'Ii ‘I‘ ' "' “(‘4’ :4 4 “I:’4Q‘-‘}}}“““‘~‘ , ‘ 35:}!ng A, I; . , , .. III II “ . ‘ i“ I. {J :V .iu' ‘é‘i‘jwft: . FF‘ 'w - f. “i ‘i': t 1 f,- . 3} };4, , .‘°>" 4‘? _ I ..I Emmi"; $47": :I ’ 4 I «4' .1} , ."' 55:5; II.';':I.-;:..}‘} A, . t } 4 1;} yr? - '«--.'=‘”5""’;§II ..I.’}ifi , I I‘ 3‘4 “3'? ‘ 15"} 4 I I‘VIIUI 5723" MW - - ««=} «1: 55M : «I. z ‘ 3?} - . II‘II-I}I,,W. ‘ l I 4 16‘ 4 «N w... 2 ‘9: AwI-oon-M ‘. m . u ’ . ‘ I! '._. 0 , _ v—‘u—u .— ”-0- «q.-- {—0- . -.‘ ‘ “a 4—:4 . . . , . Laws... 4-2:?‘1‘. ~. 9 ‘1}:23 , \ vam- . ,,,.... I '4 .' W A. _ ‘ " “cu-m . . - 41:. ‘._, .'.‘ .‘r. .cov‘ ,. .- - $33...- «WW. ,4” _.-u .o‘ . . :zxzr . - ,_ . . .. I ‘fi"£‘""‘ . 4 - u 4 ~- 34521. .__:. . 5W .4 u.- Y'.‘ “- In- ”-1 “.1 ”1.1 no. m~ ‘ "4L? n.— ”'9'. 4-... .vv ,.. om. ' “2' O L . 11325 J; ”I “'1‘: ““4; ii, . ‘J‘ j“ 1‘? 2‘5; '13 2' I‘ ‘33:“. ““3635 11""; ‘1“ 3.3;: 1?: iii“- :41" ‘2! ‘II‘I"'I§"1““}}‘5-i“§ .M' .._“ C- v~v .. '~ Purpose Characteristics of 2.51 Characteristics = Purpose Learning Experience Management > Characteristics Management of 2.71 Management = Purpose Learning Experience The greatest agreement was with Relationships.Between Facilita- tor and Learners and Among Learners. followed by the Nature of Learners dimension. There was greater agreement with the Evaluation than the Purpose of Education dimension Respondents' agreement with Purpose of Education was equal to their agreement with Characteristics of Learning Experience. but greater than their agreement with Management of Learn- ing Experience. Based on the mean values. the andragogical dimensions were ranked as follows (from greatest to least agreement): (1) Relation- ships Between Facilitator and Learners and Among Learners. (2) Nature 62 of Learners. (3) Evaluation. (4) Purpose of Education and Characteris- tics of flue Learning Experience (tied). and (5) Management of Learning Experience. Waning MW Researgh_flue§119n_3: To what extent do the respondents agree/ disagree with the pedagogical dimensions of inservice education? The third research question concerned the extent to which the respondents agreed Characteristics Learning Experience ' Purpose of Education 2.812 Nature of Learners > Purpose Nature of Learners 3.247 Management > Nature of Learners Management of 3.488 Relationships > Management Learning Experience Evaluation 3.566 Evaluation = Management Relationships 3.590 Relationships = Evaluation 67 Based on the mean values. the pedagogical dimensions were ranked as follows (from greatest to least agreement): (1) Characteri s- tics of Learning Experience. (2) Purpose of Education. (3) Nature of Learners. (4) Management of Learning Experience The order of the two lowest-ranked dimensions was cl oudy because Evaluation was equal to both the Relationships and Management of Learning Experience dimen- sions. but Management of Learning Experiences was greater than the Relationships dimension W W thundenendentlauafles W: To what extent do the demographic variables of gender. age. school level. subject taught. degree. teaching experience. hours of participation in inservice programs. hours spent at conference meetings. and graduate credit hours devoted to the teachers' professional development relate to respondents' per- ceptions of the andragogical and pedagogical dimensions? W The results shown in Table 4.18 indicate that no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by gender. The mean scores of both groups fell within the central range of the scale In addition. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension by gender. The males' mean score fell within the central range of the scale whereas the females' mean score fell within flue agree range of flue scale 68 Table 4.18.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Male 46 2.68 .69 2.05 .150 2.57 .43 .930 .330 Female 134 2.86 .74 2.50 .51 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimen- sions by age (See Table 4.19.) Table 4.19.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Under 28 6 2.92 .80 .85 .494 2.53 .34 .345 .847 29-34 18 2.69 .76 2.53 .49 35-43 66 2.94 .73 2.56 .51 44-55 75 2.74 .67 2.48 .46 56 and over 15 2.73 .99 2.46 .62 The results shown in Table 4.20 indicate that no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by degree level. The M.S.. degree group had the highest observed agreement with this dimension Significant differences were found between group means by degree level concerning 69 flue andragogical Purpose of Education dimension The M.A. degree group agreed more strongly with this dimension than did flue ofluer groups Table 4.20.--ANOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by degree. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree N Mean S.D. F p Mean 8.0. F p M.A. 111 2.82 .75 .896 .467 2.41 .48 4.041 .004* M.S. 10 2.40 .39 2.43 .37 B.A. 33 2.87 .79 2.69 .51 8.5. 15 2.88 .48 2.58 .35 Other 9 2.86 .79 2.87 .18 *Significant at the .05 level. Significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by years of teaching experience. (See Table 4.21.) The group with 9 to 14 years of teaching experience agreed with this dimension more than did the other groups. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogi cal Purpose of Education dimension by years of teaching experience. The results in Table 4.22 indicate that no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs in the Lansing School District. All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale (2.71 to 2.98). Significant differences 70 were found between group means concerning the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs in the Lansing School District The group with 24 to 29 hours of inservice displayed greater agreement with this dimension than did the other groups. Table 4.21.--ANOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by years of teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p 3- 8 25 2.63 .51 3.705 .012* 2.48 .31 .16 .921 9-14 37 2.31 .78 2.55 .62 15-20 48 2.84 .77 2.48 .45 21 and over 68 2.67 .67 2.51 .50 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.22.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by hours of participation in inservice programs. Hours of Pedagogy Andragogy Partici- pation N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p 0-5 57 2.71 .60 .983 .429 2.57 .45 2.31 .045* 6-11 40 2.72 .77 2.50 .50 12-17 21 2.94 .67 2.47 .32 18-23 12 2.70 .61 2.75 .42 24-29 11 2.93 1.07 2.12 .48 30 and over 39 2.98 .86 2.47 .56 *Significant at the .05 level. 71 No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by subject area. (See Table 4.23.) The mean scores fell within the central range of the scale from 2.52 to 2.79. Likewise no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension by subject area. All mean scores fell within flue central range of the scale from 2.51 to 2.56. Table 4.23.--AN(NA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by subject area. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject Area N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Social science 80 2.79 .60 2.00 .16 2.56 .50 .11 .16 Math and science 18 2.52 .74 2.51 .43 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by number of graduate credits devoted to professional development. (See Table 4.24.) All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. from 2.79 to 2.83. Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue andragogical Purpose of Education 72 dimension by number of graduate credits devoted to professional devel- opment. The group who had taken five credit hours displayed greater agreement with this dimension than did the other groups Table 4.24.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy Andragogy Credit Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 135 2.79 .73 .195 .822 2.47 .49 1.31 .270 6-11 15 2.91 .46 2.56 .40 12 and over 30 2.83 .82 2.63 .51 Significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by hours spent at conference meetings (See Table 4.25.) The 30-35 hour group displayed greater disagreement with this dimension than did the other groups. No significant differences were found between groupumeans concerning the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension by hours spent at conference meetings. As shown in Table 4.26. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension by teaching leveL. The mean scores fell within the central range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension by teaching level. Table 4.25.--ANOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by hours spent at conference 73 meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours Spent N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 44 2.67 .70 2.31 .027* 2.54 .48 .780 .604 6-11 41 2.83 .75 2.49 .51 12-17 16 2.59 .77 2.36 .39 18-23 22 2.92 .60 2.68 .53 24-29 11 2.79 .69 2.42 .46 30-35 10 3.60 .90 2.40 .62 36-41 10 2.80 .67 2.56 .51 48 and over 16 2.81 .59 2.45 .38 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.26.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions by teaching level. Pedagogy Andragogy Teaching Level N Mean 5. D. F p Mean 5. D. F p Elementary 87 2.83 .75 .232 .793 2.47 .49 1.926 .148 Middle 40 2.83 .73 2.64 .37 Senior high 53 2.75 .69 2.47 .54 New Significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by gender. (See Table 4.27.) No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension by 74 gender. The mean scores of both groups fell within the agree range of the scale. Table 4.27.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogi cal Nature of Learners dimensions by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p Male 46 3.09 .50 5.44 .02* 2.35 .56 .042 .83 Female 134 3.30 .51 2.37 .49 *Significant at the .05 level. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by age. (See Table 4.28.) All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. from 3.09 to 3.23. Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical nature of Learners dimension by age All group means fell within flue agree range of the scale. from 2.22 to 2.41. As shown in Table 4.29. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by school level. All mean scores fell within thercentral range of the scale. from 3.17 to 3.31. Likewise. no significant dif- ferences were found between group means concerning the andragogical 75 Nature of Learners dimension by school level. All mean scores fell within flue agree range of flue scale from 2.32 to 2.47. Table 4.28.--ANOIIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean S.D. F p Mean 8.0. F p Under 28 6 3.20 .17 .68 .60 2.22 .40 .51 .72 29-34 18 3.10 .58 2.24 .39 35-43 66 3.23 .48 2.40 .55 44-55 75 3.09 .54 2.37 .47 56 and over 15 3.20 .53 2.35 .61 Table 4.29.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by school level. Pedagogy Andragogy School Level N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p Elementary 87 3.31 .53 1.27 .28 2.32 .48 1.55 .21 Middle 40 3.17 .45 2.32 .54 Senior high 53 3.20 .52 2.47 .51 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by degree level. (See Table 4.30.) All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. from 3.00 to 3.32. Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical 76 Nature of Learners dimension by degree level. The mean scores ranged from 1.92 to 2.53. Table 4.30.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by degree level. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p M.A. 111 3.24 .54 .86 .48 2.38 .55 2.05 .089 M.S. 10 3.00 .53 2.53 .35 B.A. 33 3.32 .39 2.35 .43 8.5. 15 3.16 .33 2.35 .32 Others 9 3.31 .72 1.92 .43 As shown in Table 4.31. significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by years of teaching experience. The group with 9 to 14 years of teaching experience displayed less agreement with this dimen- sion than did the other groups. No significant differences were found between groupumeans concerning the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension by years of teaching experience. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by subject area. (See Table 4.32.) All mean scores fell within the central range of flue scale Likewise no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension by 77 subject area. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the ‘scale. Table 4.31.--ANOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by years of teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 3- 8 35 3.14 .39 2.909 .036* 2.41 .40 1.804 .148 9-14 37 3.46 .52 2.47 .60 15-20 48 3.18 .54 2.23 .50 21 and over 68 3.21 .49 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.32.--MOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by subject area. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject Area N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p Social science 80 3.17 .50 .229 .63 2.38 .48 .29 .58 Math and science 18 3.11 .52 2.46 .70 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Natureuof Learners dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs in the Lansing School District. 78 (See Table 4.33.) However. significant differences were found between grouplmeans concerning the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs. Groups who had partici- pated 6-11 and 30 or more hours agreed more strongly with this dimen- sion than did the other groups. Table 4.33.--ANOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by hours of participation in inservice programs. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 57 3.19 .49 1.37 .235 2.48 .44 2.27 .049* 6-11 40 3.231 .48 2.19 .50 12-17 21 3.22 .44 2.44 .55 18-23 12 3.10 .50 2.47 .59 24-29 11 3.56 .81 2.39 .46 30 and over 39 3.323 .50 2.27 .52 *Significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 4.34. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by graduate credits devoted to professional development. All mean scores fell within flue central range of flue scale Likewise no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension by graduate credits devoted to professional development. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale 79 Table 4.34.--ANOJA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy Andragogy Credit Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 135 3.25 .53 .21 .81 2.38 .51 .40 .67 6-11 15 3.28 .47 2.33 .54 12 and over 30 3.19 .49 2.30 .45 Significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension by hours spent at conference meetings (See Table 4.35.) Groups who had spent 30 to 35 hours at conference meetings disagreed more strongly with this dimension than did the other groups. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension by hours spent at conference meetings W W No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by gender. (See Table 4.36.) All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between grouplmeans concerning the andragogical Characteris- tics of Learning Experience dimension by genden. All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. Table 4.35.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions by hours spent at conference meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours Spent N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 54 3.14 .49 2.14 .041* 2.30 .39 .89 .51 6-11 41 3027 .43 2034 058 12-17 16 3.20 .54 2.29 .74 18-23 22 3.44 .45 2.48 .36 24-29 11 3.21 .50 2.60 .49 30-35 10 3.68 .70 2.50 .63 36-41 10 3.22 .70 2.43 .68 48 and over 16 3.07 .44 2.27 .30 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.36.--ANOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender N Mean 5. D. F p Mean 5. D. F p Male 46 2.30 .41 2.08 .15 2.53 .38 .10 .74 Female 134 2.40 .45 2.51 .46 As shown in Table 4.37. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by age. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were 81 found between group means concerning the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by age. Table 4.37.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Under 28 6 2.50 .32 .275 .89 2.58 .09 .27 .89 29.34 18 2.32 .53 2056 053 35-43 66 2.36 .40 2.53 .43 44-54 75 2039 048 2047 047 55 and over 15 2.42 .33 2.54 .38 No significant differences were found between group means con- cerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimen- sion by teaching level. (See Table 4.38). All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by teaching level. Mean scores ranged from 2.47 to 2.56. As shown in Table 4.39. significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by degree level. The MS. degree group agreedumore with this dimension than did the other groups. Significant differences were also found between group means concerning the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by degree 82 level. The Scheffe procedure indicated that the M.S. degree group was significantly different from the 8.5. degree group in terms of agreement with this dimension. Table 4.38.--AN(NA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by school level. Pedagogy Andragogy School Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Elementary 87 2.40 .49 .204 .81 2.47 .49 .74 .47 Middle 40 2.37 .38 2.53 .34 Senior high 53 2.35 .39 2.56 .42 Table 4.39.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by degree level. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p M.A. 111 2.34 .38 2.31 .05* 2.42 .47 3.23 .01* M.S. 10 2.18 .65 2.43 .26 B.A. 33 2.42 .48 2.71 .36 8.5. 15 . 2.45 .40 2.50 .43 Other 19 2.73 .63 2.75 .25 *Significant at the .05 level. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience 83 dimension by years of teaching experience (See Table 4.40.) All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. from 2.30 to 2.44. Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by years of teaching experience. The mean scores of the groups with 3-8 and 9-14 years of experience fell within the agree range of the scale. whereas the other groups' mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. Table 4.40.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogi cal Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by years of teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 3- 8 25 2.39 .39 .88 .45 2.50 .31 .10 .95 9-14 37 2.35 .41 2.48 .62 15-20 48 2.30 .45 2.52 .45 21 and over 68 2.44 .46 2.53 .37 As shown in Table 4.41. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by subject taught All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. In addition. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by subject taught. All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. Table 4.41.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by subject taught. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Social science 80 2.34 .41 .37 .54 2.56 .38 .19 .65 Math and science 18 2.41 .49 2.51 .36 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs (See Table 4.42.) The mean scores of groups with 0-5. 6-11. 12-17. 24-29. and 30 and over hours fell within the agree range of the scale Significant differences were found between group means concerning flue andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension and hours of partici- pation in inservice programs The group with 24-29 hours agreed with this dimension more than did the other groups The Scheffe procedure indicated that flue group with 24-29 hours of participation in inservice programs was significantly different from groups with 0-5. 6-11. and 30 and over hours of participation 85 Table 4.42.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learni ng Experience dimensions by hours of participation in inservice programs. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p 0- 5 57 2.35 .45 1.86 .10 2.57 .41 3.56 .004* 6-11 40 2.33 .50 2.54 .39 12-17 21 2.11 .30 2.57 .38 18-23 12 2.56 .33 2.44 .40 24-29 11 2.47 .33 2.00 .52 30 and over 39 2.48 .45 2.54 .47 ''Significant at flue .05 level. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by graduate credits devoted to professional development. (See Table 4.43.) All of the mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by graduate credits devoted to professional development. The mean scores of groups with 6-11 and over 12 hours fell within the central range of the scale. As shown in Table 4.44. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by hours spent at conference meetings. The majority of means tended to fall in the agree category. Signifi- cant differences were found between, group means concerning the 86 andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension by hours spent at conference meetings Groups who had spent 30-35 hours at conference meetings agreed with this dimension more than did the other groups. Table 4.43.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy Andragogy Credit Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p O- 5 135 2.39 .44 .20 .81 2.48 .45 1.46 .23 6'11 15 2038 044 2058 .42 12 and over 30 2.33 .42 2.62 .38 Table 4.44.--PN(NA results for pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions by hours spent at conference meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours Spent N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 54 2.31 .05 1.14 .33 2.59 .38 2.47 .01* 6-11 41 2.44 .07 2.41 .46 12-17 16 2.31 .12 2.46 .40 18-23 22 2.38 .08 2.77 .44 24-29 11 2.43 .17 2.59 .39 30-35 10 2.54 .13 2.31 .75 36-41 10 2.14 .19 2.36 .40 48 and over 16 2.50 .04 2.37 .29 *Significant at the .05 level. 87 Managementmm W Significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by gender. (See Table 4.45.) Females agreed with this dimension more fluan did males No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by gender. All mean scores fell within flue central range of the scale Table 4.45.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender . N Mean S. D. F p Mean 5. D. F p Male 46 3.31 .46 7.81 .005* 2.59 .34 7.37 .07 Female 138 2.53 .47 2.75 .36 *Significant at flue .05 level. No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by age (See Table 4.46.) The mean scores for the 35-43 and 44-55 age groups fell in the disagree range. whereas the other groups' mean scores fell within the central range of the scale Likewise. no sig- nificant differences were found between group means concerning the 88 andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by age All mean scores fell within flue central range of flue scale Table 4.46.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Under 28 6 3.45 .43 .861 .48 3.00 .29 1.73 .14 29-34 18 3.31 .34 2.65 .56 35-43 66 3.51 .46 2.76 .35 44-55 75 3.51 .50 2.66 .31 56 and over 15 3.38 .53 2.67 .33 No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by school level. (See Table 4.47.) The perceptions of elementary school teachers fell in flue disagree range whereas flue ofluer groups' means tended to fall within the central range of the scale No significant differences were found between group means' concerning the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by school level. All mean scores fell within flue central range of flue scale. As shown in Table 4.48. no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by degree level. The group means for 8.5. and other degree holders fell in the disagree range. whereas the other groups' means fell within the central range of the scale Likewise. no 89 significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by degree level. All of the mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. Table 4.47.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by school level. Pedagogy Andragogy School Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Elementary 87 3.52 2.74 .83 .42 2.74 .39 2.72 .06 Middle 40 2.43 2.59 2.59 .37 Senior high 53 2.43 2.00 2.75 .27 Table 4.48.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by degree level. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p M.A. 111 3.48 .48 1.74 .14 2.69 .39 1.30 .26 M.S. 10 3.27 .50 2.57 .21 B.A. 33 3.37 .47 2.82 .27 8.5. 15 3.65 .30 2.67 .32 Others 9 3.66 .56 2.77 .39 No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by teaching experience. (See Table 4.49.) The means of the groups 90 with 9-14 and 15-20 years of experience fell in the disagree range. whereas the other groups' means fell within the central range of the scale In addition. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by teaching experience. All mean scores fell within flue central range of flue scale Table 4.49.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p 3- 8 25 3.51 .35 .81 .48 2.66 .35 .88 .45 9-14 37 3.57 .52 2.77 .43 15-20 48 3.41 .50 2.74 .34 21 and over 68 3.45 .47 2.67 .34 Table 4.50 shows that no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by subject taught All mean scores fell within the central range of flue scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by subject taught. All mean scores fell within flue central range of flue scale 91 Table 4.50.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by subject taught. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5. D. F p Social science 80 3.43 .46 .31 .57 2.71 .32 1.07 .30 Math and science 18 3.36 .44 2.61 .40 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs. (See Table 4.51.) The mean score for the group with 24 hours and over fell in disagree range. whereas the other groups' means fell within the central range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs All mean scores fell within the central range of the scale. from 2.60 to 2.93. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by graduate credit hours devoted to professional development. (See Table 4.52.) The mean scores ranged from 3.47 to 3.59. Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by graduate 92 credit hours devoted to professional development. The mean scores tended to fall within the central range of the scale. from 2.68 to 2.80. Table 4.51.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by hours of participa- tion in inservice programs. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p O- 5 52 3.49 .43 .61 .68 2.73 .36 1.63 .15 6-11 40 3.45 .41 2.60 .29 12-17 21 3.37 .42 2.76 .35 18-23 12 3.48 .42 2.67 .45 24-29 11 3065 062 2093 032 30 and over 39 3.52 .55 2.72 .40 Table 4.52.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy Andragogy Credit Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 135 3.47 .46 .40 .66 2.68 .36 1.24 .29 6-11 15 3.59 .53 2.80 .39 12 and over 30 3.48 .43 2.77 .33 93 As shown in Table 4.53. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by hours spent at conference meetings The means of groups with 6-11. 12-17. 30-35. and 36-41 hours spent at conference meetings fell in the disagree range. whereas other groups' means fell within flue central range of flue scale Mean scores ranged from 3.37 to 3.78. In addition. significant differences were found between group means concerning flue andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension by hours spent at conference meetings The group wiflu 12-17 hours spent at conference meetings agreed with this dimension more than did the other groups. The Scheffe procedure indicated that no two groups were significantly different. Table 4.53.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions by hours spent at conference meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours Spent N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 54 3.40 .44 1.00 .43 2.67 .32 2.08 .04* 6-11 41 3.51 .50 2.71 .34 12-17 16 3.52 .52 2.48 .51 18-23 22 3.51 .38 2.88 .24 24-29 11 3.37 .42 2.76 .42 30-35 10 3.78 .65 2.85 .32 36-41 10 3.55 .25 2.80 .38 48 and over 16 3.49 .46 2.66 .34 *Significant at flue .05 level. 94 Emulation No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Evaluation dimension by gender. (See Table 4.54.) All mean scores fell within the disagree range of the scale Also. no significant differences were found between group means con- cerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by gender. All mean scores fell within flue agree range of flue scale Table 4.54.--AN(NA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Male 46 3.63 .06 .73 .39 2.44 .46 .06 .80 Female 134 3.54 .64 2.45 .43 As shown in Table 4.55. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Evaluation dimension by age The 29-34. 35-43. 44-55. and over 56 age groups' means fell in the disagree range. whereas the other groups' means fell in the central range of the scale. Significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by age. Teach- ers in the 29-34. 35-43. and 44-55 age groups displayed the highest agreement with this dimension No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Evaluation dimension by school level. (See 95 Table 4.56.) All mean scores fell within the disagree range of the scale Likewise no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by school level. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. Table 4.55.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Under 28 6 3.16 .45 .71 .58 2.75 .38 -3.22 .01* 29-34 18 3.51 .73 2.44 .51 35-43 66 3.60 .57 2.49 .44 44-55 75 3.59 .72 2.34 .41 56 and over 15 3.51 .56 2.70 .38 *Significant at the .05 level. Table 4.56.--)'NOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by school level. Pedagogy Andragogy School Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Elementary 87 3.58 .72 .23 .78 2.42 .44 .33 .71 Middle 40 3.60 .60 2.46 .39 Senior high 53 3.51 .55 2.49 .47 Table 4.57 shows that no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Evaluation dimension by degree level. The means of the groups with M.A. and B.A. degrees fell in the disagree range. whereas ofluer groups' means fell in the central range of flue scale In addition. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by Means for the M.A.. M.S.. and 8.5. degree level. groups fell within the agree range. whereas the other groups' means fell within the cen- tral range of the scale Table 4.57.--PNOVA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by degree level. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p M.A. 111 3.62 .70 1.04 .38 2.44 .45 1.55 .18 M.S. 10 3.33 .60 2.25 .40 B.Au 33 3.53 .53 2.56 .39 8.5. 15 3.35 .49 2.30 .38 Others 9 3.44 .62 2.52 .55 No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Evaluation dimension by years of teaching experience (See Table 4.58.) Means of the groups with 9-14 and over 21 years of experience fell within the disagree range; other groups' means fell within the central range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Evaluation dimension by years of teaching experience All mean scores fell within flue agree range of flue scale 97 Table 4.58.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by years of teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 3-8 25 3.45 .64 2.38 .07 2.39 .38 .34 .79 9-14 37 3.81 .60 2.48 .42 15-20 48 3.47 .59 2.47 .54 21 and over 68 3.56 .68 2.43 .40 As shown in Table 4.59. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Evaluation dimension by subject taught The mean for flue social science teacher group fell in the disagree range. whereas theumean for theumath and science group fell within the central range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by subject taught. The mean of the math and science group fell within the agree range; the social science group mean fell within the central range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Evaluation dimension by hours of participation in inservice programs in the Lansing School District. (See Table 4.60.) The means of the groups with 0-5. 6-11. 18-23. 24- 29. and over 30 hours fell in the disagree range; the mean of the group with 12-17 hours fell within the central range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the 98 andragogical Evaluation dimension by hours of participation in inserv- ice programs. The means of groups with 0-5. 6-11. 12-17. and over 30 hours of participation fell within the agree range;umeans.of groups with 6-11. 18-23. and 24-29 hours of participation fell within the central range of the scale. Table 4.59.--AN(NA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by subject taught. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Social science 80 3.54 .58 .28 .59 2.52 .43 1.67 .19 Math and science 18 2.37 .43 3.46 .45 Table 4.60.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by hours of participation in inservice programs. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 57 3.56 .57 .70 .61 3.56 .57 .70 .61 6-11 40 3.53 .52 3.53 .52 12-17 21 3.38 .57 3.38 .57 18-23 12 3.52 .56 3.52 .55 24-29 11 3.66 1.02 3.66 1.02 30 and over 39 3.69 .80 3.69 .80 99 Table 4.61 shows that no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Evaluation dimension by graduate credits devoted to professional development All mean scores fell within flue disagree range of flue scale Likewise no significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by graduate credits devoted to professional development The means of groups with 0-5 and 6-11 credits fell within the agree range. whereas other groups' means fell within the central range of the scale Table 4.61.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy * Andragogy Credit ' Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p O- 5 135 3.55 .65 .08 .92 2.43 .41 1.43 .24 6-11 15 3.55 .79 2.38 .48 12 and over 30 3.61 .55 2.57 .51 No significant differences were found between group means con- cerning flue pedagogical Evaluation dimension by hours spent at confer- ence meetings. (See Table 4.62.) The means of groups with 0-5. 6-11. 12-17. 18-23. and 30-35 hours at conference meetings fell within the disagree range; the other groups' means fell within the central range of the scale No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Evaluation dimension by hours spent 100 at conference meeti rugs. The means of groups with 0-5. 6-11. 12-17. 24- 29. 36-41. and over 48 hours at conference meetings fell within the agree range; other groups' mean scores fell within the central range of flue scale Table 4.62.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions by hours spent at conference meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 54 3.54 .65 1.26 .27 2.46 .48 .49 .84 6-11 41 3.62 .55 2.42 .44 12-17 16 3.64 .84 2.37 .53 18-23 22 3.66 .53 2.56 .37 24-29 11 3.21 .70 2.40 .45 30-35 10 3.90 .93 2.55 .36 36-41 10 3.40 .53 2.47 .39 48 and over 16 3.39 .57 2.35 .39 W W Significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by gender. (See Table 4.63.) Mal es displayed greater agreement with this dimension fluan did females The mean score for males was 3.46. whereas flue mean score for females was 3.63. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by gender. All of the mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. 101 Table 4.63.--ANOJA results for pedagogical and andragogical Relation- ships dimensions by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p Male 46 3.46 .54 3.71 .05* 2.36 .58 .01 .89 Female 134 3.63 .47 2.35 .48 *Significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 4.64. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by age. The means of the 29-34. 35-43. 44-45. and over 56 age groups fell in the disagree range whereas flue ofluer groups' means fell within the central range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by age The mean scores for the under 28. 29-34. 35-43. and 44-55 age groups fell in the agree range; the means for the over 56 age group fell within the central range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by school level. (See Table 4.65.) All mean scores fell within the disagree range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between groupumeans concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by school level. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. 102 Table 4.64.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Relation- ships dimensions by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p Under 28 6 3.33 .39 .60 .66 2.41 .46 1.12 .34 29-34 18 3.53 .48 2.29 .62 35-43 66 3.61 .51 2.28 .52 44-55 75 3.58 .48 2.38 .44 56 and over 15 3.68 .58 2.56 .02 Table 4.65.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Rel ation- ships dimensions by school level. Pedagogy Andragogy School Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Elementary 87 3.64 .45 1.09 .33 2.32 .49 .59 .55 Middle 40 3.58 .57 2.33 .57 Senior high 53 3.51 .50 2.41 .49 Significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by degree level. (See Table 4.66.) Means of the M.S. and 8.5. degree groups fell in the agree range. whereas the other groups'umeans fell in the disagree range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue andragogical Relationships dimension by degree 103 level. Means of the M.A.. M.S.. 8.1).. and 8.5. degree groups fell in the agree range of flue scale; means of flue remaining degree group fell within flue central range of the scale Table 4.66.--I'NOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Relation- ships dimensions by degree level. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree Level N Mean 5. D. F p Mean 5. D. F p M.A. 111 3.58 .50 2.44 .04* 2.34 .49 .57 .68 M. S. 10 3.28 .42 2.47 .34 8. A. 33 3.73 .49 2.28 .64 8. S. 15 3.38 .38 2.36 .39 Other 9 3.68 .53 2.52 .56 *Significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 4.67. no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Relationships dimension by years of teaching experience The means of groups with 9-14. 15-20. and over 21 years of teaching experience fell in the disagree range; the mean of the group with 3-8 years of teaching experience fell within flue central range of flue scale No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by years of teaching experience All of the mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale 104 Table 4.67.--PNOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Relation- ships dimensions by years of teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 3- 8 25 3.40 .57 1.53 .20 2.40 .45 2.09 .10 9-14 37 3.60 .48 2.16 .57 15-20 48 3.65 .48 2.41 .46 21 and over 68 3.60 .48 2.39 .50 Table 4.68 shows that no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by subject taught. All mean scores fell within the disagree range of the scale Likewise. no significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by sub- ject taught. All mean scores fell within the agree range of the scale. Table 4.68.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Relation- ships dimensions by subject taught. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Social science 80 3.53 .54 .000 .97 2.40 .54 .65 .42 Math and science 18 3.53 .42 2.29 .52 105 No significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Relationships dimension by participation in inservice programs (See Table 4.69.) Means of groups with 0-5. 6-11. 18-23. 24-29. and over 30 hours of participation in inservice programs fell in the disagree range; the mean of the group with 12-17 hours of participation fell in the central range of the scale Significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by hours of participation in inservice pro- grams. Groups with 0-5. 6-11. 12-17. 24-29. and over 30 hours of participation in inservice programs were in greater agreement wiflu this dimension than were the groups with 18-23 hours of participation Table 4.69.-ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Relation- ships dimensions by hours of participation in inservice programs. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 57 3.54 .47 1.34 .24 2.47 .47 2.51 .03* 6-11 40 3.61 .49 2.20 .59 12-17 21 3.40 .43 2.34 .42 18-23 12 3.61 .42 2.64 .37 24-29 11 3.60 .26 2.22 .54 30 and over 39 3.72 .61 2.28 .49 ''Significant at flue .05 level. As shown in Table 4.70. no significant differences were found between group means concerning flue pedagogical Relationships dimension by graduate credit hours devoted to professional development. Means of 106 the groups with 0-5 and over 12 credit hours fell in the disagree range; the mean of the group with 6-11 credit hours fell within the central range of the scale. No significant relationships were found between group means concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by graduate credit hours devoted to professional development. All mean scores fell within flue agree range of the scale. Table 4.70.--ANOIA results for pedagogical and andragogical Rel ation- ships dimensions by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy Andragogy Credit Hours N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p O- S 135 3.59 .49 .47 .62 2.37 .49 .44 .63 6-11 15 3.48 .50 2.31 .66 12 and over 30 3.63 .52 2.28 .48 No significant differences were found between group means concerning the pedagogical Relationships dimension by hours spent at conference meetings. (See Table 4.71.) Means of groups with 0-5. 6- 11. 12-17, 18-23. 24-29.130-35. and 36-41 hours spent at conference meetings fell in the disagree range; the mean of the group with 48 or more hours at conference meetings fell within the central range of the scale. No significant differences were found between group means concerning the andragogical Relationships dimension by hours spent at conference meetings. Means of the groups with 0-5. 6-11. 12-17. 24-29. 30-35. 38-41. and over 48 hours spent at conference meetings fell in 107 the agree range; the mean of the group with 18-23 hours spent at conference meetings fell within the central range of the scale. Table 4.71.--ANOJA results for pedagogical and andragogical Rel ation- ships dimensions by hours spent at conference meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p O- S 54 3.61 .46 .50 .83 2.23 .60 1.06 .38 6-11 41 3.65 .51 2.35 .48 12-17 16 3.57 .43 2.39 .53 18-23 22 3.60 .40 2.54 .37 24-29 11 3.54 .76 2.38 .39 30-35 10 3.52 .52 2.45 .51 36-41 10 3.58 .43 2.50 .40 48 and over 10 3.40 .58 2.29 .45 WWW Wm We: WM: To what extent do the demographic variables of gender. age. school level. subject taught. degree. teaching experience. hours of participation in inservice programs. hours spent at conference meetings. and graduate credit hours devoted to the teachers' professional development relate to respondents' per- ceptions of the total andragogical method score and the total pedagogical method score? Significant differences were found in mean total pedagogical method scores by gender. (See Table 4.72.) Males were significantly more in agreement with the total pedagogical method than were females. The mean total score for males was 18.49. whereas the mean total score for females was 18.27. No significant differences were found between 108 mean total andragogical scores by gender. The mean total score for males was 14.85; the mean total score for fenales was 17.94. Table 4.72.--ANOVA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by gender. Pedagogy Andragogy Gender N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p Male 46 18.48 2.45 3.73 .05* 14.85 1.59 .10 .74 Female 134 18.27 2.34 17.94 1.55 *Significant at the .05 level. No significant differences were found inlnean total pedagogical method scores by age. (See Table 4.73.) The mean total scores ranged from 18.44 for individuals between 29 and 34 years of age to 19.25 for individuals between 35 and 43 years of age. No significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by age. The mean total scores ranged from 14.72 for individuals between 29 and 34 and those between 44 and 55 years of age to 15.50 for individuals under 28 years old. No significant differences were found inlnean total pedagogical method scores by school level. (See Table 4.74.) The mean total scores ranged from 18.77 for the senior high school group to 19.29 for flue elementary school group. Likewise. no significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by school level. The 109 mean total scores ranged from 15.17 for the senior high school group to 14.77 for the elementary school group. Table 4.73.--ANOIA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by age. Pedagogy Andragogy Age N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p Under 28 6 18.57 2.06 .49 .74 15.50 .91 .89 .46 29-34 18 18.44 2.37 14.72 2.07 35-43 66 19.25 2.18 15.05 1.53 44-55 75 19.14 2.59 14.72 1.48 56 and over 15 18.93 2.44 15.29 1.59 Table 4.74.--ANOVA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by school level. Pedagogy Andragogy School Level N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p Elenentary 87 19.29 2.62 .81 .44 14.72 1.21 1.05 .34 Middle 40 18.99 2.00 14.89 1.43 Senior high 53 18.77 2.57 15.17 1.39 No significant differences were found inlnean total pedagogical method scores by degree level. (See Table 4.75.) The mean total scores ranged from 17.46 to 19.70. No significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by degree level. The mean total scores ranged from 14.69 to 15.38. 110 Table 4.75.--ANOIA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by degree level. Pedagogy Andragogy Degree Level N Mean 5.0. F p Mean S.D. F p M.A. 111 19.11 2.36 1.36 .24 14.72 1.63 1.64 .16 M.S. 10 17.46 2.83 14.69 .55 B.A. 33 19.26 2.52 15.43 1.54 8.8. 15 18.89 1.60 14.78 1.24 Other 9 19.70 2.77 15.38 1.24 As shown in Table 4.76. no significant differences were found in mean total pedagogical method scores by years of teaching experi- ence. The mean total scores ranged from 18.52 for the group with 3 to 8 years of experience to 19.91 for the group with 15 to 20 years of experience. No significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by years of teaching experience. The mean total scores ranged from 14.85 to 14.95. No significant differences were found inlnean total pedagogical method scores by subject taught. (See Table 4.77.) The mean total scores ranged from 18.41 for the math and science group to 18.82 for flue social science group. Likewise. no significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by subject taught. The mean total scores ranged from 14.78 for the math and science group to 15.15 for the social science group. 111 Table 4.76.--AN(NA results for mean total pedagogical mefluod scores and mean total andragogical method scores by years of teaching experience. Pedagogy Andragogy Years of Experience N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p 3- 8 25 18.52 2.19 2.18 .09 14.85 1.26 .03 .99 15-20 48 18.88 2.40 14.88 1.65 21 and over 68 18.94 2.34 14.94 1.31 Table 4.77.--ANOIA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by subject taught. Pedagogy Andragogy Subject , N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p Social science 80 18.82 2.23 .51 .47 15.15 1.35 .99 .32 Math and science 18 18.41 2.07 14.78 1.61 Table 4.78 shows that no significant differences were found in mean total pedagogical method scores by hours of participation in inservice programs in the Lansing School District. Theimean total scores ranged from 18.51 for the group with 12 to 17 hours of participation in inservice programs to 19.89 for the group with 24 to 29 hours of participation. Significant differences were found in mean 112 total andragogical method scores by hours of participation in inservice programs. Groups with 6 to 11 and over 24 hours of participation were significantly more in agreement with the andragogical mefluod than were flue other groups. Table 4.78.--ANOIA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by hours of partici- pation in inservice programs. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean 5.0. F p Mean 5.0. F p 0- 5 57 18.85 2.16 1.24 .29 15.37 1.40 2.42 .03* 6-11 40 18.88 2.13 14.51 1.40 12-17 21 18.51 2.00 15.07 1.43 18-23 12 19.00 1.82 15.51 1.62 24-29 11 18.89 3.54 14.26 1.67 30 and over 39 19.73 2.84 14.65 1.87 *Significant at the .05 level. No significant differences were found inlnean total pedagogical method scores by graduate credit hours devoted to professional development. (See Table 4.79.) The mean total scores ranged from 19.07 to 19.21. Likewise. no significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by graduate credit hours devoted to professional development. The mean total scores ranged from 14w85 to 15.19. 113 Table 4.79.--ANOVA results for mean total pedagogical method scores and mean total andragogical method scores by graduate credit hours. Graduate Pedagogy Andragogy Credit Hours N Mean S.D. F p Mean 5.0. F p 6-11 15 19.21 2.45 14.48 1.92 12 and over 30 19.09 2.32 15.19 1.58 As shown in Table 4.80. no significant differences were found in mean total pedagogical method scores by hours spent at conference meetings. llue mean total scores ranged from 18.58 for the group with 24 to 29 hours spent at conference meetings to 21.02 for flue group with 36-41 hours spent at conference meetings. Significant differences were found in mean total andragogical method scores by hours spent at con— ference meetings. Groups with 12-17 hours spent at conference meetings were significantly more in agreement with the andragogical method than were the other groups. W W: Are respondents more in agreement with andra- gogical dimensions or pedagogical dimensions? The research hypotheses were tested to determine if significant differences existed between respondents' perceptions of the pedagogical and the andragogical dimensions. Table 4.m.-ANOIA results for mean total pedagogical method scores 114 and mean total andragogical method scores by hours spent at conference meetings. Pedagogy Andragogy Hours N Mean S.D. F p Mean S.D. F p 0- 5 44 18.70 2.07 1.54 .13 14.82 1.66 2.08 .04* 6-11 41 19.35 2.29 14.75 1.52 ~ 12-17 16 18.85 2.78 14.37 1.93 18-23 22 19.53 2.11 15.98 1.21 24-29 11 18.58 2.79 15.15 1.48 30-35 10 21.02 2.37 15.07 1.48 36-41 10 18.69 2.50 15.14 1.39 48 and over 16 18.67 2.27 14.43 1.12 *Significant at flue .05 level. There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement with flue pedagogical and flue andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions shown in Table 4.81. Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected at the alpha .. .05 level. As respondents displayed significantly greater agreement with the andragogical than with the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension. The mean agreement score for the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension was 2.51 (1 = high agreement; 5 - high disagreement). Education dimension was 2.81. whereas flue mean score for flue pedagogical Purpose of 115 Table 4.81.--T%test results comparing the pedagogical and andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions. Variable N Mean S. D. t-Val ue p Pedagogy 7% 2.81 .73 5.29 .000* Andragogy 180 2.51 .49 i*Significant at flue .05 level. uypgtne§1542: There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement with flue pedagogical and flue andragogical Nature of the Learner dimensions. Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected. Respondents displayed significantly greater agreement with the andragogical than with the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension. As shown in Table 4.82. the mean score for the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension was 3.24. whereas the mean score for the andragogical Nature of Learners dimen- sion was 2.36. Table 4.82.--T>test results comparing the pedagogical and andragogical Nature of Learners dimensions. V ari abl e N Mean 8. D. t-V a1 ue p Pedagogy 180 3.24 .73 16.79 .000” Andragogy 180 2.36 .49 *Significant at the .05 level. 116 W: There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement with flue pedagogical and flue andragogi- cal Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions. Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected. The respondents were in significantly greater agreement with the pedagogical than with the andragogical Cluaracteristics of Learning Experience dimension. Table 4.83 shows that the mean score for the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension was 2.38. whereas the mean score for the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension was 2.51. Table 4.8B.--Tbtest results comparing the pedagogical and andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions. Variable N Mean 5. D. t-V a1 ue p Pedagogy 180 2.3 8 .44 , -3. 13 . 002* Andragogy 180 2.51 .44 *Significant at the .05 level. W: There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement with the pedagogical and flue andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions Null Hypothesis 4 was rejected. The respondents displayed significantly greater agreement with the andragogical than with the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension. The mean score for the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension was 2.71. whereas the mean score for the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension was 3.48. (See Table 4.84.) 117 Table 4.84.--T-test results comparing flue pedagogical and andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimensions. Variable N Mean 5. D. t-Val ue p Pedagogy 180 3.48 .46 17.32 .000* Andragogy 1a) 2.71 .36 *Significant at the .05 level. W: There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement wiflu flue pedagogical and flue andragogical Evaluation dimensions. Null Hypothesis 5 was rejected. Respondents were in significantly greater agreement with the andragogical than with the pedagogical Evaluation dimension. The mean score for the andragogical Evaluation dimension was 2.45; the mean score for the pedagogical Evaluation dimension was 3.56. (See Table 4.85.) Table 4.85.--T-test results canparing flue pedagogical and andragogical Evaluation dimensions. V ari abl e N Mean S. D. t-V a1 ue p Pedagogy 180 3 . 56 . 65 19. 37 . 000* Andragogy 180 2.45 .03 *Significant at the .05 level. 118 WES—1.5.5.3 There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement with flue pedagogical and flue andragogical Relationships Between Facilitator and Learners and Among Learners dimensions. Null Hypothesis 6 was rejected. The respondents were in sig- nificantly greater agreement with flue andragogical fluan with flue peda- gogical Relationships dimension. llue mean score for flue andragogical Relationships dimension was 2.35; the mean score for the pedagogical Relationships dimension was 3.59. (See Table 4.86.) Table 4.86.--T¥test results comparing the pedagogical and andragogical Relationships dimensions. Variable N Mean 5. D. t-Val ue p Pedagogy 180 3.59 .49 21.31 .000* Andragogy 180 2.35 .51 *Significant at the .05 level. W: Are respondents more in agreement with the andragogical method in total or with the pedagogical method in total? W: There will be no significant difference in respond- ents' degree of agreement with flue pedagogical and the andragogical methods. as measured by total scores. Null Hypothesis 7 was rejected. The total mean score for the andragogical method was 14.92. whereas the total mean score for the pedagogical method was 19.08. Respondents were in significantly greater agreement with the andragogical method than with the pedagogical method. (See Table 4.87.) 119 Table 4.87.--T¥test results comparing the total scores of the pedagogi- cal and andragogical dimensions. Variable N Mean S.D. trValue p Total pedagogy 180 19.88 2.39 2.65 .000* Total andragogy 180 14.92 1.56 *Significant at the .05 level. CHAPTER V SJMMARY. MAJOR FINDImS. CWCLUSIWS. AND RECOMMENDATIWS Sum The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the per- ceptions of teachers regarding flue andragogical and pedagogical compo- nents of inservice education programs. Specifically. the study was designed to answer flue following research questions: 1. To what extent do the respondents agree/disagree with flue andragogical dimensions of inservice education? 2. With what andragogical dimension do respondents agree the most? 3. To what extent do the respondents agree/disagree with the pedagogical dimensions of inservice education? 4. With what pedagogical dimension do respondents agree the most? 5. To what extent do the demographic variables of gender. age. school level. subject taught. degree. teaching experience. hours of participation in inservice programs. hours spent at conference meet- ings. and graduate credit hours devoted to flue teachers' professional development rel ate to respondents' perceptions of the andragogical and pedagogical dimensions? 120 121 6. To what extent do the demographic variables of gender. age. school level. subject taught. degree. teaching experience. hours of participation in inservice programs. hours spent at conference meet- ings. and graduate credit hours devoted to flue teachers' professional development relate to respondents' perceptions of the total andragogi- cal method score and flue total pedagogical method score? 7. Are respondents more in agreement with andragogical dimensions or pedagogical dimensions? 8. Are respondents more in agreement with the andragogi cal method in total or with flue pedagogical mefluod in total? Wampum The target population comprised teachers in the Lansing School District llue sample consisted of 1&1 elementary. middle school. and senior high school teachers Selected liaisons distributed question- nai res to colleagues to obtain a representative sample of teachers in the Lansing School District. Methodojm Percentages were used to examine respondents' agreement and disagreement with pedagogical and andragogical statements under six educational dimensions and to describe the distribution of respondents according to flue demographic variables Means and standard deviations were employed to analyze respondents' perceptions concerning the pedagogical and andragogical dimensions. 122 Analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences existed between group means for the pedagogical and andragogical dimensions The Scheffe procedure was used to determine which group means were significantly different from the others In addition. t-tests were used to determine if significant differences existed between the mean scores on the pedagogical and andragogical dimensions. WW 0f flue 180 subjects who participated in this study. 135 or 75% were female The majority of respondents (87 or 45.4%) were elementary school teachers Most of the respondents (78 or 43.5%) were between 35 and 55; 67 or 37% had more than 21 years of teaching experience The largest group of respondents (38 or 21%) taught social science. Data collected for this study indicated fluat a majority of respondents (111 or 61.6%) had Master of Arts degrees; only 15 (85) had Bachelor of Science degrees. Most of the respondents indicated that they had participated in relatively few hours of inservice education in the Lansing School District. A majority of respondents (135 or 75%) had taken few graduate credit hours devoted to professional development More fluan half of the respondents (95 or 52.8%) had spent between 1 and 11 hours attending meetings of professional associations. A majority of respondents (136 or 732) said that the Lansing inservice program had contributed to more than their personal growth. but at the same time 123 they indicated that the Lansing inservice program did not allow them immediately to apply the new skills in flue classroom. A small group of the respondents with up to five hours of graduate credit hours said that the graduate courses had contributed to their growflu; most teachers did not mention whefluer graduate courses had contributed to their growth. A majority of respondents (124 or 68.4%) indicated that they had learned from conference meetings Also. more than half of the respondents (93 or 51.7%) said the conference meetings had allowed them to share ideas with ofluer people Wine: The major findings regarding each of flue research questions are discussed in this section. W04: To what extent do the respondents agree/ disagree with flue andragogical dimensions of inservice education? The findings reveal ed that the respondents were in agreement with flue andragogical Relationships Between Facilitator and Learners and Among Learners. Evaluation. Nature of Learners. Purpose of Education. and Management of Learning Experience dimensions They were in disagreement with the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. W: With what andragogical dimension do respond- ents agree flue most? The findings indicated that Relationships Between Facilitator and Learners and Among Learners was the most important andragogical dimen- si on to respondents 124 W: To what extent do the respondents agree/ disagree with flue pedagogical dimensions of inservice education? The findings indicated that the respondents were in agreement with flue pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. They were in disagreement with the pedagogical Relationships. Managenent of Learning Experience. and Nature of Learners dimensions. WM: With what pedagogical dimension do respond- ents agree flue most? The findings reveal ed that Characteristics of Learning Experi- ence was flue most important pedagogical dimension to respondents W: To what extent do the demographic variables of gender. age. school level. subject taught. degree. teaching experience. hours of participation in inservice programs. hours spent at conference meetings. and graduate credit hours devoted to the teachers' professional development rel ate to respondents' per- ceptions of the andragogical and pedagogical dimensions? The results of flue study indicated that: Regarding the Purpose of Education dimension. 1. No significant relationships were found between gender. age. graduate credit hours. school level. or subject taught and flue pedagogical or andragogical Purpose of Education dimensions. 2. Significant relationships were found between teaching experience and hours spent at conference meetings and the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension. It was concluded that the more experience teachers had and the more conferences they had attended. flue less they agreed wiflu flue pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension. 125 3. No significant relationships were found between hours of participation in inservice programs or degree level and the pedagogical Purpose of Education dimension. 4. Significant relationships were found between degree level and hours of participation in inservice programs and the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension. It was concluded that the higher the degree and flue more hours of participation in inservice programs. flue greater the agreement with this dimension. 5. No significant relationships were found between teaching experience and hours spent at conference meetings and the andragogical Purpose of Education dimension. Regarding the Nature of Learners dimension: 1. No significant relationships were found between school level. age. subject taught. or graduate credit hours and the pedagogical or andragogical Nature of Learners dimension. 2. No significant relationships were found between gender. teaching experience. degree level. or hours spent at conference meetings and the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension. 3. A significant relationship was found between hours of participation in inservice programs and the andragogical Natureuof Learners dimension. This finding indicated that there was a tendency for respondents who had more hours of participation in inservice programs to agree more with the andragogical Nature of Learners dimension. 126 4. Significant relationships were found between degree level and hours of participation in inservice programs and the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension. 5. Significant relationships were found between teaching experience. gender. and hours spent at conference meetings and the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension. Females disagreed more with this dimension than did males Also. there was a tendency for respondents who had had more teaching experience and who had spent more hours at conference meetings to disagree more with the pedagogical Nature of Learners dimension. Regarding the Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension: 1. No significant relationships were found between gender. age. school level. teaching experience. subject taught. or graduate courses and the pedagogical or andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. 2. Significant relationships were found between degree level and the andragogical and pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimensions The M.A. degree group agreed more with the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. whereas the M.S. degree group agreed more with the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. 3. No significant relationships were found between hours spent at conference meetings or hours of participation in insewice programs and the pedagogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. 127 4. Significant relationships were found between hours of participation in inservice programs and hours spent at conference meetings and the andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. The more hours spent at conference meetings and flue more hours of participation in inservice programs. flue greater the agreement with flue andragogical Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. Regarding the Management of Learning Experience dimension: 1. No significant relationships were found between age. degree level. teaching experience. subject taught. hours of participation in inservice programs. or graduate credits and flue pedagogical or andra- gogi cal Management of Learning Experience dimension 2. A significant relationship was found between hours spent at conference meetings and the andragogical Management of Learning Experience dimension. The more hours spent at conference meetings. the greater the agreement with the andragogical Management of Learning Experiences dimension. 3. A significant relationship was found between gender and the pedagogical Management of Learning Experience dimension Male teachers agreed more with this dimension than did female teachers. 4. No significant relationships were found between school level or hours spent at conference meetings and the pedagogical Managenent of Learning Experience dimension. Regarding the Evaluation dimension: 1. No significant relationships were found between gender. school level. degree level. subject taught. hours of participation in 128 inservice programs. hours spent at conference meetings. or graduate credits and the pedagogical or andragogical Evaluation dimension. 2. No significant relationship was found between age and the pedagogical Evaluation dimension. 3. A significant relationship was found between age and the andragogical Evaluation dimension The older the respondent. the greater flue agreenent with fluis dimension. Regarding the Relationships dimension: 1. No significant relationships were found between age. school level. teaching experience subject taught graduate courses. or hours spent at conference meetings and the pedagogical or andragogical Relationships dimension 2. No significant relationship was found between degree level and flue andragogical Relationships dimension. 3. No significant relationship was found between hours of participation in inservice programs and flue pedagogical Relationships dimension. 4. A significant relationship was found between hours of participation in inservice programs and flue andragogical Relationships dimension The more hours of participation in inservice programs. the greater flue agreement wiflu this dimension. 5. Significant relationships were found between degree level and gender and flue pedagogical Relationships dimension Male teachers agreed more with this dimension than did female teachers Also. M.S. 129 and 8.8. degree holders agreed more with this dimension than did respondents holding ofluer types of degrees WW: To what extent do the demographic variables of gender. age. school level. subject taught. degree. teaching experience. hours of participation in inservice programs. hours spent at conference meetings. and graduate credit hours devoted to the teachers' professional development relate to respondents' per- ceptions of the total andragogical method score and the total pedagogical mefluod score? The findings revealed fluat: 1. No significant relationships were found between age. school level. degree level. subject taught. or graduate credits and flue mean total scores for the andragogical or the pedagogical mefluod. 2. No significant relationships were found between hours of participation in inservice programs and hours spent at conference meetings and flue mean total pedagogical method score. 3. A significant relationship was foundbetween gender and the mean total pedagogical method score Male teachers agreed with the pedagogical mefluod. whereas female teachers agreed with flue andragogi- cal method. 4. Significant relationships were found between hours of participation in inservice education and hours spent at conference meetings and the mean total andragogical mefluod score The more hours spent at conference meetings and the more hours of participation in inservice programs. the greater the agreement with the andragogical method. 130 5. No significant relationships were found between gender and years of teaching experience and the mean total andragogical method score. WW: Are respondents more in agreement with andra- gogical dimensions or pedagogical dimensions? The findings reveal ed that: 1. Teachers were more in agreement with the andragogical than flue pedagogical Purpose of Education Nature of Learners. Management of Learning Experience. Evaluation. and Relationships dimensions 2. Teachers were more in agreement with flue pedagogical than flue andragogi cal Characteristics of Learning Experience dimension. WM: Are respondents more in agreement with the andragogical method in total or with the pedagogical method in total? The findings indicated that. according to the mean total scores. respondents agreed more with flue andragogical method fluan they did with the pedagogical method. Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn from flue major findings of the study. Table 5.1 contains a summary of the findings shown in Tables 4.12 through 4.87. A positive sign indicates a significant difference was found between groups with regard to a particular peda- gogical or andragogical approach. whereas a zero indicates no signifi- cant difference was found. The patterns of concl usions that appeared to emerge from flue table are as follows 13]. co_mcue_v osu :o neaocm coozuun oucocuee.u acmo_e_cu_u o: I o co_mcoe.u ecu co meaocm nucleon eunucoee_v acou_e_cm_m I + co_mcoe_v .mu_m0mmcvcm I < co.m:ue_v .mo_mommvoe I e “sex o o o + o o o o + + o o + o outmuo o o o o o o o o o o o o c o ...». mc_:u~o» moucocoecou + o o o o o + o + o o + o + an ucoem «Lao: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o momaaou oumavmcu c o o o o o o o o o o o o o no.» uuoesam mEmcmoLe + o + o o o o o + o + o + o ou.>comc_ c. coma ume.u_ucme eo mcaox o o o o o o o o o o o + c + ouco_aoaxo co ..ao> c o o o + o o o o o o o o o um< o + o + o o o + o o o + o o Lovcoo < e < a < a < e < a < a < e vo:u0t .mo_mommcvc< , oucowcoexm ouco_coexm mcoccmoa co_umu:uw can .mu.mommcoe me_;mco_uo.o¢ co_um:_m>m mc_ccm04 eo mc_ccm04 eo o ucaum o omoecae o_nmmcm> Lou ocoum .mu0h acosommcmz mu_ummcouumcmgu e z e commcus.o .mco_mcoe_v .mo_m0mmcoe cam .mu.m0mmgccm ecu mo_nm_am> acoccoeoc ccm acoccoeovc_ so mcwme coozuUA me.£mco_um.oc acmu_e_cm_muu._.m 0.5m» 132 1. Male teachers appeared to agree more freuuently fluan female teachers with pedagogical approaches to flueir own education. 2. Age of teachers appeared to make little or no difference in flueir preferences for andragogical or pedagogical methods. except fluat teachers of all ages favored being evaluated through an andragogical approach. 3. Teachers with less experience exhibited a slight tendency to agree wiflu pedagogical approaches to their own education However. the more experience teachers had had in actual inservice courses and conferences tended to reverse any such tendency. 4. The dependent variables that appeared most frequently to discriminate between groups of teachers regarding their preferred treatment in inservice education were: a. The purpose for which the education was performed (four significant differences noted). b. The nature of the learner assumed by the educational pro- gram (four significant differences noted). c. The characteristics of the learning experiences provided (four significant differences noted). 5. An overall tendency--although certainly not a strongly consistent one—-appeared to be for a preference for andragogi cal treat- ments among teachers who had had more exposure to inservice education However. most of the comparisons made in this study failed to show significant differences 133 Becmmendetmns Based on the findings and conclusions of this study. the researcher recommends the following: 1. The school district in which this study was conducted should use the research findings in formulating inservice education programs that continue to a. pl ace more responsibility on the adult learners to determine flueir own programs and learning processes b. build relationships of mutual trust and helpfulness among the teachers as adult learners and between the learners and both the school administrators and those who conduct the inservice education experiences. c. accept adult learners as mature individuals and respect flueir feelings d. encourage adult learners to participate actively in the learning process in inservice programs. recognizing that these learners have a rich background of experience that is a valuable learning resource. e provide a learning environment in which adult learners are comfortable. feel respected. and accept others' differences f. involve adult learners in diagnosing their own need for learning. 2. Teachers should be given an opportunity to apply the new skills that fluey learn in inservice programs 134 . 3. School administrators should recognize that teachers have different philosophical beliefs and should examine the effects of philosophy on the school organizational practices. 4. School administrators should encourage teachers to attend inservice programs and conference meetings related to their profes- sional development and consider such attendance in their promotion. 5. The school district in which the research was conducted should use the information contained in this study to determine the reasons teachers are not satisfied with inservice programs in the district. 6. Workshops. seminars. and group discussions should be developed to guide teachers in sel f-directed learning. 7. Inservice program planners should provide as many options as possible from which teachers may choose. in order to select their own learning experiences. 8. The College of Education at Michigan State University should extend the providing of courses that further teachers' profes- si onal development. WWW Based on the findings of this study. further research is recommended in the following areas: 1. A similar study should be carried out with a large sample. using different sampling techniques. 135 2. A similar study should be done using Minix's (1981) instrument to investigate teachers' perceptions of the andragogical mefluod. 3. A study should be conducted using Minix's (1981) instrument to investigate inservice program planners' perceptions of the andra- gogical mefluod. 4. Furfluer research should be conducted using some dimensions from Mi nix's and Hadley's instruments. especially andragogical Charac- teri sti cs of Learning Experience and Management of Learning Experience. to investigate if flue findings would differ from those of this investi- gation. 5. A study should be conducted using Hadl ey's instrument to investigate inservice program planners' perceptions of flue pedagogical and andragogical methods. 6. According to the findings of this study. some demographic variables did not affect respondents' perceptions of the pedagogical and andragogical dimensions Therefore future researchers should not use demographic variables as predictors 7. A study should be undertaken to observe systematically the behavior of school teachers and inservice program teachers to determine whefluer they have a pedagogical or an andragogical orientation APPENDICES 136 APPENDIX A THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE I37 138 Dear Fellow Teacher: Increased attention has been given recently to the strengthening of professional development programs in local schools. An important part of these efforts has been to learn more about how adults, such as yourself, learn most effectively. I am conducting a study of how teachers see their own learning process as a part of my doctoral program at Michigan State University. The attached questionnaire is being sent to a selected group of teachers so that we might learn more about your preferences for ways of learning. With such information it should be possible to increase the effectiveness of professional development programs and activities. Your participation, while completely voluntary, is very important to the success of the study. All replies will be treated with utmost confidentiality and under no circumstance could your response be identified by name. In fact, all responses will be reported in group statistics only» I truly appreciate your cooperation. Kindly return the questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope as expeditiously as possible. Sincerely, Hasen Shehri 2317 #14 East Jolly Road Lansing, Michigan 48910 Phone: (517) 882-4841 I39 INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS Please answer each question by placing an (X) in the appropriate space. 1. Gender: Male Female 2. What is your age? 1. Under 28 2. 3. 35-43 4. 5. 56 or over Hhich grade level do you teach? 1. Elementary School 2. 3. Senior High School If you are a middle school or high school do you teach? (Check only one.) 29-34 44-55 Middle School teacher, what subject 1. Mathematics 2. Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) What is the highest degree that you hold? 1. Ph.D. 2. M.A. 4. B.A. 5. 8.5. How many years have you been teaching? 1. 2 or Less. 2. 3-8 4. 15-20 5. 21 and Over 3. Social Sciences 4. Arts (Art, Music, Performing ' Arts, Graphic Arts) 5. Foreign Languages 6. Physical or Health Education 7. Business Education 8. Vocational Education 9. English/Language Arts 10. Other Specify 3. M.S. 6. Other (Please Indicate) 3. 9-14 10. 11. 12. 1A0 How many hours in the past year have you volunteered to parti- cipate in the inservice education program in the Lansing School District? Number of Hours How many hours in the past year have you devoted to your own professional development through graduate courses for credit? Number of Hours How many hours in the past year have you spent in attendance at meetings of professional associations relating to your profes- sional development? Number of Hours Please list two or three or more of the main ways in which the Lansing inservice programs did in fact contribute to your growth. Please list two or three or more of the main ways in which the graduate courses for credit did in fact contribute to your growth. Please list two or three or more of the main ways in which attendance at conferences, workshops and/or meetings of professional associations did in fact contribute to your growth. Pssatmw lhl Please respond to each statement as you think about your participation in District sponsored inservice programs. To what degree do you believe that inservice programs should consider or incorporate each of the following items? Please circle the most appropriate answer. Please keep in mind the word “Facilitator“ means the person who taught you in the inservice program and "Teacher“ means yourself - the person filling out the questionnaire. Extent To Which You Agree lb .... so (I) > O -i 63 2 :0 :0 G) O "'1 r- s m -< I" U D D -< H H H m M m > > > > > 63 CD CD CD CD so 23 :0 :0 :0 "'1 m m "1 m m 1"" 1'11 ("'1 1"" Example: I believe the teacher should decide what the content will be of inservice program A MD 0 SD 1. Inservice education should focus on what is sure, reIiab18’ and IaSting .0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..00.. SA A A/D 0 SD 2. Inservice effectiveness should be measured by teachers' increase in examination of their own feelings, attitudes, and behaviors ................... SA A A/D 0 SD 3. Teachers need a strong facilitator who can direct their Iearning ......OOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO SA A A/D D so 4. It's hard to keep teachers from learning ............. SA A A/D 0 SD 5. Learning is an intellectual process of under- standing ideas (concepts) and acquiring skills ....... SA A A/D 0 SD 6. Effective inservice learning occurs most often when teachers actively participate in deciding what is to be learned and how ........................ SA A A/D 0 SD 7. Giving examinations regularly motivates teacners to1earn 0.0000000000000000000000000.00.0.0.0 SA A A/D D so 8. Organization of the content and sequence of inservice learning activities should grow out of teachers' needs, with their participation ......... SA A A/D 0 SD IAZ Extent To Which You Agree U) ...| m > 25’. .4 au 2 :U :0 65 O ("I r- 2 rn -< (D \ f- D U D -< H H H U) (I) U) > > > > > (D (D CD CD CD :0 :0 JD 23 50 1'71 rm ”'1 ["1 ”'1 ("1 f'fl 1'71 ['11 m 9. It should be the facilitator's responsibility to evaluate teachers' achievements and assign grades .00..0...0....0..0..000.000.00.000000000000.... SA A A/D D so 10. The best sources of ideas for improving inservice education are the teachers ............ ..... SA A A/D 0 SD 11. Competition among teachers encourages keen learning 0000......0000..00..0........0000000000 ...... SA A A/D D so 12. A facilitator by his/her behavior should show each teacher that his abilities and experiences are respected and valued ........................ ..... SA A A/D 0 SD 13. A facilitator should help teachers accept va‘ues Of our SOCiety 00.0.0.0.........00..00..0 000000 SA A A/D D SD 14. To see inservice education as transmittal Of knOWIEdge is ODSOIete 000.00.000.00000000000 0000000 SA A A/D 0 SD 15. Teachers tend to be much alike ................. ...... SA A A/D 0 SD 16. It is a facilitator's responsibility to motivate - teachers to learn what they ought to learn ...... ..... SA A A/0 0 $0 17. Clear explanation by the facilitator is essential for effective Iearn‘ng 0...........00.....000.00000000 SA A A/D 0 SD 18. A facilitator's primary responsibility is helping teachers choose and develop their own directions for Iearning 0.0.0....000 ...... ...... ..... .00.... ..... SA A A/D D so 19. A good facilitator makes the decisions about what should be taught, when, and how ................. ..... SA A A/D 0 SD 20. A facilitator seldom needs to know the average teachers as separate individuals ..................... SA A A/0 0 SD lh3 Extent To flhich You Agree M _q ... > s -i D 2 JD 50 (D O m l- 2 m -< (D \ 2 E 2 52 m U) m > > > > > G) {D a G) G) x :0 23 :0 :0 m H”! m fi'l m [11 m m m m 21. A facilitator should not change his/her expressed decisions without unusually good reasons ............. SA A A/D D SD 22. Emphasizing efficiency in inservice education often blocks development of an effective learning c11mate .0... ...... 000.00....0...0_.....0000.0 SA A A/D D so 23. Inservice education programs should be evaluated by the same standards as other accredited programs of education ... ...... ..... ...... ... ......... SA A A/D D SD 24. Evaluating achievement should be primarily a responsibility of the teacher since he/she has ‘ the necessary data .0. 0000000000 .....00000...0.0. ..... SA A AID D so 25. Competition among teachers develops conceit, selfishness and envy ......................... ........ SA A A/D D SD 26. A facilitator should discuss his/her blunders and Iearnings "1th teacners ........0..........0.00... SA A A/D D so 27. A facilitator should be sure his/her questions steer teachers toward truth . ..... .................... SA A A/D D SD 28. Inservice educational objectives define changes in behavior which the teacher desires and the facilitator helps him/her undertake ........... ....... SA A A/D D SD 29. Most teachers are able to keep their emotions under good control ................. ..... . ............ SA A A/D D SD 30. Teachers are quite competent to choose and carry out their own projects for learning ............ SA A A/D D SD 31. A facilitator should help teachers free themselves of fixed habits and patterns of thought that block their growth ........ ............ .. SA A A/D D SD lhh Extent To lhich You Agree (Ii _.. w m > O —4 ca :z 70 :0 (D O m I" z m -< 63 \ l" D D O -< H H H U! M U! > > > > > CD CD 65 CD CD :0 :0 JD :0 :0 m m H1 [1'1 m H1 H1 m "1 H1 32. The major qualifications of a facilitator are grasp of subject matter and ability to explain (demonstrate) it clearly and interestingly ........... SA A A/D D SD 33. It is better for teachers to create their own learning activities and materials than for the facilitator to provide them .................... ..... . SA A A/D D SD 34. A facilitator should require assignments and grade them 00.0.0.0...00.00..........0.00.0..0..00..00 SA A A/D D so 35. Use of a topical outline course plan often blocks a facilitator's perception of teaChers' Heads 0.......0........00...0.000.0.0000...0 SA A A/D D SD 36. An inservice education program should be evaluated only in terms of its own objectives ........ SA A A/D D SD 37. Competition among teachers develops courage, determination, and industry .......................... SA A A/D D SD 38. A facilitator should provide opportunities for warm relationships with teachers and among teaChers 00000 .0...0.0.0....0.........0....0... ....... SA A A/D D so 39. Inservice education should lead people to goals that result in orderly, reasonable lives .... ......... SA A A/D D SD 40. Inservice education should increase teachers' critical evaluation of our society and courage to try new, creative, satisfying behavior ............ SA A A/D D SD 41. Often teachers don't know what is best for them ...... SA A A/D D SD 42. when a facilitator makes a mistake, he/she is likely to lose teachers' respect .............. ...... . SA A A/D D SD 43. Maturity depends more on continuing growth in self—understanding than on growth in knowledge . ...... SA A A/D 0 SD IAS Extent To Hhich You Agree m ..1 ... s. a -i G) 2 :0 :0 (D O m I'- z m -< (D \ l— D D D -< v—c n—o o—c U! U) U) 2% E; a B as :0 =0 23 JD JO "1 fi'l "1 m m m I“ fi'l m m 44. Teachers frequently “get off the subject" either intentionally or unintentionally ................ ..... SA A A/D D SD 45. Inservice education programs which tell what should be learned and how rarely help teachers 1earn 0..................OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... 0. SA A A/D D so 46. Letting teachers determine learning objectives wastes too much time in irrelevant discussion ........ SA A A/D D SD 47. The primary concern of a facilitator should be the immediate needs of the teacher ........... ..... SA A A/D D SD 48. Grades should reflect a teacher's grasp of the SUDjeCt or Skill taught 0...... ..... O 0000000000000 0... SA A A/D D so 49. Assignments by a facilitator tend to restrict teachers' significant learnings ............... ....... SA A A/D D SD 50. Tests prepared by teachers are usually just as effective as those prepared by a facilitator ......... SA A A/D D SD 51. The goals teachers set for themselves are the basis of effective learning; not the facilitator's goals O.........000......OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO ...... 0... SA A A/D D so 52. A facilitator's mission is to help each teacher learn what he/she decides will aid him in achieving his personal goals ......................... SA A A/D D SD 53. If a facilitator isn't careful, teachers take advantage 00.000.00...0..0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. SA A A/D D so 54. Considering the possible effects on teachers, a facilitator should usually play it safe rather than take a chance ......... ............ ... ........... SA A A/D D SD 55 SE lh6 Extent To lhich You Agree 05 3 z: a: a :0 23 {D O I'T'I r— 2 m _< (D \ 2 2 2 2 > 3. s s s G) (D a) (D G) F? #54 fr”. #3 fl - m m rn m m 55. Hithout a cooperative climate encouraging teachers to risk and experiment, significant jearning is unlike1y O0.0.0.00.00000000000000000000000 SA A A/D D SD 56. A facilitator who does not plan the work for a class carefully is taking advantage of the teachers' ignorance .................................. SA A A/D D SD 57. To use teachers' experiences and resources for learning requires group activities rather than such methods as lectures .................. ...... SA A A/D D SD 58. It is a good rule in teaching to keep relationships with teachers impersonal .... ......... .. SA A A/D D SD 59. Planning units of work should be done by teachers and facilitators together . ...... ............ SA A A/D D SD 60. Good teaching is systematic--set up a clear plan and schedule and stick to it .................... SA A A/D D SD 12.7 EDUCATIONAL ORIENTATION QUESTIONNAIRE HADLEY, 1973 Name Address Zip Code Below are statements about education, teaching, and learning. These have been chosen to express several different viewpoints. Please Note: In completing this questionnaire keep in mind that the word "student" means adult student, and the word "teacher" means yourself-~the person filling out the questionnaire. lkiother words, yourlanswers indicate your educational orientation in working with adults. For each statement, please put an ”X” in one of the five boxes in front of that statement. Choose the box that indicates your attitude or position best--how much you agree or disagree with that statement. The five positions from which to choose are: SA--I strongly agree with this statement. A--I agree with this statement. U--I'm too uncertain about this statement to agree or disagree. D—-I disagree with this statement. SD—-I strongly disagree with this statement. SA A U D SD ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1. Education should focus on what is sure, reliable, and lasting. () ( ) ( ) ( ) () 2. Teaching effectiveness should be measured by students' increase in examination of their own feelings, attitudes, and behaviors. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. Students need a strong teacher who can direct their learning. ( ) () ( )( ) () 4. It's hard to keep people from learning. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. Learning is an intellectual process of understanding ideas (concepts) and acquiring skills. ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) l 10. ll. 12. 17. 18. 1&8 Effective learning occurs most often when students actively participate in deciding what is to be learned and how. Giving examinations regularly motivates students to learn. Organization of the content and sequence of .learning activities should grow out of students' needs, with their participation. It should be the teacher's responsibility in) evaluate students' and assign grades. The best sources of ideas for improving teaching and education are the students. Competition among students encour- ages keen learning. A teacher by his behavior should show each student that his abilities and experiences are respected and valued. A teacher should help students accept values of our society. To see education as transmittal of knowledge is obsolete. Students tend to be much alike. It is a teacher's responsibility to motivate students to learn what they ought to learn. Clear explanation by the teacher is essential for effective learning. A teacher's primary responsibility is helping students choose and develop their own directions for learning. ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1&9 A good teacher makes the decisions about what should be taught, when, and how. A teacher seldom needs to know the average students as separate individuals. A teacher should not change his expressed decisions without unusually good reasons. Emphasizing efficiency in teaching often blocks development of an effective learning climate. An adult education program should be evaluated by the same standards as other accredited programs of education. Evaluating his achievement should be primarily a responsibility of the student since he has the neces- sary data. Competition among students develops conceit, selfishness, and envy. A teacher should discuss his blun- ders and learnings with students. A teacher should be sure his ques- tions steer students toward truth. Educational objectives should de- fine changes in behavior which the student desires and the teacher helps him undertake. Most students are able to keep their emotions under good control. Students are quite competent to choose and carry out their own projects for learning. ( ( ( ( ( ( l ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( ( ) l ) ) ) ) ( ( ) l ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 36. 39. 41. 42. 150 A teacher should help students free themselves of fixed habits and patterns of thought that block their growth. The major qualifications of a teacher are grasp of subject matter and ability to explain (demon- strate) it clearly and interesting- ly. It is better for students to create their own learning activities and materials than for the teacher to provide them. A teacher should require assign- ments and grade them. Use of a topical outline course plan often blocks a teacher's per- ception of students' needs. An adult education program should be evaluated only in terms of its own objectives. Competition among students develops courage, determination, and indus— try. A teacher should provide opportun- ities for warm relationships with students and among students. Education should lead people to goals that result in orderly, rea- sonable lives. Education should increase students' critical evaluation of our society and courage to try new, creative, satisfying behavior. Often students don't know what is best for them. When a teacher makes a mistake, he is likely to lose students' respect. ( ) ( ) () ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 43. 44. 46. 47. 48. 49. 151 Maturity depends more on continuing growth in self-understanding than on growth in knowledge. Students frequently “get off the subject" either intentionally or unintentionally. Education programs which tell what should be learned and how rarely help students learn. Letting students determine learning objectives wastes too much time in irrelevant discussion. The primary concern of a teacher should be the immediate needs of the student. Grades should reflect a students‘ grasp of the subject or skill taught. Assignments by a teacher tend to restrict students' significant learnings. Tests prepared by students are usually just as effective as those prepared by a teacher. The goals a student sets for him- self are the basis of effective learning not the teacher‘s goals. A teacher's mission is to help each student learn what he decides will aid him in achieving his personal goals. If a teacher isn't careful, stu- dents take advantage. Considering the possible effects on students, a teacher should usually play it safe rather than take chances. ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ( ) ) ) ) ( ( ) ) ) ) ) l ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ) ) ) 60. 152 Without a cooperative climate en- couraging students to risk and experiment, significant learning is unlikely. A teacher who does not plan the work for a class carefully is tak- ing advantage of the students' ignorance. To use students' experiences and resources for' learning requires group activities rather than such methods as lectures. It is a good rule in teaching to keep relationships with students impersonal. Planning units of work should be done by students and teacher together. Good teaching is systematic--set up a clear plan and schedule and stick to it. APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE I53 1511 urns: or ALUATION IERVICII 500 w. LINAWII amo. MICHIGAN ‘0’): RESEARCH STUDY REQUESTS 1985-86 Each year a nunber of requests are made to the Lansirg School District to carry out a variety of studies involving students and staff. Our first purpose is to educate students. In order to protect the rights and interests of students as they take part in this education and to protect the rights and interests of staff as they discharge their responsibility to provide that education, all requests to conduct research much be reviewed according to the following steps. 1. A Research Study Request form must be completed and sent, with 10 copies, to the Office of Research and Evaluation Services, 500 W. Lenawee, Roan 220, Lansirg, MI l18933, Attn. Pat Eetersen. The form can be picked up from that office Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The phone nunber is 3711413147. The Research Stuiy Request form and any attacl'ments must be typed. 2. The request fom will be sent to the appropriate review cannittee. Cannittee manbers will have five working days to consider the request. A mano further describing these committees is available upon request. 3. The decision of the reviewers will be forwarded to you in writirg. A study is not to begin until that notification is received. 11 . A report of your findings is to be sutnitted to the Office of Research and Evaluation Services within 90 days after the close of your study. The timing of this requirement is flexible, with prior arrangenents. 5 . Studies which require teacher release time, and therefore substitutes, will not be considered. 6 . The Board of Education for the Lansing School District has approved goal statements and areas of focus for 1985-1986. The applicant is urged to keep these statanents in mind when making a request to carry out research in the Lansing School District, since preference will be given to requests bearing on these priorities. The complete docunent listing all goal statenents and areas of focus is available to the applicant upon request. The text of the overall instructional program goal statanent says: To improve student achievenent at all levels with enphasis on reading and math; to offer the most canprehensive program possible, within the limits of the district's fiscal resources; to meet the diverse- needs of the student population; to continue the curriculun revision process; to encourage and pranote excellence at all levels; and to assure educational opportmities for all stuients. 155 The following are some general ccnnents to make the process move quickly. 1. 2. Any participation in research studies by teachers is voluntary. Any participation in research studies by students must have written approval ”an the parent or the guardian of each student before any contact is made by the researcha'. There are exceptions, but these are few. So, consider the time involved in this task as the study is planned. khan you prepare the letter askim for parent permission, make it brief and straightforward (not condescending, Just to the point). If yotr study requires my equipment, e.g., video or audio taping equipnent, you must be prepared to supply it. were such equipnent is approved for use, it must be clearly described in the request for parent permission. Take some time to proof and correct any and all docments. No research study activities will be initiated in September with grades 11, 7 and 10. No activities will be begun at any grade after May 1. All research activities must respect the substmtial district-wide testirg progran. Those dates are available upon request. Most people who have conducted research in the Lansirg Schools have been great and have produced useml findings. Every now and then saneone shows up who isn't and doem't.' Even the most well thought out and well organized research makes dmands on a busy school schedule; anything less is not acceptable. Once approval to conduct the research is given, please make appointments or schedules with the teachers and schools with than you are workirg. Be on time and call when you know that you will deviate from the schedule. Call me if you have questions (3711-11311?) . 9” 9M 156 Return to: Revised 7/85 ersen 500 H. Lenawee 1.3131118: "I "8933 1. RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST Office of Research and Evaluation Services Lansing School District Kane: Hasen Shehri Address: 2317-14 East Jolly Road, Lansing, MI Phone: 517 882-4841 or Dr. ngz Professional title, if any: ~ Date of Application: February 4, 1986 Institution, organization, or agency with him you are associated, if any: doctoral student, Department of Teacher Education Michigan State University Reason for study: . College or university course requirenent Partial fulfillment for Masters Degree Partial fulfillment for Doctors Degree x Other , please specify: If the study is being conducted as part of a course requirement or as partial mlfillment of graduate requirenents, please provide the course title and instructor 's nane and/or the title/subject of your dissertation and your major advisor. Mane: Dr. Charles A. Blackman Full Title: Professor, Department of Teacher Education Address: 306 Erickson Hall, MSU Phone: 355-8292 East Lansing, MI 48824 Course Title: or Subject of Dissertation: Selected Variables on Preferences of Professional Teachers for Androgm'mlooks on Education. 157 2, nae-of this study: Selected Variables on Preferences of Professional 3. Teachers for Androgogical Versus Pedagogical Outlooks on Education. Duration of study: Administration of one questionnaure during the Winter 1986 Beginning Date: ' Ending Date: Statement of hypothesis, and/or objective“) of this study: The purpose of the study is to investigate the degree to which an array of selected variables among professional teachers tends to varyiith differyig views about factors/modes related to teacher learning in inservice education and in professional growth experiences. Please attach a brief description of the study. As part of that descrip- tion, please outline how students and/or staff will benefit from your study and how your study fits the instructional goals of the district. If students are the focus of your study, ‘ How any will you involve? "- At what grade levels? --- what, if any, are your requirenents for any particular kinds of students, e.g., high or low ability, boys only, girls only, etc.? ND- What, if any, are your requirements for a specific school, department, geographical area, etc.? ‘ £94 That, if any, are your requirements for review of or access to student records? m. 158 Continuation of Question #2: Many studies indicate that inservice education programs should consider the characteristics and the needs of adult learners. They have reached the following conclusions: the more the characteristics and the needs of adult learners are considered, the more inservice education programs are successful. This study is designed to investigate to what degree teachers' involvement i1! inservice education and irI professional growth may be related to particular types of learning activities. The population of the study will consist of a randomly selected sample of teachers in the Lansing School District. The target population will consist of 400 teachers randomly selected from the full Lansing population of teachers. A questionnaire will be sent to the sample by mail, to help investigate their beliefs about how effective staff development can best be carried out. The Lansing School District will benefit from this study as follows: 1. It will ascertain how "adult learner" teachers tend to perceive the Lansing School District's inservice education program in general. 2. It will ascertain the relative outlooks of the sample toward teaching methods in inservice educa- tion: e.g., whether they believe that inservice education should employ self-directed learning or more traditional methods. 3. The Lansing School District also will benefit by learning what the sample believes about their characteristics as adults in inservice education and how these characteristics may be employed to develop inservice education. 18. 159 How much student time will be required by your study? NONE . Please list here, and attach, any instruments that will be used with or ministered to students. This should include interview schedules as well. Hill teachers be required to help or take part in your study? No. If so, please describe their involvement. No. How mch teacher time will be involved? --- If teachers are the focus of your study, How any will you involve? 400 At what grade levels? elemengry, ,jupior & senior high school In what content areas? 9]] gjfigmn; subiects How much teacher time is required? between 25-30 minutes for each teacher. when will this time be required? in late Winter uarter Hill teachers be paid for participating in your study? No. If so, had much? "- What are your requirements, if any, for a particular school, department or geographical location? - ml That are your requirements, if any, for review or access to student records? ' 1mg. If your. study involves students in any way, how much student time is required? None. 5. I60 Hill any school personnel, other than the students and/or teachers already described, be involved in your study? NO- If so, who, in what way and for how much time? I agree to submit a written report of the findings of this study to the Office of Research and Evaluation Services within 90 days of the close of the study. Signature: ‘ C9 Hasen . Shehri Date: 2117/4], / 1;,” l6] LANSING SCHDDL DISTRICT OFFICE OF EVALUATION SERVICES 500 W. LENAWEE LANSING. MICHIGAN 45933 March 3, 1986 Hasen Shehri 2317-1“ East Jolly Road Lansing, MI 48910 Mr. Shehri: In regard to your research study titled, "Selected Variables on Preferences of Professional Teachers for Androgogical Versus Pedagogical Outlooks on Education", the request to conduct the study in the Lansing School District has X been approved, has not been approved. The following conments apply to your study: Please contact me to make arrangements to mail out the teacher away. We cannot release teachers' home addresses. If you will provide us with stamped envelopes, we will label and mail them. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me (37lI-II3II7). Emma) Pat Petersen Evaluation Specialist PP/mlc cc: Research Review Canmittee Members I62 M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: 3111 Helder SUBJECT: Attached Questionnaire DATE: March 17. 1986 In an effort to learn more about the elements that make an effective professional development program, we are assisting Mr. Hasen Shehri in pursuing this question as a part of his doctoral program at MSU. If you could find the time (approximately 20 minutes) to fill out the attached questionnaire and ask five of your colleagues to do the same, we would very much appreciate it. Your participation is, of course, completely voluntary but it is very important to the success of the study. All replies will be treated with utmost confidentiality and under no circumstance could your response be identified by name. In fact, all responses will be reported in group statistics only. If you would return the completed questionnaire in courier before you leave for spring vacation, it would be much appreciated. Please return to the Curriculum , Office. ph Attachments 163 M E M O R A N D U M TO: . L( FROM: Bill Hel der ‘5 SUBJECT: Staff Development Questionnaire DATE: April 1, 1986 Last month we sent out a questionnaire to assist our staff development program bycollaborating with Mr. Hasen Shehri. Since these questionnaires were returned anonymously; there is no way to follow up other than to say, if you have returned the questionnaire, we thank you very much. If not, could you do so no later than April 14? After that date the data will no longer be of value. Thanks so much for your cooperation. ph P.S. If you have misplaced your questionnaire and need another, please call the Curriculum Office - 4210. I6h LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT 519 W. Kalamazoo Street Lansing, Michigan 48933 April 22, 1986 Dr. Charles Blackman 306 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Dear Chuck: In order to assist you with Hasen's dissertation, I have enclosed the following: 1. 2. 3. Role of the liaison person List of liaison persons by school C0py of cover letter to elementary liaisons asking that they and three colleagues fill out the questionnaire Copy of cover letter to secondary liaisons asking that they and five colleagues fill out the questionnaire A follow-up request asking for those who had not already returned their questionnaires to do so. As individual questionnaires filter in, we are sending them directly to Hasen in his stamped, self-addressed envelOpes. I65 2317 #1“ East Jolly Road Lansing, MI A8910 November 19, 1985 Dr. Henry Bradek Chairman, UCRIHS Office of the VP for Research 238 Administration Building Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 4882A-1034 Dear Dr. Bradek: I am preparing to collect data for my dissertation in the Department of Education. Enclosed are materials that UCRIHS are needed when the researcher is using human subjects for his research. I would appreciate your permission to conduct this research in order to send the questionnaire to the sample. I would appreciate your timely attention to this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Hasen al-Shehri I66 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Of EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1054 February 5, 1986 Dr. Henry Bredeck Assistant Vice President Research and Graduate Studies 238 Administration Bldg. Campus Dear Dr. Bredeck: I am enclosing the dissertation proposal of Hasen Shehri. This proposal has the approval of his guidance committee. I believe the nature of the study is such that it should be exempted from full Committee IEVIGW'(I-C). Mr. Shehri visited with you early in December concerning his proposal. It has since undergone some modification. Approval has been requested from the Lansing Public Schools. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, CIIA’LQQJ d. (glfléuaa- Charles A. Blackman Professor CAB/dz encl. MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I67 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' DEPARTMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-I054 February 5, 1986 Lansing School District 500 W. Lenawee Lansing, MI 48933 Att: Pat Peterson I am enclosing the Research Study Request for Mr. Hasen Shehri. He is working with me on his doctoral program. I discussed the proposal with Dr. Helder early in December. Since then it has undergone revision. If there are questions either Mr. Shehri or I might answer, let me know. Sincerely yours, <" z' ' ’ z" 9%; '4 I A. 1‘ , I LA!» L01! '1‘ i , (IA 3* Ir \ L‘tvb'v‘ Charles A. Blackman Professor CAB/dz encl. MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I68 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1046 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (517)355-2186 February 10, 1986 Mr. Hasen al-Shehri 2317 #14 East Jolly Road Lansing, Michigan 48910 Dear Mr. Shehri: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Adult Inservice Learners' Perceptions" I am pleased to advise that I concur with your evaluation that this project is exempt from full UCRIHS review, and approval is herewith granted for conduct of the project. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to February 10, 1987. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, m Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Charles Blackman MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I69 HERSCHEL N. HADLEY 45 Martin Street Acton, Mass. 01720 Telephone (617) 263-4775 October 30 , 1985 Mr. Hasen Shehri 2317-1’4 E. Jolly Road Llnsing, MI 158910 Dear Mr. Shehri: The purpose of this letter is to give formal permission for you to use the Educational Orientation Questionnaire in developing your dissertation. I would appreciate a copy of your dissertation when it is complete. Sincerely, X/Wcétd Y). 544547 APPENDIX C MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL PEDAGOGICAL AND ANDRAGOGICAL STATEMENTS I70 l7I Table C-I.--Means and standard deviations of individual pedagogical statements. Item Statement Mean S.D. I Inservice education should focus on what is sure, reliable, and lasting. 2.517 l.0hh 3 Teachers need a strong facilitator who can direct their learning. 2.3Il I.I35 5 Learning is an intellectual process of understanding ideas (concepts) and acquir- 2.028 .758 ing skills. 7 Being given examinations regularly motivates teachers to learn. l.89h .808 9 It should be the facilitator's responsibil- ity to evaluate teachers' achievement and 3.956 .8ll assign grades. ll Competition among teachers encourages keen learning. 3.528 .97l l3 A facilitator should help teachers accept values of our society. 3.367 1.0AI I5 Teachers tend to be much alike. A.006 .93I l6 It is a facilitator's responsibility to motivate teachers to learn what they ought 3.300 I.I33 to learn. l7 Clear explanation by the facilitator is essential for effective learning. l.822 .69A I9 A good facilitator makes the decisions about what should be taught when and how 3.A28 l.099 20 A facilitator seldom needs to know the average teachers as separate individuals. 3.330 l.0l0 2] A facilitator should not change his/her expressed decisions without unusually 2.950 .870 good reasons. 23 Inservice education programs should be evaluated by the same standards as other 3.3l0 .980 accredited programs of education. l72 Table C-l.--Continued. Item Statement Mean 5.0. 27 A facilitator should be sure his/her ques- tions steer teachers toward truth. 2.670 .9h0 29 Most teachers are able to keep their emotions under good control. 2.h60 .780 32 The major qualifications of a facilitator are grasp of subject matter and ability to l.930 .7h0 explain (demonstrate) it clearly and interestingly. 34 A facilitator should require assignments and grade them. 3.960 .750 37 Competition among teachers devel0ps courage, determination, and industry. 3.h90 .930 39 Inservice education should lead people to goals that result in orderly, reasonable lives. 2.680 l.0l0 kl Often teachers don't know what's best for them. 3.760 .990 #2 When a facilitator makes a mistake, he/she is likely to lose teachers' respect. 3.900 .725 hh Teachers frequently “get off the subject” either intentionally or unintentionally. 2.8l7 .966 A6 Letting teachers determine learning objectives wastes too much time in irrelevant discussion. 3.728 .7h6 48 Grades should reflect a teacher's grasp of the subject or skill taught. 3.h28 .992 53 If a facilitator is not careful, teachers take advantage. 3.69% .992 5% Considering the possible effects on teachers, a facilitator should usually play it safe 3.789 .7h7 rather than take a chance. 56 A facilitator who does not plan the work for a class carefully is taking advantage of the 3.200 l.0ll teachers' ignorance. I73 Table C-l.--Continued. Item Statement Mean S.D. 58 It is a good rule in teaching to keep relationships with teachers impersonal. 3.69% .826 60 Good teaching is systematic--set up a 3.967 .974 clear plan and schedule and stick to it. 17h Table C-2.--Means and standard deviations of individual andragogical statements. Item Statement Mean 5.0. 2 Inservice effectiveness should be measured by teachers' increase in examination of l.960 .900 their own feelings, attitudes, and behaviors. 4 It's hard to keep teachers from learning. 2.620 l.ll0 6 Effective inservice learning occurs most often when teachers actively participate in l.890 .808 deciding what is to be learned and how. 9 Organization of the content and sequence of inservice learning activities should grow l.730 .655 out of teachers' needs, with their par- ticipation. ID The best sources of ideas for improving inservice education are the teachers. ' 2.050 ‘ .82] l2 A facilitator by his/her behavior should show each teacher that his abilities and - l.639 .723 experiences and respected and valued. lh To see inservice education as transmittal of knowledge is obsolete. 3.689 .953 l8 A facilitator's primary responsibility is helping teachers choose and develop their . own directions for learning. 2.l72 .883 22 Emphasizing efficiency in inservice educa- tion often blocks development of an effective 3.ll7 l.309 learning climate. 2% Evaluation of achievement should be primarily a responsibility of the teacher since he/she 2.h00 .759 has the necessary data. 25 Competition among teachers develops conceit, selfishness, and envy. 3.333 l.093 26 A facilitator should discuss his/her blunders and learnings with teachers. 2.36l .8hh I75 Table C-2.--Continued. Item Statement Mean S.D. 28 30 3I 33 35 36 38 40 43 45 47 49 Inservice educational objectives define changes in behavior which the teacher desires and the facilitator helps him/her undertake. Teachers are quite competent to choose and carry out their own projects for learning. A facilitator should help teachers free themselves of fixed habits and patterns of thought that block their growth. It is better for teachers to create their own learning activities and materials than for the facilitator to provide them. Use of a topical outline course plan often blocks a facilitator's perception of teachers' needs. An inservice education program should be evaluated only in terms of its own objective. A facilitator should provide opportunities for warm relationships with teacher and among teachers. Inservice education should increase teachers' critical evaluation of our society and courage to try new, creative, satisfying behavior. Maturity depends more on continuing growth in self-understanding than on growth in knowledge. Inservice education programs which tell what should be learned and how rarely help teachers learn. The primary concern of a facilitator should be the immediate needs of the teacher. Assignments by a facilitator tend to restrict teachers' significant learnings. 2.289 2.294 2.l89 3.l00 3.278 2.856 2.089 2.400 2.428 3.233 2.694 3.383 .80] .760 .797 .904 .872 .969 .886 .966 .859 .952 .885 .807 176 Table C-2.--Continued. Item Statement Mean S.D. 50 SI 52 55 S7 59 Tests prepared by teachers are usually just as effective as those prepared by a facili- tator. The goals teachers set for themselves are the basis of effective learning, not the facilitator's goals. A facilitator's mission is to help each teacher learn what he/she decides will aid him/her in achieving his/her personal goals. Without a cooperative climate encouraging teachers to risk and experiment, signifi- learning is unlikely. To use teachers' experiences and resources for learning requires group activities rather than such methods as lectures. Planning units of work should be done by teachers and facilitators together. 2.5ll 2.428 2.306 2.278 2.500 2.289 .689 .833 .826 .885 .829 .780 BIBLIOGRAPHY I77 BIBLIOGRAFHY BBPQBVin. D. A W 19.: Adult Edudatim New York: The Seabury Press. 1967. ’ Brams. Patricia. and Sell. Daniel. Adult Lita Mia: Implication Lo: .Staflnexejoomontfljnning Orlando. Fla.: NCSIE. November 16- 20. 1984. Brime. Jack L.. and Tollett. Daniel J. 'Hov Do Teachers Feel About In- Service Education?" Euuoationul W 31 (March 1974). Burrelo. L. and Obraugh. 1'. 'Reducing the Discrepancy Between the Known and the Unknown in In-Service Education" Eni Delta Kanoan 63 (1982): 385-88. Christian. Arthur Carl. "A Comparative Study of the Andragogical- Pedagogical Orientation of Militaly and Civilian Personnel." Ph.D. dissertation Oklahoma State University. 1982. Cronkite. John Hal ter. "Andragogi cal Need Assessment Based on Project- ing Image of the Future." Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University. 1974. . Darkenvald. Gordon (5.. and Merriam. Sharen 8. Adult Education: foundation of Erastus New York: Harper and Row Publishers. 1982. Del alic. Esref. "Pro-Service Training for Teachers of Adult Basic Education: Andragogical Model.” Vinoennes University. 1982.. Dunn. Rita Stafford. 'Process Dynamics for Teacher Involvement in Inservice Programs." Audioflsual Instruction (Hay 1970). Edelfelt. R. A. and Johnson. M. WWW Washington. 0.0.: National Education Association. 1975. Elias. John L. "Andragogy Revisited.” Adult Education 29 (Summer 1979): 252-55. . and others. Ehflosonhjsalfonndatmnotbdultfiducatjm Mal bar. F1a.: Robert E. Frieger Publishing 00.. 1980. 178 179 Essert. P. Cneatixo Leadonshjo of. Adult Education Englewood Cliffs. N. J. : Prentice-Hall. 1951. FaLougi. Mohammed H. "A Study of Selected Aspects of Professional Development Centers With Recommendations for the In—Service Education of Libyan Teachers." Ph.D. dissertation. Syracuse University. 1975. Frank. Laurence K. Education for: Aging. Education for: Late: Maturity. New York: Nhitesi de and Morrow. 1955. Griffin. Colin. Curriculum mmanmmmmmmm Education. New York: Nichols Publishing Co.. 1983. Gutek. Gerald Lee. Ehllosonhlcal Altocnatim in Education. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing 00.. 1974. Hadley. Herschel N 'Development of an Instrument to Determine Adult Educator's Orientation: Andragogical or Pedagogical." Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University. 1975. Hariss. B M: Bessent. 1t: and McIntyre. K. A. WW3. A Guide to Button Bram Englevood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice- Ha11) 1%90 Hass. C. Glen. "Inservice Education Today." Insoujco Education to: leachonst Moon: and Administratons Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part 1. Chicago. 111.: University of Chicago Press. 1957. Himestra. Roger. Minimum Lincoln. Neb.: Professional Educators Publishing. 1972. H0016» C- 0» lbs DosionoiEduoatjon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1972. Jaquith. Charles I. "An Analysis of Perceptions of Junior Him/Middle School Teachers. Principals and University Specialists Concerning Inservice Education." Ph.D. dissertation University of Michigan. 1973. Kasworn. Carol G. "The Older Student as an Undergraduate." Adult Eduoation 31 (Novenber 1980). Katz. Edna-Ann "The Belief in Andragogy and the Development of Sel f- Actual ization.” Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University. 1976. 180 Kerwine. Michael Alan. "The Relationship of Selected Factors to the Educational Orientation of Andragogical 1y and Pedagogical 1y Oriented Educators Teaching in Four of North Carolina's Two-Year Colleges.” Ph.D. dissertation. North Carolina State University at Raleigh. 1979. Key. James P. Research Design in .Qccuoational Education Stillwater: Oklahana State University. 1974. Kidd. J. R. lion AdultsLoam New York: Association Press. 1973. Kinnick. B J. "The Teachers and the In-Sewice Education Program." Insocxicc Education for: Ieachonst Supocvhons and Administnatons. Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I. Chicago. 111.: The University of Chicago Knowles. Malcolm S. "Adult Education: New Dimensions.” Educational Loadonsmo (Novanber 1975). _______. Ino Adult Loamoc. New York: The Adult Education Company. 1984. Ibo Adult Lennon A Neglected SoeciasEndcd. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.. 1985. _______.. Ibo Modem Enactico of Adult Education Emu Eedaocdx to W New York: The Adult Education 00.. 19m. Lindemann. E. Ibo Modding oi Adult Education Montreal: Harvest House. originally published in 1926. Liveright. A. A amummmmmmunnsdm Brookline. Mass. Center for the Liberal Education of Adults at Boston University. 1968. Maslow. Abraham. Eurthonfiescacchotflumanuatuces New York: Viking Press. 1971. Minix. Dennis Orville. "An Exploratory Study of Teachers' Perceptions of Andragogy as a Model of Inservice Education." EdD. disserta- tion. Vanderbilt University. 1981. Moffitt. John Clifford- Imdonxice Education to: Iaachacs Washington. DC: The Center for Applied Research in Education. 1963. 181 Mubarak. Abdulhakeem Mouser. "A Descriptive Study of Perceived Professional Benefits Derived From Teacher Involvement in the Kent Professional Staff Development Centers With a View Toward Develop- ing Recommendations for In-Service Education in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1982. Mueller. Barbara Laud. "Andragogy and Pedagogy: A Comparison Using a Parallel Model." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona. 1982. Newton Eunice Shade. "Andragogy: Understanding the Adult as a Learner." Journal of Boadino 20 (February 1977). O'Gcrman. Joan D. "Philosophical and Educational Orientations of Adult Basic Education Teachers." Ph.D. dissertation Auburn University. 1977. Peters. Richard. "Models for Teachers Pro-Service and In-Service Training and Curriculum Development in America's Public Schools." August 1980. Philips. W. Jackson. "Old Dogs and New Tricks." In Inscryica Education Edited by Louis Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 1971. Post. Linda M. "A Survey of the Perceptions of Teachers and Super- visory Staff of In—Service Education and Teacher Skills Needs With Implication for a Model of In-Service Education." Ph.D. disserta- tion Syracuse University. 1975. Randall. John S. "You and Effective Training" Irainino and Welcomed: Joumal 32 (June 1980). Rogers. Carl R. Encodomtotoam. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing 00.. 1969. Ronan. Michael B. "A Collaborative Approach to Adult Education: The Andragogy Model." Lee. Massachusetts. Public Schools. May 19w. Smith. 8. 0.. et a1. Ioacborsiortnofloalnorjd. Washington. 0.0.: Aneri can Association of Colleges for Teacher Educators. 1969. Turner. I. S. "A Study of Teacher Perceptions of an In-Service Program in Three Southern Maryland Counties." Ph.D. dissertation. George Washington University. 1970. Tyler. Ralph W. "In-Service Education of Teachers: A Look at the Past and Future." In Impound Imficuicc Education Edited by Lewis Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1971. 1 82 Wager. Walter. "Instructional Technology and the Adult Learner: lheory. Innovation and Practice.” no. 2. Tallahassee: Institute of Andragogy. Florida State University. October 1982. Whipple. James B. "Especial 1y for Adults: Notes and Essays on Education for Adults.” no. 19. Chicago: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults. Yarger. S. J.: Howey. K. R: and Joyce. 8. R. lncecfico Ioacncrc Education. Palo Alto. 0a1.: Brooksend Laboratory. 1980.