DOCUAEla RESUME

ED 186 626 CE 024 778

AUTH0a Coleman, Deborah Dye: And OthersTTILL Youth Transition to Adult Roles: A Preliminary

Investigation. Research and Development Series No.1 9D.

Ohio State Univ., Columbus. National Center forResearch in Vocational Education.

SPONS AGENCY National Inst. or Education (DHEW), Washington,D.C.

-Ewa DAn 79GRi4NT NZE-G-78-0211NO:h 55p.: For :elated documents see ED 185 323-326 and ED

185 408.AviunAeLE FROM National Centen Publications, The National Center for

Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio StateUniversity, 1914 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210($13.25).

iDzS n:CEDLS::RIPTOES

ABSTR,tC:

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Aaults:-Attitude Meatures: Communication (ThoughtTransfer): Cooperative Education: *Education WorkRelationsnip: Empatny; *Experiential Learning: HighScnools; High Scnool Students: IndividualDevelopment; -6nteraction: *Interpersonal Competence:*work Experience

Based on an assumption that research on the treatmentcomponeats o: experiential education programs is useful inuLderstanding aaa improving them, a study examined the component ofstudent Interaction with adults. Focusing on reference group theory(symbolic interactioni.v.m), the conceptual framework of the study isfounded upon tha assumption taat through participation inexperiential education programs, students can expand their reference4noups by begnnning to include co-workers who are adalts, thus easingthe transation between school and work. Scales developed and usei inthis study include those examining (student perspectives on adults(Empathy, Helpfulness, Communication, Consultation) and selected worksetting characteristics (Feedback, Hierarchical and Laterallate:action, ,:hallenge). Data analysis revealed that tne Empathy andCommunication scaies-hava high reliability and the potential ofdiscriminating between respondents. Hypotheses were tested by meansor a static group comparison design which included 401 studentsclassified by tau extent ot their work experience. Results indicatethat student-adult communication and feedback appear to be importantvariables which reflect positive interaction. Students with workexperieace scored significantly higher on communication than thoseic.thout work experience. However, tha grdde level of the students andtheir involvement ia extracurricular act4.vities were strongerpredictors of the responses on ti'e communication scaie.(Authar/MEK)

YOUTH TRANSITION TO ADULT ROLES:A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Research and Development Series No, 196

Deborah Dye ColemanCarol A. BeckmanRobert Wheatley

LEARNING IN WORK RESEARCH PROGRAMRichard J. Miguel, Program Director

The National Center forResearch in Vocr.tional Education

Ohio State University1960 Kenny Road

Columbus, Ohio 43210

1979S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION WELFuRENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

TTT1\ (TOT UNAF NT VIAS II F N Tit PO0-0,;( F 0 F xt,T T Y AS PF (1 ,YF n ;ROMTtr PF RSON (litl.ANIZAT,ONATItyc, t PO,NTs or v OPiNIONS%TAU O DO NOT NF C F SSAP t RI. PRI; ( AL NA*.ONAt NST, T,,T oiF ()I.; A 'ION POSIT.ON op Pot

THE NATIONAL CENTERMISSION STATEMENT

The National Center for Research in Vocational Education'smission is to increase the ability of diverse agencies,institutions, and organizations to solve educational problemrelating to individual career planning, preparation, andprogression. The National Center fulfills its mission by:

Generating knowledge through research

Developing educational programs and products

Evaluating individual program needs and outcomes

Providing informalion for national planning and policy

Installing educaiional programs and products

Operating information systems and services

Conducting leadership development and trainingprograms

An Interim Report on a Project Conducted

Under Grant No. NIE-G-78-0211

The project presented or reported herein was performed pursuantto a grant from the National Institute of Education, Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare. However, the opinionsexpressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position orpolicy of the National Institute of Education, and no officialendorsement by the National Institute of Education should beinferred.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

National Institute of Education

CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD

ABSTRACT vii

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

METHOD 7

INTERVIEW DATA 14

PHASE I RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18

PHASE II RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21

SUMMARY 30

BIBLIOGRAPHY 35

APPENDIX A SUBSCALES 45

iii

FOREWORD

Over the past decade a variety of programs have emerged thatfocus on using the work setting as a learning environment forstudents. Experiential education researchers and those peoplewho design and coordinate the programs agree that students benefitfrom exposure to the adult world of work. Students may learn jobskills, good work habits, and tl.ey may gain motivation for im-proving acalemic skills as well, all of which may help them intheir transition to adulthood. Perhaps the most important elementof the work experience is thought to be that students bave anopportunity to interact with adults in the workplace on a fairlyregular basis.

Under sponsorship of the National Institute of Education, theLearning-in-Work Research Program is conducting basic research onexperiential programs. The ultimate goal is that by better under-standing how these programs work, research will assist in theeventual improvement of their design and operation. This reportis the result of a preliminary study of how youths' experiencein the workplace affects how they relate to adults. A question-naire was developed and field tested, and interviews were conductedwith students in the programs, their parents, teachers and employers.Analyses of the data and summaries of the interviews are provided.

Special appreciation is extended to Shelby Price, Superintend-ent of the Education Service District of Jackson County, Oregon;Rod.Groshong, Professor of Education at Southern Oregon StateCollege; the student population of Crater High School, CentralPoint, Oregon, nearly half of whom completed the questionnaire;the students, teachers, coordinators and administrators of CraterHigh School; the CE2 Center and Senior High School in Medford,Oregoh and Phoenix High School in Phoenix, Oregon, who participatedwholeheartedly in the interviews; and to the program students'parents and employers, who graciously gave their time and hospital-ity to the interviewers.

Recognition is due Deborah Coleman for her direction of thisstudy and the preparation of this report; Carol Beckman forconducting the :thterviews, developing the questionnaires, andassisting with the report; Robert Wheatley for directing thedesign and analysis of the data and writing those sections of. thereport; Jim Weber for designing and conducting the final computeranalyses as well as writing sections of analyses; John Bollandfor conducting the initial computer analyses; and Jackie Mastersfor her secretarial services. Finally, recognition is given toRichard Miguel for his direction of the Learning-in-Work ResearchProgram and to Ronald Bucknam, Project Officer for the NationalInstitute of Education for his guidance and support.

Robert E. TaylorExec,utive DirectorThe National Center for Research

in Vocational Education

;

ABSTRACT

-Based on an assumption that teSearch on. -Ole treatment compon-ents of experiential education programsis useful in understandingand improving them, this study examined the component of studentinteraction with adults. The conceptual framework is referencegroup theory, or symbolic interactionism; the.theme is that throughparticipation in experiential education programs, students canexpand their reference groups by beginning to include adult co-workers. This experience with adults, both program coordinatorsand co-workers, should aid in the transition from student to adultroles.

The research design for the first year included instrumentdevelopment/administration, hypothesis testing', and interviews.Instrument development was the primary activity. Scales wereconstructed to examine student perspectives on adults (re: Empathy,Helpfulness, Communication, Consultation) and selected work settingcharacteristics (Feedback, Hierarchical and Lateral Interaction,Challenge). Data analysis revealed two scales to have high reliabil-ity and the potential of discriminating between respondents. Furtherrefinement of the other scales is necessary.

Hypotheses were tested by means of a static group comparisondesign which included 401 students classified by the extent oftheir work experience. Student-adult communication and feedbackappear to be important variables which reflect positive interaction.Students with work experience scored significantly higher on commu-nication than tnose without work experience. However the gradelevel of the students and their involvement in extracurricularactivities were stronger predictors of responses to the scalecommunication.

Interviews were conducted with students, parents, employers,and school personnel to supplement and enhance questionnaire'data.All people interviewed were positive about the effects of theprograms in general and specifically about the improvement instudent-adult interaction.

The information included in this report represents a summaryof the entire research effort. A complete report of all phasesof the study, including documents such as the questionnarie iscontained in the report entitled, Youth Transition to Adult Roles:A Preliminary Investigation, Technical Report. This report isavailable on request at the National Centr,,

vii

a

YOUTH TRANSITION TO ADULT ROLES:A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Thfv study considers whether participa-t-ion "n ,,xperiontial education programs which

st'idents in work settings facilitatesai.'!,ents' transition from the roles ofhi,;h d3hool students to those of adult workers.

interactionism, or reference groupwas chosen as the conceptual frame-

rk .*'or the study because of its emphasio on,..h..zrczoteristics of the person and the environ--,'nt more importantly, the i'?teraction of

rt2o. Experiential programs fit into this:'opk because they provide worksite experi-,n,,.s which enable and encourage students to

adults within their reference groupshe pepsons of program coordinators and

.10P; supervisors.

Over the past decade the,workplace has gradually acquirednew prominence as an environment for the education and sociali-zation of youth. Today the learning opportunity provided bywork settings is often consIdered a necessary complement to.thatacquired in the classroom. Under a variety of names, severalhundred programs exist, sponsored by agencies as diverse asschools, local governments, and private employers. These programsoften have different goals: to motivate youth to return to schooland to stimulate interest in alternative careers.

The programs selected for study, Cooperative Work Experienceand Experience-Based Career Education, use a work setting as theenvironment for experience outside the school. It is in thiswork environment that youth are to learn adult work roles andreceive assistance in their transition from youth to adulthood.Although most program planners and policy makers assume thatparticipation in the workplace affects youth positively, there islittle research to indicate how different placements and programsinfluence the social and psychological development of youth.This study attempts to initiate such inquiry by combining thetheory and research on adolescent development and socializationwith available research on evaluation of work experience programs,

rig

on worker satisfaction, and on career development. The purposeOf such a process is to provide a conceptual framework for under-standing how experience in work settings may assist young peopleas they strive to assume adult roles. In creating this frameworkthe following assumptions are made:

Youth transition to adulthood is a process ofgradually acquiring skills necessary forassuming adult roles.

The school and the workplace are two criticalinstitutional settings in which youth function.In both settings adults determine the rulesand procedures; and they evaluate performance.

Reference group theory can provide a perspec-tive through which the progress of youth inthe transition to adult roles may be Oterved.

Figure 1 is an attempt to depict the way youth transition isseen in this study. For this study we view youth transition as

YOUTH - - >

FIGURE 1

YOUTH IN TRANSITION TO ADULT ROLES

InstitutionSCEOOL

RoleStudent

Youth /in

Transititn`

InstitutionWORK

RoleWorker

0" ADULT

OtherAdultRoles

moving from taking the role of youth in school and family to takingthe role of adult in the workplace, home, and community. A studentwho participates in an experiential education program, spendingpart of the day in school and part in a work.setting,.adds anutherperspective, that of "worker," to his/her repertoire of experiences.The student's attitudes may be modified, or new ones required forresponding to the work environment. New symbols will probablyhave to be acquired. Depending on the nature and quality of thework experience, co-workers and/or supervisors may become "signlfi-cant others" and role models.

3

By examining the perspectives of youth toward adults we shouldbe able to determine whether experience in a work setting changesthe way youth use adults as a reference group. Further, by compar-ing youth who have part-time jobs and other work experience tothose who are in work experience programs, we should be able todetermine whezher the added attention of a teacher/coordinatorfosters grea4...er appreciation of adults. Finally, youth with workexperience should be more at ease interacting with adults; shouldvalue adu1 L3 as agents for information and guidance.

Literature Review

The need for such an approach to research was affirmed by areport prepared for the Interagency Panel for Research and Develop-ment on Adolescence.1 Even more significant are the requests forbasic research on youth as they move from school into the worldof work.2 After discussing topics which include student-designedfield experiences, cooperative education, and the acquisition ofcoping skills, the editors concluded that improved data on yoUthsocialization patterns and current program practices were needed.In a similar manner Ingoldsby and Adams argue that there is littleavailable to test systematAcally the assumptions,on which theclaims for experience in work settings are made.'

An analysis of the need for research (i.e. program, personal,and institutional) on the transition frbm school to work is thetopic of a recent publication of the National Manpower .Institute.In the section on work experience and youth's tran6ition to work,the authors note, "Despite the assumption that work experiencecontains great potential for contributing to youth's successfultransition from school to work, there are only limited data avail-able regarding the value of such experienc9 during schooling inlater adaptation to the work environment."' Later in listing

1. E. Searcy, Work Experience as Preparation for Adulthood:A Review of Federal Job Training Vocational and Career EducationPrograms. An Analysis of Current Research, and Recommendationsfor Further Research. (Washington, D.C.: Social Research Group,The George Washington University, 1973).

2. Harry F. Silberman and Mark Ginzberg, eds., Easing theTrnsition from Schooling to Work. (San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1976).

3. B. B. Ingoldsby and G. R. Adams "Adolescence and WorkExperience: A Brief Note," Adolescence 12 (1977):339-42.

4. Paul E. Barton and Byrna Shore Fraser, Between Two Worlds:From School to Work. (Washington, D.C.: Center for Education andtlork, National Manpower Institute, 1978) :58-61.

3

areas where more information is needed the following questionsappear:

How do the perceptions of work experience differamong youth, employers, employees, unions, par-ents, educators, government officials and te-searchers?

What are the theoretical models underlyingexisting efforts (e.g. social learning theoryor developMent theory)?

What elements of work experience contribute toachievement of objectives? These includesettings--density and quality of role models,communication patterns, etc; activities--selfregulation, responsibility, adaptation toindividual differences, substance of experience,etc.

What are the effects of work experience--whatimpact does work experience have on participants'academic achievement, dropping out, self esteem,work attitudes and subsequent labor marketexperience . . . ?

They conclude, "Until subsa-ntial studies have been conductedin those areas, we will not be able to determine the real impactof work experience during schooling on later adaptation to thelabor market."5

Hamilton calls for research that defines the association ofvarious types of program characteristics with developmentalchanges in particular classes of youth. Such research requiresnew forms of instrumentation applied in experimental designs.

The research called for by Hamilton is in its infancy. Abackground of data, instruments or definition from which to drawis lacking. Most research of work exper4.ence has tended to beprogram evaluation with hints of topics for basic research. Threeprograms which have been studied across several locations are theNeighborhood Youth Corps' In-School Work Program, the Experience-Based Career Education Program, and the Executive High SchoolInternships Program.

The most publicized finding of the study of the NeighborhoodYouth Corps, conducted from 1970-1977, was that the program failed

3. Stephen F. Hamilflon, "Experiential Learning Programs forYouth" (Paper prepared for the National Institute of Education,June 1978).

4

ILNIOL-b

to deter disadvantaged youth from dropping out of school. Ofet-eater significance to basic research is the finding that noeffort was made to identify the youth most likely to benefit fromthe program offerings. Although another finding revealed thatmany of the work experiences were not meaningful to the participant,unfortunately tile use of the term "meaningful" was not operationallydefined.6

In 1977, an evaluation was conducted of the Executive HighSchool Internships Program. At the time the program served 2,500students annually across thirty school districts located in nine-teen states. By the use of pre- and post-test data from internsand a control group, no statistically significant differences werefound hetween the groups. In interviews, however, the interns,sponsors, parents, and coordinators :icaicated that the programshad a positive effect on participants.7

During the 1974-75 school yea::, a third-party evaluation ofthe four basic models of the Experience-Based Career EducationProqram (EBCE) was conducted by the Educational Testing Service.These programs were designed to promote and utilize school andcommunity resources to blend cognitive, affective, interpersonal,and career-development skills; and to increase adult involvement.Results of the study revealed that there was strong communitysupport for the program, that participants were not hurt academi-cally by their absence from the routine school day, and that otherprogram outcomes were positive. In-depth study of the impact ofstudent involvement with adults was not reported.8

Basic research on the effects of programs on youth appearsto I o an exploratory level. McKean published a paper explor-in( a method by which an evaluator clan estimate whether or not aprogram Eosters personal growth. He proposes that teachers usebehavioral indicators to measure student change, combining apost-test control group design with personal interviews. Changeswer to be noted in behavior and in attitudes such'as cooperation,perseverance, and pride in work. The study reported that youthin the Work Experience Career Exploration Program, a prevocational

6. Comptroller General of the United States. Difficultiesof the Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School Work Program and itsMana9ement problems. (Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1973).

7. Michael R. Crowe and Jerry Walker, Evaluation of theExecutive High School Internships Program: Final Report. (Colum-bus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational Education, 1977).

8. R. B. Bucknam, "The Impact of ERCE--An Evaluator's View-point," Illinois Career Education Journal 33 (1976):32-36.

5

exploratory program for educationally disadvantaged ninth-gradestudents, resulted in YAgnificant improvement on those measures.9

Other areas where research has been attempted are on theinfluence of pay as a factor in program participation and theeffect of the program on attitudes toward school.10 Factors whichinfluence completion of programs it, also an area of study, andstill another is the mechanisms which "link" the institutions ofeducation and work. The conclusion of the study of linkagemechanisms conducted by the College Entrance Examination Board wasthat neither the school nor the workplace adequately supportsyouth during the transition period.11

In the spring of 1978, EBCE was the object of another study.This study, conducted by the Northwest Regional Educational Lab-oratory, determined students' views on what constitutes an"excellent" learning experience in the community. A questionnairewas administered to 218 students enrolled in eight programs infive states. One finding particularly relevant to this study isthat a quality learning experience restlts when adults are relaxedtoward their students and are willing to give praise for taskswell done. In response to a question about What contributes toan excellent learning environment in the workplace, youth saidthat they (1) received help from adults, (2) sensed the personal-ity of the adults there, (3) listened and talked with adults, and(4) received adult responsibility. In the section of the reportwith implications for program design, the authors noted thatyoung people seem to be ready and anxious for adult responsibili-ties. However there are apparent sex differences in the,way youthreact to the experience. Specifically, young women seem to bemore attuned to adult friendliness and helpfulness.12

9. B. McKean, ed:, Toward Defining Measurable Objectives inthe Affective Domain for Experiential Education Pro.rams,ED 139 572 (Colorado Outward Bound School, ERIC Document Repro-duction Service, 1975).

10. Alan J. Cohen and Steven M. Frankel, Data AnalysisReport: An Assessment of School Supervised Work Education Programs.(Santa Monica: Systems Development Corporation, 1973).

11. Richard J. Ferrin and Solomon Arbeiter, Bridging the Gap:A Study of Education-to-Work Linkages. (New York: College EntranceExaminat.on Board, 1975).

12. Thomas R. Owens and Sharon N. Owen, CharacteristicsDifferentiatin5 Excellent from Poor Learning Experiences in theCommunity: A Study of Student Perceptions. Abstract presentedat the Association for Experiential Education Conference, 29 Sep-tember 1978.

Hedin and Conrad found aspects of youth relationships withadults to be a consistent finding in their evaluation of experi-ential education programs. They report that participants andadult supervisors agree that gaining more realistic attitudestoward other people is an effect of programs.13 Another finding,results of a sematic differential on adilts, was that youth whohad experienced a mentorship relationship with an adult scoredadults as more friendly, interesting, successful, and serious,and less complicated, unhappy, and selfish, than did their peerswho had not had this relationship .14

The work by researchers such as Owens, Conrad, and Hedinrepresents a small effort in contrast to the billions of dollarsspen c. to put youth into work settiags. An increasing number ofdocuments have been written expressing the need for new and moreappropriate research which will test the assumptions on whichmany work programs are based.

This study attempts to break ground by simultaneously devel-oping an instrument, collecting interview data and testing theresearch hypotheses. The primary objective was to develop aninstrument using interview data and hypotheses testing to provideboth qualitative and empirical data to assess the strength ofthe instrament itself.

Method

Research Design

Figure 2 illustrates the static-group comparison pre-experi-mental design15 used in this study. As indicated in that illustra-tion the study involved conducting comparisons among four groups.

13. Diane P. Hedin and Dan Conrad, "The Evaluation ofExperiential Learning Project: Preliminary Findings." Paperpresented at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association in San Francisco. (Center Tor YouthDevelopment and Research, University of Minnesota, 1979), p. 10.

14. Ibid., p. 27.

15. D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental andQuasi-Experimental Designs for Research. (Chicago: Rand McNally& Co., 1963).

7

' II

FIGURE 2

STATIC-GROUP COMPARISON RESEARCH DESIGN

xl1

X2

02

X3 03

04

Students in the first three of those groups have participated insome form of work experience. In two of these three groups,individuals acquired their work experience as part of a formalschool program--Cooperative Work Experience (CWE) or CommunityExperiences for Career Education (CE2). The third group ofstudents obtained their work experiences independently of anyformal school program. The students in the last group shown inFigure 2 had virtually no work experience. Random assignmentwas not used to equate the groups (indicated by dashed lines).Due to several basic sampling contraints the students included inthe study had to be selected from groups defined on an a prioribasis.

Figure 3 summarizes the major threats to validity and associ-ated concerns enumerated by Campbell and Stanley16 for the basicstatic-group comparison design. As suggested by that figure,selection is one of the plausible rival hypotheses that existsuhaaone employs this type of design. In the current study this is apotential concern since there.is no assurance of, nor data tounequivocally assess, the pretreatment equality of groups. Thosedata that were collected seem to indicate that some differencesexisted among the various groups on several demographic character-istics, including age and grade,level. Individuals in the threepseudotreatment groups (i.e., with work experience) appear to beolder and, correspondingly, enrolled at higher grade levels'thanthe members of the group with no work experiences (thereby contri-buting to possible maturation confounding). Such results serve tohighlight the difficulty in attributing any observed effectsexclusively to work experience due to differential self-selectionof students into the various groups. These results also serve toat least partially jeopardize generalizability.

16. Campbell, Designs for Research, p. 8.

8

FIGURE 3POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF STATIC-GROUP COMPARISON DESIGN17

Source

Internal Validity:_Hist2cy_MaturationTestiaLinstrumentation

32..tg_tPionSelectionMortalityInteraction ofSelection, Maturation,-etc.

/. Mkternal// Interaction of Testing

and X

Interaction of Selec-tion and XReactive Arrange-ments

Definite FactorWeakness Controlled

PossibleConcern

FactorIrrelevant

X

4.

X.1.1./.1711112.11......

A

X

X

Multiple X.interference

X

X

An examination of the completed student questionnaires doesnot support mortality as a rival alternative explanation. Inaddition, the.two primary comparison.groups represent fairly largesamples.

One advantage oE the current study over a study that employsa traditional two-group static-group comparison design revolvesaround the inclusion of the two additional comparison groups.Campbell and Stanley18 argue that numerous treatment comparisonscan render rival hypotheses less plausible, at least in terms ofcorrelation. 41i1..s is the case when the treatment groups vary innature (i.e., the'qsQ&lps have different attributes). It is thenpossible to rule out ale attributes on which 'the groups differ.There is some evidence to dicate that the three work experience(pseudotreatment) groups dif with regard to academic program,extracurricular activities, and pe of work experience. Conse-quently, this design is somewhat s .onger to the extent that allthree treatment groups produce simil results. In an exploratoryeffort, correlations can be considered reliminary evidence forfurther investigation of hypotheses or ri al,hypotheses.

17. Ibid., p. 8.

18. Ibid.

Sampling Process

Basically a two-stage sampling design was used to identifythe respective groups of students to be included in the study.During the initial stage of that process the specific sites orsLcondary schools in which the study was to be conducted wereidentified. The second stage dealt with the selection of indi-vidual students within each of those (sampled) schools/sites.The'specific procedures employed at each stage in this process aredescribed as follows.

Two site selection criteria were employed during sampling.Those criteria were: (1) candidate institutions (secondary schools)had to support at least two experiential education programsoneof which had to be an Experienced-Based Career Education (EBCE)program designed by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratoryand the other a Cooperative Work Experience (CWE) program; and(2) candidate institutions had to express an interest/willingnessto participate in the study. Given the first 'of these selectioncriteria, the target population consisted of approximately, sixty-seven schools. This potential population was further reduced tothe participating school when the second criterion was applied.

Initially, all students enrolled at the selected high schoolwere considered potential study participants. An initial assess-ment of the numbers of students available, however, suggested thatthe efficacy and efficiency of the study would be considerablyenhanced if a sample rather than the total student body wereidentified and served as participants. The following limitationsand/or concerns were taken intd account during the selection cfthat student sample: (1) homogeneity/heterogeneity of the popula-tion; (2) data collection; and (3) data analysis.

Student Sample Size Determination

Estimated student sample size was calculated using a permis-sible error or tolerance of ±1 original scale unit and a probabilitylevel of one percent (standard error units = 2.57 for p = 0.01).These criteria were selected to promote precision in the pointestimates. The standard deviation estimate was obtained from thepilot study and represented the largest estimate so that the sizeof the sample would be sufficient for ail scales.

A sample size of 324 was calculated. This would providesatisfactory estimates for scale development purposes. However,a second study objective related to exploring preliminary hypotheses.For this reason, it was necessary to determine comparison groupsizes that would yield adequate power for the statistical testsinvolved. Statistical power analysis addresses this question;i.e., assuming a real effect of given size, what is the probability

10

that the statistical test will detect the effect (the probabilityof rejecting a false null hypothesis).

Through power analysis, the sample size can be determined asa function of three parameters. These parameters were delineatedas follows: '(1) t,ignificance criterion, 0( (alpha error = .05);(2) amount of power, power = .99 or, complimentary, 8 (betaerror) = 1 - power = .01; and (3) effect.size, ES = one-third vfa standard deviation (based upon pilot standard deviation, Cr 7).The effect size was selected in accordance with Tallmadge's19criterion for an "educationally significant" effect.

Using sample size tables and procedures described by Cohen,"total sample size (N) = 213. Group sample sizes are unequal por--tions of this number as specified (9C = .05; f = .29; power = .99;u or number of groups minus one = 3).

na (programmatic--CE2) = .06 (273) = 16

nb

(programmatic--CWE) = .18 (273) = 49

nc

(independent) = .35 (273) = 96

nd

(no work experience) - .41 (273) =112

The larger number obtained from the point estimate samplesize formula, N = 324, was used as a base, while remaining cog-nizant of the required group sizes for our specifications. Thedecision was made td enlarge this number (oversample) because ofanticipated administration problems, the low number of programstudents, a questionable sampling frame, and preference for acomparison group with a range of characteristics.

Sampling Strategy7-Student Selection .

Two strategies were employed in selecting the sample. First,all students in the school's two experiential education programswere asked to complete the instrument. There were 109 CooperativeWork Experience (CWE) students and 11 students enrolled in Commun-ity Experiences for Career Education (CE2)--the EBCE program.

19. Kasten G. Tallmadge, The Joint Dissemination ReviewPanel Ideabook. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare, 1977).

20. Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behav-ioral Sciences. Revised Edition. (New York: Academic Press,1977).

Second, a random sample stratified by grade el was drawnand an additional 400 students were selected--100 seniors, 100juniors, and 200 sophomores (designed originally as controlsubjects). A table of random numbers was used to draw thesegroups from a computer printout of students cvrently enrolled.Procedures summarized by the Rand Corporation41 for the use oftheir tables were followed. Total sample size included 520 indi-viduals.

Data Collection Procedures

The questionnaire was administered at the participating highschool in Oregon on May 1, 1979. Prior to administration, theteachers were informed and brief instructions given includingstudent anonymity and voluntary participation.

A total.of 401 students completed the instrument. Of the520 who were to take the questionnaire, 336 completed it, whichis a mortality rate of 34%. Approximately sixty-five students(16% of 401) who were not part of the random sample completed thequestionnaire. There is some evidence that half the 34% mortalityrate can,be accounted for as follows: (1) 14% absentee rate onthe day the instrument was administered; (2) 1% refusal rate(persons electing not to participate in the study); and (3) 2%discrepancy between the saMpling frame and individuals actuallyattending school. These events, of course, represent a departurefrom randomness.

Interview data were collected April 23 through April 27,1979. These interviews were conducted on site by a member of theNational Center project staff and a professor of education froman area community college.

Sample Characteristics

Of the four groups, CE2 is the youngest with over 80% of thestudents being 16 or 17 years old (Figure 4). In contrast, over70% of the CWE participants are 17 or 18 years old. Both theIndependent Work Experience group and the No Work Experience groupcontain fairly balanced representation from each age level. Thisoverall pattern is not surprising as it reflects the sampling

.design. Youth in the program grcups are drawn from the ages forwhich the programs are targeted. Because of the differences incomposition of the groups by age, a measure of any variable whichis highly influenced by age would be weighted differently foreak.;h group.

21. Rand Corporation. A Million Random Diaits with 100,000Normal Deviates. (New York: Free Press, 1955

12

Grui2

CE2

(n 151

G:

CWF

FIGURE 4. tArri).),.,4.1. UY

A.)v ) 10 :0 3C 40 5.: GO -0.

15

lu

I 1. I 50.0

18 J18.818e

IN

bL _

17 I 17.918 40.9

18. 3.0

15

its I 32.5Work

17 1 35.8

r 123) 18 I FT6.318. 1

No Wo:kExporlt

(n , 1-!)

To.t.11

1

N 351

15| 31.1

lb _ 35.1

17 j A.7.0

18 J6.118. il 0.7

'30 0%1 100

.

1Tt.,ta: N's wq11 vary dei.endinq uion num..!r of missInq eb-setvatlor.s

F IGURE 5

WORK Lxi-FirNr s:RoUPS BY SEX

Percent.

Sox .) 13 10 40 50 u0 70 80 c.0 100

ChE M

Iniepenio'

--r 51.3

46.7

_ 53.8

j46.2

_ _Work Ex!.t.,tt.-n:e

j 43.0

Tee 11

N 14"

57.0

1

M I 47.3

V r) 2.7

CE2

= 15)

FICaIRE 6

wonK EXPERIENCI: GROUPS BY GRADE LEVEL

GradeLev0

10

11

12

10

CWE 11

(n = 651 12

Independent 10Work Experience

11

(n r 1.71) 12

No workExpertenc-

13

(n = 147)

Total

m~ 348

10

Percent

0 10 2,0 30 40 vi 60 70 80 90 100

13.3

1_40.0

1 4.6

127.7

146.7

41.3

24 8

133.9

1 27.2

1 12.9

j67.7

Figure 5 shows that a somewhat higher percentage ef malesthan females are in the three groups ef students who have workexperience. The group of youth with nd work experience presentsa reverse of the ratios of the first three groups. However, thegroups are stiil fairly balanced. The distribution by grade issimilar to that of age considering that some students may bebehind in credits (Figure 6). Of particular interest to the studyis that a high percentage of the students in CWE (67.7%) areseniors and therefore very close te actually terminating theirhigh school experience and entering the job marhet or continuingschool. In contrast to this situation, 59.9% of those youth withno work experience are in the tenth grade and therefore may bevery m..Ich a part of their high school group.

For three of the four groups, over half cf the studentsself-selected general as the term best describing their course ofstudy (Figure 7). While 50% of the CE2 students selected voca-tional as their program of study, this represents only eightstudents. The group called Independent Work Experience has thelargest percentage of students indicating enrollment in thecollege preparatory curriculum (31.1%).

Figure 8 shows the Percentage of each group involved in thefive categories of extracurriculai activities (i.e., sports,student government, music, clubs, and other activities). It also showsthat the students in CE

2 tendnot to be involved in many school-related activities. This finding is consistent with the inter-*view data below that these youth are potenti'Al dropouts. Further,the CE program is conducted in a separate building. The studentsin the CWE, Independent, and No Work Experience groups seem tobe inv lved in activities to about the same extent. The exceptionis in çports, where more youth who have no work experience arepartici ants. This finding is understandable since athleticpracticq often conflicts, with jobs after school.

The 4aracteristics just discussed describe aspects of thestudents' relationships with the school. The next two figures,9 and, 10, depict the extent of part-time and full-time workexpe...-ience for students in-each group. Approximately 45.9% ofthe group called No Work Experience had soMe work experience butnot enough to put them in the Independent Work Experience group.In general, the Independent Work Experience group reflects moremonths of full and part-time employment.

Interview Data

With the purpose of enhancing and expanding the -Agnificanceof the statistical findings, interviews were conducted. Sixstudents ware chosen by prog.'7am coordinators based on the criterion

14

0 ,

FIGURE 71.\i-vp: I w.,;11 :4cH.\01.

Porov!it

c,I!! ! 1.9 0

it. lb) t:v; t ; A

e,1,-;t tIv;

0: !let1

.tt t

(n Ii 60n.,ral

othet

341:1-2.7Co 1 1 0- P .

In 1,:ta 1 104_9_

10 20 1,0 10 50 0/

. 0

8. 8

6,1

2 1. 8 11

70 h(J 90 100

60.3

wet k58.0

(n - 1:11 C'.1:t le Pt

OtNot

No Wolk Ve:att.malExpeiterl,:o

(n - 14') C.,11.eoe Pt-vv.

Other

- 119.7

J18.6j 2.1

31.1

169.7

FIGURE 8WEN EXPErqh:;CE cRourn

N J43 BY E::T!:ACU:InICULAt:

PercentExtiacurricular

9?..c.)Bp ActivitieS 0 10 20 3n 40 SO 60 7n 89 n9 100

CK2 Sporth , 6.3

(n 161 Student Governmcnt C.3

Music

Clubs C.3

Other Activities 6.3

CWE Sport..?

(n = 66) Student Government

Music

Clubs

Other Activities

Independent Work SportsExperience

Student Government

(n . 123) Music

Clubs

Other Activities

No WorkExperience

(n . 148)

Total

N = 353

150

25. 0

113.643.9

I] 45.0

14 1

n7.6

20.3

Sports] 61.0

Student Government k_2147

Music I ---1_21.6

1Clubs 3244

Other Activities _j----r--1-37-8

I

tGURE 9PERCENTAGE OF GROC"S NITHPART-TIME WORK EXPERIENCE

Numbet of Monthsot Poci-Tim,!Work Exmr.ionoe 9r°.Y.e. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 45.5:]CE1,

CWt' 18.8Independent WorkExperienee3No Work Experience 154.1

Percent

None

Under 3 rh..nths

3-6 months

7-12 montha

over 12 months

CE2CWEIndependent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

CE2CWEIndependent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

cE,cwEIndependent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

CE2CWEIndependent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

N 31J

11 3IWE n = 103n = 48 4t;wE n s 148

1.0

45.9

27.3

31.3

37.9

.1

----I 22.9

j 18.4

FIGURE 10PERCENTAlE OE GROU'S WITH.FULL-TIME WORK EXeERIENCE

tit.mber of Monthsof Full-Time

Work Experience Group

1CE2,CWE'

None Independen WorkExperience'No Work Ixperience4

CE2CWE

UNDER 3 months Independent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

CE2CWE

3-6 months Independent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

CE2CWE

7-12 months Independent WorkExperienceNo Work Experience

CE2CWE

Over 12 months Independent WorkExperienceNo Work Eiperience

1121d1

N = 237

CE2

2CIIE

n = 10

n = 33

16

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

148.51

I 50.0

85.6

20.0

9.1

6.6 ,

10.2

20.0

] 19.7

11 4.2

1 18.2

3TVE n = 76

NWE n = 118

that the program experience had been a positive critical incidentin their lives. Included in this group of six were two studentsfrom each of three high schools in Oregon. Three were fromCooperative Work Experience (CWE) and three from CommunityExperiences for Career Education (CE7); three were females andthree, males. Students, their parents, program coordinators,and employers were interviewed to get each person's perspectiveon the effects of the program.

Co-interviewers were a member of the project staff and aprofessor of educatica at a local college, who arranged the inter,-views. This fact that all people interviewed were familiar withhis college seemed to help them feel at ease during the inter-views. Over the course of five days, interviews were conducted,usually ranging in length from twenty to thirty minutes. Students \and school personnel-were interviewed in their school settings,employers at their wo-.7kplaces, and parents in their homes.Interview style was conversational in the hope that those inter-viewed would be at ease and would state their views and.feelingsfreely. Pour general topics were covered.:

1. The background of program participants2. The programs3. The job experience4. The changes in student relationships with

adults as a result of the program experience(the critical topic of the study)

The two programs, CE1 and CWE, have a number of similarities:the enthusiasm pervading the programs; types of job placements;and the individualized plans which allow flexibility for meetingstudent needs. The main difference between the programs is thatCWE serves students who want a job, need a career education credit,or seek a challenge beyond school, while CE2 serves students.whoare potential dropouts because of interpersonal or academicproblems. Other differences are physical settings of the programs,numbers served, and length of time on the job.

On the question of whether participation in experientialeducation programs improves students' relationships with adults,the consensus of those interviewed is a very solid "yes." Forstudents in CWE, program participation seems to offer a challengeand an opportunity to sharpen their skills in relating to adults.For CE-, students, the effects of program participation are seenas more explicitly positive, because these students enter theprogram with problems in relating to adults. They are treated asadults for perhaps the first time, receive support from teacher-coordinators and workplace mentors, and learn how to succeed.

17

Phase I Results and Discussion

Scales were developed to measure youth transition to adultroles and selected work setting characteristics. Two item poolswere generated to reflect these variables.

Youth Transition to Adult Roles

The use of adults as a significant reference group providedthe conceptual framework for assessing the transition to adultroles. The fdllowing categories were selected as the initialscheme for items: (1) perceptions of adults; (2) frequency ofstudent-adult interaction; and (3) scope of interaction.

A review pf the literature established Duncan's generationgap instrument22 as readily accessible and fundamentally grounded.An.examination of the scale revealed that approximately half theitems contained parental references. This factor, together witha design requiring data more continuous in nature, precluded theexclusive use of this instrument. However, some items from thegeneration gap instrument were included in the initial pool ofitems in order to build on Duncan's foundation.2J The criteriasummarized by Edwards24 were used to write 145 additional items.

A Likert25 format with the response categories ranginq fromstrongly agree to strongly disagree was used to scale most ofthe remaining items.. These response categories were subsequentlyscored on a five-point range, with the low score representinga more favorable perception of adults. The scope of interactionitems referred to potential problems/decisions. On these items,respondents were requested to designate the one person that theywould include in the decision process. Five categories of indi-viduals were provided. They were scored adult or peer.

22. D. F. Duncan. "Measuring th'e Generation Gap: AttitudesToward Parents and Other Adults," Adolescence, 1978, 13 (49) :77-81.

23. We gratefully acknowledge the permission of Or. David F.Duncan to include some original items and to adapt others for ourpurposes. Items included on the final version are specified, andproper credit accorded.

24. A. L. Edwards, Techni ues of Attitude Scale Construction,(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957).

25. R. Likert, "A Technique for the Measurert,ent of Attitudes,"Ais...jaLLIIJILEEL2ylalay. 22, no. 1 (1940):1-55.

18

I

O.

Pace validity was demonstrated through classification by apanel of seven judges with expertise in the area of instrPmerd*m-tion. This procedure resulted in elimination er minor revisionof several items.

tfyork Settin Characteristics

The literature review suggested several important factors insuccessful experiences. The following four characteristics wereselected as item categories: (1).mentorship; (2) int-raction;(3) career reflection; and (4) learning opportunities. Cu77rentjoh,3 or program work settings were described in terms of thesccharacteristics.

Approximately twenty items were written for each of 'the fourwork.setting characteristics. Face validity was establishedthrough classification by the panel of experts. Likert scalingprocedures were again used. Five response alternatives rangingfrom definitely true to definitely false were provided. Lowscores were indicative of favorable experiences.

Pilot Test

A pilot test of all scale items was conducted in two second-, ary schools involving 176 students r(?presentim.j a range.of studentabilities and work experiences. This phase of the study wasinitiated subsequent to the expert panel review of.each scale.Schocil s ,ection was based on (1) variety of programming, (2)convenience, and (3) willingness to participate.

The purpose of the pilot study was to provide informationconcerning reading level, format, and scale properties. Furtherrefinements in items and scales resulted. Data collected duringthis phase greatly facilitated reducing the pool of items foreach scale.

pilpirical Scale Definition and Description

The major data collection effort was directed toward testingthe revised scales under more controlled conditions. Preliminarydata analysis revealed that the scales as initially formulatedyielded inadequate reliabilities. For exploratory purposes,several statistical techniques were considered. The followingdiscussion focuses on empirical efforts to assess scale dimension-ality.

The first step undertaken to more adequately delineate thescales embedded in tne study questionnaire involved the applica-tion of factor analytic techniques. Given the nature of the

19

available data and the ,related ratios of items to sample points,the decision was made to utilize these tecaniques in an explora-tory sense and to be somewhat flexible in interpreting/applyingthe resulting output's, particularly if they were not in completeagreement with the results of associated analyses (such as thosefrom the reliability analyses). In other words, the results ofthe factor analyses were not viewed as the sole determinants ofthe respective scale-item correspondences, but rather only as oneof a number of inputs into the determination of those relation-ships.

The specific factor analytic technique employed was thePrincipal Factoring Method with Iteration,26 which is currentlythe most widely accepted and utilized factoring approach in usetoday. Several basic decision rules involved during the executionof the factor analyses were:

1. Factoring was terminated when the resultingeigenvalues were less than one .(1), i.e., aacter (scale) was assumed to exist in the

respective item sets and to be sufficientlywell "determined" if its associated eigenvaluewas one or more;

2. The varimax (orthogonal) rotation procedurewas employed in an effort 4-e obtain a moremeaningful/interpretable patterning ofvariables. (items) than occurred in theunrotated factor matrix; and

3. A variable (item) was assumed to be sub-stantially related (i.e., correlated) witha particular factor (scale) if its associatedfactor loading was .30 or greater.

The results of the two factor analyses reveals that fourfactois/scales were identified in each set of items. The labelsor naes attached to each of "the use of adults as a significantreference grouph.scales and "work characteristics" scales (basedupon a review of the related subsets of items) are presented inTable 3.

Given the clusters of items (i.e., scales) identified viathe two factor analyses, the next step initiated involved thecomputation of reliability estimates for the relatea scales. Theapproach used involved the calculation of internal consistency

26. Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlar Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Stein-brenner, and Dale Brent. SPSS: Statistical Packa e for thecocial Sciences, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975 ) .

20

reliabilities (alpha coefficients). These estimates were computedbecause (1) the questionnaires were administered only once to eachstudent, thus pre-empting the computation of other estimates and(2) generally speaking, the alpha coefficient represents the lowerbound for reliability (and as a result the computed estimatesshould be conservative estimates). The reliabilities obtainedfor the various scales are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1

ESTIMATED RELIABILITIES (0('S) FOR THE EIGHT SCALES

Set Scale Coefficient-Alpha

Criterion One - Empathy 0.85Two - Helpfulness 0.60

Three - Communication 0.75Four - Consultation 0.68

Environmental One - Feedback 0.85Two - Hinrarchial Interaction 0.72

Three - Lateral Interaction 0.64Four - Challenge 0.71

,Phase II Results and Discussion

Subordinate to the primary task of scale development, severalhypotheses were formulated. Preliminary data are presented 410explore these hypotheses.

Youth Transition to Adult Roles

The research hypothesis for the first analysis was: youthwith programmatic work experience and youth with independent workexperience will exhibit a significant expansion of their use ofadults as a reference group when compared to youth with little orno work experience. In addition, students with programmatic workexperiences will use adults as a reference group significantlymore than students with independent work experience.

The use of adults as a significant reference group wasmeasured by tlie four scales described in the preceding sectionof this report. A brief summary of those variables is iprovidedin Figure 11.

21

941

FIGURE 11INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Students by Group Definition,

CE2

CWE

Independent WorkExperience

Youth who have been participants in theCommunity Experiences for Career Educationprogram for a minimum of 3 months.

Youth who have been participants in theCooperative Work Experience program fora minimum of 3 months..

Youth who have never participated in CE2 orCWE but who have been employed full-time(over 30 hours per.week) or part-time(less than 30 hours per week) for a minimumof 3 months.

No Work Experience Youth who have less than 3 monthsexperience in a work setting.

Characteristics of the WorkSetiing Definition

Feedback

Hierarchical Interaction

Lateral Interaction

Challenge

Students' perceptions that they receiveinformation about the process in which theyare involved. A mentor or supervisor isoften the source of this information.

Students' perceptions of the extent to whichinteractiOn with adult workers is as superiorto subordinate.

Students' perceptions of the extent to

which interaction with adult workers isas equals.

Students' perceptions that they have anopportunity to be innovative and to feelproud of their work.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Dimensions of the Use of Adultsas a Significant Reference Group Definition

Empathy

Helpfulness

Communication

Consultation

Students' perceptions that adults are awareof and are trying to understand adolescents.

Siudents' perceptions that adults are verycapable of helping with problems.

Students' perceptions that they are able to(and do) speak freely with adults.

Students' tendency to turn to an adultfor help in decision making.

2 2

The null hypothesis under consideration is: There are nodifferences among youth with programmatic.work experience (2groups; CE2 and CWE)) youth with independent work experience, andyouth with-virtually no work experience concerning the use ofadults as a significant reference group (as measured by theEmpathy, Helpfulness, Communication, and Consultation scales).In symbolic form, this hypothe...:is is Ho: pi = p2 = p3 = p4 (thefour population means are equal) which will be tested against thealternative H1: There is some pair of population means pi and .)13

such th.atP . F96 . (some pair ofthe population means are notiequal).

The alpha level was set at .0125 to accommodate performing .

four statistical tests (four dependent variables) with alphaequal to .05 (inflated alpha error).

A one-factor analysis of variance was performed to subjectthe data to formal test. Table 2 presents the F ratios for the

Jour dependent variables. No statistically significant differ-ences were observed among the four groups with regard to Empathy,Helpfulness, and Consultation.

As shown in Table 2, there is a significant differenceamong the group means on the Communcation scale (F = 4.69; df =3,332; p4.004). Since an analysis of variance fails to yielddata on the significance of differences between pairs or combi-nations of means (Table 3), it was necessary to perform multiplecomparisons to determine the nature of the differences.

a!Comparison one ( n) tests the difference between the three

groups with some type of work experience (programmatic or inde-pendent work experiences) and Ihe fourth group without workexperience. Comparison two (r2) contrasts the two groups withprogrammatic work experience (CE2 and CWE) with the independentwork experience group.

The Dunn test was used to test these hypotheses. Selectionof this procedure was based on:

1. a priori or planned contrasts;2. contrasts were nonorthogonal;3. contrasts (versus comparisons) were required; and4. relatively few contrasts were planned.

An observed t statistic equal to or greater than 2.81 (thecritical t value) is required for a specific contrast to bejudged significant at the .005 level.

23

:;(1

TABLE 2

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR YOUTH CLASSIFIED BY WORKEXPERIENCE GROUPS (A)

DependentVariable Source df SS MS

Empathy A 3 101.87 33.96 0.49 0.686

Error , 326 22374.58 68.63

Total 329 22476.45

Helpfulness . A 3 23.75 7.92 0.85 0.467

Error 336 3124.76 9.30

Total 339 3148.50

Communicat.ion1

A 3 442.14 147.38 4.691 0.003

Ertor 332 10429.58 31.41

Total 335 10871.71

Consultation A 3 1.30 0.43 0.03 0.994

Error 306 5089.25 16.63

Total 309 5090.55

1. Statistical1y significant using the predetermined alpha levelof .0125.

24

TAKE 3MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR DEPENDENT

VARIABLES BY WORK EXPERIENCE GROUPS

DependentVariable Grou

GroupSize

GroupMean

GroupSD

Empathy CE9 15 44.93 6.58CWE 59 . 42.29 9.44IndependentWork Experience 115 42.32 7.91No WorkExperience 141 42.23 8.23Total 330 42.39 8.27

Helpfulness CE2 15 13.93 3.15CWE 63 15.02 3.26Independent

Work Experience 119 15.21 3.08No WorkExperience 143 15.20 2.91Total 340 15.11 3.05

Communication CE2 15 26.20 4.77CWE 63 26.57 6.39Independent

Work Experience 113 28.27 6.14No WorkExperience 145 29.44 4.83Total 336 28.36 5.70

Consultation CE2 13 25.85 3.76CWE 52 25.71 4.40Independent

Work Experience 110 25.82 4.13No WorkExperience 135 25.90 3.93Total 310 25.84 4.06

25

i)Comparison one ( 7).) contrasts the three work experience

groups to the no work experience group to determine if workexperience is contributing to the overall significant F ratio inTable 2. Since the observed t statistic'exceeds the critical tvalue (1-5.951 > 2.81), the first comparison is significant at the.005 level. Students in the work experience groups have morefavorable (lower mean; mean = 25.10) perceptions with regard tocoMmunication with adults. In genei-al, they seem to feel morecomfortable conversing with adults than those students who haverelatively.little'or no work experience (mean = 29.44).

Comparison two ( r2) tests the difference between a combina-tion of the two pregrammatic work experience groups (CE2 and CWE)and those students with independent (not school-based, or sUper-vised by school perSonnel) work experiences. The observed tstatistic is lower than the critical t value (1-1.941 < 2.81).Comparison two is not statistically significant (alpha = .005).The two programmatic work experience group means (26.39) do notdiffer significantly from the independent work experience groupmean (28.27) . It appears that the method of acquiring workexperience does not make a significant difference in the percep-tions of students regarding communication with adults. Individualswho obtained work experiences through secondary school programsand individuals who acquired a job on their own (independentgroup) have equally favorable reactions to communicating withadults.

The Communication criterion scale was analyzed using analysisof covariance with school grade level as the covariate. Thisprocedure permitted an assessment of the selection-maturationinteraction ri,"al hypothesis: i.e., the age and maturity ofstudents with work experience can explain as much criterionvariance as work experience (pseudotreatment).

The null hypothesis Ho: pl = p2 = pl = p4 was tested againstthe alternative Hi: there is some pair of population means pi cindpi such that pi # pl; alpha = .0125. Table 4 presents theafialysis of covariafIce summary information. A nonsignificant Fratio was obtained leading to acceptance of the null hypothesisat alpha = .0125. This test indicates that the work experiencegroups do not differ significantly on the Communication criterionscale when grade level is statistically controlled. Acceptance ofthe null in this case provides some support that maturation is areasonable alternative hypothesis for the results obtained fromthe analysis of variance. That is, it may be grade level and notwork experience gioup that primarily influences perceptions ofadult communication.

26

P'

TABLE .4

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCt FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE COMMUNICATIONBY WORK EXPERIENCE GROUPS' ,(A)--USING GRADE LEVEL AS

THE COVARIATE.

Source df SS MSCovariateGradeLevel 1 992.89 992.89 37.182

A 3 173.57 57.86 2.173

Error 249 6649,65 26,71

Total 253 7816.111. Covariate raw regression coefficient = -2.29.2. p < .001. 3. p>.10.

Summary--Youth Transition to Adult Roles

One criterion variable, communication, yielded a statis-tically significant F ratio when analysis of variance was applied.The Dunn multiple comparison procedure produced a significant tvalue for the contrast of the three work experience groups versusthe single group with little or no work experience. However,analysis of covariance was performed on the Communication scaleusing school grade level as a covariate. The results indicatedthat when grade level is statistically controlled, there are nodifferences among the treatment groups regarding communicationwith adults.

A review of study design limitations and these exploratoryanalyses seems to indicate that work experience, whether inde-pendent or part of a school Program, does not contribute tounderstanding the use of adults as a significant reference group(as operationalized by the Empathy, Helpfulness, Communication,and Consultation scales) above the increment that would beexpected to naturally occur through maturation. That is, studentsat higher grade levels tend to be more favorably disposed towardusing adults as references.

Relationship of Work Characteristicsto Criterion Variables

The second analysis relates to the following research question:What is the relationship of the four work setting characteristics(Feedback, Hierarchical Interaction, Lateral Interaction, andChallenge) to youth transition to adult roles (as measured by thecriterion scales Empathy, Helpfulness, Communication, and Consul-tation). It was hypothesized that the work setting characteristicswould contribute significantly to prediction of these criteria.

27

The null hypothosis is: There is no relationship between alinear combination of the independent variables.Feedback,Hierarchical Interaction, Lateral Interaction, and Challengeand each dependent variable (Empathy, Helpfulness, CeMmunica-tion, and Consultation). The Alpha level was set at .0125 toaccommodate performing four separate tests (four dependentvariables) with alpha equal to .05 (inflated alpha error) gorthe set of four analyses. In statistical form, the Ho: R = 0

' (the proportion of criterion variance accounted for is not sig-nificantly 4ifferent from zero) will be tested against the alterna-tive Hi: R' 0 (the predictors are statistically meaningful).

A stepwise multiple regression27 approach was used. Fourseparate analyses were performed--one for each criterion scale.The stepwise procedure assesses.the contribution of a variablqin relation to the other variables and attempts to maximize 11'(explained variance) while minimizing the number of predictbrs.Stepwise regression analysis was selected because of samplesize consilerations, number of available predictors, and lackof strong theory regarding the selection of predictors. Ofcourse, the best selection procedure would approximate ahierarchical model guided by theory (predictors are entered inthe regressioQ,model in_accordance with an a priori hierarchy).Cohen Cohen" discuss the strengths and weaknesses of multipleregression techniques.

Scale intercorrelations are presented in Table 5. F ratioswere calculated for formal testing (Table 6).

27. Norman H. Nle, C. Hadlai Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Stein-brenner, and Dale Brent. SPSS: Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences, 2d. ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975).

28. Jacob Cohen and Patricia Cohen. Applied Multiple Regres-sion/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.(Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975)..

28

.

TABLE 5SCALE INTERCORRELATION MATRIX

Empathy Consideration Communication Consultation Feedback Hierarchical Lateral ChallengeInteraction Interaction

Empathy

Helpfulness

Communication

.Coftsultation

Feedbao.k

HierarchicalInteraCtion

LateralInteraction

Challenge

1.000 0.374

1.000

0.513

0.328

1.000

-0,270

-0.183

-0.321

1.000

0.189

0.053

0.215

0.082

1.000

0.177

0.179

0.196

0.083

0.601

1.000

0.194

0.103

0.111

0.022

0.476

0.431

1.000

0.236

0.139

0.222

0.120

0.609

0.483

0.347

1.000

37

TABLE 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TOR RELATIONSHIP OF WORK SETTING2

CHARACTERISTICS TO EACH DEPENDENT. VARIABLE--TESTING RFOR GOODNESS OF FIT OF REGRESSION EQUATION

Depend!ntVariable Source df SS MSEmpathy Regrepsion 4 610.24 152.56 2.24

Residual 119 8106.43 68.12Total 123 8716.67

Helpfulness Regression 4 57.20 14.30 1.59-1

Residual 119 1068.28 8.98Total 123 1125.48

Communication 'Regression 4 276.91 69.23 1.96Residual 119 4201.83 35.31Total 123 4478.74

Consultation Regression . 4 31.13 7.78 0.48Residual 119 1925.06 16.18Total 123 1956.19

1. p ..0125.

The multiple correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.26 (Table 7). *All Fratios were not statistically significant at the .0125 level. For thissample, the null hypothesis was not rejected for any of the criterion scales.That is, there did not appear to be a relationship between a linear combinationof work setting characteristics and the criteria measuring various aspectsof youth transition to adult roles (conceptualized as the use of adultsas a significant reference group).

DEPENDENTVARIABLE

STATISTICS

R

TABLE 7FOR REGRESSION EQUATIONS

R2 R2

INDEPENDENTVARIABLESIN EQUATION

Empathy .26 .07 .04 ChallengeLateral InteractionHierarchical

InteractionFeedback

Helpfulness .23 .05 .02 Hierarchical InteractionFeedbackChallengeLateral Interaction

Communication .25 .06 .03 ChallengeHierarchical Interaction

. FeedbackLateral Interaction

Consultation .13 .02 -(.02) ChallengeHierarchical InteractionLateral InteractionFeedback

29 43,15

Additional analyses were conducted to assess the'relativecontributions to criterion variance associated with selecteddemographic variables as well as the four work characteristics.Specifically, daring these analyses school gradeilevel,involvement in extracurricular activities, and sex wereincluded in the stepwise regression procedure as competitors tothe four work setting characteristics. Subsequently, the fourmultiple regression analyses were rerun--one for each criterionscale. It is interesting to note that in almost every casethe multiple correlation coefficients improved substantially(Empathy, 0.42;-Helpfulness, 0.29; Communication, 0.53;Consultation, 0.28). In addition, school grade level andextracurricular activities were the strongest variables in allfour regression equations. This finding regarding grade levelparallels the results observed during the first set ofanalyses.

Summary--Relationship of WorkCharacteristics to Criterion Variables

For this sample the selected work characteristics (Feedback,Hierarchical Interaction, Lateral Interaction, and Challenge) donot significantly predict criterion scdle variance on the Empathy,Helpfulness, Communication, and Consultation subscales used tomeasure the use of adults as a reference group. Subsequentanalyses revealed that schacl grade level'and extracurricularactivities were better predictors than any work setting charac-teristic or combination of character.i.stics. The strongest pre-dictor among the work characteristic set using the stepwisemultiple regression procedure was Challenge.

Summary

Discussion

The findings indicate that differences in groups of youthbetween the ages of fifteen and eighteen regarding their desire tointeract with adults and the need they feel for ease in talkingwith them can be predicted on the basis of years of schooling and

in extracurricular activities. This prediction,when verified, may contribute to research. However, in our owndiscussions of possible explanations of tne findings, severalissues were raised. These can be discussed in terms of charac-teristics of the peison, the environment, and the interaction ofthe two.

30

31

The persons involved in this study are youth ages fifteen toeighteen and ac.ults. While students differ in terms of their cur-riculum, probable grade point average, and degree of alienation orinvolvement in the school, they all represent approximately thesame socioeconomic and ethnic background. Further, the culturalbackground of their homes and past history is probably not signifi-cantly different than that of their employers. Therefore; thegradual development of the capacity to communicate with adults asrepresented by employers may not be a particular obstacle for thisgroup of youth. In a sample of youth representing a .significantlydifferent set of cultural expectations, the facility to communicatewith employers may be a greater obstacle.

The two institutional environments under consideration are theschool and the workplace. Our data have led us to question whetherthe school and the workplace are significantly different in termsof a setting for adult/youth interaction. Both environments areorganized and run by adults. Success in both depends to somedegree on the capacity of youth to communicate effectively withadults,. Further, participation in extracurricular activitiesinvolves informal interaction with adults.

Looking at the interaction of youth in the environments ofschool and work Presents the most intriguing question. Datasuggest that as a student progresses in school from gradas tenthrough twelve, there is a statistically significant increase inthe capacity to communicate with adults as represented by schoolpersonnel, family members, and workers. However, our data donot test whether youth who are out of school and out of workexperience the same developmental growth of this capacity. It ispossible that someone who is eighteen years old and who droppedout of school in the ninth grade, communicates with adults as aninth grader rather than as a twelfth grader. It is alsopossible that this ninth-grade dropout communicates with adultsmore effectively tl,an a twelfth grader because he/she assumedadult roles and responsibilities sooner. This dilemma is anexample of our feeling that more questions were raised thananswered by the study. The person-environment-interaction triaddemonstrates the complexity of the issues.

The finding that youth in the CE2 program demonstrate apositive perspective in their communication with adults is some-what surprising when their background is considered. A comparisonof youth who participated in CE2 and CWE shows that differencesexist both in their prior experience with adults in general andin their continuing relationships with them in school. Sinceyouth who enter CE2 are potential dropouts, it may be assumldthat their relationship with teachers and other adults in thecchool environment has been less favorable than that of otheryouth. In addition, many of these youth come from broken homes.

31

For them, the supportive involvement of an adult as a ldarningmanager becomes an extremely positive experience. Youth whoparticipate in CWE appear to represent a broader range of students.For this reason one might expect a broader range of qualitativeexperiences with adults and a more positive general experience.Structurally, the CE2 students are physically removed from thehome high schools while CWE students remain a part of the studentbody. Consequently, youth in the CE2 are less involved with theirpeers and the adults of the high school.

If it is true (as might be expected) that youth participatingin CE2 exhibit a relatively high degree of alienation from adultswhen they enter the program, then the impact of the program inovercoming such alienation is indeed remarkable. Another inter-esting observation is that three of the ten items'on the Communi-cation scale refer specifically to an adult at school, a teacheror a counselor. A student whO is a potential dropout would notbe expected to like to talk with teachers or counselors'. It maybe, however, that the counselor or teacher coordinator involvedin the CE2 program establishes such a strikingly differentrelationship with the students that they respond positively toitems concerning the student/adult interaction.

The attempt to relate communication with adults to experiencein work settings presents somewhat "a chicken or egg" question.Perhaps youth who are' comfortable with adults are more likely tobe attracted to work settings. Another explanation is that youthnecome more comfortable with adults as they .mature. Speculationsare intriguing, however, the developmental nature of the instru-ment itself suggests that conclusioris at this point are notwarranted.

Several issues discussed during the initial design of theinstrument were never satisfactorily resolved. For example,questions used to elicit background information proved to beambiguous and sometimes misleading. This entire section of thequestion ire should be rewritten using critical information,classifi. m and coded in advance. In addition, other means ofcollectin4 such information should be explored. Use, of the word"adult" ws another issue. Because juniors and seniors in highschool ViEW themselves as adults in many respects, to imply thatthey are not adults may introduce hostility in the response. .Most questions measured a response directed at adults in general.It may be that the respondents had begun to relate differentlyto specific adults in the work setting but were continuing toreact to generalized adults as before. Finally, because so fewrespondents completed the scales which measured characteristicsof the work setting, any analysis using those responses is weak.Furthermore, at present these scales have rather low reliability.

3 2

-4i,

WM-

Recommendations for Future Research

This first-year effort to develop an instrument for measuringthe use of adults as a significant reference group confirmed theoriginal belief that very little basic research has been done todifferentiate the components of experience in work settings fromthose in work-experience programs and tp,elate them to ways bywhich different groups of youth move into'ad4lt roles.

As discussed earlier in various parts of this' report, ourown efforts were hampered by the problems inherent in .instrumentdevelopment as well as by the difficulty of conducting\\-rekearchin real world settings. In spite of the limitations enCounteredethe communication scale with adults bears further examinatiori.In addition, the apparent tendency for youth in grades elevenand twelve to have more work experience than those in the tenthgrade raises questions of the interaction of maturity and adult/youth communication. Because communication with adults is centralto the assumption of adult roles, the potential importance of thismakes it worthy of further investigation. Another scale whichalso had a high reliability (.85) is conceptually related tocommunication and therefore should be given a second test. Thisscale, Empathy, essentially measures the extent to which youthperceive adults as capable of understanding their needs, valuesand perspectives.

Tfle first-year work in defining characteristics of worksetcings to determine whether youth use adults as a referencegroup was in itself a major task. The scales which were developeddid not hold up under factor analysis or regression analysis.At this time these scales do not appear to be sufficiently strongfor further use without a significant investment in item develop-ment and pilot testing. Further, identification of significantcharacteristics of work settings appears to be in itself a diffi-cult and important research enterprise.

The definition of groups of subjects for the study was stillanother aspect of the study which raised more questions thancould be answered in a preliminary study. The underlying questionis whether youth who get part-time jobs and those who enter workexperience programs have significantly different scores on cri-terion variables than youth without experience in Work settings.In an attempt to identify possible differences between groups,background information was collected. This Information is pre-sented in Figures 4-10. From this analysis, grade level andparticipation in extracurricular activities are possible influenceson the use of adults as a reference group and are somewhat dis-proportionately represented in the groups. The interviews suggestthat other ways in which the groups differ are in their relativealienation to school and in their family background. Grade pointaverage could possibly be another measure of the extent to whichyouth fit into or succeed in school.

33

".1 I

Based on the findings of the first year, we recommend thatthe second year be used to investigate whether youth with exper-ience in work.settings believe.that they are better able tocommunicate with adults than those without this expexience and todetermine whether a second sample would demonstrate differenceson the scale Empathy. We recommend that a sample be drawn thatis similar to that in Medford with one groug in cooperative workexperience, one group with part-time work experience, one groupwith no work experience and one group in a pOgram which is likeCE

2in that it serves youth who are potential dropouts. Greater

emphaq.is should be placed or collecting background information.

The problem of how to design a st;ady which controls dif-ferences between groups remains problematic. With adequatebackground information, it may be possible to control suchvariables. If youth who plan to enter work experience programsor those whose applications to programs have been rejected canbe identified, a control group can be identified. The manner andextent to which this problem can be addressed depends upon whatis possible within the research setting.

Finally, the finding that grade level and participation inextracurricular activities are better predictors on the scaleCommunication requires that age, grade level, and activities becontrolled statistically in any future study.

34

43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelson, Joseph. "Adolescence and the Generalization Gap."Psychology Today 12, no. 9 (February 1979) : 33-37.

AFL-CIO. Statements and reports adopted by the AFL-CIO ExecutiveCouncil, 21-28 February 1977.

Allport, Gordon W. Pattern andGrowth in Personality. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

American Federation of Teachers. "Resolution No. 43: Educationand Work." Submitted by Executive Council at AFT Convention,August 1976.

Bandura, Albert. Social Learning_Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Barton, Paul E. Designing Youth Policy: Starting Points.Washington, D.C.: National Manpower Institute, 1977.

Barton, Paul E., and Fraser, Bryna Shore. Between Two Worlds:From School to Work. New Research and Measurements, vol. 3.Washington, D.C.: Center for'Education and Work, NationalManpowei. Institute, 1978.

Bateman, Richard M. "The Effect of Work Experience on HighSchool Students' Scholastic Achievement," Occupations 41(1950) : 129-48.

Bateman, Richard M. "The Effect of Work Experience on HighSchool Students As Revealed by the Bell Adjustment Inventory."Journal of Educational Research 43 (1949) : 261-69.

Berger, Bennett M. "Adolescence and Beyond: An Essay Review ofThree Books on the Problems of Growing Up." Social Problems10, no. 4 (Spring 1963) : 394-408.

Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S. The Managerial Grid.Houston: (Gulf Publishing Co., 1964.

Bottoms, Gene and Reynolds, K. "Work Experience Programs forBehavior Modification." American Vocational Journal 44 (1969) :24-26.

3 5

Bridgeford, Nancy; Clark, Marilyn: and McClure, Larry. Directionsin Career Education: Questions Peo le Ask About Education andWork. Portland, OR.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,1977.

Brittain, Clay V. "Adolescent Choices and Parent-Peer Cross-Pressul:es." American Sociolo ical Review 281, no. 3 (1963):385-91.

Bronfenbrenner, Uric. "Toward An Experimental Ecology of HumanDevelopment." American Psychologist 32 (1977): 513-31.

Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1960.

Bucknam, Ronald B. "The impact of EBCE--An Evaluator's Viewpoint."Illinois Career Education Journal 33 (1976): 32-36.

Budke, Wesley E. Case Studies of Coo erative Programs Betweensn2.21_212(1_Inara. Colunbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Voca-tional and Technical Education, 1972.

Campbell, D. L., and Stanley, J. C. Experiemtnal and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. chicc767--KETTITa-a-Ily &Co., 1963.

Center for Field Research and School Services of New York Univer-sity. An Evaluation of the High School Redirection Program,ED 091454. New York: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,1973.

Center for Vocational Education. Education and Work: LaborPerspectives. ColumbuE: Center for Vocational Education,1977.

Charbn, Joel M. Sym1221ic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979.

Churchill, Ruth:-Guerrero, A.; Hartle, J.; and Horowitz, H.Coordinating Educational Assessment Across College_Centers.Princeton, N.J.: Cooperative Assessment of ExperientialLearning, 1976.

Clausen, John A., ed. Socialization and Society. Boston:Little, Brown and Company, 1968.

Cohen, Alan J., and Frankel, Steven M. Data Analysis Report:An Assessment of School Supervised Work Education Programs.Santa Monica: Systems Development Corpocation, 1973.

36

4s-

Cohen, Jacob. Statistical Power and Analysis for the BehavioralSciences. Rev. ed. New York: Academic Press, 19 7.

Cohen, Jacob, and Cohen, Patricia. App1i212±;l111121t_22gyion/(1412=12onARalysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975.

Cohen, Wilbur J. "The Learning and Earning Force." EducationalRecord 50 (1969) : 166-70.

Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society. New York: The FreePress of Glencoe, 1961.

Committee for Economic Development. Jobs for the Hard to EmEloy.:New Directions for a Public-Private Partnershi . New York:Committee for Economic Development, 1978,

Comptroller General of the United States. Difficulties of theli.212111221112pd Youth Corps In-School Work Program and Its Manage-ment Problems. Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1973.

Comrey, Andrew L. A First Course in Factor Analysis. New York:Academic Press, 1973.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure ofTests. Psychometrica 16 (1951): 297-334.

Crowe, michael R., and Adams, Kay A. The Current status ofAssessing Experiential Education_program. Columbus: NationalCenter for Research in Vocational Education, 1978.

Crowe, Michael R. and Beckman, Carol A., eds. Perspectives onInvestigatina_th.t_calLnutnc!!_2f_Experiential Education.Columbus: National Center for Research in Vocational Educa-tion, 1979.

Crowe, Michael R. and Walker, Jerry. Evaluation of the ExecutiveHigh School Internships Proaam: Final Report. Columbus:Center for Vochti6nal Education, 1977.

Davidson, Terrence K. Evolution of a Strategy_for LongitudinalAnaly_sis_of_Suryey Panel Data, Youth in Transition, vol. 4.Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University ofMichigan, 1972.

Davis, Walter G. "The Elementai-y and Secondary Career EducationAct of 1977." Statement before the Subcommittee on Elementary,Secondary, and Vocational Education of the House Education andLabor Committee, 2 March 1977.

Douvan, Elizabeth, and Adelson, Joseph. The Adolescent Experi-ence. New ,York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

37

Duncan, David F. "Meaeuring the Generation Gap: AttitudesToward Parents and Other Adults." Adolescence 13, no. 49(.1978): 77-81.

Edwards, Allen Louis. Techplaupsy Attitude Scale Construction.New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1957.

Elkin, Frederick. The Child and SociOty. New York: RandomHouse, 1960.

Elkin, Frederick,/ and Westley, W. A. "The Myth of AdolescentCulture." American Sociological Review, 20, no. 6 (1955) :680-84.

Ferrin, Richard J., and Arbeiter, Solomon. prisliinatli_e_a2EIA Stud, of Education-to-Work Linka es. New York: CollegeEntrance Examination Board, 1975.

Flanagan, John C.; ShalYcoft, M. R.; Richards, J. M.; and Claudy,J. G. Five Years After Hi h School. Final Report, Project,Talent. Pittsburgh: American insitute for Research and theUniversity of Pittsburgh, 1971.

Frankel, Steven M. An Assessment of School Supervised WorkEducation, Programs, ED 081 998. Santa Monica: ERIC DocumentReproduction Servicrs, 1973.

Freeberg, N. E., and Reilly, R. R. DevelopMent of Guidance Mea-sures for Youth Work Training Program Enrollees, ED 056-067.Washington, D.C.: ERIC Document Reproduction Services, 1971.

Freedman, J. L.; Carlsmith, J. M.; and Sears, D. O. SocialPsychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970,

Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods inEducation and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Goldhammer, Keith; Gardner, Richard; Heilman, Cas; Libby, Richard;Mokma, Arnold; and Rietfors, Gene. Experience-Based CareerEducation: A Description of Four Pilot Programs, ED 118-833.Washington, D.C.: ERIC Reproduction Service, 1975.

Gonzales, R. R. Tri-Cultural Vocational Exploratory Career and'Work ExEElense Education Program. Interim Report, ExemplaryProject in Vocational Education conducted under Part D ofPublic Law 90-576. Bernalillo, NM.: Bernalilo Public Schools,1072.

38

4-1

Gottlieb, David, and Ramsey, Charles. The American Adolescent.Homewood, IL.: Dorsey Press, 1964.

Greenberger, Ellenp Josselson, Ruth) Knerr, C. and Knerr, B."The Measurement and Structure of Psychosocial Maturity."Journal of Youth and Adolescence 4 (1975) : 127-43.

Greenberger, Ellen and Sorenson, Aage B. "Toward a Concept ofPsychosocial Maturity." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 3(1974) : 329-58.

Greenberger, Ellen, and Steinberg, Laurence D. "Early Adolescentsat Work: Effect of Part-Time Employment on Literacy andMaturity." Mimeographed. Irvine: University of California,1977.

*Guzzardi, Walter. "Education for the World of Work." Fortune,October 1975, pp. 224-29.

Hamilton, Stephen F. "Experiential Learning Programs for Youth."Paper prepared for the National Institute of Education, June1978.

Harman, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis. 2d. ed. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Herman, Melvin; Sadofsky, Stanley; and Rosenberg, Bernard. Workl.Youth and_UnemEloyent. New York: Thomas Crowell,'1968.

Hedin, Diane P., and Conrad, Dan. "The Evaluation of ExperientialLearning Projects, Preliminary Findings." Paper presented atthe 1979 Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco. St. Paul: Center for YouthDevelopment and Research, University of Minnesota, 1979.

Holland, John L. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers.Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Hollingshead, August B. Elmtown's Youth. New York: John Wileyand Son, 1949.

Horrocks, John E. The Psychology of Adolescence. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.

Illich, Ivan. "The Alternative to Schooling." Saturday Review,19 June 1971, p. 44.

Ingoldsby, B. B., and Adams, G. R. "Adolescence and Work Experi-ence: A Brief Note." Adolescence 12 (1977) : 339-42.

39

Johnston, Jerome, and Bachman, Jerald G. The Transition fromSchool to Work: The Work Attitudes and Early Occupa-

tional Experiences of Yourign. Ann Arbor, MI.: Institutefor Social Research, 1973.

Josselson, Ruth; Greenberger, Ellen; and McConochie, D. "Phenom-enological Aspects of Psychosocial Maturity in Adolescence.Part I. Boys." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 6 (1977):25-55.

Josselson, Ruth; Greenberger, Ellen; and McConochie, D. "Phenom-enological Aspects of Psychosocial Maturity in Adolescence.Part II. Girls." journal of Youth and Adolescence 6 (1977);145-67.

Kaiser, H. F. "The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in'Faotor.Analysis." Psychometrica 23: 187-200.

Keeton, Morris T., and Associates. Experiential Learning. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976.

Kemble, Eugenia. "Our National Education and Work Policy: Pit-falls and Possibilities." A position paper of the AFT TaskForce on Educational Issues, Item QP-17, Washington, D.C.:American Federation:of Teachers.

Kennedy, John Joseph. An Introduction to the Design and Analysisof Experiments in Education2212tacjIllogi. Washington, D.C.:University Press of America, 1977.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2d. ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Kerlinger, Fred N., and Pedhazur, Blazer J. Multiple Regressionin Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1973.

Kish, Leslie. Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons,1965.

Likert, R. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes."Archives of Psychology 22, no. 1 (1940) : 1-55.

Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Experiments in Psychologyand Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1953.

Lumsden, J. "The Construction of Unidimensional Tests." Psycholo-logical Bulletin 58, no. 2 (1961) : 122-31.

Manning, D. B. "Navajos Sign on Apprenticeship Pact." Worklife,2 (1.077): 23-28.

McCall, William A. How to Experiment in'Education. New York:Macmillan, Co., 1923.

40

McKean, B., ed. Toward Defintuileilairs4.ple Ob'ectives in theAffective Domain for Ex eriential Education Programs,ED 139 572. Colorado Outward Bound School, ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, 1975.

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1934.

Miguel, Richard J., ed. E eriential Education Polio' Guidelines.Columbus: National Center for Research'in Vocational Educa-tion, 1979.

Mobd, Alexander McFarlane. Introduction to. the Theor of Statis-tics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950.

Moos, Rudolf H. Evaluating Educational Environments. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979.

Mussen, Paul, and Eisenberg-Berg, Nancy. Roots of Caring, SharingarAHellizentofProsocialBehavior in Child-ren. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1977.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. ConferenceReport on American Youth in the Mid-Seventies. Washington,D.C.: National Association of Secondary School Principals,1972.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. The Curri-culum: This We Believe. Position paper. Washington, D.C.:National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1976.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. 25 Action-Learning Schools. Reston, Vh.: National Association ofSecondary School Principals, 1974.

National Commission on Resources for Youth. New Roles for Youthin the School and the Community. New York: Citation Press,1974.

National Commission for Manpower Policy. From School to Work:Ini=iLaa_111.9_71.Li,212. Washington, D.C.: National Com-mission for Manpower Policy, 1976.

National Manpower Institute. Work and Service Experience forYouth. Washington, D.C.: National Manpower Institute,March 1978.

National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education. TheEducation of Adolescents. 'Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment.of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976.

41

1

Nie, Norman H.; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, J. G.; Steinbrenner, K.;and Brent, Dale H. SPSS: Statistical Package for the SocialSciences. 2d ed. ew York: Macaaw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

Offer, Daniel. ThLilas1112129ical World of the Teenager: A Studyof Normal Boys. New York: Bagic Books, 1969.

Owens, Thomas. Ex erience-Based Career Education. Final Evalua-tion Report, Fiscal Year 1975. Portland, OR.f NorthwestRegional Educational"Laboratory, 1975.

Owens, Thomas R., and Owen, Sharon K. Characteristics Differenti-ating Excellent from Poor Learnin Ex eriences in the Commun-_ity: A StalyclijIllIti_texcatialf.. Abstract presented atthe Association for Experiential Education Conference, Septem-ber-281 1978.

Owens, Thomas R. and Owen, Sharon K. "Investigating StudentPerceptions of Essential Elements of Experiential Education."Paper presented at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco.

Panel on Youth of the President's Science Advisory Committee.Youth: Transition to Adulthood. Washington, D.C.: Officeof Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President,1973.

Parelius, Ann Parker, and Parelius, Robert J. The Sociology ofEducation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hal , 1978.

Parten, M. Surveys, Polls and Sam les: Practical Procedures.New York: Harper and Row, 1950.

Rand Corportation. A Million Random Digits With 100 000 NormalDeviates. New York: Free Press, 1955.

Saul, L. J. Emotional Maturity. Philadelphia: J. B. LippincottCo., 1971.

Sax, Gilbert. Em irical Foundations of Educational Research.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Searcy, E. Work Experience as Preparation for Adulthood: AReview of Federal Job Training Vocational and Career Educa-t4_.all_proarams_.ALLAnalysis of Current Research, and Recom-mendations for Further Research. Washington, D.C.: SocialResearch Group, The George Washington University, 1973.

Shibutani, Tamotsu. Society and Personality: An Tnteractionist..pi17:Jach to Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1961.

42

5-1

Silberman, Harry F., and Ginzburg, Mark B., eds. EapirleTransition from Schooling to Work. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1976.

Simmons, Robexta G., and Rosenberg, Florence. "Disturbance inthe Self-Image at Adolescence." American Sociological Review38 (1973) : 553-68.

Snedecor, George W. letlIods;ItoEerimerStatisticalNItsin Agriculture anc.o. 5th ed. Ames: Iowa StateUniversity Press, 1956.

Tailmadge, G. Kasten. The Joint Dissemination Review Panel Idea-book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Educa--ETZTI and Welfare, 1977.

Thomas, Darwin L. and Wright, Andrew J. "Socialization andAdolescent Conformity to Significant Others; A Cross Analysis."American Softological Review 36: 835-47.

Tyler, Ralph W.; Mangum, Garth; Wolfbein, Seymour; and Matthews, H.Functional Education for Disadvanta ed Youth. Edited by8teriing N. 1c4urrin. gew Yor ommittee for EconomicDevelopment, 1971.

Wasson, Louise E. Ex eriential Education: A Primer on Pro rams.Columbus: National Center for Research in Vocational Educa-tion, 1978.

Watson, Robert I., and Lindgren, Henry C. EszcholChild. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

Weed, Frank J., and Ramsey, Charles E. "Slipping Away: SocialControl and Experiential Education." In pezmeg_tiyes onInvestigatin the Conse uences of Ex eriential Edudardn,edited by Michael R. Crowe and Carol A. Beckman. Columbus:National Center for Research in Vocational Education, 1979.

White House Conference on Youth. Report of the White HouseConference on Youth. Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, 1971.

White, R. P., and Ericksen, E. G. Reference Groups and Signifi-cant Others: Toward an Interface. Paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Midwest Sociological Society, St.Louis, Missouri', 21-24 April 1976.

Wirtz, Willard. "Collaboration in Smoothing the TransitionBetween Education and Work." The Work Education Exchange 1(1977).

43

Wirtz, Willard and the National Manpower Institute. The*BoundlessResource: A 'Pros ectus for an Education/Work Policy. Washing-ton, D.C.: New Republic Book Company, 1975.

Work,Experience Career Exploration Advisory Committee Report.Work Experience Career Kuloration Proiram: Evaluation andRedommendations, ED 06g:651. Minneapolis: TEN'apolis PublicSchool DiStrict 1, 1972.

.#

44

Item No.PART II

APPENDIX ASUBSCALES

Empathy.

1. Most adults respect student opinions.2. Adults are too old fashioned in their ideas.3. Adults are not able to really understand the problems

of students.15. So far as ideas are concerned, students and adults live

in different worlds.7. Adults do understand today's students.1 .r8. Adults think they have all the "right answers."9. Adults don't realize that thin9s are different today

from when they were teenagers.112. Most adults are not willing to listen to students.114. Adults are out of step with the times.15. The best way to handle adults is to tell them what

they want to hear.18. Adults are really interested in students.21. Adults are forever sticking their noses into things

that are none of their business.22. Adults don't deal with problems of students very well.23. Adults are set in their ways.

Helpfulness

10. Adults are more helpful with tough problems than friendsat school..

13. Adults are more dependable than students.16. Adults are more understanding of student problems than

other students.19. With most adults, personal problems can be openly

talked about.20. Adults' years 9f experience give them better judgment

than students.'

Communicatien

4. I feel more comfortable around people my own age thanaround adults.

6. In a group of adults, I don't say whae I think becauseI'm afraid they may not like me.

11. I feel free to say what I want around adults.17. Adults are interested in the same things that interest me.24. Most of my friends are adults.

1. Item adapted with permission from D. F. Duncan, "Measuringno Generation Gap: Attitukies Towatd Parents and Other Adults,"Adolescence, 1978, 13 (49), 77-81.

45

Item No.PART III Communication - Continued

1. How well do you feel you get along with adults?2. How often do you feel comfortable talking with your

guidance counselor?3. How often do you take tiwe to stop and talk with one of

your teachers?4. How well do you feel you get along with your teachers?5. How often do you sit down and just talk with adult members

of your family?

PART IV Consultation

2. Buying a car.3. Trying to decide what I want to do for a living

after I graduate.4. Trying to decide whether or not to go to a trade

school or vocational school after high school.5. Trying to decide whether or not to go to college.6. Trying to decide which college to attend.9. Teaching me about how to get along in the world.

46

5 5