A COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' ATTITUDES

AND GARMENT CONSTRUCTION SCORES UNDER

TWO METHODS OF EVALUATION

by

JANET LYNN SCHULTZE WHEATLEY, B.S. in H.E.

A THESIS

IN

HOME ECONOMICS EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

HOME ECONOMICS

Approved

Accepted

December, 1977

fa^^

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researcher wishes to express sincere apprecia­

tion to Dr. Merrilyn Cummings for her professional

guidance and encouragement throughout the study. Ap­

preciation is also expressed to Dr. Valerie M. Chamberlain

and Dr. Patricia E. Horridga for their interest and help­

ful suggestions. In addition, I wish to thank my husband,

Jamas Gregory Whaatlay, for his support and understanding

in this endeavor.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Purposes of the Study 5

Hypotheses 7

Scope and Limitations 8

Definition of Terms 9

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11

Clothing Construction 11

Trends in Clothing Construction 11

Reasons People Sew 13

Trends in Sewing Aids 16

Clothing Construction in Educational

Programs 19

Educational Evaluation 22

Evaluation Defined 22

Objectives and Evaluation 23

Purposes of Evaluation 25

Characteristics of Good Evaluation. . . . 26

111

Characteristics of Good Evaluation

Instruments 28

Self-Evaluation 29

Non-Tasting Devices for Laboratory

Self-Evaluation 31

Attitudes 34

Definitions of Attitudes 34

Characteristics of Attitudes 35

Methods of Attitude Assessment 37

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY. . . . 40

Development of Evaluation Instruments . . 40

Attitude Scale 40

Scorecard for Garment Evaluation. . . . 44

Selection and Description of the Sample . 48

Collection of Data ^^

Treatment of Data 51

IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA . . . . 53

Hypotheses Examined and Discussed . . . . 54

Hypothesis 1 ^^

Hypothesis 2 •^

Hypothesis 3 ^"

Hypothesis 4 ^"

Hypothesis 5 ^^

Hypothesis 6 60

Hypothesis 7 ^^

Hypothesis 8 ^^

iv

Summary 65

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 67

Summary of the Study 67

Evaluation Instruments 68

Data Analysis 70

Findings of the Study 70

Conclusions 72

Recommendations for Further Study 75

LIST OF REFERENCES 77

APPENDIX 81

A. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TEACHERS 82

B. FORM A - GARMENT SCORECARD 83

C. FORM B - GARMENT SCORECARD 88

D. TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS 94

E. ATTITUDE SCALE 95

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Difference Between the Mean Pre-Test Attitude Scores of Students in Groups A and B 55

2. Difference Between the Mean Post-Test Attitude Scores of Students in Groups A and B 57

3. Differences Between the Mean Pre-Test Attitude Scores and Post-Test Attitude Scores Within Groups A and B 58

4. Difference Between the Mean Teacher Garment Scorecard Scores For Students in Groups A and B 59

5. Difference Between the Mean Student Garment Scorecard Scores For Students in Groups A and B 60

6. Correlations Between Students' Final Garment Scorecard Scores and Pra-Tast Attitude Scores Within Groups A and B . . . 61

7. Correlations Between Students' Final Garment Scorecard Scores and Students' Post-Test Attitude Scores Within Groups A and B 63

8. Differences Between Mean Teacher Garment Scorecard Scores and Mean Student Garment Scorecard Scores Within Groups A and B. . 64

VI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The skill of clothing construction, which was at one

time taught only at home, has turned into a multi-million

dollar business venture. Pacey (32) and Baltera (7) have

estimated that in 1977, 58,500,000 adults and teenagers

engaged in home sewing will generate annual sales in the

total home sewing market of over $5 billion. According

to Baltera (7), this compares with $3.5 billion spent in

19 73 in the total home sawing market. Twenty years ago,

in 195 7, home sewers spent approximately $810 million in

the total home sewing market as compared to $1 billion in

1967 and $2.5 to $3 billion in 1970 (13, 26, 36, 42).

In addition to the increase in dollars being spent,

the number of people sewing at home and in schools has

increased. In 1955, approximately thirty-five to forty

million adults and teenagers constructed a garment as

compared to forty-one million in 1967 and forty-five

million in 1973 (7, 13, 23). Teenagers are an important

part of these statistics relating to home sawing. Ac­

cording to Baltera (7), in 1974, four out of five teenage

girls could saw. They had learned the skills by the age

of twelve years. The purchasing power of these teens

1

dominated twenty-three percent of the retail fabric

market, and their sawing efforts produced eighty-three

million garments a year (1, 7). Smith (37) has emphasized

that young teens at twelve years of age are beginning to

enroll in their first homemaking courses in the sixth,

seventh, and eighth grades across the country. Male

participation in the home sewing boom has continuously

risen since the early sixties. Hurt (24) has pointed out

that as of 1972 approximately thirteen percent of all

students enrolled in home economics courses ware males.

According to Kim (28), the number of males enrolled in

1975-76 secondary home economics programs rose to twenty-

five percent. With the continuing boom in teenage sewing,

it is important to continue to include clothing construc­

tion skills in the home economics curriculum.

Fleck (18) has stated that teaching methods and

accurate evaluation methods are essential in maintaining

a high quality home economics program. According to

Osborn (31), evaluation is an integral part of teaching

that needs to be part of the planning process from the

beginning in order to be effective. When used correctly,

evaluation will not only reveal information of value to

the student and the parent, but it will also yield in­

formation of importance to the instructor.

While different evaluation methods are available

to the instructor, Chadderdon (11) has determined that

student self-evaluation plus teacher cooperative evalu­

ation best produce the information the instructor is

seeking. During student self-evaluation, the student's

self-concept is being affected.

The devices used in clothing construction evaluation

vary. Some are easier for students and teachers to

construct and use than others. Scorecards, checklists,

and rating scales can be used to measure the psychomotor

skills used in clothing construction. While researchers

(3, 5, 21, 30) have agreed that evaluation is a must, they

have sometimes disagreed on what methods or instruments

to use.

The cognitive and psychomotor domains are often

well evaluated while the affective domain is often

neglected. This happens because the affective domain of

learning, which deals with attitudes, values, beliefs,

and feelings, is more difficult to describe and measure.

According to Spitza and Griggs (40), affective objectives

must be a part of our curriculum planning and evaluation.

While teaching and evaluating the basic clothing skills

is still vary important. Fleck (16) has contended that

learning is more lively when emotional aspects are con­

sidered with cognitive emphasis. Ahmann and Clock (3)

have noted that the evaluation of attitude formation and

attitude change is as important as achievement in the

basic skills.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of the study was three-fold. The first

aspect of the problem was to assess the attitudes of high

school students towards clothing construction before and

after they completed a clothing project in the present

study. All students involved in the study had constructed

garments previously. A Likart-type attitude scale was

developed for this assessment. The instrument consisted

of statements concerning various aspects of clothing

construction including fabric and pattern preparation,

sawing techniques, finishing skills, and garment evalu­

ation.

The second problem of the study was to compare the

affects of two approaches to evaluation of garment con­

struction on final garment ratings. Students in one group

evaluated their garments frequently throughout construction;

the other group of students evaluated their garments only

upon completion. An evaluation instrument in the form of

a scorecard was developed and administered utilizing these

two separata procedures.

The third aspect of the problem was to compare the

attitudes of students with the final evaluations of their

garments under the two approaches to evaluation. Upon

completion of their garments, students completed the post'

test attitude scale.

Purposes of the Study

In order to solve the problems of the study, the

following purposes were set forth:

First, a review of literature was undertaken to

determine current national trends in the area of home

sewing and clothing construction, to assess the growth

or decline of clothing construction in high schools and

collages, to review the purposes for evaluation, and to

determine devices appropriate for evaluation in clothing

construction. In addition, studies concerning attitudes

and behaviors were reviewed.

Second, a valid and reliable instrument for assess­

ing students' attitudes towards clothing construction was

developed. This instrument was used for both the pre-

assassmant and post-assessment of attitudes.

Third, a valid and reliable garment evaluation

instrument was developed. A scorecard format was used

for this evaluation instrument. Two slightly different

versions of the scorecard were developed. One was used

for the frequently evaluated group of students and one

for the group of students whose garments were evaluated

only upon completion.

Fourth, a sample of homemaking teachers and high

school students in the Lubbock, Texas, area was

selected for participation in the study. The sample was

one of convenience. Teachers who participated had to be

willing to give time to the study and had to have two

homemaking classes in which to use the two evaluation

approaches of the study.

Fifth, data were collected from students in the

sample. These data included pre-test and post-test at­

titude scores of the high school students towards

clothing construction. Pre-test attitude scores were

obtained. Then each student constructed a garment. At

the completion of the garment, post-test attitude scores,

as well as final scorecard ratings of the garment, ware

obtained. Half of the students and their teachers had

evaluated their garments periodically throughout the

construction process, the other half of the teachers and

students rated them only at the completion of the garment.

Implications and conclusions from the analyses of the

data were drawn.

Sixth, recommendations for further research in the

area of attitude assessment of high school students re­

lating to clothing construction were determined. Further

research in the areas of clothing construction and

evaluation is recommended.

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tasted in the

study:

1. There is no significant difference between the

mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group A

and the mean pre-test attitude score of those students

in Group B.

2. There is no significant difference between the

mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group A

and the mean post-test attitude score of those students

in Group B.

3. There are no significant differences between

the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test

attitude scores within Groups A and B.

4. There is no significant difference between the

mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in

Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score for

students in Group B.

5. There is no significant difference between the

mean student garment scorecard score for students in

Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score for

students in Group B.

6. There are no significant relationships between

students' final garment scorecard scores and students'

pra-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.

8

7. There are no significant relationships between

students' final garment scorecard scores and students'

post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.

8. There are no significant differences between

mean teacher garment scorecard scores and mean student

garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B.

Scope and Limitations

The study was conducted in the fall of 1977.

Ninety-five high school homemaking students responded to

the attitude and garment scorecard evaluation instruments

used in the study. The teachers who indicated willingness

to have their students participate in the study were

known by or referred to the researcher. The sample was

one of convenience. Schools represented in the study

ware Wilson High School, Wilson, Texas; Tahoka High

School, Tahoka, Texas; Lamesa High School, Lamesa, Texas;

New Deal High School, New Deal, Texas; and Ira High School,

Ira, Texas. Findings of the study were limited in scope

by the nature of the sample. All conclusions of the

study are limited to the sample.

Skills of students may have varied due to grade

level and prior clothing construction experiences at

home, in homemaking classes, extension programs, or

commercial situations. Teaching skills of home economics

9

teachers varied according to individual capabilities.

The researcher had no control over students' skills,

the types of garments constructed, or the teaching

techniques utilized by the teachers in the study.

The instruments developed were based on a review

of literature and a study of methods for preparing evalu­

ation devices. The instruments were submitted to a

professional panel who critiqued the instruments and

offered suggestions for revision.

In spite of the precautions, the scope of the study

was limited by inheritant imperfections of written score-

cards and attitude assessment instruments. The possibility

existed that the high school students and teachers in­

terpreted various terms differently. Also, the high

school students may not have been familiar with soma of

the terminology used in the evaluation instrument such as

"finished and understitched all facings." Estimates may

have been given by the high school students at times.

Definition of Terms

The definition of words used in the study are:

1. Attitude--a term used to refer to the way in­

dividuals react and think toward and about people, objects,

and situations they encounter as a result of their previous

experiences.

10

2. Evaluation--the process of determining the

effect of educational endeavors based on evidences.

3. Garment--a clothing construction project com­

pleted by the student in a given class period.

4. Group A--a group of students who evaluated their

garments only upon completion using a scorecard developed

by the researcher.

5. Group B--a group of students who evaluated their

garments periodically during construction using a score-

card developed by the researcher.

6. Likert-type attitude scala--an evaluation in­

strument that measures a person's degree of agreement or

disagreement with given statements on a five point

continuum from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

7. Self-evaluation--the student's ability to rate

or judge his/her own garment in a clothing construction

class.

8. Scorecard--an evaluation instrument in which a

list of described characteristics or dimensions stated in

concise phrases is each assigned a total possible score.

The rater then judges each characteristic assigning it a

given score up to, but not exceeding, the possible score.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature was divided into three

sections. The first part was concerned with trends in

clothing construction related to home sewing as well as

in our educational institutions. The second aspect was

concerned with educational evaluation, including

definitions, purposes, and various non-tasting methods

of evaluation that would be appropriate for clothing

and textiles. The third section dealt with attitudes

toward clothing construction. Definitions and character­

istics of attitudes and means of attitude assessment were

covered.

Clothing Construction

Trends in Clothing Construction

Wharton (43) has stated that fashion conscious

young people have turned sewing into one of the fastest

growing industries in America. In American Fabrics (23)

it was stated that not only is the art of sewing an

economical venture, but it carries with it a positive,

if not prestigious, image.

11

12

In the mid-sixties there was a definite rise in

the number of garments being made in schools and homes.

Wharton (43) has noted that from 1960 to 1975 there was

a fifty percent increase in the number of garments made

in the United States. Wharton (43) has also pointed out

that at the rate of 300 million a year, Americans con­

tinue to add to their wardrobes with highly stylized,

economical, well made, and better fitting garments. Not

only has the number of teenagers who are sewing increased,

but there are also increasing numbers of middle age and

older adults sewing as well. After many years of slow,

sluggish sales, the sewing market has become stimulated

by fashion, individuality, creativity, and ready-to-wear

obsolescence. According to research (1), the sewing

market is presently one of the top ten industries in the

United States. No longer is the American consumer held

captive by the ready-to-wear world.

In the last few years there have been changes in

who is sewing and the annual incomes of these people.

In Business Week (2) it has been reported that the

demographic location of sewers has changed from the rural

to urban areas. Eighty-two percent of the sewers are

coming from the North Central and Southern United States.

Pat Carrier (7), McCalls Pattern market researcher,

has stated that the average home sewer falls into the

13

middle and upper-middle income brackets. Clothes are no

longer sewn merely to save money. In Business Week it

was stated that, "Dispelling the poverty notion, two-

thirds of women sewers have incomes of more than $7,500

a year, and more than a quarter have more than $12,000"

(2:56).

Reasons People Sew

Adults and teens tend to be sewing for a variety of

reasons. According to Baltera (7), sewing customers

are outraged at the skyrocketing prices of ready-to-wear

garments, poor workmanship in ready-to-wear garments, and

unimaginative mass styling. The increased interest in

sewing may have affected trends in the ready-to-wear

market. According to Pacey (32), it is becoming in­

creasingly difficult for consumers to buy what they

want when they want it. It is not uncommon to find fall

and winter clothing in the retail department stores during

mid-July and to find spring and summer clothing available

in mid-January.

Robbins (35) has classified reasons for sewing

into six major categories. The six major categories

are:

increased leisure time

economic necessity

rising incomes

14

education and maturity

fashion, fit and independence

machine sophistication and pattern sales.

Wharton (43) has stressed that not only is making a

garment a satisfying experience, but it is also a

creative outlet as well. Promoters of sewing like to

emphasize the desire to be creative. In Changing Times

(13) magazine it was stated that sewing calls for in­

dividuality and creative ability.

In the American society today, the amount of leisure

time one has is increasing. Brightbill (9) has explained

that the ability of adults to cope with leisure time has

become extremely important. For many people, working

with fabrics and patterns can meet the need for using

leisure time constructively. Working with one's hands

through sewing can be a relaxing use of leisure time.

Although findings in the literature are somewhat

contradictory with regard to the importance of the

economic factor in sewing, this factor is listed as

being a reason for sewing. However, it is generally

listed as secondary to other reasons. In Forbes (25)

magazine it was stated that sewing is generally an

economic necessity. By sewing, the cost of a garment

in the majority of cases is reduced in comparison to a

ready-to-wear garment. Authors in Changing Times (13)

15

magazine have noted that clothing costs can be cut by

as much as one-third to one-half or more by sewing.

It has been determined that the importance of the

economic factor may be associated with the age of the

person doing the sewing. According to Baltera (7),

mature sewers emphasized the "double wardrobe" benefits

of sewing. The survey results showed that seven out of

ten teenagers agreed with the statement that "sewing

clothes is a good way to save money," while three out

of four agreed that "you can have more clothes if you

sew some."

People who sew today also stress fit as a reason

for sewing. In Consumer Bulletin (15) it was stated

that sewing is almost a necessity in obtaining a properly

fitting garment. Many patterns have come out with

double and triple sizes in one garment for adjustment

to one's proportions.

Baltera (7) has noted that one reason adults sew

is because of dissatisfaction with the selection of

fabrics used in clothing in the ready-to-wear market.

With increased communication between the customer and

persons in the design, pattern, and fabric industries,

it is becoming increasingly easy for customers to select

the appropriate fabrics, weights, colors, and designs for

their garment needs.

16

Trends in Sewing Aids

One contribution to the rise in the number of

people sewing has been the availability of simple-to-

sew patterns, easy care fabrics, professional sewing

aids, and easy to operate sewing machines. According

to Baltera (7), the consumer spent close to $3.5 billion

in 1975 on fabrics, sewing machines, patterns, and

notions.

According to Robbins (35), pattern companies which

at one time offered limited size and style selections,

now provide a multiplicity of up-to-date styles and

patterns for all shapes and sizes. Designers of patterns

emphasize extreme ease in construction. Often very

limited sewing ability is required. Wharton (43) has

emphasized that the pattern companies watch the styles

emerging from New York, California, Paris, London, and

Rome closer than the ready-to-wear buyers.

Baltera (7) has noted that pattern sales in 1975

totaled $289 million. The four major pattern companies,

Butterick, Vogue, Simplicity, and McCalls continually

advertise budget stretcher, jiffy, pounds thinner, and

quick and easy styles for all sewers. According to

Baltera (7), in 1975 Simplicity Pattern Company spent

close to $750 thousand in advertising their new line of

budget stretcher patterns. Baltera (7) has also noted

17

that customers have little or no brand loyalty in select­

ing their patterns. Customers are very likely to switch

from one pattern company to another looking for one

certain pattern style. With large pattern catalogs being

the major vehicle for advertising patterns for the

companies, it has become increasingly important that the

largest part of the advertising dollar be spent there.

Additional pamphlets and television advertisements re­

mind customers to sew, be creative, and save money.

According to Baltera (7), $2.1 billion was spent

on apparel fabrics in 1975. Robbins (35) has noted that

fabric sales have doubled since the mid-sixties. Accord­

ing to Baltera (7), in 1975 teenagers purchased an

average of twenty-four yards of fabric a year for a

total of 2.8 billion yards or twenty-three percent of

the retail fabric market. A trend toward natural fabrics

and away from synthetic fabrics has taken place in the

last few years. In Retail Directions (14) magazine it was

stated that many people purchase fabrics structured from

natural fibers because the short supply of oil has caused

the price of synthetic fabrics to rise. More and more

woven fabrics constructed from fibers of a natural origin

are being treated to render the customer with ease of

care, fresh appearance, comfort, and fashion.

18

Authors of Department Store Economist (1) magazine

have stated that during 1972 the majority of sewers

spent nearly equal amounts of their fabric dollars in

the fabric speciality shop and national chain department

stores. Figures compiled by the authors of Department

Store Economist (1) magazine showed that forty-five

percent of sewers spent their fabric dollars in fabric

speciality stores, thirty-five percent in national

chain department stores, and fifteen percent patronized

other stores.

The increase in sewing has brought with it an in­

crease in the number of sewing machines being purchased.

Baltera (7) estimated that a total of $450 million was

spent in 1975 on the purchase of sewing machines. Years

ago sewing machines featured only the straight and reverse

stitching feature. Sewing machines manufactured today

feature computerized zig-zag stitching, stretch stitching,

buttonhole makers, and an endless variety of decorative

stitches. Wharton (43) has emphasized that with new

modern machines, adults and teens are able to work on

fabrics that previously could be sewn only in the factory.

Wharton (43) has noted that many new sewing notions

have come into the market to make better and more at­

tractive garments. Many sewing notions once available

only to personnel in sewing factories can be purchased

19

on the retail market. According to Baltera (7), total

notion sales for 1975 were $720 million. This was an

increase from $650 million in 1971. Wharton (43) has

stressed that devices such as buttonhole guides, iron-on

hem bindings, decorative patches, invisible zippers, and

button attachments are readily available on the market

to aid the sewer.

Clothing Construction in Educational Programs

According to Robbins (35) , approximately ninety

percent of all teenagers know how to sew and fifty-eight

percent of those who know how to sew, learned how to do

so in school. Robbins (35) also noted that the secondary

school system is now teaching 7.2 million additional

consumers to sew each year. The number of males taking

clothing construction courses has rapidly increased in

the last few years. Hurt (24) found that in 1970 thirteen

percent of the students enrolled in home economics

clothing classes were males. According to Kim (28), in

1975-76 the male enrollment in secondary home economics

courses rose to twenty-five percent.

According to Hurt (24), all students profit from

taking some course in home economics. Those students

choosing to continue home economics courses in college

will enter colleges varying in their abilities and

20

experiences in clothing construction. Souligny and

Grovalynn (38) have noted that many college students

have completed as many as six years of home economics

courses in junior and senior high school. Many have

had several years of clothing construction work in 4-H.

On the other hand, many students who enter home economics

clothing courses in college have had no formal instruction

in sewing. Souligny and Grovalynn (38) found that earlier

experiences in clothing construction affected one's

achievement in university clothing courses. The amount,

rather than type of clothing experience, affected achieve­

ment.

At various grade levels different aspects of cloth­

ing and textiles are taught. Anderson (4) conducted a

study at Lamar University in 1971 investigating clothing

and textiles subject matter taught in elementary schools.

As part of the study, 392 elementary school teachers

ranked several aspects of clothing and textiles with

regard to the perceived importance of selected topics

for elementary school children. The order in which

the aspects were ranked was:

Personal grooming

Posture and poise

Care of clothes

Choosing clothes for the individual

21

Fabric care and choice

Clothing selection and principles

Wardrobe budget

Clothing Construction.

Lare (29) has noted that in an effort to make

students confident in their sewing abilities, instructors

tended to overemphasize how easy sewing is. Textbook

authors and pattern companies reinforce the idea that

sewing is easy, simple, and uncomplicated. According

to Lare (29) , the effect of this emphasis is that the

student believes that only the "how" of sewing is im­

portant, not the "where," "when," or "why." If the

student can not achieve at this "easy, simple, and quick

task," a feeling of defeat may be felt.

Lare (29) has stressed that the process of decision

making in addition to construction skills should be

taught at the secondary level. The completed garment is

only proof to the instructor that the student knows how

to perform certain skills. High grades are awarded to

those students who can follow directions, not necessarily

to those making independent decisions. According to

Lare (29), by putting less emphasis on specific techniques

and by putting more emphasis on choices that are avail­

able to the student in patterns, fabrics, and construction

techniques, students' abilities to make decisions, to

22

analyze new situations, and to solve problems will be

maximized.

As a result of teaching decision making in clothing

construction, the teacher will take on a new role. Lare

(29) has stated that teachers will find themselves acting

as helpmates, guides, and trouble shooters in the clothing

classroom. Creative sewing is not just the art of follow­

ing pattern directions or the instructor's demonstration.

It is the art of choosing and making decisions.

Educational Evaluation

Evaluation Defined

The literature reviewed has revealed that evaluation

is a complex and involved process. Fults, Lutz, and

Eddleman (19) have stated that evaluation is a process

of getting, assembling, and interpreting evidence which

helps educators make valid judgments with respect to

significant objectives, goals, and values. According to

Spafford (39), evaluation involves selecting, preparing,

and using instruments to measure what has or has not been

learned in the educational process. Spitze and Griggs

(40) have considered evaluation as a cooperative and

continuous process in which judgments in terms of recog­

nized objectives or standards are made. Evaluation

should also provide the basis for reviewing past per-

23

formances in order to plan effectively for future per­

formance. According to Cross, "Evaluation is a process

which determines the extent to which objectives have been

achieved" (12:5).

In the evaluation process, it is important to

distinguish between evaluation and measurement. Accord­

ing to Ahmann and Clock (3), measurement is a quantitative

description of a phenomenon, while evaluation determines

the worth or value of a phenomenon. The idea of evalua­

tion encompasses the concept of a value judgment. Good

sound evaluation is based upon accurate and adequate

measurement.

Objectives and Evaluation

Cross (12) has defined an objective as a statement

describing a proposed change as a result of learning.

Evaluation of each objective should take place with the

results used to determine how much learning has taken

place and what changes if any need to take place in one's

planning and teaching. In a study conducted by Phillips

(33) , it was determined that evaluation is the most im­

portant phase of the teaching-learning process. In

planning a unit of study, evaluation should be as impor­

tant as the teaching of the subject matter and the stating

of objectives. Selecting evaluation procedures at the

time of planning assures the instructor that an assess-

24

ment will be made of the extent to which educational ob­

jectives have been achieved. Ahmann and Clock (3) have

concluded that evaluation must reflect changes in learn­

ing behavior due to teaching specific objectives.

According to Arny (6), when possible, students should

be allowed to help the teacher plan goals for instruction.

By cooperatively planning with the instructor, the student

is likely to feel a sense of self worth. With adequate

planning, teaching, and evaluating of relevent subject

matter, the needs of the students can be met.

Arny (5) has stated that teacher goals and student

goals may be quite different. According to Arny (5),

many times teacher goals tend to be broad and long term,

while student goals are specific and short term. Many

times teachers set goals for students that are hard to

achieve or can not be reached at all. A combination of

the two types of goals balances curriculum planning.

According to Hall and Paolucci (20), evaluation

can help students formulate new goals and procedures

pertinent to learning. As teachers develop and define

specific objectives in lesson plans, two aspects must

be considered. First, teachers should formulate a series

of possible experiences which enable students to reach

the desired objectives. Second, methods of measurement

must be set up to determine if the students have met the

objectives.

25

Purposes of Evaluation

According to Brown (10), there are eight major

purposes of evaluation. These purposes include:

to improve in-class instruction

to enable schools to measure educational

efficiency and discover where changes need to be

made

to furnish parents and students with in­

formation regarding achievment in light of the

student's abilities and aptitudes

to serve as a basis for guidance

to provide information to higher in­

stitutions regarding the capacity and achievement

of the student

to furnish information to prospective

employers

to provide tools for educational research

to enable schools to demonstrate what they

are accomplishing.

Ahmann and Clock (3) have concluded that one im­

portant purpose of evaluacion is to permit teachers to

better know their students. By getting to know the

students, the teacher will be better able to plan

educational experiences for them and to determine the

degree to which educational experiences have been met.

26

Evaluation is a means by which an instructor can determine

what students already know. According to Cross, "Past

experiences and already developed skills can be a basis

for instruction" (12:17).

Sweet (41) has maintained that evaluation can prove

to be a difficult task. Differences in students' charac­

teristics, learning styles, and differences in methods

of teaching on the part of the instructor affect the

total evaluation process. However, if evaluation is

done correctly it will reveal the status of the pupil

to not only the teacher, but also to the parents and to

the student as well. It is of utmost importance that the

results of evaluation be used for the purpose or purposes

intended. Too many times evaluation is used only to

categorize and sterotype. Students and teachers alike

tend to react to evaluation in a painful way by avoiding

it or by using it improperly.

Characteristics of Good Evaluation

Smith (37) has stated that evaluation has much to

offer the student and the teacher if it is used before,

during, and after a learning experience. Cross (12) has

noted that evaluation is not an end of the unit process,

but an ongoing, daily activity. Since a product is the

sum of many involved processes, evaluation of that product

27

should reflect the quality of those procedures followed

in arriving at the product. Continuous evaluation allows

the student to see the progress made throughout a project

and to indentify areas of needed improvement. According

to Cross (12), continuous evaluation tends to motivate

students and alleviate repetition of errors in a process.

Mather (30) has stated that evaluation is effective when

it measures each part of a total learning process.

Chadderdon (11) has noted that traditionally it

has been the teacher's responsibility to do all the

evaluating. Recently it has been more acceptable for

the student to be actively involved in the total evalua­

tion process. Cross has stated:

Cooperative evaluation is a dual process of insuring the simultaneous involvement of both teacher and student from the ob­jective-stating outset to the final grading end. Both the teacher and the students should express their concerns, their opinions as to whether or not ob­jectives are being reached, and their satisfaction. This is a give and take process that pays high dividends (12:13).

According to Brown (10), to be successful at co­

operative evaluation there must be an accepting attitude

on the part of both the student and the teacher. The

student must see that the teacher is making a sincere

effort to make cooperative evaluation a truly cooperative

enterprise.

28

Characteristics of Good Evaluation Instruments

Cross (12) has stated that there are five concepts

that comprise the basis for the characteristics considered

to be desirable in evaluation procedures: validity,

reliability, usability, objectivity, and discrimination.

Validity of an evaluation instrument refers to the degree

to which it measures what it claims to measure. Validity

is the most important aspect of an evaluation device.

Cross (12) has stated that a valid test or instrument

will measure the degree to which educational objectives

or goals have been met.

Arny (5) has stated that adequate sampling of

content, with a variety of types of items and proper

directions for administration can help increase the

reliability of an instrument. Ahmann and Clock (3) have

stated that each instructor is obligated to inspect the

reliability and validity of an evaluative instrument

before using it. One of the most important character­

istics of a good evaluation instrument is usability.

According to Cross (12), usability refers to the con­

venience, advantage, practicality, and availability of

an evaluation instrument. The ease of administering a

test or evaluation instrument, ease of scoring, and the

reasonable cost of the instrument can determine the

usability of an evaluation device.

29

Cross (12) has stated that objectivity helps the

teacher eliminate personal judgment from the evaluation

situation. A teacher must set up a scoring key for the

evaluation instrument that is inflexible. When students'

scores are spread along a scale of merit, the evaluative

method is said to be discriminating. Arny (5) has ex­

plained that a discriminating evaluation instrument will

distinguish between the high-achieving student and the

low-achieving student. By looking at the range of

students' actual scores from an evaluation instrument,

the degree of discrimination can be determined.

Self-Evaluation

Cross has stated that, "Self-evaluation demands

that the students make decisions" (12:11). Fleck (18)

has pointed out that through evaluation students learn

to take a look at themselves in an objective and imper­

sonal manner. Cross (12) has stated that students can

help in constructing instruments for self-evaluation,

the scoring of the devices, and the determining of grades.

Self-evaluation, if used early in the educational process,

can be a learned process. Students will learn to recog­

nize their strengths and weaknesses when they are allowed

to self-evaluate or appraise themselves. Smith (37) has

stated that self-evaluation was never meant to take the

30

place of evaluation done by the instructor. Self-

evaluation is effective when it is used as part of

cooperative evaluation.

Arny (5) has stated that it is not necessary for

students to construct the evaluation devices used in

self-evaluation. It is only important for students to

have experience in evaluating. When students are first

allowed to evaluate themselves, the teacher should not

be impatient or discouraged with the scores. According

to Arny (5), it is common for student scores and teacher

scores to vary greatly when students first start to self-

evaluate.

In a study conducted by Hatcher (22) in thirty-

five high schools using 900 high school students in foods

classes as subjects, scores given by the students on

food labs and scores given by the teacher on the same

food labs at the beginning of a twelve week nutrition

unit, varied greatly. At the end of the twelve week

unit when continual, cooperative evaluation and self-

evaluation were emphasized, the teachers' and students'

scores were very similar. With time and practice, the

students developed judgment and a more objective point

of view of their own capabilities. According to Brown

(10), when adequate methods of appraisal have been

developed with the student as well as the teacher learning

31

to evaluate, then there will probably be less frustration,

nervous tension, antagonism, and cheating.

Non-Testing Devices for Laboratory Self-Evaluation

When selecting or developing an evaluation device,

an instructor should consider how it is to be used and

what it will measure. Arny (6) has noted that evaluation

devices range from very informal to those that are rela­

tively complex. If they are to be used for self-evalua­

tion, evaluation devices must be simple enough for the

students to use and understand. Certain evaluation

devices are easier to use and give the student more

confidence in the evaluation process than others.

Observational devices require students to decide where

they stand and to make decisions about the level of their

performance. Among the typical observational devices

are rating scales, checklists, and scorecards. Accord­

ing to Cross, "The major uses of rating devices are

evaluating personal qualities and appraising processes

and products" (12:177). Hall and Paolucci (20) have

suggested that scorecards, diaries, written instruments

by parents, self-inventories, rating scales, and check­

lists are effective evaluation devices for home economics.

Cross (12) has indicated that checklists can be

used to meet the needs of both instructors and students.

32

They are easy to construct and use with a minimum amount

of explanation to the student. A checklist consists of

a list of attributes. The presence or absence of each

attribute is indicated by the presence or absence of a

check mark. Cross (12) has listed some of the dis­

advantages of checklists as being that they are not

easily scored or graded, they give only surface evaluation,

and they are lacking in reliability.

Spitze and Griggs (40) have defined a rating scale

as a reporting device that has a list of qualities to be

judged and a scale for checking the degree each attribute

is present. Descriptions are written indicating various

possible levels of achievement. Numerical scores are

assigned to the descriptive levels and performance or

products are then scored accordingly. According to

Cross (12), some of the advantages of rating scales are

that:

behaviors are precisely defined

descriptive levels provide a continuum

students can see the lowest and highest

possible score

scores can be used as grades.

According to Cross (12), the chief disadvantages of

rating scales are the time involved in their construction

33

and the limited opportunities for student involvement

in their construction. Students prefer to use an ob­

servational device they have helped to construct.

Arny (5) has defined a scorecard as a list of

characteristics for which standard scores are established.

Space for a recorded score is available next to each

characteristic with additional spaces sometimes provided

for teachers' or parents' scores.

According to Arny (5), the scorecard was one of the

first rating devices used in home economics. It was

frequently used in food preparation. Scorecards can be

used to evaluate products and processes including clothing

skills. As with the checklist, students can easily be

involved in the construction of the scorecard. Cross (12)

has noted that by helping in the construction of the

scorecard, students see the list of attributes or dimen­

sions that must be met and the standard scores considered

acceptable. As with rating scales, the scorecard score

can be used for a grade. One disadvantage of a score-

card is the range of possible scores from which an in­

dividual can choose for scoring each attribute. Cross

(12) has stated that it becomes frustrating for an in­

experienced grader to work with a scorecard.

34

Attitudes

Spitze and Griggs (40) have determined that of the

three learning domains, the affective domain is probably

the least effectively evaluated. Included in this domain

are such variables as attitudes, values, interests, and

feelings. According to Arny (5), before the 1930's

adequate methods to measure subjective elements such as

attitude were unavailable or unreliable. According to

vSpitze and Griggs (40) , it has been determined that in

many cases without certain feelings and affective states,

the acquisition of knowledge would be difficult, if not

impossible.

Definitions of Attitudes

Many varied definitions of attitudes have been

proposed. Zimbardo and Ebbesen have stated that,

"Attitudes have generally been regarded as either mental

readiness or implicit predispositions which exert some

general and consistent influence on a fairly large class

of evaluative responses" (44:6). These responses are

usually directed toward some object, person, or group.

Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44) have noted that the attitude

response is learned rather than innate.

Reich and Adcock (34) have defined attitudes as

systems of positive or negative evaluations, emotional

feelings, and pro or con action techniques with respect

35

to social objects. These attitudes cannot be directly

observed, but only inferred.

Katz has defined an attitude by stating that,

"It is the predisposition of the individual to evaluate

some symbol or object or aspect of his world in a favor­

able or unfavorable manner" (27:168). Attitudes are more

easily measured than defined.

According to Borg and Gall (8), the concept of

attitude refers to the way individuals act and think to­

ward people, objects, and situations. The reactions are

a result of previous experiences.

Characteristics of Attitudes

Arny (5) has expressed the same opinion as Katz (27)

relating to the fact that attitudes are difficult to

measure. People tend to react in some given situations

according to how society or the teacher would want them

to react. Many times it is difficult for people to stand

up for or express their attitudes on given subjects.

Reich and Adcock (34) have pointed out that attitudes

are governed by characteristics of one's personality.

With a change of personality comes a possible change in

attitudes. One's group membership has also been determined

to be a factor influencing or molding ones' attitudes.

Membership in a group means one must follow the norms

of that group. According to Reich and Adcock (34),

36

membership in a group can act both to define, modify,

and maintain individuals' attitudes and values with

pressure to change the attitudes of individuals if they

do not voluntarily do so.

A characteristic of attitudes is that they can

change. Changes in attitude are not necessarily accompa­

nied by changes in behavior. Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44)

have noted that rewards and punishments should be highly

effective means of producing attitude changes.

Fleck (17) has determined that attitudes can be

identified only when the conditions are right for their

emergence. When students are in a conducive atmosphere,

confident, and free to express themselves, attitudes

can be observed. Attitudes are never to be classed as

right or wrong and should only be considered in terms

of the individual student and the situation.

Fleck (17) has also added that students' past

experiences will guide and mold their attitudes. She has

stressed that the more open minded the student is, the

easier it will be to accept or reject and to weigh

evidence carefully before forming an opinion.

According to Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44), attitudes

possess three possible components. These three com­

ponents are affect, cognition, and behavior. The affect

component consists of a person's evaluation or liking of

37

an object or person. A persons' beliefs about or

factual knowledge of an object or person are classified

as the cognition component. The behavior component in­

volves overt action toward an object or person. Each of

the three components requires measurement in a different

way. The affect component must be measured by responses

or verbal statements of like or dislike. The cognition

aspect is measured by the amount of knowledge one has

about some topic. The behavior aspect is measured by

direct observation of a person in a specific situation.

Methods of Attitude Assessment

The measurement of attitudes is a difficult task

to undertake. Since attitudes are given to frequent

change, accurate measurement devices must be employed.

Reich and Adcock have noted that, "Attitudes, not being

directly observable, can only be measured indirectly"

(34:30).

A variety of methods can be used in measuring

attitudes. Reich and Adcock (34) have listed the Thurstone

scale, Likert scale, Osgood's Semantic Differential,

opinion polls, social distance scales, and sociometric

techniques as means for measuring attitudes. Open-ended

sentences can also be used to measure attitudes. The

type of technique one uses to measure attitudes depends

on the kind of question one wants answered. Reich and

38

Adcock (34) have stated that such instruments as the

Likert-type scale, Osgood's Semantic Differential, and

social distance scales lend themselves to easy use and

quick scoring of results. Combining a variety of measur­

ing instruments will allow the researcher to see all

components of attitudes more easily.

Attitude scales frequently used in attitude assess­

ment are the Thurstone and Likert scales. These methods

require the respondents to indicate their agreement or

disagreement with given statements. According to Reich

and Adcock (34), the Thurstone scale consists of a series

of items which represent intervals along a continuum

ranging from favorable to unfavorable. Graduated opinions

on the scale are arranged evenly on the scale so that

most people notice shifts in attitudes toward the subject.

Respondents are asked only to check items with which they

agree.

Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44) have stated that the

Likert-type scale consists of a series of opinion state­

ments about some issue. Approximately one-half of the

opinion statements are positively worded and one-half

of the opinion statements are negatively worded. Re­

spondents are asked to indicate if they strongly agree,

agree, are undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree with

each statement. Zimbardo and Ebbesen (44) have added

39

that in contrast to the Thurstone scale, the Likert-

type scale measures people's attitudes by asking them to

indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement

with each item. There may not be equal intervals between

scale values. Numerical values of five, four, three,

two, and one are given respectively for the positively

worded items. Scores are reversed for negatively worded

items. The more favorable the individual's attitude

toward a subject, the higher the score for that subject.

The final score for the attitude scale is the sum of all

the individual items. According to Zimbardo and Ebbesen,

"This means that a Likert scale can provide information

on the ordering of people's attitudes on a continuum, ....

(44:126).

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

FOR THE STUDY

Based on a review of literature and a study of

methods for preparing data gathering instruments, two

evaluation instruments were developed. The first was

a Likert-type attitude scale designed to assess the

attitudes of high school students towards clothing con­

struction. The students were enrolled in comprehensive

sequence homemaking courses. It was used as a pre- and

post-assessment instrument. The second instrument was

a scorecard for evaluating garments constructed by high

school students enrolled in comprehensive sequence home-

making courses. Two parallel versions of the scorecard

were developed. One was designed so that it could be

used for periodic evaluation during garment construction,

and the other was designed to be used only upon completion

of the garment.

Development of Evaluation Instruments

Attitude Scale

After reviewing literature pertinent to attitude

assessment, an attitude scale was developed to assess

40

41

attitudes of high school students towards clothing con­

struction. A Likert-type format was utilized. The

Likert-type attitude scale consisted of thirty statements

related to the following nine areas of clothing con­

struction: pattern selection, fabric preparation,

sewing equipment, sewing skills, construction procedures,

evaluation of clothing projects, time and expense involved

in sewing, teacher and teaching of sewing, and values and

appropriateness of sewing.

There were approximately equal numbers of positively

and negatively worded items on the scale. Each statement

was followed by five possible responses. Students could

strongly agree, agree, be undecided, disagree, or strongly

disagree with each item. Items were scored using a five

point scale. Positively worded statements were scored

using points from five to one, with five points assigned

to strongly agree and one point assigned to strongly

disagree responses. Negatively worded statements were

reverse scored with one point assigned to strongly agree

responses and five points assigned to strongly disagree

responses.

In the process of developing the instrument, the

researcher initially generated a pool of statements.

These statements were submitted to a panel of six judges

consisting of three faculty members in the Department of

42

Home Economics Education at Texas Tech University and

three graduate students in the Department of Home Eco­

nomics Education at Texas Tech University. The panel

members were asked to judge each statement and indicate

whether they felt it was positively or negatively worded.

In addition, they were asked to make any suggestions for

the wording of the statements which would increase

clarity. The results were tabulated and agreement of

four or more judges was determined to signify a clear,

well written positively or negatively worded statement.

The statements marked undecided by more than two judges

were considered unclear with regard to whether they were

positive or negative. These statements were then either

rewritten or omitted from the instrument.

The researcher had written statements pertaining

to the nine areas of clothing construction towards which

attitudes were being assessed. To establish content

validity, the statements were submitted to a panel of

judges consisting of two faculty members in the Depart­

ment of Home Economics Education at Texas Tech University,

four graduate students in the Department of Home Economics

Education at Texas Tech University, and two high school

home economics teachers. The panel members were asked

to classify each of the statements into one of the nine

areas of clothing construction. Results were tabulated

43

and agreement of five or more of the judges signified to

the researcher that the statements should be classified

into a specific category representing one of the nine

areas of clothing construction. Statements on which there

was not agreement by five or more of the judges as to

their classification, were rewritten or omitted from the

instrument. The distribution of statements among the

nine categories is summarized in a Table of Specifications

found in Appendix D.

During the development of the attitude scale, a

pilot study was conducted. The attitude scale was ad­

ministered to a sample of twenty-seven high school

students enrolled in homemaking courses during the

summer phase of homemaking education in 1977. The stu­

dents were similar in nature to the proposed sample group.

Data from the pilot study were collected, and revisions

in wording were made in statements confusing to the stu­

dents. To determine the discriminating power of the

attitude statements, the scores of the pilot sample were

analyzed using the formula for computing the index of

discrimination. Any statement not discriminating was

reworded or omitted from the scale.

The final attitude scale consisted of thirty items

developed to assess the attitudes of high school students

towards clothing construction. There were three items

44

related to pattern selection, two items related to fabric

preparation, two items related to sewing equipment, four

items related to sewing skills, three items related to

construction procedures, four items related to evaluation

of clothing projects, five items related to time and

expense of sewing, three items related to teacher and

teaching of clothing construction, and four items related

to values and appropriateness of sewing. The final

attitude scale is included in Appendix E.

Reliability of the attitude scale was established

using the internal consistency split-half procedure.

This procedure was applied to the pre-test attitude scores

of ninety-five students in the sample. The students'

scores on the odd and even halves of the attitude scale

were correlated. This correlation was then stepped up

to an expected full length value utilizing the Spearman-

Brown "Prophecy Formula." A reliability coefficient of

.78 was obtained which was significant at the .01 level.

Scorecard for Garment Evaluation

The garment evaluation instrument designed for

use in the study was a scorecard. The garment scorecard

was designed so that it could be used to evaluate all

types of garments. The scorecard consisted of forty

dimensions or aspects of clothing construction. These

45

forty dimensions were grouped under five major areas of

clothing construction. These five areas were pattern

preparation, fabric preparation, sewing techniques,

finishing techniques, and work habits. Of the forty

dimensions, three were under the category of pattern

preparation, seven were under the category of fabric

preparation, sixteen were under the category of sewing

techniques, nine were under the category of finishing

techniques, and five were under the category of work

habits. In each case, the dimensions were listed in the

order in which they were most likely to be completed in

a typical clothing construction project. Each dimension

was assigned a standard score. Students and teachers

evaluating the garments could assign any number of points

up to the standard score to each dimension. There were

100 total possible points on the scorecard. If a dimension

did not apply to the garment being completed by the stu­

dent, a check was to be placed in the "does not apply"

column. Next to each dimension on the scorecard there

were four columns. These columns provided a place for

the student's score, the teacher's score, an indication

of "does not apply," and comments. Blanks at the bottom

of each score column were provided for the tallying and

recording of total points.

46

For the purposes of the study, two forms of the

scorecard were developed and utilized. Forms A and B of

the garment scorecard were identical in content with

regard to the dimensions outlined. The only difference

was that Form B of the garment scorecard contained stop

check points for those students in the study who period­

ically evaluated their garments. Form A did not have

any stop check points. The students utilizing Form A

evaluated their garments upon completion only. Form A

was used by Group A, and Form B was used by Group B.

Once the students in Group A completed their garments,

they worked through the entire scorecard without stopping.

Upon completing the scorecard, students in Group A were

instructed to have the teacher evaluate their garments.

Form B of the garment scorecard was designed with

ten stopping points placed throughout the dimensions to

indicate when periodic evaluations by the teacher and

student should take place. Stopping points were placed

at the end of pattern preparation, fabric preparation,

pinning pattern pieces, cutting pattern pieces, stay-

stitching and darts, seams and zipper, interfacing and

facings, collar and/or waistband, sleeves, and finishing

techniques. As the students completed these various

parts of their garments, they were asked to evaluate these

aspects of their garment and record the appropriate scores

47

on the garment scorecard. A "Stop See Teacher"

phrase on the scorecard reminded the students to have

their garments evaluated by the teacher at the ten check

points during construction.

On the top of the scorecard there were items that

allowed the researcher to gather demographic background

information of the student, the clothing project completed,

the school, the homemaking class, and the date of project

completion. A sample of Form A of the garment scorecard

is included in Appendix B. A sample of Form B of the

garment scorecard is included in Appendix C.

To establish the content validity of the scorecard,

several processes were employed. Initially, scorecards

developed by secondary homemaking teachers in the Lubbock,

Texas, area were used as references for determining aspects

or dimensions of clothing construction typically evaluated

in the high school classroom. To strengthen validity, the

scorecard was submitted to a panel of twenty judges con­

sisting of three faculty members in the Department of

Home Economics Education at Texas Tech University, seven

graduate students in the Department of Home Economics

Education at Texas Tech University, and ten high school

home economics teachers in the Lubbock, Texas, area. The

panel members were asked to critique the scorecard and

to offer suggestions for revision. In particular, they

48

were asked to assess the importance, relevance, complete­

ness, and sequencing of content in the scorecard. Based

on their suggestions, necessary revisions were made to

refine the scorecard and thus, to improve content validity.

Reliability for the scorecard was increased by

keeping the subject matter content of the instrument

specific to high school homemaking students. All the

statements were clearly worded and directions were ex­

plicit. The scorecard was reviewed and revised in order

to keep the length to a minimum.

Selection and Description of the Sample

Five high school homemaking teachers in the Lubbock,

Texas, area participated in the study. The sample was

one of convenience. These teachers represented Lamesa

High School, Ira High School, New Deal High School,

Tahoka High School, and Wilson High School. Ninety-five

high school homemaking students enrolled in the clothing

construction classes of these five teachers participated

in the study during the fall of 1977.

In order to participate in the study, the teachers

had to have at least two comparable Homemaking II or

Homemaking III classes involved in clothing construction

during the first six to eight weeks of the school quarter.

Students in the classes had previous clothing construction

49

experience either in a Homemaking I clothing construction

class, 4H, or through private instruction. One of each

of the teacher's two classes was designated as Group A.

This group received and utilized Form A of the garment

scorecard. The other class was designated as Group B,

and this class utilized Form B of the garment scorecard.

The teacher determined which class would be Group A and

which would be Group B. The five teachers participating

in the study received the pre-attitude scales. Form A and

Form B of the garment scorecards, and the post-attitude

scales for administration to their homemaking classes.

Ninety-five complete sets of pre-attitude scales, Forms

A and B of the garment scorecards, and post-attitude

scales were returned to the researcher. Demographic

data were obtained for each of the ninety-five students

on the attitude scale and scorecard. These data included

information on the school, the clothing project, the

homemaking class, and the sex of the student. The projects

completed by the students in the study included blouses,

skirts, vests, gauchos, dresses, and pants. Ninety-one

females and four males participated in the study.

Collection of Data

Copies of the pre- and post-attitude scales used

to assess the attitudes of high school students towards

50

clothing construction were sent, along with copies of

Forms A and B of the garment scorecards, to the five high

school homemaking teachers participating in the study.

These five teachers reached a potential of 133 high school

students in the Lubbock, Texas, area who would have been

eligible to participate in the study. Instructions sent

to the five homemaking teachers contained all necessary

information needed for the teachers to have the students

complete the attitude scales and the garment scorecards.

A copy of the instructions is included in Appendix A.

The teachers were asked to administer the pre-attitude

scales immediately upon receiving them. They were asked

to return them to the researcher in prepaid envelopes

before September 1, 1977. The researcher requested that

all garment scorecards and post-attitude scales be com­

pleted and returned in the prepaid envelopes by November

1, 1977.

Groups A and B consisted of students in comparable

homemaking courses. Students in one homemaking class

were designated as Group A and were instructed to com­

plete their garments as they normally would in the cloth­

ing class. Upon completion of their garments, the stu­

dents were asked to self-evaluate their garments using

Form A of the garment scorecard. The garments were then

graded by the teacher, and a final grade was recorded.

51

Students in the class designated as Group B were in­

structed to self-evaluate their garments periodically

throughout construction. There were check points on the

garment scorecard where they were told to stop and com­

plete their evaluation and then allow the teacher to also

evaluate their progress.

All data were returned to the researcher by Novem­

ber 7, 1977. Ninety-five complete sets of attitude

scales and garment scorecards were returned. There were

forty-eight students who had completed Form A of the

garment scorecard and forty-seven students who had com­

pleted Form B.

Treatment of Data

Data obtained from the pre-attitude scales. Forms A

and B of the garment scorecard, and the post-attitude

scales of ninety-five high school students in the sample

were processed in a computer located at the Texas Tech

University Computer Center. Data were considered sig­

nificant at the .05 level. The data were statistically

treated by the following methods:

1. Descriptive statistics were obtained for all

variables.

2. A series of five _t-tests were run to determine

if significant differences existed between:

52

a. the mean pre-test attitude socres of

students in Groups A and B

b. the mean post-test attitude scores of

students in Groups A and B

c. the mean pre-test attitude scores and

the mean post-test attitude scores within

Groups A and B

d. the mean teacher garment scorecard scores

for students in Groups A and B

e. the mean teacher scorecard scores and

mean student scorecard scores in Groups

A and B.

3. Correlations were computed to assess the relation­

ship between:

a. the students' final garment scorecard

scores and the students' pre-test at­

titude scores within Groups A and B

b. the students' final garment scorecard

scores and the students' post-test at­

titude scores within Groups A and B.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA

The data obtained in the study were collected from

ninety-five high school students enrolled in compre­

hensive sequence homemaking classes in five high schools

in the Lubbock, Texas, area. To participate in the

study, each teacher had to have two comparable homemaking

classes studying clothing construction. One class was

designated as Group A and the other as Group B. Copies

of the Likert-type attitude scale and Forms A and B of

the garment scorecard were sent to each teacher. The

Likert-type scale was used to assess the high school

students' attitudes towards clothing construction before

and after constructing a garment in class. All students,

whether in Group A or B, completed the pre- and post-

test attitude scale. The Likert-type attitude scale data

were analyzed to determine if there were any significant

differences between the following variables: pre-test

attitude scores in Groups A and B, post-test attitude

scores in Groups A and B, and pre-test and post-test

attitude scores within Groups A and B.

53

54

Data were also collected from the garment scorecard

Group A students and teachers completed Form A of the

garment scorecard only upon completion of their gannents.

Group B students and teachers completed Form B of the

garment scorecard continuously throughout garment con­

struction. The garment scorecard data were analyzed

to determine if there were any significant differences

between the following variables: mean teacher garment

scorecard scores within Groups A and B, mean student

garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B, and mean

teacher garment scorecard scores and mean student garment

scorecard scores within Groups A and B. Data were also

analyzed to determine if there were any significant re­

lationships between students' final garment scorecard

scores and students' pre-test attitude scores within

Groups A and B and between the students' final garment

scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude scores

within Groups A and B.

Hypotheses Examined and Discussed

Eight null hypotheses were tested in the study.

Six hypotheses were tested using ^-tests. For two

hypotheses, Pearson product-moment coefficient cor­

relations were computed and their levels of significance

determined.

55

Hypothesis 1

The mean pre-test attitude score of the students

m Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score of the

students in Group B were compared in hypothesis one which

stated:

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant dif-ference between the mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score of those stu­dents in Group B.

Hypothesis one was analyzed through the use of a _t-test.

The statistics related to hypothesis one are summarized

in Table 1. On the basis of the analysis of the data

presented in Table 1, hypothesis one was accepted. The

;t-value obtained indicated that no significant difference

existed between the mean pre-test attitude score of those

students in Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score

of those students in Group B. Groups A and B did not

differ with regard to their pre-test attitude scores.

TABLE 1

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN PRE-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES OF STUDENTS IN GROUPS A AND B

Groups

A

B

N

47

48

Mean Pre-Test Attitude Scores

111.49

108.00

t-value

1.53

Level of Significance

N.S.

'Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.

56

Hypothesis 2

The mean post-test attitude score of the students

in Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of the

students in Group B were compared in hypothesis two which

stated:

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant dif­ference between the mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of those stu­dents in Group B.

Hypothesis two was analyzed through the use of a t -test.

The statistics related to hypothesis two are summarized

in Table 2. Based on the analysis of the data presented

in Table 2, hypothesis two was accepted. The t_-value

obtained indicated that no significant difference existed

between the mean post-test attitude score of those stu­

dents in Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of

those students in Group B. Whether the garment evaluation

was continuous or done only at the end of garment con­

struction did not seem to affect attitudes of the stu­

dents towards garment construction.

Hypothesis 3

The mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean

post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B were

analyzed in hypothesis three which stated:

57

TABLE 2

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN POST-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES OF STUDENTS IN GROUPS A AND B

Mean Post-Test Attitude Level of

Groups N Scores t-value Significance

A 47 113.09

B 48 109.40 1.52 N.S.''

Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.

Hypothesis 3: There was no significant dif-ferences between the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.

Hypothesis three was analyzed through the use of a t -test.

The statistics related to hypothesis three are summarized

in Table 3. On the basis of the analysis of the data

presented in Table 3, hypothesis three was accepted. The

t-values obtained indicated that no significant differences

existed between the mean pre-test attitude scores and the

mean post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.

During the time of the study, students attitudes did not

change significantly in Group A or Group B. It should

be noted that there was a slight positive increase in

attitudes in both groups.

58

TABLE 3

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN PRE-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES AND POST-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES

WITHIN GROUPS A AND B

Mean Attitude Levels of

Groups Assessments Scores t-values Significance

A Pre-Test 111.49

Post-Test 113.09

B Pre-Test 108.00

Post-Test 109.40

-.69 N.S

-.59 N.S

'Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.

Hypothesis 4

The mean teacher garment scorecard score for stu­

dents in Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard

score for students in Group B were analyzed in terms of

the fourth hypothesis which stated:

Hypothesis 4: There is no significant dif-ference between the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in Group B.

Hypothesis four was analyzed through the use of a ;t-test.

The statistics related to hypothesis four are summarized

in Table 4. On the basis of the analysis of the data

presented in Table 4, hypothesis four was accepted. The

59

;t-value obtained indicated that no significant difference

existed between the mean teacher garment scorecard score

for students in Group A and the mean teacher scorecard

score for students in Group B. Whether students' garments

were graded once at the end of construction or continually

throughout construction did not lead to a difference in

the teachers' final garment scores for the two groups.

TABLE 4

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN TEACHER GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES FOR STUDENTS

IN GROUPS A AND B

Groups

A

B

N

47

48

Mean Teacher Garment Score-card Scores

88.32

87.00

t-value

.78

Level of Significance

N.S."

"Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.

Hypothesis 5

The mean student garment scorecard score for stu­

dents in Group A and the mean student garment scorecard

score for students in Group B were compared in hypothesis

five which stated:

Hypothesis 5: There is no significant dif-ference between the mean student garment scorecard score for students in Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score for students in Group B.

60

Hypothesis five was analyzed through the use of a t -test.

The statistics related to hypothesis five are summarized

in Table 5. On the basis of the analysis of the data

presented in Table 5, hypothesis five was accepted. The

;t-value obtained indicated that no significant difference

existed between the mean student garment scorecard score

for students in Group A and the mean student garment

scorecard score for students in Group B. Whether students

scored their garments once upon completion or continually

throughout the construction process did not seem to affect

the final garment scores.

TABLE 5

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEAN STUDENT GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES FOR STUDENTS

IN GROUPS A AND B

Mean Student Garment Score- Level of

Groups N card Scores t_-value Significance

A 47 92.32

B 48 87.44

*»-1.88 N.S

"Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.

Hypothesis 6

The students' final garment scorecard scores and

students' pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B

61

were compared in hypothesis six which stated:

Hypothesis 6: There are no significant re­lationships between students' final garment scorecard scores and students' pre-test at­titude scores within Groups A and B.

Hypothesis six was analyzed through the use of the Pearson

product-moment coefficient of correlation. The statistics

related to hypothesis six are summarized in Table 6. On

the basis of the analysis of the data presented in Table

6, hypothesis six was rejected for both Groups A and B.

The correlations indicated that significant relationships

did exist between students' final garment scorecard

scores and students' pre-test attitude scores within

Groups A and B. Those students with higher garment

construction scores had higher pre-test attitude scores.

TABLE 6

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS' FINAL GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES AND PRE-TEST ATTITUDE

SCORES WITHIN GROUPS A AND B

Correlations Between Final Garment Score-card Scores and Pre- Levels of

Groups Test Attitude Scores Significance

A .51 .001

B .30 .05

62

Hypothesis 7

Students' final garment scorecard scores and stu­

dents' post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B

were compared in hypothesis seven which stated:

Hypothesis 7: There are no significant re-lationships between students' final garment scorecard scores and students' post-test at­titude scores within Groups A and B.

Hypothesis seven was analyzed through the use of the

Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation. The

statistics related to hypothesis seven are summarized

in Table 7. On the basis of the analysis of the data

presented in Table 7, hypothesis seven was rejected for

Group A and accepted for Group B. For Group A the

correlation indicated that a significant relationship

existed between students' final garment scorecard scores

and students' post-test attitude scores. Those students

with higher garment scores had higher post-test attitude

scores. For Group B the correlation indicated that no

significant relationship existed between students' final

garment scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude

scores.

Hypothesis 8

The mean teacher garment scorecard scores and mean

student garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B

were compared in terms of the eighth hypothesis which

stated:

63

TABLE 7

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS' FINAL GARMENT SCORECARD SCORES AND STUDENTS' POST-TEST ATTITUDE SCORES WITHIN GROUPS A AND B

Correlations Between Final Garment Scorecard Scores and Post-Test Attitude Levels of

Groups Scores Significance

A .51 .001

B .23 N.S."

"Not significant at the .05 level or beyond.

Hypothesis 8: There are no significant dif-ferences between mean teacher garment score-card scores and mean student garment score-card scores within Groups A and B.

Hypothesis eight was analyzed through the use of a t_-test.

The statistics related to hypothesis eight are summarized

in Table 8. On the basis of the analysis of the data

presented in Table 8, hypothesis eight was rejected for

Group A and accepted for Group B. The ;t-value for Group

A indicated that a significant difference existed between

the mean teacher garment scorecard score and the mean stu­

dent garment scorecard score. The students rated their

garments significantly higher than the teachers rated

their garments. The t_-value for Group B indicated that

a significant difference did not exist between the mean

64

teacher garment scorecard score and the mean student

garment scorecard score for that group. Teacher and

student garment scorecard scores were significantly

different when only one evaluation was done of the stu­

dent's garment at the end of the construction process.

On the other hand, when continual evaluation by both

teachers and students took place throughout the con­

struction process the final garment scores of teachers

and students were not significantly different.

TABLE 8

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN TEACHER GAR14ENT SCORECARD SCORES AND MEAN STUDENT

SCORECARD SCORES WITHIN GROUPS A AND B

Groups Evaluators

Mean Garment Scores

Levels of _t-values Significance

Teacher

Student

88.32

92.32 2.84 .01

B Teacher

Student

87.00

87.44 23

'Not significant at the .05 level or beyond

N.S

65

Summary

In summary, the following were the significant

findings as a result of analyses of the hypotheses in

this chapter:

1. No significant difference was found between the

mean pre-test attitude score of those students in Group A

and the mean pre-test attitude score of those students

in Group B.

2. No significant difference was found between the

mean post-test attitude score of those students in Group

A and the mean post-test attitude score of those students

in Group B.

3. No significant differences were found between

the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test

attitude scores of students within Groups A and B.

4. No significant difference was found between the

mean teacher garment scorecard score for students in

Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score for

students in Group B.

5. No significant difference was found between

the mean student garment scorecard score for students

in Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score

for students in Group B.

66

6. Significant relationships were found between

the students' final garment scorecard scores and students'

pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.

7. A significant relationship was found between

the students' final garment scorecard scores and students'

post-test attitude scores within Group A. No significant

relationship was found between the students' final garment

scorecard scores and students' post-test scores within

Group B.

8. A significant difference was found between the

mean teacher garment scorecard score and the mean student

garment scorecard score in Group A. No significant dif­

ference was found between the mean teacher garment score-

card score and the mean student garment scorecard score

in Group B.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purposes of this chapter are to summarize the

study and to draw from an analysis of the data conclusions

which appear to be justified. Recommendations for further

study in the area of attitudes of high school students

towards clothing construction evaluation are based upon

the findings of the study.

Summary of the Study

The study had two major goals. The first was to

assess the attitudes of high school students towards

clothing construction. The second goal was to determine

if the garment construction scores of students in a

clothing construction unit were affected by two different

methods of evaluation.

The study was conducted from August to November of

1977. Data were collected from students in five high

schools in West Texas. The sample included ninety-five

high school students who were enrolled in home economics

classes. In order to qualify for participation in the

study, each high school had to have two home economics

67

68

classes at the same level involved in similar clothing

construction projects. One class was designed as Group A

and the other class as Group B. All students were ad­

ministered the pre-test attitude and post-test attitude

scale. Group A students and teachers completed Form A

of the garment scorecard only upon completion of the

garments. Group B students and teachers completed Form B

of the garment scorecard periodically during garment

construction.

Evaluation Instruments

Based on a review of literature and a study of

methods for preparing attitude scales and scorecards,

the evaluation instruments were developed. The evaluation

instruments consisted of two scorecards and a Likert-

type attitude scale. The instruments were reviewed and

critiqued by a panel of judges before being finalized

and administered to the sample.

The scorecards were developed to evaluate clothing

projects completed by the students in a comprehensive

sequence home economics class. Two versions of the gar­

ment scorecard were developed for the study. Form A of the

garment scorecard was used by Group A for evaluating gar­

ment construction upon completion of the garment. Form B

of the garment scorecard was used by Group for evaluating

garment construction at periodic check points during gar­

ment construction.

69

The garment scorecards consisted of forty dimensions

or aspects of clothing construction. These forty dimen­

sions were grouped under the following five areas of

clothing construction: pattern preparation, fabric

preparation, sewing techniques, finishing techniques,

and work habits. A standard score was assigned to each

of the forty dimensions. The teachers and students could

assign each dimension a number of points up to, but not

exceeding, the standard score.

A Likert-type attitude scale was constructed for

assessing the attitudes of high school students towards

clothing construction. The Likert-type attitude scale

consisted of thirty items equally representing the follow­

ing nine areas of clothing construction: pattern selection,

fabric preparation, sewing equipment, sewing skills,

construction procedures, evaluation of clothing projects,

time and expense of sewing, teacher and teaching of sewing,

and values and appropriateness of sewing. Students were

asked to indicate on the scale their agreement or dis­

agreement with each statement by circling a number from

five to one. The scale was used as a pre-test and post-

test instrument to assess the attitudes of high school

students towards clothing construction.

70

Data Analysis

Data collected from the garment scorecards and

attitude scales were analyzed through the following

methods. First, a series of ;t-tests were run to determine

if significant differences existed between the mean pre­

test attitude scores of students in Groups A and B, the

mean post-test attitude scores of students in Groups A

and B, and the pre-test and post-test attitude scores of

students within Groups A and B. Second, t_-tests were

used to determine if significant differences existed

between the mean teacher garment scorecard scores for

students in Groups A and B, the mean student garment

scorecard scores for students in Groups A and B, and the

mean teacher garment scorecard scores and the mean student

garment scorecard scores within Groups A and B. Third,

Pearson product-moment coefficient correlations were run

to determine if any significant relationships existed

between students' final garment scorecard scores and

students' pre-test attitude scores within Groups A and B

and between students' final garment scorecard scores and

students' post-test attitude scores within Groups A and B.

Findings of the Study

Findings resulting from analyses of data in the

study were as follows:

71

1. There was no significant difference between

the mean pre-test attitude score of those students in

Group A and the mean pre-test attitude score of those

students in Group B.

2. There was no significant difference between

the mean post-test attitude score of those students in

Group A and the mean post-test attitude score of those

students in Group B.

3. There were no significant differences between

the mean pre-test attitude scores and the mean post-test

attitude scores within Groups A and B.

4. There was no significant difference between

the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students

in Group A and the mean teacher garment scorecard score

for students in Group B.

5. There was no significant difference between the

mean student garment scorecard score for students in

Group A and the mean student garment scorecard score for

students in Group B.

6. There were significant relationships between

students' final scorecard scores and students' pre-test

attitude scores within Groups A and B.

7. There was a significant relationship between

students' final garment scorecard scores and students'

post-test attitude scores in Group A. There was no

72

significant relationship between students' final garment

scorecard scores and students' post-test attitude scores

in Group B.

8. There was a significant difference between the

mean teacher gartnent scorecard score and the mean student

garment scorecard score in Group A. There was no sig­

nificant difference between the mean teacher garment

scorecard score and the mean student garment scorecard

score in Group B.

Conclusions

Based upon the findings of the study, the following

conclusions were drawn:

1. The mean pre-test attitude scores of students

in Groups A and B were not significantly different.

Students with high and low attitude scores seemed to be

well distributed between the two groups.

2. Students in Groups A and B did not have sig­

nificantly different post-test attitude scores. Students

with high and low attitude scores seemed to be well

distributed between the two groups.

3. In comparing the attitudes of students before

constructing a garment and after constructing a garment,

no significant differences existed between the mean pre­

test attitude scores and the mean post-test attitude

73

scores of students within Groups A and B. Whether garment

evaluation was done continuously or only upon completion

of a garment did not affect students' attitudes towards

clothing construction.

4. The mean teacher garment scorecard score for

students in Group A was not significantly different from

the mean teacher garment scorecard score for students

in Group B. The method by which the teachers evaluated

their students did not have a significant effect upon

the final teachers' garment scorecard scores. Teachers

evaluating students in Groups A and B scored the students

the same no matter which evaluation method was used. It

can be concluded that teachers will grade students'

garments about the same whether the evaluation is done

continuously throughout the unit or only upon garment

completion.

5. The mean student garment scorecard score in

Group A was not significantly different from the mean

student garment scorecard score in Group B. Scores of

students evaluating themselves periodically throughout

construction of a garment did not vary significantly from

scores of students evaluating their garments only upon

completion. A trend in the data indicated that students

who evaluated their garments only upon completion scored

their garments higher than the students who continually

evaluated their garments.

74

6. Final garment scorecard scores and pre-test

attitude scores of students in Groups A and B were

significantly related. It appeared that the more positive

the students' attitudes were initially, the higher they

rated their garments. Thus, initial positive attitudes

towards clothing construction may result in garments of

higher quality being produced. It appears that this will

be true regardless of the method of evaluation used.

7. Students' post-test attitude scores and final

garment scorecard scores in Group A were significantly

related. Based on these findings, it can be concluded

that the more positive the students' attitude towards

clothing construction upon completing a project the higher

the final garment scorecard score. This was found to be

true in the group of students that evaluated their garments

only upon completion of their projects. Students' post-

test attitude scores and final garment scorecard scores

in Group B were not significantly related. It appears

that further research is needed.

8. In comparing the mean teacher garment scorecard

scores and the mean student garment scorecard scores, it

was noted that a significant difference existed in Group

A where evaluation only took place upon completion of

the garment. Students in Group A were allowed to see

the garment scorecard only upon garment completion, and

75

thus, they may not have been aware of the acceptable

criteria for constructing a garment. Students in Group A

may have forgotten whether they completed various steps

in construction or their performance in certain work

habits. Therefore, they may have estimated a final

garment score. No significant difference was found in

comparing the mean teacher garment scorecard score and

the mean student garment scorecard score in Group B.

Because students in Group B were continually made aware

of the acceptable criteria needed in constructing a gar­

ment, they may have scored their garments as their

teachers scored their garments. Also, since they were

continually aware of how their teachers were scoring

their garments, they may have become more aware of their

teachers' standards. Thus, they may have scored their

garments more like they thought their teachers would

score them at each check point along the way.

Recommendations for Further Study

Recommendations for further study include:

1. To revise the attitude scale based on the

students' recommendations in order to further simplify

and clarify the wording.

2. To modify both forms of the garment scorecard

omitting 'work habits'. Work habits could be evaluated

76

on a weekly or daily basis by the teacher. To reduce

the number of pages and improve the appearance of the

garment scorecard, it would be wise to have the instrument

professionally printed on both sides of the paper.

3. To revise the teachers' instructions for ad­

ministering the attitude scale and garment scorecard

making them more explicit.

4. To adapt the garment scorecard and attitude

scale for use in evaluating other subject matter fields

such as foods and nutrition and home experience projects.

5. To conduct a study using more experienced home-

making students or 4-H members to determine if other

students' attitudes and final garment scorecard scores

were related in a manner similar to or different from the

results in this study.

6. To gather other demographic data on the students

including race, I.Q., overall homemaking or academic

grade point average, and previous clothing construction

experience. This data could be compared to final garment

scorecard scores and attitude scores.

7. To develop an attitude scale to assess the

teachers' attitudes towards the two methods of garment

evaluation.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. "A Time to Sew and a Time to Reap Profits." De­partment Store Economist. 34 (June 197177 20-23. ~

2. "A $3-Billion Boom in Home Sewing." Business Week. 2144 (October 3, 1970): 56-57.

3. Ahmann, J. Stanley, and Clock, Marvin D. Evaluating Pupil Growth. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975.

4. Anderson, Virginia. "Home Economics and the Three R's." Journal of Home Economics. 65 (February 1973): 15-18.

5. Arny, Clara Brown. Evaluation in Home Economics. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts Publishers, 1953.

6. . The Effectiveness of the High School Pro­gram in Home Economics. Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minneapolis Press, 1952.

7. Baltera, Lorraine. "Home Sewing Sales Flat; Pattern Markerters Hope New Styles Will Catch On." Advertising Age. 46 (April 21, 1975): 52.

8. Borg, Walter R., and Gall, Meredity D. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Publishing Company, 1974.

9. Brightbill, Charles K. Education for Leisure-Centered Living. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Stackpole Company, 1966.

10. Brown, Clara M. Evaluation and Investigation in Home Economics. New York: F. S. Crofts and Company, 1941.

11. Chadderson, Hester. "Determining Effectiveness of Teaching Home Economics." Home Economics Education Association. Washington, D. C.

77

78

12. Cross, Aleene. Home Economics Evaluation. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishers, 1973.

13. "Everybody's Sewing Like Mad!" Changing Times. 21 (May 1967): 41-43.

14. "Fabric Barometer." Retail Directions. 128 (January-February 1974): 22-32:

15. "Fashion, Fit, and Sewing Machines." Consumer Bul­letin. 51 (May 1968): 7-9.

16. Fleck, Henrietta. "Are We Neglecting Affective Education?" Forecast. 20 (February 1975): F-53.

17 -. How to Evaluate Students. Bloomington, llinois: McKnight and McKnight Publishing I

Company, 1953.

18. . Toward Better Teaching of Home Economics. New Jersery: MacMillian Publishers'; 1968.

19. Fults, Anna C.; Lutz, Rowena; and Eddleman, Jacque. Readings in Evaluation. Illinois: The Inter­state Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1972.

20. Hall, Olive A., and Paolucci, Beatrice. Teaching Home Economics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961.

21. Hanna, Agnes. Home Economics in the Elementary and Secondary Schools. Boston: M. Barrows and Company, 1924.

22. Hatcher, Hazel M. "An Experimental Study to Determine the Relative Effectiveness at the Secondary Level of Two Methods of Instruction.' Journal of Experimental Education. 10 (Septem-ber 1941): 41-47.

23. "Home Sewing Never Had It So Good:" American Fabrics. 31 (Fall-Winter, 1954-1955): 79,84.

24. Hurt, Mary Lee. "Vocational Home Economics Present and Future." 64 (May 1972): 26-31.

79

25. "I Made it Myself!" Forbes. 107 (April 15, 1971): 43-44.

26. "Instant Wedding Dress." Life. 71 (December 3, 1971): 57-58.

27. Katz, D. "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960.

28. Kim, Eun-Young Rhee. "A Comparative Study of Secondary Home Economics Programs in the United States and in the Republic of Korea." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, August, 1977.

29. Lare, Joan H. "A New Look at Teaching Clothing Con­struction." Journal of Home Economics. 67 (September 1975): 30-32.

30. Mather, Mary. "Evaluation—More Than Tests." Il­linois Teacher. 8 (July-August 1970): 263^T65.

31. Osborn, Barbara. "Evaluation." Penney's Fashions and Fabrics. (Fall-Winter T5^y7~TT.

32. Pacey, Margaret D. "Picking Up the Pieces." Barron's 53 (March 5, 1973): 3, 12, 14, 16.

33. Phillips, Ray C. Evaluation in Education. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishers, 1968.

34. Reich, Ben, and Adcock, Christine. Values, Attitudes and Behavior Change. Great Britain: Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd., 1976.

35. Robbins, Stuart M. "The Fabric Retailing Industry." Financial Analysts Journal. 29 (May-June 1^7377 70-92.

36. "Sew and Reap." Time. 72 (November 10, 1958): 78, 81.

37. Smith, Shelly Harp. "Development and Evaluation of Graphic-Verbal Rating Scales for Measuring Achievement in Clothing Construction at the Secondary Level." Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas Tech University, 1977.

80

38. Souligny, Dorothy, and Grovalynn, Sisler. "Analysis of Clothing Exemption Test Scores." Journal of Home Economics. 64 (March 1972): 23-25.

39. Spafford, Ivol. Fundamentals in Teaching Home Eco­nomics . London: Chapman and Hall, 1935.

40. Spitze, Hazel T., and Griggs, Mildred B. Choosing Evaluation Techniques. Home Economics Educa­tion Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.

41. Sweet, Jeanette. "Teaching Selected Clothing Concepts Through Independent Study in Beginning Clothing Construction." Unpublished Master's thesis, South Dakota State University, 1970, p. 23.

42. "The Billion Dollar Customer." American Fabrics. 31 (Fall-Winter 1954-1955): 78.

43. Wharton, Don. "Big 'Happening' in Home Sewing." Reader's Digest. 95 (July 1959): 25-28.

44. Zimbardo, Philip, and Ebbesen, Ebbe B. Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1959.

APPENDIX

A. Instructions to Tea chers

B. Score Card For Evaluation of Garment-Form A

C. Score Card For Evaluation of Garment-Form B

D. Table of Specifications For Attitude Scale

E. Attitudes Towards Clothing Construction

81

82

APPENDIX A

INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHERS

The two classes of students you have chosen to

participate in the study will complete the following:

1. Pre-Attitude Scale 2. Garment Score Card (form A or B) 3. Post-Attitude Scale

1. The pre-attitude scale must be administered and re­turned to me by mail before September 1, 1977. Have the students in both classes complete the information in the upper left hand corner of both the attitude scale and garment score card.

2. Teach the clothing unit as you usually have. Only the evaluation will change. One class will evaluate their garment throughout construction while the other class will evaluate their garment only at the end.

3. Select one class to be group A to use form A of the garment score card only upon the completion of their garments. The other class will be group B and use form B of the garment score card throughout the con­struction process.

4. As the teacher, you will evaluate group A garments after the students and group B garments throughout construction.

5. Tally all points (both students and teacher) on both garment score cards and record on the scale where designated. Re-check the points please.

6. Administer the post-attitude scale to the students in both classes and return these to me by mail before November 1, 1977.

83

PQ

X M Q w

H IS

<: o

o

o M H

>o

o

Q P <:

o u en

0) S cd

s:

cu 4J CO Q

• P

a cu

• > — )

o u p-l

rH

o O ^ a

CO

CO CO oi

r-l O

• CO u •U r H (U C ciJ CU . E ;

P^•^^ -P CO O CU o c o ^ Cd

bO-P Ok-rH H (U C CO i J

•rH MH d , [5 rC O CU • (U }-l <u o P >H w) :3 CO cd j-< CO t-J cd o

<i) Q) P^ Q.>, CO .JQ (U FL, CO O g ^ <J p o cd -P ::3 4J CO P

r-l C H cd .

cu O P ) O O t-H <U X)

X c u x ) S ^ J-i cu I—1 cu cd ^3 2 ^ P CO X l O O ' H O U p CO >^ CO C O

• CO Q fl! cu cu X) O ' d o ^ ^1 CU P H - H Ct P O rG XJ g T J O CO P ^H U Q) CO - H CO ^J t—1 o >

a cu O O O -H O 'H ^ >-, O cu O PM-I W3 U

•H m cu T 3 rH j : : : M ^ TJ •

cd

txO

M :3 o >^

cu -1

;3 W)

•H <+-!

CU 1—1 -P C CO x ) CO cd cu cd ^ ^) ^ . ^ - s U

CO -P P \ M-l cd CU-H fH ^ ^ g

rO O cu ' - ^ CU CU P -P X) CO J^

rH (U ( X P O :3 M •H 6 ^3 CO cu O O 15 M ^ >,14-I

cd CU X) o cu txO }H CU (U c

.-1 o.:^ c > e cd 5-1 u }^ cu cd ^J o ;d CO cd 4:d W ) T - I CO o B P o

!>^ }H ^3 O bO CU JH - O C a ^ S P >^ CO

•H (u e 3 C P [3 X ; ^) r - l (U CO c

o ;$ c o p p (u ^ O h C g r-l p Cd cd -H B . G O cu W) o o

UH cu cu ;c: PH o •r-, a P M

CU o cd m cu cu

a cd

p

c cu

p cd bO

5-1 :3 o >^

cu !-i

o o CO

-H —1 H ^

(U ^ l i ^ ^ r H C O ^ ^ ^ H a . Pu'H > ^ P P CO

en 3 o M H CJ

s 1-1 Q

en H IS w g o CJ

H o s >-•

H J en pL, W PM o < i : Q

CO

P i

w ffi CJ < : w H

CO

H IS w Q :z) H CO

w H-Jen P Q H M S en M coo OP-( p^

• - S i n \^

2; o M H

w < : PL.

w p^ Pn

§ w H H < : PM

a

M

r H

1 cu U CO

p T3 C C cu cd e

cu <+H -1 M ^ cu CO CO cd

cu Ti g cu ^ ' d J cu

cox) cd }^

cu o S o

rH

CM

>^ r H p o cu u 5-1 o o c }H cu p p cd cu p •iH

p^

CM

84

O

CO P^ W PL. o <: Q

en

w u <: w

en

H w Q ;=) H en

w PQ M en en O Pu

en H

M o PH

CM <r CM ro CM CN CO <t-

X) CU

X} cu CU

a x> cu

•p

c CO CU Cd g

o ; 3

cu

pL. cu

CO

i n

3 o l-H

H p^

PH

P-i

e j M P i pq < :

M

•p o cu }-l }H

o

cu bO cd

O X J }H

X3 cu CO

cd o

cd

XI rH U

0 Cd P M M H

a 5H

(U •P

O -P •rH

cd MH

cd CU

}H O

MH

CU Q) CO t—I cd Xi

^ cd O i J }H -H

P H CO

CM

o -rA U

Xi cd

MH

CO

CU

u

CO

•H Cd j-i bO

X ) cu

cu p

bO •iH cd }H P) CO

CO bO CU 0 O -H CU M

•H d Cu CO

cd

cu d }H CU P >^ P X cd cu a

•H xJ cd CO cu }H ;? O bO O cd u

rH C! }H PH O cd

m

I

o o o

•H J-l

.CI cd

MH

P P >^ O rH

P P O ::> (u

U }H

vO

I u o a o

•H U

X cd

MH

X3 >^ CU rH

^ P" U o cd cu

o

en w M

e j w H

M M

X o t: p o •H -rH P CO CO Cl

CU P P) O cux)

V^ cd o ox

p X ) bO cu C CO cu

(U • H P

Cd

X3 CU CO

X -^ o cd p cu •H 5H p . d

CO P

U M cd rH PQ cd

CM

85

H O

en PL, w p.. o <C

en

Pi w ej <: w

en

H

w Q :=) H en

w PQ M en en O P-.

en H M O PL^

CO CO m ro CM <r CO

•P o cu JH VH o o

X ) cu

^ a p •H p CO x: > , p cd XJ p) en

•H ^

p

c •iH O CU

o p

CO p u cd x» '•0 cu [2 cu en

art

X )

XJ

cu 15 cu CO

XJ c: Cd

XJ cu CO CO CU u

P^

P o

•H P O (U }-l

•H XJ

P O CU jH }H o o

c •H

CO

g cd cu CO

p Xi bO

•H cd M P» CO

XJ CU 15 CU en

c: cu a. o CO

g cd cu CO

X3 CU CO CO Q) u

PL.

CO cd

CO

g cd CU CO

'O QJ

X xJ CO CU

•r\ XJ C

•H Px

(U CU

c:

-ci cu y^

1 ' g CU •H X3 > }H CU }H P X3 Cl

CU O XJ CU CJ d ~ Cd P

CO Xi X) cd bO cu -iH CU CO cd p. g 5H

•H cd P r- l CU CO CJ CO ^ -

1

u o o }-l cu PU cu

•H N

'd 0) >^

•H rH rH P

cuo P . CU

< : u

1

u cu

XJ CO d bO J a

•iH X) o c: cd Cd MH

X ) XJ cu cu

xxi CO O •H P d'H

•rH P piH CO

p cd

CO bO a •H U >% cd rH

MH d O

X3 CU CO

^ g o Cd cd cu

H CO

bO C

•H O Cd

M^ u u cu o P MH C

•H nd (U

X I ^ cu M

•H cd t - l o p. Cu CO

<C cd

CO -^ in vo 00 CTN CN CO

86

H O

en p W PL, O <C

CO

Pi w

w

CO

H iz; w Q

H CO

W

PQ M en en O pL.

CO H

M

o pL.

VO vo vO

XJ CU

X^ CO (U

•iH P C O

• H CU MH U

•rH XJ X)

cd CO cd

- d cu

•H -1

cd

CUrH cu O <: o

< ^

- d

cd

p CO

•rH Cd x3 [5 cu

P XJ o

cu cu X u O -H cd XJ p p CO <C cd

i n

CO cd

> <u 0)

r H CO

13 -cu MH U UH cu

j : : p cd bO

XJ (U

•iH

-d cu p o

r H cu CUJH C U T H

vO

:3 u

•H CU

CU P CO cu

-> o cu cd cd r H o pu

i n

M

en

H

M

rH P Cd cu C!

' d CU x: o p p •H XI P bO CO - H I Cd PUSH O P

H CO

I u o o CO

d o p p

XJ cu

x: !> cd p P o P CU

<: u

CM

I }H O

o CO

}-l cu d cu p CO cd

MH X) r-\ CU P [5 O cu CU

en j-i

CO

u o o CO

• H

P

XJ (U >-,

• H r H r H P

cu o c u CU < U

<t

I CU

cd

cu CO d

X) cu ex cd

cu X ) P cu cd P •H o u cu cu

r H O cu u

en cu

i n

'd cu

x : a p

• H p CO

X I M Cd x;

r H P Cd CU

2 :

vO

CO 'a

cd cu }-^ x; p

cu CO o o

cd

P MH d MH

U O

87

pi d cu B u cd bO

cu u

•H p» d cu

X3 cu CO CO cu U

PL.

OD

CU 13 P» d cu

}H Cd bO

P •H

CJ

i n

en H M PQ

O

cu

(U

• H P

^ 3 CU CO

p cd

X J CO O CO o cd bOrH

o X) cu d

•H cd

d •H

CU P xJ d

•H Cd S

d p •H P

CM

O P

d o

• H P cd CO }H cu

> y § 1 O •H

d P -H CU g (U

{^ cd

CO

p d cu g cu PU o

•H cd d M cr cu cu

s-i x J cu cu cu d }H d p cu Pi

o u pu

o p

CO cu cd 5H

o CO

CU d

' d CU d u Cd cu cu cu

rH cd

o cu

i n

o o

CO p d

•H O CU

cu

X • H

CO p d

•H O P .

P d cu

CO ' d CO

o d p

cu CO

cd p o H

cd p o H

CO p d

•H o cu }H CU

X ! o cd cu p

cd p o H

H J P-i pL. <C

H O 23

CO w o Q

g o }H

MH

CO P

d •H ^ O CU P

d rH CU Cd ' d p o

d p en

5 ^ CU

x: o cd cu

H

88

X M Q W pL. P-I <:

o [ i . o 2:

o M H < PQ

> o W Pu

Pi o P

Q Pi < ej

o

en

cu g cd

cu p cd

Q

p o cu

• > — )

o }H

PL.

o o

x: o en

v^ cu XJ d

i H - H O cd XJ !>^ O 1 CO CO d CU

bO O O • ^ d cu &. >-,>-i cd P

•rA X KJ] P CO 15 p p tH pL, d cu CO M pLi ^ - r - ) CO d cu < i Pi

O X ! W d

5-J cu

coxi p d r H

•H cd O P a, o

p cu

CO bO . H K O X l ^ H CO CU^H P O U > ^ P r H cd cu x; d 13 <3 • H

r H P cu W CO r H 15

o CO cuxJcoH cued XJ d w cu

J-l Xl P P O W P d o CO Q W CO o cd o en >> cu p XJ d 1 cu

p cu ox: p en

" cu g pL, x : ' d •

cu cu cu.ii^ d o p h P d M rH H o cu cd o en cu O rH cu g O U CO cu J-t CO o

g o d cu >. o

cu J x l cu CO x l

• H O d cd

•H cu O O O g x l c d C O M H P p O CO d P CO

r H r H iH cu XJ d U O x - ^ P r H r H X i cu O cu O - Cd -H CO >,x ^ x : 12 d g cu^^P

CO d x l cu cu < d ptri p x; X O O CO

cd d cu cu j—i • - H X ! CO X J tH bo cu o d •H d cu CO cd cd [5 O P P d

rH CO d cu O J-l cu cd -H x l p cu

rH P O P x l cd o Cd cu cu o O bOXl " g cd CO P MH c u O cu

d o cu o p bO O O P (U > ^ p j ^ CO d cu

•H cu O x l ^ CO P XI cu > ^ P o cd X g XI

i-\ cu d p J- o rH p qj c cu P o o o >

MH cu cu (U x l cu cu •r~, O ,-\ C i-\

cu o cd Xl P cu cd XJ J-l -H -H O ^ O H pu Pu CO d 12 CO

, , CO

s o H H CJ

s M

cd P

CO O • H P

p cu d > cu •H g bO v-l cd XJ bOd

cd u dMH O r H >%(U

CO d M

. cu

1 3 cd J-l bO

v d o > .

cu u d bO

• H cu d MH xl o 3 >^xl

Q) • >

13 cd

d cd

CO

cu bOP jH

0 d o o

d • H

o CO > ^ p ^

en H iz;

§ g o CJ

o ;z: >H

l-J CO PL, W PL,

o <: Q

en _ Pi w ffi CJ < : w H

en _ H S W Q P H CO

w HJ en pq H M s CO M CO o O P^ P-.

/-^ i n s_x

13 o M H

S < P-.

S PL.

*Z PM

w H

< pL.

T H

1

cu J-l CO

p X3 C d CU Cd g

cu MH jH r-< d

CU CO CO cd

cu -d g cu J H X ) d cu CO ""d cd U cu o S d

• r H

CM

> . r H P O CU J-l jH

o U

d J-4

cu p p cd cu

p •H PH

. Csj

CO CO

cd

u

89

H O S >-i

en p-t PiJ PH O < : Q

CO

Pi PLI

u <: p j H

CO

H

PiJ Q

H en

PLI

PQ M CO en O pL.

CO H

M O P

CM CM CO Cvj CM

1 cu

•H d CT CU

XJ CU

X3 CU CU

c X I cu CO cd

x l o u d

PL.

. oo

p d cu g

Pi Pi:3 pel u <: P3j H

Pil Pij en

ST

OP

---

/—N

i n rH s_^

^ o IH EH

^ <: p-<

a PL.

C_)

BR

I

<d

II.

F.

p o cu M cu jH bO o cd O 13

jH XJ cd cu >-. CO cd o

x : TH O jH V XI d cd P^MH

. ^

d jH cu p

O P •H cd n p-

X cd u

MH O MH

13 CU CU CO r H cd X I

X cd O P jH -H d d

pLi CO

. CM

o •H J-l

X cd

MH

^

P jH X CO 1 (U jH P

. CO

d •H cd jH bO

T3 CU d cu p X bO

•H cd jH p en

. <t-

Pi PiJ ffi u < i^ H

PxJ Px:i en

ST

OP

---

>^ X

CO

^ ^ ^ d -H o J-l cd jH cu J-l jH p bo cd p cd d bo cu o d

•H X J CO J-l

cu cu d O O CO

cd cu cd .H -H cu pL. cu g

• i n

Pi u^ X CJ <: pq H

pij pi en

ST

OP

---

o •H J-l

X cd

MH >^ rH

P P d o O cu

jH P jH d o o o

• vO

1 jH o o

o •H jH

X cd

MH

XJ >^ (U rH

^ P> jH O Cd cu S }H

• r^

Pi PiJ Pd CLJ <C PJ H

PJ PJ CO

ST

OP

---

90

H O

en pL,

§ ^ PQ

en

Pi PiJ pd

< Pij H

en

H

pq CQ :=i H CO

Ptj hJ en PQ H M Z en M CO o O pL. PL.

CO CO CO CO CO CM

. -^

o vo V . X

en pq 13 cy IH

CH

N

pq H

• H M M

xi o d P o •H .H P CO CO d

0) p p o cux) }H d J-l cd

o ox p

XJ bO <u d CO cu

PDrH

• r-^

X3 (U

•H P

X3 d cd

XJ cu CO

X J X I o Cd p cu •H jH P X CO P»

^ O r H Cd r H

PQ Cd

•

CM

p o cu J-l J-l o o

13 cu

X o p •H p CO X > ^ p Cd 13 P I

en

• CO

•H ^

P d

•H o CU

o P

CO P jH Cd

13

XJ cu 15 cu en

•

•<r

CO P jH Cd

x) 13 cu [5 CU CO

13 d cd

13 cu CO CO CU jH

PH

. i n

CO

d o

•H p o cu J-l

•H ' d

p

o cu jH J-l o o

d •H

P i pq Pd u < pq H

PiJ PiJ en

PL. o H en

CO

e cd cu CO

p X bO

•H cd jH p CO

• d cu 15 CU en

. vO

d cu PU o CO

g cd

cu CO

x) Q) CO CO

cu jH

p^

. r^

13

cu x) cu cu d

CO cd

CO

g cd cu CO

13 CU

X CO

•H

d •H P

. 00

13 CU g g

•H X) J-l CU P X l

CU XJ CU d d Cd

CO - d cd

cu cu CO

cu g •H cd r-i CU CJ CO

. CJ

^--N

13 CU >

u d o

•> p X bO

•H cd jH P CO

^^

>^ r-A P o cu J-l J-l o o J- CU CU PU

•H N

13 CU

•H r H CU cu

<c .

o r H

Pi pq m u < pq H

PiJ pq en

P-. o H en

91 C O H

Px^

o e j

H o .-q

en PL< PiJ P^ O <:

en

Pi

PC CJ < : pq

CO

H

pq Q

H en

pq ^q PQ M CO en O P

en H 2 : M O P

CO vO vO vD

jH CU

X J CO d d

bO d

•H XJ O d cd cd MH

X) XJ cu cu

X X CO O

•H P P'rA

•H P) pi-i CO

P Cd

CO bO d

•H O >^ Cd r H

MH d

o 1 3

CU CO

^ B o cd cd cu

H CO

Csl

CO bO d

•H o cd

MH jH cu p d

•H

13 cu

•H

J^

o C+H X )

CU

cd o

PU cu CO

<: cd

CO

Pd pq Pd CJ <: pq H Pxq pq CO

pL.

o H CO

1 3 CU

X 1 3 CO cu

•H P d o

•H CU MH jH

•H 1 3 X 3 d Cd CO

cd 1 3

CU j H •H cd rH rH CUi-H Cu O

<; o

CO cd

1 3 d cd

X p CO

•iH cd

13 13 (U cu

X P> O O cd cu P jH P) -H <C 13

i n

Pi pq Pd CJ < w H

pq pq en

P o H en

x) « CO cu MH Cd ^^ MH

CU d CU X O > P ^-x (U cd ~ g CU bO d <u

rH ^-^-H X CO I

XJ P •> XJ CU CU P (U P CO CU

• H O J^ rH CU - O CU J-l PU cd P l i 'H cd rH

<3 13 O PU

VO

Pi pq Pd CJ < pq H

pq pq en

CO

M

en M

U*

P^ o H en

,-i p cd cu d

x) cu

X o p p •H X P) bO CO -H I cd pL, U O P

H CO

92 en H

PLI

o CJ

H O

^q en PL, PiJ PH o <: Q

en Pi pq Pd u < pq H

CO

EH

pq Q :=) H CO

pq ^q en PQ H M 2 ; en M en o OPL. PL.

CN

CO d o p» p d

X l >^

XJ rH CU PJ

X o o cu cd u P jH P o <; o

. CM

CO jH CU d cu p CO >> cd r H

MH P) O

XJ cu cu J-l

^ u Q) O en o

» CO

CO

g •H jH P >^

T-i X) P CU O

•H CU nH ^ CU jH PU o

<J o

-d-

Pi pq Pd CJ < pq H

pq PiJ en

ST

OP

---

XI cu CO

d 13 d cd

13 cu p o cu

r H

cu en

• i n

g cu

X

cu p cd

•H jH Pu o jH cu cu cd

13 cu

X o p •H p CO

13 d cd

X >^

.H P Cd cu 13

^ vO

CO T 3 cd CU jH

X P

cu CO

o o

r H

r H i H cd

P MH dMH

CJ o

^

r--

p d cu g jH Cd bO

cu jH

•H p d cu

13 CU CO CO

cu u Pu

, 0 0

T-\

r H

cu 15 p d cu e u cd bfl

p •H PM

, CTv

/—\ m v_«'

en H M pq < Pd K V

o :2

>

r H r H CU 15

CU P •H P

13 CU CO

PD

• r H

I P Cd

' d CO O CO o cd bOrH

o 13 CU d d-rH

•H cd (U P X J d d

•H P cd-H

S PI

• CM

cd

o p

d o

•H P» cd CO jH

cu > d o g o d

g P -H CU d cu -H ;^ g

. CO

93

o p

p) d cu e p .

•H d cu cr o cu cd

rH XJ cu

<u d u u <u d cu p o cu jH Pi cu

CO cu cd u o CO

cu d

o o

CO p d

•H O CU

cu

X •H

CO CO o cu

cd p o H

CO p d

•H o cu p d cu

X J d p CO

cd p o

EH

CO p d

•H o PU

J-l (U

X o cd cu p

cd p o

H

13 CU d cd cu

r H

JH

cu (X cd

>-• ^q PH

H O

CO pq O Q

g o J-l

C+H

CO

p d

•H O CU

cd p o H

P d (U

13 d p en

J ^ cu

X o cd cu

H

CJ cu

Ln

94

APPENDIX D

TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR ATTITUDE SCALE

Areas of Clothing Construction • Item Numbers

Pattern Selection and Use 1, 11, 22

Fabric Preparation 14, 29

Sewing Equipment 12, 40

Sewing Skills 18, 23, 37, 9

Construction Procedures 5, 28, 4

Evaluation 8, 10, 25, 20

Time/Expense of o ^ ^ OA -q Clothing Construction ^, D, /, ZO, J5J

Teacher/Teaching of Clothing Construction 15, 17, 24

Value/Appropriateness of Clothing Construction 3, 16, 21, 38

95

APPENDIX E

ATTITUDES TOWARDS CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

Name

School

Male Female

Date

Directions: Respond to each of the following statements below on the basis of your feelings. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers will not affect your grade. Circle an answer for each of the statements according to the following key.

SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree U = Undecided D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

1. It is a good idea to use the table of suggested fabrics on the pattern envelope. 1. SA A U D SD

2. There is too little time in class to properly sew a gar­ment. 2. SA A U D SD

3. Sewing courses are valuable for the student. 3. SA A U D SD

4. Staystitching a garment is a waste of time. 4. SA A U D SD

5. Many steps in sewing a gar­ment can be left out. 5. SA A U D SD

6. Sewing costs too much. 6. SA A U D SD

96

7. Sewing takes too much time,

8. A garment should be graded many times during a cloth­ing course.

9. Many sewing skills should be taught in a clothing course.

10. Grades on garments do not show the true time and ef­fort put into making the garment.

11. All pattern guide sheets are easy to read and follow.

7. SA A U D SD

8. SA A U D SD

9. SA A U D SD

10. SA A U D SD

11. SA A U D SD

12. One should always test the machine tension and stitch­ing on sample fabric before starting to sew.

13. All fabrics need to be pre-shrunk before sewing can begin.

14. The teacher should not be concerned with what pattern the student chooses.

15. Clothing courses are for the low ability student.

16. The way I am taught helps me in sewing a garment.

17. A person can understand the skills in sewing and still not construct a good garment.

18. A sewing home experience can help the teacher see what a student has learned in class.

12. SA A U D SD

13. SA A U D SD

14. SA A U D SD

15. SA A U D SD

16. SA A U D SD

17. SA A U D SD

18. SA A U D SD

97

19. All high school students should take one course in sewing.

20. It is wise to take one's measurements before selecting a pattern.

21. Poor sewing skills are easy to correct.

22. Most clothing teachers are impatient with stu­dents .

23. The student should have a chance to show or model the garment made in class

24. Too much time is allowed during the quarter for sewing a garment.

25. Garments will fit well when you plan and pre­pare your sewing.

26. Cutting out a garment off grain has little ef­fect on the way the final garment looks.

27. Using time well is neces­sary in constructing a good garment.

28. Using various hand stitches is unimportant to the finished garment.

29. Sewing courses are for the students who have a high sewing ability.

30. Selecting good equipment helps one sew a good gar­ment.

19. SA A U D SD

20. SA A U D SD

21. SA A U D SD

22. SA A U D SD

23. SA A U D SD

24. SA A U D SD

25. SA A U D SD

26. SA A U D SD

27. SA A U D SD

28. SA A U D SD

29. SA A U D SD

30. SA A U D SD