven curricular areas.
Exceptions are found in Science sand Home Economics, where Cognitive
learning is viewed as slightly more needed than Affective learning.
Mated9/7/67
16
.....11,4061A001V40/1r.4.
SALIIAverage Illscrepancies (5) And Their Relative Raab** (0
of 2,210 Respondents for Each of Eleven CurriculumAreas in the Cognitive end
Affective Domino
imismoramos rer
Vocational Educatiod
Social Studies
Uome Economics
Average ofCognitive Affective Cognitive&Domain Domain Affec4v,,,,
11 se& ti Rank B Rank
783* 11 .919 11 .851 11
9 .778 10 .735 10
.714 10 .666 8.5 .690 94 c i ft a a ft i m i r a a l a w a a s i s k 'a o r a r m amba's fa ow a a a a se as gal, alt
Health Education .635 7 .644
Science .648 3 .597
Language Arts .560 6 .666
Art .552" 5 .567
Mathematics .529 4 .585
7 .640
6 .623
8.5 .613
4 .560
5 .557
8
7
6
5
4maw*. impftmorwer'ammaimmam'so woo* a a so me a am.,Music .439 2 .563 2 .501 3
Foreign Language .422 1 .364 3 .493
Physical Education .448 3 0510 1 .483
ormosmaxessalsololoolsammostomaNsimagiesomaassaarrommategiarpirmilisoinorw
Grand Means - .584 .642
2
.614
*See footnote on Page 5 explaining Is and B..
Note: The larger the D (average discrepancy) the greatar is the felt=ed. The lower the number in the Stnniz Column the less the evidenceof fait need.
moamv.OraMaftoma.w.4aimftwOm*IMUNaMMININOIONOW,--ff INNWVOMMIMIWNO4k
DIRC/cd
9/8/67
17
DETAILED FINDINGS
The following pages now go into more detail in analyzing the major
findings as they apply to diffcent respondent groups and to the various
sections of the taxonomy of educational objecties,'
These specifiz details assume importance in the develapment of
actual programs aimed at meeting the needs previously identified and
reported.
Table //a (Appendix C) and Table IIb (ppendix D) ihow the man
discrepancies a) and their re`lative rankings (R) for eazh curriculum
area broken down by the various responder groups. The respondent groups
are 6th, 9th, and 12th graders, junior college students, teachers,
parents, school administrators, special services personnel, and business-
men. All of these respondent groups were reclassified in several ways,
as shown in the tables. Thesedditional breakdowns include sex,
county of residence, type of school, population density, and a measure
of attitude toward schools iu general.
(";n unitive
Table IIa shows an overall discrepancy in the Cognitive domain
which was increasingly felt as students progress through school (see 5
across bottom of the table). Parents and teachers feel about the same
as their 12th graders concerning the attainment of Learnin Goals.
Although not fully satisfied with any curriculum area, school
1See page 8,
Mans9/11/67
i81
administrators and special service persomel seem to feel more satisfied
than do parents, teachers, and 12th graders.
These tables yield Interesting differences and similarities when
studied In terms of the eleven curriculum areas. Vocational 2ducation,
fm. example, is the area of greatest azativt need from the viewpoint of
stulehts in all grade levels sampled, but is ranked below both Science
and Social Studies by teachers, parents, school adm/-tistrators and
special service personnel. That Is, although each of the respondent
groups felt Vocational Education was among the three greatest needs,
soma groups had stronger opinions about it than others.
In Home .economics there are even greater differ tea. Whereas
students rank Cognitive goals of Home Economics as the second most im-
portant need (ranked 10), it ranks 7 by teachers, 6 by parents, 4 by
school administrators, and 8 by special service personnel. Apparently,
school administrators are more satisfied with current Rome Economics
programs than any other group of respondents, but students are the least
satisfied; the students beome increasingly dissatisfied as they progress
through school.
Social studies is conside-cd third in degree of need by students
in grades 6, 0, and 13, whereas :2th graders felt Health Education is
the third greatest need. Parents, teachers, school administrators and
special service personnel all ranked locial Studies as either second
or third in need In agreement with 6th, 9th and 13th graders. In other
words, there is almost unanimous agreement that the area ofSocialitudies
ranks near the top as a curricular need.
DHIC/jm
9/11/67
19
The mean discrepanyscores differ.the thiee:highest rack 'g needi
show, again, an increasing magnitude of need, according to student
opinion, as they progress through school,'
In general, the data in Table na (Appendix C) suggeut Vocational
Ed,ucation, Social Studies and Home Eaonomics are the three curricular
areas of greatest Cognitive need insofar as students are concerned, and
that Vocational Education, Social Studies and Science are the three most
important Cotal,..a.v.t. curricular needs in the opinion of parents, teachers,
school administrators and special service personnel.
Affective Needs
In the Affective domain, (Appendix D, Table IIb) Vocational Education
again shows up as the ovtwhelming need, being ranked 11 by all groups
except 6th graders. The same increasing progression of the size of the
Ps is evident for students in all grades. School administrators again
indicate that this field represents the curriculum area of greatest need.
The second highest priority need in the Affective domain was Social
Studies, though parents and administrators ranked it as third and fourth
respectively. The grade progression mentioned before again characterized
this need.
ormve.gmbilmallawlmormormaisrlowarr
1The D is .669, .703, .827, .854 for grades 6, 9, 12 and 13respectively, in Vocational Education, for example. The same progression
is true also for Home Economics and Soelnl Studies, although the size of
the D's is uniformly less than. Vc4.01717,0nal Education. Whereas the D in
Vocational Education by teackera, snccial service personnel and parents
is less than 32th graders, ce.::.°1 adoinistrators feel this need more
strongly than 12th and 13th graders.
DIK /it*
9/11/67
Opinions were split as to whether Language Arts, or Home Egon
rank .third in the Affective domain.
In every respondent group, the general opinion indicated a somewhat
gzeater need for Learning experiences and opportunities in theAffective
components of learning in a large majority of the curriculum =elm.
Overall, the greatest need expressed by all respondent groups, in
both the Cognitive and Affective domains of learning, is for ins:: wed
opportunities to attain the behavioral objectives of Vocational. Education
and Social Studies which are Indicated or implied in the questionnaire.
mineral Attitude Toward Schools
Respondent() were asked to check on a four .point scale their opinion
of how good a job the schools are generally doing: "a very good job";
"a mod job"; "a poor ob"; "a very poor job". In fi sense, the question
is a rough attempt to assess respondent bias. If the nagnitude and/or
order of the discrepancies can be attributed to a systematic bias any
resulting finding would be ambiguous in its meaning, or require qualifi-
cation.
Approximately 2,220 persons answered the question. Of this group,
79% were of the opinion the schools are doing either "a good job" or
a very good job", whereas 21% felt the schools were doing "a poor job"
r "a very poor job" (see Appendix E) . This findi g may explain to some
degree why the Fs tend to be relatively small. Both students and adult,
tasLttsatistied with the kind of overall ob the schools
are doinfl.
010C/jm
9/11/67
21
Regardless of their attitude toward the schools, the respondents
Isalmalindieated the need for a greater emphasis on Vbcational Educe
tion. This variable was ranked 11, indicating the greatest need, in
both the Cognitive and Affective domains by all pu,attitude levels.
Home Economics and Social Studies remain as 2ne and 3rd priorities.
Those respondents who rated the schools ss doing a "poor job" and a
"very poor job" felt a need for more Language Arts and Music in the
Affective domain of the curriculum. These respondents also felt a need
for more Science in the Cognitive aspect of the curriculum.
Of interest is the relationship of attitude toward least needed
curriculum areas. In both the Cognitive and Affective domain those
with poaisive feelings about the schools felt the lowest needs were in
Mathematics and Music, whereas thooe with negative attitudes felt the
least need in Physical Education in both domains. However, there is a
tendency for respondents with ppaitive attitudes about the kind of job
the schools are doing to feel less of a discrepancy between "what is"
and Mutt should be" than those with negative attitudes when the 11
curriculam areas are combined.
In general, however, it appears that the highest ranking needs
identified by the several groups of respondents are generally independent
of their attitude toward schools, as measured by this question, although
the amaunt of need felt does appear to be related to attitude: positive
attitudes are associated with lower discrepancy (D) scores than are
negative attitudes.
'cd
9/8:67
22
Other Classifications of the Data
The data for all 2,220 respondents wre reclassified according to
Sex, ....sSCunissittslice, Ilmatiogia, and Population Denelm.
Tables IIa and IIb also contain the relevant statistics for these classi
fications. No new findings resulted from an analysie f these data which
would substantially add to, or contradict, those already reported above.
It should be pointed out, however, that Vocational Education and Home
Economics were ranked first and second in each of the four ccunties.
DIM*9/15/67
23
ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF BLOOM'S TAXONOMY
jgglingataP, ZrouPs,
Appendix F (Table III) shows the average discrepancy (D) and Rank (R
of Learning Goals assembled according to Bloom's Taxonomic levels for
both the Cognitive (intellectual) and Affective (emotional) domains.
In the kanitive domain. , acquiring knowledge, understanding knowl
edge, and being able to put knowledge to use are not considered as neces.
sazy by all respondent groups ar -tie higher level Cognitive skills of
analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating knowleAe. In the words,
respondents felt less of a gap between "what should be" and "what Is"
with respect to lower levels of intellectual functioning than they did
with higher levels.
It is noteworthy that school admiaistrators considered the ability
to evaluate (the highest level) as the greatest need, whereas nearly all
other respondent groups felt that being able to gynthesizt information
is most needed.
In the Affective domain the findings are less uniform for the
various respondent groups. However, an exception concerned nBeine able
to maim: ancltesisejtErments on the basis of a consistent philosophy...91
life" ,Affective level 5) . ....._...m..11.2..)ey.sy.mmThiswasviert except 'parents
as either the most needed or second mos....trninecal.
Parents and teachers were the only two groups of respondents who
expressed concern about students responding with a sense of satisfaction
to events and situations (Level 2).
DHK/jm9/11/67
24
All adult groups expressed as their chief conceru valuing something,
accepting values, having value preferences having convictions, and
being committed to something affective level 3). With, the exception of
6th graders, students rated these as their second most dominant concern.
Sixth graders, on the other hand, veem to feel a need for developing a
life philosophy based on some kind of organization of their own developing,
but as yet unorganizeakvalues.
In the Wilys1.9a...C4ain the students are more concerned about the
adequacy of the curriculum than are the adults. Furthermcre this con-
cern deepens as the student progresses through school.
In the Affective domain adults express greater concern for unmet
needs than did stuck-ate. However, as was true in the Cognitive domain,
student concern increased with progression through the grades.
DHIC/jm
9/11/67
25
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AMONGDATA CLAniFICATIONS
A technical statistical analysis was conducted of the variability
among the mean discrepancies (D) of seven respondent groups, six
Cognitive and five I ieetive levels of learning, and of the Learning
Coals defining each level of Bloom's Taxonom. The purpose of this
analysis was to determine the following:
1. Are the 141 between the respondent groups statistically signif-icant? That is, are the differences from group to group for all 117Learning Goals considered together larger than one might expect bychance?
2. Are the Ps between the six Cognitive levels statisticallysignificant? That is, are the differences from Cognitive level toCognitive level larger than one might expect by chance?
3. Are the Ps between the five Affective levels statisticallysignificant?
4. Are the Ps between the Learning Goals within each Cognitivelevel statistically significant?
5. Are the Ps between the Learning Goals within each Affectivelevel statistically significant?'
All of these questions are important for an objective appraisal of
results obtained and reported in Tables I, I1a, lib and III. Basically,
these five questions ask the same thing: if the study was repeated in
essentially the same manner within the region, would the results and
conclusions be essentially the same? Although this analysis does not
answer this general question conclusively, it does suggest that the
general findings would very likely be similar to those xeported on
preceding pages.
DIBC/jm
9/13/67
26
Tables IVa and IVb of this section is a sum:ay* of the analysis of
variance.1 These tables indicate that the mean differences between the
respondent groups for both the Cognitive and Affective domains are sta-
tistically very significant when all Learning Goals are considered
together. This means the observed differences are greater than might
be expected by chance (P <.001). Therefore conclusions about overall
respondent group differences are justifiable, and for most groups the
conclusions are probably reliable*
These tables also show an V ratio for Cognitive level and Affective
level differences that would occur very infrequently by chance CP 001).
That is, the mean discrepancies between the Cognitive levels and between
the Affective levels are meaningful differences when all 2,220 respon-
dents are considered simultaneously. This is an important finding for
it verifies, or at least gives credibility to, the Center's attempt to
construct the questionnaire according to Bloom's theory of the structure
of educational objectives. Had these differences not been statistically
significant the general conclusion regarding Cognitive and Affective
levels would not have been justified.
Analysis of Learning Goal differences within Cognitive and within
Affective levels indicates a general tendency that Individual Learning
Goals are indeed defining separate curricular objectives for any riven
oweltrimarieliallit11110"111.0.1Mars
The computer program used for this portion of the study is one
developed at the UCLA Medical Facility, #BMDO 2V, which is part of the
STATPAK DC System IBM 7040/7094 located at U. C. Berkeley, where the
analysis of variance for factorial designs was run.
1114 !Wm9/13/67
27
Cognitive or Affective level. This finding should be qualified, perhaps,
because it may be a partial function of differences between respondent
groups. This is not likely to be the case since the pattern of responses
from group to group is highly similar (See Table III, Appendix p).
Ideally, this part of the analysis should have been done separately for
each respondent group, thus removing any doubt.
The variation labeled 'interaction" (See lines 4, 5, and ( in
Tables IVa and IVb) indicates that respondent group differences are not
a function of differences in either the Cognitive nor Affective levels,
but these group differences may be in part a function of differences
between the individual Learning Goals. However, this probably Is not
too significant a qualification, because the respondent group differences
for the amount of variai%ce attributable to this qualification is small
compared to that for the variance between groups.
Interaction of Cognitive or Affective levels with Learning Goals
within these levels may be considered a kind of further validity check
of the questionnaire's construction. That is, this statistically Agni -
ficant interaction (See line 6, Tables IVa and IVb) suggests the
Learning Goals are discriminating between Cognitive and Affective levels.
In general, the analysis of variance supports conclusions described
earlier in the report and indicates a successful application of BLoom's
theory of educational objectives.
The analysis could have been conducted in other ways, especial ,y
with respect to differences between various curriculum areas. However,
time, practicability and money were realistic constraints as well as an
imbalance of subject areas included in the questionnaire.
DiliChin9/13/67
28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE(Factorial Design)
Curriculum Need Study(Study #1)
TABLE IVaCOGNITI,VE DOMAIN
DegreesSource of of Sums of Mean ProbabilityVariation Freedom amm....figgletsLutip Level
(1) BerweenRespondent Groups
(2) BetweenCognitive Levels
(3) BatmenLemming GoalsWithin CognitiveLevels
(4) Interaction 1 X, 2(5) Interaction 1 X 3(6) Irteraction 2 X 3(7) Residual
Total 419 24.52025
6 3.39732 .56622 48.896 -,,-1.001
5 1.88347 .37669 32.529 .,;%001
9 1.84704 .20523 17.723 '4%001
30 .42361 .01412 1.219 N/S54 1.68679 .03124 2.698 -v.0145 12.15576 .27013 23.327 'r,.001
270 3.12624 .01158
higlooapyiftgwq..***.+WMmjmoilwomAlp~poppgwibigo*,mapopaymoamiprirriNsommalammdmeftr.larPNF.MINenr/00.41--`,MWOIN.MPININft.IWOOMONO.
40011011111110110111101611101.1.011111111001016.10+
TABLE IVbAFFECTIVE DOMAIN
Source ofVariation
(1) BetweenRespondent Groups
(2) BetweenAffective Levels
(3) BetweenLearning GoalsWithin AffectiveLev218
(4) interaction 1 X 2(5) Interaction 1 X 3(6 Interaction 2 X 3(7) Residual
Total 419 23.97252
Degreesof Sums of Mean Probability
uares Squares F ratio Leve,1
6 5.61315 .93553 111.505 <.001
4 1.38451 .34613 41.255 <.001
11 4.55852 .41441 49.393 <000124 .24389 .01016 1.211 N/S66 2.10280 .03186 3.797 4:.0144 7.85509 .17852 21.278 4Z .001264 2.21456 .00839
DEK/jm9/13/67
29
STATISTICAL AND CONTOIT ItWDE NIL?G VOCAT/ONAL -ON220111,
AND SOCIAL STUDIES
Each Learning Goal was analysed to determine the percentage of
respondents who wenzga441112 satisfied with the job the schools are
now doings the percentage who wanted more pis on each goal, and the
percentage who wanted less emphasis on each goal. These cosoutationa are
reported for all 117 Learning Goals in Appendix11.
The three curriculum areas for which the largest mean discrepancies
were identified (Vocational Education, Home Economics and Social Studies)
are discussed below in terms of these percentages, in terms of the speci
fic content of each items the inter-item correlations and in terms of
the wean discrepancy score for each respondent group!. The statistics on
*thigh this discussion is based are shown in Tables Val Vbs and VC.
Vocational 1lu,.c
Learning2 aptistical Descri tionGoal #5
Seventy percent of all respondents expressed the opinion there is
greater need for students to FIND PLEASURE IN DOING WORK' Only four
percent of the respondents felt this area is being overemphasized.
The magnitude of the "need" increases with higher grade levels
Teachers and parents feel this need almost as much as 13th graders, but
administrators and special service personnel, in agreement with 9th
graders, do not feel this need as strongly as other respondent groups.
!See Appendix I for detail of discrepancy scores4Learning Goal numbers are those as they appear in the questionnaire
9/13/67
30
Lea
rnt
fina
l No
82 5
100 69 4
NO
RT
H B
AT
PA
M a
umut
Aug
ust 2
2, 1
967
Sum
mar
y of
.1ft
lect
ed I
tem
An.
......
ajas
itAtit
teis
i fro
m C
urri
culu
mN
eed
Stud
y #1
("C
arlin
UM
WL
earn
ing
Goa
lD
escr
iptio
nC
ies
Tot
al P
erce
ntDiscrepancy
0+
2eim
g aw
are
ofgo
od w
orkm
ansh
ip
Find
ing
plea
sure
in d
oing
wor
k
Will
ingn
ess
tofo
rm ju
dgm
ents
abou
t one
1C
A 7
111
wor
k
Al
A2
A3
Prod
ucin
g a
prod
uct w
ith e
sC
?si
mpl
e to
ol
Bei
ng a
ble
toid
entif
y sk
ills
C4
need
ed f
or a
spec
ific
job
Mea
n D
iscr
epan
cies
()
foro
Res
pond
ent C
lass
ific
atio
ns'
69
1213
+T
P
3957
4.5
6.6
2:8
1 .4
.82
..79
1.02
.76
2670
4.5
7 1.
00 1
,16
1.39
1..3
4 1.
28 1
.04
3562
4.4
3.6
6.9
7 1.
19.9
7,9
5.8
7
4451
2671
90E
valu
atin
g w
ork
base
d on
sta
ndar
dre
3858
of a
trade or
Iroi
fess
ion
Tal
.ean
s co
mpl
ete
satis
fact
ion
"+"
Mea
ns to
tal p
erce
nt o
f st
aple
wan
ting
,Lon
. em
phas
is".
.." M
eans
tota
l per
cent
of
sam
ple
wsn
tirg
tau
emph
asis
*DB
limeb
-9/
21/6
7
.71
.57
.61
.58
.63
.48
.50
.75
.91
1.05
:1.1
6.8
9 1.
03.9
0
.51
.61
.78
.80
.78
.87
.80
TA
BL
E V
a
Prod
uct-
Mom
ent C
orre
latio
qsT
otal
Sim
ple
(N =
2,2
20).
#]
825
100
6990
-.05
.33
.32
.00
.33
-.06
-.0
1 -.
03-.
07
.20
.00
2-4"
Tea
cher
sA
da a
Adm
inis
trat
ors
and
Spec
ial
Serv
ice
Pers
onne
l"P
" as
Par
ents
6, 9
, 12,
13+
are
stu
dent
gra
des
31
.04
.27
.02
3Nva
ries
fro
m1,
500
to 2
,220
This Learning Goal is not correlated with any of the five remaining
items In the Vbcational Education curriculum area. That is, it seems to
stand by itself a s a need.
,,,1 ecC
See implications following Learning Goal #7.
Learningl Statistical Dascrintion,Goal #7
!SINGABLE TO IDENtiFY SKILLS NEEDED FOR A JOB fnll ws a a 1.411ar
pattern to that of Learning Goal #5. Seventy-one percent felt en in-
creased need. Three percent felt too much stress is being given thia
Learning Goal. This neoid is felt more strongly with increasing grade
levels also. Although parents tend to feel about the same as upper
grade students, teachers, administrators and special service personnel
are wore in agreement with students in the lower grades. Again, this
item correlates zero with the remaining five iters and thus also stands
alone.
ANIJIMIHMLAILIPaiteLleveloP.....gmet
SKILLS IDENTIFICATION is an intellectual activity requiring knowl-
edge and understanding regarding their application to tasks, as well
as an ability to analyze the tasks themselves. This Learning Goal
focuses attention, apparently, on the problel of occupational and career
choice.
FENDINC PLEASURE IN WORK is labeled an affective behavior, one that
requires responsiveness to feelings of satisfaction and enjoyment.
1Learning Goal numbers are those as they appear in the questionnaire.
DNKIja9114/67
32
Gibran, 1111122122Liet., says, "Work is love made visible". The problem
of earning a living in whatever occupation,, or the problem of work in
general, is one generally characteried b/ alienation of the Self from
the Self and one's fellow man, according to Herbert arcuse in his Eros
And Thanatos. Working in alienation brings little, if any, pleasure.
The fact that these two Learning Goals have a zero relationship in
the minds of the respondents would indicate an educational objective of
bringing the two together: thatidentskillsreuired for dif-
lgalitUELA first step in making occupational choices which, if
actively pursued, are more likely to lead to pleasure than to alienation.
Learning' ptatisticalGoal #69
PRODUCING A PRODUCT WITH A SIMPLE TOOL is felt as a need by a bare
majority of the respondents (fifty-one percent), whereas forty-four
percent are satisfied with the extent of this activity and five percent
feel it is being overemphasized. Sixth graders feel more strongly about
this need than any other group. On the whole, this Learning Goal appears
to be the least important of all six; which define Vocational Education
in this questionnaire,
Although not a significant need by itself, it does, however, cor-
relate with BEING AWARE OF GOOD ilORKMANSil/P, EVALUATING WORK BASED ON
STANDARDS, and FILLINGNESS, TO FORM JUDGMENTS. That is, those who believe
a salient Learning Goal is BUNS ABLE TO PRODUCE A PRODUCT BY USING SIMPLE
TOOLS also tend to believe more stress should be placed on BECOMING AWARE
30.1Erlia0M0111~14111P110.1111MIMS
1Learniag Goal numbers are those as they appear the questionnaire.
DHK/jm9/14/67
33
SWUM on BEING ABLE TO EVALUATE WORK BASED ON KNOWN
STANDARDS OF A TRADE PROFESSION, and on SETTING SOME JUDGMENTAL VALUE
ON ONE'S OWN WORK. Put together, these items form a pattern of some
sigaificante.
Develonment
See implications following Learni., Goal #100.
Learning' Statistical 3 escrbgas.Goa #82
Fifty-seven percent of all respondents desire more emphasis on
AWARENESS OP GOOD WORKMANSHIP, cozpared to thirty-nine percent who are
satisfied this Learning Goal is being properly emphasized and four per-
cent who feel it is over-emphasized. The tendency for this need to in-
crease as students progress through school is present, but to a small
degree and the increase from grade to grade is relatively small. This
is the second most strongly felt necd of parents (the strongest is
FINDING PLE.URE ,tL DOING WORK , and the second weakest of administrators
and special service personnel.
This Learning Goal is moderately correlated with EVALUATING WORK
BASED ON STANDARDS OP A TRADE OR PROFESSION and with a WILLING 'SS TO
PLACE JUDGMENTAL VALUES ON ONE'S OWN WORK.
farnLodie nDe t
See Implications following Learning Goal il0C.
Learnin tatistical DescriAiinGoal. #90
EVALUMING WORK BASED ON STANDARLA OF A TRATE OR PROFESSION was
'Learning Goal numbers are those as they appear in the questionnaire.
Dane9/14/67
34
felt as needed more by fifty-eight percent of the respondents, whereas
thirty-eight percent were satis"%1 and four percent felt ais was over-
emphasized. The same grade progression characterized this goal as others
noted above, although differences between the respondent groups are
moderate. This item correlates moderately with FORMING JUDGMENTS ABOUT
ONE'S OWN WORK and, as noted above, with PRODUCING A PRGDUCT and Bum
AWARE CF GOOD WORKMANSHIP.
imiLications for Prdect DevelonaM.
Sea Implications followtag Learning Goal #100.
Learning StatistlsglagualpligalGoal #100
BEING WILLING TO FORM JUDGMENTS ABOUT ONE'S OWN WORK should be
emphasized more in the opinion of sixty-two percent of the respondents,
compared to thirty-five percent who are satisfied and four percent who
feel this Learning Goal is over-emphasized. An increase in the strength
of this need from grade to grade, according to students, is substant14,
All Mat groups agree this is a fairly important Learning Goal which As
not being adequately met.
As noted above, it is correlated moderately with PRODUCING A PRODUCT,
AWARENESS OF MID WORK SHIP, and EVALUATING WORK BASED ON STANDARDS.
MIIcesamsfovevel..;patent
WILLINGNESS TO FORM JUDGMENTS ABOUT ONE'S OWN WORK implies self-
assessment based on some implicit or explicit value, which is an affective
behavior. It .°.s of some interest that a student's work is characteristi
cally assessed by someone other than himself. The data indicates a
'Learning Goal numbers are those as they appear in the questionnaire.
MC/jet9/14/61
35
growing, deafre of students as they progress through the grade's, for
experiences *Mich will allow them to develop a sense of self assessment.
Being able to be self-critical in,what one does can be considered one of
the necessary conditions for emotional and intellectual growth. This is
especially true in the realm of career development.
A vital part of the judgmental process is the role of value A
student may accept, his work as good, bad, or indifferent and let it go
at that. Or, he may show prefer encea for work quality, depending on the
overall value he places on the activity or product. Finally, he may have
convictions or commitments regarding the quality of his productions. It
is this latter value from which growth is most likely to occur and from
which there is not mly a willingness to make self-appraisals, but also
an automatic internalised, necessity to do so.
These self-appraisals require the ability to EVALUATE WORK BASED ON
STANDARDS which the learner has acquired during his sdhool and home experi-
ence, which in turn have provided some of the conditions necessary for him
to become AWARE OF GOOD WORKEANSHIP,,, though he may have no interest or
commitment in quality work.
The interrelationshipn among these latter Leareng Goals suggest
benavioral objectives which emphasize a willingness of the student to
criticise himself based on standards of which he is aware and which he
highly values.
/gym
9/14/67
pone Economics (Tab leak)
Learning Statistical DemdetigaGoal #18
BEING ABLR TO ORGANIZE AVM.= BUDGET received the rxeatest stress
of all six Learning Goals. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents
expressed a need-for an increase in emphasis m this goal, whereas only
three percent felt it was overemphasized.
As before, the mean discrepancies (0 incffease systematically with
increasing grade level. Aiults feel this need slightly less than students,
es is relatively consistent for most of the Learning Goals in the ques-
tionnaize. Overall, BEI4G ABLE TO ORGANIZE A FAWLY BUDGET is felt by
most respondent groups to be the most important: need of the six defining
this area.
The only goal with which FAMILY BUDGET is correlated is PREPARING
FOOD. All other correlation coefficients are very close to zero, indi-
cating no relationship.
Implications for Prc,,, ct. Development
Tiris Learning Goal was intended to measure the cognitive Ebility to
synthesize knowledge and information about the finances of an ongoing
family. Essentially, this activity is a planning fraction and therefore
a weans to an end. A Home Economics project should have as one of its
major objectives helping students learn ails planning function, which
woull require the integration of all areas of homemaking. That is, it
might be desirable to attempt to change the perception of students to
iriessoINMMaimimaleillairdasifirilrompOMINWO
Learning Goal numbers aro those as they appear in the questionnaire.
DIDC/jia
9/19/67
37
NO
RM
MY
PA
CE
CE
NT
ER
Aug
ust 2
8, 1
967
Sum
mar
y o2
Sel
ecte
d It
em A
nalv
_aat
lasi
sSt!
fro
m C
urri
culu
m N
ted
§2L
earn
ing
Lea
r,,in
gGoa
Goa
l No.
6.sc
ript
ion
Cla
mT
otal
Pie
rcen
tD
iscr
ipan
cyL -
Mea
n D
iscr
epan
cies
(B
) fo
rd,
Res
pond
ent C
lass
ific
atio
ns4
2
106
Kno
win
g th
e im
-po
rtan
ce o
f a
Al
good
die
t
95D
evel
opin
g st
an-
dard
of
a go
odA
3ho
me
88I4
entif
Yin
g th
ostk
iags
des
ired
iA
4th
e ho
me
114
24 18
timin
g fa
mili
ar,
ith f
liffe
rent
food
s
Prep
arin
g fo
ods
for
a fa
mily
Bei
ng a
ble
toor
gani
ze a
fam
ily b
udge
t
C3
C5
37.6
58,
1 4.
2
49.1
45.
35.
5
42.7
52.
1 5.
0
44.2
50.
6 5.
0
47.6
48.
2 4.
2
29.3
67.
72.
9
low
Mew
s co
mpl
ete
satin
fect
ion
"+"
Mea
ns to
tal p
erce
nt o
f sa
mpl
e w
antin
gat
re e
mph
asis
11-f
t Mea
ns to
tal p
erce
nt o
f sa
mpl
e w
antin
g1m
m e
mph
asis
111K
imeb
-9/
22/6
7
.52
.67
.89
.86
.83
.76
.86
.34
.38
.55
.63
.78
.63
.78
.55
.74
.61
.64
.56
.76
.46
.49
.63
.59
.56
.36
.54
.56
.61
.68
.55
.57
.59
.75
.98
1.05
1.1
4 1.
04.8
5.9
7
TA
BL
E V
*
Prod
uct..
Mom
ent C
orre
latio
ng f
orT
otal
Sam
ple
(X a
l 2,2
20)
1136
1P
211T
"at
Tea
cher
sA
dm. l
e A
dmin
istr
ator
s an
d Sp
ed a
lSe
rvic
e Pe
rson
nel
"pot
Pare
nts
6, 9
, 12,
13+
are
stu
dent
gra
des
38
.54
.44
.37
.32
.04
.39
.36
.36
K v
arie
s fr
om1,
500
to 2
,220
help them recognize the interrelatedness of all homemaking Zunctions,
Learnt g1 StatittlellelmaawtjamGoal #I06
MOM THE IMPORTANCE OP' A GOOD DIET, should receive greater
emphasis in the opinion of fifty-eight percent of the respondents, con -
pared to thirty-eight percent who are satisfied with the present emphasis,
and four prroont who believe it is being overemphasized*
The mcan discrepancy scores are the second highest of the sis: home-
making goals measured* Administrators, teachers, and 12th and 13th
graders are in essential agreement as to the high relative strength of
this need, compared to parents, and 6th and 9th graders who feel this
area as a need, also, but with less intensity than other respondent groups*
The correlation of this goal with other Learning Goals *s moderate,
except with ORGANIZING A FAMILY BUDGET for which the correlation is near
zero. The highest correlation (.54) is with DEVELOPING STANDARDS OF A
GOOD HOME*
imulrFroectleelement
MOWING THE IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD DIET, may be considered a part of
the Affective domain of learning in that it assume' mizeness on the part
of the respondent that diet Is related to health. Admittedly, the d s-
anction between "knowtng" as unconscious awareness and "knowing" as an
intellectual bit of knorledge can be small. However, in view of the
importance of diet to health it would seem desirable to provide opportun-
ities and experiences that would assist the student in incorporating this
1Learning Goa/ ;limbers are those as they appear in the questionnaire*
DUEL*9/20/67
3
knowledge as an integral part of Lis or her personality, That is the
student &Iola(' unconsciously, and without effort plan and prepare meals
that are cons1stent with promoting good health. Implicit in these com-
ments is that good health is part of an integrated value system relating
to an overall philosophy of life, which is according to Bloom, the
highest level educational objective in the Affecttve domain.
Learning Statistien1 DescriptionGoal #114
Forty-four percent of the Tespondents felt schools are doing an
adequate job of HELPING STUDENTS TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH DIFFERENT Fes
Fifty-one percent expressed a desize for more stress on this area. Only
five percent would reduce emphasis on this Learning Coal.
On the whole, the mean discrepancies for the various respondent
groups tend to be similar, though 12th graders feel this need mores° than
all other groups,. while administrators feel it the least of all proups.
Grade progression is slight and diminishes after grade 12. Overall, this
need is felt as being the lowest in importance when compared with the
romainin five items defining Home Economics.
This Learning Coal is correlated moderately with (is related to) all
other goals of homemaking except the one concerned with ORGANIZING A
...muy Bum, which has a zero correlation, or no relationship.
Wications. for Prlita.AttglOBEIL
This data suggests that Project development in Home Economics should
not rlace primary emphasis on the cognitive skill of acquiring knowledge
about foods because of its low ranking.
/Learning Coal number' are those as they appear in the questionnaire.
Efajjits9/20/67
40
page 24) that in general the desire of various respondent groups was for
more emphasis on higher levels of cognitive functioning. The correlation
of this item with other Homemaking items indicates this is part of a cos
plex of interrelated activities and therefore should not be considered
as an end in itself.
LearningistabigsatjactkozaGoal #24
PREPARING FOODS FOR A FAMILY was felt as needing an increased
emphasis in the educational program by forty-eight percent of the
respondents whereas four percent felt this activity was being cwer-
stressed.
The mean discrepancies increase systematically with increasing grade
level. Differences batsmen students and adults, however, are relatively
minor, though adults tend to feel slightly less of a need for this
objective than do students. ln general, this need is of media:: importance
with rnspect to expressions of need in other homemaking areas.
This item is correlated moderately with the other fivt stems def
Bomb Econovics, suggesting it is part of a complex of InterxelUed
objectives, as indicated in the discussion above.
/11..m$ationfilespszlastyDeelortnt
Although considerable emphasis is now placed on food preparation as
a necessary "real life" skill in. Howl Economics instruction, it is clear
that additional emphasis may be wrranted since forty-eight percent of
tha respondents felt a need for mor,--t stress on this educational objective.
Again, however, this activity needs to be closely integrated with other
homemaking objectives.
Ng
kearniug Goal numbers are th se as they appear in the eees#Onneire.
LI/jm9/20/67
Learning1 Statistical cr.latonGoal #95
DEVELOPING STANDARDS OF A GOODWIN requites additional emphasis
in the opinion of forty- five percent of the respondents, Compared to six
percent who feel this goal is overemphasized and forty-nine percent who
are satisfied it is being attained.
Although overall this is the second lowest need, as measures by the
D's, it is felt the groateut by parents, teachers, and administrators.
Students show an increasing desire for experiences in attaining this
ohjecttive as they progre46 through school, bUt it is not until they*are
Out of high school and in Junior:College that it begine to take on the
same itsportance felt by the adult respondents.
The highest correlation of this item is with mum THS IMPORTANCE
OF A GOOD DIET (.54) whereas the lowest correlation is with BEING ABLE
TO ORCANIZEkFAHILY BUDGET (.04). This Learning Cp lts relationship to
the remaining goals of Home Economics is moderate'
Develmellt
This Learning Goal appears to be concerned with the development of
a value of a more or less specific kind, although it does pear to be
c;omewhat.telated to the importance of diet and health. This would sur
gest that honti standards tend to include diet Standards in the minds of
these respoOents. Therefore, project deVelopment could include as one
of the objectives an attempt to show haw a goof! diet, A* well as other
functions of the home, are part of what might be included in a set of
"standards" for the home.
1Learning Goal numbers are those as they arpear in the questio aire.
42
Learning Agtaltistill...escritio,....p..n
Goal NBMore emphasis should be placed on mum= moss THINGS DESIRED
IN THE HOMF according to fifry-two percent of the respondents, compared
to forty-three percent who were satisfied and five percent who believed
the objective Is overemphasized.
School administrators and 12th graders both feel somewhat more
strongly about this goal as a need than the other respondent groups,
although differences between respondent groups are nog very greats
was the case for other Learning Goals there is a progression in the
degree to which the goal is desired as students progress through school.
This item correlated moderately with all Nome EcoLomics learning
cllectives except that of BEING ABLE TO ORGANIZE A FAMILY BUDGET*
INALOSion" foUtaitalegmalt
That which Is desired, is believed to be one oc the important first
steps In developing a value system. Therefore, an objective for a Rome
Economics project could be to provide the conditions necessary for
students to develop "want" values associated with the home. This night.
Include both sides of the question: that is, provide the student with
opportunities, also, to examine, experience, and decide not to "want " ".
This might be accomplished by providing the student with contrasting
experiences in varytng standards of living. In general, it is fairly
evident that these 117M2 Economics objectives suggest an increased emphas
on the Aftective components of learning, especially as they relate to
values and va:ue systems. The intellectual aztivities could be used as
vehicles - as means to an end for attainlmi "standards" of health and
hr me for example
Learning Goal. =berg are those as kqr appear in the que ti
DRK/jm9/21/67
---
43
Sositalatdiesjatllls Vs)
batedtgaMeommente
Soulal. Studies is one of the moriculum areas for which there Is a
disproportionate number of Learning Coals (See page ? ) This arises
out of the fact that it is an area defined by four major mibjacts -
History, Civics, Geography, and Economics. Each of these subjects are
defined by sin items in the questionnaire. Since all statistics reported
have be, on Jaurriculuel areas (rather than on p2Lbjgst-maitter areas), the
statistical and content aaalysis of the Social Studies curriculum is
discussed below on that basis also. More aredifically: 12 of the 24
Social Studies items are discussed which respoAdents indicated the
strongest desire for more emphasis in the educational program. However
Tele Vc shows data for all 24 Learning Goals. Readers desiring to
study these data in more detail should study this table carefully,
Ideally, a thorough analysis should be reported. However, the intent
of this report is to suRRest possible interpretations and their impli-
cations for project development, rather than attempt to propose answers.
Of the 12 Social Studies Learning Goals selected for comment, aght
are in the Affective domain and four are in the Cognitive domain. Six
of these welve ftre concerned with the broad area of personal and social
economics which are discissed first.
Learning' Statistical Descri tion (Personal Economics)Goals #53,48 and 70 More emphasis should be placed on MARKING HOST TO MANAGE, h in
the opinion of seventy percent of all respondents, PLANNING A ED,FOR
'Learning Goal numbers are those. as they appear in t questi ire.
DEK/Im9/21/67
44
0001.110111111.10111111111
Learning
Goal
No.
NOM BAY PACE are=
August 28, 1967
of Sekected Item Apalysis tacistics, from CurriculumNeed Study 11
(WW1. STUDIES)
Learning Goal Description
mai
mpo
rmom
emol
imum
mkg
roev
iena
msi
vita
imis
sasm
asIa
lmss
eafa
it
Total
Percent
?las Discrepancy
TABLE tic
Mean Discrepancies (V) for.
Respondent Classifications'
25
Knowing that people in other Lands havecontribu-
ted to how we live
Al
12
Knowing the earth has physical features
Al
9Wanting to obey the laws of conservation
A2
56
Cooperating with the law
AZ
53
Learning how to mansge money
A3
y 7
13
Accepting the importance of lrw in our dailylife
A3
48
Planning a budget for one's nwn uae
A4
22
Able to identify laws of most help to our country
A4
37
Identifying the things in the pilst that benefit
our way of life
A4
29
Knowing how the past has affec;ted our way of
life
AS
83
Czciding best place to live LAO on available
facts
8Determining if tax dollars are spent wisely
52
Knowing major -eriods of history
21
Able to read a map
33
Understanding the Constitution of the U. S.
70
Spending money wisely
6.
Using info. from past to solve problemsof today
63
Knowing how oceans and physical features of
sarch
change climate
C3 57
78
Knowing how a law is made
C4 42
38
Knowing how our government is supported
C4 35
89
Making generalizations from hisLorical fsete
50
51
Being able to plan or map oilt a trip across counts
C5
40
64
Being able to make triund judgments
about political
issues
C6
Being .tie to compare differenteconomic systems
C6 X37
45
(See follorming page
6
5
SiClClC2
02C3
36 24
52
39 24
39
45
6.34
.38
2S
11
' 24
.11
65
459
570
261
566
367
3
48
7
43
8
60
472
336
11
47
556
473
356
4
36
853
561
41
53
.80
.53
.68
73
1.05
.61
.76
.66
.86
.65
.77
.30
.41
26
.30
.55
.82
69
1.04
2.
.35
.50
.78
.62
.84
1.03
.48
.60
1
56
:::
.66
*67
26
.19
72
.57
.66
.72
9.38
.26
27
69
4.36
.83
57
51.55
.59
.55
.63
.78
16
.27
.23
.27
.27
3.Z16
.97
.95
1.02
.81
.78
.99
.90
1.19
1.15
.941.13
.82
.86
.93
.85
1.02
1.13
.84
.98
.90
.97
.861.07
.57
.63
.83
.82
.52
.63
.78
.74
.98
.98
.71
.59
1.14
1.35
1,14
1.24
.28
.34
62
53
.59
.59
.65
.50
.69
.78
.79
.91
1.24
1.11
1.02
1.15
.74
.82
.96
.90
.39
.41
.50
.47
.54
.65
.67
..90
,68
.91
.10
.98
.36
58
.75
.46
.83
.58
.68
.47
1.08
40
1.21
1.27
.71
.94
.82
.92
for Plootno es 1 and 2)
.63
.22
.94
.78
1.00
.85
.84
.77
.57
.57
.68
1.06
.46
.62
.67
.95
.78
.44
.66
.82
4.48
.54
1.22
.80
NORTH BNY PACE CENTER
August 28, 1967
Summary of Selected1....tinimst-itemAn from Curriculum
Need Study #1
(SMAL BEM
Product-Moment Correlations
for Total Sample (N a* 2,220)
Learning
Coal No. 25
12
956
53
i3
48
22
57
29
83
852
21
33
70
66
63
25
.00
s.03
01
-.05 00,14
--
A,
VIWT
ikmor
V4
.01
.05
"'.06-.06
.02 0.07
12
°-.07
-.20.39
.02
...34
.01
.14
.02 -.28
.03
-0.07-.15
°.10 -.64 0,18
.14
9.04
.17
.00
.17
.06
-.03
.02
14
.080.05
.13
.00
.14 -.02
-.560.02
56
.33 0.04
.31
.02
.30
.02
.27 -.09
.20
.21
.31
.36
.25
.21
.33
53
- 0.02
.59
.65
.26
,00
.42 0.12
.12
.24
.29
.60
.26
.18
.30
13
-.03
.05
0.04
.01 -.04
.07
.00
.05
.03 *.03 4-.03-.04
-.02
48
.02
.27
.01
.43. -.10
.14
.24
.29
.54
.25
.19
.29
22
.06 -.02
.03 -.04
0.01
.04
.02
.00
.07
.00
.02
57
- 0,04
.22 0.14
.37
.21
.30
.22
.44
.28
.30
29
-.00
.030.03
.020.02 -.01 -.04-.04
-.04
83
- 0.12
.10
.21
.19
.47
.28
.19
.25
0.06
59
-.09 -.14 -.21
-.03
04.09
52
.18
.31
.08
.28
.27
.30
21
°.20
.19
.16
.21
.22
33
-.26
.29
.23
.38
70
-.25
.19
.31
66
.25
.29
63
.28
7838
89
51 6460 1"0"Means complete satisfaction
"4-11 Means total percent of sample wanting
more emphasis
"°" Means total percent of sample wanting
less emphasis
DmUmeb
9;://67
2"T" = Teachers
Mm. = Adminiatrators and Speci
Service Personnel
4P" = Parents
6, 9, 12, 13+ are student grades
46
TABLE
(Cont 1
64
.00
.02
.06 -.05
.23
12 0.24
.17 «.17
.03
.00
*71
.01
.00
.31
.20
.23
.33
.26
.33
.17
.35
.35
.36
.03 .07 0404 -.04
.00
.33
.19
.36
.34 .3
.02 0,02
.07
.08
.04
.33
.33
.21
r.35
.38
-.04 0.02 .01
.02 -.06
.27
.16
.33
.34
.32
.18 -.11 -.07 -.71
18
.25
.34
.18
.22
.26
.20
.14
.33
.15
.20
.39
.26
.20
.27
.29
.30
.17
32
.34
.30
.29
.32
19
.40
.32
.20
.71
.19
.22
.27
40
.29
.21
.29
.30
.26
.20
.39
.34
18
.25
.27
.20
.23
3Nvaries from
1,500 to 2,220
.40
ONE' S OWN USE for sixty-six percent, and SPENDING MONEY WISELY for
seventy -three percent of the respondents.
Students in grades 12 and 13 indicated the greatest concern over
needing more opportunity in these areas than other respondent grov
although the concern is almost uniformly high on the part of all
respondent groups.
LEARNING HOW TO MANAGE HONEY is highly correlated mich PLACING A
BUDGET and SPENDING HONE! WISELY. This objective Is moderately cox
related with other items concerned with Economics, Civics and Law, which
is true, also, of PLANNING A BUDGET and SPENDING HONEY AISELY.
Implications tnitgLattbalattat
Considerine, the high percentage of respondents deairing an increase's
emphasis on these three interrelated objectives of perwinal finances,
and considering that two of these relate to personal'. values (Management
and Planning), it mould seem that program emthasis could be placed on
understandiv/3 and developing value systems aesoniated with money more so
than on teaching students the cognitive tasks of money management and
bui.geting. The rather large percentage of respondents who indicated a
desire for more emphasis or these objectives suggests that both students
and adults could mice a metinsful idea contribution to possible programs
designed to fulfill these needs.
Learning1 Statistical agssapliga (Social Economics)Goals #8,38 and eo DETERMINING IF TAX DOLLARS ME SPENT WISELY. Klemm; HOW OUR
VERNMENT IS SUPPORTED and BEIM; ABLE TO COMPARE DIFFERENT ECONOMIC
SYSTEMS are Learning Obj.ctives needing more emphasis in the opinion of
1Learning Goal numbers are those as they appear in the uestionnaire.
DHIC/jm
9/21/67
seventy-two percent sixty-one percent and fifty-seven pe respec-
tively of the total sample.
Nearly every respondent group indicited the discrepancy between
"what is" and "what should be" with respect to DETERMINING IF T
ARE SPENT WISELY is the largest of the 24 objectives which define Social.
Studies. Of special interest is the finding that junior college students
and parents feel this need more strongly than the other respondent groups.
Although the intensity of the relative importance of the two latter
objectives is less than for other Social Studies objectives, they are
nevertheless fairly strong for each respondent group, except for 6th
graders.
There is a alight (though statistically significant) tendency for
DETERMINING IF TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT MEM to be inversely related to
mann now om GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTED and ABLE TO COMPARE DIFFERENT
ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. A moderately positive relationship was found between
the latter two objectives.
DETERMINING IF TAX DuLLA:15 ARE SPENT WNW is an objective re-
quiring the integration of several value systems ;thin the ltndividuat
(an Affective type of lecasning), wherees OTOWItIG ROW THE WVERNMENT IS
SUPPORTED and how that mfgealod of gnpport is relate6 to ncLer economic
system are essentially cosnitivu activities. The inner: e relattonship
between the two cognitive Learning Goals and the single affe..;tive Learn
fag Goal suggests that an ecomavics program would hitve as oul of its
objectives an attempt to assist the student in clarifyinf; his value
judgements about the expeneiture of tax d liars in light of a broader
Dilithm
9/21/67
.M..---1114.000.4.1
48
_--_---w.....m.pwwgtomwmsigmgfuaimwrjmmoimurwftMmmimimwimrsOfawolig*smmwssismrgwiWM.amOgtmw
frame of reference.
Overall programs desiped to meet student objectives in personal
and social economics might profit front a careful consideration of
assisting students to become more aware of their existing economic
values and how these values are determined. One of the determinants,
of course, can be the Intellectual activities of analysis and ealu-
ation of information, as indicated by an understanding of how- our
government is supported (alalysis) and making comparisons of different
economic systems (c valuation)
Learning1 Statistical ktsctiatan, (Civics)Goals #56,13, 22 & In excess of sift', percent of all respondents were af the opinion64
more emphastil should le placed on objectives concerning COOPERATING
WITH THE.LAR, ACCEPTIYG THE IMPORTANCE OF LAO IN OVA. DAILY LIFE, BEING
ABLE TO IDENTIFY LAWS OF MOST HELP TO OUR COUNTIM, and BEING ABLE TO
MhICE SMDJUDGEMENTS ABOUT POLITICAL ISSUES.
Again, concern emut these objectives Increases with wade level.
Llthough there is a 6rop-off of concorn ot the part of adult vespondents,
the size of the mean discrepancy (Indicating need) remains fairly high
with respect to other learning goals. Junior college students indicate
their greatest concern if all 24 Social Studies items is that of BEING
ABLE TO MAKE SOUND JUDGEMENTS A !UT POUTiCAL ISSUES.
The matrix of correlation coefficients showing the interrelation-
ships for t.; se particular Learning Gvals shows that COOPERATING WITH
LAW ead DING ALL TO MAKE SOUND TpLIT1CAL JUDGEMENTS are the only
Lea ;.117, B oa 4 numbers are those as they hppea r in the quest aire
DHK/jm912/67
49
ones with any interrelatioxehip. Aix other relationships are essen I
zero.
MLiattistalsisirojactDeve2smat
MUM SOUND POLITICAL JUtGENEW/S is an intellectual objective re-
quiring evaluation of inverse information. The objectives concerned with
law are designed to assess responsiveness, simple values, and elementary
value systems (i.e., separate values linked together when the occasion so
decaads). It is clear that though taken individually all of these objec-
tives are considered important in the minds of the respondents, esseati-
ally they lack cohesion (i.e., are not interrelated). An educational
program objective could be to bring together into a single cohesive
system of attitude-behaviors these diverse values and value systems,
based, in part, on purely intelle ual activities.
Learning Staticate Descriptionfoal #83
DECIDING ON THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE BASED ON AVAILABLE FACTS should
be given more emphasis according to sixty percent of the respondents.
Students in the 12th and 13th grades are more conc2rned about this
objecLivs than all other groups of resOndents. Parcuts, school admini
stratora, and 6th graders are about equal with respact to their feeling
that this objective is of relativay less importance than other Social
Studies objectives,
This objective is substantially correlated with two discussed
earlier, viz. SPEND:NG MONEY WISELY and LAMING HOW TO NANAGE MONEY.
139:11 0129211.15Mdect
Like other Social Studies Learning Goals discussed in this section
Learning Goal numbers are h se as they appear in the questionnaire.
DH4,bm9/21/67
50
this objective might be considered fov inclusion in a program of objec-
tives for Home Economics) especially in view of the statistical corr
ation with SPEND" WNW WISELY and 'EARNING HOW TO ?IMAGE MONEY.
Although the value judgement "beat place to itve" might be discounted
somewhat, as objective could be one vhisfa emphasizes the decision -making
process and information necessary to make decisions regarding where to
live.
Learning' 2tn.f..x/z1.12_,Goal 09
More emphasis should be placed on WANTING TO CAEY THE LAWS OF
CONSERVATION according to sinty-five percent of the respondents.
Twelfth graders and parents tend to feel more strongly about this
Learning Goal than do other respondent grcups) although all groups rate
this as being relatively fairly important.
There a very strong relationship of this objective to BEING ABLE
TO PLAN OR MAP OUT A TRIP ACROSS THE COUNTRY, but CONSERVATION is not
related to any other learning objective in the Social Studies area.
I
This Affective behavior which was designed to assesb a desire to
respond on an emotional level to elementary values could be a Learning
Goal which is part of a set of objectives for helping students become
more responsive in a num;l*r of natural settings. Planning a trip requires
a synthesis of many kinds of information, among which could be conserva-
tion lawo and prevalent attitudes regardins taese laws.
1Learising Goal numbers are those as they appear in the questionnaires
DIIK/jm9121/61
51
Comment on Statistical and Content Analiga
The purpose of the forogoing discussion of selected Learning Goals
and their assvciated statistics is primarily to stimulate thought - not
to provide answers. If the reader feels emotionally chagrined by the
discussion and in impelled to make alternate interpretations and believes
that additional information is needed, the purpose of this section has
been attaired.
Another way in which this analysis might have been conducted may be
termed "configuration analysis". That is, both the curriculum area and
the subject area concept could be ignored ard the analysis take the form
of Learning Goal configurations. For example, the 20 or 30 Learning Goals
with the largest mean discrepancies 05 could be analyzed as a group with
respect to their specific content and nofitin§ else. Or, these Pam
objectives could be analyzed In terms of their Intended Affective and
Cornitive components, but using the specific content as a starting point
for protuammatic ideas.
Asomewhat more difficult method of analysis though a highly pro-
fitable one, would be to study the configuration of the correlation
coefficients for all 117 Learning Goals for each respondent group. This
would requite the detailed study of 6,786 correlatica coefficients for
each respondent group,1 again Ignoring curriculum and subject area and
considering only the content of the item. This could be in terms of the
obvious content, or in terms of Bloom/if Taxonomy.
WilirmelluMEIBIX*010110011111sWIWOONAgs
'This number was derived from the formula 1/2N(N-1)u which givesthe number of pairs for a vet of numbers. In this case we have117(16 10 s 60786."7
C/,gym
9/21/6752
Undoubtedly, the reader will have additional ideas. It is not
inconceivable that a now kind of curriculum area might result from a long
and thoughtful consideration of these and other data 'or example, con-
sider the possibility of a curriculum designed to attain a terminal per-
formance objective to increasa student awareness, an objei*.tive to increase
student responsiveness, an objective to make explicit student values and
value systems, and the objective of an integrated philosophy of life
w'iich is consistent with the students' oorld view.
Consider, also, similar cureculum area concepts in the intellectual
domain of learning: an information curriculum organized perhaps around
present concept3; an understamdtel curriculum designed to meet the
objective of increasing student understanding of the interrelationships
of various kinds of information; an application curriculum - or, every
third year devoted to nothing but the application of that which nes been
learned during the previous two years, etc.; again, a curriculum area
devoted exclusively to the anakpliof information, another devoted to
Arthesis, and still another devoted exclusively to evaluating and
integrating as much of what has been learned as possible.
Although the kinds of carriciatiat areas can be separately defined
by terminal performance objectives, they can also be integrated by other
terminal performance objectives. For example, objectives could be
developed for the purpose of integrating the Aifcctive curriculum of
receiving" with the Cognitive curriculum of "information aoquisition".
At the other end of the scale objectives could be developed for inte-
grating the Cognitive domain curr*,:culum of "evaluating" with the
Affective domain curriculum devoted to development of a philosophy of
life.
:c/ jar9/21/67
A thoughtla analysis of the content of the Learning Goals used
in this study in the context of present Jay curricular areas and in
the c ntext of the concept of "termtnal perforuasce objectives" could
result in some productive and creative ideas for aseist:ng with the
process of modernising e4ucat. mi. This kind of creative thinking need
not be limited by the technical limitatious of this study discussed In
the following section.
DSO*9/22/67
$4
LIMITATIONS CT THIS STUDY
This study should be viewed an an ezrolorator,, atteupt to determine
the value of a new technique for assaasing the curri.ular objectives of
students, in addition to its potential use as a eAcision-meking tool.
Accordingly, there are limitations to this study that should be con-
sidered by the thoug4tful reader.
1. The Learning Coals used in this study are but a small fraction
of the possible goals tha might have been inventirated. That is, these
goals should be considered a sample of a larger clonain of curricular
goals. The sampling leaves much to be desired because there is a dis-
proportiomatti emphasis on Social Studies, the LtaNguage Atte, and the
Fine Arts. As a result, there are probably distortions arising from
mission of content that may be of real value and importance to the
remmdents. Omitted curriculum content conceivably could be given
greater importance in terms of "need" than those Ahich ,respondents were
asked to evaluate.
2. The reference frame used for writing the Learning Coals is
rather loose. Future attempts in thin ra rd should li'lere more closely
to a theoretical structure, such 6c Bloom's Taxonomy, and simultaneously
to a curriculum value structure, luch is "need to know" versus "nice to
know1. A few of the Learning GoalJ have been criticized on grounds of
irrelevance, triviality, and ambiguity, with uomc justificarion.
3. There are a number of goals in the questioanaira whose relation-
ship to Bloom's Taxonomy is equivocal. Goalti should be written by experts
DUK/irr.9/15/67
55
'.7^P'"Flgerrf irrtRITIPAPIPIW
In each currinulum area 11A terms of the reference frames mentioned aboms
and then clemaified 'blind" by experts in the taxonomy.
Another procedure that Would improve the theoretical validity of
the questionnaire would be to ask small samples cf each zespondent group
to rank the relative importance of each goal in terms of ?*tie ta=znomy.
If this "inter-judge" agreement is high, the content validity with
respect to the various respondent groups would be oomewhat s.rengthened.
In theory, of least, there should be agreement between tho two procedures:
that is, agreement between exper rankings and the rankings of the
several respcudent group representatives.
4. There are some real questions about the sampling promo .4ve and
the number obtained with respect to the adult respondent groups. Yuture
studies of this kind should sample adult groups on a more systematic
basis.
5. Another limitation is that small %Yariations in the instructions
to respondents were noted to have occurred from time to time, depending
on varying circumstances. Each of the staff members and others who
administered the questionnaire had varying interpretations of questions
asked by respondentr as they progressed through the form. This problem
can be eliminated with increased time spent in pre-administration
training.
6. No independent ( "outside ") criterion was used with which to
determine what micyht be labeled predictive validity. For example, no
hard facts have been obtained to back up the findings - at least facts
for the region tr. which the study was conducted. Although the original
plan called for the collectlJn of this information, time, money, and
DOKija9/15/61
56
personnel limitations precluded this very Important part of the study.
Mats regarding the extent d character of opportunities and prac-
tices in VOcattonal Education, Home Economics,_and_Social Studies vnuld
provide a clearer understanding of the meaning results reported here, as
well as provide important information for program development of an
innovative and/or exemplary neture.
Highly valuable would be an independent statistical criterion, such,
as the umber of hours of opportunity available to students in the four
county region in each of the currizulua areas measured by this study."
Each Learn;ng Goal could then be assessea against this criterion. For
this purpose a multiple step-wise regression analysis would provide iu-
formation showing the minimal set of Learning Goals in each curriculum
area necessary to predict curricular "opportunity ".
These limitations qualify in some degree this study, but they do
not prohibit thoughtful consideration of the main findinna, because the
ftndings have an internal consistency of a kine that is indicative of
some genuine curricular concerns of both students and adults.
'One possible source of this information would be the StateDepartment of Education.
DRK/jm9/15/67
Ati1322ix
Initial 3Unmet Necis"Aureey ofSchoo.7,4xLented Personnel
(The "Administrator Survey")
58
APPENDIX A.
NORTH RAY PACE MEER1005 Jefferson Street
Napa* California 945582554883
filrtIAL "UNMET NEEDS" SURVEY OFSCHOOLPOR/ENTED PERSONNEL
.1.0 Statistical Description of School or School District:
.11111.:
00111WIMMIONMIMMION100.1101010111.101.11114~10~111.0101surnamr
Name of School/School District Name of Person Completing Report
fmumesemoolimaegimeElementary
Secondary
Unified
Position
Telephone Number%101111111111W/b
Average daily attendance (check be,ow according to latest figures)
0 m 399
400 m 999
1,006 . 4,999
5,000 .4 9,999
10,000 m 14,999
15,000 24,999
25,000 49,999
50*000
DRK/cd9/6/67
59
APPENDIX A
School Setting: (check apozoriate descriptive categories)
Aural
Urban
,Suburban
Others: (Describe
OM* 41111mal.PublLc (Socio*Ecomomic Class)
Non*Public .w Low
Profit !piddle
Non*Profit Upper
2e0 Inararapinto what are tiro ttalmatiljammzxlmtmpcts inPiLOSSEdle
Need
Need Br
Need C:
DHIC/cd
9/6/67
-asorimsmor istalsser
assmowa.:
insittralcoolussosiropewirorlisr
Asiummiumniimmi000.1..wilwarews
raoiromparsommoniftwimirm.~...rlallotwasemowsmmiciftworgiNnoworr WeitMalesatmeRgiftwaV `10110.111~W4MIVINNO
brOPM6AMANAMOOMMWW%
1111110111111.1.11MANOOMONINIMMININIOW arrosammarnarmgrer Amswomorromiluwat-r-
wasatasmartmeass* irersoroseariimarimithm~404 64**00
-VAdIWOMPIMINAMIMMUINIMOVIONIIIMili
60
APPENDIX 3
2.1 ithAtzazga atagt.2.1 ot)rasd to wou d eacimate aeach o n de ident f ad on the nrece.c.i..hz.ittat41
0 1070
11 20%
21 40 30%
31 40%
411551 A* 60%
61« 70%
71 80%
81. 90%
91 100%
Na,.ad A
gaglIMININSINIV4
Need B Nee d C
2 2 k jigaLststs,ste941.p.2.4Lha,s jagastungrataudjjarea t eve a 3 achivy...e, of he a
Need A:
Need B:
Need Ct.
DBX/cd9/6/67
s t faukzei?
millsoms
ININIONNONOMIN
APPENDIX A
ik,tszauttLvitt22Enteaueawitlaportasasemiluatimate,suuv.tizate4L)=:
Need A Need B Need C
High Re? evancy
Medium Relevancy
Low Relevapcy
0111110,711.0001.,
2.4 aitAttaks junadzatiagse lvaislaattatILImaygLajggatta,fusstjalLatiat
Need A
Need B
Need C
2.5 Smsere As ea juma?Severe Moderate
Need .A
Need B
Need C
alINIMOMMINOMMil
ONO 011010111000111
206 EstiNstit,,ttke ;Ise ojoiragalWaajnoatedietam.91ZUM........TneedAsualzaLaratlivd.Need A
Need B
Need c /
DHK:cd9/6/67
62
.r
2.7 k.astjlyLENLEAW
giothxvItjrwa. C f a aC sii)rjr:mtg,p1,
ISIMWISPASIOMMMOVIMISMOOMOIIV-1,1110010
alrommiwumNaossoommonimi
FREQUENCY DIET BUTTON OF SCHOOL ADMINISTaATORSRESPONSES TO NEED SURVEY
64
APPENDIX B
NORTil BAY PACE CENTPX1005 Jefferson Street
Naps. California 2t5582554883
UENCY /STUB ONEESPME.7.0 HERZ'S=
CO E CY CODE Ut,:;.zr
1.1
1.4
3.1
4.0
4,1
4.2
4.4
4.5
4 6
5.1
5.2
5.4
6.3
7,1
7.2
8.0
8.1
8.4
DBICied9/6/6/
1
I
5
5
1
5
3.
3
2
1
5
1.
1
3
3
1
65
9.0
9.1
9012
9.14
9.3
1000
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.41.
10.42
10.43
12.1
12.4
13.2
14.0
8
3
2
3
1
22 (curticulumcontent)
24 (curriculummethod)
10
6
2
2
4
1
1
nrrBrrzx 1
Responses to survey (cont.)
att................../MBES.................S6SOL.....10006......ftallinia14.2 3 33.5 3
15.0 1 34.0 5
18.C; 1 34.1 4
18.1 4 34 . 4
13.2 6 34.4 1
18.4 7 35.1 3
19.0 1 35.4 2
19.1 1 36.0 1
20.0 4 36.1 1
24.0 15 (Ldlarazy) 36.2 20
25.0 2 36.4 6
26.0 1 37.0 3
27.0 5 37.1 3
28.0 6 37.12 2
29.0 12 (Premschool) 37.13 4
30.0 11 (Recreation) :1,3.12 2
31.0 1 38.13 3
33.0 2
33.1 1
33.3 2
33.4 5
DID( /cd
9/7/67
66
APPENDIX C
TABLE IIa
Mean Discrepancy Scores (D) for the COGNITIVE Domainin 11 Curriculum Areas, with Respect to Respondent
Groups and ether Classifications of the Data.
6"
inivza m
ow.
115X
SOL
909
69E
X
ftI*0
UZI)
Z61*0
50'0
'WO
644'O
9ZI*0
LZ1*0
*P"41
095'0
l95*0
0E9'0
9E9'0
On '0
LZ9*0
L1V0
SWO 1
....."
......
(1
) OO
VO
(f ) SW
O(I ) W
Of.c ) W
O (I ) W
el)(Z
) 900(S
: ) 'WO
(1 ) Wel)
'PS
ilmleA
lld
(c ) TW
O(9
) 90'0
(5 ) 6E9'0
(9 ) COCO
(G ) LLV*0
(6
IVL*0
(8 ) IWO
(5 ) ',co
,*
'PR
Mien
(e ) IWO
tt ) IWO
(e ) Erteo
(z ) at '1'.1(17 ) 095*0
(6 ) WO
(Z ) Z
GE
*0(t ) O
LCO
eSindhinri utfelei
(9) 14,9 o0) S
erO(9 ) 80'0
U ) L69°0
(tit) *MV
OO
H,911':
Cot) "89'0
(H) 819°0
snoloucml *m
a,
Cot) co
'(01) L59.0
(6 ) £6L'0
(6 ) tIL*0
Cu) 4758.0
(10 /WO
Cu) 50L*0
(II) 699'0
*PS
Im0 l3,3424
(z ) ttro
(z ) cm o
(z ) cwo 0 ) T64*0
(e ) csvo
(t ) two 0 ) two
(4 ) 091-0
*prim
(0 ) tLS*0
(C ) 09E 0
(0 ) 59,*0
(0 ) It5*0
G.) LC4*0
(9) 565'0
(9 ) ££V'0
(9 ) 990'0
nay
Cu) B91'0
(11) IWO
(UT) ZZ6 0
(11) 999'0
(9 ) OL*1
(9 ) ,EL'O
(1 ) 10'0
(lz ) int'0
amooTos
(6 ) till 0
(£ ) Z6410
(01) PI9*0
(00 609'0
(6 ) 09L*0
(L ) 089*0
(6 ) Z95*0
(6 ) IWO
2141:039 111T*011
(1 ) 909`0
(L ) IZ9'0
4:10 ) 51*0
(5 ) 1L9*0
(9) 6L9*0
(0 ) LLS*0
(C ) Z9E'0
(Z ) 90E"
nal' lainitun
(0) V9S*0
(9 ) ,IL*0
41 ) IWO
(9 ) tiL9'0
(Z ) 9C5*0
(5 ) 98 ''o
(0 ) i19E*0
It ) COZ 0
1131IN
I t1 14
1l ki p
w.14
1%
124$
Vg*
11/4%
V
T w
eim u a
T a am
satm
a=
EM
Inirlier
n*P
eT
IMM
Tran
verra65
1103iAmp8
.sprrip,
FT *PAO
*sato
ploadg
lootP0
nosy vat
inivza m
ow.
11,124nDIt --1=1555 -- (a) swimuldsiosta sit
ITIBENTMEN
L961 4Z1 1144V
IV= Ind VI BO
11,124nDIt --1=1555 -- (a) swimuldsiosta sit
ITIBENTMEN
L961 4Z1 1144V
IV= Ind VI BO
nosy vatnosy vat
99Z
TO
T0
Z090
(c ) moo
(6 ) Z99'0
fT
) 99r0
(pt) otvo
(It) Lev°
)999'0
) £6S`0
CC
) T,9*0
) 9/9*0
(c ) evvo
) cwo
x£4
AM
O6 .410ti
*II irNT
L
) VIV
O
) L190
(s ) two
(0T) L99*0
(It)
ZL9.0
(Z ) Z
6r0
) 6tifie0
(6 ) E59'0
) IC9*0
(9 ) ZZ
S 0
) LLVO
g41.3416535,4nT
AI
999
5ZI*0
once°
pose we:podia; 3
SIMgas O
pt:A
3wirdsi3sT
p 70 sepia IanI
Szaidesw
p elhissay0
619
lawnim
01111110.
(1E )vivo
) swo
) 090E
L ) 6LC"0
) LLVO
) 904r0
CO
I) Z5L*0
(or) 969°0
(II) sero
(It) efts°
(4 ) 60.0
(Z ) oovo
) 09S*0
) EE
C 0
) OZ
9 0) Z
19'0
) Tt9 0
6 ) 9C9*0
(s) etc o
(S ) 90'0
) Z647.*0
) moo
vg
ag
Tfearnieng
Mignirbi
0611
two
6L5*0
tt) 56E
*0
(8 ) 0E9'0
) two
tot) est o
(T1) 69L*0
(Z ) 6#07"0
) UV
°) 6Z
9"0
(6 ) U9'0
(S) te50
(C ) S
WO
TeirM
i
60Z*0
Z6L*0
(47 ) SLV
O(to ) L99"0
) 1090
(1 ) 47CE
*0
(on) EC
9'0
(It) zwo
) aero
) LLt"O
) ZZ
9'0
) 1E9'0
LSV
O
) Z9470
11g
twiny istinopanoIt -
striaredeamm
twig
isnawasum
L961 4Z1 trait'
=D
UO
1171d AV
e KU
M
(ot) met
Cr ) moo
(i ) cceo
(11) CZ
T`T
(c ) cosso
) Iwo
) Z9L'O
) seeo
(6 ) 9E0'T
(9 ) Z6L*0
g4
2
4
UK
CU
0
) nie0t6) 689'0(Z
) 60°0(01) 'O
L'O
(It) VIL*0
fit) 98E1'0
) Ott
) tt90) 8,90
tS ) O
WO
) 90°0sk,
lamb
'Itw
an0 U
MW
/
L9Ot
095'0
(z ) 8t9*0) 965'0
(I ) C65'0
(0t) ZZ
L.0
(It) 86L'0) itetz*0
) L95°0
) fiC9*0
) 6060) 9W
O)
zwo16,
72f5"`""1,23usuom
Wit
CLS
*0
Cr ) C
CC
*0
) 4/5564
) ZW
Ot8) IL9*0C
OI) Z
69*0
(7, ) Zct 0
) 09S*0
(It) C9L*0
) 069'0
(L ) 68G*0
) ZS
*0Att
-Loa
Tanue3
OL
001
C1S*0
01111.011110
) 0942°0
(z) 90*0) Z
WO
18)9£5'0C
u) 6cLeo
) LW 0
Cot)
9v9o
) afro) L85*0
) Z9V
*0
(.1 ) fir°
=nook
p.m w
inioders isa vex m
g !Ouvdelosyp
loplo vivaIN
Ilougdryinp alknom
falt
ZS
I
009.0
(1
)))
OZ
9L1*0L
Z L
' 0
917C
ILI*0O
Z9*0
9475.0
) 965*0
(L ) 299'0
) LIC*0
009'0
L18*0
05C*0
) MV
OL )
LG9*0
(I ) 96E*0
61,*0
tL ) 609*0
t£) 9z9'0C
u)suro
tra(at)
Z89*0
(9 ) C8L*0
tt
) OW
O) 005'0
) 0810tS
)"Ivo
)86960
(ot) taro)
699'0(L
) 4209.0
(1k)ILC
*0) cal)
)471510
)tee%
)I
g4v,
-Era-
*Imps
timpinm
auoso;vinduott
tIv
straw arrIntipino T
i ft.
Cu) Z
WO
WI) 806,0
)L
a' 0(6 ) 6Z
L*0
tS ) 9LC
`O
(8) SW
O) tiG
rotZ
) 6It*0g4t
turp.3.0s
prignduon
tiv
(2) serpttedeapour ineaR
tram* t# Z
edsL961 4Z
1Itzdy
1121BIX
) ltd f 0 On
(01) 699'0
(It) 9CL°0
(I ) C6C
*0
) CW
O
tS ) co
Z9*
) Lt9*0(9) V
OC
°0
(17 )aveo
I16
Ram
nigniIIV
ers
L9/L
/6qoal3na
2
pgteaT
sqa
11013.3nril IPP
AR
avatar' utresoisw
poloom elm
istupineA
oTerm
63111
smum
s
tialim3S tw
rloS
inav e8arn2uwi
3Uao slot
011=14 lk
%Alp
Man Discrepancy scores (5) for the =Ma Domainin 11 Curriculum Areas with Respect to RespondentGroups and Other Classifications of the Data,'
71
6Z1
ift
LZI*0
ZEZ*0
ZO*0
9Z9*0
(I ) IOV*0
(f ) 619'0
Cc )
IZT
GLT*0
8ZL'O
(C ) 9,S*0
(s1 ) ZWO
(5 ) 6E9'0
(9 ) 059'0
(9 ) 619'0
(9 ) EOL"0
(S. ) 6E9'0
(Z ) SO,*0
(h ) 6E9'0
(Ii) C68*0
(II) 06I*I
(it) 8LO'I
(# ) OZ9'0
(I ) 98Z*0
(C ) Z09°0
(Z ) &WO
(C )
(I )
(L ) 959'0
(00 aro
(L ) Ioro
Cot) 9iee
(9 ) Z69'0
( m") ZI8*0
(6 ) co
#L*
(6 ) E0L*0
(01) Z69'0
i(8 ) ZOL*0
) 199'0
s ) ZZO*0
AI
4Si
To
o4
TOTrir
sonAzes
.spippy
lispodg
Plain
qii SIM
AIONSIM
56
,£T'0
6IL'O
(I ) stvo
Cr ) OZL*0
(c )
99'O
.) LIi'0
(it)6Eir(
710"0
90
) tscio
csro
-(6
) esvc)919'0
g,
L9/9/6
goolona
pass 3011-4sods; wet* loos
Ti
liS
tApowdoaoolp ;o sopa litsti
lrkausedeiw
rip aftleav
bli
-07'0
MVO
CIO
INIM
Era
) two
) 989'0
) moo
) £0L'0
(II) art
(L ) ZWO
(9 ) 1IL*0
(E ) 6L9*0
(00 IWO
(6 ) moo
(z ) co
Z9*
.71.16"irmim
minr
fi amp
80L
LIT60
CIL°0
(t ) 69510
) rwo
(c ) 0E9'0
(6 ) ZOL'O
(IT) 666'0
(9 ) 069'0
(Z ) 00"0
(c ) 95960
Co) LZ9')
(L )
69'0
(4/ ) TC9`0
g
irsfar
809
EIT*0
SZVO
(9 ) 605'0
(8) L2S*0
(5)00'0
(6 ) tI9*0
(It) ELVO
) avro) ovro
(9 )
(0T) C19*0
) teter0
(I ) LT#*0
um" lintimPun0 II m- 231251331r-,.
Impuedoxim
111RYNIMM4F
L961 $1,1 IT4d,
12111090 M &W am
99C
ht
Z6L0'0
'P's
90'0
CL
90'0
) toiro)IT '0
(9 ) LSV*0
(6 ) LZS'O
(9 ) 6117'0
(IT) 99V0
(Z ) L9E10
Cot) LES*0
(E ) f6E*0
(I ) 09Z `o
aa
Timm
`PS IsmIsAtid
'PI tinimit
oftausti:o2losoa
imam*
eon`Pz PuoT
ztooA010,411141113
r. W
W1
s3xv
emo;343
so;
s TIMOS
guyoihrekituel
WO
K
IRM
TA
FSIOrin
pa= 3m3iodaT 3 out
99Z
540?
ZIT.°
911.0
EL9"0
685.0
) 965'0
(I ) ZWO
(9 ) 'WO
(6 ) 5E9'0
CI ) LIG*0
(9 ) 009'0
(6 ) LCVO
(8 ) IC9.0
(u 606'0
(II) VI8'0
099
619
91I*0
IZ60410
CE9'0
50910
4111100101110111
(E ) 0540
(I ) 605'0
(0 ) 6594'0
(V ) 69G.0
(Z) UV()
b)
5I5*0
(6 ) Z69"10
(6 ) 909'0
(it) IZ6 0
(II) 09'0
0611
601'O
059"0
(t ) L99 "0
(L ) TE9.0
(5 ) LZ9e0
(6 )
(IT) 9O6'0
(Z ) 095"0
) LOCO
(9) 865'0
(5) 055'0
Oa ) 0E9'0
(Z ) LE9*0
(V ) 995*(
(9 ) 895"0
(V ) 50"0
(V ) 9T5'0
(5 ) ILG')
CL) ZWO
(IC ) E09'0
(00 SEL*0
(00 99L'O
(00 60L*0
(00 59L'0
{L) ZL9"0
(L ) L19'0
(L ) OZ9 '0
(5 ) 9LVO
C8 ) I5910
CE ) 985'0
(5 ) 6554'0
(I ) VW()
(Z ) OIC*0
(Z ) 8E5'0
14
84
14.A
ttskt
lurCirdr71 wrios
lunTIiniraV
e =C
O M
Mrireiri
(9 )099'0
(5)
619'0
(00
009'0
4111 VIM
ti XIO
N&
Iff
snarl vinitgaTainD
TI
WIO
NL
IV
L9/11/6
WA
YN
E
rim Op;
tiouvtialosTp 3o sew
Nub at
AoutedazosT
p avagagtrglt
LIO1
9011)
ZWO
(L ) 895'0
(6 ) VC9'0
(E ) %WO
) UV
°(II) W
0%1
(t)tLt "O
) 6LV
O
CS
6C5`0
CO
I) SU *0
(9)095'0) 6IV
O71
Q4
sem
865Z*0
8Z8 0
(c't)- SZ9"0
CLY II6.0
(5'E) SZ9'0
(5 ) aro
(TT) 80Z*I
(Z ) LE4r0
(t ) WO
(9 ) LICO
(01) cart
(6 ) 800'1
(8 ) 000't
Vetzosettia
.. (a)
seTm
adasosla maw
szinsati WIEN
L96I `LI
IT4dV
Vialks.
Ma AU MON
'pie'PI IgnskiauoTumnpg
aftwallun cliT
azoa
eviewitou *um
'PS isturtp,93oA
wpm
szav
93110T3S
SOT
Pan 101308
S3S, altanihrel
31104U00 880/0
BE
L
609'O
) 635 0
) 'WO
) SIC *0
) Z6970
(TT
) 901.0
) 9W) 691'0
('9)£$1S'0(00 001*0
(L)985'0) O
n *0
L901
ZZ
9 *0
) "T5 'o
) £6S'0
(c ) LO
S '0
) S 9'0(it) zero
to ) Z6S*0
VO9'0
) 1:76c0
Cot) 6W
0
0 *109'0(1) 605.0
sk
111111L100U
OM
Ott
001
#019'0U
S 0
(1 ) 61E70
(1) LE
'0) T
6LS70
0,)£95'0) L
99'0(41) 90S'0
) ZT
9 *0Z
tS*0.
(11) E060
(00- OZ
L70:
0U
S* 0
(Z).595`o
(tt) aro-
.Icy zovo.
ZSL
*0-(6 ) C
09.70
) SU *0
(9 ) 65170
(8) 470470-
-7P
.1.1.4778tr
1,231190
slam gritn3122110
cIII Man
a UM
W
£91618R
eirsall0
ipaau 4u*34odiwi 3sca
vas tielq triousdazonp
sapxo Atm
AlapsdazzaT
p alikusAy
as A
()Z
CE
I*0
1199 °095L
*0
CS ) 909.0
(T) two
8)169''0) L
TO
0
)4,65.0
) 6L5 'o
) 09L*0
) LE
8*0
(0i) LS8*0
(TT
) 596.0
) LT
S*0) O
CC
O
(i ) tOG
*0(47 ) 169 *0
) 819'0) 008*0
(TT
) OL
8*0(01) 6Z
6*0
(L ) C
89*0(s )
EtL
*0
(.1; ) 009'0) z£9 '0
mum
stoolps
uiTitrazrzauan
oncinduce
ITV
31-3151M
9.4tets0699`0
(Z ) 69S*0
(S' ) 90°0
(9) 699'0(8) O
tL*0
(II) Mr I
) 6ZL
*0
(6 ) fitt*0) 009'0
CV
O 60L
'0
(47 ) 019*0
(t) 90'0
Vgjs
stoops
=plazas
owincim
onIT
V
(10 saTousdaaw
ria tom
SCL
IESN
V 1# M
IS
L961 'II IT
IdifU
MW
209'e1 VItune
41,01g
Z660'0
*P*2
'09 *02
10.11111.1111111110
(I )covo
*Pa /*MA
W
(8) aro uolZm
pa imam
)*0
(6) %M
VO
Cu) two
(c ) two
Cc)zzco
(9 ) 99S *0
(0T) T
EL
70
) L09.0
(1, ) OtJs *0
U
117644`
owina
rtv
0tragi utiazod
iipprouoog amoR
*P2 1,11013930A
wporix
souaTos
gaIMIS tV
T3O
S
auv altareftual
3U
Th*I*7.7"43
9110.7775
TABLES Ila AND hi (CONTINUED)
Mean Discreptmcy Scores (D) for the coGprrzvzand UMW Domains in 1.1 Cvirriculum Areas with
Respect to the Rind of Job the Schools are Doing.
75
Z9
tilt 0
Ct
Z 4.1 111.1.41."0
EZ
L*0
CZ
47150
9£9L10
CO
t) 000'1
(6 )L
6L*0
0 )0
) acreC
u) on
) 111/9"0
) iitC0
zooti
tar6051
96L 0
)c
Cz)9
ns) 'M
VO
C8 ) 919'0
) OLL 0
(S0tca0
) L6L*0) IrE
90
Cu) S
ZI"I
(II) IWO
) SE
L*0
CZ
) OC
L0
) I9L*0) 1E
5'0
WE
) 888`0(0I) LZ
I '0
) ZI90
JCL ) M
VO
CZ
) 470L0C
t ) 515'0U
qtI*
SIMI
pool
9L
61Z
00410
) nraM
itt)
)611410
(6 ) ti,C50
Cu) asso
) tzsvo0 ) Z
eir0
Ci
) £Z50
gC
8) 90'0
.5135.666rnC
' l0)fat grin
6100111 1/5
a moats
(L ) 9E47'0
(01) 9LC*0
) CO
VO
(I ) VIV
OV
g*P
oob AziA
*pwau zratuodir$
Z9
::19 0
) Win
) £6540
CZ
) T.T
.C*0
(0t) 999*0
Cu) 06'0
) 199°0
CL
) LOC
I)
C6) O
Z90
)E
LIO
(47 ) two
) ow()
ug*
16""samrin
311011V
altq
L91916gespilla
tiouedez3eT0 31, saps o
7011111 IRIt
itmodsiasT
a aftsioAy
NB
a*
LSE
&K
tC
9901475`©
("E ) 17-7M
ICrtrile.
) 6ZL*0
I) SE
5'0
) SC
L°0
(11) 906'0
)155'4
09)£69.0.
Cot) Z
99'0
) G9V
0
(s ) 14790
(47 ) 985`0v
g*,zooa
) 9I90
CZ
) ZO
*0
(0I) 9690
Cu) m
oo
(t ) 69r0) Z
050
CL
) Z950
(6 ) 9£9'0
(c ) IWO
(47 ) 9W0
To'53
TititT
ia65C
' 3u03)*M
IS
narl el" atom ai
got a Put i ae
asO
PMM
Y
''s`-'-yIt
91443W1 PU
,sA
IWP
Oop
mam
a ut =Z
S
L961 49Z IT
adV8 M
DIrm
aLW
MO
H
*oft(a)
septuniezosTa
61Z
orro) osico
) (sleo
CZ ) tiro
OA
) ntvo
Cu) Z
Z9s0
C5) W
EI)
) EZ
VO
) LLVO
(6 ) 655'0
) VIV
O
(1 ) 00r0I
gporn tuft
-n tenthuia
'PS iptean
2w' uneioi
sk3Tto3uon aw
n
pa IvuoPlim
A
*PIM
931V
aousTas
salPaIS
IlrfooS
03ay allenStral
q4 g
*193:RO
911019
linTIERES2
TABLE III
Mean Discrepancy Scores (6) for each level of theCOFIgT;VE and altnal Domains with Respect to
Respondent Groups and Other Classification of the Data.
77
moan BAY PACE COM
April 28, 1967
sl'u
PT #
1 K
RU
tia
KIV
AIDiscrepancies (6)
itivt and Anactive
Anal rsis
!axonasic Leval
APPENDIX P
TAKE III
mum
School
Spacial
Grade 13
A4ainie
Services
*re
**
PIE"
*IMPUNEL
laza
,rti
411.2.
qade 12
*jail&
Xesciutra
ISAIRM.
0a
15at
liR
15R
15
RV
RIf
R11
a
Cl
0.328 (1)
0.393 (1)
0.555 (2)
0.567 (1)
0.567 (I)
0.548 (I)
0.454 (1)
0.510 (1)
C2
0.481 (4)
0.472 (4)
0.621 (4)
0.679 (4)
0.62:" (3)
0.590 (2)
0.479:(2)
0.566 (3)
C3
0.418 (2)
0.451 (3)
0.600 (3)
0.634 (2)
0.644 (4)
0.618 (3)
0.651 (4)
0.606 (4)
C4
0.505 (1)
0.433 (2)
0.536 (1)
0.663 (3)
0.578 (74
0.672 (4)
0.503 (3)
0.548 (2)
C5
0.488 ()
0..540
0.755
80.834
$0,827
0.813
0.723 a)
0.727
C6
OAS (3)
PALM
0.676
..94
121
-....
.44141
9 721
Ota
t (I)
2,22
,
0.448
0.463
0,625
0.695
368
608
708
158
AUES33331
Grade 13
;rade 6
gnidey
Grade 12
#nd Dp
*R
RIf
a
0.664
0.670
0.593
0.609
95
121
14
129
School
Special
Adminis
Services
*etc
hers
ari
rMas
,ni1
'415
a15
a15
a
Al
0,397 (1)
0.411(1)
0.605 (1)
0.649 (1)
0.617 (1)
0.677 (1)
0.500 (1)
0.598 (1)
A2
0.461 (3)
0.546 (2)
0.727 (3)
0.792 (3)
0.803 a)
0.806
0.660 (3)
0.694 (3)
A3
0.436 (2)
0.583 0
0.779 (0
0.851 (4)
0.785 (3)
0.842
0.773 (I)
0.740 a)
A4
0.469
0.507 (3)
0.690 (2)
0.756 (I)
0.640 (2)
0.698 (2)
0.536 (2)
0.658 (2)
AS
Rat
1112 (A)
ZIA (1)
SIANt 0)
Int (i)
WIE (3)
2A121 0
167.22 (i)
0.450
0.531
0,720
6,787
368
608
-708
158
*bra'HAvArage discrepancy
R 4.= Rank order of discrepaaty; high
rank
most important
Dagimeb
9/6/67
78
0.729
0.762
0 634
0.679
95
121
14
129
novo iNf PACS CENTEL
April '8, 1967
APP
EN
D=
TA
BL
E I
IIffina.il.filiik.NEL
can Diserepantie
(5)
am Cognitive and Affective -- Analysis by Taxonomic Level
MS=
Aill
A11
opublic
Marin
Sonoma
Solana
baps
Public
Sectaries
Lev
elM
aT
ios.
was
tsl
umR
oast
Cou
nty
awl
sobo
oje
wel
s*
**
INR
IfR
*V
x*
ITR
5R
*5R
*5
RV
R
Cl
0.459 (1)
0.482 (1)
0.431 (1)
0.494 (1)
0.476 (1)
0.539 (1)
0.464 (1)
0.507 (1)
C2
0,531 (4)
0.582'(4)
0.539 (4)
0.577 (4)
0,525 (4)
0.621 (4)
0.545 (4)
0.619 (3)
00.524 (3)
0.548 (3)
0.526 (2)
0.548 (3)
0.523 (3)
0.562 (2)
0.525 (3)
0.579 (2)
C4
0.493 (2)
0.547 (2)
0.527 (3)
0.513 (2)
0.505 (2)
0.563 (3)
0.518 (2)
0.547
C5
0.615
60.704
0.650
0.677
g)
0,649 (I)
0.696 (!)
0.644
0.747
C6
9A172
0 644
060k
MA
)12
2. Q
) M
N (
I)L
a%11
02.(
4)5
0.532
0.585
0.546
0.572
0.546
0c603
0.550
0.609
N1017
1190
810
688
445
260
1841
IAA
ell
Oak
seL
.alts
,if
RN
a
Mg
r&A
llA
llN
on-p
ublic
Mar
inSo
nom
aSo
lano
Napa
Public
Sectarian
Count,
Comma
CouPtY
fantX
Schools
.pcblols
*V
R*V
R*N
R13
R*5
aIF
R
Al
0.485 (1)
0.561 ( .)
0.520 (1)
0.341 1.1)
0.485 (1)
0.580 (1)
0.522 (1)
0.546 (1)
A2
0.595 (3)
0.687 (3)
0.637 (3)
0.639 (3
0.623 (3)
0.718 (3)
0,631 (3)
0.705 (3)
A3
0.639 (6)
0.713 (I)
0.654
0,691
0.676 (!)
0.730 (5)
0,666 (3)
0.740 (9
A4
0.573 (2)
0.632 (2)
0.589 (2
0.618
80.
589
(2)
0.649 (2)
0.591 (2)
1.678 (2)
AS
1.02. (I)
.11411.0
1.0.
72L
IMIl
la 0
.942
N. (
rsW
U C
O94
141
al0,
no
0.66
51.
017
1190
alas
: INM
PO
SO
NN
ISIll
rew
iliftl
amoi
lPIO
K
*3,,
Averige discrepancy
RRank order of
dise
repA
sx;
high rank w most important need
DHX/Imab
9171
67
0.615
0.643
0.606
0.687
0.61.7
0.695
819
688
445
268
1141
346
79
NO
UN
BA
Y P
AC
E C
EN
TE
RA
pril
28, 1
967
Mer
.A.N
MM
Mea
n D
iscr
epan
cies
(5)
-ft
e C
ogni
tive
and
Aff
ectiv
eA
naly
sis
by T
axon
adc
Lav
e
Cen
tral
Nou
s la
psC
ityR
R*5
R
Cl
0.55
2 (2
)02
0.61
1 (4
)C
30.
568
(3)
C4
0.55
0 (1
)C
50.
664
0622
§Z.
Ile0.
535
N15
2
Lev
elm
.*a
. 0R
Al
0.45
32 (
1)A
20,
690
(3)
A3
0.72
8A
40.
674
A5
2A la
D 0
.663
N15
2
0.42
7 (1
)0.
517
(1)
0.45
5it)
0.57
0 (4
)0.
614
0.55
7 (3
)
0.53
7 (3
)0.
544
(2)
.112
2 (4
)0.
676
.0,
584
()0.
703
28
0.52
80.
594
110
14C
Cen
tral
Ron
a -Fas
o.*
R*5
R
0.48
8 (
)0.
585
(1)
0.61
5 (3
)0.
678
(3)
0.61
60.
712
0.60
40.
646
(_6
62E
tzu
co0,
597
0.66
711
014
8
Ave
rage
Dis
crep
ancy
is R
ank
orde
r of
dis
crep
ancy
; hig
h ra
nk-
NO
MK
hob
9/7/
67
Non
Cen
tral
tAcv
*u
R
0.45
5 (1
)0.
557
(4)
0.54
7 (3
)0.
533
(2)
0.67
1 aj
0.62
0 (5
30.
564
1067
Oth
er
R
0.47
9 (1
)0.
540
(4)
0.52
0 (V
0.49
6 (2
)0.
657
0.54
?73
8
Non
oCce
imal
rban
**
k13
R
0.53
0 (1
)0.
515
(1)
0.65
4 (3
)0.
620
(3)
0.67
6 (y
)0.
678
iJ0.
605
(2)
0.58
3 (2
)9A
Za
(1)
0.63
40.
617
1067
738
t im
port
ant n
eed
80
APP
EN
DIX
1P
TA
BL
E X
II
Ver
yG
ood
Poor
Ver
yfp
pr il
ok,
**
RR
1R
R
0.33
1 (1
)0.
452
(1)
0.61
2 (1
)0.
614
(2)
0.45
3 (3
)0.
541
(4)
0.66
2 (4
)0.
702
(4)
0.44
4 (2
)0.
515
(3)
0.66
0 (3
)0.
651
a0.
455
(4)
0.50
2 (2
)0.
636
(2)
0.59
01
otIn
giO
ttit
e)9
t752
Q)
italli
0.49
90,
644
CID
0A:1
3 O
p0.
7o)
0.44
00.
541
0.68
90.
680
219
1509
387
62
Ver
yG
ood
job
0.37
2 (1
)0.
479
0.46
60.
442
0409
0.45
421
9
(3)
Goo
dPo
orap
it.*5
R*
Va
0.50
6 (1
)0.
692
(1)
0,61
7 (3
)0.
827
(3)
0.65
60.
875
®0.
581
( )
0.77
0 (2
).2
L(3
)
0.60
50.
815
1509
387
Vitt
WiL
lok R
0.57
4 (1
)0.
714
(2)
0.73
2 (3
)0.
741
galla
0.72
4 62
Description of Bloomia Taxonomyof Educational Objectives
81
.111...1.5!..
Description of Kam's gl.....22.,...atortoraof Educational Ob iectives
Bloom's Taxonomy was prepared to provide a means for classifyingtypes of responses specified as desirable outcomes of education. Theobjectives are stated in behavioral terms and placed in a logical scheme.Attention is given to definitions of categorical, sample objectives andillustrative test items which would be useful in specifying ohjectivess,plannins inutructicne, planning evaluation, and doing research.
Each of the Learning Goals on the opinionnaire is related to theTaxonomy of Educational Objectives and includes both the Cognitive andAffective domains. An attempt was made to directly key the LearningGoals to the six levels of the .Cognitive domain and to the five levels
of the Affective domain. This proved to be a difficult task since itis frequently hard to separate the purely intellectual from the omen*tially emotional components of Learning Goals.
The Affective and Cognitive levels of the Taxonomy are summarizedbelow:
-COGNITIVE DOMAIN.,
Ovanizing Principle: Categories arranged according to level ofcomplexity with each category dependent on preceding one(s); perritclassification Of all types of objectives; neutral in the sense thatall types can be included ranging from indoctrination to free and openinquiry.
pateoriu4
I. Knowlsw Specific terms and facts, conventions, trends,classification and categories, criteria, methodologies,principles end generalizations, theories and stLucture;deals primarily with memory ,:nd recall.Example: Knows economic ft,r;.ors contributing to increasinginterdependence cf world's people.
II. Comprehension: Translation from one level of abstraction toanother, from one symbolic form to another, from one verbalform to another; interpretation by relating parts, reorderingideas, making qualifications, and reorganiiing essentials;extrapolation by extension to past and future. situations.Example: Expresses metaphors and other nonftliteral statementsin own words. Differentiates facts and opinions, value judgemeats and predicted outcomes.
82
APPENDEIC G
III. Apaictolon Terms and concepts, generalisations, laws, modelscriteria.Example: Uses concepts of civil liberties in disimadion ofintergroup problems.
IV. hilskysis: Elemencs, relatOnships, organisational principles,Example: Identifies assumptions; detecte logical fallacies;recognizes bias.
Pynthes;s: Unique communication, a plan or net of operations,a set of abstract relations.Example: Formulaws hypotheses or questions based on analysisof related factors.
Aliamagg: Judgmonts in terms of internal evidence, juitmentsin terms of external criteria.Example: Formulates and uses criteria to assess validity ofpropositions.
NOWEITLEMWauggalmatadds: Categories arranged in hierarchical, order
in terms of degree of psychological internalisation as part of thesocialization process.
gaSMEitE
,Receiviss (Attending) : Awareness, willingness to receive,controlled attention.Example; Notice o examples of incidents involving -:es, ectfor freedom of :speech.
T.I. jemealw Acquiescence in responding (compliance),willingness to respond, satisfaction in responding,Example: Searches for material on freedom of speech;debates issues with others.
III. yaluiv: Acceptance of a value, preference of a value,commitmeht (conviction).Example: Eacourages freedom of expression; practices anddefends frcelom of speech.
83
G
IV, Orsaaizatj,opt Conceptualization of a value, organic ationof a value system*Example: Defends ar:umptions underlying freedom of speech.
Y. Characterisation kxjyaluaLlitilmpasple4: Generalizedset, characterization,Example! Makes and revises judgments to the basis ofprinciples inherent in a consistent philosophy of life.
IIII*000..00.01010110111100.411.110000111104
18loom, Benjamin S. (MO T , tab yesHandbook It CgajaasA2BAW New York: David McKay, 1956*
2Kratwohl, David ho Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Neale.tapAserx rtd(ucttionotAltsaye, Handbook II: Afikettve. DojEttnoNew York: David McKay, 1964*
DHK/cd9/7167
84
C _ !.;
LEARNING GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE(Curriculum Need Study #1)
Note: Page numbers of Questionnaire do not follow page numb rsof the remainder of this report.
The next 17 pages of this Appendix should be numbered86 through 102.
MK /,din
9/15/67
85
NORTH BAY
PACE
PEN OD MOSSDirector
NTER
1834 FIRST STREET NAPA, CALIFORNIA .94558
707 255-2883
"Projects to Advance Creativity in Education"
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF EDUCATIONAL GOALS IN OUR AREA?
(STUDY #1)
This questionnaire is part of a continuing effort to improveeducation in Napa, Solano, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Theinformation will be used to help us:
Identify important educational needs, and
Decide some priorities for new educationalprograms.
Your answers will be combined with the answers of many otherpersons in each county. Therefore, please do not sign yourname.
Please answer each question so that your opinion can be givenits full value.
We look forward to sharing the results of this study with you.
Thank you for participating.
MARIN NAPA SOLANO SONOMA
I
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF EDUCATIONAL GOALS IN OUR AREA?
(Stud #1)
GENERAL INFORMATION
or A #County
District 7 -
School 9-11
School Type
R Type
Years of Education Completed 14-15
Age (nearest birthday) 1647
Sex 18
SEL 19
CEO 20
GROUP21
# Citildrin who have not started school 22
# Children. in .school 23
# Children in college 24
# Children no longer in school 25
Ethnic 26
Are our schools generally doing: 27
1. A very good job2. A poll job3. A poor job4. A very poor job
WH
AT
ISYOUR ORINION ABOUT EDUCATIONAL
GOALS IN OUR ABEL?
(STUDY #1)
DIRECTIONS
#A
In Column I below are many
kinds of learning goals forstudents.
In Column II please checkhow mwmhylatthink schools NOW
teach or help students
learn the things in Column I.
In Column III pleagcs, checkhow much
think schools SHOULD teach or help
students
learn the things in Column I.
COLUMN I
Some Student
LEARNING GOALS are:
Knowing that specific
information can
be found in reference books.
-.11
1011
1111
Being able to recognize highquality
in stories.
Knowing there is more
than one number
system.
4.
Being able to
select a book based on
good literary
standards.
Msl
iNN
IMO
NN
IMM
EN
1111
1101
1011
0111
11IP
OM
MO
N. V
EM
OIIN
NIM
IIIII1
1111
0IN
I
Finding pleasure in doingwork.
AllO
rMU
MM
IMIN
NO
NIIN
II
COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach or
students learn the things
Column I?
helpin
To A
Very
Great
Extent
To
,
Nb
Extent
1
ToSome
Extent
'
To A
_Great
Extent
.101
1111
1110
1101
COLUMN III
III
SHOULD schools teach or heip
students learn the things in
Column I?
To. A
To
To A
Very
Some
Great
Great
Extent
Extent
Extent
1111
1111
1111
NO
W11
1617
1,11
1WA
SIO
NO
M11
.
COLUMN I
frA-
COLUMN TI
Do Schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
MUNN III
SHOULD schcbols teach or help
students :te= the things in
Column I?
Some Student
LEARNING GOALS are:
To A
Great
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
10.
Having the skill to use different
methods to solve problems.
11.
Wanting to explore new forms of
art.
12.
Knowing the earth has physical
features.
13.
Accepting the importance of law
in our daily life.
-3- COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
Some Student
LEARNING GOALS are:
ToNo
Extent
To
Some
Extent
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I
To A,
Very
Great
Extent
To
No
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To A
Very
Great.
Extent
14.
Being able to determine if a
berl;enc6 is written correctly.
1!;.
&toying about the different
viewpoints of art.
Being able to read simple music,
Learning the relationship of diet,
exercise and rest to good health.
1S.
Peing able to organize a family
budget.
19.
Knowing why different
are spoken.
20.
Identifying different
the arts,
21,
Bei
x
languages
styles in
able to read a map.
AIP
PIR
IPP
OIN
IPP
IPIF
FP
WIL
Mw
mpa
pom
polli
r
COMM I
-4- COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
ToNo
Extent
ToSome
,octent
To A
Great
Extent
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
To A
Very
Great
Extent
To
To
No
Some
Extent
Extent
To .A
Great
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
22.
Being able to identify laws of
most help to our country.
23.
Being able to judge types of
music.
24.
Preparing food for n family.
25.
Knowing that people in other lands
have contributed tc how we live.
26.
Identifying rein
facts in
story.
27.
Knowing the basic rules for physical
fitness.
28.
Being able to add, subtract, multiply
and divide numbers.
29.
Knowing how the past has affected
our way of life.
5.
CO
LU
IN I
1/11
1.11
1.;a
triA
100.
..11M
MI
COLUMN II
Do schools
i teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
4111.-TTo A
To A
Very
Great
Great
Extent
Extent
ToNo
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To A
To A
Very
Great
Gredt
Extent
Extent
To
To
No
Some
Extent
Extent
1
30.
Enjoying work with clay.
31.
Knowing the parts of the body,
AI"
32.
Elvressing clearlyone's potmL
of view.
33.
Understanding the Conotitution
of the United States.
34.
Planning a good physical exercise
activity.
35.
Applying number skills in solving
problems of everyday life.
36.
Appreciating man.i styles of
writing.
Forming judgments about art
forms.
Some Student
LEARNING GCALS are:
-6- COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
COLUMN I?
ITo
A
Ext
ent
Ext
ent
Ext
ent
Ext
ent
Som
eT
o A
jVer
yGreat
Great
To
To
IMM
IP11
1311
ItillO
W
38.
Knowing how our government
is supported.
39.
Knowing the importance
ofEnglish grammaI:.
1.---
40.
Respecting the value of good
health habits.
41.
Desiring
tIse mathematics
effectively.
[42,
Applying standards or rules of design
..
and quality in selecting things you use.
143.
Learnimg tc
rIt4fy rilistilty in art
vorks,
a
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools teach or help
.......
students learn the things in
Column I?
To
AT
oITo
ToA
Very
No
Some
Great
Great
Ext
ent
Ext
ent
Ext
ent
Ext
ent
1H
avin
g a
larg
e sp
eaki
ng v
ocab
ular
y.
Using the scieatific method in
problem solving.
COOT I
COLUMN II
COLUMN III
Do schools NOR teach or help
SHOULD schools teach or 170.T
.........
students learn the things in
students learn the thingi in
Column I?
Column I?
Some Stadent
LEARNING GOALS are:
m .^
..-
No
Extent
1 To
1Some
Extent
To A
Great
Extent.
Tod
Very
Great
Extent
ToNo
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To A
Great
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
46.
Knowing the value of physical
fitness in daily life.
47.
Understanding the use of color
in art,
48.
Planning a budget for own
use.
49,
Being aware of good health
habits.
50.
Changing behavior from ideas
learned through reading.
111111111
51.
Being able ti, plan or map out
a trip aarse the country.
111111111
52.
Knowing major periods of
history.
11111111111111111
53.
Learning how to manage money.
111111111111111111
-8.
-110
1111
1IM
IIIIR
COLINN I
COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
IEI
COL+iN
1SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the things in
Column T?
Some Sttdent
MANNING GOALS are:
To
No
Extent
To
A:0 A
Some
Great
Extent i Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
I
54.
Being able to tell othersabout
what one reads in a newspaper.
I
55.
Being aware of beauty in
sculpture.
ToNo Lat
ent
ToSome
Extent
To
AGreat
Extent
56.
Cooperating with the law.
57.
Identifying the things in the past
that benefit our way of life.
58.
Willing to follow the rules of
grammar in speaking & writing.
59.
Being aware of the variety of
living things.
60.
Being able to nompare different
economic systems.
61.
Wanting to solve mathematical
probl mns without help.
COLUMN i
Som
eStudent
LEAREING GOALS are:
62.
Being able to diagram a
sentence.
.9..
COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the thinga in
Column I?
63.
Knowing how oceans and physical
features of the earth change climate.
64.
Being able to make
sound judgments
about political issues.
65.
Being able to take part in sports
activities for enjoyment.
66.
Using information
from the past to
solve problems of today.
67.
OrganiziNii ideas and statements
while speaking.
68.
Understanding a simple foreign
phrase.
69.
Worktng with simple tools to produce
a product of some kind.
To
4 NoExtent
To
To A
Some
Great
Extent
Exten
.To A
Very
Great
Extent
To
NoExtent
To
To A
Some
Great
Extent
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
COLUMN!.
-10- COLUOI II
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Coln I?
Some Student
LEARNING GOALS are:
To A
treat
Extent
COMM Ill
SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
To A
Very
Great
Extent
ToNo
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To A
Great
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
70.
Spending money wisely.
71.
Enjoying the expression
of ideas
in w
ritin
g.
72.
Believiug the scientificmethod can
solve problems.
73.
Being able to identify
those things
in art that give pleasure.
77.
Applying good health habits.
-11- COLUKN 11
Do schools BOW teach or help
students learn the things in
Column 1?
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools teach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
To
No
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To A
Great
Extent
To A
Very
To
Great
No
Extent i
Extent
To
To A
Some
Great
Extent
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
mum
IID
osh
oals
Now
teac
h or
help
gt4iints learn the things in
Column I?
cam III
SHOULD schools teach or help
hitudents, learn the things in
Coin I?
To
Som
eE
x-ce
nt
To A
Great
Extent
To
A.wry
Great
Extent
ToNo
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To
AG
reat
Ext
ent
To
AV
ery
Gre
atE
xten
t
86.
Bei
ng c
irio
us a
bout
any
thin
g an
dev
eryt
hing
.
87.
Dis
cove
ring
dif
fere
nt w
ays
to s
olve
mat
hem
atic
al p
robl
ems.
90.
Eva
luat
ing
wor
k ba
sed
upon
sta
ndar
dsof
a tr
ade
or p
rofe
ssio
n.
-13-
COLUMN II
Do schools NOW teach orhelp
students learn the things in
Column I?
To
NoExtent
To
To A
Some
Great
Extent
Extent
COLUMN III
MOULD schools teach orhelp
1....
...11
1111
111M
IP
students learn the things in
Column I?
To A
Very
Great
Extent
To No
Extent
ToSome
Extent
To A
Great
Extent
oA
Very
Great
Extent
94.
Playing a musical score with a
musical instrument.
95.
Identifying those things desired
in a home.
96.
Understanding the differences in art
forms; arch as painting, music, etc.
97.
choosing the best grammatical usage.
98.
Using principles of public speaking.
99.
Appreciating foreign languages.
101.
Being able to spell basic words.
ow.I.
N.w
ww
sba.
-.4e
amor
mW
COLUMN /I
Do schools NOW teach or help
students learn the things In
Column I?
To
To
No
Some
Extent
Extent
iNE
MIS
ilam
kIM
IIM r
m.(
"'.-
.1rW
To
AGreat
Extent
Ta
AVery
Great
Extent
COLUMN III
SHOULD schools Leach or help
students learn the things in
Column I?
To
NoExtent
To
Some
Extent
To
AG
rept
Extent
To
AVery
Great
Extent
MI=
elfa
cor
-15-
COLUMN I
Do schools
students
COLUMN
NOW
II
teach
or h
elp
the things in
I?
COLUMN
SHOULD schools
III
teach or help
the things in
I?
learn
Column
students learn
Column
Some Student
LEARNING GOALS are:
To
No
Extent
To
To A
Some
Great
Extent
Extent
To A
Very
Great
Extent
ToNo
Extent
To
Some
Extent
To
ACreat
Extant
To A
Ver
yGreat
Extent
......
........
110.
Being able to explain the rules
of punctuation.
ill.
Wanting to be physically fit.
112.
Desiring the ability to spell
correctly.
113.
Being aware of the fine arts.
114.
Bec
omin
g fa
mili
ar w
ith d
iffe
rent
types GI fond.
1
_
5.
Knowing what makes writing
interesting.
116.
Expressing ideas using drawing, amsic,
painting, clay, etc.
117.
Wanting always to speak and
wri
teeffectively.
....................
1-........A.......
1
NB
PAC
E:c
iet:1
/267
:R
evis
ed 2
/13/
67
PPENDIX I
ITEM ANALYSIS OF LEARNING GOALSFOR
CURRICULUM NEED /DENT/FICATION STUDY (STUDY #1)
Note: The next four pages of this Appendix should be
numbered 104 through 107.
103
NORTH BAY PACE CENTER1834 Pirst StreetNapa, California
CURRICULUM NEEDjimmasizial STUDY STUDY #1ITEM ANALYSIS OF LEARNING GOA
The percentages in 2ba attached table were computed on an ISM 7040-7094 at
the University of California Computer Center through a cooperative arrangement
with the data-processing center of the c"Ice of the Sonoma County Superin-
tendent of Schools funded under an ESEA, Title III grant. The Berkeley
STATPAK program CRTB (Cross Tab) was used. This program generates an E. x C
matrix and prints the N, Zvi, and sigma for each variable as well as chi-
square and associated df for the matrix.
Each learnins goal is evaluated in terms of four possible levels of current
status ("To what extent do schools now teach or help students learn these
psis") and four possiblelevels of desirable status ("To what extent phould
schools teach or help students learn these goals"). For each of the 11'.
learning goals in the questionnaire a 4 x 4 matrix was generated by CRTI,
which computed the number of respondents and the associated percentages for
each of the 16 cells in the table.
Each table yielded a statistically aignficant chi-square with probabilities
less than P1(0.0001. This indicates that on a question-by-question basis
there is a high degree of satisfaction with the existing educational program,
as defined by these 117 learning goals, although the level of this satisfac-
tion varies somewhat from question to question. By studying the column headed
"Z Zero Discrepancy" one can observe the extent of complete satisfaction for
each learning goal.
A "small" discrepancy refers to a difference of one point on the four-point
rating sealet a "Vedive discrepancy is two points on the scale; a "Large
discrepancy is a three-point difference, the largest possible.
A separate code sheet shows a complete description of each learning goal
and Its taxonomic cisaription accordiaa to Bloom's taxonomy, as well as the
subject and curriculum area each goal was designed to sample.
NBPACE:DHK,.cel5/29/67
1 47.62 41.2
3 52.74 37.1
5 25.961.4
7 25.724.230.4
10 33.9
11 40.912 60.5
13 34.314 46.015 44.316 49.7
17 41.618 29.319 43.620 47.921 47.922 29.523 49.124 47.625 49.126 50.727 59.028 61.8
29 48.430 59.031 48.9
32 26.1
33 39.834 46.814 40.3
36 43.437 46.538 1 35.3
NORTH BAT PACE CENTER1834 First StreetNapa, California
Page 1 of 3
CURRICULUM NEED IDI VICATISILmpLimugy
ITEM ANAL 'S IS
4""" More Emphasis LOOS Emphasis
% SmallDiscrep-
ancy(More)
% Md.Discrep-
ancy(More
24 Large
Eiscrepauc7Mona
Z Total 1Z Small Z Med. Z LargeDiscrep-1Discrep- Discrep- Discrep-
ancy ancy ancy ancy.11..a$112.11.4 .(Less)
36.6 8.9 0,4 45.9
37.5 113 1.3 50.1
29.0 5.8 0.8 35.638.3 14.5 163 54.137.4 23.1 9.0 69.524.5 3.6 0.9 29.0
46.8 20.2 4.0 p1.0
40.9 24.3 7.2 ?2.4
42.0 18,3 5.0 65.3
41.2 16.3 2.6 60.1
37.2 12.4 4.2 3.822.9 4.7 0.6 :1:8.2
39.6 17.8 3.2 60.6
34.5 7.5 0.6 42.6
37.1 9.6 2.7 49.434.3 7.6 2.3 44.2
38.5 11.8 2.7 .3.040.3 20.3 7.1 67.7
38.3 10.6 3.2 !)2.1
34.8 8.9 2.9 46.6
36.8 6.4 2.0 47.2
48.9 15.6 2.5 67.0
35,4 8.6 1,9 45.9
35.0 10.3 2.9 48.2
34.8 8.9 1.6 45.3
33.4 5.7 0.5 40.6
22.3 3.9 0.9 27.124.6 5.9 0.6 31.1
31.7 9.5 1.8 43.0
27.3 4.0 2.4 33.7
36.3 8,,8 1.3 46.4
40.9 25.0 5.0 70.9
38.3. 15.7 2.5 56.3
34.0 9.8 2.1 45.939.0 12.2 3.0 54.2
37.6 10.5 2.3 50.4
34.4 9.3 3.5 47.2
44.6 14.3 1.7 60.6
5.8 0.4 0,27.2 0.9 0.2
10.1 1.4 0.17.0 1.1 0.4
3.1 0.6 0.47.8 1.3 0 «3
2.7 0.3 0.02.8 0.3 0.23.4 0.3 0.34.5 0.9 0.14.7 0.4 0.010.0 1.1 0.04.0 0.5 0.49.3 1.3 0.45.4 0.4 0.05.0 0.9 0.1
4.3 0.6 0.12.5 0.3 0.13.7 0.5 0.15.5 0.1 0 04.2 0.7 0.23.0 0.2 0.24.7 0.5 0.03.4 0.6 0.24.7 0.7 0.18.4 1.0 0.0
9.3 4.1 0.55.2 1.3 0.4
7.1 I.% 0.26.2 0.7 0.14.0 0.6 0,1
2.4, 0.4 0.14.0 0.4 0.15.7 1.4 0.2
4.7 0.3 0.05.2 0.8 0.25.6 0.4 0.0
3.8 0.1 0.0
% TotalDiscrep-
ancy
iloess)
6.48.3
11.58.54.19.43.03.34.05.55.1
3.1.1
4.911.05.86.05.02.94.35.65.13.45.24.25.59,4
13.96.78.57.04.7
2.94.57.35.26.26.03,9
iirtauftWir*
99.
99.99.
99.
99.99.
99.99.
99.9e.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.99.
991CO.IC01CO.S9.
'Co.10099.
99.
99.
99.
100.
9999
100,
991009999
saranGoal
394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980
ZeroDiscrep
an
44.,9
38.840.637.245.432.940.5426454.131.341.040.040.452.027.442.243.436.145.345.650.337.336.947.456.827.251.639.130.148.244.424.240.749.146.453.548.036.041.741.855.150.0
Page 2 of 3
CURRICULUM NEED IDENTIFICATION STUDLIM101
ITEM ANALYSIS
X SmallDiscrep-
ancyMore
33.542.139.141,635.537.43/.339.332.042.141.439.741.329.938.841.539.040.537.d33.832.841.139.723.430.440.830.540.640.233.637.443.840.334.543.629.6
33.740.138.940.730.231.5
More Emphasis
X NW.Discrep-
ancy
9.912.411.813.110.420.412.1.
10.45.9
17.511.312.311.65.9
22.69.7
10.315.29.09.69.1
13.312.75.74.522.07.5
12.821.48,5
10.921.311.27.0
10.36.97.4
16.412.610.66.57.0
LargeDiscrep-ancyMore
1.2
2.03.43.1.
3.32.41.91.85,91.62.23.30.78.21.83.43.21.31.4
2.73.81.00.65.81.42.94.11.62.48.12,11.03.02.11.82.72.31.91.81.0
*"'°"*"."1"4 ' Less Emphasis
TotalDiscrep-
ancymks g)
44.656.252.958.149.051.151.851.639.765.554.354.256.2
36.569.6
53.052.758.948.144.8
41.2*57,156.230.135.568.639.456.365.743.750.773.253.642.547.538.644.159.253.653.238.539.5
X SmallDiscrep -
ancy
QM)
X Med.Discrep-
ancyLess
LargeDiecrep
ancy.
Less
8.0 1.9 0.4
4.1 0.5 0.1
5.1 0.8 0.13.9 0.6 0.1
5.1 0.4 0.04.5 1.0 0.1
6.1 1.0 0.34.9 1.0 0.2
5.3 0.6 0.0
2.5 0.4 0.0
4.1 0.4 0.0
4.6 0.6 0.1
2.6 0.5 0.18.8 2.0 0.51.9 0.44.4 0.4 0.13.6 0.2 0.0
3.4 1 0 0.35.8 0.i 0.2
7.5 1.3
5.9 0.5 0.14.6 0.3 0.3
4.9 1.2. 0.5
17.5 4.1 0.56.9 0.5 0.116
3.4 0.3 0.06.4 1.6 0.3
3.8 0.6 0.1
3.4 0.6 0.0
6.6 1.0 0.3
3.8 0.5 0.3
2.2 0.3 0.04.6 0.8 0.1
7.0 1.2 0.1
5.2 0.6 0.1
6,8 0.9 0.102 1.2 0.1
3.5 0.7 0.1
3.4 0.9 0.1
4.3 0.4 0.0
5.5 0.8 0.0
8.4 1.6 0.3
2 Total- Discrep-
ancy CheckLess (2)
10.3 99.84.7 99.76.0 99.54.6 99.95.6 100.05.6 99.67.4 99.7
6.1 100.15.9 99.7
2.9 99.74.5 99.8
5.3 99.53.2 99.8
11.3 :99.82.5 99.54,9 100.1
3.8 99.9
4.7 99.7
6.7 100.1
9.1 99.5
6.5 100.0
3.2 99.t
6.6 99.7
22.1 99.47.5 99.4
3.7 1 99.1
8.5 99.5
4.5 99.5
4.0 99.f
7.c 99.1
4.6 99.7
2.5 99.5
5.5 99.1
8.3 99.i
5.9 99.1
7.8 99.1
8.5 100..
4.4 99.
4.4 99.
4.7 99.
6.3 99,
10.3 99.
81828384858687888990919293949!96979899
10010110210310410510610710810911011111211.3
114115116117
2 ZeroDisc rep
44.239.235.845.848.335.645.742.730438.347.445.352.857.548.649.746.938,446.334.749.742.345.648.052.937.648.246.346.446,444.045.847.250.740.641.637,0
NAPACR:DHE:cel5/29/67
Pap: 3 of 3
CURRICULUM NEED IDENTIFICATION STUD......_1.A§.,..,.,.jTUDT
ITEM .NA! YSIS
SmallDiscrep-
anCy
More Imphasis.....-'"
2 Med. x LargeDisci ep- Discrep-
ancy anyMori1.1142,t2L.
38.4 10.4 1.8
40.1 14.2 3.0
37.9 17.2 5.0
33.7. 10.8 1.6
35.4 6.8 3.1
37.9 17.4 4.8
36.0 8.4 1.039.3 10.6 2.2
33.5 6.1 1.4
42.1 12.8 2.8
34.3 8.4 1.0
32.4 11.3 3.1
27.2 6.8 1.9
28.8 5.1 1.5
34.1 10.0 2,9
32.8 9.0 2.5
33.9 8.4 1.340.0 13.4 2.6
32.7 10.0 2.5
41.2 16.2 4.3
32.1 10.0 1.3
39,2 9.5 1.7
35.3 10.0 3.4
34.9 10.4 1.6
30.2 6.4 1.338.6 14.6 4.9
33.1 9,1 3.5
33.4 11.3 1.7
33.7 10.4 2.2
31.7 6.3 1.434.6 114 2.6
36.6 10.6 1.3
31.2 11.4 4.0
33.3 8.7 2.7
39.8 11.1 2.7
33.1 15.2 4.9
38.1 17.7 3.6
2 TotalDiscrep-
ancy(Mbra
50.657.360.146.145.360.145.452.141.057.743.746.835.935.447.044,343.656,045.261.743,350.448.146.937.958.145.746.446.339.948.848.546,644.7
53.653.259.4
SmallDscrep-
ancyLess
Less Emphasis
Md.Discrep-
ancyLess
2 LargeDiscrep-
ancy(Leas
2 TotalDiscrep-
ancy Check
tees) (2)
4.1 0.7 0.2 5.0
3.1 0.4 0.0 3.5
3.5 0.4 0.2 44,1
6.2 1.7 0.2 8.1
5.2 0.7 0.4 6.3
3.7 0.5 0.0 4.2
7.4 1,0 0.2 8.6
4,5 0.4 0.1 5.0
7.2 1.4 0.4 9.0
3.2. 0.5 0.2 3.9
7.6 1.0 0.1 8.7
6.5 0,9 0.4 7.8
8.6 1.8 0.8 11.2
6.3 0.6 0.3 7.2
4.1 0.3 0.1 4.5
5.3 O.? 0.0 6.0
7.9 10; 0.2 9,5
4.6 0.6 0.4 5.6
6.7 0.5 8,3
3.2 0.4 0.1 3.7
5.6 1,0 0.3 6.9
6.6 0.5 0.1 7.2
5.1 0.4 0.2 5,7
4.1 0.7 0.2 5.0
7.6 1.1 0.4 9.1
3.4 0.6 0.2 4.2
5.2 0.7 0.1 6.0
5.8 1.2 0.3 7.3
6.2 0.8 0.3 7.3
9.8 X.5 0.4 11.75.4 1.4 0.3 7.1
4.6 0.8 0.3 5 5
5.3 0.6 0.2 6.3.
3.8 0.3 0.2 4.3
5.0 0.6 0.2 5.8
4.6 0.5 0.0 5.1
3.8 0.6 0.1 4.5
99.8100.01004100.099499.199.799.f
100.099.599.f
99.99.
100.100,
100.100.(
100.199.1
100.:
99.'
99.'
00.1
99.'
99.'
99.99.
100.
100.100499.
99.
99.99,
100.99.
100.