I.

Introduction
Sewing is a tradition within home economics education. A century ago, sewing
became part of home economics program developing sewing skills, whether they were
for fancy work or utilitarian purposes, was viewed as important to assuming domestic
roles. By the 1960s, learning clothing construction skills was an important part of
preparing young women for occupations related to clothing as well as for homemaking
roles. In the 21st century, an emphasis on sewing skills has continued within exploratory
or introductory courses at middle and high schools, and in advanced or career
development courses at the high school level.
Families and society have changed. However, this change calls into question the
need to learn sewing skills. For example, although women once made much of the
familys clothing, now ready-made apparel is available and accessible in neighbourhood
stores and from catalogues and internet-based retailers. Most individuals and families
can obtain clothing and textiles to meet their needs without knowing how to sew.
In addition, financial and human resources are limited both within families and
society. Individual students, families, or schools may or may not be able to purchase the
sewing supplies, kits, or equipment needed for sewing to be cost-effective. Public
schools, as well as colleges and universities, are experiencing a reduction of financial
resources. Human resources are limited as well. In many areas of the Philippines, home
economics teachers are in short supply. Due to limited resources, families, public
schools, including colleges and universities, are forced to make difficult decisions
regarding educational priorities.
Although families and society have changed, and despite the desire of the
profession to eliminate the stereotypical image of cooking and sewing, sewing, from a
technical perspective, continues to be a predominant part of home economics
classrooms. It is essential, therefore, to reflect upon how learning experiences such as
sewing support educational goals and the enduring understanding of concepts
important to individual, family, and community life
II. Background of the Study
The type and amount of clothing and textiles instruction being offered in
secondary classrooms is an important issue in the re-evaluation of home economics
curriculum. This is not a new concern. However, in recent years, persons both within
and outside the educational community have questioned the value of clothing
construction education. The study of clothing and textiles has traditionally been an
important part of the home economics curriculum. The majority of the classroom time
devoted to clothing has generally been spent on the other areas of the Technology and
Home Economics program.
As a TLE teacher of many years, it has always been the goal of the researcher to
impart practical knowledge to her students that can be actually used in their everyday
lives. However, teaching the skills to students who are reluctant to learn is an everyday
challenge that the proponent has to overcome. The somewhat instant mentality and
the ever changing needs and attitudes of the students contribute to the difficulty of
teaching practical skills.
In light of this and the need to put the K to 12 program one step higher, the
researcher wants to explore the impact of providing enhancement activities to the
dressmaking students of Batangas National High School in order to improve their
attitudes towards skills-learning by evaluating their academic performance. The
academic performance is evaluated by determining if there is a significant difference in
their 3
rd
and 4
th
Grading scores.
III. Related Readings or Pieces of Literature and Actual Studies
There are opinions in the literature both for and against teaching sewing skills in
consumer and homemaking classes. Some authors report that public school sewing has
negative effects on students (Koontz and Dickerson, 2005), while other are strongly in
favour of the possible creative benefits to be derived from sewing instruction (Loker,
2007).
Koontz and Dickerson (2005) reported that experience in home economics
sewing classes had a tendency to discourage students from future home sewing. Many
young people considered sewing as a duty to be performed at some time in the distant
future. According to them, those students who learned to sew in school were less likely
to continue sewing than those who learned from their mother or another relative.
Although the majority opinion favors decreased emphasis on sewing, there are
also voices in favour of teaching sewing in public schools. Locker (2007) stated that
sewing can be used to develop creativity, personal and marketable skills, recognition of
quality and self-esteem. The American Home Sewing Association is a strong advocate
for secondary home economics courses that teach sewing skills. Their Washington
lobbyist, Del Smith in 2011 made the following statement:
.. as with other aspects of life, parents are depending more
and more on school system to teach their children what used to be
taught at home........
Before the turn of the century, much of the clothing worn by the family was made
within the home. Members of the family, or extended family, produced and cared for the
clothing. This situation no longer exists. Today, most clothing is purchased ready-to-
wear and is frequently laundered or dry cleaned outside the home or by someone hired
to perform this service.
Role changes within the society have also resulted in changes in the home
economics classroom. Todays high school home economics classrooms contain a
mixture of both young men and women. Both sexes are generally quite interested in
clothing and appearance during the teen years. Emphasis should be placed on a
curriculum that is up to date in terms of the interests and needs of the students. Other
important considerations are an assessment of current and future lifestyles, up-to-date
equipment and facilities and an ability to relate knowledge and skills learned in clothing
to other aspects of daily living and learning (MacCleave-Frazier and Murray, 2003).
Family changes and the changes in the make-up of classes that include a wider
mix of students in terms of gender, ability, socioeconomic background, and religion
require home economics teachers to re-evaluate course offerings.
In Michigan, a new curriculum has been adopted for high school home
economics class (Atkins, 2005). It contains topics related to clothing and textiles that are
integrated into six units: essential health and living, personal living, family living,
parenthood/child development, consumer education and life management. Content
areas such as nutrition and foods, clothing and textiles, and housing and home
furnishing skills appear to have been eliminated. However, they have been addressed
as basic necessities as they related to particular lifestyles or life stages within the six
areas listed above. All skills had to meet this criterion: Is it a skill that at least 60 percent
of the students will need or perform frequently in their lifetime? The belief of the
educational leadership in Michigan was that tasks such as clothing construction did not
pass this test (Atkins, 2005).
In a study at the University of Minnessota, six home economics teachers were
interviewed concerning skills that students need to develop in order to prepare to live in
a rapidly changing world. In the area of clothing and textiles, there was agreement that
the following skills should be included: how to care for and repair clothing, how to
evaluate clothing needs and how to budget and shop for clothing. The sample did not
agree on clothing construction. This would seem to indicate that some of them belived
clothing construction should be taught and other believed it should be omitted. The
teachers said that the most important things they teach are attitudes towards oneself
and others, decision-making skills, and management of personal resources and
environment (Heinowski, 2006). This means that clothing construction is not a priority in
home economics class.
A 2003 study at Pennsylvania State University dealth with reconceptualizing
clothing and textiles curricula. The participants believed that teaching construction skills
to the exclusion of other important skills resulted in an inability to meet the changing
needs and interests of todays students. Since there has been a marked decline in
home sewing over the past two decades, the participants questoned if construction
skills were actually needed or used by todays families. Only one of the 20
recommendations that resulted from the study contained mention of teaching
construction skills. The study acknowledge the value of some manipulative skills in
producing a tangible product and providing a satisfying experience for students who do
not achieve in other areas (MacCleave-Frazier and Murray, 2003).
Historically, Clothing and Textile professionals have battled an enduring
prejudice against their discipline from both within and outside the academe. One can
only speculate as to why needlework has acquired such a negative stigma. Perhaps the
stigma arose because girls were taught to use a needle and thread as evidence of their
marriage-ability. In 1837, E. W. R. Farrar wrote, A woman who does not know how to
sew is as deficient in her education as a man who cannot write (as cited in Werhan,
2004). This association between needlework and womens cultural roles within the
home could have lead self-proclaimed progressive thinkers to dismiss needlework in an
attempt to distance themselves from traditional roles in favor of more equality for
women.
The industrial revolution heralded a new role for sewing. Jean Parsons (2000)
chronicled the rise of sewing instruction as a means of preparing young women for work
in garment factories. Dressmaking was not a new trade for women, therefore, sewing
carried the dual association with the genteel arts of the upper class women and a
means of livelihood for those of a lower socio-economic standing. Neither pursuit,
however, garnered respect for its high intellect or scientific nature. Parsons wrote that,
the fact that sewing represented both a part of the traditional feminine role in the home
and one of the few acceptable ways to earn a living led to ambiguity on the part of both
educators and students almost from the beginning.
This ambiguity arose in part because of sewings association with womens
traditional roles in the home, but also because of the association between sewing and
lower intelligence. Jane Bernard Powers (as cited by Werhan, 2004) researched the
vocational movement in education during the early twentieth century. Sewing often
constituted a portion of the vocational curriculum. Powers wrote that supporters of trade
schools agreed that industrial and trade training were primarily directed toward working
class children, especially those described as motor minded or not bookish. Powers
also documented two technical high schools that taught plain sewing, dressmaking and
millinery for the benefit of young women who had to become self-supporting at an arly
age, yet school administrators indicated that imparting technical skills for homemaking
was the primary emphasis
Beyond economics, sewing has the potential to contribute to ones quality of life.
Recently, the New York Times (LaFerla, 2004) included a story about professionals
such as lawyers and stockbrokers who take sewing classes as a means of relieving
stress. The article described sewing as an alternate form of psychotherapy which helps
build a sense of community as students work and share their personal stories. Singer
president, Gary Jones, predicts further growth in the home sewing industry noting,
cocooning, nesting, is a social trend that is bringing women back to sewing. We have
seen that trend, not only for our business, but for others that deal with the family, the
home (Morris, 2003).
As society changes and the need for sewing skills changes from a necessary skill
for homemakers to what may be considered a craft, some question its place in the FCS
curriculum (Pauley, 2006). The FCS national standards support this thinking. There are
16 content standards developed for secondary FCS programs. Nine of these content
standards are focused on specific careers which include 11.0, Housing, Interiors, and
Furnishings and 16.0, Textiles and Apparel. The remaining seven apply to
comprehensive family life courses with a general career focus. Of these comprehensive
standards, only one, Consumer and Family Resources, includes a competency that
could be used to justify sewing in the curriculum, 2.1.4, Implement decisions about
purchasing, creating, and maintaining clothing (National Association of State
Administrators for Family and Consumer Sciences, 2008). Others argue that clothing
construction skills are necessary only for creativity in fiber arts or for higher-level jobs in
the fashion industry (Loker, 2007; Brandes, 2007).
Lee (2002) surveyed 300 randomly selected North Carolina secondary FCS
teachers with 140 responding. Teachers indicated that clothing construction skills
were among the most important skills to be gained in the study of clothing and textiles.
Furthermore teachers pointed out that the secondary Clothing Design course was one
of the most frequently offered FCS courses in the state, and that a major part of the
course involved clothing construction skills. The results of the survey prompted a
committee of FCS professionals, current teachers, and students in the state of North
Carolina to recommend that clothing construction continue to be required to meet
beginning FCS teacher competencies in the state.
Smagorinsky (2006) explored the concept of intelligence and how it is measured
in our schools. As part of his research, Smagorinsky observed a sewing lab in a high
school FCS program. He used Howard Gardners premise that human intelligence
occurs in a variety of ways that are not subject to conventional testing. Smagorinsky
commented that in the eyes of the school the home economic classes are marginal, not
central to the core of academic knowledge, physically located on the periphery of the
school building, and generally regarded as appropriate primarily for non-college bound
students. Yet he observed the students usually engaged in skills such as decision-
making, communication in problem solving, a willingness to try a variety of methods until
problems were solved, and spatial intelligence. He also argued that U.S. schools value
abstraction over practicality such as that found in a sewing lab. Smagorinsky concluded
that once the assessment deck gets stacked, it is very difficult to unstack it. With
historical values institutionalized in standardized assessment practices, its hard to
persuade educators and their constituencies that alternative ways of learning are
equally valuable. Sewing does not always lend itself to traditional testing, and perhaps
this characteristic has contributed to the misunderstanding and prejudice against the
discipline.
Peterat (1999) reviewed the history of clothing and textiles studies, then visited
successful secondary C&T programs across several Canadian provinces. She
documented the elements of each program that contributed to its success. Peterat also
included the size and economic impact of the textile and apparel industry in Canada.
After her own review of literature, Peterat wrote that there was little research into
student perspectives on C&T and how that would impact curriculum. She continued,
Particularly limited are descriptive studies of the nature of programs, and investigations
into teachers beliefs and practices that sustain and gain wide support for programs. In
her conclusion, Peterat wrote, The elective status of textiles and clothing in the school
curriculum places them in the margins of education, a space where some teachers feel
they constantly have to defend their programs and explain them to parents,
administrators, and students. One might add to Peterats observations by saying that
C&T professionals also find that they must justify their discipline to fellow FCS
professionals in child, family or dietetics.
Questions that regularly arise in curriculum development are: Who decides what
is taught? When are teachers being prepared for teaching the subject, what are taught
at the post-secondary level. These questions have direct impact on the curriculum they
implement at the secondary level. Ralph Tyler as cited by Werhan (2004) proposed in
his seminal work, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, that prior to curriculum
development, one must look at education from the perspectives of the three major
stakeholders to get a well-informed picture of what objectives should be addressed.
Those perspectives include that of the student, a view of contemporary life, and
recommendations from experts in the field of study under consideration. Thompson,
Kushner Benson, Pachnowski, & Salzman (2001) refer descriptively to these viewpoints
as lenses; the means that brings a curriculum into focus or clarity.
Looking through the lens of the student, which Tyler names Studies of the
Learners Themselves as a Source of Educational Objectives, those developing
curriculum must consider the needs and wants of the student. Tyler identifies student
needs as the difference or gap between what educators have determined to be
desirable standards or acceptable norms and the current state of the student learner.
Tyler points out those educational objectives can be determined only after studies about
the learner are completed by the institution. He notes that the schools efforts should be
focused particularly upon serious gaps in the present development of students.
The other half of the student lens hypothesis is the consideration of student
wants. Student wants are more accurately a listing of students interests as discovered
through various studies of the learner. Tyler writes: childrens interests must be
identified so that they can serve as the focus of educational attention. He realized that
educators are working still today to more effectively incorporate, that education is an
active process. It involves the active efforts of the learner himself. In general, the learner
learns only those things which he does. Essentially, Tyler is asking for student buy-in or
ownership for learning. He understood the criticism by some against this stance, but
insisted that even these educators recognize the value of beginning with present
student interest as a point of departure.
To ascertain student interests, Tyler suggested using any number of methods
that may include the following: observations by teachers, student interview, parent
interview, general and specific interest questionnaires, proficiency tests of student skill
sets, reviews of community data, and even police records. Tyler also suggests that
students themselves be enlisted to conduct neighbourhood surveys, be polled as to
which courses they would like to take, or vote by their enrolment in elective courses.
He advised that the final process of analysing resulting data for their implications and
relation to accepted standards of the field must be carefully considered as different
interpretations are possible.
Some twenty-eight years later in 1977 Tyler reaffirmed the importance of
including in curriculum development analyses of both student wants and the following,
contemporary life outside of school, in The Tyler Rational Reconsidered (Willis et al.,
2003).
The lens of society, that Tyler names Studies of Contemporary Life Outside the
School is an important component for several reasons. He offered two justifications that
have stood the test of time. He wrote:
..because contemporary life is so complex and because
life is continually changing, it is necessary to focus educational
efforts upon the critical aspects of this complex life and upon those
aspects that are of importance today so that we do not waste the
time of students in learning things that were important fifty years ago
but no longer have significance at the same time we are neglecting
areas of life that are now important and for which the schools provide
no preparation..

A second argument grows out of the findings relating to transfer of training.
Studies indicated that the student was much more likely to apply his learning when he
recognized the similarity between the situation encountered in life and the situations in
which the training took place.
There is generally wide acknowledgement today of what Tyler was proposing in
1949; that students learn most when life and classroom situations are similar and when
there is practice outside the classroom for application of things learned in it.
Because of the complexity and extent of daily life, Tyler wisely suggested
breaking down the life concept into manageable pieces and collecting information
about those pieces separately. He offered suggestions and reminded educators that, as
with surveying students for their wants, there is no one method by which to complete
the task. He noted the purpose for educators is to gather:
..data about the habits and skills of people in
particular areas, studying the habits to see what
changes in them are necessary to develop better
habits and using the list of skills obtained to suggest
types of skills which a school might well develop in its
students..

IV. The Problem

One method of data gathering, applicable to this action research, can be an
analysis of the academic performance of the students when Dressmaking was
introduced in the 3
rd
grading period. The proponent of the study found disinterest of the
students in the subject matter as compared to the other components of TLE like in ICT.
Based on the observation of the researcher, the students found the subject
matter boring and not worth learning. As evidenced by the literature posited above,
students see dressmaking/sewing such a mundane task not worth learning. Why study
dressmaking when you can buy a whole wardrobe in the mall? Or better yet, anybody
can just order online and have it delivered at their doorsteps?
In view of the above observations, the proponents posited the following questions
which this action research tried to answer.
1. What is the academic performance of the students in dressmaking before the
enhancement activities were introduced in the dressmaking class?
2. What is the academic performance of the students after the enhancement
activities?
3. Is there a significant difference between the academic performance of the
students in the 3
rd
and 4
th
grading period?


V. Solutions
To engage students in the dressmaking class and to address the problems of
non-interest that probably affects the academic performance in dressmaking, the
proponent of the study adopted the following strategies:
1. Community Engagement
The proponent of the study invited several dressmakers in the community to help the
students appreciate the contribution of the dressmaking industry in the society.
Furthermore, students were given the glimpse to what it is like to be in the clothing
industry and that it is a worthwhile profession.
The professional dressmakers were invited at the beginning of the fourth grading to
talk in front of the students and shared their experiences regarding their profession. The
dressmakers talked about how and why they got involved in the dressmaking industry
and the benefits it brought to their families. Furthermore, the dressmakers showed the
students the basic knowledge in dressmaking and encouraged them that dressmaking
has the potential to improve their creativity and improve their family income.
2. Peer Mentoring
Peer mentoring was used by the proponent in order to further encourage the
students to do well in dressmaking. Students who showed interest and did well in the
introductory exercises were paired with students who are having difficulty in the subject.
Peer mentoring emphasized that if other students can do it, the class as a whole can do
it better. Students who were doing well in the dressmaking class taught their other
classmates their skills and


3. Power Partnership
Power partnership involves partnering a male and female student to create a design
that can present the two genders perspective in dressmaking. This way, the researcher
was able to eliminate gender bias and stressed that dressmaking is not only for the girls
but for the boys as well.
4. Fashion Design Competition
Fashion design competition is for the power partnership activity to display their
design and encourage the competitive spirit. The entries were judged according to the
different elements of dressmaking with originality receiving the highest point. The judges
were the dressmakers in the community who participated in the community engagement
activity.
5. Mock Fashion Show
The mock fashion show is the culmination of the last grading periods activities. The
students get to walk on the improvised catwalk and displayed their creations. This way
the students interests and creativity were tapped to the highest level and therefore
achieve the learning competencies of the K to 12 Curriculum.
VI. Results or Findings after applying several solutions.
1. Academic performance of the students before the interventions
Table 1 presents the academic performance of the students as reflected in their
third grading period grades.


Table 1
Pre-Intervention Grading Results
n=57
GRADE RANGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%) INTERPRETATION
80-85 12 21 Approaching Proficient
86-90 42 73.7 Proficient
91-95 3 5.3 Advanced
96-100 0 0 Outstanding
TOTAL 57 100%

It can be gleaned from the table that 73.7 percent or 42 out of 57 of the students
are in the proficient level. This is followed by 12 students or 21 percent of the students
who are in the approaching proficient level. In addition, 3 students or 5.3 percent of the
total population are in the advanced level receiving grades within the grade range of 91-
95. However, no students are in the outstanding level.
After a thorough analysis the table reveals that while the academic performance
of the students can be considered okay, this is not the learning proficiency aim of the K
to 12 program. It is also important to consider that the students have dressmaking or
sewing skills during their elementary years, therefore, they should have all been in
advanced level already.
2. Academic Performance of the Students in the Fourth Grading after the Interventions
were implemented
Table 2 presents the academic performance of the students in the 4
th
grading
period or after the interventions were used.




Table 2
Grade Distribution after the Intervention
n=57
SCORE RANGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%) INTERPRETATION
80-85 1 1.8 Approaching Proficient
86-90 7 12.2 Proficient
91-95 49 86 Advanced
96-100 0 0 Outstanding
TOTAL 57 100%

It can be gleaned from the table that 49 students or 86 percent of the total
population sample are in the advanced level. This is followed by the respondents in the
proficient level at 12.2 percent or 7 students. Only 1 student is in the approaching
proficient level at 1.8 percent.
The table presents an increase in the academic performance of the students
after interventions were made by the proponent. This means that the researcher was
able to awaken the interest of not only the female students in dressmaking but the
whole class as well. This translates to a very well accepted K to 12 TLE program by the
students, thus there is a very high probability of motivated students displaying creativity
and skills.
The findings also reveal that students start to become engaged and interested in
learning. This results prove what Illeris (2003) indicated that learning was desire-based.
Kyle et al. (2007) also observed that a motivational state, when aroused, would often
motivate behavior such as participation. In this case, the intervention activities used by
the researcher were able to tap on the desire of the students to learn dressmaking and
accept sewing as an important aspect of life.
In a similar fashion, Gordon (2004) explored home sewing not just as gendered
labor but also as an escape from drudgery and a tool for self-definition. She noted
that the garments men and women created were admired outside of the household,
thus they were a cause for pride and satisfaction as well as a reinforcement of the value
of thrift. Nonetheless, clothing manufacture was not solely within the domain of the
women of a household, especially as people increasingly became consumers of mass-
produced fashion.
In addition, the intervention strategies were able to use arouse the affective
domain of the students. Graham (2003) explained that educating students in human
service areas requires teaching and learning in the affective domain. The different
dimensions of the affective domain Graham included were motivational, aesthetic,
emotional, spiritual, and moral development. Consequently, "the more a value or
attitude is internalized, the more it affects behaviour". Burgi-Golub (2007) explored
emotion as a dimension of ethical and moral motivation. Home economics education
also showed benefits of learning in the affective domain, as motivation to be a good
steward for the environment was based upon the same moral behaviour to act
responsibly and care for others (Littledyke, 2008; Shephard, 2008).
As one moves into higher levels of the affective domain, the valuing category
(level III of the affective domain) relates to appreciation of aesthetic experiences such
as good art, music, or literature. The appreciation, valuing, and subsequent enjoyment
of classroom involvement also may lead to aesthetic experiences. The aesthetic
experience results in concentrated and heightened consciousness. There is an
emotional aspect too, involving sensations and feelings as well as condensed
symbolism and expression (Fiore, Kimle, & Moreno, 2006).
Fiore, Kimle, and Moreno (2006) proposed that a precise definition of aesthetics
was difficult because the word can refer to a state of being and/or a quality of an
object. Fiore et al. (2006) explored aesthetic experiences in depth. They reviewed
scholarly literature in several areas, sorting the focus of the literature into one of the
following five categories: creator, creative process, object, appreciator, and appreciation
process. A student becomes a creator and engages in a creative process while working
on projects for an apparel construction/sewing laboratory class. A student may
appreciate or participate in an appreciation process while working with others. The
fabric itself may be as much an object of an aesthetic experience as it is part of the
creation or appreciative processes. The garments or items constructed may be
aesthetic objects; the positive hedonic value of the properties of the object can
contribute to an aesthetic experience of the students.
Rehm (2008) argued that the aesthetic dimension of a persons life is one of the
most potent, yet one of the most overlooked, factors in creative and critical thinking of
ordinary individuals and families and that an aesthetic perspective could empower
individuals (Rehm, 2003). Rehm (2008) presented a dynamic interrelationship of
aesthetic perspectivesevoking an array of emotions as one notices particular details
as diverse while also able to find a pleasing cohesive whole from the diversity. The
need for diversity as an aesthetic quality was highlighted by Rehm (2000), who
indicated that it emphasizes the splendid mosaic of people, emotions, values, material
things, sensory riches and ideas in both the physical and the social environment.
Similarly, Kupfer (2003) described the aesthetic experience as a whole formed out of
distinctive parts. We draw the whole into a community. When contemplating aesthetic
classroom experiences, Kupfer suggested, Discussion grows out of the participation of
the students. The teacher contributes a love that initiates and sustains a quest. This
perspective calls into question a positivist point of view toward education, with the
teacher as expert. In fact, Alexander (2003) suggested that to conceive of pedagogy in
aesthetic terms challenges the prevailing positivist epistemology on a deeper level
because it questions the accepted distinctions between thinking and feeling.
The result of the research strongly suggests that dressmaking is not just a source
of income for the family but an outlet for the creativity of the students as well.

3. Difference between the academic performance of the Students before and after the
Intervention activities in Dressmaking

Table 3 presents the significant difference between the academic performance of
the Students before and after the Intervention activities in dressmaking or sewing.
Table 3
Summary Table for Hypothesis Testing


Paired Differences t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean Std.
Deviati
on
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pa
ir
1
THIRD_GRADING_PERIOD
-
FOURTH_GRADING_PERIO
D
-1.00000 .50000 .06623 -1.13267 -.86733 -15.100 56 .000
Based on the computed two-tail value at 0.05 level of confidence and p-value of
0.000 which is less than 0.05, there is significant difference between the academic
performance of the students in the before and after the proponent of the study used the
intervention strategies. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
VII. Recommendations and Suggestions
Hands-on learning experiences should be emphasized as students apply the
skills or techniques to make sewing samples or textile projects. Activities also may
support the achievement of academic standards or personal outcomes (e.g., increasing
ones self esteem or creativity). Learning sewing construction skills is viewed as
important to job preparation in the textiles and apparel industry However, curricula
based on sewing skills only, without any focus on the family or related concepts, is
unlikely to prepare adolescents for their current and future roles within the family and
society.
Finally, teachers are considered sewing experts who transmit knowledge to
students and help resolve sewing construction problems as well as technical difficulties
with the sewing machines. Alternative instructional approaches may better facilitate
students understanding of concepts rather than skills alone.