STUDENT PROJECT PRODUCTIVITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP 
TO EXISTING STUDENT RECORDS 
by 
William Arthur Dotter 
A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree 
of 
Master of Science 
in 
Industrial Arts Education 
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 
Bozeman, Montana 
August 1983 
11 
^3^ 
dop^ 
APPROVAL 
of a professional paper submitted by 
William Arthur Dotter 
This professional paper has been read by each member of the 
graduate committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding 
content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, 
and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of 
Graduate Studies. 
Date (/ / Chairperson, Graduate Committee 
Approved for the Major Department 
Head, Major Department 
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies 
X -(/'fJ 
Date Graduate Dean 
iii 
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE 
In presenting this paper in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for an advanced degree at Montana State University, 
I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for 
inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying 
of this paper for scholarly purposes may be granted by my major 
professor, or, in his absence, by the Director of Libraries. It 
is understood that any copying or publication of this paper for 
financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. 
Signature 
Date fr'Z'ZS. 
V 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
LIST OF TABLES   vi 
ABSTRACT  vii 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION   1 
Purpose of the study  3 
Need for study  3 
Objectives  4 
Definitions  4 
Limitations   5 
Delimitations  6 
Assumptions   6 
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE   7 
The Junior or Middle Age Student  8 
Attitude and Self Esteem as Predictors of Achieve¬ 
ment ...      io 
Achievement Tests and Future Achievement . 12 
Summary    ... 14 
CHAPTER 3. PROCEDURES   15 
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA  20 
6PA, Stanine and Point Totals for each Group  20 
Grade Point average Data Presentation and Analysis. 21 
Stanine Data Presentation and Analysis  23 
Interest as an Achievement predictor   25 
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 32 
Summary      32 
Conclusion    33 
Recommendations     35 
BIBLIOGRAPHY    38 
APPENDIX  '...    40 
Interest Survey 41 
vi 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table Page 
1. Project Points Earned, GPA, and Stanine Level for 
each Subject in Group A and Group B  19 
2. Point, GPA and stanine Averages for Group A and 
Group B  21 
3. Number of Students and Percentages of Group A and 
Group B at each GPA Level  22 
4. Average Points Earned and Number of Students of 
Group A and Group B at each GPA Level  23 
5. Number of Students for each Stanine Level and Average 
Number of Points Earned at each Level  24 
6. Number and Percentage of Group A and Group B and 
Combined Groups at each Stanine Range      ; 25 
7. Response to Interest Survey Questions 1 and 2 
(A summary of those students who desired to take the 
industrial arts class and those who did not desire to 
take the course)  26 
8. Response to Interest Survey Question 4 (the relation¬ 
ship of career choice to industrial arts enrollment) .. 28 
9. Response to Interest Survey Question 5 (Student 
attitude toward teacher)  29 
10. Response to Interest Survey Question 6 (Expectation of 
students toward the industrial arts class)   so 
11. Response to Interest Survey Question 7 (Student 
perceptions of their ability to work with their 
hands) '  31 
vn 
ABSTRACT 
The purpose of this study was to determine if student records 
can be used to predict performance on project work in the eighth 
grade industrial arts metal work class at Helena Junior High 
School in Helena, Montana. Specific objectives for the study 
were: 
1. To determine if students with a high 6PA achieve and 
produce at a higher level on individual project work 
than students with a low GPA. 
2. To determine if students with a high SRA stanine score 
achieve and produce at a higher level on individual 
project work than students with low stanine scores. 
3. To determine if student interests toward the industrial 
arts program have an effect on achievement and productivity 
during individualized project work. 
In order to place the proposed investigation in perspective, 
a review of the literature was conducted so as to locate relevant 
thoughts and data pertaining to the use of achievement tests, 
GPAs, and interests to predict performance. 
Data concerning GPA and achievement test (SRA) scores were 
obtained from guidance department files. An interest measurement 
instrument was developed for use with this study and validated 
by a jury of experts. The interest instrument was administered 
to each subject on the first day of class. The population included 
all 65 students enrolled in the 1981-82 school year eighth grade 
nine weeks metals industrial arts class. 
Conclusions indicated by this study showed a strong relationship 
between GPA and achievement score averages for groups of high 
or low students as related to levels of project productivity. 
As a predictor for individual performance a high incidence of 
error was noted. Interest was not found to have a relationship 
with the prediction of project productivity in this study. 
1 
CHAPTER 1 
INTRODUCTION 
Helena, the capital city of Montana, is an urban community of 
approximately 35,000 people. The mainstay of the area is state and 
federal government and related services. Agriculture, forest 
products, manufacturing, and mining industries also serve an important 
role in the economy. 
The Helena school system is composed of one vocational-technical 
center, two senior high schools, two junior high schools, twelve 
grade schools and an alternate school. 
Helena Junior High serves 850 students in the seventh, eighth, 
and ninth grades. The ninth grade class is scheduled to move to the 
high school with the passing of the 1982 bond issue. This move has 
many implications for the Helena Junior High industrial arts program 
and may offer new opportunities for program growth. 
This study concerned itself with the eighth grade industrial arts 
program at Helena Junior High School. This nine week metals course is 
offered to all students on an optional basis requiring them to select 
either industrial arts or home economics. Approximately 95 percent 
of the boys and 10 percent of the girls were enrolled in industrial 
arts at the eighth grade level. It should be noted that this 
industrial arts program is not intended to provide vocational training, 
but is a part of general education. The project method of instruction 
2 
is used as an exploration tool, and does not focus on skill training 
as a primary goal. The course does encourage students to use a wide 
range of materials and utilize a number of methods of fabrication 
techniques. Little emphasis is placed on skill development or 
attaining master craftsman level project work. The project represents, 
the student's exposure to the area of study in the same manner as a 
theme in an English class. The student grades represent the number of 
experiences they had rather than the skill level attained. An "A" 
grade may be attained by fulfilling all the exploratory requirements 
and skill proficiency is not a requirement for an "A" grade in the 
class. 
The exploratory requirements include the following: 
-Demonstrating knowledge of pattern and layout drafting and the 
tools used by producing a series of three sheet metal patterns. 
-Demonstrating knowledge of metal fastening techniques and the 
tools and machines used for fabricating metal fastened by welding, 
soldering, lock seams, and rivets. 
-Demonstrating an understanding of metal finishing methods by 
individual project fabrication. 
-Demonstrating fabrication procedures by designing and building 
projects utilizing different construction techniques. 
The problem in this study was to investigate the fact that some 
eighth grade students fail to complete a satisfactory number of 
exploratory experiences at an acceptable level of productivity during 
the individual project exploration unit of the industrial arts program. 
For this reason, the investigator felt that these students needs were 
3 
not being met. The study compared existing student records of 
achievement in the industrial arts program to determine the value of 
existing records as predictors of achievement. 
Purpose Of The Study 
The purpose of this study was to compare existing student records 
of past performance on SRA achievement tests, individual grade point 
averages, and personal interests against achievement of those students 
in the eighth grade industrial arts metals class at Helena Junior High 
School. 
Need For The Study 
The findings of this study are desired to aid the industrial arts 
instructor in program planning. If student productivity and 
achievement can be predicted, the information could be used to 
determine course content and tailor instructional methods to better 
fit the needs of the student. Student needs may be described as being 
exploratory in nature, offering the student new experiences which will 
help them to cope with the future. Examples of such are: precision 
measuring, machine and hand tool use, job safety, industrial 
processes, consumer awareness, and information for informed future 
educational choices. 
Students needs may also be described in terms of educational 
opportunity, ability tracking, presentation style, reading level of 
text and handouts and level of audio visual materials used. This 
author has questioned whether some students may excel! while others 
fall behind regardless of teaching style, course content, GPA, SRA 
4 
stanine level and interest. 
Objectives 
The specific objectives for this study were as follows: 
1. To determine if students with a high 6PA achieve and produce 
at a higher level on individual project work than students with a low 
GPA. 
2. To determine if students with a high SRA stanine score 
achieve and produce at a higher level on individual project work than 
students with low SRA stanine scores. 
v 
3. To determine if student interests toward the industrial arts 
program have an effect on achievement and productivity during 
individualized project work. 
Definitions 
For the purpose of this study the following terms are defined: 
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: Knowledge attained or skills developed in 
the school subjects, usually designed by test scores or by marks 
assigned by teachers, or by both. (Good, C.V. 1959) 
ACHIEVEMENT: Accomplishment or proficiency of performance in a 
given skill or body of knowledge. (Good, C.V. 1959) 
APTITUDE: (1) a group of characteristics deemed to be 
symptomatic of an individual's ability to acquire proficiency in a 
given area; (2) ability measured by the amount of time required by 
the learner to acquire mastery of a task; thus given enough time, all 
students can conceivably attain such mastery. (Good, C.V. 1959) 
5 
ATTITUDE: The predisposition or tendency to react specifically 
towards an object, situation, or value; usually accompanied by feelings 
and emotions. Attitudes cannot be directly observed but must be 
inferred from over behavior, both verbal and nonverbal. (Good, C.V. 
1959) 
EDUCATIONAL APTITUDE: A combination of characteristics and 
abilities which considered together can be used as a basis for 
prediction of a certain level of achievement that can be attained 
through further development. (Good, C.V. 1959) 
GPA: Grade point average is the mean of grades obtained on a 
number of school courses. (Good, C.V. 1959) 
IEP: Individual educational program. 
PERFORMANCE: Actual accomplishment as distinguished from 
potential ability. (Good, C.V. 1959) 
PRODUCTIVITY: Relation between input of a resource and the output 
of a product. (Page, G.T. & Thomas, J.B. 1977) 
SRA: Science Research Associates achievement test series. 
STANINE: A national stanine indicates a student's standing in 
comparison with students in the national sample at the same grade 
level and in the same semester. The stanine range 7-9 represents the 
upper 23 percent; 4-6, the middle 54 percent; and 1-3, the lower 23 
percent. (SRA Achievement Series, user's guide 1979) 
Limitations 
This study is undertaken with this limitation: 
-The measure of project productivity is based on instructor 
6 
judgement. 
Delimitations 
The following delimitation has been identified for this study. 
-This study will be limited to the Helena Junior High eighth 
grade industrial arts metals program. 
Assumptions 
The assumptions for this study were as follows: 
1. The subjects in this study reflect no difference in response 
from those in any given year. 
2. Value judgements made by the teacher concerning criteria for 
experiences required for study group placement are correct based on 
thirteen years of teaching experience and educational training. . 
3. That the interest survey is valid based on pretest of the 
instrument and its review by a panel of experts. 
7 
CHAPTER 2 
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 
In order to place the proposed investigation in perspective, a 
review of the literature was conducted to: (a) establish a 
theoretical frame work for the study including an examination of the 
junior high/middle school student, (b) locate relevant data pertaining 
to the use of achievement tests, GPA, and attitude to predict 
performance in the industrial arts laboratory, (c) report on research 
studies in industrial arts dealing with the problem being investigated 
in this study. 
This researcher was unable to locate similar studies in 
industrial arts, necessitating the inclusion of research at age levels 
other than junior high/middle school and disciplines outside the field 
of industrial arts. 
The basis for this study is founded on the ’'common observation 
that groups of students show considerable variation in their 
achievement over almost any learning task in the schools. Some 
students will need more time and help to attain this criterion than 
will others" (Good, C.V. 1959, p. 31). This observation has been 
noted at Helena Junior High in the eighth grade industrial arts 
program with some students producing few or no projects while others 
produce several projects with the same instruction and time. 
It has been suggested in some studies that if students are 
8 
normally distributed with respect to aptitude in a subject area and 
are given the same learning time and equal quality instruction, then 
achievement when measured at completion of the course will have a 
normal distribution. Conversely, if quality of instruction and 
learning time are adapted to each individual learner then a majority 
will achieve mastery of the subject. (Carroll, J.B. 1976, p. 155-159) 
Variations in learning tasks might be explained in part by the 
students motivation and the quality of instruction. Research by 
Bloom indicates that, "if all the learners do possess the necessary 
prerequisites of a learning task then it should be possible for all of 
them to adequately learn the task, if they are motivated to do so and 
if the quality of instruction is appropriate to their need." (Bloom, 
B.S. 1956, p. 33) In other words, if the students have the necessary 
preparatory skills, then there should be no variation in level of 
achievement or time required to reach that achievement level. 
The Junior or Middle Age Student 
The following is a fine description of early adolescents: 
"confused by self-doubt, plagued with forgetfulness, addicted 
to extreme fads, preoccupied with peer status, disturbed 
about physical development, aroused by physiological impulses, 
stimulated by mass media conmunication, comforted by daydreams, 
chafed by restriction, loaded with purposeless energy, bored 
by routine, irked by social amenities, veneered with "wise 
cracks", insulated from responsibility, labeled with 
delinquency, obsessed with personal autonomy, but destined to 
years of economic dependency, early adolescents undergo a 
critical and frequently stormy period of their lives." 
(author and source unknown) 
A cross section of eighth grade students covers a wide range of 
both physical and mental growth stages, with only a small percentage 
9 
at an ideal period in their development to receive maximum gain from 
the traditional junior high school. Sexual development may vary from 
that of a child to that of an adult. Reading levels vary from early 
grade school to senior high school levels. Brain gowth and 
intellectual ability also cover broad distances. Toepfer (1981) 
stated that nationally, "no more than one percent of 11-year-olds, and 
12 percent of 12-year-olds can even initiate formal operations." None 
of these age levels can perform mature formal operations thinking. At 
the eighth grade level 76 percent operate at the concrete level with 
76 percent at the transitional level and 9 percent at the formal level. 
Toepfer points out the fact that IQ designation is not tied to thought 
level, which leads to failure of many high IQ students to do well on 
standardized tests. (Toepfer, 1981, p. 1-7) 
Many students experience failure at the junior high level for the 
first time. Epstein (1974) believed that this is caused by the over 
challenge of learners who have not experienced adequate brain growth 
to operate at levels expected by junior high teachers. A strong brain 
growth spurt occurs in approximately 85 percent of adolescents in the 
10 to 12 year age group, with each student at a different stage and 
about 10 percent who have not started the growth period or have all 
ready passed through it. 
A junior high level educator should expect wide differences in 
student performance even among groups with similar IQs. In a middle 
school workshop. Dr. Tom Maglaras (1982) made the following statements 
concerning beliefs about how middle age students learn: 
10 
1. Students learn what they see purpose in learning. Teachers 
must develop an understanding of purpose. This is a highly 
personalized matter. Learning should be goal-oriented to be 
purposeful and problem centered to be effective. 
2. Learning is an active process. Rather than drill, students 
must ponder, rearrange, and use information. 
3. Change in behavior is the central goal of instruction. If 
students do not grow, develop, adapt, create, and change in 
their behavior as a result of self-realization and 
understanding, then instruction has been ineffectual. 
4. Students learn at different rates and on various levels of 
comprehension in different content areas. 
5. Students learn best as a result of an appeal to as many of the 
five senses as possible. 
6. The environments for learning, psychological and physical, 
are contributing factors to successful outcomes. 
7. Learning is affected by the student's concept of himself and 
his attitude toward others. Students can do little that they 
think they cannot do. Before a pupil can set realistic 
educational goals, he must see himself worthy and able to 
achieve success in routine tasks. A pupil must see himself 
as one who can do what he aspires to do. 
8. The pupil learns in direct proportion to the way teachers 
perceive his ability to learn. 
Attitude and Self Esteem as Predictors of Achievement 
Researchers have not arrived at a consensus as to the validity of 
using attitude to predict achievement. While educators commonly 
believe that favorable attitudes tov/ards school and school subjects 
increase learning, research doesn't clearly document such a belief. 
After a review of the related research and research of his own, 
Jackson (1980, p. 177) concluded that "nearly all investigations of 
the matter have found no statistically significant relationship 
between attitudes toward school and school achievenent". In another 
11 
study it was noted that attitudes toward school subjects became 
increasingly less positive as students advance through grade levels. 
(Anttonen, 1967, p. 224) Anttonen also found significant differences 
in attitudes at the beginning of a class and the end of the class. 
Possible reasons suggested that success, failure, student interaction, 
and teaching method were responsible. 
In a study concerning the eighth grader’s attitudes toward school 
and achievement, test scores did not show any positive relationship. 
Attitudes toward individual classes were not examined. The researcher 
did find a significant relationship between the attitude measure and 
teacher grades. (Malpass, 1953, p. 475-482) 
In a study measuring attitudes toward specific school subjects 
Neale (1970) found significant correlations between attitudes and 
achievement. Neale concluded that attitudes toward subjects are more 
related to achievement than is general attitude toward school. Neale 
went on to say while favorable attitudes cause students to achieve at 
a high level, "students who achieve well received more reward than 
those who achieve poorly and as a consequence develop more favorable 
attitudes." In other words a favorable attitude may have a high 
motivational consequence to the student who may derive personal 
pleasure in the form of praise at school and home. 
Teacher expectations may also effect student attitude and 
achievement. In 1968 Rosenthal and Jacobsen published Pygmalion 
in the Classroom and proposed the theory that teachers treat low and 
high achievers in ways that cause low achievers to remain there and 
encourage high achievers to higher performance. Rosenthal went on to 
12 
say that by misleading a teacher with false test scores so as to have 
them believe that low achievers were in fact high achievers, teachers 
behavior resulted in higher student attitudes and achievement. 
Good and Brophy (1981) have done follow up research based on the 
work of Rosenthal and concluded that teacher expectations do indeed 
affect student attitude and as a result influence achievement. 
Specific ways that teachers vary their behavior toward low and high 
achieving students according to Good are as follows: 
1. "Seating slow students farther from the teacher or 
in a group making it harder to monitor low-achieving 
students or treat them as individuals." 
2. "Paying less attention to lows in academic situations 
(smiling less often and maintaing less eye contact)." 
3. "Calling on lows less often to answer classroom 
questions or make'public demonstrations." 
4. "Waiting less time for lows to answer questions." 
5. "Not staying with lows in failure situations (providing 
clues asking follow up questions). 
6. "Criticizing lows more frequently than highs for 
incorrect public responses." 
7. "Praising lows less frequently than highs after 
successful public responses." 
8. "Demanding less work and effort from lows than from 
highs." 
9. "Interrupting the performance of low achievers more 
frequently than that of high achievers." 
Achievement Tests and Future Achievement 
One point that appears throughout research concerning the 
prediction of achievement and performance is that standardized tests 
of intellectual and academic ability to clearly relate to subsequent 
13 
achievement, both educational and economical for high and low groups. 
It should be noted that the reference here is to groups and as pointed 
out by Sacher (1978) no mastery standards have been found that all 
successful students surpass and all failing students do not." The 
word "all" is the key word in that not all students with high 
standardized scores are high achievers either in the present or future, 
while some students with low scores do achieve at high levels. 
Lowman (1980) while doing a ten year follow up study of eighth 
grade standardized test results was able to identify factors that 
influence achievement which are not touched upon by standardized tests. 
For example high test score children of large low income families 
may be victim of lack of opportunity while low test level children of 
small well to do families may achieve at a high level. Postlethwaite 
(1980) refers to achievement as an "individuals level of success at 
activities comnonly valued by the members of our society which all 
persons must participate—formal schooling and work." It becomes 
clear that achievement is a complex construct including pure ability 
as well as other factors not related to ability. Our American 
educational system would like to believe that all students will 
achieve at the same high level and receive the same equal education. 
(Sacher 1978) The fact is that not all people will receive an equal 
education and achieve at the same level due to the fact that some 
people are inherently faster, stronger, with the ability to think 
abstractly and learn faster. Ability differences do not sufficiently 
explain achievement variations. 
Both knowledge and performance tests do the job of assessing the 
14 
cognitive and psychomotor domains, but "the affective domain remains 
untouched". (Ellis 1979) This domain includes interest, motivation, 
attitudes and values. Ellis concluded that there "may be little 
relationship between measures of knowledge and actual proficiency in 
performing a job." Social skills are another area not addressed by 
standardized tests. Rackham (1971) states that "difficulty encountered 
in precisely describing any social skill hampers test development." 
Researchers have identified many reasons for achievement tests 
failure to predict accurately for all students, however, there are 
still unexplained examples to consider. The student that forges ahead 
and succeeds beyond anyone's expectation and against supposedly 
unsurmountable odds and the student who lags behind in spite of high 
test scores are cases in point. 
Ability then cannot stand alone as a predictor of future 
performance. Choice, perserverance, opportunity, and social judgement 
must also be included in order to truly forecast achievement for all 
students. 
Summary 
In summary, the following statements can be made: 
-Some students need more time to learn than others. 
-If quality of instruction and learning time are adapted to each 
individual learner, a majority will learn. 
-Sexual development, reading level, brain growth, learning style, 
personality type, attitude, teacher expectation, inherent ability, 
social skills, economic class, parental job and education level. 
16 
CHAPTER 3 
PROCEDURE 
The following is a discussion of the procedures that were 
followed while this study was conducted. The study was conducted at 
Helena Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year. The subjects 
studied included those students, male and female, enrolled in the 
eighth grade industrial arts metals work classes. New enrollees were 
excluded from this study if permanent records for them were not 
available, also students classified as special education were excluded 
due to the fact that GPAs and SRA test scores are not available for 
them. 
An interest survey instrument (Appendix A) was developed and 
tested for face validity by a panel of experts including Dr. Paul 
Vaughen of New Mexico State University and graduate students enrolled 
in his evaluation class. Further pretesting of the instrument was 
conducted using eighth grade students at C. R. Anderson Junior High 
School in Helena. The instrument was given to one class one week 
apart and then checked to see if the students' answers were the same 
in each case. Answers were found to be identical on both forms for 
all students present both days. 
All eighth grade industrial arts classes of nine week in length 
are included in this study, two during the third nine week period and 
three during the fourth nine week period. The interest survey was 
17 
administered to each eighth grade industrial arts class the first day 
of each nine week period. The survey was administered the first day of 
class so that responses do not reflect changes in attitude or interest 
after the instruction started. Students were not informed that they 
were participants in a study group. 
Each student was exposed to each of six required exploratory 
exercises in the program. These six exercises were valued at 900 
points, 90 percent of which would equal 810 points or a satisfactory 
score on the exploration unit. It should be noted that this grading 
is teacher subjective and that to earn 90 out of 100 points the 
project must show an understanding of the principles involved. The 
remaining 10 points reward skill attainment. Thus, proficiency at a 
skill is not a preprequisite for success in this exploratory program. 
Students were not limited to the minimum six exercises, and, working 
at their own speed, may complete more exercises thereby earning points 
in excess of 900. 
Students were then divided into groups for comparative purposes. 
Group A included students who received 810 points or exceeded minimum 
required exploratory laboratory experiences for individualized project 
work. Group B excludes those students that did not meet the minimum 
expectations. 
Student records kept on file in the guidance office provided 
GPAs and SRA stanine standing for those students included in this 
study. Student confidentiality was not compromised during this study 
or in this final document. 
Subjects were placed in Group A or in Group B and all data 
18 
tabulated. Based on a target population of 77 students, data 
tabulation and group placement resulted in Group A containing 34 
students. Group B containing 31 students, and 12 students were 
rejected due to incomplete data in the student permanent records. 
Those rejected equal 15 percent of the total population. Of those, 
six would have been placed in Group A and six in Group B. Their 
project points closely resemble a cross section of the study group 
indicating that their exclusion did not effect this study. Two of 
the twelve were in self-contained classes and therefore did not 
have complete records, while 7 others were transfers and the remaining 
3 were absent during SRA tests. A list of both groups appears in 
Table 1 on the following page. 
19 
Table 1 
Project Points Earned, GPA, and Stanine Level for 
Each Subject in Group A and Group B 
Group A N = 34 Group B N = 31 
Project Project 
Points GPA Stanine Points GPA Stanine 
Earned Earned 
1650 2.50 7 760 3.80 9 
1275 3.75 9 760 3.20 4 
1235 3.80 8 750 2.00 3 
1235 1.75 6 750 3.25 8 
1215 1.75 6 750 2.25 7 
1203 1.75 7 745 2.00 6 
1175 3.00 7 745 1.75 5 
1140 2.50 8 740 .75 3 
1115 2.25 7 735 2.00 5 
1070 2.00 4 735 2.25 7 
1070 4.00 9 730 2.20 7 
1060 2.00 6 730 2.00 6 
1055 2.80 8 720 3.20 9 
1050 3.40 9 675 3.40 7 
1050 3.60 8 660 4.00 9 
1045 1.50 4 655 1.50 5 
1040 3.00 7 655 2.75 5 
1025 3.40 9 650 1.70 6 
1020 2.00 6 555 1.60 4 
1015 .00 5 555 1.25 3 
1015 2.00 6 550 3.00 4 
980 2.25 5 540 1.75 5 
965 2.80 8 535 2.40 6 
940 3.00 5 470 1.63 3 
920 1.60 6 385 1.65 7 
915 3.20 9 375 2.00 3 
885 2.60 5 370 1.00 4 
860 2.20 7 370 .75 3 
860 2.25 7 315 1.75 4 
850 1.74 4 185 .25 5 
845 2.00 5 90 .75 3 
840 3.50 8 
840 2.75 7 
815 1.50 5 
NOTE: A minimum of 810 project points are required to be placed in 
Group A. The total possible project points is unlimited. 
20 
CHAPTER 4 
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 
The findings of this research effort are reported in this chapter 
as they relate to the three research questions posed by the statement 
of the problem and objectives in chapter one. Those objectives are as 
follows: 
1. To determine if students with a high GPA achieve and produce 
at a higher level on individual project work than students 
with a low GPA. 
2. To determine if students with a high SRA stanine score 
achieve and produce at a higher level on individual project 
work than students with low stanine scores. 
3. To determine if student interests toward the industrial arts 
program have an effect on achievement and productivity during 
individualized project work. 
GPA, Stanine and Point Totals for Each Group 
The average number of points received for project work, GPA and 
stanine levels for Group A and Group B are found in Table 2. Group A 
accumulated a mean of 1037 project points while Group B accumulated a 
mean of 588 project points. The mean GPA for Group A was 2.44 and for 
Group B the mean score was 1.99. Group A has a GPA mean that is 
higher than that of Group B indicating that a relationship exists 
between a high GPA and high project point accumulation. The difference 
in mean stanine scores, with Group A at 6.6 and Group B at 5.3, also 
shows a relationship between high stanine scores and high project 
21 
point accumulation in this eighth grade industrial arts program. 
Table 2 
Point, GPA and Stanine Averages 
for Group A and Group B 
Points GPA Stanine 
Group A 
N = 34 1037 
2.44 6.6 
Group B 
N = 31 588 1.99 5.3 
Grade Point Average Data Presentation and Analysis 
The first research question evolving from the objectives of this 
study was: 
To determine if students with a high GPA achieve and produce 
at a higher level on individual project work than students 
with a low GPA. 
An examination of data presented in Table 3 brings to light many 
exceptions to the predictive value of GPA as a basis for predicting 
future project productivity. A total of 17 students in this study 
fell in the 3 to 4.0 GPA range and of those, 65 percent are in Group A 
and 35 percent in Group B. A total of 26 students in both groups are 
in the 2 to 2.9 GPA range and of these, 58 percent are in Group A and 
42 percent are in Group B. A total of 17 students are in the 1 to 1.9 
GPA range, of which 41 percent are in Group A and 59 percent in Group 
B. A total of 5 students are in the 0 to 0.9 GPA range, of which 20 
percent are in Group A and 80 percent in Group B. Both Group A and 
Group B have GPA distributions of 2.5 to 4.0. 
22 
Table 3 
Number of Students and Percentages of 
Group A and Group B at Each GPA Level 
Group A 
N = 34 
Group B 
N = 31 
Combined Groups 
N = 65 
GPA No. of Students 
% of 
Group 
No. of 
Students 
% of 
Group 
No. of 
Students 
% of 
Group A 
% of 
Group B 
3-4.0 11 .32 6 .19 17 .65 .35 
2-2.9 15 .44 11 .36 26 .58 .42 
1-1.9 7 .21 10 .32 17 .41 .59 
0-0.9 1 .03 4 .13 5 .20 .80 
Table 3 data clearly show a relationship between a high GPA and 
group achievement, with 65 percent of the 3 to 4.0 GPA students being 
placed in Group-A. The use of this data for predicting an individuals 
future performance with project experiences does not show that same 
relationship. At the 3 to 4.0 GPA level 35 percent of the students 
performed at Group B level, while in the 0 to 0.9 GPA level, 20 
percent performed at Group A level. 
Table 4 further points out the wide range of GPAs distributed 
through both groups. A high GPA does clearly show a higher average 
point total in each group. In the 3 to 4.0 GPA range 11 students in 
Group A earned an average of 1055 points and 6 students in Group B 
earned an average of 685 points. In the 2 to 2.9 GPA range 15 
students in Group A earned an average of 1024 points and 11 students 
in Group B earned an average of 681 points. Students with high GPAs 
23 
in both groups have the highest point totals, but the wide distribution 
between both groups suggest that GPA by itself is not a reliable 
predictor of individual future project productivity. 
Table 4 
Average Points Earned and Number of Students 
of Group A and Group B at Each GPA Level 
Group A Group B 
N = 34 N = 31 
Number of Average Number of Average 
GPA Students Points Students Points 
3-4.0 11 1055 6 685 
2-2.9 15 1024 11 681 
1-1.9 7 1040 10 524 
0-0.9 1 1015 4 346 
While it is clear that a high GPA improves chances of a high 
project productivity, it is equally clear that a low GPA does not 
guarantee a low project productivity. In the 1 to 1.9 GPA range 7 
students are in Group A and 10 in Group B. In the 0 to 0.9 GPA range 
1 student is in Group A and 4 in Group B. 
Stanine Data Presentation and Analysis 
The second research question evolved from the objectives of this 
study was: 
To determine if students with a high SRA stanine score 
achieve and produce at a higher level on individual project 
work than students with low stanine scores. 
24 
Stanine comparisons also show a positive relationship between 
points earned and stanine level in Group A and Group B as indicated 
in Table 5 below. Points earned drop as stanine level drops. 
Table 5 
Number of Students for Each Stanine Level and 
Average Number of Points Earned at Each Level 
Group A 
N = 34 
Group B 
N = 31 
Stanine 
Number of 
Students 
Average 
Points 
Number of 
Students 
Average 
Points 
9 5 1067 3 713 
8 
-6 1047 . 1 750 
7 8 1093 5 655 
6 6 1077 4 665 
5 6 913 6 585 
4 3 988 5 510 
3 0 0 7 478 
2 0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 0 
Table 6 contains data showing a wide distribution of students in 
both groups at each stanine level. In the 7 to 9 stanine level there 
was 19 students in Group A and 9 students in Group B. Of those 28 
students or 68 percent performed at the high group level and 32 
percent at the low group level. Thus a high stanine indicates a 
25 
higher average group performance, yet on an individual performance 
prediction 32 percent would have been improperly placed in the high 
performance group. 
Table 6 
Number and Percentage of Group A and Group B 
and Combined Groups at Each Stanine Range 
Group A Group B Combined Groups 
N = 34 N = 31 N = 65 
Stanine No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of % of 
Range Students Students Students Students Students Group A Group B 
7-9 19 56 9 29 28 68 32 
4-6 15 . 44 15 48 30 50 50 
1-3 0 00 7 23 7 0 100 
A combined group total of 30 students fall in the 4 to 6 stanine 
level, 50 percent of which are in Group A and 50 percent of which are 
in Group B indicating no relationship at this level between stanine 
of predicting future project productivity. 
In the 1 to 3 stanine range no students are in Group A while 7 
appear in Group B indicating a positive relationship between low 
stanine and low project productivity at that level. 
Interest As an Achievement Predictor 
The third research question evolved from the objectives of this 
study was: 
To determine if student interests toward this program in 
26 
industrial arts have an effect on achievement and productivity 
during individualized project work. 
The following is a presentation of the findings of the attitude 
survey, a copy of which appears in Appendix A. The first question 
asked on the survey was: 
Did you want to take this industrial arts class? 
The second question asked was: 
I did not want to take this industrial arts class, but had to 
because it was required. 
Both of the above questions required yes or no answers. The responses 
of each group are tabulated in Table 7 in order to understand and 
analyze the results. 
Table 7 
A Sunmary of Those Students Who Desired to Take The 
Industrial Arts Course and Those Who Did Not Desire 
To Take The Course 
Group A N = 34 Group B N = 31 
# 
Yes 
% # 
No 
% 
Yes 
# % # 
No 
% 
Question n 33 97 1 03 28 100 0 00 
Question #2 1 03 33 97 0 00 29 100 
*3 students in Group B failed to answer question number one and two. 
Question one and two sought to determine if students who wanted 
to enroll in the class would perform better on project work than those 
who were required to enroll. Neither confirmation or denial of that 
statement was indicated by this data. In Group A 33 students 
27 
indicated they wanted to take the course while one student took the 
course because it was required. That one student's placement in Group 
A does not support the proposed relationship. In Group B 28 students 
replied yes with 3 students failing to answer the question. The only 
reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that students 
who enrolled had a favorable attitude toward the industrial arts class. 
The third question asked in the survey was: 
If you did not want to take this Industrial Arts class, then 
what class or subject would you have rather taken. 
The purpose of questions one, two and three was to determine if a 
lack of interest in industrial arts was a factor contributing to poor 
performance. Ninety-seven percent of Group A and 100 percent of Group 
B answering yes to question number one.. Only one student answered 
question number three, stating that she would have take home economics 
if given a choice. An interview with the guidance counselor and the 
principal determined that this female student was not required to 
enroll in the class as she stated and therefore her answers to the 
first three questions may be invalid. It may be concluded then, that 
lack of interest in industrial arts is not a contributing factor to 
low perofrmance levels and that students have a high interest in 
enrolling in the eighth grade industrial arts course at Helena Junior 
High School. 
The fourth question asked in the survey was: 
What type of job do you presently wish to have when you 
finish your education. 
The above question addressed itself to the idea that students with a 
career goal related to industrial arts subject matter would achieve at 
28 
a higher level than those students seeking an unrelated career. Table 
8 is presented below in order to organize the results for examination. 
Table 8 
The Relationship Of Career Choice 
To Industrial Arts Enrollment 
Group A N = 34 Group B N = 31 
Related Not related Related Not related 
# % # % # % # % 
8 28 20 72 5 19 21 81 
*six students failed to answer in Group A. 
*five students failed to answer in Group B. 
The data in Table 8 does not support that conclusion even though 
Group A had 28 percent of the students in related fields and Group B 
only 19 percent. Both groups show a strong trend toward nonrelated 
careers. Group A has 72 percent and Group B has 81 percent in the 
unrelated category. Career goals are not a predictor that can be 
used to forecast future performance in this industrial arts program. 
The fifth question asked in the attitude survey was: 
Do you like your shop teacher? 
It should be noted that the students had known the teacher during 
their seventh grade year of school and therefore had an opportunity 
to determine their feelings toward the industrial arts instructor. 
Question five sought a relationship between their feelings for their 
teacher and their productivity on personal project work. 
29 
The results at Helena Junior High School are presented in Table 9 
below for examination of results. 
Table 9 
Student Attitude Toward Teacher 
Group A N = 34 Group B N = 31 
Yes No Yes No 
# % # % # % # % 
33 97 1 03 30 97 0 0 
*one student failed to answer in Group B. 
This question failed to support the thought that students who 
liked their teacher would achieve at a higher level than other students. 
The only no response was from a member of Group A indicating that if a 
negative relationship existed between the student and teacher, it did 
not affect this student's ability to perform at Group A level. 
The sixth question asked on the interest survey was: 
Are you looking forward to this class and expect to learn a lot? 
Table 10 is presented to enable the researcher to evaluate the data 
collected for question number six. 
30 
Table 10 
Expectation of Students Toward the Industrial Arts Class 
Group A 
Yes 
# % 
34 100 
N = 34 
No 
a % 
o o 
Group B 
Yes 
# % 
31 100 
N = 31 
No 
# % 
0 0 
The desire to determine if those students that were looking 
forward to the class and expecting to learn a lot would complete the 
projects with a greater degree of accuracy than the others was not 
substantiated by the data. One hundred percent of both groups 
answered yes to the question. The Helena Junior High School results 
indicated that the students do have a positive feeling toward this 
industrial arts class. 
The seventh question asked on the attitude survey was: 
Are you good at working with your hands and with tools? 
This final question on the interest survey dealt with the proposed 
prediction factor that students who perceived themselves as being 
good at working with their hands would achieve at a higher level on 
individual project work. Table 11 is presented to organize the 
collected data for examination. 
31 
Table 11 
Student Perceptions of Their Ability to Work With Their Hands 
Group A N = 34 Group B N = 31 
Yes No Yes No 
# % # % # % # % 
32 94 2 6 22 73 8 27 
*one student failed to answer in Group B. 
Ninety-four percent of Group A answered yes and 22 percent of 
Group B answered yes indicating some positive relationship for the 
predictor factor. The data suggest that those students who had 
negative feelings about hands-on skills are more likely to achieve 
at a lower level than those who feel positively. Twenty-seven 
percent of Group B answered no while six percent of Group A answered 
no. 
32 
CHAPTER 5 
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
Summary 
The purpose of this study was to determine if student GPA, 
achievement test scores and the interests of the students enrolled in 
industrial arts at Helena Junior High School could be used as predictor 
factors of student productivity on individual project work in their 
industrial arts class. The specific objectives for the study were: 
1. To measure if students with a high GPA achieve and 
produce at a higher level on individual project work 
than students With low GPA. 
2. To determine if students with a high SRA stanine score 
achieve and produce at a higher level on individual 
project work than students with low stanine scores. 
3. To determine if student interest toward this industrial 
arts program have an effect on achievement and 
productivity during individualized project work. 
This investigation included several distinct phases. First the 
design for the study was approved, and then a review of related 
literature was conducted, followed by the development of the interest 
measurement instrument which was developed under the guidance of 
Dr. Paul Vaughn of New Mexico State University and Dr. James Laport of 
Montana State University. The instrument was then submitted to them 
and graduate students in their research classes for review. The 
second step took place during the school year 1981-1982. Student 
records from the guidance department were reviewed in search of data 
33 
concerning SRA stanine scores and GPAs for each student. Phase three 
involved administering the interest instrument to each student in the 
study on the first day of class. The population for this study 
included each boy and girl enrolled in eighth grade industrial arts of 
nine weeks in length. The study population included 65 students. In 
phase four, records of the total points earned by each student were 
recorded. When completed, each student was assigned to Group A or 
Group B according to the number of points they had earned. The fifth 
phase involved the tabulation and charting of the results for study 
and analysis. The final phase was the writing of this study. 
Conclusion 
Based on the data collected, analyzed, and presented in this 
report, the following conclusions are made. In the review of related 
literature, it was noted that GPA is widely used as a factor for 
predicting academic performance. Students with GPAs in the 3 to 4.0 
range did make up the top level of each group, however, 11 of those 
17 students were in Group A while 7 were in Group B. It may be 
concluded that GPA is a good predictor of average group performance; 
it is not an adequate factor for prediction of individual performance 
of project productivity in industrial arts at this school. 
The second objective of this study was to determine if SRA 
stanine scores can be used to predict high or low productivity levels 
in individual project work. After studying the data collected, some 
conclusions can be drawn. The review of literature tells us that 
SRA stanine scores have been extensively used for the successful 
34 
prediction of academic success. The data show the same relationship 
to be true based on combined group averages in this study. The 
prediction for individual performance does not show that same 
relationship. Twenty-eight students have stanine scores in the 7 to 
9 range, of those 68 percent are in Group A and 32 percent are in 
Group B. If stanine were used to place students in high or low 
ability groups, 9 of the 28 students would have been improperly 
placed. It may be concluded that SRA stanine scores are a good 
predictor of group performance; it is not an adequate factor for 
prediction of individual performance of project productivity in 
industrial arts programs at this school. 
The third objective of this study was to determine if student 
interest, was a factor in predicting high performance at individual 
project work. Researchers have found interests to be of limited 
value in predicting future performance, a problem noted in the review 
of literature. Interest is difficult to measure and at best of 
questionable validity. Understanding these limitations may be 
possible to infer some conclusions based on the .interest instrument 
used on this study. 
The first area dealt with on the interest survey sought to see if 
those students who were required to enroll would perform at a lower 
level than average. With one exception it can be concluded that all 
students felt that they had taken the class because they wanted to 
rather than because they had to. The second area was desired future 
careers either related or unrelated to the industrial arts field. 
Twenty-eight percent of Group A desired related careers while 19 
35 
percent of Group B did. It might then be concluded that a related 
career choice has some predictive value for future performance at 
project work. 
In studying the data pertaining to like or dislike of the 
teacher, it is concluded that with only one respondent disliking the 
instructor and with that student's placement in Group A, no 
relationship was noted in this study. The next question sought a 
positive relationship between those students who felt they would do 
well as compared to those same students that actually did. With all 
students reporting a belief that they were looking forward to the 
class and were expecting to learn a lot, the most likely conclusion 
is that the question was not valid. 
The final question queried the students as to their self 
perceived ability to work with their hands and with tools. Six 
percent of Group A and 27 percent of Group B answered negatively, 
supporting a conclusion that students are more likely to achieve at 
a lower level than those who feel positively. 
Recommendations 
Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations 
are made: 
1. If further attempts to find a relationship between attitude 
and future project productivity should be attempted, an effort should 
be made to improve the instrument used to reflect the attitudes toward 
subject and teacher to a higher degree. Other influencing factors 
such as sex, peer influence, and race might be included. 
36 
2. In view of the number of students with high GPAs and stanine 
scores that performed at a moderate to low level and those with low 
GPAs and stanines that performed in the high productivity group, it is 
recommended that students not be labeled or placed in special groups 
with instruction geared to their supposed level. Each student should 
have the opportunity to achieve at the highest possible level. 
3. This study was based on existing and presently used school 
records and tests. If further study is done to find predictors of 
project performance, it is recommended that attitude and aptitude 
tests and measurements be considered for addition to the school 
testing program. 
37 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
38 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Attonen, R. G. An examination into stability of mathematics attitude 
and its relationship to mathematics achievement from elementary 
to secondary school level (Doctoral dissertation. University 
of Minnesota, 1967). 
Binder, D. M., Jones, J. G., & Strong, R. W. "Non-intellective 
self-report variables as predictors of scholastic achievement" 
Journal of Educational Research, 1969-80 Vol. 63. 
Bloom, B. S. Human characteristics and school learning. New 
York: McGraw Hill, 1976. 
Bloom, B. S., Taxonomy of educational Objectives, Hand book 1, 
Cognitive Domain, Longmans, 1956. 
Brattesani, Karen "Using student self preception of teacher 
behavior to predict student outcomes" ERIC ED 199 297. 
Carroll, J. B. "Use of the modern language aptitude test in 
secondary schools" Yearbook of the national council of 
Measurement on Education, 1959, 16. 155-159. 
Ellis, Paul "Achievement Testing" The Journal of European 
Industrial Training, 3,7 1979. 
Fredrick, W. C., et al. "Learning as a function of Time" Journal 
of Educational Research v73 n4 p. 183-4, Mar. Apr. 1980. 
Good, C. V. Dictionary of Education McGraw-Hill Book Company, 
1959. 
Good, Thomas "Teacher expectations and Student Preceptions: 
A Decade of Research" Educational Leadership Feb. 1981, 
p. 415-21. 
Jackson, P. W. Life in Classrooms New York: Holt, Rinhart 
and Winston, 1968, p. 177. 
Kilpatrick, W. H. The Project Method Teachers College, Columbia 
University, 1922. 
Kugle, Cherry L. Self-esteem and Academic Behavior Amoung Elementary 
School Children Texas Univ., Austin Research and Development 
Center for Teacher Education, Apr. 1981. 
39 
Lowman, Joseph, et al. A ten year Followup of Black and White 
Adolescents, IRSS Research Reports, North Carolina Univ. 
Chapel Hill Inst, for Research in Social Science. ERIC 
ED 201 548. 
Maglaras, T ED. D. Middle School Workshop, Executive Director 
of Middle Schools, Aurora Public Schools, Aurora, Colorado. 
Malpass. L. F. "Some relationships between students perceptions 
of school and their achievement". Journal of Educational 
Psychology, XLIV Dec. 1953, p. 475-82. 
Neale, D. C., et al. "Relationship between attitudes toward 
school subjects and school achievement" The Journal of 
Educational Research, v63 n5, Jan. 1970. 
Page, G. T. & Thomas, J. B. International Dictionary of Education 
Nichols Publishing Company, 1977. 
Postlethwaite, T. N. "Success and Failure in School", Prospects, 
vol. X, no. 3, 1980. 
Rackham, N. et al. Developing Inter-active Skills, Wellems, 
1971. 
Sachar, Jane, et al. "Relating Performance in Basic Electricity 
and electronics and "A" Schools" Navy Personnel Research 
and Development Center, San Diego, California, Oct. 1978, 
ED 160 872. 
Sellers, Burt A. "An Analysis of the relationship of students' 
self concepts in science and their science achievements, 
mental ability, and gender" Apr. 1981, ED 207 806. 
SRA ACHIEVEMENT SERIES, USER'S GUIDE, Science Research Associates, 
Inc., 1979. 
Toepfer, Conrad F. "Brain Growth Periodization: Implications 
for Middle Grades Education", Schools in the Middle, National 
Association of Secondary School Principals, April 1981. 
40 
APPENDIX 
41 
INDUSTRIAL ARTS INTEREST SURVEY 
Please read each question and circle the answer that 
best fits your present feelings. Fill in answer 
blanks where appropriate. 
1. Did you want to take this Industrial Arts 
class? YES - NO 
2. I did not want to take this Industrial Arts 
class, but had to because it was required. YES - NO 
3. If you did not want to take this Industrial 
Arts class, then what class or subject would 
you have rather taken? 
4. What type of job do you presently wish to have 
when you finish your education? 
5. Do you like your shop teacher? YES - NO 
6. Are you looking forward to this class and 
expect to learn a lot? YES - NO 
7. Are you good at working with your hands and 
with tools? YES - NO