A study to develop an instrument to assess students' educational needs as perceived by selected teachers, parents, and students

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify students' educational needs as perceived by teachers, parents, and students, and to determine whether the perceptions of the three respondent groups would differ significantly. Procedure. The data for the study were obtained in November, 1972, by surveying the seniors, their parents, and the professional staff of Alpine High School in Alpine, Texas. These three groups stated their perceptions of students' needs by ranking educational objectives in priority order. Each objective represented one of six Program Categories, one of nine Program Thrusts, and one of twenty Program Areas. A respondent's rating of an objective was also a rating of Categories, Thrusts, and Areas. The response answer sheets were computer tabulated and analyzed to produce mean value rankings of each Category, each Thrust, and each Area for each respondent group. By combining the three groups' responses, a total group ranking was derived. Results. Students' priority needs as identified in the study centered within the following Program Categories, Thrusts, and Areas. The Categories of personal development, career and occupational development, and academic development were rated as the most important, in that order. The kinds of Thrusts perceived as most important were the affective Thrusts of receiving and valuing and the special applications Thrust of openness to change. The five most important Program Areas were personal self-development, career and occupational development, socio-cultural human relations, citizenship, and reading. Analysis of Results. Chi-square analysis of the rankings of the twenty Program Areas by the three groups showed that four of the Areas were ranked differently at the .05 level. Chi-square analysis of the response frequencies made by the three groups on each objective revealed that fourteen of the 177 objectives utilized in the study were ranked differently at the .05 level. Conclusions. 1. The instrument and procedure used provide a viable way to identify student needs in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of human behavior. 2. The instrument used enables the discrepancies between respondents' perceptions to be delineated. 3. The teachers, parents, and students surveyed showed sufficient agreement in their perceptions to permit the identification of priority needs important to all three groups. 4. Students' priority educational needs center within the Program Areas of personal self-development, career and occupational development, socio-cultural human relations, citizenship, and reading. Within these subject areas the affective Thrusts of receiving and valuing are more important than the cognitive Thrusts of analysis and knowledge. 5. There generally is greater discrepancy between the perceptions of students and parents than there is between the perceptions of students and teachers or parents and teachers. Recommendations. 1. Public school programs should emphasize personal self-development, career education, and socio-cultural areas as well as the traditional academic areas. 2. Affective objectives should be emphasized in all subject areas. 3. A replication of this study is recommended using samples drawn from urban, suburban, and rural areas in which the variables of sex, race, and socio-economic status are considered as factors which might influence perceptions of priority needs. 4. A replication of this study is recommended in which the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of current program efforts would also be determined. In such a study not only would priority needs be identified, but the respondents' perceptions of how well the needs are being met would also be specified. This would identify the discrepancy between priority needs and present outcomes as perceived by those surveyed. 5. Investigation into the concept of need is recommended. Research might be done to develop and test a needs assessment model which both generates need statements within certain concepts of need and classifies the respondents' reactions within certain concepts. Such research would contend with the subjectivity which pervades the specification of priorities.