.. \l 3|) .1. 11‘. Man u + .' .. . £1 1L v. .. . $4.3m“. . ......mmn “ "' $.‘b ‘ “Qutvbct‘lgutxavl .....lkéwziwuyfltofl- ... . 1 .7... .0. $07.4“. .unaooi . $7: vII- .v . V .: .-. .\1| vorfimnwdnhndu.l . I . {0111.-. Dvl... (I... in. 1,0 I A I‘v‘i‘U- ,l‘!‘ tv\.‘ ‘- 3 . ; ”flu!“ . . . :l.r...l}a........oltt.v..:.£ ~ 9 . \ I - ‘16‘- '.'n .‘\ ll-lt’.l.“.' ._ . A . : . 7.21-3. £1. --.IJ. .2. ,. . , ‘ «173.: avian”?! 31 . k‘idlit.‘.fififlpn .l I l 1. n . ._ in: .. . ..|.7 .w I .. . ..., .Wn.\1\1..unsaw.vu\$$\u . . . v . 1 {11%| l . .13... .‘ . . ‘ .- . . . , .y- ‘.. v . ‘ .x .v .1 ... . , V.. Y... ., . . .. t t . , ‘ ”SEhifi quiumliuligwimlflinl. 3:71,,” This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING ADULT LEARNERS' EXPECTATIONS FOR CURRICULUM IN A SPECIFICJCONfENUiNé;EDUCATION PROGRAM ' : "presented 13395 James R. McCue has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Adminis tra_t ion and Curriculum MARE} DI C? 872. MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout from your rooom. TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE? DATE DUE k IV _¥ *— ‘ lv‘“' MSU In An Affirmutvo Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘7 V. A PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING ADULT LEARNERS' EXPECTATIONS FOR CURRICUDWM IN A SPECIFIC CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM BY James R. McCue A DISSERTATION submitted TO Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements fOr the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1982 ABSTRACT A PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING ADUIT IEARNERS' EXPECTATIONS FOR CURRICULUM IN.A SPECIFIC CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM BY James R. MCCue The purpose of this research was to develOp a better understanding of a unique pOpulation of adult learners with regard to several key learner variables in order to make recommendations fOr curriculum develOpment fOr that group. This study examined seven areas: (1) what level of fbrmality was preferred, (2) what kind of learning experience was preferred, (3) what instructional setting was preferred, (4) what content statements were ranked highest, (5) what content statements were rated higher on a learning competency scale, (6) what interrelationships exist between the areas one through five above, and (7) what kind of relationships exist between the areas one through five above and years of fOrmal schooling, major in school, years of experience in prOperty management and age. Data was gathered from 320 property managers in ten cities. Three instruments gathered data on expectations concerning kind of learning experience, level Of fOrmality and instructional setting and judgments concerning the importance of course content and the necessary level of competence fOr each course content. The results of the study showed that subjects considered low formality settings more conducive fOr learning. For kind of learning experiences, subjects preferred sharing, with input next, then self-awareness. The preferred instructional setting for this particular course content was James R. McCue equipment room, over small group and classroom. Course content and necessary levels Of understanding had distinct ranks. subjects in this study preferred low formal learning situations with sharing, equipment room and small group instructional settings. Preference fer high fbrmal learning situations was related to classroom as an instructional setting. There was a high positive correlation between ratings of content importance and subjects ratings Of the level of competence necessary for effective pPOperty management. Adult learners with no engineering preferred the equipment room as an instructional setting while those with both business and engineering preferred a small group. YOunger subjects in the study preferred sharing as a kind of learning experience and equipment room as an instructional setting. Recommendations were made on how to better prepare instructors to respond to the needs, interests and motives of adult learners, and for further develOpment of instructor training materials and student materials. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . ...................... LIST OF FIGURES ...................... CHAPTER 1. THE PROBLEM: ...... . ........... Rugme ........... . ... .. Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... Situational Background . . . ..... . . . Importance ................. Generalizability .............. Assumptions . . ............... Limitations ................. Definition of Terms ............. Overview .................. 2. REVIEW OFTHELITERATURE ....... . . . .. Adult Education and Curriculum DevelOpment . . Theoretical Fbundations . . . . . A System Fbr Curriculum Construction . . . Adult Learner Characteristics ........ MOtives fer Participation . . . . . . . Developnental Stages Of Adulthood ..... Adult Learners' Pedagogical Ekpectations . . . Cultural Determinents . . . . . . . . . . Schooling as a Culture ...... . . . EXpectancy Phenomena .......... Applicable Research Studies ......... The McKean Study ............. The Wilson Study ............. Other Studies ...... ‘ ........ 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............. Description Of Methodology ......... Research Design ............... Independent Variables ......... Dependent Variables .......... Hypotheses ............... ii Page ix ll 13 l5 l6 17 18 20 20 21 29 54 35 39 45 46 47 51 55 55 54 55 57 58 58 59 61 CHAPTER 4. Sample ....... . ........... Instrumentation . . . Kind of’learning EXperience Instrument. validity Test . . . . ........ Reliability Test . . . . . . . . . . . level of FOrmality Instrument . . . . . . validity Test . ........... Reliability Test . .......... Instructional Setting ....... . . validity Test . . . ......... Reliability Test . . . . . . ..... Curricular Outcomes ........... Importance Of Content Ratings . . . level of Understanding Ratings . . . validity Test . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability Test . . . . . Research Procedures and Data Collection Prior To Data Collection ........ During Data Collection . ......... After Data Collection .......... Data Analysis. ............ Methodological Assumptions ......... limitations ................ FINDINGS .................... Overview . . ................. Sample Profile . ............... Data Analysis Method ............. Hypothesis 1 ................ Hypothesis 2 ................ Hypothesis 3 ................ Hypothesis 4 . ............... Hypothesis 5 ................ Hypothesis 6 ......... . ...... Hypothesis 7 ................ Hypothesis 8 ................ Hypothesis 9 ................ Hypothesis lO ................ Hypothesis ll ................ Hypothesis 12 . ............... Hypothesis 13 . ............... Hypothesis l4 ................ Hypothesis 15 ................ Hypothesis l6 ....... . ........ Hypothesis 1? ................ Hypothesis 18 . ............... Hypothesis l9 . ........... . . . . Hypothesis 20 .............. . . Hypothesis 21 ................ iii 134 135 136 138 142 CHAPTER Page Hypothesis 22 . ............... 142 Hypothesis 23 . ........... . . . . . 145 Hypothesis 24 . ................ 146 Other Findings ................. 147 5. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 149 Summary Of Findings. . . . . .......... 150 Conclusions .................. 154 Discussions and Recanmendations . . . . . . . . 162 Regarding Levels of Formality . . . . . . . 162 Regarding Kind of Learning Experience. . . . 164 RegardingtJudgments of Content Importance and Level Of Understanding ....... 166 Regarding Instructional Setting ..... . 168 Regarding Curricular DevelOpment fer Professional Pr0perty Management . . . . 170 Recommendations fer Further Research . . . . . 173 Summary .................. . . . 174 APPENDIX A ............... \ .......... 176 APPENDIX B ...... . .............. . . . . 188 APPENDIX C ...................... . . . 194 APPENDIX D ......................... 205 APPENDIX E ......................... 220 APPENDIX F ...... . ...... . . . . . . ...... 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 225 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 2.1 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EDUCATIONAL DESIGN SITUATIONS . . 31 3.1 POSSIBLE CHOICES FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE . . 68 3.2 POSSIBLE CHOICES FOR LEVEL OF F‘ORMALITY AND SETTING . 71 4.1 TRADE SCHOOL MAJORS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE . . . . 84 4.2 UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR REIRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE . . . . 85 4.3 GRADUATE MAJOR REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE ...... 87 4.4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY . . . . 90 4.5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE (SEVEN CATERORIES) ....... 91 4.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE (FOUR CATEGORIES) ........ 91 4.7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON PREFERENCES FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES WITH MEAN SCORES . . 95 4.8 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR SHARING VS. SELF-AWARENESS AND \/ SELF-AWARENESS VS. INPUT .............. 96 4.9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING (SEVEN CATEBORIES) ...... 97 4.10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR IREFERENCE FOR IFBTRUCTIONAL SETTING (FOUR CATEGORIES) ....... 98 4.11 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON REFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING WITH MEAN SCORES ....... 100 4.12 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DIFFERENCE "7 BETWEEN MEANS FOR EQUIPMENT ROOM VS. STALL GROUP ‘- AND SMALL GROUP VS. CLASSROOM . . . . . . . ..... 101. 4.13 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF IMPORTANCE OF CONTENT WITH MEAN RATINGS OF CONTENT IMPORTANCE ....... 103 TABLE 4.14 4-15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4-23 4.24 4.25 4.26 MEAN RANKINGS FOR CONTENT IMPORTANCE RATING WITH TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADJACENT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING JUDGMENTS WITH MEAN RATINGS OF LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING . . . . DEAN RANKINGS FOR IEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING RATING WITH TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADJACENT MEANS . . . . . . . PREFERENCE FOR UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY BY THE MEAN NUMBER OF TIMES INPUT, SELF-AWARENESS AND SHARING. WERE CHwEN AS PREFERRED KINDS OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES ....... MEAN COMPARISONS OF THE FOUR LEVEIS OF FORMALITY FOR INPUT, SHARING AND SEIF—AWARENESS . . . . . . MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT OF IMPORTANCE OF CONTENT BY PREFERENCE FORIEVELOFFORMALITY.......... MUIIPIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT OF NECESSARY LEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING BY PREFERENCE FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY. . . . . . . . . UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY BY MEAN NUMBER OF TLMFB EQUIPMENT ROOM, SVIALL GROUP AND CLASSROOM WERE CHwEN AS PREFERRED INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS . . . . . . . ..... . . . COMPARISONS OF PAIRED CONTRASTS OF THE FOUR LEVELS OF FORMALITY WITH THE MEAN SCORE OF PREFERENCE FOR EQUIPMENT ROOM, SMALL GROUP AND CLASSROOM . RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN LEARNING PREFERENCE AND CONTENT IMPORTANCE ...... UNIVARIATE F. TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWELVE SEPARATE CONTENT STATEMENTS ............. RELATIONSHIP OF PREFERENCE FOR KIND OF LEARNING TO SPRIFIC COURSE CONTENT AND MEAN RATINGS FOR LEARNING HIEFFREl'ICE ................. RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN LEARNING PREFERENCE AND JUDGMENTS CONCERNING NECESSARYLEVEISOFCONTENT . vi 0 O O O O Page 104 108 110 112 114 116 117 119 120 125 124 125 127 4.27 4.28 4.29 CHI-SQUARE BETWEEN KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND II‘S'ERUCTIONAL SETTING ......... . . . . . . . CORRELATION OF SUBJECTS' JUDGMENTS CONCERNING CONTENT IMPORTANCE WITH JUDGMENTS CONCERNING NECESSARY IEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING. . . ....... MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS» OF VARIANCE FOR A SIGNIFICANT Page 128 129 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTENT IMPORTANCE AND PREFERENCE FOR IDSTRUCTIONAL SETTING ....... 151 4.50 MUIJTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUDGMENT OF NECESSARY LEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING AND PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING ...................... 152 4.51 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR IN SCHOOL ...... 155 4.52 CROSSTAB AND CHI—SQUARE OF LEVEL OF FORMALITY WITH MAJOR IN SCHOOL ............... . 154 4.55 CHI-SQUARE BETWEEN MAJOR AND KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE ..................... 155 4.54 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MAJOR IN SCHOOL WITH RATING OF CONTENT IMPORTANCE ...... 156 4.55 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MAJOR IN SCHOOL WITH RATINGS OF SUBJECTS' JUDGMENT OF NECIBSARY LEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING ......... 157 4.56 COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF NECESSARY LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PAIRED COMPARISON OF BUSINESS AND BUSINESS AND ENGINEERING ....... 157 4.57 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR MAJOR BY DEAN NUMBER OF TIMES EQUIPMENT ROOM, SMALL GROUP AND CLASSROOM WERE CH(SEN AS PREFERRED INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS ............... 159 4.58 COMPARISONS OF PAIRED CONTRAST OF MAJOR IN SCHOOL ' WITH MEAN SCORE OF PREFERENCE FOR EQUIPMENT ROOM, SMALL GROUP, AND CLASSROOM ............. 141 4.59 CORRELATION BETWEEN YEARS OF FORMAL SCHOOLING AND LEVEL OF FORMALITY ................. 142 4.40 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBm OF YEARS OF FORMAL SCHOOLING AND PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING. . 145 TABLE Page 4.41 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS OF FORMAL SCHOOLING FOR PAIRED CONTRAST OF EQUIPMENT ROOM VS. SMALL GROUP AND CLASSROOM ......... 144 4.42 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF YEARS IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND SUBJECTS' RATINGS OF CONTENT IMPORTANCE .................. 145 4.45 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF YEARS IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND SUBJECTS' RATINGS OF NECESSARY LEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING .......... 147 5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . ................ 150 ‘viii FIGURE 2 . l 2.2 2.5 2.4 5.1 401 402 LIST OF FIGURES DECISION POINTS AND COMPONENTS OF AN ADULT EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK ................ HY POTHESIZED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTCRS AND MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN ADULT EDUCATION . . . . .................. HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOME SOCIAL VARIABLES AND MOTIVE(S) FOR PARTICIPATION IN ADULT EDUCATION. . . . ........ . . ..... FINN'S NETWORK OF EXPECTATIONS ....... RESEARCH STUDY ORGANIZATION ............. AGE OF SUBJECTS WITH A FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION IN FIVEYEARINCREVIENTS ........... RELATIOI‘BHIP OF PREFERENCE FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY AND PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING ...... Page 33 37 58 63 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Adult education is an expanding field. It is important today When one hears the words "adult education" that one asks, "What kind of adult education?" This curriculum research is in the context of a particular type of adult continuing education. Within the general field of adult education a sub-species is beginning to grow like a wild weed in a domestic garden. The subaspecies is generically identified as.continuing education fbr professionals. Growth the last ten years in the field of professional education has been widespread. The standard in the field of adult education, Handbook of Adult Education, included in its 1970 edition an entire chapter on the growing phenomena of education for professionals. Charters, in his chapter of the Handbook, Opens with this statement, "The great ferment in contemporary society is reflected in the field of continuing education fbr the professions. Profound social changes are imposing great pressure on the adult to continue his education" (Charters, p. 487). Recognizing that such a sub—species of adult education exists is not enough. HOw is it set apart from other interests in adult education? Charters (Charters, p. 489-490) identifies five characteristics of continuing education.for professionals: 1) There are frequently no legal or professional requirements to be met after certification or licensing. 1 C 2 2) Continuing education is increasingly considered not a luxury, fringe or supplement, but an integral part of the education of the professional. 5) Professional needs are studied as a basis for planning learning activities. 4) It is very important to make the continuing education relevant. 5) A variety in programming of continuing education fbr professionals is very important. The research relates primarily to the last three of these five characteristics. The research inquires into the needs and expectations of a particular profession. understanding these needs and expectations enables the continuing education program established for that profession to exhibit the variety and relevancy needed to serve the profession meaningfully. Questions of meaningfulness and relevancy for a particular learning situation are curriculum questions. Answers to such questions can begin to be found by inquiring into certain relationships between the learner, the learning activities, and the content to be learned. Purpose The purpose of the study is to develOp a better understanding of a unique population of adult learners with regard to several key learner variables in order that more precise recommendations can be made concerning the developnent of a professional certification program for that unique p0pulation. Key relationships among the variables are explored to better understand certain pedagogical expectations this particular population of adult learners has that when.met, contribute to an overall perception of the courses in the professional development 3 program as being relevant for meeting perceived educational needs, interests and motives. Peters and Boshier (1976) present a model which describes the interplay of the learner, learning activities and content to be learned. The model will be explained more in depth in the literature review section. For the purpose of more clearly identifying the problem a brief summary will be presented. In the author's own wonds, "The model assumes that a learning experience presented to volunteer adult learners must have a content congruent with their needs, interests and motives" (p.199). This study inquires into sane important learner expectations as those expectations relate to a particular curricular content. Knowing content expectations will provide information to make the program more meaningful. Using the Peters and Boshier model as a framework, one can see how information about adult needs, interests and motives and information concerning program content can contribute to "meaningful interaction" for the adults in the learning experience. This research is designed to study factors both on the side of needs, interests and motives and also on the side of program content in order to inquire into what would seem to be meaningful to the particular adult pOpulation represented by the study. The model can be diagrammed as follows: Adult Needs Meaningful Program Interest, Motives —* Interaction K— Content Peters and Boshier make the following general comment about the model. 4 ". . . the interaction between the adults' needs, interests, motives and the program content becomes meaningful only to the extent that the learner increases knowledge, develOps a skill or shapes attitudes to the mutual satisfaction of the adult and the sponsoring onganization" (Peters and Boshier, p. 199)- The ultimate question which this research begins to answer is how a curriculum can be put together to more precisely increase knowledge and develop skills and shape attitudes in accordance with learners“ expectations that have been shaped by the past. Specifically, the study inquires into the expectations concerning certain variables and the relationship between those variables. These variables are the adult learner's pedagogical expectations concerning level of formality, kind of learning experience, instructional setting, rating of content importance and necessary level of understanding. Fbr the purposes of this study the variables will collectively be called expectation variables. The study also explores relationships between the five expectation variables mentioned above and three learner's variables, years of fbrmal schooling, years in prOperty management, and major in school. The problem is focused on fig major related variables because the content variable has two aspects. 1. What adult learners in this particular pOpulation perceive to be valid expectations concerning levels of formality, when "levels of formality" refer to how structured, teacher-controlled and authority-oriented an instructional setting is. 2. What adult learners in this particular p0pulation perceive to be valid kinds of learning experiences when "kinds of learning experiences" refer to a particular parsimonious speciation of learning activities people are to engage in (input, self; awareness and sharing). 5 3. What adult learners in this particular p0pu1ation perceive to be the most productive educational setting when setting is defined as an identifiable location fer instruction and a specific seating arrangement for students. 4. What adult learners in this particular p0pulation perceive to be important curricular outcomes when curricular outcomes are defined in terms of the perceived importance 9f specific course contents. 5. What adult learners in this particular p0pulation perceive to be important curricular outcomes when curricular outcomes are // I defined in terms of levels of understanding a person is required to have of a specific content. Research Questions and Hypotheses The research questions and hypotheses serve to organize an orderly search into expectations that adult learners have regarding the five expectation variables. The study will also examine relationships between the five expectation variables. lastly, the study will examine relationships between the five expectation variables and the learner variables of years in property management, major in school, and years of formal schooling. The three learner variables were chosen fbr specific reasons. Major in school was chosen to explore relationship that may be present because of a particular perspective a person's major in school may give to his or her preference fer level of formality, kind of learning experience, instructional setting or his or her ratings of content importance and level of understanding necessary for specific contents. 6 Years of fbrmal schooling was selected as a variable because of previous research that has explored the issue of whether or not a person's previous experience with formal schooling has had any effect on his or her preferences for level of formality and of learning experience and instructional setting. The number of years a person has spent in prOperty management was selected to explore the relationship between professional experience and the ratings of content importance and levels of understanding necessary fer competent mastery of a particular content. If years of experience in prOperty management is shown to be related to ratings of content importance and level of understanding, this infcrmation would prove very valuable in further curriculum construction efforts. The relationship of age to the five expectation variables will be reported on under the section headed "Other Findings." Although it was not a main part of the study, findings about the relationship of age to the expectations variables might prove to be significant in certain areas. The organization of the study revolves around three major areas. First, the expections adult learners have regarding the five expectation variables are studied. Second, relationships between the five eXpectation variables are studied. Third, relationships between the five expectation variables and learner variables are studied. A. Pedagogical expectations of the entire sample toward levels of fbrmality, kinds of learning experiences, curricular outcomes and instructional setting will be identified. 1. Do adult learners perceive one level of formality as providing more productive learning than any other level of formality? 2. Do adult learners perceive any one kind of learning eXperience as more preferable than any other kind of learning experience? 7 3. Do adult learners perceive any one educational setting to be more productive for learning than any other educational setting? Do adult learners perceive any one content statement of the twelve as more important than any other content? Do adult learners perceive any one level of understanding as more important than any other level of understanding? Relationships between the five expectation variables will be explored in order to better understand student preferences relating to needs, motives and interests. 1. Is there a relationship between level of formality and kind of learning experience? Is there a relationship between level of formality and content importance? Is there a relationship between level of formality and level of understanding? Is there a relationship between level of fbrmality and setting? Is there a relationship between kind of learning experience and content importance? Is there a relationship between kind of learning experience and necessary level of understanding? Is there a relationship between kind of learning experience and setting? Is there a relationship'between content importance and level of understanding? Is there a relationship'between content importance and setting? J C. IO. 8 Is there a relationship between level of understanding and setting? Relationships between selected learner variables and the ‘ expectation variables consisting of level of fbrmality, kind of learning experiences, importance of content, level of understanding and educational setting are explored to discover to what degree, if any, these learner variables may influence the adult learners' expectations. 1. Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and an adult learner's expectations concerning level of formality? Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and an adult learner's expectations concerning kind of learning experience? Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and an adult learner's expectations concerning content importance? Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and expectations concerning the level of understanding? Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and expectations concerning the instructional setting? Is there a relationship between his/her years of formal schooling and the adult learner's expectations concerning level of fbrmality? Is there a relationship between his/her years of fbrmal schooling and the adult learner's expectations concerning the instructional setting? Is there a relationship between his/her years of employment in prOperty management and the adult learner's expectations concerning content importance? 9. 9 Is there a relationship between his/her years of employment in property management and the adult learner's expectations concerning level of understanding? The following hypotheses guide the investigation: H1 H2 H3 H7 H9 A lower level of formality will be preferred over a higher level of formality. Subjects will show a definite preference fer sharing over // other kinds of learning eXperiences. Subjects will show a definite preference for which instructional setting they think is more productive fer learning. Subjects will make definite rank order judgments in their perceptions regarding the importance of course content. Subjects' judgment of which level of understanding is necessary for relevant learning will be different fer each content statement. subjects' preferences regarding level of formality are related to their preferences regarding kind of learning experience. subjects' preferences regarding level of formality are related to their judgments regarding importance of content. subjects' preferences regarding level of formality are significantly related to their judgments regarding necessary level of understanding. subjects' preferences regarding level of fbrmality are significantly related to their preferences regarding instructional setting. H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 10 subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. Sdbjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding for a relevant learning experience. Subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. sabjects' judgments regarding content importance are positively related to judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding for a relevant learning exprience. Subjects' judgments regarding content importance are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. subjects' preferences regarding level of understanding are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding level of fbrmality. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding kind of learning experience. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to judgments regarding necessary level of understanding. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. ll H21 Subjects' years of formal schooling are significantly related to preferences regarding levels of formality. H22 Subjects' years of formal schooling are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. H23 Subjects' years of employment in pr0perty management are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. H24 Subjects' years of employment in proer management are significantly related to judgnents regarding necessary levels of understanding. Situational Background The sponsoring organization that relates to the adult learners participating in this study is the Building Owners and Managers Institute (BOMI). BOMI's program must appeal to volunteer adult participants who chose to participate because they find the learning activities meaningful and capable of meeting their needs and interests. The curriculum within BOMI is a seven—course program for professional managers of canmercial prOperty. Each course is a college-level semester length course. Course One deals with the structural engineering of a high-rise building, the design and maintenance of mechanical systems and plumbing systems and the design and maintenance of elevators and escalators. Course Two deals with the design and maintenance of electrical systems and lighting, cleaning maintenance of all building space, roof maintenance, and building security. Course Three is an overview of managerial accounting. The course emphasizes the basic accounting principles necessary to make wise managerial decisions in the field of prOperty management. 12 Course Four highlights the important areas of risk:management for commercial property. The course covers risk.management concerns for both persons and pr0perty. Course Five covers legal principles which are important to canmercial property management. (A separate law course exists for Canada because of the difference in that countny with legal matters.) Course Six concerns real estate finance and economics. Basic principles of finance and prOperty valuation are covered as they relate to the management of prOperty. Course Seven is a basic course in the principles of’management as it applies to managing peOple, tasks and the building. BOMI has been in existence for eleven years. At this present time approximately five hundred students have completed the entire curriculum and obtained the Real PrOperty Administrator designation (RPA). The need fer such a curriculum exists because of the unique nature of the property administrator's job. The jOb calls fer a generalist. To this date there are no formal academic programs that have constructed a curriculum to prepare a person with the breadth of knowledge needed to be effective and efficient in the management of real prOperty. Thus, the Institute is fulfilling.a specific need in this field with its RPA designation, given when a person has completed the seven courses. This research fits into the larger context of the curriculum revision project now underway in the Building Owners and Managers Institute (BOMI). The researcher is presently responsible for the supervision of this curriculum revision project. The research is designed to provide information on certain dimensions of learner needs and expectations. Infbrmation about expectations will be very important if the new 13 curriculum is going to display a high degree of congruence between the learner participant need and the content goals of the Institute. Peters and Boshier point out why the kind of infbrmation this study is seeking is important for congruence: A.prqgrammer can.facilitate participant/institution congruence by obtaining accurate information concerning participant needs,interests, preferred learning styles, motives, and expectations and then insure that instructors create congruent learning environments, methods and techniques (Peters and Boshier, 1976, p. 201). Importance It has already been pointed out that one of the major areas of growth in adult education today is continuing education fbr professionals. In this sub—species of adult education a major contradiction is emerging. A contradiction between the voluntary nature of adult education in general and the increased tendency of professional continuing education for adults to be compulsory. (Stern, 1976) Net only is the compulsory nature of adult professional education a prdblem in itself, but there is little agreement on what should be done to solve the prdblem. Rockhill in her article "The Mystique of Certification, Education and Professionalism: In the Service of Whom?", discusses the public policy issues and sociological implications of professional certifications. In addition to these implications of professional certification she observes, - Today, with the trend toward mandatory study as a part of relicensure requirements, we face a new threat: compulsory life—long education and with it the demise of adult education as a fluid, Open, voluntary field of educational endeavor" (Rockhill, 1973, p. 36?)- Taken to an extreme, compulsony education fer professionals can radically alter the character of adult education as it is conceived today. waever, licensing, relicensing and recertification are here to stay. 14 The compulsory nature of professional education puts adult educators working with those programs in a difficult position. The motivation fOr study in their programs can be in direct Opposition or contradiction to why adults normally continue learning. Given that certification is here to stay what does one do who has the responsibility fOr making a certification program fer professionals as meaningful as possible? Tb begin to solve the problem of compulsory education and lessen the impact Of the dilemma, those responsible fbr professional education programs fOr adults should make every effOrt to construct their programs to meet the specific needs, interests and motives of those participating. This study is important because it illustrates a first step that can be taken to Obtain infbrmation concerning learner expectations fbr a specific professional continuing education program. The canpulsory nature of adult professional continuing education will not be eliminated. But, such education can be structured so it is consistent with needs, interests, motives and expectations of participants if data can.be made available to guide such structure. This study is aimed specifically at providing some initial infOrmation about the needs, interests, motives and expectations of a specific group of adults involved in a professional educational program or that have the potential to be involved. This infOrmation will then be used to guide decisions that need to be made in the curriculum construction process. The primary purpose of this study is to inquire into certain relationships within the Peters and Boshier paradigm which should provide direction fbr curriculum construction effOrts. Peters and Boshier have identified a.usefu1 paradigm to guide research but have not dealt fhlly 15 with how to research these issues. Other sources must be used to provide a framework fbr the research itself. Generalizability This study has two levels of generalizability with which to contend. First, the question of generalizability from this group of professionals to all professionals must be considered. The study is targeted to a specific group of professionals in property management. It has limited generalizability outside of that particular profession. A second level of generalizability is within the group itself. An important issue to bear in mind is how representative the sample is of property managers within the field Of'membership of the Building Owners and Managers Association. The findings have limited generalizability to similar students with similar profiles of learner characteristics and employment characteristics . Assumptions Five primary assumptions guide this study. First, the researcher assumes that it is important to identify and understand prOperty managers' preferences regarding levels of fOrmality, kinds of learning experiences, instructional setting and judgments concerning the importance of content and levels of understanding required so that curriculum designs and teaching methodologies can be more effective. Second, it is assumed that the data gathering technique of viewing pictures and subsequent responses accurately measures a person's response to levels of fbrmality, and type of learning experience, and instructional setting. 16 Third, it is assumed that the taxonomy of cognitive objectives (levels of learning) will be a meaningful framework fbr conceptualizing possible expectations concerning curricular outcomes. A fOurth assumption is that the three kinds of learning experiences (input, self-awareness, and sharig) are necessary canponents for a meaningful learning environment. A.fifth assumption is that a personfs pedagogical expectations include judgments which anticipate particular content and intentions to learn this content to specific levels Of usefullness. Limitations Several limitations affect the generalizability of this study. First, the sample will be a limitation because it will be a convenience sample taken from a specific pOpulation. Thus, the findings should be generalized with caution. Second, the study will not establish direct cause and effect relationships but only compare different perception.factors that relate to the expectations of a specific group of adult learners. Because this is a correlational study, the variables chosen may show relationships with one another but not necessarily explain the complexity involved in a person's perceptual preferences fer levels of fOrmality, kinds of learning experiences and instructional settings. Third, the study is using new instruments to gather data. The instruments should be seen as tentative and until they can.be refined further, care»must be taken.in the conclusion reached with any study which utilizes them. Fburth, suggestions can be given on the basis of the study for curriculum construction. HOwever, these suggestions must still be viewed 17 as quite tentative. This study gives basic descriptive infOrmation about learner expectations but final questions about curriculum design will still have to wait to be answered by experimental studies. Definitions of Terms Ethnopedagogy is a term coined by Berger (1968) that combines an anthrOpological concern fOr cultural differences with a concern fOr educational practice. It refers to the need to adapt teaching activities to the cultural viewpoints and experiences Of the learners. Expectations refer to those conscious and unconscious evaluations which a person fOrms of another or of oneself, which leads one to treat others in such a manner as though the assessment were correct. EXpectations are estimates of reality and imply the anticipation of the behavior most likely to actually occur if certain circumstances are created and put into action (Finn, 1972, p. 390). Pedagogical expectations are what a learner expects to be the sociology (roles Of teacher and learners), content, and procedures Of an educational activity. The idea is based on the work in ethnOpedagogy. Level of formality refers to how formal, structured, or ritualized an instructional setting is perceived to be. Instruments in this study use pictures of instructional activities that represent two broad levels of fbrmality. One level is very infOrmal, and the other one is very fbrmal. They will be labeled Low and High levels of formality. Amount of formal schooling refers to the number of years each student completed in public or private school. Kinds of learning experiences refers to experiences in which the learner is engaged. Based on.Ward's model, three kinds of learning 18 experiences will be represented in the instrumentation: input, self- awareness and sharing. All three are considered necessary fbr effective learning. In t experiences involve learners in receiving or coming into contact with some new infOrmation. Self-awareness learning experiences involve the learner in reflecti g upon one's current situation. Sharing learning eXperiences involves learners in putting into one's own words or acting upon some new infOrmation, ideas, insights. It is believed that all three types of experiences are necessary fbr effective learning . . . (McKean, 1977, p. 18, 19). Instructional Setting refers to a specific locus of instruction.which has unique identifying features such as seating arrangement fbr students and identifiable teaching resources fOr instructors. The three instructional settings pertinent to this study are classroom, small group and equipnent roan (on-site). For this study, equipment roan refers to the location in a building of the large heating, cooling and ventilating equipnent. The equipnent room in a large commercial building is the nerve center that provides fer the smooth and efficient Operation of the entire building. Curriculum Outcomes refers to what a learner expects to gain from participating in a learning eXperience. This study lOOks at two dimensions Of curricular outcomes, importance of content and level of understanding. Importance of content is a judgment regarding the significance Of a particular content to job performance. Level of understanding is a judgment regarding the significance of a particular level of content application to job performance. Overview In Chapter 2 the literature related to learner expectations and adult professional education is reviewed. In Chapter 3 the methods used to l9 investigate learner expectations fbr and relationships between level of fbrmality, kind of learning experience, rating of content importance, rating of necessary level of understanding and preference fOr instructional setting are discussed. Methods used to investigate relationships between the expectation variables listed above and other learner variables Of'major in school, number Of years in property management, and number of years Of fbrmal schooling are also discussed. The research design, research questions and hypotheses are outlined. The instrumentation and procedures used in data collection and analysis are identified. In Chapter 4 the findings are presented. The research hypotheses tested are restated and accompanied by the findings to each. Chapter 5 contains a brief summary of the material in the previous chapters. The findings are discussed, conclusions reached and implications and recommendations suggested. In summary, this research inquires into the pedagogical expectations members of a professional association have about their professional education program. It seeks to determine whether or not there is a significant relationship between these expectations and certain adult learner characteristics. These characteristics are both personal——major in school and years of fOrmal schooling, and professional-eyears Of employment in property management. In the "other findings" section, the relationship’of age to the expectation.variables is also explored to isolate any possible significance that might exist. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose Of this research is to develop a better understanding of a unique population of adult learners with regard to several key learner variables in order that more precise recommendations can be made concerning the developnent of a professional certification program for that unique pOpulation. Key background areas fer a review of the literature relating to the purpose of the study encompass three major areas of concern: studies and theoretical literature having to dO‘With learners' pedagogical expectations concerning level Of fbrmality, kind of learning eXperiences, instructional setting and curricular outcomes; studies and theoretical literature that identify the effect that adult learner characteristics have on adults' participation in educational programs; and studies and theoretical literature that discuss the relationship«of adult education and curriculum development fOr adult education. The review Of literature will proceed with the last issue listed above, the relationship of adult education as a field and curriculum development, will then move to a review Of adult learner characteristics that impact their participation in continuing education and finish with a review of the literature dealing with pedagogical expectations. Adult Education and Curriculum Development The product of this research will hOpefully be additional insights into curriculum develOpment directions fer the educational programs of The 20 21 Building Owners and Managers Institute (BOMI). Being concerned that curriculum is relevant is one thing, but doing the work with instructors and materials to make it relevant takes a much stronger canmitment. Theoretical Foundations. One of the major frustrations of making such a canmitment is the wide variety of potential directions that can be taken in the quest for the development of a "relevant" curriculum. These potential directions are varied because the field of adult education itself is so rich in diversity. Houle, in his book, The Design of Education, confirms this Observation of the current situation in adult education when he says, Consequently, beginning in the 1930's, effOrts were made to find better and deeper ways Of conceptualizing programs. Generalized plans and methodologies, such as group dynamics, change theory, community development, and systems analysis, were prOposed. Each was accepted by some peOple and rejected by others. At least a few of the latter, restive at being called conservative or traditional because they would not expose the new techniques, loOked more deeply than befOre at their work and developed theories of process which.made explicit what had hitherto been implicit in, for example, independent study, tutorial teaching, and the creative use Of the advancement of new systems and the better understanding of old ones, the level of discussion deepened and a.more mature thoughtful sense of common identity began to emerge. As yet, however, it cannot be said that most of the work in the field is guided by any of these systems or even by the desire to follow a systematic theory. The typical career worker in adult education is still concerned only with an instructional pattern of service or a methodology, seldan or never catching a glimpse Of the total terrain of which he is cultivating one corner, and content to be, for example, a form or home advisor, museum curator, public librarian, or industrial trainer. While such people are adult educators, they do not know or do not wish to believe that they are. The winning of their attention and support must be a major aim of amrone who hopes to enlarge and strengthen the field. Those who do identify themselves with adult education hold widely varying views about its essential nature. Most such peOple have worked out a guiding credo—a sample statement of belief which channels and directs their ordinary practices. 22 Others have put fbrward organized systems to achieve a basic coherence of process which the field does not at present possess (Houle, 1972, pp. 5,6). Comprehending the diversity in the field, understanding the impliations of that diversity for curriculum develOpment and, thus, making meaningful curriculum decisions is crucial if the findings of this research are to be turned into a practical program for implimentation. In an attempt to show the relationship of the major concerns in the field of adult education.to curriculum development, Houle has classified the diversity by summerizing six basic credos that motivate adult educators' effOrts and six systems that direct those effOrts. The six credos are listed below: 1. One credo which has been consistently avowed since the earliest days of the organized field and is still staunchly supported by many peOple is the belief that adult education should be a movement unified by a common effOrt to achieve a single all-encompassing goal. A second credo is based on the belief that since men and women know what they need to learn, the task Of the educator of adults is to discover what it is and provide it fbr them. A third credo is centered on the idea that the education of adults should adOpt the aims and methods of other fOrms Of schooling to fit the requrements of men and women. A fourth credo emphasizes the importance of powerful and creative leaders in various roles. A fifth credo is based on the improvement of generalized instutional processes. The most evident fact about adult education is its multiple sponsorship and all who administer programs have common concerns arising from an effOrt to master the fundamentals Of'management. . . . A sixth credo, not widely held, perhaps, but expresses Often enough to deserve mention, is given its impetus by a desire to subvert fOrmalism so that energies may be creatively released. (Houle, 1972, pp. 7-30). HOw do these credos function to give meaning and direction to the field of adult education? Houle observes that, 23 While the thoughts of at least a few peOple seem to be wholly encompassed by each Of these credos or others like them, most educators of adults are not thus confined. mey may express one belief at one time, another at another. mey may accept one credo as doninant, subordinating one or more Of the others to it. They may even espouse several at the me time. But some of the credos directly contradict one another; fbr example, the first is inconsistent with the second and the fifth with the sixth. Therefore, while each credo has provided some unifying fOrce in the field, more of them is stable or profound enough.to synthesize all practice (HOule, 1972, p. 9). However, Houle goes on to point out that the credos are not really enough to provide a comprehensive understanding Of the field of adult education in relation to curriculum developnent. The need for a deeper conception than could be provided by the credos has been the chief reason why so many systems of thought have been prOposed, each of them designed to provide a theoretical basis for educational programming (Houle, 1972, p. 10). Houle makes it clear that some of these systems overlap each other but he also maintains that each has a distinctiveness that warrants discussing them individually. A summary of the systems is presented below. 1. Systems Based on Dewey's Thought. Dewey's concerns are best summarized in a quote from one Of his own books, Experience and Education. To imposition from above is Opposed expression and cultivation Of individuality; to external discipline is Opposed free activity; to learning from tests and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techiques by drill is Opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is Opposed making the most of the Opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is Opposed acquaintance with a changing world (Dewey. 1938. pp. 5.6). As Houle points out, Dewey's words were like a "call to arms" for a large number of adult educators. These educators felt that Dewey was speaking directly for them by expressing much of what they felt themselves. It was natural that the congruence between adult educators' feelings and Dewey's expression of those feelings would result in many 24 adult educators loOking to Dewey's pragmatic approach as the underpinning fbr programming. HOule sums up the result of response to Dewey as follows: His (Dewey) insistence that education be related to all experience made it possible to consider the work not merely of established institutions of fbrmal schooling but also of such other organizations as libraries and museums and of such forms of activity as canmunity developnent , independent study, supervision and travel. The specific goals of learning, he argues, are constantly changing and evolving, the sole principles Of process are the continuity of experience and the interaction of the learner with his environment, and the central distinction between education.and miseducation, is that the fOrmer enlarges the capacity of the individual or society for richer experiences in the future while the latter arrests, diminishes, or distorts it (Houle, 1972, p. 11). HOule also Observed that Dewey's contribution, in addition to creating a fOcus fOr program develOpment based on his own concerns fOr education, was the impetus fOr many systems that develOped later and provided further theoretical underpinnings fOr curriculum in adult education. The future systems, however, set forth a more explicit process of program—develOpment and in the process violated, to a certain extent, the Openess and fluidity characteristic of Dewey's work. The fluidity of Dewey's approach and the more explicit process of prog'am developnent were certain to clash. Clash they did and the eventual outcome was a new synthesis by Ralph W. Tyler with the publication of his Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in 1949. 2. Systems Based on Tyler's Thought. HOule makes the fOllowing observation about the genesis of Tyler's work: In cases of direct confrontation between defenders of traditional values and prOponents of radical change, victory went now to one side, now to another, but it soon became clear that some new conception of curriculum building would have to be devised to secure as a systhesis between Old and new. Many leaders of education turned their attention to this task, but the major contribution proved to be that made by Ralph W. Tyler. 25 Tyler's curriculum rationale can be summarized briefly. In any curriculum fbrmulation the first step is to define purposes by considering studies of learners, of contemporary life, and of suggestions of subject specialists. The data derived from these studies are screened by the findings of educational and social philosophy of the curriculum builder, and by findings of the psychology of learning so that specific objectives can be produced to guide instruction. These Objectives are stated so they can be used to select learning experiences and guide teaching. The learning experiences are chosen according to certain principles and in confOrmity with various categories of goals. lastly, processes of evaluation are designed in order to measure the degree to which Objectives are achieved and such knowledge is then used in future planning (Tyler, 1949)- What is the status of the Tyler rationale currently? HOule makes the following Observation in answer to that question: . . . even with all this amplification and disagreement, the fundamental way of thought which Tyler suggested still remains intact, underlying the dicussion and practice of most education today. In this process, the Old debates between the progressives and the reactionaries have been lessened as both parties have fOund an acceptable method of designing and conducting educaton (HOule, 1972, p. 15). 5. Systems Based on.Lewin's Thought. In response to needs fOr unique program building methodologies in adult education, two systems fbund their roots in Lewin's field theory. The first goes under the umbrella term "group dynamics." As HOule points out: This designation was always inapprOpriate, fOr if the term had a literal meaning at all, it referred to that subfield of social psychology which deals with the objective study of the nature of small amps and their influence on the actions of their members. To those engaged in such study, however, it soon became clear that the theoretical knowledge they discovered could have major practical consequences. Many new concepts and techniques were devised (among them feedback, 26 role playing, buzy groups, hidden agenda, special fOrms of nondirective leadership, reactor panels, listening teams, prOblem census, and involvement) which were to become part of the colloquial speech of eduators of adults. Somehow the term "group dynamics" came to be used as a collective term to describe such practices and their theoretical foundations (Houle, 1972, p. 16). As with many other "good" practices and theories the strong proponents of "group»dynamics" as the central methodology of'adult education eventually met with resistance. The Opposition was so strong in certain cases that "some Of the wounds inflicted in ensuing battles have still not healed" (Houle, p. 17). Over times the "groupidynamics" emphasis shifted from an emphasis on means to ends with the advent Of the fOrmalized training group (T-group). The T—Group application eventually became a very specialized program area which had fairly universal usefulness but so specialized that it could not be considered as part of broader practices in planning and analysis fer adult education programs. was "group dymanics" important to the curriculum planning effOrts Of adult education? There is no question about its importance because: . . . group dynamics did make significant positive contributions to adult education by stressing the importance Of treating every socialized learning situation as a group. Teachers, leaders, and administrators of even the most fbrmal kinds of activities strive much harder than they did in earlier days to take advantage of the reinfOrcement which fellow learners can offer one another. And learners themselves are likely to suggest or even insist upon.a.group approach fOr an awareness of sensitivity training in one or another of its countless fOrms has now entered into the common culture and become an accepted part Of human association (Houle, 1972, p. 18). The second system for program desigi (curriculum) which found its roots in Lewin's work is called change theory. The fOrmulation and application of change theory is very complex. A brief explanation 27 hardly does it justice but the core of it. . . "rest on the idea that in any defined social situation, the present level of accomplishment is supported by some forces and held back by others" (Houle, 1972, p. 18). To Operationalize the theory in a particular setting, two key questions must always be asked. What fbrces are at work to increase the level of perfbrmance? What fOrces Operate to keep it from rising higher. Anyone seeking to improve practice in any situation must begin by answering these questions and then go on to ask two others. HOw can the positive fOrces be reinfOrced? How can the negative ones by weakened? The Operative task becomes one of identifying a present performance level, "unfreezing" it by straightening positive influences and weakening negative ones, establishing as high a new level of Operation as desirable, and then "refreezing" it so that it will not step back again. In this process, two major roles are involved: the client or client system, who is helped to improve, and the change agent, a single person or group who uses both technical expertise and skill in human interaction to bring about the des1red change by entering into a helping relationship (Houle, 1972, p. 18). Although the utilization of change theory is extremely complex and specialized there is no question that it still provides a significant organizing principle around which adult education learning activities can be planned. Some concerned with the planning of adult education have gone so far as to utilize change theory as their central strategy (verner, 1964, p- 32)- 4. Systems Based on Community Development. Houle describes the major thrust of program develOpment based on community improvement in these terms: . . . residents in a.community (which may be variously defined in geographic or social terms should be helped to act collectively to solve some problem which effects the lives Of all of them. In planning and undertaking this task they achieve tangible results, but if the process is skillfully handled, they also learn how to attack other 28 problems and are motivated to do so by their feelings of success in their initial efforts. Thus, a community be transfbrmed from a traditional way of life which has few satisfactions fOr any of its members to one which Offers tangible rewards and hOpes fbr all of them (Houle, 1972, p. 21). 5. Systems Analysis Systems. HOule observes that a systems analyst. . . .is interested in how a process can be conceptualized, usually in a diagram, so that its essential components are identified and put into a prOper sequential order to facilitate action and decision.making. He therefOre works at a higher level of abstraction. . . fbr his system building has to do with the nature of systems themselves (Houle, 1972, p. 22). The systems approach is Often used in administering institutions, and in structuring learning experiences fbr computer assisted instruction or programmed instruction. The approach can also be used to organize large—scale enterprises like a national literary campaign or major convention or conference. waever, one would criticise the system approach as too simplistic fer the treatment Of complex prOblems. 6. Misapplied systems. HOule uses this expression to describe a situation where . . . adult education is accepted as being subordinate or identical to some related function and a way of work which is apprOpriate to it is accepted as being the fundamental system to be used to guide learning or teaching (Houle, 1972, p. 25). He goes on to mention such functions which are listed here with no elaboration. a) Public Relations b) Service 0) Recreation Asthetic Appreciation e) Fraternization f) Welfare g) Therapy (Houle, 1972, pp. 25-30) In summing up the issue Of the reLationship between these functions and adult education, Houle says: 29 The best corrective against confusing other functions with adult education is to develop and use a system of practice based wholly on learning and with sufficient strength not to be overwhelmed by systems used in allied but essentially different fields Of human activity. (Houle. 1972. p- 25) A System for Curriculum Construction. HOule's definition of adult education lays the groundwork fer his own system which uses elements of what has been summarized above but maintains its own uniqueness. Adult education is the process by which men and women (alone, in groups or in instructional settings) seek to improve themselves or their society by increasing,their skill, knowledge, or sensitiveness; or it is any process by which individuals, grou or institutions try to help men and women improve in hese ways. The fundamental system Of practice of the field, if it has one, must be discerned by probing beneath.many different surface relatives to identify a basic unity of process (Houle, 1972, p. 32). Houle's system rests on seven assumptions: 1. Any episode of learning occurs in a specific situation and is profoundly influenced by that fact. 2. The analysis or planning of educational activities must be based on the realities of human experience and upon their constant change. 3. Education is a practical art. 4. Education is a cooperative rather than an Operative art. 5. The planning or analysis of an educational activity is usually undertaken in terms Of some period which the mind abstracts for analytical purposes from complicated reality. 6. The planning or analysis of an educational activity may be undertaken by an educator, a learner, an independent analyst, or some combination of the three. 7. Any design of education can best be understood as a complex of interacting elements, not as a sequence of events (Houle, 1972, pp. 32-59) . These assumptions undergird a system of programming and analysis fbr adult education that, in the Opinion of the writer, is one of the most comprehensive, sensible and realistic explanations of the relationship 30 between the "field" of adult education and curriculum development or asthe adult educators prefer to call it, program develOpment (Verner, 1964; Broshier, 1976). An overview summary of the field of adult education as developed by Houle has been presented above. This summary, along with the assumptions listed above, form the backdrop for the presentation of Houle's approach to the relationship between the adult education as a disciple and the practice curriculum develOpment (program develOpment). Houle's system, as he puts it: . . requires two conplementary actions: the examination of the situation in which the learning activity occurs to determine the basic category to which it belongs and the application to that situation, in ways which are profoundly influenced by its category of a basic framework or model in order to produce a desigi or program (Houle, 1972, p.40). Houle's approach is refreshing, comprehensive and realistic. He says, "If overall harmony of process is to be achieved in adult education, it is apparently necessary to have some typology of categories into which learning and teaching situations can be fitted (Houle, 1972, p. 41). Realistically, many adult educators will still maintain the supremacy Of one over another put most likely to their detriment. As Houle so eloquently sums up, the most sigiificant and germain question for successful curriculum development: . Th.ose who seek to make sense of the field as a whole (as it is and not merely as they wish it to be) or who hope to broaden their range of personal conpetence to include a mastery of various categories of process, will find it useful to look speculatively at each of them, understanding its form and assessing its relative utility. The central question is not "Is Category A better than Category B?" but "In what circumstances is Category A better than Category B?" Anyone who tries to answer this question must look beneath the surface of the formal settings in which learning and teaching occur. Tie essential distinction among categories cate sets 31 is not to be fbund in their outward fOrm. On that basis, it is Often hard to distinguish a class from a group or either of them from a conference. The inner reality lies in the source of authority and direction so far as planning and control are concerned. In the class, it is the teacher; in the group, its own members; and in the conference, a conmittee. Each of these forms can use a great variety of'methods and resources (Houle, 1972, p. 42). Table 2.1 is a summary of HOule's eleven educational planning gories. NOtice that the eleven categories are organized into four that relate to the central focus of the category. TABLE 2.1 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF EDUCATIONAL DESIGN SITUATIOIB C-1 C-2 0-3 c—4 0-5 C—6 048 0-9 0—10 0-11 INDIVIDUAL An individual designs an activity for himself An individual or a group designs an activity for another individual GROUP A group (with or without a continuing leader) designs an activity fbr itself A teacher or group of teachers designs an activity fOr, and Often with, a group of students A committee desigus an activity for a larger group Two or more groups design an activity which will enhance their combined progams of service INSTITUTION A new institution is designed An institution designs an activity in a new fOrmat An institution designs a new activity in an established fbrmat Two or more institutions design an activity which will enhance their combined programs of service An individual, group, or institution designs an activity for a mass audience ' 32 The second element of Houle's two—fold approach is a framework of interrelated components which compose the design of an activity. It is important to recognize that these components are a complex of interacting elements, but not a logical sequence of steps. In utilizing the framework one can begin with any component ani proceed to others in arm order. Figure 2.1 diagrams the decision points and components Of an adult educational framework. Houle sums up the use of the system as follows: All the components of the system must be kept in balance. Each depends upon all the others; the change Of one influences the rest. For example, effective social reinforcement should be considered separately, but it is also a product of decisions made about leadership, resources, individualization, clarity of design, and other elements. If any is given undue stress, such as finance, schedule, or measurement, is fixed, all the others must be considered in terms of it. Otherwise, the system loses its equilibrium and therefore its fullest effectiveness (Houle, 1972, p. 56). In summary, an important pragmatic goal Of this research is to provide information that will give further direction to the curriculum development project of the Building Owners and Managers Institute. A reviewing of much of the literature in the area of adult education and curriculum development (program development) points to a rich diversity of theoretical underpinnings and program implementation. Attention here has been primarily focused primarily on a major source, The Design of Education, (Houle, 1972) because it makes sense, in a very comprehensive way, of the interrelationship of adult education as a field of study and the process of curriculum develOpment. In this section Of literature review the foundations and sources of adult education were reviewed, Houle's assumptions for organizing a meaningful educational experience were summarized and his system for Operationalizing (curricularizing) a given educational problem was presented. Where apprOpriate and necessary, supporting references were cited from primary sources. 33 > 1. A possible educational activity is identified fi 2. A decision is made to proceed 3. Objectives are identified and refined . Resources leaders Methods Schedule Sequence Social reinforcement Individualizaton . Roles and relationships Criteria of evaluation Clarity Of design V 4. A suitable format is designed 9H3mt-tmO-op‘m a Guidance 5. The format is fitted into larger b. Life style patterns of life c. Finance A d. Interpretation 6. The plan is put into effect 7. The results are measured and appraised FIGURE 2.1 DEBISION POINTS AND CG’IPONENTS OF AN ADULT EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK Adult Learner Characteristics Understanding adult learners better gives the develOper of curriculum fOr adults a head start on insuring the meaningfulness of the learning experience. As pointed out by Peters and Broshier, "Continuing education programs usually arise from an interaction between preconceptions held by a programmer and the perceived needs, interests, and motives Of the adult learner" (Peters and Broshier, 1976, p. 197). Why is understanding the adult learner so important? To a certain extent, adult learners choose to participate in continuing education. For various reasons the choice is sometimes made fer them, but assume fer discussion purposes that adult learners do still, in fact, have a certain degree Of individual choice available to them. What will gain and keep adult learners' participation? Needs and interest lie at the root of fbrces which motivate the adult to approach or avoid further educational eXperiences. Unless the intended outcomes of the program confOrm to the adults needs and interests, belief system, and concepts of reality, it is unlikely that the potential learner will accept and make use Of its content. The educational organization can be overly presumptuous if it ignores the idiosyncrasies of the ad t participant and Offers a traditional "curriculum" more suited to a captive group Of adolescent learners. It is equally presumptuous if it offers courses that merely reflect the interested and traditional concerns of programmers (Peters and Broshier, 1976. p- 199)- It behooves the educational planner then to understand the audience, the content he/she is charged with communicating and the interrelationship between the two. "The programmer assumes that volunteer adult learners will choose programs congruent with their needs, interests and motives" (Peters and Broshier, 1976, p. 199). The assumption is diagramed as fellows: 35 Adult Needs Meaningflzl Program Interests, Motives Interaction Content (From Peters & Broshier, 1976) "Non-participation in adult education can thus be understood as a function of a perceived participant/ institution "incongruence" (Peters 8c Broshier, 1976, p. 200). Having established the basic framework for adult participation or non-participation, the importance Of understanding the adult learner is obvious. Two strands of theory and research will assist in the further understanding of ways to increase the likelihood Of an adult learner's participation in a continuing education program: One strand is an exploration Of basic internal determinants referred to in general terms as needs and interests. "Adults participate in education for a variety of reasons but research has shown motivational orientations associated with participation to be reasonably stable through time and space" (Peters 8c Broshier, 1976, p. 201). A secord strand is an understanding of the developmental stages adults go through. It is very important not to view the two strands separately. Linking the developmental stages of adults with motives we can see why adults, at certain stages of their lives, generally tend to be prompted by certain motives more than others. For this reason it is necessary to deal with motivations as seen from the individual's life cycle. An individual's needs, interests, and motives must be seen in the context of the life cycle at various levels. Motives for Participation. Houle's book, The Inquiring Mind, suggested a typologr of three different kinds of adult education 36 participants; goal, learning and activity oriented (Houle, 1961, pp. 15,16). Studies since this first attempt to classify why people participate in adult education have demonstrated that Houle's initial suggestion was somewhat oversimplified (Broshier, 1976, pp. 24-47). Recent studies on motives for participation have clustered people into the following factors: 1. Escape/Stimlflation -— To get relief from boredom, to remedy deficiencies in social life and educational background. 2. Professional Advancement -- TO gain knowledge, attitudes, and skills which will facilitate job advancement. 3. Social Welfare — To ac uire knowledge, attitudes, and skills which can be app ied in achieving social or community Objectives. 4. Social Contact - To meet new friends, remedy deficiencies in social life, and enjoy group activities. 5. External EXpectations -- To carry out the expectations Of some person with "authority" such as a priest, friend, social worker, employer, or physician. 6. Cognitive Interest -- To learn for the sake of learning -- not tied to any particular goal - just for the inherent joy of participation and learning (Broshier, 1977, pp. 89-114). In addition to being able to cluster reasons for participation, Boshier has also postulated that adult education participants can be classified as "deficency" or "growth" motivated (Boshier, 1971, pp. 3-26). Growth or lifespace oriented people participate in adult education for ex ression rather than in an attempt to com with some aspect? of their life. Life chance oriented people participate because Of the need to acquire utilitarian knorzvézedge, attitudes, or skills (Peters and Broshier, 1976, p. O Figure 2.2 from Broshier, (1971) demonstrates the relationship that Broshier postulates exist between the life-space participants, life-chance participants and Naslow's hierarchy. 37 Growth Self-Actualizing (Life Span) Motivation Fbteem ’ Needs Love and Bel ongingness ( Deficiency (Li fe-Chance) Motivation Ihys iological Needs FIGURE 2. 2 HYPOTHEBIZED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AND MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN ADULT EDUCATION The motivational orientations are meaningfully related to other social and psychological variables (Boshier, 1977). Boshier correlated motivation orientation factor scores with age, indicies of social-economic status, previous participation in adult education, and social participation. Of the orientations listed above, Escape/Stimulation, Professional Advancement, and External Expectations were assumed to be indicative of life- chance motivation, while Social welfare and Cognitive Interest were labeled life-space factors. Examination of correlations in this study which involved night school participants in Richmond, British Columbia, showed that life-chancebmotivated participants when compared to life space participants tended to be young, of low occupational status, and income and to have a history of spasmodic (as Opposed to continuous) participation in adult education. Figure 2.3 diagrams the relationships. 38 LIFE—CHANCE LIFE-SPACE MOTIVATION MOTIVATION Age Ybung c» Old Occupational Status Iow' .1. High Income IOW’ —.. High Educational Attainment Low ‘D High Previous Particiration in Adult Education Iow _1., High (Spasmodic) (Continuous) FIGURE 2.3 HYPOTHFSIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOVIE SWIAL VARIABLES AND MOTIVE(S) FOR PARTICIPATION IN ADULT EDUCATION Haag correlated Eysenck and Eysenck's neuroticism scale and Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory , "self—actualizaton" scores with motivational orientations similar to those listed above (Haag, 1976). Haag administered the Educational Participation Scale (EPS) to 240 participants in Vancouver night classes. EPS motivated orientations purported to tOp life-chance and life-slace motivations were significantly correlated to the psychological measures. There were statistically sigiificant relationships between neuroticism and social welfare, Ebcape/Stimulation and External Ebcpectation scores in directions suggested by the need-hierarchy model shown above. Siostrom's self-actualization scores were significantly related to EPS Social Welfare, Mam/Stimulation and Cognitive Interest scores in the manner suggested in the model. 39 Research has thus enabled us to argue that motives and needs which impel peOple into continuing education do not exist in some isolated way but arerembedded in, and meaningfully related to, other aspects of the person's life. Motives vary as a function of socio—economic status and, as shown by the Haag study, are significantly related to the psychological infrastructure of the participant. Motives fOr participation appear to be surface manifestations of psychological states which are in turn related to developmental tasks and psycho-social conditions that characterize various age and social-economic groups (Peters and Broshier, 1976). Attention will now be turned to exploring more in depth how an understanding of develOpmental tasks and the adult life cycle relates to motivation and in turn participation. Developmental Stages Of Adulthood. Research conducted by Neugarten (Neugarten, 1964) revealed that adults, having lived longer and having a greater apperceptive mass of past experiences, are not only much more complex than children, but they are also much more differentiated and less dependent on immediate influences of the environment. At the same time, however, it should be possible to predict the principle events, pre—occupations, and motivations of adults during each major period in their lives within a mutable society. At the most general level, adults pass through certain age cycles, or as Havighurst describes them, "Periods of dominant concerns" (Havighurst, 1949) during which at a given point of physical and mental maturation they expect themselves to behave in a certain manner. Three of the most important life—cycle scholars, Robert Gould, Daniel Levinson, and Bernice Neugarten, have gone far beyond the gross mapping of life states as done by Erickson and Havighurst, to reach some remarkably similar conclusions about stages of adult develOpment. 40 Generally, they have agreed that adult develOpment implies a kind of growth schedule for all individuals. While the content of one's life may vary because of unique heredity, special environment, and personal interaction with the environment, everyone's develOpment consists of the same stages encountered at about the same time. The typology of adulthood that they mapped includes: 1. The early adult transition (18—22 years of age). There are two developmental tasks to be accomplished during this period. The first task is to begin moving out of the adolescent world. This involves the modification or termination of existing relationships with important persons, groups, and institutions. The second task is to make a preliminary step into the adult world: to explore its possibilities, to imagine oneself as a participant in it, and to test and make some preliminary choices for adult living. In this period, the individual is on the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. 2. Enteriog the adult world (23-28 years of age). During this phase, the individual shifts the center of his life from the family Of his origin to the establishment Of a home base of his own. The individual, during this time, makes and tests a variety of initial choices regarding occupations, love relationships, peers, and values. The individual has two primary antithetical tasks: (a) He or she needs to explore the possibilities for adult living: to keep his Options Open, avoid strong commitments and 41 maximize the alternatives. Ievinson (1978) noted that this task is reflected in a sense of adventure and wonderment. (b) The contrasting task is to create a stable life structure; become more responsible with plans to make something Of his life. Finding a balance between these two tasks is not easy. If the first predominates, life has an extremely transient and routeless quality. If the second predominates, there is a danger Of committing oneself too early to a structure, without sufficient exploration Of alternatives. The age 30 transaction,(28—32pyears of age). About 28, Levinson noted (1978), the provisional quality of the twenties is ending and life is becoming more serious, more "fOr real". The task of this period is to work on the flaws and limitations of the first adult life structure. It is usually a time of refOrm, not revolution. At this time an idividual may make important new choices, or may re—affirm Old ones with regard to his occupation and lifestyle. The first three periods, the early adult transition, entering the adult world, and the age 30 transaction, generally last about fifteen years. Together they constitute the preparatory or motive phase of early adulthood. Settling down state (33—40years of age). The second life structure takes shape at the end of the age 30 transition and persists until about age 40. This 42 structure is the vehicle fer the culmination of early adulthood. Levinson (1978) noted that individuals seek to invest themselves in the major components of the structure: work, family, friendships, leisure, commuity, whatever is most important to them and to realize their useful aspirations and goals. A person has two major tasks during this period; (a) the individual needs to try to establish a niche in society, to anchor his life more firmly, and develOp competence in his chosen field. (b) A person works at "making it" during this period, striving to advance and progress on a timetable. Levinson (1978) uses the term "making it" broadly to include all effOrts to build a better life fer oneself and to be affirmed by the tribe. This can be a fateful time in one's life. Attaining seniority and approaching the top rung of the ladder are signs that the person is truly an adult. Although the process brings new rewards, it also brings additional responsibilities and pressures. It means that the person must give up more of the child that is within him, an internal figure who is never completely outgrown, and certainly not in early adulthood. Mid—life transition (40—45years of age). The life structure again comes into question. It becomes important to ask: "What have I done with my life? What do I really get and give to my family, children, 43 community, self? What is it I truly want for myself and others?" Levinson (1978) noted that fer the great majority of peOple, this is a time of moderate or severe crisis. It is a period of great struggle within the self and with the external world. Neugarten (1964) pointed out that the reassessment of the self is a prevailing theme Of this time and that reflection is a striking characteristic of the mental life of middle—aged persons. PeOple question nearly every aspect of their lives and feel that they cannot go on as befOre. They will need several years to fOrm a new path or modify an existing one. Entering middle adulthood (45—50 years of age). The structure that emerges in the middle fbrties varies greatly in its satisfaction, that is, its suitability fbr the self and its workability in the world. Levinson (1978) reported that some individuals have suffered such irreparable defeats in childhood or early adulthood that they have been so little able to work on the tasks of their mid-life transition, that they lack the inner and outer resources fOr creating a.minimally adequate response at this point in their lives. These peOple face a.middle adulthood of restriction and decline. Others fOrm a structure that is reasonably viable in the world but poorly connected to the self. Although they do their bit fbr themselves and others, their lives are lacking in inner excitement and meaning. Still others have 44 started a middle adulthood that will have its own special satisfactions and fulfillments. Fbr these peOple, middle adulthood is often the fullest and most creative season in the life cycle. They are less tyranized by the ambitions, passions, and illusions of youth. They can be more deeply attached to others and yet more separate, more centered in the self. Neugarten (1964) noted that persons in this stage of life pay greater attention to their feelings, experiences, and cognitive processes. There is a decreasing attachment to the material things in life and fbr them, according to Levinson (1978), the season passes in its'best and most satisfying rhythm. 7. Middle adulthood (SO—plusyears of age). During this time peOple usually become less competitive and more inner— directed. Life seems to settle and there is a sense that we are whoever we are going to be. This does not mean that we will be immune from the hazards Of life after we hit 50. Sickness, divorce, physical deterioration, death of many close friends and family members, and forced retirement begin to pile up after 50. Gould (1975) noted that people in this stage were able to face these hazards of later life with greater strength because of their greater knowledge they had of themselves. Psychological orientations of peOple reflect the needs, cognitive style, and personality states that mediate their perception of opportuni- ties fOrtheir participation in various adult educational activities. Knox ("Adult Education and the Adult Life Cycle", 1963, pp. 102-122) 45 reminds us that throughout the adult life cycle subjective orientations toward participation.in adult education operate within the Objective organizations of behaviorial settings contained in an individual's life space. writers have suggested that participation in adult education can be explained as a function of maturation, or as Havighurst (1948) describes it, the need to resolve develOpmental tasks. Individuals have to respond to critical cycle social needs stages in their lives, which may be resolved through participation in adult education and, as Boshier (1976) explained, the motives fOr that participation change as a function of age. Adult Learners Pedagogical Expectations In the previous section of the literature review, attention has been given to the social, psychological and intrapersonal determinants of adult learners' expectations. Attention is now turned to another source, cultural determinants. Such a division of determinants is recognized by Zintz: l. The Psychological Approach. Here, the teacher assumes that behavior is the individual's response in OOpi with problems. These responses are patterned in the men 31, the physical, and spiritual as well as other growths and develOpments, which are predicated and continuous. In other words, the personality of the individual encompasses his total experience. 2. Sociological Level. Here, the teacher assumes that behavior is determined by the role that the individual plays in a social group. This role affects the basic social institutions: family, religion, education and government. Individuals have multiple roles, and in turn, these roles pressure confOrmity to the institution's expectations. 3. The teacher may assume the level of cultural anthropology or enthnology. To this extent, the behavior is considered rooted in group's culture. This culture established the 46 manners, customs, and peculiarities of the group, as well as legislates a set of values to which the group adheres. All Of us are subject to all levels -- the individual épsychological) , the class (sociological), and the cultural anthrOpological). (Zintz, 1963, p. 122). When a student is responding because of preprogremmed cultural bias that response grows out of a pattern of behavior built up over a long period of time. This process is known as enculturation. Berger points out (1968), that ". . . enculturation includes both formal schooling and all informal learning, such as casual Observation of adults." Cultural Determinants. Banger cites an excellent example of the interrelationship between adult learning and culture (1968, p. 33). The example, reported by Foster in Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Changes described an attempt in Chile to persuade pregiant women to be instructed in prenatal care. Because that culture equated education with childishness, the women refused to attend class. The solution was an easy one of fitting cultural values: Women in Chile placed great prestige on social clubs and club life, since this was associated with only the upper middle and the upper classes. Consequently, leaders in the public health center simply arranged to have classes held not in schools, but in private homes. The staff of health bureau provided tea and cakes (quite a change from textbooks!). And immediately the women gladly began coming to "classes." In commenting on this example above,Berger makes a basic point which highlights the significance of considering the cultural determanents of adult expectations as well as psychological and sociological. "From such success, we are reminded that classroom lecturing need be but a part Of enculturation. Adopting the teaching made to the age and status of the student is especially important in alluring the adults . . ." (Berger, 1978, p. 33). Berger makes another Observation 47 about the limitations of schooling and the relationship of schooling to culture. "Since fOrmal schooling is only a fraction of life, it must adOpt the rewards and patterns of the society, and cannot expect society to adopt ‘13s rewards!" (Berger, 1968, p. 19). This perspective is the "anthrOpologists" contribution to helping the concerned curriculum develOper to further understand how a particular program aimed at a particular pOpulation can be designed to be as "relevant" as possible. One researcher, Finn, has purposed an entire network of expectations (1972, p. 395). His model, shown in Figure 2.4, illustrates the interrelations of the psychological, sociological and anthrOpological on learner expectations. Although he is viewing the issue from a younger student's point of view, his model is certainly valid to demonstrate interdependencies of the cultural, social and psychological on the fOrmulation Of expectations. Finn's diagram not only shows the interrelationships of the source of expectations but also reinfOrces the potential long term pact Of the "schooling experience" on adult learners. This experience is one of the major sources of expectations that adult learners will be bringing with them to their continuing education eXperience. Schooling as a Culture. What are some Of the important characteristics of schooling that impact an adult learner's expectations? One source fer such descriptions comes from a sociological perspective by delineating teacher-learner roles. Roles are elaborate sets of rules, built up over time, which govern expression. These rules define how the person of a certain status position onght to behave (Sarbin, 1954, 1964, Merton, 1957, Goffman, 1959, Newcomb, 1951). Cultural Traditions and Demands L __-~1 ' Perceived Characteristics of Individual (Age, race, sex, abilities, prior achievement) Expectations Of peers self- ! expectation self; direct concept ‘ influencp outcome behavior (Achievement) FIGURE 2.4 FINN'S NETWORK OF EXPECTATIONS 49 From their past experiences Of school adult learners will carry the "cultural baggage" Of certain teacher-learner roles. Freire describes the fbrmal schooling teacher-learner role as fellows: 1. 2. 10. the teacher teaches and the students are taught the teacher knows everything and the student knows nothing the teacher thinks and the students are thought about the teacher talks and the students listens—weekly the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined the teacher chooses and infOrces his choice, and the students comply the teacher acts and the students have the illusion Of acting through the actions of the teacher the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his own professional authority, which he sets in Oppostition to the freedom of the students the teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere Objects (Freire, 1970, p. 59). Further elaboration of the potential cultural impact of past schooling experiences is listed by ward as he outlines sources of weakness in the schooling approach to education. 1. All learners are assumed to be similar in terms of needs, interests and abilities. ConfOrming behavior is preferred over divergent and nonconfbrming behavior. learners are increasingly made more competitive at the price of OOOperation. learners are eXpected to be receptors of learning rather than.ccmmunicators. The learner's part in decisionemaking is minimal and tends to be steadily reduced. 10. ll. 12. 15. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 50 The responsibility fer attitudes and feelings about content and about learning itself is attributed to the student. The content to be learned is justified in terms of future needs of the learner. Schooling's major justification is preparation (mostly expressed in terms of eligibility for more schooling). ENaluation is concerned almost exclusively with cognitive learning (knowledge of infOrmation and processes) and skills. learning experiences are designed or selected on the basis Of values Of the adult and established world. Abstractions of experience (in the fOrm of language and symbols) are substituted fbr realities. Rewards are symbolic more than real. Ewen the satisfactions of seeing oneself develOp are subordinated to imposed systems of rewards. Punishment is assumed to increase learning. Punishment is a virtually soverign right of the teacher. 'me teacher is ascribed authority, thus creating a hierachy based on unearned status. The social distance that separates teachers from learners is increased by according different sets of rights and expectations to each. learning experiences are designed (and limited) to fit time blocks. learning experiences are designed (and limited) to fit standard locations and space. Testing is the criterion of success. Success is the surpassing;value (ward, 1974, pp. 4, 5). Both of these lists provide Operational descriptions of a variety of expectations that adult learners could have regarding;the level of fOrmality a class should have, the kinds Of learning experiences that should be provided or the instructional setting in which they might 51 expect the teaching/learning to occur. It does appear that a network of expectations does exist and that adult learners' exposure to these expectations plays a part in fbrming their own expectations when they participate in continuing education experiences. Expectancy Phenomena. The source of these expectations has'been discussed, but what about their effect on learning experiences? MOst of the research in this area has'been done on the effect that teacher expectations have on student perfOrmance. Also, the context fbr such studies has'been primarly the fbrmal school setting but there is a recognition of the need to carry on research on the expectancy effect in out-Of-school adult education settings (Kidd, 1977, p. 28) To date, little has been done and it is hOped that this research can be a beginning at identifying some important adult learner expectations and relationships among those eXpectations. In spite Of the limitations and applicability of the current research in the area of expectations, the mainstream of the direction will be reported briefly because the expectancy phenomena has received wide attention over the last decade. Exploration of the expectatigs phenomena began with Pygmalion in the Classroom (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968). Rosenthal and Jacobson claimed that by creating higher teacher expectations fOr students, it was possible to improve student perfOrmance. Considerable research activity has resulted, some controversy over the original Rosenthal and JacObson study (Thorndike 1968, Snow 1969, Gephart and AntonOpOlos 1969, Elashoff and Snow 1971, Jones 1977). The major points of the controversy are listed by Kester¢& Letchworth (1972, p. 51): 1. Questions about validity of the IQ measurement instrument used (Thorndike, 1968). 2. Questions about the statistical analysis of the data“ (Sum. 1969)- 52 3. Some difficulty in replicating the research findings (i.e. Claiborn, 1969). 4. A question of the pervasiveness of the teacher expectation effect (BrOphy and Good, 1974). Growing out of the controversy, refinements of the original research have included more detailed Observation of classroom behavior (Good, 1968, 1970). Good asked first-grade teachers to rank their students according to their academic achievement. Then he Observed the teachers interaction patterns with several students who were either high or low on teacher ranking lists. The results demonstrated that these particular teachers provided more response Opportunities to higheachieving students than to low-achieving students. Further research has clarified these findings even more to the point where specific teacher behaviors have been isolated in association with loweachievers and high-achievers (Good and BrOphy, 1978, 1980). Good, in a recent review of the literature on this whole phenomena, points out that some research is finally being done on how student expectations effect teacher behavior. (Good, 1982) One such study by Feldman and Prohaska (1979) indicates that teacher behavior can be influenced by student actions stemming from certain eXpectations. Also, some have started to explore the interaction effect of student expectations and teacher expectations (Zanna, Sheras and COOper, 1975). These three researchers fOund that the combined effect Of teacher expectancy and student expectancy results in an interaction in terms of perfOrmance. Also, they fOund in the absence of any particular teacher expectancy, students given a positive expectancy of their own perfOrmance did better than students with no such expectancy. Second, it was fOund that in the absence of any positive student expectancy, students whose 53 teachers were given positive expectancies of their performance did better than students whose teachers were given no such expectancy. In summary, expectations do exist as a determinant of educational outcomes. HOwever, the complexity Of the relationships defy any simple explanation. Research is progressing on several fronts such as Finn's work in sources of expectatpns (Finn, 1972) and the variables related to expectations (Adams and Cohen, 1976, 1974; COOper, Baron and Lowe, 1975; Brophy and Good, 1970; Braun, 1976, Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; Good, T., COOper, H. and Blakey, X,, 1980). New expectancy models are being developed to further the conceptual framework needed to systematically research the expectancy effect as a determinant Of educational outcomes. (Brophy and Good, 1974; Braun, 1976; Good, 1982). Applicable Research Studies Several studies have been done that provide both.methodological and conceptual precedent fOr this research. THOSE studies arerrevieuddgn the fellowing section. The MOKean Study. McKean's (1977) study established some methodological precedents fbr this study. McKean studied what adult learners expect to be important learning experiences. He utilized a photo instrument with 225 adults from various adult education programs in southern, lower Michigan and fOund that his particular sample considered low and medium fbrmality settings more valid than high fbrmality settings. He also fOund that the subjects considered sharing and selfeawareness experiences more valid than.ippop learning experiences. In addition, when correlating amount of schooling with.leve1s of fOrmality, the adults considered valid, he fOund an apparent trend away from high fOrmality settings fOr those who had more schooling. McKean also fOund that in 54 medium fOrmality settings, shariog experiences were considered most valid and in high fOrmality settings, ippop_was considered least valid (pp. 51969). One issue is not clear in the McKean study. Photos used by McKean showed adult teachers interacting with adult learners. MOKean did eXplore whether the subjects were making;their judgments about each photo from the viewpoint of the learner or the teacher. TherefOre, just whose expectations are represented in the data, the subject or "others", is not clear. The Wilson Study. Wilson (1978) studied what a specific set Of volunteer leaders believed were important learning experiences fOr others and why. A photo instrument depicting three levels Of fOrmality (low, medium, and high) and three kinds of learning experiences (inpgt, self—awareness, and sharing) was used with 51 Girl Scout leaders on Oahu, Hawaii. In each learning situation the same question.was asked, "DO you think these peOple are learning something important?" Probe interviews were given after the instrument was administered to determine why the subjects responded the way they did. The results showed that subjects considered low formality settings most valid, fOllowed by medium and high fOrmality situations. The subjects judged input learning experiences as providing the most learning, fOllowed by sharing and selfeawareness. Ieaders preferred medium levels Of fOrmality with sharing experiences. least preferred were low fOrmality/sharing experiences. With input experiences, leaders preferred low formality settings. The least preferred was high fOrmality/input experiences. With selfeawareness experiences, leaders preferred low formality settings. Ieast preferred were high fOrmality/selfeawareness settings. Medium levels of fOrmality, 55 sharing experiences, input/low formality, selfeawareness/low and medium fOrmality, learning situations were all judged as more valid by leaders with less schooling then by leaders with.more schooling (pp. 62-112). Other Studies. Blackburn (1967) explored methods that adults preferred fOr participation in an educational behavior in seven subject areas. Methods were categorized as group or individual and a subjects' orientation to one or the other was derived from respondents' expressed preferences of'methods to study tOpics indicated in three hypothetical cases within each subject area. Significant differences were fOund in method orientations within each subject area. Groupimethod orientations were favored by the majority of respondents. The prOportion of group method orientations tended to increase with increased fbrmal education and family income, but decreased with advancing age. Past experience with methods tended to be positively related to method orientations. Elder (1968) fOund that individuals given learning material by the mode of their choice learn better than those given the material in a.mode unlike their choice. Several studies (Brunner, 1959; verner, 1959; Johnstone and Rivera, 1965; Knox, 1965; Carp, Peterson and Roelfs, 1972, 1974; Okes, 1974) have indicated a high relationship between the amount of fOrmal schooling and amount of adult education participation. Brunner (1959) summarizes other studies that the lower the educational status Of participants in a program, the greater their desire fOr demonstrations or case materials teachingg regardless of’type (p. 146). Johnstone and Rivera (1965) reported that there was little variation in the educational level of persons using different study methods (p. 84). But, when asking peOples' preference Of method for learning something new (a foreign language) some differences were fOund. Adults in higher socio—economic positions were 56 more likely to mention both fOrmal and infOrmal methods Of learning. Persons in the middle socio—economic class were the most likely to prefer the fbrmal classroom, while persons in low socio—economic status were least likely to prefer fOrmal methods (p. 208a212). ‘Without the subject matter bias, Johnstone and Rivera fOund that "older adults and adults Of lower socio-economic status are considerably less likely to prefer the classroom fOr learning" (p. 214). Carp, Peterson, and Roelfs (1972) fOund that the use of classes and lectures increased with educational level, with twenty percent of learners with only elementary school using lectures and classes but fOrty—one percent of the college graduates doing so. College graduates rated on-the-job training less than most of the sample, and those with only elementary schooling rated discussion groups lower than most of the sample. Preference fOr lecture and classes by would—be learners fellowed a similar distribution as the learners (pp. 70—72). In summary, the variety of studies cited point to relationships between years of fOrmal schooling and preferences fOr kind of learning experiences and preferences fOr instructional settings. The studies also indicate that there are few clear trends in these relationships because there are a number of other factors which could influence preferences such as subject matter being studieds, and sociO—economic class. These mixed results call fOr proceeded with the interpretation of the results Of this current research with caution because of the great complexity Of relationships that exist between.years of fOrmal schooling, preference fOr kind of learning experience, preference fOr instructional setting and judgments regarding the importance Of content. 57 mm The review of literature has examined at three major theoretical concerns fOr this study and specific studies that are germain to this particular research. First, the relationship of adult education as a discipline and curriculum develOpment was summarized. Next, the relevance Of factors such as individual motivation and adult develOpmental stages as determinant fOr participation in adult continuing education.was eXplored. Third, the possible influence of cultural patterns on present participation and current research in the area of expectations was reviewed. The review was concluded with brief summaries of important studies that dealt with some of the relationships among specific variables that this research explores. CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In chapter three the methods used to identify relationships between expectations concerning level of fOrmality, kind of learning experience and instructional setting with judgments about importance of content and the necessary levels of learning are discussed. Methods used to identify relationships between the expectation variables listed above and learner variables of years in prOperty management, years of fOrmal schooling and major in school are also discussed. The research design, research questions and hypotheses are outlined. Instrumentation and procedures used in data collection and analysis are identified. Description.of_Methodology This is primarily a descriptive study. The study identifies the expectations concerning level of fOrmality, type of learning experience, and instructional setting and compares them to judgments concerning intended curricular outcomes fOr participants and potential participants in a specific professional continuing education program. The study also inquires into associations between the expectation variables listed above and the learner variables of major in school,,years Of'experience in property management and years of fOrmal schooling. In this particular study, both the participants in the educational program of the Building Owners and Managers Institute (BOMI) and 58 59 non-participants have had varying levels of fOrmal education to prepare them to manage prOperty. In addition to the various levels of fOrmal education, those participating in prOperty management as a profession come from a wide variety of academic backgrounds. These events, level of formal schooling and type of academic background,have occurred in the past and provide the background fOr the data that this study collected on pedagogical expectations fOr level of fOrmality, type Of learning experience and judgments concerning intended curricular outcomes Of a particular educational program. The statistical analysis used were measures Of correlation. Borg and Gall (1971) indicate that correlational studies are used when individual differences are expected to be present which will manifest themselves as variations in scores. It is the factors related to the variations in the scores which can possibly shed light on adult learners' perceptions of relevancy. The researcher is primarily interested in understanding what adult learners perceive as relevant so curriculum construction decisions can be made in a.more intelligent manner. Research Design This study is essentially a "one shot case study" (Isaac and Michael, 1971, p. 36) justified on grounds that the study is non-experimental. Three instruments were administered one time to each subject. Responses to the instruments were analyzed. One instrument measured the expectation concerning level of fOrmality in learning experience. A second instrument measured the expectations concerning type Of learning experience and instructional setting. A third instrument measured the expectations concerning curricular outcomes of one 60 course in the Real PrOperty Administrator (RPA) curriculum. All three instruments were administered at one setting to large assembled groups. Pertinent descriptive data were gathered by questionnaire at the same time the instruments were administered. These data included years of formal schooling, extent of participation and type of participation in the Building Owners and Managers Institute (BOMI) program, sex, major in previous schooling, age, other adult professional continuing education experience, and number of years in prOperty management. The explanatory variables in this study were years of formal schooling, major in school and years in prOperty management and, therefore, the independent variables. The variables explained in light of the independent variables were expectations concerning level of fOrmality, kind of learning experience and instructional setting and judgments concerning curriculum outcomes as defined by importance of content and level of understanding. Expectations covering level of formality, kind of learning experience and instuctional setting and judgments concerning curricular outcomes as defined by importance of content and level of understanding are, therefore, the dependent variables. Independent Variables. Years of formal schooling was one independent variable. Sabjects were asked how many years of school they had canpleted. A second independent variable was years of eXperience in prOperty management. subjects were asked how many years they had been employed as a property'manager. The third independent variable was major in school. subjects were asked to list their major in trade school, their undergraduate and graduate major. The infOrmation.was tabulated in such a way as to create fbur 61 categories of’major. The first category was "neither a.business or engineering major." Examples of majors in this category included various science majors, humanities, such as theater, and education, and various social science majors. A second categpry was made up of’majors exclusively related to business. A third category was made up»of majors exclusively related to engineering. A feurth categpry was established for subjects who had a canbination of business and engineering majors. Dependent Variables. The expectation concerning level of formality was one of the dependent variables. level of formality of an instructional activity refers to how structured, authority-oriented and controlled a learning setting is perceived to be by an adult learner. FbImality was measured in two levels, high and low. The expectation concerning kind of learning experience was a second dependent variable. Kind of learning experiences provided by an instructional activity refers to the nature of experience that the learner expects would be meaningful to him. The literature suggests three basic kinds. These kinds have been discussed by McKean as follows: In t: the learner is involved in receiving or caning in% contact with some new information; Self-awareness: the learner is involved in reflecting upon his or her current situation including abilities, interests, feelings, knowledge, and limitations; and Sharig: the learner is involved in putting his/her own words or acting upon some new information, idea, insights (1977. p- 34). A third dependent variable is instructional setting. Instructional setting is the location where instruction is taking place. For purposes of this study three settings were utilized; (1) a formal classroom with chairs in straight rows and students all facing the front (labeled classroom); (2) a small group discussion with chairs in a circle and students facing one 62 another (labeled small group); (3) an equipment roan location with students in close proximity to the kinds of equipment discussed in course material being studied (labeled equipnent roan). A fOurth dependent variable is adult learners' judgments concerning curricular outcomes. The instrument was designed so subjects were asked to make a judgment on two dimensions of curricular outcomes, importance of content and the level of understanding necessary for relevant learning. The importance of content dimension was a score on a Lickert—type scale from one to five which asked the subject to rate a descriptive statement of a course content as to its importance for the prOperly trained prOperty manager. The level of understanding dimension utilized Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive objectives to create a scale with six possible levels of understanding or competencies. Each subject was asked to choose the minimum level of understanding or canpetency necessary that should be required for a particular area of content if a person were to be "professionally" certified. A rating from one to six could be obtained with one being;the lowest level on Bloom's taxonomy. In keeping with Bloom's framework, the levels of understanding are actually the levels of cognitive competencies in Bloom's hierachy of Objectives. (Bloom, et al, 1956). Hypotheses. Figure 3.1 diagrams the basic organization of the study. BloCk A is the first section of the study, blodk B the second section of the study, and block C the third. Each small square represents a hypothesis and is numbered to correspond with the list of the hypotheses fbllowing. If there is an X in the box there was no research hypothesis for that variable or variable relationship. LEARNER VARIABLES 63 DCPECL‘ATIW VARIABLES A { H1 TIE H3 Ht. H5 LEV mm. LEPREF ssrrmc m. mm. mm H6 LEPREF H9 H12 sarrmc H7 H10 H14 IMPI'. H8 H11 H15 H13 LEV or UND. Hie H17 H20 H18 H19 MAJOR X X X H23 H24 NO. YRS. EXP. no. 321 x H22 x x YRS. EDU. ———————————————————— q —-——-————- p—-————--— --—-—-—-—1 --.—-----. AGE FIGURE 3.1 RESEARCH STUDY ORGANIZATIO‘I l)[|')l|! Ill"..l 64 The fellowing hypotheses identify the relationships which were tested for among the independent and dependent variables.. H1 H2 H3 H5 H6 H7 H9 H10 A lower level of formality will be preferred over a higher level of formality. Subjects will show a definite preference for sharing over other kinds of learning experiences. subjects will show a definite preference for which instructional setting they think is more productive fer learning. Subjects will make definite rank order judgments in their perceptions regarding the importance of course content. Subjects' judgment of which level of understanding is necessary fer relevant learning will be different for each content statement. subjects' preferences regarding level of formality are related to their preferences regarding kind of learning experience. Subjects' preferences regarding level of fbrmality are related to their judgnents regarding importance of content. Subjects' preferences regarding level of fOrmality are significantly related to their judgments regarding necessary level of understanding. Subjects' preferences regarding level of formality are significantly related to their preferences regarding instructional setting. subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 65 subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding for a relevant learning experience. Subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Subjects' judgments regarding content importance are positively related to judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding for a relevant learning exprience. Subjects' judgments regarding content importance are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. subjects' preferences regarding level of understanding are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding level of formality. subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding kind of learning experience. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. Subjects' majors in school are significantly reLated to judgments regarding level of understanding. Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to judgments regarding instructional setting. Subjects' years of fermal schooling are significantly related to judgments regarding levels of fOrmality. 66 H22 subjects' years of formal schooling are significantly related to judgments regarding instructional setting. H23 subjects' years of employment in property management are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. H24 subjects' years of employment in property management are significantly related to judgments regarding levels of understanding. Sample The sample fer this study was taken from current students of the Building Owners and Managers Institute and members of the Building Owners and Managers Association, International. The sample is a convenience sample taken in eight United States cities and one Canadian city at both association.meetings and BOMI classes. The cities represented in the sample were Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York and Toronto. In the spring of 1981 the researcher traveled to the various cities listed above and administered the instruments to various group situations. The largest single group numbered seventy-five and the smallest numbered nine. There was a total of 349 questionnaries completed in the nine cities. Twenty-nine questionnaires were eliminated from use because they were incomplete for one reason or another. This left a sample size of 320 the purpose of this study. Some questions were asked on the questionnaire so that a demographic profile of the sample could be develOped. The subjects' profile is presented in chapter four. 67 Instrumentation Kind of Learning Experience. The study used three instruments, all three were designed specifically for the study. The Kind of'Learning Experience instrument consists of three sets of cartoon line drawings depicting different settings combined with brief'dialogs contrasting preferences for kinds of learning experiences (input, self-awareness, and sharipg). Each possible preference is Iaired in each of the three settings. Therefore, there is a total of nine cartoons and statements presented fer a choice. subjects were asked to choose between one of the two in each pair (Appendix A). The instrument was administered by playing a tape recording of the brief dialogue which presented the two alternating types of learning experiences from which to choose. See Appendix B for the script of the dialogue. The subjects' choices were recorded by circling the letter beside the statement of their choice under each line drawing. Each statement was descriptive of one of the kinds of learning experiences so that when a subject made a choice in each situation, he/she was showing a preference for one kind of learning experience over another. The possible combinations are shown in Table 3.1. The question responded to fer situation one was, "Which student's statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended?" In situation two the question was, "Which statement is most like something you.might want to do in class?" The question for situation three was, "Which of the following statements are you most likely to say?" Eadh question represents a specific setting in which learning could occur. The difference for each of the three questions is due primarily to the unique nature of each setting which the question represents. TABLE 3.1 POSSIBLE CHOICES FOR KIND OF LEARNING-EXPERIENCE Letter Kind of Learning Experience A Input B Self-Awareness Situation C Self-Awareness One D Sharing E Input F Sharing G Input H Self-awareness Situation I Self-awareness Two J Sharing K Input L Sharing M Input N Self-awareness Sittation O Self-awareness Three P Sharing Q Input R Sharing 69 To obtain a score on the kind of learning experience instrument the subject made a choice from each pair, that particular choice was assigned a value of one and the other statement in the Lair was assigned a value of zero. The highest possible score fer one kind of learning experience would be six if a person consistently choose the same kind of learning experience in each pair of each situation. Validity Test. To insure the content validity of the Kind of Learning Experience instrument, a panel of five peOple was given the definitions of the types of learning experiences found in the definition section of chapter one. The panel consisted of five college graduates who are on the staff of the Building Owners and Managers Institute. The researcher made sure that each person understood clearly what the three kinds of learning experiences were, then each mnel member was asked to independently label each one of the eighteen statements as to whether it represented m, self-awareness or sharing. There was 91% agreement between how the researcher labeled each statement and how the panel labeled each statement . Reliability Test. The Kind of Learning EXperience instrument is ' attempting to measure the expectations that subjects have with regard to the three kinds of learning experiences. To insure that the instrument elicited the same responses over time (stability validity) and was not vulnerable to changes in the subjects' mood, situation or environment, the instrument was administered to ten peOple at one time and then re—administered to the same group one week later. here was a test-retest reliability of .82. Thus, the instrument was considered stable over time. To insure that the instrument was internally consistent, correlations between the choices in each one of the three situations were calculated for the ten peOple in the pilot project. The subjects in the pilot project were property managers who have similar responsibilities and similar 7O backgrounds as the sample for the research. Correlations between choices of kind of learning experience in situation one and situation two were .78. Correlations between choices of kind of learning experience in situation one and situation three were .84. Correlations between choices of kind of learning experience in situation two and situation three were .87. Level of Formality. The second instrument used in the study measured expectations concerning the level of formality and instructional setting. This instrument consists of nine pairs of pictures with one picture in each pair representing a low—formal setting and one picture representing a high-formal setting. There are three different settings represented so each individual picture of a low-formal and a high-formal setting is matched against every other low-formal and high-formal from other settings. This matching low-formal against high-formal from each setting provides the nine pairs viewed by the subject (Appendix C). The photos portrayed three distinct instructional settings, classic classroom, small group and equipment roan. Care was taken to make sure that the subjects in the picture would be perceived as generally representative of the subjects for the study. The pictures were staged in such a way that the formality issue was focused primarily on the activity role of the instructor in the picture. For a high-formal situation, the instructor was clearly in control of the learning situation as seen via his posture and activity. Ibr a low-formal situation, the instructor was still a part of the activity, but it is obvious that the instructor control factor is diffused in a major way. At the top of each page on which the pair of pictures were presented the same question appears, "In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?" Each picture in the pair was labeled with a letter of the alphabet and the subject was asked to place an "X" in the box which represented the choice between the two pictures. The possible combinations of pairs are shown in the table 3.2. 71 TABLE 3.2 POSSIBLE CHOICES FOR IEVEL OF FORMALITY AND SETTING Pair \DCDNONUl->\Nl\)l-’ Letter :UDwOZZHNC-«HCEQWHUOwIID Settigg Ebuipment Room Ebuipment Room Small Group Classroom Small Group Classroom Equipment Room Small Group Classroom Classroom Classroom EQuipment Room Ebudpment Room Small Group Small Group Small Group Classroom Equipment Room Level of Formality High Iow Low High High Iow Iow High High Iow Iow High High Iow Iow High High Iow Two scores were obtained from the instrument. each one of three pairs of learning situations where setting was constant, (See Table 3.2, pair I, 5, and 8) were used to calculate a preference for level of formality. To obtain a score for level of fOrmality, a preference subjects' choices among 72 fer high formality in each pair was assigned a value of two and a choice for low formality assigned a value of one. A consistant preference fer a high level of formality would be a score of six. A score of three indicates a preference fer low formality. Validity Test. To insure the content validity of the Level of Formality instrument, a panel of five peOple was given the definition of "formal" used fer this research in chapter one. The researcher made sure that each person understood clearly how level of fOrmality was being defined. First, each.member of the panel was presented with the six pictures used to make up the nine pairs in the instrument. They were asked to label the picture by itself as to whether it represented a high fbrmal situation or a.low formal situation. ' The percentage of agreement among all five panel members was 80%. There was an.80% agreement between the researcher and the panel members. Then each panel member was asked to independently label each one of the eighteen pictures as to whether it was a high formal situation or a low fermal situation. There was a.73% agreement between how the researcher labeled each picture and how the panel labeled them. Reliability Test. The Level of'Formality instrument is attempting to measure the expectations that subjects have with regard to the level of fermality. To insure that the instrument elicited the same responses over time (stability validity) and was not vulnerable to changes in the subjects' mood, situation, or environment the instrument was administered to ten people at one time and then reeadministered to the same group one week later. There was a test-retest reliability of .84. Thus, the instrument was considered stable over time. Instructional Setting. The instructional setting component of the 73 instrument utilized the pairs numbered 2 ,3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 shown in Table 3.2 on page 70. Each one of these pairs matched one setting against another setting so the subject was forced to make a choice between settings. The question asked was, "In which of the fellowing situations do you think peOple are learning the most?" To obtain a score fer preference fer instructional setting, each time a particular setting was chosen a score of one was recorded. Out of the six pairs a setting could be chosen ...-rifl—W * a maximum of feur times for a total score of feur. Validity Test. To insure the content validity of the Instructional Settigg instrument, a panel of five people was given the definition of instructional setting used for this research in chapter one. The researcher made sure that each person understood clearly how instructional setting was being defined. ' Each member of the panel was presented with the six pictures used to make up the nine pairs of the instrument. They were asked to label each picture as to what instructional setting they felt it represented. The percentage of agreement among all five panel members was 100%. There was a 100% agreement between the researcher and the panel member. Reliability Test. The Instructional Setting instrument is attempting to measure the expectations that subjects have with regard to the preference for instructional setting. To insure that the instrument elicited the same responses over time (stability validity) and was not vulnerable to changes in the subjects mood, situation, or environment, the instrument was administered to ten peOple at one time and then reeadministered to the same group one week later. There was a test-retest reliability of .73. Thus, the instrument was considered stable over time. Curricular Outcomes. The third instrument used was to determine a subject's judgment concerning Curriculum Outcomes. As expLained earlier, ” I ."/ 74 the curriculum outcomes variable was sub—divided into two dimensions -- Importance of Content Ratings and Level of Understanding Ratings (Append ix D). The two dimensions are being treated as two separate but related facits of an adult learner's judgnent concerning curriculum outcomes. Importance of Content. In the importance of content rating, the subjects were presented with twelve statements that describe a very specific and recognizable subject that is of concern to a well-informed and professional property manager. Each subject was asked to make a judgment as to the degree of importance that each separate content area had far the properly trained property manager. Each content statement was then rated on a scale from five to one with five being the most essential and one being no help at all. The subjects were asked to circle one number on the five point Likert-type scale that best represented their Opinion on the importance of the content. There were twelve content areas in all that were presented. Each.statement represents a major content area of course one "The Design, Operation and Maintenance of Building SystemsV in the RPA program. Level of Understanding. Next, subjects were presented with six levels of canpetence that a person could have with regard to a particular content. The first level recall, as defined in chapter one, is the lowest level of understanding or acceptable canpetency for a particular content. The sixth level, ability to evaluate, is the highest. The subjects were asked to check what they felt the minimum acceptable level of competence was for each content statement. The scale is treated as a hierarchy, if the four is checked, every level before so that is assumed in that level so the response is given a straight rating of four for scoring purposes. Separate scores were tabulated for each subject on the importance of content dimension and the level of understanding dimension. 75 Validity Test. The issue of validity does not apply to the importance of content and level of understanding instrument. It is not applicable because that particular instrument is recording an Opinion response to specific content statements. The recording of this Opinion response is tabulating a pre—existent judgment of content importance and necessary level of understanding fer a.meaningful learning experience. ReliabilitypTest. To insure that the rating of content importance and the rating of the necessary level of understanding,elicited the same responses over time (stability validity) and was not vulnerable to changes in the subjects' mood, situation, or environment, the instrument was administered to ten peOple at one time and then.re~administered to the same group one week later. There was a test-retest reliability of .83 fer content importance and a.test-retest reliability of .79 for necessary level of understanding. Thus, the instrument was considered stable over time. Research Procedure and Data Collection The research data were gathered by a questionnaire and instruments that took approximately thirty minutes to administer. The data were gathered from participants in the regional meetings of the Building Owners and Managers Association, local luncheon meetings and BOMI classes during the spring of 1981. Prior to Data Collection. A pilot of the instrumentation was run with eighteen subjects in January of 1981. The first version of the instruments was administered, then interviews were held with the subjects to determine the clarity of the research instruments. Nb major problems with the instruments were uncovered. Minor changes were made in the wording of some questions in the curricular outcomes instrument to clear up small ambiguities pointed out by the pilot group. 76 The pilot test allowed the researcher to also test the directions for administering the instruments and the overall questionnaire administration procedures. This pilot test provided a necessary step in making the data @thering phase as efficient and as accurate as possible. hiring the time the instrument was being perfected, a schedule of data gathering sites was arranged. The final schedule included ten cities, nine in the United States and one in Canada. Arrangement was made at each site for thirty minutes to give the directions and collect the data. At each data gathering site, the instructions and questionnaire administration was personally carried out by the researcher. For the sites where classes were involved, the data was collected at the beginning of class. During Data Collection. Data gathering booklets that contained all three instruments described above and a demographic questionnaire were prepared (See Appendix E). The detailed step-by-step procedure for gathering the data is as follows: 1) Sealed data gathering booklet distributed before meeting. 2) Introduction and statement of purpose of research (Appendix F). 3) Subjects were asked to open sealed questionnaire and follow as directions were given verbally for the overall data gathering process. 4) Gave directions and administered the Expectations of Type of Learning instrument. 5) Gave directions and administered the Eimectation of Level of Formality instrument . 6) Gave directions and administered the Curricular Outcomes instrument and the demographic questionnaire. 7) The data gathering instruments were collected, put into a box 77 labeled with the city of origin and sealed to protect against loss and prevent confusion. All three instruments were designed so that the responses and answers were recorded on the data questionnaires themselves. The demographic questions were recorded on the last page of the questionnaire. Great care was taken to make sure that the last page was never separated from the remainder of the data gathering instruments. After Data Collection. To assure complete anonymity the data questionnaires were not coded with identification numbers until after completion. Each questionnaire was numbered on the front cover and the last page. A code number to identify the city source was also put on the front and back page. Each questionnaire was checked to make sure it was complete. Those that were unusable were eliminated from the study. A total of nine questionnaires fell into this categony. In addition to the identification process described above, the demographic questionnaire was coded with numbers where needed. When this coding was complete, the responses and infOrmation were transferred from the questionnaire to IBM punch cards fer processing. Data.Analysis The Statistical Package fer the Social Sciences was used to analyze the data. The data were measured using various correlational measurements and analysis of variance. The level of significance was accepted at the .05 level. The descriptive statistics fer the demographic data were also tabulated. The dependent and independent variables are listed below showing the combinations of correlations done to test fer main effects and relationships among variables. 78 combinations of correlations done to test fer main effects and relationships among variables. The first level of analysis was to determine if there was any difference among the subjects with regard to the five expectation variables listed below. ApprOpriate statistical analyses were perfOrmed depending on the type of each variable. The list below indicates the five expectation variables tested fer main effects. Tests for Main Effects Ievel of Fbrmality Kind of Learning EXperience Setting Curricular Outcome (Importance of Content) Curricular Outcome (Level of Understanding) Tests for Correlations and Associations |._a 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Ievel of Fermality X Kind of'Iearning EXperience V" Level of Formality X Importance of Content level of Fermality X Level of Understanding Level of Formali X Setting Kind of Learning perience X Importance of Content Kind of learning EXperience X Level of Understanding Kind of Learning Experience X Setting Importance of Content X Level of Understanding Importance of Content X Setting Level of Understanding X Setting Major in School X Level of Fermality Major in School X Kind of learning Experience Major in School X Importance of Content Major in School X Level of Understanding Major in School X Setting Years of Formal Schooling X Level of Fbrmality «~ Years of Formal Schooling X Setting Years of Enployment X Importance of Content Years of Enployment X Levels of Understarxiing Methodological Assumptions The research is based on the assumption.that the construct, kinds of learning experiences, can be accurately represented by descriptive 79 statements fer each kind of learning experience. In addition, the researcher assumes that preferences the adult learners have fer kinds of learning experiences can be measured by asking them to make a ferced choice between two possible kinds of learning experiences represented by the descriptive statements. Second, the researcher assumes that pictures of learning settings can represent different levels of fOrmality and that levels can be distinguished when a subject is asked to make a choice between levels represented by two pictures. Further, it is assumed that by asking the question, "In which situation do you think peOple are learning the most?" the subject's attention is fecused primarily on the issues in the picture that are relevant fer meaningful learning to be taking place. Third, the researcher assumes that Bloan's taxonany of educational objectives is hierarchical and that the lowest level on the taxonomy must be understood and mastered before one could develop skills at the next level. Therefbre, if a choice of the fourth level is made, then the researcher assumes that everything below the level chosen is understood to also be important to the learner. Limitations This exploratory research attempted to identify how an adult learner's expectations concerning level of fbrmality and kind of learning experience relate to a judgment concerning curricular outcomes as defined by both an importance of content dimension and a level of understanding dimension. The research also explored relationships between the variables described above and three learner variables, years of fbrmal schooling, years in prOperty management, and major in school. Conclusions from studying the relationships between the variables 80 described above must be very tentative. Direct cause and effect relationships are not able to be established even though meaningful relationships are described that may give insights into the curriculum construction process. Further studies need to fellow to establish more clarity. The subjects in the study belong to a discrete pOpulation of adult learners. Also the sample taken from that population was a convenience sample with no possibility fer randomization. These two conditions tightly limit the generalizability of the study; The study used new instruments to gather data. The instruments are develOpmental in nature. ‘With such new instrumentation, the study is limited to what adult learners verbalized as preferences regarding level of formality, kind of learning experience, instructional setting, and curricular outcomes. Care must be taken in drawing conclusions from this preferenceetype research. Asking learners fer preferences does not necessarily mean that the learners' response regarding preference is what ought to be done to structure a productive learning experience. Merely giving learners their choice does not insure that the choice is going to be good for them. Further, the reader carmot assume that because the subjects of the study say that certain settings and levels of fOrmality provide more important learning; because they say that certain kinds of learning are more preferred than other kinds; or because they judge certain contents and levels of understanding more important than others, that in practice they use these levels, kinds of learning experiences or judgments concerning content importance or levels of understanding. The links between what one believes, says, and does are very complex and at times seemingly contradictory. A vast mmber of studies need to be conducted in order to provide more clarity concerning the differences, correlations and cause-effect relationships among believing, saying and behaving. 81 1%?! Chapter three described the methods used to investigate the relationship among expectations concerning level of fOrmality, kind of learning experience, instructional setting, judgments concerning content importance, level of understanding (dependent variables) and major in school, years of fermal schooling and years in prOperty management (independent variables) of 320 prOperty managers in the United States and Canada. The research design, research questions and hypotheses, instrumentation and procedures fer data collection and analysis were identified. CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS The data are presented in this chapter. Each of the twenty—four hypotheses are restated and accompanied by the statistical findings. The chapter concludes with a summary of the major findings. Overview The fecus of this study examines a specific group of adult learners' (a) expectations regarding level of fOrmality, kind of learning experiences, instructional setting and judgments concerning importance of content, and level of understanding of content and (b) factors that might influence those expectations such as amount of fermal schooling, major in school, years of experience in prOperty management and age. The purpose of the study is to provide some possible direction fer the ongoing curriculum construction project of the Building Owners and Managers Institute (BOMI). The ongoing success of a voluntary adult education program depends on the program being perceived by the participants as relevant to their needs, motives and interest. Understanding the relationships between the variables above contributes to what is perceived as relevant which hoperIly can be translated into a better infbrmed curriculum construction effOrt. In order to better explain the general context of the study, a profile of the sample follows. Demographic data were collected along with the research data. The fellowing profile is constructed from the demographic data. 82 83 Sample Profile The total useable sample after partial questionnaires are discarded is 320. Eighty percent (253) of the sample are male and twenty percent (63) are female. The total is less than 320 because four subjects did not indicate gender. There are subjects from ages twenty-two (2) to the age of eighty (1). Fifty-three percent of the subjects are under forty and 47% over ferty. There is a fifteen year gap in ages at the "old" end of the range with one subject at age 80 and the next closest age of 65 with five subjects. When the sample is divided into five year increments between age twenty-five and sixty-five, the age category with the most subjects is the group between the ages of thirty and thirty-four inclusive with 68 subjects. Five subjects decline to identify their age. The mean age is 40.7; the median is 38.7, while the mode is 30. Figure 4.1 illustates the range of ages fer the entire sample. FIGURE 4.1 AGE OF SUBJECTS WITH A FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION IN FIVE YEAR INCREHENTS 2O 25 30 35 4O 45 5O 55 60 65 7O 75 83 Age Range to to to to to to to to to to to to to 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 85 No. In Each 12 38 68 44 36 29 5O 25 12 5 - — - - 1 Category Three different educational levels are identified beyond high school, trade school, college, and graduate school. Twenty-seven subjects have trade school experience, 279 do not and 13 do not answer the question. One hundred and ninety have attended college with 104 showing a.completion of 84 college degrees. Eighty-eight have no college and 42 do not answer the question. Fifty-one indicate sane type of graduate education with 264 answering none and 5 not answering. A wide variety of majors is represented at all three levels of education. The following tables (4.1, 4.2, 4.3) for each one of the three levels provides a complete picture of the variety of majors represented. TABLE 4.1 TRADE SCHOOL MAJORS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE MAJOR NUMBER 9% or TOTAL 33 None 87.2 HVAC (Htg. vent. 8c Air Conditioning) 9 2.8 Electrical 4 1.2 Electronics 3 .9 Mechanical Drafting 3 .9 Computer Programmer 2 .6 Master Plumber 1 .3 Mechanics 1 .3 Accounting 1 .3 Steam Plant Operator 1 .3 Steam Fitting l .3 Business Administration 1 .3 Construction 1 .3 No Answer 13 4.1 N=320 85 TABLE 4.2 DERGRADUATE MAJOR REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE MAJOR NUMBER 96 OF TOTAL NOne (Not College Graduate) 88 27.5 Business Administration 52 16.2 Accounting 16 5.0 Economics 14 4.4 English 10 5.1 Engineering 9 2.8 Mechanical Engineering 8 2.5 Political Science 5 1.6 History 5 1.6 Real Estate 5 1.6 Education 5 1.6 Sociology 4 1.2 Biology 4 1.2 Industrial Management 4 1.2 Finance 4 1.2 Civil Engineering Technology 4 1.2 Psychology' 4 1.2 Electrical Engineering 3 .9 Science 2 .6 Construction Technician 2 .6 Agriculture 2 .6 -— Continued On Next Page -- 86 TABLE 4.2 (CONTINUED) UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE i MAJOR % OF TOTAL Physical Education Architecture Art Physics Humanities Personal Management law Theater l—‘l—‘NNNNNNN Industrial Electronics Geography Film and Television Modern Language Marine Engineering Philosophy Photography Petroleum Engineering Public Administration Marketing Criminal Justice Math +4 e4 F4 ea +4 +4 +4 e4 e4 e1 44 +4 Aero Engineering +4 \n \n in C» C» \n C» C» \n \n \u x» \n \n (r ox O\ ox ox C» ox No Answer 4:. [\D ...—J \N N = 320 87 TABLE 4.5 GRADUATE SCHOOI:MAJOR.REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE MAJOR NUMBER 96 OF TOTAL NOne (No Graduate Degree) 264 8 . MBA Iaw Finance e: e1 e4 m) n) wwwwwwwwwwwwmmmwommmmm Business Accounting Real Estate Engineering Marketing Urban Planning Sociology Geography Taxation Sanitary Engineering Management HI—‘l—‘l—Jb—‘HNNwKflwU‘IU'IUTCD Personal Management Banking e4 e4 Industrial Relations Theology Agriculture Ebonomics F4 F4 e4 e4 Electrical Engineering - Continued On Next Page —- 88 TABLE 4.3 (CONTINUED) GRADUATE SCHOOIaMAJOR REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE MAJOR NUMBER %'OF TOTAL Education 1 .3 Political Science 1 .3 Meterology 1 3 No Answer 5 1.6 N = 520 With regard to years of fOrmal schooling, one subject in the sample did not finish high school; fOrty—two subjects did finish high school. Ninety-seven subjects have from one to three years of college and one hundred and four indicate fOur years of college. Seventy-two subjects indicate schooling beyond a standard feurfiyear college experience. Twenty-two went one year beyond at the low end and four went seven years beyond at the high end. The mean fer years of school is 15.4 years; the median is 15.6 years, while the mode is 16 years. subjects are also asked how long they have been in property management. Almost half of the sample, 47.5%, have been in prOperty management fer five years or less. An additional 25% of the sample have been in property management between six and ten years. Ten percent of the sample have been in between 11 and 15 years. The balance of the subjects in the sample have from 16 years of experience (N = 4) to 47 years of experience (N = 1). These upper years of experience account fer the remaining 15% of the sample. Nineteen subjects did not answer this question. The mean years of experience in prOperty management is 8.5. The median years of experience is 6, while the mode is l. Illi Iiil I 89 The sample was almost evenly split between those who were enrolled in the Real PrOperty Administrator program and those who were not enrolled. Enrollment in the program is the first step that participants take when they begin the study of the seven courses leading to attainment of the RPA designation. One hundred fifty-three were enrolled and one hundred fifty-fOur were not enrolled. Thirteen did not answer the question. Data Analysis Method The data analysis uses a combination of descriptive statistics, measures of association and in some cases some inferential statistics. There are no assumptions made about the distribution of scores within the sample compared to its parent distribution. Three data analysis methods are used depending on the specific classifications of variables being analyzed. Correlation is used when both variables are interval (Pearson) or ordinal (Spearman). In.most cases when cOrrelation methods are utilized, Spearman's fOrmula.is used because of the small range of the scale fer the variables being analyzed. When one variable is categorical and the other is interval, analysis of variance is used. Fbr a single dependent variable, a common analysis of variance is used. In certain cases, a multivariate analysis of variance is used when a set of dependent variables is presented. The analysis of variance determines whether or not there is a significant difference in means between categories of variables. When two categorical variables are analyzed, a Chi-square analysis is used. All tests fer significance were accepted at the .05 level. A lilllyla :1 >51!!! ..Ill v 9O Levels of Formality Research Question: Do adult learners perceive one level or formality as providing more productive learning than any other level of fOrmality? Research Hypothesis: A lower level of fOrmality will be preferred over a higher level of fOrmality. Statistical Hypothesis: Preferences of subjects fer a particular level of fOrmality wiIl not differ. Table 4.4 presents the frequency distribution of the scores fer the level of fOrmality. There are feur possible scores fOr level of fOrmality, low, moderately low, moderately high and high. TABLE 4-4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY Raw Score Ievel of Fbrmality Tbtal Responses % 3 Iow 46 14.4 4 Moderately Low 127 39.6 5 Moderately High 126 39.4 6 High 21 6.6 Total Responses 320 Total % of Low Fbrmality 54.0 Total % of High Fbrmality 46.0 Overall Mean.Level of Formality 4.381 Subjects were asked to indicate in which of two pictures students were learning the most. The setting was held constant and judgments were made in three different settings. A score of 9§e_was assigned fer low .91 formality and a score of Egg fOr high fOrmality. If a subject was consistent in choosing low fOrmality, a score of three results and if subjects were consistent in choosing high fOrmality, a score of six results. A score of fOur is two low choices and one high and a score of five is two high choices and one low. Table 4.4 indicates that 54% of the subjects thought that more effective learning was associated with low or moderately low formality while 46% thought that more effective learning was associated with high fOrmality or'moderately high fOrmality. The overall mean level of fOrmality is 4.381. Hewever, the results indicate that there is an extremely small difference between preference fer low fOrmality and preference fer high fOrmality. The statistical difference is very weak but there does remain a slight difference between subjects' preference fOr level of fOrmality. Kind of Learning Experience Research Question: Do adult learners perceive any one kind of learning experience as more preferable than any other kind of learning experience? Research Hypothesis: Subjects will show a definite preference fer sharing over other kinds of learning experiences. Statistical Hypothesis: Subjects do not differ in their preferences regardingfkinds of learning experiences. Table 4.5 and 4.6 presents the frequency distributions fer the preference fer kinds of learning experiences broken into four categories and seven categories. Both Tables are presented for reasons discussed below. 92 TABLE 4.5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR KIND OF LEARNING-EXPERIENCE ‘ (SEVEN CATEGORIES) Category Total Responses % Input 48 15.0 Self—Awareness 33 10.3 Sharing 200 62.5 Input and SelfeAwareness 5 1.6 (equally) Input and Sharing 7 2.2 (equally) Shari and SelfeAwareness 13 4.1 nfiz’egually) All Three Equally 14 4.4 N = 320 TABLE 4.6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE (FOUR CATEGORIES) Category Total Responses % Input 48 15.0 Self-Awareness 33 10.3 Sharing 200 62.5 All Others Combined 39 12.2 ( No Clear Preference) N = 320 93 In the kind of learning experience instrument, a total of nine pairs of statements representing the three kinds of learning experiences were presented. Table 3.1 on page 68»lays out the choices. The frequency tables which fellow lay out the total number of times each kind of learning experience was chosen by itself or in some combination with another kind of learning experience. This is a calculated variable from the raw score choices labeled "learning preference" for the purpose of data analysis. Learning preference is calculated by taking each individual choice made by each subject and adding all scores fer the individual choices within the various combinations to get the totals. The total scores were isolated for each kind of learning eXperience by asking the question "Did a subject have a higher score on input versus the other two, or sharipg versus the other two, or self-awareness versus the other two?" If they did have a higher score on one kind than any other kind, they then were counted as having a preference fer that kind of learning experience. If the subjects had higher and equal scores on a canbination of two kinds when canpared with a third, they were put into the category with a combination of kinds of learning experience. If the scores were equal on all three kinds of learning experience another category was created labeled, "all three scores equal." The table of fOur choices is a shortened version of all possible seven choices. The table of four is made up of the three types chosen individually each time and all the canbination of choices collapsed into a fourth category. Iater analysis fOr reLationships between kinds of learning experiences (learning preference) and other variables will sometimes use just the four category version and other times use the seven category version. The choice between the two versions is dictated by a compromise between simplicity and accuracy. When no accuracy is lost in 94 the analysis by using the four category breakdown, it is used. However, if there is ever any question concerning possible findings that could be hidden by collapsing the data into four categories, the seven category version is used. Table 4.5 indicates that 15.0% of the subjects always preferred input kind of learning experiences, with only 10.3% of the subjects always showing a preference fOr self-awareness kind of learning experiences. A total of 62.5% of the subjects always preferred sharing type learning experiences. In combination 1.6% of the subjects preferred both input and self-awareness, 2.2% preferred both input and sharipg, 4.1% preferred both sharipg and self—awareness with 4.4% preferring all three kinds of learning experiences equally. In table 4.6 when the last four categories are collapsed into one category, the total preference fOr all combined is 12.2%. Therefore, when ranked according to strength of preference for kind of learning experience, there is a clear preference fOr sharipg fellowed by input then self-awareness. In addition, the percentage totals indicate that the preference for sharipg is almost twice as prevalent as the preferences fOr all other choices individually and in combination with one another. Further analysis was necessary to clarify the relationship between sharing, input and self-awareness. Table 4.7 presents the frequency distribution of the raw scores fOr each kind of learning experience plus the mean raw scores. 95 TABLE 4.7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON PREFERENCES FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES WITH MEAN SCORES Input 1 SelfeAwareness Sharing Number of Times Chosen Total % Total % Total % Responses Responses Responses 0 58 18.1 12 3.7 l .3 1 84 26.2 52 16.2 17 5.3 2 59 18.4 88 27.5 26 6.1 3 56 17.5 101 31.6 42 13.1 4 32 10.0 47 14.7 64 20.0 5 21 6.6 16 5.0 77 24.1 6 10 3.1 4 1.2 93 29.1 Mean Number of Times Chosen 2.072 2.572 4.356 Table 4.7 indicates that when the total of individual scores is considered, 18.1% of the subjects never chose input, while only 3.L% chose input all the time. The mean number of times input was chosen is 2.072. Fer selfeawareness, 3.7% of the subjects never chose it, while 1.2% chose it all of the time. The mean number of times selfeawareness was chosen is 2.572. In contrast, only .3% of the subjects never chose shariug, but 29.1% of the subjects always chose shariug. The mean number of times shariug was chosen is 4.356. USing,the means from Table 4.7, Table 4.8 shows a univariate analysis 96 of variance of repeated measures fer shariug versus selfeawareness and self-awareness versus input. The analysis of variance was used to test fOr differences between means within the variable learning preference with each kind of learning experience being considered an individual variable within the entire set of three variables. TABLE 4.8 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR SHARING VS. SELF AWARENESS AND SELF AWARENESS VS. INPUT Variable Pair F Significance of F Sharing vs. SelfeAwareness 205.17 .00001* SelfeAwareness vs. Input 13.05 .00035* *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.8 shows that there is a significant difference between the mean scores on shariug and selfeawareness and on selfeawareness and input. subjects in expressing their preference fer kind of learning eXperience ranked shariug_ahead of self-awareness and selfeawareness ahead of input. Therefore, based on the frequency distribution data, and the analysis of variance, the null hypothesis is rejected. The subjects in this sample do differ significantly in the preferences fer one kind of learning experience. The data analyzed show that shariug is the preferred kind of learning experience fOllowed by selfeawareness with input third. (See Note below). Note: Table 4.5 shows in t with a higher individual frequency of choice when compared with se -awareness. Hewever, when the strength of preference is considered, self-awareness has a larger mean than input. In 4.5, the subjects' preference is shown as one of the three (input, sharing, selfeawareness). In 4.7, the subjects' six preferences are all taken into account. The results of 4.7 give self-awareness a higher mean fOr number of times chosen. The final results in chapter five are reported from Tables 4.7 and 4.8. 97 Instructional Setting Research Question: Do adult learners perceive any one educational setting to be more producive for learning than any other educational setting? Research Hypothesis: Subjects will show a definite preference for which instructional setting they think is more productive for learning. Statistical Hypothesis: Subjects do not differ in their judgment regarding the instructional settings which they regard as more productive for learning. Table 4.9 and 4.10 present the frequency distributions for the learning productivity of instructional settings. As with the kind of learning experience, the data for instructional setting are presented in four categories and seven categories for the same reasons previously discussed. TABLE 4.9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING (SEVEN CATEGORIES) Category TOtal Responses % Equipment Roan 192 60.0 Small Group 23 7.2 Classroom 9 2.8 Equipment Room and Snall Group 71 22.2 Equipment Room and Classroom 14 4.4 Snall Group and Classroom 2 .6 All Three Equally 9 2.8 N=320 98 TABLE 4.10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING (FOUR CATEGORIES) Category Total Responses % Equipment Roan 192 60.0 Small Group 23 7.2 Classroom 9 2.8 All Others Combined 96 30.0 = 320 The variable of instructional setting surfaced as an important factor after the data were collected and analysis had begun. The variable was originally a part of the level of fOrmality instrument where high and low fOrmality situations were presented in three different settings; When each pair of pictures is removed which hold setting constant, six pairs remain. Fbr the total of the six pairs, the range of choices fOr setting go from never choosing a particular setting to choosing one fOur times. The actual number of choices of the subject is the preference score fer setting fer that subject. Again, as in the situation with kind of learning experience, the actual assignment to a category fer setting is calculated by looking at the actual scores and placing those subjects with scores highest fer a particular category in that category. A total of seven categories is created by tabulating the data in this manner. Table 4.9 indicates that 60.0% of the subjects preferred equipment room as the most productive educational setting, with only 7.2% showing a 99 preference fer small group setting by itself and 2.8% a preference fer classroom by itself. In combination 22.2% showed an equal preference fer equipment room and small group over classroom. An equal preference fer equipment room and classroom was shown by 4.4% of the sample; while only .6% showed a preference fer small group and classroom. All three instructional settings were chosen equally by 28%. In Table 4.10 when the last feur categories are collapsed into one category, the total preference fer all the combined instructional settings is 30.0%. Because of the sizeable number of subjects choosing small group and equipment room over classroom, analysis between setting and other variables will utilize the calculation with seven categories rather than four to avoid missing any important relationships that may surface. Therefbre, when ranked according to preference fer instructional setting there is a clear preference fer equipment room fOllowed by small group and classroom. In addition, more peOple chose the equal combination of equipment room and small group than both small group and classroom individually. Also the combination of equipment room and classroom ranks ahead of classroom; all three chosen equally has an equal rating with classroom only. The preferences for the individual category of equipment room plus the combination categories show a very strong preference fer the equipment room setting. Further analysis is necessary to classify the relationship between the various instructional settings. Table 4.11 presents the frequency distribution of the raw scores along with the mean fer each setting. 100 TABLE 4.11 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING WITH MEAN SCORES Equi pnent Room Small Group Classroom Number of Times Chosen ' Total 96 Total 96 Total 96 0 3 .9 46 14-4 195 60.9 1 9 2.8 42 13.1 50 15.6 2 31 3.1 136 42.5 50 15.6 3 103 32.2 84 26.2 20 6.3 4 176 54.4 12 3.7 5 1.6 Mean Number - ' of Times Chosen 3.362 1.919 .719 Table 4.11 indicates that when the total of individual scores is considered, .9% of the subjects never chose equipment room while 54.4% chose equipment room all the time. The mean number of times equipment room was chosen was 3.362. Fbr the small group instructional setting 14.4% never chose it while 3.7% chose it all the time. The mean number of times small group was chosen was 1.919. Fbr classroom 60.9% never chose classroom while 1.6% always chose it. The mean number of times classroom was chosen is .719. USing the means from Table 4.11, Table 4.12 shows the results of a univariate analysis of variance of repeated measurees fOr equipment room versus small group and small group versus classroom. The analysis of variance was used to test fer the differences between means within the 101 variable setting with preference fOr each individual setting being considered a separate variable. TABLE 4.12 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR EQUIPMENT ROOM VS. SMALL GROUP AND SMALL GROUP VS. CIASSROOM variable Pair F Significance of F Fbuipment Room versus Small Group 259.80 .00001* Small Group versus Classroom 125.08 .00001* *Significant at .05 level. Table 4.12 shows that there is a significant difference between the mean scores on equipment room and small group and on small group and classroom. Subjects, in expressing their preference fOr kind of learning eXperience, ranked equipment room ahead of small group and small group ahead of classroom. TherefOre, based on the frequency distribution data and the analysis of variance, the null hypothesis is rejected. The subjects in this sample do differ significantly in the preferences fer an instructional setting. The data analyzed show that equipment room is the preferred kind of setting followed by small group with the classroom setting third for this particular type of course material. Content Importance Research Question: Do adult learners perceive any one content statement of the twelve as more important than any other content? 102 Research Hypgthesis: subjects will make definite rank order judgments in their perceptions regarding the importance of course content. Statistical Hypothesis: Subjects do not differ in their judgments regarding the importance of individual course contents. Table 4.13 presents the frequency distribution fer judgment regarding the importance of content and the mean ratings for those judgnents. The data fer importance of content rating came from the subjects recording their rating of importance on a five-point Likert—type scale, with one being the least importand and five being the most important. Altogether, the subjects rated twelve content areas from one course, "The Design, Operation and Maintenance of Building Systems." Table 4.13 indicates a definite rank order fer the subjects' rating of content importance. To understand more precisely what the mean rank order of content importance'means, a repeated measures analysis of variance was perfOrmed on means ordered from highest to lowest. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 presents the result of the Fetest for the difference between mean ranks of content importance. NOtice first that contents 5 and 12 have the same means. In addition, there is a significant difference between the mean rating of content number 12 and 2; number 2 and 7; number 7 and 3; number 9 and 10; and number 6 and 1. When tabulated, the eleven paired comparisons result in six separate rankings. A new rank is assigned each time there is a significant difference between mean rating scores. Each change in ranking is separated by a dotted line in the table. 103 mean in S man 8 «.mm SH «.3 mm o. N 83% HESS no o§35£ v5 Eamon . 48.4 mom 8 4.8. 3m 5.. R m. n o o anemone vastness. amass . ~86 o; m mum me is E «H z. e. m nan: 53.30 noes. Pose: mo gonna anon on» com nanooooz 32an Sign a: me mm. Toe an ad. 43 to mm «A 4 songs 9:68 99:33 o no n88 a8: masons you can—H938: 838m . been YE me a.mm 5 9mm 8 9mm 8 o o Seaman sesame s 2:80 a8 8385.5 9.750595 03$ . Ron 2 2 52 no new E «.mm a. o. w 838 38:8 5 238a 83 . dame .amma .ammm .ammm .qmmm u 38.. u :58 a 38. u 38. u 38 535.839 “Empcoo accent—85 no 3 use acumen magma 2233. is; to: 9.33: cites a 8 22m < as a: ea 5o: 8: e98 3223a 33o: dean: are oz oocmtog 9:350 Mm cavemen—H. mozgmofifi Emezoo no mozHeé 2% FE: mszmezoo mo moz Huang :3 D: .m P30. 33m. nbmm. 83. 8mm. mwmé 359m Em 33.9.30: , . .9 350m BE be, .m #380. mmomfia 2.0m. mmmv. :98. 096 350m :3: .m> H.958 30H .H ..H no .ma m a no .66 .... m mo .mam a $9228 Ea $5.35 nuanced: 36m 935 no 333 oamtg $55.63 We. 0:3. mmozmHmfimxm “2ng mo 82: fig m< Emoxo E 02355 92 §3< am ..HPEH Ea mo a5 2% use Mm >9HQshows the results of a multivariate analysis of variance between subjects' preference for level of formality and their judgments on the necessary levels of understanding for the set of 12 content areas. 117 NOtice from Table 4.20 that there is no significant difference with the multivariate analysis for any of three contrasts of level of formality and judgment on necessany levels of understanding. Because there is no significant difference on the multivariate test, it is not apprOpriate to discuss the univariate results. TABLE 4.20 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT OF NECESSARY LEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING BY PREFERENCE FOR IEVEL OF FORMALITY ‘Level of o 1 Judgment of Necessary Levels of Understanding on rasts Approx. F Hypothesis D.F Error D.F Sig. of F 1. Low Formal vs. High Formal .64605 12 305 .80204 2. High Formal vs . Moderately High Formal 1.43744 12 305 .14765 3. Low Formal vs. Moderately Low Formal .80582 12 305 .64447 Therefore, on.the basis of these findings the null hypothesis is not rejected. There appears to be no significant relationship between the subjects' preference for level of formality and subjects' judgments on the necessary levels of understanding. Level of Formality with Instructional Setting Research Question: Is there a relationship between level of ffifmality and setting? Research Hypothesis: Subjects' preferences regarding level of 'fbrmality are significantly related to their preferences regarding instructional setting. 118 Statistical Hypothesis: There will be no significant relationship between subjects' judgment regarding level of formality and their judgment regarding instructional setting. Table 4.21 is a summary of a univariate analysis of variance for fOrmality and each one of the instructional settings. Although they are listed in one table, a separate univariate analysis was necessary for each individual instructional setting because of the linear dependence of the individual variables (equipment roan, small group and classroom) on each other. The table shows three separate contrasts for level of formality. These contrasts are derived from the four possible scores on level of formality. The scoring for level of formality was explained above in the section on the relationship of level of formality with kind of learning experience. The scoring for level of formality remains the same for this particular hypothesis. From Table 4.21 the following can be observed. There is a significant relationship between the mean number of times equipment room, small group and classroom were chosen and certain paired contrasts of the level of formality variable. Table 4.22 provides more information on the nature of the relationship. First, from Table 4.22, for equipment room there is a significant difference in the mean number of times equipment room was chosen and the contrast of low formality versus high formality and the contrast between the very high formal versus the moderately high formal. The means from Table 4.22 indicate the direction of the difference. Those subjects who show a low score preference for formality have a higher mean score on preference for equipment room as an instructional setting. The reverse is also true. Subjects who show a score preference for high formality situations have a lower mean score on preference for equipment room as an instructional setting. In addition, subjects who show a Hm>wH 06. mg» pa pancauanmum. 119 #058. N530 0&8. 3.03.0 30p. 08:. 33.80 :3 338600: .m> 359m 33 to». .n 89m. 3.504 $0000. 0550.0 L080. $03.5. 35.80 5% 333000: .m> Huaapm swam suo> .N 39x0. mammdm #395. 3.28.3 ..mmgo. 003.0 33.50 :3: .9 H.958 :3 .H A no .08 m am no .06 m A no .05 m Easemp gem 808830 95.5 :95 .500 angina no 3260 mwcaauom HacoauoshpmcH gun-Em goggmagH gag m< 3820 E «85930 02¢ mg g .Som EH08 E9 to 5852 g »m rag to g :8 moz no 59% 35532: 31¢ a 120 88>; 0.00004 QR?“ 350m .3: 4. 89.0. onmmé memmmd 13:8 :03 23880: .n $03. m$m~.~ 0m§n.n 328 :8 33830: .N 0500. 00000...“ 09.36 REPH :8 .H 38.638 96.5 Ham Boom 9:33am .8.“ 00.800 cum: .8.“ 8.800 cam: pom 8.800 53: Nita 3.28235 503.com mm 323 Sommmsuu e: macaw g .500 BEBE 5m mgmflnflfi mo Baum 25.2 E $.53 wemfizmom mo as ~58 mm? mo $553200 85.3 mo EomHmEzoo NNé as 121 moderately high score preference for formality have a higher mean score on preference for equipnent room as an instructional setting than subjects who ShOW'a high preference for formality. The trend is clearly one in which those who prefer the equipment room as an instructional setting show a clearer preference for lower formality. Further study of Table 4.22 indicates that subjects who show a score preference for low fbrmal learning situations have a higher mean score on preference for the small group as an instructional setting. The reverse is also true, subjects who show a score preference for high fermal learning situations have a lower mean score on preference for the small group as an instructional setting. The trend for subjects who show a score preference for the classroom as an instructional setting runs counter to findings for the other two instructional settings. subjects who show a higher mean score preference fer the classroom show a preference for high formality. The reverse is also true, subjects with a lower mean score on preference fer classroom have lower mean preference scores for fOrmality. Therefbre, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant relationship between level of formality and preference fer instructional setting. Figure 4.2 summarizes the relationships feund between level of fOrmality and instructional setting. Kind of Learning Experience With Content Importance Research Question: Is there a relationship between kind ofdlearning eXperience and content importance? Research Hypothesis: Subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. Statistical Hypothesis: There will be no significant relatione Ship‘between preference for kind of learning experience and subjects' judgments concerning content importance. 122 g 4.0__ 8 3.56 big 3'5—- 3.30 3 ‘83 P &H mo-— mm fig 2'5-3 08 22 ' 8‘6 2.o__o----""‘5’~~.~ 1'76 85 ~‘ 1.58 .5 .32 1.5—- 1.66 E” 1.0.... 84 ..0' 2% b? 45 ‘ 0.5-”- ......‘.Oo..o... 0000000..... Low Mod. Low Mod. High High Key : level of Formality Equipnent Room - Snall Group . Classroom FIGURE 4.2 REIATIOI‘BHIP OF PREFERENCE FUR IEVEL OF FORMALITY AND PREFERENCE FDR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING 123 Table 4.23 is the result of a.multivariate analysis of variance for significance between the variable named "learning preference" and content importance. Learning preference is calculated by taking each individual choice made by each subject and adding all scores for the individual choices within the various combinations to get the total score for each kind of learning experience. TABLE 4.23 RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN LEARNING PREFERENCE AND CONTENT IMPORTANCE Approx. F Hypothesis D.F Error D.F Significance of P. 1.54494 24 534 .04821* *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.23 indicates that there is a significant relationship between learning preference and content importance fer the set of 12 content areas. Further analysis were pursued to ascertain which contents are accounting for the difference and what the nature of the relationship is between those contents and learning preference. Table 4.24 identifies which contents account for the difference between learning preference and content importance. 124 TABLE 4.24 UNIVARIATE F. TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWELVE SEPARATE CONTENT STATEMENTS Content Statement F Significance of F CI-1 1.74195 .17709 CI-1 .2929} .74631 01-} 5.69411 .00377* CI-4 .1938) .83221 CI—S 1 .86835 .15 632 CI-6 .39753 .67236 CI—7 3.04901 .O4900* CI—B .14585 .86461 CI-9 .64605 .71708 01-10 .64605 .52490 01-11 .5907? .55460 CI-12 .20615 .30091 *Significant at the .05 level. Note from Table 4.24 that "Factors Responsible for Placing Heat Loads on a.Building's Cooling System"(CI-3), and "Roles and Relationships of Owners, Architects and Contractors in DevelOpment and Construction" (CI-7) are the two contents that have a significant relationship with preference fer kind of learning experience. Table 4.25 "ReLationship of Preference fer Kind of Learning to Specific Course Contents" provides information on the specific nature of the relationship. 125 TABLE 4.25 RELATIONSHIP OF PREFERENCE FOR KIND OF LEARNING TO SPECIFIC COURSE CONTENTS AND MEAN RATINGS FOR LEARNING PREFERENCE Specific Content Importance Statement Learning Preference *Contrasts CI-3 CI-7 T-Value Sig. of T T4Value Sig. of T 1. Input vs. Sharing -2.50538 .01281* 2.32463 .O2081* 2. Input and Sharing vs. SelfeAwareness -2.81218 .00527* .22972 .81848 Mean Ratings fer Learning Preference CI-3 01-7 1. Input 3.75000 3.41667 2 . Shariug 3 .41500 3.76500 3. SelfLAwareness 3.18182 3.67972 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.25 indicates that there is a significant relationship between learning preference and both the CI-3 and CI—7 content statements. For the CI-3 content statement, there is a difference between both input versus sharing and input and shariug versus selfeawareness. The direction and nature of the difference is revealed by the size of the means fer these three kinds of learning experiences also fbund in Table 4.24. Input has the largest mean score followed by shariug, then self-awareness. When it comes to the course content CI—3 "Factors Responsible for Placing Heat Loads on a Building's Cooling System" subjects prefer input kind of learning experience over shariug and they prefer input and sharing combined over selfeawareness. 126 When it comes to course content, "Roles and Relationships of Owners, Architects and contractors in Development Construction" (CI-7), shariug has the higher mean than iupup and there is no significant difference between input and shariug compared with selfeawareness. Therefbre, the null hypothesis can be only partially rejected. There is a significant relationship between 01-3 and CI-7 and learning preference, but the null hypothesis must be accepted for the other item course contents. There appears to be no significant relationship between the content importance rating of 01—1, CI-2, CI-4, CI-5, CI-6, CI~8, CI—9, CI-lO, CI—ll, and 01-12 and learning preference. Kind of Learning Experience With Necessary Level of Understanding Research Question: Is there a relationshi between kind of learning experience and level of understan ing? Research Hypothesis: subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding for a relevant learning experience. Statistical Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between subjects' preference fer kind of learning experience and their judgment regarding the necessary level of understanding. Table 4.26 is the result of a multivariate analysis of variance fer significance between the variable named "learning preference" and the subjects' judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding for relevant learning. In the previous section, a description of how learning preference is calculated was given. The necessary level of understanding is a rating by each subject of which level of understanding is the minimum acceptable level necessary for a.particular content. Table 4.26 indicates that there is not a 127 significant relationship between learning preference and subjects' judgments concerning the necessary levels of understanding. TABLE 4.26 RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN LEARNING PREFERENCE AND JUDGMENTS CONCERNING NECESSARY LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING Approx. F Hypothesis D.F Error D.F Significance of F .73019 012 266 .7214} Therefore, on the basis of no significance on the multivariate analysis between learning preference and level of understanding, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There appears to be no significant relationship between preference for kind of learning experience and subjects' judgments concerning necessary level of understanding. Subjects' preference fer kind of learning experiences is not related to what importance they place on levels of understanding necessary for relevant learning to occur in certain specific content areas. Kind of Learning Experience With Instructional Setting Research Question: Is there a relationship between kind of learning experience and setting? Research Hypothesis: Subjects' preferences regarding kind of learning experience are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Statistical othesis: There is no significant relationship ‘between pre erence for kind of learning experience and preference fer instructional setting. Table 4.27 shows the results of the cross tabulation of kinds of learning experience with preference for instructional setting. The Chi- square is not significant, therefbre, the null hypothesis is not rejected. 128 There appears to be no significant relationship between preference fer kind of learning experience and preference for instructional setting. TABLE 4.27 CHI-SQUARE BETWEEN KIND OF LEARNING-EXPERIENCE AND INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING Chi-Square Degrees 9f Freedom Significance 25.88465 18 .1024 Content Importance With Level of Understanding the the Research Question: Is there a relationship between content importance and level of understanding? Research Hypothesis: Subjects' judgments regarding content importance will be positively related to judgments regarding the necessary level of understanding fer a relevant learning experience. Statistical Hypothesis: There will be no relationship between subjects' judgment regarding content importance and the necessary level of understanding for a relevant learning experience. Table 4.28 presents the Spearman correlation coefficients for all of CI's and CE's, plus the level of significance. Spearman's coefficient selected fer use because there are so few numbers used in the range of scales. The data in Table 4.28 demonstrate that there is a fairly high positive correlation between all content importance judgments (CI) and levels of understanding (CE) fer all 12 content areas. The highest correlation is CI-ll and CE—ll at .7154 with the lowest being CI—2 with CE—2 at .4687. All of the correlations have a significance of .001 at the .05 level. 129 3,2 mo. 65 p6 #5228“? own u z :8. L8. L8. L8. L8. :8. n mam Rem. vmfin m8? RS. 63. 8%. u ._ ~38 5; ~78 Sumo 5; 2.8 2.8 5; 2-8 is :3: TB Two 5.3 TB is at: TS 232.: :8. :8. L8. L8. L8. :8. u mam 08¢. 3.... 8R. RS. 88. 83. u ._ v.8 5.; is 35 5; TB 16 5:. TB Ta... 5; TS ~46 5:. ~40 Tab 5:. T8 6333, qumstmmMEZD mo 9% E282 EH58 mafia-95h EH) agamomfi EEOC 623.5028 2.25693 .menxmhmbm mo oneammoo mmé Ema. 130 Therefbre, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a positive relationship between judgments of content importance and judgments regarding the necessary levels of understanding. When subjects rated a content more important, they also gave it a higher rating on the necessary level of understanding scale. Content Importance with Instructional Setting Research Question: Is there any relationship between content importance and setting? Research Hypgthesis: subjects' judgments regarding content importance are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Statistical Hypothesis: There will be no significant relationship between subjects' judgment of content importance and subjects' preference for instructional setting. Table 4.29 shows the results of a.multivariate analysis of variance of six paired contrasts of various instructional settings with importance ratings of the twelve content statements as the set of dependent variables. The paired contrasts of instructional settings were created to explore logical combinations of relationships that may possibly show some relationship to content importance and level of understanding. The six paired contrasts are (1) clear preference for setting versus no clear preference for setting; (2) equipment room versus small group and classroan; (3) small group versus classroom; (4) non-classroom, small group and equipment room versus all other no clear preference; (5) non-small group, classroom and equipment room versus non-equipment room and no preference; and (6) non-equipment, small group and classroom room versus no preference. 131 TABLE 4.29 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTENT IMPORTANCE AND PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING Paired Contrasts Judgment of Content Importance Seiiing Approximate F Hypothesis D.F. Error D.F. Significance of F 1 .93361 12 302 .51344 2 . 58769 12 302 .85188 3 1.12722 12 302 .33721 4 1.50109 12 302 .12242 5 .80516 12 302 .64515 6 1.42963 12 302 .15111 The results in Table 4.29 indicate that there is no significant relationship between preference fer instructional setting and rating of content importance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There appears to be no relationship between subjects' importance rating of course contents and their preferences fer instructional setting. Level of Understanding With Instructional Setting Research Question: Is there a relationship between level of understanding and setting? Research Hypothesis: Subjects' preferences regarding level of understanding are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Statistical Hypothesis: There will be no significant relationship between subjects' judgments concerning necessany levels of understanding and preference fer a particular instructional setting. 132 Table 4.30 shows the result of a.multivariate analysis of variance of six paired contrasts of various instructional settings against the twelve ratings on necessary levels of understanding. The paired contrasts of instructional setting were created to explore logical canbinations of relationships that may possibly show some relationship to necessary levels of understanding. The six paired contrasts are (1) clear preference for setting versus no clear preference for setting; (2) equipment room versus small group and classroom; (3) small group versus classroom; (4) non—classroom, small group and equipment room versus all other no clear preference; (5) non-small group, classroom and equipment room versus non—equipment room and no preference; and (6) non-equipment room, small group and classroom versus no preference. TABLE 4.30 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUDGMENT OF NECESSARY LEVEIS OF UNDERSTANDING AND PREFERENCE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING Paired Cougpasts Necessary Levels of Understanding Setting Approximate F Hypothesis D.F. Error D.F. Significance of F 1 .50032 12 302 .91391 2 .94269 12 302 .50440 3 .99123 12 302 .45713 4 .91819 12 302 .52891 5 1.15653 12 302 .31420 6 1.01741 12 302 .43249 133 The results in Table 4.30 indicate that there is no significant relationship between preference for instructional setting and subjects' judgments regarding necessary levels of understanding. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is no relationship between subjects' judgments concerning necessary levels of understanding and their preference for instructional setting. Major With Level of Formality Research Questions: Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and an adult learners' expectations concerning level of formality? Research Hypothesis: subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding level of fOrmality. Stastistical Hypothesis: There is no relationship between subjects' major in school and preference for level of formality. Table 4.31 is a frequency distribution of four categories of major created from the raw data. TABLE 4.31 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR IN SCHOOL Neither Business Engineering Both 48.4% 34.4% 15.6% 1.6% N = 320 The four categories of majors were created by combining all other majors except business and engineering for the first category. The second categony is business only and the third is engineering only. The fourth category is a combination of engineering and business. The frequency Table 4.31 indicates that almost one—half of the sample has had 134 neither business nor engineering work in school. Oneathird of the sample has had business background in school Fifteen percent of the sample has had engineering work in school with one and a half percent having both engineering and business. The variable major was organized in this manner because of the course content variable in the study. The course content variable is engineeringatype material. It was postulated that relationships between.major and other variables would be more likely to surface if the major was organized in this manner. Table 4.32 is a crosstab and Chi-square on the relationship of level of formality with major in school. TABLE 4.32 CROSSTAB AND CHI-SQUARE OF LEVEL OF FORMALITY WITH MAJOR IN SCHOOL Chi-Square Degees of Freedom Significance 8-50506 9 .4842 N = 320 Table 4.32 indicates that there is not a significant relationship between level of formality with major in school. Therefbre, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There appears to be no relationship between level of formality and major in school. subjects' major in school shows no relationship to subjects' preference for level of formality. Major With.Kind of Learning Experience Research Question: Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and an adult learner's expectations concerning kind of learning experience? Research Hypothesis: subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding kind of learning experience. 135 Statistical Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between.majors in school and kind of learning experience. Table 4.33 shows the results of a cross tabulation of major with kind of learning experience. The Chi-square is not significant so the null hypothesis is not rejected. There appears to be no significant relationship'between subjects' majors in school and preference for kind of learning experience. TABLE 4.33 CHI-SQUARE BETWEEN MAJOR AND KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE Chi-Square Degrees pf Freedom Significance 4.118 18 -9997 Major With Importance of Content Research Question: Is there any relationship between his/her major in school and expectations concerning content importance? Research Hypothesis: subjects' majors in school are significantly related to judgments regarding content importance. Statistical Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship betWeen.major in school and the importance of content rating. Table 4.34 is a multivariate analysis of variance of major in school with rating of content importance. Table 4.34 indicates that there is no significant relationship between major in school and rating of content importance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There appears to be no significant relationship between major in school and rating on content importance. A subject's major does not influence his evaluation of how important a particular content is for a properly trained property manager. 136 TABLE 4.34 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MAJOR IN SCHOOL WITH RATING OF CONTENT IMPORTANCE Ratings of Content Importance Major Paired Contrast Approx. F Hypothesis D.F. Error D.F Sig. of F 1. Neither Business and Engineering against Business 1.66912 12 305 .07269 2. Business against . Engineering 1.49905 12 305 .12310 3. Engineering against Business and Engineering 1.11870 12 305 .34404 Major With Level of Understanding Research Questions: Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and expectations concerning the level of understanding? Research Hypothesis: Subjects' majors in school are significantly related to judgments regarding necessary level of understanding. Statistical Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between.ma'or in school and subjects' judgment concerning necessary evel of understanding. Table 4.35 is a multivariate analysis of variance of major in school with ratings of necessary levels of understanding for specific contents. Table 4.35 indicates that the third paired contrast, Engineering against usiness and Engineering, is significant at the .05 level. Therefbre, an analysis of the mean scores on level of understanding in relation to that third paired contrast will give some indication of the direction of the difference between mean scores in the paired contrasts. 137 TABLE 4.35 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MAJOR IN SCHOOI.WITH RATINGS OF SUBJECTS' JUDGMENTS OF NECESSARY LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING Ratings of Necessary Level of Understanding Major Paired Contasts Approx. F Hypothesis D.F. Error D.F Sig. of F 1. Neither Business and Engineering against Business .78714 12 305 .66375 2. Business against Engineering 1.16690 12 305 .30626 3. Engineering against Business and Engineering 2.11311 12 305 .01604* *Significant at the .05 level Table 4.36 presents the means for the third paired contrast and the CE statements that show a significant relationship. TABLE 4.36 COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF NECESSARY LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PAIRED COMPARISON OF BUSINESS AND BUSINESS AND ENGINEERING Mean Scores of Significant Levels 9f Understanding Content Statements Paired Contrast Means of Business Against Business and Engineering CELl—-Load Factors in Business vs. - 4.14 Building Design Business«& Engineering - 4.40 CE~8—-Basic Building Materials Used Business vs. -- 3.36 in Building Construction BusineSS<& Engineering —- 4.60 CEF12-4Basic Codes and Regulations Business vs. -— 2.70 that Impact Property Business &:Engineering - 4.00 Management 138 Table 4.36 indicates that fer each of the significant CE ratings fer levels of understanding those who have had both business and engineering majors rate those content statements higher on the necessary levels of understanding scale. Those subjects with both business and engineering majors, or engineering only majors, tend to prefer a higher level of understanding fer the content statements than those with business majors in only business. Therefore, the null hypothesis is only partly rejected. There is a relationship between some majors and ratings on necessary levels of understanding for some content areas. It would appear that the subjects with the more varied school backgrounds (with majors in both business and engineering) feel the need in some content areas for a higher level of understanding. This is a definite trend but further research would need to be done to fully identify the strength of the relationship. Major With Instructional Setting Research Questions: Is there a relationship between his/her major in school and expectations concerning the instructional setting? Research Hypothesis: subjects' majors in school are significantly related to preferences regarding instructional setting. Statistical Hypothesis: There is not a significant relationship between subjects major in school and their preference fer instructional setting. Table 4.37 is a summary of a univariate analysis of variance for majors in school with each one of the instructional settings. Although they are listed in one table, a separate univariate analysis was necessary fer each individual instructional setting because of the linear dependence of the individual variables (equipment room, small group and classroom) on each other. The table shows three separate contrasts for major. 139 33 mo. 2.6. an 6.54388: .88. 82 ..H 88m. 8.4.24 :88. .384. 8:8:qu Ba 3053 85% smegma .n 205. Sam. EAR. 8324 «$9.. 8.6.8. 828:? has? 8833 .m 9.8m. $434 .88. «Rad. .088. REVS 8:852.— s 666568 5.3 a $552.35 .8053 panama 928:? .8 30:33 3532 .H a no .ma a as no .ma a a no .ma m mpgpcoP—uou «om 50.888 93.5 285 Sam econ—:53 Hoop—om 5 hand: $538 EoupscaaH 85.2mm ionSDmagH fig m< E830 E gang 92¢ 5:0 g .3 .5933 EM. mo E552 g E 5:: 5m m§> mo 99% mach<>H~S b .V an. 140 Table 4.37 indicates that there is a significant relationship between major in school and preference for both equipment room and small group instructional settings. There is no significant relationship between major in school and classroom as a preferred instructional setting. Table 4.38 must be studied to provide further insight as to the nature of the relationship between major and mean scores on preference for instructional setting. Table 4.38 indicates that subjects who did not have business or engineering majors had a.higher mean preference score fer equipment room as an instructional setting than those who have had business or engineering or both business and engineering. Also, subjects who have only a business background have a higher mean preference score for equipment room as an instructional setting than those who have both business and engineering backgrounds. Clearly, the trend is for those who have no engineering backgrounds to prefer the equipment room as an instructional setting. Further, from Table 4.38 subjects who have had neither business or engineering have a lower mean preference score fer small group as an instructional setting than those who have had both business and engineering. Subjects who have had both business and engineering prefer small group as an instructional setting over subjects who have not had business or engineering. Therefbre, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is a significant relationship between major in school and preference for instructional setting. In general, subjects with no business or engineering have the strongest preference fer the equipment room setting while those with business and engineering have the highest mean preference for the small group setting. 141 oooom. oooom.m ooooo.m meaammcumcm can mmmcnmsm .4 000mm. ooooH.m ooo~o.m mcaemmcamgm .m meme? mmmeN 99m .m mmmfimsm . m smeme. momme.a mamam.m meaemoeamem no ammunmsm amepumz .H sooummwao ozone Hamsm soom ecosnwsym pom mopoom cam: now mmpoom coo: pom mopoom com: weappmm HanoHposppmeH Hoozom 31 :2 H .HO zocmmmfio 32 $595 gm £50m EH33 mom mozmfimwmm n5 mmoom Em: $.53 Hoomow 5 ~52: mo 939200 55.3 mo mzomHmof subjects studied and their pedogogical expectations. Further refining of the instruments might allow one to more precisely understand possible relationships between major in school, number of years in prOperty management, and 168 subjects' ratings of necessary level of understanding. Regarding Instructional Setting. The study fOund that there was a definite preference fOr instructional setting. A strong preference fOr equipment room as an instructional setting over small group and classroom exists. The strong preference fOr equipment room as an instructional setting must be understood in the context of the study which fOcused only on one of the seven courses in the RPA curriculum. The course utilized fOr this study has a major component of its content relating directly to- the understanding and efficient Operation of the major mechanical equipment components in a commercial building. It is logical, because of the content of the course utilized for this study, that students would indicate some preference fOr the "on—site" teaching experience as Opposed to a more isolated classroom-type experience. Even though in this study the preference fOr instructional setting is somewhat course Specific, a general principle can be isolated to guide future instructional planning. A careful and comprehensive review of specific course contents should be'made to determine if those contents might be better understood by a student and taught more productively by an instructor in learning environments that were perceived to be congruent with specific course contents. Such a matching of course content with specialized learning environments could be a very productive teaching/learning strategy to enhance the perceived relevancy of the adult learners' professional develOpment learning program. The next highest preference fOr instructional setting was small group. The small group setting is somewhat less biased by course contents. This preference fOr small group should be taken very seriously in the teaching methodologies utilized to instruct the BOMI courses. In the planning and implementation of instructor training experiences fOr the 169 BOMI courses a geat deal of time should be spent on how to utilize small group discussion methods and peer interaction as a successful teaching technique. .Instructional setting was the only one of the five expectation variables that had significant relationships with learner variables. There was a significant relationship between preference fOr instructional setting and major in school. Students who had no engineering backgrounds in school or who just had business and engineering both had a clear preference fOr equipment rOOm as an instructional setting. subjects who had both business and engineering backgrounds showed a clear preference fOr small group as an instructional setting. Those subjects who had fewer years Of fOrmal schooling tended to choose equipment room more Often. subjects who had a higher number of years of fOrmal schooling tended to choose small group or classroom as an instructional setting. The younger a subject was, the more likely he/she was to choose equipment room as a preferred instructional setting over small group or classroom. All of these relationships of the learner variables to the expectation variable of instructional setting reinforce again the importance of an instructor having a sensitivity to the expectations that students might have because of their varied backgrounds. These individual differences pointed out by the learner variables of major, years of fOrmal schooling and age, caution an instructor against lumping an entire class into a singular categery. If nothing else, this finding about the relationship of instructional setting to various learner variables should raise the level of awareness of the instructor with regards to individual student differences and the importance of being cognicent of those differences in teaching. One of the most helpful frameworks an instructor could use to maintain such sensitivity is the developmental stages of adulthood. These 170 generalized descriptions of the progression of adult concerns give an instructor some basic clues as to what can be expected from adults at certain ages. The findings in this current study indicate that the younger subjects had preferences fOr sharigg over self-awareness and equipment room over small group and classroom. Adults from ages 22 to 30 are in a life phase which is characterized by some exploration of alternatives. This Open ended orientation could partially account fOr the preferences fOr sharigg as a preferred kind of learning experience over input. Older subjects showed a preference fOr selfeawareness which is somewhat consistent with the stages between ages 40 and 50 where one of the predominate concerns is a reassessment of the self. This reassessment results in adults Of this age bracket paying greater attention to their feelings, experiences, and cognitive processes. (Neugarten, 19674). Regarding Curricular Development for Professional Property Management. This study has provided some very specific infOrmation fOr better planning, organization, and implementation of the curriculum of the Building Owners and Managers Institute. With regard to the Institute, the following specific recommendations are made in order to more sharply focus the direction of the Institute. All Of these recommendations are made with the understanding that to be successful, the curriculum must be perceived as highly relevant to the needs, interests, and motives Of the adults who are served by the curriculum. The sensitivity to needs, interests and motives is very important as a starting place fOr curriculum construction decisions. Specific recommendations are made based on the current findings of this study. However, future needs could easily shift enough to warrant other curricular approaches. The literature review in chapter two provides a 171 framework to sensitize the curriculum develOper to the trap of locking onto one direction or method at the expense of Openness and flexibility to alternate directions when the needs, interests and motives of adult learners indicate that change may be warranted. Sensitivity to curriculum construction as an Openrended process must always be in the fOrefront of an educator's thinking when specific directions are prescribed. The next prescription may scrap the current recommendations and take the program an entirely different direction based on the current perception of the needs, interest and motives of participants in the educational program. 1. With lower fOrmality having a slight edge over higher fOrmality, instructor preparation materials and instructor training experiences fOr teaching the Institute courses need to equip instructors to teach with diaological and discussion methods as Opposed to straight lecture. Current instructors must be made aware of this important finding as soon as possible. 2. Shariggetype learning experiences are preferred with tgput_next and then self—awareness. Instructors must be immediately trained to better utilize a very important teaching resource, the student. Teachers must be made aware of the high degree of preference fOr sharing and learning from peers. 3. Discussion questions and written materials that reflect this need to share with one another in class can be produced to facilitate the interaction. These materials should be included on a chapter4by—chapter basis in all of the courses of the RPA curriculum. EXplanations of how to utilize this material should be provided in instructor manuals fOr each course. 4. A content importance rating survey should be prepared for each course in the BOMI program. This fOrm should be designed so it 172 can be given at the beginning of each class and scored by the instructor of that class. A simple interpretation guideline should be provided so that the instructor can better understand the rankings that students place on the various course contents. Such a tool can heighten the sensitivity of an instructor to the perceived needs of the students. This content rating fOrm would include both the ratings fOr content importance and the evaluation of necessary level of understanding. When apprOpriate, teaching experiences should be arranged in relevant instructional settings. These settings are somewhat course dependent and relate to the basic content emphasis Of a course. In the case of the courses that deal with mechanical equipment and other engineering functions of a building, on—site tours and instructional times in actual mechanical and equipment rooms are highly recommended to increase the perceived relevancy of the program fOr the students. Other course contents lend themselves to this type Of practical instructional setting. A guide should be immediately prepared fOr instructors of the BOMI courses which gives suggestions fOr field trips, tours, and "hands-on" learning experiences fOr each one of the BOMI courses. Instructor training materials should be prepared that make instructors more aware of the potential significance of individual student differences. If a class has a wide age range and experience factor in prOperty management, those issues which might have a bearing on better understanding of the individual differences of students should be communicated to BOMI instructors. 173 Recommendations for Further Research. Several findings indicate areas where additional research is needed. 1. There is an important relationship between ratings of content importance and necessary levels of understanding fOr competence fer the particular course content in this study. Further insights could be gained fOr the Real PrOperty Administrator curriculum development if each.course were rated as to content importance and the parallel necessary levels of understanding fOr competence instrument was administered to determine ratings fOr each course. Further study is needed to clarify relationships between the content of past educational experiences (major in school) and adult learners' expectations concerning level of fOrmality, kinds of learning experiences and instructional setting. ' . Ethnographic research should further explore how attitudes of past schooling and significant teacher models relate to choices adult learners make regarding level of fOrmality, kind of learning experience, and preference fOr instructional setting. A comparative study isolating subjects at various developmental stages of adulthood, with all other variables the same, needs to be done to determine the influence that various stages Of adult develOpment might possibly have on expectations concerning level of fOrmality, kind of learning experience and instructional setting. Further research which helps to refine the instruments themselves would be quite helpful. The instrumentation techniques of using pictures to isolate perceptions and expectations is functional as a research tool, but further research that identifies how to compose the content of a picture in relation to the variable being studied (fOrmality, instructional setting) would be helpful. 174 6. There appears to be a relationship between the number Of years in property management and ratings of content importance and levels of understanding perceived as necessary for competent management. Further research needs to be done fOr the particular course content in this study to clarify that relationship. Also, studies should be done to determine if the years of experience in prOperty management also effects the ratings of content importance and necessary levels of understanding fOr other courses in the RPA program. Mr Adult learners have specific preferences concerning level of formality, kinds of learning experiences, and instructional settings. They also have identifiable Opinions that can be ranked concerning the importance of content statements and level of understanding necessary for competent management. Adult learners do not find sharing, input and self-awareness equally valid as learning situations. Adult learners also seem to have a preference fOr the level of fOrmality of a learning situation and a preference fOr a certain level of fOrmality with specific kinds of learning experiences. There is an identifiable preference fOr certain instructional settings with certain kinds of learning experiences and certain levels Of fOrmality with certain instructional settings. The previous academic backgrounds of the learners in this study does have some effect on their preference fer certain instructional settings. The age Of adult learners has some effect on their ratings of content importance and preference fOr instructional setting and kind of learning experience preferred. Years of experience in prOperty management had some 175 slight effect on the rating of content importance and levels of understanding perceived as necessary fOr competent management. Curriculum develOpment is a challenge fOr any situation. This study provided specific infOrmation on expectations that adult learners have, that when met, will help to make the educational program of the Building Owners and Managers Institute accepted as more relevant to the needs, interests and motives of the constituency it serves. This is a beginning. USeful insights fOr curriculum improvement have been uncovered but much remains to be done to implement the insights in the area of materials redesign and instructor training. This research will help guide the ongoing process of curriculum improvement fOr the Institute. NOt only does this study provide specific direction fOr the curriculum develOpment project of the Building Owners and Managers Institute, but it contributes to the overall field of literature that gives direction to educational planners in adult education. This study has demonstrated that adult learners do bring expectations with them to learning situations. Planners of adult education have a choice, they can be sensitive to these expectations and how they influence the adult learner or they can ignore the expectations and pay the consequences in terms of unmotivated students, higher drOpout rates, low class morale and frustrated instructors. Respecting the presence of learner expectations and utilizing the understanding of those expectations to organizing meaningful instruction and design relevant materials can assist in the comprehensive implementation of a relevant program fOr ongoing professional education. APPENDIX A KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE -- INSTRUMENT -- 177 BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS INSTITUTE INTERNAIIONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE GENERAL DIRECTIONS There are four sections in the questionnaire booklet. Each section is separated by a colored sheet of paper. Work until 222 252 asked t2 stop 23g wait £25 turther directions. Please fill out everything to the best of your ability. This is an anonymous questionnaire. Ybur cooperation is greatly appreciated in answering the questions as honestly and fully as possible. 00 NOT OPEN THE BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. 178 DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION I DIRECTIONS Please circle the letter which represents your response to the situations presented on the following pages and on a tape to which you will listen. Circle only one letter per page. 179 srnmrou ONE - PAIR our: (5) Two students are overheard talking before class. Which student's statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended? “A” -- There are sole things I really need to hear tonight. I hope the instructor will tell us all about the subject. -on- "B" -- I like the way that our instructor gets us to look at what is going on inside ourselves. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 180 srruanon ONE - 9am no (6) Two students are overheard talking before class. Which student's statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended? ”C“ -- I like the way that our instructor gets us to look at what is going on inside ourselves. -OR- “D” - I've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject. Tonight I am hoping we get to talk with the instructor and some other class members to see what they are thinking. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 181 srruarrou out -- PAIR THREE (7) Two students are overheard talking before class. Hhich student's statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended? ”E“ - There are some things I really need to hear tonight. I hope the instructor will tell us all about the subject. -Olr "F” -- I've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject. Tenight I am hoping we get to talk with the instructor and some other class members to see what they are thinking. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 182 SITUATION rwo -- PAIR our. (8) Imagine you are sitting in class and all of a sudden you wish you could do something a certain way. which statement is most like something you might want to do in class. “C“ -- I wish we could get the answer to that problem from the instructor. -on- "H" -- I wish we could have more time to think about that issue so I could figure out how it relates to me. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 183 SITUATION TWO - PAIR TWO (9) Imagine you are sitting in class and all of a sudden you wish you could do something a certain way. Which statement is most like something you might want to do in class? “I" - I wish we could have more time to think about that issue so I could figure out how it relates to me. -oa— "J' -- I wish we could find out what other peOple think about that subject. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 184 --------- ------4 SITUATION rwo - PAIR rm: (10) Imagine you are sitting in class and all of a sudden you wish you could do something a certain way. Which statement is most like something you might want to do in class? “K” -- I wish we could get the answer to that from the instructor in class. -OR- ”L” - I wish we could find out what other people think about that subject. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 185 I REALLY was A m- remem- uueu .. . '. SITUATION THREE - PAIR ONE (11) You are driving home after a night in class and thinking about the class. Which of the following statements are you most likely to say? "N“ -- I really learned a lot tonight when the instructor answered all our questions. -oa- "N" -- I really learned a lot tonight when we did that exercise and I understood how the subject relates to some of my concerns. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 186 44‘ I REALLY mango A LOT roman-r men . é SITUATION THREE - PAIR THO (12) You are driving home after a night in class and thinking about the class. Which of the following statements are you most likely to say? "0' -- I really learned a lot tonight when we did that exercise and I understood how the subject relates to some of my concerns. -0R- “P' -- I really learned a lot tonight when we had a chance to discuss and share our thoughts with one another. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then turn to the next page. 187 I REALLY was A LOT Toms»? Amen ... .. SITUATION rants -- PAIR ram: (13) You are driving home after a night in class and thinking about the class. Which of the following statements are you most likely to say: "Q" - I really learned a lot tonight when the instructor answered all our questions. -OR- "R” -- I really learned a lot tonight when we had a chance to discuss and share our thoughts with one another. DIRECTIONS Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice on this page, then STOP until told to proceed. APPENDIX B TAPE SCRIPT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE INSTRUMENT 189 APPENDIX B TAPE SCRIPT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE INSTRUMENT DATA QUESTIONNAIRE -— SECTION I TAPE SCRIPT The fellowing material will present typical situations you may have found yourself in at one time or another. In each situation that you will be presented with choose the statement which best describes how you would respond in the situation described. Indicate your choice by drawing a circle around the letter identified with your choice in the bodklet. NOw, turn to the page in your survey booklet labeled "Situation One - Pair One". Study the page as you listen to the fOllowing description of the situation on tape and then give your response as directed in the survey bodklet. 190 Two students are overheard talking before class. Which statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended? Here is statement "A": There are some things I really need to hear tonight. I hOpe the instruction will tell us all about the subject. Here is statement "B": I like the way that our instructor gets us to lock at what is going on inside ourselves. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey booklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page. The situation is the same. Two students are overheard talking befOre class. Which statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended? Here is statement "C": I like the way that our instructor gets us to look at what is going on inside ourselves. Here is statement "D": I've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject. Tonight I am hoping we get to talk with the instructor and some other class members to see what they are thinking. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey booklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your survey booklet. The situaton is the same. Two students are overheard talking befOre class. Which student's statement is most like something you might say about a course you have attended? Here is statement "E": There are some things I really need to hear tonight. I hOpe the instructor will tell us all about the subject. Here is statement "I“: I've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject. Tonight I am hOping we get to talk with the instructor and some other class members to see what they are thinking. 191 Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle yur choice in the survey boOklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your survey boOklet. NOw we are loOking at a different situation. Imagine you are sitting in class and all of a sudden you wish you could do something a certain way. Which statement is most like something you lmight want to do in class? Here is statement "G": I wish we could get the answer to that problem from the instructor. Here is statement "H": I wish we could have more time to think about that issue so I could figure out how it relates to me. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle4 your choice in the survey booklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your survey booklet. The situation is the same. Imagine you are sitting in class and all Of a sudden you wish you could do something a certain way. Which statement is most like something you.might want to do in class? Here is statement "I": I wish we could have more time to think about that issue so I could figire out how it relates to me. Here is statement "J": I wish we could find out what other peOple think about that subject. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey booklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your survey booklet. The situation is the same. Imagine you are sitting in class and all of a sudden you wish you could do something a certain way. Which statement is most like something you.might want to do in class? 192 Here is statement "K": I wish we could get the answer to that from the instructor. Here is statement "L": I wish we could find out what other peOple think about that subject. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey boOklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your survey boOklet. NOw we are locking at a different situation. YOu are driving home after a night in class and thinking about the class. Which of the fellowing statements are you lmost likely to say? Here is statement "M": I really learned a lot tonight when the instructor answered all our questions. Here is statement "N": I really learned a lot tonight when we did that exercise and I understood how the subject relates to some of my concerns. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey booklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your survey booklet. The situation is the same. YOu are driving home after a night in class and thinking about the class. Which Of the fOllowing statements are you most likely to say? Here is statement "0": I really learned a lot tonight when we did that exercise and I understood hOW’the subject relates to some of my concerns. Here is statement "P": I really learned a lot tonight when we had a chance to discuss and share our thoughts with one another. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey booklet. (Pause 15 seconds). Turn to the next page in your 193 survey boOklet. The situation is the same. YOu are driving home after a night in class and thinking about the class. Which Of the fOllowing statements are you lmost likely to say? Here is statement "Q": I really learned a lot tonight when the instructor answered all our questions. Here is statement "R": I really learned a lot tonight when we had a chance to discuss and share our thoughts with one another. Choose between one of the two possible responses. Circle your choice in the survey boOklet. This is the end of this part of the survey. Turn to Data Questionnaire -- Section II and complete it per the directions. Thank you fOr your COOperation. APPENDIX C IEVEL OF FORMALITY — INSTRUMENT - 195 DATA QUESTIONNAIRE -' SECTION III DIRECTIONS Look at the following pairs of pictures and answer the question at the tap of each page. Mark your choice in each pair by placing an "X” in the large box ( / 7 ) under the picture of your choice. Please only one "X" per page. 196 =m= Agnes ecu neweusma Avv. mum magnum seas» =<= so» om menuussuwm m=w30HHOu use no :o«;3 an 197 :D: «uses msu wcuausoa and sesame Amvv :0 = xcfieu so» om meowumauqm mausoH~Ou men we seas: an 198 onv E“: S“: too... me... usages” one 0300.. :55 so» on meowussuum 9.15:3 one no 53:: as 199 Ahvv D ...... =9. «use: ecu neueumma and agenda scene so» om macaumsuem mewaoamou meu mo sous: em 200 = nu: fiance ecu meunusea Ame. ..ni mum masons xeqeu so» as seawusmuam mauso~m0m sea mo sous: ea 201 Ame. sauna and meweumma mum magnum saucy 50> 0v manqummuum amaonHOu ecu uo some: :H 202 Remy Swan 05 med—amen one cannon. x55 3oz om scone—52w 9:30.38 one no 3:: ease: as 203 sumo: .«mv ..L: ecu wcaeumua mum manoma sauna so» on m=o«uo:u«m amaon~0u ecu 8°: do some: as .va names ecu weucamma mum canoes xefisu so» on menuummuum mausoAHOu may no sous: en APPENDIX D CURRICUIAR OUTCOMES — INSTRUMENT —- DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the prOperly trained prOperty manager. EXAMPLE: Training of a prOperty manager should deal with the design and maintenance of electrical Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content sy5tems. Could Extremely, Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It . Extent Degree All 5 . Q 2 1 4?“ listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. EXAMPLE: 1. / Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. 5” Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. / Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. . 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistency and/or selected or remembered criteria. 207 DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the prOperly trained prOperty manager. 1. Training of a prOperty manager should deal with load factors in building design. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 l (IS-16) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 1. V/’ Recall of Specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 208 mm Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained prOperty manager. 2. Training of a property manager should deal with the basic engineering principles for cooling and heating systems. COuld Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful . To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 1 (17-18) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 1. V/’ Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the apprOpriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 209 DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the prOperly trained prOperty manager. 3. Training of a prOperty manager should deal with the factors responsible for placing heat loads on a building's cooling system. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 - 4 3 2 1 (19-20) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. Ingyour opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. l. V, Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 210 DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your Opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained prOperty manager. A. Training of a property manager should deal with the sealing materials necessany for the best performance of windows and/or curtain walls. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 1 (21-22) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understandingi are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. ..__/_ Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 211 DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your Opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained prOperty manager. 5. Training of a prOperty manager should deal with energy management programs. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 1 (23-24) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. l. ‘l’ Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the apprOpriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 21 DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed thrOugh the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained property manager. 6. Training of a property manager should deal with the design and maintenance of plumbing systems. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 ' a 3 2 1 (25-26) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understandingi are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 1. f Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the apprOpriate material. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 213 w Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed thrOugh the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained prOperty manager. 7. Training of a prOperty manager should deal deal with the roles and relationships of owners, architects and contractors in develgpment and construction. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 1 (27-28) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. Ingyour opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessaryyfor the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. l. Vr’ Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 214 mass. Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which Directions: Adult learners are frustrated best represents your opinion on the degree when they are required to do something that of importance the content described has does not seem relevant to them. Below are for the properly trained prOperty manager. six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 8. Training of a prOperty manager should deal 1. VII Recall of specific terms and with basic buildingymaterials used in concepts, methods and processes or buildingiconstruction. the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No primarily the bringing to mind of the Not Work Helpful To a To a Help appropriate material. Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering S 4 3 2 l and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. ' Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. (29-30) 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 215 9.132% Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the leftrhand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which Directions: Adult learners are frustrated best represents your opinion on the degree when they are required to do something that of importance the content described has does not seem relevant to them. Below are for the prOperly trained property manager. six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 9. Training of a property manager should deal 1. V/’ Recall of specific terms and with roofs and roof maintenance. concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No primarily the bringing to mind of the Not Work Helpful To a To a Help appropriate material. Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering S 4 3 2 l and to extend factual-information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. (31-32) 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 216 w Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained property manager. 10. Training of a prOperty manager should deal with water treatment for boilers and cooling water. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 1 (33-34) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 1.. VI, Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to pp; together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your Opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained prOperty manager. 11. Training of a prOperty manager should deal with the design and maintenance of automatic Directions: control systems for building equipment. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 1 (35-36) Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary.. In your opinion, how mAny more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. 1. V, Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to pp; together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 218 DIRECTIONS Proceed with the left-hand column first, then do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column for that question. Proceed through the survey on a question-by-question basis always starting with the left-hand column before you do the corresponding analysis in the right-hand column. Directions: Circle the number which best represents your Opinion on the degree of importance the content described has for the properly trained property manager. 12. Training of a property manager should deal with basic codes and regulations that impact prOperty management. Could Extremely Helpful Helpful No Not Work Helpful To a To a Help Without Certain Small At It Extent Degree All 5 4 3 2 l 4 (37-38) Directions: Adult learners are frustrated when they are required to do something that does not seem relevant to them. Below are six levels of understanding. The first level below is the lowest level of understanding. We assume it is necessary. In your Opinion, how many more levels of understanding are necessary for the specific content listed in the left-hand column. Check all that you feel are necessary. l. V/’ Recall of specific terms and concepts, methods and processes or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting. Recall involves primarily the bringing to mind Of the appropriate material. 2. Ability to make interpretations of data by rearrangement or reordering and to extend factual information beyond given data to determine implications, consequences and effects. 3. Application Of information, technical principles and theories learned in one situation to another separate situation. 4. Ability to analyze key elements that clarify a situation, or connections and interactions between elements and organizational principles behind information. 5. Ability to put together (synthesize) elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly seen before. 6. Ability to evaluate data in terms Of logical accuracy and internal consistancy and/or selected or remembered criteria. 219 DIREIITIOI‘S Please read the three questions below and answer them by circling your choice at the right. 13. have you taken Course One. Yes Ho (43) The "Design, Operation and Maintenance of Buildimg Systems", offered by the Building Owners and .‘vlanagers Institute? (Circle one at right) 11‘ 1'35 Answer Questions Fourteen and Fifteen. If _c '30 To The Example on the next page and wait for further directions. Couldn't Extremely Helpful Helpful Ho Help 14. How would you rate "The Design, Work with- Helpful To A To A At All (41) Operation and i-laintenance of out it Certain wall milling Systems" course in terms Ebctent Degree of its usefulness to you in your WOT‘K? (Circle one number at right) 5 4 3 2 1 15. Does "The Design. Operation and .Totally Fairly Rep. To Rep. To Not R p. (42) :‘vaintenance of milding Systems" Hepresent- Represent- A Certain A Small At All contain tze kind of content that ative ative Extent Degree you feel is necessary for effective property management? (Circle one number at right) 5 4 3 2 l APPENDIX E DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 221 DE’IOGRAPHIC QUEST IONNA IRE 54-55- Age 56. Sex M or F 57-58. Trade School Major (only if attended, write "none" if did not attend) 59—60. Undergraduate College Major (only if attended, write "none" if did not attend)* 61-62. Graduate School Major (only if attended, write "none" if did not attend) 63—64. Years of formal schooling (Circle year last completed) Grammar School High School Trades or Colleges 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 Graduate/Post Graduate 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Beyond 24, fill in number) 65-66. How many professional development programs have you attended since you have been in the prOperty management profession? (Seminars and WOrkshOps.) 67-68. How many informal professional activities have you attended since you have been in the property management profession? (Conventions and Regional Meetings.) 69-70. How many years have you been in prOperty management? (Circle one). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 (More than 40, fill in number) 71. Are you enrolled in the RPA program of the Building Owners and anagers Institute? YES NO (Circle One) AHSJEH THIS LAST QUESTION ONLY I§_ng ANSWERED QUESTION NUMBER SEVENTY-ONE "YES". 72. Do you have a preference fOr the manner in which you take the RPA Courses? CIRCLE 952' (Assume each Option is available to you.) Individual home study. Group discussion. Teache r-lead classr can study . Accelerated class. No preference. \th-WNH APPENDIX F INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEAREEH PROJEX3T USED IN DATA GATHERING ACTIVITY 223 APPENDIX F INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROJECT USED IN DATA GATHERING ACTIVITY Let me share with you briefly the purpose fer this data questionnaire. As most of you know, we are in the process of a.major curriculum revision effort fer the Building Owners and Managers Institute. YOur assistance in filling out this questionnaire will help us fine—tune the curriculum fer the RPA designation. we would appreciate your honest and intelligent responses. This will aid us in this curriculum construction process. Please take the questions very seriously and do your best to answer them fully. Please do not be alarmed by the size of the questionnaire. Generally, there is only one check mark or a circle required on each page. let me set the stage fer what you will find in the questionnaire. we are concerned about making sure that the RPA curriculum is perceived as meaningful and relevant fer professional property managers. This questionnaire is attempting to uncover attitudes and perceptions that you have with regards to a relevant training program. Please think about positive learning experiences that you have had. Why were those learning experiences positive? This questionnaire is asking you to response to some learning situations and to evaluate their meaningfulness. Please do not try to read anything into the questions that is not there. There are no tricks intended. Take everything at face value and answer the question as posed. There are three sections to the questionnaire and a sheet at the end which asks some basic infOrmation about who you are. we will do the first section together with the help of a tape recording. Then, I will give you 224 the directions fer the other two sections and you can complete those sections at your own pace. When you've completed all three sections, please fill in the last page completely. Do not leave any blank answers on the last page. Befbre I turn on the tape recording to give instructions fer the first section, let's check our data boOklets to make sure that everyone has a complete booklet. Also, please observe that this questionnaire is completely anonymous. we are not interested in who filled out the questionnaire in terms of being able to identify who you are. I'll turn on the tape now which will give the directions fbr the first section. Listen to the directions, then Open your booklets and begin. Thank you very much fer your COOperation. BIBLIOGRAPHY 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Gerald R. and Cohen, Allan S. "Characteristics of Children and Teacher Expectancy: An Extension to the Child's Social and Family Life." The Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 70, No. 2, Novemberfiecember, 197 6, pp. 87-90. Allen, Vernon L. "Role Theory and Consistency Theory." In Abelson, Robert P.; et al (Eds.). Theories of Cpgnitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968, pp. 201-209. Anderson, Richard and Others (Fds.) Current Research on Instruction; Inglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Aronson, Elliot and Carlsmith, J. Merrill. "Performance Expectancy As A Determinant of Actual Performance." Journal of Abnormal and Social Pchhology. Vol. 65, No. 3, 1962, pp. 178-182. Berger, Henry G. Ethno—pedagogy: A Manual In Cultural Sensitivity, With Techniques for Improving Cross-cultural Teaching By Fitting Ethnic Patterns. Albuqerque, N.M.: Southwestern COOperative Educational laboratory, Inc. , 1968. Blackburn, Donald J. "Method Orientations of Adults for Participation In Eiucative Activities," Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1967. Bloom, B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectivesl The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cogiitfve Domafn. New York: Evid McKay Co., Inc., 1956. Boshier, R. W. "Motivational Orientations of Adult Education Participants: A Factor Analytic EXploration of HOul's Typology", Adult Education. Vol. 21, 1971, pp. 3—26. . "Factor Analysts at large: A Critical Review of the Motivational Orientation Literature", Adult Education. 1976, Fall. "Motivational Orientations Re—Visited: Life-Space Motives and the Education Participation Scale", Adult Education. 1977 Vol 2, No. 22, pp. 89—114. Bradford, Leland P. "Toward a philosophy of adult education," Adult Education. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 83—92, Winter 1957. Braun, Carl. "Teacher Expectation: Sociopsychological Dynamics." Review of Educational Research. Vol. 46, NO. 2, Spring, 1976, pp. 185-213. Brophy, Jere E. and Good, Thomas L. "Teachers' Communication of Differential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance: Some Behavioral Data." Journal of Educational Psychology. 1970, Vol. 61, pp. 365-374. 227 BrOphy, Jere E. and Good, Thomas L. Teacher—Student Relationshipg: Causes and Conseqnences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstOn, Inc., 1974.’ Bruner, J. S. "Personality Dynamics and the Process of Perceiving." In Blake, R. R., and Ramsey, G. V. Perception: An Approach to Personalipy. New York: Helt, Rinehart and Winston, Ind., 1951, pp. 121-147. Brunner, Iflmund deS., David S. Wilder, and Corinne Kirchner. .53 Overview of Adult Education Research. Chicago: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 1959. Burgess, P. "Reasons fbr Adult Participation in Group Educational Activities", Adult Education. 1971, 22, 3—29. Carp, Abraham, Richard Peterson, and Pamela.Roelfs. "Learning Interests and Experiences of Adult Americans," Berkeley, Calif.: Enucational Testing Service, 1972, available as ERIC Microfiche #ED 097 421. . "Adult Learning Interests and Ex riences," in Cross, K. Pafficia, John R. Valley, and associates {Eds ) Planning Non- Traditonal Programs. San Francisco: Jossey—BassgPublishers, 1974. Cawley, Richard W., Sheila A. Miller, and James N. Milligan. "Cognitive styles and the adult learner," Adult Education. V01. 26, No. 2, pp. 101-116, 1976. Chase, Frances A. "Educational Implications of Ch ing Knowledge." In Scobey, Mary Margaret and Graham, Grace (Eds. . To Nurture Humaneness: The ASCD 1970 Yearbook. washington, D.C.: Associaton Tbr Supervision andICurriculum Development, 1970, Chapter 12, pp . 93-108. Claiborn, w. L. "EXpectancy Effects in The Classroom: A Failure to Empdicate." Journal of Educational Psychology. 1969, 60, pp. 377- 383- Combs, Arthur W. (Efl.). Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming: ASCD 1962 Yearbook. washington, D.C.: Association fer Supervision and Curriculum Developnent , 1962. . The Professional Education of Teachers - A Perceptual View of Teacher Prgparation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Conn, L.; Edwards, 0.; Rosenthal, R. and Croione, D. "Perception of Emotion and Response to Teachers' EXpectancy by Elementary School Children.: Psychological Reports. 1968, 22, pp. 27—34. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan Company, ./v 1938. Dewey, John and Bently, Arthur F. Knowing and The Known. Boston: Beacon Press, 1949- 228 Dunkin, Michael J. and Biddle, Bruce J. The Study of Teachirg. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1974, pp. 128—1'55. Eisner, Elliot W. and Vallance, Elizabeth. Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974. Elashoff, J. D. and Snow, R.E. Ifiygmalion Reconsidered. Worthington, Chic: Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., 1971. Elder, James Newton, "Influence of Learners' Choice on the Effectiveness of Alternate Modes of Presentation of learning Nhterial", Unpublished Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1968. Evans, J. and Rosenthal, R. "Interpersonal Self-fulfilling Prophecies: Further Extrapotations from the Laboratory to the Classroom." Proceedings of The 77th Annual Convention of The American Psychological Association. 1969, 4, pp. 571-372. Feldman, R. and Prohaska, T. "The Student as Pygmalion: Effect of Student Expectation on the Teacher," Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 71:4, pp. 484—493. Festi er, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, I11.: Row, Pe rson, 195']. Finn, Jeremy D. "Expectations and The Educational Ewirorment." Review of Educational Research. Vol. 42, No. 3, 1972, pp. 387—410. Fleming, Elyse E. and Anttonen, Ralph G. "Teacher nEntrapectancy or W Fair lady." American Educational Research J our . Vol. 8, No. 2, March, 1971, PP. 241-252. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of The Oppressed. New York: Teabury Press, ‘/ 1970. Gephart, W. J. and Antonoplos, D. P. "The Effects of Expectancy and Other Research - Biasing Factors." Phi Delta Kappan. 50, No. 10, June, 1969, pp. 579—585. Good, T. "Student Achievement Ievel and Differential Opportunity for Eggsroom Response." Doctor of Dissertation, Indiana University, "Which Pupils Do Teachers Call On?" Elementary School Journal. Vol. 70, 1970, pp. 190—198. . "Teacher Expectations and Student Perce tions: A Decade of Research", Educational Leadership. February, 19 1, p. 415-422. Good, T. and Broghy, J. Looking in Classrooms. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 197 . . Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196D. 229 Haag, U. Psychological Foundations of Motives for Participation in Adult Education. Unpublished M.A. Thesis,*Uhiversity of British Columbia, 1;:6. Hayter, Jean "How Good is Lecture as a Teaching Method?", Nursing Outlook. Vol. 27, p. 274-77 April, 1979. Hayighurst, R. Human Development and Education. New York: Longmans, 1953. Houle, C. O. The Inquiring.Mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin v/’ Press, 196IT’ . The Design of Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss Publishers, 1975. "The Nature of Continuing Professional Education." In R. M. Smith (Ed.), Adult Iearning: Issues and Inovations. DeKalo: Program in Career Infbrmation, Northern Illinois University , 1976. . Continuing Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey—Boss Publishers, 1981. Huebner, Dwayne. "New Mode of Man's Relationship to Man." In Frazier, Alexander Ed.§. New Insights and T e Curriculum: 1963 ASCD Yearbook. washington, D.C.: Association fOr Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, 1965, Chapter 7, p. 144. Hunsaker, Hubert C. and Richard Pierce, Creating a Climate fOr Adult Learning. Chicagp, Adult Education Association, U.S.A., 1959. Hyman, Ronald T. Approaches In Curriculum. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeéHa11,_Inc.,’1973. Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New YOrk: Harper and Row, 1970. Isaac, Stephen and Michael, William B. HandboOk in Research and Evaluation. San Diego, Calif.: Robert R. Knapp, PubliSher, 1971. Jones, Russell A. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Socialnysychological, and Physiological Effects of Expectancies. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum ASsociates, PubliShers, 1977. Jose', J. and Cody, J. J. "Teacher-pupil Interaction as It Relates to Attempted Changes in Teacher EXpectancy of Academic Ability and Achievement." American Educational Research Journal. 1971, V01. 8, pp. 39—50. Kester, Scott W. and Letchworth, George A. "Communication of Teacher Expectations and Their Effects on Achievement and Attitudes of Secondary School Students." The Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 66, No. 2, October, 1972, pp. 51—55. Kidd, J. R. HOW’AdultS Learn, New York: Association Press, 1973. vf 230 Kidd, J. Robley. " How Adults Iearn--What's New." Canadian Journal of ‘/ University Continuing Education. Vol. IV, No. 1, Summer, 1917, pp. 27—30. Knowles, Malcolm S. Handbook of Adult Education In The United States. Chicago: Adult Education Association of The U.S.A. , 1960. . "PhilOSOphical Issues that Confront Adult Educators," Adult Education. Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 234-240, 1957. . The Modern Practice of Adult Education. New York: Association Press, 1970. . Self-Directed Learning. New York: Association Press, 1975. / . The Master Bibliography In Adult and Higher Education. Nova University, Center for Higher Education, Institute Staff Development, 1980. Kozma, Robert B., Iawrence W. Belle, and George W. Williams. Instructional Techniques in Higher Education. Inglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1978. Kreitlow, B. W. "Innovation in Organizing learning for Adults—-The New Technology," 1978. Iamm, Zvi. "The Status of Knowledge in The Radical Concept of Education." In Puepel, David E. and Belanger, Maurice. Curriculum and The Cultural Revolution. Berkley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1972. Iangerman, Philip D. , Ed. You Can Be A Successful Teacher of Adults. Washington, D.C.: National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Eiucation, 1974. Ievinson, D. The Seasons of a Man's Life., New York: Alfred A. Knapf, 1978. Luft, J. "On Nonverbal Interacton." Journal of Psychology. 1966, Vol. 63, pp. 261-268. Ludgren, U. Frame Factors and The Teachirg Process: A Contribution to Curriculum Theory and Theory in Teaching. Stockholm: Alnequist and Weksell, 1972. - McKean, Rodney Bryon. Adult Learners' Pedagogical Expectations about 2 Levels of Formality and Type of Learning Experience. East Iansing, MI: Michigan State University, Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.d. , 1977. McKinney, Lois, "Cultural Attunement of Programmed Instruction: Individualized-Group and Expository-Discovery Dimensions." (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University , 1973). 231 McIagan, Patricia A. Helping Others Learn: Designilg Programs for Adults. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Co., Inc. 1978. McLuhan, Marshall. "We Need a New Picture of Knowledge." In Frazier, Alexander (Ed.). New Insights and The Curriculum: 1963 ASCD Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Association for Su rvision and Cfiricflum DevelOpment, 1963, Chapter 3, pp. 57- 0. Miel, Alice. "Knowledge and The Curriculum." In Frezier, Alexander (Ed.) New Insights and The Curriculum: The 1963 ASCD Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1963, Chapter 4, pp. 71—104. Miller, Harry L. Teaching and Learning in Adult Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964. Newgarten, B. Personality in Middle and Late Life. New York: Atherton Press, 1964. Nie, Norman H. Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean C., Steinbrenner, Karin, and Bent, Dale H. Statistical Package for The Social Sciences. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Second Edition, 1975. Okes, Imogene, E. "Participation in Adult Education: Final Report, 1969.‘ National Center for Educational Statistics (DEW/DE), Washington, D.C., 1974. Peters, John M. and Boshier Roger. "Adult Needs, Interests and Motives." In Klevens, Chester (Eds. Materials and Methods In Continuing Education. New York: IClevens Publications, Inc. 1976, pp. 197-212. Peters, John M. and Associates; Building an Effective Adult Education Enterprise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1985. Pinar, William (Ed.). Curriculum Theorizing. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1975. Rappoaport, M. "The Other Half of the Expectancy Equation: Pygmalion." Journal of Educational Psychology. 1975, 67, pp. 531-536. Rist, Ray. "Student Social Class and Teacher EXpectations: The Self- Fulfilling Pr0phecy in Ghetto Education. Harvard Education Review. Vol. 40, No. 3, August, 1970, pp. 411-451. Rosenthal, R. Experimeter Effects in Behavorial Research. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, 1966. . "Enperical VS Decreed Validation of Clocks and Tests." American Education Research Journal. November, 1969, No. 4, pp. 689-691. . "Another View of Pygmalion." Contemporary Psychology. Vol. 15, No. 8, 1970, p. 524. 232 Rosenthal, Robert and dee, K. L. "The Effects of Experimental Bias on The Perf0rmance of The Albino Rat." Behavioral Science. 1963, 8. pp. 183—189. Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion In The Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1968. Rosenthal, R. and Iawson, R. A. "A longitudinal Study of The Effects of EXperimenter Bias on The Operant Learning of Laboratory Rats." Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1964, 2, pp. 61-72. Rubovits, P. C. and Maehr, M. L. "Pygmation Analyzed: Toward an Explanation of Rosenthal-Jacobson Findings." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1971, V01. 19, pp. 197-204. Shea, Brent Mack. "Schooling and Its Antecedents: substantive and Methodological Issues in the Status Attainment Process." Review of Educational Research. Vol. 46, No. 4, Fall, 1976, pp. 463-526. Snow, R. E. "Review of Pygmalion in the Classroom." Contemporary Psychology. April, 1969, 14, pp. 197-199. Stevens-Long, J. Adult Life Developmental Processes. Califbrnia: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1979. Thorndike, R. S. "Review of Pygmalion in The Classroom." American Educational Research Journal. November, 1968, V01. 5, pp. 7083711. Verner, Coolie. "Instructional Methods in Adult Education," Review of Educational Research. V01. 29, No. 3, pp. 262-268, June 1959. Verner, C. "Definition of Terms" in G. Jensen, A. A. Liveright, and W. Hallenbeck (Ed.) Adult Education, Outlines of an Emergency Field of University Study. washington, D.C.: Adult Education Association, 1964. ward, Ted. "Cognitive Processes and Learning." Comparative Education 5?; Review. February, 1973, V01. 17, N0. 1, pp. I;10. . Schooling As a Defective Approach to Education. East Lansing, MI: MichiganTtate University, 1973. . "Staley Fbundation Distinguished Scholar Lecture Series." Wilmore, Kentucky: Asbury Theological Seminary, February, 1974. Wiersma, William. Research Methods In Education. Itasca, I11.: F. E. PeacOCk Publishers, Inc., 1975. Wilson, Kathleen; "Expectations About learning EXperiences in N0nf0rma1 t/fi Education: Girl Scout Leaders in Hawaii", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978. 233 Zanna, M. Sheras, P., COOper, J. "Pygmalion and Galatea: The Interactive Effect of Teacher and Student FDCpectancies." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1975, V01. 11, pp. 279-287. Zintz Miles, "Education Across Cultures." Dubuque, IA., William C. Brown Bock Co., 1963. "Illllllll'llll