UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc...TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OP TABLES v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Background

AH EVALUATION OF SELECTED

WOODWORKING PROJECTS

APPROVED:

Graduate Committee:

-7f. Major Professor

Minor\Professor

Comm

Com^^tee v:emb

at ion Dean o$p the School ^

Ic/Âjlruûi—^ Dean of the Graduate School

AN EVALUATION OP SELECTED


DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

Philip W. Hansen, B. S., M. Ed,

Denton, Texas

August, 1970

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OP TABLES v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Background and Significance of Study Limitations Delimitations Basic Assumptions Procedure for Collecting Data Selection of the Jury Procedure for Treating Data

II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE 13

Historical Background The Objectives of Industrial Arts Criteria for Developing Objectives Summary

III. AN EVALUATION OF ONE HUNDRED SELECTED WOODWORKING PROJECTS 2 6

Development of Criteria Evaluation of Junior High School Projects Evaluation of Junior High-High School

Projects Evaluation of High School Projects Evaluation of High School-College Projects Evaluation of Junior High School-High

School-College Projects

IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, INFERENCES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73

Findings Conclusions Inferences Recommendations

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

APPENDIX A 79

APPENDIX B 110

APPENDIX C 133

APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

APPENDIX E 176

BIBLIOGRAPHY 179

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pages

I. Data Concerning the Suitability of Thirty-©ne Projects for Use at the Junior High School Level 52

II. Data Concerning the Suitability of Twenty-three Projects for Use at the Junior High School-High School Level 55

III. Data Concerning the Suitability of Four Projects for Use at the High School Level 59

IV. Data Concerning the Suitability of Thirty-nine Projects for Use at the High School-College Level 62

V. Data Concerning the Suitability of Three Projects for Use at the Junior High School-High School-College Level . . . . . 67

v

LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Instrument Developed for Evaluating Projects

78 2-32. Project Drawings Rated Suitable for

Use at the Junior High School Level . . . 79.. 109

33-55. Project Drawings Rated Suitable for Use at the Junior High School-High School Level * . . . 110-


Use at the High School Level . 133-136

60-98. Project Drawings Rated Suitable for Use at the High School-College Level . . . 137-


Use at the Junior High School-High School-College Level . . . . . . . . . . . 176-

178

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Students in industrial arts courses traditionally begin

with units in woodworking, whether in college or on the sec-

ondary level. Industrial arts teachers obtain projects for

these woodworking units from scattered and sometimes unrelated

sources. Most of these projects have not been evaluated

as to their utility in meeting the objectives of industrial

arts.

Statement of the Problem

The problem is to determine the relevance of selected

woodworking projects to the commonly accepted objectives of

industrial arts woodworking.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of the study is twofold: first,

to develop a set of criteria that can be used effectively

to evaluate projects that will develop in students those

skills and concepts emphasized in the goals and objectives

of industrial arts; and second, to evaluate these projects by

using evaluative criteria developed for that purpose. After

the completion of the study, a convenient source book of

projects for teachers will be compiled.

The evaluative criteria are based on the objectives of

industrial arts as determined by a review of the literature

in industrial arts.

Background and Significance of Study

Many industrial arts teachers contend that students

should be allowed to choose and design their own projects;

however, there are others who have found this procedure to

be unsatisfactory. They find that students have difficulty

developing ideas for use in designing and planning projects

that will meet the minimum requirements for fulfilling desig-

nated objectives of the course. Most teachers find it

difficult to locate projects that will develop in the students

the desired outcomes as stated in many of the objectives of

industrial arts. The available projects come from scattered

and unrelated sources and in some cases are not adequate to

meet the predetermined objectives. Some of the projects found

in current periodicals are of unsound design; for example,

students may have difficulty in interpreting working draw-

ings, which would subsequently result in poor construction

and joinery. Therefore, there is a definite need for a

source book containing superior projects covering a wide

range of styles and levels of difficulty.

The "project" as used in industrial arts is frequently

quite different from the meaning given to the word in some

areas of general education. Rather than referring to efforts

applied to any purposeful activity, the project in industrial

arts results in a concrete object (6, p. 1^5). The use of

the project in industrial arts was introduced over fifty

years ago and is a combination of three methods of instruction

used in the manual training era. The Russian System of manual

training which was in use from 1876 to 1913 concentrated on

the exercise method to develop a definite skill. In this

system there was pronounced interest in the finished product

resulting from the exercise rather than in the degree of skill

exhibited. The Swedish Sloyd System introduced the idea of

producing a completed object which would contain certain

exercises to be taught. However, the exercise method was

still used to develop a skill before the project was attempted,

At the same time, the arts and crafts influence was gaining

momentum and emphasized good design as well as a high degree

of craftsmanship. The merger of these three ideas culminated

in what was called manual arts (6, pp. 1^5-1^6).

The manual arts movement eventually encompassed a much

broader area to become industrial arts. The exercise method

is still used in a limited way; however, the project is

recognized as the vehicle or the means to teach the meaning

of industry (6, p. 1^6).

The student usually views the project as the most

important part of his industrial arts course. The only

opportunity some students have to experience the pride of

accomplishments in their school work is through the

completion of a project in an industrial arts course. Even

if the project is poorly constructed, the student frequently

takes pride in the fact that it is something he has created.

The primary purposesof the project should be (1) to encourage

the acquisition of certain information concerning materials,

tools, and processes of industry, and (2) to develop a degree

of skill in using the materials, tools, and processes of

industry (6, p.

The study of the tools, materials, and processes of

industry takes place at several levels in the schools. The

junior high school industrial arts courses are usually

introductory in nature. The students are provided varied

opportunities for planning and constructing simple projects.

Emphasis is placed on planning the project and making proper

use of the basic materials and tools (4, p. 51)*

In the high school, industrial arts provides for a

variety of experiences in construction, maintenance, finish-

ing, and repair experiences with wood and wood products.

Attention should be given to acquiring skill in executing

the above experiences. There should be an emphasis on the

use of power tools by the students, but this should depend

upon the maturity of the student. Approximately twenty

per cent of the class time should be spent on demonstrations

and related information (^, p. 68).

Some students in high school will spend time in the

woodworking laboratory further developing their skills.

Students at this level should be allowed to select an area

of woodworking that is of interest to them. Some of these

areas might be furniture making, cabinet making, or some

other area of the woodworking industry. At this level,

the design, maintenance, and manufacture of wood products

should be given special attention (4, p. 76).

There has been tacit approval of the project as the

primary motivating force in the teaching of industrial

arts. This, plus an opportunity to participate actively in

the construction process, has been a principal technique of

the industrial arts teacher in stimulating students (3,

p. 111).

The project is important to industrial arts and because

of this importance, it would be desirable to make an inten-

sive study of what the project means to industrial arts

(3, p. 112). This undertaking would require appraisal of the

relationship between the project and the objectives of indus-

trial arts.

The project as it is used in an industrial arts labora-

tory is often the object of criticism. Some of this criticism

is justified, particularly when the teacher does not realize

the importance and the true role of the project. When the

project is used strictly for display purposes or strictly

for the sake of fabrication, there is reason for criticism.

When used properly, the project is of extreme importance

in meeting the goals of industrial arts (2, p. 111).

According to Fales and Orendorf, "Industrial arts is

known best for its most distinguishing characteristic, i. e.

shop work. Take this away and it will be reduced to purely

an abstract subject" (2, p. 14).

Welcome Wright presented a similar point of view when

he stated:

To de-emphasize the project would be nothing more than going against a rich and most important heritage. When and if we do place less emphasis on this project, industrial arts will be nothing mace than another academic course, and we will very definitely be striving for recognition as well as survival. The place and function of the project in industrial arts are most important. By means of it, industrial arts can and does offer students educational experiences that are most important, distinct, and significant (5» .

p. 62).

One problem that confronts every teacher is deter-

mining the latitude the student should be given in selecting

and planning his project. There are several ways that this

problem can be solved or minimized. One solution is for the

teacher to select several projects for use in the course and

require that the student work on one or more of the selected

projects. Another solution is to allow the student to make

any project that he pleases. The latter practice is difficult

to administer and does not lend itself to organizing a con-

crete body of instruction around the projects. Another

practice is a combination of the above. The teacher can

select a series of projects that incorporate the desired

concepts and skills to be taught, then alternate projects

that entail the same learning experiences can be listed under

each major concept and skill. This practice allows for the

different interests of the students and at the same time

charts the direction of the course (2, p. 27).

In the past, the writers in the field of industrial

arts were not able to completely agree on any one set of

objectives (2 , p. 27)0 Many of the objectives that were

listed for industrial arts were common to other areas of

general education; for example, creative thinking, good

citizenship, and healthy attitudes. Even though there is no

common list of objectives, there are some objectives that

are common to most lists. Through an analysis of these lists

of objectives, an attempt will be made to develop a set of

criteria for evaluating projects for use in an instructional

program.

A set of criteria based on the objectives of industrial

arts will be helpful in evaluating projects. Supposedly,

the projects usually found in the current literature

have not been formally evaluated for their relationship to

the objectives of industrial arts. The development of a set

of criteria will enable the teachers to be more objective

in selecting projects. Furthermore, the evaluation of the

projects as conducted in this study will make it possible

to compile a source book of projects for teachers.

8

Limitations

All the woodworking projects used "by industrial arts

teachers were not available. This study was limited to

those that were available to the investigator.

Delimitations

For the purpose of this study, the following delimi-

tations were imposed:

1. The study was limited to 100 projects related to

the woodworking area in industrial arts. The number of pro-

jects found was so large that it would have been difficult

to evaluate all of them; therefore, similar projects were

eliminated. Projects that involved the same skills and pro-

cesses were not duplicated.

2. To select the projects for the study, the text-

books, handbooks, and periodicals used were limited to those

published after 1955*

3. To determine what the commonly accepted objectives

of industrial arts are, the survey was limited to period-

icals, books, and reports.

The members of the jury were selected from indus-

trial arts faculties of colleges and universities.

Basic Assumptions

The design of this study was based on these assumptions:

1. Projects are desirable and necessary in teaching

woodworking in industrial arts.

2. The jurors, who are nationally known industrial

arts educators, maintained a high degree of objectivity in

their evaluation.

Procedure for Collecting Data

In order to determine what the criteria for the project

evaluation should "be, a survey of the current literature in

the field was made to identify the presently accepted objec-

tives of industrial arts and from these, criteria were developed

"by sub-dividing the objectives to their smallest components

and having each project rated to ascertain how well it would

meet each particular criterion.

To select projects for use in the study, a survey of

textbooks, handbooks, magazines, and other literature in

the field was made to determine those projects that were

commonly listed and recommended. The periodicals surveyed

were the Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, School

Shop, and The Industrial Arts Journal. The textbooks and

handbooks surveyed were limited to those books published

since 1955- Other literature surveyed included material

published by Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Pittsburg,

Pennsylvania, and drawings of woodworking projects that

were drawn by students of the Industrial Arts Department of

North Texas State University. Also, teachers in the secondary

schools and colleges were asked to contribute drawings of

10

projects. Only those teachers known personally to the

investigator were contacted.

Selection of the Jury

The members of the jury were selected from colleges

and universities listed in the I968-I969 Industrial Teacher

Education Directory ( 1) which had one or more full-time

woodworking instructors. The jurors were chosen from

colleges and universities that are recognized as outstanding,

and as people who are leaders in the field of industrial arts

woodworking. The selection was made by consulting the staff

members of the Industrial Arts Department of North Texas

State University to determine what schools they considered

to have a strong woodworking program and which teachers

were the outstanding teachers. Thirteen college teachers

were suggested. Invitations were sent to thirteen people

to participate in the study as members of the jury. Of

this group, ten replied that they would be willing to par-

ticipate. Seven of the ten returned the completed evaluation

forms.

Procedure for Treating Data

The data collected were presented in table form. The

projects were divided into five groups as determined by the

jurors. The divisions included projects that were considered

to be suitable for junior high school, high school, junior

high and high school, high school and college, and projects

11

suitable for all levels. The level of suitability was

reported as that level assigned to a project by more than

one-half of the jury members.

The ratings were based on a five*-point scale using

excellent, good, average, below average, and poor. A

numerical value was assigned to each rating in the following

manner: five for excellent, four for good, three for average,

two for below average, and one for poor. When the rating

scales were returned, the mean was computed for the total

value of each project as evaluated by each criterion. An

overall rating was assigned to each project by reporting

the mean rating of all the criteria.

Space was provided for any additional comments a jury

member wished to make. These comments are reported in

Chapter III.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Industrial Teacher Education Directory. Homewood, Illinois, Goodheart-Wilcox Company, 1968-69.

2 . , Problems and Issues in Industrial Arts Teacher Education. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1956 •

3. -Research in Industrial Arts Education. Ninth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and. McKnight Publishing Company, i960.

i*. Commission of Vocational Education and Industrial Arts, Texas Curriculum Studies. Report Number 13. Austin Texas, Texas Education Agency, 1959*

5. Hostetler, Ivan, John Mitchell, Howard 0. Reed, and Welcome E. Wright, "The Future Role of the Project In Industrial Arts," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, Volume 49 (October, 19 60), 2k-6o.

6. Wilber, Gordon 0., Industrial Arts in General Education. Scranton, Pennsylvania, International Textbook Company, 19^9•

1 o

CHAPTER II

SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE

The first fifty years of the twentieth century pro-

duced the most spectacular technological growth in the history

of the world. Fifty-eight per cent of the people employed

in industry today are working at jobs that did not exist

fifty years ago (19, p. 11). The products of this half

century are so numerous that it would be impossible to list

an adequate representation of them here. Industrial arts is

a study of this industry, its products, and its changes. If

industrial arts is a study of industry, then its objectives

should reflect this fact.

Historical Background

The origin of industrial education is lost in the past,

but the nations of old obviously depended upon forms of

industry and upon craftsmanship for economic and civil

survival. The products of the forge and the field brought

wealth to these nations through commerce, and provided

materials for war, The fact that craftsmanship was highly

developed can be inferred from the artifacts that remain to

identify these early cultures. For many hundreds of years,

the process of teaching and learning industrial craftsmanship

was a family affair, conducted largely through the father-son

13

14

and master-apprentice relationships. That this was the case

seems to be quite clear from the records of Greece, Rome, and

the Middle Ages.

During the Renaissance and the Reformation, something

similar to formal industrial education came into "being.

The guilds had given a mark of respectability to crafts-

manship and craftsmanship itself had grown concurrently with

economic, geographical, and scientific advancement. Luther,

in his educational plans, made provision for trade education.

The general outlook of humanism, in recognizing the worth of

the common man, further strengthened the position of indus-

trial education (10, p. 21).

The education reforms of the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries, in theory, provided for industrial education and

in some instances actually included industrial related

instruction in their programs of formal education. Rousseau*s

Emile was destined to become not just a carpenter, but a

craftsman of high distinction who was well educated in

other areas. Mulcaster's school placed emphasis upon drawing

as an element of instruction (10, p. 21).

During the nineteenth century, positive gains of lasting

significance were made in the utilization of the elements

of industry in education. With his homespun philosophy and

practical ideas about education, Pestalozzi became a center

of attraction for educators in Europe and America, and his

15

ideas proved fruitful in the United States. Aided by money

and scientific evidence, Fellenberg, Froebel, and Hebart

created educational environments that advanced the early

Pestalozzian gains in the United States. Their influences

were a supplement to the existing apprenticeship systems,

the lyceums and mechanics institutes, and the many societies

of craftsmen; these influences gave sustenance to the

development of some special schools in which industrial

education was given new emphasis (15, pp. 152-188).

In this manner a new education emerged in America in

the late nineteenth century. Into the crucible went tradi-

tional educational ideas, social needs, economic needs,

patterns of educational reform, and new ideas from the

Hussians and the Scandinavians to form the beginnings of

manual and trade education ( 7» PP. 28-29).

As industrial development in America proceeded to

become the dominant factor in the economic life, its impli-

cations for education commanded attention. For half a century

the forces of manual labor schools, lyceums, mechanics insti-

tutions and associations of craftsmen placed an emphasis on

the need for industrial education. These forces operated

outside the mainstream of public education. Rather than

being an integral part of the general social development,

they were more of a convenience. Around 1870, the situation

had reached a critical state in that the needs were great

but the solutions were not adequate. From I87O to 1906

•16

discussions and actions were focused upon the general problem

of industrial education. Out of this discussion came the

foundation of a new era in education (.8., pp. -8- 9 )•

One of the first leaders in the industrial education

field was Calvin N. Woodward. Around I870 Woodward estab-

lished the first manual training school in St. Louis,

Missouri. Woodward combined theory and practice, indicating

that things studied and taught had immediate and intrinsic

value and that a student could not understand a process or

an experiment until he had performed it. Woodward said,

"It is the best aid towards securing a wholesome intellectual

culture, and it is the only means for making that culture

of practical use" ( 26'» p. 256).

According to Robert Seidel, a Swiss educator, "Our

present school exists on the presumption that it is the

product of our present civil society" (23, p. ). Since

the present civil society was based on industry, it was

necessary to teach industry in the schools. Seidel knew of

the influence of the practical Pestalozzi and of the changes

in education in Germany, France, and America. He believed

the change was inevitable. He believed this so strongly

that he predicted as follows:

So surely as with civil society the ideas of the culture of mankind, natural development and observation made their way into the ped-ogagy of the time, so surely with the new order of society will its principle, labor, achieve its citizenship in the system of education. Struggling against it is in vain.

17

The future in the state as well as in ped-ogagy5 belongs to labor (23, pp. 10-11).

Charles H. Keyes, President of the National Education

Association, Department of Manual Training, in 1900 made

known that he had received many letters from different parts

of the country concerning the need for more public trade

schools. The letter also indicated that the schools should

include more business, vocational or trade instruction,

without sacrificing their general cultural aims. Keyes

pointed out that manual training leaders had been steadfast

in their point of view that manual training was completely

educational and did not have economic or utilitarian aims.

Keys urged the National Education Association and

Department of Manual Training to remember that a large number

of the students in the manual training schools would go into

the trades and that a year or two of manual training would

increase the ability and general intelligence of the students

headed in that direction. Also, it was the mission of the

school to help the individual discover himself, and this

mission could not be achieved better than in the area of

manual training (8", p. ij-6).

George Henry Jensen advocated industrializing manual

arts. In brief, his point of view was that, "A newer con-

ception must vitalize the work and give the boys along with

their manual arts the elements of practical training for

industrial pursuits" (21, p. 23). Jensen had no intention of

18

making factories out of the schools, but he did believe that

one of the weaknesses of manual training was the lack of

attention to the technical side of the subject. Students

knew little about the manufacture of the tools used and less

about their material value (21, p. 23).

By 1922, shopwork had made gains that were significant

enough to justify it on the basis of its educational value.

Maintaining the program so that it did in fact continue to

contribute valuable educational experiences depended to a

1 arge extent upon evaluation of the student and on good

records ( 7, p. 245).

About 1910 the term industrial arts began to find

acceptance. The term manual arts gave an improved design

concept to manual training, and industrial arts represented

a further refinement of purpose and direction (7, p. 2^0).

The Objectives of Industrial Arts

Few groups of educators have pursued quality in their

instruction as relentlessly as have the industrial arts edu-

cators. It is quite possible at any point in time, from the

beginning of manual training, to document the professional

activities related to the improvement of instruction. Many

critics have suggested that industrial arts educators could

not agree concerning either acceptable objectives or content

of their program. They also said they lacked a clear-cut

view of the standards to be expected of students.

19

Warner, in 1920, made an extensive and lengthy study

of the objectives of industrial arts to determine which

objectives were used during the fifty year period preceding

1928. Fifteen objectives selected were as follows:

1. Exploration 2. Educational guidance 3. Vocational guidance 4. Consumer knowledge and appreciation 5. Household mechanics 6. Social habits and attitudes 7. Pre-vocational purposes 8. Avocational purposes 9. A degree of skill 10. The seven cardinal principles 11. Mechanical intelligence 12. Correlation with other subjects 13. Developing the "Faculties" 14. Coordinating the "hand and eye" 15. Vocational training (24, p. 34)

In I927 at the American Vocational Association convention

a committee was formed to develop standards of attainment in

industrial arts teaching. The committee's initial report

was based on a study of those things a boy should be able to

do and know at the end of the junior high school period (7,

p. 181).

Further study was done on the objectives, procedures,

curriculum problems, practical applications of methods and

materials and other related subjects. The final report was

presented in 1934. The objectives as stated in 1934 are as

follows:

1.- To develop in each pupil an active interest in industrial life and in the methods of pro-duction and distribution.

2. To develop in each pupil the ability to select wisely, care for, and use properly the things he buys or uses.

2Q

3. To develop in each pupil an appreciation of good workmanship and good design.

To develop in each pupil an attitude of pride or interest in his ability to do useful things.

5. To develop in each pupil a feeling of self-reliance and confidence in his ability to deal with people and to care for himself in an unusual or unfamiliar'situation.

6. To develop in each pupil the habit of an orderly method of procedure in the performance of any task.

7. To develop in each pupil the habit of self-discipline which requires one to do a thing when it should be done, whether it is a pleasant task or not.

8. To develop in each pupil an attitude of readiness to assist others when they need help and to join in group undertakings (cooperation).

9. To develop in each pupil a thoughtful attitude in the matter of making things easy and pleasant for others.

10. To develop in each pupil a knowledge and understanding of mechanical drawing, the interpretation of the conventions in drawings and the working diagrams, and the ability to express his ideas by means of a drawing.

11. To develop in each pupil elementary skills in the use of the more common tools and machines in modifying and handling materials, and an understanding of some of the more common construction problems (6, p. 12).

The great influence resulting from the Standards of

Attainment in Industrial Arts Teaching (g) w a s evidenced in

the statement in another American Vocational Association

publication which is as follows: "It is probable that no

21

other publication in the field of industrial arts has been

used by so many teachers. Certainly none has exercised

equal significance upon the progress of industrial arts in

public education in this country" (5, p. 7)»

By 1939 it was recommended that a revision of the

standards should be made. Some of the material in the 193^

report did not appear to be applicable to the major problems

of 1939. Many suggestions had been made for revision due

to new material. The revision was completed in 19^6.

The revised list of objectives was stated as follows:

These purposes or assumed outcomes of indus-trial arts work are stated in terms of teacher attempts rather than in the usual terms of departmental or field aims. They should be con-sidered as cumulative and unified rather than as nine distinct ends or effects.

1. Interest in industry. To develop in each pupil an active interest in industrial life and in the methods and problems of production and exchange.

2. Appreciation and use. To develop in each pupil the appreciation of good design and workmanship, and the ability to select, care for, and use industrial products wisely.

3. Self discipline and initiative. To develop in each pupil the habits of self-reliance, self discipline, and resourcefulness in meeting practical situations.

4. Cooperative attitudes. To develop in each pupil a readiness to assist others and to join happily in group undertakings.

5. Health and safety. To develop in each pupil desirable attitudes and practices with respect to health and safety.

2.2

6. Interest in achievement. To develop in each pupil a feeling of pride in his ability to do useful things and to develop worthy leisure time interests.

7. Orderly performance. To develop in each pupil the habit of an order, complete and efficient performance of any task.

8. Drawing and design. To develop in each pupil an understanding o'f drawings, and the ability to express ideas by means of drawings.

9. Shop skills and knowledge. To develop in each pupil a measure of skill in the use of common tools and machines, and an under-standing of the problems involved in common types of construction and repair (5> p. 51)-

Twenty thousand copies of the bulletin, Improving

Instruction in Industrial Arts, were distributed, which

indicates the interest of the industrial arts educators in

the improvement of their programs (7 > P« 183). These state-

ments of objectives were something tangible, a foundation

for future development. A program development based on a

common set of objectives could produce standards of perfor-

mance and become the basis for extensive evaluation (7 ,

p. 183).

In 1951 another revision of the bulletin published in

1946 was made. The objectives as stated in the 19^6

revision were kept but a more detailed explanation was made

of each objective (4, p. 3).

In 1938 the United States Office of Education published

Industrial Arts: Its Interpretation in American Schools,

which contains the following objectives for industrial arts:

23.

In the Junior High School;

1. Provides information regarding industry and workers.

2. Reveals employment opportunities offered by industry.

3. Satisfies the boy's and girl's desire to create useful things.

4. Develops hobby and handyman interests and abilities.

5. Contributes to the tastes and judgment of the prospective consumer.

6. Develops interest and ability in home repairs and maintenance.

7. Affords practice in safety related to the school, home and industry.

8. Gives opportunity for cooperative effort in groups.

9. Illustrates and vitalizes the academic subjects.

In the Senior High School; '

1. Develops an appreciation of design and quality in manufactured products.

2. Provides practice in the use of materials and tools for recreation and home utilization.

3. Samples a variety of industries, through advanced school courses, in preparation for entrance as a beginner into the skilled trades or into college courses in engineering and architecture T 1^ pp. 4-1—61).

In 19^8, Gorden 0. Wilber formulated the following

objectives of industrial arts:

1. To explore industry and American industrial civilization in terms of its organization, raw materials, processes and operations, products, and occupations.

2k

2. To develop recreational and avocational activities in the area of constructive work.

3. To increase an appreciation for good crafts-manship and design, both in the products of modern industry and in artifacts from the material cultures of the past.

k. To increase consumer knowledge to a point where students can select, "buy, use, and maintain the products of industry intelligently.

5. To provide information about and, insofar as possible, experiences in the basic processes of many industries, in order that students may be more competent to choose a future vocation.

6. To encourage creative expression in terms of industrial materials.

7. To develop desirable social relationships, such as cooperation, tolerance, leadership, and follower-ship and tact.

8. To develop safe working practices.

9. To develop a certain amount of skill in a number of basic industrial processes (.25 > pp. 57-83).

Comparing the objectives that were debated in 1928 with

the objectives found in some of the state and local indus-

trial arts publications may reveal the progress, or lack of

progress, that has been made on this fundamental aspect of

industrial arts education.

The following list of objectives was taken from a

Mississippi bulletin on industrial arts:

Knowledge and Industrial Procedures. To develop an interest in and an understanding of representative industrial environments through information, observation, and study of methods, materials, and processes of industrial production and distribution.

25

2. Consumer Knowledge or Related Information. An evolutionary improvement in the knowledge and ability of prospective consumers in reference to appreciation, selection, care, and use of all industrial materials.

3« Skills and Techniques. The development of skills and techniques in the use of common tools and machines; a working knowledge of the qualities and characteristics of the most often used materials sufficient for the purpose of ful-filling the needs of an average citizen.

Exploratory Opportunities. Exploring and find-ing values through developmental shop or laboratory type experiences, revealing student interests and aptitudes for possible vocational pursuits, leisure time activities, or the selection of other courses in school.

5. Appreciation. Experiences leading to the development of a background which permits under-standing and response to such problems as appro-priateness of material to use, quality of workmanship, good design, taste, and function.

6* Leisure Time Interests. To develop within the student an awareness of the variety of tasks per-formed in our industrial environment, and the interesting possibilities of continuing with some form of the activity as a hobby.

?• Vocational Guidance. A program of study, visual aids, and field trips to various industries", and development experiences, affording opportunities to discover individual aptitudes, abilities, and interests.

8* Handyman Activities. To develop household mechanics or handyman abilities through dexterity in the use of tools and materials in making ordinary repairs to household equipment.

9* Planning. The development of a habit of orderly procedure in planning any task intelligently.

Desirable Habits and Attitudes. The development of desirable personal and social values through participation in a shop type organization where desirable work habits, attitudes, and social rela-tions are a direct outcome.

2$

11. Pride and Interest in Accomplishment. To develop in each individual an attitude of pride and interest in his ability to do useful things and a personal responsibility for property and its care.

12. Prevocational Purposes. A sampling of indus-trial training undertaken in advanced school courses with the intention of acquiring further training within a specific vocation.

13 • Social Economic Cooperation. To inculcate each individual with a knowledge and realization of the interdependence of people, of the need and value of social harmony and cooperation through group activities, projects, and studies.

1 * Self Expression and Problem Solving Attitudes. The stimulation of creative self expression and problem solving attitudes through encouragement and opportunities to plan and construct useful articles in suitable materials.

15. Vitalization of Academic Sub.iects. To unify learning and enrich the academic subjects by bringing theory and practices closer together through the use of creative work in the shop (17 » PP» 15-16).

In 1958 the Texas State Board of Education authorized

a curriculum study that included industrial arts. The

curriculum committee made its report and released it in 1959.

T-he recommendations were to have received further study

by teachers, administrators and the general public. The

objectives recommended for industrial arts are as follows:

1• Interest in Industry and Appreciation and Use of Industrial Products. To develop in each pupil an active interest in industrial life and in methods of production. To develop consumer know-ledge about industrial products.

2. Self-realization, Initiative, and Cooperation. To develop in each pupil desirable attitudes of citizenship pertaining to self-reliance, resource-fulness, and cooperation.

27

3. Interest in Cr aftsmanship. To develop in each pupil a feeling of pride in achievement and in the orderly performance of any task.

Health and Safety. To develop in each pupil desirable attitudes and practices with respect to health and safety.

5. Technical Skills and Knowledge, Drawing and Design. To develop in each pupil a measure of skill in the use of common tools and machines as applied to construction and repair, as well as an understanding of drafting and design and the ability to express ideas with drawing.

6. Application of Science, Mathematics, and Language Arts. To provide opportunities for application of science concepts and mathematics and language skills-. To communicate intelligently with others.

7. Leadership. To develop the pupil's talents in leadership through participation in class and labor-atory personnel systems (9 , pp. 6-7).

In 1959 Florida published a guide for industrial arts

that contained the following objectives.

1. Knowledge of the overall impact of industry upon society primarily through planning, design, and production in the laboratory.

2. Development of basic skills with tools and equipment commonly used by people in solving every-day problems of home living and also development of proper and safe attitudes and habits of work with tools, equipment, and materials.

3. Development of the interest and talents or discovery of the limitations of students through instructional shopwork in a variety of materials and processes which relate to future occupational choices.

4. Development of the ability to select, use, and maintain equipment and goods produced by industry and used in everyday living, such as tools and machines, motors and engines, and electrical and household appliances.

5. Promotion of wholesome and worthwhile interests and abilities in creative and constructive work with tools and craft materials for leisure time

28

and hobby activities. All activities in industrial arts classes should promote social experiences in working with others and afford opportunities to share, lead, plan, take responsibility, and cooperate in group activities (-13» PP* VI-VII).

Olson, in his Technology and Industrial Arts, gave the

following functions of industrial arts:

The functions of industrial arts are statements of the purposes for which industrial arts is intended and to which it is assigned; they together become its mission. They represent a crystallization of the aims, objectives, and goals of industrial arts. About the aims, purposes, objectives and goals for industrial arts there seems to be a rather general agreement throughout the profession; disagreement arises over implementation.

The functions, also called "objectives and guiding principles," used by Olson, are: The Technical Function, The Consumer, The Occupational, The Recreational, The Cultural, and The Social (20, PP. 77-78).

In Robinson*s study, "Trends in Industrial Arts Teacher

Education," a survey was made of teacher training institutions

and the following question was raised:

Are the AVA objectives for industrial arts sufficient for our present program? Seventy-nine of the eighty-four respondents replied to this question. Fifty-two, or sixty-six per cent agreed that the objectives were sufficient, while twenty-four, or thirty per cent, thought some changes should be made (22, p. 33).

Those people who did not agree with the AVA objectives

were quite definite in their opinions on how they should be

revised. The belief was expressed that objectives should

not be written by any one organization, but should be

written by the people who teach the subject.

29

Industrial arts must offer something that is distinct,

different, important, and significant to the education of

every boy. If it does not, it is a failure. The major

objectives must make distinct contributions to general

education. The objectives of industrial arts cannot be

the same general objectives that could be applied equally

well to social studies, physical education, home economics,

art or any other subject area. To say that we do a better

job with these objectives than the other subject areas is

not sound reasoning (12, p. 13).

According to Peirer, industrial arts can be a dis-

tinctive part of every boy's education (13, p. 13). It

can contribute something to every boy that he cannot learn

in any other area. Some may claim that to be an educated

person today one must understand some of the components of

an industrial society.

It is the responsibility of industrial arts teachers

to help the youth understand the world in which they live

and to help boys and girls discover and develop their

talents. The most certain way to discover their talents

is to provide experiences through which these talents may

appear. In gaining these experiences through using tools and

materials, there should be a relationship to problem solving,

otherwise the project becomes sheer busy work. Technology

is the dominant element in our culture and the social com-

plexities which it brings will be of increasing importance

30.

in deriving industrial arts objectives. A long list of

objectives for industrial arts as a whole is meaningless. If

agreement can be reached concerning the objectives and

emphasis to which each phase of industrial arts should be

responsive, progress can be made in determining what content

and activities, methods, and facilities are appropriate for

each.

Hostetler believes that in a total program of industrial

arts, specific objectives should be derived for the various

age levels. The various grade level objectives should be

supplemental to the four major objectives. These four

objectives are believed to be unique to industrial arts

and should be emphasized in the public school programs.

They are as follows:

1. To develop in each student an insight and under-standing of industry and its place in our culture.

No student can lay claim to being an educated person unless he has some understanding of the industrial society. It is the responsibility of the schools to help each student understand the world in which he lives. While this may be done through courses in economics, sociology, and physical sciences, these courses are often taught in such a way that the student studies about these phenomena rather than actively participating in them. Industrial arts, on the other hand, when organized to give significant learning experiences, enables the student to gain insights and under-standing through active participation.

2. To discover and develop talents of students in the technical fields and applied sciences.

One of our social responsibilities is to provide opportunities for the individual to develop to his fullest. Students in our schools

31

represent a diversity of talents. It is the school's responsibility to help students discover and develop the talents in technical fields and applied sciences. The best way to discover talents is to provide experience situations in which the talents may appear. Industrial arts provides experiences in technical education which provides the opportunity for the discovery of technical abilities.

3. To develop technical problem-solving skills related to materials and processes.

Teaching industrial arts shopwork should begin with a problem solving approach. Man had developed tools and machines to solve his problems, to get the job done more easily and quickly. As new problems arise, new tools are designed to meet these problems. To use tools and materials in industrial arts divorced from problem solving becomes busy work. The problem-solving approach, in industrial arts, when properly directed by the teacher, leads to creative thinking, the application of principles of science and mathematics, as well as technological developments.

If we oversimplify the total task of education and agree that the central purpose of education is to enable the student to solve all of his problems (emotional, social, communicative, vocational, etc.), we would then say that the purpose of industrial arts is to provide experiences which will enable the student to solve the technical problems of living in a highly industrialized age. The exper-iences provided should give the student an oppor-tunity to apply science, mathematics, and other facets of his general education to the solution of practical problems in the industrial arts shop.

4. To develop in each student a measure of skill in the use of the common tools and machines.

Skill is essential in every industrial arts program. If used properly it becomes the tool which the student uses to achieve his goals. It leads him to insights and understanding of industry, it helps him discover and develop his talents in the technical fields, and it aids in the develop-ment of problem-solving skills. If, on the other hand, it is used improperly, the student will become its slave. It becomes an end in itself, and

32

a program of industrial arts interested primarily in developing manipulative skills can hardly "be justified except for the slow learner.

To be able to use the common hand and machine tools correctly, safely and skillfully is perhaps as important to the industrial arts student as the mastery of brush techniques is to the artist, or as the skillful use of the dissecting set and micro-scope is to the student of biology. In each case, skills and techniques are means to ends and not ends in themselves. However, some of these skills are important enough to teach them on purpose. Every student should be encouraged to perform every task skillfully to the best of his ability and time available. Pride in workmanship comes from a job well done (19, pp. 19-20).

Charles E. Shoemaker, Professor of Industrial Arts at

State University of New York College, suggests nine objectives

(.1, pp. 19-33)• These objectives by Shoemaker are similar in

scope and content to Wilber's objectives that were previously

stated.

Ericson and Seefeld list ten objectives which they say

industrial arts must achieve if it is to justify itself.

These objectives are

1. Self discovery by the pupil of his own abilities and aptitudes, leading toward maturing life interests.

2. Satisfying experience in self expression through creative effort leading to material accomplishments.

3. Understanding of industry and methods of pro-duction and of the influence of industrial products and services upon the pattern of modern social and economic life.

k. Appreciation of good design and good workmanship in their application to construction and to manu-factured products.

5. Judgment and resourcefulness in selection, pur-chase, use and care of industrial products and services both in the home and in occupational life.

33

6. Ability to use tools and materials leading to household maintenance, leisure time pursuits, and in some degree to basic occupational skills.

7. Ability to read and make sketches and drawings used for illustrative and construction purposes, including the ability to read graphic and technical illustrations in books and magazines.

8. Development of maturing work habits, feeling of responsibility, and ability to plan and execute work alone and in cooperation with others.

9. Basic experience in the use of tools, machines, and materials of value in carrying on future edu-cational and professional work in scientific and technological levels.

10. Development of safety habits and fundamental safety consciousness not only in the school but in the home and in future occupational lives (11, pp. 260-261).

Any fundamental consideration of objectives for indus-

trial arts is fundamental only as it is based on a rather

clear understanding of the kind of person needed for refining,

advancing, and strengthening of the American way of life.

The objectives must contribute to the individual's under-

standing of the culture in which he is growing, developing,

and serving. They should enable him to gain a clear view of

his own capacities as a human and charge him with a faith

in human potential so that he can find increasing meaning

for his own life as he interacts with his environment.

Industrial arts should endeavor to develop an under-

stauding of the influences of technology on culture and

assist the individual in finding and developing his own

capacities for improving the culture. A person can best

understand the technology when he becomes a part of it.

3k

Most lengthy lists of objectives contain few objectives

that are -unique to industrial arts alone, but they are all

quite similar in many ways. One might ask whether such

statements show concern for the development of the total of

industrial arts and of the total of the student. Such state-

ments seem to imply an inanimate quality about industrial

arts, so much so that neither the teacher nor the pupil can

get very excited about it. There is not enough of a challenge

in most lists of objectives to stimulate or inspire a teacher

for his lifetime (20. , p. 163).

Such statements of purposes do not lead to under-

standing technology and the role of the human being in it.

They lead nowhere except to a dead-end street. Industrial

arts teachers need statements of objectives that lead them

along a broad avenue of human experience to a full view of

technology (11, p. 163).

In a study reported in Improving Industrial Arts Teach-

ing. a publication of the Office of Education, the objectives

that received the highest degree of emphasis by both prin-

cipals and teachers in public schools across the nation

were: (1) to develop in each student a measure of skill

in the use of common tools and machines; (2) to discover

and develop creative technical talents in students; (3)

develop problem-solving skills; and (^) provide all round

technical knowledge and skills. The objective of developing

an understanding of our technical culture, ranked higher

among teachers than among principals (19, pp. 6-8).

35

The National Defense Education Act, Title III Guide-

lines, recommends objectives for industrial arts that are

very similar to Hostetler's four objectives. These objec-

tives were originally to be used to determine if the money

available for industrial arts could be used for certain

items (18, p. 35).

With the objectives of the past in mind, industrial

arts teachers have a better perspective of the objectives

that are the generally accepted objectives of today.

Criteria for Developing Objectives

According to the thinking of the leaders in the field,

industrial arts should first stress overall objectives for

industrial arts and these objectives should be unique to

industrial arts. In developing any set of objectives there

are certain considerations that must be met.

After the major objectives have been identified and

there has been a consensus among the people involved, then

the following ideas can be considered. These suggestions

are to be considered as guidelines to follow in the pre-

paration of objectives.

First, the objectives of industrial arts must contribute

to and grow from the objectives of education. It seems

essential that a strategy be developed whereby the con-

tributions of education are identified and used as a guide

in the development of the schools. Once such a statement has

36

"been developed, each discipline could develop its objectives

so that they in some way contribute to the total objectives

of the school.

A second consideration should be the development of a

heirarchy of objectives. It would be helpful to have a

precise understanding as to t'he relative position of each of

the objectives in our schools. The heirarchy should range

from the overall objectives of our democratic society down

to individual objectives of each structured, activity that is

used in the school.

Third, two types of evaluation should be considered when

studying the objectives of industrial arts. An internal

evaluation to determine if the objective has been accom-

plished as stated and an external evaluation to determine

if there is any significant difference between the students

enrolled in industrial arts classes and those students who

have not been involved.

Fourth, educational objectives should be stated in

terms of the types of change expected in a learner at the

conclusion of instruction. Any objective, to be meaningful,

should communicate the teacher's instructional intent. Mager

says, "A statement of an objective describes a desired state

in the learner. We also know that we have successfully

achieved our objective when the learner can demonstrate his

arrival at this state" (l6, p. 10).

37

The fifth consideration in developing objectives is to

be aware that objectives may be classified as to the different

levels of expectations that are possible during the process

of instruction. A taxonomy is an attempt to classify the

behavior of students, the way individuals are to act, think,

or feel as the result of some unit of instruction.

Sixth, and last, the objective must give a precise

indication of how well the learner is expected to meet the

specified objective. Mager states, "If we can specify at

least the minimum accepted for each objective we will have

a performance standard against which to test our instruction

progress; we will have a means for determining whether our

programs are successful in achieving our instructional

intent" (16, p. W .

Other more specific items might be suggested but, if

the preceeding considerations are given thought as the

objectives are being developed, then the statements of

objectives will be reorganized and in order of their relative

importance. They will be written in terms of expected

behavior, classified as to the type of understanding required,

and the criteria of accepted performance precisely and

clearly stated. Objectives stated this way can be subjected

to rigorous examination and should result in findings that

will be useful as guidelines in evaluating the existing pro-

gram and in developing new programs for industrial arts (2,

P. 3^).

38

In the past, many statements of objectives have "been

made. With these guidelines in mind, one can take a more

objective view of the most recent objectives. At a time

when new discoveries and developments in technology and the

sciences are making the lag in education even greater,

developing objectives for industrial arts needs real thinking

and reasoning.

Many of the objectives and goals of industrial arts in

the past were either repetitious or geared to the popular

theories of the psychology of the time. The result of this

thinking was that the program and its justification were

open to criticism when such theories were either generally

abandoned or simply discarded in favor of newer or more

exciting theories of the learning process.

An analysis of industrial arts goals developed in the

past reveals that many of the goals were unrealistic and

untenable; others controversial. To provide a sound program

of industrial arts, clear, realistic goals are essential.

The following five are advocated by the American Vocational

Association and are believed to be unique to industrial arts:

1. Develop an insight and understanding of industry and its place in our culture.

2. Discover and develop talents, aptitudes, interests and potentialities of individuals for the technical pursuits and applied sciences.

3. Develop an understanding of industrial processes and the practical application of scientific principles.

39

4. Develop basic skills in the proper use of common industrial tools, machines, and processes.

5. Develop problem-solving and creative abilities involving the materials, processes and products of industry (3» PP* 9-11).

Summary

The objectives, as developed by the American Vocational

Association, are a refinement of the objectives of the past.

The first objective develops an insight and understanding of

industry and its place in our culture. This objective was

implied by Robert Seidel when he said, "Our present school

exists on the presumption that it is the product of our

present civil society" (23, p. 4). In Warner's study (24,

p. 3*0 this objective can be found by combining several

objectives: exploration, consumer knowledge or appreciation,

and prevocational purposes. The objectives of the American

Vocational Association in 193^ list an objective that is

very similar: "To develop in each pupil an active interest

in industrial life and in the method of production and dis-

tribution" ( 6, p. 12). An objective of very similar wording

was used by the American Vocational Association in 1946

(5> P« 5 D , Gorden 0. Wilber in 1948 (25, pp. 57-83), a

Texas bulletin, Report Number Thirteen (9,, pp. 6-7), and

by Hostetler (19, pp. 19-20).

The second objective, discover and develop talents,

aptitudes, interests, and potentialities of individuals for

technical pursuits and applied sciences, was advocated by

ko

George Henry Jenson in his belief that manual training

should concentrate more on the technical side of the sub-

ject (.21, p. 23). One of Olson's functions of industrial

arts was the technical function (20, pp. 77-78). Hostetler's

second objective, "To discover and develop talents of stu-

dents in the technical fields and applied sciences" (19,

pp. 19-20), is very similar to the American Vocational

Association's second objective.

The American Vocational Association's third objective,

develop understanding of industrial processes and the

practical application of scientific principles, was implied

by Woodward (26, p. 256). Woodward combined theory and

practice to develop understanding of processes and the

practical application of principles. Keys implied this when

he was encouraging the establishment of more manual training

schools (8, p. k6). The objective can be found in Wilber's

list of objectives (25, pp. 57-83). The first objective of

the Mississippi school bulletin, Industrial Arts for Mis-

sissippi High Schools Grades 7-12. is similar in scope (17-,

pp. 15-16). The first and sixth objectives of the Texas

Curriculum Studies. Report Number Thirteen (9., pp. 7-8),

are similar in content to the third objective of the American

Vocational Association. The third objective by Ericson and

Seefeld is similar in scope to the third objective of the

American Vocational Association (11, pp. 260-261).

41

The fourth objective of the American Vocational Asso-

ciation, develop "basic skills in the proper use of common

industrial tools, machines, and processes, is common to most

lists of objectives. This objective or one very similar to

it is advocated by Warner (24, p. 34); the American Voca-

tional Association's 1934 list of objectives (6, p. 12);

and their 1946 list (5, p. 5!)• It was also advocated in

the Office of Education publication, Industrial Arts: Its

Interpretation in American Schools: by Wilber (25, pp. 57-83);

in a Mississippi bulletin on industrial arts (17, pp. 15-16);

in the Texas bulletin, Report Number Thirteen ( 9,, pp. 6 - 7 ) ;

by Hostetler (19 pp. 19-20); and by Ericson and Seefeld

(11, pp. 260-261).

The fifth objective of the American Vocational Asso-

ciation, develop problem-solving and creative abilities

involving the materials, processes, and products of industry,

is either quite clearly stated or implied in several other

lists of objectives. The fifth objective of the 1934 report

of the American Vocational Association (6, p. 12), and the

third objective of the American Vocational Association's

1946 report (5, p. 51) implies this same concept. Wilber's

sixth objective (25, pp. 57-83) is also similar. The four-

teenth objective of the Mississippi bulletin, Industrial

Arts for Mississippi High Schools. Grades 7-12 (17 , pp. 15-16),

is quite similar to the fifth objective of the American Voca-

tional Association. Hostetler'3 third objective (19 , pp. 19-20)

b2

is almost identical to the fifth objective of the American

Vocational Association. Ericson and Seefeld's fifth and

eighth objectives combined involve a similar concept (11,

p. 261).

These five objectives of the American Vocational Assoc-

iation are not new to industrial arts. They are quite common

to many lists of objectives of the past. These objectives

appear to meet the expectations of the writers in the field

of industrial arts. They are short, concise statements that

are unique to the field of industrial arts. In light of the

objectives of the past, most of the people in the field of

industrial arts should agree that these are indeed worthwhile

objectives. They definitely contribute to the objectives

of education. They are part of a hierarchy of objectives.

They are the objectives for the overall program of indus-

trial arts and are not intended to be the objectives for

the overall school program. The objectives are stated in

terms of the types of change expected in a learner at the

conclusion of instruction. The objectives do not give a

precise indication of how well the learner is expected to

meet the specified objective. They do give some indication

of this, but it is somewhat vague.

Overall, these objectives seem to meet the majority of

the criteria set by writers in the field of industrial arts.

All industrial arts teachers should scrutinize these

objectives quite closely and try to improve them as has

been done with objectives in the past.


1. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Planning Industrial Arts Facilities. Eighth Year-book, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and. McKnight Publishing Company, 1952.

2. Status of Research in Industrial Arts. Fifteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1959.

3. American Vocational Association, A Guide to Improvins: 'Instruction in Industrial Arts. Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 1968.

ij.. , A Guide to Improving: Instruction in Industrial Arts. Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 1953*

5. , Improving Instruction In Industrial Arts . Washington, D;-'C.-;'';Atilerican Vocational Association, 19^6.

6. Standards of Attainment In Industrial Arts Teaching. Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 193^.

7. Barlow, Melvin L., History of Industrial Education In The United States. Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett Company, Inc., 1967.

8. Bennett, Charles A., "Convention Proceedings," Manual Training Magazine. Volume II, Number 1 (October, 1900), p. ^6.

9. Commission on Vocational Education and Industrial Arts, Texas Curriculum Studies. Report Number Thirteen. Austin, Texas, Texas Education Agency, 1959•

10. Eby, Frederick, Early Protestant Education. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1931*

11. Erickson, Emanuel E. and Kermit Seefeld, Teaching the Industrial Arts. Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett Company, Inc., i960.

^3

12. Feirer, John L., "Let's Take the Offensive," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education. Volume , Number 8 (June, i 9 6 0 ) , p. 1 3 .

13. A Guide: Industrial Arts in Florida Schools. Bulletin Twelve, State Department of Education, Tallahassee, Florida, 1959•

14. Industrial Arts. Its Interpretation in American Schools. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1938.

15. Krusi, Herman, Pestalozzi: His Life. Work and Influence. Cincinnati, Wilson Hinkle and. Company, 1875*

16. Mager, B. F. , Preparing Ob jectives for Programmed. Instruc-tion. San Francisco, Fearon Publishers, 19&2.

17. Mississippi School Bulletin, Industrial Arts for ' Mississippi High Schools. Grad.es 7-12, State Department of Education, Jackson, Mississippi, 1959.

18. National Defense Education Act. Title III Guidelines. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967 .

19. Office of Education, Improving Industrial Arts Teaching. Conference Beport, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, i 9 6 0 .

20. Olson, Delmar W., Industrial Arts and Technology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

21. Park, Joseph C., Some Facts Concerning Manua1 Arts and Homemaking Sub.lects in One Hundred and Fifty-Six Cities. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1916.

22. Bobinson, Walter J., "Trends in Industrial Arts Teacher Education, A Survey of Teacher Training Institu-tions," Natchitoches, Louisiana, Northwestern State College, 1959•

23. Seidel, Robert, Industrial Instruction, A Pedagogic and Social Necessity. Boston, Massachusetts, Heath and Company, 1887 .

2k. Warner, William. E. , Policies in Industrial Arts Edu-cation. Their Application to a Program for Pre-paring Teachers. Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University Press, 1928.

i+5

25. Wilber, Gorden 0., Industrial Arts In General Education. Scranton, Pennsylvania, International Textbook Company, 19^9*

26. Woodward., C. C., The Manual Training School. Boston Heath and Company, Publishers, 188?.

CHAPTER III

AN EVALUATION OF ONE HUNDRED SELECTED


The projects selected for the study came from textbooks,

handbooks, periodicals, and other literature in the field.

Some of the projects were drawn and designed by students in

the North Texas State University Industrial Arts Drafting

courses, while other projects were submitted by teachers

of industrial arts.

Two hundred and eighty-seven drawings of projects were

found through this survey. Some of the projects were very

similar. Those that were quite similar were eliminated.

To determine which projects to use for the evaluation, the

instrument that was developed for the project evaluation

was applied to the remaining projects. One Hundred selected

projects and rating scales were sent to ten jurors.

Development of Criteria

A rating scale was developed, based on the generally

accepted objectives that are unique to industrial arts, in

the following manner.

In Chapter II it was established that the five objectives

of the American Vocational Association (2, pp. 9 - H ) are

unique to industrial arts and meet the criteria set by-

some writers in the field of industrial arts (1, pp0 31-3^)•

These are generally accepted to be the broad concepts that

should be taught in the industrial arts classes. Since

these objectives depict the broad concepts to be taught,

the students in the industrial arts woodworking classes

should use projects involving the concepts to be developed.

To determine if the projects involved the concepts necessary

for the students to develop, these objectives were used as

a basis for developing the evaluative criteria.

The first objective, "Develops an insight and under-

standing of industry and its place in our culture" (2, p. 9)»

involved two basic concepts. This objective was sub-divided

into two parts. One concept emphasized the development of

an insight into the processes of industry and the second

pertained to developing an understanding of industry and

its place in our culture. These concepts were used for

the first and second criteria.

The second objective, "Discovers and develops talents,

aptitudes, interests, and potentialities of individuals for

the technical pursuits and applied sciences" (2, p. 9),

involved two basic concepts. These are to help discover

and develop talents in the technical fields, and to help

discover and develop talents in the applied sciences. These

parts were used for the third and fourth criteria.

48

The third objective, "Develops an understanding of

industrial processes and the practical application of

scientific principles" (2, p. 10), involved some similarity

to the fifth objective. The part of the objective per- .

taining to industrial processes was removed and the remainder

was used for the seventh criterion.

The fourth objective, "Develop a basic skill in the

proper use of common industrial tools, machines, and pro-

cesses" (2, pp. 10-11), involved one basic concept, develops

a basic skill. The proper use of industrial processes is

similar to the concept implied in the fifth objective, so

this part was not used. The sixth criterion depicts the

development of basic skills in the use of common tools and

common machines, and was developed from the remainder of

the fourth objective.

The fifth objective, "Develops problem solving skills

and creative abilities involving the materials, processes

and products of industry" (2, p. 11), was subdivided into

one major part and three minor parts. These parts were

developed into the fifth criterion. The fifth criterion

was stated as follows: develops technical problem solving

skills related to materials of industry, processes of

industry, and products of industry.

The five objectives, having been subdivided in this

manner, became the seven criteria used to evaluate the one

hundred selected n-rn-i p-ha

k9

The seven criteria -were placed on an instrument for

use in evaluating projects and the instrument is as follows:

LEVEL OF SUITABILITY: Jr. Hi. H.S. College The ratings will be based on your selected level of suitability.

Criteria for Determining Excel- Aver- Below Suitability of Projects lent age Avg.

1. Develops an insight into the processes of industry.

2. Develops an understanding of industry and its place in our culture. _

3. Helps discover and develop talents in the technical fields.

k. Helps discover and develop talents in the applied sciences.

5. Develops technical problem solving skills related to:

A. Materials of industry B. Processes of industry C. Products of industry

6. Develops basic skill in the use of:

A. Common tools B. Common machines

7. Develops an understanding of the practical application of scientific principles.

Comments:

Fig. 1—Instrument Developed for Evaluating Projects

50

The jurors were asked to evaluate each project on the

criteria designed to ascertain the extent to which it was suit-

able for use in achieving each stated objective. The rating

scale developed was a five-point rating scale: excellent

(abbreviated "E"), good (abbreviated "G"), average (abbreviated

"A"), below average (abbreviated "BA"), and poor (abbreviated

"P"). The five objectives were sub-divided into ten parts and

the jurors were asked to rate the project drawings based on

each part of the objective. On each rating scale a space was

provided for comments by the jurors. Also, each juror was

asked to rate each project for its level of suitability for

use at the junior high, high school, college, or some

combination.

To maintain uniformity in interpretation of the rating

t'erms, a letter of explanation was sent to each jury member.

The term "excellent" was construed to mean that the project

met the criteria to a superior degree, the term "good" was

interpreted to mean that the project met the criteria to a

high degree, the term "average" indicated that the project

basically met the criteria, the term "below average" was

interpreted to mean that the project met the criteria in

part, but was lacking in some respect, while the term "poor"

was construed to mean that the project did not lend itself

to involve even the basic concept of the criteria (3, p. 2k).

When the rating scales were returned, they were tab-

ulated on a common scale and assigned a point rating from one

to five, and the means were computed. This gave a rating

51

for the project drawings based on each criterion as well as

an overall rating.

Evaluation of Junior High School Projects

Table I gives the summary of the evaluation of the

thirty-one projects rated to identify their suitability for

the junior high school level. Drawings of these projects

can be found in Appendix A.

Each criterion is restated, and the rating assigned

tjy the jurors of the projects are as follows:

1. The project should help to develop an insight into

the processes of industry. Twenty-four projects were rated

average and seven below average.

2. The project should help to develop an understanding

of industry and its place in our culture. Fourteen projects

were rated average and seventeen below average.

3. The project should help discover and develop talents

in the technical fields. Twenty-two projects were rated

average, while nine projects were rated below average.

The project should help discover and develop talents

in the applied sciences. Twelve of the projects were rated

average and nineteen were rated below average.

5. The project should help to develop technical problem-

solving skills related to materials, processes, and products

of industry. There were twenty-six projects rated average

and five projects rated below average.

52 TABLE I

DATA CONCERNING THE SUITABILITY OF THIRTY-ONE PROJECTS FOR USE AT THE JUNIOR

HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Project

and

Number

O 1 n3 -P o a G d c & a in cd C cd a •H CO •H -P •H rH •H co 0 >> CO nd CO cd Ph CO ft-P co Ph a d 0 0 ft to a 0 ft CO Tj 0 O & CO -P O cdnd JH ?H > O -P «H CO > O -P 0 O

rH txo a> co h-P d 3 ^ OH a ClTj O H Crl a a> iH o 3 CD CO I—1 O -P O 0 0 .Tj rH O 0 0 iH 0 >100^ > ^ rH CO > rH O 0 CO t> 1—I ft *H 0 a a CD (D C d •H 0 cd 0 *H •H 0 cd ft 0 Q M CL, M Q 0 -H 0 QQH&Hfe Q Q EH <3j ca

Criteria

Rating of Each Project

E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A 2. Napkin Holder X • a • • X X 3- Book Rack X • • X X 4. Nut Scoop X • • X X 5- Gun Rack X X X 6. Scoop X X • •

X 7- Memo Pad X X

• • X

8. Kindling Box • • X • • X • • 9. String Box X X • • X 10. Napkin Holder X X • • X 11. Match Box X X X 12. Tool Box X X • • X 13. Shoe Stand X • • X X l f. Step Stool • • X X • • • • 15- Phone Stand X X • • X 16. Serving Tray X X • • • • 17. Fork Box • • X • • X X 18. Planter X X • • X 19. Serving Tray X • • X • • 20. Cutting Board X • • X

X 21. Candle Holder X X • • X 22. Knife Holder X • • X • • 23. Shine Box • • X • • X X 24. Child's Stool • • X • • X • • 25. Step Stool X • • • • X • • 26. Spice Rack X • • • *

X • • 27. Spoon Rack X • • X • • X 28. Secretary X • • X • • X 29. Step Stool X • • • • X X 30. Clip Board • • X • • X • • 31. Magazine Rack • • X • • X X 32. Magazine Rack

O. X • • . • X • • X

BA E BA

X

53

TABLE I—Continued

Criteria

ha tn in CO

1 i—1 CD AH ® fl Mfl) flrl •HOC DCOO A CO O *H •H *H -H *H w CO tD EH WOP-P O ft a m ft o ft C! O 03 a o o a co O co ci aj O flJ (d O -H

i—It—1 Hi—I i—1 i—1 OS rH -P Ph *H fn <DrQ l> (H ®h a (D CO p., H CL, J> O i—1 *H >-H a^j > PH ft ® PH OM o a ® CD <H fttH QO.CQCQ o w o ts Qt3 0<4 O


E G A A BA p E G A BA JP E G A BA p Overall Ratine X • • • • X • • X

* • Average X • • • • X • • X * • Average X • * • • X • • * * • • Average X • * • * X • • • 4 X * • Average X • • • • X • • X * • Average X • • • • X • • * • • • Average

X • • • • X • • Below Average X • • • • X • • X « * Average X • • • * X • • X • * Average X * • • • X • • X • • Average X • • • • X • • • • • • Average X • • • • X • • X • • Average

X • • X * *

X • • Below Average X • • • • X • • * • • • Average X • • • • X • • X • • Average X • • • • X • • ' X

• • Average X « • * • X • • • • • • Average X • • • • X • • X • • Average X • • • * X • • X • « Average X * * • • X • • "x .. • • Average X • • • « X * • X » • Average X • • • * X • • X • • Below Average

X * * X • • X • • Below Average X • • X • • X • • Below Average

X • • • • X • • X • • Average

X • • • • X • 0 X • • Average

X • • * * X • • X

• * Average X • • * * X • * « • • • Below Average X • • X * • X • * Below Average

X • • • • X • • X • • Average

X • • • • X • • X • • Average

5^

6. The project should help to develop basic skill in

the use of common tools and machines. Thirty projects were

rated average and one project was rated below average.


of the practical application of principles. Eight projects

were rated average and twenty-three were rated below average.

In the overall rating, twenty-four projects were average,

while seven were rated below average. There were no projects

that were rated poor, good, or excellent.

Evaluation of Junior High-High School Projects

Table II summarizes the twenty-three project eval-

uations that are rated suitable for the junior high-high

school level. Drawings of these projects can be found in

Appendix B. The summary of ratings for the individual

project drawings based on each criterion and an overall

rating is indicated in Table II.

Each criterion is restated, and the rating assigned by

the jurors are as follows:


the processes of industry. Eighteen projects were rated

average and five projects were rated below average.


of industry and its place in our culture. Thirteen projects

were rated average and ten were rated below average.

55

TABLE II

DATA CONCERNING THE SUITABILITY OF TWENTY-THREE PROJECTS FOR USE AT THE JUNIOR HIGH

SCHOOL-HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Project

and

Number

O Vl 1 -P o C bO CJ a a £> C Fh cd a cd a •H CO •H 4-* •H rH •H CO CD £»» WTj CO ?~f cd to ft-P CQ Fh ft C! d CD CD ft CO O a) ft tn TS <» O CO -p O Ctf T3 PH JH > O-PH 01 t> o -p a) o

H &Q CD to rH -P C d d OHadt! O H C n c <1) -H O 3 CD CO M O -P O CD CD rd rH O 0 CD H CD > to o-d K* P-i i—1 W > rH O CD 01 > rH ft'H <D a a cd 0 ch d d •H CD CtJ CD *H •H ffl Cd ft o Q -rs O -H o Q Q EH <3j CO

Criteria


E G A BA IP E G A BA P E G A BA P

33. Jewel Box • • X * • X • • • • X • • • • 34. Book Ends • • • * X • « X • • X • * • • 35. Wall Shelf • • X * • X • • • » X » • • • 36. Gun Rack • • X • • X • 9 • * X • • • • 37. Pipe Rack • • X • * X • • • • X. • • • «

38. Cutting Block * *: • • X • « X • • • • X • fl 39. Candlestick • • X « • • 4 X • 0 X • • • « 40. Drafting Kit • • X • • X • • • • X • • • • 41. Plate Rack • • X • • X • • • • X • • * 1

42. Mirror Shelf • * X • • • 4 X • • • • X • • 43. Secretary • • • • X • 4

X * • • • • • X

44. Bud Vase • • X • • • < X * • X • • 0 •

45* Pine Planter • • X • • • « X • c X • • • < 46. Wall Chest • • X • • X • • • • X « • • < 47. Spice Rack • • X • • • < X • 4

X • « • < 48. Plate Rack * •

X • *

X • » • • X • • • c

49. Valet • • • • X X • • « X • • • * 50. Night Table • • * * X

• i X • * • # X

• 1 51. Vanity Table • • X X • • X « • • a

52. Planter Table • • X X • • * e X • * • ( 53. Wall Shelf • • X X • • • < X • * • • 54. End Table • • X X X

55. Wash Stand • « X • <

X X • « • • • •

E A BA1P

X X X X X • •

• •

X X • •

* •

• •

X

56

TABLE II—Continued

Criteria

o -p a •H

CO Pl-P

£*4 Sh

Xfl -P <D co co 3

o ,d co h a <D *H O M > CO O CD C| U *-i Q H ^ O

&D CO

CO O

bo cd a h

CO «T1

rH Pk


E G A BA p E G A BA p E G A BA p Overall Ratine • • * •

X • • • • X • I • • • * X • • • 4 Average

0 • • • X • • * * X • < • • • * • • X • < Average • • • • X • * * * X • 1 • • • • X • • • 1 Average • • « • X • • • • X • • • • X • • • 4 Average • • • • X « • • • X • • • • • • X Average • • * • X • • • • X • • • • • • X Below Average • • • • X • • • • X • • • • • • X Average • • X • • X * < • • • • X • • Average • • • • X • • • • X • • * • • • X Average • • • • • • • * • • • •

X X

• • • • • • X X* • • • • • t • • • • • •

X X

Below Average Below Average

• • • • X • • * • X • • • • • • X Average • • • • X • » • , X • • * • • • X Average • • • • X • • • • X • • • * • • X Average • « • • X • •' • • X • • • • X • • Average • • • • X * » • • X • • • • X • • Average • • • • X • • * • X • * • • X • • Average • • • • • • X • « X • • » • • * X Below Average • • • • X • • • • X • # • * X * • Average • • • • X • » • • X • • • » * • X . Average • • • • X • • • « X • • • • X • • Average

* • • • X • * • • X • * • • • • X Average • * * • X • • • • X • • • • X • • » • Average

57

3. The project should help discover and develop

talents In the technical fields. One project was rated

good, seventeen projects were rated average, four projects

were rated below average, and one project was rated poor.

*+-. The project should help discover and develop

talents in the applied sciences. Ten projects were rated

average; thirteen were rated below average.

5. The project should help to develop technical problem


of industry. There were twenty projects rated average;

three projects were rated below average.


the use of common tools and machines. One project was

rated good, twenty-one projects were rated average, and

one project was rated below average.


of the practical application of principles. Ten projects

were rated average; thirteen were rated below average.

In the overall rating, nineteen projects were rated

average and four projects were rated below average. There

were no projects that were rated poor, good, or excellent

in the overall rating.

Evaluation of High School Projects

Table III summarizes the four project evaluations that

were rated suitable for the high school level. Drawings

5 8

of these projects can be found in Appendix C. In Table III

is shown the summary of ratings for the project drawings

based on each criterion and an overall rating.

Each criterion is restated, and the ratings assigned

by the jurors of each project are as follows:


the processes of industry. Three projects were rated

average; one project was rated below average.

2. The project should help develop an understanding

of industry and its place in our culture. Three projects

were rated average; one project was rated below average.

3. The projects should help to discover and develop

talents in the technical fields. Three projects were

rated average; one project was rated below average.

*+. The project should help discover and develop

talents in the applied sciences. Two projects were rated

average and two projects were rated below average.

5» The project should help to develop technical problem


of industry. One project was rated good; three projects

received an average rating.


the use of common tools and machines. One project was

rated good and three projects were rated average.


of the practical applications of principles. Two projects

59'

TABLE III

DATA CONCERNING THE 'SUITABILITY OF FOUR PROJECTS FOR USE AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Project

and

Number

Criteria

o •p c

O

xn

o &

CD p> 0

CQ <D CO w

hO CD »H O w o £ h

i>* u -P W <T3 £

P H P h H

C &Q i>* O £ •H -P

CQ «TJ W P. fl 2 O <33 TU H -P £ CD CO H O -P > CD CD P U O

<D

2 r-j

£ 2 •H O

*0 £ OS Ph CD > o o w •H P

Pi DQ o -P H S3 <D CD J> H CD CO Q EH

CQ T) H (D •H

£ CO

fH <D S> O O CQ •H P

CQ P. CQ *a a) OP (D O H £ *H £ 0 CD H CD 3> H Pi-H 0 03 ft O P Eh <q CO

Rating of Each Project E G A BA P E G A BA P E IG A BA P E [G A BA P

56. Dresser Chest i * • • X • • • • • • • • X • * • • • • • • X • • • • • • * • • • X • • 57. Spice Cabinet , , X X X • t 58. Cobbler's

Bench i • • • X • • * • • • • • X • * • • • • • • X • • • • • • « » X • • • • 59. Cedar Chest

i • • • • * X X

6o

TABLE III—Continued

o -p £

m P -p o H " <d

iH CO -P

0 CQ

ca £ cq

&D <D £ o H

p> w o <D £ Jh Q H P H O

Criteria

P CO O

I I—I C toco t> C o •H »H

CQ <0 -P

P< £ O O CO CD H -P |h

0 CQ Ph |>

<D <D <h Q O

CQ

<D £ rH O O, •H *H

•P O

CO £

O -H

H PH PU <5 o


E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A BA p Overall Rating

X Average Average X Y V

X Average Average X Average Average

• • X • • • • i • • • • t X • • • • • • • • # # X

X • • Average

Average X X

Average Average

61

were rated average and two projects received a rating of

below average.

In the overall rating, all four of the projects

received a rating of average. There were no projects that

received a rating of excellent, good, below average, or

poor.

Evaluation of High School-College Projects

Table IV gives the summary of the thirty-nine project

evaluations that were rated suitable for the high school-

college level. The drawings of these projects can be found

in Appendix D. In Table IV is shown the summary of ratings

for the project drawings based on each criterion and an

overall rating.

Each criterion is restated and the rating assigned by

the jurors of the projects are as follows:


the processes of industry. Twenty-seven projects were rated

good; twelve projects were rated below average.

2. The project should help to develop an understand-

ing of industry and its place in our culture. Sixteen

projects were rated good, twenty-one projects were rated

average, and two were rated below average.

3. The project should help to discover and develop

talents in the technical fields. Two projects were rated

excellent, twenty-three were rated good, and fourteen were

rated average.

62

TABLE IV

DATA CONCERNING THE SUITABILITY OF THIRTY-NINE PROJECTS FOR USE AT THE HIGH SCHOOL-

COLLEGE LEVEL

Project

and

Number

Criteria

o <H -p o c •h w

cn cd P<-P CO Fh O & w -p rH txO 0 CO CD nH O 3 > CO O T* 0 a }h d QHftH

I a £> bJO a H -P

CO «Tj CO P. d 3 O H-P d CO w u CD <+H <TJ O •

CD fH 3

CD > <D Q

O -P (—I

a d H o

n3 a cd >

O o CO

a *H rH Cd

Pi CO O OP«H ta H a d nd (D 0 Cj H > rH O CD CD Cd CD #H

r& a cd d •H

CO 0 H

F-* 0 > O -P O rl d O 0 0 CO > rH •H 0 cd QfiEH

CO 0 o d

i—I 0 P-t'H P* O <£| CO


E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A BP. p

60. Stereo Cab-inet X X

61. Display-X

Cabinet • • • • X • * • * • * X • • • • • e X • • • • • • X 62. Night Table • • • • X • # • # • • X • • • • • • X • • * • * • X 63 . Table • • X • m • • * • • • X • 9 X 1 • • • • • * • X 6k . Spice Rack • • • * X • • • * • m

X 9 • • • • • X • * • * • • X 65 • End Table • • X • • • • • • • * X • • • • # • X X 66 . Chest • • X • • • • • • • • X • • • 0

X • • X 67 . Cedar Chest • • • • X • • * • • • X • , * X X 68 . Coffee Table • • X • • * • • • X • • • • X X 69 . Night Stand • • X • • • * • • • * X • * • » X # « * # X

• •

70 . Stereo Cab-inet • • X • 1 • • • • X • * * m • • X # t X

?1 . Serving Cart • • X • « • « • • X • * • • • • X # • X m £ 72. Lady's Desk • • X • • • • • • X • • • • • • X • • X • w

73 • Office Desk • • • » X * • • • • • X • • • • • • X • • X ?k. Hutch • • X • • • • • • • • X • • * • • • X • • X 7 5 S t u d e n t Desk • • • • X • • » • • • X • • X X 76. Bar Bed • • X • • • • • • • • X • • X X 77 . Triple

X # #

Dresser • • X • 9 • • • • • • X • * X X 78 . Corner Hutch • • X • « • e » • X • • • • • * X X 79 • Desk • • X • • • • • * X • • • • • • X X 80 . Slant Desk • * X • « • • • * X # * X X 81 . Stereo Cab-

X X • 4 • •

inet • • X * « • 0 • • • • X • * • • • • X * • • 4 • • • • • • X • 4 • # • •

63

TABLE 17—Continued

Criteria

to Q* £Ej tuO O 0) d CO I—I i—I *r| (—| ©rQ k Oi—I *H Q) f-i O

Q Oi CO CO

W CO CI !—I •H O CO O

co ed eh A o w a _ rHrH OS QrH g >-rl Slj (DM O C Q CO O cd

CO <D a •H O cd

i i—i a bjo aJ cd a o •H »H

co -p PkCl o O cd cd «H-P fL, 0) CO Ph > P-f <D <D *H

Q ^ O

CO a CD

85 •H Ph rH £L* O* Pi<*H <4 o

Rating of Each Project 3 G A BA .P E G A BA .P E G A . BA P

X X

• • X

* 4 • • • • X • • • • • • • X • • • i

• • X • 4 • • X • • • > • * • • • X • • • 4

X • i • • • < • • X • • • > • • • • • X • •

• 4

• • X • • * < • • X • • •

4 « • • • X • •

• <

X • 4 • • • < • • X • • • i • • • • • X • • • 4

X • * • • • * • • • • X • • * • • • • • X • • • I X • 4 • • t * • •

X • • • 1 • • • • • X

• • • i

• • X

• • 1 • • • X • • • • • • • • • X • • • 1

X • t • • 1 • • • X • • • » • • • • • X • • * t

X • 1 • • * • • •

X • • • • 1 • • • X • • • • • i

• • X

• • • • • • • • X • • » • • • • • X • •

X • * • • 1 • • • X • •

• • » • • • • • X • • * 4

X • 4 • • • •

• • X • • • • » • • • • • X • • • i

X • 1

• • • • • • X

• • • • * • • • • • X • # • < 1

X * 1 • * • • • • X • • • • • • • X « « •' •

X • t • • • • • * X • •

• • • • • • • X • • » #

X • ' • • • • • • X • • • • • • • • • X X • I • • • • X • 4 • • » • • • • X

X * I • • • • • • X • « • • • * • X X > • • • • • • « X • * • • • • • • • X • • 1 •

X X X • « • • t m

Overall Rating

Good

Average Average Good Average Good Average Average Good Good

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Good Good Good Good

Good

614-

TABLE IV—Continued

Project

and

Number

Criteria '

o -p a

•HI to P<-P O &

<H o

> 0)

Pi

to <D to CO

hb CD H a to O d JH

[>4 fH -P to d nd a

I—1 P-4 I I

CO M

a as

tH CD > O i a to •H

a •H i

P4 to O -P a

to

CD CD & iH >H a dj CD ctf CD *H

QPBEHfe

d cd u

d •H

W ® flto-d (D > o -p a) o O r—I C3 *H C O J) d)H (D tn > h CVH •H <D ctj A O Q Q EH <t! CO

Rating of Each Project E G ABA E G A BA E G A BA E A BA

82. Desk 83. Dry Sink 84. Chest 85. Dry Sink 80. Commode 8?. Clock 88. Hutch 89. Stereo Cab-

inet 90. Modern Desk 91• Che s t 92 . Gun Cabinet 93 * Modern

Cabinet 9b, Boston

Rocker 95. Chest 9o. Captain's

Chair 97 . China Cab-

inet 98 . China Cab-

inet

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

l&Jl •

65

TABLE IV—Continued

Criteria

&0 CQ

CO T* -P

rH PL

PL, CO CO Q CO O n ro


E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A BA P Overall Rating • 4 X • 1 • • • • • i X • • • • • • • • • • X • • * • Good X X X • • • • Average

X X X Good • *

X • 4 • • • • m « X • • • * • • • • • • X • • • • Good • • X • « • • • * • « X • • • • • • • • • • X • • • • Good • « X • 4 * * • • • • X • • • • • • • « • • X • • • • Good X X s • X © • e « Good

• « X • 1 • • • • • * X • • • • • • • • • • X • • : • • Good

• 1 X • > • • • • • 4 X • • • • • • • • • • X • • • * Good X X X Good.

• i X • ' * • • • « 4 X • • • • • • • • • • X • • • • Good

m i X • X X Average

X X X Good X

X X X Good

• 4 X X

X • «

Good

• I X X Good

X Good

66

The project should help to discover and develop

talents In the applied sciences. Thirteen projects were

rated good and twenty-six were rated average.

5. The project should help to develop technical

problem solving skills related to materials, processes,

and products of industry. There were two projects rated

excellent, thirty-one projects rated good, and six rated

average.


the use of common tools and machines. Five projects were

rated excellent, thirty projects received a rating of good,

and four projects were rated average.


of the practical application of principles. Nine projects

were rated good, twenty-nine projects were rated average,

and one project was rated below average.

In the overall rating, thirty-two projects received

a rating of good and seven projects received a rating of

average. There were no projects rated excellent, below

average, or poor in the overall rating.

Evaluation of Junior High School-High School-College Projects

Table V gives the summary of the project evaluations

that were rated suitable for the junior high-high school-

college level. The drawings of these projects can be found

67

TABLE V

DATA CONCERNING THE SUITABILITY OF THREE PROJECTS FOR USE AT THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL-

HIGH SCHOOL-COLLEGE LEVEL

Project

and

Number

O <iH -p o a •H CO

CO 0) Ph-P CO O m -P H W)0 CO <D -H o d > W O 0 C Jh CJ

Criteria

!>>

o -P CO M

H O


a 03 Ih 0> > o o CO •H

d •H

Pk CO O -P i—I C3 CD © i > H CD Ctf

CO <D

CD O H Cj H <D P*»H ft O

E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A BA. P E G A BA P

99. Mint Dish • • • • X • • • • • • * • • • X i • • • • • X • * • • • • # • • • X » • 100 • Coffee Table » • • • X • • • • • • • • X • • » • • • • • X • • • • • • • • • • X i • 101. Water Ski X X X X

.68

TABLE V—Continued

Criteria

CO p. a O <D H H (1) 5 f> 0

tO) CJ CO H «—[ £> |—|

O H -H fc O

Q 0-« CO CO

tuO CO C i—I •H O CO O

W t=> EH a, Owe! H H OS CD H S > *H Q 0 o d qcoo cd

CO CD a •H xs o cti

CO T3 -p

H O*


E G A BA P E G A BA P E G A BA P Overall Rating

• 4 • # X • • • * • • • • X • • • • • • • • X • • • • Average • 4 • * X • » * 4 • • X • • • • • • • • • • X * • • 4 Average • I X X X Average

69

in Appendix E. In Table V is shown the summary of ratings

for the project drawings based on the criteria and an

overall rating.

Each criterion is restated, and the rating assigned by

the jurors of the projects are as follows:


the processes of industry. Three projects were rated

average. There were no projects under any other rating.


of industry and its place in our culture. Two projects were

rated average and one project was rated below average.

3. The project should help to discover and develop

talents in the technical fields. Three projects were

rated average. There were no projects under any other

rating.

*f. The project should help to discover and develop

talents in the applied sciences. One project was rated

average and two projects were rated below average.

5. The project should help to develop technical

problem solving skills related to materials, processes,

and products of industry. Three projects were rated

average. There were no projects under any other rating.

6. The project should help to develop basic skill

in the use of common tools and machines. One project was

rated good and two projects were rated average.

70


of the practical application of principles. Three projects

were rated average. There were no projects under any other

rating.

In the overall rating, three projects were rated

average. There were no projects that were rated excellent,

good, below average, or poor.

On the project rating scales sent to the jurors, a

space was provided for any additional comments the jurors

wished to make. Comments were made on several of the

projects.

One juror indicated that if busy work was the objective,

project number three was a good project. One juror commented

that project number seven was of no practical use, project

number ten did not meet modern needs, and number eleven

was good to help teach the organization and care of tools.

Other comments were that projects number six, thirteen,

thirty-two, forty-eight, fifty-five, fifty-eight, sixty-six,

and ninety-four were of poor design. One juror indicated

project number forty-two should be eliminated. The remainder

of the projects did not receive specific comments.

Some of the jurors felt that additional comments on

the projects were warranted. One of the jurors was quite

critical of the selection of some of the projects involved

in the study. He felt that many of the projects were poorly

designed and that some were so old that they would not be

71

used as furnishings in the homes of today. These impressions

were reflected in the ratings this juror assigned to many

of the projects.

Another juror felt it was conceivable that under the

instruction of a capable teacher, any or all of the projects

could rate high in fulfilling the objectives, "while possibly

under another teacher with less organization, imagination,

and enthusiasm, all of the projects might fail in fulfilling

the objectives. He went on to say that there were some

excellent projects.

Two other jury members indicated that they thought the

project drawings were generally quite good and represented

a good cross section of the types of projects used in

industrial arts woodworking.


1. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Status of Research in Industrial Arts, Fifteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, American Indus-trial Arts Association, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1959*

2. American Vocational Association, A Guide to Improving Instruction in Industrial Arts., Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

3. McCain, Jerry C., "Textbook Suitability for the Indus-trial Arts Programs in Texas," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, 1959*

Office of Education, Improving Industrial Arts Teaching, Conference Report, Washington, D. C., 1960.

72

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, INFERENCES,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the investigation, important information

was obtained that will help teachers of industrial arts in

the selection of woodworking projects. At the same time,

this study produced a resource of woodworking project

drawings. However, the primary concern of this study was

the evaluation of selected woodworking projects for use by

industrial arts teachers in achieving the stated objectives

of industrial arts. Recommendations of projects for specific

needs was not a goal of this study. Because of varying

demands and needs of individual teachers, each teacher

must select specific projects to meet his needs.

Findings

The following findings are presented:

1. In a review of the literature of industrial arts,

no research was found that specifically undertook the

evaluation of woodworking projects by established evaluative

criteria.

2. Sixty-five of the projects evaluated were found

to be suitable for use at more than one level.

73

74

3. The jurors rated thirty-one of the projects as

suitable for junior high school use. Four of the projects

were rated as suitable for high school work, and twenty-

three of the projects were rated as suitable for both

high school and junior high school. Thirty-nine of the

projects were rated suitable for use at the high school and

college level; none of the projects were rated suitable for

use at the college level only. Three of the projects were

rated suitable for use at all levels.

*f. Eleven of the projects, numbers eight, fourteen,

twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-nine, thirty,

thirty-eight, forty-two, forty-three, and fifty, were rated

below average. Thirty-two of the projects were rated good.

These were number sixty, sixty-three, sixty-five, sixty-

eight, sixty-nine, seventy, seventy-one, seventy-two,

seventy-three, seventy-four, seventy-five, seventy-six,

seventy-seven, seventy-eight, seventy-nine, eighty, eighty-

one, eighty-two, eighty-four, eighty-five, eighty-six,

eighty-seven, eighty-eight, eighty-nine, ninety, ninety-one,

ninety-two, ninety-four, ninety-five, ninety-six, ninety-

seven, and ninety-eight. None of the projects were rated

excellent or poor. The remainder of the projects were

rated as average.

5« Of the thirty-one junior high school projects,

seven were rated below average and twenty-four average.

The projects were also rated to ascertain their suitability

75

for use at both junior high school and high school levels.

Nineteen -were rated average and four below average, making

a total of twenty-three projects. Of the projects rated

suitable for high school and college, seven were rated

average and thirty-two, good. All of the projects selected

for all levels were given an average rating.

Conclusions

The following conclusions seem warranted:

1. Those projects rated below average are not suitable

for use in achieving the overall objectives of industrial

arts.

2. Those projects rated average or better are suitable

for fulfilling the objectives of industrial arts.

3. Teachers of junior high school and high school

should be more selective in their choice of projects. This

is based on the fact that there were no projects at either

level that received a rating of good or excellent.

*t. The projects selected for the junior high and high

school were not adequate for achieving the overall stated

objectives of industrial arts at that level.

Inferences

On the basis of the findings and conclusions, the

following inferences are drawn:

1 * Since all of the jurors were college teachers or

supervisors, their expectations for the junior high and high

76

school may have been too high. This may explain why none

of the projects were rated excellent or good, for use at

the junior high school or high school level.

2. There are many new projects, such as plastics, and

processes, such as finishing processes and man-made woods,

used in industry today that may not have been involved in

the selected projects. This could be due to the length of

time that elapsed between the writing of the textbooks and

other literature that was used, and the publication and use

of those materials.

3. Many of the drawings of projects selected were

used by junior high school and senior high school teachers.

These projects may not have been their best projects, but

rather the drawings of projects they had available.

4. The evaluative criteria may not have been explained

to the jurors in adequate detail.

5. Owing to the volume of material to be evaluated, the

jurors may have been fatigued and did not spend or have

adequate time to evaluate each project.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made:

1. It is recommended that those projects rated below

average should not be used by an industrial arts woodworking

teacher unless there is some specific objective not included

in the evaluative criteria used that the teacher thinks can

be reached by the use of those projects.

77

2. It is recommended that the teacher using those

projects which were rated average should very carefully

consider the students' needs and abilities before making

a decision about using those projects.

3. The thirty-two projects rated good should be used

more extensively because they- involve most of the operations

and concepts necessary to meet the objectives of industrial

arts.

*+. For teachers in the junior high school, it is

recommended that the twenty-four projects rated average

or better for use at the junior high school-senior high

school level are suitable for teaching junior high school

woodworking.

5. It is recommended that the nineteen projects rated

average or better for use at the junior high-high school

level and the four projects rated average at the high school

level, or projects similar to these, are suitable for teaching

high school woodworking.

6. Thirty-nine projects were recommended for use in

either high school or college. It is further recommended

that projects similar to the thirty-nine should be considered

for use by advanced high school and college level students.

7. Three projects were rated suitable for all levels.

These three projects were all rated average and it is

recommended that they be considered for use at the junior

high school, senior high school, or the college level.

78

8. Teachers should choose projects that have been

evaluated according to the objectives of industrial arts.

9. Steps should be taken to make this study available

to teachers of industrial arts woodworking. At the present

time, there is no known publication available that serves

as both a descriptive and an evaluative source of indus-

trial arts woodworking projects.

10. Future studies should be made to evaluate projects

for other areas of industrial arts.

79

APPENDIX A

K N i V i | . \ \

NOT t k covewiTH handle ! To have. e.a v PIT

»ji NASl$<:tAJE

pECTIO ' , „ ; T U O r \ | I / * ' j

i* IN . i i i\\> w c»* *Ss^ L' * V 'V C

hrtN^-c

VI FW

n - « - c • • - — 1 ' j f

U - — & 5 M^lS L ' 3-"

1 I

1 \ •'

U - — & 5 M^lS L ' 3-"

\

T ,7"

1 < > J t 1 -^16

i j

- . .

3 u, v

t .1

>l j G-lVt £ KAIL-? 1

1 > .

• 1 t

i __ .

-!«0

L

^ ... 2~.~Lap,cin holden, suitability considered aver*ase --£ 1?vel-i Stanley Tool Company, Project Flans,

•ii2£ -pii,aln, Connecticut.

80

Inoo TT

1 1

! ! 1 1 i t

. i fni-h

*4* H J3 0 O |> *H 0 4-3 H O

0

fco 3 •H O X! O U •» o fl •H •H fl cd 3 -p •o .H

Jh Ih w O Cm S

0 0 25 hO CO' * Sh " 0 J> or-f CO X

Jh *3 O 0 S' in T* 0 O 13 o •H 3: ta ti U O O O U

> > m -p a •H CO H H *H Ph rQ 05 -P -P O •r~H 0 ^ T-; m o

o «* d >> fn fl

•cd Jsj ft o a 0 o 01 o

I I H

cn o o

• EH b0 •H >3 (x, 0

i—I fl cd -P CO

81

~ 5Q.UAR.tS cY NOTE: WHILE. THE. PIECE 15 RECTANGULAR, 5HAPE. O'JT T,Ht INSIDE. TO DO TH!5 " U5E. A HAND GOUGl. OZ. AN ELLE.CTRJC P0RIA3LE R.OUTE.R..

( NOTE. :UT TOP DLS1&IS TH -UT ? R.OFILc CFRONT VlLW) >10W HOUND ALL SHAFLP 20S.NLR.5 SO A5 TO G1VE.A SGDD 6R.IP FOR. THL HAND

53UAR.E.2>

TOP VIEW

TT "-1*1

r_l

!3" I

4, < scoop, suitability considered average for junior high level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.lect Plans fo-p Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut. —

82

T O P V l £ v v

Mco <0

, I H i

-2

j»"i9

ro

9"-

c\i I

., JT 1 8

t r-|A«,

£ CUM BUTT Rrcccs * CLUt

>

T^T' A-STA^jy -> . jRoorca cir s;izo>

RIM DETAIL

F " — — H

LAZY SUSAN BEARING

j j i u i to

N'OTtT : SCrieW £ Cuuc Akt PARTS

TOCCTWiV

, * tr\ [co

*<-• v> A.*

< r

GUN BARETL DCTAtL

fotr

Pig. 5—Gun rack, suitability considered average for junior higii level, Stanley. Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut. '

83,

TAPER, END* equal/SCANT/, " U6L 5T0CH D0WLL5

A A A A A /"Un A A A

:5>C£EV/ EYu *2L

st*, cs

I C!-J L J U J U -> u _J

; Giui?

' ' ' ' ' *- ' J T ' » ' i 1 I I L 5' ( j i> lL_l!

; TO ENHANCE. THIS PR.OJ cCT 5LLE.CT | , A PlJLCiL Of KNOTTY WHITE. PiN£\V;TH ' e>£.VE.S.AL 5MALL To MEDIUM hXOTf>. I

t z i r r i i iir_~_rz z ltlt-r ~

=•"— (51UE. \ NAJfTofiLTHLR-

•J-'T"

j

* r *

.1*

- 5 | "

f _ _J_

L_

• n t-

STA?J V/ITH SToCrt JlL cy\ .§0VL H0L15 THE.N LplANi.

M* r M

?M 3? 3

~lt>4

7 s<3 va :| fiLU® £ NA1LTG65.TH! M Ml'ND ALL SUA? C0;tN£iU>

f/jj METAL v1 *{* -!' . i"/- ;

IA i n*

X r> i-l < r f t

1

/II /

20 KOT

/V- -*• > ^ J*-' 7g ^ cai / . C. I \T t t» '

tJH •*< VJ o

r*{<

-J ! L

rLATTiU ~0 O&TAIN GOOD v'T 6£as.IN5 ~;~vr

/ ^ T V X %7>7" i ^ I v£v£I ! /'m/i I ; i ; SQl/AR-i*! *r

- 7 ~

Fig. 6—-Cranberry scoop, suitability considered average for junior high-level, Stanley Tool Company, lUiect

Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut. iZ2JLq21 £±SBa

81*

t 5Q\)\ZtS

|ij

r

' STJL1? *F0fc. KOI. 0) KG PMtLPflSW t cuttikg OFF

0 ISKAS-F tOGS. fOLCsn-;;:;;

^HlSGi

I z f t- -5 I v ' r"1

| R.OLL OF ?h?l-L

I'GIUI. E>lOCVj5 ]M •^/-^l/PLACE. SO THAT

' R.01.L R.LN\AlVl$ v//M

I V / i 1 /' 1 «! /// /it1

1/' / 'S r "ii v "

1JJ THE CEK

C^COVc.5 z.

TH.fc.tAD

IL *Û X?

/ ZOll Of FAPE.SL 3> TDIA.

| rlco

• 4™'

"TV :_i

•4 5"

• . 7 ^ e m o p a d , s u i t a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r e d a T p r a ^ p f n T )

j u n i o r h i g h l e v e l , S t a n l e y T o o l C o m p a n y , S o l e S t P l f S / ? L Ifoodwogrtoi^, N e w B r i t a i n , C o n n e c t i c u t . £ S E

85

V

\ uJ 2 o Q tOloO

T M-rOi ^ 5

[ ? qlr:

* r i-h g3@~~~r

. ^ u® i ^

<x3 O

H -P

rCi *r-s r- oo

W >*

86

"A//? / L^-X^'s77?tf=>|~

TO CCD \/E: 7=< _ I

-1

juniorihigh"level?g b°X' s u l t a b l l l t y considered average for

GLULij: NAIL ALL JO I NT5

csi !

<3 7" - 2 r - -H

'IIW

5 J a <"*( ,

ilS'f ; /' _L

1!

TOP VI LW -H

~ HOL6L f£>

5y_A(suS

ROUND THt.Sc EPGH-5

wi

8?

Fig. 10—Napkin holder, suitability considered average for junior high level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

88

A'

>ARI.5

P l Z C r TO ; MOLD COVcil IN PLACE.

f o r toiorîî%tpvA?°X^S^ltabillty c o n s i d e r e d average i l l u i s l e ^ e l » Stanley Tool Company, Pro iec t Plan^ £2£ IôdwoTKing, New B r i t a i n , Connect icut .

8 ?

LOL^-

O L-J>

H 0 P> •

0 ~P H 3

O & 'H HQ-P •H O RCL <D

K 3 O O

• H O

•H SS 05 O - P

&

0 ( X ) BD CD & & 0

0 * 3 P>

AS * WJ

T* FL. 0 •(—{ U X 0

N3 O •H 3* CQR^ RT O o o O ^ R

- P O •H <+H r~i •H 01 RO FL-CO GCI

- P H •H PH 3 CA-P

O « 0

- P -M 0 O D tf

•HFFI RO CD •*

° £ H CD O FT

0 E EH O

R O 1

CV H TH O

o bo •H >> PH 0

cd -p m

90-

-1 KjO

— ICsl -

* • %

"vr > ' r ~

i 1

1

j 1 1

1 r H

-- 1 1 ,

~ i * 1 t - 1

!

J - ; l _ 1 I

1—

V -

- f - 1

i ! 1 1

1

1 -

1 1

- i 1

u ?'L - 1

* • *

o ^ ^

* t<MO

m

-lf-4

/ "lVr i-4-—— i - -1 •

•5

Sh ° -•H £j <d .H 3 a5 •r?.p

•H 1H o pq

&

<D S bO^ cti « u 50 0 £T J> *H 05 ^

Ih ••a O CD gS U «r3 0 o nd O •H ^ CQ fl o o O <h

6 ^ 4~» Hi *H C$1

- H 1—if •H Ph| p OS -P -P O •H 0) 3 *r~3 CQ O

T3

-P CQ CD & O •H O CQ H 0 o 0 O & Eh m 1 >> I 0

r \ H • a +2 ctf 3

• -p o boco *H •H -p Ph * O

H 0 0 § ?> R 0 O H O

91

rs/~K7—I 2 5 a u A ^ _L/; Lj-4_ , O i I

HALF OF TOP V i ELW b IS-

TR.UL 5HAPc Of Lt<S ^

r * -j

t i

fvU ' l ^ i

1 F.H.& j / Wk/A ~ SC2£WS 1

/ / 6 L w t i • S i V

^ ' ? A \ \

Fig. Ik—Foot stool, suitability considered below average for junior high level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

92

» — M ;, s 1 i\V-

'\Yr

XL II I i1"-1'

IS;

i 2~ n I *2 I H A * 11 £ >-| 1 <A > i I r»~

S £ M $5 7. V ij M

^ < II li

• l —* * .

—IV ua | j -. x » £ 3 1 <*? >4 u- J I £ '

r-jiv-y

1® I f

\U-Ji uJ

r-Ni ,s*> *o -

1 ! U-> o

8 •, ~~ - e " J, vs w •

z~-

\n

"4- n * * » > ^

< V ) \ :iN

if i

TOP VIEW

C

fyl ^ Hoit-n i i •/ A

I •!" / jr UAJlE.}

SHt-LF FOZ. PHONE

'4 ~7 '*i I i 2'WD Joint Lou HO ALL t

•/ 6LULD 5HAK.P C0£.Nc£5

i', K\ t HOLL fOR. WQU 0GWiL

I D T N D \ ^ E H T L F T

•

ATTAiTHTR.;?, On wall foj. 5o'??fl,r;iL !•

"*1 C' !" t n t \»

i I.i i t;

zSQVAZit =V^ZZ

— ^ /-5PACL FOR. PHOKL [5LI01NC- SHLLf rCU OS. NOT-5 j

i. - 1 Z -

~57£.j p Jo w;?rOvJT 5HLL:

NCTt: EITHU U5£ 5 fLY LAMINATED VOC* 01 SA11. •, GLUt. j-CLt ,\tj 0)i &01.-J ffipj jo

r1.91^ "f- TiiESCOHC L «-.«0 J Wis p,y <SLU|K<5 0M ATii.'M TXJ p

Fig. 15~-Telephone stand, suitability considered average for junior high level, Stanley Tool Company, Proiect Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut. "~

93

, * rojco

~r-r X i r l T j n

-1<" o

i JL

5 • 8 DOWcL

• • i j * i-u : ; i ;

\o~

MOSAIC INLAY OPTIONAL

< —

- I7 : -—»i

RAIL

C»ROUT

Z INLAY

PLYWOOD _ , y

^ 4 SECTION A-A

' { ! -i m

OPTIONAL T R I M FOF E d g e ;

1 i i 'Li-J

_ Nj 'f -—V---r ~ -r - -- — zpzzzzzzzzzzzL~ : ic3~r<.^7' i j

c\,n i m i ! P 2 x - U z iU f \ 7f , | [

f o r j S i o ^ 1 h i a h e i e v S t ? ? n S S U i S a b n ' 1 i t y c o n s l d e r e d a v e r a g e .p , , , " . -J-S" l e v e l , S t a n l e y ± o o l Company, P r o i e c t Plane;

Wooawor iL ing , New B r i t a i n , C o n n e c t i c u t .

9&

WOq

-P S o •H

• C - P bDO

• H <D

xi g & o o o

3 rt •O.H cd & p O «H <H U 0 kO & CTF 0 £*t isj 0 > ~ cd WJ fi •rf . CD fc 0 O U £ •H 01 O fl o O s o *§! •P *+**[ •H H cal T? rn ct) a} H

P OH] -H 2 -p CQ O

0 X O O rQ °£l

a <H ..

ft "3 s o 05 O 0 H ^ O •H O fl&H W 1 J>a I 0 CN-H tH £j • 4P iiDc/3 •H Ph •* rH 0 > 0 H

95

I

f~3 U

bD ~

00 j—I

96

1:

^ h '

-z -hp i $

J JL,

\ P

UJ -J c* 2: < JZ.

U~ o

L- £ uJ C\

r<V-X> OO

. 1 5 ^ r

fA| o CM

*)l Ys

• L -

11

"M-—v> :*r -Vrt.

M|*> •o

oJ >

o ~

o I—

•fl ••

?w

Csl

H 0 I> • 0 -P H ^ O

rC ri &0-P •H O ^ § & 8 o o •H O

97

/ "

-i

Pig. 20—Chef's cutting board, suitability considered average, for junior high level.

98

X ! bO

^ - 3 .

T T f

-7'-

A - < * r

JUL J?

A'

J * f

u o •HI

u o

Cm

0 bD 05 U 0 > cd

i d 0 u 0

T j •Hi CQ fl O o

-p • H H •rH

cu -p • H 3 CQ

O • H - P ca

0 H

1 o3 O

r 1

—1 CV2

W * H

Ph r~i <D > <© H I

99

4 - ?L AT K" AD SCP.ZY,

oAh »>.«i\r

i V it> ' ! 7 : I I' /.Y; v\ Vi » «

*-!« fV'/l 1

\ \ A . \ -r ; '7T-i / / /^ /

• «:12 !. :•:; Is

fi M J//// '71 !"' '/'// I. i'/j iii'll/'/ 11/ti •J Z/ iV

f o r j S i o r 2 h I g f i e Y e ? ! l a e l : ' ' B u l t 9 b m t 5 r considered average

100

o

& 0 bQ

. cd Jh <D > cd & o H 0

,Q

nd 0 & 0 *3 •H CO rt o o >>

-p •H H

rO cd -p «H $ CQ

O P 0

•H £t m 0 0

m 1 i

CM • H • 0

bQ > •H 0 Ph HI

-P M •H

3

k tr>

fo r H

102

" § >

J cc

I s ! t

" K I wf M> / J ^ »

u o •H

u o u

0 W) OS Jh 0 J> OS

s o i—i CD

P

0 u 0 r& •H ca £ o o

>> •p «H r~i •H rQ cd -p «H

ca

r~i O 0

43 CQ

P4 0

*P CO

r 1

CM

bO •H

r-i 0 i> 0 rH

103

M A T B . P U A L . fg 77//c/<c

~i

r ' 7 ; . ' — ^ J

junior'figh6:;^^6 b°X' s u i t a W H t y considered average for.

z: •- ,• - - -' . - ^ .-;r ies &' u-ii', i / vXv"Vfi?! | Ki !' *• spoon RACK hlz.~i| Ki L

>5- CTn1

kv

feri

D W AW i. W. j J I "fe, T! I "" ~~" ^ ' —-r 0

. • t ..... . -'N L ->Vj

» ! -N" fi f »j ir# i' !

2 S

TOP VIEW

ffi.-i-i

lis -H

104

£5QUAR«^ ~~f ^ f ^ L L

5POOH RACK

«<VI

FULL- 5JZ£ DRAWING s

OF THE SPOON FLACK

6LU£ | NAIL T06LTHIZ.

|^»r»/W J-r~s y-* . ..

-7 , 5

-a^V pit ^ y **" JvAW L '

TUa.N£.? KKT."'.\ , ? IV'L0M6 pJ '2'S-," 7~ -3'.- r

/•* f i **1 : i

H J

*> „ 27—Spoon rack, suitability considered! avp no-o £o£ S ° P ^ g h 1SVe1' Stanley To°l Company, St p S m £°£ Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut. -E£i§2£

10-5

—

E r K j r i

J .

c* w

rH «P 0 3 > O 0 .H H -P

O rC 0 M S •H H & O

O £-i o -•H fl £ *H 3 cd •^43

& ^ o m

&

0 0 boss; cd SU •* 0 &a

cd *h

n3 & 0 O & S 0 13

ra o *H O W 3s fl O

o o

s ^ ' -P CQ •H fl; rH Cd •H H rO P-r cd -P .p *H O P 0 U1 -f-:

O

Sh cd **

b .0 E & cd O pi

6 O

h v r

0 CO 1 o r

CO H <M O

O * Eh

to •H £h 0

03 .p CO

1 0 $

H u

£ }J

•WvoH • N - j S N

\

v-

s

l '

K

3 <

XI bO •H XI U o

§ #nj

u o <M 0 bQ ctf SH 0 t> cd s o H O

n3 © SH 0 nd •H CQ rf o o

-P •H H r *r*1

r O

ctf -P *H CQ

H O O

. p

CQ

P i

0 -P co

i

O n

CVJ

•

bD •H PH •

i—1

0 > 0

r H

S

10?

JH o

& CM

CD H 0 CD

<D

CA &

o RH CD

P

0 IH O

•H CQ S o o >>

• P •H H • H

- P •H

TA

!H 03 0

RQ P <

• H rH O

1 I o <r\

M • H PL,

RH 0 F> 0 )

RH

-108

viy

60 •H

u o

$4 o

0 bQ cti & 0 s> cd ncj 0 U 0 ncJ •H CQ s o o >> -p •H rH •H

•s -p •H £ CQ

£4 0 cd

0 fl •H N 05 hD gS s 1 V I cn

**0 •H

H 0 >

0 H

109

& •H A U O

u o u 0 b0 03 Jh 0 > cd

n3 0 h 0 qrj •H ca fl o o >a -P -H H •H cd -P •H £ ca

0 cd !h 0

•H cd bQ cd je; 1 i ca

bD •H H 0 |> 0 rH

APPENDIX B

110

': ii I ii I i

COVLR->

fl,ir °iW

-• t •<c

• : • t SEPARATE 5L! PI NG TRAY

10:

TOP VIEW (COVtR. £A15£D Up)

• JuJ

c I

r-

GtUED Jo!ST 7

NOTE. S>TOCK- ALU i* 1 N. TK (CKNE.S5 MAKE. &OX-PAK-T 4 COVE.JL AO ONE UNIT TH £ M 5AW A PA fc.T«

519ARATI 5UP\SG TRAY

PA3£) rr.

MAKE. BUTTJOINT5 CiytP OX. 6LUE0 NAILED OJL LN 0 DADO JOINT CLUED

5t?ARATE. 5LICMNC TRAY r

v<* $

I M! N u £-

I P

f i

Fig* 33—Jewel box, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

Ill

J Si-. £<?i

TOP VIEW

tZA [—~ i •§—"4 -it? THREASSD SCRCW

DETAIL

y - T T l : ,f"? f r

•RETAINING PiN

Wy--v^ r *\-c—r i

^332S&s

-IN i 7 •ht

HANDlX OcTAlL £Vi Z1

BASK D E

r— SE£ DETAIL OF

S* CHAMPWEft IXZD JAW SLIDING JAW

2 POVVcL A PI N ° «

~i<V-

SEE: DUTAIL OF w AoVcT

. " §.* 3^"-Book ends, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level, Stanley Tool Company,Proieet

for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

112.

" j f 'SQUARES

Fig. 35—Wall shelf, suitability considered, average for junior high-high school level.

113

s : i ± 7 •tf I

T"t

-pi-f

7 •O

_I_ LL

19-

— 2 0 -

//

l i - j

! I I! ry. ' • V

-pC.:

tO 1 -CM

i 1

•5 J i

u ^ J J r ' o

v'l liHl

t<-2Z51

—:r i t

- | < \

C I

„ T _

Fig. 36—Gun rack, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

114

Q- U.

T l &

•«£> , •Ss" -—

} J ' ; I *

$4

/ r

\ f

/ \ t

iH O O

0 CQ

•a •H &

1 4? &0

3

& o Cm

0 hO aS !h

o

c3

0 h 0

rd •H CQ fl O o >>

•p T"1 H •H

*S <$

43 •H CQ

0 cd u 0 P*

0 ! 1 r

EN-<r\

bQ •H

H 0 r* 0

u o

1X5

• ' T X I X I 7 1

//

1 1

• x

a

£ . 6 .

c 3

o *iw

<D &0 CQ Jh <D I> 05

£ O

H a>

. a

K

K )

* 0 a>

*0 *H 03 fl

O o K*» - p

«H H •H rQ CO - p

•H

CQ

7 X3 u 03 0

P • H

bG 0 £ i>

•H <D 4 3 H - P £ H

O O 1 o 5 ^

CO O co

• ;CJ bo bo

•H »H X

i X b 0

116

1°0

-Pig* 39—Candlestick, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

11?

ENDS ROUNDED " TO FIT BRACKETS

BRASS TUBING

SOLDERED TO

2 X |;~ PLATE

I SQUARES

• HOLE PULL S T R A P 2 ^ N

TIP BEVELED

BRASS RIVET SQUARE INSERTED IN HOLE

AND SOLDERED PARTITION'S IN TRAY MADE TO FIT DRAWING

F I N G E R

GRIP

BOX BUILT TO FIT 16"X20 DRAWING BOARD

BACK EDGE OF BOX IS BEVCLEt?

LID CLOSED SHOWING

!t> HINGE

P REQUIRED)

Fig. ^-0—Drafting kit, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

118

P O R . i ^ 7 4c".

f o p v i e w ! M

M ' v T A L HAMCi; . r f u l l $i::Z

& U T T joahj HAILID

_ r^ry ; o

F n - P " r ~ '

l o o w a V uLU

3 - >* R.tCE*55 bACtf \ 7

V J j U * " «™J«L H A K C t *

^ PAPO j o i n t i , 6 L V I P T«t- C L K T e i L - ^ w h / H i • f V u

'^t.CTl£?W | j | NA»V. TKI> j _ ! N ^

" o N

HAIL

oat Tiut 7.

W , j l o Q E R.OUND ALL ^HA^LP COK.NL2-5

| | fA5tIw' V * c T \ — i

5 M * U - CHAMrLSL

/ . 2 v X 5 4 1 " 4 ^ \ ; i o ~~ ... \ l^ «%

j u n i o r h l g h - h i g h a s o h o o l l ! : i e v e i t a s t a n * e T 0 T o o i a r : r ' e d OTeraS® f o r

Ssaa for Woodjjarlslag, New Britain" ^ J e S l o ^ ™ 7 '

119.

HOLE.

M . . I £ SQUARE

s»Ci

MI K. !LO !L

yi K N O B

51V,95 TO HOLD |

MI^0?.rVi

MlfcHOK.

lh<>\ f\r/ iff J 'ft /A

rr-^_L? 7— raws. S. T -^.u- ; •-,

• M'

„ .Fl&* 7-Mirror, suitability considered below average S o l s ^ 1 ? ^ 8 ? If S0h°,01 l e v e 1' S t a i a ey T°°l Company, j£2Jeo£. Piano for Woodworking:. New Britain, Connecticut.

120

- ' c m

o

U o

0 h0 03 U o > d &

o H 0

rQ

r d 0 &

r^J •H ca fl

o o

r5^ - P •H rH •H rQ 05

- P •H

m

u 03 - p

0 u o 0 CQ •

i—1 0 0

• P > cd 0 *> p-i

£ H O

I O I X!

c n o ca

• rCl 50 t*0 •H *H fe &

! &

Jh

121

i £ R

3" 1 jt R

T E S T T U B C

l " D R I L L

Fig. if-4--Bud vase, switability considered average for junior high-high school level.

122

fcv-^lO!

/ A /R f±

Sr/n££

rfi?OA/ T

Fig. 45—Pine planter, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

123

HOLE

sauAitts

t DfLAWE;*

1 *

"?l KV<" N •1

VERTICAL DIVISION ©

\

1 X

.L (O.CO -r/y-r V'tfi DRASVtS. WSKE.«-

L H

j MAXt DRAWEES TO SLIDE. £A$Y | fc-ADUCT FR.OKT TO PLLCttV* SlDLS

V © © r

-a * t 3 ! 3S 2 jvc

W/

3 if | i" y

2 jvc W/

VoS -I"* Q

' c-t •D1"

Jc.f I

f jSQ.UAR.ZS

/ DR.AWS.

[NT:'-' ! Glut, i NA.r_ y N 'o i

-A 'j

TOSlIVZ.SL R.A & C> t T f nOST T*? ivECti

R

'J-j* ' -*7VEtrtcAL Division' J5 :

Tt/SLWE D K.N05 , j j ; 11 | j

>r i

± -i i . * ;3,r ^5^ fD2AWlSL RUNNdv/

-=T" 17- ~

— tf - T

£L\JE. £ SAIL

.Y Y T. I r~ •4.1"

Fig. 1+6—Wall chest, suitability considered average for' junior high-high school level, Stanley Tool Company, J^£i§5i Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut.

124

'4

I <c>

T . J HOU l&VAZti

. 1

- r -JLi ... ~frL — ivr O

' >

0

o

JLJL„

nr ->r

*(Nl

,1

r%l . i 4 I

04 I « V ~£7p:rp

.f vi; SNl

O r 2 '

-4 k-

\n~ r«*S

N. in CNl

! " >

~5 ~

2.5QUASL£5

• 1 *in 1

easy fit OK' D5LUYE.SL

«

t * •

1 ^ —li. I T

V t I lU%i

TOP VIEW

L^tur.neo kxobi:-S?>'U I

0'U* J 'i J ~ * L-V -'/V ~t-i a- *v < f

-rr-• ~4i. T*

Fig. -7- Spice pack, suitability considered average for^junior high--high school level, Stanley Tool Company,

Pl&Ss for Wpodworkirig, New Britain, Connecticut.

1 2 5

X! -H bO 05 •H - P & i-t

O •H ^ fl ©

< r-j

—•— —yyrr t_. .rrr-1 y r* *'777 v,i •4 • - j u y , v *;y,, o r-</

1 i I , > ! «

(/j ;• ft r -<iVWvJ <

r ^ \ M < = C ' . - {

v 'XL-,« F

I I 'A-cc

Jtf O A.O O

ca <d

©

H -P

O -P fe CQ

XI O

c TRAY :> PARTIAL To? VIEW

126

irrte l"5{ JS I 1 —i

h 4 ' ~ | C

I l!

L I

Fig. 4-9—Valet, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level, Stanley Tool Company,

Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

127

1

< \ j

O J

S z - 1

t

60 &

u o § •r-3

o Cj

CD 60 05 k 0 > 03 *

o H 0

rQ

<D 5H 0

*d •H £Q fl

o o >>

-p *H rH •r-f & 03

-P •H 3 CQ

0 rH

. tQ cs3

43

43 rC * 60H •H 0 125 >

• I 0 I rH

O XT*, rH

O • O

6D.J2 •H O Ptn ca

60

128

Pig. 51—Vanity tabl» for junior high-high school level!? 7 oonslderea average

129

r 1

1 1

1 r 1 | 1 ' ! I * 1 t L j 1 L _

1 j

NOTE:

USE GLASS BFHCK

FOR PLANTER.

,1

Fig. 52—Planter table, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

130

11 «\

. i 11 11 11 11 P 11 *ANEL

i x ÛMNtl R

$WEXF OPTION A.L

NOTE: AIL STOCK UNLESS OVHCFTWISE SPCClrJCD

l"sQr TYP.

Amerock NO. 70S

5*0'*- 2 Rra-o. 1

^ o

Fig- 53—Wall shelf, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

131

r « -i

-

t

1 i 2

1 Io •H*

1 i r> i t t

_.i

Pig. 5^—--End table, suitability considered average for junior high-high school level.

132

4

tA

P~jrrr'i< L, t I J •—

"SQ'MKJ'-S

, f • — 1 i>t

-iJAJUr .J-»

111111/'

GLUE. $ NAIL TO 6 E.T H £ R.

rfi-r

OAR.ES •i>,!, *4 1

» — 1

I z' m

•Tfr

j vi? I i— -T

\.i* j ^ I 3- frHrT -v%—riS

i*S UA?.E& /•

m|T

CsJ

:

5- I I ite:pv. Pr4„UUA„

SflUAfULS

S4UA R£5

fig* 55—Wash stand, suitability considered average for junior high-high school .level, Stanley Tool- Company, Pro.iect Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

APPENDIX C

133

A.

5>; ^;;- ///|\'/^

m r* i ^ yry>',r)'^ -

/J}* UY/'/ it's y ' \x -r~ I ': '•-!-* " ' * - *s ss/. .l-'r>y>. - (• g-Avrrf jff-i- p-pj-p:

;^>/7 7

N\N V V* » vN^ X \s VNV ' N; 3 AS\\S \ \ \ ^ \ \ \\ \ \ \Vv\ N\S>Cj 0-> i V> V Vv.nna v \ % >.vNN>\S|

' ~V i I • jU' 1 •

AfCi

w/z-jzy

I I

\\v N \ NX V\lj> ^SN\V V s* N ' V1^1 S V OxV* X X X N X _ O 0* v •

^ V-CO_vOi n;

_ fig. 5&—Dresser chest, suitability considered averse or hxgh school level, Stanley 'Tool Company, Project Plans

I°E Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut. ^

134

i ||i / |!il 1,11

n»i d\.K\utz {• 11 - - -., -ii|j/ ) •**!! !!!!r4/- ;-!i

%\ 01

" n i r — »... j i M ini pav/pl ijii oji&z. JvV^rw' {.j,

"•'i I M iU-iiil? 2 ' v. g iii / i" I * * 2 * - " *f;

T O P V I E W ' " '

"l (A iii % 4

ttf^DjTO &E.TU?.»tD } JUL

MOTE. , I i! i !! I ~ GLUp- AMP MAIL

.ÎfyjsS* 1 jjteftfflH!, I (~\TOftiTats-'vima" • # ^ r ' 1 i W i f \ l f * ! 4 s«aoj

— W - r I\\oun

T MMt AM EASY

Bottom, —— v- *

FIT

"I -K* Vf> aL* ' !6

*,r

. . . j i s * — ' 4 f V i I PTl 11 ,./ I 2 Hoi-f~

ROUND ALU 5HAS.? C

^ 5auA.«.5 T

o o o

C H A M ? L?, P *. A V/lz.% ) f^ht^ ) y

r-O Bn'O 3 fj~

; o:-u' *•*0

o o o xP£av/F.S r m i i :.v.'j 6v ! j> J

O

VmA ??•<> r* IS' — _J5L -y-r

, rvi

IA

^-^*-•-^-*5*—-jf|- 5=

f 1 7- — ~ T i r ~ ~2& - ~ - -

1 , roTr'f; .. ./ jrL

TOP VIE-?/ OF 0f<;\Y/:-*.

" " I " 0K.NE.R.5. t

- J

... rrfW' i -\v~r:vy ; " 7rV !

Icr*— !»>• f iS it W t J /v . v\ vi rcs v* %* f<" <* fC* f* *~ <>,-A s 1

,*< 3<1"-X5i' *< 1 -r » i * ** s* V» 1

ij-j •H;V ~1 i"-vl Lt-

\ •

-p -n Vi^^" cabinet, suitability considered average for high school level, Stanley.Tool- Campany, Project Plans 1°E JiaeîieJtelSf New Britain, Connecticut.

135 IS r~

, !....! I _ L-.I—

M-Koj-

y j l z p p l i : : ]

' ' ' !' r ' , — - I - . ' - l l - T o l -

h — i a - -

T O P V I E W

X I 04

7

.> C\

J. JL

AU rorrc:;-!

TRACK o R C*:uvk:\ ^

- i o V

j

-LOCK I..CCS. IN PL ACS V/lTH V/fOGE

U-:G C'STTAU.

J. „ J t *i

2--xr-*a A 45* O:\MfiiSa

Au. ihc$

^ f k • *1 <•

h. * \

.t~;

37 -—

• r i

J . - L r j _ . ^ ! _ . J? '/* I

j J y -SCOOP ^ Dflhi3 MAX'/

- l * t I _!L t

*rr "fpVSR-PULU -

F-o FftOM .'YE STOCW. , STOCK,

•:o

ill:

FRAME

~IC;

7' fr ti t ' ^X J j l T C ^ r Z r * " v . "ij

• l U O - A r « , - » ? r r F j j i i

M3

! 3"- J-J-l L J ,

fnr» Vi io-^'e^v i i f s b e n c h , s u i t a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r e d a v e r a g e ' f o r h i g h suhooa. l e v e l _ , S t a n l e y T o o l Company, P r o j e c t P l a n s £ o r i l Q o d j ^ r k i n g , .New B r i t a i n , C o n n e c t i c u t .

r I 4 TOP t BOTTOM MOULDING

£ MOULPIN

L E G D E T A I L

136

[

H A N D L E DETAIL

NOTE :

SPL1NC MlTGK. JOINT

J 17.INS.'ue_ 2L.

-4 4

A L L STOCK ~

UNLCSC OTHCHWISC Specified

^4 THtK

£ ' ~ CEOAfi

C O R N E R CONSTRUCTION

> C T A I U S

ROUND CORNCR

]

TOP VIEW

J NOT £ 5

A L U ; TKIM RAISED

front view

J

18 END view

Pig. 59—Cedar chest, suitability considered average for high school level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

APPENDIX D

137

FOOT 4 APRON DETAiU

Nore.-FOOT MAOC FROM

2 " STOCK

.£ $

Foot ( AmorJ Assembly view

h>

fLl STOCK ~ UNUCSS OTHERWISE SP£ciFieD

&-8* JT 2

4-V V RAaaCT-4- A

-i 10

m o 3*

D1

-*~t 7"~i

2 — — 3 " "".-A ' A'-v*

«4S • -a-i

3: Jiii

1? upr<~ -4-

FRONT VIEW tO •\j

& E C T I O N A - A

•AMEROCK HiNCE NO. 2 3'.

3*

4

ro rvj r: i w-v SlDET view

Pig. 60—Stereo cabinet, suitability considered average for high school-college level. Stanley Tool Company, Pro.iect Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

138

05 no

*2 * ^ u r

u or I

>• o

2,* 2 J ^ Io\t < J hK

toa>

0 V< 0 CO

EQ H

^ f/)V >-£ «ust •P o < < 2n OHuiz

C\3 tH

IQ -P

139=

Tjr

i!l

* Wl**-

r

S*v?" 3

4 " } •

J :

vS>

I / lu> TOP VI E.W

jlJL

driver. VJ

4 - T T ~ 1 - f JOINT /

DRAWEE R.UKNLR.

tvJ"

t 4—' 4 -l«i ir> _ J

r->

¥

squash

\ r*— h-t

TOP EDGES

Slf EDGE. MADE WITH STANLEY ROUTER. &IT%!2.

Wf** DETAIL OF

TURNED LES r i m ,

• - L - t L - k J l J T

4, I - i

Fig. 62—Night table, suitability considered average for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.1 ect Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

1^0

fi rtp.

I RAD. TYfi

TOP VIEW

^—Cv.hic, t o p

>5X~ / DOWEL THRU TOP

TOP-

LEG DETAIL-

FRONT VIEW

Fig. 63—Glass top table, suitability considered good •for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Proiect Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

.1 1

LlNtOf 5HE.if| §r 7\J j -wfj, 0AVV£tX-Tll|6l.Ut NAIL {fSir1"

Hi h* *H "t* \Mud WfiiTt

fc-Xl-il

T02.NE.0 KNO& fy

I SQUARJ.S t

or- tor

A i—. &0TTOM

r t T O P V I E W -n

li^f

HOLt.

R.OUND All SHA P COP.KL K.6

<N X 5 £ £? < -

% r

*«•" © cm v _J • K fNj f

HE.D

tt~ <N ^L.

©

v-e«iV-

ttBOf 1"? ©

* / i' ©

t DRAW£ irr C> cvj Y n

71

7

©

©

T

:rf J

3"

2 - 7 * -

22 7 *

NOTE. GLUE 4 KAIL ALL y JOINTS TOdETHLR. f USE. I?/ *16 9UP5 J] i" Sftl/Att* j ,

w

[J ' T I A I T-

A7/ P £A Y/E-?,;

Fig. 6A-—Spice rack, suitability considered average for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.iect Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

1>2

m— o»ij RAIL

DETAILS

Drawer TA* L S

NOTC; Auu STOCK unv-C&S OTHtTHWiftC S CCiVl CP

use stanlcy ftourea eir wo. es" ^ f S Q . TYP

^PTffct

. .

NOTE: Moarise ( tenon ALL LEC JOINTS

Fig. 65—End table, suitability considered good for high school-college .level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

1 ^ 3

© o

CD -P

5 1 * Ut EC D U O O

O -H

<3 *H

r\ 0 by

03 Sh J* 0 fn > O 03 £

«d T3 O 0 o «h 3: 0 -d ^ H O ca <+-. S o ca o

03 !>s J I -P P-4 H i—i -p •H O P 0 cd «P o

is r > ^ S S S 5 £

R & A * r. r ' «

v . u 5c ^ .A U O u ^

s j s ^ S S S & V . o o

\D r-i VD O

0

3 M

GRAIN D I R E C T I O N

.1 •4S* C O R N E R T R I M BL.OCKS

F ^ ' - F T O P VIEW

VjJV

MOLOINC T DETAIL

—

: f i i r v t u

a CEDAR 7J»— / — CCD/

CORNER OETAII.

8

fiANEL DETAIL

NOT£T« SPLlNS* £ MlTCR FEET TocerwrR

PRCSNT FOOJ EEL Y + £ = P ^ -

- J R N ~ L 1 1

fij^r H " £ Q -

SIDE F O O T

j l

U S E CTANLEX ROUTED BITS NO. FFC I Z O F No. 85 128

f o r h i g h s o h c o l - c o l l e g ^ l e v e l ^ s t a ^ l " t y ° o n | l < 3 e r e d average

i l a s s f o r WooawortOng, H e w B r i t a i n " C ^ S S i S S t ? " 1 3 ' '

li*5.

!

\ \ n n

» 11 J & - U ' . ll 1 ) l! iniw>

TO TOP.j ALLOW x{l>J-0|s — FOR. EXPANSION ;l | |) N

i CONTRACTION i| ; •!

SCREW CLEAT-

/i

T O P VIELVV

watm-T-p-.z^crpixJ,, /T v cz~5 «r«w-n~f i f H M — r I SQUARES __

*2-rJ

-1 i i -i^ I j x v|

- j> — 7 to *\v,QO f [—•—i * t~

TRUE. SHAPE.

Of THE LEG

Dowels DETAIL OF LEG I SHAFT CONSTRUCTION

Fig. 68—Coffee table, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut. "

lif-6

T O P VIETW

X HMSZO PANC

AMETROCK HSNCC 7 7 3SAC

4 pa. RCQ'D.

NOTC D O W G L A L U

£,h£LVCS T o A L L F k At /.=~S

cprAi: A M E R O C K

KM03 596 0w & RTRA'O

£L_ LliZ

• ALL STOCK UNLESS END VIEW -*V

OTHCFIWISE: SPECIF* CP

FRONT VIEW

STANLEY ROUTER BIT NO. 8S I28

BASE MOLDING DETAI'

Fig. 69—-Night stand, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.iect Plans for Woodworking:, New Britain, Connecticut.

147

PIANO HINGE

TOP H A N D FORMED;

CLEAT

TOP VIEW N O T £ :

VJOINT CONSTRUCTION OPTIONAL

it 10

S P E A K E R L A Y O U T $

Component PARTS Y OPTIONAL

COVE: TRIM POSITION

PLYWOOD PANCL

BUND SPUNED MITSTR, JOINT WALNUT

NOTE • ALL PANSLS T&IMMCD WITH Sol JO WALNUT TO Cover rwp CRAW OF WALNUT PLYWOOD WHEREYSTR N€C£"SSARY

-j 2"[~

L E G D E T A I L S

cove MOULD'tNC

TRIM DETAIL

JOINT FRONT

-191-

DCWEL

4 OOWCL

Fig. ;70—Stereo cabinet, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.ject Plans i'or iWoodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

I j TAellE TOP "*32.

DROP1 tEAF

z Rca'p.

Ruaor

l i r n n

whs: SEGMGnt WHEETL . DCTAIL-S

%POK? D£

•STANLEY conthwvoux w;«r wtf. SC3ij DROP L€AF

NOT Shown DROP I.€ap ; STANLev routc BIT NO, es

I * £•* X Xf* APRON

| * 2f RAtL

SEES E + E B ^ f F

3-«*. C«TO„ B £ r

148

Fig. 7l-~Serving cart, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

R O L L F R O K I T

SLOV FOR Ooon TO CUIOC INTO VVHCfi o (TH'HtfO NAiL CLVC

STOCK DOVETAIL* A L L CORNCRG

TTPtCAU OKAWSfl, OECtCH

s c r BACK

T O ALLOW

roQ R O O ^ F R O N T

DOOR DlV'.DCRS SPACED ' TO £U*r

TOP CONSTRUCTION

1% -4 4*

STANLV B I T N O . 0 5 - I A S -

ux AMERocK NO* goo AZt

\1 RCO'P.

lE^Si OriM"-Tte

CLUE

r-1—

CORNER D E T A I L S

1 rtY." '7"—*~j -y

3. *>K ]C rV~

-TYP.-~-t CZD

R TYH|

T

X-rrr.

1^9

v

.&

SOtfpcw ^ CANVAS

ROLL. FRorNfT OETTAiUS

C2

Pig. 72—Lady's desk, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut.

1 5 0

v o CM

- J 1 ii

S A V a

n K

1 _ _ h , _

| U

wi:

r.£ J

> < ! c~

i *

T

d *

O o

k ] \ *

L-A.

Y m £ V '

, ,

S i

5

n ;c

i [

A

h l ^

X W O « p

& « G: i V) w i.., {j ~1 rf X Ui - J / F~ £L < D O <*

, _ . . . X x

?,?i i <Jtr 1

Z J

" " " " 1

J-

z:—

L i I * K > V

lO

T

j-* W K

r a> £ < O a: n

)

ii! J( D

cC UJ u .

v\ u

' <

Gf CD

1

- p

o

4 > O

0 0)

CD H O H O O 0 * 1 S

H *H O 03 O ~P

£1 -H O JLf ca i:q

y~i »*> Ah t o <D

^ b£ o &

C|~£ *ri

f d "P-f o o O £ 50'TJ

o t j o 0 ^

<2> ,<M T i O <H %-n ca £ « l o S i O GjJ

H | >»P* . p

•H - P r ~ t O *H 'D r-Q CO O

- P fn • H

ca «* £?

* S3 ^ 05 ca ft 0 B

rrj O a

CD O rH

• H O <%H O *+--! H o

2 >» ! 0

!—I r - s

cd • 43

t a o a

Ph

0 s > <D

HI

151

[6 7"

^ CROOVZ

£ 7

M i - r J_

I " 6 fl ' s

D o o r . d e t a i l

USE: STANLEY ROUTER BIT No. SS ( 2 7 AND No. fly 120

NOTE:.-ALL STOCK UNIETSS

OTHERWISE:

SPECIFIED

F i g . ^ 7 ^ ' ~ ~ r f u - t c h , s u i t a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r e d g o o d f o r h i f h

? ? 5 ? ° i C } 1 " ? 0 x : L f ? e l e v e l , S t a n l e y T o o l C o m p a n y , P r o . i e c t P l a n s

£ ° £ ^ . o d j ; L O r k , N e w B r i t a i n , C o n n e c t i c u t .

I T # # 2 LOMC

A M E H O C K PULL

NO. A-!SO AC

A M E R o c k h i n g e

NO 7 6 9 o

1 5 2

ni - /VL-L .

•2 . ~ " * 2

t •

* 4 - A

I r

J T U -S'MTL • W — - 4 -P-2

- 4 A -

P = «

~ W

N

T 6 P V\£W

R A 8 S E T ^ FRONT*

L^GTVE

* 1 CCNTTR DOVETAIL

DADO D R A W E R DETAIL

NF* |> 7 . * 1

L^R^RDLT-'F^ I

- 1 ^

I9m

H P ~ 2" DIA.

- J U R -

<N

2 DIA

FRONT" *£" FRAMT

UI JL

CM A

T O P CONSTRUCTION D E T A I L

S U D I N C - } T O P S

^—S^-C

S

R L

. R

1

^ AMCROCK f PULL NO.aiq^

A 3 RCQ*O.

. ] . • RABBCTEO + FRONT

_ BRAS^ _ •y^ F E R R Y U R N A

i

f o r h ^ ' s ^ c o T x Z l e v e l ' s t a ^ e y " ^ " ? 3 " 8 ^ f ° ° a

n a m J ^ - W a a t o E k l B a . New B r i t a i n , c S n n e c t i c u t f 1 1 7 ' Z E 2 J J L ~

153

o <

IU w \s

0 to 0 rH H O 0 1

rH O o £$ o ca .fl e*o •H

& o (+H nd o o bo nzi 0

s •H ca

o o -p •H rH •H

03 «P •H

W

a> P & as PQ I

VO £N-

hO •H P4

H 0 > 0

PMZCX

P-AP 0 r #

~ DOVVCL

RiGHT SiDE

Ctue AU» JOINTS

Corker post assembly

V SPLINC

P SO * .

t 1 -iw j

I r~n I T1

s i ~ i in _ !2_y 22ll \ ' • — .. i j •

i- r

_J_L J—-I ... i

—iC lO f *o!\r CD I *i l£

CO I fO

CO

1

#o;* CO

15^

-13-

ro -1

Fig. 77—Triple dresser,- suitability* considered good .for high school-college level.

155

fit

Lbxrms^h \

il

EEpEFI:! ££? " V

Li.

rr ;i«N> L\t - *i 03

111]

-!* 5

Mit i

JLr "CLUfi eA.6f.Ks

-if

ni* p>

M*

DADO Ait. £>M«TLP JOtNTb

;rr

4

Mf r4

S!* £

fc]2 E

Mia N

cH*

. . . J JL: ! *

• :78-"-Corner hutchj suitability considered good fop high School-college level, Stanley Tool Coinpany. ôJej3t nans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut,

"foot

41" T O P V I E W

156

DA DO

W IT

4 Bottom (TRÎCAU) J -

D* DOVETAIL" DRAWER

DETAILS (ryptcAL)

=L=fc=

AMÂOCK Nfo, aoo AC DRAWS* ft PULU & REQ'O.

.. 0- *_

•2"CMA.

- K :F

IL'JJ

TT r-SCi3

- JO"-

;r 3- • m

[ £ 3 _JL_ - r ruf"

»

.J__ t

dH

RunnCR

T • ^

0.' , £ KLLV t

NOT*' 01.1ND OADa ATU ÔIMLRI 1

_ ] r

7 N0

-33-

1 ^ RunnEP,

K

NU.V fcouTCR MO, gtf U-*

C4

TRN

TfflFFE

sir ii sa. F R O N T V I E W li n

a«3|Vi7j-Puuu OWT H|i Support %j\

2 * T~ RVWMETR--

-MX fPlAMt ** i

S I D E V I E W ,

Fig. 79--Governor Winthrop desk, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pmlect Sans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

- « * -

Top view

J K

1

151-

L E G D E T A I L . KOVSID

&PACC* DETAtV

CMFTSMAN CAT V * ? RA3BCT INLA/ K'O. ?J

D£SK

I N * -*» —•H ~*

! * 5" PAOO TYr

AMCSOC< NO. Qoo AG & ftCO'D. /

STANLEY ROUT£R B»T NO. 8 5 - 1 2 0 _ RAB3CT

CRAFTSMAN CAT. NO- CIO hiNit

i 4 "a PUU our SUPPORT

NOTG:

A L L STOCK

UNUCI* NOTCP

orwsawisE

TAPCR ONT NOTE RWKLSTCFT ON

D a AW £ H. ©rM'_V, CUIOES TO B€

00V£TAJL

DRAWER D E T A I U S

f o r h i f f h ' s c h o o ? n n i i P ? s u i t a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r e d g o o d

P r S l e o t J o S u f V e 1 ' S t a n l e y T o ° l C o m p a n y , ^ j e c t P l a n s f o r W o o a w o i ^ k i n g , N e w B r i t a i n , C o n n e c t i c u t

158

T n I1

-.ii-_'L

- « • -

ir l!

-25-il I

-jBi -25f-

T O P V I E W

v ATTfto*

I SPCAKETR

UA/QuT 1" Ho rc t

£TOC* ~~ othcRwiC sfrco.

rot StANtEV RouTCH

DETAILS

CHVlD£fc STANILCY U O XW FRO R,R

COM POMCNT S O P 7 I O N A U

II CFTVLK. *

6cr££N

P [ ~ M R

RAISED Pakel OOoa O E T A I L S

- S TA>SJUEY R O U T E R

6 » T M O . © S 1 3 3

P L Y W O O D ,

IV* 2CT, 2 R C Q ' D .

\ / T C O W R U # \ ' -

pig. for high ! Plans for

81-—Stereo cabinet, suitability considered good chool-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.iect MSSflworking, New Britain, Connecticut. ~

159

CvJ I f

T CD

JL

CJ

15 «——

j =

DRAWER DETAIL

48

r «•> —L.

Fig.

r l

13-

18

— 24

1 • "ijr-2 22 -

I b~

82—Desk, suitability considered good for high school-college level,

160

-4| — -f m

line: top with Shckt copper

l so.

BACK

q SHEffl

"ID

/ a *

JL.

H U C3 CO cc

#-~W x. »

m!co

CI -|M —iCM

RAisro pancu Door dettaiu

.A " ,VTt

ST A N L E Y H - U

HtNCC NO. WQJa 3

STANLEY LATCH"— N O . WW 2.4- k - %.

Z

~ OOWEU, IJ'lnc. |

for high * school-oollege°ievel ' Stanlev^TooT^ 2on3ldeI'e^ average Plans for Woodworkljigf New S i t f S f c ^ e o W o ™ ? ^ ' £ E a i —

TRim

161

•-L m c T

FlNl AL S RiBS Rccra

FIMlAu

R\S (5. Reo o

J CH£l*ftY

H_j

4 1"' j af^BtdSs

r&i.

*ig. o-!-~-Ghest of drawers, suitability considered good for high schoox-college xevel, Stanley Tool Company, Proiect I l i M for jjp_odwp.rkin.g:, New Britain, Connecticut. ~~~

162

F :q:H ) i 1 i |! i! l'< 1

'•li i'! i1 11 i hj l

1 1 \ I i i M J 1 r »

i b ±_~; i 1 _LJ

LINE WiTM SHcr ccrpca

vi r*/

-° No ' t*Ck.-iocs-s-OVr * i - " l ""*'

NOT£' Clue AU -JOINTS RAISED PAMEL.

Ocoa details D'xOu» *»h D:"iAWC;l

DEtah.S

3h ~"ZT1 <-£5 VTi. I „

sy/UT-V.riCS l* j" NOTE

ALU STOCA I UHLSSS H>TEQ OYUErtV'iSf AM £ rtoc* KO, i£ t;o A N< CROCK NO, 16 £4

Clu£ f

DOWCL

STANLEY novt Srr NO. 052.3

T TRi M J, DCTA!!.S

H 3" !

j-!irL

—•—12" =~

: OOori sor ^ S.HOV/H 1?

A>Isfc 4' - v — — ~ — ^ „L

li-FlTT" *• -MT—T* sr!-

high schc Plans for

Pig. 85 Dry sink, suitability considered good for SChCOl-n.nllAO-A loxml Q+-™1~„ rn__-> ~ .. to _ _ V •ol-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Project

i££3workxiig, New Britain, Connecticut!

163

- r *

1 L*i

J" — ~ V

V 1 1

1 ' J 1

i>! 1* •

i 1 I t

•l<i* ! UJ r

—

H * I ! j

T w i

-

\ ...

Z f l Z

\ L i _ j „

I—I 0 P> 0

0 W) 0

i—I r~i 0 O 1

rH*-

O O

& .

o ca

50 •H &

U o

<h

<rs o o fcO

•T3 0

<D

•«H ' ca £ O O >>

-P •H r-H •H Xl •Gtf - P •i—I

2 ax

0 r d o S s 0

o r 1

VO 00

•Hi fx*

164

l ! )1

TOP VI KV

£ > C F . / h a l f \ 1

T f U . M ^ P A r Y /

- f - 4 .

g f ^ . v - \ r <

h c j ' ^ ' i ' *'/'*' ; v ->

J vkVci V-'V!1

fcT V $ A O ' S E M f c u r

OWTA'LS "A"

T O P DOOf? Ff tAMiC

'JAHCS N O T £ :

<V.U£ AV.i^ S'Ojr^VS \sk<X |

/;uu= \ M v PAircr? r4 J

CCv/r< .S £ ftco'q

MOVEMENT

T O S U I T

S t r c r j o N

FlNtAl C C T A t u S O C O f t F i V . V C

E N T A I L S N o V f i i

ALL firoc/v L\v*.sr3:

© t m s r w i s s hfoVt*c>. CLASS

S T / f i L E Y f t o u n c n

G n r , \ i .

N O T £ :

F o o t s t o c k

t h i c s

prrri-Q-lforft!

lCQTi" (T'i rj-r ft rrn i :i 11 i rr'rjpT~r;>v--J

T k i h

i n ; r , \ i i - s

sxxnxttTT i

good fof-hilrSSoSool^L0!1"^! BSJtt?11"' feHieot Plan, W o o ^ f J s ^ S e ^ ' B ^ ^ ? S £ e c f e '

165

i RAIL

f CO.

Top view

QiA

rsuo t

SJO<TBoarj> dctails

RACK TRIM

RAlSElP FROkit

]p£ISB 2 r | , rm LTJ * *

^ 4 ^ KAIL A l t e r n a t e NTHACK DOVETAsl DETAILS

•RAW CP! DETAILS AMERocx Na. s» *>

,HA1SCD DRAWER fftOtiT

CASJSISr FRAMS:

DRAWCR Side

Section bb STANLEY aOVTiR 3iT .No. QS>I2£

AMERCCK N0.AK9D MOUOiC

TVPlCAL MOLOtHfi JRA8QGT TfR

A -AMCRoot NO. i&ia AMCfcocX hJQ. tftO o

NOTE: ALL STOCK. ~ OrHGfWiCC NOTCO CLUC ALL OTOilNfTft E • ca

RAISEP PANO. OOR frame

# ye*" CADihtCT TRAMiC Tb'^L/L /"CABINCT 3 M-J/ ioe Lc lilj"

K g r

Fig. 88--Hutch, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.lect Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut.

166

Ul UJ

) U

vr .2 J—

VO i" "i _L

*—

vd n

(H

-pi

HZ ~\N

YWM ih- J :? t;1!* ;o

ft H Ph /J -P 05 O

•H C3 rO P<

«P LH

s

16?

& O

~~ | i r* 4M !! !*

rH <H

O -P

XJ O

•H NH

1 hf'1 P W CO Pi

O H

a> p> <D |H

168

©OVCTV.W JOINT

DFUWCft DETAIL

rabbet f r o n t

f OADO UoinT

C<CHTen RUN TRACK

4 NOTE' oowa AtL JOINTS

r L ibp. T MOO ±

DETAIL OP top Eoce

SEC £0<S£ OCTAlU

| |

I v,. -1- ?A_ _

i sauARes

^"CrNTCrt ftwttNf# |}

Fig. 91—Chest of drawers, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut.

169

HO

- I P s ! r u j „J

a a -

• H - P

(fe < [ O

o ^ cr

>*• rt" N

C m H

^'.rr^JCT.CKrc^.O'TÎ.1

17 Q

T CO JL_

o;:: X —Irizrr: ;S=Oj r*

«W -L

~3o~ 3I £V

TOP VIEW

^ B i

BARREL

ET

BUTT

r 3*t>'

-«S-

W|* JL.

-hr a

PLYWOOO

PANELING

. I *

y^C£Hra\ ftuNs.

C f c g g

f Vj

l

u

I

BACK

4*

T*uck rem Runn t p> POveTAiL

JOINT

RAB3CT FRONT

UNLf.CS

$P£Ci?l£U

Cv\Do-UOtKT

STANLEY aowTCR B i t n o . 4 ? 5 - t 2 9 STANLEY R o u t e r BIT NO. 8 5 - U 4

STANLEY DRawC* Putu NO. OP 44 71

tscnS"' i) ALL STOCK

OTHE&WlSS

Fig. 93—Gun cabinet, suitability considered average for-high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.iect Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut.

171

£*?(> HOLES EQUALLY S Q

S" OIA. 5 Pw

Y-DI/

\*QIA.

•rp,.A4 HOLES FOR LEGS

, 6 H O L E S ETQUALLY SP'D. LEG" DETAIL

~n *0 !<*> t • , V I

I'M* -l(N jLrtO j -IN ? ! f i LJ t

-T6P\E0GZ Round CP h" ';• —j~l i i, ~ j~i -r- 2-

A'»>* i (*" 14 [ n f—P 11 <v ; J •«

K)j O r DEEP

2 wi* 5 ~ I S \ft5\ Madc TO I „—!L{H\ Fir bctwcen

r fr-A REAR t.rcs f K 1 rTv~::iL~r-f

Rear STRINGER

uraxnTGi

J ^ ^ I P J X P ^ R ^ N

:Ba3zdi±£dzhxi

Fig. 194—Boston rocker, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company,

-£ £-a§HS JlQE j£^Qdworkin_g, New Britain, Connecticut.

172

-^HVH\J3AO

•U 'U

r CQ 05

I'J MftJ" ^ tfl N N

M r»

v n (o o \ P> -P

•H <D -P bO O

l?3

CONTOUa ARM *

BACK _

w1! CO

rptA,; 4- R€Q O. M Rtq'£>. | DU(> 9 RC<vp.

fcdzt & t a a f ft fto a o _fl 6 L. IKW :

-|* CONTOUa . (]

czr~ 1

Pig. for high s Pro .1ect Pi

96—Captain's chair, suitability considered good chool-college level, Stanley Tool Company §&S £ov Woodwo£kiag, New Britain, Connecticut'.

17^

7 PLY,

il _J

TOP view

CCMTtra RUN r.r • DOVeTAit AU. coancas

O N D R A W eras ~.-2i

i • O • ~ MX Z

ii*1- j-p--- 1* 1 L 'A -

rr it t» -16= r -

»* ui -1 I I I

t CENTER I

-Or™- j

ll

•|2i" MS

1*1

• R A I S E D PAN ex DooftS

• " ' * " / - v C O v C M O O U D I M C

! BRACE 4 Coancftp7

h 5 H

RASOfT

I sa.

8

1* 2

1!

™I—I-1-.

.£&£=E±z

OUTMN£ orJT D A A W C *

ccNTca aut*-

f-KAMC — F* |i" >LT-4 * 1 2

A U L S T O C K 5 ^ * J

U N L C S S O T w C F t W I S C t

Spectpieo OOWCL ALL exTERlOa JOINTS

- 1 7 - V

X v/l

S/*Sa-JSSScBE. *-i

-18 h-s-H

*' I,? ,s* 97—China cabinet, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, iEoject. Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

175

. 71r' -k RANDOM V JI ^ PUYWrOOO SACKji

TOP view

TP 11

u 11

I I !

1 • 1 \ C:

- ~ A

SPiNDLE Detail

AC* M»T*£a

"45 j. S a i>jA. i

! "H

• r 1 j (

1

1 | \ FOOT DETAIL

TOP CUTOUT

R/wL £xyxj

PuL*« !sto •

ALL doors { DRAWERS TO FiT £lU£H Bottom cvro r

Plastic window/ into iugbe 5

KOTC: ALL STOCK 3. COV £ UNLCSS OTHk'fWUJC SPKCifiSV

' L fP^r

Fig. 98—Early American china cabinet, suitability considered good for high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Pro.iect Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut.

1?6

APPENDIX E

l CH 3

N O T t r r U R N I M T H R c PARTS T H uN

GLUE TOGETHER.,

i D R A W N FULL. SiZ -r-t

nh&O rMoo

Pig. 99—Mint dish, suitability considered average for junior high-high school-college level, Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking, New Britain, Connecticut.

I

hO

17?

N

-&'<?/ m.

"ZTZr

T$"/-

CQ

P/

t

t

§ N b

-> / '

0 rr)

u o •H

u o Ch

0 hO 03

0 > ctf

t5 0

0 fd *H CQ

o o

>s 43

•H H «H

05 -P *H

CQ

0 H • rQ H Ctf 0

-p i> 0

0 H 0 Cm 0 <h &3 0 0

O H r h 1 o

o o O i tH Hi

o • o

hQXi *H O Pin m

& hQ

178

0 <0

I

v-

0 3 ^ ~~2f

6 - 4 ° -7

// .-S <3

//

Fig. 101—Water ski, suitability considered average for junior high-high school-college level.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Anderson, Lewis, Pestalozzl, New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1931.

Barlow, Melvin L., History of Industrial Education in the United States, Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett Company, Inc., 1967.

Bennett, Charles A., History of Manual and Industrial Education Up to 1870. Peoria, Illinois, The Manual Arts Press, 1926.

Douglass, J. H. and R. H. Roberts, Pro.ie cts in Wood Furniture. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1967-

Eby, Fredrick, Early Protestant Education. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., '1931 •

Ericson, Emanuel E., Teaching the Industrial Arts, Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett Company, Inc., 1960.

Giachino, J. ¥. and Ralph 0. Gallington, Course Construction in Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, Chicago, American Technical Society, 1961.

Holtrop, William F. and Herman Hjorth, Principles of Woodworking, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1961.

Krusi, Herman, Pestalozzi: His Life, Work and Influence, Cincinnati, Wilson Hinkle and Company, lU75«

Miller, Rex, Selected Readings for Industrial Arts. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Pub-lishing Company, 1963.

Olson, Delmar W., Industrial Arts and Technology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

Seidel, Robert, Industrial Instruction. A Pedagogic and Social Necessity. Boston, D. C. Heath and Company,

jmrr '

179

180

Stanley Tool Company, Project Plans for Woodworking. New Britain, Connecticut, Education Department.

Wilber, Gordon 0., Industrial Arts in General Education, Scranton, Pennsylvania, International Textbook Company, 19^9.

Woodward, C. M., The Manual Training School, Boston, D. C. Heath and Company, 1887.

Articles

Bennett, Charles A., "Convention Proceedings." Manual Training Magazine, Volume II, Number 1 (October, 1900), p.TST

"The Future Hole of the Project in Industrial Arts," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, Volume II, "(October, 1960), pp. 24-60.

Feirer, John L., "Let's Take the Offensive," Industrial Arts and Vocational Education. Volume 49, Number U Cluhe, 19.60), p. 13.

Reports

Bowden, William T., Manual Arts in the Junior High School. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1922.

Hornbake, R. Lee, New Horizons in Industrial Arts, Wash-ington, D. C., American Industrial Arts Association, 1964.

Mager, R. F., Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruc-tion. San Francisco, Fearon Publisher, 1962.

Maley, Donald, Contemporary Methods of Teaching Industrial Arts, Washington, D. C„, American Industrial Arts Association, 1963•

Osburn, Burl N., Industrial Arts is for Human Beings, Washington, D. C., American Industrial Arts Association, 1963.

Warner, William E,, Policies in Industrial Arts Education. Their Application to a Program for Preparing Teachers. Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University Press, 192H.

181

Weber, Earl M., The Role of Industrial Arts in Tomorrow's Schools. Washington, D. C., American Industrial Arts Association, 1963•

Publications of Learned Organizations

American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Action and Thought in Industrial Arts, Twelfth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1963.

Classroom Research in Industrial Arts, Thirteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 196^.

Evaluation Guidelines for Contemporary Industrial Arts Programs, Sixteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1967.

Graduate Study in Industrial Arts, Tenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Pub-lishing Company, 1961.

Industrial Arts Teacher Education Directory. Bloom-ington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1968-69.

Industrial Technology Education, Eighteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Pub-lishing Company, 1967.

Planning Industrial Arts Facilities. Eighth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Pub-lishing Company, 1959.

Problems and Issues in Industrial Arts Teacher Edu-cation, Fifth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1956.

Research in Industrial Arts Education. Ninth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Pub-lishing Company, 1960.

182

American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, A Sourcebook of Readings in Education, Sixth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Pub-lishing Company, 1957 -

Status of Research in Industrial Arts, Fifteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1966.

American Vocational Association, A Guide to Improving Instruction in Industrial Arts, Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 1953•

., A Guide to Improving Instruction in Industrial Arts, Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 1968.

, Industrial Arts Division, Improving Instruction in Industrial Arts, Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 19^6.

., Industrial Arts Division, Standards of Attainment in Industrial Arts Teaching, Washington, D. C., American Vocational Association, 193^.

Public Documents

Commission on Vocational Education and Industrial Arts, Instruction in Industrial Arts, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

Commission on Vocational Education and Industrial Arts, Texas Curriculum Studies, Report Number 13., Austin, Texas, Texas Education Agency, 1959-

A Guide: Industrial Arts in Florida Schools, Bulletin 12, Tallahassee, Florida, State Department of Education, 1959.

Industrial Arts» Its Interpretation in American Schools, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1938.

Mississippi School Bulletin, Industrial Arts for Mississippi High Schools., Grades 7-12, Jackson, Mississippi, State Department, of Education, 1959.

183

NDEA Title III Guidelines. Washington, D. C., U. S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1967.

Office of Education, Improving Industrial Arts Teaching, Conference Report, Washington, D. C., U. S. Govern-ment Printing Office, I960.

Park, Joseph, Some Facts Concerning Manual Arts and Home-making Subjects in One Hundred and Fifty-Six Cities, Washington, D. C., U. S.* Government Printing Office, 1916.

A Survey of Programs. Teachers and Students. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965-

Unpublished Materials

McCain, Jerry C., "Textbook Suitability for the Indus-trial Arts Programs in Texas," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, 1959.

Robinson, Walter J.,"Trends in Industrial Arts Teacher Edu-cation, A Survey of Teacher Training Institutions," Northwestern State College, Natchitoches, Louisiana, 1959.