84
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING MECHANICAL DRAWING APPROVED: Minor Professor rector of the Department or Industrial Arts
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO METHODS OF
TEACHING MECHANICAL DRAWING
APPROVED:
Minor Professor
rector of the Department or Industrial Arts
m MXBBSBOIX. xmmfimmm m U S RSLATIVE
smmfirwMBB OF TWO mfmm m
mmmm tammxexi mam m
THK3IS
Presented to tli« CfeewftiatMi Council ot ti#
Nortli ?«xa* State Collage la Partial
' Fulfillment of th® Requimmm®
for th* Dagraa of
MAsra OF senates
ir
180110 Q« B« MoSpaddan, Jr»# B* 3*
Santa 3?«f lew Mexico
August , 1950
180110
TABLE Of 0012TSHT3
P a g ®
LI3? OF TAHL23 IV
L i s t OF X L I & s t o a s x o h s , . . • • • » » • « . * * * * • • « •
C h a p t o r
u i s T R o a r c T i o f f « » » • . , « . . , * , • i
S t a t e m e n t o f t h e F r o b l a m
L i a i t a t i a a o f t h e P r o b l o a
D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r a s
N e e d tor the, 5 f c u i j
3 o u r o e o f B a t ®
How t h e S a g p e r l i & e a t m m CoadttofceA
M e t h o d s U s e d
R e l a t e d S t u d i e s
I I . STATISTICAL m u v m e c Of DATA . . . . . . . . . 1 ?
I I I . i U m i S I S Of 2ATA . . . . , , 2 2
I ¥ . SC53MAHT, 0 3 8 1 1 ? A f l u i l S , SOilOLUSlOrlS, Atfj)
» S © « I M B A T I 0 1 8 # 3 8
APPXMDI0K3 , 4 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY 5 8
i l l
LIST f^F TABLES
I# Svmbw of student* in saeli of the Classes la the study
2* li@slMaieaI ability aeofes of th® tu All Group* and the Mean s©eti»® of the Group • « • * • • «
3# The ttifferenoe Between the Means end the Signifiesa»e« of feh* Hlff«r«ae® the Mtsai of the iieehanioal ability a®©-*#® of the Matched Group* » , , • # • * * * » , * •
4« Haw s*or** Mm fcy ill Group* ©a the ?£lt«li*n VUNu&lslng f«®t# * * * * « # • # • * , * » *
5# X&ff*r*iia* £*tw**b the Heintg end the Big-nlfieanee of the Different)* Between the Mesa® of the Yidtutllsing Store# ojp the Mttohtd tivoup* 29
6* JUw &eor** i&d* by All Groupe on th* Mlteh«ll Skill* Tent * f * , i , , « « » 31
7# The 2irr*r*a** mtmem % m m m a *o& the SignirUMuie* of th* !&ff*rehe* Between the M*ea» or th* atUJUi 3eoree or tli® tt*t*fa*d 0ra»p# , » « # , . « * » . . . » J2
t# Bs» 3*or*s Mate by All e-roufg on the litfsjsttel feat of the Cour** • « • • * • • « * • « * * 34
9m fhe Difrerenee mtwemi the Mens® and the aigtafioan** of tfe# Dirr***n0* avtweea the ttsaat of the informal e£e«t saaye# of the Matol»d Qroup* • * * * • * » • • » » « , , « 35
10# The Point Rang* ead the Midpoint of the Benge of the G**d** \>*ed In B#te»iMiig the average Grade for £a*h Qrwxp on the lettering lesigmaents * * , 1 J6
H * H»Inw of lettering 3h*ot* co&tpleted fey Baoh Oroup and the Average Grade on Lettering 3beet* for the Qrmp # * » . . • •
If
hum v? zmtsmmtm
Figure Pas#
1* A of tixe tfe&a scores Made lay th© k!atoh»& Groups on %M Mitdhtll Visualizing T#st t , 2?
2* labium wsefl. on th* ittforaal Test ia fliis Study to Mmmm the ats* Ability to Head and Unaarataad the Tfer®s*Ti#w Brawlag • # * * « • * • * * • « * * • » • * * 53
3, Probleaa iy«wt ©a the Informal fesst 1a fill* Study to Measar# the Studeats * Ability to Read and UM^rstand the Three-vie* Bmmiug , , , , 54
CHAPTER I
ISfSOMCfl«
Statement of til® Problem
ftm purpose of the study mm fwoa^Mi f i r s t # to ana-
lyse two aethode of %®mki«g &eehanioel drawing la the
seventh grade by conducting an experiment to determine by
vshich method the greatest asiouiit of achievement mm obtained
by the students la the ab i l i ty to v isua l ize , afceteh, l e t t e r ,
and understand three-view drawing? aust Mood , to r«oqjpend
a woric plan and cer ta in teaching techniques fo r t®tehiug'
mechanical drawing la the seventh grade of the Santa Fef
I w Mexico, Junior High School, baaed upon tiws method by
which the greater aoount of mhlmmmi waft indicated in the
study*
Limitations of the Problea
This s&udr was limited to four class©® in the wrea th
grade of the Harrington Junior filgt school# 8snt& ?e, l e i
Mexico* The experiment was eoMacted-taxing the school year,
1949-1950# There were e^hty- three sttfl eat s in the experi-
ment, The number of students in each of t h e class#® in the
experiment are preeanted in Table 1*
fmm i BOMBER OF mimm m mm OF
SIS CLA3SX3 IH THE -3?XJDY
Method Claaa M©» st t t teats
Block 1 20
Blook 2 22
i^ohlea-Book 1 21
Problea-Book 2 20
Definition of trnmm
fins terxaa rtiieh are asiiA i a reporting the r e su l t s sunt
la analysing tii® data, of thia experiment are defined m
follow®;
m%ho&*~~A atI&uLua«A la the study ia
mht®h a book of oaohaole&l tenting ps>bl«a* wan issued to
•«eh atud«nt t sud n i l assignments were made d i reo t ly from
the book*
Block method, «~».A method used la tlm study in which a l l
drawing waa taught d i reot ly from woodea modela.
SES2B* groups.
grcmpa «-~?heae terras refer to two groups of a t udaata zaatohed
as olotely as possible in regard to aehtefmeat io .studies,
iu te l l igeaoe , laeeliaaiesl a b i l i t y , aM o t W q u a l i t i e a ,
.MiehqiiioaX iM^ltF».«»**l pattern of spec i f ic aptitudea
aueh as eye-h&ad oo^or&lnetio% speed of f inger i » f e a « t # and
ability to risuallzo space."*
Ylsuellae. —The ability to fbrra a raental picture or lasg®
of the obj eot being dram#
Sfclll**'tor a "skills* la tbe study refers only to
the skills of freehand sketching aafl lettering*
Plotorl»l Drawing*—A picture drawing which shone three
faoes of «a object in one flew on & plane surface so that the
lodge product©<i will closely roser-;KLe the object seen in
perspective,*
ortftttpg*p&l» imwlm*^mA qjr«t«u of /pre-
senting graphically m object by means of rlmm$
moh rim atoowluig a face of the object."2
AohlTeBeat*—Th© decree to wblofe each student has
developed in regard to the ability to visualise, sketch,
letter, end understand tte three-view drawing«
term *oethods* la the stu^y has been de-
fined as/the.wproe®dor#s or tottbalqttea or organized plane of
conducting instruction or of setting up learning ait nations# *3
Critical yatlo»«—ratio of the di fference between the
aeaas of tm series of scores to be compared to the standard
if* W. Maoynarrle. it f«st tm MMfciuileaX Ability. (Manual off Bis*eMSl7l*T^T : " "JJ ''
2?rederic s« Crispin, "ortaographic Drawing»" Dictionary of Teohnlcal VvtMm seventh edi t ion—revised, p«'
hoba *. rrl*—, qourpf M M & i& Vacation. P» 129#
i as m Is asli to be
m«A for th« i%
be* ftf«n%ly
tli# a«at« tm ftutlor S
Me4* *a lampoNMMi
ifl&urtviai ®rt« pro&rain, •
ao$t<r»
the ,pj mmn of stfilwiag
a ^eesleiisli-f
important coalit ions relative to ill# courses elaage and
develop* Methods, too , need revisioa occasionally. This f a c t
m s stated by John F. Fries® as followsi
Many courses l a indue t r ia l a r t s need reviai oa i a til® l i gh t of the ©Imaging emphasis f r o a s k i l l s and f a c t s , only, to a uubj&ct matter and teaching wMcl provides greater pupil •devtlopwHt* or •'tiafoMiagf* In th# l a t t e r eas t the coots# fi®st lit AM&PZ*! f o r places *&«*« . in te res t ing pupil-® t Initiated 'setlvUMea, which give oppor-tunit ies for i n i t i a t i v e and problem solving, rcen be substituted for teaetjer-tlreeiiHt act iv i t ies , ' 7
Methods as well as subject matter ma hmom obsolete and
should be analyzed occasionally to determine the ir e f f ec t i ve -
ness « ~ '
The alms end objectives of courses i s oftohaaioal'-ArawlJag
are sore or l e s s agreed upon by most a u t h o r i t i e s , but itow
aeehaaloal drawing should be taught i s a aoot question • Re-i
gerdless of what methods are used, they should be devised for
the purpose of helping students to ©fficlei i t ly accoaipliaii the
aims and object ives of the courses# Tm development of the
power of visualization i s one of the foreaost objectives of
a beginning course ia mechanical drawing. Before a student
eta learn-to v i sual ize , his imagination must be st irred into
netlou* Can t i l l s b® done amt ei'f actively by the a#re ass ign-
ment of problesa to be copied from a book, or i s there a mare
e f f e c t i v e wsyf
' In the general shop program, the tin® set aside for
mechanical drawing i s usually a period of s i x , nine, or
$*rl®s«, oj » « U » , p. 221
b
twelve weeks. It is important In teaching th i s subject that
it be taught In such a waj the*. the students wil l retain the
facts triey learn during thia short period of tiiae. Here the
interest @l«ent i s involved, .-interest arnst be created and
Mints ained or e lse the few fundamentals which skouM be
learned by the student may f a l l far a hart of a&Mug a»y kind
of l a s t lag impression m hlm<j Mother question^ &hmt $& Urn
cen a mechanical drawing course be organised and presented so
that the greater part of i t wil l be retained by the student?
It is an .accepted fact that freehand sJeetclilag is a
valuable s k i l l for every student of drafting to develop* !Siy
should m% atoetohing be oon*lA«r*& as equally Important as
instrument drawing? Good sleetciilng can be taught only when
seXf eoaftdeiie© i s iiirtiXlei within the student. Too aueh
reliance upon tiie i/istrutaeats i s l ike ly to thwart t h i s
cc it Me nee •
Good le t ter ing is a mark of a good draftsioan and oon-
tributes amch toward the appearance of a drawing, 4 pre-
requisite to good let tering is zauscle development in the hand
and f ingers , Sketching is a valuable aid in developing -
muscular coordination* I t aiglit be assumed, theqn»fore» that
an abundance of slcetohlng c i rc l e s , squares, boxes, and blocks
sliornM be incorporated into the course i f at the aaae t i«e
other values can be developed.
In organizing a course in mechanical drawing, i t was be-
l ieved that a taore e f f i c i e n t course could be planned i f
methods of teaching mechanical drawing m m analysod to de-
termine t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . An e f f o r t was mad# during the
study t o f ind an answer to til® quest ioiia which arose and t o
use theca in the formulation of an I n t e l l i g e n t , e f f i c i e n t , and
e f f e c t i v e program in 2ao«h«aioaX drawing f o r the Santa ?e
Junior High School#
Source of Data
Data f o r t h i a study wire obtained froxa the experiment
conducted f o r the purpoa* of studying the two methods. The
experiment included four c leases with a combined t o t a l of
e ighty- three pup i l a . Teats which were administered t o these
pup i l s provided t h e data tha t wr© un@d to d t t e n t i n e %"m d i f -
ference in mhlmmmBt between the equated group© aM to do-
t e ra ine the r e l i a b i l i t y of Uioae d i f fe rences*
Mm the Iscper latent was Conducted
? l»re were four seventh-grade c lasses in t h i s experiment.
Students in two of tliǤ c lasses mm taught by one method and
students in the other two c lasses by another acthod. (out-
l i n e s of the content of these two oourseo a r e included In the
spptMlx#} As each of the four c lasses OQ&plefced the i r
courses, an mhlmmmt t e s t was administered i s order t o
aeaeure the achievement of tho students under each method#
*B%ls a&ttgy mm raade fo r the puvpos« of analysing methods
of teachiag s»©hanioal drawing, ne i ther the ob jec t ives nor
the subject mat ter of aechanioal drawing were under question*
8
l a o r d e r to a e a s u r e s M cc&ipare t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e two
methods used , t i ie f o l l o w i n g s e t of o b j e c t i v e s »er© e s t a b l i s h e d
a s g o a l s to b# accomplished by t i e s t u d e n t s ;
1* The development of v i s u a l i z i n g a b i l i t y , t h a t i s , t h e
a b i l i t y t o t r a n s l a t e fro*i t h e p i c t o r i a l drawing t o t h e orth©~
g raph ic Oravlng a M fro** the o r t hog raph i c drawing t o t h e
p i c t o r i a l drawing#
2» The development of s f e l l l i n us ing a p e n c i l f o r
s k e t c h i n g and l e t t e r i n g #
3« The developsaent of t h e a b i l i t y to m i e r s M a d and t o
r ead t h e threes-view drawing# •.»
The develop/sent of t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s was t l » goa l toward
which t h e cour ses were d i r e c t e d * Achievement h e r e a f t e r d i e -
cussed r e f e r s e n t i r e l y to t h e e x t e n t to which t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s
were developed by t i e s t u d e n t inc luded i n the s tudy*
The c h i e f d i f f i c u l t y i n en experiment of t h l e t y p e was
found i n t h e c o n t r o l of e l l t he f a c t o r s and oend i t i omi invo lved
i n o r d e r to i s o l a t e t h o s e which were under s t u d y , n a a e i y , t h e
two xaethoda of t ee©t ing Jtaeehanical drawing, There were m n y
o t h e r f a c t o r s t o I n f l u e n c e t h e growth of the s tudent»» so&e
of which ?;ere i n n a t e i n t e l l i g e n c e , age , hef;;,e background, a t -
t endance , number i n t h e group , a e h l e r a t e n t l a o ther s u b j e c t s ,
and loany other®. /«n e f f o r t was o&de t o c o n t r o l a s many of
t h e s e f a c t o r s as p o s s i b l e .
The s t u d e n t s i n a l l f o u r c l a s s e s i n t h e experiment; were
grouped according to s c h o l a s t i c a tondiag* Th i s grouping was
9
aade ©a tJa® bas i s of tiie C a l i f o r n i a 47-—S fform^ achievement
t e s t whieh was s d a l a l s t e r e d the previous year , .©lass aohl«r*~
meat was a l s o used to sosie extent f or hia grouping* The
I* <&• *8 of t t » s tudents «ere not taws as the school did not
keep a record of t h i s kind%
I s order to ximlce eottcarisaug between the two omtho&B of
i n s t r u c t i o n , an e f f o r t wa® m d t t o equate t h e groups as o l o s e l y
as p o s s i b l e . Two of the four c l a o e e s were taught by the block
method and two by the problem-book method, As grouped by the
school a d a l n i a t r s t ion i n an e f f o r t t o obta in homogeneity,
CI as# 1 under each nethod was tlie c l a s s o f lower s c h o l a s t i c
standing* Class 2 was the c l a s s of h igher s e h o l a s t i e stand**
ing* .A f u r t h e r d i v i s i o n aade of Class 1 by d i v i d i n g i t
i n t o Groups a and B and of Class 2 by d i v i d i n g i t i n t o Groups
C and 3* M&telied Groups A took the course a t the a suae time
and s i m i l a r l y Groups 3 § C, and B, thus , tnare were f o u r
equated groups l a t h e study*
The d i f i a i t e i of each of tha four o l e a s e e i a t o two groups
was aiado on t h e baa i s of t h e awohanioal a b i l i t y s c o r e s of the
laejibera of the o l a a s e a . The mechanical a b i l i t y of each student
was det©ruined by the Macw,iim-rie Test f ar Aieofaaaioal A b i l i t y ?
wliloii was a&uiniotered to tJ» > &lmmm* Matohed Groups A l a
Claes 1 under eaeh method and matched Groups 0 i n Class 2 were
^Cal i forn ia 47*-8 Font,, C a l i f o r n i a Teat Bureau, Los l a g ® l e s t OailforaTa*
?T# W. Mae^uai-ri®, ^fiaaaEKLt . S t l t f o r aeouaniea l a b i l i t y , Los Angeles , C a l i f o r n i a W m ^ m r n ^ W z J ^ T
10
%tm groups of meohaalcal abil i ty# Groups B in the
f i r s t class under eaoh laethod and Groups D in t he second class
were the groups of lower aechanioal ab i l i t y .
The work plan to be developed from the resu l t s of the
study i s to be used in a gtneral shop program Therefore, eaoh
drawing course was taught mud tes ted under the actual acmdi-
tions of t!m general shop* The duration of eaoh course was
nine weak a . Groups i sad. -c took oooiiaaloal drawing the f i r s t
nine weeks of the geaestdr, &M Groups B m& B took woodwork
and craf ts* At the end of the f i r s t nine~week period, the
gMup9 exchanged places, tnS Oroups B and D took aeohanloal
drawing the seeond nine weeks of tho MouMrto? wliiXo Groups A
and 0 took woodwork and c r a f t s .
M ef for t was sad# t o eo&tvol the learning s i tuat ion in
order to give a l l groups equal opportunities in e lass d i s -
cussions and deaionstration s # individual ins t ruct ions , black-
board i l l u s t r a t i ons , and outside reference assignments* Approx-
imately f i f t een per oent of the class time was given to c lass
discussions m& instruct ions. The remaining time was given
to the actual drawing with individual Instruction where i t was
needed*
The subject na t te r in a l l groups was controlled in an
e f fo r t to cover the arnm xoaterial by each act hod. Consequently,
the number of sheets assigned to a l l groups was about equal*
At the close of ©acta coarse the Drawing;
11
by Weston W# mto&ftll* was administered aa aa mhlmmmit test
to deteralae to what degree each student bad developed under
the obJ«stlT«s outlined at the beginning of the study. The
Mitchell test is a standardized aptitude test ?'however* the
teat ©aa be uaed in m y of el* ways reooaa&ended by the author,
a ® test consists of two parte, o m to measure visual isii eg
ability and one sketching ability. The two parte will be here-
after referred to a* th# Mitchell visualising test m& the
Mitchell aid 11# tent*
finally, aa iaforiaal test mm adnlalsttrea which'Measured
the students ability to read and to under»tand a three-view
drawing* The problems for this teat were taken from pages
twenty-nine through thirty-one of Shog Brawlais for Be^laoeyg
by H* B« Gobaugh, and consisted of twenty three-view drawings
in which om or «re line® i*ere Msslng. lack studexit was
required to complete the drawings by supplying the missing
line or in mmm cases complete views*
Methods Used
The two met&ods used in this stu<Sy refer to the met hods
of presenting the aabjaot matter of the course and will tee
hereafter referred to as the problem-book method and the block
method. The problem-book aethod is probably the most widely
used method of teachiog aeehiiiiieal drawing* By this method,
%eston 1. MlteheO.1, jmitlift Iffl* .Blomtagtsa, 111,, McKnight and i&Knigfct, 1940•
12
•rtty assignment Is and® f m m a book of Arming problem. wht®h
are to be copied by the student« The block: net hod is an en-
tirely different approach to the subject. Under this inethod
the course is taught almost exclusively by the use of jaodels
of the problems.
For the problem-book method Beginning. Probleas la
Mechanical Drawlng9 by Charles A« Bennett was the problem-book
which mm used to toach the students. The booh was followed
carefully according to the author1 a suggestsioas far using it.
All problems were either pictorial drawings from which the
student selected and drew the three view*, or two-view draw*
lag® which the student completed by drawing the third vim*
The student was required to ask© a working sketch of loost of
the probieras before ho drew thara with his instruieents. This
sketching was the only freehand work required of the student*
Four lettering sheets wsre assigned during the course and were
planned 30'that they did not co/ae all at ©a© ti&e» Models of
various prpble&a ner© used occasionally for de&onstr&tloA
purposes in class discussions to 3how the relationship of the
viws# However, the models used for this purpose were not
the probleas assigned to be drawn. This procedure of using
models is reoognized by ao3t instructors as a vaLuable aid
and is comonly used.
For the bloox method, a mimeographed "work plan" was
%harlea jU Bennett* Beginning ProMeas in M< X 9 3 4 # • - •
13
issued to each s tudent . Tm coura© was divided into un i t s
with separate direetioiis f a r aaah unit* £ ser ies of twaofcy
voo&cui iiodala was provided for the atu&ants to draw* J£m3&
student was required to mhs p i c to r i a l a-katehas of theaa blooks
l a tha isoaetri© i M in the oblique bafora tha three-f law draw-
ing was aa&tiona&k Thus, each student wag required to a&eteh
tha twenty blooks three tiidea using thra# t j p a s of drawing*
In order t o *a&lntain var ie ty several sheeta involving. tha us#
of drafting inatztte&eats ware assisaad at the begim-ug of the
uni ts• f m cosaglete @eeh&aieaX working drawings were required
a f t e r the ocaplaitoii of a l l fraehaiid sketching* flier© ware
four l e t t e r ing assignments as in the probles-twofe method* and
they were given, froia time to t l aa throu#iQ»t the course*
The reason fo r using these two methods was* as stated in
the i*urpoae of tha atudy t to analyze tha tvso methods of teach-
ing laeemiiioal drawing* There was no quaatloa of the valua
of tha aiaa or objectivea of taaaliiag mechanical drawing a s
these are sore or l a s s standard and accepted* ifaith#^ we® i t
the value of tha aubjact matter of mahafiteaX drawing tha t
was under question# The sola purpose of using these two
jaathods waa to determine by whioh aethad the elaa&ea reached
the grea tes t aahievaiaent and to deterulne i f there was say
s ign i f ican t d i f fe rence in the effect iveness of tha two iaathoda
of teaching*
14
Related Stud lea
A study was isadt by Victor A. Johnson in 1934-1935# of
toe ninth grade in t-e public schools of Waysata# Minnesota*
in an attempt to A«t«r®lxw the relative value of teaching
mechanical drawing with the aid of blueprint® a s co/apared with
teaching from models• Sixteen matched groups were used# Each
coarse vas conducted for a period of e i g h t m weeks, tests,,
were a&alniatered to measure the mi&mmmmt of the students
studying by the two aethoda, and a combined d»an aeor* for a l l
group® under each method was coaputed. A difference of 6«6?
points ««8 found to exist between the combined, means in favor
of the block aethod. One of the conclusions drawn by Johnson
from the r esu l t of his study wast nTQ the extent of t h i s study
and within the limits of this experiment t the use of mod el 0
as a technique in teaching iaechaaieal drawing was found to be
superior to the blueprint m e t h o d * J o h n e o n states further,
hewwer, .that parts ,of both methods are desirable ant should
be considered in planning a mechanical drawing course* He
recomended that models be used much more extensively in other
fltlds of teaching such as a r t and imthemtias .
A study wm aade by Theresa C. Ounther in 1929 to deter-
mine if the children in elementary industrial arts learned
and retained aor# f ac t s by the manipulative participation
aethod than by the conventional method of studying from books,
i0Vi«tor At Johnson, "Teaching Devices in Mechanical tewing**1 Mmstifial Art# .an# Tooatioaal liswattoa. OTI i Manmn/WVh '%%rS&f**
15&nlpulatlve participation, m used la Gunther** stud?-, meant
actually handling and woxiciag ith the ;aat or ia Is of tin unit
beiag studied la order to gi¥@ the student, a first-hand experl-
eases with th* xaaterlals* The experiment was conducted la the
State of ;7ashington In grades three, four* five, and six* The
units studied in the exparixnent were wool, mhmt $ clay, soap,
iron, arid paper* imoisg th® conclusions drawn by (fcrnthar w&mt
ttithla tho limits of this experiaeatt the u » of manipul&tIve participation m defined by the experi-laante? was superior in the aeasured results of facts learned and retained to the conventional method of studying the facts froa books*
Although there naa a gain in tho total nuuabor of faots learned by eaeh group, the gains were uniformly higher sad the failures in the retention of tmt$ be-tween final and delayed*reoall testa were uniformly
. lower for the groups that-uaed the esverlaeotal factor#
The results show that the ©xpsrlia«at al factor had
the suae influence In Grades 3» 4, 5» and 6***
A study was isade by Srwia T# Mullar at the Hebrew
Technical Institute In New York during the year 1936-1937 to
compare two techniques of teaching perspective drawing with
the purpose of Improving the existing teaching procedures in
the school* One group of students,, designated as the control
group, worked from aodels placed on the table before them*
the students were "led" by the instructor Into "disoovarii^*
for themselves the principles of perspective drawing* The
other group of students, designated as the experimental group,
worked without models. In aafciag the drawings by this method*
^%h«resa c« Gunther, Manipulative participation in the atudy ot j&ewentary Ix^qetyiii'"feteT1
16
the students followed the step-by-sfcep directions of the in -
structor. Tie instructor drew the problems la front of the
class on a large sheet of white paper vsith black lines so that
©eeli st oft out soulA follow his direct 1 om • Two sonoiasioas ^
drawn by Mailer front the results of his lairegtigatioa were: ;
The drawing* submit ted by the Kxperiaental Group were Judged to fee super! or, on the average, to the' drawings submitted by the Control Oroup« The difference in the performance between the two groups wa® substan-t ia l* not only in the f ina l exaaismtioa.ft feat in the delayed recall examinations us well* for the f ina l ex»ola«itioas and for the delayed recal l examinatiws the difference between the aeons in fa?or of the Kxperi-eental Group was spprccclafttely thir teen-t lass the probable error of the difference between the mmm*
Ths aggregate of data indicated that , under the conditions given, the 35xperlaeafcal Group met the specific requlremnts of the freehand drawing coarse nore satis* faetori ly than the Control Group.**
The experimental method, the aethod in which the students
followed the step-by-at«|> direct!cms of the instructor, was
prored by MUller's studs;., to be superior to the controlled
metjbod,, the method of using models#
i2i&win T* Muller, #Jt Coaparison of Two Methods of Teach-ing Representational ©rawing in a Secondary technical School,n
(Unpublished Ph» 0# dissertation, DspsrtMRt of Mueatloiit Us*'York UAlrersity* 193*) , p* ?•
0HJk¥¥&t 11
Tim data used in asking eoiaparlsons between the two
methods of teaching drawing n@r© obtained fTOs
tests a&aiiulstered to the stud eats la the experiment *
tests aeasured the achieve/sent o f the stmsleais in the abi l i ty
to visualize, a): etch, le t te r , and understand t ie three-view
drawing. Calculations were laade:
1« fo discover such dlfferenoes as might exist between
the aeorea or the groups*
2* To detemiae i f the differences were pignifioaat *
3* To determine the re l i ab i l i t y of the differences*
To discover tbe differ®©### b#t«eea the aoorea of the
equated groups, the mm scare of each group was computed*
The difference between the scores of the groups, as used la k
the study, was the difference between the means* The mean of
eaoh group of scores was ocaputed by the assumed mean method,
the formula for which 1st
i& * AM 4- f i 1 I M ® seen
AM s a s s u m e d a e « n
^fx* * sua of the frequency on a certain in-terval times the deviation of that interval from the assumed mm&
17
IB
H * auisiber of cases or scores
i " size of elans Interval
After the difference between the means was discovered,
the next step was to determine if the difference m m signifi-
cant. The slg&ifloanoa of the difference between the mtam
mm expressed in terms of a critical rati©# The following
procedure was used in finding the critical ratiot
1, The standard deviation for both groups was computed
by eoaablning the suss of the squares frosa. the two groups by
the formula:
8D or b 5 \ I • *2 \lrs^mmFn
m or 3 " standard deviation
£xi2 « auta »f the x2ls fro® Group 1
£*22 • of ttoe x2,s froa Group 2
% - liiater of scares la Group 1
Jig * jMiabtr of scores in Group 2
2* Tim standard error of %m difference between. the
jte&as was.e»pat©4 by the formula:
SKn * all SX*®2 B f ^V2'
81|j' " standard'error of the difference between tli® means
s * standard deviation of the two groups (calculated by formula under 1)
Hi » number of scores in Group 1
N2 s number of scores in Group 2
i f
3 . The erltleaX r a t i o or £ wcu ooj#uto£ b/ tlx® faraula*
Civ OJP 2
OR or t, * c r i t i c a l r a t i o
D « dif ference twtnieea tbe jmmuui of two groupc to b# eanpered
31b » standard error of t&e d i f f ereiwe befeneftn tim a«as» of two groups of seorea to be compared (eeleu*
la ted i f toxmaX* uMer 2)
a ® jaetbod used l a 'fiitdtiag ftbe c r i t i c a l r a t i o i$ illttitv
trated l a the following sroaplei
Xxaoplet Kha% Is tli# or i t i oa l ratio of the dif ference between tk© means of Bloofc Qxoup A s s i Problsa* book -Gr»p a?
Block Osvntp /« l¥OIA«iwboo)c Oroup A
Ux * 147.7* K2 # 13a
% - l « 8 J?2*4 * $
* il»19*«97 « 33#0?3
it) or a
f?D or 3 *
" \ J u . m . < ^ * 13.073
\ju.2Jl.n
m or n 8 Vl,427*7<
...;© or 0 * 3?* 78
,r»Y\ u
2' s \ / JLr®2
Vw • 37*7* |§
- 3 7 . 7 8 V . a i
S 3 7 . 7 8 x *46
2 17,38
CH Or t « —rni alSjj
ca or t s
01 or t - J„ X # *
GE or t - *88
The final treatment ,.f the data was to determine tim
reliability of the difference between the moans» Tim df
of freedom) of the two groups were combined. Thl#
combined df was located in the table -of under the #10
level* If the critical ratio of the difference between the
aeons was found to b© below the entry In the table at the
#10 levelt the di fferenoe between the eseaxui was not signifi-
cant • If the critical rati© was greater than the ent*y at
21
thle i t f t l j the difference between the oeans was s ignif icant t
m& the tha t tlw nnm resul ts would be obtained
la other s&iptllxig wan cortairu
* In the af the 4afea, If «» 1 was used la the
formulae because | | was mmil ( M o t 59)# one standard devl'a*
felon «fti8 oaaputed which %oold s s r w for *m%h groups i s a rtatobad
pair of students. The reason t o r combining the t«p groups was
espial ited by Qarrett ns tollmmt
Tim j u s t i f i ca t ion f<-*r this pooling $roeedure is that on the null hypothesis the rea l difference between tha two classes i s zeroj hence the two samples my b® treated ©a though t&«y *era Srawi f j o a th# s«s» pop*" l a t i o a . J4oreo?er, Increasing fete H g i w s a more stable 3D &»#$, on a l l of t i t ohsej/imMoaa#^
in oojflpu$lii£ tho standard error (31) of %h# di f ferent*
between the aeans t the standard error of each. aesn has e&l**
em a ted froa the sou® standard dtviat loa i&h Therefore,
the standsrd orror of the dlfferenee between the means (SRq)
was calculated di rect ly by the fosnula 3E„ » s \ / %4% # V " s p r
" «#» - &
G a r r e t s , og. o i l . , p.
Qmrcm i n
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The results of the experiment in this study or® presented
and analysed la tils chapter* It should be pointed oat that
all scores &r# only indicative of the achievement sat eamiot
be §#t forth as an exact of it* M previously
stated, it we® a physical tai©»«IMiity to control ill of the
factors operating to influence the achievement of the stu-
dents* la interpreting the scores of the study, therefore,
predictions are made cautiously, particularly where differ-
ences are alight• Conclusions drawn from the data presented
are made with an understanding of the limit at i on a of experi~
asataX study, and heiwj© allowajases are made for imperfections
ia the data*
Bach of the four classes in this study was divided on
the basis of the mechanical ability scores of the members of
the class* The half of the class with the higher mechanical
ability scores was placed in Group A of Class 1 and in Group
0 of Class 2* Group B of Class 1 and Group D of Class 2 were
the groups with the lower mechanical ability seores* The
mechanical ability scores were obtained at the beginning of
each class by administering the ItoeQuarrl* Test# Table 2
fchows the j&eehaaic&l ability of the students la all groups
and the mean score of the groups* other methods of grouping
22
23
TABLE 2
KBOHAHICAL.ABILITY SGOS1S OF THB SWKBNTS I S m «QU?3 M S f i t KSAR SCOBS Of THE GROUP
BXfe*lt Method ; j*©fcie»-!0©& Method
Group A ' ' <3*01lp 1 Qvonp.A Group B
53 51 11 47 47 46 44 43 4a
41 41 40
: :' 40 39 37
•• 37 35
. -35 > 32
28 M*. 36 ,45
55 52 49 49 49 46 46 46 43 42
«# 4 6 . 8
42 41 40 40 38 36 32 29 28 28 20
. M* ^i4.*09 Group c §r#*ip S Group C Grottp ©
. 61 59 56 56 55 55 54 54 52 52 51
MS 53 .18
50 49 49 49 49 4$ 47 45 45 •44 43
M» 46*9
64 59 | 57 57 55 55 50 49 4® 48
M« 54
47 47 46 45 44 43 41 41 38 33
H* 42
t h e s t u d e n t s were c o n s i d e r e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y I n C l a s s 1 m & m
@s©li oftthod* Glass** 1 mm® t h e e l a i w e s of lower mk&lsstle
s t a n d i n g and t h e *gss o f t h e pupil® r a n g e d f r o m e l e v e n t o
s i x t e e n ?•*?*„ l s c o r e of t h i r t y s e y e n on t h e ttaoquarrie
Tes t was ave rage t o r a s t u d e n t o f e l e v e n y e a r s and was v e r j
low .for a s t u d e n t of s i x t e e n years# I t mm p o s s i b l e , there**
fo*e» t h a t some s t u d e n t s i n t h e B and D g r o u p s r a t e d h i g h e r
2k
%hm suae i n t h e A m& C groups because of t h e age d i f f e r e n c e .
However, b e f o r e f i n a l l y grouping t h e s t u d e n t s , m a t t empt mm
made t o d i v i d e t h e ©lass on t h e tests of age norm# e s t a b l i s h e d
f o r %m t e s t , gy t h i s method, I t was found i a mat e s s e s t h a t
t h e s t u d e n t s were p laced in t h e &&m groups a s t hey were p l aced
by t h e method which was used#
Ohroiiologieiil age mm a lao c o n s i d e r e d tm a siettiod of
grouping t h e s t u d e n t s 1» t h e low #!&»««» • An e w a i a a t l o i i of
t h e weehanieal a b i l i t y s o o r e s of t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e lower
©lasses r e v e a l e d t h a t , i n ms% oases# t h e o l d e r s t u d e n t s oao*
w i t h i n t h # .lower g r o u p s , i tmt r e v e a l e d l a t e r l a t h e s tudy
' showed t h a t t h e o l d e r • s t u d e n t s m&@ higbtr mMmmmt s c o r e s
than raany w i th h ighe r mechanical a b i l i t y , i l s o t h e r e were
eases where younger p u p i l s w i th h igh a s shaa lo i t l a b i l i t y Made
low on t h e actoi«riMMmt t e s t #
An examinat ion of Table 2 r e v e a l e d t h r e e th ings* F i r s t ,
the j&eaa s c o r e s of a a t c h e d droups A, 3 , and C iadioatsA- s i m i -
l a r i t y wi th r u p M t t o faechaaie&l a b i l i t y m measured by t h e
ftao^uarrio ?««%* Seoond» t h e d i f f e r e n c e of 4«91 p o i n t s b e -
tween t h e means of snitched Groups D appeered t o g i v e an aft-
van tage t o t h e block method* Th i rd , t h e only groups w i th a
d i f f e r e n c e between t h e seen® i n f a v o r of t h e p*obX*j»-»feoo3c
method were Groups 0# and t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n e g l i g i b l e #
The d i f f e r e n e e between t h e aeans of t h e a e e h a n i o a l a b i l -
i t y s c o r e s of t h e matched groups and t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Table 3* The s i g n i f i c a n c e of
m s u s 3
tag arfiaasmsB- mmm $hb xaai© Mm rm simummm m sn oiFfiiMci mmm tss mams OF THE
MlOMIfiClL ABILITY S00H18 Of
Groups wSSjpB
Of Soorea.
*«S»s Mff • BatolHMUt J M f .
aBrj nJr^ical Hatlo
a f f l a i i S i y * of Biff# b e -lv,cen aeana .
1 Block Prsb—Bk
42*53 42-55
47,33 46 *6 ;s3. 1,76 »35i 1,74
B Block £ro1H9lt
28-41 20-4£
36,45 34,09
2,36 2,49 ,95 1,72
0 Block £r6b~Bk-
51-61 48*64
; 53,16 54 *82 1,93 •41 1.73
p Block Prolw-Bk:
43-50 33-47
46.91 42 4,91 1,54 3,19 ; 1,73
til# d i f f e r e n c e s between two a&mm was d a t a m i a e d by a l»cki»g
t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of ttt* c r i t i c a l r a t i o . I f t h e c r i t i c a l r a t i o
equal led o r exceeded the r e l i a b i l i t y , the d i f f e r e n c e was ea id
t o be a l g a l f f o s i i t , The f a c t a presented i n Table 3 Indiaat®
t h a t til© di f f e r e n o e s between t h e aeons of oatchad Groups l t
3, aod 0 war® not • tgn i f iomat* Tim c r i t i c a l r a t i o of 3,19*
howerer, of Group D was a i g a i f l o a o t aaft i n favor of the block
method,„ •
On# o b j e c t i v e t o be at taiaf tA by th* s tuden t s i n t h l a
atwiy was t h e a b i l i t y to v i sua l i z e* A po r t ion of t h e Mitchel l
t e a t waa designed t o meaaure vlaualissing a b i l i t y # Table 4
p resen t s t h e v i a u a l i z i n g sco res made by t h e a tudea t s l a a l l
26
groups on the Kitohell test* The rmugt ot th« vtaoallsi&e
m&rm of a l l groups *a® large. The oaturlty of tti# student®
TABUS 4
E&'W 3008B3 i-IABl BY ALL QSOUFS Oil TICS MITCHELL TlSOALXBIl
Bloofc Method PsotiCUMiHBook: Method
Group A &3tOUp ©• I Group A Group B
134 • 196 1 202 144 174 167 I ! 1$> • 123 174 162 I 145 120 157 155 135 112 152 • . 137 128 104 ISO 127 • 113 101 142 . 125 104 93 122 1. O HZ
JUmt im. 101 89
60 : 118 96 77 113 • 86 74 113 ©5
M«tt » 101.36 UMta * 147.78 mm # 139*55 * 132 , ©5
M«tt » 101.36 Group C Group D Group C Group B
231 220 225 220 229 216 209 19« 214 213 207 194 200 203 182 163 198 173 174 139 162 u$ 1 t
I me f m 128 140 143 I 156 125 136 127 I 155 124 136 111 114 109 120 109 9o 100 1 OS 104
M * 173.64 M * 162,73 M # 170 it * 152
»««md to hsv# had co&ftlderable iafluenoe upon their
nent* l a Many oases the older students r a ted low la nieolisn-
iaal ab i l i ty but proved to have developed considerably la the
to visualize^ s im i l a r l y , in other cases t h e younger
27
students with high mechanical ability scores, seemed to have
had difficulty in visualizing. These facts were partly the
cause of the great range, of scores.
The graph below is a pictorial representation of the
scores presented in Table 4« Groups 0 were tne groups of
B B Groups
.Block method I^roblaa-book . let hod
fig* l»-~A comparison of the moan scores made by the natched groups on the Mitchell visualizing test.
higher mechanical ability in the classes of higher scholastic
standing and v*ere tne groups that *aade the highest- visualis-
ing scores. Groups B were the groups with the lower mechan-
ical ability in the lower classes and were the)groups that
nade the lowest visualizing scores#
The forego1ig f*raph indicated a definite relationship
between mechanical ability and visualizing ability# Within
2.8
each ©lwss the group with the higher mechanical ability had
a higher mean score on the visualising achievement test than
the group with the lower oeehanical ability, this statement
does not iaply that high xaechanical ability alv.aye resulted
la high visualizing ability. On the contrary, it was noted
that In several oases aeM©v«asat by a aafitfeer of stud eat a la
the lower groups far exceeded many in the upper groups, ftroof
that there mm a definite relationship between mechanical
ability and ritualizing ability,. howtver, ««* further substan-
tiated by comparing the olasses on the basis of aechanical
ability and visualizing ability# The two olasses of higher
scholastic standing rated higher in xaechanical ability than
the lower classes, and they also averaged a higher score on
the visualizing test than did the classes of lower standing.
It seems that on the basis of these facts it oan be assumed
that xaechanical ability had a dlreet bearing upon the develop-
ment of v i s u a l i z i n g ability.
The mm scores of the graupa were compared with the
percentile noma established for the test. The fiftieth per-
centile is 117#9 for the visualizing test, the seventy-fifth
percentile, 169.1, and the twenty-fifth percentile, 74*3 •
With the exception of problem-book Group B, all mm aoor**
were found to be between the fiftieth and the eightieth
percentile®#
The foregoing observations were made on the basis of the
obtained means of the groups. The difference between the
29
ae&ns of the visualising scores of the matched groups and fell®
significance of the difference between the .means are presented
in falsi# 5#
TA3MS $
THK Mf?»lSei BtTMHQI THE M M ® « » THE SZOHiyXCAHGB OF TICK mFH88XN££ W W 1 1 S TIE MEilfS Of ®ffi
ViaOAUZIKO S0G8KS OF TBM MATCHED GROUPS
m w . Between of
Searrni Hatio Of Biff# toe*
Swee&aeajQS A
Block Prob-Bk
Block VrolHlk
0 Slock Prob-Bk
Block i?r©b-Bk
60-184 &~&02
113-196 65-144
108-231 96«£25
104*2^0 100-3120
147.71 132
lit*§5 101*34
173.64 170
162.73 152'
15.78
38*19
3*64
10.73
17.3*
10*91
19.07
19.36
3.5
1.74
1.72
1.73
1.73
la order far & difference between the weans to be signif-
icant, the critical ratio oust equal or exceed 1.74 tot Grouj*
A, 1.72 for ttrotipft B# and 1.73 for temps'Q and D, as shewn
in the last column of Table 5* These figures determine the
reliability of the difference between the ai«i» The difference
mm significant between aatched Groups B but mm not signif-
icant between matshed Groups A, 0t .and D, The crltioal ratio
of 3.5 for Groups B was twice the 1.73 needed to show
significance.
30
flie skill of freehand sketching was another f&etor
«Moh was considered in this study# M effort was Made to
teat the tegrm to whieh the students studying "by eaeh
method developed this skill. One page of the Mitehell tow-
ing test mm designed to »sTOr% to mm® extent g the sta»
tents* ability to sketeh* This phase of the test will here-
after be referred to as the Mitchell skills test* fhe test
consisted erf copying various figures and designs freehand
and drawing straight lines with a ruler. According to the
author of the test t It was designed to Measure the fallowing
qualities: <1) to follow directions, (2) to draw accurate
lines, (3) to draw lines of uniform weight and quality*
C4I to drew art® and circles freehand, m& 15) to sketeh free
hand neatly and accurately*
The tests were graded as any problem la aeehanical draw-
ing with the grades "A~% WB*% wB-*f torn to «*• for
failure* A point value was assigned to eaeh of the grades
with a grade of «a» worth sixty-six points; a grade of "A-"
worth sixty pointsf a grade of *B4W worth fifty-four points;
a grade of WB" worth forty-eight points; a grade of nB~w
worth forty-two points; a grade of "C** worth thirty-six
points; a grade of *c* worth thirty points; a grade of "(J-*
worth twentyHPour points; a grade of "B4" worth eighteen
points; a grade of "D" worth twelve points; a grade of "!>-«
worth six points; and a grade of **» worth no points#
3 l
Table 6 present s the rmi soores sad® by the stud onto of
a l l groups, on t h e M i t c h e l l s k i l l s t e s t * The mem s c o r e s of
TABm 6
SAW iSCUKES MiilXtS . 31 AJU 030^. *1 0,4 TH£ KITOHBIX SELLS TESTS
Mmk Method Problem-Book n e t t e d
Group A Group B : * Group A dromp B
60 ij.fi 4 i 54 60 48 36 36 54 4S 34 30 54 48 36 : 30 43 43 36 30 48 36 36 30 36 36 : 30 18 30 3-6 30 12 12 36 30 12
30 6 12 6 6
H • M * H . M * 36 .82 M * 33 M. * 26 .82 Group C Group D Group 6 Group D
60 60 6C ! 54 60 60 54 36 54 54 54 36 48 54 43 30 46 4S 48 30 48 4S 48 30
- 48 36 36 30 36 36 30 24 36 30 24 18 30 30 24 12 30 24
M *45 .91 M * 45 M » 43 M • 32
a l l f o u r natched groups Indioated that g r e a t e r s k e t c h i n g
a b i l i t y was developed, by t h e s tudents who were taught by t h e
block aethod than t h e s tudents who nere taught by t h e problem-
book method. However, the d i f f e r e n c e between e t c h e d Groups 0
32
mm very eloae. The difference between the means and the
significance of the difference between the ineaas of the sic 11 la
M o m and® Iij the xaatched groups are presented in Table ?•
faBU. 7
fHS BlFflRMCS febffc'IijMS' fifes wfeAiS *MB *£££ iilQ8l¥'lQJM& Of m i SifFSlEHCE fSK 5^ASS OF ?ES
SK1IXS seo'lis Of TIS ilATCHSD QRCOPS
Groups ^ a S ^ » s
of ; Seores
" l e a n s 4&r tfcrJik Jf* 4p
Between M « t a $
" " t S S B o f f Hatio of Biff, be-
tween mmm * " ~ T ~ Block Prob-Blc
12-60 6—4'®
46 #11 33
13#11 6.id 2*12 1#74
B Block Frob-Bk
6*4'8 6-54
36,82 26.82 10 6*39 1.5? 1»72
C Block Frob-Bk
30-60 24-60
46*91 43
2.91 4«98 : • 53 1.73
0 Block prob-Bk
24-60 12-54
45 3 2 ;
: 13 5*41 2#40 1*73
The critical ratios of Groups A a M D were large enough
to fee significant but the oritleal ratios of Groups B aad 0
were not# The critical ratio of 1*5? between matohed Groups
B approaohed the level of significance, but the ratio of #58
between aatelied Groups C was much too email to show signifi-
cance* on the basis of the facts presented in Table 7 it was
reasonable to assume that there was soae significant difference
is aetiievettent between tho two methods in regard to the sketch-
lng skills which were measured by the Mitchell test*
33
O t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t © r e g a r d i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e
s k i l l s m&rm p r e s e n t e d l a ' f a b l e s 6 a n d 7 a r e a s f o l l o w s :
I # B o s i g n i f i c a n t r e l e t i o n s h i p w a s f o u n d t o e x i s t b e t w e e n
t h e s e o r e s & & d e © a t h e s k i l l s t e a t a n d t h e s c o r e s ysade o n t h e
v i s u a l i z i n g t e s t * l a a a n y i a s t a a e e s s t u d e n t s w h o r a t e d l o w
©a t h e v i s u a l i z i n g t e a t o b t a i n e d a o a p w a t i v e l y h i g h s c o r e s mi
t h e s k i l l s t e s t . S i m i l a r l y * t h e r e w e r e I n s t a n c e s i n v r h i o h
s t u d e n t s r a t e d b l a b o n t n e v i s u a l i s i n g t e a t b u t a a d c l o w o n
t h e s k i l l s t e a t *
2 . I n g 6 o e r a l » < a t u d e a t s w h o r a t a l h i g h o n t h e s k i l l s t e s t
is&d® a v e r a g e g r a d e s o r b e t t e r o n t h e j i i » s t f t r , s w o r k ; , f i l l s
w a s t r u e o f o t u d e n t a s t u d y i n g ^ u a d o r b o t h m e t h o d s a n d w a s t r u e
o f a l l s t u d e n t s r e g a r d l e s s # o f t h e i r v i s u a l i s i n g s c a r e s *
3 * l o g e n e r a l * s t u d e n t s w h o r s t e d h i g h o h t i i e s k i l l s
t e n t m a d e a v e r a g e g r a d e s o r b e t t e r o n t h e l e t t e r i n g s h e e t s #
. 4 » £ n g e n e r a l , t h o s e s t u d e n t s , w h o r a t e d h i g h o n t h e
i r i i t e h e X l v i s u a l i s i n g t e s t h a t r a t e d l o w o n t h e s k i l l s t e s t - ,
d i d w o r k . b e l o n a v e r a g e o n t h e d r a w i n g s a s s i g n e d d u r i n g t h e
e o n r s e #
f i n e f i f t i e t h p - e r a e a t . i l © n o r m f o r t h e i i l t e i i e l l s k i l l s t e s t
i s 3 0 , 3 p o i n t s # ^ f o r t h e t e s t i s 4 2 * 9 p o i n t ® a n d % i a 2 0 « 8
p o i n t s * f h e l o w e s t emm of a n y g r o u p i n t h ® s t u d y wm 2 6 * 3 2
p o i n t s f o r p f o b l e n - b o o l f i G r o u p B a M f e l l o a e p p r o x i A a t e i a r t h e
f o r t i e t h p e r c e n t ! l e • T h e h i g h e s t jaeaa w a s 4 6 * 1 1 p o i n t s *
s c o r e s b y feloek G r o u p A , a n d f e l l a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n t h e e i g h t y
s e o o n d p e r c e n t i l e .
34
Til© scores obtained on the informal t e a t of the course
are presented in Vable 8. The informal t e s t was a t e s t
f l lLE 8
HAW aeotss KA&B nr .ALL GBOUPS m *$m TUB®'OR N M CI.-UIAI
fa -«»~^=su-- sss=^ •zssm! Bloofc Method Prottsa-fioolt Method
Group Cteotip B Group 4 Group B
98 as 83 85 78 77 75 68 41
M • 76*11
96 79 79 72 69 69 65 50 45 40 33
II * 63#1«
100 90 82 80 76 75 74 71 65 4S
M * 78
: 92 75 72 68 65 62 55 55 51 42 15
il » 62*27
Group C Group D Group G Group B
98 95 95 91 91 66 84 80 77 74 6S
M S 85,91
100 100 • 100
93 94 92 88 37 36 SO 60
M 5 91.36
100 96 96 96 • 93 87 75 70 65 40
M * 83
100 100
97 90 86 86 S5 74 69 62
il « 86
administered f o r tho purpose of measuring the atudent1 s ability
to reed and una ers t and the fchree-Yiew drawing* The meatus of
a l l watched groups were very close, The greatest d i f fe rence
was found to exist ^efeweea Groups 3* fli© dif ference of 1#S9
of* matohed groups A m» In faTor of tb«
p*otCUNft*i)ooiE mtha&+ Tim t lgBiflota#* of these 4t£f#»ii©<ts
Is theta In fstil® 9# The c r i t i c a l r t t l o * of a l l jaat#ti®i
*«r* found to be f t * b#l«? the 3#v#l of t l c t l f i t t t t e t *
t i n ^ f r a m e s wmm S I M I S S *m rm Bimimmm OF FS» tawm&mM mmmm not mum m mm inrowa
TK8T 30QSSS Of fSf tf&ttiKll QSmftB
v o w QroujHi '
r Wi&es of
; scores
nHHST' 'Mfflittft :,.. Mnii...
T8RHH6B3jL •iBEfiSSf% of dtfftbe** ttMftJt Mean®
Blook j*o*«8)e
41*98 ; 4W.OJ
: 76,11 7# X.$9 ; M } •as A# /4
1 Bioek lsrob-»Bk
33*96 35*92
# a t 1 62*27 : •91 7»55 •12 1*72
C BlotX FrotHSIe
&$*9& 4«-100
85.91 : «3
a#fi : 16.59 *44 1*71 «*-* f #
» Block : Prob~Bkj II2S©
• 91.36 #6
: 1*34 : 5*51 .97 i 1*73
A ooaparieoa mm m&9 between the g»d#s on the l e t t e r -
lag 1 tbttfet ly the students «bo were taught by both
aetftods. Ttte dlfftunuuMMi between th ta t soore© were rsotj eheelced
f a r r e l i a b i l i t y becauee may of the 414 not eoapiete
a l l four ttslcmtnfct* Si t t0flQ»trit0tt was oedft» hcavtsiftr, b#»
oaum I t nogr have lxtplieatloat pearfcl&tnfr to t&t study. At
urerage grade was eoaputed f a r each ©map* fb# letter:!
«M»t* wmm e m M at A mmmMl
Wlm mtm Mii^wi to tmeh gm&i w&r*am<i& %)* aMtpolat of
tim of %M §*•&»* tH» $aU&«eaagft aa4 thm elft*
jeliifc of *fe* mm® <& **<& liil# crate as* astern* Is f«M.® 2»0#
TABLE X#
m m s s w M ai© v$l cy r-i>, j«^jr :•? nas t i s vssa m msxMWii fit mmum arnm mm
t i r a d e : ' I M a i * * § t i i i i ® » ,
• • • 9 f r B # 3 # § ® ; « 7 # 5 C : 7 * - S 2 7 8 . 5 s i 7 2 t » J K f c i f l f t i i
a® wm of tb« valu«6 at %im p'des *#® % asafe groc#
6iri&»4 "fcgr tli# aaaftMur of *i#s j»Sei toy IDs t&la s?«f»
0«P# 35* «g® W W t*feHSi ffeBtt t&i
be? of lettering @fe«S#
grade «attm&*a far
fcy eaah tvtn$
aire pvettaa&cd te 11*
t48t£ U
irrsxa ~r ; 7r.ct; is •$?•&* c- : i m ® s? urn. m m z At® f m msum mum si jsmm mm tm mem
thm
a feritel at 132 Mliterl afeaafta
m mim mm taugirc by t&e block otft&od
plated by
A 1 2 3 V
37
t h e s t u d e n t a who were t a u g h t toy t h e problem-book method* a t #
average grades Gdeputed f o r t h e groups m the lettering s l i ee t s
completed were higher tor t h e b lock method tham f o r t h e jxrob-
l e a - b o o k jaethod* The g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n t # was found t o e x i s t *
between matched Groups A w i th 11 «> p o i n t s * There was a d i f -
f e r e n c e of 2*2 p o i n t s b e t » e e a Groups B, 3 . 1 p o i n t s between
Groups 6* and $»8 p o i n t s between Groups B* On t h e b a s i s of
100 p o i n t s f o r A p e r f e c t s c o r e , t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s appea red
t o be l a r g e enough t o i n d i c a t e t h a t g r e a t e r l e t t a r i f f a b i l i t y
was developed l-y t he s t u d e n t s »ft@ were t a u g h t by t h e b look
method*
To mmmrim t h # f i a d i a g s of t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e diff«a*#&«#
i a t h e a b i l i t y t o v i s u a l i z e , a s measured by th® SSitehel l
v l a u a l i s i a g t e s t , was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a a i ' t a f a v o r o f
t h e bloefc oethod i n o-m of t h e f o u r a a t e h e d g r o u p s ; t h e d i f -
f e r e n c e i n t h e a b i l i t y t o s k e t c h , a s .Measured by t h e M i t c h e l l
s k i l l s t e s t , was s i g n i f i c a n t sad i n f a v o r of t h e b lock aet i iod
l a two of t h a f o u r matched g roups ; t h e A i f f e v e o o * l a t h e
a b i l i t y t o r e a d and oad t r a t f t ad t h e three»view drawing , a®
iseaaared by t h e i n f o r m a l t e s t of t h e c o a r s e , w no t found t o
be s l g n i f i e a n t b # t w e « amy of t h e f o u r oa tched g r o u p s ; and a
oomp&risoa oade of t h e l e t t e r i n g s h e e t s of a l l g roups t a d i -
e a t a d t h a t gMMter l e t t e r ! f i e a b i l i t y was developed by t h e
s t u d e n t s who were t a u g h t by the b lock stethod#
SHAFT® I?
wmmw9 omafAwmi&t mmmsmm9
mm wmtmmMTiQm
Snmmrf
*Skm study **• eonduoted for the purpoae of ao&paring tfe*
re la t ive effectiveness of tm methods of teaching mmMoiml
tawing t o seventfe-grad* students in the Harrington Junior
High School of Seatft Fe, .New Ifexleo* 1 seooM purpose was to
ug« the mthtA by which the greater amount of aohieveraejit was
indicated to fcraaailat* a verfc.piaa. for meeltcuiloal (teaming la
%M Junior high aehoola of Santa Ha, a controlled eiperinent
wm oandueted in whleh the tuo aethoda of teaching were «g«d»
Achievement by the atudenta under each method was iseasnred by
t e s t s , and •aaptflftOM, fennel upon the resul ts of the tests*
Viar* and# between the %m mm®®.® of teaching uaed.
fhere n#re four seventh-grade iiicladet la the
experiment* fim students In %m of the elassea «•?# taught
by the WUsols aethod and tlx# problem-boot netted *ta§ used in
the other two classes# The el®a#«« mere grouped according
to the scores obtained on m mhiwmmit t es t wiiieii mm ad~
aiftl«*«v*d to the student a on the ttoopMloa of the i r alxth
f»m of school* fixtr of the studanta wore not knows
aa t t» aehool does not k«®i> thia record oa %bm student®# • The
mechanical ab i l i ty scores of the iaej#«« of the class©® were
| g
n
tis&i for dividing the ©lasses into two groups and were 0%*
tala«4 iroa JUg, M& QBai'rit feat for gattetusleal Ability itoich
was administered at the b*g inning of the study, four amtthai,
pairs of pupils were foiaed toy dividing the ©leasee Into two
groups* 43 mmw factors as possible were controlled during
the aourse of %lm experiment to give equal opportuoitia* to
all groups, Ttata. vara efeialsierti for the purpose of
aeas-uring til# aafclavansat of ttarpuplla la the ability to
¥3 aualiza, stoatoh, letter, sad tinders tend t lire®-view dramlng#
Comparisons wor& aa4® botween the sn&ttats of teaching by
eoap&vi&g thaaa test scores#
for the problera-book aethod, BaglaiUim Prefrlaaai In
Mftohaaieal Brawl JM by Qtarlaa A* Bennett wss issued to thm
studentat The book was used according to the authors sugges-
tions tor its use* flit preplans asaig&ad fm& tha book were
either platovittl drtnlag# from whl&h the student aalaotad and
draw thraa views, or two-view drawings wfclafc the ataOfttttt
copied and eaapleted the third view,
Tha students taught by the hlmk oathoft <114 not ua* s
textbook, bat suvaraut reference books were mad® available for
study• All drawings were oada directly froa woodeh aodela
whiab the students oould hold in their hands as they worked*
There ware twenty models and the aftu&a&t* were required to
sketch than, using tba tliraa types of tewing, the lnoaetric f
the obliqua* and the thxwriaw, After the freehand sketch-
ing was completed, the students were raquirad to draw tan of
40
th* raodale and m® drgwlug lastxtuuftta* All drawings were
©oaplete with <ULme«aioaa»
The data os«d la making comparisons between the two
methods ot teaching were obtaiaed f r o s tea t s administered to
measure the achievement of the etudente. Calculations were
sade to discover the differeocea between the Mora* of the
pupil® t&ugbt by the two aetboda, - to- f ind the oriticaX ra t io
of the between the scores, and to deterialii® if th*
difference was reliable* fh# mean seore mm wed to indicate
the central tendency of the group# c r i t i c a l ra t io was
eaaputed by the following atepsj {1} A staiiS-aM deviction
was computed which nould i f f f e fo r both groupa of a statelied
pair of atudents* (2) fh# ataadard error of the 41 ttmmm
between the jseiing wm computed# (3) The a r l t l o a l re t lo wa*
eoaputed* fh® a r i t l a a l r a t io nasi naact cheated t o d©t«r«i&©
I t s re l iab i l i ty* the formulae end a detailed deseaeiptlcwi of
the i r use were gimta in Chapter 11# •
• fh@ jc&eehanloal ab i l i ty of the students wee on© erltesrlon
used for oatahing the groupa In the study* The aeehaaieal
a b i l i t i e s of matched Groupa J# Sf and 0 were very oloae. Tbft
difference bet-sees the aesas of isatehed Groups Bt however#
wm 4*91 points md was fesnd to be a aigolfioaut difference
la favor of the blocfc method#
A eoaparison of the mmn acores of the eatched groups on
the vi iuai ls lag aahlavaaant t es t revealed that In the four
matched groups the difference between the twitm mm la favor
u
of tao bloefe method. 44ffeveoa* betwraa to# a ® « of
Greu$e S HMka 19*19 points, aad its f&tua to be *igniflfwitv
tlifct tsg t&« critical ratio sr the ia&i*«t«d that
this Aifftfmne* could not toe «s«jritse<i to efeaaoe* flaa
«a#® bsfnetti the «taa# of #&t63»d (Sroup# A# e# oud D w«»
jfouaA to to* Bsa*eig.alfi«aalt aa §Mma in Teble 5 of t&ie stuwly#
2fae *oar«& mi® by tlx© groups on tb* itebeil skills t«8f
isdie&ted diffepftoae* befeww* the mrnm of all four *»%#&§!
group® ia far«p of tbe bloolc »eti-«od of ttaobiog «wifc»ai«®l
towing# Ti» were found to bt aieftlfleaixfc between
Croup# /, «aA s s aUova ia 'fobie 7# but «©r© act aigftififta&t
Qwsijp B aa& 0«
3©ont» sa*de by ttie *tuA«tft0 on the i&fottmX test of the
saws# were aaalymeA by the s«« aa the usualiAlag
and skills ftw iafssenal t<.st w-xa desi&aed to iseasam
the steitiit#* ability to OAd«r*tfti>& the three*rl m drawing.
Tim €lifmmm between tbe mem of write)*A Oro^a A was 1.39
point* In favor of the profel oHboofc c»thod» The diff«**ap#
bttntena tbe aeons of Matched aroupa 3, S» ©ad D **• ia fate*
of the bloeic xaothod. Bowwwt floa* of the tiff#r®a##s w e
Xar«e enough to be Aignifiesat as shown la Table %
A M«upari#oo the grade* suit by the otodwtta «
tfeo lettering «*«&#««&*« iadi*«t«6 t&At tbe Ability feo letter
m s developed to a ooro uppreeiftfeX* 4«gr## by tfce otufttiit* wbo
mwv t*3£&t by tba blook aet&od IMa by the student* tought
by the probiem-booic i^tbod* f&» l&rgeet 41 iimemm b*t***m
42
the noons appeared between justd'teA Croupe A with 11 «3 points.
There was t difference of 2.2 points between Croups B, 3*1
points., betwiii Groups C, and 5.8 point a between Groups Df oa
tiie basis of 100 points for a perfect sears, these differences
appeared to In&leete that greater letter! rig ability m» de-
veloped by students who were taught by t&e bloafc method than
by the problem-boolc m%hod#
Observations whioh were mad© of the student a dur lug the
iia# of the esperiioeitt eten to justify the following
conc iusi.cn a:
1« Yisoelisetim urns mm readily {UmtiLaped by tfee stu-
dents when they were tau ftfc pietorlsl drawing before the
tbree-vlew drawing#
2« lore 4jra»i«gs were oede and studied by t&e etudeata
who were taught by the block aethod than by the students ulia
were taught by the pxeWLeaHwefc method#
3* Heehanlcal ability had sone influence OA the develop*
fl*st of the student•* ability to risseXlse* This eoaolusioa
was bora© out by the fact that la every el&ss f regejr4X*ss of
the «thod being used, greater aehlavement was Indicated by
atudenta JJ& the groups with the higher iaeehaaleal ability*
4# Itttelllseae# had ease i n f l o e a s e upon t h e development
of the s t u d e n t s * ability to visualize* This s ts teateat was made
upon the observation that the ©lasses of higher s e h o l a s t i o
steading* at grouped by the school eda io l s t : r a f t l cn # rated
43
higher on the vlgualixlhg test than the lower elaasaa*
• 5* SSatuaity of the students mm®4 to isa e had scwus
relationship to their ability to daw&op visuallylog ability*
la nearly every east the older students, those fifteen and
sixteen years of age, rated I w on neebanloaX ability but
made high visualizing scores*
6# Croat er skill In sketch 5 ?tg and lettering was indleated
by the students taught by the block: method than by the student a
taught by the problea**teok acthod#
?• feaahi&g should act be ©onfiaad to one method but
should include any ouch methods and techniques needed by the
Students to obtain the objectives of the course,
3, The bloofc aathod seeaed to hawi fast m adraataga. o v w
tb» p»bie®-'boolc method la taaahlag visualization.
9# T h e u a e o f m o d e l s j
a* Helped to aaiatala the students* interest In the wor&«
b» Sad# It possible for the ata&aatft to draw and study wore probtatti than «ra® possible by the pvofelMHtoete method*
•» X&«o«M>sed the stad#ats to plan aod earry out their worfc for tUeo»elrea,
SuggMtiona for the application of the results of thla
study to the aaahaaloal drawing course la the s m m f h grade
of the Saata Fa City Schools are presented la Appendix III*
General ©har&eteristies of the block set tod and general
aaggtatloaa end teafeaiquea for m t m the *ork plan jptaoameadad
44
for as© under the blooi: mtixafl aro also iaoludaA ia appendix
i l l#
Qesttliasioai
X* Tli® difference between the i»t®ns of the m&tm made
fey the four mtetwd groups on the Mitchell Tisualizing teat
was fouad to to® ia favor of the M.©eie method, the ttttmnmo*
between the ,»«a® of oae of ths four imtetiet groups we® f o m i
to to# significant*
2* %b* difference betmeea the oeans of the scores sad#
b j the four oat©i»d groupe <m tit# skill® lus t was
found t o fee l a faro* of the block netted, the difference t>#*»
tween the means of t«o of the four oatefced crosps » « found
to t» significant#
3* the difference between the aeen8 of the scores * 4 #
bjf the four jtat#li©4 oa the informal tent found t o
be ia favor of the block method, fh® difference between the
aeana was found to fee fioa^nigaifiaaat betswea a l l foar
matched group®•
4# Hue average gruie eoajmtet f roa th« le t te r ing eheete
completed by the groups indicated that the abi l i ty to l e t t e r
was developed to a greater degree by students who were taught
ly the block nethad than by etudeats uho wear# taaght by the
pr©lil,®®«l>0€*k aet hod «
45
Eoootauftadatloaa
- 1» I t is reeosK&nded that each iadustr la l or to teaohor
who t€»aeii#§ jiieoiiaaicul fewlag should cur* duct a a la l lor a tufty
to dttamlxie a s @ M of teaeUlag best suited to eaoourage
,«££«©tive learaifig»
Z* B68«d upon tb.© findings of t h i s study and upoa the
obMnrratiooa uad« of tla® stttdmata during til© t&o* of the
osudy, i t i s r«eoot£«Ad«d that the block oethod rathei than
the j^obleA»boo& netiiod should be uaed to teach, mechanical
4r«s«iiig i a til© mrm&h grad* in tlu* City Softools of Santa f®t_
ASXAIJ©*
i*pi?wm& i
Tezt Used: Charles A.t S#gdaftiiMg j TOblattS la Meg&s&ical ®ga»jtgg» P^piat
Lm@" Arlfs Sffiss',"'" 1^4*
Vult It lettering
Sheet Is Letters Having Only Horizoutal aod Ver-tical Lines
Sheet 2t Letters Having laaliaed, Straight Lilies
Sheet 3i Letters Having Curved Lines
Sheet 4s Figures, Fractions, end Notes
(Rote: These assignments were not givea at tkft'begimla# of ti» course but were dispersed throughout the oourse*}
Halt ill Use of T-Square and fria&gl@s~~Siaple pyo.jeetia.ri~-
Horizontal aM Vertical iiaes
1* Pag© 20 Three vie%s of a Bloek
2* Page 24 1'hree vie\*,s of a Babbeted Block
3* Fa®®- 27 fhre® views of a Matched Block •
4* Page 26 rlteee views of a Bloek
5* Page 29 Three views of a Hollow Bloek
6» Page 30 Thre« views of an Oilstone iabeddM
in a Block
7* Page 31 Two views of a Bench Hook
8* ?ag© 33 Tm views of a M$& Joint
47
9« Fag# 34 Two vims of A ?orked Jolat
10, Fag® 31 Two views of a Oroas-Lap Joint
11« Fag© 36 Two views of a JSor Joint
Unit III* Us® of Tee-Square and &i®agl«ii*-For#sii0Ft«iiig and
Geometric figures
12* Page 40 Three view of a Shelf Braoket
13* ?««« 41 Three views of a Reel
14* Page 44 Three view# of a triangular Iras#
15. Page 46 Three views of a Bes&gonal frame
16 • Page 47 Two views of m oetagoaal Block
17* i'ag© 49 Three rims of the Hexagonal Mm.
16« Fag© 49 TMm views of a Wm&tuX tyraold
19# Page 49 Bare# view of a Cord Winder
20* Page 52 Tw> views of a B«i«sh Stop
Unit If# .Ha# of ®Wkpmm*Qm%m Lines*—Olroles—S*etloaal fiewe
{Mote? Stationing waa ©altted from all tewing® la this attidjr*)
21* Page 56 A Mechanical drawing of the Faee of a fargab
22. Fag© 59 two views of a Toy Cart Wheel
2?« Pa$® 61 Tm view® of a Pulley
24* Page 63 Two views of aa Eaery Wheel
25* Page 64 Two views of two Washers-
Halt Vi lis# of Camps sa~«Tanga&ta to 0Iirel®s-»?lo4 lag Centers
of Clreles
26# Page 69 Three views of a Horseshoe Magnet
27* 3?ag@ 72 Two vlawa of a Slotted Liak
28* Bag® 72 Two rims of & looker Arm
29* Bag® 75 Two views of a Omsk
30* fag© ?6 Two flews of a ?ao#pls%e
{llotes The sectional view of the face plat# wi
Unit fit Working Srawtttg®«-»Oia«a®isaiag
31* Page 89 Throe flewe of & fail Box
32» Page 92 Aaaeafcly Drawing of a Footstool
(ifotes The detail drawing was oaitt®d#)
OUfLlllB OF OvCJSSl » II THX3 STUDY BT TBS
swmms vmm TM BLOCK msim
fait I: lasfePGwat ftra6ti#e-<4Js« of the IVSquare, ftrlaagles,
Holer, Seal#, aa& GaspftMi :;
Part 1 Sheets 1 aa& 2 l*#a®aimg [to Ifn® the Smlag
Sieet 1 Us® of the f»3ftwtr% Trlaaglea* 0Ml«« Brmdag Board
Sheet 2 Us® of Above Instruments and tH#
Part 2 Stoat 3 Lettering Sbeet-*2*tt«rs Having Qaly Boriseatal and Vortical Liaea
Unit Hi fm@hm4. isanetrle Sfeatohfts of Bloe&s
fart X Sheets 4**5 Learning to Draw JTeehaftd BxaoKboard Asslgafflejats la
Part 2 Sheets 6-10 XMNatrie StefeeMiag af f -saty
Pert 3 Sfceet 11 lettering—Letters Kaviug la*
ellxuMI tinm
Unit III: freehaM O&Llqtui Sicetehes of l&oalcs
Part 1 Sheets 12*13 Instrument irmttiee
Sheet 12 [email protected] the BoX«r
Sheet 13 simple Gmmetri® Q&mtrmtiom
Fart 2 3heets 14*1$ freehand Oblique Sketches of Tweu&y Wood Models
Fart 3 Sheet 19 Letteriag-HLiettero IMfing Curved
5 0
U n i t I f i . J f e M f c a n d D r a w i n g s
P e r t 1 S t » # t s 2 0 - 2 9 i r e e b a n d T h r e e - v i e w S t e t t h e s o f T w e n t y W o o d e n M o d e l s
P a r t 2 S h e e t 3 0 L e t t e r i n g ~ - y i £ u r e e »
m & N o t e s
U n i t T i M e o t i a n i c a X W o v J c l o g a e a w i u | p » » f o i , « t l i o r t « i i i i i f - ^ -
D I « e n » i o a *
S h e e t s 3 0 - 3 1 O e a p l e t * W o r k i n g z a r a w l & g s o t f e n ' 0 1 > j e * t 0 o b o s « t t ftron U n i t I ? *
MACQUARRIE TEST for MECHANICAL ABILITY
A Simple Group Performance Test for the Use of School Counselors and Personnel Managers
by T. W. MacQuarrie, Ph. D.
FILL IN T H E BLANKS BELOW, BUT DO NOT OPEN T H E BOOKLET
City. .Date.
School .Grade.
(Print your last name) (Print first name and initials)
Age, last birthday Date of birthday.
Copyright, 1925, by T. W. MacQuarrie All rights reserved
Published by California Test Bureau 5916 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles 28, California
RECORD
S U B T E S T S
Tracing . . .
Tapping . .
Dott ing . . .
C o p y i n g . .
Location . .
B locks . . .
Pursuit . . .
SUM
S U B T E S T
S C O R E S TO-ILE
R A N K S
J"
PRACTICE TRACING
INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instruc-tions to yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice test for TRACING.. Notice the little black triangle under the word START. Do not start until the exam-iner says GO. When the examiner says GO, but not before, you are to begin at the little triangle and draw a curved line through the small openings in the vertical lines without touching them. Draw first to the right and then back to the left in one continuous line.
START
START RECORD TRACING
Sub-test Score.
PRACTICE TAPPING
INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instructions to yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice test for TAPPING. When the examiner says GO, but not before, you are to put three pencil dots in each circle just as fast as you can. Start at the left of each line and work to the right, as you do in writing. Count to yourself as you tap, and very fast, 1, 2, 3, — 1, 2, 3, etc. Try to make just three dots each time, but do not stop to correct. Speed is of more im-portance than accuracy. You do not need to strike hard nor raise your pencil high. Be sure to start and stop instantly. Do not start until the examiner says GO.
oooooooooo
RECORD TAPPING
oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo
Sub-test Score.
PRACTICE DOTTING
INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instructions t@ yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice page for the DOTTING test. When.the examiner says GO, but not before, you are to put one dot in each circle, as fast as you can. Follow the string. Dots must be clearly within the circles, and only one dot will be counted for any circle.
START
o — o - o o — o o —
( K X M )
o - o o
START RECORD DOTTING
o—o—oo o o o oo o—c>
o—o—o o
cx>-o o—oo o-oo—o—o o—oo
ao-o o—o
Sub-test Score = Dots. - f - 3 =
PRACTICE COPYING
INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instructions to yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice test for COPYING. When the examiner says GO, but not before, you are to copy each of the figures in the dotted space to the right of it. The little circles show you where to begin. There is a dot for every corner. Your lines do not have to be straight, but they should begin and end on dots. Correct, if you wish, but do not waste time erasing.
RECORD COPYING
Sub-test Score.
10 PRACTICE LOCATION
INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instruc-tions to yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice page for the LOCA-TION test. Notice the letters in the large square, and the five dots in each of the small squares below. For each dot in a small square, there is a letter in the same place in the large square. When the ex-aminer says GO, but not before, put right on each dot the letter that stands in its place in the large square. For instance, the upper dot in the small square to the left is in the position of the letter K in the large square, so you will put a letter K on that dot.
r I 0 C B A
G H J K L M
T 5 R P 0 N
U V W X Y 2
A B C D E r
M L K J H G
RECORD LOCATION 11
F E. D C B A
6 H J K L M
T S R P 0 N
U V W X Y Z
A B c D I r
M L K J H G
Sub-test Score.
1
12 PRACTICE BLOCKS
INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instructions to yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice page for the BLOCKS test. Here is a pile of blocks, all the same size and shape. On five of the blocks, you will see X's. When the examiner says GO, but not before, you are to find out how many blocks touch each block that has an X on it, and then place that number to the right of the X. For example, the lowest block which has an X on it touches four other blocks. Please locate them now and place a 4 to the right of the X. Put it there now, and you may have twenty seconds in which to place the correct numbers to the right of the other X's.
RECORD BLOCKS 13
Sub-test Score.
14 PRACTICE PURSUIT
INSTRUCTIONS: Read-these instructions to yourself as the examiner reads them aloud.
This is the practice page for the PURSUIT test. Notice the numbers in the little squares at the left, where the curving lines begin. When the ex-aminer says GO, but not before, follow each line by eye from the square where it begins at the left to the square where it ends at the right. Remember the number at the beginning of the line, and put it in one of the small squares at the end. Do not be concerned if two lines end in the same place, but just use both squares for your answers. Do not use your pencils to follow the lines if you can help it. You will work much faster if you depend entirely upon your eyes.
APPsismx ii
TESTS USED IN TEE 310 BY
Tfte *^aoCarrie Test for Mechanical Ability vrna used to
measure the students1 mechanical ability for tin© purpose of
grouping tae students on the basis of mechanical ability.
RECORD PURSUIT
v-/ ' •" - • ' » — -
;'V ,«"•> ..
- ; *
.* .-Vsjl i V"""• v v . • •
1 1 2 / iyfT \>/k)( z V^PC^IT^NV — 3 i/| \ / rxyv / Y /V / \ 3 ~ x ] \ VTA /A rV-r~ 4 A «v V \ - _/ 1/ \ jy \{ f Y 4 ~ / C A X//QJ ^ J^-L^— 5 / \ \ /\ x V/ 1 1 HA 1/ i / 5 J^\ \ \ V / V/\ \ " / / i V\ 5
TSL \ A y A * // i\ V /// 5 1 1 \/S< \ >sy / /T[ \ 6 ,r \ \ | A- -*' / / v / / r*-"" """" 6 /\ X/LZT/ 7 7 "7I a —~M /I/VAaCVVL'/L-— * 8 9 /***• f /\ \ X / \ yv y \ 9 \Z\Y/^Cj'^ 10 10 X J & O X —
Sub-test Score
51
52
The D r a w i n g A p t i t u d e Tt - s t w a s u s e d t o m e a s u r e t h e
s t u d e n t s * a b i l i t y t o s k e t c h and t o v i s u a l i z e .
Drawing Aptitude Test by
WESTON W. MITCHELL Teacher of Mechanical Drawing, Central High School
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Name (Las t name) ( F i r s t name)
Age Sex Year in School
Home Address
Did you ever take a course in Mechanical Drawing?
SCORES
Page 4 Page 10
Page 11 Page 5
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Total Visualizing Score
Page 2 Skills Score
Over All Score
COPYRIGHT 1940
BY M C K N I G H T A M C K N I G H T
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Published by
M C K N I G H T & M C K N I G H T B L O O M I N G T O N - I L L I N O I S
0 H ° © I
y
r r
0)
o o •
• o •
o • o
• o o
• • o
•J -< H C H f O O Z I ~ C TJ O m
m r c v _ O - rn $ > -n ® £
X 3J 5 — n o rn x
W *
\ O ^ I
> o H £ 5
8 | z 2 ^
u - o O o w
S ^ c o
3 ® s s i
< C 0 > >
> m-H ^
* " © 0 s I OJ o H ° n t O - c
V ~ 3J m o J m
i l l s " i 5 m 2 o •D ~ Z Zj -n r £ p> m o 0 0 <
o "" 5 33 o r > -c > $ o
. H 7 C = ! • I
z
(/)
n o :o x rn o •H
O 1
0) (D
!? z o
H X m
0 I S l o t
m rn rn
£
\ 5 3 k — 5 1 k . V. —
» o 3J X H " • > 0 ) x — ^ S £ </> O - -
w m z </> Z] < "0 o ^ 2 ^ h E o c - -x z z _j z n H ° I
' > > c H
n 5 i o _, £ m
r- H OB Z x m o f '
o H z X
(/> (A <{u) m
o m
U>
u o > O m CD "0 o> O o
t/> o
X -1 t/> o
T c 33
H rn T Z > o O H rn -n
H o >
H H H X I JL rn rn (/)
H 0) _ O > </> TJ > V m
o > 03 33
o > m X o $ Z
o H I o
•n
E ) Y
£ -n E 7)
3 „
O o
H | o
l O v . I53J ML
m i m
- H o o m "o
( j p
H
n i W 3 J | -n 5 > m
5 c (p n 2 z rn O q o o x
• , E
o
5 E F l F l
3 H o "0
0
lo ol l»»l
Cfl Q m
o o •
o • o
o • •
• o o
• o •
o 0
o o •
o • •
• o •
• • o
o o •
• 0
• • o
o • •
• o o
o • •
• o •
• 0
. o
• • o
• o o
o • o
o • •
o o •
o s
«*
O 0 OOO
o 0 8 0
o
oo
o
o o
oo
oo
o
o
oo
o
o ooo
o oo
o
o
oo
o
ooo oOo ooo ooo ooo ooo
o oOo
o o o o o O o o o o §
s ° o ° %
ooo o o ooo
o oOo
o oo
o
o o
oo
o
oo
oOo
oo
o
o oOo
o oo
o
o o
oo
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
oo
o o o o o
o
o
o o o o
o o
o o o o
o o o
o
o
o
oo
o o o o
o o o
o
o
oo
o o o o
o o
o o
ooo
o
ooo o
o o
o o o o o
ooo
o
ooo
o o o
o o o o
o
o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o o o o o o o /
ooo
o
o
o
o o
o
o o o o o
ooo
o
oo o
o o
o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
0 \ 0
© •
a ®
m V H H*
o
© c± o p*
a p
p .
H o
<J>
IV) -
*> •fc
\ w
(X \
O I c m
©
$ o - o D
F 5 l 2 m 2
0 S 0 H O -O O m :x r
z w n
S c H s 5 i > H m 5 > o 2 ^ 2
C> > rn >
CD O < m
m x o m u H
© H I > H
®
(/) X o $ (/>
ru -
w
©
CP o r jo o > o $ * z 2 ° C 2
X co 5 1
XI o
w ^ — m Z
S ° >
§ n 5 3 3
o | H
2 O _ w X 0) > 33 m 73 > XJ J ^ ^ c
$ m o ^ < — m = < -<
o Z S
0 ° ~ © " ' r x ' © i w —4 m H _ m £ « c > m _. 75 O
X -< rn m O
•n XI O z H
©
> Z o
H X m
w o
5 C a
3 5 s <= H r x x h m m •<
O u ^ is -S; m
® U) O 5 !=; m o
CD r o o *
©
3J
3 5
m 2
5 m H o = 3 g
S o >
3 5 1 V 3> °
/ \ / n \ © J X .
© \ ©
H H X X m m
o m
O •n
0 3J >
$
0 1 w
o
/ \ \ \
©
jj m
m o
>
z o
(£>
5
CO c+
© & es
P
C*
e* O
m c* o pr
c$* o «?
tr p
& H* N ©
o
7\ v i N
l\ •
m cf
& O & c* CO
p V H» H H* Ct
e*
o & © C*
Q p*
e*
O <
ET
e &
N ©
»
2 5 S 2 m
2 s
H
r ~i
r
r~ r
V
r r
r r
\
/ \
\
IZ"
"N
"si
/ \ \
F"
s > i
> § 5 33 > 2 £ K m
> 33
- m c z o m
®
o
S n 33 m O H
5 C
H £ C n X W m o > -n
m g
(crtC u
> o -n ® •n r m O 7) o m * z (/> H © |
i ©
< v k O 33
O H
| 1 < 0) g g
S"h
" L
T
b .
fig, u*ed m th« infor/aal teat ia this Vfttftsr %9 j s S m s 0 4 * ® til# stu&aats* Ability t o * m i m i smii®*** a t s M t i u w v l o w d r a w i n g s *
54
L £
LJ
Jig* u««4 on the iBforoftl %m% in this study to % M students* ability to reiwt *ad vwliNr*
APPEHKU H I
APJPLI0AT20U Of SH H l ® m 0? THE STUDY
Although the data obtained fey this study did not m m ®
that oat aethod *aa superior to the other for teaching seventh-
graft# drawing» the reaulta of the testing prop*®®
did ladle**# that the students achieved asre when taught by
the bloek m%ho& than by the pr6b lea-book method* Aehlev#*
afjat, as defined la the study wan a measure of the students *
ability to Yisu&liK** alcetoli, letter, mad read the three-Tie*
droning*
ft* prime objective of seventh-grade aeetaaieal drawing
la the Santa fe Junior High Sehool is to teach vlaaallsatloa
and sketeMftg* la this study students who were taught by the
blook aetfeoft appeared to have achieved more toward thia ob-
jective than the studente who m&m taa&t by the probl#»»ba#k
method* Staa#pt fo* Miner «o4ifle#tloa#| the block aethad which
was used 1B thia study should be used In the seventh grade of
the Seat#- fa Junior Hi# School. (M outlia# of the blo«k
method uaed in the «t«dy 1® eeeated in Appaadlx X«)
It was noted during the time of the experiment that the
probles-teoote aethot was excellent foy t#a«blag ae#r##t torn
in tpaelng lines, dimensi oast mM arvo«&e*&#» It
is believed*. therefore, that to *Ad to the effectiveness of
the blook method, blueprints of a number of problems should
55
56
be provided for the use of th® students at the beginning of
tim study ®t working drawings to ©14 in teaching oorreot foreu
Other characteristics of the bloek method end general guggw-
tlons and tMfeatattM.fap its s&nlAlfttratioa are given below:
General Characteristics of the block method are;
1» su#h eophasl* is placed upon ftpeehMid and pictorial
sketching#
2» fh© teaching of platerl&l sfcttehl&g precedes the
teaching of three-view drawls®#
3# Most of the drawing is taught dlreetly from models. •
4* fh® course is® planned to give those experiences and
to develop those skills which will be useful to the student
In his school and daily life*
General suggest!021s for using the work plan presented In
AppeoAlx-X are as fellows1
1, Tha outline found in tH® appendix should be ei»f>l«t©d
in oar* detail glirimg specific instructions to the student
auid then Aisteographed so that a copy am he issued to easts,
student«'
2* The'outline should be stapled In a aanila folder for
safe keeping and tm ®mj reference*
3* The student should not b© allowed to talc* the folder
fraw the shop#
4« The student should keep his drawings in side the
folder*
5?
5* Wo text need be adopted for use in the class, but
several goal reference books must be kept on hand and ia a
place where they will be available to the students at all
times*
f©aching techniques recsssaieaded tor use with the work
plan presented in .Appendix I are as follows:
1* Give special infoxuAtioa almost dally about relat ©d
topics concerning laduatri al practices*
2* She* practical applies!; i*®,® of th® droning by the as©
of projects directly from the shop and preferably some pro-
ject under construction by a student of the shop*
3, Provide alaeograrJiei information and tjiattaetloii sheets
to explain special topics.
4« Assign various topics for disemssioa which require
tJMi u#0 of reference books*
5, Keep piotures and drawings on the bulletin board*
6# Develop methods for testing and walaatiag the extent
of achlsveoant by the students under the* vyork plan*
7* frotM# blueprints for emeh student in order to show
correct examples of drawings end to test the students1 ability
to read thesu
8. Be aoaetantly on the alert for planes in the compis®
where tmlmlm i»tght improve it*
BXBLIOGSAPHT
'CbMlM ! • * Peoria, The Mamml
Books
f rob l s vmm $
Cobaugk, H# B,, fhote Praying SseiBS£&» B p u o e
FttMtihlag 1577 I f i y #
frl®®« t l a te F»t j&riOj Peoria, ffe© Haaual ' I f f I " ms9 ww?
Good, Garter V# t Barr, A» §*, and Seat©s# DougU** B#» MetbM-ole'isr l a t w a r e l u Mmw Terk,,;©* ..IppXetM-* oSalury' #»» liS1#»' 'v*"'"
Green©, }larry i M jorgewwn, Albert I»# and Gerberieh, 3"# Kay»Q&t# ie.i»gw«a«i*% *aA I t s l i E l l s s 4& . IM
i a w w i
O r l f f l t h , 1 1 6 % , iot t i ar&tiifiiiu
Me#Ma*
guat lw* Theresa C. t
't»0 aattMtlQA'f HO. 4VOf S®H College, Coiaatblft Pair er a i t y, 1931«
r 0 < m w In l o o a i ^ k m&
SMlMSiSlM tM mm r t leu Tor is, Teachers
Rm»Is«1m*v Raa&olpb P»t _ H»w f©3rt£# Joha Wiley
Patterson, Donald Q%* S#te#-t4X©rf OwttddLtii.Q** aa i Wi l l ia** son, f^stwiA &•* gtqj iat . w l i t a g i , Mm York, umrmw^mn b o ^ t R # »©•**
HMMuam« H. ! * , and Sag®, II. !»•, - "" ^ New Yerfc» Harpe*'a»
yr f f&W a M
s t ra fe , F« tl i«0tor% g»at ly . t f e ^ M s i i j »®» T<*kf Jofca Wiley & Soaa. Iao.» 1 9 W
Whitney, !3EUg p M l l i o.f i w a r f l l * . New York, ?reatioe-Hal l i 1 Ji® •* f 1937*
58
59
ia1®a
Bronnell, w* A*, "Son© Neglected Safeguards l a eontrol^rouis S K ^ < ® ! * ! i a n of amoatlonal Hoeearoh. XX7II {October, • 1933), fS»XG7.
Swell B* H«9 wflie PubliO"'8o|iooX Teacher as a Hesearch
Worlcty>f!' loaraal of Educational Se®#aj?ch# SI (April*
19251# 23>*43'* '" ' 1 'L111 ••
Courtis, S« A., "Criteria for Determining Equality of Groupa," School and 3©@iety# XOT (Jfine, 19321# 373-78.
"B i f f i cu l t l e e laocmattejA la Conducting Sohool Ixperlaeatg,® School aoritw* XXBfXX {February, 1929), 93-4* ' '
Douglas, !!• R»» "Scient i f ic X m s t i g a t l o a of Instruction®! Problems," Journal of Educational K—«of«h« XXIX '{October!, 1935)* 130-38i ' " JJJ
Kagelitart» Ma* JO., mTmMiqnm TJaed la Securing Equivalent arou^.»^pqraal of Eitttmtioaal a«f«grtiu XXXX {September,
lagellMrt, Jfax B*.» "Experimentation aa a Technique of E#*» lilt*. toimu i X i l Uagu*i t .1920)r 58^61 •
ffrlMe, John F*,t "Teaching Methods l a M i a - l f l a l iirts*« Ma~ fco'Utay, 1940), 570»74» ' "***"
Henig. Max S # i "General Inte l l igence and Mechanical aptitude la Relation to ^aie»Soli©©l &»«**• v* Industrial Arte <§ik|: Yi^fttlonal Idue^t.iotu x x n i (£u8*,
Horning, 3« B#> "Testing tfeohaaloal Abi l i ty fey t*i« Macquarrie m * . Mmhu&m. M (October , 1926),
^ohnaon, Victor A*, "Teaching Devices in M«chtaiefil l&awing,* j d w t l m u IXVI (February,
Melby, 1* 0,, aafi Lien, "A Practicable Teehnique for Determining the Eelativ# Effectiveness of Different Methods of Teaching," puriinl of Bdftc*tloa«l 1 eaeeretu x ix {April t 1929), ' ' '
Miehaela, William j,# "Courae Building—m Overview," Indus-trial JlM. s M Vo«ietloii«X MacaMoiu ZXOTII CBeeMSrT W I M i l W ~ W Z 5
60
Monroe, II# "Controlled isxperiaeafcatlon as a Meias of Evaluating Methods of Teaebin* •" 1®t1©w of Sdueat iorial mmmttsk*' XT (February> 1934)* 3 « 2 . " ^ :
Eoss t Lawrence W## "Aptitude Tests fo r Placeaxeat of i adua t r ia l Trainees,* IMwferiml Ar%# and Yoo«tioaaX X&tettloa* XXXX? | ) 7 T O = 5 & ~ """"' — '*
Bulon, P» T« 9 e&& Croon, Cbarolotte w## "a ?roeefiws f o r BalaJacIai? Pa ra l l e l Groups»" Journal of Sdnaat' Psyebelogr* XXIT {JtoyasiW,
w@ieiit Herbert "Should we Teach A Hew Kind of Draft l a g y aehool 3hop> i l (ftitoruary, 1950J* 7-10•
feats
Maoviiarrio, T» I1#* Mfca VHMtrla f e a t f o r aaohaaloal Abi l i ty , Los Angeles, The ^teiroraia ' WS*
Mitetieily weeton w,, Qra«la« Teat* Blo^alagtoa, 111«, MeKalgtit & Mel&igjii t'' a Wg »
Unpubliahed Material
Holler* .bruin f*# "A Comparison or f m Mefioas of Teaeliisg Representational Rawing ia- a Saaeadar jr 'i'aelmloal-Sehool," Unpublished Piu B# d laser ta t lon , Bapartaaikt of SdiMHrtlon, Hew York ttnivaraity, 19>8«
