A report on the May 22, 1969 meeting of Appalachian Adult Basic Education Demonstration Center held in Lexington, Kentucky compiled by Jude T. Cotter

Cotter, Jude T.

English

Morehead State University

9/A//-/O-/-/ THE APPALACHIAN ADULT BASIC EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION CENTER MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY GEORGE W. EYSTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMPUTERIZED EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL STATE MODULES JUDE T. COTTER EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT TABLE OF CONTENTS INT RO DU CTI ON. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 SECTION I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SECTION I I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 SECTION I II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 SECTION IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze data secured in a meetino of the Apoalachian Adult Basic Education Demonstration Center, held in Lexin9ton, Kentucky on May 22, 1959. A Computerized Evaluation Question-naire was designed to measure four (4) specific areas of endeavor. 1. Reaction to the individualized evaluation based upon an in-depth review of specific project goa ls, and the methods used by the evaluator. 2. The financial asoects of the individual state modules in terms of sufficient funds, flexible bud~et, accounting orocedures and interaction with AABEDC on financial needs. 3. To deterr.1ine the research needs as perceived by the individual state modules. Several specific areas are included in this portion of the evalu-ation. 4. To determine the deoree of cohesiveness in the state modules and the identification of the individual state modu les with AABEDC. The State Module Directors involved in this study and the title of their Project is as follows: -1-Alabama State l1odule - Adult Basic Education ~aterials Demonstration Project - Project Director - Mr. E. C. Wilson. Georgia State ~odule - Adult Basic Erlucation Recruitment Program -Project Director - Mrs. Thelma Orr. Kentucky State nodule - Lewis County Field Unit :'l.dult Basic Education Demonstration U.S. Lock and Dam Site 132 Center - Project Director -Mrs. Cleo Lykins. Kentucky State Module Proposal - Adult Basic Education - Computer Assisted Instruction - Project Director - Dr. Leonard Burkett. Mississippi State ~odule - Student Attitudes and Particioation in Adult Basic Education - Project Director - Dr. Don Seaman. Ohio State Module - Adult Basic Education Life-Centered Curricula Develoo-ment and Tea chi nq Techniques - Project Di rector - '·1r. Max ~L Way. Virginia State '1odule - Counselor-Ai des - Project nirector - Mr . Joseoh Berry. West Virginia State Module - .n. Lonq Range Follow-Up of Adult Basic Education Participants - Project Director - Mr. Richard Malcolm. For the purposes of this study, ratings below VERY GOOD are considered less than desirable, therefore two graphs are shown. In each instance the top bar graph is a combination of the EXCELLENT or VERY GOOD ratings and the bottom graph represents the GOOD rating. No rating less than GOOD was received. In some instances State Module Di rectors did not answer questions as they did not specifically related to their Project. In these instances, a "NO ANSWER" is recorded. Computer printouts giving giving detailed analysis are in the Appendix. -2-SECTION I Reaction to the individualized evaluation based upon an in-depth review of specific project goals, and the methods used by the evaluator. -3-1. How helpful was your individual eval uation to your overall project goals? r,. Exce 11 en t B. Very Sood C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Good /\la., Ga., H.Va., ')~io ,/\ la. 'lobile, ~iss., Ky. Va . - ~----·-----' 37. S~s 12.5% 2. How knowledqeable was the evaluator about your narticular strennths and weaknesses? A. Exce 11 ent 8. Very Good C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Good Va., Ky . /\la., Ala . ~ obile, Ga., \~.Va., Ohio Miss. 37.5% _ ______ __, 12. 5% -4-3. How objective was the evaluator in appraising strenoths and weaknesses? A. Excellent B. Very Good C. Good '.:>. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Ga . , •~iss., Ohio, Ky . . '\ la., Va ., I-I.Va ., /\la. '1obi le 100% 4. Did the evaluator have background experience helpful with specific probler.is? A. Yes Ala., Va . , \-I.Va., Ohio, Ky., Miss . , Ga. , Ala . Mobile B. No Yes 100% -5-5. How effectively did the evaluator interact with students and staff? A. Exce 11 ent Ala., Va., l-1.Va., Ohio B. Very Good Ky., '1iss., Ga., /\la. :•lobile C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good 100% 6. Was the e1aluator informed about specific nroject oroblems? Yes A. Yes 8. No Ala., ,,1a. :1obile, Ga., '1iss., Va., W.Va., Ohio, Kv. 100% -6-7. How realistic were the recommendations made by the evaluator? A. Exce 11 ent A 1 a. , Va. , Ohio, Ky. B. Very Good /\la. ,~obi le, Ga . , :-liss., 1.-/ . \/a . C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good 1orn 3 . Did he have a "good cirasp" of nrobl ems of your particular nroject? Yes r~o I\. Yes B. tl o Ala. Mobil e , Ga., Va ., H.Va ., Ohio, Ky. Ala., '1iss. --, 75~; --------, 25~: -7-9. How adequate was the time alloted for evaluation? A. Excellent Al a., Ky. B. Very Good C. Good Ala . Mobile, Va., Ohio Ga., i'1iss., W.Va. D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Good TOTAL RESPONSE TO SECTION I Excellent, Very Good, or Yes Good or No - ------ 8-62.5% 37.5% 90.3% 9.7% cor1~.1rnTS FOR SECTION I The qreat ma j ority of favorable resoonses to the tyne of individual eval uation received by each State i1odule v,ould indicate the desirability of continuing evaluation along similar lines . It is important to noint out that , in most states, "in- service training" was an integral part of the evaluation. Future evaluations will be more concerned with out-put than resolving probl ems connected with establishin~. However, the need to have an indivi dual who interacts well with administrators, teachers, and students is clearly indicated . -9-SECTION II The financial aspects of the individual state modul es in terms of sufficient funds, flexible budget, accounting procedures and inter-action with AABEDC on financial needs. - 10-10. How sufficient is the project budget in accomplishing goals stated in proposal? A. Excellent Ky. B. Very Good Miss., w.va., Ohio C. Good Ala., Ala. Mobile, Ga., Va. D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good 50% Good ________ =i 50% 11. How flexible is the budget in meeting individual project needs? A. Exce 11 ent B. Very Good C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Good Ala., Miss., Ky. Ala. Mobile, Ga., W.Va., Ohio Va. ---------- - ~ -11 -87.5% 12.5% 12 . How satisfactory are the current accounting procedures of AABEDC? A. Exce 11 ent B. Very Good C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Good Ala. Mobile, Ga., Ky. Ala., W.Va . , Oh io Miss., Va. 75% 25% 13. How satisfactory" are the current accounting procedures in your own project? A. Excellent 8. Very Good C. Good D. Satisfactory E. Poor Excellent or Very Good Good Ga. Ala. , Miss ., W.Va., Ohio, Ky . Ala. Mobi le , Va. -12-25% TOTAL RESPONSE TO SECTION II Excellent, Very Good, or Yes .__ ____ 7~ 71 • 9% Good or No 28 .1 % -13-COM~ENTS FOR SECTION II The financial aspects of operating an experimental proqram are of extreme importance, not only for actual cash outlays but for the psycho-logical ramifications. Whi le all of the responses to questions concerninq budget were answered in a positive manner, the number of "GOOD " responses would indicate some hesitancy on the part of the State Module Directors to feel completely comfortable about the financial asoects of the Projects. Th is may be interpreted in many ways, i.e. orioinal late fundinq, concern about refunding, amount of continuinq fundin q, etc . It is recorrmended that a special session of the next central meetinq be devoted to finances, and that the financial officer of AABEDC have increased contact with the State Module Direct0rs to advise in financial affairs . -14-SECTION III To determine the research needs as perceived by the individual state modules. Several specific areas are included in this portion of the evaluation. -15-14. Could you use help from ~~BEDC in research Desi gn? A. Yes 13. No Yes /\ la., Ala. ~~obi le, Ga., Va., H.Va ., 0hio , Ky . t1 is s . __ __j 87. 5% 12.5% 15. Could you use heln from AABEDC in data collection? A. Yes B. flo Yes No Ala., /\la. Mobile, Ga., Va . , W.Va., Ohio, Ky. '·1 i ss. 'J7.5% - --- - -- -- - --- - ·7 12. 51~ -16-16. At !t!_i.2_ time do you have compl ete records for research nurnoses? A. Yes A 1 a . : lob i1 e , ; 1 i s s . B. No Ga . , v a . , \-/ . Va . , n h i o , Ky . , I\ 1 a . Yes :lo ___ __ __ __ _J 75'.':: 17. During the next project year can you have more cornrlete records? A. Yes Ala ., Ala . Mobile, Ga., Va., ~'1. Va., :•1i ss., Ohio, Ky. B. 'lo Yes 10')% -17-18. At this time do you have pre-post test results for each student in your project? A. Yes B. No No .l\nswer Yes No No Answer Al a . , Al a . Mobil e , Va . , 1_.J • Va . Miss. , Ohio, Ky. Ga . .__ _____ -- --=i 50% 19. Durinq the next project year will it be possible to have ore-post test results on each student? A. Yes B. No No Answer /\la., Ala. "'1obile, Va., ~J.Va., Ohio , Ky. Ga.,'1iss. Yes 75% No Answer ----- - ---.- -~ 25% -18-20. Would you like to have assistance in planninq an overall data collection systen for your project? A. Yes B. No Ala., Ala. Mobile, Ga., Va . , \.J.Va ., Ohio, Ky. ~1i s s. Yes No ,------------------------TOTAL RESPONSE TO SECTION III QUESTIONS 14, 15, 20 Do you need help in research? Yes No '-------------------QUESTIONS 16, 13 Do you have adequate data? Yes ---------7 ----------No 87.5% 12. 5% 87.5% 12. 5% 37.5% - - -------_=:] 56 . 2% - -No Answer - -------------- 6.3% QUESTIONS 17, 19 Yes No Answer Are you confident that data can be collected? 12. 5~1. -19-COMMENTS FOR SECTION III The resnonses to this section clearly indicate three oatterns: l. The State t1odule Directors NEED help v1ith research methods and des ion. 2. The State ~1odu le fl irectors do not have all the da t a they need for research purposes at this time. 3. The State r~odu l e Directors are very optil'listic about securinq the necessary data for sionificant research during the next fundin~ neriod. It is recommended that intens ive wor k be conducted with the State Module Directors, startino immed iat ely, to devel oo the necessary methods to collect and store da ta. Additional recorranendat ions to implement this section are detailed i~ the FI~AL REPORT wh ich has been submi tted . -20-SECTION IV To determine the degree of cohesiveness in the state modules and the identification of the individual state modules with AABEDC. -21-21. Do you feel your project is nart of a team A. Yes Ala., Ala. Mobile , Ga., Va., I-I.Va., Miss., Ohio, Ky. B. No Yes 100% 22. Do you feel your oroject is independent of other projects? A. Yes Ala, Ala. Mobile, Ga., Va . , I-I.Va., Miss., Ohio, Ky. B. No Yes 1()()% -22-23. Do you feel more should be done to infnrm you of orooress in other nrojects? A. Yes B. No Yes No Ga. , Va., !-I.Va., Ohio , Ky . Ala., Ala. Mobile , Miss. 62 .5% ----- --- -----~, 37. 5% 24. HO\'I well - informed are the r,embers of your staff of the overall goa l s of AABEDC? A. Exec 11 ent B. Very Good Al a • , Ga • , rJ hi o C. Good Ala. 11obile, ~~iss., Va ., \LVa., Ky. D. Satisfactor~, E. Poor Excellent or Very Good ---- ---~-- ------ -~ 37 . 55~ --------------~ Good 62.5% -23-25. Central meetinris held at Morehead State University should be conducted: A. 13. C. D. E. every 3 months every 2 months every l month Ala . , /\la. Mobile, Ga., t1iss., Va., Ohio, W.Va . , Ky. only at funding time should not be hel d Every 3 months Every 2 months - ~---------24-87.5% COMMENTS FOR SECTION IV The reactions of the State Module Directors to this section of the Computerized Evaluation Questionnaire are very revealinq. 1001, of the State Directors feel they are a part of the AABEDC TEAM. 100% also feel independent. In terms of an es sprit de corns measure, this is ideal. While the State Directors have a complete feelinq of individual responsi-bility and authority to achieve individual qoals, they also have complete agreement that their efforts have an inteqral and strategic oart in achiev~ ing the overall ~oals of the AABEDC TEAM. This can only be attributable to the leadershio abilities of the Executive Director. The success of the first two Central Meetin~s is reflected in the desire to have official meetinqs at Morehead every three (3) months. It is reco1T1Tiended that central meetings be established, as indicated by the State Module Directors, every three (3) months at Morehead or another suitable location. -25-CONCLUSION The Computerized Evaluation nuestionnaire has indicated several specific areas. The overall evaluation was meaninnful and ~elDful. The State ~1odule ~irectors could use additional information concernino fin-ances. They need help and quidance with research methods and techniques. They do not have all the data they need at this time but are very confi-dent that this data can be secured durinq the next fundinn neriod. The State ~odu le Directors are well nleased with the leadershin of the Execu-tive Director, Georqe H. Eyster, as expressed in their resnonses to the feelin9 of indeoendence and tea~ ooals. A rletailed analvsis of this data, when comnared with data secured under a less formalized situation, indicated that if the recommendations in the FINAL REPORT are i molemented as soon as nossible. they will rein-force the needs and concerns expressed by the State ~1odule Directors. -26-APPENDIX -27-C t, K L A N C C O Pl. p,t L ~ I T 'Y C C L L E G E O':J/2g /69 AABECC ,_.EETING Cf t'-AY 22 1g6c; JUDE T.COTTER EVALUATION CCNSLLTAt-l ST~OEt-T t-;A,-.E- A ,-.CCULE A L RANK ThIS Tl::ST 2/ e SCCPE l: C PEllCE~T STt;OEt-T NC. - CLASS A'vEPfJGE sec PE 56 FEl<CE"T CUESTJC~ NU,..eEP Cf STUCENT RESPONSES- CORRECT RESPC"SE IS I"CICATEC ev " " tSTEl<ISK A e C C E f\ Cr-.E V CL: R f<ESPCt-SE l 4* 3 1 t 2 2* ~ 1 E 3 4* 4 e 4 8* t, 5 4* 4 t, 6 a• t, 7 4* 4 t, 8 6* 2 e g 2• 3 3 t 10 l* 3 4 C 11 3* 4 1 t, 12 3* 3 2 E 13 l* ~ 2 E 14 1* l t, 15 7• 1 t, 16 2* 5 l C 17 8* /J 18 4* 3 1 t, 1g l:* 2 t zo 1• 1 ~ 21 e• /J 22 * 8 e 23 5* 3 e 24 • 3 5 E 25 1* 1 t, C t, K L A N C C O M M l, N I 1 'Y C C L L E G E C5/2<;/6C, AAeECC ~EETING CF P' t, y 22 1 <;fc; JLl~E T.CCTTER Ev ALLA Tl c~ CC~SLLTAI\T STUCEf\T NAfitE- A r,,ceILE fJ L RANK Tt--1S TEST 7/ e SCC~E 52 PE~CEf'.T STUCEt-T t-.C. - CLA~S AVERAGE SCCPE 56 PEI-CH,T CLESTICI\ NUt,le EP CF STUCENT RESPONSES- CORRECT RESPCI\Sf: IS lt\ClCfJTED PY A I\ ASTf PISt< A e C C E I\CI\E YCLP HSFCf\SE 1 4* 3 1 e 2 2• 5 l E 3 4* 4 e 4 8* t 5 4* 4 E 6 8• A 7 4• 4 e A 6* 2 fJ g 2* ~ 3 E 10 l* 3 4 C 11 3* 4 l e 12 3* 3 2 fJ 13 l* 5 2 ( 14 1* l t 15 1• l A lb 2* 5 l A 17 8* A 18 4* 3 1 A 19 6* 2 t, 20 1* 1 A 21 8* fJ 22 * 8 e 23 5* 3 e 24 • 3 5 C 25 1* 1 A 0 /J K L A N C C O f,I M L N I T 'Y C C L L E G E 0 5/29/69 /J/JBEDC r,,EETING GF t'AY 22 1969 JUDE T.COTTER EVALl;ATICN CCNSLLT/Jt-T STUOEt-T t-.Afo' E- t,1 QCULE G ,. RANK Tt-IS TEST 5/ e SCCRE 56 PE PCENT STlJDEt-T NC. - CLAS S /J\;EP/J GE SCCRE 56 PEFCENT C: UESTICt-. NU~e ER OF STUC EN T RE SPONSE S- CCR RECT RE SPCI\ SE IS HCICAT EC ev A f\ ASTHI SK A e C 0 E f\CI\ E VCU P H SPCf\ SE l 4* 3 1 A 2 2• 5 1 E 3 4* 4 t 4 a• A 5 4* 4 E 6 8* A 1 4* 4 E 8 6* 2 t 9 2• 3 3 C 10 l* 3 4 C 11 3• 4 1 E 12 3* 3 2 A 13 l* 5 2 A 14 7• l A 15 1* l A 16 2* s 1 E 17 8* A 18 4* 3 l " 19 6• 2 " 20 1* 1 t 21 8* A 22 • 8 e 23 5* 3 /J 24 * 3 5 e 25 1• 1 ,. C /J K L A N C C O M f,1 L N I l 'Y C C L L E G E 05/29/6c; AAeECC fl'EETING CF fo/AY 22 19l:9 JUCE T.CCTTER E'vAll.:AT IC~ CCP\SLLTAr-.l STUCEf-T NAP,,E- y r--c CUL E K T RANK T t- IS lE:ST 1/ 8 SCCRE t: e PEPCEtH SlUCEf-T ~c. - CL.A5~ A~EFIAGE SCCFIE 5 l: FEFCE"'T CLESTIC~ ~Ufole EFI C F STUCENT RESP CNSES- CCKRECT RE~PCl"-SE I S 1,-CIC/JTEC EV /J " t. STEJ;ISK A e C C E t-.C~ E y CL. Fl HSPCt-.SE l 4* 3 1 E 2 L• ~ 1 t 3 4• 4 t 4 a• /J 5 4* 4 E 6 a• t 1 4* 4 t. 8 l: * 2 t. 9 2 * 3 3 t 10 l* 3 4 t. 11 3• 4 1 t. 12 3* 3 2 t. 13 1• 5 2 E 14 1• l /J 15 1• l /J 16 ;: . 5 1 E 17 e• /J 18 4* 3 l e 19 6• 2 t 20 1• l t. 21 8• t. 22 • 8 e 23 s• 3 ' 24 • 3 5 C 25 1• 1 E C I, K L t,. N C C O ~ M l.! N I l V C C L L E G E 05/2'U6g t,.ABEOC "EETI~G CF MAY 22 1g6q JL;CE T.COTTER EVALLA TI ON CC~SLLTA~T STUCE~T f\Al"E- S ~CCULE t' I RANK THIS TEST e1 8 SCCRE ~2 PERCENT STt;CE~T t-.C. - CLASS AVERAGE SCCRE 56 PERCH,T Cl:EST ICt-. ~UfoleER CF STUCENT RESPONSES- CCRRECT RESPC1\~E I ~ It-.CIC/,TEC ev A~ 1, STH ISK f,. e C C E ~CNE Y(LR FESFC~SE l 4* 3 l E 2 2* 5 l C 3 4* 4 ,, 4 8* f,. 5 4* 4 E 6 B* f,. 7 4* 4 e 8 6* 2 e q 2* 3 3 C 10 l* ~ 4 E 11 3* 4 l f,. 12 3* 3 2 C 13 l* 5 2 e 14 1* 1 e 15 7* 1 E 16 2* 5 l I 17 8* f,. 18 4* 3 l e 1q 6* 2 ~ 20 1* l e 21 e• ,, 22 * 8 e 23 5* 3 E 24 * "l 5 C 25 1* 1 fJ L /l ~ L /l I" L, l.. u "' ,., l. l'4 l I y L. L L L t u t C';/ 2'i /f:.c; •,\BECC ,-EETING CF ,,.y 2'2 l<;t:<; JUCE T.COTTER E\/ALLATIC" CC"SLLTH•T SJ\;CEt-T "A,-E- IC f'CCUL C ~ RANK H·IS TEST 2/ e SCCl<E l: C PEPCENT STliDEt-T "c. - CLA~S A\/ER.bGE SCCRE 56 PElcCEP\T CLESTIC" f\UP,,eER CF STUCENT RESPONSES- CORRECT RESPC"SE I S lt.CIC.bTEC BY .b " ASTEPISI< .b e C C E t-Ct.E YCLR HSPCt-SE l 4* 3 l t 2 2• 5 1 e 3 4• 4 .b 4 e• t 5 4• 4 I 6 e• .b 7 4• 4 A 8 6* 2 t 9 2• 3 3 E 10 1• 3 4 e 11 3* 4 1 E 12 3* 3 2 e 13 1• 5 2 E 14 1• 1 I 15 1• l .b 16 2• 5 1 E 17 a• t 18 4• 3 1 E 19 6* 2 .b __ 20 1• l .b 21 e• A 22 • e E 23 s• 3 t 24 • 3 c; e ~ 25 7• 1 .b C A K L A N C C O M ~ L N I T ~ C C L L E G E AABECC f'IEETING CF MAY 22 19~G JUCE T.COTTER EVALUATIC~ CC~SLLTA~T .STUOE~T NAfilE-STUCE~T f\C. -Cl,;ES TI Ct\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~CDULE VA RANK THIS TEST 2/ 8 SCCRE CLASS A~ERAGE SCCRE 60 PEPCE~T 5t PERCEhT NU~eER OF STUCENT RESPONSES- CORRECT RESPC~SE IS I~CICATEC ev ~~ ~STEl<ISK A B 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 ~ l l 5 3 1 e 3 3 1 C l l 3 4 l 2 2 1 5 C E l 2 YCLR l<ESPC~SE C fJ K L A N C C O ,,_ "4 l: N I T 'Y C C L L E G E 05/29/69 AAeEcc P'EET ING CF M/JY 22 19f9 JUDE T.COTTER EVALl:ATIG" CCI\SLLTAl',l STlJOEl',l NA~E- \/A ,,_CCUL ~ RANK THIS TE ST 5/ e SCCRE 5t PEFCE~T STUOEl',T NC. - CL/JSS AVER/JGE SCCF<E 56 PEJ.CE~T C:LESTICf\ NUfoleER Cf STUCENT RESPONSES- CCRRECT RESPCf\SE I S l1',CJC/JTEC ev fit,, tSTEl<ISK Ii e C C E I\Cf\E 'rCL R J.ESFCI\SE 1 4* 3 1 t 2 2* 5 1 E 3 4* 4 e 4 a• ~ 5 4* 4 Ii 6 e• t 7 4* I. E 8 6* 2 Ii 9 2• 3 3 ( 10 1* 3 4 E 11 3* 4 1 E 12 3* 3 2 e 13 l* 5 2 e 14 1* 1 Ii 15 1* 1 t 16 2• ~ 1 E 17 e• fJ 18 4* 3 l fJ 19 t• 2 ~ 20 1* 1 Ii 21 a• fJ 22 • 8 e 23 5* 3 t 24 * 3 5 ( 25 1* l fJ C f, K L A N C C O M "1 U N 1 l 't C C L L E G E 05/2'1/69 ,HBEDC ~EETING CF pi, f, y 22 }c;t;<; JUCE T.CCTTER EVALl:ATICN CCI\SLLTAf\l CLESTICI\ NU~eER OF STUCENT RESPONSES- CORRECT RE SPCf\ SE IS 11\0ICATEO BY f, " f.STERISK f, B C 0 E I\Cf\E l 4* 3 l 2 2* ,:; ., 1 3 4* 4 4 e• 5 4* 4 6 e• 7 4* 4 8 6* 2 9 2* 3 3 10 l* 3 4 11 3* 4 1 12 3* 3 2 13 l* 5 2 14 1* l 15 1• 1 16 2* 5 1 17 8* 18 4* 3 l 19 6* 2 20 1• 1 21 8* 27 * 8 ~3 s• 3 24 * 3 ,:; 25 7• 1 AvERA~E SCCRE- 56 -i - I ---, I -i ---, ---, -, I ---, ---, - I --, L ~ I'- L A l't l l, u ,., ,.. l, N 1 I T l, L L L t l, t U?/~'110'1 .AABECC P'EETJNG CF PUY 22 l'H:g JUCE T.COTTER EVALUA TICN CCNSLLT.AI\T STUCEflT I\A"1E ss NUMEER RANK ON E)(A~ SCORE CN EXAfl PER CEI\T .A flCCULE .A L 2/ e 15/ 25 .60 .A ll'C8ILE .A L 1/ e 13/ 25 .52 fo/CCULE G A 5/ E 14 / 25 .56 s Pl CCU LE "' I e1 e S/ 25 .32 PIC CUL E V .A 2/ 8 15/ 25 .60 V .A ~CCUL W 5/ 8 14 / 25 .56 JC ► CCUL C 1-- 2/ e 15/ 2 5 .6C y PICCULE I< T 1/ e 17/ 25 .68 

Computerized Evaluation of Individual State Modules

https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=aabedc_archives

Computerized Evaluation of Individual State Modules

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Morehead State University