v1

3.. 11.?-awf.’«hggovts‘airtvlj'atrtoivflvvvo Lori-3.33:1:

312.913? .5?

we...» is: 5,.44055:1...1:1..!3.3

A $3 3:13.111»

 

wufifl ‘ ‘
“.“mh. .. . | \

v
w
a
u
A
u
.
v
§
.
~

II;«‘|:I

 

k.

A
.. A ' ‘
(.vmmZ‘S

4. mm

In.

,. a.
/

III"

“044'

 

 

       

 

 

 

, I ’ ; r
4 r, "a“. C'-

.m:

 

LZBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

 

THE NEEDS OF TEACHERS AS ADULT LEARNERS AS PERCEIVED BY
TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS IN INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION
PROGRAMS IN JORDAN

presented by
YAHYA MOHAMMAD AFFASH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_ Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

Maww

Date I‘VZ‘) I} ‘1'

MVIIienn Afr .‘ A ' I‘ In

 

MOW ; ‘ l
‘ l
l

l

l

t

l

l

I

l

I

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
c:\cIrc\datedm.pm3—p.1

 

THE NEEDS OF TEACHERS AS ADULT LEARNERS
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS
IN INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION
PROGRAMS IN JORDAN

BY

Yahya Mohammad Affash

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1989

 

 

 

(900 We

 

ABSTRACT

THE NEEDS OF TEACHERS AS ADULT LEARNERS
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS
IN INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION
PROGRAMS IN JORDAN

BY
Yahya Mohammad Affash

This study was conducted to investigate the

perceptions of teachers as adult learners and their

supervisors regarding inservice teacher education programs

in Jordan. A survey method using a questionnaire was

employed to collect the data for this study. A

questionnaire was distributed to a representative sample of
240 teachers and 20 supervisors in the Mafraq City District
in northeast Jordan. Statistical techniques used for data
analysis were descriptive statistics which included the

means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages and

ranks and Analysis of Variance.
The results of the analysis indicate that:

1. All the six andragogical learning approaches were

perceived as being practiced only sometimes or rarely/never

by teachers.

2. Supervisors perceived all the six andragogical

learning approaches as being practiced sometimes in the

inservice teacher education programs in Jordan.

 

 

 

Yahya Mohammad Affash

3. Teachers strongly agreed that all the six
andragogical learning approaches should be practiced in the
inservice teacher education programs in Jordan. Such a
perception was strongest in the andragogical learning
approach of Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs.

4. Supervisors strongly agreed that all the six
andragogical learning approaches should be practiced in the
inservice teacher education programs in Jordan. Such a
perception was strongest in the andragogical approach
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs, where all 20
supervisors strongly agreed that the factor should be
practiced.

5. While none of the teachers disagreed or strongly
disagreed that teachers should be treated as adult
professionals, none of the teachers strongly agreed that
teachers are indeed being treated as adults and
professionals in the inservice teacher education programs.

6. Statistically significant differences in teachers’
perceptions regarding the extent to which andragogical
approaches were preferred in the inservice teacher
education programs were observed for the andragogical
learning approaches,

(a) I The mean rating for male teachers was
Significantly higher than the mean rating for female

teachers for all the andragogical approaches except

 

a1

TI

 

Yahya Mohammad Affash

A Teacher-Centered Inservice Programs and Trust in

the Program Purpose.

(b) The mean rating for elementary teachers was
significantly lower than the mean rating for either
intermediate or secondary school teachers for the
andragogical approaches, A Self-Directed Learner,
Teacher-Centered Inservice Programs and Teacher-

Initiated Inservice Programs.

 

Copyright by
YAHYA MOHAMMAD AFFASH

1989

 

 

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated with love
to my
Father and Mother

for their care, patience, wisdom and foresight
and for instilling in me the value of education.

vi

 

 

__"_———————r

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All praise and thanks be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
for His providence and divine direction throughout my
life. To all those who have contributed to make the study
possible directly or indirectly, let me here express my

thanks and gratitude.

First and foremost, I would like to express my
heartfelt love, sincere gratitude and appreciation to
Dr. Charles McKee, my major advisor and doctoral committee
chairman, for his invaluable advice, encouragement,
patience and understanding. His professional direction and
guidance throughout my study here contributed greatly to
the maturation of my academic and intellectual skills. For
this I am indebted. He consistently made invaluable
contributions to my career by "lighting the candle rather

than cursing the darkness."

I am also deeply grateful to Drs. Howard Hickey,
Kenneth Neff and James Snoddy, for their valuable support

and service on my doctoral committee.

 

 

 

A special thanks is due to Mr. Joshua Bagaka, from
Michigan State University’s Office of Research
Consultation, for his professional assistance in the

quantitative analysis of this study.

Thanks are also due to Mrs. Priscilla Martin for
beautifully and accurately typing the rough draft and the

final product.

Appreciation is extended to all the Mafraq District
public school teachers and supervisors who participated in
this study and spent time responding to the research
questionnaire. A special thanks also to my friends and
colleagues at Michigan State University and elsewhere, for

their friendship and support.

Last, but not least, my deep appreciation and
gratitude to my father, Mr. Mohammad Affash, and my mother,
Inzaileh, and to all of the other members of my family,
brothers and sisters, for their support, care,
encouragement and assistance in so many ways, during the

difficult times throughout my entire academic journey.

viii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

Chapter

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . '4

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . 11

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Assumptions . . . . . . . . 13

Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 14

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . 15

Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . 16

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 18

The Adult as Learner . . . . . . . . 18

Definitions and Assumptions of Andragogy . 26
Definition, Importance and Purposeo of

the Inservice Education . . . . . . . . 34

The Inservice Education Program in Jordan 44

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

III. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . 57

Type of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Selection of Supervisors . . . . . . . . . 61

The Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . 62

Section one 0 I I O . U I I O C O I O O 0 6 2

Section Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Questionnaire Validity . . . . . . . . . 70

Translation of the Questionnaire . . . . . 71

Pilot Testing of the Instrument . . . . . 71

Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . 73

Descriptive Data . . . . . . . 75

Treatment and Analysis of the Data . . . . 76

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

ix <A“‘

 

Page

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . 83

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Analysis of Respondents’ Information for

Teachers and Supervisors . . . . . . . 84

Presentation of Research Findings . . . . 89
Teachers’ Perceptions Concerning
Andragogical Approaches Being

Practiced in the Inservice Education

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Supervisors’ Perceptions Concerning

Andragogical Approaches Being

Practiced in the Inservice Education

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Teachers’ Perceptions Concerning

Andragogical Approaches as Being

Preferred in the Inservice Education

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Supervisors’ Perceptions Concerning

Andragogical Approaches as Being

Preferred in the Inservice Education

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Respondents’ Perceptions Concerning

Treatment of Teachers as

Professionals and Adults . . . . . . . . 100
Relationship of Respondents’ Perceptions

Concerning Andragogical Approaches and

 

Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . 103

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Summary . . . . . . . . . . 123
Study Population and Sample . . . . . . . 125
Methodology . . . . . . . . 125
Characteristics of Respondents . . . . . . 127
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Overall Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Recommendations . . . . . . . 141
Recommendations for Further Research . . . 144

APPENDICES
A. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . .
B. CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. OBSERVED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLES .
D. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES . . . . . . . . . .
E. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL 25

ITEMS OF ANDRAGOGICAL APPROACHES . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . O O O O O O O O C C U 0 O O .0 O l

xi

Page

146
174
197

205

213

217

Table

2.01.

2.02.

2.03.

4.01.

4.02.

4.03.

4.04.

 

LIST OF TABLES

A Comparison of the Assumptions and Designs
of Pedagogy and Andragogy . . . . . . . .

Conditions of Learning and Corresponding
Andragogical Principles of Teaching . . .

Comparative Numbers and Percentages of
Qualified and Unqualified Teachers in All
Stages of Jordanian Public Schools in
1964 and 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Number of Schools and Jordanian
Teachers in the Mafraq School District .

Number of Questionnaires Distributed to the
Sample and Number of Completed Responses

Distribution of Teachers by Age Group
and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Supervisors by Age Group
and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Teachers by School Level
and Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . .

_Distribution of Teachers by Highest

Education Level Attained . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Supervisors by Educational
Level and Years of Supervisory Experience

Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’
Perceptionszegarding the Actual Practice
of Andragogical Learning Approaches by
School Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number, Means, Standard Deviations and Ranks

for the Supervisors' Perceptions on the
Practice of Andragogical Approaches . . .

Page

28

30

48

59

75

85

85

86

87

88

91

94

 

4.08.

4.10.

4.11.

4.12.

4.13.

 

Page

Means and Standard Deviations for the
Teachers’ Perceptions on the Preference of
Andragogical Approaches by School Level . . 97

Number, Means, Standard Deviation and Ranks
for the Supervisors’ Perceptions on the
Preference of Andragogical Approaches . . . 99

Number and Percentage on the Perceptions of
Teachers on Whether They are Treated as
Adults and Professionals at Inservice
Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’
Perceptions on Whether They Are Treated as
Adults and Professionals at Inservice
Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

ANOVA Results for the Difference in the
Perceptions of Andragogical Approaches
Between Male and Female Teachers . . . . . 105

ANOVA Results for the Difference in
Perceptions of Andragogical Approaches
Among Teachers of Different Age Groups . . 107

ANOVA Results for the Differences in
Perceptions of the Preferences of
Andragogical Approaches Among Teachers at
Different School Levels . . . . . . . . . 109

ANOVA Results for the Differences in
Perceptions of the Preference of
Andragogical Approaches Among Teachers with
Different Levels of Experience . . . . . 112

ANOVA Results for the Differences in
Perceptions of the Preference of
Andragogical Approaches Among Teachers with
Different Levels of Education . . . . . . . 114

Means and Standard Deviations for the
Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Gender . . . . . 116

Means and Standard Deviations for the

Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Age . . . . . . 118

xiii

 

 

 

Page

4.19. Means and Standard Deviations for the
Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Years of
Supervisory Experience . . . . . . . . . . 120

4.20. Means and Standard Deviations for the
Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Level of
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

 

C.01. Observed Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inservice Needs of Teachers for the 25
Items by All Teachers (Extent of Agreement) 197

C.02. Observed Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inservice Needs of Teachers for the 25
Items by All Supervisors
(Extent of Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . 199

C.03. Observed Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inservice Needs of Teachers for the 25
Items by All Teachers (Actual Practice) . . 201

C.04. Observed Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inservice Needs of Teachers for the 25
Items by Supervisors (Actual Practice) . . 203

D.01. Total Instrument Percentages and Mean Scores
of Extent of Agreement and Frequency of
Occurrence for Andragogical Items . . . . . 205

 

D.02. Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of
Agreement and Frequency of Occurrence for
Self—Directed Items (Approach 1) by
Teachers and Supervisors . . . . . . . . . 206

D.03. Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of
Agreement and Frequency of Occurrence for
Approach 2 by Teachers and Supervisors . . 207

D.04. Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of
Agreement and-Frequency of Occurrence for
Approach 3 by Teachers and Supervisors . . 208

D.05. Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of
Agreement and Frequency of Occurrence for
Approach 4 by Teachers and Supervisors . . 209

 

Page

D.06. Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of
Agreement and Frequency of Occurrence for
Approach 5 by Teachers and Supervisors . . 210

D.07. Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of
Agreement and Frequency of Occurrence for
Approach 6 by Teachers and Supervisors . . 211

 

D.08. T-Test Results Comparing Teachers’
Perceptions for Frequency of Occurrence and
Extent of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

E.01. Means Scores and Standard Deviations for All
25 Items (Extent of Agreement) by Teachers
and Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

E.02. Means Scores and Standard Deviations for All
25 Items (Actual Practice) by Teachers
and Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

E.03. Rank Order for All Items by Elementary,
Intermediate and Secondary School Teachers
(Actual Practice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

E.04. Rank Order for all Items by Elementary,
Intermediate and Secondary School Teachers
(Extent of Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . 216

 

Figure

2.01.

2.02.

2.03.

2.04.

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Administrative Structure of the Jordanian
Ministry of Education (MOE) . . . . . . .

Growth in Number of Teachers in All Stages
in Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inservice Education Plan for Teachers
Holding the Associate’s Degree . . . . .

Inservice Education Plan for Teachers
Holding the Bachelor of Arts Degree . . .

xvi

Page

46

53

54

55

 

 

 

CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Geographically, Jordan is situated between Africa and
Asia. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is bordered on the
North by Syria, by Iraq on the Northeast,to the South and
East by Saudi Arabia and on the West by Israel. Jordan
covers an area of approximately 97,740 square kilometers,
of which approximately 755 square kilometers constitute

water of the Dead Sea.

Although Jordan’s climate varies (like the
Mediterranean in the West and desert like in the East), it
is generally arid. In 1979, Jordan’s population was
estimated to be approximately three million. About 67% of
the population are urban dwellers, 24% live in rural
surroundings and 9% are nomadic Bedouins (Nyrop, 1980).
The present ruler, King Hussein, ascended the throne in
1952. On December 14, 1955, Jordan became a member of the
United Nations. Although Arabic is the official language,
English is widely spoken, particularly in the towns. Islam
is Jordan’s state religion and the majority of Jordanians
are Sunni Moslems. However, Jordan has a number of
Christians, primarily in the towns. The Christians are

l

 

 

 

2
divided among several denominations: Greek Orthodox, Greek

Catholic, Roman Catholic and some Protestant sects.

Agriculture still represents an important feature of
Jordan’s economy, engaging approximately one-third of the
working population. About one-fifth of the gross domestic
product is contributed by agriculture. The main crops are
wheat, vegetables, many varieties of. fruit and olives.
Nevertheless, industry’s role in Jordan’s economy is
increasing. Approximately 500 industrial establishments
employ 30,000 individuals and considerable progress has

been made in this sector.

Education has become a great concern in Jordan because
of the role it plays in bringing about change in personal
and social life. Reports from the Ministry of Education
indicate that Jordanian students come from many ethnic
groups and have widely diverse social lives. ‘Though
uncommon to a number of countries, a significant
characteristic of Jordan’s educational system is that it
includes the United Nations Refugee’s Work Agency
Administration (UNRWA). The latter has provided education
to Palestinian refugees since 1948. UNRWA provides its own
educational program and is in harmony with the Jordanian
curriculum. The agency also subsidizes education for some
refugee students in both government and private secondary

institutions and universities. However, the UNRWA system

 

 

_ 3
is administratively independent of the Jordanian
government. In addition to the government educational

system, Jordan also has private educational institutions

(Nyrop, 1980).

Jordan’s government educational system begins with the
primary cycle, since preschool education is offered only by
the private sector. The system's primary and preparatory
cycles are both compulsory. The cycles of the education

system in Jordan are as follows:
The Primary cycle

In the primary cycle only academic education is
offered. The cycle is subdivided into six grades for

children from ages six to twelve.

The Preparatory Cycle

Although some governmental preparatory schools offer
vocational education, most schools at this level are
devoted to general education. This cycle consists of
grades seven through- nine, with normal age of attendance

being 12 to 14 years.

 

The Secondary Cycle

Non-compulsory education begins with secondary
education. This is subdivided into general and vocational
education. In some instances, general and vocational
schools share the same facilities. These two types of
secondary schools include grades 10 through 12 and the
normal age range for students is 15 to 18 years. In
general academic education, all students attend a common
tenth grade. Eleventh and twelfth grades are divided into
scientific and literary sections. On the basis of the
pupil’s performance in the tenth grade, the student makes a
choice between these two sections for the last two

secondary years.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Today’s world is witness to an ever-increasing pace of
change in all of society’s sectors. Education is no
exception. To insure the effectiveness of teacher
participation in the change process, an awareness of their
needs must play a central role in educational planning.
Christensen (1981) -highlights this in the following
statement:

. . . in any rapidly changing society, the schools

are often asked to be a vehicle for assimilating
and transmitting changes. Therefore, to help

 

 

5
teachers respond to the demands of school, it is
important to examine what teachers’ needs are
(p. 81).

Inservice education has long been recognized as one of
the most effective methods for the continuing development
of professional teaching staff. Educators have realized to
be effective, inservice educational activities should
respond to the real needs of the teachers to be served
(Christensen, 1981; Ingersol, 1976; Schneider and Ingersol,
1978). Jordan offers inservice education programs to
provide its teachers with knowledge and skills, as well as
to help them keep abreast of new educational methods and
techniques. As teachers become better educators, it may
well be that they will be the change agents in the
Jordanian educational system. It is essential carefully to
identify their needs for inservice education and to plan

comprehensive inservice education programs for them.

Like other Jordanian educational institutions, the
In-Service Teacher Training Institute is under the control
of the Ministry of Education. Since its establishment in
1971, the Institute has served to keep Jordanian teachers
abreast of current educational issues. Brimm and Tollett
(1974) indicate that the professional preparation of
teachers is a continuous process and self renewal must
occur if teachers are to remain up to date on the changing

needs of society and their students. Effective inservice

 

 

6

education should help teachers meet these changing needs.
In a statewide research project in Tennessee, Brimm and
Tollett (1974) found that determining the needs of teachers
within the school system is a necessary prerequisite to the
planning of meaningful inservice education programs. In
the same vein, the President of the National Education
Association (NBA), John Ryor stated:

Given that in the nation learning is a lifelong

process and that our knowledge base is growing in

geometric proportions, it seems to me that quality
in—service education directed toward the needs of

teachers, is an imperative (1974, p. 13).

The purposes of inservice education are multiple. In
addition to school program improvement, another major
objective is personal and professional teacher
development. To meet all of these objectives, teachers
should play a major role in inservice education based on
the assumption that teachers learn best and accomplish more
when they are involved in deciding what and, perhaps, how

they need to learn.

As Green (1977) asserts, teachers’ needs must be part

of the professional development planning process.

. . . if their personal involvement is being
considered, teachers are likely to have greater
personal interest in the program and this would
tend to increase teacher commitment to the program
(p. 46).

 

 

 

7

Teachers who participate in inservice education
programs are adults assuming a student’s role. However,
the literature clearly demonstrates that the factors which
contribute to adult learning are, to a great extent,
different from those which contribute to learning by
children and youth. In 1980, Knowles delineated these
differences in his explanation of the concepts of andragogy
and pedagogy. According to Knowles:

As individuals mature, (1) their self-concept

moves from being a dependent personality

toward being a self-directed human being; (2)

they accumulate a growing reservoir of

experience that becomes an increasing rich

resource for learning; (3) their readiness to

learn becomes oriented increasingly to the

developmental tasks of their social roles;

and (4) their time perspective changes from

one of postponed application of knowledge to

immediacy of application and, accordingly,

their orientation toward learning shifts from

one of subject-centeredness to one of

problem-centeredness (pp. 44-45).

Some adult education experts seem to be in consensus
with Knowles that adults are basically different from
children and youth in the way they learn. Hence, it is
logical to assume that teacher education programs could

become more effective if concepts such as these were

considered more carefully.

One possible reason for the past ineffectiveness of
some inservice programs could be that they have not applied

the andragogical learning approach. Educators have long

 

 

8
recognized the inadequacies of teacher preparation programs
(Brimm and Tollett, 1974; Edelfelt, 1975; Harris, 1969).
In 1980, Yarger and others found that teachers expressed
dissatisfaction with inservice activities being offered to
them because teachers claimed they are ineffective and
unrelated to their immediate work (p. 42). Brimm and
Tollett (1974) found that a majority (73%) of the teachers
surveyed said that too often inservice activities do not
appear relevant to any teacher needs. In the same study,
Brimm and Tollett report that "an overwhelming majority
(93%) of the respondents stated teachers need to be
involved in the development of purposes, activities and
method of evaluation for in-service programs" (p. 524). It
becomes apparent that one of the major deficiencies of
inservice education programs is that they have not taken
into account the needs and expectations of teachers as

adult learners.

In Jordan, many teachers participate annually in
inservice education programs as part of their educational
responsibilities. However, in his study of the Jordanian
inservice education programs, Said (1976) found that

teachers_were dissatisfied with the programs.

Dissatisfaction and dissent was common among
teachers, who contended that the program was
dysfunctional, inflexible and that recruitment

was coercive . . inflexibility of the
curriculum, rigidity in timing and location of the
program and discontinuity of the program which
failed to relate to any further in-service

 

 

9

activities that could lead to further training and

certification (p. 64).

Khoury (1982) also asserts "the Jordanian in-service
education was unable to satisfy teachers’ needs through its
current in-service training" (p. 123). In addition, the
educational convention held at Amman in 1988, under the
Ministry of Education's auspices and presided over by
Prince Hassan, discussed the subject of teacher
qualifications. One of the major concerns expressed by the
convention was the urgent need for inservice education for

those who are already on the job (Al-dastour, 1989).

The continuing ineffectiveness of the inservice
education programs may be partially due to the failure of
supervisors and program designers to take into
consideration the adult learning needs of teachers.
Factors such as self-concept; levels of teaching
experience; readiness to learn; involvement in training
program planning; and immediacy of application of learning
would seem to be important to consider. Yet these issues
are not evident in the inservice education programs in

Jordan.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main purpose of this study is to assess the

perceptions of teachers as adult learners and their

 

 

 

10

supervisors regarding inservice teacher education programs

in Jordan.

More specifically, the study was to:

describe the purposes and practices of the present

Jordanian inservice education programs.

assess the perceptions of teachers as adult
learners and their supervisors regarding the
extent to which andragogical learning approaches
are being practiced in Jordan’s inservice

education programs.

assess the perceptions of teachers as adult
learners and their supervisors regarding the
extent to which andragogical learning approaches
are preferred in the Jordanian inservice education

programs.

make recommendations for improving Jordan’s
inservice education programs for practicing
teachers, taking into consideration the teachers’
status as adult learners based on the study

results.

 

 

 

ll

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is important for several reasons. First, it
appears that the needs of teachers as adult learners in
Jordan’s inservice education programs have not been studied
either by the Ministry of Education or by individual
researchers. Since this study will be the first of its
kind (i.e., the first to study Jordan’s inservice education
programs, while focusing on the needs of Jordan’s teachers
as adult learners), it may provide valuable data concerning
the andragogical needs of teachers. This data could be
helpful to the Ministry of Education’s planners and
decision makers responsible for Jordan’s inservice

education programs.

Second, the study’s findings might be of importance to
the supervisors in terms of curriculum planning and

instructional strategies and methodology.

Third, it is hoped the teachers concerned will benefit
by the enhancement of their own motivation and teaching
effectiveness. When this study’s findings are considered
and implemented by the program planners, the teacher may

become more committed to the inservice education programs.

 

 

 

12
Finally, through its acceptance and utilization by the
Ministry of Education, this study could ultimately help

increase student achievement in Jordanian public schools.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Research Question 1: To what extent are andragogical

 

approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by elementary,
intermediate and secondary school

teachers?

Research Question 2: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the

inservice education programs in

 

Jordan as perceived by supervisors?

B§§§§rgh_gue§tign_;: To what extent are andragogical
approaches preferred in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by elementary,
intermediate and secondary school
teachers?

Research Question 4: To. what extent are andragogical

approaches preferred in the

Research Question 5:

Research Question 6:

 

l3
inservice education programs in

Jordan as perceived by supervisors?

To what extent do teachers feel
they are treated as professional
adults in the inservice programs in

Jordan?

What is the relationship of
selected personal and demographic
variables such as gender, age,
school level, level of education
and years of' experience on the
perceptions of all teachers and
supervisors regarding andragogical
learning approaches in the
inservice education programs in

Jordan?

ASSUMPTIONS

This study assumes that:

1- There is a need for improving the effectiveness of

the Jordanian inservice teacher education

programs .

 

 

 

14
Teachers in this study will be able to identify
their needs as adult learners in the Jordanian

inservice education programs.

The results of the study will provide the
Jordanian educational authorities with data to
enable them to better understand the needs of

teachers as adult learners.
DELIMITATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study will apply to Jordanian public school

teachers in the Mafraq District School.

The study will not involve teachers who are

teaching in private or religious schools.

The scarcity of studies available on the needs of
teachers as adult learners in Jordan forces the

researcher to utilize studies conducted in other

countries.

The results‘ of this study will not be generalized
to other countries, for cultural reasons and
because of the highly centralized system of
education in Jordan. However, the results of this

study may be generalized to teachers and

 

 

used

 

15
supervisors in other Jordanian districts which

have the same characteristics.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For clarity of interpretation, the following terms,

used in this study, are defined as follows.

 

Inservice teacher education program: "any professional

activity that a teacher undertakes singly or with other
teachers after receiving his or her initial teaching
certificate and after beginning professional practice"

(Edelfelt & Johnson, 1975, p. 5).

Perception: "refers to the meaning we attach to the

information received through our senses. This meaning

 

is constructed partly from objective reality and partly

from the way we organize the information" (Woolfolk,

1987, p. 238).

Note: In this study, perception is an awareness of
what the inservice education programs contribute to
teacher competency.

Andragogy: "The art and science of helping adults

learn" (Knowles, 1984, p. 52).

wil
pro
Stu

Stu

lit

 

16
Pedagogy: "The art and science of teaching children"

(Knowles, 1984, p. 27).

Teachers: The elementary, intermediate and secondary
school teachers who have participated in Jordan’s

inservice education programs.

Supervisors: Those who observe, assist and evaluate
the teachers and who plan and conduct the inservice

education programs for teachers.

Ministry of Education: The governmental agency which
has the responsibility for public education in Jordan.
This agency also controls the education provided by all
agencies in all institutions in Jordan, with the

exception of universities.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study will consist of five chapters. Chapter One
will provide background information, a statement of the
Problem, the purpose of the study, the importance of the
study," research questions, assumptions, limitations of the

study and definition of terms.

Chapter Two will be a review of the literature. The

literature will be divided into the following sections:

 

 

proce
POPUl
trans

instr

Final

for

 

17

(a) The adult as learner

(b) Definitions and assumptions of andragogy.

(c) Definition, importance and purpose of the

inservice education programs.

(d) The inservice education programs in Jordan.

Chapter Three will describe the methodology and
procedures utilized in this study, including the
population, selection of the sample, research instrument,
:ranslation of the instrument, pilot testing of the

instrument, data collection and data analysis.

Results of the study will be reported in Chapter Four.
Pinally, major findings, conclusions and recommendations

for further study will be presented in Chapter Five.

 

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The literature for this study is divided into four
major topic areas. These provide a format for its
presentation in this chapter as follows: (a) the adult as
learner, (b) definitions and assumptions of andragogy,

(c) definition, importance and purpose of the inservice
education programs and (d) the inservice education programs
in Jordan. Each of these will be addressed in turn in the

following pages.
The Adult as Learner

Research and theory building in adult learning have
taken many directions. Some researchers have investigated
Why adults participate in learning activities; what adults
learn on their own; and how they structure learning. Other
researchers have sought to explain how adult and child

learners differ (Merriam, 1987)-

Essert (1951) implied a distinction between education

for adults and children:
AS an experience of maturing, voluntarily selected
by people, whose major occupat1on 15 no longer

gOng to school, in which these individuals or

18

 

 

19

groups plan meaningful tasks and apply sustained

inquiry to them--the major portion of adult

education is engaged in helping people to meet

their individual needs as they are interpreted by

the individual needs (p. 5). .

Through his studies of the adult as a learner, Tough
(1971) has produced a general picture of the process of
adult learning. According to Tough, each year every adult
undertakes at least one or two major learning efforts.
Such efforts are deliberate attempts to gain particular

knowledge, skills or make changes. Most of these learning

projects are planned by the learners themselves (p. 2).

In choosing a learning project, the individual has
specific reasons for his/her choice. For example, the
learner might view the knowledge to be gained as highly
useful and want to possess the knowledge and skill for
his/her personal benefit. Perhaps the learner desires
credit toward a degree or certification in his/her career.
The learner might also wish to increase personal self-
understanding, self-acceptance or change his/her
self-concept. Perhaps the learner may wish to improve
hiS/her perception and understanding of others. Or the
learner might want to increase his/her feelings and develop
hiS/her creativity.- In each case, the individual’s desire
to gain and retain definite knowledge and skill is dominant

(Tough, 1971, p. 3).

 

 

20
Several key assumptions about adult learners that have
been supported by later research and that constitute the
foundation of modern adult learning theory were identified

by Lindeman (quoted in Knowles, 1984, p. 31).

1 - Adults are motivated to learn as
they experience needs and interests
that learning will satisfy;
therefore, these are 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 learnlng.

Adult learners’ motives for participation in education
activities are varied. Houle (1961) utilized in-depth
interviews in developing his famous classification of
learners. Goal-oriented learners use education as a means

Of accomplishing fairly clear-cut objectives such as

 

 

 

 

lea
act
the

Act

 

21
learning to speak before an audience, while
activity-oriented learners are interested more in activity
than in learning skills or subject matter.
Activity-oriented learners may take a course or join a
group to escape loneliness, boredom, an unhappy home life,
etc. In contrast, learning-oriented individuals pursue
learning for its own sake. In this study, the majority of
learners were goal oriented, followed by those who were

learning oriented and activity oriented.

Randall (1980) emphasized that adult learners need
different teaching methodologies than children. He
specified the following differences between adult and child

learners.

1. Adults want to learn--adults don’t
learn just because someone said to;
they must have a desire for the
skill or knowledge.

2. Adults learn only when they feel a
need to learn. They are practical
and want to know that training will
help them now. Each session should
offer something that can be used
immediately.

3. Adults learn by doing. They should
use new information immediately.

4. Adults learn by solving realistic
problems.

5. Adults want guidance, not grades;
adults shy away from grades and
tests--they want to know how they
have progressed (p. 10).

 

 

te

 

22
Generally, methods of teaching adults seem to be.
limited. Since teachers with some eXperience in the formal
education system find it difficult to adapt, adult
education methods used are often those of the school
classroom and may well be inappropriate (Coles, 1977;

Neff & Minkhoff, 1972) .

Knowles (1956) stated:

The teacher must know whether or not his
methods and materials are effective. It
is equally important for the student to
have some way of measuring his progress,
since a sense of achievement is one of
the chief motivations for learning (p.
15) .

Knowles continued' by asking, "How can one identify good
teaching? What are the good characteristics of the good

learning situation?"

First the teacher must know the adult student

 

understands the objectives or goals of the course. The
teacher should find out what the student wants from the
class and allow the student a part in organizing its
procedures. The teacher’s task is to help the student

perceive the problems of the course and direct activities

toward their solution.

Second, the teacher’s attitude, acceptance and respect

for responsibility will be contagious, creating an

atm
and

and

frc

cla

the

SIR

di]

813

(ii.

te

 

23
atmosphere that is pleasant and comfortable to the students

and conducive to learning.

Third, physical discomfort is distracting. Furniture

and other physical equipment should be suitable for adults.

Fourth, the adult student will enjoy and learn more
from the course, if he actively participates in the
classroom discussion. In helping plan the activities for
the class, the student feels some responsibility for its
success and learns as much from this involvement as from
direct instruction. By using the experience of the
students, the generalization being taught can be applied

directly to what they already know.

Fifth, the methods should be varied. Lecture, group
discussion, recitation, demonstration, case studies, team
teaching, filmstrips, field trips, etc., can introduce
variety. However, these methods must be used according to
the subject matter being learned, the type of students
being taught and the course objectives. Inasmuch as
possible, the teacher should be certain that teaching
methods do not offend the social customs and attitudes of

learners.

Sixth, the student is the center of the adult learning

process and the teacher is the key. The teacher’s rela-

 

 

 

 

 

24
tionship to the student is that of a coordinator or facil-
itator, rather than that of an authority. The teacher acts

as one who can guide the learners to a satisfactory goal.

However, the rate of learning is improved by motiva—
tion. It is the teacher’s duty to use methods as they

apply to particular situations (Coles, 1977; Herm, 1978).

Brundage and Mackeracker (1980) reviewed the literature
dealing with adult learning and developed a comprehensive
list of adult learning principles and their implications
for program planning and facilitating learning. Minix
(1981) summarized the following partial listing of adult

learning principles (pp. 17-18).

1. Adults were constantly changing in
response to internal and external
pressures. Learning was best

facilitated by removing obstacles
which blocked learning rather than
trying to motivate learners. It
was concluded that adult learners
would not remain in programs that
created barriers to their learning.

2. Because adult learners entered
learning experiences with an
established self-concept each

individual must be valued as a
unique worthwhile person. Programs
should be planned which provide
time for individual attention.

3. Because adults had a variety of
experiences which had been
integrated into the self, programs
should provide opportunities for
adult learners to integrate new
learnings.

 

10.

 

25

The adult learner had a need to be
accepted and valued as a worthwhile

person. Hence, program plans
needed to be flexible so that
responsive feedback might be

provided and at the same time not
provide a threat to learners.

Adults learned more efficiently

when the learnings could be
directly applied to their
experiences. Planned learning

should appear to be relevant to
life experiences.

Previous experiences grew in value
as the adult aged. Planners should
provide enough time and sufficient
opportunity for integration and
reflection.

Adults with positive self-concept

and high esteem showed more
response to learning and were less
threatened. Learning sessions

should provide a non-threatening
climate which was supportive of the

people involved. Planners should
provide opportunities which
clarified learnings, provided

non-judgmental feedback and created
positive interpersonal relations.

Adults learned best when they
valued the role of the learner.
Planners should provide
opportunities for learners to
design and implement their own
learning plans.

Because adults entered learning
programs with personal needs,
feelings, problems, and
expectations, program planners
should create a supportive
environment which permitted
learners to define how they could
fit into the program.

Because adult learners were
problem-centered, the program plan
might be developed around the
actual needs of the learners.

 

26
Minix further stated that a careful reading of the
suggested guidelines led to the conclusion that the

guidelines were compatible with the andragogical theory.

Definitions and Assumptions of Andragogy

The concept of andragogy emerges as a central, guiding
principle when the prescriptive literature of adult
education is considered (Beder & Carren, 1988). Although
the concept was first used in 1883 by Alexander Kapp, a
German (Davenport & Davenport, 1985), and was introduced in
the United States by Lindeman in the 19205 (Brookfield,
1984), it was popularized by Knowles (1970), who defined
andragogy as "the art and science of helping adults
learn." The term "andragogy" is derived from two Greek
root words, gpgp (andra) meaning male and ggpgs (gogy)

meaning leader.

The concept of andragogy stands in contrast to the old
concept of pedagogy. "Pedagogy" is derived from the Greek
words paid meaning "child" and agogus meaning "leader of."

Thus, pedagogy means the art and science of teaching

children (Knowles, 1984, p. 52)-

Knowles (1984) defined the difference between pedagogy

and andragogy as:

 

 

27

The difference is that the content (pedagogical
model) is concerned with transmitting and skills
whereas the process (andragogical model) is
concerned with providing procedures and resources
for helping learners acquire information and
skills (p. 103).

The procedural differences between andragogy and
pedagogy as identified by Knowles (1984, p. 116), are

summarized in Table 2.01.

According to Knowles (1984), the main purpose of
andragogy is "to develop individuals to be self-directed
learners and to develop, maintain, and enhance the
competencies of self-directed learning" (p. 37). Andragogy

is based on the following assumptions (Knowles, 1984):

1. The need to learn—-adults need to know why
they need to learn something before
undertaking to learn it. Tough (1979) found
that when adults undertake to learn something
on their own, they will invest considerable
energy in probing into the benefits they will
gain from learning it and the negative
consequences of not learning it.

2. The learner’s self-concept--adults have a
self-concept of being responsible for their
own decisions, for their own lives. Once
they have arrived at that self-concept, they
develop a deep psychological need to be seen
by others and treated by others as being
capable of self-direction.

3. The role of the learner’s experience--adult
learners come into an educational process
with a greater volume and more varied quality
of experiences than young learners.

4. Readiness to learn--adults become ready to
learn those things they need to know and be
able to do in order to cope effectively with
their real-life situations.

 

.T. 0-01

 

28

Table 2.01.--Comparison of the Assumptions and Designs of Pedagogy and Andragogy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assumptions Design Elements
Pedazozv ‘ ‘ " J . J
Self-Concept Dependency Increasing Climate Authority- Mutuality
self- oriented' Respectful
directiveness Formal Collaborative
(‘nmnet‘ltors Informal
Experience Of little Learners are Planning By teacher Mechanism for
worth a rich mutua
resource for planning
learning
Readiness Biological Developmental Diagnosis of By teacher Mutual self-
Develop- tasks of needs diagnosis
mental social roles
Social
Time Postponed Immediacy of Formulation of By teacher Mutual
ive annlirarion application obiectives neanriarion
Orientation to Subject Problem Design Logic of the Sequenced in
learning centered centered subject terms Of
matter readiness
Content Problem
unitv unitv
Activities Transmittal Experiential
techniques techniques
(inquiry)
Evaluation By teacher Mutual
re-diagnosis
of needs
Mutual
:measurement

 

 

 

 

 

 

of program

 

 

that
envi
lear
andr

(Kno

teac
teac
teac
Pers
prog
Coul
inte

the

 

29
5. Orientation to 1earning—-in contrast to
children’s and youth’s subject-centered
orientation to learning, adults are
life-centered, task-centered or
problem-centered in their orientation to
learning. Furthermore, they learn new

knowledge, understandings, skills, values,
and attitudes most effectively when they are
presented in the context of application to
real-life situations.

6. Motivation-~while adults are responsive to

some external motivators as better jobs,
promotions, higher salaries, and the like,
the most potent motivators are internal
pressures such as the desire for increased
job satisfaction, self-esteem, quality of
life, etc. (pp. 56—61).

Knowles (1984) discussed seven conditions of learning
that must be satisfied in an andragogical educational
environment. He emphasized that these conditions of
learning fit into his own conception of the role of the
andragogical teacher. These are summarized in Table 2.02

(Knowles, 1984, pp. 83-85).

Minix (1981) proposed that andragogy as an approach to
teacher inservice education appeared to be compatible with
teacher inservice trends. Edelfelt (1975) reported that
teacher inservice education was moving in the direction of
personalizing and individualizing teacher inservice
PrOgrams. He further added that decision-making processes
could be based on cooperation between all the major
interest groups and inservice education should be based on

the needs of students, teachers, and the school program.

Th1
ch:
CO]
re:
fn
ac«

 

30

Table 2.02.--Conditions of Learning and Corresponding
Andragogical Principles of Teaching

 

Conditions of Learning Principles of Teaching
The learners feel a need 1. The teacher exposes
to learn students to new
possibilities of self-
fulfillment.

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

3. The teacher helps each
student diagnose the gap
between his aspiration
and his present level of
performance.

4. The teacher helps the
students identify the
life problems they
experience because of
the gaps in their
personal equipment.

The learning environment is 5. The teacher provides
characterized by physical physical conditions that
comfort, mutual trust and are comfortable (as to
respect, mutual helpfulness, seating, smoking,
freedom of expression, and temperature,

acceptance of differences. ventilation, lighting,

decoration) and
conducive to
interactions
(preferably, no person
sitting behind another
person).

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

 

 

The 1
goals
6Xper

 

31

Table 2.02 (cont’d.).

 

Conditions of Learning Principles of Teaching

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

8. The teacher exposes his
own feelings and
contributes his
resources as a colearner
in the spirit of mutual

inquiry.
The learners perceive the 9. The teacher involves the
goals of a learning students in a mutual
_experience to be their goals. process of formulating

learning objectives in
which the needs of the
students, of the
institution, of the
teacher, of the subject
matter, and of the
society are taken into
account.

 

The learners accept a share 10. The teacher shares his

of the responsibility for thinking about options
planning and operating a available in the .
learning experience, and de51gn1ng of learning
therefore have a feeling of experiences and the
commitment toward it. selection of materials

and methods and involves
the students in deciding
among these options
jointly.

 

Tab

h;
act

The
rel
the
lea

The
prc

 

32

able 2.02 (cont’d.).

 

Conditions of Learning Principles of Teaching
The learners participate 11. The teacher helps the
actively in the learning students to organize
process. themselves (project

groups, learning-
teaching teams,
independent study, etc.
to share responsibility
in the process of mutual

inquiry.
The learning process is 12. The teacher helps the
related to and makes use of students exploit their
the experience of the own resources for learn-
learners. ing through the use of

such techniques as dis-
cussions, role playing,
case methods, etc.

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

14. The teacher helps the
students to apply new
learning to their exper-
ience and, thus to make
the learning more mean—
ingful and integrated.

The learners have a sense of 15. The teacher involves the
progress toward their goals. students in developing
mutually acceptable
criteria and methods for
measuring progress
toward the learning
objectives.

16. The teacher helps the
students develop and
apply procedures for
self-evaluation accord-
ing to these criteria.

 

dit

CO]

 

 

33
Bents and Howey (1981) wrote of the need for inservice
:ducators to give more attention to adult development and
LdUlt learning research. It was suggested that the
1ndragogical process needed to be qualified to some
extent. For example, Bents and Howey felt that all
teachers did not possess the same degree of

self-directedness.

Minix (1981) mentioned that andragogy itself appeared
to be an evolving theory. During the initial introduction
of the concept into the United States, it was presented as
a dichotomy with pedagogy. However, by the late 19705, the
dichotomatic nature of andragogy was replaced with a
continuum which ranged from pedagogy to andragogy (Knowles,

1979).

Cross (1981) concluded that:

Whether andragogy can serve as the foundation for
a unifying theory of adult education remains to be

seen. At the very least, it identifies some
characteristics of adult learners that deserve
attention. It has been far more successful than

most theory in gaining the attention of
practitioners (p. 227).

 

fre

prc

dii

lee

C01

let

tr:

34

Definition, Importance and Purpose of Inservice Education

Throughout literature on inservice, many terms are used
frequently and often interchangeably: professional growth,

professional development, teacher renewal and others.

Inservice teacher training has different meanings to
different people. Continuing education courses, sabbatical
leaves, graduate courses, master’s degrees, conferences,
conventions, workshops, television programs and one-shot
lectures all come under the general heading of inservice
training. , However, each may contribute to the continuing
professional growth of a teacher and, thus, fall under the
general concept of professional development and growth

‘(Orrange & Ryn, 1975).

In the Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, considered by Harris and Bessert
(1969) as a milestone publication on inservice education,
Hass (1957, p. 13) maintained that inservice education
includes all activities engaged in by professional
personnel during their service and designed to contribute
to improvement on the job. In the same vein, Harris and
Bessert (1969, p. 2) declared that inservice education must
include all activities aimed at the improvement of

professional staff members. They defined inservice

 

 

edu

imp

edu

im
edl
am

lea

35
education as planned activities for the instructional

merovement of professional staff members.

A decade later, Harris used the term "inservice
education" to mean:

Any planned program of learning opportunities

afforded staff members of schools, colleges, or

other educational agencies for purposes of
improving the performance of the individual in

already assigned positions (1980, p. 21).

According to Harris, a planned program is specified,
eliminating a wide variety of events, that accidentally or
incidentally contribute to the purpose of inservice
education. In prescribing inservice education as planned

and programmatic, the emphasis is placed on designing

learning experiences, assessing needs, projecting
expectations, budgeting, assigning responsibilities and
evaluation.

In the United Kingdom, the Department of Education and
Science (1970) has defined inservice training as "any
(activities which a teacher undertakes after he had begun to
teach, which is concerned with his professional work"

(Henderson, 1978, p. 11)-

However, for administrative convenience narrower

definitions are often adopted. For example, in 1965, the

 

Uni

des

of

 

 

36
nited States Department of Health, Education and Welfare
escribed inservice training as:
A program of systematized activities promoted or
directed by the school system or approved by the
school system, that contribute to the professional
or occupational growth and competence of staff
members during the time of their service to the
school system (Henderson, 1978, p. 11).
Edelfelt and Johnson (1975) defined inservice education

of teachers as:

Any professional development activities that a
teacher undertakes singly or with other teachers
after receiving her or his initial teaching
certificate and after beginning professional
practice (p. 5).

They used the term "inservice education" synonymously with

‘the terms "staff development," "continuing education" and

"professional development."

Two final definitions of inservice education will
conclude this discussion. The first definition is one
utilized by the State of Michigan’s Department of Education
(1977).

A planned and organized effort to provide teachers

and other educational workers with the knowledge

and skills necessary to facilitate improved

student learning and performance.

Orrange and Van Ryn (1975, p. 47) provide us with the

second definition.

 

rec

13)

pa]

 

37

In—service education is that portion of

professional development that should be publicly

supported and includes a program of systematically

de51gned activities planned to increase the

competencies—-knowledge, skills, and

attitudes--needed by school personnel in the

performance of their assigned responsibilities.

The importance of inservice education has been
recognized since formal education began. Wells (1978, p.
18) noted that the development of inservice education

parallels the development of teacher education.

Tyler (1971) examined the history of inservice
education in America during the past century. He stated
that, because of the lack of certification requirements for
teachers, many teachers did not have an adequate knowledge
of content areas. For this reason, programs of two or
three days’ duration and evening courses were held to
provide inservice education for teachers. Post noted that,
up to 1944, inservice education was viewed as a remedial
process for teachers (1975, p. 26). The primary goal was

to make up deficits in teacher knowledge.

According to both political and educational priorities,
Objectives of inservice provisions vary somewhat from one
country to another. However, there is a general
recognition that educational change necessitates
acquisition of new types of skill and knowledge appropriate

to emerging structures, new forms of school organization,

 

new
pare

rang

Ins‘
dev

mor‘

fun

 

38

new patterns of relationship between teachers, pupil,

parents

range of

and the community and the availability of a wider

teaching and techniques (Tyler, 1978).

According to Tyler (1978), inservice training is:

syste
techn
proje
be d
of t
usefu
Inservice
developme

more impo

Harri

fundament

1.

. increasingly seen as part of the whole
m of communication whereby the ideas and
iques developed in universities’ research
cts and by groups of teachers themselves, can
iffused and disseminated among those members
he teaching force for whom they are most
1 (p. 708).

education is essential for the professional
nt of practitioners in all fields. It is even

rtant for those who are involved with schools.

5 and Bessert (1969, pp. 3-4) stated four

al reasons why inservice education is important.

Preservice preparation of professional staff
members is rarely ideal and may be primarily
an introduction to professional preparation
rather than professional preparation as such.

Social and educational change makes current
professional practices obsolete or relatively
ineffective in a very short period of time.
This applies to methods and techniques,
tools, and substantive knowledge itself.

Coordination and articulation of
instructional practices require changes in
people. Even when such instructional staff
member is functioning at a highly
professional level, employing an. optimum
number of the most effective practices such
as instructional programs, might still be
relatively uncoordinated from subject to
subject and poorly articulated from year to

year.

Along the same line, Hass (1957, pp. 13-14) gave a

 

39

other factors argue for in-service education
activities of rather diverse kinds. Morale
can be stimulated and maintained through
in-service education, and is a contribution
to instruction in itself, even if
instructional improvement of any dynamic kind
doesn’t occur.

number of factors which support the need for inservice
education:
1. The continuing cultural and social changes
which create the need for curriculum change.
2. Pre-service education cannot adequately
prepare members of the public school
professional staff ‘for their
responsibilities.
3. Increase in pupil enrollment.
4. The present and continuing increase in the
number of teachers.
5. The present and continuing shortages of
adequately prepared teachers.
6. The present and continuing need for improved

Howey (1980, quoted in Faloughi, 1980, pp. 55-56)

identified six categories of reasons why there is a need

school leaders.

for inservice education activities for teachers.

1.

‘Transitiona1/--as introductory activities to
allow teachers to move from generalized,
pre-service education to a speCific role.

‘Job specific’--as a response to typically
recurring needs and problems in a particular
situation.

‘System-related’--as a response to dramatic
changes in society and in the schools.

teacl
knowl

arti(

date

The

teachers

 

40

Because of these changes, teachers must
reorient or redefine their roles.

‘General professional development’-—as a
means of staying current professionally
without regard to applying the information to
one’s specific situation.

‘Career progression’--as a means of changing
roles or responsibilities.

‘Personal development'--as a process of
understanding and enhancing the individual in
a professional role.

concept of professional development for school

and administrators is a continuing process because

knowledge is a continuing process. This is clearly

articula

As

incr
cont
teac
of

ther
(Smi

Hass
late.
The

prom
prof

ted in the following statement.

long as knowledge about education continues to
ease and new techniques and devices are
rived, there will be something new for the
her to learn regardless of his degree or years
experience. The continuum of preparation can,
efore, cover the teacher’s entire career
th, et a1, 1969, p. 151).

(1957) saw the need to keep the professional up to
major reason for in-service education is to

ote the continuous improvement of the total
essional staff of the school system. All

teachers, administrators and supervisors must
constantly study in order to keep up With advances

subject matter and in the theory and practice

in . .
of teaching. Continuous in-service education is
needed to keep the profession abreast of. new
knowledge or to release creative actiVities
(pp. 13-14).

educ

sho1
W001
foli

th.

 

41
Moffit (1963) emphasized the importance of inservice

ucation to the educational system.

Proper education of nation’s [sic] teachers should
be the concern of every citizen. It is the
education of teachers that determines the quality
of learning and therefore the quality of the
people of this country--it therefore appears I
conclude that the quality of any school system may
largely be determined by the quality of the
in-service educational -programs involving the
total professional staff (pp. 7-8).

To be effective, inservice education programs
ould be based upon clear, specific objectives.
od, Steven and Russell (1981) identified the
llowing as some objectives of inservice education.

1. Knowledge objectives deal with learning and
using specific content. For example, current
efforts to introduce metrics and nutrition
into the public curriculum demand that many
teachers develop content‘ knowledge in these
subject areas to enable them to teach the
appropriate concept and principles.

2. Strategies or skill objectives pertain to new
procedures for teaching such as how to plan,
manage and evaluate, independent study,
content learning, small group instruction, or
inquiry teaching.

 

3. Attitudes objectives identify the
commitments, values, and other affective
variables necessary to implement change in
professional behaviour (p. 68).

In discussing the objectives and characteristics of

service education, McCleary and Hentcley (1965) suggested

a following.

1. Improving professional performance.

2. The program should be characterized by an
atmosphere of inquiry.

 

42

3. The program should encompass opportunities
for formal instruction.

4. Although the program should encompass both,
the creative and experimental aspects of goal
seeking should take precedence over the study
of subject matter or the routine preparation
of curriculum guides and aids.

5. The program should not be structured through
administrative edict and should avoid the
implication that it is tied to a plan or
system of salary adjustment.

6. The program should encompass procedure for
evaluation.

7. The program should seek active engagement
with worthwhile problems in an atmosphere of
freedom and psychological safety.

8. The program should make provision for both
individual and group activities (p. 287).

Bishop (1976) maintained that inservice education and
aff development is vital to quality education. To
shop, an important objective of inservice education is to
nvey knowledge or information about new ideas and an
tended change including the rationale, concepts,
jectives and strategies involved. A second objective

ncerns the development of competency, involving a

ntribution of information and related skills.

Tyler (1978) stated that we can easily identify four
nctions of inservice education: 1) remediation; 2)
veloping the competence required to deal with particular
oblems; 3) helping the individual learn what is needed to

tain his/her own professional goals; and 4) furnishing

 

43
1e stimulation of learning opportunities that counteract

)redom and lowered professional performance.

In 1963 Moffit emphasized that continuing education for

aw teachers is another objective of inservice education.

Regardless of the quantity and quality of academic
education received in a college or university, a
teacher new to any given school system needs
inservice education. . . . the beginning teacher
enters into a strange and completely new
situation. For many, it is the first real job the
teacher has had; with the responsibilities
attached thereto, everything is strange.
Commonly, he is unacquainted with the other
teachers, the principal, or the administrative or
supervisory personnel. The students are strange,
and often the community is one about which he has
little knowledge (p. 6).

Edelfelt and Johnson (quoted in Al-Shehri, 1986,
., 38-39) emphasized that the effective inservice
.ucation program considers the teacher as an adult,

ecifically:

1. In-service education programs that place the
teacher in an active role (constructing and
generating materials, ideas, and behavior)
are more likely to accomplish their
objectives than are programs that place the
teacher in a receptive role.

2. Teachers are more likely to benefit from
-inservice programs in which they can choose
goals and .activities for themselves as
contrasted to programs in which the goals and
activities are preplanned.

3. Inservice education programs in which
teachers share and provide mutual assistance
to each other are more likely to accomplish
their objectives than are programs in which
each teacher does separate work.

 

44

4. Inservice education programs having
differentiated training experiences for
different teachers (that is individualized)
are more likely to accomplish their 4

objectives than are programs that have common
activities for all participants.

5. School-based programs in which teachers
participate as helpers to each other and
planners of inservice activities tend to have
greater success in accomplishing their
objectives than do programs which are
conducted by college or other outside
personnel without the assistance of teachers.
Inservice education of teachers has gained a great deal
interest and prestige in recent years. The fact that an
erall shortage of teachers no longer exists in many
untries has encouraged teachers’ organizations to press
r more inservice study opportunities. Inservice training

now an absolute necessity if schools are to develop
eir people, their most important resources. Therefore,
service education should not be piecemeal or haphazard;
t carefully planned over time with particular attention

the instructional needs of the students and the ever

anging social and organizational context of the school

urrello and Orbaugh, 1982).

The Inservice Teacher Education Program in Jordan

This section of Chapter II seeks to provide information'
out the purposes and practices of inservice teacher
ucation in Jordan. It is helpful to understand the

acational context in which the program operates.

 

45
One of the most influential factors in the progress of
a nation is its educational system whose objectives derive
from the beliefs and aspirations of the people and the

society it serves.

The education system of Jordan has its roots embedded
in the Islamic-Arabic cultural pattern and reflects the
hopes of the nation for the future within that pattern.
The philosophy of the educational system is stated in
Educational Law No. 161 (Article No. 3). It is governed by
the Islamic-Arabic value system which places a high
priority on education as a means to develop knowledgeable,

productive and responsible individuals.

By law, the Ministry of Education (MOE) is responsible
for education in the country. The MOE carries out its
responsibilities in consultation with the Jordan Board of
Education (JBE) whose decisions are binding on the Minister
3f Education only in matters pertaining to the formulation
of curricula and the selection of textbooks. However, the
IBE acts as an advisory body in other matters (Article
To. 33). According to the Constitution (Article No. 51),
:he Minister of Education is in charge of the Ministry’s
affairs, for which the Minister is responsible to the Prime
dinister and the Parliament. The MOE is divided into 15
iirectorates, as shown on Figure 2.01. One of the

iirectorates is responsible for ~teacher education and

 

 

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Board I INinieterI ICaInitteeI
I of I I of I ' of
IEducetionI IEducetionI IEdacItionI
| I I I I I .
I
+
I
[Gen-rel SecretaryI
l
I
I l I
I I I
I I I I
IUndereecretery Coneultentl [Undersecretary ConeultentI I Undersecretary Consultant |
I for Generel Services I I for Teeclilne | I for Fleming I
I I | | I
I | I
I I __%
I I I I
I I
I I IDIrectoI-ete ofl IDirectorete oil
I I I Curricula until I Educetionel I
I I | Teaching AidsI | Fleming end |
I l IWI
I |
| I
I | I | I I |
|
I I Direct. of I [Dir-ct. ofI IDirect. ofI IDirect. oil I Direct. of | I Direct. ofI IDirect. oil
I I Project I I Private | IExninetionI I Physic-l I ItertificntionI I Vocation-ll Icotmcnlty |
I Iluplementltlonl IEducetion I I I [Education I Iend Training I I Education | Icolleoes I
I I I I I I | I Centers I I | I
I
I
I I | I I |
I I I J #L
I Direct. 0! I I Direct. of | I Direct. of | | Direct. of I I Direct. of I I Direct. of I
I Financiel I I School | I General I | Public | I Cultural I I Personnel I
I Services I I Building I I Education | I Relations I I Relations I | Affairs I

 

Figure 2.01.--Adninistrative Structure of the Jordanian Ministry of Education (HOE)

 

47
certification. Each directorate comprises a number of
divisions and sections which perform their various tasks
according to the prescribed division of labor for each unit

(Ordinance No. 39, 1971).

According to Article No. 3 of Ordinance No. 34 of 1960,
the MOE has the authority to establish a five-member
Teacher Education Committee (TEC) from among the personnel
of the MOE. The TEC is headed by the Undersecretary of the
Ministry and is charged with planning inservice education.
The initial inservice education policies that were
developed by the five-member TEC in 1960 included
provisions and plans for inservice education and made the
Training Division responsible for their execution. In
1971, because of the need for inservice education, the
Certification and Inservice Teacher Training Institute
(CITTI) became the agency solely responsible for the
compensatory inservice teacher education. The CITTI must
also train and certify unqualified compulsory stage

teachers.

Table 2.03 reports the numbers and percentage of
qualified and unqualified teachers in all stages in 1964
when Education Law No. 16 was enacted. In addition the
table gives the same types of figures for 1975,
demonstrating that the MOE is still far short of having

fully and formally qualified teachers in the school system.

 

 

48

ale 2.03--Comparative Numbers and Percentages of
Qualified and Unqualified Teachers in
All Stages of Jordanian Public Schools
in 1964 and 1975

 

 

 

 

Ungpalified Qualified
J.C.D.*
Less (for
Than Grades B.A. M.A.
Total J.C.D.* % 1—9) (1-12) (1-14)
Total 3768 2859 75.9 743 166 0
54 Male 2460 1830 74.4 510 120 0
Female 1308 1029 78.7 233 46 0
Total 12793 6313 49.4 3506 - 2939 35
75 Male 6809 1889 27.7 2511 2379 30
Female 5984 4424 73.9 995 560 5

 

 

inior College Diploma

arge: Ministpy of Educationl Statistical YearbooksI of
1964-1974 (and Statistics Division Documents, MOE,
1975).

Thus the notions that have prevailed in inservice
Icher education reflect to a very considerable extent the
rposes of inservice education (Training Division Annual
>ort, 1972; Report No. 26481 of the Minister of Education

the Prime Minister, concerning projects and activities

the MOE, Sept. 11, 1973; CITTI Annual Report, 1974).

1e of the major purposes of inservice education are to:

 

 

49
remedy deficiencies identified by teachers and/or

by school supervisors.

compensate for complete lack of pre-service

training.

assist teachers in implementing new curricula

and/or utilizing new textbooks adopted by the JBE.

assist newly appointed and/or transferred teachers

to cope with their new responsibilities.
refresh and update knowledge and skills.

help teachers adjust to special classroom settings
such as self-contained, multi-grade and

schoolhouse classrooms.

aid teachers in the utilization of radio and/or

television educational programs.

assist teachers in the production and/or

utilization of audio-visual aids and laboratory-

equipment.

enhance qualifications of teachers through

inservice programs leading to higher certificates.

 

 

 

 

prog
spec

peri

basi
teac
teci
(IIVI

(Tr;

deg

sir

ant

 

50
10. "to raise the professional level of the trainees"
(Article No. 6 of Ordinance No. 34, established in

1960).

The most important activities of inservice education
programs are: the remedial and updating, as well as the
special and summer programs which are limited to short

periods, usually from two to six weeks.

Trainees are recommended by supervisors more on the
basis of their personal feelings about the needs of
teachers than through systematic, diagnostic procedures and
techniques. The supervisors are instructed by the TEC to
give first priority to compensatory inservice training

(Training Division Annual Report, 1968).

An upgrading program for teachers holding the B.A.
degree has been in operation at the local universities
since 1973. The curriculum is comprised of 32 credit hours
in professional courses and leads to a Diploma of Education

and a 25% salary increment.

Since 1971, local' inservice programs of one to six
day’s duration have been held in teacher centers in the
school districts. These Iconsist primarily of two-hour
seminars and are led by supervisors and/or specialized

individuals recruited by the CITTI.

 

 

51
Goad (1984) analyzed the CITTI program in Jordan. He
tates:
In 1971, the proportion of unqualified teachers
was 70% . . . . CITTI was established in the
belief that in-service education was the most
appropriate method for certification of the

largest possible number of teachers in the
shortest possible time and with the least expense

(p. 65).
Further, Goad summarized the goals of CITTI as follows:

1. To qualify teachers serving in government and
private schools by raising their professional
competence to a level comparable to that of
the teacher Training Institute graduates.

2. To qualify directors of government and
private schools in school administration by
means of a one-year course following the
Diploma of a Training Institute or CITTI.

3. To carry out any other tasks entrusted to it
by the Certification and Training Committee
of the Ministry of Education (p. 66).

Methods of teaching are varied in the Institute.
eminars, workshops, assignments and summer courses are
rganized with a particular emphasis on self-directed
earning. Guidance in practical teaching is emphasized
hrough visits by an individual tutor or by a tutor
ccompanied by specialists. During the two years of study
ach student may be. visited in his school on 12 separate
ccasions. Educational guidance is provided by an academic

utor who supervises 50-70 teachers, observing and guiding

hem in practical teaching, especially with the translation

 

 

 

52
of theoretical concepts into practical application (Goad,

1984, p. 68).

Thus, significant development occurs in expanding the
inservice education programs for teachers. First, there is
agreement between the Ministry of Education, the Ministry
of Higher Education and the colleges of education in the
local universities to accept each semester a number of
teachers holding the B.A., so these teachers may obtain
either a diploma or master’s degree in education. Second,
in 1988, two higher colleges for the certification of
teachers were established. One was located in Amman and
the other in Irbid. This opens the opportunity to teachers
who hold the associate’s degree to pursue their higher
education and obtain the B.A. in Education. All tuition
and expenses are paid by the government. This procedure is
emphasized by the Ministry of Education because there is a
need to qualify teachers and provide them with knowledge

and skill (Afif, 1989).

Figure 2.02 demonstrates the growth in numbers of

teachers in all stages in public schools.

One of the major concerns expressed by the educational
convention held at Amman in 1988 was the need for inservice

education for teachers on the job. This convention was

 

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42523
///

32947 ///

/// ///

26445 /// ///

/// /// ///

17529 /// /// ///

/// /// /// ///

10451 /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// /// /// /// ///
/// .L// /// 41/ Z//
1969/ 1974/ 1979/ 1984/ 1987/
1970 1975 1980 1985 -1988

Figure 2.02.--Growth in Number of Teachers in All Stages in
Public Schools

figgggg: Ministry of Education (1988). Education in Jordan,
(p. 16). Amman: Author.
held under the MOE’s auspices. Prince Hassan presided over

it (Al-Dastour, 1989).

The MOE tries to carry out the recommendations of the
convention. Therefore, it has designed the following
plan. First, teachers who hold the B.A. will be qualified
within 10-11 years (1987-1997) by dividing the teachers
into seven groups. Each group consists of 700 teachers who

will earn either a diploma or master’s degree in education

 

1997-1998 I
IlstIanI

1996-1997 I
|1st|2nd|

1994-1995 I 1995-1996 I
I1stI2ndI I1st|2nd|

1993-1994 I

|19t|2nd|

1992-1993 I
|13t|2nd|

1991-1992 I

|1stI2ndI

mmml
IIstIanI

1988-1989 I 1959-1990 I
|IstI2ndI

IlatIanI

1987-1988 I

listIanI

 

\ Veerl

 

[The \
Wyn" \ "‘

 

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

————————————-———-q--____—__ _I
————————————-——————-—————-—1— .-
_____———_———.———___—.__ __I _
___———_———————-———— -— —_——.fi
_-__-________ _J ______-__
——.——I—————I—I —— -————-————-———-—:I
-___1 -_ --——~-—--—-—--——I
- __ 7"‘7"'I“““‘7“‘I
.1 —:-1 ————————-—————————-———-—1
— .—.—I ————————————1———————

— _._ -*----—1—_-—-———---

_ -. ____--__----1-__.___-

 

 

 

 

._ ___-_.__.._.___..______J____

 

 

 

 

I __--__________-_--______I
1

__-——__—_-——-———-——-———I———-_.—————(

_._._.._._____.___.___I___..-___I____

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u L. I. L I. a I. a I. u L a I-
FQ N4: M0 ~00 Int: '09 he
_—__———_-—-————_—.——_—-———_——_

162.

The Ministry of Education, Risalat Al-Mu’llim, £20),

figure 2.03.-lnservlce Education Plan for Teachers Holding the Associate's Degree

‘Eech grow consists of 1,700 teachers.

Source

 

1997-1998 1

1995-1996 1 1996-1997 I
|1st|2nd|

1991-1992 I 1992-1993 I 1993-1994 I 1994-1995 I

1990-1991 1
|1nt|2nd|

1989- 1990 i

|1st|2nd|

1988-1989 ]

|1st|2nd|

1987-1988 1

 

\ Tearl

[The \
l r

|1§t|2nd| |Ist|2nd| |1$t|2nd| Im|2nd| |1st|2nd|

|1st|2nd|

Iist|2nd|

I I- I- In

In

. X I-

 

I----~__~-_---~--|

I

| 1st

l-----------_----l

I Grow

 

| Group

 

| 3rd

I Grow

 

| 4th

| Groq)

 

_—
_-—
—1_
_—
_—
--
—-
_I—
—
_—
_—
_—
_—
-—
-—
——
_—
_—
_—
—-I_
‘—
_—
_-
_—
q—
_—

| 5th

| Group

 

| 6th

l--------__--_--_-|

| Group

 

| 71h

| Groq:

 

'Each group consists of 700 teachers.

Figure 2.04.-lnservice Education Plan for Teachers Holding the Bachelor of Arts Degree

 

The Ministry of Education, Risalat Al-Mu'llim, £20), 162.

Source

 

 

 

from
assoc
will
to e

TheSI

topi
wen
and
and
rev
J01
thi

prI

56
from the local universities. Second, teachers who hold the
associate's degree are divided into seven groups. They
will be admitted into the Higher College for a certificate
to earn the B.A. Each group consists of 1,700 teachers.

These plans are clarified in the Figures 2.03 and 2.04.

SUMMARY

The review of the literature focused on four major
topics. First, the characteristics of the adult learner
were discussed. Second, definitions and assumptions of
andragogy were examined. Third, the definition, importance
and purpose of the inservice education programs were
reviewed. Finally, the history and practices of the
Jordanian inservice education programs were examined. In
the following chapter, the design and methodology of the

present study will be explained.

 

 

 

perc
supe
Mafr
proc
are
of
sel
des
tra

prc

CHAPTER III

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the
perceptions of teachers as adult learners and their
supervisors regarding inservice teacher education in the
Mafraq public school districts in Jordan. The methods and
procedures employed in conducting and analyzing the data
are described in this chapter. Included are descriptions
of the type of research, the target population and sample,
selection. Also the data collection instrument is
described in terms of its construction, validity,
translation, pilot testing as well as the data collection

procedures and the methods employed for data analysis.

T e of Research

Turney and Robb (1971) categorized descriptive research

in the following way.

Does the research deal with what it is? If it
does, then it is descriptive research.
Descriptive research is that process that is
concerned with characterizing the future of
situation, objectives, or practices. It allows
one to find out pertinent information about an
existing situation. Descriptive research usually
is thought of as an effort to determine current

57

 

 

pra
for
Isa
resear(
insteaI
relati
resear
attemp
and E

about

DIOCE

this

elem
511p!
LOCI

thi

58

practice or status so we may develop guidelines

for future practices (p. 8).

Isaac and Michael (1983) further describe descriptive '
research as an attempt to describe things as they are,
instead of trying to discover a cause and effect
relationship. The authors demonstrate that descriptive
research determines the facts of current situations and
attempts to clarify existing reality. According to Turney
and Robb (1971), descriptive research methods can tell us
about what presently exists. They note that:

One type of descriptive research is survey. The

survey is an attempt to analyze, interpret and

report the status of an institution, group, or
area in order to guide practice in the immediate

future (p. 63).

Survey research seems to be the most appropriate

procedure for exploring the problem being considered in

this study.

Population

The target population for this study consisted of
elementary, intermediate and secondary school teachers and
Supervisors in the Mafraq City School District (MCSD).
Located in northeastern Jordan, Mafraq District is Jordan's
third largest district. Its total population is believed

to exceed 100,000 people. It occupies one—quarter of

 

 

 

Jordan.
Affairs I

tribes lii

The 1
public 5

of these

Table 3.0

 

Level of
School

\

Elementa:
Intermed:
Secondarj
Total

\

Source:

Each
dePendir
Principe
1eVel.
report,

teacher:

 

 

59
Jordan. According to the Ministry of Municipal and Rural
Affairs (1987-1988), it is considered a center for the

tribes living in the area.

The Mafraq district school system has a total of 253
public schools in all three levels (cf., Table 3.01). Most
of these schools are in the rural areas.

Table 3.01.--Total Number of Schools and Jordanian
Teachers in the Mafraq School District

 

 

 

Male Female
Level of Number of Number of Number of Number of
School Schools Teachers Schools Teachers
Elementary 48 520 59 698
Intermediate 64 419 42 336
Secondary 18 208 22 207
Total 130 1147 123 1241

 

Source: Educational Statistics for Mafraq School District,
1988-1989, Department of Statistics: Educational
Directorate of Mafraq District: Mafraq, Jordan.

Each school has a principal. However, some schools,
depending on the size of the school have one assistant
principal. This is found especially at the secondary
level. According to the above-mentioned statistical

report, there are 20 academic supervisors serv1ng the

teachers of the district. Their offices are in the

 

 

 

 

directorati

supervisor:

Select
considered
two cruci
sample 5:
by the s

1979; SChi

To
researohe
Scheaffer
as "one
nonoverla
random 5
advantage
rePresem

Jacobs &

The
Office

The pa

Variable

 

60
directorate’s headquarters. Of the total number of

supervisors, 18 are male and two are female.

Sample Selection

Selecting an ideal sample of a certain population is
considered a difficult task (Borg & Gall, 1979). However,
two crucial factors identified as very important steps in
sample selection are the: (1) population’s representation
by the selected sample and (2) sample size (Borg & Gall,

1979; Scheaffer, et al, 1979).

To ensure both of these criteria were met, this
researcher used the stratified random sample technique.
Scheaffer, et a1 (1979) define a stratified random sample
as "one obtained by separating the population elements into
nonoverlapping groups, called strata, and then selecting a
random sample from each stratum" (p. 59). The major‘
advantage of stratified sampling is it guarantees
representation of defined groups in the population (Ary,

Jacobs & Razarieh, 1979)-

The sample was drawn from available lists in the main
office of the Mafraq District’s Department of Education.
The population of teachers was stratified by two

variables: gender and school level. Teachers were

classified
(2) fema
teachers,
secondary
Accordingl
and class
each cate
selected

schools :
and gendI
selected

number 0
females.

of teache

As
(1988-19;
has a (
female

School (1

 

61
classified into six strata: (1) male elementary teachers,
(2) female elementary teachers, (3) male intermediate
teachers, (4) female intermediate teachers, (5) male
secondary teachers and (6) female secondary teachers.
Accordingly, all teachers in the district were stratified
and classified into six categories as described above. In
each category, three schools from one level were randomly
selected for inclusion in the sample. The total number of
schools selected was 18, divided equally by school level
and gender. Then, every teacher in each of the randomly
selected schools was included in the sample. The total
number of teachers in all 18 schools was 320 males and
females. This total was determined to comprise the sample

of teachers.

Selection of Supervisors

As indicated by the latest statistical report
(1988-1989), the Mafraq District’s Educational Directorate
has a total of 20 supervisors--18 male supervisors and two
female supervisors. Because of the small number, all

school district supervisors were included in the study.

 

A que
study.
for colle

A).

Section Or

In t1
questions
data aboI

included:

 

62

The Research Instrument

A questionnaire was used to collect the data for this
study. Two sections were used in the primary instrument
for collecting data necessary for this study (cf., Appendix

A).

Section One

In this section of the instrument, a set of seven

questions was designed to collect demographic and personal

data about the respondents. The demographic variables
included:
1. Gender. Two categories were included: male and
female.
2. Age. This variable contained four categories:

(20-29), (30-39), (40-49) and (over 50) years.

3. Present responsibility. This variable contained

two categories: teacher and supervisor.

4. School level. This variable contained three
categories: elementary school, intermediate

school and secondary school.

 

 

 

 

Sectiw
In
construct
Purpose.
°f teaI

regardinq

The
instfume
requests

63

5. Experience in teaching. This variable contained
four categories: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and over 15
years.

6. Experience in supervision. This variable
contained four categories: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and

over 15 years.

7. Highest level of educational achievement
(degree). This variable contained five
categories: high school, teacher training

certificate, B.A., M.A. and other.

Section Two

In this section, . a 25-item questionnaire was
constructed to collect the desired data for the major
purpose' of this study: that is, to assess the perceptions
of teachers as adult learners and their supervisors

regarding inservice teacher education programs in Jordan.

The questionnaire was a slight modification of Minix’s
instrument (1981) (cf., Appendix A). The researcher
requested and received permission from Minix to use his

instrument in the present study (cf., Appendix B).

 

 

 

Minix ’ I
informatio
learning
andragogic

teachers 1

The I
were reqt
scales.
agreement
to the
ways: .‘
(A/D). D
scale wa
The resp
one of

Sometimes

Mini)
iIIstrumeI
The Con:
items 1;.
Knowles ’

The Van

Fer

deteI'mir

 

64
Minix’s instrument was developed to: (1) provide
information on teachers' perceptions of andragogical
learning approaches and (2) ascertain the extent to which
andragogical theory and process had been experienced by the

teachers in inservice education programs (Minix, 1981).

The respondents (teachers and supervisors separately)
were requested to respond to 25 items on two Likert-type
scales. The first scale was identified as the extent of
agreement scale. The respondents were requested to respond
to the items in this scale in one of the following five
ways: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Agree/Disagree
(A/D), Disagree (D) or Strongly Disagree (SD). The second
scale was identified as the frequency of occurrence scale.
The respondents were requested to respond to this scale in
one of the following ways: Always (A), Frequently (F),

Sometimes (S), Rarely (R) or Never (N).

Minix (1981) reported that the reliability of the
instrument, determined by the test-retest method, was .85.
The content validity was judged by submitting the selected
items to experts in the area of andragogy such as Malcolm
Knowles, Wayne James, Herschel Hardly and John Ingalls.

The validity was judged to be satisfactory.

For the purpose of this study, this researcher

determined that nine items were unrelated to the teaching

 

 

 

 

 

activitie:
Minix’ s
instrumen
statement
questionn
participa
grouped
commonali
However,
process

instrumex

Ofi

Six appr.

65
activities in Jordan. These nine items were deleted from
Minix’s original questionnaire. The final version of the
instrument used for this investigation consisted of 25
statement items which were randomly arranged on the
questionnaire to avoid creating a response set among
participants. The 25 items in the questionnaire were
grouped into six approaches or clusters according to their
commonality and the author’s logical interpretation.
However, the factor analysis technique was not used in this
process because it was previously utilized on the original

instrument.

Of the 25 statement items, 23 were related to one of

six approaches as follows.

1. The beliefs of a self-directed learner: five

items.

Item 3: I am capable of directing my own

professional development.

Item 4: Inservice programs should provide
options for teachers who do not want to

follow the planned program.

Item 5: Each teacher should be responsible for

his/her professional development.

 

 

 

Item

Item

The

8:

15:

 

66
Teachers should be allowed to set their

own goals at inservice programs.

I should be permitted to direct my own

learning experiences.

characteristics associated with

teacher-centered inservice programs: seven items.

Item

Item

Item

Item

The best inservice programs should help
me learn new processes for dealing with

my concerns.

Inservice settings should be scheduled

at convenient times for teachers.

Solving problems that are of interest to
the classroom teacher should be

emphasized at inservice meetings.

Teachers should group themselves
according to their interests and needs

at inservice meetings.

 

 

Item 23:

Item 24:

Item 25:

Improving

Item 13:

Item 14:

Item 16:

 

67
Inservice presenters should show
teachers that the teachers’ abilities
and experiences are valued and

respected.

Inservice presenters should take time to
develop a friendly and cooperative

atmosphere.

Cooperation among teachers at inservice
settings is an important aid to

learning.

teachers’ self-knowledge: four items

Inservice programs should help teachers

learn about themselves.

Theories presented at inservice programs
should be directly related to the

teachers’ personal experiences.

Self-evaluation should be an integral

part of inservice programs.

 

1k

Item 22:

 

68
Teachers should be encouraged to examine
their own feelings, attitudes and

behaviors in inservice programs.

Trust in the program purpose: three items.

Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 9:

A feeling of trust should exist between

inservice planners and teachers.

Teachers should be helped by inservice
programs to free themselves of patterns

of thought that block their growth.

Inservice programs should have a clear

purpose.

Small group work: two items.

Item 12:

Item 20:

I prefer working with small groups of

teachers, to listening to lectures.

Small groups should be created to solve

problems at inservice programs.

 

Two
scale w
teachers

adults.

Res}
the d
Program
five p

agreeme

 

69
6. The teachers’ desire to have teacher-initiated

inservice programs: two items.

Item 1: Teachers should be permitted to design

their own inservice programs.

Item 2: The experiences of the teachers taking
part in an inservice program should be

utilized as sources of information.

Two of the items which were not part of the andragogy
scale were designed to ascertain the extent to which
teachers felt they were treated as professionals and

adults.

Item 10: Teachers should be treated as adults at

inservice programs.

Item 11: Teachers should be treated as

professionals at inservice programs.

Respondents to the questionnaire were asked to indicate
the degree of needs for inservice teacher education
PrOgrams in the specified areas on a Likert—type scale of
five points (1-5). I The responses for the extent of

agreement scale were given the following values: Strongly

agree=1 ,

Disagree=
were 1
Sometimes
the tea<
perceptic
the supe

perceptii

Mosh
ability
out to
research
with 9
research
content
ludgemer

°f indge

The
Validitj
MichigaI
Validit
Provide

graduat

 

70
agree=1, Agree=2, Agree/Disagree=3, Disagree=4and Strongly
Disagree=5. The data for the frequency of occurrence scale
were rated 'as follows: Always=1, Frequently=2,
Sometimes=3, Seldom=4 and Never=5. 0n the questionnaire,
the teachers were instructed to respond according to their
perceptions of their own personal-professional needs while
the supervisors were asked to respond according to their

perceptions of inservice education needs among teachers.

Questionnaipe Validity

Mosher and Kalton (1972) defined validity as ". . . the
ability of the survey instrument to measure what it sets
out to measure" (p. 356). Furthermore, they believe that a
researcher and/or a team of workers in a particular area
with enough knowledge can judge the validity of the
research instrument. They stated: "the assessment of
content validity is essentially a matter of judgement; the
judgement may be made by the surveyor or, better, by a team

of judges engaged for the purpose (p. 356).

The researcher conducted a study of the face/content
validity of the English version of the questionnaire at
Michigan State University. In terms of the overall content
validity and clarity of the items, the questionnaire was
provided for review to four Jordanian and Saudi Arabian

graduate (Ph.D.) students at Michigan State University’s

College I
consultan‘
Education
suggestio
modified

superviso

The
from E1
language.
translatv
with ex.

I the ins
The tra
instruct
Universi
Slavic,
This p1

cOrtlpatik

Fox

(1) ts:

 

 

71
College of Education. For the same purpose, a research
consultant at Michigan State University’s College of
Education reviewed the questionnaire. Based on their
suggestions and comments, the words in some items were
modified to adapt to the culture of Jordanian teachers and

supervisors.

Translation of the Questionnaire

The researcher initially translated the questionnaire
from English into Arabic, the respondents’ native
language. The back translation method was used to
translate the questionnaire. ‘Two native speakers of Arabic
with excellent command of English independently translated
the instrument into Arabic and then into English again.
The translated instrument in Arabic was reviewed by the
instructor of Arabic language in Michigan State
University’s Department of Linguistics and Germanic,
Slavic, Asian and African Languages (cf., Appendix B).
This procedure was employed to ensure the instrument was

compatible in Arabic and English.

Pilot Testing of the Instrument

Fox (1969) identified the purposes of a pilot test as:

(1) testing of the collection instrument for revisions and

(2) Pr

reliabili

The
Arab doc
pilot te
However,
sample 1‘
the que
informat:
interpre‘
Based o:
as well
it was
intended
the con
results,
arrangen
r(EVisioI
Student:
(Elastic)
difficuj
that t
1ehath

15-25 m

 

72

(2) providing data to estimate the instrument’s

reliability.

The instrument was administered to a sample group of 25
Arab doctoral students at Michigan State University. This
pilot test sample was not part of the study’s sample.
However, they were essentially similar in culture to the
sample in Jordan. This test was conducted to determine if
the questionnaire items were yielding the kind of
information needed. No important differences in the
interpretations of the meaning of items were reported.
Based on the data from direct responses to the instrument,
as well as written and verbal comments by the respondents,
it was determined that the items were interpreted as
intended. This established reasonable validity regarding
the construction of the items. On the basis of pilot test
results, some minor revisions in wording and in item
arrangement were made to the instrument. After these minor
revisions were made, the researcher gave three doctoral
students at Michigan State University the revised Arabic
questionnaire and requested them to identify confusing or
difficult items. The results of the responses indicated
that the questionnaire items were clear. The average
length of time it took to complete the questionnaire was

15-25 minutes.

 

 

 

The
proposal
Committee
provided
review t
study.

for this

A p;
letter
informat
Mafraq
academic
Jordania
Conduct
the Mix
EducatiI
the De]
DUblic

directi

The
letters
S°h°ols

particj

73

Data Collection Procedures

The researcher’s doctoral committee approved the
proposal of this study in May, 1989. The University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) was
provided with two copies of the proposal and asked to
review the material and grant approval to conduct the
study. That approval was granted (cf., Appendix B). Data

for this study were collected during May and June, 1989.

A packet containing the survey instrument and a cover
letter with all the information to obtain the needed
information was mailed to the Assistant Director of the
Mafraq District Department of Education. The researcher's
academic advisor sent an explanatory letter to the
Jordanian Minister of Education to obtain permission to
conduct the study (cf., Appendix B). With the approval of
the Minister of Education, a directive from the Ministry of
Education was forwarded to the Mafraq District Director of
the Department of Education to conduct the study in the
public school. (A copy of the Ministry of Education’s

directive is in Appendix B).

The Director of the Department of Education issued
letters to the principals of the stratified random sample
schools included in the study to allow teachers to

participate in the study (cf., Appendix B). After the

 

 

teachers
brought

Departmei
directly
Educatio
They we

of the A

The
copies,
responds
teachers
95 qu.
questiOI

TUestio

All
The co
urged
laccurat

anonij

FUJ
resPODI
baSis

 

 

 

74
teachers completed the questionnaire, each principal
brought back the questionnaires to the main office of the
Department of Education. The supervisors were contacted
directly by the Assistant Director of the Department of
Education in their offices at the Department of Education.
They were asked to bring the questionnaires to the Office

of the Assistant Director.

The total number of distributed questionnaires was 320
-copies, divided between the potential two groups of
respondents in the following manner: 300 questionnaires to
teachers, 125 questionnaires to elementary school teachers,
95 questionnaires to intermediate school teachers, 80
questionnaires to secondary school teachers and 20

questionnaires to supervisors.

All questionnaires were accompanied by a cover letter.
The cover letter explained the purpose of the research,
urged the participants to respond to all items as
'accurately and truthfully as possible and assured the

anonymity of respondents.

Furthermore, the letter informed the participants/
respondents that their participation was on a voluntary
basis and that their return of the completed questionnaire

would be considered consent to participate.

 

 

Each
by inst
explaini
The ov
81.25%.
distribu

response

Table 3.

Role GrI

\

Teacher
Supervi

Total

\

One
and p,
pr°9rar
J“Gan:
of Ed
United

°r9ani

 

 

75
Each of the questionnaire’s two sections was introduced
by instructions to each of the two groups of respondents
explaining how responses to each item should be recorded.
The overall percentage of usable returned forms was
81.25%. Table 3.02 indicates the number of questionnaires

distributed to the sample and number of completed

responses.

Table 3.02.--Number of Questionnaires Distributed to the
Sample and Number of Completed Responses

 

 

Number of Number of Percentage of
Role Group . Sample Responses Responses
Teachers 300 240 80.00%
Supervisors 20 20 100.00
Total 320 260 81.25%

 

Descriptive Data

One purpose of this study was to describe the history
and practices of the present Jordanian inservice education
programs. Data for this purpose was collected from
Jordanian and international agencies such as the Ministries
of Education, Higher Education and Planning, as well as the
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO). Although all of these agencies and

 

 

 

institut
scarce.
concerni

educatio

Ther
Chapter
literate
the res

the Maf]

The
(SPSS-X
used 1
study.
incorpc
the fc
descri;
(ANOVA)
Signif:
the a1

certai}

Da

Was b

 

76
institutions were contacted, information on the subject was
scarce. Only a few written documents (records and papers
concerning the 'historical development of -inservice

education programs and practices) were obtained.

Therefore, although the descriptive section in
Chapter II of this study was based on the available
literature, most of it was based on correspondence between
the researcher and the Jordanian Ministry of Education and

the Mafraq District Department of Education.

Treatment and Analysis of the Data

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS-X) available in the MSU IBM Mainframe computer was
used in the computation and analysis of data for this
study. The analysis of data from the questionnaire
incorporated the use of simple descriptive statistics in
the form of counts, percentages and ranks. In addition to

descriptive statistics, a one-way Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) was used to determine whether or not there exists
Significant differences in teachers’ perceptions regarding

the andragogical learning approaches between and among

certain demographic variable levels.
research questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6

Data analysis for

was based on the aggregate mean ratings for the teachers’

 

and Eu
learning
response
items w
actual

disagree
questior
items I
or n01
profess:
Statist.
data f

below.

0n
(1) A
the s
the
teache

aPPI‘Oa

 

77
and supervisors’ perceptions on the six andragogical
learning approaches. The mean ratings were based on the
responses to the five-point, ordinal Likert-type scale
items which ranged from (1) Always to (5) Never for the
actual practice and (1) Strongly agree to (5) Strongly
disagree for the expected practice. Analysis of research
question 5 utilized the teachers’ responses to the two
items which provided the teachers’ perceptions on whether
or not teachers should be treated as adults and
professionals at the inservice teacher education programs.
Statistical tools used in the presentation and analysis of
data for each of the six research questions are given

below.

Question 1: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in Jordan as
perceived by elementary, intermediate and

secondary school teachers?

On a five-point ordinal Likert—type scale ranging from
(1) Always to (5) Never, means and standard deviations for
the six andragogical learning approaches were computed for
the elementary, intermediate and secondary school

teachers. The extent to which the andragogical learning

approaches are being practiced in the inservice teacher

educatio

using th

9393

Mea
respons
COmpute
the sj
determj
aPProac
educati
eValuai

giVen :

m

 

 

78
education programs as perceived by teachers was evaluated

using the interpretation of the mean ratings given by,

1.00 - 1.99: Always
2.00 - 2.99: Frequently
3.00 - 3.99: Sometimes

4.00 - 5.00: Rarely or Never

Question 2: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in Jordan as

perceived by supervisors?

Means and standard deviations for the supervisors’
responses on the five-point ordinal Likert-type scale were
computed. Based on the aggregate mean ratings for each of
the six andragogical learning approaches, ranks were also
determined. The extent to which the andragogical learning
approaches are being practiced in the inservice teacher
education programs as perceived by supervisors was
evaluated using the interpretation of the mean ratings as

given in research question 1.

Question 3: To what extent are andragogical

approaches preferred in the inservice

education programs in Jordan as

 

 

 

0n
(1) Str
standard
approach
and sec
andragog
inservic
teacher:

ratings

resDon

°°mput
the s

 

79
perceived by elementary, intermediate and

secondary school teachers?

On a five-point ordinal Likert-type scale ranging from
(1) Strongly agree to (5) Strongly disagree, means and
standard deviations for the six andragogical learning
approaches were computed for the elementary, intermediate
and secondary school teachers. The extent to which the
andragogical learning approaches are preferred in the
inservice teacher education programs as perceived by
teachers was evaluated using the interpretation of the mean

ratings given by,

1.00 - 1.99: Highly preferred (strongly agree)
2.00 - 2.99: Preferred (agree)
3.00 - 3.99: Neutral (agree/disagree)

4.00 - 5.00: Not preferred (disagree/strongly disagree)

Question 4: To what extent are andragogical
approaches preferred in the inservice
education programs in Jordan as perceived

by supervisors?

Means and standard deviations for the supervisors'
responses on the five-point ordinal Likert-type scale were
computed. Based on the aggregate mean ratings for each of

the six andragogical learning approaches, ranks were also

 

determir
approacl
programs
the i1

researc]

Two
the in
should
educati
questic
Likert-
(5) St]
(1) A:
Utiliz
each
treate
exPect

Percen

80
determined. The extent to which the andragogical learning
approaches are preferred in the inservice teacher education
programs as perceived by supervisors was evaluated using
the interpretations of the mean ratings as given in

research question 3.

Question 5: To what extent do teachers feel they are
treated as professional adults in the

inservice programs in Jordan?

Two items (1) Teachers should be treated as adults at
the inservice teacher education programs and (2) Teachers
should be treated as professionals at the inservice teacher
education programs were used in addressing research
question 5. For the expected and actual treatment, a
Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly agree to
(5) Strongly disagree for the expected treatment and
(1) Always to (5) Never for the actual treatment were
utilized. Frequencies and percentages were computed for
each response level. The extent to which teachers are
treated as adults and professionals together with the
expected treatment were evaluated using the frequencies and
percentages.

Questipp_§: What is the relationship of selected
personal and demographic variables such

as gender, age, school level, level of

 

 

 

Base
percept:
approac
program
utilize
signifi
between
small
tests
statist
among
and 51
differ:

among '

Th
analyz
tarest

its

 

81
education and years of experience on the
perceptions of all teachers and
supervisors regarding andragogical
learning approaches in the inservice

education programs in Jordan?

Based on the aggregate mean responses for the teachers’
perceptions on the extent to which andragogical learning
,approaches are preferred in the inservice teacher education
programs,‘ a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was
utilized to determine whether or not there exist
significant differences in teachers’ perceptions among and
between levels of these demographic variables. Due to the
small number of supervisors in the study, no statistical
tests were performed to determine whether or not
statistically significant differences exist between and
among these demographic variable levels. However, means
and standard deviations were used to indicate whether
differences exist in supervisors’ perceptions between and

among these demographic variable levels.
SUMMARY

The methods and procedures used in conducting and
analyzing the data were explained in this chapter. The
target population of the study, the research instrument and

its validity, translation and pilot testing were

describe
analysis
data a1

Chapter

 

82
described. Data collection procedures and statistical
analysis methods were also described. The results of the
data analysis performed in this study will be reported in

Chapter IV.

 

The
percept
supervi
in Jor
answers
In thj
Presen1
the n
their
gender
second
(Super
second
Percep
Practj
sectic
conce1
inSen

findi1

 

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
lutrgdugtien

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the
perceptions of teachers as adult learners and their
supervisors regarding inservice teacher education programs
in Jordan. The study was conducted to provide tentative
answers for the research questions presented in Chapter I.
In this chapter, findings related to these questions are
presented in five sections. The first section describes
the respondents who participated in the study in terms of
their distribution among the demographic variables:
gender, age, school level (elementary, intermediate or
secondary) in which teachers work, years of teaching
(supervisory) experience and level of education. The
second section reports findings regarding respondents’
perceptions concerning andragogical approaches being
practiced in the inservice education programs. The third
section reports findings regarding respondents’ perceptions
concerning andragogical approaches preferred in the
inservice education programs. The fourth section reports
findings regarding respondents’ perceptions concerning

83

treatme
inservi‘
relatio
andrago

will be

A
which
SUpervi
study,
female:
in th;

female

Th
study
Of th
Years.
age 9

~239 t
Were
°1der.

145 ((

 

84
treatment of teachers as professionals and adults in the
inservice teacher education programs. Findings for the
relationship between respondents’ perceptions regarding
andragogical approaches and certain demographic variables

will be presented in section five.

Analysis of Respondent’s Information for
Teachers and Supervisors

A total of 260 educators were involved in this study of
which 240 (or 92%) were teachers while 20 (or 8%) were
supervisors. Of the 240 teachers who participated in this
study, 146 (or 61%) were males and 94 (or 49%) were
females. 0n the other hand, of the 20 supervisors involved

in this study, 18 (or 90%) were males while 2 (or 10%) were

females.

The majority of the teachers who participated in this
study were between the ages of 30 and 39 years while most
of the supervisors were between the ages of 40 and 49
years. Table 4.01 shows the distribution of teachers by
age groups and gender. Table 4.01 indicates that of the
_ 239 total teachers who indicated their age, 154 (or 64.1%)
were 39 years or younger and 85 (or 35.9%) were 40 years or
older. Among the teachers who were involved in this study,

145 (or 60.7%) were males and 94 (or 39.3%) were females.

 

Table 4

Age Gr

20 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 4E
50 and

 

Total

 

Ta]
group
the m
majori
seems
Out c

(or 7c

Table

Age:

20 -
30 -
40 -
50 an

Total

 

85

Table 4.01.--Distribution of Teachers by
Age Group and Gender

 

 

 

Female Male _ Total

Age Group No. % No. % No. %
20 - 29 27 61.4 17 38.6 44 18.3
30 - 39 51 46.4 59 53.6 110 45.8
40 - 49 14 18.9 60 81.1 74 30.8
50 and over 2 18.2 9 81.8 11 5.1
Total 94 39.3 145 60.7 239 100.0

 

Table 4.02 shows the distribution of supervisors by age
group and gender. From this table, it is clear that while
the majority of the teachers are below 40 years old, the
majority of the supervisors are above 40 Years old. It
seems that female teachers are younger than male teachers.
Out of 20 supervisors who were involved in this study, 14

(or 70%) were 40 or more years old while six (or 30%) were

Table 4.02.--Distribution of Supervisors by
Age Group and Gender

 

 

Female Male Total
Age Group No. % No. % No. %
20 - 29 1 -100.0 — - 1 5.0
30 - 39 1 20.0 4 80.0 5 25.0
40 - 49 - - 11 100.0 11 55.0
50 and over - — 3 100.0 3 15.0

 

Total 2 10.0 18 90.0 20 100.0

 

 

no mo:
of the
20 to1

(or 9w

Th¢
ranges
the d
experi
that
teachi
‘ 3.4%)
the 2

41.7%)

Table

E¥per
my

1- 5
6-10
11-15
OVer
No Re

T°ta1

 

.86

no .more than 40 years old. Like the teachers, the majority

of the respondents among the supervisors were male. 0f the

20 total supervisors only 2 (or 10%) were females, while 18

(or 90%) were males.

The level of teaching experience among the respondents

ranges from

one year to over 15 years. Table 4.03 shows

the distribution of teachers by number of years in teaching

experience and school level. From Table 4.03, it is clear

that the majority of the respondents have been in the

teaching profession for six to 15 years, while only'zo (or

8.4%) have been

in the profession for over 15 years. Of
the 240 teachers who participated in this study, 100 (or

41.7%) were elementary school teachers, 80 (or 33.7%)

Table 4.03.--Distribution of Teachers by
School Level and Teaching Experience

 

 

 

 

Elementary Intermediate Secondary
Schools Schools Schools All ,

Experience

in Years N % N % N % N %

1- 5 19 43.2 11 25.0 14 31.8 44 18.5

6-10 38 40.4 26 27.7 30 31.9 94 39.5
11-15 38 47.5 32 40.0 10 12.5 80 33.6
Over 15 4 20.0 11 55.0 5 25.0 20 8.4
No Response 1 50.0 - - ,1 50.0 2
Total 100 41.7 80 33.7 60 25.6 240 100.0

 

 

87
were intermediate school teachers and 60 (or 25.6%) were
secondary school teachers. Overall, 138 (or 58%) of the
teachers indicated that they have been in the profession
for no more than 10 years while 80 (or 33.6%) have been in

the profession for 11 to 15 years and 20 (or 8.4%) have

been teaching for over 15 years.

Respondents were asked to indicate their highest level
of formal education. Table 4.04 presents the distribution
of teachers by the highest level of education attained.
From Table 4.04 it is shown that out of 240 teachers, 137
(or 57.1%) indicated that they did not attain the

bachelor’s degree, although 129 of them were trained

Table 4.04.—-Distribution of Teachers by
Highest Education Level Attained

 

 

 

Level of Education Number Percentage
High School 8 3.3
Trained Teachers 129 53.8
Bachelor of Arts Degree 100 41.7
Master’s Degree 3 1.2
Total ' 240 100.0

 

teachers. Among 103 (or 42.9%) who had the bachelor’s or a
higher degree, 100 (or 41.7%) had the bachelor’s degree,

while three (or 1.2%) had master’s degrees.

 

88
Table 4.05 presents the distribution of supervisors by

education level and years of supervisory experience.

Table 4.05.--Distribution of Supervisors by
Education Level and Years of
Supervisory Experience

 

 

 

 

Bachelor’s Master’s
Degree Degree All

Experience .

in Years N % N % N %

6—10 5 62.5 3 37.5 8 42.1
11-15 5 71.4 2 28.6 7 36.8
Over 15 1 25.0 3 75.0 4 21.1
No Response - - 1 100.0 1 5.0
Total 11 55.0 9 45.0 20 100.0

 

From Table 4.05, it is shown that, of the total of 20
supervisors who participated in this study, 11 (or 55%) had
the bachelor’s degree, while 9 (or 45%) had master’s
degrees. The level of experience for the supervisors
ranges from six to over 15 years with 15 (or 78.9%) who
have been in the profession for between six and 15 years.
Only -four (or 21.1%) of the supervisors had more than 15

years of supervisory experience.

 

89

Presentation of Research Findings

The research findings in relation to the six research
questions are presented in the remaining part of this
chapter. Each research question will be restated followed
by a presentation of the research findings in connection

with the research question.

Teachers’ Perceptions Concerning Andragogical
Approaches Being Practiced in the
Inservice Education Programs

Research Question 1: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by-elementary,
intermediate and secondary school
teachers?

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they
perceive the andragogical approaches as being practiced in
the teachers’ inservice education programs in Jordan. On a
five-point Likert—type scale, ranging from (1) Always to
(5) Never, means and standard deviations for the six
andragogical learning approaches were computed for the
elementary, intermediate and secondary school teachers.
(For the number and percentage of responses to each item
level, see Appendix C.) Data analysis for Research

Question 1 was then based on these aggregate mean ratings

0f the teachers' perceptions on each ‘of the six

90
andragogical learning approaches. Separate mean ratings
were also computed for teachers at each of the three school
levels. The mean score for all andragogical approaches was
on a continuum, ranging from the minimum 1.00 to the
maximum 4.119. The fact that no mean near 5.00 was
observed implies that most respondents did not select the
"never" category. As a result, the following four
categories of the mean ratings were adopted throughout the

research:

1.00 - 1.99 : Always
2.00 — 2.99 : Frequently
3.00 - 3.99 : Sometimes

4.00 - 5.00 Rarely or Never

Table 4.06 shows the means and standard deviations for
the six andragogical learning approaches for each of the
three levels of school teachers. As shown in Table 4.06,
the means for the six andragogical learning approaches
range from 3.634 to 4.074. The andragogical approaches
Of: A Self-Directed Learner (mean=3.979), Improving
Teachers! Self-Knowledge (mean-3.982), Trust in the
Program Purpose (mean=3.979) and Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs (mean=3.634) were perceived as being
practiced sometimes. However, the andragogical learning
approaches of Teacher-Centered Inservice Programs
(mean=4.048) and Small Group Work (mean=4.074) were
perceived as rarely or never practiced in the teachers'

inservice education programs.

91

 

 

 

omm.m mmm . mm ow oo_ __etm>o
.iIII:IIIIatIIIrurIIIIIIlellllnallilulrurnll:iI:II.III.

828.8 eme.m mmm woa.o Hem.m mm mam.o 8mm.m om lim.o mlm.m eon msmtmora au_>lwm-=_
emsals_=_-lm;uaae

fimm.o v~o.v Nmm mmo.o mmw.¢ om oom.o w-.v mm mmv.o omm.m mm xroz azotm —_wEm

omm.o mkm.m ovw avm.o ~_o.v ow ¢_m.o woo.¢ ow mmm.o mmm.m oofi omoatsa Sonnets
oz» :_ umsap

omv.o Nwm.m mmm mfio.o Lam.m om ~m¢.o coo.v a“ Nov.o mwm.m cog coco—zocx-c_mm
.mtosowou m:_>otqe~

mov.o wvo.v mmw wmm.o moo.v ow omm.o m-.v an «Km.o m_o.v oo~ anemone oo_>gwm-:_
vwgwbcmolsocomop

mme.c mam.m wmm wle.o omo.e mm Noe.o ooo.e om, mom.o alw.m mm recrea—
emsoma_e-t_am a

 

 

 

 

will!

 

 

 

om came. 2 cm cows 2 cm came 2 cm cows 2
whosomob memzocou mthomou mamzommu
__< xtoucoomm oum_omsaooc_ Accucosm_w touomc _mo_momMLu:<

 

 

 

_o>o4 Foocom >6 mocomoaaq< acwctmom Fmoemommtuc< co cowboata .
Fmsuo< one mcwcammom mcoeoaootoa .maocomwe co meowum_>oo otmocmum new memos--.oo w o_ame

92

Although there was a general agreement among all
teachers at ‘ all levels that andragogical learning
approaches are not practiced frequently in the Jordanian
teachers’ inservice education programs, elementary school
teachers perceive all of the approaches as being practiced
sometimes with the exception of Teacher-Centered
Inservice Programs (mean=4.019) which they perceived as
being rarely or never practiced in the teachers’ inservice
education programs. On the other hand, intermediate school
teachers perceived all of the approaches as being rarely or
never practiced with the exception of Teacher- Initiated
Inservice Programs (mean=3.556) which was perceived. as
practiced sometimes. However, there was general agreement
between intermediate and secondary school teachers on the
four andragogical approaches: A Self- Directed Learner
(mean=4.066, 4.030), Teacher-Centered Inservice
Programs (mean=4.119, 4.005), Trust in the Program
Purpose (mean=4.008, 4.011) and Small Group Work

(mean=4.114, 4.223) which they perceived as being rarely or

never practiced. The only andragogical approach on which
all the three groups of teachers agreed was
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs (mean=3.515,
3.556, 3.941) which was perceived as being practiced

sometimes.

93

Supervisors’ Perceptions Concerning
Andragogical Approaches Being Practiced in the
Inservice Education Programs

Research Question 2: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived ‘by
supervisors?

Supervisors were asked to rate the extent to which they
perceive andragogical approaches are being practiced in the
inservice education programs in Jordan. As with the
teachers, means and standard deviations for the
supervisors’ responses on a five-point Likert-type scale

were computed. (For the number and percentage of

respondents’ responses to each item level, see Appendix C.)

Table 4.07 shows the aggregate means, standard
deviations and ranks for the six andragogical learning

approaches as perceived by supervisors.

Unlike the teachers’ responses, none of the six
andragogical learning approaches were perceived by
supervisors as rarely or never practiced in the inservice
teacher education programs. The mean rating for these
approaches ranged from 3.25 to 3.60. Though the mean
rating for the supervisors was generally lower than that of
the teachers, supervisors like teachers did not perceive
any of the andragogical learning approaches to be practiced

always or frequently. The highest ranked andragogical

 

94
learning approach was Trust in the Program Purpose
(mean=3.25, rank=1) followed by Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs (mean=3.300, rank=2) while the least
ranked andragogical learning approach was
Teacher-Centered Inservice Programs (mean=3.60, rank=6)
and Small Group Work (mean=3.526, rank=5). The

andragogical learning approach, A Self-Directed Learner

Table 4.07.--Number, Means, Standard Deviation and Ranks
for the Supervisors’ Perceptions on the
Practice of Andragogical Approaches

 

 

 

Andragogical Approach N Mean S.D. Rank

A self-directed learner 19 3.461 0.535 3

Teacher-centered

inservice programs 20 3.600 0.604 6

Improving teachers’

self-knowledge 20 3.488 0.599 4

Trust in the program

purpose 20 3.250 0.506 1

Small group work 19 3.526 0.634 5

Teacher-initiated

inservice programs 20 3.300 0.657 2
All ' 3.437 0.540

 

Note: The mean ratings were interpreted as follows:

 

1.00 - 1.99 : Always
2.00 - 2.99 : Frequently
3.00 - 3.99 : Sometimes

4.00 - 5.00 Rarely or never

 

95
(mean=3.46l) and Improving Teacher Self-Knowledge

(mean=3.488) were ranked 3 and 4 respectively.

Teachers’ Perceptions Concerning Andragogical
Approaches as Being Preferred in the
Inservice Education Programs

Research Question 3: To what extent are andragogical
approaches ‘ preferred in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by elementary,
intermediate and secondary school
teachers?

Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions
according to how andragogical learning approaches should be
practiced. In a Likert-type scale, (1) strongly agree,
(2) agree, (3) agree/disagree, (4) disagree, (5) strongly
disagree, the mean responses were computed on all the six
andragogical learning approaches. (For the number and
percentage of respondents to each item level, see Appendix
C.) These measures being an ordinal Likert-type scale, a
high mean rating near 5.00 will indicate that the approach
is not preferred and should not be practiced while a low
mean rating near 1.00 will indicate that the andragogical

approach is highly preferred and should be practiced.

Specifically, the mean ratings for Research Question 3 were

interpreted as follows:

. 96

1.00 - 1.99 : highly preferred (strongly agree)
2.00 - 2.99 : preferred (agree)

3.00 - 3.99 : neutral (agree/disagree)

4.00 - 5.00 : not preferred (disagree/strongly

disagree)

Table 4.08 shows the mean ratings and standard devia-
tions for elementary, intermediate and secondary school
teachers for the six andragogical learning approaches.
From Table 4.08, it is clear that all six andragogical
learning approaches were rated as being highly preferred by
elementary, intermediate and secondary school teachers.
Overall, the mean ratings for the six andragogical
approaches ranged from 1.179 to 1.689. The highest ranked
(or most preferred) andragogical learning approaches were
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs‘ (mean=1.179)
followed by Small Group Work (mean=1.599) while the
least ranked though still preferred were Improving
Teacher Self-Knowledge (mean=1.689) and
Teacher-Centered Inservice Programs (mean=1.645). The
andragogical learning approach which was perceived to be
highly preferred, by all elementary, intermediate and

secondary school teachers was Teacher-Initiated Inservice

Programs (mean=1.070, 1.138, 1.417). Overall, all the

andragogical learning approaches were perceived as highly

preferred with an aggregate mean of 1.556. However, the

overall mean among elementary school teachers was the

 

97

wormem_o x_m:oaum so mohmcmwo - o

moammm_o\moto< . m
.. moam< . m
moron Spacerumu am.“

I
O
O
m

.m
.m
.N

I I
CO
CO
v—tN

mac—.6» we submaatoucp ohm mm:_umr :moz

 

 

 

 

“muoz
8mm.a omm Nme.l am mmm.~ om elm._ col __elm>o
Immm.o SNH.H Sew mom.o are.l o8 mNN.o mm_.~ om eal.o cao.l col emsm_a_=_-lm;omme
omee.o mam.L emu cmm.c oma.l mm eme.o amm.~ ea me.o oem.l col Lao: aaoam __msm
Nmmm.o 228.2 emm mos.c moe._ am mam.o mme.a on aim.o Nam.l col mmoarza actuate
8:8 =_ aware
_mm.o mme.~ amm eee.o mma.l mm emm.o 088.2 ma mmm.o cae.~ oer maem.zo=x-tpmm
.mgmgowmu m:_>oaas_
oom.o mee.L mmm omm.o ome.l am eem.o mam.l an oom.o one.l col Enamels mo_>aom-=_
oormbcoo-ao;omoe
amm.o «_S.H mmm mme.o ema.l mm Nam.o ooe.~ om emm.o Nem.l col emerge.
emsomace-t_mm a
U . m cum... 2 U . m cum... 2 U . m com... 2 _u . m :92: z

who—Emma mnmgowmu mngummu mgmcocmu

__< xamocooom oum_omstou:~ xenocmso_m aouomc pmo_mommao:<

 

_w>o4 _oozom an monocotaa< _mowmommao:< to

mocoemaota on» :o meowuamotoa .mtosoooe on» row mco_um_>mo ohmocmum use memos--.mo.q o_omh

 

98

lowest (1.516) followed by the intermediate school teachers

(mean=1.535) and the mean for the secondary school teachers

was the highest (mean=1.652).

Supervisor’s Perceptions Concerning Andragogical
Approaches as Being Preferred in the
Inservice Education Programs

Research Question 4:

Supervisors were
regarding the extent
approaches should be

education programs. In

To what extent are 'andragogical
approaches preferred in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by supervisors?
asked to rate their perceptions
to which the andragogical learning

practiced in the inservice teacher

an ordinal Likert-type scale,

(1) Most preferred (strongly agree)

(2) Preferred (agree)

(3) Neutral (agree/disagree) .

(4) Not preferred (disagree/strongly disagree)

means and standard deviations were computed on all the six

andragogical learning approaches. (For the number and

percentage of respondents to each item level, see Appendix

C.) The mean ratings were interpreted as in Research

Question 3. Table 4.09 shows the means, standard

deviations and ranks of the six andragogical learning

approaches as perceived by supervisors.

 

99

Table 4.09.--Number, Means, Standard Deviation and Ranks
for the Supervisors’ Perceptions on the
Preference of Andragogical Approaches

 

 

 

Andragogical Approach N Mean S.D. Rank

A self-directed learner 20 1.500 0.340 4

Teacher-centered

inservice programs 20 1.557 0.258 5

Improving teachers’

self-knowledge 20 1.775 0.343 6

Trust in the program

purpose 20 1.483 0.315 3

Small group work 20 1.475 0.302 2

Teacher-initiated

inservice programs 20 1.000 0.000 1
All 1.465 0.260

 

Note: The mean ratings were interpreted as follows:

 

Most preferred (strongly agree)

Preferred (agree)

Neutral (agree/disagree) .

Not preferred (disagree/strongly disagree)

1.00 - 1.99
2.00 - 2.99
3.00 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.00

As shown in Table 4.09, as with the teachers, the

supervisors considered Teacher-Initiated Inservice

Program (mean=1.000) to be highly preferred and, thus,

should be practiced. Mean ratings and ranks for the other

andragogical learning approaches are as follows: Small

Group work (mean=1.475, rank=2), Trust in the Program

Purpose (mean=1.483, rank=3) and Self-Directed

Learner (mean=1.500, rank=4), Teacher-Centered

100
Inservice Programs (mean=1.557, rank=5) and Improving

Teachers’ Self-Knowledge (mean=1.775, rank=6).

Respondents’ Perceptions Concerning
Treatment of Teachers as Professionals and Adults

Research Question 5: To what extent do teachers feel
they are treated as professional
adults in the inservice programs in
Jordan?

Teachers were asked to rate their perceptions on the
items: (a) Teachers should be treated {as adults at
inservice programs and (b) Teachers should be treated as
professionals at inservice programs. For the expected
practice, a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly
agree to (5) Strongly disagree, frequencies and percentages
were computed for each level of response. Similarly, for
the actual practice, a Likert-type scale ranging from

(1) Always to (5) Never, frequencies and percentages were

computed for each level of response.

Table 4.10 shows the frequencies and percentage for
each of the response levels on whether teachers are (or
should be) treated as adults at inservice teacher education

programs.

As shown in Table 4.10, there is a general feeling

among the teachers that they are not treated as they expect

 

101

 

 

 

 

 

uo>oz Hz oouwmmwc hawcouum ”om
haoumm ”M oouwmmwo ”a
moEHuoEom ”m oouwomwc\oouw< ”o-<_
Saccosconm Hm oouw< ”a
mxoza< ”d oouwm zamsouum ”4m
.a
Do... . mom; :3:
m.wm mo 2 - - am
~.Hm mma m - - a
¢.om as m H.NH mm . a-<
H.N m m H.om emH <
- - < w.~m om cm mamaowmmowoum m<
mnm.m c-.~ coo:
o.oH oo 2 - - am
N.om Nod m - - a
N.¢H we m m 0H mN o-<
o.m NH m o.om oma c
- - < m.mm om 4m muasc< m<
N z Ho>oq u z Ho>oq uCoEumoHH
oncoamom oncoamom
oowuooum Hcsuo< coauomum couooaxm

 

madamoum sofiuoospm nozomoh oow>homsH
um mHoCOMmmomoum coo muaso< on economy ou< >039 Mormons
co muozoooh mo mcowuaoouom 0:0 so owoucoouom pow Hobasz--.ofi.o ofinmh

 

102
in the inservice teacher education programs. The data
presented in Table 4.10 indicated that of the 240 teachers
who participated in the study, 214 (or 89.5%) agree or
strongly agree that teachers should be treated as adults in
the inservice teacher education programs while only 12 (or
5%) agree that they are indeed treated as adults in
inservice teacher education programs. On the other hand,
while none of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed
that teachers should be treated as adults, 182 (or 75.8%)
indicated that they are rarely or never treated as adults

in the inservice teacher education programs.

Like the treatment of teachers as adults in the
inservice teacher education programs, teachers who
participated in this study generally feel that they are not
treated as professionals in the inservice teacher education
programs. As shown in Table 4.10, out of 240 who
participated in the study, 210 (or 87.9%) agree or strongly
agree that they should be treated as professionals, while
186 (or 77.5%) feel that they are rarely or never treated
as professionals in the inservice teacher education
programs. Therefore, on average, the data presented in
this study indicated that teachers expect to be treated as
adults (mean=1.770) and professionals (mean=1.803) and yet,
they perceive that they are rarely treated as adults
(mean=3.875) and rarely or never treated as professionals

(mean=4.017).

103

Table 4.11 also shows the perceptions of teachers
concerning how they expected and whether they are treated
as adults and professionals in the inservice teacher
education programs by school levels. As shown in Table
4.11, the expected and actual treatment teachers are given
as adults and professionals in the inservice teacher
education programs do not vary with school levels. All
teachers at all levels expect to be treated as adults and
professionals and they feel they are rarely or never

treated as adults or professionals.

Relationship of Respondents’ Perceptions Concerning
Andragogical Approaches and Demographic Variables

Research Question 6.1: What is the relationship of gender

on the teachers' perceptions
regarding andragogical learning
approaches in the inservice

education programs in Jordan?

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine whether or not there exists significant
differences in teachers’ perceptions regarding andragogical
learning approaches between male and female teachers.
Table 4.12 shows the means, standard deviations, the
observed F-value and its corresponding significant level

for the six learning approaches.

1104

Table 4.11.--Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Perceptions on Whether
They Are Treated as Adults and Professionals at Inservice Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

Programs
Expected Practice Actual Practice
School

Treatment Level N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D.
As Adults ES 100 1.790 0.608 100 3.790 0.715
IS 80 1.737 0.590 80 3.875 0.663
SS 60 1.780 0.696 60 4.017 0.854

All 240 1.770 240 3.900
As Professionals ES 100 1.880 0.640 100 3.870 0.717
IS 80 1.688 0.608 80 4.000 0.675
SS 60' -1.831 0.647 60 4.117 0.865

A11 240 1.800 240 3.996
As Adults and ES 100 1.835 0.560 100 3.880 0.640
Professionals IS 80 1.713 0.538 80 3.936 0.570
58 59 1.805 0.573 60 4.067 0.692
All 339 1.787 0.556 240 3.946 0.633

 

ES: Elementary School
IS: Intermediate School
SS: Secondary School

The mean ratings are interpreted as follows:

 

 

Mean Actual Practice Expected Practice
1.00 - 1.99 Always A. Strongly agree
2.00 - 2.99 Frequently , Agree
3.00 - 3.99 Sometimes Agree/disagree

4.00 - 5.00 Rarely/never Disagree/strongly disagree

 

105

Fo>mp 8o.o 88 mocco_e_:m_8 8888888 4

 

 

 

. N88. 888.5 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888 8888;88-=_

8888_888_-888888e

. 888. 88A.8 8_8.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8883 888t8 __888

888.8 888. 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888 58r8888

888 8_ 8888»

. 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 88a.8 8888~388¥-8_8m

concave m:_>ocas_

888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 88888888 88_>8888_

boroucwonamgomoe

. 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 88:888. 88888888-8_88 <
m:_8>-a m=_8>-m 88 8885 88 came

.1!, m_8Eom 8.82 genome _8owmommco:<

 

 

mcoeomme opmeom 8:8 8P8: 8883888
mmzomoaaa< Fmopmommcoc< co mcopuamoaoa may :8 monotoee_o 858 com 88—8888 <>oz<--. NH. 8 8_88e

106

As shown in Table 4.12, there .were statistically
significant differences at the 0.05 level in the
perceptions of ’male and female teachers regarding 'the
andragogical learning approaches: A Self-Directed
Learner (F=4.525, p < 0.05), Improving Teachers'
Self-Knowledge (F=4.437, p < 0.05), Small Group Work
(F=8.774, p < 0.05) and Teacher-Initiated Inservice
Programs (F=7.500, p, < 0.05). For all these four
andragogical learning approaches the mean for female
teachers was significantly lower than the mean for males,
which indicated that female teachers feel more strongly
about these andragogical learning approaches than male

teachers.

Research Question 6.2: What is the relationship of age on

the teachers' perceptions
regarding andragogical learning
approaches in the inservice

education programs in Jordan?

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine whether or not there exists significant
differences in teachers’ perceptions regarding andragogical

learning approaches among the age groups 20-29, 30-39 and

40 years and over.- Table 4.13 shows the means, standard
deviations, the observed F-value and its corresponding

significance level for the six andragogical learning

approaches.

 

 

107

_o>o_ mo.o 88 88:8888_:m_8 8888888 8

 

 

 

888.8 888 8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888 8888888-8_

8888_8_8_-8888888

. 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8883 88888 _8888

888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888

. 5888888 888 :8 88888

888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888.3888-8888

.8888888 m:_>ocae_

888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888 888888888

8o8oucoon8ozoaop

. 888 8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888888.

88888888-888ML8

8:_8>-8 8=_8>-8 8.8 8885 8.8 8888 8.8 8885 8888888888 888_momm88:<
8888 888 88 88-88 88-88

 

88888 :8 888888 om<

 

883888 mm< 888888888 co 88888888 mcoe<
888888888< 8888888888c< 88 88888888888 :8 8888888888 888 888 8888888 <>oz<u-.88.8 88888

108

Table 4.13 shows that there were statistically
significant differences at 0.05 level in the perceptions of
teachers who were 20-29, 30-39 and over 39 years old, in ‘
the andragogical learning approach, a Self-Directed
Learner, (F=5.788, p < 0.05), and Small Group Work,
(F=3.381, p < 0.05). For the andragogical learning
approach, A Self-Directed Learner, the younger teachers-
(20-29 years old) felt more strongly about this
andragogical learning approach than the older teachers
(30-39 and 40 years and over). For the andragogical
learning approach, Small Group Work, the average
perception in all the age groups was significantly
different with the younger teachers (20-29) having the
strongest feelings (mean=1.477), followed by the middle age
group (30-39) whose mean was 1.578 and the older age group

(40 years and over) with a mean of 1.685.

Research Question 6.3: What is the relationship of school
level on the teachers' perceptions

regarding andragogical learning
approaches in the inservice
education programs in Jordan?

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine whether -or not there exists significant
differences in teachers’ perceptions regarding andragogical
learning approaches among the school levels: elementary,

intermediate and secondary. Table 4.14 shows the analysis

Of variance results for the differences in perceptions of

 

 

109

Fm>o_ mo.o 88 888888888888 8888888 8

 

 

 

« 888.8 888.88 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.o 888.8 5888888 888>888-:_
8888888:_-88;o888

888.8 888.8 888.8 om8.8 888.8 888.8 888.o 888.8 8883 8:888 .8858
888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888

. 5888888 8:8 :8 88888

888.8 888.8 888.8 888.. 888.8 088.8 888.8 888.8 8888—3ocx-8_88
.8888888 m:_>o885_

. 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888 888888888
88888888-8888888.

8 888.8 888.8 888.o 888.8 888.8 coo.8 888.8 888.8 88:888—
8mbom8_8-8—88 <

o:_8>-8 8:_8>-m 8.8 8888 8.8 8885 8.8 8885 8888888888 _88_oom8888<

8888:8888 888_8me888:_ 888ucmeo_w

 

8_8>88 _oocom

 

8_8>88 Foozom 888888888 88 88888888 meos< 888888888< _888888888c<
co 88888888888 888 we 88888888888 :8 88888888888 8:8 888 8883888 <>oz<--.88.8 8_888

 

 

 

110

andragogical approaches among the teachers at different

school levels.

From Table 4.14, it is shown that there were
statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level in
the teachers’ perceptions regarding the following
andragogical learning approaches: A Self-Directed
Learner (F=5.667, p < 0.05), Teacher-Centered Inservice

Programs (F=3.057, p < 0.05) and Teacher-Initiated

Inservice Programs (F=25.304, p < 0.05). In both the
andragogical learning approaches, A Self-Directed
Learner and Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs,

significant differences were found to exist between
elementary and secondary school teachers where the mean of
the approaches was observed to be significantly higher

among secondary school teachers than among the elementary

school teachers.

In Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs, there was
no statistically significant differences between the
perception of the elementary school teachers (mean=1.070)
and the intermediate school teachers (mean=1.138).
Similarly, in the andragogical approach, A Self-Directed
Learner, there were significant differences between
elementary school teachers (mean=1.542) and intermediate
school teachers (mean=1.600), though both intermediate and

elementary school teachers differed significantly from

111
secondary school teachers (mean=l.756). However, no
statistically significant differences were observed among
teachers. in different school levels regarding the
andragogical learning approaches,Improving Teachers'
self-Knowledge (F=3.057, p > 0.05), Trust in Program
Purpose (F=1.011, p > 0.05) and Small Group Work

(F=2.970, p > 0.05).

Research Question 6.4: What 'is the relationship of years
of teaching experience on the
teachers' perceptions regarding
andragogical learning approaches
in the inservice ’ education
programs in Jordan?

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine whether or not there exist significant
differences in teachers’ perceptions regarding andragogical
learning approaches among the teachers with varying
teaching experience (1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years and
15 years and over). Out of 238 teachers who reported their
level of experience, 44 have been in the profession for
less than five years, 94 have been in the profession
between six and 10 years, 80 for 11-15 years and 20 for
over 15 years. Table 4.15 presents the means, standard
deviations and the observed F-value and corresponding

significance level for the six andragogical learning

approaches.

 

112

 

_8>8_ 88.8 88 888888888888 8888888 «

 

 

 

 

 

88888888x8 88888888 88 88888

IIIII-Il‘llllil

88
8888888x8 88 888>88 8888
8 .88 8888888888 888 88 8

. . . . .8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888O88 8888888-:8
N88 8 888 8 8mm 8 888 8 88m 8888888=_-8888888
888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8803 8:088 88888

. 8 . . . 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888
888 8 Nc8 8 8mm 8 888 8 8888888 888 88 88:88

. . . .8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888888888-8_88
88m 8 N88 8 888 8 888 .8888888 888>88858

. . . . . 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 5888888 888>88888
888 8 888 8 88m 8 888 8 8888888o-8888888

. . . .. 888.8 888.8 888.8 N88.8 8888888
888 8 888 N 888 8 888 8 88888888-8_88 8

8> 8 8:_8>-8 8.8 8885 8.8 8888 8.8 8888 8888888888 .8888888888<
map .. 1.!
8888 8250 8888 S - 8 888% 8 .. 8

 

888 8883 88888888 88888 888888888< 88888888888<
8888888888 88 88888888888 888 888 8888888 <>8z<--.88.8 88888

113

From the results shown in Table 4.15, no statistically
significant differences at the 0.05 level were observed in
any of the andragogical learning approaches among teachers
of varying levels of teaching experience. Thus, the data
presented in this study indicated that the level of
teaching experience has no influence on the teachers’
perceptions regarding the andragogical learning approaches

in the inservice teacher education programs in Jordan.

Research Question 6.5: What is the relationship of the
teachers' level of education on

their perceptions regarding
andragogical learning approaches
in the inservice education

programs in Jordan?

A one-way analysis_ of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine whether or not there exists significant
differences in teachers’ perceptions regarding andragogical
learning approaches among the teachers with different
levels of education (high school, professional trained and
those with the bachelor’s degree or higher). Among the 240
teachers who participated in this study, eight had high
school certificates only, 129 were professionally trained
teachers, 100 had bachelor's degrees and three had master's
degrees. Table '4.16 presents the means, standard
deviations, observed F-value and corresponding significance

level for each of the six andragogical learning approaches

 

114

 

 

88>8— 88.8 88 888888888888 8888888 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888 8888888s88
888888888-8888888
888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 .888.8 888.8 8883 88888 88888
888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 8888888
8888888 888 88 88888
888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888883888I8888
.8888888 888>88as8
888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 5888888 888>888u88
8888888os8888888
8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8 888.8. 888.8 888888—
88888888-8888 <
8888>-8 .wm_8>-8 8.8 8888 8.8 8888 8.8 8888 8888888888 888888888888
888888888 88888888 8888888 888888 888:
lllllllulllnI‘ll‘llnlll .
888888888 88 88>88
.ilthltlullnilltw

888888 8883 88888888 88os< 888888888< 88888888888<

8 8 8>88 888
8888MW:WW8W888W88 888 88 88888888888 88 88888888888 888 888 8888888 <>8z<--.88.8 88888

115
as perceived by high school, professionally-trained and

graduate teachers.

As shown in Table 4.16, statistically significant

differences at the 0.05 level were observed for the

andragogical learning approaches, A Self-Directed
Learner (F=4.366,- p < 0.05) and Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs (F=8.126, p < 0.05). For the
andragogical learning approaches, A Self-Directed

Learner, the mean among the high school teachers was
significantly higher thank that of professionally-trained
teachers. However, the mean for the teachers holding
bachelor’s and master's degrees was not statistically
significant from that of professionally-trained teachers.

For the andragogical learning approach, Teacher-Initiated

 

Inservice Programs, the mean perceptions among teachers
with the bachelor’s or master's degrees was significantly
higher than that of teachers with high school certificates
or those who had been professionally trained. In each
case, the perceptions regarding these andragogical
approaches were generally weaker among the more
highly-educated teachers than among the teachers with only
high school certificates and, to some extent, the
professionally-trained teachers. No statistically
significant differences were observed at the 0.05 level for
the andragogical learning approaches, Teacher-centered

Inservice ' Programs (F=0.543, p > 0.05),

 

 

116

Improving Teachers' Self-Knowledge (F=0.416, p > 0.05),

Trust in Program Purpose (F=0.287, p > 0.05) and

Small Group work (F=2.534, p > 0.05).

Research Question 6.6: What is the relationship of gender"
on the supervisors' perceptions
regarding andragogical learning
approaches in the inservice

education programs in Jordan?

Means and standard deviations were computed for male and

female supervisors’ regarding their perceptions concerning

the andragogical approaches. Table 4.17 presents the means

Table 4.17.--Means and Standard Deviations for the
Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

Male Female

Andragogical Approach Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
A self-directed learner 1.489 0.293 1.600 0.849
Teacher-centered
inservice programs 1.540 0.266 1.714 0.000
Improving teachers'
self-knowledge 1.778 0.320 1.750 0.707
Trust in the rogram
purpose P 1.500 0.308 1.333 0.471
Small group work 1.472 0.320 1.500 0.000
Teacher-initiated

1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000

inservice programs

 

117
and standard deviations for the six andragogical learning

approaches as perceived by male and female supervisors.

From Table 4.17, the mean perception of supervisors
regarding the extent to which the six andragogical learning
approaches should be practiced ranged from 1.000 to 1.778.
The lowest mean rating was observed for the andragogical
learning approach, Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs
mean=1.000) by both male and female supervisors. This was
followed by Trust in Program Purpose (mean=1.333) by
female supervisors and Small Group Work (mean=1.472) by

male supervisors. The highest mean rating was observed for

andragogical learning approaches, Improving Teachers!
Self-Knowledge (mean=1.778, 1.750) by both male and
female supervisors. The mean rating for the other

andragogical learning approaches for male and female
supervisors were, A Self-Directed Learner, (mean=1.489,

1.600) and Teacher-Centered Inservice Programs,

(mean=1.540, 1.714).

Research Question 6.7: What is the relationship of age on

the supervisors' perceptions
regarding andragogical learning
approaches in the inserV1ce

education programs in Jordan?

Means and hstandard deviations were computed for the
supervisors’ perceptions regarding the six andragogical

learning approaches according to the following age groups:

 

 

118

20-29, 30-39 and over 39 years. Table 4.18 presents the

mean ratings and‘ standard deviations for each of the six

 

 

 

 

 

andragogical learning approaches as perceived by
supervisors in the three age groups.
Table 4.18.-4Means and Standard Deviations for the

Supervisors on the Preference of the

Andragogical Approaches by Age

Age Groups in Years
20-29 30-39 40 and over
Andragogical .
Approach Mean IS.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
A self-directed
learner 1.000 - 1.640 0.385 1.486 0.311
Teacher-centered
inservice
programs 1.714 - 1.543 0.186 1.551 0.290
Improving
teachers'
self-knowledge 1.250 - 1.850 0.224 1.786 0.365
Trust in the
program purpose 1.000 - 1.667 0.408 1.452 0.248
Small group work 1.500 - 1.300 0.274 1.536 0.308
Teacher-initiated
inservice
programs 1.000 - 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
Table 4.18 shows that the mean ratings ranged from the

lowest

presented

in Table 4

.18

indicates

1.000 to the highest 1.850.

In general, data

that the mean rating

 

 

119
among the 30-39 year old supervisors was higher than the
mean ratings for the older (40 years and over)
supervisors. Due to the low number of responses for the
20-29 year old group, the mean ratings for this age group
was not taken into account in the interpretation of the

results for Research Question 6.6.

Research Question 6.8: What is the relationship of years
- of supervisory experience on the
supervisors' perceptions regarding
andragogical learning approaches in
the inservice education programs in

Jordan?

Two levels of experience (six to 10 years and 10 years
and over) were considered in addressing Research Question
6.8. Means and standard deviations were computed for each
of the supervisory experience levels for the supervisors'
perceptions regarding the andragogical learning
approaches. Table 4.19 shows the means and standard

deviations for each of the six andragogical learning

approaches as perceived by the supervisors.

From Table 4.19, it is shown that the mean ratings
ranged from 1.00 to 1.844 with the lowest mean observed for
the andragogical learning approach, Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs (mean=1.00), by supervisors of each
experience level. The mean rating for the andragogical

learning approach, Improving Teachers' Self-Knowledge

 

 

 

120

Table 4.19.--Means and Standard Deviations for the
Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Years of
Supervisory Experience

 

Years of Supervisory Experience

 

 

 

 

6 — 10 11 and over
Andragogical Approach Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
A self-directed learner 1.525 0.400 1.473 0.326
Teacher-centered
inservice programs 1.518 0.228 1.571 0.293
Improving teachers'
self-knowledge 1.844 0.326 1.705 0.368
Trust in the program
purpose 1.459 0.434 1.485 0.229
Small group work 1.438 0.177 1.455 0.350
Teacher-initiated
inservice programs 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
(mean=1.844, 1.707), was the highest observed for

supervisors of each experience level.

Research Question 6.9:

The highest level

who were involved in

or the master’s degree.

What is the relationship of the
level of education on the
supervisors' perceptions regarding

andragogical learning approaches in
the inservice education programs in
Jordan?

of education attained by supervisors

this study was either the bachelor’s

For the six andragogical learning

 

121

approaches considered in this study, means and standard
deviations were computed for the supervisors who had
attained both the bachelor’s and the master’s degree.

Table 4.20 presents the means and standard deviations for

each of the andragogical learning approaches by the

supervisors' highest education level.

'From Table 4.20, the mean ratings for the six
andragogical learning approaches ranged from 1.00 to
1.778. The andragogical learning approach, Teacher-

Table 4.20.--Means and Standard Deviations for the
Supervisors on the Preference of the
Andragogical Approaches by Level of
Education

 

Level of Education

 

 

 

 

Bachelor’s Master’s
Andragogical Approach Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
A self-directed learner 1.455 0.370 1.556 0.313
Teacher-centered
inservice programs 1.507 0.281 1.619 0.226
Improving teachers'
self-knowledge 1.773 0.395 1.778 0.292
Trust in the program
Purpose 1.424 0.262 1.556 0.373
Small group work 1.455 0.270 1.500 0.354
Teacher-initiated
inservice programs 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000

 

 

 

122
Initiated Inservice Programs (mean=1.00), had the
lowestmean both for supervisors -whose highest education
level was the bachelor’s as well as the master’s degree.
The mean rating for the andragogical approach, Improving
Teachers' ' Self-Knowledge (mean=1.773, 1.778) was rated
highest for both groups of supervisors, indicating a low
perception among supervisors regarding this andragogical
approach. The mean ratings for the other andragogical

learning approaches was as follows:

Small Group Work (mean=1.455, 1.500)
'Trust in the Program Purpose (mean=1.424, 1.556) and

Teacher-Centered Inservice Program (mean=1.507, 1.619).

Summary

The results of the data analysis were presented in
tabular and narrative form in this chapter. A summary of
the study, major findings, conclusions, based on the study

findings, and recommendations for further research are

included in Chapter V.

 

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study assessed the perceptions of teachers as
adult learners and their supervisors regarding inservice
teacher education programs in Jordan. To achieve this
perspective, the study was designed to explore the extent
to which certain andragogical learning approaches are being
practiced in Jordan’s inservice education programs as
perceived by teachers and their supervisors. The study
also investigated the perception of teachers and their
supervisors regarding the extent to which these selected
andragogical learning approaches ghgglg__pg practiced in
Jordan’s teacher education programs. Specifically, the

study was designed to address the following research

questions:

1. To what extent are andragogical learning approaches
being practiced in the inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by elementary, intermediate and

secondary school teachers?

123

 

 

124
2. To what extent are andragogical learning approaches
being practiced in the inservice education programs in

Jordan as perceived by supervisors?

3. To what extent are andragogical learning approaches
preferred in the inservice education programs in Jordan as
perceived by elementary, intermediate and secondary school

teachers?

4. To what extent are andragogical learning approaches
preferred in the inservice education programs in Jordan as

perceived by supervisors?

5. To what extent do teachers feel they are being
treated as professionals and adults in the inservice

education programs in Jordan?

6. What is the relationship of gender, age, level of
education, school level and years of experience on the
perceptions of teachers and supervisors regarding the
preference of andragogical learning approaches in the

inservice education programs in Jordan?

 

125

Study Population and Sample

The target population for this study was comprised of
elementary, intermediate and secondary school teachers and
supervisors in the Mafraq City District in Northeast
Jordan. The Mafraq district school system has a total of
253 public schools in all three levels (elementary,
intermediate and secondary) with 1241 teachers and 20
supervisors. 0f the 1241 teachers, 698 were elementary,
336 intermediate and 207 secondary school teachers. The
sample consisted of 100 elementary, 80 intermediate and 60
secondary school teachers. Due to the small number of
supervisors, all 20 school district supervisors were

included in the study.

Methodology

The survey instrument used was a questionnaire designed
for both teachers and supervisors. The questionnaire
consisted of 23 statement items related to the following

six andragogical approaches:

1. Beliefs of a self-directed learner

2. Characteristics associated with teacher-centered
inservice education programs

3. Improving teachers' self-knowledge

4. Trust in the program purpose

 

 

126
5. Small group work
6. Teacher's desire to have teacher-initiated

inservice education programs.

In addition to the 23 statement items related to the
andragogical approaches, the instrument also consisted of
two items designed to ascertain the extent to which
teachers felt they were treated as professionals and adults
in the inservice teacher education programs. Several items
designed to gather information about the respondents’
demographic information were also included in the

questionnaire.

Simple descriptive statistics which included means,
standard deviation, frequencies, percentages and ranks were
utilized in addressing some of the research questions. A
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine
whether or not there exists significant differences in
teachers’ perceptions regarding the andragogical learning
approaches between and among different levels of
demographic variables. The statistical package for the
social sciences (SPSS-X) available in the MSU IBM mainframe
computers was used in the computation and analysis of this

research.

 

 

 

127

Characteristics of Respondents

A total of 260 respondents participated in this study.
Of the 260 respondents, 240 (or 92%) were teachers while 20
(or 8%) were supervisors. 0f the total 240 teachers who
participated in this study, 146 (or 61%) were male while 94
(or 39%) were female teachers. One the other hand, of the
20 supervisors who participated in this study, 18 (or 90%)
were males and only 2 (or 10%) were female. While the
majority of teachers (64%) were younger than 40 years, most
of the supervisors (70%) were 40 years or over. The levels
of experience_ of teachers ranged from one to over 15
years. Of the total 240 teachers, 44 (or 18.5%) had been
in the profession for one to five years, 94 (or 39.5%) six
to 10 years, 80 (or 33.6%) 11 to 15 years and 20 (or 8.4%)
over 15 years. The school levels were fairly represented
with 100 (or 41%) elementary, 80 (or 33.7%) intermediate
and 60 (or 25.6%) secondary school level teachers. In
terms of the highest educational level attained by teachers
and supervisors, there were four levels for teachers and
two levels for supervisors. 0f the total 240 teachers who
indicated‘ their highest educational level, eight (or 3.3%)
had a high school ~level education, 129 (or 53.8%) were
trained teachers, 100 (or 41.7%) had the bachelor of arts
degree and three (or 1.2%) had a master's degree. 0n the

other hand, of the 20 supervisors, 11 (or 55%) had the

 

 

 

 

128
bachelor of arts degree, while nine (or 45%) had a master’s

degree.

Summapy of Findings

Major findings in relation to the research questions

are discussed in this section.

Research Question 1: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by elementary,
intermediate and secondary school
teachers?

Major findings. Overall, all the six andragogical
approaches were perceived as being practiced sometimes or
rarely/never by teachers. Of all six andragogical learning
approaches, two were perceived as rarely or never practiced
while four were perceived as being practiced sometimes.
The andragogical approaches, Teacher-Centered Inservice
Education Programs and Small Group Work, were
perceived as being rarely or never practiced in the
inservice teacher education programs. The remaining four
andragogical approaches:' A Self-Directed Learner,
Improving Teachers' Self-Knowledge, Trust in the Program
Purpose and Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs were

perceived as being practiced sometimes. Based on the

agrregate means, none of the andragogical learning

 

 

 

129

approaches were perceived as being practiced frequently or

always.

There were slight variations in the teachers’
perceptions regarding the extent to which andragogical
approaches were being practiced among elementary,
intermediate and secondary school teachers. Elementary
school teachers perceived all the andragogical approaches
as being practiced sometimes except Teacher-Centered
Inservice Programs which they perceived as rarely or
never practiced. Intermediate school teachers perceived
all andragogical approaches as rarely or never practiced
except Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs which they
perceived as being practiced sometimes. 0n the other hand,
secondary school teachers perceived all the andragogical
approaches as rarely or never practiced except Improving
Teachers' Self-Knowledge and Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs which they perceived as being
practiced sometimes. However, teachers at all three levels
agreed that the andragogical approach, Teacher-Centered
Inservice Program, was being rarely or never practiced
and the andragogical approach, Teacher-Initiated

Inservice Programs, as being practiced sometimes.

Summapy. Though there was slight variation among
elementary, intermediate and secondary school teachers in

perceptions regarding the extent to which andragogical

 

130
approaches are being practiced, the data showed that the
teachers' general perception was that the andragogical
approaches were not being practiced sufficiently in the

inservice teacher education programs in Jordan.

Research Question 2: To what extent are andragogical
approaches being practiced in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by supervisors?

Major findings. Unlike the teachers, their supervisors
perceived all of the andragogical learning approaches as
being practiced sometimes. None of the andragogical
approaches was perceived as rarely or never practiced at
inservice teacher education programs. Like the teachers,
however, the supervisors did not perceive any of the six
andragogical approaches to be practiced frequently or
always. It is important to note that the andragogical
approach, Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs, had the
second lowest mean among supervisors and the lowest mean
among teachers. 0n the other hand, the andragogical
approach, Teacher-Centered Inservice Program, had the

highest mean among supervisors and the second highest mean

among teachers.

Summapy. Although supervisors did not perceive any of
the andragogical approaches as rarely or never practiced in

the inservice teacher education programs, there was

 

 

131
clear agreement with teachers that none of the andragogical
approaches were being practiced frequently or always at

inservice teacher education programs in Jordan.

Research Question 3: To what extent are andragogical
approaches preferred in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by elementary,
intermediate and secondary school
teachers?

Major findings. According to the perception of the
teachers as demonstrated by the aggregate means and
standard deviations, all the six andragogical learning
approaches should be practiced in the inservice teacher
education programs in Jordan. On average, teachers
strongly agree that all the six andragogical learning
approaches should be practiced at the inservice teacher
education programs in Jordan. Such perceptions were
strongest in the andragogical approach, Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs, which had the lowest mean among
elementary (mean=1.070), intermediate (mean=1.138) and
secondary (mean=1.417) school teachers. Teacher-Centered
Inservice Programs (mean=1.679) had the highest mean
among elementary school teachers while Improving
Teachers! Self-Knowledge (mean=1.680) and A

Self-Directed Learner (mean=1.756) had the highest mean

among intermediate and secondary school teachers

respectively.

 

 

 

_ 132

Summapy. ' Despite a slight variation among elementary,
intermediate and secondary school teachers in perceptions
regarding the preference of andragogical learning
approaches, it was quite evident from the aggregate means
that all of the six andragogical learning approaches are
highly preferred by teachers in the inservice education
programs in Jordan. Teachers at all school levels
generally strongly agree that all the andragogical
approaches should be practiced in the inservice education

programs in Jordan.

Research Question 4: To what extent are andragogical
approaches preferred in the

inservice education programs in
Jordan as perceived by supervisors?

Major findings. Like teachers, supervisors perceived
all the six andragogical learning approaches to be
preferred at inservice teacher education programs. All 20
supervisors strongly agreed that the andragogical learning
approach, Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs,
remained the most preferred approach among supervisors and
teachers at all school levels. It was also interesting to
note that the andragogical learning approach, Improving
Teachers! Self-Knowledge, had the highest mean rating
among both supervisors (mean=1.775) and intermediate school
teachers (mean=1.680). Overall, the aggregate mean ratings

regarding the preference of all six

 

 

 

133
andragogical learning approaches as perceived by
supervisors was 1.465 with a standard deviation of 0.260
implying a strong agreement among supervisors that all the
six andragogical approaches should be practiced in the

inservice teacher education programs in Jordan.

Summapy. Like teachers, supervisors strongly agree
that all the six andragogical approaches are important and
should be practiced at the inservice teacher education
programs in Jordan. The issue seemed to be most crucial
for the andragogical approach, Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Education Programs, which all supervisors and
most teachers perceive to be highly preferred in the

inservice teacher education programs.

Research Question 5: To what extent do teachers feel
* they are treated as professionals

and adults in the inservice
programs in Jordan?

Major findings. Based on the counts and percentages of
the teacher responses, the data demonstrated that, while
none of the teachers disagree or strongly disagree that
teachers should be treated as adults and professionals in
the inservice education programs, none of the teachers
strongly agreed that they are being treated as adults and
professionals in the inservice teacher education programs.

Based on the five-point Likert-type scale used in this

 

 

 

134
study, a high mean (near 5.00) will indicate a complete
non-treatment of teachers as adults or professionals and a
low mean (near 1.00) would indicate a complete treatment of
teachers as adults or professionals. The mean rating for
the expected treatment was 1.803 while the actual treatment
was 4.017 for the treatment as professionals. 0n the other
hand, the mean rating for the expected treatment as adults
was 1.770, while the corresponding mean rating for the
actual treatment was 3.875. This apparent dissatisfaction
in the way teachers are being treated in the inservice
teacher education programs was consistent among teachers at

all school levels (elementary, intermediate and secondary).

Summapy. The study demonstrated that teachers perceive
that they are not treated according to their expectations
in the inservice teacher education programs. The actual
treatment of teachers as both adults and professionals was

found to be below teachers’ expectations regardless of

their school level.

Research Question 6: What is the relationship of
selected personal and demographic

variables such as gender, age,
school level, level of education
and years of experience and the
perceptions of all teachers .and
supervisors regarding andragogical
learning approaches in the
inservice education programs in
Jordan?

 

 

135

Major findings. Statistically significant differences
in teachers’ perceptions regarding the extent to which
andragogical approaches were preferred in the inservice
teacher education programs were observed between male and
female teachers. The mean rating among male teachers was
significantly higher than female teachers at 0.05 level for
the andragogical approaches, A Self-Directed Learner,
Improving Teacher Self-Knowledge, Small Group Work and
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Program. For these four
andragogical approaches, the data indicated that female
teachers prefer these approaches more than male teachers.
Though statistical tests were not performed on the gender
differences among supervisors regarding the preference of
these andragogical approaches, means and standard
deviations seem to indicate that no differences in

perception exist between male and female supervisors.

Statistically significant differences in teachers'
perceptions regarding the extent to which andragogical
approaches were preferred in the' inservice teacher
education programs were also observed between young (20-29
years old) and older (30-39 or 40 years and over)
teachers. The mean ratings for the younger teachers was
significantly lower than the mean rating for the older
teachers for the andragogical approaches, A Self-Directed

Learner and Small Group Work. Therefore, the data

 

136
suggests that younger teachers prefer these andragogical
approaches more than older teachers. However, there were
no statistically significant differences in teacher’
perceptions of the preference of these andragogical
approaches between the age groups 30-39 and 40 years and
over. Due to an insufficient sample in the 20-29 age
category among supervisors, no comparisons in perception
were done to compare the age groups. However, the mean
ratings among 30-39 years and 40 years and over supervisors

did not seem to indicate any differences in their

perceptions.

With regard to the effect of school level on the
teachers perceptions on the preference. of andragogical
approaches, there were statistically significant
differences in the perceptions of elementary and
intermediate or secondary school teachers in the
andragogical approach, A Self-Directed Learner. No
statistically significant differences were observed
regarding the perceptions of this approach between
intermediate and secondary school teachers. Similarly,
statistically significant differences were observed between
intermediate and secondary or elementary school teachers
regarding the andragogical approaches, Teacher-Centered
Inservice Program and Teacher-Initiated Inservice
Program. In Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs,

the mean rating of elementary and intermediate school

 

 

137
teachers was significantly lower than the mean rating of
secondary school teachers. No statistically significant
differences in teachers' perceptions regarding the
preference of andragogical approaches were observed for
teachers with different levels of experience. However, the
mean rating for the perceptions regarding the preference of
the andragogical approach, Improving Teachers'
Self-Knowledge, among supervisors seemed higher than the
mean rating among teachers of all levels of experience.
This finding suggests that supervisors do not prefer the
approach, Improving Teachers' Self-Knowledge, as

strongly as teachers do.

The level of education seems to play a role in the

perceptions of teachers regarding the preference of the

andragogical approaches, A Self-Directed Learner, and
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs. Indeed,
statistically significant differences in teachers’

perceptions regarding the preference of these andragogical
approaches were observed‘ between high school, trained and
teachers with the bachelor of arts degree. For the
approach, A Self-Directed Learner, the- mean ratings
among high school and teachers with the bachelor’s degree
were . significantly higher than the mean rating among
trained teachers. For the andragogical approach,
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs, the mean ratings

among high school and trained teachers were significantly

 

 

138
lower than the mean ratings among teachers with the
bachelor of arts degree. Though no statistical tests were
performed to investigate whether or not there exist
significant differences in the supervisors perceptions
regarding the preference of andragogical approaches, the
mean ratings of supervisors’ perceptions seemed to suggest
that supervisors with the bachelor of arts degree prefer
all the andragogical approaches more than supervisors with
the master’s degree except on the andragogical approach,
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs, which all

supervisors perceive to be highly preferred.

Summapy. Though the overall mean ratings for the
teachers’ and supervisors’ .perceptions regarding the
preference of the six andragogical approaches were
generally lower, suggesting a strong preference for these
approaches, the study also showed variations in perceptions
according to the respondents’ demographic characteristics.
Younger and female teachers, together with elementary
school teachers, perceived the andragogical approaches of
A Self-Directed Learner, Improving Teachers!
Self-Knowledge, Small Group Work “and Teacher-Initiated
Inservice Programs to be more preferred than male, older,
intermediate and secondary school teachers. 0n the other
hand, supervisors perceived the andragogical approach,
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Programs, more than any

other andragogical approach. - Contrary to expectations,

 

 

139
less educated teachers did not perceive the andragogical
approach, Improving Teachers' Self-Knowledge, to be

more preferred than the more educated teachers.

Overall Summary

Though the purpose of this study was not to examine
whether or not there exists significant differences between
the perceptions of the preference and actual practice of
andragogical approaches in the inservice teacher education
programs in Jordan, the significance of these differences
was obvious. The T-test results for the differences
between the Actual Practice (presence or absence) and the
Expected Practice (preference) of the six andragogical
approaches are shown in Appendix D. From these results, it
is quite evident that, while the perceived preference of
the andragogical approaches average near 1.00 indicating
strong agreement that they should be practiced, the
perceived presence of these approaches averaged near
4.00--indicating that the approaches are rarely or never

actually practiced. Similar results were observed for the

perceptions of supervisors.
898281851288

1. Despite the fact that both teachers and their

supervisors recognize the importance of practicing the

 

 

 

140

andragogical approaches in the inservice teacher education

programs in Jordan, the andragogical learning approaches
are not being practiced frequently enough. Therefore,
there is a clear deficiency between the need and the

practice of all the andragogical learning approaches

utilized in teacher inservice programs in Jordan.

2. Planning for inservice teacher education programs
should take into consideration the real needs of teachers
as defined by thorough asSessments and analysis. Ample
consideration should be given to the active involvement of
teachers as adult learners in defining the existing
problems and identifying current needs they have. Teachers
should also be given an opportunity to participate and be

involved in the organization and execution of inservice

teacher education programs.

3. Inservice education programs might be better able
to be responsive ‘to ‘teachers through a more Teacher-
Initiated Inservice approach. The data showed that the
teachers and supervisors were in strong agreement with the
Teacher-Initiated Inservice Program approach than with
any of the other approaches. Therefore, inservice
education planners might help teachers overcome

organizational and personal barriers which constrain their

self-initiated efforts.

 

141
4. It was clear from the data collected in this study
'that teachers wished to be treated as professionals and
adults. Therefore, teachers’ attitudes toward inservice

education programs might be improved if teachers were

treated as professionals and adults.

5. Inservice education planners should provide as many
options as possible from which teachers may choose, in

order to select their own learning experiences.

6. Based on the findings of this study, it seemed as
if the independent variables (gender, age, school level
taught, years of learning experience, years of supervisory
experience, level of education) would probably offer little
help in identifying the andragogically-oriented teacher.
Consequently, it is recommended that inservice planners not
rely on these demographic variables as predictors of

teacher andragogical orientations measured by the

instruments utilized.

W

1. The Ministry of Education should undergo immediate
efforts to close the gap between what teachers and
supervisors wish to accomplish through inservice education
programs in their schools and what is really being

accomplished. Although the Ministry of Education has

 

 

142
already made commendable efforts to improve the quality of
education in Jordan, such as the recent changes in
curricula, it i5“ essential that inservice education for
teachers be well planned and well organized, incorporating

andragogical learning approaches.

2. Planning for inservice teacher education programs

should take into account rural, as well as urban, teachers.

3. At present, supervisors are the only form of
inservice assistance available to teachers in the country
on a regular basis. Unfortunately, supervisors usually go
to the classroom as evaluators of a teacher’s performance
and detectors of mistakes. In many cases, their mission
ends by completing an evaluative report about the teacher’s
performance. Therefore, classroom supervision needs to
undergo a major overhaul, in which a sense of collaboration
between the supervisor and the teacher, mutual
understanding and fruitful discussion and agreement upon

possible solutions to existing problems should be

emphasized.

4. Incentives .should be emphasized. It is true that
the question of commitment to continued professional
development goes deeper than the question of released time
or financial reimbursement. However, incentives remain the

best alternative‘ for compulsory participation in inservice

 

 

143
education programs. In Jordan, for some- teachers, or
perhaps many, incentives may be the mainspring for further
learning. Therefore, to obtain the maximum positive
results out of further inservice training programs for
teachers, incentives should be provided. These might take

the form of promotions, recognition and merit salary

increases.

5. The Ministry of Education should encourage
supervisors to allow teachers, as adult learners, to
participate actively in the learning process in inservice
education programs, recognizing that these learners have a

rich background of experience that is a valuable learning

resource .

6. It seemed that inservice education programs might
help teachers become more self-directed learners, if

self-directed learning processes were incorporated into

inservice education programs.

7. More attention should be given to defining the
purpose of inservice teacher education programs and then
clearly conveying .the purpose to the participants.
Hopefully, this should improve teacher understanding and

strengthen commitment to inservice education programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

144
8. The avoidance of too much didactic lecture type
presentations by inservice presenters might help teachers
to gain more from their inservice experience. Small group
work, seminars, workshops and group discussions should be

developed to guide teachers in self-directed learning.

9. Teachers should be given an opportunity to become
involved in diagnosing their own needs for learning in

inservice education programs.

10. Through college instructors and university
professors, Jordanian universities and colleges of
education should play major roles in conducting on-campus

and in-school inservice activities for teachers.

Recommendations for Further Research

Based on the findings of this study, further research

is recommended in the following areas:

1. This study was conducted within the boundaries of
the northeast district of Jordan. Therefore, the need
remains for a replication of this study on a nationwide
basis, where teachers as adult learners and supervisors in
all educational districts in the country would be involved

in identifying inservice education program needs for

teachers.

 

 

 

145
2. Further studies should also seek the perceptions of
educational administrators such as school principals,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, with regard to
their perceptions of the needs of teachers as adult
learners and practices of the inservice education programs
in the country and the role they can play in such a

process.

3. Further studies should utilize the procedure of
in-depth interviews and not rely solely on the procedure of
questionnaire administration as the only source of

information for data collection.

4. Research is also needed to determine the best and
most effective ways by which inservice education programs
in Jordan could be administered, especially for school
teachers in remote and rural areas where inservice

education activities have never been provided.

5. Successful inservice education practices in the

neighboring Arab or non-Arab countries should be thoroughly

studied.

 

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

146
Questionnaire Cover Letter

(English Version)

May 15, 1989

Dear Teacher:

As you surely know, inservice education of teachers is a
process by which teachers could be improved. However,
inservice program activities can only be best if they are
geared to the needs of teachers as adult learners as
perceived by teachers themselves and by those who are
directly involved with the work of teachers, namely, the
supervisors.

Your participation 'in completing this survey is strictly
voluntary. You may decide not to participate at all, or
not answer certain questions without any penalty. The
survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Do pg;
write your name anywhere on the document.

You will notice that the first part of the questionnaire
asks for information about you. The second part includes
25 statements which represent varieties of andragogical
learning approaches in inservice education programs. In
any event, you will not be personally identified. Your
answer will be strictly confidential.

Your patience and cooperation are greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Yahya M. Affash
Ph.D. Candidate
Michigan State University

 

 

1J17

Part I
Demo a h'c and Fe son Data

Please answer all questions. Indicate your answer by using (1’) in the
appropriate place.

1. Gender:

1. Male
2. Female.

2. What is your age?

20 - 29 years
30 - 39 years
40 - 49 years
Over 50 years

¢~uan>rJ

 

3. What is your present responsibility?

1. Teacher
2. Supervisor.

4. In what school level do you work now?

1 Elementary School
2. Intermediate School
3 Secondary School.

5. How many years of teaching experience do you have?

1 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
Over 15 years

F‘UJBJP‘

 

6. How many years of supervision experience do you have?

1 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
Over 15 years

 

 

waH

 

7. What is your highest level of educational achievement?

High School
Teacher Training (2 years)
Bachelor's Degree
Master‘s Degree

Other (please specify)

U‘waH

|||||

 

 

 

828885 8888885 88888..
852 8.888888% 8.8832 bucobw 885.88 82w :95

3888."— bacoscoi 885885 888m<

2 y. m u < Gm Gaz< <m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 v 8 ® _ @ v m a 8 .wctob on 28888 E88888 888288-88 26:88 8
8 .
M.
2 8 8 8 < 88 o 82 < <8 3
cosmos—om 883888-:—
38888880 .88 68.88828 8888888898. .88 28me—
S 8:

“288888 8cm

.Efimoa 828888.88 888388.88 8w=o888 888888888 3.8388 883 888388
-88 9.688%: 8888888888 88. .888 no» 88883 o. 3508 88. 9:888:88. 88888: 88. 888888 .8838
888888 85 E 88883 :8 8888on 828888—88 38388.88 88 83:88.:— on 2.588 88882888 .888
_888 :8» 88883 8. 888388 88. wcfitomop 88882888 88883 .80 5:28 88:... 888 :_ 888:5: 28888
-8888 888 0.888 .8828 336:2 888 .88 8888 con 888888 888 88883. :8 8888882 80.8 83888888
88828888 .88 8:82: 8888888888 8888 meo— u>88 88888888 88888880 38388.:—

= 888.—

 

14E?

(1)

(2)

 

Insepyice Edupapiop
Mars!

Extent of
Agreement

Frequency of
Occurrence

 

SA

A A/D

SD

 

1.

Teachers should be
permitted to design their
own inservice programs.

 

2.

The experiences of the
teachers taking part in an
inservice program should
be utilized as sources of

igfiozggtion.

3.

 

I am capable of directing
my own professional
development.

 

a.

S.

Inservice programs should
provide options for
teachers who do not want
to follow the planned

ro

 

Each teacher should be
responsible for his/her
professional development.

 

A feeling of trust should
exist between inservice
planners and teachers.

 

Teachers should be helped
by inservice programs to
free themselves of patterns
of thought that block their
growth.

 

Teachers should be allowed
to set their own goals at
inservice programs.

 

Inservice programs should
have a clear purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JJSO

(l)

(2)

 

nse e du at o

m

Extent of
Agreement

Frequency of
Occurrence

 

SA

A A/D

SD

F S R

 

10. Teachers should be treated
as mature adults at '
inservice programs.

 

11. Teachers should be treated
as professionals at
inservice programs.

 

12. I prefer working with
small groups of teachers
to listening to lectures.

 

13. Inservice programs should
help teachers learn about
themselves.

 

l4. Theories presented at
inservice programs should
be directly related to the
teachers' personal

egpepiengeg.

 

15. I should be permitted to
direct my own learning
experiences.

 

16. Self-evaluation should be
an integral part of
inservice programs.

 

17. The "best" inservice
programs should help me
learn new processes for
dealing with my concerns.

 

18. Inservice settings should
be scheduled at convenient
times for teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

li51

(l)

(2)

 

Ipsepyice Education
Beam

Extent of
Agreement

Frequency of
Occurrence

 

SA

A A/D

SD

 

19. Solving problems that are
of interest to the
classroom teacher should
be emphasized at inservice

meetings.

 

20. Small groups should be
created to solve problems
at inservice programs.

 

21. Teachers should group
themselves according to
their interests and needs
at inservice meetings.

 

22. Teachers should be
encouraged to examine
their own feelings,
attitudes and behavior

M

 

23. Inservice presenters
should show teachers
that the teachers’
abilities and experience

MW

 

24. Inservice presenters
should take time to
develop a friendly and
cooperative atmosphere.

 

25. Cooperation among
teachers at inservice
settings is an important
aid to learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152

(l)
,_.._ J." .«,_....,JI «_Ln 9....
fat-4'"

88.4....1- I , 0,848.41 3,811

 

mu ,._....8. ~ 3. six-334‘ (pats: to" 0.. 9.183! 444—“ or
(gr—Jun 4.82.“ an, 8858:: Jar cu 8U“: . 1.1.81 , ,1...”
8.1;. 8.5 81.88.81 ,_ 0,838.31 GLeLg-Z-‘bLg Pr; 9;.“ g. 8.8.." .v_-,_~r

,_.n‘, H" ’31—»; J8... .JLnJI (81.. 0,1.” 82.1,! on.” 8.5, (3,538...“

° oxxJ-U' 9.93.);‘51'

a__.a., gywyaums.“ Magic 88:19.: 8:.st of

 

18b... ...u..n .8 (,1: 8.8.11 gr . 2.1.2.1: as, (,1. 8,1.st ,1... 8,)...”

U__,_.Ls 8.8.1 .85.-:9! 8;... 8,15. ngszge ,8 81:23.99.»

. «2.3.1.31

 

8:__._,1....JI fiuhdjuJ—J 81.8.1 (8.03.33! 3...." ME...
$8.18.; ”8,..pr ”so. 85.,83938811 'j-P-H Lab. 8.88:4:
9L3."

(”v-.4! 4,884: a": 95 up); 88. 9:.” 8583)., aljuam

.3th (,1. J8 0.1} afiss 8.8-s J... 0,8. 8,L._.:1 gr 8b,. 8.8-8:1
u—L‘ dye-1' of ,1...” a. ‘83-“ 8.8—- 88:- «ls—.8! of, «:8,» 8L:
.83.. 8....” a,“ was. curbs—ll .8.
r543“ w“ '39
é—DLl-H

91—15 HSJI hug—s,

153

(1’)

J3" '3—p."
( W‘ "' cal—aria..." )

' O—g-Léa LN): EFL” 9L?" u—‘nLa-u (/ ) 'L—olr- 8.6" :Lév-Jl

 

a—xf_ J—ss :.:—'-.-”—\
2(o—-”)J-“-”-Y

‘-—-’-(T1-h).—)

~—-‘--(r1-w)—r

‘—‘-(za-£o)-r

(5)-“L."i &°:)-£
:h-iebvdi-r
ShfiQJf-Y —— cu“-)
:L-H(ae.-Ln-J/J.u:)9;.fl 881)...” 88,811-,
8.818891 gay!-,
Hales]! 8.1..)41-y
5.,le wfll-r
:H‘J'fia? 0.4.1.581! cl:.°....:.u-.
)

 

c'v'.:-'--(z-1)
elJ-h-(ao—o) r
“OH-(124)) 1'
(JflUu-N)-£

:thul a.__..g._,:.J| 9.: 4.8.15.” sly... 4.1.5-1
e':-'-(t-1)-\

o.::-( ‘.-°)-f
e':-'-( )2-)) )-r
(chime-m-z

:Ha-JI J..£L.Jl-y
____L_,.I.:L..._. ujf 8.35.8.3: H'JJJ' 34%-,
(He-’4‘“) 354.» cal—.45 ”-84—:
wJ—zJJ-Juv/ @L-a-J-T'
J—-e:-'-?L-‘-£
“1348-5J3f oat.....‘.J_.

 

 

154

(V)

39.3”." 03.9"

9": 04.2" s." PL’fi” F‘s-1": "sir-hr siJ-rJ-‘J' Js‘c-‘J'J toga-‘3'“ 9"“!
. at.“

L_..8-.. a); g4.“ 13,1"), zjsu a, 5.3,." aha-=4! ”a: fJJf
.J___88:.n 3.8;)... 8, 5.1., 0f 8...,th 8..” 9.11, fig! gin (1,11 3,8" 9.5
olJ_.: g4...” ,5...“ J): of”; C‘ QSBJI .3le 9.3.9 .. saggy! 8.3.,1311.’
(5)—J11."me E882)... {5qu 8f ,8: 91.11.83: a 98." 81881.1 L._...'_‘.o
' ‘ . 8.88 9.38.81

.(Lnéle) 9.... 9318." 4.9.8:.“ QJJ(6.L_:_, 5.31:7)98... 4,91 3,..." gang-5);:
dun») .8. sac-“Axe" sax .3..qu ,9... 89' we! anew
(888T) u... 9.38:3: 4,881 9M PM 1 “,8... (LA! 3,183: yams}:
.(Ijsu) 9.8... 931.33! 3,841 95.4 JJIJT : )9“... .139! 3,84! gimp-J.”
84.... x) 9...... 9.31.1." 3,881 953(th bung... Jfit 3......” 95(0H-38-1'
.( 18f

n Y n n ‘ n ‘ : J'_:‘

 

 

8*.le Jles 4.3.3!th QJGGfifJ'de—‘J'J 1.le ,3...“

 

 

I .I‘ a
IrJ

(._nf ’
5.41}

'.
5..

calm: ‘
'JJL_.
Lat

Iii ,._..
L__..‘.I.:
4.3.8.3 @JLJ

LLJ

 

 

 

 

 

.usf 88183:,W1
otrY) ozrvvowoflofj8xumu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of ~.—.~ uu(u....J.,aL-:.JI 2".» 035:. of 8,8,) 5,9 3,88 ass”;
W! J-n-‘b-H rlwaJgsgrok: c.2513; “5(9)”..J'" J8“ ‘J-‘Ut‘:
.Juuugacayyusm pflvdyofivaezof ... .883 8188.18.

 

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i)
”T" n‘n
838.11}; 03.51le 8).. 5.53.81 8.3).}:‘41‘, (3.88.31 93;“
g - b fife, bififilfi-L
jj L- :18 a:
:1 o .3...
in - -j '31- 111
«J _‘1J;‘1 l :
.8. ~ .1. «J‘
’4] ‘ ' 0
i”.
F_'J_————
GW‘IWMQI “BR-l
(5)—.81 h1.9.8811 (vb-.- W
oirv1 osrr1 .z...s..11msffi..,88811
H oLn—Lna—H [WA—H 913$-y
(.ng m—Jeht-J' 30",...
ozrr1 ozrv1 oeua-LH-L-‘J-‘us'
ozrrs otrv1-ge-by'gJ-ueefiu-szugél-r

 

 

.L.__;..:f.J.,nL-..11€..1J.¢f13.-.sf-g
”if 81,85. ,3); of 8...... Lei-J!
H5w11¢yfiuww
otYY) otrr1 0J-.-.-‘L:-“c-°'J-.v

 

 

 

 

egg—Jeof wm/ Hands-o

 

 

o 2 1' v 1 o t r v 1 . (fa-‘4' Moro-8:485 13.-o
/o-.--J---"cn.-.-3-13-”J-.-3fi a—H—l
o i 1" r) o g r 7) .581}!!! 9.5.8., 8L..Lu.JI

 

 

 

Jab! 3"}? ”.15 ‘1‘?! 8.7 45.15.. -y
.A_.sL..:. of 1.8811 turf 939‘
#1 (,1: QW‘ / 098.14..“
5.88:. 9:811 8.8.1.1811 1.88.31 0..
otrr1 oth) '9-ifi-ij'PJ-Q

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

(:1

 

 

1.1...J con-.3!

L__....‘|.s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i 1" 1' 1
o i 1" 1' 1
O i 1' 1' 1
O i 1' 1' 1
o t 1' 1' 1
O i 1" 1' 1

 

 

“31,1 9).: £53,541 H3421, ”m1 93,11

‘— ” 7‘ 1h— 1.—

.‘1 .. .. 1‘ _"

431111
H}..— an—LIAJI /C"-"J""JJC""~"A
t—‘flfu-i H“! 30!.le ”.3131

o t r 1' 1 .J._.~L:.11
mg... amovégof .91.,110..-‘

021’1'1 .JganlrlflleJ
oL...1....11,0,_...1.n.11.J..L4.,,of ~.-e-:-1°

o z r 1' 1 . 1.45.11 .urg,,u1d,..L-_11
eWI,u—u-.. 1JaL-sg of see-11
r—d'xv‘ ‘errfi “:23 1.5.145

o z r y 1 . 1.4.2.11 'ufgxfll 453L141
gag-La: 3.5.9.4911? dJLér of J42” _H'
”J; 6W1 /O,..AJ_IAJ‘ a; Ofiio

otT’Y‘ .clyu‘uefikfof
h... “.1341 sL.:.:f HM1 E”If...“-
UJ.‘ 91.4.41 ,WI “1...; or

o z r r 1oJJ-ir'i-i-uh-e ”swag-Ls 1,5,4: of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

(1)

 

 

451:...” 09".) 55,911 gym” 4.9m: ,3,“

 

* ‘h

 

a»... i
.31 .
L__....‘1.a

'J

 

 

 

 

1_,f

H5! 1
5.11}

3___11in_

---_.———
A

t
O

.04_.:.., dour

 

 

__1..\_,f

E—"J'-' 9.0 '43:. 9:41 egg-11-15
cf _~ L045.” 31.3.11 Jade-J1
¢1J_.,-.. 931—» cm 1...: 0.954
ggrf1ow1oM1/WI

 

 

o—a—u—J. My,» @fichfi-u..-1o
081' 1'1 . “4.1.11 surym1ruflg

 

 

.3... as... at ..4... 9:11.11 figs." -1'1
13.—«:41 1,192.11 c...1.'_,..1 u...»
o g r 1r 1 . “4.5.11 'LéSf

'

 

 

5.43.11 v1.11 #241 E...1.,._. .1131 -1v
5J_.L 9.1.1.; ,1. 9.4.1.; 1,211 5,.

ozr1'1 .guuufyyuwu,»

 

 

 

 

.g__-:.f JeaLw 5.1,, 91.51....‘591 -M
gag—3,1 9.1 45...: of ...;..._. “45.11
011'11 .6W1/W1fii‘5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13:-11.1mm Ja u-L‘ 455—. of 9.1-11

‘.,_.i aLfiLanI / U—A-LI-A-H H";
4.92.11 r1)... 9.1 11.15111 .531...”
o g 1' ‘1‘ . “45.11 s1..-.:.1‘ nguI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~1le JIJs;

158

 

 

é»: 3
L_.'.
“1.1

14...}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Y)
I ‘ R
113.51,..." 93.1 55,91 H3121: .1111LG 95,11
‘3 Z 1‘ "3'3
4} I 1 ,1

W 1:.st 09.1353 11.9,..-1'.

W145LM1J§J U...»

.L;.:f £9.91 dents.“ 3.1)., u.

o t 1' 1' 1 . “11.11
of GM1/W1w w-f1

Hay-3.11:3 "-3-.- Lake-'43

a z 1' 1 1J:31.:ch"J-r951‘1'3L->L’J
éLA-LaA-H log-QM! 89.9.2.3 5,9,..-fy

HfL-hfifi-H 2.11.51. 9.1.:

ad's-1 ".31 111-5.14:: Hub-31.9

,1 ”1‘ ”.541 Jab—ll

o t 1' 1' 1 . 2.5.3.11
debt-J1 gab-a u-L‘ waif-n“ cab-1'1"

'34-"! cf “45.11 11.211 ngQI

91:13.13 of 91.1.1.1...” ,W

. 9——-‘ “.13“: ‘J-fi‘ H's-5.:

o t 1* 1' 1 orb-’4'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

éJuih-u" J'Js';

 

1.1....1‘ $43.: 2

l__...‘1..1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

(A)

 

 

 

fl ‘ IV

.341)...“ 9,1 gfiJQI WJQU 4,112.11 ,5,“
'3' 1A— 1L— 3 -)

i ')

a - 11,1
,1

: (
QL' Q

 

492J1r1x4uogy144.-n
0.131235... 01‘ 1.45.11 12.11
/ W." FgJLJS-"J 0514‘.“

 

fiLfiJ—“J‘lfF-fiJ-IAJ” 1 09... OJU-J- 1 .. 115
4.9211 $22.23.; 9.1 4,1,2.”

H... 4.1.. 1.4.1.41 12:1 43.2.11
. Hubs“ 9..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1—223? '4—53

 

160
Questionnaire Cover Letter

(English Version)

May 15, 1989

Dear Supervisor:

As you surely know, inservice education of teachers is a
process by which teachers could be improved. However,
inservice program activities can only be best if they are
geared to the needs of teachers as adult learners as
perceived by teachers themselves and by those who are
directly involved with the work of teachers, namely, the
supervisors.

 

Your participation in completing this survey is strictly
voluntary. You may decide not to participate at all, or
not answer certain questions without any penalty. The
survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Do 39;
write your name anywhere on the document.

You will notice that the first part of the questionnaire
asks for information about you. The second part includes
25 statements which represent varieties of andragogical
learning approaches in inservice education programs. In
any event, you will not be personally identified. Your

answer will be strictly confidential.

 

 

Your patience and cooperation are greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Yahya M. Affash
Ph.D. Candidate .
Michigan State Univer51ty

161
Part I
L10 and Personal Data

Please answer.all questions. Indicate your answer by using (,’) in the
appropriate place.

1. Gender:
1. Male
2. Female.

2. What is your age?

20 - 29 years
30 - 39 years
40 - 49 years
Over 50 years

MM

3. What is your present responsibility?

1. Teacher
2. Supervisor.

 

A. In what school level do you work now?

1. Elementary School
21 Intermediate School
3. Secondary School.

5. How many years of teaching experience do you have?

1 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
Over 15 years

FwNH

 

6. How many years of supervision experience do you have?

1 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
Over 15 years

Pulsar-1

our highest level of educational achievement?

\1
§
01
n
H
(a

*4

High School

Teacher Training (2 years)
Bachelor's Degree
Master’s Degree

Other (please specify)

U'IFUNH

 

 

ooauma 3335 3&4.
.262 moE=oEom @332 29.9% \ootw< 39.9%

$081 b50272". ootuama outw<

z/Zx. /\

Ow Qe<< <m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n v n ® _ @ v n a _ .wcton on 2:27. =8.on 0233-5 25:2. _
2
5
.1 z y. a a .< cm a. A<< < <m mmmwdmm
cocmwzcm 0828-:—
ooaotaooo no 3:335 82:029.. do 805
A8 A:

“29:88 tom

.Efimoa com-8.60 33.3-5 .3385 @82an 3338 $3 8163
-5 9.65%: 52:25» 2: .3. so» 523 o. coho—o 2.. «5.3%.: .382: o... 0.86 .cEEoo
958m 2: E .533 E :2:on 528:3 0838-5 fl 3388.. on 2.5% 52:25“ 2:
.8. :ca .323 o. 22.8 2: wcfitomov .5828” 523 do 5:28 3...: o... E ton—Es: 23:.
can? 2: 228 £80: 9.35:8 o... do :28 .5...— fiaofia 93 568—. 5 30:82 5.. cacao—60
wEEwmcoo do 2:38 35:32.96 :03 use. 02:. £52on 82838 outcome—

: Ina—

1163

(l)

(2)

 

e e U.

m

Extent of
Agreement.

Frequency of
Occurrence

 

SA

A A/D D

SD

 

Teachers should be
permitted to design their
own inservice programs.

 

3.

The experiences of the
teachers taking part in an
inservice program should
be utilized as sources of

_iafimation .

 

I am capable of directing
my own professional
development.

 

program.
5.

Inservice programs should
provide options for
teachers who do not want
to follow the planned

 

Each teacher should be
responsible for his/her
professional development.

 

A feeling of trust should
exist between inservice
planners and teachers.

 

Teachers should be helped
by inservice programs to
free themselves of patterns
of thought that block their
growth.

 

Teachers should be allowed
to set their own goals at
inservice programs.

 

 

Inservice programs should
have a clear purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1154

(1)

(2)

 

1W
mares

Extent of
Agreement

Frequency of
Occurrence

 

SA

A A/D D

SD

 

10.

Teachers should be treated
as mature adults at '
inservice programs.

 

11.

Teachers should be treated
as professionals at
inservice programs.

 

12.

I prefer working with
small groups of teachers
to listening to lectures.

 

13.

Inservice programs should
help teachers learn about
themselves.

 

IA.

15.

Theories presented at
inservice programs should
be directly related to the
teachers' personal

ex e ' n e .

 

I should be permitted to
direct my own learning
experiences.

 

l6.

Self-evaluation should be
an integral part of
inservice programs.

 

17.

The "best" inservice
programs should help me
learn new processes for
dealing with my concerns.

 

 

18.

Inservice settings should
be scheduled at convenient
times for teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1155

(1)

(2)

 

Inggflige Egugatiog
imam

Extent of
Agreement

Frequency of
Occurrence

 

SA

AA/D D

SD

 

19. Solving problems that are
of interest to the
classroom teacher should
be emphasized at inservice

meetings . .

 

20. Small groups should be
created to solve problems
at inservice programs.'

 

21. Teachers should group
themselves according to
their interests and needs
at inservice meetings.

 

22. Teachers should be
encouraged to examine
their own feelings,
attitudes and behavior

W

 

23. Inservice presenters
should show teachers
that the teachers'
abilities and experience

are valued and gggpggged.

 

24. Inservice presenters
should take time to
develop a friendly and
cooperative atmosphere.

 

25. Cooperation among
teachers at inservice
settings is an important
aid to learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u

 

166

(1)
r-e‘JJ' o—nfl‘ ‘—“' e--.-
w—sv o.~—-e.:-e.r‘-" cuifiw be”
3%., .. uLsfl‘, 4.1.11qu 4.31.1; '11....“

am ,_,__..a.: ,3 saw-3" JgakJI ,3.an 9.1....“ as...” of

g,__.,:_n Jena! an, GLLLL’. 43.“ cu eUJJ.’ . WI , Haul
um}, L‘s 9W! / My! eggs»; 9...: 9:4! 9. 6.045." emf
p—J" H4“ J31...” fa... Just ,1; 0,541 .1qu we... us: 9,5)qu

. 93,}:41 agagsw

a___sJ y’adfiyokflh‘ll 1.3..qu c.9119: 9.:st of
Let. tJ-‘n-‘H a!» 9.1.; 2st...“ Of . my! 5...... UL: Hum ,4... all.”
”—4.; a__..l essof at... ”as; 9...!) assay: 9...; 4:33.).

tut-3!

cart..." $3... ,1; dram: 4.2.1:... 0. 4,51 :9...” cut...

$3va th—a sex-u we: aka—59%;" 2+4! Lab“ e42!

.L-at ng-U' Jest—1.1! a“: 93 up); 2+: 95-” c.5431, ele‘

got—HI 9.1.; 44:. 0.1, «firs gt.» J... OJsa. 91.4.1! or 45b: . gas.”

u--'-‘ 4,..." gr pun :- eJ—H w—‘d Job-=- «Jssw of, as...» an
' . 5.3.5 as! 31,33032. etude-lad! a.
e—sew w u—c

“a...”

MQJI hug—h:

 

 

167

(Y)

J)" 'j-ae"

(«—-a-I"' ~'—- flak")

eL-q' '-.-"‘->-.v (/ ) 3—m (as; can."

u_';f___ F55—
3(Ca--”)J-‘-I-”-Y

 

sir-v.9

°'.9-'-(t-1)
":4-( h-O)
°':-=-( \(-H)
of'-*5 “-lo)

: §J—!J:-” C—gef-J' 9.5 “as.“

G's-‘- ( z-v)
°'.9-'-( “-0)
e':-‘-( u-H)
5:5 L‘" “- lo)

gee-II-»

—- c-——-’ (Yip—Y°)—\'

— ¢—-° (21-2o)-r

~—i-.eb_,-J' - r

9.9-? -— uu-H-l

:'—1-.v(¢.,,-J-aa;/J.a.a:)9;;.fl *IJuI u.g,..n-;
__ games-J! O—JAJaJ'
__ aqua}! «_LJAI

.__,.,:.Ls.n 5.1.3.4:

-1
-r
-r
thggwu

- l

-r
-r
-t

G'J—X- JAB—1

__ L_,.J.n_., L. Jr 5,..wa 5.54.” 3.1%..)
_(Haw)¢£~'u tag-ISLQJ

Why-1L5! / u‘L—e-J

«LU a.» .. .5)“ 041...; 95!

Y
r
i

 

168

(V)

Obs-'3'“

39.35:." 03.5.”

93.: 0449' 95 94-“ 5.5.: "web-“J saw-3" Je-“h-“J $22.24*“ 9“:
. €555.11

t_,.L.-... 0|); 5441,5515}. 3,2.” 555 5.5J5415u,,;.§1 5...: ij'f
.J__,.L.-.JI rug... a, 5,5, 5" 55,5511 .5.” 5.”. 3.5.5441 5,9: 4......" 9:.
0|J__: 55.419.35.115). 0).“; 6‘ 9.1.2.“ .1leng .. 5.5),?!
5,_J.u15,.55;.u Est-.5, 5,55, uffi5U1wl 45:95.1: 5115.5: 5.5.;
. 1.455 5.51.5.4:

I.

.(Ldlo)

'(‘J'J")
(5.55!)

5.35:.“
”am!
gal—1."

A.“ '

outed-I.”

4:59.51 I

ridge—5, 5.31:7)955, J59! .3:th 9.5“)53JJI

9".“
94'.“

5.31,!
PM ‘1

)9“: J)"
)9-'-.-.- J..."

4.9-4” 93m 93;“
4.9“" 94m 93:“

 

.(IJsu) 9.3.4 JJI'J : )9“, J59:

9M “—3-! bums»: 4,»?!

9.3L”! 4”.”
9&1-3-‘1 4:13.“

Jae-'4' HIM-3r"
JvOILIJ‘ @(o) 9.3;.”

'1' ‘1' ‘1' '1' '1'

abs—15,, 3)
.( M.A.
:JL_:..

 

 

c.5541 J’s; ,3,“

 

Gui-“J...“ QJJGxJJ-J'HJAH'J .J...oL.".JI

 

I_,aL..'.
545,5!
‘u'z-H

t5! 1
PM i
5...“ J

4.35., 1
-5_JIJf

. .
Q

 

054., but

!a__,f

 

 

 

 

 

 

J—DL: FHJ" 5f mf-f
.Laf e5..5...l|,;_,,...5.541
. 555.552 of, 4...: “is.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of ~.-.~ «suns... 455L141 a": 555:. 5f 55,) .55.; 551...: c.2513},
an“: 5,.LG a...I«,_,.,-,.. U51: of 55: 5.2514]. amupflu J}. Us.” 55:.
.JLiaJlgjcaerd”) 93,415,593”ng .55, «.553 “gt...

 

169

 

sSJ-PJJ' veg-354': death-H p3,.“

 

 

 

 

$43.“!

.0

 

l..\_,.f

We...

 

 

l

grey-H 4,524: 5.1,, ‘.-
. 3.5.5.1: 'L.°_‘.f 5..., “w.

 

 

F5 9W1/oya-LHJI G'fli_f

pd—LS-Z or *3 ngcéJi to")...
o 9b.J-“-U JA‘QS

 

 

.gégbfll 5).... 5,53"; uJ.‘ JJU 9.” _ f

 

 

cL———-—"r J..at;.ll caIJ... or 5'13f-g
5ft e155,; ,5); of .5, 2.55.1:

9.._.i 5L5:..m 5545,3555:
. 553L315”,

 

 

03—3-3.“ 55,145., .m-LI-JS-o
. 9.5..." emfwwu}.

 

 

/0e~LuJ'cn~U-‘-J'Je.4£ see-1
'f'J-EHU‘L-‘J cube-LIA.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jet—H 5."... 5.5 ,5, «J mar -y
.z._.sL...-. of 1.55.” cusf 55)::
5515:." 51.; cal—Jan.“ , 5555..."
5__....-. 9:.” .,..x.5u.-.J: 555.91 5..

- 9493:“ 5,...

 

 

 

 

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T

.1le JIJs; any: .5), 55:...le 5,_..x:_nJ Jet-H 53,“

“NJ: 3mm

: : . ”5'35 — _.

$315] ”1111
legmhwl “mar

oirY\ ozrvx -J-.-aL'-|I
L_i..\_.a duo'éof 559.110.-.‘

ezrvx ezrvx .JE-DL'J|EMJ,.IL5.M_,
5.5.1.5541“)..qu 4..., of ,5,-,.
F‘xgws'gw

oer\ ctr!» -1-a:sJI'U—‘fg_,._,:.JIJ5aL-_n
oWl/W" 1J-Laaé' vase-H
c—-‘- 'J-ur‘ Eva-.25 "Rs-5.945

OIYY\ otYY\ ~343J"U-3fng:JlJ,JL”_H
Hog-14:25.”?! VJJLtf J Mr_nr
gnu 6W1 [HA—“wax“

OET'Y) oth‘ ~G'J-‘Lu-l-Je‘J-Vof
5.5,ng *Lééfdyntul E51.5,.“-
5:5 91.54....” ”55.1.5.4! .uL.;.-_,f

ctrru o!,\'\’ wJé-if'c-i-ubqh-z'fiul-HyJ-ceof

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If“...
_____..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
o i Y‘ Y \
o i Y Y Y
o 2 Y’ Y Y
o t Y’ Y Y
o t Y Y Y
o i Y Y Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

(1)

 

mu...“

9J4

 

44......fl JJLsf

3__.u_,f 1

5—1IJ

0.12., 3.11,!

9.4.3"

 

25:-2:3” WJ-‘H'J debts-H 53,.”

 

E—_"'J"-’ 9.- 9.1.3; 9:.” chub.“ .}g
a! .__5, -5541 sufl 4,..Luv
.u,_.-._ of‘—,- mu L-v-i are:

0 tad-LN OLA-hA-H / Hg.”

 

W! 95'}? @J-‘v 9H the: -\o
. a..." sud 4.5m: 3.1). 93

 

03—? (’33,... Of 5.9.! 9.3. J.” H.933.“ _n
95—..." Jab.” 6.1.5.1 u...
0 “AL.” "-44”

I

 

HAL.” «_m‘ MU.“ Pu, J.” -W
. gnu—a- f gu Jan—U" 55.5

 

.._-.:.f 4,503.“ 6.5:, .uuz5: -u
aL.__1'Jf 9" 4.3.: of 55. .454!
o QLA-LDAJ' / WY '53.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:41 45L“: J55» 453, of 55,-“
?._—i 6W1/WI H“:

Jets—H 5.1)., 5; 5.5.4! vaI
. a..." cur guy:

 

 

172

(Y)

 

 

$343..“ ‘2' J5;

an)..."

an)
'1

 

 

 

04.42., JJLsf

hf!

I ,f

.52, put

L

gypl 5,353” Jam: ,3,“

 

 

brag-Ln: 9L5)“ 0,55; 5.5,... y.
WY JSLLAJY J‘J 0J5...-
.u..~.:.f gfipu g1,.»L-..n a“)? 9:.

. “4'3.”

 

 

of awnwm .1. 5a,-“

.51..__sd.5. .3 5.5.x 13.2.,

p———-+=L.-b u-L‘ "-°-.’ 05.5,.ng
.J:D\.:’Jl a“)! 9" H39“:

 

 

éLn-LIAJ' /¢._-n-LaA-JY egg-9;: %- YY
P—‘J‘u‘ .9“ JU‘ “'4‘- .4:
c—“J'! "3L Hid-v Pub-‘3':
0‘ —-:-f 554%,);4' Je‘tu'

0 his.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4- q 3: - o
9 _1 J _N
b.
J i :
o t Y Y Y
o t Y Y Y
o t Y Y Y
o t Y Y Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55m 5., 5. 59,24! .2 - “-
YW of a..." cut 5.,fo:
55:13.3 gr 5.4.5.41 ,W
r—J “a3”: UH" M'x-‘v

. rug:

 

 

 

 

 

éJ-YAJ' JIJS;

 

 

{L‘hg

 

 

 

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

a...
fl
‘1.
otYY
otYY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(A)
1"”

Lang! 0;.) 95:59! 5.1.2.331) 49b! 5.3,“

J, ,l- D -»

‘5‘ 12111

CL: Y Q
Jet-H "1,530,354! 5.1.-”
9.131.533, of 5.5.55.1! 'uf
[CHE‘L‘fi'H ROJLALJYJ GYJ‘JY

. z r y \.€0L;J5Jl?i¢5,SJL:nJI 5.4....“
éL-fiJJ‘JY/(HyI—LIQJY WOJL‘UY _fo
J,..L-.JI .uwggwst:
5.5.4.1.; .45.“ war Egypt

0 z r r Y - 55.1.2193

 

3——.v3? '3—53

 

APPENDIX B

CORRESPONDENCE

 

 

174

MRKHGANWHKTEUNnmkflTY

 

EVENING COLLEGE 0 KELOGG m EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN «124-[022

May 3, 1989

Minister of Education
Jordan-Amman

Dear Sir:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Yahya Affash, who
is at present a doctoral student from Jordan under my
direction, in the College of Education, Department of
Educational Administration at Michigan State University.

Mr. Affash has proposed a doctoral research study on:

"The Needs of Teachers as Adult Learners as
Perceived by Teachers and Supervisors in In-
Service Teacher Education Programs in Jordan."

He plans to do his research in the next few months,
and in order to complete his study, needs to have your
approval and help in gathering data from public school
teachers and supervisors in the Mafrag District.

His Doctoral Committee feels that his study will contribute
significantly in advancing educational knowledge in the
fields of Adult and Teacher Education, and will also
provide valuable information for your Ministry of

Education.

Your approval and help in the research study will be very
much appreciated. If further information is needed, we

will be pleased to comply.
Sincerely,

c...“

Dr. Charles A. McKee .
Professor and Committee Chairman .
Department of Educational Administration

College of Education
18 Kellogg Center

CAM:dt

MSU is an Affirmw've Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

175

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

01mm com ON mum momma usr umsma . mono»: . ant-nu
HUMAN sumac-ts wan-rs}

206 mm mu.

(511) 355-9730

May 19, 1989 ‘ # 89-257

 

Yahya M. Affash
1512 #E Spartan Village
E. Lansing, Michigan 48823

Dear Mr. Affash:

Re: The Needs of Teachers as Adult Learners as Perceived by Teachers and
Supervisors in In-service Teacher Education Programs in Jordan 89-257

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed
research frotocol and find that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be
protecte . You have approval to conduct the research.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to
continue this project beyond one year, lease make provisions for obtaining appropriate
UCRIHS approval one month pnor to ay 19, 1990.

 

Any changes in procedures involvin human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS
prior to initiation of the change. U RIHS must also be notified promptly of any
problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the
course of the work.

Thank you for bringing this pro'ect to our attention. Ifwe can be of any future help,
please do not hesitate to let us ow.

 

 

cc: Dr. McKee

MSU it an A/fimtiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

I76

CUMBERLAND TRACE ELEMENTARY

830 Cumberland Trace Road
Bowling Green. Kentucky 42101
Telephone 502/781-1356
'“EflQJLmflmR Dmmmtismnx
“mm" March 6, 1989 PM?"

Mr. Yahya M. Affash

1512 #E Spartan Village
E. Lansing, MI 48823

Dear Mr. Affash:

Please find enclosed a copy of the survey instrument I
developed to collect data on teachers' views on inservice
education. I am very much interested in your research and

would appreciate feedback on your findings. In addition, I
would like to have a copy of the translated instrument for my

files.

You have my permission to translate the instrument and to
use it in your research. I am pleased that you have confidence
in the quality of my work.

Good luck on your project and if I can be of additional
help please feel free to call.

Sincerely,

17...... (fl 7(«7é

Dennis 0. Minix, Ed.D.

Accredited by: Southern Association o/Sclloolr and College:
Accraditd by: Kemky State W 42an
Recipient of Kentucky State Foundnabn Flag of Excellence

 

 

177

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND (£11m EAST LANSING 0 KlCl'IlGAN 0 «lad-1027

DEPAI'I'IIENT O! LINGUISTICS AND GERIANIC.
SLAVIC. ASIAN AND AFRICAN LANGUAGI
A-GIS WELLS HALL

May S, 1989

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby certify that Mr. Yahyn.M. Affash has translated
into Arabic the cover letter and the questionnaire used

as a tool in his research for his doctoral dissertation
entitled, "The Needs of Teachers as Adult Learners as
Perceived by Teachers and Supervisors in In-Service Teacher
Education Programs in Jordan". The translation is accurate,
reliable and faithful to the English original in both
format and content.

I do wish him the best of luck.

Sincerely. .
. . - 4 ( 3 ( - _
/ i . -‘ ' ‘ ‘ '
K L W t \. . j 1 Dam of Linguistics and
Khalil Al-Sughayer Africa?ica'nsgi:‘aligcésA8ian and
Arabic Instructor Michigan State Universit
Wells Ha" y

50! Lansing, m ‘8824-1m7

Telephone: 517/3534?“ Teh: 650-377-514. la Cabh: usunrmo ELSG

MSU it a We. Action/Equal Opportunity Institutio-

 

178

THI’ HASHEMHE KINGDOM

 

OP jomm 'VQMA’ fit}
muism or EDUCATION 6“") L115” 3.1;,
_i (:51 - .—

 

Ref. No.

 

(,0/ Y /Y‘ Pi)“
' ' Yi j/Y- o/n tyi‘!‘

Date .. .. , - l |
.............. ”“76 74"" 65:1

ayimwkwlfiwuifi.
L_.l..u.:..L.i,..Ji, 5,311.5.» :59."

..._.,.-.JI,J._..L-.Jlg. 04.41-91. .5... " 1.593,. Lifiuzu. 4...): ”Mgmi‘g,
wjé‘fiamu'w3u‘Jl‘J‘lflJw‘Jcl-‘13'"ufiflJ'J'QJI'j—‘J'JWLI‘J L4.-
van t...) “191...:

cowlywlfim,a...J55.:,5ji-
.15.»?qu

Isa-'1‘" .54, reflux-haw. ,ng lee-
6% mi." 1.9.1.35 .544! 3....3 la:
L——'—JL$,JL. .mw w' H was; 1....

Yo/Y 95.4%“ as...

    
 

 

 

179

594‘ 1511-»! («h-J: ' ‘2 1.1.5“ :,,.. a -
"W lYY/Y/d/ ,spi

ital/RA. tut-.11

‘ (Y N v I .’ "
. agaCJY effing, .9 H _ YflAi/o/‘Q 9354‘
eeoooooo'fooooaooeoue'eog-‘....-...LJJ‘3 \‘i

can)! rs... n'M/o/ti-wt; court/tong) plat, 2.1-.“ fibgu. 51.3.5 2,1.3 '
UWJJSJIwwWIQIqufia-g' L459). LIJQ "0:435 .Lgtfiéw Us: "tTJLiaJI"
L's-p £330.: c). éJJ 8L ‘1’ rg-JLH U‘J‘ 25115-9! {bi-v: "O’g’gf-n o’érInJI’ aria-b" “I;

pit-At, :,.,;Ji,_.'.. /

- “L; {2 . '
\ ' HINM
551d! 5=;.s...=
.‘slrt‘il 5325...:
gm: 4‘2“ dub”
. lel/hL-Jl .LL 1...:

" HM/o/rt/e‘l
/

 

 

180

52“" , A "Y" lYY/V/u/ p,“

trot/Mu but.”
' HM/o/gt .535."
awe UIU'L—JYV—JGULEJyJI _ .
:‘oeo‘ovoco'eoooo-ooeoJO'M2‘0'000blah OJg-hl’é
Iris—II uL—I’AJI', 5,72" H5...” layer”

.1sz ' Ls! '
UBJJIQJLJWYubbaA-f' L563}, 2.1).» "an. “is:- r i L“
“‘Y' -15.?! " rr“ or :u x

3*" 0' s5"! 6“ ‘1: P2” ck" ta": "0:: .14...." ”34:! 5.5.1:,

rah-”‘3 Kai-”2;“ /
“a a ' ' .v 1 'l -
éfiJ‘IIxA-JJM
SMY 3.5;;
1:315on
cm: ”x“ J9...

" rt .1
MAR/cl L

 

 

 

181

. - ..-. . I -! - _ ‘ ..
a?“ 4m”, - ‘1 5,4 “x“ 4‘ “A IVY/Y/JI'JJJY

i tot/St \4' tut-fl
Ll) ‘ ' Y‘lA‘l/o/§< .551,”
N . CM \ h ‘ wt - .
‘ Q "~ ..irriguo'.’..-.....-...1_,JJ, :fl’é
i=4..." .uz,.Ju-, 9,023 c...” xtpmi

. . ' 1:3,: '3 Ls! I
' - - l Hf” 14;:th ‘-" J
,- ‘ - ' a- 1:. totVt/io/rw 54-4 a - ' . ‘ .. um"
..i..J! my. MAC-jot? cw ML." "lo-":52“ LIJJ-g'ufl'" 5,1»... fut
. w - ,l. - I‘OH".Jd e C - .: e ‘ . x
U ° 'J‘J‘. - . y t... . ,Js “DU—31 333-: "025:0‘” ufir‘Jifif-J’J‘d __
Woke—3t??? 6"!“ 3 PS" ' .‘J H“ n “at...” 5.4-»;

- “L3 as? ' 9.2m - 25...:
(:/’ \. ‘éflJnjfihU25a5
.51).:‘11 gum

gm: ‘3)“ 49:5“

. 5.1.:th than .11. t...

" \‘Y/o‘l
Y ‘YA‘Y/OI /

 

 

182

‘ Hfilw’fl ‘JJI r...
623-" 2351...! Fri-'3‘: 1323‘ Eur“
6“ f“ HWY/tug,“
>\ , ltd/V\4 82‘”
a. LA); at.) :3 LL: ' Mime/6 in,“

.....'ooo:‘oeeoeoeooouo'ooo’gvee'eoeoLJJ. 13d}:
:51...“ .uijni, 4,.“ a..." xvi,“

.245)! ”:5. n'M/o/n-we Yotilt/Yo/Y‘J) (Adi, 1,511 ,3,¢JL.51;.$J :Ju: '
”WJ-‘SJ‘Qrb‘QWIY-Lbbw‘ 143,3,» LI,.1.,"UM_h .93)!» ”an; "t5JLlaJY"
a... J... o. g.) 55.1.. ‘1, fiat... k,4. new! 83": "0,5,2“ 033.41, 0,4...“ 1.1,,

~ .J 2.55m 2-1.41 “43:,

r-‘J-‘J‘: 1:254‘34‘ /

- “L; {a . ' ‘
\ ———- UJJIJgaJJ'Li-J
$1.31,..de
: f,.l.-:.Jl 3:55.;
.5921 5325...:
9:1? “51.“ 4541’“
. ”new 1.1.24! .34. 2......-

' HA‘I/o/YY/a‘l
/

 

183

_ f5.....511 9,11 .111 f...
5,14121331..1 r.1....1; -1, 9,2112,”
‘9‘ “‘ "rm/org;
. Yto‘l/tht 53,1511
C33,.\).E)J)‘C3W1i? 43L. ' Y‘YA't/o/KQ 531,11

.-..‘2....--......ao.o.u.'...-‘...‘....LJJ‘ '3 “(’6‘
151.11 .1.1,..11-, 9,511 .511 491,41

1...,32199w1‘m4-J15155w' .14.)... 2.1 ,1, "gen. 1,1,1... L,.~._."5.11.1..11"
‘4" Jet": 0' 1541’ c-‘L- ‘1: rS-JI-P .3 “LP-3‘ {313-1 "oxfo‘ 0351-3”: «12:-L‘s” ‘4'):
' . .1 as...“ 2.1.1.41 ,5.31:,

54“": END-t.“ /

«1,5 £5 . '
K C .— 9.111),...113...
.4 -l -n J: v.0 o
.31).:11 3325...:
g)”: .6); JSJ'ZLJ
owl/L431! .LL 1......

“ YiAilo/Yi/efl
/

 

 

184

. HH‘C)’JJ‘ .111 r-2
13)-11:15:11.4 5:411:11, 23,2112“... .
A "\"~ Irr/wq/gy

1td/‘1Ax4' 82‘3"
0393919)},1241 i? 5L1, ' - \1A‘IO/g: 531,41
........53.”......._..-...-...'.....:_,)J_. ark/’4,

L_.L1I-“ GL-IJAJT, 253.:le 53...,“ Itfirfi

c.5141 ,911‘M/o/11ép («_191/141'91 pin-l. ' b Lefl‘ 1:3:th v15“ 7}“

LAW,1;J1,1=¢1:JW1¢1+1.1,1J 14:-,1, 1.1)..1 "92.1.1. 1,1,1...» 6,, "411,11"

4134-. Won g5"! C31.- ‘1, é-J’JnuJi 2.991%,"03xfi1035fil, 0M! L“):
’ OJ 15.-nu" 34“....“ 5.333,

pm, 21:11:41,11- /
- “L15 {3 . ’
< \ 2" > 9311,...JJM
wifiiflww

bu. - 115w.» -

1.4111311 6')“
55,1): .41).: .15-‘15-4
opw1/Lgu1 .11. 21...;

' HAVO/H/efl
/

 

185

{LL}! 3131...! 5,1131, 9511934.. 6\ .
“‘ IVY/Y/d/ f3,11

'11:~1/*1.<\4' tub-3‘
ngtcy1 «3):; 9" 43b ' HAVo/§< 551,41
o'oooco06.009000oooouo’oor‘ooo'toooz-JJ‘ ‘Hf‘
1._.1..J1.:.1..1,.1J1-,g,.,;.11¢...,11/t,a,.11

c.5141 ,g... H'M/o/Htub (o_szt/1o/r,3, ”1.411, 13511 #391... V2.11 2,1;1
UWJfl1WUWIGQW' L956}. Ll 1.1... "$1.55 .19)!» 9a.; ”QM!"
C...“ W on 554-! 8“ ‘1: fS-J'Jn UJ‘ LL?" 63:1,"..3’gfi’21‘09’3‘“, Orb.” bi):
° ‘J W! 33“...“ {gut-533

#‘J‘: @532“ /

- “L53; . '
\ -"'"' 'rsJ°°‘)gJ..JJ1$-n3

 

éfia‘ilflwu

pix-J! 5:55.»

.51).?“ (5'21“;

gm: 551‘“ 1395*“

. pwv 71.1-un .11.. 11...:

" \1A1/o/YV/éfl
/

 

 

186

-°1:1;‘.a1.,..1,-:.1..-J1,:,_.,;.11:.,.,,1. .
a)“ ' °\ “‘ 'm'N/qx 51,11

. , Rom/V1.4? 81“”
S r ' ~ ' ‘ . -.‘ ‘
evv\w91 )9» 9....) 23.-{)1 ; . - 11M/o/g< 0:1,..1
13:00.0;30coo.oooouo‘ooo"oto;oooz_,)4.3H};
1._..1..J1 c.1...1 1.1.11, $5,321 M1 lag,“

“1,31 ,9, nun/118,1; (outfit/1 Jr‘s, 54.21% AeiJ‘ 1:3: 1.14"" ‘4‘“ :fmugv'
wJfl'fi‘wW‘C-‘ébw' “"3"? “1‘3”“, .19? “,2 5.111.111
0 .- - . ' - - .= o ‘ ‘ .
- ‘- . .11.! -L. ‘1 I.» .1143! {Ir-'1 "omer" w’ 5 urJ-“J :3
WWWESC’ ,rS-J UJ‘ odw izésh-J‘ {-3.333}

rel-“‘1 2,5511} /
\ _—--
55"?“ M '3‘:
. -1 -n 3: «if o
1.51).?“ 533...:
5.51%? ‘51:“ J93“
.FJ,_-J1/z..,1;.n 4.1. 21...:

" HAVo/W/dfi
/

 

 

187

F‘b'J A... 1 L
dfl‘ 21:11....1 " ’J :14- ‘\ ‘\‘< HWY/.5151;

1t~1/\A\4w1:.11
'- 1‘1M/o/g< 331,41
5:21.19)! NJGL‘ “A;

060.000.000.90coo‘otoooooLJJ‘ ‘fiu’dn
1.1...11 .:.1...1 .111, 4,511 ¢...,11 459,11

(:91...) 93"“ 5.153.!“ 4 L21

1 " "3:131 1:1';'5J-"""J 5 0
He- “heir?- u' 1.5"" C‘L‘ ‘13 PSLJM‘ ”'1‘ ..-.L;...‘1 83"" ”I”: "0:: . .1 2.1.41 2.111....» r4313:

Fug“, IVE—”fl /

’ .11.; 3’ “O 911.11,:wm
( \j éfid‘ufiww
. -1 -11 3: .1. .

l‘iléo Jug.

15:-.9- .1)... J54“

' 17.91
1‘1A‘1/0/1/

 

 

188

. H)” C29)“ 4.1." H
5,1.11 21:11.4 59.21,,gqfi11ggg. -
‘\ “‘1 lYf/Y/d/ f5,11

. 114/1111\4' 3,121
‘ 1. ' 0 n ’ ' “
w§yu1afl1 _ mule/6 #1,.11
o'ooooooéLoooooooooouo‘ooomotoroooZ-JJ‘ :AJ’?

1,1111 91.11111, 1.5:: 5:11 .11....11 Iva,“

c.3141 ,ge... 11'11/1/1'1tvb 1.1.1511/1 o/rfs, pun, 2.3511 £3,411... 11:51 2,111
1.1%., J.1511 ”UWMwa' 14:-,1, 2.1 ,1... "911.1. 151,11... .32 "1.111111"
Gog. Jgoa: a 5?", 6L: ‘1: {Sn-11.1.. 9"“ LL?" 3.3:”, "Ojgfi’fl‘ 035F1: Orb-J1 L31):

. .1 as...“ 2.111....11 1:432.

( \ --—-_ $1,113.;
éj‘éj‘fi‘mw

: ”11:91 5:53.;

.11 p11 gum
1§xu=‘51"~”915‘4

. ”1131/ LgEJ1 .LL 2:3...-

" 1111/o/1‘1/c1‘1
/

 

 

189

‘\ “‘ IT’T’IYIu/ r1,11

, '1to'1/1Ax4‘ 82“"
131.13%».11 gal—L1 3.0.99 ' . 11A1/o/§< 531,11.

00.00;...{09000000090'0.0".......a)“ :

1,441.“ ablfiJi, éff'" c...J1/t,.s,.11

’33..

1.5.... ,1..11,,1..1..11m,..1~J1..1..1_,.1..1.-." 1,51,.” ..1 ,1. "U111. 1.51:1... U.s.."....11.11.11"

51‘s...." léfiL-u-n rgéss;

r.11.:11, 21.3191. /

 

. GL3 \t’
K 9 $91.11;...
é,1.1‘i1,.,.1.U‘L-'~.:
r144. -1.s=;-~'j °
1,911,533.;

14:-:25 ‘41“ J92»:
erJV 2.4;...11 .31." 11...:

" 11M/o/11/e11
/

 

 

190

6““ RWY/am;

'1to1/ux4' 81“”

' ' 11M/o/.-\< 531,41

«.11 1,5131%; _ _

‘ :0o.ooo:oooouo‘o0.019000000LJJ‘ ‘A’J‘
1.1.11 91.1.11, 55,, ,-.11 c...” Q9,»

. . _ n - ‘ o. . L“ Vw :JD‘
" .1 ' 1VA1/0/1‘tflb (01V(/‘°/rf’1 W" ‘53:! fed“?! "q...“b—"u
“LA 9:}:- Lu 1'1 ,..L-..J- lagbwfl 145:5? L'fit'uzb‘ ‘3') 4"“ ‘4": .1 La!
”9“,“‘99 .- y 1.4, ”.1; bL-z-‘ll 33:3,"035‘3'025‘ 03".»“1‘393‘L :3
apJfl-‘Cfé‘JC’L‘ ’1'") ' .‘Jw114sLnJif-gJ-i-g

raj-'5”: yfl‘fié‘ /

.11.; t’ ' . $111,112....

[ \ ’— 6,1111flw“
. -l .” L15: 0'0 o
151,111,531... °

gm: 4,2. 111....
.rJ,_-_J1/2_..,1;'.J1 .LL 15.-5

'* 17.111
1 “UH/OK/

 

 

191

39.112121“ 9:15-31, 9,2119... ¢\ 1
“‘ [ff/Y/d/ 9,11

124/HA1 55,121

WJ2J1 6:1)\J;_D‘ 3A“ " ‘ “Mia/g2 531,11
o'oo.0000'".ooooooooouo‘ooo'gotorooob)“3 ’J‘

1.1.11 .-.1..1,.11~, 1.5121“ ¢...,.11 Q9,"

UWJA‘Q‘fiJwW-LfiJ‘G-HBW' “3,3,. Lbég "”3155 4.4.3)!» ”-3-; "yr-11.5.1".
WW 0° 941' c-‘L' ‘1: é-fi-b .r" 13L?" L533: "01:11:?” 0994‘: orb." ‘4‘;
° 51 25.—J1 3&“‘ #4333

K’ “5:? 9 «J «M
\ °‘ 1,, 25...:
r—JJ-J. ' ‘53)“... '
d1;‘11y,15..9
gm" ‘51“ 397““
.phzfll‘bgufl .JJ. 15...:

” 11A1/o/(1/¢fi
/

 

 

192

Hi“ ifs,“ dJJIr...
4‘ "8 Inna/9,11

, 12~1/\A\~1C,,1:.11
m.» A» 1.111611%) 0» e011,; ' _ mun/K2 351,91

o'ooo0006.0:0000oooouo'o'loo'go:oooqu-)J‘ " .4: [’5

Lin-3‘ 91...} 9.1.", 939,-.“ a...” Itf’afl

c.9141 ,2._... 1111/1/11-59; (curt/1o 11'9, r,.1..:.11, 71...,211 ”“91... 1.1.25.1 2,1..1
I 5 H
UHJJJ‘QJUW1H‘J‘OM' Myrrh-1):}! . Unit-1‘ Ann-0’14.” ”a... "1.3.11.5."

’dJ 4.5....” 0.151....“ ~43,

r..1....:.11, 2,511,... /

 

“L5 {3
K 39 65:31:31..
.‘ Fla-J1 Q9— 53...:

.Jl,:.‘11 5o ,25...:
6:215 “’1‘“ 519°“
rlJ-J" 4.3.1.241 1.1.1: 5...:

' 1111/11/12/61
. /

 

 

 

193

5,2." 21:31.4 (4.4; -1, 2,_..,.,:11 2.x. -
c‘ “0‘ "rm/.11 '5,11

5 , '12o1/Vx4‘ 3,1311
“UjLé-‘og‘QJh W ' mun/K2 531,11

o'oocoooiLoooooooooouo'ooo’gototOOOZ-JA‘ :éal’da

1.1.11 .-.1..-1,..11~, $5.11 M! 45.5.11

91.11 ',2... H'At/o/Htub (o.£91/1-/ffi, f,,1..:11, 2._.,:11 ,3, Q1... .251 2,141
ija‘kbwch-L‘J‘élqu‘ 143,3,- L|)J-: "”5135 9’14.” a: ..§?¢th‘"

C“: J”; a *5.” 8L. ‘1, eS—JLB UJ‘ LL;.-‘11t,,:—,"o,g,.,dlo=,5,:.dl, Orin-nu“ L31):
° (J lain-v“ 345‘...” {-1.335}

923*“: "affix-2“ /
- 6L5 {3 . '
K ~i wa
é,11‘11,:1.1122..:
‘ #15:?

_“ 1an/o/12/¢fl
/

 

 

 

194

1 H915»; .1111...
3,241 21221.4 r.1...1; - 1, 2...,211 2.5.... A
“W INN/.219,»

, 11.111... 8,1:11
M 6:23.511‘c-39JUH41: I” (01 ' _ \‘A‘lO/KQ 61.31,.”
. 4o
}

1.1.11 9.1.11, 9,;11 ¢..,11 Q9,”

¢;.L,11 f,2...11'11'1/11/11t..,1.-: 1.12112/1o/rrs, r4“- - 1, 9,211.3,411... .151 2,1..:1
”figwifirbUW1995ya-i" 14.2,}, Ll,.1.,"utl.'1s .1_....:,l.1.~ ”a; "HJLLJI"

° OJ w‘ 3.151....” {51433:

. “L15 £5 . '
( \ -—-"' 9.211,...11-2...
6,1431%...”1-3-4
. -I ’1‘ 6.: a: .
.21,:113,2..4
.51.:11/2...» .21. 2...:

” 1..././c</.n
/

 

 

 

195

J)“ ’ 6“ "\"~ /1'1'/V/.2/ 52,11

1t~\/V\~1c.,1:.11
2 ' HM/o/ 2 521,11
WW\M J)1Q“_‘JA - ._ K _,
OOOOOO:O:OOOO‘-"WOOO‘Q.OOOOOa)“ :fl’b

Lia-J1 GLJJJJ“, .39er1 #141,941

a LA
“1.11 ,,2... 11M/o/11C,,L.Lc.1yu1o /1',., r,.L.:.11, 2.,:11 ,_.,,,,111.. 1.21 3.4.4.11"

11 - 1U,.,...11,U,..1...11L.1,.
WWCr'gS-‘t’ c-L- ‘1: rS-J‘J‘ul‘ ‘er- {:r- Ir-a "0::de ‘ 2.1.1....11 p.132,

,_..L.:J1, 2.511,... /

“L; 8.3 g o ) gfiJlfiadJls—A
K \ f éJIJ‘JifidJJ'Li—J
1,.2‘11 5o ,2....2

6:22" ‘41-“ 139:

" HAVo/fi/dfi
/

 

 

196

H1.” ”or“... 4.1.11"
"W lT’f/Y/u/ r..,11

. _ 124/HA1 81‘5”

GwyUlMJfohab ' 1 Minn/<2 5:21,.“

oooooooo.oooooooooouo'°.ooogotoroooz-Uaizl-Ih/A‘ '
1.1.11 .-..L..1,-.11, ,,.,:11 c...) 1 102,41

L1“,..11,L..L1w.1.-.J1..1.1.....:" 14.2,”)? 2.1,... "0:12. ..:,1.... g,.."..111.11"

’4-1 w1 4:151..." {-4.333};

r-J‘J‘: 'iwf-‘UQ' /

- “LS5 t: . '
‘éJ1J’1J‘J-QJJM
a -3 _I‘ ‘3: a... 0
1,211,532...

gr? “’1‘“ 139*“

“ 11A1/o/12/¢fl
/

 

 

APPENDIX C

OBSERVED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLES

 

 

197

Table C.01.--Observed Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inserv1ce Needs of Teachers for the 25 Items

by All Teachers (Extent of Agreement)

 

Degree of

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 4 5
Item
Cluster
Item Number SA A A/D D SD
1 N 226 11 3 - - F6
% 94.2 4.6 1.2 - -
2 N 176 59 5 - - F6
% 73.3 24.6 2.1 - -
3 N 129 95 3 - - F1
% 54.0 39.7 6.3 - —
4 N 92 127 21 - - F1
% 38.3 52.9 8.8 - -
5 N 101 113 26 - - F1
% 42.1 47.1 10.8 - -
6 N 84 132 24 - - F4
% 35.0 55.0 10.0 - -
7 N 102 112 26 - - F4
% 42.5 46.7 10.8 - -
8 N 106 107 27 - - F1
% 44.2 44.6 11.2 - -
9 N 150 81 8 - - F4
% 62.8 33.9 3.3 - -
10 N 80 134 25 - - Profess
% 33.5 56.1 10.5 - - Adults
11 N 76 134 3 - - Profess
% 31.8 56.1 12.1 - - Adults
12 N 85 121 32 1 - F5
% 35.5 50.6 13.4 . -
13 N 102 101 36 - - F3
% 42.7 42.3 15.1 - -
14 N 102 117 20 - - F3
% 42.7 49.0 8.4 - -
15 N 135 94 11 - - F1
% 56.2 39.2 4.6 - -
16 N 87 137 16 - - F3
% 36.2 57.1' 6.7 - -

 

Table C.01.

(cont’d.).

198

 

Degree of

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 5

Item

Cluster

Item Number SA A A/D SD

17 N 71 142 27 - F2
% 29.6 59.2 11.2 -

18 N 121 97 22 - F2
% 50.4 40.4 9.2 -

19 N 142 86 11 - F2
% 59.4 36.0 4.6 -

20 N 96 125 18 - F5
% 40.2 52.3 7.5 -

21 N 84 137 18 - F2
% 35.1 57.3 7.5 —

22 N 98 116 24 - F3
% 41.2 48.7 10.1 -

23 N 119 107 13 - F2
% 49.8 44.8 5.4 -

24 N 97 109 33 - F2
% 40.6 45.6 13.8 -

25 N 109 108 22 - F2
% 45.6 45.2 9.2 -

 

 

SA - Strongly Agree
A - Agree
A/D - Agree/Disagree
D - Disagree
SD - Strongly Disagree

 

199

Table C.02.--0bserved Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inserv1ce Needs of Teachers for the 25 Items
by All Supervisors (Extent of Agreement)

 

Degree of

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 ' 4 5
Item
Cluster
Item Number SA A A/D D SD
1 N 20 - - - - F6
% 100.0 - - - -
2 N 20 - - - - F6
% 100.0 — — - —
3 N 12 8 - - - F1
% 60.0 40.0 - - -
4 N 9 11 - - - F1
% 45.0 55.0 - — -
5 N 7 10 3 - - F1
% 35.0 50.0 15.0 - - ,
6 N 7 12 1 - - F4
% 35.0 60.0 5.0 - -
7 N 7 12 1 - - F4
% 35.0 60.0 5.0 - -
8 N 9 9 2 - - F1
% 45.0 45.0 10.0 - —
9 N 19 1 - - - F4
% 95.0 5.0 - - -
10 N 13 7 — - - Profess
% 65.0 35.0 - - - Adults
11 N 8 11 1 - - Profess
% 40.0 55.0 5.0 - - Adults
12 N 2 13 2 - - F5
% 25.0 65.0 10.0 - —
13 N 4 14 2 - - F3
% 20.0 70.0 10.0 - -
14 N 4 13 3 - - F3
% 20.0 65.0 15.0 - -
15 N 18 2 - - - F1
%. 90.0 10.0 - - -
16 N 13 6 1 - - F3
% 65.0- 30.0 5.0 - —

 

 

Table C.02.

(cont’d.).

200

 

Degree of

 

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 5
Item
Cluster
Item Number SA A A/D SD
17 N 10 8 2 - F2
% 50.0 40.0 10.0 -
18 N 9 9 2 - F2
% 45.0 45.0 10.0 -
19 N 16 4 - - F2
% 80.0 20.0 - -
20 N 9 11 - - F5
% 45.0 55.0 - -
21 N 4 15 1 - F2
% 20.0 75.0 5.0 -
22 N 4 15 1 - F3
% 20.0 75.0 5.0 -
23 N 8 9 - 3 - F2
% 40.0 45.0 15.0 -
24 N 11 9 - - F2
% 55.0 45.0 - -
25 N 12 - 8 - - F2
% 60.0 40.0 - -
SA - Strongly Agree
A - Agree
A/D - Agree/Disagree
D - Disagree
SD - Strongly Disagree

 

201

Table C.03.--0bserved Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inserv1ce Needs of Teachers for the 25 Items
by All Teachers (Actual Practice)

 

Degree of

 

 

 

Importance 2 3 4 5
Item
Cluster
Item Number F S R N
1 N 14 112 100 14 F6
% 5.8 46.7 41.7 5.8
2 N 9 57 148 25 F6
% 3.8 23.8 61.9 10.5
3 N 4 46 126 62 F1
% 1.7 19.3 52.9 26.1
4 N 8 30 130 72 F1
% 3.3 12.5 54.2 30.0
5 N 7 35 104 94 F1
% 2.9 14.6 43.3 39.2
6 N 5 33 107 95 F4
% 2.1 13.7 44.6 39.6
7 N ' 5 41 119 75 F4
% 2.1 17.1 49.6 31.3
8 N 5 35 128 72 F1
% 2.1 14.6 53.3 30.0
9 N 12 92 111 25 F4
% 5.0 38.3 46.2 10.4
10 N 12 46 142 40 Profess
% 5.0 19.2 59.2 16.7 Adults
11 N 5 49' 123 63 Profess
% 2.1 20.4 51.2 26.2 Adults
12 N 12 31 126 70 F5
% 5.0 13.0 52.7 29.3
13 N 12 34 131 63 F3
% 5.0 14.2 54.6 26.2
14 N 8 58 116 58 F3
% 3.3 24.2 48.3 24.2
15 N 14 97 102 27 F1
% 5.8 40.4 42.5 11.2
16 N 9 49 139 43 F3
% 3.7 20.4 57.9 17.9

 

 

202

Table C.03. (cont'd.).

 

Degree of

 

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 4 5
Item
. Cluster
Item Number A F S R N
17 N - 6 35 147 52 F2
% - 2.5 14.6 61.2 21.7
18 N - 4 41 126 69 F2
% - 1.7 17.1 52.5 28.7
19 N - 7 50 122 60 F2
% - 2.9 20.9 51.0 25.1
20 N - 7 36 118 78 F5
% - 2.9 15.1 49.4 32.6
21 N - 6 30 101 102 F2
% - 2.5 12.6 42.3 42.7
22 N - 8 37 122 72 F3
% - 3.3 15.5 51.0 30.1
23 N - 13 53 133 40 F2
% - 5.4 22.2 55.6 16.7
24 N - 5 46 120 69 F2
% - 2.1 19.2 50.0 28.7
25 N - 6 34 127 73 F2
% - 2.5 14.2 52.9 30.4
A - Always
F - Frequently
S - Sometimes
R - Rarely
N - Never

 

203

Table C.04.--Observed Frequency Distribution Regarding
Inserv1ce Needs of Teachers for the 25 Items
by Supervisors (Actual Practice)

 

Degree of

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 4 5
Item
Cluster
Item Number A F S R N
1 N - 3 11 6 - F6
% - 15.0 55.0 30.0 -
2 N - 2 8 9 1 F6
% - 10.0 40.0 45.0 5.0
3 N - 3 5 6 5 F1
% - 15.8 26.3 31.6 26.3
4 N - 2 6 7 5 F1
% - 10.0 30.0 35.0 25.0
5 N - 2 6 9 3 F1
% - 10.0 30.0 45.0 15.0
6 N - - 10 8 2 F4
% - - 50.0 40.0 10.0
7 N - 2 9 8 1 F4
% - 10.0 45.0 40.0 5.0
8 N - 2 7 11 - F1
% - 10.0 35.0 55.0 -
9 N - 6 13 1 - F4
% - 30.0 65.0 5.0 -
10 N - 2 11 6 l Profess
% - 10.0 55.0 30.0 5.0 Adults
11 N - 3 5 11 1 Profess
% - 15.0 25.0 55.0 5.0 Adults
12 N - 1 4 11 4 F5
% - 5.0 20.0 55.0 20.0
13 N - 1 6 12 1 F3
% - 5.0 30.0 60.0 5.0
14 N - 4 7 7 2 F3
% - 20.0 35.0 35.0 10.0
15 N - 4 13 2 1 F1
% - 20.0 65.0 10.0 5.0
16 N - 2 10 7 1 F3
% — - 10.0 50.0 35.0 5.0

 

Table C.04.

(cont’d.).

204

 

Degree of

 

 

 

 

Importance 1 2 3 4 5
Item
Cluster
Item Number A F s R N
17 N - 1 8 7 4 F2
% - 5.0 40.0 35.0 20.0
18 N - 1 8 7 4 F2
% - 5.0 40.0 35.0 20.0
19 N 1 3 9 5 2 F2
% 5.0 15.0 45.0 25.0 10.0
20 N - 2 10 6 2 F5
% - 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0
21 N - - 10 6 4 F2
% - - 50.0 30.0 20.0
22 N - 2 9 4 5 F3
% - 10.0 45.0 20.0 25.0
23 N - 3 6 7 ' 4 F2
% - 15.0 30.0 35.0 20.0
24 N - - 10 8 2 F2
% - - 50.0 40.0 10.0
25 N - 2 4 12 2 F2
% - 10.0 20.0 60.0 10.0
A - Always
F - Frequently
S - Sometimes_
R - Rarely
N - Never

 

 

APPENDIX D

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

 

205

Table D.01.--Total Instrument Percentages and Mean
Scores of Extent of Agreement and Frequency
of Occurrence for Andragogical Items

 

 

Extent of Agreement Frequency of Occurrence
Strongly Agree 50.90% Always 0.10%
Agree 40.90% Frequently 6.60%
Agree/Disagree 6.40% Sometimes 32.60%
Disagree 0.02% Rarely 44.70%
Strongly Disagree 0.00% Never 18.80%

Mean = 1.57 Mean = 3.51

 

 

 

206

Table D.02.-oPercentages and Mean Scores for Extent of Agreement and Frequency of Occurrence
for Self-Directed Items (Approach 1) by Teachers and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

E§CEQC O: Agreegeng e ue C 0 on r nce
Group Role
sax AZ A/DZ 0: s02 E A1 F1 52 a: N2 '§
Teachers 49.96 44.58 8.02 0.0 0.0 1.61 0.00 3.16 20.28 49.24 27.30 3.98
Supervisors 55.00 40.00 5.00 0.0 0.0 1.50 0.00 13.16 37.26 35.32 14.26 3.46

 

SA
A/D

SD

Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree/Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

2900mm»

Always
Frequently
Sometimes
Rarely
Never

 

 

 

207

Table D.03.--Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of Agreement and Frequency
of Occurrence for Approach 2 by Teachers and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'W 0 cu e
Group Role
SA: A: AA): 0: s0: § Al F: s: a: NZ ;

Teachers 44.36 46.94 8.70 0.0 0.0 1.65 0.00 2.80 40.26 52.20 38.49 3.04
Supervisors 50.00 44.29 5.70 0.0 0.0 1.56 0.71 7.14 39.29 37.14 15.71 3.60

SA - Strongly Agree A - Always

A - Agree F - Frequently

A/D - Agree/Disagree S - Sometimes

D - Disagree R - Rarely
SD - Strongly Disagree N - Never

 

 

 

208

Table D.04.-oPercentages and Mean Scores for Extent of Agreement and Frequency
of Occurrence for Approach 3 by Teachers and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EEESDS.2£.AZI§£Q§D£ EIESBEDEI.2§.Q£22£I£E£§
Group Role
SAZ AZ A/DZ 0: so: E A1 F2 52 R1 NZ Tc

Teachers 40.70 28.16 10.8 0.0 0.0 1.69 0.00 3.81 18.58 52.95 24.60 3.98
Supervisors 31.25 60.00 8.75 0.0 0.0 1.78 0.00 11.25 40.00 37.50 11.25 3.49

SA - Strongly Agree A - Always

A - Agree F - Frequently

A/D - Agree/Disagree S - Sometimes

D - Disagree R - Rarely
SD - Strongly Disagree N - Never

 

 

209

Table D.05.--Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of Agreement and Frequency
of Occurrence for Approach 4 by Teachers and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

ECO ee u C 0 ’cu e e
Group Role
SA: A: AA): 0: s02 E A: F2 sz 9.: N2 3?
Teachers 46.77 45.20 8.03 0.0 0.0 1.61 0.00 3.06 23.03 46.77 27.10 3.98
Supervisors 55.00 41.70 3.30 0.0 0.0 1.48 0.00 13.30 53.30 28.30 5.00 3.25

 

SA
A/D

SD

Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree/Disagree
Disagree

Strongly Disagree

221mm»

Always
Frequently
Sometimes
Rarely
Never

 

 

 

 

210

Table D.06.-~Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of Agreement and Frequency
of Occurrence for Approach 5 by Teachers and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W n o 0 cu e
Group Role
SA: .A: Am: 0: so: § A: F2 5: R2 N: E

Teachers 37.85 51.45 10.45 0.2 0.0 1.60 0.00 3.95 14.05 51.05 30.95 4.07
Supervisors 35.00 60.00 5.00 0.0 0.0 1.48 0.00 7.50 35.00 42.50 15.00 3.33

SA - Strongly Agree A - Always

A - Agree F - Frequently

A/D - Agree/Disagree S - Sometimes

D - Disagree R - Rarely
SD - Strongly Disagree N - Never

 

 

211

Table D.07.--Percentages and Mean Scores for Extent of Agreement and Frequency
of Occurrence for Approach 6 by Teachers and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

W W
Group Role
SA: A: up: 0: so: 2 A: F: s: a: N: T
Teachers 83.75 14.60 1.65 0.0 0.0 1.18 0.00 4.80 35.25 51.80 8.15 3.63
Supervisors 83.75 14.00 1.60 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 4.80 35.25 51.80 8.15 3.30
SA - Strongly Agree A - Always
A - Agree F - Frequently
A/D - Agree/Disagree S - Sometimes
D - Disagree R - Rarely
SD - N - Never

 

 

 

1212

Table D.08.-~T-Test Results Comparing Teachers'
Perceptions for Frequency of Occurrence and
Extent of Agreement

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency of Extent of.
Occurrence Agreement
Level of
Approach Approach T-Test Significance
# i N i N
1 Beliefs of a
self-directed .
learner 3.980 237 1.614 237. -55.86 0.000*
'2' Characteristics
associated with
teacher-centered
inservice programs 4.047 238 1.645 238 ~60.17 0.000*
3 Improving
teachers'
self-knowledge 3.992 237 1.689 237 -51.93 0.000*
4 Trust in the
program purpose 3.986 239 1.611 239 -54.96 0.000*
5 Small group work 4.074 236 1.593 236 -51.31 0.000*
6 Teachers' desire
to have teacher-
initiated
inservice programs 3.634 239 1.174 239 -55.73 0.000*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level

APPENDIX E

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR

ALL 25 ITEMS OF ANDRAGOGICAL APPROACHES

 

213

Table E.01.--Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for All
25 Items (Extent of Agreement) by Teachers
and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Supervisors
Item - Item _

No. X S.D. No. X S.D.
1 1.071 .302 2 1.000 .000
2 1.287 .498 1 1.000 .000
9 1.405 .556 9 1.050 .224

19 1.452 .584 15 1.100 .308

15 1.483 .586 19 1.200 .410
3 1.523 .614 10 1.350 .489

23 1.556 .598 25 1.400 .503

18 1.587 .654 16 1.400 .598

25 1.636 .645 3 1.400 .503

14 1.657 .628 24 1.450 .510
8 1.671 .669 20 1.550 .510

20 1.674 .610 4 1.550 .510
7 1.683 .659 17 1.600 .681
5 1.688 .658 18 1.650 .671

22 1.689 .646 11 1.650 .587

16 1.704 .586 8 1.650 .671
4 1.704 .620 7 1.700 .571

21 1.724 .593 6 1.700 .571

13 1.724 .709 23 1.750 .716

24 1.732 .689 5 1.800 .696
6 1.750 .624 22 1.850 .489

10 1.770 .623 21 1.850 .489

12 1.787 .680 12 1.850 .587

11 1.803 .634 13 1.900 .553

17 1.817_ .613 14 1.950 .605
Note:

1.00 1.99 - Strongly Agree

2.00 2.99 - Agree

3.00 3.99 - Agree/Disagree

4.00 5.00 - Disagree/Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

214

Table E.02.--Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for All
25 Items (Actual Practice) by Teachers
and Supervisors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Supervisors

Item _ Item _
No. X S.D. No. X S.D.
1 3.475 .696 15 3.000 .725
15 3.592 .765 1 3.150 .671
9 3.621 .739 19 3.200 .725
2 3.791 .672 10 3.300 .733
23 3.837 .763 16 3.350 .745
10 3.875 .738 14 3.350 .933
16 3.900 .721 20 3.400 .821
14 3.933 .784 7 3.400 .754
19 3.983 .761 8 3.450 .686
11 4.017 .743 2 3.450 .759
17 4.021 .681 11 3.500 .827
13 4.021 .779 24 3.600 .681
3 4.034 .729 23 3.600 .995
24 4.054 .750 22 3.600 .995
12 4.063 .789 6 3.600 .681
22 4.079 .766 13 3.650 .671
18 4.083 .721 5 3.650 .875
7 4.100 .748 3 3.684 .856
4 4.108 .741 25 3.700 .801
25 4.112 .732 ' 21 3.700 .801
8 4.112 .720 18 3.700 .865
20 4.117 .763 17 3.700 .865
5 4.188 .788 9 3.750 .550
6 4.217 .556 4 3.750 .967
21 4.251 .770 12 3.900 .788

Note:
1.00 - 1.99 Always
2.00 - 2.99 Frequently
3.00 - 3.99 Sometimes
4.00 - 5.00 Rarely/Never

 

 

 

Table E.03.--Rank Order for All Items by Elementary, Intermediate

215

and Secondary School Teachers (Actual Practice)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elementary Teachers Intermediate Teachers Secondary Teachers
Item _ Item _ Item _

No. X S.D. No. X S.D. No. X S.D.
15 3.330 .697 1 3.362 .661 14 3.550 .769

1 3.340 .607 15 3.588 .704 23 3.567 .789

9 3.440 .729 9 3.625 .663 15 3.800 .817

2 3.690 .563 2 3.750 .626 9 3.817 .766
16 3.710 .640 10 3.875 .663 22 3.833 .733
10 3.790 .715 16 3.887 .584 1 3.850 .755

3 3.869 .723 17 3.950 .745 8 3.850 .732
23 3.870 .761 11 4.000 .675 18 3.850 .732
11 3.870 .717 19 4.000 .751 25 3.883 .813
19 3.880 .742 23 4.000 .698 13 3.900 .817
24 3.890 .835 14 ' 4.000 .796 7 3.983 .676
20 4.030 .703 12 4.025 .871 2 4.017 .841
17 4.050 .672 13 4.063 .847 10 4.017 .825
13 4.060 .694 3 4.075 .612 17 4.067 .607
22 4.070 .820 4 4.125 .718 24 4.067 .733

4 4.080 .732 24 4.125 .644 12 4.085 .877
12 4.080 .662 20 4.152 .735 16 4.100 .933
25 4.090 .780 7 4.175 .725 11 4.117 .865

7 4.110 .803 8 4.188 .765 4 4.133 .791
14 4.110 .709 18 4.200 - .698 5 4.133 .812

5 4.120 .832 22 4.203 .705 6 4.133 .833
21 4.120 .756 . 6 4.225 .711 19 4.133 .791
18 4.130 .720 25 4.237 .579 20 4.217 .885

8 4.210 .640 5 4.313 .704 3 4.254 .801

6 4.260 .747 21 4.329 .729 21 4.367 .823

Note:

1.00 1.99 Always

2.00 2.99 Frequently

3.00 3.99 Sometimes

4.00 5.00 Rarely/Never

 

 

 

 

216

Table E.04.--Rank Order for All Items by Elementary, Intermediate
and Secondary School Teachers (Extent of Agreement)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elementary Teachers Intermediate Teachers Secondary Teachers
Item _ Item _ Item _

No. X S.DI No. X S.D. No. X S.D.
1 1.010 .100 1 1.000 .000 1 1.267 .548
2 1.130 .338 2 1.275 .449 9 1.390 .558
3 1.430 .498 19 1.278 .451 18 1.483 .596
9 1.430 .573 15 1.375 .513 19 1.517 .596

23 1.450 .539 9 1.387 .539 2 1.567 .647

15 1.480 .577 3 1.500 .616 8 1.583 .619
4 1.550 .539 24 1.512 .551 15 1.633 .663

14 1.550 .575 . 25 1.512 .656 , 7 1.667 .629

19 1.550 .642 18 1.587 .630 22 '1.678 .681
5 1.580 .638 4 1.588 .608 21 1.683 .596
7 1.640 .687 13 1.588 .739 23 1.683 .676

18 1.650 .702 23 1.595 .589 24 1.695 .676
6 1.660 .602 20 1.608 .587 3 1.712 .744

25 1,660 .639 22 1.646 .621 14 1.729 .611
8 1.670 .637 16 1.650 .576 20 1.733 .634

16 1.690 .563 11 1.688 .608 12 1.763 .678

20 1.690 .615 5 1.700 .644 25 1.763 .625

21 1.690 .581 17 1.725 .573 10 1.780 .696

13 1.710 .686 8 1.737 .742 6 1.783 .613

22 1.730 .649 10 1.737 .590 13 1.797 .714

10 1.790 .608 12 1.737 .670 16 1.800 .632

17 1.820 .657 14 1.737 .689 11 1.831 .647

24 1.830 .742 7 1.750 .646 17 1.833 .578

12 1.840 .692 21 1.797 .607 5 1.850 .685

11 1.880 .640 6 1.837 .645 4 1.983 .676
Note:

1.00 1.99 Strongly Agree
2.00 2.99 Agree
3.00 3.99 . Agree/Disagree
4.00 5.00 Disagree/Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdun Noor, S. M. (1965). Perceptions of the in-service
education needs for secondapy teachers in eagp
Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, East Lansing.

 

Affash, Y. (1989). [Personal correspondence with key
educational personnel in the Jordanian Ministry of
Education].

Al-Dastour Newspaper. (1989). (2670), pp. 1-3.

Al-Dastour Newspaper. (1986, February). 29(7011), p. 5.

Al-Ghamdi, A. M. (1982). The professional development of
inservice teaching in Saudi Arabia: A study of the
practice and needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Al-Shehri, H. R. (1986). An exploratory study of selected
andragogical and pedagogical variables related to

teacher preferences for approaches to their continued
learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan

State University, East Lansing.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razarieh, A. (1979).
Introduction to research in education. Chicago: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey research methods.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Corp., Inc.

Beder, H., & Carren, N. (1988). The effects of
andragogical teacher training on adult students’
attendance and evaluation of their teachers. Adult

Education Quarterly, ;§(2), 75-88.

Bents, R. G., & Howey, K. R. (1981). Staff development:
Change in the individual. In B. Dillon-Peterson (Ed.),

Staff developmentlorganization development.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Bishop, L. J. (1976). Staff development and instructional
improvement: Plan and procedures. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

217

 

 

218

Boone, E. J. (1985). Developing programs in adult

education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research:
An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman Inc.

Brimm, J. L., & Tollett, D. J. (1974). How do teachers
feel about in-service education? Educational
Leadershi , 11(6), 521-525.

Brookfield, S. (1984). The contribution of Edward
Lindeman to the development of theory and philosophy in

adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, Q5,
185-196.

Brundage, D. H., & Mackeracker, D. (1980). Adult learning
ppinciples and their application to program planning.

Prepared for the Ontario Department of Education,
Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 181 292)

Burrelo, L., & Obrough, T. (1982). Reducing the
discrepancy between the known and the unknown in
in-service education. Phi Delta Ka an, p;, 385-388.

Christensen, J. C. (1981). Professional development:
What do teachers think? Action in Teacher Education,
g(1), 81-84.

Coles, E. K. T. (1977). Adult education in developing
countries (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. (1985). A chronology and
analysis of the andragogy debate. Adult Education

Quarterly, Qp, 152-159.

Drouilhet, L. M. (1985). Teachers as adult learners:
Using adult learner characteristics to dgsiqn
in-service programs for tgacherg. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Illinois State University, Normal.

 

Edelfelt, R. A., & Johnson, M. (1975). Rethinking
in—service education. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.

Essert, P. (1951). Creative leadership of adult
education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

219 _
Falougui, M. H. (1980). A study of selected aspects
of professional development centers with ‘

recommendations for the in-service education of
Libyan teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Fox, D. J. (1969). The research process in education.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. (1984). Statistical

methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall.'

Goad, L. H. (1984). Preparing teachers for lifelong

ggucation. New York: Pergamon Press at the UNESCO
Institute for Education.

Goad, T. W. (1982). Delivering effective training. San

Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc.

Gordon, T. C. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training.
New York: David McKay.

Green, H. (1977). A comparative study of the perceptions

of elementapy principals and teachers regarding need
for teachers' skill development: Implications for

inservice education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.

Halik, R. J. (1973). Teacher in-service education in the
affective domain: Outcomes for teachers and students.’
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Hammouda, A. A. (1985). National document. Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan: Ministry of Labour and Social
Development.

Harris, B. M. (1980). Improving staff performance
through inservice training. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Harris, B. M., & Bessert, W. (1969). Inservice education:
A guide to better practice.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Hass, G. C. (1957). Inservice education today. In G. C.
Hass (Ed.), Inservice education for teachers,

supervisors and administrators (Fifty-sixth yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education,

Part I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Henderson, E. S. (1978). The evaluation of inservice
teacher training. London: Croom Helm.

 

220

Herm, M. A. (1978). Adult motivation to learn. Lifelong
learning: The adult years, 6-31.

Houle, C. O. (1961). Ingpiring mind. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Howey, K. (1980). An expanded conception of staff
develOpment. Journal of Staff Development, 108-112.

Ingersoll, G. M. (1976). Assessing in-service training
needs through teacher responses. Journal of Teacher
Education, 21, 169-175.

Ingersoll, G. M., & Schneider, R. A. (1978). Perceived
in-service needs among elementary teachers. Vieypoints
in Teachin and Learnin 54 20-26.

, _'

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1983). Handbook in research and
evaluation. San Diego, CA: EDITS Pub.

Jaradut, S. (1980). Conference: Educational process in
developing Jordanian society. Amman: MOE.

Jarvis, P.. (1983). Adult and continuing education:
Theory and practice. New York: Nichols Publishing
Company.

Jordan Times. (1987, March). ;;(3419), pp. 2-3.

Kerwin, M. A. (1979). The relationship of selected
factors to the educational orientation of
andragogically- and pedagogically-oriented educators

teaching in four of North Carolina's two-ygar
colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh.

 

Khory, R. M. (1982). Perceived effects of inservice
training for teachers in Jordan on selected
objectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago:
Follett.

Knowles, M. S. (1985). The adult learner: A neglected
species ended. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Corp.

Knowles, M. S. (1984a). The adult learner. New York:
The Adult Ed. Company.

Knowles, M. S. (1984b). Andragogy in action. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

 

221

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult
education from pedagogy to andragogy. New York: The

Adult Education Co.

Knowles, M. s. (1979). Andragogy revisited:' Part II.
Adult Education, QQ, 52-53.

Knowles, M. S. (1975, November). Adult education: New
dimensions. Educational Leadership, ;;(2), 85-88.

Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult

education. New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1956). Informal adult education.
New York: Associated Press.

Kozoll, C. E., & Ulmer, C. (1972). In-service

training: Philosophy, processes and operational

technigpes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lindeman, E. (1926). The meaning of adult education.

Montreal: Harvest House. (Original work published
1926)

Luck, R. A., & Ulmer, C. (1971). How to train teachers to
train adults. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall,

Inc 0

Massialas, B., & Ahmed, S. (1983). Education in the Arab
world. New York: Praeger.

Mcleary, L. E., & Hentcley, S. P. (1965). Secondary
school administration. New York: Dodd-Mead and

Company.

Merriam, S. B. (1987). Adult learning and theory

building: A review. Adult Education uarterl , 31(4),

187.

Michigan Department of Education. (1977). Professional

development for school staff: The Michigan approach.

Lansing, MI: Author.
The Ministry of Education. (1988a). Annual reports of

the certification and inservice teacher training
institute (CITTI), 1971-1975. Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (1988b). Annual reports of

the training division (TD), 1964-197 . Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (1988c). Education in Jordan.
Amman: Author.

 

 

222

The Ministry of Education. (1988d). The first national
conference for educational development. Risalat Al-
Mu’llim, 29(3).

The Ministry of Education. (1988e). Minutes of the

Minister of Education’s press conference, Sept. 11,
1973. Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (1986). Progress of education
in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (Ed.). (1971). The Jordan
Constitution and Educational Law N. 164 1964. and
Their Amendments. Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (1968). Training division
annual report. Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (1966-1977). (Ed.). The
collection of laws and ordinances and regulationg
pglated to thg MOE (Vols. 1-5). Amman: Author.

The Ministry of Education. (1965). Law of EducationL_No.
164 1964. Amman: Author. ‘

The Ministry of Education. (1973). Minutes of §ghool
supervisor at meeting relation to inservice education.
Amman: Author.

 

 

The Ministry of Education. (1980). Official letters
relating to inservice education. Amman: Author.

Minix, D. O. (1981). An exploratorv study of_pgachgrs'
perceptions of andragogy as a model of inservice
education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Moffitt, J. C. (1963). Inservice education for teachers.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Research in
Education.

Mosher, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1972). Survey methods in
social investigation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Mouly, G. J. (1978). Educational research: The art and
scigncg of investigation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.

Neff, M. C., & Minkhoff, D. (1972). Criteria for judging
materials and techniques: A rationale. In C. Klevins
(Ed.), Materials and methods in adult education
(pp. 53-64). New York: Klevens Publications.

 

223

Nyrop, R. F. (Ed.). (1980). Jordan: A countpy study.
Washington, DC: The American University.

Orrange, P. A., & Ryn, M. V. (1975). Agency roles and
responsibilities in inservice education. In R. A. '

Edelfelt and M. Johnson (Eds.), Rethinking inservice
education. Washington, DC: National Education

Association.

Osborne, C. (1981). Jordan. Harlow, Essex, United
Kingdom: Longman Group, Ltd.

Post, L. M. (1975). A survey of the perceptions of
teachers and supervising staff of inservice education
and teacher skill needs with implications for a model

of in-service education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Syracuse University, New York.

Randall, J. S. (1980). You and effective training.
Training and Development Journal, 3g, 1-4.

Reese, H. C., et al. (1969). Aven handbook for the

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Washington, DC: U. 8.
Government Printing Office.

Ryor, J. (1979). Perspective on inservice education.
Journal of Teacher Education, ;Q(1), 13.

Said, A. A. R. A. (1976). The development of inservice
teacher education for public compulsory-stage school

teachers in Jordan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University, State College.

Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1986).
Elementary survey sampling (3rd ed.). Boston: Duxbury

Press.

Smith, B. O., et a1. (1969). Teacher for the real world.
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Educators.

Staff. (1989). Interview with Afif, the Dean of the
Higher College for the Certification of Teachers.

Al-Rai Newspaper, 3450, pp. 3-4.

Sulieman, A. S. (1985). Education in Jordan.
Contemporapy Education, 2, 1-4.

Tawisuwan, P. (1985). Needs of teachers of adults in
northern Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Arizona State University, Tempe.

 

 

 

224

Tough, A. (1971). The adult’s learning projects.
Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education.

Turney, B., & Robb, G. (1971). Research in education.
Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, Inc.

Tyler, R. W. (1971). Inservice education of teachers: A
.look at the past and the future. In L. J. Rubin (Ed.),

Improving inservice education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.

Tyler, W. (1978). Research and reform in teacher
education. London: NFER.

Wells, E. A. H. (1978). Perceptions of elementary

teachers’ professional concerns and in-service needs.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

 

Wood, 3., & Russell, F. (1981). Staff development/
organization development. In B. D. Peterson (Ed.),

Desi nin effective staff develo ment ro rams
(pp. 59-93). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. '

Woolfolk, A. E. (1987). Educational psychology (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall, Inc.

Yarger, S. J., Howey, K. R., & Joyce, B. R. (1980).
In-servicgyteacher education. Palo Alto, CA: Booksend
Laboratory.

 

 

 

. . ...-.. \ .-v -

 

.71..“ H
4"“ .“3 pm".
.

H‘nk‘l‘
“.1”...

- .r

. ...,.’.- ~~
. antrfTM 2.71m-
..