W4

irll““:
9.31%.". oum-“(..
fl‘ ‘3 33)

Nafllfim' 'i
r-o: M. ”fire.“- .....

‘93“: :3. :33"
J

”1

mus.

W . ‘ 135*"...
. «b .

ogr-rvn‘vi I 2‘: 2 v‘

“IV-K , “3‘“ I‘vaflr: K ”M

'2 $3 I "‘ ,

'81:" mum c? I" 7‘ V . 2 “

35::- ”’l‘g'

135-. '

Iva r;
2%:1? 3;" . - " ' mégh‘x 35*
' 1:143“ 1 L’yhfip‘w‘r'
CI'V . “If“ ' I
'Se 5’ 2' I?" 1 ”3 .5 "
£rnurfi'f3i;

._ a - n ‘12; .|
may; '2" . f . . ..:f 'izx‘ify'" T: ""’
fig?! up}: I}? ‘ -~:~; .32. ,m fag f“ $ wig??? )5?“
"““"3‘1“Lv.s3v:%“ x- m 1:“
u h h‘
F15 “J35

- K| N It -
2 2. 2n...an uxwtvk . JV‘nv'er
"fin. :4 , ;115 l ““03? Wk '\ F“? ~33?“
yi’xg‘u" _-; . "', " (guard
fpvvn‘: .3 “V 44‘ ma}:&.v.
:Ig- . :-
y»?

.“.1
"($73“:
I: ‘ .

r. ”C
I “Wait?“ aflgm‘ .4;
41:5 . .. "j.” .. ,-‘..L
u ‘ijujxw 3L“; _ : ‘Ifit5gzw _
I ~ - ‘ ”a . “ ..... , - ' F“! Tut‘vfi‘fi v;
- xi: ‘ . j“ «NILE 3‘; 2a 2. ”55'" :5.vi
"" I ¢finw~lwu~rug~pm r 5"* A‘Y'l-thejfxuths ' “
33:4" Ann: I? ”X'm'yg‘.“

3:31;; i-:\« mug/nus : “‘. ’ L“

, -.§.,‘,4.,. Etfigfg ~

in? W

n
u

‘.

.,i.3.',~fsr"1‘
Avaugq‘u ’r"
..,._

We“:
a

4! *3 ‘ -
m .L . 2 ~ - . . ,~ w,».-n.;.~-. W
212‘ W? was? - I I ~' ' . W
«a, h u. , 4 ~ ' m: J :2. ' 71-; ‘ , ‘1
., ,. V , _ . I
Avg-9y} I M, w gram. 2 I
'n 4!}: n r I... .. 11"' A
o-

:12ng 2
‘3'”? “

 

 

 

 

 

 

’le
.itn‘n. ‘ .313},
Q

 

.3
Ir” ..:..-.Z....
”23:537.; mr~,._.;w.~...v~ 32.;

NI-M'

"’3" 7:3?”

 

-.~-x-‘a£g

36;: L13 “9

lHlllHlllflillllllllHHlHHllllllllmfllllllllllllllHl

3 1293 00753 2047

 

U:- RARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND JOB SATISFACTIONt
A STUDY OF EXTENSION AGENTS AND THEIR SUPERVISORS

presented by

MURARI PRASAD SUVEDI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Agricultural and
Extension Education

310nm

\\ Major professor

 

Date J‘J‘L? 1.1% Fig]

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

DATEDQE DATE DUE DATE DUE
1* MW“ .4 1 H
.r '0 > . : ~ u
HAN 3,1993“ _\ q

 

 

I
la, I"

 

”\J

 

51:“ A; '3 1993

I??? 2 '7 2004

‘I010104

 

 

 

 

 

J ; ‘ ‘ ‘ %
:"é‘waat‘MO 9g «I _bEf ‘1"‘20115'0

 

 

 

wlo \
Ainsliifisgs
1%“ K \

 

 

 

 

Inuitution

MSU I. An Affirmative AetIon/EquaI Opponu
My awn»!

EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND JOB SATISFACTION:
A STUDY OF EXTENSION AGENTS AND THEIR SUPERVISORS

BY

Murari Prasad Suvedi

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

1991

ABSTRACT

EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND JOB SATISFACTION:
A STUDY OF EXTENSION AGENTS AND THEIR SUPERVISORS

BY

Murari Prasad Suvedi

This study investigates the educational orientation
held by Extension agents and the relationship between their
educational orientation and their level of satisfaction in
extension work. Personal characteristics of agents that
relate to such orientation is determined along with an
attempt to find out whether agents possessing educational
orientations similar to that of their immediate supervisor
have a higher level of job satisfaction. The Extension
agents and their immediate supervisor in Michigan were
requested to supply attitudinal responses and information
through a mail questionnaire.

Findings showed that Extension agents hold a moderate
to strong orientation toward andragogy and pedagogy. The
andragogical orientation was found relatively stronger than
the pedagogical orientation. No significant relationships
were found between demographic characteristics like age,
sex, position, experience, graduate degree, and prior
experience as a school teacher and educational orientations.

Exceptions were that male agents tended to possess a

Murari Prasad Suvedi

stronger pedagogical orientation than female agents and that
home economics and agriculture and marketing agents were
different from 4-H youth agents in terms of andragogical
orientation scores. Further, respondents with high
andragogy scores were found to possess lower pedagogy scores
but those with high pedagogy were not found to hold low
andragogy scores.

Extension agents were well satisfied with the content
and context of their jobs. The andragogy score of
Extension agents was positively related to their job
satisfaction but no relationship was observed between
pedagogy score and job satisfaction.

The findings showed no significant differences on the
level of job satisfaction between agents whose educational
orientations were similar to their immediate supervisor and
those who had educational orientations different from their
immediate supervisor.

Since andragogy is related to job satisfaction, the
hiring practices of the CES should consider individuals who
not only have expertise in technical subject matter content
but also possess appropriate educational orientations. A
series of inservice programs on adult learning principles
regardless of an agent’s position, education or experience
could help to further strengthen the field agents'

andragogical orientation vis-a-vis job satisfaction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-

A deep debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. S. Joseph
Levine who served as dissertation director and guidance
committee chairman for his constant guidance, supervision,
encouragement and invaluable suggestions and advise during
all stages of the study process.

Thanks are extended to the sincere support of the other
members of the committee: Dr. Carroll H. Wamhoff, Dr. Mary
L. Andrews and Dr. George H. Axinn. Each of the three
committee members contributed to provide training and
professional advice during the preparation and
implementation of this study.

A special appreciation and gratitude is extended to
Dr. Carroll H. Wamhoff, Chairperson of the Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education, for providing
departmental support and personal encouragement to the
author during his studies at Michigan State University.

The author would like to thank Dr. Jack Elliot for his
assistance with the statistical application, and to Dr. 0.
Donald Meaders, for serving as a member of the panel of
experts. Special Appreciation is extended to all Michigan

Cooperative Extension Service staff who took time out of

iv

their busy schedule to the complete the questionnaire during
the field test of the instrument as well as actual data
collection. Thanks are also extended to AEE office staff
who assisted and encouraged the author during all stages of
the study process.

Finally, the author is deeply indebted to his wife,
Yasoda, for her love, encouragement and patience and our two
children, Sudip and Sandip, for the many sacrifices they
have endured that made completion of this study possible.

The author dedicates this study to his mother and

father for their love and belief in education for their son.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Theoretical Foundations of the Study .

II.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

Statement of the Problem . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . .
Importance of the Study . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . .

Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . .

A.

B.

Michigan Cooperative Extension Service
Extension Agents as Adult Educators .
Teaching and Learning of Adults . .
Concept of Andragogy and Pedagogy . .
Job Satisfaction . . . . . . .

Job Satisfaction of Extension Agents .

Educational Orientation of Extension Agents

vi

Page
ix

xi

12

16

17
18
22
25
31
41
42

46

Page

III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

IV.

A. Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
B. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
C. Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
D. Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
E. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
F. Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

G. Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 66

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A. Characteristics of Respondents. . . . . . . . 69
B. Educational Orientations of Respondents . . . 78
C. Relating Personal Characteristics and

Educational Orientations of Extension Agents . 88
D. Job Satisfaction of Extension Agents . . . . . 97
E. Relating Educational Orientations and Job

Satisfaction of Extension Agents . . . . . . 101
F. Congruence of Educational Orientations and

Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 107

A. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
B. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
C. Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
D. Recommendations for Further Research . . . . 125

vii

Page

APPENDICES
A. QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY MATERIALS . . . . . . . . 127
B. COMPARING DATA FOR EARLY AND LATE RESPONDENTS . . . 135
C. T-TEST ANALYZING SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS AND EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION . . . 136
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

viii

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

.Table

Table

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Response rate in the study

Age of respondents

LIST OF TABLES

Gender of respondents

Marital status of respondents .

County assignment of respondents .

Program area of respondents

Regional assignment of respondents .

Experience in current position

Total Extension experience . . . . . .

Undergraduate degree major of

respondents

Graduate degree major of respondents .

Experience as school teacher

Andragogical orientation score of

respondents .

Andragogical items means

Pedagogical orientation score of

respondents .

Pedagogical items means

Pearson correlation coefficient
for selected demographic
characteristics and educational

orientations

ix

Page
69
71
71
72
72
73
74
75

76

76
77

78

80

82

85

87

89

Table Page

Table 18. T-test analyzing andragogy score when
considering selected demographic
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table 19. T-test analyzing pedagogy score when
considering selected demographic
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table 20. Analysis of variance of andragogical
orientation when considering the
agent’s program area . . . . . . . . . 92

Table 21. Analysis of variance of pedagogical
orientation score when considering
the agent's program area . . . . . . . 93

Table 22. Distribution of agents in a matrix
of educational orientation . . . . . . 95

Table 23. T-test analyzing pedagogy scores with
the level of andragogy scores . . . 97

Table 24. T-test analyzing andragogy scores
with the level of pedagogy scores . . 97

Table 25. Descriptive statistics for job
satisfaction items . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table 26. Distribution of Extension agents' job
satisfaction score . . . . . . . . . . 101

Table 27. Relationship between educational
orientation and job satisfaction . . 102

Table 28. T-test analyzing job satisfaction
when considering the levels of
andragogy and pedagogy . . . . . . . . 103

Table 29. Andragogical congruence score
of Extension agents . . . . . . . . . 104

Table 30. Pedagogical congruence scores of
Extension agents . . . . . . . . . 105

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

31.

32.

33.

34.

Page

T-test analyzing job satisfaction
when grouped according to congruence
of andragogical and pedagogical scores . 106

Comparison of "early" and "late
respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

T-test analyzing selected demographic
characteristics considering the level
of andragogical orientation . . . . . . 136

T-test analyzing selected demographic

characteristics considering the level
of pedagogical orientation . . . . . . . 136

xi

Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Superior conditions for learning
and principles of teaching . . . .

Process elements of andragogy and
pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assumptions made about learners
by educators . . . . . . . . . .

Matrix of educational orientations

xii

Page

34

37

38

94

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Cooperative Extension Service (CBS) is a unique
organization whose mission has been to extend lifelong
learning and continuing growth opportunities to each member
of the community served. It is a system of non-formal
education whose professional staff member must be well
grounded in foundation disciplines as well as be dynamic and
adaptive to changing practices (Blackburn, 1989). Although
the history of Extension work as it relates to the
dissemination of new agricultural information to farmers who
can use the ideas to improve farming probably goes back to
the Chinese civilization and biblical times (Forest, 1989),
the Cooperative Extension Service in the United States was
formally established when the Smith-Lever Act was passed by
the Congress in 1914. The Cooperative Extension Service has
been an integral part of the Land-Grant institution network
including the university campus and research station
components.

The Cooperative Extension Service has a diverse set of
clients who are mainly adults. The major function of

Extension agents is to provide for the development and

2
implementation of an educational program with local people.
They serve the local people in developing a variety of
skills that encourage personal growth through experience,
aid attainment and refinement of problem solving skills, and
provide for the acquisition of new information to be used in
life-enriching activities (Prawl, et al. 1984; Dillman,
1985). The subject matter areas addressed by the
Cooperative Extension Service programs include agriculture,
home economics, 4-H youth, and community and natural
resources development.

The direction of CES, however, has been changing.

Major shifts that are taking place are: emphasis in
information transfer skills to discovery learning/problem
solving [thinking/application skills, disciplinary focus to
interdisciplinary /collaborative/teamwork focus, and doing
things right to doing right things (Meier, 1989).

The CES educational programs are primarily developed
and executed by professional Extension agents. The
Extension agents are agents of learning, growth and change
(Sanderson, 1988). Their basic function is to establish a ,
link between a perceived need of a client systemfland a
possible means of satisfying that need. The Extension
agents may themselves be the means or they may simply
establish a link between the client system and the source of
need satisfying product or service (Lionberger and Gwen,

1982). The roles of the Extension agent, as described by

3
Zaltman and Duncan (1977), include diagnostician,
information specialist and solution builder, evaluator,
system monitor, innovation manager, and facilitator. Based
on the behavior expected, the roles of the Extension agent
was described by Gallaher and Santopolo (1967) as an
analyst, adviser, advocator, and innovator. Above all,
Extension agents are professional adult educators rather
than just a body of workers.

Extension agents are the basic resource of the CES
organization. The extent to which the CES accomplishes its
goals is ultimately derived from its individual staff
members, mainly the field level agents, who are the cutting
edge of the organization. As CES has sought to address
itself to a changing mission; agents with different kinds of
skills and competencies and with a higher level of
commitment and dedication are needed. Such agents have
frequently had different expectations of the organization
and job, and sought different means of experiencing job
satisfaction. Studies have indicated that agents’
perceptions of the professional commitment vis-a-vis
productivity is closely related to their level of job
satisfaction (Kemp, 1967; Keffer and Cunningham 1977;
Terpstra, 1979). Improving the level of job satisfaction
and motivation of the agents has been the continuing
objective of Extension administration. The ultimate concern

is for improved Extension program efficiency, effectiveness,

and management.

The Study

This study investigates the educational orientation
held by Extension agents and the relationship between their
educational orientation and their level of satisfaction in
Extension work. Personal characteristics of Extension
agents that relate to such orientation are determined,along
with an attempt to find out whether agents possessing
educational orientations similar to that of their immediate
supervisors have a higher level of job satisfaction.‘ The
CES agents and their immediate supervisors in Michigan were
requested to supply attitudinal responses and information
through a mail questionnaire. Attitudinal dimensions of
Extension agents and their immediate supervisors pertaining
to andragogical and pedagogical orientations to teaching are
ascertained. Similarly, attitudes of Extension agents
toward the level of satisfaction on various aspects of their
job are measured. Information on selected personal
characteristics is also collected. Data were tabulated and
analyzed in order to provide answers to the related research

questions.

Theoretical Foundations of the Study
The early work on job satisfaction and motivation led

to the development of the theory of human motivation by

5
Abraham Maslow (1970). Maslow concluded that human needs
are structured in a hierarchy and as one fulfills or
satisfies the lower level needs, higher level needs emerge.
He also noted that man rarely reaches a state of complete
satisfaction except for a very short time. Herzberg (1971)
elicited 14 job factors, of which six were classified as
"motivator" or satisfier and the remaining eight as
"hygiene" or dissatisfiers. He also noted that in order for
a worker to be truly motivated, his/her environmental or
context needs must have been met.

Recent studies have indicated that agents' performance
is related to their level of job satisfaction (Van-Tilburg,
1987, 1986; Keffer and Cunningham, 1977; Henderson, 1970).
Turnover intentions of Extension agents were associated with
a low level of job satisfaction (Van-Tilburg, 1987). Job
satisfaction was the best single predictor of burnout among
Extension agents in Ohio (Igodan, 1985). Currently,
Extension agents are pressured with increasing demands by
funding agencies and clients to serve more people, serve
diverse people, offer different kinds of programs, continue
to offer on-going programs, and to be more cost effective.
Further, they are expected to be more accountable and show
economic and social consequences of their programs. These
emerging issues tend to be directly related to the agent’s
satisfaction because of added stress on Extension work.

On the other hand, Land-Grant Colleges and Universities

6

have accepted a stronger commitment to adult education
through the Cooperative Extension Service (CES). The
Extension agent is expected to function more effectively to
link the resources of the university to the needs of the
client system. The extent to which such educational
programs are effective is largely determined by the
Extension agent whose job responsibilities place him/her in
direct contact with local people, the adult learners. Hyatt
(1966) identified general areas of competence relevant to
the Extension agent's job and indicated that:

"Extension agents, thus, need to know and understand

the principles of learning and teaching and to have a

high degree of proficiency in applying these

principles. In order to teach, we need to understand
the basic fundamentals of teaching and learning.

Knowledge alone is not enough to stimulate desired

action. Getting people to understand, accept, and

apply knowledge is a difficult task. A basic
understanding of the teaching-learning process can
greatly facilitate and enhance our efforts in planning

for and effecting change among people" (p.138).

In order to be a successful educator of adults, an Extension
agent needs to possess a set of orientations about working
educationally with the adults.

Contemporary theories of adult learning suggest that
adult learners are increasingly self-directed and
independent; they are goal-oriented, activity-oriented, and
their learning is active, problem-centered and oriented
toward immediate application (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles,

1980). Knowles (1980) advocates that andragogy, not

pedagogy, is an appropriate model for helping adults learn.

7
He defines andragogy as "the body of theory and practice on
which self-directed learning is based", whereas, pedagogy is
"the body of theory and practice on which teacher-directed
learning is based" (p.390).

The concept of andragogy is based on several
assumptions: (a) adults are increasingly self-directed and
independent in their learning; (b) adults develop a
reservoir of experience that becomes a rich resource for
learning; (c) adult learning is active, problem-centered and
instrumental; (d) adults are oriented toward life tasks, so
that their learning must have immediate application; and (e)
motivation to learn is primarily by internal incentives and
curiosity. In short, adults are eminently teachable, so
long as they perceive the subject matter as having relevance
lto their goals and problems (Knowles, 1978).

Brookfield (1986) argues that the pedagogical model
assigns to the teacher full responsibility for making all
decisions about what will be learned, how it will be
learned, and if it has been learned. It is teacher-directed
education, leaving to the learner only the submissive role
of following a teacher's instruction. Considering the fact
that the nature of adult learning is quite different from
that of children (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles, 1978 & 1985;
Cross, 1981; Elias and Merriam, 1980; Langenbach, 1988),
educators of adults need to possess a set of educational

orientations which can be different from that of a

8
conventional school teacher (Knowles, 1980; Holmes, 1977;
Hadley, 1975). The educational orientation of an educator
tends to have a profound influence on the effectiveness of
the educational programs. Sanderson, et al (1988) argue
that CES is a complex organization with a broad, dynamic
mission, and Extension work demands flexibility and a
variety of work styles in its professional staff. There are
legitimate differences among Extension professionals when it
comes to work style preferences. "Knowing ourselves better
and focusing on our own development as educators are
strategic paths to successful Extension work" (Sanderson,

et al 1988, p. 83).

Statement of the Problem

The Cooperative Extension Service is essentially an
educational program for adults. Extension agents function
as firing-line educators for the CES organization and work
directly with their clientele in (a) helping learners
diagnose their needs; (b) planning with learners a sequence
of experience that will produce desired learning; (c)
creating conditions that will cause learners to want to
learn; (d) selecting the most effective methods and
techniques for producing the desired learning; (e) providing
the human and material resources necessary to produce the
desired learning; and (f) helping learners measure the

outcomes of learning experiences (Knowles, 1980).

9
Considering the fact that each agent is expected to perform
these roles and since the literature says that andragogy is
preferable as a philosophical basis in adult education, the
members of the CES organization should possess an
andragogical orientation. Extension agents who possess an
andragogical orientation should enjoy their Extension work
better and be more satisfied with their job than these
agents who possess a pedagogical orientation. This is
because andragogy, as a philosophical basis, tends to be a
better match for the type of role expected of them than does
pedagogy. The pedagogical orientation tends to appear as a
mis-match for ExtenSion agents.

An instrument to determine educational orientations of
adult educators, especially in terms of the andragogy -
pedagogy continuum, was developed by Hadley (1975). Holmes
(1977) administered the educational orientation instrument
developed by Hadley (1975) among Alabama CES personnel and
reported that CES personnel differed significantly from
adult educators in university continuing education faculty
with the former being more andragogical than the later.

Several studies have been made to assess the level of
job satisfaction of Extension agents. Cassina (1989)
assessed the level of job satisfaction of Illinois
Cooperative Extension personnel and found that the overall
job satisfaction of county and area Extension agents was

satisfactory. Mallillo (1990) reported that the job

lO

satisfaction among Extension employees in Rhode Island
ranged from "moderate to high". These studies have also
attempted to identify personal characteristics of Extension
agents associated with the level of their job satisfaction.

Currently, no studies have reported the job
satisfaction of Extension agents as it relates to their
educational orientations. No studies have indicated whether
ExtenSion agents who have educational orientations which are
similar to their immediate supervisor are more satisfied
with their job than agents who have educational orientations
different from their immediate supervisor. Extension
educators have little empirical evidence to base their
recommendations as to what philosophical orientation,
andragogy or pedagogy, is appropriate for the Extension
agent role. This study is, therefore, an attempt to answer

the following research questions:

Research Questions

1. What educational orientations do Michigan Cooperative
Extension Service agents and their immediate
supervisors hold?

2. Is there a relationship between an agent's personal
characteristics and their educational orientation?

3. What is the level of job satisfaction of Cooperative
Extension Service agents?

4. Is there a relationship between an agent's educational

11
orientation and their job satisfaction?

5. Are Extension agents who have educational orientations
which are similar to their immediate supervisor more
satisfied with their job than agents who have
educational orientations different from their immediate

supervisor?

Importance of the Study

Andragogy and pedagogy are two major educational
orientations in adult education literature. Educators
advocate that andragogy is preferable as a philosophical
basis in adult education. Considering the fact that each
Extension agent is expected to help adults to learn and
change, the andragogical orientation tends to be more of an
appropriate match for them than pedagogy. This is because
adults are self-directed learners and an andragogical
educator perceives his relationship to the learner as that
of helper, resource, consultant and co-learner. Although
Extension work has utilized several principles of teaching
and learning in planning, implementing, and evaluating
educational programs, Extension agents might have not been
exposed to the theories and practices of adult learning. As
there are no studies that indicate the type of philosophical
orientation to adult learning, andragogy or pedagogy, held
by Extension agents, this study is designed to provide basic

information on the subject.

12

Identification of an Extension agent’s educational
orientation, the congruence of such orientation with that of
their immediate supervisor and its relationship to their job
satisfaction yields information which is useful in designing
orientation training to new agents as well as in-service
programs for field Extension agents. The results of Such an
investigation are also useful to Extension educators in
designing pre-service courses on Extension education. For
researchers, the findings will serve as an entry point to
conduct research on Extension agents’ educational

orientations as it relates to Extension agent effectiveness.

Definition of Terms

Educational Orientations: The attitudinal dimensions held

by Extension agents with respect to their role as educators
of adults. The attitudinal dimensions may include, but are
not limited to, aspects such as purpose of education, nature
of learners, characteristics of learning experience,
management of learning experience, and relationships of
educator to learners. For this study, educational
orientations include andragogical orientation and
pedagogical orientation.

Andragogical Orientation Andragogy is the body of theory
and practice on which self-directed learning is based

(Knowles, 1980). The orientation of an andragogical

13
educator stresses free choice of alternative goals for
learning, with interdependent decision and action among
learners and between learners and educator as a basis for
effective learning. The educator perceives his relationship
to the learner as that of helper, resource, consultant and
co-learner. The goal is to increase the effectiveness of
learning by encouraging situations which increase
cooperative interaction among learners, and increase their
participation in and direction of their learning (Hadley,
1975).
Eedagggicni Orientation: Pedagogy is the body of theory and
practice of education on which teacher-directed learning is
based (Knowles, 1980). The orientation of a pedagogic
educator emphasizes learners' acquiring knowledge and skills
that the educator judges as true and effective. The
personal judgement of the educator is based on tradition,
accepted views and practices, or current knowledge of the
physical and social universes. In the judgement of the
educator these knowledge and skills tend to have values,
inherent and instrumental, that are perennial and universal.
The pedagogical educatbr, therefore, sees his primary
relationship to learners as that of an authority, technical
expert, director of their learning, and judge of their
achievement (Hadley, 1975).

anngzntiye Engension Service (CES); An organization with a

unique partnership between the federal government, state

14
governments, educational institutions, local governments and
the people of the United States that provides a direct
educational link with local communities. In Michigan, the
Cooperative Extension Service offers non-formal educational
programs in four areas: Agriculture and Marketing, Natural
Resources and Public Policy, 4-H Youth, and Home Economics.
192 Sntisfngtion: The extent of contentment an individual
has with his job. According to Locke (1976), it is a
pleasurable positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one's job experiences.
County Extension Office: The closest link between the
Extension service and the people of Michigan is the county
Extension office. A county Extension office is located in
82 of the Michigan’s 83 counties. A County Extension
Director (CED) is in charge of the office and its programs.
Serving on the county office staff are one or more Extension
agents in agriculture and marketing, natural resources and
public policy, 4-H youth and home economics. Program
assistants and aides provide technical and educational
assistance under the direction and guidance of the county
Extension staff (Michigan State University, 1989).
Extension Agent: Employee of the Michigan Cooperative
Extension Service working at the county level with the
purpose of educating people through the diffusion of useful
and practical information. Extension agents are assigned

according to the major program area.

15
Aggicnitngal Agents: County Extension staff in charge of
organizing and conducting Extension programs primarily with
people engaged in the production, processing and
distribution of agricultural products. They also work with
those who provide farmers with goods and services.
Nagnnnl Resources and Public Policy Agents: County
Extension staff who are responsible to develop and evaluate
educational programs that assist in developing natural
resources and encouraging their wise utilization. They
offer public affairs education to local leaders and
officials. In addition, they bring new knowledge and ideas
to people and help solve community and resource development-
related problems.
4-fl gouth Agents: County Extension staffs who guide
volunteers in working with young people. These agents are
responsible for providing opportunities for young people to
develop leadership potential, citizenship responsibility and
productive capacity under the volunteer leadership of adults
wand older youths.
Hgng_§ggngnig§_nggn§§i County Extension staff who plan,
organize, implement and evaluate programs based on
individual, family and community needs in areas of family
and government, food and nutrition, health, housing, human.
development and resource management. They work with
community leaders and agencies in developing and

coordinating educational programs. They also provide the

16
educational setting for leadership development and recruit
and train volunteers and leaders to extend the scope and
effectiveness of their program (MSU, 1989).
County Extension Director (CED): Person responsible for the
general administration of a county CES program. The CEDs
have the direct responsibility of supervising the work of
the county agents and most of them also have educational
roles in the county. In this role the CED maintains
relationship with the county board of commissioners, the
general public and various organizations and groups; obtains
and administers local financial support for the CES programs
and activities; and provides leadership to the professional
staff members, program assistants and clerical personnel

serving the county (Michigan State University, 1989).

Delimitations

For the purpose of this research, Extension agents are
delimited to all board-appointed permanent county agents in
Michigan CES who are: (1) under the direct supervision of a
County Extension Director (CEDs), (2) have worked for at
least one year in their current position, (3) are currently
working and not on study leave or some other kind of long-
term leave, and (4) are not considered as CEDs. Though most
of the CEDs also have educational roles in the county as
Extension agents, for the purpose of this research they are

categorically considered as supervisory personnel.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This study is an investigation of the educational
orientations held by Cooperative Extension Service (CES)
field agents and the relationship between their educational
orientation and job satisfaction. The theoretical
foundation for this study emerged primarily from a review of
literature on the development and operation of CES programs
in relation to principles and practices of helping adults
learn. In addition, literature related to employee job
satisfaction in related fields has been included.

The literature review is presented in six sections.

The first section briefly describes the development and
operation of Michigan CES, the organization under which the
study subjects work. The second section presents the role
of Extension agents under the CES organization. An overview
of different views of how adults learn is presented in the
third section. The concept of andragogy and pedagogy is
described and analyzed in the fourth section. The final two
sections present the job satisfaction of Extension agents
and their educational orientations.

Each of the six sections is discussed under a separate

17

18
heading in this chapter. The information is organized to
help the reader better understand the existing knowledge by
following a progression from the general theoretical
literature toward the more specific literature that has a
somewhat narrower scope and application to the research

problem.

Michigan Cooperative Extension Service

The oldest division of Michigan State University, the
School of Agriculture, was the first school in the country
organized to teach scientific agriculture. Since its
inception in 1855, the school has been constantly seeking to
improve farm and home life. The Wolverine (MSU, 1955)
describes the early extension efforts of the school as
follows:

During the early years, the school has faced many

problems. One of the most formidable was the best

method to tell the farmers of the developments and

experiments being carried on by the school. In

January, 1876, the faculty established the first

Farmers' Institute.

These institutes were received favorably by the farmers

and in 1894, the first short course in dairying met on

campus. With the beginning of yearly railroad

excursions in 1897, even more farmers were able to

attend sessions and see the work being done in East

Lansing. Farmers were able to bring their problems to

Michigan State and to learn the newest agricultural

methods (p. 383).

With the passage of the Smith-Lever Act by the Federal
Congress in May 1914, Michigan State College officially

launched operations of Cooperative Extension work on July 1,

19
1914 (McDonel, 1941). The objective of the Cooperative
Extension service was "to aid in diffusing among the people
of the United States useful and practical information on
subjects relating to agriculture and home economics and
encourage the application of the same" (Simons, 1962). The
history of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service,
twenty five years after the passage of the Smith - Lever Act
in 1914, is well documented by McDonel (1941). Olstrom and
Miller (1984) provide a comprehensive summary of the
developments of Michigan Extension from 1940 to 1980. Since
a historical review of MCES is beyond the scope of this
thesis, only a brief review of current programs is described
in the following section.

The early Extension work in Michigan was organized by
projects. Agriculture was the major emphasis. A MSU
publication states the mission of the Cooperative Extension
Service as follows:

For more than seven decades, the Cooperative

Extension Service of Michigan State University has

been a leader in action education to help people

make sound decisions and carry them out in solving

day-to-day problems. Through its statewide system

of county offices, the Cooperative Extension

Service extends the resources of Michigan State

University to the people of Michigan through

educational programs in agriculture and marketing,

natural resources and public policy, 4-H youth and
home economics. The Cooperative Extension Service

has been deeply committed to the development of

rural communities since the 19th century and

currently serves the interests of both rural and

urban clients. Its program tap the resources of

eight MSU colleges and 22 academic departments.

In keeping pace with rapidly changing times, the

20

Cooperative Extension Service adapts its programs

to the continuing needs of people. Its guiding

mission has remained the same: "to help people to

help themselves through education" (MSU, 1989).

In line with the above mission, CES educational
programs, information sources and volunteer outreach
activities are directed toward extending the knowledge
resources of Michigan State University by developing,
interpreting and transmitting knowledge based upon applied
science and research. New research-based knowledge is made
available to solving problems, identifying issues, and the
concerns of individuals, families, businesses, industry,
organizations, agencies and communities throughout the state
(Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, 1990).

The MCES offers educational programs in four program
areas. The educational programs in agriculture and
marketing are designed to help growers produce efficiently,
assure adequate supplies of high quality agricultural
products, maintain profitable farm operations and keep the
state's agricultural industry competitive in national and
world markets.

The educational programs in natural resources and
public policy emphasize wise use and conservation of land,
forests, water and wildlife; the development of tourism and
recreation; planning and implementing orderly community
development for social and economic progress and activities
that assure a quality environment; public policy education

and decision making; community health education; foreign

21
education development; and Great Lakes development and
coastal resource management.

4-H youth programs are designed to provide experiences
for the development of young people. The program aims at
helping young people become self-directing, productive and
contributing members of society. The educational programs
are led by local volunteers. The programs reach youths on
farms, in suburbs and in cities with "learning by doing"
experiences.

Home economics_programs help families identify needs
and offers education for improving the quality of life in
homes and communities. The educational programs are built
around the needs of contemporary living with emphasis on
family and government, food and nutrition, health, housing,
human development and resource management. In addition, the
program extends nutrition education to families with limited
resources.

The Extension programs are conducted cooperatively by
the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Michigan State
University and county governments. This cooperative venture
in education is financed by federal, state and county funds.

The MCES staff consist of more than 450 professionally
trained workers. The administrative arrangements of the
MCES has been described as follows:

"Four assistant directors are responsible for

statewide program leadership in agriculture and

marketing, natural resources and public policy,
4-H youth and home economics. They are supported

22

by a staff of program leaders, associates and
assistants in program planning and development.
In addition, there is a staff of more than 150
subject-matter specialists who are members of the
MSU faculty in 22 campus departments. They
provide current technical information for field
agents and assist in planning, developing and
implementing county programs.

To provide supervision of these programs, Michigan
is divided into regions that are the
responsibility of regional supervisors. The
supervisors counsel with the county, area and
district staff members and coordinate joint
program efforts. They are the link between the
campus and the field staffs. They work closely
with county boards of commissioners and are
engaged in special program and administrative
concerns.

The closest link between the Cooperative Extension
Service and the people of Michigan is the county
Extension office. In each of Michigan’s 83
counties, a county extension director is in charge
of the office and its programs. Serving on the
county office staff are professional agents in
agriculture and marketing, natural resources and
public policy, 4-H and home economics. These
agents are assigned on a county, area, district or
regional basis. Program assistants and aides
provide technical and educational assistance under
the direction and guidance of the county Extension
staff." (MCES, 1989: pp. 2-4).

The chief administrative officer of the MCES is its
director. The director exercises broad authority and
initiative in the performance of his/her responsibility to
ensure that MCES achieves the highest standards of

excellence in serving the needs of its constituents.

Extension Agents As Adult Educators
The guiding mission of the Cooperative Extension

Service (CES) has been to help people to help themselves

23
through education. Extension is a system of non-formal
education whose professional staff members must be well
grounded in foundation disciplines as well as dynamic and
adaptive to changing practices (Blackburn, 1989). It adapts
its programs to the continuing needs of people. Extension
also facilitates citizen participation in local, state,
national and international issues - contributing to
individual and public actions that affect the general
welfare of all.

The major function of Extension agents is to provide
for leadership in developing a total educational program at
the county level. In this capacity, the agent must be
capable of analyzing and identifying the relevant social and
economic needs of the people within the county and also
determining how all the available resources might be brought
to bear most effectively on existing problems. In brief,
according to Hyatt (1966), an Extension agent is expected to
function as an administrator, programmer, and a technical
specialist.

The CES educatiOnal programs are primarily developed and
executed by professional Extension agents. The Extension
agents are agents of learning, growth and change (Sanderson,
1988). Their basic function is to establish a link between
a perceived need of a client system and a possible means of
satisfying that need. The extension agents may themselves

be the means or they may simply establish a link between the

24

client system and the source of need satisfying product or
service (Lionberger and Gwen, 1982). The roles of the
extension agent, as described by Zaltman and Duncan (1977),
include diagnostician, information specialist and solution
builder, evaluator, system monitor, innovation manager, and
facilitator. Above all, extension workers are professional
adult educators rather than just a body of workers.

The outstanding characteristics of the Extension
agent’s work environment is that it brings into focus a
concern for guiding change through a planned educational
process. In this process, the function of an agent is to
link the resources of the knowledge center to the needs of
the client system (Gallaher and Santopolo, 1967). According
to them, the agent is expected to play, either singly or in
combination, the following roles:

Analyst - the change agent's main commitment is to
interpret a situation for the client.

Adviser - the agent's main commitment is to

present to the client alternatives applicable to a

given situation.

Advocator - the change agent’s main commitment is to

recommend to the client one from among a number of

alternatives.

Innovator - the agent's main commitment is to

create an innovation to satisfy a special need of

the client. (p.225)

What distinguishes the practice of competent Extension
educators from that of untrained persons? Copa and Sandmann
(1987) studied this question by studying a select group of

CES educators. The study found four primary themes that

25
seemed to fit the competent educators: (1) an accute sense
of context, (2) thoughtful loyalty to goals, (3) careful
consideration of alternative means, and (4) reflective
judgements based on balance. The study concluded that such
reflective educational practices should be encouraged, and
educators should be helped to remember the context of their
work and see themselves as facilitators.

Extension agents are the basic resource of the CES
organization. The extent to which the CES accomplishes its
goals is ultimately derived from its individual staff
members, mainly the field level agents who are the cutting
edge of the organization. As CES has sought to address
itself to a changing mission, new programs will continue to
emerge and the roles of the agents may change over time.
The need for committed and dedicated agents who are well
grounded in the theory and practices of helping adults learn

and change, however, will continue to prevail.

Teaching and Learning of Adults
Adult education is a relatively young field. Its
existence as worthwhile study began with the work of some of
the great educators of the early 1900's. The educators like
Lindeman and Dewey began to seriously look at adults and
began to gather a theoretical base for the future study of
adults as learners (Brookfield, 1984).

Eduard Lindeman was one of the eminent thinkers of

26

adult education. Throughout his life he raised questions
and continued to highlight the neglected issues of adult
education. Lindeman believed in social living, not a
privatized life style, and always urged for participatory
decision-making and collective action. For Lindeman, a
learning democracy was the overall and the highest aim of
education. He believed that adults' participation in
learning is voluntary.

As early as 1925, Lindeman described adult education as
a cooperative venture in non-authoritarian, informal
learning the chief purpose of which is to discover the
meaning of experience; a quest of mind which digs down to
the roots of the preconceptions which formulate our conduct;
a technique of learning for adults which makes education
coterminous with life, and hence elevates living itself to
the level of an experiment (Lindeman, 1926). Later in 1938,
Lindeman identified two paradigms of adult education
practice which he called the mechanistic school and organic
school. The mechanistic school viewed adult education as
the extension of existing forms of education to the
illiterate and underprivileged where as in the organic
conception, adult education is considered not as an
extension of existing privilege to a new population but "as
a right, and a normal expectancy" (Brookfield, 1984).
From Lindeman’s writings, Levine (1990a) implied the

following:

27

"unless you as a teacher of adults responded to their

needs you would find yourself without any pupils.

Adult learners would not tolerate an educational

setting that did not clearly respond to their learning

needs" (p.12).

Lindeman identified four elements that characterize the
nature of the adult education process: (a) it is a life long
process, (b) it is non-vocational in character, (c) it puts
emphasis on situation, not on subjects, and (d) places
primary emphasis on learners’ experience. He believed that
the schooling approach to education which he called a
"merely additive process" would not lead to meaningful adult
learning. Adult education should be a continuous process
where adults learn to become aware of and to evaluate their
past experience. He also introduced the concept of
andragogy to the modern adult education literature
(Brookfield, 1986).

Dewey, another educator of the period and a
contemporary of Lindeman, also saw personal experience as
the focus of adult learning. His theory proposed that the
most significant growth would come from an education that
encouraged learning by doing based on the immediate needs of
the learner. He also stressed the importance of the social
context these learning experiences and suggested that social
reforms could be accomplished through schools which taught
democratic education.

Malcolm Knowles (1978), who popularized the concept of

andragogy, lists what he considers to be the "foundation

28

stones" of modern adult learning theory:

1. Adults are motivated to learn as they experience needs
and interests that learning will satisfy; therefore,
these are the appropriate starting points for
organizing adult learning activities.

2. Adults’ orientation to learning is life-centered;
therefore, the appropriate units for organizing adult
learning are life situations, not subjects.

3. Experience is the richest resource for adults’
learning; therefore, the core methodology of adult
education is the analysis of experience.

4. Adults have a deep need to be self-directing;
therefore, the role of the teacher is to engage in a
process of mutual inquiry with them rather than to
transmit his or her knowledge to them and then evaluate
their conformity to it.

5. Individual differences among people increase with age;
therefore, adult education must make optimal provision
for differences in style, time, place, and pace of
learning. (p. 31)

Knowles (1980) also developed and popularized the concept of

learning contracts. The learning contract is a process

through which the adult learner is able to develop
individual goals for learning and thus transfer this
responsibility from the educator to the learner. The

learner makes a contract with the educator concerning the

29

learning that will take place. He also advocated the

importance of learning climate as a necessary condition to

effective learning.

Houle (1980) describes three "types" of adult learners,
thus providing some insight into their motivation for
learning: the first, the goal-oriented, are those who use
education as a means of accomplishing fairly clear-cut
objectives. The second, the activity-oriented, are those
who take part because they find in the circumstances of
learning a mean which has no necessary connection, and often
no connection at all, with the content or announced purposes
of the activity. The third, the learning-oriented, seek
knowledge for its own sake. Understanding the learners’
motivation for participation becomes important in planning
educational programs.

The review of adult education theories offered by
different educators offer several implications for practice.
In summary, the following generalizations can be drawn:

1. Adult learning is active, problem-centered and
instrumental. So consider learners’ needs, interests,
and concerns while designing an educational effort.

2. Adults are increasingly self-directed and independent
in their learning. Selection and use of teaching-
learning methods should consider a learning atmosphere
that that encourages free dialogue, mutual support

among learners, and co-learning. Adult learning

30
methods should permit and encourage the active
participation of the learner.
Education is essentially a political process and it is
not possible to come up with a curriculum apart from
politics.
Adults develop a reservoir of experience that becomes a
resource for learning. Learner participation in all
stages of the education process including sharing of
their past experience (i.e. teachers learn with and
from students) is the most critical element in
successful adult educational program.
Adults are oriented toward life tasks, so their
learning must have immediate application.
Learning is greater when learners choose, from a
variety of options and resources, what they need and
want to know. Adults prefer learning by doing and they
want to apply the knowledge into practice to solve
their immediate problems.
Education must be accessible to all members of the
society and alternative modes of schooling such as
"learning webs" need to be explored. The climate of
learning must be collaborative, educator-to-learner and
learner-to-educator, as opposed to authority oriented.
Evaluation should lead to reappraisal of needs and
interest of the learners and therefore should be

utilized to redesign new learning activities.

31
Concept of Andragogy and Pedagogy

Learning is the process by which a person through his
own activity becomes changed in behavior (Rhoad, 1950).
Learning is part of the process of being human. With the
development of the human civilization, learning and
education functions of the society have become
institutionalized and professionalized. Scholars and
philosophers have studied the process of learning and
education and classified it from different perspectives.
One way of classifying learning and education is to look
into the process from andragogical and pedagogical
perspectives. Knowles (1980) defines andragogy and

pedagogy as:

"the body of theory and practice on which self-directed

learning is based is coming to be labeled "andragogy"
from the greek word aner (meaning adult)- thus being

defined as the art and science helping adults (or, even

better, maturing human beings) learn.

The body of theory and practice on which teacher-
directed learning is based is often given the label.

"pedagogy" from the Greek word paid (meaning child) and
agogus (meaning guide or leader)-thus being defined as
the art and science of teaching children" (p.390).

These models about learning and education have

different philosophical foundations. Hadley (1975) reviewed

the philosophical bases of these models and concluded that
pedagogy rests upon philosophical views oriented toward
superhuman, eternal, and traditional realities, whereas
andragogy grows from philosophies which see reality as a

continually changing process which evolves through and by

32
the choice and action of the learner.

The purpose of pedagogical education is the transmittal
of knowledge. The pedagogical educator encourages and
reinforces in the learner a "self-concept of dependency" by
defining the learner’s role "as the more or less passive one
of receiving and storing up the information..." that others
have decided the learner should have (Hadley, 1975). The
andragogical purpose of education, on the other hand,
emphasizes self-directed growth of learners. Andragogical
education, according to Knowles (1980), aims at producing
competent people - people who are able to apply their
knowledge under changing conditions and the competence to
engage in lifelong self-directed learning in order to
acquire knowledge in the context of its application.

Brookfield (1986) differentiates pedagogy and andragogy
according to the nature and participation of the learner in
the learning process. According to him, the learner in.
pedagogy is viewed as dependent on the teacher and is a
passive recipient of information and skills. Control by the
teacher is considered as essential for effective learning.
Motivation to learn is extrinsic and comes from external
pressure of competitive stress accompanying the fear of
failure. In andragogy the learner is expected to take full
responsibility for what happens in the teaching-learning
transaction. The motivation for learning lies with the

learner. An andragogical educator helps the learner create

33
or increase his motivation by describing alternative goals
the learner may choose, but the choice, the commitment, and
the consequent motivation are the learner’s.

Another major difference between an andragogical and .
pedagogical view of learning and education is the management
of the learning experience. Knowles (1980) advocates that
the heart of andragogy is learning, not teaching. That is,
andragogy concentrates on conditions to enable learning:
creating educative environments that stimulate and enable
learner’s self-directed growth. It is characterized by
mutually participative management of learning. Knowles
(1980) describes seven general conditions to be satisfied by
an educative learning environment and lists the superior
conditions of learning and principles of teaching. This is
presented in Figure 1.

Drawing from the theory of andragogy, Levine (1990c)
offers six basic principles that can guide educators in
organizing instructional presentations for adult learners.
The six basic principles include: 1) tell the adults what
you are about to tell them-- start by telling the adults
what you are about to teach them; 2) organize your material
for presentation in a logical order; 3) tell them a bit and
then create ways to let them tell you what else they need to
know; 4) decide what you want the adults to do with your
information-—know information, understand information, use

information or share information with others; 5) know when

34

 

Conditions of Learning

Principles of Teaching

 

The learners feel a need 1.
to learn.

The learning environment 5.
is characterized by
physical comfort, mutual
trust and respect, mutual
helpfulness, freedom of
expression, and acceptance
of differences.

The learners perceive 9.
the goals of a learning
experience to be their
goals.

The teacher exposes students
to new possibilities for self-
fulfillment.

The teacher helps each student
clarify their own aspirations
for improved behavior.

The teacher helps the each
students diagnose the gap
between their aspirations and
their present level of
performance.

The teacher helps the learners
identify the life problems they
experience because of the gaps
in their personal equipment.
The teacher provides physical
conditions that are
comfortable (as to seating,
smoking, temperature,
ventilation, lighting,
decoration) and conducive to
interaction (preferably no
person sitting behind another
person).

The. teacher accepts each
student as a person of worth
and respects their feelings
and ideas.

The teacher seeks to build
relationships of mutual trust
and helpfulness among the
learners by encouraging
cooperative activities and
refraining from inducing
competitiveness and
judgmentalness.

The teacher exposes his or her
own feelings and. contributes
his resources as a co-learner
in the spirit of mutual
inquiry.

The teacher involves the
learners in a mutual process
of formulating learning
objectives in which the needs
of the learners, of the
institution, of the teacher, of
the subject matter, and of
society are taken into account.

The learners accept a
share of the‘responsibi-
lity for operating a
learning experience and
therefore have a feeling
of commitment toward it.

The learners participate
actively in the learning
process.

The learning process is
related to and makes use
of the experience of the
learners.

The learners have a
sense of progress toward
their goals.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

35

The teacher shares his or

her thinking about planning
options available in the
designing of learning
experiences and the selection
of materials and the methods
and involves the learners in
jointly' deciding' among' these
options.

The teacher helps the learners
to organize themselves

(project groups, learning-
teaching teams , independent
study, etc.) to share

responsibility in the process
of mutual inquiry.

The teacher helps the learners
exploit their own experience
as resources for learning
through the use of such
techniques as discussion, role
playing, case method, etc.

The teacher gears the
presentation of his or her own
resources to the levels of
experience of the particular
students.

The teacher helps the students
to apply new learning to their
experience, and thus to make
the learning more meaningful
and integrated.

The teacher involves the
learners in developing
mutually acceptable criteria
and. ‘methods for’ measuring
progress ‘toward 'the learning
objectives.

The teacher helps the learners
develop and apply procedures
for self-evaluation according
to these criteria." (Knowles,
1980, pp. 57-58).

 

Figure 1. Superior conditions for learning and principles of

teaching

36

to teach and when to learn--adults are a lot more willing to
learn if they feel that they are being listened to; and 6)
help adults transfer the concepts to their own situations.

In contrast, pedagogy emphasizes teaching: systematic
procedures designed to fill the minds of the learner with
required knowledge and implemented by the teacher. In
pedagogical methods of managing learning the teacher is the
source of truth and the role of the student is that of the
receiver of this truth. Ideal pedagogical methods are
described by Stewart (1950, p. 6) as follows:

"methods of good teaching depend upon meeting

pupil needs or the usefulness of the knowledge in

the learner’s life activities; the interest of the

learner in his lesson; the thinking and

understanding that result from the discussion of

the lesson; the repetition, if it is necessary,

that is provided to fix the useful knowledge in

mind. That’s our "million dollar idea." Is it

yours?"

According to Hadley (1975) these practices may include:
1) maintaining authority and status of the teacher through
formality and social distance from learners, 2) motivation
by external devices such as competition among learners
through examinations and grades, and 3) decisions on
purposes and content of education and teaching jealously
guarded as prerogatives of the teacher.

Evaluation of learning through examinations and grading
in terms of fixed standards are the typical characteristics

of pedagogy. Curricula are organized around objectives and

these objectives serve as the basis for planning

instruction.

37

These objectives also represent evaluative

criteria; that is, a program can be judged successful

according to the extent to which these objectives have been

attained (Brookfield, 1986; Rhoad, 1950).

Andragogical

evaluation of learning is based on the self-diagnosis of

progress made toward achieving individual goals with the

 

 

Elements Pedagogical Andragogical
Climate Tense, low trust Relaxed, trusting
Formal, cold, aloof Mutually respectful
Authority-oriented Informal, warm
Competitive,judgmental Collaborative,
supportive '
Planning Primarily by teacher Mutually by learners
and facilitator
Diagnosis Primarily by teacher By mutual assessment
of needs
Setting of Primarily by teacher By mutual
objectives negotiation
Designing Teachers’ content plan Learning contracts
learning Course syllabus Learning projects
plans Logical sequence Sequenced by
readiness
Learning Transmittal techniques Inquiry projects
techniques Assigned readings Independent study
Experiential
techniques
Evaluation By teacher By learner collected
Norm-referenced evidence validated

(on a curve) with
grades

by peers,
facilitators, and
experts
Criterion-referenced

 

Figure 2. Elements of andragogy and pedagogy (Knowles, 1980)

38

assistance of a teacher and fellow students. The challenge
for an andragogical educator, as pointed out by Hadley
(1975), is to help students choose increasingly complex
objectives which include learners to test and expand their
abilities rather than setting for compliance with fixed
standards. The process elements of andragogy and pedagogy
described by Knowles (1980) are presented in Figure 2.

Levine (1990a) offers a summary of the basic
assumptions made by educators about learners under each
model which further simplify the andragogical and
pedagogical models of learning and education. The

assumptions are presented in Figure 3.

 

Pedagogy Andragogy

 

1. The learner is dependent. 1. The learner is self
directed.

2. Experience of teacher is 2. Experience of learner is

key to learning. rich and should be built on.
3. Teaching is focused on 3. Teaching is focused on
content. problems of the learner.

4. Concern is for information 4. Concern is for information

and not for application. and application of learning.
5. Age is an important 5. Developmental stage of
variable for learning. learner is an important

variable for learning.

6. Learner can be motivated 6. Learner motivation can only
externally. come from within the learner.

 

Figure 3. Assumptions made about the learners by educators
(Levine, 1990a)

39

Considerable debate exists, however, in the literature
as to the definition of the term "andragogy". Morhing
(1989) points that the use of the term "andragogy" to mean
education of adults is etymologically inaccurate because
andragogy derives from "aner," meaning adult male and not
adult of either sex, and suggests that introduction of a
term that excludes women is nonessential. Thompson (1989)
reports that the andragogical instructional approach is a
necessary but not sufficient model for adult educators to
utilize. He suggests that the andragogical model is
effectively complimented by the pedagogical instructional
model. Davenport (1987) reports that the early critics have
been joined by an increasing number of educators,
researchers, and practitioners who question andragogy’s
theoretical and practical efficacy. He argues that
assumptions of andragogy and pedagogy lack clarity and solid
empirical support. Rachal (1983) discusses the terms
"andragogy" and "pedagogy" and their use in adult education
and suggests that since "andragogy" has never been
adequately defined and is virtually unknown outside the
field of adult education, the terms "self-directed" and
"teacher-directed" should be substituted to clarify the
situation.

An early proponent of the concept of andragogy, Malcolm
Knowles (1980,-1985), has made an attempt to clarify such

confusions by acknowledging that:

40

"Originally I defined andragogy as the art and
science of helping adults learn, in contrast to
pedagogy as the art and science of teaching
children. Then an increasing number of teachers
in elementary and secondary schools (and a few in
colleges) began reporting to me that they were
experimenting with applying the concept of
andragogy to the education of youth and finding
that in certain situations they were producing
superior results. So I am at the point now of
seeing that andragogy is simply another model of
assumptions about learners to be used alongside
the pedagogical model of assumptions, thereby
providing two alternative models for testing out
the assumptions as to their "fit" with particular
situations. Furthermore, the models are probably
most useful when seen not as dichotomous but
rather as two ends of a spectrum, with a realistic
assumption in a given situation falling in between
the two ends" (p.43).

The andragogical practice may not be appropriate,
however, to facilitate adult learning in all situations.
Kammar (1988) views that appropriateness of the model
depends on the subject-matter at hand. He suggests that as
the subject-matter to be dealt with moves higher in the
cognitive domain, facilitative teaching that is based on
andragogical assumptions becomes more appropriate. In the
other direction, directive teaching that is based on
pedagogical assumptions may be most appropriate for content
that has to do with the lower cognitive levels of knowledge
and comprehension. Similar views were expressed by Knowles
(1989) when he indicated that straight introduction is an
appropriate form of education in some situations,
particularly where protection of human life is involved. He
believed that in situations-such as how to operate a machine

the learner has never seen before-direct, didactic

41
instruction is appropriate. But whenever more complex human
performances are involved, especially those requiring
judgement, insight, creativity, planning, problem—solving,
self-confidence and the like, self-directed learning is

appropriate.

Job Satisfaction

The early work in job satisfaction and motivation led
to the development of the theory of human motivation by
Maslow (1970). Maslow concluded that the individual must be
considered as an integrated and organized whole being with
multiple motivations. He also noted that man rarely reaches
a state of complete satisfaction except for a very short
time. He identified five types of human needs and
classified them in a hierarchy. His theory was that the
lower level needs must be met before an individual can work
on the higher level needs. That is, as one desire is
fulfilled or satisfied, another takes its place. The five
types of needs in ascending order were: physiological needs,
safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem and
status needs, and self actualization. He also classified
motives into fundamental groups corresponding to man’s basic
needs and stated that the environment or situation
surrounding the individual influences his/her motives.

Another basic work related to job satisfaction is the

motivator-hygiene theory developed by Herzberg, Mausner and

42

Snyderman (1959).~ They identified five factors that they
classified as job satisfiers. They concluded that the job
satisfiers would either lead to job satisfaction or no job
satisfaction but the job satisfiers have no influence on job
dissatisfaction. The five factors identified as influencing
job satisfaction were: achievement, recognition, the work
itself, responsibility, and advancement. These factors were
labelled as motivators. They also identified several job
dissatisfiers such as organization policy and
administration, supervision, salaries, interpersonal
relationships with supervisors, co-workers and clients and
working conditions which they labelled as hygiene factors.

Studies of Herzberg (1959 and 1971), Maslow (1970),
Clegg (1967), and VanDersal (1974) showed that job
satisfaction led to productivity. Herzberg (1971) noted
that in order for a worker to be truly motivated, the

environmental or context needs must have been met.

Job Satisfaction of Extension Agents
Studies have been conducted to determine CES employee’s
job satisfaction utilizing the framework of the Motivator—
Hygiene Theory and the Theory of Human Motivation. The
results have reported varied conclusions.
Keffer and Cunningham (1977) studied the job
satisfaction of field staff of the Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University extension diviSion and

43
reported that the staff were satisfied with the content and
context of their jobs. They found that achievement was the
most important dimension toward predicting overall job
satisfaction followed by advancement, recognition,
responsibility and the work itself.

Henderson (1970) conducted a study to determine why
Missouri Extension Youth Agents resigned or changed their
positions within the Extension Division. It revealed that
while no single factor was responsible, there were a number
of reasons why this occurred. Among them was the
dissatisfaction with the leadership and program support
received from the state staff, salary, job location, low
prestige of the position and the feeling that their opinions
had little or no affect on policy decisions by either the
extension administration or the state youth department.

Findings of a study conducted in Wisconsin (Gutenberger
and Geiger, 1976) revealed that the primary job satisfiers
for 4-H agents were: professional growth opportunities,
working with the media, working with the public teaching,
the community, clients and peers. The primary dissatisfiers
identified by this group were: required weekend work,
supervision, bureaucracy, job responsibilities, vacation
policies, lack of compensatory time, salary, and lack of
recognition. The older the agent, the more satisfied he/she
was. A similar study conducted by Whaples and Mieliken

(1977) in Maryland reported that most satisfying factors

44
identified by 4-H Youth workers were: job security;
organizing events and activities; relations with the public,
4-H members, leaders, families; vacation policies, diversity
of job tasks, program planning and teaching. Most
dissatisfying factors in Maryland were: salary, potential
for advancement, government bureaucracy, reporting systems,
evening and weekend work, lack of clarity in job definition,
4-H program direction and lack of recognition for efforts.

Igodan and Newcomb (1985) examined the extent and
causes of burnout among Extension agents in Ohio. The
Extension agents were found to experience low to moderate
level of burnout. They reported that job satisfaction was
the best single predictor of burnout when all significant
independent variables were entered in a stepwise regression
equation.

A study was conducted to determine the factors
influencing Ohio CES county agents to leave their jobs (Van-
Tilburg and Miller, 1987). The findings showed that the CES
agents had moderate amounts of overall job satisfaction,
satisfaction with supervision and work itself, high
satisfaction with co-workers, and fairly low amounts of
satisfaction with promotion and pay. Findings showed that
the agents, in general, had low intentions of leaving their
present jobs and job satisfaction was related to the
intention to leave the job. They concluded that lower

performers had higher intentions of leaving the job than did

45

higher performers. Other predictors of intention to leave
the job were overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with co-
workers, and age. In a similar study in Illinois, Manton
(1985) reported that opportunity to advance, better salary,
dissatisfaction with administration and too much time away
from family were the reasons for leaving extension programs.

The MCES Job Opinion Study (1987) reported that more
than 87 percent of the field staff were satisfied with their
job. The satisfaction related to pay was, however, low. In
a statement "In comparison with non-extension professionals
in job assignments similar to mine, I am satisfied with my
pay", more than 59% disagreed and almost 32% agreed (p. 14)
indicating a lower level satisfaction in terms of salary.

The level of job satisfaction of Illinois county and
area extension agents was half way between "acceptable" and
"satisfied" (Cassina, 1989). The findings indicated that a
higher level of satisfaction was noted on statements
pertaining to the top level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
esteem and self actualization. Cassina reported that
approximately 20% of the 44 items had means below the
"acceptable" level of satisfaction and the lowest ranked
item was salary, which is a dissatisfier according to
Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory.

Job satisfaction and in-service training needs of Iowa
CES personnel was determined by Kesler (1989). The study

reported that high levels of satisfaction were observed for

46
fringe benefits, importance and value of work, challenge of
job, performance and capability of job, feelings about
community, and relationship with clientele, and low levels
of satisfaction for amounts of time and work necessary to do
the job, adequacy of performance evaluation, salaries
compared to others in similar work, and new staff
orientation.

Mallilo (1990) assessed the job satisfaction of Rhode
Island CES staff and reported that the staff had "moderate
to high" level of satisfaction. The findings also indicated
that despite low salary the staff felt their job was more

interesting than other jobs they could get.

Educational Orientation of Extension Agents

The philosophy of extension education in the United
States has been consistent throughout its development.
Extension helps people make their own decisions about the
directions their lives and society should take. The Futures
Task Force (1987) reported that Extension is an effective,
non-biased source of educational information. It has been
helping people to develop skills to solve their own problems
by transferring the information generated by research and
experts to people who "need" or desire it.

Historically, CES programs have focussed more on
information transfer to its clientele groups. Jimmerson

(1989) noted that in recent years extension agents have

47
prided themselves on being "process experts" as well as
specialists in a subject-matter area. After a careful
analysis of the trends of CES, Dillman (1985) advocated that
extension educators in the "information age" should be
learning with clientele rather than being their teacher.
This demands that the role of extension agents be seen as
facilitators of learning rather than as content
transmitters. The emphasis should be shifted from
"information transferrer" to problem solver, bringing to
bear the resources of the land grant university on the needs
and problems of the clientele (Meier, 1989; Bonanno, et a1
1988). In order to be successful in these changing roles of
an adult educator, extension agents need to possess a set of
orientations about educationally working with adults. They
need to possess educational orientations, a set of values,
beliefs and attitudes, with respect to their role as
educators of adults.

According to Sisco (1984) qualities needed by the
effective facilitator include: empathy, use of reward,
respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, a
sense of fairness and objectivity, willingness to accept new
things and ideas, patience, sensitivity, humility, and
commitment to own lifelong learning. He further stated that
the transition from teacher to facilitator of learning is
difficult, but suggests that designing a learning plan based

on appropriate climate setting and diagnosis of learning

48
needs could help achieve better results. Little (1981)
identified six key characteristics of adults as learners and
suggests that information provided to adults should
consider: adult life cycle, immediate time orientation,
broad base of experience, independent self-concept, gradual
state of physical decline, and a number of social roles to
be fulfilled when teaching.

Hadley (1975) developed an instrument, the Educational
Orientation Questionnaire, with which adult educators’
orientations could be assessed with respect to constructs of
andragogy and pedagogy. He found that educators of adults
possess an andragogical orientation. The Educational
Orientation Questionnaire developed by Hadley was utilized
by Hynes (1989) who studied the effects of educational
orientations of university faculty on adult learner
satisfaction. The specific purpose was to determine whether
faculty’s understanding of and concern for the unique ways
adults engage in learning affect student satisfaction with
the learning experience. The study found that male faculty
were pedagogs and female faculty were andragogs. No
differences were reported between educational orientation
held by the faculty and student satisfaction of learning
experience.

Andragogical-pedagogical orientation and its
relationships to selected variables among university

students was studied by Davenport and Davenport (1984).

49
They utilized a Student Orientation Questionnaire to measure
students’ preferences, attitudes, and beliefs about
education and to identify a learning style responsive either
to authority-oriented, formal education (pedagogical) or
informal and collaborative instruction (andragogical).
Findings indicated that female students were more likely
than male students to have a higher andragogical orientation
and no statistical relationship was found between age and
educational orientation.

Educational orientations of adult educators who were on
the university continuing education faculty of Auburn
University and Alabama Cooperative Extension Service
personnel were studied by Holmes (1977). This study
utilized the Educational Orientation Questionnaire (Hadley,
1975) to determine the andragogical and pedagogical nature
of the adult educators’ orientations. Holmes (1977) found
that the educational orientations of adult educators in the
Cooperative Extension Service differed significantly from
those adult educators in university continuing education.
The CES educators were more andragogically oriented than

were the adult educators in continuing education.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods
and procedures used to study the educational orientation and
job satisfaction of Extension agents. This was an
exploratory study aimed at providing data and drawing
conclusions that could contribute toward the development of
theories to explain and direct future research activities.
This section describes the theoretical base for the
methodology and an explanation of the principles and
procedures used for collecting and analyzing the collected
information.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the
educational orientations held by Cooperative Extension
Service (CES) field agents and the relationship between
their educational orientation and their level of job
satisfaction. The questions that guided the research were:
1. What educational orientations do CES agents and their

immediate supervisors hold?

2. Is there a relationship between an agent’s personal
characteristics and their educational orientation?

3. What is the level of job satisfaction of CES agents?

50

51

4. Is there a relationship between an agent’s educational
orientation and their job satisfaction?

5. Are Extension agents who have educational orientations
which are similar to their immediate supervisor more
satisfied with their job than agents who have
educational orientations different from their immediate

supervisor?

The Design

The design chosen, according to terminology used by
researchers in the field of education (Borg and Gall, 1979;
Merriam and Simpson, 1984) and socioligy (Babbie, 1986), can
be categorized as a descriptive survey methodology in the
form of a mailed questionnaire. If properly employed and
cautiously interpreted, the descriptive survey can be a
useful methodology for the development of knowledge (Best,
1981). The data obtained from the completed questionnaires
are used to describe how the study population distributed
itself for different variables. One of the goals of this
study was to provide data, draw conclusions, and generate
knowledge that could contribute toward the development of
theories to explain the relationship between educational
orientation and job satisfaction of Extension educators.
The survey method was chosen for this study considering the
need to satisfy certain exploratory aspects of the study.

The survey method of research is an established

52

strategy that offers many advantages. According to Babbie:

survey research is probably the best method
available to.the social scientist interested in
collecting original data for describing a
population too large to observe directly. Surveys
are also excellent vehicles for measuring
attitudes and orientations in a large population
(p. 209).

This study followed a descriptive survey methodology to

collect information to ascertain the perceptions commonly

held by extension workers about their educational

orientations. This research followed the guidelines set

forward by John Best (1981) as he described the

characteristics of descriptive survey research studies:

1.

They are non-experimental, for they deal with the
relationships between nonmanipulated variables in a
natural, rather than artificial, setting. Since the
events or conditions have already occurred or exist,
the researcher selects the relevant variables for an
analysis of their relationships.

They involve hypothesis formulation and testing.
They use the logical methods of inductive-deductive
reasoning to arrive at generalizations.

They often employ methods of randomization so that
errors may be estimated when inferring population
characteristics from observations of samples.

The variables and procedures are described as
accurately and completely as possible so that the study

can be replicated by other researchers.

53
Researchers, however, must be cognizant of the limitations
to descriptive survey research. Borg and Gall (1979) listed
the frequently made errors by researchers in survey
research: not formulating clear, specific objectives for
their research; relating data gathering procedures to
objectives in only a general way and thereby failing to get
quantitative data specific to the problem; selecting the
sample on the basis of convenience; and analyzing survey
data one variable at a time instead of analyzing
relationships, longitudinal changes, and comparisons between
groups. Every effort was made in this study to minimize

these limitations.

Population

The identification of the population is a critical step
in the research process. Two types of population are
generally described in the research literature: the "target"
population and the "survey" population. According to Rossi,
et a1 (1983), the target population is the collection of
elements that the researcher would like to study. The
survey population is the population that is actually sampled
and for which data may be obtained.

The target population for this study included all
groups of non-formal educators including the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) field level agents who are involved

in the planning, implementation and evaluation of non-formal

54
educational programs in the United States. Due to time and
financial resources available, it was beyond the scope of
this study to provide coverage of the total population. In
order to appropriately respond to the stated problem and
provide answers to the research questions, a survey
population of employees with professionally similar roles
within the Michigan CES was considered for this study. The
survey population for this study consisted of two groups:
Extension agents All board-appointed permanent county
agents in Michigan CES who are: (1) under the direct
supervision of a County Extension Director, (2) have worked
for at least one year in their present position, (3) are
currently working and not on study leave or some other kind
of long-term leave, and (4) are not considered as County
Extension Directors.
County Extension Directors (CEDs): In most counties in
Michigan, CEDs work together with county agents to assist in
program planning and implementation. The CEDs have the
direct responsibility of supervising the work of the county
Extension agents. Though most of them have educational
roles in the county as Extension agents, for the purpose of
this research, they are categorically considered as
supervisory personnel. All board appointed CEDs with at
least one year at their current location and those who are
not on any kind of leave were included in the survey

population.

55

The Personnel Office of the Michigan CES provided a
list of county agents and County Extension Directors. With
the help of the CES Personnel Office, county agents and CEDs
were identified and selected to be included in the survey
population. Altogether 153 county agents and 79 CEDs were
included in the survey population. These excluded from the
survey population were county agents and CEDs who did not
have at least one year of work experience, who were
appointed on a temporary basis, who were on study leave or
who were not currently working as county agents or CEDs,
CEDs who have not supervised agents in their present
location for at least one year, and those who held a
District Agent position or Sea Grant Agents who are not
under the direct supervision of the CEDs.

Sample

A sample is a strategically and systematically
identified group of people or events that meets the
criterion of representativeness for a particular study
(Merriam and Simpson, 1984). Several approaches to sampling
are available to the researcher depending upon the nature
and objective of the research. As indicated earlier, one of
the research questions of this study is the comparison of
the level of job satisfaction between agents who have
educational orientations which are similar to their
immediate supervisor and agents who have educational

orientations different from their immediate supervisor.

56
Since there were only 79 immediate supervisors and 153
extension agents identified and considering that all may not
choose to participate in the study by responding to the
survey, a nonprobability sampling approach, popularly known
as total enumeration, was used in this study. In addition,
total enumeration was chosen because of the relatively small
number of individuals that were sorted out into the
Extension agent and the immediate supervisor subgroups which
are needed for cross-tabulation and other comparison
procedures to be used in the data analysis. Further,
considering the exploratory nature and the possible
contribution of the study to enhanced professional
competencies of the study population, it was considered
important to give each member of the survey population an
equal opportunity to participate.

The shortcomings of nonprobability sampling is very
well described by Babbie (1983). The biggest criticism of
nonprobability sampling is the inability to generalize the
study findings to a larger population and hence, is referred
to as a threat to external validity. While this limitation
is acknowledged, the total enumeration approach is still
considered a justifiable sampling strategy in social survey
research. Steel (1986) noted that:

One very significant result of a non-probability

sampling strategy might be that the careful, in-

depth understanding that could result from the

analysis of data might foster new

conceptualizations and hypotheses that could guide
future related research studies (p.104).

57
Regardless, it should be noted that the results of the
study can only be generalized to the survey population and

not the target population.

Instrumentation

The study utilized a survey in the form of a mail
questionnaire for data collection. The questionnaire had
three major parts: educational orientation, job
satisfaction, and personal data. The first part consisted
of statements regarding the educational orientation of the
respondents. This part of the instrument was originally
developed by Hadley (1975) to measure andragogical -
pedagogical orientations of educators of adults. A review
of major validation concerns was presented by Hadley (1975)
in support of its repeated use:

Reliability of the instrument was measured by
test-retest reliability and coefficient alpha.
Test-retest reliability measured 0.89, and
coefficient alpha was 0.94.

The use validity of the Educational Orientation
Questionnaire was its effectiveness in
discriminating among adult educators. Analysis of
variance demonstrated that the Educational
Orientation Questionnaire detected differences in
orientation (significant at the 0.05 level or
less) with respect to variables of: Sex, Subject
Matter or Specialty, Level of Position, and Type
of Organization ... Differences in Age of adult
educators were not associated with significant
differences in orientation.

The content validity was judged satisfactory.
Predictive validity of the instrument based on
total scores was satisfactory with coefficients
ranging from 0.24 to 0.49. However, predictive
validity coefficients based on summary scores of

58

items grouped by multiple regression ranged from
0.50 to 0.60 which were well above the usual such
coefficients.

Factor analysis of the Educational Orientation
Questionnaire determined eight identifiable
factors: Pedagogical Orientation, Andragogical
Orientation, Competitive Motivation, Pedagogical
Teaching, Social Distance, Student
Undependability, Standardization, and Self-
Directed Change. As anticipated, Pedagogical
Orientation and Andragogical Orientation were
dominant factors of the instrument.

The educational orientation part of the instrument was

'adapted from the Hadley (1975) study. Only those statements

in the Hadley instrument pertaining to the pedagogical and

andragogical orientation as identified by the study’s factor

analysis were selected. Certain wordings on the statements

were edited in order to keep the language consistent with

prevailing CES vocabulary. The changes in statement wording

were made according to the following procedures:

1.

Four professors who were familiar with the pedagogy-
andragogy literature and had long experience with the
Cooperative Extension Service at Michigan State
University served as a panel of experts. They were
given the original statements from the Hadley (1975)
instrument. Each of them was asked to read the
statements and make suggestions pertaining to wording
changes in each statement.

Suggestions from each professor on each statement were
carefully studied. Changes in wording were made only

if two or more professors agreed to a change in wording

59

and suggested the same wording for the change.

3. The instructions and the format of the instrument,
however, were changed at a minimum.

Thus, the first part of the questionnaire was designed to

study the educational orientation of the respondents, on a

five point Likert-type scale, toward a set of 24 statements

related to pedagogical and andragogical orientation.

The second part of the instrument consisted of
questions pertaining to the respondent’s attitude toward
their job satisfaction. This part of the instrument
utilized a questionnaire that was originally developed by
the Cooperative Extension Service at Iowa State University
and was used there in 1976, 1980, and 1988. More recently
it was utilized to assess the level of job satisfaction of
Illinois Cooperative Extension Service personnel (Cassina,
1989). Reliability of this instrument was assessed using
the Cronbach alpha which was found at 0.92. This
coefficient indicates that the consistency of the survey was
acceptable. According to Nunnally (1982), an alpha greater
than 0.65 is the minimum recommended for research purposes.
This study adapted the questionnaire used by Cassina (1989)
except that four items pertaining to marketing of extension
programs and the emphasis of the extension service on
leadership development were deleted from the job
satisfaction questionnaire. Thus, part two of the

instrument was designed to seek respondents’ attitudinal

60
response, on a five point Likert-type scale, to 40 items
that reflected the agents’ level of job satisfaction in
extension work.

The third part of the instrument was called "personal
data". Respondents were asked to select an appropriate
answer to describe their personal characteristics. Such
characteristics included age, gender, marital status,
position, primary program area, regional assignment,
experience in current position and in the extension
profession, the major for their undergraduate degree, and
whether they had previously served as a school teacher.

A cover letter, signed by the dissertation director and
the researcher, accompanied the questionnaire. The letter
outlined the reasons for the study, the nature of
participation, confidentiality of responses, and usefulness
of the study. Respondents desiring a summary of findings of
the study were asked to indicate their intent by signing
their name and address on the postage-paid self-addressed
return envelope. The cover letter was duplicated on the
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan
State University letterhead. Necessary instructions on how
to complete the survey and an explanation of the scale to be
used were also provided at appropriate sections of the
instrument.

As indicated earlier, the panel of experts provided

assistance in addressing all three types of validity

61
concerns: content, construct, and face. The instrument was
pilot tested using CES personnel who had previous experience

as a field agent but who were no longer in that position.

Data Collection

The questionnaire was photocopied on off-white paper to
enhance professional image and readability. The cover
letter was designed to create a positive first impression
and communicate a relevant purpose to the study population.
To facilitate individualization, the name and address of
each respondent was printed directly on the cover letters.
An individual identification number was recorded on the
first page of each questionnaire for follow-up mailing
purposes. To increase the ease of completion, each part of
the questionnaire was preceded by adequate instruction.

The survey packet included the cover letter,
questionnaire, and postage paid self-addressed return
envelope. It was mailed to each member of the survey
population using first class metered postage service from
East Lansing on September 5, 1990. A follow-up postcard
reminding the respondents to complete and return the
questionnaire was sent to each non-respondent two weeks
after the first mailing on September 19, 1990. Copies of
all materials used in the mailing packets and the postcard
are provided in Appendix A.

Completed questionnaires were carefully checked upon

62
return. All usable questionnaires were given a new
identification number: The information was coded and
entered into a microcomputer data file. There were 112
usable questionnaires returned out of 153 questionnaires
mailed to the Extension agents and 64 usable questionnaires
returned out of 79 questionnaires mailed to the County
Extension Directors, a response rate of 73.20 percent and
81.01 percent for the Extension agents and County Extension
Directors, respectively. In order to address the problem of
possible nonrespondent bias, "early respondents" were
compared with "late respondents" on selected variables. No
differences at the 0.05 level were found between the two
groups which allowed for the generalization of the results

to the survey population (Miller and Smith, 1983).

Data Analysis

Data were coded and analyzed by using the SPSS/PC+
microcomputer software. The data were first submitted to
frequency counts in order to detect coding or data entry
errors. Necessary corrections were made in the data file
and any errors or inconsistencies were checked.

The first part of the analysis consisted of determining
the demographic characteristics of the survey population.
Response frequencies, percentage, range and measures of
central tendency and dispersion were generated for

demographic variables as appropriate.

63

The educational orientation and the job satisfaction
parts of the questionnaire that provided for response on a
Likert-type attitudinal scale were interpreted and analyzed
as if they were measured in an interval level. First, the
statistical procedure to determine reliability (Norusis,
1988) was performed and Cronbach’s alpha was determined at
.72, .73 and .94 for instruments pertaining to andragogy,
pedagogy and job satisfaction, respectively.

The educational orientation part of the questionnaire
consisted of twenty four statements - twelve each on the
andragogical and pedagogical orientation. The statements
were developed on a five point Likert-type scale and the
five positions from which to choose the response were: "SA -
I strongly agree with this statement", "A - I agree with
this statement", "U - I’m uncertain about this statement to
agree or disagree", "D - I disagree with this statement",
and "SD - I strongly disagree with this statement". The
responses were coded as 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 to represent SA,
A, U, D, and SD positions, respectively. A

The educational orientations of the respondents were
ascertained by computing the scores against andragogical and
pedagogical constructs. An andragogical orientation for
each respondent was defined by assessing the values on items
4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, and 24 in the first
part of the questionnaire. A mean andragogical score for

each respondent was determined by averaging numerical scores

64
for all the above indicated andragogical items.

Pedagogical orientation for each respondent was defined
by examining the responses on items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12,
14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 in the first part of the
questionnaire. A mean pedagogical score for each respondent
was determined by averaging the numerical values for all
pedagogical items.

The job satisfaction part of the instrument consisted
of 40 items. A procedure, similar to that used for
educational orientation, was followed to compute the job
satisfaction score. An overall job satisfaction score was
computed for each Extension agent by averaging all items in
the second part of the questionnaire.

Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, mean
and standard deviation scores were used to analyze
educational orientations held by the Extension agents and
the level of their job satisfaction.

Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was
computed to examine the nature and extent of linear
relationship between continuous demographic characteristics
such as age, experience and the agent’s educational
orientation. Similar procedures were utilized to test the
relationship between demographic characteristics such as
age, experience in current position and total extension
experience of Extension agents and their level of job

satisfaction. The correlation coefficient was also used to

65
examine the relationship between educational orientation and
job satisfaction.

T-tests were performed to examine if Extension agents
differ in their educational orientations and job
satisfaction as relates to gender, marital status, single or
multi-county assignments, having a graduate degree, and
whether he/she was a school teacher. One-way analysis of
variance and the Scheffe post-hoc procedures were used to
find out the differences in educational orientations and job
satisfaction when considering Extension agents’ program area
of work.

For the purpose of this study congruence of educational
orientation of Extension agents with that of their immediate
supervisor was measured as the difference in score between
the CED and the agents on andragogical and pedagogical
orientation scores. Based on this congruence score,
quartile values at 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile were
determined. Respondents belonging to the first and the last
quartiles of the andragogical and pedagogical orientation
congruence continuum were classified as "incongruent" and
the rest, the middle of 50%, were classified as congruent.
The t-test was used to determine the differences in the
level of job satisfaction between the "congruent" and
"incongruent" groups.

The alpha level was set apriori at the 0.05 level for

all significance tests.

66
Limitations of the Study

This study is limited to Michigan Cooperative Extension
Service field staff. Only the board-appointed permanent
county agents and County Extension Directors (CEDs) with at
least one year of experience in their current position were
studied. In addition, this study utilized a nonprobability
sampling approach, popularly known as total enumeration,
which limits the generalizability of conclusions to a larger
population.

This study assumed no similarity between MCES and those
operating in other states or countries. Therefore,
precautions must be taken to apply the findings of this
study in other settings.

As indicated earlier, the respondents of this study
included the County Extension Directors (CEDs) and county
Extension agents with at least one year of experience in
their current position. The CEDs have two major roles: they
are responsible for the general administration of the county
CES program and most of them also have educational roles.

As part of their administrative role, CEDs have direct
responsibility of supervising the work of the county
Extension agents. As indicated in the study delimitations,
this research considered CEDs not as Extension agents but as
immediate supervisor of Extension agents. No attempt was
made studying the educational orientations of supervisors at

the regional and state level.

67
It is was not the intent of this study to determine the
factors affecting job satisfaction of Extension agents. Job
satisfaction was studied only in relation to andragogical
and pedagogical orientations of Extension agents. No
attempt was made to find out the job satisfaction of
Extension agents with respect to their personal

characteristics.

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The data collected in the study were analyzed according
to the procedures described in Chapter III and are presented
in this chapter. The discussion of findings is arranged to
answer the research questions set forth in this study.
The information in this chapter is organized under the
following headings:
1) Personal characteristics of respondents
2) Educational orientations of respondents
3) Relating personal Characteristics and educational
orientation of Extension agents
4) Job satisfaction of Extension agents
5) Relating educational orientation and job satisfaction of
Extension agents
6) Congruence of educational orientations and job
satisfaction
As reported in Chapter III, as of October 31, 1990, 112
usable questionnaires were received from Extension agents
which represented a 72.2 percent response rate. Similarly,
questionnaire from 64 CEDs were received by October 31,
1990, which accounted for a response rate of 81.01 percent.

Of the total respondents, 36.4 percent were County Extension

68

69
Directors (CEDs) and 63.6 percent were county agents. Table
1 shows that CEDs from 64 counties and agents from 57
counties, out of 83 counties in Michigan, responded to this
study. It should be noted, however, that some counties did
not have a CED and/or agents who qualified to be included in

the study population.

Table 1. Response rate in the study

 

 

Respondent Identified Number
group population responding
CEDs 79 64
Agents 153 112

Total 232 176

 

In order to determine the generalization of the
results, "late respondents" were compared with "early
respondents". No differences at the .05 level of
significance were found between the "early" and "late"
respondents (see Appendix B). This procedure allows the
generalization of the results to the study population

(Miller and Smith, 1983).

Characteristics of Respondents
The subjects of this study were the Michigan
Cooperative Extension Service (MCES) field agents, county
agents and County Extension Directors (CEDs), who had at

least 1 year of working experience in their current position

70
as of July, 1990. Selected demographic information was
collected from the subjects to better understand the nature
of their population. This section presents information
regarding the respondents’ age, sex, marital status,
position, program area, regional assignment, extension
experience, education, and whether they had any experience

as a school teacher.

592; Age of the Extension agents ranged from 26 to 67 years
with a mean of 39.9 years and a standard deviation of 9.2
years. Data in Table 2 show that 15.1 percent of the agents
were under 30 years of age and 16.1 percent indicated an age
of 51 or over.

Age of the County Extension Directors (CEDs) ranged
from 29 to 62 years with a mean of 44.6 years and a standard
deviation of 7.8 years. As shown in Table 2, only one
respondent was under 30 years whereas 29.7 percent indicated
an age of 51 years or over. Data in Table 2 reveal that

county agents are younger than the CEDs.

71

Table 2. Age of respondents

 

 

 

Age Range Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
No. (%) No. (%)
Under 30 years 17 (15.1) 1 (1.6)
31-40 years 40 (35.7) 20 (31.2)
41-50 years 32 (28.6) 24 (37.5)
51 years and over 18 (16.1) 19 (29.7)
No response 5 (4.5) - -
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)
G e ° Of the survey respondents 52.3 percent were males

and 47.7 percent were females. As shown in Table 3,'most of
the CEDs were male whereas majority of the agent respondents

were female.

Table 3. Gender of respondents

 

 

Gender Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
Number (%) Number (%)

Male 46 (41.1) 46 (71.4)

Female . 66 (58.9) 18 (28.1)

Total 112 (100) 64 (100)

 

Marital Status: Respondents were asked to indicate their
marital status. Table 4 shows that 76.8 percent of the

Extension agents and 83 percent of CEDs were married.

72

Table 4. Marital status of respondents

 

 

 

.Marital Status Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
Number (%) Number (%)
Married 86 (76.8) 60 (93.8)
Single 23 (20.5) 4 (6.2)
No Response 3 (1.7) - —
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)
Assignment: Extension agents and CEDs in Michigan can

have a single county or multi-county assignment.
Respondents of this study were asked to indicate their
assignment type since it was possible that this variable
could be associated with an agent’s educational orientation
as well as his/her job satisfaction. As shown in Table 5,
when asked to indicate the type of assignment, 82.1 percent
of the agents and 89.1 percent of the CEDs in this study

indicated having a single county assignment, respectively.

Table 5. County assignment of respondents

 

 

 

County Assignment Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
‘ Number (%) Number(%)
Single county 92 (82.1) 57 (89.1)
Multi-county 20 (17.9) 7 (10.9)
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)
o ra ea: Extension work in Michigan is administered

and organized through four major program areas including

73
Agriculture and Marketing, 4-H Youth, Home Economics, and
Natural Resources and Public Policy. Findings indicate that
respondents of this study came from all of the program
areas. As shown in Table 6, Agriculture and Marketing had
the highest number of agents as well as CEDs followed by
Home Economics, 4-H Youth , and Natural resources and Public
Policy. Of the CEDs, 2.3 percent did not indicate their
primary program area of work and some indicated working for

more than one primary program area.

Table 6. Program area of respondents

 

 

 

Program Area Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
Number (%) Number (%)
Agriculture and Marketing 37 (33.0) 31 (48.4)
Home Economics 36 (32.1) 14 (21.9)
4-H Youth 31 (27.7) 9 (14.1)
Natural Resources
and Public Policy 8 (7.1) 8 (12.5)
No program area indicated - - 2 (3.1)
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)
Re '0 : The Michigan Cooperative Extension Service is

organized into six geographical regions. Respondents were
asked to indicate the region to which they were assigned.
Table 7 shows that respondents in this study came from all
six regions. The highest number of agents come from the
East Central region followed by Southwest, West Central,
Southeast, North and Upper Peninsula regions. On the other

hand, highest number of CEDs were from the North region

74
followed by West Central, Southeast, East Central and Upper

Peninsula, and Southwest regions.

Table 7. Regional assignment of respondents

 

 

 

Region Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
Number (%) Number (%)

East Central 26 (23.2) 10 (15.6)
Southwest 29 (25.9) 6 (9.4)
West Central 21 (18.8) 12 (18.8)
Southeast 20 (17.9) 11 (17.2)
North 8 (7.1) 15 (23.4)
Upper Peninsula 8 (7.1) 10 (15.6)

Total 112 (100) 64 (100)
Experience: Due to a possible relationship between years

of extension work experience, educational orientation and
job satisfaction, respondents were asked to indicate their
experience in their current position. Findings showed that
Extension agents’ experience in their current position
ranged from 1 to 22 years with a mean of 6.3 years and a
standard deviation of 5.4 years. Of the responding agents,
55.4 percent had 5 years or less experience and 8 percent
indicated an experience of 16 years or more above.
Experience in current position of the CEDs ranged from
1 to 20 years with a mean of 6.8 years and a standard
deviation of 5.2 years. Of the responding CEDs, 46.8
percent had 5 years or less experience and 9.4 percent

indicated having 16 years or more experience.

75

Table 8. Experience in current position

 

 

Experience in current Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
position No. (%) No. (%)
5 years or less 62 (55.4) 30 (46.8)
6-10 years 20 (17.8) 19 (29.7)
11-15 years 14 (12.5) 6 (9.4)
16 years & above 9 (8.0) 6 (9.4)
No response 7 (6.3) 3 (4.7)
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)

 

Time spent in current position may not precisely yield
extension experience. Respondents could have several years
of experience in similar jobs but in different positions.
Therefore respondents were further asked to indicate their
total ExtenSion experience. It was found that total
Extension experience of the responding agents ranged from 1
to 30 years with a mean of 9.9 years and a standard
deviations of 6.8 years. Table 9 shows that 33 percent of
the agents had a total Extension experience of 5 years or
less and 21.4 percent indicated having 16 years or more
experience.

Total Extension experience for the CEDs ranged from 1
to 27 years with a mean of 14.2 years and a standard
deviation of 6.6 years. When the total experience was
considered, only 9.4 percent of the CEDs had 5 years or less
experience and 39.1 percent indicated having 16 years or

more experience.

76

Table 9. Total Extension experience_

 

 

Total Extension Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)
experience Number (%) Number (%)
5 years or less 37 (33.0) 6 (9.4)
6-10 years 27 (24.1) 12 (18.7)
11-15 years 17 (15.2) 20 (31.3)
16 years & above 24 (21.4) 25 (39.1)
No response 7 (6.3)‘ 1 (1.5)
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)

 

Undergraduate Major: Respondents indicated various majors
for their undergraduate degrees. As shown in Table 10, home
economics, agricultural and natural resources education,
animal science, crop and soil science, education, natural
resources management, horticulture, and sociology were the
most frequently mentioned undergraduate degrees majors by

Extension agents.

Table 10. Undergraduate degree major of respondents

 

Undergraduate major Frequency
Agents(n=112) CEDs (n=64)

 

Home Economics 28 10
Agricultural and Natural

Resources Education 12 16
Education 11 6
Crops and Soils 9 6
Animal Science 12 2
Natural Resources Management 7 3
Horticulture 6 2
Sociology 6 1
General Agriculture 3 4
Dietetics/Nutrition 4 1
Others 10 9
No response 4 4

 

77
Frequently mentioned undergraduate majors by the CEDs
were agricultural and natural resources education, home

economics, crop and soil science, and general agriculture.

Gnaduate Degree: When asked to indicate whether the
respondent had a graduate degree, 51.8 percent of the agents
and 67.2 percent of the CEDs indicated they had.
Respondents who indicated having a graduate degree were
asked to indicate their major area of study for their
graduate work. As shown in Table 11, agricultural and
extension education, home economics/food and nutrition]
family studies, adult and continuing education, education,
and animal science/dairy science were the most frequently
mentioned graduate degree major areas by Extension agents.
Frequently mentioned graduate degree major areas by CEDs
included agricultural and extension education, education,
and adult and continuing education.

Table 11. Graduate degree major of respondents

 

 

Undergraduate major Frequency
Agents CEDs
Education 10 11
Agricultural and Extension
Education 8 10
Adult & Continuing Education 7 8

Home Economics/Food and
Nutrition/Family Studies 1

Animal Science/Dairy Science

Agricultural Economics

Crops and Soil Science

Park and Recreation

Others

\lNNbxll-J
\lI-‘NNl-‘H

 

78

Schooi Teaching Experience: Due to a possible relationship
between educational orientation and an individual’s teaching
experience in a formal school setting, respondents were
asked to indicate whether or not they had ever been a school
teacher. Findings in Table 12 show that 45.5 percent of the
agents and 51.6 percent of the CEDs indicated having an

experience as a formal school teacher.

Table 12. Experience as school teacher

 

School teaching Agents (n=112) CEDs (n=64)

 

experience Number (%) Number (%)
Have 51 (45.5) 33 (51.6)
Don’t have 60 (53.6) 31 (48.4)
No response 1 (0.9) - -
Total 112 (100) 64 (100)

 

Educational Orientation of Respondents

The first research question of this study asked about
the educational orientations held by Extension agents and
their immediate supervisor. The Extension agents and CEDs
with at least one year of experience in their current job
were surveyed to study their attitude toward andragogical
and pedagogical orientations by using an instrument. The
instrument consisted of twelve statements relating to

education, teaching and learning on each of the andragogical

79
and pedagogical orientations for a total of twenty four
statements.

The statements were responded to on a five point
Likert-type scale and the five positions from which to
choose were:

SA - I strongly agree with this statement

A - I agree with this statement

U - I’m uncertain about this statement to agree or
disagree
D - I disagree with this statement

SD - I strongly disagree with this statement

For statistical analysis purposes the responses of SA,
A, U, D, and SD were coded as 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1,
respectively. An andragogical orientation score for each
respondent was defined by assessing the values on items 4,
5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, and 24 in the first
part of the questionnaire. Then, these values were averaged
to determine the andragogical orientation score for each
respondent. Pedagogical orientation for each respondent was
defined by examining the responses on items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9,
10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 in the first part of the
questionnaire. A pedagogical orientation score for each
respondent was determined by averaging the numerical values
for the pedagogical items. Based on these scores,

descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

80
Andragogical Orientation:

The andragogical orientation score for the Extension
agents ranged from 2.67 to 4.75 with a mean of 3.71 and a
standard deviation of 0.41. Frequency distribution in Table
13 shows that none of the Extension agents had a andragogy
score of less than 2.5, 38.4 percent had an andragogy score
between 2.5 and 3.5, and 61.6 percent had andragogy score of
higher than 3.5 on a 1-5 scale.

The andragogical orientation score for the County
Extension Directors ranged from 3.0 to 4.75 with a mean of
3.82 and a standard deviation of 0.40. Frequency
distribution in Table 13 shows that none of the County
Extension Directors had a andragogy score of less than 2.5,
25.4 percent had an andragogy score between 2.5 and 3.5, and
74.6 percent had andragogy score of higher than 3.5 on a 1-5

scale.

Table 13. Andragogical orientation score of the respondents

 

 

Level of andragogical Range of Agents CEDs

orientation score scores No. (%) No. (%)
Low < 2.5 0(0) 0 (0)
Moderate 2.5 - 3.5 43 (38.4) 16 (25.4)
Strong > 3.5 69 (61.6) 47 (74.6)

Total 112 (100) 64 (100)

 

Mean for Agents = 3.75, S.D. = 0.41
Mean for CEDs = 3.82, S.D. = 0.40

Descriptive statistics of the individual statements

pertaining to andragogical orientation are presented in

81
Table 14. The data indicate that the Extension agents
possess a moderate to strong andragogical orientation.
Extension agents indicated a stronger agreement with
statements related to client participation in educational
programs. The strongest agreement was noted on the
statement, "Effective learning occurs most often when
clientele actively participate in deciding what is to be
learned and how" (mean = 4.56), followed by: "Organization
of the content and sequence of learning activities should
grow out of clientele needs, with their participation"
(mean = 4.34). Low agreement was noted on the statement,
"It is better for clientele to create their own learning
activities and materials than for the extension agent to
provide them" (mean = 2.67), and it was the only item
receiving an overall mean score below 3.

Of the twelve andragogical orientation statements,
Extension agents indicated a strong agreement on two, with a
mean higher than 4.0 on a 1-5 scale. They indicated a
moderate agreement on nine statements with mean between 3.0
and 4.0. Only one statement had a mean score below 3.0, a
low agreement.

Descriptive statistics of the individual statements
pertaining to andragogical orientation for the CEDs are also
presented in Table 14. The data indicate that CEDs possess
a moderate to strong andragogical orientation. The County

Extension Directors indicated a stronger agreement with

82

Table 14. Andragogical items means

 

Andragogical statements

Agents (n=112)

Mean (SD)

CEDs
Mean

(n=63)
(SD)

 

Effective learning occurs
most often when clientele
actively participate in
deciding what is to be
learned and how.

Organization of the content
and sequence of learning
activities should grow out
of clientele needs, with
their participation.

Educational objectives
should define changes in
behavior which the clientele
desire and the extension
agent helps them undertake.

An Extension agent’s mission
is to help each client learn
what he/she decides will aid
in the achieving of his/her
personal goals.

An Extension agent’s
primary responsibility is
helping clientele choose
and develop their own
directions for learning.

The best sources of ideas
for improving CES educational
programs are the clientele.

The goals that the clientele
set for themselves rather
than the goals that the
Extension agent sets for

the clientele, are the basis
for effective learning.

Planning units of work should
be done by clientele and
Extension agents together.

(.67)

(.65)

(.69)

(.79)

(.79)

(.92)

(.79)

(.92)

(.64)

(.67)

(.54)

(.81)

(.72)

(.78)

(.74)

(.71)

Table 14. Contd...

83

 

Andragogical statements

Agents (n=112)

Mean (SD)

CEDs
Mean

(n=63)
(SD)

 

Extension clientele are
quite competent to choose
and carry out their own
projects for learning.

Evaluating his/her
achievement should be
primarily a responsibility
of the client since he/she
has the necessary data.

Evaluations prepared by
the clientele are usually
just as effective as those
prepared by the Extension
agent.

It is better for clientele
to create their own learning
activities and materials
than for the Extension agent
to provide them.

(.91)

(.91)

(.90)

(.97)

(.91)

(.91)

((o31)

(.75)

 

statements related to client participation in Extension

educational programs.

The strongest agreement was noted on

the statement, "Effective learning occurs most often when

clientele actively participate in deciding what is to be

learned and how" (mean = 4.54), followed by: "Organization

of the content and sequence of learning activities should

grow out of clientele needs, with their participation"

(mean = 4.43), and "Educational objectives should define

changes in behavior which the clientele desire and extension

agent helps them undertake"

(mean

4.03).

Similar to that

84
of the agents, a low agreement was noted on the statement,
"It is better for clientele to create their own learning
activities and materials than for the extension agent to
provide them" (mean = 2.71), and it was the only item
receiving an overall mean score below 3.

Of the twelve andragogical orientation statements, CEDs
indicated a strong agreement on seven, with a mean higher
than 4.0 on a 1-5 scale. They indicated a moderate‘
agreement on 4 statements with mean between 3.0 and 4.0.
Only one statement had a mean score below 3.0, a low
agreement. In general, Table 14 shows that the CEDs’ had a
stronger andragogical orientation than that of the Extension

agents.

Pedagogical Orientation:

The mean pedagogical orientation score for the
Extension agents ranged from 1.83 to 4.33, with a mean of
3.19 and a standard deviation of 0.51. On the other hand,
the mean pedagogical score for the CEDs ranged from 2.16 to
4.33 with a mean of 3.14 and a standard deviation of 0.46.
Analysis of the distribution of the pedagogy score is shown
in Table 15. Findings show that 12.5 percent of the
Extension agents and 11.1 percent of the CEDs had a low
pedagogy score, a score of less than 2.5 on a 1-5 scale. A
moderate pedagogy score was noted among 63.4 percent of the

agents and 69.8 percent of the CEDs. Strong pedagogical

85
orientation score, a score above 3.5 on a 1—5 scale, was
found among 24.1 percent of the agents and 19.1 percent of

the CEDs.

Table 15. Pedagogical orientation score of respondents

 

 

Level of pedagogical Range of Agents CEDs

orientation scores Number (%) Number ( %)
Low < 2.5 14 (12.5) 7 (11.1)
Moderate 2.5-3.5 71 (63.4) 44 (69.8)
Strong > 3.5 27 (24.1) 12 (19.1)

Total 112 (100) 63 (100)

 

Mean for Agents = 3.19, S.
Mean for CEDs = 3.14, S.D.

The means and standard deviations for each statement
pertaining to pedagogical orientation are presented in Table
16. The pedagogical orientation statement receiving the
strongest agreement among the Extension agent was "Learning
is an intellectual process of understanding ideas (concepts)
and acquiring skills" (mean = 4.07). Of the twelve
statements on the pedagogical orientation, it was the only
statement with a mean score above 4.0. It should be noted,
however, that extension agents rated high on the statement
"A clear explanation by the extension agent is essential for
effective learning". Eight statements out of twelve
pedagogical orientation statements had mean scores between
3.0 and 4.0 indicating a moderate agreement on these items.

A mean score of less than 3.0 was noted on three statements

86
pertaining to control of the educational process. The least
agreed upon item by the Extension agents was the statement
pertaining to the control of educational process by the
Extension agent.

Findings in Table 16 show that CEDs and agents had
similar attitude on the most of the pedagogical statement
items. The pedagogical orientation statement receiving the
strongest agreement among the CEDs was "Learning is an
intellectual process of understanding ideas (concepts) and
acquiring skills" (mean = 4.08). Of the twelve statements
on the pedagogical orientation, it was the only statement
with a mean score above 4.0. It should be noted, however,
that CEDs rated high on the statement "A clear explanation
by the extension agent is essential for effective learning"
y(mean = 3.95)._ Eight statements out of twelve pedagogical
orientation statements had mean scores between 3.0 and 4.0
indicating a moderate agreement on these items. A mean
score of less than 3.0 was noted on three statements
pertaining to control of the educational process. It should
be noted that the least agreed upon item by the CEDs was

also the least agreed statement by the Extension agents.

87

Table 16. Pedagogical items means

 

Pedagogical statements Agents (n=112)

Mean (SD)

CEDs(n=63)
Mean (SD)

 

Learning is an intellectual
process of understanding

ideas and acquiring skills. 4.07 (.78)
A clear explanation by

the Extension agent is

essential for effective

learning. 3.98 (.83)
An extension agent should

be sure his/her questions

steer clientele toward truth. 3.46 (.99)
The major qualifications of

an Extension agent are a

grasp of subject matter

and ability to explain
(demonstrate) it clearly

and interestingly. 3.51 (1.1)
Education should lead

people to goals that

result in orderly,

reasonable lives. 3.26 (.94)
Clientele need a strong

Extension agent who can

direct their learning. 3.28 (1.1)
It should be the Extension
agent’s responsibility

to evaluate clientele
achievements and to

determine

the extent of learning. 3.05 (.97)
An extension agent who

does not carefully plan

the work for a program

is taking advantage of

the client’s ignorance. 3.09 (1.0)
Education should focus

on what is sure, reliable

and lasting. 3.04 (1.2)

(.97)

(.91)

(.82)

(1.0)

(.81)

(1.2)

(98)

(.92)

(1.1)

88

Table 16. Contd...

 

Pedagogical statements Agents (n=112) CEDs(n=63)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

 

It is an extension agent’s

responsibility to motivate

clientele to learn what

they ought to learn. 2.79 (1.1) 2.86 (1.1)

An extension agent should
help clientele accept
the values of our society. 2.46 (.90) 2.44 (.84)

‘A good extension agent

makes the decisions about

what should be taught,

when, and how. 2.26 (.96) 2.21 (.88)

 

Relating Personal Characteristics and Educational

Orientations of Extension Agents

The second research question of this study attempted to
find out the relationship between an agent’s personal
characteristics and their educational orientation.

The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was
computed to examine if a linear relationship exists between
continuous demographic variables such as age, experience in
current experience and total extension experience, and an
agent’s educational orientations. Findings in Table 17 show
no significant linear relationship between these demographic

characteristics and educational orientations.

89

Table 17. Pearson correlation coefficient for selected
demographic characteristics and educational

 

 

orientations
Characteristics Correlation Coefficient
Andragogy Pedagogy
Age -.10 .12
Experience in current position .19 .17
Total Extension Experience .05 .12

 

T-tests were performed to see if Extension agents have
different educational orientations when examined in relation
to their personal characteristics such as sex, marital
status, single or multi-county assignments, having a
graduate degree, and prior experience as a school teacher.
The findings in Table 18 show that married agents were found
to hold a different andragogy scores than that of their
single counterparts. In other words, mean andragogy scores
for married agents were lower than that of the unmarried
agents. No significant differences were found between other
dichotomous personal characteristics and andragogical
orientation. In other words, Extension agents, whether male
or female, having single county or multi county assignment,
holding a graduate degree or not, and having served as a
school teacher or not, do not hold different perceptions in
terms of andragogical orientation.

Similar test was performed to find out whether agents
differ in pedagogical orientation score according to the

selected personal characteristics. Results of the t-test,

90
as presented in Table 19, showed that male agents were
different from their female counterparts in terms of
pedagogical orientations. The male extension agents were
found to possess a stronger pedagogical orientation than
female agents and the difference was significant at the .05
level. No significant differences were observed between
other dichotomous demographic characteristics and
pedagogical orientation.

Table 18. T-test analyzing andragogy score when
considering selected demographic characteristics

 

 

Characteristic/group (n) Andragogy score t-Value Prob.
Sex:
Male (46) 3.69
.48 .63
Female (66) 3.72
Marital Status:
Married (86) 3.68
2.14 .04
Single (23) 3.90
County Assignment:
Single County (92) 3.72
.50 .62
Multi-county (20) 3.66
Graduate Degrees:
Yes (62) 3.66
l 35 .18
No (49) 3.78
School teacher:
Yes (51) 3.72
.18 .85

No (60) 3.71

 

91

Table 19. T-test analyzing pedagogy score when considering
selected demographic characteristics

 

 

Characteristic/group (n) Pedagogy score t-value Prob.
Sex:
Male (46) 3.39
3.75 .00
Female (66) 3.04
Marital Status:
Married (86) 3.21
1.52 .13
Single (23) 3.02
County Assignment:
Single County (92) 3.21
1.13 .26
Multi-county (20) 3.07
Graduate Degrees:
Yes (62) 3.24
1.38 .17
No (49) 3.11
School teacher?
Yes (51) 3.21
.51 .61
No (60) 3.16

 

Educational orientations held by respondents were
studied according to their program areas. Mean scores on
andragogical orientations presented in Table 20 show that
4-H Youth agents hold the strongest andragogical orientation
followed by NRPP, Agricultural and Marketing and Home
Economics agents, respectively.

One-way analysis of variance and the post-hoe Scheffe
procedure were used to examine differences in educational

orientations in terms of respondents’ program area

92
affiliation. As shown in Table 20, significant differences
at the 0.05 level were observed among the respondents under
different program areas in terms of andragogical
orientation. Scheffe procedure showed that the andragogical
orientations of the 4-H Youth agents were significantly
different from Home Economics and Agricultural and Marketing
agents.

Table 20. Analysis of variance of andragogical orientation
when considering the agent’s program area

 

 

 

Source D.F. Sum of Mean F F
Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 2.5271 .8424 5.6324 .001
Within Groups 108 16.1522 .1496
Total 111 18.6793
Multiple Range Test: Scheffe Procedure
Group
Group Program Area (n) Mean 4 l 3 2
Gr4 Home Economics (36) 3.59
Grl Agriculture/Marketing (37) 3.62
Gr3 NRPP (8) 3.75
Gr2 4-H Youth (31) 3.94 * *

 

* Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the
.05 level

Similar procedures were followed to examine differences
in pedagogical orientation when considering the program area
affiliation of Extension agents. Findings in Table 21 show
that the strongest pedagogical orientations were held by
Agricultural and Marketing agents followed by Home

Economics, 4-H Youth, and then NRPP agents. The F ratio and

93
the corresponding Scheffe procedure, however, showed no
significance difference on pedagogy scores of Extension
agents belonging to different program areas.

Table 21. Analysis of variance of pedagogical orientation
score when considering the agent’s program area

 

Source D.F. Sum of Mean F F

 

Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 3 1.46 .4885 1.9145 .131
Within Groups 108 27.5591 .2552
Total 111 29.0247

 

Multiple Range Test: Scheffe Procedure

Group*
Group Program Area (n) Mean 3 4 2 1
Grl Agriculture/Marketing (37) 3.44
Gr2 4-H Youth (31) 3.10
Gr3 NRPP (8) 3.03
Gr4 Home Economics (36) 3.13

 

*No two groups are significantly different at the .05 level

An attempt was also made to study whether it was
possible for an Extension agent to hold simultaneously a
high or low level andragogical and pedagogical orientation.
For this purpose, agents whose score was above and below the
mean andragogical score were categorized as high andragogy
and low andragogy, respectively. Similarly agents scoring
above and below the mean pedagogical score were categorized
as high and low pedagogical orientation, respectively. A

combination of the two high-low andragogical-pedagogical

94
orientation categories resulted in a matrix of four types of
educational orientations as shown in figure 4. Agents who
were above the mean in both the andragogical and pedagogical
orientation scale were classified as "strong dual
orientation"; whereas those below the mean in both
educational orientations were labelled as "weak dual
orientation". Similarly extension agents who had a high
score in andragogy but were low in pedagogy were classified
as "strong andragogical orientation"; and those who had a
high score in pedagogy but were low in andragogy were

classified as "strong pedagogical orientation".

 

 

 

 

PEDAGOGY
High ' Low
A
N
D High Strong dual strong
R orientation andragogical
A orientation
G
0 Low strong weak dual
G pedagogical orientation
Y orientation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Matrix of educational orientations

When categorized according to the matrix of educational
orientations, it was found that it is possible for an
Extension agent to hold both orientations simultaneously.

Findings in Table 22 show that an agent could possess a

95~
combination of strong dual orientation, strong andragogical
orientation, strong pedagogical orientation or weak dual
orientation. In other words, it was possible that andragogy
and pedagogy could exist simultaneously and an agent may

hold both orientations at high or low levels.

Table 22. Distribution of Extension agents in a matrix of
educational orientation

 

 

Educational Orientation Number (%)
Weak dual orientation 26 23.9
Strong pedagogical orientation 41 37.6
Strong andragogical orientation 23 21.1
Strong dual orientation 19 17.4
Total 109 100

 

An additional analysis was conducted to find out
whether Extension agents, when grouped according to extreme
educational orientation scores differ in terms of the
demographic characteristics of age and experience. The
level of andragogical and pedagogical orientations were
categorized into two groups based on the mean and the
standard deviation scores. Respondents whose andragogical
orientation score was higher than plus one standard
deviation value from the mean were classified as "high
andragogy" and those scoring less than minus one standard
deviation value from the mean were classified as "low
andragogy". Similar procedures were applied to classify

"high pedagogy" and "low pedagogy" groups. T-tests were

96
performed to determine whether Extension agents differ in
terms of their level of andragogical and pedagogical
orientations according to their age, experience in current
position and total extension experience. No significant
differences were observed between the "high" and "low"
andragogical and pedagogical orientation groups and these
personal characteristics (Appendix C, Table 2 and 3).

Do Extension agents with a high or low level of
andragogy hold a different level of pedagogical orientation
and vice-versa? T-tests were performed to answer these
questions. Findings in Table 23 show that Extension agents
belonging to the "high andragogy" group were significantly
different from the "low andragogy" group with respect to
their pedagogical orientation scores. The "high andragogy"
group had a lower pedagogy score and vice-versa. However,
Extension agents with "low pedagogy" scores were not
significantly different from the "high pedagogy" group in
terms of andragogical scores (Table 24). In other words,
Extension agents with "low pedagogy" scores were not found
to possess higher andragogy scores. It should also be noted
that in both cases the lower mean scores for both groups can
not be considered low in an absolute way. In other words, a
mean pedagogy score of 2.86 can be considered a mid-range

score and a mean score of 3.67 as a high score.

97

Table 23. T-test analyzing pedagogy score with high and low
level of andragogy scores

 

 

Group (n) Mean Pedagogy score t-value Prob.
High andragogy (19) 2.86

2.94 '.00
Low andragogy (22) 3.29

 

Table 24. T-test analyzing andragogy score with high and low
level of pedagogy scores

 

 

Group (n) Mean andragogy t-value Prob.
score
High pedagogy (21) 3.67
1.66 .10
Low pedagogy (210 3.88

 

Job Satisfaction of Extension Agents

Extension agents were surveyed regarding their attitude
toward their job by using an instrument designed to assess
job satisfaction. The instrument consisted of forty job
satisfaction indicators and an agents’ attitude toward each
indicator was studied on a five point Likert-type scale.
Agents were asked to indicate the extent to which they were
satisfied with each indicator by circling a response which
varied from "VERY SATISFIED" to "VERY DISSATISFIED". For
statistical purposes, a numerical score of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1

was assigned to each response of "VERY SATISFIED",

98
"SATISFIED", "ACCEPTABLE", "DISSATISFIED", and "VERY
DISSATISFIED", respectively.

Descriptive statistics for each job satisfaction item
were computed. The mean and the standard deviation values
for all job satisfaction indicators are presented in Table
25. Findings show that Extension agents are well satisfied
with the content and context of their jobs. Table 25
provides a mean and standard deviation score.

The mean value against each job satisfaction item in
Table 25 show that 9 of the 40 job satisfaction items, 22.5
percent, were ranked "SATISFIED" or higher. The items with
higher scores were related to agents’ relationship with
their clientele, freedom to choose own methods, the
Extension work itself, interpersonal relations, and
opportunity for creativity. Of the 40 job satisfaction
items, 17.5 percent had a mean value of less than 3.0, i.e.,
below the "ACCEPTABLE" level. Table 25 presents the seven
items that were rated below the acceptable level and had a
mean score ranging from 2.36 to 2.97. The job dissatisfier
items were related to the opportunity to advance in the
organization, the amount of time and work necessary to do
the job, the organization’s internal communication, adequacy
of performance evaluation, and salary progress and salary

compared to those in a similar field of work.

99

Table 25. Descriptive statistics for job satisfaction items

 

 

Job Satisfaction Statements Mean (SD)
My relationship with our clientele 4.31 (.57)
Freedom to choose my own methods 4.24 (.79)
Importance and value of my work 4.23 (.71)
My feelings about my community (residence) 4.20 (.81)
My performance and capability in my job 4.22 (.58)
Opportunity for creativity in my daily work 4.14 (.81)
Challenge of my present job 4.14 (.80)
Opportunity for creative programming 4.09 (.77)
Number of people I get to meet daily 4.02 (.82)
My fringe benefits (insurance, retirement) 3.95 (.99)
Physical location of my office 3.95 (.99)
Understanding of my job responsibilities 3.90 (.89)
Parking facilities 3.92 (1.0)
My feelings about our service 3.86 (.99)
Opportunity to cooperate with other staff
program efforts 3.79 ( 81)
Prestige of my current position 3.76 (.87)
My degree of authority and responsibilities 3.82 (.89)
My immediate physical surroundings 3.77 ( 92)
Content of my job 3.82 (.74)
Size of geographical area that I serve 3.69 (.83)
Current programs 3.60 (.79)
Amount of supervision I receive 3.60 (1.0)
My relationship with Extension
Administration (other than supervisor) 3.52 (.91)
Amount of encouragement for
self-development 3.46 (1.1)
Adequacy of my orientation and in—service
training 3.33 (1.1)
My standard of living in this community 3.35 (1.0)
Accessibility of supervisor for discussion
of business ' 3.39 (1.2)
Accessibility of supervisor for discussion
of personal problems 3.32 (1.2)
The organization’s attitude regarding .
human dignity 3.21 (.940
The degree of security that I have in my
position 3.05 (1.0)
Electronic technology available for program
delivery - 3.03 (1.1)
The amount of resource support I receive 3.08 (1.1)
Degree of recognition received for.a job
well done 2.97 (1-1)
My opportunity to advance in this
organization 2.79 (1.1)

100

Table 25. Contd...

 

Job Satisfaction Statements Mean (SD)

Amount of time and work necessary to do job 2.87 (.96)
Adequacy of the organization’s internal

communications 2.79 (.96)
My feeling about my salary progress 2.64 (1.1)
Adequacy of our performance evaluations 2.60 (1.1)
My salary compared to those in similar
fields of work 2.36 (1.1)

 

Mean Job satisfaction score = 3.57
S.D = 0.50

Based on 40 different job satisfaction indicator items,
an overall job satisfaction score was computed for each
agent by averaging the numerical value of all items in the
second part of the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics
were computed to determine the level of overall job
satisfaction of Extension agents. The results showed that
the overall job satisfaction score ranged from 2.26 to 4.31
with a mean of 3.57 and a standard deviation of 0.50. An
overall mean of 3.57 on a 1-5 scale indicates that the
agent’s job satisfaction level is well above the ACCEPTABLE
category. Table 26 shows the frequency distribution of job
satisfaction scores plotted according to high, moderate and
low levels of satisfaction. Findings showed that 50.5
percent of the agents had high level of job satisfaction,
49.5 percent indicated a moderate level of job satisfaction

and none indicated a low level of job satisfaction.

101

Table 26. Distribution of Extension agents’ job satisfaction

 

 

score
Level of job Range of scores Number(%)
Satisfaction
Low < 2.5 0 (0)
Moderate 2.5 - 3.5 55 (49.5)
High > 3 5 56 (50.5)
Total 111 (100)

 

Relating Educational Orientation and Job Satisfaction
of Extension Agents
The fourth research question of this study aimed at

finding out the relationship between respondents’
educational orientation and their job satisfaction. For
each Extension agent, an andragogical orientation score, a
pedagogical orientation score and a job satisfaction score
were derived from the survey instrument. Correlation
coefficients were computed to determine the nature and
extent of relationship between andragogy and pedagogy scores
and job satisfaction. The results of the Pearson
correlation coefficient are presented in Table 27 which
indicates that a low positive relationship exists between
andragogy scores and job satisfaction scores. In addition,
the correlation is shown not to have occurred by chance.
Pedagogical orientation scores showed no relationship with

agents’ overall job satisfaction scores.

102

Table 27. Relationship between educational orientation and
job satisfaction

 

 

Relationship Correlation (r value)
Andragogy and job satisfaction .30
Pedagogy and job satisfaction .04

 

Data were further analyzed to find out whether
Extension agents’ level of job satisfaction differ according
to their level of andragogical and pedagogical orientations.
For this purpose, Extension agents whose andragogical
orientation score was higher than plus one standard
deviation value from the mean were classified in the "high
andragogy" group and those scoring less than minus one
standard deviation value from the mean were classified in
the "low andragogy" group. Similar procedures were applied
to classify "high pedagogy" and "low pedagogy" groups. T-
tests were performed to determine whether the job
satisfaction score was different for the "high" and "low"
levels of andragogical and pedagogical orientations.

Findings in Table 28 show that respondents belonging to
the "high andragogy" group were significantly different from
the "low andragogy" group with respect to the job
satisfaction score. The "high andragogy" group had a higher

job satisfaction score. On the other hand, no significant

103
differences were found between "low pedagogy" and "high
pedagogy" groups with respect to job satisfaction. In other
words, pedagogical score had no direct effect on the level
of job satisfaction.

Table 28. T-test analyzing job satisfaction when
considering the levels of andragogy and pedagogy

 

 

Mean job
Group (n) satisfaction score t-value Prob.

High andragogy (19) 3.90
2.47 .02

Low andragogy (22) 3.48

High pedagogy (21) 3.60
.29 .77

Low pedagogy (21) 3.65

 

Congruence of Educational Orientation and Job Satisfaction

The final research question of the study attempted to
find out whether extension agents who have educational
orientations which are similar to their immediate supervisor
are more satisfied with their job than agents who have
educational orientations different from their immediate
supervisor. For the purpose of this research question, as
indicated in the study limitations, CEDs were considered as
the immediate supervisor of the county Extension agents.

Thus, data analysis in this section was limited to those

104
respondents for which a pair of respondents, an agent and
the corresponding CED, could be identified. As reported
earlier, CEDs from 64 Michigan counties and agents from 57
Michigan counties responded to the survey. This yielded a
total of 92 pairs of congruence scores for analysis.

For the purpose of this study, the andragogical
congruence score was defined as the difference in andragogy
scores between the CED and the corresponding agent.
Similarly, the pedagogical congruence score was defined as
the difference in pedagogy scores between the CED and the
corresponding agent. The andragogical congruence scores
ranged from -1.91 to 1.25. Based on these andragogical
congruence scores, quartile values of 25th, 50th, and 75th
percentile were determined by the SPSS/PC+ procedures. The
_results are shown in Table 29. These results show that
about one-fourth, 26.1%, of the pairs had an andragogical
congruence score less than -0.5. Almost an equal number of

pairs, 25%, had a score of 0.41 or higher.

Table 29. Andragogical congruence score of Extension agents

 

 

Range of congruence score Frequency Percentage
-1.91 to -O.50 24 26.1
-O.49 to 0.40 45 48.9

0.41 to 1.25 23 25.0

 

Negative value
Positive value

CED has lower andragogy score
agent has lower andragogy score

105

Table 30. Pedagogical congruence scores of agents

 

 

Range of congruence score Frequency Percentage
-1.75 to -.50 22 23.9
-.49 to .48 47 51.1
.49 to 1.67 23 25.0

 

Negative value
Positive value

CED has lower Pedagogy score
agent has lower Pedagogy score

The pedagogical congruence score ranged from -1.75 to
1.67. Based on these pedagogical congruence scores,
quartiles were determined and the findings are shown in
Table 30. Results show that about one-fourth, 23.9 percent,
of the pairs had a pedagogical congruence score of less than
-0.50. Pedagogical congruence scores of 0.49 or higher were
noted for one-fourth, 25 percent, of the pairs.

Extension agents belonging to the first and last
quartiles of the andragogical and pedagogical congruence
scores were classified as "incongruent" and the rest were
classified as "congruent". The t-test was used to determine
the differences in the level of job satisfaction between the
"congruent" and "incongruent" groups. Findings in Table 31
show that the level of job satisfaction of extension agents
whose andragogical orientation score was "congruent" with
their immediate supervisor was not significantly different
from agents who were "incongruent" with their supervisor’s

andragogical score.

106

Table 31. T-test analyzing job satisfaction when grouped
according to congruence of andragogical and
pedagogical scores

 

Group (n) Job t- value Prob.
satisfaction

 

Andragogy score:

Incongruent group (45) 3.66
1.57 .12
Congruent group (46) 3.50
We;
Incongruent group (48) 3.55
.50 .62
Congruent group (43) 3.60

 

Similar procedures were followed to determine the
differences in the level of job satisfaction between agents
who were "congruent" and "incongruent" with respect to the
pedagogical orientation of their immediate supervisors.
Results of the t-test Showed that the Job Satisfaction of
Extension agents whose Pedagogical orientation score was
"congruent" with their immediate supervisor was not
significantly different from agents who were "incongruent"

with their supervisor’s pedagogical score.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An overview of the research questions, procedures, and
results is presented in the first section of this chapter.4
A discussion of the major conclusions that were reached in
the study is included in the second section. The third
section contains a number of recommendations that were
formulated based upon the findings and conclusions. The
recommendations for future research are presented in the

final section.

Summary

The orientation of the Cooperative Extension Service
field agent has been the focus of considerable research.
Extension agents function as front-line educators for the
CES organization and work directly with clientele to meet
their educational needs. Research has been conducted to
examine the field agent’s orientation in Such diverse areas
as administrative effectiveness, ability to cooperatively
plan programs, and content area expertise. Currently, no
studies have reported job satisfaction of Extension agents

as it relates to their educational orientations.

107

108

The primary purpose of the study was to investigate the

educational orientations held by Extension agents and the

relationship between their educational orientation and their

level of job satisfaction. Specifically, the study was

organized
questions.

1.

around a set of five inter-related research

The research questions were:
What educational orientations do Cooperative
Extension Service agents and their immediate
supervisors hold?
Is there a relationship between an agent’s
personal characteristics and his/her educational
orientation? .
What is the level of job satisfaction of
Cooperative Extension Service agents?
Is there a relationship between an agent’s
educational orientation and their job
satisfaction?
Are Extension agents who have educational
orientations that are similar to their immediate
supervisor more satisfied with their job than
agents who have educational orientations different

from their immediate supervisor?

The results of this study have implications for those

involved in managing Extension work especially for people

engaged in staff development activities.

The population for this study was Cooperative Extension

109
Service (CES) field agents in Michigan. A total of 153
Extension agents and 79 County Extension Directors (CEDs)
with at least one year of work experience were identified
for this study.

The data collection instrument was a self-administered
mailed questionnaire. The instrument was adapted for use in
this study by combining two previously validated
instruments. One was designed to measure educational
orientation of adult educators as it relates to andragogy
and pedagogy (Hadley, 1975; Holmes, 1977) and the other was
designed to measure job satisfaction of Cooperative
Extension Service personnel (Cassina, 1989; Kesler, 1989).
A panel of experts examined the adapted instruments to
ascertain their content validity. These instrument were
pilot tested for reliability and Cronbach’s alpha was
determined at 0.72, 0.73, and 0.94 for scales pertaining to
andragogy, pedagogy and job satisfaction, respectively.

The questionnaires were mailed to the identified
populations in September, 1990. A follow-up postcard
reminding the respondents to complete and return the
questionnaire was sent to non-respondents two weeks after
the first mailing. The study had a final response rate of
73.2 and 81.0 percent for the Extension agents and the CEDs,
respectively. No additional follow-up was made. A
comparison of early respondents with late respondents on

selected variables indicated no significant difference.

110

Statistical techniques such as frequencies, ranges,
percentages, means, standard deviations, correlations, chi-
square, t-test, and analysis of variance were used to
analyze data. The SPCC/PC+ computer program was used to
analyze data.

Out of the 83 counties in Michigan, County Extension
Directors (CEDs) from 64 counties and agents from 57
counties responded to this study. Findings indicate that
36.2 percent of the respondents were CEDs and 63.8 percent
were agents. Similarly, 82.1 percent of the agents and 89.1
percent of the CEDs in this study indicated having a single
county assignment.

Respondents came from all regions and represented all
four program areas. Agriculture and Marketing had the
highest number of respondents followed by Home Economics,
4-H Youth, and Natural Resources and Public Policy.

Age of the Extension agents ranged from 26 to 67 years
with a mean of 39.9 years and a standard deviation of 9.2
years. Of the agents, 15.1 percent were under 30 years of
age and 16.1 percent were of age 51 or over. Similarly, age
of the CEDs ranged from 29 to 62 years with a mean of 44.6
years and a standard deviation of 7.8 years. The agents are
found to be younger than the CEDs.

Of the survey respondents 52.3 percent were males and
most of the CEDs were male whereas the majority of the agent

respondents were female. Fifteen percent reported being

111
single. Agents and CEDs were found to hold similar
Extension experience. Respondents’ experience in their
current positions ranged from 1 to 22 years, with a mean of
6.4 years and a standard deviation of 5.2 years. Total
Extension experience of the respondents ranged from 1 to 30
years with a mean of 11.5 years and a standard deviation of
7 years. Almost half of the respondents, 47.7 percent, had
some experience as a school teacher.

Respondents indicated various majors for their
undergraduate degrees. Home economics, agricultural and
natural resources education, animal science, crop and soil
science, education, natural resources management,
horticulture, and sociology were the most frequently
mentioned undergraduate degree majors by Extension agents.
Frequently mentioned undergraduate majors by the CEDs were
agricultural and natural resources education, home
economics, crop and soil science, and general agriculture.
When asked to indicate whether they had a graduate degree
64.1 percent of the CEDs and 55.4 percent of agents
indicated they had. Agricultural and extension education,
home economics/food and nutrition/ family studies, adult and
continuing education, education, and animal science/dairy
science were the most frequently mentioned major areas of
graduate degree work.

The first research question of this study asked about

the educational orientations held by Extension agents and

112
their immediate supervisor. The andragogical orientation
score for the Extension agents ranged from 2.67 to 4.75 with
a mean of 3.71 and a standard deviation of 0.41. Of the
Extension agents, 61.6 percent were found to possess a high
level of andragogical orientation and had an andragogy score
of 3.5 or higher whereas none scored less than 2.5 on a 1-5
scale.

The andragogical orientation score for the CEDs ranged
from 3.0 to 4.75 with a mean of 3.82 and a standard
deviation of 0.40. Of the CEDs, 74.6 percent were found to
possess a high level of andragogical orientation and had an
andragogy score of 3.5 or higher, 25.4 percent had an
andragogy score between 2.5 and 3.5 and none scored less
than 2.5 on a 1-5 scale. In general, the CEDs’ had a
stronger andragogical orientation than that of the agents.

The pedagogical orientation score for the Extension
agents ranged from 1.83 to 4.33, with a mean of 3.19 and a
standard deviation of 0.51. On the other hand, the mean
pedagogical score for the CEDs ranged from 2.16 to 4.33 with
a mean of 3.14 and a standard deviation of 0.46. Analysis
of the pedagogical orientation items showed that 12.5
percent of the Extension agents and 11.1 percent of the CEDs
had a low pedagogy score, a score of less than 2.5 on a 1-5
scale. A moderate pedagogy score was noted among 63.4
percent of the agents and 69.8 percent of the CEDs. A

strong pedagogical orientation score, a score above 3.5 on a

113
1-5 scale, was found among 24.1 percent of the agents and
19.1 percent of the CEDs.

The second research question of this study attempted to
find out the relationship between an agent’s personal
characteristics and his/her educational orientation.
Findings showed no significant linear relationship between
demographic characteristics like age, experience in current
position and the total Extension experience and educational
orientations. T-tests were performed to see if agents have
different educational orientations when examined in relation
to their sex, marital status, single or multi-county
assignments, having a graduate degree, and prior experience
as a school teacher. Findings showed that married agents
had different andragogy scores than their single
counterparts. In other words, mean andragogy scores for
married agents were found to be lower than that of the
unmarried agents. No significant differences were observed
between other dichotomous characteristics and andragogy
scores. In other words, all respondents, whether male or
female CEDs or agents, having single county or multi county
assignment, holding a graduate degree or not, and having
served as a school teacher or not, do not hold different
perceptions in terms of andragogical orientation.

Results of the t-test showed that male agents were
different from their female counterparts in terms of

pedagogy scores. The male extension agents were found to

114
possess a stronger pedagogical orientation than female
agents and the difference was significant at the .05 level.
No significant differences were observed between other
dichotomous demographic characteristics and pedagogy scores.

One-way analysis of variance and Scheffe procedures
were used to examine differences in educational orientations
in terms of program area affiliation. Significant
differences at the 0.05 level were observed among Extension
agents under different program areas in terms of
andragogical orientation. Results Of the Scheffe post—hoc
test showed that the andragogical orientations of the
Agricultural and Marketing and the Home Economics agents
were significantly different from 4-H Youth agents with the
former groups being less andragogical than the latter.

The strongest pedagogical orientations were held by
Agricultural and Marketing agents followed by Home
Economics, 4-H Youth, and then NRPP agents. The Scheffe
post-hoc test showed no difference on pedagogical
orientation scores of agents according to program areas.

Do respondents with a high or low andragogical
orientation score hold a different level of pedagogical
orientation and vice-versa? T-tests were performed to
answer these questions. Findings showed that Extension
agents belonging to the "high andragogy" group were
significantly different from the "low andragogy" group with

respect to their pedagogical orientation scores. The "high

115
andragogy" group had a lower pedagogy score and vice-versa.
However, Extension agents with "low pedagogy" scores were
not significantly different from the "high pedagogy" group
in terms of andragogical scores.

An attempt was also made to study whether an Extension
agent could hold both andragogical and pedagogical
orientations simultaneously at the higher or the lower
level. For this purpose, agents whose scores were above and
below the mean andragogical score were categorized as high
andragogy and low andragogy, respectively. Similarly,
agents scoring above and below the mean pedagogical score
were categorized as high and low pedagogical orientation,
respectively. A combination of the two high-low
andragogical-pedagogical orientation categories resulted in
a matrix of four types of educational orientations.
Findings showed that it is possible for an Extension agent
to hold a combination of strong dual orientation, strong
andragogical orientation, strong pedagogical orientation or
weak dual orientation. Findings indicated that andragogy
and pedagogy could exist simultaneously and an agent may
hold both orientations at high or low levels. It could be
possible that andragogy and pedagogy are not merely two
extremes on a single continuum but instead these are two
separate phenomena that can be measured separately.

The third research question was to ascertain the level

of job satisfaction of Extension agents. The agents were

116
surveyed on their attitude toward their job by using an
instrument designed to assess job satisfaction. The overall
job satisfaction score ranged from 2.26 to 4.31 with a mean
of 3.57 and a standard deviation of 0.50. Findings showed
that Extension agents were well satisfied with the content
and context of their jobs. Of the 40 job satisfaction
items, 9 items had a mean score of 4.0 or higher, on a l-to
5 scale, indicating a higher level of job satisfaction,
whereas seven items were rated below 3.0, i.e., below the
"ACCEPTABLE" level of job satisfaction. The items with
higher scores were related to agents’ relationships with
their clientele, freedom to choose their own methods, the
Extension work itself, interpersonal relations, and
opportunity for creativity in the job. The items with low
scores were related to the opportunity to advance in the
organization, the amount of time and work necessary to do
the job, the organization’s internal communication, adequacy
of performance evaluation, and salary progress and salary
compared to those in similar fields of work.

The fourth research question of this study aimed at
finding out the relationship between an Extension agent’s
educational orientation and his/her job satisfaction.
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to determine
the nature and extent of relationship between andragogy and
pedagogy scores and job satisfaction. Correlation

coefficient indicated a low positive relationship between

117
andragogy scores and job satisfaction scores. The
pedagogical score showed no relationship with an agents’
overall job satisfaction.

T-tests were performed to determine whether agents
differ in their job satisfaction score with respect to the
"high" and "low" levels of andragogy and pedagogy scores.
Findings showed that respondents belonging to the "high
andragogy" group were significantly different from the "low
andragogy" group with respect to job satisfaction score and
the "high andragogy" group had a higher job satisfaction
score. On the other hand, no significant differences were
found between "low pedagogy" and "high pedagogy" groups with
respect to job satisfaction.

The final research question of the study attempted to
find out whether Extension agents who have educational
orientations which are similar to their immediate supervisor
are more satisfied with their job than agents who have
educational orientations different from their immediate
supervisor. Andragogical congruence scores ranged from
-1.91 to 1.25. Results showed that about one-fourth (26.1%)
of the pairs had an andragogical congruence score of less
than -0.5 and almost an equal number of pairs, 25%, had an
andragogical congruence score of 0.41 or higher. The
pedagogical congruence score ranged from -1.75 to 1.67 and
results showed that about one-fourth (27.2%) of the pairs

had a pedagogical congruence score of less than -0.50.

118
Pedagogical congruence scores of 0.50 or higher were noted
for about one-fourth (25%) of the pairs.

Extension agents belonging to the first and last
quartiles of the andragogical and pedagogical congruence
scores were classified as "incongruent" and the rest were
classified as "congruent". The t-test was used to determine
the differences in the level of job satisfaction between the
"congruent" and "incongruent" groups. Findings showed that
the level of job satisfaction of extension agents whose
andragogical orientation scores was "congruent" with their
immediate supervisor was not significantly different from
agents who were "incongruent" with their supervisor’s
andragogical score.

Similar procedures were followed to determine the
differences in the level of job satisfaction between agents
who were "congruent" and "incongruent" with respect to the
pedagogical orientation of their immediate supervisors.
Findings showed that Extension agents whose pedagogical
orientation scores were congruent with their supervisor were
not different from the incongruent group with respect to job
satisfaction.

Conclusions

Extension agents and County Extension Directors (CEDs)
in Michigan hold a moderate to strong orientation toward
andragogy and pedagogy and the andragogical orientation was

found relatively stronger than the pedagogical orientation.

119
A mean andragogy score of 3.71 and 3.82 and a mean pedagogy
score of 3.19 and 3.14, for the agents and the CEDs,
respectively, on a 1-5 scale, suggest that CES field staffs
hold stronger andragogical orientation than pedagogical
orientation. This conclusion is consistent with the
writings of Knowles (1984) who advocates that adult
educators can be characterized as andragogical. This is
also consistent with the findings of Hadley (1975) and
Holmes (1977) who reported that CES adult educators hold an
andragogical orientation.

No significant relationships were found between
demographic characteristics like age, experience, graduate
degree,.and prior experience as a school teacher and
educational orientations. Exceptions were that married
agents tended to possess a weaker andragogical orientation
than unmarried agents and female agents were found to
possess a stronger andragogical orientation score than male
agents. Similarly Home Economics and Agriculture and
Marketing agents were different from 4-H Youth agents in
terms of andragogy scores. The difference of educational
orientations according to gender was consistent with the
findings of Hynes (1989) and with that of Davenport and
Davenport (1984). The lower andragogical score among
Agriculture and Marketing agents could be attributed to
their academic background. It was noted that many of the

Agriculture and Marketing agents hold degrees in technical

120
fields such as animal science, crops and soil science,
horticulture and agricultural economics. These findings
suggest that educational orientations are the function of
values and beliefs Extension agents hold with respect to
their role as educators of adults. The reflection of the
prevailing nature and conditions under which Extension
agents operate could be the basis of such educational
orientations.

Findings indicated that andragogy and pedagogy could
exist simultaneously and an Extension agent may hold both
orientations at high or low levels. It could be possible
that andragogy and pedagogy are not merely two extremes on a
single continuum but instead these are two separate
phenomena that can be measured separately.

Extension agents in Michigan are well satisfied with
the content and context of their jobs. The level of job
satisfaction of Michigan agents was slightly higher than
that reported for Illinois (Cassina, 1989) and Iowa (Kesler,
1989), neighboring North Central states. The andragogy score
of extension agents was positively related to their job
satisfaction but no relationship was observed between
pedagogy score and job satisfaction. Since an andragogical
role is more congruent with the role of adult educator it
seems most logical that those Extension agents who have
higher andragogical scores would be more satisfied with

their job as is supported by the findings of this study. It

121
should be noted here, however, that Extension agents do
possess a moderate level of pedagogical orientation but no
relationship was observed between pedagogy and job
satisfaction.

The findings showed no significant differences in the
level of job satisfaction between agents whose educational
orientations were similar to their immediate supervisor and
those who had educational orientations different from their
immediate supervisor. In other words, congruence of
educational orientation between pairs of Extension agent and
his/her supervisor was not associated with the agent’s job
satisfaction. This could be due to the fact that Extension
agents plan, implement, and evaluate their educational
programs in a more independent manner and CEDs may not
influence the decision making practices of agents with

regard to what should be taught, to whom, when and how.

Implications
Recent studies in the CES setting have indicated that
agents’ performance is related to their level of job
satisfaction. This study concludes that the Michigan CES
agents possess a moderate andragogical and pedagogical
orientation and that andragogical orientation is related to
an agent’s job satisfaction. Such a finding offers insights

for those involved in managing extension programs. Since

122
andragogy is considered to be an appropriate orientation for
adult educators and as it was related to job satisfaction,
the hiring practices of the CES could consider individuals
who not only have expertise in technical subject matter
content but also possess appropriate educational
orientations. A series of inservice programs, regardless of
an agent’s position, education or experience in adult
learning principles seems appropriate considering the
professional growth needs of Extension agents. Such
inservice programs could help to further strengthen the
Extension agents’ andragogical orientation vis-a-vis job
satisfaction.

The findings of no significant relationships between
many demographic characteristics and educational
orientations suggest that educational orientations are not
related to the type of position in which a person works or
whether he/she is married. Educational orientations are the
attitudinal dimensions which are formed on the basis of
reflections of prevailing values, beliefs, and practices of
Extension agents with respect to their role as educators of
adults. The educational orientations, like values and
beliefs, could change over time depending on how well these
orientations serve the agents, the amount of contact the
agents have with others holding different orientations, and
the range of opportunities the agents are presented with to

question their current orientation or force them to actually

123
modify their orientations. Therefore, helping Extension
agents to develop and hold an appropriate educational
orientation could be a time taking process. In addition,
the CES organization, over time, may have to demonstrate to
agents using appropriate incentives that holding an
appropriate educational orientation is a worthwhile goal.

This study concludes that the andragogy scores of
extension agents are positively related to their job
satisfaction but no relationship is observed between the
pedagogy score and job satisfaction. The lower andragogical
score among Home Economics and Agriculture and marketing
agents suggest that these groups of agents could benefit
significantly from in-service courses on how to work
educationally with adult learners. Short courses like "How
to teach technical information to adults" could be ‘
especially beneficial. As agents in this group possess a
relatively strong pedagogical orientation, efforts to
upgrade the level of andragogical orientation could
significantly enhance their job satisfaction.

Findings indicated that andragogy and pedagogy could
exist simultaneously and an Extension agent may hold both
orientations at high or low levels. It could be possible
that andragogy and pedagogy are not merely two extremes on a
single continuum but instead are two separate phenomena that
can be measured separately.

The findings of this study indicated that andragogy and

124
pedagogy are two different orientations. Although pedagogy
was not found to be related to an agent’s job satisfaction,
higher pedagogy scores associated with higher andragogy
scores were indicative of a higher level of job
satisfaction.- Thompson (1989) is probably right to suggest
that an andragogical instructional approach is a necessary
but not sufficient model for adult educators to utilize.
According to Thompson, an andragogical approach is
effectively complemented by the pedagogical instructional
model and thus proposes a need for a complementary view of
andragogy and pedagogy.

The congruence of educational orientation between pairs
of Extension agent and their supervisor was not associated
with the agent’s job satisfaction. It could also be
possible that CEDs really do not act as immediate
supervisors, or agents consider them more like colleagues.
It could also be possible that Extension agents do not have
supervisors and hence the question of congruence may be
naive in this context. Therefore the issue of congruence
warrants further research in other contexts where there is
clearly a "supervisor-subordinate" relationship among
Extension educators.

The usefulness of this study could be realized if the
results are utilized to improve Extension agents’ level of
understanding of the educational orientations. There is a

need to arrange for appropriate dissemination of study

125

results. The summary of results should be made available to

Extension agents, staff development professionals and

practitioners in the field of Extension education.

Recommendations for Future Research

Several gaps in the research literature and knowledge

related to the topic were noted during the course of this

study. Listed below are the recommendations for follow-up,

continued investigation, and future research:

1.

Replicate the study in other states and regions to
provide further evaluative information to draw
generalizations pertaining to educational orientation
and job satisfaction of extension agents.

Conduct a study assessing the relationship between
educational orientation and job performance. Such
studies would help establish the relationships between
educational orientation and job performance which could
be valuable for managing extension programs.

Conduct in-depth case studies of Extension agents
working under different program areas to find out how
their educational orientations are developed and how
these orientations change over time. Survey data could
be compared with data generated from fieldwork methods
to further develop theories relevant to Extension

education practice.

126
Conduct studies to examine whether andragogy is a
necessary and sufficient model for adult educators to
utilize. Extension professionals could benefit from
studies that clarify the role and relationship of the
pedagogical orientation in complimenting andragogical
educational practices.
The relationship between the congruence of educational
orientation of Extension agents with their supervisors
and job satisfaction needs further investigation.
Future research could explore the relationship between
the congruence of educational orientation between
Extension agents and their supervisors in a context
where there is clearly a "supervisor-subordinate"
relationship.
It is recommended that future research to explain
educational orientation of Extension educators should
consider additional variables. Other suggested
variables might include clientele preference of the
Extension agent, peer ratings, formal courses taken in
the field of education and adult learning, adequacy of
orientation and related in-service training, and family
relationships such as number and age of children and
other personal variables outside of the work

environment itself.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY MATERIALS

127

Cover letter to the Survey Questionnaire

September 5, 1990

[EXTENSION AGENTS FIRST AND LAST NAME
STREET ADDRESS
CITY, STATE AND ZIP]

Dear [EXTENSION AGENTS FIRST NAME];

We would like to ask for your participation in a study
entitled "Job Satisfaction and Educational Orientation: A
Study of Extension Agents and Their Supervisors". This
study is being conducted in an attempt to better understand
the different orientations of extension agents and the
relationship of these orientations to other factors. A
select group of Extension staff are being asked to
participate in this research.

We would very much appreciate a few minutes of your time to
respond to the attached questionnaire. It should only take
10-15 minutes. Completing the questionnaire is the only
form of involvement that will be asked of you.

The information which you will provide will be held in
strict confidence. Your answers will not be seen by anyone
except the researchers. The identification number on the
first page of the questionnaire is for mailing purposes
only. This is so we can check off the names on our mailing
list when a questionnaire is returned. Your names will
never be placed on your questionnaire. Your participation
in this research is voluntary.

An early response would be especially appreciated. A self
addressed, stamped envelope has been enclosed for your
convenience in returning the completed questionnaire.

A summary of the result of this study will be available upon
completion. If you would like a copy of the results, please
indicate this in the space on the return envelope. Thanks
for your assistance. If you have any questions concerning
the study, please call us at 517/355-6580.

Sincerely,

 

 

Murari suvedi Dr. S. Joseph levine
Graduate student Professor

128

FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD

Last week a questionnaire seeking your opinion about the
educational orientation and job satisfaction was mailed to
you.

Many thanks if you have already completed and returned the
questionnaire. If not, please take a few minutes and do it
today. Your cooperation is essential.

By some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it
got misplaced, a phone call to 517-355-6580 will get you
another one. '

Many thanks for your help.
Sincerely,

Murari Suvedi &
Joe Levine

129

ID #
EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION AND JOB SATISFACTION

QUESTIONNAIRE

Part A: Educational Orientation

Below are statements about education, teaching, and
learning. These have been chosen to express several
different vieWpoints.

For each statement, please choose the response that
indicates your attitude or position best- how much you agree
or disagree with that statement.

The five positions from which to choose are:
SA - I strongly agree with this statement
A - I agree with this statement
U - I’m uncertain about this statement to agree or
disagree

D - I disagree with this statement
SD - I strongly disagree with this statement
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
1. Education should focus on
what is sure, reliable
and lasting. SA A U D SD
2. Clientele need a strong
Extension agent who can
direct their learning. SA A U D SD

3. Learning is an intellectual
process of understanding
ideas (concepts) and
acquiring skills. SA A U D SD

4. Effective learning occurs
most often when clientele
actively participate in
deciding what is to be
learned and how. SA A U D SD

5. Organization of the content
and sequence of learning
activities should grow out
of clientele needs, with
their participation. SA A U D SD

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

130

It should be the Extension
agents’ responsibility to
evaluate clientele
achievements and to
determine the extent of
learning.

The best sources of ideas
for improving CES
educational programs are
the clientele.

An extension agent should
help clientele accept
values of our society.

It is an Extension agent’s
responsibility to motivate
clientele to learn what
they ought to learn.

Clear explanation by the
Extension agent is
essential for effective
learning.

An Extension agent’s
primary responsibility

is helping clientele choose
and develop their own
directions for learning.

A good Extension agent
makes the decisions about
what should be taught,
when, and how.

Evaluating his/her
achievement should be the
primarily a responsibility
of the client since he/she
has the necessary data.

An Extension agent should
be sure his/her questions

steer clientele toward truth.

Educational objectives
should define changes in
behavior which the clientele
desire and the Extension
agent helps them undertake.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

131

Extension clientele are
quite competent to choose
and carry out their own
projects for learning.

The major qualifications

of an Extension agent are
grasp of subject matter and
ability to explain
(demonstrate) it clearly and
interestingly.

It is better for clientele
to create their own learning
activities and materials
than for the Extension

agent to provide them.

Education should lead
people to goals that
result in orderly,
reasonable lives.

Evaluations prepared by the

clientele are usually just as

effective as those prepared
by the Extension agent.

The goals that the clientele
set for themselves, rather
than the goals that the
Extension agent sets for the
clientele, are the basis for
effective learning.

An Extension agent’s mission
is to help each client learn
what he/she decides will

aid in the achieving of
his/her personal goals.

An extension agent who does
not carefully plan the work
for a program is taking
advantage of the client’s
ignorance.

Planning units of work should

be done by clientele and
Extension agents together.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

132
Part B: Job Satisfaction
This section attempts to assess the extent to which you are

satisfied with your job. Please mark each item according to
how satisfied you are with it.

The five response from which to choose are:
5 = Very Satisfied
4 = Satisfied
3 = Acceptable
2 = Dissatisfied
1 = Very Dissatisfied

Very Very
Dissatisfied Satisfied
1. Importance and value of

my work 1 2 3 4 5
2. Challenge of my present job 1 2 3 4 5
3. My degree of authority and

responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5
4. Prestige of my current

position 1 2 3 4 5
5. Number of people I get to

meet daily 1 2 3 4 5
6. Opportunity for creativity

in my daily work 1 2 3 4 5
7. Freedom to choose own methods 1 2 3 4 5
8. My opportunity to advance

in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
9. Opportunity for creative‘

programming in my job 1 2 3 4 5
10. Accessibility of my supervisor

for discussion of business 1 2 3 4 5
11. Accessibility of supervisor

for discussion of personal

problems 1 2 3 4 5
12. Amount of supervision I

receive 1 2 3 4 5
13. Amount of encouragement for

self-development 1 2 3 4 5
14. Adequacy of my orientation

and in-service training 1 2 3 4 5
15. Adequacy of our performance

evaluations 1 2 3 4 5
16. Degree of recognition

received for a job well done 1 2 3 4 5
17. My feelings about my

salary progress 1 2 3 4 5
18. My salary compared to those

in similar fields of work 1 2 3 4 5

19. My standard of living in
this community 1 2 3 4 5

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

133

The degree of security that
I have in my position

My fringe benefits
(insurance,retirement, etc)
My performance and
capability in my job

My immediate physical
surroundings (office,
equipment, etc.)

Physical location of my
office

Parking facilities

My feelings about my
community (or residence)
My relationship with my
coworkers

My relationship with
Extension Administration
(other than supervisor)
My relationship with our
clientele (Extension
councils, audiences, etc.)

My feelings about our service

Adequacy of organization’s
internal communications
Content of my job

The amount of time and work
necessary to do job

The organization’s attitude
regarding human dignity
Size of geographical area
that I serve

The amount of resource
support I receive

The current programs
Opportunity to cooperate
with other staff on program
efforts

Electronic technology
available for program
delivery

Understanding of my job
responsibilities

Very
Dissatisfied
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
l 2 3
1 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

Very
Satisfied
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

134

Part C: Personal Data

What is your age? Years.
Sex: Male Female
Marital Status: Married Single

What is your position (Agent, CED, etc.)?

 

Single County Multi-County

:What is your primary program area? (check only one)
Agriculture and Marketing

4-H Youth '

Natural Resource and Public Policy

Home Economics

What is your regional assignment?

East Central South East
South West West Central
North Upper Peninsula

Do you have supervisory/administrative responsibilities?
Yes No

If yes, what percent of your time is spent in
supervision]administration? Percent.

 

How long have you been in your current position? Years

What is your total extension experience (including work with
other extension organizations)? Years.

What was your major for undergraduate degree?

 

Do you have a graduate degree? Yes No

If "yes", what was your major?

 

Have you ever been a school teacher? Yes No

Thanks for your cooperation, please return the questionnaire
to:

410 Agriculture Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

APPENDIX B

COMPARISON OF "EARLY" AND "LATE" RESPONDENTS

135

Table 32. Comparison of "early" and "late respondents

 

 

Item Early Late t-value Prob.

respondents respondents
(n = 34) (n = 34)
EOQ Item 1 3.21 3.35 0.55 0.58
EOQ Item 5 4.38 4.41 0.19 0.86
EOQ Item 10 4.08 4.05 0.15 0.87
EOQ Item 15 4.02 3.88 0.92 0.36
EOQ Item 20 3.08 3.02 0.27 0.78
EOQ Item 24 3.75 3.79 0.28 0.77
Job Sat. Q1 4.11 4.33 1.25 0.22
Job Sat. Q6 4.05 4.12 0.31 0.75
Job Sat. Q11 3.08 3.51 1.55 0.12
Job Sat. Q16 2.79 3.12 0.57 0.57
Job Sat. Q21 3.94 3.93 0.02 0.99
Job Sat. 026 4.25 4.39 0.68 0.49
Job Sat. Q31 2.77 3.09 1.36 0.18
Job Sat. Q36 3.14 3.48 1.32. 0.19
Job Sat. Q40 4.00 3.87 0.59 0.55
Age 42.8 39.6 0.08 0.93
Experience

in current
position 6.00 5.90 0.08 0.93

APPENDIX C

T-TEST ANALYZING SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION

136

Table 33. T-test analyzing selected demographic
characteristics considering’ the level of
andragogical orientation

 

 

Characteristics/Group (n) Mean value t-value Prob.
AGE

Low andragogy group (22) 41.22 .03 .98
High andragogy group (19) 41.28'

EXPERIENCE IN

URRENT POSITION
Low andragogy group (22) 6.33 .15 .88

High andragogy group (19) 6.14

TOTAL EXTENSION

EXPERIENCE
Low andragogy group (22) 10.03 1.18 .24
High andragogy group (19) 12.14

 

Table 34. T-test analyzing selected demographic
characteristics. considering ‘the level of
pedagogical orientation

 

 

Characteristics/Group (n) Mean value t-value Prob.
ASE.
Low pedagogy group (21) 40.02 1.28 .21

High pedagogy group (21) 42.93

EXPERIENCE IN

CURRENT POSITION
Low pedagogy group (21) 5.75 1.17 .25
High pedagogy group (21) 7.29

TOTAL EXTENSION

_EIEEBIENQE
Low pedagogy group (21) 10.05 .40 .68

High pedagogy group (210 10.65

 

APPENDIX D

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anastasi, Anne. 1968. Psychological Testing (third Edition).
New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Anderson, J. H. 1990. "MCES Study Committee Report"
(Memorandum to CANR Administrative Group), East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

Axinn, G. H. 1957. "The Relationship of Personnel Selection
and Salary Administration to Organizational
Effectiveness in the Cooperative Extension service in
Michigan." Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy (Cooperative
Extension Administration), University of Wisconsin.

Babbie, E. R. 1986. The Practice of Social Research.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bartholomew, H. M. and Smith K. L. 1990. "Stresses of
Multicounty Agent Positions", Journal of Extension,
Vol. XXVIII, Winter.

Best, J. W. 1981. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Blackburn, D.J. 1989. Foundations and Changing Practices in

Extension. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of
Guelph.

Bonanno, S. C. and at el. 1988. "Major Roles of
Agricultural Extension Agents in the Agricultural
Technology Delivery System in the Year 2000", Paper
Presented at the National Agricultural Education
Research Meeting, St. Louis, MO, December, (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307390).

Borg, Walter R. and Gall, Meredith D. 1979. Educationai
Research: An Introdugtign. New York: Longman Inc.

Boyle, P. 1981. Planning Better Programs. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Brookfield, S. D. 1986. Understanding and Facilitating
Adult Learning. San Fransisco: Jossey - Bass.

137

138

Brookfield, S. D. 1984. "Contribution of Eduard Lindeman to
the Development of Theory and Philosophy in Adult

Education", Adult Education Quaterly, Vol. 34, No. 4.

Cassina, E. H. 1989. "Levels of Job Satisfaction of
Illinois Cooperative Extension Personnel." Thesis,
Master of Science, Iowa State University, Ames.

Clegg, D. O. 1967. "Motivation Theory in Practice."
Journal of Cooperative Extension, Vol. V, Spring.

Copa, P. and Sandmann, L. 1987. "Profile of Excellence...
Or Becoming a More Reflective Adult Education
Practitioner", (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No.
ED 28977).

Cross, K. P. 1981. Adults as Learners. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cummings, L. L. and Schwab, D.P. 1983. Performance in

Organizations: Determinants and Appraisal. Glenview,
Illinois: Scott, Foresman, and Co.

Davenport, J. 1987. "A Way Out of the Andragogy Morass",
Paper presented at the conference of the Georgia Adult
Education Association, Savannah, March (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 283989).

Davenport, J. and Davenport, J. A. 1984. "Andragogical-
Pedagogical Orientation and Its Relationship to
Selected Variables Among University Students", (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 254498).

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education (AEE).
1990. Michigan Cooperative Extension Service
Orientation Guide. East Lansing: Michigan State
University.

 

Dillman, D. A. 1985. "Cooperative Extension Service at the
Beginning of the 21st Century" Keynote address,
National Community Resource Development Program Leaders
Workshop, ECCLES Conference Center, Utah State
University, Logan. September 24.

Elias, J. L. and Merriam, S. 1980. Philosophical
Foundations of Adult Edueetion, New York: Robert E.

Krieger Publishing Company.

Forest, LaVerne B. 1989. "The Cooperative Extension
Service" in S.B Merriam and P.M. Cunningham (Eds.),

Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. San
Francisco and London: Jossey - Bass Publishers.

139

Futures Task Force to the Extension Committee on
Organization and Policy. 1987. Extension in
Transition: Bridging theiGap Between Vision and
Reality. Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service.

 

Gallaher, A. and Santopolo, F. A. 1967. "Perspective on

Agent Roles" gournel of Cooperapive Extension, Vol V,
No. 4. ,

Gibson, Terry L. et al. 1980. Teamwork in Cooperative
Extension Service. Madison, Wisconsin: University of
Wisconsin-Madison.

Gutenberger, C. and Geiger, T. 1976. "Job Satisfiers and
Dissatisfiers of Wisconsin 4-H and Youth Agents".
Madison: Wisconsin Associated Extension Agents
Professional Concerns Committee.

Hadley, H. N. 1975. "Development of an Instrument to
Determine Adult Educators Orientation: Andragogical or
Pedagogical". Ph.D. Dessertation. Boston: Boston
University School of Education.

Henderson, D. 1970. "A Study to Determine Why Missouri
Extension Youth Agents Resign or Change to Another
Position Within the Extension Division", (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 039497.

Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; and Snyderman, B. B. 1959. Ine
Motivation no Work. NEw York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.

Herzberg, F. 1971. Work and the Nature of Man. New York:
World Publishing.

Holmes, M.R. 1977. "Selected Interpersonal Behaviors and
Their Relationship to the Andragogical and Pedagogical
Orientations of Adult Educators". Auburn University.

Houle, C. O. 1980. Conpinuing Learning in the Professions.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hyatt, George Jr. 1966. "Staff Competence" Journal of
Qooperative Extension, Vol IV, No. 3.

Hynes, G. E. 1989. "Effect of Educational Orientation and
Psychological Type of University Faculty on Adult
Learner Satisfaction", Paper presented at 1989 Midwest
Research-To-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing
and Community Education, St. Louis: October 12-13.

140

Igodan, O. and Newcomb, L. H. 1985. "Burnout Among
Extension Agents in the Ohio Cooperative Extension
Service". (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED
256904).

Illich, Ivan. 1971. Desenooling Society. New York: Harper
and Row.

Jimmerson, R. M. 1989. "What Values Will Guide Extension’s
Future?" Journal of Extension, Fall.

Kammer, L. M. 1988. "The Situational Teacher: A Model of
Instructional Styles for Clinical Teaching in
Professional Education" (Ph. D. Dissertation). East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

Keffer, W. M. and Cunningham, C. J. 1977. "Job
Satisfaction of Field Staff of the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University Extension Division",

Enmmary of Research. Columbus: Department of
Agricultural Education, The Ohio State University.

Kemp, P. E. 1967. "Commitment and Job Satisfaction".
Journal of Cooperative Extension, Fall.

Kesler, K. C. 1989. "Job Satisfaction and Percived
Inservice needs of Iowa Cooperative Extension
Personnel" (Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State

University). Dissertation Abstracts Internetional,
Vol. 50, No. 6.

Knowles, M. S. 1978. The Adult Learner: A Neglected
§peeies, Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, Book

Division.

Knowles, M. S. 1980. The Modern Eractice of Adult

Ednceripn: Erpm Eedagogy to Andragogy. Chicago:
Follett Publishing company.

Knowles, M. S. and Associates. 1985. Andragogy in Action.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Knowles, M. S. 1989. "Everything You Wanted to Know from
Malcom Knowles", Training, Vol. 26, No. 8, August.

Krebs, A. H. 1954. Eor More Effective Teaching: A Problem

Solving Approach for Teachers of Vocational
Agriculture. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate

Printers and Publishers, Inc.

Langenbach, M. 1988. gurricniun Mogels in Aduir Education,
Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

141

Levine, S. J. 1990a. "Instructional Strategies", Local
Learning Seminar. East Lansing: Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State
University.

Levine, S. J. 1990b. "Letter to Professor Lindeman",

Options: MAACE Scholarly Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1,
Spring-Summer, 1990.

Levine, S. J. 1990c. "Principles for Teaching Technical
Information to Adults". East Lansing: Department of
Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State
University.

Lindeman, E. C. 1926. Meaning of Adult Education. New
York: New Republic.

Little, D. 1981. introduction to Teaching Adults:

Understanding the Adult as Learners, Vancouver: Center
for Continuing Education, University of British

Columbia.

Lionberger, H. F. and Gwen, P.H. 1982. Communication
§trategies: A Guige ror Agricultural Change Agents.

Danville, Illinois: The Interstate.

Locke, E. A. 1976. "The Nature and Causes of Job
Satisfaction", in M. D. Duneth (ed.), Handbook of

Induction and Organizational Psychology. Chicago,
Illinois: Rand McNally.

McDonel, K. H., et al. 1941. "History of Cooperative
Extension Work in Michigan, 1941 - 1939." Extension
Bulletin 229. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Magnusson, David. 1966. Test Theory (Translated from the
Swedish by Hunter Mabon). Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wisley Publishing Company.

Mallilo, A. 1990. "Extension Staff Satisfaction", Journal
of Extension, Summer.

Manton, L. N. 1985. "Why Do Extension Agents Resign?",
gournai pf Extension, Vol. 23, Fall.

Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed.

New York: Harper and Row, Publisher.

McCreary, E. K. 1989. "Update on the Teaching and Learning
of Adults", in Donald J. Blackburn, Ed. Foundations

eng gnenging Ereerices in Extension. Guelph:
University of Guelph.

142

Meier, H. A. 1989. "Extension Trends and Directions",

genrnai 0: Extension, Fall.

Merriam, S. B. and Simpson, E. L. 1984. Guide to Eesearch
{pr Educarprs ang Trainers of Adults. Malabar,

Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publixhing Co., Inc.

Michigan State University. 1987. Report of Findings: CES

Qpp Opinion Study. East Lansing: Michigan State
University.

Michigan State University. 1955. The Wolverine. East
Lansing: The Students of Michigan State University.

Michigan Cooperative Extension Service (MCES). 1989. "A
Career With the Cooperative Extension Service," East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

Miller, L. E. and Smith, K. L. 1983. "Handling Nonresponse
Issues", Jouranal of Extension, September/October.

Mohring, P. M. 1989. "Andragogy and Pedagogy: A Comment on
Their Erroneous Usage", (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 305509).

Norusis, M. J. 1988. Qeta Analysis for SPSSlEC+. SPSS Inc.

Nunnally, J. C. 1967. Esychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Oliger, J. and McCarthy, C. 1971. Lifelong Learning or
Lifelong Schooling? (A Tentative View of the Ideas of
Evan Illich with a Quotational Bibliography). Syracuse
University Publication in Continuing Education and ERIC
Clearning House on Adult Education.

Olstron, E. and Miller, H. 1984. Plus Two Score: The
Cooperarive Extension Service in Michigan 1940 to i9§0.

East Lansing: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan
State University.

Patton, M.Q. 1988. "The Vision Shines Through", Journa of
Cooperative Extension: Summer.

Prawl, W. et a1. 1984. du a d ontinuin Educatio

anpngn rne Coppererive ertension §ervice. Columbia,
Missouri: Extension Division, University of Missouri-
Columbia.

Quiroz, C. M. 1987. "The Self-Directed Learning Process in
a Selected Group of Adult Farmers in Michigan", Ph.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University.

143

Rachal, J. 1983. "The Andragogy-Pedagogy Debate: Another

Voice in the Fray", Lifelong Learning the Adult Years,
Vol. 6, No. 9.

Rehault, K. W. 1985. "Behavioral Profile of Vocational

Agriculture Teachers" (Ph.D. Dissertation). Ames Iowa:
Iowa State University.

Rhoad, C. E. 1950. The Eroblem Method of Teaching:
Qperetor’s Manuai. University of Nebraska Publication

No. 178. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska, College
of Agriculture.

Robinson, R. D. 1964. "Examining the Role of Agents in

4-H", qurnai of Cooperative Extension, Vol II, No. 2.

Roling, N. 1988. Extension Science: Information System in
Agrieuitural Qeyeiopnent. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Rogers, C. R. 1977. Carl Rogers on Personal Power. New
York: Bell Publishing Co., Inc.

Rossi, P., et al. 1983. Eandboox of Survey Eesearcn. New

York and London: Academic Press.

Sanders, H. C. (Ed.) 1866. The Cooperative Extension
Service. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Sanderson, D. R. et al. 1988. "Understanding Cooperative
Extension: Our origins, Our Opportunities," In Working
With our Eublic: in-Service Education for Cooperative
Extensign. Raleigh: North Carolina Agricultural
Extension Service and the Department of Adult and
Community College Education, North Carolina State
University.

Simons, L. R. 1962. Early Deveiopment of Cooperative
Extension Work in Agriculture and Hme Economics in tne
United States. Ithaca, New York: Cooperative Extension
Service, Cornell University. '

Sisco, B. R. 1984. "Facilitator’s Role in Adult
Education", Paper presented at the National Adult
Education Conference, Louisville, KY, November, (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 251605).

Steele, R. E. 1986. "Factors Affecting Practical
Agricultural Training Experiences for Graduate Students
from Developing Countries." Ph.D. Dissertation. East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

144

Stewart, W. F. 1950. Methods of Good Teaching. Columbus:
Ohio State University.

Stone, J. T. et al. 1952. The Differential Characteristics

n: More Successrui Versus Less Successful Informal
Extension Teachers: Summary of the Research Study. East

Lansing: Michigan State College.

Terpstra, D. E. 1979. "Theories of Motivation - Borrowing
the Best," Personnel Journal, June.

Thompson, G. 1989. "The Complete Adult Educator: A
Reconceptualization of Andragogy and Pedagogy".

Qanadian Journal or University Cpntinuing Education,

Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring.

Utz, Alan P. Jr. 1965. "Agent Performance in Programming" in

Journai of Cooperative Extension, Vol III, No. 3.

VanDersal, W. R. 1974. The Successful Supervisor in

vaernment and Business. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and
Row Publishers.

Van-Tilburg, E. 1986. "Performance-Reward Contingencies:
The role and Relationship of Perceived Equity in the
Job Performance-Job Satisfaction Question", (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 278868).

Van-Tilburg, E. and Miller, L. E. 1987. "Predictors of
Ohio Cooperative Extension Service County Agents’
Intentions to Leave the Job", Summary of Research No.
47. Columbus: Department of Agricultural Education,
Ohio State University.

Wayne, M. K. and Clarence J. C. 1977. Summary of Research.
"Job Satisfaction of Field Staff of The Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension
Division." Department of Agricultural Education, The
Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio.

Whapples, G. and Milliken, J. 1977. "An exploratory Study
of the Relationship of Job Satisfaction to Work Values
in the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service", (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 154133).

Zaltman G. and R. Duncan. 1977. Strategies for Planneg
Change.New York: John Wiley.

. 1989. "Agents Annual Progress Report: Part II-V".
East Lansing: C00perative Extension Service, Michigan
State University.